thesubmittedone

Moderators
  • Content count

    13,670
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

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. We acknowledge at this point that Bruce is the de facto GM and has final say on personnel. I don't think anyone is disputing this so I'm not sure why that's important to talk about. And titles definitely are important. They shouldn't be meaningless or vague. They should accurately represent what one does within the organization and clearly define their roles. Furthermore, it's amazing just how many times "final say", and what it actually means based on basic organizational principles, has been clearly defined here yet there are still posts and posters who keep directly implying that it somehow means it's a "one-man show" or something like it. Even by the team itself, which just blows my mind. When Gibbs, Scot and Shanny were said to have "final say", all repeatedly asserted that every decision was a "Redskin decision". They all pointed towards those within the building who were involved. "Final say" DOES NOT CHANGE THAT. For the love of God, if I read one more time about the pros of a collaborative approach versus the cons of "final say", I'm going to pull my hair out! FINAL SAY DOES NOT NEGATE A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH!!!!! Every single person here should want the best personnel guy to have final say on personnel. Just like the best coach should have the Head Coach title and have final say on scheme, game-planning, depth chart, coaching, etc... It's that friggin simple. They don't ignore everyone else. They don't just make decisions on their own. They don't do everything themselves and refuse to delegate. If you're claiming that Bruce has final say but that it's ok because he will delegate to the experts, then why aren't you concerned he just won't give that authority to someone officially? How does that make sense? If you're trusting someone to do that, all the while he refuses to do it officially and openly... well, I'll just say you're way more trusting than you should be Are we ok, for instance, with Bruce being the "de facto Head Coach", not giving anyone that title, but just saying something like, "oh, no worries, he'll delegate properly and those decisions will be made by the right people"? So, yeah, the title given to the head personnel guy should include final say in personnel. As @Skinsinparadise just mentioned and as we've repeatedly mentioned a million times, it allows for clear accountability, clarity in decision-making and roles within the organization, experts of their specific fields handling those respective responsibilities, a process that makes it much more difficult for anyone to undermine said responsibilities and unwarrantedly interfere, and the greatest motivator one could have - direct ownership of your decisions. So that's just it, isn't it? That's our concern with this setup. Avoiding giving the best personnel guy a title that represents his expertise and final say in that suggests a lack of all of the above. Are there people at the top who want to undermine others whenever without any obstacles in organizational structure? Are there people at the top who do not want clear accountability so they can shift blame as they please? Are there people at the top who don't want the expert/s making those decisions so as to avoid confrontations if they disagree? Are there people at the top who don't want anyone to have real ownership of their decisions because, in the end, they want the credit? Those are all legitimate questions and concerns to have with this setup. Period. This is why it's unorthodox and rare. This is why most successful organizations don't employ such a setup. This is why we are bothered by it. To claim any of us who are bothered are just negative nancies or can't see anything Bruce has done that is good is nothing more than a deflection of the issue. Does this mean it's guaranteed to fail? Nope. Just that it's more likely to. It's also more likely to result in mediocrity instead of excellence, which is something they should be striving for. It also creates an inherent obstacle for those within the organization who are actually good at what they do to overcome, versus just being supported in the best way and elevated by their environment. So, yeah, skepticism and concern while acknowledging the apparent issues here are not only legitimate, but healthy. They do not suggest negativism. In fact, it's the opposite. I am, for instance, very pleased with some very important role players within the organization like Jay, Kirk and Schaffer. I don't know much about Doug's ability as a personnel guy or what he's done here, but I certainly don't want to see him fail. I don't want to see Bruce fail, either. I want them to be propped up. I want them placed in an environment entirely conducive to their success. I want them to be surrounded by the best and in the best way. I want them to be able to operate within their relative areas of expertise, have ownership of that without fear of ever being undermined or confused about where they stand, and not be put in a position to where they're making decisions they shouldn't be. I am worried, concerned, and bothered FOR them and not against them!
  2. Again, therein lies the problem. He says that but, yet, he doesn't structure the organization in a way that gives clear authority, final say, and the accompanying titles to those "he would seek" just like the majority of successful organizations? Yeah, what I see from your argument here is nothing but contradictory. If you're right and Bruce is all about that, this would be simple for him (and Dan for that matter). Just like it was when he hired a GM and gave him final say over personnel. What were your thoughts about that? Were you against it or for it? Why? Not sure what this has to do with anything. No one is arguing about "the leader of the entire team". We're saying we want the best personnel guy to be the head personnel guy and the authority to go along with it. This isn't difficult. The data shows this is the norm for most successful teams. As "leader of the team", Allen should have no problem hiring the best and assigning a title that gives them that role. If he doesn't, the criticisms are totally fair. Why are we in a philosophical debate about something neither of us knows about!? Because both of us SHOULD know! That's the whole friggin point. The fact that there are questions about whether or not Scot actually had the power he was DIRECTLY given, the fact that there are questions now about who is making what decision and there is no clear hierarchy, no real ownership of seperate responsibilities, and we have no idea just how much say each person really has... that's the entire point. That's the problem. I don't know how else to put this anymore. If you find nothing wrong with this, that's wonderful. I sincerely wish I could go back to the days of blissful ignorance regarding these basic organizational principles that create an environment conducive for success in the NFL... but I can't. They are doing things, organizationally, that fail more often than not. They are not following the model of the majority of successful organizations. Will it work out? Hopefully, but that doesn't change those facts. The data you posted should've helped you along in understanding this. I'm confused why it hasn't. No, the data shows those are rare exceptions. That's all. Call it hate, I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, that just shows you're full of **** about this because I know myself. I'm the last person who hates on the team or the organization. I don't have a shred of desire to be right about this or to see Bruce fail. It's the total opposite. I stay away from this thread as well and haven't posted in it for some time until the news came out about the "restructure". I get called a homer here all the time. For you to lecture me about hate? Please. It'd be nice if you stayed on track here in terms of the arguments being made. Don't lump me in some perceived group you've recognized that trashes Bruce to no end and doesn't give him any credit for anything. I'm directly focusing whatever ire I have towards Bruce (and Dan, even more so) about the hiring process and structure of the organization. That's it. How we've managed FA, the draft, etc... this recent offseason and others before it are another topic. And if you're talking about this recent one being great (which I agree with so long as they do extend Kirk) then you can't remove Scot from it. He played a significant role by all accounts. Some of us don't want to see that gone and would like to see someone with as strong of a personnel background continuing to play the role we were directly told he would when he was brought in. I guess we're just raging haters for that. Really, you can't see the difference? You just said it yourself, brother, "...your data being 'the past' but the past is not a binary success/failure". Are you saying we can't both acknowledge that without also acknowledging that the past is a great indicator of the future? Furthermore, it's also not just about "the past", it's about basic organizational principles that always remain true. We've given numerous examples of this that you, or anyone else, have yet to refute. So what I gather from you is you think Bruce is essentially alleviated of any faults or wrongdoing during his entire tenure here and elsewhere as GM or President . Hey, fine by me, hope you're right. But, again for the millionth time, I'm judging both Dan and Bruce on two levels; their hiring process and the structure of the organization RIGHT NOW that they've created. Just like I commended them for both of those things the last two years, I'm criticizing them for reverting back. If you think you can label that as unfair, "hate", or "venom" ... then I'm going to go ahead and label your position, as well. How about I go with ignorant of basic organizational principles, naive, and blindly in love with Bruce? I suggest we stay away from the labels. I can unequivocally state that I've changed my mind on this topic. In fact, I used to think exactly like you do until I researched the way the top organizations do things in the NFL, how it compared to the way we always had done things (which refreshingly changed with the Scot hire), how that's tied to the constant of so many of our hires coming here and failing (even at aspects of their jobs they've otherwise been successful at everywhere else they've been). Can you say the same? Have you changed at all?
  3. You got it right about Doug but Allen doesn't fit at all. That's not even a reach, it's false because we never said "player -> personnel". Here's my recent quote on this (bolded emphasis mine): I made it a point to say "in the pros for long careers". Mentioning Allen here shouldn't have happened if you presented the argument properly. But here's the thing. While Doug fits, he doesn't have final say does he? So we'll always wonder just how much control he has and exactly what were his decisions and what were not. You've mentioned numerous times how you don't mind having a guy who isn't strong in personnel because he can delegate... but don't you see that's the problem itself? How do you know he'll delegate if he can't even give those he's supposedly delegating personnel to final say (and an accompanying title that represents that) in those matters? Doesn't that suggest he's not really delegating to the degree you're claiming he should? I commended Bruce when he did just that with the Scot hire. I cannot simultaneously commend him for that (proper and beneficial) change and then continue to do so when our organizational structure reverts back. Like SIP said, we're arguing on two fronts here. Both the hiring process and the titles/roles/structure. Furthermore, there isn't anyone out there stating just how great Doug is as a talent evaluator. Putting everything together (title doesn't give him real authority, he wasn't a hot commodity known around the NFL for his expertise in personnel, and the structure of the organization being very similar to ones we've had in the past that have failed miserably), well, that makes it very difficult to be excited at all about these moves and not be extremely skeptical. No one has said it's a done deal and this'll fail. Just that, more often than not, it has in the past. The data you bring up really helps our arguments here, not the other way around. You and bedlam are talking about exceptions versus the rules. Looking at it deeper you see the more consistently successful franchises (past and present) employ the traditional structure we're advocating for. I've already posted about this numerous times in the past and have yet to see a single refutation of it. I might have to go find those posts. This data isn't new to me. SIP and I have personally done a ton of research on this topic together, via PM and other avenues as well. We're just tired of seeing this as Skins fans at this point. The facts remain that we have more of an unorthodox organizational structure different than the vast majority of teams, and the same goes for our hiring process. But, hey, as hard as it is to believe for me, and as foolish as I think they're being here, I really am thinking, "go Bruce and go Doug, prove us wrong and show the rest of the NFL you're smarter than everyone else"!
  4. @bedlamVR Your research should've led you to the same conclusions it led me to long ago, nothing like what you just posted on it. Just look at your list, again. First, the majority clearly do have extensive scouting backgrounds and, as @Skinsinparadise stated, it's about both personnel and scouting so it makes it even worse. And I've stated before, we shouldn't put Lynch or Elway in the category you did. They were both actual player personnel in the pros for long careers. The scouting they do by virtue of game film studying and playing side by side with other pro personnel is at least equal to or arguably worth more than just a "scouting background". Second, which side of your (not all-encompassing, I only count 23 teams in total) list has more consistently successful teams? Or was that essential factor unimportant to you? Third, you didn't even get into the titles/roles themselves and how the majority of successful franchises, both past and present, are structured. But, yeah, thanks for inadvertently proving our point.
  5. I get that, and I hope that's more what he meant, but even that for me suggests an underlying problem at the highest levels (rest of this isn't addressed to you, just putting down how I feel). I simply disagree with their devaluing of hierarchy and clearly defined roles with the authority to fulfill those roles without being undermined. When I hear stuff like that it just kills me, honestly. When I hear Schaffer saying his role hasn't really changed and he just received a title to go with what he's been doing all along (one of which is the vague "general counsel")? That's maddening to me on numerous levels. When I hear Bruce answer a question about the chain of command with, perhaps, the dumbest possible answer to that when he replied, "Well, the most important person is the person with the football at that time. We’re a football team.” I am simply dumbfounded by it. It's not just what Doug said. I can go on and on. This idea they're trying to push out there that "final say doesn't matter" and "group collaboration is everything" just pisses me off because it's a smack in the face to even the most basic understanding of organizational principles and the benefits of hierarchy. Furthermore, I've provided multiple posts here showing the structure of the vast majority of successful franchises in the NFL, past and present, that do it that way. They're all wrong and the Skins are right? Please. I hate that I feel the need to keep going over this and boring everyone with it, but final say never has and never will mean you don't collaborate. Mutual consultation, collaboration, establishing unified goals that all are working towards, etc... are not things that get devalued by any measure when you've got experts in their respective fields holding "final say". All it does is establish clear accountability and prevents confusion or being undermined unwarrantedly by those who aren't best suited to make the decision/s. Even more, it provides the greatest motivation for the individual because they get real ownership of their choices. Gruden is a great example of this. In both the hiring process in obtaining him (well, sort of) and his title/role. Hiring a very successful coordinator who handled his side of the ball is one of the safest bets in the pros, so while we can certainly question the hiring process itself (was it more about comfort and connections with Allen or actual qualifications?) the result was fine because he was actually qualified outside of that. As for his role, I want Gruden to have "final say" in coaching; including who his coaches are, the schemes we run, the players he plays, etc... He is the best coach we have, deserves his title, and should have those responsibilities without being undermined. It seems like he does, though it was bumpy initially. And we've been able to see the fruits of that. That doesn't mean he isn't collaborating with others in the building or that he shouldn't be gathering as much input as he possibly can from those around him. That's utter nonsense when anyone suggests such a thing. It gets tiring when I keep reading things here suggesting it's either/or. No, it's not. So the same goes for the guy at the head of our personnel department. I want the best guy in the building at that job in charge of it. I want him having a clearly defined role, and accompanying title, without being undermined when it comes to him fulfilling that. I don't want that guy being able to deflect blame on others above him (and legitimately so) when something goes wrong because he wasn't able to fulfill his role properly. We've been through this over and over and over again as Skins' fans. It's extremely frustrating. I don't blame anyone for it more than Dan. That's his main role as owner, really. Having a great hiring process and structuring the organization properly. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind he has failed miserably at this, and this is what has, in turn, caused the woeful losing record of the franchise since he bought the team. Nothing else is even close to being a cause for it. Not a coaching hire, not a draft, not an expensive under-performing FA, nothing else. All of those things have only been symptoms of the root disease. The Scot hire changed that for all of us. Not because of Scot, himself, who most of us acknowledged came with baggage that might end up being too much of a problem, but what it represented in terms of the hiring process and organizational structure here. To see so many of us have to now totally contradict our own recent positions on what that hire represented in order to justify what they're doing now saddens me to no end. It sucks and it's a damn shame. As always, I'll end this with saying that I hope and pray I'm totally wrong about this and that their hiring process was sound, the titles are all real and well-defined, and everyone within the organization is being setup for great long term success. That we'll be able to replace anyone as necessary with ease and not skip a beat. I hate that I have to feel this way and post about it at all, really. :/
  6. This is what it boils down to for me. To put it as simply as I can: I want the guy at the head of the personnel department to be the BEST at it. There hasn't been a single argument made here that can even remotely convince me that either Allen or Williams are those guys. And that's a crying shame in my mind. Talking about Scot at this point is arguably deflecting from the main issue. His (perceived or real) failure doesn't change that evident truth. Doug saying something like "we had a GM and that didn't work" absolutely blows my mind on so many levels, it's maddening. It's akin to a gigantic corporation, after firing their head accountant for whatever reason, saying "we had an accountant and that didn't work". What!? It's really as simple as that. I'm not advocating for some sort of super complex, intricate system of hiring and organizational structure that is beyond the grasp of most humans. This is friggin hiring/organizational principles 101.
  7. Ok, I got cha now, it's hard to follow though because on the surface it's contradictory, but it makes sense. Basically, you feel good enough about the coaching staff and guys within the scouting department that they'll be able to overcome the incompetence above them. I actually agree to a degree... I just hate the fact that they might have to. It just really eats at me that there's even a possibility of them being undermined or placed in a bad situation. Good organizations ensure the total opposite. They know no one's perfect and surround their hires in the best way accordingly.
  8. Yeah, this is where we differ majorly. I can't get behind these lines of thought at all. 1) Coaching is not more important than the scouting department and who runs it in my mind (which I believe is what you're suggesting here, though correct me if I'm wrong). At most, it's 50/50 between coaching and personnel but I've laid out plenty of evidence as to why I heavily lean towards personnel, and therefore who's in charge of that department, being more important than coaching overall. At least in the pros. Doesn't mean coaching is unimportant, of course. 2) I absolutely mind seeing our "clown ass FO running things like children". You should, too, because it means those coaches you place so much emphasis on are being put into an environment that presents obstacles for them to overcome versus accentuating their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. But I get where you're coming from. You're just looking at the results and don't care about the execs behind the scenes. In the end, that's all we can really do. So I don't begrudge you for that. I'm just extremely concerned because we've went so long seeing this show and it hasn't ended well, not ever. This isn't about 2017 or even 2018 for me, this is about the Redskins becoming a model organization under Snyder and consistently competitive based on sound organizational principles and hiring processes. It starts with him, really, and I'm not confident at all in his ability to make it happen. :/ Hopefully I'm wrong and this FO structure isn't what I think it is and the hiring process we just went through, though unorthodox, is perfectly reasonable.
  9. ^^ I agree, there's a lot to look forward to with Jay at HC, Kirk at QB, and how deep our roster is right now in general. I was extremely satisfied with the direction of the organization as a whole, but this offseason has been tough on me a bit in that regard. Really, the only thing I want from the organization is a great hiring process from those at the highest level (Dan and then Bruce right now) and a properly structured FO that's consistent with the vast majority of successful franchises past and present. I believe now, with everything I've learned as a fan throughout all these years here, is that those two things ensure success no matter what obstacles present themselves or even if the team goes through an entire terrible season. It ensures that those brought in or promoted are in an environment conducive to success that highlights their strengths and minimizes their weaknesses. I can't help but be extremely worried we've reverted back to the opposite of that. It was never about Scot for me. It was about what his hire represented in terms of both of those things. The hiring process (he was seen as a great talent evaluator by pretty much everyone, albeit with personal issues) and the structure (given a title that represented his authority over personnel). So, yeah, I'm very excited about our short term prospects and believe we'll see the residual effects (from whatever good we had going for us regarding those two things) this next season - and possibly more - but I do fear what this points to for the long term. This isn't new for us. We've seen how this ends. Of course, I'll be rooting just as hard as anyone else here that it works out and my fears were totally baseless.
  10. Wait, you're fine with "fanboy BS" and believe they can "buffoon their way" to a championship? Ok, now I've got another one to add to my list of, uhm, interesting positions here.
  11. Not interested in going back and forth with you on the matter, but I just wanted to say I find this one thing about your various positions here absolutely mind-boggling as well as immensely entertaining. How you can so willingly have the incredibly hypocritical and contradictory stance of giving certain coaches/execs your final (overly negative) judgment with such ease and with real confidence (often derived from only observing them for a year or two), while constantly coming to the defense of Mr. Snyder (is that more to your liking?) who has well over a decade of Front Office incompetence, poor media relations, and an overall woeful record during his tenure as owner... well, it just blows my friggin mind. I mean, if you were just criticizing everyone and everything here on some Negative-Nancy-take-a-dump-on-the-board crap that'd be understandable. But this whole "trash the majority except Snyder" thing you've got going is astonishing to me on all levels of sound logic. I'm super intrigued by it.
  12. If I didn't know any better I'd call the OP a disinformation agent. He's working for those among us who actually don't think it matters and destroying the movement from within.
  13. I didn't even see that part. He actually said that? Our lead guy on personnel isn't great at college scouting. No biggie! Just shoot me.
  14. Lol, us? Save typing!? On a side note, I'll never get that criticism. As long as it's well-written I prefer long posts over the short ones that usually add nothing besides redundancy to the board. What are we on? Twitter!? If that's what someone is looking for go there. This place should be all about putting down thoughts that are nuanced, well-defined and well-articulated.