TSO

7 hours ago, Anselmheifer said:

You're kidding. Nobody's going to comment on this? Everybody is just going to let it pass? First, It's not even funny. Second, this kind of ignorant, racist bull**** doesn't belong here, or anywhere in civilized discourse. Keep it to yourself. 

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.  

6 hours ago, Xameil said:

Well...in all fairness...he's in Thailand, and I know that Chinese people from China that travel in southeast Asia are not very popular, pretty much because of how they typically treat others...

Besides maybe where he is its not an insult...or...maybe he's just quoting a part of a Barenaked Ladies song...

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. 👍

On 12/16/2020 at 8:39 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

My top choices/hopes would be Kyle Smith or Joe Schoen.

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. 😬

8 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

....... However, I'm thinking it won't just blow over and could seriously damage Snyder in terms of his ownership. There's no real counter argument that can be made outside of "They're exaggerating". the video exists, so that can't be argued away, only whether or not Snyder knew about it.

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: 

 

Quote

Is Snyder ready to take this step? Of course not. Last week, he tried to rage through a weak defense, shame a victim and press the fake-news easy button. He did this to cloud public opinion so that he wouldn’t have to do the hard work of introspection and personal evolution. He doesn’t want better, for himself or the franchise he has ruined. He wants to be left alone. So he is attempting to create a perception of improvement, which is nothing more than a shield to recommence owning with impunity.

Quote

He lost me at “more involved.” Based on everything Snyder has shown over 21 years of ownership, a higher dosage of his control will undermine the new leadership’s ability to create lasting change. If Snyder could resist reacting with arrogance and bluster, he might realize the franchise needs less of his influence, not more.

 

For two decades, the cliche “change the culture” has been used almost as much as the team’s former name. No coach, executive or star player has even dented the culture. It is a Snyder-made culture, built to last. There can be no change if the man in charge has no self-awareness.

1 hour ago, Kurd Cudins said:

 

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. 
 

Quote

14. Refrain from posting explicit material in your signature and avatar.
This includes sexually explicit or implicit (hardcore/softcore pornography, animated pictures, written language, etc.) content. There shall be no full/partial frontal or full rear nudity. This rule is strictly enforced.

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The Hoffman article I posted above also referenced that there are more stories out there that might come out.  I know Russell saying that over the weekend was greeted at least by one person here with a yawn. I get the skepticism some might have with Russell.  But as I said then, Sheehan for months has hinted of hearing stories.   The dude who wrote the story in the WP said he has been hit up with other rumors. 

 

My point is this might not be over for Dan.  And I do think a 2nd heavy handed story might be the kicker to finally put some real heat on the dude. 

8 hours ago, spjunkies said:

 

He didn't dive real deep into it, but Doc Walker also said that he thinks there will be more that comes out.

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. 

8 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

Dan hired a killer to represent him, her forte is getting multi billion dollar companies off the hook, not to audit their HR practices.

 

All the signs point to the fact there is more to the story and Dan has lawyered up appropriately to get ready.

 

Lets hope these women don't take any settlement offers or its possible we'll never know what happened.

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. 
 

7 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Yes. I was rooting for his ouster at the time specifically because of the patented "Snyder taint", even though he seemed good enough at his job.

6 hours ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

Impression I got from that was Schaffer was apologetic face to face, but then either did nothing to report it, or helped bury it.

 

He wasn't an overt problem.  And maybe in a different culture he'd be a fine employee.  But in that one he was still part of the problem.  Maybe just a small part, be still a part of it

 

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 Cycle^tm 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. 

5 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Nah, there was a scandal maybe over ten years ago that even had its grey edges talked about on here at the time, of a catfish account that conned multiple insider types into giving "her" information because she was able to share her own nuggets with them to prove "she" was legit....but in reality that person was just passing all their scoops around to each other as if it was "her" own info. Eventually that person was outed as BS I think when the insider types started talking to each other. I could be wrong but I swear that jsteelz and LL56 or whoever back when they actually posted here and dropped tidbits, talked briefly about this on the boards back then. TK may have more knowledge but I swear I'm not crazy for remembering this. The implication of JLC being mentioned in that part of the tweet is that he was one of the ones who was duped and sharing info with the catfish.

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. 

Just now, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Yeah, Wylie must be thanking his lucky stars he got out when he did 

Not exactly what I was getting at but 

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

4 hours ago, TrancesWithWolves said:

 

 

Yeah twitter is full of ****. Here’s a guy with 500 followers that claims indirect knowledge of a Snyder-Epstein connection. There is NO WAY they could have kept a lid on a story that explosive for 5 days.

 

*Mod Edit*

 

 

https://twitter.com/passportabuser/status/1283485222395314177?s=21

 

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):

Quote

10. Adhere to ES policies on usingheadlines/content from other websites to start a new thread or to add to an existing thread. 
When posting anything concerning news articles from outside sources or using any website as part of the topic please include a direct link (i.e., URL) to the original page/site. Paste the URL directly atop the post, above a small portion of the article's text (for example, the lead paragraph or a particular sentence or two). Such a practice provides credibility and attribution to the source of the information, and allows visitors the option to visit the respective websites. You are responsible for the content you post.

If you are posting a published article from a news source, please title your thread in the following format: "SOURCE SHORTFORM: HEADLINE" (Ex. WP: Redskins Name Mike Shanahan New Head Coach). If the source is a blog or a chain e-mail, put "blog" or "chain e-mail" at the beginning of the thread title.

Please see our copyright statement.

If you're adding content from any website to an existing thread, do not post large sections of that content. Just post the link and a brief section that is relevant to the point the content is intended to support.

On 1/7/2020 at 1:09 PM, mistertim said:

 

There are certainly teams out there that need a QB, but that doesn't change the devastating nature of Tua's injury and the fact that nobody will know whether he'll ever be the same football player. Sure he's on the mend, and he's apparently going to make a full recovery. But there's a difference between "recovering" mechanically from an injury and playing football, especially with an injury like that. It would be a huge risk for any team to pony up multiple first round picks to move up for a guy who may never be the same player he was before his injury. Add to that the fact that Tua already had an injury history before this and...I dunno, that's just insanely risky. 

 

Someone will take a chance on Tua in the 1st I'm guessing (assuming his recovery goes ok) but I find it very unlikely that anyone will move up for him. IMO someone will take a chance on him if he falls into their laps...perhaps Miami or LA up high or the Raiders or Tampa a bit lower. But for all we know he could fall out of the first round entirely. Teams are pretty fickle about guys with injuries sometimes. Especially late season injuries. 

 

I think we really should just stick with the KISS method. Don't get cute. Don't try to play games trading around up and down with multiple teams. Just do what SF did: take the best player in the draft at #2 overall and be happy about it.

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. 

14 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Anyone who actually thought using the Browns to take jabs at the Redskins and some of their fellow fans was a good idea deserves all the **** anyone wants to throw at them, in my opinion. And the condescension that was dripping off some of those posts back then lol...jeebus. It was the BROWNS, people. Redskins fans don't have much room to point fingers and laugh at any other team...but neither do they have much room to point fingers at the Redskins and use the Cleveland stinkin' Browns as their foundation to do so lol.

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! 
 

14 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Seriously...who the **** gets so confident and full of bravado in their stance over a team that drafted Brandon Weeden, Trent Richardson, and Johnny Manziel all in the first round? lol...who actually thought their front office deserved the designation as the "most talented front office in the league"? And who actually is surprised that Skins fans--who were talked down to 2 years ago about how the mighty 1-31 Browns were the blueprint to follow if only our team executives had an ounce of intelligence to realize it--would want to revisit those posts and their attitudes and do an "Old Takes Exposed" on them lol...

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? 
 

14 hours ago, Califan007 said:

A mod a long time ago (don't remember who) said while call-out threads were a no-no, re-quoting past posts from ES members was a good idea because people need to be held accountable for their stupidity (not an exact quote lol...but you get the gist). Gotta say I agree.

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:

Quote

17. Do not create “call out” threads.
These are threads whose intention is clearly to "call out" another particular member on a personal matter beyond their posted content on ES. These forums are not to be used as a medium for personal attacks or private vendettas. To the extent personal exchanges/conversations are necessary---and desired by BOTH parties---those members are encouraged to pursue them via Private Messaging. Feel free to question members as to past comments you’d like them to explain in the spirit of good debate.

Do not use private messaging to badger or intimidate other members. Substantiated instances of such behavior will result in the immediate loss of private messaging privileges for the instigator, and may result in permanent banning from ExtremeSkins.

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:
 

Quote

12. No trolling. Beware of making baiting posts.
Do not post comments that are fundamentally inflammatory, or of little substantive content, or of some broadly insulting nature that serve primarily to incite your fellow members. ExtremeSkins has always prided itself on its zero tolerance policy for the common internet troublemaker. Trolls come in many forms and will be identified and censured at the discretion of the ES Staff. We are seeking a better level of conversation than just habitual drive-bys, being simplistically insulting, or gratuitously flaming various well-established points of view regardless of how strongly they may differ from yours.

15 hours ago, Califan007 said:

And saying the Browns had three more wins over the last two years than the Redskins is like saying the other guy had three more kernels of corn in his **** sandwich than you did lol...As of right now, the Browns have not proven jack **** about their way being the "right way"  or that their owner/front office personnel/consultants/analytics guys are any better than any past owner or front office execs, nonetheless better than all the other team executives and front office personnel in the entire league.

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.  

44 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Yes, I saw your post and didn't reply in time before the thread was closed, regardless of the timeline it was the day Bruce was fired and there was a ton of content being put out so instead of pencil whipping the discussion I wanted to reply later.

 

I don't hide from people who reply to my posts and my track record supports that so if you took that as a lack of respect please don't because it wasn't meant to be that way.  Quite frankly I didn't want to get into a back and forth concerning GM's while everything was going down with Bruce, if that's not believable I'm sorry but its the truth.

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.
 

44 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

No, these are the two posts of mine you quoted, what do they have to do with anything you just wrote? You rarely even post anymore so how would I know what your position is and furthermore you hadn't posted on any of the pages where I posted those two quotes so I'm not sure why you are taking them as a personal attack. If I wanted to debate you I would have directly quoted you but you had no post to quote.

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. 🤷🏽‍♂️
 

44 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Are you confusing me with someone else?  I made the two posts which were vanilla statements that finding GM's that could sustain success was a very difficult task and you replied to those quotes.  My posts weren't a response to anything you said.  It seems like you think I have attacked your opinion and went dark on you and I could understand you being upset if that were the case but I think you have me confused with someone else.

 

I've never even debated anyone concerning the Browns or how they have built their team, I've posted one or two sentence opinions but that's it. 

You said, in the above post I linked to and what I first quoted here in this thread, that:

Quote

Funny because I just posted recently about all the hoopla surrounding this team over the last 2 years and with all the resources poured into their FO they still couldnt get it right.

 

I notice some want to blame it on the owner but did the owner let Hue run the team last year, did he hire Kitchens, trade for Beckham or decide to draft Mayfield.

 

I don't understand why some are such apologists for these GM's around the league.

 

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.
 

44 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

If this is bothering you just PM me, I don't want to be scrapping it out with a mod, especially when I don't know what we are arguing about.

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.  

9 hours ago, NickyJ said:

I left those parts out because they were pointless rather than humorous. Yes, congratulating a team that went 1-15 and 0-16 was pointless. You said they were doing it "the right way". The right way got them Freddie Kitchens at HC after letting Hue Jackson stay a year too long. The right way meant they got a lot of draft picks, but they accomplished nothing with them and are now probably going to do a half-baked rebuild because flushing all their earnings from 4 years of absolute suck down the drain so that they can suck some more would be embarrassing.

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. 
 

9 hours ago, NickyJ said:

Actually, I take it back, it is kind of funny. Hue Jackson after 1 win in 2 years was on the hotseat. So what did the team do? It drafted a new QB in the first round to give to a coach that was on the hotseat and fired mid-way through the season. The Redskins followed their blueprint this year, complete with firing their GM lol

 

You can point to the GM and say that firing him is the reason it went wrong, but 2019 was the culmination of his work. He hired his coach to hold and care for his baby, and that coach was Freddie Kitchens. Until there is reason to believe that the owner hijacked the team specifically to hire Freddie against the GM's wishes, I will lay it completely on the doorstep of the GM who was so key to doing it "the right way".

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. 

9 hours ago, NickyJ said:

My point that there is no right way. It's only the right way if it works, and even then, doing what other teams do still doesn't always work. I truly believe that the best that can be given to them is that they didn't do things "the wrong way", doing the exact same thing over again and expecting it to work. I won't congratulate them for that.

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. 

6 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

I would have but the thread was closed before I could reply, I think it wasn't more than an hour later before it was closed, it was the day Bruce was fired and there was chaos so I was trying to take in all the content but I wasn't trying to evade you.  I wasn't going to PM you a response because I think that would have been awkward.

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. 
 

6 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

I don't disagree with your overall message, you didn't see me write anything about throwing process out the window but I'm not so sure there isn't more than one path to success when structuring a front office.  It's not an exact recipe, you can have "process" but without good people and a solid product, it won't matter and you pretty much pointed that out by using the owner's incompetence as the reason.

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? 

On 12/31/2019 at 5:55 PM, NickyJ said:

The thread Califan picked those quotes from truly is a doozy.

 

"You forgot to mention Josh Gordon...what a beast...I’d trade all our tight ends and receivers for him..of course that would be a poor trade for the browns." - Aged like fine milk.

 

"Watching the Browns right now, along with how the Giants have already approached their hirings, has me outrageously jealous." - Both flopping and firing their head coaches 2 years later.

 

"Browns will have an inevitable Jaguars like roster in a few seasons. Just too many early picks and young talent to continue being terrible for much longer." This would have been such an amazing prediction if he had kept it to one sentence

I just saw this. I’m the quote in the middle. Why didn’t you continue with what was right after it? 
 

Quote

Watching the Browns right now, along with how the Giants have already approached their hirings, has me outrageously jealous. 

 

Will it work out for either of them? Who knows. 

 

But it won't be because of the process. They're doing it right with regards to their respective FOs. And that's where @zoony is absolutely spot on. It just boggles my mind how something seemingly so simple, so obvious, is just damn near impossible to do for Dan. 18 years into his tenure as Owner. 18 friggin years. 

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:

Quote

People will never grasp the concept of process over results. No one is saying the Browns are going to do great. Or that they have done a great job. We all have seen the results so far. 

 

The point is they’re attempting to go about it the right way. They’ve structured their FO in a way that the vast majority of consistently successful franchises do. Does it mean they’ll become one? Nope. Just means they’re doing it the right way. Which often leads to positive results. 

 

Now, maybe their owner is an idiot and will insert himself at some point, undermine someone, and destroy the entire hierarchy they’ve got set up. Or maybe it’ll be the Team President. But if they let these guys work, give them at least 3-4 years of establishing their plan, it’s very unlikely they’ll fail badly. Very. 

 

That’s what’s been missing here. It’s not that hard. They’re trying, at least. It’s okay to give them credit for it as it stands now. Just like it was okay for the entire football world to praise the Skins’ FO when they hired a GM two years ago, which they did. Doesn’t mean you think they’re going to be automatic contenders. Doesn’t mean they won’t screw it up. 

 

That’s why I mentioned the Giants, as well. They go and immediately hire a legit GM who has proven capable of building a good roster. He then immediately gets to shape the personnel department to his liking. Priority number one. They get it. As many organizations do. They might fail, but it won’t be because of their hiring process and/or the structure of their FO. All the talk around the league is about how coveted the Giants’ job is. There’s a reason for that. And if I was a fan of those teams, that’d be good enough for me. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. But give yourself and those you hire the best chance. That’s all. 

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?  

On 12/31/2019 at 5:05 PM, JSSkinz said:

Funny because I just posted recently about all the hoopla surrounding this team over the last 2 years and with all the resources poured into their FO they still couldnt get it right.

 

I notice some want to blame it on the owner but did the owner let Hue run the team last year, did he hire Kitchens, trade for Beckham or decide to draft Mayfield.

 

I don't understand why some are such apologists for these GM's around the league.

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: 
 

Quote

IN LATE OCTOBER, owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam summoned all Cleveland Browns employees to the auditorium at team headquarters for a familiar meeting. It was to announce another major shake-up, this time the firing of head coach Hue Jackson. Some longtime staffers suspected it would follow a script of sorts that has emerged over the years. Sure enough, Dee, with straight shoulder-length blond hair and an easy smile, explained that she and her husband were "still learning," and she turned over the floor to Jimmy. Then, with white hair combed neatly and posture so perfect he looked like he was puffing out his chest, Jimmy once again pledged to "hire the right people."
 

Despite the appearance of confidence, the Haslams, overseeing their fifth regime change in six years as owners, were embarrassed to be starting over again, according to confidants. This was not what they envisioned when they bought the team in 2012, after being minority owners of the Steelers. Haslam had personally made the decision to hire Jackson in 2016, against the recommendation of the Browns' executive team. But the Browns had just lost to the Steelers, dropping Jackson's three-year record to 3-36-1, and after constant fighting behind closed doors, Jackson was publicly warring with his offensive coordinator, Todd Haley. So according to people briefed on the meeting, on Oct. 29, Haslam and general manager John Dorsey entered Jackson's office and told him the team was going to move in a different direction.

 

Haslam exits the locker room and walks toward a Mercedes-Benz van surrounded by a police escort. He made a fortune expanding the Haslam family business of Pilot Flying J truck stops and saw it come to a halt in an FBI raid in 2013, which left him looking for redemption as the owner of the famously hard-luck and comically inept Browns. For the past six years, as Haslam's former life dissolved, he tightly gripped every aspect of the Cleveland organization, often creating as much chaos as he inherited, according to more than two dozen interviews with current and former Browns executives, coaches, lawyers, scouts and staffers, as well as league executives and other team owners and executives, most of whom requested confidentiality.

 

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? 

19 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

Are you guys on holidays or something?

 

Many sites are not publishing much right now... That feels weird. I thought OTAs would have gotten me a little bit more of work...

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

4 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

Am I the only one that finds it weird that some likes the fact that BHRBN will be late on draft day???

I can’t speak for SWFL, though I assume he meant it the same way, but I “liked” your post for this part: 

20 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

Thanks mate. That's good to read, though I'm not doing it in this purpose.

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.