Random Commanders Thoughts

Boone said:
Btw - I need to listen to the whole presser, but when asked about the TE group I wasn't crazy about Peter's comments. He basically theorized one of the 3 TEs under contract could step up and fill Ertz's shoes and talked about all the 'progress' Sinnott had made. He even sounded like he thought Ertz might come back.

Sounded a bit delusional to me. But I need to listen to the whole presser.
Click to expand...
I believe he did say he needs someone to step up or be brought in who can be a third down guy and get open and be reliable for Jayden. I didn't think he was necessarily Ertz is coming back
 
Boone said:
It sounds like you are making excuses for him to me, lol...

Look - I hear what you are saying. I'm not saying Sinnott is some kind of head case, but you either take advantage of the opportunities you are given or you don't. That's true whether you get a boatload of opportunities or a handful. He hasn't. The 'why' of that is for Sinnott and his coaches to talk about. But the NFL is a bottom line business and the bottom line on Sinnott is that he appears to have been overdrafted and lacking the talent to be a playmaker for this team. To me, granted just a fan's eye, he looks slow, unathletic, and lacking in confidence. That makes him at best a future NFL journeyman.

That may be harsh, but we are 2 seasons in. One more season and he's at the NFL career average playing time. He's running out of time.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree with you at all, the one 25 yard screen or whatever that he had last month, I immediately said I couldn’t believe how slow and unathletic he looked. Didn’t look like a potential move TE at all, or even a crafty FB. He was lumbering without having the size or my-ball mentality to make up for it. I’m very down on the selection.

It’s still wild he wasn’t schemed more touches to see what he’s made of. Not one game where he was forced 6-8 targets?? That’s crazy imo, with the amount he was already on the field as a blocker. He probably just sucks. But when you average one target every three weeks, you’re not going to be in a consistent headspace at all when the ball finally comes your way. If you give him opportunities and he fails, sure kill the guy. But you’d think we would want a larger sample size going into this offseason.

Boone said:
Btw - I need to listen to the whole presser, but when asked about the TE group I wasn't crazy about Peter's comments. He basically theorized one of the 3 TEs under contract could step up and fill Ertz's shoes and talked about all the 'progress' Sinnott had made. He even sounded like he thought Ertz might come back.

Sounded a bit delusional to me. But I need to listen to the whole presser.
Click to expand...

Hoping he’s just talking up the guys on the roster because talking about outside additions right now basically accomplishes nothing except for weird feelings.
 
Last edited:
Yeah Conn, I am mostly just ribbing you. I think they made a mistake last season not getting him out there and seeing what we had in him. You draft a guy where we did him, and you expect him to get significant opportunities right out of the gate.

I really think it was just a bad player eval.
 
Boone said:
He basically theorized one of the 3 TEs under contract could step up and fill Ertz's shoes and talked about all the 'progress' Sinnott had made. He even sounded like he thought Ertz might come back.

Sounded a bit delusional to me. But I need to listen to the whole presser.
Click to expand...
I think that's what you say until you have other bodies on the roster. Until then, you laud your own guys. Why diminish their trade value or make 'em feel unwanted.

What they say behind closed doors is probably a bit different than what they say to the press.
 
Boone said:
Fair point Burgold. It might also have something to do with the fact that Peters chose to draft a guy with a high pick who looks a lot like a bust :)
Click to expand...
I do wonder if there is a bit of friction between Kliff and AP on this point. I'm not saying that alone would be some big issue (certainly hope not) but could it cause some issues? I could certainly see that being the case. As always, it depends on a lot that we don't see (probably in practices), but AP and KK would obviously see.
burgold said:
I think that's what you say until you have other bodies on the roster. Until then, you laud your own guys. Why diminish their trade value or make 'em feel unwanted.

What they say behind closed doors is probably a bit different than what they say to the press.
Click to expand...
That is definitely true. This regime, unlike regimes past, understands not to tank the value of their own players from what I've seen. Finally. That was one of the most consistently idiotic things about the Snyder years that would drive me nuts.
 
I get that it would have been pointless in some respects, but it seems harsh that we read "Commanders mutually agreed to part ways with Kingsbury" and "Commanders fire Joe Whitt" - both after meeting with DQ. It just gives me a mental image of DQ and KK shaking hands and smiling and KK leaves and moves on... and then DQ yelling at Whitt, and Whitt upset and leaving angrily. I mean, why not just say they agreed to part ways with both?

I get it, everyone knew it was coming and it's obvious, but I keep reading both lines right next to each other, it becomes a stark contrast.

I know I bought into the Joe Whitt hype as a no-nonsense, long-tenured overlooked defensive guy who could be a gem find.
 
Some people crack me up. Some people say "its trash burn it all down."

Just leaves me shaking my head
 
Last edited:
SkinsNumberOne said:
I get that it would have been pointless in some respects, but it seems harsh that we read "Commanders mutually agreed to part ways with Kingsbury" and "Commanders fire Joe Whitt" - both after meeting with DQ. It just gives me a mental image of DQ and KK shaking hands and smiling and KK leaves and moves on... and then DQ yelling at Whitt, and Whitt upset and leaving angrily. I mean, why not just say they agreed to part ways with both?

I get it, everyone knew it was coming and it's obvious, but I keep reading both lines right next to each other, it becomes a stark contrast.

I know I bought into the Joe Whitt hype as a no-nonsense, long-tenured overlooked defensive guy who could be a gem find.
Click to expand...
The answer to this is that the team knows that while the majority of fans, NFL media types, and probably even insiders view Whitt Jr. as a failed DC who needed to be fired , Kingsbury is viewed quite differently. There will be a significant segment in each of these categories who question a ‘firing’ of such a talented guy who HAS had success over the past 2 seasons. So they are trying to blunt that criticism by stressing it was ‘mutual’.

And yeah it is kind of shitty.
 
Boone said:
The answer to this is that the team knows that while the majority of fans, NFL media types, and probably even insiders view Whitt Jr. as a failed DC who needed to be fired , Kingsbury is viewed quite differently. There will be a significant segment in each of these categories who question a ‘firing’ of such a talented guy who HAS had success over the past 2 seasons. So they are trying to blunt that criticism by stressing it was ‘mutual’.

And yeah it is kind of shitty.
Click to expand...


Or it was mutual....
 
The question was why did they feel the need to characterize one as a firing and the other as something else. I doubt it’s because of new commitment to telling the public the absolute truth about their decisions :)
 
SkinsNumberOne said:
I get that it would have been pointless in some respects, but it seems harsh that we read "Commanders mutually agreed to part ways with Kingsbury" and "Commanders fire Joe Whitt" - both after meeting with DQ. It just gives me a mental image of DQ and KK shaking hands and smiling and KK leaves and moves on... and then DQ yelling at Whitt, and Whitt upset and leaving angrily. I mean, why not just say they agreed to part ways with both?

I get it, everyone knew it was coming and it's obvious, but I keep reading both lines right next to each other, it becomes a stark contrast.

I know I bought into the Joe Whitt hype as a no-nonsense, long-tenured overlooked defensive guy who could be a gem find.
Click to expand...

It’s true, it sucks. A lot of times these things are agreed upon with agents. The reality is that Kliff is heading into HC interviews and this makes him sound better (and makes us sound better if he doesn’t get a HC job, as some think we’re crazy for this).

While Whitt was an obvious failure and pincushion for the fanbase. He gets no such reputational protection. Or has a bad agent. The league is unfair
 
On a side note, I get the sense that Kliff has learned a lot about being a HC from Quinn. I could see that making a difference if he lands a HC role (and would probably play well in job interviews).
 
I’ve been told everything before 2024 is irrelevant to our current situation, but it sure looks like the same old Redskins.
 
Well so long as we don't have our hopefully franchise QB try and reshape himself into something hes not. Like our last number 2 pick.


And that thought is just another feeling of "the more things change the more they stay the same".

I really hope for the best, but's not easy to look past history.
 
Kingsbury has never won anything in the NFL. As a head coach his teams were mediocre at best. Here he was elevated by the emergence of Jayden Daniels, I am sure Shanahan, LaFleur, McVay and a host of others could have set up a productive offense for #5 the way he came into the league in 2024.

What happens to fans of teams that lose for years is that they confuse one playoff run and a bad loss in the conference title game as evidence a particular coach is great or worthy of status.

I remember in 1986 when we lost to the Giants 17-0 in the NFC title game the overall feeling was that we needed to do much better in 1987.

There was no self-congratulatory BS from coaches, players or fans.

Here 2024 is looked upon as a watershed. In reality, it's just another year the team didn't finish high enough to get the #32 pick in the draft.
 
Adam Peters seems like a sharp guy. I really like how he communicates; very clear, very saavy. Doesn't ramble, very quick with responses and rarely seems to stumble. He is very deliberate in his speech. In the end of year presser, when he was asked about getting the Terry situation done, he very softly implied it takes two parties. The way he said it though! Something like "I think Terry and his group would agree that we should have gotten it done sooner" - that is such a clever way to say that, and 0 hesitation.

He is very, very smooth in conversations. I like that in the GM.

All that said, I hope he is communicating clearly with his bosses, and they collectively have a good plan in place on managing DQ and the evolution on that side of the house. I feel like you can see some hints of "continuous improvement" in how he talks; I am not so sure about DQ. This coordinator hiring cycle is going to be very telling.

I think the OC side will be more telling than DC, actually. Even if he hires a DC we don't like as fans, I think it's going to be a lot harder to scrutinize vs. the OC. For the OC, from reports, DQ wants someone who will run the ball more than how Kliff deployed the run game. Perhaps more creativity. We should see how that plays out fairly quickly in the first season with the new OC.

It will be a buffoon move if you dump Kliff and then get someone worse who ALSO doesn't run the ball the way you purportedly wanted. Anyway, interesting times ahead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 9, Members: 0, Guests: 9)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 116) Show all

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top