carex Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 as far as I'm concerned if SM is having personal problems then the Skins are treating him pretty well and I say good fr them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, jschuck12001 said: I'm having trouble buying into the fact that Bruce and Dan are pushing Scott out of the organization for no reason. He's only had 2 seasons and that's not enough to build a team, also it makes Bruce look bad for making the hire. Something has to be going on, all the speculation that its ego's and this and that just don't make sense for grown men who run a billion dollar corporation. Where is Wikileaks when you need them? Eventually somebody's gonna have to speak and say something worthwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Bob Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/03/08/redskins-gm-scot-mccloughan-has-no-role-in-current-free-agency-decision-making/?utm_term=.c2e05d84e568 Quote Less than eight weeks before the upcoming NFL draft, Washington Redskins General Manager Scot McCloughan is playing no role in decision-making related to the team’s roster, according to a person with knowledge of the workings at Redskins Park. Moreover, McCloughan’s agent, Peter Schaffer, is to meet soon with Redskins officials about his client’s status, according to a report by ESPN’s John Keim. McCloughan was not part of the Redskins delegation at last week’s NFL Scouting Combine, the most significant offseason gathering for the league’s front-office executives to evaluate the top 300-plus college prospect in advance of the upcoming NFL draft, scheduled for April 27-29. McCloughan has not been in the office this week, as the NFL’s window for free-agent negotiations opened Tuesday. According to individuals close to the discussions, the Redskins have had internal talks about how to proceed if McCloughan is relieved of his duties. If they indeed part with McCloughan, they’re barred from hiring any currently employed NFL general manager because of the league’s tampering rules. That would leave them with limited short-term options. Among them: coaxing back A.J. Smith, a former front-office consultant who held the title of senior executive and retired two months after McCloughan was hired, for an interim period. Smith, 68, boasts more than 30 years’ NFL experience and spent a decade as executive vice president/general manager of the San Diego Chargers. Disfunction Junction what's your function? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 9 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said: I'm not seeing anyone assuming they know anything, just speculation and hunches based on the information we have. Sure, technically the information we have is rumors but when it's coming from everywhere, including reputable folks, it's safe to say that one thing is for certain...the statement from the team is BS. Then you end with "one thing is for certain" - sounds like you feel you know something. All we know is he is not there. Anything is speculation. Why say you are certain the team's minimalist statement is BS? They just said he is not there due to family issues. That could be true and there could be other issues. How is that BS? What's worse is you singled one person out just because they are not ready to jump off a cliff with the rest. And before you say you didn't, here is your quote: "If by "you and others won't accept that", you mean everyone on the earth but you - Ok." That was not necessary. Nothing wrong with waiting for facts before deciding what has or has not happened. That's all they were saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 1 hour ago, dyst said: With any other team this would be true but with this team, I always side in the side of "yep they probably ****ed up" and then I wait for them to prove me wrong. Been right more often then not doing it this way with Snyder in charge. I get that... trust me, I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatteredFanSyndrome Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 I'm curious how you expect us to ever really get the facts. What we will get is different sides of the story from each party through different outlets. The only thing I'm deciding has happened at this point is that there is turmoil. I don't think that's speculation given the mounting pile of rumors that support that. Assigning blame for the turmoil is indeed speculation and we will always be left to speculate about it because there is no definitive way to obtain the facts the few of you are waiting on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Well, they didnt put his business in the street, but I think if it weren't for the timing of the draft, he'd probably be out already though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Nevermind, already posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Well. It's official. The NFL Network just called us a "dysfunctional dumpster fire". Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 32- Browns 31.5- Redskins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 @BatteredFanSyndrome I see three potential outcomes, I will list them in order of likelihood as I see it while reserving the right to change my mind with new info ( ) 1 - Scott returns to the park, we never hear anything from the organization other than: family matters 2 - Scott is fired officially in the near future. In which case there will be rumors and we'll get tidbits like 'difference in opinion/direction' from the team but nothing more 3 - Scott lives out the remainder of his contract never being seen at the facilities/games again, and who knows what we find out. But, presently, picking one (much less the details of one), is speculation. As is assuming there's turmoil. You might not like that, but it is speculation nonetheless. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're speculating and because it's drug on the speculation is feeding itself and growing bigger, winding everyone up. It is impossible to ignore the history, specifically of the owner, and thinks like the cousins' situation compound it further. I realize that. Doesn't really change what the current situation is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desertbeagle85 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 8 minutes ago, clskinsfan said: Well. It's official. The NFL Network just called us a "dysfunctional dumpster fire". Unbelievable. Well can you really disagree with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 10 minutes ago, clskinsfan said: Well. It's official. The NFL Network just called us a "dysfunctional dumpster fire". Unbelievable. What's official? Macs gone? Sorry, hectic 24 hours so I'm catching up. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Just now, Gibbs Hog Heaven said: What's official? Macs gone? Sorry, hectic 24 hours so I'm catching up. Hail. Was being sarcastic....Although they did just say it while talking about Kirk wanting to leave. I really cant believe they said it to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 I swear you all secretly love drama and turmoil. Can't think of any other reason why so many fans continually fall hook, line, and sinker for the same media-driven nonsense over and over. Why would Bruce force out the GM over control issues when he hired him in the first place? Applying logic tells you that the GM has a track record of leaving teams and that track record has caught up here. If anything the team is not dysfunctional because they themselves have kept Scot's business private, handling it behind closed doors, and they have people doing combine, free agency, etc. following same plan even without Scot. And that's even IF Scot is fired/leaves team. We don't know any of that yet, but people are still freaking out. If you all keep taking the bait, the locals are going to keep putting it on the lure. Me? I'll actually wait until things actually happen before passing judgement. It's just football afterall. It's a game, not something that should take over your life to the point you freak out over every little negative bit of speculation thrown out there. Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 One of many possibilities: Sm is making a scene with the execs over not signing cousins and it came to him being sent home until the deal is done Scene could be being overly angry that they haven't signed him yet, or that they're still trying to. Maybe he has a trade lined up and they won't let him pull the trigger Maybe he knows he can't get the FA's he wants until they sign him, so he's making a deal of it. Who knows? The media's been speculating for over a year who it is in the organization that didn't want cousins signed. At one point it was snyder/allen not wanting him and sm/gruden wanting him. At another it was sm being the one who didn't want him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Just now, clskinsfan said: Was being sarcastic....Although they did just say it while talking about Kirk wanting to leave. I really cant believe they said it to be honest. Only being truthful. Could think of a lot worse terms to describe this ongoing ****show. Kirk a strong probability to move on? Darn. I wish Romo wasn't a man of his word or he'd be a perfect replacement the interim. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, desertbeagle85 said: Well can you really disagree with them? Yes. I dont think we are dysfunctional. I think we had a GM and team president that had an issue. I also think that GM has a drinking problem and needed to get some help. Letting two over 30 WR's leave for the ridiculous money they are getting isnt dysfunctional. Franchising a QB you want to keep isnt dysfunctional. Even if the guy doesnt want to be here. The team is functioning fine as far as what I am seeing. But the media has to go on rants and blow EVERYTHING out of proportion. Along with the majority of our fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desertbeagle85 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, clskinsfan said: Yes. I dont think we are dysfunctional. I think we had a GM and team president that had an issue. I also think that GM has a drinking problem and needed to get some help. Letting two over 30 WR's leave for the ridiculous money they are getting isnt dysfunctional. Franchising a QB you want to keep isnt dysfunctional. Even if the guy doesnt want to be here. The team is functioning fine as far as what I am seeing. But the media has to go on rants and blow EVERYTHING out of proportion. Along with the majority of our fans. Really Well that's your opinion The 20+ years of failure is why I agree with them. GM Scot is just one chapter in the story that is the Washington Redkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcaniac Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 If Scot has had a relapse, then what the Redskins are saying is the only thing that they are able to legally say. The HIPAA rules say that without Scot's okay, the team cannot release any medical information about him, and a relapse from substance abuse would fall under the guidelines of "medical information". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 7 minutes ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said: Only being truthful. Could think of a lot worse terms to describe this ongoing ****show. Kirk a strong probability to move on? Darn. I wish Romo wasn't a man of his word or he'd be a perfect replacement the interim. Hail. I dont think Kirk is going anywhere. In a rare instance it appears I am agreeing with Jason La Canfora about something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I'm not sure when this pic was taken but that is not a healthy look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Lol...Dude looks like he's holding his breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar1156 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Some bombshells in here. Bruce Allen and Snyder can go F themselves. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/03/08/redskins-gm-scot-mccloughan-has-no-role-in-current-free-agency-decision-making/?utm_term=.9b76fca8c0fb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRagone Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 13 minutes ago, elkabong82 said: Why would Bruce force out the GM over control issues when he hired him in the first place? Applying logic tells you that the GM has a track record of leaving teams and that track record has caught up here. If anything the team is not dysfunctional because they themselves have kept Scot's business private, handling it behind closed doors, and they have people doing combine, free agency, etc. following same plan even without Scot. Yes, McCloughan has a history of leaving teams or being let go from teams because of substance abuse issues. However, lets not pretend he's the only person in this equation with a history? Why would a team force out a coach that they hire one/two years earlier...something this team has done multiple times before. Not to mention, this team has a track record of attempting to take actions and/or leak information in the apparent hopes of embarrassing/neutering an employee to the point where they may quit rather than having to fire them and thus pay out their contract. I absolutely get why some people believe the notion that this is ENTIRELY just about McCloughan getting back heavily into the sauce. However, what I don't get is this attitude that's somehow the only option, and that the notion that the front office/team is either the primary, or partially, also the cause of the problem is somehow illogical or crazy. For every bit of history Scot McCloughan has to point to this being his problem, there's nearly equal history to point to this organization being the/part of the problem as well. That's why I think ultimately...the speculation until we get some more concrete stuff is rather useless, but IF we're going to speculate, the reality is that it's probably going to be something between what the McCloughan camp seems to be leaking (that it's primarily an issue between him and the front office) and what the team seems to be leaking (that it's primarily an issue with McCloughan and too much glug glug glug). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.