The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[volsmet]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Coaching is a rather wide open term, when you take into account all the different types of coaches on a staff.  

 

 

Well coached team isn’t particularly ambiguous. Imo. 

[TSO]

1 hour ago, volsmet said:

Elite talent + good coaching < Elite coaching + good talent.

 

 

I couldn’t disagree more. I’d flip that around and add another 10 greater thans. I can’t believe you just said that after liking my post. Go take your like back.  😛 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

2 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

Well coached team isn’t particularly ambiguous. Imo. 

That wasn’t the term you used though.  I also think it’s possible to have a staff full of good coaches that don’t mesh well.  For instance, our defense doesn’t seem to have terrible position coaches, but they get terrible results.  Our running game stinks, and I don’t even really understand who does what with that, but general consensus is that Callahan is a good coach. 

[Conn]

The FO is awful and hinders everyone beneath them, yes. Our best hope is obviously that Snyder lucks into an actual competent GM that he trusts for some reason and gives him the same amount of power and leeway that he gave Vinny and Allen, or even more. 

 

We basically have to hope that Snyder feels pressured to reluctantly move on from Bruce the same way he did Vinny. Maybe he takes advice from Bruce on the way out (as it will be an amicable parting of ways that he'll paint as purely a "this is out of my hands buddy, bad luck" move) and Bruce for whatever reason recommends his good buddy A.J. Smith's son, Kyle Smith, for the job and we stumble backwards into an interesting young GM candidate as the rampant nepotism in the NFL pays off for us for the first time ever. Kyle has been here long enough that he can obviously survive this viper nest without pissing anyone important off--and that's one of the more important qualifications for any GM that we want to succeed here, it's kind of a uniquely sucky situation in that even if we luck into a great GM candidate they also have to be buddies to a degree with the owner. A guy raised in football by a good talent evaluator who came up here during the reign of Bruce's office politics might ironically be the best shot at that rare ****tail that fans desire and need in a miracle GM candidate, despite our thirst for as close to a house-cleaning as possible. 

 

Maybe that's a pipe dream. Maybe it's not. But I agree, the future FO moves matter way more than the coaching staff stuff, and that's where any real change in the organizational culture would have to start. 

 

But I can still tell that Gruden is not a potential superstar HC, even though he's certainly being held back from whatever his own ceiling is here. And that's because even the things he DOES have direct control over like playcalling tendencies, overall team preparedness and discipline, etc. piss me off to no end.

 

If I knew for sure he was fully responsible for his own coaching staff and distribution of responsibilities therein, I'd kill him for that as well. But I don't include it in the above list of things I know Gruden has a direct hand in because with this organization it's just impossible to know if he chose and wanted his DC's and their staff, or if Bruce has gone for the cheapest familiar candidates regardless, or what. 

[skins island connection]

24 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

That wasn’t the term you used though.  I also think it’s possible to have a staff full of good coaches that don’t mesh well.  For instance, our defense doesn’t seem to have terrible position coaches, but they get terrible results.  Our running game stinks, and I don’t even really understand who does what with that, but general consensus is that Callahan is a good coach. 

 

 I totally agree with this.

Now, I'm not saying that Gruden is a good coach by any aspect, mostly because he's proven more than enough that he loses focus and gets 'caught up in the moment' of a game, especially in a tight game late in the 4th.

In Cincy, it wasn't so much about Gruden being very good as it was lucking out on having a couple players who were really gifted, but even then eventually he failed to get them anywhere.

 

I like the Gibbs approach in coaching; at least his first stint. He had more assistants than any other team, and that helped players develop better, helped teaching better technique, and really helped in paying attention to the little details in a position.

I've always believed in good coaching equals better players. Afterall, these players HAVE to learn their skills SOMEWHERE, right? Using a certain player's skillset to its strength vs a weakness against an opponent. If the coach does a good job, then he has success, and can increase that player's talents in other areas that do not negate his best talent.

 

A coach or assistant who likes to keep things close to the vest, wanting as much control over a player{ s } is more than likely limiting that player's abilities. Just as in high school, you have different teachers for different classes; a single teacher trying to teach multiple subjects will not be as good, thus limiting the students' knowledge.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Somehow this has turned into a coaching vs. FO thread.  And there seem to be two sides of the argument: On one side you have the side that says the FO hinders absolutely everything and the way it's run doesn't allow the coaches to do their jobs appropriately.  So, basically everything falls on Bruce because he's the albatross around everybody's necks, and therefore nobody, from the HC to the position coaches to the players can perform up to their level of talent.  

 

Then there are others which say the coaching is terrible.   That this team is poorly coached, and that different members of the coaching staff are 1) bad at their jobs, and 2) should be fired. Now.  Today.  Why does Greg Manusky still have a job?  Fire Jay!  No more excuses, fire all the coaches.  

 

I actually agree with ...  part of the first position and part of the second position.  

 

I agree that Bruce is an albatross around the necks of everybody which causes all kinds of problems across the board.  I also believe that there are things the coaches can and should be able to do which the FO does not effect.  

 

I believe the FO sets the direction, chooses the HC and the players, and therefore is the most important thing to get right.  A better FO would get better players and coaches.  So the FO has to be right for the rest of the organization to run smoothly and effectively.  

 

Here are the 3 things which I think Bruce does (or does not do) which contribute to how the coaches perform:

1. As the President, the culture starts with him. (Ok, maybe Dan, but I'm going to just say Dan has delegated that to Bruce).  It's his job to make sure that there is a culture of accountability, professionalism and discipline.  The tone is set from the top.  Instead of these things, we have no accountability for anything (player personnel decisions, coaching debacles, player outbursts, nothing).  Bruce takes the low road constantly, none lower than when he smeared McLoughan on the way out the door.  And there is no discipline at all in the organization.  Which is why you hear people popping off all the damn time when we haven't won anything in almost 30 damn years.

 

2. I think he has a larger say on the coaching staff that has previously been let on.  Jay is on record several times that he makes coaching staff decisions, but I'm not entirely sure.  Jay said he was the one picking the DC when GMSM was originally hired, because there was some question as to who had a say in that.  However, with SO many of the coaches having Tampa connections, that seems a bit strange.  I get that Jay was on that staff, but he was just an offensive assistant.  Something doesn't quite smell right.

 

3. Player acquisition.  We don't have enough good players, and that's on Bruce.  His FA approach is plain dumb.  He traded for a QB which didn't fit the coach.  He low-balls contracts.  They seem to have drafted well over the last couple of years.  But FA and trades have mostly been a debacle.  

 

Here are the things which I think the coaches can control all on their own:

 

1. Preparation.  Make sure you are "getting through" to your players, they know what they are supposed to do and how to do it.  This is from the position coaches to HC.  

 

2. Game plan.  Figure out what you are good at, figure out what your opponent is not good at, and then figure out how you can take advantage of that.  

 

3. On-field discipline.  If a player makes a mistake once, that's fine. If they make it repeatedly either the player needs to not be playing or the coach needs to find a way to fix it.  Making the same mistake over and over is not acceptable.  

 

4. In-game stuff.  Play calling, adjustments, game management, all that stuff.  

 

I just don't see how a bad FO impacts the calling of the game.  Or when to use a TO.  Or preparing your players.  Or coming up with a good plan.  If you're a good coach, you can do these things and get the most out of the players you are given.  If you're not a good coach, you can't.  Maybe I'm wrong about that.  But unless Bruce is calling down to Jay during the game saying "do this, do that," the in-game stuff is on the coaches.  

 

I think the "fire the coach and all will be well" people are completely missing the point that the culture is set from the top, the player acquisition is from the top, and unless that changes, a new coach can only do so much.  

 

However, I think the crowd who push the first argument are devaluing what good coaching can do.  And  I think some of it might be that they want ALL of the attention focused on Bruce, and any attention paid to the coaching distracts from the larger point that Bruce is the root of the problem.  And while I appreciate that, I think it gives an unintentional pass to some horrific coaching we've seen over the years.  

 

I believe coaching is important.  And good coaching is not just the HC.  It's all the way from the HC to the position coach.  Because coaches are also teachers.  I actually take issue with the idea players at the pro-level know how to play their positions.  Everybody in the NFL is an exceptional athlete.  And everybody in the NFL was some type of a star in college, which is why they are in the NFL.  

 

But as a rookie, you come in and have to learn and develop.  At every position.  Which is why development is so key.  Let's take the example of a a pass-rusher.  Pass-rushers need to learn new moves, new techniques, and how to set up defenders.  Most didn't have to do this in college because they were bigger/stronger/faster than the guy in front of them, so they just beat them with sheer talent alone.  That doesn't happen very often in the NFL.  There are probably 5 defenders in the entire league who can just out-physical the guy in front of them all the time.  Everybody else has to develop technique.  You know how you do that?  Coaching.  Film study.  Repetitions.  And that's why you see rookies struggle early, catch on, and then take a bit of time to figure it out.  

 

It's true for every position.  Including RB, where learning pass-protection and pass-schemes are so important in today's NFL, and are very different than what most players do in college.  

 

Good coaches develop talent.  A player with elite physical skills might not develop into an elite player with poor coaching.  They might if they are just that good.  But not always. And conversely, a player with really good talent might develop into an elite player with hard work and good coaching.  Elite players are not always the most physically gifted players.  There is a certain amount of athleticism which is table stakes, you have to have.  But if you've got really good talent, and you are well coached, you can become, at the very least, a pro-bowl level player. 

 

Just as a point of reference, Preston Smith has 4 or 4.5 sacks so far this year and was the defensive player of the week last week.  He was here for 4 years and I don't think he ever had a stretch like that. He had the critical sack to seal the win in GBs win over the Bears in week 1. 

 

Haha Clinton-Dix was the runner up in defensive player of the week last week.

 

According to Pro Football Focus, the top DB duo statistically is Bree and fuller.  The 'Skins couldn't WAIT to get rid of Bree. I'm not sure if I buy the statistic, but I think we can just say both are having good years.

 

You're just not going to convince me that coaching, whether it be development or scheme, has nothing to do with this.  Players who were somewhere between "meh" and good here are having much better success elsewhere.  

 

Coaching matters.  Coaching matters in developing players.  Coaching matters in putting players in position to make plays.  Coaching matters making sure players to know what is expected of them.  A talented but poorly coached teams loses.  Not every game, but they lose games they should win.  (With 1 notable exception.  That Dallas SB team which was coached by Switzer was extraordinarily poorly coached.  But they were SO talented, it just didn't matter.) 

 

A poorly coached elite talent will not look like an elite talent. Daron Payne could actually be elite.  And he could be so much more impactful if the offense didn't know exactly what he was doing every play.  But they do, so he's "good."  I'm willing to bet if you put him on the Rams, or Eagles, or Dallas, he'd be a disruptive force everybody would be talking about.  Why? They do creative things to get pressure, and with his talent level, he'd be a beast.  

 

The SB winning teams are typically the ones with exceptional talent AND exceptional coaching.  And exceptional cultures.  

 

And there are some areas where Bruce's mere presence does hinder the coaches.  If he picked some of them, and they are dummies, that's on him.  His inability to foster a culture of accountability, professionalism and discipline disrupts everything.  And I get that.   

 

My final point: In Gibbs I, he won 3 SBs and got to an NFC championship game with 4 different QBs.  And none were really elite.  Joey T. was "ok" when Gibbs got there.  GIbbs got the most out of him and turned his career around.  He got Jay Schroeder to an NFC Championship game.  He got Rypien a SB.  

 

Those teams were loaded with talent.  Don't get me wrong.  However they were also exceptionally well coached.  They were prepared.  The players were developed by outstanding coordinators and position coaches.  Joe Bugel might be the best OL coach in the history of the NFL.  He helped form the Hogs into what they were.  He helped develop some of the best OL who ever played.  And every one of them, to a man, credits Buges with helping them.  

 

If you replaced the 'Skins coaching staff of the 1980's with that of say, the Jets, even with all that talent they don't win squat.  And that talent doesn't even remotely develop into the talent we know and love.  

 

I actually agree that firing Jay is probably not going to solve any of the fundamental problems the organization has unless Bruce is gone and a new, professional, accountable and disciplined culture is created.  I don't actually think firing Manusky is going to help much at this point either, though it might be worth a try. Can't get any worse, and doing the same thing over and over again is the definition of insanity.  I don't think they should fire Jay in season.  I wouldn't shed a tear, but unless it's to give Kevin O'Connell a "trial run" then there's just no point.  And if you're doing that, then all indications are Bruce is staying.  

 

So that's probably very rambly, and I'm going to bed.  I'm awaiting (and looking forward to) a line-by-line rebuttal on both sides of the argument from certain members. 

[TSO]

3 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

But I can still tell that Gruden is not a potential superstar HC, even though he's certainly being held back from whatever his own ceiling is here. And that's because even the things he DOES have direct control over like playcalling tendencies, overall team preparedness and discipline, etc. piss me off to no end.

I think the bolded above is contradictory and I don’t think you CAN know the rest of what you said. That’s really my point. 
 

It all has an effect, whether directly or indirectly. Whatever you think he’s got direct control of, while maybe true, it doesn’t mean it isn’t affected in a myriad of ways by what the FO does.
 

What can look like a lack of preparation or discipline is, more often than not, players who don’t have synchronized skill sets or have redundant ones that opposing teams can easily take away after a little bit of film. Or they’re simply not good enough and attempt to overcome that by playing outside the boundaries. What can look like a lack of adjustments can often be players who simply can’t do what is being asked of them in terms of change, or can’t do it at a high enough level with any consistency. 
 

I can get into a ton of examples of this, but I won’t. And that’s just tied to personnel. There is the environmental factor of professionalism (or lack thereof) that can wear on anyone and bring them down, even in the seemingly mundane. 
 

Have you ever worked in a bad environment? Had a boss who operated in a negative way or hindered your ability to succeed? Were you ever overwhelmed with too much on your plate because others who had roles that were supposed to support you weren’t fulfilling them? 
 

If you have, I’m sure if you’re being honest with yourself you’ll admit to it having even affected things that were your strengths. That, eventually, and sometimes even quickly, you feel like you can’t do anything right, in your control or not. That the slump you’re in is creeping into everything you touch and it becomes impossible to focus on any one thing properly. Sometimes the only way out is to get out. 
 

We all want to act like were we in the same situation we’d rise above like courageous eagles and soar through the sky as we adapt to whatever comes our way. But I don’t care how smart, pragmatic, practical, inventive, socially competent, etc... you are. A lot of the times, no - most of the times -we really don’t. That’s simply human. 

[TSO]

@Voice_of_Reason Yeah, I’m going to dissect that when I have a chance. I want to really sink my teeth into it because I think you’re wrong on so many levels it hurts ( 😛 ), so it might take some time until I know I have a few hours to go through it all in detail. Though, to be honest, much of it was preemptively refuted in my first post on the topic here yesterday. 
 

Maybe on Saturday if it’s slow at work, lol. But yeah, I do feel the need to refute it. I think your ideas on this are what inflicts so many fans with the disease of the Snyder Cycle^tm. 

[goskins10]

4 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Somehow this has turned into a coaching vs. FO thread.  And there seem to be two sides of the argument: On one side you have the side that says the FO hinders absolutely everything and the way it's run doesn't allow the coaches to do their jobs appropriately.  So, basically everything falls on Bruce because he's the albatross around everybody's necks, and therefore nobody, from the HC to the position coaches to the players can perform up to their level of talent.  

 

Then there are others which say the coaching is terrible.   That this team is poorly coached, and that different members of the coaching staff are 1) bad at their jobs, and 2) should be fired. Now.  Today.  Why does Greg Manusky still have a job?  Fire Jay!  No more excuses, fire all the coaches.  

 

 

Edit

 

So a couple of things here. 

 

First, I am not so sure it's as one side or the other as it comes across. For me I like but don;t love Jay. But I do loathe Bruce and Dan. I see what appear to be mistakes or underachieving by Jay but as SIP and TSO are saying the culture can have much more ranging impacts than those looking from the outside can see. 

 

I have my own experiences where I have been highly successful in my work with the exception of one company where i was fired after 1 yr. The culture and work environment created by top management was insufferable and honestly threw me off my level of performance. I made mistakes I never make I make. I suddenly was paralyzed out of fear of what trap had been laid - and being told i could not do the very things I knew that would fix many of our issues. 

 

My point here is that the wrong culture can have impacts you never really see. In 3 companies (one of them twice) I have been a top employee. But one other company decided they did not need my services. And in fairness by the end, I hated that place so bad i was glad to be gone (I had in fact made an agreement I would leave on my own in 3 weeks but was ambushed the day after making that agreement with the VP who was supposed to be a friend but was in fact the problem. 

 

My point here - and one I think @thesubmittedone is making is that we have no idea just had bad an impact the poor leadership from bruce and dan are having on everyone's performance. I do know that virtually everyone that has come here has lived down to their worst capabilities. The problem is it's not an all of a sudden thing. It's gradual and in the process you make excuses, blame yourself, try to do things different and then you end up making it worse because the culture is designed to get the least it can out of you. 

 

If Jay has really wanted to make some moves like move on from callaghan, release AP, get another DC, disagreed with the FA approach, it can seep it's way into the rest your job. 

 

I am on record as saying if it gets rid of Bruce I am totally fine with Jay going with him. But for all the reasons above, I want Bruce to go with him - not because I really think that will be the magic elixir, but because we can't change dan which is the real issue.  So ask for the things that can change. 

 

In the end, I think we all know that as long as dan owns the team and refuses to hire someone competent and GTF out of their way, we will be in the rinse and repeat cycle TCO pointed out. 

[KDawg]

I think it's possible to see that the overarching theme is the front office holding the coaching staff back, but poor coaching decisions are also present.

 

Evidence of the first statement: Dan Snyder's entire tenure - record, stadium, players, coaches, etc.

 

The second part isn't as clear. First, any coach who is constantly saddled with players they don't want is at a significant disadvantage. I imagine a bunch of teams have guys the FO wants that the coaches aren't enamored with... And honestly I'm okay with that in small snippets. The ownership groups are likely going to be around a lot longer than the coach, so they have to watch out for what they believe is best for the team. But with the Skins it seems to be a fairly regular occurrence. And that undermines coaching.

 

We don't know the extent of: "Hire this coach" that the FO imposes on Jay. Or just how handcuffed he is with things.

 

But we also see aspects of roster and game management that really shouldn't be put on the FO. Adrian Peterson is a good example. It seems (speculative) that Jay was ready to move on from AP but the FO made him keep him. That's on the FO. But now that he's on the roster, it would be prudent for Gruden to find a way to use him. But instead, he makes him inactive on gameday. Who's fault is it? Kind of a chicken and the egg debate. If the FO hadn't forced him to keep him, it wouldn't have been an issue. But if Jay had made a future hall of famer with some gas in the tank active week 1, it wouldn't have been a thing, either. I put that on both parties. 

 

Some play calls are really questionable, some are phenomenal. It's really an interesting paradigm. 

 

I do think that it's difficult to completely judge Gruden on his tenure here given the dynamic.

 

I think maybe an accurate statement is: Gruden isn't doing things to help his tenure here, but perhaps shouldn't be judged on it, either.

[Skinsinparadise]

I go no doubt that a bad culture from above makes EVERYONE (not just the head coach) less at their job or at the very least it makes them operate differently.  So I don't think it's a coincidence that every coach here is less than what they were before.  Personnel is part of it.  But the bigger part of it I think is it consumes energy to play office politics and it wears you down.  And you have to change your approach at times to deal with it.  Compromises.  Give some to get something.  Buckle completely at times.  Change an approach because of pressure from above. 

 

My job is unique because every year I deal with my own version of about 30 new organizations, and I have a specific task to perform.   Some places give me the autonomy to do things completely my way.  Sometimes I can do it mostly my way with a certain push on adapting a specific approach.  On a rare occasion I get an employer like how Dan is described.   With that type of employer I tend to be more risk adverse.  I spend time getting a sense of what THEY want.  And I typically end up making my work really a combination of what they like, with some of my style mixed in.   If things go wrong, me, and others have to answer for it.   It's not a lot of fun and you can't wait for it to end.  At this stage of my career I fortunately have the ability to turn jobs down like that if I hear who am working for is a Dan type personality.

 

I got no doubt based on what beat guys and ex-employees have said about working at Redskins Park that we are not getting the best unfiltered-unplugged version of Jay or anyone there.  And this isn't some homage to Jay.  I've said many times, he can stay he can go.  My issue is for those that are hankering for the NEXT guy.  I think they are likely going to be disappointed again unless other things change, too.   And the reason why I argue the point so vociferously is I've been caught myself in this cycle of believing the next coach will be the solution or at the very least navigate the FO and be a lot better -- but I've been burned by that fire enough.  

 

Even if I was dying to have Jay walk out the door, every point I make here would stand.  At the very least there needs to be a change in the FO first.   Some say well that goes without saying.  Personally I don't think it goes without saying.  It needs to be said and IMO it needs to be the overriding point because otherwise we are perpetuating the same losing cycle.  Dan please please please change the coach, and we are good.  Jay is gone now -- hooray, hooray!  New beginnings!  We are excited!   Rinse and repeat until the next savior comes. 

 

The personnel stuff is secondary IMO.  But yeah I do think it matters, too.  Heard multiple times Jay wanted to keep Desean Jackson, the FO disagreed.  Desean himself ultimately confirmed it.    I saw Bruce grinning in a rare interview back that saying that yeah we lost Desean and Garcon but we got a lot of that production right back in Pryor and Quick.  We saw soon after that Doug say in an interview something to the effect of Jay's system is a turn key 4000 passing yards one regardless of the players.   You don't have to be a rocket scientist to put together that Bruce-Doug thought the prolific passing that they had at the time was more about Jay's system than the talent and under estimating the talent they had in house.

 

I wonder what Jay was thinking watching Desean basically single handily beat his team a few weeks back?   I can imagine if the relationship with Jay and the FO has gotten a little testy (as some purport) that they had a testy conversation about it.   But that's the stuff that likely happens working there.  And as many who cover the team have said, the soap opera is much worse than the nuggets that occasionally gets leaked. 

 

There were mixed reports about whether Alex was Jay's guy.  It seemed like an odd fit considering Jay openly opined that Kirk can be too conservative yet they acquire a QB that is so conservative that football outsiders coined the term checkdown "the Alex".  This one is hard to nail down because while some beat reporters said one thing about it, Jay was also nice publicly about the trade.  But there is definitely some noise that this wasn't Jay's pick.

 

I can go on and on and have went on and on about other examples in the past.  

 

I am far from in love with Jay as a coach.  I dislike some of the same things others do, especially the runs on first down. 😀  clock management, too.  But my other issue about Jay's weaknesses is aside from a few elite type HC's in the league -- they all have glaring weaknesses.  It's not just a Jay thing.  Shanny's defenses were bad.  He was likewise bad with clock management so was Gibbs in his 2nd stint.    His ability actually to work around the dysfunction (as Finlay and Phillips likes to say) and his laid back-likable personality is a strength of his.  Players tend to like him.   Even though clearly they don't always like the ones above him.  Having said that, I do think over time players can start checking out on a coach and maybe that's happening with Jay?  I don't know, this Sunday will be telling I think.  But even if I was ready to move on from Jay, it would not be a central thought to what I want to see happen.   Fire Bruce and let a new GM choose a new HC.    If Bruce stays its meaningless to me and not just because of the culture but also the type of HC he'd attract and want to hire.

 

My concern is Dan and Bruce.  Ok maybe Dan won't change?  But I think there is some value for him to be embarrassed again or at the very least it's all we got.   Keim who has been covering this team for 20 years has said this to him is rock bottom because he hasn't seen this degree of apathy with season ticket holders leaving, opposing fans invading, TV ratings sinking.  Does that impact Dan to change?  Probably not.  But maybe it compels him to hire a new GM who is actually good at his job.  I'll accept that Dan is going to screw up the soup to some degree, regardless.  But I like my chances better with an A student coming here weakened by Dan to C plus work versus a D student weakened by Dan to be an F. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bantu]

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

My concern is Dan and Bruce.  Ok maybe Dan won't change?  But I think there is some value for him to be embarrassed again or at the very least it's all we got.   Keim who has been covering this team for 20 years has said this to him is rock bottom because he hasn't seen this degree of apathy with season ticket holders leaving, opposing fans invading, TV ratings sinking.  Does that impact Dan to change?  Probably not.  But maybe it compels him to hire a new GM who is actually good at his job.  I'll accept that Dan is going to screw up the soup to some degree, regardless.  But I like my chances better with an A student coming here weakened by Dan to C plus work versus a D student weakened by Dan to be an F. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, normal people with insight would be embarrassed and compelled to change. However, that flies in the face of what is actually the issue which is Dan has never exhibited an ability to look inward and change how the organization operated. It is always someone else's fault or ineptitude and if they can just get the right people in place, BUT still operate the organization the same way, then they'll be fine. No capacity for insight combined with plain incompetence in terms of running organizations gives us what we see every football season now. 

 

Not sure how Bruce being released helps, because it is then Dan's duty to locate, identify, interview and figure out which person is best to run the football ops. I have zero confidence in him and Drasner and the rest of the ownership group to be able to do that.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

@Skinsinparadise 

 

Pretty much nailed it on all fronts for me.  Gospel like.  

 

The primary part that stands out is that practically every head coach has weaknesses.  They all have issues, but the ones that succeed typically have so many other positive things going on around them, they aren't as glaring and can be overlooked.  Saying this for some reason gets you labeled as a Jay defender, but it's not even that.  I don't love Jay but at the same time, I've been through this cycle so many times of thinking a new coach is going to fix it.  I just don't see head coach as a magic wand to fix problems unless they work in harmony with a front office that knows what they are doing and more importantly, what the coach is trying to do.

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, Bantu said:

 

Yeah, normal people with insight would be embarrassed and compelled to change. However, that flies in the face of what is actually the issue which is Dan has never exhibited an ability to look inward and change how the organization operated. It is always someone else's fault or ineptitude and if they can just get the right people in place, BUT still operate the organization the same way, then they'll be fine. No capacity for insight combined with plain incompetence in terms of running organizations gives us what we see every football season now. 

 

Not sure how Bruce being released helps, because it is then Dan's duty to locate, identify, interview and figure out which person is best to run the football ops. I have zero confidence in him and Drasner and the rest of the ownership group to be able to do that.

 

I get your point and agree with the thrust of it.  I think Dan is the worst owner in the NFL by a mile and he is by a mile the #1 problem.  But I desperately want Bruce out.   Why?

 

A.  I think its difficult to find a worse GM.  So even with Dan searching I take my odds that even he could find better.

B.  From what some have said, Bruce doubles down on the bad culture with his own version being vindictive and petty

C.  According to some Bruce is front and center on helping Dan live in the delusion that everything is fine.

 

I see zero upside on keeping Bruce.  I'll take my chances that his next hire isn't worse.  And I genuinely think the odds are decent that the next guy is Kyle. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

C.  According to some Bruce is front and center on helping Dan live in the delusion that everything is fine.

 

This cannot be understated.  Probably worse than any other infraction in my opinion.  The fact that Dan and Bruce are drinking buddies is a huge problem.  Dan isn't smart enough to know what's actually wrong with his franchise because he has no experience dealing with success and what it looks like in the NFL.  He's got Bruce who I'm sure he sees as a savvy veteran in navigating the league as his right hand man of whom he actually sends out in his place to do things owners should be doing.  Bruce can pretty much tell him whatever he wants and given their relationship, it's even easier to believe him and sadly believe 'in him'.

[Skinsinparadise]

19 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

This cannot be understated.  Probably worse than any other infraction in my opinion.  The fact that Dan and Bruce are drinking buddies is a huge problem.  Dan isn't smart enough to know what's actually wrong with his franchise because he has no experience dealing with success and what it looks like in the NFL.  He's got Bruce who I'm sure he sees as a savvy veteran in navigating the league as his right hand man of whom he actually sends out in his place to do things owners should be doing.  Bruce can pretty much tell him whatever he wants and given their relationship, it's even easier to believe him and sadly believe 'in him'.

 

Not that John Keim to me is the be all and end all but I do trust him the most in part because he's very hesitant to throw stuff against the wall.  And to hear him say this week that from what he knows Dan doesn't understand yet that he is in big trouble with the fan base -- was wild for me to hear.  Others have said the same including Snider in the same podcast.

 

Others have said that Bruce helps feed the notion to Dan that fans haven't really checked out, they are just hungry for some winning, and the winning is about to happen, so hang on. 

 

...All that’s clear: success remains elusive, and every football mind who works for Snyder eventually leaves with his reputation tarnished.

Several figures throughout the league, who spoke to USA TODAY Sports on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the organization, blame Snyder’s decision-making for the failures. When he isn’t meddling, he has left the decision-making to top lieutenants Vinny Cerrato (1999, 2002-09) and Allen (2010-present), who have no track record of success.

Others around the league — some of them former employees, who spoke to USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity so they could speak freely — believe Washington’s never-ending struggles are a result of karma.

They surmise Snyder’s track record of treating people poorly – scrimping on employees' pay and benefits, suing season ticket holders for trying to get out of their contracts because of financial hardships, clinging to a team name some view as racist – prevents his organization from thriving. Others believe Snyder has sabotaged efforts by refusing to ever hire, or stick with, a head coach he allows to operate with the authority necessary to produce a winning team. 

Their points: Washington was appeared headed in the right direction under Norv Turner, Schottenheimer and Shanahan until Snyder interfered. 

 

...Turner’s disagreement with Snyder’s preference of George over Brad Johnson cost the coach his job. Snyder’s desire to take back the personnel power given to Schottenheimer led to that firing as well. And Snyder’s close bond with Robert Griffin III caused him to favor player over coach, resulting in Shanahan's dismissal.

 

The one time Snyder did trust a coach in Gibbs, Washington had its most stable – albeit short-lived – stretch with two playoff berths in four years. 

Gruden, like his predecessors, always has to deal with questions of who’s really in charge: him or his bosses. Whether it’s Snyder, who pushed for the drafting of Haskins with the 15th overall pick despite his coach's preference to meet other pressing needs, or Allen, who refused to meet Kirk Cousins’ asking price for a long-term deal although Gruden wanted to retain the quarterback, conflict often recurs in critical areas.

 

Players sense such elements of division, and that prevents a complete buy-in.

Some around the league have expressed doubt that Snyder and the Redskins, in their current structure, will ever experience a true and lasting turnaround. They don’t doubt Snyder's desire to win. But because of the continued absence of a proven football mind by his side, the owner and organization will continue to flounder, they predict.

[Llevron]

Karma is not a measurable force and if anyone actually believes that could be the problem then I dont understand why they would even be a fan of this team in particular. 

[Skinsinparadise]

Just now, Llevron said:

Karma is not a measurable force and if anyone actually believes that could be the problem then I dont understand why they would even be a fan of this team in particular. 

 

I don't take the Karma stuff that literally.  The main point is he's treated people poorly and in turn he's had bad fortune.  But its far from the overriding point of the article. 

[Llevron]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I don't take the Karma stuff that literally.  The main point is he's treated people poorly and in turn he's had bad fortune.  But its far from the overriding point of the article. 

 

I feel you. It must be a thing for me cause I focused on that.

[Skinsinparadise]

9 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I feel you. It must be a thing for me cause I focused on that.

 

LOL.  Without getting too deep, I do have some belief that if you treat others poorly -- people will treat you back the same way.  So to a degree I buy into karma to an extent but I don't think it's the main plot.   I'd take the bad personality aspect of this in a different direction, you are going to have a hard time attracting excellent people to work for you if they think you are a douche and tough to work for and incompetent as a kicker.  Dan could explain that stuff away easier earlier in his career -- saying he was misrepresented by the media, or maybe it was true but he was young and stupid (that seemed to be his go to rap years back publicly) and now he's matured.   But he can't do that now at his age and with the sample size now being this large. 

 

Guys that people crave like Swinney, Riley or name that hot name who would have multiple offers in the NFL -- why would they come here?  Life is too short to work for someone if the employer is a douche and the team is a walking soap opera -- unless your prospects aren't that hot and your choices are limited or you get ridiculously overpaid -- and Dan doesn't seem to overpay anymore anyway. 

[Dissident2]

I think what we're suffering from with this franchise is what molecular scientists are calling, "The Lucas Effect", which is a reference to George Lucas of Star Wars fame. Allow me to explain:

 

The "prequel" Star Wars films that George Lucas helmed in the late 90s are pretty much universally derided as goat ****. Or, if you're a complete SW nerd, "Bantha poo-doo." Even if the most diehard SW fans find things to love about them, almost all of them will at least agree that the acting throughout those films was TERRIBLE. 

 

How could that be? Look at some of the names of these actors and the pedigree involved:

Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, Samuel L. Jackson, Liam Neeson, Christopher Lee ... all involved in many great films before and since, all highly respected, and yet all terrible in these films. 

 

The reason is simple: even great talent can't overcome horrendous directing. Even great talent needs someone at the top who knows how to get the best out of someone, who gives them great material to work with (the scripts Lucas wrote were just awful), who makes them feel comfortable enough to focus on what they do best, who knows how to create an atmosphere conducive to success. 

 

The same principle holds true everywhere else in life, really, and it certainly holds true here. We've had some excellent coaches. We've had some elite talent. Almost all of it has either performed terribly or, at best, hit the level of mediocrity, which is the high watermark for this organization, NOT the norm as some always seem to suggest. We are not a "mediocre" team. We are a bad team and a terrible franchise BECAUSE of our own George Lucas, who has for the last ten years of his two decades of failure shielded himself with a "GM" who's arguably even worse for the franchise than he's been. 

 

So we can talk about coaches all we want, but if they're operating under this system and this front office and the soulless stooge that leads it in BA, expect more of the same. 

 

Until that's utterly nuked and rebuilt from the ground up, the only sniff we'll have of real success is to remember the days of a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. 

 

 

 

[Llevron]

22 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

LOL.  Without getting too deep, I do have some belief that if you treat others poorly -- people will treat you back the same way.  So to a degree I buy into karma to an extent but I don't think it's the main plot.   I'd take the bad personality aspect of this in a different direction, you are going to have a hard time attracting excellent people to work for you if they think you are a douche and tough to work for and incompetent as a kicker.  Dan could explain that stuff away easier earlier in his career -- saying he was misrepresented by the media, or maybe it was true but he was young and stupid (that seemed to be his go to rap years back publicly) and now he's matured.   But he can't do that now at his age and with the sample size now being this large. 

 

Guys that people crave like Swinney, Riley or name that hot name who would have multiple offers in the NFL -- why would they come here?  Life is too short to work for someone if the employer is a douche and the team is a walking soap opera -- unless your prospects aren't that hot and your choices are limited or you get ridiculously overpaid -- and Dan doesn't seem to overpay anymore anyway. 

 

Yea that seems much more measurable to me. He has to have multiple top rated people at this point who wont work for him because of either rumor or word of mouth fact that hes "Dan Snyder". He really is a classification all to himself and even if he really is trying hard, his name alone is probably hurting us now. Its really sad how far we have fallen. 

[veteranskinsfan]

Mike Jones wrote a column today in USA Today about the franchise and about the owner- "Redskins deepening angst, dysfunction all comes back to Daniel Snyder".

Jones captures the frustrations of fans.  He interviews Brian Mitchell and Trevor Matich.  He tried to get Snyder to do an interview with him  Go check out the article.

He covers many comments that I have read here over the past few seasons.

[Dissident2]

20 minutes ago, veteranskinsfan said:

Mike Jones wrote a column today in USA Today about the franchise and about the owner- "Redskins deepening angst, dysfunction all comes back to Daniel Snyder".

Jones captures the frustrations of fans.  He interviews Brian Mitchell and Trevor Matich.  He tried to get Snyder to do an interview with him  Go check out the article.

He covers many comments that I have read here over the past few seasons.

 

Matich is such an imbecile in that article, talking about how things "aren't as bad as they seem" and actually crediting the FO with building a "culture", lol. They've built a culture, alright. 

[dballer]

13 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

I couldn’t disagree more. I’d flip that around and add another 10 greater thans. I can’t believe you just said that after liking my post. Go take your like back.  😛 

 

Problem is, you can have a team with Elite coaching for 10-15 years. No team sustains elite talent for that long.