• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by thesubmittedone

  1. 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.
  2. 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: 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. @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!
  8. @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.
  9. 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!
  10. 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.
  11. Yes, so he’s not a GM, neither in title nor in power. This is exactly what I’ve been saying! The problem with saying something like, “in terms of most senior personnel executive, yes...”, is that everyone around the league has one or more of these type of executives even with a GM or EVP. There are Assistant GMs, Assistant Directors of Player Personnel, VPs of Player Personnel (which is Kyle’s title and the Niners, for instance, even have two of these!!), etc... It’s not just about final say or reporting to Ron. It means that Ron even delegates to him exactly what he does at any given time regarding his job. For instance, he likely can’t even hire/fire anyone beneath him on his own, unless Ron gives the okay or simply tells him to. So, again, he’s not a GM unless we shift the entire meaning of the title as understood by every other team and I’m just not going to do that. And the media can get these things wrong as they often do. JP simply shouldn’t say things like this. It’s not the reality. If anything, Ron is the GM right now, not Kyle. Ron didn’t give Kyle that specific title for no reason as opposed to GM or even EVP of Player Personnel. He didn’t just pull it out of his butt and it’s all the same thing so, “meh, whatever”. If we fail at resource management/roster construction, it’s on Ron within this set up, not Kyle. There’s a reason the Chiefs were able to move on from Dorsey and it wasn’t a reflection on Andy Reid (or at least not totally). With what we have now and if it remains the case, Ron shouldn’t be able to move on from Kyle without it meaning he’s failed himself, if not more so. You do want everyone to be “tied to the hip” and loyal to each other, while simultaneously having enough separation of responsibility to recognize if there’s an issue and where it is exactly. It’s hard, but that’s why certain structures work best. Look, I’m not sure why I’m getting the push back on this I’m getting (well, I know one big reason, we’re on a Redskins board, lol), not necessarily from you and this isn’t directed at you... but it’s ok to admit our structure as to what it is and it’s ok to recognize the issues with it. It’s ok to look around the rest of the league and see how it compares to the majority of sustainably successful franchises. That’s all I’m doing here, nothing more. I hope Kyle either gets elevated to that position and/or we hire someone qualified to do it. It is important, and will be better for Ron himself, as he originally stated and as borne out everywhere around the league with very few exceptions. If not, oh well... we can all hope for the best but it doesn’t change the reality of it being the type of set up that fails at a higher rate than others. I’m not opposed to @Skinsinparadise’s thinking that, unfortunately, this might be the only way for a coach to survive with Dan. But SIP isn’t dressing this up as some ideal structure, he isn’t misrepresenting other organizational set ups to make it seems so, nor is he downplaying these titles/roles and what they mean around the league. That’s what is bothering me here. We don’t need to do that to have hope. We can point to a lot of other things done so far that have been very good and arguably better than anything we’ve had, including promoting Kyle to VP of Player Personnel. It’s just that it’d be the ideal if that final step was taken and we have a GM equal in rank. Nothing wrong with acknowledging that. I think I’ve said all I can about this, lol. I apologize for anything that might come off too harsh, but I’m passionate about it because I’ve done a ton of research on this for years now. I feel like I understand organizational structures around the league at a really high level. I used to ignore it or downplay it like most fans, and even media members, do. But after 2013 I changed on that front. So I’m not going to back down on this.
  12. Yup, it was cute with Young but that’s enough. @bakedtater1 I changed the title to reflect the thread content properly, no penalty, but let’s stop this from here on out as it can lead to legitimate confusion. Discuss.
  13. ^^ But he didn’t, did he? Had he done so, it would either be EVP of Player Personnel or GM and Kyle would have final say over the roster. That’s how it works. I don’t know what’s hard about this. This is how it is virtually everywhere in the NFL. Kyle Smith is neither of those and doesn’t have final say, so he’s not. Again, it’s common knowledge that player personnel department execs have their contracts run through the draft, so it can limit your pool of candidates. Hopefully either Kyle gets elevated or we bring in someone qualified and give them that title. If not, that’s disappointing. And it’s ok to be concerned about it. Doesn’t mean it won’t work, just that we’d be operating within a structure that has failed at a higher rate than the other one/s and for good reason. One more thing, like I’ve already said, is that teams won’t allow you to interview anyone they have under contract beneath their GM unless you’re not only going to give them the GM title, but include final say over the roster. Which is another thing pointing to that being pretty damn important and not something to downplay. My hope is that is one of the reasons Ron didn’t give Kyle that title/power immediately, so as to be an auditioning for him while keeping the pool of candidates wide open after the draft. And that’s not a crazy, wild hope, though I do agree it might be unlikely.
  14. Just want to pull my hair out when I read stuff like this, lol. You claim you understand sound organizational principles, chain of command, etc... because of your military background, but when you say stuff like this it just belies that. Collaboration is not the antithesis to final say for God’s sake!!!!! It doesn’t make it less important!! When you actually give people the authority to do their jobs relative to their expertise, it actually AIDS IN THAT COLLABORATION. Everyone will be fulfilling their roles for the benefit of each other without the fear of unwarranted interference. The problem is not “final say”, it’s when you give unqualified people that power and they’re making decisions about things they’re not experts on over others who are. That’s a sure-fire way of ruining a collaborative atmosphere! You want to know a fast way to piss Kyle Smith off and make things more difficult to collaborate on? It’s if Ron ever overrules him on a matter he’s the expert regarding. Imagine Kyle Smith overruling Ron on a coaching hire or a play call? How would you think that’d work out!? But, hey, collaboration! It sounds nice, but the reality is you create a collaborative environment by empowering people to fulfill their roles relative to their expertise. When you say they’re “working in concert with each other”, what are you referring to? Do you think that means they’ll agree on everything? If so, that’s a terrible set up. Kyle would just be a puppet, nothing more. You need people who will differ and see things with a better understanding than you because of your position/expertise relative to theirs. And you need them to be able to “win” on that, for everyone’s sake. If Ron is going to do that with Kyle Smith, the best way is to give him final say over the roster. That’s how it is with the Chiefs. That’s how it is with the vast majority of sustainably successful franchises in the NFL. It’s crazy the amount of push back I’m getting on this. I mean, I get it. The Redskins are doing this now and we want it to succeed so we’re going to look for reasons it will and downplay reasons it won’t. But what I’m saying isn’t hard or some crazy notion I’m concocting. So, yes, it will be disappointing and is concerning if it remains as is. And it’s the opposite of what Ron said himself before, so that sucks too because it means he wavered too easily on it. That’s ok, I’ll get over it. But I’m perfectly in the right to be skeptical this is going to work out and these attempts at justifying it based on the rest of the NFL are extremely weak to me. Not to mention misrepresented as is the case with the Chiefs (and even if they were, they’d still be in the minority). The best justification we have for hope, even if the set up remains as is, is that we do have a better personnel department than ever before and we actually went through an entire organizational reset where the new coach won’t be hindered by factionalism, at least not from the onset. Removing Larry Hess and changing the Training Staff, placing Kyle Smith and Doug Williams in roles that better suit them, etc... was huge.
  15. @Voice of Reason @MartinC I don’t think you guys have it right. I think you’re conflating final say with a lack of collaboration or, better yet, conflating collaboration with a lack of final say. I think the Chiefs recognize who has final say over what as being important while simultaneously recognizing it needs to be collaborative, so Reid is certainly involved in everything as is Veach on the other side. Again, there’s a reason Veach doesn’t report to Reid. He is not beholden to him exclusively. They are tied to the hip, as it should be, but Hunt ultimately decides if one is a problem and the other isn’t.
  16. Interesting, I haven’t heard that but it’s weird because who’s the tie between in that case? If it’s Andy and Veach, then that means Andy actually has final say. Veach himself has stated he has final say over the roster. There may be some confusion there regarding what the tie is about. Might not be about the roster. I’d like to see where you’ve read that (I don’t question you did), but I know that’ll be annoying to dig up, lol. But just like that NBC Sports article you linked to that included the Chiefs with the Pats and Seahawks (when their structure is not the same), they can get things wrong. Agreed, but I’d just add that it’s also important people get to fulfill their roles relative to their expertise, so final say is important to that. None of us would like to be overruled by someone who simply isn’t as qualified as us on the matter, right? That doesn’t negate a collaborative approach, in fact, I’d argue it encourages one when everyone has ownership over their roles. I don’t know. I think he was better off with Rick Smith as GM and in that structure. They found Watson while being in that structure, so it’s hard for me to just ignore that as it’s yet another example of what I’ve learned. I think it’s going to end badly because he took total control, not because he’s a bad HC. It’s subjective, of course, but there is some level of objectivity we can apply to it by seeing the difference of his tenure with Rick Smith in that structure and without.
  17. Agree with all this. I just don’t blame anyone other than Dan and Bruce for that disconnect previously, and I’m happy that Ron started out with saying things in a way that ensures Haskins understands he is going to have to compete and earn it so as to remove any possible entitlement issues that may have lingered. That’ll be good for Haskins more than anyone else, whether he realizes it or not. But, yeah, it’s already much better than anything we’ve ever had under Dan, but I just hope they take that final step and I’ll be on cloud 9 like I said, lol.
  18. Like I already mentioned, Texans are a newer example because Rick Smith left due to his wife being diagnosed with cancer and not one of “sustained success”. We’ll see how that goes, but are you okay with what Bill O’Brien has done since last offseason? Those trades were ridiculous, in my mind. I think Texan fans agree. As for the Chiefs, like I’ve said, it’s frustrating they keep being used as an example. They are not. They have a HC and GM both equal in rank reporting to their Chairman and CEO. Andy Reid does NOT have final say over personnel. Brett Veach does and, previous to that, Dorsey did. When I refer to the Pats and Seahawks, I make it a point to say “examples of sustainably successful” franchises with that set up. They’re the only two. Everyone else is an example of failure or don’t have enough time to judge them with.
  19. Sure, which is what will be disappointing. Which is why I said that, if that final step was made after the draft I’d be on cloud 9, even before seeing any results on the field. As it stands, and were this set up to remain, I’m in the same boat as @Jumbo regarding my skepticism. That being said, I’m more hopeful than you are because of: 1) Ron’s own words and; 2) The reality of GM/Assistant GM/Scout contracts running through the draft, and finally; 3) The coach being the guy to set up the structure hasn’t automatically meant that he retains final say over personnel, just that he’s involved in hiring the guy who will (Niners, Chiefs, Bills). There are only two similar to ours right now that have shown to be sustainably successful, the Seahawks and Pats. As for the Seahawks, Schneider has control of the roster in everything but name, so it’s weird why they don’t just say it. As for the Pats, they’re an exception to the exception because of Tom Brady. The scary thing is there’s a lot more examples of failures with this set up than anything else. I’m following the Texans ever since Rick Smith had to leave and Bill O’Brien took total control. It hasn’t looked good in terms of resource management thus far, so I won’t be surprised if there’s an imminent collapse coming there soon. We’ll see. As for what I’m advocating for, there’s not just more examples, but a lot more in terms of sustainably successful franchises in that structure. So, yeah, that’s all I’m saying. Like you, I’m in favor of that for good reason, and I can’t just stick my head in the sand ignoring that just because I like Ron or am hoping the Redskins win. I’ll be disappointed if we end up with this structure, that’s all. Agreed about the first part. As for the second, I think there is a lot of evidence showing that you have a better chance at “hitting big” at QB when you have a certain structure. It’s not just based on luck. Yes, a QB needs to have a baseline of talent for them to succeed, but once they do their environment factors into it just as much. I’ve done a lot of research on this topic before: So I wouldn’t say it’s as simple as saying that whichever structure you have works if you hit big on QB... basically, one can argue that that a big reason one structure fails more often than not is because it’s harder for them to hit on said QB as opposed to the other. But, yeah, hitting on QB is a massive factor. Since they’re a part of player personnel, and thus need to be scouted and identified by experts in that department, I think one structure (the one we both agree we’re in favor of) is more conducive to doing so than the other, and that has been borne out in the league.
  20. That’s disappointing. Period. If you think it matters less, then why wouldn’t he just give that up so as to have that check on himself? If he’s “essentially delegating” it to Kyle, then why not make it official? It’s a silly way of justifying it, in my opinion. Yeah, not going to just stick my head in the sand and ignore the reality of the NFL. This is similar to what we’ve been claiming is perfectly fine for decades with Dan now. What’s next? “It’s a Redskins decision”? When we know damn well that the guy with final say on something isn’t the most qualified person regarding that something? Now, maybe it’s like @Skinsinparadise said and we’re stuck with it having to be this way because Dan can’t handle it any other way properly, but that just means he’s still a major hindrance to success and it’s disappointing to say the least. Yes, there are certain things about this set up that are better than anything we’ve ever had under Dan already, and the coaches here will benefit unlike anyone before them from it, but there is absolutely something to be concerned about if it remains as is and it’s a set up we’ve seen under Dan fail multiple times. I hope you guys are dead wrong about Ron retaining that power and we get good news about it after the draft. If not, there’s good reason to be skeptical for sure.
  21. He has it for now, yes. However, that may be due to the reality of scouting department contracts running through the draft and nothing else. We’ve seen that setting the structure, making the hire or being involved in it does not preclude one from setting up the structure that way (Chiefs, Niners, Bills). You’re automatically assuming that to be the case when it’s not. All I’m saying is that will be disappointing if it remains the case. I’m holding on to the hope that Ron stays true to his word about not wanting final say over the roster and sets it up in the best way. I’m not going to assume he won’t just because he’s making the hires, and I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his own words on the matter. As for that set up, we can justify it all we want, it doesn’t change that it damn near never works. The two teams in the Super Bowl have a set up with a coach and GM equal in rank where the GM has final say over the roster. The vast majority of playoff teams this year have a GM higher in rank with final say. The vast majority of sustainably successful franchises in the NFL have either of those two set ups with the GM having final say over the roster (or at least the 90, FA and draft). That is the reality. If we don’t get that, it’s disappointing. It’s concerning. End of story. Doesn’t mean it won’t work. Doesn’t mean that we won’t prove to be an exception. But that’s what we’ll have to be hoping for. That, yet again, we’re rooting for Dan Snyder’s Skins to be an exception to the rule. To think that’s not a problem at all is naive at best. So I’m going to hope for otherwise. I’ll be rooting for Ron no matter what, but it won’t be with unbridled optimism like I said to @Jumbo Btw, that article you linked to has bad information in it. The Chiefs are not an example of a coach having final say over personnel. It’s getting frustrating that that’s been repeated so often.
  22. Why not? If they follow the Chiefs and 49ers model, of which Ron mentioned himself, then he'll be involved in hiring one who will have that final say over the roster. I don't see why you're so sure? Agree with the first part of it, but I also think you're going too far with the assumption that his current title is the only one he's auditioning for. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he gets elevated to GM after the draft. There's nothing I've seen to show that one way or the other, unless you've heard otherwise. And, really, the evidence is stronger the other way if we're going to take Ron at his word. He's said multiple times he doesn't want that power. So if he retains it, that'd be unlike what he's stated himself.
  23. Same here, but I think I’ll even get to that point of actual, unbridled, optimism if I see the structure set up properly after the draft. It’s just the final step in what has been nothing but solid moves thus far that I need to see. If this wasn’t Dan, I’d probably already be there. If we assign someone qualified the GM title (and they have final say over the roster - or at least the 90, FA and draft), I’ll be on cloud 9. If not? I’ll be pretty much right where you are now. It might not automatically mean success on the field, and Ron might not end up being the answer, but at least it’s a legitimate attempt being made at the highest of levels for a sound organization. That’s all I’ve wanted as a fan for years now. I don’t need wins as much as I need to see them doing what it takes to get them. I can positively root for everyone involved, Dan included, win or lose, instead of constantly being frustrated and annoyed that people are being set up to fail.