TSO

He’s received some time off for it, but we’d prefer you to use the “report” function next time you see something you view in this manner. We do miss things sometimes. Yeah, I think he was quoting something, but it’s still unacceptable and we shouldn’t allow people to cross that line where their words can have an entire nation of people get offended easily. The fact that we’re even wondering what he meant by it is a good indication that he shouldn’t have posted it. Even if you’re right about your first assumption, that would be getting political in the Stadium which is also a no no. Hopefully a lesson learned for everyone. 👍

They bring in Schoen and give him the title along with the power it should have I’ll be flying high. Then people can start comparing us to the Bills, Chiefs, 49ers, etc... like they were wrongly doing before with that “Coach-centric” label. I’d be pretty pleased with Rick Smith, as well. If we can keep Kyle Smith in his role along with Schoen (or to a lesser degree Rick Smith) at GM? I think I’ll legit go full homer on everyone here. You guys forgot how obnoxious a full homer TSO is. It won’t be pretty. Of course, Dan is still around. 😬

I get why you thought this was harmless, but the disclaimer didn’t change the political undertones inherent within that statement here. We’ve already received complaints about it, as well, which pretty much verifies it as politically inflammatory and, therefore, something we’d rather avoid having in the Stadium. I know it’s a tough line to walk on this subject here so there’s no penalty or anything but I need you to edit it out, ASAP. Thanks.

There isn’t a single thing Brewer said in that article @Skinsinparadise just linked to that I even remotely disagree with. Just absolutely spot on. Some of my favorite bits:

Need you to immediately change your signature, brother. We get the sentiment and frustration but we can’t have that type of content (“kill yourself”) here. Thanks.

Although I’m absolutely convinced there’s a lot more that can come out, so much of it (not all) is tied to what reporters themselves were doing to get access and how the atmosphere in the building was ripe for that. So the concern is that, for a lot of this to come out, it would mean reporters exposing their own and all the issues tied to that for their respective jobs and companies. It sucks to think about, but that alone could be a reason nothing else comes out. Hopefully more courage is shown and the light is shown on everything regardless of who might end up with egg on their face. There’s just too much importance in not allowing someone like Dan to win on this or else the cycle will continue even if there are momentary reliefs to it. Of course! Arguably the first hire he’s made where: 1) It’s a totally qualified expert with a solid resumé, who is; 2) Placed in a fitting role within the structure of the organization, and where; 3) They will likely be able to fulfill said role relative to their respective expertise without unwarranted interference or being overburdened... Of course that’d be a killer lawyer that will shield him from any potential liability! Of. Friggin. Course. Yup, as (likely) qualified and (probably) innocent as Schaefer was, that’s the reality of working within that environment. As stated many times, the level of toxicity there eventually wears people down, no matter how good they are, and they either become exhausted and discouraged, corrupted by it, or removed forcibly in the most unceremonious of ways. But don’t worry, we’ll always have plenty of people who will miss the forest for the trees; intensely focus on the people who eventually get consumed by said toxicity (some quicker than others) and not on its purveyors; constantly tell us how they know how to separate the jobs these people do from the toxic environment they’re in (lol) and can judge it properly (loool) and how the next sucker savior will be different (even though it follows almost to a tee another iteration of the Snyder Cycletm we’ve been in from the onset)! But hey, maybe Dan has changed for real, understands his role in all this and got it down this time. You never know. Maybe Ron is the lucky one. I guess we’re gonna watch, right?

Another thread with a bunch of nuggets. Then this one alluding to the “racism“ part in “racism/sexism” we heard at first from that one tweet a few days ago:

Another deep thread from this guy, read it all if you can.

You’re not crazy, she even was featured on LL’s podcast a bunch of times if I recall correctly.

Interesting thread here: Could also explain why a lot of reporters are silent themselves as he points the finger at them, too. Pretty wild.

Not exactly what I was getting at but

Tony Wylie ducking out when he did last season seems prescient now.

Reminder to everyone that posting memes or content from twitter with profanity is a rule 6 violation and WILL lead to penalties. When sharing twitter links that include profanity or anything graphic, you can paste the link and when it embeds you will see an option on the bottom that comes up asking “would you like to display as a link instead?” Click on that and it’ll show the link as is like I did above. Give people a heads up if it’s NSFW, as well.

I’m so burnt out from this discussion, honestly. It’s exhausting explaining repeatedly why most successful franchises employ certain models and how that has contrasted, and continues to (albeit to a lesser degree than ever before, thankfully), to what Dan has done here. It’s exhausting because, let’s be honest, we’re speaking to an audience (including ourselves) that only has a genuine appetite for hope regarding the team, with only momentary lapses in that appetite, and that’s ok. We’re fans. But it means that any real or perceived obstruction of that hope, especially early on when new hires are made, is met with resistance that is more emotional than anything else, which doesn’t lend to an enjoyable atmosphere of discussion. So I’m just going to remain quiet about it (as hard as that can be sometimes with some who continue to regurgitate blatant falsehoods and/or believe the quantity of their arguments is indicative of their quality 🗣), hope for the best, and that this set up works as an exception to the general rule. Heck, maybe it changes for the better anyway, but as of now that’s not looking likely. Either way, we’ve got some good people in the building working together with solid pedigrees at their respective positions, and all I can hope for is that none are set up to fail via systemic issues; overburdened because of a lack of support or defined roles; or devalued because of a lack of understanding their importance to success emanating from the top.

@98ORAKPO98 that post is a violation of rule 10. Just a verbal warning this time and a good reminder for everyone else. Let’s refrain from copying and pasting huge amounts of text like that just as a courtesy to the posters here. It would’ve been enough to post the link and give people a taste of it so if anyone wanted to see more they could. Here’s rule 10 (see what I bolded in particular):

I’m pretty much in agreement here, but I can’t help but think about the fact that, virtually every single draft, there are QBs who are highly regarded, yet come out with enough issues that it’s almost a consensus that they won’t go 1st or 2nd or top 5 or top 10. And then, somehow, as the months go by and teams start meeting with these guys, falling in love with their potential, and the analysts/journalists start hearing things, what do you know? Suddenly, they’re consistently mocked to go in the top 2 or top 5 or top 10 at worst. Then one of those teams that fell in love and just HAS to have their guy trades up to get him. I feel like it pans out that way pretty much every time. I’ve always found that to be fascinating. It might not even be Tua. What if it’s Herbert, Love, or Fromm? As crazy as it seems now, I wouldn’t be surprised. It almost feels inevitable.

Or maybe you were/are too sensitive to recognize that there was a much deeper backdrop to the entire discussion and it was about recognizing the general process of team building and organizational structure in the NFL that leads to success more often than not? Maybe you were/are too sensitive to have recognized the Redskins DID deserve to have jabs taken at them for their approach and, in comparison to what the Browns were attempting at the time, were following a model more often leading to failure? And for someone who majors in condescension on this board and consistently rubs people the wrong way, I’d honestly step back and reflect on that before claiming it came from anyone else. I mean, for God’s sake, did we not just fire Bruce? Did we not just hire a coach who is actually quoted as saying things that directly have to do with aspects of the FO structure the Browns were being commended for trying? What the hell does “it was the Browns, people” have to do with anything? THAT. WAS. THE. POINT. There was a difference between what the Browns were previously and what they were, at least, attempting at that point. And for many of us it wasn’t about the tanking, it was about the organizational structure. If Dan is attempting to do the right thing, they structure the organization properly, and we hire qualified people and place them in the right positions in the FO, is it acceptable for others to say “it’s the Redskins, people”? Is it ok for us to recognize that and commend them while acknowledging that it isn’t guaranteed to work? Is it ok to compare that to others NOT doing it and say that it’s a problem? How utterly ridiculous would it be if we got laughed at and dismissed just because “it’s the Redskins”? And were it to fail, should we then find it acceptable to point to the solid process as the problem? Like, imagine a drug addict stuck in a cycle of triggers. He finally goes through a process that helps him avoid said triggers for the longest time he can remember. But something happens and he relapses. Should he just throw that process out the window? That’s it, didn’t work, let’s trash it! So confident and full of bravado? I’m not sure who you’re talking about here, but it’d better not be me. Go back to that post of mine from that thread that was quoted. I said the process was sound with their prioritization of quality FO hires, that it didn’t guarantee anything, and that as long as they stuck with it for 3-4 years it was unlikely to fail badly. I didn’t even say they’d be the greatest or automatic contenders. Yet, my thoughts, which were balanced and measured, were lumped in here and ridiculed? Again, maybe you were just reading into to it too much and not recognizing the underlying message, which was and still is relevant to this day? Maybe you just can’t handle anything that goes against your conflation of Redskins’ fandom with the Owner and whomever he’s had as his top exec? The Front Office hires that were being commended at the time had nothing to do with those draft picks, so why is that even brought up? Imagine someone trashing Rivera right now or what’s happening here presently by bringing up how the idiot Redskins traded up for RG3 or paid Haynesworth all that money or something. What!? I mean, talking about “Old Takes Exposed”... you really want to go down that road? I think you can forgive people for saying they assembled the most talented front office in the league when they hired Dorsey who had just come off a very successful stint with the Chiefs, as well as Eliot Wolf and Alonzo Highsmith who were renowned for their work with the Packers, and then even added Scot McCloughan in a consulting role so as to avoid any potential issues were he in an official position. Those were solid hires and they were placed in good roles fitting their expertise. Didn’t work out, and I’d argue they should stay the course (they are with Wolf and Highsmith, don’t know about Scot), but it doesn’t change the hiring process and structuring having been sound at the time. So, sure, it’s always dangerous to make hyperbolic statements, but is it really that nuts? And saying Skins fans “were talked down to”? Again, sensitive much? Zoony’s thread title was alluding to the fact that we won’t be laughing at the Browns for long with how they were going about things. We can nitpick all we want, but they have improved. And within the thread I, along with others, expanded upon it. That, knowing Haslam’s past, he could destroy it at any time. It really isn’t a black and white, victory lap type deal is it? For any perceived “side”. It was a nuanced discussion and should’ve remained as such. Which is what annoys me most about this pettiness right now. If that’s the case, how is there any logic to it when we lost double the amount of games they did this season? By that logic, why wouldn’t a Browns’ fan be perfectly in the right to be laughing at us? You can call out whatever poster you want regarding whatever, relevant, topic of discussion they’ve participated in and the content they’ve produced about it. That’s not what the call out rule is for, which has been a common misunderstanding here: The key is to not go beyond that. So there was nothing against that rule done in here. Now, rule 12? That’s another story. And it’s been happening too much, lately. In this thread and others. Especially what I bolded: Process over results. Surely someone who fashions himself as one who is supremely logical can understand this concept? Nothing is ever guaranteed, but there is a certain method the vast majority of successful franchises employ, one in which Dan never has. Are you arguing against the pedigrees of the aforementioned names? Would you be trashing them if Dan hired them? I know I wouldn’t. The Browns attempted it that way, improved considerably over their previous 1-31 clown show, but didn’t live up to hype. They’re still structuring it the right way organizationally, but I think the owner was too impatient (which is his established pattern of behavior), unfortunately for Browns’ fans. The purpose of mentioning the wins wasn’t about the Browns’ success, it was about pointing out the underlying issues with Redskin fans laughing at them or taking victory laps over their failures. By your logic, we both have sucked and we should both shut up then, which is clearly something you chose not to do initiating this silliness. No side “won” anything. But if we’re solely looking at results, the Browns actually improved their situation while we regressed in ours since then. How that translates to calling anyone out for their positions is beyond me, but then again we’re pretty damn damaged as Skins’ fans.

Hmmm... I don’t feel like dwelling on this anymore like I said, and it’s too off topic at this point, but my problem wasn’t with you not responding, it was coming in here, referring to my post while misrepresenting it, and then not tagging me in the process. You say you wanted to reply later and you know how the tag function works... but I felt slighted that was the route you chose. Look, like I said, I’m over it. I appreciate some of the gestures you’re making here, but I’m not crazy for seeing it that way, lol. Huh? I’m confused now. I’m talking about this post in this thread, which is what I quoted here and directly responded to: Are you saying now that this wasn’t referring to me and that it just happened to come the day after I had responded to you about this topic in the Allen thread? A big coinky dink? I mean, it seems like you knew what I was talking about right away here... so if that’s what you’re getting at that doesn’t make much sense. But I’m not sure where you’re going with this, lol. I think everything I said was related to whatever you said and whatever I’ve quoted from you. 🤷🏽‍♂️ You said, in the above post I linked to and what I first quoted here in this thread, that: I was the one who responded to you in the Allen thread we’re referring to. I was the one who mentioned Haslam being a maniac while attempting to refute your points. So, yes, naturally I took this as directed right at me and I still don’t see a single reason not to. I don’t see why you’re thinking I’m confusing you with another poster. Hopefully that clears it up. But, yeah, I’m fine with moving on here, too. I think it’s best to take it to PM, as well, so as to avoid it taking the thread too off topic since it’s now just becoming about us versus the Browns and a philosophical discussion. Anything not relating to the Browns/Philosophical discussion and is about this particular issue between us and the following confusion shouldn’t be discussed here anymore, that’s a Mod directive. You can, otherwise, attack my points about organizational principles and the Browns all you want.

Pointless rather than humorous? Excuse me? So you decide that based on what? Your whims? Why do you keep bringing up their prior record? The entire point was that they were trying to do it differently from what got them to those records. How are you missing this? Timing and context mean nothing to you? I can only speak for myself, but you quoted my post, so you’re NOT going to lump me in with anybody and get away with it. What I was saying, as well as many others were in that thread, was that they were trying to change their past failures and were committing to the right process by building a strong FO and prioritizing that. That has absolutely ZERO to do with their prior record, why are you acting like that’s what I was saying was good!? We specifically said, and I specifically said in the post you took out of context as well as a post I made expanding on it, that it doesn’t mean it’ll work, but that they can be commended for at least trying. The same way aspects of the process the Redskins are going through right now are commendable and some aren’t. None of it means that what is commendable is guaranteed to work and what isn’t is guaranteed to fail. But it’s about recognizing patterns. Is this really difficult to understand? “The right way” had nothing to do with Kitchens. Most of us didn’t even give our opinions on that. Either way, I don’t see what exactly about the process there that lead them to hiring Kitchens was wrong... it just ended up not working out. That’s ok. Admittedly, I didn’t study how they arrived to Kitchens over Gregg. I don’t know who they interviewed or what kind of hiring process they had. So I never commented on it and I don’t recall many doing so. You seem to just lump everyone into one category and pick and choose what you want to take from their posts based entirely on whims. That’s straight up trash discourse, man. Either way, they won twice as many games us as under Kitchens... what in the world gives us a right to laugh at them as Redskin fans!? So weird. If anything is wrong about the process, IMO, it’s how fast they’re abandoning ship. That’s what my concern was from the onset, just how impulsive Haslam is and how he can blow things up at any time. He should give them at least one more year. If it’s all Dorsey, then yes I put it on him. As for when most of us were commenting about the approach they were taking with the FO and commending them for it, since then they came from a 1-31 record over two years to 14-18-1. I mean, how is that not, at the very least, recognized as significant improvement? Why is that even laughable? I don’t recall anyone here saying they were immediately going to be a contender and win championships! Don’t you think their overall improvement since then is indicative of them doing something right? Or it’s just all to be laughed at and trashed? It’s just mind boggling to me. This has absolutely nothing to do with what was being pointed to as the “right way”. Again, what I was saying, which you misquoted, was that their prioritization of the FO and hiring people with solid resumés there was the right process. Was that false? What does that have to do with what they did afterwards? If they were willing to move on from Hue that fast, I agree, they shouldn’t have kept him. I never stated that was the right way. Why do you continue to assume positions and thrust them onto people? I’ve been nothing but consistent here, it’s extremely frustrating man, stop it. I agree, Dorsey hired Kitchens and he’s accountable if he’s saying it failed. That isn’t a good look. But, again, what does that have to do with anything? The MAIN POINT was that they were prioritizing the FO, hiring qualified people there and placing them in roles the majority of successful franchises have. Read that again. What is wrong with that? Tell me, what is wrong with that statement? And what does it have to do with what you’re saying here? To further qualify the point, I said that it doesn’t mean it’ll succeed. But that at least they’re trying. Did I say all GMs succeed? Did anyone? I didn’t comment on it after that. I didn’t give my opinion on Kitchens or Dorsey. I didn’t really look into their every move. They didn’t live up to the hype, but they also did improve... so I’m not seeing this joke here or why anyone is taking a victory lap about their failure when the Redskins ended up worse off since then! What alternate reality are we living in here!? As for blaming the owner... did you read the article I linked to? Could you tell me what you think of Haslam and how much of a lunatic he is? Honestly... do you think the environment and culture he’s created there has been conducive to success? We can commend him when he tries to do things the right way while acknowledging that he can ruin it at any time. That is perfectly reasonable considering what he’s been about his entire tenure. There is absolutely a “right way”, and the pattern has been borne out in the NFL for virtually its entire history. The VAST majority of sustainably successful franchises have really good to great Head Scouts (GM, EVP of Player Personnel, etc...) with final say over the roster. This is indisputable. The exceptions to this rule are extremely rare (Seahawks, Patriots), but even then the Seahawks still have someone qualified at that position and is considered the architect of that team by everyone around the league. With the Seahawks, John Schneider is considered the architect even though Carroll has final say. With the 49ers, for instance, John Lynch has final say over the 90 man roster, draft and FA during the offseason and Kyle has it over the 53 during the season. That’s actually what Ron had said he wanted himself before he was hired, which is why it was disappointing to see that shift during the initial presser. Hopefully that’s how it ends up, either way. You look at the teams that made the playoffs this season. Outside of the Pats and Texans (and that team is mostly a Rick Smith-built team so it’s unfair to even include them here), every one of them has a strong GM coming from a background in evaluating personnel with final say over the roster. The Vikings have Rick Spielman. The 49ers have John Lynch. The Chiefs have Brett Veach. The Titans have Jon Robinson. The Bills have Brandon Beane. The Seahawks have John Schneider. The Ravens have Eric DeCosta. The Saints have Mickey Loomis. The Eagles have Howie Roseman. The Packers have Brian Gutekunst. I mean, is it crazy to recognize this pattern? Really!? Is it nuts to look at that and want that for the Redskins, even if other models can work? Is it nuts to commend other teams who didn’t follow that model previously when they decide to do it, while recognizing that doesn’t automatically guarantee their success? Is that really humorous!? Maybe try to recognize nuance and don’t lump everyone into the same straw man you’ve created? Some were advocating for a total tank job, I get it, but you decided to throw my quote in there which had nothing to do with that so I’m not going to assume your sincerity there. That’s a bad look, man.

Forgive me if I have trouble buying this, but you had posted in that thread after I had quoted you, so it being closed came well after you saw it. Furthermore, even if I ignored the above fact and assumed you intended to get to it later but just missed the thread being closed, I know that you know there’s such a thing here as tagging. Why didn’t you tag me if you wanted to continue that conversation (you claimed “you would have”, not me, which means you wanted to)? So, again, forgive me if I find it hard to believe that you honestly thought the only other option was to send a PM. But, whatever, it’s over. I’m not going to dwell on it anymore, just felt like it was pretty low and was hoping for an acknowledgement at the very least. Isn’t this a far cry from what you posted here first with everyone taking this incredibly weird victory lap that requires misconstruing positions? You joined in like “tell me about it” and then misrepresented my position. Not cool. And I didn’t use the owner’s incompetence as the only reason. I actually only mentioned him regarding what they’re doing now in blowing it all up, which I disagree with. I told you they should stay the course for now, but that it never meant it was guaranteed to work. You can have a sound process and still fail. But pointing to Haslam isn’t unreasonable, it’s actually the likeliest issue when you read about Haslam and what he’s all about (even he himself has admitted it). But the bigger point is, here, you’re pretty much agreeing with me while, initially, you’re taking my point out of context and claiming I was an apologist for the GM. Can you at least acknowledge the difference? You’re assuming when some of us mentioned the “the right way” it was one process and that’s it. Even if some did, it’s unfair to lump us all in one category. I’ve delineated over the years, on many occasions, that there are various forms of the “right way”, but the bottom line is you want someone qualified in the GM role and in charge of player personnel. I believe pretty much everyone is in agreement there. That is indisputable. Even the extremely few teams that have coaches higher in the hierarchy than their GMs still have someone there fulfilling that role at a high level. The Redskins have had Bruce and Vinny. How are we wrong about this in any possible way? Is it not the case that the vast majority of successful franchises have a GM with personnel chops either above the coach or equally reporting along with the coach to the Owner/top exec? Again, how are we wrong about this? Since when are the exceptions supposed to be accepted as norms and why would that move us from that position? @NickyJ I’ll address your further misconstruing of positions later, a bit busy right now. I’ll just say this for now though. Did you even read any of my points? Honestly, did you take the time to understand them at all? You think it’s acceptable to take a post out of context and ignore the points within it that are directly related to the argument you’re making? That is literally the opposite of healthy discourse. Do you know how it feels when you go out of your way to introduce nuance and qualify your positions sincerely with sound ideas, only to have that totally removed by someone responding to them?

I just saw this. I’m the quote in the middle. Why didn’t you continue with what was right after it? The process was sound. It doesn’t always work (and I disagree with the Giants and Browns firing coaches so quickly, that wouldn’t be a part of the “Good process” I was referring to). Those are both statements that are perfectly reasonable and still are. Why would you ignore that? I expanded in that same thread: https://es.redskins.com/topic/419591-lets-keep-laughing-at-the-browns-while-we-can/?do=findComment&comment=11142652 Some of you guys are embarrassing in here. The Browns STILL had a better year than us, why are you misconstruing positions and taking victory laps? What is wrong with you? Why didn’t you just respond to me there instead of come here and say this? Can you understand the difference between recognizing good processes and being an apologist for someone or not? If I go about working the right way and still fail, it happens, I just try again. I would say the same for Dan and the Redskins. I even said it when Scot was hired, that it was less about Scot and more about the process/structure. Is this some difficult concept to understand? Haslam is a maniac. Like, a legitimate maniac, not just how the word normally gets applied. Thinking he absolutely has a hand in this is perfectly reasonable. Read this article about him and tell me if you think this is normal behavior: That’s just a taste of it. Seriously, read the whole article and then tell me I’m just an apologist for the GM and am targeting Haslam unfairly. Tell me it’s unreasonable to think he’s a big problem there?

Yeah, I feel like coverage of them has dwindled every year the last 4-5 years. Noticed it, too.

I can’t speak for SWFL, though I assume he meant it the same way, but I “liked” your post for this part: Not the “late on draft day” part. You’re not alone on this, btw. This is the first time in I can’t remember where I won’t be watching live because I’m vacationing with the family. We’re actually leaving Thursday. Might be able to watch some in the hotel. We’ll see.