I hate to say it but Snyder and Allen might have done the right thing

[Darrell Green Fan]

6 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

DGF - Dan didn't want to fire Marty  . He wanted another voice in there - exactly in the same way the Chargers did a couple of seasons later after promising the same thing the Dan did ....( when the same thing keeps happening to the same guy you have to think ...hmmm coincidence ? ) 

 

but Marty refused and essentially forced Dan to fire ? him .

 

i do think the Marty "solved the redskins cap issues" is something of an urban myth

 

...what happened was Deon Sanders and Mark Carrier retired ( I cannot remember exactly what happened with carrier  but I think initially he was going to be suspended and decided not to come back - but I could be wrong) 

 

but with Sanders gone that was a huge contract kind of off the books - I seem to remember carting deadcap for years . In fact I distinctly remember us struggling against the cap for years after Marty - so much so we were so far over the cap in 2005 people were speculating we would be fielding 25 plus udfa rookies .. 

 

Jeff George was Marty's problem . He carried him all offseason through training camp and the world knew George just didn't fit Marty's system or mentality . But he stuck with him until week two of the regular season .

 

That was a self inflicted stupidity 

 

Remember he had all the power in the world he could have cut anyone he wanted ... he did cut our only pro bowler from 2000 ... 

 

And this idea he was given an aging team - I say again - in the previous couple of years we had drafted LaVar Arrington, Champ Bailey, Jon Jansenand Chris Samuels . We still had Michell Westbrook and Shawn Alexander in rookie contracts, as were Lang, Barber etc . 

 

Sure we had Bruce Smith and Darrell Green but both of these guys were effective . Marty brought in two the oldest players on the 2001 roster in David Szott and Eric Metcalf (damn) ...

 

And I worry when people talk about 2001 because I think I am going crazy when I think back - but we were not just boring on offence we were keystone cop embarrassing . ... (even in the darkest days of Jim Zorn I never thought his team was as bad as Jimmy Rayes offence) It was like the QB had just met the team ( because in Banks case he had) and things were horrible - just horrible . 

 

But the point is all through 2001 Dan Snyder sat back and watched this horror show and did nothing ... 

 

and yet it is used as a rallying call to people wanting to find evidence that Dan is an exceptionally bad owner meddling and impatient. 

 

It was was a bad situation all round . Somehow we managed to choose the wrong hot shot collage offensive genius . But Marty failing was on Marty ..

 

the other really wierd thing is some years after all of this Dan and Marty were playing golf together and while not necessarily friends do not have the raving anomosity people seem to think Dan invokes around the NFL. 

 

Amongst the local press - yes but players and coaches not as much as you might think 

 

 

Well this has officially turned into a Marty thread, LOL

 

I'll say it again, I'm not claiming there would have been multiple Super Bowls with Marty, not with his playoff record.  But the idea that Marty was a "disaster" is simply not supported by the facts.  8-8 is not a disaster, what was a disaster was what took place over the next 10 years with Daniel Snyder calling the shots,  This is without dispute I would think.

 

I'll try to address some of the points made earlier.

 

Jeff George was Marty's fault:

 

Marty inherited Jeff George, he was not the one to sign him to big money that alienated the starting QB Brad Johnson.  No that would be Snyder who by doing so ran off the only good QB we had had in years.  So Marty was stuck with Jeff George as his QB. What exactly was he supposed to do from the day he was hired in January to mini-camp in May?  Brett Favre was not available for a 3rd and saying he should have drafted Drew Brees in the first round is beyond revisionist history, there is a reason he got out of the first round undrafted.  The only other option was to trade a bunch of high picks for an ageing vet, not the move for long term success.   Knowing George was probably not the answer he searched  for a body as this was only year 1 and he was just starting his building job. .  So he went with George and initated a back up plan in Banks knowing George was probably not the answer.  His assessment of George was correct from the very beginning to the end.  He was not to blame for him being on his roster, he immediately got a backup in place as he knew George's issues, and he cut his sorry ass after 1 game.  How is anything regarding Jeff George Marty's fault?  Again he never intended for these guys to be Super Bowl QB, he was simply getting through his first season. And getting a team to 8-8 with this set of QBs is hardly a "disaster". 

 

Marty changed into Alexander Haig once he arrived in DC which would have forced a mutiny..

 

As I said he had the nickname The General long before his arrival.  You mentioned Deion Sanders,  Sanders retired rather than play for a hard ass Marty.  That right there proves that Marty's approach was in place and well known long before his arrival here.   He didn't change who he was, this was who he always was.  Seeing as none of his other 22 teams had a mutiny it's crazy to think that the one here would be the only one to do so.

 

It is perfectly OK for Daniel Snyder to renege on his agreement to give Marty full control after only one year. 

 

No.  No it is not.  And I can't believe anyone would think it would be.  This was only year one, Snyder  never gave Marty a chance to build anything before cutting him off at the knees due to impatience.  Snyder was the guy who was wrong here, not Marty.  

 

Being over the cap in 2005 is Marty's fault. 

 

Deion retired after the 2000 season as did Mark Carrier. There is no mathematical way their dead cap money carried over to 2005.   Marty  didn't sign these players  and any dead cap money felt by those players being cut/retired was long gone by 2005.  Marty did not make big FA signings that crippled the team 4 seasons later, it's crazy to blame cap problems in 2005 on a guy who was fired in 2001.  No that was all Little Danny.

 

Marty Did Not Provide Cap Relief

 

Again when he arrived the Redskins were still feeling the affects (or is it effects, damn I never know that) of their big FA signings from the year before on aging big name players like Bruce Smith , Deion, George and Carrier.    So yeah their salary cap was a mess when he got here, a bit better after he left as most of those deals came off the books by the end of the following season. 

 

[Unbias]

This was just another Snyder firing. It has a fairly simple process: 

 

1 - Say everything is going well, while trying to make that person quit (so they don't have to pay the rest of their contract).

2 - Leak stories that undermine whomever you want to fire.

3 - Do not refute the story.

4 - Eventually fire whomever then look to make a public case why they are a failure. 

 

It's just so very sad. With SM he was known to have a drinking problem long before he was even hired. For the organization to take a stance of 'we fired him because he's a drunk' is just sad. 

 

Seriously, what GM with self respect would want to come to Washington? Whomever gets hired will either be a yes man to Snyder or be coming just for a quick payday and will eventually clash with upper management and leave in flames. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

7 minutes ago, Unbias said:

This was just another Snyder firing. It has a fairly simple process: 

 

1 - Say everything is going well, while trying to make that person quit (so they don't have to pay the rest of their contract).

2 - Leak stories that undermine whomever you want to fire.

3 - Do not refute the story.

4 - Eventually fire whomever then look to make a public case why they are a failure. 

 

It's just so very sad. With SM he was known to have a drinking problem long before he was even hired. For the organization to take a stance of 'we fired him because he's a drunk' is just sad. 

 

Seriously, what GM with self respect would want to come to Washington? Whomever gets hired will either be a yes man to Snyder or be coming just for a quick payday and will eventually clash with upper management and leave in flames. 

 

 

Prezactly .  Mr. Snyder's reputation is well deserved. 

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 8:28 AM, Art said:

 

Snyder has ZERO input during Marty's time.   That's a known fact.   So you actually proved my point.

 

You also proved a hazy memory.   Marty was a failure.   He cut Larry Centers for wearing a baseball cap.   He alienated Darrell Green.   Marty was a complete failure.   THAT team rallied to 8-8 IN SPITE of Marty.   The team got together and decided, every man, BUT Lavar, to IGNORE the coaches and just play for themselves.   Dozens of the players would never have come back had Marty been here.   It was a mutiny the likes the league had never seen.   Snyder would STILL have kept him, but things like getting the players ice cream, but ONLY letting them have vanilla, because that was his favorite, didn't work, and Marty accepted no concept he needed to modify his game mildly to avoid a melt down.

 

Marty generally embarrassed himself.   Players like Chris Samuels took him down for being atrocious.   Vinny Cerrato worked under Gibbs just fine.   Snyder's most involvement with the team was during the Zorn time.   And he realized that wasn't working pretty quickly.   So he went back to the Marty model with Shanny.   And, yes, Shanny wanted RGIII AND is the one who paid that price.   Shanny, and everyone in the organization, wanted RGIII for less.   But given an option of NOT getting him or paying more than they wanted, Shanny picked to pay more.   

Snyder owns the team.   And like JKC and every owner in the league, including Kraft, when there is general disagreement among people in the organization, he sits and listens.   If Belichick traded Tom Brady, he'd have to go to Kraft first.    And he might get told no.   That Brady is too much a part of the team's marketing and branding that even if it HELPED them for years to come, the financial loss would be too great.

Football is still a business.   Not each decision is a "football" only thing.   When you cross in to the business, you typically have to talk to the man who handles it and that's always the guy who owns the team.   

 

 

No....you proved mine! The fact that Snyder had no input when Marty was coach, is exactly why he was fired!!! Snyder was climbing the walls when Marty basically locked him out of personnel decisions back then, you would have thought someone stole Dan's Six Million Dollar Man lunch box!!!

Marty did a lousy job??? Now that's comical! He took the fortune 500 team that was void in talent, got rid of all the over priced non productive players, and bought in guy's ready to play, with no cap space, while taking us out of cap hell in 1 season, while people thought we would be strapped by the cap for multiple years!  And had the team playing well by the end of the season!

Marty embarrassed himself? That is almost an impossibility considering Snyder was the laughing stock and talk of the entire league that year for spending a fortune attempting to buy a championship the year before by handing the likes of a washed up Neon 53 mil and failing miserably!!!

I could defiantly see players having a problem with Marty though, especially after playing for Norv "no discipline" Turner for all those years!  It must have been hell to have a coach force you to get in shape, and work on your technique day after day!!

Cerratto was fine under Gibbs huh? I have 2 words for you: Jason Campbell!!

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Yeah the only embarrassing thing I have seen here is a poster defending Daniel Snyder and praising Vinny Cerratto.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 hours ago, THE HAMMER'IN HOG said:

No....you proved mine! The fact that Snyder had no input when Marty was coach, is exactly why he was fired!!! Snyder was climbing the walls when Marty basically locked him out of personnel decisions back then, you would have thought someone stole Dan's Six Million Dollar Man lunch box!!!
 

 

Ah, the ol' "Snyder wanted to play with his toy again" explanation lol...haven't heard that one in about 10 years.

 

I don't know what it takes to hang on to this type of reasoning for so long, but kudos, sir.

[Darrell Green Fan]

5 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Ah, the ol' "Snyder wanted to play with his toy again" explanation lol...haven't heard that one in about 10 years.

 

I don't know what it takes to hang on to this type of reasoning for so long, but kudos, sir.

 

Well considering it was well reported at the time and considering Synder did in fact maintain control for many years after why would you continue to doubt the narrative that Little Danny wanted control back?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

8 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Well considering it was well reported at the time and considering Synder did in fact maintain control for many years after why would you continue to doubt the narrative that Little Danny wanted control back?

 

It was never 'well reported" lol...come on, now.

 

What WAS "well reported" was that Snyder wanted to hire both Bobby Beathard and Bruce Allen at the time to be the GM, that he was also negotiating with Marty to stay on as head coach but to concede control to the new GM, and that Beathard under no circumstances would agree to work with Marty as head coach.

[RedBeast]

Marty discussions and arguments, Jesus...talk about holding on to **** too long

[Darrell Green Fan]

17 minutes ago, RedBeast said:

Marty discussions and arguments, Jesus...talk about holding on to **** too long

 

Yeah I tried to get back on topic a few times but when inaccurate  posts are read it forced a reply..  Marty being responsible for cap problems 4 years after he was fired would be one example.  How could anyone believe that, it is simply not  possible.

 

I'm still trying to understand how anyone could side with Daniel Snyder regarding Marty for the reasons I have already illustrated.  He tried to back out of a deal he put in place to hire Marty, it is NOT OK to simply change the deal only a year in.  How anyone could side with Snyder on anything given all we know is amazing to me. 

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 8:31 AM, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Yeah I tried to get back on topic a few times but when inaccurate  posts are read it forced a reply..  Marty being responsible for cap problems 4 years after he was fired would be one example.  How could anyone believe that, it is simply not  possible.

 

I'm still trying to understand how anyone could side with Daniel Snyder regarding Marty for the reasons I have already illustrated.  He tried to back out of a deal he put in place to hire Marty, it is NOT OK to simply change the deal only a year in.  How anyone could side with Snyder on anything given all we know is amazing to me. 

If it don't hit them over the head, it don't sink in!!

We have seen this same picture, this same scenario, over & over & over again, yet some want to paint every excuse possible for the ONE - the ONLY - COMMON DENOMINATOR - Danny Snyder!!  I give up!!

Good post by the way DGF!

[Conn]

Don't know why people are confused about why Bruce keeps saying McCloughan is free to sign a contract and work for someone else at any time...

 

The two opposing narratives are that:

 

1. Scot is a troubled but employable genius and Allen wronged him because he wanted more power.

 

2. Scot was basically making himself impossible to employ and not doing his job any longer.

 

Pretty clear Allen is saying "If I fired his ass for my own ends, then hire him. Anyone. Hypocrites." 

 

Regardless of how you feel about Allen as the head decision-maker, who really thinks McCloughan has a job in the NFL this year? The team may have handled it all wrong, but in the end he's right back where he was when we hired him--not working for an NFL team. Despite how well-respected Scot is across the league, his problems are real. 

 

So Allen is saying, "Okay, if I'm the asshole here then you work with him. Yeah, that's what I thought".

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

The two opposing narratives are that:

 

1. Scot is a troubled but employable genius and Allen wronged him because he wanted more power.

 

2. Scot was basically making himself impossible to employ and not doing his job any longer.

 

 

The one person who ironically broke the story, Chris Russell doesn't see it as opposing narratives, he sees both points being true.  He didn't get into Scot being hired into the future.  But he's implied on a couple of radio shows without elaborating but citing its from sources at Redskins Park, yeah Scot was out of hand and yeah Bruce was a jerk, too.  But who knows?

[bedlamVR]

 

56 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Regardless of how you feel about Allen as the head decision-maker, who really thinks McCloughan has a job in the NFL this year? The team may have handled it all wrong, but in the end he's right back where he was when we hired him--not working for an NFL team. Despite how well-respected Scot is across the league, his problems are real. 

 

So Allen is saying, "Okay, if I'm the asshole here then you work with him. Yeah, that's what I thought".

1

 

Actually, that is quite a strong insight; because i came away from watching that full interview thinking Allen had essentially said nothing - Bruce being uncomfortable when directly addressing the Scot question could be interpreted in two ways.  Either he was not going to come and flat out admit there was a personality clash - OR he was not going to go out and talk about someone else's issues - it was ambiguous. 

 

However - the statement - and a very strong statement that Scot is free to go and work for someone else right now does clearly - in not so many words, does say what ConnSKINS is interpreting.... it also clearly indicates this was a flat out firing and not in any way a mutual parting of the ways ... and it is interesting no one has yet approached Scot because to find out if he has any inside information on who the Skins might be targeting in the upcoming draft. 

 

Problem is there are some people - especially poster on here - who will insist that Scot is blameless and Allen and Snyder destroyed him with their evil scheming  and will most likley hold on to that belief and missremembered facts for the better part of two decades to illustrate that everything the Redskins do is wrong and Dan Snyder is/was the problem.

 

 

 

[bedlamVR]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The one person who ironically broke the story, Chris Russell doesn't see it as opposing narratives, he sees both points being true.  He didn't get into Scot being hired into the future.  But he's implied on a couple of radio shows without elaborating but citing its from sources at Redskins Park, yeah Scot was out of hand and yeah Bruce was a jerk, too.  But who knows?

 

 

I think that is probably not far off the point . I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive - and one might feed into the other - Bruce kind of put his (professional and personal)  neck on the line to bring Scot in mostly because of Scots reputation and Bruces connections with the family - But then because of Scots reputation and Bruces connection with the family it is possible that Bruce was additionally hard on Scot ..

 

. It is kind of why I am hoping maybe for an internal hire (and no i am not in love with the idea of Doug Williams) but maybe an Alex Santos or Eric Shaffer who we know can work with Bruce and Jay would be the way to go - Everytime you have a outside guy coming in it is a concern that is personalities and not abilities that make these things a success.  

[Skinsinparadise]

44 minutes ago, bedlamVR said:

 

. It is kind of why I am hoping maybe for an internal hire (and no i am not in love with the idea of Doug Williams) but maybe an Alex Santos or Eric Shaffer who we know can work with Bruce and Jay would be the way to go - Everytime you have a outside guy coming in it is a concern that is personalities and not abilities that make these things a success.  

 

Not me as for the internal hire.  The Redskins with some around the league were viewed as a team that doesn't value having a high end personnel wiz running the show -- that's why Scot was a game changer perception wise and we saw a bunch of articles at the time of the hire alluding to that point.  It's how I felt, too.  Going back to lets just get a guy who can play the office political game at Redskins Park IMO is going back to square one.  It would be a sad day for me.

 

The only current guy at the Redskins FO who is widely touted as being one of the best at what they do is Eric Schaffer.  But I don't want a money/contract guy overseeing personnel. 

2 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

2. Scot was basically making himself impossible to employ and not doing his job any longer.

 

 

 

Another theory into that soup, knowing a little about HR, when Scot was smeared in that WP article it could have set them up for a lawsuit.   If you damage someone's ability to be hired at their next job that could have legal consequences.  Bruce going out of his way saying Scot is hirable now could be part of them doing their due diligence to protect themselves on the front of Scot's marketability going forward -- saying heck I promoted him in that regard on live TV.

[LD0506]

So we're basically screwed again then? Perception around the league will be that the Skins are back to dysfunction by default and no one that could change it will be considered?

[Darrell Green Fan]

It is very true that Scott came with risk and it's entirely possible that those problems surfaced here.  But that does not let the organization off the hook for how they mislead us and took his power, how they handled this entire thing, and of course the timing of it all.  If it was a problem for 18 months don't wait until right before the combine to take action. 

[bedlamVR]

SIP - don't get me wrong I am not all in for an internal hire ... I just don't think they should be discounted ... but if we can bring someone new in as a breath of fresh air all is good . 

 

I just dont expect Bruce to be gone anytime soon, because he seems to be heavily involved in a new stadium deal - which is pivitol to the organization going forward ... so anyone new is going to have to deal ...

 

and DGF - talk about circular arguements - as to why now - Scot is most probably the reason why now - he stopped doing his job - there is only so much that can be overlooked - even if things had been terrible for the last 18 months  I still think the redskins organisation wanted to give Scot time to get things together and carry on - that wasn't happening so a decision had to be made 

[Bang]

29 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

It is very true that Scott came with risk and it's entirely possible that those problems surfaced here.  But that does not let the organization off the hook for how they mislead us and took his power, how they handled this entire thing, and of course the timing of it all.  If it was a problem for 18 months don't wait until right before the combine to take action. 

for the life of me, i don't understand this part of the fan thinking.

the only thing the team owes fans is to try to be competitive and get better, and play the game when it's scheduled.

Outside of that, how they handle internal affairs is not really our business unless they want it to be. We seem to think that we are owed explanations.. and really, we're not. If the guy is a drinker and he's got a problem that is disrupting work there really isn't any clean way to handle it in such a public arena as a pro football team.., and however they chose to do it isn't really our business as fans. Frankly, if the team broadcast that explanation to satisfy fan curiosity, that would be bad form and would send very MUCH the wrong message to any potential hires in any capacity. ("Yo, your personal problems aren't personal here. To save face, and to satisfy fans, we will lay out your dirtiest of laundry".  That isn't the way to go.)

As far as league perceptions go...  as others have said, he wasn't working when we picked him up, and he's not working now when you'd think snatching up such a valuable draft mind in late February might be a coup for some team somewhere.

 

I don't see any of it as deal-killers with anyone. There's 32 of these jobs in the world. i don't see the GM position as I do other jobs that are in such demand; there are much more than a handful of quality candidates, as opposed to starting QB, or head coach.

 

~Bang

[Peregrine]

Im sorry, but if anyone believes Bruce Allen after watching him talk, they are a poor judge of people, and the very type of person politicians try and manipulate.  You cant have any doubt while watching him talk that hes lying about most of the things he says.  He comes off as completely disingenuous, like hes just telling you things he knows are good to hear with no regard for whats actually true.  He fired Scot for "clarity" as a last second decision?  No one has ever been fired for "clarity" in the history of the world.

 

One sign of a liar that knows he is wrong too is that after a contentious disagreement they claim like they think they are on good terms with the other person(usually saying they "like" the other person and that they "cant speak for the other person"), usually followed by the other person saying "No, thats not even close to true".  I love this in the Washington Times article yesterday ""He said he still considers McCloughan a close friend."" followed by Scot's wifes tweet today clearing showing thats a lie.  

 

And of course this gem about news stories on the power struggle etc "“I’ve heard some of the rumors and, everyone in the building actually laughs. There’s been a misportrayal maybe, of what happened,”"

 

Oh sure, hahahaha, everyone just laughs about slander of him, and leaks to the media that are false from inside the building and negatively effect how FAs and others view the organization.  That makes sense.  If you are lying.

[Bang]

Which free agents did it negatively affect?

 

Everyone who visited signed except Logan, right?

 

this isn't politics, these aren't public officials who have actual effects on our lives regardless of how much of a fan we are, Monday still comes after even the worst losses. There isn't any manipulation.. if you're a fan and you don't like what is going on, don't buy a ticket. Pretty simple. To what end is there to manipulate fans? The stadium is going to be full regardless.
All this cloak and daggery and 'trust'..  trust what? What is it we want here? Full disclosure about everything all the time?
why would you want that, and what purpose would it possibly serve? Would it help you be a better fan? Would it help them be a better team?

 

What do we need to "believe" about Allen?

 

~Bang

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, bedlamVR said:

SIP - don't get me wrong I am not all in for an internal hire ... I just don't think they should be discounted ... but if we can bring someone new in as a breath of fresh air all is good . 

 

I just dont expect Bruce to be gone anytime soon, because he seems to be heavily involved in a new stadium deal - which is pivitol to the organization going forward ... so anyone new is going to have to deal ...

 

 

I agree Bruce isn't going anywhere. And I haven't advocated that he should be fired, I just like him to stick to his lane.   I am not discounting an internal hire as for the likelihood of it happening -- I still think at least 50-50 it will.  As for discounting it working out -- the only one internally I find intriguing but I still wouldn't like it would be Eric Schaffer.   Schaffer is regarded as perhaps the best at what he does in the league on the money side.  I like hiring people who are considered among the top of their craft.  I'd just rather have a scout-personnel type in the role of making personnel calls not a money guy.  But that would be the internal hire, I'd hate the least. 

 

1 hour ago, Bang said:

for the life of me, i don't understand this part of the fan thinking.

the only thing the team owes fans is to try to be competitive and get better, and play the game when it's scheduled.

Outside of that, how they handle internal affairs is not really our business unless they want it to be. We seem to think that we are owed explanations.. and really, we're not.

 

 

I think this subject has some major grey area that sometimes gets lost in this debate.  A business (including the Redskins) aren't beholden to their customers.  That's true.  But customer perception of a business usually has some influence.   That to me is the grey part.

 

They can do what they want, when they want without explanation.  But most businesses need paying customers to turn a profit.  If that business doesn't care what their customers think of them and how they go about things -- they are entitled to feel and operate that way.  But many would say that's a bad and unusual way to run a business. 

 

Sarcasm in this paragraph isn't directed at you, just using it to make a point:  when Bruce popped up in a press conference years back to introduce Scot.   I doubt what led up to it was a feeling at Redskins Park that was guided by who cares what bothers our ticket holders and fans.   Yeah we stunk last year again but let the fans complain all they want -- we don't owe them squat.   Yes we are hiring Scot but its purely incidental and has nothing to do with public perception.  Vinny was on the radio a couple of weeks ago and said public perception bothers Danny a whole lot and not just him his family, too -- and that's why he's gone.  Grant Paulsen said people he talks to at Redskins Park said nothing bothers Danny more than no shows at the stadium - that it drives him nuts. 

 

Redskins are famous for selling hope.  Every off season for the most part it was something new.   They seem almost frantic to reel people back in. Gibbs is back, We got the fun and gun, Marty!, Shanny!, Look at all these new and shinny FAs!

 

Bringing this to Scot.  Yeah it does feel in retrospect that they oversold Scot's power as a perception play when they needed it.   There really weren't many cards left to play at that point.  The one constant criticism they got from the media at that point in time is the team lacks a real GM with a personnel background and Bruce is a money guy, not a personnel guy.  Then they brought in Scot and it felt like hey we hear you so watch this! 

 

I agree that we aren't owed explanations so I agree with your point in that regard.  But it seems like people at Redskins Park do notice and care when fans are unhappy -- especially when it translates to no shows at the stadium.  I am not saying public perception is everything to Danny or Bruce or whomever or that it guides their every decision.  But I do think its one of the variables that's in the soup.  And it should be IMO.  I run my own business myself -- can my customers tell me what to do, nope -- but do I care what they think of me, heck yeah I do.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Peregrine said:

And of course this gem about news stories on the power struggle etc "“I’ve heard some of the rumors and, everyone in the building actually laughs. There’s been a misportrayal maybe, of what happened,”"

 

Oh sure, hahahaha, everyone just laughs about slander of him, and leaks to the media that are false from inside the building and negatively effect how FAs and others view the organization.  That makes sense.  If you are lying.

 

When I know the truth and what others are saying about me and my motives are 100% false, I most definitely laugh...just look at those times some here absolutely insist my "lol" is meant to be condescending lol...the whole "explain yourself" approach doesn't do any good, so why bother? People believe what they want to believe, no matter how many times you have 'splained otherwise.

 

And when you have constructive discussions with player agents and you sign pretty much all the targets on your FA list, yeah, you can laugh off the perceptions that outsiders have of what's "really" happening. If things are going 95% as planned, who cares what's being speculated in the press...And when you know beyond doubt the reality is that wins are the ONLY thing that will ultimately matter, you forge ahead with your plan confident that it will indeed result in wins during the upcoming season...knowing full well that "winning" the offseason PR game doesn't translate into more actual wins for the team.

 

So, yep, I'm pretty sure Allen. Gruden, Williams, Schaeffer and Campbell have had their share of head-shaking laughs over some of this stuff in the media.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

15 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

when Bruce popped up in a press conference years back to introduce Scot.   I doubt what led up to it was a feeling at Redskins Park that was guided by who cares what bothers our ticket holders and fans.   Yeah we stunk last year again but let the fans complain all they want -- we don't owe them squat.   Yes we are hiring Scot but its purely incidental and has nothing to do with public perception.  Vinny was on the radio a couple of weeks ago and said public perception bothers Danny a whole lot and not just him his family, too -- and that's why he's gone.  Grant Paulsen said people he talks to at Redskins Park said nothing bothers Danny more than no shows at the stadium - that it drives him nuts.

 

1) The ONLY thing that matters to Skins fans is wins. That's it. Nobody will give a **** about any of this if the Redskins are 6-2 at the halfway point, and they most definitely won't give a rat's ass if the Skins win the division again. I mean, hell, they signed Pryor and like 40% of the animosity towards the Redskins dissipated almost instantly lol...Sure, STH numbers may drop initially, but wins will change that in a nanosecond.

 

2) Vinny...lol...said that it was "public perception"...lol....that was behind (snort)...him being gone...lol...not his absolutelly ****ty job performance, his hiring of Zorn as head coach and Snyder's public statement of how the Zorn era turns out will reflect on Cerrato or that Shanahan said he would never agree to come here with Vinny still with the team...no....he thinks it's "public perception" (giggle)...Suuuure, Vinny lol