New GM search

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 hours ago, Wyvern said:

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!)

 

 

 

There is sooooooo much info to gather and organize...it's kinda fun, though, but it's a tedious process.

 

One thing I found slightly interesting early on in all this was how our staffing has changed in terms of aligning with the rest of the league. For example, Hogs Haven did the ground work for me back after Scot's first draft in terms of how our scouting department was structured compared to league average. Long story short, at the executive end of the scale there were four scouting positions that were found on the most teams (not counting GM):

 

Director of Player Personnel (50% of teams)

Director of Pro Personnel (75% of teams)

Director of College Scouting (75% of teams)

Assistant Director of Player Personnel (50% of teams)

 

The Redskins back then had two of those covered: Dir. of Player Personnel (Campbell) and Dir. of Pro Personnel (Santos). They had zero assistant directors back then and still have zero now. However, Campbell has gone from Dir. of Player Personnel to Dir. of College Scouting. Santos remains where he is. Doug Williams now has the title of Senior Personnel Executive, which I'm not sure if that's similar to Dir. of Player Personnel. If it is, then the Skins' scouting executives is more aligned with the league average now. Not sure if Campbell and Williams' position change in the scouting department occurred during Scot's time here or if it's something Allen did either at the end of Scot's tenure or after his termination. Should be easy enough to find out but I'm nowhere near doing that at that point lol...

 

In terms of the actual scouts themselves, back in 2015 the Skins had 3 pro scouts...now they have 2. In 2015, the Skins had 5 college scouts...now they have 6. Same number of scouts as when Scot was first hired, but one extra college scout and one less pro scout. No idea if that means squat yet, or if it means they reassigned someone from being a pro scout to being a college scout or if they fired a pro scout (or he quit) and brought on a college scout to take his place. Also, in 2015 we didn't have a Scouting Coordinator...now we do. No clue yet when that happened because the guy who's the Scouting Coordinator was already on staff back on 2015 so he got promoted (or reassigned, maybe).

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Andy Benoit‏Verified account @Andy_Benoit 28m28 minutes ago

Next to franchise QB, having a GM and HC with job security is biggest advantage a team can have when it comes to building a roster.

 

 

That's my fear below.  Whomever behind the scenes who felt compelled to kick Scot after he walked out the door -- didn't do the Redskins any favors. 

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/page/Barnwell2017GradesNFCEast/bill-barnwell-2017-nfl-offseason-report-card-free-agency-draft-nfc-east-dallas-cowboys-new-york-giants-philadelphia-eagles-washington-redskins

What went wrong

They fired McCloughan. An embarrassing power struggle played out in the media and led McCloughan to leave town. McCloughan's battle with alcoholism was a matter of public record heading into his time with Washington, and it certainly appears that the organization used his struggle as a pretense to fire him with cause at the first possible opportunity.

Ignore the fact that McCloughan is regarded as an excellent talent evaluator around the league, got rave reviews from players and went 17-14-1 with a team that had gone 7-25 the two seasons before his arrival. Imagine you're a hotshot personnel executive in line for general manager interviews. Why would you want to go work for a team that ran a successful executive out of town and dragged his name through the mud? How would a job with that organization ever be appealing to you, unless you had no other way to become a general manager? It's not a surprise that Washington still hasn't hired a GM and expects to restructure its organization from within.

[Veryoldschool]

On 5/16/2017 at 4:08 PM, NewCliche21 said:

 

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.

 

My hopes were raised slightly when they hired SM and told us he would have control.  Whatever the reason for the falling out and I suspect Snyder meddling to be a primary cause.  I think if SM's drinking had really gotten to be a problem some stories would have gotten out and some players would be talking about to the media.  So I don't have any confidence that Snyder really has sworn off meddling and in fact I am convinced he has a perverse need for drama that will continue to sabotage his success with the Skins.  

 

Losing teams that hire GM's that help them become winners don't fire the GM.  There is something really wrong here and unfortunately I believe it is the owner who I don't expect to be replaced in my lifetime which really sucks.

[William Barbour]

I'm willing to bet the GM Title will go to Jay Gruden, but it'll be a Front Office decision as a group on which direction we go in draft, and FA. 

 

Including Bruce, Scott Campbell, and Jay. 

[Skinsinparadise]

4 minutes ago, William Barbour said:

I'm willing to bet the GM Title will go to Jay Gruden, but it'll be a Front Office decision as a group on which direction we go in draft, and FA. 

 

Including Bruce, Scott Campbell, and Jay. 

 

I don't love any head coach being the GM -- they have too much going on where they can be jack of all trades and master of all trades.  Even Jay admitted calling the plays and dealing with head coaches responsibilities this year won't always be a piece of cake.  Now we are throwing personnel decisions on his plate, too -- personnel is an ongoing process its not just the off season.  So I hope not.  Only upside to me of Jay in that regard -- is if Mike Jones is accurate Jay is standing on the table for the FO to resign Kirk -- so if the bottom line on personnel rest with Jay calling the shots, I'd like the chances of the Kirk contract getting done. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

38 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

My hopes were raised slightly when they hired SM and told us he would have control.  Whatever the reason for the falling out and I suspect Snyder meddling to a primary cause.  I think if SM's drinking had really gotten to be a problem some stories would have gotten out some players would be talking about to the media.  So I don't have any confidence in Snyder that he has sworn off meddling and in fact I am convince he has a perverse need for drama that will continue to sabotage his success with the Skins.

 

Losing teams that hire GM's that help them become winners don't fire the GM.  There is something really wrong here and unfortunately I believe it is the owner who I don't expect to be replaced in my lifetime which really sucks.

I know there is a narrative out there that Bruce is merely Dan's puppet, so maybe that's where this comes from.  I'm never going to be the guy that pounds the table for Snyder, but I think you're way off on this.  Scott has went out of his way to praise Dan after he was let go.  If Dan had anything to do with this, he'd know it - and surely wouldn't be extra complimentary of him.

 

The last I've heard so much as a rumor about Dan having any say in personnel was with moving on to Kirk.  While many believe the owner should have no dealings with that kind of stuff, I have to disagree.  I would imagine most owners would demand to be in the loop when the team is planning the exit of the face of the franchise.

 

Now if you want to hate on Dan for handing the keys to the franchise to Bruce, that's fair game.  At the end of the day, the way I see it - the glory or failure of this organization rests solely on the shoulders of Bruce Allen.

 

 

[Conn]

On 5/16/2017 at 3:56 PM, Veryoldschool said:

Snyder is his own GM. 

 

2 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

I suspect Snyder meddling to a primary cause. [...] So I don't have any confidence in Snyder that he has sworn off meddling

 

Where are you getting this? It's confirmation bias at this point with some fans, they see what they want to be angry about in every situation, despite lack of evidence. 

 

I don't think there's a shred of evidence that Snyder has meddled since Gruden got here, and probably further back than that. And no, I don't consider FO people having to sit down with the owner in order to explain benching his $16M and 3 1st round pick investment to be evidence. 

[William Barbour]

9 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I don't love any head coach being the GM -- they have too much going on where they can be jack of all trades and master of all trades.  Even Jay admitted calling the plays and dealing with head coaches responsibilities this year won't always be a piece of cake.  Now we are throwing personnel decisions on his plate, too -- personnel is an ongoing process its not just the off season.  So I hope not.  Only upside to me of Jay in that regard -- is if Mike Jones is accurate Jay is standing on the table for the FO to resign Kirk -- so if the bottom line on personnel rest with Jay calling the shots, I'd like the chances of the Kirk contract getting done. 

Like I mentioned in my original post. The title GM would only be a title. As successful organizations are beginning to do away with the traditional FO setup

[TSO]

2 hours ago, William Barbour said:

Like I mentioned in my original post. The title GM would only be a title. As successful organizations are beginning to do away with the traditional FO setup

 

From everything I've researched on this topic, I have to say your statement here is patently false. I have no idea where  anyone is getting this from. 

 

What successful organizations are doing away with the traditional FO setup? 

 

Franchises who've been consistently successful for long periods of time and what the vast majority would consider as models like the Steelers, Packers, and Ravens all have the "traditional" setup. Have they changed? 

 

More recently (say, within the last decade), the Broncos, Seahawks, Chiefs, Colts, Panthers and Cardinals have all had consistent success with that setup. Saints also won a Super Bowl within this time frame with the "traditional setup". Giants won two. 

 

Teams on the rise presently, or at the very least considered competitive, like the Vikings, Texans, Lions, Falcons, Titans and Raiders also employ that setup. We were among them. 

 

The above teams all have an exec with either the GM or Executive VP of Football Operations title (essentially the same thing) in charge of personnel acquisition and the scouting department. I believe every one of those execs are ALL guys with either strong scouting backgrounds or, in few instances, played the pro game at the highest levels successfully (like Elway). Some coaches have more power than others among them (like final say during the season and over the final 53), but none have more than the GM overall. They all report to their GM, essentially. 

 

Now look at all the other teams that don't employ the traditional structure. How many are successful? The Pats? Maybe the Cowboys who haven't won anything of significance? 

 

The data is clear here. The vast majority of successful franchises employ the traditional setup. Suggesting otherwise is nonsense. Give me all the names of teams who are setup like we are presently and tell me how exactly they indicate a pattern of success? 

 

We have recent examples this offseason in the Colts and Bills who've went on searches to hire new GMs, acting normally and structuring their FOs traditionally. The Chiefs just today hired someone to replace an exec they lost to the Eagles: 

 

 

We are literally the only organization who fired their GM and then, by all accounts, haven't interviewed a single person from outside the organization.

 

It's absolutely mind boggling how this is acceptable for anyone. To insinuate we are doing something at all similar to how virtually every NFL franchise operates is blatantly false. 

 

Even the Pats, who are the exception in terms of structure, don't operate like that. They have an excellent, extremely extensive, hiring process, whether by promoting from within or finding people from without. Oh, and they have the greatest QB of all time on their roster who also happens to have some shady underdealings with their owner and is the only player of his caliber in history to give his team that big of a hometown discount on his contract. 

 

Sure, let's be like them! 

 

Unless you accept that the GM title we gave Scot was never real, and Allen takes back the title himself, then maybe you can say we're at least structured normally. 

 

But then I'd say I can't ever be comfortable or trust in any way an FO that plays games like that with its structure and have to wonder how anyone can without being completely biased. It'd also suck considering Allen's historical track record regarding personnel is arguably the worst of all the above team's GMs. 

 

But yeah, let's be different. All the joy and excitement when we made the historical move in hiring a legit, qualified expert at talent-evaluating, GM a couple years ago was just us being stupid. None of us had any idea what we were talking about when we recognized the significance of the move. Neither did the media nor did every single NFL representative/exec/coach when they weighed in on it then. We just all were being silly. No harm done! 

[Skinsinparadise]

10 hours ago, William Barbour said:

Like I mentioned in my original post. The title GM would only be a title. As successful organizations are beginning to do away with the traditional FO setup

 

The coach with the GM title even if its phony title with no teeth wouldn't be typical.   As Sub pointed above, I am not sure where the idea of the successful teams are doing away with the traditional FO set up is derived from unless you are referring to the idea that not everyone has that actual title?  For example H. Roseman is the defacto GM in Philly but he doesn't have the title GM.   Here's a full list of the power structures-GMs in the league.  I just went through it.   As for who the defacto GM is from team to team, its not always the guy with the GM title but the buck stops with someone and its typically a personnel guy and by overwhelmingly numbers if you quantity all the FOs.  

 

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/71467/57/nfls-best-gms-2017?pg=1

 

The Redskins working with Bruce as the defacto final decision maker -- without a background in personnel and without officially having a title that connotes that responsibility, is wildly different from the standard FO structure.   If they added to that by making Jay officially the GM but in title only without the teeth if anything I think that would make the operation look even more eccentric. 

[bedlamVR]

I think there is a danger of potentially getting hung up on executives positions and titles. I think the better way to look at these things are in terms of results. 

 

The teams listed as competitive with the 'right' structure - Vikings, Texans, Lions, Titans,  Falcons and Raiders - can we just have a look at - how successful those teams are - The Titans - like the Jaguars are always pundits 'sexy ' picks in may - and they both play  in the AFC South - yeah - and yet neither team has sniffed the playoffs since 2008 - hyped Yes - Competitive ... really ? 

 

The Lions and the Vikings are teams in a division with some of the worst rosters that are propped up by individual performances. TheLions go - and wll go as far as Matt Stafford will carry them - and the Vikings - you want to talk of paper tigers? 

 

Rich Smith - for example - The GM for the Texans - the same GM they have had for the last 11 years has weakened the Texans on the field with what he has given up to try and force the QB problem - the Texans - Are at least 50% of a good team - But any discussion about competent FO and you have to see how they handled the QB situation and Brock was bad - in every sense of the word - they overpaid, they did not know what they were getting and then the very dodgy deal to get rid of him at the end of the day was something you would normally see on Madden - back in the day - like when i used to manage the Cowboys and the Redskins and constantly traded their draft picks for punters (mostly to the Redskins strangely enough) - but then they compound their problems by trading up and giving more impact ON the field away to acquire Watson - I am not going to say if i think Watson is going to work out - but the cost for the GM and the traditional FO for trying to force fix the QB position is huge over the last couple of seasons and the effects will be felt for the texans in the next few seasons if Watson is not the guy.   

 

The Falcons and Raiders are teams that are genuinely competitive - Reggie McKenzie is a true architect but Dimitroff. If you are going to attribute 2016 to Dimitroff (and not OC -  Kyle Shanahan) then you also have to attribute the less impressive run over the last few years.

 

My point is - having someone with the title GM is less important than the results - and I would argue less important than the Coaches getting the most from the players they are given.

 

My preference is this - Develop from within -

 

Again i will mention that both John Schnider and Eric DaCosta - two well-respected names in admin circles both worked at Redskins park in their pasts. What has stiffled this team more than anything is the lack of continuity and the lack of a legitimate plan. Allen may not be the best GM but he knows how to run a football organization - In his first year in charge he reached out at tried to hire - in essensce his direct replacement in Scott - It didnt work out - but he identified that was a weakness and tried to get someone in to fix it -  I don't think they will go outside again for a top job but if they can bring someone as an intern (as DeCosta was) or an exec (as Schnider was) - or an assistant to help with the running of the team - If it makes the product on the field stronger does it matter what title they hold ?  

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

7 hours ago, William Barbour said:

Like I mentioned in my original post. The title GM would only be a title. As successful organizations are beginning to do away with the traditional FO setup

Again, just making stuff up to make yourself feel better about your favorite team.  Where are these successful organizations that are beginning to do away with the traditional FO setup?  They don't exist.

 

Off hand, I can think of one team with a coach/GM combo and that's New England.  That's an organization, not organizations.  I'll spare you the list of why we are nothing at all like them.

 

 

[Veryoldschool]

On 5/17/2017 at 5:03 PM, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

 

Where are you getting this? It's confirmation bias at this point with some fans, they see what they want to be angry about in every situation, despite lack of evidence. 

 

I don't think there's a shred of evidence that Snyder has meddled since Gruden got here, and probably further back than that. And no, I don't consider FO people having to sit down with the owner in order to explain benching his $16M and 3 1st round pick investment to be evidence. 

 

Confirmation basis might be a accurate although dismissive description.  Over 20 years I've seen variations on the same theme and I feel the ugly SM departure is more of the same.  I don't know how a serious person who has watched Dan Snyder mismanage his franchise for 20 years could think otherwise.  I dismiss what the fired employees have to say on the subject because I believe they are trying live up to their separation agreements and not harm their future NFL prospects by calling out an owner.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

4 minutes ago, bedlamVR said:

 

My preference is this - Develop from within -

 

Why though? 

 

Why wouldn't you want your team to spend significant resources to build the best possible front office that money can buy?  And then give that front office everything they need in order to be successful, and by everything I don't just mean money - I mean the freedom and power to build a team the way they see fit.  There is not so much as a rumor about the Redskins talking to any legitimate football minds to replace Scot.  This doesn't alarm you?  That at the bare minimum, we haven't even tried to see if there is someone better out there. 

[Peregrine]

18 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

The last I've heard so much as a rumor about Dan having any say in personnel was with moving on to Kirk.  While many believe the owner should have no dealings with that kind of stuff, I have to disagree.  I would imagine most owners would demand to be in the loop when the team is planning the exit of the face of the franchise.

 

Thats a horrible way to run a business.  Demanding to be in the loop is different from making decisions in areas you shouldnt be. Most good owners would NOT demand to have a say in personnel if its not their area of expertise.  This is not just a football thing either, its how you run a business 101.  Any good owner of a business knows full well that there are certain things he is very good at, and certain things he is not, and for things he is not he hires people who are experts, and lets them do their thing, only stepping in when it looks like there are issues.  Football is no different than any other business in that respect, and it is absolutely insane to think that deciding to interfere in something you know you DONT know anything about, instead of leaving it to the experts you hired who do, is somehow an acceptable way to run a business.

 

In any industry that wasn't protected by monopoly that business would crash and burn within a year.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

@Peregrine We really don't know what the context of the meeting was.  Dan could have very well wanted to be educated on why Griffin wasn't the guy.  At the end of the day, the team moved on with Kirk.  Given what we know about Dans love for Robert, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that he let the football people do what they do.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

52 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

@Peregrine We really don't know what the context of the meeting was.  Dan could have very well wanted to be educated on why Griffin wasn't the guy.  At the end of the day, the team moved on with Kirk.  Given what we know about Dans love for Robert, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that he let the football people do what they do.

 

It would also help if we all stopped believing that Scot had a 5-hour, stand-on-the-table meeting with Snyder and needed every single second of it to change his mind lol...

[bedlamVR]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Why though? 

 

Why wouldn't you want your team to spend significant resources to build the best possible front office that money can buy?  And then give that front office everything they need in order to be successful, and by everything I don't just mean money - I mean the freedom and power to build a team the way they see fit.  There is not so much as a rumor about the Redskins talking to any legitimate football minds to replace Scot.  This doesn't alarm you?  That at the bare minimum, we haven't even tried to see if there is someone better out there. 

 

We have ... JLC and John Kiem have both said we have approached people to sound them out .  

 

But you are in the realms of fantasy football circa 2000 redskins . Throw money at it and things will be awesome . If they clash personality wise it can be a train wreck . 

 

More than any other part of the team the FO deals in people . The FO all has to be able to work together and with other organisations .

 

It is not a case of sprinkle some Green Bay here and some Seattle people there and away we go ... 

 

People typically wanting a high profile GM job would want the team in their image ... coaches scouts etc . And we are not in that process of rebuild ... 

 

why would someone from from the outside want to come in ... just to try and fit in . 

 

[Darth Tater]

I cannot make sense of the SM thing if Snyder is still meddling. Snyder is a fan that owns his favorite football team that has just done something it has not done since the mid-90s.  The politics issue would be coming from people who want credit for that.  As owner, no matter how it came to be, Dan would get the same amount of credit if even if it was simply because he finally hired the right people. Bruce and Jay are the only major players who could lose any credit if the new success is can be directed to the hiring of SM.  I don't think Jay is that type of guy.  As I understand it, SM never trashed Snyder and, in fact, went out of his way to complement their relationship. There are reports that SM had a less than amicable relationship with parts of our front office, however.  Hiring SM was a huge and somewhat unnecessary marketing risk. Firing SM was a huge risk unless the Redskins organization is being honest.  Snyder may not know football and his business operations skills may be suspect but the man knows marketing and sales where you avoid bad smells.  Everything seems to indicate that either there is no deep conspiracy here or the problem is Bruce.

 

Thinking along the lines of conspiracy. Given that SM was a high-end consultant for the 2014 team, a case can be made that Bruce Allen survived the Shanny purge by promising Snyder that he'd do something to fix the team's fortunes. From Bruce's standpoint, SM was a good choice because SM came with a ready-made kill switch that could be used if SM failed or was taking too much credit (from Bruce's view) if things worked out. Snyder would, at best, have only needed such a kill switch if SM had failed.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

@bedlamVR A general manager should be the general manager of the football operation and be given the liberty to run it as they see fit, not how Bruce and the gang would like it to be.  So in a way you are correct, that no high profile GM candidate would want to come here and be second guessed by Bruce while also being required to carry the group that's already here.  That's not how things work.

52 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

It would also help if we all stopped believing that Scot had a 5-hour, stand-on-the-table meeting with Snyder and needed every single second of it to change his mind lol...

Right....none of us have any idea what that meeting went like.  I just know that any owner would want a meeting to wrap their head around replacing the face of the franchise....and given that the football people got their way, it doesn't align with the thought process that Dan is still calling all the shots.

[Darth Tater]

4 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

@bedlamVR A general manager should be the general manager of the football operation and be given the liberty to run it as they see fit, not how Bruce and the gang would like it to be.  So in a way you are correct, that no high profile GM candidate would want to come here and be second guessed by Bruce while also being required to carry the group that's already here.  That's not how things work.

Right....none of us have any idea what that meeting went like.  I just know that any owner would want a meeting to wrap their head around replacing the face of the franchise....and given that the football people got their way, it doesn't align with the thought process that Dan is still calling all the shots.

A GM is usually right below the owner in the Org chart, is he not?  If he is considered subordinate to anyone else, it is more due to informal structure than formal structure.  Any new GM we hire is going to find himself technically below Bruce and maybe informally below Jay.  You'd be pretty much kind of a director level guy with a c-level title.  I agree, don't see anyone wanting that except maybe as a stepping stone.

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

Again i will mention that both John Schnider and Eric DaCosta - two well-respected names in admin circles both worked at Redskins park in their pasts. What has stiffled this team more than anything is the lack of continuity and the lack of a legitimate plan. Allen may not be the best GM but he knows how to run a football organization - In his first year in charge he reached out at tried to hire - in essensce his direct replacement in Scott - It didnt work out - but he identified that was a weakness and tried to get someone in to fix it -  I don't think they will go outside again for a top job but if they can bring someone as an intern (as DeCosta was) or an exec (as Schnider was) - or an assistant to help with the running of the team - If it makes the product on the field stronger does it matter what title they hold ?  

 

 

 My descriptions in this post have nothing to do with your post aside from the Schneider point -- but the Schneider part I think helps sum up some other key points so sorry for that detour but it flows together.    Schneider was a highly regarded personnel guy who was brought here by Marty.  Schneider along with Marty were chased out according to an associate of Danny who told the papers he wasn't having fun with them calling the shots.   So, he brought back his crony Vinny to run the ship with him again.

 

 I don't know among the people who are arguing on behalf of the status quo as to how far back they go as fans.   If its not that far back, I get it.

 

I used to give them the benefit of the doubt.  Danny has changed. He's learned.  His closest associates Vinny back then and now its Bruce are getting a raw deal.  The media is out to get them and are too hung up on the past.  Times have changed!  I bought into that some as recently as Shanny's regime where Shanny said after he left that it was Danny pushing the McNabb deal, not him.  I was skeptical.  I took Dan's side. I thought Shanny was just passing the buck.  No more.  There are just so many variations of this story over the years involving Danny or his stooge du jour.   I just can't buy that everyone is making it up -- year after year in different form and different stories.  

 

As for whether this is all Bruce and Danny isn't involved in any power grab.  You got me. It's plausible.  I don't know.  And I suspect Bruce is more than just carrying Danny's bidding.  But even if its so, its the owners job to set the culture of the front office so if the whole thing looks like a zoo then its on Danny IMO.  

 

Or the other counterpoint is hey everything is great -- why is everyone whining?  We think we got some good players in the draft, case closed.  As for whether this new variation of Danny's front office works --- 10th time is a charm, etc .  Take this car for a spin and try to enjoy it, why all the cynicism?  I used to see it that way, too.  If I saw this with fresh eyes I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.  And liking "some things" that are going on in my view has always been the trap of Danny's regime.   Danny's regime-front office has never been as bad as lets say the Browns.  It wasn't about one failure after the next.  Vinny himself had some good picks and FA signings in the soup.  We've had plenty of exciting and optimistic off seasons.    Exciting off seasons if anything have been the hallmark under Danny.  This time its different -- if anything could be a mantra. 

 

But on the aggregate, Danny's Redskins have almost always been a step behind the better managed teams.  We've never been the Steelers or the Packers or even really consistently competitive with any of the teams in our division.  We are that 6-10 team that occasionally pulls 9-7.  And yeah there were plenty of cool things the front office did in the process of Danny's regime.  I'm sure there will continue to be successes like that.  But on the aggregate if we continue to devalue the power of a top rate personnel guy making the calls and leaving it open for non-personnel types like Bruce and Danny to meddle as much as they'd like -- don't be shocked if we are back on the Danny mediocre train.

 

My only hope is they resign Kirk and a franchise QB could save them from themselves and Bruce comes to hire a John Schneider type in the end -- even if Bruce insists on having final say (beggars can't be choosers). 

 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Lets bring context to John Schneider.  He was here because Marty took over and canned Vinny and wanted an accomplished guy making personnel calls so he brought him from Seattle.  And I agree I can care less about the title, its all about is a personnel guy in charge.  Schneider didn't have the title but Marty made it clear it was Schneider's call. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/02/03/when-john-schneider-was-with-the-redskins/?utm_term=.80304033598b

Schottenheimer said Schneider is free to assemble his own staff, but some of the current four scouts might remain. “When you hire somebody to do the job, you let them do the job,” Schottenheimer said. “I’ll have some input on who we choose. Ultimately, the decision has to be Schneider’s.”

 

May 31, 2001, Washington Post: “It’s a very important job,” Schottenheimer said. “In our business, it’s about players….I need somebody with the background to step right in because I’m going to have to devote my focus to coaching the football team.”

June 1, 2001, AP: Schneider is 30 and looks younger, but Schottenheimer warned that looks can be deceiving. “He’s a bulldog, and I think you have to be a bulldog on the personnel side,” Schottenheimer said. “He’s only 30 years old. That doesn’t bother me. He’s got nine years’ experience. He’s got a Super Bowl ring. I don’t have a Super Bowl ring.”

 

Marty and by extension Schneider were chased out the building in part because

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/320822-who-will-really-run-the-redskins

Will Snyder, who fired Marty Schottenheimer because he said he wasn't having any fun with Marty making all the football decisions, really put his team in the hands of someone else?

 

If we want to delve deeper

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/tired-of-the-redskins-dysfunction-theres-one-person-to-blame/2017/03/11/2aef60dc-05d3-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.b6ae0047745b

Three ex-coaches have described to me how Snyder works: He claims publicly to cede authority to the professionals and pretends to be hands off, to avoid the heat and put it on others. But behind the scenes, he names a draft pick, or a high-priced free agent, and asks the coach whether they should go get him. Do you want Albert Haynesworth? We can get Haynesworth. Let’s go to get Haynesworth. Do you want McNabb? We can get McNabb. Let’s go get McNabb. Why wouldn’t you want McNabb?

 

So now the coach starts sweating. What if he refuses the owner, and doesn’t go after Haynesworth? What if Haynesworth winds up on another team and makes a big play against Washington? Now he’s the guy who passed on Haynesworth. So the coach goes and gets him, and tries to make it work. And that’s how it starts. Then, when it turns out it was a bad choice in the first place and it throws off the locker room and the scheme and the salary structure, the coach starts sweating again. Because now it looks like his fault. Pretty soon the locker room starts to question his judgment and authority, and wonder who’s really the shot-caller around here, anyway?

[TSO]

4 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

The teams listed as competitive with the 'right' structure - Vikings, Texans, Lions, Titans,  Falcons and Raiders - can we just have a look at - how successful those teams are - The Titans - like the Jaguars are always pundits 'sexy ' picks in may - and they both play  in the AFC South - yeah - and yet neither team has sniffed the playoffs since 2008 - hyped Yes - Competitive ... really ? 

 

The Lions and the Vikings are teams in a division with some of the worst rosters that are propped up by individual performances. TheLions go - and wll go as far as Matt Stafford will carry them - and the Vikings - you want to talk of paper tigers? 

 

Rich Smith - for example - The GM for the Texans - the same GM they have had for the last 11 years has weakened the Texans on the field with what he has given up to try and force the QB problem - the Texans - Are at least 50% of a good team - But any discussion about competent FO and you have to see how they handled the QB situation and Brock was bad - in every sense of the word - they overpaid, they did not know what they were getting and then the very dodgy deal to get rid of him at the end of the day was something you would normally see on Madden - back in the day - like when i used to manage the Cowboys and the Redskins and constantly traded their draft picks for punters (mostly to the Redskins strangely enough) - but then they compound their problems by trading up and giving more impact ON the field away to acquire Watson - I am not going to say if i think Watson is going to work out - but the cost for the GM and the traditional FO for trying to force fix the QB position is huge over the last couple of seasons and the effects will be felt for the texans in the next few seasons if Watson is not the guy.   

 

The Falcons and Raiders are teams that are genuinely competitive - Reggie McKenzie is a true architect but Dimitroff. If you are going to attribute 2016 to Dimitroff (and not OC -  Kyle Shanahan) then you also have to attribute the less impressive run over the last few years.

 

My point is - having someone with the title GM is less important than the results - and I would argue less important than the Coaches getting the most from the players they are given.

 

This is really something. You take my list and only focus on the teams that I listed as "competitive and/or on the rise". You ignore the other teams I listed that have been consistently successful. You ignore the amount of Super Bowls won by teams with this structure. 

 

And yet you think you have anything solid to stand on? 

 

Ok, let me make this simple. Give me a list of teams that have been successful, consistently, without the said traditional structure you're arguing isn't as significant as I'm making it. Surely, there will be just as many, right? 

 

Ok, forget that. Surely there will be at least a few, right? 

 

Nope.

 

You have the Pats. Maaaaaybe the Cowboys as you mentioned before in total contradiction to what you're saying here because they haven't won a damn thing, either. If you're going to point out the issues with teams like the Titans, Falcons and Texans (who absolutely fit the stated criteria I gave) but then, when attempting to justify our structure talk about the Cowboys' "success", that says all I need to know about your position. 

 

Basically, "whatever the Skins do is fine with me and I care not for any evidence suggesting otherwise". That's your position. Just own it. 

 

 

4 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

My point is - having someone with the title GM is less important than the results - and I would argue less important than the Coaches getting the most from the players they are given.

 

 

Everything is based on results. No one is suggesting otherwise. If the Skins end up successful while operating under a non-traditional setup, then wonderful. No one will care. 

 

But you do know results are based on processes, right? What kind of sorcery talks about results as if they just arise out of thin air? I gave you examples, many of them, of organizations that are built a certain way and have certain processes that end in successful results. That was the entire friggin point!

 

You have yet to provide me a list of anything else except when you previously mentioned the Pats and the Cowboys, which only strengthens my argument. 

 

The argument here is that anything outside of the traditional FO structure hasn't worked for the Skins in the past and it doesn't work for the majority of teams with any consistency. The teams that remain competitive for sustained periods of time virtually all follow that model. Why would you model your organization on anything other than what most successful franchises do? Why would you even risk it? 

 

We have WAY more examples of teams that give coaches too much power failing than otherwise. Just recently, within our own division, the Eagles were an utter failure when Chip Kelly took control and he decimated their roster. 

 

We have multiple examples of this as Skins' fans. Most recently with Mike Shanahan. 

 

We are the poster child of hiring coaches and placing too much on them. Overly emphasizing their roles and what they can do. You say a GM "is less important than the coaches getting the most from the players they are given"... I mean, did you actually just say the "players they are given" part there at the end without batting an eye!? Who is giving them those players and what skill is involved with that? What if the players "they are given" suck and he IS getting the most out of them? How does that work? Are you telling me you have the world' greatest scouting eye to be able to tell the difference? 

 

By making that statement you are supporting the significance of a GM, not the other way around.

 

Let's put aside the idiocy of hiring Zorn as HC in the first place (even though it's further proof of the importance of a traditional and soundly structured FO) and just talk about him as a QB coach, something he did successfully pretty much everywhere he went. We gave him Jason Campbell to work with. Jason Campbell. 

 

Was he not "getting the most" out of him? 

 

Jay Gruden almost got screwed with RG3 in the same way. Fans, like you, who overly emphasize the role of a coach wanted him hanged over it. It was a traditionally structured FO with a legit GM that saved his job and has us with our first real franchise QB in decades. 

 

If that's not enough to make it so utterly shocking a Redskin fan can actually hold that view, how about considering how held back as great a coach (arguably the greatest) as Gibbs was here because of personnel? 

 

The Redskins dynasty he originally built was with Beathard at GM who was just as vital to the operation as he was. How can we ignore that even though we have, perhaps, the greatest example in the NFL - with a fixed variable like Gibbs - returning without a GM like Beathard in charge, with Gibbs having final say on personnel himself, and struggling to make the playoffs two out of the four years he was here. Finishing with a below .500 winning percentage. THE Joe Gibbs!! 

 

What more does one need!? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! 

 

4 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

My preference is this - Develop from within -

 

Again i will mention that both John Schnider and Eric DaCosta - two well-respected names in admin circles both worked at Redskins park in their pasts. What has stiffled this team more than anything is the lack of continuity and the lack of a legitimate plan. Allen may not be the best GM but he knows how to run a football organization - In his first year in charge he reached out at tried to hire - in essensce his direct replacement in Scott - It didnt work out - but he identified that was a weakness and tried to get someone in to fix it -  I don't think they will go outside again for a top job but if they can bring someone as an intern (as DeCosta was) or an exec (as Schnider was) - or an assistant to help with the running of the team - If it makes the product on the field stronger does it matter what title they hold ?  

 

It's everyone's preference to develop from within. How do you develop from within? Oh, yes, you start with a soundly structured FO to do so that has a proper hierarchy and an excellent hiring process. 

 

Yup. Stunning, I know. 

 

The rest of your arguments go against every sound organizational principle and business plan known to man. You don't exclusively hire, or not hire, based on "comfort". That's important to a degree, but you need to have a hiring process solid enough to add or replace people as necessary and find those who do fit. In any sound hiring process, the priority is to find the best and the brightest. Only then do you go through them and find who is the best fit or whom you're most comfortable with. You don't choose a jackass cousin because he's your cousin and you're comfortable with him. 

 

Your last statement just kills me. Titles absolutely matter. It identifies roles, responsibilities, creates a system of accountability, and avoids over-burdening anyone. It provides great motivation so long as the individual can fulfill those responsibilities and not be undermined, allowing them to take pride in what they're doing. 

 

This is basic stuff.  

 

With regards to this topic, I even mentioned another title that was essentially the same as GM; Executive VP of Football Operations. It's not about the name of the title, but the accompanying roles/responsibilities. You absolutely want the expert of his/her respective field owning a title that allows them to fulfill that. You want a personnel expert owning a title that gives them that power. 

 

Acting like we're just so wonderfully set at every executive position and within our scouting department after Scot's departure is mind boggling. What were you saying while he was here? Was he doing anything of significance? If so, why do you think dividing up his role among those already here is just as good as finding someone else to replace him? 

 

You seem to contradict yourself at every turn.  You mention Allen and his role, which is based on his title, and how his process is working in your mind, but then suggest it doesn't matter much. You talk about adding an exec or an intern or an assistant after directly stating your preference is to "develop from within" and that comfort is a priority. Which one is it!? 

 

All this continues to suggest to me is what I said before... your position is simply to accept whatever the team does as justified. 

 

I can't even keep up. I didn't want to respond before when you've posted in this thread because your arguments were so all over the place I didn't know where to start, but this time I just had to. 

 

I doubt I'll have it in me to provide another response to what will undoubtedly be something you'll drive me crazy with, lol, because believe me I don't want to be the guy who rains on anyone's optimistic parade. I'm a big fan of hope and want to believe the team will be fine. I don't hate, look down upon, or even dislike anyone for holding views that allow them to hold onto that optimism. But you've attempted to argue against my points numerous times and so a response was justified here. 

[NewCliche21]

@Skinsinparadise and @thesubmittedone:  You guys are the best things to happen to this board in years.  I have nothing to add that hasn't been said, but the way that you two research and articulate your points (not your egos) is unbelievably refreshing.  Thank you.