I hate to say it but Snyder and Allen might have done the right thing

[ncr2h]

17 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

Jason Cole just reported that SM was fired because SM wanted to trade KC this offseason and both JG and BA didn't agree.  Somewhere there is truth, now, people just throwing **** against wall to see if it sticks.

Considering how much media flak Bruce could get off his back by inking Cousins to an LTD right now, and how the last remaining doubter of Cousins has been dismissed from the building, why hasn't Cousins been signed to a deal yet?  If McLoughan has been out of the "circle of trust" for weeks, why isn't the deal done yet now that Bruce is in full control?

[Stefanskins]

9 hours ago, hockeyiszen said:

Unfortunately I do think SM was let go justly...hear me out...

If you get bought out, as the skins should have done if they had to part ways, even if due to alcohol, then there's a clause in there as part of the settlement where neither party will divulge any information that can damage the other.

If SM gets fired outright, as has happened here, then all bets are off - SM or likely his agent can air all the dirty laundry and dysfunction that came to make this to be.

Snyder and Allen are buffoons but not stupid and have had legal consul - if they fired him outright then they are not scared of any he-said she-said crap that come-out..

long way of saying is that unfortunately, the allegations are likely true and they had cause to fire him.

 

Unrelated but related...

 

I don't know how many of you have had issues with alcohol or have known a daily drinker who has real, fundamental problems but..

You can see it in his face, from pics over th past few months and longer - the extremely puffy & bloated face, the broken blood vessles/capillaries and general rosesia...not saying anything was deserved, all i'm saying, if you know the effects of significant daily drinking you can clealy see it manifested in his pictures recently...and longer

 

Yes, you can...especially if you love and live with them..usually after just one or two drinks..something minute in their personality, speech and body language changes...still breaks my heart : (

8 hours ago, zoony said:

Yah Im not sure what profession this would be okay in

maybe the oldest profession.....but that'd be about it...

[TouchdownSkin]

6 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

 

Journalism at it's finest.   

[thebeermonkey]

This team will go nowhere while the owner is in place. The buck stops there. 

[Bacon]

No, they did not do the right thing. Even if SM was an incompetent alcoholic in his last days with the team, the process of phasing him out was harmful and woefully opaque.

 

Regardless of whether or not SM was let go "justly" for "alcoholism," the lack of transparency from the front office that peaked at a horrendously inopportune time (just prior to the combine/FA) was inexcusable, detrimental to the franchise they claim to have the best interests of.  "We will have no further comment?" **** that. Those of us who have put time, money and emotional investment into this iteration of the Redskins (2015-2017), deserve a clear explanation for their decision and the manner in which it was carried out. 

 

 

[Ron78]

11 hours ago, hockeyiszen said:

Unfortunately I do think SM was let go justly...hear me out...

If you get bought out, as the skins should have done if they had to part ways, even if due to alcohol, then there's a clause in there as part of the settlement where neither party will divulge any information that can damage the other.

If SM gets fired outright, as has happened here, then all bets are off - SM or likely his agent can air all the dirty laundry and dysfunction that came to make this to be.

Snyder and Allen are buffoons but not stupid and have had legal consul - if they fired him outright then they are not scared of any he-said she-said crap that come-out..

long way of saying is that unfortunately, the allegations are likely true and they had cause to fire him.

 

Unrelated but related...

 

I don't know how many of you have had issues with alcohol or have known a daily drinker who has real, fundamental problems but..

You can see it in his face, from pics over th past few months and longer - the extremely puffy & bloated face, the broken blood vessles/capillaries and general rosesia...not saying anything was deserved, all i'm saying, if you know the effects of significant daily drinking you can clealy see it manifested in his pictures recently...and longer

 

Who knows what the hell really happened.  All I know is, at the end of the day, I have more faith in Scott's ability to scout talent than I do Bruce.  Scott has a better track record throughout his career.

[skins island connection]

 

  Well, what now?

 The damage is done, Scot is gone, and I will have a hard time believing a word that comes from the FO.

 

 There's no way a GM can be hired on at this point for this season, so will another GM or GM-wannabe be hired soon to at least get a feel for the organization and the whole mission statement scenario?  I don't believe they will, at least not soon. They will probably wait until the season is close to being over before bringing someone else in, but then again they might have to wait until the smoke clears and the smell is gone.

 

 But that itself brings a whole new topic; what GM in their right mind would want to come to this organization?  Whoever it is has to understand that if he/she is given the title of GM it doesn't mean they will have all of the job duties of a GM; they will more or less be a glorified scout, with Bruce breathing over their shoulder watching every move and reporting back to Dan.

 

Maybe they will create a new title for the organization;   GM-LTD, because whoever it is will be limited, and if its someone who has an eye for talent, it will have to go through Bruce. He will be involved in every aspect of this team, and pretty much have the final say-so in any topic, and that is simply too much control for a man with his track record.

 

God help this team.

 

[Newera]

With a now deceased dad that was an alcoholic.  Scott was drinking.  You could see it in his face.  And the redness.  Look at his face over the 18 months.

[TheItalianStallion]

If this helps us reach a deal with Kirk, then I guess it's for the best. But man..........I wonder if we could've held off until after the draft and early FA?

[bobandweave]

Doing the right thing as in firing Scot? How about doing the right thing and never hiring him in the first place?

 

The facts where there in the beginning, Scot was fired twice for drinking and was still drinking when we hired him. The infamous ESPN article said so back then. Functional alcoholics are exactly that, they are functional. They can work, but they are alcoholics. To define if someone is an alcoholic is to answer if drinking causes you problems. Fired twice for drinking constitutes that. Bruce knew what he was getting into here, he was hiring a functional drinking alcoholic. Or we should all expect him to see the danger in hiring someone with a drinking history who is still drinking. Yet he hired him

 

Bruce deserves no credit. He deserves all of the blame. Bruce's problem is that he does not under stand the public eye of the team and how mishandling that is a problem. He is tone deaf to image. He actually thought that not discussing Scot being at the combine before it was heppening was the right approach with the media. It wasn't. It was a huge distraction. It hurt the team.

 

You know when the last time Bruce Allen spoke to the media? Now he's talked to the media a lot, however in every video you've seen him speak to the media since 2012 the rule before the speech was no questions. He doesn't speak to the media and alienates them at the teams expense.

 

Bruce thought that he could put forward to us that Scot had full control when he never did. Bruce thought that information would never become public but it did. The truth that Bruce is a liar to the people he hires will hurt future signings from the GM down. How could a future GM or the public trust anything Bruce says now?

 

Bruce handled Kirk Cousins as badly as anyone ever could. He is the contracts guy, he should have expected the salary cap going up causing Kirks price to go up. Name a QB in the NFL who ever signed a contract at the ceiling of salaries who didn't see the numbers go higher? Bruce should have known to sign Kirk last off season to avoid where he decided we would go this year. All of the blame for Kirk's situation rests at Bruce's feet he oversees everything.

 

He deserves no benefit of the doubt, he has done enough to be relieved of duties and fired. Many more have done less to deserve that

 

 

[Playaction2Sanders]

Hmm. OP's first post and he signed up yesterday..

[desertbeagle85]

20 hours ago, RonArtest15 said:

They did Scot dirty...starting from when the FO had Cooley plant the seed a few weeks back, the grandmother excuse, etc.  This is a clown show at it's finest.  We had something good going here, and now there are more questions than answers. 

 

Pretty much and I wonder how many of the players see it his way.

 

It's been reported Kirk won't sign long-term with Bruce on he books.

 

Not to mention the players that backed  Scot after he was fired.

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, TheItalianStallion said:

If this helps us reach a deal with Kirk, then I guess it's for the best. But man..........I wonder if we could've held off until after the draft and early FA?

 

Report yesterday is Kirk won't sign with Bruce Allen being here.

 

So not sure this helps.

[TheItalianStallion]

36 minutes ago, desertbeagle85 said:

 

Report yesterday is Kirk won't sign with Bruce Allen being here.

 

So not sure this helps.

 

Not good...........

[TheGreek1973]

10 hours ago, Bacon said:

No, they did not do the right thing. Even if SM was an incompetent alcoholic in his last days with the team, the process of phasing him out was harmful and woefully opaque.

 

Regardless of whether or not SM was let go "justly" for "alcoholism," the lack of transparency from the front office that peaked at a horrendously inopportune time (just prior to the combine/FA) was inexcusable, detrimental to the franchise they claim to have the best interests of.  "We will have no further comment?" **** that. Those of us who have put time, money and emotional investment into this iteration of the Redskins (2015-2017), deserve a clear explanation for their decision and the manner in which it was carried out. 

 

 

I said it before and i  will say it again.  In this crazy world we live, where saying the truth but someone perceives it as offending, can you be certain the front office can say more?  9 times out of 10 a lawyer tells you exactly what to say and how to say it in order to minimize litigation risk.  The last statement from this team on Scott IMO was exactly that. Hell we are already vilified in the media for having a "racist" name and logo, next thing you know if the "wrong" thing is said we can be a rallying cry for all people with "dependency" issues.

 

So to answer you the lack of transparency may not be possible in this case.

[mike42]

 

 

11 hours ago, Bacon said:

No, they did not do the right thing. Even if SM was an incompetent alcoholic in his last days with the team, the process of phasing him out was harmful and woefully opaque.

 

Regardless of whether or not SM was let go "justly" for "alcoholism," the lack of transparency from the front office that peaked at a horrendously inopportune time (just prior to the combine/FA) was inexcusable, detrimental to the franchise they claim to have the best interests of.  "We will have no further comment?" **** that. Those of us who have put time, money and emotional investment into this iteration of the Redskins (2015-2017), deserve a clear explanation for their decision and the manner in which it was carried out. 

 

 

Dan did the right thing. Making no further comments is a classy move. Being transparent about this would further embarrass Scot and his family. If we released all the info, the media would jump on Dan Snyder for being classless. Would be something for ESPN to chew on.

 

Scot's alcoholism problem wasn't exactly having 1 shot of Jim during lunch break, he drank all day. Removing Scot from talking to reporters proves how huge the drinking problem was. It was that bad. The sources from the front office said Scott was a train wreck.

 

How they handled the last 6 weeks proved to me they were still trying to work with Scott and seemed they were reaching out to get him help, instead of firing him on the spot. We were praised for giving a person a second chance to prove himself and he failed.

 

I don't blame Allen, Snyder for any of this. I blame Scot.

[desertbeagle85]

1 hour ago, TheItalianStallion said:

 

Not good...........

 

Yeah I agree

 

So for now this off-season sucks

[Bang]

Well, they seem to have signed every free agent they've targeted to reasonable contracts. 

Granted, Scott was more draft oriented and we'll see how that plays out,, but so far, i am not getting all the hysteria.

so it didn't work out, and so it was handled ham-handedly. So what? Should the team do things the way Chris Russell thinks they should do it?

Obviously it has not scared any free agents off, and if the mediots want to complain and ****, seriously, who ****ing cares?

Why people are so concerned about media perceptions is anyone's guess, it is an entity that absolutely LIVES to gin up as much controversy as it can, since any mud they can find helps sustain their endless yapping, which in the end means exactly NOTHING.

 

Does anyone REALLY believe that the Redskins will not be able to hire anyone else?
People believe that there are GMs and personnel people out there who would turn down a FAT salary to be one of only 32 GMs on planet earth?
That will never be a problem. Finding competence is on the shoulders of the FO, but there will be no shortage of candidates.  

 

Close chapter, move along. 

 

~Bang

 

[RedskinsMayne]

Maybe you are right. Seems like we are saving are cap for next year to be able to match offers for cousins.

 

i find it strange that neither side of the scot debacle is talking... especially with his wife... makes you wonder what actually happened.

[goskins10]

3 hours ago, desertbeagle85 said:

 

Pretty much and I wonder how many of the players see it his way.

 

It's been reported Kirk won't sign long-term with Bruce on he books.

 

Not to mention the players that backed  Scot after he was fired.

 

Report yesterday is Kirk won't sign with Bruce Allen being here.

 

So not sure this helps.

 

 

What players backed Scot? I have seen nothing public with the exception of RJF - who was more mouth than production and a clear Scot guy. If there are more, please post references. So far I have not seen anything. I would be surprised if there were. Players tend to stay out of this type of crap.

 

Von Miller said he would sit out and the Broncos said they would never pay him what he was asking. It's called negotiations.

 

If you take the emotion out of it, the offseason moves have been pretty decent. If they can land Logan it becomes a really good offseason. If (when IMO) they sign Kirk to a LTD it will be a huge success.

 

Not saying I would not prefer to go though the season with no changes like this. But **** happens. Bill Pollian when asked about it - he said, and I quote: "It's business as usual fro the NFL at this time of year." He went on to say all teams have their own problems this time of year.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

16 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

What players backed Scot? I have seen nothing public with the exception of RJF - who was more mouth than production and a clear Scot guy. If there are more, please post references. So far I have not seen anything. I would be surprised if there were. Players tend to stay out of this type of crap.

 

If you take the emotion out of it, the offseason moves have been pretty decent. If they can land Logan it becomes a really good offseason. If (when IMO) they sign Kirk to a LTD it will be a huge success.

 

Not saying I would not prefer to go though the season with no changes like this. But **** happens. Bill Pollian when asked about it - he said, and I quote: "It's business as usual fro the NFL at this time of year." He went on to say all teams have their own problems this time of year.

 

 

 

Agree players tend to stay out of it -- not smart for their careers.  The one thing I saw was one of the reporters forgot which one tweeted the night it happened something to the effect of players really like Scot and some are upset about this.  As for players speaking out publicly on it -- it would be career suicide.   Let me stand up for the guy who is gone and go against the guys who sign my pay check.     When I saw RJF comments -- made me think the dude either knows he's going to cut or doesn't care if he does get cut.

 

As for Bruce.   My only beef with him is two things:  1.  stay out of the way of personnel decisions (aside from the money component).  2.  Stop being cheap and sign Kirk.   As for who was the bad guy Bruce or Scot IMO it doesn't matter to the future bottom line.  So I don't really care.  I am sure bad things happened from both parties -- I doubt there is a white hat side in all that's going on.  

 

As for the off season IMO I'd grade it this way:

 

C+ if it stays like it is:  WR -- Pryor makes up for Garcon and D. Jax but I don't think they are better at WR.  DL they are slightly worse -- Baker IMO is better than McClain and McGee.  Swearinger is an improvement at safety.

 

B + if they sign Logan.  Now the D line is actually better than last season

 

A:  if they sign Logan and another impact player like Z. Brown, Hankins, etc.

 

D:  no matter what they do and Colt McCoy is the starting QB next year.

 

To me Bruce just sign Kirk -- then I'll forget about all the craziness.  But yeah I am not going to be happy with FA if it comes with we got no QB anymore.

 

[goskins10]

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Agree players tend to stay out of it -- not smart for their careers.  The one thing I saw was one of the reporters forgot which one tweeted the night it happened something to the effect of players really like Scot and some are upset about this.  As for players speaking out publicly on it -- it would be career suicide.   Let me stand up for the guy who is gone and go against the guys who sign my pay check.     When I saw RJF comments -- made me think the dude either knows he's going to cut or doesn't care if he does get cut.

 

edit

 

To me Bruce just sign Kirk -- then I'll forget about all the craziness.  But yeah I am not going to be happy with FA if it comes with we got no QB anymore.

 

 

 

That's probably fair. My only disagreement is that I think the Dline is at the worst the same - which was not very good. But there is a chance to be better. Baker was OK, but he was not the heart and sole. They get a few younger guys in rotation, both with more upside to me. Also, I find it odd that the incoming DC who was here with Baker the last few years was not interested in keeping him. I am assuming he had some say in it. Of if not him, then he would tell Jay and Jay would fight for him. They never even gave him an offer.

 

Having said that, signing Logan and drafting a solid Dline high in the draft is still what's needed. McClain and McGee are not going to suddenly turn into all pros. But again they are a bit younger. Also, both contracts are very team friendly.

 

Even if they sign Logan, I would be very surprised if they did not draft dline in the 1st or 2nd rd.

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

That's probably fair. My only disagreement is that I think the Dline is at the worst the same - which was not very good. But there is a chance to be better. Baker was OK, but he was not the heart and sole. They get a few younger guys in rotation, both with more upside to me. Also, I find it odd that the incoming DC who was here with Baker the last few years was not interested in keeping him. I am assuming he had some say in it. Of if not him, then he would tell Jay and Jay would fight for him. They never even gave him an offer.

 

Having said that, signing Logan and drafting a solid Dline high in the draft is still what's needed. McClain and McGee are not going to suddenly turn into all pros. But again they are a bit younger. Also, both contracts are very team friendly.

 

Even if they sign Logan, I would be very surprised if they did not draft dline in the 1st or 2nd rd.

 

At present time its:

 

added:  McClain, McGee.  

subtracted:  Baker, Hood (maybe RJF, too)

 

Baker got more money than McClain and McGee and that is he's a more established player.  Hood might be as well.  I am ok with McClain and McGee but they haven't been barn stormers in their career and both have been injury prone.  Baker has been healthy, Hood was pretty much healthy too last season.

 

I am not living and dying with Baker, I even said on the FA thread I am fine with letting him go before they did but don't see either guy as an upgrade over him.  If they sign Logan and Hankins -- now you are talking. 

 

But staying on subject, I am not going to care if they signed Hankins, Poe, and Logan if Colt McCoy is the QB.  As for the Bruce-Scot fall out to me what's most interesting is Kirk -- you got multiple sources (another one came forward last night and I posted it on the Kirk thread) saying its Bruce not Scot who has been the obstacle on the Kirk contract.  I am inclined to believe it based on Bruce's reputation of being cheap.  But I don't really care about the he said, she said stuff.  All I know is if that accusation actually translates to reality and Kirk isn't here -- than I am not going to be happy with Bruce.  

 

 

[FrFan]

1 hour ago, Bang said:

Does anyone REALLY believe that the Redskins will not be able to hire anyone else?

People believe that there are GMs and personnel people out there who would turn down a FAT salary to be one of only 32 GMs on planet earth?
That will never be a problem. Finding competence is on the shoulders of the FO, but there will be no shortage of candidates.  

 

 

I do, its not a problem of quantity it's about quality. I don't think good GMs grow on trees, and who's available ? Who's your choice Bang ?

I don't know much, Ballard signed with the Colts, only Pioli, Gutekunst, Wolf comes to mind, and knowing Allen will be on their back I doubt they will join. In the end we might promote from within with Doug Williams (at least he fits Allen's Tampa connection).

[The Sisko]

14 hours ago, Newera said:

With a now deceased dad that was an alcoholic.  Scott was drinking.  You could see it in his face.  And the redness.  Look at his face over the 18 months.

 

Me too and I think he probably was. That said, my dad was a functional alcoholic who, until he got sick, NEVER missed a single day on the job and by all reports from his boss and coworkers, he was excellent at it. In fact, when he died, his employer cut me a check for the 1100+ hours of sick/vacay time he never took. He was a Navy lifer and all his ex-Navy buddies were the same way. He often told a story about one friend who was an XRay tech during his Navy days. His boss demanded he stop drinking during work hours and the quality of his films went to hell so his boss quietly decided to look the other way on the drinking. By some accounts, it seems SM was a functional alcoholic. We can't know it for sure of course, but we also can't automatically assume that just because he was drinking, that his job performance suffered. Given the dynamic between him and BA, Snyder's history and most importantly the way BA and the team handled this PR-wise and in light of SM's drafts/FA signings, leads me to believe it was a reversion of the team to its usual dysfunction, not SM crapping the bed.

[goskins10]

45 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

At present time its:

 

added:  McClain, McGee.  

subtracted:  Baker, Hood (maybe RJF, too)

 

Baker got more money than McClain and McGee and that is he's a more established player.  Hood might be as well.  I am ok with McClain and McGee but they haven't been barn stormers in their career and both have been injury prone.  Baker has been healthy, Hood was pretty much healthy too last season.

 

I am not living and dying with Baker, I even said on the FA thread I am fine with letting him go before they did but don't see either guy as an upgrade over him.  If they sign Logan and Hankins -- now you are talking. 

 

But staying on subject, I am not going to care if they signed Hankins, Poe, and Logan if Colt McCoy is the QB.  As for the Bruce-Scot fall out to me what's most interesting is Kirk -- you got multiple sources (another one came forward last night and I posted it on the Kirk thread) saying its Bruce not Scot who has been the obstacle on the Kirk contract.  I am inclined to believe it based on Bruce's reputation of being cheap.  But I don't really care about the he said, she said stuff.  All I know is if that accusation actually translates to reality and Kirk isn't here -- than I am not going to be happy with Bruce.  

 

 

 

We will have to agree to disagree about the dline - at least so far. I just don't see any of those guys as big loses. I am looking for some new blood. but that's ok - that's what discussion is for. Not always going to agree.  We obviously both agree get one of the Poe, Logans, Hankins it changes.

 

I do agree re: Cousins. I still believe they will sign him long term. I also do not doubt the Kirk's agent has said some stuff. How much of it is true and how much is posturing? Don't really know. I also believe Bruce is stubborn enough that he would transition Kirk next year. SO it's anything but a foregone conclusion that no deal this year means no Kirk in 2018. I wasn't always in that camp. But I am leaning more towards that now. But that's only if they don't get a LTD done this year.

 

If he is gone. I will not be happy but will also have to see what the result is.

 

I did not mention it before but the one thing I agree with most is I do not want Bruce making personal decisions.