The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[volsmet]

[wit33]

@BatteredFanSyndrome

 

But it’s now understood that Kirk isn’t “as good” as many thought, right?

 

@SkinsFTW

 

Have your thoughts of how good of a QB Kirk is changed?  

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

5 minutes ago, wit33 said:

@BatteredFanSyndrome

 

But it’s now understood that Kirk isn’t “as good” as many thought, right?

Before responding to your last post, I was going to ask you to rephrase your question to get the answer you want 🤣  Because it was rather obvious the purpose of your post was to turn the conversation into something positive about Bruce, when there isn't and never has been.

 

Now is a great time to ask the question for someone on your side of the argument, given the way he absolutely pooped the bed with a backfoot thrash throw to lose in Green Bay this past Sunday.  If he continues on the path he's on of not getting out of his own way, which is very likely, then he's definitely not as good as I thought he could be.

 

That said, it still doesn't make Bruce right, good, more than mediocre, or anything positive for his handling of Kirk.  

[NewCliche21]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

Holy hell, you're holding onto that narrative, giving more credence to what Shanahan said after being fired than what Shanahan himself said numerous times while still with the team. I know, I know..."what else was he supposed to say", the response that tends to show when people aren't considering everything they should (and if you weren't gonna say that, my apologies...but you know someone will lol). At the VERY least, his contradictory statements should keep anyone from buying anything he says automatically and without question...which, by the way, he also said Snyder didn't dictate personnel moves, and he said this after being fired.

 

Maybe it's literally the 2:30 effect (it's 2:34 where I am), but I'm not following you.  Which Shanahan is credible, the one during his tenure or the one after his tenure?

And while I don't have them in front of me, Shanahan was never my source as I don't buy anything a coach says on any team.  My sources are the reputable ones, Tandler (RIP), Keim, Brewer, and so on.  The only reasons I would watch a Shanahan presser is for the injury report and to gauge the state of the team with the state of his lobster.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I literally am not following you here.  I also don't know what this has to do with Bruce's timeframe of authority.

[PF Chang]

Dan Snyder: Well Bruce, I see you've rejected a 3 year, $19.5M/yr offer from Kirk's side and decided to franchise tag him in consecutive years instead. Instead of trading him at the peak of his value you let him walk for a 3rd round compensatory pick. But I'm a very smart man who will evaluate your decision making based on how Kirk plays week to week in Minnesota. You've done an incredible job and I'd like to make you GM for life. 

[volsmet]

On 3/18/2018 at 2:33 PM, volsmet said:

 

If we were going to use Fuller & a 3rd to improve our roster, I’d like to think it would be for something that wasn’t so readily available. As you said, Keenum & A.J. were there. Tyrod is fine. I’d rather have Tyrod for a year & Fuller than Smith for 3. 

 

This will be exceedingly unpopular, but I’d rather have $700,000 of Siemian with Fuller & a 3rd than Smith. I’d rather have Smith than Cousins, but we are not a threat to Philly in 2018/19 & should be preparing to beat on them when they have to hand Wentz the largest contract in nfl history. If we were going to compete with them now it was going to be because of Fuller & the guys who make life difficult on Wentz & the Cowboys. No one thinks this is a move that will make us contenders & I find that frustrating - given the cost.

 

Give me that money, Fuller & the pick. 

 

 

 

On 10/2/2018 at 7:27 AM, volsmet said:

 

 

That said, if we were intelligent we would have let Kirk go, signed Matt Moore or any other QB, traded Trent to Houston for 2 firsts, traded last years first to N.O. for their 2018 & 2019 firsts, traded the remaining 2018 firsts for firsts + in 2019 and we would have the assets to build an incredible core on rookie contracts. But, we are going stupid, we are a team run like all others, we aggressively pursue mediocrity. This is incredibly obvious and simple, it’s easily doable, it’s much better than what we are presently doing, but, we need to play 16 competitive games, we can’t do anything to disturb the norms, or Frazier’s.

 

You guys are lucky I wasn’t posting while we let Mcvay go and failed to go up a few spots to get Watson. I’d be bringing you fine folks SBs for decades. Not trading Trent Williams will prove to be just as stupid as not keeping McVay. 

 

I lost a lot of good remote controls when we passed on Derwin James, but we should have bailed on 2018 and loaded up on the unbelievable class of 2019...while keeping Fuller, and our 3rd. 

 

I look forward to discussing who we will pick at 18 for the next 5 years with you guys. One of those years, we will find a guard. The redskins are the wizards, the wizards are the redskins, we are DC. 

 

 

 

Some guys just get it. The rest work for the Redskins.

 

[wit33]

5 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Before responding to your last post, I was going to ask you to rephrase your question to get the answer you want 🤣  Because it was rather obvious the purpose of your post was to turn the conversation into something positive about Bruce, when there isn't and never has been.

 

Now is a great time to ask the question for someone on your side of the argument, given the way he absolutely pooped the bed with a backfoot thrash throw to lose in Green Bay this past Sunday.  If he continues on the path he's on of not getting out of his own way, which is very likely, then he's definitely not as good as I thought he could be.

 

That said, it still doesn't make Bruce right, good, more than mediocre, or anything positive for his handling of Kirk.  

 

I’ve never been staunch supporter of Bruce, but since I didn’t like Kirk Cousins the dude or as a QB, then that’s the side “we” fell on. 

 

Im also of the belief “good” GMs are largely dependent on landing an elite QB.

 

Exceptions do exist, I love what the Ravens have done and have been staunch supporter for years that the legit dual threat QB allowing the return of ground and pound football. I love contrasting styles as a fan and the Ravens are certainly all in. And imagine this, there back up and young QB mirror the style of the starting QB in case of injury. They’ve adopted the system. This is elite FO work. Tangent over. 

 

Bruce and FO offer very little to no ingenuity and culture. No argument from me. But the philosophy of how to construct a team has changed and is headed in a positive direction. Youth movement is taking place with the young elite gun in the bull pen. 

[PF Chang]

10 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

 

Some guys just get it. The rest work for the Redskins.

 

 

I like Payne but thought we'd take James for sure, particularly given the revolving door we've had at safety since #21. Perfect fit. 

[illone]

13 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

Dan Snyder: Well Bruce, I see you've rejected a 3 year, $19.5M/yr offer from Kirk's side and decided to franchise tag him in consecutive years instead. Instead of trading him at the peak of his value you let him walk for a 3rd round compensatory pick. But I'm a very smart man who will evaluate your decision making based on how Kirk plays week to week in Minnesota. You've done an incredible job and I'd like to make you GM for life. 

 

 

I promise you reality is worse than this

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

Sure...if you want to believe that Bruce had zero control during the Shanahan years, and if Cerrato was hands off during Gibbs 2.0.  

 

Vinny: 32-48 

Bruce: 35-44-1

 

Looks eerily similar to me.  Other than being related to Bruce Allen, why do you have this almost obsessive need to defend him and his tenure as team president?  Is it a burning hatred for Cerrato?  I get the hatred for Cerrato, but tearing down Cerrato to make Allen look good is foolish considering Bruce Allen is nothing more than a white collar Cerrato.

 

"Other than being related to Bruce Allen"

 

At least you didn't call me "Bruce's wife" this time lol....(to be fair, that probably wasn't you)

 

You know what I find hilarious? That apparently there is no factual or intellectually honest reason to question whether or not Allen has done a better job than Vinny Cerrato so it must be some "desire" to defend him that only family members and loved ones would feel.

 

It reminds me of back when Shanahan was first hired and his first draft...after picking Trent and then two more OLinemen in the 7th round, tons of ES members were praising Shanny's dedication to the Line, and kept saying "Vinny would never have done this!"...So I suggested holding off on claiming Shanahan is placing some long-overdue importance on the line and reminded people that in Vinny's first draft with the Skins we drafted Chris Samuels #2 overall, then drafted another OLineman in the 4th round...even better than Shanahan's two 7th rounders. The response?...I had three different posters call me a "Vinny apologist" lol...I wasn't walking lock-step in line with the conventional wisdom and using anything possible to show just how horrid Vinny was. 

 

Now I've gone from being told I'm a "Vinny apologist" to being told I'm vilifying Vinny because I have a "desire" to "defend" Bruce Allen lol....gotta love this place sometimes.

 

What's gotta be confusing to some people on this site is realizing I'm not posting anything based on wanting to defend or vilify anyone. Ever. I enjoy debate, I enjoy the back and forth of trumping people's points or finding holes in their arguments, and them doing the same back to me. It's challenging and a great mental exercise. What I do not enjoy doing and try not to do, ever, is instead debate the reasons why people are saying what they're saying. 

 

So, yes, I do feel Vinny was by far the worst Skins executive under Snyder. Propping up Vinny in order to tear down Allen doesn't fly with me. And if you're gonna use win-loss records to make the claim that Allen was worse than Vinny then you should indeed use those seasons in which there is no denying who was in charge...because I don't believe for a nanosecond that Vinny ever trumped Gibbs on anything, especially not with Snyder seeing Gibbs as a Redskins hero. And no part of me believes Shanahan meekly let Allen and Snyder run things while he was also constantly telling reporters in the press that he had all personnel control and even had it written in his contract. I do believe, after being fired and in an attempt to salvage his reputation, he started distancing himself from playing a role in the bad decisions that were made under his regime...hell, he threw Doc Andrews under the bus not once, but TWICE, to the point that Andrews was texting reporters directly to say "That never happened." 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Dissident2 said:

 

 

Uh ... you're actually giving Bozo full credit for the SM years?

 

Who hired him? Who made that decision? Who was unquestionably in charge...in fact, who was it that damn near everyone said was overriding Scot's personnel decisions and that Scot didn't "really" have the control bruce said he had?

 

Why does that get ignored or purposefully overlooked when it suits people's arguments?

[DJHJR86]

8 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Propping up Vinny in order to tear down Allen doesn't fly with me. And if you're gonna use win-loss records to make the claim that Allen was worse than Vinny then you should indeed use those seasons in which there is no denying who was in charge

 

Bruce Allen has gotten more time here with virtually the same net results as Cerrato.  That isn't propping Cerrato up to tear Allen down.  That's stating facts.  They are both terrible and it's amazing to me how any fan would be okay with Allen's continued employment.  If you wanted Cerrato gone back in 07-09, great.  But if you want to use Cerrato's blunders as evidence that we are somehow better off now than we were then...go for it.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

54 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Maybe it's literally the 2:30 effect (it's 2:34 where I am), but I'm not following you.  Which Shanahan is credible, the one during his tenure or the one after his tenure?

 

My point was that neither should be taken at face value...grains of salt should be taken with everything he says, along with using common sense and logic. For example, does anyone think Shanahan was being told what to say to the press and he just went along with it? Shanahan? Mike Shanahan? lol...

 

And while I know you don't have easy access to the stuff you're referring to--that **** can be damn hard to locate years later--I would question exactly what guys like Keim said in regards to what Shanahan really wanted or what he really had control over. Let me rephrase that: I would want to read what you're referring to in order to understand why you feel what Keim (and whoever else) said trumps everything else...or even if what was being reported should be taken as undeniable fact or just more anonymous speculation. 

 

Just an example of what I mean, it was reported at the time that "sources" said Cousins would only stay if Bruce were gone. Not true, and Cousins own words recently point directly  to that not being true. "Sources" said that Scot wanted to sign Cousins right after training camp ended. Even Keim and Chris Russell threw cold water on that report. "Sources" told Jason Cole that Scot M had to "stand on the table for 5 hours" to convince Dan and Bruce to let Cousins start. Only problem was that this same story had already come out 2 years earlier, but said the meeting lasted 2 hours, not 5, and that Bruce was already on board with starting Cousins over RG3. "Sources" said Snyder didn't talk at all to Cousins after his win against the Browns, instead choosing only to talk to Griffin after the game. Not true, Cousins shot that down recently as well. "Sources" told Russell that Tomsula wanted out of the dumpster fire that is the Redskins asap and is hoping he'd be let go. Not true, he wasn't even under contract so he could have left anytime he wanted.

 

Etc, etc, yadda yadda...

 

As you probably know, i don't buy too much immediately, even if it validates my biases. So like I said, would have enjoyed reading the stuff you referred to, not because I think you're lying or think you're wrong, but because it helps me understand what you're conveying. Add context. 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

35 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

Bruce Allen has gotten more time here with virtually the same net results as Cerrato.  That isn't propping Cerrato up to tear Allen down.  That's stating facts.  They are both terrible and it's amazing to me how any fan would be okay with Allen's continued employment.  If you wanted Cerrato gone back in 07-09, great.  But if you want to use Cerrato's blunders as evidence that we are somehow better off now than we were then...go for it.  

 

Yeah, but the fact you used was diluted by the involvement of a HOF head coach and another possible future HOF coach. That's why I felt it better and more accurate to use the years where they were unquestionably the ones in charge. I even thought to myself that a case could be made that puts Vinny slightly ahead of Allen in that Vinny never got 5 years in a row to be in charge, and it's much harder to put your stamp on a team and make the improvements you want to make when you're only in charge sporadically. That, to me, is a better argument to make than giving Vinny credit for Gibbs' positives to the team.

 

And nothing in my post talked about wanting Bruce to stay or to be jettisoned. I know you don't know my posting history, but I've mentioned too many times to mention that I would want Bruce to either be taken out of the direct football operations or replaced entirely. I just don't feel like putting that disclaimer on every post so that people don't start insisting that I'm defending him when I find something wrong with an argument being made against him. 

 

 

[Dissident2]

26 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Who hired him? Who made that decision? Who was unquestionably in charge...in fact, who was it that damn near everyone said was overriding Scot's personnel decisions and that Scot didn't "really" have the control bruce said he had?

 

Why does that get ignored or purposefully overlooked when it suits people's arguments?

 

Here's the problem with the straw you're grasping at: Bruce not giving Scot full control doesn't at all mean Scot had NO control. Scot's personnel decisions and his methodology of interacting with the players still impacted and influenced the team during that stretch, period. For better or worse? I believe it was the former, as I'm an Occam's Razor kind of guy. I see a 7-25 record the previous two years before SM arrived, as well as a horrendous record before that minus the Shanahan-crafted aberration of 2012. I see the first two back-to-back winning seasons for the franchise in decades while SM was here. I see a return to sub-.500 ball since he left, as well as an absolute shambles in fan relations, PR moves, etc., etc. etc.

 

Then you have Bruce's entire body of work to look at, which is basically an utter wasteland. There's not one moment in his entire sub-par, decades-long career that would lead any clear-thinking individual to feel confident that he knew how to build a winning franchise. 

 

The fact remains, even a drunk doing a half-assed job outperformed Bruce Allen, and Bruce deserves an incredibly small percentage of credit for those two winning seasons. Hiring a talented/troubled guy, lying about his responsibilities the moment you introduce him, then having that guy perform pretty decently in a horrible working environment doesn't scream "Gets a lion's share of the credit" to me. A cursory overview of his entire career makes that obvious anyway.

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

3 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

Here's the problem with the straw you're grasping at: Bruce not giving Scot full control doesn't at all mean Scot had NO control. Scot's personnel decisions and his methodology of interacting with the players still impacted and influenced the team during that stretch, period. For better or worse? I believe it was the former, as I'm an Occam's Razor kind of guy. I see a 7-25 record the previous two years before SM arrived, as well as a horrendous record before that minus the Shanahan-crafted aberration of 2012. I see the first two back-to-back winning seasons for the franchise in decades while SM was here. I see a return to sub-.500 ball since he left, as well as an absolute shambles in fan relations, PR moves, etc., etc. etc.

 

Then you have Bruce's entire body of work to look at, which is basically an utter wasteland. There's not one moment in his entire sub-par, decades-long career that would lead any clear-thinking individual to feel confident that he knew how to build a winning franchise. 

 

The fact remains, even a drunk doing a half-assed job outperformed Bruce Allen, and Bruce deserves an incredibly small percentage of credit for those two winning seasons. Hiring a talented/troubled guy, lying about his responsibilities the moment you introduce him, then having that guy perform pretty decently in a horrible working environment doesn't scream "Gets a lion's share of the credit" to me. A cursory overview of his entire career makes that obvious anyway.

 

Here's the problem with your argument: you just gave a great response as to why Bruce DOES deserve credit for whatever success can be attributed to Scot.

 

Scot wasn't hired in spite of Allen. He was hired because of Allen. So whatever successful traits Scot brought to the Redskins was due specifically and directly to Allen deciding to hire him. No other reason. He didn't train the Skins' scouts on his own time or anything like that. Scot doesn't help this team or franchise one iota without Bruce Allen making the decision to hire him. Why you feel Allen deserves little to no credit for bringing him to the team just baffles me.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

Here's the problem with your argument: you just gave a great response as to why Bruce DOES deserve credit for whatever success can be attributed to Scot.

 

Scot wasn't hired in spite of Allen. He was hired because of Allen. So whatever successful traits Scot brought to the Redskins was due specifically and directly to Allen deciding to hire him. No other reason. He didn't train the Skins' scouts on his own time or anything like that. Scot doesn't help this team or franchise one iota without Bruce Allen making the decision to hire him. Why you feel Allen deserves little to no credit for bringing him to the team just baffles me.

 

I agree with this point.  I find it weird especially on twitter when some put Bruce (often Bruce defenders) versus Scot as if one's success or failures run at odds with each other.  Scot was Bruce's hire.   He can't distance himself for better or worse from Scot's performance here.  I liked Scot's hire even though it ended badly.  So I got no beef with Bruce on that front. My beef is that he didn't double down and hire another person like that afterwards.  

 

Funny enough, i am listening to Sheehan's podcast and they are running a segment of whether we'd want Vinny back to replace Bruce.  The fact that it's even a conversation to me brings it home that at a minimum Bruce's tenure has been no success.  And at the very least he hasn't turned the tide as to the perception of the FO.  He did initially but the organization has circled back to being considering a laughing stock among the national media.  Whether that's deserved or not is a different conversation.

 

I'd take Bruce over Vinny.  But both I think have made this team unlikeable with their own special stamp.  Bruce IMO comes off more competent than Vinny.   Bruce had better hires IMO.  But I don't think much of the job Bruce has done.  

 

If I was pushed for an argument for Vinny over Bruce to play devil's advocate  it would be supposedly Vinny was more often working collaboratively with Dan according to some who covered the team whereas according to most who cover the team now, Dan has given Bruce the leeway to pretty much do his own thing with just occasionally interfering.  Back during Vinny's time we'd see much more Dan being at college days, etc before the draft.  

 

Obviously there is no way to know for sure.  But if that is true then we are seeing more of the unadulterated version of Bruce as opposed to what we saw from Vinny.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/05/11/vinny-cerrato-opens-up-what-daniel-snyder-is-like-redskins-draft-room/

“We would just have to convince him otherwise a lot of the times,” Cerrato said. “He would listen. And if we had a good enough evaluation and good reasoning, then he was cool with it. He was good at listening at those things, especially when Joe Gibbs was there. If the scouts wanted somebody else and Dan took the other [player], they didn’t do a very good job of portraying their case to get somebody else.”

[Dissident2]

9 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Here's the problem with your argument: you just gave a great response as to why Bruce DOES deserve credit for whatever success can be attributed to Scot.

 

Scot wasn't hired in spite of Allen. He was hired because of Allen. So whatever successful traits Scot brought to the Redskins was due specifically and directly to Allen deciding to hire him. No other reason. He didn't train the Skins' scouts on his own time or anything like that. Scot doesn't help this team or franchise one iota without Bruce Allen making the decision to hire him. Why you feel Allen deserves little to no credit for bringing him to the team just baffles me.

 

Lol, utter nonsense. 

 

First off, my initial problem was with you putting forward Allen's record as a GM and including the 2015/16 years as if he was solely/hugely responsible for them. It's clear to me that SM was the main factor in those years being marginally successful, not Allen. Again, it's circumstantial evidence I'm going by, but it's pretty damn strong circumstantial evidence. Let's review it:

 

• Allen in possession of a very poor record as GM with two franchises prior to SM's arrival

Allen not well-regarded at all as a talent evaluator

Allen brings in SM, someone who was VERY well-regarded as a talent evaluator

The team racks up a division title and two winning seasons with SM

SM gets the boot, team goes back to utter suck and the lowest level of fan interest in the organization's history 

 

That's good enough for me to make an informed decision on where the bulk of the credit for 2015/16 should go to. Please, provide me with something, anything of your own to support why Bruce deserves a ton of credit for it. 

 

Your only answer is that he HIRED SM? That's all you've got? 

 

Well, sure, he does deserve some credit for that, although, that said, we have no idea if that was his sole decision or if he was instructed to make that change, we don't know what his motivations were in choosing SM specifically with his known issues, we don't know what his ultimate plan was with Scot or what parameters he expected Scot to work within, we don't know much of anything beyond the "he hired him" piece. There are plenty of theories out there suggesting he hired Scot because he knew he was smart and he also knew that his problems would make him easy to control and to use as a scapegoat if things went south. To Bruce, success that he couldn't take full credit for was his definition of "going south." 

 

Anyway, if you want to use the simple fact "Bruce hired him" as a complete rationale for Allen getting full or even equal credit for those seasons, then why not take that logic further? Let's all thank Allen's mother for those years. After all, if she hadn't given birth to Allen, he couldn't have hired SM. Let's go even further ... let's go back down the line of Allen's ancestry until we find Neanderthal Allen, and let's build a statue of him/her in honor of starting the line that led to George that led to Bruce that led to the hiring of SM. 

 

It's a ridiculous way to look at it, ESPECIALLY when you consider everything Allen did to undermine Scot while he was here, starting with the outright lie from the moment he introduced him when he told us that Scot would have "total control" over personnel. What a way to start a productive partnership. 

 

Good people are hired by douchebags all the time, and they succeed despite the douchebaggery they're forced to deal with. They succeed in spite of the person who hired them, not because of. That's what happened with SM imo. And the statistical facts back that opinion up very strongly. What baffles me is that anyone WOULD give Allen much credit for those years considering everything that happened before, everything that's happened since, and the few things we know happened during the SM era. 

 

 

 

 

[SkinsFTW]

I guess it's as good a time as ever to bring this one back for another run:

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I haven’t made a conscious decision to not fill Dan’s pockets with any more of my $ to make some sort of point or take a stand.  I just don’t have the desire to spend money on them anymore.  I’ve been rather disgusted with the franchise for a while, but still managed to spend money to see a game or two per season and buy merchandise.  I think more out of habit than anything else.  I just have very little juice for the organization anymore.  I just want to like them and what they are doing, even if it doesn’t end with a Super Bowl.  I miss the excitement of waiting for kickoff.  I actually convinced myself that they finally after all these years were doing the right thing when they hired a guy fresh out of rehab to have “total control” of personnel.  I bought back in.  I even held out a smidgeon of hope that they would replace Scot with someone like him, only less issues.  But my gut said they were going to do just what they did and ever since then it’s been really hard to like them again.  Anger has most definitely dwarfed into apathy.  The only way to change that is to reboot the FO with a legitimate GM rolling out a legitimate structure.  That’s the first step to being likable again for me.  Until then I’ll continue to watch because it’s all I know.  It’s basically a soap opera I can’t stop binge watching.

[DJHJR86]

The firing of Bruce Allen would bring a much needed shot in the arm to a very indifferent and apathetic fan base.  

[Skinsinparadise]

6 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

The firing of Bruce Allen would bring a much needed shot in the arm to a very indifferent and apathetic fan base.  

 

No doubt.   The crazy part about it is that its so obvious yet Dan remains firm.  The one thing I'll give is if Dan thinks only Bruce can deliver a stadium then I presume he'd be willing to take the lumps with the fan base until that happens.  And that's my most optimistic take.  My most pessimistic take is what Wylie allegedly told a fan who asked about Bruce -- and he basically said that Bruce will be here as along as he wants. 

 

It got a little lost in the sauce from the last game that there were a bunch of no shows last Sunday.  And that's for a game against Dallas with Dallas fans buying tickets.  I suspect the poor attendance narrative will be loud this season.  And if that happens and the season goes south --the season might have shades of Zorn's last season.  And if it does, how does that effect Dan? 

[DJHJR86]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

No doubt.   The crazy part about it is that its so obvious yet Dan remains firm.

 

Aside from seeing what Haskins has, this is the only other thing that is keeping me interested in this season.  If the team continues to suck and Gruden is fired before or at the end of the season, will Dan fire Bruce too?  I can't wait for that dumpster fire if he decides to can Gruden but keep Bruce.

[Skinsinparadise]

15 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

Aside from seeing what Haskins has, this is the only other thing that is keeping me interested in this season.  If the team continues to suck and Gruden is fired before or at the end of the season, will Dan fire Bruce too?  I can't wait for that dumpster fire if he decides to can Gruden but keep Bruce.

 

This is just a guess and somewhat driven by the picture panted by some beat guys at the beginning of last year.  That is, I think there is a good chance Bruce convinced Dan that last season's fan issues was an anomaly and all will be right this year. Where he might have sold that Lafemina screwed up by not allowing them to dump cheap tickets in the secondary market.  And fans were frustrated by the rise and fall of that season. 

 

If so, and this goes down again, not sure what his spin will be?   It's on Jay?  Wait till next year with O'Connell and Haskins?  Maybe.  I think Bruce survives at least one more year because he can sell a new beginnings narrative plus the stadium is still in play.  If another firebruce thing though heats up, I wonder if that's a factor?  Don't know.  

[ntotoro]

The stadium, the stadium, the stadium... is there even any word? I hope and pray Dan is forced to keep living in that ****hole in Landover. The days are long over where this team has that kind of local cache. Dan just doesn’t know it yet, for whatever reason.