Per PFT: Scott Campbell Out as Senior Personnel Executive

[pjfootballer]

18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Not even a tiny bit true from what I've observed.

 

 

Bullseye. 

 

 

Woosh! Goes the joke right over your head. 

[Skinsinparadise]

15 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

But, yeah, we can love certain aspects of the FO like Jay, like Schaffer, like Kyle, etc... while also recognizing that they’re likely hindered by their leadership in ways we see and in ways we don’t. Even if they’re ultimately successful, you wonder how much of that success came in spite of said leadership and not because of it.

 

I sometimes wonder how far ahead we’d be as a roster right now, and thus how much more successful guys like Jay would already be, with a better support structure provided to them by better leadership. What took 5-6 years to build here, with all the crazy obstacles needed to be overcome, could’ve easily taken 2-3 otherwise. I really believe that. 

 

Circling back to this post.  I was thinking about it in this way.  There are teams that turnaround from bad to really good FAST.  That's something that has never happened under Dan.  Zilch.  If I recall this is the only team that hasn't won 11 games in 20 years plus or something like that.

 

Our holy grail is the very rare 10 win season.  Or 2 winning seasons in a row, yeah!   Winning one playoff game every 15 years.  Or we were 8-8 or whatever but we can dream -- what if we didn't get hurt, what if our schedule were easier, etc. 

 

The bar has really lowered.  But I think a lot of us have the expectations of this really slow burn like it takes years to build a winner.   We've seen though teams like the Rams, Vikings, Eagles and plenty of others rise from bad/mediocre after a mere year to heights Dan hasn't seen even once during his long stewardship.

 

Coincidence?  I don't think so.  Putting a GM in control who can deal with all the moving parts -- where he's supported without interference -- I think potentially is a game changer.

 

I know some think its about Scot.  The thing is I don't think anyone here even knew who Scot was into he was pursued.  It's not about Scot.  It's about hiring a real football guy to run the football operation.  Not a politician.  Not Dan's crony friend pal.  Not a coach moonlighting as GM who got canned previously for his personnel moves.  A real football guy.

 

So if there is a real demand for Kyle Smith and they promote him to GM.  It would be a big day.  I don't know enough about him to have a full handle on it.  But just the idea alone of hiring a guy who is respected around the league and is a football guy -- would be huge. 

5 minutes ago, pjfootballer said:

 

Woosh! Goes the joke right over your head. 

 

Sorry.   I've heard people make this argument so many times that I took it seriously. 

[goskins10]

19 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

Well, since Doug has been a personnel guy in the league for quite some time I would say it's more likely that he made it based on merit.  He was also a HC at a high level in college and knows something about recruiting and identifying talent.

 

Jeff Bostic hasn't had anything to do with football since he retired (to my knowledge)... if they gave it to him it would raise an eyebrow.

 

So yes, it matters how they get there because if you hire the RIGHT people based on merit you are less likely to **** it up.  

 

That wasn't my question. Of course, ideally that's the way you would hire. And internally I would drive for that. However as a fan, if they get the right people in place why do we really care? Maybe Jeff Bostic is amazing but just had not pursued things yet. 

 

BTW: Not trying to be argumentative here. Just posing the question. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

23 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

It sure feels like the team is phasing Bruce out of the process, next step reassignment or a pink slip.

It does feel like that.  But then again, I sometimes 'feel' like I'm going to win the lottery only to not match a single number.  We can hope though.

[Skinsinparadise]

It's uncertain if not renewing Scott Campbell's contract will result in further changes to the Redskins' college scouting department. There's a chance the Redskins could always promote some lower level scouts they've been grooming under director of college scouting Kyle Smith. The feeling is they're OK with what they have. However, Doug Williams could decide to bring in another pair of eyes to help. Regardless, the decision on Campbell, who moved to Florida last year, really began last year when they promoted Smith to his new role. Smith earned praise for how he handled the draft this year -- they incorporated the coaches more than in the past, among other things. He has to continue developing in this role and also start to learn the pro personnel side more before ascending to a GM role. The Redskins lost a bright young mind in Sean McVay last offseason; they'd be wise to hold onto this one.

 

John Keim, ESPN Staff Writer33m ago

 

Russell proposed several reasons why talented employees might choose to remain in Ashburn.

 

"I think Eric Schaffer's very smart and very talented," Russell said. "Why hasn't he left for another organization? Why does he continue to work for Dan Snyder and Bruce Allen? I mean, I wish I had the absolute number one answer. Number one, he's handsomely paid. Number two, he doesn't want to move his family. He's got young kids. A lot of these guys don't want to uproot their family."

 

"And I would just say this," he added. "A lot of them learned from Morocco Brown, who was impatient, who wanted to get out of there because the Redskins were not treating him right, fairly, the Redskins were not paying him like he should have been paid. He went to Cleveland to work for Ray Farmer and got treated like horse crap there, and in two years he was out of a job. So a lot of these guys see that the grass isn't necessarily always greener on the other side, so smart people sometimes stay loyal to bad companies, or bad leaders or bad dictators, depending on how you view things."

 

"Now, why aren't they better as a football organization? That's the great unknown," he said. "I think we all know part of the reason is you can be really smart and really good at your job over there, your voice isn't always 100 percent heard and you don't always get to make the bottom-line decisions."

 

"There's only two (voices at Redskins Park) that really count, and that's the owner and the team president," said Loverro. "They're the ones that are going to dictate what's going on or let things happen, let the other people do their jobs or not."

https://thefandc.radio.com/working-for-dan-snyder-for-years-speaks-to-a-character-defect

[HardcoreZorn]

Regarding the Payne over James/Edmunds. I only really care or think it's a problem if James/Edmunds were rated by us as being in a completely different tier as Payne. If, for example, they rated James and Edmunds as All-Pro talents and Payne as an above average starter. You get yourself in trouble when doing that. If, however, all three guys were in the same tier, yet James and Edmunds were rated slightly higher, I have no problem with them taking the big boy up front. If they think Payne is pro-bowl impact DL, then I understand why they would think his presence would impact the team more than a SS or LB. On paper, and in the short term, I think signing Hankins and drafting James makes us a better team. Ironically enough, since we are talking about bigger picture, I think drafting Payne is more beneficial. Hankins was most likely pushing for a long term deal that would potentially hamstring us retaining some of our own, specifically Smith and Scherff. Those guys are going to require mega deals, make no mistake about it. So from that perspective, I like drafting DL over LB or secondary instead of signing impact DL and drafting strong safety. I just can't stand to let the other team have 2nd and 3rd and 5 every single drive. And having a young, homegrown, talented DL with Tomsula coaching them up has me absolutely giddy. I say all of this while admitting I was rather bummed they passed on James. He definitely would have been the flashier, sexier pick. But I can see the thought process and get behind the idea.

 

As for Kyle Smith, love hearing the talk about him being promoted to GM. I still think Bruce gets way too much attention for what his role seems to be. I get a lot just don't like the guy, but my god is there a lot of talk and drama surrounding the dude when it appears and has appeared to me the last 4 years or so that this is a high functioning FO on the personnel side of things. Just so much extra noise and BS that takes away from all of the good things happening when it comes to putting together a sound football team. Which I 100% am convinced we have. Really excited for this upcoming season, more so than usual.

[Skinsinparadise]

Smith ran the 2018 draft though, and that is the plan for the future. 

 

Think about it this way: Campbell has worked in the NFL for 31 years. Smith is only 34 years old. 

And with Campbell's contract expiring, the Redskins thought this was the time to let him walk.

It's tough, no way around that.

 

But considering the team lost McVay last year, and saw him find much success as a young, rookie head coach, the team doesn't want to lose Smith. 

 

Washington Team President Bruce Allen is known to be good friends with A.J. Smith, Kyle's father. There were also reports that Allen might look to move on from the Redskins. Allen shut down those reports, but still, at some point, Allen will want to walk away. He's in his 60s and many believe finding the club's new stadium to be his final challenge. 

 

Smith as general manager of the Redskins makes sense, whether that happens this season or a few seasons down the road.

What about Doug Williams?

 

Remember, last year at his introductory press conference, the Senior VP of Player Personnel made clear he doesn't want to be GM.

Eric Schaffer does a million things at Redskins Park, but player evaluation is not considered his strong suit.

 

For Smith, it is. 

Though the experiment failed spectacularly, the Redskins brought in Scot McCloughan to be their top football man. If nothing else,

 

McCloughan is a true football guy. 

Smith is too. And he's younger, and with an untarnished resume. 

If it seems the Redskins are setting things up to keep Smith around for the long haul, don't forget the lesson of losing McVay.

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/losing-sean-mcvay-might-have-put-wheels-motion-redskins-keep-kyle-smith

[Rex Tomb]

1 hour ago, JSSkinz said:

It sure feels like the team is phasing Bruce out of the process, next step reassignment or a pink slip.

 

Or letting him go so he can rejoin Jon Gruden in Oakland.

[Skinsinparadise]

47 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I still think Bruce gets way too much attention for what his role seems to be. 

 

The good news for Bruce is if he gets reassigned to a different position, he won't have to worry about attention.  When you are the team president and defacto GM, you are going to be in the spotlight like it or not.   If you make missteps publicly -- it will be remembered.

 

I disagree with him on a lot but on this point I saw where Mike Florio was going with it which is when they canned Scot he thought Bruce wouldn't hold the final say role in the front office -- his point was why take the spotlight and make it all about you -- when you can take a different role and let someone else have that headache?

 

A guy like Scott Campbell for example almost never gets mentioned.  Kyle Smith some around draft time. Eric Schaffer some around contracts.  But Bruce as the President of the team and defacto GM is in just about any story about the Redskins good or bad -- as it should be.  For the NY Giants, its Gettleman.  It's not about the scouts who work under him.  But Gettleman.  For the 49ers its Lynch even though they have a stud personnel guy working under him.   For the Redskins that guy is Bruce.  The guys with the titles are the ones in the press and get the attention.

 

 

[DC9]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

That wasn't my question. Of course, ideally that's the way you would hire. And internally I would drive for that. However as a fan, if they get the right people in place why do we really care? Maybe Jeff Bostic is amazing but just had not pursued things yet. 

 

BTW: Not trying to be argumentative here. Just posing the question. 

 

I'm confused by how so many folks are saying this?  Maybe I've missed a significant portion of the story or the discussion... but yes, it would be amazing if things fell into place perfectly with little to no effort.

 

It would also be amazing if I won the lottery.  If I didn't have to pay for my kids to go to school.  If I had a helicopter and driver to avoid traffic.

 

How do we get there?  Usually you get there by putting folks in place who are good at the job.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

5 hours ago, Peregrine said:

OMG, twitter says some people want Redskins executives, it must be true despite the fact no team in the past decade has ever actually signed a Redskins executive.

 

Its really easy for Larry in his grandparents basement in Nebraska to throw something up on twitter, but its a very different thing for a team to actually make an attempt to sign a guy.  When and if that happens it would be a first.

2

 

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned it, but Morocco Brown says "Hi".

[TSO]

9 hours ago, HigSkin said:

 

This is interesting to me... 

 

Cole Spencer seems to be a guy on the rise within the organization. No idea about Whittington. But this is what we saw happened last year when they added some new hires to the scouting department and elevated others:

 

Quote

For Immediate Release

August 1, 2017

 

REDSKINS ANNOUNCE CHANGES TO SCOUTING STAFF

 

RICHMOND, Va. – The Washington Redskins announced today that they have finalized additions and new assignments for the team’s personnel department for the 2017 season. The new additions and new assignments are as follows:

 

            Brent Caprio*             ScoutingAssistant

            Chuck Cook*              College Scout (Midwest)

            Harrison Ritcher*        BLESTO Scout

            Paul Skansi*                College Scout (West Coast)

            Cole Spencer               College Scout (Southeast)

            Roger Terry                 College Scout (Midlands)

            

* Indicates new hire

 

So not sure what Spencer did previous to being assigned the Southeast, but they considered it a “new assignment”. Now he’s “taking on more responsibility” according to Standig.

 

I wonder if they’ll release that info. 

 

If you guys recall, Cole is Evan Spencer’s brother who we took in the 6th round in 2015 (Scot ran that draft). I’d say that’s an indication Scot respected him. 

[HardcoreZorn]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The good news for Bruce is if he gets reassigned to a different position, he won't have to worry about attention.  When you are the team president and defacto GM, you are going to be in the spotlight like it or not.   If you make missteps publicly -- it will be remembered.

 

I disagree with him on a lot but on this point I saw where Mike Florio was going with it which is when they canned Scot he thought Bruce wouldn't hold the final say role in the front office -- his point was why take the spotlight and make it all about you -- when you can take a different role and let someone else have that headache?

 

A guy like Scott Campbell for example almost never gets mentioned.  Kyle Smith some around draft time. Eric Schaffer some around contracts.  But Bruce as the President of the team and defacto GM is in just about any story about the Redskins good or bad -- as it should be.  For the NY Giants, its Gettleman.  It's not about the scouts who work under him.  But Gettleman.  For the 49ers its Lynch even though they have a stud personnel guy working under him.   For the Redskins that guy is Bruce.  The guys with the titles are the ones in the press and get the attention.

 

 

You are missing my point. The point was, and it's been a sentiment I have echoed since I joined, is that media and fan narrative is misaligned with reality in my opinion. There are plenty of things not to like about Bruce, as I've mentioned in multiple posts and multiple times that seems to get glossed over. But in totality, since Shanahan left and Bruce took the reigns as team president or de facto GM, this team has operated admirably from a pure personnel standpoint. Again, just one man's (and clear minority) opinion.

 

From 2014 on, through the draft, we have acquired starting level talent IMO at RB (Guice), WR (Doctson, Crowder), T (Moses), C/G (Scherff, Long), DL (Payne, Ioan, Allen), OLB (Murphy, Smith), CB (Breeland, Fuller UGH, Moreau) and S (Nicholson). All of these guys are either starting for us this year, or have started games for us previously and will be starting for other teams around the league this year. By my count, that's 15. In 4 years. That's not including a host of other valuable depth players and intriguing talent that have the chance to start and make an impact for us. I'm willing to bet that stacks up with anyone from around the league. And we presumably have 11 picks in next years draft. Before any trade downs or acquiring additional picks on draft day 2019.

 

In FA, there are hits and misses just like with any team. Just the nature of free agency really. But I would say Swearinger, Brown, Davis, Foster, etc were all pretty big hits though. Excited about Richardson too but TBD.

 

It takes a long time to build a sustainable winner and reverse a culture that was as toxic as ours during Snyder's early years. And yes, teams can emerge every year from out of nowhere but I vehemently disagree that it doesn't take time. I find it hilarious the Rams and Jaguars are cited as examples when prior to '17 the Ram's hadn't even been to the Postseason since 2004 and the Jaguars 2007.

 

Perhaps Vegas is right and we win 6 games this year and blow the whole thing up. I would honestly be shocked if that were the case, but anything is possible. And while the 11 win mark has not yet been reached, there is plenty to like about what the Redskins are building right now if you pay attention and focus on the actual moves being made. Which again, circling back to Bruce, I legitimately find it funny how much people hate the guy and spend time talking about him and dissecting him with the team and roster in its current state. And there are many reasons why that is, which I've attempted to discuss on here, but I don't really feel like getting back into it. I'll just reiterate that I really do find it almost intriguing the amount of negative energy that goes into Bruce Allen when there are plenty of really exciting things when it comes to our current roster. By the looks of it, we will have a top 10-12 QB, strong lines, a stable of formidable pass rushers, in addition to some other really good pieces sprinkled across the roster. There aren't a ton of teams around the league who are able to say that. Really hope it all finally translates to the dominant season we all have yearned for during Snyder's ownership.

[JSSkinz]

2 of the 4 new scouting hires have ties to the Bills.  Ritcher was there as a player during the glory years so AJ probably scouted him.

 

Maybe Kyle is bringing in his guys.

[Conn]

I agree that we need someone who can seamlessly run FA and the draft in sync, in concert with a stable coaching staff, to develop the best roster over time. If that guy can be the young, up-and-coming Kyle Smith and he brings with him respect around the league and connections with other teams through his father, that will be best case scenario (post-Bruce).

 

But we've already unlocked the beginnings to the winning formula imo, if accidentally:

 

We pursue and pay guys based on their fit in our team culture--hard workers who love football--and we hand them to technically proficient assistant coaches who know how to motivate. That's a change from the Vinny years. We do not overpay good players just based on name value, we consider scheme fit and roster construction/salary cap allocation. That's a change from the Vinny years. We value our draft picks and hoard more than the standard allotment--this is the BIGGEST change from the Vinny years, and by far the most important. It is simply a numbers game, no matter WHO you have making the picks, as long as the picks are made following a purpose and are given a stable environment in which to develop. 

 

I do not exaggerate when I say that studies have been done, and over a long sample size NOT A SINGLE NFL TEAM DRAFTS BETTER than any other. Let me repeat: no NFL franchise consistently hits on picks more than any other over a long period of time. Teams have hot streaks (like Seattle putting together that defense/secondary from mid-late round picks in a single draft or two but then ruining it by trading away multiple cost-controlled 1sts and not valuing their OL), and teams have cold streaks. And some teams provide their prospects the time to develop without constantly changing coaches. That's it.

 

The single significant factor that leads to teams hitting on draft picks more than their peers? Quantity. The more picks you throw at the wall, the more that stick. The second biggest factor that allows drafted players to develop into hits at a better percentage? Stability. Usually this involves the same coaching staff, which usually also involves a stud QB keeping teams afloat even when they hit cold streaks in roster building.

 

My point is that if we proceed with these main variables staying the same, we will eventually stumble into a hot streak in the draft and have a period of playoff success:

 

1. A core leadership group of Jay and assistants, plus Kyle Smith, Shaeffer, and seemingly Doug Williams in a buffer/facilitator role.

 

2. A core philosophy of valuing and hoarding draft picks and drafting guys who love football. 

 

3. Continuing to smartly navigate the salary cap in a way as to keep our important homegrown talent while cycling out replaceable pieces for new cost-controlled rookie contracts, not becoming too top-heavy. 

 

These 3 factors staying stable may not get us to a spot that a HOF QB would, but it should help us ascend into a competitive tier. 

 

That's why our QB being 34 is kind of scary, even if he turns out to be a perfect fit with Gruden and the talent assembled around him. The number one thing that can derail this slow but steady progress towards being a good, stable franchise is having a crater at the QB spot in future years that undermines the rest of what's been built to the point where someone gets impatient and brings in a new regime who throw out the baby with the bathwater and starts the process over again. 

 

Jay is not special. Our talent evaluators may not be special even if we boot Bruce and go with Smith. Our roster may not be special. But keeping everything stable, fostering a football culture and just throwing 8-10 draft picks at the board without being idiots about the salary cap every year IS the best way to consistently win 9-11 games...and when your FO lucks into a couple home run drafts in a row, you get a monster roster for a few years and you're in position to capitalize already. 

 

Alex Smith has to be good and we have to adequately replace him in a couple years, if everything else stays the same. That's our ticket--stability, lots of draft picks, smart cap management, and good enough QB play to keep it all relevant. 

[TSO]

5 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

You are missing my point. The point was, and it's been a sentiment I have echoed since I joined, is that media and fan narrative is misaligned with reality in my opinion. There are plenty of things not to like about Bruce, as I've mentioned in multiple posts and multiple times that seems to get glossed over. But in totality, since Shanahan left and Bruce took the reigns as team president or de facto GM, this team has operated admirably from a pure personnel standpoint. Again, just one man's (and clear minority) opinion.

 

Quote

 

Perhaps Vegas is right and we win 6 games this year and blow the whole thing up. I would honestly be shocked if that were the case, but anything is possible. And while the 11 win mark has not yet been reached, there is plenty to like about what the Redskins are building right now if you pay attention and focus on the actual moves being made. Which again, circling back to Bruce, I legitimately find it funny how much people hate the guy and spend time talking about him and dissecting him with the team and roster in its current state. And there are many reasons why that is, which I've attempted to discuss on here, but I don't really feel like getting back into it. I'll just reiterate that I really do find it almost intriguing the amount of negative energy that goes into Bruce Allen when there are plenty of really exciting things when it comes to our current roster. By the looks of it, we will have a top 10-12 QB, strong lines, a stable of formidable pass rushers, in addition to some other really good pieces sprinkled across the roster. There aren't a ton of teams around the league who are able to say that. Really hope it all finally translates to the dominant season we all have yearned for during Snyder's ownership.

 

Forgive me for being blunt, but I think the only one missing the point here is you. You’re ignoring the aspects of the FO we’ve repeatedly stated we like while omitting the fact that the highest levels of its leadership including Bruce and Dan have been and are likely a hindrance to those aspects succeeding at the highest of levels. 

 

And, to be honest, you’ve come off completely disingenuous because since you’ve began posting here you’ve qualified your posts with “I don’t like Bruce” or something to that effect, but then you’ve literally defended his every move while condescended any criticisms of him. Your last paragraph quoted above is another example of this. Hard for me to believe any of your qualifications, to be honest, not that it matters what I believe, lol. 

 

Pertaining to the point you continually miss... they could win 10+ games in spite of Bruce and his leadership, so pointing out the positives related to personnel means little. The amount of obstacles they have had to overcome as it stands because of the way Dan/Bruce have structured the organization is/was an issue whether they win that amount or not. That’s precisely the problem many of us have detailed quite explicitly a thousand times over.

 

There has been an underlying concern, which demonstrably remains to this day, that sustainable success is near impossible under Dan/his top exec and the late playoff run here or there doesn’t change that. That otherwise quality people, when operating under their leadership here, are limited in the type of success they can have. They either maintain at best or severely regress. They almost NEVER improve, which is why seeing guys like Kyke Smith rise is a breath of fresh air. It behooves us to question why if we’re endeavoring to learn more about the organization. If some aren’t, and that’s perfectly fine, then they should stay out of the discussion. 

 

Someone like you claiming you recognize the inherent issues with the top brass should be able to recognize this but, again, instead it comes across as just a false qualification to the ends of justifying everything they do. :/ 

 

For us, it’s frustrating to watch good quality football people, who’d likely succeed at the highest levels operating with the majority of franchises, get targeted by fans who actually believe they can truly separate what’s in their control from the issues with leadership (again, that you supposedly recognize in previous posts but I’m 99% sure you’ll somehow manage to downplay or omit when responding to this) which permeate throughout the entire organization and negatively impact even the most basic of day-to-day operations.

 

As if these are static human beings whose strengths and weaknesses aren’t significantly contingent upon their bosses and whether they enable them or provide obstacles for them (the latter of which is the opposite of the essence of “organization”; to provide a positive and mutually beneficial support structure). 

 

So we can point to solid drafts and good personnel moves, recognize those involved in that (yes, including Scot who is no longer here), while simultaneously recognizing some major gaffes that came from the top (for example, spending an exorbitant amount of money on the QB position via two unprecedented franchise tags, then following it up with losing Fuller and a 3rd round pick for an expensive replacement who has to come in and learn, as well). We can question the approach regarding the Dline, which arguably cost us two seasons worth of making the playoffs via absolutely horrendous run defense as a result, and wonder how that impacted this draft, whether or not we like Payne or are pleased with the roster as it stands now. 

 

The route taken to arrive to the point you think this roster is at, which I think is good as well, can definitely be criticized as having too many unnecessary obstacles presented to it by the top brass. We can look at the overall resource management by said top brass and legitimately criticize it in comparison to other successful FOs. 

 

Those are decisions made at the very top that aren’t on people like Jay, Kyle, Schaffer, Scot, etc... even if they had some involvement in it. Those things are part of the unified vision you want to see implemented by the ones with final say over everything. Right now that is supposedly Bruce. So it is absolutely within the realm of reasonable criticism to focus and harp on those things. It is precisely our desire to see the good quality football people within the organization being enabled versus hindered that we do so. It is why organizational structure is so important and why you can both have good people within it who are also hindered by those above them. 

 

Anyone who is an expert at anything and has worked for bad people before will attest to this. Environment is key. Leadership is everything. Good hires can be made but then nullified via being undermined or overruled by said leadership. This has happened time and again under Snyder and Bruce has just been another enabler of it at least some of the time. 

 

The Eagles just won a Super Bowl on the heels of an absolutely brilliant offseason that featured one winning move after the other personnel-wise. They managed their resources at the highest of levels. The fact that I’ve seen you bothered by any amount of tweets comparing FOs in any way suggests that maybe you need to stay away from the board versus hoping for it to change as you’ve stated in the Allen thread. It shouldn’t. It’s entirely relevant to the discussion. And if the Eagles fail this offseason while we succeed, that should also change the dynamics of the discussion. As it stands, we all should be extremely annoyed the Eagles beat writers can trash us without hesitation and have it be rooted in the truth. 

 

I think you should heed your own advice and try to find the nuance in other’s arguments as well? You seem to consistently and falsely equate criticism of Dan/Bruce with criticism of every aspect of the organization. You also do the opposite, where all success should be attributed to them when, in fact, there are plenty of evidences suggesting it came in spite of them or as a result of their somewhat forced acquiescence that only delayed progress up to that point. 

[goskins10]

3 hours ago, DC9 said:

 

I'm confused by how so many folks are saying this?  Maybe I've missed a significant portion of the story or the discussion... but yes, it would be amazing if things fell into place perfectly with little to no effort.

 

It would also be amazing if I won the lottery.  If I didn't have to pay for my kids to go to school.  If I had a helicopter and driver to avoid traffic.

 

How do we get there?  Usually you get there by putting folks in place who are good at the job.

 

Let me go at this a different way. How do you measure good at the job? The following may not apply to you, just providing clarification for questions. For example, when Jay was hired many were pissed because they said he didn't have enough experience. But then they also said that letting Sean go to LA was really stupid! Well if you look at each of their accomplishments, Jay had a hell of lot more experience than Sean did - and good experience. 

 

Also, most hires in the NFL are made based on relationships - not all but most. I do some hiring myself. If there is choice between someone I know how they operate and I know I work well with them, that gives them a leg up. The most qualified person in the world may also be a horrible fit in your organization. 

 

I want the best for this team just I know you do. AS much as I am not a fan of Bruce, the fact is there have been some pretty qualified people coming to this team. There are no less than 3 ex-head coaches on the staff. Is that more Jay than Bruce? I have no idea. 

 

I just think the Tampa connection thing was way over blown. But even if it's the case - and the results are good, why should we care? 

 

 

 

[DC9]

26 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Let me go at this a different way. How do you measure good at the job? The following may not apply to you, just providing clarification for questions. For example, when Jay was hired many were pissed because they said he didn't have enough experience. But then they also said that letting Sean go to LA was really stupid! Well if you look at each of their accomplishments, Jay had a hell of lot more experience than Sean did - and good experience. 

 

Also, most hires in the NFL are made based on relationships - not all but most. I do some hiring myself. If there is choice between someone I know how they operate and I know I work well with them, that gives them a leg up. The most qualified person in the world may also be a horrible fit in your organization. 

 

I want the best for this team just I know you do. AS much as I am not a fan of Bruce, the fact is there have been some pretty qualified people coming to this team. There are no less than 3 ex-head coaches on the staff. Is that more Jay than Bruce? I have no idea. 

 

I just think the Tampa connection thing was way over blown. But even if it's the case - and the results are good, why should we care? 

 

 

 

 

So first, most of the folks who were pissed when Jay was hired were pissed because we didn't hire Art Briles.  It had nothing to do with Jay nor his experience.  Most of us were here for that and hopefully it all ended last month, lol.

 

I agree everything is who you know.  Especially when dealing with upper level positions. 

 

What I am saying is you have to have SOME merit... which is why I used Bostic as an example.  Played the game, played for the team, has done nothing since (that I am aware of).

 

I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think you mean it.

 

Basically what you said initially was "Who cares HOW as long as it works."  I said "HOW did you get here."  You get there from there being some merit.

 

It's very basic.  Dan isn't going to come in here and hire one of us if he likes our posts - though I'm convinced some folks think he will.

[SWFLSkins]

21 hours ago, zoony said:

But was the board really Scotts? 

 

21 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

I don’t think anyone saying it was “Scot’s board”

 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

You are missing my point. The point was, and it's been a sentiment I have echoed since I joined, is that media and fan narrative is misaligned with reality in my opinion.

 

I am not missing anything.  I get some people think its misaligned.  I flat out made that point that same people who defend Bruce see it this way -- i pay attention to what people write and how they see things.  But I explained at length why I think its a problem whether its reality or just the perception of reality -- if it matters to people how the team is perceived.  To me the perception of the team matters and I explained why.   I don't agree its misaligned at all but even if I did think that was the case -- I don't shrug off the idea that your team president struggles to maintain a good image for the team even if its via good intentions that just manifests in gaffes.

 

3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

From 2014 on, through the draft, we have acquired starting level talent IMO at RB (Guice), WR (Doctson, Crowder), T (Moses), C/G (Scherff, Long), DL (Payne, Ioan, Allen), OLB (Murphy, Smith), CB (Breeland, Fuller UGH, Moreau) and S (Nicholson). 

 

When I start hearing Bruce is this secret stud evaluator as opposed to Kyle and Jay -- I'd share the enthusiasm and give him credit for all of this.

 

3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I'm willing to bet that stacks up with anyone from around the league. And we presumably have 11 picks in next years draft. Before any trade downs or acquiring additional picks on draft day 2019.

 

 

If we are going to complement him for letting his young players (who were drafted higher) leave for 5th-6th round picks -- and for Kirk to leave for a third round pick -- then to me that's some serious Bruce spin. The compensation for Kirk is a disaster IMO.  Not bad.  A disaster.  About as poorly played as it gets.  Drafting Murphy in the 2nd round, letting him go and getting back a 5th rounder?  OK.  Maybe that's exciting if we just look at it purely in terms of the 2019 draft but it isn't exactly something to jump up and down about IMO.  Ditto drafting Spencer Long in the third, developing him and getting a 6th rounder back.  OK, fine.  It makes the 2019 draft more fun, I'll give him that.  But this isn't about getting value if you look at things clinically.

 

3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

It takes a long time to build a sustainable winner and reverse a culture that was as toxic as ours during Snyder's early years.

 

I gather this means Bruce represents culture change?   To each their own on this.  But some would use that as a punch line let alone debate the point.  Unless culture change is purely defined as not overspending on FA.

 

3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

there is plenty to like about what the Redskins are building right now if you pay attention and focus on the actual moves being made. 

 

I work in my job with teams of people.  I am in a business where there are even wins and loses.  And people can actually segment the different jobs people do.  If I do my job well and someone else in another task doesn't.  We aren't lumped together.  Trent Williams is a great LT.  Does that make Shaun Lauvao really good too?  Because hey its the Redskins O line?  Same idea here.  That's why I mention Bruce as the weak line in the operation.

 

3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I'll just reiterate that I really do find it almost intriguing the amount of negative energy that goes into Bruce Allen when there are plenty of really exciting things when it comes to our current roster. 

 

I am going to take a slight detour on a point that is based on people having issues with negative energy directed at Bruce.  That is, a lot of the same people who defend Bruce as if its defending the Redskins -- don't always do the same for the players on the team.  And the whole concept of it is as weird to me as some of the Bruce defenders think its weird to impugn the dude.  And not just weird to me but mega weird.   

 

I am one of the more upbeat guys before each season about the team.  Heck I am even one of the people who defend Larry Michael on the board at every turn  -- I don't mind his homerism at all, I always liked him.  I love Jay.  I got the back of just about every player.   Heck I even supported John Beck back in the day when he was given the QB job.  I have my fav players and not so favs but I am typically upbeat.  Heck I even love just about everyone in the front office.  Bruce to me is an exception and I can't gloss over it because he is the guy who represents the team more than any other figure -- even if its just him playing the figure head role at times.

 

I'd put myself as much of a homer as anyone here.  I don't define Redskins = Bruce.  Homerism = Bruce.  Bruce to me represents everything that we've been trying to CHANGE as for culture change.   Politics, nastiness, nepotism.   Appearing publicly inept.

 

Plenty of good things going on with the Redskins, I agree.  But to me too much of it has been in spite of Bruce not because of Bruce with the exception of I like some of the hires he's made.  Jay to me embodies the qualities I like.  Competence.  Character.  Culture change.   Not Bruce.  But to each their own. 

 

If people want to argue maybe Bruce isn't that hot at what he does but he made some good hires.  I can see that point but that's as far as I can go with it.

[HardcoreZorn]

2 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

 

Forgive me for being blunt, but I think the only one missing the point here is you. You’re ignoring the aspects of the FO we’ve repeatedly stated we like while omitting the fact that the highest levels of its leadership including Bruce and Dan have been and are likely a hindrance to those aspects succeeding at the highest of levels. 

 

 

Oh boy, where to start.

 

I have a little over 100 posts on this site. It shouldn't be hard for you to comb through them and find specific examples of times I have criticized decisions made by the Redskins. But you, like so many, seem to ignore when I say those things because I have an opposing POV from the anti Bruce/FO crowd and you have this preconceived notion that I am some ardent FO supporter who thinks the Redskins can do no wrong. And if you were to acknowledge or pay attention to some of the moves that I have spoken out about not liking, well, all of a sudden I'm not the guy you think I am. And I guess that's no fun for you negative nancies.

 

And I'm sorry, but maybe I "continually miss" the point, because the point is garbage. If they win 3 games this year, Bruce and his leadership deserve to be questioned and ridiculed. Hell, I'll be standing right along side you. If they win 10+ games, hats off to the FO. Yes, Bruce included. Not sure how you live in a world where failures should be attributed to someone, yet successes would be in spite of said someone. If the Redskins perform this year, then Bruce absolutely deserves some of the credit. Just as if we fail miserably, he deserves the lion's share of the blame. To say otherwise, literally makes it seem as if you have some sort of vendetta for the guy. Reminds me of the fans who say they don't want to see Snyder holding a Lombardi, because he wouldn't deserve it. That's pure silliness.

 

A bulk of your post refers to leadership and permitting guys to flourish in their roles, or lack thereof, during Snyder's tenure. No argument from me really, as that has been a major black eye for much of Snyder's ownership. Which is why if you read my post with a bit more reading comprehension, you would notice that a lot of the reason I come off as pro Bruce or FO, is the stark comparison between how we have operated recently, say the last 4 years, and between the years 1999 and 2013. And me recognizing and appreciating the way we now operate. Whereas many in the media and a segment of the fan base continue to slam the team and vilify Dan and the FO. There is plenty of evidence that things are different around Redskins park, and not just personnel wise. Ironically, I would say things are now getting better in the personnel department as a direct result of a change in philosophy. Or perhaps not ironic at all. We didn't just stumble blind into some good drafts and strong roster. That requires continuity, acquiring plenty of draft capital, making smart decisions financially, good scouting, everything that @ConnSKINS26 touched on above.

 

The only tweet I was ever bothered with that I recall was the one from the Eagles beat writer saying best case scenario for the Eagles in the draft was "for Bruce Allen to continue making decisions." Not only does that seem stupid, since by all accounts, Bruce Allen isn't running the draft. But also, I had a problem with it because in no way does that contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion. It comes off as "See, everyone knows how stupid and unlikable Bruce Allen is." I mean that's cool and all, but I find that a lazy attempt to confirm one's own beliefs. Also, pretty sure my main point when it came to the tweet wasn't even my beef with it. I believe I was simply pointing out that media narratives can change in a blink. An example being Mike Lombardi calling Doug Pederson "the most unqualified head coach he had ever seen." Less than a year later, the guy's a genius LOL. If you would like to point out specific instances of me jumping up and down upset and bothered by tweets comparing FO's be my guest. I would imagine you will be hard pressed to find it. So maybe I 'll stick around?

 

The overarching point of my previous post, was that I find it amusing that Bruce Allen has a 80+ page thread about how terrible he is. It just seems pretty trivial and dumb to dissect someone so negatively when it appears the team is on a completely different track for the better than it has been in quite some time. If you thought my point was to criticize anyone who has a problem with certain aspects of the team, or that I equate negativity toward Bruce/Dan as negativity toward every aspect of the team then I don't know what to tell you. I don't think I have ever said that and I really don't think even implied that. I would say 99% of posters here say negative things about the FO yet also recognize or say something positive about the team. I just think the ratio of positive to negative is a little out of whack considering what we are currently building.

 

 

[TSO]

30 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Not sure how you live in a world where failures should be attributed to someone, yet successes would be in spite of said someone.

 

In a world of nuance where one can look at things in a detail-oriented way when following it as closely as we do here. In a world where leadership positions are actually leadership positions, bosses are considered bosses, and if/when we can glean insight as to who made what decisions overruling whom, who delayed good decisions over whom, who undermined whom, etc... we don’t ignore them. 

 

That kind of a world. Pretty crazy, I know. 

 

But I'm just a negative nancy. You’ve got me and my history pegged perfectly.  

 

No reason to respond to your post in its entirety because, once again, you missed the point and the post you responded to has the answers to every single straw man argument and false qualification I don’t buy you’ve made here. 

 

But I want to point out the glaring contradiction with the above statement you just made with this one here: 

 

30 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Not only does that seem stupid, since by all accounts, Bruce Allen isn't running the draft.

 

So you can acknowledge the separation of duties here when it serves your point but you don’t want anyone else criticizing Bruce to do the same. Got cha.

 

Guess what? I know this is wild for you, but we can simultaneously acknowledge what Bruce does well in terms of basic organizational principles like allowing the experts he’s hired to handle their duties if/when that occurs (something that’s really basic and shouldn’t even need to be commended, really), while also acknowledging if/when he goes against that, if/when the structure implemented is not conducive to success, or if/when his overarching philosophy (or lack thereof) has hindered any of those experts from fulfilling their roles at the highest of levels. 

 

Crazy talk, I know. 

 

Btw, please edit out my post that you quoted. It’s part of Rule 11 not to quote large chunks of text like that. There is a function here where you can highlight what you want and a “Quote This” button pops up. 

[goskins10]

2 hours ago, DC9 said:

 

So first, most of the folks who were pissed when Jay was hired were pissed because we didn't hire Art Briles.  It had nothing to do with Jay nor his experience.  Most of us were here for that and hopefully it all ended last month, lol.

 

I agree everything is who you know.  Especially when dealing with upper level positions. 

 

What I am saying is you have to have SOME merit... which is why I used Bostic as an example.  Played the game, played for the team, has done nothing since (that I am aware of).

 

I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think you mean it.

 

Basically what you said initially was "Who cares HOW as long as it works."  I said "HOW did you get here."  You get there from there being some merit.

 

It's very basic.  Dan isn't going to come in here and hire one of us if he likes our posts - though I'm convinced some folks think he will.

 

I agree there has to be some ability. My real point here is that it's combination of both mostly. You have to have some skills but it also helps who you know. And just because someone is know commodity that does not make it a bad hire. But I get your point about Bostic. I remember when many people wanted Russ Grimm to be HC. He clearly did not convince anyone he was capable. He had chances - interviewed for quite a few HC positions and never got hired. 

 

Grimm BTW has one of my favorite Redskins quotes: Talking about beating Minn to get to the NFC Championship game against dallast - he said "They said they were coming to butcher the hogs. But they forgot that before you can butcher a hog you got to kill it first!" Classic Russ Grimm!!  

 

I was here when Jay was hired and many (not saying you) wanted anyone but Jay. The complaint was the only reason he is being hired is because of the Tampa connection - Haslett was here and Bruce. But he had been a very successful OC in CN. 

 

Lol about people thinking Dan comes in here. That would be pretty sad. And I doubt he would like many of my posts....  

[HardcoreZorn]

2 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

In a world of nuance where one can look at things in a detail-oriented way when following it as closely as we do here. In a world where leadership positions are actually leadership positions, bosses are considered bosses, and if/when we can glean insight as to who made what decisions overruling whom, who delayed good decisions over whom, who undermined whom, etc... we don’t ignore them. 

 

That kind of a world. Pretty crazy, I know. 

I guess I’m trying to understand how something so convoluted inside Redskins Park with Bruce at the head of everything produces anything but terrible results on the field? I mean, with how poorly we used to be run at the top it was no surprise to me that we were literally terrible with a roster in shambles. So I gather you are saying it’s possible we fluke ourselves into ten wins despite being weighed down by a terrible FO? Because maybe that’s the root of the disagreement. I don’t think you luck yourself into competency and succeed in spite of such a convoluted and messed up structure. I think you start making competent decisions which leads to a competent roster and competent results on the field.

Quote

 

But I'm just a negative nancy. You’ve got me and my history pegged perfectly.  

This was a joke, hence the smiley. Lighten up Francis. 

Quote

No reason to respond to your post in its entirety because, once again, you missed the point and the post you responded to has the answers to every single straw man argument and false qualification I don’t buy you’ve made here. 

What strawman arguments? I feel like I’m not even trying to argue anything lol. I just think it’s funny how hated Bruce Allen is and how saying anything of the like or bringing that to light means I love Bruce Allen.

Quote

 

But I want to point out the glaring contradiction with the above statement you just made with this one here: 

I am legitimately so confused with what you are even saying. I said I don’t think he’s running the draft so it’s dumb to say what that Eagles beat guy said. As in it doesn’t apply so why tweet it in the first place? And then why post it here (I know it wasn’t you) as if it’s indicative or representative or relevant for that matter to how other perceive the Redskins as. How does that imply I don’t acknowledge separation of duties? And why are separation of duties such a bad thing? Schaffer is the capologist, super intelligent it seems. Steady and level headed so it appears. Probably a good influence on Dan. There’s been an emphasis on turning over the scouting department (finally) and Kyle Smith seems to head the draft board. Doug is a facilitator and good face to the media. Bruce I guess decides tie breakers and takes the heat off Snyder lol. What exactly is the big deal?

Quote

 

Guess what? I know this is wild for you, but we can simultaneously acknowledge what Bruce does well in terms of basic organizational principles like allowing the experts he’s hired to handle their duties if/when that occurs (something that’s really basic and shouldn’t even need to be commended, really), while also acknowledging if/when he goes against that, if/when the structure implemented is not conducive to success, or if/when his overarching philosophy (or lack thereof) has hindered any of those experts from fulfilling their roles at the highest of levels. 

 

Crazy talk, I know. 

I feel like you are talking definitively about the structure not being conducive to success when it has, at the very least, no matter how you slice it, lead to a much better roster and more competitive team on sundays. Which is all I care about. 

[HardcoreZorn]

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I don't agree its misaligned at all but even if I did think that was the case -- I don't shrug off the idea that your team president struggles to maintain a good image for the team even if its via good intentions that just manifests in gaffes.

Don’t disagree that perception matters. I just think a lot of it is way overblown. And so you agree with Vegas’ over under being at 6? And all of the mock drafters who have us in the top ten? And with that article you posted above with Loverro claiming that staying with the Redskins organization for 17 years must mean you have a character defect? That’s honestly a pretty disgusting and disrespectful thing to say but whatever. People like you eat that stuff up. Because those are just a few examples of the widespread poo pooing on the Washington Redskins. You think that aligns with the reality that the Redskins had 2 winning seasons in a row, followed by a more than competitive team for most of the year before injuries absolutely undid them and derailed their season? Because while nothing to celebrate, these last three years don’t really indicate to me that we are destined for a top ten pick this year. That’s what I mean by misalignment. If you agree with those predictions for the team and buy takes like Loverros selling (which you seem to) then the narrative of the organization is properly aligned with reality in your opinion. Which is why we disagree.

Quote

 

 

When I start hearing Bruce is this secret stud evaluator as opposed to Kyle and Jay -- I'd share the enthusiasm and give him credit for all of this.

Never gave Bruce credit for the draft or said that. 

Quote

 

 

If we are going to complement him for letting his young players (who were drafted higher) leave for 5th-6th round picks -- and for Kirk to leave for a third round pick -- then to me that's some serious Bruce spin. The compensation for Kirk is a disaster IMO.  Not bad.  A disaster.  About as poorly played as it gets.  Drafting Murphy in the 2nd round, letting him go and getting back a 5th rounder?  OK.  Maybe that's exciting if we just look at it purely in terms of the 2019 draft but it isn't exactly something to jump up and down about IMO.  Ditto drafting Spencer Long in the third, developing him and getting a 6th rounder back.  OK, fine.  It makes the 2019 draft more fun, I'll give him that.  But this isn't about getting value if you look at things clinically.

Thank god you aren’t our de facto GM is all I gotta say. You can’t sign everybody to second contracts with the current cap structure and the QB position requiring such a large chunk of cap. You just can’t. It’s also not realistic to expect you are going to trade all of the players for picks in the same round they are drafted in while on their rookie contracts. Teams don’t do that. Recouping a 5th and 2 6ths for those guys is a huge win. Gives you more at bats and chances for hits. That’s  potentially a Tim Settle, Shaun Dion Hamilton, and Kyshon Jarrett right there. So the fact you speak so negatively about this tells me we also strongly disagree on how a roster should be built.

 

I’ve commented on not getting value for Kirk as something I really disagreed with. Unfortunately, I wasn’t around on here posting but I was beating the trade Kirk in the 2017 offseason drum pretty hard. So when they forwent that opportunity and then decided they weren’t going to sign him long term or figured out he didn’t want to be there, that was pretty inexcusable in my mind. Seemed strictly short term. Big no no. 

Quote

 

 

I gather this means Bruce represents culture change?   To each their own on this.  But some would use that as a punch line let alone debate the point.  Unless culture change is purely defined as not overspending on FA.

I don’t care that some would use it as a punchline. I really could care less. So much more has changed other than overspending in free agency. But sure, keep thinking like that. 

Quote

 

 

I work in my job with teams of people.  I am in a business where there are even wins and loses.  And people can actually segment the different jobs people do.  If I do my job well and someone else in another task doesn't.  We aren't lumped together.  Trent Williams is a great LT.  Does that make Shaun Lauvao really good too?  Because hey its the Redskins O line?  Same idea here.  That's why I mention Bruce as the weak line in the operation.

Idk what you’re getting at. It feels like more of you thinking I love Bruce. You are confusing indifference with support. I could care less about Bruce. If he were dismissed tomorrow, I think we’d be just fine and I’d lose zero sleep over his departure. I just think him being labeled this narcissistic, manipulative, cancerous FO figure is super overblown and wrongly detracts attention away from a lot of really exciting and promising things going on with the Redskins right now. 

Quote

 

 

I am going to take a slight detour on a point that is based on people having issues with negative energy directed at Bruce.  That is, a lot of the same people who defend Bruce as if its defending the Redskins -- don't always do the same for the players on the team.  And the whole concept of it is as weird to me as some of the Bruce defenders think its weird to impugn the dude.  And not just weird to me but mega weird.   

Strange detour because it’s really not applicable to me. Not only are the points of my post not intended to defend Bruce, but I don’t trash players in favor of supporting Bruce. I think it’s mega weird that you assume that’s what I am doing or that’s my view. And if you weren’t actually projecting that on me, then yeah, I agree it’s mega weird to stick up for the FO over the players on the team.

Quote

 

I am one of the more upbeat guys before each season about the team.  Heck I am even one of the people who defend Larry Michael on the board at every turn  -- I don't mind his homerism at all, I always liked him.  I love Jay.  I got the back of just about every player.   Heck I even supported John Beck back in the day when he was given the QB job.  I have my fav players and not so favs but I am typically upbeat.  Heck I even love just about everyone in the front office.  Bruce to me is an exception and I can't gloss over it because he is the guy who represents the team more than any other figure -- even if its just him playing the figure head role at times.

Man we’ve switched places then. I was livid at the thought of John Beck. It’s OK that you hate Bruce, I’m really not offended by it. I find it funny but not offended. You literally admit he plays the figurehead role, yet spend so much time posting about how you can’t gloss over he’s the weak link. 

Quote

 

I'd put myself as much of a homer as anyone here.  I don't define Redskins = Bruce.  Homerism = Bruce.  Bruce to me represents everything that we've been trying to CHANGE as for culture change.   Politics, nastiness, nepotism.   Appearing publicly inept.

And me saying I don’t understand all of the hate for Bruce and that I like what the Redskins are building does not = I love Bruce Allen. I think he’s brought or at least now oversees a much more conducive and productive way to building a roster. And for that, I personally don’t hate him or understand all of the hostility toward him. It doesn’t mean I think he’s our savior or screwed without him or some savvy talent evaluator. I don’t know why that’s so hard for you to understand. 

Quote

 

Plenty of good things going on with the Redskins, I agree.  But to me too much of it has been in spite of Bruce not because of Bruce with the exception of I like some of the hires he's made.  Jay to me embodies the qualities I like.  Competence.  Character.  Culture change.   Not Bruce.  But to each their own. 

Bruce brought Jay.