The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[Skinsinparadise]

28 minutes ago, William Barbour said:

 

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. 

 

We can talk about a lot of different things and people but to me it all comes down to the above point.  The point has been belabored on this site enough that I don't feel like repeating why I don't have faith in the current structure. 

 

28 minutes ago, William Barbour said:

Schaffer is another name around the league that teams think can be a GM.

 

Schaffer indeed has a big rep.  I think people would have felt much differently and positively if he were named GM.  And that was said during the off season.  Though Schaffer doesn't fit the profile either.  He's not from a scouting background.  But at least he's considered as one of the top at their game.

 

28 minutes ago, William Barbour said:

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

 

I was accused in another post of soft peddling it on Doug.  So I'll be more blunt.   Just like we've heard big time things about Schaffer's rep around the league -- we haven't heard that about Doug.  We've never heard him mentioned once as someone coveted by another team's FO.  A couple of media personalities who have been right about other things about the Redskins gossip wise and say they have good sources with the team -- haven't painted the prettiest picture of Doug's competence on personnel.   Though again heard great things about Doug the person.

 

And when I hear Doug on the radio, if I didn't know any better he sounds to me like a very causal football fan with a cursory knowledge of football.  Now that probably just represents Doug's speaking style with the media and isn't reality -- but he comes off like his reputation which is that he's a super nice guy but isn't anything special with personnel.   Tough for me to just go for that ride and trust it.   Someone like Kyle Smith would be much easier to trust because he walks, talks the part and is building a resume.

[Paul Cumberland]

Interesting twitter poll here...  Thought about putting this in one of the Kirk threads but since Allen is leading the way at the moment, decided to put it here..

 

[@DCGoldPants]

Even if someone in this front office has a great rep and maybe they excel elsewhere, it doesn't matter. 

 

This front office needs to be completely cleaned out. Nobody left over from the Bruce era and even further back to the Vinny era. 100% fresh to work on everything from staff to marketing to PR. 

[bedlamVR]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

And when I hear Doug on the radio, if I didn't know any better he sounds to me like a very causal football fan with a cursory knowledge of football.  Now that probably just represents Doug's speaking style with the media and isn't reality -- but he comes off like his reputation which is that he's a super nice guy but isn't anything special with personnel.   Tough for me to just go for that ride and trust it.   Someone like Kyle Smith would be much easier to trust because he walks, talks the part and is building a resume.

 

I think this is the most disturbing thing to me. You are judging a persons competence based on hearsay and rumour (gossip) which is fine but this statement also suggest to me there may well be some underlying subconscious prejudice in this -

 

Doug has been around football all his life, playing  in coaching and  in an executive role . He has been around some of the greats and he has done the grass routes stuff he has a sound footing .. 

 

Lynch played DB and then when he retired went right in to commentary ... that's it - A football player and then a commentator . 

 

The big difference is one of them is from Illinois and a Stanford Graduate - the other one is from Louisiana and went to Grambling state University... 

 

How someone 'sounds' has no impact on their actual knowledge . There is a imbued perception of how we judge people based on superficial stereotypes (how they look, how they sound, there gender and their elocution)  and it is incredibly hard to overcome unless you are willing or able to have a conversation with him OR judge him on his actions rather than perceptions and  write him off before he has done a thing - 

 

One thing to consider is many people in the NFL rumour mill are also imbued with these prejudices ... some people don't look or sound like what people believe is  an NFL executive so they are never given a chance, and there is nothing to be gained by talking up an underdog  - which is a better explanation as to why there are so few women and African american (or pick a minority)  men in such positions

 

Or is it that middle aged white dudes from the mid west are genetically programmed to be be superior football executives ? 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

@bedlamVR I think SIP has done a good job laying out the facts in that Dougs resume in personnel isn't very impressive.  That in and of itself is enough to question his elevation within the organization.  Not being able to talk the talk is only the cherry on top of the drab sundae we've been served.  

[Skinsinparadise]

42 minutes ago, bedlamVR said:

 

I think this is the most disturbing thing to me. You are judging a persons competence based on hearsay and rumour (gossip) which is fine but this statement also suggest to me there may well be some underlying subconscious prejudice in this -

 

Sorry but that is a ridiculous overreaction.   You are implying race is driving it for me.  I can care less about a player, personnel guy or anything related to race.  I am looking for competence.   Heck, I was one of the biggest RG3 guys on that thread years back.  That mean I am against the white QBs?  One of the GM candidates I pushed last off season was Louis Riddick. 

 

So Grant Paulsen is hearing what he wants to hear from the people he knows from Redskins Park about Doug because of race.  There is some collective conspiracy from NFL insiders types to not mention Doug of being among the top executives in the league because of subconscious racial issues?  There are some big African American candidates who are touted as personnel studs.  I talked about one of them recently on this thread if I recall, Will McClay.    Sad I have to point that out to defend myself.   When I talked about McClay, I just talk about McClay.  I don't refer to his race because its irrelevant. 

 

42 minutes ago, bedlamVR said:

 

Or is it that middle aged white dudes from the mid west are genetically programmed to be be superior football executives ? 

 

Is there prejudice in the world?   Sure.  But the fact that Doug Williams doesn't float my boat because of his resume, league wide reputation, and what some people I trust have said they heard about him and how he comes off in interviews -- has ZERO to do with race.  I thought Vinny sounded like a buffoon on the radio and I said it back then. Did hearing Vinny in interviews defy to me the rep he had back then -- not at all, it reinforced it to me.   I think Bruce comes off like a slick politician. It fits the rep that's been painted.  On the other hand, i like how Kirk and Jay come off.   Race has nothing to do with any of it. 

 

With Doug, I presume you are referring to me judging him on his drawl, etc. I have spent plenty of time in the south, I can care less about it.  But that's not what i pointed out, I pointed out that he doesn't really give any vibe in his interviews that he knows football really well.  I am sure he does.  But like I said Doug in interviews doesn't do it for me in terms of wiping out the criticism I've heard of him.  And I explained myself on it.  Scot isn't the most articulate guy but he shows off football knowledge in his interviews.  I'd like to see that some from Doug, it would reassure me.   If that bothers you as a fan of Doug Williams the personnel guy -- that's cool.  But bringing in race is insulting. 

[gooseneck]

This is conclusive evidence that my dog is a better GM than Bruce Allen.  See if you can beat these Bruce; Note, my dog is hard to beat-he challenged Donald and Hillary to a dead fish rolling contest and they both chickened out.

Logged in as: Tracker, gooseneck's dog

Your Team: Washington Redskins
GAME OVER!
 

Your score is: 24768 (GRADE: A+)

Your Picks:
Round 2 Pick 16 (TENN): Lamar Jackson, QB, Louisville (A+)
Round 3 Pick 1 (CLE): Malik Jefferson, ILB, Texas (A+)
Round 3 Pick 23 (N.E.): Jamarco Jones, OT, Ohio State (A)
Round 4 Pick 1 (CLE): Mark Walton, RB, Miami (FL) (A+)
Round 4 Pick 14: Quin Blanding, FS, Virginia (A+)
Round 4 Pick 17 (LAC): Holton Hill, CB, Texas (A+)
Round 4 Pick 21 (SEA): David Sills, WR, West Virginia (A+)
Round 5 Pick 27 (JAX): Michael Hill, DT, Ohio State (A+)
Round 6 Pick 3 (IND): Winston Dimel, FB, Kansas State (A+)
Round 6 Pick 19 (DAL): Rashard Fant, CB, Indiana (A+)
Round 6 Pick 27 (BUF): Dimitri Flowers, FB, Oklahoma (A+)
Round 7 Pick 3 (IND): Daniel Carlson, K, Auburn (A+)
Round 7 Pick 8 (SEA): Will Gleeson, P, Ole Miss (A+)
Round 7 Pick 14: Cody Thompson, WR, Toledo (A+)
Round 7 Pick 24 (BUF): Justin Yoon, K, Notre Dame (A)
Round 7 Pick 31 (SEA): Trevor Daniel, P, Tennessee (A+)

Your Future Picks:
2019 Round 1 Pick (TENN)
2019 Round 1 Pick
2020 Round 1 Pick (TENN)
2020 Round 1 Pick

Logged in as: Tracker, gooseneck's dog

Your Team: Washington Redskins
GAME OVER!
 

Your score is: 25625 (GRADE: A+)

Your Picks:
Round 2 Pick 29 (CAR): Courtland Sutton, WR, Southern Methodist (A+)
Round 2 Pick 30 (PITT): Roquan Smith, ILB, Georgia (A+)
Round 3 Pick 16 (TENN): Mason Rudolph, QB, Oklahoma State (A+)
Round 4 Pick 5 (T.B.): Mark Walton, RB, Miami (FL) (A+)
Round 4 Pick 12 (MIA): Tony Brown, CB, Alabama (A+)
Round 4 Pick 31 (MIA): Jaylen Samuels, FB, North Carolina State (A+)
Round 5 Pick 10 (CINN): JK Scott, P, Alabama (A+)
Round 5 Pick 27 (JAX): Deatrick Nichols, CB, South Florida (A+)
Round 6 Pick 3 (IND): Tyrone Crowder, OG, Clemson (A+)
Round 6 Pick 5 (T.B.): Winston Dimel, FB, Kansas State (A+)
Round 6 Pick 6 (DEN): Robert Foster, WR, Alabama (A+)
Round 6 Pick 10 (CINN): Daniel Carlson, K, Auburn (A+)
Round 6 Pick 11 (OAK): Rashard Fant, CB, Indiana (A+)
Round 6 Pick 20 (BALT): Dimitri Flowers, FB, Oklahoma (A+)
Round 6 Pick 30 (T.B.): Eddy Pineiro, K, Florida (A+)
Round 7 Pick 31 (SEA): Will Gleeson, P, Ole Miss (A+)
Round 7 Pick 32 (SEA): Cody Thompson, WR, Toledo (A+)

Your Future Picks:
2019 Round 1 Pick (OAK)
2019 Round 1 Pick
2020 Round 1 Pick (OAK)
2020 Round 1 Pick

[TSO]

@bedlamVR This is the last time you’ll be warned about even suggesting there’s something racist about the views of posters who’ve been nothing but consummate ES’ers here. 

 

There are times where that may be legitimate and it’d still be a very dangerous path to take, unless it’s something truly egregious. In which case, you report the post and let us handle it. 

 

Stick to the points being made here and don’t accuse others of anything as heinous as racism, even if it’s just a suggestion, as that’s as direct a violation of rule 5 as there is. 

[bedlamVR]

I was commenting more in in general on people’s subconscious conditioned  predudice based on accent and up bringing - how they come accross in very limited first impression exposures . ( such as radio interviews) ... 

 

I have these same predudices too which is why I try never to go off first impressions - there was some very interesting research by Cambridge university on the effects of regional accents in people’s perceptions ....and outcomes .

 

My point is that the poster was depicting Doug Williams as incompetent  based on a couple of interviews and a couple of months in the job ... over which period he has not really done anything to receive the constant critisism he has received for the last few months ... all I am asking is judge the guy on his actions not on your perceptions . ... that’s all I was asking back in June July when Doug was appointed ... 

 

Just because someone was not the top prospect for any job doesn’t mean he is not the perfect guy for this job ... when ever you bring in an outsider it brings change .... and that is good and bad ... maybe just maybe Doug is the guy to keep the philosophy’s and practices put in place by Mclouglan ... can free up guys like Scot Campbell more time to get out of the office and scout players in person rather than just compile reports from Redskins park based on tape etc ... personally I don’t think we had done that badly in terms of acquisitions over the last few years ... that would warrant a massive overhaul and change in direction ... 

 

what i am saying is judge on actions and results - give a guy a chance to fail before you brand him a failure ... 

 

but i I realise this is a totally futile stance to take on this message board .. it has become so much skewed one way it is nothing but an echo chamber where other oppinions and differing voices are drowned out  or forced out ... 

 

i have noticed that there is a lot less variety of posters posting .. people who used to be strong contributors are either long gone and the community is being killed off ... 

 

Dont worry about me posting anything offensive or accusing ( which I really was not trying to attack the poster directly but make a general point and I did not use the word racist in my post - I don’t know skins in paradise well enough to make any judgement on his character - just a comment about that specific point that he made - the fact you implied that is what I was saying tells me all I need to know) because I know I am done ... and so is ES which is such a shame because there are and have been selfless in their contriutions ..... Shrug 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

9 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

I was commenting more in in general on people’s subconscious conditioned  predudice based on accent and up bringing - how they come accross in very limited first impression exposures . ( such as radio interviews) ... 

 

 

I know all about subconscious racism, I got a minor in psychology. I've read the studies.  I didn't attack Doug's accent.  And we are hardcore fans here.  I don't think we are going off of first impressions of anything.  I've been reading about Doug for years before he even got the job.  This isn't some newbee where I am just starting to digest him now and last week was my first interview and first go of it.   I specifically attacked the idea that he brings no GM sounding football nuggets in his interviews and that's unusual for a personnel guy.   That's nothing to do with the style they speak.  

 

9 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

My point is that the poster was depicting Doug Williams as incompetent  based on a couple of interviews and a couple of months in the job .

 

  

No I didn't.  The general point being made to death on this thread which have named plenty of people and the focus has been about Bruce Allen -- is the resumes and reputations of the people in the front office.  During Dan's tenure, hiring top notch personnel guys hasn't been his thing.  And that goes way back before Doug.   Dan going with another guy without a top rep and top resume  doesn't earn the benefit of the doubt for some of us.    If Dan was a new owner who just bought the team then I'd agree with all your points about let it ride -- how do we know these guys won't excel.  But as I said before on one of these GM threads, this isn't Police Academy 1.  This is Police Academy 15.  After awhile, a pattern emerges.  

 

9 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

I

Just because someone was not the top prospect for any job doesn’t mean he is not the perfect guy for this job ...

 

Agree.  but again this isn't Dan's first rodeo at picking people for the front office.  He's the same dude who chased out John Schneider out of the office for Vinny Cerrato.  We've written encyclopedia's worth of material on it along with attaching a gazillion articles on it.

 

9 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

what i am saying is judge on actions and results - give a guy a chance to fail before you brand him a failure ... 

 

No one branded Doug a failure. As for judging Doug on his actions.  That's difficult to do because of the front office structure.  And that's been the thrust of the complaints here.  Who is in charge?  Bruce is.  Doug seems to be a free for all who isn't making the picks.  The main actions, I've seen from Doug are his comments on Kirk.  One comment I loved.  One comment I hated and I don't think helps Kirk want to stay here.

 

9 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

 just a comment about that specific point that he made - the fact you implied that is what I was saying tells me all I need to know) 

 

 

When you say subconscious racism is driving a point and I am caught up in it too because I am buying into it -- that's a heavy handed and atypical accusation for this board.  That's why I pointed it out.   And as for people not liking disagreement and strong arguments.  I don't mind disagreement at all.  If I did, I wouldn't respond to you.  But, what's the strong argument about give the dude a chance and just let it play out?  Saying its subconscious racism driving the lack of respect for Doug in the league doesn't fly for me because some of these same people are touting other African American candidates.  I didn't see a rebuttal from you on that.

 

The thrust of the criticism about the front office and Dan centers on the history.   And people (including myself) have laid out history with specifics in post after post and have done tit for tat comparisons with other organizations. If there is a compelling argument that I am wrong, I am interested. 

 

[TSO]

2 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

Dont worry about me posting anything offensive or accusing ( which I really was not trying to attack the poster directly but make a general point and I did not use the word racist in my post - I don’t know skins in paradise well enough to make any judgement on his character - just a comment about that specific point that he made - the fact you implied that is what I was saying tells me all I need to know) because I know I am done ... and so is ES which is such a shame because there are and have been selfless in their contriutions ..... Shrug

 

Judging by that striking lack of accountability and a post of deflection instead of reflection, maybe it is for the better that you’re “done”. Which is truly unfortunate because you’ve otherwise been an excellent poster here and I was hoping you’d simply take the warning in stride recognizing it was absolutely in poor taste to insinuate racism or prejudice, whether you want to downplay it with implicit terminology like “subconscious” or whatever. Which can actually have the opposite effect of downplaying as it arguably implies that the one you’re accusing is so inherently racist he/she can’t even tell. 

 

As an aside, we always find it humorous when someone personally dissatisfied with the going ons on ES magnifies it to mean the death of it. Suggests a degree of self-importance we’d rather not have here. 

 

Look, it was wrong of you to do that. It’s that simple. I could’ve easily handed out a penalty based on violating rule 5, but instead warned you about it in the hopes that you’d provide a good example to others and of how to react properly as I expected you to come with something like you did here not so long ago: 

 

 

No need to further derail this thread on the matter, if you have anything more to say PM me. I hope you decide against your threat here to be “done” with the board and recognize this as the simple issue to correct that it is. 

[Wildbunny]

As I was putting new articles in the BRBN section of this site (You should read this guys, that's worth it), I found this little nugget regarding players' swapping jersey at the end of games.

 

 

Here it is:

 

Quote

The process also sometimes comes with a fee. An NFL spokesman said it’s up to the team on if they want to charge a player for giving away their jersey. The Redskins are one of them, applying a fee — which Crowder estimated was $400-500 — to a player’s paycheck. The fee is for having to restock the jersey.

 

I believe that stuff is coming from team President, or at list he has the power to apply or not those fees. We are seriously handing fees to players for restocking a jersey?

 

That's crap...

That really is a shame from the team. Those are your players, they gave everything they have and more, we're making billions and we're still fining players for swapping jerseys? Not a chance we hit bankruptcy due to that.

 

We at least could be nice here and not charge them.

[Dissident2]

19 hours ago, William Barbour said:

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

 

If the Redskins came out and said, unequivocally, "Doug Williams is our new GM, and he will have total and FINAL say on picking our players," I would be all for giving him a chance. The problem with the analogy with Lynch is that the 49ers did just that with him, i.e., made him the GM, end of story. That's not what happened with Williams. 

 

In fact, the analogy is even worse when considering the fact that Doug Williams is NOT our GM. He is (had to google this to be sure) our "Senior Vice President of Player Personnel." The fact that we have to pretty much google exactly what he is in discussions like this is part of the huge problem with this organization: lack of organizational transparency. What does he do? Who does he report to? What role does Allen play in all of this? Who has final say? No one can say for sure. Recipe for confusion and inconsistency. 

 

It's NOT about Doug Williams as much as it is about the people who elevated him and our mistrust of those people coupled with our DOUBT in their abilities — based on YEARS of data — to effectively build a consistently strong team, both on the field and in the office. Has nothing to do with "subconscious racism" or anything else other than a complete mistrust for the people above Williams and a knowledge of their history in trying to douse the flames of discontent by trotting out icons of past glories that they had nothing to do with. 

 

I would love to give Doug Williams a chance. But as long as he's limited by his title and whatever the organizational structure is, he won't be getting a fair chance anyway. 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

19 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

If the Redskins came out and said, unequivocally, "Doug Williams is our new GM, and he will have total and FINAL say on picking our players," I would be all for giving him a chance. The problem with the analogy with Lynch is that the 49ers did just that with him, i.e., made him the GM, end of story. That's not what happened with Williams.

 

 

I wasn't among the people applauding the Lynch hire.  But in that case one thing I liked about it is they loaded up that office with personnel talent beyond him.  I get the critics here who say the "experts" could be wrong as to reputations around the league.  No doubt that's true.  But this front office going with people who others react to as "meh" is the same old same old.  Could it be the 15th time or whatever is the charm?  Sure.  Is it likely?  I doubt it.   The sample size here is big. 

 

http://ninerswire.usatoday.com/2017/05/19/more-changes-49ers-front-office-adds-new-director-of-pro-personnel/

Carthon joins Lynch’s new personnel staff that includes vice president of player personnel Adam Peters and senior personnel executive Martin Mayhew. Peters was previously a high-ranking scout with the Patriots and Broncos. Mayhew spent seven seasons as the general manager for the Detroit Lions.

[BurgundyBooger]

46 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

 

It's NOT about Doug Williams as much as it is about the people who elevated him and our mistrust of those people coupled with our DOUBT in their abilities — based on YEARS of data — to effectively build a consistently strong team, both on the field and in the office. Has nothing to do with "subconscious racism" or anything else other than a complete mistrust for the people above Williams and a knowledge of their history in trying to douse the flames of discontent by trotting out icons of past glories that they had nothing to do with. 

 

It is about Doug with me. Just like it was about Vinny. Just like it is with Bruce Allen. They're all bums pilfered from abandoned rubbish no one wanted to claim. They're not even up-and-comers. Same ole same ole with this organization. Instead of hiring the best of the best as befitting an iconic franchise, we snatch names from the very bottom of the pile on some "bring the band back together" trip. Imagine us doing this with a QB. It's the same thing. Let's sign up a gunslinger who's been on the couch slinging nothing but empty beer cans into a cardboard box for a year, make him our starting QB. That's the sad equivalent of our front office acquisitions. Out of all areas in this organization to elect to penny pinch or instill unabashed cronyism it's the part that dictates the entire makeup of our team? What's Vinny doing now by the way? Probably the same thing Bruce and Doug will be doing once they're out.

[Tsailand]

1 hour ago, BurgundyBooger said:

They're not even up-and-comers.

 

Doug is 62 years old and is is not regarded as a personnel guy, at least not anywhere outside of Redskins Park.  The franchise needs to be making decisions based on what will win games, not what will sell to fans who are nostalgic for the 80s.

 

As for the racism thing... if anyone here was racist they would be supporting Bruce Allen.  He is the stereotypical rich white guy, tall, good hair, firm handshake... he's also a bad GM and a worse human being.

[NewCliche21]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I wasn't among the people applauding the Lynch hire.  But in that case one thing I liked about it is they loaded up that office with personnel talent beyond him. 

 

This is the thing.  The best leaders aren't the best at any given position.  The best leaders are the ones who know how to find talent in their fields (in this case personnel) and stack their department (in this case FO) with as much of that talent as possible.  You can never, ever have too much input as long as you can maintain control.  It's basically what the Patriots do with players.

 

The GM should be the, well, general, not the army itself.

[Thinking Skins]

So again I'll bring up Kyle Smith, Scott Campbell and Eric Schaffer. Why are they being left out of this whole conversation? The reorganization of our front office involved 4 people being promoted, including Doug Williams. Smith and Campbell both have personnel backgrounds and Schaffer contracts. It'd be one thing if they were reporting that Williams would be doing interviews at the combine or doing the scouting reports. I'm sure he does some (as he brought in Lanier) but I never got the impression that was his lane.

 

What I got from the whole situation was that there was tension in the front office. Maybe it was between Bruce and Scot, maybe it was Scot and Jay, maybe it was Scot and other scouts (although Kyle said he learned a lot from Scot), I don't know. But the way Doug was talked about was about his personality and how he resolves tension. Doug is connected to all parties involved right now and that means that he is able to talk to them individually about stuff like "the bigger picture" and "hey man, I know you love Joe Bloe, but don't you also love this franchise. If we decide not to draft Joe Bloe I don't want you going and hating XYZ because they thought James Blah was a better player".

 

One of the biggest frustrations I have in my job is dealing with "experts" because they think they cannot be wrong. So I often have to take off my PhD hat and use my simple rational thought hat and figure a way to get this "expert" to understand that they can be wrong and that there are other experts in the room. Its kinda like arguing with Sheldon (from Big Bang Theory) at times. And I know SIP you've met Scot and Bruce but I wonder how "literal" the story I hear about jumping on the table for Crowder really was. How big was Scot's ego and how big was the fight (if it existed) between Scot and Jay over Scheriff and Leonard Williams? Did Scots ego get bigger (like thinking he could completely ignore other scouts) after his drafts went well?

 

Just like everybody else (unless we have front office members on this board), I don't know what happened either. But I think people are letting their own biases load their judgements. Yes Dan has had the team for a number of bad years but the past is not always a predictor of the future, otherwise there would never be a such thing as growth. Ideally he has grown. I may see him still making mistakes, but they're not the same ones. So if he can grow in some areas why can't he grow in others?

[TK]

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

Smith and Campbell both have personnel backgrounds and Schaffer contracts.

Eric is also acting General Counsel so that may have played the part in Doug getting the title. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

So again I'll bring up Kyle Smith, Scott Campbell and Eric Schaffer. Why are they being left out of this whole conversation? 

 

All three have been talked about in the conversation.

 

Schaffer:  is the one and only one with a big national reputation in that office.  But he's a money guy, not a scouting-personnel guy.  So he comes off profile wise as a more competent version of Bruce and a money guy/numbers wiz.  I heard Bruce in a 980 interview laugh when he was given credit for being a money man -- he goes I'd love to take credit but that's Schaffer.  So I think Bruce's money role is more in terms of philosophy than him being the wiz with the numbers and the cap.

 

Scott Campbell:  I've heard him interviewed here and there.  Typically he keeps a low profile.  He seems smart.  He's been here forever.  No one really seems to talk about him being in demand around the league. And he's never been given the reigns here.   He's been clearly overridden by Dan and Vinny over the years.  I don't love that.   One of the top people at what they do?  If so that hasn't translated to the drafts.  I do like Campbell but don't love that he's here.

 

Kyle Smith:  I like his profile and explained why.  But he's in his first real authority-in charge position.  Tough to judge him before the 2018 draft which will be the first one he's ever run.

 

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

What I got from the whole situation was that there was tension in the front office. Maybe it was between Bruce and Scot,

 

Not a lot of maybe on this one as for Bruce & Scot.

 

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

Doug is connected to all parties involved right now and that means that he is able to talk to them individually about stuff like "the bigger picture" and "hey man, I know you love Joe Bloe, but don't you also love this franchise. If we decide not to draft Joe Bloe I don't want you going and hating XYZ because they thought James Blah was a better player".

 

It could work out that way.  It could also work like this.  Kyle I know you love this dude in the first round.  But Dan/Bruce disagree so please chill and back off -- they are the boss.  Scott Campbell come over here and tell Kyle about how you just make recommendations but let go when the higher ups disagree and want to do something else.

 

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

One of the biggest frustrations I have in my job is dealing with "experts" because they think they cannot be wrong. So I often have to take off my PhD hat and use my simple rational thought hat and figure a way to get this "expert" to understand that they can be wrong and that there are other experts in the room. Its kinda like arguing with Sheldon (from Big Bang Theory) at times.

 

IMO I think you are missing the forrest for the trees on this point.  in short, the idea of going with people who aren't touted around the league is too common here.  To go with your TV reference.  This is a rerun and repackaged show.    The point isn't about whether big name scouts-personnel guys always live up to their reputations and or their reputations aren't always deserved or how well they flow with others.  This isn't a new rodeo.  It's not like 2017 is a fresh exciting new FO season with spanking new FO episodes.  It's that the 2017 season fits any other random season we've had here sans 2015-16.  Some of the actors are different but the concept of the show is the same.

 

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

And I know SIP you've met Scot and Bruce but I wonder how "literal" the story I hear about jumping on the table for Crowder really was. How big was Scot's ego and how big was the fight (if it existed) between Scot and Jay over Scheriff and Leonard Williams? Did Scots ego get bigger (like thinking he could completely ignore other scouts) after his drafts went well?

 

The Leonard Williams versus Scherff debate is one on the board.  If it happened between Jay and Scot, I'd be stunned.  He told me about his debate in that draft and he was so honest that I'd doubt he'd have hidden a debate about Scherff.   He was proud of that pick, showed me Scherff's poster hanging on the wall over there.  And he also told me he respected Jay's acumen a lot.  He said they get along really well.  And he was very complementary of Jay.   I don't know if you recall but when beat reporters finally cornered Jay about Scot in the combine -- he more or less said he likes Scot, he has nothing bad to say about him.  

 

If we want to talk about who I trust the most in that front office to judge talent.  It's Jay when it gets to it after the season.

 

Your thought here to me brings home how warped the front office's setup is considering this question you pose.  Scot is actually a personnel guy, he SHOULD overrule his scouts if he disagrees with them.  He is the smartest and most accomplished scout in the room.  That's how the typical front office works.  You put your best personnel guy in charge of personnel and they make the final call not their underlings. 

 

Yeah the idea of a non-personnel guy like Bruce or Dan overruling his scouts -- that's really bad.  But the fact that the arrangement like that exists in the first place is the problem.  The guy in charge of making the decision typically is an expert and the most experienced in making said decision.  That's not the case here.  So in a way you help bring that point home hard when you reference how Scot should treat his underlings.

[@DCGoldPants]

Guessing that after Kirk does his townhall thing on 106.7. Bruce is going to do an "interview" on 980 with somebody very friendly with him who won't push at all. Doc Walker maybe. No, "Voice of the Redskins" Larry Michael who will serve up softball after Softball. We'll get the typical smug sounding stuff that will only infuriate fans, and Kirk's side. 

[Skinsinparadise]

28 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

Guessing that after Kirk does his townhall thing on 106.7. Bruce is going to do an "interview" on 980 with somebody very friendly with him who won't push at all. Doc Walker maybe. No, "Voice of the Redskins" Larry Michael who will serve up softball after Softball. We'll get the typical smug sounding stuff that will only infuriate fans, and Kirk's side. 

 

I am trying to think of who on 980 has Bruce's back on Kirk.  Unless, I am missing someone -- they are all on the train of sign Kirk and the Redskins have mismanaged the Kirk contract.  Larry Michael in recent interviews-post game stuff has been very pro Kirk and talking up lets keep him in the fold.

 

So yeah Bruce is surrounded right now.  That's good.

[Tsailand]

Larry Michael interviewing Bruce Allen, that's sure to bring in the listeners.  A January ratings bonanza for ESPN 980.

[Thinking Skins]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

All three have been talked about in the conversation.

 

True, but most of the ineptness of the FO centers around comments about Doug and Bruce. That's where the post was from. 

 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Not a lot of maybe on this one as for Bruce & Scot.

 

 

It could work out that way.  It could also work like this.  Kyle I know you love this dude in the first round.  But Dan/Bruce disagree so please chill and back off -- they are the boss.  Scott Campbell come over here and tell Kyle about how you just make recommendations but let go when the higher ups disagree and want to do something else.

 

Thats the narrative that everybody wants to believe. I'm just saying that since we don't know what happened there are a lot of possibilities, some of which do not involve any of Scot / Bruce / Dan / Doug / Kyle / Jay / Scott / Eric / etc being the bad guy. 

 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

IMO I think you are missing the forrest for the trees on this point.  in short, the idea of going with people who aren't touted around the league is too common here.  

 

With all due respect, thats exactly my point. I've been on many teams where I wasn't "the big name in the room". Does that make my work less valid? I happen to work in a field thats a lot more cut and dry, if something is true then you prove it. But that doesn't mean that some of the "experts" in the field don't have their own biases. So when I was a grad student and undergrad, I got into a lot of shouting matches with "experts" who had their PhDs and knew a lot of things, but hadn't focused on my areas of research, so they didn't understand why my results were true. Sometimes they'd yield the floor to me. Other times they'd get in their feelings about how "that can't be right". 

 

What I'm saying is that there are multiple ways to skin a cat and just because our front office doesn't want a top down approach doesn't make it wrong. Many of the most successful research labs work in non-top down approaches similar to our front office. There is generally a lead person (probably the person who secured the grant), there are meetings with the higher ups about financials and how many students they can take on, which conferences they'll try to attend, etc. But in the actual research part of it, they have open dialogue with the assumption that "if I'm right, I'll prove it and If I'm wrong prove where I'm wrong". 

 

Whether Bruce / Doug / Scott or Kyle is touted around the league or not is irrelevant right now. That's like saying that my research team is not valid unless MIT / Berkeley / Stanford or Georgia Tech are looking to hire my employees. But that's a post-process system of validation. If our front office does well, then the people in our front office will be seeked. Any time someone is new at their job they aren't highly touted. But the question becomes how does one get good. Just like we home grew Kirk Cousins, and Ryan Kerrigan and Trent Williams and Brandon Schereff and Jamison Crowder and Beshaud Breeland, how do we home grow a guy like Ozzie Newsome? And contrary to many on this board I think our front office setup can help to both teach younger scouts, but also help them to stand out from one another. 

 

I know you discussed in the past how there was no system of accountability, but I recall in the ?2014? draft how Campbell spoke about how much he wanted Bicarri Rambo. Then in this draft Smith spoke about how much he wanted Davis and Hosley. If my assumption is correct and they simply had to convince that this was the best use of our resources (vs other options) then Dan and Bruce and the people in charge knew who said what. Its probably one of the reason that Scott is still employed here after how bad our drafts were before Bruce. Maybe Bruce convinced Dan to start listening to his scouts more (including Scot) and that has led to us having better drafts since 2014. 

 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The Leonard Williams versus Scherff debate is one on the board.  If it happened between Jay and Scot, I'd be stunned.  He told me about his debate in that draft and he was so honest that I'd doubt he'd have hidden a debate about Scherff.   He was proud of that pick, showed me Scherff's poster hanging on the wall over there.  And he also told me he respected Jay's acumen a lot.  He said they get along really well.  And he was very complementary of Jay.   I don't know if you recall but when beat reporters finally cornered Jay about Scot in the combine -- he more or less said he likes Scot, he has nothing bad to say about him.  

 

I know you had the discussion with him, but we all heard the press conference from Jay who called him "a guarrrrd" in a moment of what seemed like frustration. That didn't seem like Jay was thinking that his pro-bowl guard walked on water. Just because Jay and Scot talk positively about one another doesn't mean there weren't arguments. Tom Brady and Josh McDaniels are at each others throats on gameday, but they love each other. I would be surprised if nobody in the front office raised questions about Scherff vs Williams. Whether it was Jay or not remains to be seen, but the point still stands. How receptive was he to criticism and having to "justify" it? Even if he had "final say", everybody in the world knew we needed DL and we had a horrible defense that year and the next (leading to Barry's firing). Part of what could have helped is a DL.

 

The reason I keep bringing this idea up is because its a lot less far fetched than some of the other ones I've seen. Many (most) coaches have feuds with their GM over personnel. Parcells talks about picking the ingredients. But you're hard pressed to find stories like what we hear about Bruce.So the question is is our FO so chaotic, but we're still putting up winning seasons (and non-losing seasons) in spite of it, or is the media uninformed about stuff and taking their limited information out of context? 

 

 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Your thought here to me brings home how warped the front office's setup is considering this question you pose.  Scot is actually a personnel guy, he SHOULD overrule his scouts if he disagrees with them.  He is the smartest and most accomplished scout in the room.  That's how the typical front office works.  You put your best personnel guy in charge of personnel and they make the final call not their underlings. 

 

Yeah the idea of a non-personnel guy like Bruce or Dan overruling his scouts -- that's really bad.  But the fact that the arrangement like that exists in the first place is the problem.  The guy in charge of making the decision typically is an expert and the most experienced in making said decision.  That's not the case here.  So in a way you help bring that point home hard when you reference how Scot should treat his underlings.

 

See my grad school / research example above. Simply being smarter or more accomplished doesn't make another's work invalid or give Scot the right to say that work that Scott or Kyle or another scout did doesn't matter. What you want is a cohesive team where the lower level scouts feed information up to the higher scouts who can aggregate it together and begin to order it peoperly. But if I'm looking at things and they disagree with my assumptions, I don't have the right to override my scouts because that would make their weeks and months of work null and void. I may ask them to justify their work and try to counter it with that of other sources, but if you want to build tension then go right ahead with the top down approach. But I don't want to harp on this one because the main point I've had in all of this since the story of Scot not showing up came out was that there's a lot we don't know so we shouldn't act as if the Mike Jones or Jerry Brewer or Ian Rappaport or any other stories are entirely true. 

[@DCGoldPants]

20 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am trying to think of who on 980 has Bruce's back on Kirk.  Unless, I am missing someone -- they are all on the train of sign Kirk and the Redskins have mismanaged the Kirk contract.  Larry Michael in recent interviews-post game stuff has been very pro Kirk and talking up lets keep him in the fold.

 

So yeah Bruce is surrounded right now.  That's good.

 

Station owned by the same guy who owns the team. Look at the questions they tweet before segments. Very careful to not invite conversation about ownership or team execs. When callers mention it themselves, they don't sugarcoat how the fans feel. But what host is saying they need to clean out the top of the front office?

 

Oh, It's going to be pre-recorded and edited also. They think they're good a messaging and PR.