The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[TK]

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Not sure I get the impression late teens or early 20s

Teenager. 

[Renegade7]

That's the kinda hope I've been looking for.

[zCommander]

4 hours ago, TK said:

Teenager. 

 

Which son is Haskins talking about here then:

 

Ohio State quarterback and D.C. area high school product Dwayne Haskins (Bullis) would like to play for the Redskins, who certainly have a QB need.

“Actually (Redskins owner Dan) Snyder’s son went to my high school (Bullis). So I’m pretty good friends with him. … So going back home to the Redskins would be a lot of fun.”

[Renegade7]

Destiny?

[Kurd Cudins]

I wonder what school Snyder’s son got kicked out of before he went to Bullis.

[Brixtion_skin]

On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 5:25 PM, XtremeFan55 said:

I hope fans can now see how Tony Wylie operates.  He has Bruce’s back because it is Bruce who hired him in 2010 and promoted him to “Senior Vice President”.

 

So he knows how to play the media.  Plant innuendo, rumors, slanders to sports journalist desperate for something to report and watching those tidbits of news take off like wildfire.   

 

Look at this Kyle Smith episode.  Like Scot before him, the fans are beginning to clamour for his promotion to GM and to get Bruce fired.   And like Scot before him....stories start leaking from anonymous sources which is Tony Wylie to undermine Kyle Smith to sully his reputation so that the calls for his promotion will dissipate.   

 

The reason why it is Tony Wylie behind all this is because it is his job.  Just go back and remember how he followed RG3 around to monitor his interviews after a game then cut it off when he thought that was enough .  Or how about his “No...Means.. No” when he cut off Colt’s interview after a game.  This guy is like a sinister shadow watching every piece of information getting out.  Does anyone really think there are loose cannon employees feeding information with a guy like Wylie around?   All anonymous information leaking has got to be Wylie and no one else.

 

As Kyle gets more experience and better at his job he will not be content working under the current authority structure of Bruce and Doug being ahead of him and will likely leave at some point and go on to be successful somewhere else.  Bruce wants to maintain the status quo at all costs and will step in to remove any obstacle to his power by utilizing his loyal henchman...Tony Wylie.  

 

That is why the whole FO needs to go in order to bring in real change.  Bruce has too much power and will do everything to keep it.

 

There is a window of opportunity for change but that will require fans to boycott the games and stay away.   Because the attendance has dropped precipitously last year from the Redskins having 3rd best figures down to 27th in the league.....the fans must continue to boycott and bring it down even more and force Snyder to make major changes.   If not that...then I can see the League forcing Snyder to change since they operate as a Cartel and the other owners have a say because it can jeopardize the next TV negotiations.

 

Please....boycott the games this Fall.  Let it be so bad that Snyder or the League steps in and force Bruce and his cronies out.  

 

Then there will be some hope. 

 

 

 

Boycotts can work.  However TV money might make that a bit hard to get the desired effect.  However a small football club in the England managed to get it to work.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47392440

 

[Thinking Skins]

I just wanted to chime in and say that this is the move I thought we'd make. Not necessarily the player I thought, but trading for a mediocre player that's good enough to keep us competing for a. 500 record but nothing that's going to move the needle in terms of getting us into relevancy. I expected McCarron,but to be I honest i can't really complain about what we gave up. Just seems like at aren't building anything, more like patching holes on a sinking ship. So many pray we'd just let it sink and get a top draft pick, I'd rather make these type of moves but for a 25 year old or younger who can at least surprise us and turn things around. With a 31 year old and older qbs it's one again us betting on this season or else. 

 

Aah well, hail. 

[ixcuincle]

Scot was fired 2 years ago today. Most of his picks didn't even work out and his FA record was pretty bad. 

 

He leaves behind a rather mixed legacy for sure. I would give his tenure here a D+. Maybe a D. Very disappointing for a "football genius" who had done wonders in SF and Seattle. Why didn't we get any of that here? 

[Burgold]

The Case Keenum move was actually a pretty good, smart short term move, but therein lies the question. Should the GM have a short term view or be looking at the big picture? Personally, I always imagined that the coach should focus on the short term (week to week or perhaps this season) while the GM takes a longer term perspective in keeping the team strong over a longer horizon.

 

So in terms of the front office, I really can't decide if they get credit or if this was a mistake. Even if it works out this year, I don't know if it was a good move or a mistake.

[Voice_of_Reason]

@Burgold if they didn’t go nuclear and cut Smith and half the roster to clear all the space and start over fresh, this was about as good a plan B as you can ask for.

 

Keenum is off the books in 1 year.  You draft a guy, have 2 serviceable QBs for 2019.  If it all goes to crap then you can cut everybody and start over with a new regime. 

 

 

 

[Burgundy Yoda]

17 hours ago, ixcuincle said:

Scot was fired 2 years ago today. Most of his picks didn't even work out and his FA record was pretty bad. 

 

He leaves behind a rather mixed legacy for sure. I would give his tenure here a D+. Maybe a D. Very disappointing for a "football genius" who had done wonders in SF and Seattle. Why didn't we get any of that here? 

 

Has success everywhere else and then comes here and has no success. I feel like there have been dozens of instances like this with the Redskins yet people still dont get it. 

[skinzplay]

It's hard for me to be critical of McCloughan's brief tenure with the team, @ixcuincle. Two years just isn't long enough to know whether he was or was not leading the team in the right direction. We do know for a fact what impact the current president has had on not only the roster, but also on the coaching staff and the ability to really develop players. If I were an agent, I'd never let one of my guys either coach or play in Washington so long as George Allen's son is still in that building.

 

But back to McCloughan. Everybody misses. That's true in any sport when it comes to player assessment and acquisition. I do think, however, that he was taking the right approach in how to build the team. He went to the combine, the current president went consignment. That's been a big problem. It's been written about quite a lot, especially by Brewer and Keim. You just can't go to the bargain bin and sign oft-injured players and use that as a model for building a team. It's absurd. I think that with enough time, McCloughan would have given this team some real talent, and also an identity (which it STILL does'nt have under Gruden and Rasputin).

[Burgold]

I dunno. Given what happened subsequent to the 'skins, I have a feeling that McCloughan's problems were real and he was getting worse. He didn't last with the Browns either and that is one of the most patient orgs regardless of winning and losing.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Giving McCloughan a chance to rebuild his reputation was a generous thing for Bruce and the team to do...and could’ve paid huge dividends for the franchise.  Obviously, the demons were still there and and it all fell apart rather quickly.

 

Such is the nature of these things...

[skinzplay]

28 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I dunno. Given what happened subsequent to the 'skins, I have a feeling that McCloughan's problems were real and he was getting worse. He didn't last with the Browns either and that is one of the most patient orgs regardless of winning and losing.

 

His contract with the Browns was exclusively as a consultancy through the period of the 2018 draft process, including assessing potential UDFA. I have no dog in the McCloughan-Rasputin fight, but it's pretty clear what went on in Ashburn. I hope he gets another shot somewhere where his good works won't be viewed in a threatening manner, but rather as something that's being done to improve the team.

[Peregrine]

On 3/10/2019 at 10:15 AM, ixcuincle said:

Scot was fired 2 years ago today. Most of his picks didn't even work out and his FA record was pretty bad. 

 

He leaves behind a rather mixed legacy for sure. I would give his tenure here a D+. Maybe a D. Very disappointing for a "football genius" who had done wonders in SF and Seattle. Why didn't we get any of that here? 

Not true, but cute.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Any word yet on Scot's grievance?...If not, it's been like 15 months and counting.

 

Also, I remember it being said here that Scot's short tenure as GM of the 49ers didn't produce too much success. I don't feel like going back and seeing how accurate that statement is lol...but if it is accurate then it seems his best moments were when he was not GM and not in charge.

[Skinsinparadise]

30 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Any word yet on Scot's grievance?...If not, it's been like 15 months and counting.

 

Also, I remember it being said here that Scot's short tenure as GM of the 49ers didn't produce too much success. I don't feel like going back and seeing how accurate that statement is lol...but if it is accurate then it seems his best moments were when he was not GM and not in charge.

 

Thought he lost his grievance.  Seemed like the hint beat guys gave about Scot's likely angle in the grievance was the drinking drill was something that was present at Redskins Park but not exclusive to him.  But I don't think the details ever got public.

 

SF ended up having a good run once Scot ironically left, a lot of players he drafted were a big part of that run.  But like any GM, he had hits and misses.  Good drafts and bad drafts.  As Parcells among others like to say, if you are batting 500 with your personnel decisions you are good at what you do because you are going to have some big misses.

 

Based on what some beat guys have suggested the Redskins issue with Scot wasn't his work but his extracurricular antics.  According to Jay and Scott Campbell they relied on Scot's draft board heavily, FA list too after he left. 

[ixcuincle]

33 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

Not true, but cute.

 

I just wish we had seen more success under the era. The record was mediocre just like it was after he left (oh they won one more game with Scot than they did with Bruce what a travesty) 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Thought he lost his grievance.  Seemed like the hint beat guys gave about Scot's likely angle in the grievance was the drinking drill was something that was present at Redskins Park but not exclusive to him.  But I don't think the details ever got public.

1

 

How did I miss that lol...guess I wasn't paying too close attention (lots of nonsense to occupy our attention with this team lol)...

 

SF ended up having a good run once Scot ironically left, a lot of players he drafted were a big part of that run.  But like any GM, he had hits and misses.  Good drafts and bad drafts.  As Parcells among others like to say, if you are batting 500 with your personnel decisions you are good at what you do because you are going to have some big misses.

 

Ironically, I went ahead and did a google search for "scot mccloughan 49ers gm" and found an article that broke down Scot's  drafts as GM--2 with San Fran and 2 with the Redskins.

 

His 2009 draft was brutal lol...3 of his top 4 picks were out of the league after one year. innyways, this is what they have:

 

49ers 2008 NFL Draft

1 (29): Kentwan Balmer, DE, North Carolina - 62 tackles and two pass deflections. Started 11 of 46 games played. Out of the league since 2011.

2 (39): Chilo Rachal, OG, USC - Started 46 of 64 games played. Out of the league since 2012.

3 (75): Reggie Smith, DB, Oklahoma - 64 tackles, seven pass deflections and two interceptions. Started 7 of 45 games played. Out of the league since 2011.

4 (107): Cody Wallace, C, Texas A&M - Started 22 of 49 games played. Out of the league since 2016.

6 (174): Josh Morgan, WR, West Virginia - 209 receptions for 2,558 yards, 12 touchdowns. Out of the league since 2014.

7 (217): Larry Grant, OLB, Ohio State - 95 career tackles, five sacks and four forced fumbles. Out of the league since 2013.

49ers 2009 NFL Draft

1 (10): Michael Crabtree, WR, Texas Tech - 579 receptions for 6,870 yards and 51 touchdowns. Started 122 of 125 games played.

3 (74): Glen Coffee, RB, Alabama - 83 carries for 226 yards and a touchdown. 11 receptions for 76 yards. Out of the league since 2009.

5 (146): Scott McKillopp, LB, Pittsburgh - 19 career tackles. Out of the league since 2009.

5 (171): Nate Davis, QB, Ball State - No career stats. Out of the league since 2009.

6 (184): Bear Pascoe, TE, Fresno State - 40 receptions for 336 yards and two touchdowns. Out of the league since 2015.

7 (219): Curtis Taylor, DB, LSU - Seven tackles in 13 games played. Out of the league since 2013.

7 (244): Ricky Jean-Francois, DT, LSU - 165 tackles, 12 sacks and a forced fumble. Started 36 of 121 games played. Now with the Patriots.

 

 

Based on what some beat guys have suggested the Redskins issue with Scot wasn't his work but his extracurricular antics.  According to Jay and Scott Campbell they relied on Scot's draft board heavily, FA list too after he left.

 

I guess that would seem to indicate that Scot is indeed best when not put in charge? He wasn't in charge with the Browns and they had a pretty decent draft.

[Skinsinparadise]

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

How did I miss that lol...guess I wasn't paying too close attention (lots of nonsense to occupy our attention with this team lol)..

 

Is he better in charge or better as part of a team?  don't know.  If you want to argue the team part what would add fuel was John Schneider had a couple of bad drafts once he left and had some gems when Scot was there.   Saw some Seattle fans whine about that before that they miss Scot.   Don't know.  But just about every GM has a brutal draft or two. 

[Fat Stupid Loser]

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 10:15 AM, ixcuincle said:

Scot was fired 2 years ago today. Most of his picks didn't even work out and his FA record was pretty bad. 

 

He leaves behind a rather mixed legacy for sure. I would give his tenure here a D+. Maybe a D. Very disappointing for a "football genius" who had done wonders in SF and Seattle. Why didn't we get any of that here? 

Bruce was really running things.  Scot was here for show.

[Skinsinparadise]

Kevin Sheehan in yesterday's podcast said he heard from multiple sources that Dan is back.  That is, he is now involved in FA after letting Bruce do his thing for years mostly uninterrupted.   And if I heard him right (I might have to re-listen to this part) Dan was the guy behind the Collins signing.

 

Sheehan among others has been leading the parade that Dan is hands off according to his sources and Bruce has genuinely been running the show.  So this wasn't him piling on because that's how he typically rolls on the subject.  Sheehan has been steering the conversation in the opposite direction about Dan.

 

But Sheehan is saying now and thought so for awhile (so have I since it makes sense) that Dan can't having another ho hum off season when they are bleeding fans.  

 

Personally, I don't know what to think about it.  In general, I don't like the owner messing with the football operation.  On the other hand, I don't consider Bruce to be a real football guy.  So its a matter of one amateur or another running the ship in my book.  And both IMO have fatal flaws for entirely different reasons. 

 

As Mike Lombardi who worked with Bruce likes to say Bruce isn't a football guy, he's a contract guy.    I think its amusing that according to Grant Paulsen he heard people in that FO were taken aback when Lombardi exposed that with the Raiders -- Bruce wasn't involved or even in the room for ANY Raiders personnel discussion.  He was purely contracts.   

 

For the few Bruce defenders here, I've conceded many times he doesn't stink at what he does.  He's mediocre so so.   I give him 2 things -- he likes to accumulate draft picks though still trades too many for my taste but I like the new comp approach (that's a plus) and he doesn't wreck the salary cap.    But at the same time, I think the dude is the key driver of the mindset that sneaking into the playoffs at 9-7 is the be all and end all.  He thinks small IMO and makes a big deal of his thinking small.  You add to that his at times arrogant manner and sleaze with how the FO goes about his business -- I give him on the aggregate low marks.  He's like having a kid in school who is a perpetual C student and often in detention.

 

Dan on the other hand likes a splash.  And I've come around a little on that but far from fully supportive of that point.  I used to be adverse to that thinking.  But seeing how little this team is being discussed nationally and now the team was even used recently by a national football show as an example of a boring team along with the Titans that no one cares about hence they don't cover them much -- that's quite  a comedown from the past.  Ditto not even getting a Sunday Night Football game.  So I get the idea that Dan wants to bring some star power-entertainment to the team.  

 

For me, Dan and Bruce are almost the opposite extremes on the spectrum.  On one hand i agree with Dan in theory as to FA which is buy big time players versus the flea market game.  Yet, I've disagreed with some of his examples of that where he chased big money players who were over the hill, locker room problem types, and good players who weren't great.  See Bruce Smith, Haynesworth, Randle El.  And i hate trading draft picks away.   So on the aggregate I don't like his approach and don't believe that he should be involved in making football decisions. 

 

With Bruce, I like not overpaying for players, not mortgaging the future on the cap and mostly preserving draft picks (good stuff there) -- yet I hate how he doubles down on Dan's approach of never rebuilding.  His FA approach is mostly "meh".   And the way he presents himself and how this team has dealt with issues comes off oddly arrogant and at times sleazy.  

 

I am sticking with please let Kyle Smith run this team.  And both Bruce and Dan get out of his way.  Their college scouting IMO is by a mile the best part of this FO.  Let the dude who runs that run the whole team.  😀

 

[Est.1974]

^^ If true that Dan is back in the chair, expect a significant move in the draft, or more specifically at QB. I'd suggest a possible splash move at WR too. 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

^^ If true that Dan is back in the chair, expect a significant move in the draft, or more specifically at QB. I'd suggest a possible splash move at WR too. 

 

Finlay keeps beating that they might try to trade up for Murray if he becomes available.  Guessing that never happens because Arizona takes him.  Doug also the other day did a reversal from weeks back when he frowned on the idea of trading up -- to now throwing that out there as an option.  Is that Dan's influence?  Maybe.