The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[Tsailand]

53 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

For example, the Scott situation. He hired him in the first place, he hired a football guy to make football decisions. It may have been a collaborative effort where he didn't have absolute final say on every single player that stays or goes when it comes to cuts, but there is really nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with Jay/Bruce or whoever weighing in and saying "look Scott, let's hang on to Trent Murphy and not give up on him so quickly." I think it's healthy for any organization to have checks and balances, and dissenting opinions to exist. This idea that there is one man in charge of everything that makes every single call on every single player is such a folly. Too many moving parts and players for that to be realistic.

 

 

They told us, the fans, that Scott would have final say.  That was a lie, and Bruce/Snyder actually had the final say. 

 

The buck has to stop with someone.  Doesn't mean that person makes the call on every single player, of course he will listen to his people.

[HardcoreZorn]

@Tsailand I would feel much more comfortable commenting on that if I knew why or when that changed? Was it always that way or did Scott have shenanigans going on behind the scenes that caused Dan/Bruce to strip him of final say? I really don't know but I think there is more to it than a blatant lie as you make it seem. Who knows though.

 

@Morneblade We are just never going to agree or see eye to eye on that and that's OK. I don't believe for one second that they were franchising him and paying him 44 Million Dollars if they weren't keen on keeping him. Bruce negotiates like that with everybody, not just Kirk. It's just other guys like Trent, Moses, Kerrigan, etc. don't keep journals of every team around the league waiting to hit free agency and didn't use low ball initial offers as some excuse for not being wanted, not being believed in blah blah blah. Bruce I'm sure had his part. But it makes zero logical sense that they were franchise tagging him and then not serious about signing him. They just weren't going to bend over backwards and back up the money truck in the initial offer for a guy that is regarded via various sources as someone that doesn't elevate the play of those around him and that hadn't won a playoff game. I'm sure that was Jay's take, and Scott's, and others within the building too.  And for better or worse, that's how they negotiate. With everybody, I'm sure of it. So you have to take the good with the bad, and for me, I didn't see Kirk as some irreplaceable guy. Clearly you and many others did, which slants your view of Bruce. Again, I don't weigh it nearly as heavily and prioritize a lot of other things that are now taking place around here. I hate that we didn't capitalize on getting draft capital for him, and have said as much. But doesn't mean I just ignore all the good things taking place.  I also don't care nearly as much about demeanor/personality. I care about results. Bill Belichick is a dick head. Guess what, he wins so nobody cares. Too soon to say whether or not we contend for the playoffs this year, but that's what I expect. And that's really all I care about...

[Wildbunny]

4 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

It's just other guys like Trent, Moses, Kerrigan, etc. don't keep journals of every team around the league waiting to hit free agency and didn't use low ball initial offers as some excuse for not being wanted, not being believed in blah blah blah.

 

We hardly lowballed Morgan Moses as we resigned him quickly after 2015 and what? 10 good games? And we made him, if I recall, the highest paid RT in the NFL by the time.

 

And we definately not lowballed Trent Williams and Kerrigan either. Especially trent that got a juicy contract but could have gotten even more on the open market. We're talking the best LT in the NFL, you should just not low ball that kind of guy because they can make tons of money.

 

So yes I can see a reason for him hating being lowballed, because we just didn't did it with other players in the franchise. (And it's damn easier to find a good RT than a good QB in this league).

[HardcoreZorn]

6 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

 

We hardly lowballed Morgan Moses as we resigned him quickly after 2015 and what? 10 good games? And we made him, if I recall, the highest paid RT in the NFL by the time.

 

And we definately not lowballed Trent Williams and Kerrigan either. Especially trent that got a juicy contract but could have gotten even more on the open market. We're talking the best LT in the NFL, you should just not low ball that kind of guy because they can make tons of money.

 

So yes I can see a reason for him hating being lowballed, because we just didn't did it with other players in the franchise. (And it's damn easier to find a good RT than a good QB in this league).

Those were the end deals though, not initial offers. All of this goes back to whether you agreed with the QB market or not too. I only agree with allotting 13% of the cap or whatever to Rodgers/Brees/Brady etc. I just don't think he's in that tier, maybe he is and i'm wrong. But that's what it all boils down to.

[SkinsFTW]

 

 

19 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Those were the end deals though, not initial offers. All of this goes back to whether you agreed with the QB market or not too. I only agree with allotting 13% of the cap or whatever to Rodgers/Brees/Brady etc. I just don't think he's in that tier, maybe he is and i'm wrong. But that's what it all boils down to.

 

So if you were running the Packers you would have just let Aaron Rodgers walk?

 

Bruce has potentially found himself a prodigy.

[HardcoreZorn]

Just now, SkinsFTW said:

 

 

 

So if you were running the Packers you would have just let Aaron Rodgers walk?

 

Bruce has potentially found himself a prodigy.

Yeah exactly, excellent reading comprehension for the win

[Tsailand]

48 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

@Tsailand I would feel much more comfortable commenting on that if I knew why or when that changed?

 

My guess is that changed the first time there was a major personnel decision to make.  Specifically, early-middle of the 2015 season, before the bye week, maybe before the regular season started.  Scott wanted to sign Kirk to a multi-year contract on the cheap, and Snyder+Allen wanted to go with a new QB in 2016, or maybe even go back to RG3 after the bye week.

 

So Scott got overruled and you know the rest.

 

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

@Tsailand I would feel much more comfortable commenting on that if I knew why or when that changed? Was it always that way or did Scott have shenanigans going on behind the scenes that caused Dan/Bruce to strip him of final say? I really don't know but I think there is more to it than a blatant lie as you make it seem. Who knows though.

 

@Morneblade We are just never going to agree or see eye to eye on that and that's OK. I don't believe for one second that they were franchising him and paying him 44 Million Dollars if they weren't keen on keeping him. Bruce negotiates like that with everybody, not just Kirk. It's just other guys like Trent, Moses, Kerrigan, etc. don't keep journals of every team around the league waiting to hit free agency and didn't use low ball initial offers as some excuse for not being wanted, not being believed in blah blah blah. Bruce I'm sure had his part. But it makes zero logical sense that they were franchise tagging him and then not serious about signing him. They just weren't going to bend over backwards and back up the money truck in the initial offer for a guy that is regarded via various sources as someone that doesn't elevate the play of those around him and that hadn't won a playoff game. I'm sure that was Jay's take, and Scott's, and others within the building too.  And for better or worse, that's how they negotiate. With everybody, I'm sure of it. So you have to take the good with the bad, and for me, I didn't see Kirk as some irreplaceable guy. Clearly you and many others did, which slants your view of Bruce. Again, I don't weigh it nearly as heavily and prioritize a lot of other things that are now taking place around here. I hate that we didn't capitalize on getting draft capital for him, and have said as much. But doesn't mean I just ignore all the good things taking place.  I also don't care nearly as much about demeanor/personality. I care about results. Bill Belichick is a dick head. Guess what, he wins so nobody cares. Too soon to say whether or not we contend for the playoffs this year, but that's what I expect. And that's really all I care about...

 

Not sure why you continuously skip through parts of this story. You always go right to the end of the relationship with Kirk and the team. Up until the end of the 2016 regular season, Kirk saw it as a business and something they would get through. He took the team at their word that if he performed he would be glad to pay him. That first, and for all intents and purposes, only offer during the off-season was very low by market standards. Even then there was room. But when the team just never even made an effort to negotiate - he said **** it, I am out of here. 

 

Yes, after there was no deal for 2017 he started looking at where he wanted to go next - keeping the journal - knowing there was never going to be an offer from the Redskins and that he was ready to go. He owns some of this - no doubt. He could have provided a counter offer from the first one. But the team said that was a starting place and they should be back with a better offer. That offer was almost exactly the same.

 

I find it amazing the lengths people will go to defend a $B company who plays hard ball with players but thinks the players should roll over and just do what they are told. If they dare to try and maximize their earnings they are just greedy. 

 

As for Trent, RK and Moses, those were anything but low-ball contracts. Not sure where you get that. And they were taken care of in the more traditional time frame - the year before their rookie contract was up. It's not really a comparable situation. 

 

 

 

 

 

[HardcoreZorn]

4 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Not sure why you continuously skip through parts of this story. You always go right to the end of the relationship with Kirk and the team. Up until the end of the 2016 regular season, Kirk saw it as a business and something they would get through. He took the team at their word that if he performed he would be glad to pay him. That first, and for all intents and purposes, only offer during the off-season was very low by market standards. Even then there was room. But when the team just never even made an effort to negotiate - he said **** it, I am out of here.

I'm not skipping through anything. We were in prime position for the playoffs that year and then when it counted most, laid a bunch of eggs. He should have known what kind of offer was coming, right after he threw a pick to seal our fate at home against a team that literally had nothing to play for. I will never understand why Kirk is so revered on here, but whatever. And what was the offer you are referring to? Like exact years and dollars.

25 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

My guess is that changed the first time there was a major personnel decision to make.  Specifically, early-middle of the 2015 season, before the bye week, maybe before the regular season started.  Scott wanted to sign Kirk to a multi-year contract on the cheap, and Snyder+Allen wanted to go with a new QB in 2016, or maybe even go back to RG3 after the bye week.

 

So Scott got overruled and you know the rest.

 

OK, still conjecture though. That also would have been after the time period of the supposed 4-5 months that Dan wanted Scott gone. So again, what caused that to happen and did that have bearing on stripping away his power to make key personnel decisions? What caused Dan to say go hire a football guy, and then want that guy gone so soon? I don't know the answers, but just asking the questions. A lot of pertinent information missing there before I jump on the "they hired a guy and then took everything away and it was all a lie" bandwagon.

[Morneblade]

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

@Tsailand

 

@Morneblade We are just never going to agree or see eye to eye on that and that's OK. I don't believe for one second that they were franchising him and paying him 44 Million Dollars if they weren't keen on keeping him. Bruce negotiates like that with everybody, not just Kirk. It's just other guys like Trent, Moses, Kerrigan, etc. don't keep journals of every team around the league waiting to hit free agency and didn't use low ball initial offers as some excuse for not being wanted, not being believed in blah blah blah. Bruce I'm sure had his part. But it makes zero logical sense that they were franchise tagging him and then not serious about signing him. They just weren't going to bend over backwards and back up the money truck in the initial offer for a guy that is regarded via various sources as someone that doesn't elevate the play of those around him and that hadn't won a playoff game. I'm sure that was Jay's take, and Scott's, and others within the building too.  And for better or worse, that's how they negotiate. With everybody, I'm sure of it. So you have to take the good with the bad, and for me, I didn't see Kirk as some irreplaceable guy. Clearly you and many others did, which slants your view of Bruce. Again, I don't weigh it nearly as heavily and prioritize a lot of other things that are now taking place around here. I hate that we didn't capitalize on getting draft capital for him, and have said as much. But doesn't mean I just ignore all the good things taking place.  I also don't care nearly as much about demeanor/personality. I care about results. Bill Belichick is a dick head. Guess what, he wins so nobody cares. Too soon to say whether or not we contend for the playoffs this year, but that's what I expect. And that's really all I care about...

 

What happened was historic. A top 10 QB hitting FA in his prime. It's never happened before, and it will likely never happen again. Also, several posted have pointed out how wrong you were about negatiations.

 

And as for having a scumbag in the FO, some of us do care.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

 

They told us, the fans, that Scott would have final say.  That was a lie, and Bruce/Snyder actually had the final say. 

 

The buck has to stop with someone.  Doesn't mean that person makes the call on every single player, of course he will listen to his people.

1

 

i always ask this, I think I've gotten an answer once lol (might have even been from you lol)..but can anyone tell me what personnel moves Scot did NOT have final say on?...Who did we draft/sign/cut that went against what Scot wanted?

[HardcoreZorn]

2 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

What happened was historic. A top 10 QB hitting FA in his prime. It's never happened before, and it will likely never happen again. Also, several posted have pointed out how wrong you were about negatiations.

 

And as for having a scumbag in the FO, some of us do care.

I'm bringing out the masses lol. Nothing like a little defense of Bruce Allen that will really ruffle some feathers...

 

I don't personally know the guy and it's never been my philosophy to call someone a scumbag, no matter how many sources there are out there on him. And feel free to point out what I've said is wrong about negotiations... 

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

i always ask this, I think I've gotten an answer once lol (might have even been from you lol)..but can anyone tell me what personnel moves Scot did NOT have final say on?...Who did we draft/sign/cut that went against what Scot wanted?

He wanted Ryan Grant and Trent Murphy gone supposedly. And I think there was a disagreement about an interior OL but I forget... The biggest was obviously not committing long term money to Kirk Couins. I believe he wanted to sign him for 12/year in 2015 around the Tampa game.

[Morneblade]

7 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I'm bringing out the masses lol. Nothing like a little defense of Bruce Allen that will really ruffle some feathers...

 

I don't personally know the guy and it's never been my philosophy to call someone a scumbag, no matter how many sources there are out there on him. And feel free to point out what I've said is wrong about negotiations... 

 

Perhaps I worded it wrong. Several posted has pointed out how the negotiations with Cousins were anything but "normal". Better? They were certainly not in good faith.

As for your philosophy, you've already said you don't care one way or the other how bad of a person is, as long as they get the job done. So, your philosophy and mine are not going to see eye to eye. I would rather be surrounded with good people. And I want the team I root for to not be headed by a Skeever.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

19 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

His prime point was the Doug Williams story gaining traction via the WP and 106.7 -- how is that old news that's already been reported?   He didn't say Snyder is "maybe" upset as if he's just speculating on it .  He said he flat out heard from people there he's fuming about it.

1

 

Snyder being angry over the Doug Williams had already been reported over the last several days. His prime point seems to have been that Snyder is still angry lol...

 

To quote @TD_washingtonredskins:

 

"take the next step and report what you think might actually happen. If he had said "Things are coming to a head in Ashburn and I believe Bruce Allen might not survive the season" I'd have respected it more. He can eventually be proven correct or incorrect. Just basically throwing out "Snyder doesn't like bad things happening" with no other context or information basically just makes it seem like an attention-grab and he can always come out of it claiming he knew whatever the outcome was."

[Morneblade]

18 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

i always ask this, I think I've gotten an answer once lol (might have even been from you lol)..but can anyone tell me what personnel moves Scot did NOT have final say on?...Who did we draft/sign/cut that went against what Scot wanted?

 

Cousins.

 

https://redskinswire.usatoday.com/2017/05/09/scot-mccloughan-wanted-redskins-qb-kirk-cousins-long-term/

 

"There has been a lot of speculation from different sources about who in the front office wanted to get Cousins signed to a contract and who didn’t. What McCloughan said today confirms he wanted to sign the QB to a long-term deal early when the time was ripe,  but the front office was so divided that no agreement was reached and the entire situation got botched."

[Califan007 The Constipated]

27 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

He wanted Ryan Grant and Trent Murphy gone supposedly. And I think there was a disagreement about an interior OL but I forget... The biggest was obviously not committing long term money to Kirk Couins. I believe he wanted to sign him for 12/year in 2015 around the Tampa game.

3

 

 

he wanted them gone or he wouldn't have signed them again when their contracts were up?...Because I'm having a hard time imagining Scot wanting to cut players who were still on their cheap rookie contracts and contributing. The only player I ever heard of was what's-his-ass, the DLineman who played for the Packers and maybe the Jets, who we signed late in the offseason and cut after a few weeks, then I think brought back again and cut again lol,,,

 

The Cousins talk about signing him during the 2015 season was reported as Scot said the team should talk to him and his agent during the season about signing a contract, Bruce and Snyder said no, not during the season...when Kirk finally turned it on the front office said yeah, let's try and sign him and Kirk's agent told kirk it would be better to wait until the season ended and they turned Scot down. Count me among those who feel that would have been the response no matter when Scot approach Kirk's side about signing. Cousins was months away from hitting free agency...only way it would have benefitted him to sign a contract before then is if he ended up just tanking that season and flushed his free agency clout down the toilet. But at any rate it wasn't Bruce and Dan saying no to having Kirk on the roster, it was them saying no to negotiating at that point.

 

10 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

Cousins.

 

https://redskinswire.usatoday.com/2017/05/09/scot-mccloughan-wanted-redskins-qb-kirk-cousins-long-term/

 

"There has been a lot of speculation from different sources about who in the front office wanted to get Cousins signed to a contract and who didn’t. What McCloughan said today confirms he wanted to sign the QB to a long-term deal early when the time was ripe,  but the front office was so divided that no agreement was reached and the entire situation got botched."

 

Signing players is the arena of Bruce and Eric. Which players to sign would have been Scot's area. The fact that they kept Kirk on for two franchise tags and didn't trade him pretty much shows that they weren't keeping Scot from picking the players.

 

By the way, the article has it wrong:

 

"By the time owner Dan Snyder and president Bruce Allen got on board, Cousins had excelled in two consecutive seasons. "

 

Nope, they were on board during the 2015 season and approved Scot approaching Kirk about resigning with the Skins.

[HardcoreZorn]

4 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

he wanted them gone or he wouldn't have signed them again when their contracts were up?...Because I'm having a hard time imagining Scot wanting to cut players who were still on their cheap rookie contracts and contributing. The only player I ever heard of was what's-his-ass, the DLineman who played for the Packers and maybe the Jets, who we signed late in the offseason and cut after a few weeks, then I think brought back again and cut again lol,,,

 

The Cousins talk about signing him during the 2015 season was reported as Scot said the team should talk to him and his agent during the season about signing a contract, Bruce and Snyder said no, not during the season...when Kirk finally turned it on the front office said yeah, let's try and sign him and Kirk's agent told kirk it would be better to wait until the season ended and they turned Scot down. Count me among those who feel that would have been the response no matter when Scot approach Kirk's side about signing. Cousins was months away from hitting free agency...only way it would have benefitted him to sign a contract before then is if he ended up just tanking that season and flushed his free agency clout down the toilet. But at any rate it wasn't Bruce and Dan saying no to having Kirk on the roster, it was them saying no to negotiating at that point.

Cullen Jenkins lol. Yeah who really knows I just remember Murphy and Grant being names thrown out there but I could be mis remembering. Purhpy in particular would have surprised me.

[Morneblade]

5 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

he wanted them gone or he wouldn't have signed them again when their contracts were up?...Because I'm having a hard time imagining Scot wanting to cut players who were still on their cheap rookie contracts and contributing. The only player I ever heard of was what's-his-ass, the DLineman who played for the Packers and maybe the Jets, who we signed late in the offseason and cut after a few weeks, then I think brought back again and cut again lol,,,

 

The Cousins talk about signing him during the 2015 season was reported as Scot said the team should talk to him and his agent during the season about signing a contract, Bruce and Snyder said no, not during the season...when Kirk finally turned it on the front office said yeah, let's try and sign him and Kirk's agent told kirk it would be better to wait until the season ended and they turned Scot down. Count me among those who feel that would have been the response no matter when Scot approach Kirk's side about signing. Cousins was months away from hitting free agency...only way it would have benefitted him to sign a contract before then is if he ended up just tanking that season and flushed his free agency clout down the toilet. But at any rate it wasn't Bruce and Dan saying no to having Kirk on the roster, it was them saying no to negotiating at that point.

 

Signing players is the arena of Bruce and Eric. Which players to sign would have been Scot's area. The fact that they kept Kirk on for two franchise tags and didn't trade him pretty much shows that they weren't keeping Scot from picking the players.

 

The fact that Scot wanted to sign Cousins to a LTC early on, and it DIDN'T happen is proof positive that he did not have the final say. I mean that is what you asked right? Lol................

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 minute ago, Morneblade said:

 

The fact that Scot wanted to sign Cousins to a LTC early on, and it DIDN'T happen is proof positive that he did not have the final say. I mean that is what you asked right? Lol................

 

So you think Scot gets any player he wants at any cost? Seriously, that's your take? The ONLY thing we know is that they told Scot we're not negotiating with Kirk in Sept/October. 

[Morneblade]

1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

 

So you think Scot gets any player he wants at any cost? Seriously, that's your take? The ONLY thing we know is that they told Scot we're not negotiating with Kirk in Sept/October. 

Did I say that? Nope, in fact Scot wanted to get it done early so it would be cheaper. But if that is what you want to take from it, facts aside, that is on you. Lol....

[Tsailand]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

they told Scot we're not negotiating with Kirk in Sept/October.  

 

Well clearly that was the best time to negotiate with Kirk. It's not like Scott was going to give him $84 million in October 2015.

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

Did I say that? Nope, in fact Scot wanted to get it done early so it would be cheaper. But if that is what you want to take from it, facts aside, that is on you. Lol....

 

What "fact"?...That Scot wanted to negotiate at a different time than Dan and Bruce? I already said they did lol...even the article you quoted calls the whole aspect "speculation" as to who wanted what, when. Hint: "speculation" is not the same as "fact".

[Tsailand]

17 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Nope, they were on board during the 2015 season and approved Scot approaching Kirk about resigning with the Skins.

 

Yeah, they got on board in December, but the offer they gave Kirk after the season was a joke.  And now we are getting into the two+ years of them lowballing him and Kirk's agent winning.

 

The right time to get Kirk cheap was before he balled out, but Snyder/Allen wouldn't let Scott negotiate then.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 minute ago, Tsailand said:

 

Well clearly that was the best time to negotiate with Kirk. It's not like Scott was going to give him $84 million in October 2015.

 

 

 

And not like Kirk was gonna jump at $12M a year on a team he continuously keeps saying never believed in him, only saw him as a "4th round pick" with the chance at being able to pick the team he plays on for the first time since graduating high school, again like he's fond of telling anyone who would listen lol...And considering how the majority both among fans and in the media felt they understood why the Skins franchised Kirk in order to see more from him, I have to imagine they'd understand even more about the Skins wanting to see more from him after 5 games before signing him.

[Morneblade]

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

What "fact"?...That Scot wanted to negotiate at a different time than Dan and Bruce? I already said they did lol...even the article you quoted calls the whole aspect "speculation" as to who wanted what, when. Hint: "speculation" is not the same as "fact".

 

You asked a specific question. I gave you an answer. Scot wanted Cousins and wanted him signed early. It didn't happen, so it's obvious he did not have complete control, right? That was your question. There is your answer.

 

As to anything after that, Scot wanted to get started early, to try and get a better deal. The only "speculation" is when. And who didn't want Cousins. Neither have anything to do with your original question. Don't like the answer? Sorry about your luck.