FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State

[MartinC]

53 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Do we have any examples of rookie QB's actually developing from the point where their play is below average as a rookie and then they develop into being a good to solid NFL starter?

 

Lots. But most of those were back pre free agency and salary cap days when you could sit a rookie for a year or two. or  persevere on a longer development cycle. Terry Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowl rings and is on the Hall of Fame. He was under 50% completions on 4 of his first 5 years - he was under 40% his rookie year and had 6 TDs and TWENTY FOUR PICKS. It ws his 6th season when he first threw for more TDs than picks.

 

Different eras of offensive style and again free agency/contracts but can you image ANY QB surviving a rookie year with a 38% completion rate and 24 picks to 6 TDs now? 

 

There are a lot of other examples. But not many, if any, recently.

 

 

17 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

You post like a kool-aid drinking cult clown and you dare call anyone else childish? You only care about not being exposed for your nonsensical loyalty to a horrid player who can’t play at the NFL level. If you think your post have quality for example in making excuses for a 4th and goal from the 12 going to the 9 yard line you are beyond deluded. So keep my name out of your clown posts unless you are addressing me directly and I will do the same for you and the rest of the cult. Thanks 

 

 

 

Both of you quit it now - or you will get time off. If you want to argue about play design and execution go at it  - but if either of you, or anyone, makes a comment about the poster rather than the content of the post you will get a ban.

[MartinC]

5 hours ago, KDawg said:

 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.

 

Which is easier said than done when we literally have one player who can challenge a defense vertically. McLaurin and Gibson are the only weapons we have that can really hurt a defense - and everyone on the defensive side of the ball knows it.

 

I actually think the O'line has been at least decent in pass pro at least. Not great-  but for example Christian as at least been functional at LT. 

[joeken24]

DH played like a rookie with some flash this weekend. The reality is (all be it his second year), he's a rookie. So I suppose I'll have to lower my expectation, stop comparing him to other QBs that seem to (so-called) have it all together in their rookie years and allow Ron to do what it do. Josh Allen and even the kid in Cleveland brings me pause about being quick to judgement on DH. The only problem I have with DH is his game time accuracy. I don't know what he does in practice, but he definitely does not exude accuracy in the games. I'd rather him be accurate and miss a few reads than to see the read, make the throw and have that throw go in the ****ing stands. Relax Francis for god's sake!

[Going Commando]

14 minutes ago, KDawg said:

The argument that the play design asks for that to be thrown at the top of the drop is valid. That's how that play is designed. However, when the OC says, "This has to go to the end zone" then, well, the throwing at the top of your drop stuff goes by the way side and you're looking for the routes in the end zone to throw. A scramble drill works fantastic there. 

 

1x3 China concept run boundary side in that situation just doesn't make sense to me.  There is no space for the low read to work with after the catch and it's an easy tackle for the ralley defenders to make isolated against that sideline like that.  And there is not going to be room for the high read to work because an off script scramble drill is working him directly into the zones of like four different guys condensed into that area.

 

Looked to me like the concept was to have Haskins work high to low and the defense was cover four with the shallow zones dropped to the goal line.  You're just not going to get a window with that spacing and timing.  The play needed to be field-side and I don't understand why McLaurin wasn't lined up over there.  There needed to be more spacing in the design and there also need to be additional levels schemed in.  Why not run something from an empty set in that situation?  And I think the ball needed to come out quick because the seams were going to be tiny against that zone.  That playcall made me feel like Turner wasn't really trying.

[redskinss]

10 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

1x3 China concept run boundary side in that situation just doesn't make sense to me.  There is no space for the low read to work with after the catch and it's an easy tackle for the ralley defenders to make isolated against that sideline like that.  And there is not going to be room for the high read to work because an off script scramble drill is working him directly into the zones of like four different guys condensed into that area.

 

Looked to me like the concept was to have Haskins work high to low and the defense was cover four with the shallow zones dropped to the goal line.  You're just not going to get a window with that spacing and timing.  The play needed to be field-side and I don't understand why McLaurin wasn't lined up over there.  There needed to be more spacing in the design and there also need to be additional levels schemed in.  Why not run something from an empty set in that situation?  And I think the ball needed to come out quick because the seams were going to be tiny against that zone.  That playcall made me feel like Turner wasn't really trying.

Here's why you guys keep going round and round, because even if what you just said was 100 percent accurate it still doesn't excuse the decision on haskins part so while your argument about the play call may be very valid, everyone else's argument about the decision is also accurate.

Why can't you just say it was a horrible play Design but haskins still ****ed up?

Even if Throwing into the end zone results in a pick 95 percent of the time with that playcall it still gives you better odds than throwing to the 9 yard line, that was a turnover just the same.

 

When cousins ran up to the line of scrimmage to spike the ball so we could get a last minute field goal off but knelt down instead, did you analyze the formation to see if you could excuse the brain fart?

Because that's kind of what you're doing here.

 

[KDawg]

25 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Which is easier said than done when we literally have one player who can challenge a defense vertically. McLaurin and Gibson are the only weapons we have that can really hurt a defense - and everyone on the defensive side of the ball knows it.

 

I actually think the O'line has been at least decent in pass pro at least. Not great-  but for example Christian as at least been functional at LT. 

You don’t need a stud to throw a few out there on the deep ball, but we do absolutely need to add a piece to the receiver corps. 
 

the OL has looked functional in large part due to the play calling, in my opinion.

[Going Commando]

21 minutes ago, MartinC said:

I actually think the O'line has been at least decent in pass pro at least. Not great-  but for example Christian as at least been functional at LT. 

 

IMO they were pretty bad.  We had to surrender running a true three level passing game yesterday because we knew we couldn't get it blocked.  That gameplan was never going to get it done against a quality opponent like Baltimore.  But I also recognize that our OL players are not good and that the we don't have many other realistic choices when the run game isn't giving us good leverage down and distance either.

 

However, I do think there were some preparation issues on display yesterday.  When you've got a bunch of snaps of linemen blocking grass on blitzes, even experienced ones like Morgan Moses, that suggests the offense wasn't ready for the pick ups.  Baltimore being a super heavy blitzing team wasn't news heading into the week.  The performance of the team gave me the impression that they are distracted.

[Est.1974]

33 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Which is easier said than done when we literally have one player who can challenge a defense vertically. McLaurin and Gibson are the only weapons we have that can really hurt a defense - and everyone on the defensive side of the ball knows it.

 

Haskins’ agent agrees.

 

But seriously, Rivera knows this. You could argue that we should have gone that extra 10-15% to get a TE In free agency at the very least. 
 

Rivera can’t throw the rest of the O under the bus. By the same token, Haskins likely deserves the same protection from his coach. The whole situation needs to be managed well.

[mhd24]

Just now, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

IMO they were pretty bad.  We had to surrender running a true three level passing game yesterday because we knew we couldn't get it blocked.  That gameplan was never going to get it done against a quality opponent like Baltimore.  But I also recognize that our OL players are not good and that the we don't have many other realistic choices when the run game isn't giving us good leverage down and distance either.

 

However, I do think there were some preparation issues on display yesterday.  When you've got a bunch of snaps of linemen blocking grass on blitzes, even experienced ones like Morgan Moses, that suggests the offense wasn't ready for the pick ups.  Baltimore being a super heavy blitzing team wasn't news heading into the week.  The performance of the team gave me the impression that they are distracted.

 

 

I think you're referring to the sack on Haskins?  Apparently Haskins slid the protection so Haskins was responsible for the free man.  

 

[Going Commando]

10 minutes ago, redskinss said:

Here's why you guys keep going round and round, because even if what you just said was 100 percent accurate it still doesn't excuse the decision on haskins part so while your argument about the play call may be very valid, everyone else's argument about the decision is also accurate.

Why can't you just say it was a horrible play Design but haskins still ****ed up?

Even if Throwing into the end zone results in a pick 95 percent of the time with that playcall it still gives you better odds than throwing to the 9 yard line, that was a turnover just the same.

 

What's the point in blaming the player for not being able to make a doomed playcall work?  The problem that needs to be fixed is happening above his pay-grade.

[Skin'emAlive]

Some positives:

 

DH has proven to be very accurate in crossing routes and slants. He knows when to throw the ball on the back shoulder to avoid getting his receiver injured. He’s going through his progressions and making correct reads and is quite knowledgeable of the defensive schemes. His ability to call better protection has improved each week. He’s looked quite good in the red zone. This weekend we ran a ton of wr screens, and almost all of them ended up in positive yardage. That’s a good thing to see going forward. 
 

Some negatives: 

 

He needs to start looking off the defensive backs while going through his progressions. Maybe start utilizing a shoulder drop pump fake ( watch Brees). Needs to work on 5-7 yard touch passes. Too much windup on these, and he’s missing easy dump offs as a result. This is the equivalent to learning a floater. It can be done. I feel he is taking a second too long to release when he’s made his decision on where to throw. Once the game slows down for him, I expect that to get better. 
 

Negatives outside his control: 

 

We have the worst TE lineup in the league, and it’s not close. No.1 priority should be to get him some 2-way giants, so we can actually run an offense. The offense appears to be built around quick slants, rb options, and screens. Without a viable TE, rb screens are completely out of the question. Unfortunately, our top 2 rbs are not reaching their receiving potential because of the lack of a quality TE rotation. 

 

 

[NoVaSkins21]

Right now we're seeing guys like Herbert and Burrow in their first year better than Haskins in his 2nd.  People can make the argument that he hasn't played enough games or that he didn't have a typical offseason which may be true, but he can't make the typical throws and he gets rattled easily.  The fact that he lost weight was great, but it hasn't translated on the field with his play.  Gruden wasn't a good a HC, but he was right last year when he sad Haskins wasn't the guy and Rivera is seeing the same thing this year.

[redskinss]

11 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

What's the point in blaming the player for not being able to make a doomed playcall work?  The problem that needs to be fixed is happening above his pay-grade.

Because there's a chance he decided that he'd rather have a 3 yard gain on his stat sheet than another interception. 

With statistics in today's nfl having such a profound effect on a players salary and perception I'll admit I at least understand the rationale behind that thought process but if thats the case, its inexcusable and he's not putting the teams chances of winning ahead of himself. 

There's no excuse for him not to wait until there's pressure and then throw it to somewhere in the end zone other than statistical selfishness, there was zero chance of getting 9 yards after the catch in that circumstance and at least some chance of a touchdown (albeit very small) had he actually thrown it that far.

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

[MartinC]

27 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

the OL has looked functional in large part due to the play calling, in my opinion.

 

No question the play calling has been tailored to work around the limitations on O'Line - and QB and WR as well.

[FootballZombie]

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

There are a lot of other examples. But not many, if any, recently.

 

Carr, Stafford, Goff.

 

Plenty of recent examples of guys who were even less accurate than Haskins is now.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Video of SIP's screenshot

 

 

 

 

[wit33]

Love the game tape Haskins can now look at from both extremes of the last two weeks with the hope he can find bliss right in the middle with his approach. 
 

I worry a governor is in the process of being placed on him with sign posts leading him to mediocrity. I think he can duplicate yesterday’s performance while yawning throughout the process— this is why I dislike worrying about turnovers at this stage, let the dude fly or plummet and keep it moving. He wants to be great and is willing to plummet unlike most QBs. He has unique wiring it appears from afar.  

 

I’m sure it’s a difficult balance for the staff due to realizing mediocre performances against teams 10-32 will have you in it right to the end, resulting in all keeping their jobs a bit longer. Seeking mediocrity due to fear of the pursuit of greatness is the norm. 
 

Im will as a fan to invest in the probability he can separate himself from the “mediocrity pack of QBs”.

***For example, Favre was very much on the edge of being a bust before he became a Hall of Fame QB, but he was willing to take the risk. Many other examples as well. Would not allow himself to be neutered. 

[Skin'emAlive]

I dunno why we are still talking about the 4th down play. It was the equivalent of going for an onside kick with the whole 4th left to play. We don’t have the weapons to pull off such a pass with the defense setup like that. Bad play call. If he throws that in the endzone, nothing good would have come of it. 

[Est.1974]

Haskins throws that ball way too early. Probably had a number of seconds to let the play unfold significantly more.

[MartinC]

1 minute ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Carr, Stafford, Goff.

 

Plenty of recent examples of guys who were even less accurate than Haskins is now.

 

Goff is possibly a good example. Though the jury is still out on exactly how good he is versus is he being carried by the scheme and McVays play calling. Stafford was injured his second year after a so so rookie year - but he was good in Y3. If by Carr you mean David he never really recovered from getting the crap beaten out of him with the Texans.

[JSSkinz]

After looking at that cutup I think I agree with @stevemcqueen1 in that the play was doomed from the start although a confident QB with a big arm might have been able to make a play.

 

I still don't understand why he didn't take a shot since it was 4th down.

[MartinC]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Haskins throws that ball way too early. Probably had a number of seconds to let the play unfold significantly more.

 

His ONLY chance on that play was to get the ball out quick. I think he had a shot at anticipating Terry finding that void between the levels of the zone and trying to throw him open - but likely if he throws that ball the deep defender behind Terry drives and breaks it up or picks it off. So if he sees that his only hope is to get the ball really quick to the underneath target and hope he can break a tackle and get in with YAC.

 

Decent play design on 1st down from that spot. Not ideal on 4th and goal IMO.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Not sure why two WRs were running to basically the same spot in the end zone...is that normal?

[wit33]

3 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

No question the play calling has been tailored to work around the limitations on O'Line - and QB and WR as well.

 

 

We as a fan base have been dying for the team to catch up with the rest of the league in terms of the spread attack, quick pass game, RB involvement in the pass game, and screens, now that this has arrived we are dying to get back to old school 5 and 7 step drop backs (hyperbole) lol. 
 

My guess is the shots down field will come at a higher rate in the coming weeks with the same talent on the field. Mcclaurin was out of his mind excited on the last ball (complete conjecture) because it seemed he feels those kind of throws are available all game and was happy one was delivered. He didn’t seem to care about the catch personally or as it relates to the game, but for future purposes (again, wild conjecture).