The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I would pose a challenge--not to you but to anyone who is inclined to believe my posts are little more than attempts to support Allen and Snyder: Find one thing--just one--in the article that you believe could be either disingenuous or just flat-out factually inaccurate. You don't even have to be right lol...but just one thing that, when reading it, you feel ol' Sally may be giving half the story or is approaching "facts" from a biased perspective, or that what she's saying probably didn't really happen the way she's saying it did. I can point out like 15 lol...

There is enough history here to know Sally doesn’t think highly of Dan.  Of course she’s biased.  It’s a perspective column, not an investigative report.  The key points are that Dan has reaped the benefit of successes he has nothing to do with, the fans are sick of it, the NFL doesn’t like it, and for that he doesn’t deserve public money to build a new stadium.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

3 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

There is enough history here to know Sally doesn’t think highly of Dan.  Of course she’s biased.  It’s a perspective column, not an investigative report.  The key points are that Dan has reaped the benefit of successes he has nothing to do with, the fans are sick of it, the NFL doesn’t like it, and for that he doesn’t deserve public money to build a new stadium.

 

Well, strictly from the perspective of the challenge posed....you failed lol.

 

And my issue isn't that Jenkins is biased, as you said we all know she is. But if she portrays something as factual to her readers, it damn well better be factual. If she says something happened a certain way to her audience, it damn well better have happened the way she described. And if she's using different stories, occasions and actions to prop up her opinions, she damn well should understand those stories, occasions and actions will be examined. I'm guessing she probably does understand that, or doesn't care one way or another if anyone finds issue with the content of her story. Probably because she also understands that a large part of her reading audience right now also doesn't care about the content of her article as long as her conclusions give validity to their own.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

8 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Well, strictly from the perspective of the challenge posed....you failed lol.

 

And my issue isn't that Jenkins is biased, as you said we all know she is. But if she portrays something as factual to her readers, it damn well better be factual. If she says something happened a certain way to her audience, it damn well better have happened the way she described. And if she's using different stories, occasions and actions to prop up her opinions, she damn well should understand those stories, occasions and actions will be examined. I'm guessing she probably does understand that, or doesn't care one way or another if anyone finds issue with the content of her story. Probably because she also understands that a large part of her reading audience right now also doesn't care about the content of her article as long as her conclusions give validity to their own.

Well, we’re waiting...

 

What is she lying about?

[bp1979]

It's about time to #FireBruceAllen #HTTR Other owners and top executives view him as a joke...

It's about time to #FireBruceAllen #HTTR Other owners and top executives view him as a joke...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

44 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Well, we’re waiting...

 

What is she lying about?

 

Waiting for what?...when I brought it up nobody asked me anything...I just got comments about being "right on time" and coming "towards the light" lol...and I still wasn't asked anything about the article until 3 posts later. So, no, nobody was waiting for me to answer anything because nobody cared enough to ask me anything.

 

S'anyway lol...here's an easy one:

 

When the Richmond city council expressed distress and unwillingness to extend the deal last summer, Allen told the Washington Times, “I’m not going to worry about that right now. I’m just hoping for some sunshine to dry out our fields.”

 

This is easy because it doesn't take any effort to go back and see what Allen was responding to. Jenkins writes it as if Bruce is asked about the financial hardship Richmond and its citizens are going through due to their deal and how they don't want to extend the deal because of it...and that Allen's response was that he wasn't gonna worry about their hardship right now, he was gonna worry about the field instead.

 

He wasn't asked that. He was asked if the Skins would continue using Richmond for training camp in 2021 (after the initial deal ends) but without the $500,000 subsidy being paid to them in the form of sponsorships, in-kind services (hotel accommodations for the team, for example), and a small portion in cash like the city is obligated to do now. Because the Skins can stay there for another 8 years if they want, without the city of Richmond having a say-so (they had their say-so when the original agreement was signed)...it would just be without the subsidy from the city:

 

Under terms of the original deal, the Redskins can unilaterally exercise a clause to stay another eight years. If that happens, Richmond will be under no obligation to continue paying the team’s $500,000 subsidy, a city spokesman said.

 

Would the Redskins stay without the city’s contribution?

 

“I’m not going to worry about that right now,” Mr. Allen said. “I’m just hoping for some sunshine to dry out our fields right now. That’s our biggest concern.”

 

 

And he shouldn't be worrying about it right now, at least not to the press. The team has 2 more years to do studies and research and negotiations before making that decision. Not to mention that if Snyder and Allen decide to stay in Richmond, the city's financial issues stemming from hosting training camp are pretty much over.

 

There is really no reason for Jenkins to include this in her article, but how she included it served her purpose. It was just another disingenuous (or ignorant) brick in the wall for the case she's making against Snyder and Allen. A ****-ton of her "bricks" are just factually inaccurate and disingenuous as hell. And yes, I was listening to Pink Floyd on youtube today lol...but it doesn't mean her overall conclusion isn't a valid one. But it DOES mean her article is poorly written as a mf'er, which was my original comment.

 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Maybe it’s just me, but that part didn’t really move me one way or the other.  I didn’t walk away from it thinking any more or any less about Bruce.  As Doug would say, “small potatoes”.

[bp1979]

She is negative towards the team 99.8% of the time. I'll read her articles but am aware she has an obvious bias against the Redskins. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Here's another. From Jenkins' article:

 

In return, Snyder and Allen promised to lure thousands of tourists to the city, to flood hotels and restaurants, and to generate sponsorship fees that would pay for it.

 

They "promised"? lol...again, Jenkins decided to write this as if the Richmond City Council based their decisions on what Snyder and Allen "promised" them would happen, and that now the city of Richmond is in financial distress because these two men didn't deliver on their promise to the city. Um, that's rarely how these decisions are made lol...yes, teams can and doi present their own studies, but governments do NOT make large financial decisions based off of them. They have their own city/state departments that do their own studies.

 

And whaddaya know...that's just what the Richmond City Council did:

 

A Richmond city auditor report overestimated the revenue that the city "expected to reap from selling sponsorships, collecting fees and earning rental income from unused space" in the building constructed for the Redskins' training camp.

 

Jenkins somehow left that out, instead preferring to paint it as Snyder/Allen's "promises" caused the City Council to move forward with the deal. No. They did their own studies and ****ed themselves over because apparently, their financial studies were just as rosy as whatever studies the Redskins presented. There was even a local economist who advised the city council to not do the deal...NOT because Snyder is a bad owner who makes everything fail, but because studies have been shown time and again that these types of deals almost never work, even if it's made with the most popular teams run in the most professional of manners.

 

Jenkins also chose to present the financial issues in Richmond as an economic impact issue as well as a revenue generation issue. Again from the same WT article she, uh, "paraphrased" earlier lol:

 

Based on the Redskins’ own accounting, which Mr. Allen said the team shares with the city, the combination of Bon Secours’ contributions and the team’s charitable efforts put the city $200,000 to $300,000 ahead of what the city has paid out.

 

[...]the Redskins boss has a point. The city acknowledges that its audit is not an economic impact study and does not measure the income generated for hotels and restaurants while the Redskins are in town.

 

 

This is actually an incredibly important distinction (cuz I know someone's gonna proclaim "semantic!" lol). The lack of revenue is not due to the Skins not keeping their "promises." At least not solely. I know Jenkins paints a portrait that Snyder's bad ownership is to blame, but it's not. much of the revenue the Richmond City Council expected to be generated did not materialize due to their own bad planning and mismanagement. I mean, check this out...money generated from the Skins holding training camp in Richmond that was supposed to go towards the schools initially wasn't paid to the schools--because city officials forgot they were supposed to pay it!! lol...Someone with the school district said something like "If one of our people had not remembered the city was supposed to send us the money, we never would have received it." There were financial opportunities to take advantage of that Richmond officials failed to execute.

 

To that end, here's a comment from one of the council members, says a lot:

 

“To be honest with you, the Redskins are only a piece of it. It’s nothing against the team as a whole. It’s more so it was rushed through and the decisions really that the city made at that time."

 

Is that the same impression Jenkins' article leaves you with? I highly doubt it. instead, Jenkins paints a story of Snyder's mismanagement and poor ownership plunging the good folks of Richmond into a financial hole, simply because they chose to due bidniz with him. And then she urges D.C. not to do a deal with Snyder and the Skins that would bring the team's stadium back into the District...like most fans apparently want. Everybody cool with her doing that?

 

Yeah, I know..."you're spending a lot of time on this" lol...what this actually shows is that Jenkins spent damn near NO time on this to make sure she got it right. Either that, or she knew all this but chose to ignore it. And I have not even begun to get into other things from her article.

 

And don't forget...you asked for this lol 😎

[Gibbs828791]

5 hours ago, bp1979 said:

It's about time to #FireBruceAllen #HTTR Other owners and top executives view him as a joke...

There is so much mis-information. Adam Schefter was on with Kevin Sheehan last week and he said that around the league Bruce Allen is thought of as very smart. Thom Loverro

who who cant stand Bruce couldnt believe what he was hearing and it was a little awkward, then Adam double downed on it.

 

So I think when you hear things I wouldnt take them as fact. Somebody likes him, says he is thought of as around the league as smart, somebody hates him and calls him an idiot, he is hard to negotiate with agents so they rate him untrustworth.

 

Now the record is the record
 

 

[Commander -JB-]

Stop being blind homers, she is speaking the gospel.  The Redskins are a dead franchise under Snyder.  They’ll never relive the glory days under his reign.  It’s 100% not going to happen.  20 years isn’t enough for you guys to come around?  My god!  Lolol

[KDawg]

54 minutes ago, Gibbs828791 said:

There is so much mis-information. Adam Schefter was on with Kevin Sheehan last week and he said that around the league Bruce Allen is thought of as very smart. Thom Loverro

who who cant stand Bruce couldnt believe what he was hearing and it was a little awkward, then Adam double downed on it.

 

So I think when you hear things I wouldnt take them as fact. Somebody likes him, says he is thought of as around the league as smart, somebody hates him and calls him an idiot, he is hard to negotiate with agents so they rate him untrustworth.

 

Now the record is the record
 

 

 

Schefter likes him (not as in friends, but as in 'likes him because he gives him info')and defends him because he's a source. 

[HigSkin]

Hoffman on the Junkies this morning and said the following...

 

1.   Dan/Bruce continue to live in their own world and not surprised Gruden had not talked to them basically he's under contract so why would they need to meet.

2.  About Gruden mentioning more communication with FO - Hoffman thinks that was related to QB selection and he never wanted Sanchez.

3.  His gut says Colt starts next year, they draft a QB and Alex starts on PUP - no veteran gets brought in

4.  He's leaning toward Norman gone but since DJ is gone they need a leader back there and wouldn't be surprised to see Ha-Ha back.

5.  Sees Crowder, Preston Smith, Brown, maybe Reed and Foster gone

6.  Snyder does read the WP so he'd be aware of Jenkins article - he does care about the fan situation but still thinks these guy think winning will cure fan problem.  Problem with that is no talent will come here with current structure

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

24 minutes ago, -JB- said:

Stop being blind homers, she is speaking the gospel.  The Redskins are a dead franchise under Snyder.  They’ll never relive the glory days under his reign.  It’s 100% not going to happen.  20 years isn’t enough for you guys to come around?  My god!  Lolol

 

What does this have to do with Jenkins blaming Richmond's financial issues on Snyder and Allen, and then using that flawed logic to advocate keeping the Reskins new stadium out of D.C.?

 

If your answer is "nothing", you are correct, sir!

 

 

16 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Schefter likes him and defends him because he's a source. 

 

I thought Schefter was supposed to be anti-Redskins because of his relationship with Mike Shanahan? lol...

 

I can't keep the ES conspiracy theories straight anymore

[Andre The Giant]

11 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Schefter likes him and defends him because he's a source. 

 

Have you listened to the interview?  Adam insinuates Bruce is smart because no matter what happens, he gets to keep his job.  Bruce is excellent at positioning himself with Snyder.  Bruce is also willing to take the public fall for Snyder mistakes (such as, I believe, multiple instances of the Cousins situation).  The fans blame Bruce, so the owner takes less Bullets. There’s a lot of value to the owner, I can see why he’d be hesitant to move on.  Snyder is huge on loyalty and Bruce uses that to his advantage by appearing extremely loyal. 

 

Adam is tight with Mike Shanahan (Co-wrote a book) who i believe thinks he was betrayed by Bruce to Snyder.  I don’t think Adam and Bruce are close at all. Adam just inferred he’d be very surprised if Bruce loses his job because of the hold he has on Snyder. 

[KDawg]

16 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

 

3.  His gut says Colt starts next year, they draft a QB and Alex starts on PUP - no veteran gets brought in

 

 

 

Re: 3: I can see that. Colt/Josh Johnson/rookie makes sense. Colt means they are somewhat trying. Johnson is now familiar with the team. Not ideal, though.

 

Quote

4.  He's leaning toward Norman gone but since DJ is gone they need a leader back there and wouldn't be surprised to see Ha-Ha back.

 

The coaching staff seems high on him. Not sure why. He wasn't good for us. But on the same token he was still learning the defense. He'd have an offseason under his belt and he may have played himself out of a huge contract. For the right money I'm okay keeping him and seeing what we have with him and Everett. But the money part is important.

 

Quote

5.  Sees Crowder, Preston Smith, Brown, maybe Reid and Foster gone

 

I'd guess they at least try to keep Crowder around. I actually like him as a receiver, but he's injury prone. So money is very important here because we have to be able to afford someone to replace him. And that person needs to be on the roster day one of OTAs. I'm okay with moving on from all of them, though. And before someone saying Trey Quinn can replace him, the dude was on the shelf all year except for a game... not sure I buy that.

12 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I thought Schefter was supposed to be anti-Redskins because of his relationship with Mike Shanahan? lol...

 

I can't keep the ES conspiracy theories straight anymore

 

I never said that. So I'm not even sure where you got that from. *shrug*

4 minutes ago, Andre The Giant said:

 

Have you listened to the interview?  Adam insinuates Bruce is smart because no matter what happens, he gets to keep his job.  Bruce is excellent at positioning himself with Snyder.  Bruce is also willing to take the public fall for Snyder mistakes (such as, I believe, multiple instances of the Cousins situation).  The fans blame Bruce, so the owner takes less Bullets. There’s a lot of value to the owner, I can see why he’d be hesitant to move on.  Snyder is huge on loyalty and Bruce uses that to his advantage by appearing extremely loyal. 

 

Adam is tight with Mike Shanahan (Co-wrote a book) who i believe thinks he was betrayed by Bruce to Snyder.  I don’t think Adam and Bruce are close at all. Adam just inferred he’d be very surprised if Bruce loses his job because of the hold he has on Snyder. 

 

I heard. I think Bruce is smart in that sense as well. But I think Schefter knows better and "defended" him simply because Bruce provides him with info. Could be wrong. Nothing surprises me. It's just my take.

 

I'm not saying he's friends with him, for the record. Just that he provides Schefter with content. I know I said "likes him" above, but I didn't mean "likes" as in friends. I probably should have made that more clear before pressing "submit". Thanks for catching that.

[Dissident2]

4 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Here's another. From Jenkins' article:

And don't forget...you asked for this lol 😎

 

OK, that makes two. Please now share the other 13 flawed points from Sally you claimed you could see so easily ("I could see like 15, lol."). Otherwise, it could be argued that your whole "I am the defender of all things logic" routine - in this case - "reeks of either disingenuous statements or a lack of knowledge [on your] part", to borrow a previous quote from this thread. 

 

 

 

 

[RandyHolt]

There is slant in almost every article written.  Our most popular news channels are heavily slanted.  It's how we roll now, and one by one we are left to sift through everything we read and decide for ourselves. There seem to be zero zippy middle of the road politicians. The loudest most obnoxious voices are the ones we hear the most, and they are the ones that slant to the extremes.

 

In the end Sally is right - it would be rude for a politician to force their constituents fund Dan Snyders next stadium.  He doesn't need tax payers money.

[Burgold]

7 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

And my issue isn't that Jenkins is biased, as you said we all know she is. But if she portrays something as factual to her readers, it damn well better be factual. If she says something happened a certain way to her audience, it damn well better have happened the way she described.

Just wanted to confirm this. For a period, I was an op-ed writer for the post and a commentator on WAMU 88.5 FM's Metro Connection. Every fact I wrote had to be checked and accurate. I was allowed to state an opinion, but the details had to be accurate or the piece was rejected. The editors, at least the ones I worked with, took this very seriously. The only exception is if you make it very clear that you are being hyperbolic or exaggerating to an absurd degree.

 

Op-ed writers and commentators, especially those employed by a media outlet, should never lie.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

31 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I never said that. So I'm not even sure where you got that from. *shrug*

 

 

I never said you did lol...that's why I said "I can't keep the ES conspiracy theories straight anymore" and not "I can't keep KDawg's conspiracy theories straight anymore."

[Califan007 The Constipated]

23 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

OK, that makes two. Please now share the other 13 flawed points from Sally you claimed you could see so easily ("I could see like 15, lol."). Otherwise, it could be argued that your whole "I am the defender of all things logic" routine - in this case - "reeks of either disingenuous statements or a lack of knowledge [on your] part", to borrow a previous quote from this thread.

 

 

Show of hands...who wants 13 (or more) long-ass posts from me on this topic? lol...If you guys say "yes" I'll gladly do it. I didn't get to 36,000+ posts by shying away, afterall lol...

[FrFan]

The same Schefter who said Art Monk didn't belong into the HOF, the only one who claimed that we might get some cap relief (while JLC said no way).

Schefter: Bruce Allen ‘One of Smartest People in NFL’

" That is three references to how smart the brain trust is for the Redskins, with an extra “shrewd” bestowed on Allen. And yet, in the same breath, Schefter acknowledges that the Redskins have given Cousins all of the leverage in this situation by continuing to bet against him with one-year, rapidly escalating deals."

 

Edit: New book says Bruce Allen screamed at NFL owners during 2012 league meetings

[Dissident2]

14 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Show of hands...who wants 13 (or more) long-ass posts from me on this topic? lol...If you guys say "yes" I'll gladly do it. I didn't get to 36,000+ posts by shying away, afterall lol...

 

I'd personally like to see the "show of hands" question more often before posts. 

 

So you can't combine your other 13 points in simply ONE post with a bit of merciful brevity? Just point out the other 13. You don't have to elaborate much. Seemed like you spotted them quickly. Surely you can list them quickly. 

[Skinsinparadise]

As for the team promising more revenue via tourism, etc.  The fact that a city does its own research too -- that goes without saying.  It's how government works most of the time.  So the idea that Richmond is complicit in the training camp underperforming -- of course they are.  But is it on point?   The point is the Redskins are pushing for something -- her angle is don't buy into what they are selling. 

 

And the idea that at this moment the operative point is the Redskins are indeed trying to sell their target audience that its a win win for everyone.  The idea that the city-state does their own internal investigation into it goes without saying.  Just about any major government endeavor involves someone lobbying for something and the other side deciding whether what's being asked is a good deal.   And on the back end you almost are always getting help as to making the decision.  But its the front end, the lobbying side that's the relevant aspect to her article.  And the front end typically has the most impact -- alas that's why campaign contributions exists and political favors get traded back and forth. 

 

One side wants something -- in this case its the Redskins.  Another side needs to give something -- in this case its the local government.  The side that wants something puts a lot of effort into convincing the other side that what they want is a win win for both sides.   There is a reason why Dan and many owners give lots and lots of money to politicians.  It buys you influence.  And it gives certain legislators an incentive to be "open minded" to other points of view regardless of your "internal" studies.   And from my own experience the internal studies are rarely treated like gospel.  Often there is an angle that some label on the internal stuff too but I won't complicate my post by delving into that. 

 

The fact that the Redskins are in process of trying to convince a local municipality or state that it would be in their best interest to use taxpayer funds (if so) to build a stadium.  And they did the same thing for Richmond and were proven wrong is VERY relevant to Jenkins specific point. 

 

From working 7 years in state government and been around the business in 20 years and even in a small way helping a little on 2 stadium deals via a consultant friend who had the lead on it....

 

Right now in their quest to get a new stadium, I'd put money that the Redskins have put in some serious money and effort to convince whomever I guess probably in this case DC that it will benefit the city.  From my experience, you typically are able to win over certain people (but not all) as advocates.  In the DC case right now  looks like Bowser is for it.  Grusso is against it.  Jack Evans taking the lead for it.  I'd put money that you can track campaign contributions relating to all of this.  I'd put money that Evans could care less at this point about whatever study the city puts out on it.  Once you've made your bed on an issue like this, you rarely back track and will ride the numbers from the side you took. 

 

Her operative point on the stadium to me is below.  It's a problem in other states and other situations, too.  the idea that fans aren't hot right now going to Fedex because of Dan's leadership and the Richmond deal didn't pan out well -- both are on point.  The line about the grass seems to be a mistake.   She had good quotes if she wanted to use it on said point including from Bruce.  When I was in Richmond for camp ironically I read a long article in the Richmond times about said topic that got into what the Redskins pushed and what happened and what didn't happen.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/gifting-daniel-snyder-any-money-or-land-for-a-new-redskins-stadium-would-be-absolute-madness/2019/01/01/5337cd42-0de5-11e9-831f-3aa2c2be4cbd_story.html?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true&utm_term=.a8ded42cee41

Now do the multiplication and think about the 10-figure damage Snyder could do to any city that takes on a billion-dollar stadium project for him. Even the best arenas rarely deliver on the extravagant promises of their builders; 

[Springfield]

Anyone fired yet?

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Andre The Giant said:

 

Have you listened to the interview?  Adam insinuates Bruce is smart because no matter what happens, he gets to keep his job.  Bruce is excellent at positioning himself with Snyder.  

 

I listened to it, heard him say this.  If I recall I posted on this part too but yeah on twitter they ran with it being some blanket praise about Bruce.  Schefter sort of praised him with a description that made him come across like a weasel.    If I recall he used the word he's a "survivor" because he knows how to maneuver behind the scenes.

 

2 hours ago, Andre The Giant said:

 Bruce is also willing to take the public fall for Snyder mistakes (such as, I believe, multiple instances of the Cousins situation).  The fans blame Bruce, so the owner takes less Bullets. There’s a lot of value to the owner, I can see why he’d be hesitant to move on.  Snyder is huge on loyalty and Bruce uses that to his advantage by appearing extremely loyal. 

 

I don't recall him making this point.  Is this you guessing what he really meant?  Otherwise sorry I'd have to go back and re-listen.  Don't recall him delving into the previous QB here at all and judging by just about everyone who covered that story -- we can kill Dan for many things but that negotiation was Bruce's baby.  Dan screwed things up at QB including with that specific QB but in a totally different way than Bruce did -- again if buying into different narratives. 

 

I've picked up that some like the narrative that Bruce is just a shield for Dan and or is just a vehicle to do his bidding.  And sorry I can't help raining on that parade every time I see signs of that point and that's nothing personal at whomever is posting it.  But its simply because while I can never verify anything first hand obviously -- there are still very few things that EVERY beat guy with sources rally around the same point.  And its hard for me to believe that everyone of them is fooled. 

 

And that is, Bruce brings his own brand of dysfunction and is a mega douche in his own right.  From my own quick discussion with Bruce and just watching how he rolls on TV and radio that profile (backroom arrogant politician) seems to fit with my observations -- ditto his Prince of Darkness label in Tampa when he was a GM there from a reporter.  And all the stuff that Lombardi said about him when he worked with him with the Raiders. 

 

But like most backroom politics -- there is typically nuance versus things being all or nothing.   So got little doubt Bruce has stopped Dan from doing some stupid stuff and even indeed served as a vehicle from Dan from time to time and did his bidding.   Just about everyone in a position like that takes things from time to time on the chin for their boss and talks them out of bad ideas. 

 

But like one reporter called Dan and Bruce.  They are Frick and Frack behind the scenes.  They see the world the same way.  That's probably why its a bromance that's very hard to break.  And this isn't me just believing what I want to believe.  For example, I took Bruce's side in the Scot dispute because I heard enough accounts of it that took me to that position.  And I liked Scot a lot but still it is what it is.   

 

I'd love to believe that Bruce is a good dude who is mostly just saving us from Dan's worst impulses and just taking hits for the dude.   But nothing points there for me (zero) with the caveat that its true to an extent, there has to be some of that just by nature of that position for ANYONE in that role but most indications is most of Bruce's well reported douche tendencies is his own game and own drill.  Albeit I bet Dan has no problem with any Bruce douche moves because again they are described as two of a kind.