New GM search

[Conn]

Damn so using your system, a GM should get 9 years and 3 bad HC hires before getting the boot? I agree the NFL isn't patient enough but that's pushing it pretty far imo. Unless a GM inherits his first HC I can't see it.

[TSO]

6 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

 

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.

 

Ok, I got cha now, it's hard to follow though because on the surface it's contradictory, but it makes sense.  

 

Basically, you feel good enough about the coaching staff and guys within the scouting department that they'll be able to overcome the incompetence above them. 

 

I actually agree to a degree... I just hate the fact that they might have to. It just really eats at me that there's even a possibility of them being undermined or placed in a bad situation. Good organizations ensure the total opposite. They know no one's perfect and surround their hires in the best way accordingly. 

[bowhunter]

13 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

 

 

I actually agree to a degree... I just hate the fact that they might have to. It just really eats at me that there's even a possibility of them being undermined or placed in a bad situation. Good organizations ensure the total opposite. They know no one's perfect and surround their hires in the best way accordingly. 

Yes, our system may allow the cream to rise to the middle

[TSO]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

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?

 

This is what it boils down to for me. To put it as simply as I can: 

 

I want the guy at the head of the personnel department to be the BEST at it.

 

There hasn't been a single argument made here that can even remotely convince me that either Allen or Williams are those guys. And that's a crying shame in my mind. Talking about Scot at this point is arguably deflecting from the main issue. His (perceived or real) failure doesn't change that evident truth. Doug saying something like "we had a GM and that didn't work" absolutely blows my mind on so many levels, it's maddening. It's akin to a gigantic corporation, after firing their head accountant for whatever reason, saying "we had an accountant and that didn't work". What!? 

 

It's really as simple as that. I'm not advocating for some sort of super complex, intricate system of hiring and organizational structure that is beyond the grasp of most humans. This is friggin hiring/organizational principles 101. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

28 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Doug saying something like "we had a GM and that didn't work" absolutely blows my mind on so many levels, it's maddening.

 

We also didn't have a GM and that didn't work out, either lol....

 

I want desperately to give Williams the benefit of the doubt and that he either isn't very skilled at communicating his thoughts ("Just having a GM isn't a cure-all...we had one over the last two years and it didn't work out" or thoughts to that effect), or that he was trying on a tough, no-nonsense persona for the press lol...

[Conn]

It gets even dumber if you agree with me that having a GM without final say on the roster (in conjunction with his coaching staff as always but with him and not the President having the final say), and without a say in contracts/cap allocation, is the same as not having any GM at all. We just didn't know it at the time no matter how much Chris Russell wants to pretend otherwise. We thought we had a real GM, but we didn't, Doug. 

[TSO]

3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

I want desperately to give Williams the benefit of the doubt and that he either isn't very skilled at communicating his thoughts ("Just having a GM isn't a cure-all...we had one over the last two years and it didn't work out" or thoughts to that effect), or that he was trying on a tough, no-nonsense persona for the press lol...

 

I get that, and I hope that's more what he meant, but even that for me suggests an underlying problem at the highest levels (rest of this isn't addressed to you, just putting down how I feel).

 

I simply disagree with their devaluing of hierarchy and clearly defined roles with the authority to fulfill those roles without being undermined.

 

When I hear stuff like that it just kills me, honestly.

 

When I hear Schaffer saying his role hasn't really changed and he just received a title to go with what he's been doing all along (one of which is the vague "general counsel")? That's maddening to me on numerous levels. When I hear Bruce answer a question about the chain of command with, perhaps, the dumbest possible answer to that when he replied, "Well, the most important person is the person with the football at that time. We’re a football team.” I am simply dumbfounded by it. It's not just what Doug said. I can go on and on. 

 

This idea they're trying to push out there that "final say doesn't matter" and "group collaboration is everything" just pisses me off because it's a smack in the face to even the most basic understanding of organizational principles and the benefits of hierarchy. Furthermore, I've provided multiple posts here showing the structure of the vast majority of successful franchises in the NFL, past and present, that do it that way. They're all wrong and the Skins are right? Please. 

 

I hate that I feel the need to keep going over this and boring everyone with it, but final say never has and never will mean you don't collaborate. Mutual consultation, collaboration, establishing unified goals that all are working towards, etc... are not things that get devalued by any measure when you've got experts in their respective fields holding "final say". All it does is establish clear accountability and prevents confusion or being undermined unwarrantedly by those who aren't best suited to make the decision/s. Even more, it provides the greatest motivation for the individual because they get real ownership of their choices. 

 

 

Gruden is a great example of this. In both the hiring process in obtaining him (well, sort of) and his title/role. 

 

Hiring a very successful coordinator who handled his side of the ball is one of the safest bets in the pros, so while we can certainly question the hiring process itself (was it more about comfort and connections with Allen or actual qualifications?) the result was fine because he was actually qualified outside of that. 

 

As for his role, I want Gruden to have "final say" in coaching; including who his coaches are, the schemes we run, the players he plays, etc... He is the best coach we have, deserves his title, and should have those responsibilities without being undermined. It seems like he does, though it was bumpy initially. And we've been able to see the fruits of that. 

 

That doesn't mean he isn't collaborating with others in the building or that he shouldn't be gathering as much input as he possibly can from those around him. That's utter nonsense when anyone suggests such a thing. It gets tiring when I keep reading things here suggesting it's either/or. No, it's not. 

 

So the same goes for the guy at the head of our personnel department. I want the best guy in the building at that job in charge of it. I want him having a clearly defined role, and accompanying title, without being undermined when it comes to him fulfilling that. I don't want that guy being able to deflect blame on others above him (and legitimately so) when something goes wrong because he wasn't able to fulfill his role properly. 

 

We've been through this over and over and over again as Skins' fans. It's extremely frustrating. I don't blame anyone for it more than Dan. That's his main role as owner, really. Having a great hiring process and structuring the organization properly. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind he has failed miserably at this, and this is what has, in turn, caused the woeful losing record of the franchise since he bought the team. Nothing else is even close to being a cause for it. Not a coaching hire, not a draft, not an expensive under-performing FA, nothing else.

 

All of those things have only been symptoms of the root disease. 

 

The Scot hire changed that for all of us. Not because of Scot, himself, who most of us acknowledged came with baggage that might end up being too much of a problem, but what it represented in terms of the hiring process and organizational structure here. To see so many of us have to now totally contradict our own recent positions on what that hire represented in order to justify what they're doing now saddens me to no end. It sucks and it's a damn shame. 

 

As always, I'll end this with saying that I hope and pray I'm totally wrong about this and that their hiring process was sound, the titles are all real and well-defined, and everyone within the organization is being setup for great long term success. That we'll be able to replace anyone as necessary with ease and not skip a beat. I hate that I have to feel this way and post about it at all, really. :/ 

[Koolblue13]

6 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Ok, I got cha now, it's hard to follow though because on the surface it's contradictory, but it makes sense.  

 

Yeah, I know it is. I'd certainly prefer to have a well run FO from top to bottom, which we don't. Maybe I've gone from the anger to laughter part of acceptance. I think they'll eventually get it together, but we're definitely more Al Davis Raiders, than Kraft Patriots.

 

Don't get me wrong. I wish we were a model organization,  but we're not. We're kinda ****ed up, like myself and we're going to do things our own way. I kinda like that and I like that the organization is improving. 

 

One thing matters. Winning. We're a .500 team. If we can be a more legit .500 team, that doesn't rely on Kirk so much and can keep doing it and improving from the floor up through the draft, I'll be happy.

[Tsailand]

On 6/15/2017 at 4:41 PM, SkinsPassion4Life said:

By the way....how long are some of you (SIP) going to continue with this "Danny" nonsense?

 

Until he's at least 5'8"

[Skinsinparadise]

12 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

@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."

 

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,

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. 

 

Not sure, how I am being too harsh on Jay for his first year when I didn't even elaborate on what I didn't like about him in my post let alone I admitted I was wrong about him.  I also actually was one of the Jay critics who also strongly opposed firing Jay back then and said he deserved another shot because its a small sample size among other things.  I recall saying then he was a B level guy.  There were definitely harsher critics than me about him.  The reason why I brought Jay up again was two fold. 1.  I take pride of not being a stick in the mud and I am willing to change my mind (for the most part )   2. Personnel is a big big deal.  And to add another point:  we had a small sample size on Jay.  

 

As for Bruce being an extension of that.  I gather you mean that I am judging Bruce exclusively on the talent Jay inherited?  If so, no I am not. I am judging Bruce on a 15 year plus sample size.  But actually in fairness to Bruce, I am not a fan of any GM whose background isn't in personnel.  There is nobody that fits that profile that I want as GM.  I've explained why multiple times on this thread so I am not going to circle back to those arguments.  The only reason why Bruce's sample size has a modicum of interest to me is it would get my attention if Bruce as a GM in spite of not having a personnel record proved the exception.   Where Bruce just had just kick butt (consistent) drafts in Tampa, etc and people just raved about his personnel instincts in spite of him not being a guy with a scouting/ personnel background.  But that hasn't been the case.   Bruce's background is similar to Schaffer's.  He was an agent and a money guy.   He's good at that.  

 

 I recall your enthusiasm about Bruce from other exchanges.  Like I've told you previously, I don't dislike the dude.  I met him and liked him.  I just like him to stay in his own lane. To switch into a new analogy.  I like him playing bass guitar.  I don't want him as the lead singer.  In various posts, you come off like you are so enthusiastic about him as a bass guitar player that heck yeah you'd love him as a lead singer, too.  That's where we depart.  And its a big divide.  To me its not a subtle point.  To me how good a bass guitar player Bruce is - is irrelevant to him being a lead singer.  Ditto the drummer.  Ditto the lead guitar player.  And them trying to sell me that they do it different, they don't even need a lead singer or heck we can use any band player they like to step in that role.  That to me just sounds like another unconventional explanation for a rock band that coincidently doesn't have as many hits as most other bands who have a normal operation.

 

We have a large sample size on this team going it unconventional.  We have a large sample size on many people in that building.  Yeah there is always a new twist.  You bringing up somethings you think they are doing right.  Doesn't really change my mind.  They've always done things right at times in the mix.  Remember the 2005 FA group? They turned around their defense with that group almost as dramatically as the Giants did it last year. They only had 4 picks in 2004 but with 2 of them they took Sean Taylor and Chris Cooley.  That was with the three headed Vinny-Dan-Gibbs we make decisions by committee drill.   We could always point to smart things and success in the mix of the soup.  To be mediocre as I expressed this FO has been throughout most of Danny's tenure -- there were ups along with the downs.  I never really thought the FO even under Vinny were marked by constant failure.  There were always some good things to point to.  

 

Like I said that's the trap of mediocrity.  You can go positive or negative and sound smart doing it.  Because in their own way both attitudes are correct depending on your perspective.  To reach mediocrity, its generally like two scoops of ice cream, a good scoop and a bad scoop. It averages out to so so.   As for the argument about a GM deserves 3 bad head coaches before condemning him.  It's not relevant to my thought process.  I don't want Bruce fired.  I like him in his lane.   I don't see Bruce as a traditional GM.   And its not personal against Bruce.  Like I've said in a previous post.  I don't want my electrician to oversee my plumbing.  It's not that my electrician is an idiot.  I am sure he's watched some plumbing jobs over the years.   But is he the best guy to oversee plumbing jobs? Nope IMO.   My beef with Dan when it comes to the FO is having the best or perceived best people who are considered among the top of their game at personnel has never really seemed to be a big priority for him.  And I don't see how this new version of the operation changes that narrative.

 

[RandyHolt]

I think 'by committee' can work if there is clear consensus on the big moves. 

 

Exactly how much say and power will Doug have is the big question.  If Doug is all by himself thinking we should really really draft a certain QB, but no one else on the committee agrees, how will that play out.... who is going to tell Doug no, and how will he take that.

 

I think when Allen says that no one is the decider, he is basically lying. I think he is the GM and does have final say - but is heavily persuadable to make him not being a personnel guy, work.  Allen likely tosses all subordinates a bone every now and then - lets them get their guy, which is what I suspect keeps guys like Campbell around. I think Allen will give Williams a lot of leeway early on, and then reel him back in, and re-verify our front office dysfunction.

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

When I hear Schaffer saying his role hasn't really changed and he just received a title to go with what he's been doing all along (one of which is the vague "general counsel")? That's maddening to me on numerous levels. When I hear Bruce answer a question about the chain of command with, perhaps, the dumbest possible answer to that when he replied, "Well, the most important person is the person with the football at that time. We’re a football team.” I am simply dumbfounded by it. It's not just what Doug said. I can go on and on. 

 

This idea they're trying to push out there that "final say doesn't matter" and "group collaboration is everything" just pisses me off because it's a smack in the face to even the most basic understanding of organizational principles and the benefits of hierarchy.

 

Yeah I hear Schaffer say the same.  He's doing what he was doing before.  He has a title that now matches.  Doug was previously described as a free for all type of guy but with emphasis on pro-scouting.  I don't sense that has changed much. It seems like the main change with him is he will be taking a more active role with pro scouting and will talk to Jay more than he did previously.  Going through all the changes, the main one seems to be Kyle Smith elevated to head of college scouting.

 

The thing that's being said that whomever has final say is not important.  IMO the biggest component to it isn't even who makes the final call.  The biggest component to it is who is the boss.  If someone is above you on the ladder, that's a big deal especially if they are above you as to your specific duty.    For example, if I am in a discussion about something and I see that my boss disagrees, I doubt I am going to town to go against them.  I'll find a way to work with their idea.  Most disagreements I'd gather are settled before they become a full fledged disagreement.  And its a product of what does the top dog think.

 

5 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

The Scot hire changed that for all of us. Not because of Scot, himself, who most of us acknowledged came with baggage that might end up being too much of a problem, but what it represented in terms of the hiring process and organizational structure here. To see so many of us have to now totally contradict our own recent positions on what that hire represented in order to justify what they're doing now saddens me to no end. It sucks and it's a damn shame. 

 

As always, I'll end this with saying that I hope and pray I'm totally wrong about this and that their hiring process was sound, the titles are all real and well-defined, and everyone within the organization is being setup for great long term success. That we'll be able to replace anyone as necessary with ease and not skip a beat. I hate that I have to feel this way and post about it at all, really. :/ 

 

The guys digging through the weeds the most about the Scot-Bruce dynamic seem to be Paulsen and Russell.  I'd summarize their position as this:  they were happy with Scot's performance on the job from an acumen stand point  Heck even when he was canned they were supposedly working off of his FA list.  And both Campbell and Jay admitted that Scot had a major impact on their draft board. They trusted his expertise or at least did on most matters.  But the issues with Scot, stemmed from other things mainly antics (which they didn't describe) and press leaks with a dose of power struggle things in that mix.   Paulsen plays up the power struggle more, Russell minimizes it.   Brewer said recently Scot's main point of frustration was the convoluted power structure in the building. 

 

My point is if they were happy with the performance.  Then, it sounds like that perhaps it was the personal baggage that came into play.  And if so, not every GM candidate has those issues.  That was the whole dance with Scot when he got here, good personnel guy but....  I have some skepticism on those challenging him on the personality front because I thought the dude was super cool.   But regardless, if he needed to go, fine.  I don't see how that precludes hiring another guy like that.  The guy that apparently met Scot and talked to him at the gas station among other things said Scot told him that they need another guy in the building who knows personnel.  And to me it's intuitive.  

[goskins10]

@HapHaszard Just posted some information about the team adding some scouts. This is a really good move in the right direction. One of Scott Cambell's biggest comments about how things were with Scot M. here was that he (Scott C.) was able to go do more in person scouting. This tells me that one of the problems the team had with evaluating players was simply a numbers game. Not enough scouts to properly evaluate enough players. This is being corrected.

 

I know people are upset that Bruce Allen has basically made himself the GM. I get that. As long as they win I could care less who they call what. Just get the job done. @Skinsinparadise has said this more than once - as long as people do what they do best, this could really work pretty well.

 

Jay - We know he is a good HC. But even if you want to ignore that - continuity alone is a really positive step for this organization. One of his best attributes is he seems to be able to connect with most anyone. The players love playing for him. The media seem to like him. He also seems to be able to navigate the BA/DS relationship - not an easy task. Glad to him and the team really focus on defense.

 

Bruce - Yea, many of us are not interested in him being the final say on personnel, but if he really does listen to Doug and Jay - those two will be driving the roster for the most part. I am OK with that. Like him or not he is very good at CAP management. And please, save the Eric Schaeffer is the one who really does it - Eric was here for some of he worst contracts in Redskins history. He simply researches contracts, provides basic constructs for the contract and makes sure it's legal. Since Bruce has gotten here the contract foolishness has also gone with it.

 

Doug - He has more experience evaluating players than people give him credit for. He has spent his life in football. It's his passion. There are people who's opinion I value that have very high praise for Doug Williams - I have listed two of them before - Tony Dungy and Bill Polian. That may not mean much to others, but for me it says a lot. I have not heard one person actually question his abilities outside a few local media who still do not say he's bad, they just want another reason to slam Bruce Allen and Dan Snyder. I have no problem calling Dan out, he deserves much of what he gets, although not all of it - people need to get off the suing little old ladies thing. That only happened because she would not return calls. When she did they worked things out with her. Still, I agree he is pretty much a POS. But need to separate dislike for him vs. the other people.

 

Honestly, I truly believe that if those three guys work together they could form a pretty good team.

 

The next big move has to be signing Kirk to a LTD. Get this done and you have to look at this offseason as pretty successful.

 

Yes, this could all just be wishful thinking. But honestly, do we have a choice? Can't change it.

[SkinsPassion4Life]

On 6/18/2017 at 7:11 AM, thesubmittedone said:

 

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.   

 

1)  "Dan" or Snyder"

 

2)  I've been fairly supportive of Dan & Bruce....of course they've made mistakes

 

3)  I ripped GMSM because he was given credit for things he didn't deserve getting credit for.....And for the most part; he SUCKED.

 

4) I've said numerous times that the biggest problem with this franchise has been their PR....Hiring and keeping Tony Wylie is probably worse than hiring Zorn.

[Audible_Red40]

6 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

Until he's at least 5'8"

 

[DJD2]

55 minutes ago, Audible_Red40 said:

 Pig complaint

55 minutes ago, Audible_Red40 said:

 

 

 

[Audible_Red40]

@DJD2 exactly!

[Thinking Skins]

18 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Damn so using your system, a GM should get 9 years and 3 bad HC hires before getting the boot? I agree the NFL isn't patient enough but that's pushing it pretty far imo. Unless a GM inherits his first HC I can't see it.

 

Pretty much. Its basically a three strikes policy. There are exceptions, same as with coaches. If you hire a guy who sounded great in the interview and you find he has a bunch of skeletons in the closet that will make a fool of the organization, whether they be professional or personal, then yeah its cool to get rid of him (ala Spurrier, Zorn, Matt Millen, etc). But I'd be naming a GM on a much longer term thing than a simple coach. Ideally, he'd have a philosophy and pick coaches that were all a part of that philosophy so that the types of players they wanted would overlap some, but that's not always possible. 

[goskins10]

16 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Pretty much. Its basically a three strikes policy. There are exceptions, same as with coaches. If you hire a guy who sounded great in the interview and you find he has a bunch of skeletons in the closet that will make a fool of the organization, whether they be professional or personal, then yeah its cool to get rid of him (ala Spurrier, Zorn, Matt Millen, etc). But I'd be naming a GM on a much longer term thing than a simple coach. Ideally, he'd have a philosophy and pick coaches that were all a part of that philosophy so that the types of players they wanted would overlap some, but that's not always possible. 

 

 

I agree giving coaches 3 yrs. But I would only give GMs 2 chances at HCs. Don't need to let him make a 3rd mistake wasting a decade to convince me. Just me though.

[Thinking Skins]

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Not sure, how I am being too harsh on Jay for his first year when I didn't even elaborate on what I didn't like about him in my post let alone I admitted I was wrong about him.  I also actually was one of the Jay critics who also strongly opposed firing Jay back then and said he deserved another shot because its a small sample size among other things.  I recall saying then he was a B level guy.  There were definitely harsher critics than me about him.  The reason why I brought Jay up again was two fold. 1.  I take pride of not being a stick in the mud and I am willing to change my mind (for the most part )   2. Personnel is a big big deal.  And to add another point:  we had a small sample size on Jay.  

 

I was responding to your comment on Jay's first year - not your overall opinion on him or you vs the rest of the board. "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"

 

I think that's too harsh. If you disagree thats cool, but thats what you said and what I disagree with. Sure the players are probably better now, but he inherited players for Shanny's system so part of getting better players is tied to getting players that fit into his system (because in Shanny's system some of the players Jay inherited won the division in 2012). 

 

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

As for Bruce being an extension of that.  I gather you mean that I am judging Bruce exclusively on the talent Jay inherited?  If so, no I am not. I am judging Bruce on a 15 year plus sample size.  But actually in fairness to Bruce, I am not a fan of any GM whose background isn't in personnel.  There is nobody that fits that profile that I want as GM.  I've explained why multiple times on this thread so I am not going to circle back to those arguments.  The only reason why Bruce's sample size has a modicum of interest to me is it would get my attention if Bruce as a GM in spite of not having a personnel record proved the exception.   Where Bruce just had just kick butt (consistent) drafts in Tampa, etc and people just raved about his personnel instincts in spite of him not being a guy with a scouting/ personnel background.  But that hasn't been the case.   Bruce's background is similar to Schaffer's.  He was an agent and a money guy.   He's good at that.  

 

This (whats in bold) is something I strongly disagree with and we can talk about it forever and a day. I'll continue to say that you can say that Bruce isn't a personnel guy, but I'll look at a lot of the deals he's made and say that (1) this board, (2) other Redskins sites, (3) league sites, and (4) pure history has said that they were good deals. Because in Bruce's tenure we haven't become a top 5 team people act like his entire reign has been a failure. He tried to get us out of cap hell in 2012 and when that didn't work he still got us to be responsible in free agency. I was frustrated in 2014 when we couldn't sign Malcolm Jenkins as FS (we really needed a FS), but Bruce had a price and wouldn't budge and Jenkins went to Philadelphia. That was a different philosophy but one I liked. This year, before FA started just about everybody on this board had Brown and Pryor as two of their top FA targets and were just calling Bruce all kinds of names for not going after them on day 1 of FA. Then he waited and got them both later in the game. 

 

You act like the only thing in the front office is scouting. You've also got to be able to bluff (remember how Seattle traded up to get Jarran Reed, were there whispers?), negotiate - both in trading for picks as well as other players and contracts, manage personalities (people talk about how smart Scot was and I know you testify to how personable he was, but I've met a lot of guys who were the smartest person in the room and because of that would cause a temper tantrum if they were told no - no matter the reason), take being wrong, and a host of other things. 

 

I wish for the life of me I had a job where I'd spent my life in that field, following in my father's footsteps, helping launch a business to rival one of the most successful businesses ever, and then went stay in the business for 30+ years, rising from different positions to finally get rewarded with a high ranking position, only to be told "you don't belong here because you didn't come up the same route that the guy at the other's company did. Sorry". I'd do just what Bruce said before he hired Scot, I'd address my weaknesses and say that because I know I'm not a scout I'm going to hire guys to be scouts and let them do their job. The same way I wouldn't expect a guy whose background is personnel to suddenly take over contracts and now how to do signing bonuses so that it doesn't put us in cap trouble where we have to cut our entire team. 

 

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 I recall your enthusiasm about Bruce from other exchanges.  Like I've told you previously, I don't dislike the dude.  I met him and liked him.  I just like him to stay in his own lane. To switch into a new analogy.  I like him playing bass guitar.  I don't want him as the lead singer.  In various posts, you come off like you are so enthusiastic about him as a bass guitar player that heck yeah you'd love him as a lead singer, too.  That's where we depart.  And its a big divide.  To me its not a subtle point.  To me how good a bass guitar player Bruce is - is irrelevant to him being a lead singer.  Ditto the drummer.  Ditto the lead guitar player.  And them trying to sell me that they do it different, they don't even need a lead singer or heck we can use any band player they like to step in that role.  That to me just sounds like another unconventional explanation for a rock band that coincidently doesn't have as many hits as most other bands who have a normal operation.

 

Its not about like/dislike. This man gets no respect because he wasn't a scout. Charlie Casserly was a scout and our team was no better under Casserly than he (and I freakin love Casserly, he was a childhood hero of mine). But I'll use your same analogy and adding it to the one I had above. If the guy playing bass is a better leader than the lead singer, then he's the guy I'd want leading the band. Its two separate positions - lead singer and leader of the band. One doesn't imply the other. And there's no such thing as a 'normal operation'. Silicon Valley is showing us that right now with 34 year old CEOs. Suddenly the NFL adopted that with hiring 32 year old coaches. How come when other teams challenge the norm its ok, but when we do it we need to get back in line? This isn't baseball where we have 150 years of doing the same thing and we refuse to change because we don't want to lose our 65 and older fans. This is a game of being smarter than the next guy and I'm not saying that Snyder's winning many chess games but I know that you don't win chess by copying your opponent's moves either. 

 

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

We have a large sample size on this team going it unconventional.  We have a large sample size on many people in that building.  Yeah there is always a new twist.  You bringing up somethings you think they are doing right.  Doesn't really change my mind.  They've always done things right at times in the mix.  Remember the 2005 FA group? They turned around their defense with that group almost as dramatically as the Giants did it last year. They only had 4 picks in 2004 but with 2 of them they took Sean Taylor and Chris Cooley.  That was with the three headed Vinny-Dan-Gibbs we make decisions by committee drill.   We could always point to smart things and success in the mix of the soup.  To be mediocre as I expressed this FO has been throughout most of Danny's tenure -- there were ups along with the downs.  I never really thought the FO even under Vinny were marked by constant failure.  There were always some good things to point to.  

 

We also have a large sample size of other teams going conventional. Every year 31 teams are losers and they have to go back to the drawing board and start over again. Just because they had a GM doesn't mean they were any better at doing it than we were. Every team minus the Patriots has ups and downs. What you're ignoring is that many of the more consistent winners have consistency in their FO, at their HC and at QB. I think that matters a lot more than whether the GM was a scout or not. 

[Morneblade]

11 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Yeah, I know it is. I'd certainly prefer to have a well run FO from top to bottom, which we don't. Maybe I've gone from the anger to laughter part of acceptance. I think they'll eventually get it together, but we're definitely more Al Davis Raiders, than Kraft Patriots.

 

Don't get me wrong. I wish we were a model organization,  but we're not. We're kinda ****ed up, like myself and we're going to do things our own way. I kinda like that and I like that the organization is improving. 

 

One thing matters. Winning. We're a .500 team. If we can be a more legit .500 team, that doesn't rely on Kirk so much and can keep doing it and improving from the floor up through the draft, I'll be happy.

 

But, just HOW is the organization improving? I don't think it is. You have the accountant the point man in negotiations? The player personnel guy isn't a scout? I'm sorry, but I don't think we're getting any better as an organization. The hiring process is poor, the hierarchy if a complete mess you have have people that are ill qualified for jobs they are in. Your franchise QB is still not signed to a LTD? The organization is NOT improving. And the guy that brought the 2 years of not being in the basement is gone.

[Conn]

Right. I don't think the organization as a whole is improving, I think we have a strong QB/HC combo right now that's making us competitive. So if we keep that duo together, we can stay afloat despite the FO imo. I do think the depth on the team and the talent as a whole has improved in the last couple seasons but I'm not ready to attribute that to anyone in particular or start another McCloughan sidebar about it. I also think that its possible the stability of the aforementioned QB/HC combo has allowed the rest of the roster to blossom, and for some depth to develop that may not have under other circumstances--its possible we're not actually getting more talented, we've just become a "healthy" environment for prospects to grow and develop under Gruden/Cousins. Or maybe its talent and our talent evaluation as an organization has improved. Maybe it wasn't even tied to McCloughan's presence despite his time here coinciding with this improvement. But I don't think I believe that.

[Skinsinparadise]

4 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I think that's too harsh. If you disagree thats cool, but thats what you said and what I disagree with. Sure the players are probably better now, but he inherited players for Shanny's system so part of getting better players is tied to getting players that fit into his system (because in Shanny's system some of the players Jay inherited won the division in 2012). 

 

 

Maybe the confusion about the point relating to Jay is that I didn't put the blame on Bruce squarely for Jay's challenges.  So to clarify, I was just using the Jay analogy to bring home that it was a small sample and not enough to judge him (and even in my criticism of him back then I expressed that small sample point),  and I also expressed the value of personnel.   I brought up the small sample concept in context of the big sample that we have about some of the current players in the FO.   And I also wanted to express the idea that personnel isn't some sidebar function in the organization but the lifeblood of it.   Hence the reasoning for bringing up Jay.

4 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I. I'll continue to say that you can say that Bruce isn't a personnel guy, but I'll look at a lot of the deals he's made and say that (1) this board, (2) other Redskins sites, (3) league sites, and (4) pure history has said that they were good deals

 

You act like the only thing in the front office is scouting. You've also got to be able to bluff (remember how Seattle traded up to get Jarran Reed, were there whispers?), negotiate - both in trading for picks as well as other players and contracts, manage personalities (people talk about how smart Scot was and I know you testify to how personable he was, but I've met a lot of guys who were the smartest person in the room and because of that would cause a temper tantrum if they were told no - no matter the reason), take being wrong, and a host of other things. 

 

I wish for the life of me I had a job where I'd spent my life in that field, following in my father's footsteps, helping launch a business to rival one of the most successful businesses ever, and then went stay in the business for 30+ years, rising from different positions to finally get rewarded with a high ranking position, only to be told "you don't belong here because you didn't come up the same route that the guy at the other's company did. Sorry". I'd do just what Bruce said before he hired Scot, I'd address my weaknesses and say that because I know I'm not a scout I'm going to hire guys to be scouts and let them do their job. The same way I wouldn't expect a guy whose background is personnel to suddenly take over contracts and now how to do signing bonuses so that it doesn't put us in cap trouble where we have to cut our entire team. 

 

 

To each their own.  For my taste, this sounds a bit over the top as to Bruce.  This is going to come off sarcastic and its not directed your way but just going for some hyperbole to make a point.  That is, I don't see Bruce as some sort of Rocky defy the odds story.   I don't see it as he got here doing it a different way and now we are saying he doesn't belong and Bruce will show us wrong, cue the violins.  

 

Bruce has been a GM before.   Go google among other things his GM tenure in Tampa.   And people don't paint a pretty picture.  And as for here, the drafts were so so at best IMO with him and Shanny.  People seem to want to ride on 2014 as his career defining draft and all the rest is thrown out the window but IMO its silly its just one year among many during his stints.   

 

The idea that Bruce made some good moves.  No one is arguing that.  If you read the FA thread I've complemented him.   I didn't hate everything Vinny did either.  He did some really good things, too.   But Bruce doesn't have a scouting background.  And its unusual to have a GM like that in charge of successful organizations.  That's all.   I like Bruce as president and helping along with money issues. 

 

The fact that Bruce doesn't fit the typical GM-personnel profile I don't think it makes him a Cinderella story.  And like I said its nothing against Bruce.  I'd feel that way about ANYONE in the GM spot without a personnel scouting background.  I don't care if its Rudy from Notre Dame.  I'd feel the same way.  I bet Bruce is a wonderful guy with a great backstory.  It's irrelevant to me.  It's just my belief.  My take.  If you see it differently, and clearly you do.  It's all cool.  

 

However, as to the debates here. I've yet to see anyone address head on the point most of the skeptics here are making.  The idea that Bruce or Doug or considered among the best in the business. 

 

The subject isn't:

 

B. Bruce doesn't get much right.  Give us examples of what he does well.

 

The subject is:

 

A. Are Bruce or Doug considered among the best in the NFL at making personnel decisions?  

 

The subject isn't

 

A.  You can hire someone from a scouting background and still fail.

 

The subject is:

 

A. Are Bruce or Doug considered among the best in the NFL at making personnel decisions? 

 

Yeah there are no guarantees in anything.  I could cross the street carefully and still get hit by a car.  I could cross the street with reckless abandon and manage to get across the street safely.  It's about increasing the odds.  What some of us are saying here which is go get people who are considered among elite at their game and let them call the personnel shots and get out of the way and let them do their jobs.  Yep, it doesn't guarantee anything.  Life naturally doesn't work that way.  Our point is it increases the odds. 

 

 

[Conn]

Well said, SIP. Process > Outcome, over time. 

[Koolblue13]

5 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

But, just HOW is the organization improving? I don't think it is. You have the accountant the point man in negotiations? The player personnel guy isn't a scout? I'm sorry, but I don't think we're getting any better as an organization. The hiring process is poor, the hierarchy if a complete mess you have have people that are ill qualified for jobs they are in. Your franchise QB is still not signed to a LTD? The organization is NOT improving. And the guy that brought the 2 years of not being in the basement is gone.

Im not saying we're a model organization by any means. I barely think we're functional. I just think we're in a much better place than we were. Between the Zorn/Fassil debacle to extending Gruden and seeing position coaches poached, that is major improvement. Im sorry if you dont think so. I did compare us to the Al Davis Raiders ya know.