The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

The bar is low for sure, and I understand (and mostly share) your optimism for Howell.  I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility though that Howell throws more picks (including pick 6s), takes more sacks as he holds the ball, has trouble sustaining drives, etc.  As I said, it’s a risk I’d be willing to take - the possibility of more positive plays is alluring - but IMO it is indeed a risk.

 

I see it as Howell having a much higher ceiling than TH, but as of this moment (until he’s had more time in this system) the lower floor.  Now I may be totally wrong about the floor, but until I see him play, that’s where my head is at.  As bad as Heinicke has been, I’ve seen worse qb performances.

As of this moment our offense is stagnant. I’d rather say, “we tried Howell… it didn’t work” and enter 2023 knowing where we are than keep him hidden on the bench behind two guys who have failed in their roles.

 

Heinicke, at least, provided a spark for a bit and got some wins under the team’s belt. But playing a guy just because it’s safer is a loser mentality. It’s playing not to lose instead of playing to win.

[skinny21]

9 minutes ago, KDawg said:

As of this moment our offense is stagnant. I’d rather say, “we tried Howell… it didn’t work” and enter 2023 knowing where we are than keep him hidden on the bench behind two guys who have failed in their roles.

 

Heinicke, at least, provided a spark for a bit and got some wins under the team’s belt. But playing a guy just because it’s safer is a loser mentality. It’s playing not to lose instead of playing to win.

I’m right there with you, on all counts.  I only wanted to clarify (earlier) that I don’t see it as a foregone conclusion that our offense can’t be worse with Howell in the lineup.  Granted, 12 points last game was woeful, but we were also a penalty away (on Robinson’s td) from putting up our usual type of offense… which we’ve won with more often than not.  So yeah, the offense is underperforming (as it has been almost all year), but I can understand a bit of the hesitation to try something new.  I’d still do it though… although the coaches not seeming to consider inserting Howell gives me some pause.

 

As for Wentz, I’m tempted to try him as well.  If the team is going to look for a veteran in the offseason anyway (and if he both shows progress and is willing to take a pay cut), I could see rolling with Wentz, who has had time in the system.  Yes, he needs a much better oline in front of him (as does any qb we trot out, though the degree might differ), and I do have major questions as to whether he can operate in this style of offense… but we could do worse in terms of a vet to compete with Sam.

[KDawg]

20 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I’m right there with you, on all counts.  I only wanted to clarify (earlier) that I don’t see it as a foregone conclusion that our offense can’t be worse with Howell in the lineup.  Granted, 12 points last game was woeful, but we were also a penalty away (on Robinson’s td) from putting up our usual type of offense… which we’ve won with more often than not.  So yeah, the offense is underperforming (as it has been almost all year), but I can understand a bit of the hesitation to try something new.  I’d still do it though… although the coaches not seeming to consider inserting Howell gives me some pause.

 

As for Wentz, I’m tempted to try him as well.  If the team is going to look for a veteran in the offseason anyway (and if he both shows progress and is willing to take a pay cut), I could see rolling with Wentz, who has had time in the system.  Yes, he needs a much better oline in front of him (as does any qb we trot out, though the degree might differ), and I do have major questions as to whether he can operate in this style of offense… but we could do worse in terms of a vet to compete with Sam.

It’s not a foregone conclusion. I don’t own a crystal ball. 
 

Doesn’t change my opinion that it won’t get worse under Howell

Edited December 21, 2022 by KDawg

[BrentMeisterGeneral]

Plenty of Devil’s Dandruff doing the rounds at the Spotrac Crimbo party

Edited December 21, 2022 by BrentMeisterGeneral

[Skinsinparadise]

As i mentioned in another post on another thread, I have to rewatch these games to land with a hardcore opinion on play calling.  So for now I'll rely on smart people who have watched the game twice as to this offense.   I just listened to Logan Paulsen who rewatched the game twice.  I thought about posting it in the Turner thread but it fits here I think better.

 

A.  He made this point earlier this week -- Scott bascially tried to steal the Eagles play book from what they did successfully to the Giants.  Heavy RPO-heavy RO.  He understands the method to the madness but the offense was poor at executing it.

 

B.  In the 2nd half Scott abandoned that Eagles plan and went to the usual recipe and that worked a lot better with some extra twists which he didn't see earlier in the season which he liked.  It gives him some faith about the next matchup.  

 

C.  He thinks what they are very good at is running duo and counter and in turn play action off of that.  He thinks those run plays are well designed and the team executes it well.  And he's good at the backfield motion, sweeps and all the eye candy which works really well to help make the runs successful and helps play action.  He thinks they should do that even more. 

 

D.  Implied that the O line is good at run blocking and said that some of Robinson's explosiveness was the O line plowed up some nice size holes for him and at times he got a head of steam that helped him move forward untouched to build the momentum to make him hard to stop. 

 

E. In the red zone all the warts of this offense is exposed.  Taylor's lack of arm strength and play making ability is exposed, O line's struggles at pass protection.  Turner has his moments with play design in the red zone but also makes some mistakes.  They have had open plays that Taylor has missed or the O line blew a protection.  He didn't outright say it but he made it clear that play calling isn't the problem in the red zone.   He doesn't think Turner is great at it but he's solid. He flat out said these plays should be executed better which he doesn't put all on Taylor but also on players screwing up.  He thinks Taylor's play gets tight in the red zone and they should rely on Taylor less and the running game more. 

 

To point C, part of the reason why I didn't think Turner was some bumbiling fool last year was as I've said before in live games I try to zone in on one thing I can see live and have a harder time seeing on TV.  And in the Raiders game I decided to watch their line of scrimmage on offense and try to guess where the ball was going to on the ground and I found myself impressed from the context of I had a hard time guessing. 

 

Following their motion, threw me off.   Especially the TEs would throw me off because traditionally you'd think they are running to their strong side or wherever the TE is headed in motion presnap -- but that assumption was often wrong.  So I liked the fact that I was confused trying to make something of their motion as far as tells.  In short, I thought he disguised the runs well.   And that's more or less what Logan says they are really good at - running the ball and using motion to set it up.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[method man]

18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

As i mentioned in another post on another thread, I have to rewatch these games to land with a hardcore opinion on play calling.  So for now I'll rely on smart people who have watched the game twice as to this offense.   I just listened to Logan Paulsen who rewatched the game twice.  I thought about posting it in the Turner thread but it fits here I think better.

 

A.  He made this point earlier this week -- Scott bascially tried to steal the Eagles play book from what they did successfully to the Giants.  Heavy RPO-heavy RO.  He understands the method to the madness but the offense was poor at executing it.

 

B.  In the 2nd half Scott abandoned that Eagles plan and went to the usual recipe and that worked a lot better with some extra twists which he didn't see earlier in the season which he liked.  It gives him some faith about the next matchup.  

 

C.  He thinks what they are very good at is running duo and counter and in turn play action off of that.  He thinks those run plays are well designed and the team executes it well.  And he's good at the backfield motion, sweeps and all the eye candy which works really well to help make the runs successful and helps play action.  He thinks they should do that even more. 

 

D.  Implied that the O line is good at run blocking and said that some of Robinson's explosiveness was the O line plowed up some nice size holes for him and at times he got a head of steam that helped him move forward untouched to build the momentum to make him hard to stop. 

 

E. In the red zone all the warts of this offense is exposed.  Taylor's lack of arm strength and play making ability is exposed, O line's struggles at pass protection.  Turner has his moments with play design in the red zone but also makes some mistakes.  They have had open plays that Taylor has missed or the O line blew a protection.  He didn't outright say it but he made it clear that play calling isn't the problem in the red zone.   He doesn't think Turner is great at it but he's solid. He flat out said these plays should be executed better which he doesn't put all on Taylor but also on players screwing up.  He thinks Taylor's play gets tight in the red zone and they should rely on Taylor less and the running game more. 

 

To point C, part of the reason why I didn't think Turner was some bumbiling fool last year was as I've said before in live games I try to zone in on one thing I can see live and have a harder time seeing on TV.  And in the Raiders game I decided to watch their line of scrimmage on offense and try to guess where the ball was going to on the ground and I found myself impressed from the context of I had a hard time guessing. 

 

Following their motion, threw me off.   Especially the TEs would throw me off because traditionally you'd think they are running to their strong side or wherever the TE is headed in motion presnap -- but that assumption was often wrong.  So I liked the fact that I was confused trying to make something of their motion as far as tells.  In short, I thought he disguised the runs well.   And that's more or less what Logan says they are really good at - running the ball and using motion to set it up.

 

I don't know why he thought it would be a good idea to do bullet point A given the team hasn't practiced much of it. At the end of the day, we tied the game in the first matchup executing suboptimally with turnovers, missed reads, missed blocks and penalties. Would've been much better served just focusing on what they have been practicing all these weeks and tightening it up (may be doing more of bullet point B instead)

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[El Mexican]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

O line was bad last year?

 

It's been incredibly irregular since Scherff and Trent Williams left.

 

I suppose it was expected.

[FLSkinz83]

32 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

E. In the red zone all the warts of this offense is exposed.  Taylor's lack of arm strength and play making ability is exposed, O line's struggles at pass protection.  Turner has his moments with play design in the red zone but also makes some mistakes.  They have had open plays that Taylor has missed or the O line blew a protection.  He didn't outright say it but he made it clear that play calling isn't the problem in the red zone.   He doesn't think Turner is great at it but he's solid. He flat out said these plays should be executed better which he doesn't put all on Taylor but also on players screwing up.  He thinks Taylor's play gets tight in the red zone and they should rely on Taylor less and the running game more. 

 

Logan Paulsen works for the team, doesn't he?    He's not going to say Turner is awful.    

 

One carry in the red zone for Brian Robinson all year.    Let that sink in for you.    Forget about TH and the O-Line for a minute...

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, El Mexican said:

 

It's been incredibly irregular since Scherff and Trent Williams left.

 

I suppose it was expected.

 

O line was good the first two years by most metrics.  Don't recall much angst about the unit then.  

 

Your post implies that Ron's O lines typically are bad and you don't expect he will bounce back this off season as to that unit per usual.  I just don't see how that's true. 

 

His critics ironically like to say the dude if anything might be too old school in emphazing building in the trenches at the expense of other spots.  Yeah it fell apart this season -- Rouillier getting hurt and letting Flowers and Scherff go while replacing the two with jags has been a disaster.   But its clear Ron gets the mistake is will be focused on fixing it.  i am not worried about him and Masko fixing the o line.     As to the QB spot, that's another story.  

 

https://riggosrag.com/2021/12/05/washington-offensive-line-will-be-key-road-win/

According to ESPN’s analytics and metrics, the offensive line for the Washington Football Team is playing exceptionally well. They possess the third-highest pass-block (67 percent) win rate in the NFL. But, even more impressive, the unit is first in the NFL (77 percent) in run-block win rate. Head coach Ron Rivera prioritized the offensive line this past offseason, and the moves are paying off.

[FLSkinz83]

From Albert Breer......

 

Are the Commanders going to keep Wentz and Heinicke or do you see them exploring another trade this offseason to get their QB?

 

Pablo, I think the Commanders will go into the 2023 offseason same as they went into the ’22 and even ’21 offseasons, which is with their radar up for a quarterback. Two years ago, they offered first- and third-round picks for Matthew Stafford, but Stafford didn’t want to go there. They looked into Russell Wilson in ’22, and got the same answer back (Deshaun Watson was a non-starter for them because of the issues the Washington organization has had).

 

So I think knowing that Taylor Heinicke is a nice player who’s not the long-term answer, and Wentz isn’t that guy, either, puts them back in the mix again, for the third consecutive year. What’s different this time around? I think the team is better. The line’s improved. The quarterback will have Terry McLaurin, Jahan Dotson and Brian Robinson Jr. around him. And they’re still in D.C. All of which, I think, makes it more likely a star QB finds them appealing. 

[Skinsinparadise]

35 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

Logan Paulsen works for the team, doesn't he?    He's not going to say Turner is awful.    

 

One carry in the red zone for Brian Robinson all year.    Let that sink in for you.    Forget about TH and the O-Line for a minute...

 

I am not a conspiracy guy when it came to Cooley when he worked for the team or for that matter Paulsen now.  I think they are both pretty honest.  They both criticized in real time some of their off season moves and rip coaches a ton. 

 

Heck i was the dude here who scoffed in the off season when people on this thread and others touted Scott Turner as a head coaching candidate.  i explained why i didn't think so, including mentioned that Paulsen said in the off season studying Turner's offenses, he's just OK, not imaginative and explained why -- said he's so so, and he said Kyle is a mile better calling plays -- you really think Danny boy endorses statements like that?  i don't find Paulsen that measured.  He's on the cynical side about coaching including deflating Turner's balloon when it wasn't cool to do so last off season.

 

You seem to suggest he's lying and he truly thinks Scott sucks and is not just so so.  I've listened to him enough to believe that he genuinely thinks he's so so. He was really critical on his play calling with Wentz but thought he rebounded with Taylor.  And I think a hard time some have with so so is they think it means that every game is so so.  Nope, like I said the typical path for so so, is some good games, some bad games, some so so games.

 

I am not even saying he's right or wrong.  But personally,  I don't like to grade play calling from watching  a game in real time.  I like to rewatch like Paulsen has been doing.  If you think you got a full handle on Scott's playcalling, cool.  i am not saying you are wrong.  But I am not just going to run with your take or anyone's take without rewatching the games.  If I am going to take someone else's take for now, I'll take people who are professionals and have rewatched the games.

 

As for Robinson.  i gather they must be running Gibson because they run a ton in the red zone judging by these stats.  But yeah considering Heinicke is beyond bad in the red zone, looks like he's epically bad in the red zone.  I am with you that they should have concluded quicker that Heinicke is a train wreck in the red zone and threw the towell in much sooner. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/12/19/commanders-red-zone/

Turner calls 48 percent runs in the red zone and 52 percent passes — and they’ve never suggested Heinicke struggles to zip passes into tighter windows, though it seems to be a factor. In a recent column for the website the 33rd Team, Hall of Fame executive Bill Polian wrote that the Commanders “strangely … do not run well in the red zone.”

On Sunday night, several players said the team had a number of problems in the red zone, but each of them independently listed a common culprit at the top of the list.

 

..But inside the low red zone, Turner’s balance seems to hurt the offense. Because even though Washington still runs the ball pretty well, Heinicke collapses.

Inside the low red zone, Heinicke has completed just 8 of 24 attempts (33.3 percent). It is the lowest mark in the NFL by nearly 10 percent. Since 2000, out of 752 qualified quarterback seasons, Heinicke’s completion percentage this year is tied for 727th.

 

In the most critical situations, it’s even worse. On third and fourth down, Heinicke has completed 1 of 11 passes (9.1 percent). Since 2000, the only quarterback to attempt double-digit passes inside the low red zone and have a worse completion percentage was Chicago Bears rookie Justin Fields in 2021 (0 for 10).

Edited December 21, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Captain James]

49 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

E. In the red zone all the warts of this offense is exposed.  Taylor's lack of arm strength and play making ability is exposed, O line's struggles at pass protection.  Turner has his moments with play design in the red zone but also makes some mistakes.  They have had open plays that Taylor has missed or the O line blew a protection. 

Since we really don't have much to lose at this point (I know we still have some hope), then maybe we should try just running it all 4 downs in the redzone, straight down their throats. If we fail, we at least give the other team horrible field position.

[FLSkinz83]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

You seem to suggest he's lying and he truly thinks Scott sucks not just so so. 

 

I think he would fire him.   I've heard him say all the things you mentioned.   His comparison is the Shanny system and Turner is nowhere near that level.  

[Skinsinparadise]

9 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

From Albert Breer......

 

Are the Commanders going to keep Wentz and Heinicke or do you see them exploring another trade this offseason to get their QB?

 

Pablo, I think the Commanders will go into the 2023 offseason same as they went into the ’22 and even ’21 offseasons, which is with their radar up for a quarterback. Two years ago, they offered first- and third-round picks for Matthew Stafford, but Stafford didn’t want to go there. They looked into Russell Wilson in ’22, and got the same answer back (Deshaun Watson was a non-starter for them because of the issues the Washington organization has had).

 

So I think knowing that Taylor Heinicke is a nice player who’s not the long-term answer, and Wentz isn’t that guy, either, puts them back in the mix again, for the third consecutive year. What’s different this time around? I think the team is better. The line’s improved. The quarterback will have Terry McLaurin, Jahan Dotson and Brian Robinson Jr. around him. And they’re still in D.C. All of which, I think, makes it more likely a star QB finds them appealing. 

 

I see the same thing.  The supporting cast has improved, not the line obviously.  But I think they can coast with the supporting cast outside of TE this off season.  All hands on deck as for the O line.

 

But yeah i can see a Zen approach this time.  What's available and at what price?

 

I know some here disagree but I actually see this team being close for a change.   O line and just an average QB would do it IMO. 

[Zim489]

15 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

From Albert Breer......

 

Are the Commanders going to keep Wentz and Heinicke or do you see them exploring another trade this offseason to get their QB?

 

Pablo, I think the Commanders will go into the 2023 offseason same as they went into the ’22 and even ’21 offseasons, which is with their radar up for a quarterback. Two years ago, they offered first- and third-round picks for Matthew Stafford, but Stafford didn’t want to go there. They looked into Russell Wilson in ’22, and got the same answer back (Deshaun Watson was a non-starter for them because of the issues the Washington organization has had).

 

So I think knowing that Taylor Heinicke is a nice player who’s not the long-term answer, and Wentz isn’t that guy, either, puts them back in the mix again, for the third consecutive year. What’s different this time around? I think the team is better. The line’s improved. The quarterback will have Terry McLaurin, Jahan Dotson and Brian Robinson Jr. around him. And they’re still in D.C. All of which, I think, makes it more likely a star QB finds them appealing. 

Wheres the star outside of Lamar? I dont want to hear about Derek Carr either. 

 

The available QBs this year is far less than last.

AFC West? Carr and hard pass no. 

AFC South? Tannehill hard pass

AFC North? Lamar

AFC East? Nothing there

NFC West? Maybe Lance becomes available 🤷‍♂️ Jimmy G blehhh

NFC South? Brady? Mehh what ever. Feels like a sideshow at this point

NFC North? AARod is unmoveable. Fields maybe but doubtful after his play this year

NFC East? Daniel Jones if hes gone?

 

The options are just not there. So that means draft. I think its a 1 man class. If Stroud drops to us than maybe. Blehhh on Levis. Would love AR15 but not with this staff. 

 

This staff made their bed. You cant wait until year 4 to even attempt an answer. The no trade up for fields was the start of their death march. If they didnt want pay too much tyey are certainly going to have to pay even more now to move up to where they want if they want to go the Rookie route. Penny Smart pound foolish. Complete lack of foresight. Let them lay in their craptastic bed 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Zim489

[FLSkinz83]

Just now, Zim489 said:

Wheres the star outside of Lamar? I dont want to hear about Derek Carr either. 

 

Uhhh...No idea...Rodgers?   Brady?  

[Skinsinparadise]

13 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

I think he would fire him.   I've heard him say all the things you mentioned.   His comparison is the Shanny system and Turner is nowhere near that level.  

 

Again i elaborated about Scott some in the off season and lol tried to put a wet blanket on all the love he got from some.  And part of that ironically was me using Logan's takes on him.  I don't really have a strong opinion on Scott outside of believing he's not the #1 problem -- sorry I do disagree on that front.  The #1 problem IMO is QB and Logan doesn't hide it that well that he sees it the same way that point oozes out podcast after podcast albeit he's never flat out said it.  

 

But yeah purely listening to Logan, I don't get the impression he secretly thinks he sucks.  The impression I get is he thinks he's good with backfield motion, good at Marty ball schemes, provides some wrinkles at times he likes.  But he also gets too cute, and doesn't always have a good feel for the game.  He's complemented him for calling some good games.  Ripped him for some bad games.   I think he sees him as OK nothing special. 

 

If anything for me, it feels like he's holding back that he thinks Heinicke sucks.  He starts going there and then pulls back.  Ive seen him doing that multiple times. 

 

As for the Shanny system, he doesn't say its damning that Turner doesn't match it.  He doesn't think that any coordinator matches it.

 

The vibe I get about turner from Logan is he thinks he's vanilla.  OK.  Not awful.  Nothing special.  But some awful games in the mix. 

 

Bringing this to Logan and Cooley together, they are pretty high on this roster though -- the weapons, the defense.  Neither believe this is a tear down. They think O line and QB. 

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[The Rook]

Although I know the team does not have to pick up Wentz's next two years, what would happen if he plays this year and gets hurt.  Would the team be tied to him (ala Alex Smith) or can they pay him an injury settlement?

 

Obviously, I don't want to see anyone hurt and I damn sure don't want to see the team in the same position it was with Smith.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

[Zim489]

Just now, The Rook said:

Although I know the team does not have to pick up Wentz's next two years, what would happen if he plays this year and gets hurt.  Would the team be tied to him (ala Alex Smith) or can they pay him an injury settlement?

If he cant pass his physical prior to the deadline for his contract becomes guaranteed its the entire thing on the books which I believe is the 5th day of the league year. Usually about the time frame. 

 

In that case why would wentz settle ?

[FLSkinz83]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The vibe I get about turner from Logan is he thinks he's vanilla.  OK.  Not awful.  Nothing special.

 

Let's say this is accurate.   Why would anyone want an "OK" Coordinator?   

 

This my thought on this entire football operation.  It's average.  I believe it was DeSean Jackson who once said "you can't do epic things with basic people"

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

Let's say this is accurate.   Why would anyone want an "OK" Coordinator?   

 

This my thought on this entire football operation.  It's average.  I believe it was DeSean Jackson who once said "you can't do epic things with basic people"

 

I got no problem with that thought.  I am not suggesting I am ok with it.  it was the argument i was using to shoot down the Turner should be a head coach argument some had in the off season -- my point was he's not special as a play caller (he's not Shanny) and his personality is uber bland -- not a leader of men type. 

 

I am simply saying fixing the O line and QB is the taller-more important task.  As far as Scott goes I don't really have much angst one way or another but I wouldn't mind an upgrade at all.  My gut is Rivera isn't going to be here that much longer so even if I were bothered to no end about Scott, I still don't sweat temporary problems.

 

i have a ton of angst about QB and O line. 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, method man said:

 

I don't know why he thought it would be a good idea to do bullet point A given the team hasn't practiced much of it. At the end of the day, we tied the game in the first matchup executing suboptimally with turnovers, missed reads, missed blocks and penalties. Would've been much better served just focusing on what they have been practicing all these weeks and tightening it up (may be doing more of bullet point B instead)

 

Considering Ron mentioned the other day Taylor needs to run more, i gather they might not have anticipated Taylor mostly wouldn't with an RO-RPO heavy game plan.  He did run some -- more than his usual zero runs from RO-RPO but still those plays didn't work well beccause they ended up serving as easy to read handoffs.

 

They aren't the first team to alter their game plan to exploit a defense's weakness.  But yeah it didn't work. 

[FLSkinz83]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I got no problem with that thought.  I am not suggesting I am ok with it.  it was the argument i was using to shoot down the Turner should be a head coach argument some had in the off season -- my point was he's not special as a play caller (he's not Shanny) and his personality is uber bland -- not a leader of men type. 

 

I am simply saying fixing the O line and QB is the taller-more important task.  As far as Scott goes I don't really have much angst one way or another but I wouldn't mind an upgrade at all.  My gut is Rivera isn't going to be here that much longer so even if I were bothered to no end about Scott, I still don't sweat temporary problems.

 

i have a ton of angst about QB and O line. 

 

Maybe that's part of the problem with Turner.  He read the press clippings about him being a coaching candidate and wants to show teams how brilliant he is.

 

Forget Head Coaching job, I don't think he'll get another O-Coordinator job after he leaves.  Probably back to being a QB Coach.  

[Skinsinparadise]

Just now, FLSkinz83 said:

 

Maybe that's part of the problem with Turner.  He read the press clippings about him being a coaching candidate and wants to show teams how brilliant he is.

 

Forget Head Coaching job, I don't think he'll get another O-Coordinator job after he leaves.  Probably back to being a QB Coach.  

 

Don't know.  But I don't see him as a head coach at all.   He doesn't have IMO the personality or the inventiveness. And like i said i felt that way last off season before he was beaten up like he has been this season.