Dissident2 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 One thing I'm legitimately curious about, and Brewer's piece reminded me of it ... is there another structure similar to ours in the NFL as far as the FO goes? As happy as I was to see SM come onboard, It's just struck me as a bit odd that we have a guy who used to be the GM (Allen) forced to relinquish that role and hire another GM in Scot and then remain with the team in the role of president while basically maintaining veto power over the incoming GM's decisions (the latter is my perception, maybe that's wrong). Is this a common setup, or is it something without precedent? It just seems bizarre to me, and a setup that could naturally breed the sorts of issues Brewer describes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said: Part of it for me was first hand impression. I met Scot and he struck me big time a straight shooter. Think of Shanny in reverse. I detailed this in previous posts and don't feel like repeating. But yeah when I see that Scot might be muzzled by Bruce with the media -- that's my take of Scot doesn't really play the rhetoric BS game. That's Bruce's niche not Scot's IMO. So if Scot said he considered making moves to the staff but after meeting and working with who they had in house, he decided that he liked them. I'd take him at his word. Shanny who is a control freak himself basically did the same thing when he took over years before Scot arrived. Scott Campbell and crew actually aren't Bruce's guys either -- he didn't hire them. They were here before Bruce-Shanny-Scot arrived. Plus I recall the story below where Scot did pursue the idea of adding someone high up to the staff but GB turned down that effort. Doesn't sound to me like Bruce is boxing Scot in to using "his guys". I don't even see how the scouting staff are Bruce's guys? Maybe some guys were added under Bruce, I'd have to look that up. But the main guy Scott Campbell preceded Bruce. http://www.hogshaven.com/2015/1/25/7890101/report-redskins-requested-permission-to-interview-packers-senior Mike Garafolo ✔@MikeGarafolo Word is Redskins wanted to talk to Packers' Alonzo Highsmith for director of personnel job. Packers denied the request to interview. I understand that Scot is a straight shooter - sometimes to his detriment, which I think is the main reason he was silenced this offseason - but I just don't know what else he could conceivably say to the media if it was true that Bruce refused to let him clean house. These are guys you have to work with day in and day out, and there needs to be a certain level of trust there to make this work. There is no way McCloughan would come out and say he wasn't impressed by the scouts we currently have, and he wishes he could fire these guys, but Bruce won't let him. It's just common sense. Even the ultimate straight shooter wouldn't do that. Regarding the request to interview the Packers' executive. That isn't really the same situation. Unless I'm mistaken, we do not currently have a "Director of Player Personnel" position occupied. We have Scott Campbell as Director of College Scouting and Alex Santos as Director of Pro Personnel. For example, Seattle currently has two co-directors of player personnel, in addition to a director of college scouting and a director of pro personnel. So wanting to hire Alonzo Highsmith from the Packers is not really a case of Scot being allowed to fire someone and replace him with his guy. It's a case of wanting to fill a position that isn't filled as of now. I agree that these may not have been "Bruce's guys" when he started, but you form relationships over time (Bruce has been here for almost a decade now), and there could be very legitimate reasons Bruce doesn't want to fire these guys - maybe he thinks they're really good. Either way, whether Scot agrees with Bruce or not, I don't think what he says to the media about it is going to tell you anything about his true feelings one way or another. And sorry I can't reply to your post @Califan007, but I have to get back to work . My response to your post is pretty much the same as above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 This write up on Riggo's Rag sums up my feelings on all this: "So when I read about how no one has heard from Redskins general manager Scot McCloughan, or why the organization hasn’t responded to Chris Cooley’s allegations of his drinking, I remember who has the power – they do. The Redskins can sit back and let everyone give their two cents about their status and weigh negotiations on that alone. “You said” is still the most powerful close in the world. The Redskins will weigh what players have posted online or said to the mainstream media and then use their words against them as bargaining chips. They don’t care about where what teams may be great fits for DeSean Jackson or Pierre Garcon. They could care less about what the world thinks about their quarterback situation. Why? Because at the end of the day, that doesn’t make football teams. It won’t convert to dynasties. Besides, the rumors will always be there. As soon as the money goes into the bank everything will go back to normal. Don’t get too worked up over a quiet Redskins front office. No one has to, nor should they respond to Chris Cooley. That story will fizzle out on its own. They’re bigger things to worry about." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 2 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said: I understand that Scot is a straight shooter - sometimes to his detriment, which I think is the main reason he was silenced this offseason - but I just don't know what else he could conceivably say to the media if it was true that Bruce refused to let him clean house. The article didn't say that Bruce refused to let him clean house. It said that Scot is working with the staff that existed previously. The idea that Scot pursued adding someone he knows from GB to high position among the scouting staff but GB refused to allow it happen -- to me is relevant to the point at hand which is that Scot could likely make changes if he wants to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 21 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: The article didn't say that Bruce refused to let him clean house. It said that Scot is working with the staff that existed previously. The idea that Scot pursued adding someone he knows from GB to high position among the scouting staff but GB refused to allow it happen -- to me is relevant to the point at hand which is that Scot could likely make changes if he wants to do. That's what it seemed like Brewer was implying, at least IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 i hope all this bull**** isn't true. Loosing cousins, jackson, and garçon, having an office jerk silence a legit gm... i mean, ****. What the ****. I'm not sure if i can take it if all this **** they keep saying is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomwvr Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 7 hours ago, Dissident2 said: One thing I'm legitimately curious about, and Brewer's piece reminded me of it ... is there another structure similar to ours in the NFL as far as the FO goes? As happy as I was to see SM come onboard, It's just struck me as a bit odd that we have a guy who used to be the GM (Allen) forced to relinquish that role and hire another GM in Scot and then remain with the team in the role of president while basically maintaining veto power over the incoming GM's decisions (the latter is my perception, maybe that's wrong). Is this a common setup, or is it something without precedent? It just seems bizarre to me, and a setup that could naturally breed the sorts of issues Brewer describes. Most teams have this set up but the VP is normally not the FORMER GM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gooseneck Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Now I am confused. Are we, or are we not winning the offseason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 8 hours ago, Dissident2 said: One thing I'm legitimately curious about, and Brewer's piece reminded me of it ... is there another structure similar to ours in the NFL as far as the FO goes? As happy as I was to see SM come onboard, It's just struck me as a bit odd that we have a guy who used to be the GM (Allen) forced to relinquish that role and hire another GM in Scot and then remain with the team in the role of president while basically maintaining veto power over the incoming GM's decisions (the latter is my perception, maybe that's wrong). Is this a common setup, or is it something without precedent? It just seems bizarre to me, and a setup that could naturally breed the sorts of issues Brewer describes. I think there are plenty of structures like ours . But I don't remember it being Bruce being forced to stand aside . Bruce and the Redskins had used scotts consulting services in 2014 and goes back some way with him . There was an opportunity to bring him in house and so we did . Prior to 2014 Bruce was GM in name alone . We had the very disfunctional (everyone else likes to use that word so meh) set up where the HC had most say over everything . I seem to remember when Jay came in he had more share in FO like responsibilities but I think 2014 demonstrated Jay and Bruce were not happy with the work load on a first time head coach and Scott came in to share the load - just with more of a focus on scouting than roster management . Brewer and PFT are being very irresponsible - they are trying to breath life into a story based on some off the cuff comments of a guy who shared on social media images of his junk and his playbook - married a chear leader without a prenup and then cheated on her who now should apparently be considered a paragon of virtue who considers everything he says ... ( I am just saying Cooley is not the kind of guy who is known for thinking things through) the logic of the argument is just weak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 10 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said: That's what it seemed like Brewer was implying, at least IMO. Most of Brewer's article to me was laying out circumstances we were aware of and suggesting maybe there are nefarious reasons why those circumstances exist. I guess there is no way of knowing. But I am personally not fazed by any of it. I recall for example the quotes at the time about him considering keeping or replacing staff and pursuing but being rejected by GB for taking one of their guys. I recall Bruce coming on the radio saying upon the Scot hire where he said among other things he (over Scot) retains the right to fire and hire coaches. It's been out there that Scot isn't the money guy and Schaffer and Allen work that part of it. Tough for me to get riled up about it now. Only news like I said I think is Bruce overruling Jay-Scot and on two things. I wonder what they are? It's been out there mentioned there was disagreement in the building relating to C. Jenkins and how that was handled. Maybe Scot-Jay didn't want him, Bruce did? I'd put that one hot in the running as one of the two items. If it were something major I'd presume that Brewer would have played it up that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 11 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said: The article didn't say that Bruce refused to let him clean house. It said that Scot is working with the staff that existed previously. The idea that Scot pursued adding someone he knows from GB to high position among the scouting staff but GB refused to allow it happen -- to me is relevant to the point at hand which is that Scot could likely make changes if he wants to do. The thought which occurred to me was that Scott had a really great draft in year one and a pretty mediocre draft in year two. What if the great draft was because he'd done all the pre-draft homework with his consulting team before being hired and was really up to speed and in year two he was relying on the team of scouts that Shannahan, Allen, and perhaps even Cerrato built? I was surprised when McCloughan didn't rebuild the front office to his liking, but accepted the fact that he announced that after the draft he liked this crew. We should probably still take him at his word on that, but that Brewer article does make you reach for the tin foil hat even though it would make no sense for Allen to demand no changes to the scouting department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 If the redskins truly screw up this offseason, i would bet this offseason would cause the biggest backlash in his ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 1 minute ago, skinfan2k said: If the redskins truly screw up this offseason, i would bet this offseason would cause the biggest backlash in his ownership. It would rival the Fan Card meltdown of 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 This is what DC Media is: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Well if Ronnie from DC says so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 57 minutes ago, Burgold said: The thought which occurred to me was that Scott had a really great draft in year one and a pretty mediocre draft in year two. What if the great draft was because he'd done all the pre-draft homework with his consulting team before being hired and was really up to speed and in year two he was relying on the team of scouts that Shannahan, Allen, and perhaps even Cerrato built? I was surprised when McCloughan didn't rebuild the front office to his liking, but accepted the fact that he announced that after the draft he liked this crew. We should probably still take him at his word on that, but that Brewer article does make you reach for the tin foil hat even though it would make no sense for Allen to demand no changes to the scouting department. I don't buy into the mediocre draft narrative for 2016 -- it's built on the premise that drafts are judged in a one and done fashion after 1 year, it judges injuries as permanent and as draft mistakes and it ignores the fact that draft picks were pushed down for future picks and in that process not even having a 4th round pick. I don't feel like talking again about the 2016 draft but in my eyes whether the 2016 draft is good, mediocre, or bad remains to be seen. And IMO there is an easy narrative to see that draft panning out well. The 2014 draft looked terrible in 2014 -- it looks quite different now. As we know, Scot was a consultant in 2014 including for this team. To me the common thread in scouting here is Scott Campbell. Shanny is an ego manic and arguably a control freak but he kept him, too. And again I see Scot chasing a GB personnel guy as relevant to the point. Otherwise, Scot purposely asked to hire someone from GB to keep up the facade that he can't bring his own guys -- knowing he'd be turned down? As been mentioned on this thread, the defensive coordinator candidates were practically a parade of people connected to Scot. I'd presume the dude does have some serious clout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 All the folks blaming Kirk are idiots. The redskins gave him an offer that was too low and he accepted the tag. Same story this year. He is not greedy. He has a price that is fair market value and wants to get paid appropriately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, skinfan2k said: All the folks blaming Kirk are idiots. The redskins gave him an offer that was too low and he accepted the tag. Same story this year. He is not greedy. He has a price that is fair market value and wants to get paid appropriately I don't blame Kirk for trying to get paid every dime he can but I also don't blame the franchise for taking a stand. He's not worth what he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 19 minutes ago, Taylor703 said: I don't blame Kirk for trying to get paid every dime he can but I also don't blame the franchise for taking a stand. He's not worth what he wants. He is worth the price. The redskins are just idiots and knew this was coming. This is simple supply and demand. No there is no plan b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail2theSkins24 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 21 hours ago, Wildbunny said: Well that dyfunction for the last two years lead us to our first back to back winning season in what? 20? 25 years? I kinda like that kind of dysfunction. Lol! I think more along the lines of a Top-10 QB directing a great system was the reason for back to back winning seasons. How is our organization treating that situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 "Whats wrong with the Redskins" segment next on SC, featuring none other than UnWise Mike. I think im gonna barf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said: "Whats wrong with the Redskins" segment next on SC, featuring none other than UnWise Mike. I think im gonna barf That piece of **** is still considered credible enough to have on as a guest by some people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, Taylor 36 said: That piece of **** is still considered credible enough to have on as a guest by some people? Apparently, yes. And its going just about how you'd expect. I really hate that guy Now there's another guy on saying how he wishes he was never a Skins fan, yada yada yada. Total hit piece... Off of some speculative bull**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said: Apparently, yes. And its going just about how you'd expect. I really hate that guy Lemme guess: Snyder Scot Bruce Snyder Drinking Cooley Snyder Dysfunction Team Name Racist Snyder Cousins Griffin Snyder Allen Snyder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, Califan007 said: Lemme guess: Snyder Scot Bruce Snyder Drinking Cooley Snyder Dysfunction Team Name Racist Snyder Cousins Griffin Snyder Allen Snyder Pretty much. Just a regurgitated Greatest Hits version of every complaint leveled at the organization, just with different names attached Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.