The Redskins want to replace Jon Jansen for good

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Goat

What's w/ all the negativity surrounding Thomas/Kelly. First of all, have you watched vids of Thomas w/ the ball in his hand? His athleticism is off the chart... I'll say right now that after Moss this kid will be the most explosive player on offense WHEN HE HAS THE BALL IN HIS HANDS. And that's the crux of it. He never learned to run routes and, oh what a surprise, has shown poor hands. HIXON! Who's f'ing job is it to see that the 2 rookies in your group 1) take the off-season serious 2) learn the playbook like the back if their hand 3) learn to run crisp routes. What's the problem... Hixon has too many other responsibilities. RIDICULOUS. Meanwhile Kelly was an excellent route runner in college and had great hands... gets to Redskin Park and looks like he's a basketball player in football pads.

... please don't throw our rookies under the bus when their direct coach has never developed an NFL player in his entire career. The only real mistake the FO has made this year, and it's a huge one IMO, is keeping Hixon on the staff.

I normally agree with your analysis' of the situation, but the assumption that Hixon is all that is wrong with the development of our receivers, and using youtube type evidence to support it is something I strongly disagree with.

There is clearly no objective reason to believe that Hixon has any control over the long-term development over the young receivers. He's one of many coaches that these gentlemen have had over the life of their football careers, and it's a self-serving argument to ignore their development until last year in considering why a player with "youtube" skills and combine numbers could possibly ever bust.

Furthermore, it's probably very, very wrong. To make the assumption that there's anything Hixon should have done that would have changed their plight...if not wrong, it's something that you can't pretend to know from the information that we have as fans.

You've heard the phrase "correlation does not equal causation", well, this is you ignoring that really, really obviously.