Why are we this bad on the field?

[skinny21]

@thesubmittedoneThose posts articulate quite well my reasons for ‘defending’ Barry and now Manusky.  I use ‘defending’ loosely because it isn’t/wasn’t that I was trying to claim they were good coaches (or even decent ones), but that there’s so much more at play than just play calling and scheme.  Roster construction, player strengths and weaknesses, and offensive performance all have massive impacts on defenses.  

As you say, it’s also very difficult for us as fans (not knowing what lies beyond the curtain) to accurately assess the root causes for what we’re seeing on the field.  It’s easy say to “blitz more” in response to lack of dline pressure (something I myself have said, to be fair), but if corners are allowing quick separation and your FS often guesses wrong, you’re gonna get burned.  If Holcomb gets to the backfield, but the qb evades him... the coach has just taken a man out of coverage.  
 

Anyway, I believe we’ve lacked the roster synergy we’ve needed for our coaches to succeed.  Sure, great coaching might be able to mitigate that problem, but it’s a big obstacle.  I think we’ve seen flashes of that synergy (the passing game with Kirk, Jackson, Garçon, Reed and Thompson, for example), but we need to find a consistency with it.  Allen has too many black marks in this department to think that’s a possibility though (trading Fuller, extending Reed and Moses, not re-signing Cousins and Scherff, letting Smith, Breeland, Jackson and Garçon walk, etc*) which is depressing.

* people might argue with some of these, and that’s fine.  It’s the pattern of behavior that matter to me, with much of it (IMO) coming down to 1) an ego and 2) not trying to address the issue early... ie before the player has left.  

[Koolblue13]

Its absolutely ludicrous to dismiss the impact of coaching on a team. ****ing ludicrous. 

[goskins10]

7 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

edit 
 

Anyway, I believe we’ve lacked the roster synergy we’ve needed for our coaches to succeed.  

Edit

 

 

Nothing wrong with the rest of your post. In fact I agree 100%. But for me this statement is what it all boils down to. While so many people scream at and about coaches, in the end you have to have players execute what the coaches want them to. 

 

So to be clear, people like  @thesubmittedone and others like myself are not saying coaching is not important. Of course it's important. But coaching can still only take you so far. You have to have players. And you have to have at least a few key top tier players that rise up when a play needs to be made and makes it. We just do not have a lot of those guys if any right now. There are a couple that have potential. But there is no one on the team I would say you could count on in a crucial situation to find some way to make a play. That's why we lose. Those make or break plays are being made by the other team. 

 

Is the roster better than the record? Yes, I would agree with that. I would even say that it's a halfway decent roster, especially at some positions. And we have some nice rookies that with some time could really develop into something special. But right now, we don't have very many if any that have that killer instinct with the talent to match. 

 

That is why I have said all along I would like to see how Jay does in a competent organization. He has his flaws of course and it's clear he lost the locker room. But every coach has weaknesses and they too will lose the locker room when you don't provide them with the talent they need to be successful.  

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

6 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Its absolutely ludicrous to dismiss the impact of coaching on a team. ****ing ludicrous. 

 

The argument is that the impacts are overemphasized at the pro level.  That with each level you go up in the ranks, the impact of coaching lessens.  That doesn't equate to coaching has no impact.  But I've long been in agreement that a head coach can only do so much and there really isn't 'that' much difference between one guy and the next.  There are always exceptions to the rule, but overall - the head coach is typically the scapegoat for organization failure vs. being the reason for a team's failure.

[Koolblue13]

4 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

The argument is that the impacts are overemphasized at the pro level.  That with each level you go up in the ranks, the impact of coaching lessens.  That doesn't equate to coaching has no impact.  But I've long been in agreement that a head coach can only do so much and there really isn't 'that' much difference between one guy and the next.  There are always exceptions to the rule, but overall - the head coach is typically the scapegoat for organization failure vs. being the reason for a team's failure.

I didnt say that anyone said zero impact.

 

Calling plays that suit your personnel better than your opponent. Adjustments. 

 

Gruden fired, Callahan has more discipline at practice and refs, penalties decrease.

 

You've got your Billicheks or Gibbs, who can design plays, schemes, offences, etc for players they have. You've got your Jimmy Johnsons who get the specific players to fit their scheme and roll with that and you've got your Grudens that will just keep pushing square pegs into round holes because of a **** FO.

 

Theres so many ways that a coach has an impact. If your only point that a HC has less impact at a professional level then it does at the collegiate level, than I might agree, but wouldn't argue it.

 

But completely dismissing the importance of a HC is ludicrous. 

[skinny21]

@Koolblue13 I guess I have to ask, who is dismissing the importance of a HC?

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

24 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Calling plays that suit your personnel better than your opponent. Adjustments. 

This is a real simplified way of putting it.  Nothing against you personally, as I've seen this regularly as a complaint by a lot of fans from regime to regime to regime.  There will always be exceptions to the rule, where X player thrives in X scheme, but stunk in another.  But overall, I think this is entirely overplayed and more often than not the cumulative skill level and mix of skillsets just lacks what it takes to get optimal production, no matter what the head coach or coordinator cooks up.

 

28 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

But completely dismissing the importance of a HC is ludicrous. 

I haven't seen anyone do that.  

[Koolblue13]

Ok

[50yrSKINSfan]

21 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Its absolutely ludicrous to dismiss the impact of coaching on a team. ****ing ludicrous. 

"In the NFL talent does not vary that much from team to team, it is the coaching that makes the difference." GHA.

[RandyHolt]

If Callahan is at all auditioning for a job here next year, i want to see HIM be the one to show he can use Haskins. It's laughable to think Haskins solely holds all the cards to his success or failure.  

 

Thus far I have not been impressed at all, in how Callahan has used Haskins. Going run heavy - a decent approach to break in a young QB, was happening regardless of who our QB was.  What else has he done? 

 

I think he should be calling screens slants rollouts or boots, things that keep him clean.  Let him get his feet set, and fire it.  I also think he has not dialed up the deep ball, when it would be good to do to try to back off the D.

[Skinsinparadise]

I like to have good coaches.  Who doesn't?  I think we all agree that coaches are important.

 

I do think though the GM needs to be good at their job and its even more essential then the coaches.  Look at Sean McVay who could do no wrong.  Now Gurly is hurt.  Goff is struggling.  And the Rams now look mediocre.    Kyle was panned last year.  Now all of a sudden Jimmy G. is back and Bosa has helped make that defense special and we are reading articles about how its Kyle and not Sean that is the really special coach.

 

None of that point takes away anything from Kyle or McVay.  My point is you need a good personnel guy to be successful.  Imagine Belichick if no one ever talked him into taking Brady (it wasn't his idea) years back.  Kyle and McVay were actually in this building.  Kyle is now the genius who can do no wrong but here not so much -- what happened?  

 

If you have a FO that is headed by a kick butt personnel guy and who hires a coach where they foster each other -- culture and everything then that = success.    Ravens IMO are a perfect case in point.  I used to think that our next head coach can help override most if not all of the FO but I don't anymore.  The sample size is too large now.

 

Lombardi IMO spells it out well, organizations aren't run well with group think.  Group think dilutes the product and spreads the blame.  You want a guy IMO like Ballard who has a vision for the team.  That dude hires a coach who is likeminded.  And then you go at it.  And you stay patient through ups and downs.   IMO its not rocket science.  Dan has tried every model just about except the most basic and common way to do it.  Is it really shocking its never worked for him?

 

Doug having his guy.  Bruce having his guy.  Kyle kicking in with his players.  Let's suck up to Dan and give him at least this pick and he will let us do our thing with the other.    If the coach wants to get rid of players because he thinks they are disrupting the locker room -- that's cute but we will tell him no.  But heck we will throw a bone to the coach later on via something else.  That comes off as the Redskins operation if you buy report after report.    It's different stuff thrown in the soup without a unified vision IMO let alone missing having the lead orchestrator of the soup being an actual accomplished chef. 

 

And heck some of my fellow Dan critics slam my view about my guess is that Dan doesn't indeed interfere anymore that much.  But to me that's not any defense of Dan at all.  I think if anything it's a harsher slam because for starters I do think interfering some of the times is enough to spoil the soup so I see no difference really in interfering some of the time versus all of the time -- and the kicker to me is this:  Dan is the dude who is lost in the fog as to this operation.  It's Dan's operation.  He's been in charge for 20 years and still doesn't get that his structure is screwed up.  I used to think he was stubborn and dense.  Now I think he's actually stupid.  Because you have to be to continue in my view to be dumb to repeat the same mistakes nonstop. 

 

 

[skinny21]

@Skinsinparadise

I’d caveat a point above (but this is pure opinion/speculation).  I think a special coach that has a vision (one that marries offense, defense and player acquisition) could conceivably succeed if they 1) are given full control*, 2) can convince Snyder that their way is the legitimate best chance to turn things around, and 3) impress Dan enough that Dan makes sure he and Allen are not interfering in any way.  Of course, I realize 1) I could be wrong and 2) that coach might be the unicorniest of unicorns and 3) the FO might still **** it up.  
 

It would probably take a coach that could come into an interview with a no bs attitude and that kind of coach is likely to turn off Snyder and Allen.  It would probably take coach that didn’t much care if they got the job, but also did enough research to see the myriad issues plaguing this team... and that guy probably doesn’t exist.  
 

Ok, never mind.... it ain’t happening.  I’m falling back to the stance that we desperately need a good GM to have any shot at turning this around.  

 

*reading though before I hit submit, I thought I should expound on this.  I don’t mean the coach has to be the one choosing players, but that they have to articulate to scouts what exactly they’re looking for and then trust scouts to do their jobs.  They don’t have to work out contracts, but they have to be able to point to the key current players and roster strengths/weaknesses.  All JMO.  

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, skinny21 said:

@Skinsinparadise

I’d caveat a point above (but this is pure opinion/speculation).  I think a special coach that has a vision (one that marries offense, defense and player acquisition) could conceivably succeed if they 1) are given full control*, 2) can convince Snyder that their way is the legitimate best chance to turn things around, and 3) impress Dan enough that Dan makes sure he and Allen are not interfering in any way.  Of course, I realize 1) I could be wrong and 2) that coach might be the unicorniest of unicorns and 3) the FO might still **** it up.  
 

It would probably take a coach that could come into an interview with a no bs attitude and that kind of coach is likely to turn off Snyder and Allen.  It would probably take coach that didn’t much care if they got the job, but also did enough research to see the myriad issues plaguing this team... and that guy probably doesn’t exist.  
 

Ok, never mind.... it ain’t happening.  I’m falling back to the stance that we desperately need a good GM to have any shot at turning this around.  

 

*reading though before I hit submit, I thought I should expound on this.  I don’t mean the coach has to be the one choosing players, but that they have to articulate to scouts what exactly they’re looking for and then trust scouts to do their jobs.  They don’t have to work out contracts, but they have to be able to point to the key current players and roster strengths/weaknesses.  All JMO.  

 

I somewhat agree.  I don't like the HC being the dude selecting the players.  But I do think the GM and head coach should be on the same page.  If the coach for example thinks DJ Swearinger is a distraction and wants to let him go, then let him go.  If the defensive coach thinks Josh Norman is spent and wanted to let him go in the off season then let him go.  Both points among others have been made from beat guys who cover the team.  And all these type of decisions add up.   If they let go of Norman it would have saved if my math is right 5 million on the cap.  They might have been able to use that on Crowder who is lighting it up for the Jets and Jay supposedly wanted to keep.

 

I am not saying the coach or GM will always be correct but they need to work together like a symphony.  Bad decisions in a vacuum don't seem that bad.  But if you put them all together they add up.   

[Koolblue13]

We'll get a better idea of all of them this week. Buffalo had crazy winds. Jets have a solid defense, so Haskins has to win this game and Callahan probably knows that.

[skinny21]

2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

We'll get a better idea of all of them this week. Buffalo had crazy winds. Jets have a solid defense, so Haskins has to win this game and Callahan probably knows that.

For me personally, he (Haskins) doesn’t have to win this game, but he needs to show some things.  
 

@Skinsinparadise  Yeah, obviously the GM should be picking the players (based on what the coach is looking for), I’m just referring to if Allen is going to stick as the de facto GM, that unicorn of a coach I’m talking about should be having final say over Allen (but should be upfront about letting scouts do their thing).  

[Thinking Skins]

5 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

If Callahan is at all auditioning for a job here next year, i want to see HIM be the one to show he can use Haskins. It's laughable to think Haskins solely holds all the cards to his success or failure.  

 

Thus far I have not been impressed at all, in how Callahan has used Haskins. Going run heavy - a decent approach to break in a young QB, was happening regardless of who our QB was.  What else has he done? 

 

I think he should be calling screens slants rollouts or boots, things that keep him clean.  Let him get his feet set, and fire it.  I also think he has not dialed up the deep ball, when it would be good to do to try to back off the D.

 

I think some of the stuff pointed out by @Koolblue13 is very valid. Under Gruden we weren't running the ball well and definitely not this year. Add to that we were getting penalized a lot. I know there are a lot of people saying Haskins should have started game 1 under Cal but I like that Cal first got a baseline of improvement from the guys around Haskins so Haskins doesn't have to come in and fix the running game and the penalites, and the defense. 

 

The stuff like the screens, slants, rollouts, etc have been complaints about every OC we've had. Too much in one direction and not enough in another. But i think a large part of this (Haskins's development) is based on simply calling plays that give him options and trusting him to make the good read. And the screens become more difficult with no pass catching RB available. I did want more slants and stuff but I know they were clouding the running game against Buff so maybe that made the slants more difficult too (and the out routes easier for Haskins). He only had 12 yards passing in the middle of the field (one completion to Sims, one incompletion to TMac), vs 60 and 70 to the left and right respectively. 

 

But I also think that a large part of this is the lack of weapons. I'm excited to see what we can develop at TE and WR and RB with our young guys but I also realize that everybody doesn't come into the league and dominate on day 1. But it felt like we were grooming Sims for more of a Thompson type WR/RB role under Gruden instead of purely as a slot WR. I think he could do well in that role where he's not competing with Quinn for playing time but has an opportunity to get on the field. But the problem is that I wonder how hard it is for him to learn a new position like that. 

 

But we will learn a lot more about Cal's plan in the coming weeks. We saw a similar limited strategy against SF with Case and then he opened it up a bit for Case against Minn. So maybe we'll see more of the playbook against NYJ. 

[Thinking Skins]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I somewhat agree.  I don't like the HC being the dude selecting the players.  But I do think the GM and head coach should be on the same page.  If the coach for example thinks DJ Swearinger is a distraction and wants to let him go, then let him go.  If the defensive coach thinks Josh Norman is spent and wanted to let him go in the off season then let him go.  Both points among others have been made from beat guys who cover the team.  And all these type of decisions add up.   If they let go of Norman it would have saved if my math is right 5 million on the cap.  They might have been able to use that on Crowder who is lighting it up for the Jets and Jay supposedly wanted to keep.

 

I am not saying the coach or GM will always be correct but they need to work together like a symphony.  Bad decisions in a vacuum don't seem that bad.  But if you put them all together they add up.   

 

I think this is my normal problem with teams constantly rotating through coaches, and QBs and GMs. Each coach has a different philosophy and asks for a different type of player. How that philosophy is executed under a QB can look entirely different with a RG3 QB vs a Cousins QB vs a Smith QB vs a Sanchez QB. And those different looks can make the GMs or scouts confused as far as what the team needs to improve. Like under Cousins we'd think that our biggest problem on offense was something like a durable scatback who could be a David Johnson type for us and fit into Gruden's offense. We drafted Guice but wound up with AP and saw Gruden's offense under Smith that this offense, while not anything to write home about could be formidable with this type of back. But then the needs became more WRs and TEs and OL because our QB wasn't distributing the ball with the same efficiency as Cousins. 

 

During the Campbell era I was adamant that he was good enough at QB and we didn't need to keep trying to find the holy grail at QB, but just needed to build around him. He wasn't a int thrower or somebody who would pull a Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers and bring us back with a min to go, but he was a stable Brad Johnson type QB who wouldn't lose us many games. But with him we had very few WRs outside of Moss, and our TE was Cooley who was getting hurt more and Fred Davis who was off and on. And our drafts at the time were so bad that they gave us little contributions. 

 

But when we let go of a guy, we're assuming we'll be able to replace him (immediately?) but that's not always the case. We can be confident in our scouts but scouting is stilll a difficult job and projections are far from accurate. THere is a balance between extending an oft injured guy like Reed and re-signing a guy like Crowder who set the rookie Redskins record, then was injured his last two years. 

 

I'm probably in the @HardcoreZorn camp where I defend this front office more than most in that I like the setup for the most part. I'm off the Bruce bandwagon and don't know how clear the lines are between who does what but I do think they're getting better and better at understanding what type of players to look for, the value of the draft, the young free agents (UDFAs and roster bubble players).

 

The problem is that until we get that QB we'll be bouncing between bad team and mediocre team (basically the Browns echelon to the Titans echelon). And if we don't have a defense then it makes it that much harder. 

[Thinking Skins]

4 hours ago, skinny21 said:

*reading though before I hit submit, I thought I should expound on this.  I don’t mean the coach has to be the one choosing players, but that they have to articulate to scouts what exactly they’re looking for and then trust scouts to do their jobs.  They don’t have to work out contracts, but they have to be able to point to the key current players and roster strengths/weaknesses.  All JMO.  

 

i really wonder about this. Not in a necessarily bad way, but like if I'm a coach and I want a shut down corner, do I say to a scout that's a need? But wouldn't everybody say they needed it? I wonder what Gruden saw in Dunbar that allowed him to be a good corner? I wonder what Hall saw in him that helped him develop it? I think the Parcells quote about buying the groceries is important here but I also think about a Brian Mitchell type coach who will say "we're having Gumbo today" and what goes in Gumbo? Whatever we've got. 

 

The coach has a handprint on what goes on the field and by extension in the locker room, but how much do we want to extend that hand? If he says I need AP, ok. If he says "that guy's a quitter and I don't want him on my team" is that ok?  (I'm thinking about Singletary's quote about Vernon Davis). Same goes with Gruden's cutting of Bibbs for Marshall who did nothing but get Smith hurt on a missed block. 

 

I think we're seeing some of this in Gruden vs Cal at WR and TE. Cal almost immediately put Reed on IR and signed 2 TEs who are different type of players from Reed (more known for blocking although Hentges has soft hands from what I read) and a FB. We've also seen less of the small shifty WRs in favor of the bigger WRs we have on the roster (I would like to see more S SIms though). As a result we're seeing less of the big plays like what we had early in the season and up to the Pats but also a more physical team and more physical running game. 

 

Is either better? And should the FO be dictating to the coaches the philosophy or type of backups we'll use to fill the roster? I don't know but my hope is that if the lack of physicality in practice and on game days were leading to the team being worn and getting injured and unable to finish games (NO in 2017 still haunts me) then hopefully Cal's type of player will give us a more solid ground to build on. 

[TSO]

On 11/16/2019 at 5:56 AM, 50yrSKINSfan said:

"In the NFL talent does not vary that much from team to team, it is the coaching that makes the difference." GHA.

 

Who is GHA, by the way? Was this quote from before the salary cap existed, because maybe then it'd make some sense?  If not... ugh. 

 

Yeah, I mean... since that's the case, why even try to evaluate, draft well, allocate cap resources efficiently, etc...?

 

Might as well go cheap on the scouting department, structure the organization to where it over-burdens the roles not dealing in personnel acquisition on a daily basis while hiring people who aren't qualified to handle personnel acquisition, and just focus on coaching mainly. Since that's what makes all the difference at the pro level, right? 

 

Hmmmm... I wonder what NFL franchise has done that under which owner his entire tenure? I'm sure they've been super successful with that philosophy! 

 

Addressing the quote, though, yes... physical talent doesn't vary much but there's a lot more to football talent than that. Like, a lot a lot. If that wasn't the case, all you'd need to do is find the fastest, strongest guys and you'd be done with it. And that isn't even getting to how you manage the limited resources every team gets at the pro level when assembling said talent; trying to build the best group of complementary skill sets together and maintaining it within the market as efficiently as possible. 

 

On 11/16/2019 at 9:25 AM, skinny21 said:

@Skinsinparadise

I’d caveat a point above (but this is pure opinion/speculation).  I think a special coach that has a vision (one that marries offense, defense and player acquisition) could conceivably succeed if they 1) are given full control*, 2) can convince Snyder that their way is the legitimate best chance to turn things around, and 3) impress Dan enough that Dan makes sure he and Allen are not interfering in any way.  Of course, I realize 1) I could be wrong and 2) that coach might be the unicorniest of unicorns and 3) the FO might still **** it up.  
 

It would probably take a coach that could come into an interview with a no bs attitude and that kind of coach is likely to turn off Snyder and Allen.  It would probably take coach that didn’t much care if they got the job, but also did enough research to see the myriad issues plaguing this team... and that guy probably doesn’t exist.  
  

 Ok, never mind.... it ain’t happening.  I’m falling back to the stance that we desperately need a good GM to have any shot at turning this around.  

  

*reading though before I hit submit, I thought I should expound on this.  I don’t mean the coach has to be the one choosing players, but that they have to articulate to scouts what exactly they’re looking for and then trust scouts to do their jobs.  They don’t have to work out contracts, but they have to be able to point to the key current players and roster strengths/weaknesses.  All JMO.  

 

I didn't know whether to like this post or laugh... your train of thought here was awesome and hilarious at the same time, well done.  

 

There is the example of Seahawks when looking at consistently successful franchises currently. Pete Carroll and John Schneider run things side by side. Carroll even has final say on personnel, supposedly, but he doesn't stress on it. What's mostly been reported on how they operate is that Schneider evaluates everything personnel-related on his end and handles the draft for the most part. Carroll lets him do his job and doesn't really interfere in that. What Carroll mainly does regarding personnel is identify the scheme they want to run and what they're looking for in any particular offseason. He's also mainly in charge of the 53 during the season. 

 

Of course, the other (more legitimate) anomaly is Bill Belichick and the Pats. But I've detailed why that's the exception and not the rule a few times here (most recently in this post and this post). I think it's crazy when anyone points to them as an example to follow, really. And it's why so many have failed trying to emulate them.  

 

But when you look at the vast majority of consistently successful franchises, you do see a pattern emerge. They have a GM or VP of Player Personnel who has final say on personnel. They're in charge of the scouting department and usually run the hiring process for finding the Head Coach. They normally have a scouting background and rose to their position via those ranks, but not always, like in the case of the Eagles' Howie Roseman (who would be the equivalent in terms of the role they occupied prior to becoming GM to our Eric Schaffer). 

 

With regards to personnel, the Head Coach is in charge of the 53 and can decide the depth chart, playing time, and who to cut, but only during the season. 

 

It's not exactly complicated, yet it's something Snyder hasn't tried for any legitimate amount of time outside of when he hired Scot McCloughan and elevated Cerrato after Gibbs. With the former, we found out that his power lessened pretty quickly because of his personal issues and, for most of his tenure, he was largely a glorified college scout without final say on personnel (and, yet, it still ended up in a playoff berth that first year). With the latter, he was never qualified to be in that position in the first place and Dan was still very heavily involved himself in a lot of those personnel decisions.      

 

Dan's top execs have been Vinny and Bruce, both who were out of the NFL at the time of their hire and both had failed at their previous stints. So Dan's hiring process at that level is highly, highly questionable to say the least. That's not even getting into the vague structure and how the various roles within the organization fluctuate seemingly at will, with unwarranted interference often undermining the people hired to fulfill those roles. 

 

On 11/16/2019 at 9:37 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

I somewhat agree.  I don't like the HC being the dude selecting the players.  But I do think the GM and head coach should be on the same page.  If the coach for example thinks DJ Swearinger is a distraction and wants to let him go, then let him go.  If the defensive coach thinks Josh Norman is spent and wanted to let him go in the off season then let him go.  Both points among others have been made from beat guys who cover the team.  And all these type of decisions add up.   If they let go of Norman it would have saved if my math is right 5 million on the cap.  They might have been able to use that on Crowder who is lighting it up for the Jets and Jay supposedly wanted to keep.

 

I am not saying the coach or GM will always be correct but they need to work together like a symphony.  Bad decisions in a vacuum don't seem that bad.  But if you put them all together they add up.   

 

Yup... and it just makes sense in terms of time management. The GM can do nothing but focus on the big picture of resource management while evaluating talent with his scouts. The coach already has too much on his plate, especially in-season, to really be on top of all that in an efficient way. The most important thing for a coach operating within this structure is to be a good communicator in terms of what he's looking for personnel-wise. Of course, nothing beats being really good at scouting and finding players with multi-dimensional skill sets that can fit multiple schemes, but then that's really hard to do. The quickest way to success is to identify a scheme you want to master and find players that fit it.    

 

It's not at all surprising that most of the consistently successful franchises and/or Super Bowl champs the last two decades or so through now (Seahawks, Steelers, Packers, Chargers with Marty and AJ Smith, Eagles, Broncos, Colts, Giants and Ravens) have/had that structure because of that. At their peak, they can move on from multiple coaches, especially at the coordinator positions, without missing a beat. Same even goes for the vast majority of inconsistent contenders who got close or made it to the Super Bowl within that time. Just makes sense organizationally. 

 

The teams who gave that power exclusively to the coach (Eagles with Reid towards the end of his tenure and then again with Chip Kelly winning a power struggle against Roseman, us with Gibbs 2.0 and Shanahan, Denver with Mike Shanahan towards the end of his tenure, Dallas with Parcells, etc...) have almost all failed really badly at worst and were just mediocre at best. It's really amazing in its consistency when you look at it. 

 

Currently, the Texans with Bill O'Brien are in that same boat. I'm really fascinated with how that's going to go. If the pattern holds true, I believe the damage he's done managing their resources in as short-sighted a way as he has is going to be devastating long term. 

 

But it sure is another fascinating case study to add to the list.   

[Skinsinparadise]

10 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

s tenure and then again with Chip Kelly winning a power struggle against Roseman, us with Gibbs 2.0 and Shanahan, Denver with Mike Shanahan towards the end of his tenure, Dallas with Parcells, etc...) have almost all failed really badly at worst and were just mediocre at best. It's really amazing in its consistency when you look at it. 

 

Currently, the Texans with Bill O'Brien are in that same boat. I'm really fascinated with how that's going to go. If the pattern holds true, I believe the damage he's done managing their resources in as short-sighted a way as he has is going to be devastating long term. 

 

But it sure is another fascinating case study to add to the list.   

 

The problem with coaches among other things ruling the FO is that their bottom line is now not the future.    It's really IMO the owner's job to work the future angle and understand how people's motives can effect decision making and factor that.  If Bruce for example convinced (as some say he did) Dan that in 2018 the losing was purely about bad luck and the roster is plenty loaded then it would behoove Bruce to double down on that.  It's up to Dan to see through that. 

 

Bruce like any employees main goal typically would be self preservation.  Ditto Jay.  People are killing him for not embracing Haskins.  But look at it from his point of view.  If he genuinely thought Haskins was a project and wouldn't help him win now yet he was told he has to win now -- then why should Jay give a rats behind about developing Haskins this year? 

 

That's a problem that has been imposed by Dan.  Dan both drafted a young QB who is arguably raw and would require growing pains.  And has a HC with a win now verdict.  And his team president also has something vested in selling that they are close -- considering what else is the dude going to tell Dan -- hey Dan its year 10 of my tenure, sorry we haven't won much but stick with me and its time for a rebuild?

 

I am not shy at saying Bruce IMO isn't good at his job but I don't fault him for his self serving we are close rhetoric and acting accordingly -- that's really on Dan.  Bruce IMO is dumb to say that among other dumb things publicly but the root of all the dumb stuff is a belief fostered by Dan.   As Cooley likes to say (who is friends with Bruce) should Bruce fire himself or demote himself and would we in his shoes?  Heck if I am getting paid millions of dollars from Dan I think I would be selling Dan on the job am doing too and of course I'd tell him we are close.  If I didn't try to convince Dan we are close then how pathetic would that be?    In that context, the best I could do is sell him that the 11th year is the charm versus suggest that hey wait until this rebuild kicks in via year 13. 

[Skinsinparadise]

4 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I'm probably in the @HardcoreZorn camp where I defend this front office more than most in that I like the setup for the most part. I'm off the Bruce bandwagon and don't know how clear the lines are between who does what but I do think they're getting better and better at understanding what type of players to look for, the value of the draft, the young free agents (UDFAs and roster bubble players).

 

The problem is that until we get that QB we'll be bouncing between bad team and mediocre team (basically the Browns echelon to the Titans echelon). And if we don't have a defense then it makes it that much harder. 

 

As much as I don't care for Bruce -- I dislike the set up much more than anything that relates to him and its not even close.

 

I believe you need an overarching vision as opposed to multiple chefs in the kitchen and hodgepodge decision making where everybody gets their piece of the action.   And IMO the person is charge needs to be either the best personnel guy in the building or if the dude isn't a personnel guy, he needs to be really really special at what he does.

 

This operation doesn't roll the way most other teams do.  Isn't that evidence enough?  These last 20 years haven't been Shangra la.  I get some in the process love the committee type situation and those people would be the ones who aren't the GM.   Heck if I am the owner or an underling or a team president without a background in personnel yet my voice has the same power and clout as the GM or close enough, wow then how cool is that,  I'd love it because it affords me power I typically wouldn't get anywhere else.  That's cool but it doesn't make it a winning operation.    As Lombardi liked to say Bruce wasn't even part of the personnel conversations in Oakland.  But in DC he has as much clout if not more than any personnel guy in that building -- I bet that's super cool to him.  Heck Dan can weigh in via Bruce and no one would know the better -- i bet that's pretty cool for him, too.  On and on. 

 

As Doc Walker likes to say its the perfect set up where no one takes responsibility or blame.    Heck Bruce brought that whole point home in his recent infamous press conference when he was asked about hey the last 10 years under you hasn't been great, he immediately deflected it to Doug and someone else (forgot whom -- maybe Kyle?) about how hard they work.  In other words, don't blame me, blame them.  People hammer him on the culture comment but to me him deflecting responsibility for the 10 years by making it about other employees was the low point.  And if that doesn't explain the problem with this structure I don't know what does?

 

Part of my thought on this is my own experience.  Part of my job is to produce a product with some creativity and strategy involved.  I've worked in environments similar to the Redskins but typically I work in situations quite different from them where i have much more autonomy where I can put my own stamp on it and in a big way.  The Redskins type situation where I am dealing with 4 or 5 people weighing in on my product by far typically brings out my worst work because I have to give in some here, some there, some there and by the time I am through the product isn't as me as it is in other situations.   It's simply not as good.  

 

I get the democracy idea and how everyone weighs in so what can hurt about that?  The problem with it among other things IMO is it really never works out in a pure democracy way but instead brings major politics into it.  If you shoot someone's idea down on one thing -- you typically have to make up for it on something else.  So it starts becoming political and you barter.  Also, you can't really easily have a committee type of situation where the same voices get drowned out all the time.  For example if let's say Kyle is the brightest personnel guy there -- its hard to make it the Kyle Smith show in a committee set up where he prevails just about always because it would bruise egos.  I've been through these type of situations in my own work -- granted its different from sports but its the same principle of using committees to make calls. 

 

That's why I do agree with Lombardi when he mocks the decision by committee drill they got cooking.  I am with him on that and big time. 

[skinny21]

@thesubmittedone Great post.  My old English teacher would have called that “constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth”.    Edit: I meant my post you quoted!

Anyway, I think one thing I’d look for in a GM is a guy that can moderate his ego.  Someone that will listen to all opinions and can be more of an arbitrator.  A guy like that is more likely to have good relationships with the scouts and coach, and will probably be less concerned about getting their way versus what works best for the team and HC.  What I’m getting at, is I’d be ok with a guy that wasn’t necessarily brought up through the scouting ranks if he’s a good facilitator/manager.  He does have to have been around football enough to understand how the different gears of the machine work though.  As an example, I’d pick @Skinsinparadise and his open minded, even keeled nature for GM over the awesome scouting ability, but more volatile nature of @volsmet (who I absolutely adore, BTW!)
not trying impune your scouting ability SIP
 

 

 

 

@Thinking SkinsIn my mind, a coach should be able to articulate that while yes, they’d love a shutdown corner, their next priority is a guy that is a strong zone corner and run defender, or a guy with burst and cutting ability to keep up with slot receivers, etc.  In other words, they need to have a cohesive vision and be good communicators.  

 

Should they be able to cut a guy like in a Vernon Davis type of situation?  Absolutely, but they should talk it over with the GM to figure out the best course of action.  In my mind, the GM might then have a sit down with the coach and player to explain the issue, and try to work things out (whether it be correcting a miscommunication issue, a change in attitude, discussing a trade, etc).  A GM should be there as a support for the coach, but needs to make sure the coach is held accountable too, and knows it.  JMO.  

[TSO]

@skinny21 Again, you've earned a laugh and a like with that last post, so I'm going to split the difference.    

[skinny21]

@thesubmittedone

😁
 

 

 

 

Man, we’ve all totally hijacked this thread, lol

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

@thesubmittedone As an example, I’d pick @Skinsinparadise and his open minded, even keeled nature for GM over the awesome scouting ability, but more volatile nature of @volsmet (who I absolutely adore, BTW!)
not trying impune your scouting ability SIP
 

 

Thanks, that's cool.  Hey I enjoy @volsmet on the draft thread as much as anyone -- lots of detail, great football conversation.  Speaking of which, I wonder where the dude is, i think it's been awhile unless I missed some posts. 😀   One of the upsides of this season going south is the draft thread should be even more fun that usual.