PFT: Washington may be in the Mariota business

fansince62 said:
The more I think about it...the biggest F-up in ALL of this has to be Bruce Allen. Jay Gruden should never, ever, ever have been brought here. nothing in his offensive scheme or mindset matched what the Redskins had on the offensive side of the roster when he was hired - it was built into the cards that he was not gonna feel comfortable running his system with the o-line, QBs and TEs on the roster. the dynamic we are seeing play out was preordained. whether Allen realized this or not is open to question - given how he seems to fall in with traditional NFL in prizing loyalty & friendships.

in my book.....so long as Gruden coaches this team....we will never become championship material. he's a second tier coach wedded to a scheme that routinely FAILED in Cincy in the playoffs; more importantly, I don't think he has the creativity to adapt when challenged.

McL can reduce substantially the damage Allen can do. Gruden? He's going to need to be replaced. until this happens....I think the QB drama carrries on...and on.....and on.....and on......
Click to expand...


With all due respect Fan, you are sounding like a typical fan who thinks we build upon the prior year toward a long term plan. That's far from the truth. You yourself admitted we don't have an organizational plan and that is the biggest failure of the franchise according to you. We have failed because of the inability to build the team properly, kept trying to plug in the big names to be competitive without regard to the coach or "the long term plan". That has patently proven to be a failed approach. And I know you agree with that.

What is happening here, is that Gruden has his own scheme and plan, we all seem to admit Griffin doesn't fit in with that. And its pretty common amoung teams that are losers that you bring in a new coach to make changes, and NOT keep the same guys and same losing path we are on. The new GM is confirmation that the approach and plan has changed and we seem committed to it. So we should see a huge disparity between what Gruden wants and expects, and what our failed approach to rebuilding or building has been in the past.

I'm still in favor of Gruden leading the way for the massive changes, we needed them, they have come, let's go with the flow. If we can give Griffin the benefit of the doubt, which a lot of posters are doing, then I think we must give Gruden and Scott (and Allen) the same benefit. Until Gruden and Scott gets their players in place, may be premature to predict their failure and departure.
 
Kel Varnsen said:
There are so many reasons you say this. (Notice I didn't say do it).

If you have a top 5 pick, you need to show as much interest as possible in every projected top 10 pick. You want any team below you itching to get that one guy, to trade up with you or even above you to get that guy. You make teams that want someone to pay for them. The interest you show should be equal. You don't want to fawn over that one guy and cause someone to jump ahead of you and take him. You also don't want to fake so much interest that everyone knows you are bluffing.

Another reason you do this if the Redskins see only 3 non QBs they like with their pick at 5, then the best way to guarantee they get one of those guys is to get a QB to go ahead of them. Or maybe they really like one guy, but he will go ahead of their slot. Saying they want Mariota will cause a team below them that really wants him, to jump up above them. That moves one of those guys down to the Redskins slot.

If the Redskins say they have no interest in Mariota, then that is one more spot off the board where you know he won't go. That makes the cost it takes to get him go down. Because the further down the draft board a guy falls, the less it takes to move up from say pick 20. It may be too much for the Eagles to go from 20 to the top 5. But maybe not too much to go from 20 to 6, or 20 to 10, or 20 to 15. By signaling interest in Mariota, the Redskins increase his demand and cause teams to take action.

Now, the Eagles or any other team can call the Redskins bluff and see what happens. I would not want the Redskins to take him to just to keep up that bluff. If the Redskins really like him, they should take him because he is the guy. I think the worst case scenario for the Redskins, is no one take Mariota, and he falls to the Eagles at 20. If at all possible, teams need to make the Eagles pay to get him. But don’t take him because you are bluffing the Eagles and want to keep him away from them.

The bottom line is, you need to show you have as many options as possible.
Click to expand...


Well put kel. I would add that there is additional value to picking Mariota. Even if Griffin rebounds and we keep him, mariota would still be a #1 trade chip. There is nothing to lose in choosing him.
 
micks113 said:
With all due respect Fan, you are sounding like a typical fan who thinks we build upon the prior year toward a long term plan. That's far from the truth. You yourself admitted we don't have an organizational plan and that is the biggest failure of the franchise according to you. We have failed because of the inability to build the team properly, kept trying to plug in the big names to be competitive without regard to the coach or "the long term plan". That has patently proven to be a failed approach. And I know you agree with that.

What is happening here, is that Gruden has his own scheme and plan, we all seem to admit Griffin doesn't fit in with that. And its pretty common amoung teams that are losers that you bring in a new coach to make changes, and NOT keep the same guys and same losing path we are on. The new GM is confirmation that the approach and plan has changed and we seem committed to it. So we should see a huge disparity between what Gruden wants and expects, and what our failed approach to rebuilding or building has been in the past.

I'm still in favor of Gruden leading the way for the massive changes, we needed them, they have come, let's go with the flow. If we can give Griffin the benefit of the doubt, which a lot of posters are doing, then I think we must give Gruden and Scott (and Allen) the same benefit. Until Gruden and Scott gets their players in place, may be premature to predict their failure and departure.
Click to expand...

no. what I was trying to politely say was that I believe Gruden lacks integrity. he knew what he was getting into and BS'd everyone. whether Allen was in on it from the git go or simply working the buddy chain we'll never know. it's a minor sidebar that with material on hand, as it was, gruden was totally and completely INEPT at coaching the ENTIRE *AMN TEAM.

Words can't express the utter and profound contempt I have for Jay Gruden. It is clear to me he arrived under fraudulent terms.

btw....simply because change is needed (boy does that phrase ring some unwanted memories) doesn't mean that jay gruden is the harbinger of the right form of change.

I'm hoping McL has total control of the roster and builds it to HIS image of what a championship team consists of - gruden can screw himself for all I care.
 
My initial thought a while ago was that Mariota would face a difficult adjustment, just like Robert Griffin III. It's not the exact same offense, but he certainly wasn't a traditional drop-back passer; then again neither was Andy Dalton when he arrived in Cincinnati with Jay Gruden.
--John Keim

There are so many false narratives within our fan base. I have no idea how these start, but people just seem to accept them instead of searching for the truth.

How many Redskins fans even knew that Andy Dalton, like RG3, wasn't a traditional pocket-passer before Gruden turned him into a successful NFL QB? Less than 1% is my guess.

"Gruden hasn't shown he can develop a QB. Gruden couldn't develop RG3, why could he develop Mariota?" How many times have Redskins fans repeated such statements?

That's one of the main reasons he was brought here. He did that exact thing very well with Andy Dalton.

So my question is, who was available that had the track record of Gruden in taking an unconventional QB and turning him into a successful NFL pocket-passer?

Who would have been a better hire to do the same for RG3 in Washington?
 
Last edited:
Saying Andy Dalton was not a "traditional pocket passer" because he ran a spread style offense in college is not painting the whole picture. The offense that Patterson ran while Dalton was at TCU was a spread offense that focused more on a successful run game, that gave Dalton a chance to manage the offense well. He was athletic enough to run for a lot of yards, but he was not schemed to run on a regular basis, nor open up his offense with a run threat from the QB (Except from the pocket).

The "traditional pocket passer" argument really means nothing, because when he got to the pros, he was asked to manage an offense much like he did in college...run game being the focus with a QB who was smart enough to manage the offense well.

Keim's point, and your attempt at an "I told you so" are incomplete.
 
McD5 said:
My initial thought a while ago was that Mariota would face a difficult adjustment, just like Robert Griffin III. It's not the exact same offense, but he certainly wasn't a traditional drop-back passer; then again neither was Andy Dalton when he arrived in Cincinnati with Jay Gruden.
--John Keim

There are so many false narratives within our fan base. I have no idea how these start, but people just seem to accept them instead of searching for the truth.

How many Redskins fans even knew that Andy Dalton, like RG3, wasn't a traditional pocket-passer before Gruden turned him into a successful NFL QB? Less than 1% is my guess.

"Gruden hasn't shown he can develop a QB. Gruden couldn't develop RG3, why could he develop Mariota?" How many times have Redskins fans repeated such statements?

That's one of the main reasons he was brought here. He did that exact thing very well with Andy Dalton.

So my question is, who was available that had the track record of Gruden in taking an unconventional QB and turning him into a successful NFL pocket-passer?

Who would have been a better hire to do the same for RG3 in Washington?
Click to expand...

Gruden had a terrible first year as a head coach. It's okay to admit it Mike :)

His on-the-field coaching was undisciplined, inconsistent, and ineffective. He created an atmosphere of drama and distraction by publically discussing matters that could and should have been handled in house. That doesn't mean he can't be a great head coach. But he looked in over his head his first year. And that's likely because, he was in over his head the first year. I am not concerned about the win-loss record the first year. I don't think Vince Lombardi could've gotten last year's roster to the playoffs. But Gruden definitely had some hard lessons last season. We'll see if he learned anything from a pretty disastrous first year.

That Gruden was able to take Andy Dalton and help him improve every year should not escape notice. That's a valid point. But lets not forget that improvement might just as easily be the result of who Andy Dalton is as it is evidence that Gruden's some kind of QB guru. Asking how Gruden can inherent RG3 and Kirk Cousins and not be able to develop either one of them into a functional starter is a valid question. Not only did neither of them play well, I think it's fair to say that Gruden's management of them undermined the confidence of both players. He either has to aggressively determine that neither of them can be developed, or he needs to up his game.

I think the 'what better hire was available?' question is a red herring. There's a difference between saying 'We shouldn't have hired Gruden' (I agree with you, that the available information would lead most reasonable people to think Gruden was a solid hire) and saying 'Gruden is doing well and IS the right guy'. We only have 1 year of head coaching data to base an opinion on. So far, I would say that whether Gruden is going to be a successful head coach or not is an open question. There's very little year 1 evidence to fill one with confidence, but it WAS year 1, so that's hardly indisputable proof he can't turn it around. Step one, he needs to stop creating drama and distraction and learn to keep things in house. Failure to do that in DC is a recipe for disaster.
 
Last edited:
Boone, Gruden may turn out to be a total bust as an NFL HC. That's certainly possible. Especially in areas of controlling his own emotions. It's possible that he might make a better QB coach or offensive coordinator.

"Hired under fraudulent terms" was the shocking comment from Fan. Here are the terms by which he was hired:

1. Prior to his arrival, it was decided that RG3 needed to become a more traditional pocket-passer.

2. After an interview process, Gruden was thought to be the best choice for that role due to past success with QBs both in the NFL and before.

How are those "fraudulent terms?"

If WRs weren't open all over the field, I'd question his play calling. If McCoy and Cousins weren't able to step in immediately and move the ball, I'd wonder if his offense was too difficult to pick up. It's still early....but I'm not thinking that's the problem.
 
The problem is that both Cousins and Griffin looked better under Shanahan than they did under Gruden. It's possible they're both kust bd QBs I guess, but their prior play suggests that they both at least be servicable. They weren't even that last year.

I doubt seriously Gruden came in promising servicable. He had to sell himself to Bruce and Dan and I doubt "servicable" was uttered once.

Gruden was bad last year. Really bad. Playcalling is job number one for a coordinator. For a head coach it's one of ten plus things that are critical for success. He did not develop his QBs well at all, in fact they looked worse. His management and leadership were poor at best, disastrous at worst. I'm with Boone sort of, in thinking he can learn from his mistakes. However, not that my opinion matters one iota, he will have a very short window to show me marked improvement. I'm close to being done with the guy based on his performance last year.
 
I don't think you addressed any of my major points. You basically said that fans are distorting the facts - and I countered that most of the facts call Gruden's likelihood of head coaching success (so far anyway) into question. I'm not sure why you'd issue an 'I told you so' post when the only thing Gruden has shown so far is that he's a solid offensive coordinator?
 
If the Redskins draft Mariota then Griffin is as good as gone. By temperament he is not suited to being a backup and if he seemed spooked by Cousins behind him just imagine him playing in 2015 with Marcus on the sideline ;)

There is no role for #10 if he is not the designated starter.

He isn't going to improve by sitting on the bench or playing under the gun so to speak.

The reason release is more palatable than trade is we save a lot more under the cap by cutting him in 2015.

Unless someone is willing to offer a #1-#3 pick for him it's just not worth carrying the dead money.
 
6.2 million cap hit to cut Griffen this year no cAp savings3.3 million cap hit if we trade no savings
 
Goaldeje said:
The problem is that both Cousins and Griffin looked better under Shanahan than they did under Gruden. It's possible they're both kust bd QBs I guess, but their prior play suggests that they both at least be servicable. They weren't even that last year.

.
Click to expand...

I don't know that you're comparing aples to apples there. RG3 didn't look so hot in his second year, and then suffered the dislocated ankle. I'm sure that didn't help his play. Then he admitted to coming back too early again last year.

Cousins might be a more fair barometer or comparison.

What I saw out of both Cousins and McCoy (a guy many had written off) was an ability to step in immediately and learn the offense. Just like Andy Dalton was able to.
 
McD, I probably blame Gruden too much and you probably defend him too much. I think he is a good playcaller, but abhorrible leader. Leadership can be learned, if you are humble enough to admit you need help. I'm curious if Jay is as defensive about his performance last year as you are. :)

We'll find out soon enough I suppose. I think Gruden was given a crappy situation, but he actively made it worse. If he can admit his mistakes and learn from them, he could be a good coach.

I'm hoping he learned, but am doubtful.
 
Boone said:
I don't think you addressed any of my major points. You basically said that fans are distorting the facts - and I countered that most of the facts call Gruden's likelihood of head coaching success (so far anyway) into question. I'm not sure why you'd issue an 'I told you so' post when the only thing Gruden has shown so far is that he's a solid offensive coordinator?
Click to expand...

I believe he's shown more than that. Like an ability to stand up to the owner, and an ability to bench a player regardless of where he was drafted. In prior stops, he's shown that he eats, sleeps and dreams football 24/7.

If interested, the article below details how he would drive from Orlando to Tampa every day for 7 years. Sometimes coaching two practices a day for two separate teams.

He's driven. And he's definitely a football guy.

Edit: I'm having problems posting on this phone. I'll post the article later.
 
McD5 said:
I believe he's shown more than that. Like an ability to stand up to the owner, and an ability to bench a player regardless of where he was drafted. In prior stops, he's shown that he eats, sleeps and dreams football 24/7.

If interested, the article below details how he would drive from Orlando to Tampa every day for 7 years. Sometimes coaching two practices a day for two separate teams.

He's driven. And he's definitely a football guy.

Edit: I'm having problems posting on this phone. I'll post the article later.
Click to expand...

More red herrings. The ability to 'stand up to the owner' and 'ability to bench a player regardless of where he was drafted' and the ability to do so without publicly embarassing yourself, the franchise, and the involved players, so much so that you then have to repeatedly backpeddle from said comments, aren't mutually exclusive. Gruden has also shown a propensity for blame-shifting. Newsflash Coach Gruden. YOU are where the buck ends. And no one has said he was lazy or unmotivated. But so far, he has been worse than ineffective, he took a bad situation and made it worse. That's not a great way to start.

I want him to succeed. We all do. But he's got a long way to go.
 
I have never believed that leadership is learned quality, especially in a grown man. First rule of being a leader: discipline in house and never publicly embarrass your charges.
 
I think it CAN be learned. But it takes a special personality willing to admit mistakes and willing to learn. Pretty rare in the alpha male personalities common in pro sports.
 
I would probably agree if the person was young. Gruden is, what, 46 years old?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top