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

[TD_washingtonredskins]

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.

Answer my question at the top of this page (14).

What can a front office do over the course of the 17-week season to turn an 11-win team into an 8-win team? You don't even have to show me examples of things Snyder has done...just give me hypothetical situations.

Either that, or concede that, though he made a perfectly reasonable prediction of 8-8, he backed it with nothing other than "just 'cause" in this article.

[Passizle]

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.

Since when did the "In season" have any relevance to the article? Like I have stated before. You like another poster are arguing semantics...

As for the question... "will do" can not be determined. But are you seriously argiung there is nothing a FO can do to ruin a seaon for a team?

[Passizle]

Answer my question at the top of this page (14).

What can a front office do over the course of the 17-week season to turn an 11-win team into an 8-win team? You don't even have to show me examples of things Snyder has done...just give me hypothetical situations.

Either that, or concede that, though he made a perfectly reasonable prediction of 8-8, he backed it with nothing other than "just 'cause" in this article.

A front office can fire the head coach. Done. Next...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

...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.

But I'll ask again...are we actually believing that Wilbon FORGOT about all of these things?...Especially since he is apparently giving his readers credit for remembering all these very same things? lol...

Let's face it, he remembered every stinkin' move the Skins and Snyder have made from day-one of his ownership. Yet he chose to focus on what he felt were improvements that could see the Skins reaching 10 or 11 wins. That would be the wise, logical thing to do (NOT because it shows the Skins winning 10 games...it would be just as logical if his prediction had been 6-10).

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.

One of the things I do fault Snyder for is a willingness to give each of his coaches "whatever they wanted" in terms of player acquisitions. I felt he should have told Gibbs and Williams "Tough ****, work with what you have and make it win" instead of singing blank checks, so to speak.

I feel like Vinny truly does value the draft, though...at least more than Gibbs seemed to.

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.

While the "Ochocinco" thing was a headscratcher, I'm not convinced that if he HAD come here, he wouldn't have helped our offense go nuts opposite of Santana Moss...we had a scoring problem last season in a few too many games...who's to know whether or not we make the playoffs with him on the team? Probably not lol..but then again, the Eagles made the Conference Championship with a 9-6-1 record, and we swept them...Basically saying, If the deal was as reported that the two high picks would be contengent on CJ catching "x" number of passes and the Skins making the playoffs, it might have been looked at as a good investment if both of those stipulations came to pass.

D. Hall being available was stupidity by the Raiders. The Skins being able to sign him, though, was 100% Vinny and Snyder. Briggs, I tend to agree with you there...Cutler, I think he's gonna be much better than Jeff George, and if we HAD signed him and we saw him hit Malcolm Kelly against the Ravens and Santana Moss in stride against the Pats--two passes JC couldn't connect on--we'd probably be signing his praises right along with those of Vinny lol...

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.

As I've mentioned in another post, I'm beyond criticizing Snyder for mistakes he made in his first 2 years as owner...unless those mistakes still remain continuously from one year to the next. The only player he "pals around with" over the last 7 years seems to be Portis. The only coach he's "undermined" over that same timespan has been Spurrier, and the players themselves came out after his resignation and talked about how he basically lost them anyway...and NOT due to anything Snyder was doing. And Vinny wanted "Woeful" gone while Spurrier wanted him to stay...I always took that as Snyder breaking the tie between Spurrier and Vinny, and making the right choice.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Since when did the "In season" have any relevance to the article? Like I have stated before. You like another poster are arguing semantics...

As for the question... "will do" can not be determined. But are you seriously argiung there is nothing a FO can do to ruin a seaon for a team?

"IN SEASON" is the gist of Wilbon's point since it's the same staff and players he liked to go 11-5 and challenge for the division crown. There were no additional front-office decisions to be made between that original prediction and the 8-8 prediction. Therefore, he's contending that just because Snyder is at the helm, we'll fall 2-3 games short of our talent level.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

A front office can fire the head coach. Done. Next...

OK, so if Zorn gets all 16 games, what will make the 3-game difference? We're making progress at least.

[The Sisko]

But I'll ask again...are we actually believing that Wilbon FORGOT about all of these things?...Especially since he is apparently giving his readers credit for remembering all these very same things? lol...

Let's face it, he remembered every stinkin' move the Skins and Snyder have made from day-one of his ownership. Yet he chose to focus on what he felt were improvements that could see the Skins reaching 10 or 11 wins. That would be the wise, logical thing to do (NOT because it shows the Skins winning 10 games...it would be just as logical if his prediction had been 6-10).

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.

The best I can say about this is, "maybe". If you think about it, I don't think this is as illogical as it perhaps sounds on the surface. I alluded to this point earlier but, many of us have looked at offseason acquisitions, coaching changes, our improved recent drafts or other factors and decided that the team is looking good and has a great shot. Later, after seeing pre-season games, or in Wilbon's case, a reminder of our boneheaded management, we reassess the situation and take a closer look at some of the weaknesses that maybe the offseason hype helped us to gloss over.

I get that there are some differences based on Wilbon's being a writer and us being fans. However, I think the basic issue is the same, i.e. getting caught up in the hype prior to being brought back to reality. That's quite plausible and if you gave Wilbon the benefit of the doubt that you give Snyder, it would most certainly be the side of the argument you'd be arguing right now.

[PeterMP]

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.

A better example would not be a directly related issue.

But for example, going 100 in a 35 zone.

Wouldn't that trigger a response that maybe this guy isn't exactly cleaned up and not the best person to loan money too?

If you want to make the argument that Wilbon failed because he needed to be reminded of their previous issues, that's a different story. That he should have never made the 10-6 prediction.

But to say that this organization has been 8-8 competent for a long time and that asking them to prove they are better than that before making such a prediction doesn't seem unreasonable.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The best I can say about this is, "maybe". If you think about it, I don't think this is as illogical as it perhaps sounds on the surface. I alluded to this point earlier but, many of us have looked at offseason acquisitions, coaching changes, our improved recent drafts or other factors and decided that the team is looking good and has a great shot. Later, after seeing pre-season games, or in Wilbon's case, a reminder of our boneheaded management, we reassess the situation and take a closer look at some of the weaknesses that maybe the offseason hype helped us to gloss over.

I get that there are some differences based on Wilbon's being a writer and us being fans. However, I think the basic issue is the same, i.e. getting caught up in the hype prior to being brought back to reality.

It's reasonable...but isn't it also somewhat illogical. If you like team x, you like team x. My only argument is that Wilbon basis for changing his prediction is completely illogical. It's well within his right to do, of course. And no one on Earth would call him crazy for predicting the Redskins to finish around .500. But, if he believes they are an 11-win team but just tempers his enthusiasm by giving them 3 less wins, when you boil it down...it's illogical.

[PeterMP]

It's reasonable...but isn't it also somewhat illogical. If you like team x, you like team x. My only argument is that Wilbon basis for changing his prediction is completely illogical. It's well within his right to do, of course. And no one on Earth would call him crazy for predicting the Redskins to finish around .500. But, if he believes they are an 11-win team but just tempers his enthusiasm by giving them 3 less wins, when you boil it down...it's illogical.

He believes the team is 11-5 IF the people running the team are competent.

Like I said above, IF Haynesworth is remotely worth the money they spent, IF Orakpo can be incorporated into the scheme in a manner that works, IF they learn something from last year and make the offense the little better w/ the same issues at OL.

Those IFs require competence, which he isn't willing to grant them yet because they haven't demonstrated it.

[Passizle]

A better example would not be a directly related issue.

But for example, going 100 in a 35 zone.

Wouldn't that trigger a response that maybe this guy isn't exactly cleaned up and not the best person to loan money too?

If you want to make the argument that Wilbon failed because he needed to be reminded of their previous issues, that's a different story. That he should have never made the 10-6 prediction.

But to say that this organization has been 8-8 competent for a long time and that asking them to prove they are better than that before making such a prediction doesn't seem unreasonable.

Thanks. Much better example. BUt at least you get what I am talking about.

Dont get me wrong here. I am not choosing sides in this article, as I think the Skins win 10 or better regardless. But to say the article is completley illogical is wel... illogical in itself.

[SilkyDiamonds]

Snyder has proven he is good at 2 things Convincing suckers to pay him, and being convinced to pay like a sucker PERIOD!

[The Sisko]

It's reasonable...but isn't it also somewhat illogical. If you like team x, you like team x. My only argument is that Wilbon basis for changing his prediction is completely illogical. It's well within his right to do, of course. And no one on Earth would call him crazy for predicting the Redskins to finish around .500. But, if he believes they are an 11-win team but just tempers his enthusiasm by giving them 3 less wins, when you boil it down...it's illogical.

Personally I'd argue that the 10 or 11 wins prediction was illogical given our dysfunctional management and our weakness on the OL. But as I said, I didn't forget about those things in the runup to the season. You may not buy the effect that management can have on a team but I generally start with a two game handicap for us based on management.

[Passizle]

OK, so if Zorn gets all 16 games, what will make the 3-game difference? We're making progress at least.

This is what I mean by "semantics". You are loading every question to "turn" the point in your favor. IMO, the side you are arguing does not have merit. Wilbon clearly states in the article that he made a bold prediction and was (in my own words) brough back down to earth upon reading about the ticket fiasco.

But to play long...

Zorn would not get all 16 games. In my scenario, he gets fired after week 6. At the time the team is at 1-5.

What next?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Personally I'd argue that the 10 or 11 wins prediction was illogical given our dysfunctional management and our weakness on the OL. But as I said, I didn't forget about those things in the runup to the season. You may not buy the effect that management can have on a team but I generally start with a two game handicap for us based on management.

I don't fault you for that one bit. However, you're taking management into account and critiquing the off-season moves as well. Wilbon liked the off-season moves until he "remembered" who made them.

And once again, when it comes to my problem with his article, forget the actual prediction. I don't think 8-8 is a bad prediction one bit. However, not because Snyder is going to somehow suck 3 wins out of our team...more so because of questions with our:

OL

QB

WR

K

Seems like a much more concrete reason than: They are good enough to win 11 but will only win 8 thanks to Snyder.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

This is what I mean by "semantics". You are loading every question to "turn" the point in your favor. IMO, the side you are arguing does not have merit. Wilbon clearly states in the article that he made a bold prediction and was (in my own words) brough back down to earth upon reading about the ticket fiasco.

But to play long...

Zorn would not get all 16 games. In my scenario, he gets fired after week 6. At the time the team is at 1-5.

What next?

Well, if he's fired with a 1-5 record, then was he really a part of an 11-win team? In your example, you'd actually be arguing that our front office would improve a team from 1-5 to 7-3.

Remember, Wilbon's point was that a bad front office would change the fate of the team from 11 wins to 8 wins.

Anyway, it doesn't appear as though we'll agree. That's OK.

[Larry Brown #43]

I get that there are some differences based on Wilbon's being a writer and us being fans. However, I think the basic issue is the same, i.e. getting caught up in the hype prior to being brought back to reality. That's quite plausible and if you gave Wilbon the benefit of the doubt that you give Snyder, it would most certainly be the side of the argument you'd be arguing right now.

Well, Wilbon is a Bears fan and has never been one to get caught up in hype about the Skins. So for him to say we might go 11-5 and win the best division in football...let's just say that's a sharp departure from his usual predictions about the Skins.

So again, he saw something about this year's team that he really liked. And absolutely nothing about the team, except for the final cuts that were made, has changed since Wilbon went on Joe Theismann's show and predicted that we'll challenge for the division title.

So I can't see this as anything more than Wilbon looking at himself in the mirror and being disgusted by the idea that he predicted a Snyder-owned team to do well, especially in light of the ticket scandal, which seems to have rubbed Wilbon the wrong way.

As for the benefit of the doubt...I haven't said a single supportive word about Snyder in this thread. I'm merely taking aim at Wilbon's mind-boggling change of tune. As others have said, if Wilbon had predicted 8-8 from day 1, we wouldn't even be discussing it right now.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Again...the Skins' track record is NO different than it was 2 weeks ago...there's no effin' way he "forgot" that. Either he allowed himself to believe the moves he saw overall as being positive enough to earn the Skins 2-3 more wins (which would indicate that he saw Snyder making more than enough competent moves), or he's being 1,000% disingenuous in his remarks, both now and what he was alledgely thinking 2 weeks ago.

Or one other possibility: that Wilbon fluctuates from one moment to the next based on things that swing just as wildly...mainly, his emotions at any given moment.

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.

I think it depends on how they do it and WHY they do it. In the WP article about suing that grandmother, they Post said that there were "160,000 people on the waiting list" that the Skins could have sold her tickets to instead of suing her. The insinuation being, that there were 160,000 people waiting in line to buy Club Seats. And that's one million percent false.

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.

[Larry Brown #43]

Wilbon liked the off-season moves until he "remembered" who made them.

This line right here says it all. Game over.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

This line right here says it all. Game over.

Yep, sums it up perfectly :yes:...

[TD_washingtonredskins]

This line right here says it all. Game over.

Yep, sums it up perfectly :yes:...

[The Sisko]

Wilbon liked the off-season moves until he "remembered" who made them.

Yep, sums it up perfectly :yes:.

Well, assuming one buys into the alleged media bias on the part of Wilbon and the Post anyway. Perhaps we could all agree on it assuming the inclusion of the disclaimer? To exclude it would put us in the same position as Wilbon, i.e. assuming the reader already understands the context based on well-known prior history.

[Passizle]

Well, if he's fired with a 1-5 record, then was he really a part of an 11-win team? In your example, you'd actually be arguing that our front office would improve a team from 1-5 to 7-3.

Remember, Wilbon's point was that a bad front office would change the fate of the team from 11 wins to 8 wins.

Anyway, it doesn't appear as though we'll agree. That's OK.

I dont think that ws Wilbons point at all. I think his point was that he rememebered how the FO has run this team over the past decade and that he is not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise...

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I dont think that ws Wilbons point at all. I think his point was that he rememebered how the FO has run this team over the past decade and that he is not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise...

Maybe so...I didn't read it that way. As I've stated, to me it sounded like he loved the direction of the team, realized that would mean he's complimenting Snyder and Cerrato, and changed his tune.

But again, in 5 days, it won't matter anymore because we can all debate/discuss real regular season football instead of articles!

[Larry Brown #43]

Perhaps we could all agree on it assuming the inclusion of the disclaimer? To exclude it would put us in the same position as Wilbon, i.e. assuming the reader already understands the context based on well-known prior history.

Again, the "well-known prior history" was there last week when Wilbon made his lofty prediction about the Skins.

Think about this for a second. Let's say Larry Michael came out on Redskins Nation one week ago--Tuesday, Sept. 1--and said he predicts the Cowboys will go 11-5 and contend for the NFC East title in 2009.

But then a week later--Tuesday, Sept. 8--he comes back on Redskins Nation and says, "you know, I've given this some more thought, and that Jerry Jones is just a terrible owner and a lousy personnel guy. I'm dropping my prediction for the Cowboys to 8-8."

If Larry Michael did that, he would be ridiculed from here to Tokyo, and rightly so. People would be talking about how Larry Michael outdid himself this time. But when Wilbon essentially does the same thing, it's ok.

Aside from any positive or negative feelings about Snyder, Wilbon simply **** the bed on this one.