pft.com bruce Allen won’t let Scot McCloughan talk to media

[redskinss]

O.m.g. maybe he's on the sauce again. 

Or better yet ill bet his wife know bruce allen is banging roger goodells wife and he doesn't want the cat out of the bag.

Or there's always a possibility that the superbowl is over and the media has nothing interesting to feed us other than bull**** and they know we love to swallow it.

 

That last one is highly unlikely though.

[SkinsGuy]

13 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

This team desperately needs more transparency

 

 

Why the heck does the team need to be "more transparent" for you?

 

What good would come of that? We, the fanbase, might know more, but that doesn't help anything.

 

You ever heard the term "taking care of things behind closed doors"? The last thing ANY NFL team needs to do is have more leaks and to put everything (including "dirty laundry") out into the public for all to see and for the jackals in the media to skewer.

[SkinsGuy]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I think there are some myths about the draft similar to the myths being discussed about FA in the Kirk thread.  Where the perception is how things should be versus how they typically are.  Bill Parcells famously said in his draft specials if you can find 2-3 players who can contribute then you had a good draft.

 

You can write this, but most won't listen.  

 

I've put the stat up on this board a dozen times that said even the best drafting teams usually only hit at about 33% to 35% when it comes to finding quality players that are consistently on the field.

 

Just a THIRD of the time, and that is the best drafting teams.

 

Yet there seems to be a perception with too many on this board that if you aren't hitting on 80% of your draft or better, it's a failure. A bust.

 

The draft simply doesn't work that way. It is much more of a crapshoot than many realize.

[Dissident2]

7 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

 

Why the heck does the team need to be "more transparent" for you?

 

What good would come of that? We, the fanbase, might know more, but that doesn't help anything.

 

You ever heard the term "taking care of things behind closed doors"? The last thing ANY NFL team needs to do is have more leaks and to put everything (including "dirty laundry") out into the public for all to see and for the jackals in the media to skewer.

 

Of course I didn't mean they should lay out all their plans for the fanbase every week. What I meant by that is transparency in how the team is run. None of these questions as to, "How much say does Scott have?" or "How much say does Gruden have?" There should be no question as to what Allen actually DOES. And SM should most definitely be allowed to address the media and give his assessment on the past year and plans - even if generic - on how they will be improved. 

 

And who said "transparency" only applies to the fanbase anyway? You ever think that there could be a problem with that WITHIN the organization itself? Seeing how things have been run throughout most of the Snyder era, I'd say that's obvious. 

 

So yeah, I've heard the old "taking care of things behind closed doors" phrase, yes. My issue, as it pertains to our "brain" trust, is with the "taking care of" portion of that phrase. 

[frommd]

It seems like a big implication from this article is that McCloughan WANTS to talk to the media and Allen is stopping him.  

[Dirt]

Oooooooooo, scary words like "uneasy" "nervous" "desperate".

 

Clickbait

[SkinsGuy]

1 minute ago, Dissident2 said:

And who said "transparency" only applies to the fanbase anyway? You ever think that there could be a problem with that WITHIN the organization itself? Seeing how things have been run throughout most of the Snyder era, I'd say that's obvious. 

 

Who says there is a problem at all?

 

The only problem here for you is you don't know how things are done behind the scenes, so you are letting this article cause you to imagine all sorts of dysfunction and problems.

 

Who cares if Bruce and Scott don't see eye to eye on everything. You do realize that back when they were winning Super Bowls, Gibbs and Beathard didn't see eye to eye on everything. In fact, they were both so stubborn on their views sometimes, that the owner, Jack Kent Cooke, had to be the tie-breaker on certain decisions.

 

I say relax, and don't let this article get to you. It is just more (Com)Post nonsense. Save your worry for when something genuinely does happen.  

 

 

[Rattlesnake88]

24 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

Yet there seems to be a perception with too many on this board that if you aren't hitting on 80% of your draft or better, it's a failure. A bust.

 

The draft simply doesn't work that way. It is much more of a crapshoot than many realize.

Good points. Also think it's crazy how many people are writing off last years draft as a failure. We snagged quite a few talented guys the fans and media were excited for. We were dealt some injuries and I think it's way too soon to write any of these guys off. Not to mention a dude who was undrafted who was our leading rusher. 

[Dissident2]

14 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

Who says there is a problem at all?

 

The only problem here for you is you don't know how things are done behind the scenes, so you are letting this article cause you to imagine all sorts of dysfunction and problems.  

 

 

 

I only wish I'd imagined the last two decades (more or less) of Redskins football, which has indeed been full of dysfunction and problems. 

 

I hope I'm wrong. I hope you're right. I've just come to see through experience that when there's smoke, there's usually fire with this team. Usually of the dumpster variety. 

 

I guess we'll know either way soon enough. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'll preface this post with a quick disclaimer that we don't know what is true vs. speculation, but...

 

This organization is beginning to seem like it's destined to always trip itself up. We honestly fell into a situation where simply committing to the GM, coach, and QB long-term would have likely led to stable and consistent success. For some reason, Bruce Allen seems to be in the owner's ear about pinching pennies with position coaches, coordinators, and player acquisitions. Suddenly the most free-spending franchise of the past two decades is losing bidding wars over a DB coach who it wants back!

 

Look, I'm fine with a measured, cost-effective approach. But the philosophy needs to permeate throughout the front office. You can't both decide to not spend a lot of money or pursue any high-profile FAs while also putting your GM on notice after 2 seasons!! Either give him all the resources he needs to improve the roster or give him time. Preferably, give him both. But you absolutely can't give him neither!

 

If they go from having a highly-respected GM, an up-and-coming coach, and very likely franchise QB to having none of those people after next year, I really don't know what fans could look forward to next. The stars aligned to deal us a straight flush and we seem insistent on folding. 

 

So, back to my preface - I'm really hoping that this is mostly smoke with no substance. On the surface, I have no issues with Allen being the public face of the organization while McCloughan does the real work. But I really hope that Allen doesn't outlast the GM, coach, or QB if there's a power struggle...

[wilco_holland]

Can I make a complinent to the local news media in the D.C. area? I have been a fan for ages now and learned some of my english by reading articles on websites like the Washington Post. But lets be honest....75% of the news is more tabloid no-news then it's really news. My god they write a bunch of crap in general. My god. It's like a drama show in online paper form. They are always great in making these little things in something huge. 

[CTskin]

Was BRUTAL listening to the junkies this morning. EB's entertaining at all, but he freaked about this like a child. He went on the classic rant "Skins have big problems internally, Snyder's a dictator, Bruce and McClu don't get along, yadda yadda yadda." It's amazing that a complete BS article like this can be published and then every branch of media runs with it and creates a circus out of it. A nothing article just to try to keep the Skins looking like a joke.

 

Hey media- GMs don't talk to you, this isn't uncommon.

[Birdlives]

3 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

It's not smoke. Maybe a fart in the wind. 

 

What evidence is there that he's "being muzzled"......... 

 

 

 

 

My god, just cut to the chase. This is a whole bunch of "well, that's just like your opinion man." Of course it is! The bottom line is that history is on my side, not yours. Does anyone really know? Only those intimately involved. It doesn't take away from the fact that its troubling, that its typical of the Snyder Redskins, and that while it doesn't prove dysfunction, it points to it. Sorry, but until this franchise proves its turned a corner by consistently winning and staying away from stuff like this, I'm not gonna give'em the benefit of the doubt. If you choose to do so, be my guest.

 

-Hoping you're right, concerned that your wrong.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

8 minutes ago, CTskin said:

Was BRUTAL listening to the junkies this morning. EB's entertaining at all, but he freaked about this like a child. He went on the classic rant "Skins have big problems internally, Snyder's a dictator, Bruce and McClu don't get along, yadda yadda yadda." It's amazing that a complete BS article like this can be published and then every branch of media runs with it and creates a circus out of it. A nothing article just to try to keep the Skins looking like a joke.

 

Hey media- GMs don't talk to you, this isn't uncommon.

 

So, I hope you're right. But at what point do we begin to trust these stories when we seem to continually get confirmation about them years later when people have moved on? I guess stated more simply, what has this organization done under Snyder to give it the benefit of the doubt when these stories break? 

[bird_1972]

3 hours ago, ThomasRoane said:

Bottom line is that Scot is being put on notice that he is accountable.  Bruce and Jay may be on the hot seat but Bruce has made it abundantly clear that the GM is right there with him and that he better focus less on leaking info and do a much more thorough job on evaluating the talent for this year's draft and free agency. 

 

It's fine to keep Scot accountable, just like everyone else in the organization.

 

That said, we need more than 2 years to make a statement on Scot's success/failure. People seem to forget how horribly devoid of talent and healthy team culture the Skins were before he arrived.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just now, bird_1972 said:

 

It's fine to keep Scot accountable, just like everyone else in the organization.

 

That said, we need more than 2 years to make a statement on Scot's success/failure. People seem to forget how horribly devoid of talent and healthy team culture the Skins were before he arrived.

Yes, what's the point of a 5-year contract? 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, CTskin said:

The problem here is that when we were on the board in the 3rd round, David Johnson was available... The tradeback was a poor move.

 

That being said, we've had two above average years with McClu and when coupled with his success in SF and SEA, I just won't let myself get bothered by each individual hit or miss. 

 

 

Good one about the lunch.     And I agree with most of your post.  Just on the David Johnson part.  One of the picks landed from Seattle was K. Jarrett at 181.  Looked like the dude might have been the answer at FS, I don't blame Scot for bad luck.   And regardless, IMO its irrelevant if the move worked out or not (I gather you agree with this too, based on your post).  It's not IMO about this move or that one but on the aggregate what did you pull out of the draft.  Your GM is going to get statistically speaking most of his decisions wrong from the 3rd round on down.  If we are going to kill him for those picks coupled with you know the Cardinals got Dave Johnson in the third round as if that's the norm versus the exception -- then we can make fun of and destroy every GM in the NFL.

 

The rest of this isn't directed at your post but just making a general point.  Yes, we got Brian Mitchell as a 5th rounder.  Cooley was a third rounder.  Kirk a 4th rounder.  Stephen Davis a 4th rounder.  The reason why its so memorable is its so unique.  Scot has his own version of this with Crowder in the 4th.   Great picks.  But they are the exception not the norm.  

 

Take the Mike Jones article which IMO is comically over the top in some of its points.  And I generally like Mike Jones and he's rarely dramatic so I gather here he just wanted go on a different bent and write a doomsday/what if article.    But yeah trashing Scot for Nate Sudfeld being just a back up.   What Sudfeld a 6th rounder QB is only a backup in year 1.  That's awful.  Hard for me to recall the last 6th round QB who isn't today starting in the NFL.  What gives?    Our 5th rounder is only a rotational DT that Cooley among others thinks actually will end up being a good nose tackle.  But that's it?    Its silly, yeah statistically speaking finding a backup QB that an organization likes with a 6th round pick is a hit.  Finding a 5th round DT pick who is a rotational DT, is a hit statistically speaking.

 

Kiper lauded the 2015 draft as the most productive in the NFL after the 2015 season.  An "A" draft.  All that happened after was we learned Jarrett had a fluke career ending injury and Preston had a sophomore slump and now the whole draft is in question.  That's what i mean about impatience.  Preston's career isn't over, he had flashes last season, he could emerge in 2017.   As for the 2016 draft if all that happens is Doctson is healthy, plays well and Cravens further emerges coupled with Ionnaidis and Fuller continue to grow -- its a good draft.   The 2014 draft looked like a lemon one until 2016.  It's not crazy to give a draft 2-3 years to play out -- its actually a cliche in the draft world that all drafts need 2-3 years to be properly judged -- good or bad.   What scares me is Danny has proven he doesn't have the typical patience to let things evolve and develop and its part of the reason why this team is a perennial loser during his reign.

 

Edit:  Danny and Loverro are going off on this on air just now.  Danny had a good line -- the overreaction to a small sample has been what has killed this franchise over the years and that criticizing Scot so quickly is a panic move.

 

 

 

[actorguy1]

After these last two seasons, the front office has earned my trust and respect. Granted, if next season ends with double digit losses that trust and respect will be seriously questioned. Until then it's Gruden, MCG, and Allen ALL THE WAY!

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just now, actorguy1 said:

After these last two seasons, the front office has earned my trust and respect. Granted, if next season ends with double digit losses that trust and respect will be seriously questioned. Until then it's Gruden, MCG, and Allen ALL THE WAY!

The football operation has earned my respect...I'm still worried about the front office itself. 

[bird_1972]

Just now, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Yes, what's the point of a 5-year contract? 

 

Totally appropriate for Jay to be on the hot seat, by the way.

 

Scot can't be fully judged until he's able to hire "his coaches" which he hasn't been able to do. He inherited Jay.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just now, bird_1972 said:

 

Totally appropriate for Jay to be on the hot seat, by the way.

 

Scot can't be fully judged until he's able to hire "his coaches" which he hasn't been able to do. He inherited Jay.

I was referring to McCloughan. Even still, I don't see why you'd put the coach of a team trending up (despite horrible D personnel) on the hot seat. 

[bird_1972]

4 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

The football operation has earned my respect...I'm still worried about the front office itself. 

 

Just curious what you mean by this subtle distinction

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 minute ago, bird_1972 said:

 

Just curious what you mean by this subtle distinction

 

I mean that I think the guys in charge of the on-field product have earned themselves some rope. To me, that's McCloughan, his scouts, and the coaching staff. The people above McCloughan (Bruce Allen and Dan Snyder) still concern me because I can't tell if they are on the same page as the football guys. 

[NickyJ]

Man, this is the end. The sky has fallen, and it's only going to get worse from here. What a disaster. This is the worst we've been in years. We've gone two whole years with without winning the offseason. And what do we have to show for it? A playoff birth and two years in a row with a winning record for the first time in 20 years. Damn. Let's burn it down and ship it to L.A. as a third team there, cuz I am so done with this. I can't go two years without winning the offseason, we have been betrayed.

 

Rest in peace, Washington. We have suffered the fatal blow: A PFT article about a WP article saying that we're desperate. We cannot recover.

[Est.1974]

14 hours ago, jphilly said:

 

That report comes as part of a longer story that describes the team as “uneasy,” “nervous” and “desperate” after missing the playoffs last season. The story suggests that there’s discord on a coaching staff that has lost both coordinators this offseason, that there’s disagreement about how valuable quarterback Kirk Cousins is, and that McCloughan, Allen and coach Jay Gruden could all be fired after the 2017 season if the team doesn’t improve.

 

No ****. Isn't all this obvious? Don't see the drama resulting from this kind of story. An armchair fan from England can tell the pressure is on this year. People have to make the right calls and generate results or its game over all over the place.