Califan007

Bruce Allen, Scot McCloughlan, Jay Gruden, and all that stuff like that there

3,327 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, CapsSkins said:

 

First it's: Bruce Allen spread rumors of Scot drinking as an excuse to fire him.

 

Then it was: well he was drinking but he said he never stopped, so it was still used an excuse to fire him.

 

Then it was: well okay he was drinking a lot, but it didn't affect his performance, so it was still used as an excuse to fire him.

 

Then it was: okay but the Redskins didn't create a positive environment for him, so it's their fault he started drinking a lot again.

 

Then it was: well if they knew he was an alcoholic, why did they even hire him???

 

And at some point it literally became: Bruce Allen hired a known alcoholic for PR reasons with the underlying plan that eventually, when the hire became too bold, he would use the alcoholism to oust him.

 

It is unreal. I'm waiting for the article that says Bruce Allen turned Scot into an alcoholic at 7 years old as a pre-emptive measure in the event 50 years later he needed a fall-guy to hire for PR reasons.

 

It's so damn obvious I can't believe every single Skins fan doesn't see it clearly. I mean even if you still consider Allen and Snyder 100% in the wrong you still see how the narrative of Scot's drinking keeps getting distorted to place blame on the Redskins.

 

I recall one tweet that basically said while all front offices have some sort of alcohol in them, a source told them that it was "so much worse" at Redskins park than at other team facilities around the league. And that's it. No explanation needed or given. No example of what makes it so much worse. Just that it is. The implication being that the horrible alcohol culture at Redskins Park is to blame for Scot's drinking, which we still don't think played any roll in his firing, but if it did, blame Redskins Park, not him.

 

In all of this, people want their biases confirmed and their anger and frustrations validated. Even if it's done with speculations rooted in flawed logic. 

13 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The WP had via Mike Jones two main articles about the subject, one which has Scot's side to it -- Bruce interfered and didn't hold his end of the bargain that Scot had full personnel control, Bruce wanted a bit more of a yes man than Scot was.  And this caused tension between Scot and Bruce.  Jones gave the vibe in follow up radio interviews on that article that Scot was too opinionated and feisty for Bruce. The other WP article took the team's perspective, Scot was drinking too much and out of control as a consequence and the firing/tension is centered on that.

 

The more I listen to and read about this case especially from Chris Russell who keeps dropping nuggets (Russell broke this story in a sense), my gut is those two stories aren't competing stories but both stories are true and the WP just touched the surface of both stories.  

 

From my stand point if they had to fire Scot because he was out of control, that's fine.  But the part of the story that bothers me the most remains the Bruce interfering and Jerry Brewer among others suggesting that Bruce wants to be the defacto GM, calling the shots.  For me, I care about that moving forward.  For me the McCloughan hire was more than just being about him but being about a change in the direction of the franchise -- hiring a real personnel with a great track record to run personnel.  If there really is something to the smoke that we are back to nepotism being the overriding drill -- so its about who is Bruce close to and will defer to him -- if that plays out than to me its a cringe worthy regression for the team.  If on the other hand, Bruce hires another Scot type to run personnel, then terrific I'd be satisfied.    I guess we won't know until after the draft one way or another.

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

44 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

.

 

The more I listen to and read about this case especially from Chris Russell who keeps dropping nuggets (Russell broke this story in a sense), my gut is those two stories aren't competing stories but both stories are true and the WP just touched the surface of both stories.  

 

 But the part of the story that bothers me the most remains the Bruce interfering and Jerry Brewer among others suggesting that Bruce wants to be the defacto GM, calling the shots.  

 

 

First part, it's amazing how few people realize that it could be both Allen AND Scot, to differing degrees.

 

Second part, for me, if Allen really wanted to be GM he would have stayed GM instead of reaching out to Scot in mid-season. 

 

By the way, can anyone fill me in on how Scot was overruled on Trent Murphy?...One article included his name in a list of players Scot wanted to keep but was overruled by Allen? 

Edited by Califan007
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

Second part, for me, if Allen really wanted to be GM he would have stayed GM instead of reaching out to Scot in mid-season. 

 

 

Maybe yes, maybe no. There are lot of stories to digest on this.  Among them is that after 2014 they knew at Redskins Park they needed to do something to win over the fans -- and hiring a GM might just do the trick.  Who knows if Bruce was pushed by Danny on that front or bowed to pressure on it.  According to Chris Russell -- Bruce's top guy for the job was Bruce's pal AJ Smith but Danny wouldn't go for it.   Or heck maybe Bruce was genuinely into hiring a GM at the time but then changed his mind in year 2 of it because he wanted to hold more power -- maybe Mike Jones/Brewer are right and Bruce wanted more control and was jealous of the attention Scot got.  

 

Bruce wanted a GM, Bruce was pushed to hire a GM, Bruce wanted a GM but then changed his mind.  All theories are plausible to me but in my mind its not the operative point -- my drive here isn't to figure out Bruce's past motives.  I care about what happens next. 

 

In my mind, I am not on reflex going to have Bruce's back nor am I going to throw him under the bus.  I'll stick to what I said in my previous post and that is I'll just judge him by his next move.  If they don't hire a GM or hire someone who Bruce has a deep relationship with (Like Dominik or Doug Williams) but have either big time checkered histories as drafters or aren't well regarded as personnel people -- then I am going to be upset.  If they hire a real GM with a strong background, I'd be happy.

 

Forget Bruce, Scot, Danny for a second.  I've been on this train years before Scot arrived.  The weird thing I always thought about Danny is we keep hearing all he wants to do is win.  However, he has never done what the top franchises do and that is hire a personnel guy with killer reputations for being smart with personnel.  Cerrato wasn't considered that guy in NFL circles, no one was beating the doors down for him.  Ditto Bruce.  Even Shanny was chased out of Denver because of his personnel decisions.  Scot has personal issues but was considered a stud at scouting/personnel.  We've talked here over the years about guys with those type of reputations like DeCosta in Baltimore, etc.  

 

If Bruce goes back to the common Redskins well of hiring someone that comes off as a flier and isn't in demand in the rest of the NFL -- but heck that guy has Bruce's back -- then color me unimpressed.  If Bruce goes for another Scot type without the personal baggage then color me impressed.  It's that simple for me.   Bruce to me at this point is an open ended question.  I don't love him, don't hate him -- I want to see what he does next, then i'll judge. :)

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, zoony said:

So now Kornheiser is eviscerating the Redsiins for their "takedown" of SM.  Wasnt Tony a big Snyder fan?

 

As I've said many times, the Redskins deserve no leeway, but the piling on by National Jackals like Wilbon, Kornheiser, Reid (the worst of them all), et al is just annoying. We get it. They're a horribly mismanaged organization. These blowhards are writing 1000 words under the a pseudonym for Captian Obvious.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

First part, it's amazing how few people realize that it could be both Allen AND Scot, to differing degrees.

 

Second part, for me, if Allen really wanted to be GM he would have stayed GM instead of reaching out to Scot in mid-season. 

 

By the way, can anyone fill me in on how Scot was overruled on Trent Murphy?...One article included his name in a list of players Scot wanted to keep but was overruled by Allen? 

 

As Zoony, myself, and others pointed out there were enough misses and miscalculations for some doubt to exist about Scot's prowess aside from the alcohol issues.  Not giving Bruce a pass for the way he let this go down.  He did a terrible job of managing this debacle.  Had Scot been picking the quality blue chippers that we saw Seattle pick when he was there then Scot could have pulled a Riggo and taken a drunken piss in a trash can in Danny's office and he wouldn't be fired.  His record in the draft and free agency has not been nearly as good as it was in SF and Seattle.  I don't buy that Bruce interfered with all of Scot's decisions.  He sure did bring in a lot of his ex players and none of them have really produced at a high level except for Vernon Davis. 

Edited by ThomasRoane
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The weird thing I always thought about Danny is we keep hearing all he wants to do is win.  However, he has never done what the top franchises do and that is hire a personnel guy with killer reputations for being smart with personnel.  

 

 

That is because anyone with an ounce of GM talent won't work for Snyder.  If you were highly sought after, would you?  And that's a rhetorical question ---- no one would. 

 

The fact is that the only people that last more than a couple years in Redskins park are the yes-men that do what he says and cover their behinds when things go wrong.  It's like the guy in your office that has no discernible talent but gets promoted because he/she is incredible at pushing their failures on to the next person --- those are the dudes that last under Snyder. 

 

Do you really think a high quality GM will take the position Scot was fired from????? No way.  It'll be like our defensive coordinator situation where the top candidates passed due to the uncertainty of the franchise and it's leadership. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

58 minutes ago, ThomasRoane said:

 

As Zoony, myself, and others pointed out there were enough misses and miscalculations for some doubt to exist about Scot's prowess aside from the alcohol issues.  Not giving Bruce a pass for the way he let this go down.  He did a terrible job of managing this debacle.  Had Scot been picking the quality blue chippers that we saw Seattle pick when he was there then Scot could have pulled a Riggo and taken a drunken piss in a trash can in Danny's office and he wouldn't be fired.  His record in the draft and free agency has not been nearly as good as it was in SF and Seattle.  I don't buy that Bruce interfered with all of Scot's decisions.  He sure did bring in a lot of his ex players and none of them have really produced at a high level except for Vernon Davis. 

 

 I don't buy that Bruce interfered with all of the decisions either but I don't like idea either that its "some" of the decisions.   That would be consistent with Shanny's story.  Yeah they didn't interfere with him all the time but they interfered with him and did so at key junctures.  And I am one of Shanny's biggest critics so no love for me there.  

 

I also don't want Bruce (Danny) to start interfering because they can criticize some of the decisions that their personnel guy made.  Hey dude you screwed up this and that so sorry we are going to override you on some decisions moving forward.  If you open up that Pandora's Box -- everything is in play with any future personnel guy because all personnel guys screw up plenty.  Some even have bad years.  John Schneider who many say is the best GM in the NFL has had some outright bad drafts/bad years.  So what's the way to react to that?  Patience.  That's how successful franchises operate. 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lavar1156 said:

 

 

Damn. Would've been nice...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, markshark84 said:

 

That is because anyone with an ounce of GM talent won't work for Snyder.  If you were highly sought after, would you?  And that's a rhetorical question ---- no one would. 

 

The fact is that the only people that last more than a couple years in Redskins park are the yes-men that do what he says and cover their behinds when things go wrong.  It's like the guy in your office that has no discernible talent but gets promoted because he/she is incredible at pushing their failures on to the next person --- those are the dudes that last under Snyder. 

 

Do you really think a high quality GM will take the position Scot was fired from????? No way.  It'll be like our defensive coordinator situation where the top candidates passed due to the uncertainty of the franchise and it's leadership. 

I would answer that depends on the check Dan's signing each month.

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

Damn. Would've been nice...

Can someone ask Elon Musk?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I also don't want Bruce (Danny) to start interfering because they can criticize some of the decisions that their personnel guy made.  Hey dude you screwed up this and that so sorry we are going to override you on some decisions moving forward.  If you open up that Pandora's Box -- everything is in play with any future personnel guy because all personnel guys screw up plenty.  Some even have bad years.  John Schneider who many say is the best GM in the NFL has had some outright bad drafts/bad years.  So what's the way to react to that?  Patience.  That's how successful franchises operate. 

 

 

No quarrel with that.  I say that it's above Bruce.  Dan Snyder enables him to have that kind of influence.  He has done it since he has owned this team with Vinny and Bruce.  I would LOVE for them to find a stable GM such as Highsmith from GB and get out of the way.  Some fans say Dan has a right to be involved in some issues such as the coach or contracts.  Based on Dan's penchant for interfering I disagree.  He needs to focus on the fan experience and stay the hell out of every football related decision. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

I would answer that depends on the check Dan's signing each month.

 

 

Not if you're playing the long game.  If you are a young talent, a couple extra million isn't going to matter if there's a high likelihood Snyder will fire you and trash your name within 2 years.....

 

Regardless, I'd be suspect of a GM that picks a position based 100% on salary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThomasRoane said:

I would LOVE for them to find a stable GM such as Highsmith from GB and get out of the way. 

That looks like urban legend here.

 

We tend to think that other owners never interfere in any way regarding their franchise. But from a company perspective, an owner being aware of nothing and where guys can do whatever they like without refering to the boss are probably heading for doom. Who knows if Green Bay's boss never told is GM when they were dealing with Rodgers' contract: "OK guys, he wants more than you want to sign him to? let's go!" or "25M/year? That's too much. We're not gonna pay him that price..."

 

We always think to seem that Dan should have anything to say but sign the check and do some stupid move in the box on gamesday... But he has to be involved, even regarding the roster up to some point. He's not supposed to tell the depth chart to the coach, but I wouldn't have any problem with him telling his GM: "No, we're not gonna sign Aaron Hernandez here, no matter what." (just picked that name because of you know why...).

 

Those are businesses and the boss have to be involved. Some of us are in this position in their job, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't like to see one of their employee doing whatever he wants and signs checks to other employees without even refering.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ThomasRoane said:

 

As Zoony, myself, and others pointed out there were enough misses and miscalculations for some doubt to exist about Scot's prowess aside from the alcohol issues.  Not giving Bruce a pass for the way he let this go down.  He did a terrible job of managing this debacle.  Had Scot been picking the quality blue chippers that we saw Seattle pick when he was there then Scot could have pulled a Riggo and taken a drunken piss in a trash can in Danny's office and he wouldn't be fired.  His record in the draft and free agency has not been nearly as good as it was in SF and Seattle.  I don't buy that Bruce interfered with all of Scot's decisions.  He sure did bring in a lot of his ex players and none of them have really produced at a high level except for Vernon Davis. 

I read somwhere that GrudAllen overruled him on guys like Grant vs. Ross, Goldsten (or however you spell it) vs. Jenkins, etc.  I have $100 in my pocket that says Allen couldn't give 2 poops about Grant vs. Ross, but Gruden did.  SM wanted to keep Ross (he was right), Gruden LOVES grant, Allen sides with Gruden, and we keep Grant. 

 

I'm sure that there were more than a few times that happened.

 

I think it's important that the coach and GM are on the same page, and that they work together to build the roster.  But sometimes the coach can't quite see the forest through the trees, and the GM needs to overrule him. 

 

But Gruden is Allen's guy.  As long as that relationship continues, and Allen has the ability to step in at the coach's behest, the GM's power is going to be limited.

 

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, ThomasRoane said:

 

As Zoony, myself, and others pointed out there were enough misses and miscalculations for some doubt to exist about Scot's prowess aside from the alcohol issues.  Not giving Bruce a pass for the way he let this go down.  He did a terrible job of managing this debacle.  Had Scot been picking the quality blue chippers that we saw Seattle pick when he was there then Scot could have pulled a Riggo and taken a drunken piss in a trash can in Danny's office and he wouldn't be fired.  His record in the draft and free agency has not been nearly as good as it was in SF and Seattle.  I don't buy that Bruce interfered with all of Scot's decisions.  He sure did bring in a lot of his ex players and none of them have really produced at a high level except for Vernon Davis. 

Ding, ding ding! we have a winner. At the end of the day the Mcloughlan Skins got is not the one that was sold to us. 

Looking back at his draft and FA acquisitions he has so far been a below average GM. Now he might have been limited in what he could do but in the end of the day this is what we have to show for it:

2015 draft - 7 picks:

1 good starter - Crowder

1 avg starter - P. Smith

1 backup - Arie K

all within top 4 rounds

2016 draft - 7 picks:

1 good starter - Sua

1 enj WR that might never be able to get on the field.

rest have not shown anything to back up their pics.

 

FAs outside of Norman have been largely disappointing.  

he also largely ignored Dline and Safety in draft and FA 2 years in a row which has been the biggest need on this team 2 years running.

Edited by oraphus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

 

We tend to think that other owners never interfere in any way regarding their franchise.

 

Based on Dan's history and track record of meddling and miscalculations, do you feel confident that he can make the right choice in any football related matter (personnel - draft and FA, coaches, contract negotiation, etc.)?  I don't.  And that's why he is the one owner who should forfeit his right to make any decisions regarding the team that is put on the football field.  He's not "football smart." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, oraphus said:

Ding, ding ding! we have a winner. At the end of the day the Mcloughlan Skins got is not the one that was sold to us. 

Looking back at his draft and FA acquisitions he has so far been a below average GM. Now he might have been limited in what he could do but in the end of the day this is what we have to show for it:

2015 draft - 7 picks:

1 good starter - Crowder

1 avg starter - P. Smith

1 backup - Arie K

all within top 4 rounds

2016 draft - 7 picks:

1 good starter - Sua

1 enj WR that might never be able to get on the field.

rest have not shown anything to back up their pics.

 

FAs outside of Norman have been largely disappointing.  

he also largely ignored Dline and Safety in draft and FA 2 years in a row which has been the biggest need on this team 2 years running.

 

You left Schreff out of there.  Scot's way of building a team is strong defense and running game which never came together.  Matt Jones wasn't Frank Gore or Lynch and the defense got worse.  The band-aid signings he made couldn't hold it together on defense.  Disappointing considering he made a comment that fixing the defense would be easy.  This might have been is draft for him to start righting the defense and I expect the Skins to go heavy on defense.  But I've waited for them to draft DL the first 2 days of the draft the last couple years and they've passed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, drowland said:

 

You left Schreff out of there.  Scot's way of building a team is strong defense and running game which never came together.  Matt Jones wasn't Frank Gore or Lynch and the defense got worse.  The band-aid signings he made couldn't hold it together on defense.  Disappointing considering he made a comment that fixing the defense would be easy.  This might have been is draft for him to start righting the defense and I expect the Skins to go heavy on defense.  But I've waited for them to draft DL the first 2 days of the draft the last couple years and they've passed.  

 

I think everyone knew this was a make or break draft for Scot.  The pressure was on for sure.  Listening to Kevin Sheehan recount all the leaks that were attributed to Scot (Russini, Britt McHenry, Brewer, and Jason Cole) I'm wondering if that as much as anything led to the quick divorce.  (Man did this turn ugly quickly!) Scot's side seemed to be the more active in portraying themselves as the victim.  The whole conflict seems one-sided.  Of course Scot and wife would do their best to make the Redskin's FO look bad and give themselves another chance with another team.  Hard to get settle for a lesser lifestyle.  It's just too bad that the Redskin's history is so littered with so much drama that they are an easy target.  Snyder can't really complain though because he made this bed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So nobody knows how Scot was overridden in terms of Trent Murphy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

So nobody knows how Scot was overridden in terms of Trent Murphy?

 

Think it was over the amount of PEDs he should be taking :ols:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oraphus said:

Ding, ding ding! we have a winner. At the end of the day the Mcloughlan Skins got is not the one that was sold to us. 

Looking back at his draft and FA acquisitions he has so far been a below average GM. Now he might have been limited in what he could do but in the end of the day this is what we have to show for it:

2015 draft - 7 picks:

1 good starter - Crowder

1 avg starter - P. Smith

1 backup - Arie K

all within top 4 rounds

2016 draft - 7 picks:

1 good starter - Sua

1 enj WR that might never be able to get on the field.

rest have not shown anything to back up their pics.

 

FAs outside of Norman have been largely disappointing.  

he also largely ignored Dline and Safety in draft and FA 2 years in a row which has been the biggest need on this team 2 years running.

The 2015 draft looks pretty good. 2016 draft, way too early to say. People thought the '14 class was awful but we ended up with 5 starters out of it. Either way, you can't judge draft classes after just 1-2 years.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Mr. Blonde style. "Hi Dan and Bruce! Can you hear us now? Now that we are "Stuck in the middle with you?"

 

Its our only option at this point?

 

I jest i jest

 

Edited by RedBeast
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, oraphus said:

Ding, ding ding! we have a winner. At the end of the day the Mcloughlan Skins got is not the one that was sold to us. 

Looking back at his draft and FA acquisitions he has so far been a below average GM. Now he might have been limited in what he could do but in the end of the day this is what we have to show for it:

2015 draft - 7 picks:

1 good starter - Crowder

1 avg starter - P. Smith

1 backup - Arie K

all within top 4 rounds

2016 draft - 7 picks:

1 good starter - Sua

1 enj WR that might never be able to get on the field.

rest have not shown anything to back up their pics.

 

FAs outside of Norman have been largely disappointing.  

he also largely ignored Dline and Safety in draft and FA 2 years in a row which has been the biggest need on this team 2 years running.

Sure, after the first back to back above .500 seasons in forever, I'm going to be led to believe that Scot McCloughan was the underlying problem! Sounds legit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have outlined how SM is getting too much credit for the turnaround when the vast majority of the top players responsible for the improvement, starting with Kirk Cousins, were already on the team before his arrival.  But to me this isn't about firing a top personnel guy who did an amazing job here.  No it is about the Redskins again interfering when they announced to us all that SM had complete control.  It's about not resolving this earlier and avoiding all this drama at literally the worst time of the entire year.   It's about even considering a TV personality for General Manager.  

 

All of it just confirms the clown show will never leave Redskins Park and as a result we have no more hope than a Browns fan.

Edited by Darrell Green Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.