Trouble in Redskins Park?

[mooby]

I disagree with you Schneed. Every team has their own culture and their own way of doing things. Whose to say McC wasn't calling players out because the coaches weren't, or the coaches were and weren't having the effect they should've had? When any FO personnel gets hired they go through lengthy ass interviews, sometimes the entire day for a position as important as GM. Surely when he came in they asked about his style in Seattle. And if his style was calling out players up there too and Allen knew about it and still agreed to hire him, then I'm putting it on Allen. Jay Gruden is a first time head coach, who obviously had his hands full his first year in the league, and if he didn't mind McC getting involved with the players I don't either. I don't care who handles what responsibilities as long as we are winning, and we were doing that.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by mooby

I disagree with you Schneed. Every team has their own culture and their own way of doing things. Whose to say McC wasn't calling players out because the coaches weren't, or the coaches were and weren't having the effect they should've had? When any FO personnel gets hired they go through lengthy ass interviews, sometimes the entire day for a position as important as GM. Surely when he came in they asked about his style in Seattle. And if his style was calling out players up there too and Allen knew about it and still agreed to hire him, then I'm putting it on Allen. Jay Gruden is a first time head coach, who obviously had his hands full his first year in the league, and if he didn't mind McC getting involved with the players I don't either. I don't care who handles what responsibilities as long as we are winning, and we were doing that.

Also a stupid thing to say. HE FUCKING DID MIND IT. Why do you think there was a problem??

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Also a stupid thing to say. HE FUCKING DID MIND IT. Why do you think there was a problem??

Man, if you gonna say some wack shit like that, you need to back it up. Source please. Something that mentions him rather than "certain FO members had a problem with it." That could be anyone, from Allen to Gruden.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by mooby

Man, if you gonna say some wack shit like that, you need to back it up. Source please. Something that mentions him rather than "certain FO members had a problem with it." That could be anyone, from Allen to Gruden.

Mooby you're a better thinker than this.

Why would it be a problem for Allen if it wasn't a problem for Gruden, who reports in to Allen?

Do you think Allen just goes around looking for battles to fight? Why would he have a problem with this if Gruden was cool with it? You don't need to source this. If this was an issue for the front office, it's because the coach made it one. And if you can't understand that then you don't understand leadership.

If that's going to be done, it MUST be cleared with Gruden first.

[rocnrik]

There were lots of issues at play here..So its safe to say that no one single things got Scott fired ..it seems to me that yea there was a power struggle between Scott and Bruce but that alone did not do it. It was everything combined .. Head coaches get fired all the time for stuff they had no control over..they are handed a horrible roster and when they don't win somebody has to get blamed..when did you ever see a owner fire himself?? Its the nature of this business..you get hired so you can be fired! Nothing new here at all..guess what somebody else is going to get fired that deserved to keep his job..

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by rocnrik

There were lots of issues at play here..So its safe to say that no one single things got Scott fired ..it seems to me that yea there was a power struggle between Scott and Bruce but that alone did not do it. It was everything combined .. Head coaches get fired all the time for stuff they had no control over..they are handed a horrible roster and when they don't win somebody has to get blamed..when did you ever see a owner fire himself?? Its the nature of this business..you get hired so you can be fired! Nothing new here at all..guess what somebody else is going to get fired that deserved to keep his job..

This is level headed. Everything combined. McC and Allen just didn't mix.

Our culture was there was a division of responsibility, with McC reporting to Allen and Gruden reporting to Allen. McC overstepped that.

And there was an inability on Allen's part to trust McC on the most important of positions, QB. He didn't fully trust or empower the guy he hired. And now we're stuck in a shitty spot at QB that we'll have to pay big $ to escape from.

Blame goes all around.

[MTK]

I'm in favor of clear roles with a team or organization. When people overstep it causes confusion and the overall message trying to sent from the top down is diluted. Too many chiefs is not a good thing.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by MTK

I'm in favor of clear roles with a team or organization. When people overstep it causes confusion and the overall message trying to sent from the top down is diluted. Too many chiefs is not a good thing.

Exactly.

What is the difference between Allen failing to trust McC on the QB issue, and McC failing to trust Gruden on how to handle a pouty Beshaud Breeland?

There's no fucking difference. In each case, it's a failure to trust the person in position to play their respective roles.

It's overstepping, and it conveys a message to Gruden that I don't trust you to handle this appropriately. That's not how high functioning organizations work, not fortune 500 companies, not winning sports teams, not local little leagues. You play your role, and you trust others to do their job.

[skinsfan69]

SM didn't go into the damn huddle and call the guy out. He went into the locker room and wanted Breeland to come into his office. He's the GM of the team. I doubt he's doing this every week and stepping on the toes of the coaches. Just doesn't seem like a big deal to me at all.

[mredskins]

There is a new saying :

The only constants in life are death, taxes and Redskin's Front Office dysfunction.

Honestly the latter keeps us very occupy on here; anyone on here that is truly really worked up about McC being fired probably needs to reevaluate their prioritizes in life.

[SolidSnake84]

I come from an HR background. My experience in organizational structure says that what Schneed has said is true. I am familiar with organizational structure, and flowcharts, etc..

It seems to me that Scott M overstepped his role by getting directly involved with the players. I have a feeling that it was not a one time incident, but rather several things that Scott did on his own, that i think Allen / Gruden were not aware / ok with.

In terms of Organizational flow - If Scott M reported to Allen, then nothing that he does in his day to day operations should be done without Allen either knowing about it or being okay with it. Anything outside that line of what Bruce / Jay are ok with him doing is grounds for reprimanding, and if that kind of thing continues, it is grounds for termination.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

I come from an HR background. My experience in organizational structure says that what Schneed has said is true. I am familiar with organizational structure, and flowcharts, etc..

It seems to me that Scott M overstepped his role by getting directly involved with the players. I have a feeling that it was not a one time incident, but rather several things that Scott did on his own, that i think Allen / Gruden were not aware / ok with.

In terms of Organizational flow - If Scott M reported to Allen, then nothing that he does in his day to day operations should be done without Allen either knowing about it or being okay with it. Anything outside that line of what Bruce / Jay are ok with him doing is grounds for reprimanding, and if that kind of thing continues, it is grounds for termination.

Okay, lets assume you're right and Jay didn't like it. Follow that further back, why was Scot brought here in the first place when the people doing the hiring surely knew the GM and head coach would have such fundamental differences on how a team should be run?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Okay, lets assume you're right and Jay didn't like it. Follow that further back, why was Scot brought here in the first place when the people doing the hiring surely knew the GM and head coach would have such fundamental differences on how a team should be run?

Nobody said Allen was good at his job.

Regardless, McC tried to coach the player. Pulling a player aside to discuss on field conduct is coaching. That's not what he was hired for.

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Okay, lets assume you're right and Jay didn't like it. Follow that further back, why was Scot brought here in the first place when the people doing the hiring surely knew the GM and head coach would have such fundamental differences on how a team should be run?

The only answer that I can possibly give is that in any hiring process, there are positive and negative attributes / traits to every candidate interviewed.

My first guess would be that there was obviously more "good attributes" about Scot (Draft strategy, player evaluation, etc...), than there was bad (His seattle "see something-do something" mentality". And perhaps they thought that Scot would operate within the bounds of his authority.

The person you hire has to fit the job description / duties. You can't make the job fit the person. I think in the end, to Bruce Allen and company, Scot did not fit what they wanted. And nobody ever said that Bruce Allen was particularly good at his job. What he is good at is being a Dan Snyder yes man, which is something that I feel Dan has always needed even going back to the Vinny Days. Every owner in any business wants someone like that to a certain degree.

[WillH]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

I come from an HR background. My experience in organizational structure says that what Schneed has said is true. I am familiar with organizational structure, and flowcharts, etc..

It seems to me that Scott M overstepped his role by getting directly involved with the players. I have a feeling that it was not a one time incident, but rather several things that Scott did on his own, that i think Allen / Gruden were not aware / ok with.

In terms of Organizational flow - If Scott M reported to Allen, then nothing that he does in his day to day operations should be done without Allen either knowing about it or being okay with it. Anything outside that line of what Bruce / Jay are ok with him doing is grounds for reprimanding, and if that kind of thing continues, it is grounds for termination.

I don't disagree that Gruden being the one to dislike him stepping out of bounds is one logical conclusion, and let's say, based on this article, the only logical conclusion. Without knowing the source of this information, do you really believe it true when Schneed calls someone a moron for reserving judgment?