Bruce, Scot and the Front Office.

[Elephant]

We can go back and forth about it some more but I think we did enough of that when the move was made. I thought it was questionable at the time and then when Breeland was repeatedly getting torched by Antonio Brown during Week One it continued to be a big head scratcher for me. And when our defense was terrible all season long despite the addition of such a Big Name I held out hope that it was all part of some bigger plan we just haven't seen yet.

But again, now that McLovin is out, and we're not sure he was ever really in, who knows? I'm fine waiting and watching the rest of the offseason and seeing where we are in August, but yeah, I could see Norman as ultimately turning out to be nothing more than a splashy move designed to excite the fans and distract them from the fact that our front seven was an obvious disaster. We'll see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with your assertion we need DL help but signed a top name CB, but who was available at DL we could get for only monetary compensation that was a top 5 in the league?

 

[Henry]

I agree with your assertion we need DL help but signed a top name CB, but who was available at DL we could get for only monetary compensation that was a top 5 in the league?

I have no idea who we should have signed, but that’s not the point. It’s a question of priorities. We are paying Norman $24 million this season. What is the number we’re balking at for Cousins? $24 million a season? But hey, nobody thinks Cousins is The Best At His Position, so let’s not pay him. Cousins may be a system guy. He was only good for a season or two. He’s never won anything. Don’t worry about the fact that every single one of those concerns could be voiced about Norman. People think he’s The Best. Let’s get that. We can sign him in a matter of days, even though we didn’t really need a CB and had much greater needs at many other positions. Even though CB isn’t a position teams build around. Pay him whatever it takes. Immediately.

But Cousins … offer him $12 million and then **** around for two years. Because we just don’t know. Uh huh.

Now I’m not saying Norman is our next Hayensworth. I think he played ok last year, and I don’t think he just took our money and went through the motions like a lot of guys have done over the years. But if we are talking about 'splashy mancrush overpaid’ type moves, yeah I think the Norman move could fit. I don’t see how he was part of our overall plan other than “He’s available and he’s awesome sign him right now!”

I hope he’s worth that $24 million this year. We’ll see.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris]

Norman has a total cost of 24m this coming season but it drops to 14m, 11.5m, and 12.5m the following seasons. Would a Cousins deal be similar? I doubt it.

 

[SkinsFTW]

Now I’m not saying Norman is our next Hayensworth. I think he played ok last year, and I don’t think he just took our money and went through the motions like a lot of guys have done over the years. But if we are talking about 'splashy mancrush overpaid’ type moves, yeah I think the Norman move could fit. I don’t see how he was part of our overall plan other than “He’s available and he’s awesome sign him right now!”

I hope he’s worth that $24 million this year. We’ll see.

Yeah I see where he fits into the "guy does great on another team for 1 year we gotta make him the highest paid CB in the league" Vinny/Snyder thought process. While Cousins does pretty damned good on our own team for 2 and he's not worth top 15 QB money and gets offered what the Jets wanted to pay Fitzpatrick.

The difference may end up being that Norman isn't a turdsicle (like Haynesworth). He actually wants to prove that he's worth the funds but is he? So if we end up with a 24M CB and pay a QB 44M over 2 years and still don't sign him, I don't see that as something McCloughan would've been deciding either. That had to be one of those Snyder moves.

What I see if we don't get another legit GM, and we very likely won't, is another McNugget or 2006ish spending spree in 2018. It's obvious that marketing is still running the franchise. What Cousins doesn't have is great marketability. What would make this whole thing comical is if now the Redskins re-sign RG3. Maybe there's another one of those coming up in the draft soon. Good thing Johnny Manziel is already blown up and wasn't semi-successful last year.

 

[Boone]

Effing Redskins! 2 winning seasons in a row - the bastards! Some of you actually sound like you wish Vinny Cerrato was back - so you could maximize your bitching. My general life philosophy? Man up and stop looking for every opportunity to complain, whine, and handwring. But hey, that's me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Docsandy]

Effing Redskins! 2 winning seasons in a row - the bastards! Some of you actually sound like you wish Vinny Cerrato was back - so you could maximize your bitching. My general life philosophy? Man up and stop looking for every opportunity to complain, whine, and handwring. But hey, that's me

I have too much real real life to complain, whine and handwring about. I don't have to make up something with the Redskins

 

[Henry]

Trust me, nobody wants me talking about real life stuff. That won't be good for anyone.

Anyway, you all will have to forgive me if I find the loss of our GM, for whatever reason, a cause for concern. I don't think all is lost but I am re-evaluating what our overall strategy seems to be at this point, and I don't automatically think it looks awesome either. That's all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Boone]

Trust me, nobody wants me talking about real life stuff. That won't be good for anyone.

Anyway, you all will have to forgive me if I find the loss of our GM, for whatever reason, a cause for concern. I don't think all is lost but I am re-evaluating what our overall strategy seems to be at this point, and I don't automatically think it looks awesome either. That's all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think that's unreasonable H. I think where we are as a fanbase, having experienced so much drama and seeming dysfunction over the years, anything occurring that's perceived as a negative is amplified x 1000. Losing a GM isn't usually a 'good thing'. Now maybe McCloughan truly was a mess, and it's also possible that we Redskins fans have been so desperate for a 'savior' that we have given him way too much credit for the mild resurgence the team has had, and it operating as more of a 'professional' organization during Gruden's time here. It's also possible that is influence has been overblown and overrated by fans and that his departure will have less impact than we think.

There's been a lot to digest this offseason. First you had Cousins not coming through to end the season and the Skins missing the playoffs. That was followed by the dismissal of the entire defensive coaching staff. Then you have McLovin, the Cousins contract drama, letting go of some aging vets who did some 'venting' on the way out...and sort of a rekindling of the aggressive media mocking (which included quite a bit of misinformation).

So there's a lot there to rekindle our worst fears and anxieties. I'm not immune to that either. On the other hand, all I'm preaching is waiting to panic until there's something to panic about. I'm open to the possibility that Cousins will be resigned to a long-term deal (in fact, I'm going out on a limb and predicting it will happen before the draft), that our defense will be much improved, that our WR corps actually surpasses their former achievements, and that we draft very well and return to the playoffs in 2017. Will all of those things happen? It's possible. If we regress back to a 4 win team over this next season and beyond, I'll be screaming bloody murder like the rest of you. But until I see regression and incompetence I am bucking up and hoping for the best.

 

[Henry]

That totally fine. That's why I close most of my remarks these days with "we'll see"

In the specific case of Josh Norman, I think I've been pretty openly wary of his signing from the very beginning, so this isn't some panic reflex or anything. I had made my peace with it by telling myself to trust McLovin. But seeing as it may not have been him after all, it is again a worrisome move in my opinion.

We'll see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Boone]

My snark was directed at SkinsFTW for suggesting (only half-jokingly) that the Redskins are so pathetic as to consider re-signing RG3 or bringing in Manziel. I know it's a joke - but I think that's a little over the top when looking at what's actually transpired. I think it's reasonable to say that what's happened includes:

1) We moved on from a bad DC hire
2) We lost some major coaching talent to promotion
3) We were overly conservative in terms of securing our franchise QB and put a LTD in question
4) We decided not to sign several of our highly productive older players
5) We fired our GM, supposedly due to issues with alcoholism.
6) Throughout all of these events, the team performed poorly on the PR side making matters far worse.

I think that's a fairly objective and reasonable assessment of what went down. But many would describe those same events as:

1) Skins had to fire a terrible DC who never should've been hired, and weren't able to attract a good one to replace him because we are a terrible organization.
2) Our best coaches left because this team is a disaster and they hate our joke of a front office.
3) Kirk Cousins hates being a Redskin and will never sign a LTD
4) We screwed core Redskins like Jackson, Garcon, and Baker and our team will be horrible as a result
5) Scot McCloughan is the best thing ever to happen to the Redskins and letting him go will result in the Redskins returning to suckitude. No quality GM will ever come here in the future.
6) Throughout all of these events, the team performed poorly on the PR side making matters far worse.

I think #'s 1 & 6 have some validity and could well be 100% factual. The others are highly debateable imho.

 

[micks113]

Boone:
all I'm preaching is waiting to panic until there's something to panic about.


bwa ha ha, very funny on that one. Its like this, the whole idea of the panic attack is that its by definition way premature. That's why we panic before its time. he he.


I'm OK with the Redskins right now. Ok with Allen overseeing everything, he will be torched in the media when he screws up or contradicts himself. He is going to be the guy that is answering the questions, so there is some accountability there in that respect. As for Jay Gruden, I think we should be happy he is the coach now. Now is when we need him the most to hold it all together. Now is when we must rely on him to suggest player personnel moves and give the new staff the same latitude. Then convince Allen of its merits.

I think most of us made the mistake of thinking McClou was some kind of savant GM genius. He was just a flawed human being like most of us. So I have too look upon his departure as a good thing, there must have been good reasons, Snyder's no idiot.

We lack some impact players, but we do need at least two this draft. That's all anyone can expect, going for more players thinking this is a deep draft doesn't cut it. All teams are thinking the same thing, but in reality, the impact players are most important, need to be identified, and trade up for if need be. Its way better to have a couple impact guys, than a half dozen players to fill needs but may not start.

 

[Bulldog]

We would have garnered more interest and some better candidates for DC if we had signed Gruden to his extension first.

We never seem to do things AHEAD of the curve, but rather behind it.

 

[Chris]

Divorce is often ugly-

Former player: Scot McCloughan 'felt the hate' from Redskins president Bruce Allen | Redskins XTRA | richmond.com

 

[Henry]

My snark was directed at SkinsFTW for suggesting (only half-jokingly) that the Redskins are so pathetic as to consider re-signing RG3 or bringing in Manziel. I know it's a joke - but I think that's a little over the top when looking at what's actually transpired. I think it's reasonable to say that what's happened includes:

1) We moved on from a bad DC hire
2) We lost some major coaching talent to promotion
3) We were overly conservative in terms of securing our franchise QB and put a LTD in question
4) We decided not to sign several of our highly productive older players
5) We fired our GM, supposedly due to issues with alcoholism.
6) Throughout all of these events, the team performed poorly on the PR side making matters far worse.

I think that's a fairly objective and reasonable assessment of what went down. But many would describe those same events as:

1) Skins had to fire a terrible DC who never should've been hired, and weren't able to attract a good one to replace him because we are a terrible organization.
2) Our best coaches left because this team is a disaster and they hate our joke of a front office.
3) Kirk Cousins hates being a Redskin and will never sign a LTD
4) We screwed core Redskins like Jackson, Garcon, and Baker and our team will be horrible as a result
5) Scot McCloughan is the best thing ever to happen to the Redskins and letting him go will result in the Redskins returning to suckitude. No quality GM will ever come here in the future.
6) Throughout all of these events, the team performed poorly on the PR side making matters far worse.

I think #'s 1 & 6 have some validity and could well be 100% factual. The others are highly debateable imho.

Yeah, no. I don't really go for overstating things, but I do think McLovin's departure is a bad sign. I don't know the specifics, and I won't comment on them, but I will say I was much more optimistic when he was here than I am now. Don't know if I blame the Redskins or McLovin. I don't think it matters. It is what it is.

I am a little shocked we didn't re-sign one of our two WRs. I figured it was almost a certainty we wouldn't sign both, but I figured we'd keep one. I am not super-angry about letting both go, but I think it hurts the strength of the team. Again, doesn't really matter who's fault it is.

The whole Kirk Cousins thing I find baffling. Should have been signed to a LTD last year. That I will blame the Skins for. Just dumb. Hopefully he gets signed soon and it all becomes moot.

I think that's everything from me. I promise not to panic until after the draft.

 

[Bulldog]

Two winning seasons yippee!

9-7 and 8-7-1 in the NFL is hardly standing a shoulder above the next guy.

We have been able to tread water here and not embarrass ourselves in 2015 and 2016 due in part to a productive offense and a division that was beyond mediocre in 2015 and merely competitive this past year.

So, these guys haven't done anything to stick their chests out about (Redskins ownership and front office).

In fact, in comparative terms the Redskins are probably the worst team in Washington right now.

The Wizards have John Wall and are going to hit 50 wins.

The Capitals have Alex Ovechkin and are in first place.

The Nationals are a 95 win team and have the reigning Cy Young winner in Max Scherzer.

Those teams are paying those individual players handsome contracts, but there is no question they are among the best.

That's what makes the Redskins situation with Cousins different.

The team bungled a contract for a guy that was above average and wanted to really low-ball him and now almost 2 years later they are boxed into a corner where his agent wants close to Rodgers or Roethlisberger money (or the NFL equivalent of WALL, OVECHKIN or SCHERZER money.)

Bruce Allen says he is hopeful and confident of getting a long-term deal done while Snyder evidently said to Cousins not to get his hopes up over a trade.

Well, if the team is able to get Cousins under contract by July and have it not be a top 3-4 deal in the NFL, Allen will have proven me wrong and shown me how well he is able to play the 'long' game.

But if Cousins doesn't sign, the Redskins have him for one more year and then he leaves in 2018 with the team getting a third round compensatory draft pick, a LOT of people are going to be asking why the club didn't simply trade his rights to one of the three teams who have already contacted them about his services.

 

[Boone]

None of those other stellar examples of franchises in DC has done a damn thing. They've all been major disappointments when it counted, just like the Redskins On the other hand, your point on the team's handling of Cousins sounds about right. Only caveat is that everything is clear, once it's clear. If the team had given Cousins a big long term deal last offseason and he'd crapped all over the field on 2017, we'd be ripping the team for overestimating his talent and doing a panic deal. And you know I'm right about that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bulldog]

Correct, but that's what makes a good GM (and when you let him do his job).

Ron Wolf traded for Brett Favre who was then a no-name backup in Atlanta and garnered a top talent for the future. Favre got limited reps in Atlanta, many less than the Redskins had to evaluate Cousins.

A top GM sees Cousins on the field during 2015 and should be able to extrapolate what the guy's rough ceiling is and what that's worth.

Signing Cousins to a $19.95M franchise tag in 2015 only guaranteed that $20M was going to be the ENTRY point for negotiations and once that number went up to $24M for 2016, ditto.

So, it's nice that the Redskins offered him $20M a year on a 5 year deal.

But we created our own monster. Now the 'playing field' is out of whack and the Cousins camp is asking for near Rodgers type money and has some leverage to try and pull it off.

In regards to the comparative records - I don't agree.

While winning a championship is foremost in our minds as fans as it should be, the fact is I have been able to bring clients and family to Caps and Nationals games over the past 3-5 years and enjoy the team, the players, the sport and the experience while seeing teams that win.

Winning divisions does not equal winning championships.

But the ironic point here is that while the Nationals, Capitals or Wizards winning a division title is viewed by many fans in Washington as being NO BIG DEAL because they didn't proceed to win the title, the Redskins win a division title at 9-7 (barely over .500) in a weak division, losing a playoff game by double digits and people are talking about how well we are doing

THAT is how low Snyder and Co. have brought this team and fan base.

It used to be that the same high expectations people have for the Caps and Nationals (title or 'bad season') now they used to have for the Redskins.

Now if we finish 9-7 followed up by 8-7-1, it's cause for celebration.

Not in my book.

We are still talking about mediocrity.

Is 9-7 or 8-7-1 better than 4-12 from 2013?

Sure.

But that's like saying it's better to be alive than dead.

It's a very LOW bar.

 

[Boone]

The playoff efforts by these other franchises have been just as horrific as anything we've seen with the Redskins. And attending Redskins games has mostly been a fun winning experience the past 2 years. I don't see the distinction.

Truth is, people care a lot more about the Redskins than they do those other teams. That's at the heart of it. And we have a very unpopular (deservedly so imho) owner who is a firebrand for criticism.

I agree the bar is low. It should be. It's been more than 25 years since our last Super Bowl appearance. I want to see a consistent winning model in place. Super Bowls come when you are a perennial contender and sound, competitive organization.

Where we probably share more common ground is in not knowing whether this offseason represents some major backsliding and a return to dysfunction. I'm not prepared to say it has - yet. But I'm open to that possibility. If Cousins signs a LTD (as I think he will), and we have a super solid draft that to me will be a sign that much of the dysfunction argument is overblown and media driven. If he never signs a deal and we start over at QB, blow the draft, etc... well then, the circus may well be back in town.

 

[Elephant]

Correct, but that's what makes a good GM (and when you let him do his job).

Ron Wolf traded for Brett Favre who was then a no-name backup in Atlanta and garnered a top talent for the future. Favre got limited reps in Atlanta, many less than the Redskins had to evaluate Cousins.

Tough to take anything past this seriously...Brett Favre was NOT a no-name backup. Glanville simply didn't like his bravado and saw an opportunity to dump him.

 

[Ax]

Correct, but that's what makes a good GM (and when you let him do his job).

Ron Wolf traded for Brett Favre who was then a no-name backup in Atlanta and garnered a top talent for the future. Favre got limited reps in Atlanta, many less than the Redskins had to evaluate Cousins.

A top GM sees Cousins on the field during 2015 and should be able to extrapolate what the guy's rough ceiling is and what that's worth.

I think, at times, you give far to much credit to the "good GM" myth.

You can't name one that hasn't screwed the pooch, royally, on a number of occasions. I remember top GM's being in bidding wars for Scot Mitchell, Matt Flynn, and Brock OsHowdoyouspellit. I remember top GM's fawning over, and drafting, hot college prospects Akili Smith, Tim Couch, and Ryan Leaf.
Luck, be it good or bad, is a bigger contributor to success, than the talent evaluation of flawed men.

As an example, I found this little piece from 2009, written by a Packer fan, comparing Wolf's draft history, to Thompson's. Lots of side doors in this piece, but the part I'm focusing on is the hit rate for drafting good, to great players were. I realize the numbers are based on personal opinion of what constitutes a good/great player. The author does give his description.
Green Bay's Wolf vs. Thompson in Drafts | Bleacher Report

Wolf and Thompson's overall good/great rates are similar, the author says. But I only see wolf's actual number. That being 39 percent. So, even the best GM's miss more than they hit.

Wolf's rate for finding great players was 16.6 percent.
Thompson's is 11.9.

Wolf's 1st round average was 20.3 percent. Isn't that only 1 in 5?
Thompson's is 18.7 percent.

I'm not saying there isn't talent involved. There clearly must be. And maybe these numbers beat the socks off of our GM's, historically. But my point is, evaluating talent is a flawed science, by flawed men, who are more apt to be wrong, than right.

And some are just more lucky.