The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

I am not so sure the Scott thing really helps Bruce that much. I have a feeling the Scott firing came more directly from Dan than Bruce.

 

 

 

I think the "helps Bruce" angle is in having a certain level of validation that the early (and constantly repeated) reports that Allen's ego, pride, and power-hungry ways were behind Scots firing were pretty much bull**** lol...at the same time, though, I think many in the local media stopped parroting those accusations and started admitting (mostly indirectly) that they knew stuff that showed Scot needed to be fired. The most recent narrative seemed to be that ego, pride, etc didn't play a role in Scot's termination, so the story wasn't nearly as juicy as before and so the grievance really didn't hype anyone up much. No juicy details about Allen were gonna surface and seemed unlikely that the Skins would lose. There was more of an "Oh, yeah...the grievance" vibe going on lol...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

By the way, you know what's kind of wild to think about?...Imagine a scenario where the Skins get double-digit wins and win the NFC East, the Vikings get double digit wins and win the NFC North, and the Rams get double-digit wins (duh lol) and win the NFC West.

 

The Redskins would be considered a source of the success for 3 of the top 4 teams in the conference. If that happened I guarantee front offices around the league would be looking at our roster and our coaches far more.

[Skinsinparadise]

14 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I think the "helps Bruce" angle is in having a certain level of validation that the early (and constantly repeated) reports that Allen's ego, pride, and power-hungry ways were behind Scots firing were pretty much bull**** lol...at the same time, though, I think many in the local media stopped parroting those accusations and started admitting 

 

Following this narrative (unless I missed something and I maybe I did) is this was competing narratives:  The WP versus 106.7.  106.7 broke the story, WP followed up with their own and a different angle.

 

The WP was claiming it was about Bruce's ego and couldn't take that fans liked Scot and gave him credit for everything that went well whereas Bruce was disliked -- among other ego items.

 

106.7 guys claimed that the WP stuff had some validity to the narrative but that stuff was LATER in the game as to that relationship.  But that stuff wasn't the X factor.  The X factor was antics from Scot whatever they are -- and it wasn't just straight out about his drinking.    

 

It was Bruce's hire.  I always find it funny how some on twitter trash Scot and see that as validation for Bruce.  But Dan didn't see it that way according to Russell.  Dan saw the Scot stuff as on Bruce because it was his hire.   According to Russell, Bruce tried to save it from going south early on.  

 

The 106.7 guys also said Scot's counter claim that drinking is rampant at Redskins Park in particular from Bruce is true.  But that still wasn't the X factor.  Like I said, one day I'd love to hear that it was because it sounds juicy. 

 

[HardcoreZorn]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Following this narrative (unless I missed something and I maybe I did) is this was competing narratives:  The WP versus 106.7.  106.7 broke the story, WP followed up with their own and a different angle.

 

The WP was claiming it was about Bruce's ego and couldn't take that fans liked Scot and gave him credit for everything that went well whereas Bruce was disliked -- among other ego items.

 

106.7 guys claimed that the WP stuff had some validity to the narrative but that stuff was LATER in the game as to that relationship.  But that stuff wasn't the X factor.  The X factor was antics from Scot whatever they are -- and it wasn't just straight out about his drinking.    

 

It was Bruce's hire.  I always find it funny how some on twitter trash Scot and see that as validation for Bruce.  But Dan didn't see it that way according to Russell.  Dan saw the Scot stuff as on Bruce because it was his hire.   According to Russell, Bruce tried to save it from going south early on.  

 

The 106.7 guys also said Scot's counter claim that drinking is rampant at Redskins Park in particular from Bruce is true.  But that still wasn't the X factor.  Like I said, one day I'd love to hear that it was because it sounds juicy. 

 

When the Scott story first broke, make no mistake that almost 100% of the fan base was fueling the "Bruce's ego got in the way" fire. There may have been slightly competing media narratives, but for the most part the fan base lost their collective minds and thought Bruce fired Scott out of spite and he was getting the credit, etc. Turns out it was really Dan who wanted Scott gone while Bruce was desperately trying to save face for bringing him in.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Bruce gives off that politician vibe that doesn’t resonate with a lot of people, rendering the ego angle easy to believe.  Call it unfair if you want but those are the breaks, particularly when you don’t have an impressive body of work to your name.

[Tsailand]

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 But I get the sense from Paulsen and Russell that the issue with Scot went beyond the drinking but specific antics.

 

They have hinted at that repeatedly, but never provided any specifics, and certainly no evidence.  Or names.

 

We're all adults here, we know what "antics" means.

[TK]

Got a feeling Bruce is on his way out. 

 

Gold pants are gone. 

 

He’s no longer in charge of the stadium deal, Brian Lafemina is. 

 

You rarely hear him do do an interview. 

 

He wasnt in on the AP visit deal. 

 

He he didn’t have anything to do with the HaHa Clinton-Dix trade. 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

13 minutes ago, TK said:

Got a feeling Bruce is on his way out. 

 

Gold pants are gone. 

 

He’s no longer in charge of the stadium deal, Brian Lafemina is. 

 

You rarely hear him do do an interview. 

 

He wasnt in on the AP visit deal. 

 

He he didn’t have anything to do with the HaHa Clinton-Dix trade. 

 

 

 

Lafemina IMO comes off like a good guy -- competent and sincere.  Chris Russell has been the dude dishing out what he's been hearing -- and he said around last Spring that Bruce is losing power behind the scenes and also said that Dan knows Bruce is toxic with Redskins fans. 

[JSSkinz]

So now that Bruce has been crated and it seems the FO decisions are more of a team effort I wonder who the best guy for the job is going forward.

 

Besides being the "cap guy" I don't feel like I know enough about Eric Schaffer, I got a little nervous a few weeks ago when I heard him on the Grant show, I didn't realize he was a Bruce disciple.

 

That doesn't mean he's destined to be average or fail but Bruce is cheap and it would be disappointing to move from one cheap GM to another.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

When the Scott story first broke, make no mistake that almost 100% of the fan base was fueling the "Bruce's ego got in the way" fire. There may have been slightly competing media narratives, but for the most part the fan base lost their collective minds and thought Bruce fired Scott out of spite and he was getting the credit, etc. Turns out it was really Dan who wanted Scott gone while Bruce was desperately trying to save face for bringing him in.

 

I recall a lot of talk though about the 106.7 story, Chris Russell broke the story first.  He said from the get go, Scot deserved to be canned.  And Russell is no fan of Bruce.   So I took that seriously and wasn't the only one who did.  My issue and I recall saying it then was once I thought I had a good feel for the story, I backed Bruce and said look I'll support this as long as he replaces Scot with another Scot type of personnel guy.  I wasn't alone on that.    Bruce didn't do it.  So he lost me on that point among other things he's done.

 

As for Bruce trying to save Scot's job early on -- that was Russell's narrative.  It makes sense.  I always thought it was bizarre when id see on twitter (there are like 6 loud Bruce supporters that post a lot) where the notion of shooting down Scot elevates Bruce.  But if i am Dan, that would be the opposite of what I'd think.  If Bruce hired Scot and he was a mess that's on Bruce to a degree -- let alone Bruce deserves a pat on the back just because he's the man left standing from it. 

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

So now that Bruce has been crated and it seems the FO decisions are more of a team effort I wonder who the best guy for the job is going forward.

 

Besides being the "cap guy" I don't feel like I know enough about Eric Schaffer, I got a little nervous a few weeks ago when I heard him on the Grant show, I didn't realize he was a Bruce disciple.

 

That doesn't mean he's destined to be average or fail but Bruce is cheap and it would be disappointing to move from one cheap GM to another.

 

I like Kyle Smith more so than Schaffer for that position considering Kyle's background fits IMO what i'd want for someone running personnel.  I want the guy running personnel to specialize in personnel not backroom politics and or money issues.    But I wouldn't hate Schaffer because the dude has the rep of being really good at what he does and comes off real likable too -- good people person.  He was negotiating the Kirk contract and still didn't hear one bad word about him.  Everything was Bruce centered as for bad blood.

 

Schaffer isn't a Bruce disciple from what I've observed.  He's just courteous and nice and will plug anyone when given a chance.  And I like that about him.  He liked the culture Bruce brought about overspending.    Schaffer previously was known for helping Vinny fit everyone under the cap by pro rating contracts, etc.

[JSSkinz]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Schaffer isn't a Bruce disciple from what I've observed.  He's just courteous and nice and will plug anyone when given a chance.  And I like that about him.  He liked the culture Bruce brought about overspending.    Schaffer previously was known for helping Vinny fit everyone under the cap by pro rating contracts, etc.

Ok, that's what I wasn't sure about, on the Grant show he was gushing on Bruce as if Bruce was his mentor.

 

I really think a nontraditional approach to the FO is not a bad thing, we see it in successful businesses so why not in the NFL, by nontraditional I mean multiple intelligent people who make decisions as a unit instead of one person at the top with all the power, Kyle and Eric are good examples as each have their sweet spots (Kyle with scouting and Eric with the Cap and free agency).

 

Hopefully, we can keep both guys.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Following this narrative (unless I missed something and I maybe I did) is this was competing narratives:  The WP versus 106.7.  106.7 broke the story, WP followed up with their own and a different angle.

 

The WP was claiming it was about Bruce's ego and couldn't take that fans liked Scot and gave him credit for everything that went well whereas Bruce was disliked -- among other ego items.

 

106.7 guys claimed that the WP stuff had some validity to the narrative but that stuff was LATER in the game as to that relationship.  But that stuff wasn't the X factor.  The X factor was antics from Scot whatever they are -- and it wasn't just straight out about his drinking.    

 

It was Bruce's hire.  I always find it funny how some on twitter trash Scot and see that as validation for Bruce.  But Dan didn't see it that way according to Russell.  Dan saw the Scot stuff as on Bruce because it was his hire.   According to Russell, Bruce tried to save it from going south early on.  

 

The 106.7 guys also said Scot's counter claim that drinking is rampant at Redskins Park in particular from Bruce is true.  But that still wasn't the X factor.  Like I said, one day I'd love to hear that it was because it sounds juicy. 

 

 

I rarely listen to 106.7 so I'm not very knowledgeable on their positions or perspectives. I mostly based my opinions on following media on twitter and reading articles online (like in the WP like you mentioned).

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I rarely listen to 106.7 so I'm not very knowledgeable on their positions or perspectives. I mostly based my opinions on following media on twitter and reading articles online (like in the WP like you mentioned).

 

It was a weird circumstance in that 106.7 broke the story -- more specifically Chris Russell.  Typically a radio station isn't breaking stories.  Russell kind of hinted at it weeks before he broke it. 

[Est.1974]

1 hour ago, TK said:

He he didn’t have anything to do with the HaHa Clinton-Dix trade. 

 

He he and HaHa in the same sentence about Bruce potentially out the door, very apt ?

[Tay]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I like Kyle Smith more so than Schaffer for that position considering Kyle's background fits IMO what i'd want for someone running personnel.  I want the guy running personnel to specialize in personnel not backroom politics and or money issues.    But I wouldn't hate Schaffer because the dude has the rep of being really good at what he does and comes off real likable too -- good people person.  He was negotiating the Kirk contract and still didn't hear one bad word about him.  Everything was Bruce centered as for bad blood. 

 

Schaffer isn't a Bruce disciple from what I've observed.  He's just courteous and nice and will plug anyone when given a chance.  And I like that about him.  He liked the culture Bruce brought about overspending.    Schaffer previously was known for helping Vinny fit everyone under the cap by pro rating contracts, etc.

 

I'm thinking Schaffer will ultimately be the Director of Football Operations and Kyle would be the GM.

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

10 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

As for the media, Bruce supposedly sees them as the enemy -- the local ones in particular.  He has a few friendly national guys and he likes to go to that well because he's comfortable with them and he knows they will give him full reign/spin without tough questions.  Forgot who said it but someone said that's what he preaches in the building as for the media being the enemy.  So the non-love between the media is mutual.  Bruce had that cooking with some in the media in Tampa too with one prominent reporter calling him the Prince of Darkness.  Scott on the other hand did have a good relationship with the media. And I know first hand, Scot was a very likable dude.  That was part of the tension supposedly between Bruce and Scot in the end but still not the X factor. 

 

What I've thought all along was that Bruce didn't like Scot being so PR friendly. Sure, Tampa media called him prince of darkness, but WP had a long history of negative press towards the team throughout Snyder's tenure. Then there was the Shanny fiasco where both parties were negatively portrayed, but based so much on rumors and unquoted sources. I hated that time period because this site, we hated JLC for always having unnamed sources to fuel his rumors, but Bruce Allen's tenure has been loaded with that type of stuff. And it's one thing when they're right but these stories seem to be about just getting a story out there rather than getting it right. How many stories were there about McNabb? About RG3? About free agents we liked, or players we "wanted to" draft. These things are unprovable, but they get said and repeated and just become "common knowledge". 

 

Scot came in and two things happened. (1) i think we had a similar front office structure then as now. Definitely different faces, and maybe more power towards Scot, but we had voices and opinions. My thoughts are that Scot was not as popular inside the building (by staff) as outside (by the fans) . 

 

Look at the players he's probably the most likely to have brought in

. Bruton - F

. Johnson - F

. Keyes - F

. Davis - A

 

Then there are the drafts and some of the other guys with no connection to Scot. I think this guys were probably a collective opinion, but Scot got (and took) credit for them. 

 

If Scot was doing as good a job and was as liked as people presume, I'd think that people would have demanded he not be treated like this, but not a peep. 

 

Then we get Williams whose only basic thing is I'll listen to the people and we'll make a decision. And you see the results. 

 

Scot gets too much credit. 

[Wildbunny]

3 hours ago, TK said:

Got a feeling Bruce is on his way out. 

 

Gold pants are gone. 

 

He’s no longer in charge of the stadium deal, Brian Lafemina is. 

 

You rarely hear him do do an interview. 

 

He wasnt in on the AP visit deal. 

 

He he didn’t have anything to do with the HaHa Clinton-Dix trade. 

 

 

 

Only a feeling or did Bruce left his resign letter inadvertently on your desk this morning Dan? ?

[Warhead36]

Allen will join the other Gruden in Vegas.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Look at the players he's probably the most likely to have brought in

. Bruton - F

. Johnson - F

. Keyes - F

. Davis - A

 

Then there are the drafts and some of the other guys with no connection to Scot. I think this guys were probably a collective opinion, but Scot got (and took) credit for them. 

 

If Scot was doing as good a job and was as liked as people presume, I'd think that people would have demanded he not be treated like this, but not a peep. 

 

Then we get Williams whose only basic thing is I'll listen to the people and we'll make a decision. And you see the results. 

 

Scot gets too much credit. 

 

Scot according to Breer had DJ Swearinger as a top FA target, Zach Brown, too in 2017. 

 

But yeah Bruton was a back up safety/special teamer, J. Johnson too, Keyes was a flier cheap D lineman who struggled in SD -- I don't blame Scot for signing unaccomplished players cheap and they stay unaccomplished here.  Just like I don't blame Bruce for Scandrick, Quick, etc  Players who weren't that great at their prior team and we get them cheap and shocker of all shocks they aren't great here, either.  It's expected unless you get lucky.

 

So I don't blame Scot or Bruce for not hitting lightening in a bottle with those individual players.  What I blame both of them for is the APPROACH in FA.   Hyperbole to make a point on my end but if you are going to shop mostly in the flea market you are going to come back with a lot of junk.  The problem IMO isn't that they didn't load up on gems in the flea market -- that's expected -- the problem is that's where the mostly shopped.

 

I've made that point many times.  And no that doesn't mean they always got it wrong and always did it that way.  The one FA year i liked was 2017.  But they did it too often to my liking.  And Scot just as much as Bruce.  and it doesn't mean that i embraced the opposite extreme.  I think you can reach a happy medium.  And the one year where they did it was 2017 in my view.  Otherwise, I think their approach is lacking.

 

But as for the Bruce-Scot stuff, I've heard enough things about it that I don't think the main plot line involves any dissatisfaction with Scot's work.  The people covering the story pretty much all said they were cool with Scot on that front.  And even when he left they respected him enough to actually work off of his FA and draft board -- though the draft board changed some but from what i've heard his board was still primarily the board they played off of.  I met with Scot that Nov that year and at that time he was already knee deep in draft analysis.   He had an answer to every player I threw at him, some of whom he already scouted personally. He was headed that weekend to a college game. I ironically asked him about Jonathan Allen in that mix. 

 

The Scot-Bruce stuff I think 106.7 has right -- I think it was about some soap opera behind the scenes antics that got out of hand.    And I've argued with you plenty about Bruce.  But on this one, I don't think Bruce was the culprit sounds like Scot was. And I said the same once I heard 106.7's version of the story.

 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

6 hours ago, TK said:

Got a feeling Bruce is on his way out. 

 

Gold pants are gone. 

 

He’s no longer in charge of the stadium deal, Brian Lafemina is. 

 

You rarely hear him do do an interview. 

 

He wasnt in on the AP visit deal. 

 

He he didn’t have anything to do with the HaHa Clinton-Dix trade. 

 

 

How do we know he had nothing to do with the HaHa trade?  Serious question, working a lot, haven’t heard radio or really seen anything 

[dcdiscokid]

4 hours ago, Tay said:

 

I'm thinking Schaffer will ultimately be the Director of Football Operations and Kyle would be the GM.

 

 

I'm not so sure about this, Doug seems to be a part of this and moving forward, so it's some combination of the three.

[Thinking Skins]

21 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Scot according to Breer had DJ Swearinger as a top FA target, Zach Brown, too in 2017.

 

22 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

But as for the Bruce-Scot stuff, I've heard enough things about it that I don't think the main plot line involves any dissatisfaction with Scot's work.  The people covering the story pretty much all said they were cool with Scot on that front.  And even when he left they respected him enough to actually work off of his FA and draft board -- though the draft board changed some but from what i've heard his board was still primarily the board they played off of.  I met with Scot that Nov that year and at that time he was already knee deep in draft analysis.   He had an answer to every player I threw at him, some of whom he already scouted personally. He was headed that weekend to a college game. I ironically asked him about Jonathan Allen in that mix. 

 

See, these two quotes kinda show what I'm talking about. Is Scot the only guy who had DJ and Zach as top free agents? I say no because they were widely discussed in the FA thread. They were also guys I was looking at through spotrac based on their age and performances. So the question I have is who else in the scouting room / front office also had them ranked high? Scot gets all the credit as if he pulled them out of a hat, but he didn;t. 

 

I do it myself too. When I looked at the 2015 year and how we brought in guys like Mason Foster and Will Blackmon during the season, I immediately thought that it had to be Scot that did it, but why? Why couldn't it have been Santos or Campbell or Allen or Williams? Why did i immediately say it was Scot? Why are all the drafts, even the 2014 draft to some extents, considered "Scot" drafts? Look at the AP move. DW told a story and we now know exactly how it came into place. Look at the Alex Smith move. We know exactly how it came into place. Has the front office always gotten input from different levels, and if so did Scot listen? Were there people saying "Man you've gotta take Fuller in this draft because he's LEAPS AND BOUNDS better than Doctson" and Scot ignored them? Were there a heated discussion about taking Scherff over Williams? We know he LOVED Matt Jones, nobody else seemed to because he was one of the first benchings and cuts after Scot was let go. Perine has more staying power than Jones even though quiet as its kept Jones is probably a more complete back. 

 

Its one thing to say Scot has/doesn't have final say, but thats a simple way of looking at it. I care more about the links in the chain that keep the wheels in motion. I have no problem with Scot being the face of the front office, but I do wonder how heated things were getting. And I can especially see there being behind the scenes discussions between say a Scott Campbell (who I think ran the 2014 draft) and a Scot (who gets credit for that draft) because that was probably his best draft and one of the best ones this franchise has had in a while and it helped us to get over the RG3 trade, but the media doesn't acknowledge Scott (or Bruce) for doing a good job, they acknowledge Scot because Bruce used his services. What about when Shanahan signed the Redskins up for BLESTO scouting service? They never get the attention or credit for our successes in the draft. So why all the love for Scot? 

 

Even last year people (yourself included just now) say that it was Scot's list. Scot didn't even go to the combine. He has notes on players but how good is he? And where's the credit for the guys who did go and put in the laboring hours of watching tape and talking to players and talking to coaches, etc? But yeah, this is Scot's list. 

 

And this is where I said I think there were problems. I think this because of the main contrast between DW and Scot. DW doesn't hesitate to name names. He will say Me and Eric were talking and blah blah blah or Jay really liked this guy but I was like calm down Jay. And that gives the FO credit because we're seeing that its not a DW operation, its a FO decision. 

 

Maybe there were antics. Maybe saying "football player" counts as an antic - because it says nothing. THEY'RE ALL FOOTBALL PLAYERS, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HERE. Maybe it was his ignoring the DL in the draft until round 5 of 2016, but talking about physicality. But if I had to place a wager on anything I'd say that he had an attitude of his opinion was better than the rest of the front office for whatever reason and it probably rubbed some people the wrong way. 

 

I do wonder if he still thinks Matt Jones is a great back. 

[Skinsinparadise]

29 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

How do we know he had nothing to do with the HaHa trade?  Serious question, working a lot, haven’t heard radio or really seen anything 

Russell seemed to suggest for some reason Kyle Smith did and it's an example of his growing power. But couldn't tell if that's him speculating or knows it for sure.

[Skinsinparadise]

18 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Is Scot the only guy who had DJ and Zach as top free agents? I say no because they were widely discussed in the FA thread.

 

 

From what I recall I lead the dance on the FA thread more than anyone to sign Zach Brown before we did it.  but so what?  I am not in charge of the Redskins FO.  Yeah the whole NFL knows who all of these people are.  Zach Brown, Swearinger were known commodities of course.  But that's how Fa works of course, some chase some guys some chase others.

 

18 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I do it myself too. When I looked at the 2015 year and how we brought in guys like Mason Foster and Will Blackmon during the season, I immediately thought that it had to be Scot that did it, but why? Why couldn't it have been Santos or Campbell or Allen or Williams? Why did i immediately say it was Scot?

 

Just wondering why does it matter?  What's the relevance?  My issue with Bruce isn't that I think he's a good or bad picker of players.  From what I've heard he has almost nothing to do with picking any player.  My issue with him is I don't think he should be the final say.  I think he comes off like a politician and doesn't present the organization well. And he seemed to be by most accounts the lead dance on the Kirk contract   So whether Santos or Campbell or Doug or Scot picked Will Blackmon -- I can care less.

 

18 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

So why all the love for Scot? 

 

 

All the love for Scot for me at least was he was a real personnel guy with a big reputation running personnel. It was what Scot represents as opposed to him per se.  As for him not getting everything right.  OK Matt Ionnaidis great 5th round pick.  Matt Jones bad 3rd round pick.  I was just reading an article about Finlay about how now Scherff might be considered the 2nd best player picked in that top 10 that year even though the pick was maligned at the time.  That's how drafts work.  Some work, some don't.   Scot added 3 picks through trading to help the 2017 draft -- that often gets lost in discussion.   Heck John Schneider has a couple of years of flat out bad drafts.  You stick with a guy with a good reputation and you ride it out.  You talk on other points about patience.  Well, the same goes with a personnel guy.  Bill Parcells liked to say if you get it 50-50 right that you are really good at the game.  If we are going to jump at a guy for not getting instant results than isn't that sort of vintage old school Dan Synder?  The same dude who ran John Schneider out after one year.

 

But lets run with Scot sucks for argument sake.  It means that extends to Bruce too because he's the dude who picked him to run the job.  Thats why according to Russell, Dan was angry with Bruce about the Scot hire.  You can't have it both ways -- if I am hiring someone, I can't laugh at my hire to my boss and say hey the dude I hired sucks and my boss slaps me on the back and says nice job dude, i always thought you were better than him anyway.