Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State


PCS

Recommended Posts

As far as Sims is concerned I still go by the most overused phrase in football "you cant teach speed" and dude has it in bunches. I know that means literally nothing if you cant catch it, but im much more willing to see a guy drop a few and then hit a couple 40 yard catches than I am to watch a QB take 20 sacks a game. Im not sure how that works in my head, but thats how it works in my head. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MartinC said:


I’m not down on Simms for his drops - I think his hands are fine. I’m down on him for what he has done with the ball once he’s caught it. 
 

But I’m certainly not writing him off. He absolutely has the potential and speed to develop. 

 

I think you're right to be a little skeptical.  Yesterday was a rough game from him.  TBH, I thought none of our skill players other than Peterson and McLaurin played well.  Sims's mistakes were conspicuous given how often he was targeted and how many of them he made.  But that touchdown catch though... I'm willing to give a lot of rope to a rookie who can make that play.

 

The bottom line complaint for me though is the lack of physicality with him.  He looks maxed out in terms of weight/bulk and he's just a small guy.  Realistically, he's never going to be able to block at that size.  I think we need good blocking from our slot guys to run effectively from an 11 personnel shotgun and pistol spreads, which I believe to be the best way to space the field for all of the young speed we suddenly have in our offensive skill group (McLaurin, Guice, Love, Sims) + a young QB with the arm strength to make special throws at the numbers.

 

I would rather see Harmon eventually settle into a big slot starting role, which would make it so that Sims would only see the field as an injury/special package sub in three receiver sets.  Right now we need Harmon on the outside, but big slot is his best position IMO because it hides his inability to build up separation against man coverage on the outside and takes advantage of his physicality as a receiver and blocker.  I would keep Sims though, as I do think he offers value in the return game and as a fourth receiver/speed sub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I think you're right to be a little skeptical. 

 

Agreed. 

 

I do not like how people give Haskins every benefit of the doubt under the sun and not Sims, though. For instance:

 

"Look who Haskins is throwing to"

 

But the same response of "look who is throwing the ball to Sims!" would be viewed as taboo.

 

I'm certainly not sitting here and saying that Sims is a sure bet. I think he has some tools that give him an edge, but the guy has to be dedicated to his craft and learn from his mistakes to improve. I haven't seen bad attitude out of him, but he's also not in the spotlight as much as other guys are.

 

To me, it's about consistency. He (and all the rookies) need to find it to be successful.

 

To that end, I'm skeptical about his ability to be the slot guy, but encouraged. The same can be said for Haskins after last game. Skeptical, but encouraged from his last outing.

 

It's also easier to develop a wide receiver (strictly in the sense that keeping a guy with development potential isn't as critical as doing the same in a position like quarterback). The guy has good slot receiver potential, better than Quinn despite the stats, because Quinn is at his ceiling where Sims is clearly not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I think you're right to be a little skeptical.  Yesterday was a rough game from him.  TBH, I thought none of our skill players other than Peterson and McLaurin played well.  Sims's mistakes were conspicuous given how often he was targeted and how many of them he made.  But that touchdown catch though... I'm willing to give a lot of rope to a rookie who can make that play.

 

The bottom line complaint for me though is the lack of physicality with him.  He looks maxed out in terms of weight/bulk and he's just a small guy.  Realistically, he's never going to be able to block at that size.  I think we need good blocking from our slot guys to run effectively from an 11 personnel shotgun and pistol spreads, w

 

Agree.  Also, in this offense, you also want blocking from the Z, for perimeter runs (outside zone, etc), etc.  It's another reason why I liked Lamb (and I know you do, too).    I agree with Cooley's take on a recent podcast where he still thinks it would help to have one more marquee receiver.  I know we can't have it all.  I'd rather go for a tackle in the first but I wouldn't hate WR in a trade down.

 

https://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/college/ou/bill-haisten-a-rarity-for-the-sooners-a-receiver-ceedee/article_2a68e990-e661-5ebf-9f9a-b6849379bebc.html

Lamb’s blocking is the reason I consider him the most complete player in Norman. This man is the antithesis of so many diva receivers who do virtually nothing if they’re not targeted on a play.

“I take blocking very seriously,” Lamb explained. “It’s just as good as scoring yourself. People view it as if you scored yourself. I’ve always been a team player. Never selfish.”

Everyone saw the Alabama block.

As Murray scrambled downfield, Lamb peeled back and smoked Crimson Tide linebacker Mack Wilson with a crushing block.

Coach Lincoln Riley appreciated that effort, but he loves Lamb’s commitment to blocking on more routine plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Seems plausible to me that Meyer could both A. not have a really warm relationship with Dwayne and B. still stick up for him because he did play for him.  Just because a relationship isn't warm doesn't mean it's bad.

 

This is how I read it too.  I just don't want Meyer to coach here at all so am secretly hoping that the relationship isn't good so Snyder won't hire him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

This is how I read it too.  I just don't want Meyer to coach here at all so am secretly hoping that the relationship isn't good so Snyder won't hire him.


The report/speculation on Meyer was he is someone Snyder is consulting on re the coaching hire not someone who is going to be the coach. 
 

Take that for what it’s worth because unless reporters/sources are literally inside Snyder head no one really knows. And everything is subject to change depending which side of the bed Dan gets out of on any given day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

Agreed. 

 

I do not like how people give Haskins every benefit of the doubt under the sun and not Sims, though. For instance:

 

"Look who Haskins is throwing to"

 

But the same response of "look who is throwing the ball to Sims!" would be viewed as taboo.

 


I know this is a general comment and not directed at anyone specifically.  But as someone who has been critical of Simms in this thread so far I just want to be clear o totally agree about Simms potential - I am not arguing he should not be part of the roster next year and be developed.

 

My argument/observation is just that SO FAR his production is no better (and in fact almost identical) to Quinn. And I think we can all agree we need a lot more than that from the slot.

 

I would be looking at a really good WR draft class to see if we can upgrade that spot or at least have competition. There are a couple of big names possibly going to hit free agency as well (but I’d be wary of big name free agent receivers).

 

Now I’m also on record as saying I would not be drafting or signing serious completion for Haskins for next season. I would roll with him and be all in on his development. 
 

Why the different approach for Haskins versus Simms?

 

The cost (in draft capital and/or cap space) to bring in serious competition for Haskins is an order of magnitude more for a potential starting QB compared to a slot receiver. And also, rightly or wrongly, the fact that we took Haskins with a reasonably high first round pick (and he’s a QB) gives him more rope than an UDFA slot receiver.

 

Simms is going to be here next year just based on his return ability. That’s means he’s going to be active as well. He has athletic ability - let’s hope he develops his route running and can make a contribution as a receiver as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

 

The cost (in draft capital and/or cap space) to bring in serious competition for Haskins is an order of magnitude more for a potential starting QB compared to a slot receiver. And also, rightly or wrongly, the fact that we took Haskins with a reasonably high first round pick (and he’s a QB) gives him more rope than an UDFA slot receiver.

 

 

See, I tend to think opposite. I don't believe in the sunken cost model. Your cost was your cost but its in the past. If you do not think there is a future, you don't mortgage everything to stick with a guy who you aren't sure can get it done. You use resources to fix what you need to fix to be competitive. 

 

To that end, I'd argue that quarterback is a much bigger need than a potential slot receiver/return man and thus is an area to be looked at much more thoroughly. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KDawg said:

I do not like how people give Haskins every benefit of the doubt under the sun and not Sims, though. For instance:

 

 

Haskins is a blue chip QB prospect who we drafted in the first round.  Sims is an undersized UDFA return man and slot receiver.  Of course Haskins gets more rope than Sims and commands a much stronger commitment from the organization, naturally so.  He cost a ton more to get, he's far less replaceable, and his potential impact dwarfs Sims's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KDawg said:

 

See, I tend to think opposite. I don't believe in the sunken cost model. Your cost was your cost but its in the past. If you do not think there is a future, you don't mortgage everything to stick with a guy who you aren't sure can get it done. You use resources to fix what you need to fix to be competitive. 

 

To that end, I'd argue that quarterback is a much bigger need than a potential slot receiver/return man and thus is an area to be looked at much more thoroughly. 

 

 


Reasonable minds can differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Haskins is a blue chip QB prospect who we drafted in the first round.  Sims is an undersized UDFA return man and slot receiver.  Of course Haskins gets more rope than Sims and commands a much stronger commitment from the organization, naturally so.  He cost a ton more to get, he's far less replaceable, and his potential impact dwarfs Sims's.

 

Blue chip in what way? Arm talent? Numbers? College he attended?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Talent and collegiate production and grade.

 

But scouts miss, too. And not every scout believed he was blue chip.

 

I thought he was closer to blue chip than not, for sure. But I'm not sure a pre-draft grade justifies sticking with a guy who isn't "the guy".

 

Now, having said that, Haskins has shown improvement over the last few weeks and if he keeps moving forward, I would typically agree that he could be the guy, and I would absolutely agree that he needs to stay on the roster regardless.

 

And in using collegiate production as a blue chip assignment tool, does that make Timmy Chang a blue chipper? Sure, he wasn't prototypical... but neither was Russell Wilson. Or Lamar Jackson or Drew Brees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MartinC said:


I’m not down on Simms for his drops - I think his hands are fine. I’m down on him for what he has done with the ball once he’s caught it. 
 

But I’m certainly not writing him off. He absolutely has the potential and speed to develop. 

Sims has 96 yards after catch (compared to Quinn's 56, almost double). And he has a 82 yards rushing (a 65 yard long) with 55 yards after contact and a 91 yard punt return. The one thing I'd be more critical about with Sims is his hands (I said that what scared me the most about his return was his drop of it) but the guy is dangerous with the ball when he gets it in his hand. That's why Gruden had him running gadget plays early in the season instead of developing him as a legit WR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

But scouts miss, too. And not every scout believed he was blue chip.

 

I thought he was closer to blue chip than not, for sure. But I'm not sure a pre-draft grade justifies sticking with a guy who isn't "the guy".

 

Now, having said that, Haskins has shown improvement over the last few weeks and if he keeps moving forward, I would typically agree that he could be the guy, and I would absolutely agree that he needs to stay on the roster regardless.

 

And in using collegiate production as a blue chip assignment tool, does that make Timmy Chang a blue chipper? Sure, he wasn't prototypical... but neither was Russell Wilson. Or Lamar Jackson or Drew Brees.

 

I thought it was interesting that McCloughan said he would've taken him sooner (than where we took him). I don't think I've ever seen so many varied takes on one guy before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

I thought it was interesting that McCloughan said he would've taken him sooner. I don't think I've ever seen so many varied takes on one guy before.

 

It's all over the map. I'm not sure varied takes make a guy a blue chip caliber guy, though to be fair, the whole blue chip caliber thing is largely subjective and it varies from person to person. So one guy who is a blue chip to you may not be to me.

 

So in order to have a real conversation, I think you need to look at consensus to use terms like blue chip (though you[meaning anyone reading, not necessarily you] may or may not agree, that's not relevant to the conversation). If using consensus on Haskins, was he really a blue chipper? I guess I'm not sure, but I've seen opinions all over the board, even pre-draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

See, I tend to think opposite. I don't believe in the sunken cost model. Your cost was your cost but its in the past. If you do not think there is a future, you don't mortgage everything to stick with a guy who you aren't sure can get it done. You use resources to fix what you need to fix to be competitive. 

 

To that end, I'd argue that quarterback is a much bigger need than a potential slot receiver/return man and thus is an area to be looked at much more thoroughly. 

 

 

 

I think you are only responding to the poster's second sentence which dealt with sunken costs.  His first sentence dealt with the current cost of bringing in competition which is not a sunken cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, philibusters said:

 

I think you are only responding to the poster's second sentence which dealt with sunken costs.  His first sentence dealt with the current cost of bringing in competition which is not a sunken cost.

 

I didn't find that to be all that relevant. You can use a 6th rounder to find Tom Brady. Or a 1st to find Akili Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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