zskins

Welcome To The Redskins: Ron Rivera, Head Coach

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

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.

Isn’t that Rob Rodgers?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Voice_of_Reason This was my reaction pretty much the entire time reading through that: 

 

giphy.gif?cid=4d1e4f293e99a2e5849854e26e

 

:ols: 
 

I’ll be responding to it eventually here, but it’s a lot to go through, and I feel like I’ll just be repeating myself a ton if I’m going through it quote by quote. So when I have time I’m going to try my best to keep it as short as possible (since I’m so good at that 😛). I think it should be fairly easy to do because there are only a few overarching issues that encompass your entire post to hit on. 
 

But I think if anyone would just read through what I’ve said on this topic, even if it’s just the recent stuff here in this thread, they’d see that all you’re doing is repeating the points I’ve already made and have for years but, for some odd reason, attempting to make them your own while being a contrarian unnecessarily. It’s frustrating to say the least, and that’s without getting into the inherent contradictions within it.
 

I’ll explain that in detail soon, though.

 

Btw, the poster you’re referring to regarding that training camp story wasn’t me. No idea who you’re talking about there, lol. 

Edited by thesubmittedone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Andre The Giant said:

 

 

 Well, its all over the news now.

Diversity vs qualifications discussions will be free-flowing. 

I have absolutely nothing against a woman in sports, but this is a little bit head scratching. Is it an attempt to dampen some future issue that will come up, or is it an olive branch to America?

 

Oh well, this organization has been a lightning rod for controversy and media headlines, whats one more rod?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, skins island connection said:

I have absolutely nothing against a woman in sports, but this is a little bit head scratching. Is it an attempt to dampen some future issue that will come up, or is it an olive branch to America?

 

 

Or it could be that familiar Carolina Connection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skins island connection said:

 

 Well, its all over the news now.

Diversity vs qualifications discussions will be free-flowing. 

I have absolutely nothing against a woman in sports, but this is a little bit head scratching. Is it an attempt to dampen some future issue that will come up, or is it an olive branch to America?

 

Oh well, this organization has been a lightning rod for controversy and media headlines, whats one more rod?

 

Why is it a head scratcher? How do you know she is not as or more qualified than other candidates? Also, couldn't it be about fit? 

 

He obviously believes she has coaching value as she was on his staff in 2017 as an intern and then she got a job in the AAF league. It's not like he just randomly picked someone out of a prearranged must use list. And what future issue are you referring to? And to who exactly is this imaginary olive branch going to an why? What is the offense that is being atoned for?

 

Why can't it be as simple as she is a good coach and brings value to the staff? 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or it could be that she's as qualified as anybody else who starts out in an entry level position and works hard to master their craft on the way up the ladder to higher success and she's unfortunately going to have to overcome the fact that she's a woman.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, skins island connection said:

 

 Well, its all over the news now.

Diversity vs qualifications discussions will be free-flowing. 

I have absolutely nothing against a woman in sports, but this is a little bit head scratching. Is it an attempt to dampen some future issue that will come up, or is it an olive branch to America?

 

Oh well, this organization has been a lightning rod for controversy and media headlines, whats one more rod?

Well I guess this is a non-issue then because Jennifer IS qualified.

 

Nothing for you to scratch your head over.🤔

Edited by BRAVEONAWARPATH
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Voice_of_Reason


Apologies it’s taken this long to respond. I’ve had a really busy week with some family in town and I could only get on here for 10-20 minutes at a time, but I wanted to give your post the time it deserved. 

 

On 2/4/2020 at 12:49 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

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. 


 

On 2/4/2020 at 12:49 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

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.  



This is 100% true, but posters like myself and a few others have not only understood this on a deeper level than you, we’ve made sure that it was basically the overarching theme of all of our posting the last how many years. We never lost the plot, and I’d argue that you definitely did and contributed plenty to this “rabbit hole” you speak of. 
 

Which is only further exemplified by your statement here: 

 

On 2/4/2020 at 12:49 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

You cling to structure, I cling more to process.  In a lot of ways, they are related.  (more on that later.) 


This right here is just... ugh.
 

First off, if you think that you “cling more to process”, I’d just invite anyone to look at your posting history over the years to dispel that notion. I’d have zero issues with your posting if that were the case. It’s only recently, maybe after Jay got fired, have you honed in on this topic really. That’s it. 
 

Secondly, when I read this, I said to myself that there’s just no way someone who understands basic organizational principles would say something like this.

 

Because structure IS process and process IS structure! They’re not only related “in a lot of ways”, but structure is essentially the formalization of processes contractually and/or officially in some other manner. When I focus on sound structure, it isn’t at the expense of sound processes. They are one and the same
 

In fact, my last post before yours had this in it towards the end:

 

On 2/2/2020 at 4:16 PM, thesubmittedone said:

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. 


I didn’t even need to mention structure there, because that’s what is automatically implied! 
 

Anyone can look through my posting history. Vast majority of my posts will have something to this tune. There is no separation on this. Describing yourself as someone who just clings more to process whereas I cling more to structure is so incredibly off I don’t know what to say. 
 

Again, I figured you understood this so I was shocked to see that. Then I read this:

 

On 2/4/2020 at 12:49 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

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.  


So I’m like, okay, if this is the case there’s no way he doesn’t get the above. Why is he acting like my focus on structure is somehow different than processes? Makes zero sense! 
 

Then I read this:

 

On 2/4/2020 at 12:49 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

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 


This is where I pretty much lose it, lol. 
 

Do you see what I bolded? There, you’re essentially admitting that structure is the culmination or formalization of processes. That you need to have defined roles/responsibilities, which is where titles come into play. That’s essentially what it is. So when I refer to structure, it isn’t making processes less important whereas you, VOR, sees that as more important. 
 

That is 100% a misrepresentation of what I’m talking about. And it’s why I’m saying you’re being a contrarian unnecessarily. The only one here who needs clarification as to the other’s  views is you, I promise.
 

 So I have to wonder if you understand that the NFL isn’t filled with a bunch of idiots who have no idea about sound organizational principles and need VOR to teach them, because it comes off like that.
 

Do you actually think that the various structures around the NFL aren’t in existence because of their recognition of sound processes and how to formalize those sound processes in the best way? 
 

To me, yes, you clearly do, as evidenced by your entire post. You think the structure of the vast majority of sustainably successful franchises (where a GM/EVP has final say over the roster) was randomly arrived to and wasn’t directly a result of the identification of sound processes on their end! 
 

On 2/4/2020 at 12:49 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

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.  


The checks and balances includes who has final say over what. That’s been identified as a great way to define roles and responsibilities. That’s a great way to ensure the right people have the proper authority over the roles they’re qualified for. Like I’ve said a million times, final say isn’t about someone standing up and saying “I have final say” and forcing the issue... it’s about everyone in the room recognizing their role in the process and providing a clear structure for that process to culminate in a good decision. No one has to question where that decision lies or who is to blame in the end. 
 

So, yeah, you are saying otherwise every time you downplay that and attempt to dress it up. 
 

And you contradict yourself a lot on it. At times, you say “yeah, I prefer this too” when I talk about that structure, but now here you are totally changing that up and were anyone to read this post of yours alone, they’d assume you have absolutely no issue at all with the structure as is. 

You say things like:

 

On 2/4/2020 at 12:49 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

I don't find it all that disappointing, assuming they have defined roles/responsibilities, and they follow a good process.


“All that disappointing”... Which means, what? There is some level of disappointment you’ll have? Which is exactly what I’m saying!? 
 

But then you follow it up with another total misrepresentation of what structure is when you essentially define it there. Defined roles following a good process IS THE STRUCTURE
 

And guess what the vast majority of sustainably successful NFL organizations have decided is the best way to set that up? Yup, a GM or EVP of player personnel with final say over the roster (or at least the 90, draft and FA). 
 

Period. You don’t get to say “but other  ways work”, as if that aids your position... I already understand that. I never said otherwise. We are talking about what is usually the case, not the exceptions. What has succeeded at a higher rate than the other. That is the whole point of this discussion, and why the skepticism regarding this set up is warranted! 
 

Like I said, this is why I believe you’re essentially repeating exactly what I’m saying, and what I’ve been saying for years, while being unnecessarily contrarian. 

 

On 2/4/2020 at 12:49 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

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.  


 

This is maddening right here. You do not get to tell everyone what the Chiefs are doing and how they set it up. You do not get to downplay Veach’s position because it suits your narrative. 
 

I gave you sources that have it directly from the horse’s mouth that Veach has final say over the roster and reports directly to Hunt, not Reid. 
 

Whatever Veach decides to do with that is up to him. If it’s essentially giving Reid final say as you describe, then he’s still accountable for it. He can’t blame Reid if a personnel move doesn’t pan out. And your description of what they do is just off, especially when you just hone in on one story... for instance, Reid won’t be sitting there evaluating players during the season at a high enough level to even make those decisions. What likely happens is Veach brings him a number of prospects at say, RB, and says “...this is how we have them ranked, take a look at the top three and see if you think differently”, and then Reid either agrees or says he’d rather have the second or third guy instead of the top ranked guy. Veach then makes the decision to either listen to Reid or not to.
 

Reid has to have that trust in Veach there. Which Veach has said he absolutely does in various interviews. 

 

Again, you don’t get to just ignore the structure they themselves have said they have, based on sound processes with their roles defined and therefore able to be held accountable, and tell anyone otherwise just because it goes against the narrative you want to believe is true. 
 

The Mahomes story doesn’t change that at all. Not only is that a bad example to use because QB is always one of the only positions everyone is concerned about at the highest of levels, but you’re simply mistaking final say for a lack of collaboration. It’s exactly what I thought from the onset. You seem to be confused by what final say is all about, yet you

say things Iike “defined roles/responsibilities” and “the structure falls out of good processes” that are directly related to the authority, and thus the accountability,  final say gives someone. 
 

————————————-
 

I’m going to just end it here. I don’t need to go through your post quote by quote, I think I’ve hit the overarching issue with your post enough for anyone to understand the inherent contradiction within it and the problems that come about as a result of that. There is plenty I agree with and, in fact, have essentially written myself almost ad verbatim over the years (along with other posters), so it’s not that I really disagree with anything... it’s just knowing certain things about your posting history and how you decided to present this was frustrating to

say the least.
 

I just hope this clears it up for anyone who was left interested in it (I’m sure there’s a ton of people, lol). :) 

On 2/8/2020 at 10:23 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 


So I guess I’m not crazy for holding onto the hope this still happens! ;) 

 

For whatever reason, the national reporters have a better bead on these FO-related issues than our local guys, except for maybe Chris Russel. Doesn’t mean they get it right every time, either, but I’m going to take Rapoport seriously here. Hopefully either Kyle gets elevated or someone else qualified gets the job after the draft, and we have that structure (I don’t think I need to explain what that entails again, lol) we all should be ecstatic about! :) 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, skins island connection said:

 

 Well, its all over the news now.

Diversity vs qualifications discussions will be free-flowing. 

I have absolutely nothing against a woman in sports, but this is a little bit head scratching. Is it an attempt to dampen some future issue that will come up, or is it an olive branch to America?

 

Oh well, this organization has been a lightning rod for controversy and media headlines, whats one more rod?

 

49ner have a female coach since 2017 as well and the Bucs have two of them (added this past season).

 

The Redskins will have the first African American female coach though. 

 

So, why can't we have one without a head scratcher and a controversy?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

Why is it a head scratcher? How do you know she is not as or more qualified than other candidates? Also, couldn't it be about fit? 

 

He obviously believes she has coaching value as she was on his staff in 2017 as an intern and then she got a job in the AAF league. It's not like he just randomly picked someone out of a prearranged must use list. And what future issue are you referring to? And to who exactly is this imaginary olive branch going to an why? What is the offense that is being atoned for?

 

Why can't it be as simple as she is a good coach and brings value to the staff? 

 

 You're absolutely right; she MAY be more qualified than the others, but of all of the other posters who felt the urge to jump on the offensive about my comment, who knows of her qualifications outside Rivera? You certainly don't, so you can politely step off of your high horse and think about a different point of vies rather than getting on me about it.

 

I've never heard of her. That's my basic point. The qualifications she has doesn't jump out off the page and say 'wow',

The imaginary olive branch is a point in the direction of the team name, and by the hiring could it be a dampening tool to push back at those who will be once again raising the issue of the name Redskins and how offensive it is.

 

She had 7 months of internship with Rivera; its not exactly a high-valued credential or knowledge advantage. Maybe she does well, maybe not, it is certainly an opened door opportunity for her, but there has to be others who have more experience than her. It just really caught me off guard, but we'll see how she works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, skins island connection said:

 

 You're absolutely right; she MAY be more qualified than the others, but of all of the other posters who felt the urge to jump on the offensive about my comment, who knows of her qualifications outside Rivera? You certainly don't, so you can politely step off of your high horse and think about a different point of vies rather than getting on me about it.

 

I've never heard of her. That's my basic point. The qualifications she has doesn't jump out off the page and say 'wow',

The imaginary olive branch is a point in the direction of the team name, and by the hiring could it be a dampening tool to push back at those who will be once again raising the issue of the name Redskins and how offensive it is.

 

She had 7 months of internship with Rivera; its not exactly a high-valued credential or knowledge advantage. Maybe she does well, maybe not, it is certainly an opened door opportunity for her, but there has to be others who have more experience than her. It just really caught me off guard, but we'll see how she works out.

 

In fact I do know of her qualifications - Ron Rivera believes she is qualified. I don't need to know anything more. I trust his judgement. She is now the 3rd woman coaching in the NFL. But since you never heard of her, she must have been hired only becasue she was a woman? She is being hired at an entry level position. Here is her resume: 

 

Intern for Ron Rivera at Carolina

Assistant WR Coach at Arizona of the AAR

Offensive Assistant at Dartmouth College. 

Not to mention 2 Championship titles as a QB/S/WR for the Semi-Pro Women's Football Alliance - this is basically the highest level a woman can play it without getting into the NFL. And no this is not coaching but it does show knows football.  

 

Let me ask you this - did you ask the same questions or have the same concerns about Todd Storm Quality Control Assistant Coach? If not, then you must be really familiar with him - his 3 yrs as a defensive graduate assistant (barely even on the team as he is a grad student - it;s like being a graduate teaching assistant) at Central Michigan - followed by 1 season as an offensive Intern at Michigan and then a season as an intern for Carolina the year AFTER Jennifer King. Where is the concern there for qualifications?

 

How about Ben Jacobs - Assistant Special Teams coach - his massive one yr of being a STs Asst at Carolina. That is literally his only coaching experience. That's just Washington. I didn't both to look at the other 31 teams - although I am sure that I will find at least a few with either similar or less experience than Jennifer. 

 

That's the expected level of experience for entry level positions. So I have no problem with any of them. 

 

And you never answered to the rest of your post about olive branches and future issues and why this would be controversial. What exactly is the olive branch for? And what future issues are you referring to? 

 

See, it's not being on any high horse. It's calling out your comment for what it was, a neanderthal response to a woman being hired by an NFL team. That she could not possibly be hired becasue she is qualified. There must be some other outside influence. And why? Because you have never heard of her and you don't think her resume "wows" - which I doubt you actually looked at completely which is why I posted it above for you.

 

So no, I will not politely or otherwise stop calling out comments like yours. 

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, one potential "extra" of having rivera in charge is the peeps at gmfb love him and he does great on their show...they usually give him a favored guest status but they really gushed all over him this a.m.

 

he said he thought the early decision and start has paid off and they feel they're actually ahead of where they hoped to be at this point (whatever that means) and basically that things were sorting out in ways they are liking---very upbeat in dmeanor to match the words (fwiw)

 

he was positive but a bit cautious in his speaking on haskins (a pattern i think so far)...repeating that he liked the film of the last two drive against detroit and he thinks "there's signs of progress" and more can be made, but that was about it....i'd call it positive but guarded...and as previously, he mentioned alex and a still-possible return, giving it the same amount of gravitas in his qb examinations....he didn't really give much indication either way when kay spoke highly of guice and he did not mention any other rbs that i heard---i was in the kitchen during much of it but still heard most of it---he did  jon in their positive feelings about the young wr corps (gmfb loves scary terry)

 

i did not hear anything about the defense and hope i somehow missed that part cvuz it would be odd for them not to ask about all that young talent on the line or the needs in the secondary

 

 

maybe another viewer here can add on 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what we are going to get from Ron is anyone who is still under contract is an assert but one that has to earn his keep, and anyone who isn't, it was simply time to move on.

 

Not going to really be able to read him like we did Jay, and I am looking forward to that fact.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A lot of attention is paid to cross-training but very little to cross-thinking. That’s probably because the latter is done mostly indoors in a chair, and it can make your head hurt worse than blackstrap rum. But two practitioners of it, Ron Rivera and Jimmie Johnson, have found cross-referencing their professions to be a pretty useful mutual tool. As Johnson makes his last full run on the NASCAR circuit, he carries some thoughts from the NFL coach in his head, and as Rivera installs his system with the Washington Redskins, he will be borrowing some things he learned from watching the No. 48 car.

They started trading ideas in Charlotte in 2014 just after Rivera had flipped the Carolina Panthers into a winner and was named NFL coach of the year. He got a call from Johnson’s longtime crew chief Chad Knaus inviting him to kick around some management ideas. It struck both of them that comparing Johnson and his Hendrick Motorsports team, who had just won one of a record-tying NASCAR Cup Series seven titles, to a surging NFL team might be a useful exercise. As Joe Gibbs has proved, a stock car operation and a football squad have a few things in common. “We’re all talking the same things through,” Johnson says.

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is required listening for all.  

 

Ron talks for maybe about 20 minutes at the beginning of the pod with JP Finlay.

 

JP actually starts with talking to him about his work with the women's coaching intiative, and how that all came about.  And then Ron goes into how he got his start in coaching with the Bear's as an unpaid intern.  It's just a fascinating listen.  To be honest, I found that part of the interview more interesting than the second part, where he had to answer questions about Trent, Kerrigan, Young, Tua, etc.  All of those answers were typical non-answers, Except for the fact Kerrigan seems to be part of the plans.

 

This might be one of the more insightful interviews in terms of Ron's history, his start, and approach.  Really good stuff.  

  • Thanks 1

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.