New GM search

[TSO]

37 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

Ughh, no. Settle down. I want a GM for all the important reasons AND I also don't like that people are now going to go nuts on here. Replace "because" in my previous post with "and." That would be dumb to ONLY want a GM just so fans will settle down, lol. 

 

I'll settle down when I want to, thanks. For now, I'll be annoyed like I should be with what is a perfectly justifiable emotional response. 

 

Yes, it would be dumb, so then you should've qualified your statement. Not my fault you didn't and you need words to be replaced, changing the entire meaning of it. I addressed your post based on the way YOU worded it, so I don't think I needed any adjustment to my tone there. 

 

Glad you clarified, though. 

 

31 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

Silver lining for those displeased with Allen. This restructure puts things directly on him which, like with Cerrato, can hasten the firing process if things go south for the team.

 

Look, I don't want to feel this way about what they're doing. I want to be convinced they're taking the right course of action. I have yet to be, and everything is pointing to what was initially said about the Scot firing; that it was mostly a power struggle between he and Allen. If it was only about his personal issues, the next move would've been simple: hire a legit GM after an exhaustive interviewing process. 

 

That is NOT something I will ever take lightly so long as I give the slightest damn about the direction of this team.

 

I don't want things to have to "go south" before changes are made again. I want them to operate like a friggin normal, successful, NFL franchise that doesn't set up every damn hire they make to fail in a corrupt environment. 

[Thinking Skins]

To me this is interesting only because of the current state of the team and how it has been run the last 4-7 years. People can say Scot was an aberration but I don't think so. Things did change somewhat, but not as much as people want to give Scot credit for. My suspects are that Scot is REALLY against FA. Snyder is not against FA and thinks more like a fan or a George Allen type coach where he wants to bring in proven veterans and have a quick turnaround. 

 

I've pointed this out in another thread but the biggest difference between the Vinny era and the Bruce era is (1) our willingness to invest in the draft and (2) the overall age of our team. The vets who we brought in under Allen were way better than the vets brought in under Vinny. I suspect that Scot agreed with Bruce on the draft but not so much FA - so much so that I'd guess that that first year of FAs were more likely Scot yielding more to Bruce (new position and all) than really going to bat for RJF and Paca. Then after the really good draft in 2015 I think Scot may have had a larger disagreement with Bruce about FA in 2016 and asserted his authority by investing in the draft completely with very little FA, which turned out to be a bad move because our draft turned out to be not as impactful last year and we wasted 16 mil which could have helped us reach the playoffs. 

 

Fast forward to this offseason and I think that we had a battle over the direction of this team between the two sides. So the question becomes (absent of the "title" of GM) how will things change from this year to next? How different were the 2015 and 2016 drafts from previous ones? How different was this one? We seem to still be investing a lot into injured players (remember the 4th round pick at S who couldn't stay healthy) and players who drop (remember the 6th round pick at S who many of us predicted to go in the second but he couldn't tackle or take angles) and those were drafts pre-Scot. Would we have found Crowder? Would we have taken Williams over Scherff or somebody else completely? Would Scot have picked Morris? or Helu or Royster? or Jeremy Johnson? A lot of these players were celebrated here after the drafts only to have mediocre returns here. Obviously Crowder, Scherff and Morris are exceptions.

 

So does that mean that if our "structure" stays the same, what do we do about our scouts. Technically we did lose a scout. What other services are there that are similar to Scots? And is Scott Campbell's job on the hook or Santos? And what does Williams do? Does he help recruit the MEAC or the SWAC?

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, RWJ said:

There you go, SIP.  I mentioned Mike Lombardi and he dropped a big nugget right there.   We pretty much know it anyway.  He probably knew this right after they let go of Scot M.  Fans are going to rave about this but will BA care?  Probably not.  Now, the biggest agenda w/o question is your franchise QB.  Do you offer him the money he's earned and wants or do you let him walk next year? 

 

I said after the Scot drill went down. My take on Bruce is all about what happens next on two things.  

 

1.  If the problem was all about Scot's antics and not a power struggle, then Bruce is likely going to hire (and should) another Scot type to take over Scot's duties when the dust settles.  If Bruce doesn't do that and just gets rid of Scot and doesn't replace him or elevates a guy from within who he likely is comfortable with because they take orders from him without resistance.  That would tell me just about everything. 

 

And I wasn't going to give Bruce the benefit of the doubt because the smoke on the GM issue as to where this was going was directed towards Bruce hiring a guy he was already comfortable with from within the office, someone who had his back.   But I said let see first because maybe Bruce surprises us.

 

2.  There is plenty of smoke that Bruce is the obstacle to the Kirk contract.  It's what Scot's people suggested.  It's what the beat reporters have suggested.  Their line is basically Bruce's talk on the issue is cheap, since the dude hasn't offered Kirk anything even in the ball park to produce any real negotiations. (in terms of guaranteed money.)

 

I am not giving Bruce the benefit of the doubt on Kirk either.  I'll believe he makes it happen if and when it happens.

 

If Bruce in my mind strikes out on both the GM position and Kirk (where Kirk is gone) then he officially in my mind becomes the worst Redskins GM of all time.  Definitely worse than Cerrato.  He already has a worse W-L record than Cerrato -- but if you add to it bringing back the lame FO operation structure that the Redskins are nefarious for and you couple that with chasing the franchise QB out the door -- then yeah I'd take Vinny over Bruce any day of the week.  

 

Bruce not hiring a GM from the outside is no shocker to me if it indeed goes down that way.  I have more faith in him getting the contract done with Kirk.  But I have to say the smoke on the Kirk contract happening is almost as bad as the smoke leading up to this GM move.  So like I said I am not giving Bruce the benefit of the doubt, especially if it goes down the way its looking on the GM front.

 

Part of my thought on the Kirk contract happening is will Bruce really be willing to take such a PR hit?  But over time, I have less faith in that take because Bruce clearly is willing to take heavy PR shots and shrug them off.  Maybe he feels a bit invincible because he's the lead dancer on the stadium and knows Danny needs him?

[RWJ]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I said after the Scot drill went down. My take on Bruce is all about what happens next on two things.  

 

1.  If the problem was all about Scot's antics and not a power struggle, then Bruce is likely going to hire (and should) another Scot type to take over Scot's duties when the dust settles.  If Bruce doesn't do that and just gets rid of Scot and doesn't replace him or elevates a guy from within who he likely is comfortable with because they take orders from him without resistance.  That would tell me just about everything. 

 

And I wasn't going to give Bruce the benefit of the doubt because the smoke on the GM issue as to where this was going was directed towards Bruce hiring a guy he was already comfortable with from within the office, someone who had his back.   But I said let see first because maybe Bruce surprises us.

 

2.  There is plenty of smoke that Bruce is the obstacle to the Kirk contract.  It's what Scot's people suggested.  It's what the beat reporters have said.  Their line is basically Bruce's talk on the issue is cheap, since the dude hasn't offered Kirk anything even in the ball park to produce any real negotiations. (in terms of guaranteed money.)

 

I am not giving Bruce the benefit of the doubt on Kirk either.  I'll believe he makes it happen if and when it happens.

 

If Bruce in my mind strikes out on both the GM position and Kirk (where Kirk is gone) then he officially in my mind becomes the worst Redskins GM of all time.  Definitely worse than Cerrato.  He already has a worse W-L record than Cerrato -- but if you add to it bringing back the lame FO operation structure that the Redskins are nefarious for and you couple that with chasing the franchise QB out the door -- then yeah I'd take Vinny over Bruce any day of the week.  

 

Bruce not hiring a GM from the outside is no shocker to me if it indeed goes down that way.  I have more faith in him getting the contract done with Kirk.  But I have to say the smoke on the Kirk contract happening is almost as bad as the smoke leading up to this GM move.  So like I said I am not giving Bruce the benefit of the doubt, especially if it goes down the ways its looking on the GM front.

Bruce needs to man up and add GM to his title.  IMO, he doesn't want to because he doesn't want to take the blame if the players selected don't turn out to be good players thus he can pin it on the scouts and player personnel.  JMO. 

 

And this:

 

Safe to think that Scott will be BA's right hand man at this point in time unless something changes:

www.redskins.com/team/staff/scott-campbell/4f1e3b8d-55f6-4a22-9363-34308f2515ce


Campbell originally joined the Redskins in 2001 as Director of College Scouting, overseeing the area scouts and assisting with the Redskins’ draft operations before heading up the scouting of pro personnel for the next four seasons. He returned in 2006 to take charge of the college scouting department, where he spent two seasons before being promoted to Director of Player Personnel. In 2015, he transitioned to Director of College Scouting, where he now leads the team’s area scouts in identifying talent at the collegiate level.

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, RWJ said:

Bruce needs to man up and add GM to his title.  IMO, he doesn't want to because he doesn't want to take the blame if the players selected don't turn out to be good players thus he can pin it on the scouts and player personnel.  JMO. 

 

And this:

 

Safe to think that Scott will be BA's right hand man at this point in time unless something changes:

www.redskins.com/team/staff/scott-campbell/4f1e3b8d-55f6-4a22-9363-34308f2515ce


Campbell originally joined the Redskins in 2001 as Director of College Scouting, overseeing the area scouts and assisting with the Redskins’ draft operations before heading up the scouting of pro personnel for the next four seasons. He returned in 2006 to take charge of the college scouting department, where he spent two seasons before being promoted to Director of Player Personnel. In 2015, he transitioned to Director of College Scouting, where he now leads the team’s area scouts in identifying talent at the collegiate level.

 

I agree its a key point.  It's bad enough IMO that they are going in house.  But if they don't actually give someone the title, that I'd really hate even more.  Bruce just take the title or give it to Schaffer or give it to Campbell.  The pass the buck, we don't know who is in charge nonsense is the hallmark IMO of the FO's historic dysfunction.  

 

When Vinny finally took ownership of being the guy when Zorn was hired -- it made it easy to lay the blame when it didn't go down well.  Before that it was Gibbs and Vinny and Danny making decisions by committee and the position coaches were making the calls for their positions, etc.  It was a weird and IMO chaotic power structure.  Then later we hear stuff from Shanny that yeah Scott Campbell made some good calls, he just wasn't listened to.   It's just IMO nonsense.  Bruce take the title and have the buck stop with you.

[RWJ]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I agree its a key point.  It's bad enough IMO that they are going in house.  But if they don't actually give someone the title, that I'd really hate even more.  Bruce just take the title or give it to Schaffer or give it to Campbell.  The pass the buck, we don't know who is in charge nonsense is the hallmark IMO of the FO's historic dysfunction.  

 

When Vinny finally took ownership of being the guy when Zorn was hired -- it made it easy to lay the blame when it didn't go down well.  Before that it was Gibbs and Vinny and Danny making decisions by committee and the position coaches were making the calls for their positions, etc.  It was a weird and IMO chaotic power structure.  Then later we hear stuff from Shanny that yeah Scott Campbell made some good calls, he just wasn't listened to.   It's just IMO nonsense.  Bruce take the title and have the buck stop with you.

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Re: Scot M -

 

There have been four (I think) issues brought up in connection to his being fired by Allen: 1) Drinking, 2) interacting with players privately about on-field and practice issues, 3) going "dark" and not answering agent calls or even clearing out his voicemails so they could leave a message, and 4) (probably) leaking stuff to the press (or at the very least being too open too often).

 

#1 and #3 would bother any team president and owner in the league and be considered fire-able offenses, not just for Allen and Snyder.

 

#2 and #4 seem more specifically connected to how Allen wants things to run.

 

For  the interacting with players issue, when he was first hired Allen had the receptionist (I think) turn away players who were asking to talk to Snyder, and instead had her send them to Allen, where he informed them of what the proper channels were for any issues or questions. Now while there's an obvious difference between going to the owner and talking to the GM--and it's not as if Allen prevented Snyder from getting chummy with Griffin--it does still point to how Allen may want "his" team to run in terms of players and chain of command. And as for the leaks to the press, it's already established that Allen barely had a working relationship with the local press and cultivated an atmosphere within Redskins Park that you risked your job if you were caught leaking out important/sensitive info to the media. Side note, I don't buy that Allen leaked that story about Scot to the local media after his termination...it would have gotten out asap if it was Bruce. Local media won't cover for him, especially on this. Doesn't mean he didn't have anything to do with it, though...

 

Those two things may not be fire-able offenses in other front offices, I wouldn't know. But I would have no problem believing that in Allen's mind, they should be.

 

What I kinda find interesting about all this, though, is that within the relayed convos with Scot through his proxies (his wife, the ex-player Robinson, some random guy at a gas station lol), Scot only addresses one of those issues--interacting with players (Breeland in particular). While he doesn't really provide any information outside of "I don't get why this is such a big deal" (which in itself says a lot in my eyes), he's never said "I never drank on the job" or "Never leaked anything to anyone in the press" or "I answered all my calls and always responded back to my voicemails". So I tend to lean towards there probably being issues with all four of those things. The things said about Allen have been almost exclusively ego and jealousy, or things along those lines. Just as a default mode, I tend to ignore when people attempt to read other people's character from afar--wish I had a dollar for every time someone here claimed I was being condescending and think I only am arguing semantics lol...and while I could have missed things, obviously, I don't recall any stories about Allen's jealousy or ego creating friction in Oakland or Tampa. We have, though, had 3rd party confirmations to varying degrees on all four of the issues I listed that were connected to Scot.

 

So, if (big if at the moment) the Skins do hire another GM some day, it will be imperative for him to be one million percent on board with how Allen wants the front office and team run. There can't be any "I don't understand why Allen was upset at what I did" types of comments, because the new GM will know beyond doubt--and agree completely with--why Allen wants things done a certain way. He'll also have to 'pick a side" so to speak, in terms of the local media. The other two are obvious (don't drink on the job and don't make yourself unavailable to players' agents). But in terms of roster personnel, he can butt heads with Allen all he wants and his job will probably still be safe. Well, as long as he's right more than he's wrong on that front.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

16 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

There have been four (I think) issues brought up in connection to his being fired by Allen: 1) Drinking, 2) interacting with players privately about on-field and practice issues, 3) going "dark" and not answering agent calls or even clearing out his voicemails so they could leave a message, and 4) (probably) leaking stuff to the press (or at the very least being too open too often).

 

 

I can't speak for everyone but reading people's posts -- I don't think the overriding point is the Bruce versus Scot stuff and who was in the wrong.   I'll say now what I said then.  I don't care who is wrong.   I care about the power struggle accusation from Scot only in terms of one thing and that is what happens next.  My thing was what happens next.  If Scot was a problem, fine.  Hire another Scot type and move on.

 

Sub and I made a thread about this before Scot was hired.  Our point was we wanted a real personnel guy running the front office.  We wanted a guy who was renowned as one of the top people at their game as to personnel.  I don't think we were asking for much.  It's how the top teams in the NFL function.  Oddly, its not how the Redskins functioned.   And we thought (as many others did including beat reporters who covered the team at the time) the team's mediocrity had a lot to do with a FO manned by people who were considered mediocre at personnel.      

 

If the Redskins go back to same old same old FO like they had before Scot arrived -- its a really big deal to some of us.

 

[TK]

[Califan007 The Constipated]

24 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I can't speak for everyone but reading people's posts -- I don't think the overriding point is the Bruce versus Scot stuff and who was in the wrong.  

 

Most don't, a few too many do, both here on this thread, in other threads and on twitter (saw some stoooopid stuff there lol). Had this said on the previous page:

 

"It also means what many of us were saying all along was correct.  The Redskins did not fire McCloughan for alcohol, that was a convenient excuse.  In reality, Dan Snyder and Bruce Allen didnt like the power a GM had, and wanted to take what LITTLE power they had given out back. "

 

Had this said on the Cousins thread in terms of ego:

 

"I think that Allen wasn't sold on cousins, decided to make him prove it(while lowballing)....and what do ya know cousins did earn himself a lot more money. I think Allen is bitter as hell and ego is keeping him from offering market value for cousins."

 

Just thought I would synthesize my overall thoughts on the whole shibang instead of trying to point out why various comments on the various threads are hard to swallow lol...instead, now people can do that to mine *thumbsup*

 

But anyway, my main point was to try and say what I felt a new GM would need to be (or have) if his hiring was to work, because I don't think ego and power grabs are playing any role in all of this whatsoever. I was confused as to why the Redskins (or any team) would need to submit their front office plans to the league (or to whatever league agency they submitted them to). Elkabong's explanation makes some sense, concern over the Rooney Rule for the moves they're apparently about to make seems logical. If so, it would mean Doug Williams is not being promoted to GM or even "GM"--that would pretty much cover the Rooney Rule, I assume, thus negating the need to submit their FO plans. You know how Vinny was never actually "GM" but might as well have been? I suspect something similar might take place after considering what Elkabong said. Only hopefully with someone far, FAR more qualified and professional than Vinny...

 

Like, say, Floyd the Barber...

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Chris Russell just now said he's got confirmation of that story.   He said he was told that the guys in house are going to be given new titles.    Russell was about to say more but Nick Ashooh annoyingly talked over him and did a rant.    Russell (who if you guys recall broke the Scot-Bruce story initially) said his source doubled down that Scot's power was just about gone just after August 2015 -- at that point Bruce was the final decision maker.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 Russell (who if you guys recall broke the Scot-Bruce story initially) said his source doubled down that Scot's power was just about gone just after August 2015 -- at that point Bruce was the final decision maker.

 

Did he say why?

[SkinsPassion4Life]

2014 and 2017 were some of the best draft/free agents seasons we've had under Snyder....it was under the current format.

 

I have no problem with our current structure...the only thing I would like is to add to our scouting department.

 

What we have now is a collaboration between Gruden, Campbell and Santos...Bruce is the tie breaker if there's disagreement.

 

I was amazed at all the slurping people were giving GMSM this weekend...basically giving him credit for our draft....what a JOKE!

 

GMSM was/is VASTLY overrated...period.

[Skinsinparadise]

10 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

But anyway, my main point was to try and say what I felt a new GM would need to be (or have) if his hiring was to work, because I don't think ego and power grabs are playing any role in all of this whatsoever.

 

 

 To each their own so everyone is entitled of course to their point of view, I am just trying to nail down your position clearly. 

 

By Bruce not hiring a GM from outside the organization -- it has nothing to do with ego or power grabs.  Then I gather your position is Bruce would hire another GM and or bring someone from outside the organization if he truly thought they'd help.  But he sincerely believes that he/Scott/Doug are as good as it gets in this business and thus in his mind its in the best interest for the organization to keep that status quo?  Is it that or something else? 

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Did he say why?

 

Not this time.  In the past Chris said its mainly about Bruce blaming him for leaks to the press.  To a lessor degree power struggle.  To a lessor degree drinking.   All three components in play.

[Skinsinparadise]

17 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

2014 and 2017 were some of the best draft/free agents seasons we've had under Snyder....it was under the current format.

 

I have no problem with our current structure...the only thing I would like is to add to our scouting department.

 

What we have now is a collaboration between Gruden, Campbell and Santos...Bruce is the tie breaker if there's disagreement.

 

I was amazed at all the slurping people were giving GMSM this weekend...basically giving him credit for our draft....what a JOKE!

 

GMSM was/is VASTLY overrated...period.

 

I recall how much you dislike Scot as an evaluator from epic debates before on the subject.   But forget about your feelings about Scot.  Were you upset when they hired Scot in 2015 because you were a big Bruce guy?    In both 2014 and 2017, Bruce had Scot's lists.  Somehow I doubt Scot will be a paid consultant in 2018.  So I'll jump up and down for Bruce when he truly has a Scot free draft.  Bruce wasn't known for having hot drafts in Tampa.  Scott Campbell wasn't known for having hot drafts either under Vinny or Shanny.   

 

I think the debate gets murky when its Bruce versus Scot.    If I didn't like Scot.  I'd be happy to see him go, too.  But to me this isn't Bruce versus Scot.  That dance is over.  

 

This is Bruce versus bringing in someone who is highly regarded throughout the league on personnel.   If you prefer Bruce over that.  Then IMO you are on point.  

[RWJ]

17 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Chris Russell just now said he's got confirmation of that story.   He said he was told that the guys in house are going to be given new titles.    Russell was about to say more but Nick Ashooh annoyingly talked over him and did a rant.    Russell (who if you guys recall broke the Scot-Bruce story initially) said his source doubled down that Scot's power was just about gone just after August 2015 -- at that point Bruce was the final decision maker.

Like I mentioned earlier I hope that Scott Campbell is given the most authority over player personnel after BA. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, RWJ said:

Like I mentioned earlier I hope that Scott Campbell is given the most authority over player personnel after BA. 

 

For me Campbell or Schaffer if its purely about competence.   The only upside of it being Bruce is it least the buck would stop with him

[RWJ]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

For me Campbell or Schaffer if its purely about competence.   The only upside of it being Bruce is it least the buck would stop with him

Yes, Schaffer would work too.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

26 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 To each their own so everyone is entitled of course to their point of view, I am just trying to nail down your position clearly. 

 

By Bruce not hiring a GM from outside the organization -- it has nothing to do with ego or power grabs.  Then I gather your position is Bruce would hire another GM and or bring someone from outside the organization if he truly thought they'd help.  But he sincerely believes that he/Scott/Doug are as good as it gets in this business and thus in his mind its in the best interest for the organization to keep that status quo?  Is it that or something else? 

 

Right now, my thoughts are that Bruce places a high value on everyone being on the same page, all being on the same team, no worrying or wondering about what the other person is doing. You can say, yeah, but every team president feels that way, which is true to an extent. I suspect it's one reason Shanahan got canned and it's another reason he dipped from the "Tampa Bay Connection" well time and again when he was the actual GM...these were people he was comfortable with and felt could be trusted, regardless of level of talent they possessed.

 

And I think he's going back to that right now, at least for the time being. He could be doing it to calm and stabilize the front office as quickly as possible or he could be doing it because he tends to prefer "comfortable", even if it's not the best thing for the franchises he has worked for.  Again, I don't know enough about his time in Oakland and Tampa to say. But a power-driven egomaniac doesn't go out in the middle of his first year in full control and try to hire his replacement. He instead makes excuses and rationalizations as to why he doesn't need to. For a perfect example, see Jerruh Jones lol...when the Cowboys were looking as mediocre as hell and their drafts were becoming laughable, he got asked by the media if he planned on hiring a GM and stepping aside. His response? The new GM would still have to bring his decisions to Jerruh anyway so he can sign off on them, so why bother hiring an actual GM? Might as well keep things as-is and cut out the middle man.

 

That's power and ego right there lol...Jerruh actually did what many here are saying Allen wants to do--promoting questionable talent evaluators and giving differing levels of responsibility to a number of decisionmakers, and then acting as the tiebreaker...but giving in more to his "lieutenants" as time goes on. Maybe Bruce is following Jerruh's blue print?

[Cliffmark1]

24 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

2014 and 2017 were some of the best draft/free agents seasons we've had under Snyder....it was under the current format.

 

I have no problem with our current structure...the only thing I would like is to add to our scouting department.

 

What we have now is a collaboration between Gruden, Campbell and Santos...Bruce is the tie breaker if there's disagreement.

 

I was amazed at all the slurping people were giving GMSM this weekend...basically giving him credit for our draft....what a JOKE!

 

GMSM was/is VASTLY overrated...period.

Some people say andyman was vastly overrated...period. as well. 

[TSO]

@Califan007

 

I'd have no qualms believing Scot was the sole problem and his firing was perfectly reasonable had we, you know, done what pretty much every other franchise does when they fire their GM: replace him with another GM. Kind of like the recent example with the Bills, who suck but somehow manage to understand this simple concept. 

 

As it stands, I can't be convinced now that it was reasonable considering we aren't doing that. This isn't complicated to me. 

 

I find any attempt at explaining away why creating the position and filling it with a legit talent-evaluator in the first place (one which the vast majority of successful franchises have), hiring someone to fulfill that role, firing them, then doing away with the position entirely; as an attempt to rationalize what is clearly wrong and simply speculation based on nothing that's actually sound. 

 

The fact is we fired our GM who we hired based on his talent-evaluating credentials and, by the looks of it, are not hiring another. That is enough for me to be confident of my views. 

 

What were we all saying about the organization when Scot was hired and the position of GM with final say on personnel was given to him?

 

I don't remember anyone disputing the significance of the move. I don't remember anyone downplaying what it meant for the organization and how they were finally  set up, organizationally, in what has traditionally been the most conducive to success for NFL franchises. 

 

If someone can go back to when we hired Scot and find me logical, reason-based arguments that showed how unnecessary the hire was in the first place... maybe I'd change my mind and be convinced. 

 

Right now, though? I don't know how I'm supposed to simply accept this as necessary, not view the Scot firing with extreme skepticism, or look for reasons to justify it. 

 

It's extremely disappointing. 

 

The only thing that'd make this recent report less disappointing would be if the GM position itself remains as is and one of our top scouts (either Campbell or Santos) is promoted to the position. It'd still be disappointing though, because it's difficult for me to buy that those guys improved enough to earn that spot in the two years after hiring Scot. And I'd still be skeptical about the actual title itself and whether or not it really holds the power it should. But, yeah, it'd be less disappointing I guess. :/ 

 

In the end, all I can say is I hope I'm dead wrong, the Skins FO are brilliant and innovative doing things no one else does, and they go on to be one of the model organizations in the league. I'm rooting for that, as hard as it is to see it right now. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

13 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

@Califan007

 

I'd have no qualms believing Scot was the sole problem and his firing was perfectly reasonable had we, you know, done what pretty much every other franchise does when they fire their GM: replace him with another GM. Kind of like the recent example with the Bills, who suck but somehow manage to understand this simple concept. 

 

As it stands, I can't be convinced now that it was reasonable considering we aren't doing that. This isn't complicated to me. 

 

I find any attempt at explaining away why creating the position and filling it with a legit talent-evaluator in the first place (one which the vast majority of successful franchises have), hiring someone to fulfill that role, firing them, then doing away with the position entirely; as an attempt to rationalize what is clearly wrong and simply speculation based on nothing that's actually sound. 

 

 

For some reason you do this alot...you don't quiiiiiite get what I'm saying.

 

So I'll address what you said right here above, and say you can do both: you can both find the desire to bring in a legit GM as sincere and the desire to forego doing it again (at the moment at least) a laughably bad decision. If what you're saying is that Allen's eliminating (again, for now) having a legit GM means he never genuinely wanted to have a legit GM in the first place...well, I'll just say that IF you are saying something along those lines, I disagree lol...if that's not what you're saying, then sorry for getting you wrong.

[SkinsPassion4Life]

30 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I recall how much you dislike Scot as an evaluator from epic debates before on the subject.   But forget about your feelings about Scot.  Were you upset when they hired Scot in 2015 because you were a big Bruce guy?    In both 2014 and 2017, Bruce had Scot's lists.  Somehow I doubt Scot will be a paid consultant in 2018.  So I'll jump up and down for Bruce when he truly has a Scot free draft.  Bruce wasn't known for having hot drafts in Tampa.  Scott Campbell wasn't known for having hot drafts either under Vinny or Shanny.   

 

I think the debate gets murky when its Bruce versus Scot.    If I didn't like Scot.  I'd be happy to see him go, too.  But to me this isn't Bruce versus Scot.  That dance is over.  

 

This is Bruce versus bringing in someone who is highly regarded throughout the league on personnel.   If you prefer Bruce over that.  Then IMO you are on point.  

 

Can we please stop with the "Redskins used Scot's list in 2014 and 2017"?    If that were true, I wish Scot had used his lists in 2015 and 2016 instead of his lousy free agent signings and mediocre drafts.

 

This isn't about Bruce...I think he has positives and negatives....I don't think he's making personnel decisions...Like I said, I think it's a collaboration and he's the tie breaking vote.  

 

When they hired Scot, I was pleased...mainly for the perceived stability it gave the franchise...people respected the franchise because of Scot's mythical track record.

 

I don't think we have the greatest personnel department....if they hired a top notch GM, I'd be cool with it, but if they don't, I'm perfectly fine with the current setup.

 

And I really do hope Scot is advising other teams....maybe he'll convince someone that Matt Jones is the next MarShawn Lynch and we can get something for him.

 

 

[TSO]

17 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

For some reason you do this alot...you don't quiiiiiite get what I'm saying.

 

Seems like I'm not the only one, so...  

 

17 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

So I'll address what you said right here above, and say you can do both: you can both find the desire to bring in a legit GM as sincere and the desire to forego doing it again (at the moment at least) a laughably bad decision. If what you're saying is that Allen's eliminating (again, for now) having a legit GM means he never genuinely wanted to have a legit GM in the first place...well, I'll just say that IF you are saying something along those lines, I disagree lol...if that's not what you're saying, then sorry for getting you wrong.

 

The last part of my post addresses this a bit, so it's not as simple as this. Like you, I do often take more nuanced positions which can lead to them being misconstrued. 

 

But to address this directly... you got me wrong, brother. You see, I don't care whether he was originally sincere or not. In fact, I don't even believe, as some have postulated, that the GM position given to Scot was just a meaningless title and he "never had power".

 

I believe he did, and if anyone wants to argue he lost some of that power or when he did or whatever, I believe the title and Scot's responsibilities remained vital up until he got fired. 

 

And that's precisely why I have such a problem with this. That position, that title, what it represents, what it should entail, who should be hired to fulfill it, the expertise required for it, the FO allowing whoever they hire to fulfill its responsibilities, etc... are all extremely important to me and remain so.

 

The FO going in a different direction says more to me about how they operate than anything else can, including what we want to speculate regarding the justifications of Scot's firing. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

23 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Seems like I'm not the only one, so...  

 

 

 

Touche' lol...

 

As for the rest, I don't really disagree, although I'm more disappointed than angry. I was cool with them hiring from within for the next GM as long as the hire has some nice background on his resume'. Right now I'm hoping this decision is either temporary (less likely) or that the new FO structure actually, somehow, some way, works out and is the exception that proves the rule. It doesn't seem like Allen wants to disrupt the front office, at least at the moment. But from reading that Liz Clarke article, Allen has waaaay too much on his plate to be a truly effective GM, and he needs one...he doesn't need a stand-in.

 

I guess I'm less angry and more disappointed...but, eh, oh well. Might work out afterall, who knows.