The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[Thinking Skins]

Kedric Golston is on the Grant and Danny show right now saying basically what i said in my last post, that Dan has grown as an owner and Bruce has put things in place to help with that. Some have worked and some have not, but fans are attempting to put all sins of the past on Bruce Allen and that's not fair to him.

[Tarpon75]

12 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

Bruce also got us a 36M penalty. Which somehow played a huge part in us being not a mess regarding salary cap.

 I can’t hold that against Bruce. The league got away with something that they  should not have. It was bogus!!

[Makaveli]

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

Kedric Golston is on the Grant and Danny show right now saying basically what i said in my last post, that Dan has grown as an owner and Bruce has put things in place to help with that. Some have worked and some have not, but fans are attempting to put all sins of the past on Bruce Allen and that's not fair to him.

 

I am not saying that you or Golston is wrong. I am sure there is probably some truth in what he is saying. But maybe the below had some influence in how he views Allen and the front office in a positive manner?

 

WP: A Redskins-Scot McCloughan separation seems to be a question of when, not if

Quote

When it came time to form the initial 53-man roster for the 2016 season, people familiar with the deliberations said some of the decisions McCloughan lost out on included the calls to keep center Kory Lichtensteiger and linebacker Trent Murphy on the roster, as well as aging nose tackle Kedric Golston over free agent signing Cullen Jenkins. Golston wound up missing the season because of injury, and the Redskins promptly re-signed Jenkins.

 

If we assume that the article is accurate, then Allen backed him up when our previous GM wanted to go a different direction.

[Wildbunny]

1 hour ago, Tarpon75 said:

 I can’t hold that against Bruce. The league got away with something that they  should not have. It was bogus!!

Well, my point was not much about who got us the penalty (even if I believe that Bruce holds some kind of responsibility in it). But more on the fact, that we had to play with 18M in Cap space less for two years, and after those two years, we got that cap space back. So, all of a sudden we had a situation of 36M handed back to us.

 

Which helped a lot. Next year we'll be around 45/50M or so due to cap increase... And those 36M we got back.

 

Mostly Bruce is still playing with a lower cap than everybody else, and use this to FT Kirk...

[goskins10]

3 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

That's not actually true. Other teams were trading and releasing players, which left dead cap hits int he uncapped year. That was clearly and explicitly allowed but eh league. What us and Dallas did was restructure deals so all the cap hits moved into that year. The league told us we couldn't do that, they told us we would be punished for doing it, we did it anyway. Those other teams you are listing didn't do that, just Washington and Dallas, and that's why we were punished for it. 

 

Actualy, what I said was 100% correct. Two other teams were also punished for the same thing. Also, the Bears and Packers had several contracts that were front loaded so that they would have been over the cap. So yes, it was exactly the same thing. 

 

3 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Also not quite right on a  couple of levels.

 

1. The 36 mil would have been amortized over 5 years, at 7.2 mil per year. So 28.8 mil would have been carried past the uncapped year. By doing what we did the punishment was all 36 mil was assessed. 7.2 mil isn't huge amount, but f we had done nothing we would have had it fall int he uncapped year. As well as, of course, not having it all hit at once like it did.

 

2. We could have traded or released those players and not been hit for any of it. Haynesworth, in particular, made it quite clear he didn't want to be here and he would be a problem if he was. There were plenty of reports of teams making trade offers for him, but Shanahan decided to keep him and try to force him to behave (and that worked out as well as expected). And part of the reason was surely because Allen was assuring him that he was going to outsmart the league and get out of that cap hit.

 

We should have used the uncapped year as a desperately needed rebuilding year, as so many of us here knew. But Shanny and Allen weren't smart enough for that and instead screwed the team over by, among other things, playing chicken with the NFL over those cap hits.

 

The league shouldn't have been able to assess that penalty but we shouldn't have been dumb enough to put ourselves in position for it to happen. I've argued this before and people just can't handle that both parts of that are true, but they are. Allen knew the risk he was taking, the league was quite emphatically telling him what would happen, he thought he knew better. And we saw the results. 

 

By your numbers that's $14.4M  over the 2 yrs, not $7.2 - assuming those numbers are correct. I will assume they are as I honestly do not feel like looking it up. But other parts of those contracts would have come due so the net result was very close to the same - but Ok not exactly.  

 

Your number 2 is a completely different conversation. I agree there were other options - although not as simple as you have made it sound. If you release them the entire amount is due immediately on the CAP (although you could designate June 1 to split it into 2 yrs). And anyone trying to trade for them either take the bad contract or the Redskins pay part or most of it. As for Shanny keeping him, there may have been deals but were they worth it? It someone offered a 5th rd pick for him and expected you to assume his contract, are you doing that? We do not know what the deals were. 

 

I do not mean this is an ugly way but I am done here. I went through all the data at the time. Do not feel like getting all together again. 

 

Again, at this point I am no fan of Bruce Allen's at all. But he took more heat for this bull**** than he probably should have. Having said that, by now there are enough things he has done that it's kind of moot. 

 

If he somehow gets his head out of his ass enough to get Kirk signed long term, then I could change my mind some, some as an argument could be made that with half the injuries this team could very well compete with many teams with Kirk at QB. But so far I have seen nothing to indicate he can do that. There is every indication he will try to find some way to save face and it will end in disaster. The only good thing is that it should also spell his demise in the Redskins organization. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

35 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Actualy, what I said was 100% correct. Two other teams were also punished for the same thing. Also, the Bears and Packers had several contracts that were front loaded so that they would have been over the cap. So yes, it was exactly the same thing. 

No, it absolutely isn't. What we were specifically punished for was "retroactive accounting". We were warned not to do it, we did. No other teams did it (save Dallas), so they were not punished. New Orleans and Oakland were not allowed the small amount of extra cap because they used bonuses to get around the rule that not salary could go up by more than 30% in the uncapped year. The minor amount of their penalties was because the benefits of the contracts were felt before the uncapped year, not after. And there was no assurance there even would be an uncapped year when they signed them.

 

People have posted incorrect numbers from other teams' contracts and come up with theories on why we were punished. But we were told what we were punished for and we were told not to do it before hand. There is no mystery to it, and no, other teams didn't do the same thing.

35 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

By your numbers that's $14.4M  over the 2 yrs, not $7.2 - assuming those numbers are correct. I will assume they are as I honestly do not feel like looking it up. But other parts of those contracts would have come due so the net result was very close to the same - but Ok not exactly.  

I don't get what you're getting at here. 36 mil was supposed to be in signing bonuses which would have been amortized at 7.2 per year for 5 years. Oe year of that  would have "counted" against the cap in 2010, the uncapped year, so 28.8 mil would have been left to be counted from 2011 onward. You said we would have had to account for all 36 mil regardless, but again, 7.2 mil of that would have been assessed in 2010, so only 28.8 mil would have still needed to be accounted for.

35 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

Your number 2 is a completely different conversation. I agree there were other options - although not as simple as you have made it sound. If you release them the entire amount is due immediately on the CAP (although you could designate June 1 to split it into 2 yrs). And anyone trying to trade for them either take the bad contract or the Redskins pay part or most of it. As for Shanny keeping him, there may have been deals but were they worth it? It someone offered a 5th rd pick for him and expected you to assume his contract, are you doing that? We do not know what the deals were. 

Again, it was an uncapped year. If we traded or released him the amount would have accelerated that year and never been counted against the salary cap.

 

The hot topic at the draft that year was the Haynseworth trade rumors. It was reported that at least 4 teams were making offers for him, with most pegging the price at a 2nd round pick, with some reports at a 3rd. Shanahan pretty publicly pulled him off the trade market.

 

A team trading for him would have been responsible for 2 years, 9 mil gtd for a guy a year removed form Defensive Player of the Year honors.. We traded him a year later when his deal was one year 5.4 mil and he had spent a year literally quitting on the field, so claiming we couldn't have traded him a year earlier defies all logic.

[Thinking Skins]

5 hours ago, Makaveli said:

 

I am not saying that you or Golston is wrong. I am sure there is probably some truth in what he is saying. But maybe the below had some influence in how he views Allen and the front office in a positive manner?

 

WP: A Redskins-Scot McCloughan separation seems to be a question of when, not if

 

If we assume that the article is accurate, then Allen backed him up when our previous GM wanted to go a different direction.

interesting theory. Scot's also the guy Cooley potentially has a grudge against because he was trying to come back and Scot said no. But just like I won't use that as the excuse for Cooley's possibly slanderous statements, I won't say Kedrick is speaking positively of Bruce for the reason you mention. And even if that is why he spoke positive, what about Doc, or the others (although outnumbered) who speak positively for Bruce? Is there always a hidden agenda?

[Rufus T Firefly]

Since the issue is whether or not Bruce Allen can build a team, how about we judge him on that? How about we look at the fact that the guy has never shown the slightest aptitude for doing so? Why do we have to listen to random ex-Redskins who like him? I have to pretend he didn't preposterously screw the pooch on the Cousins situation? Do I instead have to wait and hear what Alvin Garrett or Cornelius Griffin think of him?

[Voice_of_Reason]

51 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Since the issue is whether or not Bruce Allen can build a team, how about we judge him on that? How about we look at the fact that the guy has never shown the slightest aptitude for doing so? Why do we have to listen to random ex-Redskins who like him? I have to pretend he didn't preposterously screw the pooch on the Cousins situation? Do I instead have to wait and hear what Alvin Garrett or Cornelius Griffin think of him?

FWIW,  Allen as an exec is overall record since joining the Skins in 2010 is 50-74-1.

 

Over 7 years, that’s not a small sample size.

 

That’s not so good.

[Peregrine]

On 12/21/2017 at 5:13 PM, Wildbunny said:

 

Not that I disagree, but I'm still puzzled at these kind of comments.

Shanny was more GM than Bruce when he was around. They shared that title IIRC. Bruce was really only interim GM for one year after firing Shanny and before hiring Scott.

Now it's interesting that you start to include this year in his resume as Doug's in charge, mostly... He's no GM by title, but he's supposed to be...

 

Our Front office is a mess, take a look at it, hard to understand who does what...

 

http://www.redskins.com/team/front-office.html

Seriously, you've fallen for Bruces base tricks?  I mean, its textbook politics to pretend nobody knows who is in charge or responsible.   Bruce Allen has had full say over the Redskins, outside of Dan Snyder, in EACH of those years, he was listed as GM in all years but this one, where we have no GM, Doug or otherwise.  It puzzles you to hold someone responsible for their lack of results, just because they try to make it seem like other people might be at fault?

 

Its just hard for me to believe that even at this point, some fans on here have fallen for the oldest politics trick in the book: Give vague or pretend titles and surround yourself with other people you can then blame if things go wrong. 

[Wildbunny]

3 hours ago, Peregrine said:

Seriously, you've fallen for Bruces base tricks?  I mean, its textbook politics to pretend nobody knows who is in charge or responsible.   Bruce Allen has had full say over the Redskins, outside of Dan Snyder, in EACH of those years, he was listed as GM in all years but this one, where we have no GM, Doug or otherwise.  It puzzles you to hold someone responsible for their lack of results, just because they try to make it seem like other people might be at fault?

 

Its just hard for me to believe that even at this point, some fans on here have fallen for the oldest politics trick in the book: Give vague or pretend titles and surround yourself with other people you can then blame if things go wrong. 

 

No I've not fallen into any tricks or whatever...

 

I'm just wondering why you remove Scott's years under Bruce Allen into Bruce Allen record. You look like you're trying to twits facts so they fits your arguments.

Either you remove Scott's years, and then Shanny has his own record and Doug will have this year, and Bruce is not in charge of anything. Or you put all of them into Bruce's record.

 

Scott was supposed to have full roster control while it's been well documented by now that it wasn't 100% accurate.

[SkinsFTW]

It's like arguing over whether it's a turd sandwich or a double decker turd sandwich w/cheese.

 

[BurgundyBooger]

On 12/21/2017 at 5:13 PM, Wildbunny said:

 

Not that I disagree, but I'm still puzzled at these kind of comments.

Shanny was more GM than Bruce when he was around. They shared that title IIRC. Bruce was really only interim GM for one year after firing Shanny and before hiring Scott.

Now it's interesting that you start to include this year in his resume as Doug's in charge, mostly... He's no GM by title, but he's supposed to be...

 

Our Front office is a mess, take a look at it, hard to understand who does what...

 

http://www.redskins.com/team/front-office.html

 

You have to be on something to think Doug has any real influence on personnel matters in this organization. Look at any article pertaining to Kirk's contract situation and tell me if you see Doug's name anywhere on it, even in the small print.

[Wildbunny]

6 hours ago, BurgundyBooger said:

 

You have to be on something to think Doug has any real influence on personnel matters in this organization. Look at any article pertaining to Kirk's contract situation and tell me if you see Doug's name anywhere on it, even in the small print.

- After Scott was fired, Doug was named to replace him.

- When asked about any player's contract, Jay always answer to go ask Doug upstairs.

 

I don't care if he has any influence or whatever, real or not. He's the one supposed to be in charge. So no, I'm not into anything. Now regarding articles, I'll trust Jay more than any reporters, but I'm also pretty sure I read BRBN more than you do

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Bruce's press conference where he announced the front office's reorganization centered on the Doug Williams hire.  The way it came off to me is that's what they wanted to sell the fans-media -- hey you guys are upset about Scot -- top this, here's Doug!   I'd bet money they are surprised how most fans (at least as far as I noticed) greeted that move with at best a yawn and or worst were cynical about the move.

 

Granted, Bruce's concern shouldn't be what the fans think but when all of a sudden TV ratings are dramatically down and people aren't showing up to games -- what fans think becomes relevant.

 

I listened to Doug's interview yesterday on 980 and paid close attention to the other times he's talked.  My take on Doug's role and the FO based on what he said:

 

A. Kyle Smith runs college-the draft and Doug stays out of his way.

B. Santos runs the NFL scouting.  That's where Doug likes to dabble.

 

Where Bruce falls into it all aside from having final say -- that's hard to tell. We know Bruce controls the money.  In all the interviews I've heard from Doug, I'd love to hear just one where he shows off a little football knowledge.  I love the 1987 Redskins as much as anyone.  But I cringe through every Doug interview.  The dude is lovable as heck but comes off in interviews that his football expertise is less than that of a casual fan let alone some type of personnel wiz.

 

I put on ESPN and listen to Polian and Riddick and they are talking over my heads in almost every segment.  I've made this same point before.  I am repeating here because I am gathering at Redskins Park they might be interested in the growing fan apathy (not that they are reading this thread but just venting on this point).  And if their idea is selling Doug as the alternative to Scot -- Doug might be a great ambassador for the team but as for selling the fan base that they are in good hands on personnel -- the nicest way for me to say it is he's not good at selling that.  

 

 

 

[William Barbour]

Was a great interview on 980 with DW.

 

Kyle Smith runs the draft board

Schaffer is FA

Santos is scouting.

DW oversights it all.

 

Cooley mentioned that BA hasn't had his hands on the roster the past 4 years as much as fans think he has. 

 

As long as BA focuses on financials and leaves the football roster to the rest of them. I can accept that.

 

Kyle Smith has a pretty impressive haul of players being the SE scout. 

[SkinsFTW]

10 hours ago, William Barbour said:

DW oversights it all.

 

Cooley mentioned that BA hasn't had his hands on the roster the past 4 years as much as fans think he has. 

 

As long as BA focuses on financials and leaves the football roster to the rest of them. I can accept that.

 

 

But didn't Allen just remove the guy who he disagreed with on things that are currently about to be blowing up in his face, with a guy who essentially does whatever Allen wants?

 

Now we don't only have a yes man for the owner, we have multiple levels of yes men. It's almost like the US Government is running the DC team

[Wildbunny]

1 hour ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

But didn't Allen just remove the guy who he disagreed with on things that are currently about to be blowing up in his face, with a guy who essentially does whatever Allen wants?

 

Now we don't only have a yes man for the owner, we have multiple levels of yes men. It's almost like the US Government is running the DC team

I believe that's the plan for Bruce originally...

 

It will become interesting when, and that will happen, Bruce and Doug disagrees on something.

I mean, where will Dan settle if Bruce wants to tag Kirk again and draft a QB and both Jay and Doug wants him LTD no matter what?

[Skinsinparadise]

Kyle Smith's SEC haul:

 

Jonathan Allen -- not an Einstein pick, I was clamoring for it on the draft thread on draft day among with many other people concurring and making the same point. He's a big name.  It's an obvious pick. 

 

Ryan Anderson -- not off to a hot start.  I liked the pick and I am still holding out hope for it.  But it was notable that from a metric standpoint, that few players with Anderson's metrics make it in the league as pass rushers -- short arms, lack of speed, etc.

 

We got then Holsey and Sprinkle who are off to an OK start.  Nothing that blows my socks away.  But I'll trust Cooley who more or less said that Smith can talk ball over anyone in that scouting room by far.  The way Cooley said it it also came off to me as a bit of a dig at the other scouts. 

 

As for Doug -- you listen to him and you want to give the dude a hug and he comes off trustworthy as a person but as a personnel guy I can't recall ever hearing a guy from that department who offers not a whit of football expertise in any interview I can recall.   Scott Campbell has mostly stayed behind the scenes but on occasion he does interviews.  Ditto Cerrato, Scot, etc.  They all show off expertise.  I don't get a lick of it from Doug and I find it very weird so that feeds into my skepticism of him.

 

Chris Russell has said his source tells him that Bruce indeed likes to mix himself some into scouting.  And from an ego stand point, its important for him to be regarded in the building as someone who knows scouting-personnel.  And he's a nice guy when you agree with his takes.  But will be nasty and vindictive when you disagree and make a big case of that disagreement.

 

As for that the truth is in all of this?  Who knows.  All I know is what the structure is.  And for example if Kyle Smith's judgement on personnel is viewed the highest than you'd figure they'd put him fully in charge of it.   Doug made a big deal about not wanting the title and final say when they were supposedly looking for a personnel person from outside the building in the off season.   Coincidence that Doug got the job? And no one from the outside was hired to run personnel.   One of the narratives on the Scot-Bruce battle was Bruce wanted the power.  The upshot to last off season?  Bruce has the power back.  Coincidence?   

 

Bruce doesn't have to worry about a guy like Scot challenging him.  Instead he has one of his best friend's son's (the same person who he jump started his scouting career) running the draft.  And he got the guy who he handed jobs to in both Tampa and here - overseeing pro and in theory everything else.   Both Smith and Doug owe their personnel careers to Bruce.  Talk about having your back covered. 

[Dissident2]

Interesting that the Texans seem to be going through something similar with a "Fire Rick Smith" campaign. I saw a picture of a sign in the stands yesterday that said "Fire Rick Smith - 92-98 since taking over" or something like that. I saw those numbers and thought, "Holy crap, that's a lot better than Allen's record." 

 

It's amazing that anyone can even begin to defend this guy considering the huge sample size of results he has in his opposite-of-illustrious career. 

[Alexa]

Doug has been a player, scout and a coach. Regardless of how he comes off to the media, he's been around football for most of  his life. He knows more about it than anyone here. I trust him and he has some solid guys around him in the personnel department. I think we're in good hands as far as talent evaluation. This past draft class looks pretty promising. 

[William Barbour]

So when does a group of "Yes Men" become a cohesive Front Office? Just curious where the line is made. 

 

A list of prospects that Kyle Smith has had a heavy influence in picking as the SE Scout. 

Chris Thompson
Jordan Reed
Morgan Moses
Josh Holsey
Jon Allen
Robert Davis
Ryan Anderson
Brashad Breeland
Jamison Crowder
Kyshoen Jarrett
Kendall Fuller
Preston Smith

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, William Barbour said:

So when does a group of "Yes Men" become a cohesive Front Office? Just curious where the line is made. 

 

 

I agree that a group of yes men creates a cohesive front office.   If that's the goal. 

 

Just running with some of the stories over the years -- i.e., our scouts like Jordy Nelson but Dan liked M.  Kelly.  So Kelly it is.  AJ Smith, Kyle's dad, according to one report didn't get the GM job with the Redskins because he was too strong willed and disagreed with Dan about RG3.  

 

So if the idea is bringing people who can work together and won't rock the boat with Dan/Bruce because they owe them their career or its just not in their nature to rock the boat then it appears they got something good cooking on that front now.  Bruce/Dan have the perfect front office structure to get their yeses. 

 

As for Kyle Smith influencing those picks as an SE.   We've heard narratives specifically to how some of those picks transpired and if Kyle was a key part of it than his story in that narrative got buried.   Having said that, I like the idea of Kyle Smith.  He's the one guy in the mix where its easy to get into the narrative.  A guy that lives and breathes personnel and learned from some of the best at it.  If Kyle was named GM I could get into that perhaps because he has a scouting background.     

 

As for Doug he's not a young chicken.  So he's not at the stage where he's an up and comer like Kyle.  i'd love for a change instead of hearing Cooley say Kyle Smith is one guy who he can talk to at Redskins Park who really knows ball -- that someone says something like that about Doug.    Can Doug be great at what he does regardless of whether people tout his reputation or regardless of how he comes off in interviews -- sure its possible -- but the combination of the two makes me pause.  And it doesn't help that some of those who checked him out with sources at Redskins Park (especially Paulsen) describe him as a great guy but not much of a personnel guy.  Doug comes off exactly that way to me in interviews, ironically.  That's just my opinion.     But I love Doug the player.

 

Edit:  corrected one of my points where I thought you said SEC but on a reread I noticed you said SE so my bad.   Either way I like the idea of Kyle Smith but the dude isn't in charge.  Typically, the head of personnel has a scouting background -- a deep scouting background.   Kyle would fit that profile.  Bruce doesn't.

 

[BurgundyBooger]

39 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 As for Doug he's not a young chicken.  So he's not at the stage where he's an up and comer like Kyle.  i'd love for a change instead of hearing Cooley say Kyle Smith is one guy who he can talk to at Redskins Park who really knows ball -- that someone says something like that about Doug.    Can Doug be great at what he does regardless of whether people tout his reputation or regardless of how he comes off in interviews -- sure its possible -- but the combination of the two makes me pause.  And it doesn't help that some of those who checked him out with sources at Redskins Park (especially Paulsen) describe him as a great guy but not much of a personnel guy.  Doug comes off exactly that way to me in interviews, ironically.  That's just my opinion.     But I love Doug the player.

 

Why beat around the bush?

 

Just say nothing you've seen or heard could compel you to believe he's qualified for the position. That would be a dead-on assessment.

 

He comes to Washington under some buddy pass from Bruce Allen after sitting at home for 2 years following a brief stint in the UFL. Prior to that he was with the Bucs during the downswing years after their SB season. He's another JAG no NFL team wanted a part of except for us. Just like Bruce Allen, another JAG. Two guys who should be working at ESPN or doing radio talk shows, not managing our football team. Teams like the Browns, Bengals, or Jets should be the ones scrapping at the bottom of the barrel for talent, not a franchise like ours. 

[William Barbour]

26 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I agree that a group of yes men creates a cohesive front office.   If that's the goal. 

 

Just running with some of the stories over the years -- i.e., our scouts like Jordy Nelson but Dan liked M.  Kelly.  So Kelly it is.  AJ Smith, Kyle's dad, according to one report didn't get the GM job with the Redskins because he was too strong willed and disagreed with Dan about RG3.  

 

So if the idea is bringing people who can work together and won't rock the boat with Dan/Bruce because they owe them their career or its just not in their nature to rock the boat then it appears they got something good cooking on that front now.  Bruce/Dan have the perfect front office structure to get their yeses. 

 

As for Kyle Smith influencing those picks as an SE.   We've heard narratives specifically to how some of those picks transpired and if Kyle was a key part of it than his story in that narrative got buried.   Having said that, I like the idea of Kyle Smith.  He's the one guy in the mix where its easy to get into the narrative.  A guy that lives and breathes personnel and learned from some of the best at it.  If Kyle was named GM I could get into that perhaps because he has a scouting background.     

 

As for Doug he's not a young chicken.  So he's not at the stage where he's an up and comer like Kyle.  i'd love for a change instead of hearing Cooley say Kyle Smith is one guy who he can talk to at Redskins Park who really knows ball -- that someone says something like that about Doug.    Can Doug be great at what he does regardless of whether people tout his reputation or regardless of how he comes off in interviews -- sure its possible -- but the combination of the two makes me pause.  And it doesn't help that some of those who checked him out with sources at Redskins Park (especially Paulsen) describe him as a great guy but not much of a personnel guy.  Doug comes off exactly that way to me in interviews, ironically.  That's just my opinion.     But I love Doug the player.

 

Edit:  corrected one of my points where I thought you said SEC but on a reread I noticed you said SE so my bad.   Either way I like the idea of Kyle Smith but the dude isn't in charge.  Typically, the head of personnel has a scouting background -- a deep scouting background.   Kyle would fit that profile.  Bruce doesn't.

 

 

I was so confused by your comment before you edited. 

 

Correct. Kyle was the South East scout. Normally teams have areas. Those players all came from there during his time. 

 

Doug has been a part of the FO for a bit now. I don't think the Redskins will ever go back to the traditional GM style front office. Patriots and Eagles have done similar FO builds to their teams. 

 

Doug has played in the league. I am willing to see how this from office molds out. Schaffer is another name around the league that teams think can be a GM.

 

What baffles me is people on this board applaud the 49ers for grabbing Lynch, but are not willing to give Doug Williams a chance. 

 

Both guus played in this league. 1 has been around the FO atmosphere for years. The other was broadcasting games. 

 

Kyle's been here a long time. Including internship. He was raised into it and his short track record has been good. He was moments away from being John Lynch right hand man in SF. We promoted to keep him. 

 

Just need to see how this offseason develops. This will be a big turning point in the future of this team.