Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Press Release: #REDSKINS RELIEVE JAY GRUDEN OF DUTIES


Recommended Posts

On 10/8/2019 at 6:02 AM, goskins10 said:

 

As I said above marty first fired Vinnie not dan.  In fact it was a big part of why Dan fired Marty.  The only time Dan fired Vinnie was when he hired Zorn.  

 

Sorry not semantics at all.  Marty fired Vinnie without telling dan which infuriated him. He let it go at first then rehired vinnie and fired Marty.  

5

 

"Bobby Beathard would accept a potential offer to become the general manager of the Washington Redskins if Marty Schottenheimer is no longer the team's coach, NFL sources said yesterday.

 

The Redskins have discussed the GM job with Beathard, sources said, but are waiting for owner Daniel Snyder to determine whether former University of Florida coach Steve Spurrier would be interested in coaching the team. Beathard, the former general manager of the Redskins and San Diego Chargers, would be willing to work with Snyder and Spurrier, sources said.

 

According to sources, Schottenheimer told Snyder that he perhaps could work with a new general manager but does not want to change his offensive coaching staff."

 

"If the Redskins become convinced they won't be able to hire Spurrier, Snyder might have to choose between Schottenheimer and Beathard. Snyder apparently could have Beathard and a new coach, perhaps Mariucci. Or Snyder could have Schottenheimer and a different general manager candidate, perhaps Oakland Raiders senior assistant Bruce Allen. But he apparently cannot have Beathard and Schottenheimer, unless he persuades Beathard to change his mind."

 

*****************

Were the communication problems with ownership?
 
No, actually, Dan and I, we interacted on a regular basis,” Marty said. “And I like Dan. You know, I just always felt that there may have been some other people in the building..."
 
[...]Pollin: Well there was one person that you got out of the building very early. (he means Vinny here)
Marty: “That’s right!”


[...]Pollin: And you didn’t have the ability to kick this person out of the building?
Marty: “Well actually, no, they did kick him out of the building. He didn’t come back until after I was gone....Dan was not the problem. Ultimately it falls on ownership, but Dan was not the problem.”
 
- Marty Schottenheimer

 

*********************

 

"I also talked to Marty Schottenheimer who was here, obviously, a year," he said still later. "And he said Mike, if that opportunity (coaching the Redskins) presents itself, jump on it, because you'll love it."
 
- Mike Shanahan

 

**********************

 

Not sure what you said in bold fits the above quotes very well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

"Bobby Beathard would accept a potential offer to become the general manager of the Washington Redskins if Marty Schottenheimer is no longer the team's coach, NFL sources said yesterday.

 

edit

 

"I also talked to Marty Schottenheimer who was here, obviously, a year," he said still later. "And he said Mike, if that opportunity (coaching the Redskins) presents itself, jump on it, because you'll love it."
 
- Mike Shanahan

 

**********************

 

Not sure what you said in bold fits the above quotes very well.

 

See the article below (it was already posted but you must not have gotten there yet: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/631604-vinny-cerrato-the-second-biggest-disgrace-to-the-washington-redskins

 

Most significant quote from Marty that was left out of the articles you posted - not saying you left them out. They could have not been there to begin with.

"Luckily for the Washington Redskins and its loyal fan base, then head coach Marty Schottenheimer fired Cerrato after the 2001 season. Now, years later, Schottenheimer is quoted as saying: "I've said for a long time, in my opinion the problem down there—obviously it starts at the top with Dan—but it is Cerrato."

 

 

Edited by goskins10
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

See the article below (it was already posted but you must not have gotten there yet: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/631604-vinny-cerrato-the-second-biggest-disgrace-to-the-washington-redskins

 

Most significant quote from Marty that was left out of the articles you posted - not saying you left them out. They could have not been there to begin with.

"Luckily for the Washington Redskins and its loyal fan base, then head coach Marty Schottenheimer fired Cerrato after the 2001 season. Now, years later, Schottenheimer is quoted as saying: "I've said for a long time, in my opinion the problem down there—obviously it starts at the top with Dan—but it is Cerrato."

4

 

Actually, they seem to be saying the same thing in that article as what I quoted lol...

 

Your article: "Luckily for the Washington Redskins and its loyal fan base, then head coach Marty Schottenheimer fired Cerrato after the 2001 season."

 

My article: "[...]Pollin: And you didn’t have the ability to kick this person (Vinny) out of the building?
Marty: “Well actually, no, they did kick him out of the building."

 

 

Your article: "I've said for a long time, in my opinion the problem down there—obviously it starts at the top with Dan—but it is Cerrato."

 

My article: "Dan was not the problem. Ultimately it falls on ownership, but Dan was not the problem.

 

 

What I was asking about before was Marty firing Vinny playing a large role in Snyder firing Marty, because Snyder was still pissed off about it. From the articles I quoted Marty's firing seemed to center more around Marty's offense ("Some of Snyder's advisers believe Schottenheimer should be fired unless he replaces offensive coordinator Jimmy Raye with a coach from outside the organization." -- I didn't quote that before, sorry), Snyder's desire to bring in Beathard as GM instead of Marty continuing on in that role--and Beathard's condition that he would only take the job if he wasn't working with Marty, and whether or not Spurrier was a realistic option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This could be our next coach.

 

https://billswire.usatoday.com/2019/10/09/could-buffalo-bills-brian-daboll-be-redskins-next-coach/

 

On the other hand i could see this guy as the one since he praised Danny's decision on Haskins. Oh boy please say no . I do like the first choice though.

 

https://nypost.com/2019/10/09/rex-ryan-is-desperate-enough-to-want-to-coach-the-redskins/

Edited by Sonny9TD
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Califan007 said:

 

Actually, they seem to be saying the same thing in that article as what I quoted lol...

 

Your article: "Luckily for the Washington Redskins and its loyal fan base, then head coach Marty Schottenheimer fired Cerrato after the 2001 season."

 

My article: "[...]Pollin: And you didn’t have the ability to kick this person (Vinny) out of the building?
Marty: “Well actually, no, they did kick him out of the building."

 

 

Your article: "I've said for a long time, in my opinion the problem down there—obviously it starts at the top with Dan—but it is Cerrato."

 

My article: "Dan was not the problem. Ultimately it falls on ownership, but Dan was not the problem.

 

 

What I was asking about before was Marty firing Vinny playing a large role in Snyder firing Marty, because Snyder was still pissed off about it. From the articles I quoted Marty's firing seemed to center more around Marty's offense ("Some of Snyder's advisers believe Schottenheimer should be fired unless he replaces offensive coordinator Jimmy Raye with a coach from outside the organization." -- I didn't quote that before, sorry), Snyder's desire to bring in Beathard as GM instead of Marty continuing on in that role--and Beathard's condition that he would only take the job if he wasn't working with Marty, and whether or not Spurrier was a realistic option.

 

You should have been more clear instead of making a broad statement at the need saying the quotes suggested I was wrong. As for Dan being pissed about him firing Vinnie, I was in DC at the time and remember it vividly. Now was it the only reason he fired Marty? No and i never said that. Of course there were other reasons - like many players hated Marty. But Dan was pissed as **** that Marty in his opinion over stepped his bounds and fired Vinnie. Once he got rid of Marty he rehired Vinnie. 

 

And this is really my one and only response. I know for a fact this is what happened. If you want to believe something else, please have it. I know what i know. That is not changing. 

8 minutes ago, Sonny9TD said:

This could be our next coach.

 

https://billswire.usatoday.com/2019/10/09/could-buffalo-bills-brian-daboll-be-redskins-next-coach/

 

On the other hand i could see this guy as the one since he praised Danny's decision on Haskins. Oh boy please say no 

 

https://nypost.com/2019/10/09/rex-ryan-is-desperate-enough-to-want-to-coach-the-redskins/

 

Did you see why? He makes a good point - this is a serious opportunity. You can't make it any worse, at least in theory, and if you can be the one to turn it around! Are you kidding me? What an accomplishment! It's really pretty much a no lose situation.

 

BTW: I do not want rex. He may be the worst one to bring in. But that's not the point. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2019 at 1:32 PM, Stadium-Armory said:

From Dan's perspective, keeping Bruce is a sign of stability. A sign that he's not an interventionist or prone to knee-jerk decisions.

 

A stable organization, with great culture.

 

This would be a reasonable accounting of Dan's perspective, and likewise prove that he makes poor decisions when it comes to the Redskins.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

You should have been more clear instead of making a broad statement at the need saying the quotes suggested I was wrong. As for Dan being pissed about him firing Vinnie, I was in DC at the time and remember it vividly. Now was it the only reason he fired Marty? No and i never said that. Of course there were other reasons - like many players hated Marty. But Dan was pissed as **** that Marty in his opinion over stepped his bounds and fired Vinnie. Once he got rid of Marty he rehired Vinnie. 

 

And this is really my one and only response. I know for a fact this is what happened. If you want to believe something else, please have it. I know what i know. That is not changing.

5

 

1) I was crystal clear: "Not sure what you said in bold fits the above quotes very well."

What I put in bold was Snyder being pissed about Marty firing Vinny played a "big part" in Dan firing Marty.  What I quoted seemed to contradict that.

 

2) When I bring up some direct quotes from Marty and Shanahan that seem to point to Marty and Snyder having a good working relationship--not one where Snyder is pissed off and ends up firing the guy based in "big part" off that emotion--you quote another article to back up your post.

 

When I say your article basically says the same thing mine does--and show why I think that--your response to that is to say:

 

- the articles don't matter

- that what you remember "vividly" trumps Marty and Shanahan's direct quotes

- that what reporters were digging up at the time and putting in print should take a back seat to what you remember as "fact"

 

If you were working for the Skins back then--or close to someone who was--that would make more sense. 

 

I'm not sure this was you, but someone once told me that Snyder "himself" said he fired Marty because he "wanted to play with his toy" or words to that effect (meaning being GM of the Redskins). I called bull**** on Snyder saying that, and then whoever I was talking to posted a quote from an article back then in which someone anonymously said: "Snyder wanted his toy back". I asked at the time how some unknown person saying this anonymously is the equivalent of Snyder himself saying it, instead of it just being that person's opinion. I was told I was being delusional for thinking Snyder did not say that. I'm hoping this wasn't going in that same direction.

 

And I'm not writing this looking for you to respond. I'm writing this to get my point made to anyone else who stumbles across it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

1) I was crystal clear: "Not sure what you said in bold fits the above quotes very well."

What I put in bold was Snyder being pissed about Marty firing Vinny played a "big part" in Dan firing Marty.  What I quoted seemed to contradict that.

 

2) When I bring up some direct quotes from Marty and Shanahan that seem to point to Marty and Snyder having a good working relationship--not one where Snyder is pissed off and ends up firing the guy based in "big part" off that emotion--you quote another article to back up your post.

 

When I say your article basically says the same thing mine does--and show why I think that--your response to that is to say:

 

- the articles don't matter

- that what you remember "vividly" trumps Marty and Shanahan's direct quotes

- that what reporters were digging up at the time and putting in print should take a back seat to what you remember as "fact"

 

If you were working for the Skins back then--or close to someone who was--that would make more sense. 

 

I'm not sure this was you, but someone once told me that Snyder "himself" said he fired Marty because he "wanted to play with his toy" or words to that effect (meaning being GM of the Redskins). I called bull**** on Snyder saying that, and then whoever I was talking to posted a quote from an article back then in which someone anonymously said: "Snyder wanted his toy back". I asked at the time how some unknown person saying this anonymously is the equivalent of Snyder himself saying it, instead of it just being that person's opinion. I was told I was being delusional for thinking Snyder did not say that. I'm hoping this wasn't going in that same direction.

 

And I'm not writing this looking for you to respond. I'm writing this to get my point made to anyone else who stumbles across it. 

Are you trying to take someone to task for being right, when you opposed what he said with quotes that actually confirmed what he said?

 

If so, thats a bit bizarre, even for you.  The quotes are all clear that Marty had Vinny fired, and that Dan fired Marty because he wanted Vinny back(more accurately wanted to be behind he scenes GM again, and Marty wouldnt tolerate a GM).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing at the time was it was sold to the fans that Doofus Dan wanted to hire Beathard back, and that he'd have to fire Marty because Beathard wasn't going to GM with Marty just cutting all his players since Marty controlled the 53 man roster.

 

So Marty gets fired and instead he hires Vinny back instead, which nobody actually wanted because that signalled more of the same buffoonery.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Peregrine said:

Are you trying to take someone to task for being right, when you opposed what he said with quotes that actually confirmed what he said?

 

If so, thats a bit bizarre, even for you.  The quotes are all clear that Marty had Vinny fired, and that Dan fired Marty because he wanted Vinny back(more accurately wanted to be behind he scenes GM again, and Marty wouldnt tolerate a GM).

 

Um lol...which one of my quotes confirmed that Snyder fired Marty in “big part” because he was angry that Marty fired Vinny without his knowledge? 

 

Just copy and paste it in your response.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SkinsFTW said:

The funny thing at the time was it was sold to the fans that Doofus Dan wanted to hire Beathard back, and that he'd have to fire Marty because Beathard wasn't going to GM with Marty just cutting all his players since Marty controlled the 53 man roster.

 

So Marty gets fired and instead he hires Vinny back instead, which nobody actually wanted because that signalled more of the same buffoonery.

 

 

 

It was "sold to the fans" lol...it was sold to Beathard as well, and to his agent.

 

For a fanbase that continuously claims Snyder wants to surround himself with the nostalgia of Redskins glory past, it's amusing to see anyone doubt that he'd want Beathard back as GM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Um lol...which one of my quotes confirmed that Snyder fired Marty in “big part” because he was angry that Marty fired Vinny without his knowledge? 

Does it bother you that you posted quotes that confirmed what he said, and you didnt even notice until after the fact, or are you still just gonna keep digging that hole?

Once you post something that provides any idea that Dan didnt fire Marty because he wanted to be GM again, then maybe you can start.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • TK unpinned this topic

Pretty interesting interview here. Many of you may have already heard it but it's pretty damning against Jay. I may have to change my position on him - I know, pretty late. Better late than never. 

 

I will say it does nothing to change my opinion of Bruce and Dan - they are still the root cause. But this shows Jay as a bigger part of the problem. Now it is just one guy who didn't last. But i have a hard time believing everything he said is just sour grapes. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 4:42 PM, Sonny9TD said:

This could be our next coach.

 

https://billswire.usatoday.com/2019/10/09/could-buffalo-bills-brian-daboll-be-redskins-next-coach/

 

On the other hand i could see this guy as the one since he praised Danny's decision on Haskins. Oh boy please say no . I do like the first choice though.

 

As fellow fat, ugly, bald guy I approve of this. However I don't see any coaching or employment history with the 2003-2008 Bucs or 1997-2002 Raiders. So Bruce will pass. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

Pretty interesting interview here. Many of you may have already heard it but it's pretty damning against Jay. I may have to change my position on him - I know, pretty late. Better late than never. 

 

I will say it does nothing to change my opinion of Bruce and Dan - they are still the root cause. But this shows Jay as a bigger part of the problem. Now it is just one guy who didn't last. But i have a hard time believing everything he said is just sour grapes. 

 

 

 

Summary, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

Pretty interesting interview here. Many of you may have already heard it but it's pretty damning against Jay. I may have to change my position on him - I know, pretty late. Better late than never. 

 

I will say it does nothing to change my opinion of Bruce and Dan - they are still the root cause. But this shows Jay as a bigger part of the problem. Now it is just one guy who didn't last. But i have a hard time believing everything he said is just sour grapes. 

 

 


Pretty damning is right, and why would he have sour grapes toward the skins lol. We aren’t of much significance to him one way or another. I think it’s becoming extremely obvious that Jay was a huge problem here, and a huge reason why we weren’t playing to our talent level. I’ll always remember the Wade Phillips interview story as well, strange to say the least. 
 

It makes so much more sense to criticize Dan/Bruce from the standpoint how did we keep this guy on so long? Looking back, he should have been fired after that Giants meltdown where we forfeited a chance for the playoffs and Kirk should have been traded. They would have been hard decisions but with hindsight the right ones. No leader of men lays down like we did against a giants team with nothing to play for with playoffs on the line. Flat as hell, and no, the FO didn’t cause that. It’s amazing the excuses Jay gets from some, but then again it’s all designed to fit their own narrative. The team has a lot of talent. I still believe regardless of how this year turns out that the foundation is here for a very quick turnaround. The parallels to the Rams a few years back are there. Young QB, young pieces on the DL, underperforming team held back by an average at best HC and poor leader of men. Now if we could only trade Trent. If the trade deadline comes and goes with him not being moved, I will wholeheartedly agree that it’s malpractice by Bruce. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay Gruden could totally be a loser that can’t lead men, but nothing about this interview indicates that.  It sounds like he took something Jay said very personal, that to me sounds out of character for a guy where the narrative has been that he’s too soft on his players.  He said that He hurt his quad in the last game of the season, and Jay asked who was laying down over there, get him up so we can finish the game.  That actually sounds like something a very, shrewd coach that’s hard on his players would say.  So that’s a big meh from me.  

 

The bulk of the interview he’s not coming at Gruden but going on about Perry Fewell, and Greg Manusky and how they suck.  And how the NFL as a whole suffers because coaches hire their buddies.  That’s never been news to me. 

Edited by BatteredFanSyndrome
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Jay is a heartless dick who can't be trusted and the schemes and systems here are elementary, no disguising coverage or plays.  There is more but that's hat the video is for 🙂  

 

Just watched it.

 

This is absolutely damning. And even though HardcoreZorn already pointed it out, this is more reason that Danny/Bruce should be held accountable. But Jay, apparently, was much worse for this team than any of us thought because we're not there. It'll be interesting if other players come out in support of this. One account doesn't make a case. But that's some ****ty stuff.

 

His criticism on Manusky lines up with the issues this team has schematically. I agree with the coverage thing when he says the Skins don't disguise anything. It's plain as day every snap. 

 

Disagree with his take on Romo. He just seems like he's talking to talk at that point. 

 

Not sure Dunbar is the best defender on the team. But he's damn close. I think Payne, Allen, Dunbar and Collins are all in the running there. Dunbar has recently won me over as he seems to be relatively healthy he has swayed me. 

 

The Norman thing lines up with the film. Completely. 

Edited by KDawg
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...