You said here
Its a giant joke if you can't see that this team is in such a better place than it was 5-6 years ago. I seriously wonder what some fans are going to do when they can't moan about how awful things are. I suspect there are some Redskins name-change advocates that you could throw some complaint parties with...
I presume that's about the status quo of the FO with Bruce at the helm since that's what your post was about? It's pretty dramatic language as to how you characterize any who disagrees with your position. If so, it comes off to me like anyone who isn't on board with this FO arrangement is some type of malcontent because its plainly obvious that its good.
I don't think it will be a disaster. I don't think this FO has really ever been a disaster. It's had good years, its had bad years. Under Dan, its been mostly mediocre. Though I think avoiding disaster shouldn't be the bar. The Bruce part of this again to me is a side issue but to play along a little. Bruce the GM has a larger sample than one year. But I don't even care about the semantics of the Bruce GM record. The point about Bruce the GM is simple -- he's not a traditional GM. The typical front office's personnel department isn't run by a non-personnel guy.
I think your feelings about the current state of the Redskins might be clouding your take on this specific point. Hey I like the current state of the Redskins, too. Many insiders have said that there are three legs to a successful franchise: QB, HC, GM. Assuming, they resign Kirk. They finally have a franchise QB. They finally have stability at HC. That's not the same old Redskins. But specific to the GM front, in my book (and plenty of NFL observers) its definitely same old same old Redskins. Can the other two legs (QB and HC) overcome what I think is likely a mediocre FO operation. Probably, yes. If one of the other legs of this falls apart (like Kirk bolting), then, I doubt it.
Going through your post, you seem to be throwing the whole soup at this and going with a general state of the franchise. I disagree with some of it. But regardless, I think most of it is extraneous. I can go through transactions I've liked over the years, heck I can extol full off seasons. But it doesn't change the fact that this operation has been hit and miss, mediocre IMO, including during Bruce's stint. And I am if anything being a little generous.
I'll bring another example to help bring home the point. We brought back the legendary Joe Gibbs. I love the guy. He arguably brought pride and leadership back. He brought in arguably a good defensive coordinator and loaded up on talent on that side of the ball. Gibbs personified class. This all represented a new direction for the franchise. How dare anyone suggest otherwise or question that the team then wasn't leaps and bounds ahead of where it was previously? Yep, I agreed with that sentiment. Still do, on some fronts. But there was one thing in that mix that was same old Redskins, the FO structure. No one talked about the FO structure in glowing terms. No one talked about Vinny in that way. Gibbs was a legendary coach. But a legendary GM? Not really. Same idea today with the current FO. It's the same thing throughout most of Dan's tenure.
Its hard to bottom line the operation. And we see signs of it in this very thread. You mock Scott a little with the "savior" comment in a previous post and then circle back in the next post and talk him up (without crediting him) drafting Doctson as a sign that the organization is doing things the smart way and showing foresight. I am not bringing this up for a Bruce-Scot debate. But to bring home, who is driving what in the FO? Who gets credit/blame? It's confusing. People can cherry pick what they like and ignore what doesn't fit their beliefs. So how are things bottom lined?
I am not a big Shanny guy but a lot of the culture changes in the FO you refer to were initially credited to him. I am sure you recall he was the guy that used to steal draft picks from Vinny. As for the money drill, in a 980 interview once someone was giving Bruce credit for contracts and Bruce laughed and said I don't mind taking credit but that department is handled by Eric Schaffer, he's the guy. Then, others say Bruce is the key money guy since he has to sign off on the contracts. We got Scott Campbell and Jay saying that Scot had a heavy imprint on the 2017 draft. Doug Williams in a recent interview said heck the draft was all about Scott Campbell. Now Campbell has some nebulous executive position. Is he running the drafts or just advising?
Just think of some of the discussion on the thread. Is it Bruce is it Shanny? Was it Bruce or really Scot? Was it Scot or really Scott? You can shift credit or blame either way on many fronts. Bruce like I said is really irrelevant to the point at hand but I've read some of the arguments here on his behalf. And people cherry picked. This counts. But this doesn't count. They had to create a special prism for their argument. And I am not blaming anyone for it. If anything to me it sums up the weird nature of the FO.
I don't think the typical FO is that confusing. Lets take the Giants, people know Jerry Reese. They sink and swim with his calls -- people know who the buck stops with for better or worse. And again I like Bruce. I like what he's done on some fronts on some of the money issues you've talked about and I've talked about, too. But none of that changes the reality of how this FO is structured.