Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

A look back at the Post's condemnation of the Coles/Moss deal...

wilbur58z

By wilbur58z
in 2005 Archives Forum

Recommended Posts

wilbur58z

wilbur58z

Posted
Posted

Thought I'd go back and look up some of the Post's comments from this past offseason concerning the Coles/Moss deal, which was really what began the "feud" between the team and newspaper. That move made just about every columnist for the Post come out and say the Redskins had no idea what they were doing.

Jenkins 2/24/05 "A Case of Missed Management" :

"The latest who wants out is Laveranues Coles, one of the top 10 receivers in the league, who after just two years has lost faith in the organization, and believes he's been unfairly dealt with."

"Coles is his record, too. This is not a prima donna or a malcontent. This is a guy who has been one of the Redskins' most professional and reliable performers. He is a former Pro Bowler and locker room gold. He keeps his mouth shut, he practices hard, and he plays hurt."

"Maybe Coles has learned something that the Redskins haven't: Money doesn't make everything right." (NOTE: Coles wanted more money from the Jets before agreeing to any trade)

"But the Coles impasse suggests that discord and dysfunction still reign. Gibbs told his players that if they don't want to be there, then he doesn't want them. It's a simple and even noble statement, calculated to reveal: stay or go. It isn't reassuring that their most expensive playmaker, Coles, wants to go."

Wise 3/9/05 "As Smoot, Pierce and Coles Exit, Big Questions Arise About the Front Office" :

"Laveranues Coles, judging by his comments to The Post's Nunyo Demasio, is definitely not a Gibbs guy. He was traded to the New York Jets for Santana Moss, a wide receiver afraid to go across the middle."

"Already the Redskins have made some awful mistakes this offseason. A year after trading Champ Bailey for Clinton Portis, a back who will ultimately break Gibbs's heart, Smoot was deemed unaffordable. Coles was traded, but not until the team suffered a $9 million salary cap hit. Had the Redskins released him, the $5 million deferred salary cap payment that Coles was willing to skip would have served as $5 million in golden cap space the Redskins could have used to sign two starters, one of them maybe Smoot. Instead they got a player the Jets considered to be no better than a number three wide receiver and had to use all the cap savings from restructuring Chris Samuels's contract to cover the Coles hit. "

"A real front office would not let the wide receiving corps turn into a bunch of tiny scatbacks. It would have gone out and gotten Plaxico Burress, someone to truly help. Does anyone believe the Redskins are better off without Pierce, Coles and Smoot? Put your hand down, Danny."

Wilbon 3/10/05 "Without a GM, the Redskins are a General Mess" :

"At this very moment, it appears as if the Washington Redskins -- the perennial offseason Super Bowl champions -- are stumbling around in the dark. It sounds nice, this position Joe Gibbs is pushing that the Redskins are now into fiscal restraint, except it's not smart budgeting to take a $6 million net salary cap hit to trade a productive player in his prime (Laveranues Coles), however unhappy, for a lesser player (Santana Moss) at the same position. That's not fiscal restraint; it's a blind gamble, and an expensive one at that."

"All of this simply adds to the appearance that the Redskins have no idea what in the world they're doing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
No_Pressure

No_Pressure

Posted
Posted

"A real front office would not let the wide receiving corps turn into a bunch of tiny scatbacks. It would have gone out and gotten Plaxico Burress, someone to truly help. Does anyone believe the Redskins are better off without Pierce, Coles and Smoot? Put your hand down, Danny.

Ask Roy Williams about "scatbacks".

Plaxico isnt bad in NY, but we dont need him, never did :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tonerman

Tonerman

Posted
Posted

Makes me wonder why I care what Wilbon thinks. I tuned into his PTI show and didn't find it worth watching also. I read his Monday Chathouse stuff but something about him is starting to get on my nerves. Actually, for all the negatives most ES members feel for Jenkins I really didn't disagree with her last couple of pieces. I have not read anything else of hers. Someone is going to hit me with a hammer for saying I didn't disagree with her last two pieces, but words will never hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scruffylookin

scruffylookin

Posted
Posted
"All of this simply adds to the appearance that the Redskins have no idea what in the world they're doing."

That one by Wilbon is my favorite. We'll have to remember to check into this by the end of the season.

I like Michael Wilbon, even though he can get negative from time to time. I would like to offer one defense for him. He did say "the appearance" of the Redskins not knowing what they're doing. To me that caveat gives his column a far different tone than Jenkins' pure hate piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tonerman

Tonerman

Posted
Posted

I've liked Wilbon also, but I get the feeling he hates covering the redskins and he hates the questions from the fans. He probably wants his own "moron-free" area to protect him from some of the fans also. I was thinking that in this town a major sports reporter has to cover the skins so for him covering the skins is work, versus deciding to write a piece about Tiger Woods for instance. Just a feeling I get from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KSUskinfan

KSUskinfan

Posted
Posted

Two words to put this all succinctly:

Poetic justice!

It's evident that we got the better end of the deal, gimpy Pennington or not. I won't knock Coles-- He's a gamer, but he just can't stretch the field like Moss. I don't remember even reading one pro-Skins slant on the trade. I was actually tentative about the exchange myself, but am elated that I was misguided!

:logo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Om

Om

Posted
Posted
More like ****. She never has anything positive to say, maybe it's because she hasn't had her dried up cooch taxed since she was in college.

I suppose one COULD be more tone-deaf and insensitive to the women of this board if one tried, but it'd be tough.

This kind of machoism is for locker rooms, not Extremeskins.

Please take that as a very strong hint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PCS

PCS

Posted
Posted

Yes. And I'd like to think that since I read it, copied it, and then included it in my post, that I saw and comprehended the word "appearance". In all due fairness, Wilbon may be taking a weak stand there, but by including that statement he seems to imply he agrees with it. And, I might add, that I keep in mind everything before that final statement when taking issue with it. It was part of the whole if you will.

Edit: I actually like Wilbon too. I just feel as though no matter how you wrap it, he's propagating an image with a statement like that.

And DD. Not funny. Considering the company we keep here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anne The Fan

Anne The Fan

Posted
Posted
More like ****. She never has anything positive to say, maybe it's because she hasn't had her dried up cooch taxed since she was in college.

I'd like to request that you please condemn her writing based on its merits (or lack thereof) and not her sex life. Otherwise I might be forced to condemn your writing based of the size (or lack thereof) of your crown jewels. Fair is fair.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scruffylookin

scruffylookin

Posted
Posted
Yes. And I'd like to think that since I read it, copied it, and then included it in my post, that I saw and comprehended the word "appearance". In all due fairness, Wilbon may be taking a weak stand there, but by including that statement he seems to imply he agrees with it. And, I might add, that I keep in mind everything before that final statement when taking issue with it. It was part of the whole if you will.

Edit: I actually like Wilbon too. I just feel as though no matter how you wrap it, he's propagating an image with a statement like that.

And DD. Not funny. Considering the company we keep here.

Fair enough. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you didn't read the column or comprehend the word "appearence".

They all deserve to eat some crow on the Coles/Moss deal, I just want Sally Jenkins to eat a little more...that's all. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted

I remember a lot of people on this board thinking that Moss was a downgrade from Coles. In fact, those that did think Moss was better stated things along the lines of "Coles has a bum toe, so now Moss is better."

No one knew that Moss was this explosive or effective because in truth the guy hadn't been a true #1 with the Jets. Suddenly he comes here and looks like Steve Smith without all the stupid antics and BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...