What do some of you not understand?

[dfbovey]

I happen to prefer signing guys who've proven they can play in the NFL more than drafting guys who haven't. I understand some feel otherwise. I just suspect they haven't thought it through.

Often times, there is a reason why teams are willing to give up a player either via free agency or trade. Maybe they are old, have a history of injury, rebel rousers or trouble makers... or they just demand an unfair wage. And these are the players that the Redskins end up targeting with a few exceptions. This team, with this philosophy hasn't been a success in quite some time. And this team will never be a consistant winner if they continue down that road.

Free agency and trading for proven talent has been just as risky for the Redskins as the draft. Trading a 3rd rounder for Duckett. 3rd and 4th rounder for Lloyd. Signing Archuleta, Randel El, Lloyd and Carter to big long term deals. There's always the risk that these players will not pan out. It's no different than the draft. The only difference is that you get a player with more wear and tear on them and you give away alot more money in the process. And the results, at least for this team, speak for themselves.

The bottom line is that the team needs to use every avenue WISELY. And with the current structure in place, I don't trust them to do that. I'll continue to feel that way until RESULTS dictate that I should change my view.

[ttr77]

Don't you think you're being just a tad melodramatic?

Yes I am. And that's the point. There should be a place for dissenting opinions on here. However, before I make my own dissenting opinion known, I need to make sure I follow all the rules. And the list of rules seems to get longer with every thread like this. Its kinda silly.

[Monte51Coleman]

Yes I am. And that's the point. There should be a place for dissenting opinions on here. However, before I make my own dissenting opinion known, I need to make sure I follow all the rules. And the list of rules seems to get longer with every thread like this. Its kinda silly.

You and I have been members here for longer than most. Other than this thread, how many cases to do recall of people being banned for disagreeing with a moderator?

I think that some of what has occured in this thread over the past two days is silly. Almost as silly as those who think that those occurences have signaled some type of significant change to the direction and management of this board.

Art is Art. He is the same today as he was the first day I joined. You, being a long term member, should know this as well as anyone. :2cents:

[monkforhall]

Hail,

Monk was banned so I could open the door to banning others more worthy. He's already back on board and helped out immensely. I've already thanked him .

I'm here to help. But you know, I do have other skills. Guess you have to start from the bottom. :cool:

[project myu]

You and I have been members here for longer than most. Other than this thread, how many cases to do recall of people being banned for disagreeing with a moderator?

I think that some of what has occured in this thread over the past two days is silly. Almost as silly as those who think that those occurences have signaled some type of significant change to the direction and management of this board.

Art is Art. He is the same today as he was the first day I joined. You, being a long term member, should know this as well as anyone. :2cents:

While I believe Art has always been Art, I have seen some disturbing changes with some other members of the staff. I've seen them go from being humble contributors who happened to have mod status to powertripping moderators.

[Monte51Coleman]

Excerpts for a moderator's court martial:

Son, we live in a message board that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with keyboards. Who's gonna do it? You? You, skinzrul45872310987?

I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Mr. Madd and you curse the moderators. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Madd’s death, while tragic, probably saved sanity. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves sanity.

You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

We use words like thread, post, context...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very oversight I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it!

I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way.

Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a keyboard and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think this message board should be like!

[Skinsinparadise]

I happen to prefer signing guys who've proven they can play in the NFL more than drafting guys who haven't. I understand some feel otherwise. I just suspect they haven't thought it through.

Art:

I enjoy reading your posts for the insight about the team. You have access to the team and we don't so you definitely bring an insightful perspective in my book. I agree with your perspective more so than many others on the board on points such as:

1. Having a franchise QB is key to success

2. Gibbs is calling the shots not Snyder

3. Our defense is more driven by our LBs and secondary than most other teams

4. Gibbs' weakness has been not understanding the value of his own players and chemistry.

5. FA's have brought in some good players

6. Gibbs for his faults still brought in the core players who are critical to our success

7. Saying our FO has been a disaster is out of place if you look at all the moves

There is really only one point where I disagree with you and big time and that's the draft drill.

I am not opposed to FA's -- and am not tough on the team for making some mistakes with it. Heck FA is a crapshoot, too. Players aren't always the same when they get older, change schemes and get fat contracts.

But if we are so aggressive with FA why do we have to trade draft picks, too on a REGULAR BASIS? Wouldn't FA help preclude our need to trade draft picks?

Your points on this and correct me If I am wrong usually are variations of: Picking the good trades and saying aren't we glad we made those, saying the draft is a crap shoot its more prudent to get established players.

OK the draft is a crap shoot but FA and trading for established players isn't a crap shoot too? How do you explain the FA's and trades that haven't worked out? Shouldn't have Duckett, Lloyd and Archuleta been good players? Isn't FA and trades supposed to be the safe way to go?

Someone recently posted an article from NE about the Patriots approach to the draft where they said that look the Patriots think the draft is a crap shoot but that's why they try to ADD (not subtract) picks, they know the more they pick the more likely they are going to find gems. And they have!

The goof of blowing it on trades and FA's IMO is much bigger than a draft bust (outside of the top 5 picks). With established players, you are often stuck with a big cap number and in cases lose draft picks to replace the busts with new players.

And haven't we been on this experiment for quite some time? This isn't just a three year experiment. This precedes Gibbs. Yeah we have had SOME success but overall in the last 7 years we have had a losing record -- while at the same time traded away about half of our draft picks, the most in the league.

Yeah, back in school you can fail an exam with lets say get a 55% but do you say well look screw the F, lets examine the answers I get right, how can you argue against my approach if you look at those answers.

Well yeah in a vacuum if I just look at some things like the Santana Moss trade, trading up for Cooley, and some other moves -- we look fantastic -- but isn't the thing here looking at every thing together and doesn't the record reflect at least a little our FO approach? Or are they mutually exclusive?

Again am not in the camp that our FO are a bunch of morons. And I do agree with you that the QB makes a big difference and heck I am not even opposed to Fa signings I think they are fine and make a difference. And I don't even mind trading picks SOMETIMES but we are the only team I know of that trades picks regularly -- that's my one issue with the FO and really the only thing I generally disagree with you about.

And look its not as if there is anybody -- football anaylist, magazine, web site, that backs up our approach, they range from ridiculing us to attacking us. And even last season when we where good there was an article written that I posted on the board about how our lack of emphasis in the draft and Gibbs preference for older players will come to bite us at some time soon.

So what is it that all the football geeks are getting wrong about our approach -- I'd love to find ONE anaylist that would say screw the naysayers the Skins have the right approach. Young cheaper players to grow up hungry and in the system, add depths, etc -- whatever that's BS! They don't know what they are talking about -- the draft is one big crap shoot -- trade your picks and land proven veterans!

I am just not finding that point of view anywhere. If someone has something to back that perspective cool enough, I'd be curious.

Again, why not have our cake and eat it too. If Snyder wants to spend big money on FA, bravo, fantastic, i love it. Don't care if we get some of those signings wrong. But we CAN also draft. The fact that we sign FAs should help not hurt our ability to KEEP OUR PICKS!

And I don't think we trade picks because our team unlike others is so loaded with great players that we generally don't have the room for new ones -- if so what is going on with our record?

[Monte51Coleman]

While I believe Art has always been Art, I have seen some disturbing changes with some other members of the staff. I've seen them go from being humble contributors who happened to have mod status to powertripping moderators.

Have you really?

I have never seen that. I think that they have all been consistent within their personalities. The one's that could be viewed as power-tripping today were like that from the very beginning in my experience.

[project myu]

Have you really?

I have never seen that. I think that they have all been consistent within their personalities. The one's that could be viewed as power-tripping today were like that from the very beginning in my experience.

Look no further than the Russian Roulette Thread in the Tailgate.

Another example would be the Wizards forum. That place was chugging along fine before moderators started paying attention to it, and thankfully, it still continues to in spite of the moderators.

I will never forget reading a thread in the Wizards forum when some moderator who I don't remember made an outlandish post about the Wizards while admitting to not watching the games. Some guy replied, "GTFO and go back to the Redskins board". The response was harsh but semi-deserved. The moderator got pissed. I just remember laughing at that whole thread.

[onedrop]

Look no further than the Russian Roulette Thread in the Tailgate.

Another example would be the Wizards forum. That place was chugging along fine before moderators started paying attention to it, and thankfully, it still continues to in spite of the moderators.

I will never forget reading a thread in the Wizards forum when some moderator who I don't remember made an outlandish post about the Wizards while admitting to not watching the games. Some guy replied, "GTFO and go back to the Redskins board". The response was harsh but semi-deserved. The moderator got pissed. I just remember laughing at that whole thread.

wizards forum?

[fansince62]

So you talk of integrity and respect??

So you have a stance on a topic, you vehemently support it and then when someone disagrees with you you change the parameters of the original argument.

Explain how you have integrity and why anyone would respect your opinion if you keep shifting like the desert sands??

ok please...you flatter yourself and 90% of the others if you think there is a rigorous, consistent approach to discussion/"debate" on this or any other board. it wanders all over the map and rightfully so - it's a diversion from the other activities we are all engaged in (you know...our real work lives) and not some lesser rendition of Bill Buckley's Firing Line.

Tieing integrity to shifting lines of thought in an informal exchange of message board posts is arrogant beyond belief.

Respecting opinions is in the eyes of the beholder...there is no established standard. And who even cares? Respect/don't respect - it's immaterial...except for those whose self-image requires such affirmation.

[Skin Patrol]

What I don't get is if Rosenscum went to Snyder with an offer and Danny said, "No, we don't need Briggs," after it became public, all of the Danny haters would be screaming "Snyder shouldn't be making that call; it is not his job; he is over-stepping Gibbs, etc."

Yet, when he is approached by an agent and says that he will run it by Gibbs, that makes him a meddler and the only one with interest which is why the team went after LB in the eyes of the haters.

Some people really need to make up their minds.:doh:

Jay Glazer -- who broke the Briggs story -- reported it as Briggs and Rosenhaus approaching Dan Snyder with the deal, and Dan telling them to go to Chicago with it. The exact deal that Dan Snyder proposed in a bar at the Owner's Meeting just happened to be the one Joe Gibbs apparently signed off on later.

Do you understand teh difference with how this was reported and your characterization of it? Dan Snyder did not say "Let me run this by Coach, we'll think about it." He said "Take that **** to the Bears." Then he went to Coach Gibbs.

Snyder, as the owner of the team, is a team representative who is fine as a channel of communication through which official trade proposals must pass. Drew Rosenhaus is not a member of the Chicago Bears organization. He can not speak on that team's behalf anymore than he can speak on our own. As reported by Jay Glazer, Snyder used Rosenhaus as a communication channel to reach the Chicago Bears (and the media) with a trade proposal first mentioned (as far as we can tell) in a bar.

I have no problem with Dan saying "I need to take this to Coach Gibbs first, then you can take it to the newspapers." What he did was "Take this to the newspapers and to the Bears, and after I clear with Coach Gibbs we'll send official word to the Bears." I would consider that "meddling". What concerns me most about the entire fiasco is that the deal ultimately sent to the Bears happened to be the exact proposal invisioned by Snyder at the owner's meeting. That's odd.

[fansince62]

no one forces you to come here. if you have become disenchanted, leave.

you could adopt a more original line of thought...this particular piece of poison has been used...oh...I don't know...half a million times in the last several years?

[jimster]

Hi Skins fans. Some of you know me from CowboysZone, others of you may not. I just wanted to say a thing or two about Snyder having input. I hope you will forgive my intrusion. I don't post here very often, but respect the site and several of the posters.

Let me begin by saying I am no fan of Dan Snyder and have no reason to defend him. That is exactly what I am about to do.

If Dan Snyder had absolutely no role in the football operations of your team he would be branded as an owner who does not care. Just my opinion, but that is the worst thing about some teams. I don't think you can say that at all.

From where I sit this man has given you guys an amazing stadium and he got a Hall of Fame Head Coach to come back to your franchise to try and turn it around. If the personnel moves have not netted you the success you crave as fans, it hasn't been for lack of effort. I don't agree with some of the moves and some of you probably don't either. No team can say every move they make is good.

Regardless of the level of his involvement in player personnel moves you should want him to be involved. No different than every scout and assistant coach for their positions as well as the Head Coach and GM. The more people you have involved the better, and that includes the owner, IMO.

Anyway, just thought I'd share that view from the outside.

good points.

...you're the type of poster that is welcome to come around more often.

[Om]

Excerpts for a moderator's court martial:

Son, we live in a message board that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with keyboards. Who's gonna do it? You? You, skinzrul45872310987?..........

Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a keyboard and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think this message board should be like!

Wasn't going to delve into this mess of a thread, but ... thanks brother. That's something I've considered doing for a while myself, but always figured coming from a staff guy it would come off wrong. Not totally sure yet, but I'm starting to get the vague impression we're not universally loved any more.

I've often said the best possible reponse we could make would be to force the harshest critics to moderate this place for a few days themselves when things are hopping--like around draft time or during the season after loss. I swear we'd have people running off screaming into the night.

[fansince62]

good points.

...you're the type of poster that is welcome to come around more often.

why?....because you agree with him? or because you like the tone?

either way...the censorship that is lurking behind all of this...is becoming rather disturbing.

[mikeyf316]

Excerpts for a moderator's court martial:

Son, we live in a message board that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with keyboards. Who's gonna do it? You? You, skinzrul45872310987?

I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Mr. Madd and you curse the moderators. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Madd’s death, while tragic, probably saved sanity. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves sanity.

You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

We use words like thread, post, context...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very oversight I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it!

I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way.

Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a keyboard and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think this message board should be like!

Quite possibly the best post in 24 pages. :applause: :applause: :applause: :laugh:

[monkforhall]

Wasn't going to delve into this mess of a thread, but ... thanks brother. That's something I've considered doing for a while myself, but always figured coming from a staff guy it would come off wrong.

This thread has been highly entertaining, it seems for everyone, with over 7000 views and almost 400 posts, guess other people found it interesting as well.

That post by Monte51 added to it. Clever and funny as hell. Unfortunatley as are with the most interesting threads, it did come with some collateral damage. I hope MrMadd comes back. I think his posts are highly intelligent but definitely instigating. But it's no fun without a few evil villians.

[mikeyf316]

Look no further than the Russian Roulette Thread in the Tailgate.

I don't recall participation in that thread being manditory. :2cents:

[Monte51Coleman]

Not totally sure yet, but I'm starting to get the vague impression we're not universally loved any more.

I've been meaning to speak to you about this.

Your recent behavior as a moderator has some of us concerned. Apparently there has been a shift in your style from fatherly to almost monster-like. I know this because I've read it here.

I would appreciate that while you are providing this site with untold hours of unpaid and often thankless work, you would carry out your functions in a way that seems more reasonable to us. Afterall, we come here to play in our spare time and your ever-increasing mean spiritedness is troubling.

Please bring the kinder, gentler, OM back when you punch-in for your next shift.

Now, would you send iheart in on your way out? We've got a bone to pick with him, as well.

[iheartskins]

Nothin' but net Monte, nothin' but net!

[MartinC]

wizards forum?

Its a Harry Potter fetish crowd - best not to intrude.

[jrockster21]

Jesus...10 pages? Just ban him already. :laugh:

:paranoid:

[onedrop]

you could adopt a more original line of thought...this particular piece of poison has been used...oh...I don't know...half a million times in the last several years?

no thought is original if it must be repeated numerous times in response to the same unoriginal complaint. no matter how often it is repeated its still true.

[Hostile]

good points.

...you're the type of poster that is welcome to come around more often.

:laugh:

I don't know, that might be debatable. I was invited NOT to join when I first showed up.

Thank you though.