New GM search

[Conn]

Still waiting for Doug to say something, anything, to convince me he can handle the media relations part of this job, since that's clearly what Allen wants--a shield. Nevermind the personnel part of the job. That Sudfield comment was just stupid. It gives people something to latch onto in the QB conversation that is obviously false, and it's tone deaf even if it was just a throw-away line. It's basically the first thing the media has run with since his promotion and it was so easy to see coming. Great eye, Doug. 

[bedlamVR]

9 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

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. 

 

 

2

 

Well here is issue - Is this an actual objective question OR is it simply you have made up your mind about already regardless of what anyone says -and have you future vision (Miss Cleo Style) - or are you basing your entire perception on whether someone will be good at their job purely on what they have done in the past and their scouting background .. 

 

(fun fact by the way Ossie Newsome - Considered by many as a FO god was only ever an assignment scout (not an area scout - or actual scout in any realistic sence of the word - and was only in that position for 2 seasons - ) Shocked by this i did some actual digging 

 

So Just for fun I have been through the bios of all the guys who hold the position of GM throughout the NFL to see Just how much of an outlier we are but I think what is quite interesting is the background of the GM seems to have very little impact on the actual outcome – I was surprised how little personnel evaluation experience someone like Howie Rosseman had given how people seem to like to hero worship the Eagles – and that Les Snead still has a job.

 

What I have not done is include people who have had the role of director of scouting because that is a too vague and too variable from team to team with no real way of saying if that is a true evaluation position OR an admin management position – so there may be people who have had more experience in those roles that have been underplayed in my lunchtime (plus) evaluation) ….

 

Overall it is just over half of teams where their GM has a strong background in scouting working soley as a scout.

 

John Elway (Broncos) spent zero time as a scout - John Lynch spent 0 time as a scout - The Bengles GM; Mike Brown - is the owner - spent 0 time as a scout, Sashi Brown ( of the Browns) spent no time as a scout, Brandon Beane (Bills) - had various roles with the Panters  (never a scout) Chris Grier (dolphins was a director of pro scouting (never an actual scout), Bill Bellichik (Patriots) Never a scout  Rick Smith (texans) never a scout Howie Rosseman  (Eagles) Never a scout (admin guy) Jery Jones (Cowboys) - Inveted scouting 1,000,000 years ago - but was never a scout, Mikey Loomis (Saints) not a scout 

 

Kevin Colbert (Steelers) 5+ years, Mike Maccagnan (Jets) - Lots of years various scouting roles, Chris Ballard(Colts) about 12+ years various scouting roles scouting for different teams, David Caldwell (Jaguars) 11+ years as a scout,  John Dorsey (Chiefs) - 5+ years as a scout;  Tom Telesco (Chargers) 5 + Years as a scout Reggie McKenzie (Raiders) 3+ years as a scout , Jerry Reese (Giants) 10 + Years in scouting,  Ryan Pace (Bears) 6+ years as a scout, Bob Quin (Lions) 5 + Years as a scout, Ted Thompson (Packers) 10 + years as a scout Rick Spielman (vikings) 5 + years as a scout, Thomas George Dimitroff (Falcons) 13 + years as a scout David Gettleman (Panthers) 12+ years as a scout,  Jason Licht (Buccaneers) 6+ years as a scout, Steve Keim (Cardinals) 6+ Years as a scout, Les Snead (Rams…. Since 2012 – HOW ?) 5 + years as a scout, John Schnider (3 + years as a scout)  

 

All I am saying is it is better to give things time to pan out and the best way to judge who is amongst the best at their position is based on the Job they are doing right now and possibly reflecting on their recent accomplishments after they have been in position for more than a few weeks; rather than coming to any snap decision.

[Morneblade]

12 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

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.

 

So, how does the Zorn/Fassil debacle compare to the Cousins LTD fiasco and the GMSM firing? I think our coaching is better, but I don't thing we're any better in management, which is what I'm referring to. I mean we just promoted a guy that is almost no scouting experience and when he did have a shot at it, was fired in less than 2 years, as our head scout.

 

So no, I don't think we're any more competent than we have been. I don't think we are worse, but we are no better.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

28 minutes ago, bedlamVR said:

All I am saying is it is better to give things time to pan out and the best way to judge who is amongst the best at their position is based on the Job they are doing right now and possibly reflecting on their recent accomplishments after they have been in position for more than a few weeks; rather than coming to any snap decision.

 

I think all of us here unequivocally can say that we hope Doug succeeds and have no choice but to give it time.  It's the process that led to his promotion that many of us have an issue with.

 

It seems the best many of the optimistic can offer is to "give it time" because you can't say with a straight face that Doug Williams is the most qualified for the job nor that the 'hiring process' was legit.  What bothers me is that it seems Doug was promoted to be the symbol and mouthpiece of the front office 'just because'.  We still don't even know what actual power the guy has and for all intents & purposes he appears to just be happy to finally get to say he's a somebody in a front office.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

Well here is issue - Is this an actual objective question OR is it simply you have made up your mind about already regardless of what anyone says -and have you future vision (Miss Cleo Style) - or are you basing your entire perception on whether someone will be good at their job purely on what they have done in the past and their scouting background .. 

 

Made up my mind regardless of what everyone says?  Not sure where you are going with that.  It presumes that everyone thinks Bruce and Doug are somewhere close to the top of the heap when it comes to GMs in the league.  But that's clearly not the case.   

 

 I am not saying that NFL pundits are always right but I am hardly some outlier on the idea that Doug-Bruce aren't considered among the best GMs in the league.  Media types offering good will and saying nice things about a legend like Doug is common when they are hired for a new position.  But its a mile different than rating him as one of the best at their job.  I haven't ever seen Bruce ranked anywhere as one of the better GM's in the league since he's been here or when he had the title in Tampa. 

 

As for the idea that we can be jumping the gun about judging someone's future performance based on past performance -- yeah anything is possible maybe the past and the future don't correlate.  But the past and the future do usually correlate.  If I am interviewing people for a job, I actually i am interested in that employee's past performance.  What else I am going to judge?  I's not hard for anyone to promise rosy things for the future.  As Redskins fans in particular, we know there is always some buzz and hope when we have the new hire-new regime.   Does it all translate to success?  I wish it did. 

2 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

2 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

Overall it is just over half of teams where their GM has a strong background in scouting working soley as a scout.

 

John Elway (Broncos) spent zero time as a scout - John Lynch spent 0 time as a scout - The Bengles GM; Mike Brown - is the owner - spent 0 time as a scout, Sashi Brown ( of the Browns) spent no time as a scout, Brandon Beane (Bills) - had various roles with the Panters  (never a scout) Chris Grier (dolphins was a director of pro scouting (never an actual scout), Bill Bellichik (Patriots) Never a scout  Rick Smith (texans) never a scout Howie Rosseman  (Eagles) Never a scout (admin guy) Jery Jones (Cowboys) - Inveted scouting 1,000,000 years ago - but was never a scout, Mikey Loomis (Saints) not a scout 

 

 

I said scouting/personnel.  In other words, scouting and or personnel.  Most of the guys you mentioned have personnel experience.  So it actually helps solidify my point because I didn't even think the numbers would be that overwhelming.  But wow!  Either evaluating talent on the front lines or back lines but its still about evaluating personnel talent. I never said every organization has a GM with personnel/scouting expertise but most successful organizations do.   

 

Howie Roseman's background was in personnel among other roles, his first role was serving as an intern right after college working in the personnel dept. and later was VP of player personnel, etc.   Beane had plenty of background in personnel.   Ditto Grier as you mentioned.

 

I think my previous electrician versus plumber analogy I made before was on point.  But to make it all about football.  the way I see the GM spot is a guy who lives and breathes personnel.   They can cut up tape of a player and give an educated take about their prospects.  Bruce has never been described as that guy.  They can compare prospect X versus Y.  On and on.  Bruce doesn't even describe himself that way.

 

Bruce has a degree in business marketing.  His career started as a player agent.  His reputation around the league has been about being a sharp money guy, not personnel.  In Oakland, Al Davis shopped for the groceries and Bruce was senior executive. In Tampa he had the GM role but for whatever reason it didn't go well and he got canned.    He came here and the drafts have been arguably so so.   But he's done a good job with contracts and apparently shooting for the new stadium.  I like Bruce but I like him playing in his lane.

 

I don't even think Bruce would take up your argument.  I don't get the vibe from his interviews that he claims he is making personnel decisions.  What he likes to say is so what that he has the final call.

 

 

2 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

All I am saying is it is better to give things time to pan out and the best way to judge who is amongst the best at their position is based on the Job they are doing right now and possibly reflecting on their recent accomplishments after they have been in position for more than a few weeks; rather than coming to any snap decision.

 

We've debated this point multiple times and I am gathering I am just doing a poor job communicating my point clearly because you keep throwing a variation of the same point at me which is why not give them a chance and we are being presumptuous.  

 

But the core debate (at least mine) is not:

We are judging what type of job Bruce and Doug will do advance.  

 

It's:

There is a common pattern of Dan not hiring top flight personnel people to run personnel.  Yes, he will put top flight people in that role.  But they are top flight for different reasons not personnel. 

 

People twisting the conversation to be about what people think of Bruce and Doug individually are off of the point that most are making.  As far as I can tell there is no hostility from anyone towards Bruce or Doug and we all wish them success.  But just like the analogy I gave you when we discussed this not long ago where I brought up my favorite Redskin of all time -- Joe Gibbs.  I love Joe in his role as HC.  Love the guy.  Do I want him as GM?  No.  Does that make me hostile towards Joe, not at all.  Its purely about I have arrived at the conclusion years back that the people in this business who say having a top flight personnel guy shopping for groceries is the biggest X factor in a team's success is on the money.  

 

Love Bruce and Doug in various roles with the team.  And heck I don't blame them for taking the roles they were given.  I'd take any promotion or power handed to me, too.  So as individuals, I got no beef with either dude.  I like both guys.  It's about the structure that we got cooking here. 

 

The last time I defended our team's unconventional FO operation is the Shanny years.  I was so infatuated with him as a coach that I didn't mind his checkered personnel record and I ignored the multiple examples of coaches failing when they have the dual role.   Oldfan had epic debates with me about it saying we aren't hiring an offensive coordinator, we are hiring a guy who is running the whole team and he doesn't have a strong eye for defensive talent.    Just like you, I said give the dude a chance.   He was right.  I was wrong. 

 

Edit:  reading back my previous posts I said scouting/personnel background most of the time.  But it looks like a time or two in a post, I said scouting forgetting to add personnel.  So to clarify that was just an oversight on my end to not include the word personnel every time.  Yeah whether someone's background is evaluating in person or by pouring through film and making personnel decisions accordingly -- its all in the same genre.  Bringing it to this FO:  Bruce/Schaffer are the money side of the FO.  Campbell works in the personnel side of it.  If Campbell was the final say in personnel, it would make more sense to me. 

[TSO]

@bedlamVR Your research should've led you to the same conclusions it led me to long ago, nothing like what you just posted on it. Just look at your list, again. 

 

First, the majority clearly do have extensive scouting backgrounds and, as @Skinsinparadise stated, it's about both personnel and scouting so it makes it even worse. And I've stated before, we shouldn't put Lynch or Elway in the category you did. They were both actual player personnel in the pros for long careers. The scouting they do by virtue of game film studying and playing side by side with other pro personnel is at least equal to or arguably worth more than just a "scouting background". 

 

 Second, which side of your (not all-encompassing, I only count 23 teams in total) list has more consistently successful teams? Or was that essential factor unimportant to you? 

 

Third, you didn't even get into the titles/roles themselves and how the majority of successful franchises, both past and present, are structured. 

 

But, yeah, thanks for inadvertently proving our point. 

[Koolblue13]

3 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

So, how does the Zorn/Fassil debacle compare to the Cousins LTD fiasco and the GMSM firing? I think our coaching is better, but I don't thing we're any better in management, which is what I'm referring to. I mean we just promoted a guy that is almost no scouting experience and when he did have a shot at it, was fired in less than 2 years, as our head scout.

 

So no, I don't think we're any more competent than we have been. I don't think we are worse, but we are no better.

You seriously think we are at the same place as then? Drafting ****ty WRs, bringing a bingo caller in to help the defense, ****ing vinny contracts? You think we're still run that poorly? You've got to be kidding.

[Skinsinparadise]

Lombardi throwing in his opinion.  He talks some of Bruce's style via his observation among other things

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/michael-lombardi-former-nfl-executive-says-bruce-a/

Lombardi and Allen worked together under Raiders owner Al Davis from 1998-2003. Allen, who had been in Oakland since 1995, left the Raiders to join the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 2004 as their GM. 

Lombardi also downplayed the Redskins’ recent move of promoting Doug Williams to senior vice president of player personnel, calling it window dressing. 

“Even when Scot McCloughan was there, the Redskins general manager was Bruce Allen,” he said. “Scot McCloughan had the title, but he didn’t have the authority. There’s two people making decisions in Washington — it’s [owner] Daniel Snyder and Bruce Allen.”

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

To some of @bedlamVRs point, here's an article from 2013 answering some of those questions: 

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1648178-where-do-nfl-gms-come-from

 

Team    GM    Background
Buffalo Bills    Doug Whaley    Scout
Miami Dolphins    Jeff Ireland    Scout
New England Patriots    Nick Caserio    Business/Law
New York Jets    John Idzik    Business/Law
Baltimore Ravens    Ozzie Newsome    Player
Cincinnati Bengals    Mike Brown    Owner
Cleveland Browns    Michael Lombardi    Scout
Pittsburgh Steelers    Kevin Colbert    Scout
Houston Texans    Rick Smith    Coach
Indianapolis Colts    Ryan Grigson    Scout
Jacksonville Jaguars    David Caldwell    Scout
Tennessee Titans    Ruston Webster    Scout
Denver Broncos    John Elway    Player
Kansas City Chiefs    John Dorsey    Scout
Oakland Raiders    Reggie McKenzie    Scout
San Diego Chargers    Tom Telesco    Scout
Dallas Cowboys    Jerry Jones    Owner
New York Giants    Jerry Reese    Scout
Philadelphia Eagles    Howie Roseman    Business/Law
Washington Redskins    Bruce Allen    Business/Law
Chicago Bears    Phil Emery    Scout
Detroit Lions    Martin Mayhew    Business/Law
Green Bay Packers    Ted Thompson    Scout
Minnesota Vikings    Rick Spielman    Scout
Atlanta Falcons    Thomas Dimitroff    Scout
Carolina Panthers    Dave Gettleman    Scout
New Orleans Saints    Mickey Loomis    Business/Law
Tampa Bay Buccaneers    Mark Dominik    Scout
Arizona Cardinals    Steve Keim    Scout
St. Louis Rams    Les Snead    Scout
San Francisco 49ers    Trent Baalke    Scout
Seattle Seahawks    John Schneider    Scout
 

Quote

While businessmen and lawyers are typically more reliant on their scouting and pro personnel staff to identify talent, they have ways of working to the cap and bending the laws in their advantage.

[Skinsinparadise]

41 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

To some of ______'s point, here's an article from 2013 answering some of those questions: 

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1648178-where-do-nfl-gms-come-from

New England Patriots    Nick Caserio    Business/Law
New York Jets    John Idzik    Business/Law
Philadelphia Eagles    Howie Roseman    Business/Law
Washington Redskins    Bruce Allen    Business/Law
Detroit Lions    Martin Mayhew    Business/Law
New Orleans Saints    Mickey Loomis    Business/Law
 

 

Thanks for sharing that.  Powerful stuff.  That's an overwhelming number of GMs with scouting/personnel experience. The business/non-personnel types are a small minority.  And if you actually drill down further its really a infinitesimal #.  Just 2.  Now lets go through that list.   So outside of Bruce you got 5 guys in theory with that non-personnel background.  That's not much but if you sort through the specifics, its really just 1 other guy to Bruce not 5. 

 

1.  Caserio -- NE Patriots.  Belichick is the defacto GM.

 

2.  Idzike was canned and replaced with a guy with personnel experience.  If you notice in the article below it was described as "a curious hire" because of his limited experience in personnel.

http://www.espn.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/12091383/new-york-jets-clean-house-fire-gm-john-idzik-coach-rex-ryan

Idzike was a curious hire by Johnson because he had only a limited background in personnel; his expertise was in cap management and contract negotiations. His tenure was marked by controversial decisions, none bigger than trading star cornerback Darrelle Revis to the Tampa Bay Bucs before the 2013 season.

 

here's what they said about his replacement:

http://www.espn.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/12163225/new-york-jets-hire-mike-maccagnan-gm

We interviewed a number of impressive, qualified candidates, but Mike Maccagnan clearly stood out," Jets owner Woody Johnson said. "Mike's attention to detail, strong personnel background and collaborative approach to evaluating players made it clear that he is the right choice to be the next general manager of the New York Jets."

 

3. Howie Roseman.  If you read about him his goal was to be a GM from the get go, back when he was in school.  First job was in personnel, was VP: of personnel for 2 years, etc.  He might have a business degree.  But his background involves player evaluation.

 

4.  Martin Mayhew.  As Sub pointed out, any player has a background in personnel.  They are around players their whole career, have to watch film, etc.  Mayhew wouldn't be some business guy jumping into the NFL.  He just happened to get a degree in addition to his NFL pedegree so good for him.

 

5.  Mickey Loomis:  I think this is a good apples to apples to Bruce.  Based on that article, its the only apples to apples comparison to Bruce.

 

I don't doubt guys like Bruce bring cap savvy to the equation.  I've said so myself.   And again its nothing personal against Bruce.  I like Bruce. I think he brings something valuable to the Redskins.  But I don't think he should have final say in personnel.  If you notice from the article you posted, an overwhelming number of teams have personnel background guys running personnel.  Yeah I understand you can dare to be different.  And the dare could work out.  I agree with the concept.  But this isn't a new movie for this organization to do it different.  I just don't buy they are smarter then the rest of the league.   I am not saying its impossible for it to work great, just saying its unlikely IMO.    And I think all of this will likely land as being so so -- not awful -- ups and downs.  Why?  That's usually what's happened when we go on our renegade/outside the box front office approaches.   But again if they keep Kirk-Jay over the long haul, I think things will be good but I doubt the FO will be considered among the better ones in the league throughout that process.

[Thinking Skins]

I don't get the "player -> personnel" argument. Doesn't that mean that both Allen (former punter) and Doug Williams (former Super Bowl winning QB) both have experience in personnel? I get that Allen is a reach, but DW should be at the same table as Lynch, Elway and Mayhew if not Newsome. 

[Skinsinparadise]

16 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

I don't get the "player -> personnel" argument. Doesn't that mean that both Allen (former punter) and Doug Williams (former Super Bowl winning QB) both have experience in personnel? I get that Allen is a reach, but DW should be at the same table as Lynch, Elway and Mayhew if not Newsome. 

 

Bruce didn't play in the NFL.  I don't recall ever saying Doug doesn't have experience in personnel.  What I said about Doug is no one talks him up as being among the better guys in the league at evaluating personnel.  Even most of the people who advocate for him don't make that case either.  I don't recall him ever interviewed for a GM job or high ranking player personnel job aside from his stints with Bruce.   I like Doug.  And these debates gets sidetracked about Doug.  This isn't about Doug.  It's about a pattern of not hiring guys that people tout around the league.   And more importantly, about not having a more conventional FO structure.  And I think this is the key point that gets lost in the debate:  this isn't the first rodeo like this and if it were the first rodeo I'd trust it more.  But we aren't watching Police Academy 1.  We are on Police Academy 7. 

 

The more though I am digesting the FO moves.  The more I think that talking about Doug is a little off topic.  He's not the final say guy.  He's not the GM.  

 

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/06/14/doug-williams-washington-nfl-front-office-peter-king-mailbag

Which means the real winner might be club president Bruce Allen, because it’s likely he’ll continue to have final say on personnel matters—only with stronger input from Williams. With former GM Scot McCloughan having been banished after two years, Washington went the safe route. Williams, as good a soldier as the franchise has ever employed, will lord over a reshuffled personnel staff, with Allen likely to retain the power in the organization. Still, Williams is happy for the chance.

 

“When I interviewed for the job,” Williams said from Virginia, after being named Washington’s senior vice president of player personnel, “I didn’t put ‘GM’ on my proposal. When we did the draft board this year, we met for two-and-a-half weeks, and we had a good discussion and put it together as a team. We did it without a GM. So I thought, ‘Do we really need a GM?’ 

[Morneblade]

2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

You seriously think we are at the same place as then? Drafting ****ty WRs, bringing a bingo caller in to help the defense, ****ing vinny contracts? You think we're still run that poorly? You've got to be kidding.

 

Ok, giving up 3 #1's and a #2 for a ****ty QB, hiring a DC who's only experience at DC went 0-16, can't sign the best QB we've had in 40 years to a LTC, and fire the only guy that has given the team any form of respectability in the last 25+ years?

 

You think we've improved? You've got to be kidding me.

 

2 can play that game, and I have a lot of ammo to work with.

[TSO]

7 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

I don't get the "player -> personnel" argument. Doesn't that mean that both Allen (former punter) and Doug Williams (former Super Bowl winning QB) both have experience in personnel? I get that Allen is a reach, but DW should be at the same table as Lynch, Elway and Mayhew if not Newsome. 

 

You got it right about Doug but Allen doesn't fit at all. That's not even a reach, it's false because we never said "player -> personnel". Here's my recent quote on this (bolded emphasis mine): 

 

Quote

And I've stated before, we shouldn't put Lynch or Elway in the category you did. They were both actual player personnel in the pros for long careers. The scouting they do by virtue of game film studying and playing side by side with other pro personnel is at least equal to or arguably worth more than just a "scouting background". 

 

I made it a point to say "in the pros for long careers". Mentioning Allen here shouldn't have happened if you presented the argument properly. 

 

But here's the thing. While Doug fits, he doesn't have final say does he? So we'll always wonder just how much control he has and exactly what were his decisions and what were not. You've mentioned numerous times how you don't mind having a guy who isn't strong in personnel because he can delegate... but don't you see that's the problem itself? How do you know he'll delegate if he can't even give those he's supposedly delegating personnel to final say (and an accompanying title that represents that) in those matters? Doesn't that suggest he's not really delegating to the degree you're claiming he should? 

 

I commended Bruce when he did just that with the Scot hire. I cannot simultaneously commend him for that (proper and beneficial) change and then continue to do so when our organizational structure reverts back. 

 

Like SIP said, we're arguing on two fronts here. Both the hiring process and the titles/roles/structure. 

 

Furthermore, there isn't anyone out there stating just how great Doug is as a talent evaluator. Putting everything together (title doesn't give him real authority, he wasn't a hot commodity known around the NFL for his expertise in personnel, and the structure of the organization being very similar to ones we've had in the past that have failed miserably), well, that makes it very difficult to be excited at all about these moves and not be extremely skeptical. 

 

No one has said it's a done deal and this'll fail. Just that, more often than not, it has in the past. The data you bring up really helps our arguments here, not the other way around. You and bedlam are talking about exceptions versus the rules. Looking at it deeper you see the more consistently successful franchises (past and present) employ the traditional structure we're advocating for.

 

I've already posted about this numerous times in the past and have yet to see a single refutation of it. I might have to go find those posts. This data isn't new to me. SIP and I have personally done a ton of research on this topic together, via PM and other avenues as well. 

 

We're just tired of seeing this as Skins fans at this point. The facts remain that we have more of an unorthodox organizational structure different than the vast majority of teams, and the same goes for our hiring process. But, hey, as hard as it is to believe for me, and as foolish as I think they're being here, I really am thinking, "go Bruce and go Doug, prove us wrong and show the rest of the NFL you're smarter than everyone else"! 

[Skinsinparadise]

13 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

But here's the thing. While Doug fits, he doesn't have final say does he? So we'll always wonder just how much control he has and exactly what were his decisions and what were not. You've mentioned numerous times how you don't mind having a guy who isn't strong in personnel because he can delegate... but don't you see that's the problem itself? How do you know he'll delegate if he can't even give those he's supposedly delegating personnel to final say (and an accompanying title that represents that) in those matters? Doesn't that suggest he's not really delegating to the degree you're claiming he should? 

 

 

On further reflection, I think the Doug hire might be clouding this debate because the more people (including Doug) talk about it, the more it comes off like his role is similar to last time except for he made recommendations for promotions that Bruce agreed with and he will be talking more to Jay.  

 

To me on the research I did, I found it especially telling that the media questioned the Jets hire of a GM with a limited personnel background as "a curious hire".  And the Jets ultimately canned him and replaced him with a traditional GM.

 

I think its real simple.  Bruce has final say and should he be that guy?  Is it normal to have someone with his background be that guy?  How wonderful a guy he is and how much he wants to win IMO is irrelevant to the discussion. To go with one more cooking analogy, an overwhelming majority of teams believe that the guy overseeing the menu should have a vast background in cooking and creating menus in their own right versus being the Maitre D. 

 

The more I dig about Bruce, the more I think that I don't think he'd even agree with some of the arguments people are using here to advocate for him.  He doesn't come off like he's selling himself as a guy who really knows personnel and he unfairly doesn't get credit for it.  The argument for him seems to be more in line with "so what if his niche isn't personnel" we still trust his judgment to listen to his actual personnel guys and do their bidding.    There is some logic to that.  But IMO you want a guy who can listen to recommendations but also insert their own experience and logic to filter, add and challenge the insight and synchronize it all.  Your top personnel guy expertise wise IMO should be the actual boss of personnel not the bosses underlings.     

 

This is from Lombardi who worked with Bruce for 5 years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2012/11/15/michael-lombardi-on-shanahan-the-gm/?utm_term=.b939b4da042e

 Bruce [Allen] isn’t a personnel [guy]; Bruce does cap and PR and all those things; Bruce isn’t the true total GM in terms of breaking down teams and finding players.”

[Thinking Skins]

17 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

But here's the thing. While Doug fits, he doesn't have final say does he? So we'll always wonder just how much control he has and exactly what were his decisions and what were not. You've mentioned numerous times how you don't mind having a guy who isn't strong in personnel because he can delegate... but don't you see that's the problem itself? How do you know he'll delegate if he can't even give those he's supposedly delegating personnel to final say (and an accompanying title that represents that) in those matters? Doesn't that suggest he's not really delegating to the degree you're claiming he should? 

 

How do we know this? What sources do we have to go on other than the Mike Jones article? Bruce admitted himself that he wasn't a personnel guy and so he would seek to find people who were strong in the areas where he's weak. 

 

The whole thing about delegation / final say / whatever is that I want smart decisions made - not smart decisions in hindsight but in crunch time. I don't want a Vinny who had no talent or expertise at any level holding the position, and I don't want a Shanny / Gibbs who has the responsibility as a head coach so he can't devote himself to the GM duties. I don't want Bruce in charge of scouting any more than I want an admin person in charge of a developer. But the leader of the entire team has got to come from somewhere and when its not a developer its important for me to know that that leader will listen to me. If only admin people have the ear of the leader, then developers will have a problem with that. 

 

I see that we're now getting criticized for the RG3 trade, cool. But for the prospect that RG3 was I wasn't and am not mad at that move. There are few (big) moves that I was against at the time of the move. I would have liked to have signed Cousins last year or earlier this offseason but I don't know who to believe on that front. Whose decision was it last year not to address the DL? Or to sign the scrubs in FA? Was Scot listening to his coaches? Was there turmoil in the meeting rooms or with putting together a draft board or executing that draft board? Reading the tea leaves tells me that something went wrong somewhere in this process because just like Manusky has talked about communication on defense, Bruce has talked about (1) the Giants game (when we were run all over) and (2) communication. For all the arguments about what's not said about Doug, go back and look at the press conference and see how often Bruce said that word about Doug, the front office and the coaching staff (http://www.redskins.com/news/article-1/-Quotes-Bruce-Allen-Doug-Williams-And-Jay-Gruden-06-13-2017/b93442ea-d742-4919-b3e3-35a2828448bb). 

 

As far as how much responsibility Doug has vs Williams, why are we really in a philosophical debate about something neither of us knows anything about. We were all so sure that Scot had final say until we learned he didn't. Suddenly Bruce's a boogey monster who has made every bad decision over the last 10 years and every good decision has been pure luck, other teams not wanting to take advantage of us, or the great angel of Scot - Bruce just had no part in it. 

 

17 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

No one has said it's a done deal and this'll fail. Just that, more often than not, it has in the past. The data you bring up really helps our arguments here, not the other way around. You and bedlam are talking about exceptions versus the rules. Looking at it deeper you see the more consistently successful franchises (past and present) employ the traditional structure we're advocating for.

 

The data also shows that the Redskins are not the first team to employ a business guy as their GM, and not all of them have failed. I understand this area has a thing against Bruce and so I'm fighting a losing battle so I don't even like to reply to this thread, but sometimes the hate here is just getting out of hand. And yes I do see it as hate, when some are saying he has no football knowledge or is not a football guy when he has literally spent his entire life in football, or when he's equated with the laughing stock of this town in Vinny, or when he does everything that we listed in the FA thread as our wish list, but we still say he doesn't know what he's doing or that he failed because he didn't overpay for the NT position. It feels like I'm reading venom. 

 

And I really can't see the difference between nobody saying its a done deal vs the past predicts the future arguments (basically your first two statements). You and SIP and the rest of the board are basically saying that Bruce is incompetent, with your data being "the past" but the past is not a binary success/failure. His time in Tampa was trying to keep a SB team together and deal with a bunch of aging players who wanted paydays because of the SB. His initial years here Shanny was the team president, and lets not forget about the turmoil this team was under with all the leaks from the team saying one thing or another. Then the RG3 experiment succeeded then failed. He's been the head man in charge here for 3 years and the last 2 of those have been winning seasons and we just extended our coach. I have no problem with trying as hard as possible to not stir the pot too much because we're building something. Maybe my opinion will change if we take a nose dive this year or next, but I'm not going to act like since in Tampa or under Shanny, Bruce didn't win SBs it means that he'll do a piss poor job here cause that's not what I see. How many examples are there of people getting better at their job? 

 

But its whatever, like I said, I'm fighting a losing battle and we're really saying the same points over and over again and nobody's going to change their mind. I know Bruce isn't admired here. Man I can't wait to talk about real football. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

48 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Whose decision was it last year not to address the DL? Or to sign the scrubs in FA? Was Scot listening to his coaches? Was there turmoil in the meeting rooms or with putting together a draft board or executing that draft board? Reading the tea leaves tells me that something went wrong somewhere in this process because just like Manusky has talked about communication on defense, Bruce has talked about (1) the Giants game (when we were run all over) and (2) communication.

 

I asked something similar before to the first part of what I quoted...I had wanted to know just what moves were made against Scot's wishes. Because if Scot got 98% of what he wanted, then bargain-basement DL and a lengthy list of mediocre FA signings were due to him. I know we've all heard that Allen didn't truly give scot control as GM, but I'm not sure if we've ever been given evidence or examples of that being fact.

 

As for the 2nd part of what I quoted, Cooley and Sheehan have talked about hearing how dysfunctional the defensive coaching staff was last year and the lack of communication that existed there.

[Skinsinparadise]

On 6/21/2017 at 6:32 PM, Thinking Skins said:

 

And I really can't see the difference between nobody saying its a done deal vs the past predicts the future arguments (basically your first two statements). You and SIP and the rest of the board are basically saying that Bruce is incompetent

 

You say you are frustrated with hate leveled on Bruce. And that Bruce is being accused of being incompetent.  And you single out me and Sub on that front.  But, that's a wild misrepresentation IMO.   You have given very emotional heartfelt arguments for the dude.  But I think in that process you might be getting a bit carried away in your advocacy where in doing so you are overreaching on how he's been criticized. 

 

Lets take my position on Bruce.  My points on him that I've made multiple times on this thread.

 

A. He does a good job and is an asset to the organization

B. I've met him and I like him.

C. I took Bruce's side in his squabble with Scot.  Even though I like Scot.

D. I said I am opposed to firing Bruce.

E. In Kirk's thread I am even defended Bruce from strong criticism leveled his way for not getting a deal done with Kirk, yet.

 

That's some pretty heavy duty pro-Bruce positions especially "C".  Not sure what else positive I need to say about Bruce let alone be labeled as someone who hates him or that I am calling him out as incompetent.   I am a Redskins fan but that doesn't obligate me to endorse everything that Bruce does.  But as to on the Bruce front specifically, I think I've endorsed plenty and actually more than the typical poster. 

 

So in that mix of positivity, my one beef with Bruce and its not really even with him, its with Dan since he is the one who sets the FO structure is that I don't think a money/business guy should run personnel.   That's is.   We've dealt into why.   And yeah sorry I don't find Bruce's background as proof he's some sort of exception to the rule.   And if people want to argue otherwise on that point.  I'll debate that person back.  And provide points for why.  

 

When you and another poster dug up all the research you did.  It actually helped solidify the "personnel" side of the argument in a major way.    And the main reason why I brought up Jay to you in an earlier post is to bring out that I am not shy to change my mind if evidence contradicts my initial impression.  If what you guys dug up indicated that heck yeah a good chunk of teams have a business guy running personnel and those teams are kicking butt -- not only would I have changed my point of view but I'd have loved it.  I love this team.  My rooting interest is never for the status quo to be off.   I'd love it if you were right that it doesn't matter if the GM has a personnel background or not so we are in great hands.   

 

And as I said I feel the same way about ANY FO structure that's unconventional that way.  I don't care how beloved the figure is, you can put Warren Buffett in the position and I'd hate it.  And yeah that doesn't make me a Bruce hater.  I've told you in my multiple posts I like Bruce.  So its quite the opposite.

 

[TSO]

5 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

How do we know this? What sources do we have to go on other than the Mike Jones article? Bruce admitted himself that he wasn't a personnel guy and so he would seek to find people who were strong in the areas where he's weak. 

 

Again, therein lies the problem. He says that but, yet, he doesn't structure the organization in a way that gives clear authority, final say, and the accompanying titles to those "he would seek" just like the majority of successful organizations? 

 

Yeah, what I see from your argument here is nothing but contradictory. If you're right and Bruce is all about that, this would be simple for him (and Dan for that matter). 

 

Just like it was when he hired a GM and gave him final say over personnel. What were your thoughts about that? Were you against it or for it? Why? 

 

5 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

The whole thing about delegation / final say / whatever is that I want smart decisions made - not smart decisions in hindsight but in crunch time. I don't want a Vinny who had no talent or expertise at any level holding the position, and I don't want a Shanny / Gibbs who has the responsibility as a head coach so he can't devote himself to the GM duties. I don't want Bruce in charge of scouting any more than I want an admin person in charge of a developer. But the leader of the entire team has got to come from somewhere and when its not a developer its important for me to know that that leader will listen to me. If only admin people have the ear of the leader, then developers will have a problem with that. 

 

Not sure what this has to do with anything. No one is arguing about "the leader of the entire team". We're saying we want the best personnel guy to be the head personnel guy and the authority to go along with it. This isn't difficult. The data shows this is the norm for most successful teams. 

 

As "leader of the team", Allen should have no problem hiring the best and assigning a title that gives them that role. If he doesn't, the criticisms are totally fair. 

 

5 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

As far as how much responsibility Doug has vs Williams, why are we really in a philosophical debate about something neither of us knows anything about. We were all so sure that Scot had final say until we learned he didn't. Suddenly Bruce's a boogey monster who has made every bad decision over the last 10 years and every good decision has been pure luck, other teams not wanting to take advantage of us, or the great angel of Scot - Bruce just had no part in it. 

 

Why are we in a philosophical debate about something neither of us knows about!? 

 

Because both of us SHOULD know! 

 

That's the whole friggin point. The fact that there are questions about whether or not Scot actually had the power he was DIRECTLY given, the fact that there are questions now about who is making what decision and there is no clear hierarchy, no real ownership of seperate responsibilities, and we have no idea just how much say each person really has... that's the entire point. That's the problem. 

 

I don't know how else to put this anymore. If you find nothing wrong with this, that's wonderful. I sincerely wish I could go back to the days of blissful ignorance regarding these basic organizational principles that create an environment conducive for success in the NFL... but I can't. They are doing things, organizationally, that fail more often than not. They are not following the model of the majority of successful organizations. Will it work out? Hopefully, but that doesn't change those facts. The data you posted should've helped you along in understanding this. I'm confused why it hasn't. 

 

5 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

The data also shows that the Redskins are not the first team to employ a business guy as their GM, and not all of them have failed. I understand this area has a thing against Bruce and so I'm fighting a losing battle so I don't even like to reply to this thread, but sometimes the hate here is just getting out of hand. And yes I do see it as hate, when some are saying he has no football knowledge or is not a football guy when he has literally spent his entire life in football, or when he's equated with the laughing stock of this town in Vinny, or when he does everything that we listed in the FA thread as our wish list, but we still say he doesn't know what he's doing or that he failed because he didn't overpay for the NT position. It feels like I'm reading venom. 

 

 

No, the data shows those are rare exceptions. That's all.

 

Call it hate, I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, that just shows you're full of **** about this because I know myself. I'm the last person who hates on the team or the organization. I don't have a shred of desire to be right about this or to see Bruce fail. It's the total opposite. I stay away from this thread as well and haven't posted in it for some time until the news came out about the "restructure". I get called a homer here all the time. For you to lecture me about hate? Please. 

 

It'd be nice if you stayed on track here in terms of the arguments being made. Don't lump me in some perceived group you've recognized that trashes Bruce to no end and doesn't give him any credit for anything. I'm directly focusing whatever ire I have towards Bruce (and Dan, even more so) about the hiring process and structure of the organization.  That's it.

 

How we've managed FA, the draft, etc... this recent offseason and others before it are another topic. And if you're talking about this recent one being great (which I agree with so long as they do extend Kirk) then you can't remove Scot from it. He played a significant role by all accounts. Some of us don't want to see that gone and would like to see someone with as strong of a personnel background continuing to play the role we were directly told he would when he was brought in. 

 

I guess we're just raging haters for that. 

 

5 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

And I really can't see the difference between nobody saying its a done deal vs the past predicts the future arguments (basically your first two statements). You and SIP and the rest of the board are basically saying that Bruce is incompetent, with your data being "the past" but the past is not a binary success/failure. His time in Tampa was trying to keep a SB team together and deal with a bunch of aging players who wanted paydays because of the SB. His initial years here Shanny was the team president, and lets not forget about the turmoil this team was under with all the leaks from the team saying one thing or another. Then the RG3 experiment succeeded then failed. He's been the head man in charge here for 3 years and the last 2 of those have been winning seasons and we just extended our coach. I have no problem with trying as hard as possible to not stir the pot too much because we're building something. Maybe my opinion will change if we take a nose dive this year or next, but I'm not going to act like since in Tampa or under Shanny, Bruce didn't win SBs it means that he'll do a piss poor job here cause that's not what I see. How many examples are there of people getting better at their job? 

 

Really, you can't see the difference? You just said it yourself, brother, "...your data being 'the past' but the past is not a binary success/failure". 

 

Are you saying we can't both acknowledge that without also acknowledging that the past is a great indicator of the future? Furthermore, it's also not just about "the past", it's about basic organizational principles that always remain true. We've given numerous examples of this that you, or anyone else, have yet to refute. 

 

So what I gather from you is you think Bruce is essentially alleviated of any faults or wrongdoing during his entire tenure here and elsewhere as GM or President . Hey, fine by me, hope you're right. 

 

But, again for the millionth time, I'm judging both Dan and Bruce on two levels; their hiring process and the structure of the organization RIGHT NOW that they've created. 

 

Just like I commended them for both of those things the last two years, I'm criticizing them for reverting back. 

 

If you think you can label that as unfair, "hate", or "venom" ... then I'm going to go ahead and label your position, as well. How about I go with ignorant of basic organizational principles, naive, and blindly in love with Bruce? 

 

I suggest we stay away from the labels. 

 

5 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

But its whatever, like I said, I'm fighting a losing battle and we're really saying the same points over and over again and nobody's going to change their mind. I know Bruce isn't admired here. Man I can't wait to talk about real football. 

 

I can unequivocally state that I've changed my mind on this topic. In fact, I used to think exactly like you do until I researched the way the top organizations do things in the NFL, how it compared to the way we always had done things (which refreshingly changed with the Scot hire), how that's tied to the constant of so many of our hires coming here and failing (even at aspects of their jobs they've otherwise been successful at everywhere else they've been).

 

Can you say the same? Have you changed at all? 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Man, @ConnSKINS26 was right...this is hell on an iPhone lol...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

On 6/20/2017 at 6:03 PM, Morneblade said:

 

Ok, giving up 3 #1's and a #2 for a ****ty QB, hiring a DC who's only experience at DC went 0-16, can't sign the best QB we've had in 40 years to a LTC, and fire the only guy that has given the team any form of respectability in the last 25+ years?

 

You think we've improved? You've got to be kidding me.

 

2 can play that game, and I have a lot of ammo to work with.

 

Wait...you said this:

 

"So, how does the Zorn/Fassil debacle compare to the Cousins LTD fiasco and the GMSM firing?"...then said you didn't think management now is any better than it was then. You seem to be comparing management decisions made in 2008-2009 to management decisions made in 2015-2016.

 

but now you're using decisions made 5 years earlier...and are assuming we "can't sign" Cousins even though we could very well end up signing him in a few weeks.

 

if we are allowed to go back 5 years and imagine worse case scenarios as being factual, sorry, but @Koolblue13 will have a ****load more to work with than you ever could.

[elkabong82]

This thread needs a heavy dosage

 

[Conn]

Trying to think of one single solitary time when the "chill out guys its fine" homer crowd has ever been correct in the end (on the big issues).

 

MAYBE when the pitchforks were out and the crowds were calling for Gruden's head after his first season here. That's all I got.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Trying to think of one single solitary time when the "chill out guys its fine" homer crowd has ever been correct in the end (on the big issues).

 

MAYBE when the pitchforks were out and the crowds were calling for Gruden's head after his first season here. That's all I got.

 

When it was rumored that Fassel was gonna be our next HC, maybe?...

 

And I wasn't on the board at the time, but I was told that there was a severe freakout in 2012 after the Skins lost to the Panthers and went into the bye at 3-6.

 

Not sure if those count as "big issues", though...

[Conn]

15 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

When it was rumored that Fassel was gonna be our next HC, maybe?...

 

And I wasn't on the board at the time, but I was told that there was a severe freakout in 2012 after the Skins lost to the Panthers and went into the bye at 3-6.

 

Not sure if those count as "big issues", though...

 

The massive fan freakout is what led to Fassel not being hired. I don't know how he'd have compared to Zorn but I think it doesn't fit for that reason.

 

That loss and Shanahan basically saying guys were playing for their jobs the next season is what lit a fire under the team at the time, so again idk if that counts as the freakout-ers being wrong haha