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

[757SeanTaylor21]

Yall wanna know the worst part out of all of this? Since we smeared the mess out of him and sought to point him as the enemy... there is probably no way even we are able to utilize his scouting services again. That is complwtely hypothetical but it appears we just burned a bridge with one of the best talent evaluators around.

[goskins10]

12 hours ago, Stoox said:

 

The point here is not that the media are biased against the team or have an axe to grind. The point is that the Ravens get the benefit of the doubt when they make a surprising move. The Redskins, after 15 years of shyte, do not. 

 

edit

 

No one criticized Belichick for bringing in Haynesworth even though it didn't have a snowball's chance or working out. Why? Because the org is well run, and wins all the time.

 

edit

 

Was this crap going on under JKC? When Beathard, Casserly and Gibbs 1 were here? Were the local and national media biased against the team then?

 

Nope. They were revered.

 

First, the Haynesworth example has zero bearing here. The Redskins deserved to be questioned paying a DE $100M who had a history of being an idiot. When Belichick signed him he did it for peanuts. He kicked the tires as there was at one time some talent there. That was all fair and reasonable.

 

A coordinator being hired away for a promotion has nothing to do the benefit of the doubt. There were people actually saying the team "could not even keep their OC". I can't find it and I quite frankly don't care enough to look that hard. But there were several hot takes on shows like First Take and others. People fire DCs all the time. Trying to tie that to a sign of dysfunction is mob mentality bull****. Oh they are down so let's kick the **** out of them.

 

And yes some of this **** was going on with JKC, Beathard, especially Casserly (a failed GM IMO), and Gibb 1. In one of Joe Gibbs autobiography's he talks of JKC calling him into his office questioning the offense and the team performance and telling his to fix the **** he broke.

 

We just didn't have the 24/7 media cycles we have now. There were only 2 beat writers and a few support staff at most. They could wait to confirm stories. They also valued a good relationship with the team. Now Dan owns some of the poor relationship. But it's at the point that no matter what the team does it's portrayed in the absolute worst light possible.

 

When it's deserved, fine. They deserve a critical look at the entire Scot thing. But to twist things to the point of making **** up is what's garbage. See potential trade of Kirk Cousins that dominated the media despite all parties involved stating emphatically that was not going to happen. Worse, the Mortenson report that Kirk Cousins demanded a trade when that was not true at all. And it just so happened it came out right when the Scot thing was going on. If might be different if they came back and said "hey we got it wrong". But that never happens. One idiot on NFL.com tried to get Bill Polian to pile on. Leading him into responses. But good for Polian, he would not bite.

 

Do I think the media sits is a room and plots to ruin the Redskins? Of course not. Do I think they take cheap shots and kick the Redskins whenever they get the slimmest of opportunities because it gets them attention? Yes. Again, it's a kick them while they are down because I can get away with it. No accountability what so ever.

 

Quite frankly it's not up to them to provide any benefit of the doubt. Report the facts. I will decide if I want to give the team the benefit of the doubt.

 

Not going to derail this thread anymore but you directed a lengthy response right at me. But this is it for me. Moving on.

 

[Wyndorf25]

20 hours ago, zskins said:

 

Maybe the FO is getting ready for the draft and having a new guy come in is not going to make any sense what so ever until after the draft. Did you even think about that? We are not back to dumpster fire. Can't believe some of you fans are so melodramatic! sheesh. 

 

I do try to remain positive but this whole McGlouhan situation is a terrible look, you gotta admit that. I'm not saying the current FO has no plan and is acting as a rudderless ship, but the misinformation and lack of transparency has left a very bad taste in many fan's mouths. Hopefully, the team can have a solid draft that identifies the needs while also not reaching on talent and the play on the field resembles a competent team. There is a lot at stake for this organization this year and if the moves from here on out don't translate to wins on the field then things are going to get worse in a hurry.

[Wyvern]

In spite of how this whole episode has soured my perception of the Redskins 'management' -- my Skins-fan habits die hard, and I'm still wading through board's back-and-forth on McCloughan vs. Snyder/Allen.  The fact that people are having to go to competing media quotes (or misquotes, slants, and dubious mystery sources) shows what a SNAFU this has turned out to be.

 

But some things are observable -- and  they don't reflect well on the Snyder/Allen FO:

 

1.  The Skins FO is trotting out their same old tactic of smearing the dismissed employee. (Some may wish to deny this, but IMHO, I've seen this done before -- and it's really unnecessary.)

2.  McCloughan was not able to overhaul the less-than-stellar Redskins scouting department -- something we'd been led to believe would be happening, at some juncture, but it was never done.)

3.  The timing and execution of of the McCloughan personnel issue was horriblle -- badly handled, unnecessarily drawn out, with different versions allowed to spill out into the media, which in turn was spun into competing iterations of a what's now become a media soap opera.  A true PR nightmare, eerily reminiscent of Zorn and Shanny.

4.  Outside of Swearinger and the one-year rental of Pryor, the low-key results of the Skins free agency drive will need to really be hyped up to the fan base.  These are fairly modest signing for 'wave one' of the 2017 free agency signing period.  (Maybe they'll turn out to be unearthed 'gems' or maybe they'll be revealed to be simply over-paid JAGs.)

5.  Fair or not, the Skins FO is being vilified for their "shabby" treatment of yet another well-known NFL executive/head coach/"celebrity" talent.

 

So, if YOU were an up-and-coming assistant coach, head coach, or GM-in-the-making ... would you bet your chances/standing of an NFL career by accepting a stint with the Redskins?  (While the Rams was probably not an ideal situation, I suspect Philips saw what happened to the Shanahans (and others) and probably got out while his NFL stock was still high.)

 

 SIDE COMMENT:  When you look at the history of the Skins FO, just how really stable is the Redskins coaching situation, even with Gruden's contract extension?  Jay still hasn't installed his long-promised power blocking running game, his 2-minute drill, and red-zone schemes haven't been fruitful, his clock-management leaves a lot to be desired, and there are still questions (contractual, and personnel-wise) surrounding the key parts of his passing attack.  Now, I'm not going to blame Gruden for the defensive woes, until they get enough talent, but that doesn't mean that everyone else will give him a pass.  

 

Bottom line -- the only thing that seems to be remaining as a constant in the Skins foreseeable future is the Snyder/Allen FO.

[Darrell Green Fan]

10 hours ago, Wyvern said:

In spite of how this whole episode has soured my perception of the Redskins 'management' -- my Skins-fan habits die hard, and I'm still wading through board's back-and-forth on McCloughan vs. Snyder/Allen.  The fact that people are having to go to competing media quotes (or misquotes, slants, and dubious mystery sources) shows what a SNAFU this has turned out to be.

 

But some things are observable -- and  they don't reflect well on the Snyder/Allen FO:

 

1.  The Skins FO is trotting out their same old tactic of smearing the dismissed employee. (Some may wish to deny this, but IMHO, I've seen this done before -- and it's really unnecessary.)

2.  McCloughan was not able to overhaul the less-than-stellar Redskins scouting department -- something we'd been led to believe would be happening, at some juncture, but it was never done.)

3.  The timing and execution of of the McCloughan personnel issue was horriblle -- badly handled, unnecessarily drawn out, with different versions allowed to spill out into the media, which in turn was spun into competing iterations of a what's now become a media soap opera.  A true PR nightmare, eerily reminiscent of Zorn and Shanny.

4.  Outside of Swearinger and the one-year rental of Pryor, the low-key results of the Skins free agency drive will need to really be hyped up to the fan base.  These are fairly modest signing for 'wave one' of the 2017 free agency signing period.  (Maybe they'll turn out to be unearthed 'gems' or maybe they'll be revealed to be simply over-paid JAGs.)

5.  Fair or not, the Skins FO is being vilified for their "shabby" treatment of yet another well-known NFL executive/head coach/"celebrity" talent.

 

So, if YOU were an up-and-coming assistant coach, head coach, or GM-in-the-making ... would you bet your chances/standing of an NFL career by accepting a stint with the Redskins?  (While the Rams was probably not an ideal situation, I suspect Philips saw what happened to the Shanahans (and others) and probably got out while his NFL stock was still high.)

 

 SIDE COMMENT:  When you look at the history of the Skins FO, just how really stable is the Redskins coaching situation, even with Gruden's contract extension?  Jay still hasn't installed his long-promised power blocking running game, his 2-minute drill, and red-zone schemes haven't been fruitful, his clock-management leaves a lot to be desired, and there are still questions (contractual, and personnel-wise) surrounding the key parts of his passing attack.  Now, I'm not going to blame Gruden for the defensive woes, until they get enough talent, but that doesn't mean that everyone else will give him a pass.  

 

Bottom line -- the only thing that seems to be remaining as a constant in the Skins foreseeable future is the Snyder/Allen FO.

 

Very good summary.  I keep going back to the clear message that SM when trotted out that he had full control of personnel, then we learned differently.  I still say the Gruden extension was a clumsy PR move to make the organization appear stable as the disproving eyes of the football world were once again cast upon them.  

 

 

[veteranskinsfan]

Yesterday it was reported Ricky Jean Francois signed one year with Green Bay Packers.  Some reporter needs to ask Allen why we Ricky was not good enough to stay and play this year for the Redskins.  He was interviewed by several teams besides the Packers.  Our defense is looking bleak right now.  He could have been a more than adequate back-up if not a starter.

[HOF44]

15 minutes ago, veteranskinsfan said:

Yesterday it was reported Ricky Jean Francois signed one year with Green Bay Packers.  Some reporter needs to ask Allen why we Ricky was not good enough to stay and play this year for the Redskins. 

Not to mention he fetched a 3 Million dollar deal.  We were on the hook for 4.  Would have made me feel a lot better about their evaluation if he had received a Vet minimum deal. 

[slaga]

Here is something that really confuses me about Allen/McCloughan situation. It was widely reported when Mccloughan was hired that the GM would have full control over the final 53. It was also reported that the GM would report to the President, namely Allen. Additionally, it was reported that the President would handle the money. If the GM does not have control over money and reports to the guy that does, how can the GM truely expect to have full control over the final 53 when he is not the one deciding what price the FO is willing to pay for any player's services and he reports directly to the person that does?

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

18 hours ago, slaga said:

Here is something that really confuses me about Allen/McCloughan situation. It was widely reported when Mccloughan was hired that the GM would have full control over the final 53. It was also reported that the GM would report to the President, namely Allen. Additionally, it was reported that the President would handle the money. If the GM does not have control over money and reports to the guy that does, how can the GM truely expect to have full control over the final 53 when he is not the one deciding what price the FO is willing to pay for any player's services and he reports directly to the person that does?

 

 

My take was always that SM picked the players to target, if they became too expensive and Allen was unable to make the numbers work they simply moved down Scott's list.  Not sure if that was accurate or not but regardless what we have learned and what we were told are two totally different thing.

[carex]

2 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

My take was always that SM picked the players to target, if they became too expensive and Allen was unable to make the numbers work they simply moved down Scott's list.  Not sure if that was accurate or not but regardless what we have learned and what we were told are two totally different thing.

 

what's the evidence this was wrong

[slaga]

2 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

My take was always that SM picked the players to target, if they became too expensive and Allen was unable to make the numbers work they simply moved down Scott's list.  Not sure if that was accurate or not but regardless what we have learned and what we were told are two totally different thing.

Can you provide an instance where that exact model was not followed? 

[Conn]

The point is that is not in any way "final say on personnel". 

[WelshSkinsFan]

On 3/24/2017 at 11:19 AM, HOF44 said:

Not to mention he fetched a 3 Million dollar deal.  We were on the hook for 4.  Would have made me feel a lot better about their evaluation if he had received a Vet minimum deal. 

 

Inclined to agree but I am curious as to how much of that is guaranteed money?  Full details of the contract have not been disclosed so maybe most of that money is in bonuses and incentives if he makes the roster and then performs.  With us he was going to count as 4 million against our cap and was seen as a rotational player at best with declining skills. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

1 hour ago, slaga said:

Can you provide an instance where that exact model was not followed? 

 

Well sure.   Let's start with the comment from Bruce that personnel moves were a "group decision".  That was not  how SM's role was explained when he was hired.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

The point is that is not in any way "final say on personnel". 

 

We should replace "Allen" with "The cap", because the cap always--and has always--****ed with every GM's personnel and roster decisions. The cap will never let a GM construct their roster however they want.

[Conn]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

We should replace "Allen" with "The cap", because the cap always--and has always--****ed with every GM's personnel and roster decisions. The cap will never let a GM construct their roster however they want.

 

Fine. That's fair. But the GM himself should at least be responsible for allocating that cap to his players, and that's the "healthy" FO structure that allows for proper accountability. 

 

The buck has to stop with one person at the top, whose vision is realized.

 

But it's much easier to keep your job when it's impossible to truly place blame or demand results from any one party.

[carex]

3 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Fine. That's fair. But the GM himself should at least be responsible for allocating that cap to his players, and that's the "healthy" FO structure that allows for proper accountability. 

 

The buck has to stop with one person at the top, whose vision is realized.

 

But it's much easier to keep your job when it's impossible to truly place blame or demand results from any one party.

 

I want the GM to get the coaches players

[Conn]

41 minutes ago, carex said:

 

I want the GM to get the coaches players

 

Yeah. What are you trying to say here? 

[carex]

10 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Yeah. What are you trying to say here? 

 

allow me to correct a typo, I want the GM to get the coach's players, not his. 

 

[Conn]

1 minute ago, carex said:

 

allow me to correct a typo, I want the GM to get the coach's players, not his. 

 

 

Yeah I gotcha, I just don't get what you're trying to say. We all know that's the GMs job. Some of us just want one person to have all the decision-making power, as it's a cleaner structure with more accountability. Not one guy picking players, one guy holding the wallet, etc. The coaching staff will always have  a say, but you have to have a final "decider".

[carex]

1 hour ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Yeah I gotcha, I just don't get what you're trying to say. We all know that's the GMs job. Some of us just want one person to have all the decision-making power, as it's a cleaner structure with more accountability. Not one guy picking players, one guy holding the wallet, etc. The coaching staff will always have  a say, but you have to have a final "decider".

 well then considering the coach has to tell these guys what to do, I want him as the final decider.  I want him as  guy who says "this is what I need for my offense and my defense," and the GM looks at what the coach needs and the money he has and finds guys for that

[Conn]

23 minutes ago, carex said:

 well then considering the coach has to tell these guys what to do, I want him as the final decider.  I want him as  guy who says "this is what I need for my offense and my defense," and the GM looks at what the coach needs and the money he has and finds guys for that

 

That's why the coaching staff has input in the process. And the GM should always be drafting scheme fits, and it is to his advantage to do so--because in a healthy organizational structure the GM has also hired the HC, so the coachea/players meshing well directly effects his job security.

 

But the only team in the league that has success with a HC having final say is the Patriots. Maybe you could argue the Bengals, if Marvin Lewis has final say, but I don't think anyone really knows how the Bengals make decisions. 

[SkinsGuy]

CSN has up an article where Allen gives reason for Scott's firing.

 

It is still very vague. He says "they needed clarity"?

 

I guess this short interview was done at the owner's meeting:

 

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/exclusive-redskins-bruce-allen-answers-questions-scot-mccloughans-firing-we

[Conn]

I would interpret that as, they tried waiting for him to get straight and back to work, and eventually had to move on without him on basically the eve of FA week to make sure everyone was on the same page. Kind of ties into a lot of what Art has said about the situation. 

[SkinsPassion4Life]

38 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

CSN has up an article where Allen gives reason for Scott's firing.

 

It is still very vague. He says "they needed clarity"?

 

I guess this short interview was done at the owner's meeting:

 

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/exclusive-redskins-bruce-allen-answers-questions-scot-mccloughans-firing-we

 

It's was a 20 minute interview....some of the video clips are on the site..