Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

It's time for the old man to move on. Good luck to him in broadcasting.

Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

Saden, can you get over to Ray Willis' house and make sure he doesn't sign w/ another team until the FO gets its shit together?

... gracias.

Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

[quote=The Goat;533060]Saden, can you get over to Ray Willis' house and make sure he doesn't sign w/ another team until the FO gets its shit together?

... gracias.[/quote]

Excellent idea. Now that J.Taylor's $8.5 mil. are free, it is time to pull the trigger on Willis.

Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

[quote=The Goat;533033]What's w/ all the negativity surrounding Thomas/Kelly. First of all, have you watched vids of Thomas w/ the ball in his hand? His athleticism is off the chart... I'll say right now that after Moss this kid will be the most explosive player on offense WHEN HE HAS THE BALL IN HIS HANDS. And that's the crux of it. He never learned to run routes and, oh what a surprise, has shown poor hands. HIXON! Who's f'ing job is it to see that the 2 rookies in your group 1) take the off-season serious 2) learn the playbook like the back if their hand 3) learn to run crisp routes. What's the problem... Hixon has too many other responsibilities. RIDICULOUS. Meanwhile Kelly was an excellent route runner in college and had great hands... gets to Redskin Park and looks like he's a basketball player in football pads.

... please don't throw our rookies under the bus when their direct coach has never developed an NFL player in his entire career. The only real mistake the FO has made this year, and it's a huge one IMO, is keeping Hixon on the staff.[/quote]I normally agree with your analysis' of the situation, but the assumption that Hixon is all that is wrong with the development of our receivers, and using youtube type evidence to support it is something I strongly disagree with.

There is clearly no objective reason to believe that Hixon has any control over the long-term development over the young receivers. He's one of many coaches that these gentlemen have had over the life of their football careers, and it's a self-serving argument to ignore their development until last year in considering why a player with "youtube" skills and combine numbers could [I]possibly[/I] ever bust.

Furthermore, it's probably very, very wrong. To make the assumption that there's anything Hixon should have done that would have changed their plight...if not wrong, it's something that you can't pretend to know from the information that we have as fans.

You've heard the phrase "correlation does not equal causation", well, this is you ignoring that really, really obviously.

Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

[quote=The Goat;533060]Saden, can you get over to Ray Willis' house and make sure he doesn't sign w/ another team until the FO gets its shit together?

... gracias.[/quote]

Have you ever seen the Seahawk's running/passing game with him on the field? I don't think you would want him, he can't play football.

Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

ive been having doubts myself about Willis. as a backup RT/G fine, but we still need Oher/Smith at RT. but Willis is young, big, strong and plays RT/G but teams don't normally let good young guys like that just walk away for a cheap or modest contract. and if he had that much potential someone woulda offered him a contract by now.

Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;532592]Here's my list of every receiver drafted in the first two rounds since 2000. Which excludes guys like the Real Steve Smith (3rd round) and Colston among others. It gave me a less than sanguine outlook on Thomas especially. I would actually say the guys who come from nowhere are more the exception than the rule.

[URL]http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/27618-our-wrs-in-2009-my-thoughts-11.html#post522944[/URL][/quote]


Thank You. You can always count on South Carolina.

Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

[quote=GTripp0012;533096]I normally agree with your analysis' of the situation, but the assumption that Hixon is all that is wrong with the development of our receivers, and using youtube type evidence to support it is something I strongly disagree with.

There is clearly no objective reason to believe that Hixon has any control over the long-term development over the young receivers. He's one of many coaches that these gentlemen have had over the life of their football careers, and it's a self-serving argument to ignore their development until last year in considering why a player with "youtube" skills and combine numbers could [I]possibly[/I] ever bust.

Furthermore, it's probably very, very wrong. To make the assumption that there's anything Hixon should have done that would have changed their plight...if not wrong, it's something that you can't pretend to know from the information that we have as fans.

You've heard the phrase "correlation does not equal causation", well, this is you ignoring that really, really obviously.[/quote]

WTH are "youtube" skills... sort of sounds like computer hacking and nunchuck skills LOL.

Anyway, tell me this about the plight of Thomas/Hixon. Who in the franchise is primarily charged w/ the task of making sure these guys 1) take the off-season serious, even as rooks 2) learn the playbook 3) learn to run crisp routes as the NFL requires. From the standpoint of basic common sense I have to believe a billion dollar franchise is going to assign [I]someone[/I] the task. I'm totally, completely willing to admit my ignorance of franchise structure but it seemed common sense that the position coach, Hixon, would be charged w/ this task.

Last, am I factually wrong in saying Hixon has never developed an NFL receiver? I'm tempted to go a bit further and state he's never even improved one, as i believe guys like Moss, Caldwell, McCardell, and Thrash had just as much success prior to working w/ Hixon. (ARL i leave out because he wasn't a starting receiver for Pitt so it seems a lousy comparison) My bottom line is i don't for the life of me see what there is to defend about this guy... he's done literally nothing.

Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

Why do they want to sign older FA linemen? They will only be good for a season or two, if that. Our top 2-3 picks better be O linemen, but looking a recent draft history, we should all know better.

Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

[quote=saden1;533108]Have you ever seen the Seahawk's running/passing game with him on the field? I don't think you would want him, he can't play football.[/quote]

Geez the way he was touted on this board you would think he is the next Erik Williams.

I will take Oher or Smith any day for the RT spot.

Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;533134]Geez the way he was touted on this board you would think he is the next Erik Williams.

I will take Oher or Smith any day for the RT spot.[/quote]

If we stay at 13 that seems to be the smartest choice

Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

[quote=The Goat;533115]WTH are "youtube" skills... sort of sounds like computer hacking and nunchuck skills LOL.

[B]Anyway, tell me this about the plight of Thomas/Hixon. Who in the franchise is primarily charged w/ the task of making sure these guys 1) take the off-season serious, even as rooks 2) learn the playbook 3) learn to run crisp routes as the NFL requires.[/B] From the standpoint of basic common sense I have to believe a billion dollar franchise is going to assign [I]someone[/I] the task. I'm totally, completely willing to admit my ignorance of franchise structure but it seemed common sense that the position coach, Hixon, would be charged w/ this task.

Last, am I factually wrong in saying Hixon has never developed an NFL receiver? I'm tempted to go a bit further and state he's never even improved one, as i believe guys like Moss, Caldwell, McCardell, and Thrash had just as much success prior to working w/ Hixon. (ARL i leave out because he wasn't a starting receiver for Pitt so it seems a lousy comparison) My bottom line is i don't for the life of me see what there is to defend about this guy... he's done literally nothing.[/quote]I think your opinion that Hixon is not a good receivers coach and that we shouldn't have retained him is fine. I'm not defending Hixon per se. I don't necessarily agree either, but the opinion that we could do better seems legit.

The obvious answer to the question you've posed here is: Thomas and Kelly. Duh. I think Hixon's part of the equation, but your position only makes sense if Hixon is the ENTIRE equation, in which case, why draft at all?

I mentioned before, I don't think this is ignorance on your part, I think it's simply confusing correlation (Hixon) with casuation (who knows?).

Why does one person HAVE to be responsible for the lack of development with the receivers? Why is each individual not held accountable for his development in your eyes? What is the reasoning behind assuming that only Hixon is responsible?

Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

[quote=SmootSmack;533135]If we stay at 13 that seems to be the smartest choice[/quote]

Yes, although now we also need a starting DE and starting SLB. We can't do it all with choice #13.

Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

[quote=Lotus;533140]Yes, although now we also need a starting DE and starting SLB. We can't do it all with choice #13.[/quote]Yeah, but those are very, very easy spots to find vet min solutions with talent after the draft. The Redskins would be smart to not pay a premium for those positions now. Use the money to sign talent at any position, not just where we don't have clear starters penciled in.

Re: The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good
 

[quote=Lotus;533140]Yes, although now we also need a starting DE and starting SLB. We can't do it all with choice #13.[/quote]

you can get cromwell/burnett and evans/daniels on the cheap as a stopgap. that's pretty typical for most teams, since (obviously) you can't have 100$mill players at every position.

cheap starting LBs are always available in FA... cheap starting DEs aren't, unless they're really old (like daniels).