Owls0325

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

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I said it's "like some are thinking" that way, not that anyone actually said this stuff. But whenever anyone says they don't care whether or not Trent is good or bad or lying or telling the truth or takes part in the investigation or blows it off completely because all that matters is that Bruce blew it again and has ruined the franchise, they are by default also saying that all the ramifications of Trent lying or not taking part in the investigation don't matter, we should only care about the fact that Bruce has ruined our favorite team. I abso-effin-lutely do not see it that way...his allegations are insanely serious, yet are being downplayed in the service of agendas by some.

 

And if Trent only stuck to saying he has no reason to want to take part in the investigation I wouldn't be saying half the **** I've been saying. But like I said earlier, if Trent's reasoning behind his actions appears sketchy, it makes his version of events less credible and points a spotlight on other aspects of his story that aren't quite gelling. He appears on a slash and burn tour right now and no doubt there are those who are cheering him on regardless of whether or not what he's saying makes sense or is even true. Those people tend to think there are sides to take in all of this. I don't. But right now, Trent is the only one giving interviews and trying to express his reasoning behind his actions and his perceptions, and unfortunately, a helluva lot makes sense when you think about it even just a little.

 

 

I understand where you are coming from.  But, I don't see Trent's statements as dishonesty.  He is giving his side of the story, and I don't doubt that he is sincere in his lack of trust with the medical staff.  He also talks about situations unrelated to the tumor that reduced his confidence in the medical staff, so I don't see this as him just lying to try to make himself look better.  He showed this year that he would rather give up his salary than to play for the team again.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

Does everything in this have to be filtered through a Bruce lens?...it's like some are thinking "I don't give a **** if Trent made it all up...I don't give a **** if Trent's actions put the health of others in danger...I don't give a **** if Trent's allegations cost innocent people their livelihoods and their reputations. If it can be used in any way against Bruce, that's all that matters."

 

Yeah, pretty much. At least if the focus is on fixing our favorite team, it does. Trent's behavior is irrelevant at this point. He's done here. The inability of the FO to see that and act accordingly in time is more important to me than obsessing over whatever the heck it is that Trent is talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nerm said:

 

I understand where you are coming from.  But, I don't see Trent's statements as dishonesty.  He is giving his side of the story, and I don't doubt that he is sincere in his lack of trust with the medical staff.  He also talks about situations unrelated to the tumor that reduced his confidence in the medical staff, so I don't see this as him just lying to try to make himself look better.  He showed this year that he would rather give up his salary than to play for the team again.   

 

The only thing from Trent's version of events that I think might start to tread towards dishonesty is the ever-changing list of reasons he's been giving for not wanting to take part in the independent 3rd-party investigation. But I've also considered that maybe all of those reasons he's given so far might all be true, but he should have said all of them at the same time lol...would be better if the NFLPA's statement said "Mr. Williams does not want to relive a painful episode in his life and risk having his medical records made public. As well as, he feels that the result of the investigation would not target all the people who need to be held accountable. Further, he has doubts the results from the investigation would lead to any real, beneficial changes. If these things were different and were the light at the end of the tunnel, Mr. Williams would gladly take part in the investigation. "

 

As it stands now, though, it comes across as at first he and the NFLPA thought playing on sympathies and fears of HIPAA laws being violated would be more than enough to sedate the part of the public who cares about this. Then they added in more...then added in a little more...and then a little more, still lol...it comes off as spontaneous where it should be consistent.

 

 

(*wondering if anyone will say I should do pro bono work for Trent since my statement is superior to that dreck the NFLPA tossed out there lol)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

As it stands now, though, it comes across as at first he and the NFLPA thought playing on sympathies and fears of HIPAA laws being violated would be more than enough to sedate the part of the public who cares about this. Then they added in more...then added in a little more...and then a little more, still lol...it comes off as spontaneous where it should be consistent.

 

It's not for the public to consume.  Trent's relationship with the team is his own.  He doesn't have to convince millions of fans of the righteousness of his cause.  And because of the sensitivities of determinations being made about the medical care someone received, there was never going to be a report released.  All we would've heard was whether the team got fined after the fact or not.  

 

He pretty much said the exact same thing to ESPN about a potential investigation:

 

Quote

But Williams has to give his permission for a review and thus far has declined.

"Because I felt like there was no reason. If they would have done the investigation and they would have seen wrongdoing of any sort, there was nothing in it for me," Williams said. "I wouldn't get my wages back, I wouldn't get anything, and all they would get is a written description on how to do better. So I just thought it was a needless process for me to even be involved in. And there's a ton of guys whose injuries they've botched within the last 12 months that they should have done research on that. Those guys are still banged up. So I just felt like them trying to do it in my case was them trying to cover their own butts."

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28036330/redskins-elect-not-pay-trent-williams-51m-salary

 

There was never any upside for him to participate.  Any results wouldn't change the fact that he wants off of the team.  Nor does it obscure the fact that the team didn't feel it to be important enough to convene an investigation on their own initiative, until Trent first went public.  But I don't see you making inferences about the team's motivations there.  They've had 5 months since Trent first said he was dissatisfied about the care he received to look into it.  Was it just a wild coincidence that it just so happened to coincide with the public statement in response to Trent's interview?  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
2 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:
2 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

Snyder is supported by the revenue distribution policy of the League.  If he had to fund this operation entirely of Redskin generated revenue I believe he would have folded his tent long ago.  

They are 5th in revenue and 7th in operating income out of 32 teams so they are actually subsidizing the rest of the league along with the other top revenue producing teams.

 

It is amazing that someone who has been a complete failure can still cash in like he is, its why he'll never go away.   

 

The only hope is if his side ventures continue to suck him dry and push him into cash flow issues.

 

https://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/#header:operatingIncome_sortreverse:true

Edited by JSSkinz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good listen I think, D. Hall. D. Hall who is an unabashed friend of Bruce.  (I think though you need an Athletic subscription to listen to it.) 

And he doubled down on being friends with Bruce in that podcast, talked about how he helped him, etc -- yet, he disagrees with how the Redskins handled this.  He said part of it is players like to go to organizations who have their back and this type of fight doesn't help that quest.  Talked about them taking the low road.   For his sake he better hope Bruce doesn't listen to that podcast (talk about challenging that friendship some) because he delved into Bruce's record being worse than Cerrato and maybe its time to change things.  Though he didn't flat out say they should fire Bruce.  Wow.  If it was some local media guy saying that, it wouldn't faze me at all -- but D. Hall?  That surprised me. 

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce botching this one may take the cake. 

 

Yet somehow, he always seems to outdo himself.   I would say failing to retain Scherff happened before the Trent episode. So what's next. Failing to secure a stadium deal has likely already happened as well. What city would want these Redskins?  A city with marketing skills as poor as Dan and Bruce, I suppose.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by RandyHolt
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, RandyHolt said:

Bruce botching this one may take the cake. 

 

Yet somehow, he always seems to outdo himself.   I would say failing to retain Scherff happened before the Trent episode. So what's next. Failing to secure a stadium deal has likely already happened as well. What city would want these Redskins?  A city with marketing skills as poor as Dan and Bruce, I suppose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If no stadium then London maybe?  I can envision Bruce developing a thick British accent saying the London Redskins are close. 

 

 

Screen Shot 2019-11-08 at 9.06.20 PM.png

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Good listen I think, D. Hall. D. Hall who is an unabashed friend of Bruce.  (I think though you need an Athletic subscription to listen to it.) 

And he doubled down on being friends with Bruce in that podcast, talked about how he helped him, etc -- yet, he disagrees with how the Redskins handled this.  He said part of it is players like to go to organizations who have their back and this type of fight doesn't help that quest.  Talked about them taking the low road.   For his sake he better hope Bruce doesn't listen to that podcast (talk about challenging that friendship some) because he delved into Bruce's record being worse than Cerrato and maybe its time to change things.  Though he didn't flat out say they should fire Bruce.  Wow.  If it was some local media guy saying that, it wouldn't faze me at all -- but D. Hall?  That surprised me. 

 

 

 


It shouldn’t. He didn’t learn from the past, in a much clearer situation, and should be blasted by it. Even by people who didn’t previously hate him. Just cause I hate what Trent has done, doesn’t mean I can’t recognize that this had zero chance to work in our favor to done what we did. I talked about setting a precedent early on, but was more referring to not giving into immediate demands and at least showing it wouldn’t be super easy to work your way out of here. And there are times precedents be damned and make a forward looking move and explain it as that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If no stadium then London maybe?  I can envision Bruce developing a thick British accent saying the London Redskins are close. 

Rumor is that they would change the name to the London Flecthers.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Rumor is that they would change the name to the London Flecthers.

Felchers maybe.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know who is lying or telling th truth, and ultimately I don’t care.  Lets say, for sake of argument, that Trent is just lying about the whole cancer scare and the details of how it played out.  Does that change the fact that the front office should have known since before training camp that things weren’t going to resolve themselves?  Shouldn’t they have known before it became a major news story?  Isnt it on them to maintain player relationships or, at the very least, be aware of them?  
 

This mess should never have been allowed to linger.  You can’t force players to love the team and never want out, but you can be proactive and smart in how you handle a relationship that falls apart.  All this public fighting does is drive down the value of a major asset, make the organization look bad, and leave the roster weaker than it could be.  

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Califan007 said:

As it stands now, though, it comes across as at first he and the NFLPA thought playing on sympathies and fears of HIPAA laws being violated would be more than enough to sedate the part of the public who cares about this. Then they added in more...then added in a little more...and then a little more, still lol...it comes off as spontaneous where it should be consistent.

That's how it works in almost everything, and medias also are great playing this kind of games.

 

Somehow, nowadays it has become common tactic to say something, wait for the answer, add more fuel, and so on until the other side cannot answer anymore...

 

Still, doesn't really matter who's lying or not. It looks like more Bruce vs Trent and the Redskins being in the middle of it. Trent directed the blame toward Bruce and backed it up a bit more during his interview with Mike Jones. Decision not to pay Trent has Bruce's stamps all over it.  Does Trent deserves it? Maybe, but you're also putting the Redskins on thin ice here.

Why?

Trent his on the NFI list without pay. What happens if Trent or NFLPA denies this and goes to court?

- Trent reported in time. That's a fact.

- Trent didn't pass physical due to discomfort of helmet. (but it seemed he passed physical first, there's reports going this way, so there's soem grey area here...)

- NFL gives REdskins 2 weeks to settle the situation.

- A special designed helmet was on it's way and would have arrived on monday.

- A few days prior to the new helmet and see what happens, we stash him on the NFI without pay? Maybe we could have waited a bit and see how Trent was responding to this.

 

Problem here is that the Redskins are being mocked throughout the NFL. That's what history will remember that we are clowns. Not so much Bruce, he'll be forgotten quickly after being out of here. That's my problem in this story. If you wanted to put it in Trent's face. Then, go his way all day long. Bring on the helmet or whatever he needs to be cleared to play. Even name him the starter for the Jets. And see what he does with his "I'm not gonna play for this team ever" stance. We aren't doing this, we're shutting him down with no pay so he ends up broke in a few days? What kind of team do this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

If you wanted to put it in Trent's face. Then, go his way all day long. Bring on the helmet or whatever he needs to be cleared to play. Even name him the starter for the Jets. And see what he does with his "I'm not gonna play for this team ever" stance. We aren't doing this, we're shutting him down with no pay so he ends up broke in a few days? What kind of team do this?

 

I agree, but you have to clear a roster spot and are you willing to lose a player for a put up or shut up scenario?  The helmet hurting issue is complete BS.

 

I still don't get how anyone believes that TW is blaming the Redskins for claimed mistakes by the medical staff, which is an outside organization.  This is all about not getting his way with this contract. 

 

Both sides have backed themselves into corners and neither side is going to give.

 

Fans lose again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:


It shouldn’t. He didn’t learn from the past, in a much clearer situation, and should be blasted by it. Even by people who didn’t previously hate him. Just cause I hate what Trent has done, doesn’t mean I can’t recognize that this had zero chance to work in our favor to done what we did. I talked about setting a precedent early on, but was more referring to not giving into immediate demands and at least showing it wouldn’t be super easy to work your way out of here. And there are times precedents be damned and make a forward looking move and explain it as that. 

 

My surprise is driven by D. Hall's statement juxtaposed with his friendship with Bruce.  I got my share of friends who are in the public arena but I wouldn't air out my grievances with them publicly.  But I got no problem with what D Hall said since I agree with it all.

 

D. Hall's overall point I agree with.   Trade him first and foremost.  But the 2nd point to me is let's say Trent was wrong at every turn (D. Hall didn't say that), you are still picking a fight with a player let alone a team captain.  The players don't side with the FO, they side with each other typically.  And that's clearly the case here as reporters said there was a horde of players backing Trent when he was talking to them.  As D. Hall alludes to the mere act of playing out a spitting match with a player makes this place a less attractive destination for other players.

 

Even if they end up getting the same trade value in the off season than they would have by trading him before the trade deadline (which I doubt happens), its still a losing move because this version of events make it all play out uglier.  

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not understand the venim directed at Trent Williams. For years, he was our only Pro Bowler and so many have turned against him in favor of supporting one of Pro sport's most inept front offices.   Bruce Allen is an incompent, petty bureaucrat who serves an equally inept, "small' man owner.  They have lost all right to the benefit of doubt.  And they have lost too many of us long- time enthusiasts - as fans of the team.  Fail to the Redskins!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Destino said:

All this public fighting does is drive down the value of a major asset, make the organization look bad, and leave the roster weaker than it could be.  

 

In Redskinland the correct nomenclature for this is "Winning off the field".

 

Herm Edwards once said "HELLO!.......You play to win the game!"

 

The Redskins have a far different outlook. They play to win games that only exist in the mind of an imbecile. This was clearly another one of those wins.

 

Winning football games is almost irrelevant in comparison as the results prove time after time. Year after year.

Edited by SkinsFTW
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sempre_victrix said:

I agree, but you have to clear a roster spot and are you willing to lose a player for a put up or shut up scenario?  The helmet hurting issue is complete BS.

Then you just call his bluf!

And clearing a roster spot for Trent is quite easy, we've got a bunch of back end roster guys that do not even suit up... So that's not an issue of any kind.

 

1 hour ago, sempre_victrix said:

I still don't get how anyone believes that TW is blaming the Redskins for claimed mistakes by the medical staff, which is an outside organization.

Because on the opposing corner we do have Bruce Allen a guy with a long history of lies, power struggle and other stuff like that.

You can't be that wrong when facing Bruce "We're close to Winning off the field of the Damn good Culture" Allen.

 

Trent Williams does not have such kind of history...

So that's quite easy to know why people chose him over Bruce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

The Redskins have a far different outlook. They play to win games that only exist in the mind of an imbecile.

 

And who are vindictive as heck.  I can deal with the incompetence and mishaps a bit more of they were sort of pleasant bumbling fools but the nastiness to me takes the cake.

 

Nationally we aren't just seen on some fronts as incompetent and dysfunctional but also as the bad guys.  And this Trent issue is doubling down on it.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, celticsalmon said:

I do not understand the venim directed at Trent Williams. For years, he was our only Pro Bowler and so many have turned against him in favor of supporting one of Pro sport's most inept front offices.   Bruce Allen is an incompent, petty bureaucrat who serves an equally inept, "small' man owner.  They have lost all right to the benefit of doubt.  And they have lost too many of us long- time enthusiasts - as fans of the team.  Fail to the Redskins!

 

Trent was a perennial Pro Bowler but there was only one year he was our only one. 

 

You see the Redskins as separate things, the players and the front office.  Others see only the Redskins, one entity and since Trent doesn't want to be here, then what he's done for the Skins doesn't matter.  Plus since this is a personal health issue people look at his actions and think "well I sure wouldn't handle something like this the way he did," so that can lead to a lack of sympathy or just general disagreement with him behavior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.