The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

riggofan wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

PAPDOG67 wrote:Our defense was historically bad last year. Its a miracle we won 8 games.

Did that stop Aaron Rogers who had an even worse defense from making and going deep into the playoffs?

The Packers had a worse defense than ours? Nope. Don't let that slow down your argument though.

Statistically it may appear that the Packers were better. However the Packers lost two starters in the secondary and also lost Rb Eddie Lacy for the year.

I can argue that with our defense Aaron Rogers would have done more. I am sure I'll get flak for that as well. But for the sake of argument you know my main point was Greenbays defense was bad 22nd in the league and I am sure Aaron Rogers play helped by keeping the defense off the field as much as possible.
Again Aaron Rogers is a franchise Qb capable of carrying a bad team to the playoffs.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

riggofan wrote:Because its not his choice. He signed a four year contract with the team in 2015.

It's still his choice. He can resign at any time.

Don't be dense. If the team lets him go, they have to pay him. If he resigns, he forfeits his pay.

I can stop paying my freaking mortgage at any time too.

SkinsJock wrote:I just don't understand all this - why can't the FO be a little more transparent and what is to be gained from allowing all this speculation?

One thing to consider is that the team may have no choice. There are laws out there to protect employees in cases like this. If there is a personal issue going on or whatever, the team might be limited legally in what they can and can't say.

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

riggofan wrote:Because its not his choice. He signed a four year contract with the team in 2015.

It's still his choice. He can resign at any time.

Don't be dense. If the team lets him go, they have to pay him. If he resigns, he forfeits his pay.

I can stop paying my freaking mortgage at any time too.

You think the man is living paycheck to paycheck?

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: You think the man is living paycheck to paycheck?

My point was that would be my choice to stop paying my mortgage. That doesn't mean it would be a smart choice.

No I don't think SM is living paycheck to paycheck any more than Mike Shanahan was when he hung around waiting to get fired and keep the money owed on his contract.

riggofan wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:I just don't understand all this - why can't the FO be a little more transparent and what is to be gained from allowing all this speculation?

One thing to consider is that the team may have no choice. There are laws out there to protect employees in cases like this. If there is a personal issue going on or whatever, the team might be limited legally in what they can and can't say.

That and both sides need each other to be professional. The Skins don’t want SNM bad mouthing them any more than SM want the Skins badmouthing him. I’m sure he would like to work in the future and the Skins may want to hire another GM

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: You think the man is living paycheck to paycheck?

My point was that would be my choice to stop paying my mortgage. That doesn't mean it would be a smart choice.

No I don't think SM is living paycheck to paycheck any more than Mike Shanahan was when he hung around waiting to get fired and keep the money owed on his contract.

You do that if you want to live paycheck to paycheck!!

DEHog wrote:

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: You think the man is living paycheck to paycheck?

My point was that would be my choice to stop paying my mortgage. That doesn't mean it would be a smart choice.

No I don't think SM is living paycheck to paycheck any more than Mike Shanahan was when he hung around waiting to get fired and keep the money owed on his contract.

You do that if you want to live paycheck to paycheck!!

My point is I think Bruce Allen is the problem and since Dan Snyder appears to be stuck to Allen's ass it's not going to get any better for McCloughan.

If he is drinking, I sincerely hope not, then they can let him go without contract issues. He is paid for his judgement and alcohol impares judgement, no question. If he isn't drinking then what the heck is going on?

oj wrote:If he isn't drinking then what the heck is going on?

Well, Danny boy & Co. want us to believe that Scot's absence is attributed to him grandmother dying over a month ago......

I truly wonder if he really thought anyone with an ounce of intelligence would believe that load of BS. If they are trying to respect Scot and keep the drinking situation private --- I get it and think that was a stand-up thing to do. But the least they could have done is come up with a better excuse. The grandmother thing is just ridiculously stupid.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:My point is I think Bruce Allen is the problem and since Dan Snyder appears to be stuck to Allen's ass it's not going to get any better for McCloughan.

Allen is the problem like Vinny was the problem before...... But they are just kiss-@ss yes-men that never/don't had an ounce of football related talent. The REAL PROBLEM is Danny boy ---- and no one else.

riggofan wrote:I'm taking that column with a grain of salt. Its always hard to say how much these media guys truly know what's going on with this team, even the local guys and beat reporters who know more than most.

But I will say this story seems painfully similar to what went down with Shanahan. We're all out here assuming that Mike was in full control, etc; then suddenly the truth comes out and its far different from what we'd been lead to believe.

I'm not saying this article is true, but we've definitely been burned before. For all of us - myself included - who have been thinking McCloughan has been here doing business differently, might want to hold up on the "in scot we trust" stuff.

true dat

"in Scot we trust" means something different to me - this franchise needs to continue to draft the best player available and make every effort to keep our own players PLUS only add young free agents - it does not mean that Scot has to be running things or in charge here as long as we don't revert to drafting for need and managing this franchise the same way that we have done since 1999

signing Kirk to a $24M- $25M long term contract that he earned, does not inhibit this franchise at all (as DM has shown) - we can keep all the players we want and sign some young free agents - IF Bruce & Dan are back in charge they will screw this up royally, for sure

markshark84 wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:My point is I think Bruce Allen is the problem and since Dan Snyder appears to be stuck to Allen's ass it's not going to get any better for McCloughan.

Allen is the problem like Vinny was the problem before...... But they are just kiss-@ss yes-men that never/don't had an ounce of football related talent. The REAL PROBLEM is Danny boy ---- and no one else.

Agreed. You can only have one cook in the football kitchen. It has to be either McCloughan's way or Allen's way. It can't be both.

Allen hasn't done anything to warrant that vote over McCloughan except to have the last name Allen.

I'll predict that Cousins is traded or does not sign a long term deal if the 2 bozos are in charge here

I skimmed over today's comments and didn't see it mentioned. I read Allen told Ian Rapaport about a possible Romo 3 way trade and it was fake. He wanted to take the heat off their FO issues and a Gruden extension? I'm not gonna bother wasting your time with a link. All of this is probably smoke in the mirror. It's not worth getting caught up with this drama. I'll react after something is final.

Cooley's comments on SM drinking makes sense now...

markshark84 wrote:

oj wrote:If he isn't drinking then what the heck is going on?

Well, Danny boy & Co. want us to believe that Scot's absence is attributed to him grandmother dying over a month ago......

I truly wonder if he really thought anyone with an ounce of intelligence would believe that load of BS. If they are trying to respect Scot and keep the drinking situation private --- I get it and think that was a stand-up thing to do. But the least they could have done is come up with a better excuse. The grandmother thing is just ridiculously stupid.

It is stupid, and nobody with any common sense believes it. I don't think the Redskins really expect anyone to believe it though. I'm less critical that they trotted out the old "away to deal with family matters" stuff than the fact that they didn't do anything to get in front of the story. Just showing up at the combine without McCloughan the way they did is the dumb part. I can only hope this all happened at the last minute, and they had no choice.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

markshark84 wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:My point is I think Bruce Allen is the problem and since Dan Snyder appears to be stuck to Allen's ass it's not going to get any better for McCloughan.

Allen is the problem like Vinny was the problem before...... But they are just kiss-@ss yes-men that never/don't had an ounce of football related talent. The REAL PROBLEM is Danny boy ---- and no one else.

Agreed. You can only have one cook in the football kitchen. It has to be either McCloughan's way or Allen's way. It can't be both.

Allen hasn't done anything to warrant that vote over McCloughan except to have the last name Allen.

This is all well and good, but if it turns out that McCloughan's drinking has become and issue - are we honestly siding with SM over Bruce Allen? WTF???

I don't think Bruce Allen is some huge problem personally. He's ok. He had legit experience before he came here. He's a smart guy who did a good early job on with Shanahan to straighten out the team and get away from some bad practices. If you're comparing him to Cerrato, I think you're seriously mis-remembering how bad and moronic Vinny is/was.

The issue with Allen is that he should be the team president and quit trying to be the GM. Seemed like we were headed in that direction with McCloughan.

So basically I am hearing two stories relating to SM, take your pick. He was drunk at Redskins Park and they told him to go home. Or he is being thrown under the bus because they are saying he was against giving Cousins a long term deal last year. At this point who the heck really knows what's going on other than the front office seems to be as always dysfunctional.

The most credible story I’ve heard is that SM has fallen out of favor with Snyder and Allen (probably more the former!) for falling to sign Cousins to a LTD. This makes sense to me (not that I agree with it) remember SM talked Snyder and Allen into moving on from RG. That call was proven right by the way Cousins played, I’m sure the FO wanted a LTD last year. What I’m not sure of is what SM wanted…by his actions he wasn’t sold on Cousins and wanted this year to evaluate and sign or move on from him. My guess is that Scot may want to move on from him because of the money, while Snyder doesn’t. So Snyder resorts to his normal tactics…we get the “drinking” story from Cooley, now the “death in the family” reason for his absence from the FO…i.e. just another normal off-season in Ashburn. I so enjoyed the two abnormal off-seasons while they lasted!!

DEHog wrote:The most credible story I’ve heard is that SM has fallen out of favor with Snyder and Allen (probably more the former!) for falling to sign Cousins to a LTD. This makes sense to me (not that I agree with it) remember SM talked Snyder and Allen into moving on from RG. That call was proven right by the way Cousins played, I’m sure the FO wanted a LTD last year. What I’m not sure of is what SM wanted…by his actions he wasn’t sold on Cousins and wanted this year to evaluate and sign or move on from him. My guess is that Scot may want to move on from him because of the money, while Snyder doesn’t. So Snyder resorts to his normal tactics…we get the “drinking” story from Cooley, now the “death in the family” reason for his absence from the FO…i.e. just another normal off-season in Ashburn. I so enjoyed the two abnormal off-seasons while they lasted!!

What makes this story credible in your opinion?

riggofan wrote:... if it turns out that McCloughan's drinking has become and issue - are we honestly siding with SM over Bruce Allen? WTF???

I don't think Bruce Allen is some huge problem personally. He's ok. He had legit experience before he came here. He's a smart guy who did a good early job on with Shanahan to straighten out the team and get away from some bad practices. If you're comparing him to Cerrato, I think you're seriously mis-remembering how bad and moronic Vinny is/was.

The issue with Allen is that he should be the team president and quit trying to be the GM. Seemed like we were headed in that direction with McCloughan.

agreed

I'm not "siding" with Scot over Bruce - I'm very much against a FO whose decisions and plan are influenced by Bruce and Dan

IMO this is either due to Scot's drinking or that Bruce and Dan do not like that Scot was getting too much "credit" - Scot was instrumental in handling the QB issue - Scot would have put a LTD deal together last year if Bruce and Dan had wanted to go to $20M

as riggofan alluded to - the important thing is to have a GM that will get Cousins signed to a LTD - Bruce and Dan do not really want to give Cousins the money even though as DarthMonk has indicated, we can pay Cousins $24-$25M (I think this is good enough) and still have plenty left over to sign everyone else we need (incl. Garcon and Jackson) plus some FA defensive players

I'm only concerned that we do not have a GM if Scot is let go, because Bruce and Dan do not have a clue

riggofan wrote:

DEHog wrote:The most credible story I’ve heard is that SM has fallen out of favor with Snyder and Allen (probably more the former!) for falling to sign Cousins to a LTD. This makes sense to me (not that I agree with it) remember SM talked Snyder and Allen into moving on from RG. That call was proven right by the way Cousins played, I’m sure the FO wanted a LTD last year. What I’m not sure of is what SM wanted…by his actions he wasn’t sold on Cousins and wanted this year to evaluate and sign or move on from him. My guess is that Scot may want to move on from him because of the money, while Snyder doesn’t. So Snyder resorts to his normal tactics…we get the “drinking” story from Cooley, now the “death in the family” reason for his absence from the FO…i.e. just another normal off-season in Ashburn. I so enjoyed the two abnormal off-seasons while they lasted!!

What makes this story credible in your opinion?

The things I listed…the ridiculous stories of SM drinking and taking care of family matters a month after the death of his 100 year old grandmother. Add to that SM wife posting a picture of SM super bowl rings with the caption…”these are hard to get”…translation…Scot has two… how many do you have? Gruden’s extension, why didn’t SM get extended, he’s been the GM for the two winning seasons? There’s clearly a battle going on between the GM and the Owner…IMO Bruce is just trying to manage it.

riggofan wrote:This is all well and good, but if it turns out that McCloughan's drinking has become and issue - are we honestly siding with SM over Bruce Allen? WTF???

I don't think Bruce Allen is some huge problem personally. He's ok. He had legit experience before he came here. He's a smart guy who did a good early job on with Shanahan to straighten out the team and get away from some bad practices. If you're comparing him to Cerrato, I think you're seriously mis-remembering how bad and moronic Vinny is/was.

The issue with Allen is that he should be the team president and quit trying to be the GM. Seemed like we were headed in that direction with McCloughan.

This is pure speculation on my part but given history it's not entirely baseless.

It seems clear at this point Scot wants to do things one way and Bruce wants to do them a different way.

It seems clear at this point things are being done Bruce's way.

It seems clear at this point Dan Snyder has sided with Bruce.

It seems clear at this point Scot is wondering why he's there if he has no actual authority, especially regarding personnel.

The off-handed twitter shot by Scot's wife seems to support this theory.

It is hard to get those rings, especially if you let the guy who never got one make decisions over the guy who has two.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

riggofan wrote:This is all well and good, but if it turns out that McCloughan's drinking has become and issue - are we honestly siding with SM over Bruce Allen? WTF???

I don't think Bruce Allen is some huge problem personally. He's ok. He had legit experience before he came here. He's a smart guy who did a good early job on with Shanahan to straighten out the team and get away from some bad practices. If you're comparing him to Cerrato, I think you're seriously mis-remembering how bad and moronic Vinny is/was.

The issue with Allen is that he should be the team president and quit trying to be the GM. Seemed like we were headed in that direction with McCloughan.

This is pure speculation on my part but given history it's not entirely baseless.

It seems clear at this point Scot wants to do things one way and Bruce wants to do them a different way.

It seems clear at this point things are being done Bruce's way.

It seems clear at this point Dan Snyder has sided with Bruce.

It seems clear at this point Scot is wondering why he's there if he has no actual authority, especially regarding personnel.

The off-handed twitter shot by Scot's wife seems to support this theory.

It is hard to get those rings, especially if you let the guy who never got one make decisions over the guy who has two.

I agree with one caveat, I think things are being done Snyder's way, Bruce is just carrying out the ownwers wishes.