Makaveli

The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I have warmed up about Doug but for almost the opposite reason you speak of.  That is, I don't think he's controlling squat.  He seems more like a cheerleader and facilitator and to me that's a good example of someone staying in his lane.  He's a classy dude, honest and a nice guy.   I've heard enough accounts of what Doug does by enough guys including listening to Doug's own descriptions that the picture painted to me is this:

 

He's doing very little player evaluation at least almost nothing where he's the lead.  He will go to some college games and pro days, etc but he's typically part of an entourage.  His version of it is to put another eyes to the evaluation that already is going.  An area scout says hey I love this guy, Kyle says hey I love this guy.  So Doug goes and looks at him too and chimes in.  But he's not a key voice in the evaluation but a vote/opinion when people are going back and forth.   

 

Edit

That's my long winded way of saying I get what people say about Doug's main role is to be a facilitator to make sure all get along.  I know last year he got credit for keeping morale up in that building.  I gather Redskins Park isn't always a happy go lucky environment.  And if Doug helps make it so -- there is value to it.

 

What I like about him is his honesty in his public appearances.   And if he helped Kyle Smith get the promotion then that was clearly a good move. 

 

 

You are probably closer to this than me - but my two cents worth is that I truly believe Doug is very self deprecating. He is really a pretty humble guy. That part I know for fact as I have met him a few times. So I think he purposely down plays his role which is part of what gets people to trust hum and then ultimately follow him. People lead in different ways. On the field he led more forcefully but at least to me as someone in the FO, he leads more by example and keeping everyone on the same page. That may be where the "cheerleader" impression comes from. But I think he is doing much more than he or anyone lets on. 


Also, when I say more leeway and involvement, you assumed I meant he is making picks and in full control of player scouting and research - and I can see it reading that way. So let me clarify. I think he is really driving making sure that the guys doing the work are heard and respected. So I think Kyle being a more forceful part of the draft process was due to Doug pushing it. 

 

Again, I am clearly not in the building so it's all just my impression. And I am not ready to send Doug to the HOF as a FO guy. My only real point was he seems to be a bit of glue to that ship that has been missing and as such is being heard more and is driving change behind the scenes. His hand prints seem to be showing up more and he seems to be more and more the face of the franchise but not just in public, behind the scenes too. He is the one keeping moral high, people listening to each other, making more sound decisions etc. 

 

Who knows maybe it's just wishful thinking. Its May when hopes are high. If the team starts 2-5 I will want the entire team fired like everyone else.....  Just kidding - well sort of!!  :bye:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't really disagree with this and that could be a reason why we're seeing more of Doug doing the press conferences instead of Bruce.

 

Yep, some beat guy have flat out said that's why they heard Doug's out more -- more likable and less likely to say something off.

 

22 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

But at the same time, we have to acknowledge that a leader who lets the people below him (or her) do their jobs generally is able to earn their respect. f

 

I get your point.  But I see it differently.  My best analogy to this is -- we got an electrician overseeing the plumbing.  But hey lets give credit to the electrician for actually allowing the plumber to do that job that the electrician doesn't know how to do.  To each their own but I am not giving Bruce points for this.  And we hear enough that he does but in at least at times and those times in my view haven't exactly worked out swimmingly. 

 

But yeah it could be worse, I don't think Bruce is like what Dan used to be which is force feed the FO to play fantasy football with players that he fancies.  Bruce seems to pick his spots.  I am just not even a little impressed with the spots he has picked.  His instincts to me aren't hot. 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

IAnd Bruce is not universally hated, Bill Polian and AJ Smith are some respected GMs who have spoken positively about Bruce recently.

 

 

Everybody has friends in this business.  Vinny had guys who swore by him, too.  It's irrelevant to my point.  My point is Bruce is by and large isn't respected by many pundits in this business and by most fans.   I don't mean ALL fans and everyone.  That's clear to me just by this thread alone.   I don't think there is a person that exists in the business where you got 100% consensus positive or negative.

 

22 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I mean, just remove Bruce from the equation. People were saying the same things about Doug just last year. Now we've got walterfootball calling Doug the best newcomer to the draft. Its not much in the grand scheme of things, but its more than calling him the laughing stock he was last year.

 

Doug isn't running the team or personnel.  I could say with 100% confidence that Doug wasn't enemy #1 last year (not even close) -- it was Bruce and to some it was Dan.  

 

I think you miss the forrest for the trees about some of the critics related to Bruce.   Even if we thought Bruce was ultra good at what he does (though, we don't) -- it bothers some of us that he comes off like a douche and how the team comes off with him in charge.  Doug isn't a douche.  He's a nice guy.  

 

The main beef with Doug was the concept of him running personnel to replace Scot.  Some of us (including me) were skeptical though that he would actually really run personnel and it seemed more like a PR stunt than a defacto move.  It looks like we were right.  Yeah so if Doug isn't making the key decisions on personnel than heck I like him in the FO, then.  I never had an issue with Doug in the FO, I just don't think he has the personnel chops to replace Scot.  And from what I've gathered the Redskins see it the same way. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, goskins10 said:


Also, when I say more leeway and involvement, you assumed I meant he is making picks and in full control of player scouting and research - and I can see it reading that way. So let me clarify. I think he is really driving making sure that the guys doing the work are heard and respected. So I think Kyle being a more forceful part of the draft process was due to Doug pushing it. 

 

 

Sure, this point is a variation of the point I made in response to yours about Doug.  I can see him deal with the politics in that building and help get people on the same page.  That's the picture that's been painted by beat guys who have asked their sources about Doug.  And some sources flat out told them -- he's not a great evaulator but he's a great person.  I can see that.  I could see that before he was promoted.  Like many here, I recall the Redskins 1987 season well, I've seen Doung interviewed a gazillion times.  Humble.  Nice.  Class.  And those aren't personality descriptions I think of when I see Bruce in interviews.  :)   So I think Doug brings something to the table in that way. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

What's wrong is that this is still a FO put together by Bruce Allen. Love the guy or hate the guy they still work for Bruce. The same way they work for Dan. Some (like myself) have said that this team will never win under Dan. That was when he was into the philosophy of paying top dollar for too old free agents. Now that philosophy has changed and so has my opinion of winning under Dan. Bruce is mainly the reason for that philosophy change and Smith and Schaffer are the vessels through which he was able to execute that philosophy change into a .500 team.

I think our primary beef with the organization Bruce has built is more about having too many chefs in the kitchen and not really knowing who's responsible for the dishes.  Schaffer was here prior to Bruce.  Kyle being here I think we can attribute to Bruce's relationship with his dad, and that's a good thing.  I also agree that Bruce's philosophy is better than that of what Dan and Vinny concocted.  But it's still convoluted from a vision standpoint.  SIP really hit home on this point yesterday about why the guy at the very top is extremely important, even if everyone underneath is great at their job.  I'm afraid to mention this in fear of this turning into a Scot debate, but the one thing that really stood out to me with Scot was the vision he had for a football team.  Whether his vision was right or wrong, or got messed up somewhere in between, is another debate.  But he knew what he wanted to build and how to go about doing it.  My issue with Bruce at the helm, even with smart guys underneath him, is that I simply don't see that vision.  I see the ability to select good football players through the draft, but there is more to building a team than that.  We're currently a team that's a little bit more than halfway there but I fear we'll never get over that hump with the status quo.  The infractions that many like to gloss over are the types of infractions that prevent teams from ever getting over that hump.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering why we didn't offer Bree the vet minimum, it could have allowed us to capture a comp pick depending on the deal he ends up signing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Just wondering why we didn't offer Bree the vet minimum, it could have allowed us to capture a comp pick depending on the deal he ends up signing.  

My guess is that his character wasn't that well liked and it sounds like half of his heel is missing on one foot. Just a guess though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Just wondering why we didn't offer Bree the vet minimum, it could have allowed us to capture a comp pick depending on the deal he ends up signing.  

 

 

It's expected that we're already going to get 4 comp picks, which I want to say I read somewhere that was the max a team could get but that could be totally incorrect.  Something also tells me they knew this foot thing was going on and they had a sneaking suspicion that he was not capable of passing a physical, at least not until the Comp picks were likely to be rewarded.  I also feel like the team decided they were going to move on from him after he went rogue at training camp last year. 

 

And I don't believe us offering would make a difference.  If he were to sign with another team prior to the end of the free agent signing period, that would still be 'counted' which could potentially give us a higher pick in return than one of the others. 

Edited by OVCChairman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

My guess is that his character wasn't that well liked and it sounds like half of his heel is missing on one foot. Just a guess though.

 

Yeah that was one expensive vacation that guy took.  I get it that Bre and the team had a falling out. Still would that prevent them from offering the vet minimum?  This isn't about signing him, although that would be a bargain price, it's about being smart and possibly capturing a comp pick

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

It's expected that we're already going to get 4 comp picks, which I want to say I read somewhere that was the max a team could get but that could be totally incorrect.  Something also tells me they knew this foot thing was going on and they had a sneaking suspicion that he was not capable of passing a physical, at least not until the Comp picks were likely to be rewarded.  I also feel like the team decided they were going to move on from him after he went rogue at training camp last year. 

 

And I don't believe us offering would make a difference.  If he were to sign with another team prior to the end of the free agent signing period, that would still be 'counted' which could potentially give us a higher pick in return than one of the others. 

 

Sheehan brought this up on the radio a week or so ago, said nothing about the pick limit for what it's worth.  They had until May X? to offer a vet min, same thing the Pats did with Bount. When he signed elsewhere, had the deal been large enough they would have received a pick. As it turns out the deal was not big enough but this is what smart organizations do, they explore options to get something for nothing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Sheehan brought this up on the radio a week or so ago, said nothing about the pick limit for what it's worth.  They had until May X? to offer a vet min, same thing the Pats did with Bount. When he signed elsewhere, had the deal been large enough they would have received a pick. As it turns out the deal was not big enough but this is what smart organizations do, they explore options to get something for nothing.  

 

https://overthecap.com/the-basics-and-methodology-of-projecting-the-nfls-compensatory-draft-picks/

 

Quote

As the NFL explains, compensatory picks are awarded to teams that lose more or better compensatory free agents than they acquire. The number of picks a team can receive equals the net loss of compensatory free agents, up to a maximum of four. Compensatory free agents are determined by a secret formula based on salary, playing time and postseason honors. Not every free agent lost or signed is covered by the formula.

 

I found where I heard it.

 

I don't believe we need to offer a deal in order to get compensation of a comp pick.  If he signs elsewhere, and they value his contract high enough, we can get a deal back.  If i'm not mistaken,  Blount was tendered, which is different than a compensatory pick 

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000807824/article/patriots-issue-rarely-used-tender-on-legarrette-blount

 

Quote

The Patriots used the tender as a callous business decision that would allow Blount to remain part of New England's compensatory picks formulation. Other unrestricted free agents that sign after May 9, are not part of the equation -- for example, Floyd signing on Wednesday does not count in the comp pick formula for the Pats or against the Vikings.

 

 

This says they stay in compensatory pick conversation, but I BELIEVE that is because the deal offered would not be at a value that would get a return.  If Breeland was able to sign, his contract would have almost guaranteed a pick compensation.  If we were to tender him the same way the Pats did, then after July 22 (which appears to be a given) if he hadn't signed, then he can only negotiate with the Redskins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Sheehan brought this up on the radio a week or so ago, said nothing about the pick limit for what it's worth.  They had until May X? to offer a vet min, same thing the Pats did with Bount. When he signed elsewhere, had the deal been large enough they would have received a pick. As it turns out the deal was not big enough but this is what smart organizations do, they explore options to get something for nothing.  

 

They cannot offer him the veteran minimum. They have to offer him 110% of his last salary. For Breeland that would be just under $2M. See below. It's from the NFL faq -  https://operations.nfl.com/updates/football-ops/2018-nfl-free-agency-faq/

 

Also under the rule limit of a maximum of 4 comp picks the Redskins would not be awarded an additional picks. The best that could happen is depending on the contract signed, playing time and a few other minors metrics they could maybe have a 6th become a 5th or maybe 4th. The problem is that if he signs the tender I believe it becomes fully guaranteed. That's purely wasted $2M for someone you clearly do not want on your team. Hopefully we can put this Breeland thing to rest. The team does not want him.

 

The reason that NE did it is because they knew at least a few other teams wanted Blount and they were not at their maximum of 4 comp picks. 

 

Not necessary saying you, but oddly enough almost all fans did not want him here until they actually let him go. We seem to have this love hate relationship with most players. We hate them when they are here and love them when they are gone. Seems a little backwards to me. 

 

Q. What determines an unrestricted free agent?

A. A player with four or more accrued seasons whose contract has expired. He is free to sign with any club — with no draft choice compensation owed to his old club — through July 23 or the first scheduled day of the first NFL training camp, whichever is later. His negotiating rights revert exclusively to his old club if by May 8 the old club tendered the player a one-year contract for 110 percent of his prior year’s salary. His old club then has until the Tuesday following Week 10 of the regular season (Nov. 13) to sign him. If he does not sign by that date, he must sit out the season. If no tender is offered by May 8, the player can be signed by any club at any time throughout the season.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

They cannot offer him the veteran minimum. They have to offer him 110% of his last salary. For Breeland that would be just under $2M. See below. It's from the NFL faq -  https://operations.nfl.com/updates/football-ops/2018-nfl-free-agency-faq/

 

Also under the rule limit of a maximum of 4 comp picks the Redskins would not be awarded an additional picks. The best that could happen is depending on the contract signed, playing time and a few other minors metrics they could maybe have a 6th become a 5th or maybe 4th. The problem is that if he signs the tender I believe it becomes fully guaranteed. That's purely wasted $2M for someone you clearly do not want on your team. Hopefully we can put this Breeland thing to rest. The team does not want him.

 

The reason that NE did it is because they knew at least a few other teams wanted Blount and they were not at their maximum of 4 comp picks. 

 

Not necessary saying you, but oddly enough almost all fans did not want him here until they actually let him go. We seem to have this love hate relationship with most players. We hate them when they are here and love them when they are gone. Seems a little backwards to me. 

 

Q. What determines an unrestricted free agent?

A. A player with four or more accrued seasons whose contract has expired. He is free to sign with any club — with no draft choice compensation owed to his old club — through July 23 or the first scheduled day of the first NFL training camp, whichever is later. His negotiating rights revert exclusively to his old club if by May 8 the old club tendered the player a one-year contract for 110 percent of his prior year’s salary. His old club then has until the Tuesday following Week 10 of the regular season (Nov. 13) to sign him. If he does not sign by that date, he must sit out the season. If no tender is offered by May 8, the player can be signed by any club at any time throughout the season.

 

 

Thanks for the effort to clarify, good to know. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

Some good takeaways here.

 

Thanks for sharing, definitely seems Doug has his imprints on the personnel side. Curious to hear him say they valued Guice as a first rounder but were still willing to drop back to 59 and potentially pass on the opportunity to land him. There were a ton of rumblings that NFL FO people thought rounds 2-4 were the meat of the draft and adding an extra pick for them I guess trumped taking a first round talent at RB. Not sure I really agree with that, I would have drafted Guice at 44 and called it a day. Somehow, someway we still ended up with the guy. So guess it worked out...

Share this post


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

 

Thanks for sharing, definitely seems Doug has his imprints on the personnel side. Curious to hear him say they valued Guice as a first rounder but were still willing to drop back to 59 and potentially pass on the opportunity to land him. There were a ton of rumblings that NFL FO people thought rounds 2-4 were the meat of the draft and adding an extra pick for them I guess trumped taking a first round talent at RB. Not sure I really agree with that, I would have drafted Guice at 44 and called it a day. Somehow, someway we still ended up with the guy. So guess it worked out...

What I liked was how he talked about reaching out to other GM's in the league immediately after getting the job.  Also, I like how he is using his relationships from his playing days to build rapport with other FO's and get deals done, like the trade with the Broncos and Rams.

 

It's the intangibles that make the difference and that seems to be where Bruce fails.

Edited by JSSkinz
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2018 at 11:21 AM, JSSkinz said:

What I liked was how he talked about reaching out to other GM's in the league immediately after getting the job.  Also, I like how he is using his relationships from his playing days to build rapport with other FO's and get deals done, like the trade with the Broncos and Rams.

 

It's the intangibles that make the difference and that seems to be where Bruce fails.

 

In terms of the draft and trading players, relationships definitely play a significant role in how successful any front office ends up being. As you said, Williams undoubtedly has some good, strong relationships with many around the league, even if they aren't all in positions of power (I imagine most SB-winning QBs have relationships like that they can draw on when needed). And it's been said in the past that Allen also has a lot of good, strong relationships around the league but that may be more with owners than with other FO executives. Agents may not trust him (now, anyway), but he's had a good rep and good relationships with other NFL execs for most of his time in the league. I wonder if Scot had/has good, strong relationships with any other FO execs around the league, or if his talent evaluation is the extent of what he brings to the table. He's been on several successful teams so you'd imagine he does.

 

Vinny, on the other hand, had abso-stinkin-lutely NO worthwhile relationships around the league to draw on lol...we got taken to the cleaners a lot under his leadership.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is kinda unrelated to the recent news, but I just thought I'd bring it up today. Its been a few weeks since the draft and at the time there were all kinds of rumors circulating about Guice - his behavorial problems, his addiction to video games, his arriving late to meetings, his blowing up at the Eagles, and the TMZ video that was supposed to come out showing why he dropped.

 

These things (with the exception of video games) have all proven false to this point. And now the word is that this was an "agents trick" that caused him to drop - either his old agent, or the agent of another RB who wanted his player to go higher.

 

So what I'm wondering and the reason I put this in this thread is that we were talking a few weeks back about how "agents" didn't trust Bruce and how much this meant, but now we're hearing that "agents" did this horrible thing causing Guice to drop in the draft. And these are the guys who don't trust Bruce? Basically somebody "robbed" Guice of a few million dollars and that same person may have been asked "do you trust Bruce".
 

Those two things don't add up to me.

Share this post


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

So what I'm wondering and the reason I put this in this thread is that we were talking a few weeks back about how "agents" didn't trust Bruce and how much this meant, but now we're hearing that "agents" did this horrible thing causing Guice to drop in the draft. And these are the guys who don't trust Bruce? Basically somebody "robbed" Guice of a few million dollars and that same person may have been asked "do you trust Bruce".

 

Those two things don't add up to me.

Yeah, my initial reaction to that poll was really? I'm sure there are some good ones out there, but a lot of agents are probably just as slimy and sleazy as Brucey boy.

Share this post


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

Yeah, my initial reaction to that poll was really? I'm sure there are some good ones out there, but a lot of agents are probably just as slimy and sleazy as Brucey boy.

 

I will go a step further. I am pretty certain there are at least a few agents worse than bruce - and considering my opinion of bruce that's saying something. 

 

I re-posted the USA Today article not because i believed it so much as it was in response to a question to my question of - Maybe they read the article and were making efforts to change or refute the perception. This was specifically around them being the first ones to sign their 1st rd draft pick. Seems like they were awful quick to sign their picks. Not saying that';s a bad thing. But since the team has never been that over-anxious it just seemed odd. 

 

Back to the article. I had some problems with it in general. it was lacking a lot of detail. Detail that could have provided context. Like what did it mean they were "unprepared"? And what parameters were used to determine if they "liked" Bruce? Was it just because he was hard to negotiate with? Was he a jerk in meetings? Did he talk about their mother? It all just seems a little to much like piling on through vague criteria. Doesn't mean Bruce is not a douche. I just have problems with "polls" like these that are missing a lot of context. 

 

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

This is kinda unrelated to the recent news, but I just thought I'd bring it up today. Its been a few weeks since the draft and at the time there were all kinds of rumors circulating about Guice - his behavioral problems, his addiction to video games, his arriving late to meetings, his blowing up at the Eagles, and the TMZ video that was supposed to come out showing why he dropped.

 

Edit.

 

Those two things don't add up to me.

 

So I am going to go the opposite in terms of conspiracy...  Just because I can. :rofl89:

 

What if Bruce or someone for him is the one who made those back door leaks/comments? Maybe that is how he knew that Guice would be available? 

 

image.png.233bb559e820d0966f23047a42316310.png

 

 

Edited by goskins10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of amazing the hate that bruce gets.  In many ways its amazing what he has accomplished while reporting directly to Bozo the Clown

Share this post


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

Kind of amazing the hate that bruce gets.  In many ways its amazing what he has accomplished while reporting directly to Bozo the Clown

 

I get that. Dan is certainly a douche of epic proportions. However, Bruce's reputation has been well earned. It's not so much what has happened at times, it's how it has happened. Which many times I am not concerned with. But with Bruce you just never feel like he is being straight with you. I just feel liek I have to wash my hands every time I hear him speak. 

 

I was actually pretty excited when he was first brought in. So I did not start with a healthy dislike for him. Quite the opposite. For me it boils down to how he has handled a few majors issues, the way he handled the Scot issue - not that he fired him but how he did it, when and the general approach. And how he handled Kirk - again not so much that he let Kirk go, it's how he completely bungled the entire thing to the point the Redskins got zero compensation for letting a legitimate starting QB leave in his prime. 

 

The second is unforgivable in my view. Let him go, fine. But for nothing? Not trying to start a Kirk thread, just explaining where my dislike/distrust in Bruce comes from. 

 

Has he done some good things? Of course he has and I have highlighted those before. But for me those do not outweigh the negatives. I am sure others have different reasons/thoughts. But those are mine. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

So what I'm wondering and the reason I put this in this thread is that we were talking a few weeks back about how "agents" didn't trust Bruce and how much this meant, but now we're hearing that "agents" did this horrible thing causing Guice to drop in the draft. And these are the guys who don't trust Bruce? Basically somebody "robbed" Guice of a few million dollars and that same person may have been asked "do you trust Bruce".
 

Those two things don't add up to me.

 

Nah.

 

I think it was the Eagles that put out that phony info. :P 

 

Much the same way they put out the phony info on DeSean Jackson, I think they may have done the same thing here.

 

Their end game?

 

Maybe they wanted Guice to keep falling so they could take him at their leisure.   

 

Or maybe they were trying to scare off other NFC East teams, like the Giants and Redskins. Remember pre-draft, there was a lot of talk about New York and Washington taking RBs early in the draft, and of the Giants skipping over Barkley, taking a DL, and drafting a RB later (like Guice).

 

Maybe the Eagles put out those ugly rumors to chase teams off. Maybe it partly worked. Maybe the Giants, hearing these rumors, decided to go with Barkley instead of a DL. 

 

However, it backfired because the Redskins selected Guice anyway. Now the  Eagles have to deal with Barkley and Guice. And Elliot.

 

At least, that is my story, and I'm sticking to it. :)  :eagles_suck:

Edited by SkinsGuy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much BS info pre-draft, I think any agents who take part in this kind of draft manipulation should be banned, its unethical and borderline criminal.

 

They cost Guice a few million dollars with the disparaging leaks and the kid still has a smile on his face.

 

 

Share this post


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

This is kinda unrelated to the recent news, but I just thought I'd bring it up today. Its been a few weeks since the draft and at the time there were all kinds of rumors circulating about Guice - his behavorial problems, his addiction to video games, his arriving late to meetings, his blowing up at the Eagles, and the TMZ video that was supposed to come out showing why he dropped.

 

These things (with the exception of video games) have all proven false to this point. And now the word is that this was an "agents trick" that caused him to drop - either his old agent, or the agent of another RB who wanted his player to go higher.

 

So what I'm wondering and the reason I put this in this thread is that we were talking a few weeks back about how "agents" didn't trust Bruce and how much this meant, but now we're hearing that "agents" did this horrible thing causing Guice to drop in the draft. And these are the guys who don't trust Bruce? Basically somebody "robbed" Guice of a few million dollars and that same person may have been asked "do you trust Bruce".
 

Those two things don't add up to me.

 

I've probably tracked Guice as much or maybe even more than anybody on the board, I've been on the Guice train since last fall.  As for the leaks about him -- piecing things together there might have been an incident in Philly but not the one described on twitter -- Craig Hoffman said he heard of a nefarious story about Guice that some know about, he doesn't know if its true, but it hasn't come out yet and might not.  I personally think Guice is fine.  He's an off beat guy and that might rub some the wrong way.  Ryan Clark said he's known Guice for years -- he thinks he's a good guy albeit strange and in his words doesn't know when to turn it off. 

 

So there might be something to the smoke of teams being uncertain about Guice.  I've personally though have had a man crush on the dude since last fall so for now I got his back.

 

As for heck agents are willing to leak things about players so we should question that they don't trust Bruce since they aren't always trustworthy themselves.  I don't see how one thing has anything to do with another.    They could have picked any executive among 32 teams and they zeroed in on Bruce as top of the list.  I don't think that's because everything that's down might be up.   If anything from my work experience, the sleazy people can spot other people that are sleazy because they recognize the symptoms and tricks.  Sleaze is too strong of a word but just using it to make a point.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think anyone is saying that agents are the kings of class.

 

Grimy folks can see grime from miles away.  In fact, there’s not much worse for a grimy individual than to deal with another grimy individual.  So that poll makes all the sense in the world to me.

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.