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

[RabidFan]

On 4/7/2017 at 5:58 AM, Califan007 said:

Anyone else notice that before Scot was fired the media was saying "Bruce Allen wouldn't let McCloughan run the personnel side the way he wanted, overruled him on players, wouldn't let him do this, wouldn't let him do that, etc etc..."...

 

But after Scot was fired the media is constantly saying "Allen is following McCloughan's free agency plan, Scot wanted to target Swearinger and that's who Allen signed, Scot had Zach Brown as his #1 target, Scot wanted to address the middle of the defense and that's what Allen is doing so far, the Redskins are sticking to McCloughan's plan..."...it's like in the media's eyes, Scot has more power and control now after being fired than he did while he still worked there lol...

 

 

Sounds like Obi Wan McCloughan

[HTTRDynasty]

32 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

None of us even truly know what the cause in this "fired for cause" scenario is.  It could be drinking on the job, yet they knew he drank on the job when signing him.  It could be for negligence prior to free agency after he had enough of being neutered by Bruce.  It could be a number of things and by no means am I saying the guy is a saint nor our savior.  What he was though was a highly regarded talent evaluator without as much pull as was stated when he arrived.

 

Exactly.  I'm so sick of seeing people use "fired for cause" as proof that Scot was constantly drunk on the job.  It's much more likely that they just started taking away more and more power from him, and that the decision to put the exclusive franchise tag on Kirk without his input was the straw that broke the camel's back.  His response seemed to be deciding to skip the combine, which would definitely be "cause".  And I don't blame him for doing it.

[RedBeast]

Being a GM is 24x7 on the job IMO...you are always "on-line" but there are the right times for drinking and the wrong times. Going in "incognito mode" is not acceptable for any profession.

[Tsailand]

36 minutes ago, RedBeast said:

Being a GM is 24x7 on the job IMO...you are always "on-line" but there are the right times for drinking and the wrong times. Going in "incognito mode" is not acceptable for any profession.

 

Should the same apply to a team president?  How about the radio broadcast crew?

[goskins10]

16 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Exactly.  I'm so sick of seeing people use "fired for cause" as proof that Scot was constantly drunk on the job.  It's much more likely that they just started taking away more and more power from him, and that the decision to put the exclusive franchise tag on Kirk without his input was the straw that broke the camel's back.  His response seemed to be deciding to skip the combine, which would definitely be "cause".  And I don't blame him for doing it.

 

I don't think that's what people are really saying when they invoke "fired for cause." At least not me. There is a significant burden of proof required to fire someone for cause. Since we do not know the particulars there is no way to know what that cause is. It could be drinking but it could be something totally different so I get that part of your point. 

 

But there is a huge difference between just letting someone go and firing them for cause. In the end they may be wrong. If so I would expect a lawsuit from Scot against the team.

 

 

[Peregrine]

1 hour ago, RedBeast said:

Being a GM is 24x7 on the job IMO...you are always "on-line" but there are the right times for drinking and the wrong times. Going in "incognito mode" is not acceptable for any profession.

What if a team president told you nobody wanted you there, and to leave?

[Rattlesnake88]

5 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

What if a team president told you nobody wanted you there, and to leave?

Pouting and turning to the bottle is wrong answer. 

[RedBeast]

1 hour ago, Peregrine said:

What if a team president told you nobody wanted you there, and to leave?

I'm a karate man! And a karate man bruises on the inside! They don't show their weakness. But you don't know that because you're a big Barry White looking mother****er! So get outta my face!

 

I would still be there. It's my job.

[Peregrine]

1 hour ago, RedBeast said:

I'm a karate man! And a karate man bruises on the inside! They don't show their weakness. But you don't know that because you're a big Barry White looking mother****er! So get outta my face!

 

I would still be there. It's my job.

You do realize Bruce is his boss right?  So if your boss said nobody wanted you there, and to leave, you wouldnt leave?

3 hours ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

Pouting and turning to the bottle is wrong answer. 

Doing what your boss said is pouting and turning to the bottle?

[RedBeast]

@Peregrine Nope, wouldn't leave. I have worked in more difficult environments and being professional from start to end is critical IMO. Would I start looking so that when my contract expired, so that I would have another position? You be I would.

[Rattlesnake88]

47 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

You do realize Bruce is his boss right?  So if your boss said nobody wanted you there, and to leave, you wouldnt leave?

Doing what your boss said is pouting and turning to the bottle?

If you are contracted to do a job. You do it until you no longer can. He fell for their trap. He should have manned up and made them out him without fault.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I highly doubt he thought not showing up at the combine and not answering calls prior to free agency would lead to a better relationship with the team.  I think it's safe to say he was ready to move on.

 

I also have a hard time trying to compare what many of us do for a living to being a GM of an NFL team.  It's not like you go job hunting in secret on indeed.com and take a sick day to go interview with 1 of the 31 other NFL teams.

 

[RedBeast]

14 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I highly doubt he thought not showing up at the combine and not answering calls prior to free agency would lead to a better relationship with the team.  I think it's safe to say he was ready to move on.

 

I also have a hard time trying to compare what many of us do for a living to being a GM of an NFL team.  It's not like you go job hunting in secret on indeed.com and take a sick day to go interview with 1 of the 31 other NFL teams.

 

Damn and I've been looking for years!

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I'd advise not to take what McCloughan's friend paraphrased from his convo with Scot as anything worthwhile. If anything, what he claimed Scot told him makes Scot look bad, not Allen. I'm surprised more people didn't pick up on that.

[joeken24]

5 hours ago, Califan007 said:

I'd advise not to take what McCloughan's friend paraphrased from his convo with Scot as anything worthwhile. If anything, what he claimed Scot told him makes Scot look bad, not Allen. I'm surprised more people didn't pick up on that.

I'd agree with that. 

 

I'd also agree with the quotes from Garcon as somewhat making Scot look bad. I mean, how many people do you know that are well liked in an organization but can't do their job? I'm not saying Scot didn't do his job. I'm just saying "being liked" is not necessary a prerequisite for keeping a job....performance is.

Gruden said the same thing about McCloughan being liked. So Scot saying that Allen said (sounds like some playground ****) "no one likes you around here" sounds like bull**** when two brutally honest guys (Gruden and Garcon) come out and says that he was liked. 

 

I do think there was a couple instances where Scot seemed "less than executive like", which could have been an issue with the brass, but not ground for dismissal: 

The interview where Chris Baker ends the session with a question about money. Looks all in fun, but this is a business and a room full of reporters is not the place to negotiate. 

 

Maybe it was the "how you like me now" outburst by Kirk with the brushing of Scot's hair. BTW, that's a grown ass man, right? Kirk would have got

two chops to the throat on that one!

 

Anyway...

 

Ultimately, I think it had more to do with the bad free agent signings which may have cost us some of the money we could have used to sign the Chris Bakers.

These were horrible signings and wasted a nice chunk of change for the Redskins: David Bruton, Whitner, Jeron Johnson, Chris Culliver and Kendall Reyes.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Why we gotta bring Barry White into this, man?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

48 minutes ago, joeken24 said:

I'd agree with that. 

 

I'd also agree with the quotes from Garcon as somewhat making Scot look bad. I mean, how many people do you know that are well liked in an organization but can't do their job? I'm not saying Scot didn't do his job. I'm just saying "being liked" is not necessary a prerequisite for keeping a job....performance is.

 

 

The local media loved Scot, too, and didn't like Allen at all. That played a huge roll in how everything was being reported at the beginning, the perspective that was being championed. ...Scot was approachable, talk freely with the media, gave media members his private cell number, chummy as hell, etc. Bruce was a politician, more slick and standoff-ish, didn't give his number to local media, rarely filled them in with real team info...

 

And none of that should matter one iota when it came to reporting about Scot and the Redskins parting ways. 

 

As you said, being liked is not the same as performing your duties to the level expected of you from your boss. Being liked by the media shouldn't automatically mean their reporting is slanted heavily in your favor. 

 

As for Robinson's comments, he said Scot told him this about him pulling Breeland into his office to talk to him:

 

“He was wondering why the hell did Mr. Allen get so pissed about that?” Robinson said. “I mean, [he was] just talking to a player. It’s all about relationships.”

 

Here's a thought: if you don't know why your boss got pissed off about something you did...GO. ****ING. ASK. HIM. You're a grown-ass man...go find out what the issue is at work. That comment reminded me of when Lavar was asked by reporters why he wasn't seeing more playing time under Gibbs...Lavar said "I don't know, I asked coach why and he didn't tell me why". Gibbs was like "The **** I didn't!" lol...at least Lavar claimed he asked, though...Robinson's version of Scot's comments didn't even claim he asked. 

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Another of Ribinson's comments that hurts Scot more than helps him:

 

"He said, ‘Mike, I don’t have an issue right now drinking,'” Robinson said. “‘I haven’t touched a drink in a while. But of course they wouldn’t let me say it because they silenced me.’ "

 

"Right Now"??..."In awhile"??...If you're trying to dispel the notion that a drinking problem was behind your employment being terminated, that was about as weak a reassurance as you could possibly give.

 

Why not "Mike, I haven't had a drinking issue in years"?..No, it's that he doesn't have one "right now" lol...jeebus. Kinda indicates that he did have a drinking issue while with the Skins. And he hasn't had a drink "in awhile"?...Define "awhile". That could be anything from a month to 5 years. But saying "I haven't had a drink in a month" would have sounded like it backs up the team's claims.

[FrFan]

5 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Why not "Mike, I haven't had a drinking issue in years"?..No, it's that he doesn't have one "right now" lol...jeebus. Kinda indicates that he did have a drinking issue while with the Skins. And he hasn't had a drink "in awhile"?...Define "awhile". That could be anything from a month to 5 years. But saying "I haven't had a drink in a month" would have sounded like it backs up the team's claims.

Because some contracts (Gruden) are negociated/signed in a bar

[Koolblue13]

Remember when the Giants moved on from ol Tom and he kept coming to work, going to the gym, wearing Giants stuff?

 

Made everyone feel awkward. 

 

Is that what some of y'all are advocating? 

[HTTRDynasty]

13 hours ago, joeken24 said:

 

The interview where Chris Baker ends the session with a question about money. Looks all in fun, but this is a business and a room full of reporters is not the place to negotiate. 

 

 

Anyway...

 

Ultimately, I think it had more to do with the bad free agent signings which may have cost us some of the money we could have used to sign the Chris Bakers.

These were horrible signings and wasted a nice chunk of change for the Redskins: David Bruton, Whitner, Jeron Johnson, Chris Culliver and Kendall Reyes.

 

Is this a serious criticism?  What exactly is Scot supposed to say in that situation?  You think he asked Baker to interrupt his interview like that?  He handled it in the best possible way.  Same with the Kirk situation.

 

And when are people going to stop acting like bottom of the barrel FA signings were supposed to turn into good players?  Take a look around the league when it comes to FA.  Most bottom tier FA's do not work out with their new teams.  That's also the case with most top tier FA's as well.  Which is why good GM's tend to avoid overspending in FA.  The guys McCloughan signed were meant to be stop gaps at best until we drafted their replacements.  Except for Culliver, who was playing well before his injury.  And even then, we got out of the contract with minimal loss.

[Tsailand]

2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Remember when the Giants moved on from ol Tom and he kept coming to work, going to the gym, wearing Giants stuff?

 

The Giants didn't trash him in the media. They paid him the rest of his contract (as far as I know).  And he was coming off three losing seasons in a row.

 

There's no comparison to the Scott situation.

[Koolblue13]

30 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

The Giants didn't trash him in the media. They paid him the rest of his contract (as far as I know).  And he was coming off three losing seasons in a row.

 

There's no comparison to the Scott situation.

No ****.

 

It was aimed towards the people saying he should have kept coming in to work, even after he was fired.

 

It was also meant in jest, which apparently alluded you.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

8 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Remember when the Giants moved on from ol Tom and he kept coming to work, going to the gym, wearing Giants stuff?

 

Made everyone feel awkward. 

 

Is that what some of y'all are advocating? 

 

I think we were halfway there lol...

 

 

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

 

18 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Another of Ribinson's comments that hurts Scot more than helps him:

 

"He said, ‘Mike, I don’t have an issue right now drinking,'” Robinson said. “‘I haven’t touched a drink in a while. But of course they wouldn’t let me say it because they silenced me.’ "

 

"Right Now"??..."In awhile"??...If you're trying to dispel the notion that a drinking problem was behind your employment being terminated, that was about as weak a reassurance as you could possibly give.

 

Why not "Mike, I haven't had a drinking issue in years"?..No, it's that he doesn't have one "right now" lol...jeebus. Kinda indicates that he did have a drinking issue while with the Skins. And he hasn't had a drink "in awhile"?...Define "awhile". That could be anything from a month to 5 years. But saying "I haven't had a drink in a month" would have sounded like it backs up the team's claims.

 

Maybe he was paraphrasing to Robinson or maybe they just didn't go into specifics because these are figures of speech. You can look into those comments and see whatever you want to see based on what you want to believe from the situation, i suppose.

 

Even taken at face value as your possible interpretation, I don't think that makes Scot look bad. So what if he had a drinking problem months ago, if so, why wasn't he fired then? Using your interpretation it shows that maybe Scot did relapse but pulled himself  together and was then apparently fired for something he had control of that happened previously? Doesn't make much sense. Unless they are using what happened previously as grounds to fire him later when a dispute or power struggle happened.