Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

09 Jul 2012

MMQB: Guest Starring Bruce Allen

Redskins GM Bruce Allen builds a MMQB out of talking about the owners he's worked for, rules changes he'd enact, and lists of things he's fond or not fond of.

Posted by: Rivers McCown on 09 Jul 2012

30 comments, Last at 13 Jul 2012, 11:40am by Joshua Northey

Comments

1
by Chris UK :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 12:42pm

Having read next man up I find it funny that the Redskins GM doesn't like "anonymous sources".

2
by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 1:02pm

I like Allen's idea of naming award for great figures of hte game but I reckon NFC Coach of the year should be the Bill Walsh award.

I was hoping that Allen might address either the public perception of dan Snyder or the tension surrounding the team's rather offensive nickname. Maybe that's why he doesn't like political correctness in the locker room (that stuck me as odd anyway what is it he wishes he could say?).

5
by smutsboy :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 1:52pm

"doesn't like political correctness in the locker room" is code for, "conservative white guy"

17
by Guest789 :: Tue, 07/10/2012 - 1:51am

Um, what?

-----

“Treat a man as he is, and he will remain as he is. Treat a man as he could be, and he will become what he should be.”

6
by Dean :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 2:28pm

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about the awards, only instead of Bill Walsh, I was thinking that trophy should be named after George Halas.

7
by tuluse :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 2:51pm

Well the NFC Championship trophy is already named after Halas.

18
by Jim C. (not verified) :: Tue, 07/10/2012 - 11:44am

Allen and I were classmates at the University of Richmond. I didn't know him well, but I knew him well enought to assure you that he could not care less about political correctness.

3
by AnonymousA (not verified) :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 1:16pm

While this may be the shortest MMQB in a while, I think it could have been even more concise. I give you: MMQB: What Bruce Allen Really Thinks Edition:

"The Marines. %#&$ yeah!"

4
by Alaska Jack :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 1:31pm

I like his comment about the Tuck Rule; I've agreed with this since I saw the first replay during the Raiders-Patriots game.

Tuck this, tuck that, blah blah blah. It's irrelevant, because Brady WAS NOT TUCKING THE BALL. He had pumped, then aborted the throw (either because it was a pump fake, or, more likely, he just reconsidered the read). The rule was made for a QB who is tucking to begin running or to avoid a sack. Brady was doing neither of these things. His eyes were downfield, and he was loaded and in firing position.

Of course, none of this excuses the Raiders' subsequent collapse. They still could have won.

lllll Alaska Jack

8
by Karma Coma :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 3:10pm

Police fished out 2 bodies from a private boat that capsized & sunk in Castaic Lake. A team of volunteer divers used a robotic sonar device from Canada. That also happened on Jan 19, 2002.

"Profit is limit ONLY by your ability to BANG SPORK"

9
by RC (not verified) :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 3:22pm

The rule doesn't say any such thing.

The rule says that when the QB brings the ball back, he begins a throw. Any time he brings the ball forward or down from that point, is a pass attempt and not a fumble. It says nothing about intent, and thats the point.

That being said, Woodson hit Brady in the head on that play, it should have been a 15 yard penalty.

11
by Podge (not verified) :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 3:54pm

If you played by today's rules.

I think Brady had just about finished tucking the ball, and it was just about a fumble. But its not as cut and dried as everyone with a strong view (on either side of the debate) seems to think.

28
by Led :: Wed, 07/11/2012 - 1:26pm

I agree that it's not cut and dried. I think once Brady put his other hand on the ball, the "tuck" was complete and therefore it was a fumble. But it's possible that Brady didn't put the second hand on the ball until after he was hit and, in fact, Woodson knocked Brady's one hand into the other just before Brady completed the tuck. If that's the case then it was an incomplete pass. It all happened in a split second so it's difficult to say for sure. For that reason, I don't think there was indisputable evidence to reverse the call on the field.

29
by chemical burn :: Wed, 07/11/2012 - 1:59pm

Yeah, that play to me is the essence of "some calls are just borderline judgement calls and that's just all there is to it." There's an argument on both sides, it could have gone either way, the refs' decisions are part of the game.

10
by John (not verified) :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 3:24pm

My takeaway: my high school band camp used the same facilities as the 60s era Bears. Way cool.

20 years later but still. St Joe's FTW.

12
by Rots (not verified) :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 5:29pm

I dont read mmqb i just read the comments here but anyway: Brady fumbled the hell out of that. I hate both the pats and the raiders (bronco fan here) but on any playground in America that would have been a fumble. End of story.

30
by Joshua Northey (not verified) :: Fri, 07/13/2012 - 11:40am

Indeed, I don't really care who won that game, but in any sane football universe that play is a fumble. Period. In 25 years the scores are going to be 125 to 140 if the current rules creep continues.

13
by andrew :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 6:05pm

Punters, kickers and long snappers shouldn't count against the 46-man game day roster (each team must dress three quarterbacks).

I can see it now, Dan Snyder carries a dozen punting and kicking specialists into each game: a regular kicker, a kickoff specialist, an extra point specialist, a 50+ yds specialist, an indoor kicker, an onside kick specialist...
and a regular punter, a "inside enemy territory" punter, and a handful of fake punt specialists who played college ball as quarterbacks and who might just be long term qb prospects...

14
by akn :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 6:34pm

I would think all those specialists still count against the cap. And you could rule that such designated players are only allow to play those positions. Hiding prospects may still be a problem, however.

15
by andrew :: Mon, 07/09/2012 - 9:21pm

There have been a number of backp QBs who spent time as a punter... Steve Spurrier... Danny White... Tom Tupa..

25
by Jim C. (not verified) :: Tue, 07/10/2012 - 5:34pm

Then there was Joe Theismann, who returned punts for the Redskins in 1974 and 1975 when he was buried on the depth chart behind Billy Kilmer and the corpse of Sonny Jurgensen.

21
by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Tue, 07/10/2012 - 2:09pm

Your last point is really the key one IMO -- teams would immediately seeks to abuse this rule. Then, where do you draw the line as to what constitutes a "kicker"? Ochocinco kicked an extra point one time -- is he a kicker? There would have to be some criteria developed, and near as I can see, there's no real point to this. Allen never mentions WHY he thinks this would be a good change. Presumably, he thinks game day rosters are too small. Why not just propose expanding the game day rosters to 49 or 50? It would have the same effect, and no new loopholes are created.

22
by steelersfan (not verified) :: Tue, 07/10/2012 - 2:51pm

If this rule were in place now, the Giants wouldn't have just lost a tight end. The Steelers might carry 15 lineman as kickers so they have one ready each time one gets hurt.

23
by tuluse :: Tue, 07/10/2012 - 2:59pm

I'm going to assume he meant 1 of each, not as many as you want.

It's still stupid and arbitrary, but not unfathomably stupid.

24
by sundown (not verified) :: Tue, 07/10/2012 - 4:33pm

Since his base point is that the 46-man roster is too limiting, why on earth not just advocate raising it? No need to try and dictate how spots get used, just say "I think we need a 50-man roster limit." If a team decides they want a long FG specialist, great for them. If they decide to carry an extra position player, just as good. Decisions like that add to the strategy of the game. It certainly doesn't improve the game to have the rules mandating three quarterbacks being dressed "just because."

16
by Marko :: Tue, 07/10/2012 - 1:44am

"I think Monday Night Football's kickoff should be no later than 8:00 p.m. ET."

That's a little bit too early for those of us like me in the Pacific Time Zone. I think the way it is now is the best time (kickoff is around 5:40 PT/8:40 ET), although that means that games end very late for those in the Eastern Time Zone. The real issue is that there is no perfect time that won't have kickoff too early in the west or the end of the game too late in the east.

19
by Lance :: Tue, 07/10/2012 - 1:31pm

As a recent transplant to Los Angeles, I have to say that it wouldn't bother me to have the kick-off moved up. Granted, I live close enough to work to walk there (i.e. no traffic issues) and I have a flexible schedule. But I usually end up DVRing the first part anyhow so that when I do get home I can fast forward through as much of the commercials as I can until I catch up to the game.

On the other hand, it was a drag to be living in New York and staying up until quite late to finish a game knowing that I had to get up early for work the next morning. So I can understand the desire of people in the east to want it moved up by a bit.

20
by Kevin from Philly :: Tue, 07/10/2012 - 1:52pm

Why not 1100 so the Hawaiians can watch? Damn haoles.

26
by andrew :: Tue, 07/10/2012 - 6:15pm

why not base it on where the game is being played?

When I lived in West Palm Beach, going to a Dolphins monday night game meant getting home on a work night past 1am. (and it was worse when they did the 9pm kickoffs). You'd think there would be no traffic at that hour, but when the game gets out, there was...

27
by Jerry :: Tue, 07/10/2012 - 6:45pm

For the same reason the NFL would play a championship game on a cold January evening in Pittsburgh AFTER a game under the roof in Phoenix. It's all about television.