The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

7 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'll leave the rest of the post alone, but on this point...

 

That's what most of Bruce's "haters" like myself have been getting at for years. 

1

 

Hey, I've been saying it for years as well, and I've been called "Bruce's wife" on here by someone lol...

 

I honestly believe that the overwhelming majority of us, no matter what you think of Allen and Snyder, believe the Skins would be noticeably better with a bonafide, qualified GM running the football operations.

 

Like it or not, this is pretty much the entire Redskins fan base lol...

 

 

[HardcoreZorn]

I stumbled upon a really good article after doing a little bit of digging today on my boy Bruce. Partly because I felt like I was going crazy when discussing the details surrounding Bruce and his role over the years as well as the organization and how it has progressed. But really it stemmed mostly from how far off I seem from 99% of my counterparts in here in general. I’ve never been more excited to be a Redskins fan. Never been more excited about the future direction of this franchise. Even in 2012 when I thought Griffin would be tearing up the league for the next decade plus and we were set, I feel this talent base dwarfs the talent level surrounding Griffin that year and remember thinking back then how much of a one man show we were. Well two with Morris. Now I see a young QB with the physical talent, and also more importantly, what seems to be the mental fortitude to become a franchise QB, albeit its a huge unknown. But to have a young potential franchise QB in place AND a full stable of draft picks going forward AND a core of young guys from the past few draft classes that have been really good is something you cannot say about this franchise in Snyder’s ownership. Again, none of it’s slam dunk. Haskins could flop, Sweat could have a heart condition, Mclaurin Guice and Love stink, Allen and Payne blow their knees out, etc. But from a pure potential and resource stand point, this is the best the Redskins have looked during Snyder’s tenure.

 

So I ask myself why that is? How am I that far away from most people here and national pundits and the like? I know myself and I’m not a delusional homer. Hell, 2 pages back I said 7-9 - 9-7 is a realistic prediction for this year. I thought 10-6 last year which looked pretty spot on until Alex and Colt went out and our 15th left guard plucked off the target cashier line was inserted into the lineup. Point is I don’t sit at home dreaming of Lombardis and how great we’ve been and how the Redskins should be the talk of the town. Hell over my 20 odd years or so of being a diehard fan of this team, I’ve had moments that are as negative as anybody with regards to Snyder and Co. figuring it out. I’m sure my Dad could attest after long drives home from the games sitting in traffic lol, I probably wasn’t the most pleasant shotgun partner. But circling back, I came up with a couple of reasons that I may be far off. And I think one very real factor is that I never witnessed greatness with this franchise, so it’s very possible that I celebrate “minor” successes more than those that saw Gibbs I and the glory years for example. But the other is that we’ve been irrelevant for so long now, that it’s natural for some fans to have cynicism and negativity that potentially distorts their views and causes them to miss the Forest through the trees. Doesn’t help that the media, especially the national media who is not seeing things up close feeds into the dumpster fire narrative outside of a couple guys like Riddick. After 20+ years of being a consistent bottom feeder in the East and the NFC, people want instant gratification. And that’s understandable. But unfortunately, I really do believe it causes views to be distorted and details to be forgotten or imagined when talking about the current. And also it unfortunately leads to some rather dismissive discussion in here.

 

So I was pretty intrigued when I found this article because it lends credence to some of my discussion points on here since I’ve joined. And let me preface this by saying this will come off as very Pro Bruce but I don’t really care at this point. Going to be my last post in this thread, or at least for a very very long time. So I’ll throw you guys one more bone and allow you to laugh on my behalf how much I secretly love Bruce and perform mental gymnastics to weirdly disguise my love for him. 

 

Here it is: 

 

http://proplayerinsiders.com/nfl-player-team-news-features/washingto-redskins-bruce-allen-era-begins-jay-gruden-head-coach/

 

Quote

This hire essentially marks the beginning of the Bruce Allen era in Washington. Although he maintains the title  Executive Vice President/General Manager, Allen was really just the in-house account and family reunion coordinator. Former Head Coach Mike Shanahan wrote the grocery list, chose the grocery store and hand selected the groceries. Now, that’s Bruce Allen’s job. However, he’ll have help from the Directors of Player Personnel, Scott Campbell and Morocco Brown. Both of whom, have very specific responsibilities — Campbell will handle college scouting and Brown will handle pro scouting.

 

This article was written in 2014, right after the Jay Gruden hire. This is when Bruce seized control. He lead the coaching search for Jay and this is when the Allen era was kicked off. I pointed it out before but of course fell on deaf ears, the difference in approach and type of player we searched for is strikingly different between Shanny and Jay. Yet Bruce has been here for both. Hmmmm things that make you think. But you skim a few pages of this thread and you’ll read about 9 years, the McNabb trade, RG3, etc. Those weren’t Allen driven decisions. Those weren’t current regime decisions, put it that way. 

 

Quote

“The control will be mine, and it will be working with our personnel department,” Bruce Allen said in his post-Shanahan press conference.

 

“We are going to redefine some of the characteristics that we’re looking for in players. Obviously when we have a new head coach there will be some schematic adjustments that we will make, but that power will be with me.”

 

Bruce did not say these things when Shanny was around. Bruce never spoke when Shanny was around, just like now. Because the power was not with him, it was with Shanny. And of course Danny Boy.

 

Quote

As the final decision maker, Allen has to also make the right choices moving forward. One his best traits, according to people who have worked with Allen, is he listens. He doesn’t dictate things. He’s very prudent and judicious when making decisions.

 

Man how things have changed since then. Of course it’s one article, and it’s based off people Benton talked to so who’s to say they are right. There are definitely other sources who say Bruce is the father of all evil. Quoting it because at the very least it shows not everyone Bruce has worked with thinks he’s this narcissistic control freak like he’s painted on here nowadays. And more importantly to the point of my post, I’ve been saying for a long time that the reason I don’t “hate” Bruce and actually appreciate a lot of what he’s done is because it seems from an outsiders POV (none of us actually know) that he’s not really the one behind the picking of the actual players. He’s delegating, to those like Kyle Smith, who absolutely do seem to have a strong eye for talent. Before that it was Scott. He may have “final say” but i can live with that as long as he allows the actual talent evaluators to do their job and do it successfully. And I see a team accumulating young cheap talented guys through an impressive stretch of three drafts running. It will be a couple years still to see what we can do with them in their third fourth fifth years.

 

Quote

What will be interesting is how much say Jay Gruden has when it comes to personnel. He apparently also likes to pick his own parts. Gruden’s voice was heard, especially during the draft process, when he was with the Bengals.

 

Also a recent discussion point on here. Jay is known to be a good talent evaluator. He was with the Bengals and he is for us. And although we’ll never know, I’d venture to guess he’s a large part of the committee soup going on. So the whole “let’s see how he does with a competent GM” when we don’t even have one, and when he’s part of the committee making THE decisions, doesn’t make a shred of sense to me. Holcomb Quinn and Foster are just a few examples that back that theory up. But maybe he really is a poor helpless chap that’s hamstrung by a terrible non-existent GM. 

 

All of this being said, what will bother me, just like pretty much everyone here, is losing a young talented FO guy like Kyle Smith just because Bruce won’t promote him or thinks life will be fine without him. Because while I don’t hate Bruce and respect him for the work he’s done, he’s a delegator. And that can be important. But Smith has a keen eye for talent I think, and that is ten times more important. Pretty incredible I can not hate Bruce and appreciate some of the things he’s brought to the table, all the while believing that a more desirable option is to not lose Kyle Smith and have a young talented FO guy like himself take the reigns and carry out one strategic vision. 

 

So signing off on this topic, will continue to read of course, how could I not! But No more real desire to engage in conversations on a topic that everyone has made up their minds on and no productive back and forth is to be had.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

10 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

I miss feeling like this. Haven't felt like this since 2013 or so I think. I want it back so badly because it will mean I don't expect the worst every week, it will mean I have hope again. 

 

8 hours ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Right?  What I wouldn't give to actually care about an outcome.  And 2014 was just the worst.  It's like losing feeling and never quite getting it back, even after the excitement of 2015 and 2016.

 

I just want to care again.  Reading that the starting quarterback is anything but a coach's decision is just another shot of Novocaine.

 

 

Then you guy can watch and relive this from back when you still cared about the team and the outcome of games lol...it should start with just over a minute left in the game.

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

10 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

I honestly believe that the overwhelming majority of us, no matter what you think of Allen and Snyder, believe the Skins would be noticeably better with a bonafide, qualified GM running the football operations.

 

 

 

I don't think it's the only point though on the subject.  It's also are we in good hands now (even if it could be better) with Bruce in charge?  You've said in recent posts that he isn't a good GM so you've made yourself clear on this.  So, i'll take you out of this discussion for that reason and I'll just say this:  you got more or less 5-6 people who continually defend the FO.  And some (not all) of them at different points over the years have said they've backed off of their stance and are now critical too but soon after resume back to their previous position.   

 

I'll just speak for myself but I can tell from other people's posts on the subject, I don't think I am on an island about this.  I've gotten into some heated debates on the subject.  One of the longest running defenders of the FO is a dude I mostly like and I've complemented many times over the course of the discussions.  So for me its not about the takes.  To each their own on that.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. 

 

The bigger issue for me is some who defend the FO do it with a degree of patronizing coupled with strawman arguments where it doesn't really feel like a real discussion but instead its more of a spitting match.   I am sure the FO critics (including myself) can be annoying in our own ways, too.  But I am just saying some of the FO defenders are often the ones who cry foul yet they give a heavy dose of the same stuff that they accuse the critics of doing.  So when they get indignant about it -- it comes off weird at times at least to me. 

 

I think some of the FO defenders genuinely don't see themselves as deserving the label.  And I get the sentiment.  But IMO they are wrong.  And I'd even let that part of it go if the discussions didn't veer at times into the spitting matches.  I'll use my own version of pretty much the same thing but just switching it from Bruce to Jay.  Just like defending Bruce, it isn't cool to defend Jay.  So i can relate. 😀  I am outgunned on the subject.  The criticism comes in much harder than the praise.   I am mostly surrounded with little help on the Jay thread when I try to defend.    So I can identify with the feeling of having an unpopular position.  And I even respect the idea that people can hang on to it in spite of being surrounded.   But at the same time, i own the position regardless of how the argument goes.    

 

I've been accused of being a Jay fanboy and that accusation is perfectly valid.  And that's not because i've never criticized Jay or think he's the be all and end all as a coach.   The opposite of love isn't hate but indifference.  The subjects I don't care about or I am neutral on -- I don't post about repeatedly.   If I watched a movie that I didn't love or hate -- I wouldn't get into deep arguments on it with friends or family and if I did neither the praise or the panning of the movie would bother me one whit.  Why should it bother me if I don't care or don't have a strong opinion one way or another let alone care to spend a lot of time talking about it. 

 

Bringing this back to Jay.  Do I think there are better coaches out there?  Sure.  Have I ripped Jay about multiple things?  Yes.  Heck I even wrote up a long post last year doing an analysis of the short comings of Jay's play calling.    So yeah I can cite all of that when someone accuses me of being a Jay fanboy and sometimes I indeed do that -- but I still don't get offended or distance myself from the label because it fits on the aggregate. 

 

I care enough about the subject to defend it a lot. That's the bottom line.  If i went on Jay's thread and distanced myself as a Jay defender -- I'd be laughed at and deservedly so.  If I said look I think there are better coaches (I do think that) out there, I think Jay has some flaws (I think that too), but all am trying to do is to bring some balance to the conversation -- I'd be laughed it.  Why?  Because the volume of my posts on subject after subject relating to Jay speak louder than any post I can make trying to sell something otherwise. 

 

Some on this thread would associate me strongly with Kirk.   But I can go back and probably find at least 50 posts I've made that ripped Kirk and even more than that that spoke about the subject with plenty of nuance pro and con stuff.   But if people want to label me as pro Kirk.  That's cool and it fits.  My position on it is made clear by what I mostly say about him and more importantly by how many times i was willing to talk about it. 

 

As to what that means all here, I've seen some of the same people posting on multiple threads on Bruce or Dan again and again and again.  It doesn't move me if they have some criticism in that mix.  With a rare exception, we all have some nuances in our points -- praise and criticism, etc.    And, it's not hard to spot those who more or less in about a 75%-25% ratio defend actions from Bruce or Dan.  And there is nothing wrong to have that take or any take.  But if they are going to make the dance that they are the objective ones, they are the ones who are treating the subject in the right way, sometimes with a jab or two at people who have the opposing view -- then they aren't going to be treated warmly in response.  

 

And again i am not saying we all don't have our own bad moments and doses of arrogance.  But it seems like some of the FO defenders on occasion cry that they are unfairly bashed.  And my response to that is they typically walked right into it where it comes off like they actually want the combativeness.   So like I've said on this thread many times, I don't think either side has the high ground as for the behavior around these debates.   And this post isn't specific to your post but just to the idea of is there one side on this debate that's been the culprit as to badly treating the other-side -- IMO nope.   Both sides can egg the other one on.  It's a heated subject and most of it is in fun and based on just wanting to win.  There are just some different opinions. 😀

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I don't think it's the only point though on the subject.  It's also are we in good hands now (even if it could be better) with Bruce in charge?  You've said in recent posts that he isn't a good GM so you've made yourself clear on this.  So, i'll take you out of this discussion for that reason and I'll just say this:  you got more or less 5-6 people who continually defend the FO.  And some (not all) of them at different points over the years have said they've backed off of their stance and are now critical too but soon after resume back to their previous position.  

1

 

My own perspective is that those "5-6 people" mostly defend the FO against the hyperbole aimed at Allen. When the "fanspeak' rhetoric is either toned down significantly or eliminated altogether, the level of defending tends to go way down as well, even though the criticisms remain.

 

I'll add this disclaimer that what I'm about to say is not aimed at you or anyone in particular, nor about what I've read on the last page or two of this thread (and that's all I've read recently on this thread lol). It's just a comment in general based on overall observations on this and other message boards I've frequented over the years. I've said before that sometimes threads can devolve momentarily into echo chambers...and when we're part of the echo we don't realize that it has. It can be deafening, it can really be intimidating, and it can sometimes be silencing. It can also foster, at times, an atmosphere of dismissiveness.

 

I've had the "patronizing" and "condescending" labels tossed at me more times than I can remember, even though I was being neither...and it's happened within the echo chamber effect and over things having nothing whatsoever to do with Allen or Snyder or the FO. And I've been told during those time that I should take the echo chamber opinion as fact about me since it's being said by numerous people...which I personally find a laughable stance to take lol...It's a style of arguing/debating on message boards that I find lazy and unproductive no matter what's being discussed or whether or not I agree with what's being said. I still occasionally get someone responding to a benign post of mine with a level of insult and condescension based on who they think I am based on some back-and-forth we had on a thread months earlier...or worse, off of a back-and-forth they only observed me having with someone else lol...I mean, I have people who dislike me based on me typing "lol"...secure in their belief that I only did so to be condescending and bolstered by the fact that some others here have believed the same thing so they "know" they're right about me. It was only when I said screw it, you think I'm being condescending? I'll actually BE condescending to you in every single post from now on so that you can tell the difference between that and me typing "lol" because I'm just always in a good mood, that I stopped hearing those complaints lol...

 

I also understand what it's like to try and cut through the echo chamber muck to get your point across as well as how futile it probably is to even try, which is why I tend now to respond with quick jokes instead of lengthy retorts that I believe make my points undeniably clear, yet which I pretty much knew wouldn't be given much validity anyway because people were arguing against who they felt I was instead of against what I was saying (this post doesn't count since I'm not trying to cut through any echo chamber stuff lol) . When I do feel someone is a "certain way" and I mention it, I try to not sound resolute when I do, as if it's an undeniable fact. So i'll say "It's coming across as if" or "it almost sounds like"...stuff like that, so that it comes across as I'm picking up a vibe instead of this is who I know you are.

 

Anyway, way too long story short for me is, Allen is polarizing to the Skins fan base, and watching sports is supposed to be entertainment and fun. Speculation isn't fact no matter how many "insider sources" there are and hoping for the best, by default, requires seeing the more positive possibilities that are also realistic. Hoping for the best is part of what makes following sports entertaining and fun. Discussing our opinions no matter how negative is also fun in its own very real way...I know I enjoy it. Letting your default stance on the Skins, Allen, and Snyder be more optimistic or pessimistic is everyone's prerogative. As long as we are only fans and not dealing directly with either man or the team, it's good to remember our opinions aren't fact in any way, shape or form. And debate is no longer debate when we're arguing against the person using the logic instead of against the logic itself. I can't help but believe we all know this shtuff already and agree lol...it's always good to put it out there, though, anyway.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

My own perspective is that those "5-6 people" mostly defend the FO against the hyperbole aimed at Allen. When the "fanspeak' rhetoric is either toned down significantly or eliminated altogether, the level of defending tends to go way down as well, even though the criticisms remain.

 

 

I am not talking here about all the FO defenders but some.  And for them, the "hyperbole" argument to me comes off as either an excuse to obfuscate a position to win an argument or more likely assume some moral high ground in that debate that IMO doesn't exist in reality.   It feeds into exactly what I said in my post which is they attack the argument largely by saying they are coming from the higher ground right from the outset.  Then they wonder why they don't get the warm and fuzzy response? 

 

It's an arrogant stance IMO to launch an argument from.    What do they expect to be said in response?  Yes, dude you are the rationale one.  Thanks for explaining why you are coming from the better and more logical place.   We on the other hand are encumbered by emotion and or lack of understanding the context of how we falsely arrived at our irrational stances.   Now that we've established that -- lets talk.  😁  It's just not going to work that way.   

 

 It would be like me going on the Jay thread and saying look yes I post a zillion times and a zillion different aspects of what type of job he is doing.   But look i am just keeping it real.   I don't buy into the hyperbole that you guys do.  You guys overreact to things. You see ghosts.  You are a bit fooled by the media.  You miss every good aspect of Jay's coaching in the mix of the soup and just know the negatives -- so you aren't balanced like I am here.  I am just trying to calm you guys down by explaining all of these cognitive traps that you guys just can't help falling for. 

 

There is no way people wouldn't be annoyed with an argument like that from me.  Yeah I have a different position than many do on Jay.  That doesn't give me the higher moral ground.  It doesn't mean i am more rationale and less emotional and I am the one who needs to explain to people who disagree with me that my way of thinking is more sound than their approach.   Because then the argument is no longer about Jay but it's about establishing that i am superior as to information processing.    And that's not how i see it.  And that would be an arrogant way to sell an argument to say the least. 

 

It would be like me debating my wife on an issue and saying look hey we disagree.  Let me tell you first that i processed the facts here a little more logically, i am a bit more balanced.   And I just like to attack your "hyperbole".   I'd say good luck with that argument because i'd already have lost it before I start with my specific discussion points. 😁

 

The other reason why the same 5 people give and take can't agree with the others is we are way too familiar with each other's arguments.  We can't out of the blue reposition ourselves and sell an argument in a different way and claim that's been our position the whole time -- especially since we've seen that rodeo before and those arguments often return to the same familiar ground soon enough.    We've read too many posts from each other that we can tell when someone is repositioning themselves to look good in a debate.  If it was someone who just posted on rare occasion it would be a different story.   But once you read 300 posts or so from the same person over years on the same subject, you get a pretty good handle on it. 😀

 

And I am not saying I haven't crossed the line from time to time, too.  I have.  And I've apologized for doing it multiple times.  On occasion, I'll read back a post of mine and think that comes off harsher than I felt. 

 

Edit:  This point isn't specifically pointed at you but its a general point about the subject.

 

 

2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Anyway, way too long story short for me is, Allen is polarizing to the Skins fan base, and watching sports is supposed to be entertainment and fun. Speculation isn't fact no matter how many "insider sources" there are and hoping for the best, by default, requires seeing the more positive possibilities that are also realistic. Hoping for the best is part of what makes following sports entertaining and fun. Discussing our opinions no matter how negative is also fun in its own very real way...I know I enjoy it. Letting your default stance on the Skins, Allen, and Snyder be more optimistic or pessimistic is everyone's prerogative. 

 

The way you phrase your point about wanting to see positive possibilities that are also realistic is cool.  But your posts relating to the media don't always come off like that. 

 

You like to lecture in different posts about "insider" sources and the media.   What makes you think people can't make their own decisions about what to believe or not about the media where they need to be lectured on it?  Do you challenge the positive things being said about Bruce-Dan or is it just the negative things?  Heck I've taken some arrows for buying into on this very thread that Dan doesn't meddle like he used to.  However, I've got some recent doubts about it. 

 

But I've probably said about 50 times on this thread that I don't think Dan is that involved based on "insider" reports.  Have you slammed those insider reports?  I took Bruce's side on the Scot debate based on "insider" reports.  And even if I thought you had a balanced view on what to challenge from the media -- I think everyone here is smart enough to take in what they believe or not.  And we all know the media isn't right 100% of the time.  I don't think anyone needs a reminder of it.  When you have a public figure who has been around for a long-long time.  You can get a feel for what the general picture is -- it doesn't matter if every story is correct.  

 

Edit:  this point about the media is directed at you.  But I don't mean it with vitriol.  I am just saying you more than most like to lecture about the media's accuracy.   And I just don't see what you think you are seeing that others don't where you feel compelled to explain to others the process.  Heck I've even worked as a press secretary and have dealt with the media very closely (and often not in a fun way) for decades.  Yet, I think we are all big boys and we can make our own decisions about what we trust and don't trust and understand that no source is 100% accurate. 😀

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

My own perspective is that those "5-6 people" mostly defend the FO against the hyperbole aimed at Allen. When the "fanspeak' rhetoric is either toned down significantly or eliminated altogether, the level of defending tends to go way down as well, even though the criticisms remain.

 

This place has been and always will be filled with hyperbole.  There's a reason it's called extremeskins.  I don't see those same "5-6 people" battling hyperbole when it's about Jay Gruden, Trent Williams, or any other current Redskin and let's not even get started on those that are no longer here, while they were still here.  Perhaps some Redskins fans are just clinically incapable of directing their ire at the top brass because they know deep down that it's not changing and it's too depressing to accept.  I've heard time and time again about allegiance to the team, not any player or coach.  Which is really weird because it's the players and coaches that put on the performance we all love to watch.  There is a reason they don't sell Dan Snyder and Bruce Allen jerseys, other than it being an expensive means to start a fire.

 

 

[evmiii]

How weak is Jay Gruden's position if the Player personnel dude, General Manager and owner have a say in picking the starting QB.  Isn't it his job to put the best 11 guys out there that he believes gives them the best opportunity to win?   Isn't that what they pay him for?  I don't care which guy starts, but I want it to be based on who gives us the best chance of winning this game.  I sincerely hope Haskins is the answer, but until he is the best option to try to win the next game he needs to be a backup.  What respectable coach would ever want to come in a replace Gruden after they fire him next year.  I would respect Jay if he thanked them all for their opinions and then started who he wanted.  Atleast when they fire him it will be based on his actions.  Bruce Allen will single handedily keep this organization in the bottom half of the league.  Until the owner stops thinking like a 16 year old fan and sees the light and fires Bruce Allen we will remain completely disfunctional.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am not talking here about all the FO defenders but some.  And for them, the "hyperbole" argument to me comes off as either an excuse to obfuscate a position to win an argument or more likely assume some moral high ground in that debate that IMO doesn't exist in reality.   It feeds into exactly what I said in my post which is they attack the argument largely by saying they are coming from the higher ground right from the outset.  Then they wonder why they don't get the warm and fuzzy response?

 

 

Honestly, to me this--ironically--comes across as an excuse to argue against the person instead of arguing against what they're saying or the position they're presenting. Like it's acceptable since you believe these things about the poster.

 

Quote

It's an arrogant stance IMO to launch an argument from.    What do they expect to be said in response?  Yes, dude you are the rationale one.  Thanks for explaining why you are coming from the better and more logical place.   We on the other hand are encumbered by emotion and or lack of understanding the context of how we falsely arrived at our irrational stances.   Now that we've established that -- lets talk.  

😁  It's just not going to work that way. 

 

If the response a poster gets is not due to what's in a particular post but due to how you view the poster overall, then in my eyes anyway the response loses credibility. Going with Zorn since his posts with GoSkins was what caused my initial response--and because like I said I did not read anything before the previous page lol--let me go back and read his posts before then...be right back:

 

 

 

Ok, back lol...

 

Ok, just to start off, I am NOT calling anyone out or making judgments about any posters, don't get it twisted anyone lol...just want to better illustrate my point of view. And apologies to both goskins and Zorn if it comes across that way, not my intention and gonna try my best to make sure it doesn't come across as such.

 

Let me just say this: my initial comment centered around what I felt was a mischaracterization of what Zorn had posted. My later comments in my response to you centered not around goskins and Zorn but around arguing against the person instead of against what the person is saying.

 

After reading back further, I'm still not seeing signs of arrogance, higher ground, or anything else resembling either characteristic in Zorn's posts. But that's from an "outsider's" point of view. I'm not viewing it through the same lens. I'm not saying Zorn hasn't shown those characteristics in his posts in the past nor am I saying goskins was seeing something there that really wasn't there. And while you said "some" of the FO defenders (which I personally hate the label), I can't help but think you're talking about him specifically in this particular post. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance.

 

What I am saying, is that the argument you gave in your post doesn't seem to be backed up by what Zorn actually said. At least when I read it...and in my opinion only, I feel it's possible to believe someone is a certain way, yet also read their words for what they are, and nothing more. My earlier post basically championed doing that far more. I didn't see a post being launched from a position of arrogance. At all. Both guys were making perfect sense with knowledgeable, logical arguments. I don't care about what was said earlier in the thread or on another thread or how someone "usually" posts...it just didn't exist in this specific case. Not in my view, anyway. And, no, it's not because I'm an Allen defender, in case anyone wants to try and claim it is lol...I really liked what they were saying at first at least. It was a good discussion. I'm wondering if "some" of the other FO defenders post in the same manner, and if the responses by the FO haters are just as good as well (might as well give labels to everyone lol...YOU get a label, and YOU get a label, and YOU get a label!!).

 

Quote

The way you phrase your point about wanting to see positive possibilities that are also realistic is cool.  But your posts relating to the media don't always come off like that. 

 

 

You like to lecture in different posts about "insider" sources and the media.   What makes you think people can't make their own decisions about what to believe or not about the media where they need to be lectured on it?  Do you challenge the positive things being said about Bruce-Dan or is it just the negative things?  Heck I've taken some arrows for buying into on this very thread that Dan doesn't meddle like he used to.  However, I've got some recent doubts about it.

 

 

Let's clear up some stuff:

 

1) I said following sports is supposed to be entertaining and fun...and that being hopeful is a big part of what makes following sports entertaining and fun...and that being hopeful means you want to see positive possibilities that are realistic. I'm not able to process how removing hope and positive possibilities that are also realistic makes things MORE fun for anyone lol...

 

2) I never said people can't make their own decisions in terms of what to believe or not believe from the media, in fact I've said the exact opposite...that people DO believe what the media claims, sometimes to a fault. I have said that it's better to wait and let things play out, and that some are too eager to believe negative speculation as if it's undeniable proof. But I've never, EVER, claimed people are unable to believe whatever they want or can't make their own decisions. It's WHY people make their decisions on what to believe that I have commented on, and about how often media speculation is trotted out simply for clicks and for followers, how often it's wrong, how often it's biased, and how attaching "insider source" to the speculation doesn't earn it an immediate level of truth or factual status...or at least that it shouldn't. Does anyone really argue against any of that?

 

3) I don't challenge positive things said about Bruce or Dan nearly as much because positive things said about Bruce or Dan aren't said nearly as much lol...nor is it ever really given factual status at the same speed as the negative stuff said about them. In fact, there are soooooo many others on this site challenging the positive stuff said about Bruce and Dan that I don't feel the need to do so as well...what I was gonna say has already been said by countless others. By contrast, when negative stories about either Bruce or Dan comes out you'd be hard pressed to see anywhere near the same amount of people challenging it. Nowhere even close. And you more than anyone else should know by now that my stance is that the numerous other possibilities that are just as realistic and aren't nearly so dire are rarely presented in the media to anywhere the same degree.

 

And you more than anyone should also know that flawed logic really gets me going lol...and unfortunately, the negative stories tend to be chock full of flawed logic that gets overlooked, far more than the positive ones...so, yeah, I point it out.

 

"Dan's taking over the 1st round!" Um, ok, so that means he wasn't in control before? Doesn't that fly against the narrative that Dan has been controlling all the shots at Redskins Park for the sake of ticket and jersey sales and that the football people don't really have any power?

 

"He's arguing strongly for Haskins even though the football people think otherwise!!" Um, ok, so doesn't that mean he has NOT taken over the 1st round? If he took over the 1st round, he's not arguing with anyone because there would be no need to...he'd be stating a directive to his underlings and then going out to dinner, knowing full well what he wants will happen. If he's arguing his case that means someone else has a real and legit level of control that Dan himself wants them to have.

 

So in my mind, I think, "Does anyone think of any of that before tweeting their report? Does anyone think of that before believing those reports at face value? If not, let me put it out there. If so, I'd love to know why anyone thinks those things I spelled out are unimportant when believing the report."

 

But yeah, to some here that's just me defending Bruce and Dan lol...nothing more. My reasoning isn't based on logic, it's based on homerism...and would me claiming it's logic behind my stance mean I'm claiming people who disagree are illogical or aren't capable of that level of logic or that I'm being arrogant? Hell no. It just means that my argument is not rooted in some desire to defend the front office, which I've been accused of way too often. Like I said, someone actually called me Bruce's wife once lol...THAT, to me, is arrogant and condescending, and dismissive. And happens way too much sometimes. And nobody complaining about arrogant, higher ground FO defenders stuck up for me or chastised them, by the way.

 

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

This place has been and always will be filled with hyperbole.  There's a reason it's called extremeskins.  I don't see those same "5-6 people" battling hyperbole when it's about Jay Gruden, Trent Williams, or any other current Redskin and let's not even get started on those that are no longer here, while they were still here.  Perhaps some Redskins fans are just clinically incapable of directing their ire at the top brass because they know deep down that it's not changing and it's too depressing to accept.  I've heard time and time again about allegiance to the team, not any player or coach.  Which is really weird because it's the players and coaches that put on the performance we all love to watch.  There is a reason they don't sell Dan Snyder and Bruce Allen jerseys, other than it being an expensive means to start a fire.

1

 

And this place has been and always will be filled with people who tire of the negative hyperbole. Again, following sports is supposed to be entertaining and fun, and it can NOT be a surprise that a segment of the fan base finds constant negative hyperbole frustrating and arguing against it. And I rarely, if ever, see anyone saying "Calm down, it's just hyperbole, I don't really think (fill in the blank)." Instead, it's said that the hyperbole is warranted and earned. And if the same "5-6" people may not be battling hyperbole over other people in the organization, but maybe that doesn't deter their enjoyment level nearly as much--and in reality, I have no idea if they are or not, and I'm guessing you really don't, either...unless you stalk their posts or something lol. I remember when a poster claimed I was obsessed with the Cowboys because they never saw me post about anything else in the ATN forum other than slamming the Cowboys. Then another poster chimed in and said they looked at my last 20 posts in that forum, and like only 5 dealt with the Cowboys lol...yet I apparently never did in their perception, and they felt strong enough in their belief to call me out on it. If we named those 5-6 posters  (and I'm definitely not saying we should), and then you claimed they never battled hyperbole over anyone else in the franchise there's the very real possibility they could bring up numerous posts of them doing exactly what you claim they never do.

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Honestly, to me this--ironically--comes across as an excuse to argue against the person instead of arguing against what they're saying or the position they're presenting. Like it's acceptable since you believe these things about the poster.

 

 

 

your own response to me:

"My own perspective is that those "5-6 people" mostly defend the FO against the hyperbole aimed at Allen. When the "fanspeak' rhetoric is either toned down significantly or eliminated altogether, the level of defending tends to go way down as well, even though the criticisms remain."

 

Is this not saying one side is coming from the higher pedestal in discussion unless i am misinterpreting your point?  Are you not saying here that the 5-6 people who defend are being reasonable and only kick in when the critics exaggerate?   Not to pick purely on this since there are plenty of angles like this stuff in these debates.  

 

Do you really think the FO critics come at it thinking -- yeah those guys are just trying to bring some balance, now lets debate.  😀

 

3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

After reading back further, I'm still not seeing signs of arrogance, higher ground, or anything else resembling either characteristic in Zorn's posts. But that's from an "outsider's" point of view. I'm not viewing it through the same lens. I'm not saying Zorn hasn't shown those characteristics in his posts in the past nor am I saying goskins was seeing something there that really wasn't there. And while you said "some" of the FO defenders (which I personally hate the label), I can't help but think you're talking about him specifically in this particular post. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance.

 

Nope you are right about that.  Zorn is definitely one of the people I am talking about.  It's not just him though.  And don't get me wrong, I am not saying EITHER side has the higher moral ground.  But when one side positions their stance from a pedestal or claims to be the victim -- the discussion will just about always go nowhere and it should go nowhere IMO.  

 

3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

Let's clear up some stuff:

 

2) I never said people can't make their own decisions in terms of what to believe or not believe from the media, in fact I've said the exact opposite...that people DO believe what the media claims, sometimes to a fault. I have said that it's better to wait and let things play out, and that some are too eager to believe negative speculation as if it's undeniable proof. But I've never, EVER, claimed people are unable to believe whatever they want or can't make their own decisions. It's WHY people make their decisions on what to believe that I have commented on, and about how often media speculation is trotted out simply for clicks and for followers, how often it's wrong, how often it's biased, and how attaching "insider source" to the speculation doesn't earn it an immediate level of truth or factual status...or at least that it shouldn't. Does anyone really argue against any of that?

 

Nothing you say here is inconsistent with any of my points relating to what I said was your angle about the media.  The idea that you say that people believe what the media claims sometimes to a fault -- plays exactly off of my point to you.  Why do you think you are the person or whether we for that matter need any person here to explain to everyone that the media isn't always 100% right? 

 

We can all agree or disagree on points.  But I don't think anyone needs a continual lecture about this.  We are all big boys. So if anything i am trying to give the benefit of the doubt that you aren't lecturing people on something that is super obvious but instead there must be a reason why you feel compelled to repeat something that everyone already knows especially when it typically comes with a homer perspective wrapped into it. 

 

You seem to be making the case that you have a perfectly good rationale for focusing your attacks at the veracity of the media on stories that challenge Bruce and Dan and leave the "insider" reports that praise Bruce-Dan mostly alone because others will challenge them.   OK.  But for those who recall your posts over the years it seems like quite the coincidence that a person who happens to have a relative pro FO bent also wants to by chance focus their efforts on challenging almost any report that makes the FO look bad.  

 

And don't get me wrong, i am not saying you aren't entitled to think and say whatever hits you and cling to whatever belief and slant you got.  I am just saying you come off to me that you got a slant.  And nothing different in that regard to anyone else on this thread -- no better, no worse.  And if you don't believe you have a slant and truly think you are just bringing a pure balanced perspective -- it does get lost in translation with some of us because I know based on other exchanges that i am not the only one with this opinion.

[Skinsinparadise]

Redskins fans were ranked #11 in another survey. Tanier, from BR ranks Redskins fans dead last via his perspective.  

 

 

 

32. Washington Redskins

Engagement: 5

Cuisine: 5

Savvy: 7.5

Internet Personality: -4

FAN SCORE: 13.5

"I'm a Redskins fan and let me tell you, it's an absolute crime to put as at 11. We should be between 25-32. Our fanbase sucks mainly because we've been driven away by the owner." — dmacs101

In olden times (the 1980s), Skins fans were goofballs playing banjos wearing pig snouts and granny dresses. Now, the most visible Skins fans spend most of their time on the internet demanding that the rest of us just deal with the team's name and then dressing up as long rows of empty seats on Sundays.

In fairness to the few remaining true Skins loyalists (as opposed to the angry cranks who have glommed onto a political argument), they're stuck with a dysfunctional franchise with problematic branding and a stadium that has all the charm and luxury of an abandoned strip mall. It's a wonder so many fans still care at all. Just not enough fans to keep them out of last place on this list.

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2843690-mike-tanier-fixes-the-nfl-fanbase-rankings

[wit33]

I say it’s due to poor to average QB play. 

 

The fans were electric during the RG3 1 season run; this with the same owner. 

 

[NickyJ]

So to summarize Tanier's article, he's still butthurt about the franchise name and somehow uses that as part of his explanation about why our fanbase isn't dancing on the ceiling.

 

Hmmm, let's see, his #1 fanbase is the one that says "Okay, yeah, that guy who tried to be Jackie Chan in that hotel lobby was kind of mean, and sure that guy who beat his son and told his girlfriend to be terrified of him was kind of not nice, but do they reeeeeaaaaaallly need to be suspended?"

 

#8: Philadelphia.....

 

Quote

The misunderstood, much-maligned grandchildren of the folks who booed Santa Claus in 1968 now heckle and initiate road fans and boo their own team out of a sense of tradition and ceremony, not malice.

 

Yes, the poor little babies are so misunderstood. Throwing beer cans at other fans is tradition. We should stop being so judgemental.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

41 minutes ago, wit33 said:

I say it’s due to poor to average QB play. 

 

The fans were electric during the RG3 1 season run; this with the same owner. 

 

 

I agree -- poor to average QB play also typically translates to poor to average teams and that's been Dan's tenure.  I don't think Dan is a good owner.  But do I think a franchise Qb who kills it could fix things including overriding a bad owner -- yep.  i don't really think anything else could though.

 

I've mentioned this many times but I read a book called GM years back which was an ex-Giants GM giving his perspective of the league and he cited in his book the Redskins having the best fans in the NFC East -- citing how Fed Ex stadium was packed in a game that was meaningful for the Giants but meant nothing to the Redskins since they were already eliminated.  

 

I think the fan base is tired and maybe a bit burnt out.  But if they catch lightening in the bottle and one day (hopefully its Haskins) finally get that elusive franchise QB and keep him -- I think that will fix it.  I don't think anything else would though.   So hopefully, Haskins is the ticket. 

[wit33]

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I agree -- poor to average QB play also typically translates to poor to average teams and that's been Dan's tenure.  I don't think Dan is a good owner.  But do I think a franchise Qb who kills it could fix things including overriding a bad owner -- yep.  i don't really think anything else could though.

 

I’m with ya more than not. 

 

Dan has done very little to establish any sort of winning culture, but the QB represents the biggest piece of the pie (in my eyes) that it’s tough for me to be overly critical. 

 

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I've mentioned this many times but I read a book called GM years back which was an ex-Giants GM giving his perspective of the league and he cited in his book the Redskins having the best fans in the NFC East -- citing how Fed Ex stadium was packed in a game that was meaningful for the Giants but meant nothing to the Redskins since they were already eliminated.  

 

Some of these “tales” are outdated, as individual franchises are competing with many variables than in years past. Many more options are available to consume the NFL and fans no longer will support blindly. 

 

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I think the fan base is tired and maybe a bit burnt out.  But if they catch lightening in the bottle and one day (hopefully its Haskins) finally get that elusive franchise QB and keep him -- I think that will fix it.  I don't think anything else would though.   So hopefully, Haskins is the ticket. 

 

The reverse is true in my view: the fans are ready to pounce with great support and energy, but must be given a reason. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

I’m with ya more than not. 

 

Dan has done very little to establish any sort of winning culture, but the QB represents the biggest piece of the pie (in my eyes) that it’s tough for me to be overly critical. 

 

 

I am with you as for agreeing that landing a QB would be the ultimate game changer.  As for its tough to be critical part -- that i gather we disagree on.  Dan isn't at the mercy of circumstance.  They've swung and missed so many times and in so many ways at that spot.  Some of it has been bad luck but most of it has been decision making that hasn't produced results.  

 

It's been arguably the Redskins, Lions, and Browns as the three franchises that has swung and missed at that spot more than any team for the last two decades or so.  Browns look to be finally out of the dungeon.  Lion fans seem to be mixed on Stafford.  Hopefully, Haskins becomes our Mayfield.  Heck the NFL Network power ranker guy when saying the Redskins are about to have a miserable season (to paraphrase) said something like heck its the Redskins and some new QBs -- do you all really think that's going to work out (said it with sarcasm).

 

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

Some of these “tales” are outdated, as individual franchises are competing with many variables than in years past. Many more options are available to consume the NFL and fans no longer will support blindly. 

  

The "tale" I was giving was saying the Redskins fans are passionate -- using that Giants game as an example.   If I am understanding you right you are saying the Redskins fans and for that matter other teams will no longer support blindly like that.   If so i agree and disagree.  I agree that there are more options to consume the NFL and it might be tougher to lure fans to the stadium.  But for the Redskins both stadium attendance and TV ratings are down.    I think a lot of that stems from not winning enough over a long period of time.  In DC for example the Cowboys and some other teams from what I read actually outperformed the Redskins TV ratings in some weeks.  So people are tuning into football but just not to the Redskins as much as they once did.    My point is regardless it's a passionate fan base that will come back I think if they start winning. 

 

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

The reverse is true in my view: the fans are ready to pounce with great support and energy, but must be given a reason. 

 

Unless I am missing your point, this seems pretty close to my point.  I am saying they are tired but a QB will fix it.  That's a reason isn't it?  Unless your point is there is no fan fatigue.  

[wit33]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am with you as for agreeing that landing a QB would be the ultimate game changer.  As for its tough to be critical part -- that i gather we disagree on.  Dan isn't at the mercy of circumstance.  They've swung and missed so many times and in so many ways at that spot.  Some of it has been bad luck but most of it has been decision making that hasn't produced results.  

 

Hard to argue the history and results. Not in the clouds that the organization has been below average overall during Snyder’s tenure. 

 

With that said, I believe the organization has matured and is in a good place. If Haskins hits it could be a nice run. 

 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The "tale" I was giving was saying the Redskins fans are passionate -- using that Giants game as an example.   If I am understanding you right you are saying the Redskins fans and for that matter other teams will no longer support blindly like that.   If so i agree and disagree.  I agree that there are more options to consume the NFL and it might be tougher to lure fans to the stadium.  But for the Redskins both stadium attendance and TV ratings are down.    I think a lot of that stems from not winning enough over a long period of time.  In DC for example the Cowboys and some other teams from what I read actually outperformed the Redskins TV ratings in some weeks.  So people are tuning into football but just not to the Redskins as much as they once did.    My point is regardless it's a passionate fan base that will come back I think if they start winning. 

 

“Take” is what I meant. 

 

Ya, I don’t see today’s fan supporting a losing team like in years past. I just don’t think it’s a Redskins issue, the whole NFL is experiencing attendance issues. The novelty of going to a game has worn off for the average fan, it must include value that goes beyond just attending a game. 

 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Unless I am missing your point, this seems pretty close to my point.  I am saying they are tired but a QB will fix it.  That's a reason isn't it?  Unless your point is there is no fan fatigue.  

 

Whats the difference of poor attendance this past year versus 10-15 years ago? Do we have numbers that support fan attendance during losing seasons 15 years ago was more or less than last year? Actual game attendance, not the fluff the marketing department put out about sellouts that we’re clearly not true. 

 

Not denying erosion has taken place though. 

[Riggo#44]

On 6/18/2019 at 1:33 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

But Snyder has insisted he would never change the team name, despite increasing pressure to do so from Native American groups.

 

Someone hasn't been paying attention...

[Skinsinparadise]

4 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

Someone hasn't been paying attention...

 

You quoted me there though that's an article I posted as opposed to my own quote.   Nonetheless, you saying Dan isn't insisting the name won't change?

[PF Chang]

20 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

In fairness to the few remaining true Skins loyalists (as opposed to the angry cranks who have glommed onto a political argument)

 

Seems ironic as this guy's reason for ranking Skins fans last is mostly political. 

 

Ranking fanbases is subjective but I don't think ranking us last is reasonable. He managed to stumble into the point that it's amazing we still have passionate fans after 25 years of dysfunction. What would the Patriots fanbase be like with our results/situation since 1991?

[Riggo#44]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You quoted me there though that's an article I posted as opposed to my own quote.   Nonetheless, you saying Dan isn't insisting the name won't change?

 

No, I was referring to the "increasing pressure." Fights over, we won.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, PF Chang said:

 

Seems ironic as this guy's reason for ranking Skins fans last is mostly political. 

 

Ranking fanbases is subjective but I don't think ranking us last is reasonable. He managed to stumble into the point that it's amazing we still have passionate fans after 25 years of dysfunction. What would the Patriots fanbase be like with our results/situation since 1991?

 

I agree if anything the political stuff weakens the argument because the team's performance and view about the team's name are two entirely separate subjects.   I think the only overlap between the two as to those who attack the name is the narrative that some have which is the Dan isn't just a bad owner but also a bad guy.

 

Personally, I am agnostic about the name.  I don't care if they keep it or change it.  And I don't have an issue with Dan's position on it.  In his defense with any major brand name change you typically lose a ton of market value.  So a name change could cost him a ton of money.  But I am ok with his stance on the name.

 

I think the declining fan attendance and TV ratings has made the team-fans an easy target.  People talk about declining fan attendance everywhere but we were still if I recall one of the worse - I think 29th or something like that?  And when the Cowboys are at times drawing better local TV ratings -- its clearly not good. 

 

I still think though the fan base can be reignited.    It would be interested to see what Dan does next off season if they come off of a bad year.  He's in the past sold the idea of "change" as part of the spin for excitement.   He's done it mostly with big names.  Can he still attract a big name as a HC?   Are fans burned out by it?  I got no clue.   will see.

[slinky]

here's to hoping that BA selling his home is a sign of things to come... (desperately hoping, but realistically depressing)

apparently he's listed it now 8 times since 2011.

Redskins President Bruce Allen brings his home turf to market in Virginia
https://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/hot-property/la-fi-hotprop-bruce-allen-redskins-virginia-20190621-story.html