Makaveli

The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

Recommended Posts

If Bruce isn't fired at the end of the year,Then Dan is dumber than i thought..Fans aren't coming back unless the team starts winning again and with Bruce in charge it just ain't gonna happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Kirk is an above average starting NFL QB, that you can probably win with long-term with the right roster.

 

Calling him a "franchise QB" is imo lowering the bar on what that title means, but that's a personal opinion. 

 

That is what a franchise QB means.  Top 20 year-in and year-out, some years breaking the top 10.  The caliber of QB that is never allowed to go to free agency when healthy in his prime when .... except when the Redskins did it.

 

If you want to make up your own, stricter, definition of "franchise QB", that's fine... but then you will realize we haven't had a franchise QB since the 70s.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tsailand said:

 

That is what a franchise QB means.  Top 20 year-in and year-out, some years breaking the top 10.  The caliber of QB that is never allowed to go to free agency when healthy in his prime when .... except when the Redskins did it.

 

If you want to make up your own, stricter, definition of "franchise QB", that's fine... but then you will realize we haven't had a franchise QB since the 70s.

 

 

 

Then we just disagree on what a franchise QB is.

 

I think due to the nature of modern FA and exploding QB contracts that the definition has changed by necessity, and not just because you (who knows nothing in the grand scheme) disagree with me (who also knows nothing in the grand scheme). I don't think it's just a matter of opinion anymore, because paying a good-enough-but-not-elite QB to stay with you for a decade and be Top-20 as you suggested just cripples your cap. You need a good enough QB on a rookie salary or a total stud taking up 18% of your total cap or whatever. Anything in between is likely VERY hard to win with and build a complete roster around. If those top-20 guys cripple you cap-wise but keep you from winning it all, can they really be "Franchise QB's"? I say no and I think the results around the league show that. You say yes and I just don't know how unless your definition mostly revolves around the idea that being a long-term face of the franchise must mean you're a "Franchise QB". If that's what you really mean here then that's fair, but it's a different conversation we're having and we're just talking past each other.

 

I only want to watch the same vet QB lead my team for 10+ years if he's a stud. Just being good enough (top-20, again like you said) to hang around that long isn't enough to be a Franchise QB to me. Time invested does not equal loyalty earned unless you're really good. Otherwise 2/3rds of the league could have a Franchise QB at any time, by your definition, and to me a Franchise QB is a guy that gives you a unique, rare talent advantage--the entire term imo is predicated on the scarcity of talent at the position on planet Earth. Top-20 is not good enough even BEFORE you factor in the enormous contracts. 

 

Btw, to address your point: you're on the right track, we didn't have a Franchise QB for our three SB wins. That's what makes Joe Gibbs such a freaking genius--he and those rosters as a whole (in a time before the Salary Cap and strict IR etc. it was almost a different sport) are the story of those SB seasons, not the QB's, despite some great individual performances. Is your argument that we had 3 different Franchise QB's in those 10 years? Of course not. But those were great teams who peaked at the right time and had a great coach. The game is different now, you couldn't really pull that off. Hell you couldn't really do it then with all those different QB's and rosters, but...Joe Gibbs. 

Edited by ConnSKINS26
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ConnSKINS26

 

Joe Gibbs is the perfect case study that lends credence to exactly what I’m arguing about just how much fans over-emphasize coaching at the pro level and within the modern constraints of the NFL. 
 

I’ll get into that all tomorrow hopefully if work permits. I know you share much of the same ideas as VOR so I hope I can nudge you guys to rethink your positions, as I think you’re otherwise brilliant posters and are wasting so much away with these ideas. 

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

This below is a running theme as to problems behind the scenes.  Am assuming some of that is going to surface soon. 

 

 

 

In what way, SIP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bh32 said:

If Bruce isn't fired at the end of the year,Then Dan is dumber than i thought..Fans aren't coming back unless the team starts winning again and with Bruce in charge it just ain't gonna happen.

Bruce is still here?  Geez!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RWJ said:

In what way, SIP?

 

Most of the beat guys are hinting that they are hearing there is a heavy soap opera going on behind the scenes on a number of fronts.  What the stuff is -- they haven't really specified but hinted Jay is part of at least some of it in some manner.

 

I know some like to say these reporters just blow things up and make it all seem worse that it actually is.  Sometimes that's true. But the running theme from some who cover the team has been its much worse than what's being portrayed if only they can share.   Some guys (even Keim) say there are some crazy stuff they've heard behind the scenes.  Keim is always reluctant to say stuff like that but Finlay pinned him down on a podcast not long ago where he didn't flat out say it but agreed with Finlay.  Chad Dukes almost spilled on a recent radio segment, a story about Dan, and then stopped himself.

 

Why isn't all of it out?  If you have a juicy gossip driven story and you are a beat guy who rely on sources then you better be sure that your source doesn't get blown up.   I've done this myself with reporters saying look I'll tell you something but you have to sit on it for now.   Why would that reporter oblige?  They'd oblige because if they'd ever want to get something again, they'd better oblige.  So a good beat reporter isn't blowing a source who can give them multiple stories over years.

 

That's my long winded way of saying, I wouldn't be shocked if some of those stories eventually leak.    Knowing the track record of some of the reporters, my best guess is that Russell leaks whatever it is, first. 

 

Hopefully they beat the Giants and things simmer down.  The impression I get about Dan is that he's a handful to deal with when things aren't going well but can get off his ledge when things pick up.  

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

@ConnSKINS26

 

Joe Gibbs is the perfect case study that lends credence to exactly what I’m arguing about just how much fans over-emphasize coaching at the pro level and within the modern constraints of the NFL. 
 

I’ll get into that all tomorrow hopefully if work permits. I know you share much of the same ideas as VOR so I hope I can nudge you guys to rethink your positions, as I think you’re otherwise brilliant posters and are wasting so much away with these ideas. 

Joe Gibbs 2nd coming is the proof that coaching is under-emphasized by fans at the pro-level.  His 2 playoff appearances in 4 years with little talent looks amazing in this organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

13 hours ago, bh32 said:

If Bruce isn't fired at the end of the year,Then Dan is dumber than i thought.

 

13 hours ago, bh32 said:

 

 

 

10 years of Vinny, 10 year's of Bruce and you still think that Dan gives a rats ass about winning and fans going to the games?

 

Maybe we have a different definition of winning.

 

Here is Dan's:

 

yacht3_web.jpg

 

 

Do you see the tears in Dan's eyes standing on the deck of that thing because the Redskins aren't winning?

 

 

Here is Dan in his depressed state after the Redskins finish another season sub 8 wins:

 

 

wp688488d1_0a_06.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time I thought Gibbs run, 30-34, was a disappointment but in retrospect it was the glory years under Dan.   A bad season followed by a good season (not great but great in Dan terms since they won an actual playoff game), then bad season, then good season.

 

Gibbs had some really good talent on defense.   A really good O line.  A really good RB.  And a subpar QB and receiving weapons albeit Cooley and Santana were good.  

 

I am hoping the Gibbs II era (and I love Gibbs) doesn't end up being the Shangri La period in Dan's reign.  But sadly I am starting to think that's in play.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Hopefully they beat the Giants and things simmer down.  The impression I get about Dan is that he's a handful to deal with when things aren't going well but can get off his ledge when things pick up.  

 

 

 

 I dunno.

I seriously doubt things will simmer down with a win. Actually, it shouldn't simmer down.

Beating { I should say winning } against the Giants isn't anything to hang a hat on. Games coming up that they have a chance at winning are pretty much the Dolphins, and that's it.

 

But the image I see { providing the Redskins win against the Giants } is Bruce smoothing Snyder down, telling him 'look, it was a slow start but things are turning around ".  Even sprinkling in a win here and there getting to a 3-11 record is still by far more damaging to the confidence of the coaches and players, and it will be a matter of time before players begin tweeting out their frustrations.

 

At some point Snyder has to realize that Bruce is cancerous to this team, and there's no point in looking into a new stadium if there are no fans to fill the stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, skins island connection said:

 

At some point Snyder has to realize that Bruce is cancerous to this team, and there's no point in looking into a new stadium if there are no fans to fill the stands.

He doesn't care, he is an egomaniac football "autist" living in fantasy football land. He's going to get a brand new shiny toy.

Edited by FrFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, skins island connection said:

 

 I dunno.

I seriously doubt things will simmer down with a win. Actually, it shouldn't simmer down.

Beating { I should say winning } against the Giants isn't anything to hang a hat on. Games coming up that they have a chance at winning are pretty much the Dolphins, and that's it.

 

But the image I see { providing the Redskins win against the Giants } is Bruce smoothing Snyder down, telling him 'look, it was a slow start but things are turning around ".  Even sprinkling in a win here and there getting to a 3-11 record is still by far more damaging to the confidence of the coaches and players, and it will be a matter of time before players begin tweeting out their frustrations.

 

At some point Snyder has to realize that Bruce is cancerous to this team, and there's no point in looking into a new stadium if there are no fans to fill the stands.

 

The impression that's been painted by some who cover the team is what's being sold behind the scenes is they played three really good teams and the games didn't go their way but hang on to your hat because the wins are coming.  So if Dan bought that rap, yeah I do think beating the Giants for a week or so will simmer things down temporarily. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Most of the beat guys are hinting that they are hearing there is a heavy soap opera going on behind the scenes on a number of fronts.  What the stuff is -- they haven't really specified but hinted Jay is part of at least some of it in some manner.

 

Generally some of the Skins media will project or spin words into a juicy two day headline, but the tone and just overall feel is much different at this time, IMHO.

 

It just seems like it’s all coming to an end. I’m with you on the media hype this go round. Just hope Haskins isn’t drug under some of it. The other players, who cares lol/jk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I slept at a Holiday Inn once.....why do others have to beat their chest and personalize their posts?  Our situations are not the same here as the Redskins.  Organizational dynamics are different everywhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gruden's winning percentage as head coach over 5 seasons, plus 3 games in 2019: 0.428

Bruce Allen's winning percentage as top executive with the Redskins over his tenure of 9 seasons, plus 3 games: 0.404

Bruce Allen's winning percentage as top executive with the Redskins when Gruden is NOT the head coach: 0.375

 

When Gruden is fired, will it be Bruce Allen who holds the press conference (with a straight face) to announce the firing of the coach with the better winning percentage?  My guess is strong no... that seems like the perfect job for Doug Williams!  Will any members of the media dare to ask such a question?  My guess is another strong no.  Fun times!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@HardcoreZorn @Peregrine

 

Damn fellas, reacting like that without even letting me flesh out my thoughts on it like I said I would? Harsh. :ols: 

 

I mean this without any condescension; don't be closed minded and emotional just because I mentioned Gibbs' name. I'm not putting him down, it's the complete opposite actually. Just opened up right now, got some work to do... but I'm going to get into @Voice_of_Reason's post as soon as I can and address what I mean about Joe Gibbs there.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Hopefully they beat the Giants and things simmer down.  The impression I get about Dan is that he's a handful to deal with when things aren't going well but can get off his ledge when things pick up.  

 

 

 

I can't say I'll be rooting for a Giants victory. My DNA won't allow it. But I actually think the franchise will POTENTIALLY be better off in the long run if the descent into the abyss continues unabated for the duration of the season. I can't think of anything else, other than some sort of scandal at the top, that could alter the way these buffoons operate. You can just sense a dam is about to break. I'd rather see that than more fingers put into the holes. 

 

(Of the metaphorical dam.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

Generally some of the Skins media will project or spin words into a juicy two day headline, but the tone and just overall feel is much different at this time, IMHO.

 

It just seems like it’s all coming to an end. I’m with you on the media hype this go round. Just hope Haskins isn’t drug under some of it. The other players, who cares lol/jk

 

 

I'll go on a tangent then circle back to your point.  For just about ANY media type on any story, will pump up what they got since they want readers.  Also, they aren't always going to get it right.  That makes sense.  That goes double for rumor type of stories because you typically are getting the point of view from a specific source.  And that source is going to have their own unique perspective.   They might be wrong. They might be right.   But if you got let's say 20 type stories coming from different reporters that have similar themes to it -- there is a good chance that there is something to that story or at the very least the overall vibe of it. 

 

I'll give a hypothetical that isn't true to bring home the point or at least try to.  Let's say people are saying Jay and Doug are feuding behind the scenes.  We got 15 stories-rumors about it.  I'd guess at least half of them aren't true or are heavily skewered.  Some might be really on the money and close enough.  Some might be dead wrong.  Just because someone exposes that a story is true or wrong in the mix about the Jay-Doug thing doesn't shut down every story in one fell swoop.  Clearly, there is something cooking.  If the litmus test is to get all the facts right and every story right then we shouldn't read anything because everyone will fail that test.    John Keim I noticed in particular gets upset when people come after the "media" and sweep him in it as if everyone is working in tandem and one story that's wrong means every reporter should take a hit for it, too. 

 

The reason why I never bought that the media is unfairly hammering poor old Bruce and Dan (this point isn't directed at you) is that too many people have said there is more than what's been said.  And I find that believable.  And even if I didn't, just about every story consistently paints a similar picture of both Dan and Bruce.  We don't have countervailing stories about Dan is as nice and patient as Mother Teresa.  We've gotten some that say he's become more hands off.  I've given him a break on that point and the benefit of the doubt.  However, some of those same people who said he's backed off have also said he's back to interfering some. 

 

And even if I bought that story completely, then hire someone who kicks butt at their job and back off of that person?  That was a key point in Mike Jones' article which is that Dan hasn't hired guys who are considered hot shot personnel guys around the league so even if he laid off so what?  It's not about putting just anyone in that job and backing off but putting someone that is revered as one of the best in the business.   And then culture stuff is set by him, too. And that picture isn't painted in a pretty way.   And person after person describe the dude as high strung, nasty and tough to please -- unless you are in his small circle of friends.

 

Sorry for the tangent.  Circling back to your post.  Just about everyone who covers the team have said its a bigger zoo than what's been reported.  I also like to equate Dan with George Steinbrenner -- sounds like similar personalities except George had the guts to deal with people and the media more.   I read two books about the Yankees one just focused on Steinbrenner and it was wilder stuff that even what the NY tabloids reported in real time back then.  So I am getting the impression we might be hearing soon about some of the soap opera.

 

And I agree with Keim's point below.  I thought something like this would happen this season with the fans.  But I thought it would be in the backdrop of a mediocre season not a bad one.  I am still holding hope for mediocrity.  😀

 

Not all the fellow FO critics agree with me on this but I do agree with you that Haskins killing it might override Dan's dysfunction enough where this team can be successful. 

 

And on another note, I don't think it's that hard to find top personnel people.  There are so many people that get buzz, and I've named them many times on this thread.  We talked years back on this very thread about Chris Ballard and how his resume and profile really jump out.   We complemented the Colts on the hire.  Race forward to today, Ballard is considered one of the best in the league.  And yeah surprise the Colts are a better team than we are even sans Andrew Luck. 

 

  

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm already assuming that Gruden and much of the coaching staff is gone. I am more interested in what, if any, changes are made to the front office. If the team recovers and goes 6-10, 7-9, or 8-8 it will be easier for Snyder to justify keeping Allen.

 

If this season continues to tailspin and the team finishes with 3 or 4 wins, whether or not Allen is retained will reveal Snyder's true intentions more clearly. I'm not sure how anyone can justify retaining him after a season like that, factoring in his aggregate record. The stadium is the wildcard.

 

If he's still here after that scenario it's either the stadium or he truly only cares about having a "friend" as his right hand man, regardless of how inept he is at running football operations. I don't want to hear about how much he wants to "win".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thesubmittedone said:

do... but I'm going to get into @Voice_of_Reason's post as soon as I can

43BC6568-2141-460D-BADC-8E1829FA4531.jpeg.0cf537a0b90f68289e515af791cae3eb.jpeg

 

 

i was really trying to find the Tony Romo clip “oh oh oh Here we go Jim!” When Brady got the call back against the Jags in the playoffs.    But couldn’t find it.

 

And special kudos to anybody who knows where the below meme is from:

 

E01D9DAA-BC78-4D6A-903D-E9B1B485E59F.jpeg.8e472d81d1f9a11145ca4953e2734777.jpeg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Makaveli said:

If this season continues to tailspin and the team finishes with 3 or 4 wins, whether or not Allen is retained will reveal Snyder's true intentions more clearly. I'm not sure how anyone can justify retaining him after a season like that, factoring in his aggregate record. The stadium is the wildcard.

This is a huge week.  If they lose this week, and then everybody has to assume you’re losing to the Pats, at 0-5 for a team Allen said was “Close”  ..

 

And they have been mostly healthy.  Allen being out was a thing, but injuries have been “normal.”. Every team has injuries here and there, there hasn’t been anything just completely unrecoverable. 

 

If they end up at 0-5, I can see Dan just not able to contain himself anymore and going nuts and firing everybody.

 

Interestingly. The Skins have only been 0-5 once under Snyder.  2001, the Marty year which finished 8-8.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.