thesubmittedone

Moderators
  • Content Count

    14,991
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Posts posted by thesubmittedone


  1. Yeah, this thread simply isn’t one for The Stadium. As @Jumbo said, it’s been tough for us to navigate when and where to draw the line with this whole issue as related to the team and its socio-political relevance, but I think this thread topic simply can’t escape focus on the latter. 
     

     Moving to The Tailgate where you guys can get into it as much as you’d like regarding this topic. Consider it a mercy as there are multiple examples here of posts that directly violate the directive pinned at the top of the Stadium. 
     

    Read here for further details if you need any as to why this is being moved:

     

     

     


  2. 8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

    The Hoffman article I posted above also referenced that there are more stories out there that might come out.  I know Russell saying that over the weekend was greeted at least by one person here with a yawn. I get the skepticism some might have with Russell.  But as I said then, Sheehan for months has hinted of hearing stories.   The dude who wrote the story in the WP said he has been hit up with other rumors. 

     

    My point is this might not be over for Dan.  And I do think a 2nd heavy handed story might be the kicker to finally put some real heat on the dude. 

     

    8 hours ago, spjunkies said:

     

    He didn't dive real deep into it, but Doc Walker also said that he thinks there will be more that comes out.


    Although I’m absolutely convinced there’s a lot more that can come out, so much of it (not all) is tied to what reporters themselves were doing to get access and how the atmosphere in the building was ripe for that. So the concern is that, for a lot of this to come out, it would mean reporters exposing their own and all the issues tied to that for their respective jobs and companies. 
     

    It sucks to think about, but that alone could be a reason nothing else comes out. Hopefully more courage is shown and the light is shown on everything regardless of who might end up with egg on their face. There’s just too much importance in not allowing someone like Dan to win on this or else the cycle will continue even if there are momentary reliefs to it. 

     

     

    8 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

    Dan hired a killer to represent him, her forte is getting multi billion dollar companies off the hook, not to audit their HR practices.

     

    All the signs point to the fact there is more to the story and Dan has lawyered up appropriately to get ready.

     

    Lets hope these women don't take any settlement offers or its possible we'll never know what happened.


    Of course! Arguably the first hire he’s made where:

     

    1) It’s a totally qualified expert with a solid resumé, who is;
     

    2) Placed in a fitting role within the structure of the organization, and where;

     

    3) They will likely be able to fulfill said role relative to their respective expertise without unwarranted interference or being overburdened... 

     

    Of course that’d be a killer lawyer that will shield him from any potential liability! 
     

    Of. Friggin. Course. 
     

    giphy.gif?cid=4d1e4f29gc9zkeqiptwwjn1yom

     

     

     

    7 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

     

    Yes. I was rooting for his ouster at the time specifically because of the patented "Snyder taint", even though he seemed good enough at his job.

     

    6 hours ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

     

    Impression I got from that was Schaffer was apologetic face to face, but then either did nothing to report it, or helped bury it.

     

    He wasn't an overt problem.  And maybe in a different culture he'd be a fine employee.  But in that one he was still part of the problem.  Maybe just a small part, be still a part of it

     


    Yup, as (likely) qualified and (probably) innocent as Schaefer was, that’s the reality of working within that environment. As stated many times, the level of toxicity there eventually wears people down, no matter how good they are, and they either become exhausted and discouraged, corrupted by it, or removed forcibly in the most unceremonious of ways. 

     

    But don’t worry, we’ll always have plenty of people who will miss the forest for the trees; intensely focus on the people who eventually get consumed by said toxicity (some quicker than others) and not on its purveyors; constantly tell us how they know how to separate the jobs these people do from the toxic environment they’re in (lol) and can judge it properly (loool) and how the next sucker savior will be different (even though it follows almost to a tee another iteration of the Snyder Cycletm we’ve been in from the onset)! 
     

    But hey, maybe Dan has changed for real, understands his role in all this and got it down this time. You never know. Maybe Ron is the lucky one. I guess we’re gonna watch, right? 
     

    giphy.gif?cid=4d1e4f29vsvbk4pndljl8xxuvy

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1

  3. 5 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

     

    Nah, there was a scandal maybe over ten years ago that even had its grey edges talked about on here at the time, of a catfish account that conned multiple insider types into giving "her" information because she was able to share her own nuggets with them to prove "she" was legit....but in reality that person was just passing all their scoops around to each other as if it was "her" own info. Eventually that person was outed as BS I think when the insider types started talking to each other. I could be wrong but I swear that jsteelz and LL56 or whoever back when they actually posted here and dropped tidbits, talked briefly about this on the boards back then. TK may have more knowledge but I swear I'm not crazy for remembering this. The implication of JLC being mentioned in that part of the tweet is that he was one of the ones who was duped and sharing info with the catfish.


    You’re not crazy, she even was featured on LL’s podcast a bunch of times if I recall correctly. 

    • Thanks 1

  4. 4 hours ago, TrancesWithWolves said:

     

     

    Yeah twitter is full of ****. Here’s a guy with 500 followers that claims indirect knowledge of a Snyder-Epstein connection. There is NO WAY they could have kept a lid on a story that explosive for 5 days.


     

    *Mod Edit*

     

     

    https://twitter.com/passportabuser/status/1283485222395314177?s=21

     


     

    Reminder to everyone that posting memes or content from twitter with profanity is a rule 6 violation and WILL lead to penalties. 

    When sharing twitter links that include profanity or anything graphic, you can paste the link and when it embeds you will see an option on the bottom that comes up asking “would you like to display as a link instead?” 
     

    Click on that and it’ll show the link as is like I did above. Give people a heads up if it’s NSFW, as well. 

    • Like 2

  5. 33 minutes ago, THE HAMMER'IN HOG said:


    Just saw this a little late, but quite honestly you want to single me out...then you can kiss my ass blow hard! I am not kneeling to your PC BS, and your holier than thou judgments of others because "you" don't agree with them!!! Especially for some stupid football blog "supervisor" LOL! So go look in the mirror, pat yourself on the back, and tell yourself how important you are, then send your big time resume to Mark Zuckerberg, he doesn't have enough PC no nothings working for him, attempting to tell everyone what to say and how to act!!   Redskin football moderator  Yeah I will bend over backwards!!! lol Frigg'in joke!!! 

     


    This is one of those rare trifectas that just exude magnificence in its artistic expression of suicide by mod. Truly beautiful. 
     

    Guy first starts with a rule 11 violation by quoting a large section of text, then immediately follows it with a rule 18 violation going directly against a mod directive by posting in this thread in the first place, but wait, that’s not all!  He makes sure the content of the post is filled with rule 5 violations. 
     

    giphy.gif?cid=4d1e4f294f5b46c82a1f038d38

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
    • Haha 12

  6. 6 hours ago, skinsfan4128 said:

    I don't generally post alot as most folks here do a fine job of making points and giving differing views on a myriad of news. But I feel compelled to post how I feel about this name change fiasco.

     


    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. 

    • Thanks 2

  7. 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. 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  8. 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. 😕 

    • Like 8
    • Thanks 2

  9. 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. 

    • Like 4

  10. 10 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

    Correct me if I am wrong, but your points have a vibe that if Rivera likes Kyle so much then he should give up his power of the roster to him.  I don't personally see the two points going hand in hand though.   The reason I posted the Schneider and Carroll article is as much as Carroll loves him he didn't at any point just say I love your work so much that you got it, you are in control, on the rare time we disagree, you have the power to overrule me.  I'd be stunned if Rivera would do the same with Kyle.  And in his shoes 0% chance I'd do it.  Why would he?  Why give up the power to overrule?   The whole idea (whether we like the model or we don't is a separate subject) of a coach centric model is the coach lays out what they want as to the type of players and the GM is beholden to the coach not the other way around. 


    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. 
     

    4 hours ago, HigSkin said:

     

    John Lynch was just on with Colin Cowherd and pretty much backs this up.  He said he had a lot of productive conversations with RR, interesting he didn't say Kyle and that RR made them sweat to day 3.  Lynch said he would have much rather had the deal done before the draft.  I'm guessing RR was holding out for Minnesota to get in to a bidding war.  Anyway, Lynch also said TW was sending him video's of him working out.  He didn't say whether that was weeks ago or right before the draft, just that he sent them.  He also said, yes there is risk but he is trusting Kyle who knows TW and he desire to play, work hard, blah, blah, blah....

     

     

    9 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

    This article brings it home to me some, too. 

    <EDITED FOR LENGTH>

    So having a GM who can be hired or fired by the HC actually takes a little of that craziness away.  If Rivera thought Kyle is stabbing him behind his back, he could just fire him and Kyle knows it.  If Kyle is in charge then he has nothing to lose to cozy up to Dan's instincts and throw whomever under the bus.  And yes Kyle seems like a good guy and would be a stark improvement if he were in charge.  But i've seen good people kowtow to people like Dan if they felt their job was threatened. 

     

    Granted it's sad to play out a scenario like that.  But I've seen this stuff in play in different forms.  And thinking about it some -- its very personality driven as opposed to be about hard logic.  Personalities really don't change.  You got to manage personalities like Dan IMO.  It sounds like Gibbs was the best at managing him.  I think Rivera who has a lot of integrity and from I hear great communication skills and is supposedly a great people person might be the ticket to manage Dan, too.  I am not a pollyana about any of this.  But I don't think its wild to try a coach-centric model with Dan largely become it potentially mitigates the divide and conquer culture that seemed to pervade that building.  

     

    https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/why-drafting-chase-young-wasnt-most-important-thing-ron-rivera-did-draft-weekend


    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. 


  11. @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. 
     

    5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

    Based on what I've read he had other potential GMs in mind aside from just Kyle based on prior relationships.  So it was a try out for Kyle in a sense.   Most of the turnover typically in a FO often comes after the draft.  What January is to coaching, May often is for GM-personnel people.  Rivera for better or worse seems to value prior working relationships and didn't have one with Kyle so he wanted to see how it played out through the draft process. 


    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. 
     

    5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

    Why would he give it up though?  I gather he wants final say in case on the off chance he does want to overrule Kyle.   Rivera clearly isn't embracing a GM first model. I don't think that is his point behind trusting Kyle where he is questioning his own model.  He wants to be in charge.  But I get the impression that for him to overrule Kyle it would have to be something wild but he wants to hold that power.

     

    But my point on Rivera is he strikes me similar to Marty not Shanny when it comes to having final say.  With Shanny I get the impression that he thought he was as good as Scott Campbell and anyone else as for the in house scouts.  He weighed in and made some of the picks from what I read based on his own scouting.  I don't get that vibe about Rivera.  But I don't think that means he likes Kyle so much that he wants to give him 100% power.   I am just saying from what I can tell thus far he is fully running with Kyle's recommendations


    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”.  
     

    5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

    I get your point but the way I look at is it depends a lot on the personalities involved.  I like going back to Shanny because he to me is the perfect example of someone where it wouldn't work well.  IMO his ego is too big where he came off to me that he thought he was a jack of all trades and master of all.  I think a dude like that is a disaster in a situation like that.  Rivera at least so far doesn't strike me like that.  So in theory I think it can work unless something pops up that makes me think otherwise which is possible but it hasn't hit me that way yet where I have concerns.

     

    https://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/33707/pete-carroll-john-schneider-marriage-nearing-10-years-with-seahawks

    The arrangement with Carroll wasn't what Schneider initially envisioned, but the partnership has worked out.


    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:

     

    Quote

    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. 
     

    ...................

     

    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. 


    <edited for length> .........

     

    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.  

    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. :) 

    • Like 2

  12. 6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

    Reading all that I could about this it comes off to me something like this:  Kyle is the defacto GM now and he likely gets the title but Rivera has the final say.  Rivera tells Kyle what type of players he wants.  Kyle identifies those players.  Rivera pretty much goes along with Kyle's choices.  So far so good with no really heated arguments.  The thing that I like about what I hear-read is that Rivera doesn't fancy himself as a personnel guru and trusts that Kyle is better at it than him. 


    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). 

    • Like 1

  13. 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.      

    • Like 2

  14. @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):

     

    Quote

    10. Adhere to ES policies on usingheadlines/content from other websites to start a new thread or to add to an existing thread. 
    When posting anything concerning news articles from outside sources or using any website as part of the topic please include a direct link (i.e., URL) to the original page/site. Paste the URL directly atop the post, above a small portion of the article's text (for example, the lead paragraph or a particular sentence or two). Such a practice provides credibility and attribution to the source of the information, and allows visitors the option to visit the respective websites. You are responsible for the content you post.

    If you are posting a published article from a news source, please title your thread in the following format: "SOURCE SHORTFORM: HEADLINE" (Ex. WP: Redskins Name Mike Shanahan New Head Coach). If the source is a blog or a chain e-mail, put "blog" or "chain e-mail" at the beginning of the thread title.

    Please see our copyright statement.

    If you're adding content from any website to an existing thread, do not post large sections of that content. Just post the link and a brief section that is relevant to the point the content is intended to support.

     

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  15. On 3/22/2020 at 11:58 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:

    So, here's the thing. I don't think Ron is actually doing anything different with roster management than he has in the past.  What Kyle said in his pre-combine presser can be summarized in 3 areas:

     

    - The coaching staff and Kyle all did homework prior to that infamous February 12th date on players on the roster so they could come up with their core players.  Ron and Kyle took the input from the coaches and pro-personnel scouts, met, and decided who the core was. Based on that, they released Norman and a few others.  

    - Kyle was told to run the draft however he wanted to.  He made some changes (added a color coding, and some other nerdy football things), and the scouts are feeding him information, and then he's having the coaches put grades on players they identify as the ones they want to go after. Kyle and his staff set the board based on this, and then he and Ron finalize the board and the trade possibilities, etc.  (My comment: regardless of who has final say, this is how it should work.)

    - For Free Agency, the board was set, then Kyle and Ron got together to finalize the decisions.  I assume Rob Rodgers was included there to some extent as far as contracts and cap are concerned.

     

    I'm working under the assumption, because there is no reporting to say otherwise, that this is basically how Ron worked in Carolina.  The only difference is if there is a disagreement, he gets to make the final determination.


    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! :ols: 😛 

     

    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. 
     

    On 3/22/2020 at 11:58 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:


    I think the big job-description change for Ron is less on the personnel side and more that he now is responsible for EVERYTHING.  That's tough, and I'm not sure it's going to work, to be honest.  But the reason I think it won't work has less to do with Ron's ability to manage the roster, and more to do with the fact he might be spread so thin that he can't actually be a good HC.

     

    Right now, here is the org chart:

     

    Dan -> Ron

    Ron -> Del Rio/Turner (Coaching staff) -> Coaching Staff

    Ron -> Kyle Smith (Personnel/Roster management) -> Scouting Department

    Ron -> Rob Rodgers (Contracts/Cap)

    Ron -> Ryan Vermillion (Training/Medical)

    Ron -> Doug Williams (Player Development)

     

    And that doesn't include the fact he's on the competition committee, and has other executive duties as well.  And, most importantly, he has to manage Dan.  

     

    That's just a ton of responsibility for one guy to have.  Which is why I think he's basically delegated the majority of the roster stuff to Kyle, regardless of final say.  I also think it's why you see a lot of GM/Coach split responsibilities across the league because it allows the coach to coach, and not to be essentially the CEO of the organization.  


    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. 
     

    On 3/22/2020 at 11:58 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:

    Kyle, on the other hand, was Director of College Scouting 2 months ago.  Going from that to GM is a huge leap with significant added responsibilities even above and beyond final say on the roster.  And while it's true Kyle has been doing a job which is on the career path to GM, being a GM is more than just roster management, and I am willing to bet Bruce kept a lot of those other responsibilities close to the vest, and Kyle wasn't really exposed to them.  This is also based on reporting from Kiem, Finlay, and a bunch of others.  So, while it's possible if not likely Kyle will succeed as a GM, it's not known.  It's also not a bad idea to bring him along slowly.  


     

    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. 
     

    On 3/22/2020 at 11:58 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:

    Yeah, again, I don't disagree.  However, I also think you have to look at each situation separately, and you can't evaluate every franchise the same way.

     

    If somebody ignores Dan's presence in this organization, they do so at their own peril. The key to success, in my opinion, really has less to do with what happens below Dan than managing Dan. 


    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: 

     

    Quote

    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? 


     

    On 3/22/2020 at 11:58 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:

    Oh, without question, this is the Ron Rivera show no matter what.  Because even if he trusts Kyle implicitly and follows exactly what he suggests, if it fails, it's Ron's responsibility because he is in charge.  

     

    I disagree though with your bolded statement.  I listed to where he talked about this during his combine press conference,  and the context of the question and the answer was more of whether he would like to be GM (the question was too quiet to transcribe word for word), and he said (this is an exact quote) "If you're a scout, and you get into this league, as a scout, your ultimate goal is to be a GM. It's no different than a coach who's a quality control, your goal is to be a head coach.  That is the ultimate goal, but right now I've got a tremendous responsibility and opportunity in my role as it is now, and I plan on attacking that.  [...] If that opportunity comes as a GM, it comes.  If it doesn't, it doesn't.  I am not worried about that." (14:45 of the Combine presser.  I had to transcribe myself because I couldn't find a transcript.)  I am not sure if you're referring to a different interview, but in this one, the question was more aspirational, and he was pretty clear he said he would like to be GM, but also wasn't that bothered about it.  

     

    Additionally, he was directly asked by Finlay "It's a short sample, but how are things running?" and he immediately said "I love the way things are running, they're very smooth." (9:25 mark in the combine presser).  He went on to say Rivera had "taken a step back" and basically was letting him run his department how he wanted to.  The "taken a step back" is interesting.  I think it implies that Bruce DIDN'T take a step back.  And interfered with what was going on in the personnel department. 

     

    So, unless I'm missing something, or there is another interview with Kyle I haven't heard, in context, I think he's fine with his role, wants the GM title because it's something all scouts aspire to, but is comfortable in the role he has and is going to attack it.  (There was a whole bunch in there about putting a chip on your shoulder, etc. that I didn't transcribe because I didn't feel like typing all of it out.) 


    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:

     

    On 3/22/2020 at 11:58 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:
    Quote

     

    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. 
     

    On 3/22/2020 at 11:58 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:

    I guess i look at this through a very specific Redskins Organization lens, and not a league lens.  There's no question it might still fail.  But I'm less inclined to care about what might work in Arizona, San Fran and Kansas City and more of what might work here.  And here we have a specific problem in Dan, and the Chiefs situation where the GM and Coach report to the owner might just not practically work here.  And the evidence is it won't.  At one point, Shanahan and Bruce both worked for Dan.  And that went sideways very quickly.  


    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. 
     

    On 3/22/2020 at 11:58 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:

    I agree with you wholeheartedly though, the "who" is the best we've had as a collective group since Dan bought the team, with the possible exception of the Marty year.  If you look at the combos, they are either terrible from top-to-bottom, or have a significant issue:

    1999/2000 - Dan/Vinny/Norv

    2001 - Marty/John Schneider (This was pretty damn good)

    2002/2003 - Dan/Vinny/Spurrier (barf)

    2004-2007 - Gibbs with a personnel assist from Vinny and Dad.  If Gibbs had a competent personnel guy, these 4 years would have been much better.

    2008-2009 - Vinny/Zorn, possibly the low point

    2010-2013: Mike Shanahan/Bruce.  It's still not clear exactly WHAT Bruce did, except for get in the way

    2014-2019: Bruce called the shots on just about everything.  But at least he had Kyle and some other good folks running the draft. 

     

    Ron/Kyle is better than all of those combos.  Ron isn't the coach Gibbs is, but he won't be anchored by a buffoon like VInny.  


    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. 
     

    On 3/22/2020 at 11:58 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:

    It could.  Serious question: why do you think the Seahawks haven't given Schneider the official authority?  Serious question.  I don't know, except that if everybody is comfortable with the way it works, there's no real reason to change it.


    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. 
     

    On 3/22/2020 at 11:58 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:

    And again, I'll say, we also are somewhat exceptional in that our owner has been a complete disaster for 20 years, and more than following a structure that works for other teams, we need a structure, and more importantly, people, who will work here, under these circumstances.


    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? 
     

    On 3/22/2020 at 11:58 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:

    What started this exchange was my statement "Bill O'Brien is proving no HC should be the GM."  I REALLY believe that.  And you might say I'm talking out of both sides of my mouthBut I'm really not.  I think Kyle will have roster authority, but our situation might just look a lot like the Seahawks.  What that depends on is Ron basically allowing Kyle and the scouting department to do the roster construction, and not "interfere." I really like the coaches and scouts working together, which is what they are doing now, based on what Ron and Kyle have been saying.  

     

    So, even though Ron might have complete authority, he won't be "Bill O'Brien-ing" and making all the decisions on his own.  


    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. :) 

    • Like 1

  16. 9 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

    You're 100% right, we have no idea.  I would also add we have no idea how well Kyle would do as a GM.  Both would be being put in jobs they have never done before, and it's just as possible Kyle with the full responsibilities of a GM would fail, even though he's seems like an outstanding scout.  And it's possible Ron the top exec will fail Ron the coach.  We've seen it over and over.  


    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. 
     

    9 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:


    Yeah, I agree, which is why I like checks and balances no matter what, which is also why I don't like the coach reporting to the GM.  I really like the coach and GM reporting to somebody else.  There have been examples of GMs screwing up organizations as well as coaches screwing up organizations.  Heck, until Bill O'Brien made him look like a genius, the fool in Arizona, who's been the GM there, has been laughed at for ages because he seems like an incompetent nincompoop. 


    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. 
     

    9 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

    However, what seems to be true for the Redskins is that this setup seems to work well right now.  Ron's the CEO and HC, for lack of better term.  He seems like he's essentially delegated roster authority to Kyle Smith, with input from Rob Rodgers.  I doubt very much Ron is the guy who's setting the financial contractual limits for guys.  That's not his bag, and he seems self aware enough to understand that.  

     

    So while Ron is at the top of the org chart, he seems to have given the authority to Kyle and Rob they deserve, and is letting them do their thing.  Which, is fine.  


    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. 

    • Like 3