The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[Skinsinparadise]

16 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

Maybe I phrased myself wrongly, but it was more that this is another rock in the long list of things that Bruce made that makes us looks dumb.

 

As you've said earlier, even in this thread, at least Cerrato was a football guy, albeit not a good one. He was not really embarassing us with off the field stuff. While Bruce is.

 

Hopefully, as Englishmen say it: "Third time's a charm". Though with Snyder I would rather go with our french saying: "Never 2 without 3"...

 

So we should get ready for the Apocalypse to come if Dan fizzle on his 3rd football guy hiring...

 

Yeah its been awhile since I've made this point.  Vinny for all of his faults had a real scouting-personnel background.  Bruce on the other hand not so much.  Bruce has been IMO worse than Vinny in working the public image of this organization - that i didn't think was possible.  Bruce looks the part better than Vinny did and is more polished but he is just as apt to say something dumb publicly and be completely tone deaf as to how to present this organization. Bruce much better on contracts than Vinny and less likely to trade away picks.  Both IMO really bad GMs for different reasons.  

 

Bruce does have some vocals defenders.    Some (not all) of whom once in awhile like to imply that attacking Bruce is like attacking the whole organization and thereby it makes you a hater.  I recall a similar vibe ironically about Vinny.  I love Theismann but he just about always has the back of whoever is in charge of the FO -- and I recall where one show where Sheehan went off on Vinny and Theismann angrily called in to defend Vinny with sort of a pro Redskins spin where Sheehan should back off.

 

The idea that we need to have the back of whoever Dan hires to run personnel to me seems odd.   I think real fans aren't about supporting whatever the heck the organization does but make their voices heard when they disagree.  Heck I love Joe Gibbs but I called in once when he did Q & A on a show back then called Redskins lunch and pleaded with him to stop trading draft picks away.  Would I have been a better fan if I told Gibbs, keep going, a 3rd and 4th for Duckett and ditto B. Lloyd -- love it -- keep up the good work?

 

Vinny ironically himself said that Dan listens to fans when they are unhappy and that's why he's gone.    Heck in retrospect, all those fans that brought signs to Fedex and people like us (me included) who sent letters to Dan in the last Zorn year are bad fans?  We should have had Dan's/Vinny's back?

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I don’t like what AP did to his son, but I’m aware that unfortunately that type of parenting gets passed down the line and it happens more than you think, particularly in the south.  I’m not condoning it and I’m glad his situation got put out there, perhaps it helped shed light on how it’s illegal and can easily go too far.

 

Foster is a bigger distraction than AP.  He literally just got out of jail again for his 2nd set of domestic abuse allegations.  My take on him is the juice isn’t worth the squeeze, where AP was.    AP has 1 issue in a long career that he paid the price for.  Foster has several when you include his other transgressions in a much shorter period of time.

 

Got it. It sounds like your opinion is centered more around the team and less about the principle, so that's fair in my opinion. 

[@DCGoldPants]

6 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

The sad thing is that from what I read, Jay Gruden, Bruce Allen, AND Dan Snyder were all in agreement. If Dan was behind it from the start, I'm starting to doubt there will be any serious repercussions for Bruce if it turns out wrong.

 

 

Sounds like it was a Bruce/Dan decision and they stuck Doug out there to take the heat. Jay is just there, bug-eyed and surprised looking.

[Tsailand]

6 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

The sad thing is that from what I read, Jay Gruden, Bruce Allen, AND Dan Snyder were all in agreement.

 

Do you mean the Smith trade or the Foster pickup?

 

 

6 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

If Dan was behind it from the start, I'm starting to doubt there will be any serious repercussions for Bruce if it turns out wrong.

 

And that's where you're wrong.  You need to understand Dan's personality.  He doesn't want take blame for his decisions.  Not in public, likely not even to himself when he looks in the mirror.  He will minimize and deflect.  He will blame his underlings.  At most he will fault himself for giving them too many second chances.

 

Remember what finally got Vinny fired? Zorn.  In Snyder's own words: “The general manager needs to prevent the owner from hiring someone who’s not qualified. And that’s why Vinny is no longer here, to be truthful with you. He’s not here because his job was to prevent the owner from hiring a not-qualified coach."

 

Someone will need to take the blame for Synder's failures at QB over the last ten years.  That someone sure as hell won't be Dan Snyder.  And what better person to take the blame than the person who was working hand-in-glove with Snyder the whole time?

 

[NickyJ]

11 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Where did you see this?

 

6 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

Sounds like it was a Bruce/Dan decision and they stuck Doug out there to take the heat. Jay is just there, bug-eyed and surprised looking.

 

Just now, Tsailand said:

Do you mean the Smith trade or the Foster pickup?

 

From Chris Russel's tweet:

 

 

Just now, Tsailand said:

And that's where you're wrong.  You need to understand Dan's personality.  He doesn't want take blame for his decisions.  Not in public, likely not even to himself when he looks in the mirror.  He will minimize and deflect.  He will blame his underlings.  At most he will fault himself for giving them too many second chances.

 

Remember what finally got Vinny fired? Zorn.  In Snyder's own words: “The general manager needs to prevent the owner from hiring someone who’s not qualified. And that’s why Vinny is no longer here, to be truthful with you. He’s not here because his job was to prevent the owner from hiring a not-qualified coach."

 

Someone will need to take the blame for Synder's failures at QB over the last ten years.  That someone sure as hell won't be Dan Snyder.  And what better person to take the blame than the person who was working hand-in-glove with Snyder the whole time?

I hope you're right.

 

[@DCGoldPants]

17 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

 

 

 

From Chris Russel's tweet:

 

 

I hope you're right.

 

 

Going to be blunt here.

 

I think Chris Russell is awful.

 

Maybe he's right. But I don't think he knows anything inside info that hasn't been passed on at least a few times from insiders. 

 

Jim Haslett was his guy. That's who leaked him info. I don't think he has anybody of value now. 

[Skinsinparadise]

16 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

Going to be blunt here.

 

I think Chris Russell is awful.

 

Maybe he's right. But I don't think he knows anything inside info that hasn't been passed on at least a few times from insiders. 

 

Jim Haslett was his guy. That's who leaked him info. I don't think he has anybody of value now. 

 

Disagree.  He broke the Scot story first.  He broke the Doug story first.  He even had some of the names of the defensive coordinator candidates they were about to interview before anyone else had it.  Heck even on this he had the it was a split decision within the FO drill first -- then Keim and WP confirmed Russell's story.

 

Yeah years back he blew it on the Cowher stuff.  But he's been on fire for quite some time as for the FO. 

[@DCGoldPants]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Disagree.  He broke the Scot story first.  He broke the Doug story first.  He even had some of the names of the defensive coordinator candidates they were about to interview before anyone else had it.

 

Yeah years back he blew it on the Cowher stuff.  But he's been on fire for quite some time as for the FO. 

 

Agree to Disagree. I don't remember him breaking the Scot story (not sure if you mean hiring or firing). I do remember him being very confident while wrong on players they were bringing in, players who would make the roster, etc.

[Tay]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Disagree.  He broke the Scot story first.  He broke the Doug story first.  He even had some of the names of the defensive coordinator candidates they were about to interview before anyone else had it.  Heck even on this he had the it was a split decision within the FO drill first -- then Keim and WP confirmed Russell's story.

 

Yeah years back he blew it on the Cowher stuff.  But he's been on fire for quite some time as for the FO. 

 

I agree that Russell the reporter is very good at what he does.

 

His spin based on the information he has leaves a lot to be desired.

[Skinsinparadise]

If you listen to Mike Jones who was on with Brian Mitchell, he goes there are two people in that building who always think they are the smartest guys in that building -- and sort of described a likely smug scene of them explaining to everyone in that room that disagreed that they are right.  Without saying the names, sounded like he was describing Bruce and Dan. 

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

Agree to Disagree. I don't remember him breaking the Scot story (not sure if you mean hiring or firing). I do remember him being very confident while wrong on players they were bringing in, players who would make the roster, etc.

 

The firing of Scot, he did break it.  He even started giving hints before the whole story went full blown.  I got no doubt he's been in front of a lot of things relating to the FO in the last 2 years or so because I recall them and would post about them while it happened.  On the defensive coordinator thread for example, I was posting his stuff left and right.  Heck guys like Keim, etc would have to say they were interviewing so and so per Russell.  

 

I get the skepticism from those who recall the Cowher story.  Or people not liking him because of Haslett.  I didn't like the Haz stuff either. 

 

But heck even other guys from 106.7 mentioned seeing the text messages that Russell got from his sources in the FO.  Russell like any guy will get things wrong in the process.  But is he plugged in?  To me that's 100'% clear as bell.

7 minutes ago, Tay said:

 

I agree that Russell the reporter is very good at what he does.

 

His spin based on the information he has leaves a lot to be desired.

 

He's gone through a wild ride because his sources have improved once he left the 980 job.   And is pegged by some because of his odd love for Haz even Chad Dukes who says he loves the dude still loves to rag on Russell for it.    But I don't there is anyone as plugged into the FO more than him right now.   We've talked about a lot of his stuff here.  The kicker to me was when he was nailing in advance who they were about to interview for the D coordinator job.  He had some of them before Keim, Jones, etc and they had to source him. 

[Hooper]

30 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

Going to be blunt here.

 

I think Chris Russell is awful.

 

Maybe he's right. But I don't think he knows anything inside info that hasn't been passed on at least a few times from insiders. 

 

Jim Haslett was his guy. That's who leaked him info. I don't think he has anybody of value now. 

Chris Russell has been wrong more than anyone. Well, except me. Ha.

[@DCGoldPants]

Wasn't he the guy who also broke the story that Scot won the case against the Skins? Or the Skins wouldn't get near D. Jackson? 

[Tay]

3 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

Wasn't he the guy who also broke the story that Scot won the case against the Skins? Or the Skins wouldn't get near D. Jackson? 

 

He misread an article while he was on air, and ran with his misinterpretation.

 

There's people in the building that he really doesn't like. I think that leads to him taking a story that could fit a narrative that works for him and running with it.

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

Wasn't he the guy who also broke the story that Scot won the case against the Skins? Or the Skins wouldn't get near D. Jackson? 

 

Nope on both.  He didn't break the story about the ruling but read the tweet wrong from whomever broke it when the ruling came against Scot as opposed to for him.  Then apologized for it minutes later.  I happened to be listening to him at the time that's how I knew.  But that was ironic since his own reporting included that Scot's antics warranted the firing.  As for D. Jax he said he's quit his job if they signed him since in his mind it would be a bad signing.    The 106.7 guys never let him live that down so they constantly throw him other dares that are even funnier.

 

None of that has anything to do with him getting a lot right about the FO.  if you don't want to believe it, that's cool.  But some of that was posted on threads like this and proven correct.   

[@DCGoldPants]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Nope on both.  He read the tweet wrong when the ruling came against Scot as opposed to for him.  Then apologized for it minutes later.  I happened to be listening to him at the time that's how I knew.  But that was ironic since his own reporting including that Scot's antics warranted the firing.  As for D. Jax he said he's quit his job if they signed him since in his mind it would be a bad signing.    The 106.7 guys never let him live that down so they constantly throw him other dares.

 

None of that has anything to do with him getting a lot right about the FO.  if you don't want to believe it, that's cool.  But some of that was posted on threads like this and proven correct.   

 

You're the first person I've read on here really defend the guy. Kudos.

 

Yes, he was very confident the Skins wouldn't sign Jackson so he said something stupid. He was also very wrong.

 

As far as the Scott stuff, I don't know. I don't listen to JFK. But I remember reading him getting crushed over that on twitter.

 

So, yeah. Unless he's reading copy from somebody else. Or saying the same stuff that a very good beat reporter like Keim is also said. I treat his information has unconfirmed.

 

I don't think he's very good at what he does at a time where most of the voices on local talk radio aren't that great either. 

[NoVaSkins21]

1 hour ago, NickyJ said:

 

 

 

From Chris Russel's tweet:

 

 

 

The clown show is working overtime now.  Who cares about character, let's make headlines

[Peregrine]

5 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Can everyone stop telling me I have issues please? I'm trying to have somewhat of a reasonable discussion around where we draw the line and don't feel like I should have to defend myself like I'm endorsing domestic violence. 

 

I'm not even DEFENDING THE SIGNING OR HIS ACTIONS...I'm asking why this is too much but AP's transgressions or ST's assault or Floyd's DUI are OK. That's it. 

 

So, feel free not to answer as I don't want to put anyone on the spot, but how do YOU feel about AP on the team given you don't like what he did to his son? 

 

To me, if you don't like what AP did and don't like what RF did, shouldn't we have the same standard? Both men beat another human whom they could physically overpower (one a child and one a woman). I don't understand how the HOF resume plays into this if it's a principle thing. 

Well, you said "But, unless you are going to only sign or draft or trade for choir boys I don't really see how it's any different than someone who was arrested for assault or drug charges or a DUI."  What you said reads that any NFL player that isnt a "choir boy", is the same whether they beat women or do drugs or just arent perfect.   

 

AP is on this team because once again, Bruce Allen did a horrible job of building a roster, and hes desperate knowing hes likely to be fired, just like the Foster situation. We absolutely shouldnt have signed AP or anyone with assault charges, it was a desperate last second move, though maybe you could at least say he was 4 years removed and had time to change and show that.  Think of how bad this team would be without Peterson, and you have the answer why he was signed, Bruce knew he had done a poor job.  He looked like a great move 4 games into the season, but if this team fails to make the playoffs, and Peterson fades and doesnt continue to put up poor numbers, it will also be looked on very poorly.

[carex]

Adrian Peterson was signed because of an injury to a position that was addressed this offseason and Allen has done little besides off load responsibilty for the roster time and time again

 

 

[skins island connection]

Bruce has had numerous goof-ups which has cost this team dearly.

But, what makes me weary is it will be Snyder doing the GM hiring, and somehow, some way, he will wait and find the LEAST deserving person on the planet to hire for that position.

 

So, yea, getting rid of Bruce is the #1 objective, but then part 2 comes into play, and I have no confidence in who he will hire; it will most likely be someone who had screwed over another team and has been out of a job for awhile.

[wunderhill]

11 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

I believe I covered that part. I also covered the part that you're don't have a lot of cognitive thought processes if you're high as **** on something. And if you're an addict it's not simply as easy as "just stopping". It's much deeper than that, and for decades treatment was never a option. It barely is now.

 

The fact of the matter is that when you're sober and beat on someone, it's a conscious decision to do so. Getting into a car drunk is a highly impaired decision.

It is not an impaired decision. you make that choice when you are sober by not having a designated driver before you ever take a sip. if you drive your vehicle (while sober) to where you will be drinking it is a conscious decision. 

[Morneblade]

38 minutes ago, wunderhill said:

It is not an impaired decision. you make that choice when you are sober by not having a designated driver before you ever take a sip. if you drive your vehicle (while sober) to where you will be drinking it is a conscious decision. 

 

Well, what if you drive somewhere with no intention of drinking anything, and then stuff happens?

 

Let me ask you a question. Are you a recovering addict? Because if you are not, the likely hood of you understanding addiction is slim.

[wunderhill]

8 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

Well, what if you drive somewhere with no intention of drinking anything, and then stuff happens?

 

Let me ask you a question. Are you a recovering addict? Because if you are not, the likely hood of you understanding addiction is slim.

if you drive somewhere (sober) with no intentions of drinking that means you are making a conscious decision in taking that first drink. I am not an addict or recovering one. As stated in a previous post my brother was killed by a drunk driver at age 21. I always hear the excuse well he was ****ed up and didnt know what he was doing. BS...so my question would be...what if it  came to light that foster was intoxicated when he allegedly hit a woman. does that make it less severe because he was impaired? My being an addict or not has zero bearing on what I understand. My brother didnt have a face left or any portion of his upper body and I got the unfortunate task of seeing that. I think I'm more than qualified to speak on the effects of drunk driving.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

15 hours ago, Peregrine said:

Well, you said "But, unless you are going to only sign or draft or trade for choir boys I don't really see how it's any different than someone who was arrested for assault or drug charges or a DUI."  What you said reads that any NFL player that isnt a "choir boy", is the same whether they beat women or do drugs or just arent perfect.   

 

AP is on this team because once again, Bruce Allen did a horrible job of building a roster, and hes desperate knowing hes likely to be fired, just like the Foster situation. We absolutely shouldnt have signed AP or anyone with assault charges, it was a desperate last second move, though maybe you could at least say he was 4 years removed and had time to change and show that.  Think of how bad this team would be without Peterson, and you have the answer why he was signed, Bruce knew he had done a poor job.  He looked like a great move 4 games into the season, but if this team fails to make the playoffs, and Peterson fades and doesnt continue to put up poor numbers, it will also be looked on very poorly.

 

Good post. 

 

I'm not asking for the rationale that was used to sign Peterson. Personally, I'm OK with both guys being here...I've explained that I don't look to the individual players on the field to uphold my moral code. And, the organization isn't some elected body or charity...they are there to try to win games. So, I am fine with both guys being here (at least until there's a legal decision - at which time I'm also fine with them cutting Foster no questions asked). 

 

I'm asking why SOME FANS are disgusted by one but not the other. To me, those situations are close enough in severity and being a moral/ethical dilemma that I'd be surprised how someone would be fine with one and upset about the other. Unless, which is my main point, that I think many people are selectively outraged by some things and not others. 

[Skinsinparadise]

12 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I'm asking why SOME FANS are disgusted by one but not the other. To me, those situations are close enough in severity and being a moral/ethical dilemma that I'd be surprised how someone would be fine with one and upset about the other. Unless, which is my main point, that I think many people are selectively outraged by some things and not others. 

 

For me I don't think its even close to being an apples to apples analogy and that's the core of my point and that's has nothing to do with comparing the type of incidents.  The Redskins here decided to inherit the problem just a few days after it happened without knowing guilt or innocence.  If Peterson was just accused of it a few days ago, spent a day in jail, Minny released him and the Redskins took over his rights as the league/legal system looked into it -- then it would be apples to apples.

 

I don't think Foster's guilt or innocent or comparing domestic violence to another thing is even relevant -- because there is no way the Redskins know about his guilt or innocence.  So to me the issue is should the Redskins absorb the hit and by some people's thoughts provide some sort of a positive validation to Foster by picking up his rights -- with the Redskins not knowing guilt or innocence.

 

If the two cases were apples to apples -- the difference to me would be it happened years ago for Peterson, he did the time to pay the crime.  This is as fresh as a daisy incident in Foster's case where if guilty he hasn't paid the price, yet.