Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

49ers GM has the gall to insult the Redskins?


Going Commando

Recommended Posts

I looked around for a thread on this but couldn't find one, so I'm going to post a link to an insulting and extremely disingenuous article about the 49ers offseason spending:

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080306/SPORTS/803060363/1010/SPORT01

The article is titled: "49ers GM: We're 'absolutely not' big spenders" and Scot McCloughan, the 49ers GM actually had the nerve to say, "Everybody thinks: Are we the next Washington Redskins? Absolutely not."

That's right McCloughan, you aren't the Redskins... you haven't had a winning record in five years in one of the worst divisions in football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's kind of funny actually. We have to face it, the Redskins were the laughing stock of the offseason for a few years. We raised the bar on free agents. Thankfully now we're able to laugh at teams who are overspending on marginal players, like said 'Niners!

Hail,

H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They dropped 80 mill on Clements last year, and I believe they've spent some serious cheddar this year. They are worse than us.

I have heard Clemments deal is not even close to 80mill the contract is structured to where its closer to 40.

btw you guys act as if the redskins have not earned the rep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw you guys act as if the redskins have not earned the rep

I agree with you somewhat, but what is misleading to me is that the Redskins had maybe four seasons since Snyder took over where they spent a ton of money in Free Agency, and only a couple of those offseasons were really awful. Then consider that the team has been really quiet this offseason and the last one. It irritates me to no end when the sports media refers to an offseason of foolish transactions pejoratively as a "Redskins offseason." This criticism is based on what? The failure of the 2000 and 2006 offseasons? The Dallas Cowboys didn't spend just as much money with the end result of one more playoff appearance than the Redskins and one less playoff win?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard Clemments deal is not even close to 80mill the contract is structured to where its closer to 40.

btw you guys act as if the redskins have not earned the rep

btw, you act as if the media hasn't overblown that rep.

We get criticized every year that we bring in more than one free agent. Christ, we were criticized by some last season for "overpaying" for Fletcher, but team slike the 49ers get a pass for ridiculous spending and no results.

2000, 2006. Please list any other season where we went "crazy" in the offseason. 2004 was a rebuilding year, and we brought in a lot of solid guys. 2000 was bad, but to be fair it was Dan's first ever offseason, and you can't tell me that a big majority on here wouldn't go even a little crazy in FA the first year they bought their favorite team since childhood. 2006 was half and half, we busted on Arch and Lloyd, we hit on El and Carter. El's contract is a little big, but we were vying with other teams for him, he was coming off a Superbowl win where he made a very memorable play, and he gives this team contributions off the field as well. Character ought to count for something, and it is sad that not as many people appreciate that quality in this team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:laugh:

yeah...they have 5 rings and that one big oops

just look at the last couple of games the skins have played the 49ers, then you can understand the ill will of this guy towards the skins...personally i think its hilaious. they stink and they are in the worst conference in the NFC possibly all of NFL. They dont show any signs of improving either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard Clemments deal is not even close to 80mill the contract is structured to where its closer to 40.

Actually, more like 60 mil.

btw you guys act as if the redskins have not earned the rep

True, but the 49ers have no room to speak on our team considering they're free agent whores as well yet have no results to show for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard Clemments deal is not even close to 80mill the contract is structured to where its closer to 40.

btw you guys act as if the redskins have not earned the rep

Earned the rep? We have earned the rep but I dont think we should be the face of big spenders in free agency? There are people doing alot WORSE then we have done this year. Not to mention a team that hasn't had a winning record in 5 years is insulting a team that went to the playoffs 2 out of the last 3? We had to be doing SOMTHING right if we are WINNING and they AREN'T. So no we haven't earned the rep to be the FACE of big spending, we have earned a rep that we do do it sometimes and its not justified because the players end up stinking. I don't think people should be saying "we are no Washington Redskins" especially when we arent spending **** this year...and we COULD be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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