I hate to say it but Snyder and Allen might have done the right thing

[bedlamVR]

Was I wrong about ANYTHING I said about Marty when he was here though ? 

 

I mean the the other thing you have to consider - he has a team that in the previous couple of seasons acquired Jon Jansen , Chris Samuels Champ Baily Stephen Davis, LaVar Arrington the train wreck of Turner and Robskie got the team to 8-8 the year before ... 

 

 

Also Marty was the management with the chargers when they were picking 1st overall . He had already at this point pretty much given up on drew Brees and with his time with the chargers managed to take a massively talented team no- where .  (Yes he was 8-8, and 14-2, but also 4-12 (and 9-7 missing the playoffs))  but also He never got a team to a playoff victory . With Norv turner at the helm and essentially the same team the chargers went to the playoffs three years in a row, loosing the conference game to the patriots the year after Marty was canned. 

 

 

Also to have a Rift you need two people to be dicks ... and Marty was extraordinarily stubborn which got him fired from the chiefs, here and from a 14-2 playoff team - just how much of a dick do you need to be to get fired from a 14-2 team ? 

 

But no no please go on you tell me how I am totally wrong about Marty Scottenhiemer and how he ( who never won a playoff game in his career ) His brother and other family members Jimmy Raye Kevin Lockett etc were going to take us to the promised land - 

[Darrell Green Fan]

12 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The competing narrative to how can Scot be stripped of power he never had is that whatever power he did have it waned -- whatever power Scot had big or small it was lessened even more and that was the prime cause of the tension.   That's been the narrative of Albert Breer who doubled down on that point on that radio today.  Chris Russell said Scot lost his power way back in August 2015 but suggests there are myriad of reasons why it went south with Scot/Bruce that being just one of them.   And Mike Jones is on the bandwagon too but saying the power battles happened more recently.  Are these guys all correct?  You got me, I have no clue.  But they all argue in different ways that Scot's power took at dive at various points.  

 

Breer for example said he has multiple sources at Redskins Park and they all agree that Bruce stripped power from Scot -- the only part of that narrative where he got mixed stories on is why Bruce stripped Scot's power.  Some of his sources said it was because of a power play from Bruce wanting the power and with some saying Scot's drinking made him take that power for the good of the team. 

This continues to be my biggest issue.   Is there any doubt that Snyder/Allen trotting out Scott and told us all that he had complete control of personnel?   Allen was the contract guy but it was supposed to be Scott who had control of picking the players.  Now we are leaning differently and that brings me back to being lied to and the thought that Snyder hasn't learned a damned thing and this is just the same old  Redskins.

[Darrell Green Fan]

38 minutes ago, bedlamVR said:

Was I wrong about ANYTHING I said about Marty when he was here though ? 

 

I mean the the other thing you have to consider - he has a team that in the previous couple of seasons acquired Jon Jansen , Chris Samuels Champ Baily Stephen Davis, LaVar Arrington the train wreck of Turner and Robskie got the team to 8-8 the year before ... 

 

 

Also Marty was the management with the chargers when they were picking 1st overall . He had already at this point pretty much given up on drew Brees and with his time with the chargers managed to take a massively talented team no- where .  (Yes he was 8-8, and 14-2, but also 4-12 (and 9-7 missing the playoffs))  but also He never got a team to a playoff victory . With Norv turner at the helm and essentially the same team the chargers went to the playoffs three years in a row, loosing the conference game to the patriots the year after Marty was canned. 

 

 

Also to have a Rift you need two people to be dicks ... and Marty was extraordinarily stubborn which got him fired from the chiefs, here and from a 14-2 playoff team - just how much of a dick do you need to be to get fired from a 14-2 team ? 

 

But no no please go on you tell me how I am totally wrong about Marty Scottenhiemer and how he ( who never won a playoff game in his career ) His brother and other family members Jimmy Raye Kevin Lockett etc were going to take us to the promised land - 

 

Hey you were the guy who claimed he took a team that had been  6-26 in the  2 previous seasons and "ran them into the ground".  Don't get mad at me for pointing out how off base your post was.   And yeah, plenty of other things you have wrong about his time here.  But I'll just point out the most obvious false claim.  You said not once but twice that Marty has never won a playoff game when he has in fact won 5.  So yeah, you are still way off base on a lot of what you say.  But again I don't want to get too far off topic.

[bedlamVR]

Correct me on what happened here in 2001 ...  so far you have taken issue on my accuracy about the chargers and what happened with the chiefs - and ok he did have 5 playoff victories but none with the chargers and actually none this Centuary ....

 

You want to talk about going off topic but I was not the one who brought up Marty Shottenhiemer from 16 years ago as a way to try and show Dan Snyder is a meddling interfering owner right now 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

This continues to be my biggest issue.   Is there any doubt that Snyder/Allen trotting out Scott and told us all that he had complete control of personnel?   Allen was the contract guy but it was supposed to be Scott who had control of picking the players.  Now we are leaning differently and that brings me back to being lied to and the thought that Snyder hasn't learned a damned thing and this is just the same old  Redskins.

 

I am with you on that. Mike Jones the other day talked about the next GM and that whomever that is they would have to be someone who is OK with Bruce looking over their shoulder and overriding them at times.  So he agreed with Grant Paulsen who was interviewing Jones that Doug Williams is likely the next GM in part because he'd not have any issue with this because he's a Bruce guy.

 

The idea that either the power structure here with Scot was weak from the outset and key decisions overridden (Jerry Brewer) or stripped at some point of the limited power he did have (Breer, Jones, Chris Russell) has been strongly put out there by multiple sources.  And Breer and Russell in particular have expressed that they got this narrative from people currently within Redskins Park so this isn't purely Scot's version of the story.  Are they correct?   You got me.  But I tend to trust it.  Mike Jones I find is the most reliable reporter who covers the team.  Russell is the guy who broke the story and he seems to want to present a balanced version of it at least on air, he expressed the power struggle was only part of the problem, and Breer is one of the more well known national coverage guys and seems respected.  

 

There is enough smoke for me at least to be concerned.  And if Bruce really is not looking for a crony, as I've said I think his next hire might be telling one way or another.  The thing about Bruce is why not get in front of the press once in awhile?  If he's this benevolent guy who just does the right thing but is misunderstood by the press, why not get out there and give his side of the story.  And I am not just talking about this situation.   

 

I am not saying he needs to spill the beans.  He can make a statement and just say look, it didn't work out with Scot for various reasons.   We will hire a new GM after the draft, etc.  Some reporter I'd bet would ask him about the control question and he could just say that's been misrepresented and whomever is the next GM would have full personnel control or whatever he needs to say.  That's how most team GM's typically go about business -- they ultimately do talk to the press versus hide from them.  

 

If Bruce is being misrepresenting in all of this.  I think he'd do himself a favor by talking.  And he could avoid the back and forth about Scot by just making a statement on that subject and saying that's all he will say on it, now for other questions.  Because we aren't the only fans who are concerned with the idea of a figurehead GM where Bruce would be the defacto GM moving forward.  It's not that I have a beef with Bruce but I'd like to see him stay in his lane.  He doesn't come from a scouting/personnel background.  He's an ex-agent, a money guy.

 

If its not about Bruce having control it would be cool IMO for it to be explained by the horses mouth that its not so.  Because if whomever the next GM is will be about making recommendations to Bruce and Bruce mostly adheres to them but sometimes overrules.  Then that GM IMO is just a glorified Scott Campbell with a loftier title or as some reporters call it, they are the head scout but Bruce is the real GM.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

33 minutes ago, bedlamVR said:

Correct me on what happened here in 2001 ...  so far you have taken issue on my accuracy about the chargers and what happened with the chiefs - and ok he did have 5 playoff victories but none with the chargers and actually none this Centuary ....

 

You want to talk about going off topic but I was not the one who brought up Marty Shottenhiemer from 16 years ago as a way to try and show Dan Snyder is a meddling interfering owner right now 

 

Sorry but with so many inaccuracies I am left with no other choice than to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about.  Marty didn't get rid of Brad Johnson, that entire thing started up when the Skins paid a lot of money to sign Jeff George a year earlier.  That pissed off Johnson and we spent the entire 2000 season discussing if he would be back. 

 

To answer your question in 2001 the Redskins started 0-5 and finished 8-8.  This is exactly what happened in Joe Gibbs' first season.  Jack Kent Cooke showed patience, Daniel Snyder did not.  He heard from his partner Fred Drasner who saw a boring offense and a losing record and screamed "you hired a loser".  Snyder had made up his mind long before the season ended that he was going to make a change and put himself in charge of personnel.  An idiotic move and we saw the results of that decison for the next decade and a half.

[Art]

6 hours ago, THE HAMMER'IN HOG said:

 

OK! Then explain Marty to us, if you do know as much as you say?!!? 
Marty did a fabulous job, and was shown the door!

And while your at it with the - "you better be right" mantra; explain Cerratto's tenure?

"Fantasy" is exactly what Little Danny play's with the Skins!

When you either add or subtract what has been going on with the Skins for the last 20 years, you begin to see a pattern, and that pattern is Dan Snyder knows "Ugatz" about football!!

Tell me: why did SM have to convince Little Danny to go with Cousins over RGIII, if as you say; he has no say in personnel? And tell me: why was RGIII Dan's guy? Perhaps Dan, "who has nothing to do with personnel,"  unless 1 of the many football people in the organization needs his advice on talent evaluation asks him,  

some how became married to RGIII, because MS didn't want RGIII, and certainly didn't want to give up a Kings ransom to get him...yet it happened!







 

 

Snyder has ZERO input during Marty's time.   That's a known fact.   So you actually proved my point.

 

You also proved a hazy memory.   Marty was a failure.   He cut Larry Centers for wearing a baseball cap.   He alienated Darrell Green.   Marty was a complete failure.   THAT team rallied to 8-8 IN SPITE of Marty.   The team got together and decided, every man, BUT Lavar, to IGNORE the coaches and just play for themselves.   Dozens of the players would never have come back had Marty been here.   It was a mutiny the likes the league had never seen.   Snyder would STILL have kept him, but things like getting the players ice cream, but ONLY letting them have vanilla, because that was his favorite, didn't work, and Marty accepted no concept he needed to modify his game mildly to avoid a melt down.

 

Marty generally embarrassed himself.   Players like Chris Samuels took him down for being atrocious.   Vinny Cerrato worked under Gibbs just fine.   Snyder's most involvement with the team was during the Zorn time.   And he realized that wasn't working pretty quickly.   So he went back to the Marty model with Shanny.   And, yes, Shanny wanted RGIII AND is the one who paid that price.   Shanny, and everyone in the organization, wanted RGIII for less.   But given an option of NOT getting him or paying more than they wanted, Shanny picked to pay more.   

Snyder owns the team.   And like JKC and every owner in the league, including Kraft, when there is general disagreement among people in the organization, he sits and listens.   If Belichick traded Tom Brady, he'd have to go to Kraft first.    And he might get told no.   That Brady is too much a part of the team's marketing and branding that even if it HELPED them for years to come, the financial loss would be too great.

Football is still a business.   Not each decision is a "football" only thing.   When you cross in to the business, you typically have to talk to the man who handles it and that's always the guy who owns the team.   

 

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

5 hours ago, Art said:

 

Snyder has ZERO input during Marty's time.   That's a known fact.   So you actually proved my point.

 

You also proved a hazy memory.   Marty was a failure.   He cut Larry Centers for wearing a baseball cap.   He alienated Darrell Green.   Marty was a complete failure.   THAT team rallied to 8-8 IN SPITE of Marty.   The team got together and decided, every man, BUT Lavar, to IGNORE the coaches and just play for themselves.   Dozens of the players would never have come back had Marty been here.   It was a mutiny the likes the league had never seen.   Snyder would STILL have kept him, but things like getting the players ice cream, but ONLY letting them have vanilla, because that was his favorite, didn't work, and Marty accepted no concept he needed to modify his game mildly to avoid a melt down.

 

Marty generally embarrassed himself.   Players like Chris Samuels took him down for being atrocious.   Vinny Cerrato worked under Gibbs just fine.   Snyder's most involvement with the team was during the Zorn time.   And he realized that wasn't working pretty quickly.   So he went back to the Marty model with Shanny.   And, yes, Shanny wanted RGIII AND is the one who paid that price.   Shanny, and everyone in the organization, wanted RGIII for less.   But given an option of NOT getting him or paying more than they wanted, Shanny picked to pay more.   

Snyder owns the team.   And like JKC and every owner in the league, including Kraft, when there is general disagreement among people in the organization, he sits and listens.   If Belichick traded Tom Brady, he'd have to go to Kraft first.    And he might get told no.   That Brady is too much a part of the team's marketing and branding that even if it HELPED them for years to come, the financial loss would be too great.

Football is still a business.   Not each decision is a "football" only thing.   When you cross in to the business, you typically have to talk to the man who handles it and that's always the guy who owns the team.   

 

 

 

I agree with your first paragraph, after that not so much.

 

Those of us "defending" Marty are not making claims that it would have led to glory, his playoff record was really bad and we get this.  Just pointing out that firing a guy with a ..613 winning percentage and replacing him with a college coach as the owner picked the players was clearly the wrong move as the records prove.  Considering he inherited an aging team with Tony Banks and Geoff Jorge as his QBs if you ask me 8-8 was pretty damned impressive.   If you call Marty's 8-8 season a "complete failure" then how exactly would you describe the regime and their 12-20 record that followed?

 

Sure he rattled some players but if you really believe there would have been an out and out mutiny had he returned I simply ask you why there was no mutiny on all the other teams he coached over 23 years?

 

You are right, all owners have some input regarding players.  But Robert Kraft is not in the war room picking players, Dan Rooney is not coaching Ben Rothlisburger to march into Mike Tomlin's office to demand certain plays be taken out of the playbook.

[TSO]

9 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Is there any doubt that Snyder/Allen trotting out Scott and told us all that he had complete control of personnel?

 

This is, unfortunately, what remains on my mind as well. What does "final say on personnel" mean here, in all reality?

 

Because I'm confused how "final say on personnel" somehow equates to "Scot just made up the board, Bruce decided who to sign" or "Jay decides on the final 53 within the season". That doesn't make sense to me. Coaches decide who to play as well as the depth chart, I've always known that to be true. But who is on the team and who isn't? Who gets acquired, and who gets let go? That's supposed to be for the guy with "final say on personnel", and that doesn't negate the coaches input being of major significance. That doesn't negate a collaborative effort.  

 

 So if Scot gives a Free Agent list of players 1-20 and Bruce/Shaffer come back with players 18, 19, and 20 on the list like "welp, sorry, that's who we felt comfortable with contract-wise".... how is that final say? If Scot wants to overpay someone because he's a priority, but can't, how is that final say? 

 

And, yes, everything is supposed to be a group decision, I get that, but there is supposed to be someone with the ultimate responsibility of choosing. That's what "final say" means. And it should be the guy who is the best talent evaluator. You get a unified, one vision, one goal, one over-arching philosophy approach that leads to the best possible chance for sustained success. How often does the "too many chefs in the kitchen" approach work? Why is it not as simple as the one who is the best in his respective field handles that responsibility, has the ultimate final say on that specific job, and has the title to represent that without ever being undermined?   

 

We saw how good this structure can be in terms of succeeding with drafting Crowder. Coaches questioned his size and if he could succeed at this level, but Scot overruled them. He's the GM with final say. The coaches then see him on the practice field, put any possible egos aside, and immediately recognize his value. Crowder eventually supplants the favorite slot receiver at the time in Andre Roberts and becomes a starter almost immediately. That, right there, is an FO working together with everyone fulfilling their roles properly. No undermining, no clashing of egos, no nothing other than mutual cooperation towards one goal.

 

Now I'm being told that this was only the case with the draft, pretty much? That's all Scot actually "ran" and, yet, we were told he had "final say on personnel" when he was hired?

 

I want to understand this better because I'm thoroughly confused. And, no, I'm not an idiot for being confused here. I don't see how anyone can understand this at a fundamental level. Had we been told he has final say on the draft, but nothing else, that'd be one thing. But that's not what we were told. That's not what those reporting on the team were lead to believe, either. That's not how Scot framed things when he spoke (and he also spoke about contracts like he was totally involved, not like it was just some hand off).  

 

That's been one of my biggest issues with this FO. Titles become meaningless and undermined, or the structure that should be there simply isn't. More than that, it seems like the vast majority of people who come here are not placed in an environment to thrive, they are placed in one where obstacles are presented on a fundamental, structural, level almost immediately and they have to overcome that on top of overcoming the difficulty of succeeding on the field in the NFL.

 

I hate that I feel this way. :/    

 

***EDIT*** Just read the JLC article about the GM search. Both good and bad, but more bad in my mind. Pretty much echoes the concerns I have above. I just hope they really figure this out and manage to get someone respectable here who has no fear of being undermined. Would go a long way for me. 

[Skinsinparadise]

My take on the article below.  There is more I didn't like then liked from the narrative of the article.  But I take some key optimism from it because I've been hearing/thinking that they are just going to hand the job to Doug Williams.   I love the fact that they are casting a wide net.  The idea that Danny doesn't like to spend on scouting.  If so wonder why?  I forgot the source but I recall years back a reporter talking up that the Redskins don't spend resources on scouting like the top organizations do like the Steelers.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/redskins-casting-wide-net-in-gm-search-that-might-ultimately-result-in-few-takers/

Big Plus

 

According to numerous league sources, Redskins representatives are reaching out to some of the more successful organizations in the NFL seeking to find a highly qualified executive to fill their GM job that was created after the club fired Scot McCloughan, a move the team made for cause due for allegations about his drinking impacting his ability to do the job.

 

...Ultimately, I can’t help but wonder if they follow a recent trend of somewhat outside-the-box hires (Browns promoting lawyer Sashi Brown to GM; 49ers hiring John Lynch out of the FOX broadcast booth to be their GM) and give their longtime ace contract negotiator and cap whiz Eric Schaffer a shot running the team.

 

Big Minus

 

Running personnel for owner Dan Snyder has generally been an unforgiving road to nowhere and filling this position now will be increasingly difficult.

...Their goal is to land someone with a very strong resume from one of the NFL’s top franchises -- precisely the kind of guys who would generally want nothing to do with this type of opening.

 

...Sources said the team is dangling a salary in the $1.5 million-per-year range, which won’t blow anyone uber-qualified away. Several of Washington’s targets have already bailed out at the initial stage -- disinterested in even interviewing for the job -- because of concerns over how Snyder has run the team and the over-reaching powers of Bruce Allen, the team president.

 

...The primary issue that many of those A-List types have is the age-old one in Washington -- who really has the power?

 

...Allen controls the Redskins’ pursue strings, budgets and can effectively veto moves by dissuading the owner from opening the coffers for a particular players (oh, like, say franchise-tag quarterback Kirk Cousins a year ago).

 

If Allen controls the money -- and he has since he’s been there even during McCloughan’s brief heyday of “personnel control” -- then he controls the building.

Oh, and there are the same old issues as well about whether or not Snyder will really spend sufficiently on his scouts, evaluators and infrastructure within football operations to procure and retain the type of front office staff it generally requires to win at the highest levels. It takes a village my friends, not just a GM, and if the prime candidates feel they won’t get the purse to bring in their most trusted lieutenants, then the job looks even less appealing.

 

So, let’s call it an uphill chore. And one that might ultimately result in few takers.

Which would bring the Redskins back to the kind of figurehead, puppet regime many believe Allen wants deep down inside, with little to no checks and balances in personnel decisions. Furthermore, given the unusual timing of Washington’s GM search, teams could block any current employee from interviewing for the job if they so choose.

[Art]

47 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

I agree with your first paragraph, after that not so much.

 

Those of us "defending" Marty are not making claims that it would have led to glory, his playoff record was really bad and we get this.  Just pointing out that firing a guy with a ..613 winning percentage and replacing him with a college coach as the owner picked the players was clearly the wrong move as the records prove.  Considering he inherited an aging team with Tony Banks and Geoff Jorge as his QBs if you ask me 8-8 was pretty damned impressive.   If you call Marty's 8-8 season a "complete failure" then how exactly would you describe the regime and their 12-20 record that followed?

 

Sure he rattled some players but if you really believe there would have been an out and out mutiny had he returned I simply ask you why there was no mutiny on all the other teams he coached over 23 years?

 

You are right, all owners have some input regarding players.  But Robert Kraft is not in the war room picking players, Dan Rooney is not coaching Ben Rothlisburger to march into Mike Tomlin's office to demand certain plays be taken out of the playbook.

 

DGF.

 

He didn't rattle some of the players.   He made them hate him.   Pure hatred.   Marty wasn't the same guy here as he was elsewhere.   Here he was Alexander Haig.   And he wanted to prove it.   Cutting our lone Pro Bowler for wearing a hat.   Having Darrell Green do fundamental punt catching drills just to see him dance.   Lavar did like him.   Dozens of players would have held out or quit had he remained or not changed.   That's something well understood.   The rallying cry was a team meeting where the outcome was "**** that son of a ****, play for us."   And they did reasonably well.

That Marty was a complete failure does not denote Spurrier was a complete success.   He failed to produce as well.   His failure was one of knowledge, execution and coaching philosophy, not demeanor and behavior.   You can't coach the NFL to protect outside in and survive.   He did because he felt if you saw a guy rushing you as a QB you could throw the ball before he hit you.   While potentially true, when you have Patrick Ramsey who played like a deer in headlights, it doesn't work.   That Spurrier also failed doesn't mean Marty succeeded.   He came in to prove he was the sheriff.   He made a total ass of himself turning the team against him -- again, except Lavar.   And when told about it he said he would make no alterations whatsoever.   

 

Had he stayed, the following year's team would have gone 0-16.   You can only harness that hatred to positive effect once.   But, none of this is revisionist.   I've been writing this since 2001, including indicating he had to be fired WHILE we were winning because the team was done with him.   The man was an embarrassment because of how he behaved, not that he couldn't have been good.

[Darrell Green Fan]

3 hours ago, Art said:

 

DGF.

 

He didn't rattle some of the players.   He made them hate him.   Pure hatred.   Marty wasn't the same guy here as he was elsewhere.   Here he was Alexander Haig.   And he wanted to prove it.   Cutting our lone Pro Bowler for wearing a hat.   Having Darrell Green do fundamental punt catching drills just to see him dance.   Lavar did like him.   Dozens of players would have held out or quit had he remained or not changed.   That's something well understood.   The rallying cry was a team meeting where the outcome was "**** that son of a ****, play for us."   And they did reasonably well.

That Marty was a complete failure does not denote Spurrier was a complete success.   He failed to produce as well.   His failure was one of knowledge, execution and coaching philosophy, not demeanor and behavior.   You can't coach the NFL to protect outside in and survive.   He did because he felt if you saw a guy rushing you as a QB you could throw the ball before he hit you.   While potentially true, when you have Patrick Ramsey who played like a deer in headlights, it doesn't work.   That Spurrier also failed doesn't mean Marty succeeded.   He came in to prove he was the sheriff.   He made a total ass of himself turning the team against him -- again, except Lavar.   And when told about it he said he would make no alterations whatsoever.   

 

Had he stayed, the following year's team would have gone 0-16.   You can only harness that hatred to positive effect once.   But, none of this is revisionist.   I've been writing this since 2001, including indicating he had to be fired WHILE we were winning because the team was done with him.   The man was an embarrassment because of how he behaved, not that he couldn't have been good.

 

 

Oh I remember those early Marty days very well.  As my username shows I didn't like hearing that he was treating Darrell Green like an undrafted rookie, I remember "Five O". But this is who Marty was and who he has always been.  His nickname The General was in place long before he came here, he was no different in Washington than he was in his other stops.  Again if there was a mutiny in store this would be the first and only group in his entire 23 years as a head coach to do so.  So either he changed dramatically for one season out of the 23 (doubtful), the players here were much more sensitive (spoiled?) to this way of coaching and would have been the only team out of 23 to have a mutiny or the entire thing would have blown over and like all tough coaches the players would have gotten in line.  I'm picking the last one and so would most everyone else.

 

I still don't understand how you can call an 8-8 season, after an 0-5 start and with total crap at QB, a disaster.  2-14 is a disaster.  8-8 is 1/2 game worse than what we had last year and most of us were pretty damned happy with last year. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

1 hour ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

This is, unfortunately, what remains on my mind as well. What does "final say on personnel" mean here, in all reality?

 

Because I'm confused how "final say on personnel" somehow equates to "Scot just made up the board, Bruce decided who to sign" or "Jay decides on the final 53 within the season". That doesn't make sense to me. Coaches decide who to play as well as the depth chart, I've always known that to be true. But who is on the team and who isn't? Who gets acquired, and who gets let go? That's supposed to be for the guy with "final say on personnel", and that doesn't negate the coaches input being of major significance. That doesn't negate a collaborative effort.  

 

 So if Scot gives a Free Agent list of players 1-20 and Bruce/Shaffer come back with players 18, 19, and 20 on the list like "welp, sorry, that's who we felt comfortable with contract-wise".... how is that final say? If Scot wants to overpay someone because he's a priority, but can't, how is that final say? 

 

And, yes, everything is supposed to be a group decision, I get that, but there is supposed to be someone with the ultimate responsibility of choosing. That's what "final say" means. And it should be the guy who is the best talent evaluator. You get a unified, one vision, one goal, one over-arching philosophy approach that leads to the best possible chance for sustained success. How often does the "too many chefs in the kitchen" approach work? Why is it not as simple as the one who is the best in his respective field handles that responsibility, has the ultimate final say on that specific job, and has the title to represent that without ever being undermined.   

 

We saw how good this structure can be in terms of succeeding with drafting Crowder. Coaches questioned his size and if he could succeed at this level, but Scot overruled them. He's the GM with final say. The coaches then see him on the practice field, put any possible egos aside, and immediately recognize his value. Crowder eventually supplants the favorite slot receiver at the time in Andre Roberts and becomes a starter almost immediately. That, right there, is an FO working together with everyone fulfilling their roles properly. No undermining, no clashing of egos, no nothing other than mutual cooperation towards one goal.

 

Now I'm being told that this was only the case with the draft, pretty much? That's all Scot actually "ran" and, yet, we were told he had "final say on personnel" when he was hired?

 

I want to understand this better because I'm thoroughly confused. And, no, I'm not an idiot for being confused here. I don't see how anyone can understand this at a fundamental level. Had we been told he has final say on the draft, but nothing else, that'd be one thing. But that's not what we were told. That's not what those reporting on the team were lead to believe, either. That's not how Scot framed things when he spoke (and he also spoke about contracts like he was totally involved, not like it was just some hand off).  

 

That's been one of my biggest issues with this FO. Titles become meaningless and undermined, or the structure that should be there simply isn't. More than that, it seems like the vast majority of people who come here are not placed in an environment to thrive, they are placed in one where obstacles are presented on a fundamental, structural, level almost immediately and they have to overcome that on top of overcoming the difficulty of succeeding on the field in the NFL.

 

I hate that I feel this way. :/    

 

***EDIT*** Just read the JLC article about the GM search. Both good and bad, but more bad in my mind. Pretty much echoes the concerns I have above. I just hope they really figure this out and manage to get someone respectable here who has no fear of being undermined. Would go a long way for me. 

 

 

Dang you guys write some long posts here!  But this was a really good one and I agree with most all of it.  I've thought long and hard about all of this for weeks and I just can't let Danny and Bruce off the hook.  They lied to me, they tried to get me to believe that this time things would be different.  But I didn't take the bait.  2 years ago I told my wife about SM, his track record, his drinking and the concerns and I refused to let Lucy pull the ball away this time.  I've seen a long list of accomplished professionals arrive here clean and walk out dirty.  Nope, no surprise at all this ended the way it did and like every other time I'm putting it on Daniel Snyder.

 

 

[TSO]

2 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

 

Dang you guys write some long posts here!  But this was a really good one and I agree with most all of it.  I've thought long and hard about all of this for weeks and I just can't let Danny and Bruce off the hook.  They lied to me, they tried to get me to believe that this time things would be different.  But I didn't take the bait.  2 years ago I told my wife about SM, his track record, his drinking and the concerns and I refused to let Lucy pull the ball away this time.  I've seen a long list of accomplished professionals arrive here clean and walk out dirty.  Nope, no surprise at all this ended the way it did and like every other time I'm putting it on Daniel Snyder.

 

 

 

I get your overall feeling here, and right now I'm pretty much there as well... but I disagree that it was some kind of bait and switch or a trick. I really believe they had good intentions when they first hired Scot. I believe they meant what they said at the time and I do think he had the power they claimed he had. I think we saw the tangible results to the setup as well. It just, for whatever reasons and as outlined by the concerns we all have, eventually waned and dissipated. And that sucks and is incredibly tiring as a fan to continue to have to go through. 

 

I'm just really glad that a big part of the aforementioned "tangible results" we saw is still here in Jay Gruden. I just fear he's going to fall victim to a poorly structured FO and one where he's given too much power in personnel. Coaches are often too loyal and too short-sighted, which is the way they should be with their players, to be given too much control over the roster. It's hard for them to be as cold and calculated as necessary. That's why a proper organizational structure is so important.  

      

[Darrell Green Fan]

2 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

I get your overall feeling here, and right now I'm pretty much there as well... but I disagree that it was some kind of bait and switch or a trick. I really believe they had good intentions when they first hired Scot. I believe they meant what they said at the time and I do think he had the power they claimed he had. I think we saw the tangible results to the setup as well. It just, for whatever reasons and as outlined by the concerns we all have, eventually waned and dissipated. And that sucks and is incredibly tiring as a fan to continue to have to go through. 

 

I'm just really glad that a big part of the aforementioned "tangible results" we saw is still here in Jay Gruden. I just fear he's going to fall victim to a poorly structured FO and one where he's given too much power in personnel. Coaches are often too loyal and too short-sighted, which is the way they should be with their players, to be given too much control over the roster. It's hard for them to be as cold and calculated as necessary. That's why a proper organizational structure is so important.  

      

 

You may be right.  But I'm not sure which is worse, lying or going back on your word and returning to the old  way of doing business.  If drinking was a problem for 18 months you make this move right after the season, not as free agency is starting.  Instead of talking to agents about free agent they are talking to Scott's agent about a settlement as the football world laughs at our team.  Again.

 

Just sick of the whole thing and I'm very angry this horrible man has stolen my love for my team of nearly 50 years. 

[Taylor 36]

8 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Considering he inherited an aging team with Tony Banks and Geoff Jorge as his QBs if you ask me 8-8 was pretty damned impressive.  

Marty is the one who went out and got Tony Banks after the Ravens cut him.  He didn't inherit that ****, he is the one who ate the rotten burrito and squatted it out in the middle of the field.

 

Fact is, his handling of players and personnel was horrendous while here.  Snyder was willing to keep him as the HC, but wanted him to give up personnel control. Marty refused, wanted full power, so he was fired.  This isn't speculation.  This is fact and was reported as such by every sports media outlet.

 

You can knock Snyder all you want for hiring Spurrier, but at the time, Spurrier was the hottest coach in CFB, and most, fans and media alike, thought it was a great move at the time.  It didn't work out, but to act like the world knew it was going to be a disaster except for dumbass Snyder at the time is revisionist and the epitome of Monday Morning QBing.

[Thinking Skins]

14 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am with you on that. Mike Jones the other day talked about the next GM and that whomever that is they would have to be someone who is OK with Bruce looking over their shoulder and overriding them at times.  So he agreed with Grant Paulsen who was interviewing Jones that Doug Williams is likely the next GM in part because he'd not have any issue with this because he's a Bruce guy.

 

The idea that either the power structure here with Scot was weak from the outset and key decisions overridden (Jerry Brewer) or stripped at some point of the limited power he did have (Breer, Jones, Chris Russell) has been strongly put out there by multiple sources.  And Breer and Russell in particular have expressed that they got this narrative from people currently within Redskins Park so this isn't purely Scot's version of the story.  Are they correct?   You got me.  But I tend to trust it.  Mike Jones I find is the most reliable reporter who covers the team.  Russell is the guy who broke the story and he seems to want to present a balanced version of it at least on air, he expressed the power struggle was only part of the problem, and Breer is one of the more well known national coverage guys and seems respected.  

 

There is enough smoke for me at least to be concerned.  And if Bruce really is not looking for a crony, as I've said I think his next hire might be telling one way or another.  The thing about Bruce is why not get in front of the press once in awhile?  If he's this benevolent guy who just does the right thing but is misunderstood by the press, why not get out there and give his side of the story.  And I am not just talking about this situation.   

 

I am not saying he needs to spill the beans.  He can make a statement and just say look, it didn't work out with Scot for various reasons.   We will hire a new GM after the draft, etc.  Some reporter I'd bet would ask him about the control question and he could just say that's been misrepresented and whomever is the next GM would have full personnel control or whatever he needs to say.  That's how most team GM's typically go about business -- they ultimately do talk to the press versus hide from them.  

 

If Bruce is being misrepresenting in all of this.  I think he'd do himself a favor by talking.  And he could avoid the back and forth about Scot by just making a statement on that subject and saying that's all he will say on it, now for other questions.  Because we aren't the only fans who are concerned with the idea of a figurehead GM where Bruce would be the defacto GM moving forward.  It's not that I have a beef with Bruce but I'd like to see him stay in his lane.  He doesn't come from a scouting/personnel background.  He's an ex-agent, a money guy.

 

If its not about Bruce having control it would be cool IMO for it to be explained by the horses mouth that its not so.  Because if whomever the next GM is will be about making recommendations to Bruce and Bruce mostly adheres to them but sometimes overrules.  Then that GM IMO is just a glorified Scott Campbell with a loftier title or as some reporters call it, they are the head scout but Bruce is the real GM.

 

 

I hear (read) this and I get where you're coming from, but I think Bruce right now has to run a business as the team president and GM. If Art's version of events is true then it explains a lot of why he wouldn't be talking to the media. I still don't think they (Bruce) leaked that story to the WP because - well I have my reasons and don't feel like getting back into them. So we have a situation where a guy could be getting abused by the local media for being a bully. It could be a situation where he actually wonders what the point is in fighting the media - they already don't like him and never really did except for him not being Vinny. In his one year as GM, before he had made any move, the local media was calling for him to be fired or to hire a "football GM". 

 

But I think that just like with the Georgetown firing of JT3, we will find out a lot about Scot and Bruce in the days, weeks, months and years to come. Bruce and Scot were close before this happened, how close will they be afterwards? Bruce used Scots services in 2014 and is (supposedly) using his boards right now. If Scot were to re-start that company, or say start doing a web site that ranked players, would Bruce use that service? Even more, what will Bruce do with the front office (assuming he stays). Would he go after another scout? Will he hire from within? Will he increase the scouting budget

 

I think that the media / public relations is low on the totem pole in term of priorities. Many of us Wizards fans called for the firing of Ernie years back (I calmed on this after we began making the playoffs and just accepted that he couldn't draft), but he or Ted never gave a press conference defending his position. They just continued to try to put together a good team. And hopefully that's what Bruce is doing. I posted in the FA thread reasons why I'm happy with him in the FO instead of Vinny and while I'll easily admit he's not perfect I think its a more important question of, even if Bruce will be the de-facto GM next year, will he be willing / able to hire somebody of Scot's talent to help come in here and at least write up the draft boards? 

[onedrop]

We can argue individual situations until we're blue in the face. All we will accomplish is debating what ultimately does not matter. Since JKC, before, during and after every single subsequent coach and "GM", through 16 (est) drafts and free agencies, innumerable PR nightmares, overpaying, underpaying, and basically finding a new bottom to our personal pit of despair annually there is one constant.

 

Lesser fans, a weaker fan base, would have given up by now.....take a break here.....reflect as if you were on the outside looking in at us.......almost embarrassing isn't it?

 

I don't know if we NEED a new owner, I do know we aren't getting one so I would implore ALL fans, including Dan Snyder, put the past away. We desperately need to if we are ever going to progress. We can't bring the glory of past accomplishments into the present by reintroducing those that were there, their relatives or their memories. Revere, honor and venerate them and move forward. 

 

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

9 hours ago, Taylor 36 said:

Marty is the one who went out and got Tony Banks after the Ravens cut him.  He didn't inherit that ****, he is the one who ate the rotten burrito and squatted it out in the middle of the field.

 

Fact is, his handling of players and personnel was horrendous while here.  Snyder was willing to keep him as the HC, but wanted him to give up personnel control. Marty refused, wanted full power, so he was fired.  This isn't speculation.  This is fact and was reported as such by every sports media outlet.

 

You can knock Snyder all you want for hiring Spurrier, but at the time, Spurrier was the hottest coach in CFB, and most, fans and media alike, thought it was a great move at the time.  It didn't work out, but to act like the world knew it was going to be a disaster except for dumbass Snyder at the time is revisionist and the epitome of Monday Morning QBing.

 

First off not revisionist history at all.  I was pissed when he fired Marty and equally pissed at the hiring of Spurrier,  I called him another Jerry Faust, a guy totally unproven at the higher level..  Many shared this feeling at the time and we were right.

 

 Marty was forced to get Tony Banks because his only other option was Jeff George as Brad Johnson wanted out and was soon gone. He correctly evaluated George, knew he needed another option and soon cut his sorry ass and he never played another down again.   He made the best of a bad QB situation he inherited.  In only one year Marty did a good job of getting out of the  salary cap problem Boy Genius put the team in. It was amazing he got them to 8-8, you act as if they went 1-15 and he thought Tony Banks was the long term answer when he was simply a stop gap.  

 

Snyder promised Marty full power, then after only one season where they didn't even have a losing year, he went back on his word, panicked and wanted to put himself in charge of personnel.  We saw the results of this move for the following 15 years.

 

Marty didn't agree because that was not the deal he signed.  If you changed jobs, moved across the country, and after only one year your boss totally changed the agreement that led to you taking the job in the first place would you be OK with that?  Didn't think so.

 

Simply amazing that anyone would side with Snyder here.

[bedlamVR]

DGF - Dan didn't want to fire Marty  . He wanted another voice in there - exactly in the same way the Chargers did a couple of seasons later after promising the same thing the Dan did ....( when the same thing keeps happening to the same guy you have to think ...hmmm coincidence ? ) 

 

but Marty refused and essentially forced Dan to fire ? him .

 

i do think the Marty "solved the redskins cap issues" is something of an urban myth

 

...what happened was Deon Sanders and Mark Carrier retired ( I cannot remember exactly what happened with carrier  but I think initially he was going to be suspended and decided not to come back - but I could be wrong) 

 

but with Sanders gone that was a huge contract kind of off the books - I seem to remember carting deadcap for years . In fact I distinctly remember us struggling against the cap for years after Marty - so much so we were so far over the cap in 2005 people were speculating we would be fielding 25 plus udfa rookies .. 

 

Jeff George was Marty's problem . He carried him all offseason through training camp and the world knew George just didn't fit Marty's system or mentality . But he stuck with him until week two of the regular season .

 

That was a self inflicted stupidity 

 

Remember he had all the power in the world he could have cut anyone he wanted ... he did cut our only pro bowler from 2000 ... 

 

And this idea he was given an aging team - I say again - in the previous couple of years we had drafted LaVar Arrington, Champ Bailey, Jon Jansenand Chris Samuels . We still had Michell Westbrook and Shawn Alexander in rookie contracts, as were Lang, Barber etc . 

 

Sure we had Bruce Smith and Darrell Green but both of these guys were effective . Marty brought in two the oldest players on the 2001 roster in David Szott and Eric Metcalf (damn) ...

 

And I worry when people talk about 2001 because I think I am going crazy when I think back - but we were not just boring on offence we were keystone cop embarrassing . ... (even in the darkest days of Jim Zorn I never thought his team was as bad as Jimmy Rayes offence) It was like the QB had just met the team ( because in Banks case he had) and things were horrible - just horrible . 

 

But the point is all through 2001 Dan Snyder sat back and watched this horror show and did nothing ... 

 

and yet it is used as a rallying call to people wanting to find evidence that Dan is an exceptionally bad owner meddling and impatient. 

 

It was was a bad situation all round . Somehow we managed to choose the wrong hot shot collage offensive genius . But Marty failing was on Marty ..

 

the other really wierd thing is some years after all of this Dan and Marty were playing golf together and while not necessarily friends do not have the raving anomosity people seem to think Dan invokes around the NFL. 

 

Amongst the local press - yes but players and coaches not as much as you might think 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

13 minutes ago, bedlamVR said:

And I worry when people talk about 2001 because I think I am going crazy when I think back - but we were not just boring on offence we were keystone cop embarrassing . ... (even in the darkest days of Jim Zorn I never thought his team was as bad as Jimmy Rayes offence) It was like the QB had just met the team ( because in Banks case he had) and things were horrible - just horrible . 

 

But the point is all through 2001 Dan Snyder sat back and watched this horror show and did nothing ... 

 

and yet it is used as a rallying call to people wanting to find evidence that Dan is an exceptionally bad owner meddling and impatient. 

 

It was was a bad situation all round . Somehow we managed to choose the wrong hot shot collage offensive genius . But Marty failing was on Marty ..

 

the other really wierd thing is some years after all of this Dan and Marty were playing golf together and while not necessarily friends do not have the raving anomosity people seem to think Dan invokes around the NFL. 

 

Amongdt the local press - yes but players and coaches not as much as you might think 

 

You aren't the only one around here lol...there have been a number of us who feel Marty's time here has grown to urban myth levels in terms of competence and direction of the team. Marty's issues from the first days of OTAs until his firing were well known at the time but have been overlooked/ignored in the 15 years since.

 

Just a reminder: since 1970 there have been a total of 1381 teams that have played in the NFL (47 seasons worth of teams, I think). In terms of least amount of points scored in the first 5 weeks of a season, do you know where Marty's 2001 Redskins offense ranks?

 

2nd.

 

Out of 1381 possible teams, it was the 2nd worst offensive production over the first 5 weeks of any season. Only the expansion Tampa Bay offense of 1976 was worse.

 

And you're right in that Marty didn't/doesn't hate Snyder in the least. Spoke very highly of him even after the firing. Who he hated was Vinny, and with a passion. But Snyder jettisoned Vinny in favor of Marty, and he's on record as saying Snyder will go out of his way to give you what you feel is needed as a coach to win and that he's a good owner to work for. But as many have said over the years, I think that mostly holds true for coaches he already has respect for (even Shanahan doesn't bash Snyder outside of not liking his relationship with Griffin). For guys like Norv, Spurrier and Zorn, they have to do a ****load to earn it. One reason I think Gruden is still here is because Allen runs things FAR more than Snyder does, even through proxy. Snyder's respect is more limited to wins than anything direct--I'm guessing that Gruden has never had any meetings with Snyder to explain the week's game plan like Zorn used to do...Allen would have stepped in if that started to happen.

[goskins10]

18 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

You aren't the only one around here lol...there have been a number of us who feel Marty's time here has grown to urban myth levels in terms of competence and direction of the team. Marty's issues from the first days of OTAs until his firing were well known at the time but have been overlooked/ignored in the 15 years since.

 

Just a reminder: since 1970 there have been a total of 1381 teams that have played in the NFL (47 seasons worth of teams, I think). In terms of least amount of points scored in the first 5 weeks of a season, do you know where Marty's 2001 Redskins offense ranks?

 

2nd.

 

Out of 1381 possible teams, it was the 2nd worst offensive production over the first 5 weeks of any season. Only the expansion Tampa Bay offense of 1976 was worse.

 

And you're right in that Marty didn't/doesn't hate Snyder in the least. Spoke very highly of him even after the firing. Who he hated was Vinny, and with a passion. But Snyder jettisoned Vinny in favor of Marty, and he's on record as saying Snyder will go out of his way to give you what you feel is needed as a coach to win and that he's a good owner to work for. But as many have said over the years, I think that mostly holds true for coaches he already has respect for (even Shanahan doesn't bash Snyder outside of not liking his relationship with Griffin). For guys like Norv, Spurrier and Zorn, they have to do a ****load to earn it. One reason I think Gruden is still here is because Allen runs things FAR more than Snyder does, even through proxy. Snyder's respect is more limited to wins than anything direct--I'm guessing that Gruden has never had any meetings with Snyder to explain the week's game plan like Zorn used to do...Allen would have stepped in if that started to happen.

 

You are spot on in terms of the urban myth about Marty. He was not all bad though. After Norv, the team sorely lacked discipline. Marty brought that. And yes those first 5 gms were horrible, but he also finished the season 8 - 3. I remember watching those games with my brother in law and it wasn't pretty (Marty ball never was), but they were gutting out wins.

 

But he was a little too far the other way. Pissing Darrell Green off was not a smart thing to do. Sticking with Jeff George for even a minute was a joke. Marty literally got run out of every job he had. Hell the Chargers fired him after going 14-2! 

 

But over time, Marry has become a beacon for how Snyder has meddled and messed things up. I had no problem with Snyder firing Marty. I did have a problem with him bringing Vinnie back. I always have wondered if instead of bringing Vinnie back, had Snyder gotten a real GM, how different would things have been?

 

I also agree with @Skinsinparadise that while Vinnie was poor with $, Bruce appears too frugal. There is a place for both being cautious but being willing to open the wallet when needed. Some might point to Jackson and Norman. But it can't just be for superstars. The team needs a lot of really good players along with a few great ones. The GMs that are successful are the ones that know when to do each pay or pass.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

37 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

You are spot on in terms of the urban myth about Marty. He was not all bad though. After Norv, the team sorely lacked discipline. Marty brought that. And yes those first 5 gms were horrible, but he also finished the season 8 - 3. I remember watching those games with my brother in law and it wasn't pretty (Marty ball never was), but they were gutting out wins.

 

 

What gets me is when people say "He had the team going in the right direction!"...Um, hello...he had the team as the 2nd worst offense in the last 47 years of the NFL lol...there is almost literally nowhere else to go but up. And if everything Art said is true, Marty had less to do with the wins than we thought.

 

Plus, Marty was almost fired in San Diego as well lol...in 2003 they were 2-10 after 12 games. Actually, the whole A. J. Smith/Schotty in San Diego story has some parallels with Gruden, Allen and Scot, I think...

[Skinsinparadise]

13 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I hear (read) this and I get where you're coming from, but I think Bruce right now has to run a business as the team president and GM. If Art's version of events is true then it explains a lot of why he wouldn't be talking to the media. I still don't think they (Bruce) leaked that story to the WP because - well I have my reasons and don't feel like getting back into them. So we have a situation where a guy could be getting abused by the local media for being a bully. It could be a situation where he actually wonders what the point is in fighting the media - they already don't like him and never really did except for him not being Vinny. In his one year as GM, before he had made any move, the local media was calling for him to be fired or to hire a "football GM". 

 

 

Art's version of the story if I understood correctly also includes the point that Scot never had the power in question in the first place to be stripped so nothing changed.  Redskins Nation doubled down on that point.  If so, that doesn't reassure me.  My main beef with all of this isn't even about what went down but the idea that our "GM" is just a guy making recommendations but not calling the shots.   So whether Scot never had the power in the first place or was stripped of it.  I hate either version of the story.  Actually, I'd dig it more if Scot was stripped of the power because then at least there is a narrative of good intentions as to power structure that just went awry based on context.

 

As for Bruce not talking to the media, its not endemic to just this situation.  He's relatively aloof when it comes to media interviews. The local reporters/radio personalities say frequently this dude doesn't like to talk to us with rare exceptions.

 

I don't dislike Bruce. I've met him, I liked him.   But I don't see why he deserves the benefit of the doubt where every point is spun his way.  Like most of us, I've listened and read everything I could on Scot/Bruce drill.   I've yet to find a narrative that fits that Scot was perfect/great throughout or for that matter a narrative about how Bruce was wonderful at every step.  There seems to be a lot of grey in these reports. 

 

If Bruce is just doing the right thing (no power grabs) but is misunderstood then I gather he has some work to do to disabuse some people of a different perception.  Because according to both Laconfora and Keim, as they are shopping for the next GM, Bruce is a variable they feel is in play for some of these candidates.   LaConfora came much harder on that point saying something to the effect of candidate/s telling him who does Bruce think he's fooling?

 

As for my personal take on Bruce.  I don't know.   I don't give him the benefit of the doubt on everything.  My hunch on the Scot/Bruce story is that they are both at fault for different reasons.    But I'll judge Bruce based on his next moves.  If he indeed hires a GM with a big reputation and says in the press conference that he will stay out of the way.  And he gets Kirk Cousins a LTC.  Then, I'd love the guy.  I'll join you in singing his praises, then.  Until that happens, I am skeptical but I am not ruling out Bruce being vindicated.  I think Bruce is a sharp guy, I want him to simply to stay in his lane, that's it. 

[Morneblade]

I'll say this. We don't have many verifiable, actual facts to go on with this, but if we have to believe one person on what happened here, it's Art. I'm not sure how tied in he is now, but he's been tied in to the Redskins for a lot of years. Outside of Andyman and a couple others, no one had as much access to the team.