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

[Darrell Green Fan]

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. 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

 

 

I think you misread my post.  I said "how they mislead us and took his power" to mean, as I have been saying throughout the thread, how they presented SM when he was hired was much different than what actually took place. 

 

Snyder was very sensitive to the fans desire to put a football man in charge of personnel.  After the disastrous Bruce Allen "winning off the field" press conference following a 5-11 season Snyder knew he needed to make a change to satisfy an increasingly frustrated fan base. 

 

So they hired Scott, propped him up as the "things will be different now" guy and clearly implied that SM would have full control of personnel. This was misleading at best and a bold faced lie at worst.  They either changed the agreement after a very short time or they never intended to give SM full control all along.  The fact that he kept every single scout and didn't make one move in that department for 2 years tells me it's the former, they never gave him full control as promised.  That remains my issue with the organization, it is clear now that SM has not had full power for a while now despite what we were led to believe.

 

As for league perception all the reports are saying the Redskins look very bad, the majority opinion throughout the league is they really did this poorly and that has ramifications.  How can this perception, which is not a new one by the way just more of the same, can't  be a problem moving forward when they attempt to hire top talent?  IMO it played a huge part  in settling for the DC they ended up with and obviously any top personnel guy would have to consider this situation.  . 

 

 

[RedBeast]

So? If we all moved to the Amazon for 10 years, without any access to TV/Internet/News, what do you think we would return to find out about our team? Any real changes gonna happen in the next 10 years? Hmmmm...food for thought. 

[HOF44]

13 minutes ago, RedBeast said:

So? If we all moved to the Amazon for 10 years, without any access to TV/Internet/News, what do you think we would return to find out about our team? Any real changes gonna happen in the next 10 years? Hmmmm...food for thought. 

Not unless Danny gets hit by a bus or goes down in a plane wreck.  Same ole same ole!

[Bang]

thanks for the clarification DGF, sometimes reading the whole thread isn't in the cards.

 

In regards to reports of perceptions..  the Redskins haven't gotten anything but bad PR press for a myriad of reasons for almost 20 years now. I don't see it mattering much . Snyder is an easy go-to when the media wants to kick someone around. typically they can say the worst, and it'll be believed. (all the way back to one of his first training camps.. Danny made those kids stop selling lemonade! yeah, well coca cola made danny enforce their exclusive contract.. but playing Snyder as the bad guy shutting down kids got attention and plays up the narrative of spoiled rich kid.)

As to Scott and what we were led to believe.. it is quite possible they intended to allow the power,, but the problems he brought with him said otherwise. As i said, it's not a good situation, and no matter how it's handled, it's going to look bad on someone. IF he was drinking and if it affected his job and relationships (I say IF because i really don't know) then I think the Redskins are handling it about as well as could be without smearing him and airing out his problems in public. 

 

I haven't seen any real negative effects yet, except in media hysteria. I figure to wait to see how the draft plays out to start to figure how it is going to affect us, and even then, I won't know unless it is an obvious mis-step,, ie: drafting a punter or a kicker

 

~Bang

 

[Taylor 36]

2 hours 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. 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

Thank GOD someone else gets it.  This sums up perfectly how I see it.  The problem is, besides the instant gratification society we live in feeling we need to know everything the second it happens or someone is at fault, is being deceitful, or is holding the public (fans) hostage, we have so many fans that with take any opportunity available to them to jump on the team, especially Snyder and Allen. Information isn't available? It's the team's fault.  Look at how screwed up our FO is.  Speculation being thrown out by the media? Who cares how much back-tracking some have done and how little has proven to be fact, Snyder is the devil and Allen is his lap dog, so it must all be true.  UGH!!!  

[HOF44]

Leaving the football out of it Snyder runs a bad organization that seems the exact opposite of what you want to build a team. Love him, hate him, it seems he can't keep the help!

 

The most telling number in Snyder’s tenure isn’t the won-loss record. It’s the hired-fired record. Colleague Rick Maese once uncovered this fascinating statistic: Between 2008 and 2013, 120 of its 143 employees in non-football operations left the club for various reasons. “I never worked in such a nervous building,” one said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/tired-of-the-redskins-dysfunction-theres-one-person-to-blame/2017/03/11/2aef60dc-05d3-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_jenkins-225pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.24695eb3c58b

[Darrell Green Fan]

19 minutes ago, Bang said:

thanks for the clarification DGF, sometimes reading the whole thread isn't in the cards.

 

In regards to reports of perceptions..  the Redskins haven't gotten anything but bad PR press for a myriad of reasons for almost 20 years now. I don't see it mattering much . Snyder is an easy go-to when the media wants to kick someone around. typically they can say the worst, and it'll be believed. (all the way back to one of his first training camps.. Danny made those kids stop selling lemonade! yeah, well coca cola made danny enforce their exclusive contract.. but playing Snyder as the bad guy shutting down kids got attention and plays up the narrative of spoiled rich kid.)

As to Scott and what we were led to believe.. it is quite possible they intended to allow the power,, but the problems he brought with him said otherwise. As i said, it's not a good situation, and no matter how it's handled, it's going to look bad on someone. IF he was drinking and if it affected his job and relationships (I say IF because i really don't know) then I think the Redskins are handling it about as well as could be without smearing him and airing out his problems in public. 

 

I haven't seen any real negative effects yet, except in media hysteria. I figure to wait to see how the draft plays out to start to figure how it is going to affect us, and even then, I won't know unless it is an obvious mis-step,, ie: drafting a punter or a kicker

 

~Bang

 

 

 

But here is the thing.  Snyder IS the bad guy. There are literally dozens of examples to pull from.  It's not the media's fault he provides them with so much material to work with.  And we saw it on display again last month. Once again we are laughed at around the league as being incompetent. And that's because our team management IS incompetent.  The media doesn't make this stuff up just to make him look bad, he doesn't need any help in that department.  He does what he does, the media reports it while offering their opinion as that's what a columnist does,  and the rest of us are free to judge him as we see fit.  You want to give him a pass for poor behavior and blame the media (gee where have I heard that argument before?) but I don't and I won't. 

 

 

[PartyPosse]

13 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

 

But here is the thing.  Snyder IS the bad guy. There are literally dozens of examples to pull from.  It's not the media's fault he provides them with so much material to work with.  And we saw it on display again last month. Once again we are laughed at around the league as being incompetent. And that's because our team management IS incompetent.  The media doesn't make this stuff up just to make him look bad, he doesn't need any help in that department.  He does what he does, the media reports it while offering their opinion as that's what a columnist does,  and the rest of us are free to judge him as we see fit.  You want to give him a pass for poor behavior and blame the media (gee where have I heard that argument before?) but I don't and I won't. 

 

 

100%

 

if Danny boy didn't want so much bad press then maybe he should stop giving them content. Media just doing their job in reporting on what he's doing. It's when they speculate that they overstep their boundaries, but with Snyder, I haven't seen much media speculation about his behavior and antics that wasn't accompanied by solid fact and evidence stemming directly from his actions (i.e. The vanilla ice cream incident).

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

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 

 

1.  Sure but not sure how this is a revelation though in relation to my point?  Yep fans unhappiness or happiness is directly related to team performance.  I said the McCloughan hiring happened after a bad season.

 

2. As for Vinny's clown show -- somehow it escaped Danny for about 9 years.  Vinny's main point was Danny and his mom and sister pay attention to fan outcry and it bothers them.  Grant Paulsen has said a variation of the same thing.   Maybe what we witnessed with Jim Fassel is a fantasy?  They could all be making it up.  But it seems intuitive to me.

 

I think the idea that fans don't dictate what teams do and teams aren't obligated to listen to fans is an exclusive point to teams don't care if their fan bases are happy or unhappy.  It's two entirely different points -- one point doesn't override the other IMO.

 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

Snyder is basically Jerry Jones without the super bowl titles during his tenure.  Can you imagine how Jerry Jones would be regarded if not for that early success?

[Bang]

1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

 

But here is the thing.  Snyder IS the bad guy. There are literally dozens of examples to pull from.  It's not the media's fault he provides them with so much material to work with.  And we saw it on display again last month. Once again we are laughed at around the league as being incompetent. And that's because our team management IS incompetent.  The media doesn't make this stuff up just to make him look bad, he doesn't need any help in that department.  He does what he does, the media reports it while offering their opinion as that's what a columnist does,  and the rest of us are free to judge him as we see fit.  You want to give him a pass for poor behavior and blame the media (gee where have I heard that argument before?) but I don't and I won't. 

 

 

I get it, and he's done nothing to dissuade anyone. He's the easy target because of his own actions.

 

In this situation, i can definitely understand assuming on the side of his history.

I am assuming that it's not necessarily that.

Given how tight lipped the Redskins have been on the matter,  assuming is what we are all doing. And as you alluded in the first post of your i quoted, it's on who you believe.

In this case, given the sensitivity of the possible explanation I tend to believe them.

I'm possibly just suffering from Spring Optimism.

 

~Bang

 

 

[Peregrine]

3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

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.

Surely, surely surely you cant be so naive?  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

14 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

Surely, surely surely you cant be so naive?  

 

O-kaaaaay lol...

 

I stick by what i said.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

58 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

1.  Sure but not sure how this is a revelation though in relation to my point?  Yep fans unhappiness or happiness is directly related to team performance.  I said the McCloughan hiring happened after a bad season.

 

2. As for Vinny's clown show -- somehow it escaped Danny for about 9 years.  Vinny's main point was Danny and his mom and sister pay attention to fan outcry and it bothers them.  Grant Paulsen has said a variation of the same thing.   Maybe what we witnessed with Jim Fassel is a fantasy?  They could all be making it up.  But it seems intuitive to me.

 

I think the idea that fans don't dictate what teams do and teams aren't obligated to listen to fans is an exclusive point to teams don't care if their fan bases are happy or unhappy.  It's two entirely different points -- one point doesn't override the other IMO.

 

 

 

 

1. You indicated that fan irritation--and Snyder's sensitivity to it--played a direct role in one way or another in Scot's hiring ("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.")...If that's not what you meant, then my apologies. I'm saying that if Snyder felt they would get back on the winning track right away without making any changes then, yes, he wouldn't have given two ****s about what fans were thinking outside of directing Allen to pacify the fan base in some form or fashion with high profile signings and stuff like that there. And Scot was hardly a pacification effort since he was being wooed to the Redskins before the season was even over. Rick Snider tried making the claim that "fan backlash" over promoting A. J. Smith after the season ended that lead to Scot's hiring, which was complete garbage.

 

As for Fassel? If fan perception and irritation was a driving force behind Snyder's decisions, how the hell would he have put Vinny in charge after Gibbs left?...AND hiring Zorn, of all people?...I can't think of a worse move he could have done if worrying about what fans will think was a big part of his motivations. From Gibbs to Zorn and Vinny? lol...By the way, anyone remember how the Vinny and Zorn show was received when the Skins were 6-2 his first year?...The wins really softened a LOT of discontent, which returned violently when they went 2-6 down the road lol. If an owner and team president are convinced they can get the team winning, they'll not care much at all at the changing winds of the fan base during the offseason. If they DO care, we're all ****ed anyway...worst way to operate a franchise is to put "fan approval over moves" high on your priorities list.

 

2) Dan keeping Vinny around for 9 years kinda shows that he doesn't let fan reaction dictate his actions, though...and to be fair Vinny was never completely in charge except for 2008-2009. During Spurrier's short era Snyder was more involved...Vinny helped him run the front office and make the GM decisions. From what I remember, 2008-2009 was Vinny running things on his own with Snyder stepping in wherever he deemed it needed (which was most likely far too often). The rest of the time he deferred to his coaches (Marty wanted him gone...he was gone; Gibbs said he could stay...he stayed). My main point, though, was the idea that Vinny felt "fan perception" was the reason he was let go lol...an incredibly self-serving--and delusional--take for Cerrato to have. And since Snyder was all for having both Beathard and Allen come in and be GM before ultimately re-hiring Vinny, I'm not convinced Dan was all-in on having Vinny by his side until fans forced his hand.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

And Scot was hardly a pacification effort since he was being wooed to the Redskins before the season was even over. Rick Snider tried making the claim that "fan backlash" over promoting A. J. Smith after the season ended that lead to Scot's hiring, which was complete garbage.

 

2) Dan keeping Vinny around for 9 years kinda shows that he doesn't let fan reaction dictate his actions, though...and to be fair Vinny was never completely in charge except for 2008-2009. During Spurrier's short era Snyder was more involved...

 

The fact that they were talking to Scot in the middle of the 2nd abysmal season in a row versus at the end of that 2nd bad season -- I don't think counters my point at all.   

 

It doesn't have to be one wild crazy extreme to another.  Major decisions are rarely about just one thing.   It's usually multiple reasons and multiple variables. Lets take Fassel.  I doubt they were in love with the guy but in one fell swoop dumped the idea because fans were upset.  But if they are weighing the pendulum on Fassel pros and cons -- it adds another factor to consider.  That's all.   A problem can be seen differently from year to year.  Joe Gibbs being the final say on personnel could help put Vinny Cerrato under the radar some versus when he's the main guy under Zorn and running a radio show in the spotlight.  There are nuances and variables to a discussion like this.  It's rarely about just one thing. 

 

I never said Danny makes ALL decisions about public perception so any example you give to show that it wasn't sexy PR wise isn't relevant to my point.  When he hired Zorn in the aftermath of a playoff season, why would he expect fan backlash?  They were coming off a successful season.  Zorn was an unknown aside from being a QB guru and the narrative was back then if anyone can fix Jason Campbell, he could.  In 2014, when they had two abysmal seasons back to back -- I'd gather it would effect the mood some at Redskins Park versus coming off of a good season.   In particular, if season ticket holders were canceling their tickets.

 

I gather from reading your posts, you trust more than most Bruce running the ship moving forward.   If so,  that's cool.  And if your point about its all about winning -- that if the team kicks butt in 2017 with Bruce at the helm of the GM role -- no one will complain.  I agree.  Heck they can dump Kirk Cousins and if Colt McCoy kicks butt in his place, people would dig that, too.  The issue though is Danny's reign on the aggregate hasn't been successful.  It hasn't been a winning franchise.  This isn't the Patriots or Seahawks were you might look at something and say well my gut tells me they are wrong but I got to trust those guys because they go against the grain and get it right a lot.   

 

Under Danny's reign, when they go against the grain and or make changes, its gone awry aplenty -- IMO they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt where we can sit back and relax and let another in their series of genius moves play out and succeed.   So, IMO people have every right to be skeptical because this doesn't feel like a fresh new movie during the Danny reign.  It feels like a remake of a 1 to 2 star movie we've seen before.   And yeah it could all work out great.  But IMO the voice of reason perspective isn't just trust the process -- because we are in good hands.   If the point is you never know.  I agree with that.  You never know. It could work out.  As for Bruce, I need to see what he does next.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

31 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The fact that they were talking to Scot in the middle of the 2nd abysmal season in a row versus at the end of that 2nd bad season -- I don't think counters my point at all.   

 

 

Depends on what your point was. If it was that hiring Scot was done in good part to pacify the angry fan base, remember that after beating the Cowboys on MNF, a LOT of fans were trying to see what needed to be done to make the playoffs. There were hardly pitchforks at the gates of Redskins Park. There were still a significant segment of the fan base who felt if Griffin could return healthy we had a shot...another significant segment who felt McCoy could get us to 5-5 by playing against the Vikings and Bucs...and another significant segment of the fan base who were positive keeping Cousins as starter would result in more games like the Jags and Eagles. In other words, it wasn't exactly a pissed-off fan base demanding change or anything. Which, again, I assumed what basically your point--that Snyder's sensitivity to how the fans are reacting is one of the things driving his decision-making. I brought up the Snider thing to show that this perspective gets trotted out a little too often and a little too quickly, even by media members generally respected and not being "click-bait" types.

 

 

But if they are weighing the pendulum on Fassel pros and cons -- it adds another factor to consider.  That's all.   A problem can be seen differently from year to year.

 

I definitely agree with that...like I said, I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say.

 

 

I never said Danny makes ALL decisions about public perception so any example you give to show that it wasn't sexy PR wise isn't relevant to my point.

 

I never said you did lol...BUT, it would indeed be relevant if the point is that fan perception does play too large a role in his decision-making even sometimes. If, for example, the hiring of Scot is said to be based in good part to Snyder's aversion to fan and media backlash, we can't just say that because some earlier decisions are perceived to have been made in that manner it justifies thinking ANY decision is also made in that manner. We should need more facts to back up that stance imo...I think the timing of when they contacted Scot is damn important in either helping to support, or argue against, that type of claim.

 

 

I gather from reading your posts, you trust more than most Bruce running the ship moving forward.   If so,  that's cool.

 

Not in the slightest. I just don't have a desire to jump to conclusions about the guy--good or bad--when the reasoning given doesn't contain the right amount of logic. That's what too many fail to see...they only see this in an "either you're for Allen and Snyder or you're against them" manner...if you're not arguing against them, you must be arguing for them. Nope. I'll argue against the stupidity of blindly believing something like "jealousy" is why Allen fired Scot...I mean, you notice how jealousy is not being brought up anymore even after media members said "sources" told them jealousy was behind it all? But because I argue against stuff like that doesn't mean I am confident in Allen's stewardship of the franchise moving forward and that we'll see happy days once again with him at the helm. And I tend to dismiss outright claims of his "last name" being the only reason he has a job, or that he's nothing more than Snyder's lackey and mouthpiece, or that his "ego" wouldn't allow him to let Scot get the credit he deserves. I'm thankful that a number of media members who gleefully parroted those types of viewpoints early on have backed away from those proclamations and just as easily admit that we may never actually know if there was a good guy or bad guy in all this.

 

I said this before, but back when Allen gave his "winning off the field" presser I found it ludicrous that a sloppy presser should trump ANYTHING the guy actually does. In his presser he mentioned that changes would be occurring...the press ridiculed that statement by saying Allen didn't go into any details as to what those changes would be, so it's all empty rhetoric by a guy who won't fire himself. Like 10 days later Scot was hired lol...not a single writer who ridiculed him for saying changes would be made backtracked and said "Maybe this is what he was talking about". Not really sure too many fans did, either. I said "See? Wait and see what he does...who gives a **** what he says or how well/poorly he says it?"...(not saying you disagree with me, just pointing out my actual stance on these matters).

 

If the point is you never know.  I agree with that.  You never know. It could work out.  As for Bruce, I need to see what he does next.

 

Definitely agree there.

 

My point is that with my age has come the wisdom to realize I don't need to know everything about everything lol...and I don't need to be pacified by the team at every turn. But I can argue for/against things that make/don't make sense. And I can do that without necessarily having to agree with the person's overall point. I can spot flawed logic. I can point out inconsistencies in people's theories. I am experienced enough to know that real, genuine disagreements and even shouting arguments can take place even in the best working environments so I'm not automatically freaked out if I hear about things like that with the Redskins (I actually got into a yelling argument with the guy I work for this afternoon lol...it happens). I can look back at all the behind-the-scenes stuff that occurred during the Skins' 80's hey day and know beyond doubt that if even half that stuff was being leaked to the internet like it is today, our fan perceptions of the team each offseason would have been chaotic...until of course the season started and we made the playoffs yet again lol...

 

I save my emotions for when the games are being played. All of the rest is, at best, a good exercise in debate and logic, which I adore.

[Darrell Green Fan]

3 hours ago, Bang said:

I get it, and he's done nothing to dissuade anyone. He's the easy target because of his own actions.

 

In this situation, i can definitely understand assuming on the side of his history.

I am assuming that it's not necessarily that.

Given how tight lipped the Redskins have been on the matter,  assuming is what we are all doing. And as you alluded in the first post of your i quoted, it's on who you believe.

In this case, given the sensitivity of the possible explanation I tend to believe them.

I'm possibly just suffering from Spring Optimism.

 

~Bang

 

 

 

Allen finally spoke up and said nothing, which of course is what he should do.  Of course in typical Redskins fashion he spoke up weeks too late.  If he had just said something, anything, as this story was blowing up or shortly after we would be further down the road.  Instead they hid under the bed and imaginations ran wild.

 

You are certainly free to believe what you would like.  I for the life of me can't figure out what you have seen in the last 20 years that would lead you to ever give Snyder the benefit of the doubt but that's your call there.  Good luck with that. 

 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Depends on what your point was. If it was that hiring Scot was done in good part to pacify the angry fan base, remember that after beating the Cowboys on MNF, a LOT of fans were trying to see what needed to be done to make the playoffs. There were hardly pitchforks at the gates of Redskins Park. There were still a significant segment of the fan base who felt if Griffin could return healthy we had a shot...another significant segment who felt McCoy could get us to 5-5 by playing against the Vikings and Bucs...and another significant segment of the fan base who were positive keeping Cousins as starter would result in more games like the Jags and Eagles. 

 

I never said you did lol...BUT, it would indeed be relevant if the point is that fan perception does play too large a role in his decision-making even sometimes. If, for example, the hiring of Scot is said to be based in good part to Snyder's aversion to fan and media backlash, we can't just say that because some earlier decisions are perceived to have been made in that manner it justifies thinking ANY decision is also made in that manner. We should need more facts to back up that stance imo...I think the timing of when they contacted Scot is damn important in either helping to support, or argue against, that type of claim.

 

Definitely agree there.

 

My point is that with my age has come the wisdom to realize I don't need to know everything about everything lol...and I don't need to be pacified by the team at every turn. But I can argue for/against things that make/don't make sense. And I can do that without necessarily having to agree with the person's overall point. I can spot flawed logic. I can point out inconsistencies in people's theories. I am experienced enough to know that real, genuine disagreements and even shouting arguments can take place even in the best working environments so I'm not automatically freaked out if I hear about things like that with the Redskins

 

I guess we will agree to disagree about the fan base as to the 2014 season.  If I read your post right, you saw major optimistic glimmers then from the fan base that impinge on the idea that fans were down in that period.   I saw it as a major pessimistic period for fans (and I am far from alone with that feeling, Steinberg covered it well in his column today).

 

I never said fan perception has a large role in decision making.  I said when fans are seriously unhappy.  And again nuance is important here -- its not any day they are unhappy but key junctures in time which effect sales -- fan perception appears to be an influence in the soup.   2014 would be a good example, 2009 would be another one, ditto after the 2004 season.  In other words, when the outcry is pronounced it likely does get Danny's attention.  And while I don't love Vinny Cerrato or think that Grant Paulsen is always correct -- my gut is their take on serious fan discontent bothering Danny has some merit considering things which transpired in those moments in time -- which were followed with major PR moves to seemingly restore confidence.  Maybe they were all coincidences which were purely incidental. That would seem hard to believe.  But, we will never know.

 

As for you backing Bruce in all of this.  Sorry if I miscast you on that front.  It struck me that you are posting a lot with spin that seems more pro-Bruce than balanced but maybe I am not recalling correctly. And even if so, we are all entitled to our opinions.   Actually funny enough your description of yourself on this is how I see myself on the topic.  I haven't taken Scot's side or Bruce's side on this.  

 

My point is centered on the power structure and in the sea of stories I've yet to stumble on a pro-Bruce spin to that part of the story -- aside from he usurped power because he had no choice.   Like you, I am digesting every component to the story.  I haven't commented on the jealously part -- I don't know or care if that part of the story is true.  I've commented that I've heard enough to figure Scot is culpable in the mix.  I've not heard anything that makes me think Bruce though is absolved either, though.

 

As for the future of the team, I don't think it matters IMO who was the bad guy Bruce or Scot -- IMO it's all about the power structure.  And like I've said many times, Bruce for me will be judged by who his next hire is and what power structure is put forward with it.    You got two interesting narratives IMO in those sea of stories:  Kirk getting a long term contract and what is the future power structure/GM situation.  There is nothing I've digested on either front that makes me give Bruce the benefit of the doubt.  I am not though condemning him either.  Will see what happens. 

[maskedsuperstar]

On 3/27/2017 at 11:30 AM, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

 

I think you misread my post.  I said "how they mislead us and took his power" to mean, as I have been saying throughout the thread, how they presented SM when he was hired was much different than what actually took place. 

 

Snyder was very sensitive to the fans desire to put a football man in charge of personnel.  After the disastrous Bruce Allen "winning off the field" press conference following a 5-11 season Snyder knew he needed to make a change to satisfy an increasingly frustrated fan base. 

 

So they hired Scott, propped him up as the "things will be different now" guy and clearly implied that SM would have full control of personnel. This was misleading at best and a bold faced lie at worst.  They either changed the agreement after a very short time or they never intended to give SM full control all along.  The fact that he kept every single scout and didn't make one move in that department for 2 years tells me it's the former, they never gave him full control as promised.  That remains my issue with the organization, it is clear now that SM has not had full power for a while now despite what we were led to believe.

 

As for league perception all the reports are saying the Redskins look very bad, the majority opinion throughout the league is they really did this poorly and that has ramifications.  How can this perception, which is not a new one by the way just more of the same, can't  be a problem moving forward when they attempt to hire top talent?  IMO it played a huge part  in settling for the DC they ended up with and obviously any top personnel guy would have to consider this situation.  . 

 

 

 

On 3/27/2017 at 5:25 PM, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Allen finally spoke up and said nothing, which of course is what he should do.  Of course in typical Redskins fashion he spoke up weeks too late.  If he had just said something, anything, as this story was blowing up or shortly after we would be further down the road.  Instead they hid under the bed and imaginations ran wild.

 

You are certainly free to believe what you would like.  I for the life of me can't figure out what you have seen in the last 20 years that would lead you to ever give Snyder the benefit of the doubt but that's your call there.  Good luck with that. 

 

 

 

 

What do you want the Skins to do? I don't care what anybody says, they do a good job at keeping things in house. Fans act like the Skins should throw a pizza party and answer all the fans questions. Doesn't work that way. 

Allen is not suppose to say anything. No news is good news. The media makes up ?? every day because they can't get a story. 

Scot wasn't fired just because. Allen never came out and said ?????

But he fired for "cause"!! Now, Bruce lied and probably handled it wrong. But Scot said, "family matters. I'm taking care of my family. That's it" That was a lie. 

Keep business in house!!!!! Skins don't care about the media or what the NFL thinks. Fans always worried about what the NFL or media thinks. Who gives a ????! 

[Darrell Green Fan]

1 hour ago, maskedsuperstar said:

 

What do you want the Skins to do? I don't care what anybody says, they do a good job at keeping things in house. Fans act like the Skins should throw a pizza party and answer all the fans questions. Doesn't work that way. 

Allen is not suppose to say anything. No news is good news. The media makes up ?? every day because they can't get a story. 

Scot wasn't fired just because. Allen never came out and said ?????

But he fired for "cause"!! Now, Bruce lied and probably handled it wrong. But Scot said, "family matters. I'm taking care of my family. That's it" That was a lie. 

Keep business in house!!!!! Skins don't care about the media or what the NFL thinks. Fans always worried about what the NFL or media thinks. Who gives a ????! 

 

You actually believe the Redskins do a good job of keeping things in house?  Where have you been?  There have been more leaks out of Redskins Park over the years than the Titanic.

 

But of course this was not my point in the 2 posts you quoted.   If you look at them I agree with you, Allen should not reveal what took place.   My point on that was his addressing the issue took place weeks too late and allowed rampant speculation.  Say something and we could have moved on faster.   And of course my main issue, in the first post you quoted, was  they presented SM to the fans one way when he was hired and we are now learning it wasn't that way at all.

[Skinsinparadise]

This article by Chris Russell in parts is spot on about how some of their bad press is self inflicted.  In my business, I have to deal with the media quite a bit -- the reporters I have good relationships with tend to give me and my clients good coverage.  I had pesky reporter who was a bit of a pain in the butt to me, I spend 3 hours with them over coffee and it helped a lot.  It's not a panacea -- reporters will be reporters but developing relationships with reporters and even some personal chemistry with them helps a great deal. In short, if they like you and they have a good relationship with you, they are going to feel much more uncomfortable to slam you.  

 

If Danny is going to be aloof and take himself out of the game as for talking to the media and Bruce is going to do his drill where he seems to be chummier with national reporters and only talk on rare occasions -- they are making their own bed with the media.   We can say its undeserved but its just how it is.  It's part of their job (Wylie-Bruce, etc) to help manage media perception.  It's not completely random and out of their control.  It's not fully in their control, they can run it perfectly and still get bad stories as part of the soup.   But from what I've observed, they aren't IMO that hot at managing public perception so I don't feel sorry for them in that regard.

 

The guy who is masterful in the mix IMO at managing the media is Jay.  In his first year, he was arguably too outspoken but otherwise IMO he's great at it.  If you recall when he was hired he bought pizza for the reporters and they all commented on it and dug it.  It was a small gesture but he got that it helps to be chummy with them.  Watching-listening Jay versus Bruce with the media is night and day.  Jay IMO comes off relaxed, open, honest, friendly, funny -- likable. 

 

https://www.dchotread.com/2017/03/29/allen-media

The other part is this: The Redskins have NEVER understood, under any leadership in the modern era, that a good relationship with the media automatically guarantees more favorable and balanced coverage. 

Players like Kirk Cousins, Trent Williams, Jordan Reed, DeAngelo Hall and Josh Norman get it. The Redskins executive branch does not get it and never will. 

Lorenzo Alexander, who had 12.5 sacks last year in Buffalo and won the Pro Bowl MVP, recently told me on 106.7 the FAN that it was always important for him to have a great relationship with the media, because we shape public opinion and can help carry a player’s individualized or team-driven message or agenda. 

He's absolutely one-thousand percent correct. 

The Redskins refuse to realize one simple thing: The media is a direct conduit to their customer$ and they have the chance to shape and formulate the message before speculation, theories and criticism runs wild. 

They almost always choose to wait, stall or bypass the opportunity to provide their perspective until it’s too late. Sunday and this week was too late.  

Also, by being more transparent and open/helpful – the Redskins would buy themselves one very important thing that they’ve never had and probably will never have. 

A media group that can help defend them & shape the message that things are not as bad as they appear. That the organization is stable. That the future is bright. 

Many members of the media (myself included) can shape a much more favorable message when you have great relationships with key figures and when you feel that they are being honest and forth coming. 

There’s NOBODY in the local media that feels the Redskins and specifically Allen are even close to that. 

As smart as Allen is, he has never understood this very simple solution. There wouldn’t be any unnamed officials making the organization look terrible if they were up-front and candid, if they controlled the message from the start. 

The Redskins reputation and way of conducting business hurts them every day. If they were more transparent, they could have said something as simple as “Scot McCloughan was fired because of conduct detrimental to the team.” There still would be questions and the unknown, but how much better does that sound than what they said. Oh, I'm sorry. What a "official with direct knowledge of the situation' said.  

They should study how the Nationals, Capitals and Wizards media covers those teams and how those organizations handle their business. There’s never any of this nonsense. There’s no sharks in the water on those beats or with the coverage of those clubs. It’s a healthy, mutually beneficial relationship. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Excellent post Skinsinparadise.  Very well said, they could make things easier on themselves by working with the local media instead of against them.   But even if they had a great relationship the critical comments are on point. 

[MEANDWARF]

Doing the right thing earn us more mockery around the NFL.

[Morneblade]

http://www.richmond.com/redskins-xtra/former-player-scot-mccloughan-felt-the-hate-from-redskins-president/article_15f2d7f4-1550-11e7-9196-339cd134af91.html

[Taylor 36]

4 hours ago, Morneblade said:

http://www.richmond.com/redskins-xtra/former-player-scot-mccloughan-felt-the-hate-from-redskins-president/article_15f2d7f4-1550-11e7-9196-339cd134af91.html

I have a hard time taking that article seriously.  If there was so much love for Scot by the players, why hasn't anyone, even anonymously, spoken out?  Why hasn't Scot himself spoken out after three weeks?  Why hasn't Scot, his agent, and/or his lawyer gone after the team.  They fired him with "cause."  That isn't something than can be done lightly, and opens up a huge legal can of worms and potentially millions of dollars of damages against the Redskins if they don't have actual "cause" that can be proven in a court of law for dismissing Scot.

 

Due to his history, if the Redskins did fire him without cause, Scot would be a fool to NOT go after the team for damages.  As it is, no one is going to touch him again in the NFL after a third dismissal like this.  If he has any chance of working in this league again, he has to clear his name.  Unless, he knows he can't clear his name because the Redskins do have cause. So, if Scot was fired because Allen was jealous, there would be a **** storm the size of Africa raining on Redskins Park, the media wouldn't just be speculating on what happened, and lawyers would be having a field day.  Sorry; I call BS!