Makaveli

The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Really! I mean, since when do you not get credit for "offering" someone money that they already have? I bought my daughter a car this week and was shocked to learn that the dealer wouldn't play by these rules. Has the world gone mad?

So had we not applied the franchise tag and he didn’t already “have” that money the offer would have looked better and not a “joke”? Is that what you are saying? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

So had we not applied the franchise tag and he didn’t already “have” that money the offer would have looked better and not a “joke”? Is that what you are saying? 

Oh, my goodness.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Oh, my goodness.

 

Convincing argument. Seriously though, let’s say we made the exact same offer before the franchise tag was applied. Still a joke offer?

Share this post


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

 

Convincing argument. Seriously though, let’s say we made the exact same offer before the franchise tag was applied. Still a joke offer?

You realize your scenario would have made him an Unrestricted Free Agent, as a 28 year old Pro Bowl QB, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

@HardcoreZorn Just when I think you've reached the depths of despair to find reasons to keep arguing, you then defend the press release.  I can't recall anyone off hand that actually defended that, not even the Anti-est of AntiKirks thought that was a good idea.  Congrats sir.

Why do you keep acting as if I’m some blind redskins homer who supports everything we do? Do you gloss over everything I say just for the sake of arguing? Did I defend the press release or present a take outside of the mainstream media regurgitated BS? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

You realize your scenario would have made him an Unrestricted Free Agent, as a 28 year old Pro Bowl QB, right?

LOL exactly! That’s why we placed the tag on him in the first place, because we wanted to retain him and have the chance to hammer out a long term deal with him. So now that we’ve protected ourselves from losing a valuable asset, we now have to pretend that we already owe him that 24M dollar figure so the initial offer shouldn’t factor that money in?  That’s insane to me. 

5 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Well...

All you are  proving is that you don’t read the entirety of my posts and points and instead hone in on anything that goes against what you believe. The amount of times I have stated I don’t care for Bruce/Dan/FO is absurd. So this is my last reply to you, it’s really not worth my time or energy to discuss things with someone that can’t comprehend what I am saying. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article from MMQB giving the agent's point of view with a specific run down of a player they had who was headed for FA and how they got an idea of suitors and market values early in the process.  The agent laid out to the player's team FO what they were looking for even though it wasn't a formal offer.  The team came back with a fraction of what the agent asked for.  The agent just checked out from that team after that and got wooed by multiple teams who were serious from the outset.

 

Bringing this up here because it was one of Mike Jones points throughout the 2017 off season which is whether Kirk's agent presented a formal offer or not, he made it clear what they were looking for -- Bruce was not in the dark.  And running with the article I posted here the odds that other teams told McCartney look I understand the Redskins aren't serious. 

 

But we are dead serious.  We love your guy.  Don't worry we got an idea of what you want and we will go there.  McCartney goes to Kirk, hey the Redskins don't value you the way these 4 or 5 teams do. 

 

But yeah if you read this article that's how it might have gone down.   Even if you aren't interested in the Kirk situation, its an interesting read regardless.

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/02/22/free-agent-tampering-period-agents-players-mmqb?utm_campaign=themmqb&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

LOL exactly! That’s why we placed the tag on him in the first place, because we wanted to retain him and have the chance to hammer out a long term deal with him. So now that we’ve protected ourselves from losing a valuable asset, we now have to pretend that we already owe him that 24M dollar figure so the initial offer shouldn’t factor that money in?  That’s insane to me. 

You're right, the fact that we put that tag on him because we didn't want to lose him does kind of make him worth less money.

 

I was thinking it made him worth more, but I see now that that was insanity on my part.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

 

Publicizing an offer.  Weird.  Publicizing a low ball offer.  Weirder.  Editorializing the deal as a good one but the player wouldn't take it.  Weirder, yet.  Calling out the agent in the press release for no counter offer.  Weird.    Joel Corry, who isn't a media member but an agent who has been around the business for years said after the release more or less Bruce just kicked Kirk right out the door, he doesn't see him coming back now.   locally Keim and nationally Breer talked repeatedly how offended Kirk's camp was about it.  They knew he would say they offered Kirk a contract and he turned it down but the editorial wasn't expected.

 

53M GTD would have slotted him as 14th in the league in fully GTD money at the time of signing (1M less than Aaron Rogers) and was offered the second biggest per year deal in NFL history. I’m not saying that Kirk should have taken it due to the recent massive boom in the QB market coupled with what he stood to make on the franchise tags. But remember, that was an initial offer. To continue to act like that was some joke of an initial offer not worthy of a counteroffer is frankly stupid. If your barometer for a fair initial offer is what Carr, Luck, and Stafford received then we can stop right here because we will never agree. All three of those guys were sitting at home just like us this year, one of whom didn’t play a down this past season, and will never be worth the contracts their teams gave to them. And I would hope like hell our first offer wouldn’t be our best offer. 

 

And you literally just contradicted yourself. They knew Bruce would say they offered Kirk a contract and turned it down but didn’t know that he was going to say the player wouldn’t take it? Editorialize? Do you even know what that word means? Quote the part from that press release you are referring to. Stating what the offer was and stating Kirk did not accept is not editorializing. Those are just facts. I don’t agree with publicizing contract negotiations and adding fuel to the fire. But nothing Bruce said was opinionated or misrepresenting information. And Joel Corey, Kirks agent best friend? That guy? Lol well that makes a lot of sense. 

 

9 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Why do you think he didn't want to be here.  He didn't like the Redskins?  Had a beef with the fans?  The teammates?  Hated Jay?   Every story of why he didn't like it here by people close to the action centered on Bruce. 

Read my other posts, I’ve explained it plenty. Combination of not wanting to be drafted here in the first place, mishandling by Dan and Bruce for not recognizing Griffin was a shell of his former self and continue to hold out hope he would be the guy over Kirk, and the fact that he and his agent seized an opportunity to become trailblazers and utilize the franchise tag as a leverage tool that no other player has set out to do before. Sure he probably doesn’t like Bruce. He also had some resentment toward Scott, because Scott didn’t believe he was worth his asking price and even preferred to trade him last offseason (which we should have done but no foresight). But most people, including me, still wish Scott were here. If he were still here, genuinely curious if the reaction toward this whole ordeal would be any different. 

Share this post


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

 

53M GTD would have slotted him as 14th in the league in fully GTD money at the time of signing (1M less than Aaron Rogers) and was offered the second biggest per year deal in NFL history. I’m not saying that Kirk should have taken it due to the recent massive boom in the QB market coupled with what he stood to make on the franchise tags. But remember, that was an initial offer. To continue to act like that was some joke of an initial offer not worthy of a counteroffer is frankly stupid.

 

You weren't following the contract that closely if you thought that was the initial offer.  So in that specific context not sure how you can get up on the roof top and lecture other people for being stupid about anything.  You were debating others not me on whether it was a good offer.  Though I do agree with them on that.  But its a separate point.  My post centered on my beef that they actually did a press release on the subject with that content, period.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/03/02/after-20-million-per-year-offer-redskins-and-kirk-cousins-remain-far-apart-on-deal/?utm_term=.2fb0d7ee5640

 

https://www.hogshaven.com/2017/7/17/15981582/redskins-best-offer-to-kirk-cousins-came-in-may-and-it-was-less-than-the-franchise-tag-nfl

 

 

5 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

And you literally just contradicted yourself. They knew Bruce would say they offered Kirk a contract and turned it down but didn’t know that he was going to say the player wouldn’t take it? Editorialize? Do you even know what that word means? Quote the part from that press release you are referring to.

 

What?  Here's what I actually said:  "They knew he would say they offered Kirk a contract and he turned it down but the editorial wasn't expected."  Turned it down and not took it means the same thing.

 

I also said:  "Editorializing the deal as a good one but the player wouldn't take it."   Editorializing is giving opinion.  And yeah it doesn't have to be sledge hammer in your face.  Purposely manipulating items to push a conclusion to me fits that realm.   People aren't stupid.  Bruce talking about how it would have made Kirk the highest this and 2nd highest that.  But "despite our repeated efforts" we got no counter offers from Kirk's agent.   I am around a business that's all about taking stuff and manipulating them to make a point.  That's part of the deal in PR. 

 

If what he was trying to do come off straightforward to you with no angle involved -- I'll explain how most of the people that I've seen commented on this saw it (me included):  We offered Kirk a great deal let me explain the ways.  His agent never even counter offered.  Kirk didn't wanted to take it either.  He likes apparently one year deals better.   Can you believe it?  Form your own conclusions.  What else can we do?  LOL. 

 

But if you prefer the word "slanted" or "manipulative" than I'd agree that's more on point than editorial.  My point is if you are going to be ballsy and do a press release period.  Be conservative.  He wasn't.  Multiple guys close to the action have said (in spite of how Kirk was nice about it since that's how he rolls) his camp was offended by it.  I recall where I was actually when I saw it.  I was in Ireland at a pub and saw it on twitter.  After seeing it I soon after that ordered myself a drink -- knowing the odds are pretty low that Kirk is coming back now. :)

 

Joel Corry who has been around the business as an agent for over a decade -- was stunned by it -- after that he more or less said he figures Kirk is out the door now.  Now if you thought it was all good. To each their own.  But you are in the minority on that one.  

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/redskins-totally-botched-kirk-cousins-contract-debacle-235254094.html

If that’s what Cousins is seeking – a longer look at how the team embraces him – then you can be sure that Monday was another eye-opening moment. Look no further than the Pittsburgh Steelers, who failed to get a long-term deal done with Le’Veon Bell Monday and reacted with this:

“Unfortunately, we were unable to agree to terms on a long-term contract with Le’Veon Bell prior to today’s deadline,” Steelers general manager Kevin Colbert said in a statement. “Le’Veon is scheduled to play this year under the Exclusive Franchise Tag designation. We will resume our efforts to address his contract situation following the 2017 season.”

No mention of money. No shady reaction to what Bell didn’t take. Just a simple “we didn’t get it done” and a move forth toward the season.

Meanwhile, the Redskins and Bruce Allen took another route and another shot. He no longer has the negotiating stick, so he used a news release instead. It backfired, just another mistake-filled iteration in what will go down as one of the most botched quarterback negotiations in NFL history.

 

5 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Sure he probably doesn’t like Bruce. He also had some resentment toward Scott, because Scott didn’t believe he was worth his asking price and even preferred to trade him last offseason (which we should have done but no foresight). But most people, including me, still wish Scott were here. If he were still here, genuinely curious if the reaction toward this whole ordeal would be any different. 

 

Be interesting if some of the guys close to the action wrote an article about this versus went on strong on talk radio.  But Breer, Paulsen, Russell, and Jones have expounded some on what they've heard.  Paulsen flat out said he's spoken to Kirk about it many times.  He talked about it on air including recently.  The impression when you tally it all up.

 

#1 by a country mile the problem was Kirk-Kirk's agent didn't like Bruce and vice versa.  They thought his offers were insulting. But the bigger problem was they didn't think Bruce was a trustworthy guy.  And his wasn't always the nicest guy in negotiation.  Only thing that's hard to pick up on is how much of it is Kirk's agent on this front or Kirk himself relating to Bruce.  Grant said Kirk and Bruce's relationship is cold.  

 

#2.  Kirk likes Scot a lot.  Paulsen who is close with Kirk said so multiple times.  He likes Scot, he trusts him and sees him as honest.  Even if the outcome would have been Scot would have traded Kirk or whatever -- there was no hostility between Kirk and Scot.  He respected him.  Not the case with Bruce.

 

As recently as the Senior Bowl, Craig Hoffman said he asked as many people as he can what's the issue with the Kirk contract.  He said it all converged on one thing:  Bruce and Kirk's agent having issues with each other.  If so, moving forward that should be interesting because it doesn't serve the agent or Bruce to be at war.  They are likely going to need to work with each other again.  So hopefully it gets smoothed over.

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

#2.  Kirk likes Scot a lot.  Paulsen who is close with Kirk said so multiple times.  He likes Scot, he trusts him and sees him as honest.  Even if the outcome would have been Scot would have traded Kirk or whatever -- there was no hostility between Kirk and Scot.  He respected him.  Not the case with Bruce.

Those defending Bruce in this whole ordeal tend to gloss over the bolded part there.  I keep seeing blame get shifted to Scot for where things went wrong.  But for me I find that strange when negotiations took the turn for the worse upon Scot's departure.  If Kirk and his agent really had a big issue with Scot, wouldn't you think his termination should help repair any burnt bridges? 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2018 at 8:29 AM, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Those defending Bruce in this whole ordeal tend to gloss over the bolded part there.  I keep seeing blame get shifted to Scot for where things went wrong.  But for me I find that strange when negotiations took the turn for the worse upon Scot's departure.  If Kirk and his agent really had a big issue with Scot, wouldn't you think his termination should help repair any burnt bridges? 

 

Yeah I think where the confusion for them might be you can argue that Scot more so than Bruce might have been the one who would have traded him in 2017.  Back then, I wouldn't have loved it but if I knew it would go down like this in 2018 -- I would have worshipped that action.  Scot from what's been said didn't want to tag Kirk a 2nd time -- it was LTD or trade.

 

You can argue Kirk would have more likely been gone in 2017 if Scot were here.  That might be true.  Keim in particular liked to harp on that.   

 

But from a bottom line stand point when Scot got canned according to some it sent three messages to Kirk's camp.

 

A.  You guys thought Bruce might be a douche for the way he's handled you -- yep your instincts are on the money look at how they handled Scot.

B.  You are left negotiating with the guy you don't trust

C.  You want to win -- at least Scot is a proven winner -- no one talks about Bruce that way.

 

The idea that Kirk and his agent didn't like or trust Bruce is treated by many of the people who are OK with how the FO handled it all -- as some minor side point at best.  But if you follow the takeaway from most on the story that point wasn't a side-minor deal --- it was MOST of the problem.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The irony is Hanson is one of the more vocal haters of Kirk.

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2018/02/23/robert-henson-mistrust-lingers-between-cravens-redskins-front-office/

 

“There’s one thing that I will offer, that you guys talked about, about the front office,” said Henson. “Now they don’t know what to do with him. There’s still a mistrust between him and the front office, too. So, it’s kind of a little bit of bad blood, and everybody knows that Bruce, everybody that played knows that Bruce is all about exacting revenge on his terms. You can tell by the Kirk Cousins situation.”

Oh, well that might explain it. We’re circling back to that whole part of the organization again, huh?

Look, I get it, it’s easy to tell one side of the story, and pile on a Redskins front office which already has a terrible reputation from past mistakes. We’ve spent plenty of time talking about that on The Fan.

But, Henson, who’s still local and specifically mentioned current players he’s close with, said something that’s still very believable, simply because we’ve seen examples of this exact attitude from the organization in the past. There have been other reports just recently about the front office wanting some sort of revenge in the Cousins situation as well.

When ego and power are combined with insecurity, irrational decisions are made. We see it all the time, not just in sports, but likely in whatever business you work in too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please explain to me how Bruce Allen has all of a sudden becone the boogeyman. Because he fired (who he hired) Scot??? Because he wouldn't make Kirk (a 10-15ish best qb in the league) the Otto Porter of the NFL???? Because he might hold a grudge against a player who quit after final cuts??

He's frugal AF, yes. But we need that, so are the best who do it lest dealing with rare talent. He should've offered on a per year what the FT was though that **** would've got the silent treatment too. He shouldve eent after CC instead of the two we got. Wrs were a miss though I also thought if Pryor could do what he did there......

Anyway, are we supposed to believe that now after being born into football and damn near 30 years of the NFL grind that he suddenly aint ****.............because an agent says so???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, TheShredSkinz said:

Can someone please explain to me how Bruce Allen has all of a sudden becone the boogeyman. Because he fired (who he hired) Scot??? Because he wouldn't make Kirk (a 10-15ish best qb in the league) the Otto Porter of the NFL???? Because he might hold a grudge against a player who quit after final cuts??

He's frugal AF, yes. But we need that, so are the best who do it lest dealing with rare talent. He should've offered on a per year what the FT was though that **** would've got the silent treatment too. He shouldve eent after CC instead of the two we got. Wrs were a miss though I also thought if Pryor could do what he did there......

Anyway, are we supposed to believe that now after being born into football and damn near 30 years of the NFL grind that he suddenly aint ****.............because an agent says so???

 

All-Time Record as GM / Executive VP / President: 90-117- 1 (.4348)

Record as GM / Executive VP / President with Redskins: 52-75-1 (.4094)

Record as GM etc. with Redskins minus McCloughan years: 35-61 (.3646)

 

13 NFL seasons, 4 playoff appearances: 30.7%

 

Boo.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, TheShredSkinz said:

Can someone please explain to me how Bruce Allen has all of a sudden becone the boogeyman. Because he fired (who he hired) Scot??? Because he wouldn't make Kirk (a 10-15ish best qb in the league) the Otto Porter of the NFL???? Because he might hold a grudge against a player who quit after final cuts??

He's frugal AF, yes. But we need that, so are the best who do it lest dealing with rare talent. He should've offered on a per year what the FT was though that **** would've got the silent treatment too. He shouldve eent after CC instead of the two we got. Wrs were a miss though I also thought if Pryor could do what he did there......

Anyway, are we supposed to believe that now after being born into football and damn near 30 years of the NFL grind that he suddenly aint ****.............because an agent says so???

 

He didn’t all the sudden become the boogeyman.  I think his track record speaks to the fact that he’s never been ****, so none of this is all the sudden.  He’s never been considered a winner or top tier anything.  Jeff Fisher coached for roughly 2 decades and well yeah.... 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

He didn’t all the sudden become the boogeyman.  I think his track record speaks to the fact that he’s never been ****, so none of this is all the sudden.  He’s never been considered a winner or top tier anything.  Jeff Fisher coached for roughly 2 decades and well yeah.... 

 

Yeah that's the wild thing about Bruce.  The press really had his back initially.  They and fans really wanted to buy that they've turned over a new leaf with him.  He got the benefit of the doubt.  It's really been death by 1000 cuts from Bruce.  There seems to be some strong overlap between Bruce defenders and "some" of Kirk critics.  My theory on that is if Kirk didn't have his detractors -- Bruce's rep would be even worse because he does have some of the (hyperbole to make a point) "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing cooking with some of the more rabid Kirk detractors.   Without that I'd think he'd have almost no fan support.  But to me its eerily similar to the end of the Vinny era. Hopefully, it ends the same way and soon.

 

Without getting in all the detail, that's been done to death -- just some general highlights about Bruce

 

A.  The losing is the #1 thing

B. The Tampa connections

C. Firing the GM with a combination of weird lies to the press and then a dose of nastiness

D. Replacing the GM with a figurehead who hardly anyone respects as a personnel guy

E. Looking incompetent publicly in multiple press conferecnes

F. Under his watch both the RG3 and Kirk endings looked like a zoo

G. The reports from multiple sources questioning his general competence, pettiness, jealously

H. Making the Redskins a punchline again in the league -- congratulations.

I.  His "strength" which is supposedly contracts features being the first team to lose a healthy franchise QB to FA and a series of mostly "meh" FA signings.

 

We now got a high profile draft geek saying we have the worst FO in the league.  We got national media guys saying hey we checked around and yeah people tell us Bruce is that dumb.  On and on and on.  And I am not saying all of it is true.  I bet some of it isn't.  But Bruce almost single handily with help from Dan squandered all the good will and now are punch line status again. 

 

This isn't some off beat opinion by some stragglers on this board, Bruce is lampooned all over town.  He did it to himself.  It wasn't some odd conspiracy -- he did it to himself.

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


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

Can someone please explain to me how Bruce Allen has all of a sudden becone the boogeyman. Because he fired (who he hired) Scot??? Because he wouldn't make Kirk (a 10-15ish best qb in the league) the Otto Porter of the NFL???? Because he might hold a grudge against a player who quit after final cuts??

He's frugal AF, yes. But we need that, so are the best who do it lest dealing with rare talent. He should've offered on a per year what the FT was though that **** would've got the silent treatment too. He shouldve eent after CC instead of the two we got. Wrs were a miss though I also thought if Pryor could do what he did there......

Anyway, are we supposed to believe that now after being born into football and damn near 30 years of the NFL grind that he suddenly aint ****.............because an agent says so???

https://www.bucsnation.com/2012/3/10/2859849/bruce-allen-worst-gm-in-football

1 hour ago, Makaveli said:

 

All-Time Record as GM / Executive VP / President: 90-117- 1 (.4348)

Record as GM / Executive VP / President with Redskins: 52-75-1 (.4094)

Record as GM etc. with Redskins minus McCloughan years: 35-61 (.3646)

 

13 NFL seasons, 4 playoff appearances: 30.7%

 

Boo.

 

Numbers don't lie. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exec. of the year with Oakland.

Did he have more winning seasons than losing with TB???

We've done ok as of late compared to our last 25+ years right?? And with who some of you would call the worst owner in sports???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need a breakdown of Brucey's W-L record, list of accomplishments or a debate about his qualifications. I just have to remember how he handled the Cousins situation.

 

He didn't make a mistake or miscalculation. He CHOSE to turn that kind of an asset into nothing. Wouldn't listen to trade offers, wouldn't make a realistic contract offer. Put out a BS press release that poisoned the relationship. Then he went a traded pieces for another QB before he could leverage what was left of Kirk's value. All of that was in the service of what made Bruce thought made him look better.

 

He made the decision to screw his own team out of a valuable asset for the sake of his own PR. That's not a good GM. It's not even a bad GM. It's somebody who is a joke and has no business in any organization. 

 

The fact that some people choose to buy into that PR and defend him is just sad. But there's one born every minute as they say.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

I don't need a breakdown of Brucey's W-L record, list of accomplishments or a debate about his qualifications. I just have to remember how he handled the Cousins situation.

 

He didn't make a mistake or miscalculation. He CHOSE to turn that kind of an asset into nothing. Wouldn't listen to trade offers, wouldn't make a realistic contract offer. Put out a BS press release that poisoned the relationship. Then he went a traded pieces for another QB before he could leverage what was left of Kirk's value. All of that was in the service of what made Bruce thought made him look better.

 

He made the decision to screw his own team out of a valuable asset for the sake of his own PR. That's not a good GM. It's not even a bad GM. It's somebody who is a joke and has no business in any organization. 

 

The fact that some people choose to buy into that PR and defend him is just sad. But there's one born every minute as they say.

 

His history is matching what he is doing now, with Scot, with Kirk..... My fear is WE are stuck with this schmuck for some time yet. 

2 hours ago, TheShredSkinz said:

Exec. of the year with Oakland.

Did he have more winning seasons than losing with TB???

We've done ok as of late compared to our last 25+ years right?? And with who some of you would call the worst owner in sports???

 

EXEC of the Yr. because you know, Al Davis.......and money..... 

 

as for the Bucs I posted this earlier. .. ...

https://www.bucsnation.com/2012/3/10/2859849/bruce-allen-worst-gm-in-football

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SWFLSkins said:

 

His history is matching what he is doing now, with Scot, with Kirk..... My fear is WE are stuck with this schmuck for some time yet. 

 

EXEC of the Yr. because you know, Al Davis.......and money..... 

 

as for the Bucs I posted this earlier. .. ...

https://www.bucsnation.com/2012/3/10/2859849/bruce-allen-worst-gm-in-football

 

He also wasn't the defacto GM in Oakland like he is here.  Davis did his own thing his own way.  Mike Lombardi who actually worked with Bruce in Oakland said Bruce didn't know squat about personnel, he didn't do personnel there.  He was a contract guy.

 

But even if we played with the Oakland example.  He's been a loser for a long long time.   That award was almost 20 years ago.  I am in my 40s, its like me interviewing for a job now and saying you know I was student of the month about two decades ago.

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.