Page 1 of 7

In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:24 am
by DarthMonk
This may be in the wrong forum but speaks to all things Redskins.

Fans say ‘In Scot We Trust,’ but Bruce Allen is still calling Redskins’ shots
By Jerry Brewer Columnist February 22 at 6:39 AM

Image

Scot McCloughan isn’t the general manager you perceive him to be. That is neither his fault nor an evaluation of his job performance over two years with the Washington Redskins. It is frankly an inconvenient truth that explains the franchise’s latest dysfunctional look.

While it may appear that Washington is distancing itself from its personnel chief in both obvious and dastardly ways, it would be characterized more properly as putting McCloughan in his place. Either way, it’s silly and petty posturing, but it’s important to understand that McCloughan isn’t necessarily losing power as much as he is having his lack of power revealed. It means that, despite the hope and trust he has inspired in helping guide the team to back-to-back winning seasons, the notion that McCloughan had the clout to live up to the “In Scot We Trust” fan mantra was a sham. It was a mirage that Washington let exist because it made people happy and renewed interest in the team after it posted a combined ­7-25 record the two years before McCloughan arrived.

In reality, team President Bruce Allen has always been in charge. McCloughan was brought in to be a super scout to restock the roster, but in terms of lasting influence, his job was structured for disposability.

Over the past few weeks, you have seen signs of this. Allen has kept McCloughan from talking to the media even during innocuous, obligatory situations such as at the Senior Bowl. And then there’s the much wilder story involving Chris Cooley, the former tight end and current radio host and color analyst, who wondered aloud recently on ESPN 980 whether McCloughan had been drinking again.

Image

McCloughan’s past bouts with alcohol led to him exiting jobs in San Francisco and Seattle. So the speculation from Cooley, who is very good at his job and thorough in his work, was vicious and reckless if, as he suggested, they were just off-the-cuff remarks. His close ties with the franchise make his thoughts seem more sinister — was it planted material aimed to reduce McCloughan’s popularity? But even if you take Cooley at his word and consider it a breathless, random act, there’s still a problem when you consider how the team reacted to it.

Washington did nothing.

No public admonishing of Cooley’s comments. No statement defending McCloughan. No known punishment of Cooley. Crickets. Pathetic. Shameful.

That can mean one of just two things: Cooley was too close to the truth, or Allen didn’t care that McCloughan received the negative publicity.

Even during good times, Allen hasn’t liked that McCloughan is cast as a savior changing the culture of the organization and erasing the many mistakes of the past. McCloughan has deflected praise consistently, but in every sports franchise it’s easy for jealousy to infect the environment because breakthroughs require a massive group effort regardless of whose vision is being followed. It’s especially easy when a team has enjoyed as little success as Washington has the past two decades.

Allen, whose responsibilities within the organization have increased despite his uneven performance, hired McCloughan for support. He didn’t want a replacement, and despite being criticized for the team’s poor play, he didn’t exactly want a new direction. He wanted an ace in the room to make everyone look better. But Allen didn’t want to cede control.

McCloughan is essentially as powerful as Allen wishes him to be. Even though McCloughan technically has final say on personnel matters, he still has to go through Allen to get deals completed, which is one way to limit the GM’s power. Even though McCloughan would be Coach Jay Gruden’s boss in a normal organizational structure, he doesn’t have the authority to fire Gruden or anyone on the coaching staff. Gruden and McCloughan report directly to Allen. They are, in essence, on the same shelf.

McCloughan runs the show — with Allen’s old scouting department. McCloughan flirted with adding a few of his own folks, but nothing came of it. So his challenge was to teach a team he didn’t put together his talent-evaluating tricks, to make them see what he sees, rather than create a staff that he knew he could manage.

As Washington constructed the roster the past two seasons, Allen overruled a few key decisions that McCloughan and Gruden wanted to make, according to people with knowledge of the team. Allen proved to be right on a couple of those moves. Other times, he hindered progress. But the ultimate point is this: If you thought McCloughan’s presence served as a shield from upper-management meddling, well, this franchise will never work that way.

The good news is that this structure has produced two winning records and put the team within striking distance of building a sustainable contender. On the other hand, Washington seemingly has been in turmoil since it collapsed at the end of last season and missed the playoffs. And now, in a crucial offseason, a lack of cohesion could hinder the team’s chances to nail a few tough decisions, most notably Kirk Cousins’s contract situation.

The franchise can go in either direction. It is a few good decisions from being a 10-win team for several seasons. And it is a few misguided decisions from sinking back to 5-11 territory.

It would help public confidence if McCloughan could share his vision for improving the defense and tweaking an offense on the verge of greatness. But he is being pushed to the background, under fire to have a great draft and free agency after a lackluster showing last year.

In the big picture, that’s not a terrible thing. Many NFL GMs talk as little as possible. But with Washington, there is always more to the story, and this time, it’s an admission of what many hoped wouldn't be true.

For all his talent, McCloughan is limited in what he can do within this organization. He took a job with an inflated title at a time when he had little negotiating leverage because of past mistakes. Although he has made an impact, it’s hard to be a savior under those conditions.

It was a fairy tale that couldn’t last: A troubled yet genius talent evaluator joins the NFL’s most arrogantly inept franchise, redeems himself, resurrects the team’s past glory and skips off into the sunset, having changed the hearts and minds of many. That’s how hope embellished the possibilities.

In reality, however, McCloughan is a human, flawed like us all, who took a good job that he couldn’t be sure would come along again. And fanciful tales don’t come cloaked in burgundy and gold.

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:47 am
by EA7649
Good read. I've read about Cooley's comments and thought it was inappropiate. Hopefully it wasn't set up for him to accuse Scot of alcohol problems. Its discouraging to see that Scot hasn't been able to bring in his scout evaluaters, since that is one of his specialities. It seems that that Allen was in over his head and brought Scot in for help as Robin. While Allen is batman, but wanted to let everyone know that Scot is only Robin and that he's the guy making the decisions (hopefully its not a similarity to Dan Snyder). Until the FO is on the same page, it will probably hold back the team's performance.

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:43 am
by riggofan
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.

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:53 pm
by markshark84
DarthMonk wrote:
By Jerry Brewer Columnist February 22 at 6:39 AM

The good news is that this structure has produced two winning records and put the team within striking distance of building a sustainable contender.
I disagree with this statement COMPLETELY. We earned a winning record DISPITE the structure. It appears that "structure" is the same structure we've had for the previous 20 years. EXTREMELY poor analysis on the writers part.

People can try and convince themselves this isn't the situation, but it wrecks of Danny boy meddling. It's the Danny boy model ----- at first he ran everything, then the fans got upset and realized he could instead just hire a yes-boy as a talking head to do and implement everything Danny boy told him to do. In years past it was Vinny. Now it is Allen. When things go south, they take the fall.

Danny boy is a cancer and this situation totally explains the Cousins situation and what Cousins has been inferring all along. The entire "want to be wanted thing...." The desire to get paid HUGE. All of it. He knows:
- Danny boy is the biggest butt hurt RGIII fan out there,
- that Scot and Gruden want him, but they have no power and could be fired any time,
- Danny boy has a history of firing and dysfunction,
- the only security he'll get is by accepting a LTD that makes it literally impossible to get cut within 3 or 4 years, and
- due to the inherent dysfunction surrounding everything Danny boy touches, it is stupid to accept any type of deal that doesn't force the franchise to keep him for 4 years.

If that is me, that is what I'm doing.... or forcing their hand by accepting the franchise tag and either playing for $24M this year and taking off to my team of choice the next (best case scenario for him) or accepting the tag, then making it clear I'm not signing next year thereby forcing a trade. If it were me and I wanted out --- I'm taking the franchise offer, telling them I want to be here, trying to stall and playing out next year and then taking off to my team of choice.

This mess was created by Danny boy ---- once again.

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:21 pm
by riggofan
markshark84 wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:
By Jerry Brewer Columnist February 22 at 6:39 AM

The good news is that this structure has produced two winning records and put the team within striking distance of building a sustainable contender.
I disagree with this statement COMPLETELY. We earned a winning record DISPITE the structure.
Totally agree with you. The team improvements the past two years - due largely IMO to a good offensive system and a competent QB - have caused us to assume everything is running smoothly in the FO. It would be disappointing to find the same old dysfunction has been there all along.

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 4:20 pm
by DarthMonk
^^^ Yet we got rid of Griffin and began starting Cousins and I think Scot had a lot to do with that. Would Danny have made those decisions on his own when they were made?

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:54 am
by riggofan
DarthMonk wrote:^^^ Yet we got rid of Griffin and began starting Cousins and I think Scot had a lot to do with that. Would Danny have made those decisions on his own when they were made?
I don't disagree with that at all, DM. He definitely backed up Gruden on that decision which was huge. I have no idea where Bruce and Dan came down on that.

My point is that positive things like that don't mean Snyder isn't still in the background having turkey dinners with key players or whatever. :D

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:00 am
by SkinsJock
it does not matter who is making the decisions at Redskins Park as long as Dan Snyder is not involved with those decisions - I'm sure that Scot and Jay were instrumental in the Cousins vrs RG3 deal and that Dan and Bruce were not and are not big favorites of keeping Cousins

As long as Snyder is not involved with decisions that affect the product on the field, I am not overly concerned that the FO makes some good decisions and some bad ones - this FO is a lot better than what we have had for the past 20 years with Snyder's influence

we don't have to have Cousins as our QB - we need a better QB than Cousins and I'm sure that nobody in this FO thinks that is happening with Sudfeld or McCoy - they will find one

ideally we'd like to have Cousins play here until we can bring in a better QB but we're not paying him a lot of money to play QB and not win

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:12 pm
by PAPDOG67
SkinsJock wrote:it does not matter who is making the decisions at Redskins Park as long as Dan Snyder is not involved with those decisions - I'm sure that Scot and Jay were instrumental in the Cousins vrs RG3 deal and that Dan and Bruce were not and are not big favorites of keeping Cousins

As long as Snyder is not involved with decisions that affect the product on the field, I am not overly concerned that the FO makes some good decisions and some bad ones - this FO is a lot better than what we have had for the past 20 years with Snyder's influence

we don't have to have Cousins as our QB - we need a better QB than Cousins and I'm sure that nobody in this FO thinks that is happening with Sudfeld or McCoy - they will find one

ideally we'd like to have Cousins play here until we can bring in a better QB but we're not paying him a lot of money to play QB and not win
But that's the thing. We have won. Maybe not a SB, but CK has produced back to back winning seasons. Who's the last Redskins QB who can say that? I honestly don't even know. My guess would be Brad Johnson. We aslo had horrendoues defenses the last two years. I'd like to see us do what the Giants have done and brong in some more quality on the defensive side of the ball via FA and the draft and see what we got.

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:29 pm
by SkinsJock
I'd like to keep Cousins, have a good O line and a good defense

we've been told by some here that we can afford to do all that - no matter who has been making decisions here the past 2 seasons, they have been doing a better job than we're used to and if they don't feel that Cousins is worth paying a lot of money, that's OK with me

fact is - whether Cousins is here or not, we still have an urgent need to find a really good NFL QB that can take us to the next level

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:45 pm
by SkinsJock
PAPDOG67 wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:it does not matter who is making the decisions at Redskins Park as long as Dan Snyder is not heavily involved with those decisions - I'm sure that Scot and Jay were instrumental in the Cousins vrs RG3 deal and that Dan and Bruce were not and are not big favorites of keeping Cousins - As long as Snyder is not making decisions that affect the product on the field, I am not overly concerned that the FO makes some good decisions and some bad ones - this FO is a lot better than what we have had for the past 20 years with Snyder's influence - we don't have to have Cousins as our QB - we need a better QB than Cousins and I'm sure that nobody in this FO thinks that is happening with Sudfeld or McCoy - they will find one

ideally we'd like to have Cousins play here until we can bring in a better QB but we're not paying him a lot of money to play QB and not win
But that's the thing. We have won. Maybe not a SB, but CK has produced back to back winning seasons. Who's the last Redskins QB who can say that? I honestly don't even know. My guess would be Brad Johnson. We aslo had horrendoues defenses the last two years. I'd like to see us do what the Giants have done and brong in some more quality on the defensive side of the ball via FA and the draft and see what we got.
agreed - Cousins is a good QB and he's capable of putting up great stats but he's not shown that he's a difference maker in big games

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:41 am
by riggofan
SkinsJock wrote:agreed - Cousins is a good QB and he's capable of putting up great stats but he's not shown that he's a difference maker in big games
:roll: It was so nice out this weekend. Really appreciate your dedication to trolling Redskins fans.

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:42 am
by StorminMormon86
SkinsJock wrote:he's not shown that he's a difference maker in big games
Like the Baltimore game in 2012? Or Philadelphia in 2015? Or Chicago last year?

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:15 pm
by SkinsJock
StorminMormon86 wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:he's not shown that he's a difference maker in big games
Like the Baltimore game in 2012? Or Philadelphia in 2015? Or Chicago last year?
as a team we were 6-2-1 and we end up 8-7-1 ... certainly, we had issues on defense, but ....
Cousins had a great year, stat wise, but he did not find a way to be a difference maker when it really counted

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:28 pm
by PAPDOG67
Our defense was historically bad last year. Its a miracle we won 8 games.

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:36 pm
by riggofan
PAPDOG67 wrote:Our defense was historically bad last year. Its a miracle we won 8 games.
Yeah but we would have if Kirk was a franchise QB. Those guys win every game no matter how bad their defense is. Period.

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:07 pm
by PAPDOG67
riggofan wrote:
PAPDOG67 wrote:Our defense was historically bad last year. Its a miracle we won 8 games.
Yeah but we would have if Kirk was a franchise QB. Those guys win every game no matter how bad their defense is. Period.
I see what you did there :lol:

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:24 pm
by SkinsJock
riggofan wrote:
PAPDOG67 wrote:Our defense was historically bad last year. Its a miracle we won 8 games.
Yeah but we would have if Kirk was a franchise QB. Those guys win every game no matter how bad their defense is. Period.
Really? so you think that Kirk's play at QB the last half of last season and especially the last 2 home games was at a high level?

Kirk played well and the defense certainly hurt but the fact remains his play at QB in those games could have/should have been better

IF Kirk Cousins had clearly demonstrated to the FO (and most outside of DC) that he was a really good NFL QB, he would be signed to a long term deal by now
the only reason that he might not be here is due to the fact that this FO does not think that he's worth a long term, big time deal

IF Kirk Cousins is a can't miss, franchise QB, we will get 2 #1 picks - I don't see that happening

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:27 pm
by DarthMonk
PAPDOG67 wrote:
riggofan wrote:
PAPDOG67 wrote:Our defense was historically bad last year. Its a miracle we won 8 games.
Yeah but we would have if Kirk was a franchise QB. Those guys win every game no matter how bad their defense is. Period.
I see what you did there :lol:
Yeah, how did they break the ties among all those 16-0 teams for playoff seeding?

:mrgreen:

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:38 pm
by PAPDOG67
SkinsJock wrote:
riggofan wrote:
PAPDOG67 wrote:Our defense was historically bad last year. Its a miracle we won 8 games.
Yeah but we would have if Kirk was a franchise QB. Those guys win every game no matter how bad their defense is. Period.
Really? so you think that Kirk's play at QB the last half of last season and especially the last 2 home games was at a high level?

Kirk played well and the defense certainly hurt but the fact remains his play at QB in those games could have/should have been better

IF Kirk Cousins had clearly demonstrated to the FO (and most outside of DC) that he was a really good NFL QB, he would be signed to a long term deal by now
the only reason that he might not be here is due to the fact that this FO does not think that he's worth a long term, big time deal

IF Kirk Cousins is a can't miss, franchise QB, we will get 2 #1 picks - I don't see that happening
Because we've had such a good track record with QBs in the 1st round over the last 25 years??

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:50 pm
by riggofan
SkinsJock wrote:Really? so you think that Kirk's play at QB the last half of last season and especially the last 2 home games was at a high level?

Kirk played well and the defense certainly hurt but the fact remains his play at QB in those games could have/should have been better
Totally true. Anybody who has a bad game and fails to live up to the expectations of winning every game should be released. Period.

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:57 pm
by DEHog
Wow, we really don’t know how to act when we have a good QB. When was the last time we drafted and actually wanted to resign a good QB….

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:32 pm
by SkinsJock
it's not that simple - The FO would like to keep Cousins but they seem unwilling to give him a long term deal at the going rate
PLUS
understandably, Kirk Cousins and his advisors want to take advantage of the current market value for a good NFL QB
PLUS
this franchise has not treated Kirk Cousins as well as he deserves

given the choice of having Cousins play for another season and leaving or paying him a lot of money to stay, the FO looks like they will make the best deal they can and move on - hopefully we can get 2 #1 picks - I doubt that there are any franchises that will pay that price

If Kirk Cousins and his advisors know that Dan Snyder and Bruce Allen are in charge here, they would be very wise to not want to play here

IF Dan Snyder and Bruce Allen are in charge of the FO, there is really no point in expecting anything constructive with these negotiations

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 12:36 am
by DarthMonk
Scot McCloughan - GM - Redskins

Chris Russell of 106.7 The Fan in D.C. reports Redskins GM Scot McCloughan has lost all power in the organization.

Reporting live on air, Russell stated president Bruce Allen, coach Jay Gruden, and scouts Alex Santos and Scott Campbell, and personnel executive Doug Williams are now running the team. McCloughan "has nothing to do with anything and has not for a very long time," according to Russell. McCloughan allegedly has been setting up the funeral for his grandmother. Online records show that McCloughan's 100-year-old grandmother passed away on February 6. The funeral occurred on February 13, and the woman was buried the next day.

Source: 106.7 The Fan in D.C. Mar 1 - 11:26 PM

Re: In Scot We Trust ??

Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 12:50 am
by tribeofjudah
I think Scotty Mc will be fired soon. But I don't get it.