Someone Needs to tell Cooley to Cool It

[Morneblade]

57 minutes ago, Bang said:

Hey, saw this guy passed out in the gutter on the way to work.

I can't be sure, but it looked a lot like Chris Cooley.

I can only speculate that he's back on the heroin that many people say ended his football career.

 

~Bang

 

Which would be more evidence than we have that GMSM is drinking again. I honestly can't believe some of the **** that is being sprayed in these forums. The amount of tin foil hats is amazing.

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, KingGibbs said:

But Cooley is a public figure working in a public forum and must accept consequences that come along with speculative remarks. Doesn't change my opinion about Cooley. I happen to love him on the show and I'm not going to join the current trend going on in this country and protest the show.. Just a hiccup IMO, but he'll learn from it I'm sure.

 

 

Good lord, I agree with you...

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

By the way, the running tally so far on this is:

 

- Allen is jealous of Scot M, so he muzzled him in order to get more attention on himself

- Scot M is back to drinking, so Allen muzzled him in order to keep it a secret

- Snyder passed down an order to Cooley to spread the word that Scot M is drinking so that when he's fired there won't be a fan backlash

 

Lemme know if I missed any.

[KingGibbs]

13 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

Good lord, I agree with you...

 

 

 

Oh hell no! LOL!

 

Actually.we've been agreeing on a lot more of late. I just didn't want you to have to seek therapy by pointing it out.

[SkinsGuy]

1 minute ago, KingGibbs said:

Oh hell no! LOL!

 

Actually.we've been agreeing on a lot more of late. I just didn't want you to have to seek therapy by pointing it out.

 

You might want to edit that pic out of your post.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

6 minutes ago, KingGibbs said:

Actually.we've been agreeing on a lot more of late. I just didn't want you to have to seek therapy by pointing it out.

 

[KingGibbs]

2 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

You might want to edit that pic out of your post.  

Damn! Thanks guy!

[TSO]

3 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

 

Anyway, a long-winded way of saying that yes, I applaud them for what they started two years ago after finally hitting rock bottom as a franchise. But I need a lot more history of proven consistency and functionality before I forget where I was as a fan in 2014. Call it "Post-Traumatic-Snyder-Syndrome."

 

I think we're arguing about two different things here and I feel like you may be misunderstanding me. 

 

You see, I fully understand why there are concerns. I have them as well. Check my posting history. You surely must remember I even involved you after the 2014 season in that "fan card" deal that we tried to start up again out of frustration. 

 

 My first post after the Scot hire, though mostly positive, referenced the concern about his history with alcoholism and how it's scary to think about how it'll mesh with (at the time) one of the most consistently unstable organizations in the league. 

 

Furthermore, I've never downplayed Snyder's role in the massive failure that was the organizational structure of the franchise for years. His hiring process still concerns me to this day and I've posted extensively on this matter. 

 

So I don't know why you're telling me about your concerns and why they're justified... that's not the issue here. 

 

The issue isn't about having concerns, the issue is about allowing those concerns to surface based on flimsy evidence and rampant speculation. That shouldn't happen... it should remain in the back of our heads until there's proof. The concerns being there isn't an excuse for panic and paranoia. Worse, it shouldn't justify bad journalism, even if the concerns end up true. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

 

1. 1. Don't like the leaks we've heard about people in the organization not being sold on Cousins. Speculation the leaks came from Scot himself. 
2. 2. Don't like the fact that Jay has not been given an extension. Seems like an obvious thing to do at this point to promote stability and consistency.
3. 3. Don't like the fact that we may become the first team in NFL history to have a QB playing for us under the franchise tag two years in a row. 
4. 4. To circle this back to Cooley, I don't like the fact that a situation was created that made his speculation and the ensuing ****storm even possible. 

 

1) Me neither, I agree. But I'm not sure how valid they are, either, and what exactly was "leaked". 

 

2) This one is weird for me and I'm a big Jay guy. Since when is this a thing two years out? Usually, coaches get extended before going into their last season so as to avoid being a lame duck, but two years out? I don't understand why this became a big deal this offseason.

 

I'd love for Jay to get extended, but I don't see the issue here. He's still under contract for two more years, talk of him being a lame duck is way overblown. I mean, what's the end point here? "Coach only has three years left on his deal, they should extend him so people are comfortable to sign here for three years because the last year is a lame duck one and they don't want to be here just two years"! When does it end? 

 

Besides, we could see an extension happen at any time this year. Is it really a problem if it happens midseason and not pre-Free Agency or that it didn't happen pre-defensive coaching search? Just a weird thing to be bothered about two years out. The possibility of him being fired at the end of the upcoming season shouldn't be something to panic about at this point. 

 

3) Hasn't happened yet. This is what I'm taking about. Panicking before anything has happened. It's ridiculous. When it does I'll be right there with you in terms if anger. Before then? It's silly. 

 

4) We don't know if the situation that was "created" came about because of a sound decision. Even Cooley, who you're referring to here, also speculated that it could be something positive. You're not including that. Heck, even if it is bad in one way, it doesn't mean it's a poor decision. Like, what if Scot has actually fallen off the wagon and the team is protecting him by doing this? What if they're trying to help him behind the scenes? We have no idea, but the decision could be a positive one in many ways. 

 

But it doesn't matter. The "ensuing ****storm" isn't justified, and even you're admitting to that. Yet, somehow you want to still lay the majority of the blame at the feet of the organization's decision because of their past. 

 

3 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

I have a friend whose nephew abuses drugs. He's been in rehab multiple times. He's lied to and hurt the ones who love him most over and over, and now there's a history and pattern there. He's actually in jail right now, but he's making progress in finally going "straight." The family is right there to praise and encourage his progress as he does all the right things, but it's going to take a long time to rebuild that trust. And you can bet that if someone finds money missing after he gets home, their first thought is probably going to be, "Crap, are they using again?" That doesn't make them assholes. That kid's going to need to prove himself over a substantial period of time to rebuild that trust. 

 

I wanted to circle back to this, since you used it as an example. See, where it fails here as a response to what I was saying is that it's one thing to think it, to have concerns, to wonder if he's "using again"... but it's another to openly confront him on it or assume the worst. Let alone spread it around the entire neighborhood, right? They'd probably like to keep it in the family, too, which is what the organization has done. 

 

Furthermore, this example doesn't fit because in this case there's actually something legitimately wrong in terms of missing money. In the case of Scot being kept from the media it could mean many things, and they don't have to be bad. It could even include his own desire of wanting to avoid them. 

 

This example fails on numerous levels, brother. 

[PartyPosse]

If Snyder didn't own 980 he would be suing the **** out of The station for potentially defamatory statements as the speculation not only damages scott's reputation but also could affect free agency and whether or not players would want to come here. Obviously they would meet with Scott and he would tell them the truth either way but regardless this kind of speculation may prevent some in demand FA from even bothering considering Washington as a landing spot. All this does is present the FO as a complete circus once again which may indicate a lack of control or identity. Why would someone like Eric Berry want something like that?

[Bang]

This is such a warm fuzzy party now! We ought to call up Scott and see if he wants to stop by for a drink or two.

 

~Burp

[zCommander]

So why you haven't called him yet?

[Wildbunny]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

By the way, the running tally so far on this is:

 

- Allen is jealous of Scot M, so he muzzled him in order to get more attention on himself

- Scot M is back to drinking, so Allen muzzled him in order to keep it a secret

- Snyder passed down an order to Cooley to spread the word that Scot M is drinking so that when he's fired there won't be a fan backlash

 

Lemme know if I missed any.

[Bang]

1 hour ago, zskins said:

So why you haven't called him yet?

I punched in a bunch of numbers on the phone, and it just keeps ringing. 

Since i have assumed they are the correct numbers, I can only speculate that he must be sleeping off a bender.

 

~Bang

 

 

[zCommander]

1 hour ago, Bang said:

I punched in a bunch of numbers on the phone, and it just keeps ringing. 

Since i have assumed they are the correct numbers, I can only speculate that he must be sleeping off a bender.

 

~Bang

 

 

 

Lol... My comments were directed towards the OP though.  

Why should someone else call for the OP? Are we his ****. lol

[Koolblue13]

Wait a second. TK is our insider, shouldn't he be addressing this with an "offical" thread?

 

Or is TK drinking with Scot?

[TouchdownSkin]

This feels like an all time low for this forum.  I think it's wrong to be insinuating that Scott is drinking again with absolutely no evidence, just bs.  Scott works for the Redskins, and we are supposed fans.....this stinks.

[Dissident2]

 

4 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

You see, I fully understand why there are concerns. I have them as well. Check my posting history. You surely must remember I even involved you after the 2014 season in that "fan card" deal that we tried to start up again out of frustration. 

 

 My first post after the Scot hire, though mostly positive, referenced the concern about his history with alcoholism and how it's scary to think about how it'll mesh with (at the time) one of the most consistently unstable organizations in the league. 

 

Furthermore, I've never downplayed Snyder's role in the massive failure that was the organizational structure of the franchise for years. His hiring process still concerns me to this day and I've posted extensively on this matter. 

 

So I don't know why you're telling me about your concerns and why they're justified... that's not the issue here. 

 

 

And I'll have to boomerang that right back at you. Not sure why you're telling me about your past issues with Snyder. That was never in question and has little to do with what I was getting at. I expressed mine simply as a response to your mantra of "How can you guys continue to assume the worst after these last two years?" I'll get to that in a second. 

 

 

4 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

I wanted to circle back to this, since you used it as an example. See, where it fails here as a response to what I was saying is that it's one thing to think it, to have concerns, to wonder if he's "using again"... but it's another to openly confront him on it or assume the worst. Let alone spread it around the entire neighborhood, right? They'd probably like to keep it in the family, too, which is what the organization has done. 

 

Furthermore, this example doesn't fit because in this case there's actually something legitimately wrong in terms of missing money. In the case of Scot being kept from the media it could mean many things, and they don't have to be bad. It could even include his own desire of wanting to avoid them. 

 

This example fails on numerous levels, brother. 

 

 

It really doesn't, and you seem to have misunderstood the analogy. Number one, that analogy had much less to do with the specifics of the SM situation (the substance abuse content was just a coincidence) and was much more a response to comments like this one: 

 

 

Quote

That's contradictory if you say that but then ignore the recent past, which should be given more weight. Has no progress been made, in your mind, the last couple years? You see, I don't buy this because I'd like to think we're better than clinging onto a past that seems to be left behind. The team hired a GM. They've got two winning seasons in a row since then.

 

 

The whole notion that two years of admittedly encouraging-but-not-earth-shattering success should hold "more weight" than more than a decade of absolute and utter garbage both on and off the field is rather bizarre to me, as is the expressed "shock"  and "moral outrage" that someone could possibly think otherwise. While I will be right there encouraging AND praising them when they do what I think is the right thing (like they did after the 2014 season) and hoping the trend continues, it will simply take longer for me NOT to jump to negative assumptions when issues arise because of a much larger history of having my fanhood screwed, betrayed and abused by this team under this owner. In that regard, the analogy works perfectly, and that's how the analogy was meant to be applied, not at all to Scot and whether or not he's drinking again. 

 

Even the "missing money" part works, because, as you say above related to the Scot situation, missing money doesn't always equate to something bad. It could be misplaced money, money you forgot you actually spent. Or, it could in fact end up being stolen by the person you thought had turned the corner. In due course, the truth will be revealed, just as it will be in this case.

 

In short, it works on numerous levels, brother.

 

In the case of the analogy, the "missing money" for me would be the off-the-field issues I've already listed, all of which contribute to a sense of unease about this offseason. For me. Could there be a perfectly reasonable explanation for every concern? Yes. We'll all find out soon enough. 

 

The bone of contention here seems to be you think "nothing" has happened or is happening because you have no concrete evidence, whereas I have a "where there's smoke, there's fire" mentality based on seeing this movie many times before. There's really no right or wrong there, it's just how you choose to view things based on past experience. 

 

Also, I know it's part of the site's name, but let's drop the extreme judgment swings here. Just because I say I still don't have total faith in this FO doesn't mean I don't recognize the progress of the last two years. Just because I criticize the FO for how they handled the Scot-speaking-to-the-media thing doesn't mean I exonerate the media at large for going on the usual feeding frenzy. By the same token, just because someone leans more toward trusting what the FO is doing shouldn't mean they have to defend themselves against charges of being a Snyder apologist. 

 

We all want the same thing in the end. 

 

All I know is, if this was my show, I would do the following immediately.

1. Give Kirk his money

2. Extend Jay (yeah, I know he's two years out, but I still think it would be a good thing to do)

3. Let Scot address the media, maybe even with Jay and Bruce beside him, and present a united front about how the offseason will be handled

4. Move on to what matters: the 2017 season

 

I challenge anyone to say they would be upset or concerned or anything but stoked if all of the above happened. It should not be this hard. 

[LightningBuggs]

I don't like it, but there appears to be some smoke to this fire. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

5 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

Let alone spread it around the entire neighborhood, right? They'd probably like to keep it in the family, too, which is what the organization has done. 

 

If it's common knowledge around the neighborhood, seeing something out of the ordinary would make others question it. I don't think that's unfair. 

 

Scott's past is common knowledge so when presented with something confusing and being given 0 answers on it, we are left to decide on our own the reasons for the confusing thing. And parts of people's past that are common knowledge are not off limits. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Califan007 said:

By the way...

 

2013: if Griffin would just stop talking to the media the drama would go away! Just shut up and do your job!

 

2017: If Allen would just talk to the media about Scot the drama would go away! Just stop working for 10 minutes and talk!

 

 

Gotta love our fans lol...

 

Come on those are hardly the same thing. that's a poor comparison. 

 

 

[Gibbit]

Snyder is having a lord of the flies experiment with the press. Complete silence.

 

Until some real news comes about that they want to talk about (hopefully a QB contract) I'm proud of them for ignoring this ****

[Jumbo]

gibbit

gibbit

[PartyPosse]

38 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

If it's common knowledge around the neighborhood, seeing something out of the ordinary would make others question it. I don't think that's unfair. 

I don't think the gag order is that unusual. There's been a ridiculous amount of turnaround in coaching and personnel and Scott is an honest guy. Bruce would rather he concentrate on his job than pandering to the media, who, in case you haven't noticed, have made a living from ****ting on the redskins at any opportunity. And look what happened? They're ****ting on them still - attacking a man personally, which really does break the code of ethics (it's my job as well). 

[TSO]

3 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

 

And I'll have to boomerang that right back at you. Not sure why you're telling me about your past issues with Snyder. That was never in question and has little to do with what I was getting at. I expressed mine simply as a response to your mantra of "How can you guys continue to assume the worst after these last two years?" I'll get to that in a second. 

 

That "mantra" doesn't exist. It's not just about assuming the worst, it's the willingness to accept rampant speculation, conjecture, and bad journalism just because past dysfunction existed. 

 

Even WITHIN dysfunction that's not okay. You shouldn't simply buy things that are said simply because it might fit the profile. Is it okay if the media, for instance, fabricated a story even during the Snyderrato era? Is it acceptable simply because it would've fit? 

 

 I don't see how this is even a question. I don't see how you can say there is no right or wrong here... isn't this common sense? 

 

3 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

The whole notion that two years of admittedly encouraging-but-not-earth-shattering success should hold "more weight" than more than a decade of absolute and utter garbage both on and off the field is rather bizarre to me, as is the expressed "shock"  and "moral outrage" that someone could possibly think otherwise.

 

That's bizarre to you? What world are you living in, then? In virtually every aspect of life this is true. 

 

I mean, don't points on your drivers license come off after a period of time? When a wrong is righted, do you cling onto the wrong unforgivingly? How is that okay? Recent history always means more unless you're admittedly unforgiving. 

 

No one is debating about concerns or whether they should exist. That's fine. And that's why it was brought up.

 

 But openly speculating and assuming the worst? No, that's unacceptable. If you don't get the moral outrage about that I don't know what to tell you. I just hope no one ever does that to you undeservingly. 

 

3 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

In that regard, the analogy works perfectly, and that's how the analogy was meant to be applied, not at all to Scot and whether or not he's drinking again. 

 

Even the "missing money" part works, because, as you say above related to the Scot situation, missing money doesn't always equate to something bad. It could be misplaced money, money you forgot you actually spent. Or, it could in fact end up being stolen by the person you thought had turned the corner. In due course, the truth will be revealed, just as it will be in this case.

 

In short, it works on numerous levels, brother.

 

Now you're adding things that you initially didn't include to the analogy, that I had to add to make it fit better. So, no, it didn't work initially. Furthermore, "missing money" is inherently a bad thing whereas even you, as well as Cooley, admit the media being kept from Scot may not be. One is inherently bad that could end up a false alarm, the other is inherently nothing that could end up either good or bad. 

 

This is why analogies often fail. 

 

The point was this could be a good or bad thing. We don't know. But what we do know is there's a lack of evidence regarding the situation and that there are those within the media willing to speculate the worst, with some in the fan base buying it simply because of the past. That is wrong on numerous levels, among them the journalism itself which you've admitted. It is. 

 

3 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

The bone of contention here seems to be you think "nothing" has happened or is happening because you have no concrete evidence, whereas I have a "where there's smoke, there's fire" mentality based on seeing this movie many times before. There's really no right or wrong there, it's just how you choose to view things based on past experience. 

 

I never said that. So forgive me if I still stick with the "you're misunderstanding me" thing. 

 

Show me where I said nothing has happened or is happening? I've consistently maintained that I have no idea, that I'm concerned as well and thus I understand those concerns fully from others. Where I draw the line is accepting speculation and conjecture as indicative of anything without any solid evidence. And, no, past dysfunction is not justification for it and, yes, recent history always means more. So I won't delve into it myself and, I'm sorry, maybe I sound self-righteous... but I think there is certainly a right and a wrong here. 

 

I just can't believe that's even debatable, but I guess it is. 

 

2 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

If it's common knowledge around the neighborhood, seeing something out of the ordinary would make others question it. I don't think that's unfair. 

 

Scott's past is common knowledge so when presented with something confusing and being given 0 answers on it, we are left to decide on our own the reasons for the confusing thing. And parts of people's past that are common knowledge are not off limits. 

 

So even you take issue with Dissident's analogy, lol.

 

His analogy about his friend's nephew was something that was "in house", not something that's "common knowledge in the neighborhood". How would they know money was missing unless someone within the family was being an asshole and spreading that **** even before they verified he was the culprit? 

 

There's a massive difference, and that's part of the problem here. 

 

And I don't think we were given zero

answers. Mike Jones was the first to report this and he said the reason was that the team wants Scot to focus completely on his task with personnel. Maybe that's all it is, maybe it's more. But absent of anything concrete I think it's wrong to speculate. 

 

Were the media to do a good job and gather some inside info, cite sources, and relay that information to us I'd have no problem criticizing the team and referencing the past dysfunction as returning. I wouldn't stick my head in the sand or deny it. But I'm not going to accept this as legitimate right now and I don't think anyone who is will be "right" for doing so even if things turn out like they predicted. 

 

3 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

We all want the same thing in the end. 

 

One thing I certainly agree with.  

 

Well, for the most part. Some times I wonder, especially reading the QB threads here.  

[TSO]

3 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

 

All I know is, if this was my show, I would do the following immediately.

1. Give Kirk his money

2. Extend Jay (yeah, I know he's two years out, but I still think it would be a good thing to do)

3. Let Scot address the media, maybe even with Jay and Bruce beside him, and present a united front about how the offseason will be handled

4. Move on to what matters: the 2017 season

 

1) Totally agree

 

2) Agree, but I think it's completely within the realm of sound logic not to. I think it's weird this is even an issue, it'd actually be abnormal to do it in comparison to how it usually goes in the NFL. 

 

3) Disagree, that might even lend credence to the issue and it'll further motivate those elements within the media to believe they can "create news" whenever they want. Essentially, you prove to them that they can force you to do something no matter what. 

 

4) I think that's what they're doing right now but it's so quiet we're all losing our minds. 

[ANONYMOUS SOURCE.]

True or not I think Cooley stepped in it on this one. I'm probably in the minority but If Scot can stack this team like the former 49ers and current Seahawks then I kinda don't care if they have to spray him with a hose and hand truck him to his office every morning.

(No I'm not a bad guy just a Skins fan and therefore no longer rational)?