Breaking: Redskins claim Reuben Foster NFL.COM

[theTruthTeller]

13 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

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.

Given what we know, about the worst thing that could come out is that she was lying about lying.  But what if it just drags on?  I would expect Foster to come off the exempt list once the NFL has gathered information on the incident, which shouldn't take more than a few weeks.  It's not out of the question that the NFL will drop Foster from the exempt list without making a decision on the act itself or the punishment (they waited over a year on Elliot) and the Tampa DA could take up to a year to make charges on a misdemeanor (not sure of what the law is in Florida, but a limit of one year is typical).  And then, depending upon whether Foster asks for a speedy trial, the case may not be heard for an indefinite time - months to years.

 

This move isn't going to look so great if Foster is taking up a roster spot and $1.3M in cap space next year. The Skins have said he won't be wearing the burgundy and gold unless he is cleared - does that mean they pay him but don't play him for the 2019 season if necessary? Would they extend him at the end of 2019 if he has little or no playing time?

 

This is definitely not just a PR hit with not much to lose if he is eventually found guilty.  There are a lot of things in play that simply can't be accounted for right now.  The idea that this is a smart move by the FO remains to be seen.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

35 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Back to your tried and untrue tactics,yet again.

 

 

•  

 

Wasn't defending anyone. 

The only time you ever engage me in a post is in defense of the FO.  Sorry if the primary subject matter I recognize you post on or post in response to me happens to be defending the FO in some shape, form, or fashion.   

[Spearfeather]

2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

The only time you ever engage me in a post is in defense of the FO.  Sorry if the primary subject matter I recognize you post on or post in response to me happens to be defending the FO in some shape, form, or fashion.   

 

He does it again.

[KillBill26]

1 hour 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 agree, this is my main concern with foster.  Assuming he is not guilty of dv, which is not a given, he is still guilty of making terrible decisions.  This women almost ruined your life, why are you anywhere near her?  You know what she is capable of.  And to show any aggression towards someone who can twist and manipulate things?  His next move might not have anything to do with dv, but when you show that type of decision making there are a million ways to get in trouble and in turn get suspended and not be available for the team.  Plus we don't want any young guys following his lead or be put in these potential situations.  

[cakmoney61]

I wonder what the topic of conversation would have been if the Patriots had been the team to claim Foster off waivers?  I can imagine comments like "What a boss move by the Patriots!!!" or "New England is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers."   

 

I suspect the upset GMs are upset because in their heart of hearts they wanted to claim Foster off waivers also but they or someone in their FO chose political correctness instead.  

 

In this country, a person is innocent until proven guilty, especially when you consider the history of the person making the allegation.

 

Controversial move?  Maybe.

 

Boss move?  Absolutely!!!!!  Especially if he is found not guilty of the charges or guilty of something much less severe.

[Est.1974]

We should remember that he was very highly rated by us pre draft and Gruden said Foster was his favourite combine interview. We also have Jonathan Allen, an obviously very mature and key defensive player/roll model, calling Foster 'his boy'.

 

Really don't understand the enormous negative reaction. I think its just another means to find an excuse to bleat and moan about the organisation.

 

That'll be why nobody has moaned about Alex Smith lately. Soon forgotten...😴

Just now, cakmoney61 said:

 

I wonder what the topic of conversation would have been if the Patriots had been the team to claim Foster off waivers?  I can imagine comments like "What a boss move by the Patriots!!!" or "New England is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers."   

 

Their HC would have also eaten the press alive and shut them up instantly. Instead, ours was like a dog chasing its tail for 10 minutes. 

[Skinsinparadise]

55 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

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.

 

 

I think you are downplaying anger being potentially part of his repertoire.  His first red flag for the world to find out about was his outburst with hospital employees when he was getting his physical for the combine and he was actually sent home.  It was a big deal back then for draft geeks like me who love monitoring the draft process -- it was a big story back then and just weird and unusual for a player to be sent home like that.    Saban had a quote around the draft process (I posted it here but don't feel like digging it back up) that alluded that Foster needs people around him to help him take things in stride and not to overreact -- saying he could use a strong support system.  Saban typically is over the top effusive about his players entering the draft.

 

As for if anyone paid attention so far knows he's not an abuser.  Not sure how anyone would know one way or another.  Just because the first case didn't land against him -- doesn't mean this one will not.  We don't know.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

42 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

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

Taking the PR Hit for picking up what potentially could be a very good player. But if you’re going to do that, you have to have a plan for the message and how it gets delivered.  Particularly when things are so bad for the franchise that you’ve recently employed new execs specifically to fix your fractured relationship with the fanbase.

 

They admitted to doing no real research on the player or allegations which in turn is insulting to your fans, particularly women.  You can argue semantics all day on that but it still doesn’t change the fact that it makes people feel some kind of way, and not a good one. When they put a claim on him, they picked up his salary.  They could potentially be employing and paying an abuser. 

 

How any Redskins fan is not disappointed in how the team has handled this whole ordeal, particularly when our season is on the line, is literally beyond me.

 

 

[Est.1974]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 Saban had a quote around the draft process (I posted it here but don't feel like digging it back up) that alluded that Foster needs people around him to help him take things in stride and not to overreact -- saying he could use a strong support system.  Saban typically is over the top effusive about his players entering the draft.

 

A lot of that suggest he may well land in a good situation here, with the friends/ players we currently have.

5 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Taking the PR Hit for picking up what potentially could be a very good player. But if you’re going to do that, you have to have a plan for the message and how it gets delivered.  Particularly when things are so bad for the franchise that you’ve recently employed new execs specifically to fix your fractured relationship with the fanbase.

 

They admitted to doing no real research on the player or allegations which in turn is insulting to your fans, particularly women.  You can argue semantics all day on that but it still doesn’t change the fact that it makes people feel some kind of way, and not a good one. When they put a claim on him, they picked up his salary.  They could potentially be employing and paying an abuser. 

 

How any Redskins fan is not disappointed in how the team has handled this whole ordeal, particularly when our season is on the line, is literally beyond me.

 

 

 

I would suggest we have researched Fosters background more than most.

 

Perhaps some of the fanbase are too precious and sensitive at the moment.

 

You gonna be cheering AP on this Monday or should the guy be put out to graze based on the sins of his past.

[Voice_of_Reason]

Just popping in to say when I heard Doug's comments on Doc's show, prior to reading about any of them, I cringed (for him) when I heard the "high high high" places comment.  I mean, I think that everybody can figure out who he was talking about, and with Allen, who's been a supporter of said person as your boss, I didn't think that was going to go so well for him. 

 

Apart from that, it came off as like a toddler excuse: sure, I hit Billy, but did you see what Joe did? He punched Billy so much harder!

 

I do wonder what this whole mess is going to mean if the 'Skins end up losing the next 2 games, and Snyder decides to make some type of a move.  I had originally thought that he could elevate Doug to President, elevate Kyle Smith to GM, and then hire a coach, which keeps people around who Dan is comfortable with, but I'm not sure that Dan is that comfortable with Doug.  This is now twice we've heard Bruce/Dan being unhappy with Doug, once for bringing in AP, and now this. 

 

Sigh.  It's unfortunate.  You just gotta be careful about what you say anymore.  And truthfully, what he said was downright dumb.

[Skinsinparadise]

18 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

A lot of that suggest he may well land in a good situation here, with the friends/ players we currently have.

 

Maybe.  But what gives me pause about the dude was the hospital incident -- just odd to lose it in that environment.  And there were a lot of commentary about that at the time with obviously no one knowing what would come later as for his troubles.  

 

Just talking pure football, I'd think at best we'd see him mid way of the 2019 season.   I personally think it was the wrong call on their end and its not even close to me.  Now if they did it in January if he was exonerated, I'd be fine with it.   And it has zero to do with Reuben Foster the football player, there were others on the draft thread that year who were higher about Foster than me.  But as I dived into it more that year, I loved the player too albeit his durability and character concerns.   I haven't really watched him play in SF much -- I noticed PFF loves the guy but there are a number of football pundits who claim he wasn't playing that hot this season.  I can't speak for it myself since I haven't watched him -- but the Alabama version was a missile.  

 

I have to say knowing about his 9 Wonderlic score, Kyle saying he released Foster in part because he continues to make bad decisions, the warning from Saban, the con-artist comment about him from Doug, the weird outburst from him in the combine -- its tough for me to give the dude the benefit of the doubt that all will be right moving forward.

 

And for me I am sticking to my position, if you want the dude let the process play out.  Don't grab him now and pay him before they know if he is guilty or innocent.  And while I get its more advantageous financially.  I do think its both the wrong thing to do and the PR hit isn't worth it.  But will see.   I am ok with the idea of giving people 2nd chances but to me this isn't what this is at this given time.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

16 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I think you are downplaying anger being potentially part of his repertoire.  His first red flag for the world to find out about was his outburst with hospital employees when he was getting his physical for the combine and he was actually sent home. 

 

 

 

I was talking about being a problem player legally. His weed and his toxic relationship lead directly to legal issues. His anger, so far as we know, has not.

 

As for if anyone paid attention so far knows he's not an abuser.  Not sure how anyone would know one way or another.  Just because the first case didn't land against him -- doesn't mean this one will not.  We don't know.

 

I said "so far he hasn't been shown to have abused anyone," yet many are acting as if it has indeed been shown and this is just the latest incident. One billion percent wrong.

 

And it's not that the first case "didn't land against him"...the first case never should have been a case to begin with. Even the judge said that, other than the accuser's word, there was zero evidence that Foster did anything whatsoever...and even the accuser took back her accusations and spelled out what basically amounted to an extortion attempt against him. The only reason she didn't go to jail for it was that the judge felt doing so would harm true victims of domestic violence and scare them from coming forward. Her actions against Foster could have harmed far more women, yet it's treated as an afterthought in all this, like a footnote denoted by an asterisk, while Foster is treated as a toxic villain who 'just might" be an abuser of women.

 

Again, Foster has never abused any woman as far as we know, yet doesn't deserve judgment to be withheld...and I never said it doesn't mean he didn't do it this time, but it damn well should give everyone a little more willingness to pull themselves back from judgment on Foster and this issue.

[Veryoldschool]

I've been mulling this acquisition over before circling back to Heraclitus who said character is destiny.  He was right which is why his observation is remembered thousands of years later.  I think it is smarter to develop a team of men of good character than assemble a collection of talented athletes whose temperament and character is suspect.  Sooner of later men of lesser character will let you down on the field or off it, they will find a way to screw up usually when doing so is most harmful.  The Skin's don't recognize talent on their own roster and are too stupid to avoid acquiring troubled young men that will undermine their efforts.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

39 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Taking the PR Hit for picking up what potentially could be a very good player. But if you’re going to do that, you have to have a plan for the message and how it gets delivered.  Particularly when things are so bad for the franchise that you’ve recently employed new execs specifically to fix your fractured relationship with the fanbase.

 

They admitted to doing no real research on the player or allegations which in turn is insulting to your fans, particularly women.  You can argue semantics all day on that but it still doesn’t change the fact that it makes people feel some kind of way, and not a good one. When they put a claim on him, they picked up his salary.  They could potentially be employing and paying an abuser. 

 

How any Redskins fan is not disappointed in how the team has handled this whole ordeal, particularly when our season is on the line, is literally beyond me.

 

 

 

Ok, you're talking about two different things here.

 

The calculated risk was, as you said, taking a bad PR hit for putting a waiver claim in for what could potentially end up being a very good player. But even more than that, the calculated risk was that they would be the team who ended up with the player. Remember, it was always possible that at least a few other teams could have put in waiver claims. What would the PR hit be if, say, the Raiders or Cardinals also put in claims and ended up with Foster? The Skins would end up being named as one of the teams putting in a claim, but the PR hit would be far less intense. However, they would also be without the player...so they essentially would take the PR hit without any reward resulting for it. That was the real calculated risk imo...taking a bad PR hit without any chance of a future payoff. That holds true for if they did NOT end up with Foster as well as if they did end up with Foster but he's found guilty and they cut ties with him.

 

But the other thing you're talking about doesn't have to do with calculated risk...it has to do with poor management. The risk is separated from what the team does after taking the risk.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

I've been mulling this acquisition over before circling back to Heraclitus who said character is destiny.  He was right which is why his observation is remembered thousands of years later.  I think it is smarter to develop a team of men of good character than assemble a collection of talented athletes whose temperament and character is suspect.  Sooner of later men of lesser character will let you down on the field or off it, they will find a way to screw up usually when doing so is most harmful.  The Skin's don't recognize talent on their own roster and are too stupid to avoid acquiring troubled young men that will undermined their efforts.

 

The best teams and rosters in this franchise's history have had their share of players with suspect character and temperament. We just didn't realize it as fans until years after they left and the wins had been piling up.

[Est.1974]

17 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

And for me I am sticking to my position, if you want the dude let the process play out.  Don't grab him now and pay him before they know if he is guilty or innocent.  And while I get its more advantageous financially.  I do think its both the wrong thing to do and the PR hit isn't worth it.  But will see.   I am ok with the idea of giving people 2nd chances but to me this isn't what this is at this given time.  

 

And that's fair enough SIP, this move was always going to divide opinion. Each to their own in my book 👍

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

 

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

Me neither.

 

For 3 reasons:

 

1. Because the track record indicates that this is not a good dude, and I don't want a bad dude involved in the team I root for.  Let somebody else deal with it.

2. I KNEW that the 'Skins would find a way to completely screw up the PR side of this, and Jay would have to answer questions about it, and Doug, and they'd both do either a bad job or at best a "meh" job.  NOTE: I do not in any way blame Gruden for this.  It's not really in his job description to explain this to the national media, and while there was no way he wasn't going to get asked about it, Bruce should have been out in front of it first taking the arrows, so Jay could just answer a few questions, and keep his mind on Philly. 

 

If this was the Patriots, Bill would have come to the stadium and said, "We claimed foster. He's not going to play until the legal process is complete.  Until then, he won't practice or be around the team.  We can't answer anything until the process is complete. If he's guilty, he will be released. I have nothing more to say about it now" and that would be the end of it.  He might get 30 other questions, but he'd say the same thing, and that's that. 

 

Somehow, the 'Skins managed to turn this into a 4 day story because they bungled it from day 1.  Which was as predictable as the sunrise.

 

3. Even if it's 10 minutes of distraction for the players and the coaches, they are heading into a stretch of games that are as important for this organization in years, and there's no reason for the circus to come to town.  Practically speaking, the Dec 2016 Giants game was a huge game for that season and playoff implications, however I think I was the only one who wanted to fire Jay in the parking lot if they lost that game.  Fact is, Bruce and Jay were going to be safe no matter what happened, so it was important for the season, but not so much for the organization.

 

This situation is different.  If the 'Skins lose the next 2 games, which they absolutely have the ability to do, they would have gone from 5-2 to 6-7, and blown a 2 game lead in the division, lost 5 of 6, 4 in a row, and most importantly lost to all 3 NFC East teams in a row. 

 

That is how regimes change.  They didn't need one single thing, however minor, standing in front of them and the goal of winning at least one of the next 2, or better yet, both of them. 

 

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

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?

If the Tampa PD disclosed any information to the NFL or Redskins, it would be a violation of personal privacy laws.  I don't have any problem with them not calling the Tampa PD. They SHOULD have called the NFL to see if the NFL knew anything more than they did (and i hope they did call the NFL, not sure about that).  Clearly SF would not talk to them.  But the NFL might have nudged them in a direction.

 

The Tampa PD would have had no comment. You don't really even need to make the phone call to know that.

 

 

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

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.

This all makes completely and total sense, and is the way that we can rationalize the signing.  It's still a bad idea from the PR and distraction standpoint, but there's no actual risk to it from a football perspective. 

 

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

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

Agree from football.  Morally, I agree, unless this whole thing has been cooked up and he's actually the victim.  Which seems ... unlikely. 

 

1 hour 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!

If he's found to be innocent, then I dunno, is he just one of those guys that trouble seems to find?  If he's innocent, then maybe he hasn't actually screwed up at all, and he's the victim?  It's tough to tell. I think if he's found innocent of all charges, then that would be the second time all charges are dropped, and he really doesn't have a lot on his record.

 

IF he's innocent, he should get a fair shot to play, and then you handle what's next when it comes. 

 

Even though I doubt he's innocent, you are innocent until proven guilty. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

But the other thing you're talking about doesn't have to do with calculated risk...it has to do with poor management. The risk is separated from what the team does after taking the risk.

They go hand in hand.  Poor management made the ‘calculated risk’ without a ‘calculated’ plan behind it.  

[Est.1974]

1 minute ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

If this was the Patriots, Bill would have come to the stadium and said, "We claimed foster. He's not going to play until the legal process is complete.  Until then, he won't practice or be around the team.  We can't answer anything until the process is complete. If he's guilty, he will be released. I have nothing more to say about it now" and that would be the end of it.  He might get 30 other questions, but he'd say the same thing, and that's that. 

 

Exactly right. That's where Gruden looked like a 5 year old stuck in the headlights.

[Veryoldschool]

9 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

The best teams and rosters in this franchise's history have had their share of players with suspect character and temperament. We just didn't realize it as fans until years after they left and the wins had been piling up.

 

Of course, even with the best of intentions a team is going to acquire some trouble but it is foolish to stroll the unstable and screwed up aisles to look for new talent.  The Skin's position is indefensible from a pragmatic as well as moral point view.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

They go hand in hand.  Poor management made the ‘calculated risk’ without a ‘calculated’ plan behind it.  

 

But poor management is not part of the calculated risk I asked you about. It's not even a by-product of it. But yeah, they are indeed connected after the fact.

[wit33]

Outside of video evidence, witnesses, physical injuries, how does something like this get proven? What typically takes place? 

 

The Patroits whole organization was shook over deflated footballs, but somehow they would’ve handled this perfectly. 

 

With that said, Doug Williams has value, but it’s not being the team’s spokesperson. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 minute ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Of course, even with the best of intentions a team is going to acquire some trouble but it is foolish to stroll the unstable and screwed aisles to look for new talent.  The Skin's position is indefensible from a pragmatic as well as moral point view.

 

So Foster is "unstable and screwed"? What did he do that warrants that title?

 

And the pragmatic position is 100% defensible because the pragmatic position rests on if the player can realistically end up being good enough on the field to make the PR hit worth it. Morally is arguable because morality is far more subjective.

[NickyJ]

2 hours ago, KillBill26 said:

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.  

The complaints about Foster being paid isn't about the salary cap. It's about the moral of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone who is currently under investigation. To skirt the rules of the thread a little bit, it's being compared to the "suspended with pay" that cops get while they're under investigation. I'm not going to debate the moral of it myself, I'm just saying that that's what people take issue with: The moral of paying them money, not the impact on the salary cap.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

 

But poor management is not part of the calculated risk I asked you about. It's not even a by-product of it. But yeah, they are indeed connected after the fact.

My original statement about this was that if I take a calculated risk, I have a calculated plan behind it.  To say what the Skins did was calculated, is disrespecting the word calculated.  Their handling of the situation in its entirety doesn’t appear calculated at all to me.  It seems more like unnecessarily welcoming drama and stirring their own pot.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

6 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Outside of video evidence, witnesses, physical injuries, how does something like this get proven? What typically takes place? 

 

Witnesses and physical evidence are usually what gets used in cases like this. Photographs, physical observations by the police, medical observations and records, etc. Also, just the verbal accounts by both sides, what they say happened, whether it reflects whatever physical evidence there is, whether or not they keep their stories straight, etc.

 

 

4 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

My original statement about this was that if I take a calculated risk, I have a calculated plan behind it.  To say what the Skins did was calculated, is disrespecting the word calculated.  Their handling of the situation in its entirety doesn’t appear calculated at all to me.  It seems more like unnecessarily welcoming drama and stirring their own pot.

 

 

LOL 😂

 

Yeah, I agree with you here...