The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Mursilis wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

Mursilis wrote: But even Buges is not a miracle worker, and Heyer may still have flaws that, with time, experience, and good coaching, courtesy of Buges, will be corrected.

That's exactly the point. How do you correct the flaws if you don't play him? How do you even evaluate a player without playing him?

Drills, practice, and individual coaching obviously help.

Oh, I agree it "helps", but you can't rely solely on that. Player evaluation has to include real game experience and film for review and coaching. If Samuels went down in the regular season, would we want a rookie in there who has never played a down in a live game?

Obviously not. As far as 'real game experience', I have no problem with Heyer getting some, but maybe not when JC is in there, and had JC gone down for the season, I suspect most fans would agree with that.

I agree, Mursilis. But on the other hand, if JC hadn't gotten hurt, noone would be hacking on Heyer.

I think he's been rather impressive so for an undrafted rookie. He's only played in 2 games as a pro. I'm willing to cut him some slack. I am a Terp alum and have watched Heyer for years. He's very smart and has good skills, not great, but pretty good. Buges likes him and so do I. I also don't balme Heyer for that hit on JC. Even Gibbs and Buges said after film review that that was NOT a missed assignment by Heyer. Tomlin knew we had a rookie at LT and an experiment at LG and blitzed that side all game.

SkinsFreak wrote: I think he's been rather impressive so for an undrafted rookie. He's only played in 2 games as a pro. I'm willing to cut him some slack. I am a Terp alum and have watched Heyer for years. He's very smart and has good skills, not great, but pretty good. Buges likes him and so do I.

No argument there. Nice to see us find and develop a hidden gem.

I also don't balme Heyer for that hit on JC. Even Gibbs and Buges said after film review that that was NOT a missed assignment by Heyer. Tomlin knew we had a rookie at LT and an experiment at LG and blitzed that side all game.

It's only natural teams go after a QB's blindside, especially if inexperienced players are covering it. Good thing JC will bounce back from that hit as well.

Seems like the last time we had an undrafted rookie free agent playing that position here, the guy turned out to be pretty damned good. lts about time this team started solving their issues without the application of huge sums of cash
l dont agree with the whole "put him on an island" philosophy ,but far be it from me to disagree with coach Bugel
Dont forget the cuts to 53 are coming soon, there will be bodies available to plug up any serious hole we may have. OK so we dont have 3 or 4 all pro's up front, but those are big guys and the more you feed em, the better they will like you, so JC should be thinking of where his reservations are going to be next

Agree with most here on this one. He's a project and doing quite well all things considered.

If Joe Bugel likes him....well NUFF SAID

But I do think if JC's season would have ended with that late hit...we would ALL be calling for Heyer's head!

I understand that it's the preseason and that it is the right time to find out about the abilities of some of our younger players. However, it just seems like a pretty terrible idea to have an undrafted rookie playing left tackle and protecting our starting qb's blindside. I wonder how many other NFL teams have been starting undrafted rookies at left tackle with their starting o line this preason? Probably not many. If we had proper depth along the offensive line then Heyer would be playing with the second or third string where he belongs. This all stems from the decision to not find a proper replacement for Dockery and now we have a mess at left guard and a lack of depth along the entire oline.

jmooney wrote:Seems like the last time we had an undrafted rookie free agent playing that position here, the guy turned out to be pretty damned good. lts about time this team started solving their issues without the application of huge sums of cash
l dont agree with the whole "put him on an island" philosophy ,but far be it from me to disagree with coach Bugel
Dont forget the cuts to 53 are coming soon, there will be bodies available to plug up any serious hole we may have. OK so we dont have 3 or 4 all pro's up front, but those are big guys and the more you feed em, the better they will like you, so JC should be thinking of where his reservations are going to be next

I agree. He probably needed a little more help at least while Campbell is in the game.

By the way, who are these "unamed execs with another team"? First of all, why do you have time to judge what the Skins are doing?? Shouldn't you be working for say....the team you work for?

Secondly, the sentence that irked me was when the guy said "he couldn't figure out why we are playing him now because he's not ready". I wonder if he has ever heard of Chris Samuels...the pro bowl LT who is friggin injured. Uh...thats why we're playing him.

I liked Heyer playing at Maryland, but I'm also really surprised they aren't giving him more help at OLT. Seriously, LaCanfora has a good point; the Skins in many measures are really playing with fire. You can argue whether Heyer got beat or not on that particular play, but we are one big hit away from our season being over. Our OLG spot is already a mess...now our entire lefthand side of our line is a total weakness. If Campbell is in there, I'd be protecting him from that side with a lot more than a reserve guard and a rookie, undrafted LT. But I guess that's just me.

I don't want Mark Brunell playing at all in 2007. Nor Todd Collins.

Fios wrote:For what it's worth, and that's quite a lot, Bugel is a big fan of Heyer. If Bugel likes him, I like him.

Just a devil's advocate position; wasn't he equally high in training camp on Molinaro and the other guy they drafted a few years ago?

PulpExposure wrote:Just a devil's advocate position; wasn't he equally high in training camp on Molinaro and the other guy they drafted a few years ago?

You are in serious risk of being called a heretic and be put to burn in wood. Just warning you ...

By the way, I have seldom seen Joe lately so passionately about defending a player in a Press Conference. He "called" the guy and the article in which criticism was levied on Heyer. He basically implied that the sack was somebody else's fault (probably a broken WR route if you read between the lines). Anyway, there is no question that the coaching staff like this guy and he will be kept in the 53 roster imho.

Having said that ... they are playing with fire. We could have lost JC for the seasoon. No question about it.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:Just a devil's advocate position; wasn't he equally high in training camp on Molinaro and the other guy they drafted a few years ago?

You are in serious risk of being called a heretic and be put to burn in wood. Just warning you ...

By the way, I have seldom seen Joe lately so passionately about defending a player in a Press Conference. He "called" the guy and the article in which criticism was levied on Heyer. He basically implied that the sack was somebody else's fault (probably a broken WR route if you read between the lines). Anyway, there is no question that the coaching staff like this guy and he will be kept in the 53 roster imho.

Having said that ... they are playing with fire. We could have lost JC for the seasoon. No question about it.

Fios wrote:

WARNING: Banging your head against the wall creates a false sense of loyalty.

PulpExposure wrote:

Fios wrote:For what it's worth, and that's quite a lot, Bugel is a big fan of Heyer. If Bugel likes him, I like him.

Just a devil's advocate position; wasn't he equally high in training camp on Molinaro and the other guy they drafted a few years ago?

I don't remember him being equally as effusive about Molinaro. But, even if I am wrong in my recollection, Bugel's batting average is enough for me to rest comfortably when he praises a guy. I see people hammering home the weakness on the left side of the line but what team isn't going to be hampered IF they lose their starting left tackle? Playing with fire is a bit of a stretch when you consider Samuels has missed 4 games since 2000 and none in the past three seasons. Look, I would love to have depth at every position but that simply isn't a reality. And, this isn't necessarily addressed to you, JC did not suffer a season-ending injury, he is NOT out for the season. So continuing to bemoan a what-if play in a scenario where the starter was out is kinda dumb.

Fios wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Fios wrote:For what it's worth, and that's quite a lot, Bugel is a big fan of Heyer. If Bugel likes him, I like him.

Just a devil's advocate position; wasn't he equally high in training camp on Molinaro and the other guy they drafted a few years ago?

I don't remember him being equally as effusive about Molinaro. But, even if I am wrong in my recollection, Bugel's batting average is enough for me to rest comfortably when he praises a guy. I see people hammering home the weakness on the left side of the line but what team isn't going to be hampered IF they lose their starting left tackle? Playing with fire is a bit of a stretch when you consider Samuels has missed 4 games since 2000 and none in the past three seasons. Look, I would love to have depth at every position but that simply isn't a reality. And, this isn't necessarily addressed to you, JC did not suffer a season-ending injury, he is NOT out for the season. So continuing to bemoan a what-if play in a scenario where the starter was out is kinda dumb.

No, I totally agree that right now the left side is a weakness, and that's exacerbated only because we're missing our best offensive-lineman (yes, those who think he's overrated, just let that comment slide, please). I expect Samuels coming back will fix a lot of what's wrong with it. And I recognize this.

What I meant was specifically was in context of the useless preseason games. It's one thing to try out a new guy at LT so he can learn in semi-game conditions. I'm totally fine with that. I'm not so fine in doing so while risking our franchise QB's health in completely meaningless games. That's just stupid imho. The risk:reward ratio is skewed far too far to the risk side.

I also think Samuels is overrated, I put very little stock in the Pro Bowl unless I am arguing with a fan of another team in which case Samuels is an All-Pro tackle =)
To your point, if Bugel looks around and says, "well, if Samuels goes down, frankly we'd be looking at serious playing time for Heyer" doesn't he have an obligation to get the guy some snaps? Sure, on a certain level, that doesn't really bode well for the depth on that side but if you don't play Heyer in a meaningless preseason game, when do you play him?

Fios wrote:I also think Samuels is overrated, I put very little stock in the Pro Bowl unless I am arguing with a fan of another team in which case Samuels is an All-Pro tackle =)
To your point, if Bugel looks around and says, "well, if Samuels goes down, frankly we'd be looking at serious playing time for Heyer" doesn't he have an obligation to get the guy some snaps? Sure, on a certain level, that doesn't really bode well for the depth on that side but if you don't play Heyer in a meaningless preseason game, when do you play him?

Play him when Campbell isn't in. Or at least, for god's sake, have a TE or RB give him a little help.

Very few rookies can start and play LT without ANY help.

Any fan who don't want to JC hurt, should bemoan a what if play.

No one wants to JC get hurt.

Your right that he didn't, and everyone should feel very thinkfull that JC was able to move that foot.

As far as people placing the blame on Heyer. I blame him too. I mean he clearly missed his guy. Dude, as #99 on the stealers(forgot his name) was getting around Heyer, Heyer didn't even start moving his feet to even try to stay in front of the guy.

I do think however, its just a rook mistake. And is forgiveable.

But if your trying to say that as fans we should NOT ask "who's fault was it?" or "why did JC get hit" or even just,"what happened". OR to even look at the future and say"what if, Jason couldn't move his foot". and that "it could have been a lot worse, and we need to fix it"

Please.........He's our QB dude, what we suppose to say oh well, and not care that our QB was on the gound too much, and not care that he could have been hurt seriously.

Seriously, you don't care??????Hmmm.

How anyone be a fan, and not ask these things. And how can anyone be a fan, but not want say "what if it was worse".
Because, saying "what if" is = to saying we need to fix this, and is just simply giving a reason why we need to fix it. Thats just being a fan dude. Being a fan that don't want to see JC get hurt. IMO

PulpExposure wrote:What I meant was specifically was in context of the useless preseason games. It's one thing to try out a new guy at LT so he can learn in semi-game conditions. I'm totally fine with that. I'm not so fine in doing so while risking our franchise QB's health in completely meaningless games. That's just stupid imho. The risk:reward ratio is skewed far too far to the risk side.

Well they have to start someone in the preseason game. I think that Heyer is the next best player at LT, even with his youth and inexperience taken into account. They can't move Wade because he needs the reps at LG, and I can't think of another backup that would usurp Heyer for LT. So, while our UDFA might be a risk, it's possible that playing anyone else in place of him would be even riskier.

The only other option would be not to play Campbell because we're missing Sammuels, but that doesn't make sense to me either.

Irn-Bru wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:What I meant was specifically was in context of the useless preseason games. It's one thing to try out a new guy at LT so he can learn in semi-game conditions. I'm totally fine with that. I'm not so fine in doing so while risking our franchise QB's health in completely meaningless games. That's just stupid imho. The risk:reward ratio is skewed far too far to the risk side.

Well they have to start someone in the preseason game. I think that Heyer is the next best player at LT, even with his youth and inexperience taken into account. They can't move Wade because he needs the reps at LG, and I can't think of another backup that would usurp Heyer for LT. So, while our UDFA might be a risk, it's possible that playing anyone else in place of him would be even riskier.

Ok, I can accept that. So, start the rookie, but why not give him some help? In a real game, they wouldn't be leaving him out there on an island (I hope)....I mean hell, they give Jansen chip block help. Is it too much to expect you'd give the rookie a little help as well?

tribeofjudah wrote:Do you agree with this......

"He's not ready," said one longtime NFL executive who paid particular attention to Heyer when watching Saturday's game. "He plays too tall, his [backside] is always sticking up in the air. It's too easy to get inside of him. There's a reason 32 teams, including the one he plays for now, didn't draft him. He might be a player down the line, but I wouldn't be starting him now. I can't figure that out."

But here's another one...more positive:

Heyer received more blocking help from tight ends in his first game at Tennessee, but last Saturday he was often alone. Rarely did he even get help from a chip block from a running back, which shocked one talent evaluator who saw the game. "They left him on an island like he was Chris Samuels," he said. "I was stunned by some of the protections."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01984.html

I don't believe anything the Wash Post submits about the Redskins..the Post is reeling..and suffers from Sally Jenkins's change of life emotional issues..

Just look what happened yesterday...Adam Schefter got the scoop on Marshall's release and Godfrey's signing..it must be driving Elfin and J. LaCaforna ..absolutely crazy..

Heyer is doing what the Joes and Al want him to do..learn by fire..
Jason's injury was the result of a low, late hit..Gibbs said yesterday that Heyer has not given up a sack..so far in the preseason..that he is having a great camp..I believe Joe..not a irelevant out of the loop newspaper..who lost their monopoly to the information age.

PulpExposure wrote:Ok, I can accept that. So, start the rookie, but why not give him some help? In a real game, they wouldn't be leaving him out there on an island (I hope)....I mean hell, they give Jansen chip block help. Is it too much to expect you'd give the rookie a little help as well?

Unfortunately, I didn't see this week's game, so I'm not sure to what extent he was left on an island and to what extent he received help. As others have noted, one mistake at LT can make it seem like you had a bad game. Apparently Gibbs has praised Heyer all along and even mentioned the Post article and said that he thought they were wrong on him. He hasn't praised Pucillo, who has been starting beside Heyer, and I'm not sure how the dynamics of the line work out, but it seems like that could have had an impact on how we've perceived Heyer. I don't know.


I think you could be right, and I think that we would all agree in the meantime that our current left o-line makes playing Campbell a risk.

The league should have looked at that hit because it was the same sort of hit that took out Carson Palmer a year or two back. It was against, ironically, the Steelers......

As far as Heyer. Who else do we got. Injuries happen like with Samuels so these guys have to play. We can't afford to keep a starting tackle on the sideline waiting for Samuels to get hurt.

Now I've seen people on this board crying about why we don't develop from within but as soon as we do with Heyer, it's criticized. The hit on Campbell could have been worse but it wasn't. It was illegal IMO. But I am impressed with Bugel and Gibbs standing behind this kid because it shows me that they are trying to coach and build depth from within. When Samuels got hurt, we could have went after an experienced Free Agent but we decided to do what many have been clamouring for and that's to develop from within. But now that is being criticized.

Let the coaches do their jobs and coach these guys up. These guys are not stupid so they realize that they have a gap on that side of the OLine. They will make the adjustments for it and move forward until Samuels is healthy and ready to play. If Samuels is still out at the start of the regular season, you bet that Heyer will get help on passing plays from a back or a tight end.

Um... that wasn't a sack because JC already got the pass off, hence all the "late hit" comments. How can you watch that play and NOT see that Heyer completely mised the block. It may have been a stunt, but there WAS noone outside of Keisel (#99). He did have a half-hearted attempt to block Heisel as Heyer backpedaled, Heisel went for the inside lane, Heyer BARELY put his hands on 'em. Keisel stumbled, to me it looked like he anticipated a block from the OL and didn't get it, and then lunged to continue to make the play, like any DL should have. Did he intend the late, low hit? I doubt it. Was it illegal, obviously, the refs called it (let's not get into judging the refs here). Should an undrafted free agent start on the blind side of the 1st string offense? I highly doubt it. We don't know everything that's going on, though, we can judge from what we see. That's what I'm doing, judging on what I saw. Heyer's not ready to be the blind side guardian in the current situation.....

VetSkinsFan wrote:Um... that wasn't a sack because JC already got the pass off, hence all the "late hit" comments. How can you watch that play and NOT see that Heyer completely mised the block. It may have been a stunt, but there WAS noone outside of Keisel (#99). He did have a half-hearted attempt to block Heisel as Heyer backpedaled, Heisel went for the inside lane, Heyer BARELY put his hands on 'em. Keisel stumbled, to me it looked like he anticipated a block from the OL and didn't get it, and then lunged to continue to make the play, like any DL should have. Did he intend the late, low hit? I doubt it. Was it illegal, obviously, the refs called it (let's not get into judging the refs here). Should an undrafted free agent start on the blind side of the 1st string offense? I highly doubt it. We don't know everything that's going on, though, we can judge from what we see. That's what I'm doing, judging on what I saw. Heyer's not ready to be the blind side guardian in the current situation.....

Nobody said anything about Heyer starting in the regular season...Samuels accounts for over 6 million of this years cap

when they put in a blitz blocking scheme..perhaps everyone will breath easier..he has demonstrated he has a future here..that is something to
trumpet..depth that can be counted on..to at least be able to scheme towards his strengths is a good thing..plus he gets to be a part of a unit that boasts 2 excellent rushers to block for.