Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Bruce Allen/GM Thread


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Dan won't get rid of Bruce but Bruce may tell Dan to go **** himself and resign.

 

The ultimate irony would be Bruce does go to the Rams and while he's there, the Rams win a Superbowl.

The Skins replicate Rivera's inconsistency with the Panthers.

 

So be it as long as he goes the **** away!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Both will work for Schaffer.  Each with their own responsibilities. 

 

Dan can do whatever the hell he wants regardless of structure because he owns the damn team. 

Be aware of danny boy going one step further to mimick his mentor, hence becoming owner and GM ;):silly:

The upcoming days are going to be interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, wilco_holland said:

People are over reacting to the order of thinks. GMs get way to much credit around the league. Every year coaching staffs get fired but the GM stays and gets a second or third time to hire his guy. 

 

At the end you want to have a good partnerships. A head coach and GM who share a vision and keep each other sharp & accountable. We chose the HC and now will take time to find a GM who fits with that. Kyle has the inside track, can work with Ron the upcoming weeks. See if that combination works. After the draft we can try to hire a new guy if necessary. It's easier to change FO after the draft, then before. Most teams will just run with a new GM and same scouting staff. 

 

I'm not saying this is the way but I don't see an direct issue. If the FO can support coaching staff with talented players and a good roster, that's great. If the coaching staff can develop players and get most out of there potential, amazing. They depend on each other. 

I dont think you understand the real issue.  The real issue isnt that some teams chose a HC before a GM.  Its that they do it with someone who maybe knows football.  The issue is in this case the HC would be chosen by someone who has shown over 20 years he knows nothing about choosing anything football related.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

I think "Final say" is a term thrown around too much. Usually I imagine either the HC/gm think on the same  wavelength or its not going to work anyway.

 

It would work that way with a gm picking the coach or the coach picking the gm. The only thing that would bother me is strife from within.

 

As long as there is communication and everyone ultimately let's each other do the job they were paid to do, and decisions are made based on properly researched info done by scouts, I don't have a real problem who has "Final say" ( I mean, I have a hard time believing a relationship that basically consists of [Coach] "This guys on the board,  my staff really likes what he's got and the scouts have a high grade on h...." [GM] " NO! You're picking THIS guy, and you'll LIKE it!" last very long, if they even exist)


You’re right that it gets thrown around too much (by those who don’t really grasp it) and about the communication stuff, for sure, as that’s key to everything. 


But that’s not at all what “final say” should mean. It means that after all the voices, reports, rankings, etc... are given to him, he has the ultimate authority on what to do with it. Who does he trust the most on what matter and why? And if it all fails, he’s the clear authority responsible for it. I don’t think anyone with final say ignores everything given to him and just does what he wants. That’d be insane and it’d be a clear failure regarding his own span of control. Why even have any supporting roles working for you in that case? 
 

That is absolutely vital because it means there can be an hierarchy, authority and a span of control clearly delineated so that there’s accountability for everyone involved. He’d be able to promote those doing a good job, give them their proper roles relative to their expertise, and eliminate the weak links quickly as it’s all filtering up to him without anyone being able to blame someone else or creating factions by usurping him. 
 

The additional problems here are that:

 

 1) Those who’ve been given that have either been coaches who weren’t deserving of it (vast majority aren’t and shouldn’t be in that position anyway) or executives who were previously out of the league and had failed at their previous stints. 
 

2) Due to the generally vague and weak structure Dan has created, they can get undermined at any time, so even having that authority at one point doesn’t guarantee anything. A faction can be created from within that has Dan’s ear and, thus, there’s no need to be loyal to anyone else at any time. Which in turn creates an atmosphere of distrust, division, and destroys the cohesion necessary to attain the goals set via the culture being established.
 

Success becomes retaining your job with Dan versus actually focusing on the field. 
 

Bruce was actually an extremely successful Team President under Dan’s organizational setup. And while we hear a lot of good things about Schafer, his success in that regard is a major concern, as well. Same goes for guys like Larry Hess, the Head Athletic Trainer. These guys have been extremely successful and have thrived attaining the main goal Dan has set up via the culture he’s established there. The concern there is that the results on the field are clearly secondary and they simply do not need to be accountable or loyal to anyone other than Dan. Instead, based on proper hierarchy, they should rise or fall with each other outside of less egregious mistakes and Dan should have made that clear, organizationally, from the onset. 
 

And that’s not necessarily a knock on either of them, it’s Dan’s culture. If that changes for the better, they might be able to shine. Nonetheless, it’s a major concern. I’d say with Hess more so than Schafer based on all that we hear from players, agents and media. 
 

Either way, it’s really important that we see the new faces coming in here being able to really change what they want no matter the tenure or comfortability they have with Dan. Final say over personnel is a significant part of that, as the above definitely rings true with the players, too, especially at QB. 
 

Hopefully, if Ron is the guy, he meant what he said about not wanting final say over personnel, but wanting to collaborate heavily and have control over the active 46. That is how the majority of successful franchises have operated and it was refreshing to read that quote from him. He gets it on that point. 
 

My fear is Dan is so desperate, that’s how he sells the job to him and Ron gets tempted enough by it. 😕 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

GM's are a crapshoot, look at the Browns, they had a boatload of picks, went out and got a perceived stud GM in Dorsey and hired consultants last offseason to help with the draft.

 

And they still couldn't get it right.

 

7 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

Who knows, Dorsey may end up turning things around and I'm sure he looks great on paper when it comes to his resume but when you hire a GM you're picking talent just like you do when you draft players and from what I've seen over 35 years is that sustained success as a GM is very rare, it happens but rarely.

 

 


I understand why you’re saying this, as it’s acceptable on the surface, but I couldn’t disagree more with this take. 
 

An analogy to ponder, first. 
 

You’re being trained by an expert archer. He tells you how to breathe calmly and with pace, how your shoulders should feel, where your hands need to be, what your eyes should be focused on, etc... and then tells you to shoot.
 

You miss the mark. 
 

Do you say screw it, scrap the whole thing, I’m not listening to you, I’m going to do it my own way? Or do you take another shot? 
 

This is pretty much what you’re advocating, or I guess I should say insinuating, here. 
 

The Browns did everything right organizationally. The hiring process and the structure created was solid and how the majority of sustainably successful franchises have operated. 
 

It’s ok if Dorsey fails. The NFL is uber-competitive and difficult to build a contender. You take another shot at it. You don’t just scrap that entire process and structure. You keep trying until it works. You don’t say, “well, it’s all a crap shoot screw this it doesn’t matter really”, and justify going some other route because of it. If you think you can innovate and be a pioneer in the field, fine, great, wonderful... but any innovator and pioneer will tell you they mastered the fundamentals first BEFORE they could truly innovate. Otherwise it’s just chaos. 
 

So, yes, sustained success for any GM is difficult to attain. But that’s not a function of the GM, that’s a function of the NFL. You don’t downplay that role because of it. 

 

Besides, I find this whole obsession with the Browns weird. They did improve, didn’t they? I mean, that team was so bad they couldn’t win a game for two years. It was historically awful. They won 7 games this year. They’ve actually come along, just not as fast as many hyped up. We shouldn’t trash everyone involved for that, should we? They made some mistakes with some pieces, but the overall process was sound. Stay on it. 
 

But as many of us said at the time, Haslam is as impulsive and reactionary as Dan. Who knows what’s happening inside that building right now, lol. Even if these guys stay around for the most part, it could be ugly in there. 

 

6 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

There’s no reason in the world for this to be the case. 

 

The only thing that matters is the HC and the GM work together and are happy to work together.  If Ron has a say in hiring the GM, why is it any different than a GM hiring a coach? 

 

The GMs job is to pick the players.  The HCs job is to coach the players.  

 

It actually makes no sense that one should work for the other. 


Yes, the only thing that matters is how they work together, but that’s AFTER the hiring process. 
 

There’s actually a pretty damn good reason the hiring process has been traditionally one way and not the other.

 

If the GM is picking the players, you want that guy to identify what coach and scheme goes best with the type of players they’re good at evaluating and discovering. 
 

Now, the ideal is to get as many multi-dimensional players as possible to fit any scheme at any time and so that the coach can be flexible in what he does (which would in turn minimize the significance of specific coaching styles), but there’s a salary cap, a draft, and a limited roster you have to battle 31 other teams with in managing at the pro level. Which makes that virtually impossible outside of anomalous situations. 
 

So what’s the next best thing and quickest way to build a solid team? Focus on a certain style of play and scheme, identify those players that fit it, and attempt to bring them all in at the same time for a coach who excels at teaching that style of play and scheme. 
 

Which means that there’s a very good, perfectly rational thought process in making the GM come first during the hiring process and why that’s traditionally been the way it’s done. There’s simply way more at stake in managing those resources at a high enough level, quickly enough, to downplay that like you’re doing here. 

 

To be fair, after that hiring process is completed, your structuring of the organization where they’re both equally accountable to another executive (who knows what they’re doing, of course) is acceptable and can work.
 

It’s pretty much exactly what we had with Gibbs, Beathard and JCK back in the day... Beathard did lead the hiring process to acquire Gibbs, had final say over personnel and gave Gibbs what he needed personnel-wise to succeed, but both reported to JCK equally. 
 

As long as both are staying in their lanes and the roles/titles given to them by Dan or his top executive are given the authority and span of control relative to their expertise, they’re set up for success. Alas, that has essentially NEVER happened under Dan. 
 

Now, can the hiring process be done the other way around? Sure. But that’s the more difficult route. Coaches are already so busy with regards to what they’re doing they rarely have time to evaluate and scout players at a high enough level, never mind actually evaluating the scouts/executives themselves! Which is why they just end up picking execs they’ve been with before and know, even if said execs are not necessarily adept at fulfilling that role for them. 
 

By the nature of their roles, coaches are short sighted and shouldn’t look too far ahead. They have to teach and develop these players NOW. GMs, on the other hand, have their entire time devoted to the big picture of resource management and asset acquisition. 
 

So, yes, there’s plenty of good reasons why that’s the case and certainly far from “no reason in the world”. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the whole "Hire a GM before hiring a head coach" shtuff...

 

It occurred to me that whenever a franchise fired a GM, or the GM retired, that franchise would by default be hiring the GM after the head coach was already in place. So I became curious as to how teams tended to handle the situation the Skins are in now: needing to hire both a head coach and a GM at the same time.

 

I did a quick (well, wasn't quick at all lol) accounting of the different times teams were in that situation. Worth noting: I only focused on the last 20 years since it was brought up that things may be handled differently in the modern era of the NFL. Also to note: I only looked at the NFC teams because this was too effin' tedious lol...

 

Anyways, here ya go (N/A means I didn't find a time over the last 20 years where that team had to hire both a head coach and a GM at the same time):

 

Cardinals –

GM hired: January 8, 2013

Head coach hired: January 17, 2013

 

Falcons –

GM hired: January 13, 2008

Head coach hired: January 23, 2008

 

Giants –

GM hired: December 28, 2017

Head coach hired: January 22, 2018

 

Lions -

GM hired: early January 2001

Head coach hired: January 24, 2001

 

Rams –

Head coach hired: January 13, 2012

GM hired: February 10, 2012

 

49ers –

GM hired: January 29, 2017

Head coach hired: February 6, 2017….however lol…

 

“The 49ers are expected to offer Atlanta Falcons offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan their vacant head coaching job…Shanahan, according to sources, will get to help pick the 49ers' next general manager…” – January 16, 2017 (2 weeks before Lynch was hired)

 

Seahawks –

Head coach hired: January 8, 2010

GM hired: January 19, 2010

 

Buccaneers –

Head coach hired: January 1, 2014

GM hired: January 21, 2014

 

Vikings -

Head coach hired: January 6, 2006

GM hired: January 26, 2006

GM hired again (lol): May 30, 2006

 

Saints –

N/A

 

Panthers –

N/A

 

Cowboys –

N/A

 

Eagles –

N/A

 

Bears -

N/A

 

Packers -

N/A

 

 

**********************

 

To me anyway, there doesn't seem to be a set way that the NFL conducts hiring both the head coach and GM at the same time. Not counting the Redskins, 4 NFC teams hired the GM first, 5 NFC teams hired the coach first, and 6 NFC teams never had to make that choice.

 

I could have missed something, right now don't give a damn lol...like I said, this was tedious as **** at times.

  • Like 5
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I’m 32 years old and a lifelong Skins fan... sadly this is one of the best days, but I’m happy it’s here. Long overdue.. get a real GM to work with Rivera and let’s be at least an average franchise for once 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time I've actually thought Snyder may have been affected by the fans...I'm still thinking that, if so, it was the empty stadiums on game days far more than anything. But hell, maybe it was everything the fans did to show their dissatisfaction. I rarely go down that road as being likely, but I could have been wrong this time.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Califan007 said:

This is the first time I've actually thought Snyder may have been affected by the fans...I'm still thinking that, if so, it was the empty stadiums on game days far more than anything. But hell, maybe it was everything the fans did to show their dissatisfaction. I rarely go down that road as being likely, but I could have been wrong this time.

 

I agree. Deep wounds this season. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • TK locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...