Breaking: Redskins claim Reuben Foster NFL.COM

[KDawg]

30 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Doug really shouldn’t discuss this type of issue with Doc.  He gets way too loose with the lips.  Downplaying domestic violence because unnamed people have done worse.  Phew.

 

Okay... sorry @Jumbo, I'm diving in.

 

Who is downplaying domestic violence? This is the type of thinking that really gets my heart rate up. 

 

Innocent until proven guilty. If the guy did it and is proven to be an abuser and the team doesn't cut him, you have an argument. In fact, I'd even say you're 100% correct. It would be a COMPLETE embarrassment to the franchise and its fans if this guy did it and he winds up playing a single second for this team. 

 

But until then, you can't downplay domestic violence if you don't know that it happened. The woman's claims needs to be taken seriously and investigated. For too long, women couldn't speak up against their abusers. But an allegation does not presume a verdict. Let's keep that in mind.

 

Now, let me take a breath and address what really may be your concern...

 

If Doug Williams is implying that there are worse things someone could have done even if Foster is found guilty, that IS tone deaf and stupid and has no place in this conversation. If this is the line of thinking that you went with, please disregard my above statement. It's hard to pick up on intent through text, so I'm trying to cover both bases with my reply so I'm not unfair to you.

 

I read his quote as meaning, "at the moment... with no proven guilt". 

 

To reiterate: if the team keeps Foster for his on-field ability even with a guilty verdict, it will be a complete black eye for this team's fanbase and should be quite the issue moving forward for all of us.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

@KDawg Quotes are quotes.  And it’s not just the way it comes across in text, listen to him say it.

 

I don’t think he meant it the way it sounds, which is my point in saying that Docs radio show isn’t the best place to discuss this.  

[DJHJR86]

9 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Who is downplaying domestic violence?

 

"Small potatoes" Doug Williams.  And he said the "high-risk" was not that this guy might actually be guilty but rather being "beat up" by PR backlash.  I can see why the team only made Gruden available to the media.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

"Small potatoes" Doug Williams.  And he said the "high-risk" was not that this guy might actually be guilty but rather being "beat up" by PR backlash.  I can see why the team only made Gruden available to the media.

 

I didn't read it that way. But yeah, his word choice could be a heck of a lot better.

[Reaper Skins]

[OVCChairman]

42 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

@KDawg Quotes are quotes.  And it’s not just the way it comes across in text, listen to him say it.

 

I don’t think he meant it the way it sounds, which is my point in saying that Docs radio show isn’t the best place to discuss this.  

 

I have to agree with you.  I think he was making the "small potatoes" statement toward the other instances he was wrapped up in.  I think Doug has always struggled with articulate speech and it's held him back.  He's a really smart guy, and like he said, he has 6 daughters... I highly doubt that he's going to look at domestic violence as an afterthought.  That said, the terminology and his way of speaking really fell short.  

 

 

[sempre_victrix]

Frankly, I don't care about us claiming this guy.  Not in the least.

 

If he is found guilty of domestic violence, he gets suspended again and we can drop him without costing us a penny.  If he is not found guilty, then we have a potential force at LB for next to nothing.  Hopefully, being on a team with fellow players from his alma mater will help him mature.

 

Do I care about the optics?  Not any more than I care about us being perennial bottom feeders.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

To reiterate: if the team keeps Foster for his on-field ability even with a guilty verdict, it will be a complete black eye for this team's fanbase and should be quite the issue moving forward for all of us.

 

Good post! And, from their press release through this morning, that seems to be their plan...they wanted to grab his rights (first round talent under contract through 2020/21) and let the rest of it play out. Now, they go from having to vet this situation in 36 hours to having as long as it needs.

 

It's funny to me how people against the move are having it both ways...it's being painted as an unnecessary distraction for the players on the team yet also as something that the team should have discussed more with a group of players on the team. Maybe one of the many factors that went into the "grab him now and let the process play out" strategy was NOT disrupting 5-6 key players as they prepare for the biggest game of the season. 

 

I do disagree slightly that a guilty verdict or more fire than just smoke has to result in cutting him. Maybe you help the person (especially if some of his former teammates are actually friends of him - I'm not sure if they are or not) for the entirety of next year and hope to get him on the right track with a long-term goal of getting him back on the field in 2020? Certainly, their actions in the event of a guilty verdict are important, but I don't think it's a binary decision. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

10 minutes ago, sempre_victrix said:

Do I care about the optics?  Not any more than I care about us being perennial bottom feeders.

It all kind of goes hand in hand.  Goes to show how clueless they are of what’s going on around them, being the only team to put in a claim.

[theTruthTeller]

7 minutes ago, sempre_victrix said:

Frankly, I don't care about us claiming this guy.  Not in the least.

 

If he is found guilty of domestic violence, he gets suspended again and we can drop him without costing us a penny.  If he is not found guilty, then we have a potential force at LB for next to nothing.  Hopefully, being on a team with fellow players from his alma mater will help him mature.

 

Do I care about the optics?  Not any more than I care about us being perennial bottom feeders.

We're paying him now.  He'll get a paycheck for this week's game.

[OVCChairman]

3 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

It all kind of goes hand in hand.  Goes to show how aloof they are that they were the only team to put in a claim.

 

 

It comes back to something I said a few days ago regarding Dan and his impact on specific games played on the field.  Did he determine the direct outcome of a particular win / loss?  No, but making this team a 'less' desirable franchise to play for can hinder the talent that is / stays here.  It all matters.  

[TD_washingtonredskins]

6 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

It all kind of goes hand in hand.  Goes to show how aloof they are that they were the only team to put in a claim.

 

Well, I don't necessarily agree that just because we're the only team to do something we should be considered aloof or tone deaf. I remember Joe Banner (who stated yesterday that he was "disappointed" in the Redskins for this) being quoted as saying that the Eagles didn't consider fan or media backlash when deciding to sign Mike Vick after the dog fighting thing. 

 

I'd prefer my team be one that decide they want to do something and move forward, not waiting around to see what everyone else does. As it stands, if Foster is cleared to play we will be the only team he can play for until WE decide we don't want that. In the scenario where no one claims him AND he's suddenly available, there could be a bidding war or mad scramble for him. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Just now, OVCChairman said:

 

It comes back to something I said a few days ago regarding Dan and his impact on specific games played on the field.  Did he determine the direct outcome of a particular win / loss?  No, but making this team a 'less' desirable franchise to play for can hinder the talent that is / stays here.  It all matters.  

Exactly.  

 

Dan doesn’t drop passes, throw picks, call hopeless plays or mismanage the clock.  What Dan does is create an environment not conducive to winning.  An environment which it’s rare that folks succeed.  Every single player and coach has weaknesses.  They are highlighted here.  Every single player and coach has strengths. They never get maximized and tend to get washed out with all the other negativity.  

 

I know there are folks that are going to say that’s overly dramatic.  But whatever, it’s the truth.  In every single industry.  

[theTruthTeller]

Doug William's recipe for Reubens Foster:

3 small potatoes (fingerling work well), half-backed

cover up small potatoes with burgundy gravy (saute onions over medium heat, add 3 T flour, heat for 3 minutes, add one cup burgundy, stir until thickened)

cover with layer of mashed potatoes

top with more burgundy gravy

keep adding layers of mashed potatoes and gravy until small potatoes are no longer apparent

serve to guests

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Well, I don't necessarily agree that just because we're the only team to do something we should be considered aloof or tone deaf. I remember Joe Banner (who stated yesterday that he was "disappointed" in the Redskins for this) being quoted as saying that the Eagles didn't consider fan or media backlash when deciding to sign Mike Vick after the dog fighting thing. 

 

I'd prefer my team be one that decide they want to do something and move forward, not waiting around to see what everyone else does. As it stands, if Foster is cleared to play we will be the only team he can play for until WE decide we don't want that. In the scenario where no one claims him AND he's suddenly available, there could be a bidding war or mad scramble for him. 

If I placed a bet against decisions only the Redskins made over the last 20 years, I’d be a very rich man.

 

There are absolutely examples all over the league of teams taking fliers on folks that have been accused of/charged with terrible things.  The Redskins are not alone on that at all.  But ONLY the Redskins chose to claim a player that just got out of jail for the 2nd time for domestic abuse.  Without doing even the slightest amount of homework into the allegations.  It just looks bad whether he’s guilty or not.  

 

Sure, on the very small chance he’s innocent AND ends up being a great player for the team, this looks like a great move.

 

In the meantime, the optics are that the team could care less about men beating women up if they have elite sideline to sideline speed.  Because they didn’t even bother to look into the actual allegations before racing to assure their shot at him.

[OVCChairman]

15 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Well, I don't necessarily agree that just because we're the only team to do something we should be considered aloof or tone deaf. I remember Joe Banner (who stated yesterday that he was "disappointed" in the Redskins for this) being quoted as saying that the Eagles didn't consider fan or media backlash when deciding to sign Mike Vick after the dog fighting thing. 

 

I'd prefer my team be one that decide they want to do something and move forward, not waiting around to see what everyone else does. As it stands, if Foster is cleared to play we will be the only team he can play for until WE decide we don't want that. In the scenario where no one claims him AND he's suddenly available, there could be a bidding war or mad scramble for him. 

 

I actually agree with you.  This, in my mind, was a smart and savvy move.  How we go from here will be the true test.  3 days after it's happened, we've completely fumbled and mishandled what has happened.   The prepared statement, launching Doug onto a team influenced radio station to comment on it.  No Bruce or Dan sightings anywhere.  Claiming Foster had 'overwhelming support' from current Redskins that played with him at Alabama, then find out Allen and Haha weren't talked to.  It's all a giant cluster that takes this possible move and makes it look terrible.  

 

It would have been 10X better if they came out and said

 

"we liked what we saw on the football field and saw the chance to upgrade our team.  We understand this young man has some troubling things going on and we're not supporting those behaviors.  He's got allegations that are unacceptable but right now they are just allegations.  We want to see how things play out and this was strictly a football move.  If it is concluded that he's been found guilty of these claims, be assured he will never truly be a member of this football team."  

 

AND THAT'S IT.  we don't need the 'overwhelming majority' or other 'endorsements' to try and soften the blow.  Trying to spread the 'blame' is something a 5 year old does.  

 

Mom- Why did you make fun of that boy

 

son- Well my friends were doing it too!

 

 

 

If we want to take a chance on him, do it.  Own it.  If the preliminary hearing on Jan 3 comes out that it's as bad as can be, you can get in front of the camera and say "we made a decision to move on from Foster.  We hope him the best but as the facts have come out, we believe this is not the type of behavior we want to be associated with."  END OF STORY.  

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Sure, on the very small chance he’s innocent AND ends up being a great player for the team, this looks like a great move.

 

In the meantime, the optics are that the team could care less about men beating women up if they have elite sideline to sideline speed.  Because they didn’t even bother to look into the actual allegations before racing to assure their shot at him.

 

I'd agree that they don't have a great track record, but many teams aren't even batting .500 on a lot of these things. Hell, even the Patriots took a shot at Haynesworth after he busted here and the Vikings traded something to us for Donovan McNabb.

 

But that's where we diverge...the Redskins invested NOTHING so even if the "very small chance" you state below is 5%, why the Hell not? They could have two first round picks from 2017 for a waiver claim. 

 

And I get hung up less on the optics of things. If anyone wanted to take 5 minutes to look into their statements, they would know that the organization cares about domestic violence. It's the entire first paragraph of the statement they released. To me, what "optics" usually really means is giving people who already don't like you something they can spin to work against you. And, if you're going to operate trying to avoid that, you're going to fail anyway. Because I promise you that if no one had claimed Foster and you fast-forward 6 months to him starting for some other random team, plenty of fans or media members would have started saying "I wonder why the Redskins and their front office couldn't have acted more swiftly to take a shot on this guy!" 

[Jumbo]

Good morning Vietnam.

 

Long, but I suggest you read it.

 

This morning TK and I got to talk about this thread again. Here's the deal.

 

Something we seem to have to do a lot is repeat ourselves as mods. Keeping in that tradition, let's re-re-re-review.

 

People want to post on this and that's great. We understand it is hard to discuss this and not go into sociopolitical tangents, yet going into those topics is against a vital, fundamental forum rule.  We said brief mentions of such topics moving towards making your redskins-football-related point were ok, but not to extend or expound upon the actual sociopolitical issues themselves---to use restraint and to minimize that stuff. 

 

Several times posters were even given a few detailed examples and instructions of what to avoid and what would be ok (leeway).  We mainly asked just for as much cooperation and even assistance as possible (using that exact phrase). 

 

And there are those of you who managed to do this just fine. But for some it's apparently asking too much. We also said that if you were unable to post your thoughts in compliance with those directives to just stay out of the thread. Some ignored that, too.

 

Keeping specific content in specific forums is vital. We're not going to toss it out because it gets hard for some of you or it pissed you off that we enforce it even when you think it sucks.  And we now have the common dynamic of a topic that's running for many pages that basically repeats the first 5 pages over and over with a bunch of this material.

 

Some recent history---because some folks couldn't handle not talking kirk incessantly in the stadium in multiple threads when he's a viking, we made a pinned ruling about it, and then selected the kirk thread in ATN  and made a special rule saying it was ok to get into Redskins material in that thread, but to try to minimize it, just to help those who can't manage otherwise. 

 

So we compromised that forum for that one case, this time. Given its traffic and the rest of the situational context we decided it was the best choice to try to keep the rules as intact as possible and let such continue.  We're still keeping an eye on it.

 

Then a guy starts another thread in the stadium on ruben that's outright political and TSO moves it, appropriately, to the tailgate. And now we will have guys there addressing the politics stuff but will also be bringing up Redskins material which isn't the proper content for that forum. So in going way out of the way trying to help you guys, we now have all three forum compromising a key rule. We're still willing to let that thread run in the tailgate, which can handle it, for now.

 

And that thread is where you need to go if you want to expound/expand/extend on the sociopolitical angles and cannot follow what's already been stated as parameters, more than once, for this thread. We simply are not going to allow a bunch of sociopolitical material to be an occupant of the stadium, period.

 

Since moderator directives made several times have been knowingly and deliberately ignored in here recently, it's been decided that future occurrences will result  in a 90 day ban. 

 

We're still trying to make it all work the best for everyone if you're really paying attention. It's your choice whether you want to help or hinder.

[justice98]

So TMZ has a video of Kareem Hunt going berserk and getting physical with a woman in a hotel.  Police were called, no arrests though.  We'll see if the lack of charges makes a difference in the reaction compared to the ringer the Redskins were put through.

[justice98]

5 hours ago, sempre_victrix said:

Frankly, I don't care about us claiming this guy.  Not in the least.

 

If he is found guilty of domestic violence, he gets suspended again and we can drop him without costing us a penny.  If he is not found guilty, then we have a potential force at LB for next to nothing.  Hopefully, being on a team with fellow players from his alma mater will help him mature.

 

Do I care about the optics?  Not any more than I care about us being perennial bottom feeders.

 

I agree with all that, except for one thing.  And this kinda goes back to the statement the team put out. 

 

I think it's a terrible spot to put these young Bama guys in to sort of be on the hook in any way for Foster behaving or having to answer for vouching for his character.  Not that you were doing that, but the team certainly did.  

[Veretax]

5 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 

I actually agree with you.  This, in my mind, was a smart and savvy move. 

It certainly could be savvy, smart... I'm reserving judgement.  However, it is smart in one way... Is anyone talking about the thanksgiving debacle in Dallas anymore?  Nope, it might be causing turmoil inside the locker room, but I've not heard anything that would make me think that to be so.  Time will tell ultimately.

[Est.1974]

27 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

I think it's a terrible spot to put these young Bama guys in to sort of be on the hook in any way for Foster behaving or having to answer for vouching for his character.  Not that you were doing that, but the team certainly did.  

 

I don't see it that way. I think they are fine with it. Aside from all of the very negative press, both Jonathan Allen and SDH have been supportive. He's clearly a friend. Forget all the bull**** opinions we have, me included, these guys are friends...and a guy like J.Allen looks like a pro to me. He's a leader. Foster ain't taking him down. No chance.

 

These are grown lads in a big boys world. Let them crack on. Foster is gonna make it or sink in a ditch. Nobody else is going down with him.

[justice98]

Remember a couple weeks ago when we won 4 out of 5 and all we were worried about was if the passing game was ever gonna get going?  Those were the days.  lol

[Hooper]

This is what happens when your owner refuses to do things like every successful organization does.

 

Hey Danny boy, it's been 20 plus years of pain since you bought the team. Maybe you should finally hire a real GM, not a has been, a never was, or a drunk. 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

45 minutes ago, justice98 said:

So TMZ has a video of Kareem Hunt going berserk and getting physical with a woman in a hotel.  Police were called, no arrests though.  We'll see if the lack of charges makes a difference in the reaction compared to the ringer the Redskins were put through.

 

Yup. I dont think Foster is a saint but these 2 DV stories w the same woman have some consistency issues. In the fisrt incident they found video that she was in a fight the night or 2 before with some random person. Then on the stand she recants and says it was a money grab plan. Apparently she did this to another guy before Foster. The most recent incident .. was there any actual physical injury?

 

Big thing is no video bc I would guess Foster's incidents (if they did happen) probably went a lot like Hunts. Except Hunts is on video, video will absolutely sink you. These incidents are young probbaly drunk people pushing and shoving ...

 

But I want to see consistency.

 

If Foster is on the commish list indefinitely ... you have to put Hunt on it as well. Theres video of him kicking the woman (not hard hard) but she hit her head HARD on teh wall shen Hunt slammed into that guy and her.I mean hard,she had to be concussed.

 

http://www.tmz.com/2018/11/30/kc-chiefs-kareem-hunt-attacked-kicked-woman-surveillance-video/