Tsailand Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 16 minutes ago, PortisBetts said: When has this team given us reason to be positive? They've had two winning seasons in a row on the back of a QB they never wanted. That's positive, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortisBetts Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 21 minutes ago, Tsailand said: They've had two winning seasons in a row on the back of a QB they never wanted. That's positive, right? Fair point. Let me word it differently. When has this team been consistent enough to warrant a positive attitude when something negative happens? Also, 8-7-1 is nothing to be happy about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted March 30, 2017 Author Share Posted March 30, 2017 7 minutes ago, PortisBetts said: Fair point. Let me word it differently. When has this team been consistent enough to warrant a positive attitude when something negative happens? Also, 8-7-1 is nothing to be happy about. Positive doesn't equal happy or satisfied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmania123 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 http://www.newsadvance.com/sports/redskins/former-player-scot-mccloughan-felt-the-hate-from-redskins-president/article_3409820f-9e79-5acd-882c-97463136eaf3.html Honestly this article about the "hate" Bruce Allen has/had for Scot McCloughan is somewhat what I had been thinking since Scot's dismissal. I just do not think Bruce's "ego" can tolerate someone like Scot - a guy that does his own thing. And I do think Scot was a decent evaluator of talent. I just think the GM they say they are going to hire will have to be a "yes" man. There has just been so much dissension and **** in this organization for so long until, well the past two years. I think Scot was bringing respectability back to a dumpster fire. And while I did not agree with every decision he made he was infusing the franchise with some respectability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Pretty damning article about Bruce wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 If there's a way to find front office strife, this franchise will find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 And people wonder why being realistic comes off as being a pessimist around here. There you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 At least we won't fall for the okie doke whenever they hire another GM, thinking they're really in charge of anything. And frankly, somebody better ask the new guy or Bruce pointed questions about why this wont happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatteredFanSyndrome Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 9 minutes ago, Morneblade said: And people wonder why being realistic comes off as being a pessimist around here. There you go. The people questioning our pessimism are the same people who are going to tell you that this is all made up in an effort for Scott to save face. God bless em', they simply don't want to believe that the organization they love faithfully is capable of such crap. It's a lot like family, where everyone on the outside can see what a POS your relative is, but his mom can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Honestly I can see everything in that article having more than a shade of truth. You can tell McCloughan is the type of FO guy to fraternize with the players, want face-to-face time to understand and get through to them, etc. Hell, that was advertised about him very loudly and it was a big part of what we perceived as our culture change. And you can tell that Bruce Allen is the stuffy suit type, who doesn't gel with the players and comes off as a politicker in the office and a real schmoozer. The dude just oozes Pete Campbell (Mad Men), and isn't the type of dude that players could identify with. I could see that causing problems, since Bruce and Scot clearly had different ideas about the delineation of duties/contact with players between the FO and the coaching staff. Scot can't even fathom why Bruce would have a problem with a player going to his office to cool off and decompress/get his head straight, because that's Scot's life. Its about his relationships with the players--hell, a huge part of his draft evaluation is known to be looking a dude in the eyes and figuring him out as a person--while to Bruce that's not the place of someone in the FO. Well, this **** should have been worked out a long time ago and not festered, but this is a **** organization so no surprise it eventually contributed to a blow-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said: The people questioning our pessimism are the same people who are going to tell you that this is all made up in an effort for Scott to save face. God bless em', they simply don't want to believe that the organization they love faithfully is capable of such crap. It's a lot like family, where everyone on the outside can see what a POS your relative is, but his mom can't. And the thing is, let's just assume that for arguments sake, this story is completely false. Only the Redskins would have handled everything up to this point as poorly as we have. When has another team let a starting QB that has broken records get to the Transitional Tag? Things that should be cut and dry are not. It's woeful ineptness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I can kind of sort of understand why Allen wouldn't want McC fraternizing with the players. It undermines the coach and could create conflict within the team. But with that said, I think a respected football person like Scott McLoguhan can be trusted to not disrupt the team. This whole thing just screams Allen power trip and ego not handling someone else getting credit for the team's success(relative success anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatteredFanSyndrome Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Warhead36 said: I can kind of sort of understand why Allen wouldn't want McC fraternizing with the players. It undermines the coach and could create conflict within the team. But with that said, I think a respected football person like Scott McLoguhan can be trusted to not disrupt the team. This whole thing just screams Allen power trip and ego not handling someone else getting credit for the team's success(relative success anyway). The popular narrative for the glass half full crowd is that Bruce must not have a huge ego or he would have never brought in Scott in the first place. I can't imagine that Bruce ever expected Scott to be as popular as he was with the players and fan base. In most places, he really wouldn't be. But here in DC, where we haven't had a competent personnel guy in over 2 decades - he's a superstar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petedaddy Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I would love to know the real story, where is Andyman when you need him?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexa Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Warhead36 said: I can kind of sort of understand why Allen wouldn't want McC fraternizing with the players. It undermines the coach and could create conflict within the team. But with that said, I think a respected football person like Scott McLoguhan can be trusted to not disrupt the team. This whole thing just screams Allen power trip and ego not handling someone else getting credit for the team's success(relative success anyway). It totally does. Scot wasn't going out to dinner with players I assume. He wanted to meet with one after a heated exchange with a coach which I assume was Perry F. Who cares? He's the damn GM. I just don't understand why that is a big deal. Allen got mad and cursed Scot out over that???? Yeah that w/out question screams total insecure childish BS from Allen. I will never be a fan of Allen.. ever. He seriously sucks. He's a liar, he's insecure, he pretty much probably does whatever Snyder tells him to do. If Dan asked Bruce to shine his shoes he'd do it with a smile on his face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said: The popular narrative for the glass half full crowd is that Bruce must not have a huge ego or he would have never brought in Scott in the first place. I can't imagine that Bruce ever expected Scott to be as popular as he was with the players and fan base. In most places, he really wouldn't be. But here in DC, where we haven't had a competent personnel guy in over 2 decades - he's a superstar. Obviously there is no way for me to know what went down one way another whose side of the story is correct. My 2 cents from meeting Scot. The idea that he talked too much to the press and it frustrated Bruce -- I could see that because he just seems very open and a talker. On that same token, he struck me just as someone who is open but is incredibly honest so I'd be surprised if he just made up a conversation out of thin air that never happened. So I buy that Bruce said that to him. Granted though who knows in what context it was said? But tough for me to come up with a good context for it but who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gooseneck Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Alexa said: It totally does. Scot wasn't going out to dinner with players I assume. He wanted to meet with one after a heated exchange with a coach which I assume was Perry F. Who cares? He's the damn GM. I just don't understand why that is a big deal. Allen got mad and cursed Scot out over that???? Yeah that w/out question screams total insecure childish BS from Allen. I will never be a fan of Allen.. ever. He seriously sucks. He's a liar, he's insecure, he pretty much probably does whatever Snyder tells him to do. If Dan asked Bruce to shine his shoes he'd do it with a smile on his face. At least he is probably a competent shoe shiner. Don't they have an open position for that in cleveland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actorguy1 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I don't give a c-rap about what gets said in the off season. My expectations are playoffs in 2017. Win-Loss record is the only results I care about. If there is "drama" in the off season but they still make the playoffs, that's all I need. If I was a stronger person I would avoid this place like the plague from February to August but I'm not so here I am. My expectations have not changed one bit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Posted part of this from Breer that was about Kirk in the Kirk thread. Here's the rest: Quote MMQB: Will you replace Scot McCloughan or just shuffle things around in scouting? ALLEN: That’ll be something we look at in May. No different than the coaching staff—I think we have some coaches who will advance in this league, and become coordinators and head coaches. I think we have some people in our college and pro (scouting) departments who in the future will advance to a vice president of player personnel or general manager positions. We’ll look at it as a group, and see what we need to do. MMQB: Are you disappointed in how things ended with McCloughan? ALLEN: I’m the one who brought Scot to the Redskins. I had a relationship with his father and his brother in Oakland, and we had a lot of success together. Obviously, this isn’t what I envisioned for Scot or the Redskins. Yeah, it’s disappointing, the way it ended. But in the NFL, you have to go forward, and everybody—everybody—is doing their job and is on the same page. MMQB: What’s the climate like in the building after all that’s happened the past few weeks? ALLEN: It’s been great. Once again, in free agency, you sign nine players, at least six of them are starters. We addressed some needs we had on the defensive line; we lost 2,000 yards in receivers and we signed 1,600 yards, and hope the other guys can pick up the slack. Really happy with what work the pro department did, and I love the work our coaching staff has done. Our players, when they come in for the offseason program, are going to see some new ideas and a new attitude. MMQB: Why extend Jay Gruden with two years left on his deal? ALLEN: The players have responded to Jay, they’ve responded to his directness, his honesty, his humor, his sarcasm, but he’s also a creative offensive coach. (Owner) Dan (Snyder), Jay and I met at the end of the season, and Dan said, ‘I like the direction you’re going.’ We talked about the changes he was thinking of making to the staff, and we felt very comfortable that he’s the right coach for us. I think he’s getting better every year. He’s the right coach for the Redskins. MMQB: Last year, you were widely seen as an ascending team. Do you still think you guys are, after losing both coordinators, your top two receivers, and your GM? ALLEN: We feel good. We think in free agency, we added some players that’ll help us. But you get what you earn in this league. Right now, everyone is 0-0, including Coach Belichick. But I feel good about where we’re headed. The head coach has done a good job, and we have a core of talent on our team that’s helped us get better, and we have some guys that need to step up and play better, and everyone needs to work a little harder. http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/03/30/nfl-offseason-player-programs-coaches-changes Nothing new. His answers recently about signing a GM moving forward leave a lot to be desired... but I'll wait and see. This whole thing has really sucked the air out of me. The worst for me, really, is seeing that Scot feels like he's been wronged. That didn't happen to the degree it is here with his other two partings, and it's a longstanding pattern with this organization. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedBeast Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 The only thing that can happen to this team that would surprise me? Is winning a Super Bowl any time in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 3 hours ago, PortisBetts said: Its not a telling quote at all. All that answer does is dance around the question with no definitives, which is exactly the type of answer he should be giving. There leaves no material for a reporter to take and run away with some story about waht Gruden said. He wouldn't say it had to be made, he also wouldn't say it didn't have to be made. Anything else you pull out of this is just speculation. His answer is trying to move away from Scot and get focus back on the team. It has been Gruden's MO his entire time here whenever a problem occurs. So you dont think by saying "Im not going to say "It had to be made"" that any reporter is going to run with it? Oy. Immediately disproved by JP Finley running with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said: The popular narrative for the glass half full crowd is that Bruce must not have a huge ego or he would have never brought in Scott in the first place. I can't imagine that Bruce ever expected Scott to be as popular as he was with the players and fan base. In most places, he really wouldn't be. But here in DC, where we haven't had a competent personnel guy in over 2 decades - he's a superstar. I pray with all my might that popularity for front office personnel isn't in the equation here. Personality conflict, difference in player personnel assessment, power play, I'll take any of that over Scot just becoming too big a star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 2 hours ago, skinsmania123 said: http://www.newsadvance.com/sports/redskins/former-player-scot-mccloughan-felt-the-hate-from-redskins-president/article_3409820f-9e79-5acd-882c-97463136eaf3.html Honestly this article about the "hate" Bruce Allen has/had for Scot McCloughan is somewhat what I had been thinking since Scot's dismissal. I just do not think Bruce's "ego" can tolerate someone like Scot - a guy that does his own thing. And I do think Scot was a decent evaluator of talent. I just think the GM they say they are going to hire will have to be a "yes" man. There has just been so much dissension and **** in this organization for so long until, well the past two years. I think Scot was bringing respectability back to a dumpster fire. And while I did not agree with every decision he made he was infusing the franchise with some respectability. I posted this same thing in the "Hate to say it" thread: I have a hard time taking that article seriously. If there was so much love for Scot by the players, why hasn't anyone, even anonymously, spoken out? Why hasn't Scot himself spoken out after three weeks? Why hasn't Scot, his agent, and/or his lawyer gone after the team. They fired him with "cause." That isn't something than can be done lightly, and opens up a huge legal can of worms and potentially millions of dollars of damages against the Redskins if they don't have actual "cause" that can be proven in a court of law for dismissing Scot. Due to his history, if the Redskins did fire him without cause, Scot would be a fool to NOT go after the team for damages. As it is, no one is going to touch him again in the NFL after a third dismissal like this. If he has any chance of working in this league again, he has to clear his name. Unless, he knows he can't clear his name because the Redskins do have cause. So, if Scot was fired because Allen was jealous, there would be a **** storm the size of Africa raining on Redskins Park, the media wouldn't just be speculating on what happened, and lawyers would be having a field day. Sorry; I call BS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 The word incestuous springs to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrFan Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 "“I don’t know what their issue is with him,” one player said, “but all the players love Scot.” Maybe Allen set the team on Defcon 1 ?. Ultimately the truth will come out, it's just a matter of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.