• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About thesubmittedone

Contact Methods

  • Redskins Fan Since
    Since I can remember
  • Favorite Redskin
    Joe Gibbs
  • Location
    Usually home, I'm boring
  1. Yes, that's actually exactly what it means. And that's extremely important because it means there's a unified vision as well as the accountability that comes with it. That, in no way, negates group input or mutual consultation or collaboration. Yes, in the end what should've happened is that "Scot made the call" as you're claiming here with Case B. We actually don't know if that's what occurred there as things went awry. That's the question, and it's legitimate. I don't mean this condescendingly, but I honestly don't know what this example of yours has to do with anything I said or anyone else for that matter. Has anyone said that group input is not important or vital? The one with "final say" can choose to side with Gruden or choose to go against him. You seem to be explaining the organizational structure that SHOULD EXIST. You actually give Scot "final say" here in this example. That's what we're wondering about here, lol. Of course but, again, that doesn't negate final say. Furthermore, sometimes a coach can be wrong about his evaluation. He can be overly loyal, and that happens a LOT. Never mind the time-consuming nature of his job as it is and how hard it is to also give the necessary time to scouting/talent evaluation. So, yes, there are absolutely many instances where a GM would overrule the coach. That's crazy talk, brother. That is not some idealistic concept to keep fans happy. Having an army of scouts is about having people who can go places and see things for themselves since you can't be everywhere all at once yourself. Then they report back to you, as GM, but you've got to filter through all of those opinions. You've got to figure out which voices are correct and which ones aren't. I'm not sure how you arrive to that meaning their voices are worthless or that coaches are "yes men". This is standard organizational hierarchy stuff here. Final say doesn't mean that. Never has, or at least it shouldn't. It's about giving the experts in their respective fields that respective title and responsibility. So if you're the best talent-evaluator, you have final say on personnel acquisition. If you're the best coach, you have final say on the coaching staff, implementing schemes, and depth chart. None of this negates mutual consultation and collaboration. Good leadership is always inclusive of the leader's subjects, but that doesn't change the necessity of a leader. This isn't anything new or innovative here. The most consistently successful organizations in the league employ this organizational approach. Philosophically speaking, it's rare to find successful groups fulfilling their goals when there are too many chefs in the kitchen or "too many chiefs and no Indians" as the saying goes.
  2. The question is, could Scot choose to overpay for someone if he wanted to? How involved was he in the negotiations or setting the limits? Those are things that "final say" would include. It sounds like he had that with the draft, and could overrule anyone if he wanted, but outside of that? No. I'm just frustrated that here we are, once again, wondering what our organizational hierarchy and structure is really like. What titles, and their accompanying responsibilities, actually mean. Where reporters, and even players, can openly question it, too. I don't care who is at fault or not, at that point. Why this is a common thread with this team blows my mind and frustrates the crap out of me. And I don't get easily frustrated, nor am I the type to jump to negative conclusions about things. Yup, I don't think anyone has questioned whether or not personnel acquisition was a collaborative effort. Scot absolutely HAS to involve the coaches, scouting staff, etc... I don't think a single person has said he's alone in making decisions or should've been. What's being questioned here is "final say". Final say means he's the one who could, at any point, overrule or break a tie or go in a different direction than anyone else if he wanted to. We were directly told he had that with personnel. Did he or did he not? Are we going to give someone that power moving forward and, if so, who? Those are the questions now, and they're ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE.
  3. Disagree heavily. Any pick can be claimed to be "need" when looking into the future. Tell me what position we could draft in the upcoming draft at what's considered a solidified position right now and I can argue how that's "need based" if I wanted. It's very easy to do so and it doesn't provide evidence for what you're claiming. Here, I'll give a couple of examples about what I mean. TE isn't immediate need this year, but if we pick one I can say "Reed is always injured and Vernon is old, that's a need pick". Even a Tackle can be justified as need based, since Morgan Moses's contract is almost up and, oh, Trent Williams is another bong hit from a year long suspension. Again, this is easy to do. It wouldn't verify my claims that those were obviously "need picks" and not more BPA (and I know we both acknowledge there's no such thing as 100% BPA, position is weighted at least somewhat in their grades). As for your points about Sherff and Docston... Sherff was the best Olineman prospect in the 2015 draft, it's not hard to believe he was the BPA at all. Docston was at a position we were considered stacked at, and he may even be why we weren't more aggressive with DJax and Garcon this offseason. Drafting WR last year was not an immediate need. In fact, that's why so many criticized the pick. That we didn't need a WR and were desperate for a Dlinemen, or even just a defensive pick. Scot even said after last year's draft that he wanted to address Dline but it just didn't fall that way. I don't think he's blatantly lying there and, instead, was actively picking WR because of the upcoming contract situations with Djax/Garcon. I certainly hope it isn't. That's kind of my concern, actually. I don't want it to be. And I actually like when I hear Gruden say we'll draft BPA or Allen recently say we'll go by the final grade when asked about it. I like that more than hearing Gruden or Manusky imply that we'll likely address defense in the draft. But that's the concern because, if they aren't planning to reach/force a position, it could potentially mean we come out of the draft without an impact Dlineman or even an impact defensive player at any position. And then it's increasingly likely we're stuck with personnel that simply can't get it done on that side of the ball, just like last season. A bit of a side note... one thing I'll commend Allen for is the way we seem to save some cap space to be able to jump on a surprise cut during any given offseason. He actually mentioned it in his recent interview, that teams cut players right now and that they'll be ready for it. That's a positive, so who knows. Maybe there's some guy they think will come available.