The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[Riggo#44]

27 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Why is 11 wins the measure and not 10? Both are double-digit wins.

 

Ok which would you prefer? 3 Div titles, 2 playoff wins in ~20 years? 5 winning seasons?

 

Any way you frame it, we've been one of the least successful franchises in the league.

 

Do it on the field, then talk.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

25 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I know this isn't directed at me but I'll give you my take.😀  If your point is Dan's era has deeper issues than not winning 11 games I agree.   Mind you the 1999 team he mostly inherited. 

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/executives/SnydDa0.htm

Team Results

 

• Glossary

Year	Tm	Lg	Job Title	W	L	T	W-L%	W plyf	L plyf	Playoff Result
	Total		20 Years	139	180	1		2	5
1999	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	10	6	0	.625	1	1	Lost Div
2000	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	8	8	0	.500	0	0
2001	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	8	8	0	.500	0	0
2002	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	7	9	0	.438	0	0
2003	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	5	11	0	.313	0	0
2004	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	6	10	0	.375	0	0
2005	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	10	6	0	.625	1	1	Lost Div
2006	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	5	11	0	.313	0	0
2007	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	9	7	0	.563	0	1	Lost WC
2008	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	8	8	0	.500	0	0
2009	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	4	12	0	.250	0	0
2010	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	6	10	0	.375	0	0
2011	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	5	11	0	.313	0	0
2012	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	10	6	0	.625	0	1	Lost WC
2013	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	3	13	0	.188	0	0
2014	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	4	12	0	.250	0	0
2015	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	9	7	0	.563	0	1	Lost WC
2016	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	8	7	1	.531	0	0
2017	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	7	9	0	.438	0	0
2018	Washington Redskins	NFL	Principal Owner	7	9	0	.438

2

 

Well, my point was that not winning 11 games isn't an issue at all lol...it doesn't reflect the state of the Redskins over the last 26 years (including pre-Snyder) any better than if they had won 11 games in 2 of those 26 years. I'm taking an edumacated guess that nobody's view of Snyder, Allen or the state of the franchise would be one iota different than it is now if we did the "broken clock is right twice a day" achievement of 11 wins dropped in once or twice amid all the mediocrity.

 

The Browns won 11 games one time over that timespan....There's no part of me that thinks it means anything to their fans lol...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

8 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

Ok which would you prefer? 3 Div titles, 2 playoff wins in ~20 years? 5 winning seasons?

 

Any way you frame it, we've been one of the least successful franchises in the league.

 

Do it on the field, then talk.

 

Oh, I don't disagree with you one iota on that.

 

I just think the 11-win barometer holds zero value outside of being used as a tool for criticizing the team. It's a bit like being lost at sea in an inflatable raft that has a slow leak you keep finding ways to temporarily patch up...and then complaining that the raft being an ugly shade of green is just more evidence of how ****ty your situation is lol...I'm pretty sure it would be the same level of ****ty regardless of if it were a nice lime green instead.

[Riggo#44]

25 minutes ago, Art said:

Hire and provide.

 

Who has he hired? Vinny Cerrato--twice. The second time, he fired John Schenider-- Super Bowl winning GM (and maybe should have won 2) of the Seahawks.

He hired Jim Zorn (or allowed Cerrato to--who he did hire). He hired Gibbs and saddled him with Cerrato.

 

He hired Shanahan. He hired Bruce Allen--who, to his credit, has elevated us all the way to mediocrity. Yay!

 

I'm not going to get into all the rumors regarding RGIII, b/c who the **** knows--but they are very believable.

 

I love our draft. I love our last couple of drafts. If Haskins develops, I'll be ecstatic. But I'll credit Jay and the staff more than I will Snyder and Allen.

 

We're still one of the least successful franchises in Snyder's reign. When that changes, I'll give him and Allen credit. Not until then.

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Oh, I don't disagree with you one iota on that.

 

Ok, good. Then I totally misread your tone. It's been a long day, and I am feeling extra snarky tonight.

[Art]

The Zorn hire was his most ludicrous hire by far.    I can't argue there.   Cerrato, for your dislike, was ideal for Gibbs as he worked how Gibbs wanted and Gibbs talked highly of him.   Snyder has hired Marty, Spurrier, Gibbs and Shanny as pretty top level hires at the time made.   None worked out largely because none found a QB -- and well, because Marty was a lunatic.   Gruden was a "normal" NFL hire who has been given more patience than most would think acceptable.    Really, only Zorn was a completely off the wall hiring and I know the team felt Gibbs kind of hung them out on that with the timing of his departure and not having provided them advance time to start the process earlier.   But that wasn't because Gibbs was upset with anyone, it was because he knew he couldn't do that job anymore.   Generally though you can't fault Snyder's hires.   

I know exactly what happened with the RGIII thing because Shanny's contract was lord of all things.   That's not a guess.   The league knows this as well, which is why Shanny was never given another sniff.   He can't go out and say, "Gosh and golly, this guy made me...." when the NFL office has his contract on file expressly saying HE had the only say in the organization.   He tried to salvage his poor handling and thankfully it didn't work.   He's the classic definition of a worm.   Marty, for his flaws, was more Robert Baretheon.   Shanny was Littlefinger.   Gibbs, part 2, was Tommen I think :).   Maybe that's Gruden :).

If Haskins works out I'll join you in not crediting Snyder, but will credit Allen and the personnel side who set the board and made the pick.   Gruden is super fine with Haskins, but does not really control that element of the organization so would not get a ton of credit for it.

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Well, my point was that not winning 11 games isn't an issue at all lol...it doesn't reflect the state of the Redskins over the last 26 years (including pre-Snyder) any better than if they had won 11 games in 2 of those 26 years. I'm taking an edumacated guess that nobody's view of Snyder, Allen or the state of the franchise would be on iota different than it is now if we did the "broken clock is right twice a day" achievement of 11 wins dropped in once or twice amid all the mediocrity.

 

The Browns won 11 games one time over that timespan....There's no part of me that thinks it means anything to their fans lol...

 

Agree about the Browns 10-11 win analogy.   I think for me it's not so much 11 wins but the losing.  If I had to stick to the 11 win thing, the one thing bothers me about it -- is that it shouldn't be an elusive goal.   Let's just look at our division rivals alone.  Eagles hit 11 or more wins seasons during Dan's time -- SEVEN times.  That's insane.  Cowboys did it 4 times.  Giants did it 4 times.  All of those teams also surpassed 11 wins in that mix and done 12 wins or more.

 

The one that floats my boat as to criticism is they have finished next to last or last in 75% for the time Dan has had the team -- with more last place finishes then next to last.  

 

My thing about Dan's era is I figure he's just due because of the law of averages.  You'd figure they'd eventually win 11 games.  Or after their gazillion or so it feels attempts at the QB spot -- they finally get it right. 

 

When some do experiments with picking stocks for example -- you can use a computer model that just randomly picks stocks without any methodology behind it and some of those random picks will be hits.  Statistically speaking it's not easy to do what they've done during Dan's tenure on a number of fronts.  I figure and hope they are due for some good luck whether it's by design or just random good fortune.  😀

 

While I am unsure about Haskins, I do like that at least its a lottery ticket.  It gives us a chance.  What are the odds they can get another one wrong?  😀

[Riggo#44]

7 minutes ago, Art said:

Cerrato, for your dislike, was ideal for Gibbs as he worked how Gibbs wanted and Gibbs talked highly of him. ...Generally though you can't fault Snyder's hires.   

 

Cerrato was a buffoon who tried to trade 2 1st round picks for aging Chad Johnson. Those picks turned into Brian Orakpo and Trent Williams. Signed Haynesworth. I mean, the list can go on and on. He was an idiot. Snyder kept him around for 10 years.

 

I can and will fault Snyder for his hires--because they haven't worked.  Hindsight 20/20, sure. But the common denominator is Snyder.

[Art]

2 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

Cerrato was a buffoon who tried to trade 2 1st round picks for aging Chad Johnson. Those picks turned into Brian Orakpo and Trent Williams. Signed Haynesworth. I mean, the list can go on and on. He was an idiot. Snyder kept him around for 10 years.

 

I can and will fault Snyder for his hires--because they haven't worked.  Hindsight 20/20, sure. But the common denominator is Snyder.

 

So, Cerrato is terrible because he tried to (but didn't) trade two firsts for Chad Johnson, but NOT GOOD for making those picks Orakpo and Williams?   Neat little universe you got there.   Haynesworth is a bit of a special case certainly.   That actually was mostly Snyder and remains Snyder's worst actual move because he misjudged both Haynesworth's character, and Greg Blache's adaptability.   The point remains, if Haskins is the answer, suddenly taking us to great heights, will Gruden become a better hire than Gibbs?   Nope.   He'll just be here when the lotto ticket was bought is all.   And that's not on Snyder unless you WANT Snyder to make that pick for us.   And I suspect you don't.    Of course, some think he just made this one, which is false, but if it were true, and it works, would you even say thanks?

[Riggo#44]

3 minutes ago, Art said:

So, Cerrato is terrible because he tried to (but didn't) trade two firsts for Chad Johnson, but NOT GOOD for making those picks Orakpo and Williams?   Neat little universe you got there.

 

Shanahan made the Williams pick. It was the 2010 draft--Cerrato was fired in December 2009.

 

The only reason that trade wasn't made was because Marvin Lewis kept saying no: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/the-redskins-once-offered-two-no-1-picks-for-chad-ochocinco/2011/05/25/AGnj6KBH_blog.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e0e425bcbbae

 

Quote

Cerrato asked Cincinnati Enquirer beat writer Joe Reedy. “I mean, I was part of trying to trade for Chad Ochocinco, and when they said no, they meant no. And Marvin [Lewis] would have done it. Two No. 1s, that’s exactly what it was. And I talked to Katie Blackburn’s husband all the time, and he just said listen. I talked to him at the owners’ meetings, and I called him. He said no is no, quit calling, we’re not trading him....

 

[Malapropismic Depository]

Interesting tidbits I just discovered.

 

Our latest boy wonder, Kyle Smith was a wide receiver in college...just like Sean McVay.

Also, although not quite as interesting, they're only a year apart in age.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Riggo#44 said:

Ok, good. Then I totally misread your tone. It's been a long day, and I am feeling extra snarky tonight.

 

 

LOL...I've been there.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

When some do experiments with picking stocks for example -- you can use a computer model that just randomly picks stocks without any methodology behind it and some of those random picks will be hits.  Statistically speaking it's not easy to do what they've done during Dan's tenure on a number of fronts.  I figure and hope they are due for some good luck whether it's by design or just random good fortune.  😀

 

 

Stretch it back to 6 years before Snyder took the reins lol...that's a long-ass time for a franchise to miss that mark.

 

Your stocks analogy/example/whatever the correct term is, reminds me of a movie I saw as a kid called "Man On A Swing" about the true story of a psychic who wanted to help the police solve a murder (creepy movie). Cop doesn't buy the psychic shtick, some expert suggests having the psychic come in for a test--like 20 sealed envelopes were on a table and the psychic had to determine which envelopes belonged together--something like he had to pair the contents of each sealed envelope up with a crime or something. Anyway, he acts all weird and creepy, finishes the test and immediately leaves. Cop asks the expert how he did. Expert says "He got them all wrong." Cop says "Well, there ya go, he's faking it." Expert says "Not really. Even if someone blindly guessed which envelope should go where, they'd get at least one or two right. If he got none right, that may mean he does have abilities." (or words to that effect). That scene stuck with me for, what...40 years? lol...just how difficult it is to fail every single ****ing time over a ton of attempts, and that it may say something about the person doing all the failing other than "they suck."

 

I have no idea what is keeping this blind franchise from ever stumbling upon a nut lol...but maybe it's actually a sign of...organizational genius!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

Honestly, though...as long as we win a Super Bowl before the Cowboys, I'm good lol...

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, Art said:

I know exactly what happened with the RGIII thing because Shanny's contract was lord of all things.   That's not a guess.   The league knows this as well, which is why Shanny was never given another sniff.   He can't go out and say, "Gosh and golly, this guy made me...." when the NFL office has his contract on file expressly saying HE had the only say in the organization.   He tried to salvage his poor handling and thankfully it didn't work.   He's the classic definition of a worm.   Marty, for his flaws, was more Robert Baretheon.   Shanny was Littlefinger.   Gibbs, part 2, was Tommen I think :).   Maybe that's Gruden :).

1

 

It had never occurred to me about Shanahan's contract being on file with the league office lol...

[Malapropismic Depository]

I've been watching interviews with Kyle, who actually looks like another Kyle...Shanahan.

Anyhow, our Kyle is super sharp.

Knows a lot, about a lot of things.

I sure hope we find a way to keep him.

[mojo]

27 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

I've been watching interviews with Kyle, who actually looks like another Kyle...Shanahan.

Anyhow, our Kyle is super sharp.

Knows a lot, about a lot of things.

I sure hope we find a way to keep him.

 I hope we do too but unless the front front office dysfunction somehow subsides, I doubt we do.  He will go be an asset to another team while we struggle to find a replacement.  This whole Bruce Allen media tour just solidies that thought.   Where was he in the media to defend his decision to sign Reuben Foster?   Nope, hey Jay and Doug, you take those arrows.. Now the media likes us so I will be on TV more than Andy Griffith reruns.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

18 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

This is the type of tone-deaf **** that drives me crazy. Yes, there is more to the article than just the one line--but he's literally the worst owner in the NFL, and one of the worst in all of sports.

 

 

If you think about Dan Snyder's personal arch rather than his impact on the Redskins, he IS a huge success story. From average guy to billionaire owner. That's American success to its core. 

 

Do I think he's particularly smart or a good owner? Nope. Is he a great example of the American Dream? Absolutely. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

16 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Well, my point was that not winning 11 games isn't an issue at all lol...it doesn't reflect the state of the Redskins over the last 26 years (including pre-Snyder) any better than if they had won 11 games in 2 of those 26 years. I'm taking an edumacated guess that nobody's view of Snyder, Allen or the state of the franchise would be one iota different than it is now if we did the "broken clock is right twice a day" achievement of 11 wins dropped in once or twice amid all the mediocrity.

 

The Browns won 11 games one time over that timespan....There's no part of me that thinks it means anything to their fans lol...

 

I agree completely. But I don't think people use 11 games as some magical barometer of success as much as it's a different and creative way to describe the lack of success...it's framing to highlight a point. 

 

Let me take a stab at something more recent (and attempting to show the opposite)...

 

In the final game of 2017 we had a shot to finish 8-8. We were 5-8 at one point and out of the playoff hunt for a month, so the fact that we lost to NY didn't really matter except for one thing. Had we won, some could have said that this was the first time since the early-90s that we had put together 3 consecutive NON-LOSING seasons. Is anything much different about 7-9 and 8-8 in 2017? No, but parsing it out in that context allows you to attempt to make a point. I see the "they haven't won 11 games since...." argument as exactly the same thing. 

[Riggo#44]

31 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

If you think about Dan Snyder's personal arch rather than his impact on the Redskins, he IS a huge success story. From average guy to billionaire owner. That's American success to its core. 

 

Do I think he's particularly smart or a good owner? Nope. Is he a great example of the American Dream? Absolutely. 

 

Through shady, shady means...

[JoeJacobyHOForRIOT]

I like Bruce Allen better than Vinny Cerrato .

 

I got ya back Bruce

[Thinking Skins]

54 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I agree completely. But I don't think people use 11 games as some magical barometer of success as much as it's a different and creative way to describe the lack of success...it's framing to highlight a point. 

 

Let me take a stab at something more recent (and attempting to show the opposite)...

 

In the final game of 2017 we had a shot to finish 8-8. We were 5-8 at one point and out of the playoff hunt for a month, so the fact that we lost to NY didn't really matter except for one thing. Had we won, some could have said that this was the first time since the early-90s that we had put together 3 consecutive NON-LOSING seasons. Is anything much different about 7-9 and 8-8 in 2017? No, but parsing it out in that context allows you to attempt to make a point. I see the "they haven't won 11 games since...." argument as exactly the same thing. 

 

The whole question about us turning the corner will depend on a lot of things but look at a bunch of teams who had similar stretches and they did turn it around: 
Dallas after 3 straight years of 8-8 football; 
the Rams after 2 7-9's, a 6-10 and another 7-9, 
the Texans after 2 straight 8-8s then a 6-10, 
The Texans again after 3 straight 9-7s
the Titans after 3 straight 9-7 seasons
the Seahawks after 2 straight 7-9 seasons

 

Nothing is imminent, and a lot of its about finding the right pieces, in particular a QB. @Art said it best. Something like a defense and running game can keep you competitive and away from going into the top 5 picks in the draft, but in order to sustain success over any period of time you need a QB. And what most of these teams have in common is that they all seemed to have found their QB to help break them out of this mediocrity. 

 

But I think Bruce was right in his interview yesterday that this place is a good place to groom a QB. Its probably not best that Gruden is in his last year, but the fact that we have a lot of guys here who have been here and know the system, we have a coach here who (whether you think he's a good coach or not) he's not new to the rodeo and so he's not going to be making first year HC mistakes, and on top of that he's a coach who has groomed multiple young QBs before (Dalton and Cousins), one as a rookie who took them to the playoffs. 
 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

@Thinking Skins

 

I agree with the points in your post above. But, I'm not really sure it is relevant to the point I was TRYING to make. All I meant to highlight was that people are picking the lowest possible win total that we haven't reached in the 25+ years and using it as a threshold to demonstrate our long run of failure. To your point, 11 isn't some magic number. If we were to go 11-5 and finish as the 3-seed in 2019, the new talking point would be "The Redskins haven't earned a first-round bye in the playoffs since 1991"

 

It's just the way people frame arguments or try to strengthen points. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

57 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

Through shady, shady means...

 

I'm not arguing for the guy as a character witness...simply stating that anyone who ascends from average joe to NFL owner qualifies as a success story. Granted, if he did something illegal to get there, that changes things. If he played in the margins, he wouldn't be any different than many other guys who become wealthy. 

[Riggo#44]

1 minute ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I'm not arguing for the guy as a character witness...simply stating that anyone who ascends from average joe to NFL owner qualifies as a success story. Granted, if he did something illegal to get there, that changes things. If he played in the margins, he wouldn't be any different than many other guys who become wealthy. 

 

I was thinking the same thing...

[Dissident2]

Interesting interview with Diana Russini on the Sheehan podcast earlier this week, where she goes into detail about the "war room" leading up to and during the draft. She was the one who acquired the leaked info that Snyder and Allen were dictating Haskins as their guy despite some push back from "the football people" who would've preferred going a different route with the 15th pick. She spoke of "certain guys" being upset after the pick, some of them saying to her, "Why are we here if they're not going to listen to us?" Those were her words, so take that as you will. 

 

She did say that trading up to get Sweat "put salve on the wound" for those who were disgruntled, insinuating the Jay was probably one of those people. 

 

Anyway, it was an interesting listen. Personally, I like the pick (and pretty much the entire draft at this early point), and I'm obviously hoping it works out with Haskins, but if Russini's reports are accurate, it's clearly not a tight-knit, trusting environment between coaches, management and ownership in that building. In other words, business as usual. And that's never a good thing. Jay's got his work cut out for him this year, that's for sure. 

[CapsSkins]

15 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

Interesting interview with Diana Russini on the Sheehan podcast earlier this week, where she goes into detail about the "war room" leading up to and during the draft. She was the one who acquired the leaked info that Snyder and Allen were dictating Haskins as their guy despite some push back from "the football people" who would've preferred going a different route with the 15th pick. She spoke of "certain guys" being upset after the pick, some of them saying to her, "Why are we here if they're not going to listen to us?" Those were her words, so take that as you will. 

 

She did say that trading up to get Sweat "put salve on the wound" for those who were disgruntled, insinuating the Jay was probably one of those people. 

 

Anyway, it was an interesting listen. Personally, I like the pick (and pretty much the entire draft at this early point), and I'm obviously hoping it works out with Haskins, but if Russini's reports are accurate, it's clearly not a tight-knit, trusting environment between coaches, management and ownership in that building. In other words, business as usual. And that's never a good thing. Jay's got his work cut out for him this year, that's for sure. 

 

@Art does this sound like agenda-driven sensationalizing or accurate report of nasty internal dissent?

 

All I know about Diana is Mrs. McCloughan's tweets, which themselves are of dubious credibility, so hard to contextualize her reporting effectively...