Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread

JSSkinz

By JSSkinz
in The Stadium

 Share
TK
Message added by TK,

Pay Attention Knuckleheads

 

 

Has your team support wained due to ownership or can you see past it?  

229 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you attend a game and support the team while Dan Snyder is the owner of the team, regardless of success?

    • Yes
      47
    • No
      106
    • I would start attending games if Dan was no longer the owner of the team.
      77

Recommended Posts

BurgundyBooger

BurgundyBooger

Posted
Posted
On 2/2/2021 at 12:48 PM, RichmondRedskin88 said:

Dan is always gonna want to be in the loop on big moves.  As long as he’s simply listening and telling his thoughts rather than making decisions its a battle not worth fighting.  You’d expect the owner to want to know a bit of what is going on honestly.   Him not being fully in the loop could very well be why we’re getting such bad press FO wise.  It’s entirely possible we give him too much credit as far as knowing everything going on.  I don’t care if Ron tells Snyder he’s benching a player if he feels he should.  Given I think it was because it was Snyder’s pick but from the report it sounded like Snyder was like whatever you think is best.  I think he realizes he can’t interfere like he’s done in the past because no one will come here then.  I think in Gibbs and Ron’s case he’s being more distant because I think he realizes there’s certain people and coaches you don’t screw with.  You don’t screw with a Wsh legend and you definitely don’t screw with the only reputable coach willing to try to turn your franchise around. 

 

The problem with the owner telling his thoughts is those thoughts carry more weight, considering he signs everyone's checks and is in the position that demands appeasement. IMO, an owner with as limited knowledge of football as him should not be expressing his 'harmless' thoughts on football to their subordinates, because those opinions can be misconstrued as soft demands which can result in the GM/Coaches second-guessing their original decision now measured against that of the boss. And in the lucky event Snyder is right on a call, it could paint a false impression that he possesses the acumen that, in the future, should be appraised at a higher value than what it should at the cost of deprioritizing the judgment of more experienced football minds. It is wishful thinking on my part, but I just want Dan to refrain from being a participant on any/all player personnel discussion or matters outside of signing the checks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)

@Voice_of_Reason's guy, Jay Gruden 😀  was entertaining and somewhat self-deprecating.  

 

Basically said Dan was heavily involved but most didn't interfere with personnel much but he did interfere.  He alluded to a couple of times in the draft and also FA.  I'd guess FA would be Landon Collins. 

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

5 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

Past "loosely defined" power structures in this team make me shudder when I hear that phrase.

 

The last version of it though had Bruce as the defacto final say.  He liked to play that down but he had that power.  I think Rivera > Bruce.  So I can ride with it even though its not ideal. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)

Listening to Jay on 106.7 and combining it with Standig.    Most of it was from the Standig podcast.  I know many here don't care for Jay but he has some insight about this roster, many of these guys were drafted when he was here.   He said it all with good spirits -- he was grateful for the shot to coach here, etc.  So he didn't sound bitter as he talked about this. 

 

Some tidbits:

A.  Bruce/Dan had Haskins rated as the best Qb available when 15 came.  Jay and some others in the FO thought Haskins could be had later in the draft if that was the target, and he seemed to imply there were other QBs they thought they could have after the first round who were comparable

B.  Savage/Sweat is who he/FO guys liked at 15

C.  Jay wanted to keep Preston Smith

D.  Bruce/Dan were heavily involved in making decisions, they had final say

E.  They Jay/FO made most of the draft picks, but said a few times decisions were made that they had nothing to do with

F.  Thinks they blew it big as for getting nothing back for Kirk Cousins. They had interested teams willing to trade for Kirk.  He said they could have traded him easily, multiple suitors.  Felt they really blew it on that front.  He liked Kirk but felt he wanted to leave.  The implication there was the higher ups didn't want to move Kirk. 

G.  The Alex injury combined with the hefty contract really set the team back

H.  Qb is the be all and end all spot.  If you are set there its easier for everything else to fall into place

I.  Talked about there is more to the QB position then what you see watching a game -- getting the plays right, calling audibles, how the players react to them on and off the field

J.  If you are forced to keep players you don't want, it hurts the culture.  That's his biggest regret as to how things played out.   He didn't say which players he was referring to. 

 

He was asked about QBs.

A.   He really likes Winston.  Live arm, high upside.

B.   Dalton reminds him of Alex.  He says Dalton won't drive the ball down the field much but is efficient and can get the ball into his playmakers hands

C.  Liked what he saw from Heinicke, mobility in the pocket 

D.  Big fan of Derek Carr, top QB -- he'd jump to get him if he were the WFT.  His brother runs a complex offense and Carr has mastered it, smart dude

E.  He likes Mariota. He sees him as someone who relies on his speed and needs to show he can stay healthy

F.   Big on Deshaun Watson, saying you can win with that dude even without a stellar supporting cast -- the way he said it, I gather he meant receivers

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KillBill26

KillBill26

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

I doubt we would have had both Savage and Sweat because it seems like the trade up was just to get the football people in the building who they wanted. Could you imagine having Savage though?

I know, savage would be perfect to plug in right now.  But if we took savage instead of haskins, we don't get chase young, so I'm good with the trade off.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thinking Skins

Thinking Skins

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

D.  Bruce/Dan were heavily involved in making decisions, they had final say

 

There it is. How much more evidence do we need. Now part of me wonders if this was always the case but c'mon its laid out for us. 

 

9 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

E.  They Jay/FO made most of the draft picks, but said a few times decisions were made that they had nothing to do with

 

I really wonder what these decisions were.

 

9 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

F.  Thinks they blew it big as for getting nothing back for Kirk Cousins. They had interested teams willing to trade for Kirk.  He said they could have traded him easily, multiple suitors.  Felt they really blew it on that front.  He liked Kirk but felt he wanted to leave.  The implication there was the higher ups didn't want to move Kirk. 

 

I have my own gripes with Jay but I feel like this whole team handling Cousins could have ended so differently. Look at what Stafford got Detroit. We could have gotten the reverse of the RG3 trade or at least something good. The fact that we settled for Smith as a second place solution and then got him hurt kinda put us into this predicament we're in. We should have been more aggressive from the getgo, and I don't meant the $15 mil deal people were talking about, but we should have given him something to lock him up longer term like a lot of teams are doing with their QBs. Its what teams do with their QB. I think the fact that Cousins is a 4th round pick is the only reason we didn't do this. But if we knew we weren't we should have just traded him for a first and a third or whatever we could have gotten and at least we could have gotten something or him. its so frustrating. 

 

Jay isn't a horrible coach but I think that his last 10 games or so were too much for most. He had what 6 QBs in 10 games? Johnson, Sanchez, McCoy, Smith, Haskins, Keenum? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

There it is. How much more evidence do we need. Now part of me wonders if this was always the case but c'mon its laid out for us. 

 

 

It's clear as bell.  Jay would obviously know best.  And if anything he's honest to a fault. 

 

48 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I have my own gripes with Jay but I feel like this whole team handling Cousins could have ended so differently. Look at what Stafford got Detroit. We could have gotten the reverse of the RG3 trade or at least something good.

 

I've debated a few on this over the years.  The reason why I've been so stubborn on the Kirk point is i listened to all the narrative back then like a religion.  If I hear things over and over again especially if its coming from different directions, odds are it likely ends up correct. 

 

And guys like Mike Jones in particular ended up dead on right about so much.    Some seemed to dispute that Kirk had a trade market because they are convinced that teams would have been turned off by his money demands.  But some smoke back then (granted not a lot) that there was interest especially from SF, as Mike Silver hinted about among others.   Mike Jones was the most recent one saying he heard from Kyle Shanny directly that they offered a first for Kirk.    But if more evidence is needed?  Jay is many things but he's not a liar and he'd have no reason to lie.

 

Jay flat out said they had good offers for Kirk and it was his actual biggest regret as the coach that they didn't do it and instead they got a ham sandwhich for him.  If you recall there was even a story at the time (maybe from Cole?) that Jay wanted to trade Kirk at the time but the higher ups weren't going for it.   Finlay I recall said multiple times then that Bruce didn't want to budge as to trading Kirk and they take every season at a time, versus worrying about capital "later".  I said that at the time.  This isn't me pounding my chest.  All I was doing is being a dummy who simply repeated stuff that I've heard multiple times then and if anything it has become even clearer over time.  That's all.  

 

You guys might recall Jon Gruden in a press conference slipping in once making fun of how little we got for Kirk.

 

 

48 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

 

I really wonder what these decisions were.

 

 

Haskins definitely.  Jay in a polite way more or less said that they didn't rate Haskins as a first rounder.  Moreover, they didn't think other teams rated him as a first either and would have been much cooler taking him as a flier later in the draft and if he got taken they had a couple of other QBs with similar grades that they could have taken after the first. 

 

Keim threw out Guice in one of his exchanges with fans.  Who else?  Not sure.  There is some evidence that Payne wasn't Jay's pick so maybe him but just guessing on that one.

 

FA, I'd bet Landon Collins considering all the stories about Dan's love for Collins' love of Sean Taylor.

 

48 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

The fact that we settled for Smith as a second place solution and then got him hurt kinda put us into this predicament we're in.

 

Yep.  The domino effect of bad decisions.  It's part of this reason why this organization has been a loser.   Just like the Haskins deal.  They wasted two picks on this, a first and the extra 2nd it took to trade up for Sweat. 

 

Among the reasons why I disliked Bruce was when I'd hear from beat guys that Bruce looks at each season at a time.  that came out during the Kirk stuff.  Hence they'd rather rent Kirk then worry about 2 years down the road.  I talked about it plenty in the thread at the time.  Bruce seemed to double down on Dan's short term approach about veterans.  Lets take Trent.  Even the more pessimistic takes of what they could have gotten for him said a 2nd and a third.  Instead we got a 5th and a third but that's how Dan/Bruce rolled.    

 

Short term wins and spit to them >>>> long term winning.  Shockingly this team has only had two winning seasons in a row once and barely so.

 

48 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Jay isn't a horrible coach but I think that his last 10 games or so were too much for most. He had what 6 QBs in 10 games? Johnson, Sanchez, McCoy, Smith, Haskins, Keenum? 

 

 I wasn't actually a big fan of Jay's coaching, I was a critic ironically pretty early of him but relatively speaking I liked him better than most did here mainly because I thought he was a good dude and was given a bad hand.   He talked about the QB carousel and injuries doing him in.   But he said it in a funny and self deprectating way where he didn't sound like he was whining.

 

My take was he was politely saying look these dudes gave me the job, I made a lot of money so i am not sour about that but they also got in my way and if they didn't I think we'd have been more successful. 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...