Trouble in Redskins Park?

Because #FireBruceAllen

#Trackrecord

Not that McC wanted to pay Cousins and others didn't? didn't notice that?

How about instilling a culture? nothing there.

I'm more disappointed by the tidbits on Cravens and Breeland. Paying Cousins when RG3 was still on the roster was certainly a debatable idea at the time

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

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

Because #FireBruceAllen

8 years here and non-RG3 rookie season miracle/two good McCloughan years what has he done?

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

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

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

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

Blame goes all around.

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

#Trackrecord

We've had two back-to-back winning seasons. You can bitch all you want about his overall records, but NFL teams care about what anyone has done lately. I know is not all because of Bruce Allen, but I'm sorry this little argument is getting old.

Also the reason why I'm sick of all the drama that went down being dragged by media/fans. I know is the offseason and there is little to talk about (well they could talk football, but what the f*ck do I know), but the team hasn't played a snap yet and their recent record has been pretty good one.

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

Mooby you're a better thinker than this.

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

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

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

So much wrong with this, I'm going to scream. If you think that's why Seattle won then you're oversimplifying and assigning credit for things that weren't significant factors.

1) McC was not the GM, Jon Schneider was.

2) If their culture was see something say something, that means Carroll was OK with it. If the head coach signs off on that mindset, then yeah, there's no problem. But did McC clear this with Gruden? Did McC make sure that was the culture here, too? Obviously not. He overstepped his bounds.

3) To think that only one culture can win in the NFL is stupid. Belichik controls everything. With Gibbs and Beathard, they often battled over strategic direction and Cook broke ties. Player's coaches have won, and disciplinarians have won.

4) Seattle did not win because McC was talking to players. Seattle won primarily because they had Russell Wilson on a rookie contract, Schneider and McCloughan picked good players, and Pete Carroll had them motivated.

Of course its not the whole reason they won, but it was a part of the whole winning culture

Wasn't saying McC was the GM there, obviously it was Schneider. The larger point you missed is that the GM of a very successful team is okay with non coaches handling player issues

Point two is a good one, but like someone said did Bruce not realize this is the way McC did things? Seems like something that would come out in the interviews, and something you would discuss with the head coach before hiring the GM

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

Exactly.

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

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

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