Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

13 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I just checked. The Redskins are not cheapskates when it come to coaches. Here's an article from 2017

https://bizfluent.com/info-10012660-nfl-coach-coordinator-salaries.html

Recent trends have boosted prospects for assistant coaches, who traditionally earned far less than their higher-profile bosses. Once confined to the $200,000 range, between 20 and 25 assistants now earn seven-figure salaries, The Los Angeles Times reported in January 2005. Wide variations still persist, however. Assistant coaches earned the highest average salary in Dallas, whose organization paid $301,710, The Jacksonville Florida Times-Union reported. The Washington Redskins had the highest budget, with $5.22 million for their 20 assistants. By contrast, Jacksonville Jaguar's 17 assistants averaged just $194,782.

 

 

I found that same article and bypassed it looking for charts.

 

I'm going to venture a guess that Callahan is eating a good chunk of that.

[Taylorcooley1]

Good...keep paying Callahan

Kirk not getting killed is mostly to do with Callahan in mid-to-late season when our offensive line was depleted.

[Skinsinparadise]

It's like Cooley-Sheehan read this thread.  Just kidding considering these points I think are intuitive and logical.  They are going this morning on these points:

 

1. If they don't make a serious run in the next year or two - it was a bad trade.  It's a win now move so you have to win now.

2.  Going young at Qb would have been building to the future.  Ditto holding on to Fuller and the draft pick.  

3.  If they pass over a young QB from this draft because of this trade that they had an opportunity to draft and that specific young players thrives -- the decision makers on this should be canned unless it goes great with Alex.

4.  You don't make this type of trade if you believe you have a subpar roster around Alex.  Cooley thinks they do have a subpar roster around him.

[NoCalMike]

I am not so sure the Alex Smith trade is a "win now" move as much as it is a "don't go backwards with the exit of Cousins" move.  This team wasn't a winner with Cousins. I don't see Alex Smith on his own transforming the team in any way.  He will do some things better and some things worse than Cousins, however he isn't going to take a .500ish team and put them in the NFC Championship.

 

I look at this trade more as a "Front office knew Cousins was leaving, didn't want to start from ground zero at QB position.  We feel Alex Smith can keep the team a-float maybe slightly improve with/if the rest of the roster improves.  Team can be a playoff team under Smith.  Smith is a cheaper option to invest in for the next few seasons while we search for the long term solution at QB" situation.

[skinny21]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

It's like Cooley-Sheehan read this thread.  Just kidding considering these points I think are intuitive and logical.  They are going this morning on these points:

 

1. If they don't make a serious run in the next year or two - it was a bad trade.  It's a win now move so you have to win now.

2.  Going young at Qb would have been building to the future.  Ditto holding on to Fuller and the draft pick.  

3.  If they pass over a young QB from this draft because of this trade that they had an opportunity to draft and that specific young players thrives -- the decision makers on this should be canned unless it goes great with Alex.

4.  You don't make this type of trade if you believe you have a subpar roster around Alex.  Cooley thinks they do have a subpar roster around him.

I agree with the first two points.  The 3rd, eh... how many people got fired for not drafting Rodgers.  It’s a bit of slippery slope.  You also don’t know how the draft will shake out and it’s a crapshoot anyways.  I get their logic though.  

 

Point 4 is tricky for me.  We have some interesting pieces on both sides of the ball.  Find a good receiver, a decent guard, and draft a TE that allows Reed to focus on what he’s best at, and maybe a dynamic back...  Tall order though.  I think the D should improve, though losing Fuller hurts.  Need to add a dlineman and figure out who’s going to play next to Foster.  

 

So yes, I guess I’d agree it’s sub par given the number of question marks.  On the other hand, I’m optimistic for Roullier and Nicholson, I like our pass rush and secondary (mostly), getting a TE and a decent receiver shouldn’t be difficult in the draft, and replacing Lauvao is probably fairly easy (upgrading will be tougher though).  

[Skinsinparadise]

29 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

 

Point 4 is tricky for me.  We have some interesting pieces on both sides of the ball.  Find a good receiver, a decent guard, and draft a TE that allows Reed to focus on what he’s best at, and maybe a dynamic back...  Tall order though.  I think the D should improve, though losing Fuller hurts.  Need to add a dlineman and figure out who’s going to play next to Foster.  

 

So yes, I guess I’d agree it’s sub par given the number of question marks.  On the other hand, I’m optimistic for Roullier and Nicholson, I like our pass rush and secondary (mostly), getting a TE and a decent receiver shouldn’t be difficult in the draft, and replacing Lauvao is probably fairly easy (upgrading will be tougher though).  

 

I get your point I agree with the gist of it.  But IMO the roster at this given time is a little worse than last year.  I like Alex Smith but IMO he's a slight downgrade to Kirk.  And losing Fuller downgraded the secondary.

 

But your point is they CAN build that roster up.  I agree.  That movie remains to be seen.  At the moment the vibe we are getting is Breeland is gone, too.  So two out of three key guys in the secondary might be gone.  And the secondary was their strength.  We are also hearing some Zach Brown might be gone.  Ditto Galette.

 

I am not saying this to be negative but the vibe at the moment is the team takes a step back first in personnel.  So they likely both have to make up ground from that step back and they in addition need to take a step forward.  So they requires one heck of a FA season.

 

My feeling on whether that happens is that I really don't know.  Like I've said, I think the sense of desperation for this to be a good season might fuel an aggressive FA run.  I hope so.  Because reading the tea leaves, the one thing that seems clear is the roster goes down a peg -- that process has already started with Fuller gone.  So to make up ground and for that matter get ahead -- it can't be business as usual for Bruce in FA.  He IMO needs to be unusually aggressive.

 

29 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I agree with the first two points.  The 3rd, eh... how many people got fired for not drafting Rodgers.  It’s a bit of slippery slope.  You also don’t know how the draft will shake out and it’s a crapshoot anyways.  I get their logic though.  

 

Cooley's point on it (adding my own inferences to it) if lets say Josh Allen falls to 13 and the Redskins like him but skip him for Alex Smith since they are in a win now mode -- Allen shows to be the next Wentz -- the Redskins look like fools.

 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

IMO, there's no shame in drafting a QB you honestly feel is going to be a super star, and then have them ride the bench for a couple of seasons.  I know the NFL is more rookie-QB friendly than ever, but it still doesn't mean you need to only draft a QB with the intention of them starting from Day 1.

[JSSkinz]

Every team in the league who has major contributors out of contract are currently "taking a step back" until they sort through FA and the draft.

 

If we sign Bennie Logan and draft Payne it won't matter that we lost our slot corner.

 

Nasty D lines win games, this is how you neutralize today's pass-happy NFL.

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Just now, JSSkinz said:

If we sign Bennie Logan and draft Payne it won't matter that we lost our slot corner.

 

Nasty D lines win games, this is how you neutralize today's pass-happy NFL.

 

 

I don't disagree that nasty D lines win games but to me, losing the 750K slot corner we drafted is still negligent.

[redskinss]

5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

IMO, there's no shame in drafting a QB you honestly feel is going to be a super star, and then have them ride the bench for a couple of seasons.  I know the NFL is more rookie-QB friendly than ever, but it still doesn't mean you need to only draft a QB with the intention of them starting from Day 1.

I agree. 

Why not take a quarterback high,  I mean the chiefs did with Alex smith as there starter and he's not getting younger. 

The reports are that Alex smiths extension is really a two year deal. 

I see no reason they can't draft a quarterback in the first or second round and let him learn for a couple seasons. 

The best teams in the league draft there future quarterback before they need one.

[skinny21]

30 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I get your point I agree with the gist of it.  But IMO the roster at this given time is a little worse than last year.  I like Alex Smith but IMO he's a slight downgrade to Kirk.  And losing Fuller downgraded the secondary.

 

But your point is they CAN build that roster up.  I agree.  That movie remains to be seen.  At the moment the vibe we are getting is Breeland is gone, too.  So two out of three key guys in the secondary might be gone.  And the secondary was their strength.  We are also hearing some Zach Brown might be gone.  Ditto Galette.

 

I am not saying this to be negative but the vibe at the moment is the team takes a step back first in personnel.  So they likely both have to make up ground from that step back and they in addition need to take a step forward.  So they requires one heck of a FA season.

 

My feeling on whether that happens is that I really don't know.  Like I've said, I think the sense of desperation for this to be a good season might fuel an aggressive FA run.  I hope so.  Because reading the tea leaves, the one thing that seems clear is the roster goes down a peg -- that process has already started with Fuller gone.  So to make up ground and for that matter get ahead -- it can't be business as usual for Bruce in FA.  He IMO needs to be unusually aggressive.

 

 

Cooley's point on it (adding my own inferences to it) if lets say Josh Allen falls to 13 and the Redskins like him but skip him for Alex Smith since they are in a win now mode -- Allen shows to be the next Wentz -- the Redskins look like fools.

 

 

 

I have some optimism for the defense because we finally have the makings of a good front - Kerrigan, Allen, Ioannidas and Smith - an ILB that seemed to excel behind this line (Foster), a decent SS, and a few promising guys - Nicholson, Moreau, and to a lesser extent Holsey and JHC.  

 

Losing Breeland, Fuller, Brown and Galette is a big step back though.  You can talk about how Brown struggles in coverage, Fuller had one good year, Galette wasn’t a starter and Breeland had some issues the past couple of years... but bottom line, they were good players for us, and at least a couple of them are going to be really hard to replace.  

 

 

As to your point about Josh Allen, it’s true, that would be a tough blow for the FO.  On the other hand, I don’t see Smith bombing here, and trading back (to get that 3rd rounder back) and landing a starter/contributor in the later 1st and 3rd mitigates that.  I’d also add that a rookie qb (even one that goes on to play like Wentz) is unlikely to have much success in their 1st year, so that egg on their face likely doesn’t show for a couple years.  It’s a valid concern, I just don’t see much of a likelihood it affects their jobs next year.  

[JSSkinz]

1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I don't disagree that nasty D lines win games but to me, losing the 750K slot corner we drafted is still negligent.

 

I haven't heard anyone grade it as a bad trade, most say both teams got a fair deal. 

 

Personally, I'm not crazy about Alex Smith, to me he's a hamburger with no cheese, vanilla ice cream, or basic cable, but it is what it is.

 

He's solid and I look at it as a bridge, there's no way he's our long-term solution but the team chose to try to stay competitive as opposed to tanking it, I get why they would do that even though I would have been fine with drafting a young QB and playing Colt this year.

[Dark Acre]

57 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Cooley's point on it (adding my own inferences to it) if lets say Josh Allen falls to 13 and the Redskins like him but skip him for Alex Smith since they are in a win now mode -- Allen shows to be the next Wentz -- the Redskins look like fools.

 

 

 

And if he's there, we take him, but he turns out to be the next [insert 1st round bust that Mel Kiper raves about] . . . ? 

[TSO]

6 hours ago, Burgold said:

My biggest concern with Jay is in staff building, esp. on the other side. I mean first he kept Haslett who had been awful under Shanny. Now by the time he finally went out to nab his own DC he got the only person in the NFL worse than Haslett, a guy whose previous record was twice fielding the worst defense in the NFL and since then had developed or done nothing of note with San Diego. His choice at Special Teams also has been suspect. On the other hand, Manusky did better than I thought until injuries wiped out the middle of our defense (Allen, Nicholson, both middle linebacker and their backups, etc.) and Manusky seems to have assembled a pretty good supporting staff with Gray, Tomsula, Olividati, etc.) Still if a Head Coach's most important duty is to assemble his staff, his track record is uneven. Other factors, like a too-soft training camp, bad on field discipline, and a lack of young players emerging (other than at db and ol) are a little worrisome.

 

So, Jay has some qualities I really like as a coach, but he certainly hasn't proved he's Walsh, Bilichek, Gibbs, or someone likely to be a future great. Part of that is the roster, but part of it is that this team so often seems unprepared or comes out flat when the games matter most.

 

This is pretty much what I’m talking about though when it comes to our ability to judge effectively. 

 

There’s one quality Jay has shown that no one can dispute, and that is that he’s amenable to sound input and will not overstep his title/role. He’s even specifically said that, but we’ve got ample evidence showing that whether or not he did say it. 

 

That is actually HUGE for someone operating at Redskins Park. The biggest issue there is the lack of structure and accountability, yet Jay is arguably the only one there who actually fits his role, is qualified for it, and stays in his lane. Schaffer is another one. The rest either don’t or we just don’t know enough about them to assess it with any accuracy. 

 

So when you mention his coaching staff hires, it needs to factor that in. Both Tomsula and Manusky were Scot recommendations Jay listened to. Torrian Gray was from Fuller (  ). Callahan actually had ties to Bruce from when he was with the Raiders. 

 

So, yeah, maybe he has a weakness there, but a sound FO that actually does what it’s intended to and supports its hires simply doesn’t allow him to fail because of that. They don’t retain Haslett because they want to reward him for siding with them against Mike, which immediately put Jay in an awkward position since he’s simply not going to fire his friend and someone he’s had a close relationship with in the Arena league. They can insist on him hiring a Wade Phillips (though I doubt he would’ve been anything other than a slight improvement with the same personnel Barry was working with, but that’s what makes Wade a smart coach, he demands major resources to be expended on his side of the ball and knows it’s mainly about personnel)... either way, Jay isn’t the type to simply refuse.

 

So if that’s his weakness, help him there. He’s willing to be helped. He’s not a stubborn guy. 

 

As for the other things you mentioned like coming out flat in big games, that’s entirely subjective so I’m not even going to debate that. @skinny21 already posted a solid argument against the idea that there’s a lack of young players emerging, so I won’t get into that. Too soft training camp? Yeah, there’s a pattern there so that’s a legit question, though it’s weird how after the first game of the season they get it together quickly, which diminishes that argument. On field discipline? That’s a weird criticism considering we were one of the least penalized teams in the league (tied for third least, slightly better than even the Patriots)! 

 

We can argue these things all day, though, and it’s very subjective considering how little we really know. For instance, another one that gets brought up plenty is in-game management, yet few know (and we’ve received very little info on this in general) that Bruce is actually heavily involved in that himself on gamedays. So a failure there is indicative of a failure at the top executive level, and any coach would suffer that. To what degree, however, we don’t know. 

 

The main point is that EVERYONE HAS WEAKNESSES. Everyone. But as long as they have more strengths or even if it’s one key one (where they truly excel at their respective expertise so much so that they can single handedly boost one phase in a major way - Jay absolutely does that with regards to offense, and yes, that can be enough to make one deserving of HC versus just OC) then it becomes incumbent upon the rest of the support system to play their part and mitigate those weaknesses while accentuating those strengths. So while the HC role encompasses everything coaching-related, that doesn’t mean there is no delegation or support allowed elsewhere. 

 

 That is essentially the entire point of “organization”, otherwise why have any separation of duties and titles/roles? Why not just make the HC title the supreme role? Dan has in the past, but most successful organizations understand that’s foolish and correctly consign that role to its rightful place. That is actually what we just saw with the Eagles. Chip Kelly won a power struggle (something we don’t have to worry about Jay attempting), failed miserably per the norm when that role becomes too big, then they went back to a better FO structure and Pederson as well as the players were the main beneficiaries of said structure. 

 

As it stands, any other coach who will come here will find that his particular weaknesses are highlighted. The results will be the same and I’d argue worse since I think Jay is severely underrated. 

 

There has been a refreshing shift in the dynamics of Redskins fanhood, where many are now recognizing and demanding more out of the FO and the top brass. But there still remains significant remnants of fans who are too surface-oriented and overly focused on coaching and individual players (specifically QB). They’ve got Snyder syndrome, basically. Even while they criticize Snyder and his top exec, yet somehow not recognizing the impact that has on absolutely everything and everyone else. 

 

Environment is everything. The interdependency of organizational roles is key, and it starts at the top. You have a problem there, you have a problem everywhere. All who operate beneath will be limited by that problem at the top so attempting to judge them while lacking the info necessary to properly differentiate between what was negatively impacted by it (again, usually everything - if not right away, then over time it eventually filters into everything) is a fool’s errand. 

[MisterPinstripe]

I was really upset about including Fuller in the deal for Smith. However, after I calmed down, Im going to have a wait and see approach. I was really impressed with Torrian Gray and the impact he appeared to have. Perhaps they see Josh Holsey, or Moreau, or both, as able to replace Fullers production. Those are some talented guys who could do that and IF they do then we havent lost much. So again, while I am upset about losing Fuller, lets wait and see if one of these guys step up and reward the coaches faith in them.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

It's like Cooley-Sheehan read this thread.  Just kidding considering these points I think are intuitive and logical.  They are going this morning on these points:

 

1. If they don't make a serious run in the next year or two - it was a bad trade.  It's a win now move so you have to win now.

2.  Going young at Qb would have been building to the future.  Ditto holding on to Fuller and the draft pick.  

3.  If they pass over a young QB from this draft because of this trade that they had an opportunity to draft and that specific young players thrives -- the decision makers on this should be canned unless it goes great with Alex.

4.  You don't make this type of trade if you believe you have a subpar roster around Alex.  Cooley thinks they do have a subpar roster around him.

 

I tend to agree with all these points.I would also add something that is rarely discussed in football because everyone considers it a sport where you should expect to win every game and contend for a Super Bowl every season...

 

Timing of a team's window of opportunity should be considered. If you look around our division, the Eagles and Cowboys are pretty well-positioned to contend or be very competitive over the next 2-4 years based on their young QBs and other key players. So, I'm not saying that the Redskins should wave white flag for those years, but there is something to be said for eyeing an opportunistic time period for you window of opportunity.

 

At best, Alex Smith is here for 4-5 years which is overlaid with the Wentz Eagles and Elliot Cowboys. Another way to look at it would have been to keep Fuller, keep the third, draft a QB and expect him to need a couple years and then look to be fully loaded and ready for a run as the Eagles and Cowboys might be descending a bit. I'm not saying that would have been the right approach, but it makes the "vet QB" approach almost have to yield wins and playoff runs in a pretty stacked division. 

 

Let's say Smith is perfectly fine and we get incrementally better to stick in the 7-10 win range. We are still likely lagging behind Philly, and possibly Dallas, until they have to start losing their players to FA because they have to sign their stars who are currently on rookie deals. It would just be a shame to be challenging for the 6-seed for the next 2-3 years if that's our ceiling based on our division. Then, we will be re-loading again and hoping it all works out...

 

 

 

 

[HardcoreZorn]

I still think a lot of people are failing to put the 2017 season in context. Pre-injury this year we could play with anyone. We played the Eagles as tough as anybody did all year long. There were threads popping up around here about a confidence that hasn't been had in a LONG time and best defense we have fielded in a long time. I guess you could consider the early potion of the season a fluke but I actually believe Kirk when he says we were so close this year. Especially in a league filled with parity. I kind of hope they open up the checkbook and sign some impact guys this year in FA. Add to that a few impact guys in the draft, and I truly believe we will have a 10+ win roster. I think that is why we made the move for Smith. Gruden/Allen/Snyder could be wrong in their approach but I think they saw we were on the verge last year and starting over with a rookie would set this team back. I don't at all believe that they think we have a middling roster, especially after another off season. Hopeful and somewhat optimistic that Gruden and Kyle Smith will overshadow no true GM running the show. I think both of those guys know talent as some have touched on already. We'll see...

[JoggingGod]

3 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Hopeful and somewhat optimistic that Gruden and Kyle Smith will overshadow no true GM running the show. I think both of those guys know talent as some have touched on already. We'll see...

Several teams don’t have a “true GM”, example being the Eagles. It’s a talk point by desperate radio shows like Grant and Danny that gets regurgitated by Scot McCloughan fanboys.

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

This is pretty much what I’m talking about though when it comes to our ability to judge effectively. 

 

 

Okay, I'm going to overreact to your long post (probably just because I got an unexpected 5,000 dollar bill and the need to gripe is boiling high right now.)

 

So, basically you've posted a nine paragraph treatise that says... Jay and his staff are brilliant at coaching up and developing players, he's brilliant at hiring coaches and staff, he's gosh darn perfect at picking his nose, and in this amazingly burgundy colored world he is so without flaw that he must be 19-0 on a bad year.

 

I call bs on your post. He has had a terrible history of hiring defensive coordinators, special teams coordinators, and by and large his defenses have continually stank. So has his Teams. On D, Gruden went from bad to I can't believe you chose worse, and then made a possibly better than expected albeit I'm not sure anyone can say good choice in hiring Manusky. Yes, he's hit on a few positional coaches and that's great. His best, Callahan, in three years, despite a pretty good line, has yet to make any improvements in the running game. In fact, our running game is worse than it was before he got here. Tomsula, for all his reputation, did well when Allen was on the field and when Josh fell so did Tomsula's defensive line. So, Tomsula was only as good as the talent and when the talent went from good to average or slightly below average, his line began to stink. We saw other teams take big injury hits and survive them much better than we did (though what this team went through was absolutely ridiculous, but this is not meant to be a rational post so screw that)

 

So hooray, let's praise Jay for assembling a squad of players and coaches who are so amazing that their absolute ceiling is  9-7. Let's fall over backwards in appreciating a guy who with a top QB couldn't sniff the playoffs two years running.

 

Something must be off for the team to fail consistently when it matters if the players are all wonderfully improving, Jay is a master play caller, and his coaching staff is so top drawer.

 

Bah Humbug!!!

 

(I know I'm exaggerating, but your reaction to my post also felt ridiculous, besides, that freaking bill has got me mad!)

[thinwhiteduke]

Did Everyone forget the Dallas vs KC game during the season?  That's the future.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

@Burgold If that's what you took out of TSO's post, I think you missed the forest for the trees.

 

I didn't walk away from that post thinking the point was that Jay is the second coming of Lombardi.  The point is that he's the low hanging fruit, as coaches and QB's usually are here.  That everyone has weaknesses and nobody's perfect.  But good organizations accentuate strengths and assist with weaknesses.  Which is not something that's been done in Washington during Snyder's entire ownership.

[Burgold]

2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

@Burgold If that's what you took out of TSO's post, I think you missed the forest for the trees.

 

I didn't walk away from that post thinking the point was that Jay is the second coming of Lombardi.  The point is that he's the low hanging fruit, as coaches and QB's usually are here.  That everyone has weaknesses and nobody's perfect.  But good organizations accentuate strengths and assist with weaknesses.  Which is not something that's been done in Washington during Snyder's entire ownership.

And you missed the most important part of the post... I admitted I was overreacting and needed to displace.

 

The reality is though that anytime someone says something remotely critical about Jay or Kirk there's an insane rush to defend as if they are being besmirched, belittled, and are beyond reproach. My criticism was fair and accurate. It hardly warranted a nine paragraph rebuttal because he got a few coaching hires right and a few players outside of db and ol have shown improvement.

 

As I've said before, I like Jay and he has shown some real strengths, but he also has several red flags. Those red flags include his choice of leader at DC and ST, his team's inability to rise to the occassion two years running in the game that matters most, and not enough draft picks becoming great. I will say that the last point is probably my weakest, but this many years in the questions about Jay Gruden may still more numerous than the settled answers. He has raised the Redskins from dog **** to mediocre. Can he, without Cousins, raise the Redskins to contender?

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

5 minutes ago, Burgold said:

And you missed the most important part of the post... I admitted I was overreacting and needed to displace.

 

The reality is though that anytime someone says something remotely critical about Jay or Kirk there's an insane rush to defend as if they are being besmirched, belittled, and are beyond reproach.

Really?

 

I see a lot more critical talk on Jay than I do positive.

 

But the point still stands, a lot of the criticism in this town seems to revolve around the guys who are the most visible.  But the most visible guys jobs are only made harder due to the invisible folks and their mockery of an org chart.  It seems that's not taken into account by many fans that no matter how many years later, still have a burgundy tint to the way they view things.  Is every single head coach we've hired really just mediocre at best, or is the organization itself below mediocre?

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

27 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

@Burgold If that's what you took out of TSO's post, I think you missed the forest for the trees.

 

I didn't walk away from that post thinking the point was that Jay is the second coming of Lombardi.  The point is that he's the low hanging fruit, as coaches and QB's usually are here.  That everyone has weaknesses and nobody's perfect.  But good organizations accentuate strengths and assist with weaknesses.  Which is not something that's been done in Washington during Snyder's entire ownership.

 

it seems that, at this point, gruden is who he is...

 

he's weak with game management and the teams (whether due to him or due to the appointed leaders) are hit or miss in critical games. on the positive side, the offense generally goes despite who's throwing passes or running routes. also, the players like him, which isn't something to overlook. 

 

i don't see either side of ledger changing dramatically independent of the players getting better. he isn't going to suddenly know exactly when to call his timeouts. nor is half the locker room going to suddenly start grumbling about him. 

 

if we get better players, we'll win more games and challenge for the post-season. if not, we'll win 6 or 7 games and struggle...

[Burgold]

3 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Really?

 

I see a lot more critical talk on Jay than I do positive.

 

But the point still stands, a lot of the criticism in this town seems to revolve around the guys who are the most visible. 

 

 

But that's only fair. We talk about the visible guys because the buck stops with them. More importantly, any talk of Jay includes all his coaching staff because we really don't know who does what or who deserves credit or blame. Same goes with Allen. Any talk of Allen extends to the whole of the Front Office because who knows who scouted who or negotiated what. The buck stops with Allen and therefore, he gets the blame or credit.

 

To your other point, I do think that Gruden is hamstrung by the Front Office's failures (though it's a possibly a reciprocal relationship.) He absolutely was limited by injuries last year as well. The truth is that it's probably all but impossible to drill down and attribute the correct ratio of blame to all parties. And yes, all parties deserve blame except probably us fans (except for our impatience, mercurialness, etc.)

 

All that said, it should be noted that Jay's ceiling with both the Redskins and Bengals so far has been just barely making the playoffs and never winning there. I don't really think that's fair, but it is true.