JoggingGod Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said: And I'm saying I don't think you can trade the contract, because the bonus component of the contract does not convey with the trade, it stays with the signing team. Only the annual salary part of the contract gets traded. The NFL has different rules than other leagues. I think in the NBA you can trade guys just to get their contracts off your books. Doesn't work that with in the NFL... I think you'd be stuck with a pretty significant cap hit if you traded him in the next 2 years. From a cap perspective, trading and releasing a player are identical. You are responsible for any signing bonus proration, and it all escalates to the current year. The Texans did that with Brock Osweiler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatteredFanSyndrome Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 8 minutes ago, JoggingGod said: The Texans did that with Brock Osweiler There is not a chance in the world they trade Smith. Like it or not, they are stuck with him through the 2020 season. All you can do is hope the philosophy is that of a strong run first team with a stout D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 36 minutes ago, JoggingGod said: The Texans did that with Brock Osweiler Contract was different. One of the big things about Brock's contract is it basically didn't have a signing bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoggingGod Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 The worst thing about this is that we’re stuck with Gruden and Allen now because no GM or HC wants to be stuck with Alex Smith for 2 more years. Which means 2 more years of 6-10/7-9. What a joke this team is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said: Stuff happen and bad games happen, it's true. The problem is consistency with this team. Based on a few games each year, you can see that they have the talent to compete with just about anybody on any given Sunday. Are they the '91 Redskins? No, absolutely not. However, when things are working, they can look really good. I think their roster is anywhere between a 7-9 and 9-7 roster. Average roster. Unless they get lucky with their health -- specifically Chris Thompson and Jordan reed -- if those two are healthy its a 9-7-10-6 roster IMO. Without them its more of a 7-9 roster IMO. 2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said: Bruce can set the bar wherever he wants, because if they don't hit it, he can blame the coach. It's a great CYA move. "I think I built a hell of a good roster. If we don't get there, it's his fault." It's also kinda a douchey move. I agree but if they don't make the playoffs according to beat guys he's likely a casualty, too. 2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said: With that said, I'm not entirely sure I disagree with all of it. If they don't get to 9-6-1 or there abouts, (I'm joking with the tie), then I think you can pin a lot of it on the coaching staff. Only agree with this if Reed-Thompson stay healthy -- otherwise to me this is at best an average roster. 2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said: Dan doesn't know the right people to hire and how to delegate. That's his only real problem. Bruce has a litany of problems. I agree with your point about Bruce. I think the same point applies to Dan and big time so as opposed to his only problem being that he hires the wrong people. Having said that, I am one of the rare Dan critics who doesn't see Bruce as just his stooge and thereby firing him will just bring in another Bruce type and the vicious cycle continues. I am not saying that won't happen either. I put it at 50-50. But I do see Bruce as a problem in his own right that is seperate from Dan. I think Bruce and Dan bring out the worst in each other. But that's just a theory. 2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said: When you're looking at Vinny's record, are you including the Gibbs years? Yep. Surprised you are surprised by the record thing or at least it comes off that way by that question. That point has been said in a gazillion articles about Bruce in the context of Vinny. 2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said: He might be a good antidote, but that doesn't make him a good coach. He's an average coach at best. A good coach wouldn't have these types of violent swings on such a regular basis, and a good coach would maximize talent more effectively. Multiple things can be true: Bruce is a train wreck, Jay is an average HC. One doesn't have to preclude the other... Lets play with your premise -- if so train wreck and average aren't exactly the same thing. So why dedicate so much of your energy to challenge the guy you say is about average. You've brought me up multiple times relating to Jay as if I am this mega defender of his as if I love the guy -- and while I like Jay, I don't think he's the next Belichick or is a special head coach. I think he's good and is good for the specific team for reasons I've expressed. I have criticized him on some macro things including recently and don't think the dude is perfect. I've changed my opinions on head coaches over time. I have already done so on Jay once. I am not 100% confident that Jay is the guy to take this team to a Superbowl. But I am very confident that he's not the biggest problem with this franchise if he were a problem at all -- not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: I think their roster is anywhere between a 7-9 and 9-7 roster. Average roster. Unless they get lucky with their health -- specifically Chris Thompson and Jordan reed -- if those two are healthy its a 9-7-10-6 roster IMO. Without them its more of a 7-9 roster IMO. So, we're about the same here. 18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: I agree but if they don't make the playoffs according to beat guys he's likely a casualty, too. God I hope so. 18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: Only agree with this if Reed-Thompson stay healthy -- otherwise to me this is at best an average roster. Average is 8-8. 9-7 is one game better. Even if they lose Reed-Thompson, they should be able to be competitive with this roster to some extent or another. One of the reasons I was screaming during the off-season (as were you) that they needed to get more weapons on offense is pinning the entire season on Reed/Thompson staying healthy seems like a REALLY bad bet. 18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: I agree with your point about Bruce. I think the same point applies to Dan and big time so as opposed to his only problem being that he hires the wrong people. Having said that, I am one of the rare Dan critics who doesn't see Bruce as just his stooge and thereby firing him will just bring in another Bruce type and the vicious cycle continues. I am not saying that won't happen either. I put it at 50-50. But I do see Bruce as a problem in his own right that is seperate from Dan. I think Bruce and Dan bring out the worst in each other. But that's just a theory. I agree, I don't think Bruce is just doing Dan's bidding. I actually think Dan doesn't do much with the football ops these days, he lets Bruce do most of it. None of the way we really operate feels like the way Dan would like to do it. There aren't splashy player-personnel moves. No splashy coaching moves. He allowed Bruce to hire his buddy Jay through a really suspect interview process where everybody knew what the answer was going to be. Jay wasn't splashy. They kept Haz, then hired Barry, the opposite of splashy, then Manusky. The biggest off-season signing is a second WR. They made a couple late-season player pickups in DJax and Norman. None of this smells like Dan's doing. I think the last thing Dan really was involved with at a detailed level was the RGIII thing, and that's getting on 6 years ago now. I think he trusts Bruce to run the show, and lets him do it for the most part at this point. The problem is that he picked the wrong guy to trust, because Bruce is just a slimy business person. 18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: Yep. Surprised you are surprised by the record thing or at least it comes off that way by that question. That point has been said in a gazillion articles about Bruce in the context of Vinny. No, not surprised. I've seen it, but I've seen some sites where they don't count the 4 years of Gibbs when they count Vinny's record because Gibbs was President of Football Ops, technically Vinny's boss. And others where they do count it. And I didn't look the records for both or remember what they were. Vinny's record benefited from Gibbs coming up with 10-6 and 9-7 seasons which speak more to Gibbs' ability to coach anybody more than anybody's ability to pick talent or manage a roster. Vinny: 2000: 8-8 2002: 7-9 (Spurrier 1) 2003: 5-1 (Spurrier 2, 5-11, not so good) 2004: 6-10 (Gibbs II) 2005: 10-6 2006: 5-11 2007: 9-7 2008: 8-8 (Zorn) 2009: 4-12 Overall: 62 - 82 or 43% If you take out the Gibbs years, where Gibbs really was calling a lot of the shots, it's 32-48, or exactly 40% Bruce: According to Pro Football Reference, he's 36-62, or 36%. However that excludes 2015 and 2016, because they count those as Scot Mcloughan years. If you "give Bruce credit" for those years, and the more we learn the more I think we know that Bruce really was the one calling the shots, you add 17 wins, 13 losses and a tie, so you get 53 - 75 - 1. For 41% You could also argue that you should vacate Bruce's records where Shanny had the final say. Whatever. They're both stink bombs. 18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: Lets play with your premise -- if so train wreck and average aren't exactly the same thing. So why dedicate so much of your energy to challenge the guy you say is about average. You've brought me up multiple times relating to Jay as if I am this mega defender of his as if I love the guy -- and while I like Jay, I don't think he's the next Belichick or is a special head coach. First, I hope you know that I'm playing with you a bit as the great Jay defender. It's shtick. It's all in good fun. I know exactly where you stand, but it kinda has become a bit of a running joke, and I enjoy the back and forth. I have the reputation as one of the most vocal Jay critics, and in order for that to work, I need somebody who puts up a good fight in order to keep it going. And you are about the best sparring partner for this on the board, though @goskins10 is pretty good as well. 18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: I think he's good and is good for the specific team for reasons I've expressed. I have criticized him on some macro things including recently and don't think the dude is perfect. I've changed my opinions on head coaches over time. I have already done so on Jay once. I am not 100% confident that Jay is the guy to take this team to a Superbowl. But I am very confident that he's not the biggest problem with this franchise if he were a problem at all -- not even close. I think it's pretty clear that I think he's average AT BEST. Actually, I don't think he's average. I think he's below average. I think at maximum he gets the average out of his players, and often times he doesn't even get that. I think he gets out-coached more than he should, he has hired the wrong staff, and especially in 2016, he had a team which was absolutely capable of winning a lot more games, and they under-performed in more than 1/3 of their games, resulting in losses that shouldn't have been. I guess I judge Jay more on the 2015 and 2016 seasons when I think he really did have a pretty good team, at least offensively, and I think he completely hamstring them with choices he made, and his ability to prepare the teams. 2017 was a mess from a personnel perspective and injury perspective, and he coached them to about what the talent level was. So, eh. I just wrote a post in the "Fever Pitch" thread where I outlined in excruciating detail why I think Jay is a bad head coach. I won't re-hash it here, however if you want to see where my thoughts come from, that's where they are. It's long winded, like most of my posts, so it should be easy to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 7 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said: Average is 8-8. 9-7 is one game better. Even if they lose Reed-Thompson, they should be able to be competitive with this roster to some extent or another. One of the reasons I was screaming during the off-season (as were you) that they needed to get more weapons on offense is pinning the entire season on Reed/Thompson staying healthy seems like a REALLY bad bet. Without Reed or Thompson IMO Peterson would have to be his old self. Otherwise, without those two, they may have one of the worst offenses as to personnel in the league. I've been on the train that Alex is a downgrade from Kirk. From what I've seen from both Kirk-Alex in the first two games, Alex is even a bigger downgrade than I expected. Having said that, its early, so I'll keep an open mind. But if what we saw from the first two games is the real Alex and Thompson and Reed are out -- this might actually be a 5-11 team IMO let alone above average. But that's why I keep saying and said all off season I can't really get a handle on this team, bad year, so so year, good year all seem to be in play. I just have some variables i need to figure out -- how good is Alex Smith and can our guys stay healthy. I don't have that figured out yet where I can give macro declarations to the talent here. 7 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said: I agree, I don't think Bruce is just doing Dan's bidding. I actually think Dan doesn't do much with the football ops these days, he lets Bruce do most of it. None of the way we really operate feels like the way Dan would like to do it. There aren't splashy player-personnel moves. No splashy coaching moves. He allowed Bruce to hire his buddy Jay through a really suspect interview process where everybody knew what the answer was going to be. Jay wasn't splashy. They kept Haz, then hired Barry, the opposite of splashy, then Manusky. The biggest off-season signing is a second WR. They made a couple late-season player pickups in DJax and Norman. None of this smells like Dan's doing. I think the last thing Dan really was involved with at a detailed level was the RGIII thing, and that's getting on 6 years ago now. I think he trusts Bruce to run the show, and lets him do it for the most part at this point. The problem is that he picked the wrong guy to trust, because Bruce is just a slimy business person. I agree with this but if Dan kicks in his instincts stink -- doesn't exude class or competence -- his version of it is just different than Bruce's version of ineptitude. 7 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said: First, I hope you know that I'm playing with you a bit as the great Jay defender. It's shtick. It's all in good fun. I know exactly where you stand, but it kinda has become a bit of a running joke, and I enjoy the back and forth. I have the reputation as one of the most vocal Jay critics, and in order for that to work, I need somebody who puts up a good fight in order to keep it going. And you are about the best sparring partner for this on the board, though @goskins10 is pretty good as well. I think it's pretty clear that I think he's average AT BEST. Actually, I don't think he's average. I think he's below average. I think at maximum he gets the average out of his players, and often times he doesn't even get that. I think he gets out-coached more than he should, he has hired the wrong staff, and especially in 2016, he had a team which was absolutely capable of winning a lot more games, and they under-performed in more than 1/3 of their games, resulting in losses that shouldn't have been. Ok, cool enough. ? I can list some of things that I don't like about Jay but if I did I think it would be taken by some out of context and then I'd look like a critic. And that's part of my point. There are things I didn't like about every coach that was here. To me they are all imperfect. Ditto almost every coach in the NFL. So I look at the big picture, I like more than I don't like, and that includes maintaining stability and what would happen if said coach would be replaced? Usually change doesn't equal good things. That goes double with this organization. I get people being upset at Jay for the Colts game. I am upset at him too for it. But I'd give the dude a chance to bounce back -- we got a full season. I've already said if this is another topsy-turvy, up and down season -- I get the instinct to make changes. But to me an up and down season isn't about 2 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 36 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: Without Reed or Thompson IMO Peterson would have to be his old self. Otherwise, without those two, they may have one of the worst offenses as to personnel in the league. I've been on the train that Alex is a downgrade from Kirk. From what I've seen from both Kirk-Alex in the first two games, Alex is even a bigger downgrade than I expected. Having said that, its early, so I'll keep an open mind. But if what we saw from the first two games is the real Alex and Thompson and Reed are out -- this might actually be a 5-11 team IMO let alone above average. But that's why I keep saying and said all off season I can't really get a handle on this team, bad year, so so year, good year all seem to be in play. I just have some variables i need to figure out -- how good is Alex Smith and can our guys stay healthy. I don't have that figured out yet where I can give macro declarations to the talent here. I think we're in violent agreement about the off-season and the fact Bruce completely botched the skill positions on offense. I said before, and I think you agreed with, the 'skins needed: 1. A WR1, or at least an attempt at getting a WR1. They also needed a veteran WR to compete with Doctson for the other starting spot. Richardson could be the second guy, but without the first guy, neither were addressed. 2. A veteran RB in addition to a high-draft pick RB. The plan was Guice/Kelley/Perine to go with CT from the get-go, well at least after the draft. Now, we might have gotten to the same spot with bringing in the vet to replace Guice after injury, but the plan wasn't great. And relied almost entirely on Guice to be great immeidately, and Kelley/Perine as backups are meh. 3. More depth at the interior of the OL. Re-signing Luavao was just lazy. 4. I also think they needed to get rid of VD, which seems ridiculous, and find a 2-way TE who can block and receive, maybe not as good a receiver as Davis, but a better blocker. This was a bit bold. We did almost none of these things, and are left with "meh" skill position players again. That's just a failure of strategy. That said, when CT and Reed are healthy, you do have a big-bodied guy in Doctson, a speed guy in Richardson, a good slot guy in Crowder, and a good RB in Peterson. And the OL should be good enough. Scoring 9 points against Indy is unacceptable, and it's entirely coaching. The Bengals put up 34 the previous week. In Indy. It's not like they're the 85 bears. One of my issues with Gruden has always been the propensity for the suck game against bad teams after a good win. It's a trend that goes back 3 years, and I was hoping would be reversed this year, and it hasn't been. At least not yet. 36 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: I agree with this but if Dan kicks in his instincts stink -- doesn't exude class or competence -- his version of it is just different than Bruce's version of ineptitude. What Dan needs to do is get the next "President" pick right, and then go back into the shadows. I think it's maybe a 35% chance he does get it right, because he likes to pick people he's comfortable with, and not people who will tell him like it is. But, in order to turn the corner, he has to do something uncomfortable. 36 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: Ok, cool enough. ? I can list some of things that I don't like about Jay but if I did I think it would be taken by some out of context and then I'd look like a critic. And that's part of my point. There are things I didn't like about every coach that was here. To me they are all imperfect. Ditto almost every coach in the NFL. So I look at the big picture, I like more than I don't like, and that includes maintaining stability and what would happen if said coach would be replaced? Usually change doesn't equal good things. That goes double with this organization. I get people being upset at Jay for the Colts game. I am upset at him too for it. But I'd give the dude a chance to bounce back -- we got a full season. I've already said if this is another topsy-turvy, up and down season -- I get the instinct to make changes. But to me an up and down season isn't about 2 games. Eh, you can list them and I don't think anybody would either take them out of context or consider you a critic. I gave him an A grade after week one and praised him pretty efusively, and I don't think anybody thought I had immediately changed my overall position on him. He's not the worst coach in the league, and he sometimes does good things. I'm happy to give him kudos when he does. The problem is that he isn't a leader, he doesn't hold anybody accountable, and he gets out-coached in the X's and O's far too often. He has his moments, but a good coach minimizes those games, and he has between 3 and 5 of them every year. I'm not that upset about the Colts game, because it's just a continuation of 2016 and 2017. Look good, blow it, look good, blow it. There's no consistency. And it comes down to leadership and accountability. He doesn't have the first, or the ability to instill the second, and that's why there's inconsistency. Great guy, good OC, wrong guy as a HC. You need somebody with more intensity, a better leader, who holds players and coaches accountable, can delegate better, pays much more attention to details, and get the most out of their players. He's just not that guy, and after 4 years, it doesn't look like he's going to develop into that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 7 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said: I think we're in violent agreement about the off-season and the fact Bruce completely botched the skill positions on offense. I said before, and I think you agreed with, the 'skins needed: 1. A WR1, or at least an attempt at getting a WR1. They also needed a veteran WR to compete with Doctson for the other starting spot. Richardson could be the second guy, but without the first guy, neither were addressed. 2. A veteran RB in addition to a high-draft pick RB. The plan was Guice/Kelley/Perine to go with CT from the get-go, well at least after the draft. Now, we might have gotten to the same spot with bringing in the vet to replace Guice after injury, but the plan wasn't great. And relied almost entirely on Guice to be great immeidately, and Kelley/Perine as backups are meh. 3. More depth at the interior of the OL. Re-signing Luavao was just lazy. 4. I also think they needed to get rid of VD, which seems ridiculous, and find a 2-way TE who can block and receive, maybe not as good a receiver as Davis, but a better blocker. This was a bit bold. We did almost none of these things, and are left with "meh" skill position players again. That's just a failure of strategy. Agree. Especially as to LG. Stay with me on this and it will lead to a point. I debate with one poster here quite a bit and its usually a variation of this point. Take any player and situation and assume best case scenario and they act like since they are familiar with the best case scenario narrative then they have a handle on how it likely will go down -- and if you disagree than you are just a hater or at best just not familiar with the real story. The thing is I am familiar with all those stories. Just some random type of examples to bring home the point. Yeah what if Sean Dion Hamilton is another Reuben Foster type -- you know Saban swears by his smarts, he's one of the smartest players he's ever had -- did you see Doug tout him as the pick of their draft? You know Vernon Davis still runs a 4.45, you say he's old, pay attention dude about what the coaches say about him, he hasn't lost a step. Perine is a monster -- do you know he set a Big 12 record in a game in college? Did you see that big run in the preseason before he got hurt? You say receiver is a problem -- do you recall Maurice Harris one handed catch -- the dude was the talk of the camp, too. He's back we are fine. Those arguments feels like how Bruce runs the front office. My theory on that is just based on what beat guys say. It's not that I swear by Finlay, Keim or whomever but they are the closest people we got to the FO and they claim they have sources there. But the impression I get on that front, is Bruce thinks everything is fine and as to the last off season low key FA approach (after them leaking to the beat guys that they are letting Kirk go ironically because of how much more they can do in FA) is Bruce telling Dan they are loaded. I also get the sense part of it was done on purpose because Dan was mad about last years' performance -- and Bruce explained to Dan it was all about injuries otherwise they built a great roster. Bruce avoiding a FA spree sort of doubles down on that point by making the statement of hey see Dan, we did it with almost the same roster as last year. 7 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said: One of my issues with Gruden has always been the propensity for the suck game against bad teams after a good win. It's a trend that goes back 3 years, and I was hoping would be reversed this year, and it hasn't been. At least not yet. That has been going on before Jay, too. Not always in the form of one win, one loss but the idea of the losses are coming after some prosperity especially if its prosperity that's coupled with media hype. There is a weird audacity that seems to come with some success with this organization. When Zorn got hot in year 1, I recall Smoot saying they are the beasts of the easts. One year we had Rex talking about how they will win the division. I recall Baker/Jean-Francois bragged about being the top dogs in the east right before a 2016 loss. Stories about this team getting big headed after wins I can recall under Shanny and even Gibbs 2. That doesn't excuse it. But Stephen Smith has a recurring joke about no team struggles with prosperity more than Redskins -- and that joke on his end started pre-Jay. Seems oddly to be true. Jay hasn't stopped that trend. I am with you that I am sick of it. 7 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said: What Dan needs to do is get the next "President" pick right, and then go back into the shadows. I think it's maybe a 35% chance he does get it right, because he likes to pick people he's comfortable with, and not people who will tell him like it is. But, in order to turn the corner, he has to do something uncomfortable. Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasRoane Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 22 hours ago, JSSkinz said: I watched Colts D lineman bait the Trent and Lavao into blocking one defender while the other ran free to the QB, they would just criss-cross and we kept falling for it. Still, that's nothing new. That's the Tex blitz. Tackle End exchange. Wade Phillips uses that a lot. All you do is have your T (Trent) pass his man off to Luavao and take the T wrapping around. I've taught kids 9 - 11 to pick that up. Plus, they've seen that twice a year for years vs the cowpies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 On 9/19/2018 at 8:25 PM, Voice_of_Reason said: And I'm saying I don't think you can trade the contract, because the bonus component of the contract does not convey with the trade, it stays with the signing team. Only the annual salary part of the contract gets traded. The NFL has different rules than other leagues. I think in the NBA you can trade guys just to get their contracts off your books. Doesn't work that with in the NFL... I think you'd be stuck with a pretty significant cap hit if you traded him in the next 2 years. From a cap perspective, trading and releasing a player are identical. You are responsible for any signing bonus proration, and it all escalates to the current year. For the bonus part of it, yes. The Skins would have to take the hit for the proration, of 21.6 mi. But that takes the place of the scheduled 20.4 mil cap figure he will have for 2019. That's easily doable. It would make it tough to replace him, but such a move would have to be part of a little bit of a rebuild anyway, at least a one year reset. A trading team would have to take on 1 guaranteed year at 15 mil. Unlike the above poster's suggestion, there is no reason we'd have to give someone a pick to take that on. Some team would pay him that. The question would be how much they would give up for him. Not that I think there's a chance any of this would happen, just laying out some hypothetical facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 I've heard multiple times where Doug mostly plays is on the pro side of the team not in a heavy way on the college side. Though, I've heard the same thing about Bruce. So Doug's part in this surprised me a little but not a lot but Schaffer? Schaffer's involvement in this shocks me a little, I thought right now he's just contracts. Good sign to me that they felt they had the leeway to do it without talking to Bruce. Talking about the reverse of the Alex Smith thing where the story was Doug heard about the trade from Bruce after it was made. Al Galdi @AlGaldi 3h3 hours ago More Interesting from Doug Williams with @RickDocWalker on @Team980. Doug said he got in trouble with Dan & Bruce for not telling them about #AdrianPeterson coming in for his workout. Indicated bringing him in was a Doug/Eric Schaffer decision. #Redskins Direct message Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildbunny Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said: I've heard multiple times where Doug mostly plays is with pro side of the team not in a heavy way on the college side. So his part in this surprised me a little but not a lot but Schaffer? Schaffer's involvement in this shocks me a little, I thought right now he's just contracts. Good sign to me that they felt they had the leeway to do it without talking to Bruce. Talking about the reverse of the Alex Smith thing where the story was Doug heard about the trade from Bruce after it was made Al Galdi @AlGaldi 3h3 hours ago More Interesting from Doug Williams with @RickDocWalker on @Team980. Doug said he got in trouble with Dan & Bruce for not telling them about #AdrianPeterson coming in for his workout. Indicated bringing him in was a Doug/Eric Schaffer decision. #Redskins Direct message That's almost scary. I still don't see Dan firing Doug Williams in any way, and having Doug resign because of stuff like this would be a major blow to Dan's fanhood... Kudos to Williams and Schaeffer going for it so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, Wildbunny said: That's almost scary. I still don't see Dan firing Doug Williams in any way, and having Doug resign because of stuff like this would be a major blow to Dan's fanhood... Kudos to Williams and Schaeffer going for it so far. The thing that's ironic/funny about Doug is unlike Bruce he comes off a straight shooter who just can't help himself but be honest. His segments on the radio have revealed a bet more than Bruce-Dan would have liked I presume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsailand Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 My first reaction when I saw AP was coming in was that Dan had to be involved. How funny would it be that, of all our "washed up" free agent acquisitions in the Dan Snyder era, the one time the guy isn't really washed up is the one time Dan Snyder is left out of the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 2 hours ago, Tsailand said: My first reaction when I saw AP was coming in was that Dan had to be involved. How funny would it be that, of all our "washed up" free agent acquisitions in the Dan Snyder era, the one time the guy isn't really washed up is the one time Dan Snyder is left out of the decision. Yeah at the moment, Adrian Peterson seems to be the savior of the season considering options B at RB. So the irony of Bruce-Dan not being involved in that decision to me has some poetry to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 Juicier, yet it was Schaffer's idea Williams explained that the decision to invite Peterson in for a free agent visit in late August came about during a conversation with senior vice president of football operations Eric Schaffer. “He looked and me and said, ‘Well, what do you think, what do we got to lose?’” Williams said. “I’m a little hesitant to pull the plug, and then before I went out to practice I looked at Eric and said, ‘Hey Eric, what the heck? Let’s do it.’ "The thing about that, I came to practice, I was so hyped about it that I forgot to tell Bruce that we was bringing him in. I’m sitting there that evening and Bruce came in my office and he just stood there looking at me. I’m thinking, what’d I do? Well, Dan had called him and let him know he didn’t know. And Bruce let me know that he didn’t know because Dan didn’t know. I said, ‘Well look, that’s on me.’ I took it. Sometimes you have to have big shoulders, you take it and you move on.” When Peterson arrived at Redskins Park, he said he wanted to work out. The Redskins were so impressed with the shape Peterson was in that they signed him later that day. If Snyder and Allen were at all upset that Williams forgot to give them a heads up about Peterson’s visit, they’ve surely forgiven him by now. Peterson has rushed for 236 yards and three touchdowns in three games and is a key reason Washington is 2-1 entering the bye week. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2018/09/27/doug-williams-says-adrian-petersons-redskins-visit-caught-daniel-snyder-bruce-allen-off-guard/?utm_term=.7ead858db7e4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsailand Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 Glorious. You think Belichick notifies Kraft every time he brings in a vet minimum free agent to kick the tires? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatteredFanSyndrome Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 So it’s even worse than we originally thought. Doug actually tries to do his job and has to run it by Bruce and Dan. We’re talking about a vet min RB. Phew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bh32 Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 I don't see how that idiot Allen is still employed..If snyder knew what was good for him and the team he would fire him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaveli Posted September 28, 2018 Author Share Posted September 28, 2018 7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said: Al Galdi @AlGaldi 3h3 hours ago More Interesting from Doug Williams with @RickDocWalker on @Team980. Doug said he got in trouble with Dan & Bruce for not telling them about #AdrianPeterson coming in for his workout. Indicated bringing him in was a Doug/Eric Schaffer decision. #Redskins Direct message Hard to tell if they were truly upset or not without actually hearing the tone in his response during the interview, but I'm not surprised there is a lack of communication in the front office. WP: ‘Don’t answer your phone’: Inside the trade that brought Alex Smith to the Redskins Quote “‘Don’t answer your phone. See you in the morning.’” Bruce Allen’s instructions were simple, but Williams knew that clarity would have to wait until the next day. “I couldn’t wait to get up in the morning ’cause I wanted to know,” Williams said Thursday evening, as he stood in the hallway leading to his office at Redskins Park. By 7 a.m. the morning after Allen’s text, Williams was in the team president’s office and had learned the news. Washington had agreed to a trade for the quarterback at the top of its wishlist: Kansas City’s Alex Smith. Not so fun when it's done to you, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdskn4eva Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 The front office is trash. We've had Kyle Shanahan Sean McVay Kirk Cousins Yet we could not find a way to keep ANY of them? That is PISS POOR. Sean McVay looks like a for real football genius. Its scary what this guy is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildbunny Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 6 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said: So it’s even worse than we originally thought. Doug actually tries to do his job and has to run it by Bruce and Dan. We’re talking about a vet min RB. Phew. Well, Bruce sayd it in the article, Dan & Bruce have any rights to know, especially Dan as it's his team, his business. I can understand a point when a man enters a position with power he never was in that guys above wants to monitor him. Just to make sure he doesn't derail the whole business. But small decision like this and things running smooth, showing that you're taking care of the business will have guys above move onto other things. Bringing AP wasn't a big deal, and furthermore it seems to be working so far. So that is OK and may even make Bruce and Dan looks smart after all the critics they got for bringing in Doug "PR" Williams. Another stuff I like here is that if you read carefully, that's Schaeffer's idea and Williams took it on him (maybe Dan and Bruce even learned reading the article that it was Schaeffer's idea and they will call Doug in their office today because he didn't tell them lol). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreZorn Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, Wildbunny said: Well, Bruce sayd it in the article, Dan & Bruce have any rights to know, especially Dan as it's his team, his business. I can understand a point when a man enters a position with power he never was in that guys above wants to monitor him. Just to make sure he doesn't derail the whole business. But small decision like this and things running smooth, showing that you're taking care of the business will have guys above move onto other things. Bringing AP wasn't a big deal, and furthermore it seems to be working so far. So that is OK and may even make Bruce and Dan looks smart after all the critics they got for bringing in Doug "PR" Williams. Another stuff I like here is that if you read carefully, that's Schaeffer's idea and Williams took it on him (maybe Dan and Bruce even learned reading the article that it was Schaeffer's idea and they will call Doug in their office today because he didn't tell them lol). Thank you, I read the above and thought to myself, “wow, they literally had nothing to do with the decision,” and was actually legitimately shocked by that. Of course it’s within the right of the owner and team president to be upset that the guys working under them didn’t notify them of a free agent being brought in to workout. Especially one as notable as Peterson. What would be troublesome is if they never signed Peterson because Bruce and dan nixed the workout. If anything, I’m pleasantly surprised by the above as if appears as if Doug and Schaffer, in addition to Kyle Smith, aren’t simply figure heads and play pivotal roles in making football decisions. Which is why the roster has been better than it has been in years most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 9 hours ago, bh32 said: I don't see how that idiot Allen is still employed.. If snyder knew what was good for him and the team he would fire him. If he knew what was good for the team he would have fired himself years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.