Trouble in Redskins Park?

[CRedskinsRule]

Making it work here was SM's best shot at re-establishing himself. From all appearances that didn't happen. I would prefer he had gotten another 2 years, but let's be honest, his strength was supposed to be defensive magic, and he didn't work it here.

As to the FO set up it sounds to me, that minus the spin, the personnel selection system was a 3 person system, coach-gm-cap/president. It also sounds like Allen's vote counted more on contract issues. I don't think that's a bad system.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Making it work here was SM's best shot at re-establishing himself. From all appearances that didn't happen. I would prefer he had gotten another 2 years, but let's be honest, his strength was supposed to be defensive magic, and he didn't work it here.

As to the FO set up it sounds to me, that minus the spin, the personnel selection system was a 3 person system, coach-gm-cap/president. It also sounds like Allen's vote counted more on contract issues. I don't think that's a bad system.

McC was just given 2 years that was clearly not enough time. AND we ALL agreed here this was a long term process.


My biggest problem with Bruce: 1. McNabb trade and then dumb contract 2. RG3 trade 3. Over ruling McC last year giving Cousins the extension.

these are pivotal management mistakes. I mean, set a franchise BACK mistakes. We all do understand this right?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

McC was just given 2 years that was clearly not enough time. AND we ALL agreed here this was a long term process.


My biggest problem with Bruce: 1. McNabb trade and then dumb contract 2. RG3 trade 3. Over ruling McC last year giving Cousins the extension.

these are pivotal management mistakes. I mean, set a franchise BACK mistakes. We all do understand this right?

I agree on #1, disagree on #2 except when looking in hindsight, and disagree wholly with #3. Having KC playout the year on a prove it deal was a bit of a risk, but honestly looking at how this year's negotiation has gone, and KC's apparent intransigence at being paid as an elite qb when he isn't, I don't know that a deal would have been reached last year, at least not one that was good for the team and good for KC.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I agree on #1, disagree on #2 except when looking in hindsight, and disagree wholly with #3. Having KC playout the year on a prove it deal was a bit of a risk, but honestly looking at how this year's negotiation has gone, and KC's apparent intransigence at being paid as an elite qb when he isn't, I don't know that a deal would have been reached last year, at least not one that was good for the team and good for KC.

That's the great thing about history CRed,...Bruce's decision making at the QB position is GARBAGE.

These have proven to be major mistakes...which could have been adverted if we deferred it. 1 & 2 to the Shannies and 3 to McC.

clearly these have cost the Org

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

That's the great thing about history CRed,...Bruce's decision making at the QB position is GARBAGE.

These have proven to be major mistakes...which could have been adverted if we deferred it. 1 & 2 to the Shannies and 3 to McC.

clearly these have cost the Org

QB decisions have been garbage by a lot of good GM's, fact is there are only a few times that the "right" one has been made.

That said, if the choice is solely a BA decision that's not a good thing, but I think JGruden and even DWilliams both have pretty good ideas of what qb's could be here instead of KC.