Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

By the way, I've said this many times but it bears repeating. You don't choose your team, your team chooses you. If you think it's possible to give up on the Redskins and root for another team, then you were never a fan in the first place.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

Time to move on imo. this shit sandwich does taste familiar but all we can do is ride it out. Like others have said, focus on keeping cousins, hiring a competent gm, tie up loose ends in free agency and the draft.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

The drinking was never in question with me. The question was, did it affect his job to the point where he had to be let go? I don't believe so, but we'll never know. I guess we just differ on where our patience with the team is. Mine is running thin. To borrow a phrase from a coworker, "there is no hope for me." I'm just not willing to fall in line with the tune again. This was as close as I've seen the Redskins being a competent franchise in all my years, and it shouldn't be a shocker that they screwed that up too. I guess I'm the sucker for believing things had changed.

Yeah I ain't going anywhere, and yeah I might get excited just as I do every year when football season starts up. But long term, I just don't have faith anymore. Especially if his replacement is someone who doesn't have success and experience in the field of talent evaluation (I'm looking at Doug Williams on this one.)

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

I'm really hoping we bring someone from the outside in as gm.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

I enjoyed the Redskins years ago more because I did not know all the things behind the scene so to speak..the 24-7 365 days of the NFL channel and the onslaught of Redskin media not missing any detail actually takes away from the experience. I remember when the Washington post or Washington Star and Ken Beatrice On radio was all you got ..you had 3 channels to choose from CBS,NBC and ABC monday night football !! Jack Kent Cooke was like a mystery man and the players never said much to media..it was way more simple then and in many ways more fun to be a fan..I really don't care to know what type of person Dan Snyder is because if I don't like him it hurts the fan side of me..Whats funny is how hard core some people are about there feelings towards Owner(s) and yet if team wins all is forgotten..that to me is selfish in and of itself. Winning cures all I guess. Truth is I like coming to these sites and really like this forum but sometimes it seems like everybody hates the very thing they claim to love..For me I will let Snyder run his team however and I am gonna pull for the Team and try to ignore all the behind the scene crap that can ruin it for me.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1168001]And when the draft arrives and delivers you a side of 10 draft picks, you'll eat it up.[/quote]

I think you're correct here. I'm pretty frustrated but I know come September I'll be organising my weekends around this GD team like always.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=MTK;1168004]The team handled it about as poorly as can be, but in the end there was never going to be anything other than a messy end to it?

Is there any circumstance where we would have accepted Scot leaving as anything other than the team fucking it up in some manner?[/quote]

I 100% think they could have handled this in a way as to not be and appear as both
1. Incompetent boobs and
2. Craven jackasses

That doesn't mean they wouldn't have taken well deserved lumps but in this particular case their behaviour is, as has been said, indefensible. Not sure I've ever felt like that before.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1168025]I'm really hoping we bring someone from the outside in as gm.[/quote]

Bring back Charley Casserly, I know DS fired him but that's his best option.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

Here comes Sally who's never been a fan of Danny:

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/tired-of-the-redskins-dysfunction-theres-one-person-to-blame/2017/03/11/2aef60dc-05d3-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.93b1c8cd9d91[/url]

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1168022]By the way, I've said this many times but it bears repeating. You don't choose your team, your team chooses you. If you think it's possible to give up on the Redskins and root for another team, then you were never a fan in the first place.[/quote]

How so? People can change teams easily. I mean a person can divorce his or her spouse if things get ugly, why can't a person do the same with a team? I mean a team is just an amusement vehicle if you will. Very few people have that strong of an emotional attachment to a team unless you don't have much of a personal life or have some real life connection with the team. If said team is no longer fun or amusing to watch after a certain period of time anybody can get tired of it and move on. If it isn't all that anymore, why hang around? You make this out to be a helluva lot more than what it really is, and that is entertainment. What value do you get out of the Redskins or any other sports team you watch? Win or lose it doesn't really affect your bottom line or your life, so what is the value of it all? It is just entertainment, and not that great I might add. It is no different if you don't like a TV show anymore, you quit watching it. The crap that just went down was moronic, but par for the course with Snyder, who seems to want constant chaos to keep the masses amused and the franchise in the news. It is a tactic made famous by celebrities over the last decade and a half. Any news is good news, whether it is good or bad, you are in the news. Thing is the tactic has run its course and is rather dull anymore, thus the reason many are really thinking about saying screw it. Also Snyder doesn't want to hire people that want to have some say in personnel matters, so how can this team really advance as long as he is the owner. More and more people are realizing that and are just getting bored with it all. It is like watching a bad rerun. Einstein said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result and the more this merry go round keeps going in circles, more and more people are starting to take the red pill. It is getting old and it really isn't all that anymore. Sort of like a dying romance if you will.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

Just hope that they can get a GM. That does not have anymore personal problems. As well as that person can know what they are doing. As well as relate to both players, coaches, and fans!

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1168025]I'm really hoping we bring someone from the outside in as gm.[/quote]

Wasn't that who Scot was, an outsider with an objective view?

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[QUOTE=FlyerSkin;1168031]How so? People can change teams easily. I mean a person can divorce his or her spouse if things get ugly, why can't a person do the same with a team? I mean a team is just an amusement vehicle if you will. Very few people have that strong of an emotional attachment to a team unless you don't have much of a personal life or have some real life connection with the team. If said team is no longer fun or amusing to watch after a certain period of time anybody can get tired of it and move on. If it isn't all that anymore, why hang around? You make this out to be a helluva lot more than what it really is, and that is entertainment. What value do you get out of the Redskins or any other sports team you watch? Win or lose it doesn't really affect your bottom line or your life, so what is the value of it all? It is just entertainment, and not that great I might add. It is no different if you don't like a TV show anymore, you quit watching it. The crap that just went down was moronic, but par for the course with Snyder, who seems to want constant chaos to keep the masses amused and the franchise in the news. It is a tactic made famous by celebrities over the last decade and a half. Any news is good news, whether it is good or bad, you are in the news. Thing is the tactic has run its course and is rather dull anymore, thus the reason many are really thinking about saying screw it. Also Snyder doesn't want to hire people that want to have some say in personnel matters, so how can this team really advance as long as he is the owner. More and more people are realizing that and are just getting bored with it all. It is like watching a bad rerun. Einstein said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result and the more this merry go round keeps going in circles, more and more people are starting to take the red pill. It is getting old and it really isn't all that anymore. Sort of like a dying romance if you will.[/QUOTE]



This. The only thing that has me holding on is Kirk Cousins. If he stays we win, if he goes we are back to sucking. I feel bad for the guys who never saw the Redskins at there best. I was hopeful Dan finally figured it out and backed away from any decision making but that apparently doesn't seem to be the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=Brody81;1168037]This. The only thing that has me holding on is Kirk Cousins. If he stays we win, if he goes we are back to sucking. I feel bad for the guys who never saw the Redskins at there best. I was hopeful Dan finally figured it out and backed away from any decision making but that apparently doesn't seem to be the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

My heart agrees with your post but my logic goes with Schneed.

I want to quit on the team too, and it seems like once Cousins is gone (HE WILL BE TRADED BEFORE THE SEASON STARTS), it makes it easy to just give them up, but Schneed is right. Being a redskins fan gets in you, and even though we know there is 100% no hope with Snyder as our owner, we will still tune in and watch every Sunday....

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=SFREDSKIN;1168029]Bring back Charley Casserly, I know DS fired him but that's his best option.[/quote]

I disagree. He was the GM for us from 89 to 99. 99 being the only year he had a really good draft. The rest of it was pretty bad actually.

Honestly the only drafts as bad as his are 2007 - 2009. Yes we went to a superbowl with him and he did bring Wilber Marshall here. What would the reaction be today if a team gave up two first round picks for a linebacker, which was the price for Marshall.

For the record I have no issue with Marshall, he was a great player for 6 years. 3 home shutouts to start the 91 season......

[url=http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/draft.htm]Washington Redskins All-Time Draft History | Pro-Football-Reference.com[/url]

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

There's no amount of F'ing up that the team could, and they've done A LOT, that could make me turn away from them. I see being a Skins fan as an indelible part of who I am. I couldn't stop rooting for them if I tried. I could declare myself a Packer fan, and week one tune my Sunday Ticket to their games instead, and swear not to look at the Skins game. But I know as soon as I saw a score come across:

PHI 3 WAS 10 2nd QTR 7:35 remaining
R Kelley 9 carries, 39 yds, 1 TD

My heart will pull me back and I'll change the channel.

If you went through that scenario and didn't flip back to the Redskins, then you were never a fan in the first place. It runs too deep.

Most reading this will get it.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=FlyerSkin;1168031]How so? People can change teams easily. I mean a person can divorce his or her spouse if things get ugly, why can't a person do the same with a team? I mean a team is just an amusement vehicle if you will. Very few people have that strong of an emotional attachment to a team unless you don't have much of a personal life or have some real life connection with the team. If said team is no longer fun or amusing to watch after a certain period of time anybody can get tired of it and move on. If it isn't all that anymore, why hang around? You make this out to be a helluva lot more than what it really is, and that is entertainment. What value do you get out of the Redskins or any other sports team you watch? Win or lose it doesn't really affect your bottom line or your life, so what is the value of it all? It is just entertainment, and not that great I might add. It is no different if you don't like a TV show anymore, you quit watching it. The crap that just went down was moronic, but par for the course with Snyder, who seems to want constant chaos to keep the masses amused and the franchise in the news. It is a tactic made famous by celebrities over the last decade and a half. Any news is good news, whether it is good or bad, you are in the news. Thing is the tactic has run its course and is rather dull anymore, thus the reason many are really thinking about saying screw it. Also Snyder doesn't want to hire people that want to have some say in personnel matters, so how can this team really advance as long as he is the owner. More and more people are realizing that and are just getting bored with it all. It is like watching a bad rerun. Einstein said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result and the more this merry go round keeps going in circles, more and more people are starting to take the red pill. It is getting old and it really isn't all that anymore. Sort of like a dying romance if you will.[/quote]

I have a personal life. I happen to have a pretty important personal and professional life. I still have a pretty big emotional attachment to the team. So, try again partner.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1168043]There's no amount of F'ing up that the team could, and they've done A LOT, that could make me turn away from them. I see being a Skins fan as an indelible part of who I am. I couldn't stop rooting for them if I tried. I could declare myself a Packer fan, and week one tune my Sunday Ticket to their games instead, and swear not to look at the Skins game. But I know as soon as I saw a score come across:

PHI 3 WAS 10 2nd QTR 7:35 remaining
R Kelley 9 carries, 39 yds, 1 TD

My heart will pull me back and I'll change the channel.

If you went through that scenario and didn't flip back to the Redskins, then you were never a fan in the first place. It runs too deep.

Most reading this will get it.[/quote]

Yup. It's like having a secondary family all your life. You've grown up with them, invested with them, shared the good times and the bad times. Even if I wanted to switch to another team, I couldn't.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

The Redskins are a DMV institution. I grew up in D.C. and I've been a Redskins fan my entire life. I'm 69 years old and I was already a rabid Redskins fan before Dan Snyder was born. As a kid, I watched the team practice on a crappy field next to D.C. General Hospital. The Redskins are [U]my[/U] community's team. I think of Dan Snyder as the temporary custodian of one of our most treasured civic institutions.

To me, the Redskins are the players and the games they play on the football field. I also like the band, the cheerleaders, and my fellow fans. The team executives, ticket office, public relations staff, etc. are little more than a distraction to the games, pageantry, and brotherhood of Redskins football.

Other than moving the team, I can't think of anything Dan Snyder could do to drive me away.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;1168055]The Redskins are a DMV institution. I grew up in D.C. and I've been a Redskins fan my entire life. I'm 69 years old and I was literally a rabid Redskins fan before Dan Snyder was even born. As a kid, I watched the team practice on a crappy field next to D.C. General Hospital. The Redskins are [U]my[/U] community's team. I think of Dan Snyder as the temporary custodian of one of our most treasured civic institutions.

To me, the Redskins are the players and the games they play on the football field. I also like the band, the cheerleaders, and my fellow fans. The team executives, ticket office, public relations staff, etc. are little more than a distraction to the games, pageantry, and brotherhood of Redskins football.

As long as he doesn't move the team, I can't think of anything Dan Snyder could do to drive me away.[/quote]

[IMG]https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/00/53/27/57/240_F_53275791_YW5UmQ46iDCsdRVNvRw3y2yvZF2DvUyK.jpg[/IMG] Metalskins liked this.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;1168055]The Redskins are a DMV institution. I grew up in D.C. and I've been a Redskins fan my entire life. I'm 69 years old and I was already a rabid Redskins fan before Dan Snyder was born. As a kid, I watched the team practice on a crappy field next to D.C. General Hospital. The Redskins are [U]my[/U] community's team. I think of Dan Snyder as the temporary custodian of one of our most treasured civic institutions.

To me, the Redskins are the players and the games they play on the football field. I also like the band, the cheerleaders, and my fellow fans. The team executives, ticket office, public relations staff, etc. are little more than a distraction to the games, pageantry, and brotherhood of Redskins football.

Other than moving the team, I can't think of anything Dan Snyder could do to drive me away.[/quote]

Couldn't agree more!! Win or lose, excellense or dysfunction, being 3,000 miles away or 20 miles, they will always be my team. I moved to the SF Bay area in 1982 and my loyalty is too all DC teams.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1168043]There's no amount of F'ing up that the team could, and they've done A LOT, that could make me turn away from them. I see being a Skins fan as an indelible part of who I am. I couldn't stop rooting for them if I tried. I could declare myself a Packer fan, and week one tune my Sunday Ticket to their games instead, and swear not to look at the Skins game. But I know as soon as I saw a score come across:

PHI 3 WAS 10 2nd QTR 7:35 remaining
R Kelley 9 carries, 39 yds, 1 TD

My heart will pull me back and I'll change the channel.

If you went through that scenario and didn't flip back to the Redskins, then you were never a fan in the first place. It runs too deep.

Most reading this will get it.[/quote]

I also know the second I switch they will be good again, fawkers! =)

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

There is one major problem with that view..Dan Snyder could move this team easy if he choose to..And yes Somebody else would move into the market but it would not be the Redskins..So to view Snyder As a custodian is somewhat naive. I believe that outside a very few owners Dan Snyder is no worse than most of NFL owners..First of all You can't become wealthy enough to own a NFL team WITHOUT a HUGE EGO. most all owners got rich enough to own a NFL team by doing it there way..so once they own the team why would they change? I dont view Snyder as a bad owner at all..yes the team made mistakes but remember at the time they drafted RGIII Just about everybody thought it was a fantastic move..then his rookie season was fantastic everybody was on board..then the injury (which Shannahan got the blame for and it went downhill fast)..Kirk Cousins deal will go a long way to healing up the bad feelings..BUT remember IF cousins struggles you will have folks saying we should have traded cousins and Snyder was the reason we didn't..Its a no win situation .

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1168007]Here's a pretty scathing op-ed. [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2017/03/13/tony-kornheiser-eviscerates-the-redskins-for-their-savage-cutdown-of-a-human-being/?utm_term=.78bd81db8bf6[/url]

Nothing new, but gives the perspective I think most who are disgusted with the FO are seeing this from.[/quote]

That article is a freaking joke, it paints Scottie Mac as a victim. The guy drank himself out of a job for the 3rd straight time, how is that the Redskins fault? Last I checked we are talking about a grown man who is responsible for his own actions. You can't help someone who doesn't want to help themselves and I am pretty sure Scottie has enough money to check himself into the best rehab center money can buy. He obviously doesn't want to get the help he needs, that is his fault and no one else's. Leave it to the extreme left leaning Washington Post to run such a garbage article.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=mooby;1168054]Yup. It's like having a secondary family all your life. You've grown up with them, invested with them, shared the good times and the bad times. Even if I wanted to switch to another team, I couldn't.[/quote]

This is the definition of a die hard fan.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

I was invited to a party a few years to go to watch the Ravens play the Titans in a playoff game. I had zero skin in the game and tried to root for the Ravens, since the party was in Baltimore and everyone there was a Ravens fan. Couldn't do it. Hate the Ravens and started pulling for the Titans.

Point is, anyone can just say they're a fan of another team, but your heart has to be in it. I don't care how bad it gets with the Skins. I could never genuinely root for another team to the point that I would be moved emotionally by anything they did. If anything, I would just stop following the NFL altogether, but I don't see that happening either.

The drama this off-season is nothing to me. Yeah, it's unfortunate, but it hasn't translated into a single loss yet, and I actually like the moved they've made so far. Just need to sign Kirk to a LTD.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=rocnrik;1168107]There is one major problem with that view..Dan Snyder could move this team easy if he choose to..And yes Somebody else would move into the market but it would not be the Redskins..So to view Snyder As a custodian is somewhat naive. [/quote]

Naive? Hardly. You must have missed the part where I told you that I'm sixty-freakin'-nine years old. A young whipper snapper like you might have a problem if he moves the team but I won't. Hell, I'll probably be dead by the time Snyder gets around to moving the team. So fuck him, I win!

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=rocnrik;1168107]There is one major problem with that view..Dan Snyder could move this team easy if he choose to..And yes Somebody else would move into the market but it would not be the Redskins..So to view Snyder As a custodian is somewhat naive. I believe that outside a very few owners Dan Snyder is no worse than most of NFL owners..First of all You can't become wealthy enough to own a NFL team WITHOUT a HUGE EGO. most all owners got rich enough to own a NFL team by doing it there way..so once they own the team why would they change? I dont view Snyder as a bad owner at all..yes the team made mistakes but remember at the time they drafted RGIII Just about everybody thought it was a fantastic move..then his rookie season was fantastic everybody was on board..then the injury (which Shannahan got the blame for and it went downhill fast)..Kirk Cousins deal will go a long way to healing up the bad feelings..BUT remember IF cousins struggles you will have folks saying we should have traded cousins and Snyder was the reason we didn't..Its a no win situation .[/quote]

He could, but he wouldn't, for a couple reasons. A. The Redskins are an established franchise with a long history, it'd be like the Packers or Cowboys moving. B. Money is the bottom line, and as long as fans keep giving him their money he would never even think about moving. I agree with Schneed, even though Snyder could own the team for another 40 years he is just a custodian. My final point is also that Snyder grew up a Redskins fan, so the concept of moving this beloved franchise directly conflicts with him being a fan.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[QUOTE=SolidSnake84;1168039]My heart agrees with your post but my logic goes with Schneed.



I want to quit on the team too, and it seems like once Cousins is gone (HE WILL BE TRADED BEFORE THE SEASON STARTS), it makes it easy to just give them up, but Schneed is right. Being a redskins fan gets in you, and even though we know there is 100% no hope with Snyder as our owner, we will still tune in and watch every Sunday....[/QUOTE]



Of course I will watch.. I just won't buy apparel, spend money going to games or brainwash my children.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;1168113]Naive? Hardly. You must have missed the part where I told you that I'm sixty-freakin'-nine years old. A young whipper snapper like you might have a problem if he moves the team but I won't. Hell, I'll probably be dead by the time Snyder gets around to moving the team. So fuck him, I win![/quote]

Thanks for the compliment!! I am not 69 but lets just say I have not missed a single Redskin game since 1968! I'm right behind you in age. My point is simply I don't view Snyder as just a custodian..He is the owner no matter how bad we think he is. I can't seem to wrap my mind around having so much hate for the man who owns the team. Just my view nothing personal .WE both Love the Skins!

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

Read this article now:

[url=http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/03/16/washington-redskins-nfl-dysfunction-scot-mccloughan-dan-snyder-bruce-allen]Redskins drama: What went wrong in Washington | The MMQB with Peter King[/url]

The then-GM met for five hours one night that summer to try and convince owner Dan Snyder and president Bruce Allen that the time had come, and the team needed to move from Robert Griffin III to Kirk Cousins. Soon thereafter, with Cousins installed as starter, and believing he was in for a big year, McCloughan made a second appeal to the team’s top brass.

Let’s extend Cousins now, he told them, so we’re not stuck holding the bag later.


The Cousins negotiation. At the close of training camp in 2015, McCloughan wanted to try and extend Cousins, but there was concern over how that’d go over with Griffin, because some felt the team would still need him at some point. (Whether a fair figure could have been reached with Cousins is open for debate, considering the quarterback’s inconsistent résumé and lack of success at that point.) Finally, that December, McCloughan was given the green light. By then, Cousins’ camp wanted to wait till after the year.

After Cousins’ hot finish, the Skins knew they’d have to franchise Cousins at a $20 million number, which framed negotiations in a place where the team wasn’t willing to go. Talks on a long-term deal got off to a rough start, and then control shifted from McCloughan to team negotiator Eric Schaffer. By the time 2016 was winding down, the GM had been removed completely from decision-making on Cousins.



disturbing tidbit with Cravens:

Su’a Cravens injury. The rookie safety/linebacker injured his biceps on Dec. 11 against the Eagles. Initially, the team believed it was a tear. It wound up being a bruise, the kind players often play through. Cravens missed the following Monday’s game against Carolina, and then the next game in Chicago on Christmas Eve.



By then, his teammates, some of whom had seen him playing ping-pong at the facility, were openly wondering why he wasn’t pushing through the injury. After he missed two games, the team wanted him to get the arm drained in an effort to play in Week 17. Cravens responded by not showing up to the facility for treatment that day, at which point McCloughan decided to call Cravens.

That didn’t go over well with Allen. Some veterans felt like McCloughan was simply trying to uphold the culture that he and Gruden had worked to build, which is seen as a “Seattle” thing (McCloughan worked for the Seahawks from 2011-13) to do—If you see something, say something. But certainly, there’d be some debate in the football world over whether it’s a GM’s place to handle those things. (Cravens sat out the finale.)


Bashaud Breeland’s outburst. At another point in December, the third-year corner—who’d been seen internally as moody following the Josh Norman signing—blew an assignment, and was called by a coach on it. He argued. The coach argued back. Then, Breeland blew another assignment, took his helmet off and sat on a cooler on the sideline. From the perspective of the coaching staff, these sorts of squabbles with players were not uncommon.

But after practice, in the locker room, McCloughan saw Breeland coming out of the shower and bluntly told the third-year corner to come to his office after he was dressed. Word of the confrontation got around, and it led to another squabble in the front office over boundaries.

As was the case with Cravens, some players believed Breeland needed to be shaken and didn’t mind McCloughan doing it. Clearly, others within the organization didn’t think it was his place.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1168226]Read this article now:

[url=http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/03/16/washington-redskins-nfl-dysfunction-scot-mccloughan-dan-snyder-bruce-allen]Redskins drama: What went wrong in Washington | The MMQB with Peter King[/url]

The then-GM met for five hours one night that summer to try and convince owner Dan Snyder and president Bruce Allen that the time had come, and the team needed to move from Robert Griffin III to Kirk Cousins. Soon thereafter, with Cousins installed as starter, and believing he was in for a big year, McCloughan made a second appeal to the team’s top brass.

Let’s extend Cousins now, he told them, so we’re not stuck holding the bag later.


The Cousins negotiation. At the close of training camp in 2015, McCloughan wanted to try and extend Cousins, but there was concern over how that’d go over with Griffin, because some felt the team would still need him at some point. (Whether a fair figure could have been reached with Cousins is open for debate, considering the quarterback’s inconsistent résumé and lack of success at that point.) Finally, that December, McCloughan was given the green light. By then, Cousins’ camp wanted to wait till after the year.

After Cousins’ hot finish, the Skins knew they’d have to franchise Cousins at a $20 million number, which framed negotiations in a place where the team wasn’t willing to go. Talks on a long-term deal got off to a rough start, and then control shifted from McCloughan to team negotiator Eric Schaffer. By the time 2016 was winding down, the GM had been removed completely from decision-making on Cousins.



disturbing tidbit with Cravens:

Su’a Cravens injury. The rookie safety/linebacker injured his biceps on Dec. 11 against the Eagles. Initially, the team believed it was a tear. It wound up being a bruise, the kind players often play through. Cravens missed the following Monday’s game against Carolina, and then the next game in Chicago on Christmas Eve.



By then, his teammates, some of whom had seen him playing ping-pong at the facility, were openly wondering why he wasn’t pushing through the injury. After he missed two games, the team wanted him to get the arm drained in an effort to play in Week 17. Cravens responded by not showing up to the facility for treatment that day, at which point McCloughan decided to call Cravens.

That didn’t go over well with Allen. Some veterans felt like McCloughan was simply trying to uphold the culture that he and Gruden had worked to build, which is seen as a “Seattle” thing (McCloughan worked for the Seahawks from 2011-13) to do—If you see something, say something. But certainly, there’d be some debate in the football world over whether it’s a GM’s place to handle those things. (Cravens sat out the finale.)


Bashaud Breeland’s outburst. At another point in December, the third-year corner—who’d been seen internally as moody following the Josh Norman signing—blew an assignment, and was called by a coach on it. He argued. The coach argued back. Then, Breeland blew another assignment, took his helmet off and sat on a cooler on the sideline. From the perspective of the coaching staff, these sorts of squabbles with players were not uncommon.

But after practice, in the locker room, McCloughan saw Breeland coming out of the shower and bluntly told the third-year corner to come to his office after he was dressed. Word of the confrontation got around, and it led to another squabble in the front office over boundaries.

As was the case with Cravens, some players believed Breeland needed to be shaken and didn’t mind McCloughan doing it. Clearly, others within the organization didn’t think it was his place.[/quote]

My only take away from the article: It is weird McC is confronting naked players.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=mredskins;1168229]My only take away from the article: It is weird McC is confronting naked players.[/quote]

Not that McC wanted to pay Cousins and others didn't? didn't notice that?

How about instilling a culture? nothing there.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

Every GM has his own style. I'm sure there are other GM's that do this as well. I believe that if your hire a guy in a powerful position you have to let him do things his way and let the chips fall where they may. Allen was uncomfortable with this. He needs a guy that he can control.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

I definitely don't like the idea of the GM confronting players about on-field behavior - that is definitively 100% the Head Coach's realm and the GM needs to stay the fuck out. It is up to Gruden and his staff to manage the day to day emotions of the players.

Pick the players Scot. Let the coaches coach.

This to me is a very legitimate reason to fire him.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

I want Gruden to be the one to handle players, to motivate them, to pat them on the back when they need it. McC is not a fucking coach.

God this makes me angry.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

Why would the narrative be 'scott's drinking' vs McC didn't fit our culture? If we didn't like the way McC did business...that's fine...fire him. But the drinking angle seems convenient. Major red flags across the league about how Dan/Bruce do things. Also, we didn't research how McC how conducted the teams? They didn't know about this before, his relationship and the need to call out Players poor attitude and behavior??? This gets me fucking mad...why didn't we know? Why is this surprising to Bruce, Dan and Gruden? Im lost.

To me this is slanderous...if people were getting their lil feelings hurt because Scott has a relationship with the players....then fire him based on that, not for cause.


Oh Scott wanted to clearly sign Cousins too...thoughts?

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1168235][B]I definitely don't like the idea of the GM confronting players about on-field behavior - that is definitively 100% the Head Coach's realm and the GM needs to stay the fuck out.[/B] It is up to Gruden and his staff to manage the day to day emotions of the players.

Pick the players Scot. Let the coaches coach.

This to me is a very legitimate reason to fire him.[/quote]

I don't understand why people can't take off their I-hate-Bruce-Allen-no-matter-what blinders and see that this was an issue.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=Ruhskins;1168240]I don't understand why people can't take off their I-hate-Bruce-Allen-no-matter-what blinders and see that this was an issue.[/quote]

Nobody's intellectually honest anymore. Too willing to take a position and refuse to revisit it based on new information.

The truth is never simple. There's no way that Allen is 100% at fault, and there's no way McCloughan is 100% at fault. They both fucked up in various ways, if you're being fair about it.

Re: Trouble in Redskins Park?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1168235]I definitely don't like the idea of the GM confronting players about on-field behavior - that is definitively 100% the Head Coach's realm and the GM needs to stay the fuck out. It is up to Gruden and his staff to manage the day to day emotions of the players.

Pick the players Scot. Let the coaches coach.

This to me is a very legitimate reason to fire him.[/quote]

Its worked for Seattle, good enough for me. Why shouldn't the GM be able to handle issues with the players who [B]he[/B] decides to keep on his team?