Makaveli

The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

Recommended Posts

Bruce knows what he is doing.  Doug was a QB for Tampa Bay before.  Tampa....  Bay.  

 

Looking forward to all this "average" we will bring in this draft.  They'll find it.  Even though the guys won't be that good, they will be winners off the field.  

 

I don't know who they will pick at RB, but be assured they will get straight garbage when they pick him.  Much like Pissrine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2018 at 9:29 AM, Reaper Skins said:

Imagine if we had kept Scott, elevated Jay, and had them running all the Gm duties and personnel scouting, with McVay as the head coach.

 

Fighting smiley 72

 

 

 

 

Best use of emoji early 2018 candidate, LOL. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Bruce knows what he is doing.  Doug was a QB for Tampa Bay before.  Tampa....  Bay.  

 

Looking forward to all this "average" we will bring in this draft.  They'll find it.  Even though the guys won't be that good, they will be winners off the field.  

 

I don't know who they will pick at RB, but be assured they will get straight garbage when they pick him.  Much like Pissrine.  

 

Wow man, I mean He did show more potential than the other fourteen guys they previously trotted out there, other than Thompson.....I mean he at the least hit the holes directly and got tough yards. Yes he is no speed demon. We know that. 

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

I have to believe that Keim is right in his assessment.

It doesn't really matter if he's a good guy or not, it doesn't really matter if we like him or not. It's tied to his success at leading the team and setting up the culture (though I believe all of this is tied somehow).

Still, getting rid of Kirk and Scott are big time decision from Bruce Allen, and if it doesn't pay off. He should be getting the axe because he setted up for this.

 

Yup, Bruce is the man who made or talked Snyder into those, ,,, at least I hope....He should be accountable. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Wow man, I mean He did show more potential than the other fourteen guys they previously trotted out there, other than Thompson.....I mean he at the least hit the holes directly and got tough yards. Yes he is no speed demon. We know that. 

 

I saw different games then.  His vision isn't good.  College he had holes the size of pickup trucks to run through.  How they didn't see that and passed on Kamara for a LB that is a dime a dozen is beyond me. 

 

EDIT:  Nice mower.  I dig that.  :cheers:

Edited by mudpig
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mudpig said:

 

I saw different games then.  His vision isn't good.  College he had holes the size of pickup trucks to run through.  How they didn't see that and passed on Kamara for a LB that is a dime a dozen is beyond me. 

 

EDIT:  Nice mower.  I dig that.  :cheers:

Not my mower, but it is really cool, it's a shot to Bruce, you know Fields of Fail, New Turf and all. LOL....

 

BTW, I love Google........  

Apr 15, 2016

 

Ezekiel Elliott was on NFL Live today and they showed a graphic for "Most Rush Yards After Contact - Power 5 Conference Players Last 2 Seasons"

Ezekiel Elliott - 1,490 
Devontae Booker - 1,340 
Samaje Perine - 1,328 
Derrick Henry - 1,321

While Elliott's numbers are impressive, Perine stuck out to me because: 1) He's a Sooner, 2) He's a sophomore, and 3) He's the only one of the four that had to share backfield reps with another RB last season.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Sooners are a RB U, and he is the all time leader.....that said you know one of my highest priorities is a legit No. 1 RB. 

 

------Yeah I don't know how they went Anderson there.

 

 

http://www.redskins.com/news/article-1/Oklahomas-All-Time-Leading-Rusher-Redskins-Will-Get-The-Most-Out-Of-Samaje-Perine/9c65541c-ed30-4dfa-a102-b2ac1b4a2d41

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea- I wouldn'tpiss on Perine yet. He had a lot of metrics that had people ranking him very high. Our line sucked last year, almost feel bad for him. Need to see an upgrade and G and rest of line staying healthy. 

 

If Barkley isn't the 1st overall puck of the draft I'll be shocked. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Not my mower, but it is really cool, it's a shot to Bruce, you know Fields of Fail, New Turf and all. LOL....

 

BTW, I love Google........  

Apr 15, 2016

 

Ezekiel Elliott was on NFL Live today and they showed a graphic for "Most Rush Yards After Contact - Power 5 Conference Players Last 2 Seasons"

Ezekiel Elliott - 1,490 
Devontae Booker - 1,340 
Samaje Perine - 1,328 
Derrick Henry - 1,321

While Elliott's numbers are impressive, Perine stuck out to me because: 1) He's a Sooner, 2) He's a sophomore, and 3) He's the only one of the four that had to share backfield reps with another RB last season.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Sooners are a RB U, and he is the all time leader.....that said you know one of my highest priorities is a legit No. 1 RB. 

 

------Yeah I don't know how they went Anderson there.

 

 

http://www.redskins.com/news/article-1/Oklahomas-All-Time-Leading-Rusher-Redskins-Will-Get-The-Most-Out-Of-Samaje-Perine/9c65541c-ed30-4dfa-a102-b2ac1b4a2d41

 

LOL at the mower story.  Awesome!  

 

We'll see how it goes this year then.  Didn't see much of that on a few runs where i thought he should have broken a tackle and gained a few more.  I am aware the line wasn't great but we all perceive things different.  I just wasnt impressed by him hardly at all.  There were a few plays that were decent enough.  Kelley is just a no at this point, and Thompson's injury history concerns me.  With this RB class I wish we had 10 picks where we could nab 2 in the first 5 rounds and hope we strike gold.  Love to have a dual threat 3 down back.  

Edited by mudpig
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce is such a damn fool..He could of traded Cousins for a 1st round pick easily,but no dumb ass had to go and show his hand with the Alex Smith trade..smdh

Share this post


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

Bruce is such a damn fool..He could of traded Cousins for a 1st round pick easily,but no dumb ass had to go and show his hand with the Alex Smith trade..smdh

Bruce is an idiot, but there’s no way he could have traded Kirk this off season.  Kirk would have had to sign the franchise tender to get traded, which he wouldn’t have done, so no trade could have occurred.  And if the Skins franchised Kirk, until he was traded, he would count 34 million against the cap.

 

Bruce might be a damn fool, but there’s no way he could have traded Kirk this year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Bruce is an idiot, but there’s no way he could have traded Kirk this off season.  Kirk would have had to sign the franchise tender to get traded, which he wouldn’t have done, so no trade could have occurred.  And if the Skins franchised Kirk, until he was traded, he would count 34 million against the cap.

 

Bruce might be a damn fool, but there’s no way he could have traded Kirk this year.  

Could of transition tagged him..then matched the other teams offer and  trade him to that team,but no the idiot had to go and trade for Smith so far in advance...I mean Smith vs Colt is not that much damn difference to throw away a 3rd pick plus Fuller and possibly a 1st..

Edited by bh32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, bh32 said:

Could of transition tagged him..then matched the other teams offer and  trade him to that team,but no the idiot had to go and trade for Smith so far in advance...I mean Smith vs Colt is not that much damn difference to throw away a 3rd pick plus Fuller and possibly a 1st..

No, that wouldn’t happen either. Kirk would have to sign the offer sheet from the other team, which he wouldn’t.  He’d just take the $28 million from the Skins and play one more year, then hit FA.  He wants to be a FA. He’s got the moves to get there. 

 

Theres NOTHING Bruce could do THIS year to trade Kirk.  He should have done it last year. I’ll give you that he was an idiot for not trading him last year around the draft, but it wasn’t happeming this year. 

 

And if if you honestly think Smith is better than McCoy, then honestly there’s nothing more to discuss.  Smith is a legitimate starting QB who’s led his team to the playoffs multiple timed.  McCoy hasn’t played in 3 years for a reason. 

Share this post


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

Bruce is an idiot, but there’s no way he could have traded Kirk this off season.  Kirk would have had to sign the franchise tender to get traded, which he wouldn’t have done, so no trade could have occurred.  And if the Skins franchised Kirk, until he was traded, he would count 34 million against the cap.

 

Bruce might be a damn fool, but there’s no way he could have traded Kirk this year.  

Wouldn't Kirk have to sit out the year if he didn't sign?  I am sure we'd be in court to answer that.  But he has no income if he doesn't sign, and I presume he wouldn't count against our cap. Suddenly, a trade may have been a simple solution to that real legal pickle that even Bruce could pull off.  The downside risk is we are stuck with 2 very good QBs, which doesn't seem like a terrible risk at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

Wouldn't Kirk have to sit out the year if he didn't sign?  I am sure we'd be in court to answer that.  But he has no income if he doesn't sign, and I presume he wouldn't count against our cap. Suddenly, a trade may have been a simple solution to that real legal pickle that even Bruce could pull off.  The downside risk is we are stuck with 2 very good QBs, which doesn't seem like a terrible risk at all.

The total contract cost of the tag hits the cap as soon as the new league year starts regardless of whether he signs the tag or not.  I believe that if he doesn’t sign the tag, he can’t play and I believe he doesn’t get paid.  

 

However, if he doesn’t sign you can’t trade him either. 

 

Because the cap hit is immediate, it completely hamstrings the team with FA.  The only way a sign and trade works is if you have cooperation from the player.  Because he has to sign the tender before the league year starts so you can trade him immediately and get the salary cap hit off your books. And he has to be willing to work out a new deal with the other team, or no team is going to trade valuable assets for a 1 year contract at either 34 or 28 million depending on the tag.

 

Simce Kirk wasn’t going to do that, there no way a trade could have happened.

 

In the transition tag scenario, Kirk would have to sign the transition tag, then the Skins could trade him.  The risk is somebody offers him a deal and the Skins don’t want to match, then you get nothing.  And doing the transition tag after the Smith trade would not work because again, Kirk would just not sign the tag, and it would cost the team 28 million against the cap. 

 

The only scenario where the Skins could have forced a trade was if they said screw it to this year, tagged him and held is rights taking the cap hit into the draft.  That screws then because they can’t make moves in FA.  But it also screws Kirk because he has no team, and other teams move to other Solutions. But that’s kind of mutually assured destruction. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, it's interesting: You have to give Bruce and team credit for the 2014 draft, it landed 

 

2 (47)    LB Trent Murphy    Stanford
3 (66) — From Dallas    OT Morgan Moses    Virginia
3 (78) — From Dallas    G Spencer Long    Nebraska
4 (102)    CB Bashaud Breeland    Clemson
5 (142)    WR Ryan Grant    Tulane
6 (186) — From Tennessee    RB Lache Seastrunk    Baylor
7 (217)    TE Ted Bolser    Indiana
7 (228) — From Tennessee    K Zach Hocker    Arkansas

 

The 6ths and 7ths didn't pan out at all.  (And picking a kicker still irks me)

 

However, of their first 5 picks, all are starters in the NFL.  And they didn't have a 1st, due to the Griffin trade.  That's good work, however you slice it.  

 

The problem is now 4 of them (Murphy, Long, Bree, Grant) are going to be starters elsewhere.

 

So, from a draft class of 8, we hit on 5, retained only 1, so we only have 1 player left from that draft class.

 

That's somewhat problematic when you consider the "build through the draft" philosophy. It kinda implies that you keep more than 1 player per draft class on the roster, or you're always plugging holes.

 

Here's the 2015 draft class, which is (in theory) a Scot McLoughan class:

 

1 (5)                                       OL Brandon Scherff                               Iowa

2 (38)                                       LB Preston Smith                               Mississippi State

3 (95)                                       RB Matt Jones                                   Florida

4 (105)                                     WR Jamison Crowder                          Duke

4 (112)                                     OL Arie Kouandjio                              Alabama

5 (141)                                     LB Martrell Spaight                             Arkansas

6 (181)                                     S Kyshoen Jarrett                               Virginia Tech

6 (182)                                     CB Tevin Mitchel*                               Arkansas

6 (187)                                     WR Evan Spencer                               Ohio State

7 (222)                                     C Austin Reiter                                   South Florida

 

Of those guys, Scherff, Smith and Crowder have become starters, Spaight is still on the team, and Kouandjio got re-signed after being released. 

 

If memory serves, Jarrett was on his way, then had a crippling injury.  

 

That's also not too bad.  The Matt Jones pick stings.  

 

I'd like to see them lock up these guys this off season.  Probably all of the ones currently on the roster.  I think, instead of picking up the 5th year option, you can work out a long term deal with Scherff.  I'd do that.  And sign Smith and Crowder ASAP. 

 

Otherwise we might be looking at another draft class with 4  really good contributors who we drafted and now playing elsewhere... Or we'll have to over-pay to keep them through FA.

 

The 2016 draft probably won't have the same issue, unless Doctson improves.  Fuller is already gone, Cravens' situation is unknown, and Ioannidis is the only other player of note.  

 

2017 draft is too far away from second deal to speculate.  But it could be that Jonathan Allen, Ryan Anderson, Fabian Moreau, Montae Nicholson, Jeremy Sprinkle and Chase Roullier could all be starters out of that class, with incomplete grades in Robert Davis, Harvey Clemons and Holsey.  

 

In summary, I think that the drafting has gotten better.  But the retaining of draft picks has not, which still leaves you in a bit of a pickle.  

 

Credit where credit is due, though.  They have drafted better.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

2 (47)    LB Trent Murphy    Stanford
3 (66) — From Dallas    OT Morgan Moses    Virginia
3 (78) — From Dallas    G Spencer Long    Nebraska
4 (102)    CB Bashaud Breeland    Clemson
5 (142)    WR Ryan Grant    Tulane
6 (186) — From Tennessee    RB Lache Seastrunk    Baylor
7 (217)    TE Ted Bolser    Indiana
7 (228) — From Tennessee    K Zach Hocker    Arkansas

 

The 6ths and 7ths didn't pan out at all.  (And picking a kicker still irks me)

 

However, of their first 5 picks, all are starters in the NFL.

Not that I disagree with you VoR. I believe you're right as we should resign some of our guys but still, there's something here that burdens me...

 

Did you just say that Ryan Grant was a starter in the NFL? After all you throw at him, Jay and everybody for having this guy on the field, I can hardly believe you consider him a starter in the NFL :)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

Not that I disagree with you VoR. I believe you're right as we should resign some of our guys but still, there's something here that burdens me...

 

Did you just say that Ryan Grant was a starter in the NFL? After all you throw at him, Jay and everybody for having this guy on the field, I can hardly believe you consider him a starter in the NFL :)

I was wondering if anybody was going to call me out on that. :) I almost caveated Grant, given my history with him, by saying he is a starter but shouldn’t be. And that he’s the one guy I think you can move on from most easily. 

 

However, Grant is a starter.  That’s fact. 

 

I wouldn't start him.  But Jay did and it appears as though the Ravens are going to. I think that’s going to limit them offensively. Shrug, my opinion.

 

Regardless, he’s done well as a 5th round pick. So for the purposes of this thread, it’s a good pick. I never said I hated him, or even didn’t want him on the roster.  I said he was physically limited and I wouldn’t go into a season with him as a starter.  I stand behind that 100%.

 

I have always said as a 4th or 5th guy, he’s great.  Play something like 20 snaps a game, fill in for injury.  Which is good production from a 5th round pick.

 

I would not have gone into 2017 with the plan of him being a starter opposite Doctson.  I also wouldn’t have signed him to starter money if I was the ravens. But Ozzie tends to know what he’s doing, so maybe I’m dead wrong on Grant.  We’ll see.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Craig Hoffman just called our scouts "good Scouts" @Skinsinparadise, that's all I've been wanting to hear because those are the guys I have a lot more faith in than the GM or person with the title.

 

I heard the segment, it was in praising the drafts since our FAs are coveted elsewhere.  Craig seems to mirror Cooley on most things -- they are friendly with each other.  They both think highly of Kyle Smith.  Though Cooley is a depressing listen to of late because he previously was somewhat supportive of the FO albeit in a lukewarm fashion at times.  He hasn't been supportive lately.  Cooley thinks their approach to FA is bad and doesn't have much faith in the pro scouting department.   

 

He and Sheehan actually ran a segment yesterday about maybe their lack of aggressiveness in FO over the years stems from a lack of faith in the pro personnel department and they trust their college scouting more.  I think that's a bit off the wall but it brings home some what Cooley thinks of them.  

 

Cooley has referred to having conversations with Bruce and Doug multiple times -- I can't recall once him saying he was impressed or they really know "ball" as he likes to express the point.  But Cooley likes to say Kyle Smith knows ball.  He pretty much implied strongly without outright saying that Kyle is the brightest guy in the FO as to personnel and its not even close.

 

I get your point of shouldn't that be all that matters?  Not for me.  If Kyle was the GM, I'd be with you but Bruce has final say and I think that matters.  At the very least, he is the face of the team from a FO stand point.  And IMO you don't want the team president to be a lightening rod type who if their name was announced at a game it would be accompanied by loud booing. 

 

Craig and Grant went over the Alex Smith trade and said that they heard it was all Bruce.  Craig speculated that Bruce probably heard weeks earlier from Jay that he liked Alex Smith -- and then just ran with that thought at a later time and made a deal.  I also recall the story from Shanny that he liked RG3 but not at that price.   Bruce made the deal. 

 

So the idea that Bruce for example is the guy bartering compensation for McNabb, J. Brown, A. Smith, RG3 -- that's pretty powerful.  And I am sure this thought won't surprise you that I think this way but I think Bruce isn't getting the better end of the stick of these trades.  I wish we had Howie Roseman -- there is a dude who knows how to get compensation for his players and getter the better end of deals.  

 

But to bring this back to a positive.  :)  While I haven't been warming up even a little to Doug Williams based on what've seen thus far as a front office guy -- aside from I do like his honesty.  The guy I had the most hopes for Kyle Smith (he fits the profile that I talked about in the FO thread -- pure personnel guy -- who talked about learning from his father and also Scot) looks like he might be the goods.  That's great.   But I won't love it until he's the actual GM who actually makes the calls versus Bruce or Doug making the calls. 

 

As I've told you many times, I don't think its an awful FO.  It's just "meh",  I think last years 7-9 record represents it well. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Craig Hoffman just called our scouts "good Scouts" @Skinsinparadise, that's all I've been wanting to hear because those are the guys I have a lot more faith in than the GM or person with the title.

 

And therein lies the issue. The guy with that title can choose to listen to their voices or not. They can be listened to when they shouldn’t be or ignored when they’re right. Do they follow Kyle Smith’s board, for instance, or do they reach for a need? 

 

If the scouts are good, do they enable them? If they aren’t, do they hold them accountable? Are the incentives to do a good job motivational enough? How valued are they within the organization? Is personnel acquisition, in an ultra-competitive professional league where everyone is trying to find talent with limited resources, viewed as importantly as it should be, or do they overly rely on coaches/schemes? 

 

The scouts being “good” is a positive only in as much as their leadership recognizes that and executes. So while it’s nice to have faith in our scouts, it can be rendered entirely meaningless by the GM you’re implying doesn’t matter as much (if I’m reading you correctly). 

 

But hopefully Hoffman knows what he’s talking about. I don’t know what he’s basing that on, but there are certainly promising signs they might be. It’s definitely a positive if they’re good in the first place, as it means the hiring process when bringing them in is likely sound. And it was good to see us last offseason invest more resources there (finally, for the love of God). 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing how short peoples memories are.  The 2012 and 2013 NFL drafts Allen picked a combined 3 good players, and one half a good player(Alfred Morris, because he only lasted a few years).  The 2014 draft yielded 3(lets not pretend we care Spencer Long and Ryan Grant are gone).

 

The 2015 draft yielded 3, with Spaight hopefully going to turn out but Im not counting on it, and the 2016 draft yielding 2, with hopefully 3 if Doctson makes it, and 4 if Cravens ever does anything.  So most likely 3.  Those 2 drafts were Scotts.  The 2 in 2012 and 2013 were Allens.

 

The one in 2014 we have known for a very very very very long time that the Redskins consulted with Scott on.  Giving Allen credit for the first draft he started consulting with our future GM on is a bridge too far considering his long running track record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

And therein lies the issue. The guy with that title can choose to listen to their voices or not. They can be listened to when they shouldn’t be or ignored when they’re right. Do they follow Kyle Smith’s board, for instance, or do they reach for a need? 

 

If the scouts are good, do they enable them? If they aren’t, do they hold them accountable? Are the incentives to do a good job motivational enough? How valued are they within the organization? Is personnel acquisition, in an ultra-competitive professional league where everyone is trying to find talent with limited resources, viewed as importantly as it should be, or do they overly rely on coaches/schemes? 

 

The scouts being “good” is a positive only in as much as their leadership recognizes that and executes. So while it’s nice to have faith in our scouts, it can be rendered entirely meaningless by the GM you’re implying doesn’t matter as much (if I’m reading you correctly). 

 

If Smith is a smart guy, he'll find ways to make DW and BA look good, and also to make them think they came up with Smith's ideas. That's how you handle an idiot boss.

 

I hope he's that type of smart guy...

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

And therein lies the issue. The guy with that title can choose to listen to their voices or not. They can be listened to when they shouldn’t be or ignored when they’re right. Do they follow Kyle Smith’s board, for instance, or do they reach for a need? 

 

If the scouts are good, do they enable them? If they aren’t, do they hold them accountable? Are the incentives to do a good job motivational enough? How valued are they within the organization? Is personnel acquisition, in an ultra-competitive professional league where everyone is trying to find talent with limited resources, viewed as importantly as it should be, or do they overly rely on coaches/schemes? 

 

The scouts being “good” is a positive only in as much as their leadership recognizes that and executes. So while it’s nice to have faith in our scouts, it can be rendered entirely meaningless by the GM you’re implying doesn’t matter as much (if I’m reading you correctly). 

 

But hopefully Hoffman knows what he’s talking about. I don’t know what he’s basing that on, but there are certainly promising signs they might be. It’s definitely a positive if they’re good in the first place, as it means the hiring process when bringing them in is likely sound. And it was good to see us last offseason invest more resources there (finally, for the love of God). 

 

Sorry TSO, but in my opinion these are semantic issues that you're bringing up. The end result is will it help us win games. As a football junkie I wish I knew more. Al Galdi was running clips from Office Space "so, what would you say you do here" on the front office. And while I would love to know these answers the thing I care more about is that they know, that they have motivation, that they have some type of structure and environment that works, and that we (as fans) see the result and are happy.

 

There have been two (MASSIVE) blunders by this front office - not signing Kirk and the way Scot was handled. As much as I hate those things, they don't give me a negative view on the FO that it does to some fans since I'm looking at the draft results since 2014 (the year Shanny got fired and that Bruce took over). I will admit that even before that, say 2011 I was seeing a change in philosophy but not good results - so I can be wrong in thinking that they've taken this approach or are as good at it as I'd like to think. We had the RG3 trade in 2012 that really impacted the 2013 and 2014 drafts. The players we got in 2013 weren't as good as the years that followed (although looking back Amerson, Reed and Thompson are all still in the league so maybe its not that bad). Rambo and Thomas had ruined that draft for me but they were low picks.

 

I really wish that the "face" of the front office were the scouts. Not the "head" scout, but the guys scouting the different regions, the guys who have no lives and live on the road out of a suitcase. How much impact they have, and how much Bruce listens to them is something I don't know. But if I'm a guy who's scouting and told Scot to go after Stefon Diggs and he instead drafted Matt Jones, it may not matter that much but if its a thing that happens 7 times within 3 drafts and my guys are tops in the league and yours are out of the league, not only will he and I know but other people inside and outside of the room will know. Its just like a coach not making halftime adjustments or being too controlling of the different aspects of the game, not listening to his coordinators and his position coaches, etc. Because in the same way that Gruden may say, "I know Mike Zimmer, I coached with him in Cincy and I know his tendencies so I'm going to override that decision", Scot or Bruce or whoever may say "I know USC QBs and they always suck so if there's a tie with him and a Alabama defensive player I'll defer to Alabama."

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

 

I get your point of shouldn't that be all that matters?  Not for me.  If Kyle was the GM, I'd be with you but Bruce has final say and I think that matters.  At the very least, he is the face of the team from a FO stand point.  And IMO you don't want the team president to be a lightening rod type who if their name was announced at a game it would be accompanied by loud booing. 

 

I think that we (Dan Snyder) have a problem with a single point of failure in a GM. Add to that, I think he likes to empower his coaches, kinda with a pick the groceries type of mentality. We've seen that with Spurrier, Gibbs, Shanny and now Gruden. As much as people talk about Doug, it really seems like Kyle and Santos are really filling the role(s) of GM. I'm assuming a lot because I know nothing other than what comes in reports, but Santos is Pro and Smith is College - that's what's in their titles. Above them are a bunch of VPs and a President but that reminds me of my team I work on. We know who does all the work and we know there are a lot of people in "leadership" who like to be kept up to date on things and may give a presentation because they know that we don't like to. (Public Speaking is the most feared thing in America, more than death). Outside people may say "oh, Leader Joe Schmoe just did some advanced work" but as Kirk said "people who know, know". And those people who know come to me and the people behind the product and ask the questions about how to work it on their system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Sorry TSO, but in my opinion these are semantic issues that you're bringing up. The end result is will it help us win games. As a football junkie I wish I knew more. Al Galdi was running clips from Office Space "so, what would you say you do here" on the front office. And while I would love to know these answers the thing I care more about is that they know, that they have motivation, that they have some type of structure and environment that works, and that we (as fans) see the result and are happy.

 

You call it “semantic issues”, but then your last statement in this paragraph is EXACTLY what I focused on. 

 

You do realize that it’s the leadership, the guy with the title you say you don’t care about or don’t want to be the “face”, that creates this “...motivation... structure and environment that works...”, right? 

 

Now, the problems you gloss over with the QB situation and previous GM are indicative of a major problem. You can’t just pass over that like it’s a side issue. Entire organizations succeed/fail just off of those two roles. The resource management regarding QB has been historically awful. That is a massive handicap for every scout, coach and player in the building. As for Scot, hiring a GM, then firing him in ugly fashion, then not replacing him indicates a lack of structure that belies logic. 

 

 You’re saying that you like how they’ve drafted or the results of their jobs, so therefore that’s all that matters, right?

 

No, because we don’t know exactly where that success came from. That’s the concern. Was it a result of Scot’s influence and, therefore, as that wanes they’ll get worse? That’s a legit question and why it was important to replace him properly. If they felt it was important to hire a personnel guy with that title after the 2014 season, like most successful organizations, why would that change!? Why is that suddenly improper? Are they saying they were stupid to create that position and hire someone with that expertise in the first place? 

 

Which is why, like @Skinsinparadise said, it’d be fine if one of those “good scouts”, like Kyle Smith assuming he is, actually had that title and was leading the charge there. How would that not be better going by your own logic that they’re the source of success? How is that just a semantic issue? I mean, are you saying you don’t mind the idea that they might be limited or hindered in fulfilling their roles of expertise by their leadership? 

 

We can absolutely question that and think they are a hindrance because, ultimately, the team as is hasn’t risen above mediocrity. Now, the roster was in really good shape last season (again, how much was Scot, how much wasn’t? We don’t know), and it’s unfortunate they just got massacred injury-wise, so maybe everything ends up great. But to act like this set up, which has failed repeatedly for the Skins in the past, along with the two massive issues you just glossed over, is nothing to be concerned about or doesn’t matter in the end? 

 

Sorry, can’t get on board with that. Definitely not a “semantic issue”. 

 

I hope you’re right, though, and all is well. That it ends up not affecting anyone negatively, that the leadership as is enables these guys and listen to the right voices at the right time. They did have something good going, hopefully it hasn’t been completely ruined and they can take the next step. It’s just hard to believe knowing what it takes organizationally in terms of structure and resource management when comparing them to the more consistently successful franchises (or even the ones who have success more intermittently but at the highest level). :) 

  • Like 3

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.