New GM search

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Sigh. One of these years we'll get an ACTUAL GM. Thought mccloughan was the one, but drinking got in the way of that...

While there is no need to rehash everything, I can't let this slide.  I hope you don't really believe that the primary reason Scot was let go was due to drinking.  All of the events that have taken place since his departure align more with a butting of heads in the front office.  It wasn't until the rumors about his inevitable departure came out that we found out he never really had the power he was said to have at his press conference.  Since that time we've heard about an expansive search for the next GM that ended with the hiring of Doug Williams because in their 4 interviews, Doug had the best plan which was not to have a real GM.  Come on man!

[TSO]

Worst. 

 

Hiring process. 

 

In the NFL. 

 

Bar none.

 

It's incredible. Can any of you defending this restructure point to a single organization that did something similar after firing their GM and ended up successful? 

 

I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath. 

 

I just hope that by some divine miracle this works out and everyone involved ends up fulfilling their roles perfectly... but that won't change just how much of a clown show this entire ordeal is/was. That is NOT how you structure an FO and that is NOT how you go about making hires at the highest levels organizationally.

 

How anyone can hear Bruce say Doug "didn't want a GM" and "final say isn't important", then proceed to not pulling their hair out at the gross disrespect that entails of all legitimate understandings of the importance of organizational heirarchy... well, I wish I could go back to the days I had such naïveté, and I mean that sincerely. :/ 

 

I'll root, as always, for that view to be right no matter how ridiculous I know it is. 

[TK]

[Commander -JB-]

8 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

Worst. 

 

Hiring process. 

 

In the NFL. 

 

Bar none.

 

It's incredible. Can any of you defending this restructure point to a single organization that did something similar after firing their GM and ended up successful? 

 

I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath. 

 

I just hope that by some divine miracle this works out and everyone involved ends up fulfilling their roles perfectly... but that won't change just how much of a clown show this entire ordeal is/was. That is NOT how you structure an FO and that is NOT how you go about making hires at the highest levels organizationally.

 

How anyone can hear Bruce say Doug "didn't want a GM" and "final say isn't important", then proceed to not pulling their hair out at the gross disrespect that entails of all legitimate understandings of the importance of organizational heirarchy... well, I wish I could go back to the days I had such naïveté, and I mean that sincerely. :/ 

 

I'll root, as always, for that view to be right no matter how ridiculous I know it is. 

You know it's not going to work out.  I know it's not going to work out.  It never does.  Hell, Allen & Williams didn't work out in Tampa Bay.  But, you & I both know, we'll be watching.  Snyder knows we'll be watching.  Good old boy network, on full display!  Yay! ?

[Cooleyfan1993]

19 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

While there is no need to rehash everything, I can't let this slide.  I hope you don't really believe that the primary reason Scot was let go was due to drinking.  All of the events that have taken place since his departure align more with a butting of heads in the front office.  It wasn't until the rumors about his inevitable departure came out that we found out he never really had the power he was said to have at his press conference.  Since that time we've heard about an expansive search for the next GM that ended with the hiring of Doug Williams because in their 4 interviews, Doug had the best plan which was not to have a real GM.  Come on man!

No, not 100% due to that, but the thing about him apparently going into the locker room drunk had to have at least a small part in it

 

(not blaming him at all actually, honestly I blame Snyder and Bruce mostly.  Not letting him have enough power, if any, I think was the biggest issue, so no, drinking was not the primary reason for his firing, I do agree with that) 

[wilco_holland]

2 hours ago, scruffylookin said:

Snyder hires for front office and what they were doing before joining the Redskins

 

1999- Vinny Cerrato (out of the NFL)

2001- Marty Schottenheimer (out of the NFL)

2002- Vinny once more (out of the NFL)

2004- Joe Gibbs (out of the NFL)

2009- Bruce Allen (out of the NFL)

2010- Mike Shanahan (out of the NFL)

2015- Scot McCloughan (out of the NFL)

 

Dan Snyder has shown zero ability (or interest) in finding front office talent hidden in other organizations. He hires names and/or people without other options looking to get back into the league any way possible.

 

No surprise that his hires are insecure types who surround themselves with yes men and just grateful for a job. I give you Bruce Allen and Doug Williams.

 

You bring facts but little nuance wouldn't harm it.

 

* Schottenheimer and Shanahan where in between jobs. I think multiply teams might have wanted them but they just took it easy. Wait for the right moment. I don't think if we didn't hire them, that no other team would have hired them.

* Gibbs is special. I think Gibbs had no interest in returning to the NFL but he kinda felt he needed to help the team out. 

* Scot was indeed out of the NFL but multiply teams where using his scouting service. There was also some chat that other teams where also interested in hiring Scot for there FO. 

* Vinny and Bruce are indeed head-scratchers. 

 

I agree with you that we didn't find FO talent hidden in other organisations. I would really like if we find a young GM with his own vision who leads the team for years. Only I don't think Dan hired guys who ''looking to get back into the league any way possible''. I think most of the guys we hired had options to go to other teams and where not desperate to take any job that a NFL team would have offered them. 

 

I think Dan Snyder his way of handeling the team (big name FA's and big name coaches) showed that in the early days he wanted guys with a track record. Guys who had proven they could win games in the NFL. I only have no clue what he is doing right now. 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

"Gregg obviously isn't the horse's mouth on why he wasn't hired.  "

 

II quoted another "horse" that said things went well and described something that would hardly lead to a rejection of him as a coaching candidate.

 

And Shanahan has a HUGE history of flat-out lying. I mean, monstrous. Hell, he lied while here with the Redskins, even about what Doc Andrews was supposed to have said to him concerning RG3...to the point that Andrews texted reporters setting the record straight about what he did and did not say to Shanahan.

 

2.  People's power and attitude can change over time. I've seen it plenty with others around my own jobs.  See Russell's article below.  It doesn't mean Russell is right but the idea of someone becoming more power hungry over time isn't some type of human nature reach. 

 

So, was Allen always power hungry or he became power hungry sometime during the 8 months between meeting with Scot and the earliest reports of tension between the two?...As for Russell, he's squarely on the train of thought that Scot talking way too much and leaking way too much to the press played a huge roll in him being fired, not that Allen's need for power forced him out. Not that he's saying it played no role, but it's much farther down the list that a LOT of people want to believe.

 

I'm a huge Occam's Razor believer...the theories that are simpler and can more objectively be proven tend to be the ones that are closer to the real truth. Drinking problems, leaking too much to the press and going against Allen's directives can be proven objectively. Pride, ego and jealousy can not. Scot being fired "for cause" tends to back up that stance.

 

You are responding to a post from last week where we wondered about Bruce's motives.  You trusting them.  Me not so much.  And I told you then, I'll ultimately judge Bruce by the move he makes on GM.  So this morning he did finally make a move.  He did it exactly more or less what I perceived as the worst case scenario I laid out.  So I am done with ambiguity about Bruce and his motives.  I'll entertain your post since its from the past.  Otherwise, I am not in the mood to debate Bruce's motives.  It would be a waste of both of our times.    If it were yesterday before today's announcement, I'd still be game.   

 

As for Gregg Williams. I don't see how he's an objective source for why he wasn't hired let alone over the person who actually helped made the decision not to hire him.    If Gregg planted a bug in the room when Vinny and Danny were discussing why he wasn't hired, then maybe so.   I've hired and fired people, I don't give them the full blast reason for why especially when there is a personal angle behind it.   The person who would be the expert on my motives for why I hired or didn't hire that person would be me, not the person who didn't get the job. 

 

The thrust of the point I made to you last week was it seemed like you were strongly hanging on to the idea that Bruce was in pursuit of Scot mid 2015 as being telling (in a positive way) to Bruce's motives.  I said I haven't seen that story with Bruce reaching out to Scot early for the job so could you share it or if it was via a radio interview -- do you recall what was the report specifically?  If you don't remember, its cool.   

 

 I'd be interested though in seeing the context of a story about Bruce wanting Scot earlier in the process -- it might sway me some depending on how it was reported.  Probably wouldn't sway me much today but it might of when I brought it up last week. 

 

Yesterday, though Chris Russell said that Scot was a quick hire versus a slow burn.  Bruce presented it to Danny.  Danny didn't have long to reflect and they made the hire quickly.    Russell brought it up because he said Danny didn't want to rush into this decision this year unlike the previous one when they hired Scot.  Russell was also on previously that Bruce wanted AJ Smith first not Scot.  But Dan rejected Smith. 

 

As for you buying more into Bruce's side because the simple-easy theories back his side of things. I'll start with the only relevance Scot has to Bruce and this team going forward is to delve into what's driving Bruce.  I've really taken Bruce's side over Scott for the most part when it stems specifically as to that battle.  Where I've said, if Scot needed to go, then he needed to go.  I didn't argue it.   But if power structure was indeed a non-issue (unlike what Scot's side have expressed) then lets see what Bruce does next.

 

As for Chris Russell, his position on Bruce is way harsher than anyone of us here. So he doesn't really help your argument.   He flat out thinks he's a bad guy and crazy power hungry and has said so on air multiple times.  He said some people he knows who worked there and left said he fosters a political/backstabbing environment.  If you are cool with him and play ball, he will have your back.  If you don't, he will run over you and be a miserable enemy.  As for the Scot situation, as I've said multiple times including to you -- Russell has been balanced that both Scot and Bruce are at fault for different reasons.  As for the power struggle, the only reason why Russell said it wasn't the prime reason was that Bruce already won that power game.  So that was an issue but it got resolved with Bruce prevailing.   But the Scot-Bruce battle is really off topic IMO.  Who cares about Scot at this point?  Most of us here care about the FO today and in the future.   I've said many times I can care less as to who was more at fault. 

 

As for the simple arguments really working on Bruce's side

 

A.  4 people (1 beat, 2-ex-beat, 1 columnist) with good sources to the team say that Bruce is a power hungry dude who craves being the final say and its part of the soup as the FO issues.  

 

B.  A WP reporter recenty said THREE ex-coaches shared stories similar to Shanny's story about interference.  Are they all lying?  I am not a Shanny guy.  I can care less about him but he's not on an island.

 

C.  The plane landed and Bruce indeed has final say and didn't give up his power.

 

I don't know how simpler it can get.  For this all to be wrong.  You'd have to have multiple reporters lying.  Coaches lying.  And its just pure coincidence that what Bruce was accused of wanting which is the final say -- just by chance happens to be what happened let alone according to one beat reporter no one has Bruce's back more than Doug in the FO. 

 

Look, I don't think Bruce is a bad guy.  He's a guy who at times is a shrewd money guy and I think he brings much value when he plays in his own lane.  But I don't want my electrician to be the architect of my house or for that matter having final say on the design plans.   I don't have issues with people wanting power in the FO.  Heck that's natural who doesn't want to be higher on the food chain?  But for me personally, I want a personnel guy running personnel.  I want the architect designing my house to make the final call not my electric guy overseeing it.  

 

And no its hard for me to see that the simple theory that's obvious is Bruce isn't about power.   Bruce IMO has all the makings of a guy who really really really wants to be in charge.   If Bruce was a personnel stud, I wouldn't care.   But he's not IMO.   Bruce can say all day long that having final say isn't a big deal.  But if so why not give it up.  If Doug is the be all and end all with "the plan" then let him make the ultimate calls versus:

 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

Since the first game I ever saw...SB 17.

 

You really need to move past the mistakes Snyder made 15 years ago.

 

if that far back I'd presume you are in your 40s right now.  Me too.   Then, we got to agree to disagree.  15 years ago, wow.   So Danny has gotten it right post Spurrier.  For a guy that has gotten past his mistakes 15 years ago -- the dude I gather must have just had some rotten run of luck for a good chuck of that time.  More than half of those seasons they finished last and the peak year is 10 wins.  1 playoff win.

[SkinsPassion4Life]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

if that far back I'd presume you are in your 40s right now.  Me too.   Then, we got to agree to disagree.  15 years ago, wow.   So Danny has gotten it right post Spurrier.  For a guy that has gotten past his mistakes 15 years ago -- the dude I gather must have just had some rotten run of luck for a good chuck of that time.  More than half of those seasons they finished last and the peak year is 10 wins.  1 playoff win.

 

Very early 40's; with a recent birthday

 

Since 2004, I only put the blame on Snyder for 2008 and 2009.       They had one playoff win mainly because of mediocre at best QB play....not because Dan was some terrible owner.....in addition, Gibbs was not as great a coach...and neither was Shanny.

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

Very early 40's; with a recent birthday

 

Since 2004, I only put the blame on Snyder for 2008 and 2009.       They had one playoff win mainly because of mediocre at best QB play....not because Dan was some terrible owner.....in addition, Gibbs was not as great a coach...and neither was Shanny.

 

Isn't Danny the guy hiring those coaches?  What about all the crazy FA moves?  Letting Clark and Pierce go and signing Archuleta, Randle El.  Haynesworth, etc.  Wanting to trade two #1's for Chad Johnson.   All the dumb draft pick trades, Duckett, Lloyd, etc.  

[SkinsPassion4Life]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Isn't Danny the guy hiring those coaches?  What about all the crazy FA moves?  Letting Clark and Pierce go and signing Archuleta, Randle El.  Haynesworth, etc.  Wanting to trade two #1's for Chad Johnson.   All the dumb draft pick trades, Duckett, Lloyd, etc.  

 

I will never blame Snyder for Hiring Gibbs...or Shanny......Hindsight is 50/50 as Spurrier would say.

 

All those trades/FA's were under Gibbs....He was in control.....I do blame Dan for Haynesworth

[Skinsinparadise]

15 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

I will never blame Snyder for Hiring Gibbs...or Shanny......Hindsight is 50/50 as Spurrier would say.

 

All those trades/FA's were under Gibbs....He was in control.....I do blame Dan for Haynesworth

 

OK so mistakes happened but they are excusable. Yeah if you were cool with Danny's role and decision making during the Vinny years/Shanny which is what we are talking about -- then it makes sense to me that you are digging today's version of Dan-Bruce.    I might dig the current structure too if I had that same framework. I wish I did but I don't.    And to each their own but I don't think I am living in the deep past-15 years back.    I get you are feeling good about this draft, I am too.  But since you go far back, I am sure you can recall plenty of optimistic off seasons that crashed and burned.  It's been a hallmark for Danny.   

[SkinsPassion4Life]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK so mistakes happened but they are excusable. Yeah if you were cool with Danny's role and decision making during the Vinny years/Shanny which is what we are talking about -- then it makes sense to me that you are digging today's version of Dan-Bruce.    I might dig the current structure too if I had that same framework. I wish I did but I don't.    And to each their own but I don't think I am living in the deep past-15 years back.     

 

I'm not buying Shanny's account of what happened here....I believe he had the authority, no matter what he says

 

I agree Vinny is a tool....Dan should have fired him after Gibbs left.

[RedBeast]

For some reason when I think about this entire situation it is nothing but Madness and these actions have put us One Step Beyond a respectable FO 

 

Hahahaha

 

 

[NewAgeSkins]

Shanny would've NEVER come here if he didn't have full control. He had it his final years in Denver, and had offers to join other teams. Pretty sure he was the one who told Danny to hire Bruce (when they met at his house in early 2009).

[Skinsinparadise]

There is some nuance to the Shanny argument based on articles posted on various threads on things like McNabb.  But I got no interest rehashing those arguments.  And i am one of Shanny's critics on the board.  I'll just leave it with this -- it is possible to have something go wrong where BOTH sides are at fault versus its all about one side screwing it up and the other side being great and faultless.  It's a cliche that there are many hands that help in the soup of success -- that usually applies to failure, too. The discussion isn't really relevant to the point at hand anyway so it just sidetracks the conversation. Switching back to topic:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/the-redskins-had-a-press-conference-about-nothing-and-thats-great-news/2017/06/13/34087bb6-5062-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.689189545775 

 

Change? Washington isn’t going to change because it doesn’t want to change. During Daniel Snyder’s controversial time as owner, the franchise has bumbled through one disaster after another, igniting and extinguishing hope with stunning recklessness, presenting potential saviors and then torturing them in their fickle cycle. There have been two constants: failure and revision. Washington loves only the beginning of things — the start of something fresh, the grand debut — and after that, the countdown to chaos begins. To follow this franchise is to toe the thin line between optimism and skepticism.

Change? Why bother? Washington would’ve been fighting itself again. It didn’t need another Scot McCloughan, another charming newcomer to inspire trust and big dreams and then disintegrate amid the toxic environment. There has been no succeeding against the tide. So it makes sense to identify and promote the people who have shown they can operate within it.

 

That’s why Doug Williams, the classy and humble former Super Bowl MVP quarterback, is now the senior vice president of player personnel. This run-on title makes him the top dog in football operations, sort of. Bruce Allen, the team president, is still running the show, along with his other responsibilities. But Williams gets to be the boss within Allen’s vague parameters of the role.

Don’t expect Williams to whine about the limitations of his power, however. Before he was fired, McCloughan became frustrated with Allen and the awkward way Washington does business. Over his 3 ½ years as a personnel executive here, Williams has adjusted to the franchise and made an impact. He can handle Washington’s crazy. His temperament — an unflappable yet self-deprecating manner similar to Coach Jay Gruden’s approach — is necessary to do this job.

Here’s how well Williams knows the franchise: While interviewing with Allen, he proposed the vice president job title instead of general manager and preempted any possibility of a power struggle by articulating his role.

 

“It was important to me,” Williams said. “And this is the honest God’s truth: We had a general manager. It didn’t work out that well.”

Williams wants to make the franchise a consistent winner again. His ego doesn’t require a ton of credit or final say on personnel matters. He just wants a say, a stronger say. He’s smart about this, too. He knows that, if he does the job properly, he won’t be overruled often. Despite all the issues that McCloughan had, the franchise followed his vision, and his influence was felt. He couldn’t handle the accumulation of nitpicking and the scrutiny because it was different from what he had experienced. Williams, a first-timer in this role, has no such personal experiences to compare.

[Morneblade]

7 hours ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

To be fair, Schaffer has done ALL of the contracts as far as I know.  He's the gap guru that's saved us from cap hell repeatedly, too.

 

 

He has done the contracts, but NOT the negotiations. Big difference.

[HogsVa7]

I really do believe now it was a power trip that SM got fired. I think Doug Williams will be fine but it's really no difference of what it was once we were told SM was on leave. IMO SM was our "GM" when he was hired but he really wasn't. More of a heavy scout for drafting players and just have a say in things. Us fans looked up to SM changing things and making us better which he did when he was here. We were giving him the glory and credit and Bruce Allen couldn't take it cause before SM was here Bruce was in charge. We would know if SM got fired for drinking but it wasn't it's clear as day. Look at what SM said in that radio interview when he first came out after his firing. He talked positive about the Redskins and Dan Synder and the team. He never mentioned about Bruce Allen which clearly shows and if he was drinking we would know by now. SM said what he said to help him get a job for the future. If he was really drinking then he probably couldn't get another GM job but after that interview explains it all. I love the team where it's headed and back to back winning seasons is a plus, I just didn't like the way this situation was handled as a fan stand point.

[NewCliche21]

52 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

He has done the contracts, but NOT the negotiations. Big difference.

 

Well, yeah, that's what contracts are.  He's not the one sweet-talking, but he's the one who gets the numbers working for both sides.  At the end of the day, the numbers are what matters.  Guess we've got different operational definitions there, but I get what you're saying.

[TK]

57 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

He has done the contracts, but NOT the negotiations. Big difference.

 

2 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Well, yeah, that's what contracts are.  He's not the one sweet-talking, but he's the one who gets the numbers working for both sides.  At the end of the day, the numbers are what matters.  Guess we've got different operational definitions there, but I get what you're saying.

When you're negotiating, you've GOT to know your numbers. If you don't know where you're at, you'll end up ****ing yourself. 

[nemocystem]

I just want to say this...

 

I really just care to believe at this point that Gruden, & Allen have finished their vetting period, & have decided to marry their philosophies.

 

Gruden is now acting as a coach/GM without the official title.  He will make requests, & suggestions, & BA will push most of that stuff through Doug once he's given his stamp of approval.

 

Do i care for the guys in cahrge, & trust in their ability to make sound football decisions?  Not terribly.  But i do believe in Gruden enough to let it all play out.

 

From this angle...whether you believe it's  fantasy, or reality, i feel this is the structure going forward.  I feel now, pretty assuredly that SM was brought in to unofficially be the 10th man in negotiations, & personnel decisions.  I get the sense tbat throughout the course of his tenure that BA, & Gruden confirmed, & solidified their personnel philosophies, & did so against the advice of SM on occasion.  If you believe what was written...in most of those instances they (being JG/BA) were surprisingly proven correct (can't find the specific instances/article discussed) over SM's take.  

 

I may be spouting asinine drivel...especially if you're prone to just mosey about all upset at **** you couldn't prove in a peer-reviewed journal, then fine.  I'll just enjoy me some football, & circle back when this conversation is relevant again.

 

Or not...

 

I may just decide to get crazy with the cheeze-whiz.

[Rufus T Firefly]

2 hours ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Well, yeah, that's what contracts are.  He's not the one sweet-talking, but he's the one who gets the numbers working for both sides.  At the end of the day, the numbers are what matters.  Guess we've got different operational definitions there, but I get what you're saying.

Generally speaking, a GM (or equivalent) will decide how much the team is willing to pay a player. He wants 10 mil per year? It's up to the GM to decide whether to give it to him. Or how much to counter offer and how hard to stick to those guns. Want 25 mil in guarantees? Again, the GM figure decides whether to give it. It's up to the GM to decide if he thinks it's best to give in to said player's demands or to use the money elsewhere, or save it. Part of that, obviously, is assessing the state of the market. Once he has decided to give such a contract, he turns it over to the cap guy to make the final numbers work. He will likely direct him whether to structure it to keep the cap figure lower in the early years or not, and such matters.

 

The cap guy will consult with the GM about the team's cap situation, both short and long term. Then, when given the framework to work within on a contract, will figure out how to make the numbers work, or if he can't. And then put together the final deal.

 

If we're now suggesting ding that second job is basically the same as doing the first job, that seems wildly inaccurate.

[actorguy1]

As stated previously, get 9 wins or better this season and I will sing their praises. Less and I will join you all with the pitchforks Results on the field. That is all that matters to me. I am neutral on this restructure until we are either eliminated or qualify for the playoffs this season. 

[Morneblade]

2 hours ago, TK said:

 

When you're negotiating, you've GOT to know your numbers. If you don't know where you're at, you'll end up ****ing yourself. 

 

You need to know the numbers, but YOU are the one that decides how much you're going to pay a player. The "accountant" finds a way to make the numbers work. See below.

47 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Generally speaking, a GM (or equivalent) will decide how much the team is willing to pay a player. He wants 10 mil per year? It's up to the GM to decide whether to give it to him. Or how much to counter offer and how hard to stick to those guns. Want 25 mil in guarantees? Again, the GM figure decides whether to give it. It's up to the GM to decide if he thinks it's best to give in to said player's demands or to use the money elsewhere, or save it. Part of that, obviously, is assessing the state of the market. Once he has decided to give such a contract, he turns it over to the cap guy to make the final numbers work. He will likely direct him whether to structure it to keep the cap figure lower in the early years or not, and such matters.

 

The cap guy will consult with the GM about the team's cap situation, both short and long term. Then, when given the framework to work within on a contract, will figure out how to make the numbers work, or if he can't. And then put together the final deal.

 

If we're now suggesting ding that second job is basically the same as doing the first job, that seems wildly inaccurate.

 

This

[RedBeast]

I can imagine it now... it will be like the scene in the parking garage during the movie Trading Places... Doug will be in a trenchcoat and a lowered hat with a briefcase of money meeting Ex-GMSM for the Orange Crop Reports