Should Haskins sit his Rookie Year?

[RSkinGM]

How come no one is mentioning McCoy's name !? Probably as good as Keenum and knows the system inside out . He should be ready to go by August from what I've read . 

[offbyone]

43 minutes ago, RSkinGM said:

How come no one is mentioning McCoy's name !? Probably as good as Keenum and knows the system inside out . He should be ready to go by August from what I've read . 

 

Because everyone knows he can't stay healthy for more than 4 games.  When he does play, he doesn't protect the ball.  Not to mention he has a weak arm.  Haskins has a rifle.  Keenum has more similar attributes and so I think it would be better for him to learn from Keenum.  The few opportunities McCoy has gotten have ended in injury and he is still injured from the last one.

Keenum at least can stay healthy.  Personally I think we should cut McCoy.  He is a crutch for Gruden.  While I would like to see Haskins sit for the first half of the season, he still needs to get reps.  The point of sitting him is to develop him, he at least needs practice reps to develop.  He should not share one single rep with mccoy.  

This whole concept of McCoy knows the offense is silly.  If that is his value, make him a coach.  If Jay Gruden doesn't finally learn how to start adjusting his offense around his talent, he won't be here next year.

Edited May 8, 2019 by offbyone

[Woz]

1 hour ago, Skins212689 said:

Ok so why can't Keenum come out hot as well? 6-4, 7-3?

He could. And if he does, then Haskins is sitting for a long time a la Mahomes.

I just don't think that's going to happen. More likely, I would expect Haskins to be given his first start somewhere in early to mid October.

1 hour ago, Skins212689 said:

Even if they were to start out bad, forcing a inexperienced Rookie might not be the best solution.

Again, I ask: how do you change someone who is inexperienced to experienced without giving them experience to face?

2 hours ago, Skins212689 said:

Even if he says he's ready we've seen sometimes it best to let a guy sit and learn. 

In the current system, unless you have a tried and true veteran presence ahead of the rookie (Brett Favre, Alex Smith, and (likely) Eli Manning ... possibly Denver with Joe Flacco but the Broncos don't have a track record with Joe), rookies do not sit and learn anymore. It just doesn't happen all that often without a bonafide veteran ahead of them. That is not Washington's situation going into 2019.

[MKnight82]

Just now, Woz said:

Again, I ask: how do you change someone who is inexperienced to experienced without giving them experience to face?

I think its more complex than that.  He needs to work on his footwork and progressions in practice before seeing the field IMO.  

[Woz]

1 hour ago, RSkinGM said:

How come no one is mentioning McCoy's name !? Probably as good as Keenum and knows the system inside out . He should be ready to go by August from what I've read . 

Because he's had multiple surgeries and while he might be able to walk/run, I wonder how much off-season work he'll be able to do before August.

Also, as @offbyone said, his track record of staying on the field is dubious at best.

[Woz]

Just now, MKnight82 said:

I think its more complex than that.  He needs to work on his footwork and progressions in practice before seeing the field IMO.  

Which is understandable. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there going to be multiple camps/practices where the coaches will theoretically work with him on that between now and the start of the season? Or even during the season?

Again, I'm not advocating for Haskins starting week one unless he clearly beats out the other options. At the same time, I find it unlikely that Haskins sits for almost the entire year because he has no experience.

[aceinthehouse]

Providing our team is mostly healthy heading into week 1, I think starting Haskins is the way to go.

I would rather him go to battle with our best players as a rookie, than to be thrown in there with no experience in week 7 with a 3-4 record playing with some 2nd & 3rd stringers trying to play catchup.

Either start him immediately, or sit him all season. 

We need to protect our investment in Haskins. If he gets dinged up & needs to sit, we got Case Keenum to fill in.

That's what I would do.

 

[Doc Draper]

We should tap the brakes a little on this draft and the crazy ideas of extending Bruce and or Dumbo. We won’t know how this draft works out for a few years. Yeah it looks good and so did this can’t miss pro ready qb;

“... is possibly the most physically talented quarterback prospect since John Elway. He's 6-foot-6, 260 pounds with an arm that makes Brett Favre look like Danny Wuerffel. XXX is also a good runner and his arm strength allows him to hit any open receiver while he is on the move. He has huge hands, which help him avoid fumbles, and remarkably quick feet for such large man. Physically, XXX compares favorably to Daunte Culpepper, Byron Leftwich, and Ben Roethlisberger, all of whom have had some degree of success in the NFL. “

So let’s see how he prepares, plays and responds to having a team not nearly as talented offensively compared to his college team playing their competitors. 

 

Its looks oks good so far, but we have given great ingredients to a short order cook. 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/nfl-draft/2007/2007-quarterbacks-draft-preview

 

[lavar703]

Russell was incredibly gifted though. But he never had the work ethic to go along with Jose gifts. That’s not Haskins at all. 

[Skins212689]

4 hours ago, Woz said:

He could. And if he does, then Haskins is sitting for a long time a la Mahomes.

I just don't think that's going to happen. More likely, I would expect Haskins to be given his first start somewhere in early to mid October.

Again, I ask: how do you change someone who is inexperienced to experienced without giving them experience to face?

In the current system, unless you have a tried and true veteran presence ahead of the rookie (Brett Favre, Alex Smith, and (likely) Eli Manning ... possibly Denver with Joe Flacco but the Broncos don't have a track record with Joe), rookies do not sit and learn anymore. It just doesn't happen all that often without a bonafide veteran ahead of them. That is not Washington's situation going into 2019.

You start him, I won't. I Agree to Disagree. He gets experience by practicing and participating in all activities a QB would except starting a game. As said before I'm going the route of the 7th winniniest coach in the league! Also probaly the most effective way to make sure Haskins is ready to be the best he can be once he steps in the Starting Role. Something you may not know the offense last year average 17.6 points a game while the D allowed 22.6 I believe. Keenum lead a offense in Minnesota and Denver in witch they both average more than 17.6 points the Skins were scoring with Alex Smith, Colt McCoy, and Josh Johnson.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Skins212689

[Woz]

1 hour ago, Skins212689 said:

As said before I'm going the route of the 7th winniniest coach in the league!

Then you should probably consider Reid's entire career. Donovan McNabb was taking significant snaps as early as game 2 of his rookie season (51 attempts across six games) and was the starter by week 10.

If/when Reid had a viable option, he went with the veteran. When he didn't, he went with the rookie.

But to each their own. Again, I am not saying that I start him right away. If Keenum beats him out and the team looks good, then stick with Case (or McCoy should that somehow come to fruition). However, if neither of the vets looks good (and I'm kind of betting that way, based on the two gentlemen's track records), why would you throw away a season and meaningful experience just to make the rookie sit because ...?

What I'm advocating for is situational. If you can sit Haskins, then sit him. I just don't think they have the surefire starter ahead of him that would make any sense to sit him after week 5 or so.

1 hour ago, Skins212689 said:

Something you may not know the offense last year average 17.6 points a game while the D allowed 22.6 I believe. Keenum lead a offense in Minnesota and Denver in witch they both average more than 17.6 points the Skins were scoring with Alex Smith, Colt McCoy, and Josh Johnson.

As a side point: Washington scored so few points because they trotted out Captain Checkdown, Noodle Arm, Butt Fumble, and No One Wants Him. It wasn't like it was Murderer's Row there.

So, yeah, I would expect Keenum to do better than those guys. However, as I've said many times before better than bad =/= good. It's just less bad.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Case Keenum from 2017 Minnesota is the true QB, and his time in Houston, St. Louis/Los Angeles (under the QB killer that was Jeff Fisher), and Denver were the aberrations, and his single great season with the Vikings is the true measure of his ability.

Of course, a substantial chunk of the fanbase was betting that same way with Alex Smith last year vis a vis his 2017 numbers. I went with the track record and said he's going to be mediocre at best. I'll follow my same logic this year.

[Skins212689]

1 hour ago, Woz said:

Then you should probably consider Reid's entire career. Donovan McNabb was taking significant snaps as early as game 2 of his rookie season (51 attempts across six games) and was the starter by week 10.

If/when Reid had a viable option, he went with the veteran. When he didn't, he went with the rookie.

But to each their own. Again, I am not saying that I start him right away. If Keenum beats him out and the team looks good, then stick with Case (or McCoy should that somehow come to fruition). However, if neither of the vets looks good (and I'm kind of betting that way, based on the two gentlemen's track records), why would you throw away a season and meaningful experience just to make the rookie sit because ...?

What I'm advocating for is situational. If you can sit Haskins, then sit him. I just don't think they have the surefire starter ahead of him that would make any sense to sit him after week 5 or so.

As a side point: Washington scored so few points because they trotted out Captain Checkdown, Noodle Arm, Butt Fumble, and No One Wants Him. It wasn't like it was Murderer's Row there.

So, yeah, I would expect Keenum to do better than those guys. However, as I've said many times before better than bad =/= good. It's just less bad.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Case Keenum from 2017 Minnesota is the true QB, and his time in Houston, St. Louis/Los Angeles (under the QB killer that was Jeff Fisher), and Denver were the aberrations, and his single great season with the Vikings is the true measure of his ability.

Of course, a substantial chunk of the fanbase was betting that same way with Alex Smith last year vis a vis his 2017 numbers. I went with the track record and said he's going to be mediocre at best. I'll follow my same logic this year.

They have a viable option, you just don't see Keenum as that viable option. I do! The offense sucked under Smith and McCoy! In 48 minutes they couldn't put up 3 TDs! That's a problem plain and simple. Even if they don't look good, why risk losing your draft position next year? Once again picking at 8 would've been better than picking at 15. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Skins212689

[Woz]

3 hours ago, Skins212689 said:

The offense sucked under Smith and McCoy! In 48 minutes they couldn't put up 3 TDs! That's a problem plain and simple.

No argument there. It's why they drafted Haskins in the first place.

3 hours ago, Skins212689 said:

They have a viable option, you just don't see Keenum as that viable option. I do!

I think you missing the nuance of my position: I don't think Keenum is enough of a viable option to keep Haskins on the bench for most or all of the season as you seem to be advocating for.

Is Keenum an upgrade over the crap they had last year? Probably.
Is he enough of an upgrade that I think they'll play well for most of the season, making Haskins essentially an afterthought for 2019 like what happened to Mahomes? Probably not.

Where I think we disagree more is how much better an inexperienced rookie can get with just practice and watching on the sideline. I think there's a significantly lower ceiling in experience gain there than you do apparently.

3 hours ago, Skins212689 said:

Even if they don't look good, why risk losing your draft position next year? Once again picking at 8 would've been better than picking at 15.

Well, I have to believe you would agree that getting Haskins live reps has some value towards getting him experience. If he can win games with those reps, shouldn't we be celebrating that?

My take on when I change to root for draft position: when it's obvious that the Super Bowl ain't happening (a one and done playoff appearance does not excite me in the least). @e16bball and I differ here in that he waits until they're mathematically eliminated(*). I get that if you make the playoffs "anything can happen." However, I've seen enough of Washington teams over the past almost three full decades (sweet lord ...) to know that they haven't been close even when they made the playoffs. I mean, you can just look at a team "in the hunt" and usually say "they're not making the Big Game." Yes, there have been exceptions (the Giants, unfortunately, come to mind as do the 2005 Steelers), but those are rare.

Think about it: last year, did you honestly think any of the 3-6 seeds were likely going to make the Super Bowl? The Patriots, Chiefs, Rams, and Saints were just better quality than the rest of the field. You can regularly tell if the team "has it" or doesn't.

All that said, I'm not about to start worrying about the 2020 draft in May of 2019 for two reasons:

1. That means giving up on any hope for the coming season, and I now have a little hope (yes, I know, that's a very dangerous thing).
2. The last three years, Washington has drafted 17th, 13th, and 15th. They've come away with Jonathan Allen, Da'Ron Payne, and Dwayne Haskins. Now, I know I regularly say that if your plan is based solely on luck, you have no plan. However, the front office has managed to find pretty decent players in the middle of the draft, so I'm willing to let it ride. (**)

 

So, if the biggest complaint about Haskins is that he just has so little starting experience, I'm willing to put him under fire to get that experience provided that either he beats Keenum out in training camp in a fair competition (no Dan putting his thumb on the scale (yeah, I know ...)) or Keenum comes out of the gate "meh" or worse. As I've said previously, I wouldn't start Haskins until after week 5 so he has a chance to get his feet under him before throwing him into the cauldron that is the NFC East games. Again, it is situational.

 

 

(*) Even he adjusted that when Butt Fumble and No One Wants Him became the starting QBs.
(**) I hate that means I have to give Bruce Allen some credit, but I tell myself he doesn't do anything. That could be my pettiness, but he doesn't deserve anything more from the fans.

[Skins212689]

 Louis Riddick is thinking just like me. 

[Woz]

48 minutes ago, Skins212689 said:

Louis Riddick is thinking just like me. 

Arguments given by Riddick (and my counter-arguments):

1. "He can foster relationships with the coaching staff in that building, with the coaching staff in particular, as far as finding out exactly how he learns the best, how he is corrected the best, how he really just is able to develop that trust with this coaching staff that quite honestly has a lot of ex-quarterbacks on it ..."
   1. Yes, but that requires Case Keenum (or whomever you put ahead of Haskins) not to crap the bed in the upcoming season. Otherwise, all those relationships could be meaningless as they would be fired.
   2. Even if Keenum (or whomever) does decently and the coaching staff is not fired, the starter QB is going to be the focus for the coaching staff for obvious reasons. They're going to be focused on that relationship, even if it is unconscious. So, while there will be some work to building those relationships, they may not be as fully developed with Haskins if he's the backup. This will be a bigger issue once they break training camp and the season looms.
       
2. "They're devoid of talent on the perimeter. They don't have a true #1 wide receiver that he can go to. Jordan Reed, the tight end, isn't someone who has proven he can stay healthy. Paul Richardson, a big free agent signing from a year ago, can't stay healthy. There's a lot things they still need in order to grow and develop a young quarterback."
   1. Also true. Of course, that lack of talent also affects Keenum (or whomever) as well. Yes, Keenum (or whomever) already has pro experience so he should be able to handle that talent dearth better, but that also points to the team potentially not doing well in the upcoming season (which leads back to counterpoint #1).
   2. As I said over here https://forums.footballsfuture.com/topic/18975-looking-beyond-2019/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-1812033, the problem with this argument is that next year's free agent class of wide receivers will either comprise incredibly expensive players who likely won't be available in the first place (Michael Thomas, Amari Cooper), a major off-field PR disaster (Tyreek Hill, who would only get to UFA if he plays this year), older players at various states of past their prime, and a bunch of guys who aren't all that good but at least you'd recognize their names (note: I had excluded a bunch of JAGs as well). As such, it's not like there will be a quick fix for the receiving corps. As such, the guys they have here now are likely going to be Haskins' targets next year. Why not give him a chance to establish a chemistry with those guys? If the young guys like McLaurin, Harmon, or Quinn actually develop into something, wouldn't it be good for them to grow with Haskins as soon as possible?
       
3. "I think Dwayne can really benefit from being around a guy like Alex Smith or being around a guy like Case Keenum and just learning the professional aspects of the game so that in year two, just like what happened with Patrick Mahomes, he takes off and they hit the ground running."
   1. Haskins will still be around Smith and Keenum if he's sitting or starting. I've said that if Washington was smart, they would have had Smith connect up with Haskins already and start going through things on what it means to be a top QB. Why not Case? Keenum is his competition. It is not in Case's best interest to try and help Haskins. Smith's career is over; there's no risk there.
   2. One more time: if Case Keenum can come out of the gate hot like Alex Smith did, then have Haskins sit. The Chiefs had a pretty solid track record with Smith under center (even if it wasn't all Smith's doing), so they were probably okay with going with the veteran. There is no such track record with Keenum, especially in Washington.
       
4. "Overall, I think this organization needs to make sure from A to Z that they have it buttoned up as far as 'this is our guy,' 'this how we're going to teach him,' 'this is how we're going to train him,' 'he's going to be our guy through not just one contract, but two or three contracts' because they've messed it up before. They cannot afford to mess this up again."
   1. Captain Obvious, TO THE RESCUE!
   2. I'll ask yet again: does actually sitting him an entire year and sacrificing that year of hands-on learning at a cheap price help them avoid messing up again?

I get we're running around in circles here. You want him to sit regardless of what happens. I'm more sanguine on this and think that he'll be starting early on (though not necessarily week 1).