• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by thesubmittedone

  1. Or maybe you were/are too sensitive to recognize that there was a much deeper backdrop to the entire discussion and it was about recognizing the general process of team building and organizational structure in the NFL that leads to success more often than not? Maybe you were/are too sensitive to have recognized the Redskins DID deserve to have jabs taken at them for their approach and, in comparison to what the Browns were attempting at the time, were following a model more often leading to failure? And for someone who majors in condescension on this board and consistently rubs people the wrong way, I’d honestly step back and reflect on that before claiming it came from anyone else. I mean, for God’s sake, did we not just fire Bruce? Did we not just hire a coach who is actually quoted as saying things that directly have to do with aspects of the FO structure the Browns were being commended for trying? What the hell does “it was the Browns, people” have to do with anything? THAT. WAS. THE. POINT. There was a difference between what the Browns were previously and what they were, at least, attempting at that point. And for many of us it wasn’t about the tanking, it was about the organizational structure. If Dan is attempting to do the right thing, they structure the organization properly, and we hire qualified people and place them in the right positions in the FO, is it acceptable for others to say “it’s the Redskins, people”? Is it ok for us to recognize that and commend them while acknowledging that it isn’t guaranteed to work? Is it ok to compare that to others NOT doing it and say that it’s a problem? How utterly ridiculous would it be if we got laughed at and dismissed just because “it’s the Redskins”? And were it to fail, should we then find it acceptable to point to the solid process as the problem? Like, imagine a drug addict stuck in a cycle of triggers. He finally goes through a process that helps him avoid said triggers for the longest time he can remember. But something happens and he relapses. Should he just throw that process out the window? That’s it, didn’t work, let’s trash it! So confident and full of bravado? I’m not sure who you’re talking about here, but it’d better not be me. Go back to that post of mine from that thread that was quoted. I said the process was sound with their prioritization of quality FO hires, that it didn’t guarantee anything, and that as long as they stuck with it for 3-4 years it was unlikely to fail badly. I didn’t even say they’d be the greatest or automatic contenders. Yet, my thoughts, which were balanced and measured, were lumped in here and ridiculed? Again, maybe you were just reading into to it too much and not recognizing the underlying message, which was and still is relevant to this day? Maybe you just can’t handle anything that goes against your conflation of Redskins’ fandom with the Owner and whomever he’s had as his top exec? The Front Office hires that were being commended at the time had nothing to do with those draft picks, so why is that even brought up? Imagine someone trashing Rivera right now or what’s happening here presently by bringing up how the idiot Redskins traded up for RG3 or paid Haynesworth all that money or something. What!? I mean, talking about “Old Takes Exposed”... you really want to go down that road? I think you can forgive people for saying they assembled the most talented front office in the league when they hired Dorsey who had just come off a very successful stint with the Chiefs, as well as Eliot Wolf and Alonzo Highsmith who were renowned for their work with the Packers, and then even added Scot McCloughan in a consulting role so as to avoid any potential issues were he in an official position. Those were solid hires and they were placed in good roles fitting their expertise. Didn’t work out, and I’d argue they should stay the course (they are with Wolf and Highsmith, don’t know about Scot), but it doesn’t change the hiring process and structuring having been sound at the time. So, sure, it’s always dangerous to make hyperbolic statements, but is it really that nuts? And saying Skins fans “were talked down to”? Again, sensitive much? Zoony’s thread title was alluding to the fact that we won’t be laughing at the Browns for long with how they were going about things. We can nitpick all we want, but they have improved. And within the thread I, along with others, expanded upon it. That, knowing Haslam’s past, he could destroy it at any time. It really isn’t a black and white, victory lap type deal is it? For any perceived “side”. It was a nuanced discussion and should’ve remained as such. Which is what annoys me most about this pettiness right now. If that’s the case, how is there any logic to it when we lost double the amount of games they did this season? By that logic, why wouldn’t a Browns’ fan be perfectly in the right to be laughing at us? You can call out whatever poster you want regarding whatever, relevant, topic of discussion they’ve participated in and the content they’ve produced about it. That’s not what the call out rule is for, which has been a common misunderstanding here: The key is to not go beyond that. So there was nothing against that rule done in here. Now, rule 12? That’s another story. And it’s been happening too much, lately. In this thread and others. Especially what I bolded: Process over results. Surely someone who fashions himself as one who is supremely logical can understand this concept? Nothing is ever guaranteed, but there is a certain method the vast majority of successful franchises employ, one in which Dan never has. Are you arguing against the pedigrees of the aforementioned names? Would you be trashing them if Dan hired them? I know I wouldn’t. The Browns attempted it that way, improved considerably over their previous 1-31 clown show, but didn’t live up to hype. They’re still structuring it the right way organizationally, but I think the owner was too impatient (which is his established pattern of behavior), unfortunately for Browns’ fans. The purpose of mentioning the wins wasn’t about the Browns’ success, it was about pointing out the underlying issues with Redskin fans laughing at them or taking victory laps over their failures. By your logic, we both have sucked and we should both shut up then, which is clearly something you chose not to do initiating this silliness. No side “won” anything. But if we’re solely looking at results, the Browns actually improved their situation while we regressed in ours since then. How that translates to calling anyone out for their positions is beyond me, but then again we’re pretty damn damaged as Skins’ fans.
  2. Well, that's mitigated to a degree when the GM has final say over the 90, draft and FA during the offseason. He can get rid of those guys at any time he wants, essentially. So I don't mind it at all. I don't really agree with this take on things, but I'd rather not get into it as it'll take up this entire thread if I focused on where I think you had it wrong on these issues. Water under the bridge. But I'll just say this, Grant, for instance, hung around for the duration of his rookie contract, that's it. But, yeah, in season, I don't mind coaches having final say over the 53. I think it helps with being able to discipline players, control who gets playing time, and scheming around the guys you want with some semblance of consistency. The loyalty issue is real, but as long as the GM has final say during the offseason it shouldn't affect things for long. If a GM feels like a coach is blind regarding a player, he can move on from him during the offseason and that'd be within his rights. Do you really want to do that in the middle of a season when a coach is trusting in that dude to help him in a certain way? I don't know... I think that's where the "collaborative" part has to come in. I get it, and I probably prefer it this way, too... but, I don't know, I see the positives with it, as well. If anything, it automatically gives the coach some level of autonomy on the matter, which would help with fostering a healthier, mutually beneficial, relationship versus a GM just becoming a total dictator and refusing to budge on anything. Now, that happening would be a detriment even if the GM had that say over everything... but I think it just sets it up to avoid that potential issue in an official manner, if that makes sense. I agree, but I think you're giving that final say over the 53 too much weight. I mean, think about it like this, he only has final say over the 53 HIS GM GAVE HIM. It's not like they're his guys exclusively. The only way he really can be at odds with the GM is if the GM recognizes, during the season, he made a mistake about a player (good or bad) whereas the coach doesn't see it and sticks to the initial evaluation and, therefore, the predetermined role for said player. But I'd imagine that's extremely rare and, again, once the offseason comes along the GM can do what he wants about it. It's hard to imagine something like that destroying an entire season unless it happens on a massive scale. But that would just mean those guys simply can't work with each other and I don't think any types of authority given to each title would matter in that case.
  3. This was fascinating to say the least. For those without an Athletic subscription, I’m going to post what seems like a lot, but it isn’t. There’s a lot more good stuff in there especially the comments and the details they give regarding who was surveyed (not just the breakdown I’m going to post), but I won’t post that all because I don’t want to hurt their business. Honestly, I never really believed in subscribing to these media outlets, but I feel like I am getting my money’s worth with them, I definitely recommend it... Anyway, the results of the survey were this (they tallied it in the end by giving each ranking, starting with first place getting 4 points, then 3 points, and so on): 1) McCarthy (86 total) 2) Rivera (84 total) 3) Rhule (59 total) 4) Judge (42 total) This is how it broke down in terms of who they surveyed, and they listed each one’s rankings individually along with a comment or two in many instances: I was honestly surprised by the tally in the end because Rivera was almost always ranked first or second with each individual. But then I wasn’t paying too close attention to McCarthy reading through it, I was mostly just looking for Rivera. You could see how close it was in the final tally, with Rhule and Judge distant second and thirds from McCarthy and Rivera. But it’s definitely a positive overall, especially considering Rivera got knocked just because of Dan (some of the comments said as much). Vast majority were high on the hire. I did my own breakdown to see how they fared within each group. The players had it like this: 1) McCarthy (23 points) 2) Rivera (22 points) 3) Judge (13 points) 4) Rhule (12 points) Front Office execs: 1) Rivera and McCarthy tied (18 points) 3) Rhule (16 points) 4) Judge (8 points) Only One Coach: 1) McCarthy 2) Rhule 3) Rivera 4) Judge The Analysts mostly just commented and didn’t do any rankings except one, Ross Tucker: 1) Rhule 2) Rivera 3) McCarthy 4) Judge The Agents: 1) Rivera and McCarthy tied (32 points) 3) Rhule (22 points) 4) Judge (16 points) Finally, the Scouts: 1) Rivera and McCarthy tied (7 points) 3) Rhule (4 points) 4) Judge (2 points) Ultimately this means nothing, I know, but it can’t hurt for now. If you take anything away from it at all, it’s that we definitely have improved our image around the league pretty much instantly, which should help in trade talks, Free Agency, contract negotiations, etc... But then we didn’t really need a survey to tell us that, lol.
  4. @goskins10 @KDawg @Thinking Skins @Skinsinparadise @LD0506 and everyone else... great conversation going on in here, well done. Tell you what, though, we’re going to forever be linked with the Panthers on a scale unlike many others. It’s fascinating.
  5. I’ll listen to it when I get a chance. But here’s what I know about their structure: So I always understood that they’re another example of the structure I prefer, not a “HC is top exec” one. Like I’ve said now, and I know it’s super repetitive, the structure to me is what matters, not who hired whom first... though that does hold some level of significance. However, as long as it ends up in that structure, it’s not a big deal. I posted this in the Browns’ thread in the ATN, so I’ll put it here because I think it’s relevant:
  6. Yup, I’m with you on that. I wouldn’t even call it a disagreement. You’re just projecting it differently than I am. That’s all good. It’s like I’ve said about our talks regarding Dan and how much is it him versus Bruce... there’s no way to really know from where we sit, but I’d rather your version be right on it than mine. Yeah, don’t worry, I don’t take it as pompous. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable angle to have on it. And I don’t disagree with any of it, really. I get it, and I like the angle that Ron is classy himself so he won’t feed Dan’s worst impulses... but I think where I’m less willing to just accept this without major concerns regarding the model, is that it can go either way. Like, none of this negates either Ron or the GM becoming the wrong guy in Dan’s ear. It really boils down to Dan being able to discern the truth. That’s where the problem is, so I can’t prefer one model over another because of Dan’s inability to do so. It makes no difference to me if Dan is mislead by his coach or by his GM. It can happen from either side equally to me. Rivera might even be good intentioned when he presents Dan with bad ideas or justifications. Does that make sense? As simple as I can say it, the model that is chosen is entirely separate for me from Dan’s inability to discern the truth. Isn’t it equally as bad if Ron is the lone voice in Dan’s ear and is actually a source of the problem (or even THE source)? I think the most important thing is for Dan to be able to see it all for what it is. That’s what it really boils down to. Not who is closest to him. The way you can avoid the blame game, as an owner, is you tie your hires to each other’s hips. So if you make the GM the top exec, you tell him he only gets one or two hires at HC. Or you give him a timeline and specific goals that are equal to the Head Coach he has. He’s going to have an incentive, then, to be loyal and not play those games. He has to take ownership for his hires there, so that if they fail, he fails. It comes down to Dan’s system of accountability, really. That being said, it does help me that you’re warming up to it. I know you and I perceive things almost identically, so if you’re okay with it, it does give me some relief. To me, that’s just a depressing look into what we’re dealing with Dan more than what it means in terms of what model is best. Think about it like this. Whether it’s the HC or a GM, they’re going to have to play that game. It sucks. I think, really, what you’re getting at is that you want whoever is the classiest dude in the building who knows how to handle people in the best way, with sincerity, to be the most powerful guy... because of Dan. And since Ron is that guy and will usually be that guy in comparison to most football people, you warmed up to this model. Am I on to something there? It’s actually very reasonable. I think it’s just unfortunate we even have to think like this. I get it. I really do. It’s just hard because: 1) The Coach being the top exec has very few examples of sustainable success and many more examples of failure while; 2) The GM being the top exec, or equal in power to, the HC has many more examples of sustainable success and fewer examples of failure in comparison to the above model. I hope I worded that properly, because people can sometimes think, when saying that, that you’re saying the versions of model 2 are guaranteed to succeed and model 1 is guaranteed to fail. So, yeah, it’s tough to not have that concern. Now, maybe it’s trending differently. Maybe this is a good way to set up coaches for success and avoid the pitfalls of being blamed when things don’t go well on the team building side. I can buy that. But, man, it’s just a lot on their plate. A lot. In the case of Ron and the Skins, my “warming up to it” will be directly proportionate to: 1) How good the hire will be at GM in terms of their background, qualifications, and recent successes. Some of the names mentioned like Dan Morgan, Will McClay, George Paton, Kyle Smith, etc... have me giddy just because they’re guys who rose through the ranks and will get a chance to make a name for themselves for the first time as the top personnel guy. I’ll be happy with guys like Rick Smith (you corrected me on that, I had no idea about the reason he left the Texans, very sad) or (after I learned that he was with the Colts under Ballard recently) Morocco Brown. Hurney, too, but I’ll have some skepticism regarding it being too much of a comfort hire versus the most qualified. 2) How they structure it. If the GM gets final say over the roster outside of the 53 during the season and reports to Dan, not Ron, I’ll be ecstatic. I will have next to no problems with the way they went about it at that point. I wouldn’t care that Ron was the one who lead that hiring process and, in fact, I’d like it for all the reasons you’ve mentioned as well as @KDawg If just one of those two things occur, the “warming up” will only be by that much with the other part of me concerned and skeptical. If neither occurs, ugh... don’t want to think about it. But if both? Yeah, awesome. TSO the insufferable homer will likely return.
  7. Hmmm... I don’t feel like dwelling on this anymore like I said, and it’s too off topic at this point, but my problem wasn’t with you not responding, it was coming in here, referring to my post while misrepresenting it, and then not tagging me in the process. You say you wanted to reply later and you know how the tag function works... but I felt slighted that was the route you chose. Look, like I said, I’m over it. I appreciate some of the gestures you’re making here, but I’m not crazy for seeing it that way, lol. Huh? I’m confused now. I’m talking about this post in this thread, which is what I quoted here and directly responded to: Are you saying now that this wasn’t referring to me and that it just happened to come the day after I had responded to you about this topic in the Allen thread? A big coinky dink? I mean, it seems like you knew what I was talking about right away here... so if that’s what you’re getting at that doesn’t make much sense. But I’m not sure where you’re going with this, lol. I think everything I said was related to whatever you said and whatever I’ve quoted from you. You said, in the above post I linked to and what I first quoted here in this thread, that: I was the one who responded to you in the Allen thread we’re referring to. I was the one who mentioned Haslam being a maniac while attempting to refute your points. So, yes, naturally I took this as directed right at me and I still don’t see a single reason not to. I don’t see why you’re thinking I’m confusing you with another poster. Hopefully that clears it up. But, yeah, I’m fine with moving on here, too. I think it’s best to take it to PM, as well, so as to avoid it taking the thread too off topic since it’s now just becoming about us versus the Browns and a philosophical discussion. Anything not relating to the Browns/Philosophical discussion and is about this particular issue between us and the following confusion shouldn’t be discussed here anymore, that’s a Mod directive. You can, otherwise, attack my points about organizational principles and the Browns all you want.
  8. Pointless rather than humorous? Excuse me? So you decide that based on what? Your whims? Why do you keep bringing up their prior record? The entire point was that they were trying to do it differently from what got them to those records. How are you missing this? Timing and context mean nothing to you? I can only speak for myself, but you quoted my post, so you’re NOT going to lump me in with anybody and get away with it. What I was saying, as well as many others were in that thread, was that they were trying to change their past failures and were committing to the right process by building a strong FO and prioritizing that. That has absolutely ZERO to do with their prior record, why are you acting like that’s what I was saying was good!? We specifically said, and I specifically said in the post you took out of context as well as a post I made expanding on it, that it doesn’t mean it’ll work, but that they can be commended for at least trying. The same way aspects of the process the Redskins are going through right now are commendable and some aren’t. None of it means that what is commendable is guaranteed to work and what isn’t is guaranteed to fail. But it’s about recognizing patterns. Is this really difficult to understand? “The right way” had nothing to do with Kitchens. Most of us didn’t even give our opinions on that. Either way, I don’t see what exactly about the process there that lead them to hiring Kitchens was wrong... it just ended up not working out. That’s ok. Admittedly, I didn’t study how they arrived to Kitchens over Gregg. I don’t know who they interviewed or what kind of hiring process they had. So I never commented on it and I don’t recall many doing so. You seem to just lump everyone into one category and pick and choose what you want to take from their posts based entirely on whims. That’s straight up trash discourse, man. Either way, they won twice as many games us as under Kitchens... what in the world gives us a right to laugh at them as Redskin fans!? So weird. If anything is wrong about the process, IMO, it’s how fast they’re abandoning ship. That’s what my concern was from the onset, just how impulsive Haslam is and how he can blow things up at any time. He should give them at least one more year. If it’s all Dorsey, then yes I put it on him. As for when most of us were commenting about the approach they were taking with the FO and commending them for it, since then they came from a 1-31 record over two years to 14-18-1. I mean, how is that not, at the very least, recognized as significant improvement? Why is that even laughable? I don’t recall anyone here saying they were immediately going to be a contender and win championships! Don’t you think their overall improvement since then is indicative of them doing something right? Or it’s just all to be laughed at and trashed? It’s just mind boggling to me. This has absolutely nothing to do with what was being pointed to as the “right way”. Again, what I was saying, which you misquoted, was that their prioritization of the FO and hiring people with solid resumés there was the right process. Was that false? What does that have to do with what they did afterwards? If they were willing to move on from Hue that fast, I agree, they shouldn’t have kept him. I never stated that was the right way. Why do you continue to assume positions and thrust them onto people? I’ve been nothing but consistent here, it’s extremely frustrating man, stop it. I agree, Dorsey hired Kitchens and he’s accountable if he’s saying it failed. That isn’t a good look. But, again, what does that have to do with anything? The MAIN POINT was that they were prioritizing the FO, hiring qualified people there and placing them in roles the majority of successful franchises have. Read that again. What is wrong with that? Tell me, what is wrong with that statement? And what does it have to do with what you’re saying here? To further qualify the point, I said that it doesn’t mean it’ll succeed. But that at least they’re trying. Did I say all GMs succeed? Did anyone? I didn’t comment on it after that. I didn’t give my opinion on Kitchens or Dorsey. I didn’t really look into their every move. They didn’t live up to the hype, but they also did improve... so I’m not seeing this joke here or why anyone is taking a victory lap about their failure when the Redskins ended up worse off since then! What alternate reality are we living in here!? As for blaming the owner... did you read the article I linked to? Could you tell me what you think of Haslam and how much of a lunatic he is? Honestly... do you think the environment and culture he’s created there has been conducive to success? We can commend him when he tries to do things the right way while acknowledging that he can ruin it at any time. That is perfectly reasonable considering what he’s been about his entire tenure. There is absolutely a “right way”, and the pattern has been borne out in the NFL for virtually its entire history. The VAST majority of sustainably successful franchises have really good to great Head Scouts (GM, EVP of Player Personnel, etc...) with final say over the roster. This is indisputable. The exceptions to this rule are extremely rare (Seahawks, Patriots), but even then the Seahawks still have someone qualified at that position and is considered the architect of that team by everyone around the league. With the Seahawks, John Schneider is considered the architect even though Carroll has final say. With the 49ers, for instance, John Lynch has final say over the 90 man roster, draft and FA during the offseason and Kyle has it over the 53 during the season. That’s actually what Ron had said he wanted himself before he was hired, which is why it was disappointing to see that shift during the initial presser. Hopefully that’s how it ends up, either way. You look at the teams that made the playoffs this season. Outside of the Pats and Texans (and that team is mostly a Rick Smith-built team so it’s unfair to even include them here), every one of them has a strong GM coming from a background in evaluating personnel with final say over the roster. 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 Seahawks have John Schneider. The Ravens have Eric DeCosta. The Saints have Mickey Loomis. The Eagles have Howie Roseman. The Packers have Brian Gutekunst. I mean, is it crazy to recognize this pattern? Really!? Is it nuts to look at that and want that for the Redskins, even if other models can work? Is it nuts to commend other teams who didn’t follow that model previously when they decide to do it, while recognizing that doesn’t automatically guarantee their success? Is that really humorous!? Maybe try to recognize nuance and don’t lump everyone into the same straw man you’ve created? Some were advocating for a total tank job, I get it, but you decided to throw my quote in there which had nothing to do with that so I’m not going to assume your sincerity there. That’s a bad look, man.
  9. Forgive me if I have trouble buying this, but you had posted in that thread after I had quoted you, so it being closed came well after you saw it. Furthermore, even if I ignored the above fact and assumed you intended to get to it later but just missed the thread being closed, I know that you know there’s such a thing here as tagging. Why didn’t you tag me if you wanted to continue that conversation (you claimed “you would have”, not me, which means you wanted to)? So, again, forgive me if I find it hard to believe that you honestly thought the only other option was to send a PM. But, whatever, it’s over. I’m not going to dwell on it anymore, just felt like it was pretty low and was hoping for an acknowledgement at the very least. Isn’t this a far cry from what you posted here first with everyone taking this incredibly weird victory lap that requires misconstruing positions? You joined in like “tell me about it” and then misrepresented my position. Not cool. And I didn’t use the owner’s incompetence as the only reason. I actually only mentioned him regarding what they’re doing now in blowing it all up, which I disagree with. I told you they should stay the course for now, but that it never meant it was guaranteed to work. You can have a sound process and still fail. But pointing to Haslam isn’t unreasonable, it’s actually the likeliest issue when you read about Haslam and what he’s all about (even he himself has admitted it). But the bigger point is, here, you’re pretty much agreeing with me while, initially, you’re taking my point out of context and claiming I was an apologist for the GM. Can you at least acknowledge the difference? You’re assuming when some of us mentioned the “the right way” it was one process and that’s it. Even if some did, it’s unfair to lump us all in one category. I’ve delineated over the years, on many occasions, that there are various forms of the “right way”, but the bottom line is you want someone qualified in the GM role and in charge of player personnel. I believe pretty much everyone is in agreement there. That is indisputable. Even the extremely few teams that have coaches higher in the hierarchy than their GMs still have someone there fulfilling that role at a high level. The Redskins have had Bruce and Vinny. How are we wrong about this in any possible way? Is it not the case that the vast majority of successful franchises have a GM with personnel chops either above the coach or equally reporting along with the coach to the Owner/top exec? Again, how are we wrong about this? Since when are the exceptions supposed to be accepted as norms and why would that move us from that position? @NickyJ I’ll address your further misconstruing of positions later, a bit busy right now. I’ll just say this for now though. Did you even read any of my points? Honestly, did you take the time to understand them at all? You think it’s acceptable to take a post out of context and ignore the points within it that are directly related to the argument you’re making? That is literally the opposite of healthy discourse. Do you know how it feels when you go out of your way to introduce nuance and qualify your positions sincerely with sound ideas, only to have that totally removed by someone responding to them?
  10. I just saw this. I’m the quote in the middle. Why didn’t you continue with what was right after it? The process was sound. It doesn’t always work (and I disagree with the Giants and Browns firing coaches so quickly, that wouldn’t be a part of the “Good process” I was referring to). Those are both statements that are perfectly reasonable and still are. Why would you ignore that? I expanded in that same thread: Some of you guys are embarrassing in here. The Browns STILL had a better year than us, why are you misconstruing positions and taking victory laps? What is wrong with you? Why didn’t you just respond to me there instead of come here and say this? Can you understand the difference between recognizing good processes and being an apologist for someone or not? If I go about working the right way and still fail, it happens, I just try again. I would say the same for Dan and the Redskins. I even said it when Scot was hired, that it was less about Scot and more about the process/structure. Is this some difficult concept to understand? Haslam is a maniac. Like, a legitimate maniac, not just how the word normally gets applied. Thinking he absolutely has a hand in this is perfectly reasonable. Read this article about him and tell me if you think this is normal behavior: That’s just a taste of it. Seriously, read the whole article and then tell me I’m just an apologist for the GM and am targeting Haslam unfairly. Tell me it’s unreasonable to think he’s a big problem there?
  11. Fascinating stuff, thanks fellas. Lurie isn’t an idiot, so I find this even more intriguing than usual. I always thought Pederson got way too much credit for that stacked roster he won a Super Bowl with... but that’s how it usually goes with coaches. Too much praise or too much criticism for what they can do. Maybe his head got too big and Lurie is trying to put him in his place? I don’t know. Either way, that isn’t a good look. Can’t play games like that within the building. And you’d think that at this point Doug would have total control over the coaching staff. Pretty nuts. Another thing I found fascinating was how little say Doug has had over his assistant coaches from the onset. I didn’t know he had no say in the Schwartz hire. It’s actually what I had wished happened when Jay was originally hired. Inexperienced offensive guy? Do everything you can to pair him with a stud defensive coordinator (we all know what we did instead). But you got to let him build his staff on his side of the ball, at least. Once he grows into his role, you back off more and give him control over the entire coaching staff. But if this article is true, doesn’t seem like they did that with Pederson at any point. Interesting. Development of coaches, even head coaches, within organizations is so under appreciated and misunderstood, it’s sad.
  12. Wow, really!? That is... bad, lol. I’d love to read more about that. Going to look if there’s anything now.
  13. I think that’s a good thing, honestly. I want Ron to be forced to look at candidates from everywhere and not just who he’s comfortable with, especially at GM. Get the best guy in here, period. I get it, but I wouldn’t place a big emphasis on that either way. In the end, Snyder is going to do Snyder. It’s up to him. You don’t want ANYONE really being that cozy with Dan to where their power and tenure supersedes their results. If Ron is the guy too cozy with Dan, that’s still a problem. That being said, I get why you say that, because we’ve seen Dan being more willing to move on from coaches than his top execs like Vinny and Bruce. I just blame that on Dan not understanding why his coaches fail and how much of it is BECAUSE of the environment and structure he’s created with his top execs, versus because he was too cozy with them. If that makes sense. But it’s reasonable to think what you’re thinking. As for the Marty-Schneider relationship... I don’t know how that went exactly, but I just don’t like the coach having that power. I think the only reason it works with the Seahawks is because Schneider is essentially given the power to build the team. Carroll’s “final say” is by name only outside of the 53 during the season, as everyone recognizes Schneider as the architect. That’s just a rare occurrence, and kudos to Carroll for essentially giving it up, but I don’t know why they even have it that way if that’s how it works. The Patriots are the exception to the exception because of Brady. I won’t delve deeper, you know where I’m coming from on that and I know you pretty much agree. So that leaves the Chiefs and the Saints, both of whom haven’t done it this way. I don’t get why they’re being referred to. That’s concerning. Now, maybe Ron does that exactly like Pete, we get someone like Schneider in here in that position (maybe that IS Kyle Smith), and we allow them to build the team without Ron overruling them, essentially giving them final say over personnel outside of the 53 during the season. I’d have no problem with that, but I just don’t get why they’re not just saying that? Maybe they will once the hire is actually made. That’s my hope. But if Ron is the guy they all report to, I’m not sure I can just ignore the issues with it, as much as I want to. Maybe you’re on to something and it’s to provide that extra barrier to Snyder... but isn’t that just replacing it with Ron? And doesn’t that just mean that Snyder is still a problem and he’s still hindering us from setting it up right? I don’t know. Totally agree. You know both of us haven’t shut up about that for years, lol. For me, it was never about a centric model. The reality in the NFL is that the majority owner is the guy, outside of the Packers, of course. But then they have a President themselves who is on top of it all. I think the way the argument has shifted recently into this “centric” stuff, as well as when hires are made, is actually leading to confusion as to what we’ve been saying for years. We just wanted a top notch Head Scout in here running player personnel. That’s really all it ever was. We wanted that person to be qualified and be able to fulfill that role without unwarranted interference. And we knew that, more than anything, not having that person has killed the chances of every coach we’ve had here. The majority of successful models have varied from having the HC and GM both equally reporting to the Owner/top exec or the GM being the top exec himself and the HC reports to him, but it’s extremely rare to see the HC be the top exec. So that being the case now is pretty concerning, and it’s not a new thing for Dan. I’m bothered by why they’re acting like it is and why they’re actually giving false examples of it. Doesn’t mean it won’t work. And maybe you’re right, that Dan can’t help himself but mess that up when a GM is the top exec and he gets too cozy with him as opposed to the coach... but I’d say, if that were the case, then have them both equally report to him. That should be an even better way of avoiding one guy becoming the only voice for Dan or becoming too cozy with him. But it just goes back to Dan himself, again. That’s what I was getting at when trying to marry what @Lombardi's_kid_brother and @KDawgbrought up about Dan recently, regarding him needing just one voice and his malleability. We need Dan to be able to discern things himself. That’s the only way any of this works. I don’t think that has anything to do with making the HC the top exec and the concerns that come with it. Agreed, but then the problem still remains that Ron is the evaluator of the evaluators. Is that ideal? Should he be in that position when his background is more about coaching and teaching versus scouting, resource management, and roster construction? Why? Yeah, I’d love to see that article, because even in the article you posted, it’s not the model they implied nor how fans took it. It’s totally possible I’m overreacting and it’ll all get sorted out like this. And Jay was absolutely right to have that beef. You can’t discipline, build around the guys you want, or have the authority you need as a coach during the season if you’re not able to control that. We even heard how Bruce was involved in the depth chart, it was ridiculous. I think it was a big part of the lashing out that lead to Peterson not being active the first game. Just all around problematic. I was so happy when I read that quote from Ron before we hired him, where he said he doesn’t want final say over the roster but just the active 46 (the 53 during the season, essentially). But then the presser happened and the words they used were definitely concerning in regards to that. The fact that so many fans even started pushing this “coach-centric” stuff and started to shift the conversation to who hires whom first, ignoring or downplaying that it’s about the structure most of all, suggests I wasn’t off about what it implied. If the GM hired reports to Ron and isn’t his equal in terms of authority and span of control over his department... that means Ron evaluates how good of a job that guy is doing and it’s not Dan or another executive better suited to do so fairly. That’s just an extremely rare set up for sustainable success. Now, Ron might end up being a great executive. He might be the perfect guy to evaluate everyone, showing the ability to separate his roles and avoid his inherent biases. It’s just hard to believe that, automatically. There’s nothing in his past to indicate he’s best suited to do that. The most success he’s had was in a traditional HC role with others performing the supporting roles needed and him just focusing on that. Unfortunately, we need Dan to ultimately be good at that. There’s really no avoiding that. Again, I’m hoping that, after the draft, we name a GM, Ron gives them final say over player personnel, and they both report to Dan who becomes better at discerning who is doing their job and who isn’t. Thus far, I’m very happy with the set up and the titles/roles they’ve created. I LOVE how a lot of the vagueness that was the structure before is getting eliminated. I like how there isn’t a corner of the organization, no matter how tenured or how close to Dan they previously were, free from accountability. Very good signs about Ron’s ability as an executive. But it’s only the beginning. Like you said, he’s going to make mistakes and he’s going to have weaknesses along with his strengths. Which is why it’s vital there are checks and balances and why most successful organizations set it up the way they do.
  14. What I like about all these moves today, outside of what I already mentioned regarding long-tenured members like Schaffer and Hess and the issues there, is that every role is clearly defined, the people filling them have a background specializing in them, and, outside of Doug’s, there’s not much redundancy. I don’t know what Doug will do differently than Malcolm Blacken, but I can see him being an asset in terms of relating to players, so why not add him there? I don’t see two voices to help the players out being a real problem, unlike with personnel acquisition. Either way, there’s not much vagueness to these titles and roles. I love that. Doug was a redundancy in the personnel department. Many of us saw through that when Allen made that move to appease the fanbase after Scot. Schaffer had a title that probably didn’t really reflect his role (Senior Vice President of Football Operations) and then also had the redundant title of “General Counsel”. Like, exactly what did he have power to do? Just another vote to add to the lack of cohesion while Bruce did what he wanted anyway? With Rob Rogers, we know exactly what he’s going to do and what role he’s playing. He’ll stay in that lane, hopefully. Ron was probably losing his mind when trying to understand what everyone was doing here and exactly what authority and span of control they had, lol. They were like “it’s a Redskin decision, bro”.
  15. You need one, and pretty much every team has one, but what will happen are guys like Doug, Kyle Smith and Alex Santos will assume some, if not all, of those responsibilities. Ron will probably assume the responsibility of overall resource management (assessing trades or what cap is spent on and where), communicating what positions/skill sets they want to prioritize in pursuing, and will also be in charge of evaluating the jobs Williams, Smith and Santos do. A lot on his plate that he’s never done before, at least not officially. And you’d rather have one guy focusing on the above who comes from that background of scouting and/or team-building and/or resource management, obviously. Good news? It’s not Bruce Allen anymore! This is more about the fact that the qualified candidates for GM have their contracts running through May, as well as the work they’ve done up to this point. So much of the draft preparation has already been completed, scouting reports given, information gathered, etc... and it’s all tied to the team they’re on with an offseason plan that runs through FA and the draft that’s been in motion for months. So, yeah, in terms of this offseason it’s going to be hard for a GM to have a big impact and you’re limiting the pool of qualified candidates if you do it now. We missed that boat when we didn’t fire Allen earlier and bring one in right away, as many of us mentioned. But that’s ok. It’s not ideal, but it’s normal. And it doesn’t diminish the need for one. The bigger issue, as we’ve been discussing here, is how it’s all structured. We’ll see.
  16. Indeed. Yeah, I was getting a bit frustrated about that. I’ve always understood it as such, and many have recognized Reid’s resurgence with the Chiefs as being largely due to him operating in a more traditional Head Coaching role where he’s not doing it all. So to see Dan and Ron point to that as one example of a “coach-centric” model, and then it trickle down within the fanbase, was immensely frustrating. It’s not. Never was. Reid stays in his coaching lane with quality people in supporting roles relative to their expertise and that has helped him immensely. And, yes, of course it’s collaborative. That doesn’t change what authority and span of control is given (final say) to those roles. Agreed, it’s my preference, and why I was actually really happy when we had that structure with Allen, McCloughan and Gruden. When Jay was first hired, I hated the idea that Bruce was running the show since: 1) I never viewed him as qualified enough to have final say over player personnel, and; 2) I recognized he was brought in to be a healthy barrier between Snyder and Mike, but ultimately failed at that one job miserably considering the PR war they got involved in, the way he usurped and consolidated his power, and then rewarded those who participated in that atmosphere of divisions/factions (Haslett, Scott Campbell). I was sure Jay‘s tenure would just end up in yet another failure walking into that set up. So when they made that change after the first year, I was ecstatic. I was skeptical about Dan/Allen messing it up, of course, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt initially. I was also worried about McCloughan’s past, but I had said that the structure was most important to me and as long as they maintained it, even if he failed and had to be let go, we’d be ok. Alas, that’s not how it went down. And that was my biggest turning point in terms of placing any hope in the team so long as Dan had Allen as his top executive. I differ here slightly. It’s not my top preference, but I don’t mind the GM model who is essentially the top executive while also being in charge of player personnel, because I place resource management higher than coaching on the scale of achieving sustainable success in the NFL. I know you claim to believe it’s 50/50 between the two, though I struggle to accept that claim based on your posting history (I think you lean way too heavily on coaching and downplay the significance of resource management/player acquisition/roster construction), but I won’t get into that here. As for the preference of not having the HC responsible for player personnel, I totally agree there. No doubt about it. For me, it’s not just about scapegoating, which is a big part of it, but it’s about time management, organizational support, and placing people in roles relative to their expertise. Here’s the problem. Dan, absent giving someone those titles of Chairman and CEO (a bit redundant, anyway, lol), IS going to act in that capacity whether we like it or not. Fan revolt or not, it shouldn’t even matter. He IS the Chairman and CEO unless or until someone else gets those titles. And even were he to give someone else those titles and delegate those roles to them, he’d still ultimately be above them and would still have to assess the job they’re doing. He’d still have to set it up to where there is a fair timeline and goal they’re supposed to reach within it. He’d still have to have a system of accountability that emanates from himself. @Lombardi's_kid_brother made a great point in a response to me about Dan essentially needing one guy to be in his ear. And to bring what @KDawg said into it regarding Dan’s “malleability”, I think that is and has been our biggest problem. The overarching, unifying vision needs to come from the Owner, ultimately. Dan simply doesn’t have a sound philosophical foundation for building an organization. He’s emotional and reactionary. He needs others to tell him what to do, which wouldn’t be a problem in and of itself, but he chooses wrongly. He doesn’t know how to filter out sound advice from bad advice and, even more, he doesn’t know how to recognize what may be based on biases more than objective truth even when it comes in the form of sound advice. I know that’s a load... but an example would be Dan just listening to anything Joe Gibbs tells him. Joe can be the greatest coach of all time (and I believe he is), but that wouldn’t necessarily mean he’s a great executive, either. It could also mean that his perception of coaching isn’t the best one to pull advice from because it’s inherently biased towards coaches, he may ignore or downplay his own weaknesses in evaluating talent/roster construction which would mean he’d do the same with others and, maybe even more than any of that, he’s assuming many are on his level in terms of what they can handle when they’re not. Dan needs to be able to filter through all of these things while listening to others. I’m not saying that is what is happening here regarding Joe, but what I’m saying is that the biggest factor in all of this is and has been Dan. It will always be Dan. What happens if Ron doesn’t succeed right away? Who will be in Dan’s ear? How quickly will he change based on that “malleability”? My problem now is that Dan is up there talking about his research and the group of people he’s listened to and is STILL MAKING MISTAKES. Had he just said the Seahawks and Patriots are the examples of a coach-centric approach, I would’ve been ok with it, in terms of the examples given themselves. He wouldn’t be, at worst, lying or, at best, confused. All of us would’ve then asked if it was smart to model your organization around these two exceptions versus what other successful franchises do that far exceed them in numbers. But he and Ron both added the Chiefs and Saints’ models. Those are NOT models where the HC is given ultimate power and made to be the top exec. Why are they saying it like it is? Why is Dan acting like this is new for him, by claiming it’s based on the research he’s done, when he’s done it before with Marty, Joe and Mike? Why did Ron call what Dan told him about his research a “unique” perspective, since it’s “Coach-centric”, but then turn around and point to the Chiefs? None of this makes much sense. Are they trying to hide just how exceptional this model is? The only way it does is if they mean something altogether different than what many are assuming is “Coach-centric”. Maybe it has nothing to do with the structure of the organization and they only mean, by that term, that they need to support their coaches better and their coaches are going to be put in a better position to thrive. Which is what I’ve been begging for all along. So that would mean that, yes, we are going to model it like the Chiefs and that we’ll see someone in that role with final say over player personnel reporting to Dan (or whomever he assigns that position to), and not to Ron. That is my hope. Which is the problem I had originally stated based on that initial presser. Which you’ve also stated is “not ideal”. I’m glad we’re pretty much on the same page now about it. As for delegating, yes... that’s going to be key if Ron is the top exec, but the problem you’re referring to where they demand to pick a guy is rarely, if ever, the problem. As we’ve already laid out, a lot of it is about who is evaluating whom, inherent biases, time management issues and being overburdened. I’m a bit confused here. Are you saying the GM will be equal in power to Ron, but they’re just not going to say it? Is that what you’re projecting will happen? If so, that’d be utterly ridiculous. I guess you’re saying that Dan won’t do that for PR reasons... but, I mean, he’s the owner, lol. We’ve got to face reality. And I think a lot of fans would be happy that the GM is given that power as opposed to just focusing on the aspect of reporting to Dan. I’m not the type of fan who lives in some alternate reality that believes Dan should not be involved in anything. He’s the owner, he HAS to be. This is why you’ll always see me mentioning “unwarranted interference”. What I mean by that is, sometimes, interference is necessary and warranted (not by force, but to support your hires when they need it), but by and large you have to allow the people you’ve assigned to the roles you’ve created to fulfill them relative to their expertise. And it’s not just about you interfering yourself, but making sure no one is undermining anyone else in their respective position and that the hierarchy you’ve established isn’t getting corrupted. I’m with you about the “collaborative” thing and how someone has to have final say, but again, final say over everything is ultimately the Owner’s. He can delegate that to his top executive, but it’d still be with him in the end since he can fire said top exec at any time. Outside of the owner, it’s basically a separation of “final say” depending on the titles/roles themselves. That’s what the organization is, essentially. You want the HC to have final say over his coaching staff and teaching the players since that’s his area of expertise, but the Head Scout/GM to have final say over player personnel since that’s his. Final say here is about what each role, as defined within the organization, is given in terms of authority and span of control. Unsure if that’s what you’re doing, but we shouldn’t conflate the positives of someone having “final say” and the accountability it brings with the HC being given it as the top executive. The problems remain.
  17. Agreed. I try hard to remove emotion from it when I’m in analysis-mode, lol. It kind of goes both ways, though, doesn’t it? Some might be willingly blind to any legitimate concerns and will lash out when others present them just because it’s knocking them off their high, while others do the opposite and just find issues with everything and anything. I call the latter types the “flailers”, because they just “flail” at everything and everyone without recognizing any nuance or what impact the environment has on them (emanating from the top), causing them to function poorly. That’s really what I’ve prided myself on here as a poster. I try my best to introduce that nuance and layered-thinking into the discussion... which often gets me in trouble with length, but hey, that’s how it goes.
  18. Agreed, I don’t have any problem with anything that’s been done thus far regarding the coaching staff and what he wants to do as a teacher. That’s his realm. The question is on an executive level, and in particular with who has final say on player personnel outside of the active 46 during the season. That has yet to be made totally clear, but thus far, it IS absolutely concerning with what was said during the presser. Nonetheless, if the Chiefs’ model is what they’re going to emulate, then it’s not “Coach-centric” and we’re going to have an equally powerful GM here. That’d be great. If that’s not what happens... well, the concerns listed here were completely based in reality. Anyway, this is getting pretty redundant now, lol. I’ll stop here.
  19. I don’t know if this was directed at me, but if it was... I am doing just that, treating it on its own while comparing to the rest of the NFL. That’s all, nothing more, nothing less. I also think we can look at Dan’s past and recognize patterns, but that doesn’t automatically mean they’ll repeat. And there are key differences this time around when he’s went the “vet coach with all the power” route. I’m hoping the biggest key is that said coach doesn’t retain all that power and we get a legit GM in here with power over player personnel. That would be the Chiefs’ model which is a version of the traditional model that most successful franchises have employed. But I’m not going to act like there aren’t legitimate concerns with what’s been said thus far.
  20. No, you don’t suck at explaining it, lol... it’s possible I’m overreacting, I know, but that’s the key for me. If he’s the top exec, it’s a problem. If anyone sucks at explaining it, it was Dan and Ron themselves during that initial presser. No big deal if it all gets sorted out, but you can’t fault me for being concerned. I mentioned myself that Del Rio was a good sign, as well, regarding too much being on his plate. Bottom line, if they actually follow the Chiefs’ model, I’ll be happy. I just don’t want Ron essentially evaluating everyone himself... his expertise is with the coaching staff and teaching players. His greatest successes have come when that’s all he did with strong support from the people in charge of player personnel. Now, that doesn’t mean he’ll automatically fail at an all-encompassing executive level... but it’s just really risky and doesn’t actually fit the VAST majority of successful models that exist. I like everything except with the structure as is right now and with the words they’re using. If that sorts itself out, and they just worded it poorly initially, I’m happy.
  21. We’ve always known who’s in charge. Dan is in charge. He’s the owner. He’s always been at the top no matter whom he’s assigned or delegated to be his top exec. He still is. Not Ron. It’s Dan. Dan can fire Ron at any time. You can’t dismiss that and claim that’s some proof that this is best. That has no bearing on what is best. The best thing, for us, would be for Dan to: 1) Structure the organization so the roles are defined, support each other, and allow people to thrive within them without being overburdened. 2) Hire competent, qualified, people to fill those clearly defined roles relative to their expertise without unwarranted interference. 3) If he delegates the above to someone else, then have a hiring process and system of accountability that recognizes who’s best qualified for the job and discern if/when they’re not performing at a high enough level. Assuming “this is the best” because Ron, with a career in coaching, is given the task to do the above is just that, an assumption. And it’s based on very little in terms of evidence. Pointing out that he’s hired better coaches than FO people means nothing to your point and, in fact, only highlights how poorly said coaches were set up in the first place. Most success around the league has emanated from a structure that places an expert “Head Scout” in charge of the scouting department and player personnel, and an expert Head Coach in charge of the coaching staff. It’s always been a collaborative effort, or at least meant to be. I mean, for God’s sake, that’s the point of organization. Sometimes the Head Coach reports to the Head Scout, sometimes they both report to the Owner. But it’s extremely rare to see the Head Scout reporting to the Head Coach. I believe only the Patriots and Seahawks currently employ that model. (New Orleans was mentioned by Snyder according to Ron and I have no idea why, see below). The Chiefs model that keeps being thrown around is not “Coach-centric”. And it’s actually important in showing that this whole “who hires whom first” thing has no basis in anything, since the important thing is the structure. Reid got hired first, but Dorsey (and their GM position to this day) was made just as powerful. Reid can get fired from his position while the GM retains his, and vice versa. Reid can’t fire the GM himself, and vice versa. New Orleans? What!? Snyder said that? Ugh. Not directed at you, SIP... Payton reports directly to Mickey Loomis who holds the Executive VP/GM title. Here’s his bio on their website: So, yeah, I stand by what I’ve said for a long time. The two exceptions are the Seahawks and Patriots. I believe the Patriots are an exception to the exception because of Brady (so as not to be redundant, it’s not just about his QBing skills), so I don’t believe anyone should take much of anything from them. So, in my opinion, that leaves one example in the NFL to hope that we emulate here if Ron is given Carroll’s final say over the roster (which he really has delegated to Schneider outside of the 46 active during the season, according to everything I’ve read about it, which is why it even works). We don’t have their Stadium which is a massive advantage, or their top notch facilities, but hey... 1/31 is a great shot, right?! I hope so, brother. I really do. This is all so confusing right now. And maybe I’m just overreacting. But when I first read Ron’s quote about not wanting final say over the roster and just the active 46, which is a good model that most successful teams employ, I was ecstatic. And then Dan comes on and talks about “the coach is everything” and Ron basically affirms it. The reports after that have essentially been, yeah, he’s got final say but of course he won’t say it because he doesn’t need to. That’s not what I wanted to hear. I hope they really do follow the Chiefs’ model. It’s not a good sign though that their words aren’t matching up with reality. The Chiefs aren’t “Coach-centric”, that’s actually media-driven more than anything else. Snyder mentioning the Saints as an example? Not good.
  22. @Skinsinparadise Thanks for posting that article. I don’t understand the Reid and Chiefs comparison they keep talking about. Weren’t Dorsey and Reid equally reporting to Hunt there when Reid was originally hired (Dorsey was hired within a week of Reid’s hiring and given final say over player personnel)? Brett Veach is the GM now and on their website’s Front Office chart he also reports directly to Hunt, not Reid. What am I missing here? Reid doesn’t even have the title of VP of Football Operations that he did with the Eagles. I’m not seeing anywhere that he has final say on player personnel. I’ve read a bunch of times that a big reason Reid has had success with the Chiefs is that he can focus more on his coaching while not being overwhelmed with too much power on the player personnel side. How is this at all the same and why are people acting like it is? They have one of the more traditional models where the GM and HC both report to the owner/top exec. If they’re basing it on the Chiefs model, then it isn’t “coach-centric”. It’d be each title (GM or whatever they call the Head Scout, HC being Ron of course) with the authority and span of control given to them over their respective fields. Both report to Dan. Again, what am I missing here? It’s frustrating that Reid and the Chiefs are being used as an example here of Ron being the sole, top executive, when they’re actually an example of what I’ve been talking about for years! If Ron is to follow the Chiefs’ model, that’d mean he’s not the top executive himself, he’ll just have power as the HC (and the 46 active during the season), but the Head Scout (GM, EVP of Player Personnel) will have final say over the roster. Which would make me immensely happy. But the way this is being framed right now is weird. Why won’t they just say that?
  23. lol, not necessarily. I’m not sure Wilks is replacing her or anything. But I love his qualifications.