The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[carex]

5 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

Gotta give it to you, that’s the most outlandish take I’ve seen yet in defending Dan.  Fans are “creating evidence”.  When’s the Netflix special, “Making a Bad Owner” being released?

 

I have heard nothing to make me believe that Shanahan had less than the control he was promised.  But nope, there was roster issues so it's got to be on Snyder.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

4 minutes ago, carex said:

 

I have heard nothing to make me believe that Shanahan had less than the control he was promised.  But nope, there was roster issues so it's got to be on Snyder.

 

Okay, so you don’t believe Dan had anything to do with giving up the farm for Griffin.  

 

Dan just grew massive affection to the kid after the fact, treated him and his family like royalty, went bowling with, had Thanksgiving dinner, etc. 

 

Or did Shanny make him do that?

[OVCChairman]

8 minutes ago, carex said:

 

I have heard nothing to make me believe that Shanahan had less than the control he was promised.  But nope, there was roster issues so it's got to be on Snyder.

 

 

To be fair, some of the personnel decisions REEKED of Snyder being involved.  All of it is speculation, but the idea is that if it walks, flies, and quacks like a duck...  The whole Shanahan era unfolded almost exactly as the critics speculated it, and for good reason.. Snyder had his own problems 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

7 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

To be fair, some of the personnel decisions REEKED of Snyder being involved.  All of it is speculation, but the idea is that if it walks, flies, and quacks like a duck...  The whole Shanahan era unfolded almost exactly as the critics speculated it, and for good reason.. Snyder had his own problems 

 

Dan’s just really unlucky, the consistent mediocrity that’s surrounded the franchise for almost 2 decades since he purchased it has nothing to do with him at all, just dumb luck.

[OVCChairman]

6 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

Dan’s just really unlucky, the consistent mediocrity that’s surrounded the franchise for almost 2 decades since he purchased it has nothing to do with him at all, just dumb luck.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that.  Like i said before, he's been a terrible owner and would appear to be the primary cause of the struggles of the team.  

[carex]

31 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

Dan’s just really unlucky, the consistent mediocrity that’s surrounded the franchise for almost 2 decades since he purchased it has nothing to do with him at all, just dumb luck.

 

and this kind of post is why I feel the way I do.  Cause talking about him for the last four years, or eight years means I'm talking about him for the last twenty years.  The idea of changing your opinion on Snyder is unbelievable to some

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that.  Like i said before, he's been a terrible owner and would appear to be the primary cause of the struggles of the team.  

I wasn’t implying you thought that.  But per carex fans have to create evidence as to why he sucks as an owner.  The only other reason I can think for the putrid record is that he breaks a mirror every 7 years.

[carex]

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I wasn’t implying you thought that.  But per carex fans have to create evidence as to why he sucks as an owner.  The only other reason I can think for the putrid record is that he breaks a mirror every 7 years.

 

see you seem to be under the impression that I think he was always a good owner.  I'm not

[Skinsinparadise]

 

My best analogy to Dan that I can think of is he's gone from a 6 beer a day alcoholic to a 3 beer a day guy with an alcohol problem which isn't as flagrant but its still not good -- and there has been no sea change, its all in the past drill.  It's a problem IMO just not as bad but still bad. 

 

The 2013 season was a zoo.  That didn't happen 15 years ago it was 5 years ago.  

The 2017 Scot stuff was a zoo.  That didn't happen 15 years ago.  That was a year ago.

The ugliness of kicking people out the door isn't some long relic from the past -- its alive and well as recent as months ago.

The idea that Dan prefers a buddy running personnel who is a league wide laughing stock versus someone who is respected is still cooking through today.  Google Bruce Allen and Vinny Cerrato and you'll see you'd have a tough time finding GMs who are mocked like that around the league.

 

The idea that they couldn't really go for a young QB in this draft and likely had to go with a veteran (several beat reporters have said this) because Dan doesn't have the patience to let things play out.  The idea that Scot is replaced in theory with a blast from the past with a nostalgic element to it -- all of that stuff is vintage Dan loserville.

 

Yeah I get he's gotten better on some fronts.  But some of the hallmark losing Dan ways of doing business (and in my view the key hallmarks nonetheless of the losing) are still alive and well.   

 

The fact that the Redskins are the only team who haven't won 11 games in 20 years plus...haven't even had two winning seasons in a row aside from recently and they barely pull that off with the 8-7-1.  Not a single first team ALL Pro player if I recall since the 1990s.   Not good.   

 

I am open to the idea that this is the season that maybe they finally breakthrough but I need to see that happen first.  I still see what Sheehen likes to see an organization that can't take the high road. 

 

 

[carex]

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

My best analogy to Dan that I can think of is he's gone from a 6 beer a day alcoholic to a 3 beer a day guy with an alcohol problem which isn't as flagrant but its still not good -- and there has been no sea change, its all in the past drill.  It's a problem IMO just not as bad but still bad. 

 

The 2013 season was a zoo.  That didn't happen 15 years ago it was 5 years ago.  

The 2017 Scot stuff was a zoo.  That didn't happen 15 years ago.  That was a year ago.

The ugliness of kicking people out the door isn't some long relic from the past -- its alive and well as recent as months ago.

The idea that Dan prefers a buddy running personnel who is a league wide laughing stock versus someone who is respected is still cooking through today.  Google Bruce Allen and Vinny Cerrato and you'll see you'd have a tough time finding GMs who are mocked like that around the league.

 

The idea that they couldn't really go for a young QB in this draft and likely had to go with a veteran (several beat reporters have said this) because Dan doesn't have the patience to let things play out.  The idea that Scot is replaced in theory with a blast from the past with a nostalgic element to it -- all of that stuff is vintage Dan loserville.

 

Yeah I get he's gotten better on some fronts.  But some of the hallmark losing Dan ways of doing business (and in my view the key hallmarks nonetheless of the losing) are still alive and well.   

 

The fact that the Redskins are the only team who haven't won 11 games in 20 years plus...haven't even had two winning seasons in a row aside from recently and they barely pull that off with the 8-7-1.  Not a single first team ALL Pro player if I recall since the 1990s.   Not good.   

 

I am open to the idea that this is the season that maybe they finally breakthrough but I need to see that happen first.  I still see what Sheehen likes to see an organization that can't take the high road. 

 

 

 

that 11 wins metric seems so arbitrary to me.  It's like two writers were saying "We;ll talk about how the Skins haven't even managed a double digit win total in...."  "Bad news, they finished 10-6 one year"  "Okay... we'll say 11 wins."

 

When did Bruce Allen become a buddy of Snyder?

 

I think some of his recent decisions are based on time coaching.  Example, Shanny was fired in his fourth year because he ad roster control.  You can't give a guy you might let go in one year total control.  Gruden's going into his fifth year, keeping him and drafting young; you do that you're basically accepting his fifth and sixth years won't be much and ou have to wait for his seventh to evaluate again

[OVCChairman]

7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

My best analogy to Dan that I can think of is he's gone from a 6 beer a day alcoholic to a 3 beer a day guy with an alcohol problem which isn't as flagrant but its still not good -- and there has been no sea change, its all in the past drill.  It's a problem IMO just not as bad but still bad. 

 

The 2013 season was a zoo.  That didn't happen 15 years ago it was 5 years ago.  

The 2017 Scot stuff was a zoo.  That didn't happen 15 years ago.  That was a year ago.

The ugliness of kicking people out the door isn't some long relic from the past -- its alive and well as recent as months ago.

The idea that Dan prefers a buddy running personnel who is a league wide laughing stock versus someone who is respected is still cooking through today.  Google Bruce Allen and Vinny Cerrato and you'll see you'd have a tough time finding GMs who are mocked like that around the league.

 

The idea that they couldn't really go for a young QB in this draft and likely had to go with a veteran (several beat reporters have said this) because Dan doesn't have the patience to let things play out.  The idea that Scot is replaced in theory with a blast from the past with a nostalgic element to it -- all of that stuff is vintage Dan loserville.

 

Yeah I get he's gotten better on some fronts.  But some of the hallmark losing Dan ways of doing business (and in my view the key hallmarks nonetheless of the losing) are still alive and well.   

 

The fact that the Redskins are the only team who haven't won 11 games in 20 years plus...haven't even had two winning seasons in a row aside from recently and they barely pull that off with the 8-7-1.  Not a single first team ALL Pro player if I recall since the 1990s.   Not good.   

 

I am open to the idea that this is the season that maybe they finally breakthrough but I need to see that happen first.  I still see what Sheehen likes to see an organization that can't take the high road. 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely.  

 

I think @carex and I got misunderstood.... Neither one of us believe Snyder is a good owner.  Or that he's making 'all the right decisions.'  The whole conversation was started when I mentioned that it pains me to think that there is a sector of the Redskins fanbase that would NEVER support Snyder's decisions, even if we won, because they've become so soured on Snyder himself.  That there is a group out there that still can't admit that he's (at least on the surface) appeared to have changed his management style, and to that I feel he deserves a bit of credit...  Now of course I get that he very well may have appeared to back off, but he could be pulling the puppet strings of Bruce Allen, thus turning Allen into the focus of hate.  Now it would APPEAR that some management shifts have happened in Ashburn and that Allen's role has been diminished somewhat.  It's also speculated that the groundwork is getting laid to allow for this to become the Schaffer and Smith show for the long term.  Both of which are though to be up and coming stars in NFL team management.  That would go against the narrative of him paving the way for his buddies, but thats just my opinion.  I will also stand with you when I say "I'll believe it when I see it" but it would appear to me that he's trying to run it differently than he has in years past.  Now whether he does it the right way or not?  I guess we won't know if it works til it works. 

 

Again... I still have a big part of me that fears this team may NEVER win with him, and he's earned every bit of criticism he's received.  I wish he would sell the team and go somewhere to count his millions... but if he can find a way to win... 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

Absolutely.  

 

I think @carex and I got misunderstood.... Neither one of us believe Snyder is a good owner.  Or that he's making 'all the right decisions.'  The whole conversation was started when I mentioned that it pains me to think that there is a sector of the Redskins fanbase that would NEVER support Snyder's decisions, even if we won, because they've become so soured on Snyder himself. 

 

Ok, I get that.   But I wonder about that.  I think the typical Redskins fan enjoys success in any fashion it comes.  I think there is something to that point though but its saddled on Dan to create a segment that cynical.  I am not a Dan guy but I am definitely not sour on him no matter what.  When I've thought he turned corners, I've praised him for it.  I've used the example of Steinbrenner of the Yankees as a guy who I think was a bad owner but changed for the better.  I think its possible for Dan, too and while I don't see him turning a corner yet where I feel compelled to praise even a little -- I do agree that he's teasing that he might turn a corner. 

 

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

That there is a group out there that still can't admit that he's (at least on the surface) appeared to have changed his management style, and to that I feel he deserves a bit of credit...  Now of course I get that he very well may have appeared to back off, but he could be pulling the puppet strings of Bruce Allen, thus turning Allen into the focus of hate. 

 

My thing is on the management style there are two things about him that bothered me equally.  1.  His interference.  And I've criticized Shanny plenty so am far from in the tank for him.  but I do believe him when he said McNabb was Dan's baby as for wanted to make the deal.  As for RG3, they were both on board but Dan was the guy really most hyped about it and drove the compensation.  Shanny talked about Dan walking into his office insisting they get Randy Moss and Shanny talked him out of it.  So while it looks that Dan doesn't intervene as much, looks like he does intervene some.  Jay hasn't said anything yet but this stuff comes out later for obvious reasons not when the coach is still employed.  2.  Hiring the guy to run the groceries doesn't have to be anybody special -- more important that they are close with him.  Bruce in that specific way seems a carbon copy of Vinny.

 

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

Now it would APPEAR that some management shifts have happened in Ashburn and that Allen's role has been diminished somewhat.  It's also speculated that the groundwork is getting laid to allow for this to become the Schaffer and Smith show for the long term.  Both of which are though to be up and coming stars in NFL team management. 

 

For me I need to see that happen then just consider the possibility of it.  If it indeed happens, I'll go back to he turned a corner.  I felt he did when he hired Scot but then went back to same old same old.  The thing that astonishes me about it is they seem genuinely surprised that many fans became fatigued and jaded by it like we never had a problem with the old FO structure drill.  The thing that bothered me as much as the move is the PR tone deaf nature of it.  Are they that in a bubble?  They have some vocal fans that will defend them no matter what but its a really small minority.  Most fans that I know are jaded and this is a big reason for it. 

 

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

 

Again... I still have a big part of me that fears this team may NEVER win with him, and he's earned every bit of criticism he's received.  I wish he would sell the team and go somewhere to count his millions... but if he can find a way to win... 

 

Agree.  I am actually even less cynical about him than some.  I am not in the camp that its impossible for him to get it considering for a short spurt in 2015-2016 (ironically their 2 back to back winning seasons) he did get it.  I really don't know.  I am more pessimistic than optimistic though on that front.  But I don't rule it out like some do.  The main reason why I have some optimism is even if he's insistent on the notion of who cares whose picking the groceries let other team obsess about having stud scouting background guys call the shots -- I'll run out a John Schneider out of the building any day to bring back Vinny, or run out Scot for Bruce, etc.  (Hyperbole on both points on my end to bring the point home because there was context with Scot) that's how I roll.  I think eventually for PR reasons alone it will hit him in a Eureka moment that hey maybe this is a problem and even if I don't think it is or care about it, I am learning my customer base does.

 

2 hours ago, carex said:

 

that 11 wins metric seems so arbitrary to me.  It's like two writers were saying "We;ll talk about how the Skins haven't even managed a double digit win total in...."  "Bad news, they finished 10-6 one year"  "Okay... we'll say 11 wins."

 

  

if you go through his record as owner, if I recall its been somewhere in the ballpark of the top 5 worst teams in the NFL during that span.  But I agree you can label the bad record anyway you want.  It doesn't have to be his teams can't win 11 games.   I put together once the # of times other teams in the NFC East won more than 10 games combined during his tenure and its a lot and they've all done it recently, too.   But you don't have to cherry pick to make a case. How about 132-171?  How about in the 80s the Redskins were considered one of the classiest organizations in the NFL -- now its mostly the reverse.  We've gone from being considered a winner who does it with class and style to a loser who does things without class.  The team was literally a punchline on CNBC about how not run a company, yeah it would be like a company run like the Redskins (then they laugh), and the host didn't even having to explain it as if who wouldn't get that reference.  

 

Having said that could this recent run of mediocrity which sadly reresents the peak of Dan's tenure represent them finally turning a corner?  Sure, maybe.  If they win and put Kyle Smith in charge at least from my stand point that's a big time change.  And I get that some think its so clear that its going down that success is just about inevitable and if I agreed with that take, I'd get the optimistic view of Dan. I just don't know one way or another, I'd need to see it play out, that's all.  It's tough for me to grade him on maybe and possibilities.  Maybes haven't always worked out with him.  

 

2 hours ago, carex said:

 

When did Bruce Allen become a buddy of Snyder?

 

Since when did he not? It's a mantra for the people covering the team that the two are close.   Heck even Vinny conceded the reason why Gregg wasn't hired was Dan wanted to bond with Gregg more like friends so invited him to watch the playoffs with them and when they didn't clique like that -- that was the kicker for why he wasn't hired.

 

You hear it even from people who are relatively sympathetic to Bruce like Cooley which is Bruce's at times Dan's social crutch and they are inseparable at times.  Russell who has nailed a lot about the FO for years now (he obviously has a good source there) say Dan is finally getting a little fed up.  But the picture painted is the minority owners don't like Bruce but Dan thus far has stood on the table for him but that might eventually change

 

https://washington.cbslocal.com/2017/03/10/vinny-cerrato-dan-snyder-doesnt-answer-to-bruce-allen/

Cerrato shared similar thoughts with Chad Dukes on 106.7 The Fan on Friday.

“I think, if it starts hitting you in the pocketbook, and fans start not wanting to go [renew] their season tickets and all that, because of Bruce Allen, and if it becomes easier to get rid of Bruce Allen; if the headache goes away if Bruce Allen goes away, I could see the owners eventually — if it becomes that big of an issue — I could see them separating themselves from Bruce Allen,” Cerrato told Dukes.

 

“One thing is, Bruce Allen’s not an owner,” Cerrato observed. “Dan doesn’t answer to Bruce Allen. Bruce Allen answers to Dan, Dwight [Schar], Bob [Rothman], and Dan’s mom and sister. That’s who he answers to. You know, I was very close with the family and everything else. And if the media’s gonna go after Dan and everything, and getting Bruce out of there eliminates all that, I can see Bruce being gone eventually.”

Asked how often public blowback is taken into account while weighing the future direction of the franchise, Cerrato wagered, “I think quite a bit. I mean, that’s your fan base. Those are the people that are buying the tickets and everything.”

“And when people aren’t showing up, and people are cancelling tickets, they’re telling you something,” he said. “They’re giving you their opinion. If it’s that much, and [president of business operations] Dennis Greene can’t sell suites and all those things, then it becomes a big issue.”

 

2 hours ago, carex said:

 

I think some of his recent decisions are based on time coaching.  Example, Shanny was fired in his fourth year because he ad roster control.  You can't give a guy you might let go in one year total control.  Gruden's going into his fifth year, keeping him and drafting young; you do that you're basically accepting his fifth and sixth years won't be much and ou have to wait for his seventh to evaluate again

 

To each their own but if I am the owner and I believe in the coach I would let him develop a young QB.  Screwing up the QB position is another hallmark of the Dan era and he has his finger prints all over most of it.  It started with dumping Johnson for Jeff George and it really never got better from there -- let alone the stuff that apparently he wanted to do but got thwarted on like the article about him falling for Brady Quinn and got talked out of it.  Dan doesn't exactly have the midas touch on QB.  To quote Seinfeld on QB Dan just do the opposite of what you think -- I like the odds better that way. 

 

But back to the overall point, I do agree that Dan is better than before.  But better is relative -- looks like he's gone from really really bad to just bad IMO.   If he removes Bruce and elevates Kyle Smith then I'd complement him just like I did when he hired Scot.  But going back to the same depressing same old same old FO structure with the same classless bad blood style of kick people out the door -- doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about Dan right now where I am in the mood to sing his praises about how he's not as bad.  But I agree its possible and maybe its coming?

[OVCChairman]

@Skinsinparadise I don't disagree with any of that.  I'm not saying he's earned any softening of opinion either.  I, like you, have a lot of questions to whether or not he can ever do anything correctly, and am amazed we are somehow where we are now... and not more in line with being compared to the Cleveland Browns over the last decade.  I didn't make that post to try to sway anyone's opinion of Snyder, just stating that I know there are people that are closed to the idea that Snyder can ever do any good, and they'll try to destroy any decision he makes before we even have the result, simply because his name is tied to it.  On some level I do agree with them.  I find myself instantly blaming him for negative, and at the same time looking elsewhere to deliver praise.  That in itself is why I TRY to give the necessary recognition when its due.  I try to see a positive move, because I DON'T want Snyder to fail.  I want him to succeed... because if he's successful, it means the Redskins are successful on some level.  If he fails, generally speaking the team is following suit.  I want Snyder to see Snyder hold up a Lombardi Trophy because as it stands right now, it will mean the Redskins won the SB.  

[carex]

okay, the thing about Snyder wanting to bond with Gregg WIlliams and not being able to does give me new insight into the Allen/Snyder relationship.  Cause when I hear about a boss with a friend in a job, I always think about hiring someone you were already a friend with for a position, not basing your hiring on if you can become a friend with a guy

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

It kind of ties into the whole RG3 thing where he wanted to become buddies.  Obviously I don’t know Dan personally, but he comes across like a socially awkward dork.  Not saying that’s an indictment on him, just that’s my impression.  It would seem he sometimes uses the business as a friend finder.  I’ve seen this same strategy utilized by some local small business owners just the same.

 

I personally think you can take a lot away from how folks get rich.  I don’t know all the details on Dan’s story but in summary - it does seem he ended up getting lucky.  I’m not saying he didn’t work hard to get there but I don’t think you’ll ever hear those great leader stories you hear about other wealthy business owners.

 

How that ties into the team is just what we’ve been talking about for what feels like forever.  I’m not sure Dan really knows ‘how’ to exhibit great leadership, employ the best at their craft, stay out of their way and foster a positive environment and culture, because he never really had to in his quest to get rich the first time.

 

I think it’s rather insulting that we’re supposed to still be giving this guy the benefit of doubt just because things aren’t as bad as they used to be.  He’s been in this business long enough that I have a hard time giving kudos for doing regular things that he should have been doing all along.  The day I see Snyder come out of his shell, talk to the meanie press, admit his shortcomings, and tell me he’s been seeking mentor ship from great leaders in an effort to become one himself, perhaps then I’ll pat him on the back and give him some of that benefit of doubt.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Just a reminder in case anyone forgot...

 

When the trade was made with the Rams in 2012 so that the Skins could draft RG3, Shanahan went on record with a reporter saying that the only real involvement Snyder had in the decision was signing off on the trading of so many draft picks. Shanahan bent over backwards to make sure the reporter knew that the decision was his, not Snyder's. Whether or not the move "reeks of Snyder" in fans' eyes should be one million percent irrelevant. Shanahan making it sound after the fact as if he meekly stood on the sidelines while Bruce and Dan went nuts for Griffin shouldn't cause any reaction in anyone except eyerolls.

 

 

[OVCChairman]

38 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

 

I think it’s rather insulting that we’re supposed to still be giving this guy the benefit of doubt just because things aren’t as bad as they used to be.  He’s been in this business long enough that I have a hard time giving kudos for doing regular things that he should have been doing all along.  The day I see Snyder come out of his shell, talk to the meanie press, admit his shortcomings, and tell me he’s been seeking mentor ship from great leaders in an effort to become one himself, perhaps then I’ll pat him on the back and give him some of that benefit of doubt.  

 

 

Never once asked anyone to give him the 'benefit of the doubt.'  In fact, I said the opposite.  He doesn't deserve any benefit until he can prove it.  I personally see some things I've liked, but my confidence in him being able to put it all together is very minimal.  I have plenty of HOPE, but my confidence is shot. What he does deserve is the criticism and skepticism.  I only pointed out that I feel some people would not give him credit IF the team were to able to reach the pinnacle...

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, carex said:

okay, the thing about Snyder wanting to bond with Gregg WIlliams and not being able to does give me new insight into the Allen/Snyder relationship.  Cause when I hear about a boss with a friend in a job, I always think about hiring someone you were already a friend with for a position, not basing your hiring on if you can become a friend with a guy

 

The idea that Snyder and Bruce are very close has been said by many, i am surprised its a revelation or you question that part of it.  I get (though I mostly disagree) though those who defend Bruce on the idea that he has brought significant changes where we should give him slack and that he doesn't represent same old same old.  But the idea that Bruce and Synder are close is pretty established.  Cooley in particular talks about it a lot.  Russell likes to say Bruce's power with Dan has much to do that he's like his social crutch within the NFL.

 

As for Dan liking to be pals with others whether its RG3, wanted to be that way with Gregg, going to Vegas with Portis is just about bringing about that pattern.  But if you want to say that has nothing to do with Bruce I agree.  His relationship with Bruce is its own thing and yeah multiple people say they are close.  

 

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

 I try to see a positive move, because I DON'T want Snyder to fail.  I want him to succeed... because if he's successful, it means the Redskins are successful on some level.  If he fails, generally speaking the team is following suit.  I want Snyder to see Snyder hold up a Lombardi Trophy because as it stands right now, it will mean the Redskins won the SB.  

 

Me, too. On my end, I've actually bought multiple times that he's turned a corner and made his case.  But when he went back to Bruce and made a big deal about promoting Doug (I like Doug but its sooooooo Dan to go nostalgia) and then we had the dysfunctional handling to the Scot departure and the ridiculous Kirk press release -- to me Dan feels still very retro Dan.   I do like all the teasing about changes in the offing but I am not falling for a tease, got to see it go down and if it does I'll be one of the first guys praising him.  I've done it before. 

[carex]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

It kind of ties into the whole RG3 thing where he wanted to become buddies.  Obviously I don’t know Dan personally, but he comes across like a socially awkward dork.  Not saying that’s an indictment on him, just that’s my impression.  It would seem he sometimes uses the business as a friend finder.  I’ve seen this same strategy utilized by some local small business owners just the same.

 

I personally think you can take a lot away from how folks get rich.  I don’t know all the details on Dan’s story but in summary - it does seem he ended up getting lucky.  I’m not saying he didn’t work hard to get there but I don’t think you’ll ever hear those great leader stories you hear about other wealthy business owners.

 

How that ties into the team is just what we’ve been talking about for what feels like forever.  I’m not sure Dan really knows ‘how’ to exhibit great leadership, employ the best at their craft, stay out of their way and foster a positive environment and culture, because he never really had to in his quest to get rich the first time.

 

I think it’s rather insulting that we’re supposed to still be giving this guy the benefit of doubt just because things aren’t as bad as they used to be.  He’s been in this business long enough that I have a hard time giving kudos for doing regular things that he should have been doing all along.  The day I see Snyder come out of his shell, talk to the meanie press, admit his shortcomings, and tell me he’s been seeking mentor ship from great leaders in an effort to become one himself, perhaps then I’ll pat him on the back and give him some of that benefit of doubt.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I have a problem just acting like it all happened yesterday.  His last bad coaching decision was 10 years ago, his worst like 17.  Jeff George was around 19 years, and coaches who are supposed to know better have made worse QB calls(Spurrier with Matthews and Wuerrfel, Shanahan with John Beck).  Hanesworth's contract was about 8 years ago I think

 

40 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Just a reminder in case anyone forgot...

 

When the trade was made with the Rams in 2012 so that the Skins could draft RG3, Shanahan went on record with a reporter saying that the only real involvement Snyder had in the decision was signing off on the trading of so many draft picks. Shanahan bent over backwards to make sure the reporter knew that the decision was his, not Snyder's. Whether or not the move "reeks of Snyder" in fans' eyes should be one million percent irrelevant. Shanahan making it sound after the fact as if he meekly stood on the sidelines while Bruce and Dan went nuts for Griffin shouldn't cause any reaction in anyone except eyerolls.

 

 

 

yep, But his ego won't let him take the blame

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

53 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

Never once asked anyone to give him the 'benefit of the doubt.'  In fact, I said the opposite.  He doesn't deserve any benefit until he can prove it.  I personally see some things I've liked, but my confidence in him being able to put it all together is very minimal.  I have plenty of HOPE, but my confidence is shot. What he does deserve is the criticism and skepticism.  I only pointed out that I feel some people would not give him credit IF the team were to able to reach the pinnacle...

I know where your coming from.  I was mainly speaking to the very few that are of the belief he’s a changed man.

 

 

56 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Just a reminder in case anyone forgot...

 

When the trade was made with the Rams in 2012 so that the Skins could draft RG3, Shanahan went on record with a reporter saying that the only real involvement Snyder had in the decision was signing off on the trading of so many draft picks. Shanahan bent over backwards to make sure the reporter knew that the decision was his, not Snyder's. Whether or not the move "reeks of Snyder" in fans' eyes should be one million percent irrelevant. Shanahan making it sound after the fact as if he meekly stood on the sidelines while Bruce and Dan went nuts for Griffin shouldn't cause any reaction in anyone except eyerolls.

 

 

 

What else was he supposed to say?

 

Dans actions after he was drafted are still more than enough to indict him for wrongdoing.  

 

Next.

[OVCChairman]

1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

 

What else was he supposed to say?

 

Dans actions after he was drafted are still more than enough to indict him for wrongdoing.  

 

Next.

 

Not sure if you meant to quote my post in that one... 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

Not sure if you meant to quote my post in that one... 

I updated it to say that I get where your coming from.  

 

Dans history has put him in a big deficit with earning any good will or respect from the fan base.  Like I said though, if he ever comes clean and most importantly makes the necessary changes that result in winning, I do think fans will let bygones be bygones.  But a playoff season here and there with the same management isn’t enough.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

55 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

What else was he supposed to say?

 

Dans actions after he was drafted are still more than enough to indict him for wrongdoing.  

 

Next.

1

 

There are a million things he could have said. Such a weak response people give when the things people involved say contradicts their opinions.

 

And Dan's actions with Portis didn't negate that it was Gibbs who wanted to trade for him.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

There are a million things he could have said. Such a weak response people give when the things people involved say contradicts their opinions.

 

And Dan's actions with Portis didn't negate that it was Gibbs who wanted to trade for him.

 

Coming from the guy that needs watergate like proof that Dan and the FO do or say anything negative...

 

Just like Jay saying great things about Kirk, followed by great things about Alex in public settings....what else are coaches supposed to say about their quarterbacks?

 

“Well, I didn’t really want to give up the farm for this dude, but here we are.  So I grabbed Cousins in the 4th just in case...”

 

Whether or not Dan had anything to do with it is clearly up for debate unless their were bugs in Ashburn that will one day leak.  But your rehashing of a Shanny quote from that time period holds about as much validity as me saying the trade wreaked of Dan.  This is coming from a guy who was all about the trade for Griffin at the time.  But I’m just a fan with absolutely no power to make football decisions and for good reason.

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

41 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

Coming from the guy that needs watergate like proof that Dan and the FO do or say anything negative...

 

Just like Jay saying great things about Kirk, followed by great things about Alex in public settings....what else are coaches supposed to say about their quarterbacks?

 

“Well, I didn’t really want to give up the farm for this dude, but here we are.  So I grabbed Cousins in the 4th just in case...”

 

Whether or not Dan had anything to do with it is clearly up for debate unless their were bugs in Ashburn that will one day leak.  But your rehashing of a Shanny quote from that time period holds about as much validity as me saying the trade wreaked of Dan.  This is coming from a guy who was all about the trade for Griffin at the time.  But I’m just a fan with absolutely no power to make football decisions and for good reason.

 

 

 

Ignoring the opening attempt to attach strawman-type characteristic that don't resemble anything close to fact...

 

It's interesting that you don't actually know what Shanahan said...you only know what I described. I didn't quote him. So for all you know, Shanahan said "I had to talk Mr. Snyder into seeing Griffin as worth it. Guys were joking afterwards about how highly I thought of Griffin." Would that still merit a response of "What else was he supposed to say?" Of course not. But you didn't even ask what exactly Shanahan said...you didn't need to know. All you needed to know was that if Shanahan said it and it contradicted your beliefs, it must have merely been him towing the company line.

 

As for it being up for debate since none of us were there, if that's the case then what was said at the time by those who were there should be given more validity than what people who were NOT there imagine must have happened based on their preconceptions, which seems to be the only thing some on this thread are capable of. Shanny later contradicting his own words only shows how self-serving he can be.

 

But I get it..."What else was he supposed to say" can be applied to anything that goes against what we believe, requires no extra thought whatsoever, and we can safely continue with our long-held beliefs uninterrupted. Let's see how that works on some other actual quotes:

 

"Sheehan just elaborated some more. He said that Shanny told him Dan didn't meddle in personnel decisions."

 

Well, what else was Shanny supposed to say...after being fired?

 

 

"Sheehan even elaborated on it some, saying Dan isn't in the draft room telling them who to draft, etc. But yeah Sheehan outright says that Shanny outright told him that Dan didn't meddle in personnel."

 

Well, what else was Shanny supposed to say...in private?

 

 

"Shanahan said Wednesday he was not obligated to consult with Snyder but did so anyway because it involved such a critical decision about a franchise quarterback."

 

Well, what else was Shanny supposed to say?

 

 

 

As for the original question: Shanahan could have said "It was a Redskins Decision®...we all wanted him." That's something 'else' he could have said.