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

[MattFancy]

The problem was how the Skins handled it. If they would have just came out at the Combine and said, "Scot is not here as he is handling some personal issues. We don't want to comment on anything personal with Scot and we'll have more information at a later time". Something just plain and simple like that, I don't think it would be as big of an issue. But they flat out lied to everyone when they used his grandmother passing away as the reason. And then on top of that, said that he would be back with the team once that was taken care of and Bruce talked about how much the team loved Scot. Cut to yesterday and now Scot is fired and it's supposedly because of his drinking. That's fine and dandy, but don't lie to the fans and the media to their faces about what is going on and expect everyone to be fine with it.

[maskedsuperstar]

3 minutes ago, MattFancy said:

The problem was how the Skins handled it. If they would have just came out at the Combine and said, "Scot is not here as he is handling some personal issues. We don't want to comment on anything personal with Scot and we'll have more information at a later time". Something just plain and simple like that, I don't think it would be as big of an issue. But they flat out lied to everyone when they used his grandmother passing away as the reason. And then on top of that, said that he would be back with the team once that was taken care of and Bruce talked about how much the team loved Scot. Cut to yesterday and now Scot is fired and it's supposedly because of his drinking. That's fine and dandy, but don't lie to the fans and the media to their faces about what is going on and expect everyone to be fine with it.

You have a point. At one time, Bruce did say that Scot was having "family issues".

So, yes they were wrong. But they didn't want to throw Scot under the bus. This is on Scot. It's starts with him. He failed!

1 hour ago, hockeyiszen said:

Unfortunately I do think SM was let go justly...hear me out...

If you get bought out, as the skins should have done if they had to part ways, even if due to alcohol, then there's a clause in there as part of the settlement where neither party will divulge any information that can damage the other.

If SM gets fired outright, as has happened here, then all bets are off - SM or likely his agent can air all the dirty laundry and dysfunction that came to make this to be.

Snyder and Allen are buffoons but not stupid and have had legal consul - if they fired him outright then they are not scared of any he-said she-said crap that come-out..

long way of saying is that unfortunately, the allegations are likely true and they had cause to fire him.

 

Unrelated but related...

 

I don't know how many of you have had issues with alcohol or have known a daily drinker who has real, fundamental problems but..

You can see it in his face, from pics over th past few months and longer - the extremely puffy & bloated face, the broken blood vessles/capillaries and general rosesia...not saying anything was deserved, all i'm saying, if you know the effects of significant daily drinking you can clealy see it manifested in his pictures recently...and longer

Yes, his face was bloated and puffy. 

[sknsrbck26]

This was not the right move for the team. The first assumption you have to make is that the statement by the "official" was true. I find it extremely odd that no reporters or anyone else at the games noticed that Scott was drunk. This is not to say that it didn't happen, I just believe this is teams way of saying, it isn't our fault it's his. 

 

Scott is a premier talent evaluator, which Bruce Allen is not. 

 

The team could come out of this ahead, even after this debacle. Sign Kirk (or says Bruce would say "Kurt") to a long term deal. Then sign Pryor to make up for the loss of Jackson and Garcon. This continue to add quality D players. 

[Going Commando]

21 minutes ago, theTruthTeller said:

His draft classes are no better than the online draft quides.  Finding a starting guard with the #5 pick is hardly an achievement.  Crowder remains the only pick that played better than his draft position warranted.

So now he did a ****ty job?  Then why is everyone so angry about him getting fired?

[maskedsuperstar]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

Either way, this is Snyder's/Allen's fault.  Both of whom have already proven that they can't capably run a professional football team.

Their fault? You can hate on those 2 all you want. This is Scots fault. It starts with him. 

[Stadium-Armory]

After initially being pissed I've come to the conclusion that this is nothing to get really bent about. They took a gamble on a talented GM who came with downside risk. They lost. So what. It sounds like they tried to help him and finally had to let him go. Is the timing weird? Yes.  But I don't fault them for taking a risk and failing. 

[MattFancy]

5 minutes ago, maskedsuperstar said:

You have a point. At one time, Bruce did say that Scot was having "family issues".

So, yes they were wrong. But they didn't want to throw Scot under the bus. This is on Scot. It's starts with him. He failed!

 

 

I'm not saying the team should have gone into the drinking issues at that point. But the fact that they blamed it on his grandmother was odd when it was an easy thing to figure out when all of that stuff took place. The team got caught in a lie and it makes them look bad. If Scot was drinking on the job and showing up drunk, then sure, I have no issue with firing him. It was just the way that Allen and the team mislead everyone that is what has everyone so angry.

[maskedsuperstar]

1 hour ago, The Mayor of Fed Ex Field said:

In Virginia, you can't fire someone because of alcoholism. It's considered a disability.

 

You can fire someone for drinking on the job however. But those lines are blurred, if he is allowed to drink in the owners suite during games, when he technically is "working".

 

Once his agent came out and said "he isn't drinking", the team could fire him and did so, because Scots agent publicly said he wasn't.

You could see in his face he has been. Let's not kid ourselves. Reports are out. SM needs help. And the Skins fired him for cause. He smelled of alcohol at practice, wasted in the locker room etc.

 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

One, Im just glad they made a decision. Either way. 

Two, I dont know how much of this was SM drinking vs SM displeasure with not being able to bring in own scouts/true control etc.

Three, if SM was drinking vodka during the day like he was in SF, then I dont really care about the details of Two above, he had to go. 

Four, offer Kirk 24 per and let it be publicly known the ball is in his court. 

[sknsrbck26]

Just now, Stadium-Armory said:

After initially being pissed I've come to the conclusion that this is nothing to get really bent about. They took a gamble on a talented GM who came with downside risk. They lost. So what. It sounds like they tried to help him and finally had to let him go. Is the timing weird? Yes.  But I don't fault them for taking a risk and failing. 

 

I think this is the narrative that the Redskins want us to believe. That they were nice guys, and Scott blew it. However, if you look at the reports coming from Wapo, and other networks it seems that a power struggle ensued, and Bruce undermined Scott, and they wanted to get rid of him. 

[Springfield]

4 minutes ago, maskedsuperstar said:

Their fault? You can hate on those 2 all you want. This is Scots fault. It starts with him. 

 

No.  It starts with the people who hired him.

[MattFancy]

Just now, Stadium-Armory said:

After initially being pissed I've come to the conclusion that this is nothing to get really bent about. They took a gamble on a talented GM who came with downside risk. They lost. So what. It sounds like they tried to help him and finally had to let him go. Is the timing weird? Yes.  But I don't fault them for taking a risk and failing. 

 

Well not only that, but it's hard to say how much of an impact McCloughan really had. His drafts were okay and his FA signings were pretty bad. Now, we don't know much say he really had in all of that, but it's not like every move he made turned to gold.

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

4 minutes ago, maskedsuperstar said:

You could see in his face he has been. Let's not kid ourselves. Reports are out. SM needs help. And the Skins fired him for cause. He smelled of alcohol at practice, wasted in the locker room etc.

 

 

Where did you hear he smelled of alcohol in practice or wasted in locker room? 

[maskedsuperstar]

1 minute ago, MattFancy said:

 

I'm not saying the team should have gone into the drinking issues at that point. But the fact that they blamed it on his grandmother was odd when it was an easy thing to figure out when all of that stuff took place. The team got caught in a lie and it makes them look bad. If Scot was drinking on the job and showing up drunk, then sure, I have no issue with firing him. It was just the way that Allen and the team mislead everyone that is what has everyone so angry.

I gotcha.

[sknsrbck26]

Just now, MattFancy said:

 

Well not only that, but it's hard to say how much of an impact McCloughan really had. His drafts were okay and his FA signings were pretty bad. Now, we don't know much say he really had in all of that, but it's not like every move he made turned to gold.

 

 

That's my point, if Wapo is correct, the moves were Bruce and Gruden. 

 

But who really knows. 

[maskedsuperstar]

1 minute ago, sknsrbck26 said:

 

I think this is the narrative that the Redskins want us to believe. That they were nice guys, and Scott blew it. However, if you look at the reports coming from Wapo, and other networks it seems that a power struggle ensued, and Bruce undermined Scott, and they wanted to get rid of him. 

Mmmmmmmmmm...........no

Like Kevin Sheenan said this morning, "fans are going to believe that there was a power struggle"

He doesn't believe that and I don't. Scot, when he took the job, had issues. Everybody knew it.

[Going Commando]

2 minutes ago, Stadium-Armory said:

After initially being pissed I've come to the conclusion that this is nothing to get really bent about. They took a gamble on a talented GM who came with downside risk. They lost. So what. It sounds like they tried to help him and finally had to let him go. Is the timing weird? Yes.  But I don't fault them for taking a risk and failing. 

This is basically where I'm at too.  I'm sad it didn't work out.  I respect McCloughan's eye for talent and I really like his two draft classes.  But I also suspect he's erratic and unreliable.  As I said in a different thread, you can be brilliant at a part of your job and still be an unemployable trainwreck.  I understand how it could be necessary to fire him and for Allen to not be the bad guy in this situation.

[maskedsuperstar]

3 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

Where did you hear he smelled of alcohol in practice or wasted in locker room? 

Washington post

You better turn your radio on. ESPN980

[WelshSkinsFan]

5 minutes ago, MattFancy said:

 

I'm not saying the team should have gone into the drinking issues at that point. But the fact that they blamed it on his grandmother was odd when it was an easy thing to figure out when all of that stuff took place. The team got caught in a lie and it makes them look bad. If Scot was drinking on the job and showing up drunk, then sure, I have no issue with firing him. It was just the way that Allen and the team mislead everyone that is what has everyone so angry.

 

To be fair the grandmother story originated from Scot's agent and Allen just backed it up.

[sknsrbck26]

3 minutes ago, maskedsuperstar said:

Mmmmmmmmmm...........no

Like Kevin Sheenan said this morning, "fans are going to believe that there was a power struggle"

He doesn't believe that and I don't. Scot, when he took the job, had issues. Everybody knew it.

 

 

We all knew he had issues yes, but to discount the countless reports to the contrary is like putting your head in the sand. Then to keep him 18 months on the job, then to suddenly cut him loose seems odd. With all the leaks coming out of Redskins park, I find it hard to believe they could keep his problems under wraps for that long. 

[theTruthTeller]

4 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

So now he did a ****ty job?  Then why is everyone so angry about him getting fired?

Name someone other than Crowder whose production has exceeded his draft position.  I'll throw in Kelley too.

 

I'm not angry about him being fired.  I'm disappointed that the team makes such poor decisions at the management level.  If you are going to hire a known alcoholic, you can't take his word that he's got it under control.  And look the other way when he's drinking on the job.  And then cover it up with ridiculous stories that only the most hardened fans don't scoff at.

[maskedsuperstar]

1 minute ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

This is basically where I'm at too.  I'm sad it didn't work out.  I respect McCloughan's eye for talent and I really like his two draft classes.  But I also suspect he's erratic and unreliable.  As I said in a different thread, you can be brilliant at a part of your job and still be an unemployable trainwreck.  I understand how it could be necessary to fire him and for Allen to not be the bad guy in this situation.

Allen got in trouble covering and lying for Scot. This team wasn't going to get the benefit of the doubt. 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

7 minutes ago, maskedsuperstar said:

Washington post

You better turn your radio on. ESPN980

Follow Mike Jones @MikeJonesWaPo Was told late in the season of jealousy up top and how they'd one day use McCloughan drinking as an excuse to can him. Exactly what happened 7:21 PM - 9 Mar 2017 2,278 2,278 Retweets 1,954 1,954 likes

Seems to be conflicting "unnamed source" reports .... Ill wait for named sources. 

[maskedsuperstar]

1 minute ago, sknsrbck26 said:

 

 

We all knew he had issues yes, but to discount the countless reports to the contrary is like putting your head in the sand. Then to keep him 18 months on the job, then to suddenly cut him loose seems odd. With all the leaks coming out of Redskins park, I find it hard to believe they could keep his problems under wraps for that long. 

I honestly think they tried to work with Scot. He got sent home for a reason. The Skins couldn't take any more of it. 

1 minute ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

Follow Mike Jones @MikeJonesWaPo Was told late in the season of jealousy up top and how they'd one day use McCloughan drinking as an excuse to can him. Exactly what happened 7:21 PM - 9 Mar 2017 2,278 2,278 Retweets 1,954 1,954 likes

Seems to be conflicting "unnamed source" reports .... Ill wait for named sources. 

https://www.google.com/amp/washington.cbslocal.com/2017/03/09/redskins-fire-gm-scot-mccloughan/amp/

[Stadium-Armory]

14 minutes ago, sknsrbck26 said:

 

I think this is the narrative that the Redskins want us to believe. That they were nice guys, and Scott blew it. However, if you look at the reports coming from Wapo, and other networks it seems that a power struggle ensued, and Bruce undermined Scott, and they wanted to get rid of him. 

 

The power struggle thing doesn't make much sense to me given the timing. If it was just about a difference of opinion, the exit would have been much smoother and not likely on the first day of free agency. There's nothing particularly messy about executives with differing opinions and one has to leave. That's common in businesses everywhere. This ended in messy fashion which leads me to believe it wasn't a run of the mill clash of ideas.