• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by thesubmittedone

  1. Sure, they can all factor into it, as I’ve said. But if we’re going by all the reports and what has come directly from the players themselves, the issues were directed at the ATS almost exclusively. Reporters like Keim and Bashir, among others, have said the players they’ve spoken to unanimously love the Strength & Conditioning Staff and credit them for becoming better athletes during their time in the NFL. As for the Medical Staff, we haven’t heard anyone complaining about the surgeries performed by James Andrews or the work done by Robin West and Inova, but that stuff is way more confidential so who knows. As for placing an emphasis on durability, I agree with you. We didn’t value durability in general, but Bruce’s overall philosophy of bargain-shopping (to an obsessive degree) killed us in many ways, one of which ended up in acquiring too many guys with injury problems. That may have actually worked if we had a great Athletic Training Staff and the facilities to go along with it, but it was just the opposite. Players that were often hurt here, like Orakpo or Laron Landry, went elsewhere and managed to stay healthier for much longer periods of time. Just another part of that damn good culture we had that really helped our coaches and players compete at the highest of levels. Hopefully, Vermillion makes a positive impact and we see improvement there. I was honestly slightly disappointed by the numbers @goskins10 posted, but they’re far from comprehensive. And they were still, nonetheless, better than ours on average.
  2. SC trainer? I feel like a broken record at this point, but the Strength & Conditioning Staff has nothing to do with injury recovery plans or timelines. They don’t clear players. They’re part of the coaching staff and focus on individual/positional workout regimens. The Medical Staff are the doctors/surgeons that fully diagnose and perform surgery, if necessary, on the players. Sometimes that term, when used, includes the Athletic Training Staff. Speaking of which... The Athletic Training Staff is basically the communicating body in between the coaching staff and the medical staff. Really, they’re in between EVERYONE in the organization. It’s a tough job, for sure. They can often be the first line of diagnosis (preliminary), they work with the players on injury recovery plans and timelines, they implement methods to prevent injury, and they clear players to play. The SC and Medical Staff can definitely be a part of the problem, but by all accounts the players here have had nothing but praise for those guys, while the frustrations have been almost exclusively leveled at Hess and the ATS. Here are the most recent ones: It is a problem around the NFL and Hess isn’t the only Trainer who’s had problems... but we've definitely had one of the worst, if not the worst, one. Now, as is with everyone under Dan, it might not totally be his fault. He may have been undermined often. Most people thought nothing of this when it came out, but it says a lot actually: Either way, it was time to move on. Maybe Hess can go elsewhere and shed the stain of the organization and improve on his craft. The following is an interesting article from years ago, but what’s particularly relevant for us is the stuff on Vermillion and Rivera: The last bit here is very relevant. The better the Trainer (or better yet, the more authority given to the Trainer), the less gray area there is and the more power they have to protect the player from themselves and from coaches who want them to play and don’t know any better. The good sign here is that Rivera acted against his coaching impulses and sat Cam. Which certainly gives us room for hope regarding how he’ll be as an executive. It’s indicative of his ability to separate himself from roles depending on the context (though one can argue that it was more about how Cam looked on the field and how he wouldn’t have helped them win much than anything else). The bad sign here is that Vermillion either didn’t have the necessary authority or didn’t recognize the severity enough to make that decision himself. You don’t really want to see coaches having to decide that. Or it’s just a very rare, truly “gray” situation that doesn’t mean a whole lot. If anyone has the time, read this article written about the Giant’s Head Trainer, Ronnie Barnes, a while back: Some pertinent bits:
  3. I think that’s kind of the point of it, though. If you see a pattern, that should pretty much eliminate luck from the equation. If you’re consistently ranked among the worse and there are other teams consistently ranked among the best... the take away should absolutely be that something is wrong with the operation compared to elsewhere and it’s not just a randomized product. Now, that doesn’t have to mean it’s necessarily on the Training Staff. Could be the facilities, the fields, the surgeons, etc... and/or some combination thereof, but with us the two constants have been Snyder and Hess since the early 2000s. Hard to assume Hess played no role.
  4. Ok, help me out here. If I’m reading this right, I’m coming away with the Panthers being better than us on average over the course of that time, but not necessarily good? Or is that off? I need to look at it more, I know, but just my initial take away from it that. I remember how 2013 was such an anomaly for us injury-wise, so it makes sense. We were so healthy that year and it was one of of our worst seasons.
  5. You don’t think there’s a conflict here, though? How do you really back off if everyone is reporting to you? Can you actually do that without giving that person the power to evaluate YOU yourself and ultimately fire you if necessary? That’s what makes it so difficult. He’s got to be that guy who can discern the difference between his two roles and evaluate everyone in the process. That’s where it gets difficult. I’m not saying it’s impossible. It’s just very difficult and more so than in the traditional set up. I think you’re not seeing the internal struggle that will naturally come with “letting a guy do his thing” while evaluating his job overall that is also tied to your role as a teacher. Can you recognize when it was you, or other coaches you’re loyal to, versus the personnel consistently? I think that’s absolutely a difficult task to do. We’re talking about humans with personal biases. The separation of roles does help mitigate that to a significant degree. Ultimately, you want the Owner to be able to discern this best. I agree with all of this, but I don’t think it’s relevant to the problem I’m referring to. Those things you listed are all within the realm of the HC title as traditionally understood, anyway. And, you’re right, it can easily become too much on their plate if they’re calling plays, as well. But doesn’t that add to my point instead of diminish it? Too many roles occupied by one guy, no matter how you define them, can harm them? You decided to separate play calling from an executive-style role, and I agree, but isn’t that subjective? You’re kind of choosing which ones are and which ones aren’t, but based on what? One can argue overall vision of the game and playing chess with opposition’s strategy includes within it play calling on game day, can’t they? I agree, but I wouldn’t word it this way myself. The structure is vital and there’s no point where it doesn’t matter, but the people in those roles are what ultimately succeed or fail at fulfilling them.
  6. That is the issue I’m wanting to look at and is directly related to the Athletic Training Staff. That isn’t just about luck. Far from it, which is why some teams are consistently decent on the injury front and some are consistently poor, which we’ve been damn near the entire time Hess has been in charge. Not to mention there’s been way too many players complaining about it, with the culmination of the Trent episode. That metric of “man games lost” gives you some idea about just how good or bad a job that Staff is doing. It’s important. That may be the case where Dan was undermining him and forcing him to speed up the recovery of players. Which is what leads to guys playing when they shouldn’t be and re-injuring the same thing or some joint/muscle tied to that because they were compensating. Absolutely, and wouldn’t be crazy to assume. I’ve said as much. Either way, it was an important step to remove him. We are most certainly all idiots regarding what we’re discussing here, but some of us do a better job recognizing our own idiocy, can research stuff that highlights our previous idiocy and can then adjust to become smarter idiots. Hard to gauge much from that data without doing a ton of research to compare. I don’t feel like becoming a smarter idiot right now. Search function is rough, but it works the same for all of us. I’ll see what I can do, though. You’re right, what he posted before might have something about the Panthers.
  7. As @Skinsinparadise already touched on, I disagree with the very premise of this thread. I don’t believe the quality of patience given to an owner should be exclusively tied to how long he retains his hires. In fact, that might be one of the least significant factors when assessing that. You could do a lot of impulsive, emotional, impatient things during the tenure of any one of your hires, no matter how long they’ve been there. You can undermine them yourself, allow for the chain of command to be corrupted by their supposed subordinates, affect things overtly or subtly that are supposed to be within their span of control, etc... all while keeping them on board as long as they don’t go nuclear. Also, patience should be a quality associated with winning. There is a wisdom in knowing who to stick with and who not to and for how long. I honestly don’t think Dan has any philosophy there or process he believes in. It’s all reactionary. You could argue, for instance, that he’s actually impatient if he’s retaining someone he likes who is clearly not getting the job done within am acceptable time frame out of fear for having to do a reset/starting over organizationally. Essentially, holding on to the desperate hope being sold to him that “we’re close”, which means little needs to be done on his end and he doesn’t have to wait long (impatience), rather than having to put in the effort to build a better organizational environment more conducive to success (which would require plenty of patience).
  8. I think I may have ruined it for us all if anyone who actually did subscribe to it was about to post those stats.
  9. My God, that is outrageous. Yeah, don’t subscribe at that price. I mean, if you want to be an idiot and pay for that so we can see that stat I will thank you while being totally embarrassed for you that you’re that moronic, but hey, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do for ES.
  10. So I’m reading about this guy and Panther fans seem to be very happy he’s gone. That means very little as most vocal fans, especially on Twitter, are complete idiots, but he certainly does come with some baggage. What I’d like to know is where have the Panthers ranked in terms of overall injuries over the years? I know @goskins10 used to post a stat that would track that. Something like “starter games missed”. That’s my way of assigning homework.
  11. Just got around to reading the entirety of this thread (there are so many threads and so much activity recently, it’s awesome and exhausting at the same time, lol). Honestly, I feel like this thread is rife with recency bias. It also has a lot of misconstruing of positions, but that’s to a lesser extent and is more about nuance than anything else. I mean, it’s to be expected, we’re Skins’ fans and want whatever Dan does to work out, but it’s obvious to me that’s what’s happening here more than anything else. I wonder how much it would differ had Dan hired, say, Rick Smith first as is being reported and then had him lead the process of hiring a coaching staff. I have a tough time believing it’d be anything other than close to unanimous acceptance that things are being done right. Or at least an initial attempt is being made to do it right. Either way, I’m glad most are starting to recognize just how vital it all is. It’s quite annoying to see a lot of hindsight being applied right now without admitting it, but oh well. For years, the focus was almost exclusively on coaching and a lack of understanding about just how much organizational structure mattered... so seeing everyone on the same page regarding that is refreshing. That is definitely a change. A big one. We can discuss the pros and cons of each model all we want, we can focus on lesser issues that color the main point wrongly, but the bottom line is every role is important and the people placed into them need to be able to fulfill them relative to their expertise without being undermined unwarrantedly. Which, I believe, everyone is in agreement of. I don’t feel like posting everything I have on the topic here or reiterating it since it’s already quite redundant... but if anyone is wondering what I’m talking about (especially about the misconstruing of positions) than just look at my recent posting history elsewhere. I think it stands on its own as a refutation to some of the ideas posited or being more readily accepted here when they shouldn’t be. But I’ll leave it with this. Ron is in a tough, tough position and has a massive undertaking to deal with. He has to be able to act as two versions of himself, the Top Executive and the Head Coach. He has to be able to make decisions removed from the impulses, emotionalism, and pressure associated with his role as a coach. That has been incredibly difficult for so many and has lead to more failures than with the other method/s in terms of sustainability, as we’ve seen under Dan himself, but it’s certainly not impossible. The most promising aspect of it thus far, and what makes it different from what Dan has done in the past with this model, is it seems like there are no aspects of this organization being protected by Dan, no matter his comfort with them or their tenure. That can change, and it doesn’t mean Ron will make the best hires himself, but that is a difference and a good sign.
  12. It all matters. Honestly, if I were to point to one consistent theme throughout all of my posts here the last how many years, it’s about relaying the realization that there shouldn’t be any “centric” model. I think it’s sort of an over-simplification of the insistence many of us have had over the years of a more proper organizational hierarchy. It’s about people being hired and placed in roles they’re qualified for, and then allowing them to fulfill those roles without unwarranted interference. It was never about who’s central really, but more about a support structure where everyone benefits. And let’s be real, ultimately there is no model in the NFL other than an owner-centric model. But yeah, they’re all vital to success, but some more than others. Which is where many of us disagree, but what happens is people too often exaggerate each other’s stances. So when I say “coaching is over-emphasized at the pro level”, it’s perceived as I’m saying they have little to no impact, when it’s far from the same thing. And now the debate has shifted to who hires whom first and all that, when it really has always been about the organizational hierarchy, authority, and span of control regarding the roles assigned within it. Regarding coaching, I believe that over-emphasizing happens because of: 1) The way the NFL is set up in terms of who holds consistent pressers, interviews, and is made to be the public face of the franchise via the media, and; 2) The entertainment factor derived from discussing play calls and in game decisions as opposed to resource management and/or the cohesion of the roster and/or the football intelligence of those players on the roster, which leads to much of talk radio and TV honing in on that exclusively, and finally; 3) The way owners/execs mostly operate behind the scenes, so the access simply isn’t there to illuminate to the general public their roles and daily decision making that trickles down, affecting everyone and everything. As to your point about QBs... I believe I’ve linked you before to a thread I created a while back where I did some time-consuming research I’m pretty proud of. It’s obviously incomplete, but it’s certainly telling, at least to me, lol. I think if you really take the time to consume the data you’ll shift your opinions a bit on this: First and foremost, a QB has to have a baseline of talent to even have a chance, so all of this is contingent upon that. But if he does... then everything else is just as important to his success. To take a page out of social psychology books, it’s sort of like applying both theories, but giving precedence to the behavioral theory that “leaders are made, not born” over the traits theory where leaders simply have innate traits that make them such. So a QB needs to have that baseline (innate traits), but if/when he does it becomes more about the social environment (behavioral effects) for him to realize his potential. So the reason why a so-called “QB-centric” model wouldn’t work is because the QB can’t scout, identify, and create an opportunity to be drafted or play for himself. He can’t evaluate himself while in the building without some level of bias. He’s not in a position to create a system of development for himself. And, finally, he’s not going to create an offensIve scheme for himself (well, at least initially, lol. We’ve seen guys like Brady and Manning essentially doing just that). The QB is simply too dependent on a solid organizational hierarchy existing to thrive. It’s why it can all come immediately crashing down, no matter if they have that baseline of talent, if that hierarchy gets corrupted. But I agree with you that a QB has more of an impact than any other player on the field and, in turn, can make everyone within the organization look good in the process. I just don’t think you can look at their impact and success without looking at the environmental factors that allowed it to happen in the first place. They’re too dependent. Maybe one day we’ll see QB/Team President, though, and then I’ll concede to your point. Hey, we’ve got Tom Brady who is essentially QB/Offensive Coordinator/General Counsel. He’s close.
  13. Here’s the thing I think people too often miss regarding the coaches brought here. How fast have the positive attributes of confident, leader of men, disciplined, experienced, etc... Turned, relatively quickly, into negative ones like arrogant, unable to relate, inflexible, behind the curve, etc... How fast have positive attributes like player’s coach who can relate, understanding, smart football mind, up and coming, etc... Turned into, relatively quickly, negative ones like no discipline, too soft, won’t adapt his scheme, in over his head, etc... Something keeps happening here where these individuals come with certain positive attributes, as well as negative ones like any human being, but the positive ones erode and the negative ones seem to be all that’s left. Their strengths diminish while their weaknesses get highlighted. What is it about this environment that essentially brings out the worst in people? The focus, wrongly, becomes on those weaknesses in the individual, when instead we should be asking why is this place bringing out the worst in them instead of the best? Where is the growth and development? Where is the support that mitigates those weaknesses and highlights their strengths? If the pattern holds true, Ron will fall victim to everything we’ve seen in the past regarding those strengths and weaknesses. We’ve seen too often around the NFL how that happens to coaches given too much authority, but even worse, we’ve witnessed it fail under Dan multiple times now. Is Ron the exception? Sure, maybe, I pray he is. So far so good in terms of the actual moves, too. But why do we keep having to hope for exceptions as a fanbase? Why are we always having to rationalize and justify? It’s just exhausting. I’m not trying to be negative. I’m sincerely concerned for Ron himself. I don’t want another good football guy to fail here. It’s been beyond ridiculous at this point. I’m with you, though. Give it some time. And there have been plenty of positives to look at. I know you weren’t addressing it to me, but I’ve always been one of the very few here who has focused on the facilities and even the Stadium. It’s just such a handicap every coach we have has to deal with. Like, look at what Pete Carroll gets with the Seahawks? State of the art facilities and a home field advantage unlike any other. That's far from everything, but it all adds up. There’s just so much there, by default, going for him. Which is why I’ve been consistent about empathizing with coaches and players here while grading them on a curve. And why my intense focus has been on Dan and his top executives. Let’s see what happens. It all matters. Maybe Ron ends up being an even better executive than coach and he spearheads a lot of these necessary improvements.
  14. Appreciate the kind words you started your post with, I hope you know it’s reciprocated. I think the problem with these arguments right now is so much of the nuance and layered thinking is getting lost in it. It’s not as simple as saying coach-centric or GM-centric or whatever. You have multiple titles and roles in the NFL that historically have functioned well, but the structure is largely the same in the vast majority of successful examples. 1) It’s always going to be collaborative. Otherwise, you can’t even call it an organization. 2) You have an Head Scout, either operating as GM or EVP of Personnel, with final say over player personnel and the scouting department; and 3a) Either the GM serves as, along with being the Head Scout/Evaluator, top executive with only the owner above him and “generally manages” everything (this is the most traditional structure), or; 3b) There’s a Team President/VP that is the top exec where the Head Scout/Evaluator (GM or EVP of Personnel or whatever title is given to him) and Head Coach equally report to him, or; 3c) It’s just the owner himself acting as the top executive instead of delegating that and they both equally report to him, as well. The focus has gone too much to who hires whom first and it’s missing the larger point of the above. I don’t know why that’s happened here on the board recently, but it’s kind of a frustrating straw man. It’s not really as significant as assumed. The data that exists regarding the timing of hiring one or another isn’t sufficient enough, on its own, to teach us much of anything because of, among other issues, the nature of executive/scout contracts usually running through the draft. The coaching carousel occurs way before that, so you’re almost forced to do it that way or select from an extremely limited pool. We’re currently witnessing that since Ron, smartly, seems to be waiting until May to make any moves there. So pointing to the data that exists on which hire comes first doesn’t change or affect how organization’s prefer to be structured usually. I know you get that, but I think we’re losing the plot here a little bit by focusing so much on that part of it. But let me ask you a question. Why do you think Rivera, himself, called it unique? That’s the exact word he used when he said what Dan had told him from the, and I quote, “weeks” ( ) of research Dan did that had him realizing that a “coach-centric” approach was what leads to success. Why would he call it unique himself? Why is this more of a recent trend than an actual proven model? In fact, I’d bet you Rivera himself would agree with what I’m saying more than what you are... but he’s “betting on himself” and has chosen to embrace the “unique” approach. You know, as for the collaborative stuff, both Shanahan and Gibbs said the exact same things, almost verbatim, when hired. Like with all things said, the actions are going to mean more. Everyone who has final say essentially says that it one way or another. And their intentions are probably sincere at the time. But so much of it is dependent on their areas of expertise. That’s where the concern is. Is it smart to give that to a coach or not? Do recent, more exceptional examples justify it totally? Do we trust Dan, who has done it multiple times before and almost NEVER done it the usual way, and just assume there’s nothing wrong with it? Clearly, I have to disagree with you on how I answer those questions. So it fell on Gibbs and Shanny when things went south because they had that final say. Of course, they’re going to delegate and try to set up a solid structure, but that’s the problem. That power can and will get in the way, is questionable to give to them as coaches in the first place, and then on top of it we’ve got to worry about the undermining and subterfuge from Dan, of course, though that would apply to anyone. It’s just a lot on a coach’s plate. This is the issue. It’s not about the order of hires, but the structure of the organization. If you think I’m skimming that point, then forgive me for the bluntness, but you’re not reading what I’m saying. Which, I don’t blame you, it’s long, lol. But I have to push back on that, brother. I’ve stated multiple times now that there are good signs and ESPECIALLY that someone like Morgan is a candidate. I’ve also stated multiple times that my favorite part of the hire was Ron’s recent quote where he unequivocally states he doesn’t wasn’t control over player personnel, but wants it over the active 46. He said it himself. Not me. And that lines up with what we’ve been saying, of course. All you have to do is look at my recent posting history. I don’t think I made a post without saying that I’m excited about some of the signs we’re getting. I’m stating both the negatives and positives I’m seeing. But the presser, and the way they implied things would be structured, was absolutely a downer. It’s different than what he said himself that I loved. And I’m supposed to be totally ok with Snyder’s vision of success after his “weeks of research”? I know you understand how difficult that’s going to be! In fact, forgive me for sounding like a braggart here, but I was one of the only ones on this board who understood the depths of the organizational issues here when, while everyone was blaming Jay, his nephew, the Strength & Conditioning Staff, and how soft his practices were... I singularly focused in on Larry Hess and the Athletic Training Staff. This was well before the Trent saga and before anyone even understood the difference between the three arms of that side of the building (medical, ATS, S&C), and who is in charge of what. I understood that Jay’s approach was likely a reaction to the issues there. And I absolutely feel vindicated by the mountains of evidence that has only provided more proof of what I was saying. Now, one of the most positive aspects of what’s been done thus far is Larry Hess’s removal along with a clean sweep of the ATS. So I’m going to give credit where it’s due and I’m not skimming over anything. On the contrary, I’m trying my best to look at this correctly and without bias. So if Rivera is just going to be more of an Executive, and he’s going to hire assistant coaches like Del Rio who are essentially going to act as the Head Coach of their respective side of the ball, while he’s just focused on the larger organizational structure of everything, that’s fine. But why a coach for that job? And doesn’t it take away from some of what has made him successful in terms of being a close, personal, teacher? I’d rather not look at anomalous situations versus the general process that’s worked and say “see, others have done it, come on now, why aren’t you guys seeing the wisdom?!” If this was anyone other than Dan, maybe. But we’ve seem him try it differently many times and it’s never succeeded at any high level. You simply can’t remove Dan from the equation. So if anyone is skimming over anything, it’s those who keep pointing to the few instances this set up has worked versus the many more where it hasn’t. When you compare it all, one way has succeeded more than the other over the course of the NFL’s history. Add in the Snyder factor... it’s tough. Maybe things are changing on that front around the NFL... sure, that’s possible. Maybe the “teachers” are becoming better at being “principals”. And I get everyone is euphoric right now and I’m standing against the wave of unabashed fan optimism, which is a stupid thing to do, but I’m not going to just throw away everything I’ve researched and learned about the topic because the Redskins are doing it. It’s how I feel and it’s based on plenty of evidence. Plenty more than the ones you’re referring to. I think you’re just looking at the pros and not the cons. There are so many examples of how this fails. Way more than the other way around. It just is what it is. You might end up right, and I hope and pray you are, but it’d STILL be the exception. It can absolutely be a bane if Rivera hires someone he’s just comfortable with as opposed to the best, most qualified, candidate. It can absolutely be a bane if he’s limiting his search to people he knows will share in his short sightedness and impatience, something that is simply the default state of coaches and not a knock on them. That’s why when I heard about Morgan being a candidate I was ecstatic. It is certainly a positive. As is hiring Del Rio. A part of me wonders why we just didn’t give Rivera the Team President position itself and hire another HC to fulfill that role exclusively focusing on coaching. It’s just a lot on one man’s plate. So there’s a lot of danger we’re operating in. I’m sorry, I just can’t see it like you do. Not yet, at least. It needs time.
  15. First, a minor contention here. I disagree about Scot’s drafts. People too often downplay how solid the 2015 draft was while only focusing on the poor 2016 draft, even though it still yielded two good starters in Fuller and Ioannidis. Then they forget that the 2017 draft was largely based on his board AND had added picks to it that came from that condemned 2016 draft. So I’d say it started there, and Kyle continued the good work and arguably did better. I think Kyle himself would say the same. But to your main point... Regarding Shanahan, this is exactly what I’m talking about. He shouldn’t have been given the ultimate authority over personnel. But he was. Why? Because that’s the position Dan was in to get him. Dan does this to himself! The biggest problem Mike had in Denver was his inability to find the right group of defensive players. He did fine on offense. The same happened here, surprise surprise. And then it just gets uglier by the day within the building when these people get undermined in positions they shouldn’t have even been in, in the first place. So why focus on anyone other than Dan, and in this case the guy who ended up becoming the top exec aiding him in said ugliness, Bruce? Mike is just another example of what I’m so concerned about with this structure. Hmmm... I don’t think you’re intending to present it like this, but I think this is too simplistic of a view to have. The draft is vital, sure, but you have to understand the reason why. It’s all about resource management. The draft isn’t some totally separate thing from Free Agency and the Salary Cap or something where you can just focus on it to the detriment of everything else. Even if you draft well, you have to know who to keep on a second contract and who not to. How are you going to allocate Cap space most efficiently while keeping your best draft picks? How do they fit in with the scheme, the rest of the roster and are their skill sets complementary? Which then dictates what you do in FA, because you don’t want to be forced to address need in the draft and want to pick the best possible players at your spot. So that’s why you want those kinds of people you’re mentioning, who have shown they can excel at scouting in general, to eventually be in charge of building the entire team. Or it could be someone really good at evaluating those evaluators and great at resource management simply from an economical perspective. To see the big picture of how it all ties together. The draft is the lifeblood, but it flows through everything else and everything else flows through it. I made a post showing how the one, main, consistency you can see among Super Bowl Champs is efficiency of resource management. It’s actually quite striking and I’m surprised (we’ll, not really) the topic is not talked about way more. Check it out here: I‘m sure Ron’s a great coach and a class act, but like every other coach at the pro level his impact can only go so far when so many others on this level know football schematically just as well. He’s had his share of mediocre to bad seasons. 6 out of 9 of his seasons ended with losing records (one of them still netting him the division title, however). I don’t mention that to trash him, as I don’t think those season records are at all indicative of the job he did in his position. But do we really think he’s coming into a better situation here? Are we that naive? When does anyone with any semblance of success elsewhere come here and improve upon it when placed in a high position? Dan is making the same mistake thinking one coach can do it all. That simply doesn’t happen. It’s going to mostly come down to how efficiently the resources are managed and how the team is put together. Is Ron really the best candidate for that? He might end up being a brilliant executive who sets up the organization better than anyone else has. He might end up bringing in or promoting the best candidate for Head Scout (whatever title they want to give it) and giving them the power they need to fulfill their role. He might end up hiring the best Training Staff and solving the problems with our facilities. He might end up hiring the best Coaching staff possible. He might end up overseeing all of this well, evaluating everyone properly consistently, and managing the resources excellently. All while coaching his staff and players personally. It’s just weird to assume a career in coaching leads someone to that point. But, hey, here we are again. Round 4.
  16. That’s a positive, at least. But it still doesn’t give us much clarity in terms of the structure outside of him being the top executive and ultimate authority, essentially. We’ll see, but I just don’t like the GM being hired by Ron and answering to him. At the least, they are equals where the GM is essentially the head scout and both report to a Team President or even the Owner himself. Traditionally, the GM is the top executive in charge of everything and not just player personnel. Either way, the structure where the coach is essentially the top executive in charge of it all and the GM is technically his employee almost NEVER works in the NFL. It’s a problem. And it’s really rare to see the Coach himself making that hire. The good news is it seems like they’re looking at some really solid candidates. I absolutely LOVED hearing about Dan Morgan being a candidate, for instance. That was great news. But the structure really, really matters. And I’m not pleased with the start. This is on Dan. He’s put himself into this position where he can’t get anyone reputable to come here without giving them too much power for their own good. It’s unfortunate.
  17. But that’s unrealistic in and of itself, isn’t it? It IS Dan’s power as owner, whether we like it or not. He is the guy who has to structure the organization properly in terms of its hierarchy and what each role is given regarding authority, span of control, etc... Now, I get what you’re saying. He can and should hire someone and delegate that job to them, but it’s still on him to make sure that he’s got a process to judge and assess if the guy he chose to give it to does it correctly or poorly. Nonetheless, this way of doing it is a failure the vast majority of the time. There’s a reason for that. Coaches aren’t guys adept at executive roles. Their focus has always been on the game between the lines itself. They’re teachers, first and foremost. They can easily get too loyal to their players and can easily be short-sighted regarding resource management since their main priority is the next game. You want people who excel at organizational structuring, resource management and have a firm grasp of sound economic principles to be leading the organization. Are coaches usually that type? No. What has Ron done in the past to make us think he should be that guy with the ultimate authority there? His best asset is his ability to build relationships and foster a healthy culture, so that’s a good sign... but we’ve only seen that on the coaching level and with the players while operating as a traditional HC. Now, I’m with you. I don’t think it automatically means it‘ll fail. It possibly could go well. There are exceptions where it has. Ron might end up being a great executive and use his power wisely, delegating to qualified people correctly and not undermining anyone in their roles. It’s just not the best set up because he’s never really done that like most coaches. We have to ask, how involved is he going to be in the Xs and Os? If it’s just as much as he was in Carolina, that’s going to be a problem now. He essentially will have to give up on something there, so that means we’re losing part of what made him special. How do you manage the time to do all of this and excel? It’s incredibly difficult at the pro level! Along with the entire coaching staff, he’s the guy who has to evaluate the player evaluators themselves? He’s the guy who has to evaluate the Training Staff? He has to evaluate the facilities, the general staff, etc...? And now he’s assuming this role with someone like Dan by his side? Yikes! He can bet on himself all he wants. I get it. He’s confident. That’s a good thing. But that’s where a good organization saves people from themselves. That’s why you have an organizational structure that places qualified experts in positions that allow them to fulfill it relative to their expertise. He basically has to have his Coordinators/Assistant Coaches acting at a level of Head Coaching while he’s more of the Team President. They’ve got to make sure they’re in tune with the GM and that guy needs to have final say on player personnel. That guy HAS to be able to stop Ron or his assistants at the coaching level if they act short-sightedly. But even if that all gets structured like that... with Ron having the ultimate authority, whose side do you think he’ll likely be on? He’ll probably sympathize with the coaching staff more, whose priorities will be where? It’s dangerous. Really dangerous. Remember how Gibbs let Gregg Williams destroy the defensive personnel in one offseason that lead to an historically terrible Defense in 2006? Add in the fact that he said he has no patience like Dan... I don’t know. It’s pretty damn concerning right now. This could quickly go the way of Bill O’Brien and the Texans, trading a crazy amount of draft picks and quality player personnel overnight to take a short cut to the detriment of their future once he took the reins. I like Ron. I think he’s a good coach like the majority are in the NFL. But this is how many, many fail. The pattern is the same. Dan gets desperate to land someone experienced and highly regarded after going with someone inexperienced, that he gives them EVERYTHING. And they accept it because they believe in themselves, even if it’s something they’ve never shown to be good at and it’s going to significantly remove them from what they’re actually good at. Like I said, the biggest hope I’m grasping onto, outside of Bruce’s ouster of course, is based on Larry Hess getting fired. That’s a big deal. That was a Snyder guy who wasn’t held accountable and/or wasn’t placed in the right order in the hierarchy. Every step of building this FO needs to be done right. I just hate that we did it this way again. I don’t want Ron to fail and get scapegoated.
  18. It was and wasn’t. It was the start of Gibbs exerting more control, but it was still largely a Beathard-built team. But that was the last gasp of an impeccably-built team and JKC was smart to recognize that what needed to start happening was what Dallas was doing as the Salary Cap era begun. Gibbs got one more in, and it was awesome, but that subsequent 9-7 year and what happened after says a lot. The team got old and slow REAL fast. It hurt everything for years to come. He made the same mistakes his second go around. I really believe he would’ve won us at least one Super Bowl his second time around had he had a Beathard-type running player personnel. Factually incorrect? Again, it was still largely Beathard’s team, even after he retired. So, yes, the further away we got from that the worse it became. Maybe you’re conflating Beathard himself being there with a team he largely built instead of reading what I said accurately?
  19. He said that before, yes... which was my favorite part of the hire and what gave me the most hope I’ve had in a long time. But that’s why the way the presser started devastated me. It was the complete opposite. Did he reiterate that later on? Because I was watching it on NFL Network and they cut to Haslam’s idiocy halfway through. But that start was terrifying.
  20. And that’s what held Gibbs back. You could argue it’s what always held Gibbs back, even in his first stint. He was at his best with a Beathard-built team. The further away that team got from that the worse it became, but he retired at a good time to avoid the consequences. When he came back, same deal. There’s a reason the height of his success were desperation playoff runs that ended in quick exits out of the playoffs. That’s not reassuring at all.
  21. The sad thing is, he actually had it right at the top of the organization, structurally, with a Team President. And then, for a very brief moment, they even got it right with a GM that had final say over personnel. The problem is he gave someone totally unqualified, who had been out of the NFL and had failed at his previous stint, that title/role of Team President. And then they gave someone who couldn’t hold a job anywhere else because of his problems the GM role. So instead of realizing that THAT was the problem, not the structure... he goes back to his same old pattern of then turning it totally over to a coach. A coach, who like every other coach in the NFL, is more dependent on his player personnel than anything else and needs as much organizational support to succeed as possible. Why? Because of some recent examples out of the many more that go the other way? Ron mentioned that Dan told him to look at the Patriots, Seahawks, and Chiefs as good examples of this. I could just die. I’ve talked about this before as to why the Pats are so anomalous and you can’t take anything from that situation. I’ve talked about Andy Reid and how EVERYONE said the biggest reason he went to have success with the Chiefs after leaving the Eagles is because he had too much power at the end with the Eagles (he won a power struggle against Banner) and could just focus on coaching with the Chiefs. That’s not a knock on Ron. It’s just how it is. He’s not immune to it all, we’ve even seen him do poorly with rosters in Carolina that are better than ours for God’s sake! This is, frankly, terrifying to me right now. Can’t believe what I just saw and heard. I hope Ron doesn’t make the same mistakes Gibbs 2.0 and Shanahan made. But to think that’s unlikely is tough knowing Dan is still there, still believing the same nonsense. This is where we’re at now. Honestly? My biggest source of hope right now is that Larry Hess and the ATS were fired. That was Dan’s guy. So there is some hope things will work out and they can build a better organization to support everyone involved. It’s just frustrating. I can’t stomach another good football guy coming here and regressing, only to be targeted by the horde and turned villainous on his way out. It never seems to end.
  22. I get that, and that’s 100% true... but the way that gets done more often than not in the NFL is that the Owner and his top executive set up the overall vision for the organization. That “top executive” is sometimes the GM who is an expert evaluator himself and has final say over personnel where the HC reports to him, sometimes it’s a Team President that hires a GM and HC and they both equally report to him, and rarer still it’s the owner himself who acts as the top exec and sets the above up. But, outside of anomalous situations, the HC being the be all end all with ultimate power and essentially the top executive in the organization has ended up in failure around the NFL. Pointing to the rare examples where it has worked is not reassuring at all. Even in those situations, you often find that the HC himself understood how an organization should be structured and their GM has a lot of power, essentially running player acquisition during the offseason. The sickening thing is this isn’t new for Dan. We’ve seen this before. It hasn’t worked. Yet, he’s saying that’s what he learned? Basically, he’s saying he’s been right all along and ahead of the curve! Did Dan even sound apologetic at all!? Nope. The dude believes he was NEVER wrong about anything. This is why the Cycle repeats itself and never ends. The only way this works is if Ron holds true to his previous words and gives a GM the real power to make any and all decisions related to player personnel during the offseason (outside of the active 46 like he said during the season), without unwarranted interference, even if he disagrees. That his ultimate power isn’t really used outside of the coaching staff itself, which is where his expertise lies. That is essentially what the Seahawks have going on with Schneider and Carroll. It can work. It’s just frustrating that Dan seems to be repeating what he’s always done.
  23. It’s just a presser, I know, but I’m going to say it, I really am trying hard to not be negative and turn a new page about everything since Allen was let go, which was the biggest problem we had organizationally... but that was a nightmare introduction from Dan for me, saying it “starts and ends with the coach”. And then, to follow it up, what Ron said about what Dan had learned about success in the NFL, that it revolves totally around the coach. Really!? That’s what you learned? It’s the same damn pattern in the Snyder Cycle we’ve been through now over and over again. Unbelievable! It’s what Dan has ALWAYS done. Always. He has always put way too much on the plate of his Head Coach and has made that position/role in his organization way too overwhelming for anyone to fulfill. Especially after hiring an up comer or inexperienced one placed in a more traditional role. It’s literally what happened EVERY TIME. This isn’t hindsight. Here’s what I said just a few months ago: I just hope Ron, unlike most of the HCs he’s given ultimate control to, recognizes this himself and doesn’t fall into that trap. But the fact that that’s what he pointed to when he answered why he chose the Redskins over anywhere else? That was my greatest fear. That he would be tempted by Dan’s promises of power and go against his own understanding, of which he was recently quoted, about things like final say on personnel. Just hate that Dan is setting it up himself like that and now it’s on Ron to not let it happen. We’ll see, it’s just a start, it’s just a presser, but that was a nightmare start for me. I can’t see this as anything other than yet another good football guy being set up to fail here.
  24. I like it. Didn’t have the greatest year with his unit, especially running the ball, but I’d put the Oline issues on Trubisky, Montgomery taking a while to develop at RB, and Nagy’s style more than anyone else. At around the mid point of the season, they stopped doing so much of the RPOs and started just lining up in I formation to run the ball. They had success for a bunch of games but, as is usually the case, the NFL caught up and adjusted so they didn’t finish particularly strong. But it’s actually damn impressive they finished 12th in sacks with how poorly Trubisky played most of the year. The year prior they were 8th, but I felt like Trubisky was better at avoiding rushers so that helped. So yeah, decent get if so. Can only do so much with what he was given to work with. Kyle Long was the only first rounder, and he was placed on IR Oct. 14th after trying to tough out an hip injury. Couple of 2nd rounders in Whitehair and Daniels at C and LG, but that’s it. Like with anything, it’s mostly going to depend on what happens with the Oline personnel-wise. But he won’t be an hindrance and should be helpful overall.