Breed
Well-Known Member
I have a better reason and it begins with Washington beating Carolina with, the rookie Haskins as starter and ends with Ron Rivera's dismissal. Petty? Absolutely!! but how else do we explain some of these early decisions, especially that "Test" that he offered as lending itself to some disappointment because Haskins didn't throw it into the end zone?
Next, it is altogether possible that trading for Kyle Allen was the clue leading to an intent to not play DH at some point. Let's be honest, without Allen the choice came down to starting Haskins or Smith who wasn't fully recovered. Add Allen to the mix and the decision comes down to starting Allen or Haskins. Forgoing, Haskins at the beginning of the season in favor of Allen and he might have been run out of town on a rail.
Finally, I don't believe that there's one HC, player or attentive fan who is unaware of an upcoming NFL schedule for their teams. Almost everyone looks at these schedules in order to figure out possible wins or losses leading to a successful season. With this in mind, I have zero doubts that Ron Rivera saw this schedule, and as the season played out, decided to play Allen in order to make that trade seem more valuable when starting him against far weaker opponents. How does this factor into the handling of DH? Well, if you have more confidence in the guy that you spent assets in trading for, than the one that you've inherited, well...
That's a little too petty imo. Besides, its not like DH lit Carolina up. 13.25 147 yd 0TDs 0INTs.
What did Carolina in that day was 129 yards by Guice on 10 carries, 2 TDs, and AD's 99 yards on 13 carries, 1 TD.
Was it a good sign or a good thing for DH that RR brought Allen with hi9m. Nope, but it can be explained that Allen knew his offense and in a year with no OTCs or preseason that was a valuable asset to know and was also two-fold. In having a QB who knew RR's system and could teach it to Haskins and Smith. If that game against Carolina did anything far as how RR saw Haskins. I'd say he was clearly not impressed at all.
All that said. I'd like know how much if any of those negative that were circulated about Haskins were on point. Cuz if so, he probably needed benching. To render him inactive, that was hardcore right there. Was it warranted, I can't call it.