Makaveli

The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, dyst said:

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.

 

But he is clearly not good at coddling for long, and that portion is dwindling quick with the latest news. The cats already out of the bag in just 9 months.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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

 if your point is the running game might have been good with better luck -- judging by Doug's comments and all that we are hearing about how they are going to address the Rb position in this draft -- even they don't believe that.   Among other things I posted a comment in the draft thread from Keim as to what he hears and that includes the team isn't sold on Perine.

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 And on the opposite side of the ball, when you lose your best DL, your next best one breaks his hand

 

2 good d lineman who can both rush the passer and stop the run is a thin D line.  I think Doug gets that too, its the other position he emphasized that they will address.

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

There are injuries, and then there is the 2017 Washington Redskins. 

 

The 2016 Redskins couldn't stop the run either or run the ball.  And if I recall their special teams wasn't hot either but maybe I am misrembering that part.

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

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. 

 

I agree in one sense.  The team looked good early.  But we were still 2-2 at that point.  We weren't some juggernaut.  The Chiefs ultimately slid pretty soon after that game including losing to the mighty NY Giants and as for the Raiders (while highly touted before that game) they had a ho hum season.  In retrospect, the Rams was the best win of the year.  As for coming close -- it cuts both ways -- I was at the SF game (the team wasn't totally decimated at that point) and they were lucky to eke a victory.  SF could have easily won it.  And if I recall SF at that point didn't yet win a game.

 

To me it felt like a 9-7 team in the beginning.   We had a faze in the 2016 season too where we looked really good and a sure fire playoff team but they faded.    So, I've learned not to go crazy about a window of success.   Consistency-depth are all big for winning teams.  And yeah I think a more healthy Redskins team would have been a winner but not a big winner.   Hence my 9-7 thoughts.  But who knows?

 

I don't see them having a good running game if only Trent and the gang were healthy the whole time.  And my button is the D line -- ok so two of their better big boys got hurt.  OK, boo hoo - that happens quite a lot on the D line.   Two guys aren't going to get hurt on the D line this time?   Rams-Eagles-Vikings already had two studs on their D line so why bother adding another mega stud this off season like they did?  Simple.  The big boys get hurt.  Depth reigns supreme especially at that position let alone its also a rotational position where the same players aren't getting rep after rep like other positions.   

 

So I am not fazed with any lamenting about Allen and Ionnaidis missing some games -- that position specifically is all about depth -- so any misfortune that comes from a thin d line is well earned. I think Doug gets this too hence he's has been almost as hot talking about D line as RB.

 

My biggest points of optimism this off season is that the front office's rhetoric matches perfectly my criticism as for why I think their roster's holes were too big to compete with the big boys last season.  So they've talked the talked -- I think we are going to see them walk the walk and hopefully in a big way in the draft.

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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. 

 

This one again. :rofl89:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why, maybe I'm high off the Kevin Hogan trade, but I just got a surge of homerism/optimism. 

 

If you truly look at the season, we were so competitive nearly all year. In both Eagle games, we really had our chances to win. Opening day felt like a game we played a D+ game and it was a one-score game before the classic Cousins gift TD. Then there were the back-to-back wins vs. the Rams and Raiders. After that, we played the Chiefs pretty tight when they looked great. Dallas we had beat until momentum swung on the blocked FG (due to our failures in the red zone). We beat Seattle (admittedly with some good fortune) and had New Orleans beat. The only two games I felt like we had no shot were the Cowboys game in Dallas and the Giants game to end the season. The Vikings game was close since we never seemed to have a prayer in stopping their offense...but it felt hopeful because we scored easily on a great team. 

 

I don't know...it's not ridiculous to look at an "alternate reality" of some of those games a see 10 or 11 wins pile up in a few scenarios. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

@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. 

 

Yep, but unfortunately the writer (Russell?) doesn't mention any of that. He doesn't acknowledge the inconsistency of Snyder's alleged anger over money possibly lost in the grievance nor the possibility of Snyder not being self-aware enough to realize Allen saved him from himself. It's just presented as yet another Allen blunder on the list of reasons he might get demoted or fired. 

 

It doesn't come across as if Russell thought it through...if it had been me hearing anything like this from a source, I would question the source about it further before adding it to my story. Russell has even mentioned (again to his credit) that sometimes writers are lied to by their sources who may have their own agendas or that writers run with info from sources without checking it thoroughly in order to get it out first. 

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I don't know...it's not ridiculous to look at an "alternate reality" of some of those games a see 10 or 11 wins pile up in a few scenarios. 

 

I think it depends on what you focus on.   I think personally it was a 9-7 team if healthy.  Good not great.   I just don't see teams that can't run the ball or stop the run typically being a serious threat especially when the weather gets colder later in the season and into the playoffs.

 

My optimism is if they fix both things and I think they are committed to do it in the draft -- it can finally propel the team into the 10-11 game range. 

 

I was just re-watching the coaches tape for the first Giants game. And to me that first drive on both sides of the ball told the tale to me for why the team wasn't poised to be a serious threat last year.   Redskins have 3rd and 1.   Damon Harrison (a real nose tackle) just pushes back Perine on that play like he's a rag doll.  Stopped in his tracks.  I recall Harrison doing the same to our backs in the infamous 2016 game.  Then the Giants have the ball themselves 3rd and short.  We got Hood playing nose.  And McGee (our next best run stopper) playing 2 technique on the left and Ionnaidis on the right.  They are all squeezed tight in the middle (A-B gap) to stop the run.  But no problem for the Giants, their RB (I think it was Darkwa) bounces off a tackle and gets a few yards.

 

 I was at the NO game when Perine again was stuffed at 3rd and 1.  No chance. Depressing to see it happen.  Conversely when the Saints had to run the ball to put the game away -- it looked easy for them.    That IMO has to stop for this team to become a 10-11 win team.   Just my opinion. :)

 

KC was good last year but they weren't NE.  It was the same team that soon after struggled including losing to the Giants, Jets and Bills.  Are the Raiders who people thought they were before the season or the 6-10 team they were that season?  Raiders weren't very good.   If you look at the Arizona box score, Arizona dominated it statistically but Gabbert's turnovers helped them pull through regrdless.  SF was a nip and tuck game at home. 

 

The Seahawks was a good win but we got lucky with two easy missed field calls on their end.   So yeah we can go hey if Doctson caught that ball but we can just as easily say if the refs didn't give that questionable personal foul call on Garcon they might have been SF first win of the season or if the Seahawks field goal kicker was just average, they'd have lost that one.

 

I think luck in wins and loses tend to even out.  But going back to optimism.  I think the teams weaknesses were so glaring that they were limited last year IMO from going beyond being a 9-7 or so team -- but they are also so easily fixed IMO.  If you add one dominant type of DT and a really good RB -- I think this can be a 10-11 team.  But I am not going to get excited until I see it happen.  On the draft thread though I am practically giddy about some of the possibilities at RB in the draft. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

 

I think it depends on what you focus on.   I think personally it was a 9-7 team if healthy.  Good not great.   I just don't see teams that can't run the ball or stop the run typically being a serious threat especially when the weather gets colder later in the season and into the playoffs.

 

<clipped for space considerations>

 

Great post and you're certainly not wrong. That's my true feel on this team too. I guess I was just going with the statistical look at the 2017 season. It feels like if you "re-ran" that season 100 times, there would be some simulations that net 11 wins. Honestly, with these jokers in charge, that's our hope as fans...that we get some great fortune and have one of those seasons where everything bounces our way. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 7:42 PM, HardcoreZorn said:

 

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.

 

I just read this post more closely.  Tying different narratives together including from Russell.  Dan doesn't hate Bruce.  Russell didn't say that. Heck even though Dan is supposedly frustrated he still according to Russell won't fire him but reassign him.   

 

The advantage I might have as to Russell is I listen to him all the time so I've heard him elaborate and expound on this many times and to me at least his story ties fine.  The key distinction though is believing that if Bruce hires someone his reputation is on the line for the hire.   That seems to be the story with Dan.  Makes sense to me except for the irony of it   considering Dan's own history on the subject.

 

It doesn't mean Russell is right but he's been on fire for awhile about stories including breaking the Scot story, the Doug promotion, even assistant coaching hires before anyone else had these stories.  So I'd guess 50-50 at least there is something to all of this.

 

Now taking Russell's explanation and some of others too.  Dan doesn't hate Bruce.  He loves the dude.  Just like he loved Cerrato, too.  Like Cerrato, Bruce is Dan's friend and supposedly social crutch.  I've said on this thread previously -- Russell has talked about it among others, Bruce is Dan's social butterfly at the owner meetings among other places.  Dan's a bit awkward socially but Bruce is the belle of the ball.  (I am using hyperbole to make a point.)   

 

However, as Cerrato himself has said in an interview, when bad PR becomes too intense for Dan and his family he tends to act and he said that's what happened to him.    

 

And according to Russell, Dan has gotten annoyed at the slew of bad PR and drubbing this team has taken from the media.   It's not about just one thing but the accumulation of them.

 

Russell's narrative is close to Brewer's narrative.  Now Mike Jones has a different version of the story -- his thing is that Bruce is indeed on the hot seat but the pressure really isn't directly from Dan but from the minority owners who don't think much of Bruce.

 

I noticed in another post, if I recall correctly you challenged the idea that Bruce had any power over Dan because of the stadium.  There are two different narratives on that one.  You got the Loverro one which is that Bruce big time has the power -- he's the driving force of the deal and the stadium is the be all and end all for Dan at the moment.  Then you got Brewer's story which is that people on the inside are trying to convince Dan they can do the stadium deal without Bruce and his political connections, etc. 

 

And as for the Scot stuff -- and this point isn't directed at you.  I always find it odd that we at times got debates about Dan's hires (or in this case Bruce's hire) as if its natural for them to be at odds with the hire ultimately.  And somehow there is a winning side in the discussion.   The thing is if Dan or Bruce are at odds with one of their hires -- they are the loser no matter what side you take.  There is no winning side for hiring someone and that hire goes wrong.   One of your main jobs as an owner is to hire the right people.   In fact you can argue that hiring the right people is the most important task for an owner period.

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Keim: Here’s what I know, having covered Dan Snyder’s entire regime: He doesn’t like prolonged losing or an angry (or, even worse, apathetic) fan base. I don’t buy that team president Bruce Allen is in this job for life; Vinny Cerrato wasn’t and he was a favorite of Snyder’s parents. My understanding is that Allen and coach Jay Gruden are well aware of the situation -- a third season out of the playoffs is bad for job security. Real bad. Keep in mind that Gruden is entering his fifth year -- no other coach has lasted more than four since Snyder took over in 1999.

Cerrato was fired late in the 2009 season after 10 years. But after two years of Jim Zorn and with fans staying away and posting signs at the stadium, Snyder responded with a move many said he’d never make. 

 

...Who knows. I do know the Redskins had better win. If not, that will lead to more negativity surrounding the franchise. And then, yes, I could see Snyder doing something after the season. That's not a guarantee because I haven't heard it from someone directly in the know or from multiple people close to the situation. But Snyder applies pressure and the Redskins haven't won enough. So anything that happens if they don't once again shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/36187/dan-snyders-history-suggests-another-losing-season-wont-be-tolerated

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like some people make way to many excuses the Snyder/Allen tandem. We should be looking at sucess as the barometer and from that its clear they are failures.

 

I don’t care about cap penalties, injuries, drunk GMs, or difficult schedules because to me, those are just excuses to hide the truth, which is a poorly managed team with very little experienced leadership and even less foresight.

 

It’s depressing as **** that year in, year out we hear the same excuses by a small group of fans for this team. Makes me wonder if they only started watching the team this year because if you’ve been following them even for 5 years, you’d know the dysfunction & mismanagement is always there lurking in the shadows.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dyst said:

I feel like some people make way to many excuses the Snyder/Allen tandem. We should be looking at sucess as the barometer and from that its clear they are failures.

 

I don’t care about cap penalties, injuries, drunk GMs, or difficult schedules because to me, those are just excuses to hide the truth, which is a poorly managed team with very little experienced leadership and even less foresight.

 

It’s depressing as **** that year in, year out we hear the same excuses by a small group of fans for this team. Makes me wonder if they only started watching the team this year because if you’ve been following them even for 5 years, you’d know the dysfunction & mismanagement is always there lurking in the shadows.

 

Let me counter that by saying the "It's all a sign of dysfunction" explanation is equally as irritating. That's not to say that the Skins don't have their own individual brand of dysfunction going on, but it does mean that not every move fans don't like is a sign of its existence. A lot of moves the Redskins make are considered normal moves across the league...they're not more evidence of dysfunction. I mean, when the Redskins releasing Nate stinkin' Sudfeld because they want to put him on the practice squad (which means he has to be released to do so) is seen as nothing but "more dysfunction" lol...come on, now.

 

And mentioning things like injuries or strength of schedule are attempts at putting things in context to better understand player performance, game results and front office decisions, and to hopefully lead to better discussions and debates here on ES. They are also often brought up when someone incorrectly makes a claim like "The Skins weren't any more injured than any other team" or "the Skins' strength of schedule was middle of the pack." Ironically, a lot of people who bring up incorrect facts to criticize the Skins, when their claims are shown to be inaccurate end up saying "It doesn't matter, the point I was making is that nothing will change until Allen/Snyder/Whoever is gone!"...ok, if it doesn't matter to the point you were making, why bring up the incorrect fact to begin with?

 

Focusing only on wins, losses and success ignores so damn much in assessing players, coaches, teams and FO decisions. I mean, if we apply that logic and just go on winning records and "success" to determine everything, then Alex Smith is a gargantuan upgrade over Kirk Cousins, and at significant savings, and trading for him was a fantastic move. Sucks we didn't get anything for Kirk but come on, his W/L record and playoff success wasn't nearly as good as Smith's and the Chiefs only got a 3rd rounder and Fuller for Smith. And while Fuller was really good last year he's no Deion Sanders or anything. What would we have gotten for Cousins... a 4th round pick, maybe? Hell, we'll get more than that in a conpensatory pick by just letting Cousins walk.

 

All of that would have been a logical argument to make if we took the stance that the strength of defenses Cousins had to go up against, the level of injuries the team experienced along the OLine and offensive playmakers, the lack of a #1 WR, the lack of a running game, and playing for a "dysfunctional' franchise were all nothing more than excuses to hide the fact that Cousins is a loser who chokes in big games. And yes, some people have made that dumb-ass argument.

 

There is never, EVER, a bad reason for putting things into better and proper context. And we shouldn't discourage people from doing so. You can still criticize Allen and Snyder to your heart's content, it shouldn't stop anyone. But at least the criticisms will (hopefully) focus on the correct things TO criticize, which (again, hopefully) will lead to better board discussions as to where the dysfunction actually lies, why it exists, and what--if anything--has been done over the years to address it. Because saying "just more evidence of Redskins dysfunction" should not be some carte blanche response applied to damn near every move the Redskins make that trumps everything else...and the Skins' win-loss record over the years shouldn't be seen as evidence that response is correct.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that same article @Skinsinparadise just posted above by Keim, I thought this was really an interesting nugget: 

 

Quote

Still, for what it’s worth, Snyder was in London the week before Easter and returned in a good mood (he was there visiting soccer teams to see their recovery centers; the Redskins are building one).

 

When I read this stuff it’s bittersweet. It also touches upon my main issue with the Russel stuff as well in terms of Allen vs. Schaffer (see final paragraph for that connection). 

 

There are many facets of good leadership signs here. Research, acquire intel, find out what others who are successful in their various fields are doing, have a system/hiring process that supports innovation and creativity while maintaining sound principles that have always worked, etc... 

 

So I absolutely loved to read that, but then it hits home how late to the game this is. Why does it take absolute disasters to look into things like that? If I accept this as a good thing, I can’t also hide from the reality of just how behind we are. That is an internal contradiction no amount of homerism can overcome if I’m being sincere. 

 

And before anyone chimes in with the lazy go to of “he’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t”, please don’t apply silly generalizations to those of us who’ve recognized the issues and hold nuanced positions in order to make your weak point that seeks to justify virtually every single thing the top brass does. 

 

I’ve personally always maintained that it’s ridiculous to assume Snyder shouldn’t be involved at all. He’s the owner, so he’s ultimately responsible for everything. What we don’t want, however, is unwarranted interference.  Basically, the type of interference whereby a role he’s given in his organizational setup (presumably and hopefully to an expert in that respective field) is undermined without consent. 

 

I’m glad to hear he’s involved in upgrading the facilities. I don’t even care what people think, or even if they’re right, in that it’s really just psychological or insignificant or whatever. Just put the effort in. Try.

 

That goes a long way. Especially for a sports franchise that generates top ten revenue in the entire world. I mean, how dare they not be on the cutting edge with their facilities. 

 

And it’s something perfectly within the realm of his overarching responsibility where he’s not stepping on anyone’s toes that he hired for that specific role. Unless we come to find out the medical staff is against it or he hasn’t involved them at all, lol. I doubt that, though. And I think there was an article done by Lake Lewis talking about Trent Murphy and the medical team initiating all this, anyway. 

 

So good job Snyder, glad you’re doing that, but I hope you’re more proactive and less reactive from here on out. 

Edited by thesubmittedone
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

From that same article @Skinsinparadise just posted above by Keim, I thought this was really an interesting nugget: 

 

 

When I read this stuff it’s bittersweet. It also touches upon my main issue with the Russel stuff as well in terms of Allen vs. Schaffer (see final paragraph for that connection). 

 

There are many facets of good leadership signs here. Research, acquire intel, find out what others who are successful in their various fields are doing, have a system/hiring process that supports innovation and creativity while maintaining sound principles that have always worked, etc... 

 

So I absolutely loved to read that, but then it hits home how late to the game this is. Why does it take absolute disasters to look into things like that? If I accept this as a good thing, I can’t also hide from the reality of just how behind we are. That is an internal contradiction no amount of homerism can overcome if I’m being sincere. 

 

1

 

Remember one of the first things Shanahan did after being hired? He subscribed the team to a scouting service. I remember how Skins scouts said they had never used a scouting service before and were one of the last teams to start using one. I just thought "WTF!!!" lol...seemed like an incredibly obvious thing to do. I wouldn't necessarily use "dysfunction" to explain why that was...maybe "ineptitude"? I'm wavering lol...

 

s-55569f8b57ae19495c8d7b40c0cb463727f2d5

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 1
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little info that's still relevant today, especially when considering what McCloughan was assumed to have control over when he was here, and perhaps some insight as to Shanahan's less than successful years here and Allen's hiring philosophy and current FO structure.

 

From 2011 (bold emphasis is mine):

 

Many around the league point to the Redskins’ personnel woes to explain their 4-8 record. Those same people say they expected Shanahan to put more of his own people in place when he took the job here in January 2010. Instead, though Shanahan has the final call on personnel moves, the scouting and personnel operations report directly to Allen and the changes have been minimal.

 

“They don’t have the infrastructure in place,” one NFC personnel executive said. “They don’t have a football man in place. . . . They don’t have anyone who has changed the tires.”

 

Said another longtime NFL executive: “Bruce Allen was hired, and he never restructured the personnel department. You see the results they had? And he comes in there and makes no changes. . . . It made no sense.”

 

To evaluate the Redskins’ personnel operations, several front-office officials, personnel executives and scouting directors from other NFL teams were granted anonymity so they could offer candid assessments. Many focused on the help Shanahan has in making key personnel decisions and ask whether he has too much on his plate to most effectively help the Redskins going forward.

 

Shanahan says he is constantly evaluating the entire Redskins organization and relies heavily on lieutenants whose full-time job is evaluating personnel. Allen declined to comment for this story.

 

His front-office team was compiled by owner Daniel Snyder and Cerrato: Scott Campbell, the director of player personnel who first joined the franchise in 2001; Morocco Brown, director of pro personnel; and Eric Schaffer, the vice president of football administration who negotiates contracts and manages the salary cap. Four of the five college scouts who worked under Cerrato are still in place, as is one of the two pro scouts.

 

Around the league, officials from other teams say it’s not clear just whom Shanahan relies on for counsel. And many ask whether Shanahan heeds the advice he is given and whether anyone in the organization feels comfortable enough to challenge him.

 

“There’s a checks and balances system, very similar to government. . . . Everybody has a role,” an AFC front-office official said.

 

[...]“Scott Campbell is pretty good at what he does, but how much weight does he carry with Mike?” a longtime NFC scouting director asked. “With any team, it really boils down to the decision maker. You can have a great scouting staff, but if the decision maker isn’t listening to them, all that work goes for naught.

 

[...]While some teams will rely on their general manager to run the draft and merely consult the head coach, Shanahan has final say in Washington, as he did with the Denver Broncos. But in Denver, he had more support — all of it hand-picked — in place around him.

 

In 2008, Shanahan’s final season there, Jim Goodman served as the team’s director of football operations, in charge of personnel. He had two assistant general managers serving under him: his son, Jeff, and Brian Xanders, who now serves as Denver’s general manager. Beneath them, the Broncos had 18 other employees with various responsibilities in scouting and personnel, including seven dedicated scouts and coordinators responsible for both pro and college scouting — significantly more resources than Shanahan has in Washington.

 

[...]The 32 teams might organize their scouting and personnel departments 32 different ways. Teams such as Baltimore and New England pay their scouts more. General managers such as Green Bay’s Ted Thompson personally visit college campuses throughout the fall. And one franchise — the Cincinnati Bengals — employs just one full-time scout.

 

“If I was an owner — any owner — whatever is being spent on scouting, I’d double it,” said Jack Bechta, an NFL agent.

 

The Redskins’ staffing numbers on the scouting side aren’t completely different from the rest of the league. The Giants, Eagles and Cowboys have a similar number of scouts, but each has more people working in those departments, especially Dallas. They have more support in place and more people who carry titles that don’t exist in Washington: “assistant director of pro scouting,” “scouting coordinator,” “college scouting coordinator,” and “director of football research.”

 

The Redskins employ two pro scouts and six college scouts. While they haven’t necessarily beefed up their infrastructure since Shanahan arrived, they did begin to subscribe to the BLESTO scouting service. It’s a cooperative undertaking that costs a team about $100,000 a year and gives it a scout who shares much of his information with other BLESTO teams. In turn, the Redskins have access to evaluations from other BLESTO scouts around the league.

 

[...]A difficult question for each team is how much it is willing to rely on those scouts. It can be a balancing act, but in Washington, Shanahan’s opinion is still the one that matters most.

 

“Coaches are professional coaches. They’re part-time scouts,” the longtime NFC scouting director said. “And you can’t be a part-time scout. . . . When you’ve got a guy who’s wearing all the hats, there’s just too much work to do to think you can still do everything really well.”

 

“Coaches have tunnel vision,” he continued. “They want the quick fix. They’re not always looking at what is the best for the franchise in the long haul.”

 

[...]“You really don’t juggle,” Shanahan said of the dual roles. “We have people that do the salary cap, you have people that do the personnel. You’ve got to find those people. What you do have is final say. That does sometimes help, but most of the time you don’t need final say. You count on the people to do their job. I don’t think any one person can make those big decisions without an unbelievable support staff.”

 

The two highest-ranking members of Washington’s front office are Campbell and Allen. Campbell takes a lead role in evaluating players, but must defer to Shanahan on final decisions. Allen might deal with contracts and manage relationships inside and outside the facility, but he doesn’t have all the traditional general manager duties.

 

Allen “has no idea about player personnel. . . . That’s not his expertise,” said a longtime NFL player personnel executive. “He’s an administrator. He was a cap guy. He’s not a scout.”

 

Still, Shanahan says having Allen as general manager is critical to him running the organization the way he sees fit. “It’s really having confidence in a guy like Bruce that can handle most of those areas,” Shanahan said.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/under-mike-shanahan-redskins-roster-could-benefit-from-more-delegation-better-scouting-infrastructure-nfl-observers-say/2011/12/09/gIQAQ6BalO_story.html?utm_term=.8e9ec7cc236b

 

*****************

 

I know it's gonna be almost Pavlovian for some to immediately say "Yeah, well now we know that everything said by Shanahan in that article is a lie, he had no control over anything!" lol...I'm hoping that's not the take away for most of you.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we have to realise is we have got Bruce Allen as our GM ????????? so he will quite obviously draft 2 positions that we don't need in the 1st 2 rounds, I'm going for QB and RG. We all know Allen is going to **** this year's team up like usual.

 

ALLEN OUT 

ALLEN OUT 

 

HTTR 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Let me counter that...

Maybe some people are hung up on the Sudfeld situation but for me, dysfunction & mismanagement with this team is a combination of things which IMO can be attributed to the terrible performance on the field. Just in the past 5 years...

 

1. There is drama surrounding the Shanahan(s) departure.

 

2. There is drama surrounding the McCloughan depature.

 

3. We get no compensation for RG3, Kirk, Desean or Garcon. 

 

4. We let go of our top two receivers in the same offseason only to replace them with a QB turned receiver and a Rookie who didn’t play the year before.

 

5. We hire Doug Williams to replace McCloughin as player personnel or whatever and he doesn’t even have a clue as to what is going on.

 

6. I mentioned Kirk already but it deserves to be said again. Talk about a major screw up. 

 

Im sure there is more but that was just a quick run down. See that is why injuries, strength of schedule and such are secondary to me.

 

The biggest issue with this team is management and how they have dealt with the team building pricess (so far). Even if we have an easy schedule and limited injuries, I just don’t see this team managed in such a way that screams “sustained sucess”.

 

...because inevitably they will do something that makes no sense.

 

 

Edited by dyst
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

And before anyone chimes in with the lazy go to of “he’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t”, please don’t apply silly generalizations to those of us who’ve recognized the issues and hold nuanced positions in order to make your weak point that seeks to justify virtually every single thing the top brass does. 

 

I’ve personally always maintained that it’s ridiculous to assume Snyder shouldn’t be involved at all. He’s the owner, so he’s ultimately responsible for everything. What we don’t want, however, is unwarranted interference.  Basically, the type of interference whereby a role he’s given in his organizational setup (presumably and hopefully to an expert in that respective field) is undermined without consent. 

 

 

Playing off of this point.   Some good discussion here in some of the posts yesterday.  To me this is a mediocre operation until I see otherwise.  It's not that its some opposite wild extreme of failure but it seems like we are behind the curve on too much.  Not everything.  But too much.  And as its been said here the front office structure has been first and foremost the issue with many of us.  The 2nd part of it is for a guy like Dan who loves to spend in FA (or used to like it) I am just surprised when I hear that their facility was almost a dump compared to other teams until Shanny pushed for changes.   We hear they can change and upgrade the field by swapping out the grass more like some other teams do but it will be costly - and some say that's why the Redskins wont do it.  If that's true. Yuck. 

 

People like to compare Dan to Steinbrenner.  But one difference with Steinbrenner was he went first class high end wherever he could.  And this pops up here and there.  I forgot where I saw it but I recalling years back the Redskins were one of the teams behind the curve with using anayltics in football.   There was a guy who recently worked with teams in anayltics who was going on and on about how advanced he learned the Eagles were with it. 

 

I'd like to for once hear, hey no one has nicer facilities than the Redskins.  Oh the Redskins are ahead of the NFL at this or that trend.  Scott Campbell is to me the perfect representation of the mediocrity of the franchise.  He's a nice guy.  He has had some OK drafts -- some better than others.  If people don't listen to his opinion (as some claim) than that's on his personality IMO.  With all of the fallout from Scot, part of it was clearly that Scot is a feisty SOB when you disagree with him when he wants to push for a player.  He told me that himself.  You need personalities like that in the building IMO versus bending down to the non-personnel guys who are his bosses. 

 

To me its a wild straw man argument that the Bruce-Dan critics are some over the top critics who just won't like anything they do (but I haven't read every post so maybe I am forgetting a person or two) -- for me its the critics who if anything have much more nuance and grey in their opinions than some of the people who defend the status quo.  But I don't doubt the defenders see it the opposite way so to each their own.  It's all perspective.  And perspective is driven by what you focus on.  And once you have a hardened opinion -- believing is seeing.  But I say that with respect to both sides of this because I think both sides have seen enough of Dan and Bruce to have a hardened opinion where at this point you can make it fit into your present opinion.  The sample size is huge.  

 

I've made this point previously on the FA thread and my thought is its a confusing time for the FO critics and defenders.  This team isn't good.  It isn't bad.  It's so so.  And how people define the so the so can be very different.  And each version of it has some justification to it. 

 

A. Does the so so mean sneaky really really good if they catch some breaks?

B. Does the so so means exactly what the record indicates?  Which is so so.

C. Are they breaking through the so so?

D. Are they treading water and stuck on the so so?

 

And most opinions now from what I've noticed really stem from this.  I don't think really there exists true defenders or critics of the FO in the extreme-wild and crazy sense.  Both critics and defenders have praised and criticized.  The difference from what I've observed is what to focus on and whether to give the benefit of the doubt or not.    

 

I am defined as a critic even though I had Bruce's back on the Kirk contract right through July 6, 2017.  I had Bruce's back when the Scot incident went down. I have Bruce's back on every FA signing I like.  I give him the benefit of the doubt on the off season until it unfolds including this year.  It's not all 100% pristine have his back but its close enough to it. That's a lot of macro stuff.  But on the aggregate I don't think he's doing a good job.  I don't think he's doing a terrible job.  I think he's so so.  But for me so so isn't the glass half full so I get into rows with people who see this is the A. or C scenario.  And my idea of success isn't hiring a mediocre non-personnel guy to run personnel. That really bugs me.  And I got questions about his character which is the kicker for me.  So yeah I am critic because that's where I land on the aggregate

 

Now to Dan.  I've had his back plenty of times, too.  I was in his corner with the Shanny stuff for the most part.  I thought Shanny was immature.   My posts during all of the last public crazy Dan episode which was the RG3-Shanny stuff -- I pretty much had Dan's back for most of it.  But, I've been fooled more than once with the Dan has changed narrative.  And its not happening again for me.   And still to this day I am not as harsh on Dan as some people here are.  Bruce actually bothers me at the moment more than Dan which is a unique opinion on the board.   But I've seen enough to land on the fact that Dan does interfere - its just an issue of to what degree.  And I am not even one who thinks he interferes anymore a lot -- but I do think he has his hand in the soup enough to be a potential problem.  Do I think he's a good owner?  Nope.  Do I think he's an evil disaster?  He can be.  But not always.  I think he's improved.  Not a disaster.  Not great.  To me he fits perfectly into the mediocre narrative.   And to me the disaster can easily resurface with him so I am on egg shells on this. 

 

Even this Bruce narrative we are reading right now.  Part of why it resonates so easily with me is Dan is depicted by many as one moody emotionally roller coaster dude.  I think its ironic that some of the questioning of the story is about reconciling this emotion with that emotion and is that all rational?  Well, if you listen to multiple accounts of Dan's tenure.  The dude has had plenty of moments of "irrational" emotional reactions. 

 

His emotional reactions to people good and bad has arguably colored much of this franchise for years.  So the idea that Dan was in a funk one day and had an outburst about a bad story and took it out on his pal Bruce?  Does that story really sound that crazy?  To me it sounds like a story that would perfectly fit the narrative about the Dan years here. 

 

 

  

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

<Whole bunch of great stuff cut down for space considerations...>

 

There is never, EVER, a bad reason for putting things into better and proper context. And we shouldn't discourage people from doing so. You can still criticize Allen and Snyder to your heart's content, it shouldn't stop anyone. But at least the criticisms will (hopefully) focus on the correct things TO criticize, which (again, hopefully) will lead to better board discussions as to where the dysfunction actually lies, why it exists, and what--if anything--has been done over the years to address it. Because saying "just more evidence of Redskins dysfunction" should not be some carte blanche response applied to damn near every move the Redskins make that trumps everything else...and the Skins' win-loss record over the years shouldn't be seen as evidence that response is correct.

 

This is a great, great post. I've been overly positive and overly negative at different times on this board (I've been here since Marty was the coach). But, the truth is that we are a middling team. We aren't probably ever as bad as some want to assume and probably aren't ever as "victimized" as the other group want to claim. 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Playing off of this point.   Some good discussion here in some of the posts yesterday.  To me this is a mediocre operation until I see otherwise.  It's not that its some opposite wild extreme of failure but it seems like we are behind the curve on too much.  Not everything.  But too much.  And as its been said here the front office structure has been first and foremost the issue with many of us.  The 2nd part of it is for a guy like Dan who loves to spend in FA (or used to like it) I am just surprised when I hear that their facility was almost a dump compared to other teams until Shanny pushed for changes.   We hear they can change and upgrade the field by swapping out the grass more like some other teams do but it will be costly - and some say that's why the Redskins wont do it.  If that's true. Yuck. 

 

Edit

 

His emotional reactions to people good and bad has arguably colored much of this franchise for years.  So the idea that Dan was in a funk one day and had an outburst about a bad story and took it out on his pal Bruce?  Does that story really sound that crazy?  To me it sounds like a story that would perfectly fit the narrative about the Dan years here. 

 

 

 

As is typical you and I are pretty much the same page exactly - including I have supported the FO at times but I have also been very critical when I disagree. Taking either position in totality is just not reasonable.

 

My overall issue though - is the continued lack of learning by Dan Snyder. Yes, he has learned a few things. The team is not a complete dumpster fire - although some think so. But it's hardly a well oiled machine with just a few errors either. I am not going to rehash examples of both as it's been done many times. But like you I want to discuss the overall high level approach to managing the team. I believe until this is fixed while the team may see some modicum of success, we will never get over the proverbial hump and become a championship football team. 

 

1. The team structure - While the lack of a football guy bothers me, the biggest issue I see is Dan's insistence of hold-overs and resistance to allowing someone to bring in their own staff - top to bottom, That includes Bruce. I am not one of his biggest fans - actually I think he is a complete POS of a person and not a very good GM - but he was not allowed to bring in his own people right from the start. Yes, over time he has been able to bring in many of who he wants. But when you bring in someone new to run the franchise, it should be expected that the person coming in has their own team to work with. Also, on top of forcing people to work together that may not fit, it immediately provides an opportunity - real or perceived - for Dan to undermine anyone who is supposed to be running the team. This is where I see the excess meddling that he will not give up. The day to day stuff from earlier? Yea, it appears he has backed off of that at least some. But he still is not allowing people the freedom to do their jobs. I get accountability. But don;t undermine what I am trying to do, then complain when it doesn't work. 

 

2. Who Dan is as a person. I used to defend Dan in here many times as I felt some things were exaggeration. I still believe some things he has been grilled for are a bit over the top. The whole suing fans thing - the woman in question did not return any phone calls for months. Once she was sued and the team found out what the situation was they resolved it without further litigation. However, I have first hand knowledge of how crappy he treats ex-players. They are just pieces of meat to be used to entertain his buddies. His fights with the media early on created such a chasm that even my sister who doesn't even like football has asked why the Washington Post hates the Redskins so bad. While I think it's a bit unprofessional of the paper at times, I get where it comes from. Dan has antagonized them to the point where I would probably do that same. All this creates a caustic atmosphere. And he does that to anyone who disagrees with him. 

 

There are some bright spots. Again, the team is not the dumpster fire it once was. And Bruce has to get some credit for that - as well as Jay Gruden who probably deserves more. Players are actually wanting to come here for the first time in years that I can tell. But I just do not see how under the current organizational structure the team will ever get to the point of being a true championship team. I hope I am wrong. I have rooted for this team since 1968. I will not stop just because I do not like the ownership. But damn Dan makes it hard. I have told my family to stop getting me anything Redskins. Until he gets his head out of his ass or sells the teams (they may both be the same thing), I will not be giving the team any money. And I can't tell you how much that pains me to say. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Playing off of this point.   Some good discussion here in some of the posts yesterday.  To me this is a mediocre operation until I see otherwise.  It's not that its some opposite wild extreme of failure but it seems like we are behind the curve on too much.  Not everything.  But too much.  And as its been said here the front office structure has been first and foremost the issue with many of us.  The 2nd part of it is for a guy like Dan who loves to spend in FA (or used to like it) I am just surprised when I hear that their facility was almost a dump compared to other teams until Shanny pushed for changes.   We hear they can change and upgrade the field by swapping out the grass more like some other teams do but it will be costly - and some say that's why the Redskins wont do it.  If that's true. Yuck. 

 

People like to compare Dan to Steinbrenner.  But one difference with Steinbrenner was he went first class high end wherever he could.  And this pops up here and there.  I forgot where I saw it but I recalling years back the Redskins were one of the teams behind the curve with using anayltics in football.   There was a guy who recently worked with teams in anayltics who was going on and on about how advanced he learned the Eagles were with it. 

I drive by Redskins Park every working day.  It is a dump.  It was shocking to me the first time I saw it at how small and run down the place was.  Even driving by now you can see all types of machinery used on the fields left outside with no building to house it and hide it away.  The cheap window blinds on the main building are broken and always half open at angles like when you pull one string too much which makes the place look like some cheap repair warehouse.  The monstrosity bubble that covers the indoor field actually collapsed a few winters ago from the snow.  Imagine that happening while people were inside or during the playoffs when an indoor facility is paramount when weather is bad.  The outdoor fields are built on a flood plain and were underwater once.  The parking lot was full of cracks and potholes.  There was nothing impressive about Redskins Park and it wouldn’t surprise me if it were the worst facility in the NFL.

 

Google the other NFL facilities and you will be surprised at how nice the other teams facilities are.  Tampa and Vikings have the two best.  Dallas has a great one.  Most have fixed steel structure indoor fields that are safe.  Bubble structures are the cheapest way to go and it appears like it was a reluctant concession to keep Shanahan happy since he practically demanded one after having to use ballrooms at local conference centers to practice in bad weather.

 

My thinking for years is that Snyder is asset rich but cash poor.  Meaning his billionaire status is based on the value of the team, stadium and facility real estate.  This is just paper wealth.  Similar to owning a house worth $1 million but you can’t get to the cash without selling or leveraging.  Since Snyder has had some bad investments such as 6 Flags and Johnny Rockets...he might be tight on cash therefore is being very frugal when it comes to expenses such as the facility and fixing the stadium field late in the season.

 

Compare Snyder to Ted Lerner...owner of the Nationals and that beautiful baseball stadium in DC.  Lerner is cash rich. Probably the richest person in the DC area other than Jacqueline Mars of the candy company.  Lerner is a developer similar to Wilf...the owner of the Vikings and without a doubt Lerner would have built a new state-of-the-art training facility if he owned the Redskins. Coincidently Lerner owns huge tracts of land near Redskins Park. Both Tampa and Minnesota facilities cost around $1 billion.  The Redskins have to compete for FA’s against these teams with those beautiful training facilities.  That means they will have to pay more to convince players to come.  

 

That’s why the new stadium is probably a big deal right now.  My guess is they want DC to pay for most of it.  Then Snyder can sell the FedEx field or property for cash and get out from under the expenses of owning and running a stadium.  Also since the new stadium will seat fewer fans I think we can stop believing the myth of a waiting list.  Twenty years of ineptitude under Snyder has done away with that.  This new stadium is desperately needed for more reasons than we can comprehend.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, XtremeFan55 said:

I drive by Redskins Park every working day.  It is a dump.  It was shocking to me the first time I saw it at how small and run down the place was.  Even driving by now you can see all types of machinery used on the fields left outside with no building to house it and hide it away.  The cheap window blinds on the main building are broken and always half open at angles like when you pull one string too much which makes the place look like some cheap repair warehouse.  The monstrosity bubble that covers the indoor field actually collapsed a few winters ago from the snow.  Imagine that happening while people were inside or during the playoffs when an indoor facility is paramount when weather is bad.  The outdoor fields are built on a flood plain and were underwater once.  The parking lot was full of cracks and potholes.  There was nothing impressive about Redskins Park and it wouldn’t surprise me if it were the worst facility in the NFL.

And when Dan first took it over, they didn't even have computers in the building & found the old pre Lombardi trophies in the bottom of a closet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

My overall issue though - is the continued lack of learning by Dan Snyder. Yes, he has learned a few things. The team is not a complete dumpster fire - although some think so. But it's hardly a well oiled machine with just a few errors either. 

 

Yeah I agree as for the key thing for success IMO. 

 

A. Hire a top reputation guy to run an organization

B. Then stay out of their way.   

 

He doesn't seem to buy into A or B.  He is willing to hire top coaches but as for personnel it doesn't seem to be his thing. 

 

2 hours ago, goskins10 said:

This is where I see the excess meddling that he will not give up. The day to day stuff from earlier? Yea, it appears he has backed off of that at least some. But he still is not allowing people the freedom to do their jobs. I get accountability. But don;t undermine what I am trying to do, then complain when it doesn't work. 

 

 

I agree with this, too.  I think the one thing to wonder is the degree of meddling. If you go back to Shanny's reign -- Shanny himself said that Dan didn't meddle much.  But at least according to Shanny, Dan did meddle on some things which just so happened to have macro effects on the organization for years to come including McNabb and RG3.

 

2 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

2. Who Dan is as a person. I used to defend Dan in here many times as I felt some things were exaggeration. I still believe some things he has been grilled for are a bit over the top. The whole suing fans thing - the woman in question did not return any phone calls for months. Once she was sued and the team found out what the situation was they resolved it without further litigation. However, I have first hand knowledge of how crappy he treats ex-players. They are just pieces of meat to be used to entertain his buddies. His fights with the media early on created such a chasm that even my sister who doesn't even like football has asked why the Washington Post hates the Redskins so bad. While I think it's a bit unprofessional of the paper at times, I get where it comes from. Dan has antagonized them to the point where I would probably do that same. All this creates a caustic atmosphere. And he does that to anyone who disagrees with him. 

 

 

A lot of what you say here reputation wise plays into Bruce too aside from treating ex-players poorly.  If its true or not, I don't know.   But part of the reason why I think it would be beneficial for Bruce to be reassigned is it seems like Bruce reinforces Dan's hatred for the media and mean streak when you disagree with him.

 

This idea that the media just has it out for the Redskins (as some say) to me is silly.  They don't have it out against the team but seem to have it out for Dan and now Bruce.  I deal with the media in my business and if I am trying to turn around bad press I go with the carrot not the stick.  And it typically works.

 

Why does the media for example like Jay or Kirk?  And I'd bet money they will have Alex Smith's back?  It's because of the type of people they are and they know how to handle others well including the media.  It's one of the things Russell was touting about Eric Schaffer -- he's likable and understands people.  The media likes him, too.

 

Not that its the be all and end all what the media thinks of the team but if they do care about it as Russell suggested they do -- that perception typically can be changed if you put some effort in it.  It almost feels like both Bruce and Dan don't have the guts these days to face the media much -- Bruce I gather because in even short sample sizes he tends to put his foot in his mouth and Dan I gather because he knows he's not liked and doesn't feel comfortable facing the music.

 

2 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

There are some bright spots. Again, the team is not the dumpster fire it once was. And Bruce has to get some credit for that - as well as Jay Gruden who probably deserves more. Players are actually wanting to come here for the first time in years that I can tell. But I just do not see how under the current organizational structure the team will ever get to the point of being a true championship team. I hope I am wrong. I have rooted for this team since 1968. I will not stop just because I do not like the ownership. But damn Dan makes it hard. I have told my family to stop getting me anything Redskins. Until he gets his head out of his ass or sells the teams (they may both be the same thing), I will not be giving the team any money. And I can't tell you how much that pains me to say. 

  

For me Bruce deserves some credit for getting a good QB but overall I give him an F on the Kirk negotiation.  The Redskins are on track to keep the one key thing IMO which has elevated the team for our 3 years in row of mediocrity -- really good QB play, coupled with a really good play caller.  Bruce has played a part in that.  He has had 8 years to build a defense.  I think its comical to just say hey just trust it -- wait until they are all healthy, this is the year.  I am not saying its not possible it all unfolds well but IMO he hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt.   We had a good defense not great before Bruce got here.  But it's been pretty bad for most of the last 8 years.  So in my mind, I think Jay deserves a lot of credit.  His passing offense by a mile has been the lead dance of bringing this team out of the doldrums. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Yeah I agree as for the key thing for success IMO. 

 

Edit

 

A lot of what you say here reputation wise plays into Bruce too aside from treating ex-players poorly.  If its true or not, I don't know.   But part of the reason why I think it would be beneficial for Bruce to be reassigned is it seems like Bruce reinforces Dan's hatred for the media and mean streak when you disagree with him.

 

This idea that the media just has it out for the Redskins (as some say) to me is silly.  They don't have it out against the team but seem to have it out for Dan and now Bruce.  I deal with the media in my business and if I am trying to turn around bad press I go with the carrot not the stick.  And it typically works.

 

Why does the media for example like Jay or Kirk?  And I'd bet money they will have Alex Smith's back?  It's because of the type of people they are and they know how to handle others well including the media.  It's one of the things Russell was touting about Eric Schaffer -- he's likable and understands people.  The media likes him, too.

 

Not that its the be all and end all what the media thinks of the team but if they do care about it as Russell suggested they do -- that perception typically can be changed if you put some effort in it.  It almost feels like both Bruce and Dan don't have the guts these days to face the media much -- Bruce I gather because in even short sample sizes he tends to put his foot in his mouth and Dan I gather because he knows he's not liked and doesn't feel comfortable facing the music.

 

Edit

 

Just to be clear - I do not think they are "Out to get them" but I do think that they tend to present things in a more negative light, when could a bit more objective. I don't blame them totally based on how they have been treated. But fore me, sometimes it a bit over the top when they have other choices. 

 

Having said that, I totally agree that if the team - especially Dan and Bruce would make some effort it would probably change. Stuff like the leaks and that stupid press conference after the Kirk debacle - and yes he gets a F- on that - just makes the press feels used as a tool. You are not likely to ever get any benefit of the doubt when you are constantly adversarial and combative but then suddenly when you can be useful be friendly. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Just to be clear - I do not think they are "Out to get them" but I do think that they tend to present things in a more negative light, when could a bit more objective. I don't blame them totally based on how they have been treated. But fore me, sometimes it a bit over the top when they have other choices. 

 

Having said that, I totally agree that if the team - especially Dan and Bruce would make some effort it would probably change. Stuff like the leaks and that stupid press conference after the Kirk debacle - and yes he gets a F- on that - just makes the press feels used as a tool. You are not likely to ever get any benefit of the doubt when you are constantly adversarial and combative but then suddenly when you can be useful be friendly. 

 

Sure, I didn't mean that you thought they were out to get them.  But I was referring to the point that some leap to Bruce/Dan's defense by suggesting that the media has some odd ax to grind with them.  My point is they do have an ax to grind with them but its of their own making.

 

It's similar IMO to the narrative about Kirk not wanting to be here.  Was it Kirk just disliking the idea of being a Redskin period as if he had Cowboys blood in his veins :) or is it more specific than that.  According to Russell at least the main reason why Kirk didn't want to be here was Bruce.

 

So what I was getting at is I don't think its an anti-Redskins bias but anti-Dan and Bruce take by the media but there is some rationale for it.  And IMO it is fixable.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I've made this point previously on the FA thread and my thought is its a confusing time for the FO critics and defenders.  This team isn't good.  It isn't bad.  It's so so.  And how people define the so the so can be very different.  And each version of it has some justification to it. 

 

A. Does the so so mean sneaky really really good if they catch some breaks?

B. Does the so so means exactly what the record indicates?  Which is so so.

C. Are they breaking through the so so?

D. Are they treading water and stuck on the so so?

 

And most opinions now from what I've noticed really stem from this.  I don't think really there exists true defenders or critics of the FO in the extreme-wild and crazy sense.  Both critics and defenders have praised and criticized.  The difference from what I've observed is what to focus on and whether to give the benefit of the doubt or not.    

 

This is a great point and an excellent summation of where most find themselves when pondering the FO. 

 

Me, personally? I differ ever so slightly with you in that, if you define “mediocre” as average, I think they’re below average. And I mean “ever so slightly” because this is really nitpicking and we’re on the same page with 99% of everything else. :) 

 

 Structurally and process-wise (both in hiring and general decision-making), they might even be among the worst. They have good people within that structure, so it elevates them overall, but I wouldn’t say it elevates them to mediocrity. They’re still a little below it in my mind. Not totally the worst, so we agree there. 

 

So then how have they been able to achieve middling results? Mainly because of Jay along with Kirk. And for a brief moment they had a legit talent evaluator at GM who had power (who just so happened to be one of the main reasons the move to Kirk was allowed to be made). That is what has elevated the entire team the majority of the time. 

 

I know you totally agree with me on that point. :) 

 

Now, some might think “...well, Jay is a big part of that, and they hired him, so they should get credit for it”. But that ignores what is the top brass’s main responsibility on that front, and that’s having a sound hiring process first, not just the results of that process.

 

I’ve said this many times before, just because they ended up with a qualified hire like Jay doesn’t mean their process in hiring him was right. And there’s enough evidence out there to suggest he was the hire from the start and it was more about Bruce getting someone he’s comfortable with than anything else. That is okay to want, but it should be a secondary want, not a priority. 

 

Same goes for Scot. If the reason they brought him in was because AJ Smith was against RG3 and Dan wasn’t having that, well, suffice to say that isn’t a sound hiring process being implemented. That sounds like they’re choosing based off of who is more likely to acquiesce to Dan versus who is most qualified. Even if it had worked out, that’d just mean they got lucky as opposed to being smart or operating properly. 

 

Everytime we get bits of info regarding their process a little part of me dies inside. It’s just almost always off and unsound philosophically. It’s no wonder there is a consistent flow of embarrassing episodes as a result of that.

 

That’s why I absolutely LOVED hearing about how Crowder was drafted and developed. That entire process was a thing of beauty. That right there is an organization that is soundly structured benefiting everyone in the process, from top to bottom. That is how you provide a support structure that enables everyone within it and elevates them versus provides for them obstacles and limits them.

 

Unfortunately, that kind of process seems to be the exception, not the rule. And so here we are. :/ 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

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.