New GM search

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

From the day Scott was hired...

 

President Bruce Allen

 

Opening remarks:
“Well, good morning, good afternoon. Welcome to Redskins Park. Today’s an exciting day for the franchise because we really feel today the Redskins are going to get better. Before we go forward, I want to just give you a little bit of the history with this young man to my left. I was fortunate to have worked with his brother and his father for a number of years with the Raiders. About 10 years ago, I was one of the people who called the 49ers to recommend him for his general manager job with the 49ers.

 

“Last offseason, Scot developed a scouting service and I’m sure we’re one of the first teams to sign up for that service. At the end of this year, in conversations with Scot, found out that he was interested in getting back into the saddle, getting back to what’s in his blood and what he really wants to make his life work. And from that conversation, we’re able to come to an agreement and bring Scot to the Washington Redskins. He’s going to be in charge of all the personnel department and the personnel on this team.

 

“We picked Scot because of his great track record, but really, the way he describes a football player – the intangibles that he’s looking for in a football player, the winning traits he has helped other teams acquire. With that, I’d like to introduce our new general manager, Scot McCloughan.” 

 

-------------------

 

The quotes you've chosen are statements that organizations make all the time that have some semblance of truth to them.  You'll be hard pressed to find a coach or GM that would have the gull to say that every personnel decision they make is based solely on their own knowledge.  Not only would that tip the ego scale, but it would also be stupid.  As I indicated in my prior reply, I fully expect for the GM to utilize those around him and take their opinions into consideration.  Organizations speak about 'WE' all the time, but at the end of the day there is an 'I' calling the shots.

 

The quote I've provided is straight from Bruce Allen roughly 15 seconds before he announced Scott McCloughan as the general manager.  That's pretty specific.  We've only learned thereafter that it was never really true.

[Veretax]

honestly, there will be gnashing of teeth over this, but I wouldn't rush the GM search, we can survive for a year, maybe more before hiring someone.

 

 

 

[TSO]

@wilco_holland There's a million other quotes, including in the one press conference you just quoted from, where we're directly told Scot has final say over personnel. 

 

Jay Gruden has said it many times after that when talking about personnel acquisition. Scott Campbell recently talked about McCloughan telling him what to do. Players have openly stated, when signed here, that it was Scot they spoke to. And everyone in the media reported it as such up until a few months ago. 

 

You don't take the quotes about a "collaborative effort" or "group decision" and use that to justify not having a personnel guy with final say. That makes zero sense because final say never has and never will mean you just ignore everyone else. Shanahan never did that himself, nor Gibbs, when they had "final say" and always deflected when asked about it to the same "group effort" talk. 

 

You want to have, in the end, one voice who is the top expert in his field to be given the ability to override anyone else on those matters. This is how organizations are ran in general. Shaffer, for instance, should be the guy who deals with the details of the contracts and how to work around the cap. No one should be able to come in and tell him, "no, I want you to structure it like this or that instead". 

 

Simply put, we should have the best possible talent evaluator be given a title that represents his area of expertise and allows him to fulfill that role without being undermined. That title has traditionally been "GM" in the league. It's why Allen brought in Scot in the first place and gave him that title.

 

There isn't anyone who is going to tell you that Allen is the best scout in the building right now, or that he's not best suited for the organizational roles he fulfills. Not even himself which, again, was why he made the move to bring in Scot. 

 

We've seen this all before. It doesn't end well for anyone, and the coaches end up being the exclusive targets where people inflate their roles while the scouting department gets to operate behind the shadows. They get to essentially never be held accountable for anything and the proof is in how little it changes from hire to hire at the coaching levels. This isn't normal in any way. It's not how any of the model organizations operate, period. 

 

That's what is so mind boggling about this to me. Redskin fans should know this better than any other fan in the world. We should be standing on the table screaming our heads off about the importance of organizational structure; proper heirarchy; and meaningful titles with roles that are allowed to be fulfilled, never undermined, and given to the experts of their respective fields. 

 

Anything else is loser talk. We might not see the negative effects this upcoming season or even the next... but it'll eventually show up. "It starts at the top" is a cliche for a reason. It does. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

We might not see the negative effects this upcoming season or even the next...

This is what I'm afraid of.  Of course If there is short term success I'll enjoy it while I can get it.  But if the front office stays as is through that, I can see it going downhill shortly thereafter.  Rinse, wash, repeat.

[Peregrine]

11 hours ago, ILikeBilly said:

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.

Yes, while I like what we have done this offseason, it is a massive assumption to think that what we havent been able to do for many years now, put a decent defense on the field will change with the addition of 2 rookies(Moreau is injured), 1 SS playing FS, and a new DC.

 

And yes, while our offense has been quite good, it is again an assumption to think that losing your offensive coordinator and changing the playcaller wont have an impact on the offense.  There is a lot of changeover, especially in the coaching staff this year, and when you proclaim things as good as done, thats a lot of assuming.

11 hours ago, ILikeBilly said:

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

That was in the first post, but apparently you couldnt follow it.

10 hours 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. 

 

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). 

You dont think the "General Manager" should be someone very good at managing and leading men? I think every successful business would probably disagree with you on that.

[Skinsinparadise]

The NFL Am guys were touting Ballard as a guy who they keep hearing was an all star personnel guy and supposed to be a rock star at his job.  Looks like the Colts are loading up on big name scouts.  If Bruce stays status quo (still holding hope that at best he hires at least a personnel guy albeit under him) -- the Colts might be an interesting apples to apples comparison.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2708887-matt-millers-scouting-notebook-early-takes-on-top-qbs-lamar-jackson-and-more

Speaking of Chris Ballard, the new GM of the Indianapolis Colts had an A-plus off-season. First, he nailed free agency by bolstering his defense, and then collected two of my top 10 players in the draft class by selecting Malik Hooker and Quincy Wilson. Ballard then cleaned house, getting former GM Ryan Grigson's scouts out of the building and brought in his own crew. So far, that crew is one of the best in the business. Ed Dodds, hired away from Seattle, is a name I've heard mentioned repeatedly by scouts and general managers over the last two years as an elite scout—one even said he's the best scout in the league.

 

[TSO]

Colts are also bringing in Morocco Brown, our old director of pro personnel, to work under Ballard. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/10/colts-expected-to-add-morocco-brown-to-personnel-department/amp/

[RedBeast]

Is Dan reading "How to Properly Build an NFL Team for Dummies"? Is or is that Bruce? Maybe they cut the book into half and split it between them?

[Conn]

Colts are doing what I wish we would do. Bills look to be heading in the right direction. So frustrating, because I truly believe we finally have the right HC/coaching staff in place and an owner who has settled down over time and is ready to let things progress naturally. We just also happen to be saddled with Allen instead of a real GM and scouting staff. 

 

This might sounds crazy, but "our" (as in the fans) best shot at a normal organizational structure long-term might be if Gruden is winning games with an un-signed Cousins this year and a beef blossoms between Gruden and Allen. Snyder has a history of choosing hotshot HC's over FO guys, and I have no doubt that if push came to shove and we were winning games, he'd choose the coach/QB combo > Allen. It would be ugly, it would be messy, it would further the narrative that we are a ****ed up organization...but when the dust settled I think we'd be able to get where we want to be. In that situation we'd be able to bring in a real personnel guy to work with Gruden and sign Cousins, and be on our way. Assuming Gruden would be open to it--he's been gaining power and say-so in the organization for a while now and if this situation played out, he'd be the top dog and would have to voluntarily bring in someone to be his "boss" on personnel, which he might not want to do since even McCloughan admits he's a pretty good evaluator and is into the process. But at least we'd have one person in charge (although it would still be a bad idea, Allen would be gone and the organization would be ripe for a proper GM again).

[Tsailand]

On 5/9/2017 at 5:55 PM, RedBeast said:

GMSM got paid out, its the only reason he is speaking out now and in a positive light..."mutual" my ass.. Took this long to get legal and finance aligned

 

I thought so too when I heard the interview.

 

On 5/7/2017 at 4:22 PM, Thinking Skins said:

We've won under Bruce, have a good team right now. 

 

The NFL is all about parity.  Unless you're the Browns, it's almost impossible to go nine seasons without at least a couple playoff appearances.

 

Based on our record the last two seasons, we're average, not good.

 

On 5/10/2017 at 4:28 PM, thesubmittedone said:

@wilco_holland We might not see the negative effects this upcoming season or even the next...

 

Ya because they can lock down Kirk for those next two years, which is good enough to make the team competitive even with clowns in the front office. Then he'll walk and suddenly we'll be a 3-5 win team again.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

The Redskins might not hire a GM. It’ll be a complete disaster.

 

The Washington Redskins of the Daniel Snyder era have failed with every kind of front office — with general managers, de facto general managers, coaches serving as GMs, Snyder lackeys serving as GMs and actual general managers whose “final say” in decision making was more theoretical than anything. Now, the Redskins are trying an new, innovative approach to losing: not having a general manager at all.

 

Redskins president Bruce Allen, who just fired popular general manager Scot McCloughan after an ugly public battle brought on by seemingly little more than ego, envy and jealousy, has hinted the Redskins may go into the 2017 season without a general manager. Instead, Washington would run the front office by committee, with responsibilities divvied up between Doug Williams (senior personnel executive), Scott Campbell (director of college scouting), Alex Santos (director of pro personnel), Eric Schaffer (VP of football operations and general counsel) and Allen himself, who would retain final say on all football decisions — a role Allen has intermittently played since being hired as GM in 2009.

 

Nothing is official, though, and there’s still a chance one of those men (Williams, the ‘Skins former Super Bowl MVP, perhaps being the most likely) could get the actual title of general manager. But that would be a logical move in a place where normalcy is dysfunction and dysfunction is embedded in the franchise DNA.

Maybe the GM gambit will be an innovative, bold and altogether winning decision by a franchise that’s been plagued with front-office turmoil since it was sold to Snyder back in the late ’90s. Or maybe it’ll end up in disaster and, this time, for reasons beyond it being the Redskins. Think of all the successful countries governed by oligarchy. Consider the multitude of Fortune 500 companies run by committee. When’s the last time a Super Bowl wasn’t won by a team with four head coaches?

The problem isn’t the idea of five executives putting their heads together and making the best moves for a franchise. That’s how football teams (and businesses) are run. There are dozens of people who offer input into various organizational decisions. Nothing wrong with that. But, invariably, there’s someone at the top who’s responsible for distilling all the chatter and making a decision. If there’s not, it’s chaos.

 

Confusion in the front office: The ‘Skins have been down this road before. It’s the m.o. for the Dan Snyder teams of the last two decades. It speaks to the sheer ineptitude of the team and its failure to cast an eye toward history. The decades before Snyder bought the team were the most successful in franchise history, a stretch of peace, stability and greatness — the Pax Redskina, if you will. Snyder, who grew up a fan in that era, seemingly would want to replicate that situation. He’s done everything in his power to do the complete opposite.

 

From 1979-99 there were only three general managers in D.C. – George Allen (1971-77), Bobby Beathard (1978-1988) and Charley Casserly (1989-99). Their power was mostly undisputed. Owner Jack Kent Cooke often served as a tiebreaking vote when Beathard would disagree with coach Joe Gibbs (the two had a “philosophical rift,” as The Washington Post once put it), but the power structure was clear and undisputed.

 

In that span, the team went to five Super Bowls, won three, drafted a handful of players who would go to the Hall of Fame and played the NFL’s pre-free agency market like a Stradivarius, stashing quarterbacks on injured reserve and getting key cogs of Super Bowl teams in trades and Plan B free agency.

Then Cooke died, his succession plan failed miserably and Snyder bought the Redskins, almost immediately changing it all up, shifting the the organizational hierarchy from a clear power structure filled with the names of competent men to a flow chart that zigged and zagged like a maze in the back of Highlights For Children, with the only constant being Snyder’s name hovering like an albatross at the top.

 

There was Vinny Cerrato, officially Washington’s Director of Player Personnel, Executive VP of Player Personnel/Football Operations but more accurately Snyder’s Executive VP of Yes Men. Joe Gibbs took over as de facto GM during his four-year comeback, and history shows that Gibbs the GM probably held back Gibbs the coach from a more successful return. When Mike Shanahan agreed to take Dan Snyder’s money become Redskins head coach, he got maximum power that included roster control, even though his hiring coincided with Bruce Allen (son of the aforementioned George) arriving in Washington as a GM in title only.

 

....http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/washington-redskins-gm-bruce-allen-hire-doug-williams-scot-mccloughan-dan-snyder-051617

[Riggo-toni]

Casserly was subordinate to Gibbs and then to Turner, and was a putrid GM.

 

Freaking Irsay - drug addict drunken idiot - has a better idea of how to run an NFL team than Snyder. He was hiring Bill Polian and Tony Dungy whilst El Dano was hiring Vinny Bugeyes and the likes of Spurrier and Zorno. Now he's hired the best available GM and scouts, while we're back to Allen and the usual minions. Outside of Scott Campbell, I'm not sure if anyone else in our FO would be able to land another job in the NFL were they not working for the Redskins.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

17 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

Outside of Scott Campbell, I'm not sure if anyone else in our FO would be able to land another job in the NFL were they not working for the Redskins.

 

You think that little of Eric Schaffer?

[Skinsinparadise]

22 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

Casserly was subordinate to Gibbs and then to Turner, and was a putrid GM.

 

Freaking Irsay - drug addict drunken idiot - has a better idea of how to run an NFL team than Snyder. He was hiring Bill Polian and Tony Dungy whilst El Dano was hiring Vinny Bugeyes and the likes of Spurrier and Zorno. Now he's hired the best available GM and scouts, while we're back to Allen and the usual minions. Outside of Scott Campbell, I'm not sure if anyone else in our FO would be able to land another job in the NFL were they not working for the Redskins.

 

I am holding out a little hope that Bruce/Danny could still surprise us.  But if not, I don't believe that winning is Danny's top concern or the dude seems oddly clueless about how to build a real winning front office structure.  

 

As that article pointed out, Danny has been determined to do it backwards since he bought the team and somehow its still a mystery to him as to why he's not been successful like the ownership predecessor.  Definition of insanity -- keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

13 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

You think that little of Eric Schaffer?

Perhaps for financials, but I've not heard anything about Schaffer's ability to acquire talent.  I believe that's where Riggo-toni was taking it.

 

 

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Definition of insanity -- keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.

 

If you want to have something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before.

 

 

8 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Perhaps for financials, but I've not heard anything about Schaffer's ability to acquire talent.  I believe that's where Riggo-toni was taking it.

 

 

Ah, ok...yeah, that's different than "Front office'. I said a week or so ago that I was going to start doing as much research on our scouting staff as possible...done very little so far, but it was mainly to have something concrete to use as reference instead of just assuming everyone in the Skins' scouting department is trash (or is qualified and is doing a good job). I need to keep working on that lol...

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Honestly, it's not so much about whether the Redskins scouts are trash or not.  I think we've naturally assumed they aren't great given our history and the fact that they have survived a few regime changes without being poached by other organizations.  They could be the greatest scouts in the world, that Scott actually did want to retain when he came aboard, and they could have learned even more from him making them that much better.  That's the best case scenario.  But even then, how much would that really matter if there is a group of mediocre to average folks brainstorming on what to do with the information the scouts provide them?

 

I'd love for the Redskins to be the trailblazers of NFL front office philosophy and for their different approach to be wildly successful and one that other teams copycat.  I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that though.

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

7 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Honestly, it's not so much about whether the Redskins scouts are trash or not.  I think we've naturally assumed they aren't great given our history and the fact that they have survived a few regime changes without being poached by other organizations.  They could be the greatest scouts in the world, that Scott actually did want to retain when he came aboard, and they could have learned even more from him making them that much better.  That's the best case scenario.  But even then, how much would that really matter if there is a group of mediocre to average folks brainstorming on what to do with the information the scouts provide them?

 

I'd love for the Redskins to be the trailblazers of NFL front office philosophy and for their different approach to be wildly successful and one that other teams copycat.  I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that though.

 

 

I think the more accurate info we have, the more logical and informed our conclusions start to become. For example, we could find out that some of our scouts were sought after by various teams before they joined the Redskins. We may also find that "poaching" of scouts is something that rarely happens...that there may be a few scouts who start making a name for themselves within their organizations but not league-wide. Could find out that the Skins scouting department were among the last to use a scouting service...stuff like that. There are various dynamics at play that rarely, if ever, gets considered in these discussions.

[Skinsinparadise]

30 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

If you want to have something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before.

 

 

Sure, what they are doing over and over again is this unorthodox power structure in different forms but the common denominator is lets not have a top regarded personnel guy make the calls.  Exception being Casserly (though its questionable at best that he was a top personnel guy but at least he was a personnel guy) but he inherited him and got rid of him. 

16 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Honestly, it's not so much about whether the Redskins scouts are trash or not.  I think we've naturally assumed they aren't great given our history and the fact that they have survived a few regime changes without being poached by other organizations.  They could be the greatest scouts in the world, that Scott actually did want to retain when he came aboard, and they could have learned even more from him making them that much better.  That's the best case scenario.  But even then, how much would that really matter if there is a group of mediocre to average folks brainstorming on what to do with the information the scouts provide them?

 

I'd love for the Redskins to be the trailblazers of NFL front office philosophy and for their different approach to be wildly successful and one that other teams copycat.  I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that though.

 

 

 

I posted an article on this thread if I recall that talked about Redskins scouting staff (years back) was smaller than a number of other clubs.   I agree with your overall point though -- its about who the primary guy making the call.  As Shanny suggested, Scott Campbell made some good recommendations but Vinny didn't listen to him.  I was listening to Mike Jones today talk about Kirk where he basically said Jay is pounding the table to resign Kirk but he doesn't sense the decision makers in the front office see Kirk the same way as Jay does.  Maybe Jones is right, maybe not.  But it brings home a point which is its primarily about who has the final say. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

21 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I think the more accurate info we have, the more logical and informed our conclusions start to become. For example, we could find out that some of our scouts were sought after by various teams before they joined the Redskins. We may also find that "poaching" of scouts is something that rarely happens...that there may be a few scouts who start making a name for themselves within their organizations but not league-wide. Could find out that the Skins scouting department were among the last to use a scouting service...stuff like that. There are various dynamics at play that rarely, if ever, gets considered in these discussions.

By all means - go for it, as I'd be interested to see what you can put together.

 

My point was that even if you find out that we have a great group, it doesn't necessarily mean that we will profit from their expertise because of the way the group is structured.

[Riggo-toni]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

You think that little of Eric Schaffer?

Valid point. Schaffer is a competent cap guy.

[Veryoldschool]

On 3/12/2017 at 3:28 AM, Rdskns2000 said:

Listen, we all know Dan Snyder is the real GM.  So, for his new puppet; it's a return to the past.  The one and only , Vinnie Cerrato!

 

I agree, Snyder is his own GM no matter how many guys he hires with that title.  So now they are back to buying Scot's advice on a contract basis while Bruce "it has been a team effort" Allen is the public management face and fan lightening rod. 

[NewCliche21]

9 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

I agree, Snyder is his own GM no matter how many guys he hires with that title.  So now they are back to buying Scot's advice on a contract basis while Bruce "it has been a team effort" Allen is the public management face and fan lightening rod. 

 

I don't know, man.  I genuinely think that following 2014 with the RGIII project completely and indisputably (except on ES) blown up in his face, Snyder has tried to stay out of it and leave it to someone else.  Unfortunately that someone else is Bruce Allen, and I just don't believe in him.  If Snyder went on a hire/fire spree like he did with head coaches, then he's gonna get creamed in the media anyway.

 

I wish that he could just find a guy, give him a few years, and either keep him or drop him.  Rinse and repeat until you find the right guy.  Do this with the input of REAL football minds and literally nobody with any ties to the organization or Snyder himself.  Eliminates burgundy-colored glasses and yes men.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

9 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

By all means - go for it, as I'd be interested to see what you can put together.

 

My point was that even if you find out that we have a great group, it doesn't necessarily mean that we will profit from their expertise because of the way the group is structured.

 

It would only go to illustrate further how incompetent the hierarchy is, though...except if they wanted to keep the current scouting staff. That would be a competent move lol...I'm so confused!

[Wyvern]

Califan -- how's your research on the Skins scouting  going?  I thought I'd toss in my two cents worth.

 

My sense is that the Skins' scouting group is not exactly stellar or even well-regarded -- one of the things that Scott McCloughan was originally contracted with to help out, and then later something he was supposedly going to address when he was brought onboard as GM.

 

There were those who felt the Skins scouting department has needed to be overhauled-- apparently it was  over-represented in the pro side scouting at the expense of the college side scouting; and there doesn't ever seem to be much turnover in the ranks, even during some fairly poor drafting years. (I'd noted that any GM committed to building through the draft would need address that imbalance, and also replace some of the holdovers responsible for some of the fizzles during the 15 years of SnyderSkin drafts.  And I do recall how Shanahan was blamed for some of the bad drafts, and even Gibbs was 'advised' to pick up some lemons too!)
 
And when McCloughan was brought onboard, there was a lot of speculation (e.g. Hogs-Haven article of April 2015) on how much GM McCloughan would likely turnover the Skins scouting department staff and structure -- especially since McCloughan had a history of doing so, while he was with other organizations.  However, as we saw, McCloughan was never able to do this with the Redskins, and in a break with his traditional pattern, the Skins' old structure stayed in place.
 
Not sure this was a good thing because it's very likely there were scouts on the Redskins staff that McCloughan probably have wanted to replace, including the one he'd fired while he was in San Francisco (Jim Zeche).  And this January, there were a lot of 49'ers scouts/executives who had become available (Baalke, Malaspina) who McCloughan had hired or worked with.  

 

I contend this was another source of tension between Allen and McCloughan. And so while you're seeing some of Seattle's well-regarded scouts and other groups scouting expertise, with top-tier credentials being lured away, .... the Skins still standing pat with the scouts they've got. 

 

I'm not sure how much of that's "competence" or how much that is the Skins continuing to be cheap on their scouting structure, or just simply trying to preserve status quo due to a pervasive philosophy of cronyism in the Skins FO.