slaga

Members
  • Content count

    718
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About slaga

  • Rank
    The Field Goal Team

Contact Methods

  • Location
    North Carolina
  1. It sure looked to me like Scott expected a group effort. He even said as much in his press conference when he was hired: http://m.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/Quotes-Scot-McCloughan-Introductory-Press-Conference-11915/267bfe18-63d8-467f-8bcb-3011debbdb2c "It's not going to be me standing up there saying, 'I get to make the pick.' It's not going Jay standing up there saying, 'I make the pick,' or Bruce. It's going to be us. The more good opinions you get around yourself, the better chance you have of being successful." From the same presser Bruce made it known he is ultimately responsible for everyone employed by the Redskins: On how Allen's role will change: ALLEN: "Well, my new role is my old role and I'm the President of the football team. I'm responsible for everyone with the Redskins and it's my job to help improve this franchise and do everything I can to help everyone here be successful."
  2. Can you provide an instance where that exact model was not followed?
  3. Here is something that really confuses me about Allen/McCloughan situation. It was widely reported when Mccloughan was hired that the GM would have full control over the final 53. It was also reported that the GM would report to the President, namely Allen. Additionally, it was reported that the President would handle the money. If the GM does not have control over money and reports to the guy that does, how can the GM truely expect to have full control over the final 53 when he is not the one deciding what price the FO is willing to pay for any player's services and he reports directly to the person that does?
  4. There are a bunch of articles but they seem to go back to a singular anonymous source. From the same article, "of the half dozen players contacted, none of them saw him drink in the locker room. All but one said they never saw him act (as) if he weren’t composed and in control." That would imply that one player admitted to seeing him not composed and in control.
  5. According to multiple reports the drinking had been "a disaster for 18 months", and Scot was receiving treatment for alcohol abuse. If that is the case, Scot's current alcohol issues predate the Senior Bowl and very well could have been precipitous to his not being allowed to speak to the media and sitting 50 yards away from the rest of the Redskins contingent. Up until the GM went dark, the Redskins only had his drinking issues, which it appears they might have been trying to help him through, as cause for releasing him. Once Scot went dark, read quit doing his job (at the worst possible time), the Redskins had a real cause to fire him and took the opportunity to do so. The telling thing to me is there is no mention of Scot suing the Redskins for the rest of his contract. It leads me to believe Scot knows the Redskins had valid reasons to fire him and it would be a losing battle, especially if the Redskins have to bring Scot's drinking issues to light in order to protect themselves.
  6. @Darrell Green Fan I don't think it was an ongoing issue. The way I understood it, it started sometime after his grandmother died and was at its worst leading up to free agency. For whatever reason, Scott was not able to, or willing to, answer texts and was not checking his voicemail and it started before the combine and continued until he was fired, just before free agency.
  7. There are a couple articles reporting Scot not returning texts and voicemail full. http://scholarshipexamples.net/news/redskins-fire-general-manager-scot-mccloughan-at-the-start-of-nfl-free-agency https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/sports/news/why-the-redskins-treatment-of-scot-mccloughan-should-be-a-warning-for-everyone-else-212408717.html
  8. I was not debating. You said we could not trade him without him agreeing to a LTD. We can, as long as we have a trade partner willing to go for a 1 year rental. That was my original point. Why would a team send 2 firsts and a second to move up 4 spots in the draft? Why would a team send all of their draft picks for the opportunity to get a single player (Ricky Williams trade)? Stranger things have happened. I am not lobbying it is the smartest thing for a team to do. If the Redskins cannot work out a LTD and want something, anything in return for Cousins beyond a 3rd round compensatory pick, they might be able to work something out whether Kirk wants to play for that team or not. Also if Snyder is anywhere near as petty and spiteful as some would have you believe, sending Cousins to Cleveland for a bag of peanuts would be the pettiest thing he could do.
  9. A team more in position to win now that lacks a good QB. A team that needs to spend $60 mil to meet the salary cap floor the NFL requires. They already have to spend the money anyway, why not on a decent QB, even if it is a 1 year rental? The money would be a sunk cost. In reality, Cleveland would only be out the pick(s) they would have to trade because they have to spend the money anyway.
  10. Once Kirk signed the franchise tag, the Redskins could trade him (that 1 year contract) to any team they want and Kirk's only recourse is to not play. Kirk does not have to agree to a LTD in order to get traded. As long as the team receiving Kirk's 1 year franchise tag contract is fine with the 1 year rental, the Redskins can trade Kirk to any team they want without Kirk's input whatsoever. There was a reason Kirk's discussions with Danny and Allen happened right before he signed. Kirk was gauging the Redskins' interest in trading him to Cleveland.
  11. Increasing the roster size means either more spending by the owners or a cut in average salaries by the players. I don't think either side is interested in that at this moment. I do not understand why the 8 players on the practice squad can't dress and/or play. I think they should be able to.
  12. The silence the FO has exhibited concerning everything about the issue with the GM was the right thing to do in my mind, especially if Scot was having an issue with alcohol and they were working through whatever the next step was, i.e. help him, rehab, fire him, etc. They took the high road, a road which this FO has rarely taken in the past. It is plausible that at the combine, the FO still intended on having Scot come back once he was "right" and made everyone in the FO, including Scot, aware that nothing should be mentioned about the situation. The only people commenting on the situation, besides Bruce's "Scot will return to work once he has his family issues in order" were the media (speculation), Scot's wife in social media saying Scot was not "sent home" and Scot's agent saying Scot's absence was not alcohol related. Shortly after it was known that Scot was not at the combine, I think one reporter actually quoted a text from Scot himself saying his absence was because of a death in the family and not alcohol related. He did not need to comment on the alcohol part. When the FO zipped their lips and Scot's side did not, the FO was forced to act in a way they may not have wanted to originally, and fire Scot. Even if one subscribes to the opposite story line and the firing was some type of power struggle between the Scot and Bruce, the silence from the Redskins front office was the correct way to handle the situation and Scot's side did not tow the company line.
  13. Hind sight is 20/20 I guess. In week 13 or 14 of last season I am sure the FO did not know that they were going to hire Manusky to be the DC. They did their due diligence with a job search after the season was over. I am quite positive Manusky was not their 1st choice. Between what really happened and what you suggest should have happened, I think the FO did the correct thing. Why should the FO have let anyone know Scot was not going to attend the combine in advance? What purpose would that have served? Why would they open that can of worms before they had to?
  14. Someone that changes loyalty based on success (or a lack there of), is just a bandwagon fan. Obviously the Post thinks all Redskins' fans are bandwagon fans... Edit below: I am at my limit of free articles so I only have the title and the snippet above to base my opinion on but, I definitely understand why the Redskins do not have a relationship, good or otherwise, with the Post
  15. I actually like the silence the FO is exhibitting, before, during and after the debacle. You have an employee that has lost 2 front office jobs before he was hired here. They gave him another chance and it did not work. There was nothing to gain by talking about the situation.