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
3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

 

If the HC is the one in the power position, them hiring a personnel guy that they know can acquire the personnel they need is an underrated aspect of that business path. Catch there, though, is if the HC goes, the GM has to go. In the other structure it's opposite. But either way, you need a relationship between those two positions that works well.

 

The Redskins do not have that. In any form.

 

I agree with the chemistry point.  I prefer the GM hiring the HC.  I don't hate the HC brings the GM method as long the HC isn't the defacto GM with the personnel guy being the figurehead.   Case in point here.  Shanny was the defacto GM.  Marty on the other hand hired John Schenider and made him the defacto GM for the most part.   I like it the Marty way not the Shanny way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KDawg

KDawg

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I agree with the chemistry point.  I prefer the GM hiring the HC.  I don't hate the HC brings the GM method as long the HC isn't the defacto GM with the personnel guy being the figurehead.   Case in point here.  Shanny was the defacto GM.  Marty on the other hand hired John Schenider and made him the defacto GM for the most part.   I like it the Marty way not the Shanny way. 

 

I don't mind the HC having significant sway on the roster. I think they should have a say no matter the structure. The GM, though, is their check and balance. How do they evaluate the player the coach wants? How does it fit in the cap and for future seasons' cap? Does the move involve assets that the team can't afford to lose? How do the scouts report? Those are the important factors. Who is who's supervisor doesn't make a lick of difference. And I don't believe that either model is superior... Just as you said, as long as the coach and the GM are working together to meet the goal of superior personnel and superior asset management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo#44

Riggo#44

Posted
Posted

Getting the overwhelming feeling Allen is staying because Dan Snyder is a Class A dip****. I guarantee he is in Dan's ear with the "We're close" bull****, pointing at how we ALMOST beat the Eagles (missing half their offense), and Haskins is really close! We drafted well--of course Allen is going to take credit for that! It was all Gruden, and Manusky! Never mind who put them in place!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

I don't mind the HC having significant sway on the roster. I think they should have a say no matter the structure. The GM, though, is their check and balance. How do they evaluate the player the coach wants? How does it fit in the cap and for future seasons' cap? Does the move involve assets that the team can't afford to lose? How do the scouts report? Those are the important factors. Who is who's supervisor doesn't make a lick of difference. And I don't believe that either model is superior... Just as you said, as long as the coach and the GM are working together to meet the goal of superior personnel and superior asset management.

 

I am ok with that but some coaches want to be the defacto top talent evaluator in the building -- that scenario I oppose.  It's rare for that to work save Belichick.  But I am ok with them having say and to be heavily apart of the process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KDawg

KDawg

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

It makes no sense to have a coach handle the hiring of FO and player personnel, we watched coaches get that power through the 90's and they all failed miserably.

 

 

 

The problem is when the owner doesn't have a football mindset and doesn't hold the coach accountable. I also don't believe McDermott hired Beane. The Pegula's got Beane to be the personnel guy due to how well he meshes with McDermott. 

 

I think having a guy that knows your system is a complete boon to the team. You just have to have someone in place that has the team's best interest in mind as well. The Pegulas have that, and are at least relatively adept to it. Snyder isn't. Allen isn't. Therein lies the rub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JSSkinz

JSSkinz

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

The problem is when the owner doesn't have a football mindset and doesn't hold the coach accountable. I also don't believe McDermott hired Beane. The Pegula's got Beane to be the personnel guy due to how well he meshes with McDermott. 

 

I think having a guy that knows your system is a complete boon to the team. You just have to have someone in place that has the team's best interest in mind as well. The Pegulas have that, and are at least relatively adept to it. Snyder isn't. Allen isn't. Therein lies the rub.

It's a fair point, so basically put it in the hands of anyone besides Dan is what you're saying.

 

LOL, I'm not sure I can argue with you.  The best case scenario is we find a 3rd party to hire Bruce's successor but I guess I agree that anything that keeps the decision making process for football related positions out of Dan's hands may be a blessing.

 

I would like to see some separation between the FO and coaching, guys can respect one another but when these relationships are too close it can be problematic when it comes to making tough decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KDawg

KDawg

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

 

I would like to see some separation between the FO and coaching, guys can respect one another but when these relationships are too close it can be problematic when it comes to making tough decisions.

Absolutely.

 

It can also create a special atmosphere when two people know each other and know how to communicate well. But it takes filling those positions with people who have character and drive. It's a challenge. It's not easy. That's why so many teams use the GM -> HC model. It's easier (not easy) to maintain.

 

The Redskins, however, operate on a different planet.

 

Mike Shanahan very likely didn't have full say over the roster. I say that because of the obvious lack of belief in Griffin when he drafted Cousins 3 rounds later. I also believe Allen already had Snyder's ear a bit at that point. I'd even argue that I doubt Shanahan had as much control as he thought he was going to get. 

 

And obviously, he and Allen didn't wind up getting along all that well. 

 

The Skins are very convoluted and it shows in their lackluster results. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Conn

Conn

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Beltway media all got their Xmas bonuses.  They’ll fire it back up for the flock in January.

 

Btw, did you know Bruce Allen drinks Coors Light?!?

 

I like to think that these posts are what happens when Threepio goes into "low power mode" during A New Hope. Makes me feel better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skin'emAlive

Skin'emAlive

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The Browns specifically at the moment are more highly regarded than the Redskins are from what I can tell.   Real GM.  Good talent.  Better record.  They have won twice as many games as we have in their version of a disappointing season.   The Dolphins have a zillion draft picks in the next two years yet have the same record we do.  So I do regard them higher at the moment. 

 

IMO you don't do a rebuild half way.  That's not rebuilding.  The Dolphins at the beginning of the season had the youngest roster in the league.  The Browns the third youngest.  the Redskins had the 20th youngest roster.   19 teams have younger rosters than we do.

 

The rest of this isn't directed to your point.  My point is Dan needs to change how he does business.  I am stating the obvious but yeah maybe the 21st season is the charm with the same approach.  I can't mock other teams who are more aggressively rebuilding.  And yeah I do put them ahead of us until something I see works that elevates us above them.  The Browns have disappointed but they are still better than we are.   Their "rebuild" approach while disappointing thus far still beat what we are doing and by a good margin thus far. 

 

We can laugh at the Jaguars but they'd laugh at us harder.  They won twice the number of playoff games then we have during Dan's reign.  Dan's never exceeded 10 wins.  They've done it 3 times.  They won more games then we did this season and are loaded with picks next season.

 

In the 80s, early 90s, we'd compare ourselves to the best in the league.  Are we as good as the 49ers?  Giants?  Now during Dan's reign its hey we might not be as bad as the Browns.  The sad thing is it's not easy to win even those sad arguments.  But the fact that this is the discussion shows the depths this team has sunk to.  I see it on twitter sometimes too -- heck people are complaining about Dan but they should chill because we could be the Jaguars right now being mocked today around the league...

 

It's sort of living the analogy of the kid coming home with the D report card and their excuse is there are 3 other students in class that also got a D and you engage in the conversation like its a perfectly valid excuse.  Sadder yet you delve deeper and you aren't even sure those 3 students are really worse.  But even if you won that argument, so what?   Talk about low standards.  Dan's legacy?


I feel I didn’t articulate this particularly well. In a nutshell, I don’t think Cleveland or Miami are in any position to claim superiority over Washington. Until one of those franchises can sustain even a modicum of success before crashing and burning, I would never claim to look up to how they approach building a franchise. These reasons are not limited to quality of players, but philosophy and FO structure. 
 

You could claim that Cleveland has a better roster now, but they have no idea what their identity is, and it shows. Are they a running team? Air raid behind mayfield? Ball control? No one knows. They put pieces together with no particular plan for how to compete within the division, and are not close to overtaking Pittsburgh or Baltimore. Miami traded away Tunsil for a haul. Trade of the year imo. ( although i scoffed at the trade, tunsil has turned it around in Houston and has looked quite well). But then they traded Fitzpatrick. That was an unnecessary move. Now they have no identity going into next year. Prior to the move you could say their identity was built around a solid db core. Now what? 
 

I disagree that we had no plan or philosophy the past 10 years. We would have had the present day Jackson offense built with Griffin. Mara Destroyed that plan with the Bogus CBA cap penalty. Then griff got injured. We also had a plan to stop the run with multiple moves within the draft designed to stop Elliot/Saquon, followed up with ball control ( Alex Smith). This worked for a bit until the injuries across the board. But imo, it was a sound strategy. We’ve also given ample time for coaches to implement whatever system they had in mind. Though as of now it hasn’t worked, its still the right way to do things.
 

Where we have failed as a franchise is allowing Bruce to continue operating As a personal guy in any capacity. Not just because he has been terrible at FA acquisitions, but because his ethos rubs any and all core players or rival GMs the wrong way in contract negotiations. He has gambled too much on injury prone players. And he refuses to adhere the basic building blocks of a successful franchise such as a better qualified medical staff, a genuine PR staff, and transparency and ownership in the face of failures. If the one thing left that has tied him to the franchise is his ability to secure a new stadium deal back in DC, ( which by the way has been Laughable at best) then even that is a colossal failure because it’s far easier to secure a new stadium with local fan support generated upon local and cultural immersion compounded with sustained organic success. His approach to rub elbows with local government in the hopes they will allow you into their club won’t work unless they are winning; and now we’ve gone full circle. He doesn’t understand this fan base, and his car salesman esque approach to bringining the skins back to dc or building a successful franchise is so far and a way antithetical to the culture of the fan base. It’s why Buffalo still has such a huge following, and we cant give away tickets. He failed spectacularly at building around staples of this franchise such as the Hogettes, the Marching band, chief zee, etc. This was a blue collar franchise that embraced the fans. People can watch a losing franchise. People refuse to care about a franchise with no soul. 
 

If Bruce is gone and we build from within ( Kyle Smith), I think we may be on to something great. If Bruce is still here, expect spectacular failure. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wildbunny

Wildbunny

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, HigSkin said:

The Twitter speculation is yes, he would come back.

Could would be better than would I believe.

 

1 hour ago, Skin'emAlive said:


More importantly, how many years left does he have on his contract? 

1 year left at the end of the season. Year he won't be able to hold out, or he might end up in a perpetual loop of being unpaid and still be property of the Washington Redskins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kingdaddy

kingdaddy

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

Could would be better than would I believe.

 

1 year left at the end of the season. Year he won't be able to hold out, or he might end up in a perpetual loop of being unpaid and still be property of the Washington Redskins.

I gotta believe the Browns would still have interest in Trent....just wonder what we could get for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nonniey

nonniey

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

I gotta believe the Browns would still have interest in Trent....just wonder what we could get for him?

Optimistically or realistically?  You got the optimistic assessment from UK. So less than that for a realistic assessment (I'd say a 3 and a 5). 

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...