• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Random Commanders Thoughts

If he is drinking again then his career may be over. This will be 3rd strike since he had problems in SF and Seattle before coming here.

I am sure the hours and stress as a GM can take its toll.
 
I have hinted at my belief there are FO problems for much of this off-season. When McGloughan missed the sideline handshake at the end of the season against the Giants, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up. While I was one of the ones who clamored for this guy to come to DC, I also scratched my head when I saw him minimize the drink in one of his first interviews. When I saw him with a beer in his hand, I was concerned.

As some of you know, I am a recovering alcoholic. I know this disease well having spent the past 30 years of my life battling it, having success for the past 17 years. If the drinking was as bad as reports from San Fran and Seattle, he should never drink again...he looks like an alcoholic. That's for himn to decide, so I refrained from getting too concerned when he first came...I simply do not know how bad it was/is.

Having said all that, the drama that I see unfolding is very reminiscent of co-dependents covering for an alcoholic.

I have no idea, but my years of experience in this battle suggest some terribly wrong here. Unless a child is dying, there really is little reason for the GM of an NFL Football team to miss the combine.
 
What's strange is that his grandmother died on February 6th.

That's a month ago. One would figure, and we all go through this during our lifetimes with relatives obviously, that Scot would be needed at home those middle weeks of February after the funeral and burial.

That said, who knows?

What I do know is the Redskins are now the most feeble team in town.

The Capitals seem to be poised for a potential championship run with good draft picks and trades.

The Nationals are returning a division-winning club and expect Bryce Harper to get back to his 2015 MVP form. If that happens the 2017 club will be better than 2016.

Even the Wizards, who with Ernie Grunfeld have stumbled at times, seem to have righted their ship by maxing out John Wall and Bradley Beal and developing Otto Porter. Goes to show when you keep your draft picks and make good selections, things tend to go your way.

Starting 2-9, the Wizards are now poised to be the #3 seed in the East and get at least the first round of the playoffs with home court advantage.

Time for the Redskins to stop being such a weak sister organization.

Stop bickering and leaking to the press like a rat ship. Figure out AHEAD of time what to do with contracts for your core players so you don't look as if you are standing there with your pants around your ankles wondering what is going on as you franchise guys again and again.

The better front offices in the NFL like Denver and New England would have been able to move to resolve the Cousins issue before it came to 2 years of drama and stasis.
 
Very well could be Mcluvs is drinking again. I was wondering if it's that and or something else, maybe a divorce. Absolutely no proof or heresay on it just wondering out loud.

Doesn't McLuv and Kirk share the same agent? You'd figure he's in the know and is telling Kirk to hold off on signing long term until whatever it is gets squared away.
 
Do we know if it's the same grandmother that died earlier this month? Just wondering since it does seem odd to miss an event like this several weeks after the fact. I don't know. I'm just trying to make sense of all of this since nothing really makes sense right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We know that Jay Gruden is in the tank for Cousins.

We THINK Bruce Allen wants to do a deal but is as frugal as ever about the final dollars.

That really leaves Scot as the one that seems to be in focus in terms of the Cousins camp feeling disrespected in re the opinions of the decision-makers.

Scot has said on numerous occasions that it's ideal to draft a qb on a rookie deal and develop him so that you get 2 or 3 years of solid performance if not better for a cheap wage.

The Seahawks did that with Russell Wilson and the 49ers did that with Kaepernick, although the latter seems to have fallen from the penthouse to the outhouse in a short amount of time.

Let's face it.

If you have a franchise quarterback and you are going to keep him at some point you are going to have to pay him.

Hopefully, it would be AFTER he has won a Super Bowl or taken the team deep into the playoffs a couple of times so you are 100% sure.

But even then you have the case of Joe Flacco. After getting that ring in 2012, Flacco has been solid but has never gotten back to that playoff level of performance he had that season for the Ravens.

Same thing happened here with Mark Rypien after the SB win over Buffalo. He was a free agent and the Redskins paid him a high salary (of course no cap at the time) but because of the team aging around him and Gibbs leaving, Mark was ultimately exposed as a 'system' quarterback.

It would not be a surprise if Scot thought the same thing about Kirk and voiced some concerns about turning over 24% of the cap dollars to #8.
 
Maybe #8 got his ass up in the air because Scot was honest with him, last year. Which should have gone something like this. "We like you, Kirk. But the bottom line is, you had 1 good half a season in 2015. and there ain't a chance in hell we can risk paying you what you're agent's asking for on such a small resume. Have great 2016 and we'll pay you."

If #8 got his Suzy hurt because of that, then **** him. He made $19 million.

He had a very good year.
He had great stats. Which last time I checked, they don't give Lombardi's for.

He did NOT have a great year. He's earned a very good contract. Not a great one.

In my humble, Ugly American opinion.
 
Kinda hard to play QB with the defense and running game that was fielded.

Joe Theismann never makes a SuperBowl without Riggins and a good defense.

Stats don't win you Lombardi's but they do tell us that Kirk can play in this league...that's more than you can say for all the guys in Indy that are running around in shorts and tshirts
 
First of all - Bulldog...I have to ask what the hell you are talking about? The Redskins haven't leaked a scintilla of info as to what's going on as far as we can tell (unless you believe the worst that they are using Cooley, Russell, and other mediots to float the truth). This is the most disciplined front office we've seen in a decade...and let's be honest, the press is pissed BECAUSE the team isn't talking, so criticising them for being an undisciplined mess is really offbase. If you care to clarify your comments I'm all ears, but I think you are dead wrong on that front.

Second of all, I have absolute respect for Elephant's perspective here for obvious reasons (plus, I love and admire the guy). But I think there's a difference between 'enabling' and 'covering' and what may be going on here. You guys do realize that employees (and humans in general) have a right to privacy, right? If what we are *conjecturing* is going on here is actually what IS going on, the Redskins should be applauded, not criticized. First of all, they gave this guy a chance when no one else would. Secondly, if he has relapsed, they are likely trying to assist him in getting back on track, but regardless are protecting his privacy and dignity.

Seriously - I have to ask - is that not the absolute best that anyone in this kind of trouble could hope to expect from their employer?

I rehired a drug-addicted nurse to one of my units a couple years ago. For the first year, she did great - but had no access to narcotics. Upon passing her 1 year mark successfully in the program she is required to participate in, she got narcotic administration rights back. We had to release her this week because she was diverting narcotics while at work. We didn't announce it to staff, offer explanations, or otherwise violate her privacy rights. We quietly removed her from her role, offered whatever help we could, and treated her with dignity and respect. That's the way it should be.
 
On a not so random note - Brian Mitchell is a complete ass. Spouting off at the mouth as is his usual M.O. as to how this is 'typical Redskins drama'. You're an ass Mitchell - that is something we do know is 'typical'....
 
It would not be a surprise if Scot thought the same thing about Kirk and voiced some concerns about turning over 24% of the cap dollars to #8.

I'm not sure if this is a typo or just a misunderstanding. But no matter what contract Cousins signs, he won't be 24% of the cap. 24% of this years cap would be about 40 million. The franchise tag number this year puts him at 14%, which is still a large chunk but not quite 1/4 of the cap. The thing is, signing him to a long term deal will reduce his number this year and will increase in future years. But the salary cap is expected to be around 200 million in his 4th year. His contract will not be one that restricts the team from signing players in the future.
 
Gotta dumb question here but weren't NFL ratings at a big time low this season? For the Krapernick circus or whatever. With that being said is it a guarantee the cap will raise at all?
 
If this is his real account The Bruce needs to lay off the social media. Apparently we exclusive tagged Kirk to prevent trade rumors. For **** sake

Redskins President Admits Team Tagged Kirk Cousins For Ridiculous Reason | 12up

Edit: I suppose it could be his "attempt" at humor tho

Interpretation is a funny thing depending what side your on. I can read it as ... we never even entertained the thought of trading him, so we did the exclusive tag to show he's ours for the long haul. Of course, he could have said that, but how often do we actually get completely clear statements form anybody these days.
 
Gotta dumb question here but weren't NFL ratings at a big time low this season? For the Krapernick circus or whatever. With that being said is it a guarantee the cap will raise at all?

I don't think there is ever a guarantee. But the salary cap is not determined by TV ratings. At least not when the current TV deal runs through 2022. I think the only thing that could keep the cap from going up would be a drastic drop in attendance and other revenue sources. The salary cap calculations process is pretty convoluted. If you are a math wiz you can have fun figuring it all out. But the TV deal is in place and the sharing of revenue is a major sticking point of the CBA negotiations. I can't see it going down before 2022 without there being some other drastic changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
First of all - Bulldog...I have to ask what the hell you are talking about? The Redskins haven't leaked a scintilla of info as to what's going on as far as we can tell (unless you believe the worst that they are using Cooley, Russell, and other mediots to float the truth). This is the most disciplined front office we've seen in a decade...and let's be honest, the press is pissed BECAUSE the team isn't talking, so criticising them for being an undisciplined mess is really offbase. If you care to clarify your comments I'm all ears, but I think you are dead wrong on that front.

Second of all, I have absolute respect for Elephant's perspective here for obvious reasons (plus, I love and admire the guy). But I think there's a difference between 'enabling' and 'covering' and what may be going on here. You guys do realize that employees (and humans in general) have a right to privacy, right? If what we are *conjecturing* is going on here is actually what IS going on, the Redskins should be applauded, not criticized. First of all, they gave this guy a chance when no one else would. Secondly, if he has relapsed, they are likely trying to assist him in getting back on track, but regardless are protecting his privacy and dignity.

Seriously - I have to ask - is that not the absolute best that anyone in this kind of trouble could hope to expect from their employer?

I rehired a drug-addicted nurse to one of my units a couple years ago. For the first year, she did great - but had no access to narcotics. Upon passing her 1 year mark successfully in the program she is required to participate in, she got narcotic administration rights back. We had to release her this week because she was diverting narcotics while at work. We didn't announce it to staff, offer explanations, or otherwise violate her privacy rights. We quietly removed her from her role, offered whatever help we could, and treated her with dignity and respect. That's the way it should be.

I understand and respect your POV on this, however, there is a big difference between your situation and the GM of a pro-football team surrounding by 24 hour a day media. Yes, it'd be a wonderful thing to know that his privacy is honored. On the other hand, if an alcoholic is in his drink, he can be one of the most vile characters you'll ever meet...no one does him any good by protecting him/her while they're drinking. Then again, I'm a tough love kinda guy, so...
 
Gotta dumb question here but weren't NFL ratings at a big time low this season? For the Krapernick circus or whatever. With that being said is it a guarantee the cap will raise at all?

As Kel said the TV contract runs through 2022. If ratings decline and attendance starts to drop, then the next deal may not be as lucrative. I believe then you would see salary cap decline. I believe the time will come where the salary cap won't increase.

The key to all this is Goodell. Is he going to kill the golden goose? Just like NASCAR in tinkering with the sport, make couple wrong moves and popularity starts to decline.

I wouldn't be concerned, except the fact Goodell is in charge worries me.
 
As Kel said the TV contract runs through 2022. If ratings decline and attendance starts to drop, then the next deal may not be as lucrative. I believe then you would see salary cap decline. I believe the time will come where the salary cap won't increase.

The key to all this is Goodell. Is he going to kill the golden goose? Just like NASCAR in tinkering with the sport, make couple wrong moves and popularity starts to decline.

I wouldn't be concerned, except the fact Goodell is in charge worries me.


I saw what they did at Daytona this year and thought, they're screwing this up.

NFL is at their apex, between concussion protocol, overly inconsistent officiating, prima dona athletes, and social justice warriors on the field, people are going to begin losing interest.
 
Gotta dumb question here but weren't NFL ratings at a big time low this season? For the Krapernick circus or whatever. With that being said is it a guarantee the cap will raise at all?

The cap is now at $167M for 2017 - announced this week.

The cap is expected to climb this much in the coming years:

2018: $180M-$182M
2019: $195M
2020: $210M

A new CBA is expected for 2021 and beyond. Preliminary cap numbers could be...
2021: $240M
2022: $275M
Smaller increases thereafter, but new TV contracts could increase it more.
 
Well, I would like to congratulate the guys who created this place we call home, as I write this on the 1000th page of this thread...that's 20 thousand posts in a single thread! You created a great atmosphere for people to enjoy talking Redskins' football.

With that said, if we are seriously talking about a 3 way trade with the 49ers and the Cowturds that would bring Tony Romo here, I will flip the **** out! I am done...won't ever watch another NFL game.

Report: Redskins, 49ers may talk Cousins trade with Romo in the deal | CSN Mid-Atlantic
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 5, Members: 0, Guests: 5)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top