Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=Mattyk;1075805]^ Again I'll keep going back to opportunities. Those guys simply rush the passer more.[/quote]

I agree but that is only part of it. I have seen Orakpo and Kerrigan get taken out of games even when they were "unleashed".

Part of it is opportunity. Another part is when you watch them play they have two moves... Speed Rush or Bull Rush.

Also pro football focus did a pass rush production article. Orakpo wasn't in the top 10 for edge rushers.

[url]https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/01/14/signature-stats-pass-rushing-productivity-edge-rushers/[/url]

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

The narrative about how Orakpo has only a few pass rushing moves is a poor one, IMO. I've made this DeSean Jackson comparison before, but it's like the DeSean situation in that he put up big numbers even though the fans claimed that he was easy to take out of games. Orakpo may only have a few pass rushing moves but it's propelled him to quite a few sacks. And DeSean may be easy to take out of a game, but at the same time, he still put up 80 for 1300 and 9.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=SirLK26;1075790]So a team official has to provide the stats for it to be true?
.[/quote]


Did you see what I was responding to ? I have heard people here say these things but not any where else ,I never question anyone's stats .

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[QUOTE=SirLK26;1075811]The narrative about how Orakpo has only a few pass rushing moves is a poor one, IMO. I've made this DeSean Jackson comparison before, but it's like the DeSean situation in that he put up big numbers even though the fans claimed that he was easy to take out of games. Orakpo may only have a few pass rushing moves but it's propelled him to quite a few sacks. And DeSean may be easy to take out of a game, but at the same time, he still put up 80 for 1300 and 9.[/QUOTE]


Id have to agree with Raks versatility. I would go so far as to say he has one move.
Maybe his performance has been less than stellar due to our piss poor secondary, or lack of talent around him. I dont know. I hope he proves different this year.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=Giantone;1075813]Did you see what I was responding to ? I have heard people here say these things but not any where else ,I never question anyone's stats .[/quote]

If you took time to click on the link I provided, you noticed not only the numbers, but also this quote by team insider Rich Tandler:

[quote]The “what we want to do” could be taken as a shot at former head coach Mike Shanahan. Word is that he got heavily involved in the defense and Haslett did not have a free hand in running the unit. It appears that Jay Gruden will take the Joe Gibbs approach and let Haslett run the defense as he sees fit.[/quote]

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[QUOTE=SirLK26;1075818]If you took time to click on the link I provided, you noticed not only the numbers, but also this quote by team insider Rich Tandler:[/QUOTE]


Jim haslett has run his own d for many years. Dude is a loser. Im sick of hearing "let haslett call the shots". "Let haslett be in charge". This is not Tomlin holding back Dick Lebeau! It was an extremely questionable hire and I just dont buy the fact that this horrible d had nothing to do with Haz cus he was shackled to a bench during gametime. Dudes only good years were taking over for good d's - and subsequently running them into the ground. Rant over.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=SirLK26;1075818]If you took time to click on the link I provided, you noticed not only the numbers, but also this quote by team insider Rich Tandler:[/quote]
I did ,people and insiders are blaming Shanahan for the Kennedy assassination also. Would you admit that blaming someone that is no longer there is a good way of keeping your own job ?

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=punch it in;1075820]Jim haslett has run his own d for many years. Dude is a loser. Im sick of hearing "let haslett call the shots". "Let haslett be in charge". This is not Tomlin holding back Dick Lebeau! It was an extremely questionable hire and I just dont buy the fact that this horrible d had nothing to do with Haz cus he was shackled to a bench during gametime. Dudes only good years were taking over for good d's - and subsequently running them into the ground. Rant over.[/quote]

Haslett sucks. Even if we had a ton of talent all over the defense, the best we could hope for is a middle-of-the-road D. Jay won't have a Zimmer defense to lean on when the offense stalls, that's for sure.

But who knows. Perhaps when left alone he'll put together a solid defense that can win when coupled with a good offense. But the Packers won the Super Bowl in 2011 with a poor defense, ranked 19th in points and 32nd in yards, although if I remember correctly, they did rank fairly high in takeaways. The point is, we don't need an elite defense to win.

[quote=Giantone;1075825]I did ,people and insiders are blaming Shanahan for the Kennedy assassination also. Would you admit that blaming someone that is no longer there is a good way of keeping your own job ?[/quote]

Sure, I'd admit that, but I'm just pointing out that it's not just us here at the WP, or any Redskins board, that are saying Shanahan stuck his nose into Haslett's business too much.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

So I see that Mr. Commish is running off at the mouth about putting a team in London. I can not believe that they're considering doing this. Just a terrible awful idea. I'm confused as to why they're not looking at US cities as there are plenty that would get behind a team. You mean to tell me a city like Portland wouldn't support a team?

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=Giantone;1075825]I did ,people and insiders are blaming Shanahan for the Kennedy assassination also. Would you admit that blaming someone that is no longer there is a good way of keeping your own job ?[/quote]

Haslett and Jay Gruden are tighter than a tick, so Haz was going to be here no matter what. Now that he has been retained, he should, at least, have the opportunity to run the defense his way.

It has now been confirmed that some of the most egregious decisions on defensive play-calling over the last few years were made by Shanny who overruled Haz. These specific calls were directly responsible for our losing two games to the Cowboys, IMO. I wonder how many other games Shanny lost by micromanaging Haz.

I think we could definitely improve by hiring a DC who has been more successful than Haz has been. History tells us that we'll probably have a middling defense at best under Haz. But I also think that our [U]offense[/U] can be significantly more productive this season. So, if the D and ST can improve some this season, we can win more as a team.

Last season our ST play was the most horrible I've ever witnessed. We've taken some positive steps to improve in that area. That should help both the D and the O by giving us better field position.

In short, for me it's all about the team getting better overall. As I wrote above, I believe that we could hire a better DC than Haslett - but that's not going to happen this year. Regardless of that, if the D and ST can improve some, I think we can win many more games than we did last season because we now have a potentially dominant offense to carry the team.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1075838]So I see that Mr. Commish is running off at the mouth about putting a team in London. I can not believe that they're considering doing this. Just a terrible awful idea. I'm confused as to why they're not looking at US cities as there are plenty that would get behind a team. You mean to tell me a city like Portland wouldn't support a team?[/quote]

Talking about putting a team in London has been around since Tagliabue, if not Rozelle. Maybe it will happen soon, but it's already been 20+ years theyv'e talked about this. And what makes you think Portland would support/could support a team?

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

Portland.....? Is there not a requirement under the NFLPA/NFL agreement stating a potential NFL host city must have at least 32 days of sunshine p/yr?

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

I would think it would bake sense to get a team in LA before they worry about Europe

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=DFI;1075854]I would think it would bake sense to get a team in LA before they worry about Europe[/quote]

LA has little interest in professional football. Which is why multiple teams have already left LA. That is a Lakers and Dodgers city first and foremost. They get their fill of football from UCLA and USC. The LA Rams (Now St Louis Rams) games were usually blacked out in their local market due to not selling out. They eventually moved out of LA to Anaheim to get into a smaller stadium hoping they could get sellouts. Which helped for a few years with new fans, but that ran dry eventually as well, and they started the blackouts again. If you are not the Lakers or Dodgers, LA wont support you unless you consistently win championships.

The NFL is fighting putting a team in LA anyways. They dont want a team there. If there is one in LA, it ruins any attempts by the NFL to pressure other cities to build a stadium for the local team. Because every time there is a problem about stadium funding, the NFL and local team immediately threaten to move to LA. If the possibility of that specific move is gone, due to a team there, less taxpayer money is used to build stadiums elsewhere. The NFL makes more money without a team in LA than they would with a team in LA since every taxpayer dollar used to build a stadium means one less NFL dollar used to build a stadium.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=Skinzman;1075855]LA has little interest in professional football. Which is why multiple teams have already left LA. That is a Lakers and Dodgers city first and foremost. They get their fill of football from UCLA and USC. The LA Rams (Now St Louis Rams) games were usually blacked out in their local market due to not selling out. They eventually moved out of LA to Anaheim to get into a smaller stadium hoping they could get sellouts. Which helped for a few years with new fans, but that ran dry eventually as well, and they started the blackouts again. If you are not the Lakers or Dodgers, LA wont support you unless you consistently win championships.

The NFL is fighting putting a team in LA anyways. They dont want a team there. If there is one in LA, it ruins any attempts by the NFL to pressure other cities to build a stadium for the local team. Because every time there is a problem about stadium funding, the NFL and local team immediately threaten to move to LA. If the possibility of that specific move is gone, due to a team there, less taxpayer money is used to build stadiums elsewhere. The NFL makes more money without a team in LA than they would with a team in LA since every taxpayer dollar used to build a stadium means one less NFL dollar used to build a stadium.[/quote]


Lets not forget the California still has three other teams ,so it's not like there is no Pro football at all out there add in UCLA and USC they have all they need
The league wants this sport to be a world wide sport .