The All Things 2022 OTAs/Training Camp Thread

[KDawg]

22 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Even if Davis pans out, LB is still an issue. 

Yes. Cole Holcomb is a fringe NFL starter at his best. Davis is an NFL starter at his potential. 

 

I think we need to retain Holcomb if possible but we need a big time FA or to focus on a LB in the draft in the next year. As a BPA w/ weight needs guy I actually think LB may be the BPA at our selection as well given it SHOULD be somewhere in the 11-26 range. Sewell is an early favorite, but there are a bunch of good LBs possibly coming out. 

[formerly4skins]

8 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Yes. Cole Holcomb is a fringe NFL starter at his best.

 

A fringe starter that they're trying to shoehorn into the MLB spot, at that. I like Cole, but not at MLB...seems obvious his natural fit is more as a Sam.

 

That the team didn't address MLB in some way this off-season seems either arrogant, negligent, or incompetent...I'm not sure which. 

[KDawg]

Just now, formerly4skins said:

 

A fringe starter that they're trying to shoehorn into the MLB spot, at that. I like Cole, but not at MLB...seems obvious his natural fit is more as a Sam.

 

That the team didn't address MLB in some way this off-season seems either arrogant, negligent, or incompetent...I'm not sure which. 

 

Again, we need to use like-terms. Do you mean a signal caller or a true 4-3 MIKE backer?

 

In a 4-2, which is our primary defense and an extremely prevalent defense in the league in general, you don't need a true 4-3 MIKE. Inside backers are more like OLBs, so a SAM and a WILL (Holcomb/Davis) make sense there. Issue with them is they aren't guys who are (I am so excited about this word that I'm about to use) COMMANDERS of the defense. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

11 hours ago, FLSkinz83 said:

Was listening to Chris Russell and another media guy talk about how soft this team is and how other people are saying the same thing.

 

That's a real indictment on Rivera in year three.

Step 1: Don't listen to Chris Russell.

Step 2: Enjoy the rest of your life.

 

Free advice that's probably worth millions.  You can thank me later.

 

To address the Rooster's latest in a long, long, long list of idiotic points, if there is anything the team is not it's soft.  They basically bludgeoned their way to the 4 game win streak last year. They play physically, on both sides of the ball.  The problem is not soft.  The problem is discipline.  But Russell is too much of an idiot to know the difference.  

 

You have to consider the source.  He's an idiot who thought Eric Schaffer was irreplaceable, Haz, Barry and Manusky were good DCs, and the best way to win is to run the ball 70% of the time.  Even John Keim fools on him.  When Keim is picking on you, you know it's in good spirits, but you also know that you're a fool's fool.  

9 hours ago, zCommander said:

Maybe that poster from ODU? 

I wasn't referring to you.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Chris 44 said:

If Brady makes it into the HOF and so does Wilson and Ryan.....then Heineke also makes it by default?  Because he did beat them right?    ...sarcasm. 

Don't forget Ryan.  Ryan could make it.  (He really could if he has another couple good years.  I don't think he will.  But he could.)

 

And he ALMOST beat Rodgers.  He did a Lambeau Leap in an opponents stadium, for God's sake, and did so after FAILING to score a TD.  That takes Guts.  That takes heart.  The man is a legend.  

 

So, if you beat 3 HOF QBs, and ALMOST beat another one, absolutely you deserve to be in the HOF. Actually, the fact you beat them in the same year, statues should be erected outside of stadiums, and songs should be written and sung  by those statues by women playing lutes dressed in togas.  As people walk by the statues, they should remove their hats and maintain appropriate, respectful silence as they pass by.  

[zCommander]

14 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I wasn't referring to you.  

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

42 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Yes. Cole Holcomb is a fringe NFL starter at his best. Davis is an NFL starter at his potential. 

 

I think we need to retain Holcomb if possible but we need a big time FA or to focus on a LB in the draft in the next year. As a BPA w/ weight needs guy I actually think LB may be the BPA at our selection as well given it SHOULD be somewhere in the 11-26 range. Sewell is an early favorite, but there are a bunch of good LBs possibly coming out. 

I think this season is going to inform one of 3 possible paths for next off-season:

 

1. If the team has a good record, say 9+ wins, then I think you'll see some hole-patching:

- As you said, probably re-sign Holcomb (I really thought they were going to do that this off-season, and I guess they still could.

- Re-sign Curl

- Re-sign Montez, with the assumption he had a good year which helped lead to the good record

- Find another LB somewhere, but probably not in the first round. Maybe FA, maybe 2nd-4th round.  

- I think they will go OL early in the draft next year. I'm a BPA w/weight needs guy also.   They haven't gone OL in the first for a while (since Scherff), and I think they will want a younger guy at the guard spots. If they are picking in the 11-26 range, that would be a prime target for an interior OL spot.  And I THINK Norwell is on a 1 year deal, and Turner might be also, so they would need a guard or two no matter what.  

- It wouldn't be a really active off-season.  Basically keep the band together, figure out one or two impact pieces, and move forward.  Keep drafting and developing. 

 

2. If the team under-performs, 6-8 wins, absent huge injury issues, I'm going to assume the reason is they wiffed on Wentz.  So

- We'll be back in the QB at all costs market.  I think this time, they would bite the bullet and trade up in the draft to get another rookie, assuming they don't think Howell is the guy long-term.  ** I doubt if Wentz flames out they go into next season with Howell as the penciled in starter, or get a FA to compete with him.  I think they'd go all-in again.  Unless Howell came in late in the year and killed it.  

- They would probably ship Montez Sweat off, and not re-sign Payne.

- I think there would be a real shakeup on the defensive side of the ball, coaches and players.  A lot of guys who have been around a while would not be.

- Offensively, probably stand pat a bit more, but get a new QB.  I'm sure they would continue to add pieces to the OL.

 

3. If the team totally bombs, 2-5 wins, I could see a scenario Ron isn't retained, and the whole thing is blown up entirely.  I see this as the least likely of the scenarios by a lot, but I guess it's a possibility.  

 

[FootballZombie]

I have never seen a backup QB who was clearly a backup QB live rent free in so many heads. Truly remarkable.

 

So many people got that TH fever.

Fitting as his play made me ill... but still.

[philibusters]

52 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Yes. Cole Holcomb is a fringe NFL starter at his best. Davis is an NFL starter at his potential. 

 

I think we need to retain Holcomb if possible but we need a big time FA or to focus on a LB in the draft in the next year. As a BPA w/ weight needs guy I actually think LB may be the BPA at our selection as well given it SHOULD be somewhere in the 11-26 range. Sewell is an early favorite, but there are a bunch of good LBs possibly coming out. 

 

I think Cole Holcomb is more than a fringe starter.  I see him the same category as I saw Ereck Flowers or Bobby McCain.  Not a high end guy, but a guy who would be starting on maybe 12 out of 32 teams.

[Koolblue13]

Holcomb is a former 5th rounder who has improved every year and was thrust into a very important role, that he has fully taken command over. 

 

He's a good player and a core leader on our defense.

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Holcomb is a former 5th rounder who has improved every year and was thrust into a very important role, that he has fully taken command over. 

 

He's a good player and a core leader on our defense.

 

He's an adequate player and him being the leader of the defense has been the problem. I think I'd like him more as a player if he WEREN'T the leader of the defense.

[Koolblue13]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

 

He's an adequate player and him being the leader of the defense has been the problem. I think I'd like him more as a player if he WEREN'T the leader of the defense.

He got thrust into the green dot midseason and had to do it, almost exclusively from the outside, so now he'll have a full offseason and is cemented as out Mike. Since he's improved every year, I'm assuming that won't change.

[KDawg]

Just now, Koolblue13 said:

He got thrust into the green dot midseason and had to do it, almost exclusively from the outside, so now he'll have a full offseason and is cemented as out Mike. Since he's improved every year, I'm assuming that won't change.

I'm not even in disagreement with this necessarily. And I agree he may surprise as the signal caller. I disagree with the "he has fully taken over command". I don't think we have the evidence to suggest that.

 

Regardless of Holcomb OR Davis, we need another guy that has positional flexibility that can play ILB or that hybrid role. Devin Lloyd would have been such a nice get (again, for anyone reading, I was among the people here higher on Dotson than most... so I love that we have Dotson and wouldn't change that pick, I just wish we had extra draft capital).

 

And I was an Isaiah Simmons guy in the Young draft (No, I wouldn't taken Simmons at 2 so it's a moot point). But I love that position. It's the glue to a good defense. You have guys who can play that spot in the 4-2 and everything changes.

[@DCGoldPants]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Yes. Cole Holcomb is a fringe NFL starter at his best. Davis is an NFL starter at his potential. 

 

I think we need to retain Holcomb if possible but we need a big time FA or to focus on a LB in the draft in the next year. As a BPA w/ weight needs guy I actually think LB may be the BPA at our selection as well given it SHOULD be somewhere in the 11-26 range. Sewell is an early favorite, but there are a bunch of good LBs possibly coming out. 

 

100% agree. Feels like they are actually just hoping for the best at LB this year. After 2 preseason games, it seemed they would sign another Vet.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Holcomb is a former 5th rounder who has improved every year and was thrust into a very important role, that he has fully taken command over. 

 

He's a good player and a core leader on our defense.

 

Eh..... worried he's going to win the Jon Bostic award for being in the picture a second late behind the defense giving up a big play. 

[Koolblue13]

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I'm not even in disagreement with this necessarily. And I agree he may surprise as the signal caller. I disagree with the "he has fully taken over command". I don't think we have the evidence to suggest that.

 

Regardless of Holcomb OR Davis, we need another guy that has positional flexibility that can play ILB or that hybrid role. Devin Lloyd would have been such a nice get (again, for anyone reading, I was among the people here higher on Dotson than most... so I love that we have Dotson and wouldn't change that pick, I just wish we had extra draft capital).

 

And I was an Isaiah Simmons guy in the Young draft (No, I wouldn't taken Simmons at 2 so it's a moot point). But I love that position. It's the glue to a good defense. You have guys who can play that spot in the 4-2 and everything changes.

Taken command, embraced? I'm not saying that he's going to explode doing it, just that he's clearly cemented and Ron/JDR have committed to it.

 

I agree with everything else and I've been right there with you with wanting Lloyd and Simmons, but understanding why we didn't. I saw you mention wanting Harris instead of Davis. I'd have been fine, but I wanted to move back and grab Moehrig and then Bolton in the second. Who knows if any of that was realistic. 

 

I'm less worried about LBer than I was. I'm more excited about seeing if this 2 LBer/3 Safety defense works like it could. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

44 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I'm less worried about LBer than I was. I'm more excited about seeing if this 2 LBer/3 Safety defense works like it could. 

I wonder how many times we see a 4-3 look this entire season.  I think it was 60 snaps the entirety of last year.  That's a WHOPPING 3.5 a game for those playing along at home.

 

I wonder if it's even less this year.

 

As I've said, I think 4-2-5 with 3 safeties is going to be their base when teams are in 12 personnel,  with Fuller/WJIII at CB, McCain, Curl and either Forrest/Butler as the "Big Nickel" or pseudo LB, then the DL and LBs.

 

I think if they need to stop the run, they're going going to go 5-2-4, with an extra DL in replace of the safety.  They did that some last year.  

 

When teams go into 11 personnel, they might sub-out the extra Safety for St. Juste and match a 3rd WR with a 3rd DB.  

 

So I wonder how many times they are going to ever have 4-3 on the field.  I actually kindof hope they challenge themselves to NEVER play 4-3, and get a HOF plaque for being the first team ever to go an entire season without ever having 3 LBs on the field at the same time.  Revolutionary, it would be, so says Yoda. 

[NeverSurrender]

11 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I wonder how many times we see a 4-3 look this entire season.  I think it was 60 snaps the entirety of last year.  That's a WHOPPING 3.5 a game for those playing along at home.

 

I wonder if it's even less this year.

 

As I've said, I think 4-2-5 with 3 safeties is going to be their base when teams are in 12 personnel,  with Fuller/WJIII at CB, McCain, Curl and either Forrest/Butler as the "Big Nickel" or pseudo LB, then the DL and LBs.

 

I think if they need to stop the run, they're going going to go 5-2-4, with an extra DL in replace of the safety.  They did that some last year.  

 

When teams go into 11 personnel, they might sub-out the extra Safety for St. Juste and match a 3rd WR with a 3rd DB.  

 

So I wonder how many times they are going to ever have 4-3 on the field.  I actually kindof hope they challenge themselves to NEVER play 4-3, and get a HOF plaque for being the first team ever to go an entire season without ever having 3 LBs on the field at the same time.  Revolutionary, it would be, so says Yoda. 

I actually bet the only way we see 4-3 base is if injures happen to the safeties or DL,  I think its 5-2-4 and 4-2-5 all year long and honestly it makes sense.   It plays to our strengths. 

[philibusters]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

I'm not even in disagreement with this necessarily. And I agree he may surprise as the signal caller. I disagree with the "he has fully taken over command". I don't think we have the evidence to suggest that.

 

Regardless of Holcomb OR Davis, we need another guy that has positional flexibility that can play ILB or that hybrid role. Devin Lloyd would have been such a nice get (again, for anyone reading, I was among the people here higher on Dotson than most... so I love that we have Dotson and wouldn't change that pick, I just wish we had extra draft capital).

 

And I was an Isaiah Simmons guy in the Young draft (No, I wouldn't taken Simmons at 2 so it's a moot point). But I love that position. It's the glue to a good defense. You have guys who can play that spot in the 4-2 and everything changes.

 

 

The Cardinals take a lot of flack on some of the podcasts I listen for drafting off the ball linebackers at 8 (Isaiah Simmons) and 16 (Zaven Collins) in back to back years.  I liked Zaven Collins a lot at 19 (thought even if he was there I probably would have taken Christian Darrisaw, but if Collins had been there at 19, those would have been the two I was choosing from).  I didn't really have any interest in Simmons at 2, but I did like him a lot and would have considered him at the spot the Cardinals took him.  I don't know the what the Cardinals needs were going into the 2020 draft, so I don't know if I would have taken him at that spot or not, but I would have at least considered him.  Just looking at the 2020 draft, if WR was a need for the Cardinals, I probably would have taken Jerry Jeudy or CeeDee Lamb at 8 as I was pretty high on both of them (and higher on Jeudy than Lamb)

[AlwaysBeRedskins2Me]

16 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

Neither starting QB played in the Chiefs/Packers game.

No, but Trey Lance and Davis Mills both played. Mills was still in the game, in the 3rd quarter. Tom Brady is gonna play in their game.

Edited August 26, 2022 by AlwaysBeRedskins2Me

[justice98]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

You have to consider the source.  He's an idiot who thought Eric Schaffer was irreplaceable, Haz, Barry and Manusky were good DCs, and the best way to win is to run the ball 70% of the time. 

 

I used to hate that about him.  But as the years have gone by, in fairness to Russell and those coaches, I dont think anybody would've been good here.  None of them were really given much to work with from a talent perspective.  People were wanting them to make chicken salad out of chicken you-know-what.  They weren't exactly investing in or nailing the draft from a defensive perspective or hitting on free agents.  Del Rio currently has 5 guys the team has personally picked in the first round. (Although Manusky had 3 of them at the tail end and couldn't do anything with them.)

 

But as we see with Joe Barry, if you actually give him some players, he rolled out a pretty good defense in Green Bay.  Coach Detroit and Washington, you look like you dont know what you're doing.  Work for a competent organization, all the sudden you don't look so bad.

[Koolblue13]

 

[Captain James]

17 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

Neither starting QB played in the Chiefs/Packers game.

Hmm, I wonder why? 🤔 /sarcasm

16 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Davis arrow will be going up by the end of this season.  
 

This makes my arrow point up.

16 hours ago, bowhunter said:

Hmm, I wondering if this implies that Mahomes and Rodgers are now considered to be locks to make the 53. Was hoping we might pick one of them up on cut-down day  and let them battle it out with TH and Howell.

Nah, they some JAGs

[ExoDus84]

Still seems so odd to me that LB is such a big issue entering year 3, when our head coach is a former LB.

[formerly4skins]

5 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

Again, we need to use like-terms. Do you mean a signal caller or a true 4-3 MIKE backer?

 

In a 4-2, which is our primary defense and an extremely prevalent defense in the league in general, you don't need a true 4-3 MIKE. Inside backers are more like OLBs, so a SAM and a WILL (Holcomb/Davis) make sense there. Issue with them is they aren't guys who are (I am so excited about this word that I'm about to use) COMMANDERS of the defense. 

 

Personally, I don't like Holcombe as the Mike signal caller, a true 4‐3 MLB, or as one of the 2 LBs on the field in our 4-2.

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 hours ago, justice98 said:

 

I used to hate that about him.  But as the years have gone by, in fairness to Russell and those coaches, I dont think anybody would've been good here.  None of them were really given much to work with from a talent perspective.  People were wanting them to make chicken salad out of chicken you-know-what.  They weren't exactly investing in or nailing the draft from a defensive perspective or hitting on free agents.  Del Rio currently has 5 guys the team has personally picked in the first round. (Although Manusky had 3 of them at the tail end and couldn't do anything with them.)

 

But as we see with Joe Barry, if you actually give him some players, he rolled out a pretty good defense in Green Bay.  Coach Detroit and Washington, you look like you dont know what you're doing.  Work for a competent organization, all the sudden you don't look so bad.

Sorry, you're absolutely wrong.  Those are bad coaches, period.  Barry's defense in GB last year benefited from never being behind, having an explosive offense, and then when they needed stops against a Jimmy Garapolo lead offense, at home, in the playoffs, they couldn't get it done. I will, however, allow that Barry might have improved as a coach in the years since he left here.  He went to LA to work with Sean, and was a LB coach there, and I think worked under Wade Phillips for a year or two, and maybe he learned a few things along the way.  But when he was here, he was a bad coach.  

 

Barry is in perhaps the best situation that even he can't really screw up.  That doesn't make him a good coach.  It puts him maybe one notch above Mike Nolan, who can screw up anything.

 

A coach is supposed to, at least to some degree, elevate the players they have.  Barry never did that.  Neither did Manusky.  In fairness, neither has JDR.  

 

Manusky was thought of so little that he had to go become a defensive quality control coach at Kentucky after he was fired from here.  Literally the lowest position on the totem pole at a second-tier SEC school.  

 

I swear there was more talent on the defenses which those guys coordinated, and they underperformed, which is why we think there was no talent on those defenses.  Could there have been better talent?  Sure.  

 

That 2016 defense was one of the absolute most atrociously coordinated defenses in the history of the NFL.  They got into third and long enough, and then were the worst third and long defense in the history of the league.  Not just third down, but third and 8+.   If you can get a team into 3rd and 8+ a bunch, but give them up at that rate, that's bad coaching.  VERY bad coaching.   

13 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said:

Still seems so odd to me that LB is such a big issue entering year 3, when our head coach is a former LB.

It's a big issue with fans, it doesn't seem to be a big issue for Ron.  Which is interesting.  And maybe important.