CaptainChaos47

NFL films did a Making of the Schedule movie.  Gives a pretty good behind the scenes look, if you haven't seen it.

8 hours ago, zskins said:

 

They didn't have any other QB going after Pittsburg. They messed up the draft by putting Miami at #22 when Miami doesn't even have a 1st round pick as they gave that to Philly. 

 

So we don't pick him at 11 but then trade up from round 2 to go to 1 again to get Pickett that doesn't make any sense to me. Pickett also has small hands. That's lot of capital to give up to back to round 1 again for Pickett. 

It wasn't a definitive statement.  I was just saying if we liked him and didn't take him at 11 he probably doesn't make it past 20

13 minutes ago, RWJ said:

I think Pickett will be the best of the bunch.  Just my 2 cents. 

I've analyzed absolutely nothing but watched a few Pitt games this year and have a hunch you might be right.  I don't know if he's nfl ready enough to pick at 11, but if we don't do it there we likely have to trade up past Pittsburgh in the first to get him. I don't see them missing out on another hometown guy, especially with Haskins and Rudolph being their current options.

Fingers crossed he becomes our next Mike Sellers

51 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

Here's a question :

 

If Jay Gruden was to work for Washington, but you could choose the perfect role for him, which role would you give him, to most emphasize his talents ?

Beer guy. Although judging by that video from years back he might drink all the profits.

15 minutes ago, A-Lost-Wolf said:

 

Im not sure what you mean by punished? 

 

I dont belive he is guily of committing any of the actions brought fourth in the article. I am not aware of any civil suits being filled against the organization but he would not be personally responsible in a civil action.

 

sexual harassment is such a difficult issue to deal with, it’s mostly hearsay and rumors. It is easier to prove today than years ago because most perpetrators don’t stop at comments, they will text and use other forms of electronic communication which is easier for the company to obtain and use for dismissal of the bad Apple so to speak.

 

its not like embezzlement or theft, being late for work, no call no show employees which are much more easily proven and terminated. Sexual harassment is sneaky, usually with only the perp and the victim present. It’s also one of the most devastating employee issues, SA (sexual harassment)  can destroy a persons self worth, their ability to function at work, the work environment, productivity. It’s truly one of the worst work place issues to have , the only hope a company has is if the victim comes forward quickly before the situation escalates.

Like forced to sell or not be allowed around the team? Even if he didnt commit the acts but he was aware of them doesnt that make him guilty in some sense if he didnt fire the party involved?  If he knew of the NDA then he knew who committed the act.  Even if the woman or women are going away with severance and legally cant say anything, shouldn't he still have fired the guys involved? Especially if there are repeated allegations? Even with one allegations a formal investigation should be launched and if that investigation hinted at guilt, they should have been fired then in my opinion.

6 minutes ago, A-Lost-Wolf said:

 

Yes (1) formal complaint and yes an investigation, nothing happens over night, neither the wrong doing nor the investigation or the results of it. Had they been fired (6) months ago or tomorrow there are always people that say or think it’s a result of it being made public or the fear it may someday. There just isn’t a right time for any of this, do it to fast without getting the information together and the employee sues, do it to slow and maybe the accuser sues. Let it drag out and you find yourself in the court of public opinion.Neither I nor most anyone will likely see the paper trail that lead to this point so all we can hope is that they were doing the right thing with this from the moment it was discovered.

 

i agree that Mr. Snyder would know of the nondisclosure that the former employees would have to sign but with that said nondisclosure agreements are 100% required for ALL settlements. 

 

These things take take time to evolve and conclude, I seriously doubt there was any conspiracy to hide these issues from the public as these are not required to be made public. Any business would for obvious reasons want to keep poor/ horrible behavior from being publicly revealed. The companies that have these issues are in an indefensible position, you can’t defend yourself and policies without somehow looking like you are being disparaging against the accuser. It’s a tough place for a buisness to be, the accused are the ones guilty of the behavior not the buisness itself or the Owner in most cases. The buisness’ must protect itself from legal actions while also accommodating the victims and punishing the guilty party. None of this is best done in the public eye , there are no winners in these situations. The company doesn’t win, the victims don’t win, nobody wins unless you consider the large portion of the public’s angst is now focused on the buisness instead of the ones who actually  committed these disgusting acts. Maybe the former employees should be the focus and not the company. Yawl want someone to lynch focus on the perpetrators. 

 

You do have a good point about there may have been others, I would bet that even the slightest appearance of impropriety will be dealt with swiftly. I would assume everyone employed with the Redskins understands 

Do you think Snyder could be punished because he knew the circumstances surrounding the NDAs and didn't take action to fire those involved at the time?