The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[TD_washingtonredskins]

11 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

Sure this could just be another mean spirited, conspiracy by the media to taint the good name of the Washington Redskins.  Or Bruce could really be the douche many of us have suspected he is. 

 

We do, as a fan base, bend of backwards sometimes to come up with complicated theories as to why something might be negative about the team. More often than not, where there is smoke there is fire. 

[Thinking Skins]

3 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

We do, as a fan base, bend of backwards sometimes to come up with complicated theories as to why something might be negative about the team. More often than not, where there is smoke there is fire. 

I mean I wouldn't limit this to our fan base. Its a simple question of understanding. We may all agree that Vinny was the worse, but why? What mistakes did he make and how do we not repeat those mistakes? If this is a valuable metric for grading a front office, then what's the reasoning behind it? Because there are also a lot of clarification pieces saying stuff like that's not what was meant by what you're reading.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

4 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

We do, as a fan base, bend of backwards sometimes to come up with complicated theories as to why something might be negative about the team. More often than not, where there is smoke there is fire. 

No doubt, the Redskins are family.  Family will go to great lengths to spin things about their family members and defend them. 

[HardcoreZorn]

11 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

No doubt, the Redskins are family.  Family will go to great lengths to spin things about their family members and defend them. 

I hope no one in your family is going through a tough time! 

[Skinsinparadise]

Bill Belichick isn't known as an easy going guy when it comes to negotiations.  The idea that the Bengals are a bit dysfunctional as to their FO, that's not a new narrative.  Granted they have had success in spite of it non so much for the Browns.  So respect for certain teams versus not -- seem to have some reputation as part of the soup.  Elway I've heard can be prickly personality wise.   Tannebaum with the Dolphins has a mini Cerrato rep as to being over the top in FA and fosters too much turnover.

 

Cooley talked about it on air today.  To paraphrase him.  I really like Bruce personally so I feel bad for him.  But this is really really bad.  He knows from the stand point of being a player the agent often steers the player towards a team.  And while money talks.  There are situations where things are equal or close enough and if the majority of agents have a poor perception of Bruce -- that hurts the ability to bring in players.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

43 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

I doubt they are basing their opinions on what they've read about him.  These guys talk to each other.  If anything, it's about what they've heard from their peers.

 

Also a good point.

 

Sure this could just be another mean spirited, conspiracy by the media to taint the good name of the Washington Redskins.

 

No, it's more about it being a poll, and wanting to know what the questions were that were asked and how they reached the end results. I do this with all polls, regardless of the outcome. Everyone should.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

23 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I hope no one in your family is going through a tough time! 

 

Actually, I've helped numerous family members, both on my own and wife's side.  However, one can only help out so much.  At some point it's up to the individual to get their act together because I'm not picking up the phone anymore.  Family or not, I don't feel sorry for folks that constantly get in their own way.  A lot like how I feel about Bruce and Dan.  The players and coaches are kind of like the kids, where I realize it's not their fault and still like them.  Bruce and Dan are the irresponsible parents that make bad decisions that put the kids in a tough spot.  No love for them.

19 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Bill Belichick isn't known as an easy going guy when it comes to negotiations. 

This kind of brings home the point that you can get away with being a prick that's stuck in his ways, if your way is proven.

 

But when your way has never led to anything of merit and middle of the pack is the pinnacle, you get no benefit of any doubts.

[SWFLSkins]

“we truly have the Michael Scott of owners. Now i’m imagining the front office as.... the office...”

 

This was one of the responses, haha. 

 

I do wonder however as Cali said, Snyder never saw that letter........ and maybe someone in PR trolled the Fan. 

[Skinsinparadise]

41 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

No, it's more about it being a poll, and wanting to know what the questions were that were asked and how they reached the end results. I do this with all polls, regardless of the outcome. Everyone should.

 

The guy who did it is coming on 106.7 to elaborate.    I do polls as a side part of my job so while not an expert I know more than the layperson. Actually did a poll really in your home state of California.  

 

The methodology would be interesting to see.  But its clear to me even without knowing it -- at a minimum the trust issue isn't a backhanded complement.  If it were a backhanded complement, I don't think we'd see Belichick mentioned positively.  Naturally, part of the reason why you got specialists in fields who do polling -- they can make sense of the numbers because they can follow context versus just relying solely on the data.

 

For Bruce, you got a one two punch here.  We just don't have we don't trust him, we also have the he's unprepared.  So you are asking the same people the same question and their response is negative in both cases.  To me that means something even if they are being unfair.  The only two teams faring worst in preparation were the Bengals-Browns -- the same two teams that failed to consummate a trade last year for McCarron because they botched the paper work. 

 

When you are polling like they are 25 agents there is some recency bias (for better or worse) but 25 is a big sample especially if they are the agents with the most clients as Cooley speculated to be the case.  It's a big enough sample to dilute McCartney who would only represent 4% of the sample.  

 

How would I dumb down the results to something I can tell a client for sure based on the limited information we got in that article?  Agents don't like Bruce.  As for why -- that we don't know.

 

Now does that matter?  According to Cooley -- heck yes it does and big time.  I take Cooley seriously both from the stand point of being a player and more so because he's a self professed friend of Bruce.  It's the same reason why I trust Chris Russell's take that Scot had to go when he did.  I know Russell had no dog in the fight in pushing Scot out.  So I trusted it.   

 

Having said all that I'll listen to the interview at 106.7 to see if anything strikes me off about the survey.  I know as a Bruce critic I don't have credibility with some as being objective.  But again I liked Bruce initially, my opinion evolved on him.  Heck I liked Scot but I was cool with him going.  I didn't like Jay initially and now I do.   I was RG3 guy -- then a Kirk guy. 

 

I am not perfect as being stubborn to my opinions but I am willing to shift my opinion on people regardless of how it looks for backtracking. I used to have epic debates with Oldfan about Shanny.  He saw him as a glorified offensive coordinator and not a good head coach and he shouldn't be running the FO.  I disagreed.  3 years later, I backed down.  And said he was right, I was wrong.  

 

So for me with Bruce there is a ridiculous level of information that he has at the very minimum bungled the reputation of the front office.   My level of waffling on him where I am thinking maybe I'll come around on him is at about a 1 out of 100. 

 

With two young kids who don't live in the DMV, I actually have to work hard to keep them Redskins fans (its not easy ) with all the different team fans we have here.  It's part of the reason why I'd like to replace Bruce with Schaffer.  Will Schaffer excel at the job?  Got no idea.  Is he my ideal pick?  No -- I prefer someone with personnel experience.  But it just bugs me that we got reporters reminding the world whenever they can that Bruce was termed the Prince of Darkness in Tampa among other things.  

 

I am not a believer in Bruce's competence but I'll leave that alone for this point.  I'd like a President who is likable and is respected around the league.  Schaffer would fit that mold by most indications.   One of the coolest things about Gibbs coming back when he did was he was pure class-likable as heck.  Jay is likable as heck.  I'd like a President like that too where we aren't goofed on.   And yeah there is more to it than that but I don't feel like getting into Bruce's competence, I've debated that plenty already.

 

I am not saying you are on the other side of these points, I just used your post to launch mine.   

[Skinsinparadise]

29 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

This kind of brings home the point that you can get away with being a prick that's stuck in his ways, if your way is proven.

 

But when your way has never led to anything of merit and middle of the pack is the pinnacle, you get no benefit of any doubts.

 

I've posted this multiple times, Lombardi's comments from working with Bruce below.  Cooley said a variation same thing about his own negotiation with Bruce but he wasn't bitter about it he just saw that as that's how the dude rolls.  I don't want to make this a Kirk debate because it's over but I thought Cooley's summary of the negotiation was amusing -- he pretty much said Bruce saw Kirk as a naive midwestern dude and thought he could get one over on him initially and it backfired when Kirk's agent turned the tables.  Now I am sure Cooley's take is hyperbole but he's a dude who knows Bruce so I thought his take was interesting. 

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/michael-lombardi-former-nfl-executive-says-bruce-a/

On The Ringer’s “GM Street” podcast Friday, Lombardi said Washington “thought they could bluff their way into” a long-term deal with Cousins. 

“Bruce thinks sometimes he’s smarter than the agents,” Lombardi said. “And the agents called his bluff every time. And they never really bought into Kirk Cousins that he was ever going to do it and they thought they were being cute. And now, all of a sudden, their cuteness is going to cost them a lot of money.

[Warhead36]

23 minutes ago, SWFLSkins said:

“we truly have the Michael Scott of owners. Now i’m imagining the front office as.... the office...”

 

This was one of the responses, haha. 

 

I do wonder however as Cali said, Snyder never saw that letter........ and maybe someone in PR trolled the Fan. 

Na, the funny thing about The Office was that, as dumb as Michael Scott appeared to be at times, he actually was a brilliant salesman and manager. His branch routinely was among the best of all the branches.

 

Bruce Allen is a complete nincompoop. He's Vinny Cerrato but a little bit more polished as a public speaker.

[SWFLSkins]

6 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Na, the funny thing about The Office was that, as dumb as Michael Scott appeared to be at times, he actually was a brilliant salesman and manager. His branch routinely was among the best of all the branches.

 

Bruce Allen is a complete nincompoop. He's Vinny Cerrato but a little bit more polished as a public speaker.

 

Michael Scot would not manage an office outside of Television, the company would be sued to bankruptcy, lol. That said, I don't know how to interpret disdain for Bruce coming from agents who are directly adversarial. I think Skins in Paradise made some great points in the post above. I have never supported Bruce, but certainly don't take agents words for much. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

9 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Na, the funny thing about The Office was that, as dumb as Michael Scott appeared to be at times, he actually was a brilliant salesman and manager. His branch routinely was among the best of all the branches.

 

Bruce Allen is a complete nincompoop. He's Vinny Cerrato but a little bit more polished as a public speaker.

Sad that Bruce can't even live up to Michael Scott.  Sad, I tell ya.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

25 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The guy who did it is coming on 106.7 to elaborate.    I do polls as a side part of my job so while not an expert I know more than the layperson. Actually did a poll really in your home state of California.  

 

The methodology would be interesting to see.  But its clear to me even without knowing it -- at a minimum the trust issue isn't a backhanded complement.  If it were a backhanded complement, I don't think we'd see Belichick mentioned positively.  Naturally, part of the reason why you got specialists in fields who do polling -- they can make sense of the numbers because they can follow context versus just relying solely on the data.

 

 

3

 

Well, since the article says this:

 

"No, this survey isn’t scientific. While the number of agents who responded represent a small number of the total certified by the NFLPA in 2017 (830), they do represent a cross-section of a growing landscape. And their impressions paint some interesting pictures."

 

I'm guessing that it's basically shouldn't be taken as more than a sports conversation starter and some interesting info.  It's not a representational poll, but I'm positive there will be many Skins fans (and fans in general) who will call back to this article and treat it as if it is...As I said earlier, I'm not at all surprised by Allen's low ranking among agents (or among the 25 agents who responded), but since it is being treated as a poll I was curious as to how they ranked GMs in terms of preparedness (however that's defined lol) and if all agents who responded were asked to rank, say, the top 5 GMs they trust the most and the bottom 5 GMs they trusted least, or if the results were cobbled together from a more conversational "polling", etc, etc.  I kind of find the inner workings behind polling results interesting (as well as the behind the scenes data gathering in scientific testing and experiments...those can be absolutely eye-opening at times). Unfortunately they didn't say much at all about Allen, maybe in the radio interview they'll go into it more. The 106.7 guys do enjoy putting the negative on display lol...

[SWFLSkins]

 

[Skinsinparadise]

25 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Unfortunately they didn't say much at all about Allen, maybe in the radio interview they'll go into it more. The 106.7 guys do enjoy putting the negative on display lol...

 

As Grant said this morning, its not like people arrive at their opinion out of nowhere.  He talked to a lot of people to get himself there.

 

Speaking of data.      Where are you on Bruce now, 0-10?   10 is going a great job.  0 stinks.  5 so so.  Anything under 5 you'd like to see him gone.   

[Califan007 The Constipated]

17 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

As Grant said this morning, its not like people arrive at their opinion out of nowhere.  He talked to a lot of people to get himself there.

 

Speaking of data.      Where are you on Bruce now, 0-10?   10 is going a great job.  0 stinks.  5 so so.  Anything under 5 you'd like to see him gone.   

 

1) That doesn't tell me much, though...

 

2) I said about a month ago that I'm way past putting faith (or not putting faith) into any of the men in the Skins' FO, regardless of who they are. No "In Shanny/Scot/Whoever I trust" and no "Every move Allen/Snyder/Whoever makes should be expected to fail"...I just concentrate on moves and whether or not I feel it's a good one, then wait to see if I was right or wrong lol...I don't really give a **** who made the decision, I only care if the right one was made.  I still feel the traditional FO structure of a talent-savvy GM running the personnel department is the best way to achieve sustained success.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

Na, the funny thing about The Office was that, as dumb as Michael Scott appeared to be at times, he actually was a brilliant salesman and manager. His branch routinely was among the best of all the branches.

 

Bruce Allen is a complete nincompoop. He's Vinny Cerrato but a little bit more polished as a public speaker.

 

I would love those rare times they either showed or alluded to him being very good at what he does. Whether it was easily getting a sale or making a smart decision, it added a pretty entertaining and funny layer to his character. 

[Skinsinparadise]

41 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

2) I said about a month ago that I'm way past putting faith (or not putting faith) into any of the men in the Skins' FO, regardless of who they are. No "In Shanny/Scot/Whoever I trust" and no "Every move Allen/Snyder/Whoever makes should be expected to fail"...I just concentrate on moves and whether or not I feel it's a good one, then wait to see if I was right or wrong lol...I don't really give a **** who made the decision, I only care if the right one was made. 

 

But doesn't it matter who is making the calls?  Shanny.  Scot.  Bruce.  All different people. Unless you are implying that Dan is the defacto decision maker so it doesn't matter?   It's sort of like someone asks me if they'd recommend a restaurant and I respond by saying I like some dishes, not so much others, I take each meal as it comes, I am not going to judge it in advance.  They'd come back and say well fine but do you recommend the restaurant or not?   You've had plenty of meals to judge the restaurant.  

 

So anyway Bell was just on.  He didn't really add much to me.   Rouhier asked if it was about Bruce being tough.  Bell responded that he didn't think so.  He went that agents respected Ozzie Newsome and Belichick even though they said they are so disciplined-tough when it comes to negotiations.   But agents found them consistent and straightforward.  Except one agent who didn't see Belichick that way.

 

He said he talked to other football people who echo the criticism towards Bruce.   He didn't flat out say it but it seem like he was on the edge of implying Bruce is considered dishonest or perhaps a bit slick.  He talked about making promises that didn't happen, making surprising moves in negotiations.    But I'd say overall, Bell was a bad interview.  So I didn't really get a concrete take. 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

But doesn't it matter who is making the calls?  Shanny.  Scot.  Bruce.  All different people. Unless you are implying that Dan is the defacto decision maker so it doesn't matter?   It's sort of like someone asks me if they'd recommend a restaurant and I respond by saying I like some dishes, not so much others, I take each meal as it comes, I am not going to judge it in advance.  They'd come back and say well fine but do you recommend the restaurant or not?   You've had plenty of meals to judge the restaurant.  

 

2

 

No, I'm saying that it doesn't matter to ME who is making the decisions anymore lol...it only matters if the right decision is made. To put it another way, back when we signed Josh Norman, some sportswriter tweeted basically this: "I'll be honest, if it were Allen or Snyder making this decision I would be criticizing it. But since it's Scot McCloughan, I think it's a great move."

 

In no way, shape or form would that or will that ever be me lol...

 

Who made the decision is irrelevant to whether or not I think the move is a good/bad one. Drafting Sean Taylor was a great decision...not sure if it the decision to do so was Williams, Gibbs, Vinny, Snyder, Portis lol...all of them in unison...doesn't matter. I'm just concentrating on the moves, I don't need to have some level of confidence instilled in me by the decision maker first. Thought Jonathan Allen was a great pick last year...was it Scot's board, Bruce's choice, would Scot have actually picked someone else if he were still here? Don't give a rat's ass. Looking at the move itself, I thought it was a good one. That's all I need. I don't need to put disclaimers on my opinions like "I don't want to defend Bruce Allen, but..." lol....if I like the move, I like the move.

 

 

To comment on your example, though, if any of these mf'ers need me to write them a letter of recommendation for their next job, THEN I'll care what decisions were made by who lol...As for recommendations TO me: guys who were supposed to be food experts recommended restaurants that got 1 1/2 stars on Yelp lol. Hated the lasagna at one place, thought the chili was bland at the other place. Guys who were supposed to have zero taste recommended places that got 2 stars on Yelp but had fantastic pizza and burgers. Wherever we eat at next at whoever's recommendation, there better be something damn good on the menu.

 

Nobody is asking me to recommend anyone from the front office, or asking me to recommend becoming a Redskins fan. So outside of that, I don't feel a need to be reassured ahead of time about decisions made by the Redskins. If things don't pan out at a great enough clip, the decision makers (plural) need to be relieved of their duties. If they do pan out, great, keep making good decisions. Right now I've been much happier being a Skins fan over the last 3 years than between 2008-2014. That was a massive, depressing hole to climb out of. At different points during that 7 year span we had fans on here arguing over keeping Quintin Ganther as RB because he "showed something" in 2009. we suffered through having a retired bingo-caller calling plays. We got hyped over John Beck...in preseason. We felt we could win with the "Sex Cannon" Rex Grossman. we were positive Todd Collins should have been our starting QB due to a good 4-game run...in 2007. We argued who was better worse, Cousins or RG3, with one throwing 97 INTs and the other getting sacked 97 times cuz he couldn't run a pro offense...and all while enjoying a measly 3, 4 and 5 wins a season lol....( I can laugh now)

 

So yeah..whoever's making the decisions, make good ones moving forward so that we take the next step and start getting used to double digit wins and playoff victories. If we don't, find people (again, plural) who can and will. We'll see if not signing Cousins and trading for Smith turns out to be a good decision. That'll be a start.

 

 

 

So anyway Bell was just on.  He didn't really add much to me.   Rouhier asked if it was about Bruce being tough.  Bell responded that he didn't think so.  He went that agents respected Ozzie Newsome and Belichick even though they said they are so disciplined-tough when it comes to negotiations.   But agents found them consistent and straightforward.  Except one agent who didn't see Belichick that way.

He said he talked to other football people who echo the criticism towards Bruce.   He didn't flat out say it but it seem like he was on the edge of implying Bruce is considered dishonest or perhaps a bit slick.  He talked about making promises that didn't happen, making surprising moves in negotiations.    But I'd say overall, Bell was a bad interview.  So I didn't really get a concrete take.

 

Did they discuss if it (what agents are saying about Allen) played any role in Hankins not being signed? I'm guessing no, but I woulda asked lol...

[Skinsinparadise]

42 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

Did they discuss if it (what agents are saying about Allen) played any role in Hankins not being signed? I'm guessing no, but I woulda asked lol...

 

Nope.  But Brian McNally was just on 106.7, Dukes asked him about the report and McNally said he's herd from some agents that they don't like dealing with Bruce.  McNally said from his exposure to Bruce he doesn't at times come off likable because he has an arrogant air about him so he can see that trait flow along with his negotiation style to turn off agents. 

 

He speculated that everything being equal it could be a problem for the Redskins in FA.  Cooley came in harder on that point as to FAs saying if the agent doesn't like Bruce and things are equal or close enough he has no doubt their take about Bruce could be an X factor.

 

 

48 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I'm just concentrating on the moves, I don't need to have some level of confidence instilled in me by the decision maker first. Thought Jonathan Allen was a great pick last year...was it Scot's board, Bruce's choice, would Scot have actually picked someone else if he were still here? Don't give a rat's ass. Looking at the move itself, I thought it was a good one. That's all I need. I don't need to put disclaimers on my opinions like "I don't want to defend Bruce Allen, but..." lol....if I like the move, I like the move.

 

 

I get the point.  They used to stink.  Now we are mediocre and that's much better so why care about who makes the sausage? And I get some are more optimistic about the mediocrity if only they caught this break or that break, etc. 

 

That mediocre formula to me is a heavy dose of being about a good QB along with good protection and Jay's play calling -- they haven't really built up the other units.  That to me is the formula.  But me to get excited about all of that, I'd like to see them build up something else too -- defense-running game -- heck even special teams.    Do I think the record player's needle is stuck on mediocre?  I truly don't know.  Am unimpressed with their off season thus far.  But the draft can change that in a heart beat.  And at least rhetoric wise I like what I hear about their draft plans but will see. 

 

Bruce being maligned nationally for his personality and or the way he goes about his business among other things I gather bother me more than you.  Part of what I loved about Gibbs' return was he was deemed as a good guy because he is a good guy.  I hate the dark side label that we get pinned with via Dan and these days via Bruce.  It's tough enough dealing with it with Dan.  But have Bruce double up on it makes me cringe.

 

My fandom is secure.  But like I've said I got young kids who I furiously work to keep Redskins fans and its not easy with the rep we have nationally.  Depending on the narrative the Redskins either aren't cool to like or don't have it together like some of the better teams in the league.  And Bruce is front and center right now within that narrative.   And I don't think that rep is just some wild witch hunt that is baseless.

[Skinsinparadise]

Bell came on 106.7 again.  He said every agent surveyed happened in a phone conversation so he got them to expound on various things in the conversation.

 

As for Bruce the word he harped on some agents "mistrust" him and don't take him at his word.  Taking this interview and other one he had and combining those thoughts.   Some agents don't see Bruce as someone they can trust in a negotiation to keep to his word, he will break promises and or give you some surprise twists.

 

The Ravens and Patriots like Bruce came in as hard negotiators but the difference is you know where they are coming from and you can take them at their word.  With Ozzie for example being honest and you can go back and forth with him and he will tell you as it is and they respect that.

 

If so, it gets to what I extrapolate from Lombardi's comments from working with Bruce -- he tries to get one over the agents but they end up getting the last laugh. 

 

It also makes me think of Grant Paulsen's narrative that he heard directly from the horses mouth that there are many stories about the negotiation which were turnoffs.  Among them, Bruce told them a new offer is coming.  A week later they get sent the exact same offer they got previously. 

 

Sarcasm not directed at anyone but just using it to bring home a point in a way that's fun for me.    Ok, Grant doesn't like Bruce and neither does this and that guy and that guy and that guy and that guy and that guy and that guy.  All these sources we've laid many times on this thread.  So their credibility is in question.  But seriously, how did Bruce earn these detractors?  Grant one day was hanging out at Redskins Park and said you know what Bruce is such a cool guy -- wouldn't it be fun if I can flip his reputation where I describe him as the opposite for how he really is -- for no reason at all.   Just for kicks.

 

If we learn later that it was all some grand conspiracy leveled at Dan and now Bruce who are both the innocent fall guys -- it will be one heck of a story for the ages.  Because there would be many people as part of the intricate plot.  How it all came together to malign their reputation will be a story for the ages.  It will be like the old James Bond movie where the villain explains their whole diabolical plot.  And the people you thought were the bad guys -- we find out at the end were truly the good guys and vice versa but we fell for their diabolical-sophisticated plot. 

 

On Dan we got his ex-coaches in on the act, along with the people who covered him, and some of his ex-employees -- even the friendly to Dan employees conceded various stories about how he pushed for this and that transaction.  The cleverness of the plot against Dan is the use of multiple sources both friendly and unfriendly to make it all LOOK credible.  

 

Dan's has gone under cover.  Has he reformed?  You got me. We usually don't find out until the new regime arrives.  But for the moment, Bruce is the one in the line of fire.  Bruce is getting the old Dan treatment -- so maybe that's the dead giveaway?  He's got multiple ex-employees who worked with him, Tampa reporters, DC reporters, national reporters and now agents slamming him.  Some national media types got in on it too ranking his competence towards the bottom of the league.  We even got a posed choir boy type QB playing good cop publicly in the negotiation for years and then to learn later that Bruce was really the good cop all along. 

 

The level of sophistication for this plot to all come together is impressive.  I'd assume years of planning.  And its weird that guys like Schaffer and other people within that front office has escaped all of this type of scrutiny.  Maybe they are the ones pulling these strings --double agents perhaps? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

57 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Nope.  But Brian McNally was just on 106.7, Dukes asked him about the report and McNally said he's herd from some agents that they don't like dealing with Bruce.  McNally said from his exposure to Bruce he doesn't at times come off likable because he has an arrogant air about him so he can see that trait flow along with his negotiation style to turn off agents. 

 

He speculated that everything being equal it could be a problem for the Redskins in FA.  Cooley came in harder on that point as to FAs saying if the agent doesn't like Bruce and things are equal or close enough he has no doubt their take about Bruce could be an X factor.

3

 

I just listened to Cooley on their audio vault...yeah, he was saying it was (or could be) a serious problem.

 

Something else he said, though, that made me think...when it was said that the Bengals and Browns were listed lower than the Redskins in terms of preparedness, Cooley said of course they are, they can't even get a piece of paper signed in time to finalize a trade lol...which got me thinking: were the Browns and Bengals ranked that low because of that screw-up, or was that screw-up the result of year after year of not being prepared? Because if it's the former, that means that these opinions from agents can indeed be based off perceptions and not what they personally have experienced with those teams' GMs. Because only a handful of agents were involved in that trade.

 

 

Quote

I get the point.  They used to stink.  Now we are mediocre and that's much better so why care about who makes the sausage?

 

That's not the point at all lol...

 

The point is, I won't let the perception of anyone in the front office--my own perception or the conventional wisdom--dictate how I should view moves made by the team. I just focus on the moves themselves. I will care "who made the sausage" if I get food poisoning lol...if it's wel made, I'll just come back again. I they fire their chef and the new cook makes the food just as well if not better, fantastic. Notice that nowhere in there did I say "Well, I no longer get the runs when eating here, so I'm happy" lol...

 

 

Quote

That mediocre formula to me is a heavy dose of being about a good QB along with good protection and Jay's play calling -- they haven't really built up the other units.  That to me is the formula.  But me to get excited about all of that, I'd like to see them build up something else too -- defense-running game -- heck even special teams.    Do I think the record player's needle is stuck on mediocre?  I truly don't know.  Am unimpressed with their off season thus far.  But the draft can change that in a heartbeat.  And at least rhetoric wise I like what I hear about their draft plans but will see.

 

I think the formula of having a good QB driving a below-average team to being average or better is the formula for 90% of the NFL, not just the Redskins.

 

Something else I said early last month was that I don't get optimistic or pessimistic in March anymore. That can be revised now to April lol...I can like/dislike moves until the cows come home or hate moves completely. But I won't start looking at the team's chances in an optimistic or pessimistic manner until preseason at the earliest, and even then it'll be extremely tempered. I was optimistic about our WRs last season. I was pessimistic about Davis' ability to contribute when we signed him. I honestly feel it serves no purpose (for me anyway) to start determining how the season will probably go months before training camp.

 

I do think, though, that the Skins have done a good job building up the LB unit, at least until Murphy and Galette moved on. Cowboys would have killed to have our LBs over the past several years. EDIT: As well as the O-Line and TEs.

 

 

Quote

Bruce being maligned nationally for his personality and or the way he goes about his business among other things I gather bother me more than you.  Part of what I loved about Gibbs' return was he was deemed as a good guy because he is a good guy.  I hate the dark side label that we get pinned with via Dan and these days via Bruce.  It's tough enough dealing with it with Dan.  But have Bruce double up on it makes me cringe.

 

I care, but in comparison to winning I care a LOT less lol...as the saying goes, winning cures everything. Plus I care more about unethical dealings than bad publicity. The one quote about not being sure you can take Allen at his word bothered me, but again I'd rather know the details behind the quote and the poll before letting either affect me too much.

 

Want to try a mental exercise? The type I do intrinsically because I can't help myself? lol...imagine the poll being conducted in the opposite direction, with NFL GMs and team presidents ranking agents as trustworthy and most and least prepared for contract discussions. Then take it a step further....what if the agents that viewed the Skins, Browns and Bengals so low were themselves ranked at the bottom by the GMs. Would that tell you anything...it would me.

 

 

 

[dcdiscokid]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

My fandom is secure.  But like I've said I got young kids who I furiously work to keep Redskins fans and its not easy with the rep we have nationally.  Depending on the narrative the Redskins either aren't cool to like or don't have it together like some of the better teams in the league.  And Bruce is front and center right now within that narrative.   And I don't think that rep is just some wild witch hunt that is baseless.

I hear you on this, I live in the Baltimore area and it's so hard to keep my daughter allied with the skins and not flock to the dirty birds with RG3. lol.  All her friends root for either the Ravens or some other out of state bandwagon team like the pats or broncos.  I think she will always hate Dallas, NY, and the Eagles so at least I dont have to worry about that. But its hard to tell her to root for the skins when we make public mistake after public mistake, and the team down the road won a super bowl she remembers.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

12 minutes ago, dcdiscokid said:

I hear you on this, I live in the Baltimore area and it's so hard to keep my daughter allied with the skins and not flock to the dirty birds with RG3. lol.  All her friends root for either the Ravens or some other out of state bandwagon team like the pats or broncos.  I think she will always hate Dallas, NY, and the Eagles so at least I dont have to worry about that. But its hard to tell her to root for the skins when we make public mistake after public mistake, and the team down the road won a super bowl she remembers.

 

My daughter was a Redskins fan until she moved to Cincinnati, and then became a Bengals fan...didn't last long lol. She's still a Skins fan but owns a Bengals sweatshirt. I'll get text messages when the Skins win big or lose in embarrassing fashion lol...