Press Release: #REDSKINS PROMOTE DOUG WILLIAMS TO SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF PLAYER PERSONNEL

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

Chris Russelll surprisingly likes this move lol...

 

https://www.dchotread.com/2017/06/14/changes-or-status-quo

 

 

 

Yeah I've mentioned Russell for days on these threads on Doug.  I talked about my debate with him on twitter about it, too.  And, I saw that article last night.

 

I'll give Russell this.  He relishes being the contrarian and coming on strong.  And, among the people liking the move he's put the most meat behind it.  The next one would be Casserly.  Outside of them, its been mostly about Doug being a great guy and he deserves it.  

 

But like I've said previously about Russell he oddly takes digs amidst the praise on the radio.  He's hit the work ethic stuff on the radio and doubles back into it here and defends him by saying would he be hired if it were true?  You got me.  But I think its weird that Russell has to keep defending his work ethic since I haven't notice anyone assailing it.   

 

On the radio Russell admits that he heard Doug isn't that highly regarded as a personnel guy in the building but people love him regardless and Russell goes that's the bottom line.  He's good for morale.  He's the guy who rallied people when Scot, left etc.  In the article he deals with the maybe he's is not a hot personnel guy drill but countered with something he hasn't said on air and that he's gotten better.  So I am gathering someone recently fed him that.   Russell goes he has gotten better as a radio guy as he's gotten older and haven't we all improved in our respective jobs?  So doesn't that logic extend to Doug?  

 

Running with Russell's argument he's more or less saying Doug is a work in progress and on the rise.  This is the bigger better stronger version of Doug.  Maybe he wasn't so hot in Tampa maybe not even here when he arrived.  But watch him go now.   To me this is Russell is spending a lot of energy to acknowledge the criticism on Doug is warranted.  His defense is get over it.  It was once true but now its old news. 

 

But like I said earlier on the thread, I could get into the concept of Doug being an up and comer and let him grow into the position if the dude wasn't already in his 60s. 

 

Russell made a similar argument on the air about Kyle Smith.  Now, that got me jazzed because the dude is young.  My big thing for any personnel guy is the draft. IMO its the lifeblood of the team.  So, Russell burying in his article that college scouting might not be Doug's thing -- that would be a deal breaker for me if I were doing the interviews.  But to each their own.

 

Speaking of that, you skipped that part in your post.  So for those interested here it is:

One area of evaluation that Williams might not be great at is the college scouting side. It is different than evaluating established pro talent. Williams has been working for years, both at Grambling (as a head coach) and other stops in the NFL at this part of the job. 

Clearly, nobody should think that he is as good as Scot McCloughan is in this area and the Redskins had to take a big swing at the fences to improve this area, considering what they lost. 

[TSO]

It's no wonder Russell's article is all for this. It's filled with more straw men than a million-acre farm. My God. 

 

First, everyone understood Allen had "ultimate power". We simply took him at his word when he said Scot had "final say over personnel". I know this is crazy, but one can have ultimate power and delegate to others ultimate power in one aspect or another. It's kind of how organizations work. Crazy stuff, Russell. 

 

Second, the Redskins aren't being criticized for promoting from within. Or, at least, that's far down the list in terms of criticisms. In fact, in my personal opinion, that's probably the only positive in this entire thing. At least those within the building can now have legit examples for their aspirations to progress their careers here. 

 

The problem is whom they promoted (a guy who has a resumé that's severely lacking in the area he is supposed to be running), how they went about the hiring process (totally unorthodox when compared to the rest of the NFL, and even recently with the Bills and Colts going through the same thing), and the titles/roles being as convoluted as ever (something this organization has done nothing but fail with in the past, and is also different than the vast majority of successful franchises in the NFL). 

 

But, yeah, Russell... forgive us for struggling to simply trust you that Doug has gotten better from his Tampa days as a talent evaluator and trust Allen/Snyder's wonderful hiring process that they've been proven extremely adept at over the years! Mmmhhmmmmm. 

 

Anyway, I hope he's right in the end. But his arguments here are trash and really don't address the actual issues most of us have here. 

 

Oh, and I'm sure he'll be the first to jump on this organization (as well as the way it's setup) as soon as something goes wrong as if he never wrote this article. You know, because that's what he friggin does EVERY TIME. 

[Skinsinparadise]

29 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

It's no wonder Russell's article is all for this. It's filled with more straw men than a million-acre farm. My God. 

 

 

I like Russell but the article is a weird meandering attempt to complement someone.   In the soup you got:

 

A.  Being defensive about Doug's work ethic.  I gather someone is assailing it but I haven't noticed whom.  He did that on air too talking about how he's heard he has questionable work ethic from some but he's not sure its true.   I am not sure who Russell is debating on this but clearly he feels he has to defend Doug's work ethic.

 

B. He basically admits Doug wasn't anything special at his job in Tampa or here.  But now he's found his passion.  The dude is soon to be 62 not 22.  It's strange ride IMO Russell takes us here.  Again, he clearly feels compelled to accede that maybe Doug wasn't that great but forget that watch him now. Imagine in an interview going look yeah I might not have been great at that job and maybe not even in this job too but I've really found my passion of late and picked it up.

 

C. Suggesting he's not that great at college scouting.  To me its like hiring a chef at an Italian kitchen and saying the dude struggles with pasta.  But is that really important?  Yeah IMO its the core of good Italian cooking.  Not being great at college scouting isn't some side bar thing to gloss over.   

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Yanno, you guys could have just said "'The hell?" like I did and saved yourselves some typing lol...

[TSO]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

Yanno, you guys could have just said "'The hell?" like I did and saved yourselves some typing lol...

 

Lol, us? Save typing!?  

 

On a side note, I'll never get that criticism. As long as it's well-written I prefer long posts over the short ones that usually add nothing besides redundancy to the board. 

 

 What are we on? Twitter!? If that's what someone is looking for go there. This place should be all about putting down thoughts that are nuanced, well-defined and well-articulated.  

[Commander -JB-]

Folks continue to argue whether this guy or that guy is right for the job, yada yada yada... blah blah blah.  Dan Snyder is the guy who owns the team.  Is he not? What else matters?  The guy realizes that the Redskins had some epic moments many many moons ago and just continues to ride the nostalgia wave while blind fans contInue to devour turd pie after turd pie that this guy hurls like 4 seam Nolan Ryan lasers and we are the idiots in the dunk tank as his lasers nail the target every single time he decides he wants to re up and hurl more doo doo pies.  Just a pathetic organization.  Pathetic.  And I love them just like you ? 

[TSO]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

C. Suggesting he's not that great at college scouting.  To me its like hiring a chef at an Italian kitchen and saying the dude struggles with pasta.  But is that really important?  Yeah IMO its the core of good Italian cooking.  Not being great at college scouting isn't some side bar thing to gloss over.   

 

I didn't even see that part. He actually said that?  

 

Our lead guy on personnel isn't great at college scouting. No biggie! 

 

Just shoot me. 

[bedlamVR]

7 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

I didn't even see that part. He actually said that?  

 

Our lead guy on personnel isn't great at college scouting. No biggie! 

 

Just shoot me. 

 

Well actually it is no biggie - Not really as long as he is aware of those limitations and can work with others and listen to others who are good at scouting college. What would be a ****storm would be if Doug was bad at scouting and ignored the scouts because he thought he was some kind of Savant (thats not a dig at Scot by the way). 

 

College scouting is not the be all and end all of all duties of the top guy. The guy we had here last time was hot on college scouting but struggled in pro personnel evaluation and handling criticism. 

 

But the general impression is the team liked the things Scott Mcgloughlan did and would like to stay on that track - but oh no the fanbase knows better and what trumps everything is having some hotshot personnel guy who absolutely MUST have the title of GM and to hell with all the other requirements of the team. It is - blinkered - at best. 

 

The other criticism I am not sure I understand is that Doug is apparently incapable of getting better at a job mostly because of his age - If he was going to get better he would be better by now, it's almost like this is not his first career ... or something ... 

[Skinsinparadise]

6 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

Well actually it is no biggie - Not really as long as he is aware of those limitations and can work with others and listen to others who are good at scouting college. What would be a ****storm would be if Doug was bad at scouting and ignored the scouts because he thought he was some kind of Savant (thats not a dig at Scot by the way). 

 

College scouting is not the be all and end all of all duties of the top guy. The guy we had here last time was hot on college scouting but struggled in pro personnel evaluation and handling criticism. 

 

But the general impression is the team liked the things Scott Mcgloughlan did and would like to stay on that track - but oh no the fanbase knows better and what trumps everything is having some hotshot personnel guy who absolutely MUST have the title of GM and to hell with all the other requirements of the team. It is - blinkered - at best. 

 

The other criticism I am not sure I understand is that Doug is apparently incapable of getting better at a job mostly because of his age - If he was going to get better he would be better by now, it's almost like this is not his first career ... or something ... 

 

I'd run with the idea that Danny knows better than us (or more importantly most of the owners in the league) about how to set up a winning FO if we didn't have almost a 20 year sample size from him on the subject with other dances of this kind.  The idea that the Redskins operation is a step ahead of the league, they do it different but do it better is actually a common joke among the guys who cover the team.  Even a beat reporter who likes Doug joked on air the other day about it, saying well he likes Doug but he totally understands the skepticism considering the track record here.   

 

Scot's last name is McCloughan.   When I read accounts of the top personnel guy hired by other teams -- college scouting tends to be their actual niche.  If its not the be all and end all, wonder what is for that role?  It's not that Doug is a money guy either.  So I gather its about overseeing Santos I presume with pro-scouting.  No one said that someone in his 60s can't get better at their job.  What was said is its odd to hire someone at that age on the premise of them being a work in progress or finally hitting their stride and getting passionate about it (which was somewhat Russell's contention).  That's usually a description of a young up and comer.   Lets take the emotion out about Doug and use that same analogy with a head coach.  We hire a 62 year old head coach, is the fan base excited about a guy who is described as someone who wasn't per se hot at their job but are really coming into their own now at 62?  To each their own but that doesn't get me jazzed. 

[Conn]

Watching the mental gymnastics people are being led through by Russell on this is kind of depressing. The moment the fan consensus ever supported Doug Williams in this role he'd start publishing the opposite POV to get those clicks, and with the same patronizing tone as if he'd been in the right all along. He's not a journalist, he's a controversy profiteer, and some of you are letting him lead you around by the nose or letting him outrage you. Either gets him where he wants to go, so he doesn't care.

[Cliffmark1]

Heard doug on tv today. He was my favorite player for a while, but man it doesn't seem like can honestly evaluate the team. More like a super yes man. 

[bedlamVR]

4 hours ago, Cliffmark1 said:

Heard doug on tv today. He was my favorite player for a while, but man it doesn't seem like can honestly evaluate the team. More like a super yes man. 

 

 

One thing you have to say ... The Doug has put in his time ... 

 

he has been a collage coach an NFL college scout a college co ordinator and head coach - He has mentored NFL players, clearly he played at the NFL level and he has been an NFL executive his life has been football ... but yeah **** all that ... just listen to him on TV ...  the guy clearly knows nothing   and is there just to agree with Bruce - who equally knows nothing about football ... hell they are all clearly in it for the babes and booze who gives a **** ? 

 

I mean people COULD see how this pans out ... but it is way easier to assume the worse ...I mean he has been in the job since ( Tuesday ?) and we clearly haven't won a Super Bowl yet so he is clearly a mistake .... 

[bowhunter]

34 minutes ago, bedlamVR said:

 

 

 

I mean people COULD see how this pans out ... but it is way easier to assume the worse ...I mean he has been in the job since ( Tuesday ?) and we clearly haven't won a Super Bowl yet so he is clearly a mistake .... 

True, I guess we COULD also give Darrel Green a chance to be our starting center and assume it's for the best. Noone should even dare think he's not the best person for the job. Give him a chance, what's the worst that could happen? Me personally, I'd prefer to have a more sound methodology in place.

[ExoDus84]

51 minutes ago, bedlamVR said:

he has been a collage coach an NFL collage scout a collage ordinator and head coach - He has mentored NFL players, clearly he played at the NFL level and he has been an NFL executive his life has been football ...

 

I bet he's got tons of these around his house...

 

[MartinC]

21 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Lol, us? Save typing!?  

 

On a side note, I'll never get that criticism. As long as it's well-written I prefer long posts over the short ones that usually add nothing besides redundancy to the board. 

 

 What are we on? Twitter!? If that's what someone is looking for go there. This place should be all about putting down thoughts that are nuanced, well-defined and well-articulated.  

 

You must be new around here ...

 

Or actually old now I come to think of it.

[Skinsinparadise]

Doug speaking a little on the roster, Kirk for those interested

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap3000000815885/Doug-Williams-Redskins-want-to-sign-Kirk-Cousins-to-long-term-deal-in-the-worst-way

[RWJ]

Next year's draft will prove the Skins worth (Personnel moves) , IMO.  I have to think that Scot's fingerprints are all over this year's draft but that's JMO.

[Skinsinparadise]

6 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

I mean people COULD see how this pans out ... but it is way easier to assume the worse ...I mean he has been in the job since ( Tuesday ?) and we clearly haven't won a Super Bowl yet so he is clearly a mistake .... 

 

IMO you are missing the point that some are making.  As far as I can tell, no one here dislikes Doug.   We like Doug.  Heck if I ran into Doug one day, it would be ultra cool.  I recall the 1987 season well.  Great story.   And the dude oozes class.   So I think we are all rooting hard for Doug.  

 

This is all about a common process with this team as to the FO for years until they hired Scot.  That is, this team oddly hasn't had a highly regarded personnel guy calling the shots during that span.  That's unusual.   That happens to coincide with the team for the most part being the doormat of the NFC East.  People could malign what Scot did here (I disagree with that but regardless it is extraneous to the point) but no one could argue he didn't have a big reputation before he got here.

 

Doug has a big reputation as a player and is a legend with this franchise and its well deserved.   But no one talks up Doug as among the best personnel guys in the league.  Even some of the guys like Russell who promote him, seem to acknowledge the dude has major weaknesses for this job.   But there is no anger directed Doug's way.  The dude is one of the more lovable Redskins of all time.   The anger is directed at the FO for the umpteenth time not doing what most of the better franchises do and that is hire someone with a big rep for player evaluation.

 

Your point seems to be perhaps we are underestimating Doug and judging him before the fact.  I get the point.  But its really not relevant.   That isn't about whether Doug will enjoy success or not.  He might end up the greatest personnel guy of all time.  Anything is possible.  It's about the fact that no one ever talked about the dude being among the greats at personnel.  And the idea of just trust this FO maybe it might look to us off but how are we to know?  I'd agree if we didn't see variations of this for years.  And yeah its possible this time they got it right.   But as Chris Russell said in his own defense of Doug -- the Redskins have not earned the benefit of the doubt.  So some of us aren't giving them the benefit of the doubt.  

 

The funny thing is I like all the players in the FO if they stay in their lane.  Bruce is sharp with contracts/negotiations.  Changing the Vinny lets overpay culture.  He can get the stadium, etc.  Scott Campbell seems decent at college scouting.  Schaffer by most accounts is a financial/cap genius.  Doug is a likable motivator with experience.   I like Jay and I hear is has a good feel for college players.  So what's the problem?  To me the problem is a good GM synchronizes all of this and hopefully is competent on all fronts so people trust their final say.  I just don't see how Doug or Bruce should be that guy?    It's weird IMO.  Bruce isn't a personnel guy.  And even Doug's advocates don't even say that he is the best evaluator in that building.   And I was hoping as Bruce suggested weeks back that they would add a personnel guy from outside the building to help things.  I gather they changed their mind. 

 

I'll talk up another legend.  Joe Gibbs.  I love the dude.  My favorite Redskin of all time.  Did I like him being the final say on personnel?  Heck no.  Yes, like Doug he's a legend.  Yes, he's been around the game.  But no one talked up Gibbs as a a stud personnel guy.  That wasn't his expertise lane.  And I loved Gibbs the HC but didn't love Gibbs the personnel guy.   Mike Shanahan.  Almost same story as Gibbs.   In fact when Denver fired him I read a story about how the HC Shanny didn't get fired it was really the GM Shanny who got canned.  But we hired him to run personnel anyway. 

 

We had one of the hot shot up and coming personnel guys in the building (and no he wasn't much of a secret back then) in John Schneider who was brought in by Marty and they replaced him with Vinny.  I can go on.  But that's why they don't earn the benefit of the doubt from some of us.  And its not about any beef towards Doug. Doug is clearly a great guy -- we all wish him success.     I wished Gibbs and Shanny success, too.  But the process feels familiar.   And not a good version of familiar.

[JWB]

2 hours ago, RWJ said:

Next year's draft will prove the Skins worth (Personnel moves) , IMO.  I have to think that Scot's fingerprints are all over this year's draft but that's JMO.

Based on what? Scot was too afraid to draft Leonard Williams who also had an injury history similar to J Allen. I think McC gets too much credit around here for not much product.

[RWJ]

36 minutes ago, JWB said:

Based on what? Scot was too afraid to draft Leonard Williams who also had an injury history similar to J Allen. I think McC gets too much credit around here for not much product.

Let's see how next year's draft selections go in the draft.  Simply stated in my above post.

[JWB]

Hey, fair enough. I'm willing to give the current staff a pass this year but of course alot of it depends on what happens over the next three weeks..

[RWJ]

If KC is going to be a Redskins on a LTD it's really up to Dan Snyder, IMO.  If he wants KC here, then it happens.  Again, JMO, JWB.

[bedlamVR]

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

This is all about a common process with this team as to the FO for years until they hired Scot.  That is, this team oddly hasn't had a highly regarded personnel guy calling the shots during that span.  That's unusual.   That happens to coincide with the team for the most part being the doormat of the NFC East.  People could malign what Scot did here (I disagree with that but regardless it is extraneous to the point) but no one could argue he didn't have a big reputation before he got here.

 

 

 

Here is the thing - it is all about what you attribute the problems too in the early Dan Snyder years. You might want to attribute it to lack or disregard of talent and talent evaluation - but my take on it is different. What scuppered the Snyder teams was going from Norv Turner Team, to Marty Shottenhiemer, to Steve Spurrier, to Joe Gibbs (and changing direction mid-stream in the Gibbs eara from Gibbs offense to Al Saunders), to Jim Zorn to the Shanahans and eventually to Jay Gruden - Each time we lurched from one philosophy to another real roster churn promising talent went undeveloped as each minute we seemed to change tack to change to different tunes . 

 

Interestingly since the line of responsibility has been direct to Bruce Allen (2014) there has been an emphasis on improving evaluation - they went to Scots scouting service in 2014 I don't think they are done in terms of adding staff (with promotions there should be in filling lower positions and it is not JUST Doug with the promotion) they brought in Scot in 2015 -16  (and yes he did have a good reputation -but he was not without red flags and there were some legitimate questions about his successes as GM/Evaluation with the 49ers and Seattle pre Carrol) ... and while I possibly take Bruce at face value too much when he says we did talk to other people - which has been backed up to some degree by JLC and Kiem ... i do think the key thing in this season is consistency and keeping the show on the rails - They liked what Scot did and dont want to lurch in a different direction - and as much as it is portrayed as this I cannot believe that you can attribute success (or failure) on the shoulders of one person - well not in this current structure . 

That makes it frustrating for fans and the press but the collection process with everyone working together is synergistic - more than the sum of its parts  - I have always said this stability is the bedrock of a successful franchise. Develop an identity as an organization and the people don't really matter. But as much as people lambast Dan Snyder for being just reactionary and impatient the fan base itself it just or more guilty of chasing the shiny and new regardless of the direction of the team. 

 

You are right this isn't really about Doug, but it is the argument between consistency and change for the sake of change. 

[Skinsinparadise]

11 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

Here is the thing - it is all about what you attribute the problems too in the early Dan Snyder years. You might want to attribute it to lack or disregard of talent and talent evaluation - but my take on it is different. What scuppered the Snyder teams was going from Norv Turner Team, to Marty Shottenhiemer, to Steve Spurrier, to Joe Gibbs (and changing direction mid-stream in the Gibbs eara from Gibbs offense to Al Saunders), to Jim Zorn to the Shanahans and eventually to Jay Gruden - Each time we lurched from one philosophy to another real roster churn promising talent went undeveloped as each minute we seemed to change tack to change to different tunes . 
That makes it frustrating for fans and the press but the collection process with everyone working together is synergistic - more than the sum of its parts  - I have always said this stability is the bedrock of a successful franchise. Develop an identity as an organization and the people don't really matter. But as much as people lambast Dan Snyder for being just reactionary and impatient the fan base itself it just or more guilty of chasing the shiny and new regardless of the direction of the team. 

 

You are right this isn't really about Doug, but it is the argument between consistency and change for the sake of change. 

 

I agree with a lot of this.  Many have said there are three main stools to the success of an NFL franchise:  HC, GM and QB.  

 

You focus on one of those three stools.  And I agree with much of what you say on coaching.  You need consistency.  I've said on the Jay thread that keeping Jay for consistency sake is very important for reasons you expressed here.  

 

But IMO the other two stools have been as big a problem and perhaps bigger than HC and really all three go hand in hand.  Imagine for example if Joe Gibbs when he came back had Kirk Cousins?  And instead of him-Dan-Cerrato making decisions as a team with Joe having final say he had John Schneider making those calls who Dan ran out the door 2 years back to bring back Vinny.    I think people would look at the Gibbs 2nd stint entirely differently versus it being up and down with more losses than wins.   Likewise, I wonder how the 80s would have gone if the FO was treated as an afterthought versus being run by Bobby Beathard who was regarded back then as the best in the business. 

 

Then you got the elephant in the room as to this conversation which is the reputation of Danny wanting to play with the personnel himself.  We got really every regime talking about (just to different degrees) it aside from the current one.  But usually we don't hear about it in real time, it comes out later when the coach leaves.   Some people don't buy its so and think he's changed.  I was in that camp for a little bit until recently when I reflected on some of the things I've read.  And I do think he's toned it down.  But by multiple indications, he still dabbles in the FO. 

 

Here's the thing that's been fairly noticeable about Dan throughout his tenure.  From what people say he doesn't really interfere with coaching.  His playground has been the front office.  And it just strikes me an odd coincidence that he's always been willing to bring in a strong head coach but a GM not so much.  I don't want to rehash all the machinations and stories from over the years but I'd summarize it with replacing John Schneider with Vinny Cerrato.  Schneider was hot back then.  Cerrato wasn't.   Danny told a colleague that he wasn't having fun with Marty at the helm and he ran Marty and Schneider out and replaced him with Cerrato who many have said was one of his closest friends and he would carry his water. 

 

Bringing this to Doug.  Doug seems to really like to play up how he told Bruce he didn't want the power, he didn't want final say, he didn't want the GM title.  Bruce seemed to be beaming in telling that story, hey that was Doug's idea not mine, etc.    Comes off like Doug you had me at hello when you said you don't want the final say. 

 

To use an analogy.  Dan doesn't mess with the head chef.  But desserts are his passion.  And by coincidence people have said he's had his hand in making desserts in the kitchen here and there to different degrees.  For the most part he's been willing to hire the hot shot chef but not the dessert-pastry chef.  A couple of times he hired strong pastry chefs but they didn't work out and were replaced quickly with people that weren't going to challenge his authority.  And we got some people on the board saying look you are talking about eons ago as to when Danny messed with the desserts.  Yeah the previous head chef said he did it.  But he's lying.    Yeah he messed with it under Zorn but he had no choice.

 

Maybe Danny isn't interfering.  You got me.  But this has the feeling of if Dan wants to knock on Doug's door like Shanny claimed he came to him and said lets go get McNabb, Randy Moss, RG3 -- Doug has already staked the claim, that heck that's fine, its your call in the end.  And I've found Doug so over the top in explaining now in multiple interviews that he told Bruce he didn't want to be GM and he was cool for not having final say -- that he realizes it was a key part of the pitch.  I figure if it wasn't key we wouldn't hear Doug keep talking about it. 

 

As for consistency in the FO, yeah I agree with some of that thought process.  Arguably the two most important people to the draft moving forward is Kyle Smith and Jay.  They both have said they learned a lot from Scot and heaped serious praise his way.   Doug seems to be good for morale and being a seasoned voice.  And Schaffer is clearly a sharp dude.  I think there will be some carry over and consistency from previous years.  But the FO has the typical vacuum that has existed under most of Dan's reign which is he can come in and make that splashy move that fits his whim.  You talk about wanting consistency. Part of the job of a strong GM is building this franchise for the long haul.  And yeah its tough for me to believe that Shanny is just making everything up about Dan when it came to Randy Moss, RG3, McNabb.  And none of that smacks as Danny has learned a lot about giving up picks and falling for aging stars with marketability.  

 

In short, I like the fact that Scot was a strong personality.  I'd have liked him being replaced with another strong personality.  I agree with what Grant and Danny said on their show -- you want a guy who is willing to rock the boat if he doesn't agree with the prevailing group think.  Someone willing to spend 6 hours like Scot apparently had to do to convince Danny that Kirk should start.    Someone to say no when someone in the room says lets trade a third and 4th round pick for TJ Duckett. 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

On 6/15/2017 at 3:01 PM, thesubmittedone said:

 

Lol, us? Save typing!?  

 

On a side note, I'll never get that criticism. As long as it's well-written I prefer long posts over the short ones that usually add nothing besides redundancy to the board. 

 

 What are we on? Twitter!? If that's what someone is looking for go there. This place should be all about putting down thoughts that are nuanced, well-defined and well-articulated.  

 

Amen to all that lol *applause*...