Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Welcome to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, KDawg said:


Yet make every excuse for his shortcomings... including pretending the Bengals supporting cast is good to prop your point.

 

Reading comprehension again.  When did I ever call them "good"?  I've made it clear that I think it's better than ours, but nowhere did I say it was good.

 

But you seem to need to deliberately misconstrue my points in order to argue against them.  It's a theme with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Reading comprehension again.  When did I ever call them "good"?  I've made it clear that I think it's better than ours, but nowhere did I say it was good.

 

But you seem to need to deliberately misconstrue my points in order to argue against them.  It's a theme with you.


Am I misconstruing it? Unless you’re making the point that the Bengals stink, too, and Burrow is still getting it done, pointing out that a team has a very slightly better cast than another does absolutely nothing to prop your point.

 

Im not sure why you’d even start to go down that road unless you think they’re good.

Edited by KDawg
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, httr2020dynasty said:

 

This right here.. I think those that have been watching the WFT for decades are in this camp, the one that is simply burnt out on hearing "be patient" with young qbs that don't look the part while so many young qbs are coming in the league and making an instant impact on the team. We've heard it so many times and it never works out. This time I'm just not going to do that, and going to move on early to find someone that can make an impact and doesn't need an all star cast around them to look like they can complete a pass over 5 yards. 

 

This X 1,000.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

So to sum up your point, correct me if I am wrong.

 

A.  You don't think he's a top 10 franchise type of QB.

 

B.  They have made it more difficult by giving him a horrific supporting cast.

 

If so, I agree, that's pretty much where i am at.  My main point is i'd cut bait if things don't pick up this season if we end up with a top pick where we can get a potentially marquee QB.  


I have learned that discussion on the ES is something some will always manipulate into something personal, if I criticize Haskins too harshly, certain ESers actually take it personally. I want cheap QBs, but more than anything, I just want us to love one another ... and I’ll take an offensive line.
 

I don’t think you have to get the QB right, I think it’s difficult to be awful behind a great OL, I think preparation & health are underrated, I’d pay two guys nobody wanted, let them relax behind the best OL in the game, get them two great TEs & a #1 wr, get them any of the explosive 3rd down backs, and we’d score all day long on just about anyone. I’d probably start my two bum QBs every other week, I think there is a bigger advantage to rest and extra preparation than there is to “chemistry”, Herbert didn’t need chemistry, these guys come in and perform all the time after not being hit for weeks. 
 

Haskins isn’t anywhere near ready to make up for all of our deficiencies, but who is? His mechanics fail him constantly and the first two games have shown regression because his protection has gotten worse. You can’t improve on anything if you don’t have confidence that you’re not going to be obliterated. 

27 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

The biggest fear I have is that he shows just enough to give the team hope, so they stick with him and he never develops. And I think this is the most likely scenario. 

 

To steal lines from another thread, including my own, if teams did what some of our fans want them to do the Cards would still be waiting on Josh Rosen to develop because he has shown flashes and has a big arm. Most often if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.  We have an entire season to find out if we have a player or a duck.  


I’ll take Josh Rosen.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, volsmet said:


I have learned that discussion on the ES is something some will always manipulate into something personal, if I criticize Haskins too harshly, certain ESers actually take it personally. I want cheap QBs, but more than anything, I just want us to love one another ... and I’ll take an offensive line.
 

I don’t think you have to get the QB right, I think it’s difficult to be awful behind a great OL, I think preparation & health are underrated, I’d pay two guys nobody wanted, let them relax behind the best OL in the game, get them two great TEs & a #1 wr, get them any of the explosive 3rd down backs, and we’d score all day long on just about anyone. I’d probably start my two bum QBs every other week, I think there is a bigger advantage to rest and extra preparation than there is to “chemistry”, Herbert didn’t need chemistry, these guys come in and perform all the time after not being hit for weeks. 
 

Haskins isn’t anywhere near ready to make up for all of our deficiencies, but who is? His mechanics fail him constantly and the first two games have shown regression because his protection has gotten worse. You can’t improve on anything if you don’t have confidence that you’re not going to be obliterated. 


So much this. I am on board the fix the line and see what happens as it comes camp. 
 

Even giving Haskins another year, assuming he doesn’t have a total meltdown, in order to fix the line and protect him OR the next guy. Haskins has done enough to earn the ability to be upright at the very least. And if he still doesn’t get it done, the next guy has a line and we can adequately assess him. 
 

There is literally no down side in fixing the line. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KDawg said:


Am I misconstruing it? Unless you’re making the point that the Bengals stink, too, and Burrow is still getting it done, pointing out that a team has a very slightly better cast than another does absolutely nothing to prop your point.

 

Im not sure why you’d even start to go down that road unless you think they’re good.

 

First of all, Haskins has the higher passer rating and the higher ANY/A, so I disagree that he's not "getting it done" compared to Burrow.  Him passing the ball 60 times last week seems to have confused people.

 

Second, the weapons and OL Burrow has is better.  That doesn't mean I think they're "good" relative to the rest of the league.  It also doesn't mean I think they're only "very slightly better" than ours.  I think they are a tier or two above ours, which is an appreciable difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KDawg said:


So much this. I am on board the fix the line and see what happens as it comes camp. 
 

Even giving Haskins another year, assuming he doesn’t have a total meltdown, in order to fix the line and protect him OR the next guy. Haskins has done enough to earn the ability to be upright at the very least. And if he still doesn’t get it done, the next guy has a line and we can adequately assess him. 
 

There is literally no down side in fixing the line. 


Wentz looks like a pile of crap without trust in his line, we have far more significant problems than QB. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had Kyler I’d be most excited about the opportunity to trade him before he demanded half a billion. Preferably trade him within my division. 

1 minute ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Well sure there is if they pass on a good QB prospect to take an offensive lineman.  

 

 


If we don’t have a line, we won’t have a good QB.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Well sure there is if they pass on a good QB prospect to take an offensive lineman.  

 

 


Disagree. A good line makes a bad QB much better. Very rarely do you see a line that can run or pass block and then have a QB who is hot garbage.

 

You can have a good/decent QB behind a bad line, though, and watch what happens.

 

I don’t know that Haskins is the guy. Right now I’d say no. But I think he can ABSOLUTELY be an adequate starter for us... if we had a line.

3 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

First of all, Haskins has the higher passer rating and the higher ANY/A, so I disagree that he's not "getting it done" compared to Burrow.  Him passing the ball 60 times last week seems to have confused people.

 

Second, the weapons and OL Burrow has is better.  That doesn't mean I think they're "good" relative to the rest of the league.  It also doesn't mean I think they're only "very slightly better" than ours.  I think they are a tier or two above ours, which is an appreciable difference.


Burrow throwing 61 times is not why he looked good. He was calm, controlled, strong in the pocket, quick with decisions when his protection broke down, moved when he had to, stayed in the pocket and fired the ball.

 

He wasn’t perfect. Missed on a few more than you’d like. But all in all he looked like a franchise level quarterback the last two weeks. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KDawg said:


Disagree. A good line makes a bad QB much better. Very rarely do you see a line that can run or pass block and then have a QB who is hot garbage.

 

You can have a good/decent QB behind a bad line, though, and watch what happens.

 

I don’t know that Haskins is the guy. Right now I’d say no. But I think he can ABSOLUTELY be an adequate starter for us... if we had a line.


Burrow throwing 61 times is not why he looked good. He was calm, controlled, strong in the pocket, quick with decisions when his protection broke down, moved when he had to, stayed in the pocket and fired the ball.

 

He wasn’t perfect. Missed on a few more than you’d like. But all in all he looked like a franchise level quarterback the last two weeks. 

 

Pretty sure we've had this discussion before.   Russell Wilson has never had a good OL, as mentioned once Cousins replace Griffin and Collins replaced Campbell suddenly they moved the ball with the same OL and weapons. 

 

No to me it's always going to be about the QB. Every draft we see teams using top picks, or more revealing trading multiple high picks, to take a QB. They don't do that with other positions. If the GMs really felt the way to build an offense is to build the line and find a "decent' average QB they would not be trading such draft assets on a QB.  But they don't do that, they try like crazy to find the franchise QB that virtually every long term winner has because they know he will be a much bigger difference maker than a good OL. 

 

 

Edited by Darrell Green Fan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Burrow throwing 61 times is not why he looked good. He was calm, controlled, strong in the pocket, quick with decisions when his protection broke down, moved when he had to, stayed in the pocket and fired the ball.

 

He wasn’t perfect. Missed on a few more than you’d like. But all in all he looked like a franchise level quarterback the last two weeks. 

 

And on top of that, the only way you can throw the ball 61 times is if you're completing passes and moving the sticks. The WFT didn't even run 61 total plays last game, lol. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrancesWithWolves said:

 

 

On a side note Justin Herbert, at #14 in qbr, came off the bench cold after no first team reps in 2 weeks and looked like a keeper out of the gate. (small sample size of course)

PFF was not that high on him, they ranked him ahead of only Haskins, Wentz, and Lock

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Lol @ people looking using youth as a positive when comparing Cincy's supporting cast to ours right now.  Very sneaky way to prop their argument up.  We're not talking about a few years from now, we're talking about today.


Kind of amusing to see that...and a little disappointing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Pretty sure we've had this discussion before.   Russell Wilson has never had a good OL, as mentioned once Cousins replace Griffin and Collins replaced Campbell suddenly they moved the ball with the same OL and weapons. 

 

No to me it's always going to be about the QB. Every draft we see teams using top picks, or more revealing trading multiple high picks, to take a QB. They don't do that with other positions. If the GMs really felt the way to build an offense is to build the line and find an average QB they would not be trading such draft assets on a QB. 

 

 


If your QB can run around like Wilson, perhaps having no OL makes him tougher to defend. On script, you need an OL.

 

Bipeds are silly creatures, they invest too much into QBs and they end up with Trubisky & Glennon & Foles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Pretty sure we've had this discussion before.   Russell Wilson has never had a good OL, as mentioned once Cousins replace Griffin and Collins replaced Campbell suddenly they moved the ball with the same OL and weapons. 

 

No to me it's always going to be about the QB. Every draft we see teams using top picks, or more revealing trading multiple high picks, to take a QB. They don't do that with other positions. If the GMs really felt the way to build an offense is to build the line and find an average QB they would not be trading such draft assets on a QB. 

 

 


Wilson is an elite quarterback.

 

My assertion is that a hall of fame type guy can make a meh line look good.

 

A good/decent QB can make a decent line look great. (And vice versa). But at the same time, a bad line hurts them.

 

So who do I mean when I say HOF QB? 
 

Brady, Wilson, Manning, Rodgers, Mahomes and likely Lamar if he plays for long enough. That’s about the extent of it in my opinion. 
 

So unless it’s THAT guy, you need a good line. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Burrow throwing 61 times is not why he looked good. He was calm, controlled, strong in the pocket, quick with decisions when his protection broke down, moved when he had to, stayed in the pocket and fired the ball.

 

He wasn’t perfect. Missed on a few more than you’d like. But all in all he looked like a franchise level quarterback the last two weeks. 

 

If you say so.  I'm not going to try to argue with subjective observations.  That'll get us nowhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, httr2020dynasty said:

 

And on top of that, the only way you can throw the ball 61 times is if you're completing passes and moving the sticks. The WFT didn't even run 61 total plays last game, lol. 


Or, if you’re getting smoked and throwing to come back v a softer defense than the one that had shut you down earlier in the game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Pretty sure we've had this discussion before.   Russell Wilson has never had a good OL, as mentioned once Cousins replace Griffin and Collins replaced Campbell suddenly they moved the ball with the same OL and weapons. 

 

No to me it's always going to be about the QB. Every draft we see teams using top picks, or more revealing trading multiple high picks, to take a QB. They don't do that with other positions. If the GMs really felt the way to build an offense is to build the line and find an average QB they would not be trading such draft assets on a QB. 

 

 

 

This is why I want to see what Allen could do. It would tell us so much about our team. If he can come in and do work with Gibson, Terry, and Sims... then we know Haskins is simply not ready. I'd love to see it because you are right, a change in qb can magically make a bad OL and "bad receivers" look better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, volsmet said:


I have learned that discussion on the ES is something some will always manipulate into something personal, if I criticize Haskins too harshly, certain ESers actually take it personally. I want cheap QBs, but more than anything, I just want us to love one another ... and I’ll take an offensive line.
 

I don’t think you have to get the QB right, I think it’s difficult to be awful behind a great OL, I think preparation & health are underrated, I’d pay two guys nobody wanted, let them relax behind the best OL in the game, get them two great TEs & a #1 wr, get them any of the explosive 3rd down backs, and we’d score all day long on just about anyone. I’d probably start my two bum QBs every other week, I think there is a bigger advantage to rest and extra preparation than there is to “chemistry”, Herbert didn’t need chemistry, these guys come in and perform all the time after not being hit for weeks. 

 

I am in between two points on this.

 

A.  I am a big O line guy.  I don't think you can be good without one.

 

B. If you can get a special QB grab them because they aren't easy to find.

 

I've seen Kyler play live and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see being the dual threat he is with a bazooka arm and accuracy translates to franchse QB.  At least that's how I felt and still do.   I haven't studied Fields yet but as I mentioned it was wild for me to hear a QB coach who worked with both him and Fields and wow could you hear in his voice and from his gushing that he was wowed by Fields' talent and while he liked Haskins he wasn't wowed the same way.

 

So special QB, grab the dude.  Otherwise I'd go O line.  And I agree that the QB debates can get oddly personal where motives are questioned.  I find it weird.  I don't think for most its about motives.  We all want this team to win.  It's about having a different opinion and underpinning behind our points. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, httr2020dynasty said:

 

This is why I want to see what Allen could do. It would tell us so much about our team. If he can come in and do work with Gibson, Terry, and Sims... then we know Haskins is simply not ready. I'd love to see it because you are right, a change in qb can magically make a bad OL and "bad receivers" look better. 


The Haskins led Redskins smoked the Allen led panthers a season ago.  

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am in between two points on this.

 

A.  I am a big O line guy.  I don't think you can be good without one.

 

B. If you can get a special QB grab them because they aren't easy to find.

 

I've seen Kyler play live and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see being the dual threat he is with a bazooka arm and accuracy translates to franchse QB.   I haven't studied Fields yet but as I mentioned it was wild for me to hear a QB coach who worked with both him and Fields and wow could you hear in his voice and from his gushing that he was wowed by Fields' talent and while he liked Haskins he wasn't wowed the same way.

 

So special QB, grab the dude.  Otherwise I'd go O line.  


Definitely get the transcendent QB if he is there, but with the understanding that most of his value is in a trade 5 years down the road rather than on the field. 🤔

 

I only mean 73% of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KDawg said:


Wilson is an elite quarterback.

 

My assertion is that a hall of fame type guy can make a meh line look good.

 

A good/decent QB can make a decent line look great. (And vice versa). But at the same time, a bad line hurts them.

 

So who do I mean when I say HOF QB? 
 

Brady, Wilson, Manning, Rodgers, Mahomes and likely Lamar if he plays for long enough. That’s about the extent of it in my opinion. 
 

So unless it’s THAT guy, you need a good line. 

 

No I hear what you are saying, and I am not trying to devalue the offensive line. I'm simply pointing out that virtually every team that stays in contention for a decade does not go the route of a good OL and an average QB.  Tennessee is by far the exception, by and large the teams playing in January and advancing in January are not quarterbacked by a middle of the road QB with a great OL. We've seen this pattern for decades which is why I'm surprised we are still debating it.  

 

Again GMs know more about building a football team than you and I do. And again they spend enormous draft capital on quarterbacks, picks that could be utilized on the OL. That tells me a lot more than anything I have read on a message board.  

Edited by Darrell Green Fan
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, volsmet said:


Or, if you’re getting smoked and throwing to come back v a softer defense than the one that had shut you down earlier in the game. 


Absolutely. Lots of factors. But Burrow looks the part of a franchise guy despite unfavorable conditions. 
 

Is he one? Well, we’ll find out. I wouldn’t jump on that bandwagon yet.

 

But I’m kind of the same with both he and Haskins. I think Burrow has the goods, but will let it play out. I’m not sure Haskins does, but will let it play out. 
 

But what I am not on the fence about... we need an OL. :ols:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

I've seen Kyler play live and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see being the dual threat he is with a bazooka arm and accuracy translates to franchse QB.   I haven't studied Fields yet but as I mentioned it was wild for me to hear a QB coach who worked with both him and Fields and wow could you hear in his voice and from his gushing that he was wowed by Fields' talent and while he liked Haskins he wasn't wowed the same way.

 

So special QB, grab the dude.  Otherwise I'd go O line.  


If the QB can move, you’re paying for more than a QB, so I’d invest more. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...