OVCChairman

28 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

“probably a luxury pick”? 
 

It would be unforgivably stupid and self-destructive. 

I actually don't agree.  With the way offenses are going, have 3 RBs that can play in basically every position on the field is a weapon.  My preference would be O-line, but if we find a way to win this division, we're picking no earlier than 16.  At that point, the best tackles are gone, and if I had to chose between Etienne and Josh Myers... i'm probably taking Etienne.  It could also depend on how the QBs come off the board, but Etienne is on a whole other level.   There is a big gap between Chase and Waddle, and I don't think Pitts goes that high.  If Wilson is there, I can see us taking him, but the way he's going up the draft board...  If Creed Humphrey is there, he's another option, but again... there is no guarantee, plus I don't think the Saadiq Charles at LG experiment is over.  

I could see a path where Etienne is there at 16 and is also the consensus top player left on the board.... hard to turn down that kind of talent in the midst of a rebuild with an offense that is limited on playmakers. 

1 minute ago, Chris 44 said:

Maybe its because I'm getting old and a little sentimental, but Kerrigan is this teams all time sack leader and a proven leader. I hold on to him, not worth trading him for a 3rd or 4th rounder in my eyes. 

I also think he's got a few more years of effective play given his new role... 

31 minutes ago, Silvernon said:

I think you're spot on. 

 

I do see him as Kamara-lite from a receiving standpoint in a year or two. 

No that would be when we draft Ettienne in the middle of the first round

18 minutes ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

If you give the kid touches he is going to produce. That much is very clear. Still think he’s totally underutilized. He should have 17-20 rushes and at least 3-5 targets each game imo. 

I think Rivera is still focused on his development, and winning is happening.  We have hardly used Gibson in the pass game, and I think that's because River wants him focused on developing as a runner.  He's not really pushing his pass catching, because he want's to get him to certain point as a runner before he expands that part of the playbook.  Just like a pitcher in the preseason who want's to get better at throwing a slider... you know he's got heat, you want him to keep getting those reps and developing his secondary pitches.  

Your score is: 40504 (GRADE: A)

Your Picks:
Round 1 Pick 14: Alex Leatherwood, OT/OG, Alabama (A-)
Round 2 Pick 14: Kyle Pitts, TE, Florida (A)
Round 3 Pick 14: AmonRa St Brown, WR, USC (A+)
Round 3 Pick 18: Ben Cleveland, C/OG, Georgia (A+)
Round 4 Pick 14: Derion Kendrick, CB, Clemson (A+)
Round 5 Pick 14: Chatarius Atwell, WR, Louisville (A+)
Round 6 Pick 14: JaTarvious Whitlow, RB, Auburn (A+)
Round 7 Pick 14: Isaiah Epps, WR, Kentucky (A+)

Admit this is my first time, and apparently I have a lot of research to do, but feel ok with myself picking 14 overall (actually think we'll be top 10 but for the sake of the game.... )

5 minutes ago, -JB- said:

Had a nice tackle behind the line of scrimmage Sunday.  Let’s hope he’s a diamond in the rough!  Oooooooweeeeee!

On 9/15/2020 at 9:46 PM, GothSkinsFan said:

What's the rule on defenders running out of bounds and then coming back in to make the tackle?  That was #21.  Moses did not push him out.  He stepped out when he spun away from Moses.  Not that it affected the play, but it could have.

It doesn't matter.  He just can't be the first one to touch the ball unless he re-establishes himself back into the field of play.  He also cannot run out of bounds and continue down field without making a clear effort to re-establish himself in the field (meaning he can't run down the sideline weaving in and out of the bench players) to prevent a blocker from being able to block him, which is where the kick game comes into play like @Burgoldstated.  

At least that's how I understood it.  

Just now, Burgundy Yoda said:

I've never seen an owner get public PR heat like this. Dan deserves every bit of it, an ESPN special to go along with this? I'm going to have my popcorn ready, God bless these women. 

 

I don't see how this is aired without the NFL getting a heads up about it. Seems like they may actually want Dan to go away but would rather him do it on his own accord. Am I looking too far into this to speculate that?

Nope.  I think the NFL are pulling the strings behind all of this.  Too many things have happened without their involvement

Goodell has always come out and defended the name but this time it's crickets.  Nike pulled apparel off the shelves.. they're the official merchandise of the league.  No chance that happens without the NFL getting a heads up.  The ESPN thing is just another sign that the NFL is perfectly fine with it all. 

18 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I wonder if he'd get to the point where none of this is fun anymore. You can be the biggest narcissist in the world, but decades of being hated, losing, and being investigated would catch up with anybody wouldn't it? He could pocket $2B in profit and sail off on his yacht. 

 

It would be different if he was getting something out of this. Let's say he was hated but the team was good...I could see how that would still be fun. Or, let's say the team sucked but he was beloved...I could see how that would still be fun. But he's hated and very bad at what he does. Why stick around when you aren't financially tied to it? 

12 minutes ago, dyst said:

He surrounds himself with yes-men and probably other rich douches where they all stroke each others egos in a big circle-jerk. He sticks around because being an NFL owner gives him clout, to stroke his ego even more.

I think this is actually where it's heading... and I think that is the ultimate goal of the people pulling these strings ... ahem... NFL... is to get it to the point were Dan is standing alone in a room trying to pay for a team that he can't afford out of pocket.  

6 hours ago, Florgon79 said:

 

 

Just because he can fund his own stadium doesn't mean he would. These Billionaires didn't get to where they are without taking tax payer funded handouts while paying little to nothing in taxes.

 

Also I don't see Snyder as part of the Good Ole Boy network. He's some sort of in between generation of slightly successful dot com bubble billionaires who bought his way in, demanded the other owners in the league treat him like a good ole boy but has never fit in. It's why owners like the Maras try to actively sabotage this team.

True, but if the NFL could guarantee a Super Bowl within 5 years of the stadium opening, the profit would likely outweigh the cost.  Add the potential world cup games and concerts.... it would be easy for him to value ownership if DC was to push back.  He may not pay out of pocket, but Amazon Field could easily be a thing.   That alone could cause the NFL to get excited.  

He may not be totally liked, but hes a member of the club.  He seems to have Jones' ear and likely follows suit when Jones speaks.  Hes easy to 'control.'  

15 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

If Bezos really wants in, I guess we're just walking a line of Dan goes too far (which we absolutely have) and of how much the league can get from Bezos.

Bezos is a win - win - win for the league. 

1. He's not Dan Snyder

2. He can fund a stadium on his own

3. He already has a pretty new sponsor to go on that pretty new stadium

The only question is that I don't think Bezos will be an easy pushover that I believe Dan is when it comes to ownership voting.  Snyder, while he's a pain in the butt, is a member of that good ol' boy group.... Bezos has the power, and likely the attitude, to possibly buck that trend a bit.  

13 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I do think there is a shot Dan gets removed but I also think the other owners aren't going to just do it on their own without more push.  I think there needs to be more layers -- another story, some boycott type of thing, etc.  I do think there is a change that those things though do ultimately happen.

 

Negative PR can often snowball.  And I think the snowball is likely to get bigger.  Will see.  But I do think the lawsuits accompanied with the outcry that Dan should be removed helps.  I think its going to need to be other things heaped in the pile where the fellow owners just don't want bad blood-publicity.

 

As for the last story, I think there is enough to remove Dan if they find that he asked for that video tape be made for him.  If they find the smoking gun on that front, I think he's gone.   If not, I think more things have to keep being added to the pile.   Hobson played it coy on the radio  this week when asked if more is to come.  I don't think he can flat out say yes there is because then that becomes the story which is that another story is coming.  C. Russell has said he knows there is more.

 

I think another story with another Dan angle in the mix might add up to being too much for the NFL to ignore.

Oh absolutely.  If I had to bet, I'm taking Bezos owning the team by Jan 1.  

This is calculated.  Look at the things that have been going on for months now.  

Forced name change - No chance Snyder sells the 'Redskins.'  A lot easier to convince him to sell Washington Football Team. 

Minority owners want OUT. 

Nike pulls gear.  NO chance the NFL sits back and lets that happen without signing off on it.  That's revenue in a season that a lot of revenue is already lost, right after the Redskins draft a player who, for the first time in A LONG time, could actually sell the most jerseys for a rookie in Chase Young.  

MAJOR reports about a 'damning' story coming out of Ashburn goes on for A WEEK without the content actually getting out (when was the last time that happened?)

Then the first story drops about the harassment shortly after multiple top level execs are relieved of their positions.   This story suggesting the cultural issues but does not directly link Snyder to any specific actions. 

Snyder hires an 'independent investigator' to look into the allegations 

Julie Donaldson and Jason Wright are hired, while both are seemingly deserving there is a large level of cynicism if this is Dan just trying to get ahead of it all.  Regardless, they appear to be positive hires and both are part of a larger cultural change.

The 2nd story now drops on Wed 8/26.  A day that NO PRACTICE WAS SCHEDULED.  All beat reporters and journalists now have an entire platform without practice reporting to get in the way.  This story directly link Snyder to the behavior. 

Goodell comes out with a statement and a line that reads : "An independent investigation into these issues is in process, led by highly experienced council RECOMMENDED BY OUR OFFICE"

There is a lot more to this.  We've only seen a couple of shots being fired.  There are likely more and more stories going to drop as this develops and Snyder OUT as owner is likely the end game.  

2 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

The money the Redskins pull in isn't a problem for the other owners, but I'm guessing the way the team is run isn't maximizing what it could pull in. I remember the team being in the top-5 on Forbes even for some time after Snyder took over. The slow descent is something I think a better owner could stop or even reverse. 

I agree with all of that.... 

But if the team is making money, the other owners are less likely to want to stir the pot.... the old 'if it aint broke, dont fix it' montra.  Until money is truly 'lost' i dont see them doing anything, which is why i said the next movement is going to have to get the sponsors involved... which directly effects the revenue.. that will get the other owners attention. 

1 minute ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

#1. He owns his stadium. 

#2. Yes, this franchise still contributes more than a lot of teams in smaller markets.

#3. They used to be a larger contributor by % when more people went to games and bought swag

#4. It's the market. It's why the MASN thing with the Nats is insane. What they get is less than what the Rays in Tampa get for TV money. Pro teams with rights agreements in bigger markets bring in more. They also have more potential. 

 

A team in Washington making the playoffs most years is best for the wallets owners from Dallas to Jacksonville. A team in Washington doing that with an African-American owner, a whole new wave of sponsors, a new stadium in the city, etc etc. That would be more than anything Snyder will ever be able to do now that his rep is set.

Not arguing any of it... Just don't think that stuff alone is viewed enough as a financial gain that would push the other owners to oust him.... yet.  The team is making 'good' money right now, with a guy who likely goes with the likes of Jerry Jones when it comes to league decisions.  It's also, as I pointed out, a soft spot on the schedule for a lot of the big money market teams.  If Bezos was able to buy the team RIGHT NOW, he could presumably make the NFL even more money because he could fund the new stadium and give it a big shiny new sponsorship.  He also likely thinks for himself which could give the other owner pause.  If Snyder had to sell elsewhere to someone who would need to finance the stadium deal, have a question regarding sponsorship, and possibly bring that revenue down because cost of doing business goes up... it may not be worth it to them. 

8 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

Franchise value doesn't pay into profit sharing. Selling tickets, Jerseys, Stadium Sponsorships. They are losing money as far as a % of the pot. They need this team to be a top earner. Not the Bills or Bengals. 

 

https://bit.ly/3b3Fg4J - How The NFL Makes Money

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/#header:revenue_sortreverse:true

Everything i've seen shows us as being top 10 in Revenue which is what's actually shared, at $493 million.  We are still contributing money to the NFL despite being terrible.  Where the money actually comes from... ?  

3 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

We have no idea how most of the owners view the situation. They could see Dan as somebody who stays in check with their league-wide votes and a new owner as a wildcard.

 

The NFL could think "This franchise run well is more money for all of us. This franchise run well with an owner who is a minority in the United States would be huge for our image and a new stadium in the Nation's Capital". I don't imagine they really care about social change. They want sponsors and money and media love. Snyder does none of that for them. 

If I'm the owners of the other teams... Snyder is my favorite.  His franchise went from $800 million to $3+ billion while it hasn't won squat.  Not only is it making money, but it's more often than not a soft spot on my teams schedule.  

I BELIEVE their tune will change once sponsorship money comes under fire.  If these parties start rallying to the big name sponsors for supporting the team, then the owners tune may change... which I think inevitably happens. 

2 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

 

 

I agree, if Dan continues to be Dan it's going to be odd watching the team react to everything as if it has multiple personalities so at some point Dan has to zip it , I think its Dans last stand, he has one more chance with the fans, the NFL, and the sponsors to make good or my gut says the league starts to turn on him.

 

Either way I think it either works or its the beginning of the end for Dan.

 

The lawyer was on the radio this morning saying as many as 'a dozen' more people have come to her wanting to tell their stories.  This is all calculated.  It is no accident that this story dropped on a day where no practice was scheduled, so EVERYTHING that was reported about team came back to this story.  It's also no accident that this is all going down when the team finally changed its name and fan support is on its thinnest ice.  There are some powerful things or people at work here, and it's a calculated movement with likely the ONLY outcome being Snyder no longer owning the team.   There are likely more and more pieces of evidence that will continue to flow out as the previous story seemingly dies down until the ultimate goal is reached.  

1 hour ago, Panninho said:

I think their D-line is underrated. McCoy's injury didn't help but Dontari Poe, Tyrone Crawford and Neville Gallimore are solid DTs and Everson Griffen and Demarcus Lawrence are really strong DEs. They also have the wildcard Aldon Smith where early reports are that he is doing surprisingly good - who knows how accurate they are but they got a very solid line even without him. They are for sure better than our O-line as of now.

I hate to say it but I have to agree with you.  Their strength on defense is their front 7 if they can stay healthy.  The good news is that their secondary is a giant question mark.  Diggs looks to be a stud, but he's still a rookie with no offseason.  They are going to have get beat on 1st and 2nd down.  3rd and long all game could be a nightmare. 

1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

In this day and age, every piece of disparaging reporting about someone/something one likes is considered 'fake news'.  

 

When my new golf shoes show up at the door and my wife says "this looks like a shoe box", I'm just going to say "fake news" and see how that works.  I'm afraid this only works for billionaires though.

what if you take your shoes out and fill it with pencils... is it then a pencil box, or does it retain it's original purpose? 

1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

Yeah, but that's not what happened.

 

The videotaping was well known in advance by everyone--it's a "behind the scenes" type of release of a photo shoot (again, that pretty much every team releases) and was out in the open. It wasn't done secretly nor was it on any of the women's property. When they made the "Executive Meeting" video, it was made by cobbling together segments of that behind the scenes video that would normally be edited or cut out. Also, what they apparently did was zoom in on body parts that were in the original video. That doesn't meet the criteria for voyeurism.

yeah you guys are right, it's hard.  Va doesn't really outline the same way other states do like Alaska... which this would clearly fall under.

Just now, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Where's this being read?

Just now, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Ok counselor, but the cheerleaders were consenting.  They were participating in a risque photoshoot for a calendar.  The cheerleaders knew they were being photographed and videod, that's not really up for debate.  Was there anything that they signed from the team saying that the team would terminate any material that inadvertently exposed the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast?  

 

 

I wasn't tryin to come off like a counselor i'm sorry, just trying to have a conversation. 

They would presumably be a non-consenting person if they were not aware of video regarding exposed areas of their bodies that are not intended.  They likely were consenting to photography that was outlined prior to the shoot and what would be expected.  Accidental nudity likely was not a part of that.  

I don't know.  I have to imagine that there is legal precedent to prevent someone from holding onto video of someone that exposed parts of their body that was not intended, even if it happens in the act of another 'photoshoot.'  How they link it to Snyder is hard to say, but if people come forward saying he was the one that ordered these, then there has to be some sort of intent to find out the validity of it.  The crime may have happened that you referenced. 

13 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

But he doesn't have any legit crimes under his belt.

 

Dude, I get it.  You hate Snyder, I do, too.  But that's the only thing he can be accused of right now, being a ****ty owner.  And a ****ty human.  

 

I'm sorry, but ordering that someone compiles nip slips on a dvd isn't a crime.  And asking a cheerleader to go to someone's hotel room isn't a crime.  Those are lots of things, gross, pervy, lecherous, distasteful...but not crimes.   

ACTUALLY.... voyeurism is a crime.  It is defined in different ways in different states, and this is how it's defined in VA

Voyeurism

On 8/22/2020 at 1:27 AM, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

My call today is LT-Christian LG-Martin C-Roullier RG-Sherff RT-Moses 

They aren't going to fool anyone into calling them the hogs but I think they will good enough to get the job done.

Any early injuries could change this toon real quick.

 

I've always liked Christian and thought he played fine anytime he did. I think he has upside and could pleasantly surprise many, if he earns the job. Lately, I'm more concerned with Moses and what seems like a rapid decline, hope he turns that around.

I hope you're right about the getting it done part.  I'm nervous. 

I really hope you're right about Martin.  It would be a big win if he can beat out Schweitzer and take over LG for us.  Schweitzer isn't anything special but I believe we brought him in to start unless someone in camp shows out... and Martin beating him would mean he showed out.  

17 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

Isn't that blackmail ?

hence the legal filing it referenced