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

[Tsailand]

35 minutes ago, JPG said:

Maybe some of that winning credit goes to the QB who set back to back Team records? idk?

 

True enough.  The QB that Dan and Bruce didn't want to draft, didn't want to start, and don't want to sign long term.

[Rattlesnake88]

9 minutes ago, tomwvr said:

edited it meant to say Crowder - sorry

 

and Smith and Jones were average and Fuller was awful last year.

Smith was borderline DROTY candidate second half of 2015 and splashed here and there in 2016. Matt Jones had several big games for us15 and 16 (not enough for 3rd round grade, I agree). Fuller had the unfortunate job of being put in man coverage in the nickle with some of the best(first game he was really exposed was vs Diggs) in his rookie season. He is more of an outside corner and he was recovering from a serious injury at VT. Fuller still has potential to be solid CB in the NFL.

 

plus you missed Cravens all-together lol

[Conn]

We are finding out that we can't even necessarily trust "whose guys" are even on this roster. We have no idea. Anything we think we can attribute to Scot...some reporters are saying its basically been a charade for over a year while they tried to let him get his **** straight, and he didn't. Which means we haven't actually been getting the Scot McCloughan Experience, whatever that might have been. We never got the GM we thought we had, it seems. At least not past the first 6 months. Our whole view of the FO is corrupted. How long has it already been the Allen/Gruden/Doug/etc. show? Sounds like quite a while.

[JPG]

5 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

True enough.  The QB that Dan and Bruce didn't want to draft, didn't want to start, and don't want to sign long term.

 

Which is what people need to re focus on. If we lose Cousins and he does even what trent green or brad Johnson did to us then it again shows that we are bunch of idiots for supporting this garbage. Cousins might go on to be more successful than both of those examples. He might not.

[Tarpon75]

44 minutes ago, Stoox said:

 

It's not about inside info. It's about common sense.

 

SM was drinking before he got here. He never stopped when he got hired. He admitted he was drinking. Snyderallen knew. They did nothing. This went on for 2 years.

 

And now all of a sudden in mid-Feb the drinking magically became a problem? Not a chance.

 

The drinking was a way to get him out, not the reason to get him out. And if it wasn't the drinking, then the reason was a power struggle due to competing views/agendas.

 

Besides, this is not about the booze. The booze never hindered SM's performance. He's a high functioning alcoholic. 

 

This is Bruce Allen telling SM he had power over the roster to entice him to join the org - and then telling the world SM has final roster say. Subsequently BA either did not grant it, or gradually encroached on it. As a result, SM got angry, because roster control was a major condition of his employment (see his first news conference).

 

Just Bruce and Dan back to their old habits...

 

 

Never hindered his performance?He apparently lost 2 previous jobs because of drinking.It's all conjecture at this point,I would venture it's somewhere in between with both parties having some responsibility for the failed relationship.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Dan Steinberg‏Verified account @dcsportsbog

@blueberriesgood why is what bad? A GM smelling like alcohol on the practice field? Dunno

[Conn]

49 minutes ago, Stoox said:

Besides, this is not about the booze. The booze never hindered SM's performance. He's a high functioning alcoholic. 

 

How can you say this with any certainty at all? We're now hearing from reporters on both sides of this that Scot hasn't had power going back quite a long time, and that its basically been a charade (him still having the GM title) while they gave him a chance to get his **** together. He didn't, apparently.

 

Sounds to me like it hindered his performance plenty. You can't just write off all these anecdotes and quotes coming out from players and reporters, right? I'm finding it difficult to do that. Its all starting to slowly add up.

 

Idk. Still plenty of reports of players, coaches, and scouts around the league supporting Scot in this and calling bull**** on the Redskins...but nobody knows what went down in the last year or so and some of these stories coming out...come on, nobody has the balls to make this **** up.

[tomwvr]

13 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Why are we judging draft classes before year 3 and using them as an excuse to hate on Scot?

 

You can judge draft classes at lots of different points, but the ratings that actually correlate strongly with how good a class actually is start around the end of year 3.  Lots of players that could rise or fall.

 

Generally speaking you want 3 starters per draft, and a couple special teamers/backups to go with them.  I see the potential for that from both classes.  Scherff, Smith, and Crowder from 2015 could be 1, 2, 3 right there.  Rest is gravy.

 

2016 is gonna be tougher, but that's in part because we were stockpiling for THIS year.  3 picks in top 4 rounds in 2016 versus 5 in 2015 (and 5 again this year).  Still, if Doctson heals and Fuller develops, we'll probably hit 3, with Cravens filling at least some role on defense decently.

 

Here are the draft picks with Allen as GM 

 

1	4	4	Trent Williams	OT	Oklahoma
4	5	103	Perry Riley	LB	Louisiana State
6	5	174	Dennis Morris	TE	Louisiana Tech
7	12	219	Terrence Austin	WR	UCLA
7	22	229	Erik Cook	G	New Mexico
7	24	231	Selvish Capers	OT	West Virginia

2011 Draft[edit]

Round	Pick	Overall	Name	Position	College
1	16	16	Ryan Kerrigan	DE	Purdue
2	9	41	Jarvis Jenkins	DT	Clemson
3	15	79	Leonard Hankerson	WR	Miami (FL)
4	8	105	Roy Helu	RB	Nebraska
5	15	146	DeJon Gomes	S	Nebraska
5	24	155	Niles Paul	WR	Nebraska
6	12	177	Evan Royster	RB	Penn State
6	13	178	Aldrick Robinson	WR	Southern Methodist
7	10	213	Brandyn Thompson	CB	Boise State
7	14	217	Maurice Hurt	OT	Florida
7	21	224	Markus White	DE	Florida State
7	50	253	Chris Neild	DT	West Virginia

2012 Draft

Round	Pick	Overall	Name	Position	College
1	2	2	Robert Griffin III	QB	Baylor
3	8	71	Josh LeRibeus	OG	Southern Methodist
4	7	102	Kirk Cousins	QB	Michigan State
4	24	119	Keenan Robinson	LB	Texas
5	6	141	Adam Gettis	OG	Iowa
6	3	173	Alfred Morris	RB	Florida Atlantic
6	23	193	Tom Compton	OT	South Dakota
7	6	213	Richard Crawford	CB	Southern Methodist
7	10	217	Jordan Bernstine	S	Iowa

2013 Draft

Round	Pick	Overall	Name	Position	College
2	19	51	David Amerson	CB	North Carolina State
3	23	85	Jordan Reed	TE	Florida
4	22	119	Phillip Thomas	S	Fresno State
5	21	154	Chris Thompson	RB	Florida State
5	29	162	Brandon Jenkins	DE	Florida State
6	23	191	Bacarri Rambo	S	Georgia
7	22	228	Jawan Jamison	RB	Rutgers

2014 Draft[edit]

Round	Pick	Overall	Name	Position	College
2	15	47	Trent Murphy	LB	Stanford
3	2	66	Morgan Moses	OT	Virginia
3	14	78	Spencer Long	G	Nebraska
4	2	102	Bashaud Breeland	CB	Clemson
5	2	142	Ryan Grant	WR	Tulane
6	10	186	Lache Seastrunk	RB	Baylor
7	2	217	Ted Bolser	TE	Indiana
7	13	228	Zach Hocker	K	Arkansas

I would say there were on average 3 starters each draft hell 2014 looks to be really good and 2012 was incredible (even if just 1 season) , so were Scotts picks so much better?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

That is some bull**** managerial impotence right here. So you hired a ticking timebomb of a GM... Ok, fine.

 

But you let this **** detonate on the FIRST ****ING DAY OF FREE AGENCY!!!!!!!! Are you ****ting me? Hey I know what would be fun, let's take a look at the calendar and figure out which of the 365 days available to us would be the absolute worst to give the appearance of being an organization in disrepair. ****ing Redskins.

[Conn]

You cannot give Allen credit or blame for drafts while Shanahan was here. That should be obvious. 

[JPG]

2 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

That is some bull**** managerial impotence right here. So you hired a ticking timebomb of a GM... Ok, fine.

 

But you let this **** detonate on the FIRST ****ING DAY OF FREE AGENCY!!!!!!!! Are you ****ting me? Hey I know what would be fun, let's take a look at the calendar and figure out which of the 365 days would be the absolute worst to give off the appearance of an organization in disrepair.

 

I don't even bother posting on here usually. I read all the time but this **** has me typing one handed on my phone as my girl cuts off the circulation to my other arm. She keeps waking up like give it a rest. If Snyder made money on website hits he's probably lining his pockets with all this drama.

[RemoveSnyder]

6 minutes ago, tomwvr said:

Here are the draft picks with Allen as GM 

 

Allen did not run the draft. Especially not even in 2014. 

Do you not remember how Allen himself said that Scott Campbell was in charge of the draft in 2014 and that Morocco Brown was in charge of FA?

 

Allen does contracts, negotiations, controls the money. Therefore controls free agency. 

It turns out Allen can withhold money or open up the purse at his discretion. That is ultimately what influences free agency. 

 

Doesn't matter if McC says: "hey we need Malik Jackson, he's the lynchpin to our offseason efforts, he's the sort of interior d-linemen who can create penetration and works to compliment our already existing pieces ... here, let me show you his hand technique. See the subtle tug-rip move here ..."

If Bruce says ok: "I'll be willing to give him 8 million AAV ..." Malik Jackson ain't gonna be here. Not based on football reasons, based on lawyer, agent, egghead cap, money reasons. 

 

If Brown was anti tagging Orakpo and didn't want to franchise tag him ...

if McC wanted to re-sign Garcon ... because cite football field, football reasons

If McC wanted to re-sign Baker ... because cite football field, football reasons 

If Santos wanted to sign Calais Campbell and would have been willing to augment the payment in order to secure him because ... football reasons 

 

BUT Allen makes the determination how much money to use, thus ultimately can 86 any plan, or any reason, anyone has.  

 

[Rattlesnake88]

3 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

BUT Allen makes the determination how much money to use, thus ultimately can 86 any plan, or any reason, anyone has.  

 

Do you think Dan gives him that much power without conference?

[DogofWar1]

46 minutes ago, tomwvr said:

I would say there were on average 3 starters each draft hell 2014 looks to be really good and 2012 was incredible (even if just 1 season) , so were Scotts picks so much better?

...what?

 

Go through those years again, we do not average 3 per year (and as ConnSKINS points out, Shanahan had a hand in those drafts up through 2013; but also, Scot's service was utilized for 2014 plus Allen said he (Allen) wasn't that involved himself per Monk.  I mean, you hire the guy in 2015 whose service you used in 2014, clearly he had some weight on who got picked in 2014).

 

2010: Williams.  Riley I suppose too but he's regressed terribly.  So that's 2, if generous.

2011: Kerrigan.  That's it.  The rest sorta showed flashes here and there, but the most generous things to say about the rest recently is that Robinson is an okay role playing WR and Niles Paul looked good in 2015.  But for starters, it's 1, with maybe the potential to be 2 if Niles Paul suddenly recovers.

2012: Cousins and Robinson.  I'll throw AlMo in there too because I love the guy, but he's realistically not a starter starter.  At least not on most teams.  But I'll let him have it.  So 3.

2013: Amerson (who we botched coaching of) and Reed.  Thompson...I don't think we can call him a starter, but he's definitely a solid role player.  Eh, screw it, we 2nd round tendered him, so sure, "starter" but I use that term loosely.  So 3.

 

Through 2013, we have 2, 1, 3, and 3, or 2.25 per year.  And mind you, I'm being very generous, giving guys who have regressed (Riley, AlMo) and role players (Thompson) the title of "starter."  If we use a stricter definition, it's more like 1, 1, 2, 2, for an average of 1.5 per year.

 

The hallmark of the Redskins drafts since Snyder took over is that we get starters in the 1st round (as we should) when not picking QBs, and then basically fail miserably everywhere else except for a random pick here and there.  2010 through 2013 isn't that much different.

 

But another BIG part of drafting is also finding backups and role players to go along with your 3 starters.  Guys who play ST, or take 200 snaps on defense to give your 800 snap players rest.  Look at our drafts.  We have almost none of those guys.  So, SO very many of these guys are out of the league or eternally riding benches on different teams year-to-year.  That's a major problem too.

 

Now for 2014: Frankly the jury is still out.  Trent Murphy did decently last year, but he is suspended this year and rumors are he roided up.  How will he hold up?  Moses.  Yes.  Long, maybe yes, maybe no, he wasn't originally penciled in but did start a lot of games.  We'll see.  Breeland, I want him to succeed, but he's been up and down (mostly down last year) after a stellar rookie campaign.  I could see 2014 being as low as 1 starter by year 5 (Moses alone) or as high as 4.  Too much variance to call right now.

 

I will say that we can grade 2014 a little more accurately now, and I'd view it slightly more favorably than not, but it's still close because our "starters" all have concerning flaws, aside from seemingly Moses.

 

 

 

So to answer your question from the top, yes, at least in terms of potential, because again, drafts are still wet.  Scot's picks have the potential to be better (assuming they were Scot's picks).  Scherff, Smith, Crowder.  Jones, the jury is still out.  He's probably got 1 more chance somewhere, but maybe not here.  Kouandjio might only ever be a backup but again, adding backups isn't bad, and he's still young enough to keep developing.  Spaight got a little action too, though again, likely backup.  For the rest, not holding my breath, but on the whole, if we look back in two years, we probably hit the quota, which is more than most years.

 

2016 is WAYYYYY too recent to declare one way or another, but there is a lot of potential there.  Let's look again in 2-4 years.

 

But 2015 is likely going to be our best drafting year since 2010 (and long before because pre-2010 wasn't exactly amazing either), unless all the question marks in 2014 work their stuff out.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

28 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

BUT Allen makes the determination how much money to use, thus ultimately can 86 any plan, or any reason, anyone has.  

 

 

Issues of how to allocate each year's cap isn't done once the GM says he wants "this" player and "that" player. More than likely GMs go into their selections already knowing approximately what can and can not be spent. So if the plan is to not spend more than, say, $12 mil on free agent WRs the GM knows ahead of time that whoever he targets either has to fit within that budget or he has to "stand on the table" to present his case why they need to allocate "x" amount extra.

[RemoveSnyder]

5 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Issues of how to allocate each year's cap isn't done once the GM says he wants "this" player and "that" player. More than likely GMs go into their selections already knowing approximately what can and can not be spent. So if the plan is to not spend more than, say, $12 mil on free agent WRs the GM knows ahead of time that whoever he targets either has to fit within that budget or he has to "stand on the table" to present his case why they need to allocate "x" amount extra.

 

Any planning that is rigid and inflexible will always have cracks in its facade. 

However the figures are determined, it's Allen doing the final determination. 

 

I don't dare doubt Allen gets people to commit on the record to limiting spending, as you write: "$12 mil on free agent WRs," and then damn-well keeps people inside that box. If I had to guess, I would suspect that McC targets a player because of football reasons, not based on predetermined monetary limits.

 

I also suspect that McC probably is/was more flexible, willing to augment contract on the fly, overpay if necessary, in order to secure said player and set the dominos in motion. As player acquisition is largely a symbiotic multi-stage thing. That's just me speaking for myself from my own experience in the amateur realm. 

 

Even if situations shift and alter, to where doing what is actually right, getting the right guy, may cost 12.1 million, if Allen has already predetermined that 12.0 million is the limit, that's the limit. And no one is going to be able to overrule Dad. 

 

He's your GM, warlord, guru. Not mine.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

9 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

Any planning that is rigid and inflexible will always have cracks in its facade. 

However the figures are determined, it's Allen doing the final determination. 

 

I don't dare doubt Allen gets people to commit on the record to limiting spending, as you write: "$12 mil on free agent WRs," and then damn-well keeps people inside that box. If I had to guess, I would suspect that McC targets a player because of football reasons, not based on predetermined monetary limits.

 

 

It's no different for Gruden and Scot (or was for them)...Gruden had final say over which players played, but he didn't have final say over which players he had to choose from...Scot did. (might be why he sounded salty when he said "one was hurt and the other one was a guard"). He had to work within the constraints of what Scot provided him, Scot had to work within the constraints of what Allen provided him. (this is obviously a seriously oversimplified description of course lol...)

[Wildbunny]

So this is it?

Time To nuke the whole thing?

 

Just because the president disagreed with the gm On the way To run the team?

 

Don't see any dysfunction in it. Poor judging skills at best. Bruce made jus move, he's on the Line if this backfire. Especially Kirk's situation. 

 

But honestly it was written from the beginning that Scot wouldn't last. Weirdly our fanbase invested so much emotionally on him being godlike that it's been weird. 

 

There'll be life after this.

[CapsSkins]

Fans clung to Scot as a savior, as a Messiah. And you know what? I was one of them. Guilty.

 

How many of us really knew his scouting ability and vision as opposed to Jay and Bruce and Scott and Eric and Alex's? How many of us had even heard of the guy before that profile on him came out? I hadn't.

 

He was a human embodiment of hope after the Shanahan mess, which was after the Zorn mess. And now that he's gone, the ScotHive is literally emotionally traumatized. I can understand that.

 

But the truth is, we had all bought into a myth. He was never going to be a savior or a god. He was just one guy. People can't handle the dissonance of reality and what they bought into, so they're filling the gaps by creating comic book villain characters out of Bruce Allen and Dan Snyder. If Hope is gone, things must be Hopeless. If the Savior was fired, he must have been fired by Evil. It's crazy.

 

We all need to collectively let go of our emotional crutches and get more clear-headed about this. Ironically, if people do they will find the team is indeed in MUCH better shape and we don't need a Messiah-figure anymore. Seriously. Try it. We are in pretty good shape.

[FrFan]

•  

1. Jessica McCloughan‏ @JessicaMcCloug1

   Leadership is about making others better as a result of your presence & making sure that impact lasts in your absence

[KDawg]

At this point who gets the blame and credit is sort of irrelevant. It's how it's been handled that's the most troubling. 

 

And the timing suggests disagreement/problems with the process with Cousins specifically.

 

But who knows? Just very, very poorly handled.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Back to being a completely classless organisation who treat people like utter crap. Really feel for Mac. Even more so if he has regressed in his personal battle with sobriety. Who needs enemy's when you have 'friends' to help you through the tough times like the upper reaches of this organisation?

 

Why would ANY respectable football guy want to come work here?

 

Makes you utterly ashamed to see what a once proud organisation has become.  

 

Hail. 

[Rskins06]

SM was fired FOR CAUSE, not just released or mutual separation, etc.. The organization has been very quiet about everything the last month or so, now, you have "anonymous" sources claiming he was drinking and other "anonymous" sources claim it was a power struggle.  Who cares, there was definitely something which caused this, if SM and his agent truly believe there wasn't justification, then I am sure we will here about it through legal actions against the team.  

If the drinking is true, stop trying to assign blame to anyone other than the person who caused it, SM!

[Darrell Green Fan]

I think it's completely naïve to believe that SM's drinking could not have played a role in all of this.  But what is not up for debate is Dan and  George's Son propped SM up and announced to us all that he had full control of all decisions regarding personnel.  Now we are finding out that that was a complete lie, he never had that control starting with the fact that he was not allowed to bring in his own scouts.  And what should not be up for debate anymore is the jealousy Allen displayed turned this into the situation we have now.  At the worst possible time of year Bruce turned this backroom issue into a total disaster.

 

They won't recover from this. Next year with our without Cousins will be a disaster, if he walks we are talking about a 4 win team as fans continue to turn on Bruce and Danny.  As the should.  And of course the big picture is nothing will ever change in Ashburn. The team will continue to shoot themselves in the foot and will never ever win.  That's why I think I'm done.  Life is too short to root for a team owned and operated by a terrible terrible human being.  

[Skinsinparadise]

I listened to Chris Russell last night who let out a little bit more.  I know some are upset with Russell but he got the meat of the story right (that there was a rift) albeit some of the details wrong.  I also listened to the Junkies who said they talked to a source, and also ditto the NFL Network people who talked about the story. Between all of that and the Jones stories my take of it:

 

A.  Bruce liked to keep the reigns, Scot didn't have the power he promised and that caused frustration.  Bruce isn't used to people standing up to him at Redskins Park but Scot was willing to do so and did so in a strong fashion.  Bruce didn't like that.

 

B.  Scot's drinking issues were in play along with some antics that played off of that.  That was Russell's take but he didn't give examples of these antics.

 

C.  The NFL Network people doubled down that Scot was one of the supporters in the building of Kirk so wonder if Scot being gone hurts in that department.  I know some people here like to think its the reverse.  I don't know what to think -- if people want to make the case that Scot wasn't into Kirk, I see where the logic is coming from but there is stuff to contradict it.  But, I don't see what evidence there is that Bruce-Danny have been in Kirk's corner all along -- to me that's far fetched.  But I still think they get a deal done and all this mess might help make it happen because they have to overcome the PR fall out of all of this.

 

For me personally, I don't really care who was the bad guy Scot or Bruce.  IMO its not the key point or even relevant as to the team's future.  IMO the key point is Bruce might have lied about Scot having control over personnel or meant it at the time but quickly changed his mind.   It makes me now believe Shanny's story about some transactions foisted on him by Bruce/Dan. It brings me back to Dan's comments about not having any fun when Marty controlled personnel.  It brings me back to Danny and Vinny scheme's to trade 2 first round picks for Chad Johnson, calling Gibbs and saying lets give up the first rounder for Lance Briggs.  On and on and on.