The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[carex]

18 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

Found these quotes from George Allen. He was a bit of a loon to be sure, but in his case, the apple (Bruce) has fallen FAR from the tree. And it's rotten. 

 

"The man who can accept defeat and take his salary without feeling guilty is a thief. I cannot think of a thing [money] can buy that a loser can enjoy. Fancy cars and parties are all window dressing. Winning is the only true goal. Only the winner is alive. The loser is dead, whether he knows it or not." 

 

"Fear the Walking Bruce". 

 

Those are very nice quote, but I'm not sure a coach like George Allen gets to comment on much.  For all his success he had a ve particular way of doing things that he wasn't interested in varying.  Vets playing today at the expense of the future and I can't find them but I recall some quotes that he had very limiting views on offense with defense and special teams wnning the games, I think it might have been Riggins saying it was like carrying a gun that wasn't fully loaded.

 

And if you're wondering my point is an unwillingness to adapt suggests he paid lip service to win at all cost without living up t it

[Voice_of_Reason]

3 hours ago, carex said:

 

if they go eight and eight with Colt and or a rookie  then they would deserve to keep their jobs

I would agree with this.  I was being a bit sarcastic, implying after a bad season, they would need to go back to Dan and ask for more time to get to 8-8. 

[Dissident2]

12 minutes ago, carex said:

 

Those are very nice quote, but I'm not sure a coach like George Allen gets to comment on much.  For all his success he had a ve particular way of doing things that he wasn't interested in varying.  Vets playing today at the expense of the future and I can't find them but I recall some quotes that he had very limiting views on offense with defense and special teams wnning the games, I think it might have been Riggins saying it was like carrying a gun that wasn't fully loaded.

 

And if you're wondering my point is an unwillingness to adapt suggests he paid lip service to win at all cost without living up t it

 

He had flaws that kept him from a trophy, that is true. 

 

But paying "lip service" to winning doesn't get you an all-time coaching record of: 116-47-5

 

So yeah, with numbers like that, as well as a bust in Canton, his comments are still absolutely and unequivocally viable when it comes to discussions on winning. 

 

The gene apparently skips a generation. 

[Tsailand]

1 hour ago, Peregrine said:

Uh, no its not.  From 1999-2002 we had a better stretch, and from 2005-2008 we also had a better stretch, 8 of the 14 years. 

 

Those are both four year stretches so I'm not sure why you are comparing them to the last three years where we won 24.5 games.

 

1999-2001 we won 26 games, which is better... but we also had three different head coaches and four different starting QBs in those three years.

 

 

 

 

[onedrop]

1 hour ago, carex said:

 

They are not sem-valid, they are completely valid.  Th-is years team was worse than last years because of massive amounts of injury.  And Bruce Allen has not been defacto GM for six years.  Scot was GM for two and Shanahan ad roster control

 

 

 

we had several groups of seasons where we were decent.  since 2000 we've had 8 seasons of .500 or better ball and two years  at 7-9

a team completely bereft of talent yet well coached and prepared can still EXECUTE. the redskins do not.

[carex]

2 hours ago, onedrop said:

a team completely bereft of talent yet well coached and prepared can still EXECUTE. the redskins do not.

 

they were frequently not prepared because they weren't able to do their normal practices on several occasions.  They were playing guys esterdays who'd signed with the team like a month before

[onedrop]

13 minutes ago, carex said:

 

they were frequently not prepared because they weren't able to do their normal practices on several occasions.  They were playing guys esterdays who'd signed with the team like a month before

then they had about 30 extra days to accomplish the simplest fundamentals they should already possess at this level. this team is simply not coached very well. gruden may be a nice guy and all but so is my great uncle floyd and he doesnt know dick all about coaching.

 

speed of the leader is the speed of the pack. when gruden rolled over and died in the dallas game everyone, including the players, saw what mettle he was made of. id like to see EVERYONE fired. erase everyone associated and for the love off GOD stop with the damn legacy hires. MOVE ON already.

[OVCChairman]

17 hours ago, carex said:

 

they were frequently not prepared because they weren't able to do their normal practices on several occasions.  They were playing guys esterdays who'd signed with the team like a month before

 

 

Despite all these issues, they had the chance to succeed and they didnt.... case in point.

 

Vs New Orleans, 15 point lead and we can't handle it for 6 minutes.  The preparation, ability, health, team, was there... execution was not.

Chris Thompson injury.  Is Gruden at fault for it?  Not really, freak play I guess.  My problem was the playcall to begin with.  3rd and 4, and we line up with an empty backfield splitting Thompson out wide against a corner.  WHY?   First off it means that the Saints KNOW we're not going to have a designed run in place, so they sell out on the pass.  2nd it takes Thompson out of the play even though he is arguably our most dynamic offensive weapon.  Thompson needs matchups, and splitting him out wide, with nobody inside means he's got the DB man to man, and most likely a safety over the top... again, Thompson is undersized so his speed matchup is what makes him special.  This is not a favorable matchup. 

 

Vs Dallas 2.0,  Crowder has been with this team long enough to know how to field a punt, as well as catch a pass, and carry the football.  Why was Crowder back there to return punts after such a terrible start to the season?  Clearly his head wasn't right.  D.Hall filled in as a punt returner while Crowder was hurt, and Mo Harris hadn't suffered his concussion yet.  Crowder should not have been back there.  Crowder failed, but Gruden could have done SOMETHING to try to prevent it. 

 

Vs.  NYG 2.0.  We played virtually the same team (with largely our whole team) we played on Thanksgiving, except they were missing 2 starting O-lineman (Flowers / Hart) as well as their starting CB (Apple).  The major difference in our team is we ended up with Catallina in at LT.  Why weren't we screening to death?  Their rush was getting home and from what I can remember, we did very little to try to exploit it.  In fact, I feel like the screen was abandoned, despite the success we had with it.  Bibbs TD the week before was on a screen. 

 

 

 

3 games we could have won that had nothing to do with lack of practice time.  Win those 3 games and we're looking to tiebreakers to see if we beat out another wildcard team right now.  The team was good enough to win, they just didn't have 'IT'

 

 

 

[Peregrine]

23 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

Those are both four year stretches so I'm not sure why you are comparing them to the last three years where we won 24.5 games.

 

1999-2001 we won 26 games, which is better... but we also had three different head coaches and four different starting QBs in those three years.

 

 

 

 

So to determine whether the past 20 some odd years have been abysmal, but things are better now we can only use 3 years instead of 4?  Thats really desperate. 

 

You implied the last 3 years were an improvement that nothing in the prior 15 matched.  Yet, using your own criteria of 3 years, 99-2001 had 26 wins, 2000-2002 had 23 wins, 2003-2005 had 21, 2005-2007 had 24 wins, all very close to the 24 wins we had.

 

To simplify even further to determine if prior years were worse or not, from 1999-2002 we averaged 8.25 wins a season. From 2004-2008 we had 7.6 wins a season.  So outside of 1-2 years from 2003-2004, and a couple of years from 2009-2010, the Bruce Allen days are the worst of the past 20 years, and the Jay Gruden days are bang average with all that failure you mentioned.  AND we did the previous records with, as you mentioned, 3 different head coaches and a QB carousel, making todays results even worse in comparison.

[OVCChairman]

11 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

So to determine whether the past 20 some odd years have been abysmal, but things are better now we can only use 3 years instead of 4?  Thats really desperate. 

 

You implied the last 3 years were an improvement that nothing in the prior 15 matched.  Yet, using your own criteria of 3 years, 99-2001 had 26 wins, 2000-2002 had 23 wins, 2003-2005 had 21, 2005-2007 had 24 wins, all very close to the 24 wins we had.

 

To simplify even further to determine if prior years were worse or not, from 1999-2002 we averaged 8.25 wins a season. From 2004-2008 we had 7.6 wins a season.  So outside of 1-2 years from 2003-2004, and a couple of years from 2009-2010, the Bruce Allen days are the worst of the past 20 years, and the Jay Gruden days are bang average with all that failure you mentioned.  AND we did the previous records with, as you mentioned, 3 different head coaches and a QB carousel, making todays results even worse in comparison.

I find myself leaning in this direction as you do.  I will admit the team is in a better place than it has been in years past, but we were in such a terrible place that almost anything resembling a business model would appear to be a level of fortune.  We're not in a special place right now.  Be it due to injury, instability, ownership, whatever the cause, we're a middle of the road team.  Detroit, Tampa Bay, San Diego, Oakland, all of us are cut from the same mold at this point.  Mid pack as a team, random success, and just as consistently, the let down.  I think our talent is going in the right direction, but I have zero faith in the F.O. to take us to the next level and give us what's needed to be an actual contender. 

[Peregrine]

On interesting tidbit related to Bruce, out of curiosity I looked up who our head Strength and Condition guy is.  Its Chad Englehart, who previously worked where?  At the Florida Tuskers with Bruce and Jay.  Bruce hired him to be the assistant S&C guy right after Bruce was hired.  Now, our injuries were fairly normal over the previous years, so what changed this past year?  Well, Chad was elevated to head S&C guy.  Also watched the only interview I found with him, he has a background of being professional weightlifter(maybe a former player would be a better base), and in that interview he talked about the strongest guy being RG3, because hes a beast in the weightroom, so hes so strong.  The often injured RG3.  Maybe the guy just equates strength with lifting weights, and that makes his players brittle? 

 

Maybe its not Bruce, maybe its Chad.  Jk, its Bruce.  But really the S&C guy needs to be fire even if it was a flukey year, for the sake of the psyche.

 

Also, Deuce Gruden was elevated to assistant S&C coach this year. This while franchise is built off the back of a arena football league team, its really amazing.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

12 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

 This while franchise is built off the back of a arena football league team, its really amazing.

I like Jay a lot, but that is really sad.

[BurgundyBooger]

18 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I like Jay a lot, but that is really sad.

 

Why? The heritage hasn't affected Sean McVay negatively.

[SkinsFTW]

19 minutes ago, BurgundyBooger said:

 

Why? The heritage hasn't affected Sean McVay negatively.

 

Because he escaped the refugee camp.

[allskinz]

I keep waiting for a news release that Bruce Allen has been released.  Vinny Cerrato take 2 needs to be relieved of his duties.  

 

Dan, you can keep paying him to figure out the stadium and stuff and dinner dates.  Get him the hell out of here.

[Tsailand]

6 hours ago, Peregrine said:

To simplify even further to determine if prior years were worse or not, from 1999-2002 we averaged 8.25 wins a season. From 2004-2008 we had 7.6 wins a season. 

 

From 2015-2017 we had 8.17 wins per season...

 

6 hours ago, Peregrine said:

So outside of 1-2 years from 2003-2004, and a couple of years from 2009-2010

 

Now you're cherrypicking to throw out the worst years?

 

 

Look, this started when someone said we've been in an "endless circle of mediocrity".  That's false.  Over the last 25 years, we've alternately been mediocre (.500) and a dumpster fire.  That averages out to a lot worse than mediocre.

[50yrSKINSfan]

On 1/1/2018 at 10:54 AM, carex said:

 

Those are very nice quote, but I'm not sure a coach like George Allen gets to comment on much.  For all his success he had a ve particular way of doing things that he wasn't interested in varying.  Vets playing today at the expense of the future and I can't find them but I recall some quotes that he had very limiting views on offense with defense and special teams wnning the games, I think it might have been Riggins saying it was like carrying a gun that wasn't fully loaded.

 

And if you're wondering my point is an unwillingness to adapt suggests he paid lip service to win at all cost without living up t it

You guys can think what you want about GHA but remember, before he came here we were a perennial losers and he showed us that you can have a winner in Washington. If I remember he beat the Giants 15 straight as Ram and Redskin coach, pos 10 straight as a Redskin. Think We can get a coach that can come close to his winning percentage? His teams came to play and they were always prepared and the years he had in DC for me were some of the most fun in my life esp the first couple. Happy new year all.

[Warhead36]

1 hour ago, allskinz said:

I keep waiting for a news release that Bruce Allen has been released.  Vinny Cerrato take 2 needs to be relieved of his duties.  

 

Dan, you can keep paying him to figure out the stadium and stuff and dinner dates.  Get him the hell out of here.

We should just move him to some random team executive role. He's here just for the stadium deal, he can do that in another job. Let someone else run the actual football ops.

[squatch66]

On 1/2/2018 at 6:24 PM, Warhead36 said:

We should just move him to some random team executive role. He's here just for the stadium deal, he can do that in another job. Let someone else run the actual football ops.

 

No he's not. Go back and read the tweet from a page or so ago. Bruce wants to hire a business executive so he can concentrate more on football ops.

 

Face it folks, Bruce isn't going anywhere. **** us all.

[OVCChairman]

9 hours ago, squatch66 said:

 

No he's not. Go back and read the tweet from a page or so ago. Bruce wants to hire a business executive so he can concentrate more on football ops.

 

Face it folks, Bruce isn't going anywhere. **** us all.

I'm not so sure about that.  Bruce has a lot going against him right now, and Snyder's PR is going to fall into question.  Reports are that the minority owners are growing tired of Bruce's lack of production with the team.  The team is seemingly at a low point in popularity and Bruce seems to be at the center of that, and the Scot grievance could be a tipping point that would be enough bad pr to push Dan to make a move. 

[squatch66]

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

I'm not so sure about that.  Bruce has a lot going against him right now, and Snyder's PR is going to fall into question.  Reports are that the minority owners are growing tired of Bruce's lack of production with the team.  The team is seemingly at a low point in popularity and Bruce seems to be at the center of that, and the Scot grievance could be a tipping point that would be enough bad pr to push Dan to make a move. 

 

I'm rooting for all of this to happen but I think it's going to take us bottoming out again for Dan to do something.

 

And even then he will probably just elevate Doug or hire another of his buddies.

 

I stand behind my previous statement. **** us all.

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 minutes ago, squatch66 said:

 

I'm rooting for all of this to happen but I think it's going to take us bottoming out again for Dan to do something.

 

And even then he will probably just elevate Doug or hire another of his buddies.

 

I stand behind my previous statement. **** us all.

My prediction is that it’s going to be 2020 before there’s a change. 

 

2018: they let go of Kirk, start Colt, draft a guy.  Bad season (4-12) but...

 

2019: Need to give Bruce/Jay another shot with the new QB.  If it totally bottoms out(2-14, 3-13), then there could be a change after 2019. However...

 

2020: Assuming they go 6-10 of better in 2019, they get another shot with their QB in his second year starting.

 

Dan,  no matter what other minority owners want, does not want to fire Bruce.

 

Bruce doesn’t want to fire Jay.

 

Alternatives is if they retain Kirk on a tag, and go 8-8, they probably let him walk and start the cycle in 2019.  Blame Kirk and try for better results with a new rookie QB.

 

 

[OVCChairman]

12 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

My prediction is that it’s going to be 2020 before there’s a change. 

 

2018: they let go of Kirk, start Colt, draft a guy.  Bad season (4-12) but...

 

2019: Need to give Bruce/Jay another shot with the new QB.  If it totally bottoms out(2-14, 3-13), then there could be a change after 2019. However...

 

2020: Assuming they go 6-10 of better in 2019, they get another shot with their QB in his second year starting.

 

Dan,  no matter what other minority owners want, does not want to fire Bruce.

 

Bruce doesn’t want to fire Jay.

 

Alternatives is if they retain Kirk on a tag, and go 8-8, they probably let him walk and start the cycle in 2019.  Blame Kirk and try for better results with a new rookie QB.

 

 

My head says Dan has every reason to make a change regarding the GM here, whether that be bring in a GM and shift Bruce's responsibilities, fire him, whatever.  I keep trying to convince myself it's possible. 

 

 

My gut tells me what you've laid out is the most likely scenario, but I'm semi-holding out hope. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

13 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

My head says Dan has every reason to make a change regarding the GM here, whether that be bring in a GM and shift Bruce's responsibilities, fire him, whatever.  I keep trying to convince myself it's possible. 

 

 

My gut tells me what you've laid out is the most likely scenario, but I'm semi-holding out hope. 

I didn't point this out, but I think Bruce and Jay are tied together.  When one goes, both go. 

 

I don't see Dan giving Bruce another shot with another coach.  I could be wrong, it's possible that Bruce might fire Jay in an attempt to save his job.  But I rather doubt it.  

 

I see a scenario playing out similar to 2009, where (eventually, probably 2020), when Dan decides to make the change, he fires Bruce towards the end of the season, hires a new GM, and then they whack Jay at the end of the season.

 

I guess I should say that there is a possibility that the team excels and there is no need to make a change.  I just don't see it, I see 9-7 at best if they get Kirk (or an approximation) signed, and 4-12 at best if it's Colt or a rookie, but I guess that's on the table.  

[OVCChairman]

1 minute ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I didn't point this out, but I think Bruce and Jay are tied together.  When one goes, both go. 

 

I don't see Dan giving Bruce another shot with another coach.  I could be wrong, it's possible that Bruce might fire Jay in an attempt to save his job.  But I rather doubt it.  

 

I see a scenario playing out similar to 2009, where (eventually, probably 2020), when Dan decides to make the change, he fires Bruce towards the end of the season, hires a new GM, and then they whack Jay at the end of the season.

 

I guess I should say that there is a possibility that the team excels and there is no need to make a change.  I just don't see it, I see 9-7 at best if they get Kirk (or an approximation) signed, and 4-12 at best if it's Colt or a rookie, but I guess that's on the table.  

I dont know about your last comment.  This particular team should have been a 9 win team, not witholding the injuries.  2 plays were the difference between 9-7 and 7-9.  If we had been healthy, this team SHOULD be a 10 win team, contending for a playoff spot.  Now I understand that a lot goes into that, and as important as Kirk is to the offense, Brown is to the defense.  He's the linchpin that takes this defense from borderline bad, to absolutely terrible.  Development would lead me to believe the defense will take a step forward with health and ability, if all things return.  Not saying it's going to be dominant, but it should be better.  Ioannidis, Allen, Fuller, Nicholson, Anderson... all a lot of inexperience and development was stunted for quite a few due to injury.  If we lose Brown and try to go Vigil / Spaight in the middle for a whole season, we absolutely could be in trouble.

 

 

But like i said, I'm mirroring this roster to next season when i say that, and a lot has to happen for this roster to remain intact... which I don't think will happen.