WP (Wilbon): The Front Office and the Redskins in 2009

[Oldfan]

I generally find it odd when people talk about the press taking shots at the Redskins and Snyder. I don't see it. They are pointing out what they have been.

You don't see it because you are doing the same thing they are. You begin by assuming Dan Snyder is a fool who will repeat the same mistakes he made because he has learned nothing from his nine years experience.

In order to do that you have to ignore what the FO has done since 2007, moves which mostly have made sense to many of us who follow the team closely. Moreover, we are seeing the signs of progress on the field. Wilbon sees the progress, but somehow thinks that his precious prediction of a winning season must be "earned," and so, he invents his completely unsupported trickle down theory.

[Wrong Direction]

And again, I have to ask, what will Snyder do over the course of the 2009 regular season (and God willing, the post-season) to interfere with that talent? This is the gist of the argument that I'd like to see answered.

We have 11-win talent that Wilbon (and you?) believe will win no more than 8 games. Forgetting your claimed precedent, please illustrate what types of things an owner can do over the 4-month NFL season that will rob his talent of 3 wins. Please!

What he did this offseason has already undermined our QB and our head coach. The second things go bad, it's entirely possible that Zorn and/or Campbell lose the locker room. If everyone thinks change is coming anyway, why would they play their heart out for those two guys?

Snyder can absolutely affect this season, even if he doesn't say or do anything else. Perhaps Wilbon didn't fully consider the perilous state of the franchise, as a result of Snyder/Cerrato's offseason, when he made his original prediction.

Isn't that reasonable?

[PeterMP]

I'll only comment on the things that keep us on the topic at hand lol...

No, he didn't. Because the "history of this organization" was there 2 weeks ago...NOTHING about the history changed between then and now. So his initial prediction of 10-11 wins was ALSO made with the "history of this organization" in mind. So what changed? Wilbon having an emotional reaction fo the "ticket fiasco" story is what changed, that's all...and that IS an emotional reaction, not a logical one.

That's your assumption.

That's not what he says. If we go with your assumption, you are right.

None of them mention the "history of incompetence" and DAMN sure none of them mention the "ticket fiasco". As I've said, they base their predictions on individual players' talent levels, on strengths and weaknesses...on whether or not they have confidence in Zorn as a playcaller or Campbell as an effective QB. You won't find too many who will say "The Skins have all the talent in the world to challenge for the division title, but Snyder's incompetence will anchor them at 8-8 like they have been every year". Sorry, but they're not saying that...because it's a pretty illogical thing to say. Simply put, you can't BOTH claim the Skins have enough talent to win the division AND claim that Snyder's incompetence will keep the Skins from being able to win. If he's that incompetent we wouldn't HAVE that level of talent on the team to begin with. Wilbon wants his cake and to eat it, too.

Nobody is assuming that Snyder's incompetence alone will cause the team to directly lose, but as I've already pointed out, for example, Zorn was picked by Snyder. If they don't like Zorn as a play caller, then that is a measure for taking into account the incompetence of the organization. If they are unsure of Zorn as a play caller, but lean to the skeptical side when making their predictions, then that is taking into the historical incompetence of the organization.

And that's the irony lol...it's Snyder's competent moves that caused the excitement to begin with. And this is also a perfect example of how Wilbon uses emotion to gage his predictions. Whether you think his initial "excitement" prediction of 11-5 or his more recent angry prediction of 8-8 is based off of emotion, ONE of them definitely is (if not both).

I'll agree with that. You seem positive it is the 8-8 prediction.

But the WP reported it that way anyway. Why? Because they didn't know any better, and just made an honest mistake? Or because they had an agenda to promote behind the story of fans being sued, and the writer knew it would sound worse phrasing it the way he did?

That same article talked about how "at least 9 other" franchises said they do not sue fans. No effort was made to see if it was true or not. Just took them at their word. Who knows if the spokesperson they talked to was being honest or not. Hardly matters to the WP, it seems. And the kicker was, the article tried to paint it as if the Skins were in the minority in terms of teams who sue fans that reneg on their contracts with the franchise..."at least nine other teams" really meant "out of the other 31 teams we could only find 9 of them that do NOT do the exact same thing we're blasting the Redsking over" lol. But again, phrasing the "facts" in just the right way with just the right spin can get your agenda across, regardless of what that agenda may be.

So, yes, believe it or not, there are examples of Skins "bias" in the media. Maybe not every single article or report that fans claim, no...but there's enough of it, and it deserves to be called out when seen.

The WP piece directly pointed out HOW they determined what other teams (by contacting them), which obviously leads one to conclude other teams could lie.

"But spokesmen for the following National Football League teams said they do not sue their fans over season ticket contracts: Baltimore Ravens, Cincinnati Bengals, Green Bay Packers, Houston Texans, Jacksonville Jaguars, New York Giants and Jets, Seattle Seahawks and Tennessee Titans."

How could that be stated with LESS bias? They then give the run down of other teams. Some do sue. Some wouldn't comment, and other just didn't respond.

Oh and 160,000 and the phrase "waiting list" don't appear in the article.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

What he did this offseason has already undermined our QB and our head coach. The second things go bad, it's entirely possible that Zorn and/or Campbell lose the locker room. If everyone thinks change is coming anyway, why would they play their heart out for those two guys?

Snyder can absolutely affect this season, even if he doesn't say or do anything else. Perhaps Wilbon didn't fully consider the perilous state of the franchise, as a result of Snyder/Cerrato's offseason, when he made his original prediction.

Isn't that reasonable?

What did Snyder do to undermine Zorn this offseason?

[PeterMP]

You don't see it because you are doing the same thing they are. You begin by assuming Dan Snyder is a fool who will repeat the same mistakes he made because he has learned nothing from his nine years experience.

In order to do that you have to ignore what the FO has done since 2007, moves which mostly have made sense to many of us who follow the team closely. Moreover, we are seeing the signs of progress on the field. Wilbon sees the progress, but somehow thinks that his precious prediction of a winning season must be "earned," and so, he invents his completely unsupported trickle down theory.

Actually, I don't. I've already stated that management does improve sometimes. I pointed to both the Colts and the Yankees as teams where w/o changing ownership they improved how they did things and started winning.

I've also in the past here defended Vinny Cerrato. I've made the point that I don't think that Vinny has ever really been in charge of making a team for an extended period of time. He certainly didn't in SF, and with Gibbs I think Williams had as much of a say if not more than Cerrato. I'm not all convinced Cerrato would have said let's go get Adam Archelutta.

We haven't seen any progress on the field. This team last year went backwards from 9-7 to 8-8 and essentially collapsed at the end of the season.

Last year wasn't progress, and this year they haven't played a real game to conclude they've made progress.

[Wrong Direction]

What did Snyder do to undermine Zorn this offseason?

Zorn was on the record as supporting Campbell the entire time. If things don't start well over the first few games, he'll be forced to ditch Campbell in order to save his job.

There's no doubt that Zorn is on the hot seat.

[Oldfan]

What he did this offseason has already undermined our QB and our head coach.

Trying to upgrade the QB position undermined the QB and HC? There is no evidence of that. Both seem to be on top of their game to me.

The second things go bad, it's entirely possible that Zorn and/or Campbell lose the locker room.

Don't you realize you might be wrong when you have to strain so much to find fault?

[Wrong Direction]

You don't see it because you are doing the same thing they are. You begin by assuming Dan Snyder is a fool who will repeat the same mistakes he made because he has learned nothing from his nine years experience.

In order to do that you have to ignore what the FO has done since 2007, moves which mostly have made sense to many of us who follow the team closely. Moreover, we are seeing the signs of progress on the field. Wilbon sees the progress, but somehow thinks that his precious prediction of a winning season must be "earned," and so, he invents his completely unsupported trickle down theory.

What great moves since 2007? I know he hit on Horton and maybe Mitchell/Jarmon. I like that. He also had a huge hiring fiasco with Zorn/Williams, traded a 2nd rounder for a guy who didn't fit our scheme (Taylor), and publicly courted not one, but two starting QBs to replace our incumbent. In each case, they showed their continued willingness to give up future picks.

We lucked into Orakpo and potentially tampered with Haynesworth.

How has this leopard changed his spots?

[Oldfan]

Zorn was on the record as supporting Campbell the entire time. If things don't start well over the first few games, he'll be forced to ditch Campbell in order to save his job.

If I'm any judge of people, Z would never do that to save his job.

There's no doubt that Zorn is on the hot seat.

There's plenty of doubt if you don't think of Dan Snyder as a fool.

[Wrong Direction]

Trying to upgrade the QB position undermined the QB and HC? There is no evidence of that. Both seem to be on top of their game to me.

Don't you realize you might be wrong when you have to strain so much to find fault?

It's entirely possible that this team unites around Campbell and Zorn. I'm certainly rooting for that to happen.

However, if it does happen, it's happening in spite of Snyder, not on behalf of Snyder.

[Oldfan]

What great moves since 2007? I know he hit on Horton and maybe Mitchell/Jarmon. I like that. He also had a huge hiring fiasco with Zorn/Williams, traded a 2nd rounder for a guy who didn't fit our scheme (Taylor), and publicly courted not one, but two starting QBs to replace our incumbent. In each case, they showed their continued willingness to give up future picks.

We lucked into Orakpo and potentially tampered with Haynesworth.

How has this leopard changed his spots?

I won't waste my time. Your biased list tells me your mind is closed.

[Wrong Direction]

If I'm any judge of people, Z would never do that to save his job.

There's plenty of doubt if you don't think of Dan Snyder as a fool.

Z works for Snyder. If he wants to keep his job, he won't stick with Campbell when/if things go bad. Maybe he'd make a change based on his own observations. All I know is that Campbell doesn't have the luxury of a long leash this offseason. He'll be forced to make plays. The pressure's on him to perform, to connect on the deep ball, to get the young receivers in play.

It doesn't matter if the O-line isn't up to snuff, or if Portis starts to hit his Eddie George wall. The only thing that matters is productivity. If we're not productive, Campbell is gone.

Does that seem like a winning atmosphere to you? Thanks Danny for changing your spots. :doh:

[Wrong Direction]

I won't waste my time. Your biased list tells me your mind is closed.

Seriously, how has he changed his spots?

How many older veterans were re-negotiated this offseason? How willing was he to trade multiple draft picks? How much did he show public respect for his most visible player?

You can call me biased, but if you think Snyder's changed his spots, I'd love to hear how. I'd love to be proven wrong.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

That's your assumption.

That's not what he says. If we go with your assumption, you are right.

It's more than assumption...it's what he said himself lol :yes:...

The ONLY thing he mentions that has changed is his view of Snyder after reading that article about the tickets. And he describes what he read as "mean-spirited decision-making", and tries to tack it onto the player and coaching decision making that has taken place. But there has been no decisions concerning players or coaches that has been "mean-spirited" over the last 5 or so years. In fact, the only "mean-spirited" decisions I can think of would be sending the vanilla ice cream to Mike Nolan back in 1999 lol...

However, choosing to take Club Seat ticket holders who reneg on their contracts to court can easily be defined as "mean-spirited" if you wanted to do so. Clearly, Wilbon meant that. Anyone who wants to use "mean-spirited decisions" as a reason the Skins won't improve this year is using emotion over logic.

Nobody is assuming that Snyder's incompetence alone will cause the team to directly lose, but as I've already pointed out, for example, Zorn was picked by Snyder. If they don't like Zorn as a play caller, then that is a measure for taking into account the incompetence of the organization. If they are unsure of Zorn as a play caller, but lean to the skeptical side when making their predictions, then that is taking into the historical incompetence of the organization.

But again (and for the last time lol)...that "history of incompetence" was in place 2 weeks ago, and wasn't enough to deter him from predicint 10-11 wins. NOTHING about it has changed since then. Like it or not, you're defending Wilbon's changing his mind about the Skins' chances and basing it on the "ticket fiasco" article that HIS OWN PAPER put out (no conflicts there, sure lol)...and that's the very thing I find ludicrious and illogical.

I'll agree with that. You seem positive it is the 8-8 prediction.

Since the only facts I have to base it on is that he gave a lengthy, detailed analysis of the different units, strengths, weaknesses and additions this offseason for his 10-11 win prediction...and the only thing he's given for his 8-8 prediction is the "Ticket fiasco" somehow reminding him of things he HAD to have already known 2 weeks earlier, yeah, I'm thinking it's the 8-8 record that's based more on emotion lol :yes:...

The WP piece directly pointed out HOW they determined what other teams (by contacting them), which obviously leads one to conclude other teams could lie.

"But spokesmen for the following National Football League teams said they do not sue their fans over season ticket contracts: Baltimore Ravens, Cincinnati Bengals, Green Bay Packers, Houston Texans, Jacksonville Jaguars, New York Giants and Jets, Seattle Seahawks and Tennessee Titans."

How could that be stated with LESS bias? They then give the run down of other teams. Some do sue. Some wouldn't comment, and other just didn't respond.

The things is, they listed the teams who do and do not sue fans as a rebuttal to the Skins' claim that they "...don't know of any pro football team that doesn't" sue fans.

Which means, the WP is presenting that list as evidence that there are, in fact, teams that do not sue fans, contrary to what the evil Redskins claim (wink nudge)...but the WP does ZERO to determine if that is indeed true. The fact that they found 9 spokespersons for NFL teams to claim they do not is NOT the same as proving they do not. I find it ironic that the WP article tries to show that you can't take the Skins' representative at just his word...by taking other teams' representatives at just THEIR words lol ...If the writer treated the Skins' representative's claims the way he treated the other teams' reps claims, they never would have bothered calling up the other 31 teams to see if he was right...they would have simply taken him at his word and reported it as fact.

Oh and 160,000 and the phrase "waiting list" don't appear in the article.

It was in Boswell's article commenting on that article:

the Redskins do not emulate at least nine other NFL teams, as well as local franchises such as the Capitals, and simply cancel the tickets and sell them to someone else. Nope. Despite a "waiting list" they claim is 160,000 long, the Redskins sue some of their own fans for the money and, at times, even resell the tickets.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Zorn was on the record as supporting Campbell the entire time. If things don't start well over the first few games, he'll be forced to ditch Campbell in order to save his job.

There's no doubt that Zorn is on the hot seat.

That's "undermining" the coach? lol...The only way that would be undermining the coach is if Zorn was unaware of any attempts to get rid of Campbell. So far, that has not been proven anywhere or shown to be true anywhere.

If Zorn DID know, however, and still chose to publicky support JC 1,000%, then Snyder was not undermining Zorn in any way, shape or form.

And as for Zorn being on the hot seat and "ditching" Campbell it they don't start off well over the first few games, that's nothing more than fan speculation...there hasn't even been any articles or rumors substatiating that viewpoint...it's all based off of the "Snyer is impatient" mantra. And I do NOT see Zorn pulling Campbell after a "few games"...won't happen.

[Wrong Direction]

But again (and for the last time lol)...that "history of incompetence" was in place 2 weeks ago, and wasn't enough to deter him from predicint 10-11 wins. NOTHING about it has changed since then. Like it or not, you're defending Wilbon's changing his mind about the Skins' chances and basing it on the "ticket fiasco" article that HIS OWN PAPER put out (no conflicts there, sure lol)...and that's the very thing I find ludicrious and illogical.

Why are you so fixated on the last two weeks. Wilbon specifically said that other FO personnel reminded him that there's more to the equation...thus his logical change. He's saying he didn't take all factors into account in his original prediction.

And then James Grimaldi's series in The Post on the club's ticket madness led me to have more conversations with more pro football people about the Redskins.

He goes on to talk about how the FO can undermine a team. However, he didn't say anything about any actions that could take place during the year. I think you're assuming that whatever Snyder might do needs to happen in the season to adversely affect our record. Unfortunately, it's entirely possible, by Wilbon's reasoning, that Snyder's existing actions have already undermined this team, and that the other "pro football people" have brought this to his attention.

Many of them reminded me how what happens in the executive suites can so thoroughly undermine what happens on the field, of how no team can survive year after year after year of bad, dumb and even mean-spirited decision-making in various areas.

[Wrong Direction]

That's "undermining" the coach? lol...The only way that would be undermining the coach is if Zorn was unaware of any attempts to get rid of Campbell. So far, that has not been proven anywhere or shown to be true anywhere.

If Zorn DID know, however, and still chose to publicky support JC 1,000%, then Snyder was not undermining Zorn in any way, shape or form.

And as for Zorn being on the hot seat and "ditching" Campbell it they don't start off well over the first few games, that's nothing more than fan speculation...there hasn't even been any articles or rumors substatiating that viewpoint...it's all based off of the "Snyer is impatient" mantra. And I do NOT see Zorn pulling Campbell after a "few games"...won't happen.

Fair enough. I readily admit that he undermined Campbell much more than Zorn. I also think that Zorn has a short leash though. Maybe that's my assumption, but it's certainly conventional wisdom (which may be wrong).

If the Skins don't make the playoffs, do you think either Campbell or Zorn will be around next year?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Why are you so fixated on the last two weeks. Wilbon specifically said that other FO personnel reminded him that there's more to the equation...thus his logical change. He's saying he didn't take all factors into account in his original prediction.

Do you REALLY think Wilbon didn't know that executive and front office decisions can have an effect on the team?? LOL!!...No freakin' way he did NOT know that. I knew that! Every slightly coherent football fan knows that. Willbon didn't need to consult "football people" from around the league to know this...in fact he admits as much himself when he says these same football people REMINDED him of this fact. Which means he knew it all along, but "forgot" it as of two weeks ago.

So, one last time: what caused Wilbon to "forget" this insanely basic aspect of football knowledge two weeks ago--that decisions made by the owner can have an effect on the team? Seriously, what do you think caused Wilbon to just completely ignore Snyder's "history of incompetence" as another poster put it, to completely "forget" that the owner can actually effect the team he owns...and slot the Skins as realistically having a chance at winning 10-11 games? I'd really love to know your thoughts on that.

[Wrong Direction]

Do you REALLY think Wilbon didn't know that executive and front office decisions can have an effect on the team?? LOL!!...No freakin' way he did NOT know that. I knew that! Every slightly coherent football fan knows that. Willbon didn't need to consult "football people" from around the league to know this...in fact he admits as much himself when he says these same football people REMINDED him of this fact. Which means he knew it all along, but "forgot" it as of two weeks ago.

So, one last time: what caused Wilbon to "forget" this insanely basic aspect of football knowledge two weeks ago--that decisions made by the owner can have an effect on the team? Seriously, what do you think caused Wilbon to just completely ignore Snyder's "history of incompetence" as another poster put it, to completely "forget" that the owner can actually effect the team he owns...and slot the Skins as realistically having a chance at winning 10-11 games? I'd really love to know your thoughts on that.

It doesn't mean that he forgot it, it means that he didn't account for it as much as he should have.

It's very easy to get caught up in preseason hype...to read the headlines and not consider the larger picture. A couple of nice drives here and there, Heyer locking up RT, Haynesworth driving Brady into the ground, whatever.

Wilbon re-evaluated. I just don't see the big deal. If anything, it says that his first column was poorly researched, not his second (IMO).

[Califan007 The Constipated]

It doesn't mean that he forgot it, it means that he didn't account for it as much as he should have.

It's very easy to get caught up in preseason hype...to read the headlines and not consider the larger picture. A couple of nice drives here and there, Heyer locking up RT, Haynesworth driving Brady into the ground, whatever.

Wilbon re-evaluated. I just don't see the big deal. If anything, it says that his first column was poorly researched, not his second (IMO).

Ah, so you touch on one of my points...that Wilbon's "evaluations" can and apparently do fluctuatte depending on what effects him from one moment to the next. NOTHING, outside of a major season-ending injury to a franchise player, should logically cause a win total prediction to drop down 2-3 games in just a matter of a week. So one of three things happened:

1) Wilbon let the "hype" of preseason effect his assessment of the Skins without taking a more realistic and logical evaluation...

2) Wilbon let the "hype" of the Skins suing fans effect his assessment of the Skins without taking a more realistic and logical evaluation...

3) Both.

Again, Wilbon's entire argument was "What the hell was I thinking giving ANY team owned by Daniel Snyder any credit?!"...There's no way in hell that speaks complimentary of Wilbon's football knowledge or intellect. I would bet a year's pay that no other sportswriter or NFL journalist has changed their minds about their predictions for the Redskins after that article came out. Only someone who is (overly)emotionally effected by that article would bother doing so. In fact, I haven't even seen any ES members change their stances about the Skins' chances. Wilbon is truly out there by himself on this one lol...

[SilkyDiamonds]

Seriously Califan007, do you believe in The Danny so much that anything he does is the gospel?

I haven't posted as long as you but WOW anytime ANYONE disagrees with "under .500" Danny, you come up with some Baghdad Bob excuse why he's right.

But none of what you have ever said has explained why Mr. "Make it rain", has through all of his glorious decisions managed to spend a multiple of the amount of money the Bengals have, and basically garnered the same results.

There is such a thing as institutional chaos, whereby everyone is looking over each others shoulder worried about one's self thereby insuring the overall organization is stagnant. (see Communist Soviet Union for example)

As long as Danny boy has reason over reason to lay blame unto someone else as to why we arent winning, he delays the inevitable examination of the only COMMON variable throughout this reign of glory ................DANIEL M SNYDER

I know now you will go into all out "I must show I'm smarter" mode, and use literary tricks, putdowns, and the other tools of the misinformation campaign you are at the forefront of. But all I ask is be honest, look at at the stewardship of this organization and ask yourself , why exactly is it that SO many people can feel this AVERSE to saintly Dan.

With this and my utterly small influence here I sit back and await the imminent onslaught to which speaking disapproval of the Danny warrants from you.

[Larry Brown #43]

SilkyDiamonds-- you've joined this discussion late and you seem to miss the point of the discussion. The thread is not about whether Snyder is a good or bad owner. The discussion is about Wilbon's blog post, in which he flip-flopped on his prediction for the Skins in '09.

Last week Wilbon went on the radio and predicted the Skins would go 10-6 or 11-5 and contend for the NFC East crown. Then, a week later after the ticket fiasco stories were published, he suddenly "remembers" that Snyder is a lousy owner, and downgrades his prediction to 8-8. Absolutely nothing changed about the Redskins (other than cutting 23 players to get down to the final 53) in the time between Wilbon's lofty prediction for the Skins and this morning, except for the ticket fiasco articles being published.

Removing any positive or negative feelings about Snyder from the equation...I would think even the most ardent Snyder bashers would find this flip-flop from Wilbon to be silly and amateurish.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Seriously Califan007, do you believe in The Danny so much that anything he does is the gospel?

You, sir, area a master at constructing Straw Man arguments lol :notworthy

Never said eveyrhing Snyder does is "gospel"...you go right on arguing that non-existent point, though :thumbsup:.

I haven't posted as long as you but WOW anytime ANYONE disagrees with "under .500" Danny, you come up with some Baghdad Bob excuse why he's right.

Example #2 of "How To Build A Straw Man Argument And Influence People" :applause:...

"Under .500 Danny" didn't say anything for me to defend...as everyone EXCEPT you has understood over the course of about 20 pages, this topic deals with Wilbon's rationale for both his initial 10-11 win prediction, and his 8 win prediction a week later.

But, hey, you go right on slaying that non-existing argument, though :thumbsup:...

But none of what you have ever said has explained why Mr. "Make it rain", has through all of his glorious decisions managed to spend a multiple of the amount of money the Bengals have, and basically garnered the same results.

You are on an Straw Man argument roll! lol ...

Again, everyone on this thread knows and has been arguing and debating the REAL topic of this thread: Wilbon's logic (or lack thereof) for alledgely changing his mind about the Redskins' chances. That's what the grown ups are discussing at the big table.

But, hey, you go right on swinging punches at that nasty Straw Man, though :thumbsup:

There is such a thing as institutional chaos, whereby everyone is looking over each others shoulder worried about one's self thereby insuring the overall organization is stagnant. (see Communist Soviet Union for example)

As long as Danny boy has reason over reason to lay blame unto someone else as to why we arent winning, he delays the inevitable examination of the only COMMON variable throughout this reign of glory ................DANIEL M SNYDER

And of course NONE of this was known to Wilbon until a week ago lol :yes:...so he could not have possibly considered any of this waaaaaay back a week ago when he made that 10-6/11-5 prediction. Thank the heavens that the article about the "ticket fiasco" woke him from his stupor and made him see the light, hallelujah!!

I know now you will go into all out "I must show I'm smarter" mode, and use literary tricks, putdowns, and the other tools of the misinformation campaign you are at the forefront of.

"Literary tricks"?? lol...What the hell are those? Is that another way of saying "a good grasp of the english language"? If so, then yes, I do have a decent grasp of the vocabulary, and can express myself convincingly, thanks :yes:...

But all I ask is be honest, look at at the stewardship of this organization and ask yourself , why exactly is it that SO many people can feel this AVERSE to saintly Dan.

With this and my utterly small influence here I sit back and await the imminent onslaught to which speaking disapproval of the Danny warrants from you.

:doh:...20 pages of on-topic debate and discussion, nobody really veering from it at all...then you come along lol ...

If the ONLY thing you can draw from this is that I refuse to allow anyone to speak negatively about Daniel Snyder...then, yeah, each additional keystroke I use typing a response to you is a wasted one. So with that, adios.

[MrJL]

basically all i'm seeing is that he says we should be good and that we should be 10-6 or 11-5 but based on what he's talked with other people about we might only be 8-8 because our front office sucks lol...the guys basically saying were good but were bad at the same time IMO lol.

Doubt thats what your asking if we see but thats what im seeing. Just finished a 12 hour shift im tired lol

he's saying if they don;t focus on the field then they could play under their potential.

[SilkyDiamonds]

Larry Brown your are right, joined the convo late, and maybe this is the wrong forum or method to convey my feeling, but my observation is that ANYTIME ANYONE says discrediting things about "The Danny", sure as the sun rises Califan explains it away.

With Wilbon I myself have issues, but his point remains very clear, if it was generic owner A, he would have predicted a certain outcome, but because it is proven chaotic owner Snyder, he believes that just his presence will mean we underachieve. Agree or disagree, the results have proven this to be the case.

Its like a child with an alcoholic abusive dad, that demands he is "Chief" of the household and anything other than what he sees is wrong and therefore must be punished, the child then tends to do just enough to keep "dad" from beating him again. Doesn't make the child overachieve it makes the child "just do enough". (8-8)

Whereas the same child in a more supportive environment would seek to not avoid being beat, but instead seek display what his supportive and encouraging parent has instilled into him. (excellence)