The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[HardcoreZorn]

@It'sCampbellJasonCampbellwas able to articulate my own feelings better than myself lol. Two underlying themes he touched on that are actually of the root of the majority of my posts are the media and the fact there's so much negativity directed toward someone that doesn't seem to be holding us back a great deal. Look no further than a couple pages ago to see my thoughts on Schaeffer and Kyle Smith vs Bruce to get a feel for how I think of each. Of course conveniently glossed over or considered something I'm hiding behind.

 

But back to the themes above, first the media. Dan Snyder has been a stinky rotten owner for going on 20 years now. There's the name controversy. There's the lack of wins over the years. There are the embarrassing tales of the Archulettas, Sherm the Bingo Caller, Beck and Grossman, Haynesworth doing the worm and on and on and on. I've touched on some of this before, but we are an easy target. We don't deserve respect on the outside and I'm cool with that. I get that. What I don't get is how someone who has followed this team as closely as some of you do can't see the stark contrast. And no, do not fire back with the 101 level course BS and how Vinny isn't the barometer for success. I friggin get that. But we didn't just change the process, we changed the results. If you can't see that, I think you are choosing not to see that to be frank. Many are allowing the aforementioned embarrassing garbage we used to do to over influence things such as the Kirk Cousins situation, at least in my opinion. And it bothers me to see so much hostility toward this franchise when there is something very special in my opinion being built right under our noses. It's less about Bruce, and more why the heck so much vitriol toward someone that one, doesn't seem to be holding us back much. But also, why so much vitriol in general? We have what looks to be the makings of a special defensive line, all on rookie contracts and 24 and under. The people who post in here about that garbage agent poll and get all spun around the axle on Russell's supposed stories of Dan stomping around the office post a fraction on things such as how friggin awesome it is to have a young dominant defensive line. This is just an example, but that gets to me, hence why I post so much in here and in the Kirk thread. Bruce Allen could literally be fired tomorrow and I'd be like, alright that's cool let's keep this train rolling. I actually get a good chuckle each and every night before I go to bed that I somehow have portrayed myself as Bruce Allen's closet fanboy. Who knows, maybe I just suck really bad at conveying thoughts via the keyboard.

[It'sCampbellJasonCampbell]

18 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

And I am not on the brink where a post from you or anyone else is going to turn my view about him -- no matter how good you think the points are.  It's going to take a lot to turn me the other way.  Sorry.

 

Look, I don’t want to keep you from your ever important work deadlines, but I just have one quick hypothetical to run by you here. 

 

I absolutely get your frustration and dislike for Vruce, and it even takes a lot to admit you’re so far beyond the pale that a couple random words from some asshole anonymous (me) aren’t going to change your opinion. That’s fine. But let’s just say for a second we succeed this year and win the division (not outrageous, considering the current state of the NFC East), for the 2nd time in 4 years. And maybe we even win a playoff game (a little outrageous, but hey these things do happen). Or let’s get really crazy and say we make it to the NFC Championship game (OUTRAGEOUS!!!)  and lose (back to reality), but in a respectable manner, and we go into next season with actual hope for once. If all those things were to magically fall into place, with Bruce Almighty still working his current job (whatever the hell it may be), would you still be leading the mob against him? Or at the very least claiming we had success despite him? 

 

Im asking only because i’m curious if you really think the problem with this team is Bruce Allen. Or if your problems with Bruce Allen are even redskins related. You’ve met him and genuinely dislike him as a person and wish nothing but bad fortune to him—but at what point did this stop becoming a football thing and start becoming a personal one? If there’s nothing I, or anyone else here, can say to even slightly change your mind, what, if anything, can Bruce do to accomplish that? 

[Skinsinparadise]

46 minutes ago, It'sCampbellJasonCampbell said:

 

Look, I don’t want to keep you from your ever important work deadlines, but I just have one quick hypothetical to run by you here. 

 

I absolutely get your frustration and dislike for Vruce, and it even takes a lot to admit you’re so far beyond the pale that a couple random words from some asshole anonymous (me) aren’t going to change your opinion. That’s fine. But let’s just say for a second we succeed this year and win the division (not outrageous, considering the current state of the NFC East), for the 2nd time in 4 years. And maybe we even win a playoff game (a little outrageous, but hey these things do happen). Or let’s get really crazy and say we make it to the NFC Championship game (OUTRAGEOUS!!!)  and lose (back to reality), but in a respectable manner, and we go into next season with actual hope for once. If all those things were to magically fall into place, with Bruce Almighty still working his current job (whatever the hell it may be), would you still be leading the mob against him? Or at the very least claiming we had success despite him? 

 

Im asking only because i’m curious if you really think the problem with this team is Bruce Allen. Or if your problems with Bruce Allen are even redskins related. You’ve met him and genuinely dislike him as a person and wish nothing but bad fortune to him—but at what point did this stop becoming a football thing and start becoming a personal one? If there’s nothing I, or anyone else here, can say to even slightly change your mind, what, if anything, can Bruce do to accomplish that? 

 

LOL. Ok fair enough.  The hard thing is you can't really cover everything in every post and there are nuances to points so just because I don't fill in every part of my point in each post doesn't mean there aren't more layers to them.  I've posted enough in this thread where I've hit plenty of detail and expounded on those points. I've expounded plenty in excruciating detail about what it is about Bruce that bothers me.  And its all there if you go back pages ago. 

 

I met Bruce, he was nice but came off impersonal, like a suit -- hard for me to explain.  Jay and Scot who I met the same day came off real.  And really nice guys.  But my take on Bruce had little to do with that exchange.  It's about a whole picture.  I've never met Joe Gibbs but if you watch enough interviews of him you get a sense of his personality.  Ditto any public figure you've seen a lot of.  With Bruce I have not been taken by his persona and he doesn't exude competence and integrity to ME when I watch him.  As for the media -- they just tell stories they've heard.  So for example when Mike Lombardi says he's worked with Bruce for years and how he handled Kirk and other FAs -- that's sooooo Bruce.  That reaffirms to me something I was already frustrated by.

 

When I listen to Eric Schaffer for example, he sounds great.  Comes off real.  Nice.  Competent.  He's given chances to take shots at others and he doesn't do it.  My own impression is positive.  Then, when I hear from people who know Schaffer and knows others who know him and they say glowing things that fit my perceptions then it solidifies them.  

 

If I had to detect a theme with some of the people here who are more OK with Bruce than I am.  It's something like this:  Hey don't you like how they are approaching the draft now?  Isn't it better than Cerrato?  And hey if he's not messing much with the soup why care about Bruce?  And or maybe he's a douche but we don't care.  Or Bruce's general persona and how he handles things -- doesn't bother them at all so they can't relate to the douche angle.

 

All of those points are fair.  But that's just perspective.  It's not fact.  My point is perspective, too.  For me the bar isn't is he better than Vinny.  For me it does matter that the President of the team is a national punchline -- and by that I don't mean I personally don't think he is but the national media unfairly pegs him as that -- for me its well deserved.  And yeah I do like the team to be represented by someone who comes off likable.   If others don't give a rats behind about that then OK.  But that's different strokes for different folks.  It's not driven by me not understanding their angle.  I get their angle.  I just have a very different one.  And I am far from alone on it.  

 

And I consider myself one of the more flexible people on the board.  By that I don't mean I don't have hard opinions.  I got plenty of hard opinions that are hard to shake but it takes me awhile to get there.  But I have made some global shifts in opinions on big topics here including RG3, Kirk, Jay, Shanny and yes even Bruce.  It takes a lot for me to land on an opinion where I am hardcore.  Bruce had to really earn me being a critic -- I even had his back on the Scot dispute and the Kirk contract until July 2017.   

 

Bruce comes off to me as a Machiavellian style politician who will run over you for power and run you down when you are out the door if it bucks up his status.  But some say he is super nice if you play ball with him and you have his back.  In my profession I know plenty of people that fit Bruce's description.  They aren't bad people.  But from my experience and perspective people like that they do not foster a winning culture.  And I've had enough of that style in the Dan tenure to crave and endorse that the guy with the highest title in the FO personifies that image.  The fact that they keep their draft picks now and he's not as bad as Cerrato doesn't change my take on that one whit.   Gibbs is my favorite Redskin of all time and it wasn't just because he was a great coach but also because he came off as a great person.

 

I've actually said on this very thread yeah if they have some great season, i'll ease up on Bruce.  Like I said in another post, for me to embrace a personality and persona that I don't think represents the organization well.  And a lot of what I think about Bruce centers on how much his style reminds me of Dan.  And Dan to me doesn't run this organization well.  So for me to embrace things I don't like -- they have to be really good.  The make the playoffs every 4 years or so, and the 8-8 stuff doesn't do it for me to embrace people at the helm I don't like.  Like I said if we are going to be a team that is easy to dislike because of the owner and to a lesser extent the Team President then at least do it Raiders style and win.   

 

So yeah if they win big -- sure I'll let it go.  And you aren't really pinning me down on anything.  I've voluntarily made this point before.  If they go 12-4 or whatever -- I'd say look I don't like Bruce's persona and his style and how he represents the team -- ditto Dan -- but at least they are winners now, finally. 

 

And I say this here and there on Dan related threads -- still hoping he becomes a better owner like Steinbrenner did in his later years when he mellowed.  I am actually relatively optimistic about Dan compared to others because while I see a Dan transformation as improbable, I don't see it as impossible.   It's hard to gauge right now because he's deeper in the shadows than ever. 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

@It'sCampbellJasonCampbellAnd it bothers me to see so much hostility toward this franchise 

 

Hostility to Bruce = hostility to the franchise? 

[HardcoreZorn]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Hostility to Bruce = hostility to the franchise? 

It carries over to every aspect of your posting, whether you realize it or not or even aware of it. And you aren't the only one. Maybe another thing to consider is that your self-proclaimed hard stances, even if formed over long periods of time, causes you to miss the boat in terms of evaluating the talent base. Or perhaps personal hatred toward the guy influences your tone or attitude about the direction of the team? If I recall, you predicted playoffs the last two years, this year not. That's fair but I don't know how you objectively see playoffs last year, add everyone back from injury, have another very strong draft and then sing the tune you now do about the team. Is it even remotely possible that your personal feelings toward Bruce, coupled with the soul crushing blow of losing Kirk Cousins and your rigid stance that Bruce was a bumbling dumb ass during negotiations and that Kirk had zilch to do with ANYTHING maybe just MAYBE has something to do with it? I've seen you plenty talk about how the sense inside the building is that they nailed this thing. That's a lot of competent people, by your self admission, that you are choosing to disagree with. I am far from on an island on that, as I've seen plenty of posts on here talking about liking the direction of this team. I think people just pick up on the fact you hate Bruce and that it alters your feelings toward the team as a whole. Even though Bruce just doesn't do much, again by your own self admission.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

16 hours ago, bird_1972 said:

 

My oh my, how the bar has been set so low with this team in terms of defining "success". How sad.

I don't think @Spearfeather was checking his schedule to see when they'd hang a banner, but sadly "consistently mediocre" is progress for this team. Very few times over the past 25 years have we had three seasons where we've had even an outside shot at contending by Thanksgiving or beyond. Yes, it's not much, but it's improvement over having a bubble-up decent season and immediately following with double-digit losses or an entire coaching change like we did in 1998, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2008, 2013...

 

That speaks to a couple things that many fans have wanted for our entire adult lives: 

 

1) Competent coaching - we may have that 

2) Organizational patience - there's little debating that giving Gruden an extension was another sign of progress

[bird_1972]

7 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

That speaks to a couple things that many fans have wanted for our entire adult lives: 

 

1) Competent coaching - we may have that 

2) Organizational patience - there's little debating that giving Gruden an extension was another sign of progress

 

@TD_washingtonredskins, I always value your insight. However I think that #1 may be a bit of a stretch here. I'd like to see this team start looking prepared week in and week out and for him to not look lost coming out of the locker room at halftime before I get on board with that one. 

 

As for #2, you are technically right. Although it again comes down to the low bar we set that just giving a coach an extension is a sign of patience for this team.

 

No knock on you, BTW, just how I see it.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

3 minutes ago, bird_1972 said:

 

@TD_washingtonredskins, I always value your insight. However I think that #1 may be a bit of a stretch here. I'd like to see this team start looking prepared week in and week out and for him to not look lost coming out of the locker room at halftime before I get on board with that one. 

 

As for #2, you are technically right. Although it again comes down to the low bar we set that just giving a coach an extension is a sign of patience for this team.

 

No knock on you, BTW, just how I see it.

 

Both good points...

 

I chose my words carefully. I don't really see two ways about the coaching...I didn't say good, I said competent. That, to me, is league-average and he's almost certainly proven that when you consider that we've consistently been within a game of 8-8 for three seasons. He gets out-coached at times, but there are games where he out-coaches others. When you consider that in the past 15 years we've had guys like Spurrier and Zorn who either didn't care enough or couldn't possibly fill the shoes, it's nice to have someone like Gruden. We also had our "named" coaches when they were way past their prime...maybe with the exception of Marty. 

 

Patience again can only be a relative thing...it's also been something that's been apparent at lower levels. Not only did we extend Gruden but we've gotten out in front of extending some core players (Kerrigan, Williams, Thompson, Reed, etc.) who we knew we wanted. That wasn't business as usual in the past. 

 

Thanks for the nice words, by the way. I enjoy reading your posts and always look forward to our conversations!

[bird_1972]

37 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Patience again can only be a relative thing...it's also been something that's been apparent at lower levels. Not only did we extend Gruden but we've gotten out in front of extending some core players (Kerrigan, Williams, Thompson, Reed, etc.) who we knew we wanted. That wasn't business as usual in the past. 

 

Thanks for the nice words, by the way. I enjoy reading your posts and always look forward to our conversations!

 

These points I totally agree with you on. In fact, even though many on these boards are upset we "let McVay go", I see that as a sign that we are finally developing talent in-house. Our younger roster also demonstrates that. 

 

We still fall short on organizational excellence (Snyder/Bruce) and coaching, but I have hopes that someone from the young group of scouts can eventually fill in the GM shoes when Bruce hits the bricks. Whenever that is.

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

It carries over to every aspect of your posting, whether you realize it or not or even aware of it. And you aren't the only one. Maybe another thing to consider is that your self-proclaimed hard stances, even if formed over long periods of time, causes you to miss the boat in terms of evaluating the talent base. Or perhaps personal hatred toward the guy influences your tone or attitude about the direction of the team? If I recall, you predicted playoffs the last two years, this year not. That's fair but I don't know how you objectively see playoffs last year, add everyone back from injury, have another very strong draft and then sing the tune you now do about the team. Is it even remotely possible that your personal feelings toward Bruce, coupled with the soul crushing blow of losing Kirk Cousins and your rigid stance that Bruce was a bumbling dumb ass during negotiations and that Kirk had zilch to do with ANYTHING maybe just MAYBE has something to do with it? I've seen you plenty talk about how the sense inside the building is that they nailed this thing. That's a lot of competent people, by your self admission, that you are choosing to disagree with. I am far from on an island on that, as I've seen plenty of posts on here talking about liking the direction of this team. I think people just pick up on the fact you hate Bruce and that it alters your feelings toward the team as a whole. Even though Bruce just doesn't do much, again by your own self admission.

 

Right back at you.  Whether you realize it or not you make a lot of your points on the subject often in a condescending way which often boomerangs because it begs the other person responding in the same kind of way.    

 

A lot of us have ideas about what we'd like to see the FO do BEFORE they are done.  And when they do what we like.  We complement it. I've done it many times.  Whether you've noticed it or not.  And, when they don't.  I double down on why I don't like it.  Even the Kirk negotiation I took Bruce's side until he did things that I didn't like.   Like I said I don't think Bruce is picking the groceries. 

 

My beef with Bruce is mostly his personality and the culture part of what that means -- and the overall approach to FA since that's where his stamp seems to be.  You seem to suggest who cares if he's a douche.   But I don't think that position gives you any moral high ground.  I can more easily argue the opposite. 

 

To you, when I and others don't fully buy into the most positive scenario that you paint its to you hating because we can't help ourselves.  To me, a lot of that stuff is just you buying into the most rosiest-fun, kool aide narrative and just assuming it will be true because hey why not?  And then you seem to think we are either oblivious to that narrative or are dense or a hater for not buying into it.  I can assure that neither is the case. And as I told you many times, I am not looking to spoil your fun so if you want to believe in whatever hits your fancy -- that's cool.  But in selling that narrative you aren't really selling anything interesting for me at least to digest.  Trust me I am aware of every glass half full narrative. 

 

I've disagreed with others but at times they at least throw in some facts and intel to digest that aren't so common knowledge.  And I am not saying you need to do the same but if you are going to hit the high horse and pontificate to others having it wrong then IMO throw something interesting out there beyond some boiler plate glass half full narrative of whatever topic is in play if you are going to try to sell that your perspective is superior.  

 

To me that's not talking football but just assuming the best laid plans are just about always going to work.  You think that makes you smart and positive.  To me it just comes off simple and naive.  Neither one of us is right.  It has nothing to do with being a hater or positive.  Again that's just perspective.  You see things your way as you explained -- I see things my way.   Nobody is right.  Nobody is wrong.  And as for predicting the future -- if you are going to assume everything is going to work out -- you will be right on some things and wrong about others.  Guessing football like Doug says is a crap shoot. 

 

If I recall you are in your early 20s (that's your age if I recall?).  I can sort of relate from that perspective. At that age,  I recall like yesterday reading in SI about Heath Shuler being the next Troy Aikman.  Michael Westbrook the next Irving.  I can give you so many narratives it will make your head spin.  And yeah I recall a phase where I just assumed that best case scenario about every draft pick and move would pan out.  I just don't anymore.  And it has nothing to do with being cynical or not liking Bruce. 

 

In my mind its just learning from the past where I got overly enthusiastic about narratives -- and learned that part of the hype and hope of the off season is assuming that everything is going to pan out -- but it simply doesn't always work that way.     This take has ZERO to do with my feelings about Bruce but it all has to do with my take about football.  You of all people should know i am not shy to put forward what I like or not like about Bruce.  But yeah my take of not buying in every single narrative has nothing to do with the dude.  I am a let things play out kind of guy.  You hit me for not predicting them going to the playoffs this year after predicting they'd do it for the previous 2 years because of Bruce.  Ridiculous.  I've explained to you a gazillion times why I am unsure with detailed football points related to it --I am not positive but not negative about the team. More positive though, I predicted wins in 3 of our 4 first games.   So again it comes off that you want to be argumentative just for the sake of it versus discussing football. 

 

I know you give more disclaimers than just about anyone on this topic.  That's why I thought it was amusing that Morneblade pushed you to own the you love Bruce narrative.  To me you come off like you want to have your cake and eat it too.   You want to defend Bruce at every turn while still having the leeway to say you don't like the dude that much whenever you are cornered on it -- so you are covered both ways.  But again thats not talking football -- that's about trying to one up people in a debate. And for me that gets tiresome after awhile. 

[HardcoreZorn]

@Skinsinparadise

 

Lets use the Morneblade discussion as an example, since you found it so amusing. How is me doubting the validity of what he was saying somehow cause him to think I love Bruce? I wasn't even on the affirmative. It's not like I came out said, "Bruce nailed negotiations! He couldn't have played it any better." Not the same as me saying, "listen, Bruce and Dan aren't geniuses, but they also aren't complete morons who were slapping a franchise tag on someone they had no intention of keeping. There's got to be more to this." 

 

Because it it was between the above, and me basically pointing out "what the heck is Bruce even doing if he's not even bringing in FA's for visits so why such disdain" that lead us down this path again. That causes an uproar and Morneblade to assert that I am a Bruce fanboy. Then it basically becomes me saying "look I don't love Bruce just can't hate a guy that's brought us competence or at least hired the guys who have brought us competence" and delve into some examples of why I believe that and don't hate the guy. But then that means I love him. And round and round we go.

 

I mean yeah, clearly I have a much stronger opinion of the roster than you do. But we both agree Bruce isn't picking the groceries so it's not really super relevant. The reason I bring it up even is because I have a tough time visualizing so much hostility when you admit to liking all these guys, many of whom are in place because Bruce himself. It's tough for me to wrap my head around liking everything under Bruce, but acting like he's this dark dark cloud based on media sources and the like. See, another example of me defending Bruce. Yet nothing I just stated means I love the guy. Just can't loathe him. I could talk at length about blunders we've had since 2009, all under Bruce's purview. I don't choose to because a lot happened before I joined here and they aren't current. But a lot of good too, which I do mention with frequency, because usually I'm debating with somebody's who thinks this guy sucks blood and has ruined their favorite franchise.

 

I word my posts strongly because I have strong convictions and I believe what I say. It's done purposefully to try and evoke responses and debate. However, never do I act like everything you say is irrelevant and stupid.This isn't the first time you've called me out on not bringing anything to the table. All I'm going to say is that next time you act like you are this seasoned vet and I'm just some dumb kid, I won't engage back with you. I'm 25 by the way. And I'm not you. I don't think Doctson is the next Irvin or Alex Smith is a top 5 QB. So nice try, but just cause I question the validity of some things that you think are etched in stone based on all of your sources, doesn't mean I'm some dumb blind rose colored fan. Be better than that. 

[It'sCampbellJasonCampbell]

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Hey don't you like how they are approaching the draft now?  Isn't it better than Cerrato?  And hey if he's not messing much with the soup why care about Bruce?

 

Somehow Ive been mixed up here in defending Bruce, which is almost never the case, and i should be completely transparent here in that I am no fan of Bruce Allen, by any stretch. I don’t even think Bruce is a large part of why our drafts have been better. And obviously being better than Cerrato at anything is hardly a compliment. But I do think it’s a bit absurd to talk about Allen like he’s destroying this franchise, as I’ve said before. And if he is this Machiavellian  figure that you love to paint him as then he isn’t a very successful one is he? I mean in his time here he’s done nothing but get tormented by the media, bad press, and apparently all but demoted to New Stadium Guy. If he is this evil genius then we need to pull back on the ‘genius’ here because unless this was all part of some master plan to tarnish his reputation. In which case then he deserves all the credit and is a mastermind. All of this is a roundabout way of saying that I’m not here to tell you why bruce allen is a good guy or good at his job or anything good. Im not even here to ask you how you could make a huge post telling me the media doesn’t play a role in your perception of these people but then make numerous posts still discussing how these people look in interviews or whatever. That’s neither here nor there. 

 

Im actually glad to read that winning the super bowl under Allen would force you to change your opinion on him, that at least proves you aren’t to the point of no return here. 

 

I do, however, feel the need to point out that you said you want ‘good people’ running the team and then you say you’d be happy if Snyder turned out like George Steinbrenner. This actually is pretty symbolic of your posting as a whole, as it tends to be often hypocritical to the point of comedy. I mean, come on...Steinbrenner was a scumbag, and pretty much the perfect representation of the things you seem to dislike about Bruce and Dan, through and through from the day he was born until the day he croaked. But he won, so people stopped giving a ****, and yeah the same thing WOULD happen with Snyder if we ever started winning. So it seems like you really would be able to overlook personal qualms as long as winning is involved, which is fine, but you continue attempting to construe your words in ways which make it seem like everyone is coming at you inaccurately and not understanding your posts, which is just not the case at all. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I’m not going to speak for anybody, but somehow I think you guys get it confused in that you think SIP and others of a like mind believe that Allen is absolutely awful...at everything.  That’s not even close to the truth, atleast not for me.  I just think he’s the definition of average and very unlikable, which is pretty well documented.  I don’t gather that Dan and Bruce are a winning combo that will ever result in hoisting a Lombardi.  There are some good folks in Ashburn, and some of them because of Bruce.  I just don’t believe Dan and Bruce are capable of providing an environment for those folks to truly thrive.

[It'sCampbellJasonCampbell]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

just think he’s the definition of average and very unlikable, which is pretty well documented.  I don’t gather that Dan and Bruce are a winning combo that will ever result in hoisting a Lombardi.  There are some good folks in Ashburn, and some of them because of Bruce

 

I agree that Dan and Bruce are not a winning combo and are unlikable. But i also think the good here could outweigh the bad, and that Bruce’s role isn’t enough to totally destroy us. But it’s strange because i’m generally a more pessimistic fan...somewhere along the lines here i’ve inherently transformed into a Bruce fanboy and I don’t understand why other than reading so much pessimism here that i now understand why our stadium is empty on opening day and silent with our seasons on the line. I mean at some point I wonder if people here wouldn’t rather have us lose just to say I told you so. 

 

And its not just SIPor you or whoever...it’s a general overall sickness amongst our fans. In a thread about Doctson getting hurt earlier a guy literally typed “i hope he does” in reference to him going on IR, and then told me he doesn’t wish for players to get hurt. And my annoyance at SIPs hypocrisy is noted ad nauseam above so i won’t repeat it. 

 

So maybe my literacy is shot or something but it’s starting to feel like the theater of the absurd. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

2 minutes ago, It'sCampbellJasonCampbell said:

 I mean at some point I wonder if people here wouldn’t rather have us lose just to say I told you so.  

This I don’t get.  I’d love to be wrong.  My opinion on football doesn’t nor will it ever pay my bills.  I actually believe this team can be pretty good.  I think Dan and Bruce can do ‘pretty good’.  A lot of teams can do pretty good every now and then.  I simply don’t believe any team is capable of reaching the pinnacle of success and sustain any level of success when it’s rotten at the very top.  They will inevitably always do some stupid costly things that impact everyone around them.  

[TD_washingtonredskins]

15 hours ago, bird_1972 said:

 

These points I totally agree with you on. In fact, even though many on these boards are upset we "let McVay go", I see that as a sign that we are finally developing talent in-house. Our younger roster also demonstrates that. 

 

We still fall short on organizational excellence (Snyder/Bruce) and coaching, but I have hopes that someone from the young group of scouts can eventually fill in the GM shoes when Bruce hits the bricks. Whenever that is.

 

Great post - I agree with all of this too. McVay is a great example of someone who learned (at least for a bit) under Gruden and is now flourishing. I can't objectively give Jay too much credit, but I have to imagine he's contributed to McVay being as successful as he has been. 

 

I'll add a little bit because I'm optimistic on a Friday...

 

1) We seem to be able to identify and develop DBs...we let Fuller go and have somewhat adequately replaced him with drafted talent. I can't tell you how long I've wanted us to be "that team" at any position. I think it speaks to the coach (Torrian Gray) and the ability to draft at that position. 

 

2) Last year was an example of a team that was either pretty deep talent-wise or pretty well-coached. I don't get caught up in the number of IR'd players because in many cases those numbers are inflated (for example, when RB4 was replaced by RB5 it really didn't impact us that much in my opinion). But, no matter how you measure it, we had some important guys miss a lot of time in 2017 and we stayed competitive with just 1-2 exceptions in the second half of the season (the Cowboys and Chargers destroyed us, but otherwise we hung in against some good teams). 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

11 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

@Skinsinparadise

 

Because it it was between the above, and me basically pointing out "what the heck is Bruce even doing if he's not even bringing in FA's for visits so why such disdain" that lead us down this path again. That causes an uproar and Morneblade to assert that I am a Bruce fanboy.

 

 

It's driven by the volume and relentless of your posts. Plenty have noticed.  And that's fine.  Also some who were on the Kirk thread noticed how your launched your credibility in it by saying you dislike Bruce as much as any of us but we should trust you as a Bruce critic for your unbiased take on the Kirk contract... 

 

I don't know anyone on this board that argues that yeah they do posts relentlessly on a subject but its on behalf of a person they aren't really that into.  And if you read enough of your posts and I have plenty -- you've complemented Bruce plenty in the mix of your disclaimers.  And its hard to forget because few people do it.  You can couch it any which way but that point is obvious to some of us.  And its ok, if you own it.  But you seem to like to have it both ways.  You want to defend him and at the same time when you are called out -- you paint yourself as some sort of neutral truth sayer. 

 

I had the same thing cooking last off season in the FA thread, I kept on posting about Paul Richardson while not owning that I like him. Eventually, I said you know what, I'll own this, obvious I want the dude here.

 

I'll give you my take on your take reading your posts.  Depending on the post your position on Bruce I've restated before.  It's something like:  the FO is much better than before.  We keep our draft picks, we don't overspend in FA.  Our drafts have been good.  We are on the right track so what gives?

 

You might not be passionate about Bruce as an individual.  And you get fired up in making that point as your disclaimer about the FO and you feel that disclaimer is legit and its not artificial but real.  And I actually believe you here.  But IMO you come off VERY passionate that the status quo is really good -- and you can care less about removing Bruce from that status quo.  And that's what you are fired up about.    IMO if so, in the minds of most of the Bruce critics keeping him there as President is the issue.  If you are OK with him staying then you are at odds with the critics. 

 

If you aren't bothered by what we perceive to be Bruce behavior -- and you'd implied a couple of times that you don't care about the behavior -- then again you are at odds with some of Bruce's critics.

 

And that's OK to each their own but its strange for someone who posts so often in every thread just about that criticizes the dude -- you have trouble owning the position.   And I've said many times, I get its not the "cool" position to have so I respect it from that perspective.   I like to take some ""uncool" positions, too. 

 

 

11 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

@Skinsinparadise

 

I word my posts strongly because I have strong convictions and I believe what I say. It's done purposefully to try and evoke responses and debate. However, never do I act like everything you say is irrelevant and stupid.This isn't the first time you've called me out on not bringing anything to the table. All I'm going to say is that next time you act like you are this seasoned vet and I'm just some dumb kid, I won't engage back with you. I'm 25 by the way. And I'm not you. I don't think Doctson is the next Irvin or Alex Smith is a top 5 QB. So nice try, but just cause I question the validity of some things that you think are etched in stone based on all of your sources, doesn't mean I'm some dumb blind rose colored fan. Be better than that. 

 

My point here is if I am preaching that my position is right like you tend to do then I'd think the burden would be on me to throw some nuggets to at least try to persuade with things some might not know.  For me personally, its almost a theme for me this off season that i don't think I have a handle on this or that and that i am unsure.  Its actually that theme that you ironically attack here and there.  Your posts come off like you have it all figured out.  So if you got it all figured out then IMO show that you do versus people should just trust your instincts just because. 

 

I didn't say everything you said is stupid and you know it.   I said for a guy whose posts come off sometimes as arrogant as they often do -- you'd think they'd be backed by some material or point that aren't boiler plate stuff that everyone here already knows.   In a previous exchange, I gave you some examples of people pushing points hard -- people trying to convince me about a draft pick and did it with detail, it was interesting and they did with no arrogance and it was a pleasant exchange -- let alone if someone makes a point and comes off obnoxious doing it, are people really that receptive?   I've done it before, if I reread a post and think man that was more harsh than I intended -- I know the reader isn't going to be receptive to my point now. 

 

And to me your take in a lot of these arguments is to take the boiler plate most positive narrative of something you read and then push it.  If someone disagrees then they are a hater especially if you know them as a Dan or Bruce critic.  And for a guy who touts himself as so positive, I don't feel your points-exchanges to often be positive -- lot of anger in them -- you can call it strong convictions.

 

A lot of our discussions come off to me that behind the key board you are thinking man if I get this dude to admit this player is great or this unit is great -hahahaha lets see if he will give credit to Bruce for it.  And to me that gets boring.  I am not then talking football but instead being chased in posts for someone who wants me to warm up to Bruce in some sort of odd I told you so exercise. 

 

You even admitted in a post the other day about how you can't wait to see the reaction of people if we have a big season in the context of ownership/Bruce.   And as much as I am willing to take a jab at Bruce on this thread...I don't really think of Bruce in that way when it comes to the roster where he's vindicated or not about anything -- only exception being the Qb position and on that its more Kirk centered than Alex related the more I digest info on it. 

 

And I don't see how people can make both arguments -- hey Bruce is barely even involved, just ignore him to hey if this team kicks butt and wins big lets see who squirms and admits they are wrong about Bruce.  How can both be true?

 

The thing is with Bruce his behavior to me is the #1 issue.  So whether the team wins or loses -- that doesn't change any of that for me.  But as I told you many times if they win big for a change, I'd deal with it.   Like I said if we are going to be the team that's easy to dislike because of management (much like the Yankees under Steinbrenner) then at least win big.  That's much more tolerable.  This point directed at Dan not so much Bruce but yeah you'd think the law of averages would kick in eventually and they'd finally win big in a season after all these years.  That's supposedly how the parity driven system is supposed to work where every team eventually gets their due.  It's not easy to go this long and not win over 10 games -- see every other team in the NFL just about.

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

10 hours ago, It'sCampbellJasonCampbell said:

 

I agree that Dan and Bruce are not a winning combo and are unlikable. But i also think the good here could outweigh the bad, and that Bruce’s role isn’t enough to totally destroy us.

 

This is a good summary to bring home a point. 

 

A.  The idea that these two aren't likable isn't a side point for some of us or something to overlook with hey what else you got -- its the operative point.  For me, if you are going to be unlikable you got to really win big. 

 

B. The good outweighing the bad IMO isn't enough to build a Super Bowl contender ever.   Why should our standards be that low? It's not great but hey maybe more good then bad.  Why have bad period?

 

I've said on this thread a bunch of times, they've figured out the formula perhaps not to stink -- and that's an improvement.  But I don't think they've figured out how to be very good either.  And I explained in detail why. But they might luck into it eventually -- most teams eventually do.  Hope so.   I am surprised it hasn't happened yet.

 

And as for my "hypocrisy" on the position. I've been pretty consistent on what I like and don't like about Bruce-Dan.   You've just recently posted on this thread.  I've posted books level amounts of material on this thread.   Hypocrisy connotes I am not being honest.  What i am i lying about as to my position on this and for that matter how would you know I am lying about my take?  My take is my take.  It's not as if I have multiple positions on Bruce-Dan. 

 

I am about as clear as it gets as to my macro take on both.  Heck I even responded to you about what I'd do if they had a big season and told you I'd be cool with it all then.  Dan to me has had this weird thing as coming off arrogant without any success to show for it.  If he finally has some real success, its a game changer for me.  If you are going to be different then show different wins -- he hasn't done it yet.  

[HardcoreZorn]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

It's driven by the volume and relentless of your posts. Plenty have noticed.  And that's fine.  Also some who were on the Kirk thread noticed how your launched your credibility in it by saying you dislike Bruce as much as any of us but we should trust you as a Bruce critic for your unbiased take on the Kirk contract... 

 

I don't know anyone on this board that argues that yeah they do posts relentlessly on a subject but its on behalf of a person they aren't really that into.  And if you read enough of your posts and I have plenty -- you've complemented Bruce plenty in the mix of your disclaimers.  And its hard to forget because few people do it.  You can couch it any which way but that point is obvious to some of us.  And its ok, if you own it.  But you seem to like to have it both ways.  You want to defend him and at the same time when you are called out -- you paint yourself as some sort of neutral truth sayer. 

 

 

 

Addressed here. In bold.

Quote

@It'sCampbellJasonCampbellwas able to articulate my own feelings better than myself lol. Two underlying themes he touched on that are actually of the root of the majority of my posts are the media and the fact there's so much negativity directed toward someone that doesn't seem to be holding us back a great deal. Look no further than a couple pages ago to see my thoughts on Schaeffer and Kyle Smith vs Bruce to get a feel for how I think of each. Of course conveniently glossed over or considered something I'm hiding behind.

 

But back to the themes above, first the media. Dan Snyder has been a stinky rotten owner for going on 20 years now. There's the name controversy. There's the lack of wins over the years. There are the embarrassing tales of the Archulettas, Sherm the Bingo Caller, Beck and Grossman, Haynesworth doing the worm and on and on and on. I've touched on some of this before, but we are an easy target. We don't deserve respect on the outside and I'm cool with that. I get that. What I don't get is how someone who has followed this team as closely as some of you do can't see the stark contrast. And no, do not fire back with the 101 level course BS and how Vinny isn't the barometer for success. I friggin get that. But we didn't just change the process, we changed the results. If you can't see that, I think you are choosing not to see that to be frank. Many are allowing the aforementioned embarrassing garbage we used to do to over influence things such as the Kirk Cousins situation, at least in my opinion. And it bothers me to see so much hostility toward this franchise when there is something very special in my opinion being built right under our noses. It's less about Bruce, and more why the heck so much vitriol toward someone that one, doesn't seem to be holding us back much. But also, why so much vitriol in general? We have what looks to be the makings of a special defensive line, all on rookie contracts and 24 and under. The people who post in here about that garbage agent poll and get all spun around the axle on Russell's supposed stories of Dan stomping around the office post a fraction on things such as how friggin awesome it is to have a young dominant defensive line. This is just an example, but that gets to me, hence why I post so much in here and in the Kirk thread. Bruce Allen could literally be fired tomorrow and I'd be like, alright that's cool let's keep this train rolling. I actually get a good chuckle each and every night before I go to bed that I somehow have portrayed myself as Bruce Allen's closet fanboy. Who knows, maybe I just suck really bad at conveying thoughts via the keyboard.

 

The attitude of a huge segment of the fan base is a combination of apathetic and downright hostile. That is what gets to me. Not the hostility toward Bruce himself, but the unwillingness to acknowledge huge progress, competency, results. The attitude and sense of the team around the majority of the fan base does not align with how we are currently operating. Recall those discussions? It would be much more fitting for the 2009 time frame, which it was I'm sure around here. That was the first angle I went with in my posts. My posts and volume of them are due to that. I get bothered of the piling on, the over the top pessimism, the almost exclusive focus of issues such as Kirk and Scott. I don't know how to say it any other way. What I will own is that I believe this roster is damn good and getting even stronger. 10 picks next year too? We hit one more draft like the next two, and I'm telling you watch out.

 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

My point here is if I am preaching that my position is right like you tend to do then I'd think the burden would be on me to throw some nuggets to at least try to persuade with things some might not know.  For me personally, its almost a theme for me this off season that i don't think I have a handle on this or that and that i am unsure.  Its actually that theme that you ironically attack here and there.  Your posts come off like you have it all figured out.  So if you got it all figured out then IMO show that you do versus people should just trust your instincts just because. 

LOL look man, I don't know how to show you something that would occur in the future. All I can do is what i've done, point out our success in the draft and UDFA relative to other teams around the league the past 5ish years. I even posted a roster comparison from back in the day to illustrate just how crazy the talent difference was.

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I didn't say everything you said is stupid and you know it.   I said for a guy whose posts come off sometimes as arrogant as they often do -- you'd think they'd be backed by some material or point that aren't boiler plate stuff that everyone here already knows.   In a previous exchange, I gave you some examples of people pushing points hard -- people trying to convince me about a draft pick and did it with detail, it was interesting and they did with no arrogance and it was a pleasant exchange -- let alone if someone makes a point and comes off obnoxious doing it, are people really that receptive?   I've done it before, if I reread a post and think man that was more harsh than I intended -- I know the reader isn't going to be receptive to my point now. 

 

And to me your take in a lot of these arguments is to take the boiler plate most positive narrative of something you read and then push it.  If someone disagrees then they are a hater especially if you know them as a Dan or Bruce critic.  And for a guy who touts himself as so positive, I don't feel your points-exchanges to often be positive -- lot of anger in them -- you can call it strong convictions.

Because you and others aren't comprehending what I am trying to say, and that gets very frustrating. You are so bent on me loving Bruce and getting me to own it that you aren't picking up on my intended message.

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

A lot of our discussions come off to me that behind the key board you are thinking man if I get this dude to admit this player is great or this unit is great -hahahaha lets see if he will give credit to Bruce for it.  And to me that gets boring.  I am not then talking football but instead being chased in posts for someone who wants me to warm up to Bruce in some sort of odd I told you so exercise. 

This is in your mind.

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You even admitted in a post the other day about how you can't wait to see the reaction of people if we have a big season in the context of ownership/Bruce.   And as much as I am willing to take a jab at Bruce on this thread...I don't really think of Bruce in that way when it comes to the roster where he's vindicated or not about anything -- only exception being the Qb position and on that its more Kirk centered than Alex related the more I digest info on it. 

I really would love to see the reaction of those who directed so much energy into botching Kirk Cousins situation and how damn inept we are see us raise the Lombardi. Not to vindicate Bruce, but vindicate my belief in this team. And belief that there is a disproportionate amount of anger and hostility toward the franchise considering how they currently operate. You don't love how we operate. I do. Idk if it's Dan, Bruce, Scheffer, Jay, Kyle Smith a combo or what. But even with Bruce as part of the mix, I really love how we function on the personnel side now. I'll own that all day every day. 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

And I don't see how people can make both arguments -- hey Bruce is barely even involved, just ignore him to hey if this team kicks butt and wins big lets see who squirms and admits they are wrong about Bruce.  How can both be true?

Yeah, it's clear you just don't get what I'm saying so probably best to wrap this up. I don't really know the answer to how involved Bruce is. I only brought that to the table because I was surprised to hear Schaeffer and Doug were the ones bringing in FA's for visits, without the knowledge of Dan and Bruce. It was another (failed) angle to get at why as a fanbase are we so hell bent on focusing all of our energy into how much Bruce sucks if he isn't really doing much at all now? Again, I don't know the answer.

 

[DJHJR86]

I'm convinced that Bruce posts on this board, or pays for some members mortgages.  

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

The attitude and sense of the team around the majority of the fan base does not align with how we are currently operating. Recall those discussions? It would be much more fitting for the 2009 time frame, which it was I'm sure around here. That was the first angle I went with in my posts. My posts and volume of them are due to that. I get bothered of the piling on, the over the top pessimism, the almost exclusive focus of issues such as Kirk and Scott. 

 

I think you miss three points that many make here on this point even though they are made a lot.  At least you do when you typically generalize the argument.  

 

A.  Some of us care about the behavior associated with this team.  As an example...according to Craig Hoffman, Brian Lafemina understands that part of his job is to patch up trust with fans about this organization from the stand point of showing them now that the organization is about class-integrity.  You are dismissive of this point as being unimportant, typically.  You have that right to that opinion.  But just because you are dismissive of it -- doesn't mean others should be, too.  Different strokes.

 

B.  Team building isn't only about the draft.  The part where Bruce has his hands on according to some who cover the team is the general approach of what type of FAs to go after.  And I fundamentally disagree with that philosophy.  I've explained what i mean by this plenty of times. But I know you are cool with the FA approach at least you come off that way in many of your posts.  So again its a disagreement.

 

C.  The structure of an organization should have the most competent-credentialed person at the top -- its not about just anyone having the title and ultimate power or treating the person with the final say as just some formality and we should focus instead on the underlings.

 

You are arguing different premises-different plot lines.  Bruce better than the past?  How about the draft folks?  Who cares about his behavior?  And I am not saying you are wrong but I don't get your frustration with people who disagree because some of them (including me) are arguing totally different premises as to the subject.  You are going to the restaurant and judging the food by the dishes you care about as if those should be the definitive ones.  We are looking at other dishes that we think are the definitive ones -- dishes that you don't seem to care about or think are fine.   

 

You seem to want to have people care and judge about Bruce and the FO with the exact same guidelines you do.  But you are going to keep spinning your wheels on that because not everyone looks at organizations with the same checklist you do.  And it has ZERO to do with being a hater.

 

 

3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I really would love to see the reaction of those who directed so much energy into botching Kirk Cousins situation and how damn inept we are see us raise the Lombardi. Not to vindicate Bruce, but vindicate my belief in this team.

 

Judging based on those insiders who covered the negotiation -- Kirk not being back was a Bruce's baby first and foremost including Bruce supposedly being the prime reason why Kirk was cool was leaving.   So I don't see this one as vindicating "the team".  This one seems to be mostly about vindicating Bruce if Kirk flames out in Minny.  Will see.

 

3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 You don't love how we operate. I do. Idk if it's Dan, Bruce, Scheffer, Jay, Kyle Smith a combo or what. But even with Bruce as part of the mix, I really love how we function on the personnel side now. I'll own that all day every day. 

 

 

This is exactly my point to you in my previous post.  You can throw every disclaimer out there under the sun.  But if you are very happy with this structure with even Bruce as part of the mix.  Then you got the dude's back.  If you can defend him on the most (to some of us) infamous Bruce screw up which was the Kirk contract -- then you got the dude's back. If you can acknowledge that he's a douche -- including you even mentioned you heard it from someone close to a player  who knew him-- yet, you can shrug it off and say on a macro level that it doesn't bother you -- then again you got his back.  

 

So when you fire back at people where you label yourself as being the reasonable one on Bruce and act like some neutral observer who as you like to say is just trying to insert some logic into the discussion -- IMO you are being very misleading.   Anyone that has the positions you do on Bruce isn't some neutral observer who is just trying to get people to settle down.  You started that tact on the Kirk thread months back with the whole we should listen to you as being the credible guy because you are a Bruce critic.

 

My point is you like to prop yourself up as if you don't have any angle.    Even though you clearly have one.  That to me makes your stances in these threads unique.  Most are owning their positions.  You don't seem to want to but on occasion you make posts like this which make your angle very clear.  And its not the first time you've made your point like this and then later back off of it some to prop your credibility in a discussion.  

 

That to me was the underpinning of Morneblade's point which is you are as emotional as anyone in this discussion.  And you post a lot on the topic.  So the idea of when you are pinned down where you try to prop yourself as someone who can be trusted as more credible because you are sort of the "moderate" person in all of this -- rings silly to some of the people including me who debated you on the same issues for months. 

 

 

 

[Spearfeather]

28 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

I'm convinced that Bruce posts on this board, or pays for some members mortgages.  

 

I've thought the same thing of members of the local sports media.

[Jumbo]

 Some of what we see here answers the old ES'er query: "what if I huff paint first and then do the meth before posting?"

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

22 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 Some of what we see here answers the old ES'er query: "what if I huff paint first and then do the meth before posting?"

 

 

 

 

[dcdiscokid]

Im baffled how anyone can look at this organization and say its functioning like a well oiled machine... The missteps are 10 fold most other orgs in any sport. I am a redskins fan for life, but at times its embarrassing to be in the media for all the wrong reasons, and that has happened more times then I can count under the Dan/Bruce partnership. I have to agree with SIP, there are so many instance and rumors of Bruce just being a total douche it cant be all smoke and mirrors.  I cant get behind having that type of person being the top of the food chain for the team I root for and be ok with it.