Commanders Coffee #6

[Theismann To HOF]

32 teams passed on having Heinickie on a roster. He was on his sister's couch when Washington,out of desperation,signed him.

Even after signing Wentz and drafting Howell,nobody approached this team asking about Heinickie's availability.

Yet Theismann here is the ONLY one...a fan on the couch who knows more about football than us poor dumb hicks here...and he is a QB genius,just ask him,he'll tell you.....that knows Heinickie's a franchise Qb?

Yeah...OK......

I didn't say all of that. I said Heinicke is the best QB this team has had in a long time, that's all. I can't think of another QB that Washington has had in the past 20 years that can outplay Tom Brady twice. But Heinicke did it. That's freaking good enough for me. That's the best we can hope for with an owner like Snyder.

Anyone who has watched just 30 minutes of film on Wentz knew he was going to be a disaster here. Slow as molasses release, lousy accuracy, boneheaded decision maker with zero football IQ, a total fumble machine. Just hopeless.

Rivera is obviously a worse GM than he is a coach. This blame game nonsense regarding Scott Turner is just absurd.

 

[Lovin Cousins]

If we're going to evaluate Heinicke, gauging it based on other team's interest in him, then...
Make it apples to apples comparison...
What was other team's interest in Wentz this offseason ?

 

[Theismann To HOF]

Ironically, this happens immediately after the time that you'd think we learned the same exact lesson from Haskins.
It's almost a repeat of Haskins at QB, in many ways.

It's actually worse than Haskins. Haskins was largely an unknown quantity.

On the other hand, everyone knew what Wentz was. Well, knowledgeable fans knew what Wentz was.

 

[Theismann To HOF]

If we're going to evaluate Heinicke, gauging it based on other team's interest in him, then...
Make it apples to apples comparison...
What was other team's interest in Wentz ?

Zero. Which tells you what a horrible GM Rivera is. The only one foolish enough to pay Wentz $30 million.

Wentz would not have a starting QB job right now if it wasn't for Washington. He should be eternally grateful.

 

[Lovin Cousins]

Zero. Which tells you what a horrible GM Rivera is. The only one foolish enough to pay Wentz $30 million.

Wentz would not have a starting QB job right now if it wasn't for Washington. He should be eternally grateful.

And remember, last year, the answer was Fitzpatrick

 

[Theismann To HOF]

And remember, last year, the answer was Fitzpatrick

Yeah, I wanted to go with Heinicke as the starter at the beginning of last season, after his outstanding playoff game against Tampa. And he is still the best QB on this team.

Rivera is a total imbecile. Former defensive players like Rivera should not be making QB decisions. He just isn't qualified. I'm willing to bet that Scott Turner did not want Wentz to come here.

 

[Lovin Cousins]

I'm willing to bet that Scott Turner did not want Wentz to come here.

Or Ernie Zampese.
We don't make Zampese's job easy

 

[SilentThreat]

I didn't say all of that. I said Heinicke is the best QB this team has had in a long time, that's all. I can't think of another QB that Washington has had in the past 20 years that can outplay Tom Brady twice. But Heinicke did it. That's freaking good enough for me. That's the best we can hope for with an owner like Snyder.

Anyone who has watched just 30 minutes of film on Wentz knew he was going to be a disaster here. Slow as molasses release, lousy accuracy, boneheaded decision maker with zero football IQ, a total fumble machine. Just hopeless.

Rivera is obviously a worse GM than he is a coach. This blame game nonsense regarding Scott Turner is just absurd.

I'm sorry but this argument is false. QBs can't out play each other head to head because they dont play against each other. Joe Flacco just led the Jets to a win over the Browns scoring 2 TDs in the final 2 minutes, and I'm pretty sure I didn't see Jacoby Brissett in pass coverage during any of those last two scoring drives... Bad QBs beat teams that have better QBs on the other side of the field all the time.

Tom Brady doesn't play DB
Tom Brady doesn't play DE
Tom Brady doesn't play LB

Taylor Heinicke doesn't play DB
Taylor Heinicke doesn't play DE
Taylor Heinicke doesn't play LB

Taylor Heinicke didn't out play Tom Brady because they weren't facing the same defense, and they're not both on the field at the same time.

Taylor Heinicke had a better day against the Bucs Defense than Tom Brady had against the Washington defense. It's that simple. Taylor Heinicke likely has the EXACT same games whether it's Tom Brady on the other sideline, or Uncle Rico... because those guys have very little effect (outside of maybe playing catchup, and maybe controlling the ball) on the other side of the ball.

If you want to argue Heinicke went to toe-to-toe in a playoff game vs the Bucs, and didn't let the stage get to big for him? Yes, I'll completely agree with you... but to continue to hold onto an argument of him 'out playing' Brady as some sort of gospel is wrong. Brady could have had the best game of his life, if his defense failed, it may not have mattered. Heinicke could have had the worst game of his life, but if his defense took over the game... it wouldnt have mattered.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

Yeah, I wanted to go with Heinicke as the starter at the beginning of last season, after his outstanding playoff game against Tampa. And he is still the best QB on this team.

Rivera is a total imbecile. Former defensive players like Rivera should not be making QB decisions. He just isn't qualified. I'm willing to bet that Scott Turner did not want Wentz to come here.

No way you are right about that. They are throwing away the house for Scott to run the offense he wants. Carson Wentz is almost a textbook description of a QB Scott Turner thinks he could succeed with (on paper).
- Strong arm
- Pocket passer

Honestly, in Scott's mind, those are the only two attributes he needs as long as the QB can follow directions. I think Scott can draw some really good plays up. I think he knows how to get WRs open. That is not something to take for granted. However, he does this in a vacuum sometimes, and just doesn't see how easily defenses are predicting his calls these days. I see a lot of slow developing (7-step drops, play-action, etc.) plays where DL is just zipping into the backfield heading straight for the QB. Sometimes this is occurring right after a 10-yard run by a RB. The reason has to be either there is a tell in the OL (this has been reported by the way, a potential tell), or they are able to just gamble on pass most of the time since we are so heavily tilted. They know that drives like we saw last year during the winning streak (I think there was a 14-play drive in there, featuring mostly runs), just don't happen with any regularity. They are too rare to be concerned about.

No, Carson Wents WAS Scott's dream QB. Scott did NOT like Taylor. He threw him under the bus numerous times. I also think they should have rolled with Taylor, even though I know the arm strength is not comparable. I think what they lost when they got Wentz has hamstrung the team in a much more dramatic fashion than Taylor ever was.

In my opinion, Scott is the #1 reason Taylor is not the starting QB. He was blaming him publicly for much of the end of last year, saying he missed this and that in postgames, without any regard to the fact that a lack of running commitment was leading to the same thing we see this year; defenses can cut their playcalls down to less than half when we are so predictable. Scott is unable to scheme for a QB, he needs "the" QB for his scheme. I guess if Carson isn't it, next? It's a problem.

 

[Neophyte]

Yes, Turner threw Taylor under the bus a couple of times and that wasn't a good look. However, it doesn't change the fact that Turner was correct in his statements.

I love me some Taylor. The kid is all guts and hustle and class. What isn't to like about that?

Having said that, he had nearly a full season last year and at the end, he was often making the same mistakes with his reads that he was at the beginning of the year. This offense left a lot of points on the table because Taylor would check down with a guy running open on a deeper route or he would focus on McLaurin while Carter was open on the opposite side of the field.

In short, I didn't see the growth from him in the mental aspects of the game that I ideally want to see, especially in a QB that is limited physically.

 

[Lovin Cousins]

I don't recall Turner throwing Heinicke under the bus. If he did, I missed it.
But if he did, that's telling, because he would be the one guy on the team I think would support Heinicke the most.
I think he was the one that convinced Ron to bring him here. And he was the only NFL rep that visited Heinicke on his Pro Day.
And he was the one that worked with Heinicke in Minnesota (and of course, Carolina)
So the 2 seemed tight for a long time.
If something truly broke down between them, I'd like to know about it.
If Scott did not like Heinicke, as ST said, that would have been a new development or recent. Because as I said, Turner was Heinicke's biggest fan for a long time - even before the member here, TTTHOF

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

Yes, Turner threw Taylor under the bus a couple of times and that wasn't a good look. However, it doesn't change the fact that Turner was correct in his statements.

I love me some Taylor. The kid is all guts and hustle and class. What isn't to like about that?

Having said that, he had nearly a full season last year and at the end, he was often making the same mistakes with his reads that he was at the beginning of the year. This offense left a lot of points on the table because Taylor would check down with a guy running open on a deeper route or he would focus on McLaurin while Carter was open on the opposite side of the field.

In short, I didn't see the growth from him in the mental aspects of the game that I ideally want to see, especially in a QB that is limited physically.

You're definitely right, in my opinion anyway. The problem is, Carson and what we lost may not be as good as Taylor and what we could have kept. That is the calculation the FO and Scott needed to make.

Scott is unable to make that calculation in a good way, because he is too inflexible on his scheme. There are some analysts I have read which confirm what our eyes tell us; Scott is running basically the same scheme he has run his whole time here. That is because he has one idea of how an offense should work. It doesn't evolve based on who is out there, and what their skillsets are. The FO has the job of finding people to fit the scheme, and in today's NFL with the salary cap, that is a losing proposition.

Taylor's limitations in the context of different playcalling; it looked pretty good in that winning streak. The playcalling reverted, and our record also reverted. There was a difference in how the tempo went in the offensive playcalling, in those last losses, and that is where you saw Scott showing his frustration. Taylor was making his vaunted scheme look bad, not the other way around, in his mind. I agree with you, Taylor has some clear limitations based on what we saw last year. However, we also saw some hints that a good scheme can set him up to succeed, and a team that has a QB on the cheap who can put Ws on the board, can keep depth across the team as well. Scott's tunnel vision hurts us in ways that are hard to quantify.

 

[SilentThreat]

No way you are right about that. They are throwing away the house for Scott to run the offense he wants. Carson Wentz is almost a textbook description of a QB Scott Turner thinks he could succeed with (on paper).
- Strong arm
- Pocket passer

Honestly, in Scott's mind, those are the only two attributes he needs as long as the QB can follow directions. I think Scott can draw some really good plays up. I think he knows how to get WRs open. That is not something to take for granted. However, he does this in a vacuum sometimes, and just doesn't see how easily defenses are predicting his calls these days. I see a lot of slow developing (7-step drops, play-action, etc.) plays where DL is just zipping into the backfield heading straight for the QB. Sometimes this is occurring right after a 10-yard run by a RB. The reason has to be either there is a tell in the OL (this has been reported by the way, a potential tell), or they are able to just gamble on pass most of the time since we are so heavily tilted. They know that drives like we saw last year during the winning streak (I think there was a 14-play drive in there, featuring mostly runs), just don't happen with any regularity. They are too rare to be concerned about.

No, Carson Wents WAS Scott's dream QB. Scott did NOT like Taylor. He threw him under the bus numerous times. I also think they should have rolled with Taylor, even though I know the arm strength is not comparable. I think what they lost when they got Wentz has hamstrung the team in a much more dramatic fashion than Taylor ever was.

In my opinion, Scott is the #1 reason Taylor is not the starting QB. He was blaming him publicly for much of the end of last year, saying he missed this and that in postgames, without any regard to the fact that a lack of running commitment was leading to the same thing we see this year; defenses can cut their playcalls down to less than half when we are so predictable. Scott is unable to scheme for a QB, he needs "the" QB for his scheme. I guess if Carson isn't it, next? It's a problem.

Agree with you on Scott... but as far as Wentz holding back the offense... this offense has been explosive. Its been lackluster, but it's also been explosive.

I'm not too dense to understand the argument with Taylor, but I don't think the book is written on Wentz, because Scott is asking him to do things that are restricting him. It's like Scott got a QB with a cannon so he's figuring, 'just drop him back and keep taking shots... it'll eventually work.' We all know that wont work. To start out the game vs Jax, we were hitting quick plays around the line of scrimmage and intermediate depth (see throw to Antonio GIbson to get us down inside the 10). It worked. Now we're running 7 step drops into our own endzone. Where is the happy medium? There is no balance to our pass attack, its 1 extreme or the other. Wentz arm doesn't need to be on display every drop back... in fact, it should be used when it makes the most sense. If the game is dictating to quick hit, beat zone, you do it REGARDLESS of who is under center... whether it be Wentz OR Heinicke. If you've set the defense up where you have a chance over the top.. take it... but don't force it.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

I don't recall Turner throwing Heinicke under the bus. If he did, I missed it.
But if he did, that's telling, because he would be the one guy on the team I think would support Heinicke the most.
I think he was the one that convinced Ron to bring him here. And he was the only NFL rep that visited Heinicke on his Pro Day.
And he was the one that worked with Heinicke in Minnesota (and of course, Carolina)
So the 2 seemed tight for a long time.
If something truly broke down between them, I'd like to know about it.
If Scott did not like Heinicke, as ST said, that would have been a new development or recent. Because as I said, Turner was Heinicke's biggest fan for a long time - even before the member here, TTTHOF

Youa re right about Turner being a big supporter of Taylor. Towards the end of last season though, in certain quotes, he made a point of saying Taylor missed specific reads on key plays. The hint was that those reads lost the game. It wasn't a totally unfair assessment, by the way, but was it necessary to be public? It smacked of someone who wanted to make sure everyone understood the player was at fault. Right now, I see a lot of that from Del Rio and Turner, and I find it to be pretty bad. I actually don't think Rivera himself is like that, he seems to better understand true leadership, but he needs to recognize that quality is lacking in his coordinators and teach them a bit.

I didn't mean to say that he was making Taylor out to be a bad player or QB even; you are right, Turner actually likes Taylor. However, he always has a need to show that the player is at fault.

I couldn't find too many end of year examples (but they did happen), but here is one from earlier in the year: Scott Turner explains why he had Taylor Heinicke throw late vs. the Giants - NBC Sports Washington
Two quotes of significance:

"It's a progression, he kind of skipped a step," Turner said of Heinicke. "It was just Taylor kind of forcing the ball where it shouldn't go, and they made a play.

"We're going to play aggressive, and I wouldn't change anything from the play call," Turner said.
Again, Turner's approach is admirable, and in today's forward-thinking league, it's one more leaders are following. Hopefully, though, he'll learn from his experience in Week 2 and actually set Washington up to win the next time he's faced with a similar opportunity.

It is comical to me that the writer seems to ignore that Turner specifically said he learned nothing. Although, to me, it's classic Turner. It is now what we have seen for years, except that four-game winning streak. Heaven forbid we win with heavy doses of running though.

 

[Lovin Cousins]

If we don't make major adjustments against Dallas, then Parsons, Lawrence, & Co are going to eat us alive.
Even the more mobile Heinicke had trouble evading them last year.
Adjust not just the playcalling, but somehow the blocking as well

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

If we don't make major adjustments against Dallas, then Parsons, Lawrence, & Co are going to eat us alive.
Even the more mobile Heinicke had trouble evading them last year.
Adjust not just the playcalling, but somehow the blocking as well

Local radio had Logan Paulsen on, and he seemed to not want to be overly critical of Turner. However (this was after week 2), they specifically asked him what he thought of Turner's playcalling in the first half. He said that the Lions are a known pass rushing force. Their pass rush is really good, and they are masterful at the blitz. They are experts at it.

The situation completely dictated avoiding the exact thing that Turner called, over and over. Paulsen said, "I wish I knew what Scott was thinking. I would definitely like the opportunity to ask him." That may not be verbatim but it's very close. He basically said that Max protect and a 7-step drop is EXACTLY what you want to avoid, and yet Turner not only made the mistake early, he made it often.

I mean, the thing that is really hard to swallow here is that he followed it up with a similarly horrendous failure of decision making against a very porous run-D in the Eagles. Played right into their hands.

Maybe he will wake up against the Cowboys, or be forced into it, like what happened last year during the four-game win streak. However, based on the last few years, I have to expect it won't last. He also seems very excited with his new toy (Wentz) and wants to show it off without any regard to what the opposition can/will do. These are talented defenses that need to be respected.

 

[SilentThreat]

Here's an example of what i'm talking about. This is a 5 step drop, Terry is WIDE OPEN. Wentz even see's it but he's still retreating and is not set to throw, by the time he gets his feet under him, the DB has reacted and is crashing down causing Wentz to pull the ball. If this is a 3 step drop where Wentz is set, the ball likely comes out.



Lets see if this works...

Here it is without the pause



Wentz may have taken an extra step, but it really looks like an intended 5 step drop where Wentz saw Terry flash WIDE and he tried to adjust but it didnt work.

 

[Neophyte]

I think the truth is that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

While the NFL is absolutely a pass-oriented league now, rushing (along with a quick, short passing attack) is still the best, most proven way to slow down a pass rush and open up the over-the-top stuff.

Right now, it feels like Turner is determined to prove he knows better than over 100 years of NFL history and every Head Coach in the Hall of Fame.

 

[Lovin Cousins]

I mean, the thing that is really hard to swallow here is that he followed it up with a similarly horrendous failure of decision making against a very porous run-D in the Eagles. Played right into their hands.

That was clear during the game, that we could run on them.
And so frustrating to watch.
The pass game is repeatedly failing. But the run game is repeatedly succeeding.
So why not try the approach of running down their throats until they prove they can stop it ?
We might have actually had chance at winning, if we did that.
I recall Gibson getting 1st Downs, on 1st Down plays ! 10-plus yards.
I saw no indication they could stop Gibson

 

[Lovin Cousins]

That is because he has one idea of how an offense should work. It doesn't evolve based on who is out there, and what their skillsets are

Strangely, that has been a "Washington thing" and a constant at that, for literally decades.
Both offense an defensively.
Going back all the way to Mike Nolan, I can remember.
We don't seem to adjust our schemes to players' skillsets.
It's like the old square peg in a round hole. Or was it a round peg in a square hole ?
Gibbs though, was a master at taking any player practically, and getting his fullest potential out of him