#WeFiredBruceAllen!!!

[Woz]

On 1/26/2019 at 11:05 AM, mike23md said:

The end is near...

Not soon enough ...

(and whether that is in reference to the Allen error era, or life as we know it, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader)

[PARROTHEAD]

Pats draw 35k in freezing temps for their SB Sendoff.

Buses driving off have more drawing power to Pat fans, than actual home games to Skins fans.

[Ghostnote]

1 hour ago, PARROTHEAD said:

Pats draw 35k in freezing temps for their SB Sendoff.

Buses driving off have more drawing power to Pat fans, than actual home games to Skins fans.

Classic winner vs. loser scenario. 

[Woz]

Just now, mike23md said:

1 hour ago, PARROTHEAD said:

Pats draw 35k in freezing temps for their SB Sendoff.

Buses driving off have more drawing power to Pat fans, than actual home games to Skins fans.

Classic winner vs. loser no foreseeable hope scenario. 

FTFY

[dll2000]

Have the Reskins been bad whole Dan Snyder era?  

They have been worst FA and trade team seemingly forever.  

Maybe thread should be owner sell now. 

[Woz]

Just now, dll2000 said:

Have the Reskins been bad whole Dan Snyder era?

Number of wins under Snyder (since 1999 (TWENTY FRICKIN' YEARS OF THIS CRAP!!):

• >10 wins: 0 (longest current active streak going back to 1991 *sigh*)
• 10 wins: 3
• 9 wins: 2
• 8 wins: 4
• 7 wins: 3
• 6 wins: 2
• 5 wins: 3
• 4 wins: 2
• 3 wins: 1

Average number of wins under Snyder: 6.95 (more than half of the seasons (11) under Snyder, Washington has been below 0.500)

Number of playoff appearances under Snyder: 5 (1 of which was in 1999 when he bought the team in May of that year and hadn't had a chance to eff up the team)
Number of playoff wins under Snyder: 2 (1 in 1999)

 

So, yeah, basically they have been.

 

Just now, dll2000 said:

They have been worst FA and trade team seemingly forever.  

To be fair, the Alex Smith trade notwithstanding, Washington hasn't been bad at FA/trades on the whole recently. They've been mediocre.

 

Just now, dll2000 said:

Maybe thread should be owner sell now. 

ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease

[MikeT14]

#FireBruceAllen 

[RSkinGM]

#FireBruceAllen 

[turtle28]

On 1/15/2019 at 5:54 PM, mike23md said:

Are we really talking decades? This team has backed into the playoffs or gotten luck in which the division has sucked. I give no credit to this football operations for doing anything right. The amount of talent we have had on this roster over the past 20 years and the best we could do is 2 playoff wins? 

Given that with the Bruce Allen promotion to run EVERYTHING? He failed at football, he failed at PR, he failed in Tampa, and Snyder promotes him? What example am I setting for my kid in which I support dysfunction and failure.

Kid: Oh hey, you root for the Redskins daddy? Are they any good? 

Me: No, but I am a fan of losing. So you should be too. 

 

”The amount of talent we have on this roster and the best we can do is 2 playoff wins?”

Is that a front office issue, or a coaching issue?

I'm just saying here. I never liked Vinny and have grown to hate Bruce Allen, but I did like the hire back in 09 & 2010.

Still, if you're going to say that this team has had a lot of talent since 93 but we've only won two playoff games in those years - while even Gibbs was a HC in 93 & 04-07 - that seems like coaching issues.

Of course, the front office does select the coaches also.

Me personally, I just think it's all screwed up and basically has been since Cooke died, the team was sold bc he didn't give it to his children and then Dan Snyder fired Casserly for Vinny.

I don't think the Redskins have had anything close to a franchise QB in an era of football where you almost absolutely have to have one to contend for a super bowl, and they've definitely passed on a few franchise QBs this century that most of.us would’ve taken instead of the guys we did take.

Then, you get to the fact that this team hasn't had an All-Pro player on its roster since Snyder bought the team. That stands out like a sore thumb as a both poor talent acquisition by our front office for 20 years, and poor development of those players by the coaches that the front office hired.

Frankly, myself, I don't think it's ever going to get better until Dan Snyder dies and sadly for most of us, we’ll probably be in our 70s, older or dead ourselves whenever that does happen.

Lastly, I don't mind backing into the playoffs or getting in bc we have a crappy division. The Cowboys and Eagles got in this year bc our division wasn't great and both won a playoff game and Dallas played pretty well against the Super Bowl runner-ups.

We've seen the Giants do that twice and win two super bowls, as well as other teams like the Steelers do it in the past or make playoff runs while being a wild card team.

If you aren't going to win your division, or are barely going to win it in a bad division, its really irrelevant, getting in and then continuing your winning once you get in is what matters.

I don't think the Giants or their fans - or other teams who've won a super bowl after being a wild card or winning a division championship in a weak division - really care that they weren't awesome in the regular season that year. 

They care that they got hot in the playoffs and won it all!

Me personally, I think if Alex Smith didn’t break his leg that we would have won 2 or 3 more games this year (one of the Eagles games, the 2nd Dallas game & the Titams game) and we would have made the playoffs, either as division Champs or as a wild card.

Now I doubt we would have won a game like Philly and Dallas did, but you just never know. I mean, its not like Philly didn't luck out vs the Bears, but then again, the Redskins franchise has no luck, so that bounce probably doesn't go our way.

Edited February 4, 2019 by turtle28

[MKnight82]

#FireBruceAllen

[Thaiphoon]

1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

”The amount of talent we have on this roster and the best we can do is 2 playoff wins?”

Is that a front office issue, or a coaching issue?

the Front Office hires the coaches, no? 

Quote

 

I'm just saying here. I never liked Vinny and have grown to hate Bruce Allen, but I did like the hire back in 09 & 2010.

Still, if you're going to say that this team has had a lot of talent since 93 but we've only won two playoff games in those years - while even Gibbs was a HC in 93 & 04-07 - that seems like coaching issues.

 

It is. But you've consistently said its not the coaches and its on the players to execute. You're repeatedly said in GDT things like "darn that Gruden for missing that block" to poke fun at those of us who have said that the consistency of not getting the talent to live up to it's talent is on the coaches. So you cannot have it both ways here Turtle.

Quote

Of course, the front office does select the coaches also.

Okay. We agree. See the first quote.

Quote

Me personally, I just think it's all screwed up and basically has been since Cooke died, the team was sold bc he didn't give it to his children and then Dan Snyder fired Casserly for Vinny.

Again...110% agree. John Kent Cooke would've continued his Dad's way of management.

Quote

I don't think the Redskins have had anything close to a franchise QB in an era of football where you almost absolutely have to have one to contend for a super bowl, and they've definitely passed on a few franchise QBs this century that most of.us would’ve taken instead of the guys we did take.

Yeah, we have't really. True. But I'm not completely sold on the fact that you can't get a good QB with a great team and win SB's. The Pats have a system that makes everyone who plays QB for them look much much better.

Quote

Then, you get to the fact that this team hasn't had an All-Pro player on its roster since Snyder bought the team. That stands out like a sore thumb as a both poor talent acquisition by our front office for 20 years, and poor development of those players by the coaches that the front office hired.

Yup. It's on all of this. It's also on coaches not recognizing the talent on their roster and cutting it in camp.

Quote

Frankly, myself, I don't think it's ever going to get better until Dan Snyder dies and sadly for most of us, we’ll probably be in our 70s, older or dead ourselves whenever that does happen.

See my signature. I'm doomed. Snyder is roughly my age.

Quote

 

Lastly, I don't mind backing into the playoffs or getting in bc we have a crappy division. The Cowboys and Eagles got in this year bc our division wasn't great and both won a playoff game and Dallas played pretty well against the Super Bowl runner-ups.

We've seen the Giants do that twice and win two super bowls, as well as other teams like the Steelers do it in the past or make playoff runs while being a wild card team.

If you aren't going to win your division, or are barely going to win it in a bad division, its really irrelevant, getting in and then continuing your winning once you get in is what matters.

 

Fair enough. But I don't see us doing that. Also, I'm not in it to simply back into the playoffs once every 5-6 years. I want 1980's early 90s of dominance back. Where if we DON'T get into the playoffs or win the division, its a bad year

Quote

 

I don't think the Giants or their fans - or other teams who've won a super bowl after being a wild card or winning a division championship in a weak division - really care that they weren't awesome in the regular season that year. 

They care that they got hot in the playoffs and won it all!

 

True. After being starved for a Lombardi, I'm sure that will work. But I'm looking to build a long term perennial contender. Not one that wins and then peters out and then comes back 5 years later.

Quote

Me personally, I think if Alex Smith didn’t break his leg that we would have won 2 or 3 more games this year (one of the Eagles games, the 2nd Dallas game & the Titams game) and we would have made the playoffs, either as division Champs or as a wild card.

Certainly debatable as its a "What if" hypothetical. I don't think we would have given the nature of the team. But I can see your point.

Quote

Now I doubt we would have won a game like Philly and Dallas did, but you just never know. I mean, its not like Philly didn't luck out vs the Bears, but then again, the Redskins franchise has no luck, so that bounce probably doesn't go our way.

And that's why I said what I did in the previous comment

[turtle28]

Yes, @Thaiphoon, as far as players executing and coaches coaching better, I can have it both ways. It's not black & white, its shades of grey.

Some mistakes you can certainly chalk up to the coaches not being prepared or not having the players prepared but not every mistake the player makes on the field is because of the coach.

If a player misses a block, tackle, throws an interception, jumps offsides, commits pass interference, grabs a facemask, hits a player late, throws a bad pass, misses an open hole on a run, drops a pass or interception etc, that's on the player. 

If a player doesn't do what they're supposed to do as far as the play is called, that's debatable whether its the coaches fault or players fault. Sometimes the coaches can coach a player till their blue in the face but that player never gets it! See Perry Riley & Zach Brown!

[Thaiphoon]

1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

If a player misses a block, tackle, throws an interception, jumps offsides, commits pass interference, grabs a facemask, hits a player late, throws a bad pass, misses an open hole on a run, drops a pass or interception etc, that's on the player. 

And if they keep doing it...which is what our players continue to do. That is on the coaches. So no, you can't have it both ways in that case.

I'll give you an example of how a coach can minimize the missed block, missing an open hole in your litany of excuses.

I give you Vincent Lombardi. 

What was his most favorite play to run as a coach?

The sweep.

Was it effective?

You bet it was.

Why was it so effective?

Because the players executed.

Oh but wait...you'll say that proves you correct.

Nuh uh. Not really. Read on...

Now...did good ole Vincent decide to institute the play, and run it a few times and then screw off after that? No. 

Did he say, well the TE missed his block every time we've run it in practice, but we'll be okay in the game. Let's no correct it. That's on him? Nope.

So what did he do?

He ran the play. Again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...etc...

... in practice. Some practices were nothing BUT running the sweep. And he did it by also asking the defense to come up with new and different ways to stop it.

Why did he do that?

Well, he did it so that:

A) Every player could run the play in his sleep (muscle memory)

B) That every player could see the various ways that defenses will try to attack the play and develop awareness about it so that they could react to it on the field.

Simply put. You don't run things until you "get it right". You practice them until you "can't get it wrong".

Same thing with Gibbs' system in the 1980's. The other teams knew what was coming. Hell, they could diagnose the "counter trey". But we beat them by out executing them. That's on players to do. Sure. But it's more on coaching to keep running things until te players themselves can't get it wrong.

The other stuff? We keep doing those things too. And players need to be held accountable for them. Our coaches don't hold anyone accountable for anything (some exceptions do apply such as Norman and DJ). 

The buck for ALL of the stuff you listed stops at the coaches. Period.

[turtle28]

11 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

And if they keep doing it...which is what our players continue to do. That is on the coaches. So no, you can't have it both ways in that case.

I'll give you an example of how a coach can minimize the missed block, missing an open hole in your litany of excuses.

I give you Vincent Lombardi. 

What was his most favorite play to run as a coach?

The sweep.

Was it effective?

You bet it was.

Why was it so effective?

Because the players executed.

Oh but wait...you'll say that proves you correct.

Nuh uh. Not really. Read on...

Now...did good ole Vincent decide to institute the play, and run it a few times and then screw off after that? No. 

Did he say, well the TE missed his block every time we've run it in practice, but we'll be okay in the game. Let's no correct it. That's on him? Nope.

So what did he do?

He ran the play. Again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...etc...

... in practice. Some practices were nothing BUT running the sweep. And he did it by also asking the defense to come up with new and different ways to stop it.

Why did he do that?

Well, he did it so that:

A) Every player could run the play in his sleep (muscle memory)

B) That every player could see the various ways that defenses will try to attack the play and develop awareness about it so that they could react to it on the field.

Simply put. You don't run things until you "get it right". You practice them until you "can't get it wrong".

Same thing with Gibbs' system in the 1980's. The other teams knew what was coming. Hell, they could diagnose the "counter trey". But we beat them by out executing them. That's on players to do. Sure. But it's more on coaching to keep running things until te players themselves can't get it wrong.

The other stuff? We keep doing those things too. And players need to be held accountable for them. Our coaches don't hold anyone accountable for anything (some exceptions do apply such as Norman and DJ). 

The buck for ALL of the stuff you listed stops at the coaches. Period.

So you're telling me that if Vince Lombardi,  Joe Gibbs, Chuck Knoll, Bill Parcells or Bill Belicheck was coaching this current team - with all their injuries and their starting QB/team leader breaking his leg in two mid season - that they'd have the team playing at a lot higher level with the same talent?

Sorry, not buying it!

If we had a hall of fame coach with average talent - see 04-07 & 2010-2013 - then at best we would've had a 9-7 team but with no better than avg QB bc ours broke his leg in two, that HC W/ the talent we had from the last two years would be one and done in the playoffs.

I don't think if a hall of fame coach was coaching this team the first 9 games that we would've had more than one more win than the 6 wins we had that time.

[naptownskinsfan]

Want to address the earlier point of John Kent Cooke running the team the same way as his father.  Potentially not true.  We have no idea how he would've ran the club.  The Angelos brothers have done a huge about-face from how their father has run the club, and their father is still alive and has either given his blessing, or is not fighting it.  So his management style could be different, but again, we will never know.  

Second, I'm not entirely certain that Joe Gibbs 2.0 was a Hall of Fame coach.  Yes, most Redskins fans will give him a pass because of Snyder, but he made some horrible trades and free agency moves.  Draft picks were treated with absolutely no value.  He brought back most of his old offensive assistants and for two years the offense looked like a dinosaur until he brought in Al Saunders with his 500 page playbook, which still brought the Coryell offense only to about the Industrial Age instead of being a modern offense.  He criminally underused Clinton Portis, forcing him to take a beating between the tackles, which arguably ended his career early, instead of getting him into open space where his superior speed and acceleration would be game-changing.  Even with some horrible trades and free agent moves, those teams still had some good talent on them, but they really lacked depth because of all of the draft pick trades, and building through free agency without those picks means you are sacrificing quality depth and with the injuries those teams had, the lack of depth would always shine through.  

The problem with saying this coach would do better is that you ultimately need to have an ownership and front office who is going to let the coach put in his own culture and have it supported.  Belichick's players, not coaches, are the ones who are doing disciplinary actions and finings when players are late to meetings or team events, and they are helping the coaches lead those meetings.  Everyone has bought in on that culture.  Belichick can call plays when he wants, and play the part of the GM too because everyone is on a high performing team, everyone is performing a step or two above their actual position/title.  The Rooney family knows how important that culture is, and they've only hired three coaches since 1969, realizing there will always be peaks and valleys but what is important is culture and accountability.  There is a story of Steve Bisciotti sitting down to lunch with John Harbaugh during his first training camp and basically asking him how his day was going, and what he needed from him to be successful- a simple "touch-in" meeting.  He would then go on to tell Harbaugh that he had assistants to handle all of the football work, and that he wanted to see him have those touch-ins with every single player, and that it would be more important than most "football work" he could do leading up to Sunday.  That's how you grow culture.

Dan Snyder has never let any coach put their culture 100% into play, and until he does that, he (and also we) have no chance of seeing a sustained winner like they have in Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.  And with all of the drama surrounding the team, backing into the playoffs four times in two decades isn't enough to continue to support the clown car of deceit and deception shown to everyone.