thesubmittedone

Moderators
  • Content Count

    14,976
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Everything posted by thesubmittedone

  1. This thread is only for new name suggestions, the content of this post belongs in this thread in The Tailgate: Please remove this post from here immediately and place it there or else penalties will apply. Thanks. @ConnSKINS26 @VCDefectors These posts are also examples of what shouldn’t be in this thread. I know it’s a difficult line to walk right now, but don’t forget you can tag a poster you want to respond to elsewhere. Any further replies to each other on this matter or regarding any deep dives into history or politics needs to go into the thread in the Tailgate, no matter what name suggestion is made here.
  2. I’m so burnt out from this discussion, honestly. It’s exhausting explaining repeatedly why most successful franchises employ certain models and how that has contrasted, and continues to (albeit to a lesser degree than ever before, thankfully), to what Dan has done here. It’s exhausting because, let’s be honest, we’re speaking to an audience (including ourselves) that only has a genuine appetite for hope regarding the team, with only momentary lapses in that appetite, and that’s ok. We’re fans. But it means that any real or perceived obstruction of that hope, especially early on when new hires are made, is met with resistance that is more emotional than anything else, which doesn’t lend to an enjoyable atmosphere of discussion. So I’m just going to remain quiet about it (as hard as that can be sometimes with some who continue to regurgitate blatant falsehoods and/or believe the quantity of their arguments is indicative of their quality 🗣), hope for the best, and that this set up works as an exception to the general rule. Heck, maybe it changes for the better anyway, but as of now that’s not looking likely. Either way, we’ve got some good people in the building working together with solid pedigrees at their respective positions, and all I can hope for is that none are set up to fail via systemic issues; overburdened because of a lack of support or defined roles; or devalued because of a lack of understanding their importance to success emanating from the top.
  3. 1) It’s just the name of a football team for God’s sake, changing it isn’t a big deal. 2) It’s just the name of a football team for God’s sake, so I never gave much attention or legitimacy to the intense focus on it coming from those claiming it was offensive, nonetheless, see point 1. Mostly because; 3) Living in Albuquerque, NM for the last 9 years I’ve always been cognizant of the Natives here and their feelings towards the name. I have yet to encounter anyone from among their community who expressed offense, and in my business I have the pleasure of dealing with many on the daily. Maybe that’s because they know I’m a fan and don’t want me to feel bad (I don’t remember if, in every instance the topic was discussed, that was made clear beforehand or not, though I don’t think it was), but from what I’ve seen most are even completely unaware of the controversy. There are many who are fans here and it’s never a surprise to see Skins decals on cars or memorabilia in general, arguably more so than any other team outside of the Broncos and Cowboys. 4) At this point, none of that matters though. The climate on racism is what it is, rightfully so, and it’s reached a boiling point. Are some things getting caught in the crossfires unnecessarily? Sure, but we’ve got to have the wisdom to know which battles to pick. Again, refer to point 1. 5) My biggest concern if/when the name gets changed, and it’s a selfish one, is how it looks on myself that I’ve been a fan my entire life and used the term repeatedly with no issues. Because if/when it does change, isn’t that essentially an acknowledgement that there was something wrong all along? How do we hide from that? I’ve always actively tried to battle any hints of racism that may have occurred within me for whatever reason or was picked up from any external source without realizing it, and I believe myself to have done a good job on that front for my entire life, but it’ll be pretty embarrassing now with a name change. Can I just claim ignorance about it and leave it at that? I mean, I really never thought it was racist in any way and I always laughed at the notion that any team would actively label itself something derogatory since it’s the total antithesis to the pride one is attempting to generate for said team... but was I being insensitive this entire time? Heck, there’s going to be some level of difficulty not to use the term itself even with a change as it’s found a place on my tongue so often for 30 some years now. It’s still hard for me to accept it as having been racist, especially considering my engagement with Natives, but that question of insensitivity is something I have to carry with me now. So, yeah, selfishly... Many people I know and have done business with, including many Natives as mentioned above, know I’m a “Redskin” fan. I have to wonder if this is going to make them look down on me now whereas otherwise they weren’t? The ones who weren’t even aware of the controversy or just didn’t care, for instance, will that change now due to the acknowledgment of it being wrong? Do I have to apologize for not thinking it was an issue before? There’s certainly things to unpack here. And that’s a good thing as we always need to reflect on ourselves, but I just hate the idea that I may have contributed to perpetuating any form of injustice, even if it was a small one, on any one community. Part of me refuses to accept that, and the other part has to wonder if I’m appealing too much to good/innocent intentions and my own ego in that I refuse to see fault in myself in this regard.
  4. Ok, to get back to the main theme of my first post in this thread, which was overall positive and where I mentioned that FA suggested they were satisfied with rolling cap over to 2021 and not just spending for the sake of it... I’m ecstatic about this: Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but have we ever been projected to have this much Cap space during the Snyder era? I don’t think so. To me, this only speaks more to the fact that this was truly an organizational reset and a true rebuild is actually happening here. Not a half-assed version we’ve always been given. Very cool.
  5. Ok, I think I see where the disconnect is. A coach-centric model in the NFL has not meant, for the vast majority of teams employing it, that the coach has final say over the roster. What it has meant is that the coach was hired first and was involved (or the main driver) in hiring the GM. This is/was the case with the Chiefs, Bills and Niners, for instance. Both the coach and GM have final say over their respective roles relative to their expertise and are both equal in rank within the organization. The coach with final say is not actually employed often in this “coach-centric” model, so yeah, the issue remains and I’d flip your question to why wouldn’t he? In fact, Ron mentioned those teams above like the Chiefs and Bills, if I recall correctly, as being good examples to this approach. If that’s the case, then again, I’d ask why wouldn’t he follow them in their coach-centric model? I mentioned before the Niners are an interesting example for us because they had a problematic owner like Dan, and one way they solved that issue is that both Kyle S and John Lynch have, within their contracts, a check on the others “final say” that either can employ. So if John is absolutely against some coaching hire or schematic change Kyle wants he can veto it or if Kyle is absolutely against some player acquisition or cut he can veto it. That makes it harder for either of them to scapegoat the other and makes them even more tied to the hip. It also makes it harder for one to get the owner to go against the other. They know what it’ll mean if one of them just ignores the other and tries to go rogue, as it’ll end in a veto war. I had posited a while back that, if we’re so concerned with Dan corrupting someone, then that’ll arguably be a better setup than Dan working through one subject, whether that subject is a coach or GM, either way. It’s like I told you multiple times, your issues with Dan’s personality are issues that aren’t exclusively tied to the GM position. He can cause that problem with whoever is his top exec, including Ron. And if your argument is that Ron is too classy for that, then that also applies to someone in the GM position. Which is why I always go back to it being more about who (Vinny and Bruce) Dan had at that position than the position itself. Until Dan shows he’s just as problematic with someone qualified and classy at GM, just like we’re assuming with Ron, I’m not going to assume it’s the position/title/role itself versus the actual person. It goes both ways, basically. Does that make sense? So it’s only the Seahawks within these examples that have a proven, sustainably successful model with the rare setup as is. And even then you have articles like the one you posted saying it’s not what Schneider initially envisioned. It worked out, so that’s what we have to hope will work out, but it’s still an exception and it’s still concerning. Again, your arguments about Dan all apply to Ron. Saying you’ve seen good people kowtow to Dan when they fear for their jobs, etc... that all applies to Ron, as well. Whoever is Dan’s top exec will have this issue to deal with, period. That is not a quality argument, in my mind, that we shouldn’t have a GM with final say over the roster or that the coach is better suited to have that power. Those are different issues. In fact, both being equal in rank and reporting to Dan instead of one would arguably be a better solution than just one that Dan can create issues with alone that would spread throughout the entire organization. To put it as simply as possible, your arguments are actually more applicable against any approach we take where one guy is the top exec, coach or GM. They aren’t title/position based. So, like I said, I think using the Niners as an example is an argument against your thinking here and actually fits mine perfectly. Notice the irony of @HigSkinpointing out that Ron, not Kyle Smith, is the one doing the talking with Lynch, while forgetting/ignoring that on the Niners side, who were just in the Super Bowl, we have Lynch (GM with final say over the roster) doing the talking and not Kyle Shanahan. I mean, which model should we be shooting for here? And, like I said, they solved the issue of a problematic owner by employing the “coach-centric” model, but it only meant that Kyle got to choose his GM and that they’d be equal in rank, not that his GM wasn’t going to get final say over the roster. Essentially, there are different ways of solving the Dan problem without it meaning someone at the coaching level, who has never had final say over player personnel, simply has to have it or retain it if/when they promote someone to GM. That’s where we’re going to differ and I’m not seeing an argument given to me here that refutes any of my points on the matter. Using the Niners only boosts my understanding as presented. I won’t post any articles as there are dozens of them, but just search Kyle Shanahan, John Lynch, and Jed York together and you’ll find a lot on this. But I’ll just reiterate one more time that, if Ron does retain that power, I’ll be rooting that we’re an extremely rare exception like the Seahawks and hoping my concerns don’t come to fruition.
  6. @Skinsinparadise This debate can be frustrating for me because, in the end, I’ve made it repeatedly clear that I’m only disappointed or concerned based on the reality of the NFL with these type of set ups failing at a higher rate than otherwise, but that I accept there are exceptions and that I’d hope we can become another one. My disappointment or concern isn’t catastrophic or without accepting the possibility of success. So it gets frustrating that whenever I express that sentiment I get pushed back on it like there’s no reason for it, or that somehow I need to ignore all the evidence and just assume we’ll be perfectly fine. That’s hard to do no matter how things seem on the surface. It feels like I’m simply unable to express that sentiment, as fair and legitimate as it is, without it becoming an entire ordeal, lol. And you know just as well as anyone that, at first, things are always peachy around here but that can change real fast, so while I think Ron presents a major difference due to his character in that regard, it still doesn’t erase everything else. Anyway, on to some of the points here. I know how turnover in FOs work in the NFL, as I’ve probably reminded people about it more than anyone here. But this doesn’t address my question because Ron could’ve still had Kyle auditioning for the role while giving him the GM title without final say and on the same contract Kyle has. That would’ve still allowed for the same pool of candidates for Ron to choose from if he wanted to move on from Kyle. There would be no difference, so I’m still left wondering why, if he’s so called “de facto GM” and there’s no difference (except maybe in pay) that he wasn’t just given that title in the first place. To me, it gives me the hope that the “auditioning” taking place here is quite meaningful and that, if Kyle gets promoted to GM, it could mean he gets final say over the roster, at least during the off-season. It’s just my hope, based on the reality that that’s what has been a more successful model in the NFL. I would counter that and say why wouldn’t he? If it’s as you say, and he’s “fully running with Kyle’s recommendations”, he doesn’t fancy himself a personnel guru, etc..., then I’m still not seeing why he wouldn’t. Saying he wants to hold on to it just in case Kyle does something wild doesn’t make me feel better about it at all, lol. I don’t know, I’m not getting the vibe here that I’m in any way wrong to have this concern, and everything being said is just something to the tune “well, because it looks good right now so don’t worry about it and ignore all the evidence around the NFL”. Ok, now I totally get this and why you’d point to the Seahawks. In fact, the last post I had made on this subject (before this exchange) finished with this: https://es.redskins.com/topic/431795-the-philosophy-thread-hc-first-gmfo-first-or-does-it-matter/?do=findComment&comment=11739425 So I totally get that, if the set up remains as is, we’re shooting for the Seahawks as an example of the same type of model leading to sustainable success. I’ve actually said this multiple times myself. But the concern remains because it means we’re still hoping to be more of an exception than anything else. If you notice in the article you posted about the Seahawks, it’s even mentioned how the setup is/was not what “[Schneider] totally envisioned”. It remains a unique, almost bizarre, setup. So I think we should definitely have some concern in trying to emulate it. The good news is, as you’ve mentioned plenty, is that Ron and Kyle seem like they can totally have what Pete and John have in Seattle. That they aren’t egotistical and that they can pull the marriage off just as well as Pete/Schneider have. So, I agree, I think it’s perfectly fine to feel good about us possibly being an exception to the rule and having sustainable success. It just doesn’t change that, ultimately, that’s what we’re stuck hoping for... something pretty rare and exceptional. I’d rather not have to put my hope in that. That’s all I’m getting at, and I’m not saying it can’t happen. Just that I’d rather not be forced to root for that to work as opposed to what does work far more often.
  7. My issue with this would be two-fold: 1) If Kyle was “de facto GM” this entire time then why wasn’t he promoted to GM in the first place, and what exactly was he “auditioning” for if he was already fulfilling the same responsibilities? We can’t say it’s just a matter of a contract extension because titles/roles can be changed on the same contract (and, thus, the same length) as we’ve already seen with Kyle’s promotion. And; 2) If Ron doesn’t fancy himself a personnel guru, trusts that Kyle is better at it, and “pretty much goes along with Kyle’s choices”; then why would he retain final say over player personnel acquisition? That almost feels like a game is being played here, and I’d assume Ron to be better than that. I get the whole Dan factor, but like I said, I can’t accept that on its surface without actually seeing how Dan is with a legitimate, qualified GM versus the fools we’ve been subjected to previously. So here’s the thing. If he promotes Kyle to GM, yet Kyle really has no added responsibility and simply maintains his current role since it was “de facto GM”, then even the NFL itself doesn’t respect that contractually and Kyle could actually be hired at GM elsewhere. As long as he’s given final say over player personnel elsewhere, the NFL would consider it a legit promotion and NOT a lateral move the Redskins could block. It simply wouldn’t even matter that he went from GM to GM, because the NFL itself would recognize it as essentially an empty title. Either way, I hope that’s not the case. This set up is and has been better than almost anything we’ve seen under Dan, so I’m not totally down on it. But I’m not going to move off of my position that it would be better if Ron and Kyle were made essentially equal in rank with each having final say over their main responsibilities, and I’m going to hope that occurs until it doesn’t. If/when it doesn’t, I’ll be disappointed but I’ll certainly root for us to be the exception to how these set ups usually end (and, fortunately, there are exceptions).
  8. A lot to like thus far, though the sample size is extremely small. Still concerned about having a coach with ultimate power as that fails far too often to feel confident in structurally, but I’m happy with the way they handled FA. In particular, the fact that they didn’t “chase” losing out on Cooper by spending big on others undeserving of it. One of the (many) big concerns with having a coach in total control is the short-sighted, desperation type moves where they just have to fill this or that position at any cost. So that was refreshing to see. They didn’t just go and dump significant cap space on a lesser guy because of the miss. If it’s as it seems on the surface and they decided, after the Cooper miss, to save some cap space and have it roll over so that they can go hard next season (and the Cooper offer suggests they’re not just forcibly cheap and that they will go after someone they love without the excessive fear of having to "overpay" that is inevitable in FA)... man, I absolutely love that. That’s sound resource management and something we simply haven’t had. The Trent Williams' trade is a downer, but that's not on anyone other than Bruce right now (in terms of totally catastrophic resource management, of which he's extremely proficient at executing). It's absolutely maddening that we didn't trade him quickly in the first place when his value was at its highest (and none of this is hindsight, quite a few of us understood this simple concept right away) and allowed his value to plummet to where it ended up at (which does include Trent's own foolishness), but I think Ron and Kyle got what they could at this point. It's just an entirely unfortunate situation for a player of Trent's caliber. Outside of the economics of it all, there is an emotional toll here as well. The whole thing was so damn ugly and it's really sad to see a player like Trent, who really was great to the fans while he played here and really did put his body on the line for the team, end his career here with such bitterness and resentment from fans. Yes, he earned a significant amount of it... but it's just sad to see. As for the draft, I think it followed my view of FA in that they seemingly didn't "chase" (reach for) any perceived needs and let the board dictate who they took, which is huge in my book. I actually love it when I see fans losing their minds about not taking x player here because we need help at y position. And there was a lot of that kind of talk this draft, so although there's not much to say about these players until they play, I think the evidence is there to be pleased that they implemented a sound philosophy. I'm hoping the talk about Kyle Smith being promoted to GM is true and that it actually means something in terms of organizational structure. At this point, it'd be weird if it was just a title with no real consequence considering he wasn't just given it in the first place. That's the final step for me to really be on cloud 9 about all that's happened thus far (which, again, is very little in the grand scheme of things)... but even if it doesn't occur I'm still pleased overall with how they've done, though the structural concern remains in the back of my head.
  9. @98ORAKPO98 that post is a violation of rule 10. Just a verbal warning this time and a good reminder for everyone else. Let’s refrain from copying and pasting huge amounts of text like that just as a courtesy to the posters here. It would’ve been enough to post the link and give people a taste of it so if anyone wanted to see more they could. Here’s rule 10 (see what I bolded in particular):
  10. That was in reference to the last statement, not the entire post, I hate you guys.
  11. You do see the massive, fundamental contradiction in the above that I bolded, right? It’s almost like we’re back to square one. After all that stroking of my ego you just did! Seriously, though, nothing you said here changes what I’ve previously said, never mind the fact that I’ve mentioned multiple times that this set up is better than what we’ve ever had so I really don’t need an explanation of it. I get it, I promise. Describing Kyle and Ron’s cooperation and/or collaboration doesn’t change this. Furthermore, that’s not much different than anywhere else for that matter in terms of “working together”. Everyone does that no matter the set up, that intention is always there, at least initially. It has to be. Again, what I’ve been pointing to is the setup that has proven to work best more times than the other with regards to this collaborative effort. I feel like this seems to keep going right over your head, or you’re just unwilling to accept the evidence I continue to present about it. Where we’ll seemingly forever disagree is your continual downplaying of the importance of final say and the structure the vast majority of the NFL has recognized is the best formalization of sound processes to “collaborate properly” and build a contender. You can’t say “the only difference” like it’s some slight shift for Ron or just some side note. It is not. Yes, totally, and this is essentially ad verbatim of what I had said after Ron’s initial presser. Final say is a big part of that, however, whether you want to insist on removing it from his “job-description change” or not. It’s a lot on one man’s plate and one of the major reasons why this type of set up fails at a higher rate than the other. The bolded above is overstated. It’s not a “huge leap”, though it’s a significant one, and it’s certainly happened in the NFL before with success. And it’s still a more valid and sensical career trajectory than coming from the coaching ranks into player personnel. That being said, I do agree in that I don’t mind this being sort of a trial period for Kyle and have said as much. Let him get a feel for being involved in everything and not just college scouting (though that skill translates quite easily and seamlessly to pro scouting more than the other way around just because there’s way more projecting involved at the college level). Resource managing at a high enough level isn’t easy and does need to be experienced to some degree, so that’s where the biggest leap would be taken. Well, if you’re not going to give @Skinsinparadise credit for almost everything you say here regarding Dan relative to this setup, I will. You’re essentially piggybacking off of the valid points he’s made regarding this. That’s ok, but give credit where it’s due. So, like I’ve already explained to SIP, I agree that the Dan factor does muddy this all up, and I can acknowledge that it’s quite possible this setup might be best for him... however, it’s a bit of a leap to assume that right now. We simply don’t have enough evidence to assume that “who Dan is” has to do with him “siding” with the GM. What we do know is he’s had incompetent, unqualified people operating at that level virtually his entire tenure and so they’ve been an issue regardless of any title, position, or because they weren’t coaches. We simply haven’t seen a set up with both a qualified coach and GM working with each other with the latter either equal in rank or above. Not once. Maybe briefly with Scot, but then he had his own personal issues that ruined it. Again, like I told SIP, I think we have to see that happen at least once for a legitimate period of time before we decide it simply wouldn’t work with Dan. The problem could easily be solely due to the incompetence of the hires Dan has made there versus some affinity he has towards the position that brings the worst out of him. If anyone would like to understand more on this, and really it’s a direct refutation of anything VOR is mentioning here regarding Dan, then they can just look at the last exchange SIP and I had on the matter starting towards the bottom of the previous page and ending at the top of this page. SIP understood totally where I was coming from and, from what I can tell, recognized my position as just as valid as his, so I’m hoping you do as well since you’re mostly repeating what he said. For quick reference and so as to help avoid forcing anyone to sift through it, here’s the last thing I said and what SIP understood fully: What I already said in this post pretty much covers this, but just to make it as clear as possible, I don’t reject any of this regarding your views on Dan. I think it’s pretty much spot on. The only difference is I’d need to first see an actual qualified GM/EVP of Player Personnel with final say over the roster, something we’ve never had under Dan before for any significant period of time, before concluding that it simply won’t work with Dan and the only way is to have a HC with ultimate power. Basically, that the problem with Dan’s social ineptitude could have more to do with the unqualified people he’s had in that position (which lead to them taking advantage of said social ineptitude by being his BFF to maintain their positions) versus the actual organizational structure having anything to do with it.  Does that make sense?  This bothers me because I get the sense you’re trying to downplay Kyle’s desire to be GM. This is the disconnect we’re going to continue to have and I don’t think you’re providing any substance as to why you’re disagreeing other than applying your own desire to it. Now, later on in this post you admitted that: I guess i look at this through a very specific Redskins Organization lens, and not a league lens. And I think that’s where this entire disconnect is stemming from. I know you directed this comment towards our situation with Dan, but I think you’re often doing it generally and it comes out in a lot of what you say. I’m looking at this as holistically as possible, while you’re being narrow and singular. So it makes sense why you would interpret Kyle’s response in this way, where you highlight the fact that he’s happy in his role right now while attempting to downplay that he still wants to be a GM. What you don’t see is that what you’re highlighting and claiming as some contextualization of his desire to be GM actually does the opposite of what you’re attempting to prove. If it’s just another title that isn’t a big difference from what he’s doing now (here, that’s what is being implied while earlier in this post you contradict that by saying it’s a “huge leap”), then he would’ve said that. He would’ve said something like “nah, it’s not important, what I’m doing now is essentially the same thing”. He did not. Everything else he said only highlights that and the context it provides actually supports my argument (not yours) that the title itself along with the final say it entails is super important generally and super important to Kyle himself. This is only evidence of how Dan is with hiring incompetent, unqualified people at that position in the first place. You can’t assume it’d be exactly the same with Dan if someone qualified held that position. With both Bruce and Vinny, they were out of the NFL at the time of their hires and had failed at their previous stints. We simply haven’t seen how it’d look without the likes of them being the top exec or the coach being the top exec (Gibbs, Shanny, and Marty). If you’re using Dan’s entire tenure as evidence it wouldn’t work, then you’d have to say the same about a coach being the top exec. I wouldn’t do that myself, as it’s only evidence of Dan’s own incompetence, along with his poor hiring process specifically on the player personnel side, that could affect any set up regardless. Another problem I’m having with our debate/discussion in its entirety is that you’ve got my head spinning with where you actually stand. One second it’s “I agree that having a GM with final say is the best set up” or “If it wasn’t for Dan, it would be the best set up”, the next you’re telling me why the title and final say aren’t really important and why this is, in fact, set up in the best way or that you’re perfectly fine with it as is since it’s all the same, really. I know you’re trying to be nuanced, but it often comes off like you want your cake and to eat it too whether or not it totally contradicts your other positions. Yup, we’re on the same page here. I just think the disconnect is that you want this to imply it’s fine or as good a set up as we can have with the Redskins, whereas I can’t throw away the mountains of evidence there is showing it’s not and that one final step needs to be taken for it to be the best possible set up, even with the Dan factor. I think the skepticism that I have because of this is not only healthy, but necessary, whereas you’re trying to show why it’s not. So while, yes, this is the best set up we’ve had because of the “who”, it’s: 1) Not saying much because Dan has structured and set up the organization poorly for virtually his entire tenure and; 2) Still significantly concerning relative to what has been proven to work best at a higher rate at the pro level. We’re essentially choosing the harder path to success. It’s a question I ask myself, honestly, so I don’t know. It’s really the only example in the entire NFL where you have a guy with the GM title who is widely recognized as the architect of the team, essentially has final say during the off-season over the 90, FA and the draft (Carroll has it over the 53 during the season), but yet the HC has the power of “final say” contractually. It is a weird ordeal and their formalized structure doesn’t fit the reality of the way they operate, so it’s confusing as to why. It works, though, which is why I pointed to the Seahawks as being our best (and really only) hope to emulate in terms of sustainable success with how they operate using the current structure we have. Still, we’re not exactly set up the same way. Schneider is GM and they’ve openly stated that he runs the show during the off-season with the 90, FA and the draft. We haven’t heard that directly with regards to Kyle, only hints at it. It is, however, what Ron said he wanted before he was hired (just control over the 53 during the season). My concern after the initial presser remains, though, in that there was a change in his speech regarding that. As to the answer to your question, my best guess is that Schneider doesn’t really care because, in the end, he’s recognized around the league as having that power, anyway. And it looks like Carroll has never used his power over him during the off-season. So it’s the rare exception to the rule. And, again, I’ll say this is faulty logic because we haven’t seen Dan actually “follow” that structure while having a competent, qualified GM. So we just don’t know whether or not it’ll actually work. We have seen, on the other hand, the “HC as top exec” version fail under Dan, too, so it’s not like that can be automatically assumed as “best for Dan”. We just don’t know and it’s likely Dan’s issues aren’t necessarily tied to that, anyway, and can/will create a problem no matter what. That the only way out is for him to actually learn and improve as an owner. In fact, I could argue that having a coach and GM equal in rank and equally reporting to him might make it more difficult for him to get too close to one or the other and that it’ll expand his own ability to discern the truth just by virtue of being forced to treat them as equals versus one being over the other. See how that works? Well, hey, you said it here, so now I don’t feel bad for saying what I said earlier in this post about my head spinning, lol. But, yeah, it does come across like that. I hope my explanation above is enough to understand where the issue is with having to hope that we end up like the Seahawks. It’s not a good thing when you’ve got only 1 example out of 32 that you’re forced to hope we can emulate, right? Like, let’s just keep it recent. Look at the playoff teams this past season: The Vikings have Rick Spielman.  The 49ers have John Lynch. The Chiefs have Brett Veach. The Titans have Jon Robinson. The Bills have Brandon Beane.  The Ravens have Eric DeCosta.  The Saints have Mickey Loomis. The Eagles have Howie Roseman.  The Packers have Brian Gutekunst.  All of the above have a strong GM coming from a background in evaluating personnel with final say over the roster. That is 9 out of the 12 playoff teams! The other 3 are the Pats, Texans and Seahawks where the coach is the top football exec. Now, here’s the thing. The Texans shouldn’t be included because Bill O’Brien took over last off-season for Rick Smith and that team is largely a Rick Smith-built team. We’re seeing Bill pretty much systematically destroy that Smith-built team, as we both agree. Let’s see if he can actually have sustainable success with his own version of them team before we count the Texans as an example of the viability of this set up. The Seahawks have Schneider with the GM title and he’s actually recognized as the architect of that team around the NFL. That leaves us with the Pats as the only true exception (in terms our set up “left as is” being sustainably successful) making the playoffs this past year. I’ve got my own arguments against why they shouldn’t be looked at to emulate, as well, but I digress. Now, one can argue that this is unfair because the percentage of teams with powerful GMs far outweigh the teams without, so you can’t just look at these stats without looking at the ratio... but that doesn’t take into account: 1) The amount of failed examples of the “coach as top football exec” set up since the salary cap era started (of which there are plenty) and; 2) The fact that there are more set ups with powerful GMs than not is actually a result of the NFL largely recognizing the issues with the “coach as top football exec” set up and not some random occurrence. So, yeah, we can hope we’re included soon with the Seahawks in this equation shortly (and we’d still need to have someone assume the GM role like Schneider as Kyle isn’t there yet, though he’s close to it), but isn’t it disappointing that that’s what we’re stuck hoping for? Wouldn't you rather be in the same boat as the other 9 teams? If Dan is that big a problem that we simply have to accept this set up as being the best way for us, that still means we’re stuck hoping to achieve what much, much fewer have than otherwise during the salary cap era. That’s all I’m saying.
  12. Slight nitpick here. I don’t think you can simply say “both would be put in jobs they have never done before”, and leave it at that. The difference is Kyle has been operating in a role directly related to the responsibilities of running player personnel that comes with a GM title, whereas Ron hasn’t. There is way too much evidence showing that coaches simply aren’t equals in terms of talent acquisition/resource management and scouting than actual player personnel execs/scouts. So one would definitely be more prepared for that role over the other, which is why it’s important to recognize the issue here with having Ron as essentially the GM since he has final say over player personnel. Herein lies the rub. One way has failed at a higher rate than the other. That’s the key. So, yes, both ways fail, but one much, much more consistently. Heck, we can say it pretty much fails every time in the modern NFL except in a couple exceptional situations. Which is why the vast majority of the NFL has went the direction of having a GM or EVP of Player Personnel with final say over the roster alongside a HC. There’s good reason for it. We can’t just say “it fails both ways” like it’s that simple. I think I’m with you regarding the GM and HC both reporting to someone else. I do like that approach, and in fact, that (along with having the HC heavily involved in hiring the GM initially) is what is meant by “a coach-centric approach” by the other teams recently mentioned that often gets misconstrued as the HC having final say over player personnel and/or being the top exec. We, on the other hand, have taken that “coach-centric” theme and went all the way with it, which is why I assume Ron called it “unique” in his first presser. My hope is that it does change and we end up with the version of it understood by the Bills, Niners, and Chiefs. If not, it’s concerning and a legit issue, even though it’s better than anything we’ve had under Dan. I bolded every time you said “seems”. That’s the problem right there. How often has the word “seems” and initial appearances completely fooled us as Skins fans? Yeah, I’m not going to just go with that. And if it is as it seems, then I’m left wondering why that’s not just formalized within the structure itself? It is important that we get away from “seems” and have these processes formalized within the structure itself so there’s no question about it and we’re not left wondering if things actually are as they seem, only to have it blow up in the ugliest of manners. As it stands, you can say it seems a certain way all you want, but Ron is still the GM officially as he has final say over player personnel. It is what it is. Any player personnel acquisition that fails (or succeeds for that matter), whether he “seemingly” delegated it to Kyle or not, is still on him. There’s a reason why Kyle said he still wants to be GM recently. There is a difference that he recognizes himself. It certainly suggests that, at the very least, it’s not as simple as your description of how it “seems“ is. Again, I agree that this set up is the best we’ve had under Dan (mostly because of the who, not necessarily structurally), and I might even be inclined to agree with you about how it seems thus far... but that isn’t saying much, unfortunately. It still presents a myriad of issues when compared to the rest of the league and what we’ve seen fail at a much higher rate. If things remain as is, and they are as they “seem”, then we can hope we have the same sustainable success the Seahawks have had with that set up. They’d literally be the only exception to the rule regarding this set up that would be comparable to us, where even though the HC is the top exec and has final say over the roster, John Schneider is still largely the architect of the team and the HC allows him to fulfill that role as GM. It’s a weird setup really in that, by all accounts, they might as well give that power to Schneider since he does wield it during the off-season (Carroll controls the 53 during the season)... but, hey, it works. Ron would be our Carroll and Kyle would be our Schneider. Could happen. It’s just unfortunate we’d have one exception in the entire NFL we’d be hoping we can emulate instead of the many others. It’s willingly choosing to go the unlikelier route over the likelier one.
  13. No, I don’t think he has someone like a Kyle Smith. Matt Bazirgan is their Director of Player Personnel, but his resumé is meh and he joined them pretty recently in May 2018. He was with the Jets before that for a long time serving in a variety of roles. But to make it even worse, he’s not only got O’Brien to answer to, but Jack Easterby is the EVP of Football Operations (essentially Bill’s right hand man), and these are his qualifications: Lol. So, I agree with you, we’re definitely set up better than the Texans, no question about it. I never disputed anything you’re saying in this post and think we agree 100% in terms of this being a better set up than we’ve ever had. Still, this is why the level of concern I have is absolutely warranted (O’Brien is just the latest example of what often happens, and your comparison with Chip Kelly is certainly apt) and why I’m still holding on to the hope that we get that final step taken after the draft where Kyle (or whoever is qualified enough) gets promoted to GM with final say over the roster. Notice how, even here with Matt Bazirgan, the hire was made in May after the draft. So there’s still hope on that front as these type of moves are made after the draft often, even if it may be a minimal chance Ron gives up his power. But that’ll be most conducive to success and immediately remove any level of skepticism I have. I won’t need to justify having unbridled optimism via hope because it’d be totally rational (and that’s okay if people want to go the “hope route”, it’s just Dan has beat it out of me at this point). And even if they failed, I’d still be satisfied because they tried their best and set it up in the best way. Sometimes you do everything right and the results don’t follow, it happens. Just persist with the right method, try again, and usually it pans out. While I’m inclined to agree with this right now considering everything we’ve consumed regarding Ron’s character and style, we do have to keep in mind that there is a very significant element of unknown here we’re operating in when thinking along these lines. The fact is, we don’t know if there’s any difference between “Ron, the top exec and HC” and “Ron, the HC”. We can’t simply apply who he was in the latter role (which he occupied with the Panthers his entire tenure) and assume he’ll be exactly the same here. We can hope for it and even suggest that he will be as a man of principle, but there’s no empirical evidence for it. That’s not the be all end all, of course, but it’s significant in terms of understanding why a healthy level of skepticism is warranted. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and all. Not to mention the other pitfalls that occur with the emotionalism of coaching, short-sightedness, a lack of resource management skills, etc... It just happens far too often to dismiss, unfortunately.
  14. Why thank you, kind sir, for recognizing this. I’ve actually referred to the Texans as a good case study for my positions in multiple posts both recently and previously. Thus far, seeing what O’Brien has done since Rick Smith left has only provided further evidence to my thoughts regarding the issues with giving a coach final say over player personnel within the organization. Some of the more recent posts where I brought him up: https://es.redskins.com/topic/431723-welcome-to-the-redskins-ron-rivera-head-coach/?do=findComment&comment=11703265 https://es.redskins.com/topic/431652-ron-rivera-to-be-next-redskins-hc-according-to-csn-post-game-show/?do=findComment&comment=11684445 Those were made only months ago. And now we get to add the Hopkins trade to it. We’ll see how it goes for him, but my prediction was that the collapse was inevitable once the Texans announced O’Brien was assuming all of Rick Smith’s GM responsibilities. Fascinating to watch, either way.
  15. Yeah, I totally get that, and I think it’s a valid point... but like I said in the above post, if said coach is also GM that means there are still plenty of opportunities for Dan to recreate that issue. Maybe not as many as you’re pointing out, and again that’s a strong point, but the opportunity is still going to be prevalent when the coach is operating in “GM mode”. Especially during the off-season. Yeah, I mean we’re on the same wavelength here, it’s just I’d like to see someone legit in that role with the power it’s supposed to have before I can be sure that Dan‘s worst habits would still hinder him. I’m not disputing your reading on Dan itself in terms of the problem we have with him and his social issues at all. The nitpick is with the conclusion you get from it in terms of what it means organizationally. Like, if Kyle Smith isn’t that type to just want to hang out with Dan and be BFFs (and I honestly don’t think any legitimately qualified person for that role would want to be, either), then that’s enough of an answer for me to the Dan problem. At least for now. I just don’t want to accept that this is the only way for Dan, not until I see that actually happen for once. What I already said in this post pretty much covers this, but just to make it as clear as possible, I don’t reject any of this regarding your views on Dan. I think it’s pretty much spot on. The only difference is I’d need to first see an actual qualified GM/EVP of Player Personnel with final say over the roster, something we’ve never had under Dan before for any significant period of time, before concluding that it simply won’t work with Dan and the only way is to have a HC with ultimate power. Basically, that the problem with Dan’s social ineptitude could have more to do with the unqualified people he’s had in that position (which lead to them taking advantage of said social ineptitude by being his BFF to maintain their positions) versus the actual organizational structure having anything to do with it. Does that make sense?
  16. There are multiple ways to solve this without having to give up on having a legit GM. For instance, the Niners method would work with both the coach and GM equal in rank and with each having a final “check” from the other regarding their individual responsibilities that ties them to the hip. Either way, the problem with your position is that Dan can wreak havoc no matter what. What difference does it really make if he’s doing it through a coach as his BFF that he’s given ultimate power to or a GM? I get your thoughts that it’s harder to be a BFF with the coach due to factors involved with the coach’s job versus a GM, but if said coach is essentially GM wouldn’t that still mean he has plenty of opportunity to do that behind the scenes just the same? To me, the problem is with the “who” versus the “what”. It’s not about the positions themselves, it’s about who Dan has occupied them with. But what’s really sad to me is that we have to accept this at all because of who Dan is. What you’re saying is that “I’ll just have to accept the set up that has been proven to fail more often than the other set ups because of Dan”. That’s unfortunate. I’d just like to see, for once during Dan’s tenure, a legit GM with personnel chops be given that title with the power associated with it. Just once! If Dan messes that up then I’ll be more inclined to take your position on this, albeit sadly. But we haven’t seen this a single time! It’s mind blowing to think about! He’s either had someone totally unqualified (Vinny and Bruce) who were out of the NFL at the time of their hires and failed at their previous stints or had someone qualified (Scot) that was out of the NFL at the time due to his own personal problems (not to mention having someone like Bruce over the top of him). The fact remains that it’s important to have a qualified GM in that position with that power. There is no refuting this (and I know you’re someone who understand this fully, which is refreshing when contrasted to others who even dispute this or attempt to downplay it). The evidence is insurmountable to overcome. Even the teams that Dan and Ron mentioned as taking a “coach-centric” approach almost all have a GM with final say over personnel equal in rank to said Coach. They didn’t take it to mean the HC has ultimate power over everything. The only exceptions to this in terms of sustainable success are the Pats and Seahawks (and there is plenty of evidence to show that Schneider at GM does have that power in all but name). So it just sucks. It’s not something I can be satisfied about totally if that’s the case. It doesn’t make me feel better about it because, “welp, Dan is who he is so this is the best for him”. It just means we’re stuck settling for what has been proven to fail at a higher rate than the other methods, and there are plenty of reasons for that as you know very well. With all that said, it doesn’t mean it won’t work and we won’t be the exception. It’s just too hard to ever be optimistic about Dan’s Redskins being an exception in the NFL. Every time we take that route with our hopes it gets smashed in our faces and we look back at it thinking how stupid we were for falling for it. All I’m saying is for me to have unbridled optimism about this I’d need to see Kyle Smith or someone else qualified assuming that title and having final say over the roster as an equal to Ron. If that doesn’t happen, I’ll be skeptical this is going to work but I’ll damned sure be rooting for it to work every step of the way. I’m not going to hate Ron or anything for this, on the contrary, it’s my concern for him as a coach that has me saying these things. It was the same for Jay. I want them set up to succeed. I think Ron understood what’s best prior to getting hired here by his own words on the matter, I just hope he hasn’t been changed for the worst by Dan. And I want to see that in a formal way where it can’t be questioned.
  17. You’d be surprised. Many injuries in sports fall under the overuse type. Not being fully healed in one area can often lead to other injuries as the body compensates. Hence, a “new” injury not really being new, but just another symptom of the root cause. But that’s neither here nor there. Dunbar could be mad about one or two specific injuries or just in general. We don’t know. What we do know is that he wasn’t happy with Hess and the ATS. How much that has to do with what’s happening now is anyone’s guess, but it’s something to think about. At least it is for me, lol. I don’t really have much of a position on this, right or wrong, yet. I wasn’t saying Dunbar is in the right, nor was I attempting to place any blame on any “side” here. I hope I made that clear in my previous post.
  18. Something to think about... Dunbar, like Trent, has been one of the few openly vocal players directing their ire towards Larry Hess and the Athletic Training Staff. He was pretty much openly celebrating Hess’s removal on twitter recently. So I’d venture to guess that he’s telling Ron and co. that his injury issues weren’t his fault and shouldn’t be used against him in contractual matters. Maybe they disagreed, and that’s where the trade request came from. Or maybe he just asked for guarantees because of what happened previously and they’re like “bro, don’t judge us on that, you’ll be taken care of now” and he isn’t giving them the benefit of the doubt. I know it’s being reported like he just randomly requested a trade but I doubt he, or his agent really, hasn’t at least had some form level of communication with the new regime. Just speculation on my end, though, so maybe it is exactly as it’s been reported. But I do find it interesting that he’s another guy with a recent injury history that wasn’t happy with Hess’s ATS and wants guaranteed money going into the remainder of his contract. Hard for me to think that has nothing to do with this, but I won’t be surprised if it doesn’t either.
  19. @Voice_of_Reason Apologies it’s taken this long to respond. I’ve had a really busy week with some family in town and I could only get on here for 10-20 minutes at a time, but I wanted to give your post the time it deserved. This is 100% true, but posters like myself and a few others have not only understood this on a deeper level than you, we’ve made sure that it was basically the overarching theme of all of our posting the last how many years. We never lost the plot, and I’d argue that you definitely did and contributed plenty to this “rabbit hole” you speak of. Which is only further exemplified by your statement here: This right here is just... ugh. First off, if you think that you “cling more to process”, I’d just invite anyone to look at your posting history over the years to dispel that notion. I’d have zero issues with your posting if that were the case. It’s only recently, maybe after Jay got fired, have you honed in on this topic really. That’s it. Secondly, when I read this, I said to myself that there’s just no way someone who understands basic organizational principles would say something like this. Because structure IS process and process IS structure! They’re not only related “in a lot of ways”, but structure is essentially the formalization of processes contractually and/or officially in some other manner. When I focus on sound structure, it isn’t at the expense of sound processes. They are one and the same! In fact, my last post before yours had this in it towards the end: I didn’t even need to mention structure there, because that’s what is automatically implied! Anyone can look through my posting history. Vast majority of my posts will have something to this tune. There is no separation on this. Describing yourself as someone who just clings more to process whereas I cling more to structure is so incredibly off I don’t know what to say. Again, I figured you understood this so I was shocked to see that. Then I read this: So I’m like, okay, if this is the case there’s no way he doesn’t get the above. Why is he acting like my focus on structure is somehow different than processes? Makes zero sense! Then I read this: This is where I pretty much lose it, lol. Do you see what I bolded? There, you’re essentially admitting that structure is the culmination or formalization of processes. That you need to have defined roles/responsibilities, which is where titles come into play. That’s essentially what it is. So when I refer to structure, it isn’t making processes less important whereas you, VOR, sees that as more important. That is 100% a misrepresentation of what I’m talking about. And it’s why I’m saying you’re being a contrarian unnecessarily. The only one here who needs clarification as to the other’s views is you, I promise. So I have to wonder if you understand that the NFL isn’t filled with a bunch of idiots who have no idea about sound organizational principles and need VOR to teach them, because it comes off like that. Do you actually think that the various structures around the NFL aren’t in existence because of their recognition of sound processes and how to formalize those sound processes in the best way? To me, yes, you clearly do, as evidenced by your entire post. You think the structure of the vast majority of sustainably successful franchises (where a GM/EVP has final say over the roster) was randomly arrived to and wasn’t directly a result of the identification of sound processes on their end! The checks and balances includes who has final say over what. That’s been identified as a great way to define roles and responsibilities. That’s a great way to ensure the right people have the proper authority over the roles they’re qualified for. Like I’ve said a million times, final say isn’t about someone standing up and saying “I have final say” and forcing the issue... it’s about everyone in the room recognizing their role in the process and providing a clear structure for that process to culminate in a good decision. No one has to question where that decision lies or who is to blame in the end. So, yeah, you are saying otherwise every time you downplay that and attempt to dress it up. And you contradict yourself a lot on it. At times, you say “yeah, I prefer this too” when I talk about that structure, but now here you are totally changing that up and were anyone to read this post of yours alone, they’d assume you have absolutely no issue at all with the structure as is. You say things like: “All that disappointing”... Which means, what? There is some level of disappointment you’ll have? Which is exactly what I’m saying!? But then you follow it up with another total misrepresentation of what structure is when you essentially define it there. Defined roles following a good process IS THE STRUCTURE. And guess what the vast majority of sustainably successful NFL organizations have decided is the best way to set that up? Yup, a GM or EVP of player personnel with final say over the roster (or at least the 90, draft and FA). Period. You don’t get to say “but other ways work”, as if that aids your position... I already understand that. I never said otherwise. We are talking about what is usually the case, not the exceptions. What has succeeded at a higher rate than the other. That is the whole point of this discussion, and why the skepticism regarding this set up is warranted! Like I said, this is why I believe you’re essentially repeating exactly what I’m saying, and what I’ve been saying for years, while being unnecessarily contrarian. This is maddening right here. You do not get to tell everyone what the Chiefs are doing and how they set it up. You do not get to downplay Veach’s position because it suits your narrative. I gave you sources that have it directly from the horse’s mouth that Veach has final say over the roster and reports directly to Hunt, not Reid. Whatever Veach decides to do with that is up to him. If it’s essentially giving Reid final say as you describe, then he’s still accountable for it. He can’t blame Reid if a personnel move doesn’t pan out. And your description of what they do is just off, especially when you just hone in on one story... for instance, Reid won’t be sitting there evaluating players during the season at a high enough level to even make those decisions. What likely happens is Veach brings him a number of prospects at say, RB, and says “...this is how we have them ranked, take a look at the top three and see if you think differently”, and then Reid either agrees or says he’d rather have the second or third guy instead of the top ranked guy. Veach then makes the decision to either listen to Reid or not to. Reid has to have that trust in Veach there. Which Veach has said he absolutely does in various interviews. Again, you don’t get to just ignore the structure they themselves have said they have, based on sound processes with their roles defined and therefore able to be held accountable, and tell anyone otherwise just because it goes against the narrative you want to believe is true. The Mahomes story doesn’t change that at all. Not only is that a bad example to use because QB is always one of the only positions everyone is concerned about at the highest of levels, but you’re simply mistaking final say for a lack of collaboration. It’s exactly what I thought from the onset. You seem to be confused by what final say is all about, yet you say things Iike “defined roles/responsibilities” and “the structure falls out of good processes” that are directly related to the authority, and thus the accountability, final say gives someone. ————————————- I’m going to just end it here. I don’t need to go through your post quote by quote, I think I’ve hit the overarching issue with your post enough for anyone to understand the inherent contradiction within it and the problems that come about as a result of that. There is plenty I agree with and, in fact, have essentially written myself almost ad verbatim over the years (along with other posters), so it’s not that I really disagree with anything... it’s just knowing certain things about your posting history and how you decided to present this was frustrating to say the least. I just hope this clears it up for anyone who was left interested in it (I’m sure there’s a ton of people, lol). So I guess I’m not crazy for holding onto the hope this still happens! For whatever reason, the national reporters have a better bead on these FO-related issues than our local guys, except for maybe Chris Russel. Doesn’t mean they get it right every time, either, but I’m going to take Rapoport seriously here. Hopefully either Kyle gets elevated or someone else qualified gets the job after the draft, and we have that structure (I don’t think I need to explain what that entails again, lol) we all should be ecstatic about!
  20. @Voice_of_Reason This was my reaction pretty much the entire time reading through that: I’ll be responding to it eventually here, but it’s a lot to go through, and I feel like I’ll just be repeating myself a ton if I’m going through it quote by quote. So when I have time I’m going to try my best to keep it as short as possible (since I’m so good at that ). I think it should be fairly easy to do because there are only a few overarching issues that encompass your entire post to hit on. But I think if anyone would just read through what I’ve said on this topic, even if it’s just the recent stuff here in this thread, they’d see that all you’re doing is repeating the points I’ve already made and have for years but, for some odd reason, attempting to make them your own while being a contrarian unnecessarily. It’s frustrating to say the least, and that’s without getting into the inherent contradictions within it. I’ll explain that in detail soon, though. Btw, the poster you’re referring to regarding that training camp story wasn’t me. No idea who you’re talking about there, lol.
  21. Good for him, great career at TE and, judging by last season, his body is probably telling him that’s enough. One of our better FA signings, that’s for sure. Thanks Vernon!
  22. Honestly? For me, I don’t mind who gets hired first, I just care about the structure more than anything. I think that’s been another problem with this discussion recently (not on your end)... it’s more that people made that a thing (who hires whom first), when in reality the structure is what’s most important and they aren’t the same thing. So you can hire a HC first who hires a GM, but that doesn’t mean he ends up with final say over the roster or is above said GM in rank. That’s what the Chiefs, Bills and Niners did (hired HC first, involved in hiring GM, but end up with both equal in rank and clear separation of duties). Agreed here. I’ll just say our beat writers aren’t necessarily shining examples of truth at all times, lol. To be fair, there’s no such thing, I know. But, heck, they’re not as accurate as the national writers are regarding this team, which has been a weird situation. But the bigger thing about it, and this might come off as arrogant but I promise it’s not, is that media members are incredibly ignorant about this stuff in general. Not all of them, but most. It’s really weird. This has been one of my biggest pet peeves for years. Their focus is so much on coaches and players they almost never see the bigger organizational picture. It’s why I believe fans end up over-emphasizing what coaches can do at the pro level, as it just filters down from TV/Radio/Hot take articles. Now, that has changed for the better recently, but it’s still not anywhere near where it needs to be. So, this is all to say that I just don’t take much from what they say. JP’s tweet here is just another proof of that to me. He’s wrong on every level. As for the accountability part, yeah, that’s really my issue with it and partly why it often fails around the league (along with it being just too much on one guy’s plate among other issues). I just don’t want to have any more remnants of the vague, “who is responsible for what” nonsense this organization has been structured with for the majority of Dan’s tenure. I’m just so over it. I don’t care how slight they are... I just don’t like it, lol. Same here, brother. My optimism is more about the sum of all the moves thus far. A true organizational reset. That is friggin awesome. Moving on from entrenched members like Hess and Schaffer, changing the entire Athletic Training Staff and adding a “director of player performance” in Brett Nenaber (I know you know how much that particularly meant to me ), adding to the medical staff with a very qualified doctor in Kevin Wilk, promoting Kyle to a more fitting title, giving Doug a more fitting title/role as well, hiring Del Rio, and of course no longer having Bruce Allen as the top exec... I’m more pleased about it all than I’ve been in a long, long time. Ron has been better set up in an environment conducive to his success than any other coach before him under Dan. From all angles. And that’s great. My point to @Jumbo, and now to you, is that I won’t have any reason to be skeptical (outside of Dan ruining things, of course) and I’ll be at the point of unbridled optimism even without seeing any results on the field if Kyle gets elevated to GM or someone qualified gets it and has final say over the roster. For me, that’s enough, because that means they set it up as ideally as they could. I don’t even care if they lose in the end, I’m going to be positive about their attempt at it. Sometimes it just doesn’t work out, but at least they tried in the right way. That’s all I can ask for as a fan. Results sometimes don’t match sound processes, but as long as you keep trying it eventually does. As it is, I’m pretty much where you’re at and need to see the results, and my skepticism is mainly tied to the fact that they’ve set it up like this. That’s really all I was saying.