FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State

[Skinsinparadise]

13 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Now, I personally believe it's most likely #1, but there is a chance Dan has actually learned something along the way.  Shrug.  It's possible.  Unlikely, but possible.  

 

I think Dan likes big name college players.  He was wrong for example (assuming the WP story is true) about Brady Quinn for example but he was a hyped college player. Heck even his fascination with Jeff George and interest in getting rid of Brad Johnson.  George first pick in the draft.  Johnson yawn was a 9th rounder.    Getting McNabb also a ballyhooed player -- also very Dan like.  Wanting to trade up for Sanchez.  RG3 arguably one of the most hyped college player in years at the time -- Dan so smitten that he wanted to be his best pal, too. 

 

Even his supposed forays outside of the Qb spot.  His scouts wanted Jordy Nelson?  Kansas State.  Yawn.  Check out that dude Malcolm Kelly from Oklahoma.  That dude was on TV a lot including for big time bowl games.  On and on. 

 

My point about luck is Dan is due to have some luck.  It's not like he pushes obscures dark horses.  He's like a casual fan, fantasy football stuff, he likes the sexy sounding players with pedigree.  And can they all ultimately bust?  Some dude has to work you'd figure eventually because he's never really working from the shallow end of the pool.   He doesn't go for the deep album cut songs.  He pulls them from the hit albums.  And you almost have to be riding with odd bad luck to constantly get these things wrong.  It would be like picking stocks out of the Dow 30 versus let's say obscure small caps.    It's hard to keep blowing it.  It takes incompetence but also really bad luck, too.  😀

 

I am one of the rare people who believes that Dan isn't that involved with personnel. I do think he once was.  But I do believe based on most reports that he left Bruce to mostly run things. But I also don't believe that Dan nevers messes with personnel anymore.  Almost every story about him messing with personnel over the years centers on QB. 

 

That's an excerpt from a Standig story asking scouts-personnel people around the league about the team.  And I actually don't believe the point below is true at least not anymore. But I also don't believe that he's completely hands off either.  Dan's pet position has always been QB.  And that's where there is plenty of rap that he has interfered a lot.  And I don't believe everyone is making it up including conservative typically accurate reporters like Keim as to Dan being a driving force behind picking Haskins. 

 

And my take on Haskins is actually meant at this point as a compliment to Dan (as it sound like your point was, too).  While I don't agree that he should override his FO on draft picks.  It's a bad FO structure to have the owner do that -- especially with instincts as bad as his. But this time Dan's grossly incompetent interference finally might work for a change.  I got some faith in the moment that Haskins works out.  And if so Dan will finally be able to take that elusive victory lap after so many failures.  I think this likely will be his vindication moment after 20 years of misses.   Will see. 

[Skinsinparadise]

To me one of the interesting wildcards about Haskins is coming in the season in this type of shape -- wouldn't shock me if his mobility is good.  Not Watson level good but above average  Will see. 

 

 

 

[Going Commando]

On 7/28/2020 at 5:25 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

The scouts on the team (and one beat guy said that included Kyle) graded Haskins as a 2nd rounder and didn't want him at that pick.

 

If this is true, then we need new scouts.  If it's true that Kyle Smith personally had a second round grade on Dwayne, then straight up, he can't evaluate the QB position.  That's hardly unique among NFL front office people --the majority are surprisingly terrible at evaluating and projecting college QBs.  But it would be disappointing and surprising if Smith was just as bad with QBs as most of the league.  Hopefully we don't need to go fishing for another QB any time soon...

[Skinsinparadise]

31 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

If this is true, then we need new scouts.  If it's true that Kyle Smith personally had a second round grade on Dwayne, then straight up, he can't evaluate the QB position.  That's hardly unique among NFL front office people --the majority are surprisingly terrible at evaluating and projecting college QBs.  But it would be disappointing and surprising if Smith was just as bad with QBs as most of the league.  Hopefully we don't need to go fishing for another QB any time soon...

 

I am optimistic at the moment about Haskins. So I doubt we got to fishing for another QB.

 

But I don't take ANY GM to task about any player's evaluation.  If you buy other scuttlebut specific to Haskins.  The Eagles didn't see him as a first rounder either.  And the Giants saw him as the 4th best QB in the draft after Jones and Murray and Lock.

 

As you know GM''s are lucky to bat even 500 as for draft picks.   And their luck at picking QBs is even lower.  Mike Shanahan said multiple times in interviews that he considers himself a smart dude as for evaluating the Qb position.  Yet, even he doesn't know if a college QB will be successful until he has them in the building and watches them work-practice. 

 

I know you were very high on Haskins.   Your man crush on him rivaled my take on Chase, and Derrius among others for me over the years.  There is a good chance you end up right.  And I hope you are right about him.  But for me it doesn't dampen my take on Kyle.   2nd round doesn't mean bust, too.  I take the rap on him was that he was raw and not as polished as they'd like.   If they didn't like him at all, I figured he'd be off their board or lower than the 2nd. 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

11 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

If this is true, then we need new scouts.  If it's true that Kyle Smith personally had a second round grade on Dwayne, then straight up, he can't evaluate the QB position.  That's hardly unique among NFL front office people --the majority are surprisingly terrible at evaluating and projecting college QBs.  But it would be disappointing and surprising if Smith was just as bad with QBs as most of the league.  Hopefully we don't need to go fishing for another QB any time soon...

A lot of teams apparently had a second round grade on Haskins.  The reasons were lack of experience maybe a lack of maturity, lack of mobility, and a consensus it was going to take a while for Haskins to pick up an NFL system given the system he played in and he had only played something like 10-12 games in college. And if you really delved into the numbers, there was a thought a lot of his yardage and TDs were essentially result of the system and the players around him, instead of what he could actually do.  It wouldn't surprise me that Kyle Smith had a second round grade on Haskins.  It REALLY wouldn't surprise me if Gruden and the coaches had a lower grade on him also.  And I'm not entirely sure any of them would be wrong, per se.

 

There were some other teams which had him higher on their boards, with mid to late first round grades, because they saw arm strength, competitiveness, accuracy and results.  

 

I think it's really hard to criticize any scout for a grade on any QB, because quite frankly, it's a complete crap shoot. All scouts get this stuff wrong all the time. Don't forget, just 3 years ago, the Bears took "that Mitch guy" at #2 overall.  Mahomes and Watson went 10 and 12 respectively.  Dak was a 4th round pick in 2016.  Teams reach for QBs constantly, and then pass up QBs who turn out to be good all the time also.  Griffin and Luck were supposed to be sure-fire locks.  One lasted essentially 1 year, the other 6 with the last several shortened due to injury. 

 

If Dan fell in love with Haskins, and "overruled" the football people, at least the following was true:

1. They didn't shoot their wad and trade UP to get him.  They stayed where they were, and he fell to them, and they took him.

2. They needed a QB anyway.  Murray and Jones were off the board already.  The only other guy really in the conversation for the "possible franchise QB" role was Drew Lock.  He was picked by Denver in the second round.  The other option would have been to just punt on the QB for the 2019 draft, and you role with Colt and Keenum, which is what I'm guessing Jay wanted to do. However, in that case, you're just going to end up with the same situation the next year, because I don't think anybody really thought Keenum or Colt was the real long term answer.  So, going ahead and picking a guy to develop with the type of upside Haskins had wasn't the worst idea.  

3. They did trade back into the first round and picked up Sweat, which was a player who was supposed to help right away.  Until he (and the rest of the defense) was Manusky-ed.  

 

The reason I was irritated with the Haskins pick is not because it was made, or that Dan "overruled" the football people to make it, but because it paired a rookie QB with a coach who was in his 6th year and had to win.  That was just stupid on steroids. While it's clear they waited YEARS too long to fire Gruden, he was still there, and putting those two situations together was just a recipe for disaster.  THAT I put on Dan and Bruce.  

[FootballZombie]

I’ve seen people comment on Haskins' shape in terms of increased mobility and decreased damage absorption, but how will it effect one of his best attributes: this throwing velocity?

 

Combined with better footwork and the ability to put his whole body into his throws more consistently, we may see an uptick in this kids arm. Haskins’ already has a cannon, but he may legit upgrade to a bazooka.  

 

There may be less Haskins to chew on now that he has lost some weight, but Zombie is cool with the quality trade off.

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I think Dan likes big name college players.

Yeah, but I don't think Haskins really fits into the category of college star in the same way Griffin did, (Granted, nobody really does.) Drafting Haskins was somewhat different.  Sure, he was a big name player, but he wasn't the biggest name player.  We know he had some familiarity with Haskins because he's local and went to the same school as Dan's son.  (NOT at the same time.) But if he was really going to fall in love with anybody, Kyler Murray really fit the bill the most.  And there was no indication the WFT even explored the option of going up to get Murray. 

 

The other option is Dan could have fallen in love with Tua, who was a year away but from the WFT's personal farm system, Alabama.  If he was REALLY smitten with a big name player, I could have seen him just telling Bruce and Kyle they were going up for Tua the next year, so make sure we can do that.  

 

I agree Dan likes big name players. Maybe he just found a big name player, who was local, and it might finally work.   As I said, I think he probably got lucky, as you suggested.

 

And, FWIW, a lot of college big name players DO work out.  So, there is that.

 

As far as a side comment for Kyle Smith, I like Smith, I think he's fine.  I don't think he's proven he's the next coming of Bobby Bethard.  Even in the past few drafts, they've had some hits, they've had some misses, which is kindof what everybody has.  At some point (and maybe it just happened, we don't know), they need an A+ draft where they get 2-3 blue-chip players and 3-4 solid starters, because those are the drafts which are the foundation of a championship team. 

[Going Commando]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am optimistic at the moment about Haskins. So I doubt we got to fishing for another QB.

 

But I don't take ANY GM to task about any player's evaluation.  If you buy other scuttlebut specific to Haskins.  The Eagles didn't see him as a first rounder either.  And the Giants saw him as the 4th best QB in the draft after Jones and Murray and Lock.

 

As you know GM''s are lucky to bat even 500 as for draft picks.   And their luck at picking QBs is even lower.  Mike Shanahan said multiple times in interviews that he considers himself a smart dude as for evaluating the Qb position.  Yet, even he doesn't know if a college QB will be successful until he has them in the building and watches them work-practice. 

 

I know you were very high on Haskins.   Your man crush on him rivaled my take on Chase, and Derrius among others for me over the years.  There is a good chance you end up right.  And I hope you are right about him.  But for me it doesn't dampen my take on Kyle.   2nd round doesn't mean bust, too.  I take the rap on him was that he was raw and not as polished as they'd like.   If they didn't like him at all, I figured he'd be off their board or lower than the 2nd. 

 

 

Haskins was a no-brainer first round pick, I'm not letting anyone revise that truth away.  To have him graded lower than that is an absolute and obvious failure of evaluation that needs no hindsight bias to identify.  I can buy that some NFL FO people ****ed up their evaluation of Haskins because it's the same group of top minds that couldn't figure out DeShaun Watson was the top prospect in his class and thought that Lamar Jackson was a wide receiver.  I can buy that Gettleman had him fourth on his board because he's the dummy who picked Daniel Jones sixth overall.  I do not buy that Haskins's lack of experience was some big red flag that made him unworthy of the first round despite the obvious talent and huge production he had because of who went first overall in that class--to absolutely no one's complaint.  One good season is all anyone really cares about seeing.  If Haskins had spent the previous season struggling and getting his ass kicked for a lesser program before the huge RS Soph year that wouldn't have helped him.  It wouldn't have made him any more ready for the NFL, nor would it have improved his draft stock.  ****, spending another season kicking ass and winning a championship or a Heisman trophy wouldn't have necessarily helped him either, it didn't for Lamar Jackson or Deshaun Watson.

 

Identifying talent and poise and ability to execute an offense is not the hard part of making an NFL franchise QB.  There are a couple blue chipper prospects every year, they usually separate themselves from the pack pretty obviously during the college season, and they are much more similar to each other than they are different.  The place where the vast majority of failures happen is in supporting and developing their prospect.  As a bare minimum, you've gotta have your front office and your coaching staff on the same page about the guy.  Then you have to do the hard work of propping the guy up with all of the forms of support that it takes, roster tailoring, teaching, gameplanning, playcalling, implementing strengths to cope with and win through his inevitable mistakes, etc. until he can eventually get good enough to prop you up.  You have to have a culture of competitiveness, stability, and functional team play in place in order to develop a QB prospect into a franchise QB.  That's where we've failed over and over again.  The majority of the league fails here.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Yeah, but I don't think Haskins really fits into the category of college star in the same way Griffin did, (Granted, nobody really does.) Drafting Haskins was somewhat different.  Sure, he was a big name player, but he wasn't the biggest name player.  We know he had some familiarity with Haskins because he's local and went to the same school as Dan's son.  (NOT at the same time.) But if he was really going to fall in love with anybody, Kyler Murray really fit the bill the most.  And there was no indication the WFT even explored the option of going up to get Murray. 

 

 

 

Of course and I didn't say Dan just goes for the top-most hyped player.  I said that his typically targets are big name players.  Hence my Dow 30 versus small cap analogy. Haskins isn't exactly obscure.  Now if Dan was touting Minshew that would be interesting but he doesn't seem to rock that way.  He usually seems interested in the blue chipper type college players that causal fans often see on TV.  

 

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

And, FWIW, a lot of college big name players DO work out.  So, there is that.

 

 

Exactly that was my point.  I do think the dude is incompetent but he also has to be somewhat unlucky to keep striking out on said players. Hence my Dow 30 analogy -- its not easy to strike out playing in the deep end but Dan has managed to do it.  He's due for some good luck and I don't mean it sarcastically.

 

He has had arguably 20 years of bad luck.  Yes much of it based on his own doing.  But I do think you can overcome a bad owner with some good luck and they've not had that.

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

As far as a side comment for Kyle Smith, I like Smith, I think he's fine.  I don't think he's proven he's the next coming of Bobby Bethard.  Even in the past few drafts, they've had some hits, they've had some misses, which is kindof what everybody has.  At some point (and maybe it just happened, we don't know), they need an A+ draft where they get 2-3 blue-chip players and 3-4 solid starters, because those are the drafts which are the foundation of a championship team. 

 

I like Kyle Smith by and large.  But agree he's no Beathard yet.  I think the weird aspect of Dan's tenure is how much they've missed at QB and also can't seem to find blue chipper great players save Sean and Trent.  I think Kyle will break this streak but he's not quite there yet.  I think Chase will be rock star level good.  Granted he wasn't a hard pick.  I tink McLaurin has potential to be that guy and maybe Guice if he can stay health, ditto Bryce Love. 

[Skinsinparadise]

55 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Haskins was a no-brainer first round pick, I'm not letting anyone revise that truth away.  To have him graded lower than that is an absolute and obvious failure of evaluation that needs no hindsight bias to identify.  I can buy that some NFL FO people ****ed up their evaluation of Haskins because it's the same group of top minds that couldn't figure out DeShaun Watson was the top prospect in his class and thought that Lamar Jackson was a wide receiver. 

 

Sure but that goes both ways.  A ton of top rated QB prospects taken early have busted, too. 

 

55 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

 

Identifying talent and poise and ability to execute an offense is not the hard part of making an NFL franchise QB.  There are a couple blue chipper prospects every year, they usually separate themselves from the pack pretty obviously during the college season, and they are much more similar to each other than they are different.  The place where the vast majority of failures happen is in supporting and developing their prospect. 

 

I agree with this.  But I'd add, I like to cite Arians book a lot about QB because he delved into so many examples of this from his own experience and one of his major points was a lot of it is actually on the QB, too.  The QBs that really work on their craft and are fanatical about it, have a major edge.  And from his experience, most QBs aren't as fanatical and they need to be.  And the great ones often are.  He likens it to a golf swing.  The great ones are more consistent because they constantly work it.  And they great one are preparation hounds during game week because they often have to play a chess match with defensive coordinators and if they are under prepared than they often lose that chess match. 

 

Gibbs has said similar things.  Ditto Shanny.  Hence to me its a really big deal when Rivera said Haskins personality has transformed.  Arians book in particular talked me into the idea if a QB isn't obsessed with their craft they are unlikely to be successful unless they got sick talent that transcends that.

 

55 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

As a bare minimum, you've gotta have your front office and your coaching staff on the same page about the guy.  

 

I agree.  And I don't think based on the reports that it was healthy how it unfolded with Haskins.  Granted Haskins was the victim of it.  But I would argue so were the coaches and FO.  And I don't side with the owner on it.  I don't care what player it is -- even if I adore said player.  If you got a GM let him make the calls.  Or fire the GM and find one you trust.

 

55 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Then you have to do the hard work of propping the guy up with all of the forms of support that it takes, roster tailoring, teaching, gameplanning, playcalling, implementing strengths to cope with and win through his inevitable mistakes, etc. until he can eventually get good enough to prop you up.  You have to have a culture of competitiveness, stability, and functional team play in place in order to develop a QB prospect into a franchise QB.  That's where we've failed over and over again.  The majority of the league fails here.

 

Agree with all of this.  And we've stunk at it.   I do think the player sometimes can bring their own dysfunction into the equation, too.

 

What I like about Haskins, unlike one of his more celebrated predecessors (who I did like at the time but in hindsight I think he contributed some to his own demise),the reports are that he's a very likeable person.  Teammates like him.  And he's coachable.

 

I do think Haskins deserves a better supporting cast.  And for me as long as he makes progress, I'll be happy.  I am grading him this year on a curve considering questions at TE, the left side of the line, challenges of COVID, etc

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

I also think we're experiencing some revisionist history in regards to Daniel Jones.  Pre-draft, it wasn't uncommon to see him with a 2nd round grade either.  There were a lot of questions about him.  There were questions about Haskins as well.

 

I recall some of the Haskins 2nd round grades used lines implying they made up their mind about him from the Penn State game.  So within the first month of him being a starter.

 

Neither was a perfect prospect, so you will have some divergence in scouting.  You will always have a vocal minority about anything and everything.

 

There's no denying the draft day narrative that the Giants royally screwed up taking Jones at #6, while this team got lucky that Haskins fell to them.  I think that portrays the majority of analyst's views about both.

 

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

20 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 The QBs that really work on their craft and are fanatical about it, have a major edge.  And from his experience, most QBs aren't as fanatical and they need to be.  And the great ones often are.  He likens it to a golf swing.

Obviously this is true, but also obviously...it's true for literally every player and every position.

 

20 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

I do think Haskins deserves a better supporting cast.  And for me as long as he makes progress, I'll be happy.  I am grading him this year on a curve considering questions at TE, the left side of the line, challenges of COVID, etc

 

His supporting cast is better than last season...which isn't saying a whole lot.  But at least it's not regressing.

 

I'm super excited to have Montez Sweat paired with Chase Young.  But at the same time having the WR the Colts drafted with our old pick would have been nice.

 

If he shows the development we're expecting from him, the supporting cast we have here shouldn't hurt his progress.  It just won't make things easy...which might be good in the long run?  As it means he needs his mechanics in tune for more throws than normal?

 

Don't know, trying to find a silver lining.

[Skinsinparadise]

34 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

Obviously this is true, but also obviously...it's true for literally every player and every position.

 

NFL coaches seem to think more so at QB than other positions.  But obviously working hard at your craft helps any job.

 

35 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

His supporting cast is better than last season...which isn't saying a whole lot.  But at least it's not regressing.

 

 

I love our RBs.  I think our WR position has some potential.  The wildcards to me are TE and LT and LG.  And if those positions end up a problem we especially can't afford Scherff to miss a bunch of games again. Got fingers crossed.

 

37 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

If he shows the development we're expecting from him, the supporting cast we have here shouldn't hurt his progress.  It just won't make things easy...which might be good in the long run?  As it means he needs his mechanics in tune for more throws than normal?

 

Don't know, trying to find a silver lining.

 

Agree.  

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

I think it's really hard to criticize any scout for a grade on any QB, because quite frankly, it's a complete crap shoot. All scouts get this stuff wrong all the time. Don't forget, just 3 years ago, the Bears took "that Mitch guy" at #2 overall.  Mahomes and Watson went 10 and 12 respectively.  Dak was a 4th round pick in 2016.  Teams reach for QBs constantly, and then pass up QBs who turn out to be good all the time also.  Griffin and Luck were supposed to be sure-fire locks.  One lasted essentially 1 year, the other 6 with the last several shortened due to injury. 

 

 

I know your post wasn't addressed to me.  But you had some good points in it.  So kicking in with some of my own thoughts.  I agree with your above point.  Heck a lot of "smart" GMs bypassed Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, among others, etc.  If we were judging GMs squarely about their takes and guesses at the Qb position -- they'd almost all get negative grades because most of them have missed. 

 

5 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

The other option would have been to just punt on the QB for the 2019 draft, and you role with Colt and Keenum, which is what I'm guessing Jay wanted to do.

 

The interesting thing is it's more foggy rumor wise about what Jay and or Kyle wanted to do as at QB.  According to some they also liked Daniel Jones over Haskins just like the Giants did.  That wasn't hard for me to forget because I cringed at that rumor at that time.   

 

But I also recall some beat guys had the impression that Jay's preference was to take one of the 2nd tier QB types in the later rounds 2nd round on down. 

 

5 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

The reason I was irritated with the Haskins pick is not because it was made, or that Dan "overruled" the football people to make it

 

I don't think we want our owner overruling our GM on any player.   Heck the Cowboys for example supposedly in recent years have finally gotten Jerry Jones to step back from messing with personnel too much.  Some say that's arguably because their de facto head of personnel, Will McClay, is become legendary as a personnel guy.  Apparently as an example Jerry wanted to take Manziel but was talked out of it and instead they landed a pro bowl O lineman.

5 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

but because it paired a rookie QB with a coach who was in his 6th year and had to win.  That was just stupid on steroids. While it's clear they waited YEARS too long to fire Gruden, he was still there, and putting those two situations together was just a recipe for disaster.  THAT I put on Dan and Bruce.  

 

I agree with this.  I wasn't as you know anti-Jay.  I could take him or leave him.  But you don't saddle a lame duck coach with a rookie QB.  That's not on Jay.  That's on Bruce-Dan.  You either don't pull the trigger like they did or fire Jay. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

24 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Of course and I didn't say Dan just goes for the top-most hyped player.  I said that his typically targets are big name players.  Hence my Dow 30 versus small cap analogy. Haskins isn't exactly obscure.  Now if Dan was touting Minshew that would be interesting but he doesn't seem to rock that way.  He usually seems interested in the blue chipper type college players that causal fans often see on TV.  

I think he likes guys he's familiar with, and then starts to dig deeper on those guys. The difference with Haskins, I think, is that unlike the other examples, it wasn't a really splashy pick.  Dan tends to go for the splash, the guy who would be really good for marketing, etc.  While Haskins was very good in college, he wasn't that guy.  It was a guy Dan was familiar with for a variety of reasons, being local and playing on TV a lot, most likely, and he really liked.  

 

I certainly don't think Dan does film study to come up with guys he likes.  

 

24 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Exactly that was my point.  I do think the dude is incompetent but he also has to be somewhat unlucky to keep striking out on said players. Hence my Dow 30 analogy -- its not easy to strike out playing in the deep end but Dan has managed to do it.  He's due for some good luck and I don't mean it sarcastically.

Yeah, I agree.  It's interesting, at least since 2000, the guys they have gone after have all been big names, but for the most part, have a lot of upside.  And it's never worked out.  

 

Now, I would also add that one of the reasons it hasn't worked out is since 2007, with maybe a brief respite here and there, the team has been HORRIBLY coached.  Zorn was atrocious.  You could have given him the 1990 49ers and he would have managed to make them an 8-8 team.  Shanahan did a great job creating an offense in 2012 for Griffin. They actually developed a guy or two on offense. Other than that, not so good.  Defensive talent was misused and not developed consistently. And Jay, well, somehow the defensive side got worse, and the offensive side wasn't much better.  A few guys developed here and there, McLaurin being an example, but overall, the coaching was wretched. 

 

So maybe with Rivera, that side gets better, and some of the guys who maybe just petered out and never developed will have a better shot than they have in a while.  

 

24 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

He has had arguably 20 years of bad luck.  Yes much of it based on his own doing.  But I do think you can overcome a bad owner with some good luck and they've not had that.

 

I like Kyle Smith by and large.  But agree he's no Beathard yet.  I think the weird aspect of Dan's tenure is how much they've missed at QB and also can't seem to find blue chipper great players save Sean and Trent.  I think Kyle will break this streak but he's not quite there yet.  I think Chase will be rock star level good.  Granted he wasn't a hard pick.  I tink McLaurin has potential to be that guy and maybe Guice if he can stay health, ditto Bryce Love. 

I like Kyle Smith too.  I think he has potential, and he has shown to have a good eye for talent.  

 

So, as far as QBs go under Dan, if you're looking at only the guys they selected who they expected to be starters, you have Patrick Ramsey, Jason Campbell, Robert Griffin, and Haskins.  Leaving Haskins aside because we don't know yet, the best QB they drafted was Cousins, who they didn't expect to be a starter.

 

They also signed or traded for Jeff George, 73 former gator QBs, Mark Brunnell, Donavan McNabb and Alex Smith to be starters.  The best QB they signed to be a backup who played is probably Todd Collins. 

 

For each of them:

Ramsey, I will go to my grave saying Spurrier destroyed.  He had potential, and Spurrier ruined him.  He wasn't going to be Aaron Rodgers, but he could have been capable.  

 

JC.  He was better than Colt Brennan!  He also did not benefit from being in the number of systems he was asked to learn, and certainly didn't benefit from Zorn.  But he just wasn't that good, and wasn't going to be that good, and that was a bad trade and pick at that spot by Coach Joe.  

 

Griffin. The less said about him the better.  I still believe if he had maturity, he and the Shanahans could have had sustained success.  Of all the places where Dan DIRECTLY exploded the nuclear bomb, this is it.  

 

Haskins. We'll see.  Lots of promise. 

 

Jeff George.  I know he was signed to be Brad Johnson's backup, but not really.  Dan wanted him to start.  And fired Norv to make it happen.  Dan was wrong. To me, George is the absolute worst FA signing in the Dan Snyder era.  AH and Adam Archuleta are tied for second.   

 

Brunnell.  That worked out better than I thought it was going to, and is clearly the best signing/trade of the Dan Snyder era.  They gave away too much for him, but if he hadn't gotten hurt, they might have made the NFC Championship game in 2005. 

 

McNugget. Horrible trade.  Dude was done. 

 

Smith. Hey, they went 6-3 with him as QB, and he was a complete non-fit to Jay's system.  And Jay didn't adapt his system. But at least they were winning a little bit.  Then he got hurt.  Trade wasn't bad, the contract extension was ridiculous. 

 

The one thing I'll say about all the resources they threw at QB, they don't have a complete and total debacle pick, like Heath Shuler.  The worst draft pick was probably JC, and even he had some modicum of success here and there.  He was actually playing pretty well for the Raiders before he got hurt, then the Raiders traded for the rights to Carson Palmer, I believe, and that ended that.  Griffin had the best rookie season of any QB ever, and Ramsey never got a fair chance.  

 

Of they guys they traded/signed, the worst by miles was George.  Then McNabb.  Brunnell worked out ok, and Smith was ok until he had his leg snapped in half.

 

Did I miss anybody?  I might have suppressed somebody from my memory.

 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

36 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I know your post wasn't addressed to me.  But you had some good points in it.  So kicking in with some of my own thoughts.  I agree with your above point.  Heck a lot of "smart" GMs bypassed Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, among others, etc.  If we were judging GMs squarely about their takes and guesses at the Qb position -- they'd almost all get negative grades because most of them have missed. 

I actually had listed a few of these also.  Hell, Tom Brady lasted until the 6th round.  He's clearly the outlier.  The 'Skins were the only team not to pass on Dan Marino, if you go WAY back.  Because he was selected by the Dolphins right before the 'Skins pick. (Btw, I decided I am going to use 'Skins to refer to the teams of the past, and WFT for future.)

 

It's rally a crap shoot at QB.  Really good GMs, like Bethard, make really bad picks, like Ryan Leaf.  Sometimes good GMs, like Bill Polian, make good picks, like Peyton Manning. And I'm sure we can find bad GMs who make good picks. 

 

36 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The interesting thing is it's more foggy rumor wise about what Jay and or Kyle wanted to do as at QB.  According to some they also liked Daniel Jones over Haskins just like the Giants did.  That wasn't hard for me to forget because I cringed at that rumor at that time.   

Yeah, but since Jones was off the board at #3 or whatever, it just didn't matter.  I absolutely could see Jay liking Jones, though.  It's more his style of QB than Haskins was.  (That's not a knock.) 

 

36 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

But I also recall some beat guys had the impression that Jay's preference was to take one of the 2nd tier QB types in the later rounds 2nd round on down. 

Yeah, but candidly, in his position, Jay shouldn't have really had a vote on the QB of the future.  That should have been Bruce/Kyle, because there was no real indication Jay was going to be around for long.  And again, that's not a knock.  They didn't fire him, so he was still around, but a lame duck coach doesn't get to vote to pass-up a QB in the first to take one in the later rounds. 

 

Now, in theory, the pick should have been made by Bruce/Kyle.  NOT Dan.  Not saying Bruce was ideal to have making the pick, but he was the defacto GM, so it should be his call.  And he should defer to Kyle.  

 

36 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I don't think we want our owner overruling our GM on any player.   

I agree.  But at the same time, I can see a scenario where Dan just said to himself, "look, we need a good QB, he's he best available since Murray and Jones are gone, Kyle tells me he's better than Lock, he's local, and he's had success. I don't know if Bruce is going to be here, I don't think Jay is going to be here, and this Kyle kid is 17 years old.  Let's take Haskins and figure everything else out later."  Is that the right thing to do?  No,.  But I can see the logic if that was Dan's thinking.  

 

36 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Heck the Cowboys for example supposedly in recent years have finally gotten Jerry Jones to step back from messing with personnel too much.  Some say that's arguably because their de facto head of personnel, Will McClay, is become legendary as a personnel guy.  Apparently as an example Jerry wanted to take Manziel but was talked out of it and instead they landed a pro bowl O lineman.

The difference with Jerry is he owns the title of President and GM.  And while he's delegated some to his sons, he's still the boss. 

 

36 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I agree with this.  I wasn't as you know anti-Jay.  I could take him or leave him.  But you don't saddle a lame duck coach with a rookie QB.  That's not on Jay.  That's on Bruce-Dan.  You either don't pull the trigger like they did or fire Jay. 

I always said Jay was somewhere between below-average and average. Mostly because the team was ~8-8 every year except the first one.  Though his first down play calling was historically bad.  

 

However, after watching the way Rivera talks and communicates, preaches preparation, talks about hard work, culture and discipline, the more and more I think I was wrong, and I probably gave Jay too much credit for his average record.  We'll see.  He might be worse than I thought.  

[Skinsinparadise]

29 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I think he likes guys he's familiar with, and then starts to dig deeper on those guys. The difference with Haskins, I think, is that unlike the other examples, it wasn't a really splashy pick.  Dan tends to go for the splash, the guy who would be really good for marketing, etc.  While Haskins was very good in college, he wasn't that guy.  It was a guy Dan was familiar with for a variety of reasons, being local and playing on TV a lot, most likely, and he really liked.  

 

I certainly don't think Dan does film study to come up with guys he likes.  

 

 

 

Agree he doesn't do film study.  I am guessing its somewhat random with him.  he happened to be watching this game or that game.  I recall Gibbs once telling a story of dan calling him after watching the Vikings play to share tips that he picked up on players, etc -- right before the Redskins were about to play them the following week. 

 

I don't think Dan per se goes for splashy but like i said big names.  Malcom Kelly wasn't flashy, but he was a big name college player from a big school.  i can totally see Dan overruling his scouts when they supposedly pushed to him towards the Kansas State WR Jordy Nelson as an example.  Haskins was plenty of a big enough name with plenty of exposure on Saturday night games, etc.   I think those are the types Dan falls for judging by the stories of what types of players he's pushed.

 

29 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

So maybe with Rivera, that side gets better, and some of the guys who maybe just petered out and never developed will have a better shot than they have in a while.  

 

 

I like Rivera a lot.  I think the defensive coaching has been bad for a long time, going way back to Shanny.  As for offense i think both Shanny and Jay proved they can run a good offense with the right players and not so much when they lacked it.  Shanny better because he can run a good running game and Jay couldn't.   Both had highly ranked offenses at junctures.  Both had mostly abysmal defenses.

 

Having said that, i've seen some posters make the point that we've potentially had studs but they haven't emerged because of coaching.  I agree to an extent but I also think the point is overplayed.  Bad coached teams like the Giants have had great play from guys like Beckham.  The Lions when they stunk almost always had an elite player or two.    The Jets, ditto.

 

I think the #1 issue with finding elite talent is the talent evaluators not the coaching.

 

29 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

So, as far as QBs go under Dan, if you're looking at only the guys they selected who they expected to be starters, you have Patrick Ramsey, Jason Campbell, Robert Griffin, and Haskins.  Leaving Haskins aside because we don't know yet, the best QB they drafted was Cousins, who they didn't expect to be a starter.

 

They also signed or traded for Jeff George, 73 former gator QBs, Mark Brunnell, Donavan McNabb and Alex Smith to be starters.  The best QB they signed to be a backup who played is probably Todd Collins. 

 

 

Supposedly Dan wanted Quinn and Sanchez bad.  And was instrumental in dumping Brad Johnson for George.   Supposedly the key driver for the McNabb trade.   Supposedly the key driver to draft Ramsey.  

[CommanderInTheRye]

 

The poster “09” wrote:

 

Quote

 

NBC Sports had at 11.  https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/2019-nfl-mock-draft-210-will-nick-bosa-steal-no-1-overall-pick-kyler-murray#slide-14

CBS Sports had at 15.  https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/nfl-mock-draft-2019-broncos-trade-back-into-first-round-for-drew-lock-raiders-start-with-two-defensive-upgrades/ 

PFF projected at 6.   https://www.pff.com/news/draft-pff-2019-nfl-mock-draft-5-rounds-1-3

NFL.com Chad Reuter had him at 9.  https://www.nfl.com/news/chad-reuter-2019-seven-round-nfl-mock-draft-round-1-0ap3000001027100

NFL.com Daniel Jeremiah had him at 15.  https://www.nfl.com/news/daniel-jeremiah-2019-nfl-mock-draft-4-0-redskins-land-haskins-0ap3000001027778

Bleacher Reports Chris Roling had him at 6.   https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2826720-2019-nfl-mock-draft-1st-round-picks-projections-for-most-impactful-prospects

Bleacher Reports Matt Miller had him at 6.   https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2827208-2019-nfl-mock-draft-matt-millers-latest-3-round-picks-with-one-month-to-go

Business Insiders "expert" had him at 11.   https://www.businessinsider.com/2019-nfl-mock-draft-consensus-first-round-2019-4#11-cincinnati-bengals-dwayne-haskins-qb-ohio-state-11

USA Today had him going 11.    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/draft/2019/04/25/nfl-mock-draft-2019-final-kyler-murray-dwayne-haskins/3566699002/

Draftwire/USA Today also 11.  https://draftwire.usatoday.com/2019/04/17/2019-nfl-mock-draft-kyler-murray-dwayne-haskins-nick-bosa-quinnen-williams-ed-oliver/3/

Walter Football had him going 15.   https://www.walterfootball.com/draft2019.php

Washington Post had at 24.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/04/24/final-nfl-mock-draft-projections-all-first-round-picks/

ProFootball Draft had him at 15.  https://profootballdraft.com/2019-nfl-mock-draft/

The Draft Network had him at 17.   https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/marino--final-2019-nfl-mock-draft

24/7 Sports had him at 6.  https://247sports.com/ContentGallery/2019-NFL-Mock-Draft-129780592/#129780592_6

SB Nation had him at 6.  https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2019/1/21/18189900/2019-nfl-mock-draft-rumors-kyler-murray-drew-lock-nick-bosa-daniel-jones

Sporting News had him at 5.   https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-mock-draft-2019-redskins-giants-qbs-raiders-bama-defense/1x5vfu4g7y5531gct8wyqy53xh

The Huddle had him at 10.   https://thehuddle.com/2019/04/24/2019-nfl-mock-draft/

Draftsite had him at 11.   https://www.draftsite.com/nfl/mock-draft/2019/

Athlon Sports had him at 11.  https://athlonsports.com/nfl/2019-nfl-mock-draft-first-round-predictions-updated-scouting-combine

 

 

That is some serious research showing the pre-draft (non-revisionist) projections of Haskins’ draft position.

 

You can argue conclusions but you can’t argue the facts and you just gave us some facts.

 

Well done, mate!

[Skinsinparadise]

17 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I

 

It's rally a crap shoot at QB.  Really good GMs, like Bethard, make really bad picks, like Ryan Leaf.  Sometimes good GMs, like Bill Polian, make good picks, like Peyton Manning. And I'm sure we can find bad GMs who make good picks. 

 

 

Yep and Polian said it was a tough call between Peyton and Leaf.  He also said RG3 is can't miss.  

 

17 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

I agree.  But at the same time, I can see a scenario where Dan just said to himself, "look, we need a good QB, he's he best available since Murray and Jones are gone, Kyle tells me he's better than Lock, he's local, and he's had success. I don't know if Bruce is going to be here, I don't think Jay is going to be here, and this Kyle kid is 17 years old.  Let's take Haskins and figure everything else out later."  Is that the right thing to do?  No,.  But I can see the logic if that was Dan's thinking.  

 

 

No way to know.  The narratives that have been described gave me a different impression as to how it likely went down.  But who knows?

 

17 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

However, after watching the way Rivera talks and communicates, preaches preparation, talks about hard work, culture and discipline, the more and more I think I was wrong, and I probably gave Jay too much credit for his average record.  We'll see.  He might be worse than I thought.  

 

Rivera is IMO in his own class.  He's won coach of the year two seasons in a row.   So I don't see him as the run of the mill version of head coaches in the NFL.  He's a culture guy.  Like Gibbs on that front.

 

Jay to me I think is an average HC give or take.  i wouldn't quibble with the point that he's below average.  My thing is it's not always easy to know when you got bad structure above you.  My impression of him in season 1 where I was if anything a critic was B level effort who will be outdone by many of the hard driving A type coaches in the NFL.  My opinion never really wavered from that.  I just never saw him as the #1 problem.  I saw that as Bruce and Dan.    So by fixating on Jay, I think that by extension gave Bruce an out because the leap of logic would be hey Bruce is loading Jay up with talent but Jay is flubbing it.  If so there can't be anything wrong with Bruce.  It would be Jay that has to go.

 

So I never really got into the Jay needs to go chorus.  For me it was Bruce needs to go.  And if Jay is next out the door, I was always fine with it.

 

But yeah no argument from me that Rivera > Jay.  But I think Rivera is a top 10 coach in the NFL. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I like Rivera a lot.  I think the defensive coaching has been bad for a long time, going way back to Shanny.  As for offense i think both Shanny and Jay proved they can run a good offense with the right players and not so much when they lacked it.  Shanny better because he can run a good running game and Jay couldn't.   Both had highly ranked offenses at junctures.  Both had mostly abysmal defenses.

 

Having said that, i've seen some posters make the point that we've potentially had studs but they haven't emerged because of coaching.  I agree to an extent but I also think the point is overplayed.  Bad coached teams like the Giants have had great play from guys like Beckham.  The Lions when they stunk almost always had an elite player or two.    The Jets, ditto.

 

I think the #1 issue with finding elite talent is the talent evaluators not the coaching.

I dunno.  I think it's a mixture of both.  I think we probably had some guys in here who could actually play, maybe not at an absolute elite level, but a heck of a lot better than they did, but there was no real developmental plan for players.  And Jay specifically got stuck on his guys (Luavao, Rob Kelly, Ryan Grant, some others) and other players with higher upsides were not really given an opportunity to compete. 

 

What's interesting, I don't remember Shanahan really trying to develop anybody apart from Griffin.  Most of the players on that 2012 team, if I remember correctly, were brought in as FAs on offense, minus Trent, and obviously Griffin.  Alfred Morris was very good, but we've seen through the years, the Shanahans can get yards from just about anybody. Pierre Garcon, Josh Morgan, some pieces of the OL, I didn't go back and look, but it just feels like it wasn't as young a team.  

 

I'm not going to re-litigate Jay.  I think there were players they could have tried to develop and they didn't.  

 

I guess I can agree, finding ELITE talent has been more a miss on the talent evaluators than the coaching.  But developing SOLID talent has been a mixture of both.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

But yeah no argument from me that Rivera > Jay.  But I think Rivera is a top 10 coach in the NFL.

Well, top 10 is definitely > 32.   

 

I think you're right about Rivera. I was absolutely elated when they got him.  I didn't think it was possible.

 

I don't remember who we were arguing about back in the day.  I was always Rivera first, and if not ... the rest are ok  I know I didn't mind Marvin Lewis as a backup plan as much as you did.  Though I had real problems with him bringing Hugh Jackson with him.  I didn't like McCarthy at all. Maybe you preferred McCarthy to Lewis? I know we went back and forth on this, but my position was unwavering that I wanted Rivera first.  I don't remember who else was out there under speculation, especially because it ended so quickly.  I wasn't in favor of Greg Williams.   I was somewhat ok with Bowles, and I liked him more than McCarthy.  Maybe that was another sticking point.  

 

Rivera is, I think, absolutely the prefect person for this job.  I think he might even be a better fit than Bellichick, even though BB is a better coach overall.  Because Rivera's character and communication is above reproach. Bill is surly and prone to the odd controversy. The other guy who I think would have been perfect would have been Arians.  QB whisperer, overall extremely likable. But a tough, winning football coach.  Though I think he might be almost a little too laid back for what this organization needed.  

 

Carrol is a good coach, but controversy follows him everywhere he goes.  Not a good fit here.  I really like Mike Tomlin, who went to my college, and he would have been a HUGE upgrade, and has the leadership and strength we need.  But I'm not sure if Ron isn't a better X's and O's kind of coach.  Carolina never had the talent the Steelers did, if the roles were reversed, I could see both of them having very good success with the other team.  

 

I wanted McVay in 2016.  That ship sailed, though in 2020, I think Rivera is a better fit for WFT.  Kyle Shanahan could never happen, but again, I think from a personality perspective, Rivera is better for us.  

 

I don't know who else I would consider.  

 

As far as Jay, I was on the "Both have to go because both are problems and neither are solutions" bandwagon.  I would have preferred Bruce first, but honestly, I didn't care about order.  The organization could not win with either of them in place.  So I'm thrilled both are gone.  

 

Ok, I'm done with this tangent and trip down memory lane.  Back to Haskins talk.  

[Mr. Sinister]

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

To me one of the interesting wildcards about Haskins is coming in the season in this type of shape -- wouldn't shock me if his mobility is good.  Not Watson level good but above average  Will see. 

 

 

 

 

It's ridiculous to begin with. He wasn't shredded, but he wasn't fat either.

[Commander -JB-]

Forget the fat jokes.  Haskins is just exponentially slower that Watson.  He might as well be fat LOL

[NickyJ]

I must have missed something, why are people up in arms about comparing his speed and build to other QBs? Is it supposed to be that anyone heavier or slower than Deshaun Watson is a bust now?

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Well, top 10 is definitely > 32.   

 

I think you're right about Rivera. I was absolutely elated when they got him.  I didn't think it was possible.

 

I don't remember who we were arguing about back in the day.  I was always Rivera first, and if not ... the rest are ok  I know I didn't mind Marvin Lewis as a backup plan as much as you did.  Though I had real problems with him bringing Hugh Jackson with him.  I didn't like McCarthy at all. Maybe you preferred McCarthy to Lewis? I know we went back and forth on this, but my position was unwavering that I wanted Rivera first.  

 

When Rivera's name was floated initially I wasn't fully in.  But then I digested all I could about him and then was sold hard.  I didn't like Marvin Lewis or McCarthy.

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

Rivera is, I think, absolutely the prefect person for this job.  I think he might even be a better fit than Bellichick, even though BB is a better coach overall.  Because Rivera's character and communication is above reproach. Bill is surly and prone to the odd controversy. The other guy who I think would have been perfect would have been Arians.  QB whisperer, overall extremely likable. But a tough, winning football coach.  Though I think he might be almost a little too laid back for what this organization needed.  

 

 

Agree.

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

As far as Jay, I was on the "Both have to go because both are problems and neither are solutions" bandwagon.  I would have preferred Bruce first, but honestly, I didn't care about order.  The organization could not win with either of them in place.  So I'm thrilled both are gone.  

 

 

To me the order was everything.  Under Vinny and then Bruce the coach was scapegoated not them until the long bitter end.  Doing that dance again in my view would be deja vous.  

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Ok, I'm done with this tangent and trip down memory lane.  Back to Haskins talk.  

 

LOL, me too. 

 

 

love this below