!!!!0mgz!!!! Trent Williams finally showed up

[Burgundy Yoda]

35 minutes ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

I Miss Trent! It’s gonna really suck to not have him starting  week 1. But I’ve resigned to the likelihood he is a goner. 😞 Also hope we bring home the goods on a trade.

Yeah he's as good as gone. I'm hoping we wait until some other team gets an OL injury and gets antsy and for the first time ever we capitalize on someone else being desperate. There's no reason to really push a trade to happen at this point, either way the draft pick won't have an impact until next year. 

[RandyHolt]

10 hours ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

Yeah he's as good as gone. I'm hoping we wait until some other team gets an OL injury and gets antsy and for the first time ever we capitalize on someone else being desperate. There's no reason to really push a trade to happen at this point, either way the draft pick won't have an impact until next year. 

 

Early post of the day candidate

 

What a kick in the nuts though.  I would say "only us" but Lev Bell did sit out an entire year, but they had Connor.... so yeah maybe only us. We take a young QB that needs protection on average once every 5 years, and we lose Trent as soon as we draft him.  Bruce has likely already botched this but still has plenty of room to further BOTCH.  Starting with not taking trade offers, and likely not sending Jay and friends to meet with Trent's camp.  It will all likely conclude with a year of drama and QBs under duress, culminating in trading him for NE's 3rd next spring.

 

Since he cannot get names right maybe we should call him Botch Allen

[KDawg]

12 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Bailey wasn’t gone at alll.  He was under contract.  He couldn’t just leave.  Since he couldn’t leave, you should maximize the value of your asset. 

 

That wasnt done.  Not even remotely

 

He wasn't going to play for the Redskins. Allegedly his wife told him he was done. So he was done. He was gone. 

 

Sure. We COULD have sat around and hoped someone threw an astronomical deal at us. Or we could have moved him, grabbed a damn good player and moved on. The second rounder being added was not great, but Gibbs was targeting a back for his offense and they thought that using the second there was worth getting Portis. And given the amount CP produced for this franchise, I'd say that wasn't an awful move.

 

I am an advocate of getting something and moving on. How mad will people be if we sit on Trent and don't trade him and he winds up leaving in the end with us getting nothing? Or if we traded Champ for a first and then drafted Heath Shuler redux with that draft choice? 

 

This franchise has done plenty of things to be considered inept. This trade was not one.

 

And I'm hoping they get whatever value they can for Williams sooner rather than later.

[Skinsinparadise]

Only update that I've noticed is Finlay turning from optimism that things work out to pessimism.  He said the tone has changed when he probes his sources now on the subject.

 

Hoffman who has been the most optimistic that things work out but has gotten pessimistic too (not as pessimistic as Finlay though) seems to think that there is a good chance that this is going to extend into the season as opposed to resolved before the season.  But that was a couple of days ago, maybe his tune changed since.

 

these guys could be wrong but that's my last rodeo of hearing gossip on this. 

[volsmet]

59 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

He wasn't going to play for the Redskins. Allegedly his wife told him he was done. So he was done. He was gone. 

 

 

 

This is true, Champ was not going to sign with Washington. 

[hatchetwound]

9 hours ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

I Miss Trent! It’s gonna really suck to not have him starting  week 1. But I’ve resigned to the likelihood he is a goner. 😞 Also hope we bring home the goods on a trade.

It hasn't sunk in for me yet.  All those years he has been a warrior for us only to become a turncoat. 

[Gerald362]

On 8/19/2019 at 4:23 PM, purbeast said:

What was the huge risk with Colt's injury that made it more prone to infection?  Smith I can understand because it was way more devastating.

 

But what is so special about Colt's?  I mean dude broke his fibula and kept playing.  It couldn't have been that bad.

 

And for the record, I broke my fibula in 2005 while playing basketball. I came down from a rebound and landed on 2 different people's feet, rolled both ankles, and broke my left fibular and sprained my right ankle.  Then to make matters worse, I went to the hospital and they misdiagnosed me and told me that my left leg was only sprained.  Thankfully my bad was a doctor there and called me the next morning after looking at my xray and told me that my ankle was clearly broken.

 

But guess what - since it had now been like 12 hours since the injury, it was too swollen to go in for surgery.  So I had to wait 2 days with a broken fibula for the swelling to go down before I could have surgery.  Had they diagnosed it properly at night, I would have immediately gone into surgery.  I'm guessing they just mislabled the L/R labels on my x-rays and only looked at the one marked left, which was my right ankle, saying it was just a sprain.

 

And now I have a 6" metal plate in my ankle with some screws in it.

 

So sorry if I don't think there was anything extra risky about Colt's injury.  This stuff is routine.  As is what happened to Guice.

 

EDIT:

 

Also, does anyone know how many people have had infections coming back from ACL injuries in the NFL?  As often as we hear about them annually, I can't remember one time ever hearing about an infection.

so for the record, I have 4 rods and 18 screws holding my lumbar spine together. If you try to rush healing, and have an invasive procedure done, you are at risk for infection. There is no such thing as a "routine" surgical repair, just ask orthopedic surgeons.  And also for the record, I was a paramedic and am a nurse who has worked rehab for many years

[Gerald362]

19 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

Yep JJ knows what kills MRSA. Heat. HOT HOT HOT - I think direct sun will do the trick.  Indoors, I know hot steam works wonders on helping hospitals decontaminate.   I think Europe took the lead there as we were still working bleach rubs with rubber gloves.  Heat working to kill MRSA explains why the outdoor surfaces aren't as vulnerable as indoors. And, possible rain giving everything a good rinse.

Another thing to consider with MRSA is that staph aureus is a normal skin flora. Surfaces still need to be routinely disinfected. Also many health care workers are colonized with it, which puts a premium on universal precautions

[Califan007 The Constipated]

17 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

No doubt the vibe on this issue is that it extends to other teams, too.   Without knowing the where and why, the narrative seems to be something that overlaps the idea that the athletic training staff and players have conflicting agendas.  Or so is the perception with some players.

 

I run my own business, too and part of that business overlaps with media relations.  And perception can certainly bring real problems.  This rest isn't directed your way but I am using the perception concept to make a point.  Sometimes you have to address things heads on even if you think it's unfair.  And I've done it multiple times including even dealing with the pesky media.  I am also in the business where there are wins and loses (albeit not in sports) and the media covers it extensively.  And part of the reason why I got no sympathy for Dan-Bruce on the media front is because I can relate at least some from an apples to apples stand point.

3

 

I doubt anyone would or could argue against the Redskins being completely inept at handling PR and the media. Even if their apparent disdain at local media is valid, they are as clueless at dealing with them as the most obtuse NFL player handling idiot fans on twitter lol...and you're right in that they play a huge role in the narratives and perceptions that paint them negatively and/or unfairly. I personally hold members of the media to a much higher standard than business executives in terms of what's reported and how it's reported, as giving readers/viewers an unbiased and objective take as possible is in their job description and gives their reporting an important value, but I also know sports reporters are covering entertainment and it's difficult to do that in a way that is also entertaining if they're being dry, unbiased, and objective. They have to inject personality and hot takes into the proceedings while trying to remain fair.

 

I just don't like agendas in media, because agendas usually mean you're not getting the whole story and the article is written to get you to reach a certain conclusion. Similar to some of the stuff you described going through, my brother went through an unfair agenda in the media several years ago. long story short, he was one of several guest speakers at a psychology event where someone in the audience--apparently a well-known activist--started dominating the Q&A with rhetoric that they knew would obviously rile up the audience (which it did lol), and kept talking over others in the audience who wanted to either respond to her or ask their own question. My brother's response to the activist after about 15 minutes of this made the news and was inaccurately portrayed as him being a rude bully who didn't want to hear all sides of an issue. When he was interviewed for a newspaper article to give his side, he went into great detail about what lead up to his comments and told the interviewer what he said immediately afterward, and how things proceeded from there. When the article came out the only quote from him they used was 'Yes, I said that" lol...basically painted it as him proudly admitting his guilt, left out any sense of context, and completely ignored his thoughts and reasoning. He hasn't trusted anything the media says since.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

17 hours ago, goskins10 said:

At the very least they have lost the trust of some of the players. So that means they are not doing their job in some capacity.

 

 

After I responded to you yesterday I thought the change the Skins absolutely should have made was finding a way to make the players feel and know that their complaints are being heard and taken seriously. This is acting off the assumption that they haven't done so to this point (which is a pretty damn fair assumption lol)...I also wondered, though, if the players have made their criticisms known to the front office or coaches or if the complaints by and large just remained among themselves (and the stray reporter lol). I mean, you have to assume they at least have done so to the coaches...but hell, I dunno, maybe players feel that complaining among themselves allows for venting and then they just drop it until the next event. Maybe the culture in most locker rooms is that injuries happen and playing through as much pain and discomfort is what makes you a great player and great teammate, so while their physical health is paramount in terms of both their job security and personal lives, convincing themselves that they can play through stuff is just engrained into their mental states by this point and are leaving it up to the different layers of medical and training staffs to tell them otherwise.

 

Like we've all been saying, we don't know any specifics. It will take an investigative report to get as many facts and as much truth as possible in order to start to understand things, outside of Trent, Dan and Bruce all speaking on the record, along with various other players and members of the team's medical and training staffs....which almost none of that will ever happen. At any rate, it will take more than twitter lol...

[Skinsinparadise]

 

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

I personally hold members of the media to a much higher standard than business executives in terms of what's reported and how it's reported, as giving readers/viewers an unbiased and objective take as possible is in their job description and gives their reporting an important value, but I also know sports reporters are covering entertainment and it's difficult to do that in a way that is also entertaining if they're being dry, unbiased, and objective. They have to inject personality and hot takes into the proceedings while trying to remain fair.

 

The hard thing for those covering this team specifically is the FO doesn't talk a heck of a lot.  There aren't many press conferences and conversations with the media.  That in turn pressures the media to do the my sources tell me drill...and in their defense the reporters typically don't report that as fact but say that's what they are hearing.  Let's say for example JP Finlay covering the Trent story.  His bosses are going to want some content.  He can't tell his boss well I didn't hear anything directly from the horses mouth so no articles from me about this and will wait until we get the definitive word from so and so.  

 

He's going to have to give whatever he's got which is what he heard from whatever source in the FO.  Now that source could be BSing Finlay on purpose (Chad Dukes was joking about that with Finlay, yesterday) to push an agenda, that source could be wrong, that source could be partially right, or fully right.  But he has to ride with that source if he wants to put a story out.  Schefter who rarely gets things wrong has said he doesn't trust a rumor unless he hears it from multiple sources.    I am somewhat the same way listening to beat guys, that is if three of them for example have the same narrative then I figure its more likely to be correct.  But at the same time, I don't know if they all got it from the same source.

 

When the GM or someone from the FO, etc isn't talking then reporters are almost forced to speculate.  And this doesn't always backfire at the NFL team -- there are plenty of examples (it comes out later) where the NFL team purposely played the reporter to get their side of the story pushed.  Finlay even talked about getting used from time to time from the team and joked about it.  So it cuts both ways.   And I get there are reasons why sometimes the GM can''t or shouldn't want to put their side out there.  But regardless when its left to people's imagination as to what's going on -- reporters try to fill their vacuum. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

My brother's response to the activist after about 15 minutes of this made the news and was inaccurately portrayed as him being a rude bully who didn't want to hear all sides of an issue. When he was interviewed for a newspaper article to give his side, he went into great detail about what lead up to his comments and told the interviewer what he said immediately afterward, and how things proceeded from there. When the article came out the only quote from him they used was 'Yes, I said that" lol...basically painted it as him proudly admitting his guilt, left out any sense of context, and completely ignored his thoughts and reasoning. He hasn't trusted anything the media says since.

 

I hear you on that.   I've joked about this before which is in my job I fear and if anything hate dealing with the media.  Yet I defend them on some fronts relating to the team. I got slammed once along with a close friend on something absolutely ridiculous and the whole story was wrong.   Yet, I dealt with it.  You win some and you lose some.  But if you cultivate relationships with reporters and they like you -- it goes a really long way where the coverage you and your clients receive is much more positive.  There are some jerks no doubt in the mix of the media.  But plenty of cool people from my experience who are trying to make a living.  And if you have good people skills - typically you can handle the the media -- not perfectly but well enough.  

 

I got slammed here by someone for suggesting that Dan should speak more.  My point is for a dude that's camera shy I think he does relatively well in front of a camera.   Dan's bad press typically didn't come from what I recall his yearly press conferences pre NFL draft that he used to do years back.  I recall at least some reports about how he did well and they'd love to see more of it.  I recall Chad Dukes and Arrington years ago would kill Snyder on their show -- but then once on SB week, Snyder made an appearance and they treated the dude like a king.    Same as I mentioned on First Take for Bruce.  

 

The 106.7 guys loved Lafemina.  Why?  You keep hearing how he networked with them.  Look, i hate networking with the media but it comes with the turf.   It's part of the job.  If I just went pure recluse and let my business competitors define me -- then I wouldn't have a pretty ride in this business.  And I'd have made my bed.  

 

There are a handful of people here and on twitter who are relatively high on Dan and Bruce and what they do.   I am not among them.  But I am also not on an extreme side the other way.  I don't think they do it all wrong.  I think they are mediocre at their job.   I think their record perfectly matches the job they do.  Some good things.  Some bad things.  Overall, "meh" but not terrible. 

 

The national portrayal though is this team is terrible.  And my point is I get why it happens even though some think it's unfair.  And most of that I believe centers on the press not finding this organization likable.   If a reporter doesn't like my client, they are going to get glass half empty stories as opposed to glass half full.  There is no mystery in that for me.  It makes all the sense in the world at least to me based on my own experience.   And more importantly, I think it can be fixed if they decide to do it. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

But if you cultivate relationships with reporters and they like you -- it goes a really long way where the coverage you and your clients receive is much more positive.

 

 

Gonna respond to this sentence because it speaks to something I really don't like, especially in sports media (pretty much agreed with everything else, by the way lol)...

 

The idea that you will get positive coverage because the media members like you irritates the living **** out of me. As a reader, I don't want what the writer feels about a person to carry over into the story about that person. Galdi kept saying that the local media's dislike of Bruce Allen was dictating how they were covering the whole Scot M debacle--Russell more or less backed up that viewpoint as well...and apparently how much they did like Scot M played a large role as well. It shouldn't have. I don't want Cooley blowing sunshine up our asses because Bruce goes golfing with him or whatever, and I don't want Russell harping on negative speculation because Bruce refused to give local reporters any comments or even his contact number while simultaneously holding interviews with national sports reporters. None of that should matter in my eyes.

 

It's the same mentality that leads to players who are worthy of the Hall of Fame to be kept out because NFL writers (who vote on HOF membership) got a lot of great quotes from a player on the team he was covering and almost no quotes from a player on a rival team. It's the same mentality that could make some media members run as fast as possible with a negative story from a source about someone they don't like while holding back on a negative story from a source about someone they DO like. For example, if Scot M was a source for several local beat writers while he was here and actually enjoyed passing along info, then they're gonna make sure that relationship remains intact. So they're gonna be more likely to keep certain things under wraps to make sure they are in good standing with him (or any source in that situation). I wouldn't want that to be a guiding principle as to what to report and when to remain quiet. I know that in reality that happens all the time and in all areas of news, not just sports and not just the Redskins.

[darrell1106]

7 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

I doubt anyone would or could argue against the Redskins being completely inept at handling PR and the media. Even if their apparent disdain at local media is valid, they are as clueless at dealing with them as the most obtuse NFL player handling idiot fans on twitter lol...and you're right in that they play a huge role in the narratives and perceptions that paint them negatively and/or unfairly. I personally hold members of the media to a much higher standard than business executives in terms of what's reported and how it's reported, as giving readers/viewers an unbiased and objective take as possible is in their job description and gives their reporting an important value, but I also know sports reporters are covering entertainment and it's difficult to do that in a way that is also entertaining if they're being dry, unbiased, and objective. They have to inject personality and hot takes into the proceedings while trying to remain fair.

I don't think the skins or many NFL teams care about media accuracy or public perception. Look at one of the most successful NFL dare I say sports franchises in the US in the NE Patriots who rarely says anything. And are unapologetic about it. They've had plenty of controversy yet media members are routinely frustrated with Bill and that org. You would think being such winners everything would be easy, positive and very well received. It's anything but up there.

 

So when I notice Tony Wyllie's ineptitude or what looks like elementary stuff may just be apathy. They are in the entrainment business with Guaranteed revenue and minimal need from the local media to change that outlook. Thus, the team health rumors, Trent/Moses/Cravens complaints are a blip on the radar from a media standpoint. Should they rectify behind closed doors? Absolutely. But that's about tht extent of it....

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

Gonna respond to this sentence because it speaks to something I really don't like, especially in sports media (pretty much agreed with everything else, by the way lol)...

 

The idea that you will get positive coverage because the media members like you irritates the living **** out of me. As a reader, I don't want what the writer feels about a person to carry over into the story about that person.

 

I hear you and agree in a sense but it's also human nature.  If i had to give one takeaway from dealing with the media or just clients in general is your people skills and likability are a factor.  I am sure you find similar experiences running a business.   I agree that it sometimes impinges in an unfair way.    Like TO for example struggling to get in the Hall of Fame, etc. 

 

Like your example with Cooley, since he likes Bruce and he admits it he's more likely going to defend his side of things.  Russell thinks Bruce is a douche.  So he's more likely to slam him.  They both at least admit that.    I think though the thing with Bruce and Dan (more so Dan then Bruce on this count) that hurts them on this front IMO is that there are others who say they aren't the nicest people to deal with.   Then you add the leaks when people leave the door, etc.  It paints a picture that they aren't the nicest guys in the world especially Dan.   So the press I think feels more justified to slam them.   My take is if people think you are douche -- lets take for example Saban or Belichick then you better win.  If Belichick didn't win I'd bet the press would enjoy slamming them.   It's just how it is. 

 

According to some who know Dan and taking some of Dan's own rare comments he's a dude ironically that seems to be very governed by personality as to his decisions.  Supposedly Gibbs got along with him so well in part because he knew how to talk to him and make him feel included.  Marty didn't have good chemistry with him supposedly.  Cooley speaking recently about whether at some point they replace Bruce at that spot said whomever that is they need to have a great rapport with Dan.  And he's said Bruce's niche is partly about managing Dan well.    Vinny said in an interview that Dan didn't hire Gregg Williams back then in part because they didn't bond while watching the playoffs together. 

 

Supposedly Dan is an introvert and not that comfortable socially according to some who have met him.   I recall Dan saying Vinny was close to him and his whole family.  And that Vinny was the ultimate optimist who knew how to make him feel good about things.  Or something like that.  Bruce from what i hear is cut from the same cloth.  He is very extroverted and Dan likes socializing with him.  I mentioned on another thread that i met Bruce before camp -- he came off super extroverted and engaging.  

 

My point is whether its with the press or coaches or personnel guys -- personality seems to pervade some decisions. 

 

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

Galdi kept saying that the local media's dislike of Bruce Allen was dictating how they were covering the whole Scot M debacle--Russell more or less backed up that viewpoint as well...and apparently how much they did like Scot M played a large role as well. It shouldn't have.

 

Russell though savaged Scot.  So did Paulsen both whom don't like Bruce.    In fact I was quoting those 2 when defending Bruce on the whole Scot thing.  They are the ones who broke the story.  So it's not like reporting is ALL about personality.  My point on this is there are plenty of narratives that can go glass half full or glass half empty and I find from my own experience that the tipping point can be whether the reporters like the subject at hand or not.

 

I think its rare for a reporter to flat out make something up.  If their credibility goes then it damages their career.   They can get things wrong but that's typically for different reasons.   But the stuff that's left to interpretation, that's where their slant often comes in.   

 

I far from love Dan as an owner.  But I think the dude has a nice side.  He does a lot for charity.  I've interacted with people from their charity foundation and they are some really cool people.  I've met and interacted with Larry Michael who i think is a great guy.   I do think whether Dan is comfortable with it or not, he'd do himself a favor by showing himself more.  I do think he would get better press.  Otherwise, what the dude is up to is left to the imagination.    Most of the other NFL owners are willing to face the music from time to time.  And I think it helps the perception of them.  

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Hooper]

PRICE JUST WENT UP, HOUSTON.

 

A FIRST, DEANDRE HOPKINS, AND BILL O'BRIEN'S DIMPLE GETS YOU TRENT.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Said it before, I'll say it here again...I don't want guys that don't want to be here.  And this is different than a salary hold out, so the Bell, Ewok, and whatever other holdouts you can think of don't really apply here.  

 

Straight up, he just vowed never to play for the Redskins again, per the article above.  That's not nearly the same as saying "I feel like I'm outperforming my contract, pay me more."

 

Let's get some picks for him and help this rebuild along.  It's really sad that it's come to this but all signs point to him not suiting up for this franchise ever again.

[Burgundy Yoda]

16 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

 

Early post of the day candidate

 

What a kick in the nuts though.  I would say "only us" but Lev Bell did sit out an entire year, but they had Connor.... so yeah maybe only us. We take a young QB that needs protection on average once every 5 years, and we lose Trent as soon as we draft him.  Bruce has likely already botched this but still has plenty of room to further BOTCH.  Starting with not taking trade offers, and likely not sending Jay and friends to meet with Trent's camp.  It will all likely conclude with a year of drama and QBs under duress, culminating in trading him for NE's 3rd next spring.

 

Since he cannot get names right maybe we should call him Botch Allen

 

It's true, I can't think of a single time in the Snyder era where we got a haul because of someone else's desperation. We don't have anyone behind Trent so it's going to get ugly, you can already kind of see it in the pre-season games, that line doesn't hold up very long at all. I really do think Bruce could possibly sit Trent and pass up some trades as a way of "punishing" him, he really is an ego-maniac. 

[sjinhan]

I cant wait until this is over with... i hope this doesnt turn into another saga ala RG3 or ala Cousins...

[KDawg]

6 hours ago, sjinhan said:

I cant wait until this is over with... i hope this doesnt turn into another saga ala RG3 or ala Cousins...

 

This is exactly why the team needs to rip the band-aid off and get it done. 

 

Waiting it out for a little while makes some sense. Things like the Texans losing a tackle shake out around this time of year. But its gotta happen soon. For everyone.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[SkinsGuy]

25 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

This is exactly why the team needs to rip the band-aid off and get it done. 

 

Waiting it out for a little while makes some sense. Things like the Texans losing a tackle shake out around this time of year. But its gotta happen soon. For everyone.

 

Eh. I'm in no rush.

 

If the reports are accurate, and Williams doesn't want to play in Washington anymore, then the Redskins can trade him, but I have no problem with them waiting to get the best deal they can.

 

I don't want them rushing to take the first deal just to get rid of him because that is what he wants.

 

If that means him sitting at home when the regular season starts, then so be it.

 

The Steelers did it with Bell. The Redskins can do the same with Williams.

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

 

I can see that.

 

A Patriot first round pick is like an early second round pick.

 

I don't blame them for wanting to hold out for something a little better.

[Skinsinparadise]

The Steelers got nothing for Bell.   I am ok with waiting it out some but I'd make a deal as soon as I'd get a good offer.   Trent still needs to learn the system for whatever team acquires him.  I am not totally sure his value increases once the season starts considering he's already missed games and I'd presume they'd want him a week or two in practice before throwing him out there.

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

6 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

Eh. I'm in no rush.

 

If the reports are accurate, and Williams doesn't want to play in Washington anymore, then the Redskins can trade him, but I have no problem with them waiting to get the best deal they can.

 

I don't want them rushing to take the first deal just to get rid of him because that is what he wants.

 

Who is to say that the best deal comes later?