• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About kleese

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL
  • Location
    Oklahoma City, OK
  1. I would also like to point out that no General Manager should have "complete control" of anything. I own a business and also act as the GM. I have partners in ownership. I make the majority of the decisions, many of those without even consulting the others. But there are several decisions that are made where we discuss as a group-- and sometimes I am over ruled or convinced to go another route. Same goes with the managers that work for me. I do my best to empower and not micro manage them, but there are ABSOLUTELY things I want them to consult with me about and there have been times where I have stepped in and asked or "mandated" another direction. A GM of a football team should not be able to make the decision on the franchise QB without consulting the President and Owner. That should 100% be a group discussion/decision. Now, if owner/Pres are constantly over-ruling or stepping in then it defeats the purpose of having a GM and breaks down what is probably the ideal structre. But all of this nonsense about how the owner and Pres should just completely step aside for a GM is just that, nonsense.
  2. I don't like reacting to information I don't have. All we know is that they fired him. That's it. Everything else is speculation. You have two parties neither of which has earned the benefit of the doubt. It's reasonable to think the Redskins smaeared SM and it's reasonable to think SM completely fell off the wagon again. History there of both. I don't know and clearly the media doesn't either because no one has really actually said anything-- they've simply drawn conclusions based on history. Prior to three weeks ago I never heard a negative word about Bruce Allen as a guy. As a matter of fact that take on him was generally good dude/not so great evaluating talent. And after the Kirk "how you like me now" game the media narrative was that SM was the one catching that heat from Kirk and HE was the one not wanting to extend and he was clashing with Allen/Snyder who wanted to get it done. Now, that narrative has flipped. Maybe because it's true but maybe because it's convenient. It is possible SM went off the rails and the Redskins had no choice. Maybe they supported him; maybe they could have done more. Or maybe he was totally sober and they completely did it over power and then lied. Who knows. I sure as hell don't. So I just go off what I DO KNOW. --We've had two relatively solid seasons --Roster has stabilized --We fired a GM --We extended our coach --We signed FAs that I like and I think we've generally been smart thus far in the off-season roster-wise That's about it. The Kirk situation is TBD. The rest of FA is TBD. The draft is TBD. The GM search is TBD. Next season is TBD. I am going to wait and see before I make any proclomations. We trade Kirk, we don't hire a GM, we make questionable draft picks, we regress next year in terms of record.... Well, that's when I'll say "looks like they bungled it again." But it is WAY premature for me to go there now. ESPECIALLY if Kirk does sign a LTD-- I think that would be your signal that this was a whole lot of melodrama and maybe we had a GM with a drinking problem who clashed with the team President. And that might be all there is to it. In other words, ask me again in November.
  3. The media/fan reaction over the past 2-3 weeks is the most absurd thing I've ever witnessed in my 30+ years of being a Redskin fan. Yes, even more absurd than the Romeo Bandison face mask penalty. I am completely baffled. I keep wondering if there has been some news released of which I am unaware, but I look and look and can't find anything and then I'm baffled again. Its nuts
  4. Because the internet told us we should hate him. They lied about everything. Now I'm thinking they went back in time and planted the stories about Scot having a drinking problem in the first place. As a matter of fact they may have conspired with the 49ers and Seahawks-- convinced them to hire Scot and then both to fire him using the drinking as an excuse so that when they hired him they could then plant a drinking story via Cooley on the radio so they could fire him too.
  5. I am not really arguing any of that. I am arguing against the notion that no one ever wants to come here. It's simply not true. This week alone we heard the line "agents telling their clients to steer clear of Redskins." Well, other than the agents that steered their clients to sign with the Redskins of course .
  6. My message would say "Bruce, hi. I hate you. I think. At least that's what I think I'm supposed to say. It sounds like some other people might hate you so I should probably hate you too. The handling of our former GM seems odd-- not real smooth there Bruce. But I also kind of like the moves we've made so far this offseason. I think the roster is actually getting a little better. But I still hate you. I think. Thanks. Have a great day."
  7. Yes it may have worked a little bit towards the end of the Vinny era. The result? Bruce Allen
  8. Exactly. They don't owe you or me or anyone else a damn thing other than what we pay for like any other business. You pay for a ticket-- as long as the game is played, you got what you paid for. If you don't like the experience, you don't purchase them again. This isn't a Civil Rights issue. We don't need a March on Washington. The Redskins might be a passion for many, but they aren't a public trust and as a business owner myself I wouldn't appreciate or respond well to people calling and making demands. Now, I do take customer surveys and response seriously and I'm always open to feedback. But I wouldn't flinch on ioata if a customer gave me some sort of ultimatum. You guys also realize that ticket and merch sales really DON'T "hit in the wallet" all that much correct? The NFL is a very socialist-based entity. Revenue sharing rules the day. So while Redskins fans could perhaps make a small dent by boycotting (assuming it was literally a significant chunk of the fan base) Danny would still be just fine. Just remember that he also profits when that Aaron Rodgers jersey or Dak Prescott jersey is sold as well. And he profits every time the league negotiates a new TV deal. There have been plenty of NFL franchises over the years that have survived long periods of lagging ticket sales-- in large part due to the financial protections the league itself provides.
  9. You know you are posting this on the official message board of the Washington Redskins with a trademark at the bottom, right? To me, a fully boycott would also include ZERO chatter/press/attention about the team. Meaning all message boards should be shut down/abandoned as well.
  10. Look man, if you know all of these guys well enough personally to sign off on whether or not they are "self-respecting" prior to joining the Redskins, then you are a better man than me. All I'm saying is that we seem to continue to land people that other people would want-- both players and coaches (and in Scot's case, a FO person as well). All may come for varying reasons-- but this much is certain, they all get paid, and the overwhelming majority are also guys that either before and/or after were still considered respected (at least in terms of football).
  11. Here is the other thing that no one ever says, but I believe fully: Dan Snyder doesn't owe me jack squat. He owns a product. It is my choice whether or not to consume that product. The Redskins aren't a public trust. Sure, you'd think the best business practice would be to run them AS IF THEY WERE a public trust, but they aren't. It's just a football team. It is our choice to what degree we attach ourselves to said team. If you truly and honestly derive NO enjoyment from watching the team, following the team, etc. then you are making a HORRENDOUS decision as a consumer. Horrendous. What a dumb thing to do. If I go to a restaurant and hate everything about it (even if I used to love it) I completely and 100% stop going. I continue to follow and root for the Redskins, because ultimately, I still enjoy it. I enjoy posting on the message board. I enjoy following the news. I enjoy watching the games. I really enjoy traveling and going to the games. I don't do it for Dan Snyder. I do it for ME. I do it for what I derive from it. I go to games every year and every year I have a lot of fun. This year I went to the Ravens and Eagles games and I had an absolute blast-- I for sure enjoy them more when we win, but I keep going even when I'm close to positive we will lose. The Redskins are something I do for me. It has nothing to do with Dan Snyder. I fully understand that by continuing to support his product, that I am in essence supporting him. I get that. But it's not a one-way street--- I'm getting something out of it too. I can promise you this, when I'm no longer enjoying myself. When the ride ceases to be fun. I'll get off and do something else. I'll either root for another team or find other ways to fill my time. It won't be that hard. He owes me nothing other than providing a football team to follow. Beyond that, there are no guarantees. I will never protest. Protesting isn't fun. Its not how I want to spend my precious free time. If I ever feel it's not worth my time, I'll just sign off.
  12. What is the goal? To get Danny to fire Bruce? To let Danny know you hate him? With the way media works these days, I'm pretty sure Dan is aware of the fan reaction--- and it's probably a big reason he stays so far out of the spotlight now. The fans really wanted to let Danny know that Vinny had to go-- and eventually Vinny went-- and Bruce came in. At the time most fans were OK with that. Not thrilled, but it wasn't Vinny so it was acceptable. I just don't know what the fans hope to accomplish here other than making themselves feel a little bit better. If the ultimate goal is to get Danny to fire himself and sell the team.... well, that would be the only goal I would consider worth your time. But it's the one thing that I believe will never happen. So it's a waste of breath.
  13. I think Joe Gibbs is a pretty self-respecting guy. Spurrier was the hottest name in the business at the time and could have picked his NFL job. Marty was a pretty well-respected NFL guy. Shanny brought two rings and was another guy that could have named his destination at the time. Then you go through the list of players--- I like how we talk about what a stand up guy/warrior Garcon was--- but he took the FA offer as well--- and this was LONG after dysfunction first reared it's head. DJax took it. Josh Norman took it. Even Kirk. He's taking the money too. You could argue that if he REALLY wanted to take a stand, he'd just hold out and refuse to sign the tender. But he's not going to walk away from a 23mil payday. Right now, people might stay away because how toxic it seems at this very moment-- maybe a little like the Zorn search. Maybe that will further screw us for a year, maybe two. But eventually someone else will come along and take the cash and the opportunity. Rinse and repeat. I also consider Gruden to be a respectable guy and he just signed on for more of this as well.
  14. Here's the deal....let's say you have 80,000 people attending that game. There is a good chance that 70,000 or more of them DO NOT CARE. They are either casual Redskins fans who root for the team, like the team, want the team to win, but aren't hardcore die-hards like ES posters. Then maybe you have 10,000 that are just all of us here. Of those 10,000 most of them likely work hard for a living and football is an escape. Even bad football. They look forward to Sundays and all the things that go along with game day. Especially come week one when there is hope--- even false hope, people don't want to go out of their way to make a point, buy tickets, simply to then leave the game and go home. Sure if 70,000 people did that it would make an impact and be a major news story. But people just don't care enough. I'm a die-hard and I would NEVER ruin my own good time on something like that. I am fully aware that the organization stinks-- no one is fooling me. I have simply chosen to continue to root for them and enjoy the experience as much as possible. And honestly, for the most part, I enjoy the seasons. Then if it's a really bad year like say 2009 or 2013, I just ignore them later in the year. When it's all said and done, you'd be lucky to get more than 100 people to do something like that. And 100 in a sea of 80,000+ is nothing.
  15. They all chase the money man. It's the Grand mistake we make as fans. We live and breathe Redskins. We ingest every bit of info and dissect every morsel. When we fail or feel like the organization is committing suicide we flip out with emotional reactions. But people on the outside? They don't care. People say "why would a self respecting FA come here?" Well, a guy like Terrelle Pryor probably has spent ZERO time in his life dissecting the Redskins. He couldn't care less about the Redskins. He has zero emotional ties. He hasn't read every tweet and post about their dysfunction. He probably gets on the private jet, eats a steak dinner, and gets the red carpet treatment. He probably likes the people wooing him. He wants to play and he wants a payday. D.C. is a nice area to live if you are young and rich. They make him a big offer. Looks good to him. Same concept for coaches and FO people as well. All of these guys want cash and all have egos-- they likely believe they are good enough to turn it around. They don't come in with the history of angst the fans have. If you polled current FAs I bet less than 5% have any clue who Vinny Cerrato is. Heck, most of them might not know who Bruce Allen is before they sit across from him at Morton's. As long as we keep writing checked and offer guys a chance to work in a major market, they will keep coming.