New GM search

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

Not saying I totally disagree - but for the bolded, how much of that is coaching? Since Jay has gotten here there has been a bit of an uptick in development of players late day 2 and day 3. Jay has noticeably (at least to me) added a new better coach each year. Callahan, Tomsula, Cavanaugh.

 

It's a chicken and an egg thing. Is it better drafting or better coaching?

 

I get the point and its interesting.  But it seems to me odd to go chicken and egg with draft picks (I am more of a talent over coaching guy to start with) especially with the type of coaches we've had at different times in this building.  I like Jay and I didn't kill Barry with the intensity that others did on this board.  But that's the staff that's head over shoulders at developing players versus previous administrations -- where we've had some pretty big names in the building.   No way to tell.  But I doubt it.

 

Campbell has been here on and off since 2001 as part of college scouting.  We've had some really great offensive minds in the building among Saunders, Gibbs, Bugel, Kyle and Papa Shanny.  Gregg Williams had an all star staff working for him.  Blache's defense while overrated IMO was the last at least average defense we've had here.

 

For the most part its not as if the draft picks they've landed have been let go have excelled elsewhere.  Shanny used to take pride in that -- hey I let all these guys go and just about everyone is out of the league now.

[Skinsinparadise]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/05/washington-may-indeed-not-hire-a-g-m/

Washington may indeed not hire a G.M.

Posted by Mike Florio on May 5, 2017, 11:08 AM EDT

Getty Images

Comments from Washington president Bruce Allen at the league meetings suggested that the team may not replace G.M. Scot McCloughan. Now that the draft has ended, it’s looking more and more likely that the team won’t have a General Manager.

Via Mark Maske of the Washington Post, Allen is indeed considering not hiring a G.M. Instead, Allen would spread the duties among the current employees of the front office.

Since the firing of McCloughan in March, director of college scouting Scott Campbell, director of pro personnel Alex Santos, and senior personnel executive Doug Williams have received bigger roles.

On Thursday, John Wooten of the Fritz Pollard Alliance told Jason Cole of Bleacher Report that Washington had submitted a plan to reorganize the front office without replacing the G.M. position. Maske, citing a league official, says a plan has not been submitted.

“We haven’t seen the plan,” Wooten told Maske. “We don’t know what the plan is. We’ve been given information that they are planning to divide the duties of the job. We’ll wait and see what they do. We’ll wait to see if their plan complies with the rules.”

The Rooney Rule requires teams to interview at least one minority candidate for the General Manager position. It’s unclear how the rule would apply where a G.M. is fired, no new G.M. is hired, and the duties are absorbed by employees currently employed by the team.

Here’s what is clear: With no new G.M., Allen has more power. With that power comes greater accountability. So if this new model doesn’t work, Allen becomes more likely to be fired than if he were tucked away from the day-to-day realities of the football operations.

 

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

 

Your Washington Redskins. The amateur outfit of the NFL since May 25, 1999.

 

Hail.  

[NewCliche21]

29 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/05/washington-may-indeed-not-hire-a-g-m/

Washington may indeed not hire a G.M.

 

 

Thank God.  The two years we've had a real GM we've been better than .500 including winning the division.  Now we can go back to the rest of Snyder's years without a GM where we have let the division-winning duties go to the other three teams.

[SkinsPassion4Life]

50 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

1.  The question is do you think Bruce is a better personnel guy than Scot?  Scott Campbell was here with Scot, he's here for Bruce.  Campbell is a common denominator. The uncommon denominator is Scot versus Bruce making the final call.  Who do you think knows personnel better Bruce or Scot?  That's it, really.  It's a direct question and I don't see how this isn't the matter at hand.  

 

2.  That's debatable about Scherff.  L. Williams fell in part because there were some concerns about his shoulder and whether he loves football.  Lets go with your theory that Scherff was an awful pick and Scot made a mistake.   When you are a boss are you going to define someone by one move you don't like?   Schneider had one outright awful draft in Seattle (how dare he!) maybe he should have been canned and their team president should have taken over? 

 

3.  Many teams also don't specifically highlight that scouting services recommendations and cite it specifically as part of the reason why they hired the actual person who headed that scouting service to become their GM or for that matter use that same scout in their building to run and research the draft for about 6 months, let them go but then give credit for that scout for having an impact on their draft board -- but the whole time they really don't mean it.  

 

4.  I understand that Scot being in the mix in 2014 and even more so in 2017 is an inconvenient truth to making the argument that they were without Scot's influence in both years -- but it is what it is.  It's a fact.  Bruce Allen, Jay and Scott Campbell via their own words disagree with you.  So I don't know why you keep barking up this tree, it makes no sense IMO -- especially as this specific draft.

 

I like debating, but let's be factual instead of saying things I never said to fit your argument....

 

1)  I never argued that Bruce is a better personnel man than Scott....Bruce works in collaboration with Jay, Campbell and Santos.....I think Jay has a lot of power.

 

2) I never said Scherff was an "awful" pick.

 

3) I never said Scot's drafting was terrible....I said "mediocre"  big difference....not sure you said that or someone said that I said it.

 

4) I never denied they used Scot's service as a tool.....but my definition of "influence" and yours are different as it relates to the decision making process in 2014 and 2017

23 minutes ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

 

Your Washington Redskins. The amateur outfit of the NFL since May 25, 1999.

 

Hail.  

 

Complete overreaction

[Skinsinparadise]

36 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

I like debating, but let's be factual instead of saying things I never said to fit your argument....

 

1)  I never argued that Bruce is a better personnel man than Scott....Bruce works in collaboration with Jay, Campbell and Santos.....I think Jay has a lot of power.

 

2) I never said Scherff was an "awful" pick.

 

3) I never said Scot's drafting was terrible....I said "mediocre"  big difference....not sure you said that or someone said that I said it.

 

4) I never denied they used Scot's service as a tool.....but my definition of "influence" and yours are different as it relates to the decision making process in 2014 and 2017

 

 

I never said you said that Bruce is better.  I asked you a direct question on it.  Do you prefer Bruce being in the mix or Scot as to personnel?   Or I'll give you a new question is it you prefer Scott Campbell as a talent evaluator over McCloughan and prefer Scott and not Scot have final say?   My point I don't see how this is a grey conversation. It's very specific. 

 

Jay is here regardless, Scott Campbell is here regardless.   Scot flat out told me that Jay is heavily involved with personnel and they have a good chemistry with each other. Jay and Campbell were involved in what you define as "mediocre" drafts, too.   The only difference as far as I can tell about the new arrangement versus the old one is Bruce doesn't have interference from Scot.

 

As for Scherff, I don't want to misrepresent your take so sorry on that front.  I misread it then. You have probably posted just off my memory alone at least 10 times on the board challenging the Scherff pick -- the fact that you gave it all that attention gave me the vibe that you really really really don't like that pick.  It's a lot to harp on something you don't hate.  But if you don't hate it  -- that's cool.

 

As for credit, to refer to your post (people)... are giving credit to Scot for this draft what a "JOKE".   That of all your positions, I think is the wild one.  Even Scott Campbell and Jay are giving credit to Scot influencing both the draft and free agency.  Are they lying because they both just love Scot so much they want to give him false credit?  National reporters kicking in on the lie, too?  It doesn't make sense to you that the guy who actually was on the forefront for preparing for the draft for months actually had an impact on the draft?  You are a draft geek and I agreed with a lot of your positions on the draft thread -- doesn't Ryan Anderson for example, scream a Scot McCloughan pick?  Ditto Moreau, Perine.

 

 

 

[FrFan]

After the "no shortage of GM job seekers" article from the wapo, I believe no one wanted to work with Allen.

"Several of Washington’s targets have already bailed out at the initial stage -- disinterested in even interviewing for the job -- because of concerns over how Snyder has run the team and the over-reaching powers of Bruce Allen, the team president." Link

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

1 hour ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

......

 

Complete overreaction

 

 

Is it? Haven't we been a complete sham of an alleged football organisation since he bought the team for nigh on consistently 2 decades then? 

 

And now we're following our tried and failed methods once more. 

 

What's the definition of madness again?

 

Hail. 

[50yrSKINSfan]

Just now, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

 

Scherff was never NOT going to be a guard the pro's. That's another ES 'myth' that's developed. His skill set was always far better suited to dominate the smaller space inside. The RT thing was only temporary whilst Moses developed. Why would you not take him at 5 overall? I seriously never get the downgrading of interior guys and this perceived notion that you don't draft them high. The same with a top game changing RB like Zeke if you have the line already in place. There's a talent worthy of his pick on your board, that can help your football team, then take him regardless. Would it of been nice to move back a few spots and take him? Sure. But that entails finding a willing partner which I'm sure we tried for. Scherff was as safe a 'hit' on a top 5 pick as you could get. We'd been crying out for top echelon OL for years. We've seen Dallas build the best line in football and dominate us within the division with it. (Zack Martin at 16 anyone? Is THAT too high for a top echelon guard?). Yet when we take a quality one high, the majority were complaining! 

 

Now, back at the time of that draft, I couldn't understand why we overlooked Leonard Williams, the best overall talent IMHO who'd dropped. Nor why we then took a lesser, traditional 43 run stuffing end in Smith the next round. As much as I loved the Scherff pick, there was better ways to go around that combo to me. At the time. In retrospect, it's hard to quibble. Scherff is one of the top interior guys in this league and Smith has been productive fitting what we do. Could Williams and a second round guard combo like an Ali Marpet or A.J. Cann of been a better 1/2 take there? Possibly. But you can't say we've not had great value and success the route we went and will continue to do for a long whiles yet. 

 

You're just being picky on everything else to me. We've not had a bad haul from those two drafts.

 

Hail. 

The NFL today is a pitch and catch league and we just saw that in the draft. The top guys that were picked were the guys that were either throwing it or catching it and the other top guys were the ones that are trying to pressure or stop the pitch and catch. Pressuring the passer is the name of the game, not taking a guard at 5 and passing on a guy that is paid to pressure the passer. All I hear is how SM drafted a pro bowl player with the a top 5 pick but really it is not a Einstein move. If you are a top GM then a guy you take in the top 5 should be great.  If he did not want Williams then he should have traded the pick to someone that wanted a top receiver or defender, not take a guard. I would have wanted  their 1 and a 1 next year and you could have received 2 guards with those picks. With all due respect it is not the rule of thumb to draft a guard with the 5th overall pick in today's NFL, pro bowl or not. In fact if you look at the other 3 starting pro bowl guards you will find, and I am going back on memory, that Sheriff is the only one who was drafted in the 1st round so if you were taken top 5 then you better be dam good as it is not a highly skilled position. If you go back and check the last 15 years no other guard was drafted as high as Sheriff and there have been some real good guards taken in 15 years. They usually go 12-18, not top 5. LT yes but not guards. Is 16 too high, no, but 5 is esp when you pass on a guy that was projected to be the best defender in the draft. Look at this last draft, were there any guards taken at all in the 1st round? This is opening old wounds for me as I almost fell over when SM passed on Williams and took Sheriff and they were still  talking about how teams passed on Williams and he fell to the Jets just like what happened to the Jets this passed draft.

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I get the point and its interesting.  But it seems to me odd to go chicken and egg with draft picks (I am more of a talent over coaching guy to start with) especially with the type of coaches we've had at different times in this building.  I like Jay and I didn't kill Barry with the intensity that others did on this board.  But that's the staff that's head over shoulders at developing players versus previous administrations -- where we've had some pretty big names in the building.   No way to tell.  But I doubt it.

 

Campbell has been here on and off since 2001 as part of college scouting.  We've had some really great offensive minds in the building among Saunders, Gibbs, Bugel, Kyle and Papa Shanny.  Gregg Williams had an all star staff working for him.  Blache's defense while overrated IMO was the last at least average defense we've had here.

 

For the most part its not as if the draft picks they've landed have been let go have excelled elsewhere.  Shanny used to take pride in that -- hey I let all these guys go and just about everyone is out of the league now.

 

 

This is totally not directed at you as I agree - It's amazing how much we hear about guys going to other teams and excelling.

 

Anyway, I totally believe it's a 50/50. Coaches and talent. Talking D - I believe last year is wa a problem with both. The coaching was not great. I especially look at Raheem Morris. But Barry owned it all so whatever blame gets assigned to Morris he has to own for not making a change and allowing what apparently turned into a disaster for the backfield guys. I could have understood firing Morris and keeping Barry but am not unhappy at all that he is gone. Having said that, there were only a very few guys that would have started on any other team.

 

Those other coaches did develop a few lower round guys. The problem we had during those times was more about lack of draft picks. Drafting is a numbers game. The more you have the more you hit. Also, while Scott Campbell was here it's unclear - at least to me - how much influence he had. I hope and believe he will have learned a fair amount from Scot M. Not saying he is all of a sudden Scot M jr. But he is a smart guy. The fact Scot kept him says a lot - assuming it was not a directive from above. Not the place for that argument.

 

This is no way to try and disparage Scot or say that the scouting has been awesome. Scot has clearly had a very good impact on our talent evaluation and drafts. But I also do not think the sky is falling now that he is gone.

 

Next is a continuation of my thoughts - not directed at your comment above: I have a theory about the FO that I have been forming based on us and other teams. Here is how I see what we would call the traditional structure (extremely high level):

 

President: Interface between the GM and coaching staff and the owner. Hires the GM and then mostly holds them accountable and pays the bills making sure contracts are legal and accurate. He stays out of day to day operations and is mostly a bystander during draft and Free Agency unless there is an obvious contract issue.  

 

GM: In charge of scouting and has a final say on personnel. He works closely with the HC to perform player evaluations and develop needs strategies.

 

HC: In charge of day to day operations of the team in terms of players, practices, game plans. Works with the GM on player evaluation and needs strategies, who to target in free agency, what players he would like out of the draft. etc.

 

However, I do not think that structure actually exists in NFL teams now as much as people think it does due to the CAP. CAP management has become a priority. As I see it, the way many organizations are working is:

 

President - Same as above except in the case of the GM wanting a player and the CAP specialist saying it will not work he makes the final decision. This could also be the owner.

 

CAP Specialist - Makes sure the players desired fits the CAP - this includes current players and any free agents.

 

GM - Same with the addition of working with the CAP specialist to determine if what he and the HC want fits into the CAP.

 

HC - Same as above.

 

Before everyone says NO, NO, NO! Look at the NE Patriots. Do you really think that BB wanted to lose his best players last year? They have made some really difficult player decisions that are clearly made by CAP decisions.

 

I believe the last structure is what the Redskins tried to implement with Scot. However, Bruce is also the CAP specialist. So it's not a tie breaker. To me, that's the biggest thing that is missing. And Shaeaffer is not a CAP specialist. He sets up the contracts and makes sure they are legal. He even does research to help set pay structure for players. But he is not the CAP guy. That has always been Bruce's one competency, managing the CAP. So instead of CAP guy and the GM going to the President and getting a tie break decision, Bruce is both.

 

The rest is my speculation:

Scot was constantly up against the CAP person and President as they were the same. He was never going to win that battle. He got frustrated that all decisions came down to CAP and he was not as free to get who he wanted. He ended up being not much more than a high paid scout and talent evaluator. But final personnel decisions came to Bruce too much as he is also the CAP specialist. I don't really care about the drinking to be honest. Maybe he started drinking more, maybe not. In the end, it was his relationship with Bruce that broke down. The drinking was more likely a by product, not the cause of the breakdown.

 

So Bruce has now decided instead of hiring a GM he can do the job by giving the current scouting people a bit more responsibility. The good news here is now one of two things will happen:

 

1. The team continues to improve as the relationship between Jay and Bruce is very good, meaning they work well together. The talent is clearly better than it was when Shanny left. Scot gets a lot of credit but sorry for those that hate Bruce, he gets some of that credit too. If they continue in that direction with either who they have in house or if they employ - hire a scouting service, the team will win and not many will care.

 

2. The team after moving forward for the last 3 yrs, will start to go backwards - and it will happen quickly. It starts with Kirk Cousins. If he makes the wrong decision there it will be swift. this BTW is another reason I believe Bruce will open the wallet an pay Kirk, if for no  other reason than self preservation. But I digress. If the team falls backwards there is no one else to blame. For all of Dan's faults - impatience being one of them - in this case his impatience will mean a swift end to the BA era. Of course then we are at the mercy of mini-me so it may be pan to the fire. But who knows. Maybe he will finally see that there is a reason he is never successful. Doubt it, butt one can hope.

 

Mostly thinking out loud here. But to me, there will be a final decision made on Bruce rather quickly, one way or another.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

[Skinsinparadise]

26 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

The rest is my speculation:

Scot was constantly up against the CAP person and President as they were the same. He was never going to win that battle. He got frustrated that all decisions came down to CAP and he was not as free to get who he wanted. He ended up being not much more than a high paid scout and talent evaluator. But final personnel decisions came to Bruce too much as he is also the CAP specialist. I don't really care about the drinking to be honest. Maybe he started drinking more, maybe not. In the end, it was his relationship with Bruce that broke down. The drinking was more likely a by product, not the cause of the breakdown.

 

 

Maybe but I doubt it as going up against the CAP person who is Schaffer.  Scot is conversations seemed fairly conscious of the draft.  He also seemed to espouse a conservative approach to FA both here and previously with other teams -- FA is where you generally bust the cap.  According to what we read as to the reports on this, Scot and Bruce actually butted heads as to specific players/roster. 

 

As for Scot's relationship with Bruce breaking down, I agree with that, the tea leaves seem clear on that one. 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I was just listening and while he indicated no decisions had been finalized, it surely sounded like the stage was being set for exactly what has been reported in that everything is a group deal and it works great.

[Skinsinparadise]

Just now, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I was just listening and while he indicate no decisions had been finalized, it surely sounded like the stage was being set for exactly what has been reported in that everything is a group deal and it works great.

 

Interesting, thanks.  I missed it, am just seeing the tweets.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Interesting, thanks.  I missed it, am just seeing the tweets.

In fairness, I turned in midway through and didn't hear it in it's entirety.

 

But what I did hear sounded like he was making a case for the way things went down this year to be the plan moving forward.

[SkinsPassion4Life]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I never said you said that Bruce is better.  I asked you a direct question on it.  Do you prefer Bruce being in the mix or Scot as to personnel?   Or I'll give you a new question is it you prefer Scott Campbell as a talent evaluator over McCloughan and prefer Scott and not Scot have final say?   My point I don't see how this is a grey conversation. It's very specific. 

 

Jay is here regardless, Scott Campbell is here regardless.   Scot flat out told me that Jay is heavily involved with personnel and they have a good chemistry with each other. Jay and Campbell were involved in what you define as "mediocre" drafts, too.   The only difference as far as I can tell about the new arrangement versus the old one is Bruce doesn't have interference from Scot.

 

As for Scherff, I don't want to misrepresent your take so sorry on that front.  I misread it then. You have probably posted just off my memory alone at least 10 times on the board challenging the Scherff pick -- the fact that you gave it all that attention gave me the vibe that you really really really don't like that pick.  It's a lot to harp on something you don't hate.  But if you don't hate it  -- that's cool.

 

As for credit, to refer to your post (people)... are giving credit to Scot for this draft what a "JOKE".   That of all your positions, I think is the wild one.  Even Scott Campbell and Jay are giving credit to Scot influencing both the draft and free agency.  Are they lying because they both just love Scot so much they want to give him false credit?  National reporters kicking in on the lie, too?  It doesn't make sense to you that the guy who actually was on the forefront for preparing for the draft for months actually had an impact on the draft?  You are a draft geek and I agreed with a lot of your positions on the draft thread -- doesn't Ryan Anderson for example, scream a Scot McCloughan pick?  Ditto Moreau, Perine.

 

 

 

 

 

If you recall, I said that Scot was on the hot seat going into this year....I didn't want him fired...I wanted to give him one more year....but I'm not upset he's gone.....I look at his 4 year record as GM...two in SF..two in DC...the definition of mediocre.....He might be the equivalent of a really good Coordinator, but not a good head coach....maybe Scot is a good scout, but not a very good GM.

 

I still don't view Scot's influence in 2014 and 2017 as highly as you do....his opinion was used as a tool, but to basically say that he was greatly responsible for 2014 and 2017, I'm just not buying it.    You are taking what Bruce and Campbell said about it the wrong way, I think.

 

One last time on Scherff....I like him...very good Guard...never said it was a terrible pick....but I'm not giving Scot praise for drafting a Guard with the 5th pick....there were better options..not just Leonard Williams

 

[SkinsPassion4Life]

Just listened to the Bruce interview....sounded like they were going to add someone to the front office...maybe not a GM though.

 

I didn't like his answer when Doc asked him what happens if you disagree with Gruden about a player.

 

He sounded very confident about signing Kirk

[Burgold]

This is the danger of a little success. The Redskins got a whole lot of praise for how they conducted the draft. That shouldn't impact the plan, but I do think it made them feel good about themselves. It's questionable whether they deserve to puff out their chests and forego a GM.

 

Since Scott basically was a nonplayer before the Combine, they can certainly make an argument that it was their board, their draft, and their decision making. The question is whether they really have the right crew. Drafts and free agency were at best mixed during the Shanny years. Some good and some bad, but when Gruden came in almost everyone felt that the cupboard was pretty bare. That was the whole reason that McCloughan was brought in. It seems to me that they need a McCloughan. They need someone a little bit warm and fuzzy who the players can like, but most importantly has a really good eye for talent and how a team can be assembled. Bruce and Eric are very good money people. Bruce and Scott are question marks in terms of how good they are at assessing talent. I think Bruce is okay. I don't think he's the bum everyone makes him out to be. I've heard good things about Scott, but he's also been here for way too many bad drafts to think he's got a great eye for talent. More importantly, he's never been stolen by another team. He's been here close to twenty years and never was considered for a GM position.

 

Ultimately, I think if they go with what they have... I think they can be good. I'm just not sure if they can be consistently great.

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Maybe but I doubt it as going up against the CAP person who is Schaffer.  Scot is conversations seemed fairly conscious of the draft.  He also seemed to espouse a conservative approach to FA both here and previously with other teams -- FA is where you generally bust the cap.  According to what we read as to the reports on this, Scot and Bruce actually butted heads as to specific players/roster. 

 

As for Scot's relationship with Bruce breaking down, I agree with that, the tea leaves seem clear on that one. 

 

 

 

 

Shaeffer is where we disagree. He is the guy who makes sure the contracts are legal. And he may be communicating consequences, but ultimately Bruce is the CAP guy.

But I can see what both you and I are saying as true. I can see Bruce disagreeing on a player and if he can't "win" with a talent discussion he uses the CAP. But Bruce is ultimately the CAP guy. Either that or Sheaffer all of a sudden became an expert when Bruce got here. That's when the free spending and better contracts started. As I have said (and I think you too), we have now gone the other way too far. I have to think another few $Ms and we could have had Bennie Logan (and maybe that would have gotten @Morneblade to STFU about a NT! - totally kidding! I definitely admire your passion. Just had to poke you a little!)  

 

Time will tell. Hope it turns out well. We need something to work even it's by total accident.

[Burgundy Yoda]

When you think about it, a group vote conducted by football people isn't necessarily a bad thing. What I have a problem with is someone who doesn't know much, pounding the table for a player they want. That's when it becomes an issue. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

 

I still don't view Scot's influence in 2014 and 2017 as highly as you do....his opinion was used as a tool, but to basically say that he was greatly responsible for 2014 and 2017, I'm just not buying it.    You are taking what Bruce and Campbell said about it the wrong way, I think.

 

 

Now, you are putting words in my mouth, I didn't say "greatly responsible" for 2014.  What I said is I just think its a bizarre argument IMO to suggest all is cool with Scot being gone because their best drafts were 2017 or 2014.  In another words who needs Scot?

 

Your quote:  

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

 

My point

if 2018 is going to be either Scot in the building for months and doing the ground work for the draft or they hire his consulting services for his draft board and scouting reports -- that's the 2014 or 2017 format.  Neither draft was removed from Scot's influence.  And its not some off beat funky notion on my end -- the same guys who you trust to run these drafts without Scot -- have suggested the same thing I am saying.  They all have talked about Scot's influence on those drafts -- certainly more so the 2017 one than 2014.  Only one nod that I recall for 2014 from Bruce.  We can split hairs as to how much the influence was but regardless the influence is a given.  

 

So for the 2018 version to be similar to 2014 or 2017 (especially 2017), the Redskins front office would be well aware of Scot's grades and reports about the players they are about to draft.  And somehow I doubt that will happen. 

 

I like the 2017 draft but we might be a bit premature celebrating it.  Lets see how it plays out.  

[Peregrine]

6 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

I basically said the same thing at the time lol...but from listening to the podcast that relayed the gas station guy's convo with Scot I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Apparently Scot felt there are a lot of "good people" at Redskins Park who know their **** and can help steer the Skins forward. He praised them, and also praised Snyder. He did NOT praise Allen, though, at least from what was conveyed. What little he said about Allen made him sound like an irritating boss with a short temper.

 

 

Wasn't avoided, just didn't want to go into a lengthy back and forth lol...and the same question could be turned around: why hire a GM if accumulating power is the ultimate goal? Not to mention, Allen always had the power, none was taken from him. The only way there's a power struggle is if Allen and Scot were given the same amount of power from Snyder. That you said both Allen AND Snyder wanted their power back is contradictory to who holds the power (hint: Team President trumps GM and owner trumps all).

 

As for an answer, my best guess right now (with emphasis on "right now") is that there will be an internal promotion soon to a position similar to GM but not as GM. Could be a trial run of sorts...if they do a good job, then they'll be named official GM later down the road. If they don't do a good job, can always hire a GM again from outside the organization. I also mentioned already to SIP that Allen could be trying to get into his "comfort zone", even if it's not what's best for the franchise. There's a very telling comment from that article after Scot's termination--the one where a "high ranking source" or however it was phrased said Scot's drinking was indeed an issue. I'm not gonna go into it now, will derail this thread like a mf'er if I did lol...but there have been several other comments from all sides that tie into this one comment from that article. Made me do some research and concoct scenarios in my head to make sense of it...needless to say, ego and power-hungry didn't show up in those scenarios.

Yeah, its not that I dont believe peoples personal interaction stories but some just seem a wee bit more out there than others from my knowledge of human beings :-).

 

The reason they hired a "GM" I think is simple and two fold.  1.  They didnt really, Allen always retained more power than normal for any other NFL team.  They hired half of a GM I would say.  2. Because Snyder was embarrassed, desperate, and the fans had turned against him.  He didnt have a choice, and while Snyder may be bad at running a team, hes great at convincing people that things will turn around.  How many times have you seen someone really buckle down with finances, addiction, or what not when things hit rock bottom, and then when things start going better go "You know, maybe I figured it out now, Im doing fine now and can ease back to what I want to do".

 

About the only reason one can half come up with for not hiring a GM, is that they plan to do a trial run to then see if they want someone to be a GM.  But even then, you predicate that on them eventually having a GM, as though that must be the direction a reasonable team goes.  One high ranking source in the organization is not proof that it had nothing to do with power.  So based on your examples as answer to the question of "If its not about power, why dont they hire a GM?" you said that in essence A. They dont trust giving the power of GM to someone yet and taking it our of their hands(Which is about POWER), and B. Allen wants to find his "comfort zone", the areas he wants to have power over, which again, is about power.  Both possibilities you gave, if true, both agreed with my assertion the reason they dont hire a GM is because of power.

[Morneblade]

18 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

 I have to think another few $Ms and we could have had Bennie Logan (and maybe that would have gotten @Morneblade to STFU about a NT! - totally kidding! I definitely admire your passion. Just had to poke you a little!)  

 

 

ROFL! It would have helped for sure!

 

And if the mods want to get me a "special" name like a few folks have around here that revolves around NT, like "Give me a !#$@# NT"  Or "Give me a NT or give me death!" would embrace it with open arms.

[celticsalmon]

Seems to me, getting rid of SMcL was a power move by Allen. He wanted that job back after he reluctantly hired a real GM.  So, the orgnaization has gone backwards IMO.

[elkabong82]

51 minutes ago, Burgold said:

 

 

Ultimately, I think if they go with what they have... I think they can be good. I'm just not sure if they can be consistently great.

 

I think they need to promote someone to VP, promote others up the chain from there, hire some new, young people at the bottom of the chain. This way duties can be divided properly. Right now throwing those extra duties on people who already have full plates is too much IMO and going to cause overload and mistakes. A new position needs to be added to the FO to help with absorption of GM duties if the Skins don't bring in a new one. 

 

And if they go that route it actually is fine so long as the new role is taken on by a qualified person. Other successful FOs do this already, where they have a VP and duties are split, with someone being the defacto GM. Pats do this, with Belichik the defacto GM. 

 

But if nobody is promoted, just given extra duties, that will be a mistake.