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

I'm kinda sick of his non-action. What up wid dat?

Anyone feel the same? I like the kid and all, got ball skills when healthy but ...................come on Man..!!!

Shoulda, coulda, woulda (during the off season???). He'd be healthier if he came to camp and ota's....???

Report: D-Jax unlikely to play Week 7 vs. TB
ESPN's Britt McHenry reports DeSean Jackson (hamstring) is not expected to play Week 7 against the Bucs.
Jackson suffered a setback in practice last Thursday and now appears to be back on the shelf after initially injuring his hamstring Week 1. A 3-4 week injury has now turned into six weeks with no return date set. Rookie Jamison Crowder will continue to get the bulk of the targets behind No. 1 receiver Pierre Garcon.

SI reporting him likely out again this weekend:

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/10/21/washin ... ate-week-7

Washington Redskins wide receiver DeSean Jackson will likely miss his team’s Week 7 matchup against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on Sunday, reports ESPN’s Britt McHenry.

Jackson sustained a hamstring injury during Washington’s 17–10 loss to Miami in Week 1. The three-time Pro Bowler was originally expected to miss just three to four weeks with the injury, but he has not played since Week 1.

He's a great player, but missing six games with a hamstring? Too unreliable and too much money to keep him here next year. I would pay Garcon and look for another option at WR.

I've been saying this for the past two drafts that we shouldn't be afraid to pull the trigger on a WR just because we had Garcon/DJax. In 2014 when we drafted Murphy in the second round, we could have had Davante Adams, Allen Robinson or Jarvis Landry to name a few. All starting caliber WRs who don't cost $9m/year.

With the bye week coming up, there's no reason to bring him back this week unless he was 100 percent IMO.

DEHog wrote:With the bye week coming up, there's no reason to bring him back this week unless he was 100 percent IMO.

Yeah its the smart move, I get that. Better to miss one more game and allow him the extra rest time than bring him back too early and risk extending the injury time. And to be fair, if you've had a hamstring injury you know what a b**** it is too.

Still not sure I'd bring him back next year at that number.

DJax is wasted on this team anyway. Not one quarterback on this roster who will actually be playing can get him the football. He may as well take the year off.

It's frustrating, but I understand holding him out until after the bye week. We're going to need him against the Pats.

StorminMormon86 wrote:It's frustrating, but I understand holding him out until after the bye week. We're going to need him against the Pats.

Yea, so he can pull the other hamstring.

riggofan wrote:SI reporting him likely out again this weekend:

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/10/21/washin ... ate-week-7

Washington Redskins wide receiver DeSean Jackson will likely miss his team’s Week 7 matchup against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on Sunday, reports ESPN’s Britt McHenry.

Jackson sustained a hamstring injury during Washington’s 17–10 loss to Miami in Week 1. The three-time Pro Bowler was originally expected to miss just three to four weeks with the injury, but he has not played since Week 1.

He's a great player, but missing six games with a hamstring? Too unreliable and too much money to keep him here next year. I would pay Garcon and look for another option at WR.

I've been saying this for the past two drafts that we shouldn't be afraid to pull the trigger on a WR just because we had Garcon/DJax. In 2014 when we drafted Murphy in the second round, we could have had Davante Adams, Allen Robinson or Jarvis Landry to name a few. All starting caliber WRs who don't cost $9m/year.

1 He re-injured it trying to come back too soon.
2 Hammeys are notoriously slow to heal due to low blood flow.
3 if Scott thought a WR was the best player available, he would have pulled the trigger.

tribeofjudah wrote:I'm kinda sick of his non-action. What up wid dat?

Anyone feel the same? I like the kid and all, got ball skills when healthy but ...................come on Man..!!!

Shoulda, coulda, woulda (during the off season???). He'd be healthier if he came to camp and ota's....???

Report: D-Jax unlikely to play Week 7 vs. TB
ESPN's Britt McHenry reports DeSean Jackson (hamstring) is not expected to play Week 7 against the Bucs.
Jackson suffered a setback in practice last Thursday and now appears to be back on the shelf after initially injuring his hamstring Week 1. A 3-4 week injury has now turned into six weeks with no return date set. Rookie Jamison Crowder will continue to get the bulk of the targets behind No. 1 receiver Pierre Garcon.

so... You've never had a hammy injury, I see...

yupchagee wrote:

riggofan wrote:SI reporting him likely out again this weekend:

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/10/21/washin ... ate-week-7

Washington Redskins wide receiver DeSean Jackson will likely miss his team’s Week 7 matchup against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on Sunday, reports ESPN’s Britt McHenry.

Jackson sustained a hamstring injury during Washington’s 17–10 loss to Miami in Week 1. The three-time Pro Bowler was originally expected to miss just three to four weeks with the injury, but he has not played since Week 1.

He's a great player, but missing six games with a hamstring? Too unreliable and too much money to keep him here next year. I would pay Garcon and look for another option at WR.

I've been saying this for the past two drafts that we shouldn't be afraid to pull the trigger on a WR just because we had Garcon/DJax. In 2014 when we drafted Murphy in the second round, we could have had Davante Adams, Allen Robinson or Jarvis Landry to name a few. All starting caliber WRs who don't cost $9m/year.

1 He re-injured it trying to come back too soon.
2 Hammeys are notoriously slow to heal due to low blood flow.
3 if Scott thought a WR was the best player available, he would have pulled the trigger.

I hope you're right about #3. Scot wasn't here when we drafted Murphy in 2014, so can't blame him for that.

And yeah I've had that injury myself and totally agree with you about the hamstring. There's just nothing to be done about it once it happens. I'm more annoyed that he picked up the injury in the first place though than the time its taken to heal.

Countertrey wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:I'm kinda sick of his non-action. What up wid dat?

Anyone feel the same? I like the kid and all, got ball skills when healthy but ...................come on Man..!!!

Shoulda, coulda, woulda (during the off season???). He'd be healthier if he came to camp and ota's....???

Report: D-Jax unlikely to play Week 7 vs. TB
ESPN's Britt McHenry reports DeSean Jackson (hamstring) is not expected to play Week 7 against the Bucs.
Jackson suffered a setback in practice last Thursday and now appears to be back on the shelf after initially injuring his hamstring Week 1. A 3-4 week injury has now turned into six weeks with no return date set. Rookie Jamison Crowder will continue to get the bulk of the targets behind No. 1 receiver Pierre Garcon.

so... You've never had a hammy injury, I see...

I haven't pulled a hammy, but I recently fractured my distal radius & it is healing slowly do in part to low blood flow. Of course, in my case, superannuation is also a factor.

Let's stop acting like Scott doesn't make mistakes. The Pats took a guard in round 4 and he is playing just as well as the guard we took #5 overall. I watched this past game again and our #5 overall guard gets beat often. He has made some good picks, but he has made errors as well. So to make comments like, if Scott thought a receiver was available he would have pulled the trigger is getting a little old because he misses too. He had some early round misses in Seattle and with the 49ers as well.

I like the guy, but we shouldn't discredit a comment because Scott didn't do it.

Now to get back on topic, we did bring in Crowder this year and he is proving beneficial. We probably have game planning issues that would've prevented WR's like Landry, Adams, etc. from thriving so oh well. If a guard was worth a #5 pick last year, maybe we can get a center with the #5 pick this year. At least they call out the protection.

I wish Scott the best of luck, and based on the past we are acting like he can do no wrong, but lets take off the rosey glasses and evaluate him the same way we have Cousins, Griff, etc.

Okay, back on topic, we need people we can rely on, and that doesn't include Djax. I love him when he is on the field, so this year I can't stand him because he hasn't.

SKIN4LIFE wrote:Let's stop acting like Scott doesn't make mistakes. The Pats took a guard in round 4 and he is playing just as well as the guard we took #5 overall. I watched this past game again and our #5 overall guard gets beat often. He has made some good picks, but he has made errors as well. So to make comments like, if Scott thought a receiver was available he would have pulled the trigger is getting a little old because he misses too. He had some early round misses in Seattle and with the 49ers as well.

Everyone has misses. The draft is basically a lottery; some teams have talent evaluators who hit slightly more often than they miss, but the biggest correlation with successful drafts is the number of picks a team has.

Anyway, saying that we made a mistake not drafting a WR misses the mark: 20% of our picks this year were on wide receivers, as well as several of our UDFAs, one of whom made the squad. We definitely didn't ignore WR talent this offseason just because we have two good starters, including one Pro Bowl caliber player.

I heard the other day that Bill Bellicheat has never taken a WR in the 1st round - he did once before but it was when he was with the Browns

I'm sure the 5th pick will prove to be a great NFL player - looks good so far

Irn-Bru wrote:

SKIN4LIFE wrote:Let's stop acting like Scott doesn't make mistakes. The Pats took a guard in round 4 and he is playing just as well as the guard we took #5 overall. I watched this past game again and our #5 overall guard gets beat often. He has made some good picks, but he has made errors as well. So to make comments like, if Scott thought a receiver was available he would have pulled the trigger is getting a little old because he misses too. He had some early round misses in Seattle and with the 49ers as well.

Everyone has misses. The draft is basically a lottery; some teams have talent evaluators who hit slightly more often than they miss, but the biggest correlation with successful drafts is the number of picks a team has.

Anyway, saying that we made a mistake not drafting a WR misses the mark: 20% of our picks this year were on wide receivers, as well as several of our UDFAs, one of whom made the squad. We definitely didn't ignore WR talent this offseason just because we have two good starters, including one Pro Bowl caliber player.

To say it’s like the lottery is to insinuate that you or I could pick players without any training or background in football. What science is involved with winning the lottery? I would compare it more to the stock market, there are past performances to go by and the more experienced you are the more winners you pick. I would hate to see SM have the winning percentage of a lottery player

DEHog wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

SKIN4LIFE wrote:Let's stop acting like Scott doesn't make mistakes. The Pats took a guard in round 4 and he is playing just as well as the guard we took #5 overall. I watched this past game again and our #5 overall guard gets beat often. He has made some good picks, but he has made errors as well. So to make comments like, if Scott thought a receiver was available he would have pulled the trigger is getting a little old because he misses too. He had some early round misses in Seattle and with the 49ers as well.

Everyone has misses. The draft is basically a lottery; some teams have talent evaluators who hit slightly more often than they miss, but the biggest correlation with successful drafts is the number of picks a team has.

Anyway, saying that we made a mistake not drafting a WR misses the mark: 20% of our picks this year were on wide receivers, as well as several of our UDFAs, one of whom made the squad. We definitely didn't ignore WR talent this offseason just because we have two good starters, including one Pro Bowl caliber player.

To say it’s like the lottery is to insinuate that you or I could pick players without any training or background in football. What science is involved with winning the lottery? I would compare it more to the stock market, there are past performances to go by and the more experienced you are the more winners you pick. I would hate to see SM have the winning percentage of a lottery player

Well, they can't all be 1981 but if they're all 2014 it would be hard to complain. If you get two starters and two or three reserves out of a draft it has to be deemed successful.

anyone that has any sense can see that the players Scot and the FO have brought in, have helped make the roster better ...

nit picking ... it seems to me

Irn-Bru wrote:Anyway, saying that we made a mistake not drafting a WR misses the mark: 20% of our picks this year were on wide receivers, as well as several of our UDFAs, one of whom made the squad. We definitely didn't ignore WR talent this offseason just because we have two good starters, including one Pro Bowl caliber player.

Irn-Bru: first off, I didn't have a problem at all with the draft this year, was talking specifically about 2014. I'm pretty sure you'll agree that we reached badly on Trent Murphy in the second round that year. I'm still not entirely sure why. Looking at the way the board shook out this year, I don't have any problem with the choices Scot made.

Secondly, its great that 20% of our picks were on WRs. But taking WRs in the fourth and fifth round is not comparable to going after a guy in the earlier rounds and you know that. My point was that if a WR was the top talent on the board we should not be afraid to take one. The assumption that we were set at WR because we had Garcon and DJax was shortsighted and flat out wrong.

riggofan wrote:My point was that if a WR was the top talent on the board we should not be afraid to take one. The assumption that we were set at WR because we had Garcon and DJax was shortsighted and flat out wrong.

I don't think Scot made that assumption, and wouldn't be afraid to take a WR anywhere if he thought he was BPA.

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:My point was that if a WR was the top talent on the board we should not be afraid to take one. The assumption that we were set at WR because we had Garcon and DJax was shortsighted and flat out wrong.

I don't think Scot made that assumption, and wouldn't be afraid to take a WR anywhere if he thought he was BPA.

Like I wrote, I have no issue with Scot's draft this year. The draft I'm pointing to is 2014 which was Bruce.

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:My point was that if a WR was the top talent on the board we should not be afraid to take one. The assumption that we were set at WR because we had Garcon and DJax was shortsighted and flat out wrong.

I don't think Scot made that assumption, and wouldn't be afraid to take a WR anywhere if he thought he was BPA.

Like I wrote, I have no issue with Scot's draft this year. The draft I'm pointing to is 2014 which was Bruce.

I'm still not enamored with the Scherff pick. I know the offensive line was a disaster last season but we still have no pass rush and I'm not convinced a healthy Junior Galette changes that.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:but we still have no pass rush and I'm not convinced a healthy Junior Galette changes that.

What are you talking about? Our pass rush isn't in the top 5, but it's not that bad.

riggofan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Anyway, saying that we made a mistake not drafting a WR misses the mark: 20% of our picks this year were on wide receivers, as well as several of our UDFAs, one of whom made the squad. We definitely didn't ignore WR talent this offseason just because we have two good starters, including one Pro Bowl caliber player.

Irn-Bru: first off, I didn't have a problem at all with the draft this year, was talking specifically about 2014. I'm pretty sure you'll agree that we reached badly on Trent Murphy in the second round that year. I'm still not entirely sure why. Looking at the way the board shook out this year, I don't have any problem with the choices Scot made.

Secondly, its great that 20% of our picks were on WRs. But taking WRs in the fourth and fifth round is not comparable to going after a guy in the earlier rounds and you know that. My point was that if a WR was the top talent on the board we should not be afraid to take one. The assumption that we were set at WR because we had Garcon and DJax was shortsighted and flat out wrong.

I don't think there was an assumption by this team that we were set at WR. Just like they didn't think we were set at RB and weren't afraid to take Jones as the top talent on the board in the 3rd round.

Irn-Bru wrote:I don't think there was an assumption by this team that we were set at WR. Just like they didn't think we were set at RB and weren't afraid to take Jones as the top talent on the board in the 3rd round.

I don't know. Maybe they really, really loved Trent Murphy. But 2014 was believed to be a deep draft for WRs. I just find it hard to believe that some of those WRs who were on the board when we picked Trent didn't have better draft grades. I think Bruce believed we had enough wrapped up in the position and went for need. Just my personal opinion.

I agree with your Jones example, but again the difference there is that McCloughan was in charge of the 2015 draft. From what he's said publicly this year, I believe that he'll be better at drafting to stock the team for the future than trying to fill immediate holes.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I'm still not enamored with the Scherff pick. I know the offensive line was a disaster last season but we still have no pass rush and I'm not convinced a healthy Junior Galette changes that.

I'm 95% certain our pass rush would have been considerably better with Galette.

I know some would have preferred Leonard Williams, fair enough. But we got a day one starter on the offensive line in Scherff, so I don't have any problem with that. He's been good so far, and I expect he'll get better.

Personally the thing I've enjoyed most about this season has been seeing Long, LeRib, Scherff and Moses all starting last week. I hope those guys + Trent start the rest of the season.