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

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:In order for something to be obvious it has to be readily apparent to most people. And I also didn't think it was apparent that Jansen outplayed Heyer. . .

Heyer got injured and then lost his staring job to a guy the new HC wanted no part of in training camp. Zorn did not want Jon to be the starter, but when he outplayed Heyer he couldn't give the kid his job back.

So that might not be obvious to some people, but to those who pay close attention to the team it should be.

It's obvious what the coach decided, but we were talking about the players' performance on the field—which, again, is not "obvious" like you are saying it is.

I think what happened with respect to the coach's decision was that Zorn saw Heyer as a young prospect with potential, and factored that potential into his decision to start him over Jansen. The basic idea was that Heyer, when given the opportunity, might really take off. But then, unfortunately, Heyer played worse than Zorn had anticipated and eventually got injured. So, even though Jansen wasn't that much of an improvement, there wasn't the same motivation to get Heyer back in the starting lineup.

That's speculation on my part; I suppose it could have been any number of things. But just because the coach kept Jansen in after Heyer's injury healed doesn't mean Jansen was "obviously" outplaying him by much of a margin at all.

Irn-Bru wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:In order for something to be obvious it has to be readily apparent to most people. And I also didn't think it was apparent that Jansen outplayed Heyer. . .

Heyer got injured and then lost his staring job to a guy the new HC wanted no part of in training camp. Zorn did not want Jon to be the starter, but when he outplayed Heyer he couldn't give the kid his job back.

So that might not be obvious to some people, but to those who pay close attention to the team it should be.

It's obvious what the coach decided, but we were talking about the players' performance on the field—which, again, is not "obvious" like you are saying it is.

I think what happened with respect to the coach's decision was that Zorn saw Heyer as a young prospect with potential, and factored that potential into his decision to start him over Jansen. The basic idea was that Heyer, when given the opportunity, might really take off. But then, unfortunately, Heyer played worse than Zorn had anticipated and eventually got injured. So, even though Jansen wasn't that much of an improvement, there wasn't the same motivation to get Heyer back in the starting lineup.

That's speculation on my part; I suppose it could have been any number of things. But just because the coach kept Jansen in after Heyer's injury healed doesn't mean Jansen was "obviously" outplaying him by much of a margin at all.

No kidding. And obviously, Zorn has a thing for veteran players over youngsters.

Deadskins wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:In order for something to be obvious it has to be readily apparent to most people. And I also didn't think it was apparent that Jansen outplayed Heyer. . .

Heyer got injured and then lost his staring job to a guy the new HC wanted no part of in training camp. Zorn did not want Jon to be the starter, but when he outplayed Heyer he couldn't give the kid his job back.

So that might not be obvious to some people, but to those who pay close attention to the team it should be.

It's obvious what the coach decided, but we were talking about the players' performance on the field—which, again, is not "obvious" like you are saying it is.

I think what happened with respect to the coach's decision was that Zorn saw Heyer as a young prospect with potential, and factored that potential into his decision to start him over Jansen. The basic idea was that Heyer, when given the opportunity, might really take off. But then, unfortunately, Heyer played worse than Zorn had anticipated and eventually got injured. So, even though Jansen wasn't that much of an improvement, there wasn't the same motivation to get Heyer back in the starting lineup.

That's speculation on my part; I suppose it could have been any number of things. But just because the coach kept Jansen in after Heyer's injury healed doesn't mean Jansen was "obviously" outplaying him by much of a margin at all.

No kidding. And obviously, Zorn has a thing for veteran players over youngsters.

That is certainly not obvious!

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:In order for something to be obvious it has to be readily apparent to most people. And I also didn't think it was apparent that Jansen outplayed Heyer. . .

Heyer got injured and then lost his staring job to a guy the new HC wanted no part of in training camp. Zorn did not want Jon to be the starter, but when he outplayed Heyer he couldn't give the kid his job back.

So that might not be obvious to some people, but to those who pay close attention to the team it should be.

It's obvious what the coach decided, but we were talking about the players' performance on the field—which, again, is not "obvious" like you are saying it is.

I think what happened with respect to the coach's decision was that Zorn saw Heyer as a young prospect with potential, and factored that potential into his decision to start him over Jansen. The basic idea was that Heyer, when given the opportunity, might really take off. But then, unfortunately, Heyer played worse than Zorn had anticipated and eventually got injured. So, even though Jansen wasn't that much of an improvement, there wasn't the same motivation to get Heyer back in the starting lineup.

That's speculation on my part; I suppose it could have been any number of things. But just because the coach kept Jansen in after Heyer's injury healed doesn't mean Jansen was "obviously" outplaying him by much of a margin at all.

No kidding. And obviously, Zorn has a thing for veteran players over youngsters.

That is certainly not obvious!

Right! because of all the rookies who started for him last year.

Deadskins wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:In order for something to be obvious it has to be readily apparent to most people. And I also didn't think it was apparent that Jansen outplayed Heyer. . .

Heyer got injured and then lost his staring job to a guy the new HC wanted no part of in training camp. Zorn did not want Jon to be the starter, but when he outplayed Heyer he couldn't give the kid his job back.

So that might not be obvious to some people, but to those who pay close attention to the team it should be.

It's obvious what the coach decided, but we were talking about the players' performance on the field—which, again, is not "obvious" like you are saying it is.

I think what happened with respect to the coach's decision was that Zorn saw Heyer as a young prospect with potential, and factored that potential into his decision to start him over Jansen. The basic idea was that Heyer, when given the opportunity, might really take off. But then, unfortunately, Heyer played worse than Zorn had anticipated and eventually got injured. So, even though Jansen wasn't that much of an improvement, there wasn't the same motivation to get Heyer back in the starting lineup.

That's speculation on my part; I suppose it could have been any number of things. But just because the coach kept Jansen in after Heyer's injury healed doesn't mean Jansen was "obviously" outplaying him by much of a margin at all.

No kidding. And obviously, Zorn has a thing for veteran players over youngsters.

That is certainly not obvious!

Right! because of all the rookies who started for him last year.

Name exactly one that should other than horton who di d start!

Thought so. There weren't any others worth starting, so the statement was NOT OBVIOUS!!!!!

That may be what you think or guess, but you certainly couldn't make that call based on last year.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:In order for something to be obvious it has to be readily apparent to most people. And I also didn't think it was apparent that Jansen outplayed Heyer. . .

Heyer got injured and then lost his staring job to a guy the new HC wanted no part of in training camp. Zorn did not want Jon to be the starter, but when he outplayed Heyer he couldn't give the kid his job back.

So that might not be obvious to some people, but to those who pay close attention to the team it should be.

It's obvious what the coach decided, but we were talking about the players' performance on the field—which, again, is not "obvious" like you are saying it is.

I think what happened with respect to the coach's decision was that Zorn saw Heyer as a young prospect with potential, and factored that potential into his decision to start him over Jansen. The basic idea was that Heyer, when given the opportunity, might really take off. But then, unfortunately, Heyer played worse than Zorn had anticipated and eventually got injured. So, even though Jansen wasn't that much of an improvement, there wasn't the same motivation to get Heyer back in the starting lineup.

That's speculation on my part; I suppose it could have been any number of things. But just because the coach kept Jansen in after Heyer's injury healed doesn't mean Jansen was "obviously" outplaying him by much of a margin at all.

No kidding. And obviously, Zorn has a thing for veteran players over youngsters.

That is certainly not obvious!

Right! because of all the rookies who started for him last year.

Name exactly one that should other than horton who di d start!

Thought so. There weren't any others worth starting, so the statement was NOT OBVIOUS!!!!!

That may be what you think or guess, but you certainly couldn't make that call based on last year.

Hey SF33, name all the times you actually heard one of the many reports comimg from Redskin Park saying that Zorn prefers rookies to sit in favor of veterans! Thought so. Obviously, you don't follow along close enough.

Horton only cracked the starting lineup because Doughty was sick and couldn't play. He made two INTs and got defensive player of the week honors for that game. That gave him some clout in the coaches eyes, but did he start the next week? No, Doughty did. But anyway, maybe you didn't realize it, but Greg Blache coaches the defense, so Horton is obviously not a good example.

Also, it could be argued that the rookie receivers deserved to start, but Zorn kept trotting Thrash out there as the #3 guy.

This is an old argument and I don't think we have any new details come to light.

The rookie WRs were hurt and behind the power curve, so Zorn sat 'em. Call it liking to sit rooks, call it influence of the freakin phases of the moon, I think it was smart. When Devin wasn't running the right routes, he sat. When Devin hadn't adapted to the aggerssive DBs and was pulling offensive PI, he sat.
Davis was in the same boat. He was in the dog house and had to earn his playing time.

There's an acclimation period to go to the final level and without pre-season like the rook WRs didn't have, they were way behind. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Labeling an old argument with new tags is still the same damn argument.

VetSkinsFan wrote:This is an old argument and I don't think we have any new details come to light.

The rookie WRs were hurt and behind the power curve, so Zorn sat 'em. Call it liking to sit rooks, call it influence of the freakin phases of the moon, I think it was smart. When Devin wasn't running the right routes, he sat. When Devin hadn't adapted to the aggerssive DBs and was pulling offensive PI, he sat.
Davis was in the same boat. He was in the dog house and had to earn his playing time.

There's an acclimation period to go to the final level and without pre-season like the rook WRs didn't have, they were way behind. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Labeling an old argument with new tags is still the same damn argument.

You don't get it Vet. This has become an argument over the use of the word "obviously."

Deadskins wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:This obviously is an old argument and I don't think we have any new details come to light.

obviously The rookie WRs were hurt and behind the power curve, so Zorn sat 'em. obviously Call it liking to sit rooks, call it influence of the freakin phases of the moon, obviously I think it was smart. obviously When Devin wasn't running the right routes, he sat. obviously When Devin hadn't adapted to the aggerssive DBs and was pulling offensive PI, he sat.
obviously Davis was in the same boat. obviously He was in the dog house and had to earn his playing time.

obviously There's an acclimation period to go to the final level and without pre-season like the rook WRs didn't have, they were way behind. obviously It's not that hard to comprehend.

obviously Labeling an old argument with new tags is still the same damn argument.

You don't get it Vet. This has become an argument over the use of the word "obviously."

I fixed it so I could be a cool kid

kids highlight in black magic marker, Vet.

tcwest10 wrote:Cool kids highlight in black magic marker, Vet.

This board doesn't have the highlight function, so I went with the next closest thing...I was never a cool kid in high school... I wanna virtual cool kid!