Makaveli

The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

I saw this tweet but was struggling to fully grasp the implications. Yes, I assumed it was meant to reflect how much apathy has grown among the fan base, but what makes the numbers themselves significant in context?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is Brian LaFemina takes over as "president" if Bruce is removed and the 4 headed monster GM thing that we have going on continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

My guess is Brian LaFemina takes over as "president" if Bruce is removed and the 4 headed monster GM thing that we have going on continues.

 

I'm willing to bet one thing - regardless of who gets fired, whatever replaces it will suck. 

 

With Snyder, that is one thing we can depend on 100%.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bird_1972 said:

With Snyder, that is one thing we can depend on 100%.

Yep, with him it's never his fault. It is always the fault of that other guy. His system of not having a real GM is fine, he just needs to find the right person to implement it. At least that is what he'd like for us to believe. Failure of an owner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dyst said:

Yep, with him it's never his fault. It is always the fault of that other guy. His system of not having a real GM is fine, he just needs to find the right person to implement it. At least that is what he'd like for us to believe. Failure of an owner.

 

Combination of insecurity and a low IQ. 

 

When you combine that with a lot of money and absolute power, it is dangerous and a recipe for continued failure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dyst said:

Yep, with him it's never his fault. It is always the fault of that other guy. His system of not having a real GM is fine, he just needs to find the right person to implement it. At least that is what he'd like for us to believe. Failure of an owner.

 

I actually don't believe his failure is due to him thinking he's blameless. I just don't think he knows what to do to fix it. It seems like he hires someone he thinks he can trust and lets that guy run things. Bruce didn't do a good job, but I really doubt Snyder said to Allen, "let's make sure we don't hire a true GM underneath you, OK?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I actually don't believe his failure is due to him thinking he's blameless. I just don't think he knows what to do to fix it. It seems like he hires someone he thinks he can trust and lets that guy run things. Bruce didn't do a good job, but I really doubt Snyder said to Allen, "let's make sure we don't hire a true GM underneath you, OK?"

 

So you're saying he is a poor judge of talent? 

 

Among all of the other criticisms I have of Snyder, this is definitely one of them. But they are all related in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bird_1972 said:

 

So you're saying he is a poor judge of talent? 

 

Among all of the other criticisms I have of Snyder, this is definitely one of them. But they are all related in my view.

 

Yes. I think he has many flaws. I don't have any way to prove this, but I don't think he's sitting there married to a philosophy that he is insisting on. We've been free-spending and we've been frugal. We have traded picks like they are candy and we have hoarded picks/accumulated comp picks. We have hired up-and-coming coordinators and we've lured HOF coaches out of retirement.

 

If anything, I'd contend that one of Snyder's many problems is the constant shift in organizational direction and philosophy. I would bet that, if he had it his way, he'd like to hit on the right guy to sit atop the organization, set the course, and have it work. I would actually be shocked to find out that his ego or stubbornness is driving his decision-making these days.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, spjunkies said:

No reputable GM would accept that. 

 

Correct.  Personnel is the GM's decision.  Most especially, you don't want a situation where the old regime brings in an expensive QB, gets fired, then the new regime has to coach up a QB they never wanted.

 

I think what could work is this:

 

  • 1. Fire Bruce from everything. Can do it tomorrow or when the season ends.
  • 2. New team president needs to be someone respected and competent, someone who could get the same job at a good team.  A Sean McVay, not a Jim Zorn.
  • 3. New team president hires a GM.  A traditional GM who really has final say on personnel.  Again, someone who could get a GM job on a real team.
  • 4. 2019 is needs to be (privately) drawn up as a tank and rebuild year, unfortunately.  Not 1-15 tank, more like 5-11.  Our situation on offense -- talent, O-line, and the Alex Smith cap hit -- is so bad that we are better off continuing to build defense and young guys.  Rather than throwing a bunch of money at free agents to try to claw back up to 8-8.
  • 5. QB in 2019 needs to be an inexpensive veteran free agent.  Fitzpatrick vs McCoy QB competition in camp, loser gets to be the backup.
  • 6. Jay Gruden continues as coach in 2019.  He is under contract through the end of 2020.  Why waste the money?
  • 7. After 2019, the GM and team president decide: fire Jay or extend him.  I am OK with either decision. 
  • 8. Then GM picks the new QB.  Draft, expensive veteran, cheap veteran, whatever.  Of course he'll have input from the head coach and the rest of the front office, but the GM will make the final call.
Edited by Tsailand
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Yes. I think he has many flaws. I don't have any way to prove this, but I don't think he's sitting there married to a philosophy that he is insisting on. We've been free-spending and we've been frugal. We have traded picks like they are candy and we have hoarded picks/accumulated comp picks. We have hired up-and-coming coordinators and we've lured HOF coaches out of retirement.

 

If anything, I'd contend that one of Snyder's many problems is the constant shift in organizational direction and philosophy. I would bet that, if he had it his way, he'd like to hit on the right guy to sit atop the organization, set the course, and have it work. I would actually be shocked to find out that his ego or stubbornness is driving his decision-making these days.  

 

Agree with everything you wrote except the part I highlighted in yellow. 

 

I believe this is a major issue for him. Can't really explain his consistent pattern of hiring yes-men any other way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bird_1972 said:

 

Agree with everything you wrote except the part I highlighted in yellow. 

 

I believe this is a major issue for him. Can't really explain his consistent pattern of hiring yes-men any other way.

 

I think it's something that existed in the past, but do you think he's really pulling many football strings? I don't truly believe he's telling Allen to sign Mark Sanchez or which guards to work out when our guys get hurt. I think he's essentially turned those things over to Allen for nearly a decade. Maybe something extremely political (like Foster and/or Kaep) would require his input, but I don't have a problem there. 

 

If anything had hamstrung this team for the past 10 years, it's been his idiotic loyalty to the wrong people. Allen is one, for sure but it goes back even further. I think he never hired anyone smart or strong enough to challenge Gibbs which ultimately hurt us (Gibbs was the one who traded picks for Duckett, etc.). I think Shanahan even outranked Allen while he was here too - so he could pretty much do what he wanted. Oddly, I think Snyder's willingness to anoint guys with no checks and balances has been more catastrophic than his ego-driven FA splashes of his first few years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I think it's something that existed in the past, but do you think he's really pulling many football strings? I don't truly believe he's telling Allen to sign Mark Sanchez or which guards to work out when our guys get hurt. I think he's essentially turned those things over to Allen for nearly a decade. Maybe something extremely political (like Foster and/or Kaep) would require his input, but I don't have a problem there. 

 

If anything had hamstrung this team for the past 10 years, it's been his idiotic loyalty to the wrong people. Allen is one, for sure but it goes back even further. I think he never hired anyone smart or strong enough to challenge Gibbs which ultimately hurt us (Gibbs was the one who traded picks for Duckett, etc.). I think Shanahan even outranked Allen while he was here too - so he could pretty much do what he wanted. Oddly, I think Snyder's willingness to anoint guys with no checks and balances has been more catastrophic than his ego-driven FA splashes of his first few years. 

 

I think you said it right there - a terrible decision for the franchise taken just one week ago - Foster. For sure this is a Snyder move (with maybe equal parts Allen). 

 

He also signed off on the ludicrous trade/contract for Alex Smith. 

 

You'll have to forgive me for not believing that leopard has changed his spots (or however the saying goes...)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bird_1972 said:

 

I think you said it right there - a terrible decision for the franchise taken just one week ago - Foster. For sure this is a Snyder move (with maybe equal parts Allen). 

 

He also signed off on the ludicrous trade/contract for Alex Smith. 

 

You'll have to forgive me for not believing that leopard has changed his spots (or however the saying goes...)

 

Sorry, I'm not trying to say he's any good at anything. I'm saying that I don't think he and his ego are force-feeding those moves down Allen's throat. I think he's allowing them, but not making them. That doesn't make him smart, but it also doesn't make him an ego-maniac who just has Allen or Williams do his bidding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tsailand said:

 

Correct.  Personnel is the GM's decision.  Most especially, you don't want a situation where the old regime brings in an expensive QB, gets fired, then the new regime has to coach up a QB they never wanted.

 

I think what could work is this:

 

  • 1. Fire Bruce from everything. Can do it tomorrow or when the season ends.
  • 2. New team president needs to be someone respected and competent, someone who could get the same job at a good team.  A Sean McVay, not a Jim Zorn.
  • 3. New team president hires a GM.  A traditional GM who really has final say on personnel.  Again, someone who could get a GM job on a real team.
  • 4. 2019 is needs to be (privately) drawn up as a tank and rebuild year, unfortunately.  Not 1-15 tank, more like 5-11.  Our situation on offense -- talent, O-line, and the Alex Smith cap hit -- is so bad that we are better off continuing to build defense and young guys.  Rather than throwing a bunch of money at free agents to try to claw back up to 8-8.
  • 5. QB in 2019 needs to be an inexpensive veteran free agent.  Fitzpatrick vs McCoy QB competition in camp, loser gets to be the backup.
  • 6. Jay Gruden continues as coach in 2019.  He is under contract through the end of 2020.  Why waste the money?
  • 7. After 2019, the GM and team president decide: fire Jay or extend him.  I am OK with either decision. 
  • 8. Then GM picks the new QB.  Draft, expensive veteran, cheap veteran, whatever.  Of course he'll have input from the head coach and the rest of the front office, but the GM will make the final call.

 

 

Um, why do you force a GM to keep a coach he does not want? I don't care if it's for a year, but what legit GM is going to come in when he's already being told what to do with coaching?

 

No, the ONLY reason Gruden is here if we get a new GM is if the GM decides to ride out the last year on his contract. Only then.

And if he doesn't fire him, I'm going to wonder if we have the right GM for the job, because I don't think Gruden is a good HC at this point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

Um, why do you force a GM to keep a coach he does not want? I don't care if it's for a year, but what legit GM is going to come in when he's already being told what to do with coaching?

 

Obviously this is something you discuss with the GM beforehand and get his buy-in (or not).  Gruden is under contract for two more years, through 2019 and 2020, so we will pay him for those years no matter what happens. There is nothing to gain by hiring -- and paying -- a new coach right away just to have him preside over the shambles of a roster we will have in 2019.

 

Of course, if we have a GM candidate who says he can take our current cap and talent situation, bring in his own HC, and immediately compete in 2019, then you evaluate that claim, and hire him as GM if you think that's realistic.

Edited by Tsailand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tsailand said:

 

Obviously this is something you discuss with the GM beforehand and get his buy-in (or not).  Gruden is under contract for two more years, through 2019 and 2020, so we will pay him for those years no matter what happens. There is nothing to gain by hiring -- and paying -- a new coach right away just to have him preside over the shambles of a roster we will have in 2019.

 

Of course, if we have a GM candidate who says he can take our current cap and talent situation, bring in his own HC, and immediately compete in 2019, then you evaluate that claim, and hire him as GM if you think that's realistic.

I mean, it's not a notion without merit. If we're going to accept a bad year next year, then just letting it ride with Gruden for another year and saving some money shouldn't be out of the question, if that's what a new GM was willing to do. Let Gruden take the lumps on a bad year rather than let the guy we bank our future on start with a 5-11 season or whatever.

 

However, if he really likes a certain candidate right now that he wanted a shot at, or he likes multiple guys, or if he just feels it's important to get the new guy in and let him start building his culture, then that needs to be allowed.

 

There are also a few younger guys who could be HC candidates, and the most attractive part of your idea could be to allow someone(s) another year's seasoning before coming in here.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wherever people are on the Foster story, how this unfolds might be interesting for Bruce because he's put himself now on the line some on the story.   

 

It's one thing to play games with the Scot grandma story which we found later wasn't the real story in spite of his best attempts to convince -- but its another thing on a national story like this on a sensitive topic.

 

I am not saying Bruce isn't on the money here, got no idea obviously one way or another but if you are going to step out on the story then it puts more onus on you to be proven correct.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/redskins-investigation-into-reuben-foster-did-not-include-contacting-police/2018/12/04/4980c82e-f807-11e8-8c9a-860ce2a8148f_story.html?utm_term=.d42e0d5d8709

“He said after Washington gathered its own information, they felt comfortable that they had heard a side of the Foster story that is different,” Salters said.

The existence of Allen’s investigation into the Foster case was news to Tampa police, which is conducting the criminal investigation of the allegations. In an email Tuesday, Tampa police spokesman Stephen Hegarty said the agency’s public information office has had no contact with Allen or anyone else from the Redskins seeking information about the case.

 

Allen declined an interview request Tuesday. In a phone interview, Tony Wyllie, the Redskins’ senior vice president of communications, acknowledged that the club did not request any information from law enforcement in Tampa about Foster. Wyllie also said the Redskins did not seek any information from law enforcement in Santa Clara County, Calif., where the same woman accused Foster of assaulting her earlier this year, before recanting.

 

...“Bruce never said to Lisa that they reached out to the police; he said we did our internal investigation,” Wyllie said. “Both Bruce and Doug [Williams, the team’s senior vice president of player personnel] have a lot of connections down in Tampa. . . . They had their own people.”

 

Wyllie declined to answer questions about who these people are and what new information they provided about the case.

Allen and Williams “don’t want to disclose that,” Wyllie said.

 

...The lawyer for Foster’s accuser, Adante Pointer, expressed confusion as to what new information Allen could have collected relating to the Tampa incident, because there were no witnesses and the Redskins did not contact Pointer or his client.

 

“The Redskins should not be rubber-stamping what Reuben Foster had to say about that night,” Pointer said. “One-sided investigations tend to result in supporting that one side.”

 

Obtaining the public records related to the Tampa and Santa Clara County cases from law enforcement is not difficult or time-consuming. Within hours of receiving an email request last week from The Washington Post, Tampa police replied with the one-page incident report relating to Foster’s arrest. A Santa Clara courts spokesman took one day to reply to a similar request with the 33 pages of public records from the case file, via email.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morneblade said:

 

 

Um, why do you force a GM to keep a coach he does not want? I don't care if it's for a year, but what legit GM is going to come in when he's already being told what to do with coaching?

 

No, the ONLY reason Gruden is here if we get a new GM is if the GM decides to ride out the last year on his contract. Only then.

And if he doesn't fire him, I'm going to wonder if we have the right GM for the job, because I don't think Gruden is a good HC at this point.

 

 Chances are likely that Gruden would butt heads with a new GM and try to steer him in the direction Gruden wants to go; and frankly, it hasn't worked yet so why continue?

 There is way too much funk in this house to only replacing the GM; that's why the terminology is 'Cleaning House'. A new direction, a fresh start, out with the old in with the new.

There's only 1 scenario IMO that Gruden stays as HC.

1. He goes to counseling to break that stubbornness mentality he has.

2. He totally, 100% gives up play calling. Hire a damn OC and stop trying to be everything to the team; its clear that strategy isn't doing crap.

3. He hires a damn clock manager, because he's obviously piss pot poor in that category.

4. He hires more assistants to work exclusively with the different groups of players.

5. He gets a real QB coach.

6. Any and everyone associated with strength & conditioning and whoever the nutritionist person/people are need to be tied to an ant hill and covered in honey.

 

In other words, neuter him. Make him a figurehead only. He has far too much on his plate to be able to focus on any one particular need, and it shows in every aspect of this team. Maybe Gruden is a control freak, who knows.

 

Gibbs had more assistants BY FAR than any other team on his first stint here, and he got the best people he could find that fit his scheme and let them work on detailed things, different strategies, personalized teaching, etc, and it paid off tremendously for the entire organization.

 

This group of people have that snotty 'I don't like that guy' or ' that guy gets too much attention' or 'we don't want to change what we're doing and this guy would want a change'; and that's the reason this team is playing like donkey dicks, because the FO's pride won't let them be told they are wrong about something, so instead they just hire 'yes men' and roll with it.

 

So, there's really no choice but TO clean house. Next year the team will be healthier and just good enough to maybe get to 8-8 going with the same ol' same ol', that is until players start dropping like flies, AGAIN, like last year and the year before and the year before.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Wyllie said. “Both Bruce and Doug [Williams, the team’s senior vice president of player personnel] have a lot of connections down in Tampa. . . . They had their own people.

 

El-cartel-2.jpg

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

However, if he really likes a certain candidate right now that he wanted a shot at, or he likes multiple guys, or if he just feels it's important to get the new guy in and let him start building his culture, then that needs to be allowed.

 

Sure.  All this gets hashed out in the GM interview process.  The Redskins' situation is one that the GM candidates will be familiar with going into the interview:

 

* Jay Gruden is under contract through 2020. Traditionally, NFL coaches get extended or fired before the final year of their contract.
* The talent level of the team can be seen on tape.
* Player contracts and cap situation are a matter of public record.
* In particular, the QB situation is that we don't have a QB, and we have to take $53M more of cap hit on Alex Smith.

 

 

So the interview process will involve the candidate explaining his plan to fix the Redskins.

 

The obvious plan is to tank in 2019 and save your cap space (what's left after paying Alex) for 2020.  All current players you evaluate:  Will we still want this player on the team in 2020?  If not, do we save money by cutting him before the 2019 season?  If so, you cut him.  AKA "blow the team up". 

 

You keep Jay one more season because it costs nothing, and what's the benefit to bring in a new coach to "build his culture" on a roster that has 5-11 talent.

 

If a candidate comes in with a different plan, you listen to it and decide accordingly.

 

Edited by Tsailand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Wherever people are on the Foster story, how this unfolds might be interesting for Bruce because he's put himself now on the line some on the story.   

 

It's one thing to play games with the Scot grandma story which we found later wasn't the real story in spite of his best attempts to convince -- but its another thing on a national story like this on a sensitive topic.

 

I am not saying Bruce isn't on the money here, got no idea obviously one way or another but if you are going to step out on the story then it puts more onus on you to be proven correct.

 

Two thoughts immediately came to mind after that story last night (apart from feelings on ESPN's handling of it):

 

1. The unlikelihood that the team let themselves take the initial bath in the press that they did, that they would put out the apparently false and easily refuted story that they based the decision on conversation with Bama alums, the weak Gruden answers, the embarrassing Williams PC, becoming essentially the face of DV enabling, and about a full week of being lambasted all over the media and being treated as the league's laughingstock, that suddenly now they decide to disclose that they had secret exonerating info on Foster that makes what they did much more understandable. 'Oh, did we forget to mention that?"

 

I mean, maybe that turns out to be true, but it seems bloody implausible compared to the alternative that this is a desperate CYA lie. And, even if true, it still makes their initial handling of the event look even more incompetent than it already looked.

 

2. As you say, whether he intended it this way or not, Bruce essentially put all his chips on the "he'll be proven innocent" slot. He could have kept on with the line about just waiting to see the investigation play out, but he didn't. He basically told everyone that he has info that makes this OK. And when and if that turns out to be wrong, he just looks that much worse. 

 

From both angles, it was a pretty amazing statement to make.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same guy who fired our old GM because of alcoholism, is okay with the new "GM" downplaying domestic violence and getting a player who has a history of it. I want to know where the line is with Bruce Allen. I could give a **** less if Scot enjoyed his booze, we all know it was personal between him and Bruce. Bruce used the alcoholism as a cause to fire him. 

 

Everyone up at the top of this **** organization just wants a ****ing puppet.

Edited by Burgundy Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.