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

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

8 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

Both can be true and most likely are.

This is where I'm at and pretty much been here since these rumors started swirling.  I can't see it being any other way than a lethal combination of all of it, both sides....and for that Bruce is responsible as the President.  I understand fans don't want to see it that way because we are stuck with Bruce and the gang and it's really depressing to think the guy still in charge is awful at his job, but it is what it is.

[50yrSKINSfan]

Just now, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

From what I remember, he never quit drinking. This is a situation that Snyder and Allen went into knowingly. Had McCloughan promised them he wouldn't have another drop and then went back on that, it's a different dynamic. That wasn't the arrangement here. 

So maybe DS and Allen never asked about his drinking or maybe they have no clue how a alcoholic is but it is not their problem. It is SM prob and it is up to him and no one else to fix it esp if it is affecting his job.  It is hard to judge someone with a first meeting but sure as hell you will know them after working with them for 18 mos. Like I said in a earlier post, you can control it for awhile but sooner or later it will come out of nowhere and destroy you.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 minute ago, 50yrSKINSfan said:

So maybe DS and Allen never asked about his drinking or maybe they have no clue how a alcoholic is but it is not their problem. It is SM prob and it is up to him and no one else to fix it esp if it is affecting his job.  It is hard to judge someone with a first meeting but sure as hell you will know them after working with them for 18 mos. Like I said in a earlier post, you can control it for awhile but sooner or later it will come out of nowhere and destroy you.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you that Scot ultimately broke down and let alcohol impact his job (if those reports are true). What I'm disagreeing about is that Dan and Bruce shouldn't have had any idea that this was a distinct possibility. It's naive to think that they weren't more in the know of Scot's past than the average fans were. This is on them.

 

If I hire a known thief to house-sit for me while I'm vacation, don't I deserve a lot of the blame if he robs me while I'm gone? Sure, he ultimately decided to commit the crime, but it was my decision to put him in that position knowing that he was likely to slip into old habits. 

[Taylor 36]

Okay, I usually don't post about my sorta inside connection, mostly because I don't want to get anyone in trouble or have a good friend pissed at me, but also, because, truthfully, I don't take advantage of my inside connection twice removed source as much as I think some others would.  

 

That being said, I just spoke with a very good friend of mine from college whose brother-in-law happens to work at Redskins park (as I said, twice removed), and of course the bulk of our conversation centered around the **** storm that is taking place in his brother-in-law's place of employment.  He has been speaking with his BIL getting pieces of information here and there for the past few weeks, and what he told me was that there was a lot going on behind the scenes with Scot that the team was trying to work through with him, or at least allow him the time and space to get it fixed.  Restrictions were put on Scot to actually help him by alleviating some of the stress he was under.  Unfortunately, Scot did not follow through with his end of the bargain, and from what the BIL can gather, his speaking to the media and having his wife go a mini-tweeting spree again were the straws that broke the camel's back.  As far as the jealousy bit, the BIL said he's not aware of there being any issues like that at all, and stated that if anyone who knows Bruce, Scot, and Jay on a personal, or even business-personal level, would know that doesn't fit any of their true characters or personalities.

 

Now, I know that isn't much to go off of and I can't offer any more validation or proof, but knowing these guys, I feel comfortable saying the info is accurate. Maybe one of the mods or someone with other connections can back up some of it with what they've heard.  Any way, I thought I would share that bit of info. 

[RemoveSnyder]

7 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

Now. That doesnt excuse Allen from hiring him knowing about that background. It was a stupid move.

 

Huh. The "doesn't excuse Allen" line I'd use would be, doesn't excuse Allen from claiming McC had full control but never actually gave it. 

[TheGreek1973]

Guys no different from taking a wild shot at a super talented but problematic player and not working out.  This is what probably happened here, especially since Allen was using his services and was getting results.  Problem is if you think you can be a functioning alcoholic well  you are lost.  In my life I have known a couple of very talented people that thought they had the problem under control only to hit bottom and get clean.  Both turned their lives around only when they got help and stopped drinking, unfortunately one of the died last year from liver disease 100% attributed to his past drinking.  IMO the team had no choice and because in the US we are so freaking afraid to say the wrong think and get killed in the media or even get sued they handled it totally wrong, by bringing in the death of a 100 year old grandmother, or saying he will be back after things are handled etc etc.

 

They should have come out and said we are letting Scott go, he needs to get help and leave it at that.

[clskinsfan]

Just now, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

Huh. The "doesn't excuse Allen" line I'd use would be, doesn't excuse Allen from claiming McC had full control but never actually gave it. 

 

OK. We will have to disagree than. Hiring a know alcoholic that has been let go from two other teams for the issue was moronic IMO. But it is just my opinion.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

6 minutes ago, TheGreek1973 said:

Guys no different from taking a wild shot at a super talented but problematic player and not working out.

I appreciate the sentiment but it is. It's very different.

[50yrSKINSfan]

Just now, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I'm not disagreeing with you that Scot ultimately broke down and let alcohol impact his job (if those reports are true). What I'm disagreeing about is that Dan and Bruce shouldn't have had any idea that this was a distinct possibility. It's naive to think that they weren't more in the know of Scot's past than the average fans were. This is on them.

 

If I hire a known thief to house-sit for me while I'm vacation, don't I deserve a lot of the blame if he robs me while I'm gone? Sure, he ultimately decided to commit the crime, but it was my decision to put him in that position knowing that he was likely to slip into old habits. 

Ya, fine. You hire a guy you know has a drinking problem. You want to give him a chance because he has talent. You remind him has has a shaky past and you remind him if he drinks he is gone. This should not be necessary if the guy you are hiring has half a brain but you do it anyway. He drinks and screws up so you give him another chance. You tell him to take some time off and get help. He does it again so you can him. DS did not hold SM down and pour booze down his mouth. SM DID IT TO HIMSELF. How can you blame DS? He gave that dope a chance after 2 other outfits fired him. If anything, I would thank DS for the chance.

[drowland]

11 minutes ago, jadams5214 said:

To me the worst part of all this is how Dan Snyder and Bruce Allen are not forced to answer for their actions and at least explain things to everyone who supports this organization.

 

I agree with you, at some point one of them needs to stand in front of camera's and speak about it.  This makes me think of Al Davis when he fired Lane Kiffin.  Brought out the old school overhead projector and showed everyone why he fired Lane with cause.

[Voice_of_Reason]

22 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

Now. That doesnt excuse Allen from hiring him knowing about that background. It was a stupid move.

So if you have abused something in the past, and claim to be clear of it, you don't deserve a job?  I guess there is an argument that once bitten, twice shy, third time you're an idiot. 

 

But if they did they due dilly on GMSM's drinking, and had confidence that it was behind him, it's not a reason to keep somebody from a job.  My opinion.

 

But I have a somewhat addictive personality, so I guess maybe I have some additional sympathy.  I didn't drink, I gambled a lot. 8-10 hour stints at the tables, flying out to Vegas at least twice a month for 10 years. 

 

Through the grace of God and good luck, it never cost me anything. It could have cost me money, and my job (given how much time I spent going to Vegas) and God knows what else. But it didn't.  Bet $40k on black in 2009. That started with a $400 blackjack hand, essentially to lose and go to sleep.  Told the dealer I would let it ride until I lost.  And then I won 7 hands in a row.  Not unheard of, but extremely uncommon.  $400, $800, $1600, $3200, $6400, $12,800, $25,600, $51,200. Dealer shuffled.  I thought it would be a good idea to bet $40k on black.   Decided during that spin that I had a problem and would never gamble again.  Happened to hit it.  Might not have.  Last time I ever bet on anything, even Fantasy Football.  Made some good money that night, though.  

 

Which is one thing that I would critique Bruce and Dan on.  If somebody had a problem, and they say they've got it under control, but still actually DO the activity, they will relapse.  It's like 99% of the time.  I can walk through casinos.  I can't sit at a table.  I can barely watch people sit at a table.  The urge becomes real, and if I said, "ok, well, only 1 hand" I am pretty sure I'd be there for 8 hours.

 

It's entirely possible Bruce/Dan don't have a lot of experience with this sort of thing.  but for me, the red flag was a recovering alcoholic that still had a drink now and then.  That's a REALLY REALLY bad idea. 

[XtremeFan55]

It almost seems to me that the Redskins hired Scot McCloughan out of desperation two years ago and were able to land him because of his faults after being fired twice previously.

 

I highly doubt any reputable GM would want to come here under this regime.  There is more than 20 years record of dysfunction to scare them all off.  Plus...the Redskins don't just fire people, they ruin their reputations by leaking stories to the press thru Tony Wyllie.

 

This team is toxic.....and I sincerely hope Cousins gets free of this team.  He is too good a guy to have his career ruined by this team.

[MattFancy]

Here's the transcript of McCloughan's introductory presser 2 years ago: http://www.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/Quotes-Scot-McCloughan-Introductory-Press-Conference-11915/267bfe18-63d8-467f-8bcb-3011debbdb2c

 

Some interesting Bruce quotes:

 

ALLEN: “Last year when Dan made me President of the team, we were looking for ways to improve the Washington Redskins. It really was my responsibility to find any way we can improve the organization. What I did say last week was we were looking to add someone. We’re looking for ways to add and change what we’ve been doing. When Scot became available and said he was ready to get into the saddle, that was really a no-brainer for us to pursue someone who has that type of talent. We believe strongly that with Scot’s vision and leadership, it’s going to help the Redskins win. That is our responsibility.”

 

ALLEN: “As I said at the beginning, I’ve known Scot for a long time. It’s absolutely my recommendation to bring him in. I think he’s the right person for this organization right now to help us win. I did want him to meet Dan. I thought it was important not only for Scot to meet Dan, but for Dan to meet somebody who is going to have a critical role in the organization. Dan said, ‘Do what you need to do in order to help this team win.’”

 

ALLEN: “I was aware when Scot was going through his situation. I did talk to him about it, and we had a very forthright conversation. We’re here to support him, and he would not be taking this job if he thought that was going to be a concern.”

[TouchdownSkin]

12 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

I said from the start that if the reason behind closed doors for firing ex GMSM was due to drinking issues, then I had no problem with it, even if I think ex GMSM was involved with improving the team.  It's not like he is the only good candidate for the job available out there.

 

Time to turn the page.

 

AMEN-!!

[Taylor 36]

1 hour ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

Huh. The "doesn't excuse Allen" line I'd use would be, doesn't excuse Allen from claiming McC had full control but never actually gave it. 

First, they never claimed Scot had full control.  It was explained when they hired him during the presser that Scot's primary role was overseeing scouting, but that others, including Bruce and Jay, would have a voice in players.  Second, and this isn't directed at you, but more in general, I think, looking back on it now, that it was probably smart of Allen NOT to give full personnel control to Scot when they hired him because of his past.  

[Sekhmet187]

If reports are true (and a lot of articles are coming out now about Scotts drinking since he came in as GM), heres what I think most likely happened.

 

Sometime early on in his tenure, I'm sure Bruce and many of the people in the scouting department and guys behind the scenes noticed he would occasionally drink on the job, which maybe it was too much for certain people (some people are very uncomfortable with people drinking outside of bars). GMs have meetings and briefings and all kinds of things that aren't just watching film. 

 

So fast forward to the offseason where he was told not to talk to the media. Obviously something occurred that lead to keeping Scott quiet. I believe it was decided then he wasn't going to be GM and thus they agreed to let him go after the draft so his departure didn't hurt the organization. 

 

But then the reports trickled out. Wheres Scott at the combine? Why isn't he here. Then the media firestorm blew up because with FA, reports are Scotts not taking any calls and has no input. Now, The Redskins plan of keeping it quiet and letting Scott go after the draft can't work. Too much smoke to try and keep it quiet so they have to announce his firing.

 

I honestly believe the situation was "botched" because Scott, his agent, Bruce and Dan probably thought they could get through most of the offseason before word got out Scott wasn't in the picture. They most likely didn't want this to hurt Kirks negotiations and free agency but leaks and the media speculation eventually forced their hand.

[RemoveSnyder]

I'm really spent, so not looking for a big battle or semantics showdown ... but

 

2 minutes ago, Taylor 36 said:

First, they never claimed Scot had full control.  

 

 

3 minutes ago, Taylor 36 said:

It was explained when they hired him during the presser that Scot's primary role was overseeing scouting, but that others, including Bruce and Jay, would have a voice in players.  

 

...

 

 

I know. I guess I should have DSCI4'd one of Allen's mega ambiguous run on sentences to divine the real truth. 

[DogofWar1]

Wasn't the whole reason Scot didn't go to the Jets was because they wouldn't give him enough power?  They basically wanted him to be a glorified scout and he said no.

 

That's why I had expected he had full control of the org, in addition to all the reports at the time.

 

That that wasn't true is surprising, because I wouldn't have expected Scot to come here without more power than he appears to have had.

[Taylor 36]

3 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

I'm really spent, so not looking for a big battle or semantics showdown ... but

 

I know. I guess I should have DSCI4'd one of Allen's mega ambiguous run on sentences to divine the real truth. 

Well, we can continue the circle of listening to the media and all of their speculation, or we can listen to the horses' mouths.  I prefer the source directly, but I realize that doesn't always provide the extra fuel to the fire to get the pitchforks sharpened.

[RemoveSnyder]

Just now, DogofWar1 said:

Wasn't the whole reason Scot didn't go to the Jets was because they wouldn't give him enough power?  

 

I don't remember the Jets being involved. The Raiders were the other team. (memory).

 

But he would have been subordinate to R. McKenzie. 

[gooseneck]

I am confused.  Could someone explain what is happening to me.

[SkinsGuy]

2 minutes ago, gooseneck said:

I am confused.  Could someone explain what is happening to me.

 

You are witnessing a fanbase suffering from massive whiplash the way this story has careened from one place to another.  

[CRobi21]

 

[Llevron]

Just now, STBonecrusher21 said:

 

 

I dont have any rational reason to trust Chick Hernandez, but I do. And this is how I have always felt since I reflected back on the "You like that" moment once I soured on Kirk this year. 

 

Ill be money that this disagreement in the front office has alot to do with our current issues. 

[RemoveSnyder]

2 minutes ago, Taylor 36 said:

Well, we can continue the circle of listening to the media and all of their speculation, or we can listen to the horses' mouths.  I prefer the source directly, but I realize that doesn't always provide the extra fuel to the fire to get the pitchforks sharpened.

 

I know, and nobody inside Ashburn actually drafted Griffin. Not Allen, not Snyder, apparently not Shanny, and yet he magically showed up. 

Can't find a quote from any of them taking responsibility for draft Griffin since the fallout.

 

So it's on me to find Bruce Allen or Snyder saying the exact words: "McC has total and final personnel say in everything"?

Eh. Really spent. 

 

It's a wild one, for sure.