zskins

Welcome To The Redskins: Ron Rivera, Head Coach

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

I heard that one Super Smart guy named Greg Olsen just happens to be available in a couple days and who did he just play for an entire decade for?

 

Hmm...

 

Olsen was a step behind this year, and took some absolutely viscous hits. He's injury prone, and one step out the door. Would much rather see us try for Hunter Henry than Olsen. We have the cap space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MartinC said:

I agree with you about structure around the QB and the environment being key to a QBs success - would Brady have been BRADY if he was picked by the Redskins in the 6th round - very unlikely. And I do think that we have a much better chance of putting a team around Haskins and giving him a better situation with a unified coaching and front office vision of what we are trying to build. That disconnect as been one of the factors in our struggles.


Agree with all this. 👍
 

I just don’t blame anyone other than Dan and Bruce for that disconnect previously, and I’m happy that Ron started out with saying things in a way that ensures Haskins understands he is going to have to compete and earn it so as to remove any possible entitlement issues that may have lingered. That’ll be good for Haskins more than anyone else, whether he realizes it or not. 

 

But, yeah, it’s already much better than anything we’ve ever had under Dan, but I just hope they take that final step and I’ll be on cloud 9 like I said, lol. 

Edited by thesubmittedone
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:


Like I already mentioned, Texans are a newer example because Rick Smith left due to his wife being diagnosed with cancer and not one of “sustained success”. We’ll see how that goes, but are you okay with what Bill O’Brien has done since last offseason? Those trades were ridiculous, in my mind. I think Texan fans agree. 
 

As for the Chiefs, like I’ve said, it’s frustrating they keep being used as an example. They are not. 
 

They have a HC and GM both equal in rank reporting to their Chairman and CEO. Andy Reid does NOT have final say over personnel. Brett Veach does and, previous to that, Dorsey did. 
 

When I refer to the Pats and Seahawks, I make it a point to say “examples of sustainably successful” franchises with that set up. They’re the only two. Everyone else is an example of failure or don’t have enough time to judge them with. 

 


No argument that Andy and Veach both report to the CEO but I’ve read that Andy has the ability to break a tie on the roster - that’s not something their CEO is going to do.

 

i guess what I would say about this - and us  - is that good people who trust each other break the tie through discussion. That’s when an organisation is functioning well. 
 

On Bill O’Brien that comes back to its about the people not the structure. I’m not a fan of O’Brien as a HC let alone GM as well. That will end in tears I think and waste one of the better QBs in the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MartinC said:

No argument that Andy and Veach both report to the CEO but I’ve read that Andy has the ability to break a tie on the roster - that’s not something their CEO is going to do.


Interesting, I haven’t heard that but it’s weird because who’s the tie between in that case? If it’s Andy and Veach, then that means Andy actually has final say. Veach himself has stated he has final say over the roster. 
 

There may be some confusion there regarding what the tie is about. Might not be about the roster. I’d like to see where you’ve read that (I don’t question you did), but I know that’ll be annoying to dig up, lol. 
 

But just like that NBC Sports article you linked to that included the Chiefs with the Pats and Seahawks (when their structure is not the same), they can get things wrong. 
 

16 minutes ago, MartinC said:

i guess what I would say about this - and us  - is that good people who trust each other break the tie through discussion. That’s when an organisation is functioning well. 


Agreed, but I’d just add that it’s also important people get to fulfill their roles relative to their expertise, so final say is important to that. None of us would like to be overruled by someone who simply isn’t as qualified as us on the matter, right? That doesn’t negate a collaborative approach, in fact, I’d argue it encourages one when everyone has ownership over their roles. 
 

16 minutes ago, MartinC said:

On Bill O’Brien that comes back to its about the people not the structure. I’m not a fan of O’Brien as a HC let alone GM as well. That will end in tears I think and waste one of the better QBs in the NFL.


I don’t know. I think he was better off with Rick Smith as GM and in that structure. They found Watson while being in that structure, so it’s hard for me to just ignore that as it’s yet another example of what I’ve learned.
 

I think it’s going to end badly because he took total control, not because he’s a bad HC. It’s subjective, of course, but there is some level of objectivity we can apply to it by seeing the difference of his tenure with Rick Smith in that structure and without. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Skin'emAlive said:

 

Olsen was a step behind this year, and took some absolutely viscous hits. He's injury prone, and one step out the door. Would much rather see us try for Hunter Henry than Olsen. We have the cap space.

Well, Olsen will be cheap and may even be cuttable at the end of camp if someone looks better.  If we let Reed (more a WR in a TE body anyway) go and don't resign the aging mismatch WR called a TE (Davis), we will have at least 2 slots to fill for the final 53 so signing Olsen (who would be a street FA) would not stop us from signing a young FA TE (who would be the likely #1 slot) and draft a TE in the mid rounds and maybe add another 1 or 2 UDFAs/street guys to fill out the TC roster. Olsen would have an advantage over all but the FA at the start of camp but if he has it at the end, it was a good signing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:


Interesting, I haven’t heard that but it’s weird because who’s the tie between in that case? If it’s Andy and Veach, then that means Andy actually has final say. Veach himself has stated he has final say over the roster. 

There may be some confusion there regarding what the tie is about. Might not be about the roster. I’d like to see where you’ve read that (I don’t question you did), but I know that’ll be annoying to dig up, lol. 


I THINK it was a KC beat reporter on Twitter I read that re Andy and final say. I’ve seen it talked about as well.

Here is an interview with Andy when he talks about him and Veach having control of the roster. And like I said Hunt not being involved in personnel decision making at all - so not breaking any tie.
 

https://chiefswire.usatoday.com/2018/02/28/andy-reid-says-clark-hunt-does-not-interfere-with-roster-decisions/

 

I think the reality is that they work together and resolve differences through discussion. That it’s never come up where Andy (or Veach if he had final say) had to over rule the other. But let’s put it this way if Veach has wanted to trade Alex Smith and Andy had said no - Smith would still be a Chief.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@thesubmittedone I think you’re going to be disappointed. Just my hunch.  
 

Personally, I’d like to see how this movie plays out before passing judgement one way or another.  It’s fine to be skeptical, because we have 20 years of suck behind us under this owner. I’m skeptical.  I need to see anything work before changing my mind.  
 

Structure does matter. However every time Dan has a FO person who works for him we get a henchman and a confidant and it goes south. 
 

I actually see benefit of having ONLY Ron managing Dan.  It might be a situation which works here. It would have worked so much better for Gibbs if he had a personnel guy better than Vinny.  
 

I like Ron.  I like Kyle.  I think Kyle is going to have a massive voice.  But I think it’s going to be collaborative. To me, if the two sides are working in concert with one another, then final approval is less important.  It only becomes really important if there is a huge disagreement. 
 

The one thing about the chiefs, it kinda works in reverse there. They have separation, but nothing in that organization is going to happen without Reid’s approval.  90/53/46, he might technically not have final approval but they wouldn’t draft a guy, sign a guy, or release a guy without his consent.  So, essentially he has final approval.  I assume if he and the GM are at loggerheads about something, they go to Hunt, and hunt makes a decision.  But I’d be willing to bet that doesn’t happen a lot, if at all.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Voice of Reason @MartinC 

 

https://www.profootballrumors.com/2017/07/brett-veach-chiefs-gm

 

Quote

When the Chiefs promoted Brett Veach into the GM role, there were questions about exactly how much control he would have. On Monday, owner Clark Hunt clarified things a bit. 

 

Veach will have final say over the 53-man roster, Hunt tells reporters. He’ll work in tandem with coach Andy Reid just like John Dorsey did when he was in GM, but it appears that Veach is in the driver’s seat.


https://arrowheadaddict.com/2017/07/24/brett-veach-introduced-chiefs-new-general-manager/

Quote

Brett Veach will retain final control over the 53-man roster

 

The Kansas City Chiefs officially introduced Brett Veach as their new General Manager on Monday, replacing John Dorsey after four full years in K.C.

Clark Hunt made one thing clear about the Kansas City Chiefs’ organizational chart on Monday: new General Manager Brett Veach will have final say on the team’s 53-man roster. Even when asked in a couple different ways at his press conference, Hunt confirmed that Veach would be given such control despite rumors that portrayed Veach as more of a puppet for Head Coach Andy Reid’s wishes.

 

Veach and Reid have worked together for years, ever since Veach first entered the NFL as an intern and assistant for Reid with the Philadelphia Eagles. Yet Veach was keen to create a professional distance, so to speak, from Reid in his introductory presser, saying that he’s had no problem disagreeing with Reid in the past.


I don’t think you guys have it right. I think you’re conflating final say with a lack of collaboration or, better yet, conflating collaboration with a lack of final say. 
 

I think the Chiefs recognize who has final say over what as being important while simultaneously recognizing it needs to be collaborative, so Reid is certainly involved in everything as is Veach on the other side. 
 

Again, there’s a reason Veach doesn’t report to Reid. He is not beholden to him exclusively. They are tied to the hip, as it should be, but Hunt ultimately decides if one is a problem and the other isn’t. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:


Interesting, I haven’t heard that but it’s weird because who’s the tie between in that case? If it’s Andy and Veach, then that means Andy actually has final say. Veach himself has stated he has final say over the roster. 

 

Technically, probably the CEO but he probably would just take the advice from one of the other (Andy?).  That was how the Redskins sort of did it in the 80s (the tiebreaker was Jack in our case). From 1977 to about 1986 or so, Jack did primarily just side with Beathard.  That he started siding mostly with Gibbs is a big reason Bobby left as one of Bobby's greatest strengths was playing politics (got a hometown hero fired, was able to hire Joe Gibbs who had led one of the worst offenses in NFL history when his boss wanted a name guy and survived an 0-5 start with this guy albeit he did get other help on that one).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I like Ron.  I like Kyle.  I think Kyle is going to have a massive voice.  But I think it’s going to be collaborative. To me, if the two sides are working in concert with one another, then final approval is less important.  It only becomes really important if there is a huge disagreement. 


Just want to pull my hair out when I read stuff like this, lol. 
 

You claim you understand sound organizational principles, chain of command, etc... because of your military background, but when you say stuff like this it just belies that. 
 

Collaboration is not the antithesis to final say for God’s sake!!!!! It doesn’t make it less important!!  
 

When you actually give people the authority to do their jobs relative to their expertise, it actually AIDS IN THAT COLLABORATION. Everyone will be fulfilling their roles for the benefit of each other without the fear of unwarranted interference.
 

The problem is not “final say”, it’s when you give unqualified people that power and they’re making decisions about things they’re not experts on over others who are. That’s a sure-fire way of ruining a collaborative atmosphere! 
 

You want to know a fast way to piss Kyle Smith off and make things more difficult to collaborate on? It’s if Ron ever overrules him on a matter he’s the expert regarding. Imagine Kyle Smith overruling Ron on a coaching hire or a play call? How would you think that’d work out!? 
 

But, hey, collaboration! 
 

It sounds nice, but the reality is you create a collaborative environment by empowering people to fulfill their roles relative to their expertise. 

 

When you say they’re “working in concert with each other”, what are you referring to? Do you think that means they’ll agree on everything? If so, that’s a terrible set up. Kyle would just be a puppet, nothing more. You need people who will differ and see things with a better understanding than you because of your position/expertise relative to theirs. And you need them to be able to “win” on that, for everyone’s sake. 
 

If Ron is going to do that with Kyle Smith, the best way is to give him final say over the roster. That’s how it is with the Chiefs. That’s how it is with the vast majority of sustainably successful franchises in the NFL. 

 

It’s crazy the amount of push back I’m getting on this. I mean, I get it. The Redskins are doing this now

and we want it to succeed so we’re going to look for reasons it will and downplay reasons it won’t. But what I’m saying isn’t hard or some crazy notion I’m concocting. 
 

So, yes, it will be disappointing and is concerning if it remains as is. And it’s the opposite of what Ron said himself before, so that sucks too because it means he wavered too easily on it.  
 

That’s ok, I’ll get over it. But I’m perfectly in the right to be skeptical this is going to work out and these attempts at justifying it based on the rest of the NFL are extremely weak to me. Not to mention misrepresented as is the case with the Chiefs (and even if they were, they’d still be in the minority).
 

The best justification we have for hope, even if the set up remains as is, is that we do have a better personnel department than ever before and we actually went through an entire organizational reset where the new coach won’t be hindered by factionalism, at least not from the onset. Removing Larry Hess and changing the Training Staff, placing Kyle Smith and Doug Williams in roles that better suit them, etc... was huge. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2020 at 2:34 PM, Jumbo said:

agree point for point, sip

 

the pairing of me and actual optimism where the redskins are concerned is a long way away, yet i do think ron may actually have the required mix of specific "people skills" (unlike shanahan, when it comes to dan at least), nfl gravitas, and actual competency, to get farther down a functional---dare i say successful---road than his predecessors have done, even looking back to gibbs 2

 

but i put little emo investment in that thinking until it's proven to be sound the only way it can be---on the field

 

 

 

 

My take on Dan used to be a variation of he's a mini Steinbrenner who just can't keep his hands away from messing with personnel.  And that was the main problem.  Actually among Dan's critics here, I give Dan more of a break on that point.  I do think he does get involved and messes with the soup some  So it's not that I buy that he's reformed.  But I do think he's gotten better on this front and doesn't mess as much as he once did.

 

I am almost past the Dan meddling point because while I expect him to meddle some, I don't think that is the biggest problem.  I used to think it is.  But I don't anymore.  Don't get me wrong I do think its a problem but not the main plot.  I am not saying I am right but I am just guessing based on different reports from different people and doing my best to paint a picture combining all of those narratives.  And I think the team can be successful working around the meddling as long as Dan doesn't meddle a ton. 

 

I think a toned down Dan as for meddling coupled with a kick butt personnel guy like Kyle Smith can pull off building a winning team.  And I am ok with Rivera being in the mix if that lessens Dan's meddling even more.   And even if Rivera has final say, he's made it clear that he's not going to be the defacto evaluator.  So on that front, I guess I am more optimistic than the average critic.  This operation to me comes off like one that might lessen Dan's meddling.   It elevates Kyle into also now doing pro personnel (which IMO was previously a mess) and basically switches Bruce from having the final say to Rivera.  I am ok with all of that.  It's not my ideal scenario.  So I agree with @thesubmittedone that its not the best way to do it but I am also ok with it and can think it could work.   I didn't think the previous operation could work.   I think this version is a major improvement.  Big time. 

 

Now if Dan elevated another politician type or figurehead to have the final say then I'd remain a big critic of this setup.  But it's not the case.   Where I think I might be the most pessimistic Dan critic or close to it involves the culture.   And to me the #1 culture problem isn't the FO structure or Dan's meddling from time to time. IMO the culture issues are: pettiness, vindictiveness, winning a battle at the expense of a war, arrogance, a culture of scapegoating and fear, lack of accountability, delusion.    I was a hard critic against Bruce (and I am perfectly aware that Dan was and will remain by a mile the biggest problem) because of his behavior much more so than his less than stellar record in personnel.  He IMO helped bring the culture to a low point and it was already bad when he arrived. 

 

I think a sneaky reason why this organization is bleeding fans isn't just the losing but its not a lovable losing team.  This isn't the Chicago Cubs from years back or even the Browns.  We are a fashionable team to hate.  Bruce isn't likable.  Dan isn't likable.  They've made this organization go from being in the 80s the good guys to being the bad guys now.  And we aren't the bad guys in the cool way like the Raiders once were.  We've became the laughingstock team that isn't just bad but its cool to trash them from the outside.  I've talked about this point on other threads but viewing this team from the perspective of a dad has changed my thinking some about this team.  It's been a really embarrassing ride during my kids lifetime.  And I am not talking about the losing but the behavior and how much this team has been mocked and deservingly so.

 

So bringing this back to Rivera.  My only glimmer of optimism I have is I think Dan is immature and impressionable and that cuts both ways.  It's not hard to get a picture painted that Dan craves friendship and to be part of a fraternity there at Redskins Park where he has people who validate him.  He seems to have a fragile ego who overcompensates.  That's my best 101 psych guess.  And I get the impression that his maturity level is like a typical 20 something college kid who likes to blend in with the cool kids.  And back when Gibbs was one of the cool kids, he was at his best behavior because he idolized him and aimed to please him.   

 

Rivera to me strikes me of that same ilk.  He's a different dude than Gibbs.  But I think Dan is likely intoxicated by the dude's charm.  It doesn't surprise me that Dan was determined to have him.   I am hoping that some of Rivera's integrity rubs off on Dan.  As we need to give Rivera a break IMO and give him time.  I think one thing that some of us (including me at times in the past) have minimized too much is how the culture effects performance and behavior.    We trash some of the coaches and players here.  But in many of those cases, we are trashing them for how they reacted to the culture.   Whether it's Trent, Kirk, Shanny, Jay, Zorn, etc. 

 

Dan likes to ultimately paint his own hires as the villain to set up the next run.  The sad thing is its comical to me how Dan can paint the picture that his own hires are the problem.  If that's the common pattern then Dan is either terrible at hiring or he produces a culture that brings out the worst in his hires.  He doesn't win with either argument.  Heck even when he let go of Bruce who I thought was a disaster -- I thought it was low of Dan to just essentially put the bad culture on him.  Dan kept Bruce for 10 years. I don't believe it was all Bruce as to the bad culture but even if I did what does that say about Dan's acumen and observation skills if he let a dude destroy the team's culture and just  have an epiphany on it after 10 years?    Also it was another tone deaf move from Dan.  I think he misses that part of the fan's issues with him is the lack of accountability and transparency. If Dan actually took some of that hit for the culture issues, I think fans would have respected him more and felt that hey maybe he is learning and is sincerely contrite. 

 

Sometimes i've argued with the few defenders of the status quo over the years where they pin me on that I feel that way just because i am a homeboy of that player or that coach.    But for me it's not that.  I was one of the loudest critics of Zorn yet I went on the record saying I hated how they embarrassed him to try to get him to quit.  It was ugly. 

 

To me the context is everything.  It's easy for us to say from our couch that for example Bruce could be rude in a negotiation to us directly, low ball us and we'd just smile wide, shrug it off and say hey that fun-loving rascal Bruce really doesn't mean it, love the dude, HTTR, I want more of this dude in the future, thank God he's in charge, I just want to be a Redskin no matter what.  Or someone leaks to the press that we are greedy and people shouldn't believe our gripes about how our health issues were treated  -- its just about money, etc..... would we in turn just bear and grin it?  Or Dan can dress us down or force a player down our throat -- and we'd just shrug it off and be the model of good behavior and tell the press it was our idea all along?

 

That's what I mean about the culture.  Our coaches and players shouldn't be tested to see how they react to crap.  Yeah sometimes they overreact and do stupid things to respond or take a stand.   But that's function of the culture.  That's on Dan not them.  Good people can act differently in a fear driven, ego-driven scapegoating type of culture.  Most people's instinct is to survive and to do so that doesn't always bring out the inner boy scout.  To that point, in retrospect, I gave more grief than I should have to Shanny for basically fighting fire with fire.  But thinking about it now, Shanny was fine to deal with the dysfunction as he saw fit.  The thing about coming to the Redskins shouldn't be about whether you can overcome the place.  It should be about ownership that facilitates winning.   

 

Hopefully Rivera is the ticket that might change that.  Will see. 😀   The trait that intrigues me the most about Rivera is he seems like a natural leader who is results driven.  And he strikes me the type that if Dan unravels, he will try to get him back on course.  Reading about Gibbs when he was here (Cerrato talked about it, too), he was a natural at making Dan feel like part of the fraternity so to speak while letting Gibbs do his own thing as for making football decisions.  I think Rivera might have similar people skills.   And Rivera has Kyle Smith to pick the groceries.  Gibbs had Cerrato.  

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rivera is wired in way of understanding hierarchy as was Joe Gibbs and most other successful coaches— that it’s a must to keep the owner involved, especially major decisions. He seems highly skilled in this area. 
 

Complete guess, but I imagine most coaches understand the major moves that involve big time finances, a popular player, or QB will require having an owner involved— leaving most of everything else to the coach and FO. 

Edited by wit33
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

Everyone will be fulfilling their roles for the benefit of each other without the fear of unwarranted interference.

 

tso nailed it here.

 

This underlies so much of the dysfunction, this was why every DC was looking over his shoulder and playing not to lose instead of attacking for a win, this is that look in Jay Gruden's eyes, that sheer undeniable knowledge that a shoe can fall at any time whether you did something or not.

 

I see Rivera very differently, he's a disciplined secure guy personally, and brings that attitude to his coaching. He treats players with respect and expects it in return, he's not running around with his pants down playing "Whose is bigger?" I have yet to see his ego tripping him up, but at the same time he doesn't suffer fools gladly that do want to play little ego games.

 

Results-period! And he understands that his results depend on others getting theirs, that personal wants and goals have to be subsumed by the higher aspirations of the team. The team is everyone from TheDan down to ticket takers, and he is building an organization around him of people that see it the same way.

 

So when one person decides to go against the flow (cough*snyder*cough) it isn't a personality conflict, it is a discordant element in the larger structure, and disrupts the ability of the organization to function.

 

I'm hoping Ron, along with whatever advice or influence that Gibbs might offer, can help TheDan learn how to be a better owner. 

 

And none of this is predicated on TheDan having seen the light or having some epiphany, it is completely a matter of trusting the guy Rivera always has been.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ But he didn’t, did he?
 

Had he done so, it would either be EVP of Player Personnel or GM and Kyle would have final say over the roster. That’s how it works. I don’t know what’s hard about this. This is how it is virtually everywhere in the NFL. 
 

Kyle Smith is neither of those and doesn’t have final say, so he’s not. 
 

Again, it’s common knowledge that player personnel department execs have their contracts run through the draft, so it can limit your pool of candidates. Hopefully either Kyle gets elevated or we bring in someone qualified and give them that title. 
 

If not, that’s disappointing. And it’s ok to be concerned about it. Doesn’t mean it won’t work, just that we’d be operating within a structure that has failed at a higher rate than the other one/s and for good reason. 
 

One more thing, like I’ve already said, is that teams won’t allow you to interview anyone they have under contract beneath their GM unless you’re not only going to give them the GM title, but include final say over the roster. 
 

Which is another thing pointing to that being pretty damn important and not something to downplay. 
 

My hope is that is one of the reasons Ron didn’t give Kyle that title/power immediately, so as to be an auditioning for him while keeping the pool of candidates wide open after the draft. And that’s not a crazy, wild hope, though I do agree it might be unlikely. 

Edited by thesubmittedone
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

^^ But he didn’t, did he?


In terms of job title. No. 
 

In terms of most senior personnel executive responsible for pro and college scouting and the roster. Yes. Its just that he reports to Ron and therefore Ron has final say. How he uses that final say, or indeed if, remains to be seen.


Any structure can be changed, and the people within it as well. But as things stand - it is what it is.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MartinC said:


In terms of job title. No. 
 

In terms of most senior personnel executive responsible for pro and college scouting and the roster. Yes. Its just that he reports to Ron and therefore Ron has final say. How he uses that final say, or indeed if, remains to be seen.


Any structure can be changed, and the people within it as well. But as things stand - it is what it is.

 


Yes, so he’s not a GM, neither in title nor in power. This is exactly what I’ve been saying! :ols: 
 

The problem with saying something like, “in terms of most senior personnel executive, yes...”, is that everyone around the league has one or more of these type of executives even with a GM or EVP. There are Assistant GMs, Assistant Directors of Player Personnel, VPs of Player Personnel (which is Kyle’s title and the Niners, for instance, even have two of these!!), etc... 

 

It’s not just about final say or reporting to Ron. It means that Ron even delegates to him exactly what he does at any given time regarding his job. For instance, he likely can’t even hire/fire anyone beneath him on his own, unless Ron gives the okay or simply tells him to. 

 

So, again, he’s not a GM unless we shift the entire meaning of the title as understood by every other team and I’m just not going to do that. And the media can get these things wrong as they often do. JP simply shouldn’t say things like this. It’s not the reality. If anything, Ron is the GM right now, not Kyle. 
 

Ron didn’t give Kyle that specific title for no reason as opposed to GM or even EVP of Player Personnel. He didn’t just pull it out of his butt and it’s all the same thing so, “meh, whatever”. If we fail at resource management/roster construction, it’s on Ron within this set up, not Kyle.

 

There’s a reason the Chiefs were able to move on from Dorsey and it wasn’t a reflection on Andy Reid (or at least not totally). With what we have now and if it remains the case, Ron shouldn’t be able to move on from Kyle without it meaning he’s failed himself, if not more so. You do want everyone to be “tied to the hip” and loyal to each other, while simultaneously having enough separation of responsibility to recognize if there’s an issue and where it is exactly. It’s hard, but that’s why certain structures work best. 

 

Look, I’m not sure why I’m getting the push back on this I’m getting (well, I know one big reason, we’re on a Redskins board, lol), not necessarily from you and this isn’t directed at you... but it’s ok to admit our structure as to what it is and it’s ok to recognize the issues with it. It’s ok to look around the rest of the league and see how it compares to the majority of sustainably successful franchises. That’s all I’m doing here, nothing more. 
 

I hope Kyle either gets elevated to that position and/or we hire someone qualified to do it. It is important, and will be better for Ron himself, as he originally stated and as borne out everywhere around the league with very few exceptions. If not, oh well... we can all hope for the best but it doesn’t change the reality of it being the type of set up that fails at a higher rate than others. 
 

I’m not opposed to @Skinsinparadise’s thinking that, unfortunately, this might be the only way for a coach to survive with Dan. But SIP isn’t dressing this up as some ideal structure, he isn’t misrepresenting other organizational set ups to make it seems so, nor is he downplaying these titles/roles and what they mean around the league. That’s what is bothering me here.
 

We don’t need to do that to have hope. We can point to a lot of other things done so far that have been very good and arguably better than anything we’ve had, including promoting Kyle to VP of Player Personnel. It’s just that it’d be the ideal if that final step was taken and we have a GM equal in rank. Nothing wrong with acknowledging that. 
 

I think I’ve said all I can about this, lol. I apologize for anything that might come off too harsh, but I’m passionate about it because I’ve done a ton of research on this for years now. I feel like I understand organizational structures around the league at a really high level. I used to ignore it or downplay it like most fans, and even media members, do. But after 2013 I changed on that front. So I’m not going to back down on this. :ols: 😛 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sub in a perfect world I agree with you - my ideal structure would have been GM with final say who then hires the HC.

 

But I don’t think that’s the only structure that can be successful (and I know you are not saying it is). I guess what I’m saying is that beat writers and people around the team seem to be pretty clear that a GM with final say is not in our immediate future and and it’s pretty clear this is Rons show. In terms of accountability there is one guy to point out if things go wrong - it’s Ron. Which does not stop him delegating authority to people like Smith - just not accountability.

 

Ultimately it will come down to the people in the structure - and the players they retain and bring in.

 

I’m in show me mode re my optimism for this franchise - results are what will matter. But I’m more optimistic for the medium term future of this team than I was this time last year.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, MartinC said:

Sub in a perfect world I agree with you - my ideal structure would have been GM with final say who then hires the HC.


Honestly? For me, I don’t mind who gets hired first, I just care about the structure more than anything. I think that’s been another problem with this discussion recently (not on your end)... it’s more that people made that a thing (who hires whom first), when in reality the structure is what’s most important and they aren’t the same thing. 
 

So you can hire a HC first who hires a GM, but that doesn’t mean he ends up with final say over the roster or is above said GM in rank. That’s what the Chiefs, Bills and Niners did (hired HC first, involved in hiring GM, but end up with both equal in rank and clear separation of duties). 
 

52 minutes ago, MartinC said:

But I don’t think that’s the only structure that can be successful (and I know you are not saying it is). I guess what I’m saying is that beat writers and people around the team seem to be pretty clear that a GM with final say is not in our immediate future and and it’s pretty clear this is Rons show. In terms of accountability there is one guy to point out if things go wrong - it’s Ron. Which does not stop him delegating authority to people like Smith - just not accountability.


Agreed here. I’ll just say our beat writers aren’t necessarily shining examples of truth at all times, lol. To be fair, there’s no such thing, I know. But, heck, they’re not as accurate as the national writers are regarding this team, which has been a weird situation. 
 

But the bigger thing about it, and this might come off as arrogant but I promise it’s not, is that media members are incredibly ignorant about this stuff in general. Not all of them, but most. It’s really weird. This has been one of my biggest pet peeves for years. Their focus is so much on coaches and players they almost never see the bigger organizational picture. It’s why I believe fans end up over-emphasizing what coaches can do at the pro level, as it just filters down from TV/Radio/Hot take articles. 
 

Now, that has changed for the better recently, but it’s still not anywhere near where it needs to be. 
 

So, this is all to say that I just don’t take much from what they say. JP’s tweet here is just another proof of that to me. He’s wrong on every level. 
 

As for the accountability part, yeah, that’s really my issue with it and partly why it often fails around the league (along with it being just too much on one guy’s plate among other issues). I just don’t want to have any more remnants of the vague, “who is responsible for what” nonsense this organization has been structured with for the majority of Dan’s tenure. I’m just so over it. I don’t care how slight they are... I just don’t like it, lol. 
 

52 minutes ago, MartinC said:

Ultimately it will come down to the people in the structure - and the players they retain and bring in.

 

I’m in show me mode re my optimism for this franchise - results are what will matter. But I’m more optimistic for the medium term future of this team than I was this time last year.


Same here, brother. 
 

My optimism is more about the sum of all the moves thus far. A true organizational reset. That is friggin awesome. Moving on from entrenched members like Hess and Schaffer, changing the entire Athletic Training Staff and adding a “director of player performance” in Brett Nenaber (I know you know how much that particularly meant to me ;) ), adding to the medical staff with a very qualified doctor in Kevin Wilk, promoting Kyle to a more fitting title, giving Doug a more fitting title/role as well, hiring Del Rio, and of course no longer having Bruce Allen as the top exec... 

 

I’m more pleased about it all than I’ve been in a long, long time. Ron has been better set up in an environment conducive to his success than any other coach before him under Dan. From all angles. And that’s great. 
 

My point to @Jumbo, and now to you, is that I won’t have any reason to be skeptical (outside of Dan ruining things, of course) and I’ll be at the point of unbridled optimism even without seeing any results on the field if Kyle gets elevated to GM or someone qualified gets it and has final say over the roster. For me, that’s enough, because that means they set it up as ideally as they could. I don’t even care if they lose in the end, I’m going to be positive about their attempt at it. Sometimes it just doesn’t work out, but at least they tried in the right way. 
 

That’s all I can ask for as a fan. Results sometimes don’t match sound processes, but as long as you keep trying it eventually does. 
 

As it is, I’m pretty much where you’re at and need to see the results, and my skepticism is mainly tied to the fact that they’ve set it up like this. That’s really all I was saying. :) 

Edited by thesubmittedone
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Riverboat Ron the next sentimental choice for a head coach to win the Super Bowl? I can't think of anyone who's been in the league longer as a head coach that hasn't won one and who is pretty much universally liked/respected. Here's hoping it happens here with Dwayne, Chase and the boys.....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kingdaddy said:

Is Riverboat Ron the next sentimental choice for a head coach to win the Super Bowl? I can't think of anyone who's been in the league longer as a head coach that hasn't won one and who is pretty much universally liked/respected. Here's hoping it happens here with Dwayne, Chase and the boys.....

Jason Garrett....lolol

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2020 at 1:20 PM, thesubmittedone said:


Just want to pull my hair out when I read stuff like this, lol. 
 

And posts like yours want to make me pull my hair out. :P I thought long and hard about whether to even respond to it.  And honestly, I wasn't going to, but then I thought I would because I think you misinterpreted a few things, so clearly I wasn't being very clear.  So I thought I would clear it up. Also, you have tremendous passion for this subject, and I really appreciate that.  We don't and won't always agree, but, eh, what's the fun in that anyway? This post took about a week to write, and is the longest I've ever written, I think.  

 

As an aside, do you remember WAY back in the day, I think it was you, though I might be mistaking you with another poster, when you and I both attended a day of training camp on the same day, before we went, we each picked a side and posted about it? We never met while we were there, but we both posted about it when we got back. If it was you, you wrote up a post on the defense, and I did the offense?  Camp was in Ashburn.  It was either a Gibbs year or a Zorn year.  I honestly don't remember. It was a really long time ago. 

 

Anyway, the reason I bring it up is I see such a change in the fan base from then to now.  Back then, we were at least somewhat optimistic.  Dan had only owned the team for 7 or 8 years, Gibbs was back, and while we thought Vinny was coocoo, the debates were mostly fun and interesting. We had whatshisname with his MASSIVE man-crush on Ladell Betts, and a few other fun things here and there.  Personally I believe the beginning of the end of that was the Cult of Colt.  Which, in hindsight was such a completely ridiculous thing to get caught up in, Jason Campell vs. Colt Brennan was not Steve Young vs. Joe Montana.  But it was the first of extremely divisive things for the fan base.  The next big one was 2013/2014 with Griffin and Kirk.  

 

Regardless, the legacy of Bruce Allen, and to large extent Dan Snyder, is because of not only the losing, but the unsavory nature of the way the organization has been run, we've all been pulled down this rabbit hole of wanting to find SOMETHING, ANYTHING which will prevent the team from self destructing.  You cling to structure, I cling more to process.  In a lot of ways, they are related.  (more on that later.) 

 

But these are not the types of debates you have if the organization has either had success, or at least behaved professionally.  These debates are the result of YEARS of mis-management, and just pure crappy behavior.  

 

Anyway, 

 

 

Quote

You claim you understand sound organizational principles, chain of command, etc... because of your military background, but when you say stuff like this it just belies that. 

Just for clarity, I have never served in the military, nor said I did.  However I did consult with the military, and ran large scale projects for them.  

 

I've been an executive at consulting firms for the better part of 2 decades, and one of the things we are known for is organization change management and organizational setup.  Regardless of what you might think, I'm considered an expert in the field.  I have run large and built large organizations successfully, and managed technical implementations for both government and commercial organizations.  

 

I don't bring this up to sound arrogant, self righteous or as a know-it-all.  I am not, and I don't claim to know it all. But I have seen what makes good organizations good, and what makes bad organizations bad, and I've advised many bad organizations on how to become good.  And without tooting my horn too much, I'm pretty damn good at it.  

 

Quote

Collaboration is not the antithesis to final say for God’s sake!!!!! It doesn’t make it less important!!  

You're right, and I never said otherwise.  What I said was that if you are collaborating, and everybody is marching to the same beat, you tend not to have to have one person stand up and say, "I have the final decision and this is what it is."  You work through a process, which includes checks and balances, and come to a decision.  

 

Bruce had final say.  Well, Dan will always have final say, but Bruce basically worked independently of everybody.  He cooked up the Alex Smith trade on his own, and he allowed the owner to overrule the draft board and pick Haskins.  

 

I also am willing to bet there were people in the organization who wanted to keep some of the players they drafted or signed, like DJax, Garcon, Bree, Preston Smith, even Ryan Grant, and Bruce didn't care to do so.

 

What I was contrasting by saying "final say becomes less important" is if everybody is working together, which has not been the case in the past, and people know their roles, then you aren't going to get to the situation where one person essentially overrules the group because he has final say. 

 

And my assumption is everybody does have very clearly defined roles. I'll get into what I think those are below.  

 

My point is not to say that it's going to be a free-for-all.  I think there's going to be a lot of structure, and within that structure, they will collaborate, and come up with a decision.  UNLIKE what was in place with Bruce.  Where the ****er even kept Doug Williams, the Sr. VP of Player Personnel, in the dark about the biggest move of the 2018 off-season, the trade for Alex Smith.  

 

That's the type of thing I'm referring to.  Roles will be defined, people will have to do their particular jobs, and then they will look at all the work the staffs, both coaching and scouting, come up with, determine the players who best fit the scheme, and then go after those players in FA or set the draft board accordingly.

 

I absolutely think that Ron is going to have defacto final say over all personnel moves.  However, that doesn't bother me IF they follow a process where he's the final decision maker after the decision has been made through the process. If that makes any sense.  

 

Quote

When you actually give people the authority to do their jobs relative to their expertise, it actually AIDS IN THAT COLLABORATION. Everyone will be fulfilling their roles for the benefit of each other without the fear of unwarranted interference.

I've posted this 1000 times, and it is in complete agreement with you: You need to have 3 things: Responsibility, Authority, and then Accountability.  In the best organizations, you actually design the roles FIRST before you fill them.  Then you figure out if you have the right people to fill the roles, or if you have to go outside the organization to fill the roles.  No 2 organizations are the same, and the exact same setup doesn't work in multiple places.  Just because a structure works in one place, or in many places, DOES NOT mean that same structure will work everywhere.  You have to conform the structure to the organization, and make sure it works for the leaders of that organization.  I've seen may organizations fail BECAUSE they tried to adopt "best practices," shove people they have into roles they are not fits for, and the whole thing falls over on it's face.

 

So, in the Redskins organization, based on what I can tell, they have the following structure:

 

Ron Rivera - HC and essentially the CEO of the organization. He's the defacto GM.  In the end, everything falls on his shoulders.  Is that good or bad?  Well, if they win, it's good, if they lose it's bad.  Can he handle it?  Don't know.  It will, in my opinion, ENTIRELY depend on if there is a process in place where he is not actually making all of the decisions.  Look, every company has a CEO who is ultimately responsible for everything.  But that CEO doesn't make all of the decisions.  The CEO of IBM can't possibly make all the decisions.  They come up with a leadership team, delegate authority, and each person runs their group.  Does the CEO get involved in the big decisions?  Sure.  But do they have to get involved in every aspect of everything?  Not if they are good.  They delegate and trust their team, even if they still technically have final say over everything.  If Ron, with the current setup, adopts that type of role, with a solid process behind it, this can work.  If he tries to put his hands in every pot, it won't.  It's that simple.    

 

Kyle Smith - VP of Player Personnel.  Works for Ron (the Richmond Time Dispatch guy said that on a Redskins Talk Pod, I'm not sure if it's been officially reported who works for who), however has the responsibility of running the scouting department, has final say on the draft board and FA rankings. Will collect information from the scouting department, coaching staff, making the recommendation of who to keep/who to cut, what the roster gaps are, and how to fill them.  I'm assuming he's the guy on the phone making trades.  And I am also assuming that Ron is going to essentially trust Kyle to run the draft the way he sees fit.  

 

Alex Santos - Director of Pro Personnel.  Works for Kyle Smith.  Responsible for initial FA grades, film work, etc.  Also probably responsible for self-scouting existing players to identify gaps, make recommendations to Kyle of who should be re-signed, who should be released, best value for FA targets.  

 

Tim Gribble - Director of college scouting.  Works for Kyle.  I assume that with his promotion, he collects all of the information from the college scouts, assembles "the book" on all of the targets, and starts to set the board, which will be finalized with input from Kyle.  There's no way Kyle can go through every college player, so that's Tim's job.  This is actually a HUGELY important job, because my guess is if a player doesn't 'make the grade" with Gribble, he might not even make it to a larger discussion with Kyle.

 

Rob Rodgers - Sr. VP of Football Administration. I believe he works for Ron.  Though that hasn't been explicitly stated, I don't believe. He actually has a higher title than Kyle, so unless he's working directly for Dan, he's working for Ron.   Basically the guy who does the contracts. in the press release it says about his role in Carolina, "In this role, he worked closely with the Panthers general manager on the development of player budget parameters, roster management, contract proposals, negotiation strategies and salary cap management." So I'm assuming it will be the same here.  I'm assuming he's working extremely closely with Kyle on budgets and contract negotiations, with some input/approval from Ron.  Though I'm also pretty sure Ron wants nothing to do with setting the terms of contracts. 

 

Coaching Staff - I'm just going to lump them all together.  They essentially all have the same responsibility from a roster perspective: They have to evaluate the players on the team for scheme fit, feed their scores/recommendations to the coordinators and HC, and is an input into the evaluation of the roster which Kyle maintains.  I also assume they will work with the scouts, Alex Santos and Tim Gribble to give their opinions of FAs and draft picks as far as scheme fit is concerned.  Ultimately, the decision is not theirs, most likely it's Kyle Smith's in 99% of the cases, but it would be malpractice not to involve the coaches in the evaluation.  And I think under Bruce, the coaches were not fully brought into the process, however I think they will be now, based on what I've heard from Ron. 

 

Quote

The problem is not “final say”, it’s when you give unqualified people that power and they’re making decisions about things they’re not experts on over others who are. That’s a sure-fire way of ruining a collaborative atmosphere! 
 

You want to know a fast way to piss Kyle Smith off and make things more difficult to collaborate on? It’s if Ron ever overrules him on a matter he’s the expert regarding. Imagine Kyle Smith overruling Ron on a coaching hire or a play call? How would you think that’d work out!? 

I see a HC as an expert in personnel.  If they can't figure out who has talent, and how to maximize that talent, then they honestly shouldn't be a HC.  Do I think they should run the draft? No.  Negotiate contracts? Absolutely not.  Determine value of a draft pick vs. a player?  Probably not.  But ability to recognize talent and how that talent fits in on the team?  Yes, absolutely.  

 

Here's what I think, practically, is going to happen.  Kyle Smith is going to run the entire personnel side.  I don't think Ron has any interest making every decision, looking at film on every single possible 6th round DB pick, etc.  I don't think Ron is going to want to get involved in player salaries or contract negotiations.  

 

However, after all the work is done, I think Kyle and Ron are going to sit down with the current roster, and they will go through all of the work done by the coaches, scouts, directors, etc. and come up with a determination on which players they want to keep and build around, which ones they can release to gain cap room.  They will agree on the FA targets, probably also with some range of salary, and then through the draft board. 

 

They will absolutely come to an agreement on what the "strategy" is both in FA and the draft.  Ie: what are we spending big on, what positions can we push off until later, etc.  They will be in lock-step on the draft strategy.  What to do with the #2 pick is probably the biggest question which faces this organization this year.  There is NO WAY that Kyle would overrule Ron on what he wants to do.  That said, Ron would be crazy not to listen to all of the analysis, "arguments" for keeping/trading down, and then they need to come to a decision.  Even if we had a GM with final roster authority, I would EXPECT the HC and GM, and hell, in this case, even the owner, to be in agreement on a decision like that, because if the GM went against the wishes of the HC, that's just a recipe for disaster.  

 

This is what I mean by "final say" doesn't matter as much if you have the correct roles/responsibilities defined, and everybody is working together to get to a final decision.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the biggest question would be what would happen if Kyle REALLY thought the value at #2 was to trade down and accumulate picks, and Ron/Jack REALLY thought Chase Young was the next Reggie White or now Nick Bosa.  That's when "final say" comes into play.  Somebody has to make the call.  Right now that person is Ron. And I'm fine with that.  I'd also be fine with it being Kyle.  I see both of them as experts at making that call.  The person who I DON'T want making that call is Dan. Because he's not an expert.  

 

What I'm not fine with is Ron stepping in and trying to dictate the entire board, or overruling all of the work which has been done on evaluations, etc.  

 

Quote

It sounds nice, but the reality is you create a collaborative environment by empowering people to fulfill their roles relative to their expertise. 

You keep referring to structure.  I think structure is important.  Process is more important. A very accepted theory of organizational design actually starts with the process, and then come up with who is responsible for which part of the process, who is accountable for which decision, who is consulted (inputs into the decision), and who is informed. 

 

And to have a good process, you need to have roles/responsibilities defined.  This is often done with a RACI  (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed) matrix.  If you have a good RACI matrix, and people follow it, your structure falls out of it.   

 

Do I think the 'Skins have an official RACI matrix?  Probably not.  But do I think they're kindof following one?  Yeah, it seems as though they are. If I were them, I'd probably write it down.  And I'd be thrilled if they hired me to write it down for them. :P 

 

Quote

When you say they’re “working in concert with each other”, what are you referring to? Do you think that means they’ll agree on everything? If so, that’s a terrible set up. Kyle would just be a puppet, nothing more. You need people who will differ and see things with a better understanding than you because of your position/expertise relative to theirs. And you need them to be able to “win” on that, for everyone’s sake. 

No, that's not what I mean at all.  In fact, I think it's really important to have multiple differing views in every organization, otherwise you get group-think, and the first idea ends up being the best idea, and that's a complete catastrophe. The entire group can walk off the cliff together without anybody stopping to say, "guys, maybe we should make a left turn back at the sign that said, "end of road."  

 

What I mean by "in concert" is working towards the same goal.  Which is putting the best team on the field that they can.  Each person doing their job to the best of their ability, bouncing ideas off of each other, listening to counter-points, but all of the discussion being open, honest, and productive.

 

Again, I am contrasting this to the Bruce world where the FO did one thing, the coaches did another, and Bruce did whatever he wanted.  It was completely disjointed.  Even Jay said "we have to be on the same page more with the FO."  And I'm using that, and other comments made by Jay, Doug, and even Bruce to illustrate previously the organization was NOT working "in concert." They were not all working together towards one goal. There were fiefdoms, power struggles, etc.  And the results showed it clear as day.  

 

Quote

If Ron is going to do that with Kyle Smith, the best way is to give him final say over the roster. That’s how it is with the Chiefs. That’s how it is with the vast majority of sustainably successful franchises in the NFL. 

There is NO WAY the chiefs do ANYTHING from a roster perspective without Andy Reid's approval.  He might or might not have that contractually, but he's the top dog in the organization behind Hunt. And I'm not even sure Hunt would overrule him. There was a great story about how the Chiefs decided to select Maholmes which came out this week.  Veach, who was not yet the GM, was watching film and Andy Reid walked down to the personnel department, which he does often, and asked what Veach was doing.  He said "I'm watching tape of our next QB."  This was the year BEFORE Maholmes was eligible for the draft. And Alex Smith was still entrenched as the starter.  From that point on, Veach basically embarked on a campaign to convince Reid Moholmes was the pick.  He sent Reid texts of plays during the season and off-season, and then advocated for it strongly.  But it wasn't until Reid said "Ok" did they pull the trigger. It was a really cool story.  Do you think Veach, or for hat matter Hunt, would trade up to draft a QB with Alex Smith entrenched as the starter without Reid's complete and total acceptance?  Absolutely not.   

 

So, who has final say?  Technically it's Veach.  But it's not really.  It's really Reid. Because there isn't a single personnel move that Reid doesn't sign off on. Veach wouldn't cut a player Reid wanted, draft a player Reid didn't like, or force a decision on Reid.  That makes Reid the defacto final decision maker.  Regardless of structure.  This is the same with the Seahawks and the same with the 49ers. COULD Veach overrule Reid and do something on his own? Maybe.  Would Hunt possibly step in?  Very possibly.  But I doubt it happens often.  I am willing to bet when they have a disagreement, they discuss it until one of them convinces the other they are right.  And THAT is how productive organizations operate and make good decisions.  

 

And the reason things work so well in those organizations has much less to do about structure, who has final say over what, and much more to do with the people in the room, everybody working together, discussing their disagreements, and coming up with the best decisions they can collectively.

 

I think a symptom of the 20 years of failure, ineptitude, and the Vinny/Bruce debacles is that the fans CRAVE contractual evidence that it won't happen again.  They want structure to enforce Dan won't meddle, and football people are making the decisions.   

 

However, what is lost in that is Structure only takes you so far.  No structure will prevent Dan from meddling.  And no structure is going to fix a bad coach, or a bad GM.  It's really about getting the right people, and then making sure they are working together collaboratively, and all are bought in on one goal: building a championship team.  Structure, process, roles and responsibilities are important, but none of it matters if you have crap people.  And we've had either bad or at best "meh" folks running the organization with a very few oasises of hope: Vinny, Bruce, Spurrier, Zorn and Jay were all somewhere between Bad and "meh" at their jobs. Gibbs was good at his job, but his personnel guys were idiots. Marty was good at his job and his personnel guys were good.  But the owner wasn't having fun, so bye bye.  And Shanahan probably deserves to be on the bad to meh list.  But it's tough because he was SO undercut by Dan/Bruce in 2013 it's tough to tell.  Though 2010 and 2011 weren't good.   

 

Quote

It’s crazy the amount of push back I’m getting on this. I mean, I get it. The Redskins are doing this now

and we want it to succeed so we’re going to look for reasons it will and downplay reasons it won’t. But what I’m saying isn’t hard or some crazy notion I’m concocting. 

You're getting push back for 1 reason: you have basically stated there is one way to be successful, that is a GM in control of the roster, at least the 90 person off-season roster, and if you don't give that control to a GM, then essentially you're being stupid, and there is a very large likelihood everything will fall apart.

 

My push-back is there are multiple ways of doing things, and that particular way, which has been successful in other places, might not really be successful here.  And having Ron at the top of the organization, with Kyle in charge of the personnel department, but not "officially" having final roster say, is just fine as long as Ron listens to his scouting department, coaches, and they all work together.  

 

Also, I'm not really in favor of ANYBODY in the FO working directly for Snyder.  We've had 20 years of Vinny then Bruce working directly for Dan, and that gives him a direct path to meddle.  I prefer, in this organization, with Dan in place, to have 1 person, Ron, work for Dan, and then it becomes Ron's job to manage Dan and keep him in check.  That means everybody else works for Ron, and that means, by definition, Ron makes the final decision because he's at the top of the org chart.

 

And I currently don't have a problem with that.  A lot of other people don't either.  We want to see how it plays out.  

 

Quote

So, yes, it will be disappointing and is concerning if it remains as is. And it’s the opposite of what Ron said himself before, so that sucks too because it means he wavered too easily on it.  

I don't find it all that disappointing, assuming they have defined roles/responsibilities, and they follow a good process.  I think everything I've heard from Ron indicates he's not going to be a dictator, nor does he really want to make all the decisions on his own.  If he's at the top of the organization, he's technically the final decision maker.  But does it really matter if the process has led to a decision which Kyle, Alex Santos, Tim Gribble, and the coaching staff are all on board with?  I'd argue that if the process is followed correctly, then it doesn't matter as much.  If the process isn't followed, it matters a whole lot.  

 

Quote

That’s ok, I’ll get over it. But I’m perfectly in the right to be skeptical this is going to work out and these attempts at justifying it based on the rest of the NFL are extremely weak to me. Not to mention misrepresented as is the case with the Chiefs (and even if they were, they’d still be in the minority).

You have every right be to skeptical. Hell, I'm skeptical of everything this organization does because they've proven over 20 years they can't pull up their zipper without getting their wank stuck in it.  With Dan Snyder as owner, until they actually prove anything on the field, I will remain skeptical.  

 

However, I'm also cautiously optimistic. The people in charge are SO much better now than they have been, top to bottom.  A lot of the rot (as you mentioned) is gone.  Ron Rivera is universally liked AND respected by everybody.  And he doesn't seem like the "go along to get along" type.  He was on the Redskins Talk Podcast, and reiterated, either you're on board with the program, or you're out of the program.  Period.  That's very refreshing.  That was not the case.  He even went into WHY they removed the stupid ping pong table.  

 

He had a saying which I loved.  And I am going to plagiarize.  "Be where your feet are."  Which means if you're at work, then you are at work only to try and get better and win football games.  If you're at home, you are at home for family time/or whatever you do at home.  Be where your feet are.  I love that.  And that's why the ping pong table went.  It didn't help the players get ready to play football.  Bye Bye. 

 

I'm going to give it a chance. There is at least a puncher's chance they have the right people in the room, they are working together, and they will make good, sound personnel decisions.  And it's a lot more fun to be somewhat optimistic.

 

Quote

The best justification we have for hope, even if the set up remains as is, is that we do have a better personnel department than ever before and we actually went through an entire organizational reset where the new coach won’t be hindered by factionalism, at least not from the onset. Removing Larry Hess and changing the Training Staff, placing Kyle Smith and Doug Williams in roles that better suit them, etc... was huge. 

All of these are really good.  I'd add a few things:

 

1. Ron Rivera and the coaching staff he's hired is the best collection of coaches since Gibbs II without a doubt, and MAYBE Gibbs I.  You could argue Shanahan, and the Shanahnan offensive coaching staff was legitimately awesome, but they had Haz and the defensive staff, which was "meh" at best.   Jay had Haz, Barry and Manusky at different times, so there's no way you can rate his staff as highly.  Spurrier and Zorn's staffs don't qualify as meeting a minimum intelligence factor.  Gibbs II was a pretty good staff.  Gibbs himself elevates anything he's part of. Gregg Williams is a hell of a DC.  I'm not sure on that one.  Time will tell.  Clearly the Norv staffs were "meh."  That gets us back to the Gibbs I Redskins, and the 1991 Redskins were the best coached team in football.  I'd argue the Redskins were the best coached, or one of the three best coached teams from 1982 - 1991 with the SF 49ers and Giants.  Gibbs/Pettibone and the rest of the staff,  Walsh/Seifert (and Holmgren, Shanahn, etc. at differentt imes), Parcells/Belichick.  That's the list. 

 

Ron, with Jack on defense, and an up-and-comer in Turner, just seems like whatever the roster is, they will be better prepared than the team has been at least since 2007, and MAYBE since 1992.  I dunno.  Could be wrong.  But I'm very hopeful. 

 

2. There are a lot of really good young players on the team.  Allen, Payne, McLaurin, Sims, Holcomb maybe, Ryan Anderson, Sweat, etc. etc.  No idea what we have in Haskins, but he had 6 good quarters, so we'll see.  This is the best nucleus of young players we've had in a generation.  

 

3. The upcoming draft, FA period and Kyle Smith's drafting record.  They have the #2 pick with a possible generational pass-rushing talent.  What's also lost is they have the 2nd pick in the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th rounds. If they move on from Trent, they could replace that 2nd round pick.  If not, they have a pro-bowl level LT.  That's helpful.  They are going to have plenty of cap room to play with, and they won't be saddled with Bruce's desire to pay bottom dollar for everything.  

 

4. Desperation.  I think Dan is desperate.  And desperate times call for desperate measure.  In his case, the desperation is going to be to just trust Ron to do the right thing and buy whatever he says to go buy.  I don't think you're going to see Dan inserting himself or meddling, I do think you're going to see him support Ron however he can.  And if Dan owns the team differently, that's the biggest benefit of all.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

"4. Desperation.  I think Dan is desperate.  And desperate times call for desperate measure.  In his case, the desperation is going to be to just trust Ron to do the right thing and buy whatever he says to go buy.  I don't think you're going to see Dan inserting himself or meddling, I do think you're going to see him support Ron however he can.  And if Dan owns the team differently, that's the biggest benefit of all.  "

 

Your first 3 points would be valid if it were not for point #4 which , in my opinion, is a total misread of  King Snyder. If he was desperate in a rational manner, as you seem to believe, maybe you would be right. Unfortunately, I believe Snyder thinks that he hasn't been listened to enough and now he really has to rake the reigns and end this nonsense. He has been patient for 20 years and enough is enough. Now there will be no excuses and Rivera will report to him after every game and explain the reasons for every loss. Mark my words.

Like
  •  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Smurf3 said:

Your first 3 points would be valid if it were not for point #4 which , in my opinion, is a total misread of  King Snyder. If he was desperate in a rational manner, as you seem to believe, maybe you would be right. Unfortunately, I believe Snyder thinks that he hasn't been listened to enough and now he really has to rake the reigns and end this nonsense. He has been patient for 20 years and enough is enough. Now there will be no excuses and Rivera will report to him after every game and explain the reasons for every loss. Mark my words.

Yeah, it's possible.  But a few points:

 

1. I would prefer to have Rivera talking to Dan after a loss than Bruce or Vinny.  Wouldn't you? 

2. So far, the evidence is that Ron is getting to pick the people he wants to work for him.  Schaffer, a Dan Snyder confidant, is out.  Hess is out.  Bruce is out.  We thought Dan really liked Kevin O'Connell.  He's gone.  Ron brought in Del Rio, Scott Turner, the cap/contracts guy from Carolina.  None of these are Dan moves.  The one place where Ron kept a Redskin was Kyle Smith.  And he basically said it's because he likes the young talent on the team.  And Kyle doesn't yet have a GM title.  This leaves open 3 options:

  --  He never will, there won't be a GM. 

  -- They have the ability to hire one after the draft if they want to

  -- They have the ability to promote Kyle to GM if they want to.  

 

All of the options are open.

 

3. Times ARE different. The biggest mistake of Dan's ownership was firing Marty for Spurrier.  However, in 2002, the fans were still engaged.  Then Spurrier resigned, Dan pulled a rabbit out of the hat and brought Gibbs back.  The fans were engaged.  Gibbs retired, The fans were still engaged.  We had just been to the playoffs twice in 4 years.  Dan fired Zorn, hired Shanahan.  The fans were engaged.  Griffin's magical 2012 had fan interest probably at it's highest level during his ownership.  THEN the wheels came off the fan engagement.  Jay was a bad hire by Bruce.  The team started to muddle in mediocrity.  There was the whole Cousins contract debacle.  The Scot Mcloughan debacle.  Fans became less engaged. 

 

Fan interest now is at it's lowest point ever.  This mean Dan makes less money than ever.  Dan doesn't like that. Dan is a billionaire who wants to make more money. 

 

He HAS to listen to his customers.  Because he doesn't have many left.  

 

Is he going to be somewhat involved?  Yes.  Because he owns the team.  Is he going to want to talk to Ron after games?  I'm sure.  I would too if I owned a team. Win or lose, I'd want to have a chat with the coach.  

 

He has removed the "trusted FO henchman" from the organization.  That person doesn't exist anymore.  Everybody in the organization is there because RON wanted them there.  The loyalty is no longer to Dan.  It's to Ron.  And THAT is different.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that Kyle Smith will be the guy in charge of assembling the roster but I'm not sure he'll have an official GM title. Rivera might bring in a guy that is good with contracts and dealing with agents, etc. so Smith can just focus on doing what he does best until he figures that other stuff out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.