Makaveli

The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

Recommended Posts

20 hours 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.

 

 

Too many fans overlook this we coulda had him

signed at 16-18 million a year in 2016...and built a working offense around him, most competent teams would not have treaty him

how bruce and danny boy treated him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first it looked like Bruce was being hand cuffed haha.

17 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

Sooo Is the person that's saying what do I say to this guy the one taking the picture?...you tell him hes doing a poopy job and he needs to get the....leave town....and to tell snyder he sucks to... that he needs to step back and look at what hes done

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Riggo-toni said:

I don't even remember this guy...when was he here?

 

UDFA here from April till three days after the first preseason game.  He's on the Dolphins practice squad. 

 

This guy knows nothing and has no room to talk about anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have a serious question..

 

Do managers like..well...let's play pretend and say....managers like hehe Bruce Allen get heckled out in public?..fans letting them know how they feel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bakedtater1 said:

So I have a serious question..

 

Do managers like..well...let's play pretend and say....managers like hehe Bruce Allen get heckled out in public?..fans letting them know how they feel

 

I'm sure some fans do, but I bet a significant number of fans don't even know what he looks like

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bakedtater1 said:

So I have a serious question..

 

Do managers like..well...let's play pretend and say....managers like hehe Bruce Allen get heckled out in public?..fans letting them know how they feel

 

Don't know.  I've seen Bruce 4 times in public, I haven't seen him heckled.  I saw Dan once from afar.  In those cases from what I noticed they were left alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, carex said:

 

I'm sure some fans do, but I bet a significant number of fans don't even know what he looks like

I sure as **** would recognize him..I promise you it would get to where his body guard or who ever ya called it would have to step in...i would run my mouth!

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Don't know.  I've seen Bruce 4 times in public, I haven't seen him heckled.  I saw Dan once from afar.  In those cases from what I noticed they were left alone.

So are you employed by snyder in a way?..I imagine you seen them in a place you wouldn't be welcomed back in if you heckled them..next time throw a tater up side there damn head and say its from me lol

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bakedtater1 said:

I sure as **** would recognize him..I promise you it would get to where his body guard or who ever ya called it would have to step in...i would run my mouth!

So are you employed by snyder in a way?..I imagine you seen them in a place you wouldn't be welcomed back in if you heckled them..next time throw a tater up side there damn head and say its from me lol

 

LOL, in all of those cases it's been training camp.  Team hotel.  Outside Bon Secors. Outside Mortons.  In Richmond. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

LOL, in all of those cases it's been training camp.  Team hotel.  Outside Bon Secors. Outside Mortons.  In Richmond. 

If I was in a crowd around bruce or dan I'd put my head down kinda cover my mouth and say realll loud thanks for ruining the Redskins. Lol

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2019 at 10:05 PM, 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.  

 

Alrighty, let's get to it. Been a long time coming. :)

 

And, for the love of God, if anyone gets the desire to chime in with some snarky comment about this being too long, just spare me. I know it is, I can't help it, I hardly post anymore and want to flesh out my thoughts, leave me alone you little attention deficient ****s. No one is making you read this. :ols: 

 

On 9/26/2019 at 10:05 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

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.  

 

This is an over-simplification, especially "a better FO would get better players and coaches". This is where most people get it wrong. Stay with me, because I want to define some terms of this debate since, in my estimate, that's the biggest disconnect we have here (really, isn't it always the case in any debate?) 

 

What are "better" players and coaches, really? What does that mean? Is it talent? Is it intelligence? Is it separate, in and of itself, from environment? 

 

It's way too easy to say those words without even recognizing what it means and just how much the environment, as you're claiming to agree to, affects everything. It sounds nice. It sounds convenient. But it means very little in reality and omits so much of what it takes to create an environment conducive to success. 

 

First, everyone is human. No one is perfect. You are not going to get anyone, player or coach, here that can do it all. That's impossible and, furthermore, it belies the very core reality of what football as a team sport is and what "organization" means. 

 

Let me get scientific here for a second, and this isn't to assume you don't know the basics of social psychology or organizational principles, but again, I just want to define some terms and lay the foundation of where I'm going with this. No one has to actually read these (or this entire post for that matter, lol), but I want to put them here so a guideline, or glossary if you will, can be easily accessed to what I mean (and, as I'll posit, what you may be missing) when using certain terms: 

 

Quote

Why is Social Psychology important?

Social psychology tries to understand group as well as individual behavior when reacting to or thinking about the social environment. Social psychology tends to study the behavior of people at group level more than anything else. It tries to describe and explain human behavior by reducing it to psychological variables.

 

What is an example of social psychology?

For example, you are likely to behave much differently when you are around a group of close friends than you would around a group of colleagues or supervisors from work.  Social perception and social interaction are also vital to understanding social behavior.

 

Where is social psychology used?

Social psychology can be used in different areas of our lives such as, our way of thinking, relationships (personal and professional), physical and mental health etc. At the center of all these, it's human social cognitive system interacting with everyday situations

 

Quote
What is meant by hiring process?
The hiring process is the process of reviewing applications, selecting the right candidates to interview, testing candidates, choosing between candidates to make the hiring decision and performing various pre-employment tests and checks.

 

 

Quote

The following illustration shows the five principles of Organizing −

Five Organizing Principles

Work Specialization

Also called division of labor, work specialization is the degree to which organizational tasks are divided into separate jobs. Each employee is trained to perform specific tasks related to their specialized function.

 

Specialization is extensive, for example running a particular machine in a factory assembly line. The groups are structured based on similar skills. Activities or jobs tend to be small, but workers can perform them efficiently as they are specialized in it.

 

Authority

Authority is the legitimate power assigned to a manager to make decisions, issue orders, and allocate resources on behalf of the organization to achieve organizational objectives.

 

Authority is within the framework of the organization structure and is an essential part of the manager’s job role. Authority follows a top-down hierarchy. Roles or positions at the top of the hierarchy are vested with more formal authority than are positions at the bottom.

 

The extent and level of authority is defined by the job role of the manager. Subordinates comply with the manager’s authority as it is a formal and legitimate right to issue orders.

 

Chain of Command

The chain of command is an important concept to build a robust organization structure. It is the unbroken line of authority that ultimately links each individual with the top organizational position through a managerial position at each successive layer in between.

 

It is an effective business tool to maintain order and assign accountability even in the most casual working environments. A chain of command is established so that everyone knows whom they should report to and what responsibilities are expected at their level. A chain of command enforces responsibility and accountability. It is based on the two principles of Unity of command and Scalar Principle.

 

Unity of command states that an employee should have one and only one manager or supervisor or reporting authority to whom he is directly accountable to. This is done to ensure that the employee does not receive conflicting demands or priorities from several supervisors at once, placing him in a confused situation.

However, there are exceptions to the chain of command under special circumstances for specific tasks if required. But for the most part organizations to a large extent should adhere to this principle for effective outcomes.

 

Scalar principle states that there should exist a clear line of authority from the position of ultimate authority at the top to every individual in the organization, linking all the managers at all the levels. It involves a concept called a gang plank using which a subordinate may contact a superior or his superior in case of an emergency, defying the hierarchy of control. However, the immediate superiors must be informed about the matter.

 

Delegation

Another important concept closely related to authority is delegation. It is the practice of turning over work-related tasks and/or authority to employees or subordinates. Without delegation, managers do all the work themselves and underutilize their workers. The ability to delegate is crucial to managerial success.

 

Authority is said to be delegated when discretion is vested in a subordinate by a superior. Delegation is the downward transfer of authority from a manager to a subordinate. Superiors or managers cannot delegate authority they do not have, however, high they may be in the organizational hierarchy.

 

Delegation as a process involves establishment of expected outcomes, task assignment, delegation of authority for accomplishing these tasks, and exaction of responsibility for their accomplishment. Delegation leads to empowerment, as employees have the freedom to contribute ideas and do their jobs in the best possible ways.

 

Span of Control

Span of control (also referred to as Span of Management) refers to the number of employees who report to one manager. It is the number of direct reportees that a manager has and whose results he is accountable for.

 

Span of control is critical in understanding organizational design and the group dynamics operating within an organization. Span of control may change from one department to another within the same organization.

 

The span may be wide or narrow. A wide span of control exists when a manager has a large number of employees reporting to him. Such a structure provides more autonomy. A narrow span of control exists when the number of direct reportees that a manager has is small. Narrow spans allow managers to have more time with direct reports, and they tend to spark professional growth and advancement.

 

Quote

The core of culture, according to Figure 2 is formed by values. Values mainly refer to fundamental beliefs, values, ethics and spirits of an organization.

hofstedeonion.jpg

Figure 2: The "Onion": Manifestations of culture at different levels of depth

 

Robbins (2010) outlines seven primary characteristics that capture the essence of an organizational culture as follows: (1) Innovation and risk taking. Employees are encouraged to be creative and take risks which produce creativity. Innovation is also a form of productivity. (2) Attention to detail. Employees are expected to be attentive. Details always determine success or failure. (3) Outcome orientation. Management focuses on final outcomes or the processes used to achieve those goals. (4) People orientation. The consideration in management decisions tends to affects people within the organization. (5) Team orientation. A work event is organized among teams or individuals. (6) Aggressiveness. A person is aggressive and competitive or easy-going during work. (7) Stability. Organization is looking forward to maintaining the status quo or keeps growing. 

 

Nowadays organization culture has generally been associated with management (Kotter, et al., 1992). Schein (1995) pointed that there are two essential factors that have influence on effective culture management: structural stability and integration of superior standard of organization culture.

 

 

Ok... so when we say "FO", what we both mean is the individual/s occupying the top of the organizational hierarchy or chain of command, correct? Here, you separate it from the coaching staff as do I, specifically in the current structure the Redskins have. I think we're in agreement there in how we define that. 

 

Honing in on it, it's ultimately Dan and Bruce. They are the ones doing the "organizing"; defining the work specialization (roles), authority, chain of command, delegation, and span of control of every member. They are also the main source of establishing culture in the building, unless they delegated that to others and gave them that authority, which there is no evidence of whatsoever.         

 

I think I don't have to get into the fact that we have been deficient in every one of those organizational principles with Dan and Bruce when it comes to what has been a proven model of success at the pro level of football. I can go through it all if you'd like, but I think you're smart enough to know all the layers of it and I've seen you mention it numerous times, so there's no need for me to elaborate. Furthermore, to separate the two, since it's ultimately Dan's responsibility as he occupies the highest spot on the chain of command, Dan's hiring process has been nonexistent or chaotic at worst and questionable at best. 

 

If we want to say that Dan has delegated the above to his top executives, currently Bruce, then Dan's number one job is to hire properly there. In that, he has either: 

 

1) Hired someone who was not, at the time, functioning in any capacity related to doing the above nor were successful at doing it in their last stints (Bruce and Vinny), or he; 

 

2) Delegated poorly and gave a coach that power, which belies their own area of expertise/specialization, overburdening them as well as denying others the chance at fulfilling that role within the organization.  

 

Now, you might be saying... "but I said it affects everything, why are you honing in on all that?"

 

But, you see, that's not enough, is it? It's not if you, at the same time, are claiming that you can actually separate the two from each other and there are things "coaches can control on their own". That is illogical. Something can not "affect everything" while simultaneously having no effect on certain things. Whatever is in the direct control of said coaches is still affected by the above, or lack thereof. To say otherwise is inherently contradictory and is an obvious attempt of justifying the targeting of individuals who are unable to overcome simply by virtue of their positions/roles within the organization.   

 

So those are the general, organizational, issues here at work that we agree have an "affect on everything". Notice how proper delegation "...leads to empowerment, as employees have the freedom to contribute ideas and do their jobs in the best possible ways." This is only one way in which proper organizational principles being implemented allow for growth and improvement, whereas the opposite stifles and hinders. Hence, judging those beholden to and within that improper application of organizing (when you are actually acknowledging the latter is happening) is, frankly, absurd. At the very least, it's a massive waste of time. At worst, it's a sign of a total lack of empathy and/or allowing rage to control your thoughts as you wildly flail at whatever target you deem replaceable and/or a sign of arrogance to assume you are in any position to judge properly when you're at a distance, not even a member of said organization. Suffice to say, it's not befitting when we have an insanely insignificant amount of data regarding the day to day happenings within the building... we only see the surface results.   

 

Let's get into some of the specifics regarding a football organization and how that works there. 

 

On 9/26/2019 at 10:05 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

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.  

 

I want to focus on number 3 here. 

 

You say we don't have enough "good players, and that's on Bruce". But what do you mean exactly by good players? Again, I think the problem here is a lack of defining terms properly and, thus, an over-simplification of the problem. Which then leads you to placing too much at the feet of the coaches or assuming you can recognize what does or doesn't affect them even when it's "in their direct control". 

 

Team-building is not just about acquiring talent. It's not just about adding "good players". It's about adding players that are multi-dimensional, can play roles within their positional groups while also change if necessary, and then marrying those players with others that have skill sets that aren't totally redundant and can support/elevate/highlight/complement the skill sets around him.

 

So, for example, a WR corps that has multiple players who each, as individuals, have a skill set that includes being able to burn people deep, be physical and contested catches, and run routes with precision to create separation would be the preference (we currently have one guy who can do that right now, that's Terry McClaurin, and he's arguably the first one we've had during Jay's entire tenure).

 

But, since that is usually too difficult, you want one that has those skill sets spread among the entire corps enough so that it doesn't just include burners, but also physical presences that can catch contested balls and precise route runners who will thrive by the space opened up by said burner/s. And that the depth reflects that, as well, so one or two injuries do not ruin everything. All the while not being redundant in any one of those particular skills (say you've got too many guys are just burners, or too many guys who are only good at contested catches, etc...). Finally, you want as many of these players to have a level of intelligence or awareness that allows for them to recognize and fulfill their roles effectively. 

 

This is applicable within every positional group and then applicable to how each of those groups affect the other positions. So if your QB has a big arm and can fling it 50 yards from anywhere with just a flick of the wrist, for example, you'd actually be ok or even encouraged to have more smaller-sized burners than not at WR than another roster. 

 

I can get into many more examples here but hopefully this suffices as an explanation of what it means to have "good players". You might ask why this is important and, if it's not already obvious, the answer is because it applies to everything a coach is in direct control of including time management, adjustments, scheme, game-planning, play-calling, etc... 

 

The organization has to accomplish all of this while managing resources in a league set up for parity, where the salary cap and draft are the main assets each team is afforded on a level playing field. Hence, the guy you're giving control of that to needs to be really good at it, or else success will be fleeting if attainable at all. 

 

Which leads us to this: 

 

On 9/26/2019 at 10:05 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

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'm not surprised you don't see "how a bad FO impacts the calling of the game". This is why I started with all the above. 

 

As stated, with a basic understanding of social psychology, cultural and organizational principles as well as an understanding of the depths of team-building, to think you are in any way capable of distinguishing, identifying, or judging these aspects with any finality because of the results you see on the surface is simply absurd and totally off. 

 

Preparation, game planning, and in-game stuff are all directly affected by focus (which is an avenue affected by culture, poor delegation, authority, chain of command, and span of control), motivation (of which culture, delegation, authority and chain of command are a major factor in affecting) and player personnel (their acquisition is about work specialization first in that the proper experts are fulfilling that role, then of course their intelligence, or lack thereof, as well as their actual ability to do what is being asked comes into play). Same goes for on-field discipline, but I wanted to bring up a recent example of that and how these things can all affect it. 

 

Let's take Morgan Moses and his propensity for generating holding calls. You think the coach has direct control over this by either "finding a way to fix it" or just not playing the player. First, who is Moses' back up and will the reward of sitting him outweigh the risk of losing Moses' skill set (which is tied to player personnel)? Second, who has the authority to do this, is it actually Jay Gruden, or is it Callahan who also has close ties to Allen and may have been promised specific delegations like who he plays, what authority he has over play-calling in the run game, and how many resources are devoted to his positional group (thereby affecting focus and motivation since it speaks to both cultural issues as well as issues with delegation and chain of command).

 

You, on the surface, see a player lacking discipline and by virtue of his title believe the head coach has direct control of it, therefore, judging him is legitimate in your mind. But what you're omitting, in whatever variation of the above is occurring, is so fundamentally vital to being able to judge him that it's best to be quiet.   

  

Quote

According to De (2007), organizational culture affects behavior in six aspects. First of all, organizational culture has as a guiding role. Organizational cultures not only clearly affect the highest or long-term objectives, but also target the organizational objectives as individuals’ goals. The objectives set by the organization allow its members to feel the value of work and inspire the desire of succeeding.

 

What we've so often seen here is an environment conducive to regression, not progression. Judging these individuals without taking into account all of the above is viewing them as static entities versus the dynamic human beings they are. It's not about what they are, it's about what they CAN BE.
 

The intense focus on the job of the coaches, while just passingly mentioning the FO almost as a side note, only reinforces the opposite of what you claim is the priority. 
 

If all I actually do and talk about is one thing, but infrequently I sprinkle in something else, would you accept my claim of prioritizing the infrequent action or talk? 

 

On 9/26/2019 at 10:05 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

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.  

  

I'm hoping that after everything I just wrote above you realize just how much of a strawman the above part of your post is. The argument being made here isn't that coaching doesn't matter or isn't important to the development of players, but it's that their ability to do so is affected in every way by the FO and you simply can not disassociate one from the other.

 

Aside from that, there is a lot wrong here and contradictory. 

 

You mention Preston Smith and said he's never had a stretch like he's having now. Wrong. In 2015 he finished the year with 5 sacks in only 3 games which lead many to believe he was close to becoming an elite player. 

 

Haha was here for 5 minutes and didn't get an offseason with the team, so it's silly to even mention him. 

 

 Fuller had his best year of his career thus far in 2017. Breeland had very good years here, as well, and the team you're glorifying right now about Preston Smith in the Packers didn't pursue him. 

 

But even if they were all performing amazingly and it was solely indicative, as you say, of the ability of the coaches... the fact that you're omitting so many more players who have went elsewhere and either played worse or haven't exceeded what they did under Jay and co. is glaring and says a lot about your bias and prejudice.

 

You are willing to mention the above while ignoring players like Kirk, DJax, Garçon, Spencer Long, Matt Jones, Rob Kelley, Alfred Morris, Terrell Pryor, RG3, Chris Baker, Swearinger, Ryan Grant, Logan Paulsen, Will Compton, Trent Murphy, Ricky Jean Francois, Niles Paul, etc... 

 

I could list more, but I'll stop there. Hopefully it's enough for you to realize just how awful that argument is. By your own logic here, you should be obsessed with praising the coaches. If you think the above portion of your post supports your belief that the coaches are just failing at developing players or maximizing this incredible talent they have, then you're stuck now having to admit it's quite the opposite. 

 

But I won't hold you to that because, as I've shown with my detailing of team-building and how it's not simply about acquiring talent, there's a lot more to all of this than just what the coaches are doing with these players on an individual development level. 

 

On a side note, Green Bay may have been the perfect fit for Preston since the night life there isn't anything like DC. It's a football town through and through. Preston had a problem here with that and it lead to a lot of his inconsistency. 

 

On 9/26/2019 at 10:05 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

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.


Not going to mention the strawman here again, but I'll refer you quickly to the post I made in response to you a few months ago where I really go into detail, even using percentages, in terms of the value of coaching: 

 

https://es.redskins.com/topic/428387-prehistoric-development-with-new-speculation-trent-williams-wants-to-be-tradedreleased/?do=findComment&comment=11516756

 

Here's the specific, relevant, part: 

 

Quote

Belichick can be the greatest coach ever, I don’t really care to argue that point (I will go to bat for Gibbs on this because he won it all three times without the comfort of one elite QB). But I will adamantly remain on my belief, with tons of evidence and clear examples behind it, that it simply doesn’t matter how good a coach is if the organization itself isn’t up to par (or you don’t have Tom Brady to make it so). Belichick is not going to be nearly as successful establishing what he’s established anywhere else without Brady or, at least, someone that comes somewhat near his greatness. 

 

I’m not too fond of putting this into numbers because it’s never going to be exactly quantifiable and I even slightly fluctuate myself here and there... but I’ve come to divide the percentages attributed to consistent team win-loss record at the pro level like this:

 

General Player Personnel: 50

Coaching: 30%

QB: 20% 

 

Side note: This is ONLY at the pro level. The further removed you get from the NFL (where you have a salary cap, a draft, and finite roster space, which makes resource management vital), the more coaching itself matters. At the pee wee level, for instance, everybody is getting the kids in their area for the most part. There is little to no choosing. The best coaches will succeed more often than not. But, even then, if one team has a ridiculously good player it’s usually over for everyone.  

 

Back to the above distribution of percentages. 

 

You can be the greatest coach ever and be filling that entire percentage up, but if the personnel acquisition is not up to par it won’t matter a whole lot. If the resource management and team-building strategy is, say, at a 10% level, the QB skill is at a 10% level and the coaching is at the full 30%... that’s still just 50% total, so

you’ll be average on the field over an extended period of time. That is essentially with a HOF level coach leading the way. I believe we saw something resembling the above distribution during Gibbs 2.0, give or take

 

If the general player personnel acquired are, say, top level (but not perfect) at 40% in terms of talent and cohesion (roster with numerous elite players, a bunch of other good players that complement each other’s skill sets, and avoids redundancy in skill sets so as to be as adaptable and flexible as necessary), the QB skill is at the full 20% (HOF level play), and the coaching adds little at 5% you’d STILL win about 65% of the time. The coach would essentially have to actively sabotage the roster and game plan... he’d have to be a net negative to lose. Like, someone just off the street that has no idea about football. And even then the locker room might overcome his idiocy and make enough plays on their own.  

 

 

So I'd honestly appreciate it if you could realize the whole "coaching matters" argument is entirely irrelevant.

 

On 9/26/2019 at 10:05 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

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.  

 

So, obviously, this is as good as any place to get into the Joe Gibbs case study I mentioned to @ConnSKINS26 and that had @Peregrine and @HardcoreZorn up in arms. It actually blows my mind how so many miss this. 

 

We, as Skins fans, really have the perfect, and I mean PERFECT, case study to provide evidence for much of what I'm saying here.

 

Joe Gibbs 1.0 with Beathard running personnel and an owner who organized properly and let his hires actually fulfill the roles they were hired for (chain of command, authority, delegation, etc...)? 3 Super Bowls, consistent contender, viewed as one of, if not THE, best coach ever.

 

Joe Gibbs 2.0 with Vinny/Dan heavily involved in personnel and Gibbs with final say (poor delegating of work specialization, an unclear chain of command, and poor resource management)? A losing overall record, two miraculous runs to the playoffs only to be eliminated pretty early on. Top heavy roster but terrible depth where if we had ONE significant injury all hell would break loose. Many during his tenure viewed him as someone who “the game had passed by”. 

 

Now, some might think Gibbs just wasn’t as good the second go around, so he’s not necessarily a fixed variable. But I don’t subscribe to that theory. First year back? Sure, he needed to get back into the swing of things, and I'd say that'd only take a few games for someone like Gibbs.

 

Afterwards? I think he was just as good of a leader of men as he ever was, had a coaching staff around him who were extremely successful everywhere else they’ve been (most expensive in the league), and that the two playoff runs proved that because it’s frankly absurd he even managed that with Vinny/Dan as involved as they were. Furthermore, his success in NASCAR and ability to lead as successful an organization there is really contradicts the idea that he "wasn't the same". 

 

The difference was the constraints of the salary cap, which elevates the importance of the draft, and the fact that he was thrust into the role of managing that alongside the incompetence of Dan and Vinny. 

 

I’m telling you. Perfect case study about how important personnel is regarding coaching, how it starts at the top with ownership and the structure of the FO, and how people are overly focused on the HC (and even the QB) when it’s just as much, if not more so, about their environment.

 

You'd think the supposedly greatest fan in the world, Dan Snyder, would recognize this. That he’d be able to look a little deeper than just assuming the past glory of the Skins was all Joe Gibbs. That he’d be the first to get a Beathard type in here and ensure their position is never undermined unwarrantedly. That he’d make sure everyone either succeeds or fails together, no “sides” and no factions. But nope. 

  

Joe Gibbs was allowed to become a great coach the first go around. He was set up for that success. It's not this static thing like you say where he just woke up one day and was great and then you just add that to the equation. 

 

 

There are many more case studies around the NFL showing this.

 

A recent one, as I mentioned earlier in another post, are the Eagles. Andy Reid gained too much control and had a bad few years where people were crushing his coaching skills. Did he just forget how to coach? They fire him, put Kelly in charge with Roseman in control of personnel and resource management. Kelly does well, but then ousts Roseman and gains too much control like Reid. He immediately fails miserably. Eagles fire Kelly, bring Roseman back, and hire Pederson. What happens is nothing short of incredible in terms of an execution of excellence in resource management by Roseman. Pederson looks like a genius and they win a championship. 

 

Was Reid an idiot suddenly in terms of coaching, or was the environment he was put into the factor? What changed when he went to KC? He wasn't in charge of personnel anymore, wasn't overburdened, was placed in an environment with sound organizational principles, and could focus on coaching. It. All. Has. An. Effect.    

 

I could go on and on (as you all know, lol). John Harbaugh and the Ravens. Mike Tomlin and the Steelers. Pete Carrol and the Seahawks.

 

I'll stop here, though. I've got to close up and head home before my wife kills me, lol.   

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a house cleaning will come sooner rather than later, and the cleaning will start if the Skins lose to the Giants tomorrow.  I'm basing this on human nature.  This can't be fun for Snyder right now.  If he loses to the Giants, then he's lost to all three division teams, four weeks into the season.  It's going to be rough finding even four wins on the schedule after the Giants game, and that's assuming that Dallas starts its second team in week 17. 

 

Snyder is probably one of five or six owners that most football fans know by name, and I can't think of a single positive thing he's known for.  Not one.

 

I seldom see news on the stadium, but from what I do hear, Snyder will not be getting the stadium he dreams of unless he opens his own pocketbook really wide.  Jones had communities literally throwing money at him when he proposed the new super stadium.  If I recall correctly, Arlington put in around $400M  and the season ticket holders put in around $600M, so the cost of building the stadium was almost free.  That allowed Jones to be patient on the naming rights (reported as $19M/year).  He also got the city of Frisco and Ford to pony up a good chuck of the state-of-the-art training facility.  I don't see anyone who wants to be re-elected sticking their neck out to get the new Skins Stadium. 

 

All this adds up to Snyder being pretty miserable because of the state of the Skins.  And multi-billionaires really shouldn't be miserable.  So I think he'll take a long look in the mirror and say, "you've done everything an owner can do, and those nincompoops you hired have screwed everything up."  Gruden goes first, because he's low-hanging fruit, everyone in the FO except Allen second, then Allen last.

 

Callahan is the interim HC and Fat Rob is the interim DC.

 

All is well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arthur Blank

Pat Bowlens kids(not sure this counts naming the Broncos owner)

Jeffery Lurie

Art Roonie Sr

John(**** you)Mara

Jerry(you too)Jones

Jim Irsay

Jed York

Jeff Bidwell

Stan Kronke(rams owner..I believe that's his first name)

Al Davis jr...?..lol

Robert Kraft

Hunts(chiefs)

Browns(bengals)

Halas(bears)

Daniel Snyder

Benson(saints)

Glazer's(Buccaneers)

Fords(lions)

Woody Allen(jets?no?..close? Lol)

Ross(dolphins)

Ziggy wilf 

That's all off the top of my head..no googling or anything..

 

Edited by bakedtater1
Add content

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, bakedtater1 said:

,,,

 

Very Good:

👍Arthur Blank

Pat Bowlens kids(not sure this counts naming the Broncos owner) - I don't think its been decided yet

👍Jeffery Lurie

Art Roonie Sr - dead; his son Dan Rooney - dead; Dan's son Art Rooney II has seeming control

👍 John(**** you)Mara - and Steve Tisch

👍Jerry(you too)Jones

👍Jim Irsay

Jed York - CEO, but not owner (Denise DeBartolo is still alive)

Jeff Bidwell - not owner yet, Bill Bidwill is still alive

👍Stan Kronke(rams owner..I believe that's his first name) 

Al Davis jr...?..lol - Mark Davis and his mother own 47%, but he is the controlling owner

👍Robert Kraft

Hunts(chiefs) - Clark Hunt is the CEO - he owns along with his siblings

Browns(bengals) - Mike Brown

Halas(bears) - Virginia McCaskey (G. Halas's daugher)

👍Daniel Snyder

Benson(saints) - Gayle Benson

Glazer's(Buccaneers) - Joel, Bryan & Ed

Fords(lions) - Martha Firestone Ford

Woody Allen(jets?no?..close? Lol) - Woody Johnson

Ross(dolphins) - Stephen Ross

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2019 at 3:55 PM, Tsailand said:

 

Are you allowed to set up a redirect to this thread or that change.org petition?

i can't do anything with the domain... Bruce has already ruined my football fandom but I can't let him ruin my career also :)

 

i am trying to find someone to freely give it to (transfer domain name ownership) that will be responsible with it and so I have no connection to it whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy Johnson just now on the Fox Pre Game Show:

 

”When I first got to Dallas to replace Tom Landry he had had three straight losing seasons.  I realized the reason was there wasn’t enough talent. GM Bruce Allen hasn’t given Gruden enough talent to win, and he’ll probably get fired. And it’s a shame because he’s a good football coach.”

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FOX pregame guys think it would be a shame if Jay gets fired in season. They think he'd be a good coach in a different situation. So even they know the real problem is Snyder/Allen. 

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.