Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Ian Rappaport- Cousins will sign tag
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Thaiphoon


Moderator
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 18935
Location: Northern Virginia
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

turtle28 wrote:
21 ALL THE WAY wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
MKnight82 wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
big44dog wrote:
21 ALL THE WAY wrote:
Get rid of Kirk or get rid of Allen? Cousins won't negotiate with Bruce Allen! Danny what are you gonna do?!!!!

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/source-kirk-cousins-will-not-negotiate-long-term-deal-while-bruce-allen-redskins?utm_content=buffer17d48&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


Did Kirk just become the Lebron James of the NFL? It's time for Gruden to grow a pair and play peacemaker.
I agree. Maybe this is a negotiating tactic though by the Kirk team to force the skins to give him a long term deal that is Lucklike
Or maybe he's calling out that piece of crap Bruce Allen for what he is.
Could be. I guess in that case he should be calling him master negotiator because since he was hired we certainly quit being the team where everyone goes to just get paid.


So how about he just stick to doing that! Damn dude you just seem not to get it, but OK be free in your process of thinking.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Allen is team president. He hires and fires the employees. He was the entire reason McCloughan was hired in 2015.

So, he was doing his job.


Except he hired Scot to come here and promised he wouldn't interfere.

And then promptly interfered.

Happened to me at a previous job.
_________________


As long as Dan Snyder owns the team, the Redskins will not win another Super Bowl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woz


Moderator
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 26719
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thaiphoon wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
Joe Corley who's a former agent was just on the Bram Weinstein show and suggested the Redskins trade Kirk to the Browns & get their 1st & 4th rnd picks & Osweiler back because the Browns are offering to pay some of his guaranteed money and Brock could only cost $6M‬.

He doesn't think Kirk will re-sign in Washington unless they pay him an Andrew Luck type deal or more and he thinks the skins would be foolish to not trade him now.

I know, I know, Brock Osweiler! But, we'd get draft picks back also, Brock would be cheap and Gruden is known as a qb whisperer. Having McCoy and Osweiler battle it out for the starting qb job with Sufield continuing to develop behind them doesn't seem the end of the world to me, especially if we end up with $18 more million in cap space to spend on Pryor and a few more defenders.

Yes, Brock was awful last year but who knows, maybe Gruden can do something with him when O'Brien couldn't. Maybe Gruden can turn Brock or Mccoy into Cousins lite and we'll have more cap space to build our defense get Pryor.

Let me say, I'm not in favor of doing this!

I want Cousins on a long term deal for the next 5 or 6 years but it would be nice to get one of the Browns 1st round picks and other picks and then Gruden would have another qb to work with and develop in the way that he did Kirk in 2014 and 2015.

When Brock was with the Broncos he proved that if he had stayed there and started there last season he would probably have been a 62%, 4000 yd, 20 TD qb (maybe even a little better). If our defense gets to be a top 10 group with an addition like Poe, Hankins and a few high draft picks that we get back from the Browns added to our picks, we could have a top 10 D rather quickly which would certainly help our offense out - no matter who the qb would be - which is something we haven't been able to say for this team since 2004-2008.


You mean Joel Correy, right?

Either way, Kirk has to still say he would work out a LTD woth the Browns. Otherwise, no trade.


This is why I said the Redskins should apologize profusely to Kirk's agent and ask if he'd consider going to Houston. While it wouldn't be his #1 destination, it isn't sending a guy to Siberia (i.e. Cleveland) either. Yes, we're a step above Cleveland ... for now.

Basically, if you are going to trade him, you want to contact a franchise that wants Tony Romo but is afraid they'll lose him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheGreeK1973


Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Posts: 1500
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thaiphoon wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
21 ALL THE WAY wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
MKnight82 wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
big44dog wrote:
21 ALL THE WAY wrote:
Get rid of Kirk or get rid of Allen? Cousins won't negotiate with Bruce Allen! Danny what are you gonna do?!!!!

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/source-kirk-cousins-will-not-negotiate-long-term-deal-while-bruce-allen-redskins?utm_content=buffer17d48&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


Did Kirk just become the Lebron James of the NFL? It's time for Gruden to grow a pair and play peacemaker.
I agree. Maybe this is a negotiating tactic though by the Kirk team to force the skins to give him a long term deal that is Lucklike
Or maybe he's calling out that piece of crap Bruce Allen for what he is.
Could be. I guess in that case he should be calling him master negotiator because since he was hired we certainly quit being the team where everyone goes to just get paid.


So how about he just stick to doing that! Damn dude you just seem not to get it, but OK be free in your process of thinking.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Allen is team president. He hires and fires the employees. He was the entire reason McCloughan was hired in 2015.

So, he was doing his job.


Except he hired Scot to come here and promised he wouldn't interfere.

And then promptly interfered.

Happened to me at a previous job.


So Tai we know for sure that Scottie didn't deserve to be fired? I mean to we know for sure Allen was jelous and cynical and had nothing to do with Scott showing drunk most of the time in Redskins park, maybe missing meetings, etc etc?

Two things we need to keep in mind as Redskins fans. The media HATES us and will do anything and say anything to vilify this team and Dan. Not that he has not deserved it in the past mind you but in this case we need to take a pause and think.

And when I think that two other teams have fired Scott in the past for his drinking and when I think Scott thinks he has his drinking under control because he now drinks mostly beer (his words, and a classic denial by an alcoholic) and when I see Scott's puff red face time and time again, classic look from excessive drinking, sorry I don't have to listen to some smucks in the media to tell me the problem is Allen and his ego.

Right or wrong the Redskins and in particular Allen and Dan gave this guy a chance and most likely it was he who blew it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woz


Moderator
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 26719
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheGreeK1973 wrote:
So Tai we know for sure that Scottie didn't deserve to be fired? I mean to we know for sure Allen was jelous and cynical and had nothing to do with Scott showing drunk most of the time in Redskins park, maybe missing meetings, etc etc?


No we don't know that isn't the case.

However, given that A) front office personnel around the league are coming to Scot's defense, B) the front office is letting unnamed sources drag Scot's name through the mud without actually saying this is an issue, and C) this post make me think that the drinking isn't the primary reason, but an excuse.

Quote:
Two things we need to keep in mind as Redskins fans. The media HATES us and will do anything and say anything to vilify this team and Dan.


True, but Bruce Allen has completely botched this from a PR perspective no matter how you slice it. If drinking was an issue, they would have fired him outright and not hide behind media gag orders on McCloughan, "he's in mourning," and not telling the rest of the scouting staff that he wasn't going to be at the Combine when they got there.

Basically, they were trying to get him to quit so they could get out of his contract. McCloughan wisely said "okay, you sent me home, that's fine" and forced them to fire him. That in turn will likely lead to a wrongful termination lawsuit.

All in all, a screw up all the way around.

Quote:
Not that he has not deserved it in the past mind you but in this case we need to take a pause and think.


Alternatively, we could ask ourselves: isn't this just like the pre-Shanahan days, but we replaced Cerrato with Allen?

Quote:
And when I think that two other teams have fired Scott in the past for his drinking and when I think Scott thinks he has his drinking under control because he now drinks mostly beer (his words, and a classic denial by an alcoholic) and when I see Scott's puff red face time and time again, classic look from excessive drinking, sorry I don't have to listen to some smucks in the media to tell me the problem is Allen and his ego.


The question is: was his drinking impairing his ability to do his job? Or is that a cover?

Honestly, with the leaks that have come out of Ashburn over the past decade or so, I'll believe the cover simply because the track record for Snyder and company doesn't lead me to give them the benefit of the doubt. They could completely be in the right here, but they have no credibility in my mind.

Quote:
Right or wrong the Redskins and in particular Allen and Dan gave this guy a chance and most likely it was he who blew it.


Yes, they gave him a chance. He also gave the Redskins a chance to operate like a mature franchise with a functioning front office. They blew it as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheGreeK1973


Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Posts: 1500
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woz wrote:
TheGreeK1973 wrote:
So Tai we know for sure that Scottie didn't deserve to be fired? I mean to we know for sure Allen was jelous and cynical and had nothing to do with Scott showing drunk most of the time in Redskins park, maybe missing meetings, etc etc?


No we don't know that isn't the case.

However, given that A) front office personnel around the league are coming to Scot's defense, B) the front office is letting unnamed sources drag Scot's name through the mud without actually saying this is an issue, and C) this post make me think that the drinking isn't the primary reason, but an excuse.

Quote:
Two things we need to keep in mind as Redskins fans. The media HATES us and will do anything and say anything to vilify this team and Dan.


True, but Bruce Allen has completely botched this from a PR perspective no matter how you slice it. If drinking was an issue, they would have fired him outright and not hide behind media gag orders on McCloughan, "he's in mourning," and not telling the rest of the scouting staff that he wasn't going to be at the Combine when they got there.

Basically, they were trying to get him to quit so they could get out of his contract. McCloughan wisely said "okay, you sent me home, that's fine" and forced them to fire him. That in turn will likely lead to a wrongful termination lawsuit.

All in all, a screw up all the way around.

Quote:
Not that he has not deserved it in the past mind you but in this case we need to take a pause and think.


Alternatively, we could ask ourselves: isn't this just like the pre-Shanahan days, but we replaced Cerrato with Allen?

Quote:
And when I think that two other teams have fired Scott in the past for his drinking and when I think Scott thinks he has his drinking under control because he now drinks mostly beer (his words, and a classic denial by an alcoholic) and when I see Scott's puff red face time and time again, classic look from excessive drinking, sorry I don't have to listen to some smucks in the media to tell me the problem is Allen and his ego.


The question is: was his drinking impairing his ability to do his job? Or is that a cover?

Honestly, with the leaks that have come out of Ashburn over the past decade or so, I'll believe the cover simply because the track record for Snyder and company doesn't lead me to give them the benefit of the doubt. They could completely be in the right here, but they have no credibility in my mind.

Quote:
Right or wrong the Redskins and in particular Allen and Dan gave this guy a chance and most likely it was he who blew it.


Yes, they gave him a chance. He also gave the Redskins a chance to operate like a mature franchise with a functioning front office. They blew it as well.


Sorry Woz but I think you are reaching with a lot of your statements. maybe they didn't fire Scott immediately because they wanted to see if he would do the right thing and get help. Maybe Scott push their hand by refusing to get any help saying you knew I was drinking before you hired me and you have to deal with it. Who knows?

But what I will not do is vilify our team on the word of "several" other teams personnel bad mouthing our front office but refusing to also point out THE FACTS, which are that Scott has already been fired twice at least in the recent past because of his drinking. And certainly don't agree with you that a person with a drinking problem can function at a high pressure job such as GM of a football team just fine, especially if we are also to believe the reports that he was showing up drunk at Redskins Park repeatedly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MKnight82


Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 18725
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheGreeK1973 wrote:
Woz wrote:
TheGreeK1973 wrote:
So Tai we know for sure that Scottie didn't deserve to be fired? I mean to we know for sure Allen was jelous and cynical and had nothing to do with Scott showing drunk most of the time in Redskins park, maybe missing meetings, etc etc?


No we don't know that isn't the case.

However, given that A) front office personnel around the league are coming to Scot's defense, B) the front office is letting unnamed sources drag Scot's name through the mud without actually saying this is an issue, and C) this post make me think that the drinking isn't the primary reason, but an excuse.

Quote:
Two things we need to keep in mind as Redskins fans. The media HATES us and will do anything and say anything to vilify this team and Dan.


True, but Bruce Allen has completely botched this from a PR perspective no matter how you slice it. If drinking was an issue, they would have fired him outright and not hide behind media gag orders on McCloughan, "he's in mourning," and not telling the rest of the scouting staff that he wasn't going to be at the Combine when they got there.

Basically, they were trying to get him to quit so they could get out of his contract. McCloughan wisely said "okay, you sent me home, that's fine" and forced them to fire him. That in turn will likely lead to a wrongful termination lawsuit.

All in all, a screw up all the way around.

Quote:
Not that he has not deserved it in the past mind you but in this case we need to take a pause and think.


Alternatively, we could ask ourselves: isn't this just like the pre-Shanahan days, but we replaced Cerrato with Allen?

Quote:
And when I think that two other teams have fired Scott in the past for his drinking and when I think Scott thinks he has his drinking under control because he now drinks mostly beer (his words, and a classic denial by an alcoholic) and when I see Scott's puff red face time and time again, classic look from excessive drinking, sorry I don't have to listen to some smucks in the media to tell me the problem is Allen and his ego.


The question is: was his drinking impairing his ability to do his job? Or is that a cover?

Honestly, with the leaks that have come out of Ashburn over the past decade or so, I'll believe the cover simply because the track record for Snyder and company doesn't lead me to give them the benefit of the doubt. They could completely be in the right here, but they have no credibility in my mind.

Quote:
Right or wrong the Redskins and in particular Allen and Dan gave this guy a chance and most likely it was he who blew it.


Yes, they gave him a chance. He also gave the Redskins a chance to operate like a mature franchise with a functioning front office. They blew it as well.


Sorry Woz but I think you are reaching with a lot of your statements. maybe they didn't fire Scott immediately because they wanted to see if he would do the right thing and get help. Maybe Scott push their hand by refusing to get any help saying you knew I was drinking before you hired me and you have to deal with it. Who knows?

But what I will not do is vilify our team on the word of "several" other teams personnel bad mouthing our front office but refusing to also point out THE FACTS, which are that Scott has already been fired twice at least in the recent past because of his drinking. And certainly don't agree with you that a person with a drinking problem can function at a high pressure job such as GM of a football team just fine, especially if we are also to believe the reports that he was showing up drunk at Redskins Park repeatedly.
The majority of media reports show that it was Bruce Allen making a power grab and not anything McCloughan did.
_________________


Bruce Allen is a snake and should be fired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woz


Moderator
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 26719
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheGreeK1973 wrote:
Sorry Woz but I think you are reaching with a lot of your statements.


I'm reaching? Immediately after this sentence, you write ...

Quote:
maybe they didn't fire Scott immediately because they wanted to see if he would do the right thing and get help.


followed immediately by ...

Quote:
Maybe Scott push their hand by refusing to get any help saying you knew I was drinking before you hired me and you have to deal with it. Who knows?


And I'm the one reaching?

First off, if an employee is acting inappropriately, you don't "see if [he/she will] do the right thing." You bring them into a meeting, explain what the problem is, and create an improvement plan (with the added understanding if there is no improvement, they're canned). If he was drunk, you tell him "no, this is unacceptable." You don't tell him not to talk to the media, lie to the media about why he's not at the Combine, or tell his coworkers he'll be at the Combine and then tell him he won't when they get there.

Secondly, I think Scot is well aware of the fact the Redskins gave him another shot when no one else would. It's why there was that article back in ESPN the Magazine before he was hired. Everyone knew it was an issue, and that for any hope of him to break back into the league, he would need some team to look past his flaws.

Given that, what person, knowing they got a third shot at their dream job when the previous two blew up on them, would tell their employer "you have to deal with it?" If nothing else, that's cause for dismissal right there.

But I'm reaching ...

Quote:
But what I will not do is vilify our team on the word of "several" other teams personnel bad mouthing our front office but refusing to also point out THE FACTS, which are that Scott has already been fired twice at least in the recent past because of his drinking.


I'm looking at the track record of this team.

The Redskins hire Jim Zorn as an OC, and tell prospective coaches you have to keep him if you join us. When that blows up in their face, they tell Zorn to re-interview for the head coaching job. Reason? "Oh, he blew us away in the interview." Yeah, the guy who was never more than a QB coach was suddenly capable of leading the team.

When it becomes apparent they cannot, they hire a "consultant" to "help" with the offense. Even though this guy has been calling bingo numbers at the senior center before Allen calls him, he is installed as the play caller within a month.

When it becomes obvious that they're going to fire Zorn, they try to make him quit by interviewing people for his position while he is still on the team.

These are facts too, and more relevant to how this franchise operates than what happened at other locations.

Is McClouhan still drinking? I don't know. Was he drinking on the job? I don't know.

What I do know is that this franchise has a track record of shady, underhanded, slimy dealings when they tire of a player or head coach.

Quote:
And certainly don't agree with you that a person with a drinking problem can function at a high pressure job such as GM of a football team just fine, especially if we are also to believe the reports that he was showing up drunk at Redskins Park repeatedly.


Again, are we to listen to the anonymous sources or aren't we? If we are so we can consider reports of him showing up drunk, then we must also consider reports that Allen yelled at McCloughan for trying to talk to a player in the locker room. Or that McCloughan wasn't allowed to talk to the media either on or off the record.

If we're not, then let's not go crediting anonymous sources about what may or may not have happened at Redskins Park.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thaiphoon


Moderator
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 18935
Location: Northern Virginia
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woz wrote:
TheGreeK1973 wrote:
Sorry Woz but I think you are reaching with a lot of your statements.


I'm reaching? Immediately after this sentence, you write ...

Quote:
maybe they didn't fire Scott immediately because they wanted to see if he would do the right thing and get help.


followed immediately by ...

Quote:
Maybe Scott push their hand by refusing to get any help saying you knew I was drinking before you hired me and you have to deal with it. Who knows?


And I'm the one reaching?

First off, if an employee is acting inappropriately, you don't "see if [he/she will] do the right thing." You bring them into a meeting, explain what the problem is, and create an improvement plan (with the added understanding if there is no improvement, they're canned). If he was drunk, you tell him "no, this is unacceptable." You don't tell him not to talk to the media, lie to the media about why he's not at the Combine, or tell his coworkers he'll be at the Combine and then tell him he won't when they get there.

Secondly, I think Scot is well aware of the fact the Redskins gave him another shot when no one else would. It's why there was that article back in ESPN the Magazine before he was hired. Everyone knew it was an issue, and that for any hope of him to break back into the league, he would need some team to look past his flaws.

Given that, what person, knowing they got a third shot at their dream job when the previous two blew up on them, would tell their employer "you have to deal with it?" If nothing else, that's cause for dismissal right there.

But I'm reaching ...

Quote:
But what I will not do is vilify our team on the word of "several" other teams personnel bad mouthing our front office but refusing to also point out THE FACTS, which are that Scott has already been fired twice at least in the recent past because of his drinking.


I'm looking at the track record of this team.

The Redskins hire Jim Zorn as an OC, and tell prospective coaches you have to keep him if you join us. When that blows up in their face, they tell Zorn to re-interview for the head coaching job. Reason? "Oh, he blew us away in the interview." Yeah, the guy who was never more than a QB coach was suddenly capable of leading the team.

When it becomes apparent they cannot, they hire a "consultant" to "help" with the offense. Even though this guy has been calling bingo numbers at the senior center before Allen calls him, he is installed as the play caller within a month.

When it becomes obvious that they're going to fire Zorn, they try to make him quit by interviewing people for his position while he is still on the team.

These are facts too, and more relevant to how this franchise operates than what happened at other locations.

Is McClouhan still drinking? I don't know. Was he drinking on the job? I don't know.

What I do know is that this franchise has a track record of shady, underhanded, slimy dealings when they tire of a player or head coach.

Quote:
And certainly don't agree with you that a person with a drinking problem can function at a high pressure job such as GM of a football team just fine, especially if we are also to believe the reports that he was showing up drunk at Redskins Park repeatedly.


Again, are we to listen to the anonymous sources or aren't we? If we are so we can consider reports of him showing up drunk, then we must also consider reports that Allen yelled at McCloughan for trying to talk to a player in the locker room. Or that McCloughan wasn't allowed to talk to the media either on or off the record.

If we're not, then let's not go crediting anonymous sources about what may or may not have happened at Redskins Park.


TheGreek. I have a buddy whose face is always red. Kinda like Scot's. He is a nondrinker.

Additionslly, I'm going to piggyback on what Woz has said and repeat something I said before:

Yeah, I don't believe a word of what came from that unnamed source.

Its been reported that Bruce was jealous of Scot and engaged in power struggle (and won). And was predicted they would engage in character assassination of Scot and use something like his past problems with alcohol to cover up Bruce's scat.

To believe this unnamed source, you'd have to believe the following:

1) That Scot, got bombed and showed up to Redskins facilities.
2) That by doing so, he was noticed by numerous personnel of all levels
3) Some of those in #2 were players. Who are not known for their discretion
4) That he did this the entire time he was working there.

And you'd have to believe all of that whilst also believing that the place...

that leaks 24/7, worse than a boat with a screendoor for a hull...

Was able to keep all of the above a secret for 18 months.

If you believe that ^^^, I have oceanfront property in Tempe, Arizona to sell you
_________________


As long as Dan Snyder owns the team, the Redskins will not win another Super Bowl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group