The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[HardcoreZorn]

Wasn’t Dan upset at Bruce for not clueing in Doug more on Alex Smith front? Maybe things have changed some since then as it’s also been reported Bruce has been phased out some. Because why else would Schaefer/Doug be the ones responsible for Peterson coming in. That doesn’t add up.

 

Also Payne>James still. James is a beast and was my guy too, but I’ve been thrilled with Payne and it has a cumulative affect on the entire defense. Chargers are 22nd in yards and are giving up 31 points a game thus far so it’s not as if Derwin transformed that defense. And I really like Nicholson and Swearinger so it made sense for us to go Payne and I’m glad they did.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Wasn’t Dan upset at Bruce for not clueing in Doug more on Alex Smith front? Maybe things have changed some since then as it’s also been reported Bruce has been phased out some. Because why else would Schaefer/Doug be the ones responsible for Peterson coming in. That doesn’t add up.

 

 

 If Dan was upset about that its news to me, haven't heard anyone say that.   Russell has said Dan is mad at Bruce's public gaffes and Schaffer's power in that building has risen.  Doug's power behind the scenes according to Russell has lessened, too -- but as a public figure they see his value and on that end its increased.

 

Adding all of that up, maybe its Schaffer who is legitimately on the rise?  A lot of attention was on Doug as to that story but cutting through all of that it was Doug following up on a Schaffer idea not his own.

 

Craig Hoffman poked around the story a little and what he said was that bringing in veterans for tryouts isn't perceived typically as a big deal in that building.  The players are typically identified by Santos and they run through the players in order -- this was the next rated player, etc so lets bring him in.  Trent apparently has bugged people there for a while about Adrian, too -- knowing he's in shape, etc. 

 

I know some will hate this part -- some to defend Dan, some to attack Dan but Hoffman's theory is Dan is known as a bit of a jockey sniff -- as he called it, can get star struck by the big players and he wanted to be there when a big name like Peterson entered the building.  But that was just his theory after poking around versus knowing that's the case

[Commander -JB-]

All i know is that the 2017 draft has already netted us 3 starters (Allen, Nicholson, Roullier) and also Ryan Anderson who has shown progress from year one.  Edit: Forgot Moreau who has stepped up as well.  Even Jeremy Sprinkle has been getting a lot of snaps.  Josh Harvey-Clemons as well.  Hell of a draft.  Let’s hope 2018 ends up showing some promise! (Guice’s injury and Christian being a long term project)..

[JSSkinz]

Eric Schaffer had a good interview on 106.7 the other day.

https://thefandc.radio.com/eric-schaffer-redskins-have-youth-on-their-side

 

Schaffer called into Grant & Danny on Tuesday and was asked if the organization is confident it can stick it to the naysayers this season. He preached cautious optimism.

"I wouldn't crown us just yet," Schaffer said. "As Dennis Green might say. We're 2-1. We'd like to be 3-0 going into the bye, but 2-1 is okay. I think we do feel good about our team."

 

"What's probably not talked about is kind of the youth of our team," he said. "I've been here 16 years and I track these kind of things, and this is the youngest team we've ever had, this is the youngest defense we've ever had, these are the youngest starting and backup defensive players and it really starts with the young defensive line that we have.

"Over the last two years, I think we have 19 homegrown players on our roster, so we feel good about the youth and feel good about our coaching staff that are going to work to develop those players and make them even better."

 

The Redskins are believed to have reserved around $9.8 million in cap space entering the 2018 season. That's a lot of cash, which some argue could have been allocated to free agents. But the organization has come a long way from its free-spending early years of Dan Snyder's ownership. This generation of the club has been smart with its money and quietly built through the draft, stockpiling young, controllable talent – all the things Redskins fans used to covet about marquee organizations like the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers.

 

"If you think about it, you've got 53 players on the roster," said Schaffer. "How many of those players are on their rookie deals?"

 

"So, my thought as always a general of thumb," he continued, "if you have half or more than half of your players on their rookie contract – regardless of position – then that gives you an opportunity to go out and sign guys like Paul Richardson in free agency and most importantly be able to re-sign our own players that we've drafted and developed. You know, guys like Trent (Williams) and Morgan (Moses), and guys like Brandon Scherff have this year and one more left. So those are important for us to do that. But you always gotta be mindful of sort of the 53 and how many are on their rookie deals."

 

Read the rest at the posted link.

[Thinking Skins]

@JSSkinz, he also said that he got that half players on their rookie deals philosophy from Bruce, who was the first person to really look at the impact of roster construction from a cost analysis.

[JSSkinz]

11 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

@JSSkinz, he also said that he got that half players on their rookie deals philosophy from Bruce, who was the first person to really look at the impact of roster construction from a cost analysis.

I didn't catch that part, those rookie contracts are a huge part of the equation these days.

[Skinsinparadise]

50 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

@JSSkinz, he also said that he got that half players on their rookie deals philosophy from Bruce, who was the first person to really look at the impact of roster construction from a cost analysis.

 

I heard that interview when it happened, I didn't register that he got that view from Bruce.  I re-listened to it just now.  He actually says "my thought as always" -- comes off like he's saying that always been his philosophy let alone Bruce taught him that philosophy.

 

Where he credits Bruce was he helped bring a cap heavy approach compared to previously (I think we all acknowledge here Vinny was a train wreck with the cap) and he was one of the original cap guys in the league.  Schaffer is a pretty generous guy doling out the praise, even towards Spurrier, he's learned something from every one, etc.  Takes shots at no one even with Grant/Danny setting him a little to do it.   He comes off as a good guy -- I've only heard positive things about him both as to his competence and personality from anyone who covers the team. 

 

And his general positive aura reminds me oddly a little of McVay.  They are different type of guys.  But McVay stood out to me personality wise, said so at the time during the RG3 soap opera stuff in 2014, as being a ray of positivity and he seemed genuinely so in the middle of the storm. 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I guess you can read his comment about Bruce in a variety of ways:

 

Q: Eric, in the years that you've been here--and it's been 16 by the way, can't believe it that's an incredible number at this point--what has changed the most here over the last handful of years in terms of organizational hierarchy, culture, aptitude, in terms of developing players, philosophy...what do you think changed the most in your tenure here?

 

Eric: (part mentioning Bruce) Things kind of settled and became a little bit different, I think, when Bruce Allen came back in, I think, 2010. Um, you know I have great respect for Bruce as a, in football and I think he's probably--he's one of the original cap guys in the NFL in terms of thinking about roster construction and he's been a great resource for me here and for the organization.

[Skinsinparadise]

14 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

I guess you can read his comment about Bruce in a variety of ways:

 

 

Specific to the comment about rookie contracts, he just about flat out said that's been his philosophy though from the get go -- his line "as always" -- he said nothing about learning about rookie contracts from Bruce.

 

I think part of this is recalling other interviews with Schaffer, this isn't his first rodeo on this, he's done Grant-Danny multiple times.   It's been pretty easy to tell that Schaffer has been a fiscal disciplined guy from the get go.   He talked about learning the business working initially in an agency.  But with Vinny in charge he had to do his cap wizardry on his behalf which often included finding ingenious ways to get under the cap.  But that was Vinny pushing that direction not Schaffer.  Bruce himself ironically in an interview said the fiscal direction of the team is mostly set by Schaffer.

 

If this is about finding a way to complement Bruce.  The complement would be Bruce-Eric were on the same page for the same style of fiscal disciplined culture.  And perhaps you needed that to double team Dan out of his ways.  I could see that.   I don't think anyone would argue here that Bruce isn't good at keeping them out of cap hell.  Now, if he were only good at something else besides that, I'd be happy with him.  ?  

[JSSkinz]

I think he was just giving the normal respect one would give when they have worked under someone for a while, who knows though, maybe he loves Bruce.

 

A good question to ask would be "When Bruce gets fired and you take his position what would you do differently that is not being done now?".

 

Even Grant and Danny don't have the stones to ask that one. ?

[Skinsinparadise]

6 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

I think he was just giving the normal respect one would give when they have worked under someone for a while, who knows though, maybe he loves Bruce.

 

A good question to ask would be "When Bruce gets fired and you take his position what would you do differently that is not being done now?".

 

Even Grant and Danny don't have the stones to ask that one. ?

 

Both Jerry Brewer and Chris Russell in their own way have made it clear that there are some people in that FO who don't like Bruce and think they'd be better without him.  If so, I'd love to smoke that one out.  Wonder if its an underling or some people higher up the food chain.

 

As for Schaffer, besides everything else I said, he was the one guy that came out of the Kirk negotiation unscathed.  Plenty beat up Bruce.  Some beat up Kirk.  Some beat up McCartney.  Some even beat up Scot.  But Schaffer who was in the thick of the negotiation was liked by Kirk's party at last according to the people covering the story.  Not a bad word about his personality -- judgment or anything else.

 

To survive like he has for 16 years in that building, I'd presume you have to have really good people skills and master the art of staying out of trouble with the powers that be. 

[tomwvr]

22 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

I think he was just giving the normal respect one would give when they have worked under someone for a while, who knows though, maybe he loves Bruce.

 

A good question to ask would be "When Bruce gets fired and you take his position what would you do differently that is not being done now?".

 

Even Grant and Danny don't have the stones to ask that one. ?

Why would there be any talk of firing bruce? He has done a very good job.

better then anyone we have had since Snyder got the team

[Califan007 The Constipated]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Specific to the comment about rookie contracts, he just about flat out said that's been his philosophy though from the get go -- his line "as always" -- he said nothing about learning about rookie contracts from Bruce.

 

1

 

If you assume Eric only started learning stuff from Bruce once he joined the Skins in 2010, then yeah. If you assume that he learned from Bruce's time with the Raiders, then it's a bit different. I have zero doubt that GMs and front office execs across the NFL learn from each other in a multitude of ways...and Eric joined the Skins in 2003, I believe, which is a year after Allen won Exec of the Year. Allen was said to be more of a contract expert than talent evaluator with the Raiders, so it's realistic that Eric would have gleaned some insights from whatever and wherever he could at the beginning. Including from how Allen may have approached things.

 

I'm not saying that's how he meant it, but you never know...and I  personally don't think "as always" is some concrete, no-other-possible-way-of-taking-it phrase that invalidates all other possible interpretations.

 

 

3 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

I think he was just giving the normal respect one would give when they have worked under someone for a while, who knows though, maybe he loves Bruce.

 

A good question to ask would be "When Bruce gets fired and you take his position what would you do differently that is not being done now?".

 

Even Grant and Danny don't have the stones to ask that one. ?

 

Not if they ever want him back on the show, they don't lol...

[Thinking Skins]

5 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

 

"What's probably not talked about is kind of the youth of our team," he said. "I've been here 16 years and I track these kind of things, and this is the youngest team we've ever had, this is the youngest defense we've ever had, these are the youngest starting and backup defensive players and it really starts with the young defensive line that we have.

"Over the last two years, I think we have 19 homegrown players on our roster, so we feel good about the youth and feel good about our coaching staff that are going to work to develop those players and make them even better."

 

Quote

"If you think about it, you've got 53 players on the roster," said Schaffer. "How many of those players are on their rookie deals?"

 

"So, my thought as always a general of thumb," he continued, "if you have half or more than half of your players on their rookie contract – regardless of position – then that gives you an opportunity to go out and sign guys like Paul Richardson in free agency and most importantly be able to re-sign our own players that we've drafted and developed. You know, guys like Trent (Williams) and Morgan (Moses), and guys like Brandon Scherff have this year and one more left. So those are important for us to do that. But you always gotta be mindful of sort of the 53 and how many are on their rookie deals."

 

I probably sound like a broken record but this is what I've been saying for a while now. And I like how Schaffer said it instead of just saying "draft picks" like I've been saying, because my way of saying it ignores UDFAs. But we've got the most players on their rookie deals. 

 

Even this segment pissed me off some though because in one of the last shows I listened to by Grant and Danny before the were going on and on about how "old" this roster was and I guess the lack of stars under 25 or something and my comment (to myself) is that this is one of the youngest rosters we have, and this was before the Guice injury, so I was just thinking of all the potential but they were just dismissing everything, and the one guy they acknowledged - Jonathan Allen - they said he was overhyped and fans were expecting too much from him, and that he fell to 17 for a reason. 

 

I know there's a salary floor so I don't think we should have 100% of our roster on rookie deals but I'd much rather have guys on Doctson's salary than Richardson's, and guys on Harris's salary than Doctson's. The problem with that is that with some positions (like DL) we can try to go cheap and it winds up impacting the entire defense. I'd argue that we can also try to go old or just FA and have seen bad results. People mention Haynesworth, but lets not forget Stubby, Wilkinson, Gilbert, and Hankins. And that's just on our roster, lets not ignore what other guys have done after they got big paydays. Its not a 100% correlation between FAs and bust, but there is always another guy on another team that makes you say "a good scout would have waited and got that guy". 

 

Then its the question of how do we spend the money to get over the salary floor and approach the cap? I'd like for that to be what I'd think of as the anti-Carlos Rogers sentiment. Carlos Rogers famously stated in his final season here that he knew he'd be leaving because that was how the Redskins did business, letting their own guys go and signing another player for equal or more money (arguably what we just did with Cousins, especially if you're considering Cousins's price before all this franchise tag mumbo jumbo). But I'd like to see us re-signing our own players, or at least putting offers out there for our good players. And Cousins aside, had we let Breeland walk and replaced him with Scandrick I'd have been highly critical of the front office for that, even if it was a one year minimum salary deal. But the fact that we had Dunbar and Moreau in the waiting had me more confident. 

 

There's been talk about Smith, Scherff and Crowder coming into this offseason. Scherff is the only one who has shown he deserves top money (talking a Moses like contract if not more). Crowder and Smith are showing to be serviceable guys who are probably in line for contracts similar to what Thompson got (not talking actual dollar value but where it ranks them in their position - Thompson for a 3rd down back, Crowder for a slot WR and Smith for a OLB/Edge rusher). I'd think all 3 should be negotiable but the only one I'd be breaking the bank for is Scherff. 

 

I just think our philosophy should be to keep the core of this team as a set of young guys. I think a lot of that potential is being evaluated and going from promising to either fulfilled or imaginary and as that happens we either need to have the next guy ready to come in and start or know where to look to find him. I look at what we did bringing in Foster a few years ago and then Vigil last year and it looks promising (but thats one position). I thought Harris had opportuniites last year and this year but he's been injured (funny he seems to be hurt more than Doctson but Doctson can't escape being injury prone and Harris can?). Now we had new guys in Quinn and Sims (not to mention Davis) and all them are injured. Hopefully that doesn't impact the philosophy as I think these are freak instances, and if these guys can't make it I hope our scouts are scouring the practice squads and looking for ways to improve our roster and keep it young. 

[Wildbunny]

6 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

I think he was just giving the normal respect one would give when they have worked under someone for a while, who knows though, maybe he loves Bruce.

 

A good question to ask would be "When Bruce gets fired and you take his position what would you do differently that is not being done now?".

 

Even Grant and Danny don't have the stones to ask that one. ?

And that's a question nobody should ever answer because you'd look bad it.

You should only answer this question if that's Dan Snyder asking it because he's interviewing you for Bruce's job. Otherwise, stay out of this and punt the ball away.

 

And from what I gathered about Schaeffer, he's not the kind of guy that would answer this question.

 

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

Then its the question of how do we spend the money to get over the salary floor and approach the cap? I'd like for that to be what I'd think of as the anti-Carlos Rogers sentiment. Carlos Rogers famously stated in his final season here that he knew he'd be leaving because that was how the Redskins did business, letting their own guys go and signing another player for equal or more money (arguably what we just did with Cousins, especially if you're considering Cousins's price before all this franchise tag mumbo jumbo). But I'd like to see us re-signing our own players, or at least putting offers out there for our good players. And Cousins aside, had we let Breeland walk and replaced him with Scandrick I'd have been highly critical of the front office for that, even if it was a one year minimum salary deal. But the fact that we had Dunbar and Moreau in the waiting had me more confident. 

 

There's been talk about Smith, Scherff and Crowder coming into this offseason. Scherff is the only one who has shown he deserves top money (talking a Moses like contract if not more). Crowder and Smith are showing to be serviceable guys who are probably in line for contracts similar to what Thompson got (not talking actual dollar value but where it ranks them in their position - Thompson for a 3rd down back, Crowder for a slot WR and Smith for a OLB/Edge rusher). I'd think all 3 should be negotiable but the only one I'd be breaking the bank for is Scherff.  

My thinking about this is that for a few years Redskins have been doing this differently.

Rodgers can say whatever he wants but we had what we needed on the roster to replace him. Or so we thought. We obviously muffed Kirk's resigning but we muffed it back into 2016, not last year.

 

Regarding Crowder, Smith & Scherff, I can see us going only with Scherff. (We already did resign Moses two years ago, and guy is starting to pile on injuries, we may let him walk and go on with Christian). Smith is good but I can see coaches and FO feeling fine with Anderson in the wings to replace Smith if he asks for too much. Same with Crowder, qith Quinn, Cam Sims, Harris & Davis, we do have a stable of capable guys to step up for him, and even Doctson.

 

Players can complain about not being resigned by their teams, but most of the time they also have agents that makes them believe that they are worth $10M/year when they are definately not. See Ryan Grant or Breeland, maybe even Lauvao who we do signed late in the year for some vet min... On the players we'll have to resign, the only real one worth it to me is Scherff.

[goskins10]

16 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

 

I probably sound like a broken record but this is what I've been saying for a while now. And I like how Schaffer said it instead of just saying "draft picks" like I've been saying, because my way of saying it ignores UDFAs. But we've got the most players on their rookie deals. 

 

Even this segment pissed me off some though because in one of the last shows I listened to by Grant and Danny before the were going on and on about how "old" this roster was and I guess the lack of stars under 25 or something and my comment (to myself) is that this is one of the youngest rosters we have, and this was before the Guice injury, so I was just thinking of all the potential but they were just dismissing everything, and the one guy they acknowledged - Jonathan Allen - they said he was overhyped and fans were expecting too much from him, and that he fell to 17 for a reason. 

 

I know there's a salary floor so I don't think we should have 100% of our roster on rookie deals but I'd much rather have guys on Doctson's salary than Richardson's, and guys on Harris's salary than Doctson's. The problem with that is that with some positions (like DL) we can try to go cheap and it winds up impacting the entire defense. I'd argue that we can also try to go old or just FA and have seen bad results. People mention Haynesworth, but lets not forget Stubby, Wilkinson, Gilbert, and Hankins. And that's just on our roster, lets not ignore what other guys have done after they got big paydays. Its not a 100% correlation between FAs and bust, but there is always another guy on another team that makes you say "a good scout would have waited and got that guy". 

 

Then its the question of how do we spend the money to get over the salary floor and approach the cap? I'd like for that to be what I'd think of as the anti-Carlos Rogers sentiment. Carlos Rogers famously stated in his final season here that he knew he'd be leaving because that was how the Redskins did business, letting their own guys go and signing another player for equal or more money (arguably what we just did with Cousins, especially if you're considering Cousins's price before all this franchise tag mumbo jumbo). But I'd like to see us re-signing our own players, or at least putting offers out there for our good players. And Cousins aside, had we let Breeland walk and replaced him with Scandrick I'd have been highly critical of the front office for that, even if it was a one year minimum salary deal. But the fact that we had Dunbar and Moreau in the waiting had me more confident. 

 

There's been talk about Smith, Scherff and Crowder coming into this offseason. Scherff is the only one who has shown he deserves top money (talking a Moses like contract if not more). Crowder and Smith are showing to be serviceable guys who are probably in line for contracts similar to what Thompson got (not talking actual dollar value but where it ranks them in their position - Thompson for a 3rd down back, Crowder for a slot WR and Smith for a OLB/Edge rusher). I'd think all 3 should be negotiable but the only one I'd be breaking the bank for is Scherff. 

 

I just think our philosophy should be to keep the core of this team as a set of young guys. I think a lot of that potential is being evaluated and going from promising to either fulfilled or imaginary and as that happens we either need to have the next guy ready to come in and start or know where to look to find him. I look at what we did bringing in Foster a few years ago and then Vigil last year and it looks promising (but thats one position). I thought Harris had opportuniites last year and this year but he's been injured (funny he seems to be hurt more than Doctson but Doctson can't escape being injury prone and Harris can?). Now we had new guys in Quinn and Sims (not to mention Davis) and all them are injured. Hopefully that doesn't impact the philosophy as I think these are freak instances, and if these guys can't make it I hope our scouts are scouring the practice squads and looking for ways to improve our roster and keep it young. 

 

I mostly see and agree with you here but with some differences and maybe explanations of how I see it just a bit differently. 

 

The salary minimum I believe has led to higher FA contracts. They were already going higher, but the CAP floor has escalated that. Teams like Tampa and Jacksonville who would have just kept paying less and not using their CAP are now going on spending sprees to get over the CAP ceiling. This does not help the average player only the top end players. The reason this is important is that it means you can;t sign as many guys to second contracts because average to slightly above average guys are getting big numbers in free agency. 

 

This puts pressure on the coaching staff to develop guys to replace them. And that is what this staff has been doing - and does not get nearly enough credit for. The were able to let Breeland go and trade Fuller because they knew they had guys that could replace them that were on rookie contracts. But you do have to sign your top guys. Breeland was not a top guy. He slightly above average but also inconsistent. Could not give him what he was going to command on the open market, at least not before the Panthers kind of screwed him. Same with Grant, although he was really screwed - and bad. It was stright up cold what they did, but I digress.

 

BTW: The Breeland vs Scandrick thing is not apples to apples in this case. That contract was dirt cheap for Scandrick. It made no sense not to kick the tires and get him camp. Had they given him a bigger FA contract, say even 80% of Breelands original contract with the Panthers then you would have an argument. But he was almost free. They took a shot at a guy who before injuries had some real success. He looked bad since and was bad in TC so let him walk. No harm no foul. The only real complaint I have is Fuller in the Smith trade. I would have given them Moreau or Dunbar - maybe they offered them and KC would not take it. It's worked out so good on them. But with Fuller you knew what you had. The other guys while showing flashes had done so mostly in practice with spots in games. But again, it worked out so good on them. 

 

As for "keeping our own", it's just not that easy. Let's look at the three guys you mentioned. Scherff - All agree he is a no brainer. Preston Smith - I think he is gone. He is an average to above average player. Can play at a high level but has not shown consistency, at least not yet. And they have been developing guys behind him that can play at least close to his level already. He will command a big number, much bigger than the guys playing behind him. So you have to let him go. 

 

Thompson is the tricky one for me. It could be argued he is one of the most critical players on the team. He has simply taken over games. But he has two problems i see - one he has injury issues. And being so small it seem like when he will be injured not if. Also, teams have been able to take him out of games. He was awesome against AZ. Flat out superstar level play. However, since then no so much. Against the Colts he caught a lot of passes. But that was the Colts strategy. Give them Thompson for 4 to 5 yds but tackle him right away - something AZ did not do. So he catches 13 passes for only 92 yds and 0 TDs. And he was almost a 0 in rushing - 4 carries for 1 yd. Against GB, he was a complete no show. He was not needed in the first half. But I would have expected him to have a good second half as they played more ball control. His line was 6 rushed for 17 yds and 0  catches. I did not see him injured. But even if that was the case it makes my first point. 

 

Here is the wold card for Thompson - he is very loyal to Jay. He is a guy who may be willing to take less from the Redskins than he could make on the open market. If that were the case, I think you have to make it work. If not, I think you have to let him walk - I say this even thought he is easily one of my favorite players on this team right now. 

 

While I am not a fan of how they have approached FA, at least to some extent, the roster building from the draft and UDFA rookies has been done very well. They are developing players. Again, something they do not get enough credit for and is vital to building a sustainable winning roster. Looking forward to the rest of the season. 

 

This is a big game coming up. It has all the ear marks of a standard Jay's team let down. It's after a big win, with a bye between, on Monday night, against a top QB. This has been a direct recipe for an ugly loss for quite some time - well before Jay got here but he has not really stopped the trend. If they can at least play tough, come out fired up and play aggressive instead of looking lost or uninterested, it will bode well. My hope is that the young guys saw what happens when you let down after a big win. The young leaders on this team need to step up and hold guys accountable. It really is as much on them as the coaches. 

 

Anyway, good discussion topic. 

 

Edit: Should have discussed Crowder not Thompson. Just consider it getting ahead for next year....

 

Crowder will be a tough call. Need some outside threats to see what he can really do. Hate to see him go. Will depend on what he wants. If he wants #1 money have to let him walk.

 

[HardcoreZorn]

Schaffer speaking my language. I’m sure that will be dismissed as merely “front office speak” or just being nice by many but that interview confirms what I already thought. Drafting/ Signing UDFA and developing is a slow but fruitful method. A lot of talk about a 34 year old QB, but no mention that 93,95 and 98 are all under 25? Dunny and Moreau look damn good at corner as does Swearinger at safety though he was a FA. I think these are the guys that will be mainstays though and make us a formidable threat year in year out, and it’s so refreshing many of them are our own guys. It’s how you create the best culture, which is extremely important and allows you down the line to bring FA in with much more success. Players literally used to come here to collect a paycheck, it’s really no wonder why we sucked on sundays. I really do get a good chuckle from the Bruce hatred. I don’t love the guy nor think he’s some FO star, but man is this team better off with him as opposed to Vinny. Setting the bar low, sure. But it’s true, and makes for the hatred and how terrible he is come off as overblown and just general impatience. I would be really interested to see if the narrative ever switches for Bruce if the wins start coming. I’d have to think it would, at least for many. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I really do get a good chuckle from the Bruce hatred. I don’t love the guy nor think he’s some FO star, but man is this team better off with him as opposed to Vinny. Setting the bar low, sure. But it’s true, and makes for the hatred and how terrible he is come off as overblown and just general impatience. I would be really interested to see if the narrative ever switches for Bruce if the wins start coming. I’d have to think it would, at least for many. 

 

As you know I am among the people who don't like the dude.   For it to switch with me, I'd have to be sold specifically on his stamp on the team and I'll explain what I think that is in a sec.  And to me that's not the cap stuff.  Vinny Cerrato is the exception in the NFL not the rule.  Most teams indeed don't extend veteran contracts over the cap or trade away their draft picks like candy unless they are really close to the dance.  So for me celebrating that like he's some special dude who brought some really ingenius stuff on those counts to me is like saying hey the restaurant you used to go to and get food poisoning all the time, now you don't, you might not love the food still but at least you aren't getting sick.  

 

The problem with Bruce gaining some love is I don't see what among the operation has been a strength.   All the draft picks or so you mention, from what I hear he has nothing to do with.  He's made some good hires, though.  I'll give him that.  Vinny made some good hires, too.  And some good picks, too and FA.  So for me its not about whether someone gets somethings right but its what he's done on the aggregate.  

 

I thing their pro personnel FA depending on the off season ranges from "meh" to just being outright bad -- exception being 2017.  And that's where I hear Bruce weighs in the most.  That and compensation for trades like the RG3 one, McNabb, Alex, etc.  I used to think it was the Alex Smith trade for better to worse was his baby but even delving into that, looks like Kevin O'Connell identified Alex as the target.

 

As a speaker, IMO he makes the team look buffoonish. In that way, he's no different than Cerrato its just a different brand of it.  Bruce's brand of it is the empty suit politician style.  When you listen to Brian Lafemina for example.  The difference in how competent, likable and together he comes off versus Bruce is night and day.  And I don't blame Dan for throwing Brian out there a lot.  He represents the organization well IMO. 

 

Some people seem to imply the media has some weird conspiracy against the dude.  I know that's not you because you acceded he could be a douche and even quoted if I recall someone who knows him (Francis?) who said he was a douche.  Personally, I just don't buy that everyone is just making things up about him.  Case in point, even though I side with Bruce on the Scot stuff because I heard enough that Scot had his share of antics behind the scenes.  Bruce from multiple accounts came off like a child, too including that he whined a lot behind the scenes about how fans liked Scot and didn't like him and he didn't like how Scot got credit for all that was good in the organization and he got blamed for all that's bad.

 

To me Bruce is part of the old school Dan Redskins that I am hoping goes away.  A weird brashness, power plays, classless actions that isn't backed by winning.   Getting rid of him IMO would go a long way with many fans that things have changed.   I don't think its a coincidence that people who covered the team liked Scot and not Bruce.  I met Scot, he was a really cool guy.  I met Bruce, too, tough to tell there since it was a short sample.  Schaeffer from accounts is a cool person, too.  Ditto Jay.  Ditto Doug.  But Bruce?  My point here is I don't think its some weird coincidence that he gets a bad rap -- it wasn't some random thing that just happened oddly. 

 

So as for his stamp on this team?  For me it would have to be selling Dan that he didn't need to be aggressive this off season in FA because they are going to win the division and go far with the roster as constructed.   That seems to be his stamp if you buy into what beat reporters including Finlay have said.   He led the charge of the unaggressive off season.  And at least according to Chris Russell -- Jay had a beef with  Bruce and their FO approach this year.  I'd guess the other Bruce stamp is Kirk.  If Kirk bombs in Minny, Bruce deserves to take the lead in i told you so. 

 

We've done this dance before.  I admit the thing that befuddles me the most about the ones here who have Bruce's back some -- is even If I I wanted to give credit his way for the cap, draft picks and lets say I actually liked their FA approach.   Still, why would you want a dude you acknowledge might be a douche vindicated?  Why have a rooting interest in it.   For me the outward behavior is just as important as everything else.   I became a fan in the 80s when our organization was known for competence and class.  Beathard, Gibbs, etc. 

 

Part of the reason why I like Jay is the dude is likable and easy to root for.  I don't want the team president to be a guy that's hard to like and is a national punchline where among other things I am reading OTHER team reporters descriptions of the Redskins and even they include mockery of the Redskins with Bruce at the center of it.  I hate that stuff.  And IMO it is deserved.  And it could be so easily fixed.

[Makaveli]

16 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Wasn’t Dan upset at Bruce for not clueing in Doug more on Alex Smith front? Maybe things have changed some since then as it’s also been reported Bruce has been phased out some. Because why else would Schaefer/Doug be the ones responsible for Peterson coming in. That doesn’t add up.

 

You are probably referencing the below.

 

TheFanDC: Why Dan Snyder's so furious with Bruce Allen

Quote

Two specific instances especially led Snyder to this angered state.

According to Russell, the first was Kimberly A. Martin's account of Doug Williams' involvement, or lack thereof, in the Alex Smith trade.

 

 

Also, from earlier today. If you trust Chris Ruusell, which I tend to because he's been right about FO things in the past, then that's strike 2 for Doug Williams. Wouldn't be surprised if they start limiting his interviews.

 

 

https://twitter.com/russellmania621?lang=en

Quote

The #Redskins are on a bye weekend but from what I've heard - there's lots of unrest over at the facility because the owner is angry about a few things. The Doug Williams interview & comment about Adrian Peterson is a main sticking point. I'll add some details in the AM.

 

[SWFLSkins]

12 minutes ago, Makaveli said:

 

You are probably referencing the below.

 

TheFanDC: Why Dan Snyder's so furious with Bruce Allen

 

 

Also, from earlier today. If you trust Chris Ruusell, which I tend to because he's been right about FO things in the past, then that's strike 2 for Doug Williams. Wouldn't be surprised if they start limiting his interviews.

 

 

https://twitter.com/russellmania621?lang=en

 

 

 

Man Chris has been known to stir the pot more than a few times...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

18 minutes ago, Makaveli said:

 

You are probably referencing the below.

 

TheFanDC: Why Dan Snyder's so furious with Bruce Allen

 

 

Also, from earlier today. If you trust Chris Ruusell, which I tend to because he's been right about FO things in the past, then that's strike 2 for Doug Williams. Wouldn't be surprised if they start limiting his interviews.

 

 

https://twitter.com/russellmania621?lang=en

 

 

Be very, very, very, VERY leery of what Russell says and especially how he says it.

 

Just one example, indirectly from the link you provided, Russell said this:

 

"Also what I was told was Snyder never said, 'Go and hire McCloughan.' Snyder said, 'Go and get yourself a football man.' McCloughan was hired by Bruce because Snyder and A.J. Smith, who was there at the time, didn't see eye to eye over Griffin. As a matter of fact, A.J. hated Griffin. Snyder of course beloved Griffin. And, basically that meant A.J. was not staying.

 

"So they bypassed A.J. Smith, the former Charger general manager, went to McCloughan -- a guy who Bruce admitted, 'I've never worked with him. I don't know the guy. I know his dad, I know his brother, but I don't know the guy.' We all know the backstory to that. And then, from what I understand, it was a disaster from four or five months in, if it even took that long. Ultimately, Dan wanted to get him fired long before he ultimately did. Bruce tried to repair it, hold on, fix it, couldn't, and then that's what led to the hasty firing."

 

There is a TON of flawed logic, eye-rolling proclamations, and statements that contradict previous criticisms aimed at Allen in there, but Russell doesn't realize it as he's saying it. For a lot of fans reading that, it's not obvious to them, either. To me, it's beyond obvious while reading it afterward, though. I've found that Russell tends to do this when on the radio with like-minded hosts--say things in a manner that is more hyperbolic than rational--far more than he does, say, in his twitter feed.

[SWFLSkins]

 

[Skinsinparadise]

24 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Be very, very, very, VERY leery of what Russell says and especially how he says it.

 

Just one example, indirectly from the link you provided, Russell said this:

 

"Also what I was told was Snyder never said, 'Go and hire McCloughan.' Snyder said, 'Go and get yourself a football man.' McCloughan was hired by Bruce because Snyder and A.J. Smith, who was there at the time, didn't see eye to eye over Griffin. As a matter of fact, A.J. hated Griffin. Snyder of course beloved Griffin. And, basically that meant A.J. was not staying.

 

"So they bypassed A.J. Smith, the former Charger general manager, went to McCloughan -- a guy who Bruce admitted, 'I've never worked with him. I don't know the guy. I know his dad, I know his brother, but I don't know the guy.' We all know the backstory to that. And then, from what I understand, it was a disaster from four or five months in, if it even took that long. Ultimately, Dan wanted to get him fired long before he ultimately did. Bruce tried to repair it, hold on, fix it, couldn't, and then that's what led to the hasty firing."

 

There is a TON of flawed logic and statements that contradict previous criticisms aimed at Allen in there, but Russell doesn't realize it as he's saying it. For a lot of fans reading that it's not obvious to them, either. To me, it's beyond obvious while reading it afterwards, though. I've found that Russell tends to do this when on the radio with like-minded hosts--say things in a manner that is more hyperbolic than rational--far more than he does, say, in his twitter feed.

 

The key though is its tough to get everything in an article because you have to have an overriding focus versus cover every angle.  Same thing on the articles about Kirk.  If you wanted to get the full scoop for example on the Kirk contract you had to listen to Mike Jones or Keim just free associate and it painted a much wider picture then anything you'd read that they wrote. 

 

The irony on the Scot-Bruce stuff.  The two people that uncovered the story where 2 of Bruce's harshest critics -- Russell and Paulsen.  And they've expounded on it plenty on the radio including recently. 

 

Russell has expounded plenty on AJ Smith, too beyond that article.  Among what he said was it wasn't just RG3 that put Dan off about AJ Smith but it was his brusque manner about him in general -- comes off a know it all and he doesn't pull punches.  

 

As for the Scot-Bruce stuff. The Russell-Grant narrative comes off a bit complex 

 

A.  Scot apparently had some wild antics.  To my this is the biggest mystery because neither will spill what they were.  I got the heavy vibe in particular from Russell that there were of a personal nature that has nothing to do with football. 

 

B. Somehow Scot's wife was mixed in the story.  But how they never say.

 

C.  Scot's power was never what he thought it would be and if anything it diminished over time.  

 

D.  Bruce didn't want to look bad with the hire going south so quickly so he tried to patch it up.

 

E.  Eventually Bruce grew resentful about the fans liking Scot and not him.  That's the WP article's angle for the tension.  Grant-Russell agree it was a factor at the end for Bruce wanting Scot out but it wasn't the overriding point.   This point and Scot's chummy relationship with the press were the kickers for Bruce's as to his feelings about Scot.  But neither were the overriding point.  The antics were. But neither will say what those antics were.  But like I said I get the distinct impression they had nothing to do with football or football decisions.

 

Russell clearly has some good sources close to the FO.  Besides breaking the Scot story, he broke that Doug would be the guy.  He broke some of the defensive coordinators they were going to interview before any other reporter knew about it among other things.  Doesn't mean he's going to get everything right but he's gotten most things right recently. 

 

Also i notice on twitter in particular some of Bruce's most avid supporters as a sport like to kick Scot down as if that props up Bruce.  But the vibe of the Russell-Paulsen reporting would make these people pause some.  For starters, if Bruce's hire flames out -- that doesn't vindicate Bruce but instead puts him on the spot with the owner.  The narrative wasn't Ata Boy Bruce, you proved your point to me, you brought in this guy and he wasn't what we needed -- good job showing me this!  Also, they said the powers that be behind the scenes weren't upset with the actual job Scot was doing.  They respected him on that front right down to keeping to his draft and Fa board as much as they could in 2017.  The issue with Scot was the "other" stuff.  Whatever the other stuff was.  And I get the sense that whatever that stuff was -- if it comes out would be quite the entertaining narrative. 

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

38 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The key though is its tough to get everything in an article because you have to have an overriding focus versus cover every angle.  Same thing on the articles about Kirk.  If you wanted to get the full scoop for example on the Kirk contract you had to listen to Mike Jones or Keim just free associate and it painted a much wider picture then anything you'd read that they wrote. 

 

(shortened to abide by ES rules lol...)

 

 

 

 

I don't really disagree with anything you said there. My earlier point was that we need to not focus on anything Russell may say at any given moment, and more importantly, we SHOULD pay attention to how he says whatever he says.

 

For example, from the part I quoted above:

 

"Also what I was told was Snyder never said, 'Go and hire McCloughan.' Snyder said, 'Go and get yourself a football man.' McCloughan was hired by Bruce because Snyder and A.J. Smith, who was there at the time, didn't see eye to eye over Griffin. As a matter of fact, A.J. hated Griffin. Snyder of course beloved Griffin. And, basically that meant A.J. was not staying.

 

"So they bypassed A.J. Smith, the former Charger general manager, went to McCloughan -- a guy who Bruce admitted, 'I've never worked with him. I don't know the guy. I know his dad, I know his brother, but I don't know the guy.'...

 

When some others read that, they no doubt think "Oooh, getting some good behind the scenes stuff from Russell" and will embed it in their memory to access later. For me, I think "Wait...what?" lol...My mind immediately breaks it down like this:

 

"Also what I was told was Snyder never said, 'Go and hire McCloughan.' Snyder said, 'Go and get yourself a football man.'.."
 

"What he was told"...Um, there was a story in the WP like 12 seconds after McCloughan was hired that told everyone alive that exact same thing lol...I was "told" the same thing just by reading the article. That was not insider info...no source was needed. He's not shining a light onto anything. Yet he presents it as if he is. And Russell isn't the only sportswriter who has done that with the Skins (not sure about other teams)...made claims about being "told" by sources about something that was written in an article published by a huge media company long ago. I mean, sure, maybe his source told him this, but Russell had to have known it was public knowledge at this point.

 

Not to mention, wouldn't Snyder NOT telling Allen who to hire be a good thing? Let your "football people" do their jobs without you interfering and all that stuff? It's not conveyed as if it is, though...instead it's conveyed as if it's one more valid reason why Snyder is livid at Allen. Of course, left out of his comment is the fact that Snyder made the call to hire McCloughan, Allen didn't hire him on his own. Snyder met with McCloughan and liked what he saw, so whether or not Snyder told Allen to 'Go and hire McCloughan' is 100% irrelevant...but Russell made a point of emphasizing it, as if it was indeed relevant. I understand his motives for doing so. Accuracy was not among those motives lol...

 

 

"...went to McCloughan -- a guy who Bruce admitted, 'I've never worked with him. I don't know the guy. I know his dad, I know his brother, but I don't know the guy.'..."

 

"Never worked with" McCloughan...um wasn't a big criticism of Allen after Shanahan was fired that Allen seemed to ONLY hire people he worked with previously or had some "Tampa connection" with? lol..That he was by-passing qualified football people in favor of choosing people he already had a working relationships with? Now, maybe Russell later went on to say that it was a good thing that Allen went outside his sphere of previous co-workers to find a qualified person for the front office, but by saying Allen "admitted" he never worked with McCloughan it definitely comes across as if he wanted to convey that Allen didn't know enough about the guy before hiring him...which would be an asinine conclusion to reach, as if saying if you didn't previously work with someone you can't possibly know enough about the person to make an informed decision. Plus Allen apparently knew Scot well enough to recommend him to the 49ers for their GM position. Which, of course, would contradict the whole "I don't know the guy, I know his family but I don't know the guy" comment he paraphrased Allen making (and paraphrased poorly, btw).

 

And this part lol...this part here:  "So they bypassed A.J. Smith, the former Charger general manager, went to McCloughan..."

 

Russell makes the point of Allen bypassing a "former general manager" in favor of McCloughan...but doesn't mention that McCloughan is also a former general manager. Again, I understand Russell's motives for stating things the way he stated them at the time. And again, objective accuracy was definitely not among his motives.

 

Again, my take on Russell...be very, very, very, VERY leery of what he says and especially how he says it. He's far more rational on twitter, believe it or not lol...

 

[zoony]

13 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

To survive like he has for 16 years in that buildi

Machiavelli gonna add a chapter to his book about that mother****er

 

as for Chris Russell’s comments on Snyder being pissed and throwing temper tantrums around the building, I mean, yah. That’s sort of a typical day.