Trouble in Redskins Park?

[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.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

Fair enough, if roles weren't clearly defined and McC was overstepping his boundaries than yes it is a problem. But we weren't there and we have no idea how it went down. Maybe the coaches got on Breeland first but it didn't resolve anything, so McC felt the need to step in. He should've cleared it with Gruden first as Gruden is the main voice of the team. But if Gruden didn't have an issue with it neither do I. This is one of those questions that will likely never be resolved so I am content to let it go, as it doesn't make a difference anyways. McC is gone, we will either sink or swim.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

Come on Schneed. This is pure speculation until someone credible with an inside source says it. As you always say, provide a link. I havent seen anywhere that the problem was between McC and Gruden, just McC and Allen as far as I know

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Come on Schneed. This is pure speculation until someone credible with an inside source says it. As you always say, provide a link. I havent seen anywhere that the problem was between McC and Gruden, just McC and Allen as far as I know

Then you don't understand organizational dynamics. Enjoy your career at the bottom rung of the ladder.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Then you don't understand organizational dynamics. Enjoy your career at the bottom rung of the ladder.

Allow me to translate for those of you that dont speak Schneed:

"Yes you caught me bullshitting, it was my speculation that I was trying to pass off as obvious fact. Now Im gonna insult your intelligence in an attempt to not look like a pretentious jack ass."

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Allow me to translate for those of you that dont speak Schneed:

"Yes you caught me bullshitting, it was my speculation that I was trying to pass off as obvious fact. Now Im gonna insult your intelligence in an attempt to not look like a pretentious jack ass."

gotta learn to speak that "Schneedese"

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Allow me to translate for those of you that dont speak Schneed:

"Yes you caught me bullshitting, it was my speculation that I was trying to pass off as obvious fact. Now Im gonna insult your intelligence in an attempt to not look like a pretentious jack ass."

No seriously, I find it unfathomably laughable that you think there's any possibility that Allen would have a problem with McC talking to a player about on field behavior if Gruden was OK with it.

Have you ever put any thought into why organizations set up their org charts the way they do? Because it comes across like you don't.

Gruden was absolutely not OK with that. It's not a question.

[WillH]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No seriously, I find it unfathomably laughable that you think there's any possibility that Allen would have a problem with McC talking to a player about on field behavior if Gruden was OK with it.

Have you ever put any thought into why organizations set up their org charts the way they do? Because it comes across like you don't.

Gruden was absolutely not OK with that. It's not a question.

What is your job, Schneed, that you feel you are a subject matter expert? CEO? CFO? GM? I have a feeling that your no higher then like a shift supervisor.

I will preface my statement by saying that I am in a Executive level role and at least 50% of my job is navigating through interpersonal issues. I say that, not to condescend as you have been, but only to give some validity to my statements (unlike your own).

I do understand your point, and I will say that it is most likely that Someone from the coaching staff said something to Allen. That said, as an executive, I know that you can't make judgments on surface information, you need to know the whole story. Here are just a few possibilities, based on similar experiences I have had:

1. Who's the source here? Probably RJF. (I'm not assuming that by any means just exploring possibilities). The stories being told in the article are all surrounding players, and to me sound like they are from a players perspective. The perspective of players (front line employees in general) is especially helpful when exploring something directly related to their jobs, and often more valuable then an executive. When it comes to organizational politics etc, however, their view is very narrow. Everything they know is hearsay. They weren't in the meetings, they don't know confidential information, and they only have to think about a situation from one perspective: their own. I know of many situations where line level employees and especially ex-employees spout off at the mouth about situations that they know nothing about and actually say out right false things if not simply misinterpreted. So one possibility is this report is inaccurate.

2. Yes org charts are helpful, and delineated responsibilities clearly defined are too. But anyone that works in any organization can tell you that the lines are often blurred and when you have a trusting culture it can be incredibly valuable to have some overlap. So sticking to siloed responsibilities for the sake of it is just stupid. Communication is essential when responsibilities overlap, of course, so in this situation, yes Gruden would have to be on board. Who's to say he wasn't? I have seen situations in which higher level executives with egos that need to throw their weight around or are jealous of other's ability to work as a team have sought out unnecessary issues, including stepping out of roles even when it was accepted by everyone else involved. So, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Allen was picking unnecessary fights or was just putting Scot in his place, as it wer, for no other reason then because he could or maybe he was jealous. Is that effective leadership and management? No, you're right about that. No healthy organization runs this way . . . Are the redskins a healthy organization?

3. It could have been the players that complained to Allen, "how many people do I have to answer to and be lectured by here? I'm a grown man. I don't need 4 people telling me the same damn things."

These are all very real possibilities. I have seen these things play out in organizations. So, lets treat this article for what it is, hearsay. It doesn't really clarify much definitively. If you want to speculate, that's cool, we all do it, but don't insult others intelligence because they don't share your views, because honestly, it only makes you look like a moron.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No seriously, I find it unfathomably laughable that you think there's any possibility that Allen would have a problem with McC talking to a player about on field behavior if Gruden was OK with it.

Have you ever put any thought into why organizations set up their org charts the way they do? Because it comes across like you don't.

Gruden was absolutely not OK with that. It's not a question.

Lets be clear, Im not definitively saying you're wrong. Im saying at this point its just speculation. Do you really have so much faith in Allen(the guy that lied to Scot about how much power he'd have when he signed on, falsely accused him of various things, smeared his name in league circles, and is according to some hated across the league)that the only reason he disliked Scots handling of players could be because Jay disliked it? You're absolutely certain that Jay wasnt okay with it and that Bruce couldnt have disliked it himself for some other reason? And this based on an article that mentions Jays name once in a throwaway sentence? Thats some serious tunnel vision