Page 1 of 2
Assessment of Heyer.....
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:29 am
by tribeofjudah
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
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:39 am
by Gnome
J Lac is a hater and takes glee in predicting gloom and doom for the Skins. This article is based on his musings in his blog about how Gibbs and Bugel couldn't see what he saw with Heyer. He predicted gloom and doom with Heyer and protecting Campbell and he nearly got it, and this article is a childish 'I told you so!'
First - Heyer is a four week experiment. Samuels is the starter and one of the best in the league.
Second - It's preseason, when you put young guys out there and let them learn under fire.
Third - Heyer isn't getting blown up. The hit that hurt Jason was illegal. It wasn't like Heyer and Pucillo laid down. The hit was low and late. And watch highlights from around the league. QB's get sacked on other teams too - get over it.
Last - Why not praise Gibbs and Bugel for finding a kid who can play and having the guts to play him? Hasn't that been a washington post sticking point over the years? They don't go for rookies, only veteran free agents? And then J Lac says the O-Line has no depth. Huh? Isn't that what Heyer is all about? Creating depth? Once Samuels is back, Heyer rides the bench for 16 games.
Bottom Line - J Lac is chicken little and can find doom in a sunrise.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:35 am
by Redskin in Canada
Heyer has -potential- to develop in the future. He would mean real trouble on the blind side if Samuels gets hurt again during the regular season.
I feel that he has the right physical attributes. His mental concentration, however, leaves a bit to be desired. This is a mental game as much as a physical game and he has concentration lapses in in his assignments.
I would even agree that his physical position is not optimal but that will improve with practice and further coaching. Overall, he should be kept for now as a backup with a view to develop in the future but the blind side position has always been a prime position in the NFL and I would not be surprised if the Skins bring somebody with much more talent and ability as the years go on and wear and tear take their share of Chris Samuels.
I expect Heyer to make the 53 roster.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:16 am
by Fios
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.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:26 am
by SkinsFreak
Gnome wrote:J Lac is a hater and takes glee in predicting gloom and doom for the Skins. This article is based on his musings in his blog about how Gibbs and Bugel couldn't see what he saw with Heyer. He predicted gloom and doom with Heyer and protecting Campbell and he nearly got it, and this article is a childish 'I told you so!'
First - Heyer is a four week experiment. Samuels is the starter and one of the best in the league.
Second - It's preseason, when you put young guys out there and let them learn under fire.
Third - Heyer isn't getting blown up. The hit that hurt Jason was illegal. It wasn't like Heyer and Pucillo laid down. The hit was low and late. And watch highlights from around the league. QB's get sacked on other teams too - get over it.
Last - Why not praise Gibbs and Bugel for finding a kid who can play and having the guts to play him? Hasn't that been a washington post sticking point over the years? They don't go for rookies, only veteran free agents? And then J Lac says the O-Line has no depth. Huh? Isn't that what Heyer is all about? Creating depth? Once Samuels is back, Heyer rides the bench for 16 games.
Bottom Line - J Lac is chicken little and can find doom in a sunrise.
I agree on all points. And Fios has a good point as well. I would rank Bugel and Gibbs at the top of my list of coaches that can groom an o-line.
Heyer is an undrafted rookie free agent who has been thrown in the fire. I feel he is holding up pretty good for a rookie and I'd expect him to miss an assignment once in a while. He is not the starter, he is a rookie back-up getting some much needed work and live reps.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:54 am
by num1skinsfan
He's getting valuable game experience. Joe Bugel see's something and I'm OK with that, let's give the kid a chance. When Samuels comes back we will have a decent backup for the regular season run.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:28 am
by VetSkinsFan
That questionable hit that you saw, it may have been late, but Heyer completely missed that block. The only reason it WASN'T a sack was htat the defender stumbled and dove at JC. He was low and shouldn't have dove, but he did. There have been more than a few missed blocks on that side. The guy may have potential for the future, but he shouldn't be playing with the starters. Practice squad would do him some good IMO. I erad an article this morning that said that 32 teams had an average of SEVEN chances ot draft him and didn't.... there's a reason for it.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:31 am
by Mursilis
I can't help but wonder if everyone would be saying the same thing if Keisel (Heyer's missed assignment) had actually done more damage to Campbell's knee Sat. night and he were lost for the season.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:39 am
by Chris Luva Luva
Heyer missed the block completely? How did the defender end up on the ground? I remeber seeing the defender on the ground, then he got on all fours and lunged at JC. He didn't have unimpeded access to JC...
Heyer is doing great under the circumstances. He's not replacing Samuels today, he's replacing him in 3 years or so.
Hopefully we can find an equally talented kid in the draft for LG next year.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:54 am
by BernieSki
VetSkinsFan wrote: I read an article this morning that said that 32 teams had an average of SEVEN chances to draft him and didn't.... there's a reason for it.
So with that wisdom, I guess that there are no good players in this league that did not get drafted?
"Who says NFL scouts know everything? They missed on Antonio Gates, now considered the best tight end in football. They missed on Kurt Warner, who merely became a two-time NFL Most Valuable Player and an MVP of the Super Bowl. And on Rod Smith, who's fourth on the career yards receiving list among active players. All those players didn't go in the first round of the draft. In fact, they didn't go in any rounds"
JEROME MINERVA
The Associated Press
Monday, April 24, 2006
More undrafted players:
Preist Holmes, Willie Parker, Jake Delhomme, Adewale Ogunleye, Brian Finneran, London Fletcher, Joe Andruzzi, Jon Kitna, Antonio Pierce, Jeff Garcia, Hank Fraley, Hollis Thomas, David Patten, Mike Sellers, James Thrash.
32 Teams had an average of 7 chances to draft these guys and didn't, I guess they had a reason for it?

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:16 am
by Fios
BernieSki wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote: I read an article this morning that said that 32 teams had an average of SEVEN chances to draft him and didn't.... there's a reason for it.
So with that wisdom, I guess that there are no good players in this league that did not get drafted?
"Who says NFL scouts know everything? They missed on Antonio Gates, now considered the best tight end in football. They missed on Kurt Warner, who merely became a two-time NFL Most Valuable Player and an MVP of the Super Bowl. And on Rod Smith, who's fourth on the career yards receiving list among active players. All those players didn't go in the first round of the draft. In fact, they didn't go in any rounds"
JEROME MINERVA
The Associated Press
Monday, April 24, 2006
More undrafted players:
Preist Holmes, Willie Parker, Jake Delhomme, Adewale Ogunleye, Brian Finneran, London Fletcher, Joe Andruzzi, Jon Kitna, Antonio Pierce, Jeff Garcia, Hank Fraley, Hollis Thomas, David Patten, Mike Sellers, James Thrash.
32 Teams had an average of 7 chances to draft these guys and didn't, I guess they had a reason for it?

You're going to confuse people if you start bringing rational thought to the table, the draft is an infallible process, every undrafted player is awful and all players taken are worthy of the spot in which they were drafted.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:19 am
by SkinsFreak
VetSkinsFan wrote: The guy may have potential for the future, but he shouldn't be playing with the starters.
My memory does escape me from time to time, but I seem to recall the reason why Heyer is playing is because
our starter at LT is injured ... and this is
only preseason! Geez people...
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:21 am
by Fios
SkinsFreak wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote: The guy may have potential for the future, but he shouldn't be playing with the starters.
My memory does escape me from time to time, but I seem to recall the reason why Heyer is playing is because
our starter at LT is injured ... and this is
only preseason! Geez people...
Don't think, don't try to see a larger purpose, don't look down the road, just react, life is much easier that way
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:23 am
by SkinsFreak
Mursilis wrote:I can't help but wonder if everyone would be saying the same thing if Keisel (Heyer's missed assignment) had actually done more damage to Campbell's knee Sat. night and he were lost for the season.
I can't help but wonder what some would be saying about a ROOKIE if Campbell didn't get hurt at all.
Um, it's preseason ... our starter is hurt ... is this not the time to evaluate young players?
If Heyer shouldn't be in there, then who should and why?
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:34 am
by Fios
I always love that the "unnamed NFL executives" (ah, blind sourcing ... another word for coward) who "watched X player closely" in ONE game have such a remarkable ability to see fatal flaws in a player that the architect of some of the greatest offensive lines ever is somehow blind to despite having spent, literally, weeks with said player.
Somehow, last season, Bugel knew enough to put together an offensive line that ended up with the fourth-best rushing attack in the league while allowing the third-fewest sacks in the league. Mind you, the Redskins have given up fewer sacks every single year since Bugel's return. This was thanks, in large part, to his work developing a certain right guard who hadn't been all that impressive in the past. But, this season, he's lost his ability to gauge talent and the line is in serious trouble. Makes perfect sense. Unnamed NFL execs can rot in a grave, their opinions aren't worth the paper they've been printed on. If they were, we'd be looking at 32 tremendous offensive lines every season.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:37 am
by Mursilis
SkinsFreak wrote:Mursilis wrote:I can't help but wonder if everyone would be saying the same thing if Keisel (Heyer's missed assignment) had actually done more damage to Campbell's knee Sat. night and he were lost for the season.
I can't help but wonder what some would be saying about a ROOKIE if Campbell didn't get hurt at all.
Um, it's preseason ... our starter is hurt ... is this not the time to evaluate young players?
If Heyer shouldn't be in there, then who should and why?
Maybe Wade (with Pucillo in at guard), a guy who's actually started multiple regular seasons as a tackle in the NFL?
Look, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the idea of seeing how Heyer does in actual game situations - after all, it is
preseason - but I seriously doubt Heyer would be replacing Samuels if this were the regular season. Additionally, I don't doubt most of the fans and even the coaching staff itself would be second-guessing the use of Heyer with the starters if JC had actually been lost for the season Sat. night. Especially after pass protection was such an obvious issue in the Tenn. game.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:40 am
by Mursilis
Fios wrote:I always love that the "unnamed NFL executives" (ah, blind sourcing) who "watched X player closely" have such a remarkable ability to see fatal flaws in a player that the architect of some of the best offensive lines ever is somehow blind to despite having spent, literally, weeks with said player.
Somehow, last season, Bugel knew enough to put together an offensive line that ended up with the fourth-best rushing attack in the league while allowing the third-fewest sacks in the league. But this season he's lost his ability to gauge talent and the line is in serious trouble. Makes perfect sense.
Seems like both ideas
could be true. I don't doubt Bugel is the best, or one of the best, O-line coaches in the league. 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.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:47 am
by Irn-Bru
Mursilis wrote:Seems like both ideas could be true. I don't doubt Bugel is the best, or one of the best, O-line coaches in the league. 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.
I agree, and I think that it's important to note in the same breath that it is likely that the Skins will not need Heyer to play at all this year, so Bugel not only has found talent that he likes, but he's also got the time to develop it.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:48 am
by SkinsFreak
Mursilis wrote:Fios 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?
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:49 am
by SkinsFreak
Fios wrote:I always love that the "unnamed NFL executives" (ah, blind sourcing ... another word for coward) who "watched X player closely" in ONE game have such a remarkable ability to see fatal flaws in a player that the architect of some of the greatest offensive lines ever is somehow blind to despite having spent, literally, weeks with said player.
Somehow, last season, Bugel knew enough to put together an offensive line that ended up with the fourth-best rushing attack in the league while allowing the third-fewest sacks in the league. Mind you, the Redskins have given up fewer sacks every single year since Bugel's return. This was thanks, in large part, to his work developing a certain right guard who hadn't been all that impressive in the past. But, this season, he's lost his ability to gauge talent and the line is in serious trouble. Makes perfect sense. Unnamed NFL execs can rot in a grave, their opinions aren't worth the paper they've been printed on. If they were, we'd be looking at 32 tremendous offensive lines every season.
Is there a way we can forward that statement to Chicken Little (JLC)?
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:51 am
by Irn-Bru
SkinsFreak wrote:Fios wrote:I always love that the "unnamed NFL executives" (ah, blind sourcing ... another word for coward) who "watched X player closely" in ONE game have such a remarkable ability to see fatal flaws in a player that the architect of some of the greatest offensive lines ever is somehow blind to despite having spent, literally, weeks with said player.
Somehow, last season, Bugel knew enough to put together an offensive line that ended up with the fourth-best rushing attack in the league while allowing the third-fewest sacks in the league. Mind you, the Redskins have given up fewer sacks every single year since Bugel's return. This was thanks, in large part, to his work developing a certain right guard who hadn't been all that impressive in the past. But, this season, he's lost his ability to gauge talent and the line is in serious trouble. Makes perfect sense. Unnamed NFL execs can rot in a grave, their opinions aren't worth the paper they've been printed on. If they were, we'd be looking at 32 tremendous offensive lines every season.
Is there a way we can forward that statement to Chicken Little (JLC)?
Yes, just call yourself an "inside league source" and he will quote you in his next report. Well, unless what you say is positive. . .so Fios' comment might not get in.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:52 am
by SkinsFreak
Irn-Bru wrote:SkinsFreak wrote:Fios wrote:I always love that the "unnamed NFL executives" (ah, blind sourcing ... another word for coward) who "watched X player closely" in ONE game have such a remarkable ability to see fatal flaws in a player that the architect of some of the greatest offensive lines ever is somehow blind to despite having spent, literally, weeks with said player.
Somehow, last season, Bugel knew enough to put together an offensive line that ended up with the fourth-best rushing attack in the league while allowing the third-fewest sacks in the league. Mind you, the Redskins have given up fewer sacks every single year since Bugel's return. This was thanks, in large part, to his work developing a certain right guard who hadn't been all that impressive in the past. But, this season, he's lost his ability to gauge talent and the line is in serious trouble. Makes perfect sense. Unnamed NFL execs can rot in a grave, their opinions aren't worth the paper they've been printed on. If they were, we'd be looking at 32 tremendous offensive lines every season.
Is there a way we can forward that statement to Chicken Little (JLC)?
Yes, just call yourself an "inside league source" and he will quote you in his next report. Well, unless what you say is positive. . .so Fios' comment might not get in.

Sad, but true.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:54 am
by Mursilis
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.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:10 am
by SkinsFreak
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?
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:24 am
by Mursilis
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.