Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

Makaveli

By Makaveli
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted

Advice from football insiders about how to improve the game

 

 

 

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/05/20/25-ways-improve-nfl-fmia-peter-king/?cid=fmiatw

 

Mark Leibovich: Put Bad Ownership Up For a Public Vote

Chief national correspondent, New York Times Magazine. Author, “Big Game: The NFL in Dangerous Times”

If I could change one rule in the NFL—and I realize this would never happen in the real world but what the hell—I would put in a rule that owners need to stand for re-election every five years. Anyone who lived in the jurisdiction where the team plays, or who purchased a ticket to a home game in the last calendar year, would be eligible to vote, either “approve” or “disapprove,” on the owners’ performance. If an owner receives less than 35-percent approval, he or she would be forced to sell the franchise within 90 days, and that new owner would be forbidden from moving the team. As citizens in a democracy, one of the few remedies we have against corruption, incompetence, arrogance, etc. is to vote. As football fans, we have no such right. Instead, we are subjected to the monopolistic whims of unelected oligarchs in our communities. In many cases they are greedy idiots. They wield largely unchecked power over the fortunes of players, fans, local politicians, even their own “commissioner.” Until now.

See you on Election Day, Mr. Snyder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted

this is the same dude that some here touted (including me) years backs.  Put a stud personnel guy in charge and get out of their way and give them a few years to get it together.  From what I recall he had a rough opening year (would Dan have the patience for that?) and then took off. 

 

They should do the same with Kyle Smith.  And you got to ride the valleys with the peaks because you'll have the valleys with anyone.  Even John Schneider has bad drafts as part of the soup.  It's about the long game IMO.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dont Taze Me Bro

Dont Taze Me Bro

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

It's amazing and ****ing tragic how wildly the paths of the colts and the redskins have diverged since they were picking #1 and #2 in the draft. If only they had picked you know who instead and we had gotten Luck.

 

If Luck had entered the draft in 2011 things would have been way different.  The Panthers said if Luck enters the draft, they were taking him #1 overall.  Imagine what kind of alternate reality that might have caused, if the teams that drafted QBs in the first round that year in the order they went off the boards.  Cam would be a Titan, Locker a Jaguar, etc.

 

That domino effect could have us getting us Dalton, Kap or Ponder in the second round instead of Jenkins.......

 

The next year, Colts wind up with RGIII, we never trade up because we took our QB in 2011 and etc. etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Advice from football insiders about how to improve the game

 

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/05/20/25-ways-improve-nfl-fmia-peter-king/?cid=fmiatw

 

Mark Leibovich: Put Bad Ownership Up For a Public Vote

Chief national correspondent, New York Times Magazine. Author, “Big Game: The NFL in Dangerous Times”

If I could change one rule in the NFL—and I realize this would never happen in the real world but what the hell—I would put in a rule that owners need to stand for re-election every five years. Anyone who lived in the jurisdiction where the team plays, or who purchased a ticket to a home game in the last calendar year, would be eligible to vote, either “approve” or “disapprove,” on the owners’ performance. If an owner receives less than 35-percent approval, he or she would be forced to sell the franchise within 90 days, and that new owner would be forbidden from moving the team. As citizens in a democracy, one of the few remedies we have against corruption, incompetence, arrogance, etc. is to vote. As football fans, we have no such right. Instead, we are subjected to the monopolistic whims of unelected oligarchs in our communities. In many cases they are greedy idiots. They wield largely unchecked power over the fortunes of players, fans, local politicians, even their own “commissioner.” Until now.

See you on Election Day, Mr. Snyder.

1

 

 

Oh, God, that would be horrible on SO many levels and in a multitude of ways...this Leibovich guy didn't think things through very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Who has been vindicated to hated, etc -- Dan, Bruce?  Not sure I get the point. 

There were people saying that Bruce's acquisition of Foster was vindicated. That even though everyone jumped on him for taking him despite the red flags the fact that the charges were dropped and Goodell decided not to suspend him made Bruce the winner in all this. Now, everyone who grudgingly thought that Bruce earned some props for taking a chance on Foster get to hate him for overlooking is injury history and banking so hard that he'd be healthy with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HardcoreZorn

HardcoreZorn

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Burgold said:

There were people saying that Bruce's acquisition of Foster was vindicated. That even though everyone jumped on him for taking him despite the red flags the fact that the charges were dropped and Goodell decided not to suspend him made Bruce the winner in all this. Now, everyone who grudgingly thought that Bruce earned some props for taking a chance on Foster get to hate him for overlooking is injury history and banking so hard that he'd be healthy with us.

 

Come on man really? He WAS vindicated and that’s that. A freak injury for a player that has zero significant injuries of that nature to his playing career shouldn’t change the original stance on signing Foster one iota. Just unfortunate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Burgold said:

There were people saying that Bruce's acquisition of Foster was vindicated. That even though everyone jumped on him for taking him despite the red flags the fact that the charges were dropped and Goodell decided not to suspend him made Bruce the winner in all this. Now, everyone who grudgingly thought that Bruce earned some props for taking a chance on Foster get to hate him for overlooking is injury history and banking so hard that he'd be healthy with us.

 

I don't think though the fans dislike of Bruce is so wrapped up in any one move.  He's been here for a long time.   You got a very long sample of his moves, personality and reputation.  So Foster working out or not working out is just a blip IMO as to his rep -- good or bad.    There is plenty of info to digest Bruce where one move doesn't change anything.   

 

My take on Foster was a bit unusual I guess.  I never thought just because he was out of the woods with that accusation -- that all was good with him.  He was a wild card for different reasons injury history being one of them IMO.  So in my mind I wasn't fully counting on him. 

 

I feel real bad for Foster.  But I am not as devastated as some as to the season.  I think they are OK relatively speaking as long as they don't sustain other major injuries to key players.   There is a lot of focus on Bruce on Foster because he took the heat for it at the time but the dude I always associated the most to Foster was Jay.  Foster was Jay's dude.  They almost got him in a trade up in 2017 because of Jay's urging according to some.  The idea that Jay had a mega man crush on Foster in that draft was well documented at the time.  If I recall Jay even said Foster was his favorite interview that year.   Even the WP article about the move at the time, cited Jay was in.  

 

I am not a Bruce guy to say the least.  But I'll give him this.  He from what I hear rarely makes a move without someone else in that building egging it on.  I've used this analogy before which is the impression I get about Bruce is sort of like how i am at picking stocks.  I am not a stock broker or an expert in the field.  I got some background in finance but not much.  But I'll sit through and listen to "experts" talk about the stocks they like and I'll make a move accordingly based on what's said and who I trust.

 

So on almost any move there is usually someone behind the scenes that originates it.  According to some for example, O'Connell was one of the main dudes pushing Alex Smith.  And as for Foster, that seems to be Jay's push in a big way.

 

My point is the reports that Jay is devastated -- I believe are true.  That was a guy he wanted and was mega excited about according to people who cover the team. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drowland

drowland

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

Come on man really? He WAS vindicated and that’s that. A freak injury for a player that has zero significant injuries of that nature to his playing career shouldn’t change the original stance on signing Foster one iota. Just unfortunate. 

 

The charges being dropped and no suspension didn't vindicate anything.  Foster needed to stay out of trouble and be a contributor to this team for vindication.  The injury is unfortunate, but then again he's had an injury history as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goskins10

goskins10

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Burgold said:

There were people saying that Bruce's acquisition of Foster was vindicated. That even though everyone jumped on him for taking him despite the red flags the fact that the charges were dropped and Goodell decided not to suspend him made Bruce the winner in all this. Now, everyone who grudgingly thought that Bruce earned some props for taking a chance on Foster get to hate him for overlooking is injury history and banking so hard that he'd be healthy with us.

 

4 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

Come on man really? He WAS vindicated and that’s that. A freak injury for a player that has zero significant injuries of that nature to his playing career shouldn’t change the original stance on signing Foster one iota. Just unfortunate. 

 

So the truth is somewhere between these two takes. 

 

What's accurate: 

Bruce was vindicated on the personal issues - at least the DA charges anyway. Clearly they had at least done some research and were confident that the domestic abuse charges would be dropped. However, that should not have really vindicated anything more than that. Reuben had some other off field issues. Only time without additional issues would have cleared him. But at least in terms of the DA changes, the team (and Bruce) were vindicated, but just there. Not the entire deal. 

However, understanding it was what most would call a freak injury - it cannot be denied that he had an injury history and this does nothing to help that.

 

The rest of the story: 

The original signing was a gamble, period. And people were right to question it on 3 (well maybe 2.5) levels: 

The Domestic Abuse Charges - Completely cleared so good on him - Although fair or not he was not 100% cleared by the NFL - He did receive a 2 game check fine. 

Poor Judgement - He had a few other run ins with the law that display at the very least poor judgement - this was a fair criticism even if you assume the DA charges would be dropped. Even the thing with the woman who falsely accused him - the second time he should never have been anywhere near her. I know easier to say than to do but still - 

Injury history - Yes, this is a freak injury. But what will not know until he is healthy - assuming a 100 % recovery which I am rooting very for him to have - can he stay healthy long enough to help the team. 

 

Full disclosure I was against the signing to begin with. However, even though the gamble does not appear to have paid off - in fairness it was not a bad gamble. It costs almost nothing and the up side was huge. It just didn't work out, at least not so far. 

 

Not sure it's accurate to make the statement that they were "Banking hard" he would be healthy. Everything I have heard and seen was that anything Reuben contributed would be a bonus. Jay's own words were that Reuben was a wild card. This was before the injury. That were not counting on him until they saw him healthy and making plays. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

The only one I'd say was worse is Dave Gettleman.

 

It depends for me as to how you paint it.  If it's judging Bruce as his own entity I'd put him dead last or maybe after Gettleman.   As to why I've made that point to death on this thread.  If its judging the FO in general then I'd rank it as a so so-middle of the pack one.

 

I think the college scouting is good.    Bruce's part of the operation from what its described by others -- which is mainly trades and pro personnel IMO is the weakness of the operation.  Ditto Bruce's public appearances and PR instincts but I'll give him that this year he's done a 180 and has been impressive on that count.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

I have the bad habit of typing fast and if I don't double check it -- my posts are full of malapropisms and bad grammar.  😀 

 

If I went an entire week without correcting anything in my posts, they would be unreadable lol...(not that they are readable to begin with *rimshot*).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HTTRDynasty

HTTRDynasty

Posted
Posted

So, Rotoworld just came out with their annual GM rankings. Bruce placed... dead last when excluding new GMs. He ranked a couple spots behind Gettleman:

 

28. Bruce Allen, Redskins
There isn’t much that needs to be said about the Redskins’ front office. It’s self-evident to anyone capable of cognitive reasoning. Since owner Daniel Snyder purchased the team in 1999, he and his various executives have produced two playoff wins, one of which came Snyder’s first year on the job with a roster he did not assemble. For the past decade, his right-hand man has been Bruce Allen. It’s a partnership that’s produced a .409 winning percentage. Three times in nine seasons have Allen and Snyder’s squads finished above .500. The high-water mark for victories was 2012’s 10. This year, the duo commandeered the Redskins’ draft room and lucked into Dwayne Haskins. Haskins will serve as a corrective to 2018’s looney tunes decision to give 34-year-old Alex Smith $71 million guaranteed. Entirely bereft of vision or patience, Allen and Snyder will almost certainly squander Haskins’ ability should he prove to be a star. That may sound harsh, but it is the only honest takeaway from the past two decades of Redskins football. Change will require … change. That’s something — whether it’s his team name or front office tactics — Snyder has proven anathema to.

 

https://www.rotoworld.com/article/goal-line-stand/nfls-best-gms-2019?page=2

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickyJ

NickyJ

Posted
Posted
On 5/22/2019 at 4:09 PM, Peregrine said:

Its amazing how all of the credit Bruce gets for turning his decade long disaster around, is for signing a guy who will never play a down for the Redskins.

Landon Collins probably isn't the savior that people have hyped him up to be, but not even playing a down is a bit harsh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...