Bruce Allen, Scot McCloughlan, Jay Gruden, and all that stuff like that there

[Morneblade]

On 3/25/2017 at 10:01 PM, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

That's why the coaching staff has input in the process. And the GM should always be drafting scheme fits, and it is to his advantage to do so--because in a healthy organizational structure the GM has also hired the HC, so the coachea/players meshing well directly effects his job security.

 

But the only team in the league that has success with a HC having final say is the Patriots. Maybe you could argue the Bengals, if Marvin Lewis has final say, but I don't think anyone really knows how the Bengals make decisions. 

 

 

To add to what you are saying here, It's been shown that coaches do not make the best scouts. The GM gets input from coaches about what they need, and the GM and his staff get them. Because that is what their talent and training is to do. They are talent evaluators.

[slaga]

On 3/25/2017 at 1:01 PM, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Well sure.   Let's start with the comment from Bruce that personnel moves were a "group decision".  That was not  how SM's role was explained when he was hired.

It sure looked to me like Scott expected a group effort. He even said as much in his press conference when he was hired:

 

http://m.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/Quotes-Scot-McCloughan-Introductory-Press-Conference-11915/267bfe18-63d8-467f-8bcb-3011debbdb2c

 

 

"It's not going to be me standing up there saying, 'I get to make the pick.' It's not going Jay standing up there saying, 'I make the pick,' or Bruce. It's going to be us. The more good opinions you get around yourself, the better chance you have of being successful."

 

From the same presser Bruce made it known he is ultimately responsible for everyone employed by the Redskins:

 

On how Allen's role will change:

ALLEN: "Well, my new role is my old role and I'm the President of the football team. I'm responsible for everyone with the Redskins and it's my job to help improve this franchise and do everything I can to help everyone here be successful."

[Califan007 The Constipated]

18 minutes ago, slaga said:

It sure looked to me like Scott expected a group effort. He even said as much in his press conference when he was hired:

 

http://m.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/Quotes-Scot-McCloughan-Introductory-Press-Conference-11915/267bfe18-63d8-467f-8bcb-3011debbdb2c

 

 

"It's not going to be me standing up there saying, 'I get to make the pick.' It's not going Jay standing up there saying, 'I make the pick,' or Bruce. It's going to be us. The more good opinions you get around yourself, the better chance you have of being successful."

 

From the same presser Bruce made it known he is ultimately responsible for everyone employed by the Redskins:

 

I'm quoting this because it's infuriating how many people run with the idea that the "group decision" approach is something that just came to light thanks to diligent journalists and "sources". It's been known since the beginning.

[Reaper Skins]

http://m.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/Quotes-Scot-McCloughan-Introductory-Press-Conference-11915/267bfe18-63d8-467f-8bcb-3011debbdb2c

From that same intro press conference, the last question says:

 

On who will have final say with the roster:

"I have final say, but again, it's not going to be all about me. It's going to be a whole process. We'll come to a conclusion 99 percent of the time on the same person."

 

For what its worth, I can understand how reading that might be confusing for fans in terms of defining roles for decision making.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

12 minutes ago, Reaper Skins said:

http://m.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/Quotes-Scot-McCloughan-Introductory-Press-Conference-11915/267bfe18-63d8-467f-8bcb-3011debbdb2c

From that same intro press conference, the last question:

 

On who will have final say with the roster:

"I have final say, but again, it's not going to be all about me. It's going to be a whole process. We'll come to a conclusion 99 percent of the time on the same person."

 

For what its worth, I can understand how reading that might be confusing in terms of defining roles for decision making.

 

I think it speaks to a few things: how fans (and even media members) have selective hearing--and now selective memory--when it comes to what it is they want to believe is true. I'm sure there were a number of fans who just chalked up Scot's comments about it being a group decision process even though he will have final say as "lip service", much like they chalked up his comments about Griffin being "lip service" and "towing the company line"...the idea that he meant what he said did't jive with what they wanted to believe at the time, so it got brushed off as irrelevant.

 

And the second part is, as slaga said above, that Scot went into this entire gig knowing ahead of time that everyone was NOT going to just step back and let him do whatever he wanted with the roster. He understood and signed on knowing this as fact. Because I somehow doubt Scot was told "We won't even slightly voice our opinion on free agency and the draft, you just do whatever you want to, no questions asked", and he said "No, NO! I insist that everyone speak their mind and have a say on personnel matters...this will not all be me!"

[desertbeagle85]

At this point how can anyone believe anything Bruce Allen has to say.

 

I believe he's fake and we know he's a yes man.

 

Not to mention his drafts have been horrible.

 

Not sure why he has a job to be honest.

 

[Warhead36]

I don't like group decisions. Group input? Sure. But ultimately I want one guy making the call. The best organizations have one leader. One voice. One vision.

[TSO]

The question is, could Scot choose to overpay for someone if he wanted to? How involved was he in the negotiations or setting the limits? Those are things that "final say" would include. It sounds like he had that with the draft, and could overrule anyone if he wanted, but outside of that? No. 

 

I'm just frustrated that here we are, once again, wondering what our organizational hierarchy and structure is really like. What titles, and their accompanying responsibilities, actually mean. Where reporters, and even players, can openly question it, too. I don't care who is at fault or not, at that point. Why this is a common thread with this team blows my mind and frustrates the crap out of me. And I don't get easily frustrated, nor am I the type to jump to negative conclusions about things. 

 

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

I don't like group decisions. Group input? Sure. But ultimately I want one guy making the call. The best organizations have one leader. One voice. One vision.

 

Yup, I don't think anyone has questioned whether or not personnel acquisition was a collaborative effort. Scot absolutely HAS to involve the coaches, scouting staff, etc... I don't think a single person has said he's alone in making decisions or should've been. 

 

What's being questioned here is "final say". Final say means he's the one who could, at any point, overrule or break a tie or go in a different direction than anyone else if he wanted to. We were directly told he had that with personnel. Did he or did he not? Are we going to give someone that power moving forward and, if so, who? Those are the questions now, and they're ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE.  

[Morneblade]

36 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

Yup, I don't think anyone has questioned whether or not personnel acquisition was a collaborative effort. Scot absolutely HAS to involve the coaches, scouting staff, etc... I don't think a single person has said he's alone in making decisions or should've been. 

 

What's being questioned here is "final say". Final say means he's the one who could, at any point, overrule or break a tie or go in a different direction than anyone else if he wanted to. We were directly told he had that with personnel. Did he or did he not? Are we going to give someone that power moving forward and, if so, who? Those are the questions now, and they're ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE.  

 

 

And let's face it, do you want Scot or Bruce making that final decision? I think we all would prefer Scot doing that. And then having the rest of the FO make sure they do what they have to, to get it done (if it's a FA).

[zoony]

Well in the bright side, none of Scott's former teams won until he left

[Darrell Green Fan]

17 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

The question is, could Scot choose to overpay for someone if he wanted to? How involved was he in the negotiations or setting the limits? Those are things that "final say" would include. It sounds like he had that with the draft, and could overrule anyone if he wanted, but outside of that? No. 

 

I'm just frustrated that here we are, once again, wondering what our organizational hierarchy and structure is really like. What titles, and their accompanying responsibilities, actually mean. Where reporters, and even players, can openly question it, too. I don't care who is at fault or not, at that point. Why this is a common thread with this team blows my mind and frustrates the crap out of me. And I don't get easily frustrated, nor am I the type to jump to negative conclusions about things. 

 

 

Yup, I don't think anyone has questioned whether or not personnel acquisition was a collaborative effort. Scot absolutely HAS to involve the coaches, scouting staff, etc... I don't think a single person has said he's alone in making decisions or should've been. 

 

What's being questioned here is "final say". Final say means he's the one who could, at any point, overrule or break a tie or go in a different direction than anyone else if he wanted to. We were directly told he had that with personnel. Did he or did he not? Are we going to give someone that power moving forward and, if so, who? Those are the questions now, and they're ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE.  

 

 

This has been my position all along, very well stated.

[celticsalmon]

I can find no justification for how this team in particular Bruce Allen handled the Scot Mc. situation.  To add onto his ineptitude- the team publicly complained about the color rush uniforms and submitted a silly rule change about kickoffs.  This organization is a joke.  And with the play of the Caps, Wizards and Nats- they are becoming irrelevant to me.  Sad as I am a long-time Skins fan.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

39 minutes ago, celticsalmon said:

I can find no justification for how this team in particular Bruce Allen handled the Scot Mc. situation.  To add onto his ineptitude- the team publicly complained about the color rush uniforms and submitted a silly rule change about kickoffs.  This organization is a joke.

 

Seen quite a few in both NFL fans and the media who like both rule changes. Lot of fans despise the color rush uniforms, and the kickoff change would "bring skill back" to the kickoffs and bring at least some excitement back since kick returns are literally being phased out.

 

But if these rule change suggestions are sending you over the edge as some sort of last straw...well, like you said there are the Wizards, Nats and Caps.

[Wildbunny]

On 27/03/2017 at 7:44 PM, thesubmittedone said:

What's being questioned here is "final say". Final say means he's the one who could, at any point, overrule or break a tie or go in a different direction than anyone else if he wanted to. We were directly told he had that with personnel. Did he or did he not? Are we going to give someone that power moving forward and, if so, who? Those are the questions now, and they're ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE.

 

"Final say" is hardly a real thing in any way. What does it really mean? That he can break a tie, or settle for his stuff against the other guys in the room?

There's two way to read into this, and mostly everyone will go with the lecture that fits its narrative better.

 

Let's take a look at the Rashad Ross / Ryan Grant "dispute" between Jay and Scot.

 

We know that Jay prefered to keep Grant while Scot wanted to keep Ross. In the end, Ross ended being cut and Grant was kept.

What does this mean?

Either one of two things:

 

Case A:

Since we kept Grant over Ross, that means that Jay overruled Scot on the roster thing. Thus Scot never had any "final say" on the personnel department and his job was doomed from the beginning as he had no real power within the organisation.

 

Case B:

Since it's most often a group discussion, Jay and Scot most probably debated over each of them. In the end, Jay had better arguments and Scot sided with him. Does that means he hadn't any final say? No, just that Jay felt stronger about Grant than Scot about Ross. They reached the point where keeping Grant was the better option for the team and Scot in the end made the call.

 

Even if a GM as final say in personnel decision, it's rarely a wise move to go against your coaches (except if you intend to fire them).

What's the point in keeping, for example, Terrance Knighton, if the coaches don't intend to se the guy because they want to go another direction? Sure you know the guy as talent, leadership and could help your team and locker room, but is he worth a contract and a roster spot if he's not used by your coaches for whatever reasons?

 

That's alike for Kirk's contract. Ultimately, the coach will have the more power here. Bruce can play chicken, Scot can play chicken or try to trade... But if the coach wants to have him more than any other player on the team, it would be wise to settle with your coach. Especially a young rising one that is showing promising early success. If you send his beloved QB elsewhere, you can bet the guy will kick you in the nuts each time he has an opportunity. And coaches hold way more pressers than any GM do.

 

"Final say" is a wonderful concept that is used to keep fan happy. But it hardly works like that. Else, you don't need an army of scouts, the guy will just do it alone as others won't have any input. Why should they voice their opinion if it's worthless? Coaches will need to be "Yes men".

 

Having a lone guy stucked in his Ivory tower in not a good solution either.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/01/08/former-redskins-gm-bobby-beathard-says-scot-mccloughan-was-the-perfect-hire/?utm_term=.2027f76e5762

Now, it would seem, Washington is finally returning to the Beathard model: hiring a young GM (Scot McCloughan) with a scouting background and — at least in theory — the power to make the final decisions on roster construction. It is, as sports-radio callers will tell you, the only model Dan Snyder hasn’t yet tried. It’s also the only model that has brought a Super Bowl to D.C.

 

“In my opinion it’s the only model to follow,” Beathard said on ESPN 980’s The Sports Fix this week. “There’s too much going on to be a head coach nowadays, [and to also] be a talent evaluator…. I think they’ll find out it’ll work. It’s time-tested. It’s one that has worked with different organizations throughout the history of the league. I just think it’s great....

 

It’s easy to forget now that Beathard left Washington amid much speculation that he and Gibbs were clashing. But the former GM said this week that Washington’s scouts and evaluators worked closely with both the head coach and the position coaches during the Super Bowl years, conferring on prospects and on what types of players were needed. (“But I had the final say,” he added.)

 

“Scot will do the same thing, and it’ll all work well,” Beathard said. “I think it’s a great hire.”

The former GM said he spent time on the road with McCloughan’s father Kent; he also said he’s met Scot several times. And Beathard also said he had no qualms about McLoughan navigating the notoriously political hallways of Redskins Park.

 

“I don’t think it’s going to be as hard as you’d think,” he said. “I think Dan [Snyder] will let Bruce [Allen] do the things he needs to do, and I think that Dan’s going to like him. And I know Bruce will. I think Bruce will be hands-off, let him run this thing. He recognizes the talent this guy has. 

[TSO]

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

"Final say" is hardly a real thing in any way. What does it really mean? That he can break a tie, or settle for his stuff against the other guys in the room?

 

Yes, that's actually exactly what it means. And that's extremely important because it means there's a unified vision as well as the accountability that comes with it. That, in no way, negates group input or mutual consultation or collaboration.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

Either one of two things:

 

Case A:

Since we kept Grant over Ross, that means that Jay overruled Scot on the roster thing. Thus Scot never had any "final say" on the personnel department and his job was doomed from the beginning as he had no real power within the organisation.

 

Case B:

Since it's most often a group discussion, Jay and Scot most probably debated over each of them. In the end, Jay had better arguments and Scot sided with him. Does that means he hadn't any final say? No, just that Jay felt stronger about Grant than Scot about Ross. They reached the point where keeping Grant was the better option for the team and Scot in the end made the call.

 

Yes, in the end what should've happened is that "Scot made the call" as you're claiming here with Case B. We actually don't know if that's what occurred there as things went awry. That's the question, and it's legitimate. I don't mean this condescendingly, but I honestly don't know what this example of yours has to do with anything I said or anyone else for that matter. Has anyone said that group input is not important or vital? The one with "final say" can choose to side with Gruden or choose to go against him. 

 

You seem to be explaining the organizational structure that SHOULD EXIST. You actually give Scot "final say" here in this example. That's what we're wondering about here, lol.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

Even if a GM as final say in personnel decision, it's rarely a wise move to go against your coaches (except if you intend to fire them).

What's the point in keeping, for example, Terrance Knighton, if the coaches don't intend to se the guy because they want to go another direction? Sure you know the guy as talent, leadership and could help your team and locker room, but is he worth a contract and a roster spot if he's not used by your coaches for whatever reasons?

 

 

Of course but, again, that doesn't negate final say.

 

Furthermore, sometimes a coach can be wrong about his evaluation. He can be overly loyal, and that happens a LOT. Never mind the time-consuming nature of his job as it is and how hard it is to also give the necessary time to scouting/talent evaluation. So, yes, there are absolutely many instances where a GM would overrule the coach. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

"Final say" is a wonderful concept that is used to keep fan happy. But it hardly works like that. Else, you don't need an army of scouts, the guy will just do it alone as others won't have any input. Why should they voice their opinion if it's worthless? Coaches will need to be "Yes men".

 

 

That's crazy talk, brother. That is not some idealistic concept to keep fans happy. 

 

Having an army of scouts is about having people who can go places and see things for themselves since you can't be everywhere all at once yourself. Then they report back to you, as GM, but you've got to filter through all of those opinions. You've got to figure out which voices are correct and which ones aren't. I'm not sure how you arrive to that meaning their voices are worthless or that coaches are "yes men".

 

 This is standard organizational hierarchy stuff here. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

 

Having a lone guy stucked in his Ivory tower in not a good solution either.

 

Final say doesn't mean that. Never has, or at least it shouldn't. 

 

It's about giving the experts in their respective fields that respective title and responsibility. So if you're the best talent-evaluator, you have final say on personnel acquisition. If you're the best coach, you have final say on the coaching staff, implementing schemes, and depth chart. None of this negates mutual consultation and collaboration. Good leadership is always inclusive of the leader's subjects, but that doesn't change the necessity of a leader. 

 

This isn't anything new or innovative here. The most consistently successful organizations in the league employ this organizational approach. Philosophically speaking, it's rare to find successful groups fulfilling their goals when there are too many chefs in the kitchen or "too many chiefs and no Indians" as the saying goes.

[Rufus T Firefly]

30 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Yes, that's actually exactly what it means. And that's extremely important because it means there's a unified vision as well as the accountability that comes with it. That, in no way, negates group input or mutual consultation or collaboration.  

Yeah. The fact that this is up for debate seems bizarre, at the least. Everyone who has final say in matters, up to and including despotic dictators, take input from others before making many of their decisions. 

[Skinsinparadise]

11 hours ago, zoony said:

Well in the bright side, none of Scott's former teams won until he left

 

Could be the good luck omen.   Bruce is going on and on about how they have the draft board set with grades given to each player and will make their selection accordingly.  I'd put money on that grading system they have is at least 95% driven by McCloughan.  He told me as far back as November he was heavy into draft evaluation. 

[TysonM]

[votes NO CONFIDENCE in Bruce Allen]

 

I have lost all respect for him.  The dumpster fire shall continue under him.

[RWJ]

Sheil Kapadia‏Verified account @SheilKapadia 1h1 hour ago

 

Seahawks GM John Schneider said he's been in touch with Scott McCloughan, but McCloughan has other opportunities... http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0638463639401009413-4 …

[ILikeBilly]

All the worry about "final say" during the draft seems silly.  First, if you are following the draft board, you can only get to a tie when 2 or more players have the same grade, your pick comes up and those 2 players are the top two players left on the board.  So, if you are going directly by the draft board, the odds of a tie coming up, especially in the first 2-3 rounds is pretty low.  Later in the draft, when there are likely plenty of kids with the same rankings, the tie is more likely to occur.  If/when this happens, the coaches will debate the players with tied rankings and will obviously look at who the team has already picked and then Allen makes the decision.  As we know about late round picks, it is a coin toss anyway.  So, Allen could get lucky or not, but odds are that all the players with the tie score will not make it long in the NFL if this is happening in the late rounds.

 

Other notes (my opinions) on Allen:  He has done a good to great job on the cap over the last 5 or so years.  Some are arguing that he needs to "win" even when making a deal with players and that this is causing the delay in signing Kirk.  Maybe, maybe not. 

Allen had a good draft the year before GMSM got here.  We got:  Trent Murphy, Morgan Moses, Spencer Long and Breeland.  That is 4 players in 8 picks that are major contributors to the team.  If we hit on 50% of our picks this year, Allen will have earned his $. 

[skinsmarydu]

I'm glad he got us Crowder. <duke girl here>

I saw the kid play live, knew he was golden.

Now, just for my sake alone, invest in the dude who can throw to him, without pissing said dude off and making him want to leave.  GIVE HIM AN O-LINE.  That's all I ask.

I pray for a winning season each year.  Not a huge request.  I just need a little help from my friends...I'll get by with a little help from my friends...

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

It will be interesting to see who is interested in Scott and what role he will play.  

 

I'd imagine if the rumors of him going MIA, not answering his phone, etc. coupled with the drinking are true than he won't be up for a prominent role.

[Wildbunny]

1 hour ago, thesubmittedone said:

That's crazy talk, brother. That is not some idealistic concept to keep fans happy. 

 

Having an army of scouts is about having people who can go places and see things for themselves since you can't be everywhere all at once yourself. Then they report back to you, as GM, but you've got to filter through all of those opinions. You've got to figure out which voices are correct and which ones aren't. I'm not sure how you arrive to that meaning their voices are worthless or that coaches are "yes men".

 

 This is standard organizational hierarchy stuff here. 

 

That is standard... With one guy having a final say but no accountability at all. They just defer to the guy they listened. (I'm gonna reach Jumbo's level :P)

 

If someone is to have a final say then, group decision, or guys having input is worthless. Because the guy with the final say will make a choice opting for reasons he and only him knows. And that can be whatever, really, even stuff like, my cat eat the goldfish, I'm in bad mood.

I'm joking, but most of the time, in case like these, you often go with the guys you trusts the most, those that you value their opinion the most. What's the need of having guys you never listened too? It's close to none. I've been in such a situation where I was rarely listened to. In the end I stopped giving my opinion on the matter. Until some stuff backfired on the guy with supposed final say (which i predicted). I'll let you guess who got the axe.

 

To get back to football, so you have a guy that have a final say, but have to take into account what coaches are wanting. So is he going with what he thinks his best or what do the coaches want? What if you think you can go with McCoy while Gruden wants Cousins? Are you gonna piss your HC forcing him to go with McCoy (and the fans too)? Most likely no, you'll settle with your coach, or you're asking to get fired. So if you go if your coach, it's not really your decision, even if you have final say. It's mostly the coaches' one, but you felt it would be better for you and your career to go with that. Which also provides you the opportunity to say "He's the coach, he wanted Kirk, I gave him Kirk, but he's an ass".

 

The debate for most of the time have been that Scot never was "final say" and that the guy was overruled many, many times... While in fact he's not. In my example of Ross / Grant, there's two lecture of it, some will believe that it was an overruling of Gruden, some that it was a group decision. We don't know how it really happened between the walls, so people choose what fits their narrative. But if it's a group decision, like standard organisational stuff, then it's also never a final say.

 

GMs going against their HC is common ground in the NFL (Chip Kelly/Howie Roseman, being the latest example), and the team with the most success lately had one guy for the two jobs (Bill Belichick). And usually if GM goes against HC, it ends up in the HC getting fired and many losses on the field. (which will eventually get the GM fired as well), or the HC calling it quits (like Doug Marrone in Buffalo) or you just have guys like will do whatever they're told to with what you're giving them, even if you're giving them crap to work with (ie: "yes men") (See Matt Millen's Lions).

 

So the group decision is a better system, but it also brings no accountability with it. If Scot makes the call on X or Y player because he listened to A or B. He still have the opportunity to deflect blame to A or B because they gave invalid input over the situation, and can fire A or B if needed. So, even if he had final say, that wasn't really his opinion on the job, but more the one of A or B.

If you're in a group of guys voicing their opinion on Player A, that you've never heard of, or seen anything about. One group will praise the guy, while the other will shot him down to flames. Which side will you chose? Will it be your opinion or theirs that you decided to side with because??? And if you ends up wrong? What accountability can you have when you didn't know the guy and basically roll a dice to decide? What if one group didn't do their homework and gave you wrong input? There's always opportunity to deflect the blame.

 

So no, I guess we'll agree to disagree, but just like drafting for needs, or going with best available player, final say is stuff I don't think really exists. Those are smokescreens. As @Bang said it, we don't really need to know how it works within the building. We just need to see that it works.

[Conn]

1 hour ago, ILikeBilly said:

All the worry about "final say" during the draft seems silly.  First, if you are following the draft board, you can only get to a tie when 2 or more players have the same grade

 

This doesn't make sense to me. Where do you think the grade comes from? Different people value different traits and evaluate them differently. At some point someone's opinion weighed heavily into one aspect or another of every prospect's final grade. I imagine the more say you have, the more you influence the final grades guys have and hence, where they end up on the big board.