SkinsPassion4Life Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 It was only a matter of time before that little weasel, JLC weighed in....doesn't matter if you're a current or former WaPo writer. FAKE NEWS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, Califan007 said: GM search has already been in progress according to a tweet I just read... I wonder if we're ever going to get the full story on SM. I've posted it before, it's either: 1. His personal demons surfaced, the team has no option but to move on, but they're trying to save him from some embarrassment. 2. He just disagrees at a fundamental level with the way Allen and Gruden want to build the team, and thus they have to move on because that's never going to work. And Allen gets to win because he's the President. #2 wraps up Kirk, Draft, FA, etc all into 1. I can't really think of any other options. Just now, SkinsPassion4Life said: It was only a matter of time before that little weasel, JLC weighed in....doesn't matter if you're a current or former WaPo writer. FAKE NEWS! There was something on where he was waxing poetic about something Redskins related, and I thought I was in an alternate universe. I actually kindof miss his spats with Larry Michael and the "Sorcerer" business. I hated it at the time, but now it's somewhat nostalgic. Couldn't have found two bigger-ego, thin skinned morons to get into a pissing match on TV and print. It was rather hysterical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arftech Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 It better not be somebody from Tampa! Hail Em Up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 15 minutes ago, Wildbunny said: I'd believe that's coach speak from Jay here. He knows what he'll lose, and you hardly ever see coaches bashes guys in such kind of situation. I do remember an ex HC in the NFL, though can't remember who, that put is reputation at stake on John Beck at some point. So don't read too much into this from Jay. I really to the bottom of my heart believe that Jay Gruden thinks Grant is a legitimate NFL receiver. He brings him up constantly, even when not asked. "Jay, if you lose DJax and Garcon, what are you going to do?" - "Well, we have some guys here, we'll bring in some guys, and we'll find out who can play and be a starter." That's coach speak when you don't want to lie and brag on guys who are not worth bragging on. I also think Shanahan was trying to help convince fans that 2011 was worth watching at all. Which it wasn't. But he was trying to at least make an argument not to tune out the entire season before it started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlkyCaramel Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 7 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said: I wonder if we're ever going to get the full story on SM. I've posted it before, it's either: 1. His personal demons surfaced, the team has no option but to move on, but they're trying to save him from some embarrassment. 2. He just disagrees at a fundamental level with the way Allen and Gruden want to build the team, and thus they have to move on because that's never going to work. And Allen gets to win because he's the President. Grant Paulsen talked about in on air today. He said he talked to people he knew at Redskins Park and basically implied that both of your points are correct and your #2 point is the bigger part - though no Jay in that mix but Bruce. He also said they are telling him its over for Scot. The ship has sailed. I noticed JLC who initially said hold your horses on the Scot stuff has switched gears and has doubled down saying Scot's likely done and he goes after Bruce/Danny hard in the article below: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/redskins-dysfunctional-ways-on-display-again-as-team-mishandles-gms-absence/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterPinstripe Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 If there is not a legit reason for moving on from SM, how is Dan Snyder not beyond pissed? We were just starting to seem like a good legit franchise on our way up and we get brought back down? The only way that this isnt a screw up, assuming that all of these reports about them moving on are correct, is if SM had a relapse and they are keeping it quiet to protect him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said: Grant Paulsen talked about in on air today. He said he talked to people he knew at Redskins Park and basically implied that both of your points are correct and your #2 point is the bigger part - though no Jay in that mix but Bruce. He also said they are telling him its over for Scot. The ship has sailed. I noticed JLC who initially said hold your horses on the Scot stuff has switched gears and has doubled down saying Scot's likely done and he goes after Bruce/Danny hard in the article below: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/redskins-dysfunctional-ways-on-display-again-as-team-mishandles-gms-absence/ If it's #2, it's #2. The coach and GM (and President) all have to be on the same page. If they're not, it's not going to work. It's the danger of hiring a coach before GM. It's also the danger of having a president who is not the GM. If Scot wants a tough, run-first team that's not tied to a franchise QB, and the coach is essentially the opposite, that's just a real philosophical problem. They probably should have thought about that a couple years ago... 2 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said: If there is not a legit reason for moving on from SM, how is Dan Snyder not beyond pissed? We were just starting to seem like a good legit franchise on our way up and we get brought back down? The only way that this isnt a screw up, assuming that all of these reports about them moving on are correct, is if SM had a relapse and they are keeping it quiet to protect him. See my post above. If Gruden/Allen are like, "Scot, we're going to commit 15% of the cap in Cousins, so we want to invest in the passing game, and do the best you can to build the team around that" and Scot said, "bullcrap. I don't like that model, I think we should spend much less on a QB, run the ball, play defense." You've got an un-solvable problem. Somebody would have to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Why am I Mr. Pink? Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 When the dust settles, I really want to know who was responsible for only offering Kirk 16 last year and not the 20. If it was Bruce who didnt want to resign Kirk but Jay/Scot did ..... **** Bruce and to an extent Dan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsPassion4Life Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 I never thought SM and Gruden were on the same page....they have opposite beliefs on how to build a team. And like I said before, the comment from Gruden about "drafting a WR who doesn't play and a Guard" in the first round was telling at the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgraw238 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 11 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said: It was only a matter of time before that little weasel, JLC weighed in....doesn't matter if you're a current or former WaPo writer. FAKE NEWS! Everybody loves to hate on JLC but I suspect most of what he says in that column is correct. I have no idea what is going on with Scott, but the Skins have handled this whole situation poorly. The Cooley comments should have been addressed in some capacity to show support to the employee, though I suspect Cooley was doing his master's bidding. Then the combine stuff was again handled poorly; Yes, it is a big deal when the GM of an NFL team is a no-show. The Skins seem to have no ability to get in front of a story, though I suppose that should be no surprise when I watch their PR guy Tony Wylie perform like Baghdad Bob. Dysfunction seems to be a constant to the Snyder management style. I completely agree with JLC's comments on Bruce's press conferences prior to Scott's hiring. The ineptness of Bruce's end of season press conference (winning off the field) is forever etched into my brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barnacle Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 I can't believe Bruce is making the personel decisons for this team. So much for change. FU Snyder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsPassion4Life Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 I'm not the biggest Bruce fan, but he had a better off-season in 2014 than GMSM had in either 2015 or 16. The biggest mistake was not saying earlier that SM was going to miss the combine for "Family Reasons" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJHJR86 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 I'm torn because I like Scot and would like to see him remain. But if these reports are true, and he is somehow battling internally with Allen and Gruden on how to build a team, he would have to go in that scenario. For one, Allen's not going anywhere. Two, I'd rather stick with Gruden for the sake of consistency rather than fire and hire yet again. I'm just curious to know how long this whole "SM is not in charge" has been going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgraw238 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said: I'm not the biggest Bruce fan, but he had a better off-season in 2014 than GMSM had in either 2015 or 16. The biggest mistake was not saying earlier that SM was going to miss the combine for "Family Reasons" I think it's debatable you could have made that statement prior to this past season where we saw the emergence of Trent Murphy and Spencer Long. So, perhaps the 2015 and 2016 drafts should be given the same benefit of time ...Now TM is suspended for 4 games for PED's so we will see how that plays out. 7 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said: I'm torn because I like Scot and would like to see him remain. But if these reports are true, and he is somehow battling internally with Allen and Gruden on how to build a team, he would have to go in that scenario. For one, Allen's not going anywhere. Two, I'd rather stick with Gruden for the sake of consistency rather than fire and hire yet again. I'm just curious to know how long this whole "SM is not in charge" has been going on. I doubt Scott and Jay working together is an issue, but I don't have any insight into the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 I have been holding stuff back for a long time other than discussing it with other mods, and even then I was appropriately restrained. To me, based on personal and professional knowledge and even just what information was in the public arena, including from scot's own mouth, and numerous eyewitnesses to his still drinking from the get-go, this is what I figured was close to inevitable. I'd suspect the substance abuse/dependence issue is the one that is the lead player here as it creates "new" problems directly resulting from frequent reduction in competencies and even frequent incapacitation (at some point) and of course exacerbates all other issues that arise. Once having been a previous issue in work history, it becoming an active problem again with everyone knowing how slippery the matter is going into the deal is a crippling setback, and another is that such carries "extra" consequence in a high-dollar high-profile public operation like an nfl franchise. It's a way bigger version of the "i can't believe the dude smoked pot when he's got an nfl deal" to an FO. I also doubt that Jay was a big part of any general friction issues on any major scale. He and Scot do/did fine together, even when disagreeing, when the substance issue wasn't in full swing (still an assumption at this point). Now after all this time of not putting this out there, and now doing so apparently "after the fact" (again, still a presumption), if it turns out I should have waited just a bit longer because it's not the case, I will be more than fine with that---and one final speculation I'll make is a benign one, in that the rest of the FO has been operating motivated by compassion for the situation, even if it still could have been done "better" for the fans' interests PR wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 I dont see how being a drunk effects his job personally. The owner of the Colts is a full on drug addict. Unless Scott was showing up Drunk to meetings and totally ****ing up, I dont see how it really matters at all. There are such things as a functional alcoholic and as long as ours was bringing in talent (he was) then whats the big ****ing deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, Llevron said: I dont see how being a drunk effects his job personally. The owner of the Colts is a full on drug addict. Unless Scott was showing up Drunk to meetings and totally ****ing up, I dont see how it really matters at all. There are such things as a functional alcoholic and as long as ours was bringing in talent (he was) then whats the big ****ing deal? He was fired from Seattle/SF because his drinking affected his availability and quality of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Just now, Voice_of_Reason said: He was fired from Seattle/SF because his drinking affected his availability and quality of work. Point taken. They already know where its heading, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgraw238 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, Jumbo said: I have been holding stuff back for a long time other than discussing it with other mods, and even then I was appropriately restrained. To me, based on personal and professional knowledge and even just what information was in the public arena, including from scot's own mouth, and numerous eyewitnesses to his still drinking from the get-go, so this is what I figured was close to inevitable. I'd suspect the substance abuse/dependence issue is the one that is the lead player here as it creates "new" problems directly resulting from frequent incapacitation (at some point) and of course exacerbates all other issues that arise. Once having been a previous issue in work history, it becoming an active problem again with everyone knowing how slippery the matter is going into the deal is a factor, and another is that such carries "extra" consequence in a high-dollar high-profile public operation like an nfl franchise. It's a way bigger version of the "i can't believe the dude smoked pot when he's got an nfl deal" to an FO. I also doubt that Jay was a big part of any general friction issues on any major scale. He and Scot do/did fine together, even when disagreeing, when the substance issue wasn't in full swing (still an assumption at this point). Now after all this time of not putting this out there, and now doing so apparently "after the fact" (again, still a presumption), if it turns out I should have waited just a bit longer because it's not the case, I will be more than fine with that---and one final speculation I'll make is a benign one, in that the rest of the FO has been operating motivated by compassion for the situation, even if it still could have been done "better" for the fans' interests PR wise. If this is the case, then the team has been placed in a tough spot. They could have handled it better, but tough spot nonetheless. The task should have been (if it wasn't) doing damage control behind the scenes so that agents, players, reps, etc. new what was going on, yet done in a way where any disclosure laws were not violated. My hope would be that they seek out a GM candidate similarly devoted to scouting and development and building through the draft and let that individual build up the scouting department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 37 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said: If it's #2, it's #2. The coach and GM (and President) all have to be on the same page. If they're not, it's not going to work. It's the danger of hiring a coach before GM. It's also the danger of having a president who is not the GM. If Scot wants a tough, run-first team that's not tied to a franchise QB, and the coach is essentially the opposite, that's just a real philosophical problem. They probably should have thought about that a couple years ago... See my post above. If Gruden/Allen are like, "Scot, we're going to commit 15% of the cap in Cousins, so we want to invest in the passing game, and do the best you can to build the team around that" and Scot said, "bullcrap. I don't like that model, I think we should spend much less on a QB, run the ball, play defense." You've got an un-solvable problem. Somebody would have to go. I was able to see up close Scot's thoughts about Jay and he loves the dude. I really doubt this is a philosophical parting between Jay and Scot. Scot even told me that Jay really helps him do his job because he has great evaluation skills in his own right. Beyond that, I have been listening to just about every beat reporter talk about this and not one mentioned any issues between Jay and Scot. They all hint at Scot and Bruce issues coupled with Scot's personal issues from the past resurfacing. Chad Dukes mentioned he's heard that have been some wild incidents at Redskins Park but he stopped from giving specifics. To Jumbo's post coupled with Dukes' mention (and I am guessing here) if those personal issues are in play they can magnify problems, make them louder and make them much more difficult to manage. I am hoping it all works out. But it doesn't look good at this moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Skinhead in Saints Land Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 No matter who's fault it is, it truly amazes me how this team is always in a ****ed up situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRagone Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 For the poster comparing 2014s off seasons to 2015 and 2016; it only looks better 3 years away. One year on, 2015 looked outstanding compared to 2014 a year in. Two years out of 2015 compared to 3 years out of 2014, it's leaning towards 2014. But what will 3 years out of 2015, or 2016 for that matter, bring us? It's a bit illogical to try and judge two things as the same when there's vastly different sample sizes. As far as the whole issue; I'm more and more expecting to hear something from Brewer or some other connected source after Scots released, pinning the beginning of the decline on issues between Scot and Bruce, that were then magnified as the drinking spiraled up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FS#21 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 I have that awful feeling of dejavu again similar to when Shottenheimer was let go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Noone does drama like the Washington Redskins do drama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.