Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Welcome to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State


Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Read the Bullock article.  Allen scrambled when he shouldn't have, in a clean pocket.  Players were open all game downfield that he could have hit.  And those two turnovers were killers.

 

Because it suits your narrative?  The bottom line is that Haskins has proven he can sustain a long TD drive.  And he was efficient in converting his short drives into TDs during the Philly game.  That likely would have won us the game against the Giants if it comes without the turnovers.

 

I've read that stuff, I also acknowledged his turnovers and clearly said I'm not taking up the cause that Allen played well.   But his play was not nearly as bad as Dwayne's which can only be described as pathetic this season.  And again Kyle made plays Dwayne is simply incapable of making.  Allen was not missing easy throws in the flat, in fact he made a difficult throw over a defender to the back.

 

I know these were in response to a poster's claim but really pulling out 3-4 drives over 4 freaking games is only more evidence to how poorly Haskins was playing. 

Edited by Darrell Green Fan
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Giants game provided Turner and the offense the opportunity to remain in a comfort zone with run, pass, and screen game being viable options for 60 minutes. As I reflect I’m leaning towards philosophical and stylistic differences with Turner and Haskins being a potential culprit in the struggles with the marriage. 
 

Turner appears to want to dominate time of possession and methodically move the ball down field with a dynamic short game. It’s almost today’s version of ground and pound and it aligns with his dad philosophically, just in modern form. 
 

Haskins stylistically does not match up well with this style of offense. He appears to needs a system and play caller who believes philosophically in attacking down the field consistently provides the best overall chance to winning. An option route to a back, swing pass, or screen game that requires unique arm angles isn’t his strength. Throwing an 8-12 yard slant, stop routes, WR screen to the far side hash, deep shots on first downs, and intermediate throws are areas he prefers to operate in. All throws that limit the need to have touch and maximize his arm strength. Ideally you Hope weaknesses are worked on over a career and develop. The Turner scheme, philosophy, and style seemed to highlight his weaknesses. 
 

I do believe some of this was coached out of him to fit in this system that’s asks the QB to methodically move the ball up the field. The guy this season is nowhere close to what we saw to end the season with Bill and KOC. Haskins isn’t a modern day west coast QB. 
 

I’m not interested in debating if he sucks or not, but curious to hear from others if the overall philosophy of the offense does not mesh well or if I’m off base. 
 

 

Here’s a 5minute clip of his 14th game last year. Definitely different types of throws he was asked to make last year more consistently.
 

 

Edited by wit33
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Xameil said:

Its probably pretty short.... ;)

 

The gymnastics people are going through to somehow justify the play of a QB the entire league knows is terrible is a source of amusement for me. I keep telling myself I'm done with the topic but I can't help but to return just to see the responses.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, wit33 said:

The Giants game provided Turner and the offense to remain in a comfort zone with run, pass, and screen game being viable options for 60 minutes. As I reflect I’m leaning towards philosophical and stylistic differences with Turner and Haskins being a potential culprit in the struggles with the marriage. 
 

Turner appears to want to dominate time of possession and methodically move the ball down field with a dynamic short game. It’s almost today’s version of ground and pound and it aligns with his today philosophically, just in modern form. 
 

Haskins stylistically does not match up well with this style of offense. He appears to needs a system and play caller who believes philosophically in attacking down the field consistently provides the best overall chance to winning consistently. An option route to a back, swing pass, or screen game that requires unique arm angles isn’t his strength. Throwing an 8-12 yard slant, stop routes, WR screen to the far side hash, deep shots on first downs, and intermediate throws are areas he prefers to operate in. All throws that limit the need to have touch and maximize his arm strength. Ideally you’d Hope weaknesses are worked on over a career and develop into solid or even good. The scheme, philosophy, and style seemed to highlight his weaknesses. 
 

I do believe some of this was coached out of him to fit in this system that’s asks the QB to methodically move the ball up the field. The guy this season is nowhere close to what we saw to end the season with Bill and KOC. Haskins isn’t a modern day west coast QB. 
 

I’m not interested in debating if he sucks or not, but curious to hear from others if the overall philosophy of the offense does not mesh well or if I’m off base. 
 

 

Here’s a 5minute clip of his 14th game last year. Definitely a different kind of throws he was asked to make consistently. 
 

 

Agree with your assessment. Turner's offense is offensive to say the least. Dink and dunk, long drive approach has been boring and ineffective to date. His inexperience as a play caller is showing and his weak scheme and poor game planning has been highlighted by Chris Cooley and others. To top it all of his "system" guy Allen doesn't even run it well. While he hit on a few nice throws he missed a TON of opportunities down field against a weak defense and his turnovers translated into 14 of the 20 points scored by the 0-5 NY Giants. We lost that game because of Allen and Turner. To suggest that Allen gave us a chance to win when we lost due to his mistakes is buffoonery. 

 

This offense will be continue to be exposed and Allen is who we all thought he was. A turnover machine that will put you in a position to lose more than win. This was the Giants for crying out loud. Wait till the teams with stronger defense units line up against this O and QB. SMDH

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, pico926 said:

Agree with your assessment. Turner's offense is offensive to say the least. Dink and dunk, long drive approach has been boring and ineffective to date. His inexperience as a play caller is showing and his weak scheme and poor game planning has been highlighted by Chris Cooley and others. To top it all of his "system" guy Allen doesn't even run it well. While he hit on a few nice throws he missed a TON of opportunities down field against a weak defense and his turnovers translated into 14 of the 20 points scored by the 0-5 NY Giants. We lost that game because of Allen and Turner. To suggest that Allen gave us a chance to win when we lost due to his mistakes is buffoonery. 

 

This offense will be continue to be exposed and Allen is who we all thought he was. A turnover machine that will put you in a position to lose more than win. This was the Giants for crying out loud. Wait till the teams with stronger defense units line up against this O and QB. SMDH

 

Not that I am debating you but how do you know he missed a ton of opportunities downfield?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, pico926 said:

To suggest that Allen gave us a chance to win when we lost due to his mistakes is buffoonery. 

 

You don't have to suggest it. He literally gave us a chance to win. Came down to a 2 pt conversion that didn't need to be called.

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

 

Not that I am debating you but how do you know he missed a ton of opportunities downfield?

See Bullock article and take a look at the all 22 if you have access. I haven't heard Cooley's offensive film breakdown yet but very interested on his take.

2 minutes ago, GOATFrerotte said:

 

You don't have to suggest it. He literally gave us a chance to win. Came down to a 2 pt conversion that didn't need to be called.

It doesn't come to that if you don't gift two turnovers that result in 14 points. Daniel Jones is a turnover machine but didn't gift two turnovers that resulted in 14 points for the opposition. I hope this makes sense to you. Celebrating a chance to win vs. an 0-5 team when you gifted them two touchdowns is well... you know the rest.

Edited by pico926
of to if
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, evmiii said:

Pretty bad state of affairs when we are arguing over which of our QB’s suck the most.

Agreed but honestly a competent OC would help reduce the level of suck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Xameil said:

Its probably pretty short.... ;)

 

The Giants game at the end of last season was literally the only decent game he had, and he only attempted 15 passes if I remember correctly. He's pretty good if he...doesn't have to throw much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wit33 said:

The Giants game provided Turner and the offense to remain in a comfort zone with run, pass, and screen game being viable options for 60 minutes. As I reflect I’m leaning towards philosophical and stylistic differences with Turner and Haskins being a potential culprit in the struggles with the marriage. 
 

Turner appears to want to dominate time of possession and methodically move the ball down field with a dynamic short game. It’s almost today’s version of ground and pound and it aligns with his today philosophically, just in modern form. 
 

 

 

Thanks for posting that game, its what I needed to be sworn off from Haskins completely unless Rivera is resold based on practices, etc.  I was hanging on that game as maybe this dude has got it. It was his best one.  But rewatching it, it was a lot of dink and dunk - short-intermediate -- YAC, YAC, YAC.  He has three really nice intermediate type throws, one of which was McLaurin was open by a mile.  

 

I'll say it was one of his best dink and dunk games in one sense.  The dink and dunk aspect of it was often 3-6 yards or so off the line of scrimmage versus screens right at the line of scrimmage and also it was one of his better games as for throwing in the flat outside the numbers -- he typically struggles with throws outside the numbers but had a good rhythm for it in that game.

 

I made this comment about Haskins before the draft which is the stuff he isn't good at, you can almost always find an exception.  For example he struggles with intermediate out routes but once inawhile, he will throw a beauty.  He struggles with throws in the flat outside the numbers but on occasion he is good at it and finds some rythmn. i'd guess his inconsistent footwork is why he is a streaky-up and down QB.  Arians in his book talks about the good QBs are consistent in part because their footwork is consistent.  

 

One takeaway is also I think he had games where he really flung it much deeper than that one?  I recall his Air-Yards number last year was good.  Or that game it ended well on average because there werren't really much straight screens right at the line of scrimmage?  So maybe what worked the best in this game for him is it was heavy on the short stuff-YAC. 

 

The biggest misperception some have about Haskins IMO is because he has a strong arm he's good at stretching the field.  But he isn't IMO.  PFF showed that via stats before the draft. Mark Bullock who was a big Haskins fan before the draft, not sure where he is now about him, agrees he doesn't throw a good deep ball. 

 

 @Thinking Skins to me is closer with the Alex Smith analogy he's used.  Like Alex, Haskins thrives with short throws in the flat.   Alex is better IMO because he throws a really consistent ball in the flat and Haskins IMO does not.  Plus Alex in his heyday can move.   Haskins can let it fly but who cares if he's not typically accurate when he lets it fly.    My biggest takeaway with watching Haskins before the draft is he's a tease.  Sometimes you are just wowed by a throw or two.  But on the aggregate if you see what his consistent wheel house (consistent being the operative word) it's the short stuff in between the numbers.  You can see it in some of the highlights you posted, he doesn't even have to move his feet sometimes but he can just fling it to a dude who is right in his line of vision and boom he places it perfectly where the receiver catches it in stride.  Slants, digs, shallow crosses, mesh routes.  

 

The dink and dunk stuff that we see in those highlights -- YAC, YAC, YAC, I do think on the surface jives fine with Scott Turner.  But I reserve judgment on that, I got to rewatch some games which I'll do in 2 weeks or so. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hailey: Do you have a cutoff point like you did for Dwayne? 

Ron: I never had a cutoff point for Dwayne

 

rewind to week 4. 

Reporter: Do you have a cutoff point for Dwayne? 

Ron: At some point you have a cutoff because you don't see the faces on the sideline....

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

It also doesn't come to that if he doesn't throw the two TD's.

What? Even if we kick field goals on those drives we win. Technically our defense gave up a total of 13 points but 7 of those points were on a short field thanks to the INT. Points scored off of turnover is the death wish stat for wins vs. loses. Everyone knows this and to suggest that him throwing two TD's makes up for gifting the defense 14 points is well... you know the rest. Come on man. You can't be serious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Hailey: Do you have a cutoff point like you did for Dwayne? 

Ron: I never had a cutoff point for Dwayne

 

rewind to week 4. 

Reporter: Do you have a cutoff point for Dwayne? 

Ron: At some point you have a cutoff because you don't see the faces on the sideline....


This is disingenuous. Ron said he didn’t have a specific cut off point. He needed to see growth from Haskins and didn’t see it. He was saying there wasn’t a specific win/loss or statistical cut off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Hailey: Do you have a cutoff point like you did for Dwayne? 

Ron: I never had a cutoff point for Dwayne

 

rewind to week 4. 

Reporter: Do you have a cutoff point for Dwayne? 

Ron: At some point you have a cutoff because you don't see the faces on the sideline....

 

 

The media here is a problem. They try to catch you up and most of these coaches are not politicians and end up getting evirated because of it. 

 

That said....got damn ron. If you are going to field the questions like this you need to study first. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Rivera have a quota for how many confusing lies he tells per press conference?  I've never seen anything like it.

 

 

“There is. To me, there is,” Rivera said when asked whether there was a timeline for evaluating his quarterbacks. “Again – and you brought up the point and it’s a very good point – there are guys in that locker room that are playing to win. Again, we have to make sure that everybody is playing well enough to win at that point. There is a cutoff point for me, there is.”

 

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/washingtons-ron-rivera-cut-off-point-dwayne-haskins

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SoCalSkins said:


This is disingenuous. Ron said he didn’t have a specific cut off point. He needed to see growth from Haskins and didn’t see it. He was saying there wasn’t a specific win/loss or statistical cut off.

So is there a similar cutoff for Allen? Does he stop seeing the faces of the other 52 guys who are trying their hardest? Do they not matter any more? Its what frustrated me initially with the benching. Its not that Haskins was playing lights out. Its that Ron threw him under the bus. 

 

People say that the whole win stuff if fluff to not embarrass Haskins, but dude literally threw him under the bus and painted a picture of 52 against 1 as if Haskins was the ONLY problem on the team. Thay's why so many jumped to his defense. And especially when we're getting the same results out of Allen. 

 

Its so funny because a lot of the same people who were poking holes in the "Haskins had a decent game today" arguments weeks 1-4 are the same ones defending Allen's mediocre game as if he parted the Red Sea on Sunday. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Hailey: Do you have a cutoff point like you did for Dwayne? 

Ron: I never had a cutoff point for Dwayne

 

rewind to week 4. 

Reporter: Do you have a cutoff point for Dwayne? 

Ron: At some point you have a cutoff because you don't see the faces on the sideline....

 

I get what you are saying.  But I still think fans are being too hard on RR.  He took on a terrible roster, he tried his best to develop a young QB who struggles with accuracy and simply is not willing to work.  Those are 2 bad hands to be dealt, fans are bailing on Ron Rivera too quickly.  Had Haskins not totally sucked we would have a different take on our coach and our team's future.  But he did suck and there's not much you can do to overcome terrible play at the most important position in the game. 

3 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Its not that Haskins was playing lights out. Its that Ron threw him under the bus. 

 

People say that the whole win stuff if fluff to not embarrass Haskins, but dude literally threw him under the bus

 

Haskins threw himself under the bus. 

 

I still can't believe so many are covering for a QB who is too lazy to learn his job.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

So is there a similar cutoff for Allen? Does he stop seeing the faces of the other 52 guys who are trying their hardest? Do they not matter any more? Its what frustrated me initially with the benching. Its not that Haskins was playing lights out. Its that Ron threw him under the bus.

 

If Haskins really did have poor study habits, and just wasn't doing enough, that was probably the catalyst to make a change. From what's come out, it seems like it was more Haskins' attitude and poor preparation that led to the benching, as opposed to his play, which to be fair was pretty poor as well.

 

There probably is a "cutoff" for Allen. If he's putting in serious work in the film room, putting in extra time, and doing all the stuff a QB needs to do to be successful, his leash will be undoubtedly longer, though.

 

I think Rivera can put up with rough games as a QB learns and grows. One thing he's not going to put up with is laziness, or any attitude issues.

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

 

I get what you are saying.  But I still think fans are being too hard on RR.  He took on a terrible roster, he tried his best to develop a young QB who struggles with accuracy and simply is not willing to work.  Those are 2 bad hands to be dealt, fans are bailing on Ron Rivera too quickly.  Had Haskins not totally sucked we would have a different take on our coach and our team's future.  But he did suck and there's not much you can do to overcome terrible play at the most important position in the game. 

 

I don't think Haskins sucked quite as much as you do and that probably somewhat shades our view.  

 

i am still hopeful for Rivera, though I thought he benched Haskins too quickly.   Haskins only threw interceptions in 2 out of his last 8 starts so for the most part he was protecting the ball.  he definitely left some plays on the table, but I think he was still learning the system which given there was no preseason and Haskins is not a book worm was going to take some time.  It is what it is, I didn't like the decision, but I have reconciled with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ExoDus84 said:

There probably is a "cutoff" for Allen. If he's putting in serious work in the film room, putting in extra time, and doing all the stuff a QB needs to do to be successful, his leash will be undoubtedly longer, though.

 

So if we're still losing games, Allen's putting up 2TOs a game (or 1.5 cause I think that's his average), we;re OK with that? I don't want Ron to throw him under the bus but he literally just acted like he didn't throw Dwayne under the bus

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...