OC - Scott Turner incoming

[SoCalSkins]

47 minutes ago, veteranskinsfan said:

Just heard on 908 interview with Scott Turner who said his dad will be on the field during the off-season and will be mentoring him.  Ugh.  So will Norv

always be around?  So he will be at Redskins Park.  Will he shake hands again with the Danny?   Will Snyder go to Riverboat Ron and say "You never

told me Norv would be here"?  The Nov years with Skins were painful.  Very interesting that Norv will be around.  Hope everyone is prepared to see

him.  If Ron wanted Norv then he should have hired Norv and let his son come to practices and learn from his dad while we pay his son a much lower coaching salary.

That was a throw away line in the Larry Michael interview. If Haskins is smart he will spend the offseason attached to Norv. CBA rules limit his time with the Redskins. He can spend as much time as he wants with Norv. I’m sure Norv would be open to it. He should cancel his offseason and spend it all with Norv. Ron and Scott would instantly be impressed and it would change the narrative. I hope someone suggests that to him.

[Jumbo]

to reinforce what kdawg suggested, let's keep this more specifically about scott turner as oc

 

[redskinss]

19 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

I was impressed by his last 2 games. If he starts game 1 that means he put in the work and did everything right. I would be proud of him for stepping up. That would be the best outcome for the Redskins. The team we are all rooting for. Ron isn’t handing anyone anything. If he earns it, he deserves it. Simple.

I agree with you, I think there's a high probability he brings in someone with more experience for competition, but I tend to think it'll be someone a tier below bridgewater. 

I dont think Ramsey displayed anywhere near the talent and potential that haskins has and the situations are a little different. 

 

I think rivera wants haskins to win the job but he won't give it to him. 

Bringing in a 22 to 25 million dollar a year quarterback isn't really competition it's a commitment and I dont think that's what'll happen. 

I think it'll be someone that we don't have to commit to long term, like for example what happened with the titans and tannehill.

Now if we could get bridgewater on a one year deal I'd be happy with that but I don't think its a possibility. 

10 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

to reinforce what kdawg suggested, let's keep this more specifically about scott turner as oc

 

Sorry, the threads are moving so fast right now I'm getting a little spun around.

I'll pay closer attention.

Edited January 9, 2020 by redskinss

[boston skins fan]

1 hour ago, veteranskinsfan said:

Just heard on 908 interview with Scott Turner who said his dad will be on the field during the off-season and will be mentoring him.  Ugh.  So will Norv

always be around?  So he will be at Redskins Park.  Will he shake hands again with the Danny?   Will Snyder go to Riverboat Ron and say "You never

told me Norv would be here"?  The Nov years with Skins were painful.  Very interesting that Norv will be around.  Hope everyone is prepared to see

him.  If Ron wanted Norv then he should have hired Norv and let his son come to practices and learn from his dad while we pay his son a much lower coaching salary.

 

and this is bad because?  Norv might have been a not so good HC but hes one of the best OC's in the last 30 yrs.  He knows offense.  

 

In my job i tell people all the time "I know what i know and i know what i dont know, and when i dont know i ask someone who does".  Why would Scot Turner do the same and rely on all the resources he has?

 

 

[megared]

1 hour ago, veteranskinsfan said:

Just heard on 908 interview with Scott Turner who said his dad will be on the field during the off-season and will be mentoring him.  Ugh.  So will Norv

always be around?  So he will be at Redskins Park.  Will he shake hands again with the Danny?   Will Snyder go to Riverboat Ron and say "You never

told me Norv would be here"?  The Nov years with Skins were painful.  Very interesting that Norv will be around.  Hope everyone is prepared to see

him.  If Ron wanted Norv then he should have hired Norv and let his son come to practices and learn from his dad while we pay his son a much lower coaching salary.

 

Dan still could hire him as a Senior Offensive Assistant (same job Cavanaugh held this season). 

 

I don't think that the level of animosity still exists there that we fans think is there.  If it did, I doubt Scott would've accepted the job. 

 

Crazy to think, after what we've experienced in the past 20 years, that Norv was fired for losing to the eventual Super Bowl Champs, with a 7-6 record in season.  

[CommanderInTheRye]

31 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

That was a throw away line in the Larry Michael interview. If Haskins is smart he will spend the offseason attached to Norv. CBA rules limit his time with the Redskins. He can spend as much time as he wants with Norv. I’m sure Norv would be open to it. He should cancel his offseason and spend it all with Norv. Ron and Scott would instantly be impressed and it would change the narrative. I hope someone suggests that to him.

 

Yess!

 

This is exactly the strategy that helped turn Kirk into a much better qb. Off seasons spent throwing to college receivers under the tutelage of Jon (not Jay) Gruden. Learning the nuances of playing the most demanding position in team sport. Watching film and discussing what to do, what to look for, what to avoid, how to influence and manipulate defenders, when to go for all the marbles with a long bomb, throw a check down or give up on a play and throw it away to avoid potential catastrophe. How to lead men into combat. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...

 

Sometimes nepotism can be a very useful tool.

Edited January 9, 2020 by SumTingWong
etcetera line added

[zCommander]

2 hours ago, Veretax said:

Count me in the 'never convinced on O'Connel' he might be a terrific assistant, but he didn't have enough time to really show much as an OC.  

Scott Turner was one of three names not named Kevin O, that were on my wish list to interview for this position.

I am optimistic about what he can do here.

 

JP Finley said yesterday that it would be foolish to think Scott Turner was not a good hire (not exact word by word quote). 

[DiscoBob]

40 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Dan still could hire him as a Senior Offensive Assistant (same job Cavanaugh held this season). 

 

I don't think that the level of animosity still exists there that we fans think is there.  If it did, I doubt Scott would've accepted the job. 

 

Crazy to think, after what we've experienced in the past 20 years, that Norv was fired for losing to the eventual Super Bowl Champs, with a 7-6 record in season.  

 

While I'm not high on Norv, I think I would celebrate the move as it would be the best evidence that Dan is willing to eat crow and admit his own mistakes....

 

[Thinking Skins]

Here's part 2 of Mark Bullock's analysis of Scott Turner's offense. I am liking what I'm seeing so far. 

 

https://theathletic.com/1520943/2020/01/09/what-scott-turners-passing-scheme-could-look-like-for-the-redskins/?source=rss

 

 

[HTTRDynasty]

Hopefully, this will be the biggest focus in the offseason when it comes to picking up the new offense.  I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if Haskins led the league in sacks per game last year.

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

5 hours ago, KDawg said:

However, was it the combination of O'Connell/Callahan/Gruden that slowed his development? Was their coaching not as good as some may think (especially with KOC)? Or was it Haskins himself that caused the delayed development? Or was it that he learns best by doing?

 

 

One thing I like about Scott Turner and his relationship with Cam was the learning of Cam's learning style. Interesting that this had not been discovered before with some of the names he'd worked with. I wonder if it was a generational thing where people of older generations are more likely to expect students to take notes in a classroom lecture format and anyone who doesn't is labeled a bad kid. Whereas there has been a lot of research in educational philosophy and ways to each different learning styles to try to reach different children. Not to mention the things like dyslexia, ADD, and ADHD (none of which I have any knowledge of Cam or Dwayne having) which can be seed-bumps to the traditional learning environments. It seems like Scott tackled this problem with Cam and Cam is really grateful. 

[DiscoBob]

32 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Here's part 2 of Mark Bullock's analysis of Scott Turner's offense. I am liking what I'm seeing so far. 

 

https://theathletic.com/1520943/2020/01/09/what-scott-turners-passing-scheme-could-look-like-for-the-redskins/?source=rss

 

 

 

Most salient points for non- subscribers?

[boston skins fan]

4 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

One thing I like about Scott Turner and his relationship with Cam was the learning of Cam's learning style. Interesting that this had not been discovered before with some of the names he'd worked with. I wonder if it was a generational thing where people of older generations are more likely to expect students to take notes in a classroom lecture format and anyone who doesn't is labeled a bad kid. Whereas there has been a lot of research in educational philosophy and ways to each different learning styles to try to reach different children. Not to mention the things like dyslexia, ADD, and ADHD (none of which I have any knowledge of Cam or Dwayne having) which can be seed-bumps to the traditional learning environments. It seems like Scott tackled this problem with Cam and Cam is really grateful. 

 

He mentioned it during the Larry Michaels interview that building a relationship and finding out the best way a QB learns is paramount to development.  Hopefully he learns what method works best for Haskins.  But Haskins needs to want to learn or whatever Turner somes up with will be pointless

[Thinking Skins]

1 minute ago, DiscoBob said:

 

Most salient points for non- subscribers?

 

So there's a lot to unscramble but some of the main points

1. He's a part of the Air Coryell system

2. He uses shifts and motions to disguise things. So we will see a lot of the same plays from different formations. 

3. He lines up players at multiple positions (so a RB could line up at WR or a WR ar RB). This makes the formation look different but the playcall is the same. This confuses the defense and keeps it simple for the QB. 

[CommanderInTheRye]

7 minutes ago, DiscoBob said:

 

Most salient points for non- subscribers?

 

Anyone?

 

“Bueller...Bueller...”

[DiscoBob]

Just now, Thinking Skins said:

 

So there's a lot to unscramble but some of the main points

1. He's a part of the Air Coryell system

2. He uses shifts and motions to disguise things. So we will see a lot of the same plays from different formations. 

3. He lines up players at multiple positions (so a RB could line up at WR or a WR ar RB). This makes the formation look different but the playcall is the same. This confuses the defense and keeps it simple for the QB. 

 

 

All sounds good - my impression is that many skins fans have been frustrated by the skins lack of disguising what they are doing.

 

They have seemed to avoid much if the "window dressing" that you see with teams like the Chiefs (or other teams coached by Andy Reid disciples).  While you can write it off as smoke and mirrors, it puts more mental pressure on the defense, thereby increasing the likelihood of blown coverages...

 

[CommanderInTheRye]

11 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

So there's a lot to unscramble but some of the main points

1. He's a part of the Air Coryell system

2. He uses shifts and motions to disguise things. So we will see a lot of the same plays from different formations. 

3. He lines up players at multiple positions (so a RB could line up at WR or a WR ar RB). This makes the formation look different but the playcall is the same. This confuses the defense and keeps it simple for the QB. 

Ask and ye shall receive.

 

Thanks Thinking Skins!

 

Points one and two are pure Gibbsian by way of Coryell/Zampese. The urban legend which may in fact be correct was that Gibbs/Bugel only had 5 or so running plays but they were run out of literally dozens of different formations that were changed every single week and switched up at half time or on the fly if necessary.

 

Which is not only a testament to the genius of the system and coaches that created it but also the brain power and dedication of the players that had to absorb tons of information and perform it flawlessly in the heat of combat with no penalties. Quite the feat.

Edited January 9, 2020 by SumTingWong

[CommanderInTheRye]

Synchronicity: B-Mitch on 980 just mentioned Scott Turner’s use of motion and so called window dressing and how “the best offenses like K.C. confuse defenses to get players WIDE OPEN”.

 

He just said that he’ll have much more to say next hour.

[goskins10]

45 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Here's part 2 of Mark Bullock's analysis of Scott Turner's offense. I am liking what I'm seeing so far. 

 

https://theathletic.com/1520943/2020/01/09/what-scott-turners-passing-scheme-could-look-like-for-the-redskins/?source=rss

 

 

 

 

Admittedly being a bit of a contrarian here - but where did he get this from? The 4 gms Turner was pretty much a disaster as OC in Carolina? 32nd in pts/gm   10th in passing - 27th in rushing. 

 

And was that even his offence? You can't install an entire new offense in a week. At best it's variations of the offense already installed. Or is it from the last two season of his dad's offense? If so, 

 

Total Yds  -->  2018 - 10th - 2019 - 19th

Passing -->      2018 - 16  -   2019 - 20

Rushing -->     2018 - 4   -    2019 - 14

Points/GM --> 2018 - 14   -  2019 - 20

 

So that offense was average in 2018 and got worse in 2019. And he has brought over almost the entire offensive staff that underachieved.

 

So far the only positives I see for Scott is that he is not KOC and his Dad is named Norv Turner who at one point used to be a good OC. Sure seems there is a lot excitement for a guy without much on his resume to indicate he will be a good OC. In fact he has an additional big red flag for me in that he seems to move around every 2 yrs or so. 

 

And before anyone says anything, I was not and am not a KOC fan. I am pretty ambivalent to him - really have no feelings either way. You will not find any posts with me pushing KOC. Ron wants him so he gets a little bit the benefit of the doubt here overall - but I have my concerns about this offensive staff he is putting together. I like Zampese as he has a good resume for the job he is being hired for. Other than that not really sure. 

 

I hope Scott is amazing along with the rest of the staff! Nothing would make me happier but color me less than enthused about this hire on the face of it.  

 

 

[HTTRDynasty]

5 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

Admittedly being a bit of a contrarian here - but where did he get this from? The 4 gms Turner was pretty much a disaster as OC in Carolina? 32nd in pts/gm   10th in passing - 27th in rushing. 

 

Serious question.  Have you watched the games?  It's hard to put up a lot of points and yards when your team has 13 turnovers in the last 4 games.  Watch the video below.  It ain't pretty.  And I don't see much you can blame on the OC.

 

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

6 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

Admittedly being a bit of a contrarian here - but where did he get this from? The 4 gms Turner was pretty much a disaster as OC in Carolina? 32nd in pts/gm   10th in passing - 27th in rushing. 

 

And was that even his offence? You can't install an entire new offense in a week. At best it's variations of the offense already installed. Or is it from the last two season of his dad's offense? If so, 

He references some of this in the initial part of part 1, but you're right. That can be countered a bit by the fact that his dad was GM initially and his offense is based on his dad's. We see Zampese as the QB Coach so we can understand that he'll keep some influences of Zampese in there. And S. Turner has already said he'll have his father as an advisor. 

[goskins10]

Just now, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Serious question.  Have you watched the games?  It's hard to put up a lot of points and yards when your team has 13 turnovers in the last 4 games.  Watch the video below.  It ain't pretty.  And I don't see much you can blame on the OC.

 

 

 

 

Yes I watched the games. The offense was OK the first two games then they lost the 2nd string QB and they had to go with the 3rd. I would buy that better than blaming the TOs. But this is honestly not the point. It's 4 gms. We are giving the keys to the offense to a guy with 4 gms? And 4 gms that you have to make excuses for poor performance? And 4 gms that there is no way you can know if that's "his" offense. You can't install an offense is a week. So attributing what they did those last 4 gms as "his " offense is a bit of a stretch. 

 

3 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

He references some of this in the initial part of part 1, but you're right. That can be countered a bit by the fact that his dad was GM initially and his offense is based on his dad's. We see Zampese as the QB Coach so we can understand that he'll keep some influences of Zampese in there. And S. Turner has already said he'll have his father as an advisor. 

 

If we need Norv then he should be the OC, not Scott right?  Either he can do the job or not. Again, i get i am being a bit contrary here - and i wish Scott all the best. It's the best interest of the team for him to be successful. But I am just having a hard time connecting the dots here on all the enthusiasm for this hire.  

 

I will lean on In Ron we Trust for a while. But they better produce. 

[Thinking Skins]

12 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

If we need Norv then he should be the OC, not Scott right?  Either he can do the job or not. Again, i get i am being a bit contrary here - and i wish Scott all the best. It's the best interest of the team for him to be successful. But I am just having a hard time connecting the dots here on all the enthusiasm for this hire.  

 

I will lean on In Ron we Trust for a while. But they better produce. 

Not necessarily. Scott has his own mind and is the one in the position, but there's something in the ability to utilize resources. When we hired Jay, one of the first things that Cousins did was utilize his brother and get an edge in the QB competition by going to the QB camp. That helped a lot in his development in my opinion. I'd love if Norv and Dwayne did the same thing. 

 

But everybody's got to start somewhere. What if Norv had been kept as OC during the transition period in Carolina and Scott never got the opportunity to be OC, but Rivera knew hte kid had talent and still hired him. Would we still be saying he has no experience? He has like 9 years experience as a position coach at the QB position and has a history with Carolina, Cleveland and Minnesota. 

 

Are you saying that this team needs a more experienced coordinator? I'd ask based on what? If you're saying that over those 4 games he wasn't remarkable, I can agree with that. I could also give some excuses but they're not going to make me or you feel good. But Norv is old and probably retired or retiring. Lets see what the young guy has in him and if he's ready for the next step? Who knows though, we may see the Peter Principle right here where a good QB coach gets promoted to a position of OC where he sucks. 

[goskins10]

5 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Not necessarily. Scott has his own mind and is the one in the position, but there's something in the ability to utilize resources. When we hired Jay, one of the first things that Cousins did was utilize his brother and get an edge in the QB competition by going to the QB camp. That helped a lot in his development in my opinion. I'd love if Norv and Dwayne did the same thing. 

 

But everybody's got to start somewhere. What if Norv had been kept as OC during the transition period in Carolina and Scott never got the opportunity to be OC, but Rivera knew hte kid had talent and still hired him. Would we still be saying he has no experience? He has like 9 years experience as a position coach at the QB position and has a history with Carolina, Cleveland and Minnesota. 

 

Are you saying that this team needs a more experienced coordinator? I'd ask based on what? If you're saying that over those 4 games he wasn't remarkable, I can agree with that. I could also give some excuses but they're not going to make me or you feel good. But Norv is old and probably retired or retiring. Lets see what the young guy has in him and if he's ready for the next step? Who knows though, we may see the Peter Principle right here where a good QB coach gets promoted to a position of OC where he sucks. 

 

Yes, I would have preferred an experienced OC with a solid track record like he did with Jack Del Rio on D. Here are a few reasons: 

 

1. Outside a year or two, Rons offences never scared anyone. It was always the D - which is fine. But coming to a new situation you should want to fix what didn't work too well at the last stop. 

 

2. Ron R is taking on a lot more responsibilities. If it were me, I would have preferred someone with enough experience he would not have to deal with as much of the day to day stuff so he can work on the overall culture more. 

 

As for giving him a shot - if he had much of anything in his resume to suggest he could even be a good OC, But I am not seeing in. Mostly non-descriptive stops at multiple teams, only one lasting more than 2 yrs. 

 

Again, I hope I am wrong.  

[MariusVT]

16 hours ago, MartinC said:

Of verbiage and concepts. It’s is.

 

Execution and talent is another question.

Teddy is going to get a contract in the 18-22M a year range. We are paying Smith 16M still next year. 21.4M cap number.
 

We will not be paying a vet contract starting money next year.

 

You don't sign Teddy to that kind of contract and not have him as your starter with 16 mil sitting around in Alex Smith already regardless of if the cap can handle it or not.  It also says it's already decided Haskins has no future with this team.  

 

Really this is a rhetorical post because I already know the stock reply from you.