The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[goskins10]

6 minutes ago, skins island connection said:

 

 Ignorant?  Wow, resorting to name-calling? C'mon, darrellgreenie, this is beneath you.

 I don't know what your problem is, but to start calling people names should be a good way to get you off the board for a week or so.

 

So how long have you been here? You think that's name calling?  LOL  A little sensitive are you? Doesn't matter. 

 

Just to be clear - the definition of ignorant is lacking knowledge or awareness in general. So my statement that I would prefer to be blocked by data than to remain ignorant translates to: better to have the knowledge that the data provides that to ignore it and remain lacking the knowledge the data provides.  That was a direct response to your absurd assertion that somehow the data was keeping me from seeing what you perceive as reality. The data is real and your choice to ignore it and go with your perception leaves you lacking in knowledge which is leading to a poor argument. 

 

As far as any rules violations, that's up to the mods. They are more than capable. i have no regrets for anything I posted and stand by them. 

 

I made my point. It's clear this is getting nowhere. Done here. 

[Peregrine]

Im just curious, are there any Bruce Allen apologizers left in here(outside of Califan obviously), or have things finally returned to the rightful order of normal people arguing amongst themselves?

[wit33]

20 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

Im just curious, are there any Bruce Allen apologizers left in here(outside of Califan obviously), or have things finally returned to the rightful order of normal people arguing amongst themselves?

I like 57% of what Bruce Allen has done. 
 

Where does that leave me? 

[SkinsFTW]

33 minutes ago, wit33 said:

I like 57% of what Bruce Allen has done. 
 

Where does that leave me? 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

7 hours ago, wit33 said:

I like 57% of what Bruce Allen has done. 
 

Where does that leave me? 

 

I am surprised its not higher with you because you actually like if I recall two of his signature moves that many don't -- getting a 3rd comp pick for Kirk and the Alex trade.   What brought his grade down with you?   Trent I presume among other things?

 

[Reaper Skins]

7 hours ago, wit33 said:

I like 57% of what Bruce Allen has done. 
 

Where does that leave me? 

[Peregrine]

10 hours ago, wit33 said:

I like 57% of what Bruce Allen has done. 
 

Where does that leave me? 

Mentally insane?  I think the legal threshhold for that is above 30%.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

10 hours ago, wit33 said:

I like 57% of what Bruce Allen has done. 
 

Where does that leave me? 

That's a failing grade.

 

My question would be, are you taking off points for being unlikable, and putting a bigger clown face on the franchise every time he opens his mouth?  If so, I don't know how you even get to 57%.

[wit33]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am surprised its not higher with you because you actually like if I recall two of his signature moves that many don't -- getting a 3rd comp pick for Kirk and the Alex trade.   What brought his grade down with you?   Trent I presume among other things?

 

I’ve always been a more 60-40 guy with Bruce. I hate the culture and have for many years, but I choose not to get caught up in worrying about that too much (a personal choice). I was a huuuuge supporter of Scott M largely because of him wanting to establish a brand, culture, and identity. He was gifted in that way, much like my guy Alex Smith  
 

I’ve never thought Bruce was great at the job, just average at times. With that said, how one concludes an FO is great, good, above average, average, below average, poor, or terrible is beyond me. 
 

For example: 

 

The Steelers are now a below average to average team without Big Ben. 
 

The Colts are an average team that can be beat by teams 6-28 without Luck. 
 

******These teams are celebrated for their resiliency, due to losing their elite QBs, but what about the teams persevering and being average without an elite QB. It’s comes down to the narrative one constructs in their mind. 
 

 

I valued being average to above average the previous 4 years and being in the hunt to the end each year. The roster was competitive with teams 6-32 during those years for the most part, but not a great or An elite team. Obviously this is a preference thing, but there’s no denying the team was average to above average during those years. There are teams fighting to be this and be in it to the end. 
 

As far as the grade is concerned, it depends what curve one uses. It’s pretty fair to assume no FO can come close to 100% when it’s widely accepted that good FOs hit on 50% of draft picks, Miss on free agents, and struggle with sustained success without an elite QB. The Skins have lacked an elite QB (outside of RG3s rookie year), so average to above average play has plagued them. It’s not an end all be all for me, but I’m certainly not going to to grade an FO with Aaron Rodgers the same as FO with Kirk Cousins.

 

With all that said, the team is trending down and I support a change needing to be made. I believe a change is set to take place this off season (whatever that counts for lol). It should have taken place last off season, so this is a wasted year, in my view... and that is unfortunate. This year can be salvaged if Haskins flashes though. 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, wit33 said:

I’ve always been a more 60-40 guy with Bruce. I hate the culture and have for many years, but I choose not to get caught up in worrying about that too much (a personal choice).

 

Let me start by commending you for going straight to the point with your take here.  And for having the guts to do it on a thread that isn't friendly to these type of points.  😀

 

3 hours ago, wit33 said:

I was a huuuuge supporter of Scott M largely because of him wanting to establish a brand, culture, and identity. He was gifted in that way, much like my guy Alex Smith  

 

I agree with you about Scot.  Among other things, Scot was friendly with many of the players who seemed to like him.  I think his tenure here was underrated and even if I fully agreed with the criticisms on some of his picks, etc -- since when did we become like old school Yankees under George Steinbrenner where we are willing to make a definitive judgment so fast and move on?   Too bad he had his personal demons, etc.  So I understand why it happened.  But if it weren't for that, I'd certainly want him to continue. 

 

As for Alex, I've been a consistent fan of his personality and in my own way as intense as you are on it.  I am the dude that posted most of the youtube clips of KC teammates talking up his personality.  I posted many of the Alex shows he did with Larry.  Cool dude.  Overrated QB IMO.  Having said that to me when I think of a bad culture, I am not thinking the locker room.  I am thinking a top down -- FO thing.

 

3 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

I’ve never thought Bruce was great at the job, just average at times. 

 

I think the whole operation as a whole is average.   I think Kyle Smith who is above average at his job elevates the rest of the operation which IMO is below average to bad.  I explained in detail why many times.  If people want to give credit to Bruce for having a rare positive nepotism connection to Kyle -- I can go on that ride.  So I got no problem with the average label albeit I'd judge Bruce specifically as below average as what he does.  My opinion on Bruce continues to decline over time. 

3 hours ago, wit33 said:

With that said, how one concludes an FO is great, good, above average, average, below average, poor, or terrible is beyond me. 
 

For example: 

 

The Steelers are now a below average to average team without Big Ben. 
 

The Colts are an average team that can be beat by teams 6-28 without Luck. 
 

******These teams are celebrated for their resiliency, due to losing their elite QBs, but what about the teams persevering and being average without an elite QB. It’s comes down to the narrative one constructs in their mind. 

 

I don't think it's a major feat to be average without an elite QB.    It would be IMO a feat to be average with a below average QB.  Maybe the Redskins in 2005 would be an example of that.  But by and large, the team has ebbed and flowed with QB play just like most teams.  They have done nothing special IMO to elevate above that like lets say the Ravens arguably have done. 

 

Also, I can't divorce myself from judging them for the actual QB play.  The instincts IMO of Dan-Vinny-Bruce have been mostly awful at QB.  I can attribute it to luck but 20 years isn't luck.  They've given up six #1 picks.  three #2 picks  three #3 picks and no franchise QB here. 

 

I am one of the rare people here who agree with you that an elite QB can overcome the dysfunction here.   Most I noticed don't.   Ditto most who cover the team.  It seems to be you, me and Sheehan on this point along with some others but otherwise we don't have a lot of company.  😀   Hopefully Haskins finally turns the tide.  You'd figure the law of averages kicks in at some point for this organization on that position.  Dan has been mostly atrocious at attacking this position -- heck imagine if he got Brady Quinn and Sanchez which some claim he wanted -- but I'll give him at least he keeps trying.

 

3 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

I valued being average to above average the previous 4 years and being in the hunt to the end each year. The roster was competitive with teams 6-32 during those years for the most part, but not a great or An elite team. Obviously this is a preference thing, but there’s no denying the team was average to above average during those years. There are teams fighting to be this and be in it to the end. 

 

I get the point.  And I appreciate you making the point that its about your opinion and what you value because I agree its all about perspective.  There are no right or wrong answers.  So your answer naturally is just as right as mine.   I'll explain why the 9-7, 8-7-1, 7-9, 7-9 doesn't move me.   And the key aspect of it is the sleaze and arrogance that from my point of view emanates from this team.  IMO this isn't like the Chicago Cubs where we are the lovable losers.  This point is big to me. 

 

I used to wear Redskins shirts with pride when I was a kid in the 80s.  It's not the same now.  And this is a fashionable team to dislike now nationally, the name is part of it, but a part of it certainly is this FO and how they roll.  For me I can't just ignore that as meaningless and zone in on 8-7-1.   I think I maybe could if this team was a winner.  But mediocre and sleazy?  The Raiders were sort of the bad boys of the 80s but added to the mystique by winning.  

 

I'll go back to an analogy I've used before.  To me it would be like my son being a D student.  And then elevating to being a C student.  But a C student with bad behavior where he's oddly arrogant about being a C student and does sleazy stuff and his classmates find him very unlikable.   I wouldn't feel like my son and has taken a nice turn for the better.  If he was a C student with humility where I felt he will keep improving and was becoming a really nice guy -- it would feel totally different.  

 

Bruce's statements, demeanor, leaks, etc much of it is cringe worthy to me.  Dan has always come off to me somewhat arrogant and delusional.  But to double down with that with a lieutenant who is an outgoing version of the same thing -- to me its yuck.    We got an empty suit politician type as the team president who often puts his foot in his mouth and IMO the few times he has the guts to speak often comes off condescending.  Then we got an owner who has gone deep into hiding and seems more interested in using his team to propel his ego and social life as opposed to win. 

 

And my point on operating with class I think has been somewhat consistent over the years.  I don't care who the target du jour is.  Heck I was one of the biggest critics of Jim Zorn.  But man the way they treated him on the way out and all the craziness bothered me and I said so at the time. 

 

Bringing it back to the team, I don't think they have it in them with the current FO to become a perennial winner unless they get majorly lucky at QB.  And I've explained why before.  So it's tough for me to prop mediocrity too when I think at the moment is likely the ceiling of this operation.  But I can live with that thought if I didn't find the way this FO rolls as embarrassing.  

 

And as strong as I am on the point about not finding the FO likable or classy, I got no problem with those who disagree or find the behavior part less important than I do.  The trigger in me is when some (you don't do this so its not aimed your way) accuse me or likeminded people for being bad fans for thinking this way or that this point of view is over the top and not as sensible or balanced as those that look purely at the record and ignore the noise so to speak. 

[CjSuAvE22]

13 hours ago, wit33 said:

I like 57% of what Bruce Allen has done. 
 

Where does that leave me? 

Bro you are a cowboys fan no way a real skins fan likes anything about bruce allen....

[Wildbunny]

4 hours ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

Bro you are a cowboys fan no way a real skins fan likes anything about bruce allen....

Or an Andy Reid fan.

I'm pretty sure Andy loves Bruce.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wit33]

 

Quote

I agree with you about Scot.  Among other things, Scot was friendly with many of the players who seemed to like him.  I think his tenure here was underrated and even if I fully agreed with the criticisms on some of his picks, etc -- since when did we become like old school Yankees under George Steinbrenner where we are willing to make a definitive judgment so fast and move on?   Too bad he had his personal demons, etc.  So I understand why it happened.  But if it weren't for that, I'd certainly want him to continue.

I bring Scott up at times to share that I get the culture piece and value it greatly and will celebrate it when it presents itself. The culture piece is also why I value an Alex Smith type more than some (same with AP). I like to think leaders of this caliber can circumvent a poor culture for a year or two. 

 

Quote

As for Alex, I've been a consistent fan of his personality and in my own way as intense as you are on it.  I am the dude that posted most of the youtube clips of KC teammates talking up his personality.  I posted many of the Alex shows he did with Larry.  Cool dude.  Overrated QB IMO.  Having said that to me when I think of a bad culture, I am not thinking the locker room.  I am thinking a top down -- FO thing.

 

His ability to relate with all teammates helping to establish trust is real. His teammates don’t just think he’s a good dude, they believe they can win with him... often overlooked when Smith is discussed. Part of the belief is due to his history of winning though. 

 

Quote

 

I think the whole operation as a whole is average.   I think Kyle Smith who is above average at his job elevates the rest of the operation which IMO is below average to bad.  I explained in detail why many times.  If people want to give credit to Bruce for having a rare positive nepotism connection to Kyle -- I can go on that ride.  So I got no problem with the average label albeit I'd judge Bruce specifically as below average as what he does.  My opinion on Bruce continues to decline over time. 

 

This is where I’d need a matrix or spectrum of how one decides an FO or guy like Kyle Smith is above average. How did you come to this conclusion? 
 

Admittedly, I don’t have a great deal of knowledge of the entire leagues FOs outside of wins/losses and firings. 
 

Quote

 

I don't think it's a major feat to be average without an elite QB.    It would be IMO a feat to be average with a below average QB.  Maybe the Redskins in 2005 would be an example of that.  But by and large, the team has ebbed and flowed with QB play just like most teams.  They have done nothing special IMO to elevate above that like lets say the Ravens arguably have done. 
 

 

Not sure about a major feat, but I believe it’s more difficult for a franchise to sustain success with an average QB than it is for one with an elite QB. 
 

Ive lauded the Ravens from the day they drafted Jackson to the present day. That was an elite organizational decision. They also developed a system around Jackson to support him. They represent the modern day ground and pound approach. 

 

Quote

 

Also, I can't divorce myself from judging them for the actual QB play.  The instincts IMO of Dan-Vinny-Bruce have been mostly awful at QB.  I can attribute it to luck but 20 years isn't luck.  They've given up six #1 picks.  three #2 picks  three #3 picks and no franchise QB here. 

Strangely, they’ve done well in getting average to above QB play, but nothing elite outside of RG3s rookie year. 

 

Quote

 

I get the point.  And I appreciate you making the point that its about your opinion and what you value because I agree its all about perspective.  There are no right or wrong answers.  So your answer naturally is just as right as mine.   I'll explain why the 9-7, 8-7-1, 7-9, 7-9 doesn't move me.   And the key aspect of it is the sleaze and arrogance that from my point of view emanates from this team.  IMO this isn't like the Chicago Cubs where we are the lovable losers.  This point is big to me. 

 

I hear ya. This portion does have a lot to do with how you roll as a fan. I tend to not be impacted by the sleazy stuff the FO has been rightly or wrongly accused of over the years. I don’t think the Skins are much outside the norm though. Do you? Not saying this is a good thing, as you want to strive to be great. 
 

Quote

 

I used to wear Redskins shirts with pride when I was a kid in the 80s.  It's not the same now.  And this is a fashionable team to dislike now nationally, the name is part of it, but a part of it certainly is this FO and how they roll.  For me I can't just ignore that as meaningless and zone in on 8-7-1.   I think I maybe could if this team was a winner.  But mediocre and sleazy?  The Raiders were sort of the bad boys of the 80s but added to the mystique by winning.  

 

Winning and sleazy would work for you?  
 

Quote

 

I'll go back to an analogy I've used before.  To me it would be like my son being a D student.  And then elevating to being a C student.  But a C student with bad behavior where he's oddly arrogant about being a C student and does sleazy stuff and his classmates find him very unlikable.   I wouldn't feel like my son and has taken a nice turn for the better.  If he was a C student with humility where I felt he will keep improving and was becoming a really nice guy -- it would feel totally different.  

 

Depends if the class was graded on a curve. There’s only FO operating an A level (Patriots) while a few others have experienced solid runs at B levels for periods of time. I’m with you though, the Skins have been poor overall the last 20 years, but not this last 4 years. 

 

Quote

 

And as strong as I am on the point about not finding the FO likable or classy, I got no problem with those who disagree or find the behavior part less important than I do.  The trigger in me is when some (you don't do this so its not aimed your way) accuse me or likeminded people for being bad fans for thinking this way or that this point of view is over the top and not as sensible or balanced as those that look purely at the record and ignore the noise so to speak. 

I don’t really get into how the FO are as people for the most part, but do want a solid culture. For example, I dislike how Bill B treats people (very child like, in my opinion) especially the media and think Kraft has poor morales, but I wouldn’t care if they were the owner and coach of the Skins and winning. 

[Skinsinparadise]

10 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

I bring Scott up at times to share that I get the culture piece and value it greatly and will celebrate it when it presents itself. The culture piece is also why I value an Alex Smith type more than some (same with AP). I like to think leaders of this caliber can circumvent a poor culture for a year or two. 

 

I don't think finding locker room leaders has been a problem under Dan.  Sometimes, yes.  But we've had our London Fletcher types.  Mark Brunell was lauded by some as a leader, etc.   Their problems have run deeper IMO. 

10 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

This is where I’d need a matrix or spectrum of how one decides an FO or guy like Kyle Smith is above average. How did you come to this conclusion? 

 

Kyle Smith = in charge of the drafts.  Me = like those drafts.   Kyle Smith to me = good.

 

10 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

Admittedly, I don’t have a great deal of knowledge of the entire leagues FOs outside of wins/losses and firings. 
 

 

I used to not care.  But partly because of threads like this over the years its made me interested in what other teams are doing

 

10 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

Winning and sleazy would work for you?  

 

I have a little practice with it with the Yankees during the George Steinbrenner era.  I don't like sleaze whether it's winning or losing so let me rephrase.  The sleaze seems to taper down with winning.  Sleaze-bad behavior is often brought forth from IMO stress-losing which generates scapegoating.  Winning tends to taper it down or so would be my hope.  Steinnbrenner toned down some when he had a manager who won instantly.  Am hoping the same thing would happen with Dan if we ever got lucky.  It might be a pipe dream but its fun to hope.   But I won't argue with anyone who thinks i am delusional on that point.  

 

10 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

Not sure about a major feat, but I believe it’s more difficult for a franchise to sustain success with an average QB than it is for one with an elite QB. 
 

 

I agree.   But QB's aren't thrust on organizations like a friend picking out a restaurant to eat and you make the best of it.  They are picking out the restaurants and IMO are pretty bad at it.    I can't think of a group of people who have thrown more money at finding a good restaurant (money-draft picks) and eating mediocre to bad food. At some point it's on them.   Maybe they should get a good GM and see if that makes a difference like just about every other team does.

 

10 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

I hear ya. This portion does have a lot to do with how you roll as a fan. I tend to not be impacted by the sleazy stuff the FO has been rightly or wrongly accused of over the years. I don’t think the Skins are much outside the norm though. Do you? Not saying this is a good thing, as you want to strive to be great. 
 

 

Do I?  Why would I be making point like that if I thought they were the norm?  Of course I think they are outside the norm. Way outside the norm.  No I don't think Bruce is an average capable GM and Dan is a an average capable owner.   I don't think the average GM is considered a douche by a mix of agents, current players, ex-players and is also mocked around the league as a joke.  I don't think Mara is sending a canister of vanilla ice cream to his defensive coordinator to tell him his defense isn't good.  Suing old ladies, newspapers.  Siding with his QB over his coach.  On and on.  

 

I hope Alex rubs off on them and brings Dan and Bruce some class. I feel like a parent who thinks hey that's a good kid -- so kids I am glad you are hanging out with him now. 😀  While I think you inflate Alex's value I do agree with your point to a lesser degree.  I do think a class dude who people are confident in helps bring a winning attitude.  That's not a cure in-itself IMO.  But it helps.   And there are articles and statements that bring your point about Alex home.  So I get where you roll on that.  Bruce and Dan are the opposite story -- if they are secretly great guys who are very good at their jobs or even so so at it and decent guys but just with a few imperfections like anyone else -- then that has escaped plenty of people who have interacted with them some of whom explained very colorfully that the story is the opposite or its come out 2nd hand via leaks that these aren't swell guys who are simply misunderstood.

 

10 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

Depends if the class was graded on a curve. There’s only FO operating an A level (Patriots) while a few others have experienced solid runs at B levels for periods of time. I’m with you though, the Skins have been poor overall the last 20 years, but not this last 4 years. 

 

The elephant in the room is we are judging this year as if it's another average performance.   We are just ignoring 2019.  2019 is right here and in our face.  Yeah there is context.  But yeah every year there is context, so what.    For me its been a mediocre operation and not on the verge of being better than that.  The fact that the medicore has trended back south as opposed to gone north -- doesn't shock me at all. 

 

The idea that the zenith of the Dan tenure is a 9-7, 8-7-1 run sounds about right.  One run of two winning seasons in a row and that's it.  And barely winning, barely over 500.   It's nothing I find impressive. If you told me even 10 plus years ago where i was a critic of Dan then, too -- that in his 20 years they'd eventually have a 9-7, 8-7-1, 7-9, 7-9 run and then head south again -- it would sound about right to me.  I wouldn't have been impressed back then looking forward to that kind of future.  The NFL is set for parity.  It's not easy to stink that much for that long.  So to have a little run of mediocrity in the mix of 20 years and then be a bottom feeder again, sure why not.  And the fact that they brag about it and talk about how close they are sounds about right, too. Fits the culture IMO.   

 

The fact that Bruce wasn't willing to give at the time a 29 year old durable QB 3 years guaranteed in the mix of the contract and that was a big part of the hangup but then turned around and give a 34 year 3.5 years in guaranteed money and somehow that backfired to me isn't purely about luck.  It's about decision making.    The fact that we've had one of the best passing games in the leagues years ago (with playmakers) and now have one of the worst is about decision making. I've gotten into detail about those decisions as to how that's gone down plenty of times. 

[Commander -JB-]

If not for that damn Dolphins game!!!!  1-15

[Andre The Giant]

 

[SkinsFTW]

Dan: We scored  2 TDs today. I'm impressed!

 

Bruce: We're actually damn CLOSE!

[Rufus T Firefly]

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SkinsFTW]

ESPN says that 56k showed up for the game. 69% capacity which is probably about 55% capacity if they didn't remove all those seats.

 

And tickets we're basically being given away. It cost more to go to the movies than to watch the Redskins get smoked live yet not many showed up.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

 

[Makaveli]

On 9/8/2019 at 4:01 PM, Makaveli said:

So what will be the excuse this year when the team has another underwhelming season and fails to make the playoffs? Injuries?

 

My final guess is they'll blame it on Gruden. "We got off to such a bad start it was too late to turn the ship around." Something along those lines.

[Skinsinparadise]

6 minutes ago, Makaveli said:

 

My final guess is they'll blame it on Gruden. "We got off to such a bad start it was too late to turn the ship around." Something along those lines.

 

At some point Dan is going to have to decide what's more importance his bromance with Bruce or to keep his fan base.

 

Dan obviously is problem #1 by a mile but most are resigned that he's unlikely going to go anywhere though i do think there is at least a glimmer of a chance of the stadium issue doesn't go his way and then maybe he would sell -- or its fun to think so. 

 

But canning Bruce is easy. It's the easy low hanging fruit move.   Granted, it won't fix the top problem not even close.  But right now it looks like either the dude is mega tone deaf, just plain dumb or has such deep affection for Bruce that he is willing to sink his ship so he and his BFF can keep their relationship good and strong through now throughout their twilight years. 

[Warhead36]

Seeing the success Mike Mayock is having in Oakland going from TV to GM has me thinking Louis Riddick wouldn't be the worst GM hire.