FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State

[mistertim]

47 minutes ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

 

 

I know this is going to sound weird when it comes to a 6 TD 0 INT game, but his tape vs Michigan wasn't all that impressive to me. He had tons of short passes, screens, and dump-offs. His accuracy on anything over that was actually pretty poor. He had a couple of nice intermediate-to-deep tosses but outside of that he was consistently missing on those throws, even when his protection was pretty much pristine...overthrowing and underthrowing multiple times. It obviously wasn't a bad game for him, but IMO the actual film itself doesn't show all that much. 

 

 

[volsmet]

9 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I know this is going to sound weird when it comes to a 6 TD 0 INT game, but his tape vs Michigan wasn't all that impressive to me. He had tons of short passes, screens, and dump-offs. His accuracy on anything over that was actually pretty poor. He had a couple of nice intermediate-to-deep tosses but outside of that he was consistently missing on those throws, even when his protection was pretty much pristine...overthrowing and underthrowing multiple times. It obviously wasn't a bad game for him, but IMO the actual film itself doesn't show all that much. 

 

 

 

The few times Michigan got pressure in the middle it was ugly, then on the other side, his best 4 plays were all incomplete. Not a lot in this game or Washington that made me think, “Thorson couldn’t/wouldn’t do that”.

 

*Campbell is ridiculous.

 

[Llevron]

25 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I know this is going to sound weird when it comes to a 6 TD 0 INT game, but his tape vs Michigan wasn't all that impressive to me. He had tons of short passes, screens, and dump-offs. His accuracy on anything over that was actually pretty poor. He had a couple of nice intermediate-to-deep tosses but outside of that he was consistently missing on those throws, even when his protection was pretty much pristine...overthrowing and underthrowing multiple times. It obviously wasn't a bad game for him, but IMO the actual film itself doesn't show all that much. 

 

Listen to his film review of the game and tell me you feel the same way. They gashed them with the small plays so bad because HE knew exactly when and where the ball was going to go before the snap. If you dont find that impressive then there really isnt anything for you to like about the kid.  Thats his biggest weapon. 

 

If you need the link to it let me know I have it Favorited in my youtube. 

[Skinsinparadise]

I listend to Cooley's podcast.  Cooley isn't infallible but he's been close to on the money as to his take on guys especially for the players he isn't high on (fuller notwithstanding).  He's said he's watched every Haskins game twice.  One thing he echoed Shanny (shanny reviewed Haskins a little on a different podcast) is that the Ohio State offense is mostly not an NFL style with some small exceptions.

 

Cooley's take more or less is that Haskins thrived on mostly short stuff especially shallow crossers -- rub routes and his receivers were often wide open.  His take is he doesn't slide in the pocket well and really runs away from pressure more so than using quick footwork to dodge it.  When on the move his accuracy dips because his feet aren't aligned to where he wants to throw it.   He thinks he's really raw.  The irony though is in spite of that he would play him right away.  His take is his lack of experience is part of the issue so give him that experience.  His most positive take is you can see in the mix of his games he can make some really nice throws and he has a strong arm so give him the opportunity to work through what he needs to work through.

 

The upside is if Cooley is right about the other guys, we had a good draft.  He loves Sweat, McLaurin, Martin among others.

 

Not that I need to hear Cooley's take to form an opinion.  But it did dovetail off some of my observation which I gave weeks back on the draft thread.    Cooley said he hope's he's dead wrong.   I hope he's wrong, too.

 

Cooley doesn't think Jay's offense is a good set up for Haskins to succeed.  He thinks Jay should change it some and go with the quick game-short passes to get Haskins comfortable and mirror some of the Ohio State game.   Cooley loves making the point that Jay left to his own devices isn't a pure WCO guy and he wants his QB to go down the field much more so than the traditional WCO. 

[mistertim]

49 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Listen to his film review of the game and tell me you feel the same way. They gashed them with the small plays so bad because HE knew exactly when and where the ball was going to go before the snap. If you dont find that impressive then there really isnt anything for you to like about the kid.  Thats his biggest weapon. 

 

If you need the link to it let me know I have it Favorited in my youtube. 

 

Sure, I'd like to take a look at it, thanks.

 

As far as gashing Michigan with short throws, I'm not saying that it's a bad game plan or anything. That was Ohio State's bread and butter and it also happened to be an area where Michigan's defense was a bit more vulnerable so it's a perfect storm for a nice offensive outing. What I'm saying is that if you look at his throws outside of that, they weren't all that good. Obviously you have to be an accurate QB to hit guys in stride on shallow crossers, slants, etc but I want to see that same accuracy at other levels of the field and I just didn't really see it there. His intermediate to deep accuracy in that game tape was poor. He was consistently overthrowing and underthrowing. 

 

As I noted, it certainly wasn't a bad game for Haskins. But I also don't think there was any "wow" factor in it where I'd say "damn that was a sick throw/play by the QB...other guys simply couldn't do that"; it was a QB throwing tons of shallow passes and dump offs to WRs who got huge YAC and making a couple of nice intermediate-deep throws but missing badly on many more.

 

As for knowing exactly where he's going before the snap...sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes it's not...just depends on the situation. How meaningful it is also depends on whether that was on him or that was just how the play was designed. If a bunch of it is him making reads on defenses, having option routes, and quickly deciding on the best place to go with the ball depending on what the defense is showing him then it's definitely impressive. If it's just him throwing where he's told to throw then it's less so. Since neither of us coach for Ohio State, there's really no way for us to know.

[HTTRDynasty]

12 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I listend to Cooley's podcast.  Cooley isn't infallible but he's been close to on the money as to his take on guys especially for the players he isn't high on (fuller notwithstanding).  He's said he's watched every Haskins game twice.  One thing he echoed Shanny (shanny reviewed Haskins a little on a different podcast) is that the Ohio State offense is mostly not an NFL style with some small exceptions.

 

It's odd to me that Bullock, whose opinion on prospects I respect a lot (much more than Cooley's tbh), sees "plenty" of NFL (and Gruden-specific) crossover when he watches Haskins at Ohio State.  Really odd that Cooley/Shanny and Bullock are so far apart there.  Shanny probably didn't watch all that much film, which might explain that difference.  But the fact that Cooley and Bullock are so far apart here baffles me.

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

15 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

It's odd to me that Bullock, whose opinion on prospects I respect a lot (much more than Cooley's tbh), sees "plenty" of NFL (and Gruden-specific) crossover when he watches Haskins at Ohio State.  Really odd that Cooley/Shanny and Bullock are so far apart there.  Shanny probably didn't watch all that much film, which might explain that difference.  But the fact that Cooley and Bullock are so far apart here baffles me.

 

 

I read that article from Bullock, even took screen shots of it which I looked over last night and I generally like his work a lot.  Unlike you though I respect Cooley's opinion over Bullock's if I had to choose between the two.   Bullock's been wrong on some prospects (I got to think about it to recall whom but I recall in the past remembering that).  But in his defense, everyone gets it wrong on some prospects.   

 

Cooley's main beef with Haskins isn't though Ohio State's offense.  He said it has "some"overlap but not a lot.  Bullock showcasing some of those plays doesn't disprove anything.  Yeah i know Bullock thinks among other things Haskins is a master of the mesh concept and that will translate well to the NFL.   I've read all of Bullock's stuff about every prospect, I subscribe to the Athletic.  Shanny has his faults but he knows offense. 

 

  Listening to both of Cooley's film reviews of Haskins -- he thinks in short he has bust potential.    Doesn't mean he's right or wrong. 

 

Frankly, I don't get how anyone of us can get angry about anyone's opinion on Haskins pro or con.  It's just that opinion.  No rights no wrongs.  Cooley joked about it on air saying people are calling him a hater for not loving Haskins college film.  So he goes if he's doing film review of any player, he's giving his genuine opinion and people can take it or leave it and he wants every Redskins player to be successful. 

 

[Llevron]

 

5 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Sure, I'd like to take a look at it, thanks.

 

Take a peak its worth it. May make you like him a bit more. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, mistertim said:

As far as gashing Michigan with short throws, I'm not saying that it's a bad game plan or anything. That was Ohio State's bread and butter and it also happened to be an area where Michigan's defense was a bit more vulnerable so it's a perfect storm for a nice offensive outing. What I'm saying is that if you look at his throws outside of that, they weren't all that good. Obviously you have to be an accurate QB to hit guys in stride on shallow crossers, slants, etc but I want to see that same accuracy at other levels of the field and I just didn't really see it there. His intermediate to deep accuracy in that game tape was poor. He was consistently overthrowing and underthrowing. 

 

So im going to sound like an apologist and I assure you im not trying to be, but no QB is as accurate on the short stuff as he is on the long stuff. And there have been lots of metrics showing how his deep accuracy compares to other QBs in the class (and in past classes) and the comparisons favor him If I recall. I will go back and see if I can find them when I get home. 

 

5 minutes ago, mistertim said:

As I noted, it certainly wasn't a bad game for Haskins. But I also don't think there was any "wow" factor in it where I'd say "damn that was a sick throw/play by the QB...other guys simply couldn't do that"; it was a QB throwing tons of shallow passes and dump offs to WRs who got huge YAC and making a couple of nice intermediate-deep throws but missing badly on many more.

 

As for knowing exactly where he's going before the snap...sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes it's not...just depends on the situation. How meaningful it is also depends on whether that was on him or that was just how the play was designed. If a bunch of it is him making reads on defenses, having option routes, and quickly deciding on the best place to go with the ball depending on what the defense is showing him then it's definitely impressive. If it's just him throwing where he's told to throw then it's less so. Since neither of us coach for Ohio State, there's really no way for us to know.

 

Watch the clip. I think you may be impressed afterward. But im literally nobody when it comes to this stuff so I cant say for sure. 

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Frankly, I don't get how anyone of us can get angry about anyone's opinion on Haskins pro or con.  It's just that opinion.  No rights no wrongs.  Cooley joked about it on air saying people are calling him a hater for not loving Haskins college film.  So he goes if he's doing film review of any player, he's giving his genuine opinion and people can take it or leave it and he wants every Redskins player to be successful. 

 

Cooley does come off biased to me. Shanny flat out lies, too. 

[volsmet]

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Frankly, I don't get how anyone of us can get angry about anyone's opinion on Haskins pro or con.  It's just that opinion.  No rights no wrongs.  Cooley joked about it on air saying people are calling him a hater for not loving Haskins college film.  So he goes if he's doing film review of any player, he's giving his genuine opinion and people can take it or leave it and he wants every Redskins player to be successful. 

 

 

I’ve noticed that in forumville, when you don’t think a prospect is going to be a good nfl player, posters think you hate the prospect.

 

 

I had never encountered that off of this forum, but my criticisms of Grier taught me plenty about that dynamic. For me, the names are irrelevant, it’s all about the reps.

[mistertim]

13 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

I’ve noticed that in forumville, when you don’t think a prospect is going to be a good nfl player, posters think you hate the prospect.

 

 

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

It's possible for both Bullock and Cooley to be right, but in different facets.

 

First, Bullock could be correct that most of OSU's concepts are also seen on Sunday's.

Second, Cooley was skeptical because of how few concepts OSU ran.  I think the number he initially said was 7.  I don't know how many concepts a pro-style attack has, but Cooley could be thinking that number needs to be far higher.

Third, Cooley could be thinking about the wide variety of pro-style concepts and wants to see tape of Haskins running all of them.  Haskins had no (or almost no) plays under center and doing 3/5 step drops, or outside zone action, etc.

Fourth, Cooley might consider an offensive concept not pro-style, if there's not enough window dressing, flipped alignments, personnel swaps, etc to confuse a defense.

Fifth, Cooley could be confusing the term's of a pro-style college offense with that of an actual pro offense.

 

I have no idea.  But right now, we don't have enough information about this from Cooley OR Bullock.  There's a limit to what you can say in one article, or in a few posts on Twitter.  The good news is, the draft JUST happened!  We've still get months left to analyze pro-style vs not in greater detail.

[HTTRDynasty]

59 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I read that article from Bullock, even took screen shots of it which I looked over last night and I generally like his work a lot.  Unlike you though I respect Cooley's opinion over Bullock's if I had to choose between the two.   Bullock's been wrong on some prospects (I got to think about it to recall whom but I recall in the past remembering that).  But in his defense, everyone gets it wrong on some prospects.   

 

 

Yes, everyone is wrong on prospects eventually.  Cooley I recall being down on Fuller (as you said earlier), and even though he wasn't a prospect, I still remember how much he hyped up Pryor.  Wasn't he big on Cravens as well?  Could be wrong. 

 

I do respect anytime someone sticks their neck out being positive on a prospect, because due to the hit rate in the draft, you're much more likely to be wrong if you have the positive view.  Kudos to Cooley for that.  There are just some other issues I have when it comes to what Cooley's said/done in the past, that makes it hard for me to take him too seriously.

 

59 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Cooley's main beef with Haskins isn't though Ohio State's offense.  He said it has "some"overlap but not a lot.  Bullock showcasing some of those plays doesn't disprove anything. 

 

 

He doesn't have to show every play that he saw an overlap with to convince me he's telling the truth there.

 

59 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

  Listening to both of Cooley's film reviews of Haskins -- he thinks in short he has bust potential.    Doesn't mean he's right or wrong. 

 

Frankly, I don't get how anyone of us can get angry about anyone's opinion on Haskins pro or con.  It's just that opinion.  No rights no wrongs.  Cooley joked about it on air saying people are calling him a hater for not loving Haskins college film.  So he goes if he's doing film review of any player, he's giving his genuine opinion and people can take it or leave it and he wants every Redskins player to be successful. 

 

 

Not sure where this came from.  I'm far from angry about Cooley's opinion.  I mainly just found it odd how different his opinion was from Bullock's in terms of cross-over.

 

We're all rooting for Haskins to succeed.  That's obvious, I hope.  And this is the most boring part of the off-season, so it's not surprising everyone is debating non-stop on what we think of our new rookie QB.  I wasn't trying to attack your agnostic view on the pick, or your hesitance to buy into the hype or whatever.  Just pointing out one small part of your post when it comes to Cooley's comments that I found strange because it didn't jive with what I heard from a journalist / film analyst I respect.

[Llevron]

Rookie mini camp this weekend too. 

 

I still wanna sit the kid rather than change to playbook. To me, if you make it easier just for him, how can he learn?

 

 

[volsmet]

20 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Rookie mini camp this weekend too. 

 

I still wanna sit the kid rather than change to playbook. To me, if you make it easier just for him, how can he learn?

 

 

 

Everything you ever learn begins with basics. You incorporate more as the basics become routine. The speed of that process should determine when a guy is ready to help you win, some guys won’t pick up much preseason, they make the jump from year 1 to year 2.... but getting the simple things right, at NFL speed, is nearly invaluable if a coach can navigate a rookie through it. Some guys, with some rookie success, will take the rest for granted .. it’s difficult to know what will transpire between the ears after some NFL success. The adjustment to the life & massive jump in personal profile is difficult to handicap.

 

@mistertim reminded me what it felt like to have diet soda through the nose, phenomenal GIFing.

 

[Anselmheifer]

Cooley's opinion doesn't sound that damning. He basically says Haskins is raw. Well, he's only started one year in college. He's smart and hard working and has a huge arm. I don't love his feet, and I don't think I love his deep accuracy, but he's worlds more talented than anything we've had lately and was a no-brainer pick at 15. If he has a 25% chance to be a special, franchise caliber QB, you have to take that chance. Eventually you will hit on one of those guys. If he sucks, the team will suck and we can go back to the well with a higher pick at another juncture. 

I like, but don't love Haskins. I still think it was the pick they had to make, and it is a whole universe better than getting stuck with Daniel Jones. 

[volsmet]

8 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

was a no-brainer pick at 15

 

We were uniquely prepared. 

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

Second, Cooley was skeptical because of how few concepts OSU ran.  I think the number he initially said was 7.  I don't know how many concepts a pro-style attack has, but Cooley could be thinking that number needs to be far higher.

 

 

This was my thought as well. It isn't that Haskins ran no pro concepts at OSU, just that he possibly didn't run many. The underneath mesh stuff is pointed out as being something that's in NFL playbooks as well, and that's true. But from what I saw (and from my admittedly limited knowledge) OSU ran that general concept a **** ton; they really beat that horse. That's not knocking it...it worked as they had the right personnel for it and Haskins executed it well. But NFL defenses are much faster, more complex, and require a much wider variety of looks. Now, that isn't really a knock on Haskins specifically. Pretty much every rookie QB is going to have to learn a more complex system, even if they did come from one in college that ran NFL level plays. The ability to understand and adjust to a pro system isn't really a huge concern for me with Haskins as all indications are he's a very bright kid and a hard worker. His inexperience, footwork, and shaky performance when pressured are more worrisome to me.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

 

 

[volsmet]

5 minutes ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

 

 

He’d still be in the DMV, just not in the NFL. 

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Just now, volsmet said:

 

He’d still be in the DMV, just not in the NFL. 

Agree to disagree on that one. 😀

[Skinsinparadise]

15 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Yes, everyone is wrong on prospects eventually.  Cooley I recall being down on Fuller (as you said earlier), and even though he wasn't a prospect, I still remember how much he hyped up Pryor.  Wasn't he big on Cravens as well?  Could be wrong. 

 

 

 I don't recall him big on Cravens but perhaps I forgot.  He's pretty much nailed every FA bust in advance -- that's his wheel house.  I recall he was a big Wentz guy over Goff before the draft.  He was trashing RG3 in Jay's camp from his own observations while others said he was looking great.    He got some obscure stuff like Reiter can play and if they try to get him on the practice squad he will be taken.  He was a big Quinn guy I guess will see if he's on the money about him this season. 

 

He's gotten a lot right.  And he does the coaches show with Jay every week during the season and goes golfing with Jay here and there so when he says he knows their offense and Jay's scheme, I believe him. He charted every play of Jay's offense last year -- it was a good listen.  Heck on the game broadcasts he predicts plays pretty well based on the formations he sees.   The other thing I like about him he's willing to change his mind as he sees things change so he's not stubborn about his opinions. 

 

I am not pimping for Cooley but I am just saying there is enough for me to take him seriously.    But like I said I formed my opinion on players without regard to Cooley.  I don't always agree with him but I respect that he knows how to do film reviews and is often correct.

 

15 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Not sure where this came from.  I'm far from angry about Cooley's opinion.  I mainly just found it odd how different his opinion was from Bullock's in terms of cross-over.

 

 

Obviously i am no expert on any player.  But I am good on one front which is digesting tomes of information from others who are expert types.  I've listened to just about every draft podcast on the planet.   And on Haskins specifically, there are multiple people who have said there are plenty of Ohio State concepts that overlap with the NFL and there are also plenty who say that's not really the case.  So it's a mixed take.  And as much as I like Bullock I don't take him as the definitive opinion to break that tie so to speak.   I'd take the combination of Cooley and Shanny more seriously than Bullock -- but that's me.  

 

Having said that it wasn't Cooley's operative point.  He tried to be a little nicer in his last podcast then his previous one on the subject.  So if we are going purely on his take -- his issue is in his mind Haskins is raw with high bust potential.    The scheme is a gravy point not the main plot. 

 

15 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Not sure where this came from.  I'm far from angry about Cooley's opinion.  I mainly just found it odd how different his opinion was from Bullock's in terms of cross-over.

 

We're all rooting for Haskins to succeed.  That's obvious, I hope.  And this is the most boring part of the off-season, so it's not surprising everyone is debating non-stop on what we think of our new rookie QB.  I wasn't trying to attack your agnostic view on the pick, or your hesitance to buy into the hype or whatever.  Just pointing out one small part of your post when it comes to Cooley's comments that I found strange because it didn't jive with what I heard from a journalist / film analyst I respect.

 

It's not directed at you.  It's just directed like I said to Cooley's point about people being angry about his position and complaining about it on twitter.   And I notice a little heat on this thread in the back and forth (not per se by you) or maybe I am misreading that. 😀

 

I know you aren't attacking my point of view.  My take is our ONLY shot to win a SB in the next 5 years or so is Haskins is everything that the optimists think he is.  So I'd love to see it go down.

 

My best shot to summarize things that sort of captures every view here is this:  If Haskins were an obvious slam dunk stud where the concerns were minimal to laughable then he wouldn't have fallen to 15.   So we'd have no shot at him.  So it's the flaws or perceived flaws that puts him in play.   If he overcomes them or was mischaracterized in the first place -- then we are set.  But the concerns are a major part of why we got him.  

[RandyHolt]

13 hours ago, volsmet said:

 

People underestimate what a coaches playbook looks like, they weigh 48lbs. 

 

You may be onto something.

 

Lets compare playbook thickness and record in a QBs first 3 years.  I would wager the guys with a thinner playbook have a better collective record than the poor guy expected to memorize the bible over the summer.  We could go advanced stats etc and factor in strength of opponent, expected win etc, or we could go nutso and also look at the record of QBs who got to run lots of his college playbook. Nah, that is WAY too difficult.

 

It would be null for most decades of the NFL. My best guess:  a smaller playbook + college plays = MUCH better record. Its a small data set since catering to a QB to the levels we see now was frowned upon until the past 10 - ?? years, so why hasn't anyone at least tried.  If you want to do something... something something. I bet Troy Aikman can tell us which modern era QBs ran which playbooks, and all the draft gurus as well. Playbooks should be common knowledge with a little poking around asking QBs about their early OCs /  league nightmares. Start with the big busts, and then ask the QBs that played on the most teams. Imagine the insanely complex plays where a QB knew he was going to whacked from the OL and blockers consistently asked to know too much. "yellow 30 <someone WILL miss their block>... yellow 30 hut" THAT is how you ruin a QB, mentally and physically. That's at the root of the discussion. Focus on QBs who busted after college tape showed they were clearly able to compete.

 

Al Saunders dragged Todd Collins and his big ass book everywhere. I wonder what HIS wonderlic was. 

[joeken24]

'Here's the bottom line for me. I enjoy Cooley's film breakdown. But he's not the end all. Else he would be working in someones front office. Even those in the front office screw it up after spending months evaluating a player. So I've decided to take Cooley's take on Haskins with a grain of salt and let it play itself out.

[Est.1974]

Diggs is mentioned more with the Redskins these days than the Vikes

 

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, joeken24 said:

'Here's the bottom line for me. I enjoy Cooley's film breakdown. But he's not the end all. Else he would be working in someones front office. Even those in the front office screw it up after spending months evaluating a player. So I've decided to take Cooley's take on Haskins with a grain of salt and let it play itself out.

 

Agree from that perspective.  I don't think anyone is the be all and end all as for their takes. 

 

My best advice for anyone into Haskins or any player is to sit down and watch multiple games of that player and form their own take irrespective of what the "experts" say.  For me it makes others opinions borderline irrelevant except for one aspect of it which is am I alone on an island about said player.  But if you see some smart people that you respect echo your own takes -- at least for me it provides some validation that's all. 

 

As for Haskins, Cooley is far from the only dude who sees Haskins with high bust potential.  There are also people who think Haskins is a stud.  There is plenty of variance on him opinion wise.  As that was really the case on all the QBs in this draft sans Murray.   Actually that was one of Keim's favorite take on Haskins and other QBs in this draft which is it depends on who you ask, you'll get a different opinion, lot of variance and according to him that even included within the Redskins building about the QBs including about Haskins himself.