@mccloughanscot is on twitter and very active

[turtle28]

15 minutes ago, Woz said:

I wonder if

• the reason he got that contract was to lure him to a REALLY bad football team
• he would have signed for cheaper had we bothered to engage him

 

True, those that us fans saw as core free agents it's clear the team was ready to move on from - Baker, Djack & Garcon - I wonder if McCloughan thought their new contracts were worth it. 

I think with Garçon he wanted to play for Kyle again because Kyle was the guy who stood on a table for him back in 2011 and he had his best season as a pro in Kyle's offense. Perhaps no matter what we tried to do to keep Garçon he would of left and I'm not so sure Djax wanted to stay either.

The only one out of these 3 that really wanted to stay and seemed most disappointed was Baker.

[Woz]

Just now, turtle28 said:

I think with Garçon he wanted to play for Kyle again because Kyle was the guy who stood on a table for him back in 2011 and he had his best season as a pro in Kyle's offense. Perhaps no matter what we tried to do to keep Garçon he would of left and I'm not so sure Djax wanted to stay either.

I can perhaps buy that. I still think that we didn't even try was stupid.

Just now, turtle28 said:

The only one out of these 3 that really wanted to stay and seemed most disappointed was Baker.

And this one made no sense to me. But we've gone around and around that tree.

[turtle28]

11 minutes ago, Woz said:

I can perhaps buy that. I still think that we didn't even try was stupid.

And this one made no sense to me. But we've gone around and around that tree.

I definitely think not trying was stupid but if we are to believe that the 2017 offseason was Scot's plan - and I think most people think it was, wouldn't we say that he was ready to move on from those 3 also?

Or, are we going to play this song and dance of well "I don't like McClain & McGee so those were Allen's picks."

"I like Brown, Pryor, Swearinger and all of the draft picks but Nicholson."

So that was Scot's idea. I mean I hate to say it but I do see a lot of that from all fans and I feel it in the McClain & McGee discussion also.

[Woz]

13 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

I definitely think not trying was stupid but if we are to believe that the 2017 offseason was Scot's plan - and I think most people think it was, wouldn't we say that he was ready to move on from those 3 also?

While I am less clear whether we would have kept Garcon and/or Jackson if McCloughan was still in charge, I think Baker would still be here. Remember, last season when Baker crashed the news conference and asked about it? I think McCloughan would have kept him. Also, given McCloughan's statement about Garcon, I think he would have at least tried more than we did.

15 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

Or, are we going to play this song and dance of well "I don't like McClain & McGee so those were Allen's picks."

Here's the thing on that one: by the time free agency came about, McCloughan had been fired for two months. I suspect he was much more focused on the college players coming up and prepping for the Combine than worrying about free agency at the point of his termination. So, while I don't know if he would have gone with those two, I feel like it is fair to it in Allen's column on the ledger.

16 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

"I like Brown, Pryor, Swearinger and all of the draft picks but Nicholson."

So that was Scot's idea. I mean I hate to say it but I do see a lot of that from all fans and I feel it in the McClain & McGee discussion also.

I will admit to being a McCloughan partisan, but I don't give him any credit for the free agents like Brown, Pryor, and Swearinger. Again, he was well removed from the decision making at that point.

On the draft picks, I took quite a bit of heat for panning quite a few of the picks (we can check the tape, but I think I was only on board with Allen, Moreau, and Davis). That includes ones that now look like may be decent picks. Since I believe McCloughan was heavily scouting the college players prior to his termination, I think it's fair to put those in his column.

 

Short version:

• Draft picks seem to be from McCloughan's board (minus one ... we've speculated on who that might be). He claimed almost the entire draft before preseason and we saw what we got. I think it is fair to credit him for those.
• Free agents don't seem to be from McCloughan's reactions (since he seemingly wanted to keep Baker and think the Redskins made a mistake in letting Garcon go). That would mean it belongs to Allen's credit (in the case of Swearinger, Pryor, and Brown) and demerit (in the case of McClain and McGee). Taylor was a shot in the dark but may have been signed about the time McCloughan left. I'll still put that in Allen's column.

[turtle28]

1 hour ago, Woz said:

While I am less clear whether we would have kept Garcon and/or Jackson if McCloughan was still in charge, I think Baker would still be here. Remember, last season when Baker crashed the news conference and asked about it? I think McCloughan would have kept him. Also, given McCloughan's statement about Garcon, I think he would have at least tried more than we did.

Here's the thing on that one: by the time free agency came about, McCloughan had been fired for two months. I suspect he was much more focused on the college players coming up and prepping for the Combine than worrying about free agency at the point of his termination. So, while I don't know if he would have gone with those two, I feel like it is fair to it in Allen's column on the ledger.

I will admit to being a McCloughan partisan, but I don't give him any credit for the free agents like Brown, Pryor, and Swearinger. Again, he was well removed from the decision making at that point.

On the draft picks, I took quite a bit of heat for panning quite a few of the picks (we can check the tape, but I think I was only on board with Allen, Moreau, and Davis). That includes ones that now look like may be decent picks. Since I believe McCloughan was heavily scouting the college players prior to his termination, I think it's fair to put those in his column.

 

Short version:

• Draft picks seem to be from McCloughan's board (minus one ... we've speculated on who that might be). He claimed almost the entire draft before preseason and we saw what we got. I think it is fair to credit him for those.
• Free agents don't seem to be from McCloughan's reactions (since he seemingly wanted to keep Baker and think the Redskins made a mistake in letting Garcon go). That would mean it belongs to Allen's credit (in the case of Swearinger, Pryor, and Brown) and demerit (in the case of McClain and McGee). Taylor was a shot in the dark but may have been signed about the time McCloughan left. I'll still put that in Allen's column.

Multiple people have said McCloughan wanted Pryor and Swearinger. I think McCloughan even said so on Twitter. Not sure about the others but I do know John Keim mentioned that Tomsula wanted McClain and McGee.

[Woz]

Just now, turtle28 said:

Multiple people have said McCloughan wanted Pryor and Swearinger. I think McCloughan even said so on Twitter.

I could understand him wanting those two because they actually are "football players." However, I didn't think to be fair to credit him with going after them so long after he left the building.

Just now, turtle28 said:

Not sure about the others but I do know John Keim mentioned that Tomsula wanted McClain and McGee.

In my opinion, that's a demerit for Tomsula. We'll see.

[turtle28]

1 hour ago, Woz said:

I could understand him wanting those two because they actually are "football players." However, I didn't think to be fair to credit him with going after them so long after he left the building.

In my opinion, that's a demerit for Tomsula. We'll see.

I heard that either Swearinger or Pryor - I think Swearinger - was McCloughan's top FA target.

[lavar703]

Scot wouldn't have let both receivers leave. That was a Bruce Allen deal. 

[Dashing202]

SM gotten to much credit you also have to blame him for not addressing the DL period . As soon as he got fired the skins drafted Allen , now they still didn't draft a NT but they atleast got a very good prospect in Allen .

 

we are better off without him the skins did the smart thing which is extend Jay Gruden and let him have way more control on player personal .

 

doug Williams is a mystery but he knows what winning is all about and he seems like a very tough guy that has a rich redskins history in him. I feel like he will have a good feel for the NFL players .

 

hate to say it SM got fired three times .

[Doc Draper]

Dash I read your post and think:

what has Gruden done that gives you confidence in his player personnel talents?

what has Doug Williams done to give you confidence in his player personnel talents?

the only guy who had a track record of success was fired.

i understand those that have blind loyalty and in this case it seems you have this to Gruden and Williams. "Blind loyalty usually jumps up and bites you in the ***'"  Bill Parcells

Time will tell but I would rather hire someone who has been a great success in the job. Neither of the two you highlight has been successful in player personnel decisions and I can argue persuasively  that they weren't successful in their previous positions as well 

 

 

[MKnight82]

13 hours ago, Dashing202 said:

SM gotten to much credit you also have to blame him for not addressing the DL period . As soon as he got fired the skins drafted Allen , now they still didn't draft a NT but they atleast got a very good prospect in Allen .

 

we are better off without him the skins did the smart thing which is extend Jay Gruden and let him have way more control on player personal .

 

doug Williams is a mystery but he knows what winning is all about and he seems like a very tough guy that has a rich redskins history in him. I feel like he will have a good feel for the NFL players .

 

hate to say it SM got fired three times .

Sorry man couldn't disagree with you more.

[turtle28]

33 minutes ago, Doc Draper said:

Dash I read your post and think:

what has Gruden done that gives you confidence in his player personnel talents?

what has Doug Williams done to give you confidence in his player personnel talents?

the only guy who had a track record of success was fired.

i understand those that have blind loyalty and in this case it seems you have this to Gruden and Williams. "Blind loyalty usually jumps up and bites you in the ***'"  Bill Parcells

Time will tell but I would rather hire someone who has been a great success in the job. Neither of the two you highlight has been successful in player personnel decisions and I can argue persuasively  that they weren't successful in their previous positions as well 

 

 

So was McCloughan lying when he said he believe in both Gruden and Williams as talent evaluators? And he agreed when the promotion of AJ Smith's son?

I mean we all know McCloughan was one of the best at what he did, but we also should listen to what McCloughan said about the others. The only reason most Redskins fans don't listen to Mccloughan when he says positive things about the people that were retained and promoted in the front office is because Allen remains.

It's all a bit ridiculous how people compartmentalize what they want to hear from McCloughan and what they don't want to hear.

[Woz]

13 hours ago, Dashing202 said:

SM gotten to much credit you also have to blame him for not addressing the DL period . As soon as he got fired the skins drafted Allen , now they still didn't draft a NT but they atleast got a very good prospect in Allen .

Oh, come now. Allen was the blatantly obvious pick. That one is a gimme for whomever is in charge.

13 hours ago, Dashing202 said:

we are better off without him the skins did the smart thing which is extend Jay Gruden and let him have way more control on player personal .

I disagree that we're better off without them. However, I FERVENTLY disagree that giving a coach player personnel control is ever a good idea. Outside of Belichick in New England, where has that been successful? It certainly wasn't when Shanahan was here (or when he was in Denver).

Coaching requires analyzing the pieces you have right in the moment and maximizing the strengths/minimizing the weakness in order to come up with a game plan to defeat your upcoming opponent. It's tactical in nature.

Personnel evaluation is more strategic. Yes, the coach might really like player X, but is that player's contract appropriate to the value that player gives to the team? Is free agent X worth contract amount Y? A GM needs to be cold-hearted. Most coaches are too close to their players and cannot make those evaluations (or in the case of their free agent desires, only focus on when they've seen them (i.e. last played them)).

13 hours ago, Dashing202 said:

doug Williams is a mystery but he knows what winning is all about and he seems like a very tough guy that has a rich redskins history in him. I feel like he will have a good feel for the NFL players .

If his name was Tony Williams, would you think this? Doug Williams as a front office executive is mediocre. Look at his time in Tampa, it wasn't all that great. Just like GMs need to be cold hearted and calculating in their evaluation of their players, we as fans need to be cold and calculating in the evaluation of the team's staff. What has he done in the NFL as a front office executive to justify this statement?

13 hours ago, Dashing202 said:

hate to say it SM got fired three times .

Fair. Of course, the last one was arguably a wrongful termination suit that he chose not to pursue. Also, he was never fired for his ability to evaluate players.

[Woz]

39 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

So was McCloughan lying when he said he believe in both Gruden and Williams as talent evaluators? And he agreed when the promotion of AJ Smith's son?

Perhaps not. However, Gruden, Allen, and Smith are all legacy hires, trading off their names. Williams is trading off his history with the franchise.

If they were hitting home runs left and right, that would be fine. However, none of them have been (to be fair to Smith, I don't think he's had that many opportunities prior to coming here).

Nepotism is a bad thing.

41 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

The only reason most Redskins fans don't listen to Mccloughan when he says positive things about the people that were retained and promoted in the front office is because Allen remains.

Well, yes. Allen is worthless as a GM, and all of his hires seem to come from three categories:

• Guys who were with him Tampa (when he failed)
• Guys who were brought in as sons/brothers of guys who he knows
• Guys who were tied to the franchise's history

We aren't getting the best people for the front office. It's a paranoia power trip because Allen knows he sucks, but he's trying to keep power.

[MKnight82]

I expect us to have a disappointing season.  After which Allen will push the blame on Jay Gruden and fire him.  He'll hire some Yes Man GM to have the appearance of being in charge (for future blame to be pushed on), and hire a head coach that was some position coach at Tampa Bay back in the day.