Game Day Thread - Ron's New Team vs Ron's Old Team

[Cooleyfan1993]

Just now, KDawg said:

I was referring to skinsfan93. 

[Alexa]

23 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

The most important part of yesterday is that two of the most important players that lost us games last year, Heinicke and Gibson, have been competently replaced.

Um.. wasn't this defense worst in the league on 3rd down? I think they played a major role in losing games last year. 

[KDawg]

Just now, Alexa said:

Um.. wasn't this defense worst in the league on 3rd down? I think they played a major role in losing games last year. 

Agree. And our third down D was not up to snuff yesterday 

[CobraCommander]

33 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Cool, people STILL mocking me even when I’m not even part of the conversation. Bet that makes you all feel big……..

 

it’s been SEVEN months, people…….I haven’t done that **** for SEVEN months……….drop it already. It’s disrespectful to me. 

Sorry I had to give you the thumbs down. It's responses like this that make me do it, I have no control, I swear. 

7 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Agree. And our third down D was not up to snuff yesterday 

Realistically I can't remember the last time it was. I mean there are times when they come through, more so in the redzone it seems than anywhere else on the field. 

[Koolblue13]

13 minutes ago, Alexa said:

Um.. wasn't this defense worst in the league on 3rd down? I think they played a major role in losing games last year. 

Thats fair, but we also played basic defense and didn't game plan. It's still an issue, but if we didn't give them solid field position, especially on gibsons fumble, they may not have been scoring drives, so um, no.

1 hour ago, bowhunter said:

94 his ass and **** slap him right back

 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

Sure. He is a bowling ball due to his height.

 

Also, I got 93'd by Koolblue because he doesn't like intricate conversation regarding position labels and prefers the typical general approach.

No, you got 93'd because you keep wanting to put players in roles that aren't correct. I'm fine talking nuances and enjoy it, but saying that we'll keep move TEs at WR slots is wrong.

[KDawg]

6 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Thats fair, but we also played basic defense and didn't game plan. It's still an issue, but if we didn't give them solid field position, especially on gibsons fumble, they may not have been scoring drives, so um, no.

 

No, you got 93'd because you keep wanting to put players in roles that aren't correct. I'm fine talking nuances and enjoy it, but saying that we'll keep move TEs at WR slots is wrong.

 

No, you still don't understand. Perhaps that is on my explanations.

 

You'd keep him as a tight end "slot" but in place of a receiver.

 

So if you wanted to keep 10 total TEs/WRs you may keep 6 WRs 4 TEs because Turner is essentially a big slot and keep an additional blocking tight end to go along with Logan and Bates.

 

Or you could do 7 receivers and 3 TEs because one of the receivers is a return man. 

 

But let's be clear: The roles I'm putting them in IS correct. You just don't like it. Turner will be used more as a receiver type than he will an in-line blocking tight end unless he gets absolutely pushed into the role. 

 

Also for the record, you thumbs downed a post about running backs, not receivers.

 

4 RBs,2 runners, 2 dynamic.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by KDawg

[skinny21]

18 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

No, you still don't understand. Perhaps that is on my explanations.

 

You'd keep him as a tight end "slot" but in place of a receiver.

 

So if you wanted to keep 10 total TEs/WRs you may keep 6 WRs 4 TEs because Turner is essentially a big slot and keep an additional blocking tight end to go along with Logan and Bates.

 

Or you could do 7 receivers and 3 TEs because one of the receivers is a return man. 

 

But let's be clear: The roles I'm putting them in IS correct. You just don't like it. Turner will be used more as a receiver type than he will an in-line blocking tight end unless he gets absolutely pushed into the role. 

 

Also for the record, you thumbs downed a post about running backs, not receivers.

 

4 RBs,2 runners, 2 dynamic.

 

 

I think the odds are against him, but that’s one reason I kinda like the idea of Reyes making the squad - two blocking TEs (Bates/Reyes), 2 receiving TEs (Thomas/Turner).  I think Bates, somewhat similar to Gibson actually, can do both to some extent.  I’ll add that although I’d be worried about losing Hodges/Rogers, if the plan was to get them on the PS (in my hypothetical), I think there’s a decent chance one of them makes it through.  I don’t think the team goes that route, though if ST is the deciding factor… 

 

Edit:  Not directed at you, but while I made an argument for Sims not making the team (just saying it was possible he didn’t), I thought ST might be big for him, and he flashed at least a couple times on punt coverage that I noticed.

Edited August 15, 2022 by skinny21

[Koolblue13]

17 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

No, you still don't understand. Perhaps that is on my explanations.

 

You'd keep him as a tight end "slot" but in place of a receiver.

 

So if you wanted to keep 10 total TEs/WRs you may keep 6 WRs 4 TEs because Turner is essentially a big slot and keep an additional blocking tight end to go along with Logan and Bates.

 

Or you could do 7 receivers and 3 TEs because one of the receivers is a return man. 

 

But let's be clear: The roles I'm putting them in IS correct. You just don't like it. Turner will be used more as a receiver type than he will an in-line blocking tight end unless he gets absolutely pushed into the role. 

 

Also for the record, you thumbs downed a post about running backs, not receivers.

 

4 RBs,2 runners, 2 dynamic.

 

 

My 93 was because of "(here we go again...)" exclusively.

 

A few days ago you were making lists, listing Turner as WR 5 and making the case that he would be used as a WR. The first part is what I disagree with. He'll be TE3 and his game will be closer to a WR, than an inline TE, which I do agree with, but being a move TE does mean he is listed as a WR. He's still a TE and yes, I know that different TEs have different roles.

 

To go directly to your RB example. I seriously doubt we'd go 4 and I'd make the case that Samuels adds value to the 3rd down back vack up if McKissic went down if it was BRob, Williams, McKissic and that line up provides better value than BRob, Gibby, McKissic, because we know Gibby isn't a between the tackle RB and that was very missed last year.

[KDawg]

6 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

My 93 was because of "(here we go again...)" exclusively.

 

Fair. My here we go again was exclusively because I knew you'd take an issue with discussing it.

 

 

Quote

A few days ago you were making lists, listing Turner as WR 5 and making the case that he would be used as a WR. The first part is what I disagree with. He'll be TE3 and his game will be closer to a WR, than an inline TE, which I do agree with, but being a move TE does mean he is listed as a WR. He's still a TE and yes, I know that different TEs have different roles

 

 

I never meant (nor did I say) he'd be LISTED as a receiver. I distinctly remember one of my replies being he could learn the big slot role and transition to more of a full time TE. My argument has always been about usage. I don't care what he's listed as. I also believe I said that he will be listed as a tight end because of the cost difference in tight ends and receivers anyways. I was merely talking about roles. listing receivers by number is inherently wrong anyways (and yes, I know I'm guilty of it). They are different positions as well and having them numbered is a bit of a misnomer to begin with. But yes, I think Turner will be more valuable as a receiver than several of our actual receivers. But to calrify my stance I merely mean we may keep him as a tight end INSTEAD of a receiver due to his receiving ability, not that he'd be listed as a receiver.

 

 

Quote

To go directly to your RB example. I seriously doubt we'd go 4 and I'd make the case that Samuels adds value to the 3rd down back vack up if McKissic went down if it was BRob, Williams, McKissic and that line up provides better value than BRob, Gibby, McKissic, because we know Gibby isn't a between the tackle RB and that was very missed last year.

 

 

Maybe you didn't see it but I made the case to go with 3-4 and remove Gibson if they aren't going to be creative with him. But I wouldn't get rid of him if they can use him correctly. But in that case we need a third running back (and I wouldn't use Samuel too much in that role given his necessity to be protected by bubble wrap).

 

Right now, if cuts were happening I'd go:

 

10 OL

2 QB

4 RB

4 TE

5 WR

 

I could see a case for 9 OL, 6 WR as well. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by KDawg

[Koolblue13]

7 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Fair. My here we go again was exclusively because I knew you'd take an issue with discussing it.

 

 

Maybe you didn't see it but I made the case to go with 3-4 and remove Gibson if they aren't going to be creative with him. But I wouldn't get rid of him if they can use him correctly. But in that case we need a third running back (and I wouldn't use Samuel too much in that role given his necessity to be protected by bubble wrap).

 

Right now, if cuts were happening I'd go:

 

10 OL

2 QB

4 RB

4 TE

5 WR

 

I could see a case for 9 OL, 6 WR as well. 

I know it was directed at me, hence the 93. Fair.

 

The rest I mostly agree with. I'd go 6WR and 3 RBs and find something to do with Gibson. He's possibly worth a day 2 pick and I dn't think he provides anything we can't get better from Samuels or McKissic. Having a back up that can pound it up for a couple yards behind the starter is too important. Between Gibson, Williams and Patterson, it comes down almost exclusively to pass blocking to me at this point, because the three have equal value mostly.

25 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

 

 

Edit:  Not directed at you, but while I made an argument for Sims not making the team (just saying it was possible he didn’t), I thought ST might be big for him, and he flashed at least a couple times on punt coverage that I noticed.

I think STs is definitely where Milne and Sims find their roster spot value.

 

Similar situation at safety right now too with Apke and Reaves.

[skinny21]

7 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I know it was directed at me, hence the 93. Fair.

 

The rest I mostly agree with. I'd go 6WR and 3 RBs and find something to do with Gibson. He's possibly worth a day 2 pick and I dn't think he provides anything we can't get better from Samuels or McKissic. Having a back up that can pound it up for a couple yards behind the starter is too important. Between Gibson, Williams and Patterson, it comes down almost exclusively to pass blocking to me at this point, because the three have equal value mostly.

I gotta say, I’m pretty conflicted about Gibson.  Beyond the things that have been discussed (fumbles, use as a more dynamic back, issues between the tackles, etc), there’s also the fact that he’s performed quite well in terms of yards after contact, that he’s got more ability to break longer runs than Patterson/Robinson, and can gain the edge better than those guys.  Better after the catch too.  So there’s a niche for him, IMO, but the fumbles… he’s gotta improve there (not running him inside can mitigate that, but you wanna be able to break tendencies too).

7 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I think STs is definitely where Milne and Sims find their roster spot value.

 

Similar situation at safety right now too with Apke and Reaves.

Yeah, absolutely.  Gonna be some interesting decisions centered around ST play.

[Conn]

Antonio Gibson would be best as our (healthy version of) Tevin Coleman. He’s on the Raheem Mostert—Tevin Coleman traits spectrum imo. That’s the comp, not Kamara. More straight line, a receiving threat due to his speed but not a natural bellcow RB, not a natural fluid WR despite his limited college background. An athlete that can ruin a defense’s day and break a game open when deployed alongside a bunch of other weapons, who should be kept fresh for maximum efficiency and impact. 
 

My comp for Brian Robinson has been and will continue to be Arian Foster. Taller, runs a bit upright but strong vision and instincts approaching the LOS that you just can’t teach make him such a natural RB that you don’t really worry about it that much. Opens up his stride in the open field giving him deceptive speed, though it’s not a strength. Underrated in the receiving game but that might be where he diverges from Foster—more powerful as a runner, but less athletic in the receiving game despite the combine numbers imo. Foster never looked like his measurables and I’m pretty sure I read that it’s because he was injured during those events and did them anyways. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Conn

[Warhead36]

14 minutes ago, Conn said:

Antonio Gibson would be best as our (healthy version of) Tevin Coleman. He’s on the Raheem Mostert—Tevin Coleman traits spectrum imo. That’s the comp, not Kamara. More straight line, a receiving threat due to his speed but not a natural bellcow RB, not a natural fluid WR despite his limited college background. An athlete that can ruin a defense’s day and break a game open when deployed alongside a bunch of other weapons, who should be kept fresh for maximum efficiency and impact. 
 

My comp for Brian Robinson has been and will continue to be Arian Foster. Taller, runs a bit upright but strong vision and instincts approaching the LOS that you just can’t teach make him such a natural RB that you don’t really worry about it that much. Opens up his stride in the open field giving him deceptive speed, though it’s not a strength. Underrated in the receiving game but that might be where he diverges from Foster—more powerful as a runner, but less athletic in the receiving game despite the combine numbers imo. Foster never looked like his measurables and I’m pretty sure I read that it’s because he was injured during those events and did them anyways. 

Those Gibson comparisons are fair. He's no Kamara who has incredible vision and balance. Gibson gets taken off balance too easily.

 

Robinson to Foster is interesting as well. Not sure if he has Foster's speed. I see him like a Stephen Davis type.

[Cooleyfan1993]

That’s it. I’m going MIA on here for a few months so people will finally forget “93’d”. See ya. 

[AlwaysBeRedskins2Me]

Robinson looked sooooo good on Saturday. I think he has already won me over. He runs hard and seems to protect the football. I even think he has some underrated wiggle in him. Gibsons fumblitis really stresses me out. It can definitely be the difference in a win or a loss. Like his devastating fumble inside our own 5 yard line vs the Chargers. I assumed he spent all offseason correcting the issue. Doesn't seem like it though 😢

[KDawg]

13 hours ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

That’s it. I’m going MIA on here for a few months so people will finally forget “93’d”. See ya. 

If I were you I'd just embrace it and move on. 

 

I don't care if you believe me literally at all, but I thought it was hilarious that you originated the trend and then skinsfan93 carried it on for awhile and I could continue saying 93'd. 

 

Anyways, to the topic of actual football... I think it's going to be hard to move on from Gibson. I think they keep four backs. Which means we will need to cut someone somewhere. I think Reyes is gone and will make our PS because he's always injured and raw and the league won't jump on him. Hodges may also be gone unless he shows he's a high end blocker.

 

But I'm not sure what to make of the WR spot. I'd say Brown flashing is more than enough to cement his roster spot. So Sims/Erickson are kind of that bubble spot with Hodges/Rogers. I'm not sure what they'd project Hodges/Rogers to do on specs but they could possibly be active on KOR, PR, Punt, XP/FG.

 

We have a log jam of fringe roster guys at the moment. 

[Koolblue13]

13 hours ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

That’s it. I’m going MIA on here for a few months so people will finally forget “93’d”. See ya. 

Sorry kid. That might have been personal when I started it, but it hasn't been for a long time. It's not about you any more.

[Die Hard]

13 hours ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

That’s it. I’m going MIA on here for a few months so people will finally forget “93’d”. See ya. 

 

[Koolblue13]

 

[goskins10]

 

I saw someone get irked that there was discussion about releasing Taylor with Howell showing decent progress. I do not think they will go with 2, but if they do those concerned have to know they are making the decision based as much or more on what they have seen in camp and OTAs than preseason games. That just is icing on the cake. And if they do make that decision, then it means they have seen enough to believe Howell could come in and provide the same or better relief as Taylor. Carrying 2 QBs on the active roster opens up a very valuable roster spot. We could use that spot this year as we have several positions with a log jam at the middle to bottom of the depth chart. I know it's just one guy but being able to carry 10 or even 11 OL or 3 TEs or 4 RBs is a big deal. But if they keep him I totally get that too. 

 

As all here seem to know Gibson is not an every down back. Those fumbles are atrocious (I would like to see all his fumbles charted - I feel like they have most if not all happened inside the numbers). But I do think he has a place in the off. They have had all off-season to design plays to his strengths. I believe we will see them when the season starts. Robinson looks like he can carry the heavy load. 

 

I was encouraged by he offense Sat. The D is still a work in progress. I wanted JDR fired last season. He won me back kind of with a much better 2nd half. But they look like they are starting from the same place they started last year. If those first few games are like last year, he needs to be gone. Very short leash. Not typically in favor of an in season firing of coordinators but the D was atrocious to start last year. Cannot afford another start like that again, especially if the Off is as good as it looks like it can be.  

[Simmsy]

If Heinicke can be cut, Gibson can be cut.

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, Simmsy said:

If Heinicke can be cut, Gibson can be cut.

 

Anyone can be cut. There are always some surprise cuts. Works for me. 

[Warhead36]

Gibson won't be cut. You don't get rid of a guy who's still pretty talented and on a rookie contract. At worst he's a backup who knows your system and has put up some big games in the NFL.

[zCommander]

3 hours ago, Simmsy said:

If Heinicke can be cut, Gibson can be cut.

 

Both won't be cut though. 

[Koolblue13]

8 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

Both won't be cut though. 

Definitely not. Gibson still has value.