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

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

 

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. 

 

 

First, make NO mistake that Scot new his view/side was gonna make it into the public arena when he talked to Robinson. With Robinson also being a media member there's no way in hell he conveyed Scot's words to the rest of the media without his approval...that could possibly get Scot into legal problems depending on what was agreed to at his termination. So what we heard is what Scot wanted us to hear.

 

Second, I did say that since Robinson could be paraphrasing Scot, nobody should take anything of value away from it...that's why I said Robinson's interview actually shows Scot in a worse light than Allen...then showed how Robinsin's words did just that. No idea if Scot phrased things the way Robinson relayed them, but if so, it's in no way a good look on him.

 

Third, you honestly can't think of a single reason NOT to fire someone the first time he appears to have been drinking on the job or it effects his performance in some way?...Because I can think of several, especially when talking about an NFL General Manager.

 

From many reports from players, even if they detected Scot had been drinking they didn't detect any negative affect on his job. Let's assume for argument's sake that those players were right (they really wouldn't know from their perspective as players if that was true or not). If Scot's still doing his job to a satisfactory degree, it would make complete sense to try and manage his issues to continue receiving the benefits of his employment and talent. Plus there was mention of him getting treatment for his issues, which would help get him some benefit of the doubt. Add in some convos I'm positive Allen had with Scot's father and brother, and it's even more reason to give him rope.

 

in addition, it would seem reasonable to say drinking wasn't the only reason for Scot's termination. If so, then the final decision could easily have been made when the "final straw" event occurred. Piecing together all the reported moments over the weeks, it could be that his drinking was an issue for awhile but other more recent actions compounded things for him--like "going dark" or whatever the phrase is lol, when he stopped taking agent calls or answering their voicemail. Or going against Allen's apparent wishes and meeting privately with players concerning play issues they were having (I don't buy for a second that Allen just yelled out a string of profanities about him doing so for no reason whatsoever). Or that FA signing period was about to begin and agents were confused as to whether or not they should keep trying to contact Scot since Allen said they would revisit Scot's role with the team after he gets his personal issues taken care of (or after the draft), and felt "Clarity" needed to be established in order to have a successful FA period. The goal truly could have been "let's regroup after the draft and take it from there", but "going dark" sped up that timeframe.

 

Also, don't forget it was reported that Allen and Snyder were starting a list of possible GM candidates if/when Scot was let go, so they were planning his eventual release unless things improved (which it seems they did not). There is a value in keeping your ultra-talented head talent scout/"GM" on the payroll through the draft in what a ton of people were saying was an incredibly important offseason, especially since he had been leading the draft meetings as late as late January/early February. 

 

Plus, I don't doubt for an instant that alcohol and drinking concerns were made part of his contract when he was hired, with fireable offenses spelled out. Scot himself said Snyder grilled him with hard questions about his past and present alcohol issues when interviewing him, so it makes complete sense to also address those same concerns in his employment contract. But let's say they didn't...I'm sure something concerning his not answering agent calls or agent voicemails going undelivered would be covered as a derelict of duties and thus cause for termination. So that could also explain why Scot was fired when he was fired. 

 

But it as I had said in my other post, IF Robinson'a comment he relayed was an attempt to dispel the belief that Scot's drinking played a role in his getting fired yet again, Scot saying he doesn't have a drinking issue "right now"  does more harm than good. By basically saying "I may have had a drinking issue while with the Skins but I dont have one right now" it gives a certain amount of validation to the anonymous Redskins source story about what lead to Scot's termination. 

[skinsfan66]

Its Bruce's team and decisions now, not Scot's. We will never know the real truth, even though we have our own opinions. Its not anybody's list  but Bruce's. What happens from here is on his bio we know for sure.  Its not Scot's work, that's not going to fly.  Mr. Allen pulled the strings and has all the power, its his team putting their stamp on it.   If it works he gets all the Credit and were all happy again.  If it doesn't than the hammer should fall hard and there are going to be some not so happy fans. 

[Jericho]

On 4/17/2017 at 10:28 PM, joeken24 said:

 

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.

 

Not really sure what you're getting at. Three of the guys you listed aren't even counting $1 towards the 2017 cap (Whitner, Johnson, and Reyes). The other two combine for about $4 million. Yes it's wasted money, but then again EVERY team has some. And it's really not that much money. Pretty much every signing you mentioned was pretty low money (Whitner was a street free agent after the season started) outside of Culliver. And at least that was structured not to have any guaranteed money after the first year. You can criticize the signings, but it's not like these were huge moves that hurt the team for years. They were risky moves that didn't pan out. I'm pretty sure there's a lot more to the firing then that

[Morneblade]

4 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

Not really sure what you're getting at. Three of the guys you listed aren't even counting $1 towards the 2017 cap (Whitner, Johnson, and Reyes). The other two combine for about $4 million. Yes it's wasted money, but then again EVERY team has some. And it's really not that much money. Pretty much every signing you mentioned was pretty low money (Whitner was a street free agent after the season started) outside of Culliver. And at least that was structured not to have any guaranteed money after the first year. You can criticize the signings, but it's not like these were huge moves that hurt the team for years. They were risky moves that didn't pan out. I'm pretty sure there's a lot more to the firing then that

 

Yeah, outside of Culliver, these were all bargan rack stuff. I'm pretty sure Barry wanted Reyes too. Culliver got hurt, but had been playing very well before that. Chalk that up to bad luck.

 

And don't forget about Paea. He's costing as much as Culliver. Scot had just gotten here, I'm not sure how much input he had on that one.

[HTTRDynasty]

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

That's a copout. This isn't a trade rumor or a stadium deal or something. This was a comment that snowballed and made a high ranking official and face of the team look very bad. Not what Cooley said but the way it spiraled into something else. 

 

He can hide behind that if he wants but it's pretty weak. They were happy to let that narrative rip thru the media unchallenged 

[skinsfan212689]

After all the smoke clears I'm riding with Dan, Bruce and Gruden. Look GMSM had issues and we all knew about them. I don't care if people take his side and he walk away smelling like roses. Let not forget his little incident with the reporter. He was a fired for drinking twice before. I think Bruce actually tried to protect GMSM by not coming out and say "this fools drinking again, we had to fire him". Bruce is taking all the media crap and letting Scot look good in the situation.  

 

Our Skins had a good free agency and hopefully a good draft. I actually think this is one of the best free agency's we've had in the last 5 years. 

 

While I do give GMSM for parts of the free agents and he'll get credit some of the draft but let's not be silly and think he was the god of scouts and he was all we had from an evaluation stand point. I actually like how Bruce is handling it. Let people think what they want. You can't and shouldn't want to please everyone. 

 

Hail

[skinfan2k]

Bruce is right. The team doesnt need to addresse every rumor on the radio.  If there is oen guy i trust in this organization its Gruden.  Players play for him and he makes ballsy decisions

[HTTRDynasty]

Jessica McCloughan posted this on twitter, then deleted it:

 

"Interesting....Scot hasn't seen Cooley face-to-face since he said that on the radio ?"

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

6 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

That's a copout. This isn't a trade rumor or a stadium deal or something. This was a comment that snowballed and made a high ranking official and face of the team look very bad. Not what Cooley said but the way it spiraled into something else. 

 

He can hide behind that if he wants but it's pretty weak. They were happy to let that narrative rip thru the media unchallenged 

I disagree because at the time there was just a bunch of sports reporters throwing stuff at the wall trying to figure out what was going on with Scot. Before Cooley it was Mike Jones and his article saying that Bruce Allen was jealous. Then it was the death in the family (either put out or confirmed by the Redskins). What Cooley said spiraled because suddenly afterwards somebody (the old producer on 980) went on Chad Dukes's show saying that Cooley wasn't just speculating but he knew something. Then reporters themselves started saying how Redskins park was a drinkers haven and everybody's always drunk and people started saying how they had heard about Scot being drunk at games and in the locker rooms and in meetings, some guys even said he was sauced at the press conferences (saying look at his cheeks). 

 

Should they have spoken? Maybe maybe not. I do agree that Bruce generally tries to keep a tight ship and not really talk to the media and so this doesn't really break that mold. 

 

I stand by what I've said all along  - that this was a media thirst for a story and they created something to talk about and could have wound up ruining a guys career based on it. Whether BA helped or not, the media should get some of the blame here. I don't understand how Grant and Danny (who are my #1 show regarding their sports opinions) can go for 2 years saying they refuse to bring up the topic of Scot's drinking, but then the minute Cooley mentions it, they go all in on the speculation. It was just disgusting to listen to and I had to turn it off and start playing Motown music. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

5 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Jessica McCloughan posted this on twitter, then deleted it:

 

"Interesting....Scot hasn't seen Cooley face-to-face since he said that on the radio ?"

 

 

 

Either Cooley will verify her deleted tweet, verify Allen's comment or remain silent--although I don't see that last being the case, as I'm positive he'll be asked about it.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

5 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Jessica McCloughan posted this on twitter, then deleted it:

 

"Interesting....Scot hasn't seen Cooley face-to-face since he said that on the radio ?"

 

 

 

She followed up:

 

I deleted it cause I couldn't edit it. I thought it was important to add that they have not had a Convo/spoke/had a sit down etc

 

Scot hasn't seen Cooley face-to-face OR had a conversation with Cooley about it since he said it on the radio

[Wyvern]

Sorry, i'm not changing my mind about Allen now.

 

Moreover, I'm not buying Bruce Allen's narrative as he attempts to deflect attention away from his role in this whole sordid matter -- by claiming he was simply being 'judicious and restrained' in his reactions to all the endless media speculation out there.  At best, his was a slick but evasive answer --and maybe not entirely truthful either.

 

One of  my takeaways from the Liz Clarke article (granted that part was from 'anonymous NFL executives'), is that Allen can --and has-- resorted to this kind of tactic, as part of his climb up the ladder, or his fighting off other challengers to his power.  Even so, I'll concede that Allen can be very smooth, and personable, and even effectively vague when he wants to be -- and Clarke article gave testimony to how he can be personable and entertaining.  

 

However, my impression from observing Allen's words and actions during his tenure with the Skins ... is that what you see, is NOT what you get.  Moreover, I get the sense I've run across Allen's type of person before, especially where I work  -- and I've never cared for that type.  Outside of exchanging superficial pleasantries (which they excel at) I have always tried to give these types as wide a berth if possible  -- and tried to avoid working on any projects with them.

 

IMHO, Allen is smooth enough (and tough enough) to swim in the shark-infested waters of today's NFL executive environment, and savvy enough to remain on Snyder's good side.  But he's a grade "C-" level of NFL GM (generously perhaps up to B-)  particularly when it comes to understanding NFL level talent and systems.  And this weakness is exacerbated by Allen's first instinct to be too 'frugal', whenever real opportunities should happen to drop into his lap.

 

But Bruce has frequently been bailed out of these shortcomings as a GM, by the fact that he is capable of finding people who can make up for his deficiencies, being him being able to convince them to join him, and then him using those people for all they're worth.  But even so, whoever Allen does bring onboard, had better know their place, and not encroach on whatever Allen perceives as his domain/standing; lest Allen & Co. take action against them.

 

Maybe after Vinny, Bruce seems 'good enough' for most Skins fans. So perhaps they'll can be happy with whatever quasi-GM,  "cooperative" coaches, and bargain-bin FAs Allen keeps on board.  But those Skins fans should also be prepared to live with long term trend of less than exceptional talent brought in for the Redskins.  Lastly, fans should also prepare themselves for possible future episodes where new Skins employees wind up getting the McCloughan treatment, because they didn't figure out what Allen really meant by 'playing ball' for the Redskins.

 

PS: On a side note -- I wish that during some future press conference, one of the media types ask Allen ..."why on earth does the new Redskins football stadium need a moat?"   It would be great to see, because I wonder if Allen could even give a straight answer to that kind of question!

[Califan007 The Constipated]

7 minutes ago, Wyvern said:

PS: One day,  I just wish one of the media types would ask Allen, why on earth does TH e new Redskins football needs a most? 

 

I want the media to ask him that question literally as you wrote it lol....

[Wyvern]

?. LOL,..... I didn't get around to editing yet.  Will fix it.

 

[Many minutes later....].   There, I've finished my edits!  Hopefully, it reads more clearly now.

[Thinking Skins]

4 hours ago, Wyvern said:

Sorry, i'm not changing my mind about Allen now.

 

Moreover, I'm not buying Bruce Allen's narrative as he attempts to deflect attention away from his role in this whole sordid matter -- by claiming he was simply being 'judicious and restrained' in his reactions to all the endless media speculation out there.  At best, his was a slick but evasive answer --and maybe not entirely truthful either.

 

One of  my takeaways from the Liz Clarke article (granted that part was from 'anonymous NFL executives'), is that Allen can --and has-- resorted to this kind of tactic, as part of his climb up the ladder, or his fighting off other challengers to his power.  Even so, I'll concede that Allen can be very smooth, and personable, and even effectively vague when he wants to be -- and Clarke article gave testimony to how he can be personable and entertaining.  

 

 

I understand this and really wish we had details on what went down in the past. Off the top of my head I can think of the Sapp, Derrick Brooks, and Hardy Nickerson contracts with the Bucks, add to that the Ronde Barber contract. Sapp went to Oakland. I think Nickerson left before Allen got there and Barber and Brooks retired as Bucks. There was the Shanny stuff but from my recollection fans for the most part thought it was between RG3 and Shanny or Shanny and Haslett. Was Bruce a major player in that? I wonder about Oakland in the same way because when he was there (with older Gruden) they went to the SB. He was there for a while so maybe he threw some people under the bus to get to the assist GM role or whatever his title was, but I don't know. 

 

Without the evidence it seems like a hollow argument. I'm not saying he's a saint but I've let go of guys on my team for not producing quality work. Their rebuttals have always been that I didn't like them or to insult my character but it really has been business decisions. I've never had to let somebody go for drinking too much on the job (I've been with some co-workers who were let go for such a reason, but I didn't make the decision). But its easy to look at my career in hindsight, especially from the position of one of the people who I let go, or one of the people who was working alongside me who was let go and say I got ahead because I "sucked up" or maybe somebody would think I ratted them out to get ahead, but without evidence its nothing. And whats more is that it undermines the hard word that I have done to get where I am.

 

A better example is consider Kirk Cousins. How did he get to be the starting QB for the Skins? Did he plant a chip in RG3's head and make him say those things? Did he make RG3 forget how to scramble or how to drop back? Did he take control of RG3 and make him hate the read option system? I don't think so, but replacing Bruce Allen with Kirk Cousins some of these same statements could be used to say that Kirk was the invisible hand behind ruining RG3's career - just to get himself into a starting position. As crazy as that sounds is how crazy the Bruce talk sounds to me without people walking me through things he did to make him this monster. 

 

I don't know Bruce's story but I wish we knew more about these incidents and the invisible hand leaving no fingerprints. Like did Bruce tell her that or was it just a clever thing to put into the article to make people think that the invisible hand belongs to Bruce? What I'm waiting for is Scot's father and brother, who are supposedly close to Bruce to say something to somebody. If Bruce really did Scot wrong then these two are not going to be anywhere near as close to Bruce now as they were then. And Bruce talks about them like they're family. So I'm patiently waiting to see what the next domino to fall will be. 

[Thinking Skins]

5 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

She followed up:

 

I deleted it cause I couldn't edit it. I thought it was important to add that they have not had a Convo/spoke/had a sit down etc

 

Scot hasn't seen Cooley face-to-face OR had a conversation with Cooley about it since he said it on the radio

 

I don't get this. Is Scot talking through his wife? Why doesn't he just say something and clear the air one way or another rather than just going through third parties and leaving so many questions unanswered. If he was sworn to silence, but his wife wasn't why not let her say more than a bunch of obscure tweets and pictures? FIle a freaking lawsuit if you feel you were wronged. Do a 60 minutes interview. Call in to one of the sports radio shows. Shoot, call in to Cooley's show and give him a tongue lashing then everybody else who was talking about how they knew you were back on the sauce. It was one thing when nobody knew where you were and nobody had spoken to you, but now your wife is tweeting every time your name is mentioned - just come out of your front door and say something. 

[Thinking Skins]

Here's an article on Bruce from Tampa 2004:

 

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2004/09/22/criticism-hits-gruden-like-hurricane-in-tampa/

 

Together, they conspired to dump John Lynch and Warren Sapp, sign ex-Raiders Charlie Garner, Matt Stinchcomb, Darrell Russell (later released) and Tim Brown, deny assistant coaches opportunities for promotions and generally annoy the local media at every turn.

 

...

 

The Raiders have moved on without them, but in weather-ravaged Florida they may as well be Hurricane Chucky and Hurricane Bruce, blowing away the days of McKay-Tony Dungy civility and replacing it with the twin forces of duplicity and double talk.

 

...

 

Tampa ownership moved quickly and requested permission to speak to Allen once the 2003 regular season was over. Allen interviewed with the Washington Redskins in 2001 and returned without accepting a job.

 

...

 

Allen regards bad press as little more than an annoyance. He forges ahead alongside Gruden, secure in the knowledge their approval rating is directly proportional to their won-loss record.

[skinsfan212689]

I'm willing to bet Scot did something to make this separation happen. And it wasnt any bs about Bruce being jealous. 

[RedskinsMayne]

Is that picture of scot walking the dog in a redskins uniform takin after he was **** canned...  If so there has got to be serous mental illness going on.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

45 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I don't get this. Is Scot talking through his wife? Why doesn't he just say something and clear the air one way or another rather than just going through third parties and leaving so many questions unanswered. If he was sworn to silence, but his wife wasn't why not let her say more than a bunch of obscure tweets and pictures? FIle a freaking lawsuit if you feel you were wronged. Do a 60 minutes interview. Call in to one of the sports radio shows. Shoot, call in to Cooley's show and give him a tongue lashing then everybody else who was talking about how they knew you were back on the sauce. It was one thing when nobody knew where you were and nobody had spoken to you, but now your wife is tweeting every time your name is mentioned - just come out of your front door and say something. 

 

Someone on twitter responded to her and said she was basically making Scot damn near unhireable with her actions. I gotta say, I agree. Because no team President or owner is saying to themselves "Wow, looks like Bruce lied"...if anything, they will be saying "Good lord, if we hire this guy not only do we have to possibly deal with his issues, we'll have to deal with her, too". You think other teams will be concerned about her tweeting out behind-the-scenes stuff after they part ways with McCloughan? And she has already set herself up as someone who will tweet without thinking with that whole Russini "oral sex for insider info" charge halfway thru Scot's first year here.

 

Worst part is, she didn't need to say anything...you think the meeting Allen claims he had with Cooley was to congratulate him on guessing correctly? lol...Not to mention, Cooley had already been extremely vocal and forceful later saying that he was not given any info from anyone on the team, that his speculation was simply one of many possible scenarios he put out there, and that he purposefully does not talk to team connections as much as he could because he wants to go on his show and speculate as a fan and former player without considering anything anyone has told him. I mean, he pretty much pleaded the case FOR Scot, or at least for not reading anything whatsoever into his speculations. So there wasn't anything for Scot's wife to spin or any damage control for her to worry about.

 

 

18 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

Is that picture of scot walking the dog in a redskins uniform takin after he was **** canned...  If so there has got to be serous mental illness going on.

 

It was before he was fired, but after he was told to stay home and not attend the combine. However, there was a pic on twitter that his wife posted of them together weeks after he was fired, and he was still wearing Skins gear (at least a Redskins cap).

[Momma There Goes That Man]

9 hours ago, Wyvern said:

?. LOL,..... I didn't get around to editing yet.  Will fix it.

 

[Many minutes later....].   There, I've finished my edits!  Hopefully, it reads more clearly now.

Why does it need a moat?

 

In any facet of life, if the question is "should I have a moat?" the answer is always "Yes!" 

 

The "why" is meaningless 

[Wyvern]

Maybe the question should be... "If your new stadium needs a moat around it, why didn't you also have drawbridges instead of regular bridges?"  

 

Otherwise, the mobs of angry fans will still be able to cross and storm the castle, err, stadium.

[Probos]

On 4/22/2017 at 11:04 PM, skinsfan212689 said:

I'm willing to bet Scot did something to make this separation happen. And it wasnt any bs about Bruce being jealous. 

 

Doesn't matter that you're willing to "bet".  It's all speculation.  No one on this board knows any of the details of the situation between Bruce and Scot.  You choose to support the FO of the team.

 

That situation/debacle is over and done with -- time to move on.

[FrFan]

On 23/4/2017 at 4:46 AM, Thinking Skins said:

 just come out of your front door and say something. 

Revenge is a dish best served cold