kleese

Members
  • Content Count

    6,905
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

About kleese

  • Rank
    The Free Agent
  • Birthday 09/13/1977

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    edskin1
  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    Oklahoma City, OK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Has nothing to do with setting the Cowboys up for an "easy" game and everything to do with smart scheduling and making their network partners happy. The NFL has a monopoly on Thanksgiving Day viewing. They know it really doesn't matter who they put up against Dallas; eyeballs will be on the game regardless. So they almost never burn a top flight opponent for Dallas on Thanksgiving. It's generally a mid-tier team. Redskins are one of their safest bets.... not a marquee franchise or team, but of late they've been competitive and you have the tradition/rivalry aspect that even casual fans remember. I don't think you will see us on Thanksgiving in 2019 though. And by the way, the Dolphins speculation makes a little bit of sense but not like it did before the did away with their unwritten rules about Thanksgiving scheduling. For years and years the Lions would play an NFC team and the Cowboys would play an AFC team; then it would reverse the next year and so on and so on. The Lions and Cowboys of course only play two home games per year against AFC teams, so making that prediction was always pretty easy. Whoever hosted the AFC team only had one of two choices. If it still held firm in 2019 the only choice for Dallas would be Buffalo or Miami. But that changed a few years ago... NFL no longer requires an AFC team to play in one of those games although I think ideally they'd prefer that. But just last year you had Lions-Bears and Skins-Cowboys. Then the night game was Falcons-Saints, so all 6 Thanksgiving slots were held by NFC teams. I wouldn't be shocked if Miami gets the nod, but it's not as black and white as it used to be.
  2. kleese

    Take the full cap hit for Smith in 2019

    What happens if he just says “I’m done” and officially retires?
  3. kleese

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    While I hardly have confidence that it will work, for the first time they are truly publicly doubling down on themselves. They seem to be willing to roll the dice on their “team.” By that I mean it is now acknowledged that they recognize the fan anger/apathy and understand Bruce is disliked/hated. But they aren’t taking any half-measures which was my biggest fear. I was afraid they’d do something halfway to try and placate the fans and insulate themselves while really not making any change. Doesnt look like they are doing that. Not bringing in someone new (whether a FO guy or coach) that they can buy time with and then ultimately blame. They are all in on themselves. They KNOW this is going make things worse in short term yet they are moving forward anyway. In an odd way, for the first time I kind of respect it. Oh, I don’t think it’s going to work at all, but at least there is transparency now even if they’ve gotten there by accident. I am actually mildly relieved. Because I think this will get us out of purgatory. It either miraculously works and injuries etc really were holding them back and the team surprises next year or it completely blows up and Dan will essentially have no choice but to clean house— in that case the house may even clean itself. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not happy about this in any way. But I’m also not deveststed. I thought they were going to find whatever solution kicked the cab down the road the farthest. They didn’t do that. I’m surprised. And a tad intrigued. It might be in the way your drunk Uncle intrigues you at the family reunion, but it should at least be funny.
  4. NFL is a buttoned-down league; they aren't going to want to go out of their way to promote one of the trainwrecks of the league. The Giants can't say no this year so that is my best guess as to which team gets it this year.
  5. I’ll be shocked if we get two SNF games. I can’t poasibly see why Skins @ Vikings would be appealing enough for SNF. Also out out of curiosity I’m trying to remember 4:05 starts at FedEx since they started doing the later/staggered starts. Have we had one? I wanna say Cleveland in 2008 maybe? @HouseBowlrz might know.
  6. Well, been hanging around the last week or so waiting for some sort of news, but looks like nothing significant going down so it's about time to going into Redskins decompression mode and check back in for real in August. But before that, wanted to start the annual schedule thread-- by far my favorite (only really) off-season topic. I'll post any rumors or leaks that pop up along the way and throw out some predictions too. As of today, we know our opponents and where we play them: Home: Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Patriots, Jets, 49ers, Lions, Bears Away: Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Bills, Dolphins, Panthers, Packers, Vikings Some notes: --Next year is the 100 Year Anniversary of the league and rumors are circulating that it could create some twists in the schedule including potentially NOT having the SB winner host the opening Thursday game. It is possible there could be a "special" game in that Thursday slot and the SB champ host SNF in Week 1 or some sort of other juggling of that type. Unlikely this will affect the Redskins much as I wouldn't expect them to be featured week one. It is possible that if the Eagles or Cowboys win the SB (especially the Cowboys) that the Redskins could be their week one opponent in prime time. That wouldn't be a shock. 6 of their 8 road games are against teams that missed the playoffs though so Eagles or Boys would be their only option in that case. --If you cringe at the FedEx fan invasions, you might want to stay away next year. I think the home schedule sets up for a particularly large influx of opposing fans next year. We know what happens in the division games already and it's been awhile since the Bears were in town-- and they are good now. That fan base will roll out. Patriots and Jets fans are also likely to take over as it's just a once in every 8 year trip for them and it's not a far trip for fans with lots of people from NYC and Boston in DC already. I'm not sure about the Niners and how their fans travel; I know they have a large base of fans, but they've also been subdued for awhile so that one might depend on how they are doing and when that game is played. The Lions game is the only one I look at now where I wouldn't anticipate a huge over-taking. For that one, it will probably just be empty. If you get frustrated by opposing fans at FedEx I think it will be a particularly rough year for you next year. I anticipate attendance and fan takeover to be worse next year than even this year regardless of what we do in the off-season. --If you like to travel to games on the road, I think there are some interesting options. For me personally, I have family history in Buffalo and spent a lot of time there as a kid. No one is really left there and I've never been to a Bills game, but that is something I'd personally like to do and it will be on my list. I've also never been to a game in Miami and that is appealing as well. If you've never been to Lambeau it's a must-- I went in 2007 and it was incredible. I'd love to go back someday but will probably try to hit other places first. I'd also like to cross Minnesota off the list. And of course for many of you, the trip to Carolina is an easy one. I think it's an appealing road schedule and I'd expect Redskin fan turnout to be strong in many of those locations. --As far as National TV placement I'd expect something fairly typical for us. We won't be a "hot" featured team by any means, but we won't play exclusively at 1:00 Sunday either. The NFCE is such a safe bet for the league... Redskins/Cowboys on Thanksgiving was the highest rated game of the entire NFL season. Our game with Dallas on CBS also did really well-- and even our games against people other than Dallas typically at least generate respectable numbers. In other words, the league knows if they put the Redskins on with an attractive opponent that it is a pretty safe placement for them-- much more so say than Titans-Colts, even if that is actually a better game. I also think we'd see a hedge to putting those games earlier in the season. --I would not anticipate a Thanksgiving game this year. There isn't a rule against playing at Dallas or at Detroit in back to back years per se, but to my knowledge I don't think it's happened before-- and it certainly isn't common if it has. I'd also consider it a major long shot that we'd play Thanksgiving Night again. I know a lot of teams ask to NOT host that night so I guess if the Skins are willing it is possible, but I just can't see us being featured in that spot again. I am like 95% certain we will not play on Turkey Day in 2019. --That means we are in line for a "normal" Thursday game. Haven't had one early in the season since we played at the Giants in 2015. I do think the Giants are good possibility for our Thursday game-- especially in the first half of the season. That is likely going to be my prediction for our Thursday game next year. --We didn't have any primetime games at FedEx in 2018, I bet that changes in 2019. I'd expect at least one home MNF game... maybe a team like the Bears. --I'll say we get two MNF games, the standard TNF game, and one featured 4:25 slot, probably against Dallas (I could also see us host NE at 4:25). in the first half of season. I think SNF is a possibility, but not probable-- and if we do land there I think it is almost for sure to be against Dallas-- maybe Philly. Majority of our games will be 1:00 Sunday... Jets, Lions, Packers, Vikings, etc.. all seem to fit that slot. I don't think our game against Vikings against Kirk will be featured on purpose-- maybe a Monday Night, but I don't think that story line is anything people really care about outside of DC. --Again, no rule on this but after two years of very early bye weeks, I'd expect us to get one middle to late next year. Teams put in requests for the schedule all the time next year, I don't think the league really cares, but that is something they might consider if the Redskins ask specifically. --The London games are already decided for next year (who is "hosting") and we won't be involved. Not sure if the league is planning a Mexico City game again next year after the field debacle this year. If so, I can't imagine we'd be the "home" team and none of our away opponents fit that bill either. --Will wait until after Super Bowl to make final predictions.
  7. kleese

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    I have no clue either of course but reading the tea leaves and using logic I actually would guess that Dan is NOT calling any shots. I think he truly and honestly gave the keys to Bruce— similar to what he did with Gibbs. I think he’s allowed Bruce to make all the decisions. I say that because most of our decisions under Bruce have run counter to the way Dan operated when he was calling more shots. Dan’s failing here of course is entrusting someone that is failing the organization and not realizing the depth of what is going on.
  8. kleese

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    See I think the current narrative is that Dan is being TOO patient... or at least too stubborn.... or at least too tone deaf. He has really struck with the entire program here... not just Bruce, but Jay, Smith, Schaffer, etc have all been on board for quite awhile now and he hasn’t made any changes despite middling/disappointing results. It is as if Dan has over-corrected. “Oh you think I’m impulsive and impatient??? Well, watch THIS!”
  9. kleese

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    I actually think Dan might be right about that. At least in the sense that I don’t think firing Bruce is gonna put butts in the seats. They could fire Bruce today, have him leave the building, promote Smith or whoever and I don’t think it would make one iota of a difference in ticket sales or crowd presence to start next year. It will placate an angry mob, but for those that have bailed on the team I seriously doubt that is enough to bring them back. It would calm social media for a few months, sure. But if we play Dallas or Philly or whoever at FedEx week 1 I’ll be expecting a half full stadium and/or a takeover regardless of whether Bruce is there or not. It would be different if the team is 8-2 playing a home game next year— then you’d see a change— again, whether Bruce is there or not. I’m not defending Bruce here. I want him gone too, but I don’t think in the short term it will have any impact on how gameday looks. Long term? Yeah hopefully it would be a step in right direction.
  10. kleese

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    I can’t think of one time in my fanhood where I invested time or money on the Redskins based on something I later learned was a lie. For example, last year I traveled to DC for the home game against Dallas. I also went to the road game against Dallas and the road game at NOLA. That’s three Redskins-based trips, one at FedEx. Air travel, hotel, yada yada yada... all to see the Redskins. They went 0-3 in those games and two of them were basically beat downs at the hands of our rival. The other was a soul crushing loss. But I did not feel cheated. Or duped. I knew when entering into those purchases that there was a strong likelihood of the ultimate outcomes and I proceeded anyway. I will almost certainly do the same next year. I enjoy following the team and rooting for them even while acknowledging how terrible they are organizationally. I won’t be buying tickets next year expecting to see a SB contender or heck, I may not even be expecting a competent team depending on what they do. So I don’t feel I can cry “they lied to me” as I walk out dejected as usual.
  11. kleese

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    Right because this is a football team. They don’t ACTUALLY have a physical or emotional power to hold me hostage the way an abuser would in a real relationship. There aren’t kids involved, etc. This is a leisure time activity and if I leave there is absolutely zero threat of retribution from the “abuser.” Heck, they won’t even know I’m gone. There is no abuse between the Redskins, Snyder, and the fans. I’ve never been “lied to.” The product is the product. It’s plain as day to see. If you are somehow “fooled” by it then it’s shame on you as a consumer. I know exactly what I’m getting when I choose to buy a Skins jersey and sit down on Sunday to watch them. I’ve necer been tricked t felt duped. The only thing I will concede would be the waiting list and any lies that may have been told in direct relation to ticket sales. That fits the narrative a little but doesn’t change my overall stance on this. It’s a bad product. Has been for a long time. For someo reason I still enjoy consuming it. S I keep doing it. I feel I’m getting my money’s worth. I know they suck at it all around. I’m not fooled.
  12. kleese

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    Touche’. He really did hurt me personally.
  13. kleese

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    I'll say this, if they DO add a legitimate football guy and Bruce is still on board, then said legitimate football guy will have no one to blame but himself if it doesn't work out. He won't be able to claim he was "duped" or misled. He'd have to know what he was getting into-- and if he didn't, he probably isn't as "legitimate" as we'd think.
  14. kleese

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    This is exactly how I feel. I don't hate Dan though. I have no venom towards him. I don't know him. At all. I save any venom I have in life for people who have earned it from me personally. I don't REALLY know if he's a good guy, bad guy, in-between guy, evil guy, etc.. Where there is smoke there is fire, so I'd say he probably leans to the "bad" side, but again, I don't know. What I DO know is that he isn't good at this. That is clear. I think he started off as way too hands on, then went hands more off, but still wanted to be pals with players, and now has basically gone into hiding and isn't much of a presence at all.... in the end they've all led to failures in different ways. I think he's tried, I really do. I also think he is incredibly insecure and uncomfortable in front of fans/media. I do believe he wants to win-- and I don't think it's all about the bottom line for him. I think if you told him right now the Redskins would win the next Three SB's but he'd lose money each year, it's a trade he'd gladly take. Gladly. But I don't think he has ANY management or leadership skills. He also appears to be terrible at judging people and knowing how to manage their roles In other words, he is just a really, really bad sports owner-- even if his intentions aren't necessarily evil or self-serving. But yes, like you said, anyone can get lucky. I think we need to get lucky on one of three fronts: GM, Head Coach, or QB. We need at least ONE of those guys to come along and be special-- a Hall of Fame type of guy. We probably won't identify them on purpose-- more just luck and chance. I do think if you get a guy like that in place that is basically a no-doubter that Dan would be smart enough not to mess it up-- at least for awhile.
  15. kleese

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    I'll take it a step further and more or less admit, that no, I don't care about the off-field stuff. I really don't. Yes, there could be extreme examples where I'd draw a line... I wouldn't want Jerry Sandusky on my staff or Aaron Hernandez or Rae Carruth on my team. Of course, there are certain heinous off-field acts where i would't want someone on my team regardless of what they could do on the sidelines/field. But in 95% of these cases, I really don't care. Can they play? Will they disrupt team chemistry? Those are really the only questions that matter to me. Now, someone might turn around and say, "Oh you don't care about domestic violence??" And that's a very dramatic response. Yes, personally I care, but I am not choosing a life partner or best friend here-- this is just a football team I follow. I don't know ANY of these dudes, so I'll just keep it arms length and let the authorities or whatever higher being you do or don't believe in let sort it all out. For me, I just don't like moving the moral goal posts-- it's a slippery slope. Sure, if you come from a home that experienced domestic violence, it's probably a real personal issue for you. I understand that. But that might be a big issue for you whereas drug abuse isn't. But what if someone else lost a loved one to drug violence or an overdose? What if they don't want a guy who has ever had a DUI or marijuana charge? You may say "well, that's not as bad as X, Y, Z..." but now you are projecting your own moral compass to others. I would absolutely investigate signing Kareem Hunt this off-season. I'm not saying I wouldn't do it without some investigation. I'd dig a little and see if there are other skeletons in closet or if there is any sort of pattern. The dude is a very explosive player and he's young. He can help almost any team. And because of this incident his price tag has been drastically reduced compared to if he was just a FA without any baggage. Now, for the Redskins in particular knowing how they mismanage basically every situation, I understand fans wanted them to tread more lightly, but in general, I want football players that can play. And if their off-field mistakes create an opportunity for us to sign them when otherwise we wouldn't get the chance, well I say that sounds like a pretty good deal.