Taylor Heinicke Discussion

[Theismann To HOF]

I disagree.

I'm trying to be respectful. I just don't think Turner is the problem, as I've explained. Wentz is the problem.

 

[Theismann To HOF]

Scott Turner's offense... PPG.

OK...I still don't get the relevance. And do you have a source? Does that include defensive TDs?

Bad turnovers are obviously a factor as well, like they were in the Chicago game.

 

[Theismann To HOF]

You don't understand much. We understand that much.

Neo -- This is respectful?

 

[Henry]

Again, no legit QB plays their best football their first year as a starter. Playing time matters.

A guy that comes off the bench as a veteran doesn't have a rookie learning curve. What you see at 29 is pretty much what you get. ESPECIALLY when you're talking about physical tools. Heinicke's game is actually pretty polished, and that's great. What's holding him back is not that he's green and makes mental mistakes or gets rattled like a rookie or that he has to develop his leadership skills. What's holding him back is his arm and his size. Those aren't going to get any better.

It limits him. It limits the offense. It puts a cap on how good the offense can be.

Does that mean he's worse than Wentz? No. At this point I expect Heinicke will come in and lose gloriously to the Packers 20-35 or something and everyone will say something like "sure we lost, but at least we looked better at QB!" and they'll be totally correct.

What it means is he is very likely not the QB of the future. I didn't want Wentz here and I think he's a disaster, but there's a reason he's here. The front office was trying to find a QB with an NFL arm. Unfortunately that's about all Wentz was good for, and this team isn't nearly good enough to cover for Wentz's shortcomings. We'll see if the team can cover for Heinicke's shortcomings any better, because despite his moxie he does have them, and they can be pretty glaring.

 

[MikefromOH]

Neo -- This is respectful?

We're way past your feelings now, son. Get back on track before you ask for help

 

[Primus Porcus]

OK...I still don't get the relevance. And do you have a source? Does that include defensive TDs?

Bad turnovers are obviously a factor as well, like they were in the Chicago game.

How do bad turnovers equate to offensive points per game?

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Opponent Points per Game | TeamRankings.com

NFL Football opponent points per game, by team.

www.teamrankings.com

NFL TEAM POINTS PER GAME

 

[Theismann To HOF]

You're not understanding what I'm saying, and frankly at this point I dont know why i'm wasting my own time acting like you ever will but...... HE IS PLAYING THE PLAY CALL HE IS GIVEN. Turner does not allow Wentz to change the play, therefore HE IS RUNNING THE PLAY THAT IS CALLED IN.

You think Wentz can't hit the intermediate, yet Turner keeps asking him to do so.

Heinicke can't hit the deep ball, but he kept asking Heinicke to do it.

He ran F*CKING READ OPTION with Alex SMITH after his leg got turned into ground beef.

Wentz cannot run RPOs/play-action nearly as well as Heinicke. That's just a fact.

It doesn't matter to me what play Wentz runs....he's not going to do a good job, regardless. As I already explained, he does not have the accuracy on first and second down to be a successful QB.

Turner does not control Wentz's failed execution of plays. Look at some of Wentz's bad first and second down throws against Chicago.

 

[Theismann To HOF]

How do bad turnovers equate to offensive points per game?

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Opponent Points per Game | TeamRankings.com

NFL Football opponent points per game, by team.

www.teamrankings.com

View attachment 6263 View attachment 6264

NFL TEAM POINTS PER GAME

Seriously? Starting a drive on the Chicago 5 yard line did not help Washington score a TD?

 

[Primus Porcus]

Seriously? Starting a drive on the Chicago 5 yard line did not help Washington score a TD?

I thought you meant the other way

Of course... and like my example above with Denver.. Heinicke Scott Turner was handed the ball on the Denver 24 and we came away with 0 points...

 

[Theismann To HOF]

I thought you meant the other way

Of course... and like my example above with Denver.. Heinicke was handed the ball on the Denver 24 and we came away with 0 points...

Well, one reason is that it was a must-score-TD situation, due to the two blocked FGs. Most teams don't score a TD in that situation, especially with very little time remaining.

I'm just not going to blame Turner or Heinicke for that. But I will blame Rivera for his breathtakingly stupid decision to cut Hopkins before the game.

 

[Theismann To HOF]

A guy that comes off the bench as a veteran doesn't have a rookie learning curve. What you see at 29 is pretty much what you get. ESPECIALLY when you're talking about physical tools. Heinicke's game is actually pretty polished, and that's great. What's holding him back is not that he's green and makes mental mistakes or gets rattled like a rookie or that he has to develop his leadership skills. What's holding him back is his arm and his size. Those aren't going to get any better.

Just not true. Studies have actually been done on this. Veteran NFL QBs see passing lanes opening up on the field that they would NOT have seen earlier in their careers. That is why playing time and experience is important, regardless of whether or not you're a rookie or a veteran QB who hasn't played many NFL games.

Anticipation improves with more playing time. It cannot be taught.

It limits him. It limits the offense. It puts a cap on how good the offense can be.

Does that mean he's worse than Wentz? No. At this point I expect Heinicke will come in and lose gloriously to the Packers 20-35 or something and everyone will say something like "sure we lost, but at least we looked better at QB!" and they'll be totally correct.

What it means is he is very likely not the QB of the future. I didn't want Wentz here and I think he's a disaster, but there's a reason he's here. The front office was trying to find a QB with an NFL arm. Unfortunately that's about all Wentz was good for, and this team isn't nearly good enough to cover for Wentz's shortcomings. We'll see if the team can cover for Heinicke's shortcomings any better, because despite his moxie he does have them, and they can be pretty glaring.

Again, I disagree. You simply have no evidence that Heinicke's "weak arm" is a liability. It's just your opinion.

Heinicke's strengths far exceed his weaknesses. Most NFL QBs would not have won 7 games on this team last year, not with that horrible defense. You are vastly underrating Heinicke.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

You don't understand much. We understand that much.

 

[Theismann To HOF]

View attachment 6265

So does the guy lying on the mat symbolize your all's prediction that Wentz would be better than Heinicke?

 

[Primus Porcus]

So does the guy lying on the mat symbolize your all's prediction that Wentz would be better than Heinicke?

 

[Theismann To HOF]

Superman looks as lost as Wentz on 3rd and long.

 

[Primus Porcus]

Superman looks as lost as Wentz Scott Turner on 3rd and long.

Fixed it for you

 

[Theismann To HOF]

Fixed it for you

Well, if Wentz would stop throwing passes into the dirt or 5 feet over his WR's heads on 1st & 2nd downs, he would make Turner's job a lot easier on 3rd down.

But you'll see next week that Turner is not the problem, if Heinicke is starting.

 

[Primus Porcus]

Well, if Wentz would stop throwing passes into the dirt or 5 feet over his WR's heads on 1st & 2nd downs, he would make Turner's job a lot easier on 3rd down.

But you'll see next week that Turner is not the problem, if Heinicke is starting.

look man, I hope Heinicke is the answer. I hoped he was the answer last year.. Thing is... Heinicke is 7-10 as a starting QB under Turner. We were still sitting at home talking about draft picks in december with the Heinicke / Turner combo. I hope we win. I hope Heinicke leads us to a Super Bowl. I hope the Commanders become the class of the NFL. Problem is, to this point... Turners track record had been consistent while the QBs under center for Turner have not... I imagine the history over the last 50 games is what we can expect over the next 5... but I guess we can all keep hope?

 

[Theismann To HOF]

look man, I hope Heinicke is the answer. I hoped he was the answer last year.. Thing is... Heinicke is 7-10 as a starting QB under Turner. We were still sitting at home talking about draft picks in december with the Heinicke / Turner combo. I hope we win. I hope Heinicke leads us to a Super Bowl. I hope the Commanders become the class of the NFL. Problem is, to this point... Turners track record had been consistent while the QBs under center for Turner have not... I imagine the history over the last 50 games is what we can expect over the next 5... but I guess we can all keep hope?

You could say the same thing of virtually every OC that Washington has had the past 30 years.

You won't even acknowledge that Wentz's poor accuracy on throws makes Turner's job more difficult. Wentz is one of the least accurate throwers in the league. That's just a fact.

You keep saying Heinicke only won 7 games last year, but Wentz would not have even won 3 games on this team last year. Wentz makes Turner look worse.

 

[Primus Porcus]

You could say the same thing of virtually every OC that Washington has had the past 30 years.

You won't even acknowledge that Wentz's poor accuracy on throws makes Turner's job more difficult. Wentz is one of the least accurate throwers in the league. That's just a fact.

You keep saying Heinicke only won 7 games last year, but Wentz would not have even won 3 games last year. Wentz makes Turner look worse.

actually I have..

multiple times said Wentz has his share of responsibility, but why would you ever read anything that doesnt fit your narrative? Nah, it's easier for you to plug your ears and scream "blah blah blah blah" Bottom line, It's a failing record, it's losing more games than you won. We're seeing the same offensive mindset we saw last year (that failed), with a different QB... along with the year before, and the year before, and the year before.