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

[Warhead36]

You don't judge drafts after just one or even two years. The 2014 class looked bad at first, now its looking pretty solid with 5 starters.

[HTTRDynasty]

18 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

Scot was responsible for scouting FA's and Draft picks. That's it. Over the past two years besides Scherff and Crowder and including Free Agency please do tell me what accomplishments Scot brought this team. What did this super scout provide us?

 

So you don't think Preston Smith's 8 sacks down the stretch in 2015 played a huge role in us winning the division?  How about Jarrett's play-making at safety?  Matt Jones also contributed some good games for us in 2015.  How about the crucial in-season FA pick-ups Scot made over that season that helped fill gaping holes and helped us win the division?

 

In 2016, do you think we win that Giants game without Sua Craven's timely INT?  How about all the game-changing plays Josh Norman made for us?  How about Ty Nsekhe filling in for Trent Williams for 4 games and our OL not missing a beat?

 

And how about our significantly improved special teams play over the last two seasons because of back-end additions to the roster?  Do special teams not matter anymore now that we're actually good there for once?

[NewCliche21]

13 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

So you don't think Preston Smith's 8 sacks down the stretch in 2015 played a huge role in us winning the division?  How about Jarrett's play-making at safety?  Matt Jones also contributed some good games for us in 2015.  How about the crucial in-season FA pick-ups Scot made over that season that helped fill gaping holes and helped us win the division?

 

In 2016, do you think we win that Giants game without Sua Craven's timely INT?  How about all the game-changing plays Josh Norman made for us?  How about Ty Nsekhe filling in for Trent Williams for 4 games and our OL not missing a beat?

 

And how about our significantly improved special teams play over the last two seasons because of back-end additions to the roster?  Do special teams not matter anymore now that we're actually good there for once?

 

Yeah, but other than that and many more examples?  Nada, squat, zero.

[bobandweave]

32 minutes ago, Reaper Skins said:

Also, not sure if the Gruden posts were directed at me.  If I gave the impression that I don't think Gruden is just as, if not MORE responsible for the turnaround as Scott the last 2 years, that's not the case.  I'm probably one of Gruden's biggest fans, and have been since Day 1.

 

 

 

A bunch of out of date, out of touch with reality links you just posted there mean absolutely NOTHING today!!!

 

They are meaningless. Why? Because we never knew when they were written what control and what power Scot actually yielded here. Those articles were written when we all thought wrongly that Scot was the captain of this ship when Scot NEVER was.

 

I can't go look at that now knowing what I know now the same. Scot was nothing but a figurehead GM that yielded no real power other then scouting when he was here. Saying otherwise is complete conjure now that we know the truth about Scot

 

Maybe they mean something to you now but they shouldn't unless you flat out deny that is the truth.

 

Bruce has always been running this show, not Scot. Scot answered to him in everything he did. Scot was responsible for the draft and free agency. He was a glorified Scout, a Super Scout that's it. He made the grades and Bruce made the decisions

 

So I ask you again since you started this with an insult to me and think your gonna show me ancient history which is not true knowing the curtains been pulled back on this now and you can't escape that.

 

What did Scot add to this organization? Name the players he graded and we brought here through Free Agency or the NFL Draft you credit him with. Otherwise get lost with this nonsense that Scot was some great GM, real GM's have power. Scot was a scout and the results are LACKING with his scouting

[FrFan]

5 hours ago, RedBeast said:

I drive by Ashburn a few times each week. I used to drive by with hope, now it is just disgust...like a bad sushi lunch. No faith left, or very little. 

 

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Groundhog day

[Morneblade]

2 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

A bunch of out of date, out of touch with reality links you just posted there mean absolutely NOTHING. They are meaningless. Why? Because we never knew what control, what power Scot actually yielded here. Those articles were written when we all thought the captain of this ship was Scot and it NEVER was.

 

I can't go look at that now knowing that Scot was nothing but a figurehead with no power other then scouting when he was here the same.

 

Maybe they mean something to you now but they are all bull**** now. Bruce has always been running this show, not Scot. Scot answered to him in everything he did. Scot was responsible for the draft and free agency.

 

So I ask you again since you started this with an insult to me and think you know more about this then I do

 

What did Scot add to this organization?

 

Respectability. We can go back and forth about how much he contributed with scouting, but he brought with him a level of expertise and professionalism we have not had here since Gibbs 1. Now, we are back to a laughing stock as far as that is concerned.

[bobandweave]

34 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

You don't judge drafts after just one or even two years. The 2014 class looked bad at first, now its looking pretty solid with 5 starters.

 

Bruce ran that draft and clearly its better then the 15 or 16 drafts. I hate Bruce, ***** Bruce Allen, I hope he gets fired soon. But I don't get the whinny crying feeling about losing Scot M. The results we have seen so far were crap

 

4 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

Respectability. We can go back and forth about how much he contributed with scouting, but he brought with him a level of expertise and professionalism we have not had here since Gibbs 1. Now, we are back to a laughing stock as far as that is concerned.

 

That only existed because the team lied to the world and hid the fact that Bruce yielded the power, had the team been honest from the beginning and said "We have hired our own Scouting service named Scot M." we never would have gotten Respectability in the first place. That was always an illusion

[Morneblade]

2 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Bruce ran that draft and clearly its better then the 15 or 16 drafts. I hate Bruce, ***** Bruce Allen, I hope he gets fired soon. But I don't get the whinny crying feeling about losing Scot M. The results we have seen so far were crap

 

Judging a draft after 1 or 2 years is also silly. You need at least 3 years.

[shmohawk]

I know this is a message board and it's the offseason, but I really do not see anything constructive resulting from constantly re-litigating Scott's impact.  The only result is either undervaluing or overemphasizing what he did in his time here, based mostly on conjecture, and it really makes no difference now.  At the end of the day, Scott is gone and is not coming back.  Let's focus on the present and the future, and spend our time praising/crapping upon the current regime, and hope they lead us to prosperity/get fired.

[bobandweave]

35 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

You don't judge drafts after just one or even two years. The 2014 class looked bad at first, now its looking pretty solid with 5 starters.

 

Just now, Morneblade said:

 

Judging a draft after 1 or 2 years is also silly. You need at least 3 years.

 

Fine meet me here in 3 years and lets see what became of the 2015 and 2016 draft and we can see if these were great or not then. I'm fine with that. To me they will not be good but I do hope I'm wrong about that

[TheBlueIndian]

37 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

You don't judge drafts after just one or even two years. The 2014 class looked bad at first, now its looking pretty solid with 5 starters.

 

No first rounder in that draft

And of course the sure footed Ryan Grant

[Reaper Skins]

1 minute ago, bobandweave said:

 

A bunch of out of date, out of touch with reality links you just posted there mean absolutely NOTHING. They are meaningless. Why? Because we never knew what control, what power Scot actually yielded here. Those articles were written when we all thought the captain of this ship was Scot and it NEVER was. I can't go look at that now knowing that Scot was nothing but a figurehead with no power other then scouting when he was here the same. Maybe they mean something to you now but they are all bull**** now. Bruce has always been running this show, not Scot. Scot answered to him in everything he did. So I ask you again since you started this with an insult to me,

 

What did Scot add to this organization?

You choose not to believe any of the articles I posted.  My links are "out of touch with reality" only because of what the team has "leaked" in the past few days.

I choose not to believe the stories coming out of Redskins Park within the past few days.  

I see too many similarities to how other employees' tenure ended with the Redskins to think that what is now being "revealed" is the truth.  It seems very obvious to me that they are purposefully minimizing Scott's place within the organization after the fact to placate and reassure the fanbase.  

 

If you choose to believe the Redskins front office is telling the truth, I can't change your mind.  But they no longer get the benefit of the doubt in my book and it seems incredibly naive to disregard the one factor that has been the difference during the 2 winning seasons.

 

Take a look at how the national media is covering Scott's departure vs. how the Redskins official statements line up.  The players, the fans, and the media all attributed the culture change to Scott for the last 2 years.  Forgive me if I'm not willing to do a complete 180 and get in line based on the transparent, petty, self-serving damage control reports that are being spewed by the team after the fact to try and cover their asses.   

[TheBlueIndian]

35 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Ty Nsekhe filling in for Trent Williams for 4 games and our OL not missing a beat?

 

 

Ty was either Shanahan or Allen not Scot. Callahan and Jay had to convince him to keep Ty. I'm glad they did

[bobandweave]

45 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

So you don't think Preston Smith's 8 sacks down the stretch in 2015 played a huge role in us winning the division - He had only 6 sacks in the second half of that season so your making up stats. I was extremely high on Smith after that season, he followed it up with half his total year two. Are you saying that you know for certain that he will get back to being the guy he was in 2015 over continuing to be the guy he was in 2016? If you do I hope your right. He was bad last year

 

How about Jarrett's play-making at safety?  - Isn't he retired now? No oh ya he's off the team for a failed physical

 

Matt Jones also contributed some good games for us in 2015 - Oh ya who can forget the second half of Matt Jones 2015 season when he missed the last three games of the season including the one playoff game and rushed for 0, 100 yard rushing games after week 2 of that season? Are you seriously making a case like this? Come on man

 

.  How about the crucial in-season FA pick-ups Scot made over that season that helped fill gaping holes and helped us win the division? - Such as?

 

In 2016, do you think we win that Giants game without Sua Craven's timely INT?  How about all the game-changing plays Josh Norman made for us?  How about Ty Nsekhe filling in for Trent Williams for 4 games and our OL not missing a beat? - Any GM in the league would know that Josh Norman was a good football player who could help a team, all 32 of them. Your not getting any credit from me for signing him. As for Cravens was the 53rd player taken in the draft last season and for what he has given us so far it's not been good. Did he make a play? Yes, did he live up to being the 53rd player taken in the draft? No

 

And how about our significantly improved special teams play over the last two seasons because of back-end additions to the roster?  Do special teams not matter anymore now that we're actually good there for once? - Considering some people think we are moving on from Hopkins this season not sure I'd give that any credit

 

31 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Yeah, but other than that and many more examples?  Nada, squat, zero.

 

Too bad those examples are over the top and not factual but I see your point.

 

So lets all hold hands and cry some rivers and sing Koom By Ya for dearly departed Scot Meeeechuggggalota he will be missed. RIP

[Commander -JB-]

1 hour ago, oraphus said:

yeah you're right.... probably has nothing to do with Gruden and Mcvay(now youngest head coach ever) or KC - Offence that carried this team to those .500+ seasons.

Nobody is saying any one man ever deserves ALL the credit.  However to say he deserves none and we are better off without him is ignorance at its finest.

[goskins10]

10 minutes ago, TheBlueIndian said:

 

Ty was either Shanahan or Allen not Scot. Callahan and Jay had to convince him to keep Ty. I'm glad they did

 

Ty has only been here since 2015. I am pretty sure he was a Scot signing.  Again, I do not think anyone is on the Scot was the most awesome GM in the world. But to say he was just OK and it's not much of a loss is also a little too simplistic. He did not bring in a lot of flash guys. He got unlucky with some bad injuries. It happens. The draft is anything but an exact science.

 

But you can't deny the back of the roster was better. STs was horrible here for years. Here are the DVOA STs rankings the last 3 yrs:

2014 - 29th

2015 - 6th

2016 - 14th (drop is directly due to missed FGs.)

 

Even though many people wanted to fire Kotwica more than once, he also gets a lot of credit for the STs improvement just like Jay gets credit for the overall team performance. BTW: Talk about someone not getting enough credit. He can't actually kick the FGs. No one saw Hopkins regressing like he did. PR was top 5 in thee NFL all year. Crowder doing a great job there. But Scot did help get them guys.

 

It will be really interesting to see how the 2016 draft looks after this year and next. Cravens get's better utilized and Doctson comes along and all of a sudden the draft looks a whole lot better. Or nothing could happen and it will be a pretty bad draft.

[bobandweave]

25 minutes ago, Reaper Skins said:

You choose not to believe any of the articles I posted.  My links are "out of touch with reality" only because of what the team has "leaked" in the past few days.

I choose not to believe the stories coming out of Redskins Park within the past few days.  

I see too many similarities to how other employees' tenure ended with the Redskins to think that what is now being "revealed" is the truth.  It seems very obvious to me that they are purposefully minimizing Scott's place within the organization after the fact to placate and reassure the fanbase.  

 

If you choose to believe the Redskins front office is telling the truth, I can't change your mind.  But they no longer get the benefit of the doubt in my book and it seems incredibly naive to disregard the one factor that has been the difference during the 2 winning seasons.

 

Take a look at how the national media is covering Scott's departure vs. how the Redskins official statements line up.  The players, the fans, and the media all attributed the culture change to Scott for the last 2 years.  Forgive me if I'm not willing to do a complete 180 and get in line based on the transparent, petty, self-serving damage control reports that are being spewed by the team after the fact to try and cover their asses.   

 

 

Have a wonderful life

[goskins10]

35 minutes ago, shmohawk said:

I know this is a message board and it's the offseason, but I really do not see anything constructive resulting from constantly re-litigating Scott's impact.  The only result is either undervaluing or overemphasizing what he did in his time here, based mostly on conjecture, and it really makes no difference now.  At the end of the day, Scott is gone and is not coming back.  Let's focus on the present and the future, and spend our time praising/crapping upon the current regime, and hope they lead us to prosperity/get fired.

 

I understand what you are saying - but I think the reason it's getting "litigated" (love that word BTW) is that it goes to what we expect moving forward. That makes it relevant. I do agree it has gotten much more contentious than it should.

 

BTW: It's Scot not Scott - Totally just picking! Had to do it! Is meant to be a joke.  

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

So it's not a huge leap to suggest that in the beginning he had indeed gotten his drinking down to a minimal level. Once the pressure was on for him to perform he started drinking a little more each day. Then the arguments over players that started as simple disagreements started to get more intense. Scot starts to show signs of drinking more heavily. Then Bruce has to start wondering is this really what Scot wants or is the alcohol talking. It's not helped by Bruce being stubborn. So he starts questioning every move Scot makes and being overly critical. That's how it escalates.

 

 

I  agree with some of your post.  Listening to reporters cover this, I got no doubt Scot had drinking issues and also got no doubt that there were plenty of antics as a consequence.  But I am not taking Bruce's side either.    I don't like how they are handling their side of it.  And if the notion is Scot was the problem and Bruce was the mature guy dealing with it the best he can -- he's not really walking that talk IMO.  Scot's departures in SF and Seattle weren't ugly like this.  I like Larry Michael but he poured even more gasoline on that fire on Redskins Nation the other day.   The Redskins FO IMO needs to chill and be classy.   

 

If Bruce Allen is the good guy in all of this and I agree its a possible conclusion when its all said and done.  I don't think he earns the benefit of the doubt because the idea that he/Danny interfering with personnel isn't a far out/implausible situation.  IMO Bruce being the good guy here will be shown by who he hires next to run personnel.  That to me will be very telling as for whether Bruce's/Danny's top priority is to win or its more important to win or lose their way. 

 

Bruce questioning Scot's personnel decisions maybe because he was concerned that they were influenced by drinking is indeed a huge leap IMO judging by all the stories circulating including past ones about Scot and Dan and Bruce.   The stories for example in SF and Seattle was the dude was smart and talented and they hated losing him but his drinking was an issue not his personnel calls.  Drinking impinging on whether he likes player X or Y was never a mention.  

 

Sarcasm isn't directed at you just having some fun to make a point.  Dan and Bruce interfering?  Those guys?  No way, get out of here!   So the idea that it had to be drastic measures like Scot's personnel decisions being influenced by the fog of alcohol for Bruce/Dan to get involved -- seems wild to me.  Listen back for example to Shanny's description of how they foisted D. McNabb on him.     Danny called Gibbs about lets go get Lance Briggs. On and on and on.

 

 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

43 minutes ago, shmohawk said:

I know this is a message board and it's the offseason, but I really do not see anything constructive resulting from constantly re-litigating Scott's impact.  The only result is either undervaluing or overemphasizing what he did in his time here, based mostly on conjecture, and it really makes no difference now.  At the end of the day, Scott is gone and is not coming back.  Let's focus on the present and the future, and spend our time praising/crapping upon the current regime, and hope they lead us to prosperity/get fired.

Good post.  Welcome to ES, if you are new. 

This is what I don't really understand either.  The focus is on who did what and where and how it was done.  Not enough focus on the facts.

 

The facts are Scot is no longer with our team.  Kirk hasn't signed a LTD.  Bruce, who's track record for personnel flat out sucks (a good year here or their aside), is in charge of our FO.  We haven't done much in FA to bolster our putrid front seven.  Our new DC is a question mark.  Snyder still owns our team.

 

There are some positives though.  Jay got extended.  Pryor was a nice pick-up, wish we had gone ahead and inked him to a longer deal.  There's still some options in FA at DL/LB out there.  We still have the opportunity to ink Kirk to a long term deal.

 

For me, the two most glaring issues are Bruce is our GM and Kirk hasn't been signed to a long term deal.  If we remedy those two things, you won't hear a peep outta me.  

 

 

[RedskinsInFebruary]

57 minutes ago, shmohawk said:

I know this is a message board and it's the offseason, but I really do not see anything constructive resulting from constantly re-litigating Scott's impact.  The only result is either undervaluing or overemphasizing what he did in his time here, based mostly on conjecture, and it really makes no difference now.  At the end of the day, Scott is gone and is not coming back.  Let's focus on the present and the future, and spend our time praising/crapping upon the current regime, and hope they lead us to prosperity/get fired.

 

We benefited from the keen insights and skills of a drunk.  Let's move on. 

[NewCliche21]

51 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

 

Too bad those examples are over the top and not factual but I see your point.

 

So lets all hold hands and cry some rivers and sing Koom By Ya for dearly departed Scot Meeeechuggggalota he will be missed. RIP

 

10/10 maturity and spellcheck.  Would recommend.

 

Anyway, I hope that you get a little bit of a grip on accepting others' opinions that disagree with yours.

 

At the risk of making this too long, I'll just go through your post point by point.

 

1)  Yeah, Preston definitely fell off.  Still a good pick up, hit his stride with that pick that really helped seal the game this year.

 

2)  The guy had a freak injury.  Nothing that was already known of, a crazy freak injury.  You lose points on this one.

 

3)  Yep, Matt Jones was great, then came down.  Then that Robert Kelley guy came up.  A Scot guy.

 

4)  Did you see our secondary in 2015?  If we really need to go through it:

1.  - Mason Foster
2. - Quinton Dunbar
3. -  Will Blackmon (meh, but still filling a hole during the season)
4. - Deshazor Everrett
5. - Dashaun Phillips
6. - Brian de la Puente
7. -  Pierre Thomas

Here you go, it took about ten seconds of Googling: http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/transactions/_/name/wsh/year/2015

 

5)  Yes, everyone knew that Norman was good.  And Scot got him as opposed to the other 31 teams.  Your assessment of Cravens is laughable at best.  You didn't say anything about Nsekhe because it hurt your argument.

 

6)  You're citing one of the top kickers in the league as a reason that our special teams didn't improve?  Seriously?

 

Get over yourself, man.  I have no problem with people who have a debate, but those who are being asses about it don't fly with me.

[HTTRDynasty]

@bobandweave You're being extremely unreasonable in your criticisms of first and second year players.  You can pick out positives and negatives for every player on the team, including Kirk/Reed/Trent etc.  That doesn't mean Scot didn't provide us with some impact players that contributed in a big way to our 2015 and 2016 winning seasons.

 

By the way, Preston Smith was objectively our best pass rusher last year according to Next Gen Stats.  And he was doing it solely against LTs, not the RTs Kerrigan (and sometimes Murphy) got to feast on.

[goskins10]

16 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I  agree with some of your post.  Listening to reporters cover this, I got no doubt Scot had drinking issues and also got no doubt that there were plenty of antics as a consequence.  But I am not taking Bruce's side either.    I don't like how they are handling their side of it.  And if the notion is Scot was the problem and Bruce was the mature guy dealing with it the best he can -- he's not really walking that talk IMO.  Scot's departures in SF and Seattle weren't ugly like this.  I like Larry Michael but he poured even more gasoline on that fire on Redskins Nation the other day.   The Redskins FO IMO needs to chill and be classy.   

 

Edit

 

 

 

 

Not intended to get Bruce or the FO off the hook in terms of how it got to the point it did. I am absolutely certain Bruce had his nose where it did not belong and should have deferred to Scot instead of wanting to be supreme leader. I am sure that irritated Scot. But my point was we should not just dump all over them as if Scot shares no blame and is just an innocent victim. He had a role in this. What starts out as simple disagreements turn into major battles that tend to be incoherent.

 

As far as how they are handling it - I am still not sure what that is. When he left they said he want home to take care of family matters. When the noise got too loud they moved on. They have not said anything else since then. The rest is media and fan speculation as to what happened and what is happening.

[bobandweave]

14 minutes ago, RedskinsInFebruary said:

 

We benefited from the keen insights and skills of a drunk.  Let's move on. 

 

Well said, I stopped crying when I saw this. Thank you