TD_washingtonredskins

On 7/22/2023 at 8:07 PM, SkinsFTW said:

 

Aside from the fact that Allen was garbage in Tampa and was a puppet for Al Davis. 

That's fair, and I'd agree that any good owner would have known. But given Snyder's limitations, the fact that he usually hired people he was familiar with and/or had some tie back to the organization, and the fact that Allen had won some Executive of the Year Award previously all probably made Bruce about as safe to him as possible. I wasn't meaning to give him a full compliment...just more of checkmark in the column of "he was trying to do things properly" even if the ceiling would have still been relatively low. 

The 2000 team is a good one...as you alluded to, the spending spree actually worked. The investment in defense improved a shaky unit and turned it into a strength. It was offensive injuries and inconsistent kicking that kept that team from winning 11 or 12 games that year. 

The brief moment in 2001 when he attempted to let Marty turn this organization into a well-run outfit, until he got bored and pouted a couple weeks later. 

Gibbs II was also a nice time period, but it was tempered a bit by having no real GM and some truly awful personnel decisions. 

I'd also throw in the attempt to build the right way with Shanahan and Allen. He didn't choose the right guy for his GM, but I'm not sure he could have known how bad Allen would be (and maybe he didn't intend to meddle when he built it). 

While I was still a Snyder apologist, I pointed out from time to time that he would occasionally let players and employees use Redskin One for personal emergencies or other situations. I don't remember every circumstance, but I do recall that many of them seemed genuinely kind. 

5 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

He was the best starter on the staff.  In some people's eyes, I think that made him an ace...our ace.  But not an ace in the Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer, Grienke mold.

 

 

Oh, got it. I always overreact to that term, but I see what you guys meant. 

17 minutes ago, TheDoyler23 said:

 

I'm looking forward to him pitching well tonight. 

 

I know there is no Ace on this staff with Means out, but Bradish and Wells are pitching well and Kremer has been solid (ERA not helped by having a handful of dreadful starts). Gibson had scuffled a bit but we'll see. 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to nitpick, but was Means ever an ace himself? 

1 hour ago, Destino said:

I one could argue they all pro sports in general makes entirely too much money, but to say players make too much is absurd. They make a percentage, usually around half for American pro sports. How can getting half of the income you generate ever be argued too much?  Nonsense.

 

that said, QBs are over paid. lol

I agree that every player or actor should do whatever he or she can to make as much as possible. They have such a limited amount of time (players, at least) to make their millions. That said, I don't blame the people who put up all the money (owners/studios/whatever) for defending their investment either. That's how these things are supposed to work. The market generally dictates who makes the money. 

If every NFL player decided to walk away from the league tomorrow and the owners were left with just the shells of their teams, there would be a few rocky years but eventually fans would continue supporting the teams/logos they are used to. In many ways, the NFL more than most leagues, has always been the most faceless of all professional sports. 

Hollywood will have it a little tougher...it's much more difficult to make a great blockbuster movie without a star that people love. I'm sure it's possible, but you usually need a headliner. 

10 minutes ago, Corcaigh said:

My own kids were happy there was some selection process for the Virginia colleges they attended that was not only SAT score. Otherwise the College of William & Mary and the University of Virginia could be renamed Loudoun and Fairfax University.

 

Is this no longer going to happen? 

7 minutes ago, Destino said:

I’m not at happy with this decision but hopefully schools begin to focus on increasing admission of students born poor and living in poor areas as a work around. We talk a lot about systemic bias, but I’ve yet to see any systemic bias as obvious and intentional as poverty. Our justice system is designed to favor those that can afford lawyers. Our medical system is designed to benefit those that can afford insurance. Our public schools lack funding in poor areas. We judge people by what they drive and how they dress. Even failing to have a bright white set of perfect teeth is held against people.
 

Every single aspect of American life is structured so that being poor incurs a steep intentional and open penalty. They don’t even bother with dog whistles on this, they’ll go on tv and proudly proclaim that hunger is a great motivator.  ****s, every one of them.

I was with you for a while, but how are you ever going to fix this? People are human beings and you are basically now pointing out that humans are likely to be biased toward more attractive people or things. What would you put into place to prevent an stained-toothed person from being discriminated against? And yes, I know it's your way of pointing out that someone with white teeth is more likely to have had the means of having their teeth corrected, but again, how do you control human bias? 

2 hours ago, dfitzo53 said:

At that depth being able to open the sub would've made no difference. 

But it would have made a difference if they drifted a long way off course and then popped back up to the surface...only to be trapped in their vessel and unable to get out while they ran out of oxygen. 

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

The fascination with it is that it’s a graveyard. 
 

not trying to downplay it just calling it what it is. Someone spent 250k to go down there to take pictures of it. Their submersible probably lost power and is floating around aimlessly. And they knew the risks. So. 🤷‍♂️ 

I guess you can't get into each and every person's head, so you could be right. I always assumed the fascination with Titanic was the story of the "unsinkable ship" that sank and the tragedy of it all. Of course, the death of those people plays into it. But I don't think people were or are interested in recovering the shipwreck or exploring the wreckage to see dead bodies or what remains of the people who were killed. It's the historic significance of the event and what's left of the ship. At least that's always been my thought. 

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Someone else can do the math but that is a lot of volume.  

 

I've carried all the ones...my final answer is a ****-ton. 

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

Drifted vertically?  

Oh I see what you mean...well, if it drifted, say 5 miles west, it could be at a completely different depth. I don't know how these things work and if it would just plummet to the bottom of the ocean or if it would go down at an angle and end up far away from where it was attempting to go. 

12 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not to be crass, but do you really?  This thing is at the exact same depth as the Titanic. 

I'd expect that they could have drifted anywhere by now (or by the time they are recovered or found). 

Just now, tshile said:

I’m not giddy but I also don’t give a single **** about it. 
 

If you want to go to the bottom of the ocean to take pictures of a graveyard fine but you’re well aware of what the dangers and possibilities are. 

 

That wasn't directed at you...some of the Twitter comments are horrific. I understand that people took and understood the risks, but they are still human beings. And the Titanic isn't just a graveyard. It's probably the most famous shipwreck in history (at least modern history), so it's more of a historical site than how you're describing it. People have been fascinated with it for a century. 

I find it disturbing how many comments on Twitter are almost demonstrating giddiness about 4-5 people either already dead or probably frantically aware that they are hours away from dying somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. Seemingly simply because they are rich. Pretty disgusting. 

20 minutes ago, TheDoyler23 said:

Their starter was ready to quit in that 3rd inning, which only ended on a bad strike call (as did the end of the game. Ump was bad).  
 

But that’s now 4-0 against the Jays this year.  Toronto has not been good in the division. It’s possible that they’ll have some kind of gut check turnaround but hopefully we can smack them around for a couple more before that. 
 

 

After so many years of the Blue Jays pounding the O's, it would be nice to have a season where we drop a few elbows on them. I like the start, but there are plenty of games left. 

4 hours ago, ixcuincle said:

putting some dough down on baltimore to win tonight against Toronno

 

BALTIMORE ORIOLES

+105

MLB Money Line

Toronto Blue Jays at Baltimore Orioles
Jun 13 | 7:05pm

 

Odds:+105

Cash Wager:$0.10

Pays:$0.21

Take it easy...I thought they always said to only bet with money you are willing to lose. 

@tshile @dfitzo53 @Destino you all make good points. And, again, I can't express how much I appreciate how polite you are being in this discussion. I guess why I almost prefer that kids talk about this "amongst themselves" for now is because I don't think there's any non-politicized consensus on anything out there coming from adults. It almost seems like a few kids chatting about what they feel and have seen could be a little more useful as an introduction than what some adults decided over the summer should become part of the curriculum.

Playground talk will prompt enough discussion with parents to get the ball rolling. And that's where I believe the ball should be rolling - at home. It just doesn't seem (to me) to be a public school curriculum item. 

3 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

OK no worries, it wasn't a gotcha question, I just wanted to know. 

 

I think teaching "social things" in school is vital and unavoidable, but I understand where you're coming from. 

When you say vital, do you mean it should be a focus or should happen indirectly? 

31 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

That doesn't answer my question at all. You're the one who posted an article about fifth graders learning about gender identity in the context of "this is what's currently happening."

 

I'm just asking whether you're comfortable with that or not, as a way of learning more about your feelings on the issue. 

Right, again...I posted it as an example of gender identity being taught to elementary school children when someone directly challenged that happening. I personally don't think it's necessary to do that in school, but I'm not really losing sleep over it. I'm not overly adamant about it, but I lean toward none of these social things being hit too hard in schools. I prefer they focus on the 3 R's. 

1 minute ago, Conn said:

The problem is that it feels like nobody cares to watch a documentary or read about the Snyder years, it’s part of why we’re so irrelevant. Our failures have been almost boring in their consistency, with a lack of totally bottoming out most seasons. 
 

The Snyder years as a history of comical failure only gain national interest if they can be retroactively compared against real success under Harris, to set a context for how big of a come up it is. Let’s hope for that! 

I see your point, and I think that's pretty accurate for the on-field results in any given season. Pluck out 2000 or 2006 or 2010 or 2016 and it's pretty unspectacular. But if you watched a documentary on how the sausage was made and how Snyder ran the organization to come to those results, I think it would be pretty interesting on how to fail to succeed so consistently. 

He swung the pendulum so erratically from offensive coach to defensive coach, had mismatched rosters to coaches, went aggressive in FA then pinched pennies, chose the oddest of players to make a splash with, picked the strangest of times to make a stand and alienate faces of the franchise, and selected the wrong guys to cede full control to. It really was the Reverse Midas Touch. 

I'm pretty surprised at just how much worse Snyder's team has been the all the rest. I knew it was bad, but not "essentially the entire league has done it in the past 5-6 years and you guys haven't done it since the entire paradigm changed in the early-90s" bad. 

On 6/11/2023 at 1:05 AM, dfitzo53 said:

(Haven't read the Fox article because I am absolutely not giving Fox the pleasure of disabling my ad blocker. But also, c'mon.  I don't trust them to cover this topic in good faith and neither should you if you have a shred of intellectual honesty.)

 

Just want to make sure I understand, are you actually opposed to 5th graders learning about gender identity?

 

(Never mind the fact that kids have been implicitly learning about gender identity since birth.)

That wasn't the point I was making at all. I was saying that Person A not being comfortable with the teaching of gender identity isn't the same as Person B who doesn't want even a whisper of homosexuality or anything that deviates from what they consider "the norm" even mentioned within the school walls. I'm trying to distinguish between those two types of people...because I don't believe that some do that in these discussions and painting everyone that is to the right of your stance in this debate isn't useful or constructive to getting to a resolution. 

To me, Person B is ridiculous. Person A is much closer to a reasonable opinion and, though he or she might be a bit on the conservative side, we could probably engage in a discussion with that person and find a reasonable common ground. 

On 6/8/2023 at 9:13 PM, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Is that actually happening anywhere to elementary school kids? Or is it just fear mongering? 

It seems to be happening, but I suppose it's possible that these are made up. I admittedly haven't taken hours to fact-check each example that I see in headlines.  

https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-mandates-teaching-gender-identity-elementary-school-parental-involvement

https://www.wpr.org/superior-school-board-upholds-decision-allowing-gender-identity-be-taught-fifth-graders

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

See this is where I feel like you misunderstood me.

 

And this is not about some anecdotal guy you talked to.  This is about real laws being enacted against real people.

So, the entire US population has to pause their discussion on the broader topic due to legislation happening in specific states? OK, Buzz. That seems logical and makes a lot of sense. Maybe we should all stand down on all topics until the rest of us come to a consensus on how all states are operating on all issues. 👍

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Never thought I'd say this but @Larryhas a good point here.  

 

A good debate can be had about what lines should be drawn when a kindergarten child asks how the 2 dads make babies.  But that's not what this is about.  This is about admitting that different people exist.  That's it.  Full stop.

 

The rest of the debate can be had once we acknowledge that minimum bar.  Until then, **** off.  *not you directly. 

Sure...but where I have an issue with this discussion is the assumption that any person even remotely uncomfortable with any aspect of this being taught is put into one homogenous category like you and Larry have described. That's unfair and closed-minded. I know plenty of people who are perfectly fine with everything you guys have described and much more but want to draw the line somewhere else (for example, having an actual discussion about how to handle the complicated sports issue or how to deal with exactly what should be taught in school curriculum when it comes to gender). It's not fair to instantly label them as unwilling to admit that "different people exist" when many of them are gay themselves.