Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Game Day Thread -Eagles at Redskins


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

That's another one.  good point.  I like Sims but I am not 100% sold yet to the degree where I wouldn't want a receiver in the mix of the upcoming draft which I think will be insane in terms of talent at the position. 

I'm still fine with Sims in the slot. I want DH to make use of Harmon more because Harmon is the guy he should be using for the tough catches you would want your TE to make. He should be our Art Monk the way he can snatch 50/50 balls. 

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

I'm still fine with Sims in the slot. I want DH to make use of Harmon more because Harmon is the guy he should be using for the tough catches you would want your TE to make. He should be our Art Monk the way he can snatch 50/50 balls. 

Yes, a 7th round rookie should be used in the same way a HOF-er was.

 

Harmon has some talent but is nothing special. His ceiling is a decent #3.

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

I liked Haskins in this game, too.  I was back and forth though on Sims, he made a great catch for the TD but seemed to blow it on a couple of key throws.  McLaurin is a star.  The team's first star receiver IMO since Monk.  IMO he's better than Moss was and D. Jax. 

I'm not going that far. I think he's a legit WR and somebody we can build around. I think Sims is good too but needs to work on his drops. Its interesting because I don't think many balls went to Harmon today. And I thought Thompson would be Haskins go to guy but he only got one or two balls thrown his way. 

 

Its cool because we can see Haskins trusting guys more, and that last drive pass to Harmon was good as well. I think we've got a legit starter in the making. And I don't like to stress about the draft right now because I'm always thinking about high first round busts, but I guess that's some added consolation for today's loss. 

 

But I was looking to @KDawg and others because I was listening to JP Finlay and Keim talk this week about Haskins's Break out game and Keim kinda said that its less important for him to have a break out game and more that he keep improving gradually. And we have to remember who he has around him. Like this could have easily been a 300+ yard day with 3 TDs. But was he setting his feet right? What went wrong at the end of the first half? What can Haskins improve upon after today because I don't want him to be satisfied with a 250 yard passing day. 

 

And his post game remarks kinda said that. 

3 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Yes, a 7th round rookie should be used in the same way a HOF-er was.

 

Harmon has some talent but is nothing special. His ceiling is a decent #3.

I disagree. I think we need to have some patience with these guys. I'd bring in some competition and potential but I think Harmon has shown he can catch contested balls and run some middle and deep routes. He's not a speed guy butyou hit him on a deep cross and he can come down with it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Yes, a 7th round rookie should be used in the same way a HOF-er was.

 

Harmon has some talent but is nothing special. His ceiling is a decent #3.

What difference does it make where he was drafted? He's strong, runs good routes and has good hands. He should be used as the tough third down receptions. 

 

I can name a **** ton of receivers drafted late that thrived and a **** ton of receivers drafted in the first that sucked. Once you prove you can play in the NFL it shouldn't mean a damn where they were drafted. 

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

What difference does it make where he was drafted? He's strong, runs good routes and has good hands. He should be used as the tough third down receptions. 

 

I can name a **** ton of receivers drafted late that thrived and a **** ton of receivers drafted in the first that sucked. Once you prove you can play in the NFL it shouldn't mean a damn where they were drafted. 

Harmon is a nice prospect, but you're comparing him to the best WR this franchise has ever had. He's a developmental prospect, he hasn't proven to be a foundational cornerstone. You could maybe argue that for McLaurin, but not Harmon, not yet.

 

This fan base's obsession with comparing young guys to our franchise's legends is aggravating. Remember when Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas were the next Clark and Monk?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Warhead36 said:

Harmon is a nice prospect, but you're comparing him to the best WR this franchise has ever had. He's a developmental prospect, he hasn't proven to be a foundational cornerstone. You could maybe argue that for McLaurin, but not Harmon, not yet.

 

This fan base's obsession with comparing young guys to our franchise's legends is aggravating. Remember when Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas were the next Clark and Monk?

Pray tell me, at WHAT point did I compare the two? This should be good.

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

I'm not going that far. I think he's a legit WR and somebody we can build around. I think Sims is good too but needs to work on his drops. Its interesting because I don't think many balls went to Harmon today. And I thought Thompson would be Haskins go to guy but he only got one or two balls thrown his way. 

 

Its cool because we can see Haskins trusting guys more, and that last drive pass to Harmon was good as well. I think we've got a legit starter in the making. And I don't like to stress about the draft right now because I'm always thinking about high first round busts, but I guess that's some added consolation for today's loss. 

 

 

 

OK, yeah than for the moment I am more enthused about McLaurin for the moment then you.  The dude can do it all.  He can help in the short game, deep threat, killer blocker, great leader -- and its not easy to shine at receiver in your rookie year.  Yet he is doing it with often mediocre QB play.  Haskins got hot today and to me its no coincidence that McLaurin has a breakout game in tandem.  He's not had consistent QB play this season, yet he is still producing. 

 

Statistically speaking if you end up with a top 5 draft pick, the odds increase that you will get a hit.  Just think about the top 5 picks we've had here over the last decade plus.    Trent Williams, Sean Taylor, RG3 (hey at least we had 2012), Scherff, Chris Samuels, Arrington, etc.  It's not foolproof but it helps.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

 

This fan base's obsession with comparing young guys to our franchise's legends is aggravating. Remember when Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas were the next Clark and Monk?

 

that was pure post draft hype so its not apples to apples.  Both guys didn't do squat from the outset.  Heck they both were panned all the way back to that training camp.   McLaurin is actually producing real life numbers.    McLaurun has a long way to go but he's off to a nice start.

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

You literally said

 

" He should be our Art Monk the way he can snatch 50/50 balls. "

That's not comparing. I'm stating we should use him the way Art Monk was used who was a precise route runner who knew where the sticks were and could snatch balls away from defenders. 

 

I absolutely did NOT say he's just like Art Monk. THAT'S comparing.

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

Statistically speaking if you end up with a top 5 draft pick, the odds increase that you will get a hit.  Just think about the top 5 picks we've had here overt the last decade plus.    Trent Williams, Sean Taylor, RG3 (hey at least we had 2012), Scherff, Chris Samuels, Arrington, etc.  It's not foolproof but it helps.

On that list the only real studs are Williams, Taylor and Samuels. Others had the hype but didn't live up to it. I'd also throw in Champ Bailey as a success and Laron Landry as a bust. 

 

But its less about that (and I understand the odds) but if I trust the scouting department I'm much more willing to trade down and look for steals instead of trying to just take these great players who are supposed to turn things around and become nothing. 

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

On that list the only real studs are Williams, Taylor and Samuels. Others had the hype but didn't live up to it. I'd also throw in Champ Bailey as a success and Laron Landry as a bust. 

 

But its less about that (and I understand the odds) but if I trust the scouting department I'm much more willing to trade down and look for steals instead of trying to just take these great players who are supposed to turn things around and become nothing. 

 

Landry wasn't top 5 though he was close.  But yeah it doesn't guarantee you get a Hall of Famer.  But arguably our two best players in the last 10 years plus were Sean and Trent.  And I don't think its a coincidence that they were top 5 players.  The top 5 players typically have a higher number of athletic freaks than lower in that first round. 

 

I am ok with trading down in this specific draft (to me trading down is not an all encompassing approach regardless of the draft) as long as we aren't positioned to take Chase.    If its Chase, I am not trading down.  

 

The reason  i like trading down otherwise is that IMO, Wills, Thomas, Wirfs are all close in ability if LT is the goal.  With WR, I love Jeudy, Lamb and to a lesser extent Ruggs, Higgins almost equally.  I got a similar opinion about other players-positions.  I don't always feel that way but I do feel that way in this draft.  

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

On that list the only real studs are Williams, Taylor and Samuels. Others had the hype but didn't live up to it. I'd also throw in Champ Bailey as a success and Laron Landry as a bust. 

 

But its less about that (and I understand the odds) but if I trust the scouting department I'm much more willing to trade down and look for steals instead of trying to just take these great players who are supposed to turn things around and become nothing. 

 

I think it depends on a couple things. 

 

1) Is Chase Young there? If so, you take him. No thought involved, and all you need is a scouting department with the ability to write his name on a card. He's possibly the best edge prospect I've seen come out in the past 10 years with his combination of size, explosion, speed, strength, moves, and production. 

 

2) If he's not there do you take Jeudy, Okudah, or Thomas with a top 3 pick? IMO Thomas is an absolute no; not worth it at all. Good but not great or elite. The other guys I'm not sure about. Both Jeudy and Okudah are top notch prospects but I don't think they're in the same generational talent realm as Young (I don't think the drop off from Jeudy to CeeDee Lamb is big at all, whereas the drop off from Young to Epenesa is huge). In that case I'd be more worried about how good our scouting department is and whether we had some really nice potential trade-up offers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Remember when Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas were the next Clark and Monk?

Um, no I don't.

But here is a better comparison (I think):

McLaurin and Harmon can be our Chad Johnson (2001 2nd Rd) and TJ Houshmenzadeh (2001 7th Rd).

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

That's not comparing. I'm stating we should use him the way Art Monk was used who was a precise route runner who knew where the sticks were and could snatch balls away from defenders. 

 

I absolutely did NOT say he's just like Art Monk. THAT'S comparing.

I swear reading these boards I see why the skins stink, they have the dumbest fans. First Monk didnt snatch 50/50 balls. Second, on what planet have you seen Harmon snatch 50/50 balls, be a precise route runner, or run to the sticks. He hasnt done any of those things regularly for you to even think about it.

 

Kevin Sheehan said it best we rate our players waaay to high. If its not Allen, its Sheriff, if its not Sheriff, its TW, if its not TW its Jordan Reed...average to above average but no elite players, but dont tell Skins fans.

 

God I can only imagine if we draft Young second, before he even steps on the field he would be a HOFer

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gibbs828791 said:

I swear reading these boards I see why the skins stink, they have the dumbest fans. First Monk didnt snatch 50/50 balls. Second, on what planet have you seen Harmon snatch 50/50 balls, be a precise route runner, or run to the sticks. He hasnt done any of those things regularly for you to even think about it.

 

Kevin Sheehan said it best we rate our players waaay to high. If its not Allen, its Sheriff, if its not Sheriff, its TW, if its not TW its Jordan Reed...average to above average but no elite players, but dont tell Skins fans.

 

God I can only imagine if we draft Young second, before he even steps on the field he would be a HOFer

Jesus, since no one likes to read the OPs, my main point was Monk was our go-to go on third down in that he knew where the marker was, had massive hands and everything stuck to them. He was the guy you relied on for tough catches in tight windows because he was a great route runner.

 

HARMON... since you couldn't be bothered to read back further than like 2 posts, has the POTENTIAL to be the guy who can fit that bill. His entire game is built around the ability to make tough catches in tight windows and snatch most contested balls thrown his way. Parris Campbell was considered one of if not the fastest guy coming out of the draft and has a whopping 127 yards. Does that mean he's not fast? According to you, yes since he hasn't shown that aspect of his game EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A HUGE PART OF HIS PROFILE COMING OUT OF OHIO STATE. Sheesh. 

 

Here was his scouting report coming out of college

 

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/kelvin-harmon?id=32194841-5220-6185-a2b0-6140674f568a

 

I also love how you state the redskins stink because of dumb fans and after you went on your own irrational Haskins-rant in the game thread. It's quite hilarious frankly. Secondly, in the second aspect of your pointless diatribe... oh boy so much to say... first you say that we overrated guys like TW and Reed and Scherff and that none of them are elite. Dunno, last i checked, players that consistently make the pro-bowl are elite. Maybe we have different definitions. If you honestly don't think Reed would be in the top 5 at TE if it weren't for injuries then you're kinda the opposite of those you complain about, you just assume that anyone involved with Bruce (as you've eluded to CONSTANTLY) isn't good at all. Careful... your narrative is showing. SECONDLY, since you just went off of misinterpreted rebuttals from your fellow irrational (and apparently illiterate fans) posters, I never said Harmon is the next coming of Monk nor did I anoint him to the HOF. ALL I said was that he could be the Art Monk of our group of receivers. A tough, physical receiver with great hands who can make those tough contested catches for first downs. He's not a speed demon and struggles with separation, but he excels at tracking and fighting for the ball in tight windows. This is what Callahan had to say about him. 

 

https://www.redskins.com/news/kelvin-harmon-has-all-the-traits-of-an-ideal-nfl-receiver-that-s-starting-to-sho

 

"At 6-foot-2 and 215 pounds, Harmon is perhaps the most physically imposing wide receiver on the roster. That size benefits Harmon in a multitude of ways, Haskins said, from blocking to running routes to making contests catches. He’s tall enough to highpoint the ball over defenders and big enough to box out smaller cornerbacks on underneath routes.

 

Interim head coach Bill Callahan touched on his size and physicality Wednesday before rattling off several more compliments: good hands, large catch radius, ability to run the short and intermediate routes and gain separation in man coverage."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The top 5 players typically have a higher number of athletic freaks than lower in that first round. 

I'll agree with this but normally it's also that they are assumed to be these game hangers. Lavar was an example, but he was undisciplined. But later in the draft there are athletic freaks (McLaurin) but they generally have questions in their game. I think about the cowboys with Lawrence in the second, or the Colts with Leonard, or SF with Foster or us with Sweat. Athletic freaks but with questions that make them not to of the draft players. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

That's another one.  good point.  I like Sims but I am not 100% sold yet to the degree where I wouldn't want a receiver in the mix of the upcoming draft which I think will be insane in terms of talent at the position. 

Not to mention the importance of depth (and what a dangerous running mate does for McLaurin).  

Right now I’d probably rate our most important needs as LT, TE, and then corner, edge rusher and receiver all lumped together (if we somehow fail to re-sign both Scherff and Flowers, I might put guard at #2).  
This is where the lack of a 2nd round pick stings a bit - I’m not liking the possibility that we have to choose between Young and a LT.
Also don’t like the idea of watching all these receivers fly off the board before our 3rd rounder.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skinny21 said:

This is where the lack of a 2nd round pick stings a bit - I’m not liking the possibility that we have to choose between Young and a LT.

 

Well the option of trading down will be there, but there's also the question of what we get for Trent and other possible trades. Honestly I'm not even as big on a 2nd as most of those picks haven't worked out for us. If (assuming we get Chase) we can simply do our normal stuff and trade down and have 10 picks on draft day I'm sure we'd get some steals. Add to it the fact that I'm almost certain we're going to go into the draft having somewhat addressed all these positions in FA, but maybe not with concrete solutions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Not to mention the importance of depth (and what a dangerous running mate does for McLaurin).  

Right now I’d probably rate our most important needs as LT, TE, and then corner, edge rusher and receiver all lumped together (if we somehow fail to re-sign both Scherff and Flowers, I might put guard at #2).  
This is where the lack of a 2nd round pick stings a bit - I’m not liking the possibility that we have to choose between Young and a LT.
Also don’t like the idea of watching all these receivers fly off the board before our 3rd rounder.  

Didn't think about it really, but Martin played a pretty darn good game for his first start. Come to think of it, I guess not thinking about  an offensive linemen is a good sign that they had a pretty good day.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

Yes, a 7th round rookie should be used in the same way a HOF-er was.

 

Harmon has some talent but is nothing special. His ceiling is a decent #3.

 

 

since when did draft position dictated how a player is used?  I don't think anyone ever said that Harmon is going to have the same levels of achievement that Monk ultimately did, but more that Harmon has the physical traits to be a good intermediate guy that can generally win battles for the ball.  He's got strong hands, there was a play yesterday if i'm remembering correctly that he showed them off.  He also has the ability to body out DBs and be a positive target.  He's not cut from a mold like Mclaurin, that he's going to outrun everyone if he gets behind him, so he would fill a role closer to what we wanted Monk to do.  Possession type receiver that can be an asset in the intermediate passing game when separation is not as abundant, due to his strength and body control.  

Edited by OVCChairman
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

since when did draft position dictated how a player is used? 

Draft pick dictates how players are used or how many chances they are given pretty often. Usually, the worst examples are on bad teams where the front office and coaches are desperate to prove their right. The same thing happens with expensive yet underproducing free agents that coaches refuse to or aren't allowed to bench.

 

For example, it looks like Norman should have benched long, long ago. The D really improved in his absence. Maybe it would have given him a chance to get out of his funk or maybe he's done? In any case, we gave Norman way too many second and third chances.

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

Draft pick dictates how players are used or how many chances they are given pretty often. Usually, the worst examples are on bad teams where the front office and coaches are desperate to prove their right. The same thing happens with expensive yet underproducing free agents that coaches refuse to or aren't allowed to bench.

 

For example, it looks like Norman should have benched long, long ago. The D really improved in his absence. Maybe it would have given him a chance to get out of his funk or maybe he's done? In any case, we gave Norman way too many second and third chances.

 


The length of the leash is completely different than how they are used.   just because a WR is taken in the 6th round does not mean he's going to be a specific TYPE of WR.  It's not a science where 1st round WRs are burners, 2nd rounders possession, 3rd rounders are slot guys, 4th rounders are burners again... Just because Harmon is a 6th round pick doesn't mean he can't be 'used' in certain roles, is what I was saying. 

 

The argument was that someone said we should use him like we did Art Monk, and the rebut was that a 6th round WR can't be used the same way as a HOF type player that we ultimately took in the 1st round.  Who cares what round they're taken in, if they fit into a role with the team, and their suited to be successful, draft status be damned.  


That goes both ways.  I think we set TOO much of a value in draft status.  People are very critical of Haskins because he was taken 15 overall.  If Haskins wasn't worth the 15 pick, so be it, but if he can still become an NFL QB, we need to let him do that.  People want to move on with him because THE REDSKINS drafted him too high.  The pick is used and done, don't pull the plug on someone because they're not living up to a draft pick that they had NOTHING to do with.  If he, or Harmon, or Ioannidis can be a good NFL player, lets let go of the initial investment and see what they can do.  We can't trade him back in and get a different pick simply because we reached.   If he had been taken in the 3rd round, people are more patient.  Why is that? 

Edited by OVCChairman
  • 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...