Trouble in Redskins Park?

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Read this article now:

Redskins drama: What went wrong in Washington | The MMQB with Peter King

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.

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

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mredskins

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

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

How about instilling a culture? nothing there.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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

How about instilling a culture? nothing there.

I'm more disappointed by the tidbits on Cravens and Breeland. Paying Cousins when RG3 was still on the roster was certainly a debatable idea at the time

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I'm more disappointed by the tidbits on Cravens and Breeland. Paying Cousins when RG3 was still on the roster was certainly a debatable idea at the time

I am also disappointed by this, moreso by Cravens than Breeland. We all knew Breeland was struggling last year so lashing out is expected. As long as someone gets on him about it and he fixes his mistakes its' no biggie. But Cravens not playing through a bruise isn't a good look.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I'm more disappointed by the tidbits on Cravens and Breeland. Paying Cousins when RG3 was still on the roster was certainly a debatable idea at the time

Exactly the whole cousins part is hindsight.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I'm more disappointed by the tidbits on Cravens and Breeland. Paying Cousins when RG3 was still on the roster was certainly a debatable idea at the time

come to find out, it was the right thing to do. Being right counts...actually counts a lot when it comes to QBs.

Bruce and Dan have poor track records with the QB decisions

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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

How about instilling a culture? nothing there.

Its a joke buddy, relax. Chill.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Its a joke buddy, relax. Chill.

mredskins you sneaky bastard.

you got me...I was just a little blown away with the article. The writer really set up where the organization had gone in just a year...from feeling great, "level", and excited about the future.

back to effing dysfunction dumpster fire...I mean this team will kill me in the end.

Im just sick of the drama...its been going on for 20 years!!!!

[skinsfan69]

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.

[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.

[Ruhskins]

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

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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.

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.

[SFREDSKIN]

I bet the player that spoke to Albert Breer was RJF, that's why he was cut. RJF has ties with McC going back to their days in SF.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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.

Because #FireBruceAllen

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by MTK

Because #FireBruceAllen

#Trackrecord