The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[goskins10]

7 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

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.

 

I didn't think you did. In fact I read your original question as questioning others saying the FO lied about giving Scot control. Lied is such an easy word thrown around these days. I honestly believe the two guys just did not work well together. Scot was more brash, in your face than I think Bruce likes. If you look at the others the he has put around him they are all very cerebral laid back people. Also, I think Scot talked too much for them. The team does not play well with the local media and have not since the day Dan bought the team. Scot was more open than I think they liked.

 

So the way I saw it, him being dismissed was more about him not getting along with Bruce's and the team working style than actual personnel decisions. I was not in the room so I do not know obviously, That's just my take on it.

[Darrell Green Fan]

I was extremely critical of the team for the way they handled the Scott M situation. But given his history it is entirely possible that he showed up for work drunk one too many times.  it may be nothing more than that.  

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

I didn't think you did. In fact I read your original question as questioning others saying the FO lied about giving Scot control. Lied is such an easy word thrown around these days. I honestly believe the two guys just did not work well together. Scot was more brash, in your face than I think Bruce likes. If you look at the others the he has put around him they are all very cerebral laid back people. Also, I think Scot talked too much for them. The team does not play well with the local media and have not since the day Dan bought the team. Scot was more open than I think they liked.

 

So the way I saw it, him being dismissed was more about him not getting along with Bruce's and the team working style than actual personnel decisions. I was not in the room so I do not know obviously, That's just my take on it.

 

It's one thing I oddly had a little privy to and that was Scot's personality.  And he talked about himself and his style some.  He came off very straight forward.  Great guy, too -- very likable.   And definitely a strong personality.

 

I like to say part of Jay's charm in this organization is he's a laid back-roll with the punches type.  I think you almost have to be to thrive there.

 

I've said here many times, I don't think its some odd coincidence that their current FO structure works in a way where any of the personalities in that FO can just make suggestions versus have ultimate authority.   That's not because I think Bruce and or Dan micro manages them.  I actually bet they don't micro manage.  But its set up in a way where if Bruce and or Dan want to make a move or disagree -- they have the ultimate authority to do things their way. 

 

And I think they love that structure and equally realize that the media and some fans frown on it so they'd rather it go on quiet without fanfare.  One thing that we see in common with these WP stories and exposes is they hate it when this structure is revealed in different ways.  It almost comes off to me like a kid who knows where the candy is in the kitchen but doesn't tell their parents they do and they sneak a piece every now and then while telling their parents they don't eat sugar anymore.  

 

Among the things that came out related to Bruce-Scot is that Scot didn't like it when he didn't have the final call.  By that I doubt Bruce-Dan micromanaged him. But by that, it meant when Bruce disagreed and wanted to do something else -- Scot shouldn't complain and just like a good solider go along with it.  And it sounded like Scot didn't like doing that.  So now they have a structure where no one could complain in those scenarios.   

 

i know to some its who cares that Bruce has final say (or by extension Dan) because hey Kyle Smith is picking the groceries in the draft and they don't pursue loud FAs these days.   But to me, being a really good organization is not about getting somethings right but by having a well oiled machine.  There is a small finite difference some say between the perennial good teams versus ones who aren't -- and part of that is naturally getting the Qb position right (not exactly the wheel house of Dan during his era) and the other part is just nailing personnel decisions -- the draft and FA with a higher rate of success than other teams.

 

Having just some parts of the soup work better is better than the alternative.  But I am not celebrating anymore that the FO has mastered the 101 courses of doing well -- the basics.  Most teams indeed understand draft picks matter, young and cheap is good, and paying older guys lots of money typically isn't good.   That approach will likely keep you out of the basement but to be really good -- you need to be more advanced than that.   I am looking for 300 level course mastery.  And I just don't see how that comes together with this odd structure where Dan-Bruce do have ultimate say behind the scenes.    Maybe Dan for example didn't micro manage Shanny -- but his occasional stamp -- trade for McNabb as an example, did enough damage.

 

But the larger point for me isn't even curbing Dan-Bruce's bad instincts.  The thing is for me is about having an overall architect designing this roster.  That at least was the idea with Scot in charge.    But at least based on how this structure is described by others -- there really isn't that guy right now unless Bruce-Dan are the defacto architects.   Schaffer deals with contracts-caps.  Kyle is all about the draft.  Doug is the facilitator but he's typically not the guy identifying the talent with some rare exceptions.  Santos is studying FA-pro personnel.   They have a lot of chiefs with their own realms but who is the person putting it all together -- the vision for the full roster?   Our version of John Dorsey with the Browns, etc.

 

 

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

16 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

You asked a specific question. I gave you an answer. Scot wanted Cousins and wanted him signed early. It didn't happen, so it's obvious he did not have complete control, right? That was your question. There is your answer.

 

As to anything after that, Scot wanted to get started early, to try and get a better deal. The only "speculation" is when. And who didn't want Cousins. Neither have anything to do with your original question. Don't like the answer? Sorry about your luck.

 

I'm sure it's somewhere, but can you guys point me to where it was stated during the hiring of McCloughan that he would have complete say and final decisions on all personnel? 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

31 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I'm sure it's somewhere, but can you guys point me to where it was stated during the hiring of McCloughan that he would have complete say and final decisions on all personnel? 

I’ve pulled it and posted it on numerous occasions.  The transcript from his introductory presser is out there in google land and Bruce indeed stated he would have full control of personnel.  I also remember it well as I listened to the PC on the radio while sitting in traffic and remember the euphoria I felt when hearing it.

 

edit: I can’t find the transcript anymore but the press conference itself is on YouTube.  Right before Bruce hands off to Scot he says “He will be in charge of the personnel department and personnel of this team”.

[Skinsinparadise]

50 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I’ve pulled it and posted it on numerous occasions.  The transcript from his introductory presser is out there in google land and Bruce indeed stated he would have full control of personnel.  I also remember it well as I listened to the PC on the radio while sitting in traffic and remember the euphoria I felt when hearing it.

 

edit: I can’t find the transcript anymore but the press conference itself is on YouTube.  Right before Bruce hands off to Scot he says “He will be in charge of the personnel department and personnel of this team”.

 

Yep the only thing Bruce indicated he'd keep authority on is coach hires.

[Morneblade]

7 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

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.

 

Actually, from what I've seen, you are a Bruce fanboy. I don't think you are terribly logical either. You have some pretty strong biases, and they get in the way of your thinking. When those biases are not in play, I think you're pretty level headed. But those biases do come into play.

 

As to why Allen decided to franchise Cousins twice (unheard of) I don't know. But it was certain at that point that he had no interest in keeping him. You've given up and negotiating collateral once you've done that. If he really wanted him things would have gone down like this.

 

He would have, after getting his lowball offer rejected, come back with a better offer, one that would actually not be a insult. Then, the 2 sides would have likely gone back and forth. Like a normal negotiation when 2 people are actually interested in getting a deal done. We see this all the time. We did not see it here.

 

So, why did Bruce even bother? I'm not sure, but in my opinion, it was to make it look like he was trying. Cousins at that time, had just broken every Redskin single season record for passing. He's the first QB that we've had in decades that comes close to being a "franchise QB". And, he was a 4th round draft pick for the team, a home grown prospect. Bruce cares about appearances, and he really didn't want to look like a guy that has all of this, and is just willing to give him up. And for nothing? That makes Bruce the real bad guy here, and is a huge amount of negative publicity to have to deal with. I don't think Bruce really wanted Cousins here. I also think that in completely mishandled the "negotiations" with Cousins and backed himself into a wall. I suppose he though he could play hard ball, signing him to the 1st franchise tag and hoping that Cousins would play like crap. It didn't happen, and Allen had lost all leverage. Instead of actually negotiating this time, he goes with a 2nd franchise tag. Now, if you really thing that Bruce was trying to get a deal done that this point, then you really don't do the "logic thing" well. There was no way a deal with getting done, and Cousins checked out. I would have done so too. It was painfully obvious at this point that the Redskins wanted nothing to do with Cousins.

 

If Bruce was good, at this point what he might have tired was to do a one year deal and trade. Work a deal with a team like Minny, sign Cousins for a reasonable deal, all parties knowing he would be traded, and work an extension out when he gets to that team, and maybe get a draft pick out of it. In other words, the Alex Smith trade. THAT is how you handle moving a player that you don't have plans for anymore.

 

But Bruce is not that good. Certainly not in that aspect.

 

As I said before, Bruce has a long and storied track record both at Oakland and Tampa Bay of being underhanded. This was another example, but this one really blew up in his face.

 

Hell, I was even a fan of bringing him in originally, having ties with the team and having a understanding of what being a Redskin really is. Or so I thought. I knew that he wasn't a personnel guy, but he would get us out of cap hell, and we were in it deep at that time. That was, until I started seeing things both in in Tampa and Oakland that were really sketchy. And then I saw a continuation of that here.

 

So, I'm not a fan. You are. That's fine and all, and you might not care if he's sketchy AF as long as he gets the job done. I do, and I don't think he's done a good job, certainly in some aspects at all. In others he has, but we also have other people in the building that I trust can, and have done those jobs well. And they don't have the dark cloud that Bruce gives the organization.

[HardcoreZorn]

@Morneblade You are taking my question, "Why so much hatred" and projecting that into Bruce fanaticism. It's OK, you aren't the only one. But it doesn't need to be this black and white debate. I personally don't hate the guy, think he's done some really good things. I am at least confident that if this operation were to blow up, whoever comes in to  replace him would be in a substantially better situation than the one Bruce inherited in 2009. I also think he's made some gaffes. I don't think he's some franchise savior. I do not have a Bruce Allen fat head and dream of meeting Bruce Allen one day and having endless coors lights with the guy. I totally get that it's absolutely preposterous in your eyes that anybody could have any other position outside of F Bruce Allen. Unfortunately, I have a slightly different take. A little more even-keeled. And that's OK, the sun will come up tomorrow.

 

The rest of your post is pure conjecture at best in an attempt to make me seem illogical. Just agree to disagree man. I don't think anything you said makes a shred of sense, but if all of that is true, please get Bruce Allen the hell away from my team! Now I understand why you feel the way you do... progress.

[Morneblade]

2 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I'm sure it's somewhere, but can you guys point me to where it was stated during the hiring of McCloughan that he would have complete say and final decisions on all personnel? 

 

Probably in his title. General Manager. But there is more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2015/01/07/redskins-complete-deal-to-hire-scot-mccloughan/?utm_term=.8494d5e3797c

"The Washington Redskins have finalized a deal that will bring well-respected talent evaluator Scot McCloughan aboard as general manager, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.

McCloughan has agreed to a four-year deal, one person familiar with the negotiations said.

The move signals a front-office restructure that strips Bruce Allen of top talent-evaluation duties and gives them to McCloughan, who brings with him 20 years of experience as a scout and front-office executive and most recently helped shape the Seattle Seahawks into a Super Bowl-winning team.

Allen, whom owner Daniel Snyder hired as general manager in 2009, shortly before hiring Mike Shanahan as head coach and top personnel decision-maker, will remain team president, however. Allen received that promotion last offseason following the firing of Shanahan, and also handled general manager duties."

[Morneblade]

7 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

@Morneblade You are taking my question, "Why so much hatred" and projecting that into Bruce fanaticism. It's OK, you aren't the only one. But it doesn't need to be this black and white debate. I personally don't hate the guy, think he's done some really good things. I am at least confident that if this operation were to blow up, whoever comes in to  replace him would be in a substantially better situation than the one Bruce inherited in 2009. I also think he's made some gaffes. I don't think he's some franchise savior. I do not have a Bruce Allen fat head and dream of meeting Bruce Allen one day and having endless coors lights with the guy. I totally get that it's absolutely preposterous in your eyes that anybody could have any other position outside of F Bruce Allen. Unfortunately, I have a slightly different take. A little more even-keeled. And that's OK, the sun will come up tomorrow.

 

The rest of your post is pure conjecture at best in an attempt to make me seem illogical. Just agree to disagree man. I don't think anything you said makes a shred of sense, but if all of that is true, please get Bruce Allen the hell away from my team! Now I understand why you feel the way you do... progress.

 

That wasn't your question. Your question was " Why did they franchise him if they didn’t want him?" I gave you what I though the answer was. So now, you're completely changing your question. Maybe you need to take 5 and figure out wtf you're trying to ask.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

14 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

Probably in his title. General Manager. But there is more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2015/01/07/redskins-complete-deal-to-hire-scot-mccloughan/?utm_term=.8494d5e3797c

"The Washington Redskins have finalized a deal that will bring well-respected talent evaluator Scot McCloughan aboard as general manager, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.

McCloughan has agreed to a four-year deal, one person familiar with the negotiations said.

The move signals a front-office restructure that strips Bruce Allen of top talent-evaluation duties and gives them to McCloughan, who brings with him 20 years of experience as a scout and front-office executive and most recently helped shape the Seattle Seahawks into a Super Bowl-winning team.

Allen, whom owner Daniel Snyder hired as general manager in 2009, shortly before hiring Mike Shanahan as head coach and top personnel decision-maker, will remain team president, however. Allen received that promotion last offseason following the firing of Shanahan, and also handled general manager duties."

 

I just wanted to be sure that we weren't running with something that was never stated. Even what you bolded above doesn't really refer to any type of FINAL DECISION MAKING. That could easily be that he would ultimately be the top person in charge of grading players, etc. but it was someone's else job to pull it all together into a roster. Building the roster takes more than "sign this guy" as you have to account for cost, future years, contract length, etc. Talent "evaluation duties" may just mean that he would be the final say on how they ranked their wish list. 

 

However, it sounds like Bruce said he had final roster say in the press conference, so it is what it is. I was just making sure. 

[Skinsinparadise]

I recall an interview Bruce did around the time of the hire if I recall it was on 980 where he suggested Scot would call the shots on personnel but when they pinned Bruce on whether Scot would have power about coaches hiring-firing, he said no.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2017/03/09/that-time-bruce-allen-said-scot-mccloughan-would-be-in-charge-of-redskins-roster/?utm_term=.5140c2fbfc8a

“He’s going to be in charge of all the personnel department and the personnel on this team,” Allen said. “We picked Scot because of his great track record, but really the way he describes a football player, the intangibles that he’s looking for in a football player and the winning traits that he has helped other teams acquire.”

 

Later, Allen said it was a “no-brainer” to pursue McCloughan, whose “vision and leadership” would help the Redskins win.

“I’ve known Scot for a long time,” Allen, who worked with McCloughan’s brother and father while with the Raiders and once recommended McCloughan for the 49ers’ GM job, said. “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 have final say,” McCloughan said. “But again, it’s not going to be all about me, it’s going to be a whole process and we’ll come to the conclusion 99 percent of the time on the same person.”

If it all sounded a little too good to be true, a talent evaluator with a track record of success finally put in charge of personnel decisions and given full autonomy over the roster for an organization that hadn’t enjoyed back-to-back winning seasons since 1992, well …

[HardcoreZorn]

28 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

That wasn't your question. Your question was " Why did they franchise him if they didn’t want him?" I gave you what I though the answer was. So now, you're completely changing your question. Maybe you need to take 5 and figure out wtf you're trying to ask.

Quote

Actually, from what I've seen, you are a Bruce fanboy. 

You said that ^. Which I can only assume you are inferring from my posts on the whole which center around the the fact I don't understand all of the vitriol toward the guy.

 

The rest of your post was responding to the original question. And in between calling me illogical and biased, you strung together some wild theory based almost exclusively on conjecture. So for the last time agree to disagree...

 

Also, you seem to run a hot temper. You have mistakenly mixed me up for posters multiple times and then say ish like the above. Chill out man, I'm just here to talk skins football its OK for me to have a different take on what happened.

[sparkosaurus]

On 10/1/2018 at 10:47 AM, 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".

 

I was totally thinking about writing this as well! I don't like to correct folks but I remember when someone told this to me and I was super thankful. Another alternative is "irrespective."

 

 

[XtremeFan55]

Seeing that some fans are still discussing the departure of Cousins...it comes down to two issues.  First...Cousins wanted to taste freedom and to pick his own team.  Second....Snyder didn’t want to tie up $84 million in escrow required by the NFL to cover quaranteed portion of all contracts.  Snyder appears to be asset rich but cash poor whose net worth is mainly tied up in the intrinsic value of the team and stadium.  Reason why the Redskins have probably the worst training facility in the NFL.   Redskins will sign contracts that on surface look extravagant but are deceitful since very little is guaranteed.  They couldn’t afford $84 million plus what was required for other contracts to be tied up in escrow.  Probably already discussed but I logged in for first time  since Cousins signed with Minnesota to see what was going on.  FWIW

 

Section 9. Funding of Deferred and Guaranteed Contracts: The NFL may require that by a prescribed date certain, each Club must deposit into a segregated account the present value, calculated using the Discount Rate, less $2,000,000, of deferred and guaranteed compensation owed by that Club with respect to Club funding of Player Contracts involving deferred or guaranteed compensation; provided, however, that with respect to guaranteed contracts, the amount of unpaid compensation for past or future services to be included in the funding calculation shall not exceed seventy-five (75%) percent of the total amount of the contract compensation. The present value of any future years’ salary payable to a player pursuant to an injury guarantee provision in his NFL Player Contract(s), shall not be considered owed by a Club under this Section until after the Club has acknowledged that the player’s injury qualifies him to receive the future payments.

[Morneblade]

10 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

You said that ^. Which I can only assume you are inferring from my posts on the whole which center around the the fact I don't understand all of the vitriol toward the guy.

 

The rest of your post was responding to the original question. And in between calling me illogical and biased, you strung together some wild theory based almost exclusively on conjecture. So for the last time agree to disagree...

 

Also, you seem to run a hot temper. You have mistakenly mixed me up for posters multiple times and then say ish like the above. Chill out man, I'm just here to talk skins football its OK for me to have a different take on what happened.

 

Actually, that's not true. It's more about your posting history. You back everything Bruce does, good or bad. You like to come off as being "balanced", but you're not. I also like how you suppose you know what I'm thinking. This is the 2nd time you're done this, and I find it rather interesting. And somewhat humorous.

 

As for my explanation, I believe I mentioned it a couple times that it was something that I "though", as we don't have much, if any actual facts to go on. So we are left with trying to figure it out. Sorry if that bothers you. At least I was honest about it. You asked a question, and I actually tired to answer it, to the best of my ability, given the limited information. This is about all you can ask. Unless you actually have something concrete to add....................

 

As far as a hot temper is concerned, not really no. Irritated perhaps. But I'm a pretty laid back dude. But being disingenuous does irritate me. As for mistaking you for someone, yep, I've done that a couple of times. The Bruce fanbois kinda have that effect on me, they just kinda meld into one, homologous voice that chats "Bruce is great". And I've apologized for it. Apparently it's still getting at you. Once again, sorry. I've tried to keep better tabs on who says what.

 

As to your last statement, everyone has an opinion. Opinion based on facts go further.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

God bless you Morneblade and SIP for traveling this road once again with HCZorn.

 

Only in Washington do some fans want to hand out participation trophies because the guy in charge actually utilizes the draft and cap discipline.  VinnyDan set the bar so low that just not being Vinny deserves applause.  Even though the records are about the same. ?

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

God bless you Morneblade and SIP for traveling this road once again with HCZorn.

 

Only in Washington do some fans want to hand out participation trophies because the guy in charge actually utilizes the draft and cap discipline.  VinnyDan set the bar so low that just not being Vinny deserves applause.  Even though the records are about the same. ?

 

 

 

If/when Bruce leaves it will be interesting to see how it might lower the post counts on the board by a lot.  Some accuse people of pouncing whenever there is news that challenges Bruce/Dan in some fashion or form.  Guilty as charged on my end.  It's by a mile to me the #1 most frustrating thing about the team.  I am actually frustrated by almost nothing else -- am relatively upbeat about players, Jay and most anything else associated with the team.  Also, it's almost always the same people jumping to Bruce-Dan's rescue.    The serenity now mantra is probably in full force on both sides of the debate.  

 

 

[HardcoreZorn]

51 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

God bless you Morneblade and SIP for traveling this road once again with HCZorn.

 

Only in Washington do some fans want to hand out participation trophies because the guy in charge actually utilizes the draft and cap discipline.  VinnyDan set the bar so low that just not being Vinny deserves applause.  Even though the records are about the same. ?

 

 

See this pisses me off. It's just the fact that they use the draft, has nothing to do with their success rate. It's all cap discipline, has nothing to do with what kind of culture that fosters or saving that money to retain homegrown talent instead of letting Pieces and Clarks walk out the door. Don't be so simple minded.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

10 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

I didn't think you did. In fact I read your original question as questioning others saying the FO lied about giving Scot control. Lied is such an easy word thrown around these days. I honestly believe the two guys just did not work well together. Scot was more brash, in your face than I think Bruce likes. If you look at the others the he has put around him they are all very cerebral laid back people. Also, I think Scot talked too much for them. The team does not play well with the local media and have not since the day Dan bought the team. Scot was more open than I think they liked.

 

So the way I saw it, him being dismissed was more about him not getting along with Bruce's and the team working style than actual personnel decisions. I was not in the room so I do not know obviously, That's just my take on it.

 

yeah, I highly doubt Scot was fired because of his personnel decisions just like I highly doubt Scot was fired because Bruce was jealous lol...I agree that they didn't get along or work well together as being the biggest reason, unless Scot really was boozing it up on a daily basis or something. Also, and I'm not sure how to phrase this in order to be both respectful and not go down a path we really don't need to go down, but...his wife's antics on twitter during his first year with the team may have, uh...well...had specks of truth to it? lol...I only considered the possibility due to some stuff we've heard about more recently concerning what is supposed to have been happening at the time. Was that vague enough? lol...

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

“I’ve known Scot for a long time,” Allen, who worked with McCloughan’s brother and father while with the Raiders and once recommended McCloughan for the 49ers’ GM job, said.

 

 

 

This speaks to what I mentioned several pages ago lol...

 

Chris Russell: "McCloughan -- a guy who Bruce admitted, 'I've never worked with him. I don't know the guy. I know his dad, I know his brother, but I don't know the guy.'

 

Bruce Allen: “I’ve known Scot for a long time”

 

Be very, very, very leery of what Russell says...and especially how he says it. I think we all know why Russell said that the way he said it, and it's not that he just "got it wrong" or that the "gist of what he was trying to say" was that they had not worked together. It was purposeful, for a reason.

[Skinsinparadise]

22 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

This speaks to what I mentioned several pages ago lol...

 

Chris Russell: "McCloughan -- a guy who Bruce admitted, 'I've never worked with him. I don't know the guy. I know his dad, I know his brother, but I don't know the guy.'

 

Bruce Allen: “I’ve known Scot for a long time”

 

Be very, very, very leery of what Russell says...and especially how he says it. I think we all know why Russell said that the way he said it, and it's not that he just "got it wrong" or that the "gist of what he was trying to say" was that they had not worked together. It was purposeful, for a reason.

 

You got the wrong guy that you are questioning on that front.  It was Bruce who said in an interview and to others he barely knows Scot.  Then contradicts himself in another setting where it would look good to say he knows Scott well, the day he was hired and their is hype attached to it.    It's another example of Bruce's clumsiness and tendency to fudge the truth -- not Russell's.

 

I've heard one of those interviews where Bruce talks about knowing Scot's family but not so much Scot himself.

[Tsailand]

3 hours ago, XtremeFan55 said:

Cousins wanted to taste freedom and to pick his own team

 

In Feb 2016, Cousins offered a three year deal at 19.5M/year with $44M guaranteed.  Bruce rejected that, and stuck with his pathetic offer of $16M/year with only $24M guaranteed. Of course Cousins rejected that and got tagged, and Bruce refused to negotiate further, forcing Cousins to play on the tag.  And then Cousins went out and threw for 4900 yards in 2016 and we know the rest.

 

If Bruce had really wanted Cousins he would have signed him to a multi-year contract in spring 2016.  Haggle him down to $18/year with only $40M guaranteed, if you insist on being cheap.  He would have signed that.  And Kirk would still be here.

 

If Bruce had allowed Scott to do his job as GM, Scott would have negotiated a cheap multi-year contract with Kirk in September or October 2015. And Kirk would still be here.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

15 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

In Feb 2016, Cousins offered a three year deal at 19.5M/year with $44M guaranteed.  Bruce rejected that, and stuck with his pathetic offer of $16M/year with only $24M guaranteed. Of course Cousins rejected that and got tagged, and Bruce refused to negotiate further, forcing Cousins to play on the tag.  And then Cousins went out and threw for 4900 yards in 2016 and we know the rest.

 

If Bruce had really wanted Cousins he would have signed him to a multi-year contract in spring 2016.  Haggle him down to $18/year with only $40M guaranteed, if you insist on being cheap.  He would have signed that.  And Kirk would still be here.

 

If Bruce had allowed Scott to do his job as GM, Scott would have negotiated a cheap multi-year contract with Kirk in September or October 2015. And Kirk would still be here.

 

Let's play that out...certainly 3 years for $60M would have been better than whatever we did. But, we'd be 13 games away from being in the same exact situation. So, the optics of a three-year deal before 2016 would have been better and we'd look competent. But I think Cousins would still be looking to hit the grand slam with someone and it would have likely taken in the $27-30M range to extend him past the 2018 season. 

 

There would have been a little more good will between sides of course, but a short-term guaranteed deal after our division title really wouldn't have changed where we stood at this exact moment. We paid him $45M for 2016-2017 as it was. If you think sometime in that period he would have signed for 5-6 years, I don't see what you're looking at. 

[Skinsinparadise]

little more on Scot's supposed authority

 

Ed Werder

 

✔@EdwerderRFA

 

 

New #Redskins GM Scot McCloughan told by Dan Snyder that owner is embarrassed and just wants to win, that he and Bruce Allen won't interfere

2:52 PM - Jan 7, 2015

•  
  483
•  
  1,044 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

 

NFL Network is reporting that McCloughan will have the final word on all personnel-related decisions. Baby steps, I suppose.