Per PFT: Scott Campbell Out as Senior Personnel Executive

[TSO]

On 5/10/2018 at 9:59 PM, HardcoreZorn said:

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.

 

I’m going to try and keep this as simple as possible. This isn’t exactly how I feel (especially the grades I’m applying) but it’s a good enough similitude to get the point across. 

 

Say Gruden, Kyle and Schaffer are an A+ team. Say Bruce is/has been a D- boss putting together all of their input on their relative fields of expertise, ignoring what he wants to ignore or overriding what he wants to override and then executing it. 

 

To some of us, that’s why the results have been mediocre thus far. Someone like Jay is elevating the team enough in spite of Dan/Bruce, yes, even acknowledging they hired him. They can still provide obstacles after that. Now, if the A+ group ultimately succeeds this year, it would come as a result of their work finally overcoming what was otherwise a hindrance to their success. 

 

Furthermore, the time aspect of this should not be ignored. 

 

Is there any possibility for you to accept that what has taken us 5-6 years to achieve in terms of this roster and where it’s at right now could’ve been achieved much sooner with better vision at the top? 

 

How about this... whenever I’m pleased with something they do, like say (since we’re in a thread about scouts) when they added people to the personnel department last year, I also have to recognize that my satisfaction with that must also logically be combined with a ponderance/grievance regarding why it took so long. I cannot both be happy they did that while ignoring the approach they had previously that took years to change. 

 

A more recent example was with Dan going to Europe and checking out how some of the better futbol clubs handle strength and conditioning. I cannot applaud him for that, which I did, while ignoring the question of why it took that long and/or why we’re so reactive versus proactive about organizational issues that should emanate from leadership first and foremost. 

 

Those are just a few examples that are directly on Dan/Bruce. Those are things that likely hindered Jay and co.’s ability to succeed. To just throw that away because we like where things are right now is ridiculous.

 

Especially since we’re on a message board existing for the sole purpose of discussing Redskins-related topics. We’re going to get deep here. That should not be equated to negativity. In fact, I’d argue the ones you’ve got a major problem with are generally more positive than you are. When you throw your hat in the ring with the likes of a Bruce, you’re going to end up having a lot of negativity towards other, significantly productive, contributors on the Skins. 

 

It is no coincidence that some of the most ardent defenders of Dan/Bruce can often be some of the most vitriolic, vehement, and ataganostic types towards certain coaches and players.

 

Best thing to do? Avoid labels. Let’s explore subtlety and nuance here. We’re not on twitter, we can do it.  

 

On 5/10/2018 at 9:59 PM, HardcoreZorn said:

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

 

Ouch, you got me bad here, never heard this one. What am I to do?  

 

But, honestly? This is just another proof for me that you’re being disingenuous. You’ve went on many rants wrongly calling people negative just because they don’t agree with your overall satisfaction with Bruce. So, yeah, not buying the backtrack here. 

 

On 5/10/2018 at 9:59 PM, HardcoreZorn said:

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?

 

Nothing confusing there. And you told me I needed a bit more reading comprehension?  

 

Look, it’s simple. When it came to the perceived successes of those within the organization, you want it directly attributed to Bruce with no separation (see your last statement to@Skinsinparadise for recent evidence of this). Their success is his, period. When it served your argument, as it did against the Eagles’ beat writer, you suddenly were able to make that separation with no hesitation. 

 

So, yeah, your response here was completely off the mark as to what I was getting at. 

 

The point is, we can recognize Bruce’s positives in terms of whom he hired and when he allows them to fulfill their roles, while also recognizing when he’s presented obstacles for said hires and the times where they haven’t been able to fulfill said roles. As explained above and in every post I just made today. Micro versus macro. Micro successes are not always an indication of macro influence. Make sense? 

 

On 5/10/2018 at 9:59 PM, HardcoreZorn said:

Quote

 

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. 

 

See above, with emphasis on the question one can pose regarding the time it’s taken to get here. 

[DC9]

8 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

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.

 

Yeah I think Jay was 2 or 3 on my list that year.  I really wanted David Shaw from Stanford.

 

I just remember there was a thread about Art Briles after about week 2 and finally folks came to their senses.... for the most part, lol.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

9 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

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?

 

 

Vegas' predictions have ZERO to do with my thoughts about Bruce.  They could have predicted 11 wins next year and my thoughts would be the same. 

 

If the team is successful I do not see Bruce as a key reason for it aside from one thing which I'll address later in my post.   But I'll address my take on the team since it seems to be one of your key points.  I recall from other posts you are jazzed because of the first four games of the season when they looked good.  They did look good.  But in retrospect, it was a bit of fools gold potentially -- that's why I need to see this play out in 2018.  Back then I thought the Raiders were a playoff team as opposed to a 6-10 team that they ended up being, I was real excited in that moment too.   They came close to beating the Chiefs but the Chiefs spiraled soon after.  Later on actually losing (let alone winning close games) to teams like the Giants and Jets.   

 

It's not that I am negative about the 2018 version of the team -- if anything I am upbeat but I am not counting my chickens that they are really really good until I see them play consistently really really good.  There was a time in 2016 too where they looked really really good (after the GB game and Dallas) and then it came apart.  I got to see it happen, so not celebrating their success in advance.  That's just how I look at it.  There were times in both 2016 and 2017 when I thought they were great.  But the mark of a great team is consistency.  I have to see that happen before I bank on it.  

 

9 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Don’t disagree that perception matters. I just think a lot of it is way overblown.

 

 

 Now to what I am talking about as to perception -- its not Redskins=Bruce.  So perception is about W-L predictions.  My point is that many people from different stripes don't think the dude is competent or a good guy.  A bunch think he's a slick politician who wants his power and the Redskins success is in spite of him not because of him.  IMO he's earned that perception via public actions and statements.  And it doesn't have to be a wild and crazy extreme.  I know people in my work who I don't like.  It's not because they are evil and have no redeeming qualities but for my taste they are too often a douche.  And that's the vibe I get about Bruce from my own observations and others who cover him and worked with him in the past.    And that point by the way is just as important to me than the competence issue.  If people told me well he's a douche quite often but he doesn't stink at what he does -- he's actually OK at it.  That doesn't warm it up for me.  

 

9 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

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. B

 

 

Yeah I eat that stuff up, right.  That's why I cherry picked that part of the article OUT of the post that I put here. You had to click on the article to find that sentence.  That point seemed by Loverro directed at Dan not Bruce so its off topic.

 

9 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 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.

 

I think you got the right premise but you are missing the forest for the trees with the conclusions.  Forget Bruce for a second.  I have a friend who got canned recently by an employer.  And as much as I like that person, they aren't hot at their job.  They got fired about something they actually didn't do and they were irate about it because they saw that as unfair.  So they go to me, I didn't do it and I can tell that this person was just looking for a reason to fire me.

 

I was thinking to myself yeah they were looking for a reason to fire you.  But it was not because they were so consumed by that isolated incident.  My thought though is if your boss is looking for a reason to fire you there are obviously a lot of pent up reasons for it.

 

Same idea here with the Redskins, the two people at the top have a lot of water under the bridge.  Dan is laying low.  So the guy at the top from the media's perspective is Bruce.  A lot of them don't like Bruce.  A lot of them don't respect Bruce.   And its not just the media.  As Loverro likes to point out the Tampa media labeled Bruce the Prince of Darkness for a reason.   When people don't like or respect you -- they will find any excuse to pound you.

 

And no that isn't because they hate whoever is at the top of the Redskins ship.  Media clearly liked Scot.  They like Doug.  They like Schaffer.  They seem to like Kyle Smith.  They don't like Bruce.   And I doubt its just some random anti-Redskins sentiment that poor Bruce has to take an unfair hit for.  It's pointed directly at him.   Is some of that unfair -- sure.  But its earned because he's already disliked and disrespected.  He earned that dislike and disrespect. 

 

You get defiant about it on his behalf.  I don't at all.  And that's because to get yourself into a place like that, you've dug your own hole.  

 

9 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

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. 

Bruce brought Jay. 

 

 

I understand it but I think its a bit dishonest on your end.  You basically layered your main point on the Kirk thread as to everything Bruce did on the Kirk front was absolutely cool including that press release.  And people should listen to you on this subject because you are critical about Bruce about just about everything else so people should trust you specifically on this subject because you are coming at it as a fellow critic.  Now that the Kirk subject is dead, I see you defend Bruce on just about every subject at every turn.   So the two things don't add up to me.  I take a position without a disclaimer and just own it. 

 

It would be the converse of me saying I really like Bruce but let me quibble with a few things and  then tear him apart and do it whenever I have the opportunity to do so.  It wouldn't add up.  I've debated Thinking Skins for example many times on the Bruce topic but he doesn't doesn't try to feign neutrality or through disclaimers try to prop his credibility-- he just says what he thinks and owns it. 

 

9 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

Bruce brought Jay. 

 

 

Sure.  I said if people want to make the argument like or not like Bruce -- he brought Jay and helped bring Kyle Smith -- and that's good.  I agree.  They seem central to their success. 

[HardcoreZorn]

Don't have the time or energy to discuss point for point with both of you but do appreciate the debate and responses.

 

I don't at all feel like my position is that hard to understand. I'm not backtracking or being disingenuous and I stand behind everything I've ever said as totally meaning it. I guess a lot of what I say is either not being adequately communicated, or maybe I'm just being misunderstood. Not sure, but if we were talking in person maybe my attitude or feelings would be more clearly communicated. Sometimes hard to do that on a message board.

 

I love our last two drafts. I love the fact that we don't totally ignore free agency but rather use it as a tool to augment the roster. Basically, you could say, I am in total agreement that this is the best way to build a contender since we don't have a HOF QB to fall back on.

 

My stance wouldn't change if Bruce were reassigned or let go. He happens to be the team president while all of these positives, in my opinion, are taking place. So yeah, chalk me up as confused at the level of hostility directed his way. I choose not to partake, because I care way more about the actual moves taking place. And not trying to figure out the inner workings of Redskins Park, which is a futile exercise in my opinion. I don't trust the local media at all when it comes to reporting accurately or fairly about the team. Just like all of us, I want to see the Redskins win. And talent and stability wins, both of which we now have. That's all I really care about. We will see if that translates to 10+ wins this year.

 

And again, there is a huge difference between defending Bruce as you say, and simply dismissing much of the media hoopla surrounding him as overblown and inconsequential to the part that really matters when it comes to success in the National Football League. Which is building a talented roster and winning football games. I am choosing to take this stance BEFORE they actually prove they are capable of becoming a consistent contender. That is probably part of the confusion and why my stance is somewhat unpopular. I am of the belief that they were a playoff team last year derailed by injuries. I think we got even better this off season. So I operate from that vantage point.

 

There are things I like that Bruce has presumably brought to the team. And there are things I don't like. More good than bad, but again, I don't really think he's the main driving force behind personnel decisions. I think Jay and Kyle Smith (previously Scott) are. Which to me, indicates someone that is allowing the experts do their job. Another reason why I think the media spin about Bruce is overplayed and overblown and not factual.  I don't think all of the things I am praising would be taking place were that truly the case.

 

Not going to open up the Kirk can of worms again, but all I will say is that was an extremely complex situation dictated by very unusual circumstances. And I attempted to shed light on some of those and explain that I thought Kirk should shoulder some of the responsibility for not working out a LTA. If that means I love Bruce and hate Kirk, so be it.

 

And lastly, the press conference. Once again, it seems some have a very difficult time discerning defending and dismissing. My take was similar to Cooleys. It backfired, but just didn't think it was that big of a deal. I re read it a year later, and it still didn't seem like that big of a deal. I realize that's a unique take and I'll own it. But that's very different than me saying "Bruce should have absolutely conducted that press conference." Nothing good can come from airing negotiations in public. But again, just not a huge deal. I don't care to partake in a media firestorm for a 3 paragraph and 30 second long message that basically detailed we offered Kirk a long term deal, he chose to play on the franchise tag, and we are excited to see what this season has in store and hope to come to an agreement in the future. I hope this doesn't trigger some long drawn out response about following the whole process closely and paying attention to what everyone is saying. I get it. I just don't care nor care to join in with the pitchforks. If that makes me a Bruce lover, so be it

 

 

[Peregrine]

Not too bothered by him leaving, lets face it, he was one of the primary scouts here for a long time, while the team was bad to mediocre.  The more people moved out from that era the better as 90% of them arent competent.

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I hope this doesn't trigger some long drawn out response about following the whole process closely and paying attention to what everyone is saying. I get it. I just don't care nor care to join in with the pitchforks. If that makes me a Bruce lover, so be it

 

 

 

No drawn out response.  So if I understand in short you are saying you don't care about the criticism leveled at Bruce?

[HardcoreZorn]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

No drawn out response.  So if I understand in short you are saying you don't care about the criticism leveled at Bruce?

In short, I find it misguided and the hostility toward him not fitting. When Ceratto was here, and we were trading 3rd and 4th rounders for TJ friggin Duckett, I loathed the guy. He was an OK talent evaluator it seemed, but had zero idea of the big picture. And it resulted in a crumbling roster and some embarrassing stretches of play on the field that were masked somewhat by Gibbs' coaching. And If you look at our roster around the time Shanahan took over, so right after Vinny left, it was literally embarrassing the level of talent we were trotting out. Much of that was paying the price for all of the traded draft picks and bad free agent signings during the Vinny era. Griffin was the only shining light during the Shanny years. So when Vinny was dismissed, I literally celebrated it. So it's not like I have some weird affinity for protecting the Redskins FO members.

 

It is correct that this is a Redskins message board and totally appropriate to delve into the FO and discuss. My frustration definitely stems from the fact that the team is still portrayed in a similar vein as it was during the Vinny era. I find that pretty remarkable. Then again, Dan made so many embarrassing transgressions over the years, on and off the field, that he made himself and the Redskins an easy target. That along with the name. So I can see why it still happens. It will take a few contending seasons in a row for the narrative to begin to shift. Winning does cure everything.

 

But no, I don't really care about the criticism leveled at Bruce. I think he acts as Dan's shield and takes some of it on unfairly. But again, if he were to be reassigned or go work for the Raiders, I wouldn't suddenly think we were destined to suck. Similarly, I wouldn't think his departure would mean the glory years would automatically circle back around. Again, I'm convinced after two stellar drafts (IMO) in a row that Jay and now Kyle Smith know how to find talent. I think our coaching staff and position coaches in particular are excellent and it shows with the huge increase in player development. And I totally trust Schaeffer is another driving force behind allocating money responsibly and retaining our own. So if Bruce were to move on or go work on the stadium, I think we have the setup to succeed here. Proof is in the pudding though, have to see what happens on the field this year.  

[Skinsinparadise]

37 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

It is correct that this is a Redskins message board and totally appropriate to delve into the FO and discuss. My frustration definitely stems from the fact that the team is still portrayed in a similar vein as it was during the Vinny era. I find that pretty remarkable. Then again, Dan made so many embarrassing transgressions over the years, on and off the field, that he made himself and the Redskins an easy target. That along with the name. So I can see why it still happens. It will take a few contending seasons in a row for the narrative to begin to shift. Winning does cure everything.

 

But no, I don't really care about the criticism leveled at Bruce. 

 

The thing is the point I am trying to make is one of the key reason why IMO the team is still lampooned on is this:

 

The disrespect towards the Redskins I don't see that being because of Jay, Doug, Kyle Smith, Eric Schaffer, etc. 

 

It's seems all about Bruce.  If you want to see more love from the media towards the Redskins move Bruce out of the way and I think you'll see that happen.  The problem he has IMO is all the water under the bridge with Dan are very similar to Bruce's antics.  So when you combine both things it makes it look like things haven't changed.  And in one sense things haven't changed and that is the Redskins don't come off like an organization that is classy.

 

The sad thing to me about that is through different things I've done with the Redskins Chartable foundation among other things -- I've met some really cool-great people that work at Redskins Park.  But when the guy at the top isn't likable it spoils the whole broth.  Your point seems to be since you like the whole broth, Bruce doesn't bother you.  My point is the team would get the love they deserve if they reassigned the dude who spoils the broth. 

 

40 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

But no, I don't really care about the criticism leveled at Bruce. 

 

It comes off though that it indeed bothers you though because you hit back the criticisms and go off on them.  The opposite of love is indifference.  The topics I don't care about that don't bother me -- I don't post about or bother to respond.  

 

42 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I think he acts as Dan's shield and takes some of it on unfairly. 

 

This to me is the great unknown.  If there is some thing that might come out that defends Bruce's douche like behavior -- its this -- that is, Dan is playing the douche role and Bruce is carrying out his directive.  My gut is that's not the case based on the narratives I've heard.  But its certainly plausible. 

 

50 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Again, I'm convinced after two stellar drafts (IMO) in a row that Jay and now Kyle Smith know how to find talent. 

 

Agree.

 

50 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I think our coaching staff and position coaches in particular are excellent and it shows with the huge increase in player development. And I totally trust Schaeffer is another driving force behind allocating money responsibly and retaining our own. 

 

Agree with this, too.

 

51 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

So if Bruce were to move on or go work on the stadium, I think we have the setup to succeed here. Proof is in the pudding though, have to see what happens on the field this year.  

 

Maybe the best way for me to sum it up is this way:

 

A.  Do I think Bruce stinks at what he does?  Nope.

B.  I think he's mediocre at his job.   Some things I like about what he does.  Some things I don't.  Yes, he's better than Vinny but IMO nothing special. 

C.  I think some of his actions-statements make him sound like a douche at times and make the team look bad.

D.  He's made some good hires.

E.  The douche stuff has legs to it -- its not just the agents but people close to Scot, Kirk, ex-co-workers, etc do not paint a great picture of the dude.

F.   If I am going to have a non-personnel guy in charge of personnel -- I'd want two things:  1.  Their ability is special.  2.  They present the organization in a classy way.  Neither fits Bruce IMO.

 

Do I personally think Bruce is a bad guy?  Nope.  I've met him, seemed cool to me.  He strikes me as the typical corporate-politician type who knows how to hold onto their power -- you reward the people who have your back and run down the people who don't.  And that description is one I've heard a couple of beat guys use to describe Bruce.  He's a great friend if you are close to him and he will run you over like a freight train if you challenge him.

 

There is nothing wrong with that if you are climbing the corporate ladder and who knows maybe that's the way you have to be to survive over there.  But for me I want a football guy running football operations -- not a politician type.   And if the dude's behavior makes the rest of the world slam the Redskins -- then that's the kicker for me to have him out of the way.  Heck I'd endorse Schaffer for the position even though he's not a football guy in part because he's a likable-people guy according to some who covered him. 

 

[Veryoldschool]

I got don't have any idea whether his dismissal is a good think or a bad thing but I know the dumbass who arranged the cheerleader photo shoot/ escort and branding rights trip should be canned.

[Veryoldschool]

Imagine a Redskin defensive line with 3 first and 1 second round picks that were expertly choosen.  It would be a totally different squad.  That is what a smart organization could have done with the picks the clowns making decisions in Ashburn squandered on Griffin.  I don't know if the Skins got smarter with this dismissal.  I hope they know they are doing, but how can anyone feel more than hope with the Skins, they don't warrant confidence.

[TSO]

6 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I think he acts as Dan's shield and takes some of it on unfairly.

 

@Skinsinparadise touched on everything pretty much so I won’t pile on, but I wanted to add to his point here that I’ve got the same sentiment. SIP and I actually ponder this particular topic a lot. 

 

So, yeah, this is probably the biggest point I agree with you on, though we have a lot of common thoughts regarding the staff and players outside of Bruce.

 

The problem is we’ve got little to no evidence of this because Dan has done a great job of staying in the background. Even within the building at Redskins Park (and this is a theory of mine I largely keep to myself), but it seems like the people there are not privy to his true feelings outside of Bruce, so he gets to play the “good cop” in front of them.

 

Basically, there is potential there that he’s learned from the past where his direct confrontations or indirect “influences” end up getting out to the public once the inevitable ugly departure happens. So Dan could be the same guy doing the same crap we’ve always heard about over time, but absolutely no one sees it, not even within the building, except Bruce. 

 

I don’t know if that’s true, just a gut feeling after following this team at a ridiculously deep level for far too long.  

 

That being said, I don’t think that really alleviates Bruce in any way. He, by all indications, is a willing participant of it. He’s the closest guy in the building to Dan and he holds the highest title one can have. But I do try to marry the two as much as I can in the points I’m making. You’ll notice I write “Dan/Bruce” a lot. 

 

So how much is one or the other is something we’ll never really know, but my hope lies where @Skinsinparadise‘s does about the matter in that Bruce brings enough of his own issues (which can also serve as a means of enabling Dan’s bad habits) that removing him could really improve things for everyone involved. That maybe, just maybe, Dan will properly structure the FO after that with sound decisions and good hires/promotions. 

 

Which is why the talk of Kyle Smith or even Shaffer getting the GM position (hopefully with all it entails regarding final say on personnel) is so promising to us. Should’ve happened last offseason but we’ll take what we can get. 

[Skinsinparadise]

11 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Which is why the talk of Kyle Smith or even Shaffer getting the GM position (hopefully with all it entails regarding final say on personnel) is so promising to us. Should’ve happened last offseason but we’ll take what we can get. 

 

Playing off of this.  Hate isn't what drives any of us as far as I can tell but quite the opposite -- loving the team.  I am looking for any excuse to like the team and even the people running it. I made this comment in another thread but for example I've had the back of EVERY QB we've had start on the team initially.  All of them. Campbell, Beck -- doesn't matter.  My take has always been giving the young guy a chance to develop.  The only guy I recall giving a hard time initially was Rex but that was because he was a veteran with a large sample size.

 

I've had Bruce's back plenty.  The only person I really turned on hard quickly was Zorn but I gave him at least some of year 2 -- I think all coaches deserve year 2 to evolve.  I wasn't initially in love with Jay in year 1 but I was adamant that he deserves a 2nd year and I warmed up to him big time in year 2.

 

With Bruce I notice some people take each incident as it comes as a new thing to digest as if the sample size isn't large.  But for me I've seen plenty of Bruce to form an opinion.  He was teetering on the edge with me for a long time.  I had his back on the Scot drill (even though I liked Scot) and for how he played Kirk's contract up until July 17th 2017 -- then between that and his insane press release he lost me for good. 

 

The idea of elevating Kyle Smith and lets say Bruce's behind it?  All will be forgiven for me.   As a big time Redskin fan who spends thousands of dollars on the team every year, all I want is a real football guy running the operations.  And I don't think I am that unique on that front. That's it.  I want us to be like most other successful organizations.  I don't think that's much to ask for.

 

And I don't think the people that ask for this to happen are some whiny haters.  I think that's ridiculous.  If anything I think we are pretty big fans to spend the time writing letters to Bruce back in 2015 and years before that to Dan about Vinny.  That doesn't make us haters -- quite the reverse.  

 

As for Bruce, his resume and background doesn't attract me to be the guy running personnel.  I prefer personnel background people running personnel.  But if we re going to do it different the dude better be special.  And to me there is nothing special about Bruce in that regard -- if the dude can hardly even pronounce his QB's name and he does things publicly that I think are inane among other things -- I am not thinking Bruce is some special breed of competence that I'll make an exception for him to be the guy who runs personnel.  And yeah all the things that media people have said, the agent stuff, ex-coworkers paint about him -- don't help me feel warm and fuzzy about him either.

 

Eric Schaffer doesn't fit the profile either of the next GM for me.  He also isn't a personnel guy.  But his profile is that he is one of the best in the NFL at what he does and he has a knack for handling people really well.  To me that is likely an improvement.  But the guy I'd love would be Kyle Smith.  That guy fits the profile that I've been talking about on and off for years on threads like this.  

 

[HardcoreZorn]

On 5/11/2018 at 4:52 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The thing is the point I am trying to make is one of the key reason why IMO the team is still lampooned on is this:

 

The disrespect towards the Redskins I don't see that being because of Jay, Doug, Kyle Smith, Eric Schaffer, etc. 

 

It's seems all about Bruce.  If you want to see more love from the media towards the Redskins move Bruce out of the way and I think you'll see that happen.  The problem he has IMO is all the water under the bridge with Dan are very similar to Bruce's antics.  So when you combine both things it makes it look like things haven't changed.  And in one sense things haven't changed and that is the Redskins don't come off like an organization that is classy.

 

The sad thing to me about that is through different things I've done with the Redskins Chartable foundation among other things -- I've met some really cool-great people that work at Redskins Park.  But when the guy at the top isn't likable it spoils the whole broth.  Your point seems to be since you like the whole broth, Bruce doesn't bother you.  My point is the team would get the love they deserve if they reassigned the dude who spoils the broth. 

I've already admitted that a lot of what is said about his personality is probably true. You keep saying that the other guys in the FO don't get disrespected. Sure, I get that. But Bruce is the guy at the top of the totem pole. The other guys aren't. If Bruce left, and the Redskins don't perform, bet your bottom dollar the guy who takes over or Snyder would then be the subject of negativity within the media. That's just how big sports towns media like DC operates. a=And the National Media is pretty slanted toward the Skins, a lot of it probably having to do with the name controversy. Wouldn't expect that to change with Bruce's departure.

 

And my point is, since the broth is good, why is the guy who heads the operation so hated? He clearly isn't adversely affecting the broth or getting in the way of having productive drafts and off-seasons. I think if Bruce were that poisonous, the broth wouldn't be good in the first place and you would be able to tell. You seem to place a really big emphasis on likability. I'm sorry, but if the dude is a tough negotiator and comes as a douche to the agents and media, I don't give a crap. As long as it doesn't impact our ability to build a quality football team or attract talent (which it doesn't seem to) then I literally could care less. I've worked with and for tons of people I don't like because of their personalities. That's inevitable in any industry. As long as it doesn't affect the results personnel wise, which I happen to really like the past two off-seasons, then it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. 

On 5/11/2018 at 4:52 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

It comes off though that it indeed bothers you though because you hit back the criticisms and go off on them.  The opposite of love is indifference.  The topics I don't care about that don't bother me -- I don't post about or bother to respond.  

I'm not sure what's so confusing to you. I am bothered and have admitted as much. That IS why I post on the matter. You are just off on what is bothersome to me and I am done trying to explain since you clearly don't get it.

On 5/11/2018 at 4:52 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

This to me is the great unknown.  If there is some thing that might come out that defends Bruce's douche like behavior -- its this -- that is, Dan is playing the douche role and Bruce is carrying out his directive.  My gut is that's not the case based on the narratives I've heard.  But its certainly plausible. 

You really just can't drop Bruce lol. 

On 5/11/2018 at 4:52 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

Maybe the best way for me to sum it up is this way:

 

A.  Do I think Bruce stinks at what he does?  Nope.

B.  I think he's mediocre at his job.   Some things I like about what he does.  Some things I don't.  Yes, he's better than Vinny but IMO nothing special. 

C.  I think some of his actions-statements make him sound like a douche at times and make the team look bad.

D.  He's made some good hires.

E.  The douche stuff has legs to it -- its not just the agents but people close to Scot, Kirk, ex-co-workers, etc do not paint a great picture of the dude.

OK all of this I agree with. Again, for Point C I just think you play way too much emphasis on perception. 

On 5/11/2018 at 4:52 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

F.   If I am going to have a non-personnel guy in charge of personnel -- I'd want two things:  1.  Their ability is special.  2.  They present the organization in a classy way.  Neither fits Bruce IMO.

Haven't we come to the conclusion that Bruce doesn't run personnel? Or if he does, he's not doing a terrible job lol.

On 5/11/2018 at 4:52 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Do I personally think Bruce is a bad guy?  Nope.  I've met him, seemed cool to me.  He strikes me as the typical corporate-politician type who knows how to hold onto their power -- you reward the people who have your back and run down the people who don't.  And that description is one I've heard a couple of beat guys use to describe Bruce.  He's a great friend if you are close to him and he will run you over like a freight train if you challenge him.

 

There is nothing wrong with that if you are climbing the corporate ladder and who knows maybe that's the way you have to be to survive over there.  But for me I want a football guy running football operations -- not a politician type.   And if the dude's behavior makes the rest of the world slam the Redskins -- then that's the kicker for me to have him out of the way.  Heck I'd endorse Schaffer for the position even though he's not a football guy in part because he's a likable-people guy according to some who covered him. 

 

Question. If everything remained constant regarding personnel the last 2 off-seasons except for Bruce wasn't the team president, would that drastically change the prospects of the team in your opinion? Not perception, but on-field performance. 

[Fat Stupid Loser]

Anyone else getting dizzy?

[HardcoreZorn]

4 minutes ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

Anyone else getting dizzy?

Me

[Peregrine]

On 5/10/2018 at 3:47 PM, Califan007 said:

 

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

Interesting, so you still think the Browns are a team?  Because it certainly doesnt seem like even they think that.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

49 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

Interesting, so you still think the Browns are a team?  Because it certainly doesnt seem like even they think that.

 

 ...Touche' lol

[Skinsinparadise]

14 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I've already admitted that a lot of what is said about his personality is probably true. 

 

This

 

14 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 You keep saying that the other guys in the FO don't get disrespected. Sure, I get that. But Bruce is the guy at the top of the totem pole. The other guys aren't. If Bruce left, and the Redskins don't perform, bet your bottom dollar the guy who takes over or Snyder would then be the subject of negativity within the media.

 

Is disconnected to me with that point.  Bobby Beathard, Scot weren't disrespected by the media.  It's not a whomever is at the top will be disrespected drill.   And the idea that the guy at the top is perceived as a douche IMO has a TON to do with the trashing from the media.  And I can talk about this from personal experience, almost every job I do has media coverage, sometimes national too.  And if the media thinks you are douche -- yes it will color your coverage a LOT.  It's not an incidental point.  It's an operative reason for it. 

 

14 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

And my point is, since the broth is good, why is the guy who heads the operation so hated? He clearly isn't adversely affecting the broth or getting in the way of having productive drafts and off-seasons. 

 

The drafts have been good. And from just about every account he has had nothing to do with them.  The trades IMO have mostly stunk while he was here -- by almost every account those are his babies. FA has mostly stunk.   How they've handled situations PR wise IMO have been somewhere between bad and terrible.  If we found out later that Bruce's lane has been secretly just the draft -- I am on board with your point.

 

Hatred is a bit of a strong word.  If someone is a douche -- why wouldn't people dislike that person?   I personally don't dislike Bruce.  The douche description are from other people who interacted with him.  I just want him out of heading personnel and representing the Redskins publicly -- I don't think either fit his lane well.

 

14 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

You really just can't drop Bruce lol. 

 

 

Clearly, neither can you.

 

14 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

Question. If everything remained constant regarding personnel the last 2 off-seasons except for Bruce wasn't the team president, would that drastically change the prospects of the team in your opinion? Not perception, but on-field performance. 

  

On team perception, it would be really hard to do worse than Bruce IMO.  As for performance, I think the odds are very good that whomever replaces him would be better.  People like to cling to a Vinny type would replace Bruce but to me that's silly -- Vinny was so unique in a bad way, I can't really think of another GM anywhere like him who just dumps picks like they are candy.  Performance wise Bruce's lane seems mostly three things from what I've heard.  A. Allocating money (Schaffer is the contract and cap guy though).  B. Trades.   C. FA.

 

What do I think the team does well?  The draft and money allocation.  What do I think the team is at best mediocre at and at worst stinks at?   Trades and FA.    That's Bruce's lane.  So heck yeah going back to Sub's point the other day about making progress fast versus this relatively long slow burn.  Imagine if we have people that can make good decisions BESIDES the draft.  Like for example the Eagles and the Vikings.  You'd see a better team IMO.

 

As for me not getting your point.  I think I do.  It's something like this ignore the 7-9 record.  In your mind this is a 10-6-11-5 type of team that just got bit by bad luck and injuries.  This team has arrived.  This draft just solidifies it further.  People just don't see it like you do and it befuddles you that they don't -- so maybe its just based on some irrational dislike of Bruce. In your mind since this is already a really good team why give Bruce a hard time for being a douche at times considering the roster that's been built here under his watch -- whether he was responsible for it or not its immaterial since some of the key people who have made it happen were hired by him.   Am I way off or is that close? 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Re: @HardcoreZorn's overall point (which I tend to agree with), I mentioned awhile ago that, if you have people regularly giving the disclaimer "I don't want to sound like I'm supporting Bruce Allen, I think he's a terrible GM and needs to go, but.." before acknowledging that a move the team made looks like a good one, that's not a good sign. It most likely means that there are some here who would rather keep quiet out of fear of being someone who comes across--or is labeled--as an Allen supporter.  

 

"It's scary how obsessive compulsive about it some still are. And God help anyone who says anything even remotely complimentary about the man without qualifying it a hundred times by referencing his overall evil nature. They will be dealt with!

 

I get it, he plays an important role in your world view when it comes to the Redskins and if he's not who you think he is, so much of it comes crumbling down. But it's okay if others don't share this narrative. Let it go, just a little bit. It's unhealthy. You can't guide everyone to the truth of his overwhelming villainy. Some are not meant to be saved."

 

TSO said that above several years back, only it was about Shanahan...I think his basic message can be applied to some here as well. And for the record, I don't think SIP or TSO fit the above description at all...but yeah, there are some others who definitely do lol...and the echo chamber effect on Allen starts to change the environment of the threads sometimes.

[SWFLSkins]

On 5/11/2018 at 2:28 AM, thesubmittedone said:

 

I’m going to try and keep this as simple as possible. This isn’t exactly how I feel (especially the grades I’m applying) but it’s a good enough similitude to get the point across. 

 

Say Gruden, Kyle and Schaffer are an A+ team. Say Bruce is/has been a D- boss putting together all of their input on their relative fields of expertise, ignoring what he wants to ignore or overriding what he wants to override and then executing it. 

 

To some of us, that’s why the results have been mediocre thus far. Someone like Jay is elevating the team enough in spite of Dan/Bruce, yes, even acknowledging they hired him. They can still provide obstacles after that. Now, if the A+ group ultimately succeeds this year, it would come as a result of their work finally overcoming what was otherwise a hindrance to their success. 

 

 

 

 

I see no mention of Doug Williams. I particularly think his leadership since being added to the Team has been palatable. I see Doug as the VP of Football and not just personnel, hope they say that aloud and then make a GM position for Kyle. Doug then being the facilitator between Coach and GM. 

[TSO]

@Califan007 Wow, where’d you get that quote from? That was a long, long time ago, lol.

 

I remember those ridiculous days. Guess who was a part of fostering that “overwhelming villainy” that fans blindly jumped into? :/

 

Bruce Allen. And it happened after that multiple times. 

 

So not sure that quote is the best one to use from me to make your point.  

 

Though it’s one I agree with in terms of being OCD and/or closed minded. You don’t see me post often for that very reason. I just hate being negative in general and, well, Dan/Bruce bring that out of me and legitimately so.

 

You could even say the opposite of your point applies to me, where I “fear” being labeled a “negative nancy” so I keep quiet. Though it’s not just the fear of being labeled, it’s also about just not wanting to spread misery, lol. 

 

And, guess what? That often leads me to qualify and post about how it’s perceived as negative when it really is not, and that it’s a result of how positive we are of actual productive contributors within the Skins organization that we want better set up for success. 

 

If you’re going to point out the above, you should also point that out as it follows the same issue.  

 

So I prefer to be quiet about it more often than not. @Skinsinparadise posts more frequently, but it’s usually as a response to others so, yeah, like you said it doesn't fit our description. 

 

 For me, when I see certain posts with bad points being consistently made and, yes, they can be made at an OCD rate as well, it pushes me here and there.

 

So I disagree that it’s as pointed with Bruce as it was with Mike at that time. It applies to both sides in this case much moreso than it did back then. 

 

Either way, one was head coach with an executive title that was arguably being undermined, the other is the top exec of the organization involved in said undermining who remained after the former’s firing. Targeting accurately would automatically lead us to one over the other simply based on authority and organizational hierarchy. 

 

7 hours ago, Califan007 said:

I mentioned awhile ago that, if you have people regularly giving the disclaimer "I don't want to sound like I'm supporting Bruce Allen, I think he's a terrible GM and needs to go, but.." before acknowledging that a move the team made looks like a good one, that's not a good sign. It most likely means that there are some here who would rather keep quiet out of fear of being someone who comes across--or is labeled--as an Allen supporter.  

 

Hmmm... not sure how to feel about this. Some of this I pointed out above already. But I wanted to add a little more in response to this particular point. 

 

On one hand, it lends credence to EXACTLY what we’ve been saying. That those qualifications are disingenuous. So, yeah, I actually agree with that part of this and it’d be nice if people just owned their position. 

 

On the other hand, maybe it’s because Bruce has done so many awful things that no one in their right mind wants to marry themselves to those things? I don’t think it has to be what you’re presuming it is. Far from it.

 

Either way, I appreciate you removing myself and SIP from this. I disagree that there’s “many” who fall into the category you’re attributing to them or that the other side of this isn’t just as guilty of labeling, but I do agree that one should never be so closed-minded about something they can’t change their perspective about things when new info comes about. 

 

That’s a big part of my last post regarding the “is it really Dan mostly or Bruce” question. I’m open to finding out that Bruce was a victim of Dan here, lol. But until we get new info on that he’s the top exec there, Dan has done a good job staying in the background, and it is what it is.  

[TSO]

4 hours ago, SWFLSkins said:

 

 

I see no mention of Doug Williams. I particularly think his leadership since being added to the Team has been palatable. I see Doug as the VP of Football and not just personnel, hope they say that aloud and then make a GM position for Kyle. Doug then being the facilitator between Coach and GM. 

 

I honestly don’t know how to feel about Doug. I don’t believe he was promoted by Bruce mostly out of legitimate qualifications like it should be. I believe there was some level of it being a PR move working there. 

 

At the same time, he’s been an excellent presence around the team for some time now, even before his promotion. He’s like Scot in that he seems to be close to the players and has their respect. Which is a quality I love to see from the execs on the team. 

 

There are times when he speaks where it comes off as him being a mouthpiece and/or a front for Dan/Bruce (that one presser introducing Alex was awkward the way he started with Dan’s lack of involvement). Some of the stuff directed at Kirk. The whole “I didn’t want to be GM and it wasn’t necessary” thing when he got hired left a bad taste in my mouth, but not at him more than it was just at the general hiring process on Bruce’s end. It just doesn’t come off well that he even wanted to say that to Bruce while interviewing for the job. 

 

With all that said, he seems to be a good facilitator. I LOVED it when Mason Foster was pissed about how the team handled his injury and tweeted out how “Scot wouldn’t have done me like that” or something to that effect. Then we saw Doug talking to Foster on the sideline the very next day and, suddenly, Foster was tweeting out how all is good. LOVED THAT. 

 

So if he’s risen above that legitimately concerning hiring process and is someone really benefiting the team via facilitation and just keeping everyone together... well, I’m all for it. It’s just hard to tell at times and sift through all of it. One second he sounds like a mouthpiece enabling the ugliness emanating from the top and the next he comes off great. So I avoid talking about him since I just don’t have that good of a grasp on it.  

[SWFLSkins]

21 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

I honestly don’t know how to feel about Doug. I don’t believe he was promoted by Bruce mostly out of legitimate qualifications like it should be. I believe there was some level of it being a PR move working there. 

 

At the same time, he’s been an excellent presence around the team for some time now, even before his promotion. He’s like Scot in that he seems to be close to the players and has their respect. Which is a quality I love to see from the execs on the team. 

 

There are times when he speaks where it comes off as him being a mouthpiece and/or a front for Dan/Bruce (that one presser introducing Alex was awkward the way he started with Dan’s lack of involvement). Some of the stuff directed at Kirk. The whole “I didn’t want to be GM and it wasn’t necessary” thing when he got hired left a bad taste in my mouth, but not at him more than it was just at the general hiring process on Bruce’s end. It just doesn’t come off well that he even wanted to say that to Bruce while interviewing for the job. 

 

With all that said, he seems to be a good facilitator. I LOVED it when Mason Foster was pissed about how the team handled his injury and tweeted out how “Scot wouldn’t have done me like that” or something to that effect. Then we saw Doug talking to Foster on the sideline the very next day and, suddenly, Foster was tweeting out how all is good. LOVED THAT. 

 

So if he’s risen above that legitimately concerning hiring process and is someone really benefiting the team via facilitation and just keeping everyone together... well, I’m all for it. It’s just hard to tell at times and sift through all of it. One second he sounds like a mouthpiece enabling the ugliness emanating from the top and the next he comes of great. So I avoid talking about him since I just don’t have that good of a grasp on it.  

 

 

I took it on the chin for saying Doug is going to have a bigger roll in the F/O than most thought. I take Doug for his word, He made it clear what he was going to be doing here, and thus far there is no evidence to the contrary. I felt completely validated when it was Doug that not only spoke to Foster but was the Man out front for the draft. I don't believe Doug Williams is a talking head, I mean really? His verbal skills leave much to be desired, but what doesn't is his ability to communicate a Plan and destination. I put hope in Scot for that reason, and even hoped after He left that Allen stepping back in was temporary, thankfully that seems so. It's now Doug and Jay, with Kirk picking the roster. 

 

 

I like what I see, I see no reason to be conservative in passing out the kool aid. I have suffered too many years with ineptitude, however that won't sour me from seeing what is clearly happening right in front of me. I think history is repeating itself,....call it wishful thinking. Doug saved the team once, my old naive faithful ass believes he can do it again. Hope, it's all a guy has. I think Bruce is now in charge of Stadiums and stuff, Doug has Football. Nobody gave Doug enough credit when he was hired, I think He ain't looking for it either. 

 

JP Finlay

 

✔@JPFinlayNBCS

 

 

Bruce Allen says he talked w a lot of people about the role, but Doug Williams stood out. Unquestionable character. Williams has a plan

9:03 AM - Jun 13, 2017

 

https://theundefeated.com/features/nfl-washington-redskins-doug-williams/

 

“Since I’ve been here, I’ve always had a job to do [in scouting], but somebody else had to take on all of that responsibility if things weren’t right. Now, that falls on me,” Williams said recently during a lengthy interview. “At the same time, I also understand how the whole department has to work together to make it work. I can’t do it alone. It’s not a one-man band.”

That’s why Williams, 61, moved quickly to expand Washington’s scouting department, part of a plan he laid out to Snyder and Allen in his detailed proposal to take control of the front office. In the decades since his playing days ended, Williams coached at the high school and college levels and worked in NFL front offices. During his climb up the NFL ladder, Williams gained an appreciation for the people who crisscross the country seeking talent to fill the pipeline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Williams will work closely with scouts while overseeing the department, staying in a lane in which he’s comfortable while leaving salary cap management and contract negotiations to cap analyst Eric Schaffer. Williams expressed pride in the scouting staff’s performance during the 2017 draft. The team added two former University of Alabama defensive stars — lineman Jonathan Allen, with the 17th overall pick, and linebacker Ryan Anderson, in the second round — who will be relied on to quickly bolster a defense that ranked 28th in the NFL in total yards in each of the past two seasons.

 

Williams has a seat at the highest level of the organization, which also means he bears more responsibility for Washington’s performance both on and off the field. But ask Williams about the increased pressure he faces and in turn he’ll ask you, “What pressure?”

“I’ve been an athlete, I’ve been a competitor, almost all my life,” Williams said. “One of the things I’ve always said is that pressure is something an individual puts upon himself.

“You prepare to do your job the right way. You put in the time, study your information and go out and do your job as well as you can. That’s what I’ve always done. That’s how I try not to apply pressure to myself, by being ready.”

The next legend jersey I get, is a #17, been a long time coming. 

[Skinsinparadise]

46 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

I honestly don’t know how to feel about Doug. I don’t believe he was promoted by Bruce mostly out of legitimate qualifications like it should be. I believe there was some level of it being a PR move working there. 

 

 

My fear about Doug when hired was that he would be the defacto personnel guy but my suspicion was that was unlikely to happen.  It seems like by all accounts, Doug isn't the defacto personnel guy so for me then he's in the right lane.   Great person.  Respected.  Integrity.   And if he keeps the morale up and facilitates a good vibe and pitches in some with the personnel as to lending an extra helping hand -- then he's a good asset IMO.

 

The thing that I am confused about and this relates to Doug is I've heard now a couple of times the Redskins are understaffed scout wise compared to many teams.  I thought that was one of the things that was fixed and that was done by Doug?

 

Switching this to Dan some.  The idea that the dude just wants to win even though he doesn't load up on scouting like the Steelers and some other teams do -- that's bothered me a lot.  But I thought that has now changed?  Hoffman who seemed plugged in specifically with their scouting department was one of the recent guys making the point that other teams are staffed more as for scouts on the ground. 

 

If I recall Califan did research on this recently and if I recall you found they've caught up as for their number of scouts?  But maybe i am misremembering? 

 

Staying with Califan as to your post.  I get what you are saying about all the Bruce related posts.  I see it though flying both ways.  It's an intense debate.  The volume of people are loaded by a mile more on the anti-Bruce side.  But the subject matter is pretty intense either way.  It has to be the most intense debating point about the team right now by far.    I've said multiple times I respect the fact that people have to go against the grain to back Bruce.  And I give special kudos to Thinking Skins in particular for taking it on the chin the most -- because he doesn't put any disclaimers and just goes right at it.

 

Actually these debates are part of the reason why I'd like the dude reassigned.  They are not unique to the board.  It's all over twitter, talk radio -- you got petitions going the whole nine yards.  I like the peace of having a guy at the top that most of the fan base likes and respects or at least one of those two qualities (likability or respected).  The more I listen to beat guys covering the team the more i am convinced it might happen sooner than later -- right after the stadium deal or after the season if the stadium deal comes before that.  

[SWFLSkins]

16 minutes ago, SWFLSkins said:

 

 

 

https://theundefeated.com/features/nfl-washington-redskins-doug-williams/

 

“Since I’ve been here, I’ve always had a job to do [in scouting], but somebody else had to take on all of that responsibility if things weren’t right. Now, that falls on me,” Williams said recently during a lengthy interview. “At the same time, I also understand how the whole department has to work together to make it work. I can’t do it alone. It’s not a one-man band.”

That’s why Williams, 61, moved quickly to expand Washington’s scouting department, part of a plan he laid out to Snyder and Allen in his detailed proposal to take control of the front office. In the decades since his playing days ended, Williams coached at the high school and college levels and worked in NFL front offices. During his climb up the NFL ladder, Williams gained an appreciation for the people who crisscross the country seeking talent to fill the pipeline.

Williams will work closely with scouts while overseeing the department, staying in a lane in which he’s comfortable while leaving salary cap management and contract negotiations to cap analyst Eric Schaffer. Williams expressed pride in the scouting staff’s performance during the 2017 draft. The team added two former University of Alabama defensive stars — lineman Jonathan Allen, with the 17th overall pick, and linebacker Ryan Anderson, in the second round — who will be relied on to quickly bolster a defense that ranked 28th in the NFL in total yards in each of the past two seasons.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

The thing that I am confused about and this relates to Doug is I've heard now a couple of times the Redskins are understaffed scout wise compared to many teams.  I thought that was one of the things that was fixed and that was done by Doug?