Makaveli

The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

What’s so unbelievable about what he’s saying though?  Why wouldn’t Dan be less than impressed with how Bruce has handled things, particularly the past three years?  Why wouldn’t Bruce’s seat be hot?

 

I guess I’m just not seeing what’s so crazy about what he’s saying.  Other than Dan being smart enough to know Bruce is a loser.

 

For one, the reported beef was between Scott and Bruce. But now Bruce was trying to fix the situation and Snyder wanted him fired after a couple months on the job? Then why would Scott praise Snyder and suggest he would come back under the right circumstances (Bruce being gone). Also have a really hard time believing the owner of the football team said “go hire a football guy” with zero input on the matter. And the part about Bruce’s quote on 106.7 inciting that much anger within Snyder seems like a bit of a reach. I don’t even get what the big deal is about that. All the proof I need though, is Bruce is still here. And firing Bruce would arguably result in a shift to positive PR, something Snyder very much likes. So why hang on to Bruce if you hate him that much. It’s not like the fan base is clamoring for Bruce to stay. Doesn’t pass the smell test.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

 

For one, the reported beef was between Scott and Bruce. But now Bruce was trying to fix the situation and Snyder wanted him fired after a couple months on the job? Then why would Scott praise Snyder and suggest he would come back under the right circumstances (Bruce being gone). Also have a really hard time believing the owner of the football team said “go hire a football guy” with zero input on the matter. 

You’re making a lot of assumptions.  Scot was here for two years, Im sure lots of stuff went on during that time.  Russell didn’t provide an all inclusive timeline of events for that entire period of two years.  It’s not bizarre to think relationships could evolve and deteriorate over that time period.

Share this post


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

You’re making a lot of assumptions.  Scot was here for two years, Im sure lots of stuff went on during that time.  Russell didn’t provide an all inclusive timeline of events for that entire period of two years.  It’s not bizarre to think relationships could evolve and deteriorate over that time period.

I don’t really understand where I’m making any assumptions. I’m comparing what I’ve heard in the past on the matter to what I’m now hearing. Both can’t be true. But I’m fairly confident Scott loathed Bruce. So at the very least, I don’t see how it’s possible Snyder wanted Scott gone a few months on the job and Bruce was trying to save Scott behind the scenes to make his hire of Scott look better. And Scott said himself that Dan was great and that was after his dismissal. Just doesn’t make any sense he would praise the guy who was trying to oust him 5 months in and by all accounts hate Bruce. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really hard IMO to tie different narratives together on this.

 

A, The thing to keep in mind about this Russell report it isn't totally out of left field.  Brewer had an article months back hitting similar points. 

B.  Beat reporter after beat reporter said its a make or break season in all likelihood for Bruce and maybe Jay where if it doesn't come together changes are likely coming.

C.  Dan has become a more behind the scenes kind of guy.  The one day I was at Redskins Park he wasn't even there -- I also recall one beat reporter say he's not there as much as he once was.

D. Loverro wrote an article not that long ago more or less saying from what he hears Bruce is safe as long as the stadium thing is in play -- he's instrumental in that.

 

I noticed from some debates here and on twitter that some defenders of Bruce see his critics as all about Scot or Kirk.  And they are right about some people.   But those subjects are really a sideshow at best for most of Bruce's critics as far as I've observed.  It's not like people really would dig Bruce being in this role but we've turned sour on him because of Scot and Kirk.   The thing is in early 2015 the lets get a real personnel guy versus Bruce was at fever pitch -- and Scot or Kirk weren't part of that thought at all.

 

The Russell narrative about Bruce and Dan and Scot has been told by him multiple times.  The cliff notes version of it was Dan wanted a football guy to run things after the 2014 season in part for PR reasons.  He told Bruce to get someone.  Bruce wanted it to be AJ Smith.  Dan didn't like Smith for that role in part because of his take on RG3. 

 

Bruce then came up with the Scot idea because he knew his family and used his scouting services.   Bruce though didn't use him in the role that Scot envisioned -- he took his recommendations like any scout but didn't give him final say even though he did mostly ride with his recommendations but didn't always.  Within 4-5 months there were some crazy things that happened involving Scot (he didn't say what those things were).  Dan wanted him gone for those antics whatever they were.  Dan was upset at Bruce for it because he was Bruce's hire.  According to Russell, Dan is still upset at Bruce because its another decision that has gone wrong.   

 

Now here is a key distinction that ties Russell's story together:  even though Dan wanted Scot gone for the antics he didn't like how Bruce ultimately handled the departure -- the whole soap opera about where he was, the leaks, the whole drill which made the Redskins look bad.  He thought the departure was mishandled and made the team look bad.  Which is a theme with Bruce running the ship. 

 

As for Russell being right or wrong who knows.  I suspect there is some truth to it.  But like any story, there seems to be layers and nuance to it.  Where Dan on one hand wanted Scot gone (not because of power related issues but because of antics).  Bruce wanted the hire to look good.  And even though Dan wanted Scot out, he hated how it was handled and how it played out to this day.

 

Look I am not fan of Dan but I can understand the thought.  I wanted Zorn gone in the worst way years back but I thought the firing and everything leading up to it looked so classless and dysfunctional that it turned me off big time.   I didn't celebrate the canning because it was so ugly. 

 

Ironically who is the common denominator besides Dan for crazy-ugly departures: Bruce.

A. Zorn

B. Shanny

C. the circus around RG3

D. the circus around Scot

E. the circus around the Kirk contract

 

The vibe that Russell gives about Dan relating to Bruce is he is tired of all these PR debacles which makes the team look bad.  And it does bother Dan that the media these days again consider the Redskins a laughingstock and dysfunctional and Bruce has fed into it.  I think its funny for example if Dan (like Russell said) is currently very upset about Bruce's comment about how everyone should be judged by their W-L record and the subsequent media ridicule.  It's another Bruce comment-action that makes the team easily lampooned. 

 

If all of this is true, I'd sum it this way, Dan thinks Bruce has contributed to the Redskins being considering a punch line from a PR point of view -- and they aren't winning enough to offset that image.  So Dan is one more Bruce faux pas from reassigning him.  But Bruce does have Dan by the balls because the stadium is the be all and end all right now and that's Bruce's baby.

 

Is all of this true?  Don't know.  But there is probably something to at least some of this. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why in the world did Doug not know about getting Alex Smith?

 

I kind of wish he had a better gig lined up and walked out in protest, to further pressure Dan into doing the obvious.  Or force Dan to choose.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

It's not really hard IMO to tie different narratives together on this.

 

A, The thing to keep in mind about this Russell report it isn't totally out of left field.  Brewer had an article months back hitting similar points. 

B.  Beat reporter after beat reporter said its a make or break season in all likelihood for Bruce and maybe Jay where if it doesn't come together changes are likely coming.

C.  Dan has become a more behind the scenes kind of guy.  The one day I was at Redskins Park he wasn't even there -- I also recall one beat reporter say he's not there as much as he once was.

D. Loverro wrote an article not that long ago more or less saying from what he hears Bruce is safe as long as the stadium thing is in play -- he's instrumental in that.

 

I noticed from some debates here and on twitter that some defenders of Bruce see his critics as all about Scot or Kirk.  And they are right about some people.   But those subjects are really a sideshow at best for most of Bruce's critics as far as I've observed.  It's not like people really would dig Bruce being in this role but we've turned sour on him because of Scot and Kirk.   The thing is in early 2015 the lets get a real personnel guy versus Bruce was at fever pitch -- and Scot or Kirk weren't part of that thought at all.

 

The Russell narrative about Bruce and Dan and Scot has been told by him multiple times.  The cliff notes version of it was Dan wanted a football guy to run things after the 2014 season in part for PR reasons.  He told Bruce to get someone.  Bruce wanted it to be AJ Smith.  Dan didn't like Smith for that role in part because of his take on RG3. 

 

Bruce then came up with the Scot idea because he knew his family and used his scouting services.   Bruce though didn't use him in the role that Scot envisioned -- he took his recommendations like any scout but didn't give him final say even though he did mostly ride with his recommendations but didn't always.  Within 4-5 months there were some crazy things that happened involving Scot (he didn't say what those things were).  Dan wanted him gone for those antics whatever they were.  Dan was upset at Bruce for it because he was Bruce's hire.  According to Russell, Dan is still upset at Bruce because its another decision that has gone wrong.   

 

Now here is a key distinction that ties Russell's story together:  even though Dan wanted Scot gone for the antics he didn't like how Bruce ultimately handled the departure -- the whole soap opera about where he was, the leaks, the whole drill which made the Redskins look bad.  He thought the departure was mishandled and made the team look bad.  Which is a theme with Bruce running the ship. 

 

As for Russell being right or wrong who knows.  I suspect there is some truth to it.  But like any story, there seems to be layers and nuance to it.  Where Dan on one hand wanted Scot gone (not because of power related issues but because of antics).  Bruce wanted the hire to look good.  And even though Dan wanted Scot out, he hated how it was handled and how it played out to this day.

 

Look I am not fan of Dan but I can understand the thought.  I wanted Zorn gone in the worst way years back but I thought the firing and everything leading up to it looked so classless and dysfunctional that it turned me off big time.   I didn't celebrate the canning because it was so ugly. 

 

Ironically who is the common denominator besides Dan for crazy-ugly departures: Bruce.

A. Zorn

B. Shanny

C. the circus around RG3

D. the circus around Scot

E. the circus around the Kirk contract

 

The vibe that Russell gives about Dan relating to Bruce is he is tired of all these PR debacles which makes the team look bad.  And it does bother Dan that the media these days again consider the Redskins a laughingstock and dysfunctional and Bruce has fed into it.  I think its funny for example if Dan (like Russell said) is currently very upset about Bruce's comment about how everyone should be judged by their W-L record and the subsequent media ridicule.  It's another Bruce comment-action that makes the team easily lampooned. 

 

If all of this is true, I'd sum it this way, Dan thinks Bruce has contributed to the Redskins being considering a punch line from a PR point of view -- and they aren't winning enough to offset that image.  So Dan is one more Bruce faux pas from reassigning him.  But Bruce does have Dan by the balls because the stadium is the be all and end all right now and that's Bruce's baby.

 

Is all of this true?  Don't know.  But there is probably something to at least some of this. 

 

 

 

Sure that’s great and all but nothing you said dispels what I just said. I’m not a Bruce supporter. If Dan comes to his senses and promotes the well respected Schaefer or hires a football guy from outside I’ll be grinning from ear to ear. Has nothing to do with being anti this guy or pro this guy. It has to do with making sense. And what just came out does not make any and directly contradicts what we have heard in the past. And I find the stadium narrative pretty funny to be honest. Bruce is still not in charge of player personnel because of the stadium. He could be paid handsomely and reassigned to another role within the organization as it’s already been touched on. Bruce doesn’t have Dan by the balls come on now. He could be fired at any moment. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Bruce doesn’t have Dan by the balls come on now. He could be fired at any moment. 

 

And once fired you and everyone else are still stuck with Dan Snyder bungling everything dealing with the team.

 

Promote another guy who already is involved with the Snyder Buffoonery day to day and don't be surprised when it's just more of the same **** for another decade of idiocy.

 

Sell the team. You're an idiot and it's never going to change Dan.

 

Let's be honest with ourselves for once... You couldn't even win with a HOF coach, or an almost HOF coach, or an QB coach that you decided needed to get a chance. Nobody is going to win with Doofus Dan trying to pretend to not be involved at all while ****ing **** up from the background.

 

Like a troll under his bridge, Dan Snyder ruins any chance of success for the Redskins.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

Sure that’s great and all but nothing you said dispels what I just said. I’m not a Bruce supporter. If Dan comes to his senses and promotes the well respected Schaefer or hires a football guy from outside I’ll be grinning from ear to ear. Has nothing to do with being anti this guy or pro this guy. It has to do with making sense. And what just came out does not make any and directly contradicts what we have heard in the past. And I find the stadium narrative pretty funny to be honest. Bruce is still not in charge of player personnel because of the stadium. He could be paid handsomely and reassigned to another role within the organization as it’s already been touched on. Bruce doesn’t have Dan by the balls come on now. He could be fired at any moment. 

1

 

I'm right there with you...a LOT about that report contradicts itself and doesn't quite make sense. For example, one of the things mentioned that could play a role in Bruce's firing or demotion is the possibility of losing the grievance and thus losing $2M to McCloughan. Yet it was Snyder who wanted Scot fired even earlier, which would have lead to even more money owed in a grievance. Also, the whole "Snyder hates the negative press so it's another reason Bruce might be gone" angle ignores the fact that Snyder has received damn near nothing BUT negative press his entire tenure as Skins owner lol...in fact, the negative press he (and the front office) has received this offseason is milquetoast in comparison to many past offseasons. Hell, Snyder has actually been praised quite a bit over the past few years for apparently taking the reigns to let Cousins know he was wanted here and for letting his "football people" have the last say, for better or for worse. The negative press angle seems incredibly weak, almost as if Russell was just throwing everything possible out there into the story. 

 

But I get it...if anyone hates Allen and loves any negative drama aimed at him, it won't matter if it makes sense or not. Ironically, I remember last year when the story came out from some writer that his sources told him Scot wanted Cousins signed long-term after training camp ended in 2015 but Bruce and Snyder said no. The initial reaction was basically "See? Scot knew! If Bruce had listened to him, Cousins could have been extended for like $12M per year!" None of that made any sense to me, and interestingly it ended up not making any sense to Chris Russell, either lol...he started tweeting a bunch of tweets about how the timeline doesn't match up in certain spots, how the views on Cousins after training camp by Scot himself contradicted the idea that Scot wanted him extended...stuff like that. Halfway through his multi-tweet questioning the sourced-report, Jason Reid responded to Russell saying something like, "Dude...what are you doing? You can't possibly believe this isn't true about Bruce and Dan." And Russell, to his credit, responded by basically saying "Doesn't matter whether or not I believe it, something about this doesn't make sense."

 

For the record, my default stance towards stories and reports claiming ego, pride, jealousy and other emotions are at the root of actions (or possible future actions) is to give a slight eyeroll and a head shake of derision lol...For all the hatred that was supposed to exist between Schotty and Snyder, Griffin and Shanny, Griffin and Cousin, Garcon and the Redskins, etc, etc, the reality behind the scenes was very much the opposite. Schotty recommended to Shanahan that he take the HC job with the Skins because he felt Snyder was an excellent owner to work for. Shanny gave a glowing recommendation to the Rams about Griffin after he was released. Garcon told Paul Richardson he should sign with the Skins and would be a good fit here, didn't warn him away from the "dysfunction" or anything like that. And Kendall Wright signed with the Vikings based in part on Griffin's praising Cousins "a lot" in private conversations with him. According to conventional fan wisdom, though, all of those relationships were supposed to be chock full of anger and jealousy and distrust and disrespect and bad blood poisoning everything between them.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

Sure that’s great and all but nothing you said dispels what I just said. I’m not a Bruce supporter. If Dan comes to his senses and promotes the well respected Schaefer or hires a football guy from outside I’ll be grinning from ear to ear. Has nothing to do with being anti this guy or pro this guy. It has to do with making sense. And what just came out does not make any and directly contradicts what we have heard in the past. And I find the stadium narrative pretty funny to be honest. Bruce is still not in charge of player personnel because of the stadium. He could be paid handsomely and reassigned to another role within the organization as it’s already been touched on. Bruce doesn’t have Dan by the balls come on now. He could be fired at any moment. 

1

 

Oh, and another thing that contradicts what we've heard in the past is this claim that Snyder told Allen to get a top-notch guy into the front office after the "disastrous" 2014 season (I think that's the word he used lol). But in reality, there were stories, both "reported" and published, that said Snyder gave his directive to Allen to stock the front office with the best football people during the 2014 offseason, which would make far more sense seeing as 2013 was much more disastrous than 2014 was, and also considering Allen and Scot were talking on and off throughout the 2014 season about him possibly joining the Redskins. But if you say the directive from Snyder came after Allen's first and (to that point) only year in charge of everything, it fits the narrative better...as if Snyder saw how bad Allen was and immediately told him to find someone to take his place as GM. So, you know, why wouldn't he do it again, right?

Edited by Califan007

Share this post


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

 

Sure that’s great and all but nothing you said dispels what I just said. I’m not a Bruce supporter. If Dan comes to his senses and promotes the well respected Schaefer or hires a football guy from outside I’ll be grinning from ear to ear. Has nothing to do with being anti this guy or pro this guy. It has to do with making sense. And what just came out does not make any and directly contradicts what we have heard in the past. And I find the stadium narrative pretty funny to be honest. Bruce is still not in charge of player personnel because of the stadium. He could be paid handsomely and reassigned to another role within the organization as it’s already been touched on. Bruce doesn’t have Dan by the balls come on now. He could be fired at any moment. 

 

While I am not doubting your claim about not being a Bruce supporter, its tough for me to see your point of view as a neutral observer just calling it as it is.  You've invested plenty of time on multiple subjects defending Bruce.  As I have invested time challenging him.  So i am not saying I am more objective than you.  I am saying we both have our invested biases.

 

I've heard enough on my terms to have serious doubts about Bruce's character and competence.  You've heard enough to think people have unfairly judged him on multiple subjects.  So a story like this confirms to my ears other things I've heard that flow with my beliefs.  For you, you are willing to challenge this just as much as other criticism leveled at Bruce.  Makes sense both ways. 

 

All meant in good spirits, but I can dissect your points in part by adding other narratives from other sources and maybe I'll be in the mood to do it later but at the moment I suspect we'd be wasting each others time.  Ditto some other posts here from others for the same reason.

 

The one thing I'd enjoy to see Bruce go is the dude is one heck of a polarizing subject.  It just gets me mad even thinking about it.  So I'll chill at least for the moment and see what happens next.  :)

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Now here is a key distinction that ties Russell's story together:  even though Dan wanted Scot gone for the antics he didn't like how Bruce ultimately handled the departure -- the whole soap opera about where he was, the leaks, the whole drill which made the Redskins look bad.  He thought the departure was mishandled and made the team look bad.  Which is a theme with Bruce running the ship. 

 

As for Russell being right or wrong who knows.  I suspect there is some truth to it.  But like any story, there seems to be layers and nuance to it.  Where Dan on one hand wanted Scot gone (not because of power related issues but because of antics).  Bruce wanted the hire to look good.  And even though Dan wanted Scot out, he hated how it was handled and how it played out to this day.

 

Look I am not fan of Dan but I can understand the thought.  I wanted Zorn gone in the worst way years back but I thought the firing and everything leading up to it looked so classless and dysfunctional that it turned me off big time.   I didn't celebrate the canning because it was so ugly. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there is any truth to this story (and I honestly think there is) I think this has a lot to do with it.  I don't think Dan has the major issues with the poor decisions, but instead his frustration revolves around how the departure goes.  Every high profile member of this franchise is always sold as hope, then when it doesn't pan out they are completely vilified.  Almost always is there some sort of over the top accusation, leak, or story that comes from the front office to degrade the reputation of whoever is leaving.  

 

Scot - Alcohol

Kirk - well we offered him a big contract, he never wanted to be here

RG3 - Deactivated majority of the season

 

 

 

I want to say I even remember some of the other 'sons of washington' style players being scorned leaving here.  Portis, Cooley, Moss, Fletcher... why do I feel like they were done a little dirty on their exit?  Obviously these guys are still involved with the team on a level so it wasn't TERRIBLE, but I want to say they each had some ammo to be at least a little miffed with the front office.

 

"Winning off the field"

Calling Kirk 'Kurt' in every interview he's done since 2012

Kendall Fuller - Learned of being traded via twitter

 

All of these situations are normal football operations that franchises go through, but they always seem to end up with a sour taste being left in the mouth of the fans not because they necessarily happen, but because at the end of the day we look back and it's "man that was ugly."

 

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

If there is any truth to this story (and I honestly think there is) I think this has a lot to do with it.  I don't think Dan has the major issues with the poor decisions, but instead his frustration revolves around how the departure goes.  Every high profile member of this franchise is always sold as hope, then when it doesn't pan out they are completely vilified.  Almost always is there some sort of over the top accusation, leak, or story that comes from the front office to degrade the reputation of whoever is leaving.  

 

I get that point but I think the bad exits is just one of the things but granted a key component of the bad PR.  Russell's vibe is its the accumulation of all these stories.  Last year was a PR train wreck IMO and the Scot exit was the lead dance to it.  But according to Russell even though this year hasn't been as bad -- the getting nothing in return for Kirk, the Doug out of the loop story and the we should be judged by our won loss record -- all bother Dan. It's just more logs in the fire.   Even though none of those narratives were exit driven.

 

As to people leaving on bad terms, I don't know though how much Dan can blame Bruce since that's part of his ammo, too.   But I think it all feeds into the idea of is Bruce managing this team well and is he largely responsible for the perception that dysfunction reigns supreme again at Redskins Park.   

 

As I've said well before this Russell story -- the one thing I liked about Bruce initially was the Redskins are dysfunctional narrative went away for years when he was here.   It used to be brutal.  But than it was gone.  I loved that.  But now it's an organization that is fashionable to make fun of again.  I hate that they are back on this ride.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

While I am not doubting your claim about not being a Bruce supporter, its tough for me to see your point of view as a neutral observer just calling it as it is.  You've invested plenty of time on multiple subjects defending Bruce.  As I have invested time challenging him.  So i am not saying I am more objective than you.  I am saying we both have our invested biases.

 

I've heard enough on my terms to have serious doubts about Bruce's character and competence.  You've heard enough to think people have unfairly judged him on multiple subjects.  So a story like this confirms to my ears other things I've heard that flow with my beliefs.  For you, you are willing to challenge this just as much as other criticism leveled at Bruce.  Makes sense both ways. 

 

All meant in good spirits, but I can dissect your points in part by adding other narratives from other sources and maybe I'll be in the mood to do it later but at the moment I suspect we'd be wasting each others time.  Ditto some other posts here from others for the same reason.

 

The one thing I'd enjoy to see Bruce go is the dude is one heck of a polarizing subject.  It just gets me mad even thinking about it.  So I'll chill at least for the moment and see what happens next.  :)

Lol I’m not questioning the validity because it slams Bruce. I’m questioning the validitiy because it doesn’t really make any sense, for the third time. 

 

Why is is it so hard for you and others to understand that I can praise or defend Bruce on some matters, yet still want him gone for various other reasons? I guess because I joined ES right when the Cousins debacle was coming to a close, and I came across far more lenient on Bruce since I too didn’t agree that Cousins with his impressive 0 playoff wins was worth a contract that only quarterbacks who can carry average to below average teams on their arm to the playoffs deserve. And I’m pleasantly surprised by this off season. But yeah, overall, I think there’s MUCH better out there. Both in terms of personality/leadership ability and football acumen. My so called bias for Bruce has literally nothing to do with me questioning this making sense. Lol I’m just wondering if it’s really Scott or Dan that hates Bruce here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

Why is is it so hard for you and others to understand that I can praise or defend Bruce on some matters? 

 

It's hard because of the volume of posts you make defending him.   So if you want Bruce gone -- I'll take your word for it.  All cool. :)  Regardless of opinion, neither side of course has the higher moral ground.  It's all point of view.

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


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

 

 

It's hard because of the volume of posts you make defending him.   So if you want Bruce gone -- I'll take your word for it.  All cool. :)  Regardless of opinion, neither side of course has the higher moral ground.  It's all point of view.

I think part of it is perpspective too. Being a fan of my generation that has witnessed nothing but Dan Snyder, these last three years where we have fielded a competitive football team has been a welcome change of pace compared to all the other debacles that have taken place. To those that have seen the glory years and saw three Super Bowl wins, yeah this is all crap in comparison lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

Calling Kirk 'Kurt' in every interview he's done since 2012

 

We have to give him a break on that one, come on. Linguistic experts have established that Bruce speaks a rare form of southern dialect that made it physically impossible for him not to have his k's always sound like t's when followed by the letters i and r. Just forget the fact that when the media piled on over this matter, he was miraculously healed of this impediment. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


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

why in the world did Doug not know about getting Alex Smith?

Because Doug was hired into that position just for show. Snyder might not be good at building a winning team, but he is good at coddling a certain portion of the fanbase.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Califan007 and @HardcoreZorn 

 

When you guys give reasons that these reports contradict themselves, they make sense. For example, one point Cali made is that Snyder can't blame the McCloughan grievance on Allen because it would have been worse if Snyder got his way. That makes perfect sense with one minor oversight...that would require Snyder to look in the mirror and take accountability for what he wanted. We really don't know if he's capable of that so it's tough to assume that he'd weigh those things rather than piling them onto Allen. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I think part of it is perpspective too. Being a fan of my generation that has witnessed nothing but Dan Snyder, these last three years where we have fielded a competitive football team has been a welcome change of pace compared to all the other debacles that have taken place. To those that have seen the glory years and saw three Super Bowl wins, yeah this is all crap in comparison lol. 

 

It's competitive football I agree.   Bruce deserves credit for their new found mediocrity.   But as I've said probably too many times, I don't have much confidence he can elevate this team above mediocrity in part because the mediocrity is very QB centric without much else cooking.  And I don't think he's helped the image of the team -- at the beginning he did but it has really gone south to me in a big way.  Schaffer I think would bring significantly more competence and class. 

Share this post


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

The stuff he’s saying isn’t the kind of stuff most beat guys are going to get.  It’s pretty obvious that he’s got someone in Ashburn feeding him this stuff, atleast for the past year or two.  Russell is absolutely an annoying personality to listen to, but he’s been closer to the Ashburn dirt of late than anyone else.

Based on what?

 

His own word?  So hes reliable because he says hes reliable, and we just throw out his entire past history?  Thats insanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dissident2 said:

 

We have to give him a break on that one, come on. Linguistic experts have established that Bruce speaks a rare form of southern dialect that made it physically impossible for him not to have his k's always sound like t's when followed by the letters i and r. Just forget the fact that when the media piled on over this matter, he was miraculously healed of this impediment. 

 

 

:) 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

It's competitive football I agree.   Bruce deserves credit for their new found mediocrity.   But as I've said probably too many times, I don't have much confidence he can elevate this team above mediocrity in part because the mediocrity is very QB centric without much else cooking.  And I don't think he's helped the image of the team -- at the beginning he did but it has really gone south to me in a big way.  Schaffer I think would bring significantly more competence and class. 

And this is another thing we really disagree on. I don’t think last years roster was a mediocre one. I think we were a top ten football team that got ravaged by injuries. But before we started dropping like flies, we could play with anyone. But as we’ve already hashed out, this year will be super telling one way or the other. 

 

There arent too many teams out there that have a bookend pair of tackles, a couple formidable outside rushers, a potential force up front in J Allen, and then some really good other pieces like Reed (for the love of god stay healthy) Norman, Zach Brown, Swearinger, Thompson, Scherff etc. A lot of upside guys as well like Doc and Nicholson that I think have the chance to really break out this year. There’s more cooking than just the QB , but hey that’s just my opinion. 

Edited by HardcoreZorn
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

And this is another thing we really disagree on. I don’t think last years roster was a mediocre one. I think we were a top ten football team that got ravaged by injuries. But before we started dropping like flies, we could play with anyone. But as we’ve already hashed out, this year will be super telling one way or the other. 

 

There arent too many teams out there that have a bookend pair of tackles, a couple formidable outside rushers, a potential force up front in J Allen, and then some really good other pieces like Reed (for the love of god stay healthy) Norman, Zach Brown, Swearinger, Thompson, Scherff etc. A lot of upside guys as well like Doc and Nicholson that I think have the chance to really break out this year. There’s more cooking than just the QB , but hey that’s just my opinion. 

 

If you look at the playoff teams most of them were well above average in both running the ball and stopping the run.  We were wretched at it.  Not mediocre.  But awful at it.

 

My take on the team last year.  We had a very good QB with mediocre passing weapons and a very good play caller, a good O line got badly injured and a bad special teams, bad defense (at least as for run stopping) and a bad running game.   So for me that adds to mediocre.  If they had better health, I think maybe it was a 9-7 team.  Some people say what if they were all healthy but to me that's a false premise.  We can't just assume a scenario where everybody is healthy -- that season will never exist in football.  That's why depth is part of the drill.  

 

This off season thus far has been "meh" to me as for fixing any of this but I'll add a big disclaimer to it which is the off season isn't done.  More help could be coming.  And I like our position in this draft with all the QBs likely drafted early.  So I won't judge until its over.  

 

The main thing they accomplished is continued good QB play.  I think for that reason they remain in the mediocre reign otherwise they'd be IMO below that.  At this present time, they lost more guys than they signed.  But I am curious to see what happens next.  I am not saying this team can't rise above mediocrity.  I am not just buying into it until I see it. 

 

At the moment, to me the best part of this team has been Kirk and I suspect now Alex Smith working with Jay's offense.  As for building this roster in terms of special teams, defense, and the running game -- its been "meh" to me for years.  But Jay working with Kirk and now working with Alex -- that gets me jazzed.  I wished I could be jazzed as for wondering about what Bruce is going to do with the rest of the roster. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but when you start the most OL combinations in the league over the course of the season, along with getting down to your 5th and 6th RBs that you are grabbing off the street literally weeks before, I really wouldn’t expect them to have a great run game. And on the opposite side of the ball, when you lose your best DL, your next best one breaks his hand, and then lose your best thumper at linebacker in Foster and then Brown also went down, I wouldn’t expect us to be plugging the run with much effectiveness either. There are injuries, and then there is the 2017 Washington Redskins. It also so happens that the majority of the playoff teams were the least injured. Your argument for why we were mediocre lacks a bit of context in my opinion. When we went into arrowhead and played the undefeated Chiefs and were a dropped Doctson TD from winning, we were not a mediocre football team. We were playing with a level of intensity and talent I hadn’t seen in a long long time. Probably since Grilliams defenses under Gibbs II. Were the first 5-6 games a fluke? I suppose it’s possible. Think it’s far more likely our unprecedented amount of injuries to key starters had a huge part in our unraveling. Again, huge difference between what we witnessed last year, and assuming perfect health across the board this year. We’ll no doubt lose some guys, that’s football. Hopefully and likely that we regress to the mean in that department this year. So agree to disagree. 

Share this post


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

Based on what?

 

His own word?  So hes reliable because he says hes reliable, and we just throw out his entire past history?  Thats insanity.

Perhaps you ignore him, but over the past year and change he’s been out in front of stuff.

 

I’m not going to bother going through it all but it’s out there if you want to find it. 

Edited by BatteredFanSyndrome

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.