pcbothwel Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 9 minutes ago, clskinsfan said: In the ultimate twist I cant help but wonder if the Danny and Allen hired Mccloughan just for this moment? You try to appease the fans by hiring a "real" GM. But one with serious drinking issues. So when you are done with him you can blame his issues on the problems you are facing now and assume control back with the backing of those said fans. There is no way even the piece of trash that is Snyder could be that devious. Right? Doubt it. I actually think the opposite. They may have been in regret after the first offseason, but knowing the turbulent history with Cerrato, Shanny, and then RG3, they didnt want to look too quick to pull the plug. I think they were well aware of the National media killing them over the years and finally received praise for the GMSM signing... They really wanted it to work, but it hasnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsPassion4Life Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Again, if this was about a power struggle; why not fire him after the season? Why did they tell him to stop speaking and to go away for a while? Wait..let me guess...Bruce told Scot to go away and not come back until he admits that Bruce is his master Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zCommander Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 16 minutes ago, PigskinPhat said: President of the Redskins for 8 freaking years! You fired your GM knowing his background. Ummm... you mean, "You HIRED your GM knowing his background!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 23 minutes ago, lavar1156 said: Scot should not have been drinking on the job. But the power struggle and the way this was handled is total BS. What power struggle? Anyone who's been terminated will tell you the process. 1. Suspension/paid leave 2. Investigation 3. The bosses tell you your fate. Sure, they lied to the public to not embarrass Scot, but I didn't see any power struggle. Just an employee on his way to getting fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Just now, SkinsPassion4Life said: Again, if this was about a power struggle; why not fire him after the season? Why did they tell him to stop speaking and to go away for a while? Wait..let me guess...Bruce told Scot to go away and not come back until he admits that Bruce is his master Getting his opinion on college players for purposes of building a board would be useful. Also, from listening to lots of reporters, it's common practice to try and hold onto scouts until post-draft, so that they can't go to another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 I appreciate the replies to my insane post. I love getting the thoughts from the rest of my Skins fan brothers. That is what makes this board great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsPassion4Life Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Just now, DogofWar1 said: Getting his opinion on college players for purposes of building a board would be useful. Also, from listening to lots of reporters, it's common practice to try and hold onto scouts until post-draft, so that they can't go to another team. That could be true...then why not let him go to the combine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre The Giant Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 1 minute ago, DM72 said: What power struggle? Anyone who's been terminated will tell you the process. 1. Suspension/paid leave 2. Investigation 3. The bosses tell you your fate. Sure, they lied to the public to not embarrass Scot, but I didn't see any power struggle. Just an employee on his way to getting fired. They also didn't want to embarrass the organization. Maybe they would've kept it under raps, but yesterday's Post and JLC power struggle stories worked the fan base into today's wrath. They likely decided that releasing the info. to the Post now (combined with the firing) made the most sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Dan SteinbergVerified account @dcsportsbog 33m33 minutes ago More Yiiiiiikes http://www.richmond.com/redskins-xtra/woody-redskins-risk-in-hiring-scot-mccloughan-has-no-reward/article_d579cd9e-4e45-5951-ac27-73c58e4ffa85.html … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 1 minute ago, SkinsPassion4Life said: That could be true...then why not let him go to the combine? Boards usually are mostly set by the time people get to the combine because all the games are over, and game tape is like 80-90% of a player's ranking. Combine performance and interviews help at the fringes. Or at least it *should* help at the fringes, though of course every year a few teams buy into the "combine warrior" hype, or alternatively, sell a player based on a low 40 or something. But for most scouts, I think the combine is meant to confirm what they've seen on tape, and that can be done by just watching combine tape or looking at the numbers, usually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsPassion4Life Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Just now, DogofWar1 said: Boards usually are mostly set by the time people get to the combine because all the games are over, and game tape is like 80-90% of a player's ranking. Combine performance and interviews help at the fringes. Or at least it *should* help at the fringes, though of course every year a few teams buy into the "combine warrior" hype, or alternatively, sell a player based on a low 40 or something. But for most scouts, I think the combine is meant to confirm what they've seen on tape, and that can be done by just watching combine tape or looking at the numbers, usually. So they wanted to keep him around for the Senior Bowl, but not the combine? not buying it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, elkabong82 said: Dan SteinbergVerified account @dcsportsbog 33m33 minutes ago More Yiiiiiikes http://www.richmond.com/redskins-xtra/woody-redskins-risk-in-hiring-scot-mccloughan-has-no-reward/article_d579cd9e-4e45-5951-ac27-73c58e4ffa85.html … Thats what i saw in those pics. Hearsay and slanted articles is one thing. Ive seen that kinda face before, and that was on people who hit that hard stuff like Hank Aaron. Honestly i feel incredibly stupid in all of this. Been like trying to figure out the plot in an M Night Shyamalan movie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Just now, SkinsPassion4Life said: So they wanted to keep him around for the Senior Bowl, but not the combine? not buying it He walked out of the building to pout. They asked him to stay away. Then he went on the record with reporters about his grandmother as the excuse for missing the combine after he was told not to speak to the press. Finally his wife posted the ring pic on twitter after her previous twitter fiasco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said: So they wanted to keep him around for the Senior Bowl, but not the combine? not buying it People are in pads for the Senior Bowl. It's similar to game tape. Great data to be gathered. Shorts and t-shirts for the combine. Good data, but not as good as you'll get from watching guys in pads. There are tons of people who run fast and look crisp in shorts and t-shirts and then look unfit for the Arena Football League when in pads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Bruce should've never hired Scott in the first place. What Dan needs to do is fire Bruce and hire a real GM to run the whole thing. Scott was nothing more band-aid con job on the fans. If it's true he was sinking back into the depths of his alcoholism; why on earth would you have kept him on the team during the offseason. If he truely went off the wagon; then he should've been dismissed when the problem showed itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 24 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said: Thats what i saw in those pics. Hearsay and slanted articles is one thing. Ive seen that kinda face before, and that was on people who hit that hard stuff like Hank Aaron. Honestly i feel incredibly stupid in all of this. Been like trying to figure out the plot in an M Night Shyamalan movie The plot twist here is that the monsters weren't really monsters at all? lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, Califan007 said: The plot twist here is that the monsters weren't really monsters at all? lol... Yeah, and we all died as a result of the hallucinations. You and elkabong would be the only ones left alive in the end to finally discover the truth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said: Yeah, and we all died as a result of the hallucinations. You and elkabong would be the only ones left alive in the end to finally discover the truth... Only it turns out that elkabong was one of my split personalities lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kleese Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 People are being too hard on Allen/Snyder here. They knew they needed a football mind in the house. One of the best was available. He was available because he couldn't shake his demons. Snyder/Allen rolled the dice that he would get right. Maybe they even made the mistake of thinking perhaps Scot could drink, but only to a level that didn't effect his performance. Perhaps they began to notice the problem arising but also liked the results the employee was producing so they looked the other way. Or maybe they sat him down and told him to chill. Maybe they hoped he would get himself right. Sent him home to get him away from the situation. Perhaps it became clear it wasn't going to change so they had to pull the plug. And at no point did they throw him under the bus. That is actually commendable. I am sorry if what I am about to say offends anyone. But it is truly how I feel: If you are planning to protest the Redskins or turn in your fan card over THIS.... You are being ridiculous. Ridiculous and stupid to be frank. You are making your decisions based on unknowns. We don't really know what is true and what is not. If anyone here can prove for sure the Redskins fired Scot merely over a power struggle and that he is in fact not drinking, then please present those facts here and I will apologize to you for what I just wrote. If you want to rip them for giving an alcoholic another chance; then go for it. But firing an employee for consistently drinking on the job and/or allowing personal issues to flood into work is absolutely the reasonable/right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShredSkins Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 38 minutes ago, DM72 said: What power struggle? Anyone who's been terminated will tell you the process. 1. Suspension/paid leave 2. Investigation 3. The bosses tell you your fate. Sure, they lied to the public to not embarrass Scot, but I didn't see any power struggle. Just an employee on his way to getting fired. Great point. Plus as an employer you cannot talk about it. I'd also add from experience...sometimes you have someone very respected and very good at their job, and you do everything to help them but there's a line or breaking point when you have to let them go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 12 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said: Bruce should've never hired Scott in the first place. What Dan needs to do is fire Bruce and hire a real GM to run the whole thing. Scott was nothing more band-aid con job on the fans. If it's true he was sinking back into the depths of his alcoholism; why on earth would you have kept him on the team during the offseason. If he truely went off the wagon; then he should've been dismissed when the problem showed itself. Probably knew the **** storm that would come with it, and tried their damndest to cover it up. And of course, the Skins suck at cover-ups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins199021 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 1 minute ago, kleese said: People are being too hard on Allen/Snyder here. They knew they needed a football mind in the house. One of the best was available. He was available because he couldn't shake his demons. Snyder/Allen rolled the dice that he would get right. Maybe they even made the mistake of thinking perhaps Scot could drink, but only to a level that didn't effect his performance. Perhaps they began to notice the problem arising but also liked the results the employee was producing so they looked the other way. Or maybe they sat him down and told him to chill. Maybe they hoped he would get himself right. Sent him home to get him away from the situation. Perhaps it became clear it wasn't going to change so they had to pull the plug. And at no point did they throw him under the bus. That is actually commendable. I am sorry if what I am about to say offends anyone. But it is truly how I feel: If you are planning to protest the Redskins or turn in your fan card over THIS.... You are being ridiculous. Ridiculous and stupid to be frank. You are making your decisions based on unknowns. We don't really know what is true and what is not. If anyone here can prove for sure the Redskins fired Scot merely over a power struggle and that he is in fact not drinking, then please present those facts here and I will apologize to you for what I just wrote. If you want to rip them for giving an alcoholic another chance; then go for it. But firing an employee for consistently drinking on the job and/or allowing personal issues to flood into work is absolutely the reasonable/right thing to do. What is known is the team.organization has been terrible since Snyder took over, and has been mediocre at best with Allen here, with the best two back to back seasons under either of them being under the influence of the guy they are firing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kleese Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Skins199021 said: What is known is the team.organization has been terrible since Snyder took over, and has been mediocre at best with Allen here, with the best two back to back seasons under either of them being under the influence of the guy they are firing So let's say we find out Scot was indeed drinking consistenly on the job and his problem was getting worse and worse and affecting his performance. Would you advocate keeping him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins199021 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, kleese said: So let's say we find out Scot was indeed drinking consistenly on the job and his problem was getting worse and worse and affecting his performance. Would you advocate keeping him? Yeah, because apparently a drunk can run the team better than Allen and Snyder. Either way its either to piece the puzzle together. I mean first who the hell has a team president and a GM anyways? This was like when Russia had a president and Putin became prime minister at the same time..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heathen Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 5 minutes ago, kleese said: So let's say we find out Scot was indeed drinking consistenly on the job and his problem was getting worse and worse and affecting his performance. Would you advocate keeping him? And let's say we find out he was pushed out due to a power struggle. Would you advocate for Snyder/Allen? If we find out anything either way it's not really the point. Does their track record make you think they reallly did make the right moves here? Is the glaring issue with GM we have had for years and years ok or inspiring confidence? Even if it's the right call in a vacuum the context around all of it matters. It's a constant circus. Over and over and over again. It's not fun, there's no real enjoyment, and I don't see any indications we are heading in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.