Ron Rivera to be next Redskins HC (According to CSN Post-game Show)

[MisterPinstripe]

I liked how he said that he basically grilled Snyder on what has been going on here in the past and wanted answers for that. He obviously came away okay with what he heard as he took the job and didnt even try to look elsewhere. He was basically interviewing Snyder for the job.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Riggo#44]

Unrelated note--how many people does 106.7 employ that are morbidly obese. Other than the Junkies they're all fat slobs

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

Unrelated note--how many people does 106.7 employ that are morbidly obese. Other than the Junkies they're all fat slobs

 

Paulsen and Rouhier I don't think are fat anymore.

[Thinking Skins]

3 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

First, a minor contention here.

 

I disagree about Scot’s drafts. People too often downplay how solid the 2015 draft was while only focusing on the poor 2016 draft, even though it still yielded two good starters in Fuller and Ioannidis. Then they forget that the 2017 draft was largely based on his board AND had added picks to it that came from that condemned 2016 draft.
  

So I’d say it started there, and Kyle continued the good work and arguably did better. I think Kyle himself would say the same. 
 

 

2015

Hits: Scherff, Crowder, Smith, Reiter

Misses: Jones, Arie, Spaight, Mitchel, Spencer

 

I'll agree that it was a solid draft and this is what set the expectations for us doing things like "In Scot We Trust". But in hindsight it became a draft that was overhyped. Scherff is a pro bowl guard and I'm not going to really argue his sleection. Smith was known for underperforming here and having the one or two monster games that showed potential, teasing us but not satisfying us. Now we can see it was how he was used though. Reiter was a good C that we let go because we thought we could PS him, we couldn't. Crowder was a good slot guy who performed great as a rookie, peaked his second year and then seemed to decline. 

 

Was our not signing three of these hits indicative of their talent, a beef with Bruce Allen, or them being replaceable? I tend to lean towards the later, with a bit of Bruce Allen's ego in there. 

 

3 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

But to your main point... 

 

Regarding Shanahan, this is exactly what I’m talking about. He shouldn’t have been given the ultimate authority over personnel. But he was. Why? Because that’s the position Dan was in to get him. Dan does this to himself! The biggest problem Mike had in Denver was his inability to find the right group of defensive players. He did fine on offense. The same happened here, surprise surprise.
 

And then it just gets uglier by the day within the building when these people get undermined in positions they shouldn’t have even been in, in the first place. So why focus on anyone other than Dan, and in this case the guy who ended up becoming the top exec aiding him in said ugliness, Bruce? 
 

Mike is just another example of what I’m so concerned about with this structure. 
 

 

You raise a good point and this is why I think Mike should have been paired with a good personnel guy. We saw it with Marty and then Carroll, both good defensive guys who needed somebody else to come in and help them find offensive guys. Mike worked with Bruce and Scott Campbell. Neither of whom I think has a big resume to hang their heads on. I really fault Bruce more for Mike's failures in finding defensive scouting than Mike because Mike was depending on Bruce.

 

But just because these guys didn't work here doesn't mean it can't work or won't work. It just means that we need to set it up better. @Skinsinparadise and I have had a few conversations about other teams structure and to an extent I believe that a good coach has to earn the right to get elevated to Pete Carroll / Bill Bellichick / Andy Reid status on personnel decisions. Has Ron earned that? I don't know. But the alternative is something like Baltimore or Philadelphia where the GM is a powerful guy and things run through there. But even now in those places we can question how powerful the coach is because both coaches have won super bowls. 

 

3 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Hmmm... I don’t think you’re intending to present it like this, but I think this is too simplistic of a view to have. The draft is vital, sure, but you have to understand the reason why. It’s all about resource management. The draft isn’t some totally separate thing from Free Agency and the Salary Cap or something where you can just focus on it to the detriment of everything else. 
 

Even if you draft well, you have to know who to keep on a second contract and who not to. How are you going to allocate Cap space most efficiently while keeping your best draft picks? How do they fit in with the scheme, the rest of the roster and are their skill sets complementary? Which then dictates what you do in FA, because you don’t want to be forced to address need in the draft and want to pick the best possible players at your spot. 
 

So that’s why you want those kinds of people you’re mentioning, who have shown they can excel at scouting in general, to eventually be in charge of building the entire team. Or it could be someone really good at evaluating those evaluators and great at resource management simply from an economical perspective. To see the big picture of how it all ties together. The draft is the lifeblood, but it flows through everything else and everything else flows through it.  

 

True, but the draft is the river that runs through every team. It has since the inception of the NFL. It feeds the teams and allows them to replenish as they lose resources to free agency, injury, and retirement. What you mention is all true, but if you don't know how to fish in the draft, no matter how good your team is eventually you will lose that talent and you won't be able to get new guys at a consistent enough level. 

 

3 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

He might end up being a brilliant executive who sets up the organization better than anyone else has. He might end up bringing in or promoting the best candidate for Head Scout (whatever title they want to give it) and giving them the power they need to fulfill their role. He might end up hiring the best Training Staff and solving the problems with our facilities. He might end up hiring the best Coaching staff possible. He might end up overseeing all of this well, evaluating everyone properly consistently, and managing the resources excellently. All while coaching his staff and players personally. 
 

It’s just weird to assume a career in coaching leads someone to that point.
 

But, hey, here we are again. Round 4. 

 

Eventually this is a "we'll see" thing. We can't know until this is played out. We don't know how he'll deal with power. We don't know who will be in the positions parallel to him and under him and ?over? him. We saw that Bruce wasn't good with power, and as a result it impacted both Mike and Jay in terms of the teams they put together. We saw that Joe was ok with power but still didn't have anybody like a Beathard to help him acquire it. We can talk about the Gibbs teams being Beathard made, but what that's really saying is that when Gibbs left and we turned the team over to Casserly (who first hired Petitbon and Norv) is that Casserly wasn't anywhere near the scout that Beathard was.

 

I'm not getting caught up on the structure in terms of can this work. I'm questioning if we have people in roles that can make this work. Because in my opinion if we have a good scout like Kyle Smith (whether it be as GM or head scout or whatever else) doing the grocery shopping I think its going to be a lot better than anybody we've had in a similar role since Beathard. 

[Riggo#44]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Paulsen and Rouhier I don't think are fat anymore.

 

Give it time. There are two types of fat people--ones that were always fat and the ones that were once thin and became fat. And I can see they're pushing maximum density.

 

I've been thinking (a dangerous pastime, I know). David Alderage pointed out in the Athletic (great subscription by the way--worth the price of admission) the similarities between the Schotty, Gibbs, Shanny, and Rivera pressers: they all want to win. They say Dan wants to win. They talk about team efforts. Very similarly worded conferences. @thesubmittedone fairly questioned this cycle of optimism, disappointment, failure, finger-pointing, repeat. So what's different?

 

For Schotty and Gibbs, the answer is Vinny Cerrato. Schottenheimer jettisoned Cerrato--however he wasn't truly gone. During Marty's year here, Cerrato had Snyder's ear the whole year. He talked his way back in so Dan could have fun. Cerrato was a blithering idiot--who threw tons of money at mediocre players, wasted draft picks, and ran the team into the ground. Gibbs was actually the most successful coach we've had.

For Shanny, it was Allen and he was a petty dick in his own right. No one knew in 2009 what a political, finger-pointing, disingenuous, schmarmy, prick Allen was. But Shannahan refused to play well in the sandbox either, it seems. The leaks stopped almost immediately after he left, or at least tapered off. Allen continued to egomaniacally gain power--without the results, humiliated people as the left, back-bit Lafemina so he and his people only lasted 8 months here. Meanwhile, his free agent signings were almost all busts. The Reuben Foster signing, he hid, and forced Doug Williams in front of the camera. The Alex Smith trade and signing was a disaster. But when something good happens--like this past draft--he is all smiles and in front of the camera. Essentially taking credit for Kyle Smith's work. In short--he's a real piece of ****.

 

So the biggest difference, I see, is the GM (Dir Pro Personnel or whatever it's called). Who is it going to be? The coordination with Rivera will be first and foremost. Are they going to be a personnel guru like we really haven't had here? Will they be able to check Snyder's impulses?

 

Also with Allen's ouster, a new President of Business Ops is needed. I think this is overlooked for the personnel side, but this is huge. A recent description of the facilities called it "a place where it looks like CBD Oil is sold." It's been long described that Redskins Park is a dump. Hopefully the new stadium does not resemble any of the drawings we've seen. But whoever the new VP of Buis Ops is, they need to get this right--and hopefully include a new headquarters too.

 

Will it work? We'll see...it's possible, however, given Snyder's track record, it's fair to assign a very low probability

[carex]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

Scott Turner at training camp  "There's the goal post the players taped me to one year"

[Skinsinparadise]

54 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

2015

Hits: Scherff, Crowder, Smith, Reiter

Misses: Jones, Arie, Spaight, Mitchel, Spencer

 

 

2015

Hits: Scherff, Crowder, Smith, Reiter, Jarett

Misses: Jones, Arie, Spaight, Mitchel, Spencer

 

That was an A plus draft.  If you can pull 5 starters out of a draft, 2 of whom are pro bowlers, that's an insane draft.  3 depth guys in addition to that who played for years.

 

To me the in Scot we trust is well earned for 2015.  Kiper has said it many times, 2-3 starters means a good draft let alone 5.    Parcells has said similar things.

 

I am not pretending Jarett doesn't exist, it was a freak injury which wasn't Scot's fault.  I want my GM to find talent as for freak injuries that's just football.

 

 

 

[dicksogj]

 

Not sure if anyone else compared this but for kicks I went back & looked at Gruden's initial press conference for a comparison.  There is no comparison. Gruden's press conference was pretty lame & as expected included a lot of ass kissing unlike the one for Rivera.  He went on & on about RG3, but as I recall he wasn't really fond of RG3 & ultimately benched & helped get rid of him (not saying it was unwarranted).  Oh well - I don't read too much into this but it is fun to compare.

 

BTW - the first 5-6 mins are pretty useless & watching this just makes me wonder how in the world Allen wasn't fired 4-5 years ago!  He is completely full of crap.

 

[KDawg]

5 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Dan is making the same mistake thinking one coach can do it all. That simply doesn’t happen. It’s going to mostly come down to how efficiently the resources are managed and how the team is put together. Is Ron really the best candidate for that? 
 

He might end up being a brilliant executive who sets up the organization better than anyone else has. He might end up bringing in or promoting the best candidate for Head Scout (whatever title they want to give it) and giving them the power they need to fulfill their role. He might end up hiring the best Training Staff and solving the problems with our facilities. He might end up hiring the best Coaching staff possible. He might end up overseeing all of this well, evaluating everyone properly consistently, and managing the resources excellently. All while coaching his staff and players personally. 
 

It’s just weird to assume a career in coaching leads someone to that point.
 

But, hey, here we are again. Round 4. 

 

I want to start by saying that while we are often not aligned in overall philosophy, I always appreciate your perspective. It's well thought out, tends to not be overly reactionary and can be logically understood.

 

I mean that. I'd love for more posters (including myself sometimes) to convey their points as eloquently.

 

Now, the real part...

 

One coach isn't doing it all, and I'm not sure where that thought came from, even speaking from Snyder's perspective. Rivera is in charge of setting the structure around him. But in his presser he explicitly states that he will not be doing it alone and he will not be a one man team. They will work together to find the best action for the betterment of the franchise.

 

I think the head coach hiring the personnel guys is wise. He is likely to bring in someone familiar with his way of doing things and preferences. I use Dan Morgan as an example, but could be anyone... Morgan never worked with Rivera, but he was a brilliant player who was familiar with Rivera based on past locations and his current job with Beane/McDermott. So he has a similar background to Rivera, but its different enough to offer perspective. Could be virtually anyone in that same boat, though. 

 

Bringing in his own guy to help run personnel is a boone, not a bane. It allows cohesiveness to blossom.

 

I'm pretty sure your skimming that point in the above, but I think it deserves emphasis.

 

Where I share some concern, as any Skin fan likely would, is that we've seen similar movies before (though not quite one that has the same cast as this one) and that he could hire one wrong guy and see the whole thing go up in smoke. So I do understand the skepticism. Anyone should.

 

If things go different and it turns out Rivera is some loose cannon, then you're right. Round 4.

 

But Rivera doesn't have that reputation.

 

What concerns me most, and you said this earlier in your post (that I didn't quote) is the 6/9 losing seasons aspect. It's not in the forefront of the mind, but its certainly there. 

 

Anyways, thanks again for your well thought out posts. Appreciate having that kind of discourse.

[RemoveSnyder]

1 hour ago, carex said:

Scott Turner at training camp  "There's the goal post the players taped me to one year"

 

Scott Turner walking the halls of the front office: "There's where I stole a tub of Mike Nolan's melting vanilla ice cream." 

[MisterPinstripe]

some good tidbits.

[TSO]

12 hours ago, KDawg said:

One coach isn't doing it all, and I'm not sure where that thought came from, even speaking from Snyder's perspective. Rivera is in charge of setting the structure around him. But in his presser he explicitly states that he will not be doing it alone and he will not be a one man team. They will work together to find the best action for the betterment of the franchise.

Appreciate the kind words you started  your post with, I hope you know it’s reciprocated.  

I think the problem with these arguments right now is so much of the nuance and layered thinking is getting lost in it. It’s not as simple as saying coach-centric or GM-centric or whatever. You have multiple titles and roles in the NFL that historically have functioned well, but the structure is largely the same in the vast majority of successful examples. 
 

1) It’s always going to be collaborative. Otherwise, you can’t even call it an organization. 
 

2) You have an Head Scout, either operating as GM or EVP of Personnel, with final say over player personnel and the scouting department; and 
 

3a) Either the GM serves as, along with being the Head Scout/Evaluator, top executive with only the owner above him and “generally manages” everything (this is the most traditional structure), or;

 

3b) There’s a Team President/VP that is the top exec where the Head Scout/Evaluator (GM or EVP of Personnel or whatever title is given to him) and Head Coach equally report to him, or;

 

3c) It’s just the owner himself acting as the top executive instead of delegating that and they both equally report to him, as well. 
 

The focus has gone too much to who hires whom first and it’s missing the larger point of the above. I don’t know why that’s happened here on the board recently, but it’s kind of a frustrating straw man. It’s not really as significant as assumed. 
 

The data that exists regarding the timing of hiring one or another isn’t sufficient enough, on its own, to teach us much of anything because of, among other issues, the nature of executive/scout contracts usually running through the draft. The coaching carousel occurs way before that, so you’re almost forced to do it that way or select from an extremely limited pool. 
 

We’re currently witnessing that since Ron, smartly, seems to be waiting until May to make any moves there. 

 

So pointing to the data that exists on which hire comes first doesn’t change or affect how organization’s prefer to be structured usually. 
 

I know you get that, but I think we’re losing the plot here a little bit by focusing so much on that part of it. 

 

But let me ask you a question. Why do you think Rivera, himself, called it unique? That’s the exact word he used when he said what Dan had told him from the, and I quote, “weeks” ( ) of research Dan did that had him realizing that a “coach-centric” approach was what leads to success. 
 

Why would he call it unique himself? Why is this more of a recent trend than an actual proven model? 
 

In fact, I’d bet you Rivera himself would agree with what I’m saying more than what you are... but he’s “betting on himself” and has chosen to embrace the “unique” approach. 

You know, as for the collaborative stuff, both Shanahan and Gibbs said the exact same things, almost verbatim, when hired. Like with all things said, the actions are going to mean more. 
 

Everyone who has final say essentially says that it one way or another. And their intentions are probably sincere at the time. But so much of it is dependent on their areas of expertise. 

That’s where the concern is. Is it smart to give that to a coach or not? Do recent, more exceptional examples justify it totally? Do we trust Dan, who has done it multiple times before and almost NEVER done it the usual way, and just assume there’s nothing wrong with it? 
 

Clearly, I have to disagree with you on how I answer those questions. 

 

So it fell on Gibbs and Shanny when things went south because they had that final say. Of course, they’re going to delegate and try to set up a solid structure, but that’s the problem. That power can and will get in the way, is questionable to give to them as coaches in the first place, and then on top of it we’ve got to worry about the undermining and subterfuge from Dan, of course, though that would apply to anyone. 
 

It’s just a lot on a coach’s plate. This is the issue. It’s not about the order of hires, but the structure of the organization. 
 

12 hours ago, KDawg said:

I think the head coach hiring the personnel guys is wise. He is likely to bring in someone familiar with his way of doing things and preferences. I use Dan Morgan as an example, but could be anyone... Morgan never worked with Rivera, but he was a brilliant player who was familiar with Rivera based on past locations and his current job with Beane/McDermott. So he has a similar background to Rivera, but its different enough to offer perspective. Could be virtually anyone in that same boat, though. 

 

Bringing in his own guy to help run personnel is a boone, not a bane. It allows cohesiveness to blossom.

 

If you think I’m skimming that point, then forgive me for the bluntness, but you’re not reading what I’m saying. Which, I don’t blame you, it’s long, lol. But I have to push back on that, brother. 
 

I’ve stated multiple times now that there are good signs and ESPECIALLY that someone like Morgan is a candidate. I’ve also stated multiple times that my favorite part of the hire was Ron’s recent quote where he unequivocally states he doesn’t wasn’t control over player personnel, but wants it over the active 46. 
 

He said it himself. Not me. And that lines up with what we’ve been saying, of course. 
 

All you have to do is look at my recent posting history. I don’t think I made a post without saying that I’m excited about some of the signs we’re getting. I’m stating both the negatives and positives I’m seeing.
 

But the presser, and the way they implied things would be structured, was absolutely a downer. It’s different than what he said himself that I loved. And I’m supposed to be totally ok with Snyder’s vision of success after his “weeks of research”? I know you understand how difficult that’s going to be! 
 

In fact, forgive me for sounding like a braggart here, but I was one of the only ones on this board who understood the depths of the organizational issues here when, while everyone was blaming Jay, his nephew, the Strength & Conditioning Staff, and how soft his practices were... I singularly focused in on Larry Hess and the Athletic Training Staff. This was well before the Trent saga and before anyone even understood the difference between the three arms of that side of the building (medical, ATS, S&C), and who is in charge of what. 
 

I understood that Jay’s approach was likely a reaction to the issues there. And I absolutely feel vindicated by the mountains of evidence that has only provided more proof of what I was saying. 
 

Now, one of the most positive aspects of what’s been done thus far is Larry Hess’s removal along with a clean sweep of the ATS. So I’m going to give credit where it’s due and I’m not skimming over anything. On the contrary, I’m trying my best to look at this correctly and without bias. 
 

So if Rivera is just going to be more of an Executive, and he’s going to hire assistant coaches like Del Rio who are essentially going to act as the Head Coach of their respective side of the ball, while he’s just focused on the larger organizational structure of everything, that’s fine.
 

But why a coach for that job? And doesn’t it take away from some of what has made him successful in terms of being a close, personal, teacher? 

 

 I’d rather not look at anomalous situations versus the general process that’s worked and say “see, others have done it, come on now, why aren’t you guys seeing the wisdom?!”

 

 If this was anyone other than Dan, maybe. But we’ve seem him try it differently many times and it’s never succeeded at any high level. You simply can’t remove Dan from the equation. 
 

So if anyone is skimming over anything, it’s those who keep pointing to the few instances this set up has worked versus the many more where it hasn’t. When you compare it all, one way has succeeded more than the other over the course of the NFL’s history. Add in the Snyder factor... it’s tough. 😕 
 

Maybe things are changing on that front around the NFL... sure, that’s possible. Maybe the “teachers” are becoming better at being “principals”. And I get everyone is euphoric right now and I’m standing against the wave of unabashed fan optimism, which is a stupid thing to do, but I’m not going to just throw away everything I’ve researched and learned about the topic because the Redskins are doing it. 
 

It’s how I feel and it’s based on plenty of evidence. Plenty more than the ones you’re referring to. 
 

12 hours ago, KDawg said:

Bringing in his own guy to help run personnel is a boone, not a bane. It allows cohesiveness to blossom.

 

I think you’re just looking at the pros and not the cons. There are so many examples of how this fails. Way more than the other way around. It just is what it is. 

 

You might end up right, and I hope and pray you are, but it’d STILL be the exception. 
 

 It can absolutely be a bane if Rivera hires someone he’s just comfortable with as opposed to the best, most qualified, candidate. It can absolutely be a bane if he’s limiting his search to people he knows will share in his short sightedness and impatience, something that is simply the default state of coaches and not a knock on them. 
 

That’s why when I heard about Morgan being a candidate I was ecstatic. It is certainly a positive. As is hiring Del Rio. A part of me wonders why we just didn’t give Rivera the Team President position itself and hire another HC to fulfill that role exclusively focusing on coaching. It’s just a lot on one man’s plate. So there’s a lot of danger we’re operating in. I’m sorry, I just can’t see it like you do. Not yet, at least. It needs time.  

[TSO]

10 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

I've been thinking (a dangerous pastime, I know). David Alderage pointed out in the Athletic (great subscription by the way--worth the price of admission) the similarities between the Schotty, Gibbs, Shanny, and Rivera pressers: they all want to win. They say Dan wants to win. They talk about team efforts. Very similarly worded conferences. @thesubmittedone fairly questioned this cycle of optimism, disappointment, failure, finger-pointing, repeat. So what's different?

 

For Schotty and Gibbs, the answer is Vinny Cerrato. Schottenheimer jettisoned Cerrato--however he wasn't truly gone. During Marty's year here, Cerrato had Snyder's ear the whole year. He talked his way back in so Dan could have fun. Cerrato was a blithering idiot--who threw tons of money at mediocre players, wasted draft picks, and ran the team into the ground. Gibbs was actually the most successful coach we've had.

For Shanny, it was Allen and he was a petty dick in his own right. No one knew in 2009 what a political, finger-pointing, disingenuous, schmarmy, prick Allen was. But Shannahan refused to play well in the sandbox either, it seems. The leaks stopped almost immediately after he left, or at least tapered off. Allen continued to egomaniacally gain power--without the results, humiliated people as the left, back-bit Lafemina so he and his people only lasted 8 months here. Meanwhile, his free agent signings were almost all busts. The Reuben Foster signing, he hid, and forced Doug Williams in front of the camera. The Alex Smith trade and signing was a disaster. But when something good happens--like this past draft--he is all smiles and in front of the camera. Essentially taking credit for Kyle Smith's work. In short--he's a real piece of ****.

Here’s the thing I think people too often miss regarding the coaches brought here. 
 

How fast have the positive attributes of confident, leader of men, disciplined, experienced, etc... 

 

Turned, relatively quickly, into negative ones like arrogant, unable to relate, inflexible, behind the curve, etc... 

 

How fast have positive attributes like player’s coach who can relate, understanding, smart football mind, up and coming, etc... 

 

Turned into, relatively quickly, negative ones like no discipline, too soft, won’t adapt his scheme, in over his head, etc...

 

 Something keeps happening here where these individuals come with certain positive attributes, as well as negative ones like any human being, but the positive ones erode and the negative ones seem to be all that’s left. Their strengths diminish while their weaknesses get highlighted. 
 

What is it about this environment that essentially brings out the worst in people? 
 

The focus, wrongly, becomes on those weaknesses in the individual, when instead we should be asking why is this place bringing out the worst in them instead of the best? Where is the growth and development? Where is the support that mitigates those weaknesses and highlights their strengths? 
 

If the pattern holds true, Ron will fall victim to everything we’ve seen in the past regarding those strengths and weaknesses. We’ve seen too often around the NFL how that happens to coaches given too much authority, but even worse, we’ve witnessed it fail under Dan multiple times now. 
 

Is Ron the exception? Sure, maybe, I pray he is. So far so good in terms of the actual moves, too. But why do we keep having to hope for exceptions as a fanbase? Why are we always having to rationalize and justify? 
 

It’s just exhausting. I’m not trying to be negative. I’m sincerely concerned for Ron himself. I don’t want another good football guy to fail here. It’s been beyond ridiculous at this point.  
 

I’m with you, though. Give it some time. And there have been plenty of positives to look at. 
 

10 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

Also with Allen's ouster, a new President of Business Ops is needed. I think this is overlooked for the personnel side, but this is huge. A recent description of the facilities called it "a place where it looks like CBD Oil is sold." It's been long described that Redskins Park is a dump. Hopefully the new stadium does not resemble any of the drawings we've seen. But whoever the new VP of Buis Ops is, they need to get this right--and hopefully include a new headquarters too.

 

 I know you weren’t addressing it to me, but I’ve always been one of the very few here who has focused on the facilities and even the Stadium. It’s just such a handicap every coach we have has to deal with. Like, look at what Pete Carroll gets with the Seahawks? State of the art facilities and a home field advantage unlike any other. That's far from everything, but it all adds up. There’s just so much there, by default, going for him.  Which is why I’ve been consistent about empathizing with coaches and players here while grading them on a curve. And why my intense focus has been on Dan and his top executives. 
 

Let’s see what happens. It all matters. Maybe Ron ends up being an even better executive than coach and he spearheads a lot of these necessary improvements.  

[dyst]

@dicksogj that was painful to watch. They asked Jay questions about culture and losing, fast forward 5 years and those same questions remain. This is a Dan issue, nothing else.

[SkinsFTW]

37 minutes ago, dyst said:

@dicksogj that was painful to watch. They asked Jay questions about culture and losing, fast forward 5 years and those same questions remain. This is a Dan issue, nothing else.

Same as when Gibbs was hired, Marty, and Shanahan too.

[wit33]

All this great debate, but if Haskins plays like Brisset or Devlin Hodges/Mason Rudolf  ... ahh never mind. 
 

Great posting today guys. @KDawg @thesubmittedone @Riggo#44 @Thinking Skins @skinsinpa1
 

How about “QB centric”?

[Thinking Skins]

4 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

That’s where the concern is. Is it smart to give that to a coach or not? Do recent, more exceptional examples justify it totally? Do we trust Dan, who has done it multiple times before and almost NEVER done it the usual way, and just assume there’s nothing wrong with it? 

This is an interesting perspective. You can mention it in terms of this coach-centric approach, but I think about this statement and the question of Do we trust Dan and it sounds eerie. 

 

What has trusting Dan gotten us? 

 - the FA superteam

 - Jeff George over Brad Johnson

 - the restricted free agents deals

 - a bunch of trades for older vets

 - etc. 

 

I could probably go on and on with this but this doesn't feel right. Now if I look back at this I'll first admit that I was a lot younger but I think (on this very board) I defended a lot of these ideas as a new way of thinking. I really remember being all in on the restricted free agents and that turned out very poorly. 

 

So I'm tempted to think that whenever Dan gets an idea that goes against the grain, its going to turn out poorly. And that's the standard response of a Redskins fan. They were calling it stuff like optimistic skepticism or whatever. And the rational side of my mind wants to say he'll fail again, and he probably will.

 

But the alternative side of it is kinda like the Haskins argument. Its easy to predict that Haskins will fail as a QB because most QBs drafted do fail. But I feel like Haskins is different, and I feel like this Snyder idea is different. We've gone into some of the why's of why it may succeed or fail but ultimately I do feel like this is the best approach we've had under Snyder and really since the 1991 team. 

[Riggo#44]

10 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 I know you weren’t addressing it to me, but I’ve always been one of the very few here who has focused on the facilities and even the Stadium. It’s just such a handicap every coach we have has to deal with. Like, look at what Pete Carroll gets with the Seahawks? State of the art facilities and a home field advantage unlike any other. That's far from everything, but it all adds up. There’s just so much there, by default, going for him.  Which is why I’ve been consistent about empathizing with coaches and players here while grading them on a curve. And why my intense focus has been on Dan and his top executives. 

 

And this is something Rivera can't fix. He can point it out, but ultimately it falls on Dan. And for an organization that cant spell London Fletcher's name right, or even remember a jersey for the presser, that's a monumental task.

[Riggo#44]

10 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

Something keeps happening here where these individuals come with certain positive attributes, as well as negative ones like any human being, but the positive ones erode and the negative ones seem to be all that’s left. Their strengths diminish while their weaknesses get highlighted. 
 

What is it about this environment that essentially brings out the worst in people? 

 

The common threads are political, incompetent, back-stabbing sycophants and Dan Snyder. This is why the GM/Dir Pro Personnel is crucial. We need a Snyder whisperer who won't play political bull**** games. If Snyder is serious, he won't play favorites. But, we know how that goes...

[Skinsinparadise]

RIVERA’S CULTURE WILL CONTINUE

While losing a head coach is hard, it’s something Gerald McCoy has gotten used to. Rivera is the sixth coach that has been fired on a team he’s been on , after spending the previous nine years of his career in Tampa Bay.

For McCoy, who spent the previous nine years of his career in Tampa Bay, much of the allure of choosing the Panthers as his new team this offseason was a chance to work with Rivera, someone he had been a fan of for a long time prior to joining the Panthers. Having that person leave is incredibly hard.

“(He’s) one of the main reasons why I came here,” McCoy said. “A lot of people say, ‘but Gerald you just got here. You don’t understand.’ I’ve been through six coaching changes now, so I do understand going through a coaching change, but being a fan of him, that’s what makes it tough, because you’re a fan of the guy and then you play for him, makes it even better and then for something like this to happen, it just sucks to have to experience it.”

The stories of Rivera off the field, asking his players about their personal lives and families, could go on and on. From DJ Moore giving Rivera a picture of his newborn baby daughter this past week to the coach asking McCaffrey about his family more frequently than they talked football throughout their three years together.

But it was safety Tre Boston, the ever positive presence in the Panthers locker room, that gave the reminder that while Rivera may be gone, the culture he created will endure. And that’s got nothing to do with football.

“This culture that we have in here it’s not by mistake. Other places we’ve tried to duplicate this culture, but it doesn’t come as easy as what we have here,” Boston said. “The culture’s not dead here… I think there’s a few changes that we’ll make and we’ll be back to the Carolina Panthers that we’re used to, and we’ll thank Ron for that.”

 

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article238050814.html

[ThePackisback]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

RIVERA’S CULTURE WILL CONTINUE

While losing a head coach is hard, it’s something Gerald McCoy has gotten used to. Rivera is the sixth coach that has been fired on a team he’s been on , after spending the previous nine years of his career in Tampa Bay.

For McCoy, who spent the previous nine years of his career in Tampa Bay, much of the allure of choosing the Panthers as his new team this offseason was a chance to work with Rivera, someone he had been a fan of for a long time prior to joining the Panthers. Having that person leave is incredibly hard.

“(He’s) one of the main reasons why I came here,” McCoy said. “A lot of people say, ‘but Gerald you just got here. You don’t understand.’ I’ve been through six coaching changes now, so I do understand going through a coaching change, but being a fan of him, that’s what makes it tough, because you’re a fan of the guy and then you play for him, makes it even better and then for something like this to happen, it just sucks to have to experience it.”

The stories of Rivera off the field, asking his players about their personal lives and families, could go on and on. From DJ Moore giving Rivera a picture of his newborn baby daughter this past week to the coach asking McCaffrey about his family more frequently than they talked football throughout their three years together.

But it was safety Tre Boston, the ever positive presence in the Panthers locker room, that gave the reminder that while Rivera may be gone, the culture he created will endure. And that’s got nothing to do with football.

“This culture that we have in here it’s not by mistake. Other places we’ve tried to duplicate this culture, but it doesn’t come as easy as what we have here,” Boston said. “The culture’s not dead here… I think there’s a few changes that we’ll make and we’ll be back to the Carolina Panthers that we’re used to, and we’ll thank Ron for that.”

 

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article238050814.html

I’m telling ya they will challenge for the East crown next year.

[Skinsinparadise]

Good, two candidates I didn't want here. 😀 Though both are an improvement over Garrett. 

 

 

 

[TSO]

On 1/3/2020 at 11:19 PM, wit33 said:

All this great debate, but if Haskins plays like Brisset or Devlin Hodges/Mason Rudolf  ... ahh never mind. 
 

Great posting today guys. @KDawg @thesubmittedone @Riggo#44 @Thinking Skins @skinsinpa1
 

How about “QB centric”?

It all matters.  

Honestly, if I were to point to one consistent theme throughout all of my posts here the last how many years, it’s about relaying the realization that there shouldn’t be any “centric” model.
 

I think it’s sort of an over-simplification of the insistence many of us have had over the years of a more proper organizational hierarchy. It’s about people being hired and placed in roles they’re qualified for, and then allowing them to fulfill those roles without unwarranted interference. It was never about who’s central really, but more about a support structure where everyone benefits. 
 

And let’s be real, ultimately there is no model in the NFL other than an owner-centric model.
 

But yeah, they’re all vital to success, but some more than others. Which is where many of us disagree, but what happens is people too often exaggerate each other’s stances. So when I say “coaching is over-emphasized at the pro level”, it’s perceived as I’m saying they have little to no impact, when it’s far from the same thing. And now the debate has shifted to who hires whom first and all that, when it really has always been about the organizational hierarchy, authority, and span of control regarding the roles assigned within it. 
 

Regarding coaching, I believe that over-emphasizing happens because of:

 

1) The way the NFL is set up in terms of who holds consistent pressers, interviews, and is made to be the public face of the franchise via the media, and;

 

2) The entertainment factor derived from discussing play calls and in game decisions as opposed to resource management and/or the cohesion of the roster and/or the football intelligence of those players on the roster, which leads to much of talk radio and TV honing in on that exclusively, and finally;

 

3) The way owners/execs mostly operate behind the scenes, so the access simply isn’t there to illuminate to the general public their roles and daily decision making that trickles down, affecting everyone and everything. 
 

As to your point about QBs...

 

I believe I’ve linked you before to a thread I created a while back where I did some time-consuming research I’m pretty proud of. It’s obviously incomplete, but it’s certainly telling, at least to me, lol. I think if you really take the time to consume the data you’ll shift your opinions a bit on this:

 

 

First and foremost, a QB has to have a baseline of talent to even have a chance, so all of this is contingent upon that. But if he does... then everything else is just as important to his success.
 

To take a page out of social psychology books, it’s sort of like applying both theories, but giving precedence to the behavioral theory that “leaders are made, not born” over the traits theory where leaders simply have innate traits that make them such. So a QB needs to have that baseline (innate traits), but if/when he does it becomes more about the social environment (behavioral effects) for him to realize his potential. 

So the reason why a so-called “QB-centric” model wouldn’t work is because the QB can’t scout, identify, and create an opportunity to be drafted or play for himself. He can’t evaluate himself while in the building without some level of bias. He’s not in a position to create a system of development for himself. And, finally, he’s not going to create an offensIve scheme for himself (well, at least initially, lol. We’ve seen guys like Brady and Manning essentially doing just that). 

The QB is simply too dependent on a solid organizational hierarchy existing to thrive. It’s why it can all come immediately crashing down, no matter if they have that baseline of talent, if that hierarchy gets corrupted. 
 

But I agree with you that a QB has more of an impact than any other player on the field and, in turn, can make everyone within the organization look good in the process. I just don’t think you can look at their impact and success without looking at the environmental factors that allowed it to happen in the first place. They’re too dependent. 
 

Maybe one day we’ll see QB/Team President, though, and then I’ll concede to your point.  

Hey, we’ve got Tom Brady who is essentially QB/Offensive Coordinator/General Counsel. He’s close.