I hate to say it but Snyder and Allen might have done the right thing

[Conn]

14 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

He'll be in the role by June.

 

Most likely. And that's borderline devastating to me.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

He'll be in the role by June.

 

 

It screams flunky, GM in name only.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

He'll be in the role by June.

 

That's the popular guess among beat reporters.   Yeah I'd be disappointed if it goes down that way.  I think Danny/Bruce have already overplayed the nostalgia card over the years.  The 80s-early 90s were fun, I recall those years well but at this point in time parading those days to the fan base saddens me some -- it almost feels like giving up -- we might not win a Superbowl again in a long time but heck everyone remember what Doug Williams did to Denver in the 2nd quarter of the Superbowl?    As we move further away from those years, the alumni/homecoming week where old stories are shared to me are a bit bittersweet.  It's cool to hear Dexter Manley jump on the radio and relive the championship game against Dallas but it also brings home that those days are long gone.

[skinsfan66]

Schnider was let go because Dan wasn't having any fun, thus we fans paid the price for our owner to play GM again.  This was the time he was to step back and hire a real gm. Never changes just a bunch of excuses.

How have Seattle and San Francisco's drafts been without Scot? 

[RWJ]

3 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

He'll be in the role by June.

Let's hope your wrong!

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

22 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Thanks, I do feel a bit better.  But I still have a lot of issues, how can the team give him full power on the draft yet force him to retain their scouts?  But I agree and have posted that the wins came from mostly players already on the roster and his "low risk" free agents ended up very costly as they left the same hole to be filled. And no you cannot go dark, this was the risk when he was hired.

 

But this entire situation has still left me with such a bad taste, especially if it's true that SM wanted to extend Kirk years ago.

 

What it really say's is this: Snyder will not relinquish his say, and will not except anyone making the calls as it pertains to the Redskins, without his input!!!

And the people that last in Skins land, are the one's who usually come to the same conclusions as Little Danny!!

[Darrell Green Fan]

22 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

@DGF  I think you have to remember Scot had been out of football for at least a year - and I have no idea just how much power or reporting responsibility he had in Seattle under Schnider . 

 

Some scouts may may well have liked Scot but would they have liked him enough to leave jobs elsewhere to come work for a drunk ? I know scouts jobs are not the most secure of employment routes but I cannot imagine there would have been a que - as far as we know scot could have gone through his list of contacts as soon as he arrived and no body wanted to come ... people seem to me to be putting 2 and 2 together (Scot arrived no personnel overhaul + Scot being fired  = Scot was oppressed = Dan Snyder is the devil) .... but this was not a story in 2015 or 16 in the run up too the drafts . 

 

I think we have a problem now that the skins fanatics will not accept anyone the skins put forward as a GM if it come from within or from  Bruce Allen ...which is a shame because we might just have competent and qualified people on staff ... I  mean Eric DeCodta and John Schneider both spent time in the front offices of the Redskins and we let them walk away. 

 

 

People  have this opinion of Allen as a weasel but I happen to think Allen is the epetemy of a football guy ... he has connections and experience coming out of the wazu. I just don't think he is a great personnel guy - and I think he knows it - which is why he turned to Scots consultancy in the first place . I think Allen likes to big picture deals like the new stadium deal that are necessary but don't affect the product on the field - which makes me very sceptical about the power grab story . 

 

I think if the Redskins do one thing they need to improve their press relations - be boring and woo the press with new facilities etc and make sure any player who talks to the media is sufficiently media savvy 

 

The first clue to me that there was a real issue was the report weeks before all Hell broke open that quoted Allen chirping at Redskins Park about the good year Murphy and Moses had and how he was letting everyone know those were his picks.  Does this appear to be a situation where GM was fired simply for being drunk and going dark or does this sound like petty jealousy and a power struggle from the President as reported?

[bedlamVR]

1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

The first clue to me that there was a real issue was the report weeks before all Hell broke open that quoted Allen chirping at Redskins Park about the good year Murphy and Moses had and how he was letting everyone know those were his picks.  Does this appear to be a situation where GM was fired simply for being drunk and going dark or does this sound like petty jealousy and a power struggle from the President as reported?

 

 

It is what you want to read into it.

 

the problem is Mosses and Murphy did have good years (well we also kind of know now that the reason Murphy had a good year were potentially PED related) - They were potentially some of the most improved players from when they came into the league - ARE they not worthy of praise - Or is it down to the person singing their praise - Is there a pre-approved list of players Bruce Allen can and cannot talk about ? 

 

I also think this my pick their pick is overblown - it is well documented that in the 2014 draft the Redskins employed the services of Scot McGloughlans scouting service so I think other people are making more of Allen's comments than Allen intended. You also have to think that no man is an island and Scot may have had overall say and responsibility for setting the draft board but I cannot imagine he did that in a vacuum. 

 

I also have to say and this has been pretty much ignored  - but one thing that struck me as odd was when Jay took a swipe at the Scot McGloghlan drafts in the first round picks have so far produced a Guard -

 

It was odd because Jay is not someone I would imagine as someone who is told what to say - and so when Jay does say something it is representative of what he is thinking.and not someone elses agenda - and again it is widely reported that in general Jay and Scot got on really well and thought the same way - so i would not typically expect him to have a specific loyalty.  . 

 

But Jay having this pop (which was mostly out of the blue) doesn't to me suggest petty infighting but a growing frustration with a guy (Scot) not doing his job - now add in the context that - as has been suggested - Scott regulary disappeared (or went dark) on one bender or another you can understand the frustration. Wouldn't you be frustrated ?  - but Jays comments and frustration do not feed into the Bruce is an eggomanic so they get forgotten 

 

the thing is with all of these comments - you can twist them and change them all the time

 

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

2 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

It is what you want to read into it.

 

the problem is Mosses and Murphy did have good years (well we also kind of know now that the reason Murphy had a good year were potentially PED related) - They were potentially some of the most improved players from when they came into the league - ARE they not worthy of praise - Or is it down to the person singing their praise - Is there a pre-approved list of players Bruce Allen can and cannot talk about ? 

 

I also think this my pick their pick is overblown - it is well documented that in the 2014 draft the Redskins employed the services of Scot McGloughlans scouting service so I think other people are making more of Allen's comments than Allen intended. You also have to think that no man is an island and Scot may have had overall say and responsibility for setting the draft board but I cannot imagine he did that in a vacuum. 

 

I also have to say and this has been pretty much ignored  - but one thing that struck me as odd was when Jay took a swipe at the Scot McGloghlan drafts in the first round picks have so far produced a Guard -

 

It was odd because Jay is not someone I would imagine as someone who is told what to say - and so when Jay does say something it is representative of what he is thinking.and not someone elses agenda - and again it is widely reported that in general Jay and Scot got on really well and thought the same way - so i would not typically expect him to have a specific loyalty.  . 

 

But Jay having this pop (which was mostly out of the blue) doesn't to me suggest petty infighting but a growing frustration with a guy (Scot) not doing his job - now add in the context that - as has been suggested - Scott regulary disappeared (or went dark) on one bender or another you can understand the frustration. Wouldn't you be frustrated ?  - but Jays comments and frustration do not feed into the Bruce is an eggomanic so they get forgotten 

 

the thing is with all of these comments - you can twist them and change them all the time

 

 

 

As I was very critical of the Scherff pick, I wanted Williams, I used that comment a lot on  another board. 

 

I still go back to the posts here that said his mailbox was full and he went dark for days on end.  If this is true that changes everything for me. But why have I only read about that here?  With all these reporters snooping around are there any links reporting this? 

[bedlamVR]

The only reason I can think of is because it goes into a subject that people are uncomfortable talking about . It would be next to impossible to prove ... 

 

In a way from the Redskins point of view it looks better if they are seen as the evil empire (all be it bungling) because - petty infighting - is run of the mill, it happens lots of places - hell on the end Bethard an Gibbs had to be separated in the end ... 

 

but to have it known you had your GM with known alcohol problem being effectively allowed to go off on benders hitting his self destruct button time and time again and the organisation essentially doing nothing to either reign him in or get him help ( although it is reported they did) to me is worse . 

 

The point is we we will never know what happened until Scot let's us know - right now he might be satisfied being the victim - and indeed he might have been ... but if this was his issues with drink resurfacing it might be better for him to come clean . 

 

Overal all I think I would be happy if it was professional people not getting along . It happens . 

 

But there are too many things that don't add up - how can it be a power grab by Bruce IF Scot never had any real power to grab ? And go back and look it up - Jay always had final say in coaching ... Jay AND Scot always reported to Bruce and as far as I can see that never changed 

 

 

[slaga]

14 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

I still go back to the posts here that said his mailbox was full and he went dark for days on end.  If this is true that changes everything for me. But why have I only read about that here?  With all these reporters snooping around are there any links reporting this? 

There are a couple articles reporting Scot not returning texts and voicemail full. 

http://scholarshipexamples.net/news/redskins-fire-general-manager-scot-mccloughan-at-the-start-of-nfl-free-agency

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/sports/news/why-the-redskins-treatment-of-scot-mccloughan-should-be-a-warning-for-everyone-else-212408717.html

[Darrell Green Fan]

2 hours ago, slaga said:

There are a couple articles reporting Scot not returning texts and voicemail full. 

http://scholarshipexamples.net/news/redskins-fire-general-manager-scot-mccloughan-at-the-start-of-nfl-free-agency

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/sports/news/why-the-redskins-treatment-of-scot-mccloughan-should-be-a-warning-for-everyone-else-212408717.html

 

Thanks but all I could find in your links was references to full voice mailbox and calls not being returned a couple of days before the combine, when obviously this thing was coming to a head.  I was interested in evidence that the full voice mail/going dark was an ongoing problem as an earlier poster suggested.

[slaga]

@Darrell Green Fan I don't think it was an ongoing issue. The way I understood it, it started sometime after his grandmother died and was at its worst leading up to free agency. For whatever reason, Scott was not able to, or willing to, answer texts and was not checking his voicemail and it started before the combine and continued until he was fired, just before free agency. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

11 hours ago, slaga said:

@Darrell Green Fan I don't think it was an ongoing issue. The way I understood it, it started sometime after his grandmother died and was at its worst leading up to free agency. For whatever reason, Scott was not able to, or willing to, answer texts and was not checking his voicemail and it started before the combine and continued until he was fired, just before free agency. 

 

If this is so, given they sat 50 yards apart at the Senior Bowl which indicates the split was in full gear long before the combine, it sounds like a power struggle and not his drinking or going dark.

[Art]

On 3/21/2017 at 3:20 AM, THE HAMMER'IN HOG said:

 

What it really say's is this: Snyder will not relinquish his say, and will not except anyone making the calls as it pertains to the Redskins, without his input!!!

And the people that last in Skins land, are the one's who usually come to the same conclusions as Little Danny!!

 

This is fiction.

 

Snyder doesn't offer input.   Beyond, "If you want it, sure, but you'd better be right."

 

That's been the case for years.   You people who think he has even the smallest input into any aspect of our draft board, free agent targets, etc., are just, simply, wildly, wrong.   Snyder has zippo to do with what the people who work for him want to do beyond paying for it and ensuring they know they are accountable for mistakes.   Snyder's problem may be he's a tad too deferential to subordinates.   Remember, in all those stories you read recently about Scot convincing Dan that Cousins was the guy, not "Dan's best buddy" RGIII, no one pointed out, Dan did what he was bid by his people.   In spite of this close personal friendship with a player who is, I believe, out of the league.

[Art]

16 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Thanks but all I could find in your links was references to full voice mailbox and calls not being returned a couple of days before the combine, when obviously this thing was coming to a head.  I was interested in evidence that the full voice mail/going dark was an ongoing problem as an earlier poster suggested.

 

That Robinson article cited a few days before the combine he was tipped off about something going on.   

 

On Feb. 6 Scot's grandmother died.   On Feb. 28 the combine started.   You are correct that's when things were starting to blossom into crisis mode.   Why?   Because this writer wasn't the only one being told by their sources inside NFL teams that no one could reach Scot.   Otherwise we'd never have seen or heard any of this.

 

[slaga]

5 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

If this is so, given they sat 50 yards apart at the Senior Bowl which indicates the split was in full gear long before the combine, it sounds like a power struggle and not his drinking or going dark.

According to multiple reports the drinking had been "a disaster for 18 months", and Scot was receiving treatment for alcohol abuse. If that is the case, Scot's current alcohol issues predate the Senior Bowl and very well could have been precipitous to his not being allowed to speak to the media and sitting 50 yards away from the rest of the Redskins contingent. Up until the GM went dark, the Redskins only had his drinking issues, which it appears they might have been trying to help him through, as cause for releasing him. Once Scot went dark, read quit doing his job (at the worst possible time), the Redskins had a real cause to fire him and took the opportunity to do so.

 

The telling thing to me is there is no mention of Scot suing the Redskins for the rest of his contract. It leads me to believe Scot knows the Redskins had valid reasons to fire him and it would be a losing battle, especially if the Redskins have to bring Scot's drinking issues to light in order to protect themselves. 

[spjunkies]

27 minutes ago, slaga said:

The telling thing to me is there is no mention of Scot suing the Redskins for the rest of his contract. It leads me to believe Scot knows the Redskins had valid reasons to fire him and it would be a losing battle, especially if the Redskins have to bring Scot's drinking issues to light in order to protect themselves. 

 

He could easily still be negotiating a settlement and if no agreement is struck a lawsuit could be likely.

[Darrell Green Fan]

3 hours ago, slaga said:

According to multiple reports the drinking had been "a disaster for 18 months", and Scot was receiving treatment for alcohol abuse. If that is the case, Scot's current alcohol issues predate the Senior Bowl and very well could have been precipitous to his not being allowed to speak to the media and sitting 50 yards away from the rest of the Redskins contingent. Up until the GM went dark, the Redskins only had his drinking issues, which it appears they might have been trying to help him through, as cause for releasing him. Once Scot went dark, read quit doing his job (at the worst possible time), the Redskins had a real cause to fire him and took the opportunity to do so.

 

The telling thing to me is there is no mention of Scot suing the Redskins for the rest of his contract. It leads me to believe Scot knows the Redskins had valid reasons to fire him and it would be a losing battle, especially if the Redskins have to bring Scot's drinking issues to light in order to protect themselves. 

 

Thanks for the reply, just trying to understand.  What multiple sources?  From what I read that was a rumor put out there, no doubt from the team.  Articles I read cited multiple players saying they never saw it and didn't know anyone else who saw him drunk.

[slaga]

1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Thanks for the reply, just trying to understand.  What multiple sources?  From what I read that was a rumor put out there, no doubt from the team.  Articles I read cited multiple players saying they never saw it and didn't know anyone else who saw him drunk.

There are a bunch of articles but they seem to go back to a singular anonymous source. From the same article, "of the half dozen players contacted, none of them saw him drink in the locker room. All but one said they never saw him act (as) if he weren’t composed and in control." That would imply that one player admitted to seeing him not composed and in control. 

[Skinsinparadise]

The competing narrative to how can Scot be stripped of power he never had is that whatever power he did have it waned -- whatever power Scot had big or small it was lessened even more and that was the prime cause of the tension.   That's been the narrative of Albert Breer who doubled down on that point on that radio today.  Chris Russell said Scot lost his power way back in August 2015 but suggests there are myriad of reasons why it went south with Scot/Bruce that being just one of them.   And Mike Jones is on the bandwagon too but saying the power battles happened more recently.  Are these guys all correct?  You got me, I have no clue.  But they all argue in different ways that Scot's power took at dive at various points.  

 

Breer for example said he has multiple sources at Redskins Park and they all agree that Bruce stripped power from Scot -- the only part of that narrative where he got mixed stories on is why Bruce stripped Scot's power.  Some of his sources said it was because of a power play from Bruce wanting the power and with some saying Scot's drinking made him take that power for the good of the team. 

[Wyvern]

It's looking more to me like McCloughan was a victim of the old 'bait and switch'. Snyder/Allen promised him a lot, because they wanted Scot's ideas, and Scot's board, but it soon became evident that they didn't want Scot.

 

Looking back now, I reflect on how I'd bought into the pitch about the new "reformed" Snyder; and how I'd really tried to see things from the Skins FO's side.  But but it's now gotten to point where there's too much history out there to ignore -- and I like this FO less and less, with each passing day.  I particularly dislike the inevitable 'unofficial leaks' of disparaging remarks aimed at most of the former Skins players or managers they've let go.  ....That's so low class, bit it's something about the 'Redskins way of doing business' that's now gotten traction in the media.

 

Sorry to say this ....but it's how I feel now. This offseason has sickened me.

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

16 hours ago, Art said:

 

This is fiction.

 

Snyder doesn't offer input.   Beyond, "If you want it, sure, but you'd better be right."

 

That's been the case for years.   You people who think he has even the smallest input into any aspect of our draft board, free agent targets, etc., are just, simply, wildly, wrong.   Snyder has zippo to do with what the people who work for him want to do beyond paying for it and ensuring they know they are accountable for mistakes.   Snyder's problem may be he's a tad too deferential to subordinates.   Remember, in all those stories you read recently about Scot convincing Dan that Cousins was the guy, not "Dan's best buddy" RGIII, no one pointed out, Dan did what he was bid by his people.   In spite of this close personal friendship with a player who is, I believe, out of the league.

 

OK! Then explain Marty to us, if you do know as much as you say?!!? 
Marty did a fabulous job, and was shown the door!

And while your at it with the - "you better be right" mantra; explain Cerratto's tenure?

"Fantasy" is exactly what Little Danny play's with the Skins!

When you either add or subtract what has been going on with the Skins for the last 20 years, you begin to see a pattern, and that pattern is Dan Snyder knows "Ugatz" about football!!

Tell me: why did SM have to convince Little Danny to go with Cousins over RGIII, if as you say; he has no say in personnel? And tell me: why was RGIII Dan's guy? Perhaps Dan, "who has nothing to do with personnel,"  unless 1 of the many football people in the organization needs his advice on talent evaluation asks him,  

some how became married to RGIII, because MS didn't want RGIII, and certainly didn't want to give up a Kings ransom to get him...yet it happened!







 

[bedlamVR]

Marty shottenhiemer was 2001 --- 16 years ago .... and it amazes me when people say he did a great job. 0-5 flat out player revolt turnened the team around 5-0 but then when the season was on the line his team crumbled and we staggered to 8-8 . 

 

Danny wanted to retain Marty but he wanted to bring in a GM with say on personnel ( coaching staff)  - remember Marty hired his son and brother ( nepotism anybody) at key coaching positions (QB coach and DC if I remember) ... but he also hired his golf buddy Jimmy Raye - and that name should send shivers down anyone's back . 

 

He cut Larry Centers over a dispute about a Hat - let Brad Johnston walk away went into the season with Geoff George for a game and then scrambled around and ended up signing Tony Banks off the cowboys scrap heap .... 

 

his genius in handling the cap mostly came from Deon Sanders just flat out retiring rather than wanting to play for Marty . 

 

Marty then went on to San Deigo and drove that franchise into the ground as GM/HC and it was not until the owner brought in AJ Smith and the fact Eli Manning flat out refusing to play for Marty Shottenhiemer - the team turned things around 

 

 

As for Vinny his time coensided with the ol ball coach who flat out quit after two seasons - Vinny worked well with Gibbs II ( sequels are never as good as the first time round - and personal reasons and Sean taylors death drove  Coach Gibbs into retirement -not Danny) 

 

the first time Vinny had real GM duties he rode and died with His hand picked HC Jim Zorn - how is that for accountability ? 

 

Of course you you already know all of this but hey let's just keep up the mythology Dannis the Devil 

[Darrell Green Fan]

1 hour ago, bedlamVR said:

Marty shottenhiemer was 2001 --- 16 years ago .... and it amazes me when people say he did a great job. 0-5 flat out player revolt turnened the team around 5-0 but then when the season was on the line his team crumbled and we staggered to 8-8 . 

 

Danny wanted to retain Marty but he wanted to bring in a GM with say on personnel ( coaching staff)  - remember Marty hired his son and brother ( nepotism anybody) at key coaching positions (QB coach and DC if I remember) ... but he also hired his golf buddy Jimmy Raye - and that name should send shivers down anyone's back . 

 

He cut Larry Centers over a dispute about a Hat - let Brad Johnston walk away went into the season with Geoff George for a game and then scrambled around and ended up signing Tony Banks off the cowboys scrap heap .... 

 

his genius in handling the cap mostly came from Deon Sanders just flat out retiring rather than wanting to play for Marty . 

 

Marty then went on to San Deigo and drove that franchise into the ground as GM/HC and it was not until the owner brought in AJ Smith and the fact Eli Manning flat out refusing to play for Marty Shottenhiemer - the team turned things around 

 

 

As for Vinny his time coensided with the ol ball coach who flat out quit after two seasons - Vinny worked well with Gibbs II ( sequels are never as good as the first time round - and personal reasons and Sean taylors death drove  Coach Gibbs into retirement -not Danny) 

 

the first time Vinny had real GM duties he rode and died with His hand picked HC Jim Zorn - how is that for accountability ? 

 

Of course you you already know all of this but hey let's just keep up the mythology Dannis the Devil 

 

So many inaccuracies here but I don't want to get derailed.  I'll just point out the Chargers were 1-15 and  5-11 in the 2 years prior to Marty's arrival.  His first year he got them to 8-8 without AJ Smith.  In 3 years later, with the help of Smith and that great trade with the Giants, they were division champs at 12-4.   His final year they were 14-2, he was fired in large part because of a riff with AJ Smith who is a dick.  San Diego management, not Marty, was the reason Eli wanted no part of the Chargers.  Saying Marty drove San Diego into the ground is not even close to the truth, they were well underground before he arrived.

 

The reason he gets such love here is after that rough start he had them on the right track, exactly the same way Joe Gibbs turned the team around his first year.  Marty is a proven winner, Daniel Snyder is without a doubt a loser and the record of both men speaks for itself.  Had Snyder not fired Marty, and let's not pretend that isn't exactly what happened, the early 2000's would have been completely different.