The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

They don't have the worst product in the NFL.  They have the most average product in the NFL, and possibly the most boring product in the NFL.  Even the teams that really stunk last year like the Cardinals and Giants have SOME intrigue.  The Cards had just selected Rosen, the Giants had Beckham and Barkley, the whole Eli debate, etc. 

 

The 'Skins are just just so average.  9-7, 8-7-1, 7-9, 7-9.  The only shocking thing about them is they haven't actually achieved 8-8 itself yet. They keep flirting with it but miss it by an inch.

 

Agree.  And like I said, I could deal with the boring part myself.  But I think its taking a toll on the fan base.  It would be one thing if Bruce and Dan were just cool guys to root for and team imbued class.  But that's not the case.  Can you get away with boring coupled with winning?  Yep.  But boring  and mediocrity with a dose of sleaze -- not a good combination IMO if they are trying to market to more causal fans.  We complain here but we stuck by the team in spite of it all.  The more casual fans not so much.

 

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

And I'm not even sure if lucking into a franchise QB, with this FO and coaching staff would make things that much better.  Cousins was playing at a HIGH level in 2015, especially at the end, and they still went 9-7 and lost in the first round of the playoffs.  They had weapons, a QB playing well, and enough talent to compete on defense, and the OC/play caller was an up and coming genius.  However, the decisions they made on coaching and players on defense doomed the team.  If Drew Brees had been QBing the 2015 Redskins, would they have been a SB team?  Maybe. 

 

 

I am a bigger Cousins fan than most.  But still I am talking great QB play -- Brees, Rogers, Mahomes types.

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

You're 100% right, the casual fan is basically gone, and all that remains are the die-hard fans clinging to the past and hoping something changes, or people too stupid to know better.  

 

And it's not all Bruce/Jay.  And it's not even all Dan.  It started in 1993, and we haven't had a consistent relevant franchise since then.  Not only is the product on the field bad, but the stadium sucks (not Dan's fault) to add insult to injury.  There's no reason to go to the games.  Almost no fans believe in Bruce and what he's doing, they see Doug as a mouthpiece (rightfully or wrongfully), and the best most can say about the coaching staff is "it could be worse, it could be Zorn or Spurrier."  That's not a ringing endorsement, and not a lot to sell hope on.  Hope leads to interest.  When there is no hope, there's no interest.  Dan/Bruce/Jay and the rest of the gang just don't provide any hope things will get better.

 

 

As you know, I am not as down on Jay as some.  But I am not in love with the dude either.  I do think this FO makes it difficult to bring out his best or for that matter bring out the best out of ANY HC.   I am never married to any HC.  What I want is a real FO with a normal structure.  I give you that there is nothing sexy about Jay from a fan interest stand point.  As for the rest of this.  My take of what has hurt the franchise over time is a combination of this:

 

A.  Mishandling FA.

B.  Dan's splashes have come and gone and people are burnt out and don't trust it anymore

C.  Dan's determination to have people run the FO who are NFL laughingstocks.   

D.  Dan's douche behavior.  Bruce's douche behavior

E.  How Scot and Kirk were handled

F. Years of doing it differently than most other teams without the results to show that their way is better

G.  They've drafted better of late but they haven't found the Beckhams, Antonio Brown, Von Miller types and FA has been mostly ho hum = lack of star power

H.  Most of the national media has come to the conclusion that this is a yawn inducing team and not worth much discussion

I.  The way this team typically gets national notice is via their dysfunction. 

J.  The stadium stinks.

K.   The NFL is a QB driven league and we don't have a good one.  And this problem has plagued the organization for most of Dan's tenure

 

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Here's where we differ.  I don't sympathize with his predicament because it's one of his own making through a variety of stupid hiring decisions.  Dan has two major flaws: he trusts the wrong people to give him good advice, and he isn't willing to do things which make him uncomfortable.  Marty made him uncomfortable.  Marty was shown the door.

 

 

I flat out in a post the other day said its ALL Dan's making.  By sympathy I mean if I were in his shoes I wouldn't ignore the predicament.  He's dug himself into this hole.  And as much  as Dan seems to rely and depend on Bruce -- I think that dude has hurt his brand in a deeper way than even Vinny did.  And I've explained how in other posts.

 

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

I've said it before, and I don't think it's popular, but I think it would have the best chance of success: if I were Dan, I'd hire Peyton Manning to be the head of football operations.   I'd pay him a gagillion dollars, and make him the face of the franchise. Then have him pick a VP of Personnel or something like that with a scouting background to work with.  Here's why:

 

 

I'd be ok with that.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am gathering you are thinking Jaylon Smith?  They did pay off.   Trying to think of other examples with Dallas.   Just about every team takes some chances.  But some of the Redskins key players have a tendency to get hurt and arguably more so than most teams. 

 

 

 

Examples would include:

 

Jaylon Smith (like you said)...

Their OG Connor Williams, who was injured in college then injured again his rookie season...I think his injury dropped him down in the draft (not sure, doing this from memory)

Tyron Smith (to a lesser degree but still misses like 3 games a season due to injury)...

Demarcus Lawrence has had back and shoulder injuries, and a broken foot, troubling him during his time with Dallas...

SeanLee, who I think is legally considered a paraplegic now lol (his college injury did drop him in the draft)...

Romo (of course)...

 

Cowboys fans have been criticizing their FO for continually relying on guys who had proven themselves to be injury risks and a large percentage of the fanbase had been calling for moving on from pretty much everyone mentioned above.

 

[CjSuAvE22]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

A.  Mishandling FA.

B.  Dan's splashes have come and gone and people are burnt out and don't trust it anymore

C.  Dan's determination to have people run the FO who are NFL laughingstocks.   

D.  Dan's douche behavior.  Bruce's douche behavior

E.  How Scot and Kirk were handled

F. Years of doing it differently than most other teams without the results to show that their way is better

G.  They've drafted better of late but they haven't found the Beckhams, Antonio Brown, Von Miller types and FA has been mostly ho hum = lack of star power

H.  Most of the national media has come to the conclusion that this is a yawn inducing team and not worth much discussion

I.  The way this team typically gets national notice is via their dysfunction. 

J.  The stadium stinks.

K.   The NFL is a QB driven league and we don't have a good one.  And this problem has plagued the organization for most of Dan's tenure

 

 

 

YES. Well said.

[Skinsinparadise]

27 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

Cowboys fans have been criticizing their FO for continually relying on guys who had proven themselves to be injury risks and a large percentage of the fanbase had been calling for moving on from pretty much everyone mentioned above.

 

 

OK but that's not a lot.  All teams have examples.  But I admit I haven't thought through the whole Cowboys roster so if they got other examples then sure I guess Dallas is doing the same.   But the issue to me isn't that they have injury problems but how much do you continue to rely on them and or double down by acquiring more players like that?  For example Sean Lee is chronically hurt but still he's been a key player for them yet they spent their top pick in the last draft on a MLB.  So clearly they've gotten tired of relying on him and now he's actually more of a back up than anything.

 

Maybe the Redskins have reached similar conclusions about some players.  Will see.  It's football so every team is going to draft and acquire guys with some injury history.  Casserly's point was that for the Redskins more than most have a lot of their key players with serious injury questions.  Sean Lee is a good example for Dallas.  Skip Bayless would cry about how bad their defense is whenever Lee missed games.  Dallas' evidently acted on that point last off season and drafted a MLB high in the draft.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

20 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK but that's not a lot.  All teams have examples.  But I admit I haven't thought through the whole Cowboys roster so if they got other examples then sure I guess Dallas is doing the same.   But the issue to me isn't that they have injury problems but how much do you continue to rely on them and or double down by acquiring more players like that?  For example Sean Lee is chronically hurt but still he's been a key player for them yet they spent their top pick in the last draft on a MLB.  So clearly they've gotten tired of relying on him and now he's actually more of a back up than anything.

 

Maybe the Redskins have reached similar conclusions about some players.  Will see.  It's football so every team is going to draft and acquire guys with some injury history.  Casserly's point was that for the Redskins more than most have a lot of their key players with serious injury questions.  Sean Lee is a good example for Dallas.  Skip Bayless would cry about how bad their defense is whenever Lee missed games.  Dallas' evidently acted on that point last off season and drafted a MLB high in the draft.

5

 

They invested a 1st round pick to effectively replace Lee 8 years after drafting him...it would be like the Skins replacing Reed in 2021. Up until then, the Cowboys were relying on Lee to stay healthy because when he was healthy he was very good. but yeah, they have more players than the ones I listed, I'm sure (did it from memory).

 

You mentioned Dallas taking chances with troubled players (my word, not yours lol)...for years Cowboys fans said Jerruh's M.O. was sign talented players with injury histories or off-the-field issues to "scraping the bottom of the barrel"-size contracts, and hope they would either remain healthy or stay out of trouble and then the 'boys would have a top level talent for pennies...or pounce when they dropped in the draft. They were far, FAR more frustrated than Skins fans by the lack of signing good free agents and constantly said the other 3 teams in the division had improved while the Cowboys treaded water. I don't visit Giants or Eagles message boards so I don't know if their fans also say many of the same things...well, with the Giants if their message boards read anything like twitter they are severely roasting Gettleman on a daily basis lol...

 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I am a bigger Cousins fan than most.  But still I am talking great QB play -- Brees, Rogers, Mahomes types.

And I’m saying I don’t even think Brees/Mahloms/Rodgers fixes our problems.  Brees has a solid coach in Peyton, and was throwing for 5k Yards and 30 TDs and they still went 7-9 in back to back seasons because the defensive side of the ball was atrocious.  

 

Rodgers couldn’t get McCarthy out of his own way, and they haven’t won anything of note in years. 

 

Ben Rothlisburger (and a million weapons) can’t overcome the fact Tomlin is “meh.”  

 

If Rodgers landed here tomorrow, the results might be a bit better, because Rodgers has more talent in just his left testicle than McCoy and Keenum combined in their whole bodies, but with the current roster, FO and coaching staff IN TOTAL (not just HC) it wouldn’t be much better than 8-8.  

 

Bring in Brady and Bellichick (and Pats staff) and leave the rest of the roster the same?  11-5 would be in play.   Bellichick would find a way to make Allen/Payne and the defense a top 10 unit.  Something I don’t have a lot of faith in Manusky to do.  And Brady and company could make enough of the offense to win a lot more games.

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

They invested a 1st round pick to effectively replace Lee 8 years after drafting him...it would be like the Skins replacing Reed in 2021. Up until then, the Cowboys were relying on Lee to stay healthy because when he was healthy he was very good. but yeah, they have more players than the ones I listed, I'm sure (did it from memory).

 

You mentioned Dallas taking chances with troubled players (my word, not yours lol)...for years Cowboys fans said Jerruh's M.O. was sign talented players with injury histories or off-the-field issues to "scraping the bottom of the barrel"-size contracts, and hope they would either remain healthy or stay out of trouble and then the 'boys would have a top level talent for pennies...or pounce when they dropped in the draft. They were far, FAR more frustrated than Skins fans by the lack of signing good free agents and constantly said the other 3 teams in the division had improved while the Cowboys treaded water. I don't visit Giants or Eagles message boards so I don't know if their fans also say many of the same things...well, with the Giants if their message boards read anything like twitter they are severely roasting Gettleman on a daily basis lol...

 

 

 

OK though not sure what the point is in relation to my post since I didn't put a timeline on when they addressed it.   I said they finally had enough and addressed it. And i even said maybe the Redskins have reached that point too about some players.  Will see. 

 

Not sure though what we are debating.  I gather its you saying the Cowboys are just as guilty as the Redskins in relying on injured players?  I don't know.  It doesn't seem to be the same amount of players based on this discussion but I haven't dived into their roster -- maybe later today if I am bored I'll do it.   But I'll run with your point for argument sake.  And even if that's the case, I'd still trade the Cowboys roster for ours in two seconds.  Jerry for his many faults has had a better run than Dan.  

As for Gettleman's mishaps.  Sure, I've pounded him as much as anyone.  But for me regardless it doesn't make me feel one whit better about Bruce.   I am not saying you are saying otherwise -- just saying for me there is nothing going on with other teams that makes me feel good about Bruce.  I am right now as intense about wanting him gone as I was years back about Vinny.  😀

[HardcoreZorn]

25 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

And I’m saying I don’t even think Brees/Mahloms/Rodgers fixes our problems.  Brees has a solid coach in Peyton, and was throwing for 5k Yards and 30 TDs and they still went 7-9 in back to back seasons because the defensive side of the ball was atrocious.  

 

Rodgers couldn’t get McCarthy out of his own way, and they haven’t won anything of note in years. 

 

Ben Rothlisburger (and a million weapons) can’t overcome the fact Tomlin is “meh.”  

 

If Rodgers landed here tomorrow, the results might be a bit better, because Rodgers has more talent in just his left testicle than McCoy and Keenum combined in their whole bodies, but with the current roster, FO and coaching staff IN TOTAL (not just HC) it wouldn’t be much better than 8-8.  

 

Bring in Brady and Bellichick (and Pats staff) and leave the rest of the roster the same?  11-5 would be in play.   Bellichick would find a way to make Allen/Payne and the defense a top 10 unit.  Something I don’t have a lot of faith in Manusky to do.  And Brady and company could make enough of the offense to win a lot more games.

 

We have been hovering around 8-8 for the past 4 seasons with nothing resembling an Aaron Rodgers level QB and we wouldn’t be much better than 8-8 with him? Come again?

 

And who truly are our “injury prone” players? As in year after year miss a ton of games? CT? Reed? P-rich too. Lavaou for sure but moving on from him.Trent and Moses banged up a fair amount but often play through it. We’ve taken some chances on guys like Moreau and Fuller but they have more than panned out as 3rd rounders and stayed healthy in their pro careers thus far (knock on wood). CT and Reed are critical to our success on offense so I get the gist of our FO relying too heavily on guys who have proven to not available, but think it’s misguided to act like there’s not a good amount of mis fortune with guys like Smith, Guice, Scherff, Ioanidis, Dunbar, and then all of the backups on top of that going down last year (guys who don’t have extensive injury histories).

 

Its a deep year for pass catchers. I want Burns round 1. Then I want an offensive infusion. Pass catchers, RBs, OL, QB. Everything. The defense is talented enough to hold some leads, esp if you add some speed on the edge.

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK though not sure what the point is in relation to my post since I didn't put a timeline on when they addressed it.   I said they finally had enough and addressed it. And i even said maybe the Redskins have reached that point too about some players.  Will see.

1

 

You said they clearly got tired of Lee always being hurt...my point was that if you wait 8 years to find a replacement for a player who is constantly injured, you aren't really growing tired of that player always being hurt. I mean, healthy players get replaced after 8 years lol...if the Skins drafted Reed's replacement last year, that would tell me that they're tired of his constant injuries. If they wait until 2021, that tells me they tried relying on an injured player for wayyyy too long. That's what the Cowboys did...relied on Lee far too long considering his injury history. 

 

I have no idea if what Casserly said is true or not (not that I think he's lying). I would imagine that the number of "injury-prone' players that are being relied upon by their teams to contribute to a signficant degree year after year is quantifiable...but it would take a ****load of research and analysis. I don't know if he did that before making that claim.

 

 

[Wildbunny]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

K.   The NFL is a QB driven league and we don't have a good one.  And this problem has plagued the organization for most of Dan's tenure

L. When we got someone that looked like a decent to above average or even just good QB, we ran him out of town...

[CjSuAvE22]

54 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

L. When we got someone that looked like a decent to above average or even just good QB, we ran him out of town...

Hence why we dont deserve to be good...gruden abd cousins coulda been a thing but this FO is clueless replaced two goid receivers with a prospect with potential then a qb with a mediocre aging vet...

[TheShredder]

Gotta delete this one, my mistake. 

[Skinsinparadise]

Sheehan's podcsst yesterday:  Bruce Allen was at a big St. Patrick's Day's dinner with a lot of lumaries. When Bruce was announced he got booed by the crowd there and he tried to laugh it off but looked uncomfortable. When Gov. Larry Hogan spoke at that event he talked about dysfunctiom in Washington and said in that mix you don't have to look far to see the dysfunction by looking at the Washington Redskins,

 

On another note, Keim in his podcasts said Jay is likely frustrated but its not because he doesnt have input. But its that he doesn't have final input. And said Bruce is the decision maker there and he doesn't know why he tries to hide that publicly so much.

[goskins10]

On 3/20/2019 at 5:03 PM, HardcoreZorn said:

 

We have been hovering around 8-8 for the past 4 seasons with nothing resembling an Aaron Rodgers level QB and we wouldn’t be much better than 8-8 with him? Come again?

 

And who truly are our “injury prone” players? As in year after year miss a ton of games? CT? Reed? P-rich too. Lavaou for sure but moving on from him.Trent and Moses banged up a fair amount but often play through it. We’ve taken some chances on guys like Moreau and Fuller but they have more than panned out as 3rd rounders and stayed healthy in their pro careers thus far (knock on wood). CT and Reed are critical to our success on offense so I get the gist of our FO relying too heavily on guys who have proven to not available, but think it’s misguided to act like there’s not a good amount of mis fortune with guys like Smith, Guice, Scherff, Ioanidis, Dunbar, and then all of the backups on top of that going down last year (guys who don’t have extensive injury histories).

 

Its a deep year for pass catchers. I want Burns round 1. Then I want an offensive infusion. Pass catchers, RBs, OL, QB. Everything. The defense is talented enough to hold some leads, esp if you add some speed on the edge.

 

 

 

The argument continues to be let's look at just last season. The Redskins have been in the top 6 for injuries 3 of the last 4 seasons and top 10 for 4 of 5. They have been top 11 all 5 season in Lost AV (quality of players lost) and top 5 in 4 of 5 seasons for Lost W-AV (weighted value based on their career). Even the one yr the team was 20th in total man games lost they were 4th in quality of players lost. At the bottom of the chart is shows the average rank fro each category - the 5 yrs before Bruce had all final say and the 5 yrs since he has had final say. See chart below. They keep bringing key guys back that have injury problems and/or signing guys with injury histories to get them cheap. This is way more than coincidence or just bad luck. 

 

And I would not mention Fuller. He was a good get in the 3rd but was traded. So we get s truly solid starter in a position of need in the 3rd so that means he needs to be traded. Stupid to move him. As for Moses - while I applaud his tenacity of playing through the injuries, he has not been as effective. Still a decent RT, but he really should have sat out and gotten fully healthy. And TW has not played all 16 games sine 2013, playing less games each season since. I said last year they should trade him while he has some value for the team. 

 

Sorry, it's not "mis-fortune" that the team is always in the top for injuries. A season or two, OK. But this has been a pattern since Bruce completely took over from Shanny as GM. As we all know now he did not let Scot really be the true GM. He let him draft but apparently did not let him make the call on free agents, including who to keep. 

 

Data Source: https://www.mangameslost.com/category/nfl/nfl-2018-season/   Beware it's a pay site. I got grandfathered in at $5.00/yr so I keep it. I think it's more like $19.99 now but not sure.  

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

As we all know now he did not let Scot really be the true GM. He let him draft but apparently did not let him make the call on free agents, including who to keep. 

1

 

Actually, we don't know that, at all. It's a running narrative that hasn't been backed up much by anything factual.

 

I found it humorous--and telling--that the narrative changed after Scot was fired. Before it was that Bruce was constantly overriding/undermining Scot in free agency. After Scot was fired and people were liking (at the time, anyway) the free agents the Skins were picking up, the narrative quickly became "They're following Scot's board." McCloughan was even on twitter chiming in during both free agency and the draft claiming signing and picks were who he had on his board as well. If we believe both narratives, it means Scot gained more control over the roster after he was fired lol...

[goskins10]

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

Actually, we don't know that, at all. It's a running narrative that hasn't been backed up much by anything factual.

 

I found it humorous--and telling--that the narrative changed after Scot was fired. Before it was that Bruce was constantly overriding/undermining Scot in free agency. After Scot was fired and people were liking (at the time, anyway) the free agents the Skins were picking up, the narrative quickly became "They're following Scot's board." McCloughan was even on twitter chiming in during both free agency and the draft claiming signing and picks were who he had on his board as well. If we believe both narratives, it means Scot gained more control over the roster after he was fired lol...

 

First, it's interesting that out of he entire comment you took um-bridge to a very small part of the comment. But OK, that's kind of your MO 🙂 

 

So are you saying Scot had 100% control? That is totally false and there is plenty out there to prove that. Scot had his highest impact on drafting and the back end of the roster - finding players when other players went down - but did not have nearly as much input on high impact FAs, that's both who they did sign and who they did not. That is proven out by the free agency approach that Bruce has taken if nothing else. It's looked pretty much the same the last 5 yrs, 6 including this year. 

 

More importantly, are you disagreeing that Bruce signs/keeps an inordinate amount of injured players? That it is mostly just "mis-fortune" that has led to all the injuries? There is a pretty stark contrast for Shanny vs. after Shanny. And the one constant outside Dan is Bruce. But just for the sake of argument, let's take the Shanny yrs out and to further break things down, let's say Bruce had 100% control for 2014, 2017, and 2018 and Scot had 100% control for 2015 and 2016.  I do not believe that for a second but just for argument sake lets look at the numbers:  

 

 

There is a huge difference between Bruce and Scot except for quality of player lost - and that can be one really good player and/or players at high impact positions. It's interesting that after one yr of Scot having whatever control he had the team dropped in all but individual quality of the player injured and then went right back up the year after he was fired. 

 

Since you are responding to my comment and did not clarify otherwise, I have to assume you are at the very least including me in your changing narrative accusation - and that's is completely false. I have been very consistent. I think you know better than that. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

44 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

First, it's interesting that out of he entire comment you took um-bridge to a very small part of the comment. But OK, that's kind of your MO 🙂 

 

So are you saying Scot had 100% control? That is totally false and there is plenty out there to prove that....

 

More importantly, are you disagreeing that Bruce signs/keeps an inordinate amount of injured players? That it is mostly just "mis-fortune" that has led to all the injuries?

 

Since you are responding to my comment and did not clarify otherwise, I have to assume you are at the very least including me in your changing narrative accusation - and that's is completely false. I have been very consistent. I think you know better than that. 

6

 

First (heh lol), it's interesting that you point out that I only took umbrage to a "very small part" of your post, then go on to assume my position on the rest of your post based off of my reaction to what you already said was a 'very small part" of it. Because if you were not assuming what my position was on the rest of your post there would be no reason to go into length refuting stances I never took.

 

Also, since you apparently feel you know my "MO," you then should also know that I've mentioned numerous times over the last 2 years that I've asked exactly how did Bruce negate Scot's control over the roster, because it seems less like proven fact and more like speculation and conventional wisdom. Outside of Cullen, no player--drafted, free agent, or otherwise--has been shown as a result of Bruce saying 'no' to Scot's wishes. Did Scot get every single free agent he wanted? No. But no GM does, unless they don't really want any free agents to begin with. Players have a say-so in the matter, and the cap absolutely dictates things in free agency as well. So if there was a free agent that Scot wanted who also wanted to be here and that we could afford, got turned down by Bruce, I'd love to know who it was...because so far nobody has mentioned who those players are even though some keep saying those players exist.

 

And again, since you know my "MO" you should also know that saying something like "as we all know now" towards something I've brought up again and again and again over the last two years as us NOT knowing, that it would jump out at me and I would respond. Which--again, knowing my apparent "MO"--means you may have put that in there just to get me to respond to it lol...because to me, it's impossible for you to know my "MO" and not know any of the rest of that I just spelled out.

 

As for your "questions", I never said Scot had 100% control... as I said, the players themselves and the cap has as much control as any GM, and each teams' financial approach to the cap and free agency dictates who gets brought in, signed, etc.  Scot had to work within those guidelines whether he wanted to or not. What I did say is that there hasn't been much factual evidence that Bruce did not let scot "be the true GM." And your response to that question in no way should be considered factual evidence to the contrary.

 

I also never mentioned anything about agreeing or disagreeing with the number of injured players or why the Skins have had so many injuries, at least not in this thread and definitely not in my response to that one "very small part" of your post. I did give one possible factor in all the injuries over the past two seasons in the injury thread, and it mentioned that part of it was having players who were already injury-prone.

 

And no, I wasn't including you in my changing narrative comments, because you never mentioned that Bruce was using Scot's board after he was fired, at least not as far as I know. if I was meaning you, I would have said you. That's another part of my "MO" lol...if I'm talking about you, I will say I'm talking about you...if I don't say it, I'm talking about others in general and using your post as a jumping-off point. 

 

EDIT: I just re-read my last post and I can see how you may have wondered if I was directing the "changing narrative" part towards you...normally I say something like "others" or "fans" or "the media" but I didn't in that post. So, nope, didn't mean you...sorry if it came across as if I did.

 

[Peregrine]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

Actually, we don't know that, at all. It's a running narrative that hasn't been backed up much by anything factual.

 

I found it humorous--and telling--that the narrative changed after Scot was fired. Before it was that Bruce was constantly overriding/undermining Scot in free agency. After Scot was fired and people were liking (at the time, anyway) the free agents the Skins were picking up, the narrative quickly became "They're following Scot's board." McCloughan was even on twitter chiming in during both free agency and the draft claiming signing and picks were who he had on his board as well. If we believe both narratives, it means Scot gained more control over the roster after he was fired lol...

Actually, we do know that, and its been well documented.  Im a bit surprised anyone still doesnt think that, considering even the beat writers who all disagree over everything agreed on it long ago.  

And also, just about no one was saying when the Redskins were picking up free agents that "Theyre following Scots board", so thats a nice strawman there.  And you even left the quote as "Scots board", meaning you know full well that was only said about his draft board. I guess if you cant beat the real argument, might as well make your own version to beat up.

[RabidFan]

18 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

EDIT: I just re-read my last post and I can see how you may have wondered if I was directing the "changing narrative" part towards you...normally I say something like "others" or "fans" or "the media" but I didn't in that post. So, nope, didn't mean you...sorry if it came across as if I did.

 

 

How about the old "un-named source" canard?  😉

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 minute ago, Peregrine said:

Actually, we do know that, and its been well documented.  Im a bit surprised anyone still doesnt think that, considering even the beat writers who all disagree over everything agreed on it long ago.  

And also, just about no one was saying when the Redskins were picking up free agents that "Theyre following Scots board", so thats a nice strawman there.  And you even left the quote as "Scots board", meaning you know full well that was only said about his draft board. I guess if you cant beat the real argument, might as well make your own version to beat up.

7

 

1) Give examples of the first part, then....like I'm about to do with the 2nd part lol...

 

2) *ahem*

 

Q: How closely did the team follow your draft/FA board this offseason?

McCloughan: To a T except for one pick.

 

 

[goskins10]

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

First (heh lol), it's interesting that you point out that I only took umbrage to a "very small part" of your post, then go on to assume my position on the rest of your post based off of my reaction to what you already said was a 'very small part" of it. Because if you were not assuming what my position was on the rest of your post there would be no reason to go into length refuting stances I never took.

 

 

Ok, you like to use lol to denote kidding i use 🙂  I thought that was clear but if not, 🙂 means mostly kidding. So easy now! 🙂  

 

I asked questions to give you a chance to be clear about your position. All you really did was disagree with one point but it leads to making assumptions on your position which oddly enough even though you accused me of it, I did not want to do. I asked if that was your position because I honestly wanted to know if that's what you were saying. If it came off accusatory bit was not meant to. So again I say, easy now! 🙂 

 

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

As for your "questions", I never said Scot had 100% control... as I said, the players themselves and the cap has as much control as any GM, and each teams' financial approach to the cap and free agency dictates who gets brought in, signed, etc.  Scot had to work within those guidelines whether he wanted to or not. What I did say is that there hasn't been much factual evidence that Bruce did not let scot "be the true GM." And your response to that question in no way should be considered factual evidence to the contrary.

 

I did not say you said that, I said let's make that assumption to remove the doubt about who was responsible for when. It was an exercise to remove the concern. To me even if you make the extreme assumption the other way (you meaning anyone not you personally) the data shows Bruce has a problem with keeping/signing players with injury history and that it's not just mostly bad luck which was the original statement made that I was refuting. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I also never mentioned anything about agreeing or disagreeing with the number of injured players or why the Skins have had so many injuries, at least not in this thread and definitely not in my response to that one "very small part" of your post. I did give one possible factor in all the injuries over the past two seasons in the injury thread, and it mentioned that part of it was having players who were already injury-prone.

 

Never said you did - was truly asking the question. Please see above. 

 

I will add - although not asked - That I do think Dan has a big hand in this with poor workout facilities and the players are also somewhat responsible in terms of CBA. The CBA reduced all that practice time and it's my belief based on the clear upward trend in injuries since the last CBA was sign has led to players not being ready enough for the season pounding they take which is causing more injuries. But the CBA answers part of why the league is seeing more injuries, not why the Redskins are even more injury prone than the rest of the league. i think that is Bruce mostly and the facilities to a smaller extent. 

 

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

And no, I wasn't including you in my changing narrative comments, because you never mentioned that Bruce was using Scot's board after he was fired, at least not as far as I know. if I was meaning you, I would have said you. That's another part of my "MO" lol...if I'm talking about you, I will say I'm talking about you...if I don't say it, I'm talking about others in general and using your post as a jumping-off point. 

 

EDIT: I just re-read my last post and I can see how you may have wondered if I was directing the "changing narrative" part towards you...normally I say something like "others" or "fans" or "the media" but I didn't in that post. So, nope, didn't mean you...sorry if it came across as if I did.

 

 

Fair enough, I didn't think you were but there was no clarification when there usually is. Just making sure. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

5 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Ok, you like to use lol to denote kidding i use 🙂  I thought that was clear but if not, 🙂 means mostly kidding. So easy now! 🙂  

 

I asked questions to give you a chance to be clear about your position. All you really did was disagree with one point but it leads to making assumptions on your position which oddly enough even though you accused me of it, I did not want to do. I asked if that was your position because I honestly wanted to know if that's what you were saying. If it came off accusatory bit was not meant to. So again I say, easy now! 🙂 

 

 

I did not say you said that, I said let's make that assumption to remove the doubt about who was responsible for when. It was an exercise to remove the concern. To me even if you make the extreme assumption the other way (you meaning anyone not you personally) the data shows Bruce has a problem with keeping/signing players with injury history and that it's not just mostly bad luck which was the original statement made that I was refuting. 

 

 

 

Never said you did - was truly asking the question. Please see above. 

 

I will add - although not asked - That I do think Dan has a big hand in this with poor workout facilities and the players are also somewhat responsible in terms of CBA. The CBA reduced all that practice time and it's my belief based on the clear upward trend in injuries since the last CBA was sign has led to players not being ready enough for the season pounding they take which is causing more injuries. But the CBA answers part of why the league is seeing more injuries, not why the Redskins are even more injury prone than the rest of the league. i think that is Bruce mostly and the facilities to a smaller extent. 

 

 

Fair enough, I didn't think you were but there was no clarification when there usually is. Just making sure. 

 

Ok, I don't know posters' MOs so I never remember you using smile emoticons lol...I shall file that away and remember it, sir!

 

As for the rest, yeah, because you responded to what you assumed my answer would be to your questions, I thought you weren't actually asking questions. Next time let me respond first before showing me why I'm talking out of my ass lol...

 

[FrFan]

 

 

JP goes 1-on-1 with Bruce Allen at Owner's Meetings to discuss young QBs and the "burning" urgency to win

[RandyHolt]

In case anyone doubted EB and 106.7....

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Russell is in on the conspiracy against the Redskins.  Joining the ranks among Roger Goodell, the entire Mara family, everyone that has ever worked for a Washington newspaper, every member of the national and local media.  Am I missing anybody?

 

Nothing to see here folks.  Everyone loves working in Ashburn.