• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About thesubmittedone

  • Rank
    The Coach
  • Birthday 12/23/1983

Contact Methods

  • Redskins Fan Since
    Since I can remember
  • Favorite Redskin
    Joe Gibbs
  • Location
    Usually home, I'm boring
  1. Here, let me address the confusion and make the entire "title" question a non-factor in this discussion. Is the best personnel guy in charge of personnel and the scouting department, and does he have the title to respresent that? That is all that matters and all we should be concerned with. Don't care if that person is given the title of "GM" (which traditionally represented the above) or if they name it "Executive Assistant Secretary Personnel Dude who is in Charge of Personnel and Scouting, Mmmkay". And it doesn't matter whom he works for or under so long as he has the power to fulfill that role. That is what should happen. Period. If it doesn't, we aren't doing the right thing and are operating differently from successful franchises besides the very exceptional and rare cases. But, yeah, let's risk it and try to be one of those cases!
  2. The Cousins thread got closed down and no one has spawn another on yet are we not suppose to talk about Cousins for some in definite time?

  3. Ok... just watched this: Can't say I'm optimistic they'll do the right thing and hire a legit GM, though I think the odds of that were long gone some time ago when we all saw the Colts and Bills be, uhm, normal in the way they went about things. The next best thing, however, would be to bring in quality execs and assistants with scouting backgrounds to take over whatever roles/responsibilities that were assumed by others after Scot's departure as necessary. That being said, when Bruce mentioned they "learned a lot" about "strategies and structures" of different Front Offices I had to roll my eyes. I mean, really? Did you learn the vast majority of them aren't different? Also, did you learn that virtually the entirety of successful ones operate a certain way? Good, gooooood.
  4. Was about to post all this myself in here. It's good news in terms of words, but the actions will mean more, as always. I really hope we get some news soon of solid hires and a Front Office structured properly.
  5. It's kiiiiind of important (I know you said not "that" important, just adding here) because it does add a teeny weeny bit of value to an otherwise totally useless, as @ConnSKINS26 pointed out, list. It means that each player that makes the top 100 was on enough top 20 lists by individual players to do so. So there are players out there who think Cousins, Reed, Norman and Trent are top 20 players in the entire NFL. Might only be guys on our team doing that but, hey, they're picking them out of the rest of our guys.