JPG Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 11 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said: We were offering 23mil py about 2 weeks ago so I don't think the issue is due to being 1mil py short on a 5 or 6 year deal. I don't believe that for a second. If that is the case Kirk and the team can go **** themselves. Just now, skinfan2k said: No one can give a better deal than the skins. The transition tag salary next year is 28 guaranteed. Why would he sign a long term deal that doesn't give him 52M over the next 2 years?? Because there would be another 50$ miil guaranteed plus the 25 per yr for those two years I would think. Basically it would be more money guaranteed if he signed lyd. Why do you think he wants one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veteranskinsfan Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Just want to remind everyone about a twitter statement I saw this morning from former ESPN 980 producer: Redskins winning percentage under Vinny Cerrato was .459 Redskins winning percentage under Bruce Allen is .397 Here is an update from Tom Loverro article: During his stint from 2002 to 2009, Cerrato’s record was 52-65. Bruce Allen’s reign at Redskins Park? A record of 45-66-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carex Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, veteranskinsfan said: Just want to remind everyone about a twitter statement I saw this morning from former ESPN 980 producer: Redskins winning percentage under Vinny Cerrato was .459 Redskins winning percentage under Bruce Allen is .397 Cerrato was here longer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 I'm in. I can commit oodles of time. Seriously, me. Let a woman handle this ****show for a change. We've tried everything else, amirite? edit, add: Kirk gets signed. He'll want to be here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasRoane Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 1 hour ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said: We were offering 23mil py about 2 weeks ago so I don't think the issue is due to being 1mil py short on a 5 or 6 year deal. What is your source for this info? Cause the latest info I can find is a tweet from WAPO's Master Tesfatsion which has the Redskins at $20M per year. After Mike Glennon getting a contract that roughly averages out to $15M a year $20M to Kirk isn't in the ballpark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 @ThomasRoane info was put out on here by TK. That was before he was broken though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 45 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said: @ThomasRoane info was put out on here by TK. That was before he was broken though. I just went over TK's activity. He didn't mention anything like that. I've not seen anything like this on ES, and I've been following pretty closely. The only number has been 20 million per. I think you're misinformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tay Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 That 20M was an old offer when reported. Both Keim and TK mentioned that. TK did say the recent offer at the combine was 23. I'll see if I can find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 28 minutes ago, Morneblade said: I just went over TK's activity. He didn't mention anything like that. I've not seen anything like this on ES, and I've been following pretty closely. The only number has been 20 million per. I think you're misinformed. Buried in the Twitter thread I think. It doesn't matter if you don't believe me though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Just now, UK SKINS FAN '74 said: Buried in the Twitter thread I think. It doesn't matter if you don't have to believe me though I went back over and found it, but nothing to confirm it. In the future thought, it's your job to provide evidence on your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, Morneblade said: I went back over and found it, but nothing to confirm it. In the future thought, it's your job to provide evidence on your statement. That's a job I'm going to fail at. I'll work on the basis people appreciate I wouldnt put out random BS of that nature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 7 hours ago, maskedsuperstar said: People knew Scot was drinking. It was a known fact. "Well, Scot was drinking but he knew what he was doing" Scot gets a pass because he was good at what he does? No! "Tell me what brand of whiskey he drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals." -Abraham Lincoln, in response to accusations of General Ulysses S. Grant's excessive drinking, November 26, 1863. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 To put it perspective, it's bad when the best 2 years or so as a team in the last 20 years come when you have a raging alcoholic in charge of getting players. When you have a raging alcoholic doing a better job than everyone else has in the past 20+ years. This is how far we have fallen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 3 hours ago, veteranskinsfan said: Just want to remind everyone about a twitter statement I saw this morning from former ESPN 980 producer: Redskins winning percentage under Vinny Cerrato was .459 Redskins winning percentage under Bruce Allen is .397 Here is an update from Tom Loverro article: During his stint from 2002 to 2009, Cerrato’s record was 52-65. Bruce Allen’s reign at Redskins Park? A record of 45-66-1. In his first stint, Vinny took over a Casserly team that won the division, had a ton of cap space and multiple extra 1st rd picks. Only an idiot could ruin that foundation. In his second stint, he had Joe Gibbs coaching 4 of his years. i don't think you can give much credit or blame to Bruce during the Shanny era. So you have Gruden's first year as the low water mark. This year and perhaps more importantly next year, will give us a better gauge. But saying with a straight face that Vinny is better is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 16 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said: In his first stint, Vinny took over a Casserly team that won the division, had a ton of cap space and multiple extra 1st rd picks. Only an idiot could ruin that foundation. In his second stint, he had Joe Gibbs coaching 4 of his years. i don't think you can give much credit or blame to Bruce during the Shanny era. So you have Gruden's first year as the low water mark. This year and perhaps more importantly next year, will give us a better gauge. But saying with a straight face that Vinny is better is nonsense. Exactly. The #s for Vinny are inflated some. Allen isn't great but he's better then Vinny. Admittedly, they both suck. Its like arguing if you'd rather have aids or cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Warhead36 said: Exactly. The #s for Vinny are inflated some. Allen isn't great but he's better then Vinny. Admittedly, they both suck. Its like arguing if you'd rather have aids or cancer. So, this would be Canceraids? It could happen........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Why don't people like Bruce. He seems to have done a good job bringing in a HC and he was responsible for bringing in scot, so i mean, if you like scot you gotta like the fact that Bruce brought him in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kleese Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said: Why don't people like Bruce. He seems to have done a good job bringing in a HC and he was responsible for bringing in scot, so i mean, if you like scot you gotta like the fact that Bruce brought him in? Because the internet told us we should hate him. They lied about everything. Now I'm thinking they went back in time and planted the stories about Scot having a drinking problem in the first place. As a matter of fact they may have conspired with the 49ers and Seahawks-- convinced them to hire Scot and then both to fire him using the drinking as an excuse so that when they hired him they could then plant a drinking story via Cooley on the radio so they could fire him too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgundyBooger Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 17 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said: Why don't people like Bruce. He seems to have done a good job bringing in a HC and he was responsible for bringing in scot, so i mean, if you like scot you gotta like the fact that Bruce brought him in? Bruce brought Scot to Washington 5 years after he himself had been hired. In all that time, it was in 2014 when Bruce assumed the responsibilities of a traditional GM, and when that didn't work out he was "promoted" back to his original role as Team President (except with the appropriate title this time). Let's not paint a rosy picture of Bruce hiring a GM because he felt that's what the franchise needed (if he really believed that, we would have hired one immediately after Shanny was fired). He hired a GM because he wasn't cut out for that role and fan backlash and apathy reached a fever pitch, in particular after the RG3 drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Kev Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 A few weeks ago I was convinced that a LTD was going to get done, but in light of recent news/leaks my confidence is waning somewhat. With Scot gone there's one less voice in the sign-him camp IMO and Bruce's voice is now even stronger. It seems that if Bruce want's Kirk signed, then he gets signed. If he don't, he don't. Snyder could step in and overrule him (or even fire him), but I think that's unlikely. I believe that if an acceptable deal is offered, Kirk will sign it. This whole 'I won't sign with Bruce there' theme will be swept away as just another ambiguous /false leak. As others have speculated, I reckon that 24-25m per with a big chunk guaranteed would probably be acceptable. I'm sure that all parties involved already know what the likely acceptable deal will look like, but some amount of posturing is almost obligatory. My fear is that 24m-25m is too much for the frugal Mr Allen and he thinks the drop-off to McCoy is not enough to justify paying it. He could also get some shiny new draft picks to play with as well. Right now, I'm still thinking that we will get a LTD sorted, but maybe I'm just fooling myself because that is what I want to happen. As far as the Scot sacking goes, I've changed my mind on it a few times already, with two contrasting scenarios considered: A: Scot's drinking became an increasing problem. Bruce took more and more decision making away from the GM while the team was getting him help, but it eventually became untenable. It was clear that Scot was getting worse and it was agreed that he had to go. The team have said nothing publicly out of respect, allowing Scott to make a statement when and how he wants. B: Bruce wanted things done his way and a power struggle ensued which ended with Scot being sacked. The drinking, while not a problem professionally, used in a well timed 'leak' to smear the ex-SMGM. Scot may be restricted in what he's allowed to say about the team, so a statement may not be forthcoming. Maybe it's a bit of both, maybe there's a completely unknown variable involved. One thing's for sure, you know that we're all buying these guy's autobiographies when they come out. The truth is out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RemoveSnyder Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 -- wapo link: “In charge of all the personnel department and the personnel on this team”: That’s what Allen said about the general manager when he hired him, less than two years before he started disagreeing with him on key personnel decision and cursing at him for speaking with a player in the locker room. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 3 hours ago, BurgundyBooger said: Bruce brought Scot to Washington 5 years after he himself had been hired. In all that time, it was in 2014 when Bruce assumed the responsibilities of a traditional GM, and when that didn't work out he was "promoted" back to his original role as Team President (except with the appropriate title this time). Let's not paint a rosy picture of Bruce hiring a GM because he felt that's what the franchise needed (if he really believed that, we would have hired one immediately after Shanny was fired). He hired a GM because he wasn't cut out for that role and fan backlash and apathy reached a fever pitch, in particular after the RG3 drama. The RG3 drama wasn't is fault. Also, on one hand it seems like you are saying Bruce doesn't cares about his own need for power over the fans interests while at the same time saying that the only reason he hired a GM was to honor the fans interests. Which is it? He cared then but not now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 3 hours ago, RedskinsMayne said: Why don't people like Bruce. He seems to have done a good job bringing in a HC and he was responsible for bringing in scot, so i mean, if you like scot you gotta like the fact that Bruce brought him in? Because he's a backstabbing lying snake. We have enough of those in DC as it is we don't need them on our sports teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Just now, Warhead36 said: Because he's a backstabbing lying snake. We have enough of those in DC as it is we don't need them on our sports teams. examples? Scott was fired because he is a fairy dressed like a lion hooked on meth. I can use words too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillBill26 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 14 hours ago, maskedsuperstar said: I don't think Scot wants the truth to come out. You would think his agent would have said something by now. All the silence makes you think they are exploring litigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.