The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[JSSkinz]

I was going to the pet store just an hour ago and heard Russell on 106.7, he was talking with another beat reporter (not sure who) and he said the following.

 

"We all know what was going on behind the scenes with Scott M and the coverups". 

He goes on to talk about the risk associated with hiring someone who suffers from addiction.

 

So this to me says the media knows a lot more about Scott's issue but they won't say, I don't know if they are protecting Scott or they just want Bruce and Dan to keep looking like the bad guys because it gets clicks.

 

Then he says.

"Bruce's biggest failure was hiring Scott M".

 

Pretty much what I thought since the Redskins fired him last offseason.  There are many people who are to blame, but I get that its easier to hammer Bruce because his record stinks and he's goofy but he's not picking these players and he's not the one who told McCartney he wasn't comfortable accepting Kirks counter in the 2016 offseason.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

50 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

I was going to the pet store just an hour ago and heard Russell on 106.7, he was talking with another beat reporter (not sure who) and he said the following.

 

...Pretty much what I thought since the Redskins fired him last offseason.  There are many people who are to blame, but I get that its easier to hammer Bruce because his record stinks and he's goofy but he's not picking these players and he's not the one who told McCartney he wasn't comfortable accepting Kirks counter in the 2016 offseason.

 

 

 

You aren't going to find a bigger critic on the planet than Chris Russell as to Bruce Allen.  I am gathering you haven't listened to Russell much or even for the full segment today.  But Russell is relentless.  Much harsher than the typical critic here.  Russell called Bruce a loser today. And that his record speaks for itself.   On Scot specifically he said that building in not the right one for Scot -- suggesting its a bad environment and drinking is rampant by others.  He's elaborated on the drinking in the building and the culture many times in the past. 

 

Russell in other segments has gotten into things that in his mind speak to Bruce being a bad guy  I haven't touched on any of that here -- because I don't find it relevant.  And its just editorial. 

 

As for Scot McCloughan yeah Russell is the one media guy who has been on the train that there were behind the scenes that justified Scot's firing.  That's not news.  I posted on it myself many times last year when he talked about it initially.  In Russell's world Scot needs to go and Bruce needs to go, too

 

Here's a column Russell wrote not that long about why Bruce should be canned.  If its about defending Bruce, I'd run away from Russell as far as possible. 

 

https://www.dchotread.com/2017/12/11/bruce-must-go

...Here’s the bottom-line. Allen has represented the Redskins in a putrid manner. 

He was brought to Washington to restore the glory and tradition of a once-proud franchise. Instead, he’s made the burgundy and gold more of a joke.... 
 

 

[Thinking Skins]

19 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

I was going to the pet store just an hour ago and heard Russell on 106.7, he was talking with another beat reporter (not sure who) and he said the following.

 

"We all know what was going on behind the scenes with Scott M and the coverups". 

He goes on to talk about the risk associated with hiring someone who suffers from addiction.

 

So this to me says the media knows a lot more about Scott's issue but they won't say, I don't know if they are protecting Scott or they just want Bruce and Dan to keep looking like the bad guys because it gets clicks.

 

Then he says.

"Bruce's biggest failure was hiring Scott M".

 

Pretty much what I thought since the Redskins fired him last offseason.  There are many people who are to blame, but I get that its easier to hammer Bruce because his record stinks and he's goofy but he's not picking these players and he's not the one who told McCartney he wasn't comfortable accepting Kirks counter in the 2016 offseason.

 

 

 

I heard this segment as well and all along I've been saying that there's probably a lot that we don't know about the situation. That said, i think it's a disservice to Scot to talk about the situation so abstractly without giving details because it leads to speculation about the why and what they mean. 

 

@zoony brought up the idea that his drafts aren't that great. I've been saying that Kyle Smith would probably take on a bigger role, and so far it seems that way. The WP article by Jones saying that it was all jealousy seems speculative as well, but i respect Jones probably more than anybody in town (maybe Keim is first) . 

 

But i think this is more of a chemistry issue than anything else. Maybe there are other things involved but it seems obvious that there is no love lost between Scot and Bruce. I wonder about how Kyle Smith, AJ Smith, Doug, Scott Campbell, Santos and the regional scouts were with this.

 

There was an article saying how DW does the draft board with Kyle Smith. I wonder how much that differs from how Scot did it, and how many times there were arguments in house between coaches or scouts and Scot over this draft board setup. We saw that Scot approved of the 2017 draft, but how much of that was hindsight, and would he have made the same decisions? Further, would Smith et al have decided to pick Matt Jones at that spot, or Doctson, or Scherff, or ignore the DL those years. 

[zoony]

I really wanted to start a thread on the topic of adam schefter calling Allen one of the smartest people in the nfl.  But i will just put it here.  Talk about vomit inducing...

 

Schefter has one motive and one motive only... setting bimself up as the one BA calls to confide in when Cousins walks.  This is everything wrong in journalism, and why i never trust the opinions of tools like schefter or glazer who always get scoops.  Theyre sucking someone off to get them.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

59 minutes ago, zoony said:

I really wanted to start a thread on the topic of adam schefter calling Allen one of the smartest people in the nfl.  But i will just put it here.  Talk about vomit inducing...

 

Schefter has one motive and one motive only... setting bimself up as the one BA calls to confide in when Cousins walks.  This is everything wrong in journalism, and why i never trust the opinions of tools like schefter or glazer who always get scoops.  Theyre sucking someone off to get them.

It came off very calculated to me considering his relationship with Shanny.  He also used that as a setup for "...but Kirk has all the leverage here".

 

On a side note, I wish the Scot stuff could be done with.  It's another issue that no matter what you think or feel really took place, that Bruce is responsible for no matter what and it ended very poorly.  It was then followed by an arms reach search for his "replacement".  It's a bad look from every perspective and another strike for Bruce.

[Mr. Sinister]

1 hour ago, zoony said:

I really wanted to start a thread on the topic of adam schefter calling Allen one of the smartest people in the nfl.  But i will just put it here.  Talk about vomit inducing...

 

Schefter has one motive and one motive only... setting bimself up as the one BA calls to confide in when Cousins walks.  This is everything wrong in journalism, and why i never trust the opinions of tools like schefter or glazer who always get scoops.  Theyre sucking someone off to get them.

 

Reminds me of all of the ShannyLeaks, and how he was dropping nonsense left and right like he was living at Redskins Park. Really annoying

[SkinsFTW]

12 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

 

From 2002 - 2009 the Redskins were 54 - 74.

From 2010 - 2017 the Redskins were  52 - 75 - 1.

And that's right where I put them. A " C -

 

Way way under .500 is only a C- when 9-7 is your Super Bowl, which is appropriately, SO REDSKINS.

 

In the real world winning like 40% of your games is a solid F.

 

It's like going to school and deciding that you just aren't going to show up at all to a certain class then finding out later that you got a 35-40% and laughed it off because you didn't GAF, that's Bruce Allen as GM. He sucks, he knows it, we know it, but who cares? He's still getting paid and still failing miserably.

[Spearfeather]

6 hours ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

Way way under .500 is only a C- when 9-7 is your Super Bowl, which is appropriately, SO REDSKINS.

 

 

 

8 - 8 would be an F in your book, because we only got " 50% " right.

[SkinsFTW]

1 hour ago, Spearfeather said:

 

8 - 8 would be an F in your book, because we only got " 50% " right.

 

Ask Belichick or Brady what 8-8 grades out as. I'm thinking they'd say it's an F.

 

Snyder and Allen probably think it's a C+ though since it's so close to 9-7 or 10-6 and they've literally never seen better.

[Skinsinparadise]

13 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

It came off very calculated to me considering his relationship with Shanny.  He also used that as a setup for "...but Kirk has all the leverage here".

 

On a side note, I wish the Scot stuff could be done with.  It's another issue that no matter what you think or feel really took place, that Bruce is responsible for no matter what and it ended very poorly.  It was then followed by an arms reach search for his "replacement".  It's a bad look from every perspective and another strike for Bruce.

 

Agree.  And on Scot, there is no win for Bruce regardless of what theory you espouse here.  

 

Some of the pro-Bruce people are the ones who seem caught up in Scot.  They like to make this as this whole thing is about us being upset that Scot is gone and Bruce is the man left standing.  The thing is it has zero to do with the point at hand for most of us.  I even said on the thread back then hey if Bruce wants the benefit of the doubt on what went down with Scot -- I'll give him that.  Lets see what the dude does next.  Scot's side of this said for Bruce it was all about a power grab.  He wants to call the shots, the credit and without someone getting in his way.   Bruce's side said not at all - it was just about Scot's antics.

 

So like I said then, if Bruce hires a new guy in Scot's role with a similar pedigree then that would dispel Scot's camps theory.  But if the outcome is Bruce solidified as the head honcho than that would speak to Scot's camp being on to something.

 

But for me it wasn't about who was right.  It was what the power structure would be.  And low and behold it ended up being with Bruce solidified as the guy in charge and a promotion for the two guys who most said had Bruce's back the strongest -- Doug and the son of one of his closest friends.  That's when Bruce lost me.    

 

But that dumb press release sent out in July took the cake for me.  That release was so ill-conceived and IMO dumb that it put on the radar to me that stupid things can come out of this FO.   And the idea that we should relax because we are in good hands felt comical to me after that happened.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

15 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

But for me it wasn't about who was right.  It was what the power structure would be.  And low and behold it ended up being with Bruce solidified as the guy in charge and a promotion for the two guys who most said had Bruce's back the strongest -- Doug and the son of one of his closest friends.  That's when Bruce lost me.    

 

I recall Califan taking on endless debate that there is no way possible that Scot's firing could have anything to do with him having an ego, because of X, Y, and Z.  But one would think Bruce doing what you just described sounds like something a man with a huge ego would do.  Keep the no-names that he has an allegiance to, but not for a second think about bringing in a big name from the outside to get all the credit should things turn around.  I really have no idea whether it's an ego thing with Bruce or not, but the handling of Scot's firing without pay, the anonymous leak about drinking, and the subsequent arms length hiring search all point to that of a politician with a huge ego, not a man hell bent on doing what's right for the sake of the organization.

 

When Schefter said he was one of the smartest men in the NFL, it wasn't necessarily meant as a compliment.  How many guys are in charge of as much catastrophe as Bruce has been yet still remain employed 9 years later?  Gotta be a smart man to play the game the way he has and still remain employed and at least by appearance, unscathed.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

When Schefter said he was one of the smartest men in the NFL, it wasn't necessarily meant as a compliment.  How many guys are in charge of as much catastrophe as Bruce has been yet still remain employed 9 years later?  Gotta be a smart man to play the game the way he has and still remain employed and at least by appearance, unscathed.

 

People were referring here to the Chris Russell segment on this.  There was one caller who made that same point.  You got to be sharp to survive the jungle at Redskins Park and stay on top especially with a losing record.

 

And intelligence and being good at a job are two different things.  I consider myself a smart guy.  But I think I'd be a lousy GM because its not my niche.  Most people are intelligent in their domain.   Bruce's domain according to people who worked hand in hand with him like Mike Lombardi -- isn't personnel. 

 

But in most ways I don't really blame Bruce.  When you are working up the corporate ladder, you are supposed to find ways to become more powerful and elevate your position.  That's capitalism.  It's Dan who has set this operation up.  I don't believe highly in Doug-Bruce but I don't blame either one for assuming the positions they have. 

 

But yeah some of the straw-man arguments we've encountered in this debate over months:

This is about Bruce versus Scot.  (Not true)

Showing things Bruce has done right, disprove the critics (Also not true, what team doesn't get somethings right?)

Bruce is a dummy (No one is saying that either)

Issues with Bruce are all about Kirk (Not true)

 

It's really just about Dan and what type of structure he clings to in just about every year he's been here.  We feel it = loserville. 

 

The Scot-Bruce stuff really has no winner either way, especially on Bruce's end.  It was his hire.  So if he was a failure, he'd take the hit.  So its never really Scot versus Bruce.  Since the two are tied together either way.  But regardless, Dan is the key figure in it all.  

 

 

 

 

[Spearfeather]

3 hours ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

Ask Belichick or Brady what 8-8 grades out as. I'm thinking they'd say it's an F.

 

Snyder and Allen probably think it's a C+ though since it's so close to 9-7 or 10-6 and they've literally never seen better.

 

Still trying to nail down your grading scale, but I think we've got it.

 

15 - 16 wins = A

13 - 14 wins = B

11 - 12 wins = C

9 - 10  wins = D

8 and under = F

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

23 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Still trying to nail down your grading scale, but I think we've got it.

 

15 - 16 wins = A

13 - 14 wins = B

11 - 12 wins = C

9 - 10  wins = D

8 and under = F

 

It would be nice if Bruce was only being graded on one season, but he's being graded on 8 rolling into 9.  All of which the team never eclipsed 10 wins and an overall win % of roughly 40%.  Bruce's Redskins teams win on average roughly 6 games a season.

[Spearfeather]

1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

It would be nice if Bruce was only being graded on one season, but he's being graded on 8 rolling into 9.  All of which the team never eclipsed 10 wins and an overall win % of roughly 40%.  Bruce's Redskins teams win on average roughly 6 games a season.

 

What would you say a " C " would be ? ( Wins )

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

What would you say a " C " would be ? ( Wins )

An average of 8 wins per season and  way less drama at the QB position, front office, etc.

[Spearfeather]

1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

An average of 8 wins per season and  way less drama at the QB position, front office, etc.

 

O.K. and I would say a " C " is between 7 - 9 wins a year. A " D " would be 5 -6 wins a year.

 

Bruce has averaged 6.5.  

 

I said a " C - ".

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Have to take off points for the RG3 trade, the hiring and firing of Scot and the moves thereafter, and the handling of Kirk.  The last two contribute directly to what the future looks like.

[Spearfeather]

3 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Have to take off points for the RG3 trade, the hiring and firing of Scot and the moves thereafter, and the handling of Kirk.  The last two contribute directly to what the future looks like.

 

And not adding points for anything right ? I mean nothing.

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

4 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

And not adding points for anything right ? I mean nothing.

 

 

Like what?

 

Those are 3 HUGE things.  What HUGE things are in the making for this team at this point in time worthy of handing out participation trophies?

[Spearfeather]

10 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Like what?

 

Those are 3 HUGE things.  What HUGE things are in the making for this team at this point in time worthy of handing out participation trophies?

 

What did you think of the hiring of McCloughan ?

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

5 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

What did you think of the hiring of McCloughan ?

I was excited....out of desperation.  Would I have preferred there actually be a legit interviewing process littered with the names of up and comers without alcohol issues? Yes.  But as a fan that knows how badly this team desperately needed a true talent evaluator, I was willing to take what they gave us.  That ended up being Scot.  We were also told he would have full control of personnel and that ended up a lie.  So yeah, on it's face...I was excited.  But knowing all we know now, it didn't do much of anything other than continue to make the Redskins look bad.

 

I also need to add that it really doesn't matter what you or I, as fans of the team, think about things.  We aren't paid to make front office decisions.  I expect much less of us, than I do of actual folks paid to run things in the front office of a professional football team.  I'm allowed to be wrong, they aren't.

[Tsailand]

If you evaluate Bruce solely on who was on the 53 man roster each year, and on our record for each year, it's a D or D-.  C- is generous.  Redskins are 26th out of 32 teams in W/L record from 2010-2017.  That's 7th worst.

 

But if you look at his process, it's an F:

- RG3 trade

- Scott fiasco

- Kirk fiasco.

 

Those are just the highlights.  I'm not even mentioning stuff like letting two 1000 yard receivers leave in the same season and replacing them with ****ing nothing.

[Makaveli]

So who can we blame for this move? Allen? Williams? Or maybe they took a vote? Very effective. It sure would be nice if we knew who had final say and signed off on the deal.

 

If you make a move and have faith that it will pan out then you should have no issue with saying that it was your call. Maybe we'll find out in the next couple of days but I'm not holding my breath.

 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Bruce is the worst GM in the NFL and he’s panicking because after 8 years, after botching the Kirk thing, was going to have to start over with a rookie.  

 

So so make a dumb trade and get another QB in hopes of SQUEEKING into the playoffs.

 

It probably won’t happen though.