New GM search

[ILikeBilly]

6 hours ago, Peregrine said:

The problem is Bruce Allen SO FAR looks like Vinny 2.0.  Sure, the window dressing is different(values draft instead of valuing FA), but if he continues to fail like he has over his career, is it really any different?  He will have been responsible for bad teams, and the reasons for that will again be ego, being besties with Snyder, and enabling Snyder.

If we are a bad team this year, it is not Allen's fault.  Minus a better NT solution then Phil Taylor, the D has been upgraded across the board.  We lost our starting WRs, but they were old-ish and expecting big contracts.  It was wise to let them go, seeing what we have to replace them.  It might be only for this year, but we have our QB. 

 

Allen has brought fiscal responsibility back to the 'Skins. If he is given credit for the 2014 and 2017 drafts, his time here is easily average to above average.  I still want a full time GM, but for now we have Allen and he is getting it done.  PS - I am concerned if we need to make mid-season trades/pickups.

[NewCliche21]

38 minutes ago, ILikeBilly said:

If we are a bad team this year, it is not Allen's fault.  Minus a better NT solution then Phil Taylor, the D has been upgraded across the board.  We lost our starting WRs, but they were old-ish and expecting big contracts.  It was wise to let them go, seeing what we have to replace them.  It might be only for this year, but we have our QB. 

 

Allen has brought fiscal responsibility back to the 'Skins. If he is given credit for the 2014 and 2017 drafts, his time here is easily average to above average.  I still want a full time GM, but for now we have Allen and he is getting it done.  PS - I am concerned if we need to make mid-season trades/pickups.

 

1)  If we still run a 3-4 a significant amount of time, having nothing at NT is not a small deal.

 

2)  We still don't have much on the line other than NT.

 

3)  What fiscal responsibility?  Blowing $20M (debatable but I saw his reasoning) and now $25M (just plain stupid) of cap space on the tag instead of a LTD like the real GM told him to do?

 

4)  If Allen is getting it done, then why do you want a full-time GM?  "Getting it done" means getting us Super Bowl victories.  In pro sports anything else is another excuse to say, "Next year!"

 

5)  If we are a bad team this year, then it's not Allen's fault?  Then what is his role?  I think you're implying that Gruden has a good team, but you later say that Allen is getting it done.  How can he get it done if he has no impact on the end result?  He can't not be at fault AND be deserving of credit, so you're effectively (not literally, but this is just math) saying that he is a non-factor.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

@Riggo-toni & @Skinsinparadise the reasons for why he was wrong or how bad Bruce has been vs Vinnie don't matter (for what I quoted). The dude said Talib was a bust in the making and he was wrong...and not a little wrong...since Talib is one of the best CBs in the game. My post was not an attack of your posts...or your stance on the subject.

[bedlamVR]

54 minutes ago, thebeermonkey said:

Allen is a politician. I don't want a politician. 

not in terms of talent evaluation but when it comes to negotiating with politicians to get the  best deal for a new stadium ..... just saying ...

[Alexa]

I'm kind of baffled after listening to Scot talk. He seems like the easiest guy to get along with. He seems like a total team player and has great vision as to how an NFL organization should be run. I just don't understand why the Redskins would not want him around. Is Bruce so insecure and two faced that he gets all bent out of shape cause the players love the guy?  I mean he said good things about everyone except Bruce. 

[Conn]

Consider me IMMENSELY pissed off to be watching the Bills and Colts put together their new FO's and pulling all sorts of great candidates. 

 

Colts are assembling an all-star scouting department under new GM Ballard right before our eyes while we sit content to lose our best, most respected talent evaluator and add no one. 

 

Let me repeat: after 20 years of ONLY being kept relevant by back-to-back stud QBs, even freaking Jim Irsay figured out the right thing to do before Snyder. Irsay being a bottom five owner in the NFL along with Snyder, Haslam, York, and arguably the Pegulas who are also finally getting it right hiring a real GM after owning the team and interfering for a few disastrous years. 

 

This is depressing, even considering all the other positive steps we've seen this offseason in FA and the draft. Because it will come back to bite us big time like it always does in the long run, even after flashes of competence. Gruden is basically our only hope at a stable, consistent FO structure in the future if he keeps succeeding, because Snyder has proven to idolize good HCs and give them power in the organization. Even that "best case scenario" isn't that great because not many organizations succeed with the HC also being the best/brightest/most powerful personnel guy.

[ILikeBilly]

51 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

1)  If we still run a 3-4 a significant amount of time, having nothing at NT is not a small deal.

 

2)  We still don't have much on the line other than NT.

 

3)  What fiscal responsibility?  Blowing $20M (debatable but I saw his reasoning) and now $25M (just plain stupid) of cap space on the tag instead of a LTD like the real GM told him to do?

 

4)  If Allen is getting it done, then why do you want a full-time GM?  "Getting it done" means getting us Super Bowl victories.  In pro sports anything else is another excuse to say, "Next year!"

 

5)  If we are a bad team this year, then it's not Allen's fault?  Then what is his role?  I think you're implying that Gruden has a good team, but you later say that Allen is getting it done.  How can he get it done if he has no impact on the end result?  He can't not be at fault AND be deserving of credit, so you're effectively (not literally, but this is just math) saying that he is a non-factor.

I am confused by your post.

1) if we are bad this year, it is not Allen's fault.  Our team is easily good enough to win the division and more.

2) Allen's 2014 draft has delivered starters and players getting plenty of playing time.  This year's draft looks strong, but we won't know for a few years.

3) minus in-season trades, the GM gets the players and signs them.  After that, it is on the coaches.  Allen, in this sense, is mostly done for the year (yes, this is simplified.)  We have the players, we have the cap space, we have our future draft picks.

 

Time for the coaches to coach, the scouts to scout and Allen to light up a cigar as Kirk signs a long-term contract.

[Conn]

That brings up an interesting question @ILikeBilly.

 

You say (admitting it's a simplification) that Allens job is mostly done when the season starts. 

 

But I think we all noticed an uptick in helpful mid-season FA pickups under Scot, compared to previous regimes. We had guys coming off the couch and making a difference for us mid-season for the first time I can remember.

 

Are we going to lose that entirely? It's not something I remember us doing effectively in the past. 

[Skinsinparadise]

47 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Consider me IMMENSELY pissed off to be watching the Bills and Colts put together their new FO's and pulling all sorts of great candidates. 

 

Colts are assembling an all-star scouting department under new GM Ballard right before our eyes while we sit content to lose our best, most respected talent evaluator and add no one. 

 

Let me repeat: after 20 years of ONLY being kept relevant by back-to-back stud QBs, even freaking Jim Irsay figured out the right thing to do before Snyder. Irsay being a bottom five owner in the NFL along with Snyder, Haslam, York, and arguably the Pegulas who are also finally getting it right hiring a real GM after owning the team and interfering for a few disastrous years. 

 

This is depressing, even considering all the other positive steps we've seen this offseason in FA and the draft. Because it will come back to bite us big time like it always does in the long run, even after flashes of competence. Gruden is basically our only hope at a stable, consistent FO structure in the future if he keeps succeeding, because Snyder has proven to idolize good HCs and give them power in the organization. Even that "best case scenario" isn't that great because not many organizations succeed with the HC also being the best/brightest/most powerful personnel guy.

 

Yep, I feel the same way.   If I were a relatively new Redskins fan (in my teens or 20s) maybe I wouldn't see it as a big deal.   But having gone through these scenarios over and over again -- its tough to get jazzed about seemingly round 100 under Danny of not caring about the pedigree of who is running the front office or caring about the power structure of it. 

 

It reminds me some of the Kirk debate, too.  With some saying hey what's the big deal, we go get a new shiny toy in next years draft and all is solved.  Yeah I used to see it that way too in my early 20s when we drafted Heath Shuler, etc.  Now that I am in my 40s -- been there and done that dance so many times, I got no desire to go back to it or can someone convince me the old way of doing it is the right way. 

[Peregrine]

3 hours ago, ILikeBilly said:

If we are a bad team this year, it is not Allen's fault.  Minus a better NT solution then Phil Taylor, the D has been upgraded across the board.  We lost our starting WRs, but they were old-ish and expecting big contracts.  It was wise to let them go, seeing what we have to replace them.  It might be only for this year, but we have our QB. 

 

Allen has brought fiscal responsibility back to the 'Skins. If he is given credit for the 2014 and 2017 drafts, his time here is easily average to above average.  I still want a full time GM, but for now we have Allen and he is getting it done.  PS - I am concerned if we need to make mid-season trades/pickups.

What do you mean it wouldnt be his fault? He fired his fall guy.  He's the #1 decision maker, and over the course of 24 months he can't improve a playoff team from 2015? That is a load of bull. 

 

So if his draft picks dont pan out, and his FA pickups don't pan out, it's not his fault because....because....because he saved money?

 

And in the same breath you say it's not his fault if the team is bad this year, but then it's wise if we pay Kirk 24 million to play in a wasted effort this year and let him go next year, when you JUST SAID Allen has brought back fiscal responsibility. I wasn't sure someone could contradict themselves that many times in a post.

[ILikeBilly]

21 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

What do you mean it wouldnt be his fault? He fired his fall guy.  He's the #1 decision maker, and over the course of 24 months he can't improve a playoff team from 2015? That is a load of bull. 

 

So if his draft picks dont pan out, and his FA pickups don't pan out, it's not his fault because....because....because he saved money?

 

And in the same breath you say it's not his fault if the team is bad this year, but then it's wise if we pay Kirk 24 million to play in a wasted effort this year and let him go next year, when you JUST SAID Allen has brought back fiscal responsibility. I wasn't sure someone could contradict themselves that many times in a post.

You still seemed so confused.

 

Our team is loaded this year.  If we lose THIS YEAR, it is not Allen's fault.  That is clear and not contradictory. 

Our 2014 draft is 3 years old.  We added Murphy, Moses, Long and Breeland.  All major contributors.  This draft was above average.  Allen did his job.

Our 2017 draft can't be judged yet, but seems strong - if it is, Allen did his job. 

Not counting Kirk, our players are signed and we have cap space - Allen did his job

As for Kirk - many didn't like franchising Kirk, but it was a risk to sign him long term that could have crushed the team if we made a mistake.  I would have signed him, but I understand the logic.  If Kirk signs this off season, Allen did his job.  Yes, Kirk will cost more this year than last, but caps go up, we will still have cap space. 

If we lose Kirk after this year and get nothing - we will all be pissed and Allen will have mess up royally.

 

I don't know why you keep rambling about if his picks don't pan out it is not his fault.  No one said that.  Also, you mention that he can't improve on our 2015 playoff team.  I didn't say that.  Is that your opinion?  You think we are worse than our 2015 team?  I don't think that.  Better RBs, younger WRs, better online, more experienced QB, better CBs and CB depth, better at safety too, ...

1 hour ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

That brings up an interesting question @ILikeBilly.

 

You say (admitting it's a simplification) that Allens job is mostly done when the season starts. 

 

But I think we all noticed an uptick in helpful mid-season FA pickups under Scot, compared to previous regimes. We had guys coming off the couch and making a difference for us mid-season for the first time I can remember.

 

Are we going to lose that entirely? It's not something I remember us doing effectively in the past. 

yeah, mid-season picks will be interesting this year.  I felt that it was a strong point for GMSM. 

[Conn]

So because you perceive the roster to be "loaded" in May, Allen carries no responsibility for our performance this year? It's all on the coaches? If we don't do well, isn't a likely reason that the players you're so excited about aren't as good as you think right now?

[Peregrine]

48 minutes ago, ILikeBilly said:

You still seemed so confused.

 

Our team is loaded this year.  If we lose THIS YEAR, it is not Allen's fault.  That is clear and not contradictory. 

Our 2014 draft is 3 years old.  We added Murphy, Moses, Long and Breeland.  All major contributors.  This draft was above average.  Allen did his job.

Our 2017 draft can't be judged yet, but seems strong - if it is, Allen did his job. 

Not counting Kirk, our players are signed and we have cap space - Allen did his job

As for Kirk - many didn't like franchising Kirk, but it was a risk to sign him long term that could have crushed the team if we made a mistake.  I would have signed him, but I understand the logic.  If Kirk signs this off season, Allen did his job.  Yes, Kirk will cost more this year than last, but caps go up, we will still have cap space. 

If we lose Kirk after this year and get nothing - we will all be pissed and Allen will have mess up royally.

 

I don't know why you keep rambling about if his picks don't pan out it is not his fault.  No one said that.  Also, you mention that he can't improve on our 2015 playoff team.  I didn't say that.  Is that your opinion?  You think we are worse than our 2015 team?  I don't think that.  Better RBs, younger WRs, better online, more experienced QB, better CBs and CB depth, better at safety too, ...

yeah, mid-season picks will be interesting this year.  I felt that it was a strong point for GMSM. 

You might be insane if...so, your position is, it's not the #1 decision makers fault if our team isn't good based on all of the decisions he has made? 

 

And you unilaterally declare that it is clear and not contradictory that if we are bad this year, it's not our #1 decision makers fault?

 

And you make the massive assumption we are loaded this year, despite the fact the same players, minus a few, weren't good enough to make the playoffs? So basically your entire argument is based on your unilateral assertions contradictory to both the majority of pundits and common sense. 

 

Now the massive contradictions in your other post add up. I mean the other half was just crazy ramblings.

[TSO]

9 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Consider me IMMENSELY pissed off to be watching the Bills and Colts put together their new FO's and pulling all sorts of great candidates. 

 

Yeah, same here. It's a slap in the face every time I've read something about it. 

 

Of course we just have to be different. We can't just fire a GM and then interview qualified candidates like everyone else. Nope, the brilliantly innovative Redskins have to chart their own paths, even though they've got nothing but old school execs in place who've been around the league for decades. 

 

I mean, if we went the route of the Browns and brought in "analytics" people, I'd be willing to extend the benefit of the doubt. Hey, they're trying something different. Let's see how it goes.

 

But this just wreaks of a corrupted heirarchy and an overly convoluted structure where no one ends up responsible for anything and people wind up with too much on their plates, especially the coaches. 

 

I just keep saying to myself why can't we be normal? I don't get it. Just praying they surprise us and it turns out they were doing due diligence to some degree. :/ 

 

9 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

This is depressing, even considering all the other positive steps we've seen this offseason in FA and the draft. Because it will come back to bite us big time like it always does in the long run, even after flashes of competence. Gruden is basically our only hope at a stable, consistent FO structure in the future if he keeps succeeding, because Snyder has proven to idolize good HCs and give them power in the organization. Even that "best case scenario" isn't that great because not many organizations succeed with the HC also being the best/brightest/most powerful personnel guy.

 

This is so spot on you have no idea. 

[wilco_holland]

I talked early about that I liked when Jay looks so much into scouting college players. That it adds a lot when the HC has watched college players and knows his strenghts and weaknesses. I think that will make it easier to max there talents on the field and know what kind of player you get into your locker-room. Scot McCloughan is kinda high on Jay as part time scout: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2017/05/09/scot-mccloughan-praises-jay-gruden-as-talent-evaluator/

 

I don't mind Jay taking the role as ''part of the scouting team'' in the offseason. Let him watch film, talk about players with scouts etc. If he then can talk about players with our senior FO guys and come to a collective decision, that's fine. I don't think we need a GM because the balance of power seems fine. I don't see what a GM would add. To be honest, Scot was more like a high paid super scout then GM. He did not have final say over the roster. Was more a collective decision. 

 

For the people who are scared that Jay his role might become to big. I don't think it is in his nature to be a dictator/somebody who pushes his opinion. I think he a team guy. Will always listen to other people. 

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, wilco_holland said:

 

I don't mind Jay taking the role as ''part of the scouting team'' in the offseason. Let him watch film, talk about players with scouts etc. If he then can talk about players with our senior FO guys and come to a collective decision, that's fine. I don't think we need a GM because the balance of power seems fine. I don't see what a GM would add.

For the people who are scared that Jay his role might become to big. I don't think it is in his nature to be a dictator/somebody who pushes his opinion. I think he a team guy. Will always listen to other people. 

 

I like Jay.  But "part time" scout is the operative word.  I don't feel comfortable at all with no GM just because Jay when he kicks in is good at evaluating.   I think a head coach is gravy to the process not the meal. 

 

When I talked to Scot during the season he was going to scout players in person, going to games at times on Saturday.  Jay obviously wasn't doing that.   I throw a college player at Scot and he was already an encyclopedia about the player back then.  

 

Scot told me he liked working with Jay (and I said it on the board right after i met him) and Jay is helpful with evaluation.  He also told me Jay didn't want to draft Crowder and Scot overruled him.  Now Jay gushes about Crowder.  So using that as an example, Jay isn't the be all and end all as a personnel guy.  And in Jay's defense he doesn't need to be, he has enough on his plate.  So adding his acumen helps -- but i don't see how it ends there with that.  It's just about a cliche in the NFL that a head coach (exception being Belichick) doesn't have enough time to be a top evaluator.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/under-mike-shanahan-redskins-roster-could-benefit-from-more-delegation-better-scouting-infrastructure-nfl-observers-say/2011/12/09/gIQAQ6BalO_story.html?utm_term=.2cff4f4d1461

“The lifeblood of a football organization is going to be evaluation of personnel,” said Andrew Brandt, a former front-office executive in Green Bay...“If I was an owner — any owner — whatever is being spent on scouting, I’d double it,” said Jack Bechta, an NFL agent.

 

Coaches are professional coaches. They’re part-time scouts,” the longtime NFC scouting director said. “And you can’t be a part-time scout. . . . When you’ve got a guy who’s wearing all the hats, there’s just too much work to do to think you can still do everything really well.”

“Coaches have tunnel vision,” he continued. “They want the quick fix. They’re not always looking at what is the best for the franchise in the long haul.”

 

“It’s a full-time job for me to prepare our team on a weekly basis,” Belichick said.

Similarly, Shanahan said he can’t follow college prospects throughout the fall. When the NFL season ends, he’ll begin evaluating his own players, then turn his attention to the free agent market, and finally to the draft.

 

 

Some other things I found along the way

 

The rest of this isn't directed your way just stuff I found along with way

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/vinny-cerrato-resigns-bruce-allen-redskins-top-football-executive-article-1.433962?pgno=1

But there is no doubt about the dramatic nature of the shift. Since he took ownership of the team in 1999, Snyder has been criticized for failing to install a savvy general manager to oversee personnel and the composition of the roster. He swiftly dismissed the general manager he inherited from the estate of former owner Jack Kent Cooke, Charlie Casserly, and instead used a series of front office structures that some in the league found odd. 

 

Good article mocking the unusual committee structure and its weaknesses under Gibbs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123101079_2.html

 

This is a good refresher about Danny, its been a long time since I read that article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/daniel-snyder-washington-redskins-owner-still-struggles-to-find-formula-for-success/2014/01/04/5d86bfa4-74a4-11e3-bc6b-712d770c3715_story.html?utm_term=.f630ce8ad977

“What you find is there’s a culture of fear,” one former employee said. “That seems to be his approach. I wouldn’t say he has the ability to inspire, not much in the way of leadership skills. . . . People are afraid to step out of the box. Do his executives go out of the way to challenge him? I don’t think so. You heard a lot of, ‘This is what the corner office wants.’ ”

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 hours ago, wilco_holland said:

I don't think we need a GM because the balance of power seems fine. I don't see what a GM would add. To be honest, Scot was more like a high paid super scout then GM. He did not have final say over the roster. Was more a collective decision. 

 

 

I'd be interested to hear WHY you feel this way.  What about it seems fine?  Why wouldn't a GM add anything to our organization?  While I agree with you that Scott was like a super scout, that's not the bill of goods we were sold when he got here.  This collective decision crapola didn't come out until Scott was on his way out the door.  Please tell me a reason why collective decisions where no one person can be held accountable is a positive.  Provide me factual data that supports Bruce and his current gang being the best possible 'group' to lead the Redskins to championships.

 

I've yet to see anyone that believes in the current front office structure as it stands today provide any legitimate debate or argument in support of their opinion, outside of in 2014 Bruce had a good draft, and dependent upon the narrative being spun how much Scott did or didn't have to do with that. 

[Dissident2]

13 hours ago, ILikeBilly said:

Our 2014 draft is 3 years old.  We added Murphy, Moses, Long and Breeland.  All major contributors.  This draft was above average.  Allen did his job.

Our 2017 draft can't be judged yet, but seems strong - if it is, Allen did his job. 

 

The 2014 draft does seem to be a pretty good one. But I don't see how anyone can put the success (or potential failure for that matter) of the 2017 draft on Allen's doorstep. He certainly had a part  to play in it, but the majority of this draft clearly was orchestrated by SM. 

 

I've seen other posts reference the 2014 draft as if it somehow absolves Allen of an easily researched, decades-long record of below average decisions when it comes to drafting players and building a team. It doesn't. 

 

The fiscal responsibility Allen's brought to the team has been mostly welcome. I say "mostly" because the extreme end of that could end up costing us our franchise QB after this season is over, which would be horrendous. He's got the personality to be the shrewd deal-making money man. He does not have the personality to build and lead a team of men. 

[TSO]

4 hours ago, wilco_holland said:

I talked early about that I liked when Jay looks so much into scouting college players. That it adds a lot when the HC has watched college players and knows his strenghts and weaknesses. I think that will make it easier to max there talents on the field and know what kind of player you get into your locker-room. Scot McCloughan is kinda high on Jay as part time scout: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2017/05/09/scot-mccloughan-praises-jay-gruden-as-talent-evaluator/

 

I don't mind Jay taking the role as ''part of the scouting team'' in the offseason. Let him watch film, talk about players with scouts etc. If he then can talk about players with our senior FO guys and come to a collective decision, that's fine. I don't think we need a GM because the balance of power seems fine. I don't see what a GM would add. To be honest, Scot was more like a high paid super scout then GM. He did not have final say over the roster. Was more a collective decision. 

 

For the people who are scared that Jay his role might become to big. I don't think it is in his nature to be a dictator/somebody who pushes his opinion. I think he a team guy. Will always listen to other people. 

 

No one has a problem with that. That's what he did when Scot was on board, as well. It's important for coaches to be involved for a myriad of reasons. 

 

Furthermore, it's not about whether Jay can or can't do it. I believe Scot when he says Jay is a great talent evaluator. I said so myself, before hearing that from Scot this offseason, just by seeing how Jay, for the most part, recognizes talent and develops guys as a coach. 

 

But the problem with this current structure, or potentially giving coaches, including Jay, too much power regarding personnel is three fold.

 

One has already been mentioned by @Skinsinparadise just a couple of posts above this. That it's simply too much on a coaches plate and they can't do it full time. Even Bruce Allen recognizes this. In his most recent interview, Allen was asked how a tie is broken between he and Jay when players who are ranked the same at different positions are on the board at their pick. This isn't word for word, but he essentially said that it comes down to the area or regional scout and what he saw when he went to the games. "Hey, you didn't look at his Tennessee tape" or "you gotta go back and see when he did this or that". He even said that those scouts have seen more of that player so, therefore, they should be listened to. 

 

So, basically, Allen is admitting scouts should have the final say, really. Which is good, but it only ADDS to the point of having your best scout be at the head of personnel acquisition. Usually that title for that role is "GM". If your Allen, you can't think the above without that making the most sense. 

 

Secondly, coaches by their very nature are more loyal to players. They are in a position where they need to be closer to them to get through to them. Which means they can get stuck playing a guy or keeping a guy on the team because of that loyalty. They often need a more calculated, even cold, exec to do the dirty work of going a different direction from those players. 

 

Finally, coaches are mostly short-sighted because their goal is to win now. They're not as interested in the long term. We saw how that has worked for so long under Snyder where coaches with too much power become desperate and make desperate moves. We saw how old our rosters have been until only recently. Scot last year, after we had traded a bunch of our picks for more picks in this 2017 draft, mentioned how the coaches find that difficult and are all saying "what about this year?"

 

But I think we all agree it was more important to have picks in this draft than compared to last year's, right? Giving a coach more power in personnel acquisition leads to more of a chance of something prudent and wise like that, with vision of the long term, to not occur. 

 

There is a reason the most consistent franchises historically have strong GMs who run their scouting departments and have most of the power regarding personnel. The Packers and Steelers are known for this. The more recently successful ones (past decade or less), like the Ravens, Cardinals, Seahawks, Panthers, Chiefs, Texans, Falcons, Raiders, and Broncos all have that same structure. 

 

Anyone mentioning the Pats as an example deserves to be laughed at, because they are the clear exception to this rule. And there's plenty of arguments as to why and, no, it's not just Belichick. But you don't look at the exceptions and say, "let's follow that" unless you're looking for trouble. That goes for anything in life. 

 

The only thing in terms of coaches having power over personnel with some of those teams is that they have final say over the 53 as that deadline approaches. But during the offseason, including FA and the draft, it's on the GM and the scouting department who have final say. 

 

By all accounts, that's what we had with Scot here, whether or not he was undermined early on by Allen. Still, he had a major role in prioritizing who we pursue in FA and he absolutely did set up the board and run the draft. Jay and the coaches would then be more involved with the depth chart and the final 53 as that deadline approached after preseason. 

 

The setup itself was fine and worked structurally. It's why most teams follow it. Whether or not Scot was deserving of being fired doesn't change that. The obvious, normal, thing to do would be to hire someone to fulfill the position that was just vacated. To do otherwise doesn't imply anything good in terms of the structure of the organizations and opens up doubts about what titles even mean. 

[wilco_holland]

55 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'd be interested to hear WHY you feel this way.  What about it seems fine?  Why wouldn't a GM add anything to our organization?  While I agree with you that Scott was like a super scout, that's not the bill of goods we were sold when he got here.  This collective decision crapola didn't come out until Scott was on his way out the door.  Please tell me a reason why collective decisions where no one person can be held accountable is a positive.  Provide me factual data that supports Bruce and his current gang being the best possible 'group' to lead the Redskins to championships.

 

I've yet to see anyone that believes in the current front office structure as it stands today provide any legitimate debate or argument in support of their opinion, outside of in 2014 Bruce had a good draft, and dependent upon the narrative being spun how much Scott did or didn't have to do with that. 

 

Why I feel fine. 

 

Before Scot was here, our FO with Bruce at helm was already operating as 'collective decision'. That's what they told us from the start. So it's not something that comes up just now. I have heard it before. Even durning the Scot era. 

 

I think the roles are pretty clear now (this is my outside personal view, no inside information):

Bruce Allen - takes the lead on making the ultimate decision, but most of the time lets the guys below him inform him what best options are. 

Jay - Is HC and part time scout. 

Eric - is the cap and contract guru

Doug, Scott C. and Alex Campbell - are senior 'scouts' and top advisors. 

Scouts - do the dirty work. 

 

I don't say a GM wouldn't add anything but in this structure it's not like you miss him as a key piece. What Scot did is pretty much the same work as what Doug, Scott, Alex and the scouts do right? Scouting players. Only reason why you would hire a GM i.m.o. is because you want to hire a super scout. Does in general have the titel GM in the NFL..because that's the highest position for them. So I don't see what we miss right now in this structure. Yes, we would like to have a exceptional scout with the titel GM (like Scot) but it's not necessary for the FO to work. 

 

Provide me factual data that supports Bruce and his current gang being the best possible 'group' to lead the Redskins to championships.

 

Oh come on man. Factual data..... If you can give me any factual data about any FO in the NFL Iike to see it, I don't think it's there. 

 

About ''best possible group''. I don't know if it's the best. Sure I would like to add a super scout but I don't think it's a terrible FO because they don't have a GM. I don't know who they could add to this group (realisticly) that would improve it bigtime. It's not like a Eric DeCosta is gonna sign here. 

 

So it's not like I think this is the best FO ever but I think that the current group of guys can do there work and have succes in the NFL. I don't think that not having a GM will make them less succesfull. I will just wait and see what they will do the next couple of years.  

[ILikeBilly]

14 hours ago, Peregrine said:

You might be insane if...so, your position is, it's not the #1 decision makers fault if our team isn't good based on all of the decisions he has made? 

 

And you unilaterally declare that it is clear and not contradictory that if we are bad this year, it's not our #1 decision makers fault?

 

And you make the massive assumption we are loaded this year, despite the fact the same players, minus a few, weren't good enough to make the playoffs? So basically your entire argument is based on your unilateral assertions contradictory to both the majority of pundits and common sense. 

 

Now the massive contradictions in your other post add up. I mean the other half was just crazy ramblings.

If that is what you want to believe, I can't change it.  I feel we have good players this year.  I know we are in good cap shape. 

If we don't have good players, then the blame lies on the scouts and the GM.  We agree.  I just think we have good players.

 

We have been a top 10 offense 2 years in a row.  We have the same QB and oline and an upgrade at RB.  I don't think it is a "massive assumption" to think we will again be a top 10 offense.

 

On D, we dump weak dlinemen.  I can't even guess if our dline will be better this year, but I think it will be.  We upgraded inside LB.  We upgraded safety and we have more depth and experience and CB.  It is far from a "massive assumption" to think our D will be better this year.

 

We lost out on making the playoffs, but were in the chase until week 17.  We had 2 teams in our division with 11 or more wins.  We were playing the #1 schedule in our division and from what I hear our offense played the toughest defensive schedule in the entire league. 

 

You still haven't pointed out a contradiction, but I am sure you will post again.

[ILikeBilly]

2 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

 

The 2014 draft does seem to be a pretty good one. But I don't see how anyone can put the success (or potential failure for that matter) of the 2017 draft on Allen's doorstep. He certainly had a part  to play in it, but the majority of this draft clearly was orchestrated by SM. 

 

I've seen other posts reference the 2014 draft as if it somehow absolves Allen of an easily researched, decades-long record of below average decisions when it comes to drafting players and building a team. It doesn't. 

 

The fiscal responsibility Allen's brought to the team has been mostly welcome. I say "mostly" because the extreme end of that could end up costing us our franchise QB after this season is over, which would be horrendous. He's got the personality to be the shrewd deal-making money man. He does not have the personality to build and lead a team of men. 

There are lots of discussions on who should get the credit/blame for this years draft.  Not knowing how things work on a day to day basis, I would just be guessing.  Clearly GMSM was responsible for most of the work done though the end of the 2016 college and pro seasons.  But it was Allen in the driver's seat on draft weekend. 

 

I may be wrong, but I don't think you need your GM as the guy with the "personality to build and lead a team of men."  I think that has to be the coach(es). 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, wilco_holland said:

 

Why I feel fine. 

 

Before Scot was here, our FO with Bruce at helm was already operating as 'collective decision'. That's what they told us from the start. So it's not something that comes up just now. I have heard it before. Even durning the Scot era. 

That is not what they told us from the start.  We were told that Scott was the general manager of the football team and called the shots on player personnel.  If there was even so much as a whisper that it was going to be a group effort, I never heard it.  When I think of a healthy 'collective decision', I'm thinking a general manager that works with his coaches to understand the type of systems they run and the type of players they will need to be successful, where they value the coaches and scouts input and take it into consideration when making decisions.  At the same time this general manager needs to be fully immersed in scouting and not worried about new stadiums, uniforms, HarvestFest and all the other stuff that is typically reserved for others within an organization.  At best, Bruce appears to be a jack of all trades, yet master of none.

 

Quote

Oh come on man. Factual data..... If you can give me any factual data about any FO in the NFL Iike to see it, I don't think it's there. 

 

The factual data has been presented on numerous occasions, primarily by SIP and TSO, where they have provided numerous examples of successful franchises and how they are run vs. this hodge podge of a front office we have going on.

 

Perhaps the Redskins are the exception to the rules of success and got smarter than everyone else running professional football organizations overnight.  Just perhaps...

[Dissident2]

53 minutes ago, ILikeBilly said:

There are lots of discussions on who should get the credit/blame for this years draft.  Not knowing how things work on a day to day basis, I would just be guessing.  Clearly GMSM was responsible for most of the work done though the end of the 2016 college and pro seasons.  But it was Allen in the driver's seat on draft weekend. 

 

Which doesn't warrant a ton of credit in my book.

 

It's basically like a guy who spends an hour loosening the cap on the pickle jar and then hands it to his wife who effortlessly twists it open. She was part of the process of opening the jar, sure. But that final action could've never happened without all the work that came before. 

 

Quote

I may be wrong, but I don't think you need your GM as the guy with the "personality to build and lead a team of men."  I think that has to be the coach(es). 

 

The coach definitely has the most to do with that, at least with the "leading" part, but the FO person who signs the players, pinpoints who he wants on his team and creates a template for the kind of player/team he wants and why he wants it is most definitely part of the leadership process as well. Players look to those guys for support, for respect, etc. It's all part of the overall picture of a healthy and strong organization. I think having Allen in those types of roles makes him a weak link in the chain. 

 

Like I said, the track record speaks for itself. Here's just one interesting example:

 

 

 

 

[wilco_holland]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

That is not what they told us from the start.  We were told that Scott was the general manager of the football team and called the shots on player personnel.  If there was even so much as a whisper that it was going to be a group effort, I never heard it.  When I think of a healthy 'collective decision', I'm thinking a general manager that works with his coaches to understand the type of systems they run and the type of players they will need to be successful, where they value the coaches and scouts input and take it into consideration when making decisions.  At the same time this general manager needs to be fully immersed in scouting and not worried about new stadiums, uniforms, HarvestFest and all the other stuff that is typically reserved for others within an organization.  At best, Bruce appears to be a jack of all trades, yet master of none.

 

 

The factual data has been presented on numerous occasions, primarily by SIP and TSO, where they have provided numerous examples of successful franchises and how they are run vs. this hodge podge of a front office we have going on.

 

Perhaps the Redskins are the exception to the rules of success and got smarter than everyone else running professional football organizations overnight.  Just perhaps...

 

I have the wispers for you. These are the kind of quotes I remember and I base my opinion on. 

 

From when Jay Gruden was hired:

 

"Gruden confirmed that he will not have control of personnel decisions as Shanahan did but will be part of a collaborative effort instead. General manager Bruce Allen reiterated that he has assumed the player procurement responsibilities and will have final say on the roster's construction."

 

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2014/01/09/jay-gruden-coach-washington-bengals-mike-shanahan/4388181/

 

From Scot his intro press converance:

"It's not just about me, it's about the individuals around this building from the personnel standpoint and from the coaches standpoint. I'm very excited, looking forward to it. There's a lot of work ahead of us but I strive for that. I'm going to outwork the next guy no matter what. I'm going to have great communication with everybody in the building that matters in personnel and in coaching, and when we make decisions, we'll make them as a group. We'll take ownership for the players and we're going to get better. I can't promise you it's in two weeks but I can promise you this - starting today, I'll do everything in my power to make this organization as strong as it can possibly be."

 

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

 

 

About the facts. Yes some organisations are more succesfull but there is no blue print if you ask me. Steelers, Broncos, Patriots and Packers have IMO very different front office. But if somebody has posted data on it and it's in this thread I will look for it. Maybe it shows me something new.