FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Fair enough, but was it better than last week?

Absolutely. He got rid of the ball quick and the gameplan was more towards his strengths. Slants, got the backs involved as receivers and out of the backfield, crossers. That’s his wheelhouse. 
 

Better than last week for sure. Still not fantastic.

[Riggo#44]

1 minute ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

I didn't get to see all of the game yesterday but he looked better.  That's the type of the game you want to have from someone after a poor one.  That looks like a completion percentage around 70 percent and 300+ yards.  No TDs, but also no picks.  People on twitter are whining about that pass to McLaurin coming in garbage time but so what?  It sounded like he was able to have a few long drives, too.

 

 

 

One of the problems is, and I just heard this, he threw about 4 passes more than 10 yards. 200-ish yards came after the catch. So they're inflated numbers. But he was more accurate, but he took some bad sacks, and missed some plays as well. The sound bites from the post-game were less that encouraging.

[KDawg]

6 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Fair enough, but was it better than last week?

Addendum to my above post and my phone won’t let me edit...

 

His agent tweeted after the game about how unfair it is to judge Haskins. I don’t have a link and that is EXTREMELY paraphrased. Mobile ES isn’t easy to navigate sometimes

 

But the tweet is a few pages back. Go past the McCoy comparisons, turn right at the moron comments and then stay straight until you get to the “did he compare Haskins to Brees?” Conversation. It’s right there on the corner. Can’t miss it.

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

Absolutely. He got rid of the ball quick and the gameplan was more towards his strengths. Slants, got the backs involved as receivers and out of the backfield, crossers. That’s his wheelhouse. 
 

Better than last week for sure. Still not fantastic.

 

If you were the coach would you go with this kind of tailored offense again to help him or would that be too limiting to your offense. I know this is silly, but ignore the fact that he has clear success with one over the other. I want to know if you think the offense is very clearly better ran one way or the other. Of if we are so limited offensively that its negligible. I know thats probably hard to do. 

[DJHJR86]

9 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Fair enough, but was it better than last week?

 

His QBR for week 3 was 25 and yesterday it was 32.2.  Which is still terrible, but an improvement.  You could tell he was terrified of taking chances and throwing picks.  

[KDawg]

Just now, Llevron said:

 

If you were the coach would you go with this kind of tailored offense again to help him or would that be too limiting to your offense. I know this is silly, but ignore the fact that he has clear success with one over the other. I want to know if you think the offense is very clearly better ran one way or the other. Of if we are so limited offensively that its negligible. I know thats probably hard to do. 

Id stay with that version of the offense. It’s what he did in college and it’s his wheelhouse. 
 

I’d add some more vertical concepts to stretch the field and test Haskins deep ball.

 

But I think the offensive gameplan yesterday fit not only Haskins, but the OL. The OL is okay as long as the QB isn’t taking a ton of 5 and 7 step drops. Obviously, that’s not great in the long term. The OL needs SIGNIFICANT improvement. But with a limited QB and a limited OL, I’m sticking with that. At some point, though, you need to get the defenders to back off and you do that by continuing to stretch the field horizontally but also adding some more vertical challenges.

[Going Commando]

4 hours ago, KDawg said:

Against any zone there it’s going to be tough to get an open receiver in the end zone with that many guys deep in prevent. You can’t really stretch the field vertically or horizontally because the Ravens had to only defend the goal and rally up as almost an entire unit to a short throw (which they did).

 

The idea there is to throw it in the end zone, or close enough to give the receiver a chance. If Haskins determines nothing was available, he should have moved the pocket and created a scramble drill. 
 

The ball needs to go into the end zone there. Or close. The only other scenario is a levels play that allows for pitches... but with that many guys deep there are still too many to rally to the pitch men. 
 

That series was a Haskins fail on the sack, a play calling fail in getting back into a reasonable distance and then a doomed situation on 4th and goal where the team needed playmakers to make something happen. 

 

Turner absolutely could have spaced the field more both horizontally and vertically.  Why have such a tight grouping on the boundary side?  Why is Logan Thomas the only guy on the field side until McKissick releases to the flat?  Why are we calling a six man protection in that situation in the first place?  Why is McKissick on the field instead of Gibson?  Why are there only two levels in the design?  Why are there only three verts on a play that Haskins has to make a throw deep to convert?  If we're truly scheming to fit the personnel, and we know Terry is our only playmaker, then why isn't he the one in space instead of Logan Thomas?

 

Lousy game planning, lousy preparation (we got smoked on blitzes that are signatures of that defense), and lousy play calling doomed the offense yesterday, and that play was one of the most emblematic moments of the coaches not calling the game to win.

[wtfskins]

Nobody has to scheme us to beat us they can come in and blitz and have success.  They can drop back in zone and beat us we’re just not very good offensively and Haskins doesn’t help that situation.  That sack was a killer.  

[carex]

18 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

One of the problems is, and I just heard this, he threw about 4 passes more than 10 yards. 200-ish yards came after the catch. So they're inflated numbers. But he was more accurate, but he took some bad sacks, and missed some plays as well. The sound bites from the post-game were less that encouraging.

 

tons of QBs get major YAC, hell that's the way some offenses are designed to function

[KDawg]

6 minutes ago, wtfskins said:

Nobody has to scheme us to beat us they can come in and blitz and have success.  They can drop back in zone and beat us we’re just not very good offensively and Haskins doesn’t help that situation.  That sack was a killer.  

 

Yup. We have a limited offensive group. We need to maximize the talent we have but playing to their strengths. But I don't think it's about preparedness with the group we have. It's about skill set. Our OL and Haskins are limited in what they can do, so the gameplan has to involve quick hitters and loosening the opposing team up horizontally and vertically. But the QB has to let a few go down field to do that, too. 

 

I'm willing to bet the offense was fully aware of the blitzes that the Ravens would be sending. We just don't have the horses to stop them. 

[wtfskins]

We didn’t play that bad on the line.  I’m with Rivera on this one we have a lot of players playing well and it’s not fair to them to keep a limited Haskins in the game.  Let Kyle Allen get the next 4 games and then reevaluate.

[goskins10]

OK, now that some of the hotheads are sleeping it off lol  -  

 

Haskins was better yesterday but still just not good enough. He was better in that he took better care of the ball. And he engineered some pretty nice drives when it still mattered. Also, made some nice throws. But still not good enough in that he missed wide open check downs. You just cannot do that at this level. And it's not like he had someone right in his grill. Also, he wilted in some key moments - the 18 yd sack with 1st and goal. Throwing short underneath passes on 3rd and 4th when you need to get it into the EZ - especially 4th down. There were more but you get the point. 

 

Hard to be too upset with the D but they are struggling in the back half. Hard to be too upset becasue the off seems to have to wait for their 6th or 7th drive to score. But they do not do a good job on instant change of possessions. They needed to keep that fumble to a FG. Instead they let Balt cruise into the EZ. Game was basically over at that point. Secondary getting lit up. Could have been another 21 pts easily if Jackson was more accurate. They are playing the run pretty decent. ANd getting pressure in moments (Jackson is a very hard QB to bring down). 

 

I like Ron but I am starting to have a problem with some of his decision making during the game. Ok, you want to challenge the QB but 4th and 12 when you can get within 2 scores? Hmm.. And the play calling was pedestrian. They rarely went down field and the runs were predictable in direction and timing. And use of TOs is always a puzzle it seems. Don't get me wrong, QB was the most egregious of our issues. But Haskins was not alone in the loss. He had a lot of help. 

 

Haskins likely gets the starts to the bye (After week 7). He has to show significant improvement or sit him and spend the bye getting Kyle or Alex ready to start. Know that it will be the end for Haskins. He doesn't seem to have the make-up mentally to take that as a challenge to win the job back. He seems like the type that will blame others, withdrawal, and have to be jettisoned. Not to mention that stupid tweet by his agent (that screams I want out, so let him out.) That will be the end for Haskins.  And I am afraid at this point, this is the most likely outcome. But we will see. It would be so much better for us if he would start to get it. But wishful thinking does not win games. 

 

Then maybe for the first time since Gibbs II, the HC will get to pick the QB they really want. Here are the last coaches and thd QB they were given to start. 

Zorn -  Campbell 

Shanahan - McNabb then Griffin

Gruden - Griffin, Cousins, Smith, and then Haskins!!  

Rivera - Haskins. 

 

If we are being honest neither Kyle or Alex are the long term solutions. They are who you finish the year with until you can select your guy. Then they can go back to being backups. I guess we could get a surprise in Kyle - and if so, that would be awesome. But not holding my breath. But if Haskins continues to struggle you have to make a change or risk losing the locker-room, not to mention give you the best chance of winning even if it's only a little bit better chance. 

 

Let's clean the slate and actually let a football person choose who leads the team for them!  I know it's a rare concept here in Washington, but it could work!  It really could. 

[Going Commando]

11 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

Let's clean the slate and actually let a football person choose who leads the team for them!  I know it's a rare concept here in Washington, but it could work!  It really could. 

 

This is an amazing mentality to me.  That the problem is the players and if we just keep shuffling them then eventually it will work out.  I suppose its how a bad franchise like ours has sustained long term fan interest.

 

If we want to develop a quarterback, then we're actually going to have to put the franchise infrastructure in place necessary to develop a quarterback.  It seems like most of you think we've already done that.  It also seems like most of you are ignoring the reality that, if one of the first tests of this new regime was developing a QB prospect and they immediately fail it, then that is not a promising start for them.  Why would you have faith in them to turn the corner and do everything right the next time?

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

2 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

If we want to develop a quarterback, then we're actually going to have to put the franchise infrastructure in place necessary to develop a quarterback. 

I think the more fundamental thing we need to establish is patience - both as a front office and as a fanbase. And some of the wording that Rivera is saying is what I want to hear in terms of developing a QB - patience, evaluation, etc. Its kinda like what Shanny said when we were ?3-6? with RG3 his rookie year, just doing roster evaluation type stuff. But then we won 7 in a row and it became a playoff run and less about developing the players. But I think there's a thing where we have to question 1) where is he now, 2) what can he improve on 3) how can we do that 4) how long will this take. 

 

In my opinion this is less about Haskins but more about any QB. Very few (outside of the top top of the first round QBs) come into the league ready. Most struggle. Most play early now and learn on the job but that just means they struggle more. I had no problem with bringing in Mullins or Bethard or McCarren or Lauletta or Rypien or a bunch of other QBs as long as we were dedicated to seeing where they are, building a team around them and letting them grow into the role.

 

We got lucky with Cousins and he developed under Gruden but the fan base always got into these arguments about his quality of a QB (top tier, game manager, garbage stats) but how much of that was based on our development of Cousins vs him just getting better, and really making a financial (Alex Smith) decision to play less like Jeff George throwing the 4 INTs in a game and more checkdowns and throwing it away and taking sacks. But whoever we have we need a committment to them getting better. 

 

We can talk all we want about Josh Allen but notice that this year, the year he's having a career year, is also the year they brought in Stefon Diggs. 

[goskins10]

Just now, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

This is an amazing mentality to me.  That the problem is the players and if we just keep shuffling them then eventually it will work out.  I suppose its how a bad franchise like ours has sustained long term fan interest.

 

If we want to develop a quarterback, then we're actually going to have to put the franchise infrastructure in place necessary to develop a quarterback.  It seems like most of you think we've already done that.  It also seems like most of you are ignoring the reality that, if one of the first tests of this new regime was developing a QB prospect and they immediately fail it, then that is not a promising start for them.  Why would you have faith in them to turn the corner and do everything right the next time?

 

 

First you very much oversimplify my comments. That's Ok as I know you are very much invested in Haskins you are. And that's OK. And hey, could we need better coaching? Possibly. But I have now watched 20+ games of Haskins (college and pros) and he is what he is unless he suddenly starts to get it. I just cannot ignore last year. Now he had some flashes at the end of last year. But so far, he just does not have it. Coaching has nothing to do with missing wide open check downs. He is missing basic plays that even a rookie needs to make. He also seems to wilt when he needs to rise up. But hey, give him the next 3 games and see where he goes. 

 

Back to you over simplifying my comments. No one said anything about just reshuffling players so please just stop it. If that was the case I would be screaming for Kyle/Alex or anyone to be a starter and saying they can be the long term solution as is. I did not. My point was that none of the coaching staffs coming if have been able to pick the QB they want for their system. They each had a QB forced on them. It would be nice to see what happens if a HC gets the chance to really pick their own QB for once. 

[Going Commando]

15 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

This is ****ing absurd.  We need a better DC Football media.

[Skinsinparadise]

48 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

if one of the first tests of this new regime was developing a QB prospect and they immediately fail it, then that is not a promising start for them.  Why would you have faith in them to turn the corner and do everything right the next time?

 

 According to both the local beat guys and multiple national reporters the process on Haskins was warped from the start.   You don't take a QB with the owner overridding both the HC and top personnel guy in house and from what some said multiple scouts, too.  So asking for a rational step B when step A was ironically already screwed up -- might be a tall order. 

 

The thing on that front is multiple people who covered the team have said Kyle Smith didn't want to take Haskins, one said he didn't grade him as a first rounder, Keim said last week that he's not sure that Haskins wouldn't have dropped to the 2nd round if we didn't take him.

 

I know you think if so, Kyle and company were wrong.  And you agree with the owner as to Haskins.   But to me that's immaterial.  I don't care if Dan agrees with me on a player.  I want Kyle to make that decision (whether I agree with him on that player or not) not the owner, regardless about my feeling about that player.

 

The #1 thing is having a process where the top football guy makes the call.  When you don't, not only are you missing on having one dude's vision driving this roster.  You also set an environment of I told you so where there are some in the building that might want to prove a point.  You bring in ego in a big way all the way around from the owner, GM, HC.  And yeah Haskins is the victim of that.  But IMO so are the front office people.  I don't blame them if they are upset about the owner overriding them on a pick.  And if they want to make a point to the owner (and I am not saying that's what they are doing, I got no idea) then the owner made the bed on this.  It's on him.  It's not IMO on the HC or the FO. 

[KDawg]

Now Rivera is absurd because he likes the play calling? I don’t know, man. I think you’re too close to this. 

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

This is an amazing mentality to me.  That the problem is the players and if we just keep shuffling them then eventually it will work out.  I suppose its how a bad franchise like ours has sustained long term fan interest.

 

If we want to develop a quarterback, then we're actually going to have to put the franchise infrastructure in place necessary to develop a quarterback.  It seems like most of you think we've already done that.  It also seems like most of you are ignoring the reality that, if one of the first tests of this new regime was developing a QB prospect and they immediately fail it, then that is not a promising start for them.  Why would you have faith in them to turn the corner and do everything right the next time?

Dude, the new regime either didn’t want him (Kyle Smith) or didn’t draft him (Ron) 

 

He is Dan’s pick. You can’t dispute that. He’s here and he’s cheap so yeah, you give him a chance this year but no one important is married to him so they aren’t gonna hold his hand when they can get a better young QB prospect that they actually like.

 

Why are you ignoring this???

 

i get you’re an optimist. i remember the old NBA threads where you treated the Wizards like they have title potential. That’s cool cuz that’s your team. But your argument about this is 100% naive and tone deaf 

[SoCalSkins]

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 According to both the local beat guys and multiple national reporters the process on Haskins was warped from the start.   You don't take a QB with the owner overridding both the HC and top personnel guy in house and from what some said multiple scouts, too.  So asking for a rational step B when step A was ironically already screwed up -- might be a tall order. 

 

The thing on that front is multiple people who covered the team have said Kyle Smith didn't want to take Haskins, one said he didn't grade him as a first rounder, Keim said last week that he's not sure that Haskins wouldn't have dropped to the 2nd round if we didn't take him.

 

I know you think if so, Kyle and company were wrong.  And you agree with the owner as to Haskins.   But to me that's immaterial.  I don't care if Dan agrees with me on a player.  I want Kyle to make that decision (whether I agree with him on that player or not) not the owner, regardless about my feeling about that player.

 

The #1 thing is having a process where the top football guy makes the call.  When you don't, not only are you missing on having one dude's vision driving this roster.  You also set an environment of I told you so where there are some in the building that might want to prove a point.  You bring in ego in a big way all the way around from the owner, GM, HC.  And yeah Haskins is the victim of that.  But IMO so are the front office people.  I don't blame them if they are upset about the owner overriding them on a pick.  And if they want to make a point to the owner (and I am not saying that's what they are doing, I got no idea) then the owner made the bed on this.  It's on him.  It's not IMO on the HC or the FO. 

I agree with most of your post but I think you’re missing the most important point. You don’t draft a first round QB when you have a lame duck head coach. If you plan to select a QB then fire the coach at the beginning of the off season and let the new regime be on board. A new head coach is going to want to make his own decisions particularly when it comes to QB which probably has the biggest impact as to whether or not the coach keeps his job beyond 3 years. Regardless of circumstances the new coach at a minimum is thinking this QB played a role in getting his last head coach fired and being forced to be tied to a QB not of his choosing is a bad way to start off. 

[GOATFrerotte]

10 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I've watched it several times.  It seems like you're not getting that Wright ran his entire route--a long developing out no less--and that Haskins threw the ball on time for the design of the play.  Plays are designed for the ball to come out when you complete your drop.

 

Do you really think a three deep concept is going to get open against 8 playing deep zones by extending the play?  That is a completely unrealistic expectation against any NFL coverage unit.  Especially when you've crowded three receivers boundary side on a play the defense knows has to go to the sticks.  It was a brain dead concept to run in that situation.  The kind if **** you'd call in a preseason game, not a regular season game you're trying to win.

 

That was a basic and obvious play calling error.  The fact that Turner called a six man protection against what was very obviously going to be a three man rush should be clueing people into that.  And that fact that so many people aren't picking up on these coaching issues and are instead entirely blaming Haskins for them is revealing.  It explains why you actually think going to one of the back ups would have us winning these games.  No.  Turner is learning on the job as much as the players are.

 

Are you really arguing that he couldn't step up in the pocket and extend the play and his only option was to quickly throw the out and give the ball to the other team? Is that really what you're going to go with? Haha. You're taking Haskins homerism to a whole new level. 

 

On a side note... anybody know how to post tweets on here, I found a tweet with a video of the play.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

Dude, the new regime either didn’t want him (Kyle Smith) or didn’t draft him (Ron) 

 

He is Dan’s pick. You can’t dispute that. He’s here and he’s cheap so yeah, you give him a chance this year but no one important is married to him so they aren’t gonna hold his hand when they can get a better young QB prospect that they actually like.

 

 

that to me is the operative point.  This regime both as for the coaching staff and FO isn't likely invested in Haskins.  

 

I agree with @stevemcqueen1's point that if you go get yourself a QB, build around the dude.   But...

 

But from at least what's been said the dude who fell in love with Haskins was the owner, not the FO or the current coaching staff.  it's similar to Kingsbury in Arizona. In Arizona, they at least had the FO behind the Rosen pick yet they bailed there, too.

 

If the decision makers don't feel that Haskins is likely the guy that they should build around -- then they won't build around him.  Simple as that.  As long as the owner doesn't impinge on it.  Now my guess is Rivera is open minded on Haskins but at the same time not predisposed to think he's the guy.  So he will use the season to figure it out.  And he and Zampese who supposedly is one of the best QB coaches in the business and Turner will figure out whether Haskins is the guy and I'd presume they are bright enough to factor context in that decision.  

[Llevron]

18 minutes ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

i get you’re an optimist. i remember the old NBA threads where you treated the Wizards like they have title potential. That’s cool cuz that’s your team. But your argument about this is 100% naive and tone deaf 

 

You really wanna fight dont you? 

13 minutes ago, httr2020dynasty said:

On a side note... anybody know how to post tweets on here, I found a tweet with a video of the play.

 

Copy and paste the URL and then add a few spaces and it should embed 

Edit - not spaces. Hit enter a few times to add a few lines after the url 

[GOATFrerotte]

Delete...

4 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

You really wanna fight dont you? 

 

Copy and paste the URL and then add a few spaces and it should embed 

Edit - not spaces. Hit enter a few times to add a few lines after the url 

 

Alright, let me test this out. Appreciate the help.

 

The receivers have barely even made it to the end zone when he throws it. It's clear he is playing this safe and not even giving the play a chance.