Tsailand Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Califan007 said: And not like Kirk was gonna jump at $12M a year on a team he continuously keeps saying never believed in him, only saw him as a "4th round pick" with the chance at being able to pick the team he plays on for the first time since graduating high school, again like he's fond of telling anyone who would listen lol. In Sept 2015 he sure would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Tsailand said: Yeah, they got on board in December, but the offer they gave Kirk after the season was a joke. And now we are getting into the two+ years of them lowballing him and Kirk's agent winning. The right time to get Kirk cheap was before he balled out, but Snyder/Allen wouldn't let Scott negotiate then. Not arguing their approach, it sucked donkey testicles lol... I'm saying just the act of negotiating shows that they weren't overriding Scot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Califan007 said: And not like Kirk was gonna jump at $12M a year on a team he continuously keeps saying never believed in him, only saw him as a "4th round pick" with the chance at being able to pick the team he plays on for the first time since graduating high school, again like he's fond of telling anyone who would listen lol...And considering how the majority both among fans and in the media felt they understood why the Skins franchised Kirk in order to see more from him, I have to imagine they'd understand even more about the Skins wanting to see more from him after 5 games before signing him. Um, "speculate" much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Tsailand said: In Sept 2015 he sure would have. Even Kirk said that's not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Califan007 said: Not arguing their approach, it sucked donkey testicles lol... I'm saying just the act of negotiating shows that they weren't overriding Scot. But they were not negotiating. Throwing a lowball deal, having it get rejected and then offering nothing for a year? And then doing the same thing over again? Well, if that is what you call negotiating..................this must be The Art of the Deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 Just now, Morneblade said: Um, "speculate" much? Um, did I say anything in that post was fact?... Did YOU mention something about "facts" in your post? That's the difference lol...for some reason some people can't keep their thoughts straight when debating with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsailand Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, Califan007 said: Even Kirk said that's not true. I need a source on that. Are you thinking of 2017? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 Just now, Morneblade said: But they were not negotiating. Throwing a lowball deal, having it get rejected and then offering nothing for a year? And then doing the same thing over again? Well, if that is what you call negotiating..................this must be The Art of the Deal. Well, if that's how you act when you want someone off the roster, they were doing it wrong lol..."Let's lowball him so that we only have to pay him $44M!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Califan007 said: Um, did I say anything in that post was fact?... Did YOU mention something about "facts" in your post? That's the difference lol...for some reason some people can't keep their thoughts straight when debating with me. Hardly. I answered your question, and showed you the article. Scot wanted Cousins, it didn't happen. Now, you wanna get all whataboutism about it, and still left without a leg to stand on, that's fine. If you wanna look silly, that's on you. 3 minutes ago, Califan007 said: Well, if that's how you act when you want someone off the roster, they were doing it wrong lol..."Let's lowball him so that we only have to pay him $44M!" Did anyone say they were smart? In fact, we've been saying the opposite. Try to keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 Just now, Tsailand said: I need a source on that. Are you thinking of 2017? Someone asked him if he would have signed during the 2015 season and he said he didn't know and then said when they did approach him his agent told him it wasn't a good idea and they agreed to not sign anything that season. I don't wanna go find it lol... I'm spending too much time on here as it is, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Morneblade said: Hardly. I answered your question, and showed you the article. Scot wanted Cousins, it didn't happen. Now, you wanna get all whataboutism about it, and still left without a leg to stand on, that's fine. If you wanna look silly, that's on you. Did anyone say they were smart? In fact, we've been saying the opposite. Try to keep up. You showed me an article that said it was speculation concerning if Dan or Bruce were against keeping Cousins on the roster. Then claimed I wanted to ignore "facts" to reach my conclusions. And I'm gonna pretend you're just being disingenuous by claiming the Skins franchising Cousins to the tune of $44M and not trading him was not a sign they still wanted to try and keep him on the roster, but that it was just their idiotic way of trying to kick him off the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 Just now, Califan007 said: You showed me an article that said it was speculation concerning if Dan or Bruce were against keeping Cousins on the roster. Then claimed I wanted to ignore "facts" to reach my conclusions. And I'm gonna pretend you're just being disingenuous by claiming the Skins franchising Cousins to the tune of $44M and not trading him was not a sign they still wanted to try and keep him on the roster, but that it was just their idiotic way of trying to kick him off the team. Well, if that works for you, I really don't care. You asked if there was anyone that Scot wanted to keep or get rid of that he didn't have the final say. I gave you a name. Everything else after that, is bull****. The fact that the idiot FO franchise tagged Cousins twice, and then let him go because they completely screwed the pooch has nothing to do with your original question. And just shows how ****ing incompetent Bruce Allen is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsailand Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Califan007 said: said when they did approach him his agent told him it wasn't a good idea and they agreed to not sign anything that season. Yeah, in December. When it was too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Califan007 said: Snyder being angry over the Doug Williams had already been reported over the last several days. His prime point seems to have been that Snyder is still angry lol... Lol. Where? I am typically good at reading-hearing stuff. WP article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreZorn Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 11 minutes ago, Morneblade said: Well, if that works for you, I really don't care. You asked if there was anyone that Scot wanted to keep or get rid of that he didn't have the final say. I gave you a name. Everything else after that, is bull****. But Bruce and Dan did want him to stay, hence the franchise tag... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsailand Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 50 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said: But Bruce and Dan did want him to stay, hence the franchise tag... Not in September 2015. By the time they did want him, everything they offered Kirk was too little and too late, until he ended up on the Vikings. We don't have to re-debate if he is really worth $84M, though. If Scott had been allowed to be the GM in September 2015, we would have locked up Kirk for the next few years on the cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 2 hours ago, Califan007 said: Snyder being angry over the Doug Williams had already been reported over the last several days. His prime point seems to have been that Snyder is still angry lol... It just hit me what you are referring to, do you mean Doug's own admission that Dan was mad at him? If that's it then Russell's report was different to a degree at least -- his point was Dan was steaming mad and the anger not directed at Doug so much but at Bruce. That's different than any other story, I've heard until Russell said so. Personally, i think the most interesting thing about it is that there are people in the FO who are texting Russell about it. That plays into what Brewer has also said which is there are people who work at that FO who don't care for Bruce and think they'd be more than fine without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowhunter Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 8 hours ago, Morneblade said: I normally don't do this, (with as many typos as I put out there) but "irrgardless" is not a word. It's simply "regardless". The topic of my post was about Quinn being on "IR" regardless of his potential. So, it's a compound word. There Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 4 hours ago, Califan007 said: i always ask this, I think I've gotten an answer once lol (might have even been from you lol)..but can anyone tell me what personnel moves Scot did NOT have final say on?...Who did we draft/sign/cut that went against what Scot wanted? The answer is of course no one knows exactly. Where this comes from is comments made by him and from people close to the team. Based on those reports there was a lot of back and forth between Scot and Bruce with Scot wanting to make certain moves but Bruce blocking him. That was specifically around free agents. They gave him complete freedom on draft picks - from what we heard. What exactly were those moves they disagreed on? We never heard anything precise. Did the people talking about it make that part up? Possibly. What we do know from Scot's comments is that he did not have the control he felt he was getting when he accepted the job. In fairness, he could have just assumed something not promised. That is certainly plausible. We may never know. I think to your point, it's hard to call it a lie, when we do not have all the facts. But it sure does at the very least seem like the was serious disagreement on what he thought the job was and what Bruce actually let him do. 3 hours ago, Morneblade said: Hardly. I answered your question, and showed you the article. Scot wanted Cousins, it didn't happen. Now, you wanna get all whataboutism about it, and still left without a leg to stand on, that's fine. If you wanna look silly, that's on you. Did anyone say they were smart? In fact, we've been saying the opposite. Try to keep up. For what it's worth, I just heard Scot on NFL.com about 3 or 4 weeks ago saying something different. He said that they all agreed to franchise him that first year. He also called it a mistake by him and everyone else. But he took some of the blame there making the exact statement that he agreed with franchising him. He did also say something about if they franchised him they would have to pay him if he played well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 4 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said: I'm not skipping through anything. We were in prime position for the playoffs that year and then when it counted most, laid a bunch of eggs. He should have known what kind of offer was coming, right after he threw a pick to seal our fate at home against a team that literally had nothing to play for. I will never understand why Kirk is so revered on here, but whatever. And what was the offer you are referring to? Like exact years and dollars. OK, still conjecture though. That also would have been after the time period of the supposed 4-5 months that Dan wanted Scott gone. So again, what caused that to happen and did that have bearing on stripping away his power to make key personnel decisions? What caused Dan to say go hire a football guy, and then want that guy gone so soon? I don't know the answers, but just asking the questions. A lot of pertinent information missing there before I jump on the "they hired a guy and then took everything away and it was all a lie" bandwagon. It's not the defense of Bruce as ignoring anything that does not support the narrative that Kirk was actually the bad guy in the negotiations. No one "reveres" Kirk. The team wanted to play hard ball and lost a very solid NFL QB in a very unconventional way and without any compensation. As for the interception, please tell me you are kidding. The entire team played like crap. It did not come down to one play. Kirk did not single handedly lose that game. It is still a team game. He was not good that day but he had help being that bad. As for the other games they blew, he played pretty well in many of those, Again, no running game and no defense. He cannot do it alone. As for the second part - the Scot thing is really strange. I am not sure he had any power stripped. I think what he believed total control meant was not what Bruce meant by total control. They never seemed to clear that up before he signed. In the end, they just did not work well together. Since Bruce is the boss, he gets to stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSSkinz Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 34 minutes ago, goskins10 said: For what it's worth, I just heard Scot on NFL.com about 3 or 4 weeks ago saying something different. He said that they all agreed to franchise him that first year. He also called it a mistake by him and everyone else. But he took some of the blame there making the exact statement that he agreed with franchising him. He did also say something about if they franchised him they would have to pay him if he played well. He should, that was always the debate for me in the Kirk thread, he should be held accountable and not just Bruce. He's on record as saying he wasn't comfortable accepting the counter of $19.5M after the 2015 season was complete and he's also on record as saying "I don't see special" when evaluating Kirk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 43 minutes ago, goskins10 said: The answer is of course no one knows exactly. Where this comes from is comments made by him and from people close to the team. Based on those reports there was a lot of back and forth between Scot and Bruce with Scot wanting to make certain moves but Bruce blocking him. That was specifically around free agents. They gave him complete freedom on draft picks - from what we heard. What exactly were those moves they disagreed on? We never heard anything precise. Did the people talking about it make that part up? Possibly. What we do know from Scot's comments is that he did not have the control he felt he was getting when he accepted the job. In fairness, he could have just assumed something not promised. That is certainly plausible. We may never know. I think to your point, it's hard to call it a lie, when we do not have all the facts. But it sure does at the very least seem like the was serious disagreement on what he thought the job was and what Bruce actually let him do. 3 For the record, I've never felt anyone lied about whether or not Scot had control over the roster. But from what I remember (and take that for what it's worth lol), the questions about Scot having his control over personnel blocked or taken from him first was mentioned in Brewer's article right around the time that all this started happening. I don't recall anyone making claims about Bruce or Dan getting in his way before that article came out. And from my perspective at the time and since, i still believe Brewer's article was basically written by McCloughan. Again, if I remember correctly, that article talked about Bruce being 'jealous" or "envious" or whatever term that was used, didn't mention having any sources which I found weird. The types of accusations Brewer made would need sources at the very least. It does seem plausible that Scot has more or less free reign during the draft but had to deal with Bruce and Dan for free agents. Not that Scot didn't seem to have whatever free agents he chose, but since FAs involve working out contracts as where draft picks are paid by their draft slot, Bruce and Dan (and Eric) would e part of that process whether Scot liked it or not, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said: It just hit me what you are referring to, do you mean Doug's own admission that Dan was mad at him? If that's it then Russell's report was different to a degree at least -- his point was Dan was steaming mad and the anger not directed at Doug so much but at Bruce. That's different than any other story, I've heard until Russell said so. Personally, i think the most interesting thing about it is that there are people in the FO who are texting Russell about it. That plays into what Brewer has also said which is there are people who work at that FO who don't care for Bruce and think they'd be more than fine without him. Yeah, that's what I was referring to lol...I just read your other post and saw you had quoted me twice (glad I read this one as well). I wasn't really thinking as to whether or not the news coverage was making Dan pissed, just that he was pissed in connection to the Williams story. Although I may have heard something about it on Sheehan's podcast but I'm not going back to listen lol. And by the way, I ****ing agree about someone in the FO texting Russell about it!...That shocks the hell out of me, honestly. I'm pretty sure Scot's willingness to dole out team info played a significant part in things souring between him and Bruce and Dan. So if anyone from the FO ends up, um, "moving on", we'll know who the leak was lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 5 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said: But Bruce and Dan did want him to stay, hence the franchise tag... And then didn't bother negotiating worth a ****. Sorry, but it honestly looks more like a lame attempt to appear as if they tried, just to save face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreZorn Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 3 hours ago, Morneblade said: And then didn't bother negotiating worth a ****. Sorry, but it honestly looks more like a lame attempt to appear as if they tried, just to save face. So please tell me and I’m honestly wondering. Why did they franchise him if they didn’t want him? Listen, I’m not saying dan and Bruce are fricking geniuses man. But they also aren’t complete friggin idiots who just slap a 20 million dollar tag on somebody who they have no intent of keeping around. There’s far more to it than that and I think you know that. We go off what we have heard, from Russell and the like. But have to wonder how accurate it all is considering most nobody seems to report a move before it’s coming anymore. Again, I’m not some Bruce fanboy. Im a fanboy of logic. And you will never convince me they didn’t want Kirk cousins, yet slapped the franchise tag on him. Twice. Believe what comes out in the media, that’s cool and I get it. I personally don’t. Not because it makes my team look bad and I love the Redskins. If you read my posts in entirety and not for confirmation bias purposes, you will find I’m quite fair in my assessment of the team overall. I’m not running all over the board saying how great we are, though I do believe we have a strong roster. I’ve disagreed with signings such as the MCs and the fact we weren’t proactive in dealing cousins. Would I prefer a golden boy GM who everyone loves and respects, sure I would. But those things don’t cause me to forget the recent valuation of the draft, hitting on picks, really good coaching staff, continuity, avoidance of high dollar/older FA’s, comp picks, building the lines, etc. Those things are very important to an NFL team and seem to be forgotten or underrated by most, and they are things I called for constantly during the Vinny years. It’s my belief we are coming up on the time period where that process bears results, but let’s see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.