Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

jphilly

By jphilly
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

TK

TK

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hubbs said:

I think you guys might be tarring and feathering Russell a little too quickly here. I don't like the guy either, but the primary fact that he actually reported was that Scot was "asked to leave Redskins Park" on February 20th and hasn't been back since. Nobody, as far as I've seen, has refuted that. In fact, pretty much the opposite has happened—Scot himself straight-up lied about it and about being at the combine, and the rest of the FO has repeated the grandma explanation even though they weren't mentioning anything about the grandma's death in the weeks leading up to this, when they were being peppered with questions about why Scot wasn't being made available to the media. If this is all just a big nothingburger that's truly the result of an extended grieving/settling-of-affairs process from the grandma's death on February 6th, why is March 1st the first time anyone from the team thought to mention it in response to the avalanche of questions about Scot over the past month?

 

All the other stuff from the past 24 hours, especially the speculation on a massive alcohol bender, is just that—speculation.

Quote

But just because we don't have the final answers yet doesn't mean that we can't look at the facts that have been prevented so far

and conclude, at the very least, that this is an extremely bizarre series of events.

Look who's back.:)

 

2162916823_87d736fcc1_m.jpg

Silent Fox time again.

Quote

I think you guys might be tarring and feathering Russell a little too quickly here.

What was his track record with Haz again? Hell, what was his track record anytime he wasn't employed by 980? Horrible. So it's not like he doesn't deserve it. Especially after walking back his "story" all day.

Quote

he primary fact that he actually reported was that Scot was "asked to leave Redskins Park" on February 20th and hasn't been back since. Nobody, as far as I've seen, has refuted that.

Per Keim, Scot, his agent & his wife have refuted it.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18808982/washington-redskins-president-bruce-allen-says-general-manager-scot-mccloughan-return-table-uncertain

" Allen said McCloughan remains in place, doing the work the team hired him to do. Multiple agents have said they've been in contact with McCloughan in the past week; one said he spoke to him three times. A report by 106.7 The Fan in Washington said that McCloughan was asked on Feb. 20 to leave Redskins Park. McCloughan and his agent both strongly denied the report, as did his wife, Jessica, on Twitter. "

 

And then there's this from JP at CSN

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/its-all-bullsh-hes-not-fired-word-scot-mccloughan-source

"Reached Thursday morning for comment, Washington team president Bruce Allen said that McCloughan is home tending to personal matters, via The Washington Post. Allen said that McCloughan will be back with the team once his family affairs are in order. 

One source with knowledge of the situation told CSN of the drama surrounding the Redskins general manager, "It's all bullsh**, he's not fired."

The source continued that McCloughan has conducted normal football business within the last week, but did not travel due to the death in his family."

Quote

they weren't mentioning anything about the grandma's death in the weeks leading up to this, when they were being peppered with questions about why Scot wasn't being made available to the media. If this is all just a big nothingburger that's truly the result of an extended grieving/settling-of-affairs process from the grandma's death on February 6th, why is March 1st the first time anyone from the team thought to mention it in response to the avalanche of questions about Scot over the past month?

Well, first off, it was reported she passed on 2/13 NOT 2/6. And March 1st is when everyone descends on Indy for the Combine. Reporters noticed that they hadn't spotted Scot there, which this up. 

Quote

But just because we don't have the final answers yet doesn't mean that we can't look at the facts that have been prevented so far

To be fair, a fact is a true statement. With the refuting that's gone on along with Russell backtracking all day, would you still consider what you thought were facts, actually facts? Because here now at the end of the day they read like bull****. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, jschuck12001 said:

This part of Keim's article is really all I needed to hear.

 

"Allen said McCloughan remains in place, doing the work the team hired him to do. Multiple agents have said they've been in contact with McCloughan in the past week; one said he spoke to him three times. "

 

Deserves to be repeated...that tidbit right there says sooooo damn much. More than a few won't realize it, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Sinister

Mr. Sinister

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Starting to feel like Russell is a ****ing idiot, and Allen actually has Scot's back right now. Would be nice.

 

I wish this was the final straw to ensure that he never show his face in this town again. Unfortunately, there will always be a strong demand for haterade around here

1 minute ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

So if Russel essentially made this up, does he get canned?  Because he should be.  And if I was Scot, I might be tempted to sue his ass into next week. 

 

I'd start with Cooley, who lit the match to all this bs

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dissident2

Dissident2

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Starting to feel like Russell is a ****ing idiot, and Allen actually has Scot's back right now. Would be nice.

 

That actually would be nice. In fact, it's quite possible that whatever is going on (and I don't at all buy the grandmother thing as being the only reason for his absence, so I definitely believe something else is happening here) is in fact not a result of FO dysfunction but a result of SM dysfunction. The way I see it, there are three viable possibilities and a fourth that's much less viable.

 

1. Scot has been having problems drinking again and the team is trying to help him and is willing to take a hit in the PR arena while doing so

2. There's some truth to the rumors that BA and SM aren't getting along and the Redskins are in the process of either pushing him out or basically giving him an opportunity to get in line

3. Some combination of the two (minus the FO having SM's back part)

4. There's absolutely no problem; it's all just media hype and clickbait conjured out of thin air

 

I don't buy #4 at all. Experience tells me that #2 or #3 is most likely. Hopefully if drinking is involved, it's #1. 

 

Farewell, offseason peace and quiet. We hardly knew ye. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taylor 36

Taylor 36

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, skinfan2k said:

something is weird.  Dan Snyder is quick to fire someone so either they are trying to hide his drinking problem and give him a break.  Or simply waiting for him to make a mistake and then fire him

As a fan of the team, you should be beyond this fallacy.  Snyder is not quick to fire people.  That is yet another myth perpetrated and kept alive by the media. I've posted about this before, so I'm just going to quote an earlier post rather than retype the whole thing again:

 

I think this should have gone in the conspiracy thread.  Honestly, the Snyder being impatient crap is beyond ridiculous at this point.  Fans of this team should know better than to regurgitate the lazy pundits out there that still look at the Redskins as though it is 2002.  Let's take a realist look at Snyder's "impatience" with head coaches:

 

Norv - He fired him (though, if we're being honest, he needed to go) and did it in-season, which is something Snyder has even admitted was a bad move.

 

Marty - This is truly the only real showing of impatience by Snyder (other than the timing of the Norval dismissal).  To be fair, Snyder didn't want to fire Marty, he just wanted him to give up absolute control and say over personnel.  Marty refused and was let go. Again, Snyder has admitted that he should have given Marty more time.

 

Spurrier - As bad as the Ol' Ball Coach was here, Snyder didn't give up on him, didn't give him any ultimatums, and certainly didn't fire him.  Stevie resigned because he knew he was way over his head and out of his element in the pros.

 

Gibbs II -  Does it even have to be said?  Gibbs retired again; Snyder didn't want him to go.  We could have gone 0-16 with Gibbs and Snyder would have never pulled the plug.

 

Zorn - Sure, he fired Mr. Medium, but is there anyone on the entire planet that can blame him for that?  He gave Zorn two full seasons, which is two more than any other owner would have.

 

Shanny - Again, this coach was fired, but it seemed during his fourth and final year that he was doing everything to dare Snyder to fire him and Shanny all but officially quit before the season was over.  Again, he needed to go.  I can't understand how anyone paying attention could blame Snyder for that firing.

 

Gruden - I admit, I was not big on the hire at the time, but this is the only coach to have two consecutive winning seasons in the past 20 years.  What in the hell has Snyder done in the last 15 years with head coaches that realistically points to him just firing this guy?

 

Take a look at that list above and ask yourself a question: Why is it that none of these coaches did anything worth note with another NFL team after leaving us, other than Marty in SD (You know, Marty, the only true showing of impatience by Snyder)?  It doesn't seem like his judgement in letting any of these guys go, other than Marty, has proven him wrong in the end.  That doesn't say impatience at all to me, and I really wish people would stop living in the early 2000's Redskins era. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hubbs

Hubbs

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, TK said:

Look who's back.:)

 

Just when I thought I was out... :ols:

 

19 minutes ago, TK said:

Per Keim, Scot, his agent & his wife have refuted it.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18808982/washington-redskins-president-bruce-allen-says-general-manager-scot-mccloughan-return-table-uncertain

" Allen said McCloughan remains in place, doing the work the team hired him to do. Multiple agents have said they've been in contact with McCloughan in the past week; one said he spoke to him three times. A report by 106.7 The Fan in Washington said that McCloughan was asked on Feb. 20 to leave Redskins Park. McCloughan and his agent both strongly denied the report, as did his wife, Jessica, on Twitter. "

 

I meant nobody with the team, should have been clearer. (If anyone wants to be incredibly nitpicky and say that this technically isn't true because Scot himself is technically a member of the team, congratulations, you're King of All Pedantism. You know what I mean.)

 

19 minutes ago, TK said:

And then there's this from JP at CSN

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/its-all-bullsh-hes-not-fired-word-scot-mccloughan-source

"Reached Thursday morning for comment, Washington team president Bruce Allen said that McCloughan is home tending to personal matters, via The Washington Post. Allen said that McCloughan will be back with the team once his family affairs are in order. 

One source with knowledge of the situation told CSN of the drama surrounding the Redskins general manager, "It's all bullsh**, he's not fired."

The source continued that McCloughan has conducted normal football business within the last week, but did not travel due to the death in his family."

 

Nobody said he'd been fired, so I don't know what this refutes exactly. If he'd been fired, everything would actually be much clearer.

 

19 minutes ago, TK said:

Well, first off, it was reported she passed on 2/13 NOT 2/6. And March 1st is when everyone descends on Indy for the Combine. Reporters noticed that they hadn't spotted Scot there, which this up. 

 

The Keim article that you linked to says she died on the 6th.

 

19 minutes ago, TK said:

To be fair, a fact is a true statement. With the refuting that's gone on along with Russell backtracking all day, would you still consider what you thought were facts, actually facts? Because here now at the end of the day they read like bull****. :)

 

Which ones? My whole point was that the official explanations have been weird. The only thing I mentioned that's very much up in the air is whether or not Scot was asked to go home on Feb 20th. And if that simply didn't happen, then yes, I find it abundantly strange that various team sources would all choose to not just say so in their official and unofficial statements to numerous members of the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
justice98

justice98

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, TK said:

 

Well, first off, it was reported she passed on 2/13 NOT 2/6. And March 1st is when everyone descends on Indy for the Combine. Reporters noticed that they hadn't spotted Scot there, which this up. 

 

 

It was reported based on the obit that she died on the 6th, the service was the 13th, burial on the 14th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
justice98

justice98

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

So if Russel essentially made this up, does he get canned?  Because he should be.  And if I was Scot, I might be tempted to sue his ass into next week. 

 

Making it up and having a bad source are two different things though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DM72

DM72

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

Making it up and having a bad source are two different things though.

 

He reported it. You remember what happened to Dan Rather? It makes no difference rather he got a bad source or not. If you're going to destroy someone, you better make damn sure your sources are legit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TK

TK

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

It was reported based on the obit that she died on the 6th, the service was the 13th, burial on the 14th.

You're right. I had to go back to Steinberg's twitter to catch that it was the 6th. The date  kept seeing everywhere else was the 13th.

5 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

The biggest thing I've taken away from all of this is that purbeast doesn't have a penis. 

So. Word is that Jason Reed sits to pee. Maybe they can form a support group. :silly: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zoony

zoony

Posted
Posted

Nashville radio station?  Sounds about right

 

#Redskins

1 hour ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Starting to feel like Russell is a ****ing idiot, and Allen actually has Scot's back right now. Would be nice.

 

We can all hope for sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tsailand

Tsailand

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Taylor 36 said:

Gibbs II -  Does it even have to be said?  Gibbs retired again; Snyder didn't want him to go.

 

Can't prove it, but I think Gibbs resigned because Snyder wanted him to start Campbell in 2008, and Gibbs wanted Collins of a free agent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...