Scot McCloughan officially fired by the Skins

[mastdark81]

I think there is one other narrative. McCloughan wasn't never going to stay long term! Bruce & Dan was only satisfying fans with a temporary quick fix to our frustrations. To me the hiring of Scot was a PR move after Allen got blasted by the media and tension rose in the fan base to an all-time high. I knew they would come up with an excuse the first time we didn't achieve playoffs. He knew that hiring a GM would keep folks at bay (not me but most). So he hired Scot, a guy with prior baggage. Perfect candidate b/c he could put blame on Scot for his baggage at the end of the day. Scot was ok given the tools that he was given but that is another underlying fact... He was never allowed to pull all of his prior staff in. So he was the odd man in most cases. Once Snyder & Co. seen he was a different fella and not wanting to join their social club, they did what they wanted to do originally and that is keep the current setup. Again hiring McCloughan was originally a PR move and not even thought about prior. They were just fine going to McCloughan's scouting service to pick his staff's brain.

That's all possible. But they could have easily moved on from Scot without creating the s***show we all witnessed last month.

How about after missing the playoffs last season, the team just said, "We've decided to move on from Scot. We weren't happy with the draft picks this past year or the inability to help the defense." I'm not saying either of those things is legit, but its certainly better than just showing up to the draft without your GM and refusing to say why he's not there.

I know these guys are frequently DUMB. But I'm just finding it hard to believe that they were really this ham handed and stupid.

All of these theories and conspiracies being thrown out here. I think its way more likely that the simplest explanation for what happened is unfortunately the truth.

Well according to McCloughan after the Senior Bowl is when he knew it was over. Skins used him as long as they could until he completed all of his evaluations. In the meantime the best scenario for the Redskins was for Scot to be behind the scenes until the draft was over then release him with a "hush" severance package cleanly. However the drinking stuff got leaked out through Cooley and it blew up into national news and Redskins did a horrible job of answering the questions so they had to cover their behind and get rid of him sooner. Thats how I see it.

[markshark84]

This is where we disagree. I don't think Allen ever WANTED Scot. I think Scot was forced on Allen by Snyder. Danny is spineless and knew that the fans wouldn't be happy with a Dumb & Dumber 2.0 situation with him and Allen (like we have now), so he forced Allen to hire a "GM-Scout type guy". The only decent one available was Scot --- and Allen knew they'd have a very good alibi if it didn't work out or Allen grew sick of him: Scot's drinking.

The guy left his last two NFL jobs because of drinking and personal issues. Yet fans still want to turn this all into Game of Thrones. lol.

When you're reading all of these lengthy, speculative posts on here, with people coming up with theories, motives and events which none of us could possibly know, I'd keep Occam's razor in mind.

"The simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

I hear you, but when the "assumption" is based on 20 years of behavior consistent with said assumption ---- I'm going with it.

Danny boy has not earned the benefit of the doubt in my book. He's a bad manager and doesn't know what he's doing ---- that is a SAFE assumption. Nothing I am saying is inconsistent with prior history --- Danny has roughly a 2 year FO/HC w/ input firing history. This fits the mold. Scot is no different than Schott, Shanahan, Casserly, Spurrier, Zorn, etc. Gibbs is LITERALLY the only non yes-man survivor over the 20 year history with Snyder, but he even could only take 4 years..... The only way you go against what I'm saying is if you think Danny has somehow learned to be a good owner. I don't see that; perhaps you do.....

In my line of work and in most highly competitive work environments --- people don't get fired for personal issues UNLESS it affects their performance. In this case it wasn't.

I am not trying to prove aliens exist. I am just arguing that Scot's firing is (1) consistent with LITERALLY EVERYTHING Snyder has done over the PAST 20 YEARS, (2) his firing was a result of similar tendencies over that same time period, and (3) Scot's drinking was not a majority reason why he was fired because (i) most people aren't fired for personal issues while work performance is still solid and (ii) it is inconsistent with the last 20 years of Snyderesque behavior.

Not exactly game of thrones type stuff here.......

[DEHog]

SM was a part of building some pretty completive teams; I think he was in the process of doing that here. I also think part of that building included not breaking the bank (cap) on one player. Let’s see if the FO backs up a brinks truck for Cousins!

That's not what's being reported though. Not saying that he was going to break the bank for Cousins, but he told Michael Robinson that he wanted to get a deal done.

And Robinson said McCloughan told him he had wanted to sign Kirk Cousins to a long-term deal, another reported source of conflict.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc- ... 6fbedbecef

So now you beleive him...lol. I'm quite sure SM wanted to get a deal done at some point and at a right price.

[riggofan]

SM was a part of building some pretty completive teams; I think he was in the process of doing that here. I also think part of that building included not breaking the bank (cap) on one player. Let’s see if the FO backs up a brinks truck for Cousins!

That's not what's being reported though. Not saying that he was going to break the bank for Cousins, but he told Michael Robinson that he wanted to get a deal done.

And Robinson said McCloughan told him he had wanted to sign Kirk Cousins to a long-term deal, another reported source of conflict.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc- ... 6fbedbecef

So now you beleive him...lol. I'm quite sure SM wanted to get a deal done at some point and at a right price.

I didn't say I believed him, did I? I said that's not what he reportedly told Michael Robinson.

[riggofan]

I hear you, but when the "assumption" is based on 20 years of behavior consistent with said assumption ---- I'm going with it.

Danny boy has not earned the benefit of the doubt in my book.

Over the past ten years McCloughan has been let go from three NFL jobs for personal/drinking issues. Why does he deserve the benefit of the doubt in this case any more than Snyder does? I understand that you don't like Snyder - neither do I. But it seems to me that you're choosing to believe what you want to believe. Not what is more likely based on the evidence at hand.

In my line of work and in most highly competitive work environments --- people don't get fired for personal issues UNLESS it affects their performance.

That's crazy to say, no offense. I have 80+ employees at our company in Chantilly, and people get fired just as often or more for personal issues than actual work issues in my experience.

In this case it wasn't.

Typing that doesn't make that true. You literally have no definitive proof of that statement.

(i) most people aren't fired for personal issues while work performance is still solid

If you don't think that people get fired all of the time for drinking and drug problems, you may be drinking or on drugs.

[DEHog]

I didn't say I believed him, did I? I said that's not what he reportedly told Michael Robinson.

I just said that because yesterday you said..

Yeah I'm not buying it. Seriously just consider that story and how stupid it sounds.

Is it just all or part of the story that sounds stupid?

[riggofan]

I just said that because yesterday you said..

Yeah I'm not buying it. Seriously just consider that story and how stupid it sounds.

Is it just all or part of the story that sounds stupid?

We were talking about the "No one likes you here" story yesterday. That's what I was responding to, and I still think that sounds stupid.

Here's the post you shared that I responded to:
thehogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=44008&p=683907#p683899

Doesn't make any mention of the Cousins story that I can see.

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

That's why Allen wanted McCloughan in the first place. So, you're suggesting Allen changed his mind on wanting a real personnel GM? That sounds ridiculous.

This is where we disagree. I don't think Allen ever WANTED Scot. I think Scot was forced on Allen by Snyder. Danny is spineless and knew that the fans wouldn't be happy with a Dumb & Dumber 2.0 situation with him and Allen (like we have now), so he forced Allen to hire a "GM-Scout type guy". The only decent one available was Scot --- and Allen knew they'd have a very good alibi if it didn't work out or Allen grew sick of him: Scot's drinking.

I don't think Dan Snyder is football smart enough to have come up with the idea of hiring Scot McCloughan on his own.

[DEHog]

I just said that because yesterday you said..

Yeah I'm not buying it. Seriously just consider that story and how stupid it sounds.

Is it just all or part of the story that sounds stupid?

We were talking about the "No one likes you here" story yesterday. That's what I was responding to, and I still think that sounds stupid.

Here's the post you shared that I responded to:
thehogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=44008&p=683907#p683899

Doesn't make any mention of the Cousins story that I can see.

Who knows what to believe, I do believe that what Robinson said to be accurate in that it was probably what SM asked him to say. I sure SM was well aware that he has a show in Richmond (which is Redskins country) and knew it would get picked up by the local media here. IMO it’s just SM trying to get his side or narrative out without actually saying it himself…I’m sure he wants to work again…pretty smart way to do IMO!

[riggofan]

Who knows what to believe, I do believe that what Robinson said to be accurate in that it was probably what SM asked him to say. I sure SM was well aware that he has a show in Richmond (which is Redskins country) and knew it would get picked up by the local media here. IMO it’s just SM trying to get his side or narrative out without actually saying it himself…I’m sure he wants to work again…pretty smart way to do IMO!

Totally agree with you on that. I'm sure that's exactly what Scot is trying to do. Its noteworthy though that when we saw Mike Shanahan out there doing this, a lot of fans were quick to say: "Ah Mike is trying to save face and spin the story to make himself look good".

Honestly, I'm not trying to bash McCloughan or anything and definitely not trying to defend Snyder/Allen. Just like with Shanahan, I bet the truth is somewhere in between.

[absinthe1023]

This all starts at the top. Yes, McCloughan was/is an alcoholic. Was this impairing his job performance? We (the fans) will never know for sure. It really doesn't matter, this is just a symptom of terrible dysfunction throughout the organization. This team will never be credible on or off the field until Dan sells it. At that point, it might have a fighting chance of succeeding.

[Bishop Hammer]

This all starts at the top. Yes, McCloughan was/is an alcoholic. Was this impairing his job performance? We (the fans) will never know for sure. It really doesn't matter, this is just a symptom of terrible dysfunction throughout the organization. This team will never be credible on or off the field until Dan sells it. At that point, it might have a fighting chance of succeeding.

Considering the team was competitive each of the two seasons he was here I would say not, IF he had relapsed. It was Bruce Allen's ego and Jay Gruden beefing with Scott McCloughan that led to his dismissal.

[SkinsJock]

I think that most have moved on from the real reasons for SM being let go - what does it really matter? - we're still screwed

do you think we have a good chance at making the playoffs this season under Dan Snyder's guidance after just missing out last season?

where has Dan Snyder shown that he knows anything about what it takes to assemble a competitive roster?


adding great players that most likely will not complement the others already here AND having a not great HC is very troubling

[riggofan]

adding great players that most likely will not complement the others already here AND having a not great HC is very troubling

Very troubling indeed. Fortunately, there is actually an over the counter remedy for what ails you.

[markshark84]

That's why Allen wanted McCloughan in the first place. So, you're suggesting Allen changed his mind on wanting a real personnel GM? That sounds ridiculous.

This is where we disagree. I don't think Allen ever WANTED Scot. I think Scot was forced on Allen by Snyder. Danny is spineless and knew that the fans wouldn't be happy with a Dumb & Dumber 2.0 situation with him and Allen (like we have now), so he forced Allen to hire a "GM-Scout type guy". The only decent one available was Scot --- and Allen knew they'd have a very good alibi if it didn't work out or Allen grew sick of him: Scot's drinking.

I don't think Dan Snyder is football smart enough to have come up with the idea of hiring Scot McCloughan on his own.

Ok, perhaps I should have been more clear. In my response above, replace "Scot" with "any GM at all". In this case, whether it was Scot or someone else has no bearing on the outcome of Scot (or any other GM) getting fired within 2 years, IMHO. It is my opinion that the fans were getting restless and Danny boy told Allen that the fans want a GM and if they didn't hire one they'd have another 2009 on their hands. Therefore, Allen went out and got Scot, who was one of the only half-decent football minded GMs that would actually work for Danny boy. Most even mildly decent GMs wouldn't come here based on Danny's firing history, Scot wanted to be a "GM", and Danny boy couldn't find a half-decent GM to work for him.

That said, Allen never wanted a GM; he wanted to be the GM, but he hired Scot at the order of Danny boy and in an effort to save his job. And hiring Scot was a perfect fit for Allen --- in that if he didn't like Scot, he had a perfect alibi when he fired him; Scot's drinking.

[markshark84]

Over the past ten years McCloughan has been let go from three NFL jobs for personal/drinking issues. Why does he deserve the benefit of the doubt in this case any more than Snyder does? I understand that you don't like Snyder - neither do I. But it seems to me that you're choosing to believe what you want to believe. Not what is more likely based on the evidence at hand.

Saying I "don't like" Snyder is an understatement.

Over the past 20 years Danny boy has fired literally ever front office person (possessing a spine) within 3 years that has ever worked for him other than Gibbs, his personal hero. And Gibbs didn't even last the entire length of his contract.

IMHO, Scot deserves the benefit of the doubt because he was not doing a bad job as GM. That was CLEAR based on our on-field play and the direction of the team. I remember his first couple months and FINALLY feeling like we had direction; the moves he was doing had purpose, meaning, they were done for specific reasons with a clear objective. And what the FO has done since he's been gone ---- there is a HUGE difference. You don't fire someone that is performing well regardless of the condition. And the facts, statements, and timeline don't add up to his firing due to drinking. I am not giving anyone the "benefit of the doubt" --- I am forming an opinion based on the information I have at hand and based on prior behavior --- by both Scot, Danny, and Allen.

And we are all choosing to believe what we want. My opinion -- based on the current evidence -- is different than yours. I believe I am correct; you believe Scot had a drinking problem so rampant and uncontrollable that Danny had no other choice but to lie to the fans (multiple times) and fire him a week before the combine and months prior to the draft. If I am Danny and put in the same situation, I am not doing that. I am not drawing attention to it. I am not going to press and badmouthing the guy or leaking information to CC47. I am not putting out a statement LYING to the fans about why he is not attending the combine or his future with the team. Danny is an idiot when it comes to football --- but he's not in many other areas. His actions were premeditated and calculated. He did this with a clear intention. If I've learned anything, it's to not underestimate anyone, even someone you may think is an idiot.

That's crazy to say, no offense. I have 80+ employees at our company in Chantilly, and people get fired just as often or more for personal issues than actual work issues in my experience. Typing that doesn't make that true. You literally have no definitive proof of that statement.

In my line of work, if you are performing, billing your hourlys, and bringing in clients ---- all is good. You may be on the verge of death, but the brass don't care. It's a results based world. Scot was producing. You don't get rid of that due to a drinking problem. Honestly, that is almost laughable. People are only fired when the "personal issues" create "work issues"....... If that's not the case for you, fine, but in the highly competitive ends of the world --- it is. You can't even argue it. As I type this, I just received a "control report" --- which compares my hourlys and billings vs. my inter-firm competition, for the week. I get them every week and then again at the end of every month. That is the way it works. If you keep your hourlys and billings on pace with your annual plan, you're good. If you fall short vs. your plan OR competition, you're out. If you had a drinking problem concurrently with your failure to keep up --- then sure the firm will give the excuse it was "personal issues" ---- when it really was because you weren't billing. If you don't have a drinking/drug problem --- well, you are shown the door quietly and people are left to speculate (which is what happened with Scot).

If you don't think that people get fired all of the time for drinking and drug problems, you may be drinking or on drugs.

LOL. I honestly wish I had time for drinking and drugs (well, at least drinking)......... But again, I have never heard of anyone getting fired for drinking or drugs (outside of 1 guy who really just wasn't cutting it re performance), but I am in a fairly "stuffed shirt" line of work. If you have an employee that is crushing it and you discover they have a drinking/drug problem --- you wouldn't fire them. Sorry you just wouldn't. You'd get them help and try to get them back to where they were because it is in YOUR best interest. In this case, Scot had the team on the right track.

[riggofan]

If that's not the case for you, fine, but in the highly competitive ends of the world --- it is. You can't even argue it.

lol. Well I don't work in a law firm. But in my non-competitive business, if we're not getting our jobs done, then we're literally not going to make payroll, people aren't going to be able to pay their mortgages and the business itself will fold up quickly. That hasn't stopped me from firing people in the past for dumb personal crap, so "you can't even argue it" is a BS statement.

For the sake of discussion though, let's say you're correct. In the world of pro football, guys get a pass for personal issues as long as they're delivering the goods. I don't know if that extends to a GM or not, but I'm willing to buy your argument.

1) Maybe the Redskins don't see Scot as having delivered the goods. They may give Gruden more credit for the offensive improvement. They may also not be that impressed by Scot's FA and draft results. We took a WR in the first round that the team was clearly frustrated with and provided little roster help for the defensive line. I'm not saying they're right or wrong on that, but I can see the point of view.

2) Scot's brilliance as a scout/GM has not stopped him from losing his job with two other organizations because of personal issues. This is a fact. He's working in a highly competitive industry and has lost three jobs.

[riggofan]

you believe Scot had a drinking problem so rampant and uncontrollable that Danny had no other choice but to lie to the fans (multiple times) and fire him a week before the combine and months prior to the draft.

I don't believe anything at all yet - which is my point. I've decided not to jump on the blame snyder train on this one. Too much of this story makes no sense at all. Snyder may not deserve the benefit of the doubt, but I don't see any reason for me to take Scot's word alone either.

His actions were premeditated and calculated.

Not even Rain Man could see anything premeditated and calculated about what has gone on this off season.

"Ok guys, here's the plan: in two months, we'll show up at the combine without Scot. We won't let anyone know ahead of time and create the worst possible PR for the team. Then we'll have everyone right where we want them!"

[Countertrey]

^^^^^

[markshark84]

1) Maybe the Redskins don't see Scot as having delivered the goods. They may give Gruden more credit for the offensive improvement. They may also not be that impressed by Scot's FA and draft results. We took a WR in the first round that the team was clearly frustrated with and provided little roster help for the defensive line. I'm not saying they're right or wrong on that, but I can see the point of view.

2) Scot's brilliance as a scout/GM has not stopped him from losing his job with two other organizations because of personal issues. This is a fact. He's working in a highly competitive industry and has lost three jobs.

I can understand (1) to an extent, but Scot inherited a very bad team. I think people tend to forget that. How much Scot helped our improvement is in the eye of the beholder ---- but I remember when Scot got here and the moves he was making showed an actual plan --- when you compare them against the BS we were used to, it is clear he had a pivotal role. Scot did a lot of positive things; so if a WR RD1 pick's injury is the reason he was fired (a pick CLEARLY made due to DJACK and Garcon's upcoming departures) ---- then I don't know what to say other than Danny boy still has his short fuse..... DEF line was an issue; definitely agree.

With respect to (2), I can also understand that, but at least he lasted 5 years in SF and 3+ in SEA. And also, Scot didn't argue the alcohol issues statement in SF --- he is in this case. And when there's stuff like this all over the place coming from different sources that corroborate --- where there is smoke there's fire.

http://deadspin.com/former-player-says- ... 1793838614

http://was.247sports.com/Bolt/Report-Ch ... n-51389729

http://deadspin.com/is-scot-mccloughan- ... 1792897023

http://www.richmond.com/redskins-xtra/f ... 4af91.html

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ccloughan/

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-the-re ... 08717.html

I wouldn't say Scot lost 3 jobs due to personal issues. Then again, he may have --- but we are merely arguing against who gets the benefit of the doubt. You believe Dumb & Dumber 2.0 should; I don't. I am not siding with Scot, I am siding against Dumber & Dumber 2.0. And in this case, there appears to be 2 sides to the Scot story: Dumb & Dumber 2.0's and everyone else's.

[markshark84]

I don't believe anything at all yet - which is my point. I've decided not to jump on the blame snyder train on this one.

Why not? He is always proven to be a liar. Why wait?

Not even Rain Man could see anything premeditated and calculated about what has gone on this off season.

"Ok guys, here's the plan: in two months, we'll show up at the combine without Scot. We won't let anyone know ahead of time and create the worst possible PR for the team. Then we'll have everyone right where we want them!"

Do you not think that Dumb & Dumber 2.0 didn't sit down, decide to fire Scot, and then come up with a PR plan (which would make it premeditated) --- a plan that grossly failed due to the fact it was based on a lies? Do you think that the grandmother thing was truthful???? Is that what you are saying???? It has become clear that Allen had a gripe with Scot and that Allen is Snyder's little yes-boy akin to Vinny. I am not sure what else there is to put together......

And do you think it couldn't have been handled better????? There are a ton of ways they could have done this different ---- perhaps similarly to how SEA did ---- in a classy way.

Instead in typical Snyder fashion we got our bi-annual sh!t show.

[riggofan]

I can understand (1) to an extent, but Scot inherited a very bad team. I think people tend to forget that. How much Scot helped our improvement is in the eye of the beholder

I don't disagree with you at all on this. I'm just saying that maybe the team has a different perspective on what Scot contributed or didn't the past two years.

I don't know. Maybe you guys are right. Scot was doing a phenomenal job and Dan Snyder fired him anyway, because he's wildly stupid.

[riggofan]

And do you think it couldn't have been handled better????? There are a ton of ways they could have done this different ---- perhaps similarly to how SEA did ---- in a classy way.

Of course it could have. That's one of the things I find unbelievable. I would never expect Snyder to do something CLASSY. But if this was really some kind of plot to get rid of McCloughan, its bizarre to me that the team would intentionally handle the situation the way it went down.

Anyway, I'm going to continue to keep an open mind for the time being.

[SkinsJock]

And do you think it couldn't have been handled better? There are a ton of ways they could have done this different, perhaps similarly to how SEA did ---- in a classy way.

Of course it could have. That's one of the things I find unbelievable. I would never expect Snyder to do something CLASSY. But if this was really some kind of plot to get rid of McCloughan, its bizarre to me that the team would intentionally handle the situation the way it went down.

Anyway, I'm going to continue to keep an open mind for the time being.

I don't think it was some kind of plot - it's just the way that Dan Snyder does things

it's bizarre to think that Dan Snyder might manage an NFL franchise in a manner that most would think is the right way to do things

I'm keeping an open mind on this as well - until we see proof of anything else we all know that Dan Snyder treats his employees badly

[Irn-Bru]

I've mostly tuned out from Redskins info for the last month but today was reminded of the reality of this whole fiasco. I'm still depressed about it.