Breaking: Redskins claim Reuben Foster NFL.COM

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

2 minutes ago, bh32 said:

Who cares what other GM's think ..I bet these same GM's would jump all over the chance to have Foster if he is innocent..

Sure, they just feel stupid that they got outmatched by Bruce Allen. 🤣  

[Spearfeather]

11 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

No idea.  Nobody knows for sure what they did or didn’t do, other than the fact that they cut Hunt. ( long after the fact )

 

 

Keep defending those nameless GM's all you want ...

 

 

[samy316]

3 minutes ago, bh32 said:

Who cares what other GM's think ..I bet these same GM's would jump all over the chance to have Foster if he is innocent..

 

It doesn’t matter if Foster is innocent or not.  Just the fact that they picked him up on waivers, without so much as a phone call to Tampa police, or an overall background check just explains and demonstrates the utter idiocy and incompetence of this franchise, and especially it’s front office.  There was no need to pick him up now, until at least next year when his hearing concludes, or he has gotten himself off of the commissioners exempt list.  We just look like desperate degenerates with no clue as to PR, and direction.

 

This is also something that other potential coaches and GM’s pay attention to in the long run.  When our season spirals out of control, and we miss the playoffs, we’re most likely going to fire Gruden and possibly Allen.  We’re already down on the list as far as potential destinations for young up and coming coaches (QB disaster + a barren wasteland of offensive talent).  GB, Cleveland, Tampa and Buffalo would be ahead of us in regards to coaching destinations.  Throw in an incompetent front office, and a meddlesome owner, and you’re once again looking at a potential situation like 2008 when we had to settle for Jim Zorn.  Any decent head coaches are going to stay away from the laughingstock known as the Redskins.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

6 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Keep defending those nameless GM's all you want ...

 

 

First, I’d have to actually defend them.  IDGAF about the Chiefs and what they do.  I’m talking about the Redskins and the stupid crap they do.  Not surprising that you want to change the subject to the Chiefs.

[samy316]

2 minutes ago, samy316 said:

 

It doesn’t matter if Foster is innocent or not.  Just the fact that they picked him up on waivers, without so much as a phone call to Tampa police, or an overall background check just explains and demonstrates the utter idiocy and incompetence of this franchise, and especially it’s front office.  There was no need to pick him up now, until at least next year when his hearing concludes, or he has gotten himself off of the commissioners exempt list.  We just look like desperate degenerates with no clue as to PR, and direction.

 

This is also something that other potential coaches and GM’s pay attention to in the long run.  When our season spirals out of control, and we miss the playoffs, we’re most likely going to fire Gruden and possibly Allen.  We’re already down on the list as far as potential destinations for young up and coming coaches (QB disaster + a barren wasteland of offensive talent).  GB, Cleveland, Tampa and Buffalo would be ahead of us in regards to coaching destinations.  Throw in an incompetent front office, and a meddlesome owner, and you’re once again looking at a potential situation like 2008 when we had to settle for Jim Zorn.  Any decent head coaching prospects are going to stay far away from the laughingstock known as the Redskins.

 

[samy316]

Edit, duplicate post.

 

[Spearfeather]

Just now, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

First, I’d have to actually defend them.  IDGAF about the Chiefs and what they do. 

 

And apparently, neither do those anonymous GM"s.

[kleese]

Here’s some irony... I think teams are being foolish for NOT picking up Hunt right now. In his case we KNOW the deal. We all saw the video and there are no charges and no grey area. We also know it was not domestic absue. It was a drunken skirmish between people acting like fools. Because he’s a dude and she’s a woman I agree that it’s on him to de-escalate the physical altercation. He deserves a stiff punishment for his actions. I’d say losing his job/contract, public humiliation, and what is likely going to be a minimum 6 game suspension and loss of millions is a stiff punishment. But it’s done. There is nothing else left to debate. I absolutely do NOT believe this should cost him his career. He should be given another opportunity. 

 

Had we NOT signed Foster I’d be in favor of signing Hunt. Obviously if we did that now it would be a PR storm that would be borderline comical. So under no circumstance I’m I actually advocating we sign him. But his case is already much more “closed” than Fosters and he is a great talent. I would have been in favor of bringing him in. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

19 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

And apparently, neither do those anonymous GM"s.

Were they asked about it?

 

You are digging deep for any shred of minutia to make this about everyone else and not the Redskins.

[Skinsinparadise]

In the short time that word emerged that a team had claimed Foster -- before the Redskins were revealed as that team -- several other teams distanced themselves from the idea that they were the one that claimed him.

 

One NFL coach, when asked by ESPN whether his team was the one that claimed Foster, texted back, "lol." Another GM, when asked whether his team had made the claim, texted back, "No way!!!!"

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25430853/reuben-foster-washington-redskins-agrees-remain-commissioner-exempt-list

[theTruthTeller]

4 minutes ago, kleese said:

Here’s some irony... I think teams are being foolish for NOT picking up Hunt right now. In his case we KNOW the deal. We all saw the video and there are no charges and no grey area. We also know it was not domestic absue. It was a drunken skirmish between people acting like fools. Because he’s a dude and she’s a woman I agree that it’s on him to de-escalate the physical altercation. He deserves a stiff punishment for his actions. I’d say losing his job/contract, public humiliation, and what is likely going to be a minimum 6 game suspension and loss of millions is a stiff punishment. But it’s done. There is nothing else left to debate. I absolutely do NOT believe this should cost him his career. He should be given another opportunity. 

At least part of the reason is that no one has been able to contact the girl who was hit in the video, if they even know who she is.  The big unknown in this case is what was going on in the room, why the girl was booted from the room, why she wanted to get back in so badly, and what she will say publicly if found.  I suspect that they weren't having a backgammon tournament.  Waiting on more info would seem to be a good move given the heat that the Skins have taken, even if it means paying more or missing out completely.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Oh SIP, that’s just more bullying the poor Redskins.  The media and the league are out to get them, did you not get the memo?

 

Some of our fans remind me of parents of really badass kids.  They always believe there is a conspiracy against their kids, they always point the finger elsewhere, and they rarely if ever hold their kids accountable for anything, there is always an excuse.

[KillBill26]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-teams-shocked-dismayed-that-the-redskins-claimed-reuben-foster-it-makes-all-of-us-look-bad/

"I really can't figure it out," said one NFL general manager. "Whatever you think of the player, and his impact, and even if you think this situation may not be what it seems on the surface, why would you claim him now? We were shocked that anyone claimed him."

 

What a load of BS. you really don't understand why someone would claim him now? it's pretty simple, if he is found not guilty after everything has run its course, the Redskins just got a first-round talent on his rookie contract without having to give anything up.  I understand if that same GM took that into consideration and ultimately made the decision that the pr hit in the short term was not worth it, but I don't understand why he's pretending to be confused as to why a team would claim him now.  you better believe that if no one claimed Foster, and he was found not guilty, there would be a dozen teams lining up immediately to get him signed.  Which means you have a very low percent chance to obtain him.  Why not claim him now, and guarantee that he is on your team once he is found not guilty, or cut him if he is found guilty? Definitely worth the risk, because there really isn't any.  No one should have to apologize for thinking someone could be innocent until proven guilty.  

 

After the chiefs not acting on Hunt until the video release, to Urban Meyer denying any knowledge of the Zac Smith situation, I really don't buy any GM or owner getting on their high horse and being self-righteous.  There are a lot of people in the league acting selfishly and looking the other way when their players act inappropriately, and there are many incidents that will never see the light of day.  And these GM's act like they are better than that, until a story breaks about a player on their team, and then it's full damage control where they lie or act like they knew nothing about it. Complete BS all around.  

[MartinC]

17 minutes ago, samy316 said:

 

It doesn’t matter if Foster is innocent or not.  Just the fact that they picked him up on waivers, without so much as a phone call to Tampa police, or an overall background check just explains and demonstrates the utter idiocy and incompetence of this franchise, and especially it’s front office.  There was no need to pick him up now, until at least next year when his hearing concludes, or he has gotten himself off of the commissioners exempt list. .

 

 

 

I am not a fan of this signing at all. But I disagree with this comment.

 

First on the lack of a phone call to Tampa Police. We signed him knowing he was going to be suspended with no intention of putting him on the roster until the legal process plays out and we know one way or another exactly what happened. What exactly does anyone think we would have learned from a phone call to the Tampa police at this point that would change any of that? What's our additional risk from not having done it?

 

Second on the 'no need to sign him now' part. By making a successful waiver claim Foster has no option but to report to us if this all plays out well from his perspective - we own his rights and current deal. Which at this point is very team friendly. If we waited until the start of next league year say and all this legal process shows is Foster is actually innocent AND he is a free agent at that point he would control who he signed for and for what based on offers he received at that point. Zero guarantee he signs here.

 

From a football business perspective there is good logic behind the decision to claim him. Morally - not so much IMO.

 

My larger concern is that even if he is innocent on this occasion he has such a history of bad decisions and questionable (at best) behaviour that I think its highly likely he will screw up again in the future and end up suspended again - maybe for good. I dont know how you plan your defensive roster and plan on him playing a vital role in that roster and defensive scheme when you can't be confident he will be around long term - or even week to week!

[Skinsinparadise]

9 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

What a load of BS. you really don't understand why someone would claim him now? it's pretty simple, if he is found not guilty after everything has run its course, the Redskins just got a first-round talent on his rookie contract without having to give anything up. 

 

I know you are quoting the GM there but not me.  But again, you are paying a dude where you have no idea if he's guilty or innocent.  That's a reward.  Your bottom line is if he is proven innocent you want to be in the front of the line and having him be your player.

 

Some people have no issue with that.  I personally don't like it.  To each their own.    But as for the other GMs, they have the right to say any of this since they could have claimed him, too.  It's not like the Redskins had the only go at this and the GMs are likely secretly marveling at what the Redskins did.  If they agreed with the Redskins actions, they would have put a claim on the player, too.

[HardcoreZorn]

Are we talking about the same GM’s that said hell no to drafting La’el Collins all 7 rounds? The same ones that probably went “damn wish I burned a measly 7th on the guy” once he was cleared and they were plugging in scrubs along the line.

 

No crap GM’s around the league stayed far away. No crap what the Redskins did is unprecedented, especially in today’s day and age. 

 

Its a calculated risk to add a bonafide elite talent at next to nothing cost. This is the same woman who fully admitted to trying to sabotage his career earlier this year in a court of law. The same woman who made false claims about another guy back in 2011. She clearly has some of her own issues. 

 

If he’s cleared, he will be surrounded by many of his college teammates who ARE great people off the field. Support systems matter, and the Redskins have the unique situation to offer him an opportunity to reunite with guys he’s familiar with, guys who take the game seriously and are professionals off and on the field.

 

If he’s not, he may never play a down for us and he’s cut. At that point, his career is a long shot. We paid him 50K over 5 weeks to get the opportunity to control his rights. Cause if he’s cleared, make no mistake there would be a feeding frenzy to sign the guy. I’m sure a dozen teams would be in on signing a 24 year old linebacker with his skills.

 

The organization doesn’t condone DV. What would really upset me is if it comes out he did something truly awful and we still stand behind him. Doug’s comments were moronic. But the claim itself? Nah. I actually think it’s really smart.

[Spearfeather]

30 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Were they asked about it?

 

Probably not.

 

But why weren't they ?

[Est.1974]

16 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

What a load of BS. you really don't understand why someone would claim him now? it's pretty simple, if he is found not guilty after everything has run its course, the Redskins just got a first-round talent on his rookie contract without having to give anything up.  I understand if that same GM took that into consideration and ultimately made the decision that the pr hit in the short term was not worth it, but I don't understand why he's pretending to be confused as to why a team would claim him now.  you better believe that if no one claimed Foster, and he was found not guilty, there would be a dozen teams lining up immediately to get him signed.  Which means you have a very low percent chance to obtain him.  Why not claim him now, and guarantee that he is on your team once he is found not guilty, or cut him if he is found guilty? Definitely worth the risk, because there really isn't any.  No one should have to apologize for thinking someone could be innocent until proven guilty.  

 

After the chiefs not acting on Hunt until the video release, to Urban Meyer denying any knowledge of the Zac Smith situation, I really don't buy any GM or owner getting on their high horse and being self-righteous.  There are a lot of people in the league acting selfishly and looking the other way when their players act inappropriately, and there are many incidents that will never see the light of day.  And these GM's act like they are better than that, until a story breaks about a player on their team, and then it's full damage control where they lie or act like they knew nothing about it. Complete BS all around.  

 

Just got to love this post. Well said 👍

[KillBill26]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I know you are quoting the GM there but not me.  But again, you are paying a dude where you have no idea if he's guilty or innocent.  So arguably than you don't really care that much about whether he's innocent or guilty aside -- your bottom line is if he is proven innocent you want to be in the front of the line and having him be your player.

 

Some people have no issue with that.  I personally don't like it.  To each their own.    But as for the other GMs, they have the right to say any of this since they could have claimed him, too.  It's not like the Redskins had the only go at this and the GMs are likely secretly marveling at what the Redskins did.  If they agreed with the Redskins actions, they would have put a claim on the player, too.

Yes, I was calling the GM out, not you.

 

I think paying his salary while this plays itself out is not a big deal at all.  These owners are billionaires, and you know they aren't maxed out with their payroll, as they are instead limited by what they can spend due to the cap.  In the osweiler deal, the Texans and browns pretty much determined obtaining a second round pick was worth about ten million.  So spending a million or so on a flyer on a player many people thought was a top 5 player in his draft class, who has proven to mesh well with many players currently on our roster, at a position of need, is worth it in my book.  

 

And another reason I called the GM out is because it is possible to understand a decision even if you disagree with the decision.  For example, I understand why people lease cars bc they like having a new car every three years, but I would never lease a car.  And I don't look down on people who do.  Which led me to my point about how many GMs, probably that same exact GM, have made unethical decisions in one way shape or form when no one is looking, but he acts self righteous when commenting on this situation.  I can guarantee that GM has a player or two on his roster that has been accused or convicted of a violent crime.  The NFL is filled with them.  It doesn't make the behavior right, but it makes his grandstanding ironic and laughable.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Probably not.

 

But why weren't they ?

Because the media and league has it out for the poor Redskins.

 

 

 

 

[Spearfeather]

1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Because the media and league has it out for the poor Redskins.

 

 

to be read as;"  I have no answer for that ".

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Maybe it’s just me, but if I take a “calculated risk” I have some plan of action for after I take said risk.

 

It appears the Redskins “plan” was to tell the world they did no research on the player, misspell Doug Williams name on the memo, make Jay field the questions as part of his routine weekly pressers, and trot out Doug Williams to be lose lipped and tone deaf with Doc walker. 

 

I pray those of you defending these calculated risks don’t own your own business.

3 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

to be read as;"  I have no answer for that ".

 

Wrong.  It’s because I don’t care about that enough to even see if similar things have been said/asked about them.  Why you would says to me that you’re just grasping to defend these jokers like you do every single time they do stupid things.

[Est.1974]

4 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Maybe it’s just me, but if I take a “calculated risk” I have some plan of action for after I take said risk.

 

He gets released. Really simple.

[Spearfeather]

22 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

Wrong.  It’s because I don’t care about that enough to even see if similar things have been said/asked about them.  Why you would says to me that you’re just grasping to defens these jokers like you do every single time they do stupid things.

 

Back to your tried and untrue tactics,yet again.

 

 

Quote

 

Spearfeather replied to Makaveli's topic in The Stadium

 

Well, you're wrong from the start Battered, but why would that ( converting ) be so important to you ? Why don't you try something different, Battered. Like take something somebody says, twist it into an extreme, and then argue against that extreme. Then when they show you that you've exaggerated what they said, call them a " homer " or a " front office supporter ". And then do that over and over..

.

•  April 26

 

•  

 

Wasn't defending anyone. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

47 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

My larger concern is that even if he is innocent on this occasion he has such a history of bad decisions and questionable (at best) behaviour that I think its highly likely he will screw up again in the future and end up suspended again - maybe for good. I dont know how you plan your defensive roster and plan on him playing a vital role in that roster and defensive scheme when you can't be confident he will be around long term - or even week to week!

3

 

I actually think this played a much larger role in why the Skins picked him up and other teams just stayed away. I think the thought process was "Is he a problem player" and if so, what are is problems? If anyone paid any attention to his issues so far, they'd know his problem is not that he's an abuser, because so far he hasn't been shown to have abused anyone...it's that he smoked/smokes pot and is in what appears to be a rather toxic relationship. The weapons charge was very lilttle in my eyes than just the fact that he owned the weapon lol...but I know that speaks more to my personal view on owning guns than anything.

 

In the right structured environment, a player with recent troubles of smoking pot and remaining in a toxic relationship can be managed and helped until the player matures and straightens himself out. There is less to overcome on the team's part. And guess what...if he's found not guilty or if the case never goes to trial or the woman once again recants and blames anger and hurt feelings again for her actions, those two issues (drugs and toxic relationship) are still gonna be there. now, he may have already overcome his own pot-smoking issues, such as they are (meaning, he's smarter now about not carrying the **** on him like most NFL players lol).

 

 

23 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Maybe it’s just me, but if I take a “calculated risk” I have some plan of action for after I take said risk.

 

It appears the Redskins “plan” was to tell the world they did no research on the player, misspell Doug Williams name on the memo, make Jay field the questions as part of his routine weekly pressers, and trot out Doug Williams to be lose lipped and tone deaf with Doc walker. 

 

I pray those of you defending these calculated risks don’t own your own business.

 

What was the calculated risk the Skins took? Curious as to what you felt it was/is.