• Blog Entries

    • By JimmiJo in ES Coverage
         1
      ES Coverage Cowboys vs Redskins
       
      10/21/18
       
      Cowboys versus Redskins - now that just sounds correct.
       
      Hello friends, JimmiJo here along with THE Spaceman Spiff. Space is already on the sidelines, yucking it up with the important people. Me? I'm thinking how grateful I am for the 3-car accident on the beltway...
       
      If you cannot get up for this game, there isn't enough viagra made on earth for you. After all; the Redskins are hosting their eternal rival, the Cowboys. Winner will be sitting on top of the division, with a truckload of bragging rights.
       
      What's not to like?
       
      Well, for starters, everybody and their mom is inactive. Chris Thompson Jamison Crowder, Paul Richardson, Quinton Dunbar; all inactive. What a time to have have your top two receivers out. The chatter here in the press box is Washington should do what they can to bring in receivers - to include making a trade with the Raiders for Amari Cooper.
       
      Then there's the question of which Redskins show up? They could come out and light Dallas up. Or, post an anemic effort to suffer another embarrassing lost. Neither would surprise me.
       
      One this is for sure, the distribution in fans is something like 55-45 Redskins. Already an embarrassment. Until you consider this team has done much to earn the lack of support.
       
      Still, you have offer the finger in the middle to those fans who sold their tickets to Dallas fans. What were you thinking?
       
      Back shortly...
       
      Inactives
       
      The Redskins declared the following players as inactive:
      o   No. 10 WR Paul Richardson Jr.
      o   No. 23 CB Quinton Dunbar
      o   No. 25 RB Chris Thompson
      o   No. 30 S Troy Apke
      o   No. 55 C Casey Dunn
      o   No. 74 T Geron Christian Sr.
      o   No. 80 WR Jamison Crowder
       
      The team held a touching tribute to my friend Rich Tandler, who passed this week.
       
      Follow along in-game on Twitter @Skinscast
       
      Half
       
      Did you hear the one about the team that got chance after chance but couldn't score more than a touchdown?
      That's right; they are tied at 7 at the half and completely anemic in the second half.
       
      "Against the run of play" is a term you hear in soccer all the time. It is applicable here. It means the better team is either tied or trailing.
       
      Whoever said football was fair?
       
      Washington needs to find a way to get hot in the second half. The Dallas Cowboys are infinitely beatable today.
Makaveli

The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

That's definitely a wild card.  It wouldn't be ideal for me for Schaffer to take over.  But I'd like him over Bruce for two main reasons -- and granted I am going purely based on reputation.  Reputation wise he's classy and ultra competent.  That's not the vibe I get from Bruce on either count. 


Yeah, but right now he's not in the spotlight. The fact that Russell talks to him without talking badly about him makes me think he's not a bad guy (Chris Russell isn't known for holding back his opinion of people), but power brings out different sides of people. And lets not forget, Bruce was once in Eric's position (or one similar to it) behind Al Davis and won the Exec of the year for it. So there was a time he was highly regarded.

 

I'm honestly mum on it. I'm not really a fan of advocating somebody get fired. I also wonder if Dan's not doing the stuff he did under Vinny is Bruce quieting him (as I've thought) or him just growing up. And if its the former, I wonder if Eric would be able to keep him as quiet. An example is the Kirk situation. Dan supposedly wanted Kirk, but we didn't sign him. That's amazing to me because Bruce told Dan no. If we fired Bruce and Dan said he wanted to trade for Dez or OBJ, would Eric be able to say, "thats not in the best interest of the team."

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

As long as it's a public demotion, highlighting Bruce's failure as GM, I'm cool with this. 

 

I think everyone will be able to read between the lines if Bruce were to be "reassigned" elsewhere following another lackluster year. He'll likely leave altogether by that point, rather than being a glorified landlord.

Share this post


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

 

That's definitely a wild card.  It wouldn't be ideal for me for Schaffer to take over.  But I'd like him over Bruce for two main reasons -- and granted I am going purely based on reputation.  Reputation wise he's classy and ultra competent.  That's not the vibe I get from Bruce on either count. 

 

Edit:  I just listened to the segment.  Part of the equation of frustration according to Russell is how Doug is portrayed as just a guy but not really with much power -- the way I took that is the Doug move had a PR element that supposedly was to offset the Scot firing.  That didn't happen.

 

I've said this before on different threads.  IMO Bruce's smug look on his face when Doug was announced in that press conference gave off the vibe to me is hey you guys don't like us for firing Scot -- fine but we topped it!  Here's the legendary lovable Doug in charge -- beat that!

 

I think they were surprised that it wasn't the PR hit they expected.   I forgot that Russell in another segment on a different day said he heard that Doug would have quit last year if he wasn't promoted.  So that would have been a bad PR look.

If Schaffer took over I think he'd continue to do his job become VP of Football Ops and name a real GM and let the GM hire his own HC and the HC hire his own coaches.  Just my 2 cents.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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


Yeah, but right now he's not in the spotlight. The fact that Russell talks to him without talking badly about him makes me think he's not a bad guy (Chris Russell isn't known for holding back his opinion of people), but power brings out different sides of people. And lets not forget, Bruce was once in Eric's position (or one similar to it) behind Al Davis and won the Exec of the year for it. So there was a time he was highly regarded.

 

I'm honestly mum on it. I'm not really a fan of advocating somebody get fired. I also wonder if Dan's not doing the stuff he did under Vinny is Bruce quieting him (as I've thought) or him just growing up. And if its the former, I wonder if Eric would be able to keep him as quiet. An example is the Kirk situation. Dan supposedly wanted Kirk, but we didn't sign him. That's amazing to me because Bruce told Dan no. If we fired Bruce and Dan said he wanted to trade for Dez or OBJ, would Eric be able to say, "thats not in the best interest of the team."

 

Yeah Russell has one of the more unique takes of the Bruce-Scot situation.  He thinks based on what he knows (I don't know why he isn't willing to share what he knows) Scot needed to go.  I was listening to Russell today on this again.  It almost feels like there was something real personal-juicy.  Like the stuff we heard later about Champ Bailey.  I haven't gotten that feeling before but this time something about how he said it registered to me in that way.   Russell also thinks Bruce is a power hungry ego driven douche and people are scared of him in that building. 

 

I think its telling that both from Scot's camp and Kirk's camp the guy we mostly got the impression that they clearly don't like is Bruce.  As for why Dan couldn't get it done with Kirk and bypass Bruce.  Russell's take on it from another segment is that Dan was with Bruce in the hesitation to resign him in 2016.  But in 2017, AFTER Kirk was tagged Dan came around on Kirk.  But at that point there was too much water under the bridge for Kirk for Dan to save the negotiations.  If you recall Kirk talked about Dan being great. Russell said in another segment that there is one main reason why Kirk didn't want to come back -- that is Bruce.

 

As for Bruce covering for Dan.  It's definitely possible.  But I am more optimistic than most that Dan can upgrade at GM versus hire a stooge.  Among the things Russell said included Dan implored Bruce to hire a top personnel type after the 2014 season.  I think Dan can be a douche and is incompetent himself but I do think its possible for him to fall into competence and get lucky. 

 

Bruce was called the Prince of Darkness by the Tampa media as Thom Loverro fondly continues to reminds people of. I forgot his narrative but the idea that Bruce could be a jerk isn't apparently a Redskins thing alone.  And as Lombardi pointed out from working with him, the way he handled Kirk's contract is vintage Bruce -- and he didn't mean it as a complement.   Bruce's executive of the year award was eons ago.   He didn't end well for him in Tampa.  You got blogs from that era with titles like is Bruce the worst GM in the NFL?

 

The kicker for me is Russell saying that the media's depiction of the team does bother people inside that building -- and that they don't win enough to shrug off all the negative attention they get.   I actually think there is some value to that.  Granted, winning is much more important.  But I personally hate the dysfunctional image that's painted on this franchise.    I am listening the other day to a draft podcast with Matt Miller going the team with the worst front office in the NFL -- the Redskins.  He's not alone.   I think that's over the top-hyperbole -- but Bruce has really IMO done a poor job giving the vibe that this is a well run organization. 

 

And as much as I love Doug the player-person -- the idea that he in house was the replacement for Scot was comical IMO.  And ironically I think that was the kicker to Bruce-this FO reputation around the league being a bit of joke.  Because even if Scot was fired rightfully -- hiring Doug in house for a fancier title more or less fed Scot's side of the story which is Bruce just wants the power.  And power is more important to him than excellence.   Even if all of that is untrue, it was another tone deaf PR move IMO. 

 

One of the bonuses of Scot being here was perception wise we were considered now one of the "well run" teams.  That was fun while that lasted.  I don't think its in Schaffer's nature to be a bad guy-power hungry. But who knows.  Schaffer really is the only person in that front office who you hear is respected big time around the league.  Maybe Kyle Smith will be someday.  But at the moment its Schaffer.  If you recall Kirk's agent complemented Schaffer a lot during the negotiation. 

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, RWJ said:

If Schaffer took over I think he'd continue to do his job become VP of Football Ops and name a real GM and let the GM hire his own HC and the HC hire his own coaches.  Just my 2 cents.

 

Maybe.  Obviously I don't know Eric personally.  But I like a lot about what I hear about him.  He's not a personnel guy and as I mentioned here many times, I prefer a scouting background guy to run personnel.  But there are some exceptions to that.  So if I am going with an exception, I'd want a guy with a reputation for being a classy person and ultra competent and smart.  That's Schaffer's reputation. And that's been his reputation for a long long time.  I recall hearing about Schaffer's cap wizardary back in the Laconfora days.

 

With the exception of early in his career in Oakland, Bruce hasn't really had a big reputation -- its been on the slide for a long long time.  If anything it keeps going south.  My point is Bruce isn't an example of a big reputation going bad here.  His reputation was damaged plenty leading to his firing in Tampa. 

 

Schaffer like anyone isn't perfect but I like his pristine reputation.   Though granted working for Dan that all could change. :)

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If anything it keeps going south.  My point is Bruce isn't an example of a big reputation going bad here.  His reputation was damaged plenty leading to his firing in Tampa. 

 

Schaffer like anyone isn't perfect but I like his pristine reputation.   Though granted working for Dan that all could change. :)

Totally agree, SIP.

Share this post


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

 

I think everyone will be able to read between the lines if Bruce were to be "reassigned" elsewhere following another lackluster year. He'll likely leave altogether by that point, rather than being a glorified landlord.

 

I don't know what Allen's ego is like, but there's professional equity to be gained if he does a good job negotiating the stadium deal and construction. In many ways, that's a more lasting legacy than any collection of personnel decisions that he could make over the same time period. I also think he could be quite good at that. 

 

We'll see, but his choice to leave might also come down to the market for his services. He may have to decide if he wants to work in a front office or not. It's not like too many teams will look at his body of work from a football operations perspective and really feel the need to bring him in. The stadium and a couple years of quiet, solid work might be what he needs to generate whatever his next job will be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell has his own show tonight so he's talking about it.

 

He said its been a variety of things that have set Dan off about Bruce but of late its a combination of:

 

A.  Getting practically nothing back for Kirk.

B. The WP article that exposed Doug's role or lack thereof

C. The Bruce W-L record comment about Kirk that in turned was flipped around to ridicule the organization

 

I think for Bruce's faults, he is better than Vinny was.  That's not saying much though.  But the one thing I'll give Vinny is he typically had the guts to face the music publicly.  And yeah he came off like a bit of a clown but he was somewhat likable.  The report about Vinny behind the scenes is he was a nice guy.  

 

On the other hand, multiple sources say Bruce can be a douche.   Bruce for the most part doesn't have the guts to face the music publicly and when he does speak he has as many faux pas statements as anyone.  I picked up on the W-L record comment right away where he mentioned the Team President.  The winning off the field stuff.  The IMO idiotic Kirk press release.  The story to the WP about Scot. 

 

It comes off like the only people the organization can trust to not put their foot in their mouth are Jay and Larry Michael.   Dan and Bruce seem guy shy to talk and the few times Bruce takes his chances doesn't always go well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very intriguing stuff from Chris, who’s been spot on the last couple years regarding the FO. He’s clearly got someone there who has provided him good info recently. I was so mad at him with the Scot stuff that was coming out before it all went down, but he ended up exactly right. 

 

My view on this, if it’s true and I have no reason to believe otherwise, is I don’t know why this wasn’t done in the first place after they fired Scot. If this is how Dan feels, why wait? 

 

Bruce had already driven Kirk’s price up, the entire unprecedented  “tag the QB twice” ordeal was already a disgusting antithesis to any sound economic principles, Schaffer was the guy Kirk’s camp trusted more, and Bruce’s record as Team President wasn’t anything to be proud of so it should’ve been easy to do then. 

 

Why do they always have to go the long route to making the right move? Snyder just can’t do anything with immediacy and sound intent? He needs things to become total disasters, no matter how obvious it is leading to one, before it’s done? 

 

It’s so annoying. Maybe I’m being too cynical. But there is patience, which I’ll always be an advocate for, and then there’s negligence. Bruce has had more than enough time given to him, no one can fault Dan at that point. Never mind there would’ve been some semblance of stability remaining with a Schaffer-led organization. 

 

But, yeah. Schaffer would likely be a solid candidate to take over. And he knows how good of a job Jay has done all things considered. I’d bet they’d be a much, much better team than anything Allen has created. 

 

My main concern is if it were to happen, how many people would remain in their positions simply by virtue of familiarity or other lesser reasons instead of what is best? It’s tough, for instance, to see Doug being let go or demoted even if he’s not worthy and Schaffer sees it that way. 

 

Same goes for the scouts and execs in the personnel department that have been there a long time. Will he just keep them on because of long-standing relationships even if he knows they could bring in more qualified people? 

 

It will still remain a major concern, as it always has, that they’re not really changing anything for the better and just moving titles around that weren’t significantly fulfilled anyway. There never has been a truly new executive hire that brought with it a total reshaping of the personnel department. Do we just trust that that’s been the right way all along because they’ve been good there and that the problem has only been at the executive level with the processes they’ve implemented?

 

I don’t know. It’s impossible to really know. Obviously, the processes they have in place at the highest executive levels have been clear failures. They’ve over-burdened and over-valued coaches, undermined their best talent-evaluators as well as coaches at times, undervalued the personnel department in general, facilities have lagged behind even though they’re a top ten revenue generating sports franchise in the entire world, poor hiring processes implemented, consistent PR embarrassments, etc... 

 

So, sure, maybe just changing that one aspect and having a guy who understands this will positively affect everything. That is very possible and one can argue even likely. But if there’s no real change within the lower levels... it’s also tough not to see it as just another way for Snyder to pacify the fanbase and that the status quo, in reality, remains. 

 

That being said, I’d celebrate the move were it to happen. Better late than never, of course, and I’d be looking for signs to show Schaffer really is in charge and implementing positive changes. Like I said, it’s a big plus that Schaffer would likely want Jay to remain as his coach, but I’d also hope he can truly choose. It’s also a good thing when those truly deserving within the organization are elevated, as it provides motivation and a method to follow for everyone. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

So, sure, maybe just changing that one aspect and having a guy who understands this will positively affect everything. That is very possible and one can argue even likely. But if there’s no real change within the lower levels... it’s also tough not to see it as just another way for Snyder to pacify the fanbase and that the status quo, in reality, remains. 

 

 

I agree with your points.  The one thing that gives me some faith about Schaffer is his reputation is of someone who is one of the best in the business at what he does.  He's a driven guy -- and wants to be perceived as a top GM.  According to some being a GM is his ultimate goal.  

 

His personality is supposedly really good -- gets along with people, treats them with respect, is a real dude and not phony. 

 

So to me his character and competence would represent a major step up.   And he strikes me the type that he will make whatever changes are needed for him to succeed.  But who knows? 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

I agree with your points.  The one thing that gives me some faith about Schaffer is his reputation is of someone who is one of the best in the business at what he does.  He's a driven guy -- and wants to be perceived as a top GM.  According to some being a GM is his ultimate goal.  

 

His personality is supposedly really good -- gets along with people, treats them with respect, is a real dude and not phony. 

 

So to me his character and competence would represent a major step up.   And he strikes me the type that he will make whatever changes are needed for him to succeed.  But who knows? 

 

I've heard the same.  Schaffer kind of reminds me of Howie Roseman.  A cap guy that has potential for more.  The best thing to happen to the Eagles was Roseman winning the war against Chip Kelly.  The relationship between Schaffer and Bruce doesn't seem to be anywhere near as contentious as that one was, but I hope the cap guy ends up on top all the same.  I would be jumping for joy if, after demoting Bruce next offseason, we gave Schaffer a few years to prove he can lead us to consistent contender status.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell's almost got it. He's really close.

 

Here's what he's missing: The team would have to be healthy & still win like 4 games or be healthy & end up with a .500 record or less.

Share this post


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

Russell's almost got it. He's really close.

 

Here's what he's missing: The team would have to be healthy & still win like 4 games or be healthy & end up with a .500 record or less.

 

When is any team ever completely healthy though?  I mean, we had a healthy Cousins for every game the last few years, which is obviously the most important position.  If you account for the relative value of the quarterback position, one could easily argue we were healthier than teams like the Vikings and Eagles last year.

 

Is Dan really only going to get rid of BA if Jordan Reed somehow miraculously stays healthy for 16 games and we still have a losing record?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching it's a football life about the fearsome foursome, and it's Bruce's sister narrating it, with lots of Bruce.  He's still a douche in this....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If true, this is really strange to say the least:

 

Quote

 

"A lot of the anger is from the McCloughan hiring," Russell said. "A lot of it is from bypassing Wade Phillips, not once, but twice. Letting other competent executives out the door. Not winning enough, of course, is the biggest thing."

...

"Absolutely," Russell said. "Also what I was told was Snyder never said, 'Go and hire McCloughan.' Snyder said, 'Go and get yourself a football man.' McCloughan was hired by Bruce because Snyder and A.J. Smith, who was there at the time, didn't see eye to eye over Griffin. As a matter of fact, A.J. hated Griffin. Snyder of course beloved Griffin. And, basically that meant A.J. was not staying.

"So they bypassed A.J. Smith, the former Charger general manager, went to McCloughan -- a guy who Bruce admitted, 'I've never worked with him. I don't know the guy. I know his dad, I know his brother, but I don't know the guy.' We all know the backstory to that. And then, from what I understand, it was a disaster from four or five months in, if it even took that long. Ultimately, Dan wanted to get him fired long before he ultimately did. Bruce tried to repair it, hold on, fix it, couldn't, and then that's what led to the hasty firing."

 

 

https://thefandc.radio.com/why-dan-snyder-is-so-furious-with-bruce-allen

 

We've been hearing for the past year how it was Bruce who was the main culprit behind Scot being fired.  How it was Bruce who was jealous of Scot and wanted to get the credit for the team's success, and that's why Scot's gone.  Now, if I'm reading the bolded correctly, Bruce was the hero all along who was trying to fix things while having Dan breathing down his neck to fire Scot from four or five months in?  I find that hard to believe.  Why would Dan want him gone 4 or 5 months in?  Four or five months into the McC hiring would put it right around June 2015.  From what I can remember from that time our 2015 draft class was being universally praised, and there was real optimism that we would be much better than we were the year before.  The only reason I could think of for Dan wanting to get rid of Scot is that Scot might have made his preference for Kirk over RGIII known behind closed doors and Dan caught wind of it (I'm pretty sure this was a few months before the infamous "Start Kirk over Robert" meeting).  And even if that's what Dan's beef was, fast-forward another 5 months, and it's clear to see that that was the right decision.  So why would Dan still want Scot fired?  The only reason I can think of there is that Scot was, again, being universally praised, this time for building a roster that was leading us to our first playoff berth since 2012.  So Dan was jealous.  If Scot being fired all came down to Dan's jealousy, rather than Bruce's then that's a lot scarier IMO.  I really hope that's not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

So Dan was jealous.  If Scot being fired all came down to Dan's jealousy, rather than Bruce's then that's a lot scarier IMO.  I really hope that's not the case.

Russell insinuated that Scot was a disaster at Redskins park early in his tenure. Scot's actions apparently led to him being fired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TK said:

Russell's almost got it. He's really close.

 

Here's what he's missing: The team would have to be healthy & still win like 4 games or be healthy & end up with a .500 record or less.

 

That explains why we keep continually banged up players on the roster :rofl89:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this makes my head hurt.

 

Its a simple fix. And one that isn’t going to happen.

 

Purge the drama. Purge the entire FO. Start over. Yes, even the guys who have been excellent. Those guys WILL find jobs in other front offices. And they will likely be better valued and in better situations than the current.

 

After this season, if we are t successful, the entire FO needs to be purged and rebuilt. The following season the coaching staff and player personnel overhauls need to begin. The coaching staff should be a two year process, players a three year process. 

 

Get a FO, coaching staff and player personnel group together that can be used for continuity. 

 

Its simply not going to happen but it IS an easy fix. None of the quality guys in the org will be without a job for very long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

When is any team ever completely healthy though?  I mean, we had a healthy Cousins for every game the last few years, which is obviously the most important position.  If you account for the relative value of the quarterback position, one could easily argue we were healthier than teams like the Vikings and Eagles last year.

 

Is Dan really only going to get rid of BA if Jordan Reed somehow miraculously stays healthy for 16 games and we still have a losing record?  

 

Actually, no you can't. There is a site that does exactly what you are saying - putting a weight on the players lost. The chart is below. The Redskins were 2nd only to AZ. In terms of man game lost the Redskins were 6th. So the cost of our players lost was higher than others. Another site - I believe USA Today showed us as having lost the highest number of starter games due to injury.


 

I started following this site (mangameslost.com) because I felt like the rest that the Redskins see more injuries than others due to poor conditioning and strength coaches. This says that is just not true. The entire NFL is getting a lot more injuries. The average man games lost over the last 3 yrs is: 

League average:

2015 - 152 

2016 - 193

2017 - 236

 

So the league average - not one team but the NFL as a whole has seen the average number of man games lost due to injury increase by 41 from 2015 to 2016 then 43 from 2016 to 2017. That's a 55% increase from 2015 to 2017.

 

In 2015 the Redskins had the 4th highest # of man games lost due to injury with 215. In 2017 we were 6th with 309. The message is that the entire NFL is more injured. Is it conditioning? Lack of practice time? Poor health habits by players? More athleticism caused more violent collisions? More awareness and/or acknowledgement of injuries? I would say it's probably all the above. 

 

The main message here is that it is absolutely a league issue not a Redskins issue. It does not lessen the impact of the Redskins or that we seem consistently in the top - although in 2016 the team was pretty healthy - 20th in man games lost 179 with a weighted value of 21st. So yes the team had more injuries than others last year but along with that is an alarming increase in the number of injuries in the NFL. I would guess this is why they are looking so hard at things like getting rid f the KO. 

 

 

2017 Weighted Lost Value due to injuries - Wash. 2nd - Minn 8th - Phil not in the top 10. So out side their QB Philly was pretty healthy. Granted QB is important but they had a good back-up but it shows the rest of the team around him was very good. Have to give them credit. 

 

image.png.c0c12d81b816729eca74ea8a5ab60b6f.png

 

 

 

2015 Man Games lost

image.png.8f2d5aafbcc0461bee6050d0f8b3567d.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

If true, this is really strange to say the least:

 

 

https://thefandc.radio.com/why-dan-snyder-is-so-furious-with-bruce-allen

 

We've been hearing for the past year how it was Bruce who was the main culprit behind Scot being fired.  How it was Bruce who was jealous of Scot and wanted to get the credit for the team's success, and that's why Scot's gone.  Now, if I'm reading the bolded correctly, Bruce was the hero all along who was trying to fix things while having Dan breathing down his neck to fire Scot from four or five months in?  I find that hard to believe.  Why would Dan want him gone 4 or 5 months in?  Four or five months into the McC hiring would put it right around June 2015.  From what I can remember from that time our 2015 draft class was being universally praised, and there was real optimism that we would be much better than we were the year before.  The only reason I could think of for Dan wanting to get rid of Scot is that Scot might have made his preference for Kirk over RGIII known behind closed doors and Dan caught wind of it (I'm pretty sure this was a few months before the infamous "Start Kirk over Robert" meeting).  And even if that's what Dan's beef was, fast-forward another 5 months, and it's clear to see that that was the right decision.  So why would Dan still want Scot fired?  The only reason I can think of there is that Scot was, again, being universally praised, this time for building a roster that was leading us to our first playoff berth since 2012.  So Dan was jealous.  If Scot being fired all came down to Dan's jealousy, rather than Bruce's then that's a lot scarier IMO.  I really hope that's not the case.

Sounds like Allen is trying to change the narrative thru the media to salvage his reputation so that when (not if) he gets fired from the Redskins he can find another cushy job on another team.  Anyone know of any owners as dumb as Snyder who would hire this fool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Bruce was the hero all along who was trying to fix things while having Dan breathing down his neck to fire Scot from four or five months in?  I find that hard to believe.

I don't think Bruce was really the hero all along in this situation, no matter what happened.  He's the one who went and hired a guy with documented issues and lied to everyone in saying that he would have total control of personnel.  Also I find it this talk of Scot being disliked merely 4-5 months into the relationship to be interesting, considering that's around the time they had a come to jesus meeting with Snyder indicating that Griffin is garbage and they need to move on to Cousins.  Makes total sense to me that Snyder wouldn't want Smith around if his goal was to move on from Griffin, makes even more sense that he'd like Scot initially given Scot's comments the day he was hired about not giving up on a Heisman winner and all that jazz.  It makes total sense to me that Snyder would sour on Scot after he believed he was behind Griffin, only to several months later tell him all the reasons why Griffin was not the guy.  There really is no way to downplay what Griffin was to Dan, he was the cool kid that made Dan feel cool.  Passing by Kirk en route to Griffin after the Browns in 2012, the thanksgiving dinners with the family, to the infamous bowling video.  I'd reckon Dan felt bamboozled by Scot who told him he believed in Griffin in Feb. 2015 only to take all that back come August of the same year.

Edited by BatteredFanSyndrome
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

If true, this is really strange to say the least:

 

 

https://thefandc.radio.com/why-dan-snyder-is-so-furious-with-bruce-allen

 

We've been hearing for the past year how it was Bruce who was the main culprit behind Scot being fired.  How it was Bruce who was jealous of Scot and wanted to get the credit for the team's success, and that's why Scot's gone.  Now, if I'm reading the bolded correctly, Bruce was the hero all along who was trying to fix things while having Dan breathing down his neck to fire Scot from four or five months in?  

 

Russell is alone on this theory of the Bruce element of the Scot story.  But this isn't his first tale on this count.  Now, he doesn't describe Bruce here as you say as the "hero".  It's that it was Bruce's hire.  If it flamed out so fast then Bruce looked like a dolt.

 

I've said this on this thread and others many times, there is no narrative on Scot that makes Bruce look like the winner.  Whether he was fired justifiably or not, its Bruce's hire.  His hand picked guy.

 

As for what happened with Scot, Russell never elaborates.  But for me from the get go I trust that Scot had to go because Russell said so back then -- my thing on Bruce is what does he do next?  And IMO unfortunately what he did next played right into the hands of the Scot's camp narrative which was Bruce wanted the power himself.  True or not true that's how it played out.

 

Russell in particular has overly stressed that Scot really never had the power from the get go and the little power he had he lost there fast.  Russell has described Bruce as the villain in most narratives relating to the Redskins.  And for the Scot story he paints both Scot and Bruce as co-villains.

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Snyder should be upset because three talented people..Sean McVay, Kyle Shanahan and Kirk Cousins... have left the Redskins and all three have a shot at winning the Super Bowl way before the Redskins ever get within miles of getting things right.  Imagine this....the Redskins could have fired Gruden and given the HC to McVay who would have then brought in Wade Phillips and would in turn have been able to keep Cousins in Washington making the team a bonafide playoff contender.  We had those people here in our building and weren’t able to make the moves to keep them.  We would have then been dreaming of 11-5 or better and playoffs. SMH

Edited by XtremeFan55
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, XtremeFan55 said:

Snyder should be upset because three talented people..Sean McVay, Kyle Shanahan and Kirk Cousins... have left the Redskins and all three have a shot at winning the Super Bowl way before the Redskins ever get within miles of getting things right.  Imagine this....the Redskins could have fired Gruden and given the HC to McVay who would have then brought in Wade Phillips and would in turn have been able to keep Cousins in Washington making the team a bonfire playoff contender.  We had those people here in our building and weren’t able to make the moves to keep them.  We would have then been dreaming of 11-5 or better and playoffs. SMH

Only thing is no way McVay takes a job Gruden was fired from solely to move him in. 

  • Like 1

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.