f_dallas Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Some of you people are unreal. What, exactly, did you read in that article that is so far fetched? I'm no Glazer fan (in regards to his personal views and feelings), but he is a pretty respected reporter as far as the NFL goes......It's not like he's making it up. I just can't believe some of you (not all) would be so quick to dismiss this story and bury the writer instead of looking at the talent the Skins are stocked with and wondering why they can't put a winning season together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB81 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 In general, a large contingent of extremeskins posters like to completely dismiss any article that reflects poorly on the team (even when it comes from CBS Sportsline, CNNSI, or ESPN, all of which coincidentally are outlets dead set on screwing the Redskins even at the expense of their jobs and journalistic integrity). This sort of denial, usually reserved for 12 year old girls and mental patients, allows people to continue to live in the fantasy world, where their team is not in a shambles, at the mercy of the fickle whims of a Napoleonic mornon and apathetic, chronically ill-prepared coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by JimboDaMan 1. Well first, there's the notorious "according to sources". I really beleive this means he did NOT just make it up, but he DID hear this as no more than an unverified rumor he's trying to give the weight of authority. 2. Think about it: "Spurrier's meetings are often riddled with the sounds of cellular phone calls and beepers". Yet the only example he can dredge up involves a security guard , not a player? Does that make sense to you that this happens all the time but he can't name a single player? Why would you name a single player? If it has happened more than, say, 12 times, wouldn't be unfair to single one guy out? Anyway, he's not blaming individual players, the indictment is of the the coach who doesn't say anything about it, even to a security guard! 3. "(Marvin) would run the defense like an NFL team should be run, and he'd tell Coach Spurrier the way things are in the NFL," one source close to Lewis said. "If the defense messed something up, Marvin would make them do it again, or rip into them for not doing it the right way. It isn't like that now." So he spoke to a Lewis ally, who doubtless is no longer in the Redskins locker room, did not speak to Spurrier, and went ahead with this rumor. Now that's responsible journalism? If there is a rumor in the above quote from the article, you'll have to point it out to me. It looks like a statement from a source speaking on the condition of anonymity to me. 4. How do I know they didn't talk to Spurrier? Because its not in the story. When somebody did ask him about the cellphones, Spurrier set the record straight. He agreed that the guard's phone went off, even named the guy, Tony Spinoza or something like that. But he said the guard was redfaced and extremely apologetic about the incident. Would Spurrier remember the specific incident if it were commonplace? Would the guard be embarrassed if other phones went off too?I have no doubt on occasion a phone has gone off in meetings, it happens everywhere. And I have no doubt Spurrier does not react as violently as say Coughlin would. But this guy basically reported a party atmosphere during meetings, which appears to me to be false. Is it possible for you to verify which meetings you were at where this "appeared false"? While we're at it:"Unlike a Tom Coughlin, Spurrier's workdays are held in a much different atmosphere. One day last month, the coaches decided to change the start of practice, and phoned each player separately in order to get them to the arrive for the adjusted time. As one could imagine, such a task of locating 60 guys is not an easy one. " Please tell me what this means. If you change the practice time do you not have to contact everyone to tell them so? How would Coughlin go about it differently? Am I missing something? Only the entire point. Coughlin WOULDN'T CHANGE THE TIME OF PRACTICE! Coughlin would give the players the schedule in June, and they better be at every practice on the list until January. Honestly, what the hell was going through Spurriers mind when he decided, "call everybody and tell 'em not to show up til, oh, round about 3 today, allright?" Finally:"If Daniel Snyder wants Spurrier to agree to a buyout after the season in order to make a coaching change, he shouldn't hold his breath." He's not holding his breath, but he is wasting it. Both Snyder and Spurrier have said repeatedly they want to give this at least another year. And there has not been a single quote from either of them to the contrary. I actually agree with you on this last bit. I don't think there's a bone in the OBC's body that doesn't understand the business of the NFL, and he's not saying anything except that he'll be back next year. This is just a new way to deliver the same message, that he isn't going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhd24 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 The practice time change was due to the weather so that they would practice before inclement weather would show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 well what was coughlin's record the last three years before he was fired? apparently how strict you are doesn't make a winning team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xanathos19 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 HORSE****!!!! I won't argue with the Zellner comment, though...Bruce needs to get the F out, now that he finally got his record...I only hope that Edwards sees the same thing and sits his ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 flash- Neither you nor I were at these meetings. The only person speaking directly on the record was Spurrier, and he named precise names. Glazer made vague references to unnamed sources and was able to come up with only one specific incident which didn't even involve a player. Glazer's accusation may in fact turn out to be true - but from the evidence available it appears false. Your point about the practice time makes less sense. We'll never prove it either way, but I will bet you $500 that Tom Coughlin has had occasion to change a practice time. The weather does not always cooperate. And that makes no difference one way or another. How do you know what he said, did Spurrier call you, too? In fact, I believe he made the players show up earlier, not later as you apparently invented completely from thin air. No wonder you have no issue with Glazer's unproven accusations. In point of fact, I agree that Spurrier has been too lax with the players. In point of fact, Spurrier himself agrees also. We know this because Spurrier ACTUALLY SAID SO. Not because a guy like Glazer heard a rumor about cell phones, something juicy enough to print. I don't have a grudge against Glazer. Honestly, a single phone call to Redskin Park would have covered his butt, even if only to say "Redskin spokesmen denied the accusation" or "Spurrier declined to return my call". But such is the state of sports journalism these days that even the mainstream writers are sloppy and lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 My issue with this article is the implication that this ONLY happens in the Redskins locker room. Athletes in 2003 have cell phones. They have them on them at all times. I would be shocked if they didn't go off in all locker rooms or meeting rooms from time to time. This author implies in a way that Spurrier has no control of the situation. Just because he doesn't grab the phone and throw it against the wall. What does it matter if a phone rings. It's not like Trotter is having a convo with someone during a team meeting... People can forget to mute or turn off cell phones. I'm sure in this day and age, it is commonplace. Therefore, I'm not necessarily under the impression the Glazer is lying, but I think he's making this into a much bigger issue than it is. If he had written that this does not occur in other lockerrooms, fine. But there is no way that is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Glazer may have taken some liberties, but the gist of the story is very believable to me. Spurrier's lack of discipline and accountabilty shows up on the field every week. Anyone notice Spurrier grimmacing in the foreground while Bruce was talking on his cell on the sideline after he got the record? I also think the part about some of the players being pissed at Bruce believable. Zellner would completely whoop Bruce's tired ass.:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB81 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by speedwagon20 My issue with this article is the implication that this ONLY happens in the Redskins locker room. Athletes in 2003 have cell phones. They have them on them at all times. I would be shocked if they didn't go off in all locker rooms or meeting rooms from time to time. This author implies in a way that Spurrier has no control of the situation. Just because he doesn't grab the phone and throw it against the wall. What does it matter if a phone rings. It's not like Trotter is having a convo with someone during a team meeting... People can forget to mute or turn off cell phones. I'm sure in this day and age, it is commonplace. Therefore, I'm not necessarily under the impression the Glazer is lying, but I think he's making this into a much bigger issue than it is. If he had written that this does not occur in other lockerrooms, fine. But there is no way that is the case. Most NFL teams have a "No Cell Phones in Meetings" rule. This came to light in the Daryl Garndener situation when his use of a cell phone in the locker room was cited as a reason for his suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 GGB81, I'm sure they do. And you're not supposed to take your phones into movies either. My point is that if you turn off your phone, no harm done. Players probably feel the same way. But just because a handful of players have forgotten to turn them off over the course of 13 games, doesn't mean that they are doing whatever they want because Spurrier is a bad leader. That's what the article implies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 I just have a hard time believing as much as the media loves to bash Spurrier, in 2 years "no one" else has reported this? common sense people. It only make sense to the people who want to believe the worse about Spurrier. Glazer is a second tier writer for CBS, whose nothing more than a glorified gossip columnist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB81 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by bubba9497 I just have a hard time believing as much as the media loves to bash Spurrier, in 2 years "no one" else has reported this? common sense people. It only make sense to the people who want to believe the worse about Spurrier. Glazer is a second tier writer for CBS, whose nothing more than a glorified gossip columnist. Wait a second...the media constantly bashes Spurrier, according to you. Also according to you, this guy is the first to report negative information about Spurrier's coaching. Which is it? There have been other mentions of Spurrier's lack of discipline and his lax practices. This is not shocking, to me at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 first to report cell phones disrupting meetings. but I think you already knew that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f_dallas Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Well, choose to believe it or not, but it seems obvious to me that the Redskins are an undisciplined football team. There are not cell phones going off in team meetings for other teams. Not saying it doesn't ever happen, but I gaurantee that a coach like Andy Reid, Bill Parcells, Bill Bellechick, etc. would stare down the player the first time it happened and break the thing into 1,000 pieces the second time someone's phone went off. Earlier this season, Andy Reid snapped and almost kicked a REPORTER out of a press conference because his phone went off....and it was an Eagles.com reporter. I don't believe Caughlin is the answer for the Skins, either, but I think another coach would be a better fit. Outside of Patrick Ramsey, there is a general perception among non-redskins fans that the team is undisciplined, unprepared on Sunday, and a group of prima donnas. Lots of complaining to media from players, lots of stupid penalties, lots of blown asssignments, and lots of bloated contracts that have yielded very little in the way of results. To any of the guys dismissing this article, I would ask: Why do you defend Spurrier and a team that, as a whole (but not every player), seems to lack heart instead of asking more from them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posse81 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by GGB81 In general, a large contingent of extremeskins posters like to completely dismiss any article that reflects poorly on the team (even when it comes from CBS Sportsline, CNNSI, or ESPN, all of which coincidentally are outlets dead set on screwing the Redskins even at the expense of their jobs and journalistic integrity). This sort of denial, usually reserved for 12 year old girls and mental patients, allows people to continue to live in the fantasy world, where their team is not in a shambles, at the mercy of the fickle whims of a Napoleonic mornon and apathetic, chronically ill-prepared coach. I agree 100%. People don't want to admit the worst. I can completely believe the Zellner-Smith incident. I can believe that Spurrier is really lax with the players. I laugh anytime someone posts an article like this and 20 people cry BS. The good news is Spurrier recently said he has to buckle down and not be such a nice guy with the players. Let's hope he changes. And just because Maske didn't report this, doesn't mean its not true. He sees a lot of this stuff, but doesn't write it. The Times will write it but people cry BS then too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB81 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Unlike almost everyone on this site, I much prefer the Times coverage of the Skins. You get various opinions and writers who are not afraid to be critical of a team that has been bad for years. Maske gets a lot of the scoop, but I have a hard time not thinking that his access to the team is as a result of his soft coverage of the team. If CNNSI, CBSSportsline, the Washington Times or ESPN got their stories wrong half as often as people her claim they do, they would all be out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 To any of the guys dismissing this article, I would ask: Why do you defend Spurrier and a team that, as a whole (but not every player), seems to lack heart instead of asking more from them? :rotflmao: outside of Bruce Smith no one else qualifies just about everyone has praised the Skins players for playing hard and not quitting (one of the few good things you read about the Skins) Spurrier bashers want to believe every rumor no matter how ridiculous. How many rumors have been debated on this board to later find out about 95% of them have been false or twisted to sound worse than what really happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB81 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by bubba9497 :rotflmao: outside of Bruce Smith no one else qualifies just about everyone has praised the Skins players for playing hard and not quitting (one of the few good things you read about the Skins) Spurrier bashers want to believe every rumor no matter how ridiculous. How many rumors have been debated on this board to later find out about 95% of them have been false or twisted to sound worse than what really happened. Yeah, criticising Spurrier is really stupid--just look at the on the field product. This season versus teams with their starting QB: 3-8. Spurrier versus the NFC East: 2-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 If CNNSI, CBSSportsline, the Washington Times or ESPN got their stories wrong half as often as people her claim they do, they would all be out of business. All sports journalism is opinions about sports. There is no hard line integrity to be 100% accurate. Most people have little if any knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors so most believe what they want to believe. If sportswriters were held accountable to the times they are right to when they are wrong, (as they hold coaches & players to their W/L records) many would be out of work. You have Sports writers who openly admit they have grudges against coaches, teams, players. They are out to make money, sell papers, get hits on there websites. There are only a few in the business who try to be accurate and fair, fewer who admit when they are wrong. Of the national guy the only two I have any faith in, are Lenny P, and Mort. The other guys.. I have to hear from a few other sources to believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB81 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 That is a joke. Whatever makes you feel good. That article was not opinion. It was a background piece where an author presented information he got directly from a source. If you feel more comfortable dismissing the source, so be it. Fact is, this team is bad. They've lost 7 of their last 9. I'd like to think something is not being done correctly. Yet, when I listen to you and others on this board rebuff any criticism of this team as BS, I just can't figure it out. If we do everything right, and the media hates/under-rates all of our players and coaches, then why are we 12-17 over the last two years. I'm flummoxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by GGB81 Yeah, criticizing Spurrier is really stupid--just look at the on the field product. This season versus teams with their starting QB: 3-8. Spurrier versus the NFC East: 2-8. :doh: no one said there wasn't reason to criticize. So because Washington doesn't have a winning record every stupid rumor no matter how ridiculous, or who it is from is automatically true? :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: OK;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB81 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 You have called BS on every negative article written about the Skins this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 The article might be entirely factual. However, it's the way it's written. I have NO doubts that cell phones go off in all locker rooms on occassion. By using terms like "several" and "numerous" this guy has covered his a$$. If it happened twice in 14 NFL weeks, then he's technically correct. However, it's not a problem. Who cares is what I say. No one writes about this with the Packers or the Bucs. And anyone who thinks that this is only happening in Washington is naive. If the Skins were 9-4, this article wouldn't be written because it would be small things that happen on a winning team. So I'm not saying that people are fabricating a story. It's just the fact that they single out one team to write it about. Here's some scoop for you guys: The Skins players got in a skirmish at practice. The wheels are coming off!! And FYI, I'm not one to cry BS on every negative article.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by GGB81 That is a joke. Whatever makes you feel good. That article was not opinion. It was a background piece where an author presented information he got directly from a source. If you feel more comfortable dismissing the source, so be it. Fact is, this team is bad. They've lost 7 of their last 9. I'd like to think something is not being done correctly. Yet, when I listen to you and others on this board rebuff any criticism of this team as BS, I just can't figure it out. If we do everything right, and the media hates/under-rates all of our players and coaches, then why are we 12-17 over the last two years. I'm flummoxed. you are confusing two points, just because you think the Skins are a poorly coached team doesn't automatically make everything you read true. he had a source, an "unnamed source" again how many times have reporter claimed they had a source that said, only to be completely wrong. Spurrier quiting to coach (fill in schol) Spurrier was quitting hours before the first game, Snyder had Spurrier in a six hour meeting during the bye week, Snyder tried to hire Bugel to replace Spurrier...... an on an on.....etc.... :gus: believe what you want:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.