The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[Thinking Skins]

17 minutes ago, Art said:

@Skinsinparadise I've met Bruce behind the curtain.   When he didn't have to be political or savvy or concerned with public appearances.   i've met a lot of the Redskins people past and present in that way and I can tell you Bruce is somewhat unique in NOT being a raging dick.   Hell, I still recall from when we were negotiating with the team to take over ES the VPs in that room said, "We're a billion dollar organization and you are four guys in the back of a truck."   And we giggled, responding, "Who have somehow surpassed anything you would or could do in this venue, right?"   We really should have sold T-Shirts with that slogan :).   One problem the Redskins have had -- and I can't speak if this is uniform or not -- is the general dickishness of the people at high levels when they can reveal who they really are.

The team really hasn't taken quality of character as seriously in business folks as they have with their draft picks this year :).   At least in the past.   I'm further and further from any connection so all that could be different.   I can say Bruce is one of the genuinely nice people, when he didn't have to be, I've encountered with the group.   Snyder is the biggest prick on planet, though.   Can't argue there.   The point remains how you conduct yourself personally in your public persona also matters.   And Bruce is actually quite deferential there.   If anyone cares to look.   And that matters.

Cool story.

 

I hear so little from the people who were here pre 2005-ish and these are the kind of stories that I wonder about. My perspective has always been that there's a lot that we don't know - about everything, but in particular about the front office. Pre Bruce, I was one of the biggest proponents of a front office structure that had scouts, trusted their scouts, and used the draft so I've been kinda on cloud nine pretty much since 2008-ish, but more since 2014 when we've started having good drafts and not just good first round picks, and cut back our free agent spending. 

 

I've never met Bruce or Scot or Dan or Joe Gibbs or Vinny or a bunch of the other big names involved, except maybe getting an autograph when I was a kid at training camp. So its interesting to see the angles told from one perspective (Vinny's intelligence, Bruce's shade/character, etc). And its even more interesting to see stories to the counter, or at least show some balance. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

My perspective has always been that there's a lot that we don't know - about everything, but in particular about the front office.

 

So its interesting to see the angles told from one perspective (Vinny's intelligence, Bruce's shade/character, etc). And its even more interesting to see stories to the counter, or at least show some balance. 

2

 

Yep, completely agree. For me, it's not just that we don't often get stories to show different perspectives, we also fall into an echo chamber and go off the idea that there IS no other perspective...we "all know" what is truth and to suggest any other perspectives is probably due to being an "apologist" or "hater". I've said it before, but I hate conventional wisdom being presented as evidence of anything and the whole "where there's smoke there's fire" rationale.

[Stadium-Armory]

Show results on the field and I will be a believer. Everything else is noise.

[Riggo#44]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Bruce being bold, national media appearance in a venue that's not naturally predisposed towards him.  What next Skip Bayless?  Just by chance I recorded that episode so I'll watch shortly. 

 

 

 

That smug look on his face, supposedly according to some he's smug all the time.  Not just this time because the media loves the draft.  😀

 

 

 

 

Max Kellerman has such a punchable face. His and Snyder's just elicit such a violent response.

[Burgundy Yoda]

Lmao, Alex Smith was the secret ingrediant... I guess Andy Reid is just some schmuck. Man, we have one good draft and he comes into the limelight like a sewer rat. Tell me he didnt take full credit for this draft lol

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

Max Kellerman has such a punchable face. His and Snyder's just elicit such a violent response.

 

I've said before Kellerman is the most obnoxious Giants fan (as to the media) in my estimation.  And the dude disrespects the Redskins beyond just the name issue.   I found over the years the Giant fans more than any other NFC East team's fans (with some exceptions) to be the most arrogant and snarky about the Redskins with a weird superiority complex about it. 

 

As for some of the Bruce posts here by others, I'll respond shortly been really slammed at work today. 

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, Art said:

@Skinsinparadise I've met Bruce behind the curtain.   When he didn't have to be political or savvy or concerned with public appearances.   i've met a lot of the Redskins people past and present in that way and I can tell you Bruce is somewhat unique in NOT being a raging dick.   Hell, I still recall from when we were negotiating with the team to take over ES the VPs in that room said, "We're a billion dollar organization and you are four guys in the back of a truck."   And we giggled, responding, "Who have somehow surpassed anything you would or could do in this venue, right?"   We really should have sold T-Shirts with that slogan :).   One problem the Redskins have had -- and I can't speak if this is uniform or not -- is the general dickishness of the people at high levels when they can reveal who they really are.

The team really hasn't taken quality of character as seriously in business folks as they have with their draft picks this year :).   At least in the past.   I'm further and further from any connection so all that could be different.   I can say Bruce is one of the genuinely nice people, when he didn't have to be, I've encountered with the group.   Snyder is the biggest prick on planet, though.   Can't argue there.   The point remains how you conduct yourself personally in your public persona also matters.   And Bruce is actually quite deferential there.   If anyone cares to look.   And that matters.

 

First let me say this all brings me back some.  And makes me feel old.   I recall some of your posts many years ago where at times you defended Dan and Cerrato. I didn't always agree but I thought your posts were thought out and entertaining.  And I recall you reciting about your exchanges with Laconfora.  Entertaining stuff.  So good to see you back posting. 

 

Correct me if I am wrong but if I recall one of your points back then when defending ownership/FO was if they only got the QB position right and found a franchise guy then all would be forgiven and that would be a game changer.  I did agree with that point then and I do agree with it now.    I am bringing this back up because Dan and Bruce are about to have another shot at it.   They get it right and IMO they are out of the woods.  They get it wrong again and I think they will struggle to gain people's benefit of the doubt as usual. 

 

I've been at different junctures friendly to both Dan and Bruce especially during the Shanny era.  But all of what's happened over a long sample size has made me jaded.  But heck I am an easy mark.  If Haskins is a franchise guy and by extension they are a good team with some consistency for the first time in Dan's tenure -- then they won me over. Simple as that.  In that context, I wouldn't care if Bruce is smug or the nicest guy in the world. 😀  Just win baby.

 

As for Bruce, i am not going to drag that person into this but I know one insider type who has posted about having their own exchanges with Bruce who didn't come off with the same impression that you did.  Or if he did, it doesn't present that way at least as to how I read it.  Having said that, everyone has their own experiences so I am not discounting yours.

 

Personally, I've met Jay, Bruce, Scot and some others but not Dan.  My impression in that small sample size was Jay is a cool guy, Scot, too.  And it was so obvious that it was tough to escape.  As to Bruce I came off neutral on.  He was nice but came off like a lot of public figures I deal with at my job who know how to glad hand in short exchanges with anyone. 

 

The odd thing for me is if Bruce is a nice guy then its odd that he has made his share of enemies in the process and not just here -- let alone get almost everyone who covers him on the beat say he's generally smug and have heard he and Dan are indeed arrogant.  I get you make enemies in a competitive business.  But he seems to have more than his share.  He got labeled by someone in Tampa as the Prince of Darkness and it stuck at least to some.  One of his colleagues from Oakland is willing to take jabs at him whenever he can to this day.   According to a poll a chunk of agents apparently think he is the least trustworthy GM in the league.    There were reports in the long QB negotiation years back that Eric Schaffer was liked but Bruce wasn't liked and that hurt the negotiation. 

 

The kicker to me is this.  We can blame it on some anti-Redskins bias.  But Scot was liked by most from what I observed.  And more importantly, Cerrato for his faults would often get the disclaimer but he's a really nice guy though.  He'd rub some the wrong way (Marty?) but still if had a dollar for every time Cerrato was slammed for his competence while his personality was lauded at the same time -- I'd be a rich man.  That's not the mantra about Bruce.  His critics don't go hey Bruce might not be hot at his job but he is one cool dude that is hard not to like. 

 

The closest I've ever heard to that is a narrative from two 106.7 guys who do seem plugged in to a degree to the FO considering they've gotten their share of FO stories correctly.  And those guys defended Bruce as to the Scot story.   They've said they heard Bruce is the nicest guy in the world if you don't threaten his power or challenge him.  But if you go after him or openly disagree or are perceived as a threat to his power, he is as cutthroat and vindictive as it gets. 

 

Again, not discounting your experience with him.   We all got our own impressions of people and its all subjective.  There are no rights or wrong.   

[BleedBNG]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I've said before Kellerman is the most obnoxious Giants fan (as to the media) in my estimation.  And the dude disrespects the Redskins beyond just the name issue.   I found over the years the Giant fans more than any other NFC East team's fans (with some exceptions) to be the most arrogant and snarky about the Redskins with a weird superiority complex about it. 

 

So true. It makes him so uncredible to me about ANYTHING he talks about in the NFL. We could win the SB and he somehow would turn it around saying that the Giants (even if they ended in last place in our division) were better than "That Washington football team." 

[Art]

In the interest of space I'll just generally reply to the points that appear to be questions I can reply to @Skinsinparadise.   Yes, I've said then, before ES even existed, since, now, and probably into the future if Haskins isn't the answer, the Redskins needed to nail the QB position at which point everyone in the organization becomes an unmistakable genius we adore and build statues to.    Look at Belichick.    This is an abject failure as a coach.   Four seasons losing double digit games as a head coach.   Owner in New England not thrilled with the team's direction when magic happens.   Suddenly they are the best.   Give the Redskins, or any team, anything like Brady and, bam, they are the model organization in sports.

 

The NFL, for consistent winning and competition, requires a top level QB.   I've repeatedly said you can win without a top level QB if you have something else great, but you can't win consistently.   You can win without a top level QB who just happens to be playing at a top level for a stretch.   But to be a solid, stable organization over a long period you need a QB you can win behind and with.

As for Bruce, I'm just stating the man seems genuinely nice and deferential.   He's not Marty forcing everyone on the roster to eat the ice cream he likes or cutting Centers because he wore a baseball cap.  He's not a lordling as many are.   He's clearly not done a good enough job for us since he took over full control in 2014 and has said as much.   I fully supported moving on from Allen and the entire coaching staff at the end of this season.   I agree with you time is running out for any possible benefit of the doubt to occur.   I just know if Haskins is a Top 10 QB we'll be pretty happy with this team.   If he's a Top 5 we'll think Bruce is the best Allen in organization history.  It won't even be that difficult.   But the franchise does need more than hope to get through the next few years with how the fans feel.

And that only comes by winning.   Which we've not done nearly enough of.

 

 

[BleedBNG]

Kellerman is pissed 

 

 

[Malapropismic Depository]

If we're tryin to keep Kyle a secret, I wonder why Jay repeatedly mentioned Kyle in the presser.

Maybe he just couldn't help it.

[mh86]

3 hours ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

If we're tryin to keep Kyle a secret, I wonder why Jay repeatedly mentioned Kyle in the presser.

Maybe he just couldn't help it.

 

Probably to give credit where it was due and not to someone (Bruce) who probably had nothing to do with it

[Skinsinparadise]

4 hours ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

If we're tryin to keep Kyle a secret, I wonder why Jay repeatedly mentioned Kyle in the presser.

Maybe he just couldn't help it.

 

If you recall after the 2017 draft when asked Bruce played down Scot's influence on it.  Jay didn't do the same (neither did Scott Campbell) and when asked played up relying a lot on Scot's work.  Jay I don't think can help being honest.  It's a joke from some reporters who cover him.

 

As for the Kyle Smith drill.  According to some beat guys, I presume there is some value to keeping Kyle below the radar as much as possible since if he's offered a GM job elsewhere then the Redskins might have a dilemma.  Would they elevate Kyle to the same position here and if so would he have say over Bruce?  Bigger title over Doug?  to me it's a no brainer to do so. 

 

The nicest narrative-speculation on this front if I recall comes from Keim who thinks its in the cards to groom him to take over but want him to learn more than just college scouting to groom him for it.   Forgot who said it but one thought that Bruce wants to ride off into the sunset after getting the stadium and would then have Kyle to take over.

 

Who knows?  The interesting dynamic here is Kyle is son of apparently one of Bruce's closest friends. 

 

The whole thing feels some like the Will McClay situation in Dallas.   He's hailed as the genius behind the scenes in recent years who is making Jerry Jones look good.  But can they keep him without elevating his title?  He supposedly has defacto power over all college scouting and to a degree pro personnel, too. but he doesn't have ultimate authority.  Does he bolt to get ultimate authority.  McClay right now is arguably the bigger name than Kyle.  But Kyle might be catching up.  

 

[Llevron]

It makes me uncomfortable when hes out doing the media thing like that. I automatically assume hes lying or trying to cover for something. I know thats not fair but I feel like hes earned that rep at some level. 

 

He too much like a politician for me to trust him. I no **** worry more about the season the moment I see his face

[KDawg]

13 hours ago, Art said:

In the interest of space I'll just generally reply to the points that appear to be questions I can reply to @Skinsinparadise.   Yes, I've said then, before ES even existed, since, now, and probably into the future if Haskins isn't the answer, the Redskins needed to nail the QB position at which point everyone in the organization becomes an unmistakable genius we adore and build statues to.    Look at Belichick.    This is an abject failure as a coach.   Four seasons losing double digit games as a head coach.   Owner in New England not thrilled with the team's direction when magic happens.   Suddenly they are the best.   Give the Redskins, or any team, anything like Brady and, bam, they are the model organization in sports.

As for Bruce, I'm just stating the man seems genuinely nice and deferential.   He's not Marty forcing everyone on the roster to eat the ice cream he likes or cutting Centers because he wore a baseball cap.  He's not a lordling as many are.   He's clearly not done a good enough job for us since he took over full control in 2014 and has said as much.   I fully supported moving on from Allen and the entire coaching staff at the end of this season.   I agree with you time is running out for any possible benefit of the doubt to occur.   I just know if Haskins is a Top 10 QB we'll be pretty happy with this team.   If he's a Top 5 we'll think Bruce is the best Allen in organization history.  It won't even be that difficult.   But the franchise does need more than hope to get through the next few years with how the fans feel.

 

Agreed with the top point. But what Brady did for the Patriots and Belichick was it bought Belichick some time to build continuity. I am fully confident the Patriots, with a decent QB (not HoF) can still be a force simply because of the system and philosophy that Belichick has installed there. But if it weren't for Brady, Belichick may not have ever had the time to do it. The NFL doesn't give coaches the opportunity to install their systems because they're gone in two to three years. Brady allowed Belichick that time.

 

On the Bruce thoughts, if he let Kyle Smith really take over the draft, it's a sign he's "learning" and utilizing his people. The draft was a very positive step for this team in my opinion. I'm still not sold on Bruce Allen. The guy has buried us with bad decisions for years. But so far I think he's done well this offseason.

[ixcuincle]

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Just reading Brewer's article. I agree with him about going low-risk high floor a bit too much.  The Alex Smith trade IMO exemplifies that approach well.   The exception being they do gamble on injured players and that's a risk.  But I think they departed from the conservative approach this time.   

 

Going for Haskins and taking the rodeo at QB again -- risky

Montez Sweat (who some supposedly still had off their board with health concerns) risky

Bryce Love -- risky. 

 

I like though all the risks.  i am not celebrating in advance.  The celebrating the off season whether it's the draft or FA -- been there and done that.  IMO you can't bank on squat until the movie is run.   However, I do like the method to the madness now we will see how it plays out.  I think they swung for the fences this time.  And I like that.

 

We all got our personal peeves and wants for our favorite sports franchises.  For me, the team hasn't been able to do four things under Dan.

 

1.  Get an all star stud in the draft (aside from Trent and RG3 for one season).  I mean a Beckham, Julio Jones, Von Miller type.  Just a killer elite player that's talked about around the league.  I think that has been also a sneaky reason why they've struggled with attendance, TV ratings and are losing interest from the NFL as for being a prime time TV attraction. The thing is if you aren't winning -- for casual fans they are then looking to see a guy play.  For the Giants, its hey they might be losers but lets go see Beckham or Barkley. 

 

2.  Draft and develop a stud QB or somehow obtain and maintain stud Qb play which clearly has been the bane of this franchise under Dan.  

 

3.  Elite Pass Rusher.   Kerrigan is steady and very good but IMO not elite.

 

4. Draft and develop a stud receiver

 

I think that have a shot at accomplishing all 4 items this off season maybe with the exception of receiver albeit i like both receivers they took.  Sweat IMO is the highest upside player they've drafted at pass rusher.     I am not a big Haskins guy but what I do know -- Qb is a crap shoot so if they get that one right, it will change the franchise.

 

So IMO they've taken some long swings.  I am not celebrating it because its not about whether we or name that draft geek think in advance about whether it will work out but whether it really works out.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/the-redskins-are-gathering-useful-pieces-can-they-build-something-with-them/2019/04/30/43df0314-6b8d-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.551d47c8d2b0

Still, they haven’t won big. Why?

The optimist in me wants to offer the theory that, because the franchise has been out of whack for so long, it has taken more time than usual to get right. Perhaps it has taken twice as long as the typical three-year process. Perhaps slow and gradual was needed in this case. It’s possible that, with Haskins to groom and a defense that could feature seven or eight defensive starters ages 26 and under this season, the foundation is finally as solid as it needs to be.

If that were the case, it would be wonderful because the same-ol’-Skins narrative is turning old and wrinkly. But it’s not that simple, of course. Stop looking for sunshine, and there are concerns.

As I’ve written before, the process has been extended because the franchise has made safe picks — low ceiling, high floor 

[Skinsinparadise]

This is a good headline I think to summarize the post Gibbs era -- both before Dan and through his tenure.   If there is a title to Dan's struggles to win, the Keim headline below I think sums it up well.  Giving up a gazillion draft picks, bad trades, millions wasted.  That's why I think Haskins really has it all on his shoulders.  He pulls it off then all of the mishaps leading up to it would likely be let go.  But if he gets it wrong, it will compound all the other mishaps.

 

Personally I think you got to keep swinging at QB regardless of past mistakes.   I wanted to swing for a young QB (and not go for a veteran) last year. And if they missed so be it.   The Browns IMO have been neck and neck with Dan and staff as for screwing up the QB position but looks like they finally got it right last year or so it seems and now all of a sudden they are relevant again.  Hopefully, it's the same ride for us.   I don't mean this sarcastically but I seriously think the law of averages has to kick in at some point.  I know each decision at QB is mutually exclusive from the other.   But what are the odds that a team can get it wrong so many times and in so many ways.  Eventually, you'd think even if it's about bad instincts or whatever -- just pure dumb luck would kick in eventually.  

 

 

Dwayne Haskins ready to shoulder 27 years of Redskins QB futility

[hatchetwound]

love, Love, LOVE, LOVE this draft!!!!  Waited and got our franchise QB without wasting picks, then made a smart move up to get Sweat and didn't overpay. 

 

And last years draft looks REALLY promising so far as well.

 

 

 

Dare I say... time to extend Bruce?

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

22 hours ago, Stadium-Armory said:

Show results on the field and I will be a believer. Everything else is noise.

 

Winning does cure all, which is one reason I tend to pay more attention to the moves being made than by the people making the moves.

[Skinsinparadise]

17 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Winning does cure all, which is one reason I tend to pay more attention to the moves being made than by the people making the moves.

 

If the context is winning cures all -- we all know the moves have to play out first.   We've had victory lap off seasons before.  Actually, we've had a lot of them.   Let's see if it translates to actually winning.  I am not cynical about it or upbeat.  I am agnostic because in my view it so depends on Haskins and he's a tough gauge for me.  i like the moves from this last draft but to me its all theoretical right now.    Brewer's article sums it well for me (though I disagree with some of his points) which is moves that we've liked over the years hasn't really added up to a bottom line macro winning formula.

 

But I am in the school of thought (and I got plenty of company on it so nothing earth shattering) that you can build yourself a good roster but if you don't have a franchise QB, you aren't going to find consistent success.   Simple as that.

 

So no pressure Dwayne Haskins.    But he's the dude who can change that fortune dramatically  or put them right back on the treadmill they are used to being on.  He's IMO the tipping point one way or another. 

 

I don't think Haskins' dad is off predicting a Super Bowl soon if he's a really good QB.  They have enough of a supporting cast to be close IMO if they had a stud QB.  Still need a #1 WR and TE and FS.  But otherwise they have a good roster IMO.  QB is key. 

[TSO]

The argument that you need a legit QB to succeed in a sustainable manner is sound, but I think what often gets lost, glossed over, or ignored is how much the organization/environment itself has to do with one emerging. 

 

What I’ve come to understand about this after a lot of research on it is that there is essentially a baseline of talent necessary for a QB to have (accuracy, pocket presence/elusiveness, and leadership are the biggest things), but once that baseline is there it really comes down to these 5 criteria for an organization to find or have one emerge: 

 

• A) Sound FO (I believe this is the most significant factor to the rest of the criteria below being implemented properly)
• B ) Resources Willingly* Spent 
• C) Stable System of Development
• D) Patience (with the right guy once he starts)
• E) Wisdom to know when to move on (from the wrong guy)

 

* "Willingly" here is meant to imply that they brought in QBs without necessarily having an immediate need or due to injury, as well as the willingness to spend valuable resources on the position, not just an undrafted FA here and there or something, or even a cheap veteran Free Agent backup. 

 

I made a thread a few years ago going over many examples of this in the NFL. But for the sake of time a quick, recent and very relevant example of this would be Kirk Cousins’ emergence here. Virtually every criterion was met.

 

 It only happened as a result of: 

 

1) Scot’s role at the time (which speaks to a sound organizational structure/process);

 

2) The resources willingly spent on the position (not only acquiring RG3 in 2012, but taking him in the 4th because of the value they had assigned to him - a 2nd round grade);

 

3) Having been in Gruden’s offense for a year as well as having previously been in an offense under the Shanny’s that largely employed the same passing concepts (which gave him a somewhat stable system of development) and, finally; 

 

4) Patience in sticking with him once he was deemed the 2015 starter as the questions and pressure mounted (which culminated in the Tampa game). 

 

Of course, none of that matters if Kirk didn’t have that baseline of talent to emerge, which would’ve then involved the 5th criterion of knowing when to move on. 

 

It’s too early to be sure, but I do think Haskins has that baseline. At least, he did in college. We’ve seen just how often it doesn’t translate to the pros where everyone is bigger, faster and smarter. But there’s a lot there to suggest he does have it and it will translate. 

 

The bigger question now is, are the other criteria going to be met? 

 

I really would rather not get into the soundness of our FO/organizational process right now. I think most know at this point how I feel about it and it’s a big reason why I largely stay away from discussing the Skins in general. 

 

Criterion 2 has certainly been met. He’s a first rounder, which alone would’ve been enough, but he comes after having spent large amounts of cap space, a 3rd rounder, and a young defensive stud on both Kirk and Alex the last few years. 

 

Criterion 3 will depend on Jay’s status with the team. The timing is off here, as he’s entering his second to last year on his contract and it’s unlikely he’ll coach without an extension. If it were up to me I’d extend his contract one more year right now to ensure he has, at least, through 2020 to allow Haskins to develop under him. The fear could be that Jay simply doesn’t care about Haskins’ development if he knows he’s a dead coach walking, but Jay for all intents and purposes has proven to be a good guy and a good soldier, even when he doesn’t get what he wants... so it’s doubtful he’ll be an hindrance. 

 

If not extended, then the key will be what they do after he’s let go. The good news is, Jay’s offense is sound and applicable to any modern, pro-offense. So the field is expansive in terms of finding a new coach who will continue to provide a stable and consistent system of development for Haskins that doesn’t radically shift Jay’s approach. 

 

Criteria 4 and 5 will have to do with 1, of course, and that all remains to be seen. 

 

But, hey, it’s going to be fascinating to watch. Which is more than I can say for what’s gone on the last year or so. 

[Riggo#44]

12 hours ago, BleedBNG said:

Kellerman is pissed 

 

He's such an idiot. That show panders to the lowest common denominator. On one of the scouting videos, it claimed that Stephen A. Smith said Haskins was more of a runner than a passer...

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

The argument that you need a legit QB to succeed in a sustainable manner is sound, but I think what often gets lost, glossed over, or ignored is how much the organization/environment itself has to do with one emerging. 

 

 

I agree.  I guess part of the reason why I hang so much hope on the QB is my view if there is one thing that maybe could override mistakes at the top is stellar QB play.  But in order for a Qb to have success clearly they need a supporting cast -- I am talking about that on the Haskins thread but not here.  So saying it's all about the QB is hyperbole on my end.   My point though is they've struggled so hard at that position that if they finally turned the page on that front -- I think its our best shot to change the fortunes of the franchise.

 

I am with you as what you think of Dan-Bruce and like you I am not in the mood to harp on that in the mix of the my point.   But I would give them props if they finally got the position right especially because i do like other parts of this roster.  So I genuinely think if Haskins is the goods they have a shot in the near future to compete for the big dance.  However I do agree that I like their chances a lot more if they can improve their culture -- and I do think the owner doesn't get how to build a winning culture to say the least. 

 

During Dan's tenure they at different times built a decent team but they've almost always failed at developing a strong passing game.  It's a passing league.  It's the main plot.  It would be like saying a restaurant can really cook a mean baked potato, their warm bread appetizer is second to none and their salads are excellent but stay away from the main courses. 

 

The only time we've had a little consistent success was arguably when the passing game relatively speaking was doing well (2015-2016) and shocker it was our only run under Dan for 2 winning seasons (albeit barely) in a row.    But we are back to square one.     And I am not just talking QB.   We've had almost equal bad play at receiver.   The peak on that front was that same 2 years -- Crowder, Garcon, D. Jax.     If I recall NFL.com one year ranked our WR crew in the top 5 of the league or close to it.  Now they ranked us 2nd to last.

 

Fixing QB and to a lesser extent receiver would be a boon -- and would be unique for the Dan era.  

[goskins10]

25 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

The argument that you need a legit QB to succeed in a sustainable manner is sound, but I think what often gets lost, glossed over, or ignored is how much the organization/environment itself has to do with one emerging. 

 

Edit

 

Had nothing to add just glad for the TSO sighting!    

 

I do agree with your points. I guess I will add one minor thing in support - in terms of resources you could argue they spent a third rd draft pick on the QB since they took one of Haskins primary targets from Ohio State in McLaurin and someone that was a leader on their offense.