Heinicke Hive: The LEGEND of Taylor Heinicke Thread

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, Redskins 2021 said:

The Titans are the team we should try to be. There all pro running back been out nine weeks. They have only last 3 games without him Tanahill been very good and will be there number one seed. Henry been out 8 or 9 weeks and they are still going to be the 1 seed it's more then just Henry. Tanahill a very very good QB.

The Year after we took Haskins 

 

The Titans is the team that's super lucky. We can try to get super lucky, but banking on that is certainly risky. Tannehill was a good QB who has become very good, and that's at the very least partially because of a superior cast...namely an unstoppable running back. If your plan is to draft an unstoppable running back then I'd be down with that...but trying to hedge your bets on that is a pretty specious IMO.

 

And yes, the Titans are still doing pretty well but that's not because Tannehill is dominating; he's having a pretty down year and I seriously doubt it's a coincidence that his numbers have gone way down in the year that Henry has been out a lot with injury. They're also in a pretty poor division.

 

The Titans are the exception to the rule. It's a passing league now, and that's how teams are built and how they mostly succeed in the modern NFL. Teams that pound the rock and control the clock are aberrations now because of the way the rules are and the way the game is played in general. We tried doing that this year and it worked a little bit for a while, since we won some squakers, but eventually it caved in.

 

We need to stop pretending that it's the 1980s. Teams like the current Titans are built based on luck. They lucked into a dominant All Pro running back in the 2nd round and also just happened to be able to find a decent FA QB at the same time who would complement him.

 

Also remember the shelf life of RBs and elite supporting casts vs QB. A RB is probably going to get 5 years before the tread starts to wear off; especially if its a bellcow thumper. A dominant defensive or offensive supporting cast can probably give you 3-5 years before you have to break some of them up due to contract and cap concerns. An elite QB can last you 10-15 years nowadays.

 

QB comes first. Pretty much every NFL HC and GM openly admit this. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by mistertim

[Redskins 2021]

20 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

The Titans is the team that's super lucky. We can try to get super lucky, but banking on that is certainly risky. Tannehill was a good QB who has become very good, and that's at the very least partially because of a superior cast...namely an unstoppable running back. If your plan is to draft an unstoppable running back then I'd be down with that...but trying to hedge your bets on that is a pretty specious IMO.

 

And yes, the Titans are still doing pretty well but that's not because Tannehill is dominating; he's having a pretty down year and I seriously doubt it's a coincidence that his numbers have gone way down in the year that Henry has been out a lot with injury. They're also in a pretty poor division.

 

The Titans are the exception to the rule. It's a passing league now, and that's how teams are built and how they mostly succeed in the modern NFL. Teams that pound the rock and control the clock are aberrations now because of the way the rules are and the way the game is played in general. We tried doing that this year and it worked a little bit for a while, since we won some squakers, but eventually it caved in.

 

We need to stop pretending that it's the 1980s. Teams like the current Titans are built based on luck. They lucked into a dominant All Pro running back in the 2nd round and also just happened to be able to find a decent FA QB at the same time who would complement him.

 

Also remember the shelf life of RBs and elite supporting casts vs QB. A RB is probably going to get 5 years before the tread starts to wear off; especially if its a bellcow thumper. A dominant defensive or offensive supporting cast can probably give you 3-5 years before you have to break some of them up due to contract and cap concerns. An elite QB can last you 10-15 years nowadays.

 

QB comes first. Pretty much every NFL HC and GM openly admit this. 

There defensive is better then ours. Henry great but he does not catch passes. I think  Marrota if he can stay healthy he could do what Tanahill does or maybe Trubisky could. Without Henry they beat Rams, Saints, Dolphins, and 49ers. We can't beat those teams now.

They are a very well built team. We don't have a player like Henry and odds are we are not getting one but they are winning with out them. 

 Those player definitely have some talent they were drafted that high for a reason unless we feel like one of these rookie is the guy I don't think it be so bad getting Trubisky or Marrota. I would of course try to get a better veteran first. If we got the level of play of a Tanahill this year where would this team be?

Edited January 5, 2022 by Redskins 2021

[NoCalMike]

Tannehill is an interesting subject but I wonder if he got a lot better or if it's more a Jared Goff type thing where he was surrounded with talent, excelled in the system, but even with all that, eventually his ceiling was seen to be too low for the coaches.

[skins island connection]

5 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

Honestly, I think this points more to just how abysmal our offensive production has been for several years vs us actually being a good offensive team, which we're clearly not. If you've been served literal turd sandwiches for years and you suddenly get an expired roast beef on moldy bread, you'll think you're in heaven. That doesn't mean that the moldy roast beef sandwich is actually any good.

 

 

 This team hasn't been known to put up points for awhile, for a number of reasons.

 The thing working against this team right now are the other teams looking for a QB. 

But, to attract a better QB, I like the idea of getting weapons to make it enticing for a good QB to become interested in coming here. The way its looking, the FO will have to offer up alot, either money or draft picks, or both, to get a QB, and Wilson won't come here, so the pickings will be slim and not a big enough upgrade in QB to make a real impact. 

Who knows what will transpire next season, there could be a few QBs looking to make a move, thats why I like the idea of building the rest of the team, maybe find a top WR or RB to get a start.

[mistertim]

IMO Trubisky and Mariota are what happens if we run out of other options. There's nothing at all special about either of them. They're probably a smidge better than Heinicke just because they have NFL arms, but they're both utterly mediocre and Mariota also has an injury history which hurts his stock as well.

 

Reclamation QB projects basically never work. I don't really consider Tannehill to be one because IMO he wasn't a "bust" in Miami...he was decent (otherwise they wouldn't have signed him to an extension) but at the end of the day he didn't quite live up to his draft position so they moved on eventually. Trubisky and Mariota are both much closer to actual busts. Sure, there's a reason they were drafted so high, but there's also a reason they were eventually jettisoned by the teams that drafted them.

 

I'm really not that interested in either of them because the chances are they won't really move the needle for us much; it's basically just more kicking the QB can down the road. Carr I'd be interested in trading for, depending on the cost, because I think he's definitely a much better QB than eiter of those guys (or any QB on our team). But I think it's increasingly less likely that LV puts him on the trading block.

 

We aren't getting Wilson, Watson, or Rodgers. So that leaves a draft pick. Hopefully there's one or two guys our coaches and FO really like.

[Redskins 2021]

Just now, NoCalMike said:

Tannehill is an interesting subject but I wonder if he got a lot better or if it's more a Jared Goff type thing where he was surrounded with talent, excelled in the system, but even with all that, eventually his ceiling was seen to be too low for the coaches.

Goff had talent around him in LA got them to superbowl. I know stafford is better but I am not convinced he will get them any further.Let see how the playoffs go Tannehill got a good shot at superbowl this year he should have Henry back in a week. I guess the way I look at it I think if we get a Marrota or Trubisky surround them with similar piece to Tanahill we could have similar results. But you are rite Derrick Henry is an enormous piece to there success. I think unless we get arron rogers and D adams which we won't I think improving are team to the be similar to Tennessee is the way to go. Trubisky and Mariota have got to be hungry. When Mariota picked oakland Carr had not been playing well he thought he could win that job. Carr took off after signing. Trubisky was in Chicago and Nagy has not really done any better with his new guys. Maybe another chances is all they need. 

[mistertim]

3 minutes ago, Redskins 2021 said:

Goff had talent around him in LA got them to superbowl. I know stafford is better but I am not convinced he will get them any further.Let see how the playoffs go Tannehill got a good shot at superbowl this year he should have Henry back in a week. I guess the way I look at it I think if we get a Marrota or Trubisky surround them with similar piece to Tanahill we could have similar results. But you are rite Derrick Henry is an enormous piece to there success. I think unless we get arron rogers and D adams which we won't I think improving are team to the be similar to Tennessee is the way to go. Trubisky and Mariota have got to be hungry. When Mariota picked oakland Carr had not been playing well he thought he could win that job. Carr took off after signing. Trubisky was in Chicago and Nagy has not really done any better with his new guys. Maybe another chances is all they need. 

 

The problem with the bolded part is it just doesn't actually work; it's basically a fantasy. Tannehill was pretty much the only exception when it came to reclamation projects, but as I noted he wasn't "bad" so I don't see him really as a reclamation project who was a bust for the team that drafted him. Miami wanted to rebuild and look for someone they felt may be a better QB and Tennessee was looking for a solid QB to complement Henry.

 

Plus, neither Trubisky or Mariota are nearly as good as Tannehill, even when he was in Miami.

 

If we pick up Trubisky or Mariota I'm guessing we'll basically end up as a perennial 8-9 to 9-8 team, unless we somehow do luck into an unstoppable All Pro running back. And to be honest, I think that's worse than being horrible, because at least if you're a horrible team you can get a high draft pick. If you're a consistent middle of the pack team you'll basically never be drafting high enough to land a blue chip QB prospect, but you'll also never be good enough to actually go far.

[Redskins 2021]

32 minutes ago, mistertim said:

IMO Trubisky and Mariota are what happens if we run out of other options. There's nothing at all special about either of them. They're probably a smidge better than Heinicke just because they have NFL arms, but they're both utterly mediocre and Mariota also has an injury history which hurts his stock as well.

 

Reclamation QB projects basically never work. I don't really consider Tannehill to be one because IMO he wasn't a "bust" in Miami...he was decent (otherwise they wouldn't have signed him to an extension) but at the end of the day he didn't quite live up to his draft position so they moved on eventually. Trubisky and Mariota are both much closer to actual busts. Sure, there's a reason they were drafted so high, but there's also a reason they were eventually jettisoned by the teams that drafted them.

 

I'm really not that interested in either of them because the chances are they won't really move the needle for us much; it's basically just more kicking the QB can down the road. Carr I'd be interested in trading for, depending on the cost, because I think he's definitely a much better QB than eiter of those guys (or any QB on our team). But I think it's increasingly less likely that LV puts him on the trading block.

 

We aren't getting Wilson, Watson, or Rodgers. So that leaves a draft pick. Hopefully there's one or two guys our coaches and FO really like.

Guess what we are out of options. Our stadium sucks. We have the worst owner in pro sports. We have a top five city and no one wants to play here. We are out of options.

 Tanahill got 4 years with dolphins they did not think he could do they it let him go. It appears they were wrong. Mariota biggest problem is injuries he has been a solid starter in the past. Trubisky a bite of an unknown no QB has been successful in chicago. I would rather try this get other players we need. I don't want to just draft a rookie just to get a QB. We did that with Haskins that has made things alot worse. 

Unless we get a new stadium or owner ship changes we will not attract top QB talent with out over paying big time. The stands almost falling on J Hurts did us no favors. We probably got are team put in the London game next year and showed player we don't care about there safety.

If next year goes poorly I think coaching staff will change we can trade up next year. There are suppose to be three great Qb next year in the draft.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Redskins 2021

[mistertim]

If Mariota or Trubisky is the best we can do then we're basically done as a franchise. They won't elevate the team, best they'll probably do is help us get one or two more wins per year. Mariota and Trubisky both had one season each where they weren't mostly crap.

 

I'd much rather take a chance on a talented QB in the draft than jump on the train of mediocrity and roll with guys like Mariota or Trubisky. Because that's all we'd be getting from those guys: pure unfiltered mediocrity.

[Redskins 2021]

36 minutes ago, skins island connection said:

 

 This team hasn't been known to put up points for awhile, for a number of reasons.

 The thing working against this team right now are the other teams looking for a QB. 

But, to attract a better QB, I like the idea of getting weapons to make it enticing for a good QB to become interested in coming here. The way its looking, the FO will have to offer up alot, either money or draft picks, or both, to get a QB, and Wilson won't come here, so the pickings will be slim and not a big enough upgrade in QB to make a real impact. 

Who knows what will transpire next season, there could be a few QBs looking to make a move, thats why I like the idea of building the rest of the team, maybe find a top WR or RB to get a start.

What would you think of Mariota or Trubisky.But we get mlb bobby Wagner and one of wr Chris Godwin or Allan Robinson or D Adams

[Spaceman Spiff]

3 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

The Titans is the team that's super lucky. We can try to get super lucky, but banking on that is certainly risky. Tannehill was a good QB who has become very good, and that's at the very least partially because of a superior cast...namely an unstoppable running back. If your plan is to draft an unstoppable running back then I'd be down with that...but trying to hedge your bets on that is a pretty specious IMO.

 

And yes, the Titans are still doing pretty well but that's not because Tannehill is dominating; he's having a pretty down year and I seriously doubt it's a coincidence that his numbers have gone way down in the year that Henry has been out a lot with injury. They're also in a pretty poor division.

 

The Titans are the exception to the rule. It's a passing league now, and that's how teams are built and how they mostly succeed in the modern NFL. Teams that pound the rock and control the clock are aberrations now because of the way the rules are and the way the game is played in general. We tried doing that this year and it worked a little bit for a while, since we won some squakers, but eventually it caved in.

 

We need to stop pretending that it's the 1980s. Teams like the current Titans are built based on luck. They lucked into a dominant All Pro running back in the 2nd round and also just happened to be able to find a decent FA QB at the same time who would complement him.

 

Also remember the shelf life of RBs and elite supporting casts vs QB. A RB is probably going to get 5 years before the tread starts to wear off; especially if its a bellcow thumper. A dominant defensive or offensive supporting cast can probably give you 3-5 years before you have to break some of them up due to contract and cap concerns. An elite QB can last you 10-15 years nowadays.

 

QB comes first. Pretty much every NFL HC and GM openly admit this. 

 

I don't disagree with a lot of this...or any of it, really.  

 

QB certainly does come first but we suck at it.  We've sucked at it for years and years.  We haven't had a good quarterback for an extended period of time since Rypien.  To say this franchise has been snake bit would be an understatement.  They're also incompetent no matter who the decision makers are.  

 

While it's certainly a passing league these days, I would argue that there's always a place for a run dominant, ball control offense.  Now you need the right personnel to do it, you need some big boys up front, but you also need the right personnel if you're going to throw it a lot, too.  I'd also argue that finding a good running back or a good running back tandem is easier than finding a great quarterback.  Look at the Eagles, they're certainly not a great team but they can run it.  IIRC, the third quarter of the game on Sunday, they took half the quarter to drive it downfield.  It was demoralizing.  

 

And it's a team without a great bellcow back.  They have a running threat QB, but Miles Sanders was a 2nd round pick.  Jordan Howard was a free agent who had some good years in Chicago but was a 5th round pick.  They can gash up a defense really well and it's working for them.  

 

You say the Titans are based on luck, I'd say that luck plays a part in any part of team building, especially in a league like the NFL where the draft is so crucial.  Look at the Jaguars and Trevor Lawrence, he's terrible and not many people saw that coming.  The Patriots are lucky that Mac Jones was available when he was available.  The Chargers are lucky that Justin Herbert, a QB with some question marks fell to them where he did in 2020.  The Seahawks got lucky with Russell Wilson.  The Packers were lucky that Rodgers fell to where he did.  If you're saying that the Titans are lucky for getting Derrick Henry where they got him, you need to apply the same logic to quarterbacks getting picked where they did, too.  Drafting is taking the best educated guess that you can but it's never a surefire bet.  I wonder if all 25 of the Jaguars fans are calling Trevor Lawrence a bust yet.  Jonathan Taylor is going to run for 1,800+ yards this year, are the Colts lucky for getting him in the 2nd round?

 

I would also argue that the best way to beat someone like Rodgers is just to keep him off the field.  Winning a shootout against that guy or a guy like Tom Brady is hard.  But if you can dominate the time of possession battle, I think you've got a better chance.  They can't hurt you from the sidelines.  

 

Is it sexy?  No.  Is it what's en vogue now?  Nope.  It's a simple approach but there's some beauty in the simplicity of it.  IMO, the best times we've had in the Snyder era (there's not much to pick from, I'm well aware) were when we had Marty running it with Stephen Davis...now Dan botched that, but Martyball was working.  Davis was a 5th round pick running for 1,400 yards.  The next best time was when we had Gibbs 2.0 and Clinton Portis.  And then RG3 and Alfred Morris.  I don't think it's a coincidence that the times we've been decent to good over the past 20+ years it's been when we've been able to run the football.  

 

I will agree with you that the fatal flaw of this approach is that the shelf life for running backs is not good.  You will get more service time out of a quarterback who plays at a high level, there's no doubt about that.  And I'm not saying the WFT should give up on looking for a quarterback but after seeing them fumble around for 25+ years it's not inspiring. 

 

 

 

[skinny21]

Setting Heinicke aside for a moment, I think most of us can agree about the following:

 

Gibson shouldn’t be our lead back - he’s being misused and injuries/fumbles hampered his season.  We could really use a true rb/bellcow.

McKissick was a very important piece of the offense.  He ran the ball pretty well, but more importantly, he’s a good pass protector, picks up YAC, and is an excellent outlet in the pass game.

The oline played really well for much/a chunk of the season, but injuries took their toll.  They allowed a good amount of pressure, especially up the middle, later in the year.  The shuffling at C, RG and RT hurt their cohesion and Ismael/Charles were probably ok and not good respectively.

We need/needed a #2 receiver to threaten defenses and take pressure off Terry.  Humphries and Carter played pretty well (Carter especially played above expectations), but they’re both far from dominant.

We had a tough schedule.

Covid issues affected the team.

Our kicking game wasn’t great, including some horrid “luck” with blocked kicks/injuries.

The defense was up and down.  They had some really nice games, but some poor ones too.  

The secondary began to gel, but they struggled for a good part of the season.

We really need a MLB.

Collins played well in the buffalo nickel role, but him playing SS early, and then getting injured hurt the D.

Logan Thomas is probably our best red zone threat.  Losing him for much of the season hurt.  RSJ and Bates filled in pretty well, but they’re not #1s.

Gibson and Patterson aren’t adept at pass pro.

Young and Sweat are far more talented than the other pass rushers that we mixed and matched, but 1) they need to make sure to play within the scheme and 2) most of their playing time was in front of a secondary that was struggling.

Jackson took a while to get acclimated (Fuller started a bit slow as well), but they both looked better as the season wore on.  I think they’re a solid tandem.

DJ looked ok in the slot, though we could use competition/an upgrade.

St Juste wasn’t very good, so same deal - could use competition/an upgrade.

Gibson is too loose with the ball and it cost us.

 

So which of those things can we “fix”?  

IMO, it shouldn’t be too hard to find a more suitable back.  

Shouldn’t be too hard to find a decent MLB.  A good one will be tougher to find, but is still doable.  I have concerns about the buffalo nickel role (if we go that route again), but we have Collins (until we don’t) and Davis/Hudson might be able to fill that role.  I actually think Curl is a good fit there and SS isn’t that hard to address.  

We should be able to find a decent FS, whether that’s bringing back McCain or addressing the position in FA/the draft.  Much like MLB, a good one will be tougher, but is doable.  

Upgrading corner depth is certainly doable.  

There’s no “fixing” our bad injury luck on the oline, but at least Ismael and Cosmi have had game experience.  Wouldn’t hurt to add a young guard and/or tackle to develop.  

Can we get better play from Young/Sweat?  They’ve got the talent, they’ve gotten a chance to see what it looks like when our DEs play within the scheme.  No guarantees, but I think the answer is yes.  Our young DEs behind them - JSW, Bradley-King and Toney have all added experience as well, so our depth should be improved.

A healthy Samuel, and development from Brown/Milne could/should help at receiver.  Wouldn’t hurt to not bank on those guys - ie still address the position.  Adding an upgrade is doable, but maybe a little tricky to pull off.  Don’t think it’s a bad idea to bring back Cam Sims.

 

Can we re-sign Leno, McKissick.  Absolutely.  No guarantee it gets done, but we’ve got the cap space and they both have a big role waiting for them.  Can the team bring back Carter (for his return ability and as receiver depth) and RSJ if they want?  I’d think that’s eminently doable.

 

So cycling this back to Heinicke…

Is he the answer/future at qb?  No

Was the offense/play calling limited because of his arm limitations?  Yes

Did he make some poor decisions with the ball?  Yes

Should the team address qb?  100%

Did he face a lot of adversity (as outlined above)?  Yes.

Is pointing out that adversity equivalent to “making excuses” for TH?  I don’t think so.

Would a better qb be more likely to overcome that adversity?  Yes… well, most likely anyway.  We’ve seen better qbs than Heinicke crumble under interior pressure though (Eli comes to mind).  We saw Brady himself lay an egg when he lost his favorite receivers.  Point being, no qb overcomes all adversity, but better ones overcome it more often.

Could some of the improvements (as outlined above) help his game and production on offense/defense were he to start games for us?  I believe so, yes.

Was he hindered by the loss of Thomas, McKissick and a banged up oline?  I think so, yes.

 

All in all, the above are some of the main reasons I’m still defending Heinicke - not as the answer for us, but as a guy that had a lot going against him.  Doesn’t mean the defense and run game weren’t a big reason for some of the wins (aside from maybe NYG/ATL), but Taylor still had to have some key moments - the long td drive vs TB, the FG winning drive against the Raiders come to mind for example.

Point being, I believe it’s realistic to expect some key improvements to the team as a whole to the point that if TH becomes the placeholder/bridge for a rookie, or a backup that sees significant playing time, I think we can still be quite competitive.

[srtman04]

16 hours ago, mistertim said:

If you're a consistent middle of the pack team you'll basically never be drafting high enough to land a blue chip QB prospect, but you'll also never be good enough to actually go far.

 

Bingo.  This is why so many teams are stuck in the suck like we are.    We have been in this position pretty much most years and we've picked really, really ****ing bad in the draft when we did draft for a QB.   I supported what we did to get RG3 back in the day,  but I blame us and the coach at the time for ****ing up his career.   

[mistertim]

14 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I don't disagree with a lot of this...or any of it, really.  

 

QB certainly does come first but we suck at it.  We've sucked at it for years and years.  We haven't had a good quarterback for an extended period of time since Rypien.  To say this franchise has been snake bit would be an understatement.  They're also incompetent no matter who the decision makers are.  

 

While it's certainly a passing league these days, I would argue that there's always a place for a run dominant, ball control offense.  Now you need the right personnel to do it, you need some big boys up front, but you also need the right personnel if you're going to throw it a lot, too.  I'd also argue that finding a good running back or a good running back tandem is easier than finding a great quarterback.  Look at the Eagles, they're certainly not a great team but they can run it.  IIRC, the third quarter of the game on Sunday, they took half the quarter to drive it downfield.  It was demoralizing.  

 

And it's a team without a great bellcow back.  They have a running threat QB, but Miles Sanders was a 2nd round pick.  Jordan Howard was a free agent who had some good years in Chicago but was a 5th round pick.  They can gash up a defense really well and it's working for them.  

 

You say the Titans are based on luck, I'd say that luck plays a part in any part of team building, especially in a league like the NFL where the draft is so crucial.  Look at the Jaguars and Trevor Lawrence, he's terrible and not many people saw that coming.  The Patriots are lucky that Mac Jones was available when he was available.  The Chargers are lucky that Justin Herbert, a QB with some question marks fell to them where he did in 2020.  The Seahawks got lucky with Russell Wilson.  The Packers were lucky that Rodgers fell to where he did.  If you're saying that the Titans are lucky for getting Derrick Henry where they got him, you need to apply the same logic to quarterbacks getting picked where they did, too.  Drafting is taking the best educated guess that you can but it's never a surefire bet.  I wonder if all 25 of the Jaguars fans are calling Trevor Lawrence a bust yet.  Jonathan Taylor is going to run for 1,800+ yards this year, are the Colts lucky for getting him in the 2nd round?

 

I would also argue that the best way to beat someone like Rodgers is just to keep him off the field.  Winning a shootout against that guy or a guy like Tom Brady is hard.  But if you can dominate the time of possession battle, I think you've got a better chance.  They can't hurt you from the sidelines.  

 

Is it sexy?  No.  Is it what's en vogue now?  Nope.  It's a simple approach but there's some beauty in the simplicity of it.  IMO, the best times we've had in the Snyder era (there's not much to pick from, I'm well aware) were when we had Marty running it with Stephen Davis...now Dan botched that, but Martyball was working.  Davis was a 5th round pick running for 1,400 yards.  The next best time was when we had Gibbs 2.0 and Clinton Portis.  And then RG3 and Alfred Morris.  I don't think it's a coincidence that the times we've been decent to good over the past 20+ years it's been when we've been able to run the football.  

 

I will agree with you that the fatal flaw of this approach is that the shelf life for running backs is not good.  You will get more service time out of a quarterback who plays at a high level, there's no doubt about that.  And I'm not saying the WFT should give up on looking for a quarterback but after seeing them fumble around for 25+ years it's not inspiring. 

 

 

I pretty much agree with all of this. I also agree that being a "pound the rock, control the clock" offense is at times a valid thing. However, I think it really should only be used when necessary in today's NFL.

 

So instead of having a team and saying "Ok, we want to be an old school running and clock control team" you look at the players you have and say "Ok, we realize that today's NFL is a passing league but we don't really have the talent for it at this point, however we probably have the guys to get some wins with a running and ball control based offense for now until we can upgrade some positions to have a better passing offense."

 

I think the latter is what Scott and Ron basically did after the bye week. They realized that we didn't really have the horses (mostly QB or any major receiving threat other than Terry) for a high powered passing attack so they tried to figure out another way to win and came up with a much more ball control type of offense with the QB primarily being a game manager.

 

It worked a bit but, as I've noted before, those types of offenses are super iffy nowadays because of how prolific offenses have become and how quickly teams can put up points. So if you're relying on a stingy defense, good running game, and controlling the clock, all three of those pretty much have to go off without a hitch or you'll find yourself in a pretty deep hole pretty fast, which happened to us later in the season when all 3 weren't clicking fully.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

48 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

All in all, the above are some of the main reasons I’m still defending Heinicke - not as the answer for us, but as a guy that had a lot going against him.  Doesn’t mean the defense and run game weren’t a big reason for some of the wins (aside from maybe NYG/ATL), but Taylor still had to have some key moments - the long td drive vs TB, the FG winning drive against the Raiders come to mind for example.

I'm not sure anyone has argued that he was playing with a loaded deck though.  It's become a very common occurrence over the last several years, dating back to the Gruden tenure, where we've lost a ton of players at pivotal positions come late in the season.  I know for me personally, I've defended the coaching staff for getting whipped of late - as the rosters they put out there against Dallas and Philly the first time were dreadful.  So it's not like we're blaming the losses on Heineke.  With that said, it's still become abundantly clear that we need a QB that has all the field and throws at his disposal in order to back defenders off the LOS.  He's had some moments - sure.  You can win some games with him.  We can say the same thing about a guy like Colt McCoy too though.  That's what makes him ideal as a backup but not the guy you want to roll for 16 with.

 

[srtman04]

Taylor has cemented himself as a solid backup in this league,  but that is clearly his ceiling.   

[HigSkin]

 

[Llevron]

I don't think he cant get batter. 

 

I don't want to be the team betting their season on it. 

[skinny21]

On 1/5/2022 at 2:48 PM, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'm not sure anyone has argued that he was playing with a loaded deck though.  Of course they didn’t, and maybe I need to communicate better, because that wasn’t my point.  Many are quick to point at any defense of Heinicke and call it “making excuses” though.  Lots of snarky comments regarding anyone that comes to his defense (even while I’ll readily admit some of the defenses have been over the top).  So to me, it’s about recognizing the far from ideal scenario he was put in, much like Rivera, JDR and Turner, and thinking maybe he is better than he’s been credited.  It's become a very common occurrence over the last several years, dating back to the Gruden tenure, where we've lost a ton of players at pivotal positions come late in the season.  I know for me personally, I've defended the coaching staff for getting whipped of late - as the rosters they put out there against Dallas and Philly the first time were dreadful.  So it's not like we're blaming the losses on Heineke.  With that said, it's still become abundantly clear that we need a QB that has all the field and throws at his disposal in order to back defenders off the LOS.  He's had some moments - sure.  You can win some games with him.  We can say the same thing about a guy like Colt McCoy too though.  That's what makes him ideal as a backup but not the guy you want to roll for 16 with.  

 

Adding to my points in bold…

Fair points.  The flip side of this is how many people defended the coaching staff but not TH?  I know I called his play horrible after the first Dallas game, but I also pointed out that he was under duress often (and it looked like it got into his head to the point it affected his play even when he wasn’t under duress).  Lots of qbs would struggle in those circumstances though (particularly as our run game struggled and he was w/o his top 2 weapons).  Many took the stance that Dallas (and therefore the league) had just figured him out (finally), I’m not convinced as of yet.  These D coordinators get paid a lot of money to figure this stuff out - stands to reason someone would have figured it out before the Dallas game.  You’d think the Eagles would have done the same as Dallas.  Seems to me it might have been more about Dallas having the horses, and us not so much… maybe.  

Speaking of the Dallas game, I’m curious at what point in the season it became clear to you that we need a qb that can back defenders off the LOS?

 

Agree that we all want a qb that can stretch the field (and far more importantly, a franchise type that can do it all), I hope like hell we get it worked out.  Again though, I’m also not convinced we couldn’t win a lot of games with Heinicke.  He’s not the guy I want starting 16 games next year, but I would actually have some degree of confidence if that’s how things played out (ie in terms of injury, or if we picked a guy like Willis and he just wasn’t ready - different story in terms of if that would be egg on the FO’s face for going the route of a raw rookie again - see Davis, Jamin).  I also feel like he’s shown more than a guy like Colt.  With that said, he’s been blessed with opportunity that few of his ilk have been afforded.

 

I’ll admit though - I’m a bit of an optimist.  I tend to support our players until I’m sold it’s not just extenuating circumstances.  Means I’m wrong far more often than I’m right, and I’m probably wrong about Heinicke.  And to be clear, for most of the season I doubted he could be a franchise type guy for us (a Tannehill type was the absolute best I could envision for him, which might be enough to give us a chance to win it all).  It wasn’t until Dallas week that I gave up on that (what I knew was probably a) dream.  I haven’t given up on “might be good enough to be competitive with”.  It’s not the goal of course, but until we have something better 1) you never know when you might get lucky and 2) I’ll take that over mostly mired in mediocrity.  Mainly I’m just wanting the stud qb though… we’re long overdue.

 

@LlevronTotally agree.

Edited January 6, 2022 by skinny21

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

@skinny21I guess where we differ is that I feel like the past 4 games have been bad not just because we’ve lost horses but also Taylor instills no fear in the opposing defense.  They know the throws he can’t make and it allows them to be more aggressive.  There are parts of the field they simply don’t have to cover.  I don’t think the Oline looks so terrible if the QB is one that can make them pay.  

[mistertim]

@skinny21I'm guessing the whole "figured him out" thing is a bit more than just figuring out what Heinicke can or can't do...pretty much everyone can see that stuff and as you noted, DCs get paid a lot of money to know it. I think it was a bit of a combination of things with regards to Dallas: knowing Heinicke's tendencies and limitations, having the horses to run the defense they want, figuring out how Turner would play things, and then putting all of that together. 

 

I know Turner is a bit of a whipping boy at times on here, and I make no bones about having some issues with his play calling at times, but I also think he gets a bit of a bad rap in general. He had to game plan around a QB who is smart but physically limited and deal with shuffling things around due to plenty of injuries. I remember many times after many games where tweets or videos were posted showing guys getting open plenty, but we couldn't or didn't get the ball to them.

 

He also was able to adapt his game plans after the bye due to injuries and Heinicke's limitations into more of a run first ball control oriented offense and it was relatively successful, even though I don't think those offenses are very practical in the modern NFL...but you do what you can with what you have, and that's what Turner did.

[evmiii]

3 hours ago, HigSkin said:

 

Taylor is a more athletic Colt McCoy.  Smart guy, huge heart but just doesn’t have the release and arm talent of a #1 guy in the NFL.  Really like him as the #2 guy.  There’s a reasonable chance we will have a shot at the first QB of the board.  If Scott and crew are sold on any of those guys you have to take him.  I think Pickett or Corral both have a chance under the right circumstances to be very good. Personally I like Corral but I wish I was more confident that our staff wouldn’t ruin him.

[zCommander]

On 1/4/2022 at 9:49 PM, mistertim said:

QB comes first. Pretty much every NFL HC and GM openly admit this. 

 

Didn't know that the QB position was gay.

[Darrell Green Fan]

The same posters proposing Tribisky are probably the same posters who were pimping Sam Darnold a year ago. Guys first round busts rarely if ever work out in a new spot.  MM was not a bust like Mitch but we know what he is and it's not good enough.  But sadly this is where they find themselves, being forced to take guys like this. If you expect dramatic improvement from the QB position with this route I suggest you think again.  

Edited January 7, 2022 by Darrell Green Fan

[Koolblue13]

2 hours ago, zskins said:

 

Didn't know that the QB position was gay.

Your Heinicke love, knows no bounds.