Bruce Allen, Scot McCloughlan, Jay Gruden, and all that stuff like that there

[Burgold]

48 minutes ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

Doug was actually director of pro personnel for Tampa Bay in 2009, fwiw.

 

But I hope you aren't trying to insinuate that the selection of Montae Nicholson was a player Doug stood on the table for or something. It's well known that the Redskins followed Scot McCloughan's draft board to a T other than Josh Holsey who was added late in the process.

I don't think that we can know that they followed Scott's draftboard to a tee. I think they relied heavily on his scouting, but he was booted before the rookie combine. I suspect there had to have been changes since then and the actual draft.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

9 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I don't think that we can know that they followed Scott's draftboard to a tee. I think they relied heavily on his scouting, but he was booted before the rookie combine. I suspect there had to have been changes since then and the actual draft.

 

I think they are referring to Scot recently answering a fan question on Twitter that the Skins followed his draft board to a T except for one pick. 

[Burgold]

Ah, missed that. Still not sure it's absolutely true. Though it very well may be.

[zCommander]

3 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Ah, missed that.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2017/08/09/scot-mccloughan-just-did-a-twitter-qa-and-redskins-fans-will-love-his-responses/?utm_term=.769005a3588a

[DC Lumber Co.]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

I don't think that we can know that they followed Scott's draftboard to a tee. I think they relied heavily on his scouting, but he was booted before the rookie combine. I suspect there had to have been changes since then and the actual draft.

 

We actually do know. Not only would a draft board change little after the combine barring injuries being discovered in the medical portion, we have it directly from Scot's mouth now that the Redskins draft followed his plan to a T. It makes sense that the only pick that strayed from it was our 7th rounder Josh Holsey because it sounds like a situation where he was added after getting cleared medically if I had to speculate. 

 

So no, it wasnt just heavily influenced by Scot, or the team taking his scouting reports into account. He even went into detail about the majority of the individual picks on his twitter as well if you're curious as to his thoughts on each selection. It's really awesome, insightful stuff worth checking out if you haven't already.

 

I'm sure some fans would have loved for this info to have remained ambiguous because it would have allowed credit for the good picks to be attributed to Scot and the bad ones to Bruce & Co. It was already starting to happen on draft day when the first pick came off the board that people questioned, Montae Nicholson.

 

Imo, I always thought Nicholson sounded very much like a Scot guy myself. It just wasnt a player where his draft grade/range was unanimously projected as highly as where he was taken, so it raised eyebrows. Besides, Scot was known to go against the grain and popular opinion in that regard anyway, perfect example being Bruce Irvin who was viewed as a reach by most when he took him for the Seahawks in the 1st round.

 

I really wonder if the Redskins will use Scots scouting service again moving forward as the relationship doesn't appear to be as broken as first thought when he was fired. If its as simple as Bruce and Scot not being able to work together, I'd love for us to still use his service as a resource in addition to the knowledge our staff gained naturally from scouting with him for 3 years.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

 

I'm sure some fans would have loved for this info to have remained ambiguous because it would have allowed credit for the good picks to be attributed to Scot and the bad ones to Bruce & Co. 

 

This stuff has to stop.

 

Most of us that are very skeptical of the front office isn't because of an allegiance to Scot.  As if he's perfect and makes no mistakes.

 

What I did enjoy was simply having a guy that didn't watch Seinfeld because it wasn't ball.  I would enjoy it more if this type of guy was actually given full and final say on everything to do with personnel.

 

But we can't have that here.  That is the problem.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

9 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

See here's the thing.  Being an NFL QB who won a ring, and a head coach at low level colleges, simply does not qualify you to be better at picking NFL players than his counterpart with the Pittsburgh Steelers.  And that is what this is all about. Questioning his intelligence is unfair, I agree, but questioning his ability to identify 4th round safeties is totally fair because to date nothing on his resume suggests he can do that better than his competitors.

 

It is perfectly understandable for fans to question him in that role.  Just because you love the man for hitting Ricky Sanders in stride does not mean those concerns are not valid.

 

Agree.  And your point is the core of what most of the critics are saying here.   

 

This isn't directed at you but other comments I've read recently.  I don't recall the critics of the hire questioning his intelligence or said that he isn't smart enough to watch film, they are a bad hire because of their interviews.  You can make a point or two like that if you take comments completely out of context but I think we can do better than that.   

 

As for the people making the criticism and I'm one of them on this thread -- it feels like we at times are debating entirely different subjects with the FO defenders.  For me, it's not about whose to blame Bruce or Scot for what went down.   It's not about Jay.   It's not about optimism about the current roster.  It's not about the media.   I don't see how opinions about that whether they are positive or negative on these fronts have anything to do with the discussion at hand.  If it was about those subjects, the defenders of the current FO structure would love my take on every one of those subjects.  But I don't see their relevance. 

 

It's about the structure of the FO and the context of how it fits in its own way to previous versions of the FO. 

[Gibbit]

So will Scot work with Bruce on future draft boards if we pay for his firm's services? like the olden days

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Gibbit said:

So will Scot work with Bruce on future draft boards if we pay for his firm's services? like the olden days

 

LOL, it sounds like its very unlikely.  Seems like bad blood now between the two.  So I'm gathering the 2018 draft is the first chance since 2013 to see how a completely Scot free draft goes down. 

[Gibbit]

21 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

LOL, it sounds like its very unlikely.  Seems like bad blood now between the two.  So I'm gathering the 2018 draft is the first chance since 2013 to see how a completely Scot free draft goes down. 

that's kinda scary...(remembering aftermath of 2012 draft)

 

Show him the money. pfft Scot can be bought. Scot's wife needs spendin cash

 

Even though its the same draft board every other client of his gets basically, still useful info

[Skinsinparadise]

53 minutes ago, Gibbit said:

that's kinda scary...(remembering aftermath of 2012 draft)

 

Show him the money. pfft Scot can be bought. Scot's wife needs spendin cash

 

Even though its the same draft board every other client of his gets basically, still useful info

 

Scot is just one side of the coin.  You got Bruce, too.  If you buy into what some of Bruce's media critics say there is some heavy ego involved on his end as for how things go post Scot.  If so I'd gather hiring Scot's services next year wouldn't flow with the we didn't need this guy here anymore theme.   In Bruce's defense (if its the case), heck many people who are accomplished have a strong ego so that's not a criticism but its hard for me to imagine them using Scot considering all that's gone down.

 

Having said that, I have noticed one thing about Bruce that I'm not sure some of the pro-FO have picked up on considering how they frame their arguments.  Bruce doesn't seem to define himself as a personnel evaluator.    I can't recall Bruce ever saying, heck that's how I graded this guy or that guy (unless I missed something).  Even in terms of the current FO, he refers to others driving the ship on personnel -- his take seems to be a variation of he just happens to have the final say but that's just a formality.  So when people talk about the Bruce way (aside from contracts and cap which is his wheel house but even on that I caught him in one interview playing himself down and saying its Schaffer that primarily guides that) not sure what that "way" is.  

 

I personally don't think there is a "Bruce way" on personnel aside from trusting him as to who actually does the work on it and how the FO is structured in that regard.  My point is if lets say Kyle Smith is the guy who defacto runs the draft (and he alluded somewhere that he learned a lot from Scot) maybe he does hire Scot service?  Hard for me though to see Bruce on board who I'd presume has to sign off on it but who knows.  It would be amusing fodder if so. 

[DC Lumber Co.]

On 8/19/2017 at 6:14 PM, Darrell Green Fan said:

Doug Williams has proven nothing that would justify any position of power regarding personnel. If he has any say in the draft we are back to the, well, the Charlie Casserly days of poor drafts year after year.

 

It really does irk me that Doug Williams is being written off so easily. If he has ANY say in the draft it means we are screwed? Thats a little harsh man. Sure, we cant say with certainty the level that Doug Williams contributed to the scouting process of college or pro talent since his arrival, but everything I've read suggests he contributed much more than you're giving him credit for. I'd also argue that he actually has proven himself in multiple arenas and isn't the talentless, under-qualified idiot he is being made out to be.

 

Allow me to clear up all this misinformation about the FO structure, Doug's ascension to where he is today, and his background/resume (which you'd think consisted of bagging groceries for the past 5 years based on the level of disrespect he has received):

 

1.) Doug Williams was the one who proposed the current front office structure.

Quote

Doug Williams boarded a plane still unsure if his proposed plan to restructure the Redskins front office had found a willing audience. Bruce Allen spoke with over a dozen candidates from inside and outside the organization to run Washington’s personnel department. Four times Williams met with Allen to discuss his vision of a new front office. He’d yet to hear definitive word.

“I didn’t know whether Bruce liked my plan or not because he was still talking to people,” Williams said

 

So the notion that the Redskins/Bruce didn't consider bringing in an individual similar to Scot McCloughan cannot be said with certainty. Its not as if the current FO structure was the only structure considered.

 

2.) Not only does Doug Williams have a super-bowl winning pedigree as a player, he has served as an administrator, scout, coach, and NFL executive:

 

Quote

Coaching Resume
Southern University (1985) Consultant Northeast High School U.S. Naval Academy (1994) Running backs coach Scottish Claymores (1995) Offensive coordinator Jacksonville Jaguars (1995–1996) College scout Morehouse College (1997) Head coach Grambling State University (1998–2003, 2011–2013) Head coach
Front Office/Scouting Resume
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2004–2008) Personnel executive Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2009–2010) Coordinator of pro scouting Virginia Destroyers (2010–2011) General manager Washington Redskins (2014–2016) Personnel executive Washington Redskins (2017–present) Senior vice president of player personnel

 

As you can see, he even has experience as a GM. Granted, it was with a semi-pro team, but it isn't uncommon for people to earn their stripes in those types of leagues. Hell, Jay Gruden cut his teeth as a coordinator in the Arena league. You dont just jump straight into the NFL, you have to start somewhere. And its certainly a possibility that Doug could very well be an up-and-comer just like Jay was. Just like coaching re-treads didn't work for us, there was a reason Scot was available. I for one don't mind trying the fresh blood in Doug Williams like we did with Jay.

 

Quote

“He had an uncanny ability to talk to a player or a coach in one or two minutes and be able to read that person. I was proud when Doug presented his plan because his vision was a team."

 

More than one Redskins employee noted Williams has an innate ability to gain the trust of players.

 

Doug Williams has a unique background that allows him to speak from a point of first hand experience to pretty much the entire organization from staff to athlete while also being able to act as a catalyst between them and Bruce.

 

It sounds like he has the ability to bring this organization together from top to bottom, and he may have been the main reason the team didn't fracture after Scot was fired. If he was the one who did damage control, he did a hell of a job helping us weather the storm. 

 

Quote

Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall said “And you multiply that ten times over by what he means to us and this organization. It couldn’t have came at a better time..."

 

And one of the most telling bids of confidence for me came from Jay Gruden. The Jay Gruden who Scot McCloughan heaped praise upon for his ability to scout had this to say about Doug Williams:

 

Quote

It’s great to hire somebody in-house, somebody who has worked very hard for this team and organization,” Gruden said. “Doug’s done some great things, not only as a player, but also working here in the scouting department….He’s never used his name and what he’s accomplished here as a crutch to get him to where he is right now.”

 

Its just sad to me that there are fans who are disrespecting Doug to the level they are by likening him to a Vinny Cerrato-type puppet. If you cant see how drastically different this FO structure is from the Vinny days, I dont even know what to tell you. At the very least I think Doug has earned the chance to prove himself through an off-season before we chalk him up as a failure.

[HOF44]

I think Williams problem may end up being more personality than ability.  He's just gonna get steamrolled by Allen and Danny.  I think in our organization you need someone with a personality like Parcells or Schottenheimer to be successful.  It's such a rare thing to find a hard ass like that with the talent to go with it.  Which is why I think as long as the Danny owns the team we will have sycophants of one sort or the other.  Some better, some worse, but none really in charge and all in the end doing the CYA dance. 

[DC Lumber Co.]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

LOL, it sounds like its very unlikely.  Seems like bad blood now between the two.  So I'm gathering the 2018 draft is the first chance since 2013 to see how a completely Scot free draft goes down. 

 

I actually don't think it would be that outlandish. Scots recent comments about the team leads me to believe that there isn't as much bad blood as initially thought. I could totally see us using Scots service as a resource moving forward. Of course, it wont have nearly the amount of influence as him being a part of the staff. But it really does nothing but benefit Scot to add another team to the list that he sends his scouting reports to. We all know hes going to be writing them anyways haha. 

 

I wish I had twitter to ask him directly if he would do business with the team actually. Anyone with an account want to ask him for the sake of discussion?

[DC Lumber Co.]

1 hour ago, Gibbit said:

that's kinda scary...(remembering aftermath of 2012 draft)

 

Show him the money. pfft Scot can be bought. Scot's wife needs spendin cash

 

Even though its the same draft board every other client of his gets basically, still useful info

 

Except for the 2012 draft was led by Mike Shanahan who had full roster and draft control as a stipulation of his hire. Bruce really only has one draft that he can be given full responsibility for, which was 2014.

 

That class in all honesty was pretty solid, which yielded two of our current OL starters (one being a top five RT in the game currently), a rotational pass rusher in Trent Murphy that gave us 9 sacks last year, an up-and-down starting corner in Bashaud Breeland, and receiver Ryan Grant who has been a solid depth-guy for us. Any draft that has that many contributors is much better than average, to say the least.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Not sure if you guys know how scouting services work...if Scot runs his similarly to the other services it's not him handing over his scouting reports and a draft board.

 

Also, we already have a scout on staff assigned to a scouting service (BLESTO). It cost a pretty penny to sign up for their service.

[Gibbit]

5 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Not sure if you guys know how scouting services work...if Scot runs his similarly to the other services it's not him handing over his scouting reports and a draft board.

 

Also, we already have a scouting service scout on staff (BLESTO). It cost a pretty penny to sign up for their service.

no scouting reports or draft boards....what do you get for your money then?

 

is that guy a football guy? yes or no

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 hour ago, Gibbit said:

no scouting reports or draft boards....what do you get for your money then?

[Gibbit]

[Califan007 The Constipated]

26 minutes ago, Gibbit said:

no scouting reports or draft boards....what do you get for your money then?

 

is that guy a football guy? yes or no

 

It's a collaborative effort among the teams that are subscribed to the scouting service--each team has to not only pay for the service they also have to assign a scout to be the service scout (by the way, the "BLES" in BLESTO stands for Bears, Lions, Eagles and Steelers). The BLESTO scouts (whatever scouts they have) along with the scouts assigned from individual teams do a lot of grunt work and come up with reports that provide a starting point for teams and their evaluating process. All this shtuff starts shortly after the draft ends, and it's done for future drafts not just the next one coming up. BLESTO will come up with their board as well, so it's not that subscribing teams don't get reports or a suggested board, but it's not the result of the service having a top-notch talent scout who ends up creating a board and then offering it up for sale to whoever wants it. You only get it if you invest early and dedicate personnel and resources to the service, and it's a lengthy process that you're involved in every step of the way. Teams often use the services as a training course for junior scouts.

 

And again, Scot may run his differently, I have no idea...

[DC Lumber Co.]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If you buy into what some of Bruce's media critics say there is some heavy ego involved on his end as for how things go post Scot.  If so I'd gather hiring Scot's services next year wouldn't flow with the we didn't need this guy here anymore theme.

 

The whole "we didnt need this guy" thing is speculative, of course. I agree that there were egos involved in the firing of Scot, but it just as easily could have been a "i just cant work with this guy" situation. 

 

Bruce has paid for his scouting reports before, and think hes too smart not to use every resource available to him. Especially considering that the team doesn't have to disclose how much Scot's service influences the draft class. He can take credit for the picks either way, so it really doesn't benefit him NOT to use the service if Scot will do business. 

 

Quote

Having said that, I have noticed one thing about Bruce that I'm not sure some of the pro-FO have picked up on considering how they frame their arguments.  Bruce doesn't seem to define himself as a personnel evaluator.

 

I've always understood that Bruce isn't a scout or personnel evaluator. And thats also the exact reason I can see the structure working moving forward so long as Jay remains the HC. He defers to others on that front and always has.

 

Bruce was building a solid team in Tampa before the owner became impatient due to a lack of finding a QB. Bruce deferred to Shanny on personnel for better or worse. Mike gave us Trent Williams and has always been able to draft offense that fits his scheme, but he proved again that he struggles to identify defensive talent (which led to his demise in Denver)

 

He now is seemingly working in conjunction with the FO structure that heavily involves Jay's input to build a team that sticks to the overall philosophy that has been the same since Bruce arrived: Build through the draft first and foremost, with low-risk/high-reward free agents sprinkled in. As long as our owner remains patient (which I think Jay's extension spoke to his willingness to be so) a commitment to that philosophy long-term is a recipe for success eventually.

[Skinsinparadise]

14 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

The whole "we didnt need this guy" thing is speculative, of course. I agree that there were egos involved in the firing of Scot, but it just as easily could have been a "i just cant work with this guy" situation. 

 

 

Semantics either way.  My main point wasn't to define how Bruce defined things not working out with Scot.  My point is its pretty clear there was bad blood between the two.  From some of your posts you allude to people's feelings about Bruce and the current FO to be heavily colored by what went down between the two.  I don't see it, though.   The strongest critics of this FO on this thread barely even mention what went down let alone focus on it as an overriding take about the FO.   As I've said before Bruce could have been Mother Teresa level nice and Scot a jerk or vice versa.  It's irrelevant to the point at hand for me.  Bruce-Scot is a side soap opera. I even sided primarily with Bruce on the incident and said heck if Scot needed to go, fine.  But, so what?  It has nothing to do with the current FO structure. 

 

14 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

Bruce has paid for his scouting reports before, and think hes too smart not to use every resource available to him. Especially considering that the team doesn't have to disclose how much Scot's service influences the draft class. He can take credit for the picks either way, so it really doesn't benefit him NOT to use the service if Scot will do business. 

 

I hope so.  But following the narrative there while its tough to gauge what went down -- the one thing that is clear as a bell is that there is bad blood between the two. So, I really doubt you are right on this.  It was actually brought up to a beat reporter awhile back (if I recall it was Finlay) in some interview in jest and he thought it was comical and started laughing.   I see it as laughable too let alone a serious debate topic.  But heck I hope I'm wrong, I'd love to be wrong. 

 

14 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

I've always understood that Bruce isn't a scout or personnel evaluator. And thats also the exact reason I can see the structure working moving forward so long as Jay remains the HC. He defers to others on that front and always has.

 

Bruce was building a solid team in Tampa before the owner became impatient due to a lack of finding a QB. Bruce deferred to Shanny on personnel for better or worse. Mike gave us Trent Williams and has always been able to draft offense that fits his scheme, but he proved again that he struggles to identify defensive talent (which led to his demise in Denver)

 

He now is seemingly working in conjunction with the FO structure that heavily involves Jay's input to build a team that sticks to the overall philosophy that has been the same since Bruce arrived: Build through the draft first and foremost, with low-risk/high-reward free agents sprinkled in. As long as our owner remains patient (which I think Jay's extension spoke to his willingness to be so) a commitment to that philosophy long-term is a recipe for success eventually.

 

IMO you got some pretzel logic in here.  Acknowledging Bruce doesn't do personnel while giving him credit for building a team and then at the same time giving him an out for what didn't go right in Tampa.  Then sort of criticizing the operation as a mixed bag under Shanny but saying he was hands off and let him do it.  Now, suggesting he's hands off again but this time its good because Jay's around.  It doesn't really add up to me as a ringing endorsement.  But a debate about Bruce's resume is getting lost in the weeds.   

 

Let me start with this.  I like Jay as much as anyone.  But the dude isn't superman.  Plus, Shanny had personnel control.  Jay doesn't.  You paint this as somewhat apples to apples.  But its actually apples to oranges.  Jay doesn't call shots on the FO staff.  Jay doesn't have final say as to the picks.  He's not the prime evaluator in the building on personnel.   And from what I can tell he doesn't even have defacto control of the picks.    So the idea that Jay is really the guy calling the personnel shots clearly isn't the case.  It actually was brought up during the FO search process where it was told to a beat reporter that no Jay isn't getting a promotion that will including a title or responsibility relating to personnel.

 

One of my biggest takeaways from meeting with Scot was personnel is a full time business.  He was knee deep in the 2017 draft early in the 2016 season.  He was going to college games himself. He was watching tape.  Jay doesn't have time to do any of that stuff during the college season which is the heat of the evaluation period.  The impression I got about Scot working with Jay (and granted he didn't elaborate with me on it so I'm extrapolating) is he'd be on the fence on a player or two and say what do you think of this dude.  And he trusted Jay's judgment.  

 

He also told me he wanted Crowder.  Jay didn't. He won out on it.   I like Jay but I want a personnel guy having the final say.  I don't want ANY head coach save for Belichick having final say on personnel.  It's simple. They haven't put in nearly the time that the personnel people do.  They have a lot on their plate.  The typical GM is almost exclusively focused on making personnel moves and judging personnel.    The coach has a lot of other things going on. 

 

Also, I detect in some of your pro-Bruce rhetoric, you really like the dude a lot and are excited about him as an individual or maybe its all about Jay.  Look I spent 2 hours with Scot, it to this day was my coolest football experience I had by a mile.  We got into a lot.  It was very cool.  I met Bruce for a few minutes, he seemed like a cool guy.   Ditto Jay.  My fandom though on any of these guys doesn't exceed the team.    To me is still about the structure. 

 

It's about IMO do you like a FO structure where the top personnel guy isn't really even a personnel guy.  Where its easy to say hey it wasn't me but him on that move versus the buck stopping with one person.  Do you want the final say guy being an expert on what he has a final say?  That's the debate at hand for most of us.   How much we think of Jay or Scot or even Bruce isn't really relevant to that point IMO.

 

[I Love The Skins]

It is way too early to judge Doug IMO. Let's give him some time before we can say he is good or struggles being a personnel guy.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

9 minutes ago, I Love The Skins said:

It is way too early to judge Doug IMO. Let's give him some time before we can say he is good or struggles being a personnel guy.

I've seen this statement a few times and its rather pointless.  Right up there with citing his Super Bowl win and career at Grambling as valid line items on his resume that suggest he's the best suited for his current role.

 

We really don't have any choice but to give him time and even then, we'll always be skeptical of just how much power he has anyways.  No matter how you feel about Doug and his ability to do the job, there will always be questions about who's doing what, who gets credit/blame, etc.

[DC Lumber Co.]

On 8/21/2017 at 0:05 PM, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I've seen this statement a few times and its rather pointless.  Right up there with citing his Super Bowl win and career at Grambling as valid line items on his resume that suggest he's the best suited for his current role.

 

 

When you apply for a job, do you list your entry level experience first or most recent experience? Same applies here. You're kind of ignoring his experience as a NFL executive/personnel guy and making it seem like he went from player/college coach straight to his role now for the Skins. He has a lot more experience than that.

 

His experience as a SB winning QB and college head coach are more bonus resume bullet points here