We should play Kirk (Kurt) a lot this preseason

[Thaiphoon]

1 hour ago, Slateman said:

And when Cousins is blindsided by another blitz and misses 10 games, then what?

Cousins can get those things in practice. I'm not sure what you're talking about last year. His first five games, he through for 1432 yards, 7 touchdowns and 5 interceptions. That's slightly off the pace he finished the year off at. Without a running game nor a defense worth a darn.

Two or three quarters of pre-season football isn't going to make a bit of difference. Do you have an statistical evidence to say otherwise?

Let's just not play him at all in the preseason then if you're worried about injury. Leave him in the locker room. Happy? Injuries are going to happen. Romo was injured last preseason on his first play.

I'm talking about more than Kirk. I'm talking the whole offense needing the game reps. Its not like this team is a perennial SB team. We have a ton of work to do on offense. And right now, the only way to get game speed and game conditions is by playing in actual games. The only way to get actual game conditioning, is to play the games. And one way to get ready for playing 4 quarters of football is NOT to play 3 quarters out of 16 preseason quarters (in 4 games) leading up to Week 1. At least not with this team (until they prove otherwise).

Statistical evidence? I'll leave that to others. I'm speaking from coaching experience, coaching various levels of sports. Want to know why a lot of rookies hit a wall right after November? Because they are used to only playing up until then. Want to know why our team looks tired, and unfocused in the 2nd half of games early in the season? Because we're not conditioning them to go at full speed, in game conditions for almost a full game in the preseason. Its not until Game 3 or so that our team starts to actually look like it can finish games. Cooley said as much on his show last week where he talked about too little work in the preseason and then Week 1 when the 4th quarter hits, guys are blowing and looking at each other like "man this is long". 

We currently do not have the talent, nor the coaching to overcome conditioning issues. We don't have the talent, nor the coaching, to overcome the rapport you get with another player that you can only get in game conditions. For example, the pick stunts the Ravens were using on us. We didn't practice against them in camp. We didn't even game plan against them. But these were basic defensive plays that the OL and RBs should've diagnosed and mitigated. They didn't. Know why? They weren't communicating...in game...in full speed...when it counted. 

[Slateman]

I'd be totally okay with not playing him the pre-season.

First off, Cooley is a hack and honestly, I would take nothing he says with any kind of truth.

Second, you want to condition players, then condition them. You can do that without subjecting them to getting injured in pre-season.

The un-noticeable, indeterminate effect of pre-season on the regular season isn't worth risking the only chance in hell this team has of cracking .500.

[Ghostnote]

On 8/14/2017 at 6:46 PM, turtle28 said:

Agreed, a lot of the reason Colt looked so poorly was because the OL wasn't prepared for their blitzes. Colt isn't a great qb but he's certainly not as bad as he was last Thursday. If the OL plays better, he'll be better.

Or maybe he is just an average QB he shouldn't really be on our roster. 

[turtle28]

"Cooley is a hack." Well, Thread over because common sense just went out the door.

[turtle28]

3 hours ago, mike23md said:

Or maybe he is just an average QB he shouldn't really be on our roster. 

Why shouldn't we have an average qb as our back up? Most teams don't even have that. It's true our OL played like trash - especially the reserves - and of course that affects the Qb and the entire offense. Colt has shown since 2014 that he can be a decent qb if the rest of the pieces around him play up to their ability as well.

[Doc Draper]

come on. The guy is supported by the Redskins. He toes the company line or hes out selling cars in Virginia. He has his favorites on the team just like we all do, but his are informed by his need to keep a strong positive relationship with the Redskins. I actually like him best (find him tolerable) when he talks about how he used to goof off and doodle in meetings, kiss buyy by leaving a phony notebook in meeting rooms to show he was serious about studying- all really believable.  He really seems a lot more immature and unready (not trained) to be on the radio. I'd love to hear them move to real radio guys who bring on prvacative guys who have no ties or love for Danny on the radio (Please no Clinton Portis who is barely understandable and way to close to Danny to be taken seriously))- London Fletcher would be cool 

[turtle28]

4 hours ago, Doc Draper said:

come on. The guy is supported by the Redskins. He toes the company line or hes out selling cars in Virginia. He has his favorites on the team just like we all do, but his are informed by his need to keep a strong positive relationship with the Redskins. I actually like him best (find him tolerable) when he talks about how he used to goof off and doodle in meetings, kiss buyy by leaving a phony notebook in meeting rooms to show he was serious about studying- all really believable.  He really seems a lot more immature and unready (not trained) to be on the radio. I'd love to hear them move to real radio guys who bring on prvacative guys who have no ties or love for Danny on the radio (Please no Clinton Portis who is barely understandable and way to close to Danny to be taken seriously))- London Fletcher would be cool 

He does a great job breaking down the film. It's something no one else in this area does and when he does it I don't hear any bias at all. He puts hours of work into breaking down the film of the games and then putting them into notes that he can talk about on air. It's not something he has to do, fans in the area are lucky to have Cooley doing that for us.

You don't hear anything else like the Cooley film breakdown anywhere else. Some stations, or tv shows will break down a few plays in a game, but not the play of every single player who played and what they did or didn't do well and why.

We're lucky to have Cooley's Film breakdown.

[Doc Draper]

Agree. I find it an interesting segment too. I do wonder if he charts every play by every position every week as hesaid he does. Probably not necessary to see who is playing well and who isn't. 

[Thaiphoon]

15 hours ago, Slateman said:

I'd be totally okay with not playing him the pre-season.

First off, Cooley is a hack and honestly, I would take nothing he says with any kind of truth.

Second, you want to condition players, then condition them. You can do that without subjecting them to getting injured in pre-season.

The un-noticeable, indeterminate effect of pre-season on the regular season isn't worth risking the only chance in hell this team has of cracking .500.

Re: Cooley, I respect your opinion. I completely disagree, but it is whatever. I'm talking about an NFL player who is relating things from his experience playing in the NFL. You can disregard what he has to say. But if it comes down to believing him or you about what its like on that field, I'm taking his word.

Second = nothing conditions you like the game reps. You can't do it in practice. You just can't. Practice is already soft enough. Practice you get the ball back to run another play after an INT. Etc... you get the picture.

 

As for unnoticeable? Hmmm...

2011 = 2-2 at the Bye. 2-5 by the end of October

2012 = We started out 2-3 en route to 3-6 at the Bye. Then we got hot with a 7 gamer heater

2013 = We started 2-4

2014 = We started 1-5

2015 = We started 2-4 and then the Code Red game woke us up

2016 = We started 1-2 in September. Including two bad games by the entire offense. We were 4-3-1 at the Bye in November.

And IMHO, its because our starters don't get enough work in the preseason in terms of getting on the same page with each other and getting into game shape to play all 4 quarters.

[Thaiphoon]

I'll also point out that I kinda like his immaturity. The Sports Junkies have gone a long way with that as well.

[Slateman]

10 hours ago, Thaiphoon said:

Re: Cooley, I respect your opinion. I completely disagree, but it is whatever. I'm talking about an NFL player who is relating things from his experience playing in the NFL. You can disregard what he has to say. But if it comes down to believing him or you about what its like on that field, I'm taking his word.

Second = nothing conditions you like the game reps. You can't do it in practice. You just can't. Practice is already soft enough. Practice you get the ball back to run another play after an INT. Etc... you get the picture.

 

As for unnoticeable? Hmmm...

2011 = 2-2 at the Bye. 2-5 by the end of October

2012 = We started out 2-3 en route to 3-6 at the Bye. Then we got hot with a 7 gamer heater

2013 = We started 2-4

2014 = We started 1-5

2015 = We started 2-4 and then the Code Red game woke us up

2016 = We started 1-2 in September. Including two bad games by the entire offense. We were 4-3-1 at the Bye in November.

And IMHO, its because our starters don't get enough work in the preseason in terms of getting on the same page with each other and getting into game shape to play all 4 quarters.

2011 - So they were a better team early in the season, rather than later with more reps? Because they started out the season as a .500 team, and they finished at 5-11. They were just as bad in the middle and end of the season, as they were at the beggining.

2012 - There was so much dumb luck this season that it isn't worth talking about.

2013 - Started out 2-4, finished 3-13. We were better earlier in the season.

2014 - Finished 4-12. Didn't play much better with the extra reps.

2015  - The only real merit to this discussion. Cousins played a little more. With the scrubs and guys who didn't make the team. And also his first year really executing that system

2016 - Went 4-4 down the stretch, including playing terrible against two opponents at the end of the season when they were fighting for a playoff spot.

 

At best, there's no correlation between pre-season reps and performance in the season.

[turtle28]

22 hours ago, Doc Draper said:

Agree. I find it an interesting segment too. I do wonder if he charts every play by every position every week as hesaid he does. Probably not necessary to see who is playing well and who isn't. 

He says he does, and he takes notes both during the game and when he goes back and watches the film. 

[turtle28]

11 hours ago, Slateman said:

2011 - So they were a better team early in the season, rather than later with more reps? Because they started out the season as a .500 team, and they finished at 5-11. They were just as bad in the middle and end of the season, as they were at the beggining.

2012 - There was so much dumb luck this season that it isn't worth talking about.

2013 - Started out 2-4, finished 3-13. We were better earlier in the season.

2014 - Finished 4-12. Didn't play much better with the extra reps.

2015  - The only real merit to this discussion. Cousins played a little more. With the scrubs and guys who didn't make the team. And also his first year really executing that system

2016 - Went 4-4 down the stretch, including playing terrible against two opponents at the end of the season when they were fighting for a playoff spot.

 

At best, there's no correlation between pre-season reps and performance in the season.

I don't know how you come to his final conclusion. Players definitely play better to start the season if they have more game reps in the preseason. The Redskins need to get in sync as an offense and team. We have a lot of new pieces in both sides of the ball that need to learn to play together at full speed. The only way to get that is to get full speed game reps in the preseason.

I really hope they play a half this week, 3 quarters next week and then take the final week off. That's the way it's been done for decades and the way the preseason reps for starters should remain, especially because we have two new starting wide receivers on offense and on defense we will have 3 new starting defensive linemen, probably 1 new starting ILB, possibly 1 new starting OLB and 2 new starting safeties.

How can you sit there and say that with all these new parts we don't needs to have these guys have game reps together as units in the preseason?

That just makes zero sense. We are in a worse spot than we were last year as far as continuity and as Thai pointed out, we all see how out of sync Kirk and the WRs were to start the season - which probably coat us the 1st Cowboys game - and most of that had to do with the fact that they barley played in the preseason.

[Thaiphoon]

13 hours ago, Slateman said:

2011 - So they were a better team early in the season, rather than later with more reps? Because they started out the season as a .500 team, and they finished at 5-11. They were just as bad in the middle and end of the season, as they were at the beggining.

2012 - There was so much dumb luck this season that it isn't worth talking about.

2013 - Started out 2-4, finished 3-13. We were better earlier in the season.

2014 - Finished 4-12. Didn't play much better with the extra reps.

2015  - The only real merit to this discussion. Cousins played a little more. With the scrubs and guys who didn't make the team. And also his first year really executing that system

2016 - Went 4-4 down the stretch, including playing terrible against two opponents at the end of the season when they were fighting for a playoff spot.

 

At best, there's no correlation between pre-season reps and performance in the season.

You asked for data to back up my claim that our teams start out slow. I showed it to you. I didn't go back further than 2011 because frankly, I don't have the time, but you're welcome to.

2011 = we had won 2 games by midseason. Is that a fast start? Not by any measure.

2012 = 3-5 by midseason. Is that a fast start? Not by any measure.

2013 = Not a fast start by winning only 2 games in the first 6. 

2014 = Started out even slower in winning just 1 game in the first 6. That's a fast start, for sure!

2015 = Woah, we improved by one game in the first 6 over the previous year.

(^^^^ The 3 starts between 2013 and 2015 with a combined 5 games won out of 18 >>>and 15 games won out of 48 from 2011-2016 <<< are not what I would consider fast)

2016 = You countered with nothing 

My point again, so its clear:

Ever wonder why our team plays like there are 5 quarters of football and with no sense of urgency early in the season? Its because they aren't in game condition. Players need to perform in the manner most similar to Week 1 game conditions for almost as long as the Week 1 game. They need at least 1 game in the preseason (Game 3) in which they play past halftime. This prevents them from coming out flat (Weeks 1 and 2 last year are prime examples). 

Now, we've had some poor teams to be sure. But we've also had some teams that could've made the playoffs and didn't. Last year was one such example. I just showed you our early season records going back 6 years. You're pointing at end of season records and 2nd half records as if they are the only ones that mean anything. I'm pointing out that our lack of work in the preseason for our starters is contributing to slow starts. I showed you the records. 

Here's some more information for you.

Between 1990 (when the NFL expanded the playoffs to 12 teams) to 2015, only 23 teams of 204 to start 0-2 (11.2 percent) have overcome the winless start to make the postseason. Expanding it out to 1978, only 18 of 208 teams to start 0-2 make the playoffs. And only 2 of those teams were since 2009.

So if you start 0-2, you have a 4% chance of making the playoffs. 

Also there's only a 14.5 percent chance that 1-3 teams will make the playoffs. And since the NFL adopted its current playoff format in 1990, only 25 teams have gotten to the playoffs after starting the season 1-3 or 0-4.  Its not much better for 2-4 teams.

By contrast, 66.2% of teams who start out 2-0 make the playoffs.

And teams that start 4-0? Yeah, over an 80% chance of the playoffs.

So if you want to see us in the playoffs, a good indicator is us getting a fast start. My contention (and I don't expect you to agree) is that us habitually resting our starters in preseason games and not getting them into game condition is a big contributing factor in our team's not being prepared for the first half of the season. The records back up my contention. Right now, you're asking for the status quo. I'm challenging it. I want to stop doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. We are currently not a good enough team to be resting our starters like we've been doing. If we were a perennial playoff contender, I might be giving them the benefit of the doubt that they would be ready for the season. But until they make the playoffs regularly, I reserve the right to have my doubts about methods.

Cooley's interview with Jay Gruden this morning, he reiterated the line of "Week 1 and its the 2nd half and guys are thinking 'We're still playing?". Jay did indicate that he probably needed to give the guys more work.

Like I said, I don't expect you to agree. But I know how to condition players to prepare them for game situations in many sports. And what we're doing by giving our starters almost no work in the preseason, has results we see in September and October. The records back me up

[Slateman]

But none of your data indicated that they played any better the rest of the season, except for 2012. Those were bad teams. No amount of pre-season was going to change that.