New GM search

[Califan007 The Constipated]

8 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

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

 

For the first one, I guess at best we can say the "Remain calm, all is well" crowd could have been right if Fassel had been hired. While I never believed that "fan backlash" caused Fassel to not be hired I would say that I find it damn difficult to believe Fassel would have been as inept as Zorn ended up being.

 

For the second one, regardless of why the team turned it around they did indeed turn it around...so the "Remain calm, all is well" crowd should have that one on their resume lol...

[Morneblade]

13 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

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.

 

You probably need to understand WTF we're talking about before wading in here Cali. Due to the amount of time involved KB has more to work with, true. But there has been nothing since Allen got here (and that DOES include things from 5-6 years ago, LOL) that really changes that. And that IS what we are talking about. Bruce Allen vs the past. Allen brought in Shanny, who changed our always solid 4-3 Defense (if not very good) to a 3-4 that has been always really bad. And everything that has happened since then falls under Bruce's watch, so it counts. That's the argument.

 

If you have even bothered to read anything I've posted on the Cousins LTD (which has been quite a bit) I think it gets done. But it should have never gotten to this. The way the Cousins contract episode has played out has been terribly handled by our FO. And that is what I was referring to....LOL.

 

I mean, we could poll ES as to how well we're run as an organization compared to the "Vinny Years" and see how that turns out.  But I don't see us as being much better run. And I think that is what you will find with most people. "Same ****, different day".

[HTTRDynasty]

If only we were competent enough to hire John Dorsey immediately.

[Conn]

Would be cool if we were the type of organization to swoop in and take advantage of Reid pushing out Dorsey. We didn't find anyone outside the organization that we liked to run things during our "search" *cough* bull**** *cough*, but here's a guy who could just fall into our laps in the middle of the boring part of the offseason just like Desean Jackson and Josh Norman did on the player side.

 

We aren't that organization, though. 

[Tsailand]

Of course we aren't going to hire Dorsey.  The fans are satisfied right now, on the strength of back-to-back winning seasons with Kirk.  Bruce doesn't need to bring in another fake GM to calm the waters.

[Conn]

3 hours ago, Tsailand said:

Of course we aren't going to hire Dorsey.  The fans are satisfied right now, on the strength of back-to-back winning seasons with Kirk.  Bruce doesn't need to bring in another fake GM to calm the waters.

 

The thing is no one of Dorsey's caliber would even interview here knowing Allen's role. That's why our "thorough search" didn't include a single legit outside name. The only reason we were able to pull a respected name like McCloughan was because he was out of the league, known as an alcoholic, with no better options. We aren't lucking into that again even if we were looking for outside help.

[DC Lumber Co.]

Remind me again of whats been so god awful since Bruce Allen took over? For starters its a pretty small sample size. Also, call the Shanny hire what you will but I'd argue he dug his own grave when he demanded total roster control on top of his coaching duties. His son will most likely suffer the same fate in San Fran.

 

Looking at the bigger picture, I see a GM that slowly ridded the team of a terrible roster and its contracts, and began attempting to repair the decade of damage done by the previous GM. Not to mention he also made a focused effort to repair the damaged relationship between the team and its Alumni that was almost as cynical and alienated as the fanbase under the previous GM.

 

Most importantly I see a GM that changed the lifeblood of the orginization to building through the draft and ceased the pursuit of moby-dick free agents. Yet all it takes is for the Giants to hit on one free agent class and we all want to forget about the cautionary tale of free agency we have watched for a decade. 

 

No GM is perfect. Bad coaching, draft,  and personnel decisions will be made from time to time. But I see the overall results of his tenure as positive rather than negative thus far. 

 

His one draft class looks pretty damn good. If it took the mistake of trying a re-tread like Shanny to get us to where we are now which is with the first head coach to ever receive an extension under the big bad Dan Snyder, I'll take it. This years draft class looks pretty damn epic on paper as well. I'm also not sure how much blame you can put on a GM in regards to a defensive scheme change from 4-3 to 3-4. 

 

But cue the responses from Harvest Fest Hate Club that I'm sure will say "but RG3 isnt building through the draft, the GM picks the coach that ultimately picks the defensive scheme so us running a 3-4 is Allen's fault, he used Scots scouting service his first draft and the big board was set by Scot before he left this year (which is completely discrediting the scouts that the lord and savior GMSM chose not to replace during his time here), Even though Shanny brought us a division championship he was a disaster! Etc, etc, etc...

 

Its a giant joke if you can't see that this team is in such a better place than it was 5-6 years ago. I seriously wonder what some fans are going to do when they can't moan about how awful things are. I suspect there are some Redskins name-change advocates that you could throw some complaint parties with...

[Koolblue13]

1 hour ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

Its a giant joke if you can't see that this team is in such a better place than it was 5-6 years ago. I seriously wonder what some fans are going to do when they can't moan about how awful things are. I suspect there are some Redskins name-change advocates that you could throw some complaint parties with...

Solid post. I agree with everything. I also think things are better and I'm also a NCA. 

[Skinsinparadise]

On 6/24/2017 at 3:05 AM, DC Lumber Co. said:

Remind me again of whats been so god awful since Bruce Allen took over? For starters its a pretty small sample size. Also, call the Shanny hire what you will but I'd argue he dug his own grave when he demanded total roster control on top of his coaching duties. His son will most likely suffer the same fate in San Fran.

 

Looking at the bigger picture, I see a GM that slowly ridded the team of a terrible roster and its contracts, and began attempting to repair the decade of damage done by the previous GM. Not to mention he also made a focused effort to repair the damaged relationship between the team and its Alumni that was almost as cynical and alienated as the fanbase under the previous GM.

 

Most importantly I see a GM that changed the lifeblood of the orginization to building through the draft and ceased the pursuit of moby-dick free agents. Yet all it takes is for the Giants to hit on one free agent class and we all want to forget about the cautionary tale of free agency we have watched for a decade. 

 

No GM is perfect. Bad coaching, draft,  and personnel decisions will be made from time to time. But I see the overall results of his tenure as positive rather than negative thus far.

Its a giant joke if you can't see that this team is in such a better place than it was 5-6 years ago. I seriously wonder what some fans are going to do when they can't moan about how awful things are. I suspect there are some Redskins name-change advocates that you could throw some complaint parties with...

 

As far as I can tell, no one here hates Bruce. I actually like Bruce.  And I agree with much of what you said about his fiscal prudence.  I've made similar points.  But its not really relevant IMO.  Neither are the gist of most of the other points that were more or less:  Bruce versus Scot.  Bruce versus Vinny.  Bruce versus Shanny.  

 

The debate really isn't about Bruce but the FO structure.  As for the critics of the FO structure, Bruce is at best a sidetrack conversation about whether he represents the exception to the rule where for him do we make exception.   I can debate some of the FA thoughts you mentioned among other things but I won't since it will just sidetrack the conversation. 

 

There are some people (me among them) which don't like the unorthodox process of having a GM who doesn't come from a personnel background.  That's really it.  That and the continued processed of having an odd duck FO set up.  And its not some odd/left field beef from us.  You got plenty of NFL pundits talking about it.  

 

If you and others want to disagree and love the status quo.  Cool. But that's the debate.  It's not about some popularity tit for tat Bruce versus the world argument. It's irrelevant.  I think even bringing up Bruce confuses the issue.  

 

You are taking a wild leap by insinuating that anyone who doesn't like this setup would be unhappy with just about anything.   I've been more of a homer than not on the board for a good stretch of time.  I'd bet I've sold some of Bruce's FA acquisitions this year harder than just about anyone.  Sub who also has criticized this set up is probably among the biggest homers on the board, he's had the back of a lot of people from this organization who not everyone loved.  

 

I've defended plenty of these unorthodox FOs set ups in the past.  I am just done with it.   Fool me once, etc.  And, I am familiar with the concept that this new version of the unconventional is different from the prior one -- different players, different drill.  Yeah been there done that, too.  

 

I could relate a little to Koolblue's position which if I understand correctly is more or less, yeah its not ideal at all but it's OK and it could be worse so I am not losing sleep over it.   It's actually not a mile off my position.  I never really thought this FO was ever really a disaster.  People forget but Vinny was actually defended plenty on this board by some and with substance.  They had some good off seasons under him and good moves in the mix of soup.  Years later he's described as a buffoon at every step but that wasn't the full consensus at the time.  Do I think the current FO is better than that?  Sure.  Do I think its an above average operation?  Nope.   Do I think its a disaster?  Nope.   But I've always been talent (FO) > coaching.   So my standards are high.    I just don't see this operation as a model of success.  

 

Edit:  I just caught Morneblade's Bruce stuff, I am gathering your post is directed his way even though you didn't highlight his post.   Regardless, what got my attention is if we aren't satisfied with what we got now in the FO we will moan and groan about just anything.  It implies that things right now are slam dunk great so who would challenge that. And IMO that's way over the top.

[DC Lumber Co.]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Edit:  I just caught Morneblade's Bruce stuff, I am gathering your post is directed his way even though you didn't highlight his post.   Regardless, what got my attention is if we aren't satisfied with what we got now in the FO we will moan and groan about just anything.  It implies that things right now are slam dunk great so who would challenge that. And IMO that's way over the top.

 

In no way did I intend to imply that I believe things are "slam dunk great". 

 

Bruce Allen isn't perfect, nor is he without some mistakes on his resume. I do however believe him when he says that things have always been a group - or as he likes to call it, "Redskins" decision. Things have been a group decision since his arrival, were a group decision while Scot held the GM title, and remain a group decision after he was let go. I personally think that it was one of the primary reasons why Scot's relationship with Bruce became strained. I think Scot wanted final say when there was disagreements on a personnel/draft/free agency move and grew tired of having to approach those decisions democratically. 

 

That is admittedly pure speculation on my part but more believable than other explanations ive heard floated out there, and more likely to me than it all being a result of his alcoholism (which may have played a partial role, I just dont think it was the main reason)

 

Now with that being said, I mainly made the post to defend the current FO structure simply because I feel that until it proves to be a "disaster", I feel Bruce has earned the benefit of the doubt. Again, I feel the organization has been better off since his arrival, and get aggravated by those who jump to the conclusion so quickly that we are "the same old Redskins" because I don't understand how people could honestly feel that way. 

 

The hatred towards Dan Snyder and assumptions that we are still a dysfunctional, poorly run NFL franchise is largely disrespectful and short-sighted to the good things Bruce Allen has done. I hate that people get so caught up in negative press that it overshadows so many good things. We are one of the toughest pro-sport markets and because of that, bad news or speculation gets talked about way more and overshadows any of the positive moves/decisions that the Redskins and Bruce do make.

 

For instance, we finally get what we have been asking for as a fanbase for years with us building through the draft, not over-paying free agents, and instead developing our own talent...yet people slam the FO for not signing two WRs over the age of 30 y/o to big contracts and are more interested in criticizing their departure than talking about how nice it is that we had the foresight to draft a WR the year before to help mitigate them leaving, in addition to us being able to attract a young player like T.Pryor for an absolute bargain price. Him and Doctson have the potential to be just as good if not better than Desean and Pierre, and worst case the chances of them both not panning out are slim. We should at least come away with 1 great wideout from these moves, hopefully 2 that will give us much better return on investment due to age.

 

The old, dysfunctional Redskins that some think we still are would have had no plan in place for this situation or had a drafted player waiting in the wings. We would have drafted for need, taking a WR this year instead of BPA or grossly overpaid to keep them. 

 

We now can watch Desean and Pierre get paid as their production and skills decline over the length of their respective contracts as we watch our players ascend and develop. 

 

The old, dysfunctional Redskins also would have acted in reaction to the Giants success in free agency last offseason with how quickly it turned their defense around, and tried to do the same instead of sticking to the plan of building through the draft. Its great that we have shown integrity and stuck with a philosophy for once. 

 

Another sign we are a much better organization is that players such as Zach Brown and even Pryor chose to join the Redskins without us having to over-pay. That has NEVER been the case for this team until now. Before we could only attract young players looking to cash out, with the majority of FA acquisitions being over-the-hill types that we would always find ourselves eating dead money for, often times long after they were released or retired. 

 

Good players choosing to play for the Redskins over other teams and the stability of us extending our HC for the first time under Dan Snyder make it easy to see that we have turned the corner as a franchise, unfortunately the fanbase has a difficult time trusting what they are seeing and assume nothing has changed because of years of buying what the team is selling, only to be disappointed year after year. 

 

So like I said, Bruce Allen hasnt been perfect but I see no reason to assume that this FO structure is doomed. I actually think its another positive that we promoted from within instead of bringing in an outsider. Thats how culture is strengthened in business, NFL franchises included. There is also the possibility that just like head coaches who have sole control typically fail, sharing GM duties amongst multiple smart football-minds could be an improvement over a single GM. It may improve accountability and reduce the chances of mistakes when multiple people have to sign off on a decision before action is taken. 

[Conn]

49 minutes ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

sharing GM duties amongst multiple smart football-minds could be an improvement over a single GM. It may improve accountability

 

I think you made a lot of good points above but I can't get on board with this. Its so counterintuitive to think this way that it comes off like you're doing homer mental gymnastics to look on the bright side.

[DC Lumber Co.]

15 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

I think you made a lot of good points above but I can't get on board with this. Its so counterintuitive to think this way that it comes off like you're doing homer mental gymnastics to look on the bright side.

 

I respect your opinion but what about it is so far-fetched? GMs are constantly getting fired and replaced left and right in the league, the great/good ones are almost as rare as franchise QBs. At the very least I think the approach is perfect for the draft. Instead of living and dying by the choices of one GM or HC w/roster control, our selections either are unanimous amongst the group or carefully debated until a choice is settled upon. The results were particularly great this year (at least on paper so far) during a time with so much uncertainty after the GMSM drama. Probably the most excited I've ever been about a draft class in all the years I've followed the team, at least since I've been alive. So there is (so far) one terrific example of the FO structure already producing positive results, which is why I proposed the idea that its possible the group could be better than a single GM, at least for this team/franchise.

 

I mean, if Bruce Allen isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and its widely accepted around here that scouting isnt Bruce's strong-suit (as it wasn't his background). Shouldn't it be seen as a positive that Bruce recognized that and absolved himself of having to make those decisions by a system of checks & balances via the current FO structure? That doesn't sound like an ego-driven person, it sounds like he's a smart businessman who recognizes his strengths and weaknesses, sticks to what he does best while surrounding himself with respected individuals who specialize in what he considers his weaknesses?

 

The whole point of this message board is discussion with the benefit of learning from from equally as passionate fans with different views, so I'd love to hear your take on it Conn.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

47 minutes ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

That doesn't sound like an ego-driven person, it sounds like he's a smart businessman who recognizes his strengths and weaknesses, sticks to what he does best while surrounding himself with respected individuals who specialize in what he considers his weaknesses?

I think this is where the line is drawn between your stance and those of us that are not happy with the current setup.

 

I feel it's important to get one of the most respected individuals in personnel to run that part of the operation.  Doug and the gang don't fit that criteria in my opinion.

 

While you make many valid points in relation to the good things Bruce has brought to the table, most of us know this stuff already.  I am capable of acknowledging that Bruce isn't all bad.  My issue is with personnel.  In fact, his handling of personnel is the only real issue I've had with the guy.  You make mention that you think the problems with Scott related to the 'group approach' and that was the true strife in the org.  I've felt that way all along as well, it makes the most sense.  I'm just not sure how you can acknowledge that and have no issue with Bruce at the same time.  

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

In no way did I intend to imply that I believe things are "slam dunk great". 

 

 

 

 You said here

Its a giant joke if you can't see that this team is in such a better place than it was 5-6 years ago. I seriously wonder what some fans are going to do when they can't moan about how awful things are. I suspect there are some Redskins name-change advocates that you could throw some complaint parties with...

 

I presume that's about the status quo of the FO with Bruce at the helm since that's what your post was about?  It's pretty dramatic language as to how you characterize any who disagrees with your position.   If so, it comes off to me like anyone who isn't on board with this FO arrangement is some type of malcontent because its plainly obvious that its good.  

 

2 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

Now with that being said, I mainly made the post to defend the current FO structure simply because I feel that until it proves to be a "disaster", I feel Bruce has earned the benefit of the doubt. Again, I feel the organization has been better off since his arrival, and get aggravated by those who jump to the conclusion so quickly that we are "the same old Redskins" because I don't understand how people could honestly feel that way. 

 

I don't think it will be a disaster.  I don't think this FO has really ever been a disaster.  It's had good years, its had bad years.  Under Dan, its been mostly mediocre.  Though I think avoiding disaster shouldn't be the bar. The Bruce part of this again to me is a side issue but to play along a little.  Bruce the GM has a larger sample than one year.  But I don't even care about the semantics of the Bruce GM record.  The point about Bruce the GM is simple -- he's not a traditional GM.  The typical front office's personnel department isn't run by a non-personnel guy. 

 

I think your feelings about the current state of the Redskins might be clouding your take on this specific point.  Hey I like the current state of the Redskins, too.  Many insiders have said that there are three legs to a successful franchise:  QB, HC, GM.   Assuming, they resign Kirk.  They finally have a franchise QB.  They finally have stability at HC.  That's not the same old Redskins.  But specific to the GM front, in my book (and plenty of NFL observers) its definitely same old same old Redskins.  Can the other two legs (QB and HC) overcome what I think is likely a mediocre FO operation.  Probably, yes.  If one of the other legs of this falls apart (like Kirk bolting), then, I doubt it.

2 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

The hatred towards Dan Snyder and assumptions that we are still a dysfunctional, poorly run NFL franchise is largely disrespectful and short-sighted to the good things Bruce Allen has done. I hate that people get so caught up in negative press that it overshadows so many good things. We are one of the toughest pro-sport markets and because of that, bad news or speculation gets talked about way more and overshadows any of the positive moves/decisions that the Redskins and Bruce do make.

 

 

Going through your post, you seem to be throwing the whole soup at this and going with a general state of the franchise.    I disagree with some of it. But regardless, I think most of it is extraneous.  I can go through transactions I've liked over the years, heck I can extol full off seasons.  But it doesn't change the fact that this operation has been hit and miss, mediocre IMO, including during Bruce's stint.  And I am if anything being a little generous.

 

I'll bring another example to help bring home the point.  We brought back the legendary Joe Gibbs.  I love the guy.  He arguably brought pride and leadership back.  He brought in arguably a good defensive coordinator and loaded up on talent on that side of the ball.  Gibbs personified class. This all represented a new direction for the franchise.   How dare anyone suggest otherwise or question that the team then wasn't leaps and bounds ahead of where it was previously?   Yep, I agreed with that sentiment.  Still do, on some fronts.  But there was one thing in that mix that was same old Redskins, the FO structure.  No one talked about the FO structure in glowing terms.  No one talked about Vinny in that way.  Gibbs was a legendary coach.  But a legendary GM?  Not really.   Same idea today with the current FO.  It's the same thing throughout most of Dan's tenure.   

 

Its hard to bottom line the operation.  And we see signs of it in this very thread.  You mock Scott a little with the "savior" comment in a previous post and then circle back in the next post and talk him up (without crediting him) drafting Doctson as a sign that the organization is doing things the smart way and showing foresight.   I am not bringing this up for a Bruce-Scot debate.  But to bring home, who is driving what in the FO? Who gets credit/blame?  It's confusing. People can cherry pick what they like and ignore what doesn't fit their beliefs.  So how are things bottom lined?

 

I am not a big Shanny guy but a lot of the culture changes in the FO you refer to were initially credited to him.  I am sure you recall he was the guy that used to steal draft picks from Vinny.    As for the money drill, in a 980 interview once someone was giving Bruce credit for contracts and Bruce laughed and said I don't mind taking credit but that department is handled by Eric Schaffer, he's the guy.   Then, others say Bruce is the key money guy since he has to sign off on the contracts.   We got Scott Campbell and Jay saying that Scot had a heavy imprint on the 2017 draft.   Doug Williams in a recent interview said heck the draft was all about Scott Campbell.    Now Campbell has some nebulous executive position. Is he running the drafts or just advising?  

 

Just think of some of the discussion on the thread.  Is it Bruce is it Shanny?  Was it Bruce or really Scot?  Was it Scot or really Scott?  You can shift credit or blame either way on many fronts.    Bruce like I said is really irrelevant to the point at hand but I've read some of the arguments here on his behalf.  And people cherry picked.  This counts.  But this doesn't count.  They had to create a special prism for their argument.  And I am not blaming anyone for it.  If anything to me it sums up the weird nature of the FO.

 

I don't think the typical FO is that confusing.  Lets take the Giants, people know Jerry Reese.  They sink and swim with his calls -- people know who the buck stops with for better or worse.   And again I like Bruce.  I like what he's done on some fronts on some of the money issues you've talked about and I've talked about, too.  But none of that changes the reality of how this FO is structured.

 

   

 

[DC Lumber Co.]

@Skinsinparadise I was moreso speaking on the team strictly since Allen was brought onboard, and focusing on the overall improvement under him regardless of who did what under him during that time (be it Shanny, Scot, whoever) because the positives and negatives of those hires don't happen without Bruce hiring them in the first place. I did this for the exact reason you mention, that its near impossible for us to know who deserves full credit or blame for anything due to the FO structure. Its why I have really stopped caring or trying to figure it out personally because no one outside the walls of Redskins park knows the truth. I just look at it and say we have gotten better since he took over, not going to concern myself with any of the details of why so long as the product on the field has improved, which it has. And that is the most important part of a GM/Team President to me. 

 

I do agree about the QB/HC/GM thing, so maybe I'm just hopeful that 2 out of the 3 will be enough. Now if Jay gets fired, Kirk leaves, and things start to implode, then I may look back retroactively and try to figure out the why and whos to blame. But for now all I know is that Bruce's arrival = change for the better.

 

Your post also makes me wonder if the main reason people dislike the FO structure is because it makes things ambiguous, and harder for people to identify a scapegoat to harp on. 

 

And the bit you quoted wasn't to bash anyone who disagreed with my position. It was moreso a shot to the sect of the fanbase who find the negative in everything the team does, and attempt to link everything back to Snyder's meddling or team dysfunction. Its a tired narrative to me, hell even members of the local media are guilty of it, thats all.

[goskins10]

I believe this whole thing comes down to people do not like Bruce as the GM, they are hung up on titles or both. Some of that comes the team not just calling it what it is. Make no mistake, I could care less what they want to call it, but Bruce Allen is doing the job of GM. So if you accept that then as I said to start it comes down to what kind of job has Bruce Allen done as GM.

 

It's a mixed bag to be sure so I can see how some are concerned about the team moving forward. Also, Bruce doesn't have anything in his background to suggest he is top level talent evaluator - although I personally think that people place too much on one person. The fact is that no GM does all the talent evaluation themselves. Side note: This is why I am glad to see they are hiring some additional scouts. 

 

To me there are four distinct stages for Bruce.

 

Stage 1 - The Shanny years --> Shanny was supposed to have final say. He said he did but then blamed Bruce and Dan for any personnel move that did not work out. I am sure not all he said was BS, but he has a history of being a lying ass snake. He was run out of Oakland and even Denver where he won 2 SBs - and not in friendly manner. On a positive note for Bruce he started getting the CAP in check. The days of crazy contracts for aging veterans are out. I do think he could loosen the wallet a little more but sometimes you have to make the hard decisions. For Bruce you have to give him no better or worse than a C - especially since it's hard to tell how much control he had.

 

Stage 2 - 2014 - in between Scot and Shanny - this is 100% Bruce in control - If you look at that draft and the offseason acquisitions they were not that bad. Did he get help from Scot in terms of talent evaluation? Who cares. He had to make the actual decisions. And if he smart enough to get help with his weakness that cannot be a bad thing. Also hired Jay Gruden. This was panned at first but Jay has done a pretty damn good job - something he does not get enough credit for. He is great at navigating Bruce and Dan while gaining the players trust. Not an easy thing to do. I give Bruce a B+

 

Stage 3 - The Scot years - again this is 100% on Bruce - I certainly liked the hire but he made a huge mistake announcing Scot as the GM. Scot was never anything more than a very high paid scout. Having said that, they seemed to go with Scot's approach to the draft and FA acquisitions. Some worked out and some did not. Have to look at this as team think: Jay, Bruce and Scot ( I think all had a hand here). - what they did good was put Kirk in as the starter and brought in some really great assistant coaches. The back end of the roster was built up as is evidenced by STs going from 32nd in 2013 and 29th in 2014, to 6th in 2015 and 14th in 2016 (thank you Hopkins missed FGs for the drop). What they did bad was virtually ignored the defense. A lot of journeymen were brought in without any playmakers. I know the roster was in bad shape when they got here but one playmaker on D last year would have put us in the playoffs. Overall if I give Bruce a grade here it's probably a C - not addressing the D in any meaningful way outside of Norman who fell to them keeps this from being anything better - despite some noticeable improvement to the roster.

 

Stage 4 - current - He had a pretty good draft. How much of that was Scot? Honestly I don't care. Bruce owned it once Scot was released. Having a board is one thing, executing on draft day is a whole other animal. Of course it's hard to tell so early but at first blush I think most would agree it was a pretty good haul. He brought in some additional good assistant coaches, Jim Tomsula and Torian Grey are the highlights. Firing Barry was needed. I still think much of his problem was lack of talent, but there is no way he should have let Perry Fewell screw things up in the secondary so poorly. After the season it came out Perry was a disaster. That's on Barry to not let that happen. Side note: This is one reason I look for Breeland to have a bounce back year. Signing Jay to extension is great. He could have been more aggressive at NT, but I am willing to wait and see how it actually looks before saying it was a bad mistake. But clearly how they approached it is at least questionable. Outside of NT I think they did a great job of bringing in some playmakers. This is contingent grade - If Kirk get's signed to a LTD I give him a solid B maybe B+. No LTD for Kirk and honestly I can't see it as anything more than a D-. An argument could be made it would be an F.

 

So overall if you just accept that Bruce is the GM, he has probably has a B- maybe a B overall assuming he gets Kirk signed. Very few GMs if any will get an A if you are being honest. They will make some mistakes. Again, no Kirk deal and that grade goes down significantly. D at best. July 17th just cannot get here fast enough.

[Skinsinparadise]

13 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

Your post also makes me wonder if the main reason people dislike the FO structure is because it makes things ambiguous, and harder for people to identify a scapegoat to harp on. 

 

And the bit you quoted wasn't to bash anyone who disagreed with my position. It was moreso a shot to the sect of the fanbase who find the negative in everything the team does, and attempt to link everything back to Snyder's meddling or team dysfunction. Its a tired narrative to me, hell even members of the local media are guilty of it, thats all.

 

I can't speak for everyone naturally.  But reading some of the critiques of this FO, I don't feel its guided by some spirit of finding the negative in whatever we can.  I get your point that some people are perpetually not satisfied.   But I wouldn't characterize the people leading the critique here to be in that group. 

 

 I don't think people's issue with the lack of a bottom line guy is not finding someone to blame.  It's again about having a normal FO structure that winning organizations typically have.   The GM IMO should be the top expert in the building of what they are actually in charge of which is personnel.  That's how it works in most organizations.  

 

 Lets take the draft.  OK we got Kyle Smith in charge of college scouting.  Scott Campbell has the old free for all position that Doug had.  Doug's position seems to be an elevated free for all guy who is under Bruce.  Bruce makes the final call.   So lets say the draft doesn't pan out or does.  Who is the organization going to look at to judge moving forward?    Is it Bruce because he had final say?  Doug because he was the guy digesting the info just below him?  Scott Campbell because he's the senior expert in the building in college scouting?  Kyle because he was in charge of college scouting?  Or the regional scouts making recommendations to him?

 

Typically, who gets credit and whose to blame is the GM.  And its justified.  The GM understands every function in the building and they can listen to regional scouts and the college football personnel guy and weigh in with their own acumen and filter that information versus just take it carte blanche or weigh in with a lesser perspective of expertise.  This operation is like having a bunch sous chefs and the head chef isn't a cook.  Yeah the head chef can do their best to sort through everything but its odd to have a head chef whose expertise isn't about cooking but other parts of the kitchen.  

 

If the sous chef is the best cook in the house than IMO just make them the head chef.   If Scott Campbell is the best evaluator in the building or Kyle Smith then they should be the guys in charge.    Bruce as President is perfectly positioned IMO.  He's quick on his feet.  He's good with money issues.   Good with PR.  The press made fun of him plugging their charity organization but I think its cool what the Redskins are doing to help in the community.    His background is business marketing not personnel or scouting. 

 

As for the blame game, its not about IMO fans having targets to credit or blame.  But for the team to measure progress.  Lets take Doug's position since a big deal was made out about his promotion.  By his own admission, he's not the guy dictating the draft or involved with contracts or even having final say.  So how do you evaluate that?  I think its hard.  How to you judge Bruce?  Yeah, this draft was good or not good but it wasn't him doing the work on it.  It reminds me some of when Shanny arrived and people questioned why we kept Scott Campbell and he said he had some good picks but he wasn't listened to.   When you don't have a personnel guy in charge they don't have an out like that.  

 

Scot gets his hands dirty with everything.  And I gather that's the role of a typical GM.  He goes and scouts players personally. He interviews players and college coaches, etc.   He scouts his own team in practice.  If your GM, isn't about that stuff then basically IMO you are short handed and missing the main component of any boss which is the expertise to synchronize everything and weigh in their own expertise in a heavy handed way.  If all of that was unimportant, then teams should stop making a big deal about the expertise of their GM.  Instead they should talk about their personnel directors and scouts.    But they don't.  And there is a clear reason for that. 

[Skinsinparadise]

13 hours ago, goskins10 said:

I believe this whole thing comes down to people do not like Bruce as the GM, they are hung up on titles or both. Some of that comes the team not just calling it what it is.

 

Sub and I are probably the two strongest critics of this structure on this thread.  And as far as I recall neither of our points center as not liking Bruce as the GM (in terms of this being centered on him) or being hung up on titles.   It's about ANY non-personnel guy running personnel.  It could be Bruce it could be Big Bird.  Bruce just happens to be the guy in play for the moment. But its not about him personally.  It's about setting up a winning structure.  I've given plenty of analogies and examples as to why.

13 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

Bruce doesn't have anything in his background to suggest he is top level talent evaluator - although I personally think that people place too much on one person. The fact is that no GM does all the talent evaluation themselves. Side note: This is why I am glad to see they are hiring some additional scouts. 

 

That point pertains more to Doug since he's in the evaluation side of the equation.  With Bruce, he's not an evaluator and in his defense as far as I've noticed he doesn't pretend to be one.   I gather his argument is you don't have to be an evaluator to sift through OTHER people's evaluations.

 

13 hours ago, goskins10 said:

The Scot years - again this is 100% on Bruce - I certainly liked the hire but he made a huge mistake announcing Scot as the GM. Scot was never anything more than a very high paid scout. Having said that, they seemed to go with Scot's approach to the draft and FA acquisitions. Some worked out and some did not. Have to look at this as team think: Jay, Bruce and Scot ( I think all had a hand here). - what they did good was put Kirk in as the starter and brought in some really great assistant coaches.

 

  Good points here.  This to me is the biggest disappointment.  I think Jay, Bruce, Scot were a great combination.  They all brought different skills to the party.  Clearly, Jay and Scot in particular had really good chemistry.  When they let Scot go I was hoping they'd bring someone else to the party to replace Scot's skills.

13 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

Stage 4 - current - He had a pretty good draft. How much of that was Scot? Honestly I don't care. 

 

I do care but not in the form of who gets credit.   Scot was all over the personnel. He'd get his hands dirty right there with the scouts and everyone else.  Kyle Smith and Jay for example both have talked about how they learned from Scot.  That makes sense.  I'd expect that the underlings would learn from the head personnel guy (the GM) who would help teach the employees working under him and synchronize all the scouting info compiled from different sources.    

 

So the team having a more normal operation like that for most of the time leading to FA and the draft while acting like since that operation stopped a week or so before FA began and 7 weeks before the draft as proof that it could work that way for perpetuity -- I don't see how that adds up.   Lets see that atypical operation work where its 100% that way for the full duration of an off season versus what we just saw where it was like 5% that way and 95% the typical way that most teams function.

 

13 hours ago, goskins10 said:

no Kirk deal and that grade goes down significantly. D at best. July 17th just cannot get here fast enough.

 

I'm with you here.  And again my whole thing isn't to critique Bruce as an individual but the FO structure.   Kirk to me is more than never the sink and swim guy to this operation.  I don't think this FO operation will be among the elite in the league.    I think you can overcome that with a franchise QB.  I don't think you can without it.  I hope I am wrong but I think this team will implode 2009 style in 2018 if Kirk is gone.   And this FO structure blows up.  If Kirk stays we coast by with it.

[TSO]

We acknowledge at this point that Bruce is the de facto GM and has final say on personnel. I don't think anyone is disputing this so I'm not sure why that's important to talk about. 

 

And titles definitely are important. They shouldn't be meaningless or vague. They should accurately represent what one does within the organization and clearly define their roles. 

 

Furthermore, it's amazing just how many times "final say", and what it actually means based on basic organizational principles, has been clearly defined here yet there are still posts and posters who keep directly implying that it somehow means it's a "one-man show" or something like it. Even by the team itself, which just blows my mind. 

 

When Gibbs, Scot and Shanny were said to have "final say", all repeatedly asserted that every decision was a "Redskin decision". They all pointed towards those within the building who were involved. "Final say" DOES NOT CHANGE THAT. 

 

For the love of God, if I read one more time about the pros of a collaborative approach versus the cons of "final say", I'm going to pull my hair out! FINAL SAY DOES NOT NEGATE A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH!!!!! 

 

Every single person here should want the best personnel guy to have final say on personnel. Just like the best coach should have the Head Coach title and have final say on scheme, game-planning, depth chart, coaching, etc... It's that friggin simple.  

 

They don't ignore everyone else. They don't just make decisions on their own. They don't do everything themselves and refuse to delegate. 

 

If you're claiming that Bruce has final say but that it's ok because he will delegate to the experts, then why aren't you concerned he just won't give that authority to someone officially? How does that make sense? If you're trusting someone to do that, all the while he refuses to do it officially and openly... well, I'll just say you're way more trusting than you should be

 

Are we ok, for instance, with Bruce being the "de facto Head Coach", not giving anyone that title, but just saying something like, "oh, no worries, he'll delegate properly and those decisions will be made by the right people"?

 

So, yeah, the title given to the head personnel guy should include final say in personnel. As @Skinsinparadise just mentioned and as we've repeatedly mentioned a million times, it allows for clear accountability, clarity in decision-making and roles within the organization, experts of their specific fields handling those respective responsibilities, a process that makes it much more difficult for anyone to undermine said responsibilities and unwarrantedly interfere, and the greatest motivator one could have - direct ownership of your decisions. 

 

So that's just it, isn't it? That's our concern with this setup. Avoiding giving the best personnel guy a title that represents his expertise and final say in that suggests a lack of all of the above. Are there people at the top who want to undermine others whenever without any obstacles in organizational structure? Are there people at the top who do not want clear accountability so they can shift blame as they please? Are there people at the top who don't want the expert/s making those decisions so as to avoid confrontations if they disagree? Are there people at the top who don't want anyone to have real ownership of their decisions because, in the end, they want the credit? 

 

Those are all legitimate questions and concerns to have with this setup. Period. This is why it's unorthodox and rare. This is why most successful organizations don't employ such a setup. This is why we are bothered by it. To claim any of us who are bothered are just negative nancies or can't see anything Bruce has done that is good is nothing more than a deflection of the issue. 

 

Does this mean it's guaranteed to

fail? Nope. Just that it's more likely to. It's also more likely to result in mediocrity instead of excellence, which is something they should be striving for. It also creates an inherent obstacle for those within the organization who are actually good at what they do to overcome, versus just being supported in the best way and elevated by their environment. 

 

So, yeah, skepticism and concern while acknowledging the apparent issues here are not only legitimate, but healthy. They do not suggest negativism. In fact, it's the opposite. I am, for instance, very pleased with some very important role players within the organization like Jay, Kirk and Schaffer. I don't know much about Doug's ability as a personnel guy or what he's done here, but I certainly don't want to see him fail. I don't want to see Bruce fail, either. I want them to be propped up. I want them placed in an environment entirely conducive to their success. I want them to be surrounded by the best and in the best way. I want them to be able to operate within their relative areas of expertise, have ownership of that without fear of ever being undermined or confused about where they stand, and not be put in a position to where they're making decisions they shouldn't be. 

 

I am worried, concerned, and bothered FOR them and not against them! 

[I Love The Skins]

On 6/24/2017 at 3:05 AM, DC Lumber Co. said:

Its a giant joke if you can't see that this team is in such a better place than it was 5-6 years ago. I seriously wonder what some fans are going to do when they can't moan about how awful things are.

 ITA with this.

[Conn]

On 6/25/2017 at 9:06 PM, DC Lumber Co. said:

so I'd love to hear your take on it Conn.

 

It really just boils down to a disagreement over one part of your argument--I can see the merit in almost everything you say in support of the possible success of the current structure. I don't think it will succeed, mind you. Its not the structure I want, and I don't agree with you or your arguments, to be clear. But I can see the optimism you have and I think a lot of it is rational. I can see why you think it could work even if I don't think its likely, and even if I think its a lot of wishful thinking and justifications. But most of it is understandable. 

 

But where I disagree vehemently is where you say that having no one with "final say" is a good thing. Logically, for me, that just doesn't follow, in any type of organization. You actually argue that it could help accountability. That's wild to me. Confusing/meaningless titles, overlapping job responsibilities, and unclear leadership will always make assigning blame and enforcing accountability difficult. In any business, not just sports. You talk about checks and balances and teamwork/collaboration/brainstorming in the decision-making part of the FO as if that isn't compatible with having one person in charge as the tie-breaker/decision-maker. As tso explains thoroughly above (and my post is shorter mostly because he covered it all in the time it took me to find time to respond to your post), this isn't' the case. You need someone responsible and outwardly accountable for decisions even if they're made as a group--and you need that tie-breaker, at the least. Its still a group effort, but you can't obfuscate whose "fault" things are if they don't work out when there is someone who has final say. That's why almost every single organization outright admits who this is. Its normal, and its healthy in an organization.

 

Now obviously we know that Bruce Allen is this guy. But the fact that he won't just take that responsibility on his shoulders for the world to see is troublesome because it says he's not willing to be held personally accountable in the way that other decision-makers around the league are when decisions made on their watch don't work out. That's bad. Its a bad environment to foster within the building when your final decision maker has the ability to throw any of his underlings under the bus and everyone knows that. Its not bad now, because they're in the honeymoon phase, they've bonded in the building over the McCloughan outrage outside the building, and they're over the moon with their offseason. That's great, but things rarely stay so stable for long when it comes to our Redskins, and that's when an unproven and unconventional FO structure can rear its ugly head--when the media and fans are looking for someone to blame in week 9 and everyone in the building is covering their own ass without a company line to tow in terms of who is the leader. 

 

The final nail in the coffin, for me, on the possibility of letting this all play out and giving Allen and co. the benefit of the doubt on the title shifting, the lack of transparency in the decision-making, and all that came like one single day after they announced the new structure. I was pissed about it to begin with but I will never be able to talk myself into giving them the benefit of the doubt on this (like some fans) because of two separate, but revealing, quotes:

 

1. From Doug Williams:

On possible disagreements:

WILLIAMS: “Well, first of all the most important disagreement, I hope we don’t have any, would probably be between Jay and myself on players. But, at the end of the day, if there is a disagreement, and there’s a wide disagreement, we need to leave that player alone. But, if there’s a disagreement about this wide, we need to work it out to find out more about that player.”

 

This is insane. There is no plan in place if Gruden and the head of personnel disagree strongly on a player. There's no one to break the tie officially, or no one willing to admit they will break the tie, and take responsibility for it. That's dangerous. Imagine if McCloughan hadn't stood on the table for Crowder and taken him against Gruden's wishes, back when Scot had more pull in the organization near the beginning of his tenure. Now obviously not all contentious players will work out as well as Crowder did but you need someone in place to make that call, and then answer for that call. Not just to say "welp, we can't agree on this player so he's off the board". 

 

2. From Bruce Allen

On if Williams is third in command on the football side:

ALLEN: “Well, the most important person is the person with the football at that time. We’re a football team.”

 

You read that correctly. That was his answer. This is also insane. This is clearly obfuscation. Its avoiding the question and its implications, and its empty words. That's not great. He says in answers to other questions that Doug and Jay will both have "influence", and that he will be involved as well. That decisions will be "Redskins decisions". That's not how competent teams operate, period. But that's been explained thoroughly as well, so I won't go into it again.

 

So, that's my reasoning. I appreciate your interest in what I have to say about it and I agree, ES is a place where we all look for intelligent disagreement and discussion. So while I disagree with you on this, I can see the merit of other parts of your argument even if I think you're wrong there too. 

 

 

[SkinsPassion4Life]

This is the best roster We've had since 1991.

[DC Lumber Co.]

@ConnSKINS26

 

Interesting take. In this case I think we've both made strong points on our stances and will agree to disagree

 

I will say that I just think it's a matter of making way too much ado about nothing.

 

Bruce Allen is simply a politician. It certainly seems to chap a lot of asses around here but I really could care less. No different to me than the responses given by Belicheck to the media in NE, constantly dancing around questions and deflecting. Belicheck isn't immune to bad draft picks or player acquisitions and even gets his fair share of criticisms for blunders with all the cheating stuff. He just gets to rest on his laurels with Tommy boy and all their hardware they have to show for it. 

 

Also just because he won't admit to the media about his final say does not mean that there is any doubt within the org that he does in fact have final say. I also think that with the amount of work that goes into setting up draft boards, that concerning ourselves with scenarios that rarely even happen like needing a tie breaker picking between a player is pretty trivial. If it's Bruce writing the name down, the coaches that are arguing pulling straws, or Doug Williams flipping a coin, does it really matter?

 

Our soft-society where social media has transformed people into thinking we are entitled to know everything going on, to the point where we demand complete transparency from everyone and every business... The harsh truth is that the Redskins or any other business aren't required to reveal the truth about their inner-workings. I actually like the attitude of the Redskins being so seemingly solid behind closed doors at Redskins park that they don't give a damn about public perception or pissing a few people off. Whereas previous regimes would have crumbled under the media pressure surrounding Scots firing, they didn't even care to issue more than one statement on it and proceeded to go out and kill the draft. That seems like a pretty unified FO to me. And I hate to break it to you but displacing blame and finger pointing happens at the top of many organizations, way more than you are leading on. Until the product on the field suffers, I'm afraid the end justifies the means in this scenario. 

 

I'm fine with the structure as long as it's working more often than its not. This isn't an issue until we start losing. And all this speculation will quickly be put deep into the backburner if we have a playoff season. Because winning is king. I'm not gonna cry when Bruce magically starts taking credit for a NFC Championship banner either. I'll just laugh over the stir it will surely make in the media and enjoy another beer. 

[Morneblade]

On 6/25/2017 at 2:44 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

Edit:  I just caught Morneblade's Bruce stuff, I am gathering your post is directed his way even though you didn't highlight his post.   Regardless, what got my attention is if we aren't satisfied with what we got now in the FO we will moan and groan about just anything.  It implies that things right now are slam dunk great so who would challenge that. And IMO that's way over the top.

 

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. I don't know what you're implying what I said, but if anything, it seems to be the complete opposite of what I did actually say.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

4 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. I don't know what you're implying what I said, but if anything, it seems to be the complete opposite of what I did actually say.

 

 

I was responding to a post where someone (I am not going to repeat whom because I don't feel like reengaging in that debate) posted about Bruce Allen and what was so bad under his tenure, etc.  I responded by saying that post was off topic because we are attacking the FO structure not so much Bruce.   But then I noticed a post from you which was more pointed at Bruce so I told the poster OK I get it, its on topic if he's referring to your specific post since it was directed at Bruce.

 

I didn't take a position on your position on Bruce so not sure how I said the opposite of what you said?  I just noticed oh ok he's probably talking to you since you were referring more directly to Bruce.  The point of confusion for me is that person was responding to a post without referring to who they were responding to.  I thought it was me but then on 2nd read his post was more directed to your point not mine.

 

If you think what I meant is the complete opposite of what you actually said than you are saying you didn't refer to Bruce in your post and if you did you'd only have positive things to say about him.   But I didn't really get into what you said at all.  I just said that reading that person's post again, it seemed directed more to the point you were making, not the one I am making.