Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Bring Back Scot McCloughan


robotfire

+Should we bring back Scot McCloughan?  

100 members have voted

  1. 1. In the offseason, should the Redskins bring back Scot McCloughan?

    • Yes, bring him back and fire Bruce Allen
      80
    • Yes, bring him back and keep Bruce Allen
      1
    • No, he has a drinking problem and was fired for good reason
      10
    • No, but for another reason
      8


Recommended Posts

I’d welcome it because it would be a train wreck. Since it doesn’t matter who is in the front office, on the field or coaching, this team will always suck so it might as well be entertaining. 

 

Bring Scott back. Let him drink and give him a daily 5pm press conference so he can be nice and toasty for it. He should start smoking cigars on the sidelines of games while goin Baker Mayfield toward the other team. Just slowly start leaking things to the media and bashing Dan and Bruce and anyone else that came before. Tell private stories about Gruden. Just be an entertaining villain 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, RonArtest15 said:

Would never happen, but I'd be all for this. 

 

Getting the offseason off to a great start begins with getting rid of Bruce.  He's awful. 

knowin this crew....could...twould make for a great Snyder "off season" protagonist...any publicity is good publicity, kinda thing... he's got goin' for him smelf...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Peter Harvey, a former New Jersey attorney general, has been appointed by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell as the hearing officer.

The Redskins declined to comment Monday on the hearing process, saying simply: "We are focused on the Denver Broncos." McCloughan's representative could not be reached for comment."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Redskins’ side includes evidence that alcohol consumption prevented McCloughan from effectively doing his job. Meanwhile, the argument from McCloughan’s side contends that he didn’t drink on the job. That evidence presented by McCloughan’s camp also paints the Redskins’ highest-ranking officials in a negative light because it reveals that they themselves regularly drank on team property, which violates the league policies against the consumption of alcohol at team headquarters.

The Redskins hired McCloughan in January of 2015 despite a checkered past, which included dismissals from both San Francisco and Seattle and a stint in rehab. At the time of his hiring and his introductory press conference, McCloughan openly discussed his battles with alcoholism, and explained that family issues had caused his drinking to get out of hand. But he never said that he had given up drinking entirely. Some league insiders, who were familiar with McCloughan’s past, worried at the time of his hiring that joining a Redskins organization led by Snyder and Allen, who are known around the league for their fondness of alcohol consumption, was such a good idea." Link

If SMC can prove that through testimonies or other evidences (pictures, videos) that would be the biter bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contrary to popular misconception, the Redskins do not need Bruce Allen to secure a stadium deal, no matter the location. The team and its strong heritage have the juice; he does not. His last name might be a legacy one, but he isn't as indispensable as many think, in the context of getting a new stadium done. There are others who could (and would gladly) serve any necessary role of facilitating relations between the Skins and the responsible legislative bodies of either local DC, Virginia, Maryland, or - for federal allowance for use of certain property - the national govt. And those individuals are much more respected (and trusted) than Allen. I agree completely with the thought/desire of bringing back McCloughan. He was working on building a team, building a culture, building an organization; not just putting together some pieces here and there for a playoff run, and not merely winning off the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was an owner I would use outside consulting services every year, the draft is too important to screw up so spending a couple million to lessen the margin of error is worth it.

 

I could definitely see us using Scott's consulting services, maybe this was always a simple case of outsourcing (yes, I'm reaching).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skinzplay said:

Contrary to popular misconception, the Redskins do not need Bruce Allen to secure a stadium deal, no matter the location. The team and its strong heritage have the juice; he does not. His last name might be a legacy one, but he isn't as indispensable as many think, in the context of getting a new stadium done. There are others who could (and would gladly) serve any necessary role of facilitating relations between the Skins and the responsible legislative bodies of either local DC, Virginia, Maryland, or - for federal allowance for use of certain property - the national govt. And those individuals are much more respected (and trusted) than Allen. I agree completely with the thought/desire of bringing back McCloughan. He was working on building a team, building a culture, building an organization; not just putting together some pieces here and there for a playoff run, and not merely winning off the field.

 

 

Sure they could find another guy. But this is his expertise and I'm thinking he's pretty far down the road already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, slinky said:

Reunite Marvin Lewis and Gruden. Make Lewis GM and move Bruce back to team president.

 

You don't keep someone like Bruce Allen around, surrounded by football minds.

 

People like Bruce (and I've seen this first-hand) with no real talent or experience and who're set in high positions routinely find ways to meddle in affairs not commensurate with their background simply to demonstrate their worth or value out of paranoia because in their heart of hearts they know they have neither and are constantly threatened by those who do. They don't care that their meddling could potentially ruin things just as long as their voices are heard and they're recognized as being important contributors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article jogs my memory on one of Chris Russell's contention before all of this went down which is Redskins Park isn't the place to be if you want to avoid a drinking environment.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2017/12/17/redskins-former-gm-scot-mccloughan-meet-hearing-over-2-8-million-grievance/959646001/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

The Redskins’ side includes evidence that alcohol consumption prevented McCloughan from effectively doing his job. Meanwhile, the argument from McCloughan’s side contends that he didn’t drink on the job. That evidence presented by McCloughan’s camp also paints the Redskins’ highest-ranking officials in a negative light because it reveals that they themselves regularly drank on team property, which violates the league policies against the consumption of alcohol at team headquarters.

 

...McCloughan openly discussed his battles with alcoholism, and explained that family issues had caused his drinking to get out of hand. But he never said that he had given up drinking entirely. Some league insiders, who were familiar with McCloughan’s past, worried at the time of his hiring that joining a Redskins organization led by Snyder and Allen, who are known around the league for their fondness of alcohol consumption, was such a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...