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

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

12 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

Some of you dont seem to get this, both Bruce Allen and Jay Gruden are absolute trash.  It isnt an either/or.  You dont get to be 1-9 in your last 10 games because just ONE part of your organization is trash and the other is average, you only get that way when you are trash from top to bottom.

Some of you don't seem to get that the same got said about every other head coach that left here not named Joe Gibbs.  Everything Dan touches turn to ****.  Only Bruce was already **** before he got here.  No head coach is going to come in here and not be **** unless things change drastically.  

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

This is just something I find personally amusing. He’s the most hated figure in Washington and it’s basically a self fulfilling prophecy at this point. Snyder is the problem, always has been always will be it seems, though there are small signs of improvement.

 

Not sure if you are doubling down that Dan is the problem or highlighting the small signs and we should embrace it?  I agree (who doesn't) with the first point.  I disagree with the 2nd point.  Tough for me to know which point you are trying to stress because I've seen you make both points before including defending Dan for changing.   I also recall you've criticized him.   So I don't know which point to debate.  But if its the first part of your sentence -- I think everyone on the planet agrees.  

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

My point is that Jay is not more hamstrung

 

My point isn't really about Jay.  Name the coach who has had a good run under Dan.  That's the point.  And it's been explained in detail many times.  Culture.  Jay may be the guy or may not be the guy.  I really don't care if he stays or goes.  To me there is bigger fish to fry then I'll worry about the coach. 

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

As @Califan007 says, you seem to be attacking me based on what you personally think I’m doing (mental gymnastics to support Bruce lol) and not my actual points. Nothing new to see here.

 

Nothing new to see here about your mental gymnastics to passive aggressively back Bruce and trying to own every side of the argument.  I've told you before I don't care about you liking or not liking Bruce.  I've debated a pro Bruce person a lot way before you even joined the board.  And the exchanges were rarely heated.    I debate real football issues with many people -- I am not shy at offering my opinion and I've gone back and forth with many posters who I like to debate with and we don't always agree.  Sometimes heated, mostly not.  And its all cool and fun.  But most people just stay on their position versus just keep moving it back and forth where it comes off like they are trying to own both sides of the discussion (with a heavy leaning to one side which they assume escapes the reader) or use that tactic to claim that they are balanced.  😀

 

From my view, your style on the Bruce topic would be like me arguing lets say this:

 

A.  Ryan Kerrigan is one of the better edge rushers in the league

B.  The people here just don't give enough respect to Ryan Kerrigan

C.  Ryan Kerrigan is one of the greatest leaders on the team

 

And I pepper that point in post after post. 

 

Then Kerrigan has a bad game

 

A.  Well i am not really a Kerrigan guy.

B.  I see Kerrigan has some issues.  He is though a really good pass rusher but I agree we can do better than him, he disappointed.  

 

Kerrigan has a good game

 

A.  See i told you about my boy, Kerrigan

B.  I am a Kerrigan guy. 

 

Then if someone tries to pin you down after a bad game from Kerrigan.  Look I am just really balanced on Kerrigan.  Go check out my posts, I've flat out said he's not my dude.   After a good Kerrigan game, hey guys I told you about Kerrigan, he's the man.  Are you critics going to do a mea culpa now?

 

I am not saying any of this to have fun here.  I am just explaining why multiple people (not just me) have suggested you can be frustrating to debate with at least on this subject.  It's not about your position.  It's about all the zig zagging to fit whatever circumstances warrant.  It's why multiple people (not even me) liked to call you a Bruce fanboy and told you to just own it.  I am just explaining from my perspective what makes you tough.  You can take it or leave it.  i am guessing you will leave it.  But heck I cared enough to explain.     I am sure I am a pain in the butt to debate with for my own reasons.  I am just explaining what I perceive about these Bruce debates and why I've told you multiple times they lead to nowhere. 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

[Peregrine]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Some of you don't seem to get that the same got said about every other head coach that left here not named Joe Gibbs.  Everything Dan touches turn to ****.  Only Bruce was already **** before he got here.  No head coach is going to come in here and not be **** unless things change drastically.  

You dont get it do you??  You keep saying Dan Snyder doesnt know how to hire football people, so he only hires people who dont know about football.  Then you say Bruce Allen doesnt know about football, and yet somehow HE can hire people who know about football?

 

Good owners hire good GMs.  Good GMs hire good coaches.  Good coaches draft and play good players.  

Bad owners hire bad GMs.  Bad GMs hire bad coaches.  Bad coaches draft and play bad players.

 

We have a bad owner, a bad GM, and a bad coach.  Its really not that complicated.  The amazing double standard is...amazing.  Its seriously okay for everyone to be bad and not pretend that Steve Spurrier and Jim Zorn were actually good coaches that happened to be hired by a bad GM. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

@Peregrine It’s actually you that doesn’t get it.  As you seem to be incapable of digesting anything short of Jay is a complete and utter trash pile of a coach.  I haven’t seen one person say that he’s a great or even good coach at this point.  But for some reason, you’re still hammering your keyboard as if that is the case.

 

The point is that no coach, I don’t care who they are, how much experience, how much prior success is capable of reaching the best of their abilities in this environment.  Every coach has weaknesses and when they come here, they end up glaring, and never improved upon.  

[NeverSurrender]

21 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

You dont get it do you??  You keep saying Dan Snyder doesnt know how to hire football people, so he only hires people who dont know about football.  Then you say Bruce Allen doesnt know about football, and yet somehow HE can hire people who know about football?

 

Good owners hire good GMs.  Good GMs hire good coaches.  Good coaches draft and play good players.  

Bad owners hire bad GMs.  Bad GMs hire bad coaches.  Bad coaches draft and play bad players.

 

We have a bad owner, a bad GM, and a bad coach.  Its really not that complicated.  The amazing double standard is...amazing.  Its seriously okay for everyone to be bad and not pretend that Steve Spurrier and Jim Zorn were actually good coaches that happened to be hired by a bad GM. 

I would agree with you except I think we have the most talented roster that we have seen in decades.... 

[Commander -JB-]

No coach is going to succeed with the Redskins.  Going on 20 years now with Snyder and we have, what, two playoff wins?  None since 2005.  Even Joe Gibbs had a rocky 4 years in his second stint.  He was never going to win big under Damn Snyder.  I say this not to say Jay Gruden is a good coach.  I say this to say that Jay Gruden has a way better chance to succeed elsewhere.  Even Bill Bellichick underachieved coaching the Cleveland Browns.  Ya think? 

[HardcoreZorn]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Not sure if you are doubling down that Dan is the problem or highlighting the small signs and we should embrace it?  I agree (who doesn't) with the first point.  I disagree with the 2nd point.  Tough for me to know which point you are trying to stress because I've seen you make both points before including defending Dan for changing.   I also recall you've criticized him.   So I don't know which point to debate.  But if its the first part of your sentence -- I think everyone on the planet agrees.  

 

 

My point isn't really about Jay.  Name the coach who has had a good run under Dan.  That's the point.  And it's been explained in detail many times.  Culture.  Jay may be the guy or may not be the guy.  I really don't care if he stays or goes.  To me there is bigger fish to fry then I'll worry about the coach. 

 

 

Nothing new to see here about your mental gymnastics to passive aggressively back Bruce and trying to own every side of the argument.  I've told you before I don't care about you liking or not liking Bruce.  I've debated a pro Bruce person a lot way before you even joined the board.  And the exchanges were rarely heated.    I debate real football issues with many people -- I am not shy at offering my opinion and I've gone back and forth with many posters who I like to debate with and we don't always agree.  Sometimes heated, mostly not.  And its all cool and fun.  But most people just stay on their position versus just keep moving it back and forth where it comes off like they are trying to own both sides of the discussion (with a heavy leaning to one side which they assume escapes the reader) or use that tactic to claim that they are balanced.  😀

 

From my view, your style on the Bruce topic would be like me arguing lets say this:

 

A.  Ryan Kerrigan is one of the better edge rushers in the league

B.  The people here just don't give enough respect to Ryan Kerrigan

C.  Ryan Kerrigan is one of the greatest leaders on the team

 

And I pepper that point in post after post. 

 

Then Kerrigan has a bad game

 

A.  Well i am not really a Kerrigan guy.

B.  I see Kerrigan has some issues.  He is though a really good pass rusher but I agree we can do better than him, he disappointed.  

 

Kerrigan has a good game

 

A.  See i told you about my boy, Kerrigan

B.  I am a Kerrigan guy. 

 

Then if someone tries to pin you down after a bad game from Kerrigan.  Look I am just really balanced on Kerrigan.  Go check out my posts, I've flat out said he's not my dude.   After a good Kerrigan game, hey guys I told you about Kerrigan, he's the man.  Are you critics going to do a mea culpa now?

 

I am not saying any of this to have fun here.  I am just explaining why multiple people (not just me) have suggested you can be frustrating to debate with at least on this subject.  It's not about your position.  It's about all the zig zagging to fit whatever circumstances warrant.  It's why multiple people (not even me) liked to call you a Bruce fanboy and told you to just own it.  I am just explaining from my perspective what makes you tough.  You can take it or leave it.  i am guessing you will leave it.  But heck I cared enough to explain.     I am sure I am a pain in the butt to debate with for my own reasons.  I am just explaining what I perceive about these Bruce debates and why I've told you multiple times they lead to nowhere. 

 

I often engage in debates where I see double standards or faulty logic. 
 

Take the latest example, the tweet you posted. When I see that and realize that guys like Breeland and Smith are having impactful career years under different coaching staffs, the whole argument of “poor Jay doesn’t stand a chance here” that I’ve read so often across multiple threads is lessened. Same thing with HaHa. Clearly the guy has the talent as he’s shown in Green Bay and the other night. People were jazzed about the trade at the time and giving rare props to Bruce. But then he stunk here...and no, I’m not going to fault dan or Bruce or whomever that he didn’t perform here. I’m going to fault the coaching staff for not getting the most out of the guy from both a schematic stand point and motivating him to perform his best here. 
 

Now, take the above scenario which is exactly where this debate started. NOTHING I just said there means “Bruce can do no wrong yada yada” or whatever jumps to your mind to get your panties all bunched up. It simply means, some of the onus has to be on Jay, no? If the FO is directly responsible for bringing these cats in that all of a sudden are proving to be really good players elsewhere, wouldn’t that suggest that Jay might share some of the blame? Because the whole “Not going to judge Jay cause of what he has to deal with” directly contradicts that. Or is lessened. Maybe Jay and his staff are part of the collective suck happening right now? 
 

I didn’t attack the statement because my boy Bruce was getting shade thrown on him, I attacked the argument itself. What a concept, right? I mean above, I even asked the question, what would Ioan, Allen, and Payne do with a different defensive staff? No reply to it. You were too worried someone was going to bat for your arch nemesis. 
 

It’s a common theme on here. Take the Kirk contract situation. I would often point out the nuances of the situation and highlighting reasons why and how it got to where it did. Because I would often read things that painted a picture that Kirk was this top 12 QB in his prime and how idiotic we were to not just back up the brinks truck and get it done with as if it were just some cut and dry situation. All along no one really debated the actual points, they debated how in the world I couldn’t see how moronic Bruce was for not giving Cousins what Cousins wanted. 
 

As far as your Kerrigan example, I stopped reading after your first bullet point. I have never, repeat never, said Bruce was one of the better FO executives in the league. Ever. Dig it up. And once again, it’s possible to dive into a debate and wonder, “well maybe Jay does deserve some blame for not getting the best out of these guys” or “Kirk isn’t worth the money, that’s an extremely complicated and unique situation” without it meaning Bruce is a top executive doing no wrong. Just like @Peregrine said, it’s possible Dan sucks, Bruce sucks, and Jay sucks. But all you read on this board is crap about Bruce being a moron and “poor Jay I would never judge him since he’s a bright young mind held down under impossible circumstances.” That’s a bunch of hogwash. 
 

I don’t even post in the Bruce thread anymore for this very reason. It’s all narrow minded thinking with little to no care for actual details. It’s a giant pile on with twisted and manipulated facts to fit personal agendas. 
 

 

[Peregrine]

51 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

@Peregrine It’s actually you that doesn’t get it.  As you seem to be incapable of digesting anything short of Jay is a complete and utter trash pile of a coach.  I haven’t seen one person say that he’s a great or even good coach at this point.  But for some reason, you’re still hammering your keyboard as if that is the case.

 

The point is that no coach, I don’t care who they are, how much experience, how much prior success is capable of reaching the best of their abilities in this environment.  Every coach has weaknesses and when they come here, they end up glaring, and never improved upon.  

I think the point is that despite what you say, you seem to have a weird rabid dedication to jumping in and taking offense whenever someone says Gruden isnt good...

Its kinda concerning.

[carex]

Breeland and Smith were good here, at least part of the time.  They were just considered replaceable.

 

And wasn't Haha Clinton-Dix having a down year in Green Bay before we traded for him.  At the very least not playing up to previous standards

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

55 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

I think the point is that despite what you say, you seem to have a weird rabid dedication to jumping in and taking offense whenever someone says Gruden isnt good...

Its kinda concerning.

It’s funny you say I’m the one with rabid dedication yet you are extremely dedicated to pooping on Gruden.  I’m 100% certain you alone have more negative Gruden posts than I have defending him in total on the entire forum.  I’d have 700,000 posts if I came to Gruden’s rescue every time someone hated on him.  I find some valid criticism of him here, but can’t say that I’ve ever encountered any by you.  But it’s possible that while you’re violently spewing every possible thing the guy could ever do or has done wrong, you got some right.  

 

His obsession with Colt and Samaje come to mind when I think of valid criticisms.  There are more but that’s off the top of my head.  However let someone like you tell it and the guy can barely tie his shoes.  It’s a wonder that they were ever able to win one game in his tenure, given how absolutely inept you believe the guy is.

 

My issue is the fact that literally every single coach brought in here came with much fanfare and a solid resume minus Zorn, and every single one leaves here much worse than how they showed up.  Yet you seem to believe that every single coach is just plain awful and give no credence to the environment in which they work.  

[BoycottEuphemisticFans]

1 hour ago, -JB- said:

No coach is going to succeed with the Redskins.  Going on 20 years now with Snyder and we have, what, two playoff wins?  None since 2005.  

and that first playoff win angers me that Snyder gets credit for it inside of his ownership because he really shouldn't.  it's a long standing pet peeve of mine.  In fact, I think the opposite is true about that 1999 team that won 1 playoff game.  Snyder got control of the team in May of 1999, after free agency, after the draft (Champ Bailey, the trade down) and after the team traded for its first quality QB in a decade (Brad Johnson).  All these moves are what pushed the Redskins into the area of a good team in 1999.  And NONE OF THEM would have happened if Snyder got a full offseason to destroy THAT team too.  THere are stories that he tried to have the Brad Johnson trade, which was THE move that positioned them for success) rescinded.  So , Snyder would have wrecked that team too if he only was given enough time to do so.  The way that I look at it is Snyder's ownership really didnt begin until 2000, that was his first full offseason as owner, the first season where he could legitmately make an impact on the team.  I count him from 2000-2019.  And with that, 1 playoff win.

[Commander -JB-]

1 hour ago, BoycottEuphemisticFans said:

and that first playoff win angers me that Snyder gets credit for it inside of his ownership because he really shouldn't.  it's a long standing pet peeve of mine.  In fact, I think the opposite is true about that 1999 team that won 1 playoff game.  Snyder got control of the team in May of 1999, after free agency, after the draft (Champ Bailey, the trade down) and after the team traded for its first quality QB in a decade (Brad Johnson).  All these moves are what pushed the Redskins into the area of a good team in 1999.  And NONE OF THEM would have happened if Snyder got a full offseason to destroy THAT team too.  THere are stories that he tried to have the Brad Johnson trade, which was THE move that positioned them for success) rescinded.  So , Snyder would have wrecked that team too if he only was given enough time to do so.  The way that I look at it is Snyder's ownership really didnt begin until 2000, that was his first full offseason as owner, the first season where he could legitmately make an impact on the team.  I count him from 2000-2019.  And with that, 1 playoff win.

Yes, I agree 100%

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I don’t even post in the Bruce thread anymore for this very reason. It’s all narrow minded thinking with little to no care for actual details. It’s a giant pile on with twisted and manipulated facts to fit personal agendas. 
 

 

You bring up the Kirk contract.  You introduced yourself to the board mostly on that topic and said multiple times then that you considered yourself a fellow Bruce critic who likewise doesn't care for Bruce.  You said people should look at you as especially credible on the subject since you don't like the job Bruce is doing. 

 

Then I noticed soon after you were touting Bruce a lot and in a macro way.  I asked you what gives considering how you introduced yourself to the board -- and you said something to me back then about how you have now somewhat changed to being pro Bruce and think he is doing a good job.   I took that at face value then.  But that pattern has just continued in different ways.  Back and forth depending on the discussion.    Mostly pro Bruce stuff, sometimes you make your points aggressively, sometimes more passively, and then every now and then when Bruce has a blatantly bad week you back off for a little while.  And then re-engage when the coast is clear. 

 

I recall at one point months back you said you are out on Bruce or something like that.  Days later you were liking every post that complemented him.  It wasn't long before you were back to defending him and arguing with people who slammed him.  Rinse and repeat something else.   And I've mentioned it to you as it's happened.  I've never generalized it all in one post but I am doing it here.   You can ignore it which obviously you are doing.  It would be one thing if this dance just happened with me but it happens with others.  You've had many heated exchanges and mostly on the same subject.  And am just giving you my take as for why.  I don't think its your position but its you constantly moving the goal posts where you'll assume the position and then back away from it when it serves -- rinse and repeat.  

 

I don't have an issue of someone saying they aren't sure or they changed their mind.  I vacillate on some subjects and change my mind plenty.  But you like to use all your zig zagging to cover every side to win an argument and you often do it combatively.  If its a bad Bruce week -- you are a Bruce critic but often add some backhanded complements in the mix like you did in the post to me earlier today.  When the sunshine is back up then you are out there touting him.  You do much more touting than criticizing and you often do it in an animated way and you like to take shots -- and for that reason some who have debated you don't find you balanced or chill as you like to depict yourself. 

 

And as for the Bruce thread, if you think you are the dude without an agenda and you are the one brimming with facts and details in the mix there -- cool.    I don't see it that way even a little bit.  And I know am not alone on that.  If you mean by "agenda" people having a position and sticking to it.  Yep, that's true.  It's true on most subjects.   

 

The word agenda connotes that people posting think they have a specific motive to gain from their point.  Look I think some of us enjoy debating here.  But I got nothing to gain if people want to believe or not some slam I throw at Bruce or whomever.  I make no money off of it.  It doesn't satisfy my ego.  If anything its much easier to argue the opposite.  As I've told you many times, I'd love for Bruce to help make this team 11-5 and I said I'd be the first to write up an apology and I'd enjoy every second of writing it.

 

I spend a lot of money on this team.  i am not one of the dudes who checked out on them.  I am flying up soon for a game.  You think I'd get some jollies from going to Fedex and being blown out or whatever so I can make a post here about it?  Nope, quite the opposite. 
 

3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

But all you read on this board is crap about Bruce being a moron and “poor Jay I would never judge him since he’s a bright young mind held down under impossible circumstances.” That’s a bunch of hogwash. 

 

You really think the theme on the board this week is "poor Jay".   And you attack the point surprise surprise by bringing Bruce into it.  In your post before you talked about people giving an unfair pass to Dan and they are instead hammering Bruce.  Both times Bruce is the victim.  Maybe you don't even realize you are doing it but dude there is a reason why multiple people paint you as a big Bruce guy regardless of you every now and then trying to distance yourself from him.  Let alone Jay and Dan are getting destroyed on the board this week -- that's really escaping you?  I get your focus is on Bruce but look around dude the shots are flying in multiple directions. 

 

I get having an unpopular position and it's not fun to be surrounded by others on it who disagree.  But I would just suck it up and take it on versus play all sides when the kitchen gets hot.  I've told you before my position on Jay for example while is a bit all over the place but still I've defended him plenty. And I said I totally get why people (including you today) want to come after me on it.  It's 100% deserved.  I posted enough on it that I can't back away from that position.  I can change my mind about my position and back away that way.  But if I did that with a post that's mostly complimentary of Jay and then say I am out on him - that would come off disingenuous.  

 

[method man]

2 hours ago, carex said:

Breeland and Smith were good here, at least part of the time.  They were just considered replaceable.

 

And wasn't Haha Clinton-Dix having a down year in Green Bay before we traded for him.  At the very least not playing up to previous standards

 

I believe Breeland was not a good locker room guy here. I remember one incident where Scot had to go to the locker room to calm him down after he got kicked out of a practice

[Skinsinparadise]

on another note, looks like the Trent hold out is the last one standing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Peregrine]

3 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

It’s funny you say I’m the one with rabid dedication yet you are extremely dedicated to pooping on Gruden.  I’m 100% certain you alone have more negative Gruden posts than I have defending him in total on the entire forum.  I’d have 700,000 posts if I came to Gruden’s rescue every time someone hated on him.  I find some valid criticism of him here, but can’t say that I’ve ever encountered any by you.  But it’s possible that while you’re violently spewing every possible thing the guy could ever do or has done wrong, you got some right.  

 

His obsession with Colt and Samaje come to mind when I think of valid criticisms.  There are more but that’s off the top of my head.  However let someone like you tell it and the guy can barely tie his shoes.  It’s a wonder that they were ever able to win one game in his tenure, given how absolutely inept you believe the guy is.

 

My issue is the fact that literally every single coach brought in here came with much fanfare and a solid resume minus Zorn, and every single one leaves here much worse than how they showed up.  Yet you seem to believe that every single coach is just plain awful and give no credence to the environment in which they work.  

Hah, theres your proof.  And for the record, the bold is 100% correct, use the toilet for what the toilet is designed for.

 

Its hiliarious you say you've encountered valid criticism here but not from me.  And yet from the very beginning, from the DAY he was hired I have been the most consistent and correct in calling his failing, year in and year out.  Much like I did with every defensive coordinator, and the coaches I wanted to come in here instead.  If you are going to live or die on my record of calling and criticizing coaches, you are going to die, because my record is just about spotless. I may suck on player scouting, but on predicting how a coach will fair is sadly just about flawless.

 

You say a lot about how great our coaches were over the years, but in 20 years, name a good coach we had outside of Gibbs.  Ill wait.  For eternity.  

"and every single one leaves here much worse than how they showed up." Yeah, Sean McVay and Kyle Shanahan are certainly much worse off.

[megared]

58 minutes ago, method man said:

 

I believe Breeland was not a good locker room guy here. I remember one incident where Scot had to go to the locker room to calm him down after he got kicked out of a practice

 

So the front office decided to let him walk, because he got into a scuffle at practice, with bum ass Terrell Pryor.  Talk about being on the wrong side of history...

 

Here's a thought exercise, using 3 year splits:

 

Player A:  204 tackles, 6 INTs, 5 FFs, 48 PDs

Player B:  195 tackles, 6 INTs, 7 FFs, 37 PDs

 

One of these guys is making $15 M/year, the other $2 M/year.  

[carex]

5 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

Hah, theres your proof.  And for the record, the bold is 100% correct, use the toilet for what the toilet is designed for.

 

Its hiliarious you say you've encountered valid criticism here but not from me.  And yet from the very beginning, from the DAY he was hired I have been the most consistent and correct in calling his failing, year in and year out.  Much like I did with every defensive coordinator, and the coaches I wanted to come in here instead.  If you are going to live or die on my record of calling and criticizing coaches, you are going to die, because my record is just about spotless. I may suck on player scouting, but on predicting how a coach will fair is sadly just about flawless.

 

You say a lot about how great our coaches were over the years, but in 20 years, name a good coach we had outside of Gibbs.  Ill wait.  For eternity.  

"and every single one leaves here much worse than how they showed up." Yeah, Sean McVay and Kyle Shanahan are certainly much worse off.

 

you cannot judge how well a coach looks at another team because their team will not be the same.  And I'm pretty sure that firing your Head coach you don't promote the guy under him with the same specialty.  Meaning a head coach who specialized in offense may get replaced by his defensive coordinator but not his offensive coordinator

 

Also Kyle moved laterally at first and was promoted later with a third team

 

7 minutes ago, megared said:

 

So the front office decided to let him walk, because he got into a scuffle at practice, with bum ass Terrell Pryor.  Talk about being on the wrong side of history...

 

Here's a thought exercise, using 3 year splits:

 

Player A:  204 tackles, 6 INTs, 5 FFs, 48 PDs

Player B:  195 tackles, 6 INTs, 7 FFs, 37 PDs

 

One of these guys is making $15 M/year, the other $2 M/year.  

 

it was decided to let him walk because at the end of his last yeat we had Dunbar, Fuller and Moreau ready.  And Fuller did get traded but by that point Breeland would have known the FO was ready to let him go so the bridge was already partially burnt.  Plus this is his second team after leaving us and signing two separate one year deals.  So it's not as though the league is just screaming for him

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

Hah, theres your proof.  And for the record, the bold is 100% correct, use the toilet for what the toilet is designed for.

 

Its hiliarious you say you've encountered valid criticism here but not from me.  And yet from the very beginning, from the DAY he was hired I have been the most consistent and correct in calling his failing, year in and year out.  Much like I did with every defensive coordinator, and the coaches I wanted to come in here instead.  If you are going to live or die on my record of calling and criticizing coaches, you are going to die, because my record is just about spotless. I may suck on player scouting, but on predicting how a coach will fair is sadly just about flawless.

 

You say a lot about how great our coaches were over the years, but in 20 years, name a good coach we had outside of Gibbs.  Ill wait.  For eternity.  

"and every single one leaves here much worse than how they showed up." Yeah, Sean McVay and Kyle Shanahan are certainly much worse off.

It’s hilarious that you’ve led yourself to believe that you’re special when it comes to predicting coaches will end up sucking here.  Coachstradamus you are.  Guess what? I’ll beat you to it.  If things stay as they are and a new head coach is hired, no matter how you feel about them before they get here, everyone will eventually hate their guts.  Wow, I’m psychic!

 

It’s cute for you to bring up Kyle and McVay as if they are relevant to the conversation at all.  When did I ever say that young OC’s can never succeed elsewhere when they leave here?  I’ll wait.

 

 

[PartyPosse]

It’s not like Breeland couldn’t get a contract when he was a FA, didn’t get signed until like half way through the year and then kept getting injured in GB before they decided he wasn’t worth the trouble. If he was so valued coming into this season, why was the best he could do was another one year deal?

[megared]

13 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

It’s not like Breeland couldn’t get a contract when he was a FA, didn’t get signed until like half way through the year and then kept getting injured in GB before they decided he wasn’t worth the trouble. If he was so valued coming into this season, why was the best he could do was another one year deal?

 

Because he injured his foot in the off-season and had his contract voided by the Panthers when he couldn't pass a physical.  He was set to make $24 M over 3 years.  Knowing that we could've locked him up for less than that (a year earlier), and not paid someone $75 M to be the same player he was...kind of hurts.  Not to mention we could've avoided the round robin of garbage veteran CBs that have entirely been a waste of money...

 

20 minutes ago, carex said:

it was decided to let him walk because at the end of his last yeat we had Dunbar, Fuller and Moreau ready.

 

And we're still waiting on the two guys we have left from that group to prove themselves healthy and/or good enough 2 seasons later.  

[carex]

10 hours ago, megared said:

 

Because he injured his foot in the off-season and had his contract voided by the Panthers when he couldn't pass a physical.  He was set to make $24 M over 3 years.  Knowing that we could've locked him up for less than that (a year earlier), and not paid someone $75 M to be the same player he was...kind of hurts.  Not to mention we could've avoided the round robin of garbage veteran CBs that have entirely been a waste of money...

 

 

And we're still waiting on the two guys we have left from that group to prove themselves healthy and/or good enough 2 seasons later.  

 

we are waiting for them now but Moreau did not miss a game last year and Dunbar hadn't missed but a couple the year before

 

oh, and we haven't had a round robin of vet CBs to replace Breeland.  Scandrick was a vet minimum who didn't make the team

[megared]

42 minutes ago, carex said:

 

we are waiting for them now but Moreau did not miss a game last year and Dunbar hadn't missed but a couple the year before

 

oh, and we haven't had a round robin of vet CBs to replace Breeland.  Scandrick was a vet minimum who didn't make the team

 

We still don't know what we have moving forward with either.  With our defensive struggles, and teams gameplanning to attack Norman, we may not be able to assess whether they are the answers, moving forward.  And next year is the last year of both of their deals.  

 

Scandrick wasn't a vet min.  His contract was $10 M for 2 years, with $1 M guaranteed.  DRC, I believe is (good thing because he's out for another 7 weeks since they IR-ed him).  Not to mention we held onto DHall for about 3 seasons too long.  I can do this all day...Greg Toler, Chris Culliver, Will Blackmon...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I'm sure it's been mentioned already, but both Breeland and Clinton-Dix were tossed aside by teams other than the Skins. I'm not sure either of these players playing well in 3 games in 2019 is a black mark on the Skins anymore than on the Raiders or Packers.