3 minutes ago, tshile said:

I think it’s fair to assume there was a cover up because there was something worth covering up. 
 

usually the coverup is worse than the crime. But. We don’t need to worry about that. Because there was a coverup. 

this is insanity. 
 

You’d rather keep a proven loser that creates a toxic culture and reduced a once top-5 team/fan base to a laughing stock and utter irrelevancy, because ....

 

you’re afraid the person that replaces him won’t be better?

 

this isn’t a perennial 9-11 win team that just hasn’t made it over the hump. 
 

this is a ****ing dumpster fire. 
 

Opting to keep the dumpster fire because you don’t know who will replace him is INSANE

Now you're electing to go for selective reading, so I won't respond further beyond this final clarification. I never once stated that I'm against new ownership. In my original post, I even made the point that I would PREFER a seasoned and successful businessperson with the right credentials to BUY this team from current ownership. What I don't want is another Jordan Belfort type to be the one to do it. If you choose to have sporadic bouts of intense emotion to ignore that point and instead pursue some rudimentary and flawed framework of it instead then that's on you.

1 hour ago, tshile said:

This seems to be an overly optimistic picture of Snyder’s “growth” as an owner and it isn’t backed by anything. 
 

by all reports snyder had his hands in drafting our latest QB which was by all accounts drafted too high, needed work we didn’t see but everyone else saw, and was cut before finishing his second season. 
 

what the hell exactly about that says Dan learned a god damn thing from when he first took over the team?

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Right, because the guy tripped over his own feet for 20 years, we’re supposed to consider that ‘valuable experience’ that anyone else with billions of dollars won’t possess?

1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

The narrative that Snyder is better positioned than an outsider because of his two decades in the league is majorly flawed. That implies that the only way someone can successfully run a NFL franchise is by gaining experience in the NFL. I'd argue that organizational development, regardless of industry, is much more critical. I'd much rather have an owner who has succeeded doing something else than an owner who's repeatedly failed doing this. 

Well, maybe I should have made that opening paragraph clearer: I'd rather we keep a seasoned screw up like our Dan that have a younger clone of himself acquire the team (hence, "old Dan vs. new Dan") and fans suffer a reboot of old mistakes that marred the organization at the onset of his ownership. Frankly, I don't want another young, brash billionaire to even look at this franchise, and if I had to choose then give me the older, closer-to-poor-health-and-death version whose years of service would exempt him from repeating some follies (not all) that a younger owner of his ilk would likely commit.

13 hours ago, Simmsy said:

Am i the only one that is ok with Snyder as an owner? I mean, yeah, dude sucks...but will Bezos be any better? We all know that Bezos is a terrible human being, a penis that wished to be a real boy. Who knows what Bezos or any of the other new owners would do once they got a hold of the reins. I'd rather stick with the evil we already know. Plus, it looks like he's finally backed off from making any football decisions...for now...

For some, Dan Snyder would be preferable to an unknown because in 20 years he's passively accrued enough football knowledge and experience to put himself head and shoulders above a dilettante who'd have us suffer the same growing pains as a young, brash Snyder. Old Dan is better than another young Dan, on that I agree.

However, I'll take a new owner who's had a history of legitimate business success and robust experience nurturing human capital, not another modern day robber baron like Daniel Snyder who amassed their wealth by overleveraging businesses and dumping them to oblivious buyers in a bubble market while stabbing partners in the back.

Our work culture sucks because our owner knows nothing about cultivating a positive culture, empowering staff, or bringing out the best in his people. Find a billionaire who can do these things, sell him/her the team, and we'll hoist another Lombardi in 5 years tops.

On 3/6/2021 at 2:08 AM, Barry.Randolphe said:

I have no idea why he doesn't just sell....$3B is quite a nice profit to make. That's multigenerational wealth without dealing with this headache and being hated by an entire city

There are only 32 NFL owners but about 3,000 billionaires in this world. Being an NFL owner places one on an entirely different echelon of prestige and influence that wealth by itself cannot penetrate.

39 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

One thing for any QB, whether by free agency or trade; why would they really want to come here? 
 

 

We have a legit WR1, a dynamic RB, a stud tight-end who's a mismatch nightmare for defenses, and a strong defense.

Any QB with decent awareness would see that our offense was underutilized behind poor (DH) or average QB play. Under the condition of signing an additional weapon like an ARob, I can't think of a strong enough reason why a QB wouldn't want to come here.

My first wish is for Ron and this team to win the Super Bowl, but if the upper limit of this regime is a division title and a couple of playoff wins, then I prefer outright failure and the hope of a potential buyout because DS has no business owning an NFL team. Culture means everything in this business and he simply doesn't know how to promote one conducive to consistent success, an unfortunate dilemma that only serves to thwart the potential of any promising hire.

I like Washington Football Team.

It has a throwback vibe appropriate to the franchise's long history, and its neutral designation doesn't pigeonhole the team to any one image or personification.

Fine by me.

Let's keep our picks and roll with what we have and what we'll draft. It's refreshing to see all these other teams surrender 1st rounders, conditional or otherwise, for bums while we preserve what we've earned and try to make the best out of what we have without mortgaging our future once again in exchange for paltry division crowns and glorious wildcard exits.

How about we keep our 1st and stop paying a premium for scraps? Are we really this thirsty for average QB play? We can make some real improvements on the team this offseason with our picks and with an improved record next year we'll more easily lure talented FA's next offseason who'll actually want to come here to play.

1 hour ago, LLandryistheshiz said:

idk why this is surprising. Yeah it’d be nice if they would just follow orders and play where they are but that’s not the world today. 
 

this is becoming the NBA at QB. We all know the value of QBs, and they’re finally coming to realize the power they have. 
 

Brady and Manning both won by going to a new team that was ready to win now. And they were able to bring in their guys and do it their way.

 

who, at the top of their craft like Wilson or Rodgers, wouldn’t want that? Anyone at that level of play has enough ego (or experience) to believe they could do the same 

We're always preaching about how the great teams build the personnel and playbook around the talent of the QB.

Well, who knows more than the actual QB what he needs? Russell isn't some rookie or scrub whose assessment can be dismissed as naive. There are GMs in this league who suck at their jobs, and prior to Ron, I would have had NO problem giving Russ the front office keys if he were our QB.

1 hour ago, DWinzit said:

It's 930am and I have received texts from 2 big Jets fans I rarely hear from.

They both are lol'ing.

One said "Washington being Washington, thanks Dan"

I sure as hell hope its no higher than a 3rd if they feel this is their guy. 

That's Washington, all right: always eager to slip the 10-carat diamond ring on the finger of the girl everyone else from the bar knows about except us.

On 2/2/2021 at 12:48 PM, RichmondRedskin88 said:

Dan is always gonna want to be in the loop on big moves.  As long as he’s simply listening and telling his thoughts rather than making decisions its a battle not worth fighting.  You’d expect the owner to want to know a bit of what is going on honestly.   Him not being fully in the loop could very well be why we’re getting such bad press FO wise.  It’s entirely possible we give him too much credit as far as knowing everything going on.  I don’t care if Ron tells Snyder he’s benching a player if he feels he should.  Given I think it was because it was Snyder’s pick but from the report it sounded like Snyder was like whatever you think is best.  I think he realizes he can’t interfere like he’s done in the past because no one will come here then.  I think in Gibbs and Ron’s case he’s being more distant because I think he realizes there’s certain people and coaches you don’t screw with.  You don’t screw with a Wsh legend and you definitely don’t screw with the only reputable coach willing to try to turn your franchise around. 

The problem with the owner telling his thoughts is those thoughts carry more weight, considering he signs everyone's checks and is in the position that demands appeasement. IMO, an owner with as limited knowledge of football as him should not be expressing his 'harmless' thoughts on football to their subordinates, because those opinions can be misconstrued as soft demands which can result in the GM/Coaches second-guessing their original decision now measured against that of the boss. And in the lucky event Snyder is right on a call, it could paint a false impression that he possesses the acumen that, in the future, should be appraised at a higher value than what it should at the cost of deprioritizing the judgment of more experienced football minds. It is wishful thinking on my part, but I just want Dan to refrain from being a participant on any/all player personnel discussion or matters outside of signing the checks.

Yeah, talk shows and other commentators are fueling an artificial demand for Carr and valuing him so highly. That's the power of the media I guess, social or otherwise, creating nonsense out of nothing. This team was desperate to offer a 1st and 3rd for Stafford and they're even dumber to consider the same cost for Carr. His value is being inflated harder than Gamestop.

1 hour ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

Why would driving up the prices of the other available QBs be a good thing?

Because like raising the price of any good in a market, it discourages spending.

I can only say "THANK YOU" that we came short on the Matthew Stafford sweepstakes. THANK. YOU. The added bonus is that the deal drove up the already premium price of other available QBs whose agents fancy their players on par or better than Stafford, so win-win. 

17 minutes ago, seantaylor=god said:

I will be really surprised if Rivera wants to go after Watson. Watson signed a LTD AFTER the Texans were an organizational disaster and AFTER O’Brien traded Hopkins and 6 months later Watson is demanding a trade. Why? Because he wasn’t consulted on GM hire? I get that Houston is terrible but does this really sound like the kind of behavior Ron Rivera respects and would give up multiple 1sts for?

 

I love Watson and would do it but I just can’t wrap my head around this.

From my understanding of the reports, ownership offered to consult with Watson on the GM search prior to him committing to the extension, and besides not doing that, they didn't even bother to interview Eric Bieniemy whom Watson reportedly advocated.

I don't begrudge any player who asks to be traded provided they reimburse their team of any future money owed. Watson's reasons might turn off a few who feel a player's influence should be confined to the field and not extended to the front office, but Watt and Watson are the natural leaders of that team and it must be incredibly frustrating for men of their cloth to have to endure the galactic misteps of their organization and refrain from taking larger steps to fixing them.

I can't believe we're still discussing giving a 1st for this bum Stafford. We thought Minnesota was crazy for handing Kirk that ridiculous contract and now Detroit is probably looking at other teams the same for potentially giving up a 1st and more (plus having to eat his bloated contract) for their homegrown disappointment.

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Granted its PFF

 

The Lions don’t seem to be getting as much interest in Matthew Stafford as expected

Posted by Mike Florio on January 27, 2021, 6:20 PM EST

 

 

Getty Images

When it comes to potential interest in Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford, the glass is currently two-thirds empty.

That’s the obvious import of the news that a third of the league has reached out to the Lions. A third of the league. Ten teams. For a 32-year-old franchise quarterback who is going to get his wish for a new franchise.

The Lions undoubtedly leaked that number to NFL Media in order to generate more interest. Surely, they expected to hear from more than 10 teams — especially since calls always get made when a key veteran player is available as part of the normal due diligence process.

The teams that should at least make the call include the Jets, Patriots, Dolphins, Steelers, Browns, Jaguars, Colts, Texans, Broncos, Raiders, Washington, Cowboys (as a potentially cheaper alternative to Dak Prescott), Bears, Vikings, Panthers, Saints, Falcons, 49ers, and Rams. That’s nearly two thirds of the league.

Maybe some teams simply aren’t intersted. Maybe some teams simply want the Lions to get nervous and thus desperate and thus willing to get whatever they can for Stafford instead of driving the hardest bargain.

Regardless, the Lions for now seem to be having a much harder time than expected when it comes to generating interest in Stafford.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/01/27/the-lions-dont-seem-to-be-getting-as-much-interest-in-matthew-stafford-as-expected/

 

Of course. We'd have to be dumb as rocks to surrender a 1st round pick for someone about to get cut.

9 minutes ago, JoggingGod said:

Yeah we do know for sure what his ceiling is. He's been in the league 6 going on 7 years and has only managed to make it off the practice squad once. Going with him is suicide and wasting the defensive core we have now.

No one predicted that he'd play the way he did against the Tampa Bay. We obviously didn't know his true ceiling going into that game, so don't just assume that we do now.

If Stafford wants to come to Washington, he'll be the next Washington QB. Though the Lions have final say, they won't jettison him to a team he doesn't want to play for.

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Put it this way, if we get Stafford, then I can see us having three or four 11-5 seasons and some fun playoff runs, which would be nice.  But if we get Rodgers, I can honest to god see us winning a Superbowl in the next year or two.  Maybe we go right back into the tank after like Denver did, but it would absolutely be worth it for a real shot at a championship.

Is it naive to want more? Specifically, a younger and healthier QB who could keep us SB contenders for 10+ years, provided of course we maintain the right pieces around him? I don't want for our team to just hover as a perennial playoff contender, nor totally collapse in itself after 1 title.

If we opt to acquire a QB via free agency, I'd rather we pursue Watson. He'd be costly, but he's young enough to endure the multiple on and off rebuilding cycles and talented enough to make us strong playoff contenders even during our lull periods.

1 hour ago, CapsSkins said:

Patrick Mahomes, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, Justin Herbert, Baker Mayfield, Joe Burrow, Trevor Lawrence, maybe Deshaun Watson..... all in the AFC. That's crazy.

 

NFC has Rodgers, Brady, Dak, Stafford, Kyler, Russ and Matt Ryan.

 

Have the conferences ever been this lopsided at the QB position?

The AFC has dominated the league QB-wise for 20 years now, spearheaded by Brady and Peyton at the start of the new millennium.

9 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

So the Qb spot is just one spot of many, it doesn't need much more emphasis than any other spot?

We have a pair of QBs on our roster right now who can ball given a normal offseason program. If it doesn't work out with them, we'll still have our drafted stud from the #19 pick or the other picks this team might be thinking about forking over, plus good cap space, and an opportunity to explore other QB options the following year without costing an arm and a leg.

We have other holes and concerns on this team that still need to be addressed, QB is just one of them, and compromising team ammo (draft picks and cap space) that we need to fill those other holes just to fill ONE of them is madness. This crap has NEVER worked out for us. We have ZERO championship appearances and a dismal post-season attendance because of stunts like this one.

19 minutes ago, RWJ said:

 I'm all in for Jones at #19 but what do you think the WFT has to give up to acquire Stafford too?

Detroit will undoubtedly try to fleece us for two 1's. If it was strictly Dan's call he'd be perfectly okay with that since he doesn't give a damn about draft picks and loves QBs but I'm hoping RR has a more reasonable and long-term perspective.