Trouble in Redskins Park?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Its a joke buddy, relax. Chill.

mredskins you sneaky bastard.

you got me...I was just a little blown away with the article. The writer really set up where the organization had gone in just a year...from feeling great, "level", and excited about the future.

back to effing dysfunction dumpster fire...I mean this team will kill me in the end.

Im just sick of the drama...its been going on for 20 years!!!!

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Then you don't understand organizational dynamics. Enjoy your career at the bottom rung of the ladder.

Allow me to translate for those of you that dont speak Schneed:

"Yes you caught me bullshitting, it was my speculation that I was trying to pass off as obvious fact. Now Im gonna insult your intelligence in an attempt to not look like a pretentious jack ass."

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Allow me to translate for those of you that dont speak Schneed:

"Yes you caught me bullshitting, it was my speculation that I was trying to pass off as obvious fact. Now Im gonna insult your intelligence in an attempt to not look like a pretentious jack ass."

gotta learn to speak that "Schneedese"

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

With Breeland, clearly a big part of the problem was Perry Fewell. We heard lots, especially from Keim, about how poor he was about communicating assignments. Not to dismiss Breeland's pouty bullshit as acceptable - but it should definitely be for Gruden to determine whether Breeland needs space to cool off, or whether he needs to be reprimanded. McC isn't close enough to understand the nuances of Fewell's actions and how they mixed with Breeland.

On Cravens, yeah. Yikes. You play through things like a bruise. We're supposed to be building a culture of toughness. It's disappointing to hear he didn't play.

Yeah, it says a lot that when we were interviewing for d-coordinator, they didn't even give an interview to a former coordinator in Fewell. That was one reason I felt like maybe the coaches weren't getting through to Breeland.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

mredskins you sneaky bastard.

you got me...I was just a little blown away with the article. The writer really set up where the organization had gone in just a year...from feeling great, "level", and excited about the future.

back to effing dysfunction dumpster fire...I mean this team will kill me in the end.

Im just sick of the drama...its been going on for 20 years!!!!

You and me both. Even when they crawl out of the dumpster, they can't help themselves but to crawl back in.

[mredskins]

There is a new saying :

The only constants in life are death, taxes and Redskin's Front Office dysfunction.

Honestly the latter keeps us very occupy on here; anyone on here that is truly really worked up about McC being fired probably needs to reevaluate their prioritizes in life.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Allow me to translate for those of you that dont speak Schneed:

"Yes you caught me bullshitting, it was my speculation that I was trying to pass off as obvious fact. Now Im gonna insult your intelligence in an attempt to not look like a pretentious jack ass."

No seriously, I find it unfathomably laughable that you think there's any possibility that Allen would have a problem with McC talking to a player about on field behavior if Gruden was OK with it.

Have you ever put any thought into why organizations set up their org charts the way they do? Because it comes across like you don't.

Gruden was absolutely not OK with that. It's not a question.

[WillH]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No seriously, I find it unfathomably laughable that you think there's any possibility that Allen would have a problem with McC talking to a player about on field behavior if Gruden was OK with it.

Have you ever put any thought into why organizations set up their org charts the way they do? Because it comes across like you don't.

Gruden was absolutely not OK with that. It's not a question.

What is your job, Schneed, that you feel you are a subject matter expert? CEO? CFO? GM? I have a feeling that your no higher then like a shift supervisor.

I will preface my statement by saying that I am in a Executive level role and at least 50% of my job is navigating through interpersonal issues. I say that, not to condescend as you have been, but only to give some validity to my statements (unlike your own).

I do understand your point, and I will say that it is most likely that Someone from the coaching staff said something to Allen. That said, as an executive, I know that you can't make judgments on surface information, you need to know the whole story. Here are just a few possibilities, based on similar experiences I have had:

1. Who's the source here? Probably RJF. (I'm not assuming that by any means just exploring possibilities). The stories being told in the article are all surrounding players, and to me sound like they are from a players perspective. The perspective of players (front line employees in general) is especially helpful when exploring something directly related to their jobs, and often more valuable then an executive. When it comes to organizational politics etc, however, their view is very narrow. Everything they know is hearsay. They weren't in the meetings, they don't know confidential information, and they only have to think about a situation from one perspective: their own. I know of many situations where line level employees and especially ex-employees spout off at the mouth about situations that they know nothing about and actually say out right false things if not simply misinterpreted. So one possibility is this report is inaccurate.

2. Yes org charts are helpful, and delineated responsibilities clearly defined are too. But anyone that works in any organization can tell you that the lines are often blurred and when you have a trusting culture it can be incredibly valuable to have some overlap. So sticking to siloed responsibilities for the sake of it is just stupid. Communication is essential when responsibilities overlap, of course, so in this situation, yes Gruden would have to be on board. Who's to say he wasn't? I have seen situations in which higher level executives with egos that need to throw their weight around or are jealous of other's ability to work as a team have sought out unnecessary issues, including stepping out of roles even when it was accepted by everyone else involved. So, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Allen was picking unnecessary fights or was just putting Scot in his place, as it wer, for no other reason then because he could or maybe he was jealous. Is that effective leadership and management? No, you're right about that. No healthy organization runs this way . . . Are the redskins a healthy organization?

3. It could have been the players that complained to Allen, "how many people do I have to answer to and be lectured by here? I'm a grown man. I don't need 4 people telling me the same damn things."

These are all very real possibilities. I have seen these things play out in organizations. So, lets treat this article for what it is, hearsay. It doesn't really clarify much definitively. If you want to speculate, that's cool, we all do it, but don't insult others intelligence because they don't share your views, because honestly, it only makes you look like a moron.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No seriously, I find it unfathomably laughable that you think there's any possibility that Allen would have a problem with McC talking to a player about on field behavior if Gruden was OK with it.

Have you ever put any thought into why organizations set up their org charts the way they do? Because it comes across like you don't.

Gruden was absolutely not OK with that. It's not a question.

Lets be clear, Im not definitively saying you're wrong. Im saying at this point its just speculation. Do you really have so much faith in Allen(the guy that lied to Scot about how much power he'd have when he signed on, falsely accused him of various things, smeared his name in league circles, and is according to some hated across the league)that the only reason he disliked Scots handling of players could be because Jay disliked it? You're absolutely certain that Jay wasnt okay with it and that Bruce couldnt have disliked it himself for some other reason? And this based on an article that mentions Jays name once in a throwaway sentence? Thats some serious tunnel vision

[SolidSnake84]

I come from an HR background. My experience in organizational structure says that what Schneed has said is true. I am familiar with organizational structure, and flowcharts, etc..

It seems to me that Scott M overstepped his role by getting directly involved with the players. I have a feeling that it was not a one time incident, but rather several things that Scott did on his own, that i think Allen / Gruden were not aware / ok with.

In terms of Organizational flow - If Scott M reported to Allen, then nothing that he does in his day to day operations should be done without Allen either knowing about it or being okay with it. Anything outside that line of what Bruce / Jay are ok with him doing is grounds for reprimanding, and if that kind of thing continues, it is grounds for termination.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

I come from an HR background. My experience in organizational structure says that what Schneed has said is true. I am familiar with organizational structure, and flowcharts, etc..

It seems to me that Scott M overstepped his role by getting directly involved with the players. I have a feeling that it was not a one time incident, but rather several things that Scott did on his own, that i think Allen / Gruden were not aware / ok with.

In terms of Organizational flow - If Scott M reported to Allen, then nothing that he does in his day to day operations should be done without Allen either knowing about it or being okay with it. Anything outside that line of what Bruce / Jay are ok with him doing is grounds for reprimanding, and if that kind of thing continues, it is grounds for termination.

Okay, lets assume you're right and Jay didn't like it. Follow that further back, why was Scot brought here in the first place when the people doing the hiring surely knew the GM and head coach would have such fundamental differences on how a team should be run?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Okay, lets assume you're right and Jay didn't like it. Follow that further back, why was Scot brought here in the first place when the people doing the hiring surely knew the GM and head coach would have such fundamental differences on how a team should be run?

Nobody said Allen was good at his job.

Regardless, McC tried to coach the player. Pulling a player aside to discuss on field conduct is coaching. That's not what he was hired for.

[rocnrik]

Think about this..We all love the redskins and yet here we are arguing over who did what..point is as long as you have 2 people you have the possibility of conflict..its part of life..New england,and other top teams also have issues we just don't hear about it..those teams handle it in house and don't have employees/players leaking this to media.. remember Brown putting Coach Tomlins locker room speech out on media?? that sounds like Skins stuff but funny how that got shut down real quick.for whatever reason the beat writers for the Skins actually hate the team and take every opportunity to make this team look bad..it could be hate towards Snyder but we never catch a break.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by WillH

What is your job, Schneed, that you feel you are a subject matter expert? CEO? CFO? GM? I have a feeling that your no higher then like a shift supervisor.

I will preface my statement by saying that I am in a Executive level role and at least 50% of my job is navigating through interpersonal issues. I say that, not to condescend as you have been, but only to give some validity to my statements (unlike your own).

I do understand your point, and I will say that it is most likely that Someone from the coaching staff said something to Allen. That said, as an executive, I know that you can't make judgments on surface information, you need to know the whole story. Here are just a few possibilities, based on similar experiences I have had:

1. Who's the source here? Probably RJF. (I'm not assuming that by any means just exploring possibilities). The stories being told in the article are all surrounding players, and to me sound like they are from a players perspective. The perspective of players (front line employees in general) is especially helpful when exploring something directly related to their jobs, and often more valuable then an executive. When it comes to organizational politics etc, however, their view is very narrow. Everything they know is hearsay. They weren't in the meetings, they don't know confidential information, and they only have to think about a situation from one perspective: their own. I know of many situations where line level employees and especially ex-employees spout off at the mouth about situations that they know nothing about and actually say out right false things if not simply misinterpreted. So one possibility is this report is inaccurate.

2. Yes org charts are helpful, and delineated responsibilities clearly defined are too. But anyone that works in any organization can tell you that the lines are often blurred and when you have a trusting culture it can be incredibly valuable to have some overlap. So sticking to siloed responsibilities for the sake of it is just stupid. Communication is essential when responsibilities overlap, of course, so in this situation, yes Gruden would have to be on board. Who's to say he wasn't? I have seen situations in which higher level executives with egos that need to throw their weight around or are jealous of other's ability to work as a team have sought out unnecessary issues, including stepping out of roles even when it was accepted by everyone else involved. So, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Allen was picking unnecessary fights or was just putting Scot in his place, as it wer, for no other reason then because he could or maybe he was jealous. Is that effective leadership and management? No, you're right about that. No healthy organization runs this way . . . Are the redskins a healthy organization?

3. It could have been the players that complained to Allen, "how many people do I have to answer to and be lectured by here? I'm a grown man. I don't need 4 people telling me the same damn things."

These are all very real possibilities. I have seen these things play out in organizations. So, lets treat this article for what it is, hearsay. It doesn't really clarify much definitively. If you want to speculate, that's cool, we all do it, but don't insult others intelligence because they don't share your views, because honestly, it only makes you look like a moron.

Your feeling is wrong.

Honestly I couldn't get through your whole post. Too long. But I caught snippets.

If you think Gruden would have been OK with McC pulling a player aside then you don't know Jay very well. I'm not saying I've met him, to be clear I am saying I have a way better read on him than you do.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by rocnrik

Think about this..We all love the redskins and yet here we are arguing over who did what..point is as long as you have 2 people you have the possibility of conflict..its part of life..New england,and other top teams also have issues we just don't hear about it..those teams handle it in house and don't have employees/players leaking this to media.. remember Brown putting Coach Tomlins locker room speech out on media?? that sounds like Skins stuff but funny how that got shut down real quick.for whatever reason the beat writers for the Skins actually hate the team and take every opportunity to make this team look bad..it could be hate towards Snyder but we never catch a break.

I don't think media has an agenda so much, I think more so it's just that winning cures all ills. It becomes easier to dismiss the Brown Tomlin thing when the team consistently makes the playoffs.

We have been a losing organization by and large for 20+ years. It opens the door to a lot of garbage writing and garbage thinking concluding that every step you take has been a mistake. So now every error is magnified because we lack the credibility of winning pedigree to counter the argument.

All the more reason to sign Cousins. Nothing like a legitimate QB to turn you into a consistently competitive team.