Redskins vs Bengals Gameday Thread - Preseason Week 2 (8/15/19)

[turtle28]

 

[lavar703]

My favorite part about all of this is Mike Florio and PFT still trying to contend it was the right call because Harmon interfered the defender earlier in the route even though that wasn’t when the ref threw the flag. But then again, it’s PFT and they attack the team pretty much every chance they can. 

[turtle28]

6 minutes ago, lavar703 said:

My favorite part about all of this is Mike Florio and PFT still trying to contend it was the right call because Harmon interfered the defender earlier in the route even though that wasn’t when the ref threw the flag. But then again, it’s PFT and they attack the team pretty much every chance they can. 

The league said the same thing, its ridiculous. If that was the case then, it should have been offsetting and the first one definitely wasn't offensive PI!

[turtle28]

 

[turtle28]

 

[HTTRDynasty]

 

[turtle28]

 

[Doc Draper]

[Thaiphoon]

On 8/16/2019 at 8:31 PM, turtle28 said:

But there's only one way to find out. and I don't think it matters much whether that's week 1 or week 6. 

Yes. You get one shot at it. That's it. You willing to roll the dice on how a QB develops or wait a few weeks and increase your chances?

Quote

Rookie QBs start every year and sometimes they do way better than some think, can't be scared.

And most do much worse because they were rushed out Week 1.

Quote

Personally, I don't think Haskins is going to be any different a QB in week 6 then he will be week 1

Okay, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. I'm not saying he's going to be physically different. Or suddenly be able to read defenses and coverages better.

I'm talking about Week 1 he's the starter. Does poorly (as most rookie QBs do). We go 0-5, 1-4 or 2-3. Then gets pulled in Week 6 (or before) after our brutal schedule. This means that the organization is essentially saying to the rookie, "we no longer trust you to start, you're done this year" and is going with one of the veterans. Which means that if one of the veterans falter, and he suddenly goes back in, he will be pressing and trying to force throws and make plays instead of playing smarter. 

Now...let's say we trot out Case for the first 5 weeks. We go 0-5, 1-4 or 2-3. And then we bring Haskins in. The message of that move to the rookie now is "okay, we're out of the playoff hunt. There's no pressure on you to do anything but develop as a QB and finish out the season. Yes, get us wins and yes get better every week, but since we're out of it, you're our guy and you don't have to worry about the hook."

The former puts more pressure on the rookie (who again has only started one season) than you need to do. It says "well we tried him and he didn't do well, so we went to the vets." And you go into the offseason with a QB quandry.

The latter allows you to bring him in as relief and then LEAVE him in. Because at that point, he can work with the easier part of the schedule and then develop at an easier pace. Which then leads into the offseason with him as the starter.

I manage risk for a living. Your way introduces risk that doesn't need to be there. Which is why I asked you... are you looking to get one year (or less) out of Haskins? Or do you want to develop this kid and have him around for a decade? If the former, then the risk you're introducing is of little consequence. If the latter, then you're making decisions that are introducing risk when you don't need to.

Quote

and I don't think the left side of our OL will be any different either unless by some miracle Trent comes to his senses after missing some game checks in September.

Nope. It won't. But look at the schedule and get back to me on which teams you'd rather he face with this OL in his first starts.

[turtle28]

I just don't think it matters as much as you think it does Thai and that guy that Kevin Sheehan or Galdi had on their radio shows did the analysis of rookie QBs over the years. It convinced me.

We could use Kirk Cousins as an example. Shanahan tried him at the end of 2013 and he mostly fell flat on his face. In 2014 Kirk was a starter again after RG3 got hurt and he was up and down week to week it seemed and then benched for Colt McCoy after multiple games were he threw 4 and 5 ints. Then, in 2015 he won the job but again was up and down the first month of the season until the Tampa game.

Players can bounce back from a bad play, bad game and being benched. They can even learn from those bad plays and eventually be better.

A bad play or benching doesn't mean that it's going to hurt them long term. 

Edited August 18, 2019 by turtle28

[turtle28]

 

[turtle28]

 

[Woz]

On 8/16/2019 at 8:31 PM, turtle28 said:

But there's only one way to find out. and I don't think it matters much whether that's week 1 or week 6. 

But it does.

1. That's five or six weeks more practice time where he can work on his footwork.
2. It avoids the nastiness of the early part of the schedule that has a higher chance than average for wrecking a guy.
3. There's a chance Trent comes back in the intervening time (yeah, I know it's a small chance, but it's theoretically non-zero).
4. If Case Keenum does really well (unlikely in my opinion but it could happen), it means they have even more time to work on his footwork (the Alex Smith/Patrick Mahomes path).

On 8/16/2019 at 8:31 PM, turtle28 said:

Rookie QBs start every year and sometimes they do way better than some think, can't be scared.

Maybe it's just me, but when I've watched Haskins in the preseason games so far, I see the glimmers of what he could be ... combined with the rookie that he is. I think they would be wise to park him for a month or so and let Keenum be fed to the wolves.

On 8/16/2019 at 8:31 PM, turtle28 said:

Personally, I don't think Haskins is going to be any different a QB in week 6 then he will be week 1 and I don't think the left side of our OL will be any different either unless by some miracle Trent comes to his senses after missing some game checks in September.

Again, a month-plus extra practices focusing on fundamentals and reps? The possibility of Trent coming back and getting back into game mode (he's probably in shape, but there's still a bit of rust to knock off and the calls to relearn)?

Will he vastly better? Probably not. But it cannot hurt.

[turtle28]

1 hour ago, Woz said:

But it does.

1. That's five or six weeks more practice time where he can work on his footwork.
2. It avoids the nastiness of the early part of the schedule that has a higher chance than average for wrecking a guy.
3. There's a chance Trent comes back in the intervening time (yeah, I know it's a small chance, but it's theoretically non-zero).
4. If Case Keenum does really well (unlikely in my opinion but it could happen), it means they have even more time to work on his footwork (the Alex Smith/Patrick Mahomes path).

Maybe it's just me, but when I've watched Haskins in the preseason games so far, I see the glimmers of what he could be ... combined with the rookie that he is. I think they would be wise to park him for a month or so and let Keenum be fed to the wolves.

Again, a month-plus extra practices focusing on fundamentals and reps? The possibility of Trent coming back and getting back into game mode (he's probably in shape, but there's still a bit of rust to knock off and the calls to relearn)?

Will he vastly better? Probably not. But it cannot hurt.

Sure it can’t hurt Haskins’ development to sit and watch Keenum but I don't think it hurts him to start right away as much as other do. It certainly didn't hurt RG3 to start week 1 and so many other rookie QBs in the past.

Wouldn't it help Haskins footwork and other aspects of his game more while getting starter QB reps in practice and then get to play in the games as well and work on his footwork and other parts of his game in live game action?

That's the way I see it at least. 

If Haskins is going to be the back up then, won't he get back up snaps in practice? I think he’d get more reps in practice if he was the starter. 

Anyways, I don't think it matters. I think Gruden is dead set on having Keenum start the season. I worry that Gruden actually won't want to go to Haskins even if Keenum plays bad for a few weeks bc Gruden wants a vet out there bc he thinks it's better for his job security.

I don't know, I just don't think our passing game is going to be that great no matter who starts, so we might as well go with the future in Haskins rather than waste time watching the average Keenum while our future QB sits over on the bench taking notes.

Edited August 20, 2019 by turtle28

[Woz]

37 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

Sure it can’t hurt Haskins’ development to sit and watch Keenum but I don't think it hurts him to start right away as much as other do. It certainly didn't hurt RG3 to start week 1 and so many other rookie QBs in the past.

Wouldn't it help Haskins footwork and other aspects of his game more while getting starter QB reps in practice and then get to play in the games as well and work on his footwork and other parts of his game in live game action?

That's the way I see it at least. 

If Haskins is going to be the back up then, won't he get back up snaps in practice? I think he’d get more reps in practice if he was the starter. 

Anyways, I don't think it matters. I think Gruden is dead set on having Keenum start the season. I worry that Gruden actually won't want to go to Haskins even if Keenum plays bad for a few weeks bc Gruden wants a vet out there bc he thinks it's better for his job security.

I don't know, I just don't think our passing game is going to be that great no matter who starts, so we might as well go with the future in Haskins rather than waste time watching the average Keenum while our future QB sits over on the bench taking notes.

I'm in favor of Haskins getting in game reps to "learn by doing/making mistakes" with two caveats:

1. Not in those first five games.
2. Not at all if the line ends up being as bad as it looks like.