Trouble in Redskins Park?

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

#Trackrecord

We've had two back-to-back winning seasons. You can bitch all you want about his overall records, but NFL teams care about what anyone has done lately. I know is not all because of Bruce Allen, but I'm sorry this little argument is getting old.

Also the reason why I'm sick of all the drama that went down being dragged by media/fans. I know is the offseason and there is little to talk about (well they could talk football, but what the f*ck do I know), but the team hasn't played a snap yet and their recent record has been pretty good one.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by MTK

Because #FireBruceAllen

8 years here and non-RG3 rookie season miracle/two good McCloughan years what has he done?

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

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

So much wrong with this, I'm going to scream. If you think that's why Seattle won then you're oversimplifying and assigning credit for things that weren't significant factors.

1) McC was not the GM, Jon Schneider was.

2) If their culture was see something say something, that means Carroll was OK with it. If the head coach signs off on that mindset, then yeah, there's no problem. But did McC clear this with Gruden? Did McC make sure that was the culture here, too? Obviously not. He overstepped his bounds.

3) To think that only one culture can win in the NFL is stupid. Belichik controls everything. With Gibbs and Beathard, they often battled over strategic direction and Cook broke ties. Player's coaches have won, and disciplinarians have won.

4) Seattle did not win because McC was talking to players. Seattle won primarily because they had Russell Wilson on a rookie contract, Schneider and McCloughan picked good players, and Pete Carroll had them motivated.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

So much wrong with this, I'm going to scream. If you think that's why Seattle won then you're oversimplifying and assigning credit for things that weren't significant factors.

1) McC was not the GM, Jon Schneider was.

2) If their culture was see something say something, that means Carroll was OK with it. If the head coach signs off on that mindset, then yeah, there's no problem. But did McC clear this with Gruden? Did McC make sure that was the culture here, too? Obviously not. He overstepped his bounds.

3) To think that only one culture can win in the NFL is stupid. Belichik controls everything. With Gibbs and Beathard, they often battled over strategic direction and Cook broke ties. Player's coaches have won, and disciplinarians have won.

4) Seattle did not win because McC was talking to players. Seattle won primarily because they had Russell Wilson on a rookie contract, Schneider and McCloughan picked good players, and Pete Carroll had them motivated.

Of course its not the whole reason they won, but it was a part of the whole winning culture

Wasn't saying McC was the GM there, obviously it was Schneider. The larger point you missed is that the GM of a very successful team is okay with non coaches handling player issues

Point two is a good one, but like someone said did Bruce not realize this is the way McC did things? Seems like something that would come out in the interviews, and something you would discuss with the head coach before hiring the GM

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Of course its not the whole reason they won, but it was a part of the whole winning culture

Wasn't saying McC was the GM there, obviously it was Schneider. The larger point you missed is that the GM of a very successful team is okay with non coaches handling player issues

Point two is a good one, but like someone said did Bruce not realize this is the way McC did things? Seems like something that would come out in the interviews, and something you would discuss with the head coach before hiring the GM

How do you know Allen didn't set that expectation? We don't know that he didn't.

I won't go so far as to credit him for it. But regardless, McC stepped into Gruden's world without clearing it with Gruden. Violation. Plain and simple.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

I completely disagree.
Everyone knows Gruden is considered a players coach.
If the coaching staff does not address the issue and allows players to walk all over bad situations where clearly the player is wrong, I have no problem with GM, Team President or team owner to call a player out. Frankly when it comes from your boss's boss, it means a lot more.
It is one thing where a player is getting talked to for a bad act and is getting admonished.
It is a completely different and bad situation when a player gets coddled like RG3 did by Snyder.
Don't show favoritism AND DO NOT ALLOW players to get away with bad shit.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

I completely disagree.
Everyone knows Gruden is considered a players coach.
If the coaching staff does not address the issue and allows players to walk all over bad situations where clearly the player is wrong, I have no problem with GM, Team President or team owner to call a player out. Frankly when it comes from your boss's boss, it means a lot more.
It is one thing where a player is getting talked to for a bad act and is getting admonished.
It is a completely different and bad situation when a player gets coddled like RG3 did by Snyder.
Don't show favoritism AND DO NOT ALLOW players to get away with bad shit.

You're a moron. It undermines Gruden's authority. If you can't see the slippery slope that puts you on then you have no hope of ever leading a McDonald's let alone a significant leadership role in any organization.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

You're a moron. It undermines Gruden's authority. If you can't see the slippery slope that puts you on then you have no hope of ever leading a McDonald's let alone a significant leadership role in any organization.

There you go again. Always acting like a keyboard warrior when someone doesn't agree with you.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

There you go again. Always acting like a keyboard warrior when someone doesn't agree with you.

Inferior minds are incapable of agreeing with me.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

I don't get the idea that Gruden is a HC that will step in someone's face and fix that. Somebody does have to be in that role, and IF Gruden and SM were on the same page that SM was to be the bad cop to Gruden's good cop, I think that is not an abnormal structure in the NFL. Again, that is only true if Gruden and SM were on the same page about those roles. If not then yes the Team President BA should intervene and and make sure everyone is on the same page about each role.

[Schneed10]

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.

[Chico23231]

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?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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

On this point, he was the football mind they hired. They should have trusted him. He had it nailed early on, and now we're paying for Snyder and Allen's failure to trust him.

They say they're turning over control - until they're confronted with something that doesn't make sense to them. Then they need to be convinced to sign off.

I'm not saying something we don't all believe: Allen should be fired for this. But the problem is no matter who Snyder hires, Snyder will still be resistant to trust his people on the biggest of decisions. He'll always need to be convinced, and that's the shame of it all for us.

[MTK]

RJF was likely going to be cut for his cap space regardless