New GM search

[SkinsPassion4Life]

If Doug was the sole decider, I would have a problem with this.....but I prefer the current collaboration vs bringing in one guy to make all the decisions.

 

By the way....how long are some of you (SIP) going to continue with this "Danny" nonsense?   It's Dan or Snyder......You would be ripping me if I kept calling GMSM "Scotty McCloser"

[Skinsinparadise]

19 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

That's the thing, though...the Scot issue was used to generate a ****-ton of articles, opinion pieces and tweets about how power-hungry and jealous Allen was. brewer's article in February was centered around Allen's treatment of Scot and how it shows how manipulative and power hungry he really is. Russell back then wrote an article or blog or whatever it was that was blisteringly negative towards Allen and basically said "In Scot We Trust" was an empty mantra to fool the fans, forgetting that it was the fans that came up with that to begin with lol...

 

Russell first was all on board as believing what was happening with Scot was proof positive of a power grab...then like 2 months later, he's moved on to the "Allen controlled everything behind the scenes so there was no power grab, even though he wanted the fans to think Scot had power" stance...now another few months after that he seems to be on the "Allen always had power, not sure why fans ever thought otherwise" platform lol...

 

At any rate, like I said I was wondering if I seriously missed some article, news, speculation, tweet or whatthe****ever that spilled some beans to start having media members taking much stronger stances towards Scot and giving more leeway towards Bruce.

 

Like you, I work from home.  I have the radio on all day long.  I haven't seen really a shift on Bruce-Scot.  

 

In Russell's defense in terms of his consistency he was on the Bruce is a power hungry jerk train way before the Scot story happened.  And he said it was based on his own personal observation of Bruce and others he knew in that building who worked with him.  It was never a Scot driven attack on that front.  Russell is actually OK with Danny but thinks Bruce is a bad guy.  

 

Russell's story actually flows fine from my observation.  He said Bruce grabbed power from Scot in the summer of 2015.  Then other things happened.   Russell on his radio show hinted there were issues with Scot for weeks before he finally wrote the story and broke it.  And no he didn't characterize it as a power struggle.   He said it was a small piece of the soup but not a big one.  He said the power struggled already happened way back. 

 

Not sure what though you are trying to get to.  The media is unfairly misrepresenting Bruce or they are softening on Bruce?   Even if so, not sure why it matters.  

[Skinsinparadise]

10 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

If Doug was the sole decider, I would have a problem with this.....but I prefer the current collaboration vs bringing in one guy to make all the decisions.

 

By the way....how long are some of you (SIP) going to continue with this "Danny" nonsense?   It's Dan or Snyder......You would be ripping me if I kept calling GMSM "Scotty McCloser"

 

You can call Scot whatever you want.   Not sure why its important what we can him: Dan, Danny, Mr. Snyder?    Is SkinsPassion really Dan?  It would explain a lot.    Just kidding. 

[SkinsPassion4Life]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You can call Scot whatever you want.   Not sure why its important what we can him Dan, Danny, Mr. Snyder?    Is SkinsPassion really Dan?  It would explain a lot.    Just kidding, dude. 

 

If all it took was for you to have lunch w/Scot to have a good opinion of him; then I suggest you have dinner with Dan...at Morton's 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

If all it took was for you to have lunch w/Scot to have a good opinion of him; then I suggest you have dinner with Dan...at Morton's 

 

If this is indeed Danny or sorry to be more respectful, Mr. Synder.   Please take some of us detractors to Morton's and explain your ways?  It's nothing personal. We just don't get how you could run a multi billion dollar company and treat the idea of who shops for the groceries for this mega operation as a mere afterthought?  It would be one thing if the Redskins dominated the division during your reign but its been the doormat for most of it and even a laughing stock at times.   But maybe we are indeed missing the method to the madness?  A $500 Cabernet and a $100 steak might sway me to your point of view. 

[SkinsPassion4Life]

Sorry, the $500 Cabernet and $100 steak is reserved for Eddie Royal

[TSO]

On 6/15/2017 at 2:41 PM, SkinsPassion4Life said:

By the way....how long are some of you (SIP) going to continue with this "Danny" nonsense?   It's Dan or Snyder......You would be ripping me if I kept calling GMSM "Scotty McCloser"

 

Not interested in going back and forth with you on the matter, but I just wanted to say I find this one thing about your various positions here absolutely mind-boggling as well as immensely entertaining.  

 

How you can so willingly have the incredibly hypocritical and contradictory stance of giving certain coaches/execs your final (overly negative) judgment with such ease and with real confidence (often derived from only observing them for a year or two), while constantly coming to the defense of Mr. Snyder (is that more to your liking?) who has well over a decade of Front Office incompetence, poor media relations, and an overall woeful record during his tenure as owner... well, it just blows my friggin mind.

 

I mean, if you were just criticizing everyone and everything here on some Negative-Nancy-take-a-dump-on-the-board crap that'd be understandable. But this whole "trash the majority except Snyder" thing you've got going is astonishing to me on all levels of sound logic. I'm super intrigued by it.   

[Koolblue13]

I was definitely not a fan of Scot. Im fine with Dan and Bruce and their fanboy BS. I think they'll keep learning and buffoon their way into a few championships. 

 

It sucks to have grown up with Gibbs running the team, but that was as luckily as if Spurrier had been successful. Maybe if he loved god or football as much as he loved himself, he would have been humble enough to see his short comings.

[TSO]

9 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I was definitely not a fan of Scot. Im fine with Dan and Bruce and their fanboy BS. I think they'll keep learning and buffoon their way into a few championships. 

 

Wait, you're fine with "fanboy BS" and believe they can "buffoon their way" to a championship? 

 

Ok, now I've got another one to add to my list of, uhm, interesting positions here.  

[Koolblue13]

1 minute ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Wait, you're fine with "fanboy BS" and believe they can "buffoon their way" to a championship? 

 

Ok, now I've got another one to add to my list of, uhm, interesting positions here.  

I've had to come to terms with a hell of a lot worse crap over the last couple decades. 

 

Im mostly just really happy with our coaching staff, promoting from within, seeing our position coaches hired elsewhere  (seriously, our last 2 OCs being hired? Crazy). 

 

Things are definitely improving as a whole. The Zorn/Fassil debacle is definitely our lowest point. As long as that bull**** never happens again. I'll be patient.

 

Don't get me wrong though, Im still going to be an irrational, emotional, overly critical "fan"atic. 

[TSO]

^^ I agree, there's a lot to look forward to with Jay at HC, Kirk at QB, and how deep our roster is right now in general. 

 

I was extremely satisfied with the direction of the organization as a whole, but this offseason has been tough on me a bit in that regard. 

 

Really, the only thing I want from the organization is a great hiring process from those at the highest level (Dan and then Bruce right now) and a properly structured FO that's consistent with the vast majority of successful franchises past and present. 

 

I believe now, with everything I've learned as a fan throughout all these years here, is that those two things ensure success no matter what obstacles present themselves or even if the team goes through an entire terrible season. It ensures that those brought in or promoted are in an environment conducive to success that highlights their strengths and minimizes their weaknesses. 

 

I can't help but be extremely worried we've reverted back to the opposite of that. It was never about Scot for me. It was about what his hire represented in terms of both of those things. The hiring process (he was seen as a great talent evaluator by pretty much everyone, albeit with personal issues) and the structure (given a title that represented his authority over personnel). 

 

So, yeah, I'm very excited about our short term prospects and believe we'll see the residual effects (from whatever good we had going for us regarding those two things) this next season - and possibly more - but I do fear what this points to for the long term. This isn't new for us. We've seen how this ends. 

 

Of course, I'll be rooting just as hard as anyone else here that it works out and my fears were totally baseless. 

[Koolblue13]

Coaching is all I really care about. That and the scouting department. Bruce is the Anti- vinny, that's for sure and I wish he wasnt "as" cheap, but if we pay our own, I'm good.

 

I would have been much happier if we paid Kirk last year, but at this point, I dont even care anymore. We seem to have a solid enough team being built up. This class will be the rope to either hang or hoist a trophy banner with. If Kirk leaves and we get a lot of picks, awesome. Great draft for um and a solid staff to groom him, but I never want to see another three win season again.

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

If Kirk leaves and we get a lot of picks, awesome. Great draft for um and a solid staff to groom him, but I never want to see another three win season again.

 

Don't see how there is a scenario where we get a lot of picks for Kirk or any for that matter.   Either he'd be a FA.  So nothing in that case or perhaps a 3rd rounder in 2019 as a comp pick.  He'd be transition tagged and if you got outbid in that regard, you'd lose him with no compensation.  Or you franchise him, and I can't see a team trading for a dude making 35 million a year.

 

Agree, I'd hate to see the 3 win drill again.  Judging by training camp fodder, Preston Smith, Doctson, Cravens, Fuller are looking good.  You add that to this years draft nucleus and you got potentially a good young squad.  Still, I don't see the Redskins breaking the mold by being good without a good QB.  So while I think they avoid 3 wins, my guess is its a 6-10 team without Kirk maybe 7-9 if they get lucky.  IMO the division is too tough and two division foes have good up and coming Qbs in their own right.   Even if I bought into the idea of ignore Colt's history and past numbers because he really is very good -- the dude will be 32 in the 2018 season and is mega injury prone. 

[Skinsinparadise]

7 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

^Of course, I'll be rooting just as hard as anyone else here that it works out and my fears were totally baseless. 

 

Me, too.  And I think no matter what its going to look good initially.  My fear is 2018 and beyond.  If they resign Kirk, I feel that a good QB could mask other problems.   So I'd relax some if they get that contract done.  Otherwise, I think we return quickly to the mediocre days.  

 

I think part of the good will with some to the current FO is the 2017 draft.   It reminds me a lot of the good vibes post the 2011 draft.   Back then, we got the star of the senior bowl in Hankerson.  Kerrigan looked like a gem (that ended up a good pick, clearly), Jenkins was supposedly unstoppable in training camp -- Doc had a man crush on the dude. We got 2 potentially good running backs in Helu and Royster.  Gomes could solve the safety issues, etc.  In retrospect, they got one starter out of that haul and a backup TE.  And heck I loved the 2011 draft at the time, too.  I love this one, too.  But I've learned to have a wait and see approach before celebrating it.  Heck and that could work both ways.  The 2014 draft initially looked like a bomb, now its looking good.  Some are jumping on the 2016 draft but judging by Jay's comments that draft might end up looking good, too. Will see.  

 

In spite of what most national pundits are saying, I think this team is loaded for a good run this year.  If Kirk is resigned, I think they are loaded for the next 3-4 years in terms of being a good team.   But do they have the structure to sustain it?  Got my doubts.   But heck during Mr. Snyder's  reign they have never made the playoffs in back to back seasons.  So a nice 3-4 year run where the team is good would be an earth shattering achievement for this franchise post 1992.  So I won't complain.  But gosh I think they can do even better than just good if they do it right. 

 

I always root for the team versus being right.  I am not a GM, I don't get paid to be right or wrong.  And I take pride in changing my mind even after taking a hard position initially.  So I'll do so here, too if this works like gangbusters.   But I think its going to be hard to judge.  Doug for example is buried in a role where he doesn't have final say nor does he seem to be heavily involved in draft prep.  So who gets credit?  Who gets blamed?  And depending on who you are discussing this with -- its easy to cherry pick positions to fit your respective positions.  For example the beat reporters are raving about Swearinger and Albert Breer said he saw Scot's FA board and he was the top guy on his list.  

 

And for me I can care less about Scot, he's gone.  But if I am judging the current FO, how am I giving Doug credit for Swearinger or giving him credit for the draft when he said that was all Scot Campbell.   Things are so ambiguous that its difficult to know who gets credit-blame.  And that's why I don't like the FO structure.  You want IMO a guy where the buck stops with that person.  If I had to pick someone in house to run this, the more I think about it, it would have been Scott Campbell.  He's the guy with the biggest rep there for player evaluation.   But that's not how it went down. 

[Koolblue13]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Don't see how there is a scenario where we get a lot of picks for Kirk or any for that matter.   Either he'd be a FA.  So nothing in that case or perhaps a 3rd rounder in 2019 as a comp pick.  He'd be transition tagged and if you got outbid in that regard, you'd lose him with no compensation.  Or you franchise him, and I can't see a team trading for a dude making 35 million a year.

 

Agree, I'd hate to see the 3 win drill again.  Judging by training camp fodder, Preston Smith, Doctson, Cravens, Fuller are looking good.  You add that to this years draft nucleus and you got potentially a good young squad.  Still, I don't see the Redskins breaking the mold by being good without a good QB.  So while I think they avoid 3 wins, my guess is its a 6-10 team without Kirk maybe 7-9 if they get lucky.  IMO the division is too tough and two division foes have good up and coming Qbs in their own right.   Even if I bought into the idea of ignore Colt's history and past numbers because he really is very good -- the dude will be 32 in the 2018 season and is mega injury prone. 

Kind of out of context. I guess I should have added a disclaimer, but didn't think about it turning into a QB discussion. 

 

Kirk should have been signed last year. He should already be signed this year.

 

Im not having any conversation about Colt freaking McCoy. 

 

I think we're getting to a point of being a .500 team, regardless of a QB.

 

You need a QB to win in the post season.

 

I dont mind our clown ass FO running things like children as much anymore. 

[Skinsinparadise]

Just now, Koolblue13 said:

Kind of out of context. I guess I should have added a disclaimer, but didn't think about it turning into a QB discussion. 

 

Kirk should have been signed last year. He should already be signed this year.

 

Im not having any conversation about Colt freaking McCoy. 

 

I think we're getting to a point of being a .500 team, regardless of a QB.

 

You need a QB to win in the post season.

 

I dont mind our clown ass FO running things like children as much anymore. 

 

Got it.    I guess my only bone in that mix to pick on is the 500 team without Kirk part.  Though I said 6 or 7 wins so we aren't that far part.

 

I think its an 8-8 team without Kirk or maybe even better if they played in the AFC South.  But if they didn't have Kirk, they'd be the one team in the division IMO without a franchise QB and then you kick in they have the worst defense in the division, too and arguably the worst special teams, too.  That's a lot to overcome.   Yeah the newcomers might leapfrog the defense to be better (and I am optimistic on that front) but I'd have to see that first to judge.

[Koolblue13]

44 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Got it.    I guess my only bone in that mix to pick on is the 500 team without Kirk part.  Though I said 6 or 7 wins so we aren't that far part.

 

I think its an 8-8 team without Kirk or maybe even better if they played in the AFC South.  But if they didn't have Kirk, they'd be the one team in the division IMO without a franchise QB and then you kick in they have the worst defense in the division, too and arguably the worst special teams, too.  That's a lot to overcome.   Yeah the newcomers might leapfrog the defense to be better (and I am optimistic on that front) but I'd have to see that first to judge.

Thats what my original point was. I think this draft will either be the rope to hang ourselves or a trophy. I think the FO, at least the draft department, is doing a good job. I hope so. We have to be able to run the ball and stop the run, or no matter how good our offense seems, we'll be easily deflated like the falcons when it mattered.

 

Adding- if we're going to be a middle of the road team, like last year, I'd rather be a solid team, than carried by one player they can't even get under contract. 

[TSO]

5 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Coaching is all I really care about. That and the scouting department. Bruce is the Anti- vinny, that's for sure and I wish he wasnt "as" cheap, but if we pay our own, I'm good.

 

1 hour ago, Koolblue13 said:

I dont mind our clown ass FO running things like children as much anymore. 

 

Yeah, this is where we differ majorly. I can't get behind these lines of thought at all. 

 

1) Coaching is not more important than the scouting department and who runs it in my mind (which I believe is what you're suggesting here, though correct me if I'm wrong). At most, it's 50/50 between coaching and personnel but I've laid out plenty of evidence as to why I heavily lean towards personnel, and therefore who's in charge of that department, being more important than coaching overall. At least in the pros. Doesn't mean coaching is unimportant, of course. 

 

2) I absolutely mind seeing our "clown ass FO running things like children". You should, too, because it means those coaches you place so much emphasis on are being put into an environment that presents obstacles for them to overcome versus accentuating their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. 

 

But I get where you're coming from. You're just looking at the results and don't care about the execs behind the scenes. In the end, that's all we can really do. So I don't begrudge you for that. I'm just extremely concerned because we've went so long seeing this show and it hasn't ended well, not ever. 

 

This isn't about 2017 or even 2018 for me, this is about the Redskins becoming a model organization under Snyder and consistently competitive based on sound organizational principles and hiring processes. It starts with him, really, and I'm not confident at all in his ability to make it happen. :/

 

Hopefully I'm wrong and this FO structure isn't what I think it is and the hiring process we just went through, though unorthodox, is perfectly reasonable. 

[Koolblue13]

16 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

 

Yeah, this is where we differ majorly. I can't get behind these lines of thought at all. 

 

1) Coaching is not more important than the scouting department and who runs it in my mind (which I believe is what you're suggesting here, though correct me if I'm wrong). At most, it's 50/50 between coaching and personnel but I've laid out plenty of evidence as to why I heavily lean towards personnel, and therefore who's in charge of that department, being more important than coaching overall. At least in the pros. Doesn't mean coaching is unimportant, of course. 

 

2) I absolutely mind seeing our "clown ass FO running things like children". You should, too, because it means those coaches you place so much emphasis on are being put into an environment that presents obstacles for them to overcome versus accentuating their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. 

 

But I get where you're coming from. You're just looking at the results and don't care about the execs behind the scenes. In the end, that's all we can really do. So I don't begrudge you for that. I'm just extremely concerned because we've went so long seeing this show and it hasn't ended well, not ever. 

 

This isn't about 2017 or even 2018 for me, this is about the Redskins becoming a model organization under Snyder and consistently competitive based on sound organizational principles and hiring processes. It starts with him, really, and I'm not confident at all in his ability to make it happen. :/

 

Hopefully I'm wrong and this FO structure isn't what I think it is and the hiring process we just went through, though unorthodox, is perfectly reasonable. 

I think we are in complete agreement with all of it, I've just given up and accepted our incompence. 

 

Yes, scouting department and coaching staff are equally import, and I think ours is pretty good. Im glad both teams have worked together for a while and theres consistency there.

 

If we draft well and keep our coaching staff, I think the team on the field will become legit, in spite of Dan, Bruce, Doug and the rest of the popularity competition crew.

[Thinking Skins]

6 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Coaching is all I really care about. That and the scouting department. Bruce is the Anti- vinny, that's for sure and I wish he wasnt "as" cheap, but if we pay our own, I'm good.

 

I would have been much happier if we paid Kirk last year, but at this point, I dont even care anymore. We seem to have a solid enough team being built up. This class will be the rope to either hang or hoist a trophy banner with. If Kirk leaves and we get a lot of picks, awesome. Great draft for um and a solid staff to groom him, but I never want to see another three win season again.

 

I agree with so much of this. I like Bruce (and by extension the FO) because he is in my opinion the anti Vinny. I'm not sure what you meant by that but I like that he's "cheap" when he needs to be. He (we) signed Garcon, Jackson, Norman, Hatcher, Roberts, and a few others to mediocre to big contracts but nowhere near the level of what we were doing under Snyder. But at the same time we invested heavily in the drafts, having 10, 7, 10, 8, 7, 9, 12, and 6 picks during his tenure. This is the most anti-Vinny thing we could be as before that we had more than 6 picks only once (2008). Whether people want to grade the drafts as good or bad, the fact that we had the chances to draft those players helped us. What's that saying? You can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket? 

 

To me that says that Bruce is in Snyder's ear and able to calm him down when he says something like "lets trade two firsts for a 36 year old WR", or wants to trade up for Sanches, Ramsey (or maybe not  - See Griffin). I've wanted a revamped scouting dept mainly because I don't believe in Campbell et al. but who am I and what do I know? According to ES, we simply need to be subscribed to NFLDraft, CBSSportsline, WalterFootball, ProFootballFocus, and a few other pre-draft forums and we'll know all we need to know about the draft. 

 

I just think it says something that the guy worked with Al feaking "Just Win Baby" Davis and went to a Super Bowl. Al Davis, who after Bruce left no respectable coach would work for him so he had to resort to hiring guys who were not on the coaching radar in hopes that they'd be a surprise. This is a guy who was literally raised by George Allen - one of the greatest coaches in the history of the NFL, but he's got to prove that he's a "football guy" to the fans here at ES and radio hosts in the city? Simply because he didn't start off as a scout? I think that's just so limited.

 

So I remember when we first fired Vinny and hired Bruce during Zorn's last year and I was excited because we finally had a legit GM and I haven't wavered on that since. In the 10 years since I haven't supported all his decisions but I do like that we are starting to establish some consistency on the field. We seem to have a coach in place for the next few years, we seem to know the types of players he likes (at least on offense), and we're starting to establish a culture of winning. Sure things could change with one person not signing, but I think its naive to ever have assumed that Scot's signing wasn't a part of Bruce's vision for the team, and the fact that he's no longer here means that either that vision changed or how Scot fit into it changed. But I never saw Scot as the final answer because I just thought he further implemented what I liked about Bruce, which is an investment in the draft. 

 

So yeah, go Bruce!

[Thinking Skins]

Not quite sure where to put this, but I'll just say that my opinion of Scot dropped (significantly) when the whole fiasco with him, Dianna Russini and his wife surfaced. This was only a few months after being hired. Maybe thats a small thing in the grand scheme of things but its one thing (that I don't really like) to have a guy with a drinking problem who's trying to recover, and I'm skeptical about the reports of him drinking on the job, but lets not act like we didn't all see these tweets and accusations happen. No other reporter has their credibility questioned on that level and it soured me on him immensely. Not saying I couldn't like his moves, but no matter how "cool" or "good" he was, he (and his wife) did embarrass the organization, and a qualified reporter and it didn't sit well with me. 

[Koolblue13]

Yeah, that was pretty childish. He was never actually trying to quit drinking, either. Just not drink sports bottles full of vodka.

 

I wasnt a huge fan of drafting a guard, then Jones because you missed on Johnson, then waiting on Anthony because you thought you were smarter than everyone. 

 

Then addressing Safety and the line, like Spurrier did QB and Oline.

 

We walked into last season with clear wide open holes because of personnel and thats on him.

 

He seemed arrogant and consistently outsmarted himself. Im glad Scots gone.

 

Im also happy with our "Tampa connection " FO. Seems like that was the training grounds.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

I think its naive to ever have assumed that Scot's signing wasn't a part of Bruce's vision for the team...

 

Maybe not him personally, but adding quality people to the front office was a directive given by Snyder in May of 2014...not that Allen wasn't thinking the same thing, mind you, just that Allen was already looking to bolster the front office before the 2014 season even started. He considered McCloughan when he first subscribed to his scouting service.That's why claims like the one Rick Snider made--that Scot's hiring was a last second PR move spurred by "fan backlash"--tend to irritate me as much as they do...

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

This isn't about 2017 or even 2018 for me, this is about the Redskins becoming a model organization under Snyder and consistently competitive based on sound organizational principles and hiring processes. It starts with him, really, and I'm not confident at all in his ability to make it happen. :/

 

Hopefully I'm wrong and this FO structure isn't what I think it is and the hiring process we just went through, though unorthodox, is perfectly reasonable. 

 

As to the future, the way I see the bottom line here in all likelihood it boils down to can Jay and Kirk overcome a mediocre FO.   And, I think they can.  Part of the reason is Jay himself having a hand in personnel.  It's not the ideal scenario IMO.  But this franchise often was marked by having issues with the Holy Grail of football success:  QB, HC, GM.  And I think they got 2 of the 3 stools fixed.

 

The Bruce-FO argument IMO can get mired at times in extremes.  They are brilliant or lets count our chickens now about whatever we like about the 2017 off season or these guys are a mess.   And I'm guilty of it in some arguments when I want to come on strong to state a case.  But I think the more reasonable argument is mediocrity.  I really don't think this FO has even been Browns level bad.  

 

There have always been some ups among the downs, especially in the off season.  This isn't me aiming for sarcasm.  Mediocrity to me doesn't mean bad.  It means so so.   And I think so so is the trap.  I forgot who said it but someone once said they'd rather have mega success or for it to all crash down.  The hardest thing to bring change to is mediocre teams because you are sort of trapped in optimism or pessimism depending on your point of view.  And there is plenty of evidence for both.  And its really been the case for most of Dan's tenure.    It's usually some start of a new beginning that brings the optimism.

 

Just judging on threads here over the years.

 

Hooray Bruce is here

Hooray Shanny is here to the rescue

Hooray RG3 is here

Hooray Shanny is gone

Hooray RG3 is gone

Hooray Bruce is stepping away from the role

Hooray we got Scot

Hooray Scot is gone

Hooray Bruce is stepping back in. 

 

Different people have had different perspectives on these steps.  I've been at times among the people who pontificated about how this new version of promise is the real deal and the naysayers are just cantankerous pessimists for no reason.  I've bought into the Kool Aide more times than not, actually.   I guess my main beef about all of this leading to today is I arrived at one conclusion through my own trial and error thoughts.  That is, most other successful teams have a kick butt personnel guy and we don't.  That was the most obvious common ingredient.    Yes we have an owner who is willing to spend.  Yes, we've had some good head coaches in the mix.   GM, though?

 

I used to overlook this, I fell hard for Gibbs on his return and Shanny, too.  I was willing to overlook the FO component to it.  But I've concluded I was wrong.

 

I think in short the new saviors are always going to need someone who is really good at shopping for the groceries.  Heck I didn't like Jay in the first year but in his defense he didn't have much to work with.  I've liked Jay since.  But on reflection is it because Jay became a lot smarter as a HC?  I think he got better as a HC but IMO the primary reason why is he now looks a heck of a lot better is he has better players to work with. 

 

Do I think Jay can overcome so so personnel moves and a so so QB.  Nope.  We've seen that movie.  Do I think he can overcome so so personnel moves if he has a franchise QB?  My gut is yes.  

[Thinking Skins]

@Skinsinparadise, I'd argue that you're being too harsh on Jay in his first year. And by extension Bruce's tenure here. Shanny was going for different types of players than Zorn/Gibbs had before.

 

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/under-mike-shanahan-redskins-roster-could-benefit-from-more-delegation-better-scouting-infrastructure-nfl-observers-say/2011/12/09/gIQAQ6BalO_story.html?utm_term=.2d94d8a16e23)

"When Shanahan took over, he changed the team’s systems on both sides of the ball. Shanahan wanted space-eaters on his defensive line and lighter, mobile players on his offensive line. He needed specific types of outside linebackers, defensive backs and receivers. Scouts who had spent two decades evaluating defensive players for a 4-3 scheme and big, powerful offensive linemen, had effectively spent the year leading up to the 2010 NFL draft looking for the wrong types of players. They suggested Okung and his bench-press numbers; Shanahan wanted Williams and his time in the 40-yard dash."

 

That's talking about the Shanny takeover from Zorn, and how it impacted the scouts. But what we've seen since then is an almost complete reversal (at least on offense) with going after Lauvao, Scherff, Moses and Long among others. I'm not even sure what Shanny was doing with the DL and I'd argue that he wanted more of a 3 DE lineup than 2DEs and a NT. That aside though, even if you think our roster was great in 2013 (it wasn't), a new coach generally needs a year or so to get "his players" to run his system. That, in addition to being a first year coach I think should absolve Jay's first year. 

 

And I think that's one of the reasons I've argued (back in the days of Vinny I think) that coaches should get 3 years at least and GMs should get 3 (bad) coaches before they're fired. If a coach can't turn a team around by the end of year 3 or a GM hasn't found a coach by his third try then that's when I would let them go. But if Shanny was saying go after small linemen and the GM/Scouts found those players then it shouldn't be their fault that the next coach wanted bigger linemen. Part of me wonders if we'd still have players like Riley and Amerson had they been Scot players. Maybe not Riley, but Amerson was still on a rookie deal and considering the potential he (once) had, we couldn't find any room for him on the roster? 

 

But that's a good piece from earlier, and it gives a lot of quotes on building a front office that both justify some of the things we're going through and criticize it.

 - Remember when the Redskins first subscribed to the BLEDSO scouting service? I wonder how much that has impacted our drafts. 

 - “It takes time to mesh,” said Charley Casserly, a former general manager in Washington and current CBS Sports analyst. “The coaches learning the scouts, the scouts learning the coaches, the front office working with everyone. This stuff doesn’t happen overnight.”

 - “I’ve never seen anyone who wants to have his hands in on everything — everything — to this level,” said one person with knowledge of the Redskins’ operations. “Some of that’s fine. He’s the head coach. It’s his record. But the stuff that’s not part of coaching the football team, you have to delegate.”

 - “It’s better to have the right people,” said Michael Lombardi, a former team executive who worked with Allen in Oakland and is now an NFL Network analyst. . “. . . More never is better. Right is always better. It’s hard to get the right people making the right decisions.”

 

I'm really wondering how much advice Bruce got from Casserly and Lombardi because it seems like we that's what we did this offseason.