Makaveli

The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, KDawg said:

So I get the frustration with Fuller being gone... but, do any of you that are so upset that he’s gone think that maybe they really liked what they see from Fabian Moreau and think he can take the next step? Or that they reluctantly traded him to get a piece they viewed as more important (quarterback over cornerback)?

 

Of course it's possible, but from what I've read it doesn't sound like the decision to give up Fuller in acquiring Smith was even ran by Jay or his coaches.  I'd like to hope they were reluctant to trade him considering his value with a 750K contract the next two seasons.  If the plan was to buy a bunch of fat boys for the Dline and go cheap at corner, it'd be a different thing.  But as we sit today, we've retained McClain and haven't picked up a big time DL.  So I'm just not getting it at all right now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, KDawg said:

So I get the frustration with Fuller being gone... but, do any of you that are so upset that he’s gone think that maybe they really liked what they see from Fabian Moreau and think he can take the next step? Or that they reluctantly traded him to get a piece they viewed as more important (quarterback over cornerback)?

Possibly, but the kicker for me is that if the FO had handle the QB situation like a professional FO the past two years plus, trading Fuller wouldn't have been necessary, and we could possibly be set in the secondary with two very talented, young DB's.  It has taken this team a long time to get a halfway decent defensive backfield again, and pissing away a great young DB because of the FO's failure to take care of business, one way or the other, over the past two years is simply inexcusable.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Future Chief Kendall Fuller makes Pro Football Focus top 101

"Good news for Chiefs’ fans and bad news for Washington Redskins‘ supporters, Kendall Fuller wasn’t just a makeweight in the trade to secure Alex Smith, but was one of the league’s best defensive backs in 2017," wrote Monson. "Fuller had a real breakout season, earning an overall PFF grade of 90.0 and allowing less than 10 yards per reception in coverage. Fuller allowed a passer rating of just 56.7 when targeted, giving up a catch on 56.3 percent of targets."

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that’s the lay of the land. When you make mistakes you need to fix them.

 

The Skins corner group was the best position group on the team last year. But that didn’t help. Downgrading at corner to be more consistent in other spots (now or in the next couple of seasons) doesn’t kill the team.

 

I agree we need to shore up the DL more. Need to add a back. There are things this team still needs for sure. But keeping a strength at the expense of upgrading elsewhere can also be a mistake.

 

The argument is clearly “he doesn’t cost much and is young.” And that’s a good point. But my retort is: “but he would eventually cost quite a bit and in my honest opinion I believe Alex Smith to be an upgrade at quarterback. You may not and I certainly understand that point of view. But Smith and DL help along with getting Brown back and adding Richardson isn’t a bad start.”

 

Moreau can play. Dunbar re-signed. Norman is around for at least another year at the moment.

 

Losing Fuller blows. But I can understand it given the situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

Of course it's possible, but from what I've read it doesn't sound like the decision to give up Fuller in acquiring Smith was even ran by Jay or his coaches.  I'd like to hope they were reluctant to trade him considering his value with a 750K contract the next two seasons.  If the plan was to buy a bunch of fat boys for the Dline and go cheap at corner, it'd be a different thing.  But as we sit today, we've retained McClain and haven't picked up a big time DL.  So I'm just not getting it at all right now.

I would look for McClain to be a post June 1st cut. From what I remember, penalty will be less past it.

And trading Fuller was a Bruce thing, not anybody else. Reid asked for Fuller if they wanted Smith and we bowed to that...

 

6 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Moreau can play. Dunbar re-signed. Norman is around for at least another year at the moment.

 

Losing Fuller blows. But I can understand it given the situation

I understand your point, but in this regard then I would rather have traded Norman than Fuller.

That could have made the Chiefs happy considering the move they've done after that. Instead, they asked for a player and we pleasantly gave them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

I would look for McClain to be a post June 1st cut. From what I remember, penalty will be less past it.

Okay, I was under the impression it became an issue if we didn't make a decision by last week.

 

4 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

I understand your point, but in this regard then I would rather have traded Norman than Fuller.

That could have made the Chiefs happy considering the move they've done after that. Instead, they asked for a player and we pleasantly gave them.

I agree with you completely but Norman doesn't get that deal done.  I don't think anybody outside of the Browns or Jets would be interested in Normans 17M cap hit.  I think Reid per usual gets the best out of trades and knew Fuller was an up and comer on a ridiculously low salary that would allow them to make other moves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Except that’s a huge cap hit. Norman is the best player on the defense. And if the Skins were interested in getting Breeland back, I’d have agreed to move Norman if anyone would have done it. 

 

But with Breeland gone, you cannot value a slot corner over a starting corner. It’s a very big mistake in my opinion. 

 

Skills Norman vs. Fuller = Norman better

 

Position Norman vs. Fuller = Norman (outside CB)

 

Age = Fuller

 

Contract = Fuller (but that could change after rookie deal)

Edited by KDawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2018 at 2:39 PM, Wildbunny said:

Problem I do have, is that if those two guys are smart enough to make their idiot boss bright, then the idiot boss won't get fired. And sooner or later those bright smart guy will shop their skill elsewhere where they'll be warmed welcome, leaving us with the idiot boss...

 

LOL. My personal experience is that eventually the idiot boss gets fired and YOU become the idiot boss. :ols:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Okay, I was under the impression it became an issue if we didn't make a decision by last week.

 

I agree with you completely but Norman doesn't get that deal done.  I don't think anybody outside of the Browns or Jets would be interested in Normans 17M cap hit.  I think Reid per usual gets the best out of trades and knew Fuller was an up and comer on a ridiculously low salary that would allow them to make other moves.

That could have been a take it or leave it kind of deal. After all, the Chief wanted to move Smith as well, and from many reports they weren't getting offered much from other teams. We could have bargain more I think and play the waiting game.

 

39 minutes ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

LOL. My personal experience is that eventually the idiot boss gets fired and YOU become the idiot boss. :ols:

I would generally agree.

But I wouldn't take the bet when the higher boss is Dan Snyder.

 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Except that’s a huge cap hit. Norman is the best player on the defense. And if the Skins were interested in getting Breeland back, I’d have agreed to move Norman if anyone would have done it. 

 

But with Breeland gone, you cannot value a slot corner over a starting corner. It’s a very big mistake in my opinion. 

 

Skills Norman vs. Fuller = Norman better

 

Position Norman vs. Fuller = Norman (outside CB)

 

Age = Fuller

 

Contract = Fuller (but that could change after rookie deal)

Well, I think moving Norman would have allowed us to sign Breeland back.

 

Honestly, the trade of Fuller will depend, for me, in what Moreau do. If he plays great, then I'll probably be fine. If he doesn't, I'll be pissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

That could have been a take it or leave it kind of deal. After all, the Chief wanted to move Smith as well, and from many reports they weren't getting offered much from other teams. We could have bargain more I think and play the waiting game.

I'm not arguing, I much would have preferred to trade Norman, keep Breeland and Fuller for 60% of what Norman is making.  As for what was being offered, that all depends on the source.  Let some folks tell it and Alex Smith is the hottest guy to hit the trade market in decades, other teams were offering the farm, but he "wanted to be here" so KC made it happen.  Other reports indicate that Cleveland wouldn't have given Smith the extension that we did which equates to Smith wanting to be here.  I think it's rather obvious that Bruce knew a splash was required with Cousins leaving and was willing to do whatever it took.  Reid has played this game with Bruce before and played his hand right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Just gonna leave this here...

 

 

 

He said "well-led" three times in that comment. He didn't say "fully-guaranteed contract" once.

 

Something tells me Cousins was looking for one in free agency a bit more than the other.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

He said "well-led" three times in that comment. He didn't say "fully-guaranteed contract" once.

 

Something tells me Cousins was looking for one in free agency a bit more than the other.

 

Well, sure. Its still a statement that reveals a lot about what we assumed we knew about the feelings Cousins' camp had towards the FO. I wasn't posting it as a face value reason for why he left--of course the money was the main factor--its just that everyone who believed Cousins' camp had issues with our organization were correct. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cousins has sour grapes against the Skins. That’s not to say there’s no merit to his Dad’s words.

 

But for some reason, Cousins departure reminds me so much of Robert Griffin III’s departure. Really bitter and disingenuous and, quite honestly, a bit smug. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Cousins has sour grapes against the Skins. That’s not to say there’s no merit to his Dad’s words.

 

But for some reason, Cousins departure reminds me so much of Robert Griffin III’s departure. Really bitter and disingenuous and, quite honestly, a bit smug. 

 

I’m assuming you mean the Redskins and ‘the message’ about his departure?

 

No, who am I kidding?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Well, sure. Its still a statement that reveals a lot about what we assumed we knew about the feelings Cousins' camp had towards the FO. I wasn't posting it as a face value reason for why he left--of course the money was the main factor--its just that everyone who believed Cousins' camp had issues with our organization were correct. 

 

Guess I'm tired of the passive-aggressive shots each side feels is needed. And how many times does "well-led" need to be said lol...

 

Dad: "Kirk was looking for a team that was well-led. We both feel that a well-led team would be a perfect fit. The Vikings are well-led, so while looking for a well-led franchise we narrowed down all the well-led teams and decided that the Vikings were indeed well-led."

 

Reporter: "Thank you, sir, for answering the..."

 

Dad: "Well-led!!"

 

And, yeah, this is quickly turning into a convo that belongs in the ATN forum lol...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

I’m assuming you mean the Redskins and ‘the message’ about his departure?

 

No, who am I kidding?

 

Not sure what you mean.

 

I mean the continued focus from the players and their Dads about the Redskins, whether names or not. Just smug and arrogant. 

 

You’re on a new team. No need to drag the Redskins through the dirt.

 

Looks like Kirk and Griffin were more similar than I thought in that vein. 

 

I mean, there was no mention of, “yeah, he wanted a great organization and a great contract and we got it!”

 

I said it at the end of the season when I saw Kirk throw his helmet on the sideline and then after making a good play, he was sighing a deeeeep sigh of relief. It was all about the money first and foremost. 

 

Theyre pushing an agenda now and it’s old.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KDawg What reason do they have to push an agenda?  They got the contract.  They got what they wanted.  

 

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.  Because I see an agenda from the other party, well before Kirk or his dad had anything to say about leadership publicly.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just gonna leave this here...

 

**** Kirk and his dad. :cheers:

 

Seriously though, I think Bruce deserves credit for making the most of a bad situation.  Not saying he didn't bungle the Kirk deal from jump street, but after everyone knew he wasn't gonna sign here we could've ended up in a lot worse situation.  I'm disappointed we let Fuller go (even though we had to add a piece to outbid other suitors), but sometimes you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet.  Or in Bruce's case, a couple dozen.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The debate on 106.7 from the other day was mentioned here.  I listened to it, too.  I just listened to it again.  Here's the full gist of it.  It's entertaining to a degree because it dovetails from some of the debates here.  Except Craig isn't pro status quo FO -- the thing with him is more its not going to change so ignore it, live with it and focus on one good aspect of it which is college scouting.  

 

Grant Paulsen:

The Redskins front office has a non-football guy in charge  When Scot was there at least there was a football guy in the room -- high up the food chain.  Now they don't have a football guy running the show.  That's not what winning organizations do.  It's an odd set up and not a winning set up.

 

He goes Scot set the board last time in 2017 and FA.  Craig disagreed. He thinks its all scouts, scouts, scouts.  That's Hoffman's theme.  Then Grant goes Scot told me himself before he left Zach Brown was a target.  (on another note, I recall Breer said Scot told him Swearinger was a target)  Jay and Scott Campbell both admitted Scot was heavily involved in the draft board.  The only one who downplayed Scot for that was Bruce. 

 

Craig Hoffman

He's hung up (he said it on another segment on his own show) on the scouts in the building.  And they've had some good drafts. 

Grant's obsession with replacing Bruce and putting a football guy in charge is moot to him because even if they hire another Scot type -- Bruce will be in charge anyway.  That's the gist of Craig's point.  He said Scot was a scout with a fancy title. 

 

He goes Bruce won't hire a Dave Gettleman type to run the team.  He's not going to let that happen.   Bruce ran things not Scot when he was here -- that dynamic isn't going to change whether you bring a new fancy football guy into the building or not.   So Grant's hang up on hiring another Scot type is moot because he was just be a glorified scot like Scot anyway. So why obsess on that.  The scouts will have their say regardless.  So what's the difference is you bring in another one?

 

Craig goes based on what Bruce has done in Tampa it doesn't justify him running this operation.  But the drafts have been good since 2014 because of the scouts so focus on the college scouts.

 

Personally, I think Hoffman is underplaying Scot's scouting work some.  I think he's wrong in the case of Scot considering I talked to him in November in 2016 about college prospects.  He was like Rain Man with me on every player I threw at him.  On some of those players including McCaffrey he told me he scouted them in person.

 

Craig has talked about Bruce on other shows.  He doesn't think much of Bruce.  He agrees the Redskins do dysfunction with him.  But he doesn't think Bruce will be dislodged.  So his take is try to ignore Bruce and bask in the college scouting department which he thinks is good.  

 

As for Scot's antics.  The 106.7 guys have brought it up a number of times over a year now.  It's brought up here some times again in a way that comes off like its a new revelation but its not.  I believed that there had to be something to that stuff back then.  Heck, I actually backed Bruce on it and said if Scot had to go, he had to go.  Just replace him with someone else.  Bruce didn't and here we are.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Hey just so people know https://player.fm/series/series-1511344/ep-31918-hour-2-kimberley-martin-host-fight

 

That's a link to the show where the discussion between Craig and Grant takes place. Hopefully somebody gets a transcript done so I can point out segments.

 

You already did point out segments.  I pointed out segments, too.   What do you think is missing between my take and yours?  It's not my first rodeo listening to Grant and Hoffman on the FO.  They've both talked about it a lot.

 

Grant is very critical.  Hoffman loves the college scouts -- he's not a Bruce guy -- but he thinks you just ignore him.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody seems to have a problem with the Redskins when they leave. The problem must be all of them, not the organization...

 

Also we're back to Cousins being all about the money even though he didn't take the biggest contract he was offered in FA. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You already did point out segments.  I pointed out segments, too.   What do you think is missing between my take and yours?  It's not my first rodeo listening to Grant and Hoffman on the FO.  They've both talked about it a lot.

 

Grant is very critical.  Hoffman loves the college scouts -- he's not a Bruce guy -- but he thinks you just ignore him.

I didn't hear the whole thing so I can't really comment. Yesterday I had turned the radio off because Grant is so un-listen-to-able to me because he (and Danny) get so negative. The portion I heard, I liked for the simple fact that Craig was there to at least counter Grant and say that he doesn't know everything. Add to that the fact that Kimberly Martin was able to counter some of the stuff said about Doug and the front office as well.

 

For reference though, I didn't post that as a reply to you, but for others who may want to listen and form their own opinions.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

I didn't hear the whole thing so I can't really comment. Yesterday I had turned the radio off because Grant is so un-listen-to-able to me because he (and Danny) get so negative. The portion I heard, I liked for the simple fact that Craig was there to at least counter Grant and say that he doesn't know everything. Add to that the fact that Kimberly Martin was able to counter some of the stuff said about Doug and the front office as well.

 

For reference though, I didn't post that as a reply to you, but for others who may want to listen and form their own opinions.

 

 

 

Ok, cool, fair enough.  I spent some time to try to capture it as much as I could, listened to it twice.  Entertaining debate.   The upside from a pro-FO outlook was that Craig really really likes the scouts.  I know he has a relationship with them because he cited their take on some of the college players post senior bowl-combine.  The downside (depending on people's perspective) from Craig's point of view is Bruce isn't going to let go of his power to any new personnel hot shot that comes to the building -- so why bemoan that, just ride with that reality since its not changing.  The reason why Craig has some optimism is the scouts.

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.