Stan Hixon
 

Am I alone in thinking that Stan Hixon might have to be shown the door or at least pressured to improve the performance of the Wide Receiver Unit?

In countless analyses, it has been shown that a big reason the Redskins offense stalled the last eight or so weeks is because the vertical passing game became nonexistent. Not because of any suffocating defenses faced but rather that the Wide Receivers were running wrong routes, dropping easy passes etc. In fact, in one of the very respected game reviews, it was pointed out that on three of Jason Campbell's six interceptions (league-low?), it was directly the fault of the receiver that the interception occurred. Furthermore, the complete non-emergence of [B]either[/B] Devin Thomas [B]OR[/B] Malcolm Kelly in the passing game is annoying, frustrating, and extremely disappointing. Between them Thomas led the way in catches [I]with 15!!![/I].

In my view this is completely unacceptable and I think a change at that staff position would not be completely unwarranted. However, I understand that this is the first year in the West Coast Offense and more time is necessary, I just feel as though that is a major area of improvement for 2009.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

You are not alone. If the Skins want to bring about change, he should be the first one out.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

I would ask Gary Clark if he's interested in coaching and bring onboard, he would fire up all the under achievers overnight.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

I agree. I know the offense as a whole has struggled but WR seems to be the weakest link over the past couple of years. We need position coaches who can MAXIMIZE the talent we have. There is definitely talent at WR but it's underachieved and it's frustrating.

HAIL!!

Re: Stan Hixon
 

we haven't had a receiver threat in quite awhile.. no matter what WR's we've had

you have to look at that from both the WR coach and the OC and/or HC

Re: Stan Hixon
 

Funny. I have been screaming this all season. I was just looking up some other answers to a WR coach and was looking for my first place to put my first choice:

Clyde Christensen from the Colts....

Clyde Christensen enters his seventh season as wide receivers coach of the Colts. Christensen joined Indianapolis from Tampa Bay, where he served as offensive coordinator during the 2001 season.

In 2007, Christensen’s receiving corps continued producing outstanding numbers.

Christensen spent six seasons at Tampa Bay, tutoring tight ends from 1996-98 and quarterbacks from 1999-00 before being promoted to offensive coordinator. In 2001, Christensen presided over an attack that saw WR-Keyshawn Johnson post a franchise seasonal-best 106 receptions for 1,266 yards, while QB-Brad Johnson set a club seasonal mark with 340 completions. The offense set several club marks in 2000, including points scored and touchdowns.

We could call it a promotion and put him at OC. He could work with Zorn on designing plays and he could work with the WR's and TE's. Zorn could still call plays on game day.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

We need a WR coach with experience teaching the WCO. Not sure who the Seahawks WR coach is, but with that staff dissolving, I wouldn't mind bringing him here.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=SBXVII;516408]Funny. I have been screaming this all season. I was just looking up some other answers to a WR coach and was looking for my first place to put my first choice:

Clyde Christensen from the Colts....

Clyde Christensen enters his seventh season as wide receivers coach of the Colts. Christensen joined Indianapolis from Tampa Bay, where he served as offensive coordinator during the 2001 season.

In 2007, Christensen’s receiving corps continued producing outstanding numbers.

Christensen spent six seasons at Tampa Bay, tutoring tight ends from 1996-98 and quarterbacks from 1999-00 before being promoted to offensive coordinator. In 2001, Christensen presided over an attack that saw WR-Keyshawn Johnson post a franchise seasonal-best 106 receptions for 1,266 yards, while QB-Brad Johnson set a club seasonal mark with 340 completions. The offense set several club marks in 2000, including points scored and touchdowns.

We could call it a promotion and put him at OC. He could work with Zorn on designing plays and he could work with the WR's and TE's. Zorn could still call plays on game day.[/quote]

That could be a good call too...

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=SBXVII;516408]Funny. I have been screaming this all season. I was just looking up some other answers to a WR coach and was looking for my first place to put my first choice:

Clyde Christensen from the Colts....

Clyde Christensen enters his seventh season as wide receivers coach of the Colts. Christensen joined Indianapolis from Tampa Bay, where he served as offensive coordinator during the 2001 season.

In 2007, Christensen’s receiving corps continued producing outstanding numbers.

Christensen spent six seasons at Tampa Bay, tutoring tight ends from 1996-98 and quarterbacks from 1999-00 before being promoted to offensive coordinator. In 2001, Christensen presided over an attack that saw WR-Keyshawn Johnson post a franchise seasonal-best 106 receptions for 1,266 yards, while QB-Brad Johnson set a club seasonal mark with 340 completions. The offense set several club marks in 2000, including points scored and touchdowns.

We could call it a promotion and put him at OC. He could work with Zorn on designing plays and he could work with the WR's and TE's. Zorn could still call plays on game day.[/quote]
I keep seeing a lot of suggestions for lateral changes

maybe I don't get positional stuff, other than salary differences, but why would someone go from wr coach for 7 years on one team to another?

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=tryfuhl;516412]I keep seeing a lot of suggestions for lateral changes

maybe I don't get positional stuff, other than salary differences, but why would someone go from wr coach for 7 years on one team to another?[/quote]


Thats why I suggested OC position. He would have a lot in helping Zorn drum up plays to go a long with Zorn's wonderfull offense he provided and he would coach up the WR's. We all know if they did go out and get a OC Zorn would still be calling plays so who cares. Give him more pay, give him the WR's to coach up, and have him help Zorn with designing plays. but call him OC and it's not a lateral move. lol. right.lol.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

plus if you read his bio he was already an OC once before in Tampa and it goes on to further say he was instrumental in helping the QB King when he came out of college. He also has produced the most QB/WR tandems in NFL histoy. Sounds good for JC and Kelly/Thomas....right.


He helped the late-season development of rookie QB-Shaun King in 1999. King led Tampa Bay to four wins in its last five contests en route to the NFC Central title. King became the second rookie quarterback since the 1970 NFL Merger to win a playoff game, rallying the Buccaneers to a 14-13 Divisional Playoff win over Washington. Christensen wrapped up 1999 at the Pro Bowl as the NFC totaled a game-record 51 points.

In 2005, Christensen’s corps ranked among the league’s best. Harrison (82-1,146, 12 TDs) and Wayne (83-1,055, 5 TDs) produced 1,000+ reception yardage seasons and played key roles in the club’s 13-0 seasonal start. In 2004, Christensen’s unit had one of the best seasonal performances in NFL history. Harrison (86-1,113, 15 TDs), Wayne (77-1,210, 12 TDs) and WR-Brandon Stokley (68-1,077, 10 TDs) became the first NFL receiving trio to post 1,000+-yardage and 10+-touchdown seasons. The performances placed the club along with the 1980 San Diego Chargers, 1989 Washington Redskins and 1995 Atlanta Falcons as the only teams with a trio of 1,000+ receivers.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

Ya know honestly looking at all the other teams he's our best choice. Then I would look at Seatle only cause the coach would know what Zorn is trying to do.

I thought maybe the WR coach for the Titans but he is already a OC Assist.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

I don't know who we could bring in as offensive line coach if Bugel decides to retire or if the team decides he needs to go.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

I'm glad there is the same line of thinking as myself...we've all noticed that wide receiver has been a weak link in the offense and an upgrade at that position might be the first priority. Thomas and Kelly have plenty of talent and Moss, IMO, is still a premier threat in this league...the team just needs someone to bring a lot more out of those three

Re: Stan Hixon
 

Ummm, the offensive failure is entirely on Zorn. Lets not start with the scapegoating,

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=saden1;516431]Ummm, the offensive failure is entirely on Zorn. Lets not start with the scapegoating,[/quote]


Be honest with yourself.....our WR's sucked during Gibbs second term as well. We bring in two new taller WR's and they can't get on the field. why? coaching. Hixon needs to go. but....just in case you have a point which I'm not totally dissagreeing with....Christensen brings alot to the table. He used to be and still is a WR's coach, He used to be an OC which might bode well with helping Zorn out with some decent plays in stretching the
field. It's a wonderful double wammy for us if we bring him in.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

I am being honest with myself. If Hixon sucked so much why was he kept? It was a perfect time to clean house and they didn't which tells me that either he is a good coach or our management is incompetent.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

wow you keep hitting the nail on the head but do you think management is going to blame itself? most likely not. Hixon was a WR coach in college prior to Gibbs pulling him into the NFL. They thought his abilities would carry over from the college level and it didn't. Zorn kept him cause he was told most of the coaching staff would remain in place for him. All he had to do was bring in a new offense and coach. I can only hope he sees what we have seen for the last 5 seasons. Simply put nothing out of our WR's. They run wrong routes, and they don't know the plays. Something the coach is responsible for. If you can't get rid of management then atleast get rid of half the problem.

Plus Christensen could help Zorn with developing decent pass plays.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

I wish we still had Robiskie.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

Hixon definitely needs to be looked at. A few of us have been saying this for awhile. When your receivers are not running their routes correctly of course you look at the position coach. Why would'nt you?

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=saden1;516437]I am being honest with myself. If Hixon sucked so much why was he kept? It was a perfect time to clean house and they didn't which tells me that either he is a good coach [B]or our management is incompetent.[/B][/quote]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm........

Re: Stan Hixon
 

I agree. Hixon has had his chance to prove himself, and he hasn't under three different OCs. I like the idea of Christensen, but I can't see him leaving. Please, do not bring in Seattle's guy though. I can't remember when they've been strong at WR. Until this year, they've always seemed to have adequate performances from middle of the road receivers, but it's never been a strength.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

I'd like to see us bring in Russ Grimm. Make him head coach and then bring in the wide reciever's coach from Arizona with him! I'm still not sold on Zorn staying here. There were just to many times when Zorn did dumb stuff................hopefully, those 24 points against San Fran was more adjusting and less luck. But, I'm still not sold on it.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=Miller101;516478]I'd like to see us bring in Russ Grimm. Make him head coach and then bring in the wide reciever's coach from Arizona with him! I'm still not sold on Zorn staying here. There were just to many times when Zorn did dumb stuff................hopefully, those 24 points against San Fran was more adjusting and less luck. But, I'm still not sold on it.[/quote]

There's an interesting scenario. Maybe next year if Zorn tanks again.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

I don't know whether Hixon is a good coach or not. As for our recievers let's wait a year or two before we judge our 2 rooks. But the point i'm going to make here is...it doesn't matter how good you coach you need players. Let's make a comparison here:

NYG: Burress, Toomer, Smith, Hixon, Moss, Manningham

Skins: Moss, Thrash, ARE, Thomas, Kelly

NYG's have 5 better recievers than the skins hands down.

Dallas: Owens, RW, Crayton, sorry to lazy to look up there 4th's, 5ths

Better than the skins. I think we have better recievers than the Eagles but that's not saying too much.

So you can't make chicken salad out of chicken ****. We need more talent.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

Zorn should bring in his buddy Steve Largent who I think all ready lives in the DC area, even though he would add to the Redskin Republican base there.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=theJBexperience;516473]I agree. Hixon has had his chance to prove himself, and he hasn't under three different OCs. I like the idea of Christensen, but I can't see him leaving. [B]Please, do not bring in Seattle's guy though. I can't remember when they've been strong at WR. Until this year, they've always seemed to have adequate performances from middle of the road receivers, but it's never been a strength[/B].[/quote]

Well, Hasselbeck has made 3 or 4 pro-bowls and won an NFC Championship with those less-than-big-name WRs. Darrell Jackson had some nice years there, and Bobby Ingram caught like 95 balls in 2007.

You can't count 2008 because Hasselbeck and most of the WRs were shredded by injuries, but every other year they have had a very good passing offense with, as you say, middle of the road guys.

For the record, their WR coach is right now is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Gilbertson"]Keith Gibertson[/URL] . He was new to their staff this year. I don't know who it was in previous years when Zorn was there. In light of that fact, I would say no to bringing in Gilbertson.

If anyone can find out who their WRs coach was when Zorn was there, I'd love to know. I poked around for a while but couldn't find him.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

I think it's funny that people want to blame Hixon for the WR troubles. It's an easy assumption to make -that he's the problem- but the arguments are baseless, or shallow at best.

We have no idea what his duties are behind the scenes. Yes, he's the WR coach, but what does that entail under Zorn? Does he come up with his own teaching tools, or use those dictated by Zorn and/or Sherman Smith? How much time does he get to "teach" each week? What do the players think about his coaching skills?

There are hundreds of pertinent questions like these that we just do not know the answers to. Without that knowledge, I don't think anyone here is qualified to give an opinion, with any expectation respectability, about the replacement of coach Hixon.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=cpayne5;516488]I think it's funny that people want to blame Hixon for the WR troubles. It's an easy assumption to make -that he's the problem- [B]but the arguments are baseless, or shallow at best.[/B]

We have no idea what his duties are behind the scenes. Yes, he's the WR coach, but what does that entail under Zorn? Does he come up with his own teaching tools, or use those dictated by Zorn and/or Sherman Smith? How much time does he get to "teach" each week? What do the players think about his coaching skills?

There are hundreds of pertinent questions like these that we just do not know the answers to. Without that knowledge, I don't think anyone here is qualified to give an opinion, with any expectation respectability, about the replacement of coach Hixon.[/quote]

Well, our WRs are NEVER open downfield, and Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas struggled big time with the learning curve from college to pros. I know that's not all Hixon's fault, but he has to shoulder some of that blame. I'd say that's a bit more than shallow and baseless.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=GMScud;516487]Well, Hasselbeck has made 3 or 4 pro-bowls and won an NFC Championship with those less-than-big-name WRs. Darrell Jackson had some nice years there, and Bobby Ingram caught like 95 balls in 2007.

You can't count 2008 because Hasselbeck and most of the WRs were shredded by injuries, but every other year they have had a very good passing offense with, as you say, middle of the road guys.

For the record, their WR coach is right now is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Gilbertson"]Keith Gibertson[/URL] . He was new to their staff this year. I don't know who it was in previous years when Zorn was there. In light of that fact, I would say no to bringing in Gilbertson.

[B]If anyone can find out who their WRs coach was when Zorn was there, I'd love to know.[/B] I poked around for a while but couldn't find him.[/quote]

Nolan Cromwell. He is currently the OC at Texas A&M.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=53Fan;516494]Nolan Cromwell. He is currently the OC at Texas A&M.[/quote]

Ahh. Thank you!

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=GMScud;516491]Well, our WRs are NEVER open downfield, and Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas struggled big time with the learning curve from college to pros. I know that's not all Hixon's fault, but he has to shoulder some of that blame. I'd say that's a bit more than shallow and baseless.[/quote]

Sorry, but I haven't seen Hixon run those routes or call those plays. Like I said, we don't know what his job responsibilities are. There are three people in the equation here, 1) the WRs, 2) Zorn and 3) Hixon. We know the responsibilities of two of the 3. The WRs are supposed to get open, and learn the offense. That's part of being a professional, rookie or not. Zorn's responsibilities involve calling plays that will utilize the strengths of the WRs to put them into position to succeed. We don't know what Hixon's responsibilities are. So yes, the conclusions being drawn do seem awfully shallow and baseless considering what we know (which is next to nothing).

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=cpayne5;516500]Sorry, but I haven't seen Hixon run those routes or call those plays. Like I said, we don't know what his job responsibilities are. There are three people in the equation here, 1) the WRs, 2) Zorn and 3) Hixon. We know the responsibilities of two of the 3. The WRs are supposed to get open, and learn the offense. That's part of being a professional, rookie or not. Zorn's responsibilities involve calling plays that will utilize the strengths of the WRs to put them into position to succeed. [B]We don't know what Hixon's responsibilities are.[/B] So yes, the conclusions being drawn do seem awfully shallow and baseless considering what we know (which is next to nothing).[/quote]

We know he's the WRs coach. We know production from our WRs has been severely lacking since he's been here. Sure, none of us sit in on coaching meetings or attend practices, but I would think as a WRs coach his job is to, well, coach the WRs and make them better at their responsibilities.

If a team as a whole plays poorly year after year, the head coach usually gets fired. Why should it be any different if a certain position performs poorly year after year?

Re: Stan Hixon
 

If Buges can be questioned over the O-Line play, Hixon can damn sure be questioned on the receiver play.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

Cpayne5, I agree in part. The O-line did not give JC enough time to read his routes much less throw the ball. So in essence I agree Hixon is not totally the problem which is why I would like for us to either retire Bugel or let him go and find someone who is more current with the new blocking schemes/ maybe zone blocking if that is what Zorn was asking for. Buges is only good for technique these days.

I'm not sure if Christensen is a WCO type of coach but he definitly could help with developing down the field passes [B]with[/B]Zorn. Christensen would also be great at teaching the WR's to get open. We picked up argueably the two best WR's in last yrs draft. They have talent or they would not have been listed to go in the first rounds in some of the draft boards. Amazingly they fell to us in the second round. They just need to be coached properly. Also if some of you are right and they are busts then don't you think one of the best in the league would be able to identify that and possibly bring in better talent at WR? and you guys are right he may not want to come but it doesn't hurt to explore this avenue and offer a ton of money to pull him away from the Colts. It might even be a good stepping stone for him in the future in terms of becoming a HC either here (which I doubt would happen unless Zorn get fired) or elsewhere.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

This sounds like people looking for a scapegoat to me.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=cpayne5;516500]Sorry, but I haven't seen Hixon run those routes or call those plays. Like I said, we don't know what his job responsibilities are. There are three people in the equation here, 1) the WRs, 2) Zorn and 3) Hixon. We know the responsibilities of two of the 3. The WRs are supposed to get open, and learn the offense. That's part of being a professional, rookie or not. Zorn's responsibilities involve calling plays that will utilize the strengths of the WRs to put them into position to succeed. We don't know what Hixon's responsibilities are. So yes, the conclusions being drawn do seem awfully shallow and baseless considering what we know (which is next to nothing).[/quote]


Lets take a look at your scenario. ...If we agree that we have not had WR production in 5 yrs or more then lets look at what has remained the same through all those yrs. Its not Zorn, he's new this year. So now your looking at either WR's or WR Coach. I could agree we need better talent. The only player I would keep from yrs past is Moss and he even is slipping with all his injuries. but you can't say it's all the WR when we bring in what many teams had as top 1st round talent in Kelly and Thomas and they can't produce. So the constant has been Hixon. Through Gibbs whole tenure. Two OC's during Gibbs term could not get production and now Zorn. I can't blame Zorn for that. I can blame Zorn for developing piss pour plays and not adjusting during game or season which I would hope Christensen would be able to teach since he already once was an OC.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=Mattyk72;516517]This sounds like people looking for a scapegoat to me.[/quote]

Well, I don't think poor WR play falls solely on Hixon. You have to consider OL play, rookies, etc. However if one of our positions stinks consistently, shouldn't the coach of that position at least deserve to be under some scrutiny? Seems pretty logical to me.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=GMScud;516487]Well, Hasselbeck has made 3 or 4 pro-bowls and won an NFC Championship with those less-than-big-name WRs. Darrell Jackson had some nice years there, and Bobby Ingram caught like 95 balls in 2007.

You can't count 2008 because Hasselbeck and most of the WRs were shredded by injuries, but every other year they have had a very good passing offense with, as you say, middle of the road guys.

For the record, their WR coach is right now is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Gilbertson"]Keith Gibertson[/URL] . He was new to their staff this year. I don't know who it was in previous years when Zorn was there. In light of that fact, I would say no to bringing in Gilbertson.

If anyone can find out who their WRs coach was when Zorn was there, I'd love to know. I poked around for a while but couldn't find him.[/quote]

Ah. I thought it was the same guy all those years and having "middle of the road" talent finally caught up to him when Hasslebeck went down. The SEA WR coach from that era may be woth a look because those WRs haven't really produced outside of their days at SEA. I don't know if it's because of his coaching or because Masslebeck is such a great QB. It's similar to the Pats situation til they brought in Welker and Moss. Their average WRs' good numbers were a by product of a great QB.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

are all the rookie WRs healthy?

why isn't Kelly active? i know we wanted to win the last game, but i'd like to see what they can do...

I haven't given up hope that this class can turn it around...AND we really need chad to step up next year