Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
***OFFICIAL*** Washington Commanders Thread (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter dgreen
- Start date
dgreen
Footballguy
All I can find is that it was something from his personal podcast. Steinberg's article says, "It's unclear what specific comments led to Duke's dismissal, when he made the comments or how his bosses learned of their existence."
I'm torn. I thought his show was horrible, but, depending on what he said, I generally find these moves to be over the top.
The Junkies should be nervous.
Kevrunner
Footballguy
dgreen
Footballguy
Thanks. I had a response typed out to discuss this but deleted it since this is the Shark Pool. My suggestion is we don't continue this conversation here, but it's not like I'm going to report anyone who wants to discuss.
Who do we want to win Phi-Dal?
Kevrunner
Footballguy
I’m pulling for a Cowboys victory. Gives Washington a better shot at winning the division, but with Cowboys QB situation, it would be a shock if they can beat the Eagles. I know part of me wanted Washington to have a shot at Trevor Lawrence next year, but the division is within reach and I’m hoping they play their hearts out and get it. I was kinda of shock to find out the Kyle Allen was rated the #1 high school QB in 2014 and I think the #7 ranked overall. Maybe there is a chance he can develop into something special.
nittanylion
Footballguy
@dgreen just curious as to why you found his show horrible. Asking in a congenial, not confrontational way. I like Chad Dukes, and try to find time to listen to at least a part of his show every day. My 92-yr-old Mom is in a bad way, I'm her primary caregiver, and looking after her has become my full time job since mid-2017, and it's both quite mentally and physically taxing on me, and no one makes me crack up like Dukes, and brings me a lot of joy through some bad days and tough times. From a sports perspective, I thought he did a fine job - he regularly brought on great sports guests and he was a good interviewer of those guests. Again, just curious as to what you found off-putting. I understand that his style might not be for everyone.
dgreen
Footballguy
Just one of those things that I recognize I don't like but not sure I can explain it in much detail. You're a chef, right? Well, I'm not all that sophisticated about food. I can't really explain why I like what I like other than to say "I think it tastes good." Sure, there are some things that I can say "I don't like the texture" or I can recognize whether a meat is to too dry, but overall my analysis of what I like and don't like when it comes to food is going to come down to whether my taste buds liked it. That's how I am with Chad Dukes. I just don't like the taste, so to speak.
"Horrible" may have been a slight exaggeration. I listened occasionally, especially if he had a guest I was interested in listening to. But, for whatever reason, I never found him insightful about sports or very funny. That's about as deep as I can go.
If I had listened more, maybe I would have grown to like him. I really didn't like The Sports Junkies when they first started way back when on weekends. But, they really grew on me. I still like them. I think their sports analysis has declined (because I don't think that gets ratings) but I do think they can be funny and enjoy listening to their conversation. I also didn't really like Grant and Danny at first. I still don't think they are anything great, but I find them to a decent listen if I'm out driving around during the midday. So, like I said, if I gave Dukes more of a chance, maybe he would have grown on me.
I did like him better when he had Lavar. I definitely have a general dislike of one-man shows. I like hearing back-and-forth from multiple people. Yeah, I guess Dukes has some of those extras on from time to time, but I don't have any of them interesting or worth listening to. They are extras without their own show for a reason. I feel the same way about when The Junkies spend time talking to their extras, like Adam (A-wad?). I turn the station every time when they talk to or about him. I am not interested in that at all.
Yes smart call is to root for Dallas. Why? 1. Philly has the better record. 2. Philly has the better team (since Dallas lost Dak). Therefore, we need Philly to lose to help our chances.
That said, Dallas with third string quarterback has almost zero chance to beat the Eagles. I would bet my house on the Eagles Sunday night. They would have to totally implode.
I like Pete as well, since he actually talks sports. As you say 106.7 tends to go for the junkies / entertainment route.
Personally, I would like to see them hire Al Galdi and Fred Smoot from 980 and pair them. Smoot used to join Galdi Monday mornings after the games and they were an awesome team. Galdi is super knowledgeable on all sports and Smoot is so entertaining. I think they would be great.
If Dallas plays like they did against the Redskins, they may not win another game this year. They were really bad.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Is it any wonder Kerrigan has asked for a trade? I would have thought this was happening immediately after they drafted Young.
Even with some injuries on the DL they STILL can't play all these 1st rounders at the same time. I am all for depth on both lines but on a team with this many weaknesses it's absurd that of your top 10 most talented players about half(or more) all play on the DL and a guy like Kerrigan can't even get on the field half the time for half the games.
Great roster management here.
Even with some injuries on the DL they STILL can't play all these 1st rounders at the same time. I am all for depth on both lines but on a team with this many weaknesses it's absurd that of your top 10 most talented players about half(or more) all play on the DL and a guy like Kerrigan can't even get on the field half the time for half the games.
Great roster management here.
Brunell4MVP
Footballguy
I think 100% of the people on this topic knew there was gonna be an issue with Kerrigan not getting snaps. It was brought up by all of us. I'm surprised he signed the 1 year deal. He has nobody to blame but himself.
If Ionnidis was healthy they'd have a problem on the DL too. 3 quality DT starters, plus Settle could possible start on some teams.
Even rotating players, someone is only taking 25% of the snaps that should be getting around 75%. Nobody at that level wants to sit the bench.
I see this more as Kerrigan's mistake than the WFT though.
If Ionnidis was healthy they'd have a problem on the DL too. 3 quality DT starters, plus Settle could possible start on some teams.
Even rotating players, someone is only taking 25% of the snaps that should be getting around 75%. Nobody at that level wants to sit the bench.
I see this more as Kerrigan's mistake than the WFT though.
Right. The WFT can compete for this division not because we’re “great” but because the rest of the division is so bad. Philly is the supposed class Of the division but not only are they shaky, they have a harder non conference schedule than WFT. That is key, because I could see both WFT and Philly ending up with winning division records. It may come down to who can squeak out a few non conference wins...dgreen said:
And yet Kerrigan in limited snaps is still having a tremendous impact on the games. Rotating guys is allowing them to keep everyone fresh so that everyone plays with high motor consistently. It’s a good problem to have this year honestly, though Ryan will likely sign elsewhere next year. If he cashes in elsewhere, good for him...he’s earned it. He’s playing out his contract with class like cousins, not publically pouting like Trent Williams.
Some think we should trade Ryan by the deadline but not so fast. 1. Unless someone gives us a high pick, we may get more by way of a compensatory pick than what they’ll offer us. 2. There is value to both the present and future team by learning to win now. That has far more value than grabbing a 6th or 7th round pick. I’d trade Ryan for a 2 or 3 now but nothing lower than that.
I don’t think having a lot of great DL is a huge roster problem the way it worked out. Last year we took chase young as BPA transformational player. Sometimes you have to do that and work the roster stuff out later.
just my o
I think Philly could easily back into it even if they play shaky at times. To phillys credit they have played good teams like Baltimore and Pittsburgh tough. WFT hasn’t. The key will be WFT taking advantage of an “easier” non conference schedule but those “easy” games against Detroit or cincy are anything but easy. WFT should not be favored in any of them. But if theybcan steal one or two and then win division games then they have a chance. I still think Philly has the inside track but I’m just greatful WFT has something to play for, because I think it’s good for their development
It’s easy to imagine the division championship coming down to the last game of the season. It would be fun to see that happen.
ffmail4me
Footballguy
I love this team's defense. I just wish we had a better offense...but at least Terry and Gibson are fun to watch. I think if they draft well at QB/WR/TE/OL next year we really could be the favorites going into 2021 season. Of course Dak and Barkley's return (if fully healthy) will give their teams a huge boost too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rivera claims Haskins is not done in D.C.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/could-washington-turn-back-dwayne-175305254.html
"It’s funny, I benched the guy and it’s like everybody thinks his career is over here in Washington. It’s not. There’s potential, there’s opportunity. The kid has an NFL arm, it’s just a matter of him developing,” Rivera said this week on The Rich Eisen Show.
There are a few ways to interpret this:
1. Haskins is done in Washington. But Rivera needs to talk Dwayne up because he'd like to get something in a trade for him in the offseason.
2. Haskins is not done in Washington. Rivera is telling the truth that he only benched Haskins because he's not ready and he sees the opportunity to win now. Meanwhile, all this media and fan second guessing is like your wife not believing your simple explanation, since she doesn't understand that as a man, you are not clever enough to create an elaborate lie.
Which do you believe? Me, I don't know.
But let's game this out a little bit. Allen is the starter for now, on the idea that we have a chance to win the division. With much of the "winnable" part of our schedule front-loaded now (I'm talking Giants, Lions, Bengals, Dallas), we're likely to know over the next month or so whether the Kyle Allen Win Now Experiment has worked.
If it does, easy decision -- he keeps playing this season.
If it doesn't, you have to believe the WFT would play Haskins the last 3-4 games at least, right? IF they are keeping him, you'd want to see if he could be starter next year, or at least compete for it. And if they are not keeping him, you'd want to showcase his abilities for a trade. (because you don't have to say you are through with him even if you are).
The most complicated scenario to me is if Allen plays just well enough to keep us in playoff contention but not well enough to be a franchise guy. That is the middle grade difficult spot t be in...we'll see.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/could-washington-turn-back-dwayne-175305254.html
"It’s funny, I benched the guy and it’s like everybody thinks his career is over here in Washington. It’s not. There’s potential, there’s opportunity. The kid has an NFL arm, it’s just a matter of him developing,” Rivera said this week on The Rich Eisen Show.
There are a few ways to interpret this:
1. Haskins is done in Washington. But Rivera needs to talk Dwayne up because he'd like to get something in a trade for him in the offseason.
2. Haskins is not done in Washington. Rivera is telling the truth that he only benched Haskins because he's not ready and he sees the opportunity to win now. Meanwhile, all this media and fan second guessing is like your wife not believing your simple explanation, since she doesn't understand that as a man, you are not clever enough to create an elaborate lie.
Which do you believe? Me, I don't know.
But let's game this out a little bit. Allen is the starter for now, on the idea that we have a chance to win the division. With much of the "winnable" part of our schedule front-loaded now (I'm talking Giants, Lions, Bengals, Dallas), we're likely to know over the next month or so whether the Kyle Allen Win Now Experiment has worked.
If it does, easy decision -- he keeps playing this season.
If it doesn't, you have to believe the WFT would play Haskins the last 3-4 games at least, right? IF they are keeping him, you'd want to see if he could be starter next year, or at least compete for it. And if they are not keeping him, you'd want to showcase his abilities for a trade. (because you don't have to say you are through with him even if you are).
The most complicated scenario to me is if Allen plays just well enough to keep us in playoff contention but not well enough to be a franchise guy. That is the middle grade difficult spot t be in...we'll see.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
I'm all for DL(and OL for that matter) depth but I feel like in recent memory the two teams that have invested in DL year after year after year in the first two days of the draft are the Jets and the WAS football team. Can we agree recent results on that strategy are...... "mixed"?
Jets DL picks in the top two days of the draft in the last decade: Zuniga(3rd), Williams(1st), Shepherd(3rd), ANOTHER Williams(1st), Richardson(1st), Coples(1st), Wilkerson(1st), Ellis(3rd)
WAS DL picks in the top two days of the draft in the last decade: Young(1st), Sweat(1st), Payne(1st), Allen(1st), Kerrigan(1st), Jenkins(2nd)
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Both.There are a few ways to interpret this:
1. Haskins is done in Washington. But Rivera needs to talk Dwayne up because he'd like to get something in a trade for him in the offseason.
2. Haskins is not done in Washington. Rivera is telling the truth that he only benched Haskins because he's not ready and he sees the opportunity to win now. Meanwhile, all this media and fan second guessing is like your wife not believing your simple explanation, since she doesn't understand that as a man, you are not clever enough to create an elaborate lie.
Which do you believe? Me, I don't know.
One of the reasons people were excited for Rivera was that he'd be the adult in the room and his decisions wouldn't be driven by ego like some of his predecessors. Rivera would love for Allen/Smith to play well enough and stay healthy so WAS can stay alive in the division hunt. There is no guarantee that he can replace Haskins long term so he isn't completely shutting that door and at a minimum doesn't want that situation to become a distraction for the rest of this season.
Rivera is old school enough that he will try to win in DEC even if they aren't in the hunt. He wants to establish an attitude of competitiveness and reward guys for hard work so if Haskins reacts to his benching in the right way he has the opportunity to EARN playing time if Allen is still struggling at the end of the season. If nothing else having Haskins sitting on the bench sends a message to his team that playing time will be earned in practice no matter when you were drafted.
Not sure if Rivera will win a SB in WAS but imo WAS will be over .500 by 2022 assuming his fight with cancer goes well. He just goes about things the right way and earns the respect of his players from what I've seen. I can easily imagine a scenario where Haskins would have gotten blamed for not running the Gruden offense "the way it should be run" and Haskins turning into a distraction all season long a la Tent Williams in past years.
dgreen
Footballguy
Ugh. Safe to say WFT is not winning the division. Eagles division to lose at this point...
Insein
Footballguy
For real. This is all useless without a QB and there isn't the QB of the future on the roster right now. Are they gonna dress Haskins now? They have to. I'd put him in to seal a top 5 pick,he's got zero trade value anyway. If he ends up playing and playing well then so be itI want a legit franchise QB next year. I'm okay going winless from here on out.
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/football-team/alex-dwayne-washingtons-qb-situation-not-easy-decision
QB choice is the # 1 decision in Washington right now.
Break down what Rivera has said and I find the decision making somewhat puzzling at this point. And by the way, I like Rivera. I think it's a good man, a good coach. I'm behind him. But I'm wondering:
1. He says he hasn't given up on Haskins; he just needs time.
2. He has said (early in the season) that he played Haskins because YOU LEARN BY DOING NOT ON THE BENCH.
3. He has said that the reason he played Allen is because they have a chance to win the division now.
OK, I understood # 3 and was willing to try it. I"m not the biggest Haskins fan and I thought, what the heck, go for it. But the way we lost yesterday? I don't care if we are only 1 game back, 1.5 games, whatever. We are NOT winning the division. Why do we even see Detroit and Cincy as the "easy" part of our schedule. Those teams are better than us right now. No, I'm not saying we "suck" but we're just not there yet, that's all...we have some pieces that are promising but we're not there. So we are NOT winning the division.
With that said, what is the logic in playing Smith over Haskins at this point? Smith played fine yesterday for a guy coming off a huge layoff and so I can see where you think the veteran hand gives you a better chance of winning right now. With that said, why do this? Smith is not going to be "the guy of the future"...he's too old, and I love him to death, but he is. Haskins may or may not be the guy of the future. But one way or the other, we have to know by seasons end whether he is in or he is out. If he's in, then draft OL and other positions to support him. If not, then draft or aquire QB. You cannot make this decision without knowing what you have in Haskins. So to me, the decision is easy, play Haskins. And I am NOT a Haskins fan necessarily but this is just logical to me.
EVEN if you've given up on Haskins, you STILL want to play him because his trade value is at an all time low right now. You can ONLY IMPROVE his value by playing him and letting him get his potential on tape.
I"m baffled. I can't even explain this by saying Snyder is pulling strings because wouldn't Snyder want Haskins in there? I dunno. Someone help me out here. I do like Rivera and trust him I just don't understand this...
QB choice is the # 1 decision in Washington right now.
Break down what Rivera has said and I find the decision making somewhat puzzling at this point. And by the way, I like Rivera. I think it's a good man, a good coach. I'm behind him. But I'm wondering:
1. He says he hasn't given up on Haskins; he just needs time.
2. He has said (early in the season) that he played Haskins because YOU LEARN BY DOING NOT ON THE BENCH.
3. He has said that the reason he played Allen is because they have a chance to win the division now.
OK, I understood # 3 and was willing to try it. I"m not the biggest Haskins fan and I thought, what the heck, go for it. But the way we lost yesterday? I don't care if we are only 1 game back, 1.5 games, whatever. We are NOT winning the division. Why do we even see Detroit and Cincy as the "easy" part of our schedule. Those teams are better than us right now. No, I'm not saying we "suck" but we're just not there yet, that's all...we have some pieces that are promising but we're not there. So we are NOT winning the division.
With that said, what is the logic in playing Smith over Haskins at this point? Smith played fine yesterday for a guy coming off a huge layoff and so I can see where you think the veteran hand gives you a better chance of winning right now. With that said, why do this? Smith is not going to be "the guy of the future"...he's too old, and I love him to death, but he is. Haskins may or may not be the guy of the future. But one way or the other, we have to know by seasons end whether he is in or he is out. If he's in, then draft OL and other positions to support him. If not, then draft or aquire QB. You cannot make this decision without knowing what you have in Haskins. So to me, the decision is easy, play Haskins. And I am NOT a Haskins fan necessarily but this is just logical to me.
EVEN if you've given up on Haskins, you STILL want to play him because his trade value is at an all time low right now. You can ONLY IMPROVE his value by playing him and letting him get his potential on tape.
I"m baffled. I can't even explain this by saying Snyder is pulling strings because wouldn't Snyder want Haskins in there? I dunno. Someone help me out here. I do like Rivera and trust him I just don't understand this...
Brunell4MVP
Footballguy
I think it's pretty simple.
1. Rivera gave Haskins the chance to prove he was the QB of the future (whether by his own decision or part of the deal when he took the job). And this is all Snyder may have had to do with it, I don't see Snyder having any other role in this.
2. Haskins didn't do the right things in Rivera's eyes, so he not only benched him but took away his jersey. And none of the players came to Haskins defense, which tells you something. He doesn't seem "QB smart" judging by Gruden and Rivera's decisions with him. I don't mean he's dumb cause I don't know. Just that in their opinions Haskins isn't processing the right on field decisions.
3. He went to a QB he knew in Kyle Allen and hoped to win games, and it didn't work and that guy goes down
4. Now he's stuck with an aging and immobile Alex Smith. I assume he's gonna start Smith 2-4 more games to see what happens. If Haskins isn't the backup for those game, then you know 100% Haskins is done here.
5. At some point Haskins comes back and starts. I think it's just to give him a last look.
6. Haskins trade value is low, and it was low before the year. I don't see the worry about getting nothing in return. He had limited value. You aren't gonna prop up his trade value even if he has 4 good games to end the season. He went from a projected #1 pick in the draft to falling to a WAS team that overdrafted him. He never looked all that good on the field - inaccurate and slow. So what team is handing out high picks for this guy? GMs would rather use a 2nd rounder on a rookie QB that hasn't alienated two different coaches.
I think we see a brand new QB next year. I mean, Chase Young may work out great. But if they had picked Tua or Hebert they'd probably have this question answered. You got to keep drafting them until you find the right one (see Arizona).
1. Rivera gave Haskins the chance to prove he was the QB of the future (whether by his own decision or part of the deal when he took the job). And this is all Snyder may have had to do with it, I don't see Snyder having any other role in this.
2. Haskins didn't do the right things in Rivera's eyes, so he not only benched him but took away his jersey. And none of the players came to Haskins defense, which tells you something. He doesn't seem "QB smart" judging by Gruden and Rivera's decisions with him. I don't mean he's dumb cause I don't know. Just that in their opinions Haskins isn't processing the right on field decisions.
3. He went to a QB he knew in Kyle Allen and hoped to win games, and it didn't work and that guy goes down
4. Now he's stuck with an aging and immobile Alex Smith. I assume he's gonna start Smith 2-4 more games to see what happens. If Haskins isn't the backup for those game, then you know 100% Haskins is done here.
5. At some point Haskins comes back and starts. I think it's just to give him a last look.
6. Haskins trade value is low, and it was low before the year. I don't see the worry about getting nothing in return. He had limited value. You aren't gonna prop up his trade value even if he has 4 good games to end the season. He went from a projected #1 pick in the draft to falling to a WAS team that overdrafted him. He never looked all that good on the field - inaccurate and slow. So what team is handing out high picks for this guy? GMs would rather use a 2nd rounder on a rookie QB that hasn't alienated two different coaches.
I think we see a brand new QB next year. I mean, Chase Young may work out great. But if they had picked Tua or Hebert they'd probably have this question answered. You got to keep drafting them until you find the right one (see Arizona).
Re: QBs next year, Jets prolly locked in on Lawrence. We're bad but Jets legit have a chance to go 0-16. Not sure who is in the running beyond that. Theisman likes the guy from BYU, Zach Wilson, if we don't get a super high pick. I wonder even if you have a high pick if you could trade back for more assets and still get Wilson. We have so many needs...
Justin Fields (another Ohio St QB) is a high level prospect. Different from Haskins as he's been hyped as QB1 since high school and seems to get it more. But he did transfer away from Georgia when he wasn't the starter. Some few that as a negative, but it's gotten him the visibility to make him a top 5 pick.
The other QB name getting draft hype is Trey Lance from North Dakota St. Size and mobility. Production with zero INTs last year and over 1K rushing to go with 42 total TDs. Never played against a FBS school. Opted out this year after 1 game.
BYU kid is playing himself into a high pick consideration
The other QB name getting draft hype is Trey Lance from North Dakota St. Size and mobility. Production with zero INTs last year and over 1K rushing to go with 42 total TDs. Never played against a FBS school. Opted out this year after 1 game.
BYU kid is playing himself into a high pick consideration
Fat Nick
Footballguy
I don't care who you put under center...if you don't fix that OL, you're going to end up with garbage.
I'd rather see them spend 2-3 years drafting OL, and rolling out guys like Allen, or old vets like Daulton, Rivers, etc. and then getting a franchise QB who might be able to actually stay on his feet instead of grabbing a "maybe" prospect at QB, then starting him against a stacked deck with an OL made from guys off the street (and Scherff).
I'd rather see them spend 2-3 years drafting OL, and rolling out guys like Allen, or old vets like Daulton, Rivers, etc. and then getting a franchise QB who might be able to actually stay on his feet instead of grabbing a "maybe" prospect at QB, then starting him against a stacked deck with an OL made from guys off the street (and Scherff).
Miami sent a late second to Arizona for Rosen. Bad decision in hindsight, but part of the thinking was that on a rookie contract, he'd be at least a cheap backup. I've seen more from Haskins, than Rosen ever showed in Miami, which wasn't much. How much would Haskins cost another team?
Stompin' Tom Connors
Footballguy
This D had some juicy fantasy match ups coming down the next few weeks.
Do we think that the state of the offense is going to limit what the D is going to generate for fantasy owners? Is the D itself still problematic? They let the Giants hang a quick 20 on them in the first half this weekend.
Do we think that the state of the offense is going to limit what the D is going to generate for fantasy owners? Is the D itself still problematic? They let the Giants hang a quick 20 on them in the first half this weekend.
Johnny Utah #9
Footballguy
I want no part of another Ohio State QB. Haskins looked great in that system too. Who’s the last QB to come out of that school and do well in the pros? I’ll wait.
And Lance is a total dice roll. At best you’re hoping he’s the next Wentz, which honestly doesn’t look that great these days anyway.
I can’t fault the team since Chase looked like a true generational talent, and he’ll have a nice career in DC, but it does look like we missed out on a nice QB class last year. Herbert looks amazing and, to a lesser extent, Tua had a nice showing yesterday. Haskins clearly doesn’t have it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fat Nick
Footballguy
You said it before I could. Agree 10000%. OSU is good enough around the QB position to make any QB look pretty darn good. All I said leading up to last year was "Please don't draft Haskins." The only saving grace is that we didn't trade up to draft him.
Never taking a player based on his school is pretty narrow minded thinking. While I understand the thinking and this one makes even more sense due to the same system and recency... It's pretty easy to see Fields is a far superior prospect than Haskins ever was. There was a reason Haskins was falling in the draft when we're in a QB driven era. I don't think it will be a problem as Fields is almost certainly going off the board at #2 (or #1 if Lawrence backs out).
Lance is a major dice roll, but again I don't see why you make the assumption the best he can be is someone from the same school in Wentz.
At this point I just hope they invest in a young QB, regardless of who it is.
Lance is a major dice roll, but again I don't see why you make the assumption the best he can be is someone from the same school in Wentz.
At this point I just hope they invest in a young QB, regardless of who it is.
Johnny Utah #9
Footballguy
Haskins looked great last year too. Shattered OSU records. It helps when you are surrounded by superior talent. Are you denying that OSU has an absurdly QB friendly system? Makes it hard to truly evaluate talent. You seem to think Fields will break the mold. I’d rather the Skins not take that chance.
And I threw out the Wentz as a comp, but it’s relevant since he’s the last similarly hyped prospect from that school. The fact that the kid has never played an FBS school should be your main concern.
Once you get past Trevor, this is a weaker QB class than last year. Burrow, Tua, and Herbert would rank over both of these guys. Just because other needy teams might take these guys in the top 5 doesn’t mean the Skins should.
PinkydaPimp
Footballguy
Still think we should be playing Haskins. He was benched when we had one win. We have only had one win since. I’d rather see if Haskins can improve. Or see if he can come back man up and take the benching as a learning experience and put in work. Hell worst case if he can play well we can trade him for more.
Having said that kudos to Alex on his come back.
Having said that kudos to Alex on his come back.
PinkydaPimp
Footballguy
Agreed. I don't see any upside to playing Alex Smith. There's no sense making a run at this joke of a division. They need to know what they have in Haskins and even if they've made up their mind, then they could try to at least build some trade value. He's got zero right now.
Brunell4MVP
Footballguy
As you know I'm a salary cap junkie, mainly cause I think it's where the WFT has screwed up the most over the years. But they are actually in a pretty decent situation going into 2021.
They have a lot of mid tier guys that will be shown the door IMO. Players like Hamilton, Sprinkle, Stroman and others that really don't add playmaking will certainly be shown the door since almost none of their salaries are dead cap. They will let Kerrigan and Scherff walk. And those were some high salaries in 2020. They will probably try to restructure and extend Jonathan Allen. They will likely keep on Moses and let him play out the last 2 years of his deal. Too many other holes to fill to be looking for a RT.
They essentially have $51M + ~$8M for mid level cuts .... before dealing with the QB issues.
The dinosaur in the room is Alex Smith. Cutting him saves $14.7M in cap space. So do you keep him? With ~$59M in cap space, do you really need to cut him? Do you need that extra $14.7M so bad you'd go into the season with Haskins and a rookie? Interesting decision even if you draft a QB in Rd 1. Is Smith worth having around as an insurance policy. Do you just re-sign Kyle Allen for 1 more year at a discount rate and save ~$11M cutting Smith?
They have a lot of mid tier guys that will be shown the door IMO. Players like Hamilton, Sprinkle, Stroman and others that really don't add playmaking will certainly be shown the door since almost none of their salaries are dead cap. They will let Kerrigan and Scherff walk. And those were some high salaries in 2020. They will probably try to restructure and extend Jonathan Allen. They will likely keep on Moses and let him play out the last 2 years of his deal. Too many other holes to fill to be looking for a RT.
They essentially have $51M + ~$8M for mid level cuts .... before dealing with the QB issues.
The dinosaur in the room is Alex Smith. Cutting him saves $14.7M in cap space. So do you keep him? With ~$59M in cap space, do you really need to cut him? Do you need that extra $14.7M so bad you'd go into the season with Haskins and a rookie? Interesting decision even if you draft a QB in Rd 1. Is Smith worth having around as an insurance policy. Do you just re-sign Kyle Allen for 1 more year at a discount rate and save ~$11M cutting Smith?
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnny Utah #9
Footballguy
Agree completely. Problem seems to be Norv Jr. is getting a crash course in coaching without all world talent. CMac ain’t walking through that door. Probably not the best idea to run your offense through a journeyman satellite back. The kid is in over his head and a terrible nepotism hire. Panthers North has been a bust so far.
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnny Utah #9
Footballguy
I think Ron has made his mind on him already but I agree. At least try to salvage some trade value. If playing him leads to more losses and a higher draft pick, even better.
Brunell4MVP
Footballguy
Haskins has no trade value. If he did he would have been gone mid season.
If he plays and is the same below average QB he's been for 2 years, nobody is giving up more than a 4th rounder for him. Name one other team that would even want him. Go. Can't do it. The bad teams either just got a new QB, have a good injured starter, or are about to pick a top QB next draft. I mean if you want him off the roster you can take nothing for him. But he's probably better on a rookie contract riding the bench as deep insurance.
Even if he started every game the rest of the way and had a QBR of 150 he isn't tradable. Cause in that case he's starting for the WFT next year. Which will go bad too.
Play him, don't play him ... it doesn't matter.
If he plays and is the same below average QB he's been for 2 years, nobody is giving up more than a 4th rounder for him. Name one other team that would even want him. Go. Can't do it. The bad teams either just got a new QB, have a good injured starter, or are about to pick a top QB next draft. I mean if you want him off the roster you can take nothing for him. But he's probably better on a rookie contract riding the bench as deep insurance.
Even if he started every game the rest of the way and had a QBR of 150 he isn't tradable. Cause in that case he's starting for the WFT next year. Which will go bad too.
Play him, don't play him ... it doesn't matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
