Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Welcome to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State


Recommended Posts

I found this graph both fascinating and, uhm, hilarious: 

 


So this graph is essentially attempting to show similarities in offensive scheme between teams (not sure exactly what components are being used, but someone in the comment section alluded to stuff like PA rate, avg. depth of throw, etc...). 
 

But according to this we’re pretty much the Chiefs schematically. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why we aren’t getting the same production. 🤔😐  :ols: :ols: 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 4
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KDawg said:


Question: If they hired a GM, the GM hires Rivera and they collectively decided Haskins wasn’t the guy after the same performances/stories... would you be okay with it then?

 

I would need to be convinced that they had a better long tern plan in place at QB before I can accept that abandoning the development of Haskins this fast isn't a mistake and the result of a sequence of bad decisions.  If you don't have a long term plan at QB, then you don't have a plan for how to build a competitive team.  I also don't think a team with a stable front office and a plan at QB would undermine and bench a prospect like Haskins and then air a bunch of dirty laundry publicly to try and justify the decision.

 

Your hypothetical breaks down for me precisely because I think it's clear we've been winging QB decisions without a real plan, and it's a contradiction to say this situation still plays out like this following a good GM hire and the formulation of a good long term plan at QB.  IMO a good GM would have made the decision about Haskins early in the offseason.  He wouldn't have ensured a QB controversy by bringing in a second developmental prospect.  He would have either decided to roll with Haskins or he would have traded Haskins once Allen was brought in or traded Haskins and drafted Herbert or Tagavailoa.  One plan, and then everyone has to follow through on it or else.  No punting on the season and taking a year to make long term roster decisions.  No hedging at QB.  The only way a team can develop a QB successfully is to make a good plan and have everyone stick to it.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I would need to be convinced that they had a better long tern plan in place at QB before I can accept that abandoning the development of Haskins this fast isn't a mistake and the result of a sequence of bad decisions.  If you don't have a long term plan at QB, then you don't have a plan for how to build a competitive team.  I also don't think a team with a stable front office and a plan at QB would undermine and bench a prospect like Haskins and then air a bunch of dirty laundry publicly to try and justify the decision.

 

Your hypothetical breaks down for me precisely because I think it's clear we've been winging QB decisions without a real plan, and it's a contradiction to say this situation still plays out like this following a good GM hire and the formulation of a good long term plan at QB.  IMO a good GM would have made the decision about Haskins early in the offseason.  He wouldn't have ensured a QB controversy by bringing in a second developmental prospect.  He would have either decided to roll with Haskins or he would have traded Haskins once Allen was brought in or traded Haskins and drafted Herbert or Tagavailoa.  One plan, and then everyone has to follow through on it or else.  No punting on the season and taking a year to make long term roster decisions.  No hedging at QB.  The only way a team can develop a QB successfully is to make a good plan and have everyone stick to it.

 LOL at "a prospect like Haskins"

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ConnSKINS26 I made it!

27 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I would need to be convinced that they had a better long tern plan in place at QB before I can accept that abandoning the development of Haskins this fast isn't a mistake and the result of a sequence of bad decisions.  If you don't have a long term plan at QB, then you don't have a plan for how to build a competitive team.  I also don't think a team with a stable front office and a plan at QB would undermine and bench a prospect like Haskins and then air a bunch of dirty laundry publicly to try and justify the decision.

 

Your hypothetical breaks down for me precisely because I think it's clear we've been winging QB decisions without a real plan, and it's a contradiction to say this situation still plays out like this following a good GM hire and the formulation of a good long term plan at QB.  IMO a good GM would have made the decision about Haskins early in the offseason.  He wouldn't have ensured a QB controversy by bringing in a second developmental prospect.  He would have either decided to roll with Haskins or he would have traded Haskins once Allen was brought in or traded Haskins and drafted Herbert or Tagavailoa.  One plan, and then everyone has to follow through on it or else.  No punting on the season and taking a year to make long term roster decisions.  No hedging at QB.  The only way a team can develop a QB successfully is to make a good plan and have everyone stick to it.


So the answer seems to be, based on this, that any plan they put forth that wasn’t Haskins was a waste of resources in your mind?

 

Or would you have been okay with them drafting Tu’a?

 

I know in the draft thread you were against Tua, so if not him, Herbert?

 

And say, releasing Haskins?

Edited by KDawg
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:


Heath Shuler? Ryan Leaf? Jamarcus Russell? Andre Ware? Akili Smith? Jake Locker?  

 

And every one of those players had fans who firmly believed they just needed time to develop. Once they stink in their second season it's pretty clear where they are headed. Some here can't grasp this, just so so strange. 

Edited by Darrell Green Fan
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, KDawg said:

@ConnSKINS26 I made it!


So the answer seems to be, based on this, that any plan they put forth that wasn’t Haskins was a waste of resources in your mind?

 

Or would you have been okay with them drafting Tu’a?

 

 

 

I read this in his post: "He would have either decided to roll with Haskins or he would have traded Haskins once Allen was brought in or traded Haskins and drafted Herbert or Tagavailoa."

 

For me anyway, after reading that sentence in his post I wouldn't have reached that conclusion or asked that question.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

I read this in his post: "He would have either decided to roll with Haskins or he would have traded Haskins once Allen was brought in or traded Haskins and drafted Herbert or Tagavailoa."

 

For me anyway, after reading that sentence in his post I wouldn't have reached that conclusion or asked that question.


I missed that sentence, actually. I was talking to my kids while reading. Won’t make that mistake again. Thanks for pointing that out. Question answered.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to be accountable for your actions, coach!  Setting a great example!

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:


Heath Shuler? Ryan Leaf? Jamarcus Russell? Andre Ware? Akili Smith? Jake Locker?  

 

tenor.gif?itemid=18606448

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever these situations are presented to us, and lord knows there are many, I wonder if folks who make martyrs out of the head coach that makes a QB decision they don't like, will 5 years later admit "Damn, he was right" when they inevitably end up right more times than not.  I know the answers as we've seen it before and nobody was lined up to eat crow over Griffin.  It seems it always turns into a bunch of yeah, buts vs. just owning up to the fact that perhaps, maybe your amateur scouting is just that...amateur.  It's weird too, because that's totally okay.  Nobody here is paying their bills on the strength of analyzing football, yet you would never know that by reading the posts.

Edited by BatteredFanSyndrome
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites


 

 

49 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I would need to be convinced that they had a better long tern plan in place at QB before I can accept that abandoning the development of Haskins this fast isn't a mistake and the result of a sequence of bad decisions.  If you don't have a long term plan at QB, then you don't have a plan for how to build a competitive team.  I also don't think a team with a stable front office and a plan at QB would undermine and bench a prospect like Haskins and then air a bunch of dirty laundry publicly to try and justify the decision.

 

Your hypothetical breaks down for me precisely because I think it's clear we've been winging QB decisions without a real plan, and it's a contradiction to say this situation still plays out like this following a good GM hire and the formulation of a good long term plan at QB.  IMO a good GM would have made the decision about Haskins early in the offseason.  He wouldn't have ensured a QB controversy by bringing in a second developmental prospect.  He would have either decided to roll with Haskins or he would have traded Haskins once Allen was brought in or traded Haskins and drafted Herbert or Tagavailoa.  One plan, and then everyone has to follow through on it or else.  No punting on the season and taking a year to make long term roster decisions.  No hedging at QB.  The only way a team can develop a QB successfully is to make a good plan and have everyone stick to it.

 

Initially I was okay with the move, but I wasn’t able in the moment to see it from a macro sense and now the team is left with a great opportunity of 10 more games (12 when the change started) to develop a guy, but it will go wasted on a guy everyone knows is not the answer. Brutal. 
 

With you on if a prospect was behind Haskins that had potential was given an opportunity it would be a different story. I’m holding out hope Haskins can somehow work this through and earns the last 8 games or something. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Whenever these situations are presented to us, and lord knows there are many, I wonder if folks who make martyrs out of the head coach that makes a QB decision they don't like, will 5 years later admit "Damn, he was right" when they inevitably end up right more times than not.  I know the answers as we've seen it before and nobody was lined up to eat crow over Griffin.  It seems it always turns into a bunch of yeah, buts vs. just owning up to the fact that perhaps, maybe your amateur scouting is just that...amateur.  It's weird too, because that's totally okay.  Nobody here is paying their bills on the strength of analyzing football, yet you would never know that by reading the posts.

 

Post of The Year.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Initially I was okay with the move, but I wasn’t able in the moment to see it from a macro sense and now the team is left with a great opportunity of 10 more games (12 when the change started) to develop a guy, but it will go wasted on a guy everyone knows is not the answer. Brutal. 
 

With you on if a prospect was behind Haskins that had potential was given an opportunity it would be a different story. I’m holding out hope Haskins can somehow work this through and earns the last 8 games or something. 

 

I wouldn't have put another developmental prospect either behind Haskins or above Allen or in any other configuration where I have two prospects on my roster at the same time.  If you've got two QB prospects, then you're not going to properly commit to developing either one.  You have to make a definitive choice and move forward with it.  It's not like in a college or H.S. program where you have to constantly be developing another guy in the pipeline and the situation can be tolerable and orderly because everyone is constantly moving on.

 

When you draft/trade for/sign/whatever a QB prospect that you intend to build around for you future, then the only other kind of QBs you should put on the roster are vet bridge guys and career back ups.  You don't hedge with additional prospects or vets that you will end up wanting to start for several years because the team is absolutely going to abandon course the moment things get tough and try a hot hand approach.  Churn at the position is very detrimental to long term and consistent competitiveness.

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

Nobody here is paying their bills on the strength of analyzing football, yet you would never know that by reading the posts.

Probably some people here have forgotten to pay their bills on the strength of analyzing football.

But yeah, if you're so good, why aren't you getting paid to do this.  Yes, there are some profoundly stupid football people (who get there through $, nepotism, or strategically-revealed pictures, but none of them WANT to fail.  It's not like you have to pull a Charley Casserly and sleep in your car during an unpaid internship.  No, you just compile your last 10 years of pre-draft analysis (that you contemporaneously posted), which shows that you know how to evaluate draftees, and send them to various NFL teams.  "Hey Mr. GM, this guy's predictions for the draft are accurate 90% for the last 10 years.  Says he'll accept a job for a hammy with Grey Poupon and $1,000,000 for each player who's still on the team after 5 years, $2,000,000 if you cut the guy to avoid the fee."  "Until he proves himself under the gun, turkey and mayo, but the rest is ok."

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

Hope you all aren't talking about KDawg. Dude was/is a HS Football coach. Film is film, whether its HS, College or Pros. 


Don’t think they were but hey, if they were they were. 
 

I did coach college, too though :ols:

 

But I’m still learning every single day.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

Hope you all aren't talking about KDawg. Dude was/is a HS Football coach. Film is film, whether its HS, College or Pros. 

I'm not talking about anyone in particular.  I'm saying in general, we've been watching folks blame the coach for QB failures, benching X QB, etc. forever.  Often times, those who are most passionate about it tend to be those that tied themselves to the hip of the QB due to fandom and/or that they fell in love with the player through their analysis.  

 

I disagree that film is film though, at the end of the day - no matter how much football any of us have played and/or coached, there is a reason we are talking about it on this forum vs. doing it to make a living.  At the end of the day this is a hobby - like golf, some guys might shoot 120 while other guys shoot 80, but none of us are playing professionally.  I don't say that to discredit anyone as I appreciate what many guys here bring to the table, even those I disagree with.  I've learned a lot over the years just from reading this forum. 

Edited by BatteredFanSyndrome
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RichmondRedskin88 said:

Ok then ppl should stop repeating history then..... Haskins gets a pass by media, message board tough guys, etc while every play Allen does gets put under a microscope.  News flash Allen is starting because Haskins had like what two good games?  Yet every stupid social media WFT analyst wannabe act like this about Haskins vs Allen.  Back ups only take the job when the starter isn’t getting it done.  If Haskins was rolling with 300 yard games every week and he got pulled every person would go WTF at the WFT.   I’ve seen Allen get shredded more than Haskins.  And yes like I said I chalk that up to other factors than football as DGF and I said earlier. 

What other factors are you referring to?🤷‍♂️

Edited by BRAVEONAWARPATH
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'm not talking about anyone in particular.  I'm saying in general, we've been watching folks blame the coach for QB failures, benching X QB, etc. forever.  Often times, those who are most passionate about it tend to be those that tied themselves to the hip of the QB due to fandom and/or that they fell in love with the player through their analysis.  

 

I disagree that film is film though, at the end of the day - no matter how much football any of us have played and/or coached, there is a reason we are talking about it on this forum vs. doing it to make a living.  At the end of the day this is a hobby - like golf, some guys might shoot 120 while other guys shoot 80, but none of us are playing professionally.  I don't say that to discredit anyone as I appreciate what many guys here bring to the table, even those I disagree with.  I've learned a lot over the years just from reading this forum. 

 

Actually, I disagree with your last paragraph.

 

I know many guys who could have done this at a pro level (coaching). Or big D1 program.

 

It comes down to a few factors:

 

1) How much of your life are you willing to give up? Because it means not seeing your kids, skipping holidays, being on the road, seeing your partner go through some real rough patches without you there, etc.

 

2) Who you know. If you don't know people in high places you don't get to high places (in general). 

 

3) Ties that don't allow for living in another state, county, etc.

 

I can honestly tell you I've met many, many guys who could do it better than some pro guys. I can also tell you that I know some guys who were pro guys who stopped because of the politics involved. I can tell you I know college coaches who hated D1 because it was operated as a business and not working with student athletes.

 

I think there are some people in our draft thread from a scouting perspective that are better than real scouts.

 

Bottom line: Some guys at the highest level have earned it through hard work and dedication and climbed their way up. Some guys had an opportunity based on ties but earned the climb through their work ethic and ability. Some guys were handed jobs. 

 

Make no mistake, I have coached with and against guys who could do it. 

Edited by KDawg
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

I found this graph both fascinating and, uhm, hilarious: 

 


So this graph is essentially attempting to show similarities in offensive scheme between teams (not sure exactly what components are being used, but someone in the comment section alluded to stuff like PA rate, avg. depth of throw, etc...). 
 

But according to this we’re pretty much the Chiefs schematically. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why we aren’t getting the same production. 🤔😐  :ols: :ols: 

 

giphy (9).gif

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another factor to consider: none of us, knowledgeable or not, is seeing these guys every day in practice. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

 

People hang so much analysis on what the coach says in a press conference, but that's limited to what they're willing to put out there in public. A coach isn't going to want to tip off the opponent, kill a player's trade value, or sow division in the locker room.

 

Ron isn't the smoothest, most political guy out there, so parsing his statements like they're the Watergate tapes is just silly.

 

Personally, I could go either way with benching Haskins. The timing is only critical now if it's needed to evaluate others, including Turner.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, profusion said:

Another factor to consider: none of us, knowledgeable or not, is seeing these guys every day in practice. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

 

People hang so much analysis on what the coach says in a press conference, but that's limited to what they're willing to put out there in public. A coach isn't going to want to tip off the opponent, kill a player's trade value, or sow division in the locker room.

 

Ron isn't the smoothest, most political guy out there, so parsing his statements like they're the Watergate tapes is just silly.

 

Personally, I could go either way with benching Haskins. The timing is only critical now if it's needed to evaluate others, including Turner.

 

Absolutely, 100% accurate.

 

We can guess... and for some it's educated, for some it's not... but it's a guess. We don't know what happens behind closed doors. We can never know exact assignments without a playbook. Lots of guesswork in this stuff.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2020 at 1:17 PM, ConnSKINS26 said:


This reads like an archived post from a decade ago. Did scientists just thaw you out of a giant block of ice? 

Well, I am that old so maybe. 😛

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I know the answers as we've seen it before and nobody was lined up to eat crow over Griffin. 

 

This is the very reason I turned so quickly after Haskins was benched. I learned my lesson defending Griffin. I will no longer ignore the evidence in front of me for what I want to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'm not talking about anyone in particular.  I'm saying in general, we've been watching folks blame the coach for QB failures, benching X QB, etc. forever.  Often times, those who are most passionate about it tend to be those that tied themselves to the hip of the QB due to fandom and/or that they fell in love with the player through their analysis.  

 

I disagree that film is film though, at the end of the day - no matter how much football any of us have played and/or coached, there is a reason we are talking about it on this forum vs. doing it to make a living.  At the end of the day this is a hobby - like golf, some guys might shoot 120 while other guys shoot 80, but none of us are playing professionally.  I don't say that to discredit anyone as I appreciate what many guys here bring to the table, even those I disagree with.  I've learned a lot over the years just from reading this forum. 


Definitely right on the whole, but coaches and FOs are human and full of emotion, ego and romantic about their choices or how things were taught to them and can miss trends or fail to see what’s obvious to many on the outside or fans in a forum. 
 

But breaking down the why and how of things is at a completely different level. 

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...