Bruce Allen, Scot McCloughlan, Jay Gruden, and all that stuff like that there

[RedBeast]

I believe we would have been a better team overall with GMSM, than we will without him. You can hack back and forth about his picks, FA decisions, etc. but that was only one element. I think overall he brought some respect and stability to this organization, and had solid insight to the draft as well as free agents and players liked his hands on approach. I think he had a solid strategy and was standing by it. He did what he knew how to do, from his work with other successful organizations. Unfortunately our FO is not a successful organization and have their own agendas which GMSM did not fit into and was eventually canned because management didn't like him. I think he got into it with Brucey-Pie and Danny-Boy behind closed doors, he told them what he thought, and they pulled the ripcord (with the alcohol poison pill) so they could avoid paying him the rest of his salary. He really pissed them off is my guess and they ****ed him.

 

You can stand here and argue yay or nay, about his picks, his drinking or whatever...but lets see how we do the next 2 or 3 years without him. My guess is we are about to have a few more losing years in front of us before Brucey-Pie gets **** canned and we start all over again...This ****ing organization has more bugs and problems than all previous Windows OS'es combined. 

 

Yeah I am a GMSM fan, I felt he was the only real football person we had in the front office. Maybe Gruden can step up and take the reigns to some degree, but still a void left behind which can be filled, but I don't have faith it will be filled with the right person. I hope that DW (if he is hired) brings some of that SB luck back to the organization. Who knows? I am just another fan speculating, like everyone else here. 

 

Keep rolling the dice until we win???? I guess? But at this point? my confidence level in this organization is the lowest it has ever been. Pretty shaken and disgusted how our team is being run. ****ing laughing stock of the league, AGAIN.

[Sekhmet187]

I am so annoyed with fans whining and complaining about how the Redskins handled the situation. 

 

Firstly, reports of personal reasons being why he wasn't at the combine came from his agent. The team reported that reason. You can argue whoever originally came up with that, but the Scot camp agreed for that being the reason of the absence.

 

Since then, they hoped to bring him back but then fired him and made no official statement about why. 

 

Outside of fans getting their hopes up, I seriously fail to see why there is so much outrage about all this. Sure it ended up being a failure, but that doesn't mean they mishandled the situation. 

 

All of this issue is media speculation and sources that everyone is keying in on. 

[slaga]

The silence the FO has exhibited concerning everything about the issue with the GM was the right thing to do in my mind, especially if Scot was having an issue with alcohol and they were working through whatever the next step was, i.e. help him, rehab, fire him, etc. They took the high road, a road which this FO has rarely taken in the past. It is plausible that at the combine, the FO still intended on having Scot come back once he was "right" and made everyone in the FO, including Scot, aware that nothing should be mentioned about the situation. The only people commenting on the situation, besides Bruce's "Scot will return to work once he has his family issues in order" were the media (speculation), Scot's wife in social media saying Scot was not "sent home" and Scot's agent saying Scot's absence was not alcohol related. Shortly after it was known that Scot was not at the combine, I think one reporter actually quoted a text from Scot himself saying his absence was because of a death in the family and not alcohol related. He did not need to comment on the alcohol part. When the FO zipped their lips and Scot's side did not, the FO was forced to act in a way they may not have wanted to originally, and fire Scot. Even if one subscribes to the opposite story line and the firing was some type of power struggle between the Scot and Bruce, the silence from the Redskins front office was the correct way to handle the situation and Scot's side did not tow the company line.

[oraphus]

3 hours ago, -JB- said:

Nobody is saying any one man ever deserves ALL the credit.  However to say he deserves none and we are better off without him is ignorance at its finest.

I never said he deserves zero credit... re-read what i said. All I said is that the MC we were all sold on "draft genius with a knack for finding gems late" is not what we got the last 2 years. I am sure the rest of the FO bares blame as well, but i am just looking at the results with Scot in the GM role.

-Offence (strength of the team the last 2y) was mostly built before Scott

 

Would we be better off without him? no one can answer for sure one way or another, but based on results this can be openly debated.. which is what we are doing.

[RedBeast]

Can Bruce Allen order lunch?

 

Or just breakfast? Maybe just appetizers and a dessert piñata? 

[Commander -JB-]

1 hour ago, oraphus said:

I never said he deserves zero credit... re-read what i said. All I said is that the MC we were all sold on "draft genius with a knack for finding gems late" is not what we got the last 2 years. I am sure the rest of the FO bares blame as well, but i am just looking at the results with Scot in the GM role.

-Offence (strength of the team the last 2y) was mostly built before Scott

 

Would we be better off without him? no one can answer for sure one way or another, but based on results this can be openly debated.. which is what we are doing.

Jamison Crowder & Kysheon Jarrett in the 4th & 6th rounds, respectively, were great picks.  This past season, McCloughan traded picks to add picks in 2017.  One or two years is clearly not enough time to properly rate a draft class..

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Florio on the release of RJF.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/03/15/criticism-from-ricky-jean-francois-may-have-contributed-to-his-release/

 

It was really stupid of him to say what he said, but it's also sad the organization creates an environment that causes folks to say things like this.

[TSO]

Heavy reading from Albert Breer. I got depressed again. :/ 

 

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/03/16/washington-redskins-nfl-dysfunction-scot-mccloughan-dan-snyder-bruce-allen

 

Quote

An Examination of What Went Wrong in Washington

A closer look into GM Scot McCloughan’s firing reveals three incidents involving players that led to strained relationships and the return of organizational chaos in D.C. Plus items on labor peace, Vegas and more

 

Redskins: How Scot McCloughan firing will impact rest of offseason

The MMQB senior reporter Albert Breer looks at how the Washington Redskins would have negotiations with Pierre Garcon had they kept former general manager Scot

McCloughan. 

 

Scot McCloughan won one battle in Washington in August 2015. If he’d won two, maybe—maybe—the Redskins wouldn’t be in the mess they’re wading through now.

 

The then-GM met for five hours one night that summer to try and convince owner Dan Snyder and president Bruce Allen that the time had come, and the team needed to move from Robert Griffin III to Kirk Cousins.

 

Soon thereafter, with Cousins installed as starter, and believing he was in for a big year, McCloughan made a second appeal to the team’s top brass.

 

Let’s extend Cousins now, he told them, so we’re not stuck holding the bag later.

 

In the end, the quarterback’s lingering contract situation was one noticeable trigger in the explosion of the relationship between McCloughan and Allen, the team’s top two decision-makers. Most people in Ashburn agree the deterioration of the Allen/McCloughan partnership is why we’re here. The root of that discord remains up for debate, however, and it might never be definitively settled.

 

-----------------------------

We’ll start, though, by explaining how Washington got back into a spot that’s all too familiar, where organizational chaos envelops the football side of an operation and swallows whole the promise of a new day.

 

Full disclosure: I bought that promise 100 percent a year ago. My belief, having been around the Redskins, was that they had become as level as they had been at any point during Snyder’s ownership. They had perhaps the top talent evaluator in football. They had an ascending, 40-something head coach with a strong, deep staff. They had a 27-year-old quarterback. They had an increasingly deep roster.

 

They were good in 2015—division champs and red-hot down the stretch—and poised to get better. Even a jaded fan base was climbing aboard.

 

A year later, the GM is gone, coach Jay Gruden is replacing both his coordinators, the quarterback’s future is murky, and D.C. Drama is back. And after talking with people at every level of the team who were there for the downturn, it’s clear there is passionate disagreement over just what tore all that optimism to shreds.

 

On one side of this is the idea, floated to the Washington Post by an anonymous team source, that McCloughan’s past demons—he’s publicly talked about his fight with alcoholism—returned to bring him down over the last year. On the flip side, there are players and coaches who deny ever having witnessed that, and argue that it is being used as a red herring to take attention off a power struggle between Allen and McCloughan.

 

“What’s pissing me off is how everything is Scot’s fault,” said one veteran player. “This is not Scot’s fault. Everyone here appreciates Scot. … Let’s be honest, the issues are there, but he’s never gotten in front of the team drunk or anything like that. Whoever is saying that needs to stop.”

 

“If that was there, he did a good job of hiding it,” said another player. “There was never a discussion about that, at least that I saw.”

 

What those on the coaching and scouting staffs did see, eventually, was a blurring of lines that created a level of tension in the upper reaches of the club. There were, in particular, three flash points obvious to those not named Allen and McCloughan:

 

• The Cousins negotiation. At the close of training camp in 2015, McCloughan wanted to try and extend Cousins, but there was concern over how that’d go over with Griffin, because some felt the team would still need him at some point. (Whether a fair figure could have been reached with Cousins is open for debate, considering the quarterback’s inconsistent résumé and lack of success at that point.) Finally, that December, McCloughan was given the green light. By then, Cousins’ camp wanted to wait till after the year.

After Cousins’ hot finish, the Skins knew they’d have to franchise Cousins at a $20 million number, which framed negotiations in a place where the team wasn’t willing to go.

 

Talks on a long-term deal got off to a rough start, and then control shifted from McCloughan to team negotiator Eric Schaffer. By the time 2016 was winding down, the GM had been removed completely from decision-making on Cousins.

 

To some inside the club, the use of the exclusive tag on Cousins was a surprise, since there’d been earlier discussion on potentially moving Cousins and going with Colt McCoy or signing someone like Mike Glennon. Point of all this? It’s hard to say that this was necessarily where the problem initially began, but there’s no question—based on the import of quarterback decisions—it strained the relationship.

 

• Su’a Cravens injury. The rookie safety/linebacker injured his biceps on Dec. 11 against the Eagles.

 

Initially, the team believed it was a tear. It wound up being a bruise, the kind players often play through.

 

Cravens missed the following Monday’s game against Carolina, and then the next game in Chicago on Christmas Eve.

 

Quote

By then, his teammates, some of whom had seen him playing ping-pong at the facility, were openly wondering why he wasn’t pushing through the injury. After he missed two games, the team wanted him to get the arm drained in an effort to play in Week 17. Cravens responded by not showing up to the facility for treatment that day, at which point McCloughan decided to call Cravens.

 

That didn’t go over well with Allen.

 

Some veterans felt like McCloughan was simply trying to uphold the culture that he and Gruden had worked to build, which is seen as a “Seattle” thing (McCloughan worked for the Seahawks from 2011-13) to do—If you see something, say something. But certainly, there’d be some debate in the football world over whether it’s a GM’s place to handle those things. (Cravens sat out the finale.)

 

• Bashaud Breeland’s outburst. At another point in December, the third-year corner—who’d been seen internally as moody following the Josh Norman signing—blew an assignment, and was called by a coach on it. He argued. The coach argued back. Then, Breeland blew another assignment, took his helmet off and sat on a cooler on the sideline. From the perspective of the coaching staff, these sorts of squabbles with players were not uncommon.

 

But after practice, in the locker room, McCloughan saw Breeland coming out of the shower and bluntly told the third-year corner to come to his office after he was dressed. Word of the confrontation got around, and it led to another squabble in the front office over boundaries.

 

As was the case with Cravens, some players believed Breeland needed to be shaken and didn’t mind McCloughan doing it. Clearly, others within the organization didn’t think it was his place.

 

* * *

So the season ended with the Redskins losing a win-or-go-home game against the Giants on New Year’s Day. Obviously, in the time since, things got worse. It’s been theorized that Allen grew jealous of the credit McCloughan got for the team turning a few corners over the past two years. Conversely, there have been rumblings of dissatisfaction over McCloughan’s 2016 draft and free-agent haul.

And there was more sinister talk, but few actual accounts, of McCloughan’s drinking being a visible issue. “It was whispered about all the time,” says one staffer, “but I never saw it, and I don’t know anyone who did.”

 

Maybe we eventually get more answers on what really happened.

 

What I do know is that the conclusion predicted by some in Ashburn—Eventually, those people forecast, there would be problems over power and McCloughan’s past issues would be raised as he departed—has come true.

 

This one really never was about Snyder, as far as I can tell. It was about Allen and McCloughan, two guys who entered into a partnership two years ago founded in large part on trust, based on Allen’s history with McCloughan’s father and brother, whom he’d worked with around the turn of the century in Oakland.

 

That trust, as you can see, didn’t last long. And the Redskins are starting over. Again.

 

So frustrating. 

[LightningBuggs]

Pathetic

[kost203]

Wow! I had a gut feeling the player walking out of practice was breeland. His level of play has something to do with it. It's mental and he needs to come to realize that. 

 

Also, now i realize why all my giAnts friends talk so much smack about synder. Why?!? Cause he allows and encourages Allen that punk *****!!! You don't want to win! You would rather be "" me and "" I, I just don't get it, I'm still numb about what happened to Scott. How it was handled and what was said. 

[RedBeast]

Al hell is going to start breaking loose soon, wait til Scot speaks. He was fired with cause so he didnt sign the shut up clause for $. 

 

I love this football team as a fan, but absolutely hate and detest the Wormtongue management that suckered me into believing we had turned the corner. Whining and complaining? You are goddamn right about that. 47 years of fandom gives me that ****ing right.

 

No more games, training camp or gear for me...thank you very much Dan Snyder and Bruce Allen. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

3 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

Heavy reading from Albert Breer. I got depressed again. :/ 

 

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/03/16/washington-redskins-nfl-dysfunction-scot-mccloughan-dan-snyder-bruce-allen

 

 

 

So frustrating. 

 

2 hours ago, LightningBuggs said:

Pathetic

 

For me, the only thing frustrating and pathetic about that article was how poorly it was written.

 

For those who will no doubt claim that I only feel this way because my perspective isn't being represented by this write-up...please lol. Allow me to 'splain why this article fails on many levels (for those who will no doubt take a TL:DR approach, feel free to start criticizing my stance without reading what it is or why I have it lol):

 

1) "The then-GM met for five hours one night that summer to try and convince owner Dan Snyder and president Bruce Allen that the time had come, and the team needed to move from Robert Griffin III to Kirk Cousins."

 

Will say this once more: the ESPN article written at the actual time this discussion was supposed to have taken place said the meeting lasted 2 hours (and PFT followed up with their "sources" saying the meeting wasn't only about starting Cousins). Jason Cole--over a year later--made the claim that it lasted 5 hours. Apparently nobody except me noticed this or even cares that the same meeting has more than doubled in length from one report to the next--and don't even slightly begin to tell me that a report saying Scot talked to Snyder for 30 minutes of a 2 hour meeting about starting Cousins wouldn't be viewed differently than one that says Scot had to talk to Snyder for 5 hours to convince him to let Gruden start cousins. My guess is that this tidbit was simply parroted from Cole's article, and not some sort of insider info the writer had verified on his own. (he doesn't site Cole in his article so it does appear to be info he has collected on his own or at least verified on his own). Also, the original article says everyone was on board with Cousins starting except Snyder and that the meeting was between McC and Snyder. This article says Allen needed 5 hours of convincing as well. So, yeah, still not buying that one.

 

2) "Most people in Ashburn agree the deterioration of the Allen/McCloughan partnership is why we’re here. The root of that discord remains up for debate, however, and it might never be definitively settled....after talking with people at every level of the team who were there for the downturn, it’s clear there is passionate disagreement over just what tore all that optimism to shreds."

 

The two parts in bold are the most important from what I quoted. Since the reason for the discord is "up for debate" and since the writer says that, after talking with people at "every level of the team" there is "passionate disagreement", I figured we'd be getting direct quotes (anonymously, of course) from players and coaches on both sides of that passionate disagreement. That would be something new.

 

Nope lol.

 

We only get quotes--direct or otherwise--from the side of the debate who felt Scot's actions were all fine and that his drinking was in no way an issue. From the side of the debate that says Scot's actions were wrong and that is drinking was indeed an issue, we only get assumptions that those views must exist. For example:

 

3) “What’s pissing me off is how everything is Scot’s fault,” said one veteran player. “This is not Scot’s fault. Everyone here appreciates Scot. … Let’s be honest, the issues are there, but he’s never gotten in front of the team drunk or anything like that. Whoever is saying that needs to stop.”....“If that was there, he did a good job of hiding it,” said another player. “There was never a discussion about that, at least that I saw.”

 

Good, cool. Actual quotes from players. I'm assuming we'll get something like this from other players and coaches who felt the opposite in the "passionate disagreement" as well. I mean, he said it's clear there's passionate disagreement after he talked to people at "every level of the of the team". So he had to have heard things he could quote, directly or indirectly, that lead him to reach that conclusion.

 

Nope lol.

 

Nobody is quoted that feels Scot has blame of any sort. I'm sorry, but you can't have "passionate disagreement" without hearing something from both sides. He quotes what he's heard from one side, and one side only.

 

Another example, this time with indirect quotes concerning when Scot talked to Cravens:

 

4) "Some veterans felt like McCloughan was simply trying to uphold the culture that he and Gruden had worked to build, which is seen as a “Seattle” thing (McCloughan worked for the Seahawks from 2011-13) to do—If you see something, say something. But certainly, there’d be some debate in the football world over whether it’s a GM’s place to handle those things."

 

In Scot's defense, the writer mentions "veteran" players who felt Scot did nothing wrong, and was trying to uphold the healthier culture taking place amidst the winning. The other side isn't given any ownership to anyone connected to the team..instead it's presented as a more rhetorical position held in the "football world" if this debate were ever to take place. In fact, not only is the "pro-Scot" side (for lack of a better term) given actual supporters on the team, it's built up a bit by trying to say "this is the way Seattle does things". The other side is not written in any way that allows an emotional reaction in addition to the intellectual one. It's just presented as a dry statement...certainly others in the football world would disagree.

 

This is done yet again:

 

5) "As was the case with Cravens, some players believed Breeland needed to be shaken and didn’t mind McCloughan doing it. Clearly, others within the organization didn’t think it was his place."

 

"Some players believed" what Scot did was right (or at least they didn't mind it). And other players felt it was not Scot's place--no, wait. It doesn't say that. The writer doesn't say he heard from others within the organization that felt Scot overstepped his boundaries. He just says that "clearly" others in the organization must have felt differently. It's not presented as something he's heard directly...it's presented more as an assumption. Don't get me wrong, it's a valid and logical assumption to make...but once again, this particular side isn't given ownership to anyone within the organization outside of Allen (we're left to assume). Think of how different it would read if it read as follows:

 

"...there were other players, however, who felt McCloughan had once again overstepped his boundaries into a place best handled by the coaches."

 

That speaks directly to how Scot's actions were being viewed by others besides Bruce Allen. Gives a fuller picture on how that "passionate disagreement" is taking place among individuals. Leaving it more as "obviously others felt different" removes that connection. It's subtle, and if it only occurred one time in the article wouldn't be a big deal. But this is a pattern throughout the article...the "pro-Scot" side is attached to actual players and individuals...the "pro-Allen" side is presented as assumptions that "obviously" must exist somewhere within the organization.

 

And there's this part:

 

6) "At the close of training camp in 2015, McCloughan wanted to try and extend Cousins, but there was concern over how that’d go over with Griffin, because some felt the team would still need him at some point. (Whether a fair figure could have been reached with Cousins is open for debate, considering the quarterback’s inconsistent résumé and lack of success at that point.) Finally, that December, McCloughan was given the green light. By then, Cousins’ camp wanted to wait till after the year."

 

For me, this feels like it's missing...something...in the conversation. Maybe it's the likelihood that Cousins would NOT have signed an extension at the end of training camp since Griffin was still slotted as starter and the team had picked up his $16 mil 5th year options for 2016. Why would Cousins do that? Why not at least go to a team where he would have a clear and obvious shot at starting? I mean, the writer does acknowledge that it's difficult to say whether or not a "fair figure" could have been reached with Kirk, but by ignoring other factors as to why extending Cousins at the end of training camp would most likely have failed on every level makes it sound like Cousins was open to being extended but the Skins' FO didn't think forward enough while Scot did. Maybe he meant extend Cousins at the end of preseason?

 

I'm also a bit confused as to why Scot was given the "green light" to extend Cousins, when I just assumed Cousins' agent would be talking to Allen and Schaeffer when it came to extending him. If so, it would be more like Allen and Schaeffer were given the green light (or changed their minds about extending Cousins, might be more accurate). But I could be wrong there.

 

I'm also trying to reconcile this part with itself:

 

7) "And there was more sinister talk, but few actual accounts, of McCloughan’s drinking being a visible issue. “It was whispered about all the time,” says one staffer, “but I never saw it, and I don’t know anyone who did.”

 

Scot's drinking was "whispered about all the time" would seem to indicate that it was noticeable to some degree among people at Redskins Park and on more than a few occasions. Yet the same 'staffer' says they don't know anyone who saw/noticed it. Generally, if nobody ever sees something or notices something, it doesn't get talked about "all the time". Maybe that means that among the individual staffer's working circle, nobody noticed. Kinda like how someone says they don't believe in poll results because they weren't polled and they don't know anyone who was. Or maybe it's that this time it's a "staffer" that is quoted and not  a player or coach...that could mean anyone from top to bottom (but most likely bottom or else they would use a better term). Found it...intersting...that no players or coaches are quoted anonymously as saying they never noticed Scot's drinking or talked about it--and one reason I do is because I know there have been at least one or two players who have talked anonymously about detecting that Scot had been drinking but felt he still did his job. I also would have liked to have heard about those "few actual accounts" of Scot's drinking being a visible issue that the writer mentions. Because that section I quoted reads as if there were NO actual accounts of Scot's drinking  being visible or obvious.

 

At any rate, as I read the article all of the points above (plus several others) immediately jumped out at me. And I guessed that when I came here, I would be the only one it did jump out at lol...the write-up didn't add much clarity on things imo, though it DID make me disappointed in Cravens. I had (and still have) high hopes for him. But what was described in the article was definitely not how I would want him to be approaching his time with the Redskins. I also had wondered if Scot may have overstepped his boundaries with players a few times too many, and if it bothered Gruden when he did. The article starts to make that argument. Doesn't seem like it would be a fire-able offense, though...but could have added to the overall stress and tension.

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Also, just to go over this quote once more: a player said this:

 

"Let’s be honest, the issues are there, but he’s never gotten in front of the team drunk or anything like that. Whoever is saying that needs to stop.”

 

2 things:

 

1) "The issues are there"?...What does that mean? That Scot's drinking was indeed noticed within Redskins Park, but that he wasn't falling-down drunk or "anything like that"? Or was the player acknowledging that Scot's past drinking "issues" are well known, but nobody has noticed that he's drinking again?

 

2) I don't know if anyone has been saying Scot was up in front of the team drunk or "anything like that", so not sure if anyone "needs to stop" saying it. But there are a myriad of ways in which his drinking could have become inappropriate, it doesn't have to be slurred speech and leaning sideways while he talked to players.

 

Again, poorly written article.

[Darrell Green Fan]

15 hours ago, Sekhmet187 said:

I am so annoyed with fans whining and complaining about how the Redskins handled the situation. 

 

Firstly, reports of personal reasons being why he wasn't at the combine came from his agent. The team reported that reason. You can argue whoever originally came up with that, but the Scot camp agreed for that being the reason of the absence.

 

Since then, they hoped to bring him back but then fired him and made no official statement about why. 

 

Outside of fans getting their hopes up, I seriously fail to see why there is so much outrage about all this. Sure it ended up being a failure, but that doesn't mean they mishandled the situation. 

 

All of this issue is media speculation and sources that everyone is keying in on. 

Virtually everyone sees it differently.   What does that tell you?  You are right and everyone else is wrong is usually a  failed strategy.

[fordranger76]

Every article that comes out reeks of speculation. So sick of the media doing whatever they want and a good chunk of the fanbase eats it up with gravy. 9 out of every 10 articles is from the post or someone related to the post in some way. So over all of it. The ex GM was probably just an alcoholic. Im guessing the leaks have moved on to Tampa and were released and were bitter players. There is my speculation without any proof to it whatsoever. I hope I get the benefit of the doubt too as the so honest media always seems to.

[Skinsfan1311]

I agree, that was a poorly written article..I think that the well has gone dry, and they're going to hash, re-hash and recycle anything to get a story out.  Either the media is full of crap, or they're not. Folks will point to an article, and use it as ammo to substantiate their "sky is falling" angst,  and others will point to the same article, and say it's BS media hate.  We'll probably never know the whole truth.

Other than losing a troubled GM who, hasn't overwhelmed, a couple of WR's, both on the wrong side of 30, how bad is it really?  Why is the sky falling? They haven't even played a game yet, and fans are saying stupid ****, "I'm done!"  "I quit" "I'm through"...and that's okay, but if you're really done, maybe you should STFU about it, move on and quit posting on a Redskins fan board. If it's that horrific being a Skins fan, and you'you're done, then be done and I hope that the door hits you in the ass when you leave. 

 

We signed a very good WR, some D-line and a good Safety. It appears as if they're addressing the D, and we still have the draft coming up.   I, for one, can't wait for the season to start.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

The article does a subtle boost for Cooley.  I recall him saying before they played the Giants, he didn't think they'd win and he said something to the effect they are some distracting things going on in Redskins Park but didn't elaborate on what they were.   I recall listening to him and thinking what the heck is this dude talking about because on this surface everything was fine.  And Cooley also lead the charge about Breeland being difficult that season behind the scenes.

 

I still don't find the story whether Scot was drunk or not drunk interesting aside from whether it was Bruce's built in excuse to get rid of him even though it was indeed for other reasons.

 

My interest in the story and other stories is:

 

A. Did Bruce/Danny want to pull the strings at times.  It doesn't matter to me if it was driven in part by jealously like some contend (Mike Jones, Jerry Brewer, Albert Breer) or not at all and they just wanted the power and it wasn't personal or jealously driven.  The end result either way is the same and if so its something to worry about going forward.  People can defend Bruce/Danny and accuse reporters for embellishing this but sorry IMO they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.  This has been the same drill here again and again -- only the version of the story changes, Danny was involved a lot or Danny was involved a little, or Danny just wanted to be involved this.  But its always some version of it.  So for both the main local beat reporters to have it wrong and a national writer to have it wrong, too.  You never know.  But I buy into it.  I wish I didn't buy into it.  

 

B.  The Kirk Cousins stuff.  Whether it was Bruce or Scot was the problem.  More reporters seem to be pointing to Bruce.  And really there isn't a story that contradicts that Bruce didn't want to sign Kirk after the 2015 season,  So I buy that Bruce said no to signing Kirk to a LTD after 2015.  The only conflicting stories are about what's going on after this season -- some pointing to Bruce being reluctant and some pointing to Scot being reluctant now.  And I don't even care about that in terms of focusing on the past.  I care about the future.  

 

My worry is the past might have a future impact.  Lets say for example Bruce recommended to Danny not to sign Kirk after 2015 for 20 million a year when they had a chance and multiple reporters point that to being the case -- Bruce (Mr. frugal and my job is to save Danny money) might have some egg on his face which is influencing today's negotiations because the more Bruce pays this time to Kirk, the more money he ultimately cost Danny by his decision in 2015.  So it might be a factor in his hardball tactics of we love Kirk but we aren't paying him 24 million dollar drill that we keep hearing from beat reporters.  

 

The pessimism I keep hearing about the Kirk negotiation is yeah the Redskins do want him. Kirk would come back if he gets the right deal.  But the Redskins seem insistent on not offering 24 million a year and the reporters don't think the Redskins are posturing -- they think they are dead serious.   And if so to me that's a big deal.  This is just a theory so I am not stating this as a fact but if we lose Kirk because of Bruce's ego and internal politics -- I am not going to be happy.   I am not saying that's the case but to me that's my worse case scenario takeaway from the Kirk part of the story that keeps coming up.  I am concerned about that and hope its not true.

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Again, just to illustrate:

 

This is from back when Cousins was named starter:

 

"Reports of a two-hour meeting between Snyder and McCloughan may have pushed the needle in the direction of a disagreement between McCloughan/Gruden and Snyder, but a source with knowledge of the situation told PFT that the meeting was focused on sorting out exactly what happened with Griffin being cleared to play after suffering a concussion and then not being cleared to play."

 

 

Now?

 

""The then-GM met for five hours one night that summer..."

 

 

When did a 2-hour meeting become a 5-hour meeting...and why?...Or were there two separate meetings to convince Snyder to start Cousins: one was 2 hours and one was 5 hours? lol...

 

 

 

 

This is from back when Cousins was named starter:

 

"High-ranking Washington Redskins front-office officials...want to part ways with quarterback Robert Griffin III, but are meeting resistance from team ownership, according to team and league sources....Outside of ownership, there has been a groundswell of support from a strong segment of football people within the organization to change quarterbacks..."

 

"ESPN claims that the coaching staff and front-official officials want to move on from Griffin, but that they are “meeting resistance” from owner Daniel Snyder. "

 

And check this out--from Coles' interview a year later:

 

Al Galdi: “And do you know was that just Scot and Dan one-on-one? Was Jay Gruden involved there?”

Cole: “From what I know, it was Scot and Dan one on one.”

 

 

But now?

 

"The then-GM met for five hours one night that summer to try and convince owner Dan Snyder and president Bruce Allen that the time had come, and the team needed to move from Robert Griffin III to Kirk Cousins."

 

When did Bruce Allen get added to the side that needed to be convinced?...What "high-ranking front office officials" would not include Allen? Was there a THIRD meeting that lasted 5 hours and that Allen was part of? lol...I mean, I know it now helps push a certain narrative right now to claim Allen was at the meeting and needed to be convinced as well. But for ****'s sake, I can NOT be the only one who notices these things, can I?

 

Some will no doubt claim it doesn't matter if Allen was there or not...but I would strongly disagree. If he wasn't there in the meeting, why is Allen being inserted into it after the fact? The answer to that is what's important.

[Rocky21]

Submitted One thanks for posting that article.  Obviously some of the posters here don't care for it but I thought it brought a much needed perspective from outside the Beltway.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/washington-redskins-nfl-dysfunction-scot-mccloughan-dan-snyder-bruce-allen-031617

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

6 minutes ago, Rocky21 said:

Submitted One thanks for posting that article.  Obviously some of the posters here don't care for it but I thought it brought a much needed perspective from outside the Beltway.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/washington-redskins-nfl-dysfunction-scot-mccloughan-dan-snyder-bruce-allen-031617

 

 

If it doesn't add clarity, logic or accuracy it's of very little use to me.

[Riggo#44]

4 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

Heavy reading from Albert Breer. I got depressed again. :/ 

 

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/03/16/washington-redskins-nfl-dysfunction-scot-mccloughan-dan-snyder-bruce-allen

 

 

 

So frustrating. 

 

I suggest a Redskins Frontal Lobotomy.

[Voice_of_Reason]

32 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Some will no doubt claim it doesn't matter if Allen was there or not...but I would strongly disagree. If he wasn't there in the meeting, why is Allen being inserted into it after the fact? The answer to that is what's important.

I believe you asked the question rhetorically, but I will answer anyway: so that they can press the narrative that SM did nothing, Allen was always involved and in charge, and that they're not going to miss a beat without him.

 

I will always give Allen kudos for one thing: since he joined the organization in 2010, we have been a fiscally responsible team.  Even handled the $18m cap penalty about as well as possible.  The folks that just can't forget all the over-spending on FAs seem to forget that hasn't happened since Allen's arrival in 2010.  The 2 "splashy" FA signings were DJax and Josh Norman.  And both worked out. 

 

Otherwise, the drafts have been anywhere from "pathetic" to "eh." 

2010, didn't have a lot of picks, only Williams remains. 

2011, had 12 picks, 2 remain on the roster (Kerrigan and Niles Paul.)

2012 had 9 picks, I think only 1 remains on the roster (Counsins).  Though they get a Bonus Point for picking Morris in the 6th.

2013, had 7 picks, only 2 are on the roster (Reed, Chris Thompson

2014, had 8 picks, 5 are on the roster (Murphy, Moses, Long, Breeland, Grant). Not the best bunch of guys, but most are either starters or at least solid backups.

2015 (Hello SM) had 10 picks, 5 on the roster (Scherff, Preston Smith, Matt Jones, Crowder, Arie Kouandjo.) Though Matt Jones might not be long for the roster.

2016: Had 7 picks, 5 on the roster (Doctson, Cravens, Fuller, Ioanndis, Sudfeld)

 

Did GMSM really do better than Allen drafting?  Eh.  Maybe a little, maybe not. 

 

FA has been similar, but I'm not going to list all of them.  Most signings have been what they thought they would bee over the past 7 years.  Rotational guys have been rotational guys, the 2 splashes have worked out.

 

Anyway, I digress.  Back to the point.  The organization is trying to now say that Allen has been in charge for all of it, and GMSM was just an assistant.  I have no idea if that's true or not.  It's entirely possible that it was true, but previously they WANTED the narrative to be that GMSM was in charge, because that's what the fans wanted to hear. So they lied then, and they're telling the truth now.

 

Or they could have been telling the truth then, and lying now.

 

The only thing that is certain is that the story doesn't hold together, and either they were lying then or now.  And most likely unless we can hook Dan up to a lie detector and publish the results, we'll never know which.  (FWIW, I don't believe that Dan could beat a lie detector. )

[petedaddy]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The article does a subtle boost for Cooley.  I recall him saying before they played the Giants, he didn't think they'd win and he said something to the effect they are some distracting things going on in Redskins Park but didn't elaborate on what they were.   I recall listening to him and thinking what the heck is this dude talking about because on this surface everything was fine.  And Cooley also lead the charge about Breeland being difficult that season behind the scenes.

 

 

 

Good call, I had forgot about that with Cooley, it sure does seem to make a lot of sense now

[RedBeast]

Well if we have banned from ****ing and moaning here on the Redskins board, about how ****ed up this team is/has been? Than Saurons reach is wider and deeper than we know. "Tell me, 'friend', when did Saruman the wise abandon reason for madness?!"

 

You can still believe in your team and disagree with ownership and senior management. Still believe GMSM was an asset here unless he was showing up at work hammered, daily, completely incapacitated, which I doubt. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

22 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I believe you asked the question rhetorically, but I will answer anyway: so that they can press the narrative that SM did nothing, Allen was always involved and in charge, and that they're not going to miss a beat without him.

 

So you think the Skins would put out a story that Scot M was the only one among him, Allen and Snyder who was right about Cousins starting, and further solidify the belief that Snyder and Allen were/are too tied up to Griffin to see things clearly...in order to show that the Redskins won't miss a beat with him now gone?