The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[Skinsinparadise]

I think if I recall it was JP Finlay if a recall right who said on a radio interview that Bruce can dictate at times to Jay the playing time of certain players or something like that.

 

I don't think any other echoed that among the beat guys.  To me, who knows?  But I think focus on those type of peripheral stuff almost does Bruce a favor because in my mind it's easy enough to challenge him on more direct things that fall under his responsibilities for sure. 

 

 

On another note, good article about Haskins below.  I am sticking to Dan-Bruce's escape ticket from the dungeon so to speak is all about one player -- Dwayne Haskins.  And I hope for the organization's sake and all us fans that they pull it off.  Maybe its a good sign that two of Dan's biggest critics -- Laconfora and Jason Reid all think that Haskins can be that guy to finally fix things. 😀

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/dwayne-haskins-looks-the-part-at-otas-but-time-will-tell-if-hes-ready-to-be-washingtons-long-awaited-qb-savior/

 

...The whispers began back at the combine, when it became clear throughout NFLcircles that Washington owner Dan Snyder and his brass were tantalized by all Haskins had to offer and were eyeing him in the first round. Could he finally be the quarterback to succeed here, and do what so many others deemed to be that cornerstone passer -- Heath Shuler, Patrick Ramsey, RG IIII, to name just a few -- failed to accomplish? The fact that Haskins was mentored by a former member of the franchise -- Shawn Springs -- and moved from New Jersey to Maryland, attending the same school as Snyder's kids -- and wrote an article in the Bullis High School newspaper years ago proclaiming his intent to one day break the curse, just makes this plot all the more juicy.

 

...For now, Gruden is keeping the reps between Keenum and Haskins equal -- in a normal 16-play practice script they will each get seven, with Josh Woodrum settling for one or two snaps -- albeit Keenum was with the presumptive starter for now. Surely, Haskins will get his chance to work with them this summer, and what he does with those throws and in the preseason games could rekindle the fervor among a storied fan population that has been beaten into ambivalence by the continued foibles of the Snyder administration.

[Skinsinparadise]

Another example of ownership matters.  Henry's team wins the World Series here in the States, then go wins a European Championship in a sport he knew nothing about.  Learns from his mistakes.  Makes really good hires, and it happens.

 

 

 

[NewCliche21]

On 5/30/2019 at 6:56 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

...The whispers began back at the combine, when it became clear throughout NFLcircles that Washington owner Dan Snyder and his brass were tantalized by all Haskins had to offer and were eyeing him in the first round. Could he finally be the quarterback to succeed here, and do what so many others deemed to be that cornerstone passer -- Heath Shuler, Patrick Ramsey, RG IIII, to name just a few -- failed to accomplish? The fact that Haskins was mentored by a former member of the franchise -- Shawn Springs -- and moved from New Jersey to Maryland, attending the same school as Snyder's kids -- and wrote an article in the Bullis High School newspaper years ago proclaiming his intent to one day break the curse, just makes this plot all the more juicy.

 

...For now, Gruden is keeping the reps between Keenum and Haskins equal -- in a normal 16-play practice script they will each get seven, with Josh Woodrum settling for one or two snaps -- albeit Keenum was with the presumptive starter for now. Surely, Haskins will get his chance to work with them this summer, and what he does with those throws and in the preseason games could rekindle the fervor among a storied fan population that has been beaten into ambivalence by the continued foibles of the Snyder administration.

 

Excellent finds as usual, SIP.

 

While I'm as pro-Snyder as I am able to reach tall things ( #5foot7ontiptoes), I do have direct comparisons to Griffin in a good way.

 

On draft day I was worried with the selection that Snyder was in charge, and that we'd have a repeat of Shanahanananana's (paraphrasing) "You don't trade up to take someone with the 2nd pick if he's not the starter" answer to the "Who's starting?" question.

 

The fact that Jay seems to have the leash firmly in hand brings some sigh of relief, even if it's just for show right now.  The second bullet, though, is just refreshing.  A plus one for Snyderallen.  That brings their win column to one.

[Skinsinparadise]

16 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Excellent finds as usual, SIP.

 

While I'm as pro-Snyder as I am able to reach tall things ( #5foot7ontiptoes), I do have direct comparisons to Griffin in a good way.

 

On draft day I was worried with the selection that Snyder was in charge, and that we'd have a repeat of Shanahanananana's (paraphrasing) "You don't trade up to take someone with the 2nd pick if he's not the starter" answer to the "Who's starting?" question.

 

The fact that Jay seems to have the leash firmly in hand brings some sigh of relief, even if it's just for show right now.  The second bullet, though, is just refreshing.  A plus one for Snyderallen.  That brings their win column to one.

 

On the Haskins stuff, there are some mixed narratives out there.  I try to look for the item that every narrative converges on regardless -- and if you do that they all say that Dan really really liked Haskins.  Could that mean that so did Jay?  Sure, why not - albeit there are mixed narratives on that front but enough point to Jay is cool with Haskins.   So I am not going to sweat that narrative one way or another.  The only thing I'll sweat is please Dan just stay hands off of the potential star player (play-time, hanging out off the field, etc) regardless of how excited he is about him.   

 

Judging by Vinny's rap in his recent interview with Sheehan -- he gives the impression that Dan can push behind the scenes about the players he wants and its up to the personnel guys to convince him otherwise if they disagree with him.  But he also thinks that Dan won't dictate play time.  Hopefully he's right on that front.  He brought up the example of letting Gregg decide when Sean Taylor played his rookie season albeit Dan was anxious to see him play. 

 

I've taken some arrows on this thread for echoing the narrative that most beat guys have that Dan doesn't interfere much anymore.  Not that we have any idea one way or another all we can do is guess.  My one alarm bell on that front is one of the guys who has been saying for years that Dan doesn't interfere much anymore was Sheehan.  Sheehan has said that Dan's interfering ways have returned this year.  I guess no way to know.  Will see. 

[NewCliche21]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

On the Haskins stuff, there are some mixed narratives out there.  I try to look for the item that every narrative converges on regardless -- and if you do that they all say that Dan really really liked Haskins.  Could that mean that so did Jay?  Sure, why not - albeit there are mixed narratives on that front but enough point to Jay is cool with Haskins.   So I am not going to sweat that narrative one way or another.  The only thing I'll sweat is please Dan just stay hands off of the potential star player (play-time, hanging out off the field, etc) regardless of how excited he is about him.   

 

Judging by Vinny's rap in his recent interview with Sheehan -- he gives the impression that Dan can push behind the scenes about the players he wants and its up to the personnel guys to convince him otherwise if they disagree with him.  But he also thinks that Dan won't dictate play time.  Hopefully he's right on that front.  He brought up the example of letting Gregg decide when Sean Taylor played his rookie season albeit Dan was anxious to see him play. 

 

I've taken some arrows on this thread for echoing the narrative that most beat guys have that Dan doesn't interfere much anymore.  Not that we have any idea one way or another all we can do is guess.  My one alarm bell on that front is one of the guys who has been saying for years that Dan doesn't interfere much anymore was Sheehan.  Sheehan has said that Dan's interfering ways have returned this year.  I guess no way to know.  Will see. 

 

I don't see how you're taking arrows.  You present your opinion and back it up, professionally, with citations.  You don't seem to have an agenda to push, just an opinion to express.

 

You really don't fit in here. 🤣

[goskins10]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

On the Haskins stuff, there are some mixed narratives out there.  I try to look for the item that every narrative converges on regardless -- and if you do that they all say that Dan really really liked Haskins.  Could that mean that so did Jay?  Sure, why not - albeit there are mixed narratives on that front but enough point to Jay is cool with Haskins.   So I am not going to sweat that narrative one way or another.  The only thing I'll sweat is please Dan just stay hands off of the potential star player (play-time, hanging out off the field, etc) regardless of how excited he is about him.   

 

Judging by Vinny's rap in his recent interview with Sheehan -- he gives the impression that Dan can push behind the scenes about the players he wants and its up to the personnel guys to convince him otherwise if they disagree with him.  But he also thinks that Dan won't dictate play time.  Hopefully he's right on that front.  He brought up the example of letting Gregg decide when Sean Taylor played his rookie season albeit Dan was anxious to see him play. 

 

I've taken some arrows on this thread for echoing the narrative that most beat guys have that Dan doesn't interfere much anymore.  Not that we have any idea one way or another all we can do is guess.  My one alarm bell on that front is one of the guys who has been saying for years that Dan doesn't interfere much anymore was Sheehan.  Sheehan has said that Dan's interfering ways have returned this year.  I guess no way to know.  Will see. 

 

 I think the real problem with all of this is we all have different definitions of interfering - including and especially the people reporting. 

 

In the end this is Dan's team no matter how much we may dislike that. That makes him the boss. So he gets to offer his opinion. The difference is for this particular business you need to hire good people and trust them. It felt like in early days - esp the Vinnie days, he was in there getting his hands dirty on player personnel and even game plans to a certain extent (I submit a gallon of vanilla ice cream as evidence). 

 

As years have gone by he seems to have backed off that approach but that doesn't to mean he will sit at a desk and just watch on Sundays. Here is what I think likely happened with Haskins - obviously a total guess on my part - but a bit of an educated guess.

 

Dan - Hey, are we looking QB this year? Alex going down was bad. 

 

Kyle/Bruce/Doug/Jay (pick one or pick them all) - If the right guy falls to us yes. We like Jone,s Haskins and of course Murray but he is not dropping. 

 

Dan - I really like this Haskins kid. Where does he line up? 

 

Doug - I like him too. I have him ahead of Jones.

Kyle - We really like his skill set but we will likely have to trade up for him. Not sure it's worth that. 

Jay - I am leaning towards Jones - I like his skill set but Haskins is a good kid too. I think Jones is more likely to be available. I really think we need an outside pass rusher before QB. I can work with Case and Colt. They are both savvy guys. 

 

Dan - So I am hearing we really do not want to trade up but if one of the three is there we will consider it except Jay wants a pass rusher? 

 

All - Yea pretty much. We have to see what happens draft day. We really like some of the others guys that should be there if the QBs go early. But we really do not want to trade up for one. 

 

Dan - Ok, sounds good. Did I mention I really like that Haskins kid? He smiles and they all laugh and he leaves. 

 

I could see the very conversation going on, maybe even multiple times. Is that Dan meddling? Is that Jay not liking Haskins? I do not think so. I see that as an owner wanting to provide his input but letting the guys hired do their job. I also see it as Jay having a preference but when the draft fell a certain way he was very happy with the way it ended up. 

 

Now could have gone more like - (Just speaking to Bruce the human shield Allen)

 

Dan - We really need this Haskins kid. He will be great for the team not just from a football standpoint but from a marketing standpoint and as you know we could use some help there. You guys need to figure out how to get him. 

 

Bruce - We just do not think he is worth trading up for - if he is there at 15 and there is no one that is transformational - Like a Bosa still being there, we will likely take him. But we just do not want to trade resources to get Haskins. And honestly Jay is not as high on him as the rest of us are. 

 

Dan - What is Jay concerned about -

 

Bruce - he likes Jones skill set better and his extended experience. Also he would like us to go outside pass rush with 15. 

 

Dan - Well I trust you but I would really like to see Haskins if there is any way possible. It's on you and Jay if we pass on Haskins and it goes bad this year. Just a reminder. Make it happen. 

 

I could also see the second conversion happening - although I would lean to the first one, which to me is much less meddling than the 2nd one. 

After laying all that out (mostly for fun than anything) - At this point does it really matter? They got both Haskins and Sweat. And while I can see Jay liking Jones a littel better, I can also very much seeing him really liking Haskins now that he is in the building.

 

This is a big year for Bruce. Should provide his career path moving forward, either we turn the corner and he gets the glory, or they fall yet again and he is likely put out to pasture. 

 

Either way, should be fun to watch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

I don't see how you're taking arrows.  You present your opinion and back it up, professionally, with citations.  You don't seem to have an agenda to push, just an opinion to express.

 

You really don't fit in here. 🤣

 

Thanks.  I'd bet some of the pro Bruce people on this thread would disagree with this point.    But I do try to be objective about him.  As I've told the pro-Bruce people here, that dude really had to work it for me to become a critic of him.  

 

2 hours ago, goskins10 said:

After laying all that out (mostly for fun than anything) - At this point does it really matter? They got both Haskins and Sweat. And while I can see Jay liking Jones a littel better, I can also very much seeing him really liking Haskins now that he is in the building.

 

This is a big year for Bruce. Should provide his career path moving forward, either we turn the corner and he gets the glory, or they fall yet again and he is likely put out to pasture. 

 

Either way, should be fun to watch. 

 

 

Sure, I've flat out said IMO it doesn't matter except 1 thing.  That is, if you go by the beat guys and national guys rap, Dan's man crush on Haskins might be slightly deeper than your hypothetical scenario.    I could see a scenario where Dan ultimately didn't push the FO hard as to telling them what to do in the last draft.  Still, do we have to worry again about Dan falling for one of his players ala RG3, Portis, etc and it causing some issue later?  I am not saying we have to worry about it.  But my point is i also can't say with 100% assurance that we can rule it out either. 

 

As for the Daniel Jones stuff.  The impression I get listening to all the narratives was Jay didn't want him at 15 if he were there.   But who knows?    I sort of straddle the fence on Haskins which is a weird place for me to be at because I typically land hard on positions relating to our QBs.   I am not totally sold on Haskins as a franchise Qb but I am not unsold either.  I typically lean on the optimistic side about all our young QBs so will do so for Haskins, too.   I am not sold that Dan pushed the pick hard but also don't rule out that he did push it.  The reason why I don't think the Jay stuff is a big deal one way or another is regardless of the narrative about it -- they all converge that Jay is all in now.  All I care about it is Jay being all in now regardless of how it came about.  

[goskins10]

52 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Thanks.  I'd bet some of the pro Bruce people on this thread would disagree with this point.    But I do try to be objective about him.  As I've told the pro-Bruce people here, that dude really had to work it for me to become a critic of him.  

 

 

Sure, I've flat out said IMO it doesn't matter except 1 thing.  That is, if you go by the beat guys and national guys rap, Dan's man crush on Haskins might be slightly deeper than your hypothetical scenario.    I could see a scenario where Dan ultimately didn't push the FO hard as to telling them what to do in the last draft.  Still, do we have to worry again about Dan falling for one of his players ala RG3, Portis, etc and it causing some issue later?  I am not saying we have to worry about it.  But my point is i also can't say with 100% assurance that we can rule it out either. 

 

As for the Daniel Jones stuff.  The impression I get listening to all the narratives was Jay didn't want him at 15 if he were there.   But who knows?    I sort of straddle the fence on Haskins which is a weird place for me to be at because I typically land hard on positions relating to our QBs.   I am not totally sold on Haskins as a franchise Qb but I am not unsold either.  I typically lean on the optimistic side about all our young QBs so will do so for Haskins, too.   I am not sold that Dan pushed the pick hard but also don't rule out that he did push it.  The reason why I don't think the Jay stuff is a big deal one way or another is regardless of the narrative about it -- they all converge that Jay is all in now.  All I care about it is Jay being all in now regardless of how it came about.  

 

I was kind of having fun with the conversations but here is my bottom line. And I believe you and I are very closely aligned. : 

 

1. Dan did really like Haskins and made it known he would really like Haskins to be a Redskin. But he stopped short of saying get him at all cost, hence why the team did not trade up (just guessing on my part.). i do agree if he gets a serious man crush on Haskins and starts treating him differently than the other players personally (bowling, dinners out, etc.), that would be a concern. I am hoping he learned from his poor handling of Robert.  

 

2. Jay may have liked Jones a little more but more than that, he really just wanted a pass rusher at 15 more than a QB. In the end they got both so he truly happy with the results. 

 

3. The rest really does not matter other than good conversation when there is not much else to discuss 🙂

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

I was kind of having fun with the conversations but here is my bottom line. And I believe you and I are very closely aligned. : 

 

1. Dan did really like Haskins and made it known he would really like Haskins to be a Redskin. But he stopped short of saying get him at all cost, hence why the team did not trade up (just guessing on my part.). i do agree if he gets a serious man crush on Haskins and starts treating him differently than the other players personally (bowling, dinners out, etc.), that would be a concern. I am hoping he learned from his poor handling of Robert.  

 

 

 

The one thing about this that to me which is very relevant to the Dan-Bruce debate is how epic it would be for them to finally get the Qb position right -- if they pull it off. 

 

The backdrop of Dan liking Haskins if anything would make thing even juicier and more vindicating for him if it turns out well.  The past failures at Qb which have been IMO epic level considering in how many different forms it's happened and how much resources they've expending doing it.  And by some accounts it could have been even worse if they weren't outbid by the Jets for Mark Sanchez and the Redskins scouts didn't talk Dan out of his supposed crush on Brady Quinn according to one source.   So finally turning that around would be amazing.  And as much as I don't think highly of either Dan or Bruce, I'd love to see them pull it off for obvious reasons. 

 

Some here who defend Bruce like to say that we have to be patient to judge him because it really takes a long time to fix things because of how much he's had to inherit.  My take on that is to each their own but to me the point is absurd.  And I feel that way even if we absolved him completely for the Shanny era.  You got teams who go from zero to hero within 2-3 years often enough let alone all the time Bruce has had to do it.

 

But I think they are missing one point.  I get the logic that it takes time to build a winner.  However, it doesn't matter typically how many Jonathan Allen or Da'ron Payne types you draft if you don't get the position of QB right.  The teams doing these turnarounds typically have a new QB as part of the soup.  Chip Kelly stripped the Eagles of a bunch of their talent while he was there.    However, Howie Roseman (who IMO plays chess while Bruce typically plays checkers) within 2 years helped not just turn the team around but won a SB.  And in that mix, he got himself QB help. 

 

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The past failures at Qb which have been IMO epic level considering in how many different forms it's happened and how much resources they've expending doing it.

 

I don't know if I agree with this. That word Epic stands out to me as if its unheard of, but look at who we've brought in here. 

Johnson - reasonable although we should have kept him

George - pathetic

Banks - reasonable, considering what we got back and what we gave up

Wuerrful / Matthews - pathetic but we gave up nothing

Ramsey - His tenure here was short and he was a late first rounder so I'd say disappointing but he has been debated among Redskins fans about his tenure here and how good he really was. He didn't put up numbers like some of the bigger historical busts at QB so I wouldn't say anything more than a miss here

Brunell - Good QB but gave up too much for him. He took us to the playoffs and played well for most of his time here

Campbell - Should have never been our pick to be honest. I've redone that draft in my head over and over again and said that if we wanted a QB why didn't we draft Rodgers at 6 instead of Carlos? But that said Campbell was a mediocre QB in almost every aspect of the word. 

Collins - He was a career backup who we paid nothing for but led that e game 07 run that took us to the playoffs. 

McNabb - This one to me ranks worse than Brunell and George in terms of being just BAD. I was totally against the move when we did it, but I even admitted that there were things about his play that I liked and in particular how he could lead a team down the field and take charge of things when a play collapsed. but we should have never traded for him. 

Grossman - we gave up almost nothing for him and he was a gunslinger backup. No mad. 

Beck - shouldn't have been in the league but didn't pay him much and only a blip on the radar really

Griffin - ROY who we all thought was going to be the guy to turn the team around and be the franchise QB that this team needed. In hindsight we gave up too much for him, but I think thats the kind of move you have to make when you think its the guy. And considering how close he was to the guy I have no regrets about that move. 

Cousins - again, gave up almost nothing for him so I'm not mad at him. He outperformed his rookie contract and was the best QB we've had in a while

Colt - backup on a backup contract, not mad. 

Alex - Another QB we shouldn't have traded for. More comparable to the McNabb move than the RG3 move. Aging QB who we traded too many valuable picks for. 

Sanchez - bum

JJ - played OK but off the street guy so whatever we got I'm not going to complain about

 

So looking back we have only like 2 or 3 moves that I'd say were catastrophic failures in terms of what we spent on the move and what we got back (McNabb, Alex, and maybe George I forget if George got a big contract but I assume so because of the time period). There has been a lot of activity at the position but I don't see it as an EPIC failure type of activity. Just a few bad moves on top of a bunch of meh moves that don't move the needle either way. The truth is the most of the guys on this list are guys who could be what Case is now - journeymen QBs who in the right system and with the right luck could lead a team deep into the playoffs or could throw a 2500 yard, 15 TD, 15 INT season. Not nearly HOF material but not the type of stuff that sets a franchise back the way our defense has been. 

 

Now, since GIbbs left, we've had defenses ranked 26, 26, 18, 28, 16, 24, 30, 4, 10, 5, 25, 3, 9, 31, 8, 4, 10, 31, 13, 28, 18, 20, 28, 28, 21, and 17 in yards. That's epic failure, especially when you consider how much money and draft capital went into that side of the ball. And its even worse when you consider how bad our run defense has been in that time period. And I think that directly correlates to how bad we've been at QB, especially early in these stages when it was more of a running league, like when Norv couldn't win games in November. And that's why I think guys like Allen, Payne, Ioannidis, Sweat and Kerrigan form a dynamic force for Haskins because for the first time in almost 30 years we have a DL that is fearsome that almost no single player should be single blocked, which means it will keep scores close and help us win time of posession and hopefully keep our running game as a part of it. 

 

Hopefully Haskins is the type of QB like a Rodgers or a Brady but in the likely event that he's more of a mediocre QB (say a Dak minus the athleticism), I'd hope that we can build the other areas up like defense like Dallas did so that him going 13-3 wouldn't be unheard of. 

 

[oraphus]

4 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I don't know if I agree with this. That word Epic stands out to me as if its unheard of, but look at who we've brought in here. 

Johnson - reasonable although we should have kept him

George - pathetic

Banks - reasonable, considering what we got back and what we gave up

Wuerrful / Matthews - pathetic but we gave up nothing

Ramsey - His tenure here was short and he was a late first rounder so I'd say disappointing but he has been debated among Redskins fans about his tenure here and how good he really was. He didn't put up numbers like some of the bigger historical busts at QB so I wouldn't say anything more than a miss here

Brunell - Good QB but gave up too much for him. He took us to the playoffs and played well for most of his time here

Campbell - Should have never been our pick to be honest. I've redone that draft in my head over and over again and said that if we wanted a QB why didn't we draft Rodgers at 6 instead of Carlos? But that said Campbell was a mediocre QB in almost every aspect of the word. 

Collins - He was a career backup who we paid nothing for but led that e game 07 run that took us to the playoffs. 

McNabb - This one to me ranks worse than Brunell and George in terms of being just BAD. I was totally against the move when we did it, but I even admitted that there were things about his play that I liked and in particular how he could lead a team down the field and take charge of things when a play collapsed. but we should have never traded for him. 

Grossman - we gave up almost nothing for him and he was a gunslinger backup. No mad. 

Beck - shouldn't have been in the league but didn't pay him much and only a blip on the radar really

Griffin - ROY who we all thought was going to be the guy to turn the team around and be the franchise QB that this team needed. In hindsight we gave up too much for him, but I think thats the kind of move you have to make when you think its the guy. And considering how close he was to the guy I have no regrets about that move. 

Cousins - again, gave up almost nothing for him so I'm not mad at him. He outperformed his rookie contract and was the best QB we've had in a while

Colt - backup on a backup contract, not mad. 

Alex - Another QB we shouldn't have traded for. More comparable to the McNabb move than the RG3 move. Aging QB who we traded too many valuable picks for. 

Sanchez - bum

JJ - played OK but off the street guy so whatever we got I'm not going to complain about

 

So looking back we have only like 2 or 3 moves that I'd say were catastrophic failures in terms of what we spent on the move and what we got back (McNabb, Alex, and maybe George I forget if George got a big contract but I assume so because of the time period). There has been a lot of activity at the position but I don't see it as an EPIC failure type of activity. Just a few bad moves on top of a bunch of meh moves that don't move the needle either way. The truth is the most of the guys on this list are guys who could be what Case is now - journeymen QBs who in the right system and with the right luck could lead a team deep into the playoffs or could throw a 2500 yard, 15 TD, 15 INT season. Not nearly HOF material but not the type of stuff that sets a franchise back the way our defense has been. 

 

Now, since GIbbs left, we've had defenses ranked 26, 26, 18, 28, 16, 24, 30, 4, 10, 5, 25, 3, 9, 31, 8, 4, 10, 31, 13, 28, 18, 20, 28, 28, 21, and 17 in yards. That's epic failure, especially when you consider how much money and draft capital went into that side of the ball. And its even worse when you consider how bad our run defense has been in that time period. And I think that directly correlates to how bad we've been at QB, especially early in these stages when it was more of a running league, like when Norv couldn't win games in November. And that's why I think guys like Allen, Payne, Ioannidis, Sweat and Kerrigan form a dynamic force for Haskins because for the first time in almost 30 years we have a DL that is fearsome that almost no single player should be single blocked, which means it will keep scores close and help us win time of posession and hopefully keep our running game as a part of it. 

 

Hopefully Haskins is the type of QB like a Rodgers or a Brady but in the likely event that he's more of a mediocre QB (say a Dak minus the athleticism), I'd hope that we can build the other areas up like defense like Dallas did so that him going 13-3 wouldn't be unheard of. 

 

are you kidding me?.... the fact that the team was not able to find a starting level QB outside of Cousins in the last 20y IS an epic fail. if they just drafted a qb every year, odds are that they would have accidentally stumbled in to a good qb at some point. You could even make an argument that this is exactly what happened w Cousins, but FO found a way to **** that one up as well. Not being able to find a franchise QB in 20y due to inaptitude, politics, FO morons, owner, etc.. is a catastrophic failure for this team. We can only hope and pray that Haskins is that 1 in 20 lucky draw for this poor excuse for an FO.... i am definitely not holding my breath though.

[Anselmheifer]

17 minutes ago, oraphus said:

are you kidding me?.... the fact that the team was not able to find a starting level QB outside of Cousins in the last 20y IS an epic fail. if they just drafted a qb every year, odds are that they would have accidentally stumbled in to a good qb at some point. You could even make an argument that this is exactly what happened w Cousins, but FO found a way to **** that one up as well. Not being able to find a franchise QB in 20y due to inaptitude, politics, FO morons, owner, etc.. is a catastrophic failure for this team. We can only hope and pray that Haskins is that 1 in 20 lucky draw for this poor excuse for an FO.... i am definitely not holding my breath though.

 

I agree with this 1000%. The failure to find a QB has doomed us. That, and more recently, terrible pro-personnel decisions. Somehow, we have become a team that drafts well. If Haskins hits, especially given the investment we have already made in the front 7, this team has a bright future. If not, I hope we find out soon. 

Edit: While typing that, I was suddenly struck by an enormous relief that we didn't draft Daniel Jones. Thank God. 

[Thinking Skins]

1 hour ago, oraphus said:

are you kidding me?.... the fact that the team was not able to find a starting level QB outside of Cousins in the last 20y IS an epic fail. if they just drafted a qb every year, odds are that they would have accidentally stumbled in to a good qb at some point. You could even make an argument that this is exactly what happened w Cousins, but FO found a way to **** that one up as well. Not being able to find a franchise QB in 20y due to inaptitude, politics, FO morons, owner, etc.. is a catastrophic failure for this team. We can only hope and pray that Haskins is that 1 in 20 lucky draw for this poor excuse for an FO.... i am definitely not holding my breath though.

 

Johnson, Brunell, Campbell, Griffin, Cousins and Smith were all starter level QBs. Heck Brunell led us to the playoffs just as often as Cousins, and a Campbell led team did as well. Cambell also led us to the 9-7 and 8-8 years under Gibbs & Zorn that were like our best two year stretch before Cousins. 

 

We've had decent QBs, just not a superstar. 

[Thinking Skins]

1 hour ago, Anselmheifer said:

 

I agree with this 1000%. The failure to find a QB has doomed us. That, and more recently, terrible pro-personnel decisions. Somehow, we have become a team that drafts well. If Haskins hits, especially given the investment we have already made in the front 7, this team has a bright future. If not, I hope we find out soon. 

Edit: While typing that, I was suddenly struck by an enormous relief that we didn't draft Daniel Jones. Thank God. 

All I can say is see above. We haven't had a (consistent) top defense since GIbbs left. And we can talk about QBs and all the high power offenses all we want but nothing helps a QB like a defense and a running game. We've had some one shot RBs and CP was a good 4 or 5 year stretch but after that we had little in terms of RBs. Talk about WRs and who stands out since GIbbs? Ellard and his 3 good seasons? Westbrook and his one good season? Albert Connell? Moss? Hankerson? What about TE? Are we banking on Jamie Asher being our best TE since Gibbs? What about Stephen Alexander? Fred Davis? Chris Cooley was the only real success there and it showed because it was also the time we had the most consistent QB production. Look at Jordan Reed's and Chris Thompson's health and you see a similar thing, when he can stay healthy it almost coincides with our QB play being good. 

 

I wish it was a single point of failure, but the problem since Gibbs has been we haven't had a philosophy and haven't been able to draft worth anything. So we were constantly adding pieces that were here for 2 years and gone. Our DL had been a mess for what 20 years? QBs shouldn't be graded on wins and losses - this is the most team sport and this was a bad team - especially the defense and the skill positions. And I think if we want to help our QB we need to develop those areas because it doesn't help to force your QB who's still learning your system and to play in the league, to be in a bunch of shootouts because you can't stop anybody and the other team can put together 10 minute drives whenever they want. 

[RandyHolt]

I am still pissed that Shanahan waited to draft a QB to try to develop, setting out on a dated slow ass 5 year rebuild in which he didn't even tank proper to get a top pick for when stud QBs came out. That was a critical **** up.  I am fully convinced Dan got impatient and forced the RG3 trade up - I guess he got tired of waiting after 2.5 years to see a QB drafted.  Yeah those were thin drafts, but he could have tried to pull off a trade or develop someone. I almost don't half blame Dan if he pushed Mike to take a QB, since Mike was touting Beck and Grossman as his guys and dragging his feet.  I even think Mike drafted Cousins for spite, after taking 3.

 

Mike got his bookend tackle, and did little else but tear down the defense. Wild conspiracy theory, but wonder if he played the injured RG3 out of spite. Dan wants RG3, I will give him RG3. Shanny really ****ed up that year. When Cousins FINALLY got into the game vs Seattle, he didn't call any of Kirk's go to plays. He made Kirk drop back 7 like a sitting duck vs that fierce rush. Mike managed that game horribly. 

 

We are still recovering from the Shanahan era and not drafting a QB and then doubling down and throwing 5 picks at the problem all at once. Or was it 6 😉.  At least we FINALLY gave up trying to find a traditional 3-4 6'1 370 pound nose that gets exposed by hurry up at the first chance.

 

Fortunately the Lambs and Fisher fumbled those picks, so we don't have to watch total studs taken with our picks every Sunday for 15 years. Like we see with all the kickers we released...

[Skinsinparadise]

15 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

So looking back we have only like 2 or 3 moves that I'd say were catastrophic failures in terms of what we spent on the move and what we got back (McNabb, Alex, and maybe George I forget if George got a big contract but I assume so because of the time period). There has been a lot of activity at the position but I don't see it as an EPIC failure type of activity. Just a few bad moves on top of a bunch of meh moves that don't move the needle either way. The truth is the most of the guys on this list are guys who could be what Case is now - journeymen QBs who in the right system and with the right luck could lead a team deep into the playoffs or could throw a 2500 yard, 15 TD, 15 INT season. Not nearly HOF material but not the type of stuff that sets a franchise back the way our defense has been. 

 

 

If I recall we have different standards at QB and you were arguing for example Campbell was OK.  My point though isn't that they acquired the worst QBs in the NFL.  Getting a Jason Campbell type IMO isn't success.  It's not complete failure but the idea is to find a QB who has the talent to make you a consistent winner.  That's the point behind why QB is the most important position in sports -- when you find a good one, you always have a chance.  It doesn't matter to me if your QB is just ok enough to make you 7-9 or you can sneak into the playoffs every 4 years or so at 9-7 and get knocked out of it immediately.   My point is like any team they chased and chased potential franchise QBs.  But I can't think of a team who has tried more things and failed at it.  Acquiring QB's who are just OK doesn't cut it IMO if you want to be a perennial winner.

 

Under Dan.  

 

Acquired Jeff George and chased out Brad Johnson

First rounder for Patrick Ramsey (according to some that was Dan's pick)

Supposedly had to be talked out of a man crush of Brady Quinn

Drafted Jason Campbell and had to trade multiple high picks to get him

Send a 3rd rounder for Mark Brunell.  Sending a 3rd rounder for OK QB play for a season and a half to me isn't a success but maybe its the closest version he's gotten for it. 

Got outbid by the Jets for Mark Sanchez (I am mentioning this to showcase the instincts IMO at Redskins Park at QB might not be that hot)

They spent a gazillion dollars to rent Kirk and then got a ham sandwich in return for him ultimately when he left

3 first round picks and a 2nd for RG3 and the team looked like fools with all the drama when he was here

D. McNabb for a 2nd and 3rd.

3rd rounder and a young corner for Alex Smith.  And Bruce decides for Alex as opposed to his predecessor he'd go beyond 2 years guaranteed money (for a 34 year old QB) and now its saddling the cap. 

 

Of all of those moves there isn't one that I'd want to do over.  Zero.  They didn't acquire a sustaining franchise QB.  No Phillip Rivers. No Matt Ryan, etc.  And boy did they try. 

 

By my count they gave up a combined 10 high draft picks.  And probably in the ball park of 100 million dollars.  And if that's not epic level failure.  I am not sure what it is?  What team has surpassed us as to giving up all those resources without landing a franchise QB?  Heck I've even seen on 2 different national shows where they talked about Haskins saying hey its the Redskins and its the quarterback position -- do you really think QB is going to work out for the Redskins, it never does.   Elliott Harrison said more or less just those words when he did his power rankings show a couple of weeks ago. 

 

The Redskins to me have surpassed the Browns now as to failures at QB.  Heck it would be one entertaining 30-30 ESPN show to do a run down of all of it.    That's why IMO them getting Haskins right would be so huge.  For starters, you aren't going to be a consistent winner in this league (with a rare exception like the Ravens) without your own Phillip Rivers type.  And I don't blame Dan for trying so hard and in so many ways to get that QB.   He's right IMO in that its a big deal to pull it off and its worth trying again and again.  But he and his staff have been pretty bad at it.  Some if it was bad luck but most of it was pure swings and misses.   And in their defense it's not easy to pull off.  Maybe they finally got it right this time. 

 

I think the team chasing the Redskins neck and neck as for being comically bad at handling the QB position has been the Browns.  But it looks like they escaped the dungeon finally with Mayfield.  The Redskins in a similar fashion escaping the dungeon with Haskins would be a game changer.

 

And specifically to this thread, IMO I doubt Dan and Bruce will ever be embraced by fans if this team continues to function without a franchise QB.  I don't think they have it in them to copy the Ravens model.   You got to be really really good IMO to build a winner without a franchise QB.  And I don't think Dan or Bruce are really really good at their jobs.  But you can have success with a franchise QB even if the rest of the roster isn't loaded.  And that to me is the ticket here.  I suspect Dan knows it considering all the effort he's put into finding a franchise QB.  Heck Cerrato has talked about it over the years multiple times -- flat out saying the problem has been missing on QBs.  So I am not really taking a big leap in my point.  

 

[goskins10]

14 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I don't know if I agree with this. That word Epic stands out to me as if its unheard of, but look at who we've brought in here. 

 

Edit

 

Hopefully Haskins is the type of QB like a Rodgers or a Brady but in the likely event that he's more of a mediocre QB (say a Dak minus the athleticism), I'd hope that we can build the other areas up like defense like Dallas did so that him going 13-3 wouldn't be unheard of. 

 

 

Great compilation of the QB follies of the last 20+ years. But I do not understand how you can look at that list and not think epic failure. This does not mean your points on the defense are not valid. Both can and I believe are true. 

 

In fact I also agree with your thoughts on the approach to building a team that until recently was more reactive instead of having a solid plan. All those things can be true at the same time - epic failure at QB, really bad defenses and a point and shoot approach to team building. This has led to the colossal failure that has been the Washington Redskins since Dan bought the team. 

 

I do like the more structured approach to building the team they appear to have even if they insist on not having a more traditional FO structure. If they can make it work, more power to them. But I do like the direction. There is at least a semblance of a plan. Build the defensive line and invest in a running game. Then build the other postions. I would expect Oline and secondary to be the next focus areas. 

 

As for Haskins, didn't love or hate the pick - just really glad we did not trade up for him. Great discipline by the FO. If he turns into a stud (and in fairness he has a legitimate chance to do just that)  it will go a long way to healing what ails this franchise and allows a free draft and free agency period - well until Bruce lets him walk and then trades and overpays for an aging replacement - Ok that was a shot at Bruce. Couldn't help myself...  😈  

[Skinsinparadise]

4 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

 

 

We are still recovering from the Shanahan era and not drafting a QB and then doubling down and throwing 5 picks at the problem all at once. Or was it 6 😉.  At least we FINALLY gave up trying to find a traditional 3-4 6'1 370 pound nose that gets exposed by hurry up at the first chance.

 

 

The J. Brown trade, the McNabb trade, the RG3 trade cost a lot of trade capital.  Part of the reason why I don't take Bruce completely off the hook for that era is this:  there is one thing that everyone agrees is all Bruce as for responsibility and that is it's his gig to determine trade capital and make the trades.    By most accounts Shanny was on board with the RG3 trade.  Though he claims and I haven't seen anyone dispute it -- that McNabb was all Dan and Bruce. 

 

I don't take Shanny off the hook though because if he has power then use it so I don't give him an out if he was steamrolled on this as he claimed.   But those were all awful trades in retrospect.    And I understand Fisher didn't want to deal with Bruce so there is some ambiguity on the RG3 trade.  But according to most, Bruce still determined the trade offer for the deal.   This off season some draft geeks said their sources tell them that you will never see an RG3 level trade again where any team gives up three #1 picks as part of a deal. 

 

The trades since Bruce has been here have been bad to awful in retrospect:  RG3, McNabb, Alex, J. Brown. Alex, Clinton-Dix.  And not trading Kirk when according to some they knew he wasn't coming back -- bad move, too.  Bruce should look at his counter parts in Philly who have made some good trades in the mix and got value for the QBs they wanted to unload.   And that's the one duty from what I understand is Bruce's gig exclusively.  The weird thing about it is Bruce has this reputation for being a penny pincher in FA.  But when it comes to trades, he's the equivalent of the most aggressive bidder on Ebay who will whatever it takes to win the bid.  The only out I give Bruce on this is that it wouldn't shock me if Dan egged some of this on. 

[oraphus]

10 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Johnson, Brunell, Campbell, Griffin, Cousins and Smith were all starter level QBs. Heck Brunell led us to the playoffs just as often as Cousins, and a Campbell led team did as well. Cambell also led us to the 9-7 and 8-8 years under Gibbs & Zorn that were like our best two year stretch before Cousins. 

 

We've had decent QBs, just not a superstar. 

I referred to not finding a franchise QB...Other than Cousins who's above average.. every other guy you listed is at best average... i would actually classify them as below. You can not consistently win in this league with an average QB, but you can consistently win with a very good QB even if the rest of the team is lacking. 

Look at Colts after they drafted Luck.. the team has been a consistent winner (when Luck was healthy). Even though Luck was stuck with an idiot owner and inept GM that couldnt build a team, with him on the field they could win consistently. As soon as he got hurt, the record suffered. 

[Thinking Skins]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The J. Brown trade, the McNabb trade, the RG3 trade cost a lot of trade capital.  Part of the reason why I don't take Bruce completely off the hook for that era is this:  there is one thing that everyone agrees is all Bruce as for responsibility and that is it's his gig to determine trade capital and make the trades.    By most accounts Shanny was on board with the RG3 trade.  Though he claims and I haven't seen anyone dispute it -- that McNabb was all Dan and Bruce. 

 

I don't take Shanny off the hook though because if he has power then use it so I don't give him an out if he was steamrolled on this as he claimed.   But those were all awful trades in retrospect.    And I understand Fisher didn't want to deal with Bruce so there is some ambiguity on the RG3 trade.  But according to most, Bruce still determined the trade offer for the deal.   This off season some draft geeks said their sources tell them that you will never see an RG3 level trade again where any team gives up three #1 picks as part of a deal. 

 

The trades since Bruce has been here have been bad to awful in retrospect:  RG3, McNabb, Alex, J. Brown. Alex, Clinton-Dix.  And not trading Kirk when according to some they knew he wasn't coming back -- bad move, too.  Bruce should look at his counter parts in Philly who have made some good trades in the mix and got value for the QBs they wanted to unload.   And that's the one duty from what I understand is Bruce's gig exclusively.  The weird thing about it is Bruce has this reputation for being a penny pincher in FA.  But when it comes to trades, he's the equivalent of the most aggressive bidder on Ebay who will whatever it takes to win the bid.  The only out I give Bruce on this is that it wouldn't shock me if Dan egged some of this on. 

 

 

This I (for the most part, probably diagree with the inclusion of HaHa in there) agree with. I'm not somebody who cares what the "roles" are and what we / the media know abou who does what, but from all things we can see Bruce does these trades and he seems to have lost a lot more than he's won. The RG3 trade I'd do again because the thought was he was that type of talent and I still think he was. I just wish more was known about his hard headedness and unwillingness to listen to coaches, and Dan's potential to buddy up with players, and his fathers involvement in stuff. But Its something about trading for aging vets. The Case situation is better because we gave up almost nothing. And I would have rather gone into that 2010 season with a RG3 and Beck type QB situation, or heck even Jason Campbell than an aging McNabb who had by then lost it. 

 

Its interesting because normally GMs and Scouting depts are thinking about the future and trying to win for the next 3-5 years, whereas coaches want to win now. So the fact that we kept giving up so much for these short term "answers" was frustrating and a serious problem. Yeah it does sound like Dan or Mike was more aggressive in these moves, but when you look at Oakland and their SB run with Bruce, they made these type of moves, not sure how many were trades but they brought in aging players for that quick run. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Its interesting because normally GMs and Scouting depts are thinking about the future and trying to win for the next 3-5 years, whereas coaches want to win now. So the fact that we kept giving up so much for these short term "answers" was frustrating and a serious problem. Yeah it does sound like Dan or Mike was more aggressive in these moves, but when you look at Oakland and their SB run with Bruce, they made these type of moves, not sure how many were trades but they brought in aging players for that quick run. 

 

Some of those trades (including RG3) I liked at the time.  But the one thing I've learned over the years is they tend to lose out on any trade involving giving up picks.  So count my now a cynic on that front.  I've always been a draft first guy.  Heck I even grilled my idol, Joe Gibbs, on a radio show called Redskins lunch years ago where he took questions from fans and my question was why keep trading picks away.  

 

However, I do like the style of organizations like the Eagles who tend to be aggressive in trades when they need to be.  Not that they've nailed every trade but they've done well on a share of them.  But IMO it's not easy to win deals when you are giving up draft picks.    And as for this organization, I can think of a single deal where they gave up draft picks for a veteran that has panned out where we can celebrate it.  Most of these deals have been bombs especially when veterans are involved.

 

Going back to the Cerrato era the L. Coles-Santana exchange worked out well.  Trading up in the draft to get Cooley worked out.  But otherwise it's tough for me to recall trades where they gave up draft capital that ended up a winner.  I think the Sweat deal ends up a winner.  

 

 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

This thread is still going? And people say I’m obsessed?

[Skinsinparadise]

12 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

This thread is still going? And people say I’m obsessed?

 

Dan and Bruce and how they go about their business is apples to oranges versus what you are referring to which is Jay's coaching.  You can't see Jay's coaching until the season starts and can really just judge then or go back to prior coaching stints.  Bruce and Dan's work continues in real time (in season and off season) for all of us to see.  Not that Jay has no impact on the off season but he's not running the FO.  The sample size and stamp for Bruce/Dan on the Redskins is deeper and goes back way further than Jay.   I presume people will comment on them until they are gone.   

 

Bruce-Dan for better or worse are the main feature as to the direction of the franchise.  So that topic i doubt will die since whomever runs the franchise is always relevant -- in season and off season.

[Conn]

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

This thread is still going? And people say I’m obsessed?

 

The head FO guy is always gonna be a topic of discussion, no reason for the thread to be done until his legacy is plain to see. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

12 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

The head FO guy is always gonna be a topic of discussion, no reason for the thread to be done until his legacy is plain to see. 

 

Wait, I thought everyone was saying it was plain to see back on page 14? lol...