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

[bobandweave]

Yes JMS I said earlier things just don't add up here and wondered out loud if Cousins was behind this situation. Of course no one replied to that but I think it makes sense, while highly speculative as much as any theory. 

 

We don't know Kirk and Scot's relationship. What do we know about it?

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/kirk-cousins-yells-how-you-like-me-now-at-redskins-gm-after-win-over-packers/

 

How do you like me now? As in you didn't like me before right?

 

We heard for months that someone wasn't all that interested in Kirk. Who was that? We never learned. All we heard was that Scot was silenced. Now this  week we learn that Scots out and right after that we learn they are talking to Kirk long term finally.

 

Coincidence? Maybe, but when you think about it with the team refusing to quiet the "Scot's drinking" story with a simple refute and not doing the obvious thing and holding a press and backing this employee and instead we hear they tell him don't call us we will call you it makes someone wonder if we can't connect some dots here. If it's not drinking my money's on Scot not being in the Kirk camp for reasons you mention above but no one knows for sure, it's just speculation

 

 

[grego]

On the one hand, there is the click bait media who never met a quote or tweet they couldn't spend a week dissecting. 

 

On the other, we have an organization that's been, arguably, the biggest **** show in the NFL for most of the past two decades. 

 

While I could see either one being true, I don't feel particularly comfortable putting my trust in either one. 

[Conn]

The single biggest piece of evidence we currently have that this organization is not ****ed (for whatever reason you believe) is the contact McCloughan has had, repeatedly, with agents in the last week. That is big.

[bowhunter]

If I had to pick an alternative explanation, that wasn't either alcoholism or excessive mourning, I would have to go with .....

*OPTION 3: KIRK vs Scotty McGem. -Possibly the rest of the FO thought that the Kirk contract situation was mishandled last year and now we're having to pay for that gamble. Odd that Scot went MIA about the time that a decision on Kirk needed to be made. Was it an either/or type impasse?

 

*Note that this theory is probably not based any more in fact than the crap that the local media is spewing. But it may make more sense than some of the other theories. Esp since I didn't hear Kirks agent mention Scotty McGem in his interview. Is it possible that Ashburn had to make a decision between the best GM we've had in 20 years vs the best QB we've had in 20 years??

[ThomasRoane]

29 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Not sure if this has been speculated on at all ... but I wonder if McCloughan is convinced the team can win with a cheaper option or a rookie at QB with Gruden's system. But going into a serious prove-it year ... Gruden wants Cousins back no matter what. Maybe tensions boiled over on the topic ... and McCloughan, thinking he had final roster say, was told to go "cool off" by Bruce. Maybe, simultaneously, SM was also hitting the bottle a little harder than usual (remember, he never said he quit), and it was also more of a mutual "you're right, I need to cool off" type of deal.

 

Or...maybe Dan and his fellow owners are pissed because their GM has cost them anywhere from $25 to $45 million dollars worth of  guaranteed money and left them with zero leverage in contract negotiations for the most important position in football.   SM was the one last year that went public with the comment that he would not "break the bank for one guy."  A savvy GM would have recommended a team friendly contract with off ramps so that the team would have leverage if a trade was deemed important.  Or, they would have their guy at what would have been a bargain when compared with the Osweiler and Bradford deals.  Franchising Kirk turned out to be the dumbest move of all time.  Kirk and his agent hold all the cards. 

 

A screw up of that magnitude would have any GM on the outs.  If it were just about the negotiations with Kirk then SM would still be at the combine. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm sort of jumping between two threads this week, but I do wonder what the feeling is at Ashburn about the Kirk contract situation.

 

I mean, the team is legitimately going to have to pay tens of millions of dollars more than was necessary. For whatever reason, this feels like the one story that has no leaks attached to it. I don't know who is Pro-Kirk, Anti-Kirk, or neutral there.

 

I have to think that if you were pro-Kirk, you are furious at the anti-Kirk crowd, right?

 

This team likes "winning" contract negotiations. This is the kind of loss that negates every other win you could possibly have. Saving a million here and a million there doesn't matter once you've pissed $20 million away unnecessarily.

[DJD2]

33 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Getting weird in here. Still better than Wednesday night's vibes. 

 

[NewCliche21]

52 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

I'm sort of jumping between two threads this week, but I do wonder what the feeling is at Ashburn about the Kirk contract situation.

 

I mean, the team is legitimately going to have to pay tens of millions of dollars more than was necessary. For whatever reason, this feels like the one story that has no leaks attached to it. I don't know who is Pro-Kirk, Anti-Kirk, or neutral there.

 

I have to think that if you were pro-Kirk, you are furious at the anti-Kirk crowd, right?

 

This team likes "winning" contract negotiations. This is the kind of loss that negates every other win you could possibly have. Saving a million here and a million there doesn't matter once you've pissed $20 million away unnecessarily.

 

This isn't a very sound business strategy.  Pay more for something you're sure of than pay less for something that won't work.  Business is about loss mitigation first, hence why people buy insurance before anything else.

Had Kirk not been what they wanted and he signed a LTD for say $100M, then that's a $100M loss + cap hit + lack of acquisition/development of QB.

In this case, they wouldn't have to worry if they got it right.  I don't know any business owner making a major investment who wouldn't pay a 20% premium for certainty when it's the absolute centerpiece of your entire business.  Scot was contracted in 2014 for evaluation and then hired for evaluation.  I'll take a real hard look from an expert over a coin flip/Madden simulation when we're talking about this kind of money/impact.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, ThomasRoane said:

 

Or...maybe Dan and his fellow owners are pissed because their GM has cost them anywhere from $25 to $45 million dollars worth of  guaranteed money and left them with zero leverage in contract negotiations for the most important position in football.   SM was the one last year that went public with the comment that he would not "break the bank for one guy."  A savvy GM would have recommended a team friendly contract with off ramps so that the team would have leverage if a trade was deemed important.  Or, they would have their guy at what would have been a bargain when compared with the Osweiler and Bradford deals.  Franchising Kirk turned out to be the dumbest move of all time.  Kirk and his agent hold all the cards. 

 

A screw up of that magnitude would have any GM on the outs.  If it were just about the negotiations with Kirk then SM would still be at the combine. 

 

 If you buy into Mike Jones report, Jay was into signing him last year, Scot was too at the right price but it was Bruce and Danny who weren't sure whether to sign Kirk, then.  Plus Bruce/Schaffer are the money-purse string guys and make the money calls -- not Scot.

 

Scot also went public saying he'd be happy to pay more for Kirk if he succeeds after this season and he was one of the teams blue chip players.

 

http://www.espn980.com/2016/07/29/audio-redskins-gm-scot-mccloughan-talks-blue-and-red-players-and-a-redskins-team-without-junior-galette/

Kevin Sheehan:  Yeah. But the name that I guarantee you people are wondering about, because you just put Kirk in that level — that would mean to most people, logically he’s your quarterback for the future.  He’s your guy. You’ve decided he’s a “Blue,” elite quarterback –  he’s your guy....

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

7 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Had Kirk not been what they wanted and he signed a LTD for say $100M, then that's a $100M loss + cap hit + lack of acquisition/development of QB.
 

 

I would actually say the end of that equation should read "+ cost and resources used to develop another QB", since inevitably they would have to replace an ineffective Cousins.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

10 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

This isn't a very sound business strategy.  Pay more for something you're sure of than pay less for something that won't work.  Business is about loss mitigation first, hence why people buy insurance before anything else.

Had Kirk not been what they wanted and he signed a LTD for say $100M, then that's a $100M loss + cap hit + lack of acquisition/development of QB.

In this case, they wouldn't have to worry if they got it right.  I don't know any business owner making a major investment who wouldn't pay a 20% premium for certainty when it's the absolute centerpiece of your entire business.  Scot was contracted in 2014 for evaluation and then hired for evaluation.  I'll take a real hard look from an expert over a coin flip/Madden simulation when we're talking about this kind of money/impact.

 

I get what the Redskins were doing, and there was a strategy behind it.

 

It still blew up spectacularly.

 

I've been in a fair number of meetings with executives with marvelous, sound business plans that failed. Heads almost always roll in those circumstances.

[NickyJ]

13 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

I get what the Redskins were doing, and there was a strategy behind it.

 

It still blew up spectacularly.

 

I've been in a fair number of meetings with executives with marvelous, sound business plans that failed. Heads almost always roll in those circumstances.

I think a fair few of us have a different definition of "spectacular" lol.

 

When the plan is to find out whether someone is worth a lot of money, and you then proceed to find out, I don't consider that a failure. It's like going to a car dealer, taking an SUV out for a test drive on the highway and needing to pay for the tank of gas you used. A small price to pay if it means you avoid shelling out 15 grand for a piece of junk. "Oh man, I spent $50 on a tank of gas. What a spectacular failure!"

 

If GMs were fired for using franchise tags, we'd probably have quite a few GMs on the market for signing if Scot went downhill.

[hailmary]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

So Scot, his wife, his agent, the team, and several local media who did not jump when Chris Russell sounded the false alarm say the Scot is home working and taking care of family issues, but several of you are certain there is some conspiracy. My favorite is that somehow this is Dan being pissed after the first back to back winning season is what, 15 years! That just makes no sense.

 

It is not often I find myself agreeing with @Mr. Sinister, but until someone can provide some tangible proof otherwise, this is much ado about nothing. All these conspiracy theories, while entertaining, just have no basis in fact.

goskins10 I hope you are right as we need to have stability in this organization, but it sure sends a mixed message and a few red flags!

[PartyPosse]

3 minutes ago, hailmary said:

goskins10 I hope you are right as we need to have stability in this organization, but it sure sends a mixed message and a few red flags!

 

The only people I'm concerned it sending mixed messages to are FA and agents but realistically they are probably talking to them extensively behind the curtain and they all know the real deal.

 

all this is really just a case of us and all NFL fans for that matter being used to the idea that football is now a 365 thing.

[theTruthTeller]

26 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

I think a fair few of us have a different definition of "spectacular" lol.

 

When the plan is to find out whether someone is worth a lot of money, and you then proceed to find out, I don't consider that a failure. It's like going to a car dealer, taking an SUV out for a test drive on the highway and needing to pay for the tank of gas you used. A small price to pay if it means you avoid shelling out 15 grand for a piece of junk. "Oh man, I spent $50 on a tank of gas. What a spectacular failure!"

 

If GMs were fired for using franchise tags, we'd probably have quite a few GMs on the market for signing if Scot went downhill.

If you work at the dealership selling that particular SUV, you probably shouldn't sign a one year lease at a higher than market rate if you want to keep the SUV for 5 years.  Especially, if you can only renew the lease that same SUV at a 20% increase the following year and all the other SUVs in its class have been taken off the market.

 

Norman was in the exact same situation - he had a breakout year in the last year of his rookie contract.  Without any expectation that Norman would be on the market, the Skins were willing to make him the highest paid cornerback in league history with only 24 hours to consider this move.  Why did they need an additional year to evaluate someone they had already been evaluating for the previous four years?

[bh32]

Maybe Scott's kid or kids are taking the loss of the there Grandmother really hard and he needs to be there for them..

[Tsailand]

6 hours ago, SkinInsite said:

I'd like to see a player miss three week of games for a death in the family.

 

Little known fact: Goodell actually reversed the Deflategate suspension last year, but Brady took the four weeks off anyway because his 100 year old grandmother had died.

 

[Master Blaster]

People who are ****ing about the present situation would be ****ing if Cousins had gotten a $100m last year with $30 guaranteed and proceeded to throw for 3300 yards, 18 touchdowns, 21 interceptions.  

[RedBeast]

2 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Getting weird in here. Still better than Wednesday night's vibes. 

 

Getting?

[onedrop]

53 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

Yes JMS I said earlier things just don't add up here and wondered out loud if Cousins was behind this situation. Of course no one replied to that but I think it makes sense, while highly speculative as much as any theory. 

yes! from deep within his underground lair of evil Kirk is behind....everything mwahahahahaaaaaa.

 

53 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

We don't know Kirk and Scot's relationship. What do we know about it?

you answered your own question here.

 

53 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/kirk-cousins-yells-how-you-like-me-now-at-redskins-gm-after-win-over-packers/

 

How do you like me now? As in you didn't like me before right?

or as in.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVzvRsl4rEM

 

which has been in popular culture since 2009 if not much earlier for the phrase itself.

53 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

We heard for months that someone wasn't all that interested in Kirk. Who was that? We never learned. All we heard was that Scot was silenced. Now this  week we learn that Scots out and right after that we learn they are talking to Kirk long term finally.

 

Coincidence? Maybe, but when you think about it with the team refusing to quiet the "Scot's drinking" story with a simple refute and not doing the obvious thing and holding a press and backing this employee and instead we hear they tell him don't call us we will call you it makes someone wonder if we can't connect some dots here. If it's not drinking my money's on Scot not being in the Kirk camp for reasons you mention above but no one knows for sure, it's just speculation

 

 

yes, speculation, based on rumors of rumors, innuendo and assumption. in summation, bull****....at least until present.

[Tsailand]

14 minutes ago, Master Blaster said:

People who are ****ing about the present situation would be ****ing if Cousins had gotten a $100m last year with $30 guaranteed and proceeded to throw for 3300 yards, 18 touchdowns, 21 interceptions.  

 

Yes, the only way a Cousins contract signed last year would look bad now is if he'd been literally the worst QB of 2016.  Instead he was one of the top 7, and our front office look like fools.

[TheShredder]

This is sound discussion here now that, at present, more has unfolded.  I have to agree that the decision from last year was made and placed the future decision into a loss scenario.  There's still open debate about the holes in the probability that the organization is now being truthful.  They simply are not and shouldn't take a line to play hard decisions out in the media.  In this situation they became damned if you do and damned if you don't.  This is a GM failure with respect to responsibility, though I view it as SM being the fall guy.  SM is probably very pissed off!  Seems rightly so from all signs and present symptoms that are available for remedies.  Unfortunately, this places the 'smells bad' badge on the Skins organization that has plagued the franchise for years.  You're not being viewed in the proper light to acquire new blood from FA's with this scenario playing out this way.  Trying to draw up future plans that include FA acquisitions filling holes in your roster is going to cost even more with this sort of song being played.  Now, capital investment in a LTD with KC is more expensive and lacking the organizational integrity to fill the holes in your roster to contend in year 3 of your rebuild.  They'll have to invest big this year to save the progress from the last 2 from being discarded unnecessarily.  This is where the true leader could step up and clear the air or not.  They have a leadership problem again.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

Yes, the only way a Cousins contract signed last year would look bad now is if he'd been literally the worst QB of 2016.  Instead he was one of the top 7, and our front office look like fools.

 

If he looked like the Kirk Cousins of 2014 we would have been screwed beyond belief.

[TheShredder]

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

If he looked like the Kirk Cousins of 2014 we would have been screwed beyond belief.

Exactly.  The mistake seems to be that the contingent plans were not well sorted.  KC agent actually played it out well for his client.  The Skins screwed up and should have used the transition tag on KC last year and matched any LTD.  This would have kept their leverage in tact.  Terrible negotiating mistake.

[theTruthTeller]

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

If he looked like the Kirk Cousins of 2014 we would have been screwed beyond belief.

How is that?  You mean we would have denied the pride that we have in finishing third in the division?  No matter what happened in 2017, we'd still have Kirk as our only reasonable starter for 2017.

 

If the FO thought failure was a possibility, why didn't they make plans for replacing Kirk in 2017?  They didn't make plans for Kirk's success and they didn't make plans for his failure.