A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

I've always liked Ron.  And this isn't surprising.

 

What was surprising was watching him twist himself into a pretzel to try and explain why he was not calling TOs and other game management/team management things when the answer was, "I don't believe in Haskins, and I don't want him to damage the rest of the team."   

 

Clearly that was only an external problem, and not an internal problem.  At least it looks that way as of now.

 

Sheehan keeps on going on and on that it was Dan who mandated Haskins start the season, and Ron should have just manned up when he knew and started Kyle Allen from the start.

 

I have to admit, with 20 years of evidence, that's really a possibility.

 

However, I would propose a second possibility:

 

1. Ron didn't really know what he had in Haskins until September, and he spent all of August trying to figure it out by giving him the opportunity in training camp.  Given COVID wiped out OTAs and Mini-Camps, there's no way for Ron to have really known anything more on August 1st than he did on January 1st.  Ron seems like a pragmatic guy (until you piss him off), and he wanted to see what Haskins had in camp.  This meant giving him all the first team reps, coaching him hard, and seeing what happened.

2. By all accounts, Kyle Allen didn't light it up in camp either, and he was getting used to an entirely new set of teammates.  

3. Given the lack of OTAs and Mini-Camps, it's almost as if Ron had to make a decision entering camp who the starter was, so they could give that person all the first team reps to get them ready.  If Ron had decided Kyle Allen was the guy to start opening day, he really needed all the first team reps he could get to get himself ready also.  Just knowing the system is typically not enough, you've got to do it a few times also.  So by selecting Haskins and giving him the opportunity, you were kindof committing to Haskins through the first part of the season to begin with.

 

By the time Ron really figured out what he had, and that Haskins just wasn't his guy, it probably wouldn't have been fair to anybody to yank Haskins and insert Kyle Allen.  I don't honestly know when they made that decision, if it was before the season, or during the season when they had to run what amounts to a HS offense because that's all they felt comfortable with. My guess is they had a strong hunch before the season, and then it was really solidified in week 2 against Arizona.  Everything after Arizona was "different" from an offensive perspective.  The game plans were even more "under the rim" and basic. It was as if they basically gave up trying to do anything but run slip screens and draws.

 

Then finally something clicked after the Cleveland game, and Haskins got one more game, then Ron yanked him. 

 

So, I'm not sure if it really was the owner. It might have been.  It also just could have been circumstance. I do think if there had been OTAs and Mini-camps, Kyle Allen starts the season at QB.  The whole calendar would have backed up to the spring, and Ron would have had a really strong feeling Haskins wasn't going to work out, so he could have entered training camp with the idea Allen was the starter, and gone with it.  That's a hunch, but I think a pretty good one.   

[Est.1974]

7 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

However, I would propose a second possibility

I would think what you have posted is very plausible. I agree.

[CTskin]

Upon arrival Rivera was welcomed with a ****storm of a magnitude that only this franchise can create; the name change, sexual misconduct allegations against upper management, disgruntled players (TW, Dunbar), a roster of subpar talent, and then the cancer news and treatment to top it off.

 

Yet somehow we sit here at 2-5 and have a unified team under this man. The volume that speaks...

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, CTskin said:

Upon arrival Rivera was welcomed with a ****storm of a magnitude that only this franchise can create; the name change, sexual misconduct allegations against upper management, disgruntled players (TW, Dunbar), a roster of subpar talent, and then the cancer news and treatment to top it off.

 

Yet somehow we sit here at 2-5 and have a unified team under this man. The volume that speaks...

Agreed 100%.

 

As I've said before, no idea how this all turns out.  It's not so much in Rivera I trust in regards to everything the guy does, but I do trust that he's a quality dude - no doubts about that, and to think otherwise, there has to be an ulterior motive.

[JSSkinz]

 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

1. Ron didn't really know what he had in Haskins until September, and he spent all of August trying to figure it out by giving him the opportunity in training camp.  Given COVID wiped out OTAs and Mini-Camps, there's no way for Ron to have really known anything more on August 1st than he did on January 1st.  Ron seems like a pragmatic guy (until you piss him off), and he wanted to see what Haskins had in camp.  This meant giving him all the first team reps, coaching him hard, and seeing what happened.

 

 

I agree that its likely Rivera wanted to give it somewhat of a ride to see where it goes before abandoning ship from the jump.  My best guess:

 

A.  Kyle Smith and the scouts/evaluators weren't big believers in Haskins.  Kyle Smith has the rep of being a straight shooter and told Ron what he thought.  

 

i am not football expert but my amateur take on Haskins before the draft was he was a flawed propsect for reasons I've stated in depth on both the draft thread and Haskins thread.  So no i don't think its insane that (according to some) Kyle Smith and the scouts weren't sold.

 

B.  The kicker on Haskins was the intangibles.  does he have them? maturity?  leadership?  work ethic?

 

C.  Haskins in the off season seemed to turn all of that around.

 

D.  Depending on the media observer, Haskins had a shaky camp, up and down.

 

E. Haskins old intangible concerns resurfaced.

 

F.  Ron saw Kyle Allen and Alex outworking Haskins.

 

so you got a prospect that the FO wasn't sold on with shaky intangibles that resurfaced quickly during the season.  He felt he had to move and reward the Qbs who were working hard to get better.  Scott Turner's comments about Haskins I thought were more telling.  He basically said Haskins isn't improving, he's making the same mistakes in practice that he is in the games -- I would guess merging that with Rivera's comments, that means he was having the same issues in camp. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[Spearfeather]

So, it sounds like Wright is saying now that they will most likely decide on a new name ( which may be " Washington " or may not be ) before next season, but it won't be announced until after the season is over.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Spearfeather

[Spearfeather]

25 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

Edit

Edited October 27, 2020 by Spearfeather

[Skinsinparadise]

Washington is considering all options in replacing Collins, including signing veteran Eric Reid, a source told ESPN. He played for two seasons in Carolina under Rivera. The question with Reid would be cost. Carolina signed him to a three-year deal worth up to $22 million in 2019 that included a $9 million signing bonus. But it cut him after last season. Reid has taken a strong stance of protesting police brutality and racial inequality during the National Anthem.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/30202418/washington-safety-landon-collins-achilles-surg

[RichmondRedskin88]

14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Washington is considering all options in replacing Collins, including signing veteran Eric Reid, a source told ESPN. He played for two seasons in Carolina under Rivera. The question with Reid would be cost. Carolina signed him to a three-year deal worth up to $22 million in 2019 that included a $9 million signing bonus. But it cut him after last season. Reid has taken a strong stance of protesting police brutality and racial inequality during the National Anthem.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/30202418/washington-safety-landon-collins-achilles-surg

I don’t see how his stance becomes a issue with signing him unless he starts on a hating cops rhetoric.   Him taking a knee is whatever.  Him walking up to mic and going **** the Police at a after game press conference is totally different. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, RichmondRedskin88 said:

I don’t see how his stance becomes a issue with signing him unless he starts on a hating cops rhetoric.   Him taking a knee is whatever.  Him walking up to mic and going **** the Police at a after game press conference is totally different. 

 

Rivera has already said he's cool with Reid's stance but sorry didn't mean to put that here, meant for the Fa thread. 

[steven11]

3 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

 

I don't think thats a surprise, nobody expects them to be the WFT forever except twitter obsessed weirdos 

[steven11]

Reid also was part of an old, awful defense in Carolina last year, cost concerns are there too like they said.

We know Rivera is cool with players doing what they want with stuff like that, but I think the media needs to stop pushing old Panthers alumni on us when they should look at the long term.

Edited October 27, 2020 by steven11

[Darrell Green Fan]

4 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I've always liked Ron.  And this isn't surprising.

 

What was surprising was watching him twist himself into a pretzel to try and explain why he was not calling TOs and other game management/team management things when the answer was, "I don't believe in Haskins, and I don't want him to damage the rest of the team."   

 

Clearly that was only an external problem, and not an internal problem.  At least it looks that way as of now.

 

Sheehan keeps on going on and on that it was Dan who mandated Haskins start the season, and Ron should have just manned up when he knew and started Kyle Allen from the start.

 

I have to admit, with 20 years of evidence, that's really a possibility.

 

However, I would propose a second possibility:

 

1. Ron didn't really know what he had in Haskins until September, and he spent all of August trying to figure it out by giving him the opportunity in training camp.  Given COVID wiped out OTAs and Mini-Camps, there's no way for Ron to have really known anything more on August 1st than he did on January 1st.  Ron seems like a pragmatic guy (until you piss him off), and he wanted to see what Haskins had in camp.  This meant giving him all the first team reps, coaching him hard, and seeing what happened.

2. By all accounts, Kyle Allen didn't light it up in camp either, and he was getting used to an entirely new set of teammates.  

3. Given the lack of OTAs and Mini-Camps, it's almost as if Ron had to make a decision entering camp who the starter was, so they could give that person all the first team reps to get them ready.  If Ron had decided Kyle Allen was the guy to start opening day, he really needed all the first team reps he could get to get himself ready also.  Just knowing the system is typically not enough, you've got to do it a few times also.  So by selecting Haskins and giving him the opportunity, you were kindof committing to Haskins through the first part of the season to begin with.

 

By the time Ron really figured out what he had, and that Haskins just wasn't his guy, it probably wouldn't have been fair to anybody to yank Haskins and insert Kyle Allen.  I don't honestly know when they made that decision, if it was before the season, or during the season when they had to run what amounts to a HS offense because that's all they felt comfortable with. My guess is they had a strong hunch before the season, and then it was really solidified in week 2 against Arizona.  Everything after Arizona was "different" from an offensive perspective.  The game plans were even more "under the rim" and basic. It was as if they basically gave up trying to do anything but run slip screens and draws.

 

Then finally something clicked after the Cleveland game, and Haskins got one more game, then Ron yanked him. 

 

So, I'm not sure if it really was the owner. It might have been.  It also just could have been circumstance. I do think if there had been OTAs and Mini-camps, Kyle Allen starts the season at QB.  The whole calendar would have backed up to the spring, and Ron would have had a really strong feeling Haskins wasn't going to work out, so he could have entered training camp with the idea Allen was the starter, and gone with it.  That's a hunch, but I think a pretty good one.   

 

My thought exactly.  This was brought up in the Haskins thread and I firmly believe it's true that those most critical of RR are still in the tank for Haskins.  No I think it played out just as you described.  He wanted to give Dwayne a shot, who wouldn't given his talent and improved play last season?   He gave him a training camp and 4 weeks, that was ample time to form an evaluation and he moved on from him at that point. 

 

As for the mixed message entirely too much has been made of that IMO.  A coach can't just say his QB stinks, no coach should do that to a player and he is still trying to retain what little value he still had. As for the timeouts at the beginning of a lost season I too saw no point in risking injuries to starters in a game that was not going to be won in a lost season.  But as the games played out Ron saw how the division was shaking out and said "hey, let's go try to win this thing". Neither of these approaches seems unreasonable to me.   

 

A coach should be allowed to change direction given the change of events that took place since the start of the season without being run up the flag poll for doing so.  Another important point is unlike in Dallas Ron has clearly not lost the support of the players. 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Darrell Green Fan

[steven11]

4 hours ago, CTskin said:

Upon arrival Rivera was welcomed with a ****storm of a magnitude that only this franchise can create; the name change, sexual misconduct allegations against upper management, disgruntled players (TW, Dunbar), a roster of subpar talent, and then the cancer news and treatment to top it off.

 

Yet somehow we sit here at 2-5 and have a unified team under this man. The volume that speaks...

https://washingtonfootballwire.usatoday.com/2020/10/27/a-culture-shift-is-already-taking-place-in-washington-under-ron-rivera/

The media is noticing this too, I just wonder if I'm an idiot for getting excited and hopeful again

[CobraCommander]

9 minutes ago, steven11 said:

https://washingtonfootballwire.usatoday.com/2020/10/27/a-culture-shift-is-already-taking-place-in-washington-under-ron-rivera/

The media is noticing this too, I just wonder if I'm an idiot for getting excited and hopeful again

I can’t speak for you but I’m excited and I am most certainly an idiot.

[steven11]

2 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

So, it sounds like Wright is saying now that they will most likely decide on a new name ( which may be " Washington " or may not be ) before next season, but it won't be announced until after the season is over.

Just do the easy thing and call them the Washington Warriors and bring back the spear helmets in your signature.

[Spearfeather]

38 minutes ago, steven11 said:

Just do the easy thing and call them the Washington Warriors and bring back the spear helmets in your signature.

 

Hey, I love that logo too. The problem is, would your idea ( or even a return  to the " Braves " ) survive the scrutiny of the advocates and the sponsors and the ( new ? ) minority owners. The only difference between a Brave and a Chief is rank.🙂

We really can't get into that part of the discussion too much here.

I'm not crazy about Warriors myself but there are some things to consider as far as what our limitations may be.

I'd be fine with the spear and feather logo with no name or " Braves " with just a " B " logo, myself.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Spearfeather

[Darrell Green Fan]

I am puzzled that a man who owns a marketing company needs over a year to come up with a name and design a logo. That is mind boggling and so damn frustrating. 

 

I sold for a design and print company. It takes a designer a few hours to come up with a few logo comps once they are given the concept.   I never ever heard of a company taking a year and a half to start a rebrand with the first steps of a name and logo selection. 

 

Just pick a F-ing name Danny and stop embarrassing us all.  

[Cooleyfan1993]

@Darrell Green FanJason Wright stated that it took the rams TWO YEARS to change their logo. These things aren’t going to be done just overnight. That’s what most aren’t understanding. And it’s unrealisic to expect it to be done in just one season. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Cooleyfan1993

[Est.1974]

12 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

I am puzzled that a man who owns a marketing company needs over a year to come up with a name and design a logo. That is mind boggling and so damn frustrating. 

 

I sold for a design and print company. It takes a designer a few hours to come up with a few logo comps once they are given the concept.   I never ever heard of a company taking a year and a half to start a rebrand with the first steps of a name and logo selection. 

 

Just pick a F-ing name Danny and stop embarrassing us all.  

I think the organisation is buying more time to repair it’s reputation and let all of the current controversy wash away first. Perhaps even improve the product on the field. Then go full on re-brand. Timing is crucial here to maximise impact/revenues.

[Darrell Green Fan]

5 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

@Darrell Green FanJason Wright stated that it took the rams TWO YEARS to change their logo. These things aren’t going to be done just overnight. That’s what most aren’t understanding. And it’s unrealisic to expect it to be done in just one season. 

 

Again I was in the business for 20 years.   I understand how long a complete rebrand takes. But it never should never take 2 years to decide on a name and a logo.  The Rams took their time because they had a freaking name, we don't even have that and to say it takes 2 years to decide on a name and logo is crazy. 

 

Going into a second season with no name is lame.  

Edited October 27, 2020 by Darrell Green Fan

[Cooleyfan1993]

Just now, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Again I was in the business for 20 years.   I understand how long a complete rebrand takes. But it never should never take 2 years to decide on a name and a logo.  

They’re not ONLY deciding that. once they do, they have to go through all the legal ****, the league has to approve of everything. Plus, the organization wants to get the fans and alumni involved, doing polls, surveys. They’re trying to do it right, and you’re here whining about how it’s taking too long for you. You want them to **** it up? Yeah, didn’t think so 

[Darrell Green Fan]

15 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

They’re not ONLY deciding that. once they do, they have to go through all the legal ****, the league has to approve of everything. Plus, the organization wants to get the fans and alumni involved, doing polls, surveys. They’re trying to do it right, and you’re here whining about how it’s taking too long for you. You want them to **** it up? Yeah, didn’t think so 

 

It's been months, have they even started the polls?   Red Wolves, Red Hawks, whatever. Nobody is going to change their feelings on the team based on the name. What is embarrassing is being the only sports team in the world without a name, to carry that over for another year is just so weak and another reason opposing fans can laugh at our team. 

[Skin'emAlive]

LA took 2 years, and still absolutely blew it on their rebrand. No one likes their new logo. The alumni were not even consulted about it either. They are an arena league team compared to the chargers branding. 
 

I would rather Snyder take his time here and get it right, rather than rush it and have it look like the rams. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Skin'emAlive