FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State

[Conn]

I'm fine with Cooley's takes. He generally puts more effort into researching them than most radio types, by a long shot. 

 

I don't usually see a ton of pushback even when he's negative. People generally seem to like him.

 

In fact there were about a dozen or so dumbasses on here who were actually totally fine with the extremely far-fetched rumors a while ago that Cooley could be named GM of this team. Like, some of these people were happy about it and even argued that he was qualified enough. 

 

What I'm trying to say is that there's an extremely dumb minority on every issue on every sports message board. If you spend too much time addressing that crowd specifically you'll get very tired very quickly. 

[volsmet]

On 6/22/2019 at 8:15 PM, RandyHolt said:

If true It is disappointing to hear they are struggling with the playbook. I blame Jay.  This time off should be all about simplifying the playbook, instead of having the media pump up McCoy's tires.

 

There isn’t any chance Haskins is struggling to pick up the playbook in meetings, but there was always going to be struggles translating that to the field. DH is a bright kid, but one of his struggles is processing at game speed, which he hasn’t seen yet. Haskins struggled v Nebraska with infinitely superior talent, he’s going to struggle mightily here early. This is inevitable, what we do to help him grow is the question. As of now, no Trent, no #1 WR, and a weak interior line is not a great start.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

I'm fine with Cooley's takes. He generally puts more effort into researching them than most radio types, by a long shot. 

 

I don't usually see a ton of pushback even when he's negative. People generally seem to like him.

 

 

 

Cooley is the man. He is the only football yapper in DC worthy of a listen. 

[volsmet]

Per Urban, as of 20 minutes ago, no QB he’s worked with picked up a playbook as quickly as DH. 

 

*Urban will be back in coaching in the near future.

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

5 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

I'm fine with Cooley's takes. He generally puts more effort into researching them than most radio types, by a long shot. 

 

I don't usually see a ton of pushback even when he's negative. People generally seem to like him.

 

 

The thing about Cooley's takes is just that, they're takes. I know he does film reviews and talks to inside people but in the end they're just opinions and can be flat out wrong or biased or wrong to a certain degree. Like the Trent Williams thing the other day, he was willing to give Trent the benefit of the doubt with the medical because it's Trent, but what if it was Morgan with these issues or Catalina? Would it then just be financial? 

 

Plus it's just one take. So if 538 puts out an analytic that Haskins is a lower risk QB, i consider it, probably more than Cooley's because it tries to be objective. Same with guys here who put a lot of work into stuff. Shoot, hogshaven had profiles of a bunch of the guys we could draft and the udfas, and then the guys we got. Who's more right? People talk about Cooley's track record but what does that mean in this case? If he was right about Cousins, does that make him more likely to be right about Haskins? 

 

I just think our fan base is educated enough to decipher a bunch of opinions, some positive, some negative, and discover the truth somewhere in the middle. 

[RandyHolt]

8 hours ago, volsmet said:

Per Urban, as of 20 minutes ago, no QB he’s worked with picked up a playbook as quickly as DH. 

 

*Urban will be back in coaching in the near future.

 

Music to my ears. Both.

 

After taking Haskins, I almost presumed he would be our next coach. I will continue to belabor the point of Jay's uncertain future being a huge wildcard in Haskins development. It's encouraging to hear he can learn playbooks but eventually too many too soon should have any young QBs head spinning. While its easy to predict OCKOC will be our next coach because you know "Chasing McVay" I am not so certain he survives a horrible offensive season. Is he good looking enough? Meh but he is the bridge to continue Haskins within the same system, short of an extension for DMW Jay. #Crickets

 

Talk about a tough audition for Kevin.  Pressure to win, No WR1, a fleet of injury prone backs is the strength of our attack, all his proven hands guys are injury prone, a journey/rookie/noodle QB fleet, presumed OL injuries looming, Trent one foot out the door...

 

We need Haskins to emerge from the smoke of our ongoing dumpster fire, and lead us to the promised land.

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

8 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

The thing about Cooley's takes is just that, they're takes. I know he does film reviews and talks to inside people but in the end they're just opinions and can be flat out wrong or biased or wrong to a certain degree. Like the Trent Williams thing the other day, he was willing to give Trent the benefit of the doubt with the medical because it's Trent, but what if it was Morgan with these issues or Catalina? Would it then just be financial? 

 

Plus it's just one take. So if 538 puts out an analytic that Haskins is a lower risk QB, i consider it, probably more than Cooley's because it tries to be objective. Same with guys here who put a lot of work into stuff. Shoot, hogshaven had profiles of a bunch of the guys we could draft and the udfas, and then the guys we got. Who's more right? People talk about Cooley's track record but what does that mean in this case? If he was right about Cousins, does that make him more likely to be right about Haskins? 

 

I just think our fan base is educated enough to decipher a bunch of opinions, some positive, some negative, and discover the truth somewhere in the middle. 

 

By reading some of the takes here, one would think Cooley killed Haskins.  When in fact, Cooley was just never really enamored with him to the extent he'd draft him in the first round.  He would look really disingenuous to act like he didn't make those statements just because the Redskins drafted him.

 

As far as what he was talking with Galdi about last week, I don't find anything he said to be that far fetched.  In summary, he said that if Haskins was really taking off, we'd hear all about it because Jay and others would be gushing about it.  Even if not publicly, they would be doing it in private - but they aren't.  I think that's a fair take considering he actually talks to these folks in private.

 

He didn't make that an indictment on Haskins as if he's doing horribly.  He was just saying that if he's ahead of schedule, we would know because it would be talked about.  He actually said the same of Case, that there's no gushing or loving on how Case has picked up the offense to this point either. 

[Skinsinparadise]

9 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

Same with guys here who put a lot of work into stuff. Shoot, hogshaven had profiles of a bunch of the guys we could draft and the udfas, and then the guys we got. Who's more right?

 

If its hoghaven that's the contrast IMO its Cooley who is more qualified by a mile.    This is the first draft where I really went to town on watching multiple games of college prospects and I recall thinking at times on some prospects are they (hogshaven) watching the same games?    Digging further Hoghaven seems to use a rotating group of people to do the analysis most of whom are people like us.    I like the guy Jacob Camenker better on Riggo Rag and he admitted on twitter that's he's just learning how to do film review and is improving at it.  But he seems to put in good time to watching players.  I think more than anything is how many games have they actually watched.  

 

With Cooley this year I can see what he was seeing.  I made some analysis on players which I put on the draft thread before Cooley got to his and there was a lot of overlap.   I enjoy analyzing football a lot but I don't pretend to be an expert or even close to being one.  Having said that, I can probably put up the stuff that Hogs Haven does and so could anyone here.   Cooley to me is in another orbit.  Cooley can actually call Jay's offense on game day before it goes down and run through that scheme like a Rain Man level savant.  He played the game.  He's talked for hours on end football with Sean McVay, Kyle among others.  I personally don't think ANYBODY is the be all and end all about any player.  Even the best scouts get things majorly wrong.  So naturally Cooley will be wrong and isn't perfect.  But he's opinion IMO especially about the Redskins is worth more than assessments on fan blogs like Hogs Haven. 

 

And while I agree with most of @ConnSKINS26 points about Cooley.  I respectfully disagree with one part of his point.  The Cooley GM thing from what I recall was about the Redskins FO set up -- as opposed to GM in a vacuum.   Sadly, the idea of hiring the best GM in a vacuum doesn't seem to be how Dan rolls so I think the more realistic way to view this FO situation is to consider real life Dan typical context.  And from that perspective, I personally would put Cooley in charge of personnel over Bruce or Doug in a heartbeat.    I don't think that makes me or anyone else a fool.  Now, if the choice is we can hire the best personnel guys in the country -- like how most teams operate -- and put them in charge than Cooley wouldn't even be a passing thought for me.  But I doubt that's how Dan would roll.  Actually ironically it was Cooley among others who have said knowing Dan the top personnel guy always has to have a cozy-comfortable relationship with him. 

 

I've noticed most do like Cooley.  Yeah I don't recall ever seeing pushback with Cooley when he touts a player.  Cooley likes himself Mike Flanagan as an example -- but Cooley gets trashed for it with a who cares what Cooley thinks.  Yeah i don't recall that happening.  But if Cooley doesn't love a Redskin FO or FA move he almost always is greeted with some scorn.  Granted not from a lot of people but a person or two at least. And I am not blaming them for doing it -- like I said i can relate to the feeling.   I can recall it well because I've made posts like this almost every year under the same context.  And the main reason why I defend him is I like listening to Cooley's takes (not that I agree with all of them) and don't want him to feel boxed in to just say nice things.  I do genuinely like watching Redskins Nation and I think there is a place for homerism but not in film review.  But I'd tune out Cooley or Farrar or Benoit or any self-proclaimed film junkie who do analysis if they feel pressured to have a specific slant.   

 

Because if they did that their takes would be worthless.   And Cooley has annoyed me when I wanted to go full bloom man crush on players.   I didn't like him trying to spoil the fun early on for me on Doctson.  In 2014, i enjoyed all the gushing from beat guys about how RG3 was killing it in camp and I can even recall where I was when Cooley was going on about hey I was just in camp and he had no idea what the heck these beat guys were seeing because it was same old same old for him.    Cooley can be a bit of a killjoy if you love a player especially because he is mostly indeed a homer and doesn't kill too many guys so when he does it -- its especially annoying.  But again, he's been right a lot.  Among this draft class, he's man crushing more than most on Sweat, Martin, Love, Harmon.    As for Haskins, he didn't love him when he did film review.  He's not the only Haskins critic.  He didn't think he was a disaster either.  He thought he had talent but was a project.  In his defense, he didn't know that the Redskins would draft him.  Haskins was just one of from I recall 8 QB prospects he studied.

[Skinsinparadise]

Interesting article about both Mariotta and Winston and their struggles to play like a franchise QB.  Here's part of the Mariotta drill.  

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/06/24/jameis-winston-marcus-mariota-2019-season-contract-year?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=sinow&xid=socialflow_twitter_si

 

Ken Whisenhunt was whacked as head coach halfway through Mariota’s rookie year, and GM Ruston Webster was fired two months after that. Mike Mularkey was hired to succeed Whisenhunt, and Terry Robiskie came in as offensive coordinator—and both were fired two years later. Last year Mike Vrabel arrived as coach, and he hired Matt LaFleur to run his offense. In January, LaFleur left for Green Bay to coach the Packers.

 

That’s a lot of turnover for any offensive player to endure, but it can hit a young quarterback particularly hard. Which is why new Titans OC Arthur Smith, who was there through all of it (and has been with the team since 2011), made the decision to stick with LaFleur’s system and terminology when Vrabel promoted him in January.

We don’t want these guys to start over, because I’ve been in a ton of systems now where it didn’t matter to me what we called a 3-by-1 formation, the players already knew it,” Smith said. “Same thing with line calls, what you’re calling protections, all that terminology. And stuff has naturally evolved in the spring as we’ve put things in. These guys didn’t come in here and get a completely new system.”

 

Smith knows, because working with the tight ends, he’s lived it—in both the run game and and passing game. Going from Dowell Loggains’s offense in 2013 to Whisenhunt’s in ’14, for Smith, was “a complete overhaul.” Going from Whisenhunt to Mularkey as interim coach, “it was kind of mushed together,” and then “the playbook changed” when Mularkey got the job full-time. Going from Mularkey to LaFleur marked another plug-pulling.

And if it was tough on the coaches, you can imagine how that could affect a player, and especially a quarterback.

 

“It’s proven over time, when there’s a consistent player/coach relationship, it definitely helps that position,” Smith said. “And it happens in a lot of sports. Look at San Antonio with [Gregg] Popovich and [Tim] Duncan. Unfortunately, a lot of quarterbacks have had to deal with that. It’s not for me to say it’s stunted his growth, I don’t want to use that as a term for him. But I think in any sport, when you’re talking about positions like that, you’d like to have some consistency.”

That manifested itself in the spring, with the group able to hit the ground running, and Mariota getting to the point where he can now teach the offense back to his teammates, and worry about the defense, rather than the offense, when he’s breaking the huddle. Which, of course, is where you want a quarterback to be.

[Alexa]

I really don't care how Haskins looks in t-shirt practices. It means nothing. if Haskins is slow with the playbook I don't give a damn. It's Gruden's job to dummy it down ( which he should be doing anyway w/ a rookie QB)  and have 40 or so plays that he's comfortable with. This is my thing with Gruden, he'll be tempted to put in Colt so he can run the full playbook.  Focus on execution vs. your stupid ass 600 play playbook with 500 formations. What has that won around here anyway? 

 

 

 

 

[RandyHolt]

Post of the day vote logged for SIP, runner up to Alexa.

 

The QB failed because the QB sucked, duh!!!1!  sure does take a very primitive approach for anyone aspiring to learn from a teams QB development mistakes.   Even the smartest QB will have his plate overloaded if a foreign playbook is too fat/too soon.  Maybe the best thing to do early in camp with new QBs is opposite of what I have been saying (throw it all at them early to find limits), just give a small portion of the playbook, which focuses heavily on the parts most complicated or most likely to be utilized. Give the most time to learn that, and then add in the easier stuff/less likely to be used.  

 

Beatnik lurkers, find out how big Jay's playbook is. And find out the way OCs typically introduce playbooks. Do they dump the whole thing on the desk with a thud?  Ask Colt, or Alex.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, RandyHolt said:

Post of the day vote logged for SIP, runner up to Alexa.

 

The QB failed because the QB sucked, duh!!!1!  sure does take a very primitive approach for anyone aspiring to learn from a teams QB development mistakes.   Even the smartest QB will have his plate overloaded if a foreign playbook is too fat/too soon.  Maybe the best thing to do early in camp with new QBs is opposite of what I have been saying (throw it all at them early to find limits), just give a small portion of the playbook, which focuses heavily on the parts most complicated or most likely to be utilized. Give the most time to learn that, and then add in the easier stuff/less likely to be used.  

 

Beatnik lurkers, find out how big Jay's playbook is. And find out the way OCs typically introduce playbooks. Do they dump the whole thing on the desk with a thud?  Ask Colt, or Alex.

 

 

 

I agree with the thrust of this point.  Ditto all the others here who say create an environment for Haskins to succeed including don't start him right away.

 

But as for Jay, I feel like I am an apologist here for the dude and have been labeled that from time to time.   But here's really the gist of my full take on him.  He's I think border line a genius at play design.  His receivers get open -- even the jags in his offense.  I think he's poor at using analytics as to sequencing plays -- calling this play at this time of the game, etc.  I think when McVay was here that was a stronger combination.  Not because McVay was a better play caller but because he was better at the sequencing of plays.  But he was running Jay's offense mostly.  I am not a fan of really any head coach calling plays on game day.  There are too many other things on their plate.  So I am hoping O'Connell takes over that part. 

 

I do think (and have heard several NFL pundit types comment on this) Jay is a really good teacher of QBs.  That was part of the reason why he was hired here in the first place.  And yes that didn't work with one of their 2012 draft picks but it arguably brought the best out of the other 2012 drafted QB.  And I think Jay will end up a strong asset for Haskins as opposed to an albatross as some here think. 

 

I think Jay's personnel skills are a bit underrated.   We hear a lot about how Kyle Smith is this college scouting genius but the only other person we hear that about in that FO is about Jay.  I also think his personality is well tailored to this organization where he can shrug off crap and as JP Finlay likes to say navigate the craziness of the FO is an underrated component of what he brings.  There are HCs I like in theory better than Jay like for example Bruce Arians.  But knowing a bit about Bruce Arians I doubt he'd last a season here.  He's not the type who has any patience for office politics among other things.   

 

So yeah as a whole I think Jay brings more pluses than minuses.   I also like that the dude is likable which is something that isn't always easy to come by with this organization.  But unless Bruce is ousted along with Jay after this season, I think the odds that we hire a better HC than Jay are pretty low.  Not because better coaches don't exist.  But because those coaches either won't want to coach here, Bruce will prefer a lackey type, or if they hire a strong personality type they won't make it over the long run.  I'd be fine if Jay is collateral damage if that moves Bruce out of the FO.   But if Jay leaves and Bruce stays -- I don't see the Lincoln Riley types headed here.  I think it will be more likely the 3rd tier types in the mode of Jim Fassel, Jim Zorn, Spags -- and whichever third tier dude is cozy with Bruce like Raheem Morris or whomever.

 

That's my long winded of saying we are likely going to depend on Kevin O'Connell.  I think he's the key guy to get the max out of Jay's offense by hopefully running the sequencing of it.    And if by chance Jay leaves and Bruce stays then I think our best hope might be O'Connell.  He's in house so it wouldn't require a major shift for Haskins.  And I doubt they'd be able to get anyone better than O'Connell in the open market. 

 

[Thinking Skins]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

If its hoghaven that's the contrast IMO its Cooley who is more qualified by a mile.    This is the first draft where I really went to town on watching multiple games of college prospects and I recall thinking at times on some prospects are they (hogshaven) watching the same games?    Digging further Hoghaven seems to use a rotating group of people to do the analysis most of whom are people like us.    I like the guy Jacob Camenker better on Riggo Rag and he admitted on twitter that's he's just learning how to do film review and is improving at it.  But he seems to put in good time to watching players.  I think more than anything is how many games have they actually watched.  

But the thing is, even with all the watching that Cooley is doing, who is to say what he'll miss vs what he'll catch. They're are so many stories of research in academia being solved by the young student instead of the professor because (a) the professor is doing too much and (b) the young person asks the questions rather than assuming. Heck sometimes it's just a matter of looking at the right sequence of things. 

 

I don't think HH is the greatest in terms of accuracy but in terms of content, your given a plethora of information and the comments are just like the draft thread here where people post disagreements and other observations. 

 

I'm not doubting Cooley's intelligence but there are a lot of former players or personnel guys who have a history in football: Casserly, Lombardi, Riddick, Polisn, etc. then there are all the other play by play guys (many former players) who have to watch tape. So especially when Cooley says something that i see as contrary to a lot of opinions, i tend to do further investigating.

[volsmet]

4 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

 

Talk about a tough audition for Kevin.  Pressure to win, No WR1, a fleet of injury prone backs is the strength of our attack, all his proven hands guys are injury prone, a journey/rookie/noodle QB fleet, presumed OL injuries looming, Trent one foot out the door...

 

 

 

There is only one group of humans that prefers to work with less - young coaches. The opportunity to feel like you are earning every yard, with your mind, is intoxicating to many ....supremely confident ... young coaches. In both basketball & football... it’s their proving ground. Most grow to want elite talent, but some love proving they can beat anyone with anyone & never grow out of that place, Gary Williams at Maryland didn’t take recruiting nearly as seriously as he could have because he liked proving his Xs & Os could beat anyone’s 5 star athletes. In NE they love flipping their talent for pieces who will play their assignments & do nothing more. Nick Saban, on the other hand, will take his ball & go home the moment he feels he isn’t working with an advantage... that guy cheats more in Maryland than Maryland, so does Harbaugh. 

 

Oh, I went wandering off. My apologies.

 

 

[volsmet]

4 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

He didn't make that an indictment on Haskins as if he's doing horribly.  He was just saying that if he's ahead of schedule, we would know because it would be talked about.  He actually said the same of Case, that there's no gushing or loving on how Case has picked up the offense to this point either. 

 

I was probably more disappointed by the DH pick than anyone in the world, but his upside is clearly immense to anyone being objective ... I think people still underestimate how difficult it is to do what DH is trying to do. 14 starts ago he was playing some group of 165lb kids who all run 6.0 40s & now he’s going to be tasked with trying to beat NFL defenses from the pocket. Mahomes, Dak, Luck, Watson ... they can all move and they all played a ton of football before taking an NFL snap — DH has a tougher job than any of them because he will have to gain nearly every yard from the pocket... no broken plays, just his processing & fundamentals one snap after another without an elite weapon on the outside. Brutal circumstances for the youngster, but the arm & work ethic are there, he just needs a zillion reps... as you already know. 

2 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

 

 

Beatnik lurkers, find out how big Jay's playbook is. And find out the way OCs typically introduce playbooks. Do they dump the whole thing on the desk with a thud?  Ask Colt, or Alex.

 

 

 

Hope the beatniks find some OCs & QBs to get feedback from. 

[Veryoldschool]

On 6/22/2019 at 8:15 PM, RandyHolt said:

If true It is disappointing to hear they are struggling with the playbook. I blame Jay.  This time off should be all about simplifying the playbook, instead of having the media pump up McCoy's tires.

 

You seem to want to run a high school offense or play checkers when the NFL is a fast-moving chess game.  Playing checkers would fail miserably and you'll blame the coach for a lack of imagination before halftime in week 1 if they tried that. 

 

The playbook is fine, the Skins QBs need to understand their NFL playbook and be able to process the field fast enough to be able to throw to the open spot on time.  Mastery of this much is table stakes for an NFL QB.  McCoy can do it, Keenum did it in Minnesota so he should be able to do it here by opening day and most importantly Haskins shouldn't play until he is able to as well or he'll hurt the team's chances and endanger himself. 

[NickyJ]

If Haskins was our only QB on offense we could play, yeah, sure simplify the playbook like people are suggesting RG3's situation was. We don't need fast results, we have Case Keenum, plus 8 solid quarters from Colt McCoy before he gets injured again. Until both of them are gone, we don't need to rush Haskins. Let nature take its course.

[RandyHolt]

1 hour ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

You seem to want to run a high school offense or play checkers when the NFL is a fast-moving chess game.  Playing checkers would fail miserably and you'll blame the coach for a lack of imagination before halftime in week 1 if they tried that. 

 

The playbook is fine, the Skins QBs need to understand their NFL playbook and be able to process the field fast enough to be able to throw to the open spot on time.  Mastery of this much is table stakes for an NFL QB.  McCoy can do it, Keenum did it in Minnesota so he should be able to do it here by opening day and most importantly Haskins shouldn't play until he is able to as well or he'll hurt the team's chances and endanger himself. 

 

Fast moving....   our QB's will be lucky to have 20 completions per game.  I don't think there is a slower playing team.  Jay is going to run a ton / slow play again this year, book it. Bet the under.  How many plays do you think he needs to have implemented for a game?  Parcells was on a pregame show laughing at how he would cut the weeks playbook, in half. Presumed after too many mistakes in practice. I can't be the only one that saw that curtain pulled back on how he prepped his offense.  I think he said he would implement ~30 possible plays to use for a game.

 

Many coaches use rookie QBs and have made the playoffs. It's not rocket science how they do it. If you want to dumb it down and call in High School ball, so be it.  Often, its just running the QB a ton, which seems to happen anywhere football is played and it sure seems successful.  Check out the rushing stats for Cam, Wilson, Rosen, Lamar.... they aren't in high school.

 

How complicated can chess be, when its a copycat league. It's all window dressing to hide doing the same things over and over.  Apparently Dwayne can grasp playbooks, or at least within reason. What Haskins lacks first and foremost is experience, and your approach does nothing to address that.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

But the thing is, even with all the watching that Cooley is doing, who is to say what he'll miss vs what he'll catch. They're are so many stories of research in academia being solved by the young student instead of the professor because (a) the professor is doing too much and (b) the young person asks the questions rather than assuming. Heck sometimes it's just a matter of looking at the right sequence of things. 

 

If anyone of us watched 6 games or so of any player, we'd have a good sense in a layman's way of a players strengths and weaknesses.   You'd think that's promoting Hogs Haven but I am accusing them of not watching a bunch of games of each player.  They hack out a lot of material quickly.   And I don't take notes as for what players I disagreed with them on but I recall commenting on the draft thread about whether those guys watch more than a game or two or watch just highlights because when they are off on some players to me they came off wildly off to the extent that it made me wonder how many games do they really watch of the players they do reports on.  I am not saying this is the case always.  But I like to read what people say after I've done my own takes and Hogs Haven was ironically the one blog that stood out to me as having takes that didn't make a lot of sense to me at least on some occasions that stuck out to me enough to remember it. 

 

Cooley isn't dissecting 50 million players like Hogs haven.  He's diving deep and watching many games of each prospect he looks at or so he says.  As an example, he said recently he's watched every Haskins game now twice.  Some beat guys who have watched film with him have commented about how intense and thorough he is about it.  So my contention is Cooley not only knows way more about football than name the typical fan blog (the guys posting there for the most part are people like us and aren't experts) but he puts in more time, too as to the players he researches.

 

I get your point but the Hogs Haven guys aren't Cooley's students.  I think anyone here could go toe to toe with Hogs Haven on analyzing any player.  I like the site and i find it entertaining so am not trying to bash them.  I am just saying all that site is doing is basically doing their own replication of what we do here but they just do it in an article form.  

 

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

I don't think HH is the greatest in terms of accuracy but in terms of content, your given a plethora of information and the comments are just like the draft thread here where people post disagreements and other observations. 

 

 

I agree with that except the draft thread here IMO is WAY better.  More detail.  More work.  It's not that I agree with everyone's take on it and am sure plenty don't agree with mine.  But we all really go to town on selling our takes with lots of research, clips, etc.   So even when I disagree people on that thread they still make me think and reevaluate and sometimes even change my mind. 

 

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I'm not doubting Cooley's intelligence but there are a lot of former players or personnel guys who have a history in football: Casserly, Lombardi, Riddick, Polisn, etc. then there are all the other play by play guys (many former players) who have to watch tape. So especially when Cooley says something that i see as contrary to a lot of opinions, i tend to do further investigating.

 

If you digest ALL the takes on Haskins, Cooley's view isn't some wacky outlier though.  There are some very positive takes, positive, so so, bust in the mix of opinions.  A dude who is drafted typically at #15 especially at Qb isn't normally some slam dunk can't miss prospect that everyone agrees on.   I think I've done a decent job of laying out all the differing opinions on Haskins on this very thread.   

 

Reddick for example isn't the definitive word on Haskins -- he's just the most outspoken about him.  If Haskins is who Reddick and Bucky Brooks think the dude is then we got the next Dan Marino.  And I hope they end up right.  But there are dissenters on Haskins too and its not just Cooley. And there was plenty of nuance in Cooley's take including loving the dude's arm talent.  He didn't say Haskins was a bust but that he'd take time.   And like I said in another post, I embrace the fact that Haskins isn't some slam dunk-consensus can't miss stud prospect that just about all agree on -- if he were, we'd have no shot at him at 15.  The Haskins lottery ticket IMO is if anything due to a degree to their being some mixed opinions on his potential. 

 

Have you ever challenged one of Cooley's homer like views of a player because he's had plenty of them including on players who weren't universally touted?  I recall you jumping in about Cooley in the past when it doesn't jive with a positive take. I didn't take notes and I don't recall the specific examples.  For the two of us to debate Cooley in this type of way -- I believe this is a dance we've done before. 

 

The irony about Cooley from our side of things is this, his position on the FO is almost a perfect split between my more critical take (he shares similar criticisms)  and your more positive vision of Bruce being a buffer with Dan.    Cooley is certainly though on the aggregate a homer about players on this roster.    He's typically selling them hard, the critical side of him isn't nearly as pronounced. 

[Thinking Skins]

34 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I get your point but the Hogs Haven guys aren't Cooley's students.  I think anyone here could go toe to toe with Hogs Haven on analyzing any player.  I like the site and i find it entertaining so am not trying to bash them.  I am just saying all that site is doing is basically doing their own replication of what we do here but they just do it in an article form.  

But the point still stands that there is often stuff on Hogs Haven that's available that Cooley hasn't seen (or at least hasn't discussed). And you can leave that site out of it if you want and just say the draft thread. I used to be there a lot too for the same reason. I'm by no means a pro scout. In my younger days I did want to do that. But I'd look at certain things and post about them and see what some of the people who were way more into it than I was said. At HH, there are generally people who are good at identifying certain things or who look for certain things. And its not even always in the prospect itself. Like for example there was a Donald Parham article recently. I didn't care so much about what the HH guys said because just like Cooley their opinions aren't that valuable to me, but they started the discussion (and because he's a UDFA who was signed so late, its a discussion thats not going on many places) and then several other people chimed in, which lead to 50 or so comments about this guys chances of making the team. I'm not saying that all of these are of the level of Kyle Smith but they give me the insight to know more about the player. 

 

And a lot of the times the things you're objecting to on HH are criticized in the comments, same as we do here. People will say "what do you mean Haskins can't complete a short ball? He's got a beautiful deep ball but he made his money on the short stuff". (I made that comment up, but it was the type of discussion you see). In fact there was a lot of discussion this offseason with Mark Tyler who said he kinda purposely says things that are more controversial to kinda instigate and draw more readers and comments. That was more of a Redskins opinion piece vs a draft piece but its definitely possible that they don't have the purpose of "reviewing film" when they post these things.

 

But my point is that when I'm able to look at say 100 points of view (from experts, novices, laypeople and whoever) on a player like Haskins and 75 of them say one thing and 25 say the other. I'd be curious to know why there's a disagreement and what led to these conclusions and to just try to get more information to form an opinion. 

[HTTRDynasty]

Didn't Cooley love Drew Lock, and thought we should trade up for him if necessary?  I don't see it with Lock.  Though I guess Cooley is a better evaluator than I am.  It will be interesting to see how the careers of Haskins vs. Lock vs. Jones play out.  I don't really put Murray in there, since he was pretty much the consensus #1, but the range of opinions on the other 3 were so varied, it will be interesting to see who was right.

[Skinsinparadise]

51 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

But the point still stands that there is often stuff on Hogs Haven that's available that Cooley hasn't seen (or at least hasn't discussed). And you can leave that site out of it if you want and just say the draft thread. I used to be there a lot too for the same reason.

 

There are some great posts on the draft thread.  It's my favorite thread on the board by a mile.

 

My point on Cooley in short was the dude isn't just some clown none of us should take seriously.   I listened for example to his podcast run down of all the offense plays from last season and he separated them by down.  I was transfixed by it.  The amount of time and detail he put in it was amazing.  And he even got into what patterns he thinks they need to break, etc.   On the Qb's in this draft he also went into great detail.  I recall reciting it on the draft thread.  We weren't that fixated on Haskins then but all of the QB prospects.

 

Cooley if anything is mostly taking homer views on players ironically.  Just off the top of my head, he was sold that Ionnaidis would be a really good player after his rookie year even though he didn't really shine that much right away.  He said watching Reiter in camp he felt that he's a bonafide O lineman and no way the Redskins would pull off keeping him on the practice squad.  He was right.  Cleveland claimed him.   He pretty much called every FA bust in advance and touted every FA success correctly with the exception that he was higher on Zach Brown then arguably translated to his play.   He was a big Brantley guy in the draft years back -- now we are hearing that Tomsula is likewise very high on him.   Like anyone he's gotten some wrong like he wasn't high on Kendall Fuller and he might end up wrong on Geron Christian who he was high on.   

 

Just saying, Cooley's track record of getting things right based on who he likes and doesn't -- has been as on the money as any film type that I track.   Bucky Brooks for example who I've watched for years, I've taken note that he often ends up wrong on draft prospects.   I've touted Ledyard and other draft geeks who I like and tend to be right from my observation or better yet agree with my takes.  😁

 

But yeah in short, Cooley knows his way around X's and O's.  He's still a close friend with Sean McVay.  And he said he really studied and became a book worm about offenses when he got to know Kyle Shanahan and Sean McVay.  And watching him every week on the coaches show with Jay, it's clear that Cooley knows the Redskins offense really well -- ditto on broadcasts where he is calling out plays based on the formations he sees.

 

And yeah I feel a little bad for the dude because I only notice the rips on him tend to come when he rains on the parade of a FA signing or a draft pick that someone on the board likes.  I am not saying that the person who likes the prospect and Cooley doesn't is the one who is wrong.  I am just saying that Cooley comes off if anything as a dude who wants to be positive about everyone so when he isn't -- he's just giving his legit opinion.  And I am glad he does it.  Because boy would he or any other film geek type be boring if they had to slant their film review to please the fan base. 

 

So yeah what got me going is the comment is who cares what Cooley thinks.  My thought is yeah that person is entitled to think that so it's not a slam on that post.   Anyone could decide they don't care and that's cool to express that of course.  i am just explaining that some clearly do care.  And it's not because Cooley's take is the be all and end all.  But for starters the dude does actually work in Redskins Park so when he says he hears something I believe him.  When I watched for example Redskins Nation filming minicamp -- you could see in some segments Cooley was actually there watching it.   He actually knows the Redskins offense.  And to me he's more than being just any random guy on the Internet with an opinion.   And I know at least some are interested.  Hence I share. 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Didn't Cooley love Drew Lock, and thought we should trade up for him if necessary?  I don't see it with Lock.  Though I guess Cooley is a better evaluator than I am.  It will be interesting to see how the careers of Haskins vs. Lock vs. Jones play out.  I don't really put Murray in there, since he was pretty much the consensus #1, but the range of opinions on the other 3 were so varied, it will be interesting to see who was right.

 

He initially said trade up for Lock but then upon watching more he said he would take him at 15 but wouldn't trade up for him.   I liked Lock too -- but to me he also comes off boom or bust for reasons I got into detail on the draft thread.  But i am intrigued by the boom.   There are other draft geeks who liked Lock a lot ala Chris Simms among others.    You are right about the opinions on those three are so varied depending on the source.  That was if anything the mantra of draft geeks claiming to talking to personnel guys -- which was the top 3-4 QBs are so different from team to team as to how they ranked them.   

 

The Giants according to some NY reports had Jones as their top QB want but Lock just a hair behind him.  It was said enough publicly.   Ditto that the Giants delved in deep to Haskins and decided he's not who they like.  With some (not all) of their reporters flat out saying they don't like his ability to be mobile among other things.    And I think Haskins understood that based on post draft interviews because he suggested that his agent told him he's not going to the NY Giants or something to that effect.

 

But I love all of that.  Personally I understand the variance on Lock and Haskins.  I do think they both have a lot of talent but it needs to be honed in the right way among other things.    As much as Cooley is being characterized as this Haskins critic, he isn't that much of a critic. He actually has touted Haskins' arm talent.  And he ultimately said he'd take Haskins over Jones.  His main beef with Haskins is he thinks he's a bit raw and will need time to develop. 

 

Jones i think at best will be a serviceable Qb in the mode of a Keenum type.   Haskins was all over being a Giants fan.  He talked about it.  He tweeted about it.  Dressed up plenty in Giants gear.  He did dress in other gear too but it wasn't hard to miss it was mostly Giants.  He communicated to Giants players on twitter about wanting to go there.  He seemed very proud of being a Giants fan.  So with all of that backdrop, the Giants dissed him in a big way.    And I know some Giants fans are disappointed that Haskins didn't end up there. 

 

So I'd fly up to NY in a heartbeat to see the first Haskins-Jones match up.   I love this Jones-Haskins backdrop.  And i think it will be great fuel for Haskins and he will use as a motivator.   The fact that multiple Giants reports said Haskins wasn't even their choice after Jones -- I bet adds some fuel to the revenge fire so to speak.

[Veryoldschool]

 

 

 

3 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

 

Fast moving....   our QB's will be lucky to have 20 completions per game.  I don't think there is a slower playing team.  Jay is going to run a ton / slow play again this year, book it. Bet the under.  How many plays do you think he needs to have implemented for a game?  Parcells was on a pregame show laughing at how he would cut the weeks playbook, in half. Presumed after too many mistakes in practice. I can't be the only one that saw that curtain pulled back on how he prepped his offense.  I think he said he would implement ~30 possible plays to use for a game.

 

By fast moving, I am referring to the speed of the players and how passing windows open and close quickly, not the pace of play.  An NFL QB has to be able to read complex defenses to understand how the play called with the route trees the receivers are going to run is going to work against the defensive scheme.  He's got to make a good pre-snap read and verify what he read post-snap as he drops back.  He has just a few precious seconds to understand how the competing arrays map and anticipate the favorable match and where and when the window will open.  In addition, the QB needs to able make the protection calls at the line of scrimmage so he understands how the pocket should develop and lastly understand the offense and the defense well enough that he knows how to audible out of a play the that isn't going to work.  Being tall and having a strong, accurate throwing arm is needed also but those are the easiest qualities to identify, the trick is finding a guy that can process all the mental stuff quickly and has the poise and confidence to perform under duress.  

 

 

 

 

1

3 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

 

Many coaches use rookie QBs and have made the playoffs. It's not rocket science how they do it. If you want to dumb it down and call in High School ball, so be it.  Often, its just running the QB a ton, which seems to happen anywhere football is played and it sure seems successful.  Check out the rushing stats for Cam, Wilson, Rosen, Lamar.... they aren't in high school.

 

Cam Newton is as big and athletic as a tight end and is extremely quick and agile for his size.  If he lacked the talent to play quarterback he could have been a great tight end.  He is strong enough to break tackles and quick and elusive enough to be a serious running threat.  Russel Wilson is short and built like a running back.  He avoids contact but is built to take it and is an elusive open field runner.  I think he could have made a very good college running back and possibly an NFL running back if he hadn't been a gifted QB.  I haven't seen the other two enough to comment so let's get back to Haskins.  

 

Haskins is a big, thick guy but he is not considered either quick or elusive.  He didn't run at OSU that has had dual-threat quarterbacks during the Urban Meyer era.  They didn't run Haskins against B1G defenses so I don't know why you would want to try to make a runner out of him in the much quicker NFL.  

 

 

 

1

3 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

 

How complicated can chess be, when its a copycat league. It's all window dressing to hide doing the same things over and over.

Defenses disguise their schemes to create and profit by confusion likewise offenses go to a get deal of effort to confuse the defenses, the League doesn't just line up and trust athletic matchups to work to their advantage they work very hard to try to create an advantage.  If you don't understand this you are missing a lot of what is going on each week.  QBs have to understand these complexities before they can perform.  

 

 

 

 

 

2

3 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

 Apparently Dwayne can grasp playbooks, or at least within reason. What Haskins lacks first and foremost is experience, and your approach does nothing to address that.

 

If Haskins can understand playbooks than what is your objection to having him study it, game films, defensive schemes and all the rest before he is thrown to the wolves?   When you learned to drive at 16 did father put you behind the wheel and point you to the Capital Beltway?  No, you probably spent a fair amount of time studying the rules followed by practicing stopping and starting, turning the car between lines of orange cones and all the rest before getting behind the wheel on a quiet street.  Just about every adult has learned how to drive, I've never heard of anyone fail to able to pass a drivers test.  Everyone can master this skill but only a few dozen people can play QB well enough to earn a living in the NFL and of those that get a chance to try most fail.  

 

I am going to conclude my thoughts by something we can all agree with, we want Haskins to succeed and for the Skins to enjoy at least a decade with a reliable franchise quarterback like so many other teams.  Think of all the teams with long term solutions at QB including the  New England, NY, Atlanta, New Orleans, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Green Bay, San Diego, and Indianapolis.  We would all like Washington to be on a list like this 10 years from now we just disagree on how to best to add Washing to the list.  You want to put our latest prospect on the field quickly and see if Haskins can survive and thrive in 2019 to determine whether or not to abandon him and draft another in 2020.  Whereas I want to see the team commit to giving  Haskins the best chance of succeeding by not putting in a game until he thoroughly understands what he is supposed to do.  I don't want to see him crushed and broken by 300-pound men pounding him into the ground because he doesn't understand the rush he is facing and the protection scheme so he drifts out of the pocket and gets slammed.  Remember Robert Griffin in the 2015 preseason game against Detroit?  Nor do I want to see Haskins crushed waiting to see a man break free instead of understanding things well enough to able to hit his drop and pull the trigger in 3 seconds and throw through the window to where the man is going to break free.

[volsmet]

3 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Didn't Cooley love Drew Lock, and thought we should trade up for him if necessary?  I don't see it with Lock.  Though I guess Cooley is a better evaluator than I am.  It will be interesting to see how the careers of Haskins vs. Lock vs. Jones play out.  I don't really put Murray in there, since he was pretty much the consensus #1, but the range of opinions on the other 3 were so varied, it will be interesting to see who was right.

 

I’m all in with Cooley on both DH & Lock. Does anyone know his thoughts on Rosen? 🤨

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

24 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

I’m all in with Cooley on both DH & Lock. Does anyone know his thoughts on Rosen? 🤨

 

 

 

His position on Haskins and Lock are just about identical to yours.   You'd also like that he isn't a big Grier guy though he met him and likes him -- he thinks Grier is Rex Grossman. He's mixed on Josh Rosen, likes him more than dislikes him -- similar to my take and that means he copied me since I did my take first 😁 he loves his footwork but has concerns about his decision making.  

 

I might be feeling more pro Cooley than usual because he was sort of like Ledyard was to me last year -- in that my takes overlapped his a lot.   But yeah almost everything you say about Haskins, he's said similar things.   He had massive man crushes on Sweat and Risner among other prospects I recall you digging.   So yeah if you went back and listened to his draft film reviews this year, I'd think you'd agree with him on a lot.

 

My point here to others though isn't so much that Cooley's opinion is the definitive one.  But if you listened to his takes...he is very detailed and interesting at least to me.  And comes off like he did a deep dive.