Art Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, RWJ said: Art who do YOU think replaces Scot as GM to assume the same responsibilities he had? Mayock, Williams, Dominick (I certainly hope not), Santos or someone we haven't heard of yet. I certainly hope it's someone outside the organization. No clue whatsoever. Like everyone else, I'm sure, I hope it's not Dominick :). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWJ Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Just now, Art said: No clue whatsoever. Like everyone else, I'm sure, I hope it's not Dominick :). A recent article I read said Dan Snyder was enamored with him and Jay Gruden is good friends with Mayock. He would be an interesting hire to fill the position that Scot had, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Mayock is a publicity stunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Any move that leaves Snyder and Allen in charge of talent evaluation - is a Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad one!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 12 hours ago, Peregrine said: So then what you are saying is the Redskins had no issues with him for 18 months, and as things were going, would have kept him. But thats NOT what they told everyone in their release, they said the reason they fired him was that this had been going on for 18 months. And if they lied about this 2 weeks ago when Bruce Allen said it was a family matter, and if they lied about it a couple of days ago, why, oh why, would we believe they arent lying about it now? Also, to suggest that the Redskins couldnt go a week "without answering other teams calling you about stuff" is to ignore what they said about the fact that they were already handling everything in his absence. They had already told the other teams thats what they were doing, and had Bruce talking to them. Which turned out to be an even bigger disaster, so they made a PR based call, that made their public perception look even worse, after they had already really messed up their PR in the first place. They didnt have to let him go, they made a poor decision to do it at the wrong time, again, because they were trying to cover up other poor decisions and hadnt thought any of them through. That was not in their release. That was from "other unnamed sources". This is the entire release: "The Washington Redskins have released Scot McCloughan from the organization effective immediately. We wish him success in his future endeavors. The team will have no further comment on his departure. The organization remains confident in our personnel department as we execute our free agency plans as well as prepare for the upcoming NFL Draft." Once it came out that there was a problem you have to do something. So they not only did the right thing they did it when they had to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 The thing that keeps coming to mind was when the 49ers just after the season ( I am guessing when they were going though their GM search) put a twitter out that was seen as a jab at Scott - something about searching for a "a competent and sober" executive . Which was odd timing - because the 49ers were two teams ago - and at the time I thought it a classless zing from a classless organisation - but I guess looking back might have been born out of frustration because they were maybe trying to get into proper negotiations about a potential trade - I would guess for Cousins . I also wonder if this Scot things poisened the well in negotiations with Garcon, Jackson. Baker and Cousins .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Probos Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 By all accounts the Skins had enough of a reason(s) to cut ties with Scot, but that's over simplifying it. The Skins FO do want you to take that point of view though.... The Skins hired Scot two years ago knowing his track record personally and professionally. They rolled the dice (although they knew Scot had never actually stopped drinking),...but,..they also sold the public a bill of goods that was bogus. They knew the fanbase wanted a real GM for while,...so,...they hire Scot and publicly name him the GM. Fast forward to now and we know that was never really the case. The Skins never seem to actually attack the core of their issues. Instead they like to address symptoms to avoid criticism, but in the end they just end up back where they started. Dan and Bruce want that control but never seem to have a solid plan from a true football perspective. They want all the praise if/when something goes right but none of the criticism when things go south, so they do **** like this (eg,...hire Scot). If Bruce thinks he can be the guy at the top for making personnel decisions than just do it already. Be the GM,..do the ****ing job and quite with the charades,...stop treating fanbase like a bunch of assholes. Commit to the job and either succeed or fail on your own merits. Have some pride for **** sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedBeast Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 What I'm really surprised about as they didn't prepare for it, which they could have easily done. Now that I think about it I'm not surprised at all. Bunch of damn baffoons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 I like to imagine a scene where Snyder and Bruce Allen are watching a wall full of monitors, Crown Royals in hand. "They aren't buying it, sir." "This is a PR disaster." "It has to be done, sir." "I know. God help me, I know." "Do I give the order?" <PAUSE> "Sir, we need to do this now....." "Unleash, Art...." <Allen picks up a phone> "Edith, it's Bruce. Get.Me.Art." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 You do me too great a kindness LKB. Even I can not save it this late but had they reached out earlier, sure. All I can do is point out when your GM stops taking calls or answering texts, you kind of have to fire him :). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 So Art, when you are going officially take the job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brokenstriker Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Hi, I'm Brokenstriker. I'm a Redskins optimist. <Pause for chorus of "Hi Brokenstriker>" Frankly I don't care much on this one. There was a reason ownership/management didn't want to retain their GM (or whatever the hell his title was). It was a disconnect about how to build the team and/or a personal professional conduct problem (alcohol), or maybe something else. It happens. They pulled the trigger. They waited awhile ... could be to try to fix it, see how bad it was, root out any other issues, or maybe try to find a replacement. Scott was OK as far as I'm concerned but he also wasn't the be all end all GM. There are other pros out there who can do that job. All I really care about now is how the Skins address the vacancy. I want to see a real GM role with a qualified person in that position. Beyond that ... I'm not biting on all this melodrama about Snyder being a crappy owner, Allen being a stuffed shirt, etc. Just gimme a GM with a decent resume who's got a vision that is realistic and a talent for evaluating talent, building rosters, working with the head coach and making deals. Frankly I don't even really care how they address the traditional GM function ... I just want to see a core group of talented players who are complementary to the coaching staff (or vice verse), no felony stupid personnel moves, buy quality with futures ahead of them and at prices that allow roster depth without selling the future (no more #1 pick give aways). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 On 3/12/2017 at 0:07 PM, Art said: No, it has not been documented. It's been "rumored" and printed, which is not necessarily factual. Here is a fact. Scot was in total control of the draft, 100 percent. Scot was in total control of the free agent list and priority. But, Scot had nothing to do with the acquisition. He simply gave a list and the team tried to acquire based on parameters. Scot had total control of the PRE training camp roster. Once training camp started, the coaching staff had a greater role and where disagreement on a roster cut took place the team did side with the coaching staff who had to actually put the guys on the field and this is ENTIRELY normal. Gruden has and should have control over the roster composition. On 3/12/2017 at 7:35 PM, Art said: It isn't that he wasn't answering the media. No one cares about that at Redskins Park. He wasn't answering other GMs calling and texting to talk. His voicemail at Redskins Park was full. Calls were not going through. He wasn't answering any texts from TEAMS. This has actually been reported AS such so it's not a secret. Other personnel people were asking media guys if they knew what was happening. Well before the combine and before the news really started flaring up. After two weeks he kind of came back but was not doing well. He was still pretty hammered. The Feb. 20 thing wasn't that he was being fired. Even him missing the combine wasn't. When Bruce said the team thought he'd be back after the combine, I think that's true. They figured he was just on a bender and would get it back together. Once they realized how much he'd been missing it forced their hand. And they needed him responsive once free agency started. It was clear he wasn't ready to be that I believe. This happened when it did because Scot didn't handle the death well at the same time his job was the most stressful and pressing and he had a serious relapse. The Cooley speculation wasn't directed by the team, but at the same time, Cooley knows the deal. It wasn't idle. He wasn't GUESSING. How did I miss all this lol.... One thing I'm wondering...if all of this is true, how is it that not a single person in the media has come even remotely close to reporting any of this? Seems like it would be incredibly easy to find a source who could leak this info. Then again, if 95% of the "sources" are players, players' friends and "staffers", it could be that none of them would have known about most of the stuff Art detailed here, I guess...I'm not saying I believe Art, but he doesn't put his rep on the line like this for ****s and giggles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 10 hours ago, Califan007 said: How did I miss all this lol.... One thing I'm wondering...if all of this is true, how is it that not a single person in the media has come even remotely close to reporting any of this? Seems like it would be incredibly easy to find a source who could leak this info. Then again, if 95% of the "sources" are players, players' friends and "staffers", it could be that none of them would have known about most of the stuff Art detailed here, I guess...I'm not saying I believe Art, but he doesn't put his rep on the line like this for ****s and giggles. I think because it is easier to drive petty jelousy and incompetence as a story line because to be honest it is expected and no one really gets hurt.. People tend to turn a blind eye when it comes to people having issues. Everyone knows about them but no one talks about them. And that is not to vilify Scot - IF this is the issue - there but for the grace of god and all that - but society as a whole doesnt like to discuss these things because it makes people realise actually if you look harder at this situation - then maybe there is something we could have done about it . And looking at it on a broader context - You have Ben Afflick who has come out about his drinking problems - You have guys like Robin Williams - who the extenct of his problems were only found out after his death - Charlie Sheen - the studio turned a blind eye to his issues untill they simply could not opperate any more. - Guys who had problems which lots of people knew about and no one talked about until - well it exploded into the media. And this is not to say - again IF scots drinking was the problem - that the Redskins didn't get him help but they also facilitated him by covering up his behaviour - so he got away with things - If they could have i am sure the Redskins brass would have loved to have covered this up too but the timing was absolutely terrible.... and they could have tried to give a statement to state he was dealing with things to explain his absence- but by Scots admission he left Redskins park on his own volition and the Redskins did not know what his plans were or how long he would be away - he could have from their point of view gone on the 20th and been back on the 21st. The media would not talk about it because it transcends that line between what is public (and the fans need to know) and what is private and it is a kind of taboo - People don't like to talk about other people's issues for them - and quite rightly too . IF, and again i stress IF this is the issue (scot having problems with drinking) - it is up to him to own his problem and really address it - not for the media - especially the sports media to speculate and pass on speculation and rumour about people's private lives. I hope for Scots health this is not the issue and I would rather this entire mess be about people playing politics at a sports club and massive egos - but logic make you think when a guy with a drinking problems- who has been fired from his previous jobs; because of his drinking problem; starts acting erratically and then eventually gets fired - you would be a brave man indeed not to think drinking was an issue . You also have to think that both Seattle and the 49ers went through this with him as well - I very much doubt he turned up drunk once to work and then was fired; i would have to guess they also tried to get him help. Which makes me laugh when you hear people talking about how Dan Snyder has destroyed Scots reputation - by allowing the media to peddle their constant hatred pieces about speculative infighting and dysfunction (which they would anyway) it allows Scot to come away as the victim for once and not the problem ... i am not sure the truth will ever fully be discussed but i do wonder now if any team might reach out to Scot again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 On 3/12/2017 at 11:27 AM, Art said: The bottom line is the Redskins absolutely have handled the messaging around this situation like morons. No one could reasonably suggest otherwise. At the same time, the reason they fired him is because he has not been answering his phone or responding to messages the last several weeks. The team knew he was on a bender because of his grandmother and for some time just thought he'd snap out of it. When it became apparent his voice mail was full and he had not returned hundreds of texts for several weeks, the team realized this was going to explode and let him go. The anonymous plant in the news was unnecessary. But there was no choice on this. Really nice to see you posting again Art. Mike Jones, Jerry Brewer and Chris Russell are ADAMANT that Scot's firing was over a power struggle or pissing match with Bruce. And now the Albert Breer report backs that up...there's always three sides to a story, but I'm curious to know if things were really that bad at Redskins Park? Like other reports claim the alcohol flows like a waterfall in Ashburn which could've led to a possible relapse for Scot...is this true? Also, the report in the summer of 2015 when Scot's wife accused him of trading inside information for humps with Diana Russini...any truth to this also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 On 3/13/2017 at 4:24 PM, Art said: You do me too great a kindness LKB. Even I can not save it this late but had they reached out earlier, sure. All I can do is point out when your GM stops taking calls or answering texts, you kind of have to fire him :). An Art sighting! Hey there. Yeah I figured maybe Dan had you on the bat phone to negotiate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Green Fan Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 On 3/13/2017 at 8:03 AM, RedBeast said: What I'm really surprised about as they didn't prepare for it, which they could have easily done. Now that I think about it I'm not surprised at all. Bunch of damn baffoons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 So, for clarity Cali. This is all reported. Nothing in the Jones report in the Post is one iota different, from a "control" standpoint than I wrote. He just wrote it as if it was weird the coaching staff has final roster composition when, in fact, it's weird for it NOT to. The team is, even now, going off Scot's free agency board for signings. This has been reported multiple times. This is how it has been. Scot doesn't have anything to do with acquisition. He sets the priority and the contract people make it go. Additionally, it HAS actually be reported that other personnel people have asked reporters what's happening with Scot because he's not answering texts and his voice mail is full. This is ALL in the public domain. So, why is Breer, Jones, Russell, et. al., insistent that the termination was solely a power play? Hard to know for sure, other than they have a vested interest in making it seem like they had it right, when they did not. And, for the record, one can not have a "power struggle" when ALL reporting has TWO things right. First, Scot had to convince Dan AND Bruce that Cousins was our guy. Meaning, the two guys he convinced WERE in power. It wasn't a struggle. Scot, as their subordinate, sold an idea to his bosses. And, importantly, Bruce fired him. There was no power struggle. Scot has had a boss since he arrived. His boss fired him. Yes, his boss was irritated a guy who had LESS to do with our successful roster than HE DID HIMSELF -- as Bruce had more players acquired under him who helped us than Scot did -- that somehow Scot was doing a good job when he was not, but ultimately his boss got about 100 calls from people saying, "Dude, we're trying to reach your GM to talk about stuff but he's not answering." That is hard to recover from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 8 hours ago, Boss_Hogg said: Really nice to see you posting again Art. Mike Jones, Jerry Brewer and Chris Russell are ADAMANT that Scot's firing was over a power struggle or pissing match with Bruce. And now the Albert Breer report backs that up...there's always three sides to a story, but I'm curious to know if things were really that bad at Redskins Park? Like other reports claim the alcohol flows like a waterfall in Ashburn which could've led to a possible relapse for Scot...is this true? Also, the report in the summer of 2015 when Scot's wife accused him of trading inside information for humps with Diana Russini...any truth to this also? I can confirm people in leadership and the players drink. Hell, I have, personally, been tasked with driving out of dry Dallas to a neighboring county to acquiring vodka for players and coaches to take on the plane back to D.C.. This is not unique to Washington. People drink. They are on the road having fun and they drink. Young guys are rich and they drink. Clinton Portis turned his house into a nightclub with stripper poles at night so he could party hard in his house and not get in legal trouble. Champ Bailey had 8 kids in the family box cause he liked to get hammered and nail chicks, which lead his wife to demanding he go somewhere else, so he went to Denver and ****ed them there too. You live fast in the NFL. Scot's problem isn't that the Redskins were a bad environment for a drinker. It was he was a drinker who liked a water bottle of vodka at 9 a.m. instead of starting at 7 p.m. when **** got rolling. NO ONE at Redskins Park drinks during the day, or on game day. Scot did in three locations. That's a Scot thing, not a Redskins thing. I had a vacation day today from work and just got home after 15 Guinness and 4 shots. I feel GREAT. I drank all day. It was "special". For Scot, this was a Monday. But that's not a downfall. As long as he's working and holding it together it doesn't matter if he's tipping. In February he was tipping and stopped working. He stopped performing his duties. Stopped answering his phone. He was likely morning his grandmother and fell deep in a hole and he couldn't get himself to come out of it and restart. That doesn't mean he always agreed with everyone at Redskins Park or that he always did. He would still be our GM if his voicemail in his office starting around February 9 didn't report back to callers, "This voicemail box is full." It's as simple as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Green Fan Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 On 3/12/2017 at 10:35 PM, Art said: It isn't that he wasn't answering the media. No one cares about that at Redskins Park. He wasn't answering other GMs calling and texting to talk. His voicemail at Redskins Park was full. Calls were not going through. He wasn't answering any texts from TEAMS. This has actually been reported AS such so it's not a secret. Other personnel people were asking media guys if they knew what was happening. Well before the combine and before the news really started flaring up. After two weeks he kind of came back but was not doing well. He was still pretty hammered. The Feb. 20 thing wasn't that he was being fired. Even him missing the combine wasn't. When Bruce said the team thought he'd be back after the combine, I think that's true. They figured he was just on a bender and would get it back together. Once they realized how much he'd been missing it forced their hand. And they needed him responsive once free agency started. It was clear he wasn't ready to be that I believe. This happened when it did because Scot didn't handle the death well at the same time his job was the most stressful and pressing and he had a serious relapse. The Cooley speculation wasn't directed by the team, but at the same time, Cooley knows the deal. It wasn't idle. He wasn't GUESSING. I guess my question is why are the Redskins getting hammered by executives throughout the league if the firing was justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 @Art I'd guess Scot may have got lucky and escaped the cull at a different time of the NFL calendar? Was probably always going to catch up with him at some point, ticking bomb scenario, pretty sad on reflection depending on your standpoint. Curious if he is done in all capacity with the team. Success was average under his tenure. Having used his scouting services before, is this a fatal blow. Clearly he's screwed as a GM in league circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 14 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said: I guess my question is why are the Redskins getting hammered by executives throughout the league if the firing was justified? Because, as i said and we all know, the Skins handled the exit entirely wrongly with the anonymous dump on Scot. They didn't need to do that. Had the team given just their two sentence announcement and allowed no other info they'd have come out pretty squeaky. But, as they are often happy to do to themselves, they botched it at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SittingBull Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Even if you think they did the right thing, which I don't, it's THE WAY they did it that is inexcusable and reprehensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedBeast Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Never though about GMSM going into blackout mode...for days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Bass Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 I don't want Bruce to be the boss. I want a "real football GM" to be the boss. It's like Dan is trying to do everything except the one thing we have been asking from the beginning. Get a "real football GM" (not Bruce, a "football" GM). Give him the keys, and then go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.