The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[Thinking Skins]

15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

B.  Today Grant shared a story from someone who works there, goofing on the new film guy rep that Bruce wants -- saying Bruce likes to show on his personal TV in his office that he watches tape so he leaves film on pause so you can see it when you go to his office.  This person walked into Bruce's office a day or so later and noticed Bruce left the exact same frame on his TV on pause from the other day.  And they thought it was funny.

This story would be more interesting to me if it had more context to it. I can think of several times when I pressed pause on a movie to handle some household chores and didn't get back to that movie for a week or so. Heck I have a game of Madden on my PS3 that's been on pause since mid March.

 

But, and this goes back to a recurring discussion between the two of us - Bruce Allen's role. If Bruce was THE SCOUTING DEPARTMENT, this would be something more concerning. I look at it as something similar to when I put a math book on my manager's desk and two days later, its stuck on the same page. If my manager was presenting my work and needed to understand the details of combinatorics and probability and decision trees and stuff, the fact that he wasn't going through the stuff I sent him would be more frustrating. But knowing that presenting my work is more of my job and his job is just to be aware of what I'm doing and asking some of the questions about societal impact are more up his alley means that I'm not going to be frustrated if he can't tell the difference between a Markov Chain and an equivalence relation.

 

The guy I'm betting on in all of this is Smth because he's the scout with a history of scouting. If he weren't in the room, or if he weren't watching videos, or if he weren't knowledgeable about stuff I'd be concerned. Right now this is more of a zing because it involves Bruce not looking smart but its not something that works me up.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

14 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

This story would be more interesting to me if it had more context to it. I can think of several times when I pressed pause on a movie to handle some household chores and didn't get back to that movie for a week or so. Heck I have a game of Madden on my PS3 that's been on pause since mid March.

 

But, and this goes back to a recurring discussion between the two of us - Bruce Allen's role. If Bruce was THE SCOUTING DEPARTMENT, this would be something more concerning. I look at it as something similar to when I put a math book on my manager's desk and two days later, its stuck on the same page. If my manager was presenting my work and needed to understand the details of combinatorics and probability and decision trees and stuff, the fact that he wasn't going through the stuff I sent him would be more frustrating. But knowing that presenting my work is more of my job and his job is just to be aware of what I'm doing and asking some of the questions about societal impact are more up his alley means that I'm not going to be frustrated if he can't tell the difference between a Markov Chain and an equivalence relation.

 

The guy I'm betting on in all of this is Smth because he's the scout with a history of scouting. If he weren't in the room, or if he weren't watching videos, or if he weren't knowledgeable about stuff I'd be concerned. Right now this is more of a zing because it involves Bruce not looking smart but its not something that works me up.

 

The assumption I'm getting that is being made, is that when it comes to actual talent evaluation and knowledge they feel Bruce is all show and little substance, and his leaving the game film on pause for people to see is a superficial attempt to say "See? I watch film, too!" lol...I'm not sure what other scenario would cause laughter in anyone.

 

Again, just because of how my mind automatically works (which, according to testing, apparently it's my nature to find logic flaws), my first thought was that something is missing from the story. If it was Allen's intent to get people to think "wow, he's watching film like a real GM," who exactly was he trying to impress? Because I assumed the film being on pause was for people to see when he was not in the office himself. And how many people enter his office when he's not there?...Can't be too many, and that includes receptionists, secretaries and janitors lol. Because if Allen's intent was to fool people into thinking he's heavy into film study while he was IN his office, wouldn't it make more sense for him to, yanno, actually be looking AT film when someone entered the room? lol...Having it paused in the background when someone enters his office is nowhere near as effective as him looking at the monitor and taking notes while game film plays. Those notes can be scribbles, no one would know.

 

 

[SkinsGuy]

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Did you guys defending the article actually read it?

 

The explanation for how things are done sounds like a chaotic clustereff.

 

The part about watching two minutes more of tape while on the clock was also interesting.  I'm now curious if that's how it goes down in other draft rooms.

 

Defending the article?

 

So you really believe that the Redskins' front  office just started watching film last week as bobandweave  claimed the article said? Really? 

[Reaper Skins]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

The assumption I'm getting that is being made, is that when it comes to actual talent evaluation and knowledge they feel Bruce is all show and little substance, and his leaving the game film on pause for people to see is a superficial attempt to say "See? I watch film, too!"

 

 

 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

58 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

Defending the article?

 

So you really believe that the Redskins' front  office just started watching film last week as bobandweave  claimed the article said? Really? 

I gave him a little more credit than thinking that he actually believed that the first time any of the guys watched tape was last week.  I'm certain he knows better than that and maybe could have worded it better.  I'd say that the article itself paints a picture of dysfunction and that was what he was getting at.

 

Perhaps the Redskins FO will be trailblazers of new ways to run a professional football team.  That's best case scenario.  Worst is well ya know...

[goskins10]

7 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I gave him a little more credit than thinking that he actually believed that the first time any of the guys watched tape was last week.  I'm certain he knows better than that and maybe could have worded it better.  I'd say that the article itself paints a picture of dysfunction and that was what he was getting at.

 

Perhaps the Redskins FO will be trailblazers of new ways to run a professional football team.  That's best case scenario.  Worst is well ya know...

 

I am usually on the same page at least to a certain extent, but I disagree with your assessment of that article. That is how pretty much every team puts together their draft board. The scouts put together the initial board and the team leaders - GM, HC, Dir Player Personnel typically review the player information, add their own information based on the film they have watched and formulate the final board. 

 

As long as everyone agrees they leave them slotted. If they disagree they watch tape together later on the ones they disagree on and come to consensus. On draft day the same group makes the call on who they select.  

 

The only difference here, and what is ultimately the real problem, is not a dysfunctional process - because it's actually pretty standard. It's who is making the decisions. And while they can dance around it all they want, right now the final call is Bruce. None of us want Bruce making the final call, and for good reason. But he is determined to prove he is a "football guy" when no matter how many times he says he is, he is just not. He is a slick politician who gets decent deals done sometimes but pisses a lot of people off in the process. 

 

My hope is that in an effort to prove he can build a team he actually listens to the guys around him more and they get their way. If he gets stubborn and decides he knows more than they do, it will be a disaster. 

 

One thing is for sure, this is his board. No question about this being Scot's' board. No potential strategy from anyone but the guys in the room right now which by his own doing falls on his shoulders. i am certain this is the way Dan sees this. So far he bought this bill of goods - that is a different problem all unto itself. Good or bad, Bruce owns this. This is what he wanted. There is an old saying - Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it!

 

The next few days will be very interesting. I know one thing that could help him tremendously going into tomorrow - sign Hankins. The margin of error goes up dramatically. For that reason alone I am surprised he has not found a few more $M. If he doesn't, if Hankins signs somewhere else at a pretty decent number, some will call Bruce stupid. I do not think he is stupid. I believe he is much more arrogant than stupid. 

 

 

[bobandweave]

Don't really get the reaction to my post that's been received. I get it. I read it wrong, sue me. Doesn't change a single thing about this ESPN article just being another insider look at how dysfunctional and mismanaged this team is today. 

 

To me many of you are looking for silver linings to defend what the recent news stories about this front office especially Bruce Allen have come out and actually believe this guy deserves to be in the position he has been in since 2009. So your attacking a messenger instead of the point. We aren't talking about some guy who just flew in for a cup of coffee here. Bruce has been the head of this organization for nearly an entire decade. What has he done to warrant such alligance from so many of you?

 

The cascade of reports about how disliked Bruce Allen is by agents, how there is clear dysfunction within the management of everything from the draft, to trades, to communication within the ranks, to the lack of transparency within his employees, to the slow gutting of this team this off season, to current player relations, to not addressing the needs of this team in the offseason, to not having a face of the organization, to drinking on the job by these guys and on and on screams that this is a horribly run team. 

 

And what do the fans of this team get as reason for Dan Snyder and his owner committee not firing and removing Bruce Allen? That Dan Snyder wants to stick it to the taxpayers on the next stadium deal and use Bruce Allen's connections to squeeze the most money out of that deal possible for him. 

 

You guys buy that as the reason to keep him around? So they can stick it to the fans? After the long history of Dan sticking it to the fans as much as possible? I don't understand why fans seem to recall the mistakes of the past but seem to gloss over the meaning of Bruce being included in the next stadium deal. Does anyone actually think the new stadium deal is a good reason to have this guy as the head of this storied franchise? Or that any other professional team would be so stupid as to let this be known about the head of the team after Dan's past? 

 

I could understand that maybe some of you feel as if this is completely out of your control so you don't care about it and don't want to hear opinions like mine but this entire forum is people discussing and arguing points that they have no control over so I'm not buying it. And with the outcry of lousy opinions lately about Alex Smith vs Kirk Cousins debate raging on like no one puts this fault at Bruce Allen's feet when the player and agent have said as much themselves. I don't get it. 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

You've never seen me generalize the Bruce critics as simpletons or if you have I'd like you to pull the receipts. What frustrates me is that Its always an either or thing. Either you love the front office or you hate them. You love calling me a Bruce supporter or Bruce defender or these labels that I never give myself.

 

 

On that point, sorry I didn't mean that literally.  I've seen you multiple times define the other side of your argument where their position comes off looking pretty dumb.    And my point there wasn't to highlight you as being an exception as for doing this -- my point was I think we all do it at times (me, too) -- in the heat of discussion to try to bring our point home where sometimes a dose of hyperbole helps drive things.   And on rare occasion, I have called you out on specific posts in that regard and highlighted them in the FA thread.  And the only reason why I bothered to do that was not because you are a bad offender on that point -- but IMO you aren't pristine on it either.  And like I said neither am I. 

 

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I think the problem is that you read my posts and immediately think I'm talking about you, when in reality I think you're one of the more logical posters on the board. Its posts like @bobandweave just made that I'm talking about. Or The one two posts later by @BatteredFanSyndrome.

 

Thanks.  Actually I really don't think you are talking to me.  My button in this debate I sort of hit above.  That is, on occasion people who defend the FO rally around the idea that they have the more reasonable-nuanced positions.  And IMO some of them feign neutrality to make them look like they are the objective ones.  And when they make that point no matter who it is -- whether they have specific people in mind or not -- its still generalized as one side of the discussion has the moral high ground of objectivity and nuance. Even if both sides are called out on it, its often slanted in one direction.   And when that happens, I feel compelled to say otherwise because I don't find it even remotely true. 

 

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

since you bring it up, the joke you made yesterday that paints the picture of anybody who doesn't believe these stories coming out attacking Bruce as basically the equivalent of Flat Earthers who are denying all types of evidence. I know it was a joke but it does get tiresome. F

 

I don't mind having nuanced conversations about Bruce. I do it all the time.  And I think nuance is in play in almost every Bruce item with some exceptions in the mix.

 

The reason why I did that post is I find it silly that some think Bruce's critics are just dupes being influenced by the media.  And one side is so much more discerning and thoughtful and can read through it all.   Now, I'd get that point if it was an isolated thing or two.  But there are so many waves that are coming in on so many fronts relating to Bruce that IMO its borderline ridiculous to challenge there isn't that much smoke there.

 

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Maybe I don't have a sense of humor but I'm not one for zings. I'm not saying that they should stop but I am saying that when one side is looking for discussion and the other side wants to just dismiss the argument and laugh, it gets frustrating. I notice it from my angle because I see it happen a lot from the pessimistic crowd. But if it happens on both sides that's not good either. The whole point of my post was (really something I've been saying for about 5 years here) that this place can handle deep discussions and we're seeing fewer and fewer of them. And its not that I want the humor to stop, but if one side gives a serious reply, it shouldn't be just dismissed with a clown gif (not saying I've actually seen too many clown gifs)

 

I get your point with the clown gif.  On a really rare occasion I've given one.  I don't think I've ever given you one unless I am forgetting.   I don't think your points are clownish. 

 

You may recall but on the FA thread, I kept defending Paul Richardson as a player to take in FA.  I was doing it over and over and over again.  But I wasn't owning him as a player I wanted.  And then at one point I finally posted, look I am defending this dude so much obviously I wouldn't be doing it unless I am invested in the player (opposite of love is indifference) so I'll own it because obviously I care.

 

You actually own your position which I respect. And I get its not all roses for Bruce but its about the whole operation with you.  So while I have had probably more heated debates with you than anyone on Bruce.  I get where you are coming from and I respect you actually give your compass point on the subject.  Not everyone does. 

[bobandweave]

 

Quote

The only difference here, and what is ultimately the real problem, is not a dysfunctional process - because it's actually pretty standard. It's who is making the decisions. And while they can dance around it all they want, right now the final call is Bruce. None of us want Bruce making the final call, and for good reason.

 

I don't know why you say this. The final call on trades is Bruce Allen in the draft. The final call on player selection is not on Bruce Allen. I posted a link detailing this in this thread. Edit, noticed this link I posted in another thread and not here. So here it is here:

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/76059/group-decides-redskins-draft-pick-but-bruce-allen-has-final-say-on-trades

 

Bruce does not have the final say on the player drafted and I believe that is not an accident but rather a nice way of protecting him when the player selected doesn't work out. Bruce Allen is not at fault if the pick doesn't work out because he's protected like he knows where all the dead bodies are in the organization. So no one above him can fire him when it doesn't work out. 

 

 

Quote

My hope is that in an effort to prove he can build a team he actually listens to the guys around him more and they get their way. If he gets stubborn and decides he knows more than they do, it will be a disaster. 

 

Since 2009 when has it not been a disaster? In 2012 the head coach was against the move up in the draft for the player they took. The front office got stubborn and won and they were wrong. It's always been a disaster under Bruce Allen and had the head coach not been wise enough to draft a second QB that year the last three seasons of mediocre seasons wouldn't have gone as well as they have. The coach has to work around the ignorance of Bruce Allen to make anything work here. Same with Jay now. Jay needs a good RB and so far Bruce has refused to give him one. So Jay is forced to work with the scraps he has been given to make something resemble okay. 

 

But make no mistake, they aren't going anywhere with Bruce Allen as the head of the organization and never will. As time marches on, all the fans get is reminders of how horrible it is with this idiot running the show over and over again. 

 

 

Quote

 

One thing is for sure, this is his board. No question about this being Scot's' board. No potential strategy from anyone but the guys in the room right now which by his own doing falls on his shoulders. i am certain this is the way Dan sees this.

 

I highly seriously doubt that. When the world knows that Bruce is only using the ingredients that these nameless scouts give him your fall guys are already in place and none of them are named Bruce Allen. What makes you think that Dan sees this any other way?

 

 

 

Quote

The next few days will be very interesting. I know one thing that could help him tremendously going into tomorrow - sign Hankins.

 

The Hankins ships sailed. The USA Article tells us all why Hankins isn't here. His agent doesn't want to deal with Bruce. And unless Bruce greatly overpays no one will deal with him. Bruce won't pay up for Hankins so he's a lost cause. I predict the first round pick tomorrow is Da'ron Payne because of all of the stories about former Bama players talking him up to Bruce. That way if he fails Bruce can say he was trying to fix the D Line and blame the voices for them taking him. It's all a game to protect Bruce Allen

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

14 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

Don't really get the reaction to my post that's been received. I get it. I read it wrong, sue me. Doesn't change a single thing about this ESPN article just being another insider look at how dysfunctional and mismanaged this team is today. 

 

 

 

Can't speak for anyone else, but I have never been a fan of "My overall point still stands, so it doesn't matter if the stuff I said to make that point is true or not."

 

Because when you say things are worse than you imagined due to believing in something that is not true...it kind of invalidates your entire post.

 

[bobandweave]

13 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Can't speak for anyone else, but I have never been a fan of "My overall point still stands, so it doesn't matter if the stuff I said to make that point is true or not."

 

Because when you say things are worse than you imagined due to believing in something that is not true...it kind of invalidates your entire post.

 

 

Sir you have nit picked almost everything I've ever posted here because we don't see things eye to eye so frankly the fact your open about "Lets discredit everything I say" doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

Unless your perfect you should remember that you don't get everything right either. Mistakes are made from time to time from all of us. I don't throw stones like that quoted post because they can be hurled back at you and I vent about the team not the person.

 

Yes I made a mistake, hardly means anyone should discredit everything I say unless that's your goal of silencing me. If it is why not put me on ignore and save yourself the 12 seconds you spent writing that next time? Wouldn't bother me one bit. I am just one voice on the forum and not looking to have the wolf pack attack me. I made a mistake, move on. Thank you

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

This story would be more interesting to me if it had more context to it.

 

My point that I made the other day on the whole media conspiracy post is all about your point above.  At some point isn't a picture painted?  How many different things from different directions do we have to hear about coupled with our own observations to have a picture painted?  

 

If I hear one of my employees is having issues with this client and that client and that client.  Yeah maybe some of it is hyperbole and heck some of it likely is even wrong.  But all of it?  Why I am keep seeing and hearing things about this employee and not another?  Why is that employee liked but not the other employee liked? 

 

3 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

But, and this goes back to a recurring discussion between the two of us - Bruce Allen's role. If Bruce was THE SCOUTING DEPARTMENT, this would be something more concerning. 

 

I am not concerned about it.  It just adds to the picture to me, that's all.  My biggest takeaway from it actually is that it confirms what others have said which is some in that building don't like Bruce.   If anything I'd prefer Bruce didn't watch film at all.

 

And again I don't look at it as an isolated thing.  I take in the whole soup.  My take on Jay for example isn't purely predicated on the next game they play.  I have watched Jay over 64 games.  Getting into a macro debate about Jay purely about game #1 next season seems just weird to me.  Same principle applies to me to Bruce.   Today isn't day one and episode one in the Bruce story.  So I don't get the logic of digesting things about him that way.   My feeling is the sample is so large right now that if people aren't bothered yet by Bruce -- chances are they never will be.  Ditto for the critics.  We've seen so much that for Bruce to turn the tide it would be have to be one heck of a surprise-turnaround.

 

3 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

The guy I'm betting on in all of this is Smth because he's the scout with a history of scouting. If he weren't in the room, or if he weren't watching videos, or if he weren't knowledgeable about stuff I'd be concerned. Right now this is more of a zing because it involves Bruce not looking smart but its not something that works me up.

 

I can't speak for everyone but knowing how some people here have articulated their points.  The zing here on Bruce isn't what you think it is -- at least not for some but its:

 

A. Here is another log to the fire

B. Some clearly don't like or respect Bruce and they work at Redskins Park.  And yes that's meaningful factoring context.

C. It exposes the oddity of having a non-personnel guy run personnel where even Bruce recognizes that and feels defensive enough about it to do something like this.

 

And I've come around a little on C.  I am not that ambitious or have high hopes for Dan's next move.  So if Eric Schaffer is next in line -- I'd take it in two seconds.  I like everything I hear about Schaffer.  As for Bruce, I've heard enough from others and seen enough that I've not liked with my own eyes that I want him reassigned.  I think he'd be awesome working the backrooms to land a stadium -- and that's not an insult -- its a tough job to spring potentially billions of dollars out of a state government.

[goskins10]

38 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

 

I don't know why you say this. The final call on trades is Bruce Allen in the draft. The final call on player selection is not on Bruce Allen. I posted a link detailing this in this thread. Edit, noticed this link I posted in another thread and not here. So here it is here:

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/76059/group-decides-redskins-draft-pick-but-bruce-allen-has-final-say-on-trades

 

Bruce does not have the final say on the player drafted and I believe that is not an accident but rather a nice way of protecting him when the player selected doesn't work out. Bruce Allen is not at fault if the pick doesn't work out because he's protected like he knows where all the dead bodies are in the organization. So no one above him can fire him when it doesn't work out. 

 

 

I read the article and find it to be bull****. Group think is bull****. Someone has to break ties and be the ultimate decision maker. Since everyone but Dan works for Bruce, it's Bruce. I could care less what bull**** comes out otherwise. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. He has control of the team and makes the final calls. What I find interesting is that you question most everything else the team says but you go right along with this. 

 

38 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Since 2009 when has it not been a disaster? In 2012 the head coach was against the move up in the draft for the player they took. The front office got 

 

Edit

 

So exactly when did I say it was not a disaster before? Wasted space above. Not responding as it's a waste of time. 

 

38 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

I highly seriously doubt that. When the world knows that Bruce is only using the ingredients that these nameless scouts give him your fall guys are already in place and none of them are named Bruce Allen. What makes you think that Dan sees this any other way?

 

You are free to your own opinion. I gave mine. Not responding other than that. It's a waste of time.  

 

38 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

The Hankins ships sailed. The USA Article tells us all why Hankins isn't here. His agent doesn't want to deal with Bruce. And unless Bruce greatly overpays no one will deal with him. Bruce won't pay up for Hankins so he's a lost cause. I predict the first round pick tomorrow is Da'ron Payne because of all of the stories about former Bama players talking him up to Bruce. That way if he fails Bruce can say he was trying to fix the D Line and blame the voices for them taking him. It's all a game to protect Bruce Allen

 

 

Hankins may not sign here. But you are making a correlation that is not proven and has no factual data to support it other than a very flawed USA Today article. I am not fan of Bruce's but that USA Today article was missing so much context and details it's pretty meaningless. Other players have signed here. Garcon who played here under Bruce recommended Richardson play here. I am certain it has a lot more to do with money than an agents feelings being bent. Not saying Bruce Allen isn't a douche. Just saying that there is no evidence that Hankins has made up his and that's what made the difference. Lastly, if the agent thing were true the Redskins would not even be on the short list, and his agent would definitely not let him come here. 

 

 

[bobandweave]

11 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I read the article and find it to be bull****. Group think is bull****. Someone has to break ties and be the ultimate decision maker. Since everyone but Dan works for Bruce, it's Bruce. I could care less what bull**** comes out otherwise. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. He has control of the team and makes the final calls. What I find interesting is that you question most everything else the team says but you go right along with this. 

 

LOL Sir I don't question everything the team says, only when it's obvious that they are screwing up. Your tone to me is harsh and people say I am typing angry.  Take it down a notch 

 

 

11 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

Hankins may not sign here. But you are making a correlation that is not proven and has no factual data to support it other than a very flawed USA Today article. I am not fan of Bruce's but that USA Today article was missing so much context and details it's pretty meaningless. Other players have signed here. Garcon who played here under Bruce recommended Richardson play here. I am certain it has a lot more to do with money than an agents feelings being bent. Not saying Bruce Allen isn't a douche. Just saying that there is no evidence that Hankins has made up his and that's what made the difference. Lastly, if the agent thing were true the Redskins would not even be on the short list, and his agent would definitely not let him come here. 

 

Time will tell. I predict no Hankins. I predict that deals been dead for weeks and with time others will see this as well. I was wrong yesterday I could be wrong about this as well but lets be real, this teams not one to fart around when they want a player.

 

Now if you have a different prediction give it. You don't actually say you predict Hankins is here. You said "he may not sign here" well great we agree on that. I'll leave it at that

[goskins10]

3 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

LOL Sir I don't question everything the team says, only when it's obvious that they are screwing up. Your tone to me is harsh and people say I am typing angry.  Take it down a notch 

 

 

 

Time will tell. I predict no Hankins. I predict that deals been dead for weeks and with time others will see this as well. I was wrong yesterday I could be wrong about this as well but lets be real, this teams not one to fart around when they want a player.

 

Now if you have a different prediction give it. You don't actually say you predict Hankins is here. You said "he may not sign here" well great we agree on that. I'll leave it at that

 

I stand by the statement that I think the article is bull****. If you take as harsh that's up to you. I can promise you I am not angry nor is there anything you can do to get me there. I simply replied. Again, if you find that harsh that's on you.

 

I have no idea if Hankins is going to sign here and said so. My point was you said it was already decided (Hankins ship has sailed) and had attributed cause (referenced the USA Today article which was extremely flawed) when in fact there was virtually nothing to support it. If you have verifiable information please share. If it's simply your opinion phrase it that way, not as if it is fact. 

 

 

[bobandweave]

14 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I stand by the statement that I think the article is bull****. If you take as harsh that's up to you. I can promise you I am not angry nor is there anything you can do to get me there. I simply replied. Again, if you find that harsh that's on you.

 

I found your tone harsh. What's not clear about that when I quote you saying

 

"I read the article and find it to be bull****. Group think is bull****. Someone has to break ties and be the ultimate decision maker. Since everyone but Dan works for Bruce, it's Bruce. I could care less what bull**** comes out otherwise. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. He has control of the team and makes the final calls."

 

Do you talk to everyone that way?

 

What's hard to understand to me is how you discredit the ESPN article without backing up your reasoning and somehow take that out on me like I'm too stupid to understand you. I understand you just fine.

 

I understand that you have issues with news articles that come out about this team. I don't share that opinion. I rather like the news and reading about insider things because they remove my speculation and keep me from smoking the hopepium and point out whats real and factual to me.

 

If someone thinks "fake news" about everything written about the front office without justifying any reason to feel that way that's an issue they have. I don't have that issue. 

[XtremeFan55]

Just finished reading the Doug Williams press release and to paraphrase his oft used phrase.....”At the end of the day”...this draft is now going to fall upon Doug Williams whether he had the strongest voice in the decisions or not.  Allen can twist it around and blame Williams if the draft falls short and the season ends in disaster because Williams is the de facto GM even though it was Allen who is responsible for Cousins leaving and it is Allen who traded for Alex Smith without Williams knowledge.  Go read some articles on Trent Baalke...the former GM of the 49ers...Allen eerily looks like another Baalke who could be on his way out.  The sooner the better.  

 

BTW.  I just drove by Redskins Park and for the first time in memory the mini blinds on the windows are straight and it doesn’t look like some cheap auto repair place.  But it is still a dump.  

[XtremeFan55]

FYI.  Williams has been on record for saying the focus is on defensive tackle to stop the run or RB to fix the running game.  If the Redskins pick a WR, CB or Safety with the 13th pick we will all know who is really is charge and Williams will just be another suit with a meaningless title.  Almost like another ‘Baghdad Bob’......

[Spearfeather]

59 minutes ago, XtremeFan55 said:

FYI.  Williams has been on record for saying the focus is on defensive tackle to stop the run or RB to fix the running game.  If the Redskins pick a WR, CB or Safety with the 13th pick we will all know who is really is charge and Williams will just be another suit with a meaningless title.  Almost like another ‘Baghdad Bob’......

 

If your focus is on a Rb or DT, does that mean you have to take one of them with the 13th pick ?

[OVCChairman]

1 hour ago, XtremeFan55 said:

FYI.  Williams has been on record for saying the focus is on defensive tackle to stop the run or RB to fix the running game.  If the Redskins pick a WR, CB or Safety with the 13th pick we will all know who is really is charge and Williams will just be another suit with a meaningless title.  Almost like another ‘Baghdad Bob’......

 

 

OOORRRR the player they want isnt there... or a player that they weren't expecting to fall did. 

 

If Bruce was going to play puppeteer and overrule a draft choice, why wouldn't he just do it in the meetings leading up to now?  If Bruce and Dan were meddling, they would be making it very clear NOW what they're focusing on... not waiting til the war room.  

 

They can still focus on those positions without using the no. 13 pick on one.  If James, Fitz, or any other 'elite' level defensive player were to fall and they take him, I feel like that could just as much be the product of a lucky break for a player falling.

 

 

[TK]

22 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

If your focus is on a Rb or DT, does that mean you have to take one of them with the 13th pick ?

You can always try to trade for a DT from .....

 

 

 

wait for it 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tampa. 

[skinny21]

I would hate to see what they’d be willing to give up for McCoy (Ioannidas and a 2nd?), but that’s a heck of a player with almost no strings financially.  Interesting.  

 

Reed and a 5th this year?

[JSSkinz]

50 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

If Bruce was going to play puppeteer and overrule a draft choice, why wouldn't he just do it in the meetings leading up to now?

This is where it gets silly with some of the fans.

 

The scouts will do their job and Bruce, Dan, and Doug will use that data to make a pick.

 

People make it seem like Bruce has his own scouting department and will overrule the current personnel department and just pick whoever he wants.

 

I think its crazy talk.

[OVCChairman]

8 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

This is where it gets silly with some of the fans.

 

The scouts will do their job and Bruce, Dan, and Doug will use that data to make a pick.

 

People make it seem like Bruce has his own scouting department and will overrule the current personnel department and just pick whoever he wants.

 

I think its crazy talk.

 

 

It's been a building frustration for years (one i've fallen victim to myself) that have forced people to expect the worst, immediately looking at any situation and assuming it will fail.  The ongoing bias against Allen that takes ANY situation that they don't 'agree' with and spins it in their own thought process that it's a failed decision. 

 

I could see an endless number of scenarios that we still address DT / RB this offseason and it doesn't include taking either one of those positions at 13.  We also may not draft a DT because the chips fall a certain way and when our picks our up, there aren't any worth the pick.  There are 31 teams that will influence how we pick players during the draft, so to assume that we take Minkah Fitzpatrick instead of Maurice Hurst at 13 doesn't mean Bruce is now overruling our entire draft process and we're doomed.  

 

 

And for the record, I can't stand Bruce as a GM, I think he needs to be replaced, and I don't even want him to remain on the staff for the new stadium deal.  He's a politician, he's got terrible people skills, and if he treats his contractors and city members regarding the stadium deal like he does the players of this team... good luck getting the deal done.  

[SkinsGuy]

5 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I gave him a little more credit than thinking that he actually believed that the first time any of the guys watched tape was last week.  I'm certain he knows better than that and maybe could have worded it better.  I'd say that the article itself paints a picture of dysfunction and that was what he was getting at.

 

Perhaps the Redskins FO will be trailblazers of new ways to run a professional football team.  That's best case scenario.  Worst is well ya know...

 

I didn't see a picture of dysfunction in the article. I saw a way the Redskins have chosen to do things.

 

There is no one road, or one way to championship contention. The road the Redskins have chosen might be the right way. It might be the very wrong way.

 

Only time will tell.