Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State


PCS

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

The "we sucked so it doesn't matter what is said about us" argument never held water with me.

 

By that rationale saying "Washington has the absolute worst defensive line in the NFL" is fine and dandy because, hey, we won 3 games. We suck.

Yea, the defensive line last year wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be with FOUR first round draft picks. They were underwhelming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, wit33 said:


Would be shocked if Dwayne was wired in this way to need a veteran to be cut, but stranger things have happened. It sounds like you’re saying it came from the top and wasn’t anything to do with Haskins necessarily. One of the main factors to being encouraged about Haskins was thinking he’s that dude and could give a damn who’s in the huddle. This kind of stuff reminds me of Cousins... yuck! 


Not, by any means, a necessity. It became an option because of DH. Peterson had a huge presence & while it was largely positive, it was no longer necessary. The move expands DHs role, it’s belief in him, it came from Turner.

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

If I remember correctly, Cooley in some radio appearance, (I can't remember with who, but he was on with somebody) put it more on Quinn than Haskins also, basically saying Quinn showed him one thing and then did another, and that's a great way to get your young QB in trouble.  I think he said it was on both of them for not being on the same page, and also on the coaches for not making sure both players knew what they were supposed to do in that situation, but he put it most on Quinn.  

 

The reason I remember is because there was a lot of "you're protecting Haskins" twitter hate or something like that after.  


I believe on that play Quinn was taught to give his QB a lane, he turned and couldn’t see Haskins, so he maneuvered to a lane as DH was already loading to throw. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, volsmet said:


Not, by any means, a necessity. It became an option because of DH. Peterson had a huge presence & while it was largely positive, it was no longer necessary. The move expands DHs role, it’s belief in him, it came from Turner.

 

 

 

It also seems like it was A factor, not THE factor. Other reports have indicated the need to give Gibson, McKissic, and Love carries. AP is known to make a stink if he doesn't get his carries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

It also seems like it was A factor, not THE factor. Other reports have indicated the need to give Gibson, McKissic, and Love carries. AP is known to make a stink if he doesn't get his carries.


Peterson was good with protections & leadership, but they saw enough in DH to put those responsibilities on him, which gave us more roster flexibility. It feels tough to see a negative, but this is the ES.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dyst said:

Yea, the defensive line last year wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be with FOUR first round draft picks. They were underwhelming. 

 

1) I would love to see that backed up with defensive line analysis and not overall defensive stats.

 

2) "Wasn't all that it was cracked up to be" does not equate to "Worse defensive line in the NFL".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

So you'd be in agreement if someone said our DLine was the worst in the NFL (or even one of the worst)?

 

As I explicitly stated, I'm not saying that I agree.

When it comes to prediction based on data available?  I'd see where they were coming from.  A really smart kid who's getting an F is one who's understandably going to be predicted to get an F even though they're capable of getting an A.  Prior to getting an A there's no reason for an outside, non-invested observer to believe in that child.  Potential doesn't show up on a transcript or a scoreboard.

 

EDIT:  Getting back to Haskins, he hasn't shown anything to an aforementioned outside, non-invested observer to indicate that we have solved our quarterback situation.  As someone who's followed this wacky offseason, I think that he has, but the data available (which is solely 2019) are saying that he hasn't.  String some top performances together starting exactly three days from right now(!) and the data will change, subsequently so will the opinions of said outside, non-invested observers.

Edited by NewCliche21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

As I explicitly stated, I'm not saying that I agree.

When it comes to prediction based on data available?  I'd see where they were coming from.  A really smart kid who's getting an F is one who's understandably going to be predicted to get an F even though they're capable of getting an A.  Prior to getting an A there's no reason for an outside, non-invested observer to believe in that child.  Potential doesn't show up on a transcript or a scoreboard.

 

But that's lazy analysis isn't it? The really smart kid is capable of getting an A. Whether he does or not is on him. But that's what he can do--it's what he's done in previous grades. He's not the kid who has repeated the 3rd grade twice and can't spell cat if you spot him the c and the t. That's the difference between having a young QB and not having a QB. We have a young QB. What Esiason said was lazy "reporting"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

As I explicitly stated, I'm not saying that I agree.

When it comes to prediction based on data available?  I'd see where they were coming from.  A really smart kid who's getting an F is one who's understandably going to be predicted to get an F even though they're capable of getting an A.  Prior to getting an A there's no reason for an outside, non-invested observer to believe in that child.  Potential doesn't show up on a transcript or a scoreboard.

 

But what if that kid didn't get an F. What if they got like a B- while the rest of his siblings were getting D's, and F's. Do we give that kid an F, too, just because he's part of that same family?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, volsmet said:


Not, by any means, a necessity. It became an option because of DH. Peterson had a huge presence & while it was largely positive, it was no longer necessary. The move expands DHs role, it’s belief in him, it came from Turner.

 

 


That makes sense. It’s due to the evolution of Haskins which diminished some of the value of Peterson. I can get with that! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Florgon79 said:

If your starting qb isn't selected as an offensive captain your team is already in serious trouble. 

 

How many teams DON'T have their starting QB as a captain?


He shouldn’t be gifted a captain spot just because he was the hot pick of our old FO. Same way he might be the starter but he has show he should be. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was listening to Aaron Schatz from Football Outsiders this morning on the radio, and he brought up something interesting--the majority of 2nd year QBs who show progress towards the end of the season typically do not continue that trend. Most recently he pointed to Baker Mayfield's regression last year, which is true. And it does cast a legitimate shadow on Haskins this year--he is not guaranteed to continue his positive progress last year.

 

But he left out one significant element: positive or negative coaching changes. Mayfield last year lost Ken Zampese, who was largely credited for his rookie year. Freddie Kitchens also turned out to be a terrible hire and was kicked to the curb after a year. I wonder how much these advanced statistical analyses take into account how much coaching affects young players growth.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RichmondRedskin88 said:


He shouldn’t be gifted a captain spot just because he was the hot pick of our old FO. Same way he might be the starter but he has show he should be. 

 

 

Your assumption is that he has been given a captain spot because he was a first round pick last year and not because he has shown leadership this year in camp as the named starter. I could understand how you would be upset about this had he been named a captain last year. For this year however I think maybe you are making too big a deal out of this. If he is not Starting QB material and he is not Captain material, this will be the year we all find out. 

 

You are the one assuming this is being gifted to him. That's fine but I don't think everyone would agree with you, myself included. Could it be all be a mistake? Sure. But you don't go into the season without fully backing your starting QB. It's dumb and does nothing for their confidence our that of the team's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

But he left out one significant element: positive or negative coaching changes. Mayfield last year lost Ken Zampese, who was largely credited for his rookie year. Freddie Kitchens also turned out to be a terrible hire and was kicked to the curb after a year. I wonder how much these advanced statistical analyses take into account how much coaching affects young players growth.

 

Exactly.  Same is true for Jared Goff.  Football Outsiders had him as the worst rookie QB in NFL history after the 2016 season, then he transformed into a franchise QB the next season under Sean McVay.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

I was listening to Aaron Schatz from Football Outsiders this morning on the radio, and he brought up something interesting--the majority of 2nd year QBs who show progress towards the end of the season typically do not continue that trend. Most recently he pointed to Baker Mayfield's regression last year, which is true. And it does cast a legitimate shadow on Haskins this year--he is not guaranteed to continue his positive progress last year.

 

But he left out one significant element: positive or negative coaching changes. Mayfield last year lost Ken Zampese, who was largely credited for his rookie year. Freddie Kitchens also turned out to be a terrible hire and was kicked to the curb after a year. I wonder how much these advanced statistical analyses take into account how much coaching affects young players growth.

 

 

We got to see a lot more from Mayfield year 1 than Haskins.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Exactly.  Same is true for Jared Goff.  Football Outsiders had him as the worst rookie QB in NFL history after the 2016 season, then he transformed into a franchise QB the next season under Sean McVay.

 

More like successfully masquerading as a franchise QB?  Isn't Goff kind of a dummy that doesn't get basic stuff if McVay isn't telling him everything pre-snap through the headset?

 

I feel like if Goff went to almost any other team he'd tank.

 

But yeah, coaching changes are clearly a huge factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

More like successfully masquerading as a franchise QB?  Isn't Goff kind of a dummy that doesn't get basic stuff if McVay isn't telling him everything pre-snap through the headset?

 

I feel like if Goff went to almost any other team he'd tank.

 

But yeah, coaching changes are clearly a huge factor.

 

That even further solidifies the point. If Goff is as dumb as a bag of hammers shipped in a box of rocks, good coaching is even more important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • TK changed the title to FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State
  • PCS locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...