The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[HardcoreZorn]

3 minutes ago, Bang said:

Almost any other team makes this move on Foster and it's 'shrewd'.

We do  it and we condone domestic abuse.

everything is a referendum on social issues, and it's par for the course from this reactionary fan base.

Why are you watching the game? For moral guidance?

 

We claimed him, and he hasn't even been allowed to practice with the team. Not allowed in the locker room. Not allowed to be a part of the team in any way except where his rights lie.  And now the police have dropped charges. So we know this means nothing to the NFL and now he has to clear THEIR hurdles,  and if he does then we've grabbed a potentially decent player on the cheap. if he doesn't, he's gone without ever having worn the uniform.

And yet the Redskns organization condones domestic abuse.

And people are all concerned about the "PR hit" that THEY caused with the reactionary hysterics.

 

Ridiculous. The front office of this team is ****ed up..  but the fanbase has gone full Stupid. Nothing is right, which is fine, but when it is, it isn't noticed.

Example. Simmie Cobb heads for new Orleans,, instant meltdowns. (Over a practice squad undrafted player. What made him so great? we lost him to the Saints. That's it. redskins are stupid. 
Then the team brings up Darvin Kidsy, and crickets. In all the preseason games in which we saw Simmie Cobb, we saw Darvin Kidsy. And Kidsy was BETTER in each of those games. But this fanbase only sees the negative, and either ignores the positive, or hasn't got a clue it exists.  Oh no! Simmie Cobb is gone!! Darvin who?
 

Reactionary and easily angered.. ready to go yell, and not much else. (and granted, Snyder and allen guive plnty of reason for anger and demands of heads to roll..   but everything else is buried within the negativity so everything is the Worst Thing Ever.

Makes discussions practically impossible. 

 

~Bang

Best post I've read on here in a while. There is very little wait and see. Very little credit given for anything. Any middle ground takes are ridiculed. Anything that doesn't basically say Bruce and Dan are the worst humans to ever grace this earth essentially means you are Dan and Bruce.

 

The FO sucks and seems to be a circus again. But the fan base has lost their collective minds.

[LetThePointsSoar]

5 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Best post I've read on here in a while. There is very little wait and see. Very little credit given for anything. Any middle ground takes are ridiculed. Anything that doesn't basically say Bruce and Dan are the worst humans to ever grace this earth essentially means you are Dan and Bruce.

 

The FO sucks and seems to be a circus again. But the fan base has lost their collective minds.

 

My dude @Bang is always spot on.

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

36 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Go back and revisit the original thread(s).  Most of the criticism was based around the juice not being worth the squeeze because he’s a dumbass at minimum and the usual fumbling of the message, left for others to deliver it.

 

There is no squeeze. Just a young man mixed up with dangerous young lady and a toxic media that delivered “the message”.

 

As usual, you swallowed the hook.

[KDawg]

16 minutes ago, Bang said:

 

Reactionary and easily angered.. ready to go yell, and not much else. (and granted, Snyder and allen guive plnty of reason for anger and demands of heads to roll..   but everything else is buried within the negativity so everything is the Worst Thing Ever.

Makes discussions practically impossible. 

 

~Bang

 

Agreed on all counts. This is why I wasn't against the move to begin with. But I do understand the more rationalized, down to earth thought process about the PR hit, though. Which is where you and I diverge a touch. But the rest of this post is spot on in my opinion.

[TradeTheBeal!]

48 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

 Nobody is moving the goalposts
  If you think that this is the last thing Foster will be involved in, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

Uh...that’s moving the goalposts my man.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I recall a time when Scot was hired where everyone was all in on it.  Why?

 

Because it seemed ownership had finally grasped how to best setup an organization for success.  Not because it was sure to yield positive results, but because there was hope.

 

We then found out it was merely a publicity stunt and that Scot was really just a glorified scout.  That not much had changed.

 

That was pretty much the last straw for Dan and Bruce earning the last shreds of benefit of doubt they had available to them, for the majority of the fanbase.  

 

I’d bet everything that if Dan owned the ineptitude, sacked Bruce and actually put together a legitimate quest to hire the best G.M. possible, fans would get behind it.  

 

Until that happens, any moves like the one for Rueben Foster will rightfully be met with skepticism because of the long history of BS associated with these two men.

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Goalpost moved again!!

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

10 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

There is no squeeze. Just a young man mixed up with dangerous young lady and a toxic media that delivered “the message”.

 

As usual, you swallowed the hook.

Please find my posts where I ever claimed he was guilty or wouldn’t have the charges dropped. I’ll save you the time, they don’t exist.

 

I do find it strange that the Skins are the hill you choose die on, considering you admit that Grunfeld is an inept putz that should have been fired a long time ago, yet his overall results with the Wizards are measurably better than that of Bruce and the Skins.  You want to see one die a fiery death and the other you constantly defend against the “toxic” media and “entitled” fans.

 

 

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

4 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Please find my posts where I ever claimed he was guilty or wouldn’t have the charges dropped. I’ll save you the time, they don’t exist.

 

I do find it strange that the Skins are the hill you choose die on, considering you admit that Grunfeld is an inept putz that should have been fired a long time ago, yet his overall results with the Wizards are measurably better than that of Bruce and the Skins.  You want to see one die a fiery death and the other you constantly defend against the “toxic” media and “entitled” fans.

 

 

 

 

 

And moved yet again!!

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

6 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Goalpost moved again!!

I gather you’re not familiar with what this saying actually means, which is odd considering your propensity to do it yourself.

[Skinsinparadise]

Watching a front office, coaching staff, heck even a QB play after play, move after move again and again and again and again... People form a perception over a LARGE sample to form a conclusion about someone.  And yeah people tend to become hardcore once the sample is large enough to form said conclusion

 

Some liked RG3, Kirk, Jason Campbell some didn't based on a large sample.  Not one play.  Not one game.  But a wide sample

Some like Jay some don't.  Not based on one move, one game but a wide sample.

Same thing with Bruce, same thing with Dan.

 

When one side of an argument on one fence say gotcha when one thing that they perceive went their way via their own perception of reality IMO its a bit weird.  It would be like me with my mostly pro Jay position going to some of Jay critics and saying hahahaahaha we just beat the Jaguars -- what do you have to say now -- clearly, you are wrong!!!!!

 

On Reuben Foster, my position is I had no clue whether he was guilty or not.  Doug in an interview said he was told by some close to Reuben that he's a bit of a con artist.  So I doubt they knew for sure.  They took a chance.  And some people me included didn't like the PR hit and would prefer they chase him once he was exonerated if it happened.   I know the Reuben story well, we talked about him a lot in the draft thread in 2017.  The dude is no boy scout.  So I wouldn't count on all trouble going away.  I hope he's fine and the NFL doesn't suspend him and some national observers still think would happen.

 

But even if I thought Bruce played the Foster situation perfectly -- cool and it wouldn't be the first time I complemented him.   Just like I am not a Colt McCoy guy but loved how he played MNF in Dallas.  On the aggregate, as I've said many times Bruce is at best so so at personnel and a train wreck at winning off the field and building a winning culture.  Dan ditto.   Dan-Bruce can surprise me and hire a D coordinator I love tomorrow and I am still not doing a 180 on Bruce or Dan.   Bruce has been there 9 years, Dan almost 20 we got a really really big sample size.    It would have to be lots of moves to make you forget lots of moves you didn't like.  The quick fix for me with Dan would be to fire Bruce and replace him with a real personnel guy with a stellar rep and stay out of the dude's way.

 

And for those who consistently celebrate every perceived move that they think redeems Bruce-Dan -- its cool, its what makes sports debate entertaining.   There is a reason why you don't get 100% consensus on even the most basic things you can test in a survey -- heck if you ask people are vegetables healthy, you'll still get 5% who will say no.  So Dan-Bruce having a small segment of passionate defenders, I'd guess 5% tops -- cool, why not?  Be boring if 100% of the fan base was down on Bruce-Dan.

[wit33]

 

What if I dislike 51% of Bruce, but like the other 49%? Or 60/40?

 

Which extreme would I be boxed into? 

[TradeTheBeal!]

7 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

What if I dislike 51% of Bruce, but like the other 49%? Or 60/40?

 

Which extreme would I be boxed into? 

 

That makes you a “Bruce”.  Every move the team makes must be filtered through the “we are the laughing stock of the league” performative filter if you want to hang with the cool kids.

 

No exceptions unless Sally prescribes an alternative method in her next scathing, “so on point” opinion piece.

[HardcoreZorn]

16 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Watching a front office, coaching staff, heck even a QB play after play, move after move again and again and again and again... People form a perception over a LARGE sample to form a conclusion about someone.  And yeah people tend to become hardcore once the sample is large enough to form said conclusion

 

Some liked RG3, Kirk, Jason Campbell some didn't based on a large sample.  Not one play.  Not one game.  But a wide sample

Some like Jay some don't.  Not based on one move, one game but a wide sample.

Same thing with Bruce, same thing with Dan.

 

When one side of an argument on one fence say gotcha when one thing that they perceive went their way via their own perception of reality IMO its a bit weird.  It would be like me with my mostly pro Jay position going to some of Jay critics and saying hahahaahaha we just beat the Jaguars -- what do you have to say now -- clearly, you are wrong!!!!!

 

On Reuben Foster, my position is I had no clue whether he was guilty or not.  Doug in an interview said he was told by some close to Reuben that he's a bit of a con artist.  So I doubt they knew for sure.  They took a chance.  And some people me included didn't like the PR hit and would prefer they chase him once he was exonerated if it happened.   I know the Reuben story well, we talked about him a lot in the draft thread in 2017.  The dude is no boy scout.  So I wouldn't count on all trouble going away.  I hope he's fine and the NFL doesn't suspend him and some national observers still think would happen.

 

But even if I thought Bruce played the Foster situation perfectly -- cool and it wouldn't be the first time I complemented him.   Just like I am not a Colt McCoy guy but loved how he played MNF in Dallas.  On the aggregate, as I've said many times Bruce is at best so so at personnel and a train wreck at winning off the field and building a winning culture.  Dan ditto.   Dan-Bruce can surprise me and hire a D coordinator I love tomorrow and I am still not doing a 180 on Bruce or Dan.   Bruce has been there 9 years, Dan almost 20 we got a really really big sample size.    It would have to be lots of moves to make you forget lots of moves you didn't like.  The quick fix for me with Dan would be to fire Bruce and replace him with a real personnel guy with a stellar rep and stay out of the dude's way.

 

And for those who consistently celebrate every perceived move that they think redeems Bruce-Dan -- its cool, its what makes sports debate entertaining.   There is a reason why you don't get 100% consensus on even the most basic things you can test in a survey -- heck if you ask people are vegetables healthy, you'll still get 5% who will say no.  So Dan-Bruce having a small segment of passionate defenders, I'd guess 5% tops -- cool, why not?  Be boring if 100% of the fan base was down on Bruce-Dan.

I think you're missing the point. What becomes exhaustive is that the hatred for Dan/Bruce is so great that everything is looked at through that lens. It makes conversation and debating the team we all love much less enjoyable when nothing and I repeat nothing is never met without tremendous negativity and skepticism.

 

It has nothing to do with being a passionate defender of the FO. Zilch. It's the ability to analyze certain moves and understand the logic behind them with an open mind. Not letting personal emotions dictate instantaneous reactions and following along with the masses just because it's easy and comfortable to do so.

10 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

What if I dislike 51% of Bruce, but like the other 49%? Or 60/40?

 

Which extreme would I be boxed into? 

Yeah this isn't possible.

[Fat Stupid Loser]

11 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

What if I dislike 51% of Bruce, but like the other 49%? Or 60/40?

 

Which extreme would I be boxed into? 

There is a diagnosis in there somewhere.  

[Wildbunny]

2 hours ago, KDawg said:

But I'm not sure this absolves the FO of blame here if the truth to the story Gruden didn't sign off on the move to begin with. Or putting Gruden/Doug Williams in front of the media first. Those are major culture issues. Bruce was absolutely correct on his football gamble, but there are more layers to the story. One of which is that we don't have a whole lot of good will to burn due to the organization's previous mishaps.

 

The fact that he got lucky in the outcome, doesn't really absolve everything.

And NFL still has to remove him from the exempted list. Which may take a while.

 

1 hour ago, Bang said:

Almost any other team makes this move on Foster and it's 'shrewd'.

<...>

~Bang

 

I think the most important word in your sentence is "Almost".

I'm pretty sure many would have taken the same PR hit we took if they did it. Some of our posters would have gone mad against them in the ATN about it.

And to be true, most of it was more about the "how they handled it' than what they really did.

 

They handled the move circus-like from top to bottom.

 

Being bailed out for now,doesn't makes them smart in any way. It justs makes them lucky. For once...

[PF Chang]

You know the logical fallacy I like? It's the one where one side argues that maybe claiming Reuben Foster was a bad idea because of the drug thing, and the kicked out of the combine thing, and the gun thing, and the other drug thing, and the possible domestic violence thing, and the continuing to associate with the woman who apparently tried to ruin his career thing, and the being accused again predictably by that same woman thing, and the Redskins organization doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt thing...

 

And the other side sees that the DV charges were dropped and thinks, man I bet you feel so dumb now!! Because that's the only reason you thought this was a bad idea! Bruce, you large-brained genius, you've outfoxed everyone again. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

28 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

It makes conversation and debating the team we all love much less enjoyable when nothing and I repeat nothing is never met without tremendous negativity and skepticism.

I recall acquisition of AP, the trade for Clinton Dix being applauded by most everybody, many giving Dan props for hiring an outsider executive in LaFemina, and there was near general consensus of positivity after the 2018 draft haul.  That renders your statement that nothing is met without tremendous negativity false.

 

That said, there is consistent skepticism overall.  That typically happens following decades of ineptitude, where even things that sound and look great initially, end up failing miserably.  The key players that have a well documented track record of doing the wrong thing, they are still here.  Why shouldn’t the moves they make be met with skepticism?

[Skinsinparadise]

35 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

What if I dislike 51% of Bruce, but like the other 49%? Or 60/40?

 

Which extreme would I be boxed into? 

 

Lol, this is just my opinion via working with pollsters from time to time and sitting in on focus groups whose job is to smoke out opinions and try to fit people into categories when they apply.

 

It's part of the job of the pollster in working with the focus group to ignore how the person identifies him or herself and see if that person indeed fits that label. There are a group of people who hate labels especially if said label is perceived to be unpopular but when you probe their actions and beliefs you'll find that some fit the label they swear they aren't a part of -- based on observing their actions and beliefs.   It's actually pretty common. 

 

The argument that someone isn't pro Bruce-Dan because they have issues with them, too and thereby they are simply bringing in "reason" and not fanatic haters like everyone else.  I'd buy into that take with some but not others.   If I recall you don't post a lot on said subject so if so it comes off believable that you are indeed back and forth - moderate.   Caring = energy and action on a point of view.  

 

I'll use a personal analogy.  I am relatively pro the previous QB but I criticized the dude too plenty and never thought he is elite and I've been very specific about what he needs to be successful and he can't carry a team among other things.  But I can get pigeonholed by critics of the player anyway as all in and get hammered anyway even on stuff I've never argued the other way.   Ditto on Jay, I like him, I've defended him.  But I've ripped him to shreds, too.  I did a whole post once about how his play calling doesn't fit today's analytics.  Yet his loudest critic likes to call me out on Jay here and there. 

 

And my point is look I get it i post a lot on both subjects so just because I don't love everything about said subject -- doesn't make me a reasonable moderate on either subject regardless of the disclaimers and criticism I throw in the mix of said subjects -- because the bottom line is I post enough on both subjects that its clear I care about getting my position out there.  So people on the other side labeling me pro Jay even though I've criticized him plenty -- its more than fair.  I've posted enough on it that i've earned that label regardless if I am all in as to the arguments I've made on Jay.   Bottom line is I posted a lot on the subject and more of it was positive than negative.  

 

So my point is the idea that someone isn't 100% in the tank with the Bruce-Dan dynamic and like some things and don't like others and they take the "moderate" viewpoint.  I only buy into that position if said person isn't posting a lot about it.  If you feel moderately about a subject -- it typically means you aren't that passionate about it and hence you don't spend a lot of time arguing about it.   

 

And again that's just my opinion.   Since you asked. 😀

 

 

[RWJ]

To me the Foster decision by the NFL changes nothing about Bruce Allen.  They are separate issues!  He has failed time and time again as President of this team.  He needs to go!

[RemoveSnyder]

2 hours ago, Bang said:

Almost any other team makes this move on Foster and it's 'shrewd'.

 

Yeah but no one else did make the move. 

 

Quote

 We do it and we condone domestic abuse.

 

the [washington] organization condones domestic abuse.

 

 

Unfortunately Bang, that's exactly what was being said. 

 

When you claim a player off waivers, it is a repudiation of the base reason why that player is being released in the first place.

Ok, right? Follow me?

 

Teams release players all the time, some because of injury, some because of age, some because the level of play has declined, some times because of money ... or usually some combination of all those things together, right? 

 

Sometimes players are released because of run-ins with the law.

 

For a team to claim a guy with a nagging injury, career long bursitis ... whatever, then that claiming team is REFUTING the reason why the parent team is jettisoning said player. 

 

Here, San Fran was absolutely clear why they were releasing Foster. It wasn't age, it wasn't play, it wasn't money. 

 

The washington organization claiming Foster was a repudiation of the VERY reason why Foster was released. And we all know what that reason was. Whether the reason was true or not was irrelevant then and is now irrelevant with charges going away. 

 

The relevant point was that washington said, effectively by way of claiming rights on waivers, "the reason why Foster was released by SF (multiple run-ins with the law / DV) isn't offputting enough, isn't distasteful enough to us, compared to the possible upside and the talent benefit (we) washington could get from it." 

 

They said to the whole league and the nation watching that nothing is sacred. The other adults in the NFL understood they could have done the same thing, but passed. Probably because they know, as should anyone else, that a LB is not the single, preeminent player which will lead you to a SuperBowl. So therefore, despite all the reasons why said player has plus football ability, that ability is not transcendent enough for an NFL team, not like that of a franchise QB, in order to ignore the baggage. 

 

Short of it being Brady, Rodgers, Rothsberger ... then the idea that the other teams would have, could have claimed Foster ... well, just look at K. Hunt as another topical example. No one claimed him. 

 

That's exactly what everyone is supposed to do. That's what the adults do.  

[Skinsinparadise]

52 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I think you're missing the point. What becomes exhaustive is that the hatred for Dan/Bruce is so great that everything is looked at through that lens. It makes conversation and debating the team we all love much less enjoyable when nothing and I repeat nothing is never met without tremendous negativity and skepticism.

 

 

Even if so why do you care?   If I truly felt like I am "moderate" on the position and wasn't at one extreme or another I'd be disinterested in the outcome.  Do we resign Preston Smith -- yes or no.  I don't feel that strongly about it one way or another.  If someone created a thread about it -- I'd either not post in it and or wouldn't be bothered by positions on either side of the argument.

 

52 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

It has nothing to do with being a passionate defender of the FO. Zilch. It's the ability to analyze certain moves and understand the logic behind them with an open mind. Not letting personal emotions dictate instantaneous reactions and following along with the masses just because it's easy and comfortable to do so.

Yeah this isn't possible.

 

On the FA thread and draft thread -- many of us are calling out players and moves we'd like to see.  When they do what we laid out in advance we complement them.  When they don't -- we criticize them. 

 

Heck even in the Bruce thread, me among others were saying after they let Scot go -- lets see what the dude does next before we hammer him before he acts.  I among others laid out exactly what we wanted to see the dude do and what we didn't want to see the dude do.  What made me lose it with Bruce is he did exactly what I spelled out that I didn't want him to do. 

 

Its for most who comment on this stuff a very organic cause and effect process.   As for you saying you are just trying to analyze moves, etc -- I don't recall you making too many declarations of what you want to happen, I typically see you weigh in on personnel moves after they have happened and often with a pro FO spin.

[wunderhill]

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I think you're missing the point. What becomes exhaustive is that the hatred for Dan/Bruce is so great that everything is looked at through that lens. It makes conversation and debating the team we all love much less enjoyable when nothing and I repeat nothing is never met without tremendous negativity and skepticism.

 

I think you're missing the point. What has become exhaustive  is Dan and Bruce. I mean what kind of lens are we suppose to view them from after 20 years of Dan and 10 years of Allen. The majority has been a **** show. Yes, we all love the brand and want positive results, but I think we have seen enough of a sample size that we are justified in our criticism of the two. 

I like Jay, but if he calls 2 good plays out of an entire game and the rest are ****, which lens should we use?

[DJHJR86]

So because charges were dismissed against Foster (no one knows why yet) we're supposed to be breaking out the champagne and cake for Bruce and company?  Don't think so.

[Art]

1 minute ago, DJHJR86 said:

So because charges were dismissed against Foster (no one knows why yet) we're supposed to be breaking out the champagne and cake for Bruce and company?  Don't think so.

 

Technically, no.   We should have complimented them the day they made the waiver claim as it was smart to do then.   We should acknowledge given the significant lack of seriousness to the charge itself that Foster will have a chance to play for us in the near future and be good or bad at it, which is good, and acquiring a potentially good player at ZERO cost is probably ALWAYS wise.   One could argue Hunt would have been equally wise but the video on his alters the optics a bit.   There was no where for that to go but down, even if one can say he never "struck" the woman like Rice did.   Personally, I'd have picked him up too.   Young players with something like that on their jacket are either going to utterly fail OR turn themselves around.   If it costs nothing, I'd always be on the side of giving the latter a chance.