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

[Larry Brown #43]

well we can only speculate here since that kind of situation will never happen (owners will never trade teams), so neither one of us really has any evidence we can use to support whatever result we come up with, so in all fairness, we're reaching.

having said that, what we do have is daniel snyder's history with other organizations he's owned; and it isn't good.

I think you and several others are missing the point of this discussion. This isn't about whether Snyder is a good owner or a bad owner. There are plenty of threads out there if you want to debate the plusses and minuses of Snyder as an owner.

This discussion is about Wilbon's blog entry, in which he admitted that he had picked this year's Redskins squad to go 10-6 or 11-5 as recently as a week ago (I heard him make the prediction on Theismann's radio show), but then after being reminded that Snyder is a lousy owner, decided to bump his prediction down to 8-8.

Bear in mind, this team will have the same players (minus the players who were cut) and same coaches as when Wilbon predicted we'd go 10-6 or 11-5. But somehow, after remembering who our owner is, he now thinks we'll go 8-8. I suppose that when he made his 10-6/11-5 prediction, he momentarily forgot who our owner is. Does this make any sense?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Yes. It did. BUt you kind of defeat your own argument that post ight there. That is EXACTLY how a front office can affect the outcome of a season.

close thread.

Once again, my posts COMPLETELY fly over your head lol...You'd think you'd learn.

The point of this thread was NOT to say that the front office can not affect the outcome of a season!...Go read it again if you've forgotten (like Wilbon apparently tends to do lol)...it was to say that thinking something like the "ticket fiasco" will "trickle down" to the field and should be seen as a reminder why this team won't win more than 8 games this season is beyond asinine.

See the difference? THAT'S what my other post was facetiously trying to illustrate...that "all it takes is one mistake" to apparently remind Wilbon of things like siging Dana Stubblefield lol...that one mistake is all it takes to make people remember past mistakes and completely ignore past successes.

Do you get it now?

[Passizle]

Wrong. Wilbon's main point was that he looked at the team as it's currently constructed and thought it was a 10 or 11-win team. Then, upon his revelation that Snyder owns the Skins, he decided they'd only win 8 or 9 games.

So, my question all along has been "How can the owner impact how many wins a team gets during the season?"

It's well within the scope of the original article and question and it's something that no one has been able to answer to this point (12 pages).

By underming the quality of the roster with rediculous spending and draft pick wasting...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Just becasue its a "plan" does not make it "sound". They way the Redskins FO treats their talent leaves alot to be desired...

Did you or did you not ask me if the Skins were constantly in "cap hell"?...I don't remember you asking me if the Skins' approach towards FA contracts and cap management was merely "sound" or not.

Like I stated earlier. Wilbon has no need to "back up" what he is saying. If you are a local or longtime fan, you shold be able to search your recent memory about how the decisions the front offie has made, has put the team in precarious situations years after year. Its not rocket science.

Then why mention Dana stinkin' Stubblefield?...Or are "longtime fans" those who have only been around for 8 years? lol...

Perhaps "confidence" was the wrong word. But how about udermining faith in your leadership...

Schotty comes to mind

Gregg Williams

Jason Campbell

Lavar Arrington to name a few...

Schotty undermined his OWN leadership...he had a near mutiny on his hands when he first came on, and it was NOT because of Snyder.

I'm not sure at all how Williams was undermined...refresh my memory.

Campbell?...I'm not sure seeking out a better alternative for a player who has not proven himself qualifies. Besides, nobody on the team seems to think less of Campbell...in fact, of the players who have commented either on or off the record, they view him more favorably now.

Arrington, at best, was a 50/50 split in terms of who did the most damage...and many would say Gibbs and Williams did the damage, not Snyder (in terms of undermining leadership, that is).

[TD_washingtonredskins]

By underming the quality of the roster with rediculous spending and draft pick wasting...

Again...that would have already happened and been factored into the team that Wilbon thought could produce 11 wins. What can Snyder do DURING THE SEASON that could subtract 3 wins from that total?

I really can't believe that you're not catching this...

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think you and several others are missing the point of this discussion. This isn't about whether Snyder is a good owner or a bad owner. There are plenty of threads out there if you want to debate the plusses and minuses of Snyder as an owner.

This discussion is about Wilbon's blog entry, in which he admitted that he had picked this year's Redskins squad to go 10-6 or 11-5 as recently as a week ago (I heard him make the prediction on Theismann's radio show), but then after being reminded that Snyder is a lousy owner, decided to bump his prediction down to 8-8.

Bear in mind, this team will have the same players (minus the players who were cut) and same coaches as when Wilbon predicted we'd go 10-6 or 11-5. But somehow, after remembering who our owner is, he now thinks we'll go 8-8. I suppose that when he made his 10-6/11-5 prediction, he momentarily forgot who our owner is. Does this make any sense?

Brace yourself for the obligatory:

"Schnieder sux, they'll go 8-8 at best!"

[Passizle]

Once again, my posts COMPLETELY fly over your head lol...You'd think you'd learn.

The point of this thread was NOT to say that the front office can not affect the outcome of a season!...Go read it again if you've forgotten (like Wilbon apparently tends to do lol)...it was to say that thinking something like the "ticket fiasco" will "trickle down" to the field and should be seen as a reminder why this team won't win more than 8 games this season is beyond asinine.

See the difference? THAT'S what my other post was facetiously trying to illustrate...that "all it takes is one mistake" to apparently remind Wilbon of things like siging Dana Stubblefield lol...that one mistake is all it takes to make people remember past mistakes and completely ignore past successes.

Do you get it now?

No. I dont... in your original post you said this...

"Can anyone else spot the numerous logic flaws in this piece?"

When people like myself posted that they could not find anything "illogical" about the peice, you and a few others went on some sort of tirade to "prove" you point... while conceding it.

You cant say the article is "illogical" while also admitting that the FO has made mistakes that have cost the team success. Just bceause Wilbon uses the "ticket fiascoe" as a "reminder" of how the FO runs the ship does not make the point of the article any less valid.

Snyder has not proven anything yet, just by hving one good offseason. Try to remember Jason Taylor from last year....

TJ duckett the year before...

Archuletta before that....Without getting too redundant, the point is that Wilbon sees the idiocy of the FO suing its fanbase as "another sign" that this FO just does not get "IT".

Color that whatever you like. The point has merrit.

[TheTotalPackage]

Arrington, at best, was a 50/50 split in terms of who did the most damage...and many would say Gibbs and Williams did the damage, not Snyder (in terms of undermining leadership, that is).

i believe snyder instructed gibbs and williams to alienate arrington as a consequence of the contract grievance that they were going through.

[The Sisko]

Thank you!! lol :applause:...Wilbon didn't just "suddenly remember" that he thought Sndyer was incompetent and it effected his outlook on the Skins this season lol...

But the point I'm making -- and the issue I take w/ Wilbon in this case -- is that as recently as a few days ago, he said he thinks the Skins are a 10-6 or an 11-5 team this year. But then he bumped us down to 8-8 because of ownership. That makes no sense at all.

...unless you were around for Danny's second season as owner when we were crowned as future SB winners based on Snyder's F.A. additions. Therefore, there's a precedent for management screw ups here. I'd argue that Wilbon is giving the reader credit for knowledge of Snyder's previous screw ups and isn't bothering to re-hash them. In other words, when a writer writes about our war against Al Qaeda, there's not much need to mention 9/11 anymore. The reader understands the context already. Besides, I'm sure you understand that writers don't have unlimited space.

Have not. "Cap Hell" isn't simply when you restructure to make more room under the cap..."Cap Hell" is when you do what the 49ers and Titans have done in the past, and have a clearance sale on your roster and HAVE to let go of multiple talented players and suffer with lesser talents for a year or two in order to get your cap situation back on track. People have been claiming the Skins would be the next team to undergo that experience. We never have.

I agree with this, to a point. We haven't seen the Skins being forced to release top tier players due to cap constraints as many expected. OTOH, what we have seen is a propensity for the team to extend players repeatedly, in an never ending rob Peter to pay Paul juggling act. As a result, we've been sometimes forced to hold on to players that are past their prime and not worth their contract *cough* Jansen *cough* or eat a large cap hit to get rid of them. Given how often we've extended Samuels, I suspect we may see a redux of the Jansen situation in the next year or two.

Again, the fact that the proverbial "cap hell" hasn't materialized doesn't mean our personnel strategy has been successful. A much better strategy would be the one the Fecals and Steelers employ in which a pipeline of players is maintained that allows the team to pick and choose which ones to give the mega bucks while allowing others to seek bigger $$ elsewhere and elevating one of the players from the pipeline.

Oldfan and others, even me to a certain degree, are giving the F.O. props for having done well in the draft the past couple of seasons. However, don't forget that we've also been bailed out by other teams' stupidity during that span as well. The Ocho Cinco for multiple picks deal, D. Hall being released by the Raiders obviating the need for us to draft another elite CB, the Bears scuttling the deal for L. Briggs, and ultimately, IMHO Jay Cutler who I think is the second coming of J. George.

Name the "many a coach and player" that Snyder has undermined in terms of confidence?

I guess you've forgotten Norv. Snyder undermined his authority by bringing in J. George against Norv's wishes, among other decisions. He also pulled a similar stunt with Spurrier and D. Woefull. And I've already mentioned Snyder's palling around with certain players (B. Smith/CPO) being detrimental to team chemistry and undermining the coach.

So, I've cited three cases. Because of the dynamics, Snyder was unable to do so with Marty and Gibbs and Robiskie didn't coach long enough with us for it to matter. Other than those three exceptions, I think that may cover every coach Snyder has had. So in other words, when he's been allowed to undermine a coach, he will do so. Not good.

[TheTotalPackage]

I think you and several others are missing the point of this discussion. This isn't about whether Snyder is a good owner or a bad owner. There are plenty of threads out there if you want to debate the plusses and minuses of Snyder as an owner.

This discussion is about Wilbon's blog entry, in which he admitted that he had picked this year's Redskins squad to go 10-6 or 11-5 as recently as a week ago (I heard him make the prediction on Theismann's radio show), but then after being reminded that Snyder is a lousy owner, decided to bump his prediction down to 8-8.

Bear in mind, this team will have the same players (minus the players who were cut) and same coaches as when Wilbon predicted we'd go 10-6 or 11-5. But somehow, after remembering who our owner is, he now thinks we'll go 8-8. I suppose that when he made his 10-6/11-5 prediction, he momentarily forgot who our owner is. Does this make any sense?

no, i got the article from the getgo. the post you're quoting is a result of a tangent between myself and another poster.

yes it makes sense because year after year, we make sexy moves and win the offseason super bowl, only to falter and those acquisitions prove to be bad decisions. we can't use the argument that we made some good drft picks too, because we made some decent picks then (taylor, landry, etc) and the results were the same. he's saying wait. we still have the same owners running the franchise and we never know if they know what t hey're doing. lets wait and see.

[Passizle]

Again...that would have already happened and been factored into the team that Wilbon thought could produce 11 wins. What can Snyder do DURING THE SEASON that could subtract 3 wins from that total?

I really can't believe that you're not catching this...

I think what not getting "caught" is that Wilbon made his prediction about the season WITHOUT including the FO into his equation. Once he was reminded of how badly the FO ha managed this team from top to bottom he rescinded his prediction with a new one.

Again. The OP asked to point out logical shortcomings of the article. There reall were'nt any...

[Going Commando]

Yes because suing people relates directly to how we will do on the field this year. Wilbon doesn't know what to think. He just wants to ***** about the situation. Don't write the article if you don't really know what you are trying to say.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

This "debate" is maddening because those defending the article are either not seeing the point or purposely ignoring the point.

Again, I ask anyone defending Wilbon to point out how an owner can impact an already-constructed coaching staff and team during the season. PLEASE.

And, finally, I will remind everyone that I am not bashing the record Wilbon decided on. He could have cited any number of question marks on this team. However, what I'm calling into question is how you can look at a team up and down and say "This team can win 11 games" then look at them again when no personnel has changed, consider who the owner is, and say "Oh wait, never mind, they can only win 8 or 9 games."

It's illogical. It is actually the definition of illogical. It's the same as looking at a team in August and saying "This team can win 11 games" then finding out they have changed their uniforms for the season and saying "Oh wait, never mind, they can only win 8 or 9 games."

Keep in mind, every single front office decision that would impact the makeup of the coaching staff and team would have already been made prior to the original prediction.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

BTW... you kind of glance over the rest of the "have we or have we not" question. You just "not" about cap hell. What about everything else?

I respnded directly to two of your points, and pointed out that the other two points don't have anything to do with the topic at hand lol...but, since you asked, I shall oblige ..

made rediculous trades and lost many a good draft pick for overpriced or over-valued and hyped up players... drafted poorly and/or let the good homegown talent we did draft go to other teams...

1) Definitely have made ridiculous trades and lost too many draft picks...not for "overpriced players" (that tends to be free agent signings that don't require the trading of draft picks), but for a few overhyped picks, yes (Archuletta, Lloyd).

Mind you, I'm not going back to the 2000 offseason anymore...still bashing Snyder over the head for that is a bit ridiculous at this point.

2) Drafted poorly?...Nope, don't agree at all. Again, look at all the Skins players who have been drafted and have been productive...Snyder and Vinny have pretty much been batting .1000 in the top 2-3 rounds for years now, with only the rare misstep (Taylor Jacobs, Patrick Ramsey...too soon to tell with the 2008 and 2009 picks). And over the last 3 drafts or so they've found a number of lower round keepers (Blades, Doughty, Heyer, Horton, Mitchell, Montgomery, Gholston, etc...).

3) Let "homegrown" talent go to other teams...yep, we let a grand total of two "homegrown talents" go to other teams that we probably should have or could have kept: Pierce and Clark. Is that REALLY any different than all the other teams in the NFL? Smoot and Dockery both proved that letting them go was the smart thing to do. So I'm voting "Not" for this one as well lol :yes:...

[Larry Brown #43]

...unless you were around for Danny's second season as owner when we were crowned as future SB winners based on Snyder's F.A. additions. Therefore, there's a precedent for management screw ups here. I'd argue that Wilbon is giving the reader credit for knowledge of Snyder's previous screw ups and isn't bothering to re-hash them.

But did Wilbon forget that Snyder was the owner when he predicted we'd go 10-6 or 11-5 just last week? That's the part of this that makes no sense to me.

Lots of people have the Skins going 8-8, and I don't take issue with that. But when you have the Skins going 11-5 or 10-6, and possibly winning the toughest division in football...but then downgrade your prediction to 8-8 one week later because a little birdie reminded you that Snyder is a lousy owner...I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous and spineless.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

This "debate" is maddening because those defending the article are either not seeing the point or purposely ignoring the point.

Again, I ask anyone defending Wilbon to point out how an owner can impact an already-constructed coaching staff and team during the season. PLEASE.

And, finally, I will remind everyone that I am not bashing the record Wilbon decided on. He could have cited any number of question marks on this team. However, what I'm calling into question is how you can look at a team up and down and say "This team can win 11 games" then look at them again when no personnel has changed, consider who the owner is, and say "Oh wait, never mind, they can only win 8 or 9 games."

It's illogical. It is actually the definition of illogical. It's the same as looking at a team in August and saying "This team can win 11 games" then finding out they have changed their uniforms for the season and saying "Oh wait, never mind, they can only win 8 or 9 games."

Keep in mind, every single front office decision that would impact the makeup of the coaching staff and team would have already been made prior to the original prediction.

Thank you, thank you, thank you lol

The point of my argument against his article (as TD also said) is NOT that 8-8 is a bad prediction. I have no quarrel with that.

The point of my argument against this article is NOT that the decisions made by a front office can't effect the team on the field. Doh lol..obvioiusly it does.

As TD so perfectly said, all the decisions the FO and owner made were in place before he made the prediction of 10-11 wins...NOTHING has changed since then...except, maybe, for Wilbon's personal affection (or lack of) for Snyder. Through the "ticket fiasco" articles, he was given another reason in his eyes to dislike Snyder...and he decided to reflect it in his prediction. COMPLETELY illogical thing to do. He then tried to validate doing so by using an extremely broad brush to paint Snyder's wildly various actions and executive issues as owner as all falling under the same umbrella, and all of them contributing to the Skins' production and performance this season. Again, completely illogical conclusion to make.

[Passizle]

This "debate" is maddening because those defending the article are either not seeing the point or purposely ignoring the point.

Again, I ask anyone defending Wilbon to point out how an owner can impact an already-constructed coaching staff and team during the season. PLEASE.

And, finally, I will remind everyone that I am not bashing the record Wilbon decided on. He could have cited any number of question marks on this team. However, what I'm calling into question is how you can look at a team up and down and say "This team can win 11 games" then look at them again when no personnel has changed, consider who the owner is, and say "Oh wait, never mind, they can only win 8 or 9 games."

It's illogical. It is actually the definition of illogical. It's the same as looking at a team in August and saying "This team can win 11 games" then finding out they have changed their uniforms for the season and saying "Oh wait, never mind, they can only win 8 or 9 games."

Keep in mind, every single front office decision that would impact the makeup of the coaching staff and team would have already been made prior to the original prediction.

Just read post 186. You are arguing semantics...

[Passizle]

Thank you, thank you, thank you lol

The point of my argument against his article (as TD also said) is NOT that 8-8 is a bad prediction. I have no quarrel with that.

The point of my argument against this article is NOT that the decisions made by a front office can't effect the team on the field. Doh lol..obvioiusly it does.

As TD so perfectly said, all the decisions the FO and owner made were in place before he made the prediction of 10-11 wins...NOTHING has changed since then...except, maybe, for Wilbon's personal affection (or lack of) for Snyder. Throught the "ticket fiasco" articles, he was given another reason in his eyes to dislike Snyder...and he decided to reflect it in his prediction. COMPLETELY illogical thing to do. He then tried to validate doing so by using an extremely broad brush to paint Snyder's wildly various actions and executive issues as owner as all falling under the same umbrella, and all of them contributing to the Skins' production and performance this season. Again, completely illogical conclusion to make.

Post 186... its really simple. You may not like the answer, but it makes the most sense....

[Passizle]

But did Wilbon forget that Snyder was the owner when he predicted we'd go 10-6 or 11-5 just last week? That's the part of this that makes no sense to me.

Lots of people have the Skins going 8-8, and I don't take issue with that. But when you have the Skins going 11-5 or 10-6, and possibly winning the toughest division in football...but then downgrade your prediction to 8-8 one week later because a little birdie reminded you that Snyder is a lousy owner...I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous and spineless.

DING DING DING!!!! That exactly what happened! I think he based the ORIGINAL prediction solely on team talent.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just read post 186. You are arguing semantics...

No, I'm most certainly not arguing semantics.

Who made the moves during the off-season is irrelevant. If Wilbon liked the acquisitions of Haynesworth, Dockery, Orakpo, Jarmon, etc. enough to predict we'd go 11-5, then that is his opinion. If he only changes his mind because he remembers that a Snyder-led front office made those acquisitions, then it's illogical. The point is, he liked the moves, then decided not to like them simply because they were made by someone he doesn't like.

So, if Kansas City had acquired those players, he'd bump their record up 2-3 wins, but if Washington acquires them, there is no net change. It still doesn't add up.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

DING DING DING!!!! That exactly what happened! I think he based the ORIGINAL prediction solely on team talent.

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!

[Larry Brown #43]

DING DING DING!!!! That exactly what happened! I think he based the ORIGINAL prediction solely on team talent.

Ok, I'll play along. So he based his prediction solely on team talent, and presumably the coaching staff that's in place. Now, please explain what Snyder will do IN-SEASON to thwart that talent and coaching staff that was in place a week ago when Wilbon said we'll challenge for the division title.

[PeterMP]

You got it wrong...I said Wilbon offers no proof that the "ticket fiasco" is an indication of anything player or coach-related. There are TONS of people who are football-smart but business-stupid...as well as people who are business-smart but football-stupid. It was Wilbon's responsibility to show how Snyder's alledged "business stupidity" ends up being connected to his perceived "football stupidity". And he failed to do so. That's what I meant.

And INcompetency in one doesn't guarantee INcompetency in another...which was my point. Wilbon, however, seems to think they go hand-in-hand.

But we have a general record of the competency of this organization with respect to football decisions. He isn't trying to look ONLY at somebody's business and make a decision. The business decision acts as a reminder of the football reality.

Apparently there are possibly 22 other teams who ALSO sue fans like the Skins did...NONE of them have any backlash? NONE of them have journalists in well-respected publications claiming that it points to the overall incompetence of the owner?

I have no clue. Are you trying to make a point?

The thing is, half of those franchises have put together winning seasons, multiple playoff births, etc, etc...so as you said, the decision to sue a handful of fans who reneg on their contracts is not a sign of incompetence, nor should it be seen as evidence of ANYTHING other than business can sometimes be cold, but that's life. In Wilbon's hands, though, that issue is seen as further proof of a conclusion he's already reached, even though he provided no evidence to back up his conclusion. He (like too many Skins fans) seems to believe that since the Skins have been by-and-large mediocre over Snyder's tenure, that that's all the proof anyone needs. It's not, not by a long shot.

Again, it isn't proof of it. It is a reminder of it. The proof is in the history of the results on the football field.

Who says the existence of risks means a move can not be seen as an "absolute good move" (not that I worded it that way, of course lol)?...Good moves aren't defined as moves absent of all risks.

Whether a move is good or not can not really be judged until there is a full measure of the risk, essentially 20/20 hindsight. You want to say the Redskins have made good moves this offseason. We'll see.

Here's a question: what made Wilbon forget that "fact" to begin with?...Why did he need reminding by way of investigative reporting that Snyder is an incompetent fool?...

The answer to that question will speak volumes.

That's a good question. You know the answer?

I would have thought the various QB issues this year would have acted as plenty of a reminder w/o the ticket issue even coming up.

You can't really think of any good reason for bringing up Stubblefield, can you? lol ...Wilbon thought he had a direct corrolation going, so he used it. Both DTs, both coming off career years, both highly sought-after free agents...can't say the same for Jason Taylor. Wilbon thought he had a more sound foundation for comparing Haynesworth to Stubby than to Taylor, that most would see the flaws...and he would have been correct.

But the stupidity of using a player that the current owner had ZERO to do with bringing here is undeniable. His article was about the incompetence of Snyder...why bother mentioning a failed player acquisition that he had no role in, one that was signed before he even became owner? It's just as likelly that Wilbon forgot who signed Stubblefield and thought Snyder brought him in...others in the media (and on this site) have done that before.

I'd guess it was just what his mind went to. There are strong similarities as you stated and is a case that generally makes his point. A move that seems like a good move doesn't always work.

As I get older, I find my mind going to actions that are older even if more recent better comparisions/examples myself.

As you said, all moves have "risks", so just because risks are present doesn't mean every move is equal and deserves to be compared to one another. The Stubby/Haynesworth comparison was beyond ridiculous for several reasons.

Okay. To me, it made sense for the reasons you listed above.

Nowhere did I say it required breaking down all games of every team in order to use football intelligence and knowledge. What I said was Wilbon used exactly zero of either to support his conclusions. He basically claims that he no longer feels it's possible for the Skins to improve this season, not based on any in-depth analysis, not based on a more thorough assessment of the team's strengths and weakenesses...no, Wilbon bases his downgrade of the Skins' chances on some emotional bull**** reasons that fans on message boards use.

No, he did it based on the history of this organization. That's anything, but emotional.

Simply put, yes. Weight all the competent moves against the misfires, and the scale tips decidedly in favor of the "competent moves" side over the last several years. Prove otherwise. 2007 through 2009...three years of moves. Point out all the misfires and all the successes, in terms of player acqusitions, coaching and assistant hirings and firiings, front office maneurerings and restructuring...I'm curious as to what you think of all those areas.

I don't have to go through them all. Their record gives me a general idea of their competency.

And I'll say it once more...do you REALLY think Wilbon just forgot how "mediocre" the Skins have been, but was "brought back to reality" ONLY by the "ticket fiasco"?...Because if so, he sounds FAR more like an emotional fan than he does a competent, knowledgeable journalist.

Also, very telling that ONLY sportswriters for the WP think the "ticket fiasco" is evidence of anything that would make them downgrade their predictions. Nobody else mentions it, not on ESPN or in Sports Illustrated or any other national publication. They are basing their predictions of the Skins' season solely on things like talent, improvements (or lack thereof), coaching competence, player acquisitions...you know, the things that directly play a role in wins and losses. And I'm pretty sure all of those sportswriters are well aware of Snyder's tenure while here.

Well, I haven't seen many places where the national media has picked Washington to be 10-6. I haven't seen many picks of them as 8-8, but I believe they are generally accounting for the history of incompetency in that pick.

And one more time (lol)...was Wilbon unaware of this perceived owner incompetence 2 weeks ago? was he drunk and just forgot? I think if you answer this question, you enlighten yourself as to both Wilbon's mindset and possibly his motivation behind this piece. Because he could have made this same predcition 2 weeks ago before the WP articles, and it would have been just as "valid".

I think Wilbon is pretty much admitting he got caught up in the excitement of what appears to have been a good off season, until the reminder came this is still a Snyder run team that has yet to demonstrate any serious competence in many fields, including putting together a good team.

1) Who says we here don't know this? Faith and optimism don't exist because people don't know better...faith and optimism exist because they ALSO know that things can change in time, and see reason to believe they just might.

2) Being a fan of an NFL team should not require being "safe"...actually, it doesn't require making "smart" decisions, either. But being a knowledgeable sportswriter SHOULD include being able to spot trends and recognize issues that can directly help and/or hurt a team's progress, or a player's progress, or a franchise's progress. Wilbon punts on all of that in order to take a superficial shot at Snyder and the Skins under his ownership. Let's all bow down to his amazing insight.

You have suggested just above that this organization has been better than 8-8 competent over the last several years.

He also isn't asking the fans to be safe or make smart decisions.

He did give you some of that. He says he likes when teams strengthen a strength and some other things.

BUT the question remains, Have the Redskins done it competently?

Essentially, he's telling you if this is a competent management. If Haynesworth is really good. If they Orakpo can be incorporated into the scheme in a competent manner. If they can figure out a way to implement a successful offense w/ the issues they have at OL. He thinks they will be better.

BUT because of their track record, he isn't prepared to make that prediction now.

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. Not a very successful football team. I don't see people making fun of them like the Lions under Millen. They are what they are and from what I can tell, treated as such by most people.

Generally, a mediocer team and organization.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Ok, I'll play along. So he based his prediction solely on team talent, and presumably the coaching staff that's in place. Now, please explain what Snyder will do IN-SEASON to thwart that talent and coaching staff that was in place a week ago when Wilbon said we'll challenge for the division title.

:hysterical:

Great minds...at least we may finally have him pinned down to answer a direct question.

[Passizle]

No, I'm most certainly not arguing semantics.

Who made the moves during the off-season is irrelevant. If Wilbon liked the acquisitions of Haynesworth, Dockery, Orakpo, Jarmon, etc. enough to predict we'd go 11-5, then that is his opinion. If he only changes his mind because he remembers that a Snyder-led front office made those acquisitions, then it's illogical. The point is, he liked the moves, then decided not to like them simply because they were made by someone he doesn't like.

So, if Kansas City had acquired those players, he'd bump their record up 2-3 wins, but if Washington acquires them, there is no net change. It still doesn't add up.

The crux of the article is the "ticket fiasco". Before that, at least IMO, I think Wibon liked what he saw from the FO. He thought the moves were sound and liked the production in the pre-season...

After the other article came out about the :ticket fiasco" Wilbon was reminded of how this FO can be imcompetent. I dont understand, ow that is not illogical.

If i was a gambler that always lost money (borrowed fro you)... won sometimes, but really was just digging the hole slower than usual, you would have a pretty bad opinion of me.

Now... say I went to GA cleaned up my act and asked you to borrow some money to help me get back on my feet. Would you lend it in confidence? If so, if you read in the paper that I took just 5% of the borrowed money and lost it in vegas, would you rethink you position of me?

I think that all this really relates too.