The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[goskins10]

6 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

That would have been OK too. 

 

The current Richarson/Doctson situation is bad.  Doctson would be out of the league by now, except that we are chasing the sunk cost of our wasted 1st round pick.

 

 

 

Not sure I agreed there. Doctson was injured the first season. He is in effect in his second season. Need to give him this season to determine if he can find a place. What I would have done though is moved him down the depth chart, starting someone like Sims or Davis ahead of him he either responds or he falls completely off. I am Ok with either. They may have had that plan but it got changed due to injury. I would bring Simmy Cobbs up right now (really at the start of the bye.) Move Josh down. Again, he either shows some fight and gets after it, or he sulks and you move on. I am Ok with either, and I an admitted huge fan of Josh's. He was an amazing story coming out of college. Still hoping he reaches his potential in the NFL. But it's not looking good so far. 

 

And it's very early to make a call on Richardson. We have a QB now that is know for not finding his WRs. I think Jay will help him open up but it will also be game dependent. let's give them at least a few more games. It's a new team with a new QB for both him and the team. These things take a little time to work on trust and timing. Both need some time. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

McCloughan came in, mentioned he was surprised how well our scouts/etc worked, and decided he didn't want to replace anyone.  Rumors out of Cleveland are that McCloughan had a bit of an abrasive personality, and sometimes was a "my way" guy.  He wasn't kept on after the draft happened.  McCloughan is a great talent evaluator, so you can see where the "I know more, I know I'm right" mindset (if the Cleveland rumors are true) came from.

 

Could McCloughan have been trying to step on toes and/or micromanage with the scouts/front office around him and that led to his firing?  I've liked the off-season decisions in 2017 and 2018.  They make sense.  They adhere to a logical path for team building.  You can map out what we're likely to do in the future.

 

 

 

I spent 2 hours with him i couple of years ago as I talked about on different threads back then.  It was easy to see Scot was a great person.   Jay who I talked to in a much more limited way, comes off like a great guy, too.   Many have talked about Scot being a great guy -- Cooley who admitted had Bruce's back even said yeah people really really like Scot.   Albert Breer who has good sources around the league said a lot of people in the NFL had Scot's back when the WP story came out because while Scot has had his troubles (which clearly were legit troubles), he still had a lot of friends because he's a great guy,

 

I'd actually hope that the guy who supposedly is head of personnel does have a sometimes my way approach.    But yeah to this point got no doubt that if Bruce tried to assert himself with Scot and Scot disagreed he didn't just kowtow. According to some that was part of the tension between the two albeit never the overriding problem. 

 

1 hour ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

I'm not a Bruce defender or an advocate.  I like the organizational structure the Redskins are building, and I like the philosophy for how to fill positions.  From what I've read, signs point towards recently promoted Kyle Smith eventually becoming the GM. 

 

If Kyle becomes the GM then I like the structure, too.  But I don't like a structure with Bruce at the top regardless of how little he micro manages.  And I feel that way for multiple reasons that I've expounded on plenty on this thread -- don't have the time to repeat that stuff now. 

 

1 hour ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

It's not, and this is the main issue.  Bruce is not the GM, he doesn't have GM responsibilities or powers.  He doesn't do day-to-day football decisions.  He gets credit and blame for things that he shouldn't be.  This, I think, is social media's fault.  It's gotten around to everyone that he's "basically the GM", and that gets recirculated over and over and now everyone thinks Bruce has more power and sway within the organization than he does.

 

 

 

 

Cliff notes version of my take is this.  I think the pro personnel side of the FO is weak and from what I've heard that's mostly where Bruce puts his stamp.  And all the culture stuff to me isn't incidental and just noise.  To me stuff like below matter a lot.

 

A.  The Scot departure and how it went down 

B.  the Kirk Contract stuff including people close to Kirk saying part of the reason Kirk wanted out was Bruce was a douche

C.  Agents saying he's the least trustworthy GM in the NFL

D.  The report that the Redskins told other teams about their issues with Kirk after they signed Alex Smith -- seems to be a unique trademark about this organization when someone of note leaves.  Coaches, players, personnel people, etc.

E.  The WP and 106.7 reporting people in the FO building don't like Bruce

F.  The Kirk press release and the series of other dumb statements from him 

G.  The prince of darkness label from his time in Tampa - media didn't like him there, they don't like him here.

H. The "meh" approach to FA just about every year -- and yeah that's where apparently he does have more of a stamp

 

For me I am sick of the punch line stuff about the Redskins where Bruce seems to be the lead jester of it.   I don't like the personality stamp

he's put on this team and perception of it.  I am not looking for a mini me version of Dan in the president's role.  I'd like a guy who presents himself and team well and with some class.  Maybe I am too tied to the 80s era the Beathard and Gibbs era.  But I liked that feeling of supporting a team that goes about treating people the right way.

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I wouldn't say I was ignoring. I took your last paragraph as sort of a summary of the point you were trying to make. Which is Bruce really isn't heavily involved with the picking of the actual players but is res. But if he's team president, he deserves some credit for putting the people in place to pick those players.

 

That wasn't my main point.  My main point I hit hard.  I even directed a question to you the other day centering on my main point -- from what I recall you didn't respond to it.

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Both at their core center around logic, which I'm a huge stickler for. Which is why I'm so passionate about them and post so often on them.

 

 

So you come to the rescue for a guy on just about every thread where he's mentioned for someone who is now according to you "meh" at his job and in another post agreed he's probably a douche, too.  OK.  Makes a lot of sense.   That's a lot of passion for someone that's meh and a douche.  

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

To say "Vinny hired some good people too" which I'm not even sure if that's true seems dismissive and illogical based on personal feelings of the dude.

 

 

Some of the "scouts" that have been touted here that Scot liked where hired during Vinny's tenure.  Shanny himself talked up what he inherited in the scouting department and also explained why he didn't make changes.  Vinny was part of the hiring of Gibbs -- happened under his watch.  Gibbs by the way loved the guy, I've posted some of the things that Gibbs has said before about Vinny -- if I get in the mood maybe I'll dig it up. And its not me selling Vinny -- I didn't like him just like I don't like Bruce but I recall the conversations about him well.  Vinny had some strong defenders including ones who would say he's not as bad as people portray.  I recall their arguments well.   Vinny had a small set of passionate defenders just like Bruce does.  

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

It's always been my landing point, it's just you choose to take the above points and project onto me that I LOVE Bruce Allen and am rushing to defend him. Again, that's your prerogative.

 

Your landing point has changed at different points as I pointed out.  But if you want to make the claim its always been that way -- cool, I'll go for that ride.  I'll recall this the next time we have a big Bruce debate that your anchor point is he's meh and a douche. 

 

 

[megared]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

"Top 10" in money is meaningless reference for the most part. Next year he will barely break the top 15 and the year after that will be in the bottom half of starting QBs - that is unless there is a market correction. Ironically it is the same argument I had with those that did not want to sign Kirk and are now really happy with Alex and think the money is fair - even if it is only $4.5M/yr different. 

 

You're still comparing the price of what Cousins got as if that was necessarily what we had to pay him.  We had multiple opportunities to sign him to a lesser contract than that, and balked each time.  Just because the Vikings swooped in and overpaid him, thinking he was the missing piece to their Super Bowl aspirations, doesn't mean that was ever the price we balked at paying.  In fact, it was much less, with a corresponding smaller amount of guaranteed cash.  

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

"Top 10" in money is meaningless reference for the most part. Next year he will barely break the top 15 and the year after that will be in the bottom half of starting QBs - that is unless there is a market correction. Ironically it is the same argument I had with those that did not want to sign Kirk and are now really happy with Alex and think the money is fair - even if it is only $4.5M/yr different. 

 

So, let's go through the exercise yet again - for the 100th time - Here are the QBs making more than Alex in terms of per/yr (which is not really the best measure since it's really guaranteed money, but lets start here):

 

 

On that list I can only see a few QBs that are considerably better; Rogers, Brees, maybe Stafford - although I see him more of the same just a little bit more of a gunslinger. The crest are all about the same with some small differences. Also, look at the % guaranteed. He is well not the bottom on that count. Also, notice anyone missing? Like Tom Brady, Ben Rothlesburger (even though I hate that guy)? Again talent is not as big a factor 

 

Alex Smith doesn't belong on that list.  I see first ballot HOFers, former MVP candidates, and young guys that should be setting the market.  Alex Smith doesn't fit into ANY of those categories.  He's only ever going to be as good or effective as the play makers surrounding him.  And realistically some of those guys went back and renegotiated/extended/re-signed their contracts after Smith received his (Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Kirk Cousins, Jimmy G, Drew Brees).  And if we're being honest, Smith's $16 M becomes fully guaranteed for 2020 in March 2019, so his guaranteed money will then be $71 M.  There is absolutely nothing you could say to convince me that he's worthy of that kind of contract. 

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

Let me ask this, did you want them to sign Kirk? You see him at #3. Do you think he is the 3rd best QB in the league? 

 

Lastly on this point, I would have preferred they not make the trade and said so immediately. But I also said that in a vacuum that trade is not bad and Alex is a pretty good replacement - albeit a bit older. I do not see it as kicking anything down the road. That's why I said I sort of agree. The handling of Kirk was atrocious. But if you do go out and get another QB, Alex was the best there was out there. And he is not really being paid that much a premium when you consider raising CAPs and guaranteed money. Bruce owns the historic bugling of Kirk. I have been on that train once they tagged him a second time without sighing him. But the trade for Alex? It's Ok for me. 

 

Nope, once Kirk's demands became astronomical I didn't want him because I didn't feel he would be able to win despite a limited roster.  Same way I feel about Smith.  The one consolation prize we could've gotten out of this, which is building for the future, acquiring impact players without the need to trade, Bruce squandered.  

 

I never felt we needed to 'replace' Kirk...I've always said that at some point we need to focus on doing what other successful teams have done...build a strong roster of young players, get rid guys that are paid beyond their usefulness, and draft a young QB to get production out of him on a rookie contract. 

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

Why limit it to the past two seasons? Had Jones worked out he would have been the main RB right now., It's only 4 yrs removed. I took 4 yrs because the life expectancy of starting RB is about 5 to 6 yrs - or until they get to 30. Also, they did draft a RB even in 2016 and brought in Rob Kelly. Them not finding their guy is not the same as doing nothing about it. And again, how is this all Bruce's fault (can't believe I am defending him! It's far extreme posts like this that cause me to do so but I throw up a little each time... OK, got that out.) 

 

Because the question was about the moves Bruce made the past two off seasons.  If you want to go back, I've been on record to say that letting Morris go was a mistake, that ended up costing us multiple seasons of productivity out of the RB position.  And it wasn't like he was going to break the bank...

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

"Hot and bothered" is yet another exaggeration to meet the narrative. But Ok, let's go with that anyway. With a high profile RB like AP with some baggage (child abuse) in his recent history, I can see them wanting to know. It's not exactly like they have a great relationship with the local media (self induced no doubt, especially with Dan.), but still it can be a problem. They should have been told they were bringing someone like that in. Also, in the end, they did sign him. If Bruce were really "hot and bothered", he could have and would have blocked it.

 

What would you call it?  Upset?  Angry?  Same thing.  I don't see that as a mis-characterization of what Doug described in that interview.  And AD had played for the Saints and Cards after all of that came out, with no hiccups...we weren't exactly taking a chance on him.  I find it ironic that Bruce pulled the same stunt to grab Smith, but it's somehow okay when he does it.  You can't make this **** up...

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

You are always going to overpay in free agency. That number by SB Nation is just their very uninformed opinion. I see them wrong way more than they are right. Still, he is just the 28th highest paid WR in the NFL per year. Is that a little high? Probably. But it's not a "huge" contract as you said to begin with. Also, again you are ignoring the guaranteed money is much less than the others in his price range at just 35% of the contract being fully guaranteed. I stand by that it's nto that bad a contract at all, especially if he can stay healthy - in fairness that is a big if. To that I agree. 

 

Does "uninformed" mean spot-on?  

 

Quote

Using Tate’s contract as a comparative example, that five-year, $31M contract was signed when the 2014 salary cap was $133M. OverTheCap.com is projecting the 2018 salary cap to be in the $178M range, which is 33.8% higher than the 2013 cap. Adjusting Tate’s contract with a 33.8% increase, would transform the 5-year, $31M deal into a 5-year, $41.5M deal ($8.3M APY), which would be almost right in line with the Torrey Smith and Marvin Jones contracts.

 

I just can't see paying a position 2/3 of the money, to get 1/4 of the production as a win.  I don't care what he costs, and really if Bruce had done his homework on the kind of QB Smith is, he might have realized that we really don't need him...

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

Last year our DLine had almost nothing. Just a few pressures. This year, teams are trying to isolate Allen and Payne figuring both are in effect rookies (since Allen only played 5 gms last year). Let's see who the season goes first before drawing any final conclusions. 

 

What are you basing this on?  PFF had us as the top ranked defense for getting pressure in 2017.

[HardcoreZorn]

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

That wasn't my main point.  My main point I hit hard.  I even directed a question to you the other day centering on my main point -- from what I recall you didn't respond to it.

We've also traveled this road before, but your overarching point is he's the face and reflects the team and he seems like a bad dude based on things such as the agent poll, Russell and other sources. I didn't respond bc I think I've made my point very clear in the past, I don't put that much stock into it. If we had trouble bringing in FA's or coaches or re-signing guys like Trent, Kerrigan, Reed, etc. I would. But we don't. Just a bunch of noise IMO, even if there's truth to him being a douche part.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

So you post incessantly and come to the rescue to a guy on just about every thread he's mentioned for someone who is now according to you "meh" at his job and in another post agreed he's probably a douche, too.  OK.  Makes a lot of sense.   That's a lot of passion for someone that's meh and a douche.  

Exhibit A on not reading my posts. Or comprehending. I argue logic, and there's plenty of illogical posts surrounding Bruce/Kirk/Scott. It's what draws me there.

 

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Your landing point has changed at different points as I pointed out.  But if you want to make the claim its always been that way -- cool, I'll go for that ride.  I'll recall the next time we have a big Bruce debate that your anchor point is he's meh and a douche. 

 

 

It hasn't. Meh to me is OK. You aren't a rock star but you aren't a train wreck. You do some good things, you make some gaffes. Everyone I choose to engage in debate with on the matter thinks he's terribad. That's where the disagreement comes from, but see there's this grey area in between loving the dude and despising him. That's where I'm at, that's where I've been. Feel free to dig something up that says otherwise, but you aren't going to find it.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If Kyle becomes the GM then I like the structure, too.  But I don't like a structure with Bruce at the top regardless of how little he micro manages.  And I feel that way for multiple reasons that I've expounded on plenty on this thread -- don't have the time to repeat that stuff now. 

 

I'm coming into this thread super late, I know.  So if I'm suggesting something you've already talked about, maybe point to that response?  Or not, whatever.

 

Anyways, the point from my post is that I don't think Bruce is "at the top" of the organization.  I think he's more "off to the side" as a liaison to Snyder.  He's not in charge of the roster, personnel, scouting, drafting, day-to-day operations, stadium issues, ticket/concession pricing, etc.  From what I'm reading, it appears to me, like the guys in charge of those things don't feel a need to ask Bruce for confirmation (at least in some cases).  I believe Brian Lafemina accepted his job, in part, because he'd have more autonomy.  It was a surprise he left his position within the NFL to accept his position within the Redskins.  I doubt that happens unless he had more power.  That's my guess at least.

 

14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Cliff notes version of my take is this.  I think the pro personnel side of the FO is weak and from what I've heard that's mostly where Bruce puts his stamp.  And all the culture stuff to me isn't incidental and just noise.  To me stuff like below matter a lot.

 

A.  The Scot departure and how it went down 

B.  the Kirk Contract stuff including people close to Kirk saying part of the reason Kirk wanted out was Bruce was a douche

C.  Agents saying he's the least trustworthy GM in the NFL

D.  The report that the Redskins told other teams about their issues with Kirk after they signed Alex Smith -- seems to be a unique trademark about this organization when someone of note leaves.  Coaches, players, personnel people, etc.

E.  The WP and 106.7 reporting people in the FO building don't like Bruce

F.  The Kirk press release and the series of other dumb statements from him 

G.  The prince of darkness label from his time in Tampa - media didn't like him there, they don't like him here.

H. The "meh" approach to FA just about every year -- and yeah that's where apparently he does have more of a stamp

 

A. Poorly handled for sure.  Even if McCloughan should've been shown the door, there have to be dozens of better ways to do it.  This I squarely put at the foot of Bruce.

B. Can't recall Kirk saying Bruce was a douche, but the contract stuff was set up in 2016, from then, Kirk and his agent had the leverage, used that leverage, and did a great job with patience.  I recall Kirk saying he almost buckled in the 2017 off-season but his agent reminded him to stay the course.  I have no ill-will towards Kirk or his agent, we all know the NFL is a business.

C. Meh.  One anonymous report means nothing.  I don't know how Ozzie Newsome can be better when he did Ryan Grant dirty with the "failed medical" days after he signed, and the afternoon that Crabtree became available.  Grant and his agent then showed him doing drills on a field the next day.  Grant flies to Indy soon after and his medical comes back fine.  How untrustworthy is that?

D.  Am I misremembering, was this when Gruden was talking about his new QB (Alex Smith) and did what every coach does by praising them?  Or was there something else?

E. WaPo people are constantly changing, I've liked what I read from Jerry Brewer though.  Haven't listed to 106.7 in a long time.  I can't really comment on this one.

F.  Which one?  Kirk vs Kurt name issue irritated me.  The frustrated Bruce that sent a public letter about the latest contract offer also irritated me.  Are these what you're talking about?  If so, I agree.

G.  Wait what?  That is spicy!  Never heard of that before.

H.  Wait, you disagree with the Patriots, Steelers, Packers, etc model for roster construction?  I've been begging for it for awhile, and am happy we're finally using it.  We're projected for the max amount of compensatory draft picks you can get in 2019, which is 4.  When's the last time we had 1 comp pick, let alone more than 1?  Certainly not when Cerrato was throwing money around left and right.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

For me I am sick of the punch line stuff about the Redskins where Bruce seems to be the lead jester of it.   I don't like the personality stamp

he's put on this team and perception of it.  I am not looking for a mini me version of Dan in the president's role.  I'd like a guy who presents himself and team well and with some class.  Maybe I am too tied to the 80s era the Beathard and Gibbs era.  But I liked that feeling of supporting a team that goes about treating people the right way.

 

Am I wrong here, or didn't Jack Kent Cooke not like Beathard and eventually forced him out?  That era almost never gets talked about anymore, but last I heard about Beathard's departure, it wasn't amicable.

[goskins10]

23 minutes ago, megared said:

 

You're still comparing the price of what Cousins got as if that was necessarily what we had to pay him.  We had multiple opportunities to sign him to a lesser contract than that, and balked each time.  Just because the Vikings swooped in and overpaid him, thinking he was the missing piece to their Super Bowl aspirations, doesn't mean that was ever the price we balked at paying.  In fact, it was much less, with a corresponding smaller amount of guaranteed cash. 

 

 

But we are not talking about what they could have had before. I made it very clear - very very clear that I believe Bruce ****ed up on Kirk. But we have what we have. AS far as it being "much less" that's not factually accurate. in fact none of know what he was asking for, including the Redskins actually since after the initial contract offer that made in 2015 they said nothing. And if thy had accepted that offer it was for 3 yrs. So we would be there again with the same issue, just not having to pay $44M the last two years. It would still be in th same QB market. 

 

23 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Alex Smith doesn't belong on that list.  I see first ballot HOFers, former MVP candidates, and young guys that should be setting the market.  Alex Smith doesn't fit into ANY of those categories.  He's only ever going to be as good or effective as the play makers surrounding him.  And realistically some of those guys went back and renegotiated/extended/re-signed their contracts after Smith received his (Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Kirk Cousins, Jimmy G, Drew Brees).  And if we're being honest, Smith's $16 M becomes fully guaranteed for 2020 in March 2019, so his guaranteed money will then be $71 M.  There is absolutely nothing you could say to convince me that he's worthy of that kind of contract. 

I am so glad you are open minded to discussion. You are of course entitled to your opinion even if it's incredibly wrong. But since youj dont; vwantto discuss it then I will move on.  

 

23 minutes ago, megared said:

 

 

Nope, once Kirk's demands became astronomical I didn't want him because I didn't feel he would be able to win despite a limited roster.  Same way I feel about Smith.  The one consolation prize we could've gotten out of this, which is building for the future, acquiring impact players without the need to trade, Bruce squandered.  

 

I never felt we needed to 'replace' Kirk...I've always said that at some point we need to focus on doing what other successful teams have done...build a strong roster of young players, get rid guys that are paid beyond their usefulness, and draft a young QB to get production out of him on a rookie contract. 

 

I am guessing you are fairly new here. If not, you would know this has been my position also. However, it is what it is. They traded for Alex. And despite your instance otherwise, it's not a bad contract. He is a better QB than you want to give him credit for. I do not love the idea. And as I said the day it happend, Bruce ****ed up getting nothing for a starting QB in his prime. But getting Alex was not horrible by any means. 

 

 

23 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Because the question was about the moves Bruce made the past two off seasons.  If you want to go back, I've been on record to say that letting Morris go was a mistake, that ended up costing us multiple seasons of productivity out of the RB position.  And it wasn't like he was going to break the bank...

 

Letting Morris go was the right thing to do. They have not replaced him is the problem - that I agree with. But it's not because they did not try - and that's the point you keep missing. You keep saying they have done nothing about it. They have tried but it has not worked out. That is not donig anything. Brushing off thae second round pick as an after thought because he was injured makes no sense. No one knew he would be injured. And there are talent evaporators that feed into the decisions. We know they have input. 

 

23 minutes ago, megared said:

 

What would you call it?  Upset?  Angry?  Same thing.  I don't see that as a mis-characterization of what Doug described in that interview.  And AD had played for the Saints and Cards after all of that came out, with no hiccups...we weren't exactly taking a chance on him.  I find it ironic that Bruce pulled the same stunt to grab Smith, but it's somehow okay when he does it.  You can't make this **** up...

 

 

Have you met Doug Williams, personally. I have. He is larger than life and is very folksie. He was making fun more than anything. Had Bruce truly been "upset" "pissed' whatever, AP would not have been signed and we would be getting leaks that Doug is in trouble. You are again taking the extreme position because it fits your narrative. 

 

23 minutes ago, megared said:

Does "uninformed" mean spot-on?  

 

You can be a smart ass about it if you want. But SB Nation is ****ing useless. If you notice, most people here do not ever quote them as it's just a bunch of guys throwing out opinions - and yes mostly uneducated opinions. But again, you choose to believe since it fits your narrative. Up to you, but they (meaning SB Nation) are **** to be sure. 

 

23 minutes ago, megared said:

 

 

I just can't see paying a position 2/3 of the money, to get 1/4 of the production as a win.  I don't care what he costs, and really if Bruce had done his homework on the kind of QB Smith is, he might have realized that we really don't need him...

 

After 3 games? And the team is 2-1? And 1/4 the production? So Alex has produced 1/4 the yds, TDs, wins as Kirk at this time? After 3 gms? I have not even grabbed the data and I know that again that's an exaggeration. Just W/L alone they are even after 3 gms. I believe we started 2-1 last year before the injuries hit. But let's see the data - that BTW is almost identical: 

 

Kirk - 97 Atts - 66 completions - 68% - 784 yds - 5TDs 1 Int - 7 sacks - 4 fumbles 2 lost

Alex - 96 att - 65 completions - 68% - 767 yds - 4TDs 1 Int - 6 sacks - 3 fumbles - 0 lost

Both at 2-1 after 3 games. 

 

Hmm....  Just does not look like 1/4 the production to me. No matter how you take the math.  

 

23 minutes ago, megared said:

 

What are you basing this on?  PFF had us as the top ranked defense for getting pressure in 2017.

 

As a total Defense - not the front 3 alone. They did not have the majority of the sacks. This year after an entire 3 games they do. Agian, my point that you ignored was that let's see the season play out, or at least some more games to declare a position completely dead. 

 

 

I get you don't like Bruce. You are not alone. I do not like him at all. I think he is slimy ass POS. I would do an Irish jig if they fired his ass tomorrow. I am more than ready to point out when he screws up, which is plenty of the time. That does not mean I will lose all objectivity and find a way to trash everything he does and blame him for anything wrong with the team. He has done some good things for this club. He deserves credit for those. Exaggerating things to make them fit a narrative is non-value added. 

[Skinsinparadise]

33 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

 

B. Can't recall Kirk saying Bruce was a douche, but the contract stuff was set up in 2016, from then, Kirk and his agent had the leverage, used that leverage, and did a great job with patience.  I recall Kirk saying he almost buckled in the 2017 off-season but his agent reminded him to stay the course.  I have no ill-will towards Kirk or his agent, we all know the NFL is a business.

 

Kirk didn't.  Kirk was all class publicly.  But people he spoke to privately shared it -- a bunch of beat reporters talked about in different segments covering the team including Paulsen who is supposedly close to Kirk.  I've elaborated on this much further in the past don't have time to do it today.

 

Quote

 

C. Meh.  One anonymous report means nothing.  

 

Agree.  But it wasn't an anonymous report, it was a survey of agents. 

 

33 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

D.  Am I misremembering, was this when Gruden was talking about his new QB (Alex Smith) and did what every coach does by praising them?  Or was there something else?

 

 

It was something else.   It was reported multiple times that the Redskins brass told other teams about issues with Kirk -- even got into detail about how he didn't earn the You like That phrase and he stole it from other players.  Surprised you don't recall it -- got some play last winter.   Sheehan in particular really goofed in the Redskins on this one. 

 

33 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

I.  Which one?  Kirk vs Kurt name issue irritated me.  The frustrated Bruce that sent a public letter about the latest contract offer also irritated me.  Are these what you're talking about?  If so, I agree.

 

 

winning off the field, the Kirk press release, Kurt-Kirk, Gm's should be judged by the W-L record -- his general demeanor of coming off like an empty suit politician -- unlike other people in that organization like Schaeffer, Lafemina, etc.

 

33 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

G..  Wait what?  That is spicy!  Never heard of that before.

 

 

I posted it just a page or so ago via the Tampa media.

 

33 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

H.  Wait, you disagree with the Patriots, Steelers, Packers, etc model for roster construction? 

 

Hyperbole from me for effect -- Bruce Allen wouldn't likely earn waterboy status for those teams let alone be the President of those teams.  

[It'sCampbellJasonCampbell]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

Need to give him this season to determine if he can find a place. 

 

Based on what we’ve seen this year he’s looking more and more like his place is either on the bench or the waiver wire. The guy has top receiver talent, that’s been obvious to me since we drafted him, but man this year has been awful. When we do throw him the ball, he’s basically attached to the defensive back, and if there is any separation it seems like he drops the ball. It’ll be a real shame when he puts up numbers in Detroit in 2 years, but right now he isn’t helping our offense at all. Sadly we don’t have any other options right now, so we have no choice but let him work out the kinks. 

 

All this really sucks because Ive been thinking he’s about to breakout seemingly every game for the last 2 years and yet...

[goskins10]

Just now, It'sCampbellJasonCampbell said:

 

Based on what we’ve seen this year he’s looking more and more like his place is either on the bench or the waiver wire. The guy has top receiver talent, that’s been obvious to me since we drafted him, but man this year has been awful. When we do throw him the ball, he’s basically attached to the defensive back, and if there is any separation it seems like he drops the ball. It’ll be a real shame when he puts up numbers in Detroit in 2 years, but right now he isn’t helping our offense at all. Sadly we don’t have any other options right now, so we have no choice but let him work out the kinks. 

 

All this really sucks because Ive been thinking he’s about to breakout seemingly every game for the last 2 years and yet...

 

I get what you are saying to a point. But it is being overlooked that he has also draw several PI calls - one in the EZ that would have been a TD. Again, you also have a QB that has a history of not throwing to WRs. Let's see what happens the next few games. He should have some chances against NO and dallast. If he is still a no show I would drop him on the depth chart and bring someone up from the PS. Either light a fire or push the rest of the way out. 

 

I hate to see him go. There is so much potential. But you don;t win games on potential. 

[RWJ]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Hyperbole from me for effect -- Bruce Allen wouldn't likely earn waterboy status for those teams let alone be the President of those teams.  

 

I've heard that Allen might reunite with Oakland.  I could see it happening IF McKenzie is fired after the season.

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, RWJ said:

 

I've heard that Allen might reunite with Oakland.  I could see it happening IF McKenzie is fired after the season.

 

We heard that last off season, hope it ends up true ?

[It'sCampbellJasonCampbell]

@Skinsinparadise

(not quoting any specific points here but really your post in general) 

 

Im no Bruce Allen fan. I think the guys got his head up his own ass and is by no means a respectable GM, but you’re putting far too much weight in the media and what their interpretation means. Just because Tampa media hated him, and now Washington Media (begins maybe New York and Boston in terms of general insufferability and incompetence and untrustworthiness) hates him, that doesn’t really mean anything. The media has flipped on these guys at the drop of a dime, and at this point i’m willing to bet anyone who sides with Snyder will be viewed as a lepur publicly by other GMs around the league, media, etc. And that’s probably warranted, seeing as how Dan Snyder is a terrible human and an even worse team owner. 

 

Allen’s public perception is not why I dislike him, although he does seem like an insufferable prick and, again, if he really can get along with Snyder Im sure he is. But I do agree, to an extent, with @HardcoreZorn that it’s silly to think we aren’t better off right now than we have been in quite some time. Just look at our current staff, and the graduates from the past few years, and it’s clear things are changing. Whether or not the media will see it that way is different, as they’re still chomping at the bit to spin us into a dysfunctional bad news bears franchise no matter what happens, but it is true. I don’t think we win the super bowl this year, but if you don’t think this is the most talent and upside we’ve had in a decade you’ve got the blinders on and could use a few weeks in deep meditation clearing your mind. 

 

Again, i’m not here thanking Bruce Allen for any of this, but it’s a little misguided to make it seem like he’s holding us back. As of now it seems like he’s been reassigned to running the Johnny Rockets @ FedEx or whatever, so if he’s willing to be the figurehead who takes the beatings and media comedowns, more power to him.  

9 minutes ago, RWJ said:

I've heard that Allen might reunite with Oakland.  I could see it happening IF McKenzie is fired after the season.

 

What a shame. 

 

McKenzie is a good GM and it’s not his fault they spent 100 mill on a washed up maniac to come in and destroy everything they built there. Two years ago Oakland looked like they’d be competing for a Super Bowl this year and now they’re just an old middling Mackless mess. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 But we don't. Just a bunch of noise IMO, even if there's truth to him being a douche part.

 

 

Ok that's what I am trying to nail down an answer on.  So If I gather your point is if he is a douche you don't care. 

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Exhibit A on not reading my posts. Or comprehending. I argue logic, and there's plenty of illogical posts surrounding Bruce/Kirk/Scott. It's what draws me there.

 

 

OK so Bruce is misrepresented at almost every turn.  Poor lad. ?  And you are here to bring logic to all these threads to explain to others how you have a better handle on the realities of it which coincidently props up Bruce in said narratives almost every time.

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Feel free to dig something up that says otherwise, but you aren't going to find it.

  

I'll see if I can remember when you said it.  I recall on one thread I go to you -- on Kirk's thread you propped yourself as a fellow Bruce critic and hence we should listen to your most credible "unbiased" position on Kirk since you said have issues with Bruce on so many other things.  Then when I noticed you started posting on thread after thread defending Bruce left and right -- I asked you, I thought you were a critic -- you said something to the effect of you were sold on him now but weren't at the time when you were posting on the Kirk thread.

[Skinsinparadise]

16 minutes ago, It'sCampbellJasonCampbell said:

@Skinsinparadise

(not quoting any specific points here but really your post in general) 

 

Im no Bruce Allen fan. I think the guys got his head up his own ass and is by no means a respectable GM, but you’re putting far too much weight in the media and what their interpretation means.

 

I am putting zero stock into what the media thinks as to defining Bruce for me.  Bruce comes off to me like a douche.  The only interesting thing from me media wise is they give stories that bring home that Bruce doesn't just look that way, it is that way.   

 

16 minutes ago, It'sCampbellJasonCampbell said:

@Skinsinparadise

Allen’s public perception is not why I dislike him, although he does seem like an insufferable prick

 

Exactly.  did the media color that perception or does it just come off obvious?  All the media is doing is saying look we think a lot of people in that people are really nice people -- Bruce not so much.  do I care that the media doesn't like him?  nope.  But it reinforces what my own perception is of the dude when I see him in action.

 

16 minutes ago, It'sCampbellJasonCampbell said:

@Skinsinparadiseit’s silly to think we aren’t better off right now than we have been in quite some time. Just look at our current staff, and the graduates from the past few years, and it’s clear things are changing.

 

I am not debating that.  But I don't give Bruce credit for hitting on draft picks considering that's not his job.  

 

16 minutes ago, It'sCampbellJasonCampbell said:

@Skinsinparadise

(

 

Again, i’m not here thanking Bruce Allen for any of this, but it’s a little misguided to make it seem like he’s holding us back.

 

If the personality-culture stuff is a sidebar issue and its not a big deal to me -- then I'd be on board with the point.  The idea that look the dude might be a douche but hey there are some good people in that building doing some good things --- just suck it up and deal with Bruce as part of that soup even if he's the weak link. I get the point but that is not how I feel.  I am bothered by the Dan-Bruce culture vibe that they give out.  Now if Bruce was a rock star in his job aside from that -- Ok, I'll go for the ride but I don't see him like that. 

[It'sCampbellJasonCampbell]

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

do I care that the media doesn't like him?  nope.  But it reinforces what my own perception is of the dude when I see him in action.

 

 

Not to get overly semantical here, but you keep saying that you don’t care what the media says/don’t put any stock into it...but then you say that it helps reinforce your view on him...so clearly you do put SOME stock into it. I only mentioned the media because you specifically point it out multiple times when talking about Bruce and how he’s incompetent or a douche or whatever. 

 

I understand that’s not really the point, how you view the media isn’t important to me or the big picture here, but your inability to admit something you’ve made obvious is slightly symbolic of what you’ve been arguing—you just refuse to admit that there might be SOMETHING to it (the IT here being whatever people are arguing specifically with you in any given post about Bruce). 

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

But I don't give Bruce credit for hitting on draft picks considering that's not his job.  

 

What exactly does he get credit for? Raising parking prices? A horrible fan turnout? Awful working conditions for vendors? I’m not even being an asshole here i’m seriously asking. 

 

At this point, what is Bruce’s job? He would be taking the blame if our team was a talentless pit of despair, I can guarantee you that. Because if his job is handling contracts and cap, hasn’t he actually been all right in doing that? I’m no master of economics but haven’t we done a good job in terms of paying players and keeping players around that should be kept, and getting good deals on guys like Zach Brown, Alex Smith, Peterson, etc.? Even Terrible Pryor (despite his horrific turnout) wasn’t a massive waste because it was a good contract for us. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

On 10/2/2018 at 5:08 PM, Tsailand said:

 

Three years of Kirk for $54M~$57M.  Yep, that's better than two years of Kirk for $44M and then trading for Alex and having to pay Alex.

 

 

No, because a competent GM would have signed him to a new long-term deal this spring.  He would still only make $18M~$19M for 2018.

 

 

In other words, the same deal he just got from the vikings, but starting a year later. That's what competent teams do with their franchise QBs, they pay them what the market demands.

 

See, I didn't want Kirk at $84M guaranteed over 3 years. Maybe in order to "agree" here, we'd need to have the same limits on how much we'd pay him. I wanted them to lock him in long-term a couple years ago...but that was built on the assumption that it would a "normal" contract...something that was 5 years and not fully guaranteed. 

 

I believe that if Cousins had taken the smaller 3 year deal that would have expired after 2018, that he'd be seeking something very similar to what he just signed. I don't think he'd sign anything reasonable. 

[Skinsinparadise]

31 minutes ago, It'sCampbellJasonCampbell said:

 

Not to get overly semantical here, but you keep saying that you don’t care what the media says/don’t put any stock into it...but then you say that it helps reinforce your view on him...

 

A.  I watch Bruce speak, met him in person by the way too -- comes off an empty politician type -- douche-incompetent -- the Kirk press release was the final straw for me on that count.  

 

B. My impression of who Bruce is -- isn't shaped by the media but my own views from my own observations.  Same for any public personality.  Just like when I watch Jay in action -- I like him, comes off a genuine guy.

 

What I said was where the media kicks in is they tell stories about their own encounters with Bruce, Jay, etc and if they reinforce my set perceptions of either -- that solidfies my take.  It's the gravy not the meal.  I don't think this makes me unusual.

 

31 minutes ago, It'sCampbellJasonCampbell said:

but your inability to admit something you’ve made obvious is slightly symbolic of what you’ve been arguing—you just refuse to admit that there might be SOMETHING to it (the IT here being whatever people are arguing specifically with you in any given post about Bruce). 

 

Because you don't like how I explained my view about the media -- its a sign that I won't open up to these cogent points that people are making on behalf of Bruce?  OK. ?  I'll give you that I worded it awkwardly especially if you take my point out of context.  In one sentence I say I don't care and in another sentence I say I do care in the context of them reinforcing the point.   Both are separate points.  I could have explained it better.   But as I've said to others in other posts, I don't have a heck of a lot of time today to explain myself in detail.

 

So sorry for the clunky way I explained it but I think most people got what i meant.  I am under a tight deadline at work right now.  I shouldn't probably be responding to you.  I am typing fast.  

 

My point though on this stuff is if you think you are nailing it with really good points but the person you are speaking to -- in this case, me.  Isn't receptive to them even though we should be.  Why waste your time?  Argue with someone you do think is open.  I've debated Bruce a lot.  You don't think I have heard everything?  Nothing special on this thread on that today that i find especially persuasive.   But if you do, great.  Yeah I've made up my mind for now.  And it took a lot to get me there, I started as a Bruce supporter.   And I am not on the brink where a post from you or anyone else is going to turn my view about him -- no matter how good you think the points are.  It's going to take a lot to turn me the other way.  Sorry.

[Tsailand]

9 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I believe that if Cousins had taken the smaller 3 year deal that would have expired after 2018, that he'd be seeking something very similar to what he just signed.

 

I agree.  But we'd still have him for 2018 at $18~19M.

 

9 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I don't think he'd sign anything reasonable. 

 

The contract he signed was reasonable for a 30 year old free agent never-been-injured QB who threw for 13000 yards total over the last three seasons.

[megared]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

But we are not talking about what they could have had before. I made it very clear - very very clear that I believe Bruce ****ed up on Kirk. But we have what we have. AS far as it being "much less" that's not factually accurate. in fact none of know what he was asking for, including the Redskins actually since after the initial contract offer that made in 2015 they said nothing. And if thy had accepted that offer it was for 3 yrs. So we would be there again with the same issue, just not having to pay $44M the last two years. It would still be in th same QB market. 

 

I am so glad you are open minded to discussion. You are of course entitled to your opinion even if it's incredibly wrong. But since youj dont; vwantto discuss it then I will move on.  

 

2016: Kirk wanted $44 M guaranteed, $19 M per year average.  We offered him $24 M guaranteed, $16 M per year average. (difference from the offer he would've accepted to Vikings contract:  $40 M guaranteed, $9 M per year average)

2017:  We offer him $53 M guaranteed, low $20's per year estimated average on the back end of the deal.  Not a serious offer as Kirk stood to make nearly as much guaranteed by playing on the 2017 franchise ($24 M) and 2018 transition ($28 M) tags.  (difference $31 M guaranteed, at least $4-5 M year per average)

 

Factually those figures are not much less than what he got from the Vikings?

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

They traded for Alex. And despite your instance otherwise, it's not a bad contract. He is a better QB than you want to give him credit for. I do not love the idea. And as I said the day it happend, Bruce ****ed up getting nothing for a starting QB in his prime. But getting Alex was not horrible by any means. 

 

I haven't said anything negative about Alex, his potential, or what he's done.  But much like Kirk, he doesn't change the trajectory of this franchise.  Unless he wins us a Super Bowl, I can't see myself ever thinking how much worse off we'd be had we not signed Alex Smith to make up for Kirk Cousins walking.   

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

Letting Morris go was the right thing to do. They have not replaced him is the problem - that I agree with. But it's not because they did not try - and that's the point you keep missing. You keep saying they have done nothing about it. They have tried but it has not worked out. That is not donig anything. Brushing off thae second round pick as an after thought because he was injured makes no sense. No one knew he would be injured. And there are talent evaporators that feed into the decisions. We know they have input. 

 

He's not graded on effort...this is a results based business.  If you proactively 'break' something, I don't think it's out of the realm of reasonable to not expect it to become a lingering issue for 3 seasons.  By all accounts, the guy wasn't expensive, wasn't an issue in the locker room, and he was homegrown.  What reason was there to not re-sign him?  If someone takes his job fine, but at least you have someone on the roster that has performed for you before.  

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

You can be a smart ass about it if you want. But SB Nation is ****ing useless. If you notice, most people here do not ever quote them as it's just a bunch of guys throwing out opinions - and yes mostly uneducated opinions. But again, you choose to believe since it fits your narrative. Up to you, but they (meaning SB Nation) are **** to be sure. 

 

Look I didn't hop in a time machine, go back to November 29, 2017 and ask this guy to write this article to help me 'win' an argument against goskins10 almost 11 months in the future.  He made a prediction that was spot on...to the point where he even identified us as a possible destination.  There's nothing factual in the article that you can, or have disputed...all you're doing is disparaging the source.  

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

After 3 games? And the team is 2-1? And 1/4 the production? So Alex has produced 1/4 the yds, TDs, wins as Kirk at this time? After 3 gms? I have not even grabbed the data and I know that again that's an exaggeration. Just W/L alone they are even after 3 gms. I believe we started 2-1 last year before the injuries hit. But let's see the data - that BTW is almost identical: 

 

Kirk - 97 Atts - 66 completions - 68% - 784 yds - 5TDs 1 Int - 7 sacks - 4 fumbles 2 lost

Alex - 96 att - 65 completions - 68% - 767 yds - 4TDs 1 Int - 6 sacks - 3 fumbles - 0 lost

Both at 2-1 after 3 games. 

 

Hmm....  Just does not look like 1/4 the production to me. No matter how you take the math.  

 

I'm pretty sure that since that quote was commenting on Richardson's contract, that it was clear I was referring to the WR position. 

 

We didn't want to pay Desean Jackson his ~$11 M per year he ended up getting, and went after Pryor ($8 M), then Richardson ($8 M per year), which is where the 2/3 came from.  Right now:

Paul Richardson has 9 catches, 131 yards, 1 TD. 

Jackson has 17 catches, 424 yards, 3 TDs. 

 

This is the 1/4 production I was referring to.    

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

As a total Defense - not the front 3 alone. They did not have the majority of the sacks. This year after an entire 3 games they do. Agian, my point that you ignored was that let's see the season play out, or at least some more games to declare a position completely dead. 

 

Not sure where you're going here.  My initial point was that our OLBs are not getting very much pressure, and having Galette (a pass rush specialist) may be helpful.  

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

I get you don't like Bruce. You are not alone. I do not like him at all. I think he is slimy ass POS. I would do an Irish jig if they fired his ass tomorrow. I am more than ready to point out when he screws up, which is plenty of the time. That does not mean I will lose all objectivity and find a way to trash everything he does and blame him for anything wrong with the team. He has done some good things for this club. He deserves credit for those. Exaggerating things to make them fit a narrative is non-value added. 

 

It's not about my personal like or dislike for the guy.  He's given us similar results to Vinny, but somehow because he's perceived as being the adult in the room, he gets a pass for much of the same.  We can easily see/read/hear about how well run organizations conduct business...and you think there's commonalities to what Bruce is doing?  We aren't any closer to a championship than we were the day he walked in the door.  

[JSSkinz]

54 minutes ago, It'sCampbellJasonCampbell said:

McKenzie is a good GM and it’s not his fault they spent 100 mill on a washed up maniac to come in and destroy everything they built there.

1

Its funny you say that because I moved to Tampa in 2004 (The year Bruce came to Tampa) and at that time there wasn't a good app to listen to local DC sports so I listened to WDAE which had Ian Beckles, Booger, Steve Dumig, and a host of other player and local sports celeb shows that focused on the Bucs, Rays, and Lightning.  As the years went by through 2005, 2006, and 2007 the entire fanbase had turned on Jon Gruden, or at least it seemed that way.  The reports were he had lost the team, players wouldn't say it on air but the talk show hosts would say it for them.

 

[goskins10]

3 minutes ago, megared said:

 

2016: Kirk wanted $44 M guaranteed, $19 M per year average.  We offered him $24 M guaranteed, $16 M per year average. (difference from the offer he would've accepted $40 M guaranteed, $9 M per year average)

2017:  We offer him $53 M guaranteed, low $20's per year estimated average on the back end of the deal.  Not a serious offer as Kirk stood to make nearly as much guaranteed by playing on the 2017 franchise ($24 M) and 2018 transition ($28 M) tags.  (difference $31 M guaranteed, at least $4-5 M year per average)

 

Factually those figures are not much less than what he got from the Vikings?

 

Factually those are not facts. They are all guesses from Kirk's part. There were no confirmed published numbers from Kirk. But Ok, let's say it's close. The difference between $19M/yr and $16M/yr is not $9M/yr or $40M guaranteed. You can;t compare those contracts with now.  And again - for the 3rd and final time - I SAID BRUCE ****ED UP!! Not sure why you keep going on about it. I will not. 

 

3 minutes ago, megared said:

 

I haven't said anything negative about Alex, his potential, or what he's done.  But much like Kirk, he doesn't change the trajectory of this franchise.  Unless he wins us a Super Bowl, I can't see myself ever thinking how much worse off we'd be had we not signed Alex Smith to make up for Kirk Cousins walking.   

 

Quote from you: Alex Smith doesn't belong on that list.  I see first ballot HOFers, former MVP candidates, and young guys that should be setting the market.  Alex Smith doesn't fit into ANY of those categories.  He's only ever going to be as good or effective as the play makers surrounding him. 

 

Hmm.. Those two comments do not match. 

 

3 minutes ago, megared said:

 

He's not graded on effort...this is a results based business.  If you proactively 'break' something, I don't think it's out of the realm of reasonable to not expect it to become a lingering issue for 3 seasons.  By all accounts, the guy wasn't expensive, wasn't an issue in the locker room, and he was homegrown.  What reason was there to not re-sign him?  If someone takes his job fine, but at least you have someone on the roster that has performed for you before.  

 

It's results based when the logical answer does not fit your narrative. I am sorry you can;t see they tried to taker care of RB, including drafting a RB in the 2nd rd this year. Blaming him for doing nothing because a guy got injured makes no sense. 

 

3 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Look I didn't hop in a time machine, go back to November 29, 2017 and ask this guy to write this article to help me 'win' an argument against goskins10 almost 11 months in the future.  He made a prediction that was spot on...to the point where he even identified us as a possible destination.  There's nothing factual in the article that you can, or have disputed...all you're doing is disparaging the source.  

 

You are missing the point in that the initial analysis was incorrect. Richardson was worth more than they said and you pay even a little more yet for free agents. You think it's spot on because you agree with tier position on his worth. I say you are wrong. But more importantly, they were wrong them. Just bacause the numbers worked out for you does not vindicate them. They were wrong to start. 

 

3 minutes ago, megared said:

 

 

I'm pretty sure that since that quote was commenting on Richardson's contract, that it was clear I was referring to the WR position. 

 

We didn't want to pay Desean Jackson his ~$11 M per year he ended up getting, and went after Pryor ($8 M), then Richardson ($8 M per year), which is where the 2/3 came from.  Right now:

Paul Richardson has 9 catches, 131 yards, 1 TD. 

Jackson has 17 catches, 424 yards, 3 TDs. 

 

This is the 1/4 production I was referring to.    

 

I thought it was odd you said QB Smith - but it was what you posted. Having said that, fair enough. We all mistype - I am the worst. So strike that one out for Alex.

 

In response to the Richardson comment then - it's game 4 coming up. The team needed a speed guy. He is a speed guy. You are projecting a final outcome on a very small sample size. He can easily be a very solid #2 WR. And that kind of money for a solid #2 WR with speed is not bad. You disagree, fine. We will have to agree to disagree. 

 

3 minutes ago, megared said:

 

 

Not sure where you're going here.  My initial point was that our OLBs are not getting very much pressure, and having Galette (a pass rush specialist) may be helpful.  

 

But they are getting pressure which is allowing the interior Dline to get sacks. They work as a group. If the OLBs were not getting pressure and making the QBs stay in the interior line would not have sacks. Not to mention the number of holding calls especially RK has drown (although they could have called more.). The point is you go 3 games in. Look at a very narrow statistic and says that's it. They are playing like ****. They are actually doing their job. It's not getting them pretty numbers but it is effective. Not sure how yo can complain about the D right now. Ok the number of sacks is down.l Yet the D as a whole is in the top 5 in almost every meaningful category, including pts allowed at 2nd. They have to be doing something right. 

 

Gallete is gone. There is a reason he is still unemployed. 

 

3 minutes ago, megared said:

 

 

It's not about my personal like or dislike for the guy.  He's given us similar results to Vinny, but somehow because he's perceived as being the adult in the room, he gets a pass for much of the same.  We can easily see/read/hear about how well run organizations conduct business...and you think there's commonalities to what Bruce is doing?  We aren't any closer to a championship than we were the day he walked in the door.  

 

Bull**** on the first thing. You don't like the guy. Please at least be honest about that. I have been. Just own it. 

 

The second part is just factually not correct. While not blazing, but the last 3 yrs have been better than most of Vinnie's years, and certainly better than the last several years under him. Not to mention the one thing Bruce is good at is getting the team out of CAP hell. If he would stay in his lane and just do CAP stuff and the stadium I would be fine. 

 

More importantly we do not know hat this season will bring. It's still just game 3 and you want to throw it all in and say the team is done - sitting at 2-1. But yea, you don;t dislike the guy. 

 

I am done here. No reason to keep going. Not getting anywhere. Have a good one. Hope we get good game against NO. 

 

[Spearfeather]

34 minutes ago, megared said:

We aren't any closer to a championship than we were the day he walked in the door.  

 

Do not agree with this at all. We were a mess in 2009. I'll take the 2018 Redskins over that team, any day of the week.

 

We're coming off three seasons of seven wins or more. Something that last happened in 2002.

[megared]

3 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

Factually those are not facts. They are all guesses from Kirk's part. There were no confirmed published numbers from Kirk. But Ok, let's say it's close. The difference between $19M/yr and $16M/yr is not $9M/yr or $40M guaranteed. You can;t compare those contracts with now.  And again - for the 3rd and final time - I SAID BRUCE ****ED UP!! Not sure why you keep going on about it. I will not. 

 

Article chronicling contract negotiations:  

 

Washington Post: Kirk Cousins in Washington A Timeline From Awkward Start To Lucrative Departure

 

3 hours ago, goskins10 said:

Hmm.. Those two comments do not match. 

 

Assessing Alex Smith's career doesn't equal disparaging him.  Since 2010:

 

1 season finishing in top ten passers by yards (2017)

1 season with over 4000 yards passing

3 seasons with 20 passing TDs or more (2017, 2015, 2013)

3 seasons with top 10 passer rating (2017, 2015, 2011)

 

He's got a big body of work to draw conclusions from.  I don't think that by assuming he isn't going to somehow turn into Brady or Rodgers or other top tier passers this year, I'm in some way being negative.  I view last year's production increase as him being the product of an Andy Reid offense, not some renaissance he's experiencing.  

 

3 hours ago, goskins10 said:

It's results based when the logical answer does not fit your narrative. I am sorry you can;t see they tried to taker care of RB, including drafting a RB in the 2nd rd this year. Blaming him for doing nothing because a guy got injured makes no sense. 

 

Almost doesn't count.  I see they tried, but trying doesn't absolve someone of blame.  If you're going to tinker with something that was working in the first place, you'd better well have a plan that makes sense.  And our FO didn't.  It was a hope/prayer that someone would emerge, much the way Morris did in the first place.  

 

3 hours ago, goskins10 said:

You are missing the point in that the initial analysis was incorrect. Richardson was worth more than they said and you pay even a little more yet for free agents. You think it's spot on because you agree with tier position on his worth. I say you are wrong. But more importantly, they were wrong them. Just bacause the numbers worked out for you does not vindicate them. They were wrong to start. 

 

How can you assess Richardson was worth more than what was predicted, which was pretty darn close to what we paid him?  Are you saying he turned down more money to come here? 

 

You obviously didn't read the article, as they factored in inflation to the cap, compared contracts to like players in similar circumstances (entering free agency), and arrived at that number.  He said, someone will pay 5 years, $40 M, and he was right.

 

3 hours ago, goskins10 said:

But they are getting pressure which is allowing the interior Dline to get sacks. They work as a group. If the OLBs were not getting pressure and making the QBs stay in the interior line would not have sacks. Not to mention the number of holding calls especially RK has drown (although they could have called more.). The point is you go 3 games in. Look at a very narrow statistic and says that's it. They are playing like ****. They are actually doing their job. It's not getting them pretty numbers but it is effective. Not sure how yo can complain about the D right now. Ok the number of sacks is down.l Yet the D as a whole is in the top 5 in almost every meaningful category, including pts allowed at 2nd. They have to be doing something right. 

 

Gallete is gone. There is a reason he is still unemployed. 

 

Do you have a source to back that up?  As far as I know, there hasn't been a change to the defense.  And Ionnidis' sacks have been him beating his man, not some scheme where we're using Kerrigan as a decoy or stunting him.  My initial comment alluded to the fact that our OLBs aren't creating pressure in the same manner they did last season.  

[bird_1972]

4 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

Do not agree with this at all. We were a mess in 2009. I'll take the 2018 Redskins over that team, any day of the week.

 

We're coming off three seasons of seven wins or more. Something that last happened in 2002.

 

My oh my, how the bar has been set so low with this team in terms of defining "success". How sad.