Quote:
Originally Posted by dej733
Sounds like you're right.
Per @MaryKayCabot: #Browns not expected to make run at #Redskins Kirk Cousins, but 3 other teams have & were shot down, source says
|
Thank God, this all sounds good. I just think Kirk is such a professional. He responded really well to the misinformation. I am starting to crawl back from the edge. If we have Kirk going into the season this team is still in good shape. I think we can chalk this all up to an unsurprisingly mismanaged personnel situation and potentially malicious public parting, but I do think the rumors were piled on to continue the "Redskins Front Office sucks" narrative. So, maybe now we can recover and only lose out I the talent evaluation department, and that too can possibly be remedied. That said, I can't help but pause because I do have a couple of questions about this situation.
Why was this situation handled this way? If I had a high level employee that was skilled but has a substance abuse issue (and was honest about it upon hire) and relapsed I would first send him home and simply say publicly that he was out on leave. Period. No stupid personal story. Next I'd offer treatment (honestly I'd be surprised if they could fire him without offering). If he accepted I would say he was on long term leave for personal reasons (and he could comment if/when he wanted. If he refused, I would have a discussion with them about how to handle his termination (negotiate a termination agreement - compensation, timing, official documentation, public communication, etc.). If he cooperated in negotiations a I would suggest him remaining "on leave for personal reasons" until a less crucial time, and make a quiet announcement with an agreed upon official statement. If he was not cooperative, I suppose it would be an immediate termination without publicly releasing a reason.
So this could mean so many things, but here's what seem to be the prevailing possibilities:
1. There were other underlying reasons. A power struggle over a Kirk as some have suggested maybe. They silenced him, fired him, and dragged him through the mud to make themselves seem less at fault.
2. They tried to go through all the proper protocol, he was a mess, was unwilling to seek treatment, unwilling to negotiate termination, and they had to fire him immediately. And then
a) The FO felt too exposed so they purposely leaked statements smearing him.
b) someone spoke out of turn.
3) They are incredibly stupid and incompetent. Didn't know how to handle the situation. Tried to hide what was going on, couldn't work things out peacefully with Scot, fired him and then (see 2a and 2b).
So, if it's
1. Then it is more of the slimy, unprofessional, and chaotic behavior that Snyder has poisoned this organization with, and as others have expressed, Im sick of it and don't know how much more I can watch a respected and beloved franchise dragged into the same cesspool of classlessness that I always expected of Dallas.
2a. Less loathsome, but still slimy. My bet for most likely.
3a. Frustrating and loathsome and one of the more likely in my mind.
3b. Not loathsome, but frustrating and inexcusable.
2b. Is the only somewhat excuseable scenario, but even then. How can you not keep shit out of he media? How can you not release a statement condemning the leak and apologizing?
Who the hell is accountable for these mishandled situations.
Maybe this is the wrong place for all this, but I can finally return from the ledge, express my frustration, and thank god we at least have a professional QB that can handle his shit. At least for now...