The Skins Can't Win With These Coaches

[Monkman56]

All training camp we hear the Defense is the" strength" of the team. LOL.  To allow Jackson to get that wide open after the first burn is unacceptable. How do you beat the Redskins? simple.  Go deep often.

[Monkman56]

49 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

What worked in the 1980's doesn't work now.  It's time to adjust.  Abandon the run.  Play to the strength of your team.  Play to the strength of your coach.  Throw the ball.  Be aggressive.  Score Points. Do what you do best.  

thats all fine and dandy, but the defense has a job to do as well. And THAT looks like the biggest problem with this team. There's talent but no decent coaching.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, volsmet said:

 

Maybe the problem is he’s practicing against Jay’s offense too frequently. 

 

If you know a team is going to run on first, that run is unlikely to be successful, which makes every ensuing call nearly as predictable as its predecessor. 

 

 

That's the 2nd time you've pivoted one of my slams at Manusky to put it on Jay.    Are you hinting to coming out for a Manusky promotion to HC?  😀

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

Upon sleeping on it, I think the best thing this offense could do is go no-huddle, up-tempo, and throw the ball all over the field.  Stop running on first down, and stop trying to be balanced.  This whole "abandon the run" thing is way over-played.  They run TOO MUCH and UNSUCCESSFULLY.

 

Let's call a spade a spade: this coaching staff has never known how to scheme up the run game or when to call runs.  It's just aggravating at this point, and unproductive.  You have something in the receiving corps and Keenum has shown he can play well.

 

Also, Jay's biggest strength is scheming up a passing game.  So use it.  Early and often.  Fun 'n gun baby.  Let's go.  

 

Seriously. The WR corps looks like they have something.  Keenum looks like he can play in Jay's system.  Pass to build a lead.  Statistics actually prove you don't have to run to use play action.  Counter-intuitive, but that's what they say.

 

 

I am ok with it.   It's what they most did yesterday: 44 passes, 28 runs.    Almost put up 400 yards on what some say is a top 3 defense.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I would like to sign up to see @Voice_of_Reason's idea come true. Why not? We were pass-heavy in the first half and controlled TOP. 

[VeroViper]

We were playing a soft, vanilla "bend but don't break" defense yet somehow still allowed two long bomb TD's. Only the skins.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Cooley did this research on Jay.  You bring up a good point.  I mean, Dan's first game as owner was the the 1999 game against Dallas when the entire team cramped up and the Cowboys came back from like 98 points down.  My feeling is that this has been more of a trend under Jay, though I could be wrong.  However, for this to really be useful, you'd need to look at it across all teams over a large period of time to see how often teams come back from 10+ point leads.  

 

This is going to turn into quite the science experiment, if the data even exists in an easily usable format.

 

 

I've never looked at the stats but I have a good memory and i recall having similar conversations over the years.  Norv was known for it big time.  Gibbs and Gregg Williams -- sitting on leads was conversation topic #1 for a time.  I recall people even joked about it in the stands.  Ditto losing prime time games.  If I recall it wasn't as bad under Shanny but I have to think about that some because I do recall it happening. 

 

I recall we were about to upset NO one time (if I recall that was under Shanny) when NO were undefeated and I went to my father in law and said watch them blow it.  And they did.  I have had the concept of this team blowing leads for a long time and way before Jay.  I told my wife during half time last yesterday that they'd blow it. 

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That's on both the coaches and the players.  The players have to know that they haven't won anything yet, but the coaches have to instill a sense of urgency at halftime.  If this was a one-time thing, I'd say, "eh, whatever."  But this is a 5 year trend with almost entire roster turnover, maybe twice.  The constants have been Jay and the coaching staff.  

 

I agree.  But what's befuddling to me is how this trend preceded Jay, too.    Maybe they need a Parcells type?  The last one they had in that style was Marty.   Shanny according to some was softer in DC than he was in Denver.  But paying poorly in the 2nd half and squandering leads is definitely not an exclusive Jay thing here.

 

I wish I thought just dumping Jay changes the culture with a magic wand.  The only way I'd buy into that is if they hired a dude with mega gravitas.  But then again Gibbs had that and I thought those 2nd half collapses were epic.   If you go back to the Gregg Williams debates at the time (and I liked Gregg) a lot of it was about bend-not break and squandering leads.

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

I just know what the numbers say, and the 'Skins are DREADFUL after the half, and have been for years, so SOMETHING needs to be done differently.  

 

 

Does anybody disagree with you about this?  Have you gotten any push-back from any poster that Bruce specifically is not the second largest problem?  I mean, I kinda think that just about everybody acknowledges this as table stakes.  Dan = Problem 1.  Bruce = Problem 2.  Everything else = Problem #3 and below. And the gap between Problems 1 and 2 to #3 is like the freaking Atlantic Ocean.  I certainly haven't ever suggested otherwise.  As critical as I have been on Jay, I've NEVER suggested that Dan or Bruce isn't a larger problem.  

 

 

You say this on occasion or when put on the spot for me its baked into just about every conversation about the coach.  And not out of making excuses for them but because they are inextricably linked to it going forward.  IMO it doesn't fit the it goes without saying point.  Heck I noticed one of the Bruce backers on this board for awhile thought they had an ally in you because they took your point as Jay under achieves with the roster that Bruce gave him -- hence Bruce = good, Jay = the problem.  Until you took a shot at the men above him. 

 

If I disliked Jay's abilities to the HC to the extent you do and thought Bruce was even worse, my focus would still be squarely on Bruce for these reasons:

 

A.  Jay is Bruce's hire so Jay's longevity might be tied to him digging his heels.

 

B. (more likely scenario) Bruce scapegoats Jay to go look I gave him a loaded roster -- the problem is him not me.  Saving his job.

 

C. The odds that Bruce survives into this off season is good if Dan is truly dependent on him as to the stadium.  If so, we'd likely be entrusting him to make the next call for HC.

 

So to me Bruce is center to the plot with Jay.  It's not a sidebar to the point but the main point.  If I thought the coach was the #1 problem, I'd need Bruce to be addressed first.    Unless all your eggs are in the basket of O'Connell and we are figuring he's already in house so he'd take the job and is ready.  For me I am going to beat it like a dead horse into any coaching conversation because to me Bruce is surgically attached to the decision no matter which way you take the conversation. 

[HigSkin]

 

[skinzplay]

I'd like some guys to explain to me what makes them think O'Connell is HC material?

 

And it looks like we'll run 55 times out of the I this Sunday.

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

From the article...could have been written after yesterday's game...but it was published on Halloween 2017. 🙄

 

5 Reasons Jay Gruden Must Be Fired if Washington Redskins Miss the Playoffs

 

1. Ignoring the running game: "Washington's struggles in the passing game make Gruden's reticence to run the ball all the more galling. The paucity of rushing attempts is just part of a disturbing trend since 2014. The Redskins were 21st in rushing attempts in 2014, 14th in 2015 and 27th last season."

 

2. No situational coaching: " In short, the injury list and the conditions demanded Gruden shelve his ego. Instead, he ran the ball just 15 times and had quarterback Kirk Cousins air it out 39 times. Cousins kept throwing despite the fact Washington's threadbare O-line couldn't keep Cowboys pass-rushers at bay for longer than a millisecond. Washington's quarterback kept on passing even though the rain made every attempt a dangerous test of fate."

 

3. No focus on a team's biggest threats: " There is just no direction from Gruden aimed at making sure his team has specific plans to take away an opponent's primary playmakers. Letting obvious threats run wild is a clear sign of poor planning and dismal coaching."

 

4. Choice of defensive coordinators:

"The fact Barry was hired during an offseason when Wade Phillips and Vic Fangio were available and on the team's radar made the decision look even more dubious. Hiring Barry proved a missed opportunity when his defenses ranked 28th in yards two years running. Sadly, when it came time for another change, Gruden again spurned the chance to make a statement. His answer was to promote from within, giving the job to Greg Manusky. Like Barry, Manusky signaled his arrival with a lot of tough talk, per Liz Clarke of the Washington Post: "We might not win a game. But we'll sure beat the crap out of a lot of people!"

 

5. Not seizing the chance to boss an NFC East in transition: " It defies a belief a franchise with more stability under center the last three years—as well as a core of veteran talent led by Williams, tight end Jordan Reed and outside linebacker Ryan Kerrigan—has been left behind in a division in this much flux."

[NoCalMike]

Manusky's biggest problem, IMO, isn't that he doesn't know how to draw up a scheme, it is that he is not catering the scheme to the strengths of the defense.  He has to see with his eyes that the D-line is not generating pressure on Wentz.  He also has to know that without pressure on the QB, a zone coverage scheme is dead on arrival.  You can't give receivers free breaks at the line if your pass rush is not disrupting the timing.   You have to disrupt the timing of the passing game with either a pass rush or jamming WRs on the line.  The 'Skins defense did neither, which is why every single pass seemed to be completed to somewhere with no defender even close to them. That is what happens when you play zone coverage minus a pass rush.

[Ghost of]

12 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

From the article...could have been written after yesterday's game...but it was published on Halloween 2017. 🙄

 

5 Reasons Jay Gruden Must Be Fired if Washington Redskins Miss the Playoffs

 

1. Ignoring the running game: "Washington's struggles in the passing game make Gruden's reticence to run the ball all the more galling. The paucity of rushing attempts is just part of a disturbing trend since 2014. The Redskins were 21st in rushing attempts in 2014, 14th in 2015 and 27th last season."

 

 

What a joke.  Fire this imbecile already.

[Voice_of_Reason]

52 minutes ago, Monkman56 said:

thats all fine and dandy, but the defense has a job to do as well. And THAT looks like the biggest problem with this team. There's talent but no decent coaching.

Oh, I agree.  It's a big problem.  And they need to fix it.  However, the best defense is a good offense. And while it was good yesterday, I think they should try to be even better.  Be MORE aggressive.  

 

The play sequence which just drove me crazy was in the 3rd quarter when the Eagles were on a roll, we ran on first down which was stuffed, holding penalty, and then a draw on second down which was blown up, and 3rd down was not possible. Don't do that.  Don't ever think about doing that.  

I was MUCH less upset about the sequence where Keenum missing McLaurin then Richardson dropped the ball.  That's trying to do the right thing and execution failing.  It happens.  

 

This team apparently has something with the young WRs, and the OL looked decent against a good DL.  

 

So, maximize this as much as possible and give yourself even greater margin for error.  Apparently a 17-0 first half lead and 20-7 halftime lead just isn't enough.  Until they figure out what to do with their Manusky problem, and I'm not entirely sure either Ray Horton or Rob Ryan is really much better (though Ryan would be more entertaining), they are probably going to have to out-score people.  

 

I can't come up with a solution to the defense (Cover better, tackle better, be better just doesn't seem like a productive suggestion), but I can suggest something offensively.  Which is go full "greatest show on turf" mode. 

 

Hell, Guice actually would fit that well, they have the speed and size on the outside to do it, Keenum seems like he could do it, and for all I bash the living hell out of Jay, he IS a very good pass play designer.  

 

If they are going to insist on running on every first down, then AP is actually the better back for that, not Guice.  But that's a different discussion.  

 

They should take deep shots once per drive at least.  Maybe 2 or 3 times.  Stretch the field.  Set a goal of scoring 34 points: 4 TDs, 2 FGs.  They won't get there every game, but go for it.  Don't try and rely on the defense.  

 

And this whole "protect the QB by running the ball" thing ONLY works when you are productive running the ball.  Which we're not.  So it's actually having the opposite effect.  Protect the QB by doing other things:

 

- Hurry up

- Move the pocket

- Quick game

- Screens

 

These are all things which are built into the WCO to help QBs.  The WCO, which is what Jay's offense is predicated on, was originally developed by Bill Walsh in Cincy to account for a horrendous OL. They couldn't run the ball and they couldn't pass protect.  So he came up with substituting the short pass for a run, and quick throws to get the ball out of the QBs hands.  He did this in like 1978.  So it's been around a while.  And been very successful.  

 

 

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I've never looked at the stats but I have a good memory and i recall having similar conversations over the years.  Norv was known for it big time.  Gibbs and Gregg Williams -- sitting on leads was conversation topic #1 for a time.  I recall people even joked about it in the stands.  Ditto losing prime time games.  If I recall it wasn't as bad under Shanny but I have to think about that some because I do recall it happening. 

Norv was an awful head coach.  He blew leads, squandered leads, blew close games, the works.  Gibbs was conservative to a fault his second time back.  But he is also the only coach since he retired the first time to take the team to the playoffs twice.  So, there's something to that.  

 

Shanny only had one year really where they were competitive.  In 2012, I don't recall any blown leads. I know they blew a lead in the Texans game in 2010, but that had more to do with Hazlett being an idiot and McNabb missing people than any strategic decision.  (I was at that game.  I remember it well.)  I don't really remember anything from 2011 because it was irrelevant from the get-go.  2013 was also irrelevant from the get-go, and I don't think they had many leads the entire year to squander.

 

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I recall we were about to upset NO one time (if I recall that was under Shanny) when NO were undefeated and I went to my father in law and said watch them blow it.  And they did.  I have had the concept of this team blowing leads for a long time and way before Jay.  I told my wife during half time last yesterday that they'd blow it. 

Your memory fails you.  This was 2009, and Zorn was the HC.  I took my girlfriend, who's a huge Saints fan, to the game.  I had season tickets.  (I was stupid.)  My girlfriend, who is now my wife (who I love dearly), was utterly pissed off and wanted to leave the game early. The Saints were undefeated and the 'Skins were coached by Jim Zorn.  

 

I told her to sit tight, the game was FAR from over.  She didn't believe me.  (This became a trend.)  We walked out (we were in club level) and heard that Suisham missed a 20 yard FG (ball was sitting just outside the goal line, shorter than an old EP), which would have essentially iced the game.  She then wanted to go back in and watch the end of the game.  Which we did.  

 

Then the Saints drove 99 yards to tie the game.  Then they won in OT.  Then they won the SB.  

 

If you want, I can give you play by play for all of that.  

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I agree.  But what's befuddling to me is how this trend preceded Jay, too.    Maybe they need a Parcells type?  The last one they had in that style was Marty.   Shanny according to some was softer in DC than he was in Denver.  But paying poorly in the 2nd half and squandering leads is definitely not an exclusive Jay thing here.

I don't think this is a trend that is organizational.  I think it's specific coach to coach.  Gibbs II teams weren't out-coached in the second half.  But he was too conservative.  I remember a Giants game where they were up, and completely went into a shell and run-run-pass-punted 4 consecutive drives to let the Giants tie the game.  Which they ended up winning.  There were other examples.

 

Spurrier and Zorn was just freaking clueless. 

 

Shanahan, again, I don't remember them really being out-coached after the half very often.  Certainly not in 2012.  

 

As an aside, for the most part, HCs are who they are. Norv was bad at clock management here, he was bad at it with the Raiders and Chargers.  Reid is probably the best designer of offense in football, he couldn't figure out when to call a TO in Philly, and he still can't in KC.  Fisher was terrible (minus one or two years with a STACKED team) in Tennessee, and then he was terrible with the Rams.  Shanahan couldn't figure out the defense in Denver from the year after they won the SB, and he couldn't do it here.  Hell, Belichick actually had an 11-5 season in Cleveland and looked to be doing well, then they announced they were moving the team, team fell apart and he was fired.  

 

The only "retread" coach I can think of who was bad his first go-around and improved his second go-around is Pete Carroll.  

 

And then there's Jay.  I have NO idea why this is a thing for him.  Maybe it's more on the defensive side of the ball and it's because they have literally had Larry, Mo and Curly as DCs?  The opponents get 10 minutes to look at pictures and talk to players, figure it out, and that's basically all she wrote?  

 

Honestly, this shouldn't be a thing for Jay.  And he's got 5 years of evidence to see what he's doing.  This is baffling.  Because it's so consistent.

 

And, as much grief as I give Jay, he's not Zorn and he's not Spurrier.  He's not grossly incompetent.  He knows stuff.  And after 5 years, I would have expected him to figure this out by now.  

 

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I wish I thought just dumping Jay changes the culture with a magic wand.  The only way I'd buy into that is if they hired a dude with mega gravitas.  But then again Gibbs had that and I thought those 2nd half collapses were epic.   If you go back to the Gregg Williams debates at the time (and I liked Gregg) a lot of it was about bend-not break and squandering leads.

Something has to change the culture.  McVay did it quickly with the Rams.  Gibbs II just never quite caught up to the "modern" game.  He was close.  And, he go the team to the playoffs twice.  But after 12 years out, he never quite caught on, and his "personnel guy" was a complete boob.  

 

Regardless of Bruce stays or goes, somebody has to change as much of the culture from a coaching perspective as they can. They won't be able to solve the "above the line" problems with Bruce and Dan" but they have to solve the "below the line" problems.  

 

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You say this on occasion or when put on the spot for me its baked into just about every conversation about the coach.  And not out of making excuses for them but because they are inextricably linked to it going forward.  IMO it doesn't fit the it goes without saying point.  Heck I noticed one of the Bruce backers on this board for awhile thought they had an ally in you because they took your point as Jay under achieves with the roster that Bruce gave him -- hence Bruce = good, Jay = the problem.  Until you took a shot at the men above him. 

Yeah, I don't know who you're referring to, but I haven't supported Bruce in years.  The one thing Bruce did do, but then took too far, was to introduce some fiscal responsibility to the team.  Which wasn't there with Dan and Vinny.  So at least we're not spending big money on aging vets anymore. That's about the only positive. 

 

Everything else is a disaster.  Including the farce of a HC search after Shannahan was fired.  Bruce wanted Jay from day 1 because of the Tampa and Gruden connection.  

 

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

If I disliked Jay's abilities to the HC to the extent you do and thought Bruce was even worse, my focus would still be squarely on Bruce for these reasons:

 

A.  Jay is Bruce's hire so Jay's longevity might be tied to him digging his heels.

 

B. (more likely scenario) Bruce scapegoats Jay to go look I gave him a loaded roster -- the problem is him not me.  Saving his job.

 

C. The odds that Bruce survives into this off season is good if Dan is truly dependent on him as to the stadium.  If so, we'd likely be entrusting him to make the next call for HC.

I think you're right B is more likely than A.  However, if I was Dan, I would ask Bruce why in the hell he hired and retained Jay if he didn't think Jay was the right guy.  After 5+ years, Bruce  has to own that decision, if you ask me.  And at this point, if I was Dan, the two are tied together.  I'm not saying that's how it will play out.  But if Bruce hired and supported Jay, and Bruce is responsible for the roster, and they are 5-11, either the roster sucks, the coaches suck, or some combination of both.  And "el presidente" is in charge of all of it.  It is VERY different than when Dan hired Shanahan, who then told Dan to hire Bruce, which he did first, so Bruce could say they hired Shanahan.  But make no mistake.  DAN hired Shanahan.  DAN hired Bruce. So Dan couldn't really hold Bruce responsible for Shanahan.  

 

Dan DID NOT hire Jay Gruden.  Sure, he might like Jay.  Probably does.  Probably likes that he goes along with the plan and doesn't make waves.  Probably likes him as a person.  However, unless he thinks the entire problem is the roster and Bruce, it's extremely unlikely Dan fires Bruce and retains Jay.  

 

Options, in order of likelihood if the team finishes outside of the playoffs, and a change is made: (this is NOT the order I want, just what I see as most likely.)

- Least desirable: Bruce is retained, Bruce hires another HC.  Probably KO.  

- Bruce is retained, Dan hires the HC.  Either Gregg Williams or Todd Bowles.  

- Bruce is fired, Internal promotion in the FO, either Kyle Smith or figurehead of Doug Williams, Dan hires the HC, again, most likely Gregg Williams or Todd Bowles

- Bruce is fired, an outsider personnel guy is hired, and they pick the HC.  

 

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

So to me Bruce is center to the plot with Jay.  It's not a sidebar to the point but the main point.  If I thought the coach was the #1 problem, I'd need Bruce to be addressed first.    Unless all your eggs are in the basket of O'Connell and we are figuring he's already in house so he'd take the job and is ready.  For me I am going to beat it like a dead horse into any coaching conversation because to me Bruce is surgically attached to the decision no matter which way you take the conversation. 

I understand your point.  My point is there are things you can evaluate the coaches on in game which Bruce is not responsible for.  What happens next is ... next.  Jay isn't getting fired now.  But a discussion around his decisions leading up to the game and during the game is ok, and a lot of those decisions are his. 

 

I think we agree more than we disagree.  Both of us see the real problem as Bruce and the FO.  I don't think either of us are comparing Jay to Lombardi, and both would be happy as long as Bruce is replaced.

 

I really have hoped Jay would "get it" and stop making the same mistakes over and over.  I don't know why he hasn't adjusted play calling and what is now a trend of 3rd quarter issues on both sides of the ball.  I really thought inserting KO was going to fix some of the play calling on first down.  It didn't.  Shrug.

 

Where I think we disagree is I think you can evaluate and both complement/criticize Jay on his own merits, and that a lot of that is somewhere between "meh" and "ick."  Though there is some that is pretty good.  Again, I had virtually no problem with the play calling yesterday minus they ran too much on first down.  However, the AP decision and the complete collapse on the defense in the second half is troubling.  And while Manusky is the defensive coordinator, Jay is the Head Coach who promoted him to DC 2 years ago, and he is ultimately responsible. (Same argument for Bruce/Jay.  Bruce hired him, he's responsible.) 

 

CAVEAT: If we find out that Bruce hired Manusky and Jay was forced to deal with him, then I absolve Jay from all defensive responsibility.  Same with Bruce and Barry. I haven't heard that. But if we find that out, then that would entirely change my position on Jay as it relates to the defense.  

[volsmet]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

That's the 2nd time you've pivoted one of my slams at Manusky to put it on Jay.    Are you hinting to coming out for a Manusky promotion to HC?  😀

 

 

 

Manusky may be the path of least resistance towards the #1 overall pick, he’s certainly the path of least resistance towards our endzone. 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am ok with it.   It's what they most did yesterday: 44 passes, 28 runs.    Almost put up 400 yards on what some say is a top 3 defense.

 

Eagles will claim the first half was truly their preseason. It’s not entirely invalid.

 

45 minutes ago, Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin said:

 

What a joke.  Fire this imbecile already.

 

We are forced to throw the ball 66% of the time because we insist upon being in 2nd & 8 to commence each set of downs. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

56 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

From the article...could have been written after yesterday's game...but it was published on Halloween 2017

Can you put a link in the article?

 

I'm going to start a drum beat, and I'm going to beat this drum loudly until the NFL changes the rules and passing is harder: the whole "run the ball" thing has become overblown and is starting to get annoying.  You don't need to run the ball in today's NFL.  This is not a run-first league.  You need to pass the ball.  And in order to keep your QB upright, you need to do other things to take pressure off the QB. Like quick game.  Like move the pocket.  Like hurry-up.  Like using the snap count.  

 

Because we have seen over, and over, (and over for 5 years) Jay doesn't know how to scheme up a run game which compliments his pass game and he doesn't know how to call a run game.

 

Did you know the 'Skins last year ranked 4th on first down runs?  And I think higher than that on 1st down runs in the first half.  

 

He runs the ball.  Always on 1st down.  And they are in 2nd and 8.7 on average.  That's atrocious.

 

This is for everybody, not directed at the poster I quoted:

 

STOP BEATING THE DAMN RUN THE BALL DRUM.  

 

Throw the damn ball. Early and often.  Throw, throw, and then throw some more.  Run when they're not expecting it to keep them honest.  Stop with the 1985 bears offense already.  Good God.  

[volsmet]

1 minute ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Can you put a link in the article?

 

I'm going to start a drum beat, and I'm going to beat this drum loudly until the NFL changes the rules and passing is harder: the whole "run the ball" thing has become overblown and is starting to get annoying.  You don't need to run the ball in today's NFL.  This is not a run-first league.  You need to pass the ball. 

 

You need a great Oline, with which you can do whatever you like.

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

9 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

CAVEAT: If we find out that Bruce hired Manusky and Jay was forced to deal with him, then I absolve Jay from all defensive responsibility.  Same with Bruce and Barry. I haven't heard that. But if we find that out, then that would entirely change my position on Jay as it relates to the defense.  

 

 

In yesterday's presser, Jay referred to the offense as "we" and the defense as "they"...said something like "They needed to help us out by getting off the field in the 2nd half. We needed to help them out by sustaining drives." Didn't say "the defense needs to help out the offense" or anything like that. That doesn't sound like a guy who feels he's in charge of the entire team, for whatever reason.

[Skinsinparadise]

9 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

Manusky may be the path of least resistance towards the #1 overall pick, he’s certainly the path of least resistance towards our endzone. 

 

 

Lol, yeah that's partly why i am in no panic, i don't think they are winning this year in all likelihood so get a high draft pick.  I feel like i am wasting my time debating Jay with people -- I don't see him back in 2020 -- so to me its wasted energy but i'll engage to amuse myself and talk football.

 

I think the reboot is coming in 2020, jay a given to be part of the exodus, the mystery is who else is going if anyone and who's coming?  

 

I don't dislike Jay the way some here do but even if i did I wouldn't sweat it one way or another.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

In yesterday's presser, Jay referred to the offense as "we" and the defense as "they"...said something like "They needed to help us out by getting off the field in the 2nd half. We needed to help them out by sustaining drives." Didn't say "the defense needs to help out the offense" or anything like that. That doesn't sound like a guy who feels he's in charge of the entire team, for whatever reason.

I put that in my summary of Jay's presser and said I didn't like it at all.  

 

So, the question is, is it because Bruce/Dan basically hired Manusky and Jay is washing his hands of it?  Or is it because even though he's the HC, he basically says, "I got offense, Greg you got defense.  Go." And then has not much to do with it.

 

I've said FOR YEARS Jay has too much on his plate. The best years they had was when McVay was here and basically ran the offense.  

 

Jay needs an OC.  If Jay was a HC who had a proven OC, and a proven DC, he'd probably be a much better coach. By trying to do everything on offense, he sub-optimizes everything.  

[Mooka]

Like I said before, Jay doesn't know how to run the ball. 

 

Its easy to look back and say yea he had Matt Jones, Perine; some scrubs at RB. In Cinci he had BGE. That's all by design.

 

He's never had an effective running game. I dont think he's going to learn anytime soon either.

[Skinsinparadise]

15 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

 

Eagles will claim the first half was truly their preseason. It’s not entirely invalid.

 

 Could be.  They are a textbook case in building a killer roster.  They are stacked everywhere.  Killer O line.  Killer D line.  Judging by PFF scores from yesterday and other stats -- their O line handled our D line. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Just now, Mooka said:

Like I said before, Jay doesn't know how to run the ball. 

 

Its easy to look back and say yea he had Matt Jones, Perine; some scrubs at RB. In Cinci he had BGE. That's all by design.

 

He's never had an effective running game. I dont think he's going to learn anytime soon either.

He couldn't run it in Cincy either, really.  

 

The one time he's had a good running game was last year and it literally took a HOF running back avoiding 23 defenders in the backfield every play to make it happen. 

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

You need a great Oline, with which you can do whatever you like.

 

 

Based on PFF metrics (I've posted this before) even with Trent, this isn't a good run blocking O line.  Ditto the TEs.  it's a decent but overrated pass blocking O line.

[volsmet]

 

We had it. 

 

[Boss_Hogg]

"The Skins can't win with Dan and Bruce"

 

Sure lets fire Manusky and Jay. Bruce will hire some other bumbling boob to fill the vacancy

[Voice_of_Reason]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 Cpuld be.  They are a textbook case in building a killer roster.  They are stacked everyone.  Killer O line.  Killer D line.  Judging by PFF scores from yesterday and other stats -- their O line handled our D line. 

And they should have lost the game anyway.  If you're up by 17-0, you should win the game. 

 

I just checked - 'Skins had a 78.7% win probability right before the 4th and 1 play on the Eagles opening drive.  

 

I'm not putting all of that on Jay.  Just saying, even with a stacked roster, the 'Skins yesterday really should have won the game.