The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[dcdiscokid]

Ok, I just talked to someone really connected to org, he said that Doug is a faceman and that only, that neither Schaffer or Smith are in line for job, though one may become a place holder, and CP has had a say in every pick we have had for the last 3 drafts. CP is in line for GM job in next 4 years. Take it FWIW, just repeating what I heard from someone very connected to team. And hope I dont break that confidence by posting this, but was a very shocking conversation. I will say this he can play games about what he tells me, and I questioned him on this. I asked why he said we were going after Vita, and were down on Payne, his answer was we wanted Vita, second on board was Payne, 3rd was James. again FWIW. Throw darts now...

[Thinking Skins]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

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.

 

But this is not about Scot / Bruce to me. I'm not trying to defend Bruce. I'm more thinking about what I think happened to cause Scot to get fired. To me, its about Scot and Santos or Scot and Campbell or Scot and DW or Scot and the lower scouts. And its not necessarily about who you or I like, but about (1) the media's presentation of it. I mentioned above the guys that were almost clearly Scot's guys and they almost all were failures. Then there are guys that I'd be willing to bet were at minimum a consensus on. I'd bet the entire FO wanted Brown and DJ. And I'd bet there was a debate in the FO over Scherff and Doctson. There was a freaking hashtag called "In Scot We Trust". 

 

This is what Doug said when he was introduced: "We had a general manager — it didn't work out that well," Williams said Tuesday, referring to the two-year tenure of Scot McCloughan, who was fired in March. "My job is to control (my) hallway. And I think if we do a good job, no matter what happens, we all get credit for what this football team does."

 

If I get the time, I'll look for more quotes to this angle, but it seems like Dan always envisioned his FO working like a bunch of smartheads sitting around a table making decisions (himself included). Maybe Bruce convinced him that he (Dan) shouldn't be at that table, but I think Dan still wants that table. But I don't think Scot wanted that table. So I think he ignored the conversations and used the "I have final say" approach or got credit when it wasn't a Scot only decision, like  the media saying that "they used Scot's draft board".

 

Under DW, we're seeing the talk about how smart Eric is because DW told the story about how they got AP. We know that Kyle ran the draft and so he gets the credit for its successes. And I think its less about being able to assign credit/blame for each decision, but for the team to know that they're working as a team. I mean it wasn't called "David Ruffin and the Temptations". It was the Temptations. Its not Iron Man and the Avengers, its the Avengers. And it wasn't Scot McCloughan and the Front Office, its the Front Office. 

[BleedBNG]

32 minutes ago, dcdiscokid said:

Ok, I just talked to someone really connected to org, they said that doug is a faceman and that only, that neither schaffer or smith are in line for job, though one may become a place holder, and CP has had a say in every pick we have had for the last 3 drafts. CP is in line for GM job in next 4 years. Take it FWIW, just repeating what I heard from someone very connected to team. And hope I dont break that confidence by posting this, but was a very shocking conversation. I will say this he can play games about what he tells me, and i questioned him on this. I asked why he said we were going after Vita, and were down on Payne, his answer was we wanted Vita, second on board was Payne, 3rd was James. again FWIW. Throw darts now...

 

OK, I'm out of the loop or something but who is CP?

[dcdiscokid]

1 minute ago, BleedBNG said:

 

OK, I'm out of the loop or something but who is CP?

Old #26

[BleedBNG]

Just now, dcdiscokid said:

Old #26

 

Well yeah I thought so, but seriously? I'm mean that's cool but I thought his work was with media and not any player decisions.

[dcdiscokid]

Just saying what I have heard, im just as skeptical but, dude is very connected, hang out with cp, sm, and random dudes at buddies house on away games. not sure what to say it was not the conversation I expected.

[TK]

2 hours 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 

 

[Tsailand]

1 hour ago, dcdiscokid said:

CP has had a say in every pick we have had for the last 3 drafts. CP is in line for GM job in next 4 years.

 

This is the stupidest ****ing rumor I've ever seen on ES.

[Skinsinparadise]

8 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

But this is not about Scot / Bruce to me. I'm not trying to defend Bruce. I'm more thinking about what I think happened to cause Scot to get fired. To me, its about Scot and Santos or Scot and Campbell or Scot and DW or Scot and the lower scouts. And its not necessarily about who you or I like, but about (1) the media's presentation of it. I mentioned above the guys that were almost clearly Scot's guys and they almost all were failures. Then there are guys that I'd be willing to bet were at minimum a consensus on. I'd bet the entire FO wanted Brown and DJ. And I'd bet there was a debate in the FO over Scherff and Doctson. There was a freaking hashtag called "In Scot We Trust". 

 

 

I've heard enough about the issue that I don't think one whit of Scot's firing had anything to do with job performance but everything to do with other stuff as 106.7 who broke the story talked about.  As for the media's presentation of both.  I think part of it comes off how they come off as people.  You see them both on TV.  Heck I met both as people.  Bruce comes off political, slick and tough to tell if he's sincere.  Scot came off like a nice guy and super real. 

 

I know you are taken by Bruce as you've said before.  And to each their own on that front.  People hit people in different ways.  But I'll say for example Brian Lafemina who they hired I think helps fix their Bruce problem -- he just comes off like a real dude in his public appearances.  Bruce to me (and plenty of others) comes off exactly as his image is. 

 

But to play along some.  The idea that the big names were consensus picks and the lesser players were Scot guys who knows but I doubt it.  Bruce is a lesser guy go cheap in FA on flea market guys himself.  It was one thing that both Scot and Bruce agreed on.  But they didn't always operate that way, the three FA's that stood out that I recall at the time big time had Scot's finger prints on it were:  Galette, Norman, V. Davis.

 

Here and there things gets leaked.  I've heard multiple times Sean McVay was screaming for Doctson.  If you go search at the time, one of the reporters Scot was close to said Scot's favorite WR was Michael Thomas and hinted the guy he wanted to draft with Ryan Kelly.  We can cherry pick and make anyone look bad.  Mason Foster that must have been Santos because he was a good player.  Jeron Johnson that had to be Scot.  Who knows but I doubt it because neither the 106.7 story or the WP story about his firing centered on Scot's picks.

 

8 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

 

If I get the time, I'll look for more quotes to this angle, but it seems like Dan always envisioned his FO working like a bunch of smartheads sitting around a table making decisions (himself included). Maybe Bruce convinced him that he (Dan) shouldn't be at that table, but I think Dan still wants that table. But I don't think Scot wanted that table. So I think he ignored the conversations and used the "I have final say" approach or got credit when it wasn't a Scot only decision, like  the media saying that "they used Scot's draft board".

 

 

Dan gets an arrangement that I think he's most comfortable with.  Instead of having Marty, or Shanny or Scot or whomever to complain and say what gives when he wants to make a move.  Now he can make a move without anyone complaining about it.  All these guys can do is make recommendations.  So they can't complain about final say.  Perfect for him.  Does he exploit that power?  I don't know.  But Id bet it relaxes him that he has that power.  Shanny would talk about him walking into his office and saying I want Randy moss and then Shanny would talk him out of it.  Now, there is no one with that power to say no.   My gut is he isn't going nuts controlling things behind the scenes but when he wants something he has the power structure to do it without someone being a pain and getting in the way.

 

8 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Under DW, we're seeing the talk about how smart Eric is because DW told the story about how they got AP. We know that Kyle ran the draft and so he gets the credit for its successes. And I think its less about being able to assign credit/blame for each decision, but for the team to know that they're working as a team. I mean it wasn't called "David Ruffin and the Temptations". It was the Temptations. Its not Iron Man and the Avengers, its the Avengers. And it wasn't Scot McCloughan and the Front Office, its the Front Office. 

  

This isn't new go read articles about the FO structure when Gibbs was here.  Gibbs and Vinny would sit at the table, sometimes Dan, too.  Scott Campbell or the head scout du jour.  They'd get player recommendations from the team's coordinators and make committee decisions.  It worked great?  ?

 

I know you tend to like whatever they cook up when Bruce is involved because you like him and think it must be smart.  But to me this is a variation of same old same old.  Doug unlike Bruce comes off to me like a sincere guy, nice guy and brings some class to it.  Unlike Vinny and Bruce.  But otherwise to me its  a "meh" operation (with some good people in that mix of decisions) and a perfect set up for Dan to call any shot he pleases versus Bruce.  The only thing that gives me hope is I keep hearing its poised to change.

 

IMO if you take the weakest line (Bruce) out of being at the top of the heap -- its a whole new ball game.  Put Kyle in charge -- really in charge and then give him time to build a roster.  By time I don't mean killing him every time he doesn't make a good pick or blows a FA.  They all do that.  They all make big mistakes.  It comes with the turf.  You got to be patient.  i don't think it takes forever to build a good roster but if we are going to kill them for mistakes, then none of them are going to work.  There is no version of robo cop GM.

 

The exception to this is QB.  If you screw up the QB position it could limit your organization for years.  Some people defend Bruce by saying hey even if you think he screwed up that contract so what, its just one thing.  Well, that one thing can effect the fortunes of a franchise for years.  Whether you got your third round pick right or whether the back up safety from Seattle flourishes or not as a starter when you sign him for 1 million dollars as a FA -- won't make or break squat.  

[HardcoreZorn]

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The exception to this is QB.  If you screw up the QB position it could limit your organization for years.  Some people defend Bruce by saying hey even if you think he screwed up that contract so what, its just one thing.  Well, that one thing can effect the fortunes of a franchise for years.  Whether you got your third round pick right or whether the back up safety from Seattle flourishes or not as a starter when you sign him for 1 million dollars as a FA -- won't make or break squat.  

We are flourishing right now in spite of your opinion that we totally botched the QB position, which I vehemently disagree with. So maybe it's time to let go of Cousins and realize that although QB is by far the most important position on the team, football is about the other 52 guys too and having a strong roster with a caretaker at QB is a recipe for success. The most successful half a season in a decade. You can downplay it all you want and act like all we do now is 101 stuff, but I'm afraid you are missing the forest for the trees mate.

[Skinsinparadise]

33 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

We are flourishing right now in spite of your opinion that we totally botched the QB position, which I vehemently disagree with. So maybe it's time to let go of Cousins and realize that although QB is by far the most important position on the team, football is about the other 52 guys too and having a strong roster with a caretaker at QB is a recipe for success. The most successful half a season in a decade. You can downplay it all you want and act like all we do now is 101 stuff, but I'm afraid you are missing the forest for the trees mate.

 

You underestimate your obsession with Kirk Cousins.  You focus on everyone else being that way.  But don't sell yourself short on that front -- just because your position is good riddance -- it still doesn't take away your relentless on it.   It's just the same thing in a different form. 

 

As for the rest of your post, I'll ignore the condescending tone and just say you got me where I am downplaying it.  Just because I am crediting Peterson and the defense for the record along with 99% of fans/people who cover the team -- and I am not fawning over Alex Smith for his play to get us there -- so what?  And I'll hazard a guess the only reason why that bothers you is the tie of Alex and Kirk.  If you think that's what I am doing, fine.  But the number of times you engage and bring up Kirk in a complaining way is as intense as anyone who complained about Kirk leaving.  If you think its other people's button -- probably so.  But its certainly your button, too so I don't see how you can preach on the subject about how others should settle down.

[HardcoreZorn]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You underestimate your obsession with Kirk Cousins.  You focus on everyone else being that way.  But don't sell yourself short on that front -- just because your position is good riddance -- it still doesn't take away your relentless on it.   It's just the same thing in a different form. 

 

As for the rest of your post, I'll ignore the condescending tone and just say you got me where I am downplaying it.  Just because I am crediting Peterson and the defense for the record along with 99% of fans/people who cover the team -- and I am not fawning over Alex Smith for his play to get us there -- so what?  And I'll hazard a guess the only reason why that bothers you is the tie of Alex and Kirk.  If you think that's what I am doing, fine.  But the number of times you engage and bring up Kirk in a complaining way is as intense as anyone who complained about Kirk leaving.  If you think its other people's button -- probably so.  But its certainly your button, too so I don't see how you can preach on the subject about how others should settle down.

LOL this might be your best post of all time. Saying let go of Cousins=obsessed? If I tell my best friend over and over who was obsessed with his longtime girlfriend that just dumped him that he should let her go, does that make me obsessed with his girl friend? 

 

As far as I know, I don't spend any time running around talking about Alex is great and Cousins is terrible. The most I have said is "we're winning, why are we still obsessed with the previous QB," and "Cousins is the same guy that we saw while we were here, and was not deserving of the first fully guaranteed contract in NFL history at that AAV." If that makes me obsessed, OK. And not everything I say is condescending, stop being so sensitive.

[Wildbunny]

29 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

LOL this might be your best post of all time. Saying let go of Cousins=obsessed? If I tell my best friend over and over who was obsessed with his longtime girlfriend that just dumped him that he should let her go, does that make me obsessed with his girl friend? 

It's more along the lines of you going back to his ex girlfriend when he's talking about girls in general...

 

You're always bringing it back to Kirk/Alex, while SIP was talking QB position in general...

Is it possible to discuss the GM job and handling of QB position without it being a shot at Alex/Kirk/Rex/McNugget or whoever QB you want around here?

[Skinsinparadise]

38 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Saying let go of Cousins=obsessed? If I tell my best friend over and over who was obsessed with his longtime girlfriend that just dumped him that he should let her go, does that make me obsessed with his girl friend? 

 

 

If people make points on multiple fronts, you will often cherry pick the Kirk part -- that's your button, its clear to me for someone who has debated you a gazillion times -- that sets you off.   Heck the last post is a case in point, I make a number of points, Kirk wasn't even a central one.  But you come right after me with another post about Kirk after reading it.  

 

I debate Thinking Skins and some others here who take a more pro FO point of view -- but Kirk doesn't set them off that often.  It sets you off.  Again and again and again.   I can give your position on Kirk in rhyme and verse just as much as you can do of mine.  My point on it is sometimes you like to preach to others to let go of Kirk -- but you yourself can't let go of engaging just about any chance you get on it.  That's cool but if you truly want the debate on Kirk to simmer down, I'd think not engaging or bringing it up would do the job as opposed to more engaging. 

 

38 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

As far as I know, I don't spend any time running around talking about Alex is great and Cousins is terrible. The most I have said is "we're winning, why are we still obsessed with the previous QB," and "Cousins is the same guy that we saw while we were here, and was not deserving of the first fully guaranteed contract in NFL history at that AAV." If that makes me obsessed, OK. 

 

You got me building a shrine to Peterson on his thread.  I even debated you some on the defense saying I think good -- not sure about great -- i needed to see that play out to say great.  And yeah they have played great.  So kudos to them. And I've said it.  I defended Jay in the Jay thread after the NO game.   I've picked them to win every game but one.  I told people to chill after the bad losses and predicted them to win the next game.  But i am picked on as the lukewarm person on the 5-2 record?  

 

Makes no sense, right?  Well, not exactly -- it does make sense in just one context, the Kirk-Alex stuff.  If I am not in love with the QB's play then is it about Kirk?  Hey he's not killing Kirk like some did for the NO loss?  What's up with that?   That's my point saying back at you with the obsession about Kirk.  It really doesn't matter what I say about Peterson or the defense or Jay none of those count as real homer positions because none of that has anything to do with the QB and by extension Kirk.  Ditto my predicting them to win.  I guess if I predict them to win with a plug of Alex added and took a dig at Kirk -- I'd be in the true homer club??

 

And the irony is i am not even one of Alex's harshest critics, i've been selling he will get better.   

 

 

38 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 And not everything I say is condescending, stop being so sensitive.

 

I agree not everything but a lot of it comes off to me that way.  You talk about wanting more positivity and sunshine on the board but in my view you at times don't debate in a way that solicits that.  And I am not saying that because you are pro Bruce-FO but the style you go about it.  I've debated Thinking Skins for a long time before debating you -- he's actually more pro Bruce than you are but it doesn't feel like the same level of negativity when we engage.  I am not saying I don't do that too but at the same time I am not preaching that i am bringing about sunshine and positivity like you do from time to time. 

 

 

[Malapropismic Depository]

See the difference in the culture around here.

When other teams in the division go through adversity, they finger-point, call each other out, panic, implode, and spiral downward even further.

When the Skins suffer an embarrassing Monday night loss, what happens ?

A players-only meeting, which results in winning 3 in a row ; something not done in a very long time.

Yes, the players called that meeting. But that kind of culture starts at the top. They pick the right character players. And they create the atmosphere.

[HardcoreZorn]

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

It's more along the lines of you going back to his ex girlfriend when he's talking about girls in general...

 

You're always bringing it back to Kirk/Alex, while SIP was talking QB position in general...

Is it possible to discuss the GM job and handling of QB position without it being a shot at Alex/Kirk/Rex/McNugget or whoever QB you want around here?

 

Quote

The exception to this is QB.  If you screw up the QB position it could limit your organization for years.  Some people defend Bruce by saying hey even if you think he screwed up that contract so what, its just one thing.  Well, that one thing can effect the fortunes of a franchise for years.  Whether you got your third round pick right or whether the back up safety from Seattle flourishes or not as a starter when you sign him for 1 million dollars as a FA -- won't make or break squat.  

 

The above is what I responded to by @Skinsinparadise. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to read between the lines here, especially since I know his position on the matter. SIP is insinuating that just because they hit on mid rounders or have successful bargain bin FA signings, doesn't mean squat because they just let Kirk walk out the door and are now stuck with Alex, aka Bruce screwed up QB which can limit this organization for years. If that's not accurate, my mistake. 

 

That's something I disagreed with so I responded to it. I could have quoted all of the other blocks of text and said "agreed" if that would come off as less strong or negative. But I tended to agree with most of what he was saying, and instead chose to respond to the last point which just doesn't make much sense to me. We are in the midst of a season where we are successful, not because of our QB, but rather the entire team. SIP has admitted as much himself. So to then discount successful drafting and building a strong roster surrounding the QB, which is directly responsible for our 5-2 start for the first time in a decade, seems contradictory to me. Hence missing the forest for the trees comment. It's focusing heavily on a single issue (QB situation), while minimizing the impact of all other moves. If I misunderstood then my apologies to all.

[Skinsinparadise]

27 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

We are in the midst of a season where we are successful, not because of our QB, but rather the entire team. SIP has admitted as much himself. So to then discount successful drafting and building a strong roster surrounding the QB, which is directly responsible for our 5-2 start for the first time in a decade, seems contradictory to me. Hence missing the forest for the trees comment. It's focusing heavily on a single issue (QB situation), while minimizing the impact of all other moves. If I misunderstood then my apologies to all.

 

In the sea of points I posted there which was in response to discussion about Scot and Bruce, I made the point that if you are going to buy bargain basement FAs (my problem was the approach not that they didn't get lucky with the approach) you will miss on many of them and ditto you aren't going to get every pick right in the draft.  It's about getting enough right.    I said the QB was an exception if you get that one wrong you can set an organization back.  By the way I feel that way irrespective of Kirk -- i am not exactly making some grand point there, its practically a cliche that teams like the Lions, Browns and yes the Redskins have floundered for years in part because they haven't hit on a QB.

 

So for you to take it into Kirk and me being down on the 5-2 run -- that's you overstating what you think my take is about the team based on Alex alone -- because on so many other fronts I am a big time homer if anything. 

 

Unless you are trying to get to another point -- and if you were that wasn't clear to me in your original response.  Are you trying to say Alex isn't good but this team can be successful anyway via the Jax model? so the idea that you need a good QB is overstated?  if so that's a different discussion.  I've actually brought up the Jax model by the way on another thread. 

[Wildbunny]

28 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

The above is what I responded to by @Skinsinparadise. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to read between the lines here, especially since I know his position on the matter. SIP is insinuating that just because they hit on mid rounders or have successful bargain bin FA signings, doesn't mean squat because they just let Kirk walk out the door and are now stuck with Alex, aka Bruce screwed up QB which can limit this organization for years. If that's not accurate, my mistake.  

I guess you read too much between the lines.

 

His point was that if you pick the wrong guy at QB it can throw your franchise back for some years. While missing on a 3rd rounder or a pick up FA is not gonna hinder you much... You're not stuck long with them as you are with a supposed franchised QB.

[HardcoreZorn]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

If people make points on multiple fronts, you will often cherry pick the Kirk part -- that's your button, its clear to me for someone who has debated you a gazillion times -- that sets you off.   Heck the last post is a case in point, I make a number of points, Kirk wasn't even a central one.  But you come right after me with another post about Kirk after reading it.  

It absolutely is a hot button issue for me. I can't wrap my head around how it's not somewhat obvious to you that Kirk never really wanted to be here. From the beginning. None of that's to say Bruce couldn't have handled the situation better, or gotten proper value for a franchise QB. But it does drive me up a wall that we are painted as completely dysfunctional and Kirk was completely wronged. It does drive me up a wall that we are winning and still talking about Kirk, a guy who never won anything of importance here, left for a far superior squad yet has a worse record halfway through the year. If Kirk had played when it counted in 2016 and made the playoffs and maybe even won a game, I would understand the sentiment. Though if he had proven capable of that, I don't think we would even be debating this as we probably would have catered toward his demands. Unfortunately he didn't. And I fully realize it's a team game and not all wins and losses should be placed at the feet of the QB. See 2018 Redskins. But playoffs were there for a taking and he folded like a house of cards. GREAT QB's, QB's worthy of the contract he received, do not do that.

 

So yes, it's a big deal to me. I simply don't get it. I think partly it's because the fan base so badly wants that homegrown face of the franchise to rally behind, and we haven't really ever had that under Snyder. It's why Griffin was revered after his rookie year. But just because we have piss-poor QB's over the years, and Kirk looked miles better in comparison, does not mean we let Aaron Rodgers walk out the door. And that's what some act like. If you see special, then agree to disagree. I don't, never have. Too many back breaking mistakes. But to say I'm obsessed? Obsessed maybe if I spent all my time hyping up Alex and trashing Kirk. I think we both know that's not really the case. But hot button, certainly.

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I debate Thinking Skins and some others here who take a more pro FO point of view -- but Kirk doesn't set them off that often.  It sets you off.  Again and again and again.   I can give your position on Kirk in rhyme and verse just as much as you can do of mine.  My point on it is sometimes you like to preach to others to let go of Kirk -- but you yourself can't let go of engaging just about any chance you get on it.  That's cool but if you truly want the debate on Kirk to simmer down, I'd think not engaging or bringing it up would do the job as opposed to more engaging. 

 

 

You got me building a shrine to Peterson on his thread.  I even debated you some on the defense saying I think good -- not sure about great -- i needed to see that play out to say great.  And yeah they have played great.  So kudos to them. And I've said it.  I defended Jay in the Jay thread after the NO game.   I've picked them to win every game but one.  I told people to chill after the bad losses and predicted them to win the next game.  But i am picked on as the lukewarm person on the 5-2 record?  

 

Makes no sense, right?  Well, not exactly -- it does make sense in just one context, the Kirk-Alex stuff.  If I am not in love with the QB's play then is it about Kirk?  Hey he's not killing Kirk like some did for the NO loss?  What's up with that?   That's my point saying back at you with the obsession about Kirk.  It really doesn't matter what I say about Peterson or the defense or Jay none of those count as real homer positions because none of that has anything to do with the QB and by extension Kirk.  Ditto my predicting them to win.  I guess if I predict them to win with a plug of Alex added and took a dig at Kirk -- I'd be in the true homer club??

 

And the irony is i am not even one of Alex's harshest critics, i've been selling he will get better.   

Hmmm I think I recently said you were one of the most level headed when it came to Alex. I've seen you say plenty of positive things about the team. I don't think my post had anything to do with that though.

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

I agree not everything but a lot of it comes off to me that way.  You talk about wanting more positivity and sunshine on the board but in my view you at times don't debate in a way that solicits that.  And I am not saying that because you are pro Bruce-FO but the style you go about it.  I've debated Thinking Skins for a long time before debating you -- he's actually more pro Bruce than you are but it doesn't feel like the same level of negativity when we engage.  I am not saying I don't do that too but at the same time I am not preaching that i am bringing about sunshine and positivity like you do from time to time. 

 

 

I will work on this. I am aware I can come off strong, especially via text. I think if you met me in person and spoke to me you would find I'm quite the opposite. I'm just passionate about this team and some of my takes, but I will try and be more conscious of being so negative or over the top strong.

3 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

I guess you read too much between the lines.

 

His point was that if you pick the wrong guy at QB it can throw your franchise back for some years. While missing on a 3rd rounder or a pick up FA is not gonna hinder you much... You're not stuck long with them as you are with a supposed franchised QB.

Ok then my mistake if that was the case. I agree completely.

[HardcoreZorn]

9 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

In the sea of points I posted there which was in response to discussion about Scot and Bruce, I made the point that if you are going to buy bargain basement FAs (my problem was the approach not that they didn't get lucky with the approach) you will miss on many of them and ditto you aren't going to get every pick right in the draft.  It's about getting enough right.    I said the QB was an exception if you get that one wrong you can set an organization back.  By the way I feel that way irrespective of Kirk -- i am not exactly making some grand point there, its practically a cliche that teams like the Lions, Browns and yes the Redskins have floundered for years in part because they haven't hit on a QB.

 

So for you to take it into Kirk and me being down on the 5-2 run -- that's you overstating what you think my take is about the team based on Alex alone -- because on so many other fronts I am a big time homer if anything. 

 

Unless you are trying to get to another point -- and if you were that wasn't clear to me in your original response.  Are you trying to say Alex isn't good but this team can be successful anyway via the Jax model? so the idea that you need a good QB is overstated?  if so that's a different discussion.  I've actually brought up the Jax model by the way on another thread. 

I think I just misinterpreted what you were actually saying.

 

But yes I somewhat think we are building a JAX model, and I'm cool with that. I'm far from thinking Alex has been good enough. But the problem with Jax is not only do they have a guy who is inconsistent and not capable of throwing the team to victory. But they also have a guy who can lose you games. Alex doesn't do that at least. But yeah we have a strong OL, strong DL, strong run game, and some good complimentary pieces all over. It's rare to build that, but we've seemingly done it. Obviously still a long way to go, but I'm convinced this roster is strong enough to win with a care taker at QB.

[Conn]

On 10/31/2018 at 10:59 AM, Renegade7 said:

 

What's done is done, as long as Doug has final say going forward, that's what matters to me at this point.  My feeling in Bruce are irrelevant now that we are winning, he's Ernie Grunsfield safe now, learn to love it.

 

Moving this here since it isn't specifically about Clinton-Dix...

 

As to the bolded, why do you think this has happened? I haven't seen anything like this reported. 

[Renegade7]

Just now, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Moving this here since it isn't specifically about Clinton-Dix...

 

As to the bolded, why do you think this has happened? 

 

I didn't say it I did, I said that's what I want.  Either or seems to working right now, at least this year, but rather like Doug be the GM and Bruce do his thing separately 

[Skinsinparadise]

53 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

It absolutely is a hot button issue for me. I can't wrap my head around how it's not somewhat obvious to you that Kirk never really wanted to be here.

 

I've listened to so much talk about behind the scenes stuff about Kirk it makes me dizzy.  And no i don't just listen to hear what I want to hear.  Like I've said I sided with Bruce over Scot after hearing the behind the scenes reports because people I trusted explained what happened.    I even sided with Bruce initially on the kirk contract but I heard thing after thing after thing that painted a picture that to me made it clear why Kirk wouldn't want to return and Bruce was central to that plot. 

 

I've read your account many times of what you think went down.  And the picture that was painted to me by people close to the action isn't anything close to what you describe -- in short you either minimize and ignore all the behavior that was part of the contract as a turnoff to Kirk. Because to you -- he should just ignore the noise and brass tax everything.  Well, people are different.  Not everyone rolls they way we would.  

 

Other than that, I do not want to belabor another Kirk contract discussion, I've explained it many times.  If you think you are going to beat it out of me because you have a different take -- I get the approach but you are wasting your time.

 

53 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

So yes, it's a big deal to me. I simply don't get it. I think partly it's because the fan base so badly wants that homegrown face of the franchise to rally behind, and we haven't really ever had that under Snyder. It's why Griffin was revered after his rookie year. But just because we have piss-poor QB's over the years, and Kirk looked miles better in comparison, does not mean we let Aaron Rodgers walk out the door. And that's what some act like. If you see special, then agree to disagree.

 

I've watched all of the QBs who have walked through the door.  Shuler, Friez, Matthews, Banks on and on and on.  I recall the hype and narrative about every one of them.  I've seen them swing for the fences for QB and strike out.  And to me, Kirk was a different stratosphere.  He's not Aaron Rodgers but a bonafide franchise QB, and no finding franchise QBs in the draft or FAs isn't how this franchised rolled.  So yeah sorry for me it was a big deal. 

 

I've debated the merits or lack thereof of Kirk many times, don't want to do it again.  If you think letting a QB of his caliber out the door is normal as if other organizations do it too -- and he's nothing special or we can let a good QB walk and find another one, no big deal or whatever drives you on it.   Cool.  To each their own.  Again you are wasting your time if you think you are going to beat that position out of me. 

 

I get Kirk is at a low with some of his detractors this week.  Not saying you.  But I don't live and die with any game of ANY QB so if the people who dislike Kirk bask in the NO game and want to define him as some Rex Grossman level interception happy bum -- with his 16 TD to 4 TD ratio -- sorry to each their own.  I think he's a really good QB and yeah I think Bruce blew it.  If you feel otherwise.  OK.  Not sure why you think you are going to change my mind?    On the aggregate I think Kirk has played well.  On the aggregate, I think Kirk's replacement hasn't played well.  So I don't see any vindication cooking on any front.  Having said that as I said on the Kirk thread many times in the off season, let the whole season play out and see.

 

53 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I will work on this. I am aware I can come off strong, especially via text. I think if you met me in person and spoke to me you would find I'm quite the opposite. I'm just passionate about this team and some of my takes, but I will try and be more conscious of being so negative or over the top strong.

 

OK, cool enough.  I am actually laid back too.  But if someone is going to sort of call me out, I'll respond in kind.  It will lend to a heated conversation.  But like I said I do it sometimes, too.  I do try to refrain from it but I know when I let a little loose, the response will likely be in kind. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I think I just misinterpreted what you were actually saying.

 

But yes I somewhat think we are building a JAX model, and I'm cool with that. I'm far from thinking Alex has been good enough. But the problem with Jax is not only do they have a guy who is inconsistent and not capable of throwing the team to victory. But they also have a guy who can lose you games. Alex doesn't do that at least. But yeah we have a strong OL, strong DL, strong run game, and some good complimentary pieces all over. It's rare to build that, but we've seemingly done it. Obviously still a long way to go, but I'm convinced this roster is strong enough to win with a care taker at QB.

 

If we can have a conversation about it without any Bruce, Kirk drama good or bad -- here's my genuine take without worrying about offending anybody's point of view. 

 

I recall the days well when Adrian Peterson was a one man wrecking crew.  I recall our playoff run the year Sean died where we had to win a big game in Minny and how Gregg actually brought back the Bears defense playing 4 LBs to stop the run just to stop that dude.  They were obsessed with Peterson.  The dude was an animal.

 

I've been jealous that we haven't really had the killer player for most of Dan's tenure and now boom Peterson is that.  And he's almost the Peterson of old.  That's amazing.  And amazingly good luck.   The dude is a legend and is on a mission.  Reading about him trying to change the culture -- work with young players on and on.  Amazing. 

 

So far injuries haven't been too bad on defense.  And the defense looks really good.  We have one of the easiest schedules in the NFL.  When does this team have such a stroke of luck?   You hear about teams going far in a given season -- sometimes you need some luck to help that go along.  And wow for the moment they have that. 

 

It makes me feel really good about this team.  But Alex is a major source of frustration.  And zero of that has to do with Kirk.  And zero of that has to do with Bruce -- considering delving into how they went about targeting Alex as the guy, Bruce clearly wasn't the guy who identified the target he just made the deal.  Seems like O'Connell was the top guy pushing for it. 

 

My frustration with Alex is like wow this team could be a SB team.  They have an elite RB and an elite D line.  Those are the two things I've been screaming for -- for years.  My other thing though is QB.  I think you need all three legs.   And as for winning with ball control, I love that.  It's another thing I've wanted. 

 

However, I genuinely thought Alex would be better than he played. Much better.  I didn't like the deal at the time but not because I thought Alex was a bad QB but because I didn't think the roster would be up to snuff to justify going with a veteran QB.  I wanted to go with a new QB and start from scratch and go young. 

 

But Alex is much less than I thought he would be.   I think the Alex doesn't throw interceptions drill is way overplayed.  How many times have the defense given the offense the ball with great field position and they did nothing with it?  And like I said on another thread (admitting hyperbole to bring home a point), do you think Jay is thinking Alex you got the ball on the 35 yard line of the opponent or 50 yard line and came away with no points but give me a hug because you didn't throw an interception and that's all I care about.  According to beat guys who cover Jay, heck no, and Jay is frustrated.  

 

The Vikings made the playoffs with Peterson with QBs who weren't that great.  And heck guys like Ponder even threw his share of interceptions.  Alex to me is not a key reason for why this team is winning.  And i know some make the point in a lighter way where they softened it and say well he's a part of it right.  The lack of turnovers is key, right?  Yeah I guess a part of it but to me he's been a liability in recent weeks.    For me to celebrate the lack of turnovers, I'd need a dude who can move the ball much more.  The 2017 version of him. 

 

So for me posting on that thread has nothing to do with just finding something to rain on.  But it's frustrating as heck to think wow if this dude doesn't get it going he might just be the reason why we have no shot at the big dance.  And that's frustrating to me because the seas have parted in ways I didn't expect.  Everything seems to be lining up right except for him.   And that's not me wanting to complain just to complain but me thinking wow imagine if we get just average to good QB play?

 

And I'll use the Derwin James-Payne argument to bring home my feelings on this.  You know I wanted James. And he's played very well.  However,  Payne I thought would be good but not great (I loved Allen and believe it or not Ionnaidis -- even said on the draft thread that day to take him before most knew who he was), I liked but not loved Payne.  Payne has been really good.  The d line has been great.  So I am ok with Payne over James now.

 

Likewise if I genuinely thought Alex was an improvement over Kirk, I'd say it and have no problem saying it.  I've told you more than once, we all get things right and get things wrong.  No biggie. Parcells says if you bat 50-50 with personnel, you are really good.  But his QB play, actually reminds me  a lot of Mark Brunell,  2005, he wasn't electric, he had a good INT %. They made the playoffs and won the Tampa game via the defense and Sean Taylor and Portis and then got kicked out.  They moved on ultimately from Brunell the next year.  

 

It feels a lot like that to me.  And while a playoff run is nice.  If it unfolds like 2005 it feels more like a squandered opportunity because I don't know how long we can count on Peterson at his age being this good.  And we got a young cheap D line and in its prime. 

 

Am I giving up on Alex?  No, I am hoping he can improve and think he will but the mystery to me is how much.  But if this team falls short it feels a little like squandered opportunity.  Can you win a SB with a Jax model?  I am not sure.  But I am not that optimistic on that front.  That's why I am dying to see Alex play better.  And hope he does big time. 

 

 

 

[dcdiscokid]

18 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

This is the stupidest ****ing rumor I've ever seen on ES.

I agree, but the guy is connected so like I said very skeptical, but known him my whole life. Take what you will from it.