There are 170 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

McCloughan's fall from grace was his own doing.

Originally posted by MBee:
Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Originally posted by GEEK:
Originally posted by NickSh49:
I have never, and will never, trust PRO FOOTBALL WEEKLY.

RealFootball365 may be a better source for information compared to PFW...


Please. PFW's been around for 40+ years. Who knows how much of their story is accurate, but they're not a bunch of charlatans just trying to make a name for themselves.

They certainly seem to have no problem using large portions of another writer's work and yet not credit that writer or the publication for which he works.

Sorry MB, I wouldn't have posted the article had I known.
This article is crap. It's a meandering convoluted bunch of nonsense.
Originally posted by HessianDud:
that's a terrible article. Just more baseless speculation.

The line that Mike Nolan was fired under "circumstances as mysterious" as McCloughan's tells you all you need to know about the writer and the article. WTF was "mysterious" about Nolan getting fired?

I think he was referring to the firing occurring suddenly one week before they planned because it leaked out too early. They planned to fire him AFTER the bye week, but because it leaked out, they fired him suddenly and hired Sing.
I almost expected to read something like "McCloughan fell from grace as he spent time and money on hookers and blow". You never know what's coming from those guys a PFW.
[ Edited by AKfanster on Mar 21, 2010 at 5:34 PM ]
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Quote:
For one thing, whether it was due to family problems or something else, McCloughan would fall out of the loop for prolonged stretches. That shortcoming contributed to more than a few job-related blunders, the way we hear it.


He can only "fall out of the loop" if the ownership allows him to or wants him to. He was the GM with final say. There is no way for him to fall out of the loop unless that was by design.

Wrong. An employee can 'fall out of the loop' all on their own in many ways. Perhaps he showed up drunk. Or maybe he didn't show at all. Maybe he stopped doing his job with his divorce, and quit attending meetings, etc. We don't know, but he certainly could 'no show' all on his own.
Originally posted by susweel:
Originally posted by Tru2RedNGold25:
people that are having panic attacks because of his departure just you wait when we have a solid draft youll forget about McClueless completly.

upper management knows what they are doing & for one glad he is out
GOOD RIDDANCE!!!

take a breather & chill out!!!!!

Same here Im glad he is out.

Im actually looking forward to the draft after the first round now.

Agreed. McC was a pretty good scout, but was NOT a good GM.
Originally posted by oregondave:
This article is crap. It's a meandering convoluted bunch of nonsense.

You sound biased toward McC.
Are you a McC cheerleader?
What exactly do you think is incorrect in the article?
Do you expect him to disclose his sources by name?
Do you think that it's inconceivable that McC did things that required or forced his ouster?
Originally posted by maxsmart:
Originally posted by oregondave:
This article is crap. It's a meandering convoluted bunch of nonsense.

You sound biased toward McC.
Are you a McC cheerleader?
What exactly do you think is incorrect in the article?
Do you expect him to disclose his sources by name?
Do you think that it's inconceivable that McC did things that required or forced his ouster?

seriously?

how about this:

Quote:
For one thing, whether it was due to family problems or something else, McCloughan would fall out of the loop for prolonged stretches. That shortcoming contributed to more than a few job-related blunders, the way we hear it.

One incident that blew up in the team's face was the league's ruling that the 49ers had been guilty of tampering with LB Lance Briggs during the 2007 campaign, resulting in the forfeiture of a 2008 fifth-round draft pick and the swapping of third-round picks with the Bears.

that's basically the "most important" part of the article, the one everyone is clinging to, and its meaningless. What does "falling out of the loop" mean and how did that contribute to the Lance Briggs fiasco? No explanation. Everything else in the article is rehashed speculation from other sources.
Quote:

Quote:
For one thing, whether it was due to family problems or something else, McCloughan would fall out of the loop for prolonged stretches. That shortcoming contributed to more than a few job-related blunders, the way we hear it.

One incident that blew up in the team's face was the league's ruling that the 49ers had been guilty of tampering with LB Lance Briggs during the 2007 campaign, resulting in the forfeiture of a 2008 fifth-round draft pick and the swapping of third-round picks with the Bears.

that's basically the "most important" part of the article, the one everyone is clinging to, and its meaningless. What does "falling out of the loop" mean and how did that contribute to the Lance Briggs fiasco? No explanation. Everything else in the article is rehashed speculation from other sources.

It's speculation, because nobody's going to tell us exactly who muffed the play when the Niners got tagged for tampering. However, it is reasonable to assume that the responsibility lies with the GM.

I was also thinking about a couple of recent events:

1) The way Shaun Hill's trade was handled. Wouldn't it seem the responsibility of the GM to notify the player that he has been traded?

2) The Akin Ayodele visit last week. Ayodele came on Monday. On Tuesday they said he will speak to the press at 1pm. I figured that meant he was signing! Instead, there was apparently no press conference, and no signing, and no further word from the 49ers.

The next day, the Scot thing blew up.

Are these "out of the loop" events by the GM? Sure sounds like it to me. The 49ers didn't WANT to take this action at this time. Their hand was forced.
[ Edited by aiiyiiyiii on Mar 21, 2010 at 4:33 PM ]
Originally posted by maxsmart:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Quote:
For one thing, whether it was due to family problems or something else, McCloughan would fall out of the loop for prolonged stretches. That shortcoming contributed to more than a few job-related blunders, the way we hear it.


He can only "fall out of the loop" if the ownership allows him to or wants him to. He was the GM with final say. There is no way for him to fall out of the loop unless that was by design.

Wrong. An employee can 'fall out of the loop' all on their own in many ways. Perhaps he showed up drunk. Or maybe he didn't show at all. Maybe he stopped doing his job with his divorce, and quit attending meetings, etc. We don't know, but he certainly could 'no show' all on his own.

He was in there all the time and was a workaholic. The Yorks wanted to get rid of him.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by maxsmart:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Quote:
For one thing, whether it was due to family problems or something else, McCloughan would fall out of the loop for prolonged stretches. That shortcoming contributed to more than a few job-related blunders, the way we hear it.


He can only "fall out of the loop" if the ownership allows him to or wants him to. He was the GM with final say. There is no way for him to fall out of the loop unless that was by design.

Wrong. An employee can 'fall out of the loop' all on their own in many ways. Perhaps he showed up drunk. Or maybe he didn't show at all. Maybe he stopped doing his job with his divorce, and quit attending meetings, etc. We don't know, but he certainly could 'no show' all on his own.

He was in there all the time and was a workaholic. The Yorks wanted to get rid of him.

We don't know this for certain bro. The tampering case was quite amateur hour no? Scot was okay, but let's not deify him.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by maxsmart:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Quote:
For one thing, whether it was due to family problems or something else, McCloughan would fall out of the loop for prolonged stretches. That shortcoming contributed to more than a few job-related blunders, the way we hear it.


He can only "fall out of the loop" if the ownership allows him to or wants him to. He was the GM with final say. There is no way for him to fall out of the loop unless that was by design.

Wrong. An employee can 'fall out of the loop' all on their own in many ways. Perhaps he showed up drunk. Or maybe he didn't show at all. Maybe he stopped doing his job with his divorce, and quit attending meetings, etc. We don't know, but he certainly could 'no show' all on his own.

He was in there all the time and was a workaholic. The Yorks wanted to get rid of him.

How the hell do you know that? Based on what facts?
[ Edited by kezar49er on Mar 21, 2010 at 4:58 PM ]
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by 9eridiot:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
It's just the Yorks being stupid and self destructing the team like they always do. Only the Yorks could come up with a plan to get rid of the GM 5 weeks before the draft with no replacement on hand. They could have done it at the very beginning of the offseason and may have been able to land the likes of Holmgren or Shannahan in the role if they were willing to pay for it. But they aren't willing to pay for it and everything the Yorks do is reactionary and spur of the moment with no forward planning. It's how the roll. Destroy the team and figure out the consequences later. It's how they have rolled for a decade.

You don't get it. They are not looking to bring someone from outside the organization in to replace Scott. THAT'S why it doesn't matter that he was canned 5 weeks before the draft. The Niners are going to make Baalk, Gamble, or Marathe GM and the team will continue forward with little change in the short term.

This in my opinion is not at all reactionary or spur of the moment, but a culmination of discretions that led to the change. I don't think for a moment that the management had any interest at all in GM candidates outside the team earlier this off-season. I think if anything, the team waited too long.

... and Balke it is !

True too, the team had no interest in GM candidates; but, more importantly, no GM candidates had any interest in the Niners. Why would a strong GM accept the restrictive conditions set by York?

Only a tool would do it ... and Balke it is !

Exactly what restrictive conditions are you speaking of?

WIN - totally agree with your perspective. Contrary to what people think here, I don't think the Yorks are reactionary - I think they take too long to make decisions. Case in point: the stadium. The Yorks are not football people and run their business like any corporation - conservatively. They initially brought that approach. That created the perfect situation that was resistant to change; firing Mooch took too long - he had long since lost the team. Firing of Donahue and Erickson took too long. Firing of Mike Nolan took too long. And if they thought McCloughan wasn't doing a good job. McCloughan said himself it was a longstanding issue. So obviously there was something going on for a while. Again, it took too long. If anything, the 49ers need an active owner - maybe Jed - who can make a good hire. It doesn't take a genius to make a great hire, it just needs to be an educated/smart hire. If anything the 49ers are still suffering from mistakes made years ago that are coming to light now.

Winner,

York set restrictive conditions in place when he took over. As NinerGM alludes, "the 49ers were still suffering from mistakes made years ago". I would argue that these prior mistakes, which led to 5 Super Bowl Championships, weren't mistakes at all - but, serendipitous actions which led to an organizational value on par with the f**king cowboys.

York, though, without a background or interest in football, came to the organization with one narrow-minded viewpoint toward the business that did not understand the complexities of a major sports franchise.

In so doing, he gutted the administrative complex that Eddie D established. The approach was an overall pragmatic restriction of expenitures - from the GM to the punter.

Eddie D wanted to win. Daddy York wants to make sure he makes money. It's a simple difference. Hopefully Sing can take the competitive squad that York allows purchased and win a division title for us fans.
Originally posted by 9eridiot:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by 9eridiot:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
It's just the Yorks being stupid and self destructing the team like they always do. Only the Yorks could come up with a plan to get rid of the GM 5 weeks before the draft with no replacement on hand. They could have done it at the very beginning of the offseason and may have been able to land the likes of Holmgren or Shannahan in the role if they were willing to pay for it. But they aren't willing to pay for it and everything the Yorks do is reactionary and spur of the moment with no forward planning. It's how the roll. Destroy the team and figure out the consequences later. It's how they have rolled for a decade.

You don't get it. They are not looking to bring someone from outside the organization in to replace Scott. THAT'S why it doesn't matter that he was canned 5 weeks before the draft. The Niners are going to make Baalk, Gamble, or Marathe GM and the team will continue forward with little change in the short term.

This in my opinion is not at all reactionary or spur of the moment, but a culmination of discretions that led to the change. I don't think for a moment that the management had any interest at all in GM candidates outside the team earlier this off-season. I think if anything, the team waited too long.

... and Balke it is !

True too, the team had no interest in GM candidates; but, more importantly, no GM candidates had any interest in the Niners. Why would a strong GM accept the restrictive conditions set by York?

Only a tool would do it ... and Balke it is !

Exactly what restrictive conditions are you speaking of?

WIN - totally agree with your perspective. Contrary to what people think here, I don't think the Yorks are reactionary - I think they take too long to make decisions. Case in point: the stadium. The Yorks are not football people and run their business like any corporation - conservatively. They initially brought that approach. That created the perfect situation that was resistant to change; firing Mooch took too long - he had long since lost the team. Firing of Donahue and Erickson took too long. Firing of Mike Nolan took too long. And if they thought McCloughan wasn't doing a good job. McCloughan said himself it was a longstanding issue. So obviously there was something going on for a while. Again, it took too long. If anything, the 49ers need an active owner - maybe Jed - who can make a good hire. It doesn't take a genius to make a great hire, it just needs to be an educated/smart hire. If anything the 49ers are still suffering from mistakes made years ago that are coming to light now.

Winner,

York set restrictive conditions in place when he took over. As NinerGM alludes, "the 49ers were still suffering from mistakes made years ago". I would argue that these prior mistakes, which led to 5 Super Bowl Championships, weren't mistakes at all - but, serendipitous actions which led to an organizational value on par with the f**king cowboys.

York, though, without a background or interest in football, came to the organization with one narrow-minded viewpoint toward the business that did not understand the complexities of a major sports franchise.

In so doing, he gutted the administrative complex that Eddie D established. The approach was an overall pragmatic restriction of expenitures - from the GM to the punter.

Eddie D wanted to win. Daddy York wants to make sure he makes money. It's a simple difference. Hopefully Sing can take the competitive squad that York allows purchased and win a division title for us fans.

The mistakes I'm alluding to are the mistakes the Yorks made in hiring DE and giving a rookie coach like Mike Nolan complete control over the rebuilding of an organization. McCloughan was a part of the Nolan regime. The point I was attempting to make was that the Yorks may have started out bad, but we've seen an evolution and in no small way. If the 49ers were only interested in money they wouldn't have brought in Jennings, Clements, Smith, and Jones (who I still think is a colossal waste of money).
Originally posted by aiiyiiyiii:
Quote:

Quote:
For one thing, whether it was due to family problems or something else, McCloughan would fall out of the loop for prolonged stretches. That shortcoming contributed to more than a few job-related blunders, the way we hear it.

One incident that blew up in the team's face was the league's ruling that the 49ers had been guilty of tampering with LB Lance Briggs during the 2007 campaign, resulting in the forfeiture of a 2008 fifth-round draft pick and the swapping of third-round picks with the Bears.

that's basically the "most important" part of the article, the one everyone is clinging to, and its meaningless. What does "falling out of the loop" mean and how did that contribute to the Lance Briggs fiasco? No explanation. Everything else in the article is rehashed speculation from other sources.

It's speculation, because nobody's going to tell us exactly who muffed the play when the Niners got tagged for tampering. However, it is reasonable to assume that the responsibility lies with the GM.

I was also thinking about a couple of recent events:

1) The way Shaun Hill's trade was handled. Wouldn't it seem the responsibility of the GM to notify the player that he has been traded?

2) The Akin Ayodele visit last week. Ayodele came on Monday. On Tuesday they said he will speak to the press at 1pm. I figured that meant he was signing! Instead, there was apparently no press conference, and no signing, and no further word from the 49ers.

The next day, the Scot thing blew up.

Are these "out of the loop" events by the GM? Sure sounds like it to me. The 49ers didn't WANT to take this action at this time. Their hand was forced.

You are right. its speculation. but you're also right that its reasonable to assume that the tampering stuff might have been Scot's fault. But how does that mean he wasn't "in the loop"? What DOES that mean? Does that mean he wasn't doing his job? Well, I call BS on that, because if the Niners had cause to fire him, they would just fire him.

Your other points:
A). Moot point. Shaun Hill wasn't told about the trade officially because it wasn't final. What if something fell through--say Carr changed his mind and signed elsewhere? There couldn't be an official announcement until things were, you know, official.

B). The potential Ayodele "signing" or press conference or whatever might have been a casualty of the Scotty drama, but we have no way of knowing for sure. So again, speculation, and not even speculation from the article, that's just your speculation.

I'm ambivalent about Scot being gone, but I think its damn foolish the way people are running around like little women crying about a bunch of rumors from second rate football rumor mills.
[ Edited by HessianDud on Mar 21, 2010 at 6:55 PM ]