Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

2023 Offseason Mini Camp, OTA’s, Training Camp Discussion Thread: Hallelujah, Josh Harris & Co. Era Edition

Conn

By Conn
in The Stadium

 Share

Recommended Posts

Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

 

I will say if #2 and #3 come true, I really don't see a way for #1 to come true. And I find it a little odd a metrics based platform would come to the conclusion these three things could come true.  Now, I get it: these are bold predictions.  And so there is some degree of "drama" in them, and I get that.  But the three they picked seem to be incongruent.  

 

 

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-bold-predictions-every-nfl-team-2023-nfc-east

We’ve had time to digest the moves of the offseason, so now it’s time to lose all perspective and offer some bold predictions for the 2023 NFL season.

 

This is what they said (above) to lead off their predictions.

 

Agree that if 2 and 3 come true, 1 is unlikely to come true.  It's sort of been my mantra.  But if you want to go a bit crazy, I get the thought of maybe they do it regardless.  The O line sucked last year, they took a lot of sacks but almost made the playoffs anyway. 

 

I personally am down on the O line.  But I don't think it derails the season like most national pundits do.  I think the O line is just bad enough to have another run of they almost made the playoffs regardless of the O line.  I get the point that Howell > Heinicke so why doesn't almost last time turn into something better record wise?  The reason for me is I do think the schedule is harder -- and I know you don't think its a factor but I do.  That's really the only reason for me.  If we had last years schedule I'd predict they sneak into the playoffs and then lose in round 1.  Right now I predict 8-9.

 

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Am I putting a ton of faith in EB and Howell?  Yes. Is that smart?  I don't know.  Maybe I'm going all-in on a pair of 2's. But my gut tells me EB is going to call a game similar to the way Reid calls them, and I think Howell can make quick decisions and throw balls accurately.  So that's the bet I'm placing.  

 

I'm not going to argue #3.  We'll see.  I'm dubious the line will be a bottom 5 unit this year when all is said and done, especially if EB and Howell execute the offense well, because it will protect the line and boost the metrics.  But I'm exhausted on the topic.  Luckily, they're going to play 17 games and we'll find out how good/bad they are.

 

My point is more that if #2 and #3 come true, I don't think #1 can.  And if #1 is true, I don't think #2 can be true.  #3 still could be, and they would have figured out a way to work around it.

 

 

I like Howell.  But to play some devil's advocate the PFF point (which I've seen in other places) was Howell was sacked a lot in college.  If your O line sucks its not easy to just escape that.  

 

The Bieniemy can scheme around it, I am half way there on that point.  I do think they can scheme at times around it.  But if any offensive coordinator can basically nullify a pass rush consistenly -- they belong in the Hall of Fame let alone it would be bad news for this team specifically considering we are putting our draft capital and heavy cap emphasis on the D line.  If its that easy to scheme around D line-O line match ups it would sort of make Ron look a bit foolish to put that many eggs on the D line.

 

Ironically the Bieniemy scheme cures all rap takes me back to the Jay Gruden discussion relating to the Kirk contract.  There were if I recall a good 6-7 people that regularly attributed Kirk's success to Jay's QB friendly scheme and we could insert anyone there including Colt McCoy and get the same production.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MartinC

MartinC

Posted
Posted

You can scheme around pass rush until you get behind. And that’s behind the chains not just the score board. Whatever you do at some point you are going to be forced into obvious passing situations and then it gets very difficult to scheme around a weakness up front. 
 

You can always just take a knee on 3rd and long and punt I guess. We have a QB in the roster who has experience of that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RVAskins

RVAskins

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Plantar fasciitis is really painful. I hope they can get it somewhat under control but it lingers and hurts like hell.  

I've dealt with this several years ago. It is painful. Good orthodics can help but it takes time to heal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-bold-predictions-every-nfl-team-2023-nfc-east

We’ve had time to digest the moves of the offseason, so now it’s time to lose all perspective and offer some bold predictions for the 2023 NFL season.

 

This is what they said (above) to lead off their predictions.

Ok, if you "lose all perspective" then it's not a bold prediction.  It's an attention grabbing, based on nothing, click bait, Chris Collinsworth special.  

 

I took "bold prediction" to mean "something that can happen based on what we've seen but might be unlikely or against the common narrative." 

 

In that regard, #1 is a bold prediction.  #2 and #3 I don't think are all that bold.  They've been saying the OL is horrid since the off-season started.  And extrapolating Howell gets sacked a lot because he's essentially a rookie with a bad OL is not bold.  

 

50 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Agree that if 2 and 3 come true, 1 is unlikely to come true.  It's sort of been my mantra.  But if you want to go a bit crazy, I get the thought of maybe they do it regardless.  The O line sucked last year, they took a lot of sacks but almost made the playoffs anyway. 

It's possible, but very unlikely that Howell is the most sacked QB in the league and we make the playoffs.  I guess it could happen, but it would REALLY be against all the statics.

 

Last year, the 4 teams that gave up the most number of sacks were Denver (63), Indy (60), LA Rams (59) and Chicago (58).  The one thing those 4 teams have in common is they all were horrid and missed the playoffs by a lot.  In fact, the 4 teams combined for 5 + 4 + 5 + 3 = 17 wins, and were 4 of the worst 6 teams in the NFL.  The other 2 were Houston and Arizona.

 

The team that gave up the 5th most number of sacks DID make the playoffs: the NY Giants.  However, there's a pretty big gap between #4 (Chicago at 58) and the NYG at 49.  

 

So, I'm going to surmise by looking at a few numbers from last year, if Sam Howell is the most sacked QB in the league, not only are they not making the playoffs, but they might have one of the bottom 6 records in the league.  If you say he's sacked in the range of 20th - 227th in the league and make the playoffs, eh, that's more likely but still not probable.  

 

50 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I personally am down on the O line.  But I don't think it derails the season like most national pundits do.  I think the O line is just bad enough to have another run of they almost made the playoffs regardless of the O line.  I get the point that Howell > Heinicke so why doesn't almost last time turn into something better record wise?  The reason for me is I do think the schedule is harder -- and I know you don't think its a factor but I do.  That's really the only reason for me.  If we had last years schedule I'd predict they sneak into the playoffs and then lose in round 1.  Right now I predict 8-9.

We all know how down you are on the OL. You've said it a time or two.  

 

We disagree on schedule prognostication. I'm going to post this, and then drop it because I don't think either of us is going to convince the other.  And to be clear, I COMPLETELY understand where you're coming from. I just look at it differently. Reasonable people can disagree on this, I think.  So I'm not in any way suggesting you are "wrong" or looking at it in an irrational way.  

 

 I don't think there's any way to tell whether the schedule will end up being hard or easy with any true accuracy except judging the QBs you are expected to play.  Also, if YOUR team is better, then it makes the opponents less important.  Vegas was off by more than 3 games on 1/3 of the league. Hell, they predicted double digit wins for Tampa and Green Bay going into the year.  So did all the punditry. It didn't happen. 

 

Every year, ~5 teams that made the playoffs the previous year don't make it, and 5 new teams make it.  The problem is, you don't know which teams they will be.  

 

This is actually a point I picked up from Sheehan of all people.  Even though he has fun with the "mock schedule" he's always said predicting strength of schedule in the NFL is impossible, it's a "week to week" league, and the only real way you can judge is by looking at the opposing QBs, and that can give you directionally an indication of what's what.  He also says, consistently, "it's now who you play, it's when you play them."  I buy this 100%.  Teams go up and down during the season.  You could get lucky or you could get unlucky with the way the schedule falls within the season based on your own and other team injuries. Team's peak early, peak late, fall apart, or go on miraculous runs kindof like the Giants did at the beginning of the season last year winning all those close games. 

 

The other thing to keep in mind is the entire division is playing the same 2 divisions, so if you're competing in the division for position, there are only 3 games where record matters. 

 

In our case, we play the NFC West (Geno Smith, Stafford, somebody for the 49ers, and McCoy).  That's really not that bad.  And the AFC East: Mac Jones, Tua, Aaron Rodgers and Josh Allen.  Of those 8 QBs, there is one unquestionable elite QB: Josh Allen. There is one unquestioned "could be elite" and that's Aaron Rodgers if he returns to form.  And the Eagles, Giants and Cowboys all have to play the same 8 teams with the same 8 QBs. Depending on injury.  

 

The three other games we play are against Chicago (Fields), Atlanta (Ridder but GOD let it be REDACTED) and Denver (Wilson).  Wilson is the wild-card there.  If he returns to form, he's a top 10 QB.  If he plays like he did last year, he's a bottom 1/3 of the league QB.  There's no way to know that for a bit.  

 

IF we have the type of defense we should have, outside of the division, the defense really should stifle most of those opposing QB/Offenses.  

 

Inside the division, clearly Philly has a better roster and what looks like a top 5 or top 10 QB. Dallas has Dak, and NYG have Jones.  I'll grant you Jones turns into freaking Tom Brady whenever he plays us.  But he's just not THAT good.  Dak is a 10-ish QB in the league.  I think Dak and Kirk are very similar in where they are in the league.  I see no reason why we couldn't split the division games.  Maybe that's bold, but division games are generally close, and I don't think there is a ton separating at least Dallas, NYG and us.  

 

Given all of this, there just isn't a good way to predict whether the schedule will be harder or easier.  We'll find out a week at a time.  

 

Which is why I go back to "a little better at QB/OC/Secondary, maybe a little better on OL = a little better record.  So, 1.5 wins more."  

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I like Howell.  But to play some devil's advocate the PFF point (which I've seen in other places) was Howell was sacked a lot in college.  If your O line sucks its not easy to just escape that.  

I think it's hard to compare the two because the NC offense was entirely different. And the supporting cast across the board wasn't great, especially his senior year.  I get the point, but college is such a different game, I'm not sure it's that relevant.  The question I think which needs to be answered is how quickly Howell processes information.  If he processes quickly, he won't get sacked a ton.  If he's slow to process, he'll get sacked a lot.  And I'm not sure we know that yet, and I'm not sure his college tape, at this point, is that relevant. In theory, with the WCO offense and 2 years of NFL off-seasons, it's possible it's just such an apples to oranges comparison it's not relevant.  However, if he does get sacked a lot, you could draw the conclusion it's because he processed slowly in college and didn't get better in the pros.  

 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The Bieniemy can scheme around it, I am half way there on that point.  I do think they can scheme at times around it.  But if any offensive coordinator can basically nullify a pass rush consistenly -- they belong in the Hall of Fame let alone it would be bad news for this team specifically considering we are putting our draft capital and heavy cap emphasis on the D line.  If its that easy to scheme around D line-O line match ups it would sort of make Ron look a bit foolish to put that many eggs on the D line.

Walsh IS in the HOF because he invented the WCO offense to cover OL deficiencies when he was the OC in Cincy.  That was the birth place of the WCO. The primary instigator of the WCO was to minimize the OL.  Quick passes to the outside to receivers in space, get the ball out of the QB's hands, don't rely on the OL to run-block by using the short pass as a substitute to the run, tie the footwork to the route combinations and timing of the play, and know that at a certain point, you have to evade, which is actually built into the play and as Walsh said, "this needs to be practiced."  

 

There is no way to entirely scheme around a bad OL.  If you have a bottom 5 OL, there might just be nothing you can do about it.  Or if you have a bad matchup in the middle, again, nothing you can do about it.  Or if your QB has a bad day, etc.  You can't scheme around everything in all situations.  Clearly.  

 

But you can minimize the deficiencies to an extent.  And you can work with a below average to an average OL and have a productive offense.  

 

Which is where I am, I don't think this OL is going to be bottom 5 in the league.  I'm open to the possibility it might be, and if it is, then the season is over.  But I don't think it will be.  I think it's going to be somewhere hovering around the 20th OL. Which is below average but not horrendous.    And I think a good OC and good QB can work with that to have a good offense.  

 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Ironically the Bieniemy scheme cures all rap takes me back to the Jay Gruden discussion relating to the Kirk contract.  There were if I recall a good 6-7 people that regularly attributed Kirk's success to Jay's QB friendly scheme and we could insert anyone there including Colt McCoy and get the same production.

I was not one of those people because I had my own problems with Jay, as you might have heard.   However, to somewhat play along, also ironically, Jay's QB friendly scheme is an off-shoot of Jon's QB friendly scheme which is an off-shoot of Reid's QB friendly scheme, which is an off-shoot of Holmgren's scheme, which is an off-shoot of Walsh's scheme.  

 

But the idea you can plug any QB into the WCO and have success is absolutely moronic.  You can't. A bad QB is a bad QB whatever scheme you put them in.  The QB has to be able to run the damn scheme. Colt McCoy can't run any scheme at a high level because he's not good.  And it takes 3 things in a traditional WCO more than anything else (These came directly from a video I can't find from Walsh on the principals of the WCO, where he was narrating and Joe Montana was demonstrating.  It's gold, and I can't find the uncut version of it anywhere anymore. Which is tragic.  But anyway:

 

1. Quick reads - everything happens so quickly, you have to read react/throw VERY quickly.  If the QB is slower on processing, they're dead.

2. Mobility - Walsh's QBs, both Montana and Young, had the ability to move and had quick feet.  You've got to get into the drop, through the reads, and escape fast.  

3. Accuracy - So much of the WCO is based on YAC, not only do you need to hit your target, but ball placement is absolutely critical.  

 

Something I heard Phil Sims say YEARS AND YEARS ago (when I used to have time to watch NFL pregame shows) is he was working with Walsh at a pro-bowl, and he was trying to show off, and rifling balls into receivers, and Sims said Walsh told him "you're throwing the ball late and too hard!  Throw it earlier out in front of the guy! Don't knock him over, let him run with it."  ** You still need to have an NFL arm, but you don't need an Aaron Rodger/Brett Favre arm to run the system.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MartinC said:

You can scheme around pass rush until you get behind. And that’s behind the chains not just the score board. Whatever you do at some point you are going to be forced into obvious passing situations and then it gets very difficult to scheme around a weakness up front. 
 

You can always just take a knee on 3rd and long and punt I guess. We have a QB in the roster who has experience of that.

You're right.  But in general, if you're in 3rd and long, statistically you're punting more than 70% of the time on average.  Even with a great OL, based on the statistics.  

 

https://staturdays.com/2021/01/14/comparing-third-down-conversion-rate-by-distance-to-go/

 

You've got to stay out of those situations no matter what.  If you end up in known passing situations, good OL or not, you're in a world of hurt.  If you have a bad OL, it's more hurt.  But when the defense knows basically what you're going to do, the offense is kindof a sitting duck.

 

The offense has the advantage when the defense has to cover for 11 guys and a lot of field, either run or pass.  If the defense can check things off they don't have to worry about, the advantage goes to them. 

 

Which is why I was so freaking irritated every time either Jay or Scott would get a run stuffed on first down, and then run again on second with the hope to get into 3rd and 6.,  Statistically, that's STILL only a 42% conversion rate league wide.  MORONIC.  If you want to talk about analytics, the place where I think analytics could help in the NFL more than anywhere it's actually play selection.  Moreso than going for it on 4th down or using it to try and select players.  I'm not sure we're there yet.  

 

But simply knowing the odds of conversions based on yards and distances, and knowing "get back on track to get to a 'manageable' 3rd down is stupid" would be a HUGE step forward.  

7 minutes ago, Rex Tomb said:

I have a feeling he'll be getting a good injectable pain killer once a week before games.

Can you inject your foot?  Wouldn't that basically make it numb, which would make you fall over?  I'm seriously asking. I don't know.

 

But I didn't think you could really shoot up a foot or ankle because you would just fall over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dyst

dyst

Posted
Posted (edited)

Wow you guys are such haters. When Dan gives Nolan ice cream you hate him for it but Josh gives it and you’ll are fawning. Smh

 

5 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Bates is gonna have a big year.

 MasterBates

Edited by dyst
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Ok, if you "lose all perspective" then it's not a bold prediction.  It's an attention grabbing, based on nothing, click bait, Chris Collinsworth special.  

 

I took "bold prediction" to mean "something that can happen based on what we've seen but might be unlikely or against the common narrative." 

 

In that regard, #1 is a bold prediction.  #2 and #3 I don't think are all that bold.  They've been saying the OL is horrid since the off-season started.  And extrapolating Howell gets sacked a lot because he's essentially a rookie with a bad OL is not bold.  

 

 

You answered your own question on this the first time you posted, where you said the bold part you gathered from PFF was the O line would suck AND they'd make the playoffs anyway.

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Last year, the 4 teams that gave up the most number of sacks were Denver (63), Indy (60), LA Rams (59) and Chicago (58).  The one thing those 4 teams have in common is they all were horrid and missed the playoffs by a lot.  In fact, the 4 teams combined for 5 + 4 + 5 + 3 = 17 wins, and were 4 of the worst 6 teams in the NFL.  The other 2 were Houston and Arizona.

 

 

Like I said as you know I am not in the camp that the O line can suck and they make the playoffs.  So take up your argument with PFF on this, not me.  They are the ones who made that point.  ;)

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

We all know how down you are on the OL. You've said it a time or two.  

 

 

Yep.  And i think you've got four different positions cooking at the same time about the O line.  They could be bad, they might not be bad, they might not be as bad as we think, we won't know until they actually play. 😎. But I see you narrowed it down on this post.  OK 20th.  I am thinking more in the 25 range.  You think they win 10 games.  I think they win 8 games.

 

The main difference I think we got on this team is simple.  While I don't think the O line will be a narrative every week.  It will be a narrative in key spots in key games to derail their playoff hopes.   If it happened that way, not the end of the world.  We will say bye to Ron and get a new regime which I want regardless. 

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

We disagree on schedule prognostication. I'm going to post this, and then drop it because I don't think either of us is going to convince the other.  And to be clear, I COMPLETELY understand where you're coming from. I just look at it differently. Reasonable people can disagree on this, I think.  So I'm not in any way suggesting you are "wrong" or looking at it in an irrational way.  

 

 I don't think there's any way to tell whether the schedule will end up being hard or easy with any true accuracy except judging the QBs you are expected to play.  Also, if YOUR team is better, then it makes the opponents less important.  Vegas was off by more than 3 games on 1/3 of the league. Hell, they predicted double digit wins for Tampa and Green Bay going into the year.  So did all the punditry. It didn't happen. 

 

 

I've listened to Sheehan talk about it.  He's been wrong on his point the last two seasons.  Before that I didn't really care enough to pay attention, maybe he was wrong then too. I'll go through it for kicks one day.

 

The point isn't that unpredictable things don't happen to teams.  Indeed, there will be projected good teams that end up bad.  Bad teams that end up good.  But not to the extent that likely a hard schedule becomes easy or an easy schedule becomes hard.    It's possible.  But playing the odds its unlikely to go upside down.

 

I agree with your point that great teams are just great and it doesn't matter who they play.  That point IMO doesn't even remotely though apply to this team.

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

The other thing to keep in mind is the entire division is playing the same 2 divisions, so if you're competing in the division for position, there are only 3 games where record matters. 

 

 

 

We are all aware.   Part of my point is i don't like how this team matches up within division.  While I think this team has improved, I think the Giants improved even more.  And in general I don't like how we match up to Philly and Dallas.

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

I think it's hard to compare the two because the NC offense was entirely different. And the supporting cast across the board wasn't great, especially his senior year.  I get the point, but college is such a different game, I'm not sure it's that relevant.  The question I think which needs to be answered is how quickly Howell processes information.  If he processes quickly, he won't get sacked a ton.  

 

It's IMO much more complex than that.    NC ran a heavy RPO offense.  So will we apparently.  QBs with mobility take sacks.  It's not just pocket QBs.  If you have the ability to scramble laterally away from pressure, there is a chance that scramble ends in a sack, if you hold on to the ball a bit longer because you know you can run if a WR doesn't get open, it also can lend to sacks.

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Walsh IS in the HOF because he invented the WCO offense to cover OL deficiencies when he was the OC in Cincy.  That was the birth place of the WCO. The primary instigator of the WCO was to minimize the OL.  Quick passes to the outside to receivers in space, get the ball out of the QB's hands, don't rely on the OL to run-block by using the short pass as a substitute to the run, tie the footwork to the route combinations and timing of the play, and know that at a certain point, you have to evade, which is actually built into the play and as Walsh said, "this needs to be practiced."  

 

 

We are all I think pretty familiar with the WCO.  Many teams run a variation of it.  We had a very long run of WCO's here -- Shanny and Jay's era.  I read a book about Walsh eons ago.

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

There is no way to entirely scheme around a bad OL.  If you have a bottom 5 OL, there might just be nothing you can do about it.  Or if you have a bad matchup in the middle, again, nothing you can do about it.  Or if your QB has a bad day, etc.  You can't scheme around everything in all situations.  Clearly.  

 

But you can minimize the deficiencies to an extent.  And you can work with a below average to an average OL and have a productive offense.  

 

 

This part of your own post summarizes my take.

 

A.  You can minimize to an extent.

B.  You cannot scheme around a bad O line.

 

To that point, again, I don't expect jail break disasters with this O line on a regular basis.  But in key moments in key games in important games it will bite us.  My only emotional component to that point, is for me if it goes down that way, Rivera deserves to be fired and I am a 10 out of 10 on that.

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...