The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Is the point here to point out how much everyone sucks in an effort to prop up Bruce?  If so, it's not convincing.  Bruce's track record is what it is...not good.  Doug's track record is what it is....non existent. 

 

 

[Dissident2]

14 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

So, are you saying that Allen wasn't a part of the Raiders organization during the SB year? I don't understand the "real world" comment.

 

Your comment was, "Bruce Allen took the Raiders to the Super Bowl." That is a comment worthy of the response it got. 

 

14 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

I just think that people are so willing to judge the history by the past.

 

Uh, how else are people supposed to judge history? By the future?

 

14 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Now we're so used to losing that we can't see a team being turned around right before our eyes.

 

9-7

8-7-1

8-8 (maybe)

 

That's not progress. If we lose Cousins, even less so. 

[Berggy9598]

2 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Funny you mention him because, just like my examples above, he has the reputation of a "my bleep don't stink" type attitude that doesn't run well in many front offices. And as the JLC article I posted earlier points out, that's a common thing with some of these super-scouts. Either the inability to explain "the why" or an unwillingness to do so. And if you're going to give the foundation to Pioli and not Belichick, then I've got an island in Idaho I want to sell you. But that's not to say that Pioli is bad, but he wasn't a necessary cog in the Patriots wheel. Notice how Oakland fell off after Davis left. Notice how Tampa has had two winning seasons since Allen left (after winning seasons in 3 of 4 straight years).

 

If you hire the wrong guy you're screwed no matter what his background is. Pioli was vital in getting that thing off the ground, and when he was no longer vital he was let go. How did Oakland fall off btw? They had their first winning year in 14 years after being absolutely putrid for a decade and a half under Davis. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

[Thinking Skins]

3 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

Your comment was, "Bruce Allen took the Raiders to the Super Bowl." That is a comment worthy of the response it got. 

 

Sorry, Bruce was a part of the team that took the Raiders to the Super Bowl.

 

3 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

Uh, how else are people supposed to judge history? By the future?

 

Ok, that was a gaffe by me. People are trying to judge the future by the past. People are so used to losing that they are afraid to predict winning. Its like the 2012 season when Jason Reid was on radio laughing at anybody who even recommended a record of 8+ wins after we "had win 7 games in the last 2 years combined". For the record, we won 10 games that year. That's a small blip in the radar, but if you look at the draft and draft pick contributions since Allen joined the team (including Shanny's tenure) you see that we're doing well in the draft and building a team through the draft and thats a big part of a turnaround.

 

3 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

9-7

8-7-1

8-8 (maybe)

 

That's not progress. If we lose Cousins, even less so. 

 

Again, this is a short span. You can say that its not progress. But before Gruden took the raiders to the SB they were 8-8 twice. Before Garrett took the Cowboys to 12 wins they were 8-8 three times in a row. Stability (and not being afraid of stability) is a sign of progress.

8 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

 

If you hire the wrong guy you're screwed no matter what his background is. Pioli was vital in getting that thing off the ground, and when he was no longer vital he was let go. How did Oakland fall off btw? They had their first winning year in 14 years after being absolutely putrid for a decade and a half under Davis. 

 

Oakland fell off because they were in the SB in 2002 then couldn't put together a winning season after Allen left, about 12 seasons between winning seasons.

[Skinsinparadise]

Listening to 106.7 right now.  They are about to run a segment of whether the Redskins would dump Bruce Allen to help sign Kirk Cousins.  They led off the segment from Mike Jones who made two points:

 

A. The other Redskins owners (not Dan) don't think highly of Bruce.

 

B. Kirk likes the team-likes Jay.  He doesn't like Bruce.  He doesn't trust Bruce.  And he doesn't care for how he negotiated the contract -- wasn't the nicest guy as for how he handled it.   And marrying other segments to this -- he doesn't think a Bruce run team is likely to go to the Superbowl. 

 

Thinking Skins I noticed on the draft thread you said you are ready to move on from Kirk.  Do your thoughts on Kirk run independent from the Bruce stuff or is that driven because of the many reports that Bruce isn't on board with the all in on Kirk drill?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

25 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

9-7

8-7-1

8-8 (maybe)

 

That's not progress. If we lose Cousins, even less so. 

 

So, I can't disagree that this isn't the season-to-season progress I'd like to see. In fact, I'll be a little harder on the team than you are above...it's very possible that over Gruden's 2nd through 4th seasons we will go from 9 to 8 to 7 wins...essentially being a .500 team over a three-year span. 

 

To me though, that's the rub. Call it loser talk or whatever but we haven't been "average" long enough yet for me to be sick of it. There have been times as a fan of this team when I wanted to shake things up because I thought the chance of sliding back to double-digit losses was worth the chance of being better. But, I still remember 4-12, 3-13, 5-11 in the recent history so 7-9 or 9-7 isn't too annoying yet. If we stay in that range for the rest of Gruden's contract then I think I'd be ready to move in another direction. But, for now, sadly this is stability and progress. It's not fixed yet, but it's improving over where we've been since Gibbs left. 

[Thinking Skins]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Listening to 106.7 right now.  They are about to run a segment of whether the Redskins would dump Bruce Allen to help sign Kirk Cousins.  They led off the segment from Mike Jones who made two points:

 

A. The other Redskins owners (not Dan) don't think highly of Bruce.

 

B. Kirk likes the team-likes Jay.  He doesn't like Bruce.  He doesn't trust Bruce.  And he doesn't care for how he negotiated the contract -- wasn't the nicest guy as for how he handled it.   And marrying other segments to this -- he doesn't think a Bruce run team is likely to go to the Superbowl. 

 

Thinking Skins I noticed on the draft thread you said you are ready to move on from Kirk.  Do your thoughts on Kirk run independent from the Bruce stuff or is that driven because of the many reports that Bruce isn't on board with the all in on Kirk drill?

No, no, I'm not ready to move on from Kirk at all. I like guys like Luke Falk and Josh Allen but that's in the scenario that Kirk walks. I'm not advocating that though. Falk may be available at a lower round pick which makes him more interesting because we could keep Kirk and draft him as a backup and insurance policy.

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

No, no, I'm not ready to move on from Kirk at all. I like guys like Luke Falk and Josh Allen but that's in the scenario that Kirk walks. I'm not advocating that though. Falk may be available at a lower round pick which makes him more interesting because we could keep Kirk and draft him as a backup and insurance policy.

 

I could have sworn you posted something about a week ago on that thread where you specifically said you are ready to move on from Kirk.  I am not talking about your more recent post about Falk.

[Dissident2]

2 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

So, I can't disagree that this isn't the season-to-season progress I'd like to see. In fact, I'll be a little harder on the team than you are above...it's very possible that over Gruden's 2nd through 4th seasons we will go from 9 to 8 to 7 wins...essentially being a .500 team over a three-year span. 

 

To me though, that's the rub. Call it loser talk or whatever but we haven't been "average" long enough yet for me to be sick of it. 

 

I agree with that and pretty much feel the same way. My main issue with pointing those numbers out is to show that the trend is starting to point in the wrong direction again and we need to be wary of it. That said, if we end up 8-8, I think that's an overall solid performance from Gruden (although the Dallas record really, really, really bothers me). 

 

But I also think that Allen's mishandling of so many situations is playing a big part in hindering the progress we've been making. This team was riding high after 2015. By all accounts, that's when Allen's power-play stuff really started in regards to SM. I don't discount Scot's role in his own downfall, but I'm totally confident that Bruce was behind him offering a good solid push off that ledge. If he'd have hired another GM, I think most of us would've been OK with that, but instead he returned to pretty much the same structure that led to the fan revolt in 2014 to begin with. That speaks volumes.

 

Having Cousins' future with this team in constant doubt has also hindered this team, which is once again down to Allen's bungling. If we lose him, we're most likely going to regress further. If we pay him what we now HAVE to pay him to keep him here (thanks to Allen), that will hurt us in strengthening other areas of the roster, so it's sort of "pick your poison" at this point. Again, all could've been avoided if Allen had done the right thing and had some vision two years ago.

 

So while I think we do have some good players and do appreciate the fact that we're now officially "mediocre," I'm worried that we're squandering that potential by this "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" mentality that's back in full swing at the Park. They got it right in 2015, and to me it's no coincidence that we were at our most successful that season. Once they returned to the "old ways," it's no coincidence to me that the graph is trending down. 

[Thinking Skins]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I could have sworn you posted something about a week ago on that thread where you specifically said you are ready to move on from Kirk.  I am not talking about your more recent post about Falk.

 

You're right I did say that. That was more a frustration thing after the two losses than anything. I'm meh on Cousins because of the amount of money he will demand. If we can get him for a Luck/Carr/Stafford like contract, then sure. But if we're just bidding against ourselves then its hard to imagine. And I just have the feeling that Kirk doesn't want to be here and so we're going to be forced to pay him 30+ mil to keep him. That's the side of it where I'm ready to move on.

 

But my opinions on Kirk are independent of Bruce. If both left I would still be a Skins fan. If one or the other stays, I'm still with the Skins. I just post so much in this / these Bruce Allen threads because I believe in a lot of what he's doing and its what I was posting so much on this board about in the early 2000s. So now that we have a team that is being built around the draft I'm excited by the growth I'm seeing in this team. If Kirk leaves I think we would have some growing pains but hopefully we'd be closer to the Packers without Rogers than the Texans without Watson.

[Skinsinparadise]

18 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

You're right I did say that. That was more a frustration thing after the two losses than anything. I'm meh on Cousins because of the amount of money he will demand. If we can get him for a Luck/Carr/Stafford like contract, then sure. But if we're just bidding against ourselves then its hard to imagine. And I just have the feeling that Kirk doesn't want to be here and so we're going to be forced to pay him 30+ mil to keep him. That's the side of it where I'm ready to move on.

 

.....

Bruce hasn't offered him a Luck/Carr/Stafford contract.  How would you feel about Bruce if he still doesn't do it this off season -- Kirk excels elsewhere and Plan B here fails?

 

18 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

I just post so much in this / these Bruce Allen threads because I believe in a lot of what he's doing and its what I was posting so much on this board about in the early 2000s. So now that we have a team that is being built around the draft I'm excited by the growth I'm seeing in this team. If Kirk leaves I think we would have some growing pains but hopefully we'd be closer to the Packers without Rogers than the Texans without Watson.

 

I just listened to the Mike Jones segment that Pollin and Loverro were referring to.  If Jones is correct and I think there is a good shot he is because he's been right about just about everything related to the Kirk contract and Kirk's comments in his summer radio interview matched up well to Jones' reports. 

 

Jones said related to Bruce:

1. Implied if Kirk leaves its because of Bruce -- both in terms of Kirk not trusting him and in terms of how Bruce values Kirk.

2.  The other owners (aside from Dan) aren't enamored with Bruce

3.  There are people in the building who really don't like Bruce.  (that's now the third reporter I've heard say that)

 

[Thinking Skins]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

.....

Bruce hasn't offered him a Luck/Carr/Stafford contract.  How would you feel about Bruce if he still doesn't do it this off season -- Kirk excels elsewhere and Plan B here fails?

 

If Kirk leaves he's out of my line of sight. We lost out on Trent Green who preformed well elsewhere. Cool dude but he didn't stay. We lost out on Brad Johnson and he performed well elsewhere. Cool dude, but he didn't stay. I hope Cousins stays but we'll see.

 

Hopefully we can find another QB in the event of a Cousins departure. Thats what the posts about the two QBs I've been looking at.

 

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I just listened to the Mike Jones segment that Pollin and Loverro were referring to.  If Jones is correct and I think there is a good shot he is because he's been right about just about everything related to the Kirk contract and Kirk's comments in his summer radio interview matched up well to Jones' reports. 

 

Jones said related to Bruce:

1. Implied if Kirk leaves its because of Bruce -- both in terms of Kirk not trusting him and in terms of how Bruce values Kirk.

2.  The other owners (aside from Dan) aren't enamored with Bruce

3.  There are people in the building who really don't like Bruce.  (that's now the third reporters I've heard say that)

 

 

I trust Jones but I don't trust him completely. His words are something, but I can't simply go with it. I've told you my thoughts about his piece on Allen simply being jealous of Scot and that leading to the firing. But that's not to say the story has no value. he's more connected than me. And if there is tension between the two, ideally Kirk and he can work it out like other people in high positions seem to do. If not, one will get forced out and I'll be forced to judge the team on the results.

 

But you and I differ because I'm not judging the FO and Bruce based on how this situation is handled. Chris Russell wrote a piece in the summer about the delicate situation Scot and the Front office had in 2015 when initially thinking of signing Cousins, when he wasn't the starter, and Griffin was. Russell has a different perspective than some others in the media who say Scot was in love with Cousins from the getgo. But we had ROY RG3 and were coming to realize that he wasn't the savior. Before 2015 nobody had established themselves as an NFL QB. Cousins looked the best, but not $15 mil worthy. After that (in 2016) we were in a position where we had a QB who looked ok for spot duty in 3 years and great 1 year. Was that somebody we should sign to a big deal? I can understand the hesitation as much of the board was hesitant. Then there's 2017 when I think it was clear to everybody that Cousins was a legit starter if not top 10 QB in the league. But at that point Cousins possibly felt disrespected and didn't respond to the offer.

 

Different people have different opinions on the offer, but I can't see where I'd be much different from how the front office has handled Kirk up to this point. Maybe offering more money in the initial contract, but thats bidding against yourself. Cousins (from all the reports I've read) never named a number and said "meet this". So he gave me the impression that he wanted to play under the tag again. And thats what I got from the end of summer press conference.

 

Hopefully if we let him go, we can get something for it. But with that comes risk that we have to tag him and he may just sign the tag instead of letting us deal him. And nobody wants to trade first round picks for a player on a one year deal.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

If I'm a fan of Bruce Allen, I'd be praying that he finds a way to lock Kirk up.  Because if Kirk goes, Bruce will be next. 

[SkinsFTW]

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

 Notice how Tampa has had two winning seasons since Allen left (after winning seasons in 3 of 4 straight years).

 

0 playoff wins before, 0 playoff wins after. Won the SB the year before he got there. Seems to be a downward trend.

 

Without Cousins, and soon we likely will be again, this team is 4-12 at best every year since 2014.

[Skinsinparadise]

36 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I trust Jones but I don't trust him completely. His words are something, but I can't simply go with it....

Chris Russell wrote a piece in the summer about the delicate situation Scot and the Front office

 

Russell is another guy who said there are people in the building who doesn't like Bruce.  Russell also talked to death about how Bruce didn't treat Kirk and his agent that hot and its the underlying cause of tension.  Keim got into it some, too.  You'd really have to look hard for someone that has Bruce's back on how the Kirk contract was handled -- Casserly and Polian perhaps -- though I noticed Cassery has recently said you have to keep Kirk.  Similar narratives by the way from national reporters like Breer that mirror Jones.

 

But yeah if you are ready to move on from Kirk in his third season here after being frustrated from 2 games.  And are willing to say "meh" about him above in the context of getting a major contract.  I get why you'd be absolutely cool with how Bruce handled the contract.  

 

My only warning on that is for the guy who is arguably by a mile Bruce's biggest cheerleader -- Bruce letting Kirk go might end up his swan song.  Most don't see Kirk and the contract the way you do.  As Chris Russell said recently he expects Bruce to be fired in all likelihood in 2019 -- after his Kirk gambit blows up in his face. 

 

As for Scot.  He's irrelevant again but I'll play along.  Timeline related to Kirk-Scot based on reports including Russell.

 

A. Got the job.  didn't think Kirk was the guy.

B. Beginning of camp.  didn't think Kirk was the guy.

C. Mid to later in camp did think Kirk was the guy.

D.  Scot and Jay had to convince Dan and Bruce that Kirk was the guy 

E. Scot wanted to sign Kirk during that season.  Bruce disagreed.

F.  We don't know who came up with the figure of the offer -- I'd presume Bruce since he's in charge of money - not Scot.

G. The front office (if you want to blame Scot for this with the others -- fine, who cares?) got a counter offer from Kirk's agent.  They ignored it.  No response.

 

2017.

A. Bruce removed Scot from the negotiation.  The WP among others said the Kirk contract was part of the tension.

B. Bruce gave Kirk a low ball offer with low guarantees -- likely coupled with not saying the nicest things about Kirk relating to the Giants

game among other things.

 

Scot's been on the record from not that long ago saying you got to lock up Kirk on a LTD versus let him go.  And that Kirk is a top 10 QB versus Doug who said he's top 15.   So if Scot's in the camp of he'd let Kirk go now, he's a good liar.

 

I can keep running down the rest but this includes Russell's take.  Russell actually thinks Bruce is the bane of this organization so I am surprised you even bring him up in relation to defending Bruce on anything.  

 

[NoCalMike]

The thing about our string of "average-y" seasons though is that 2015...disaster struck the NFC East and it was another one of those miracle runs to get to 9-7.

 

2016 sticks out the most as a season the team just flat out under-performed.  Yes, the defense was horrendous, but the team had 2 to 3 games in there where they could have locked a playoff berth up or at least put themselves in the driver's seat and they failed every time for a lot of reasons, not just the defense.

 

2017....they have a shot to get to 8-8, but the team was 5-8 and out of the conversation with a month of the season left.  It also took two of the worst starting QB's as opponents to get them in this position. This wasn't a team teetering on .500 or above .500 since what, their bye week (3-3 record).

 

What the last three seasons show to me is how being average in the NFL still puts you a long way off from getting to that next level of 10 wins being your expected win total, and where a playoff berth is a foregone conclusion.  

[Skinsinparadise]

Chris Russell starting his radio show right now.  He leads off with Bruce being a fraud and a snake.   

[Tsailand]

18 hours ago, William Barbour said:

A guy who has been involved with player personnel on the team for a decade is not a personnel guy. I think I've seen enough of this thread for 8 months. ?

 

How long was Vinny the GM?  Do you think he's a personnel guy?

 

 

25 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

2017....they have a shot to get to 8-8, but the team was 5-8 and out of the conversation with a month of the season left.  It also took two of the worst starting QB's as opponents to get them in this position.

 

 

In a 16 game season, you always get a few cupcake opponents.  The wins still count.  We played a lot of good teams too, even beat some of them.

 

If we'd been lucky enough to face the Eagles after the Wentz injury we would maybe have won both those games and be talking about playoffs now.

[NoCalMike]

26 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

 

In a 16 game season, you always get a few cupcake opponents.  The wins still count.  We played a lot of good teams too, even beat some of them.

 

If we'd been lucky enough to face the Eagles after the Wentz injury we would maybe have won both those games and be talking about playoffs now.

 

Right, which is why I am not saying 2017 was a disappointment so much due to circumstances, the way I view 2016 as lost potential.

[Paul Cumberland]

FWIW

 

[Thinking Skins]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Russell is another guy who said there are people in the building who doesn't like Bruce.  Russell also talked to death about how Bruce didn't treat Kirk and his agent that hot and its the underlying cause of tension.  Keim got into it some, too.  You'd really have to look hard for someone that has Bruce's back on how the Kirk contract was handled -- Casserly and Polian perhaps -- though I noticed Cassery has recently said you have to keep Kirk.  Similar narratives by the way from national reporters like Breer that mirror Jones.

 

But yeah if you are ready to move on from Kirk in his third season here after being frustrated from 2 games.  And are willing to say "meh" about him above in the context of getting a major contract.  I get why you'd be absolutely cool with how Bruce handled the contract.  

 

My only warning on that is for the guy who is arguably by a mile Bruce's biggest cheerleader -- Bruce letting Kirk go might end up his swan song.  Most don't see Kirk and the contract the way you do.  As Chris Russell said recently he expects Bruce to be fired in all likelihood in 2019 -- after his Kirk gambit blows up in his face. 

 

 

 

Don't confuse my appreciation for more than what it is. Before Bruce, I appreciated Dan for making me learn to meditate. After Bruce though, when I saw things i advocated for being put in place, i could relax more come early March. If Bruce is the fired tomorrow, hopefully that system of not overspending on free agents, and valuing the draft is not lost. 

 

Kirk's situation was a gamble and Bruce may have lost. But it will be really bad if we sign Kirk and then go back to 100 million dollar contacts and shuffling bonuses around to get under the cap, and trading picks for aged once was vets who may or may not fit our scheme. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Chris Russell starting his radio show right now.  He leads off with Bruce being a fraud and a snake.   

I still find it hard to take anything Russell says seriously due to his ridiculous man crush on Haz.  And later full throated defense of Barry.

 

He’s gotten some things right, some wrong, but he comes off as such an all knowing insufferable know it all, I can’t listen to him.

 

Though in this case, I tend to agree with him, based on what you said. 

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

[Thinking Skins]

I can't take Russell seriously with all his claims because they're of the form "believe me" and "I've heard stories". He does give some credible information and sometimes contradicts himself. 

 

For all the hate of Bruce, he wrote a piece on why Bruce needs to go and it's basically a list of what Bruce has done right. But it ends with some convoluted reason why he should go. 

 

Even on the show today he said, admitted, that Snyder has grown as an owner. Is it by coincidence that the same person who tamed down Al Davis is right next to Snyder to tame him?