A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

58 minutes ago, CommanderCarson said:

15 hours ago, Conn said:

The point is, you wouldn’t have made that remark if it were what you wanted to hear. Cause you wouldn’t have cared how long it was, it’s what you wanted to hear. 

I wasn’t aware that you knew @Conn so well that you are aware of exactly what his thought process is when he posts.  I’m sure that’s news to him as well.

 

The fact of the matter is, her take is on less than 10% of what transpired that day.  Even if she said what we all wanted to hear, that he was lying, fumbling and bumbling, and incriminating himself —- there is still over 90% of the event that she didn’t see.  
 

It’s rather irresponsible to provide any take at all, when not present for the majority of it.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

For the record, I think observing an hour of an 11-hour deposition is enough for someone to give their general perspective. Unless she just happened to come in during the only hour in which Snyder seemed truthful, I’d say it’s fair to assume it was a decent representation of how he more-or-less appeared throughout the questioning.

[SkinsFTW]

25 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

For the record, I think observing an hour of an 11-hour deposition is enough for someone to give their general perspective. Unless she just happened to come in during the only hour in which Snyder seemed truthful, I’d say it’s fair to assume it was a decent representation of how he more-or-less appeared throughout the questioning.

 

How are we supposed to know one way or the other.

 

Maybe it was the one hour that he was pretending to be truthful, then her observations are invalid in your opinion?

 

But we will never know. 

 

But what we do know is that she said that it didn't sound like he was trying to hide things. Then she said, “There were times when he said he didn’t remember things.”

 

So, we're supposed to believe that DS legitimately just has a really bad memory? He's not hiding anything. He just can't remember any of the pertinent stuff that he's being questioned about that might incriminate himself or make him look bad. 

 

 

He remembered Bruski's emails that incriminated Gruden from a decade earlier though.

Edited July 31, 2022 by SkinsFTW

[CommanderCarson]

17 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

For the record, I think observing an hour of an 11-hour deposition is enough for someone to give their general perspective. Unless she just happened to come in during the only hour in which Snyder seemed truthful, I’d say it’s fair to assume it was a decent representation of how he more-or-less appeared throughout the questioning.

And I’m fairly certain this would be the exact side of the coin being argued had she stepped in and observed a deceitful and dishonest Dan Snyder. Everyone has a side they want to argue here and that’s totally within their right, but just own it. 
 

My position is I want to move past some of these things that are from 10+ years ago and in no way am I defending that type of behavior. I do appreciate that the large majority of the organization has been turned over and that we represent a very diverse group of individuals from head of media, to president, to GM, to head coach. That’s progress and should absolutely be celebrated, and believe it or not a role model for the rest of the league to try and emulate. 
 

I also really do feel for the players that put so much into trying to turn the whole S Show around and have no one to cheer them on, so I’m hopeful some winning and less bad press will start to bring some of these fans back. It will be a long long road though, and I think some of the older generation was killed off with the name change. It’s definitely a sad state of affairs at the moment. 

[SkinsFTW]

4 minutes ago, CommanderCarson said:

That’s progress and should absolutely be celebrated, and believe it or not a role model for the rest of the league to try and emulate. 

 

 

You have to know this won't look so hot when it's all said and done with, right?

Edited July 31, 2022 by SkinsFTW

[Redskins Diehard]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I wasn’t aware that you knew @Conn so well that you are aware of exactly what his thought process is when he posts.  I’m sure that’s news to him as well.

 

The fact of the matter is, her take is on less than 10% of what transpired that day.  Even if she said what we all wanted to hear, that he was lying, fumbling and bumbling, and incriminating himself —- there is still over 90% of the event that she didn’t see.  
 

It’s rather irresponsible to provide any take at all, when not present for the majority of it.

We have another person disappointed in the take

[CommanderCarson]

1 hour ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

Nah, Conn is legit in his consistency…he might say it with a different tone lol, but he would still bring it up.

Well I take back what I said then my apologies for jumping the gun.

 

That’s an admirable quality to have.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

12 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

We have another person disappointed in the take

No, I don’t really care one way or the other.  I am on record as stating I don’t think anything comes of this.

 

You’re a dying breed rEdSKinZ DiEHaRd, never change.

[Redskins Diehard]

On 7/28/2022 at 8:44 AM, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

For sure, no matter what comes of any of this - I just wanted Dan to literally have to face the music, show the world how uncomfortable he is, get meme'd and make this story much more popular.  

 

His lawyers just showed the world who carries the big stick - and it's not congress.

 

I gather this thing is all but dead in the water.  I had only a small amount of hope all of this would lead to what we all want, but I'm now at 0% hope.

 

On 7/28/2022 at 8:34 AM, Conn said:

He’s very punchable and meme-able, so his lawyer was smart to insist on transcript only for potential release. But he can still come off as extremely hateable, which will fan the flames of the media and public dislike even more. 

Clearly just a couple of folks in search of the truth. No desired outcome at all. I can't imagine why they'd be even a little disappointed that a respected member of Congress, and hardly a Snyder apologist, would say what she did. Which is hardly exonerating 

1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

No, I don’t really care one way or the other.  I am on record as stating I don’t think anything comes of this.

 

You’re a dying breed rEdSKinZ DiEHaRd, never change.

Your earlier post betrays you.  

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

2 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Your earlier post betrays you.  

Oh, the one you quoted where I literally say it’s dead in the water and I have 0% hope anything comes of it?

 

You really need to work on your ‘gotcha’ tactics.

[Conn]

5 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

 

Clearly just a couple of folks in search of the truth. No desired outcome at all. I can't imagine why they'd be even a little disappointed that a respected member of Congress, and hardly a Snyder apologist, would say what she did. Which is hardly exonerating 

 

What kind of bad, actually BAD, person would be rooting for Snyder right now? Has nothing to do with the rest of it, how could there have been one single person on this board who didn’t want him to step on his own dick during the deposition lol? Every single person here is biased, then. 

[Redskins Diehard]

2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Oh, the one you quoted where I literally say it’s dead in the water and I have 0% hope anything comes of it?

 

You really need to work on your ‘gotcha’ tactics.

Yes, that's the one that says exactly what you wanted.  I concede I'm not as internet skilled as you.  I didn't even mix upper case and lower case!

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

2 minutes ago, Conn said:

 

What kind of bad, actually BAD, person would be rooting for Snyder right now? Has nothing to do with the rest of it, how could there have been one single person on this board who didn’t want him to step on his own dick during the deposition lol? Every single person here is biased, then. 

tHeY JuSt waNT tHE WitcHuNt OvAR!

 

BeCuZ F00TbALL.

[Redskins Diehard]

3 minutes ago, Conn said:

 

What kind of bad, actually BAD, person would be rooting for Snyder right now? Has nothing to do with the rest of it, how could there have been one single person on this board who didn’t want him to step on his own dick during the deposition lol? Every single person here is biased, then. 

Right. And then be disappointed when the Representative didn't play along.  It really has nothing to do with him and everything to do with her

4 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

tHeY JuSt waNT tHE WitcHuNt OvAR!

 

BeCuZ F00TbALL.

Oh, that's your go to schtick. Clever. Really clever

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 minute ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Yes, that's the one that says exactly what you wanted.  I concede I'm not as internet skilled as you.  I didn't even mix upper case and lower case!

Of course I want Dan Snyder to face the harshest penalties and experience terrible things because he’s an awful human being and a worse owner.

 

As if that’s a secret.

 

I’m disappointed Dan bought the team.

I’m disappointed in how he treats people.

I’m disappointed in every outcome of everything he’s ever touched.

I’m disappointed in the few people like you who carry his water and say you don’t, because Football.

 

But I can’t be disappointed in the outcome of a hearing I was already prepared to net a nothing burger.

[Redskins Diehard]

4 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Of course I want Dan Snyder to face the harshest penalties and experience terrible things because he’s an awful human being and a worse owner.

 

As if that’s a secret.

 

I’m disappointed Dan bought the team.

I’m disappointed in how he treats people.

I’m disappointed in every outcome of everything he’s ever touched.

I’m disappointed in the few people like you who carry his water and say you don’t, because Football.

 

But I can’t be disappointed in the outcome of a hearing I was already prepared to net a nothing burger.

I'm not carrying Dan's water.  I'm saying Eleanor Norton is not irresponsible as you and others claim.  But your last few posts have shown why you're probably confused by that. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

11 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

I'm not carrying Dan's water.  I'm saying Eleanor Norton is not irresponsible as you and others claim.  But your last few posts have shown why you're probably confused by that. 

Keep pretending you’re not glad she didn’t say it was a **** show, if that helps you sleep at night.  I proudly wear with a badge of honor, wishing only the worst for Dan, so of course I’d prefer a train wreck to make things worse.  But that’s not why I think she probably shouldn’t have said anything at all.  I would feel the exact same way if it was the other way around.  If she made it out like it was a **** show, and gave out false hope, only to find out it wasn’t - I’d consider that irresponsible just the same.

I just don’t see the point in providing a statement, good, bad or indifferent.  Considering the powers that be will decide if and when the general public will be made aware of what transpired.

 

 

[Wildbunny]

1 hour ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

For the record, I think observing an hour of an 11-hour deposition is enough for someone to give their general perspective. Unless she just happened to come in during the only hour in which Snyder seemed truthful, I’d say it’s fair to assume it was a decent representation of how he more-or-less appeared throughout the questioning.

Didn't she said that he was largely truthful?

 

The most important term here is "largely" that means he wasn't always truthful. Then you have to wonder which hour she saw, because I would believe if she saw the first hour he must have been truthful about how he was, how was the ceremony for his grandmother... Simples questions that are often asked to get people into confidence and forget where they are.

 

I agree with @Conn that she could just have shut up, it wouldn't have made it better or worse in any way, and wait for the press to give us the best of it. As a whole, I doubt Dan Snyder can make an 11 hour interview without saying something stupid and make it worse at least twice.

[Redskins Diehard]

2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Keep pretending you’re not glad she didn’t say it was a **** show, if that helps you sleep at night.  I proudly wear with a badge of honor, wishing only the worst for Dan, so of course I’d prefer a train wreck to make things worse.  But that’s not why I think she probably shouldn’t have said anything at all.  I would feel the exact same way if it was the other way around.  If she made it out like it was a **** show, and gave out false hope, only to find out it wasn’t - I’d consider that irresponsible just the same.

I just don’t see the point in providing a statement, good, bad or indifferent.  Considering the powers that be will decide if and when the general public will be made aware of what transpired.

 

 

This may be shocking to you but that hearing had no effect on my sleep one way or the other. 

 

I guess I trust Eleanor Norton's judgement over the battered fans opinion.

 

Keep believing you would have felt the same way either way if it helps you sleep. It's not very believable though. Emotions cloud judgement and you appear pretty emotional about this. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Wow I went crabbing over the weekend and came back to find fans at each others throats.  

[SkinsGuy]

7 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Wow I went crabbing over the weekend and came back to find fans at each others throats.  

 

So you're saying you were "crabby" all weekend too.

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, Redskins Diehard said:

 

I guess I trust Eleanor Norton's judgement over the battered fans opinion.

This is going to be my last time responding to your trivial and off-base commentary for the sake of everyone else reading the thread.  You’re all over the place here and arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

I didn’t provide an opinion on the hearing, considering I heard 0% of it, which is 9% less than Eleanor Norton heard.

 

1 hour ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Keep believing you would have felt the same way either way if it helps you sleep. It's not very believable though. Emotions cloud judgement and you appear pretty emotional about this. 

Says the guy heavily invested in continuing this engagement, that goes by the name “Redskins Diehard”, that cares more about football than justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wildbunny]

55 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Wow I went crabbing over the weekend and came back to find fans at each others throats.  

They're training for next season's gameday threads!

[Redskins Diehard]

31 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

This is going to be my last time responding to your trivial and off-base commentary for the sake of everyone else reading the thread.  You’re all over the place here and arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

I didn’t provide an opinion on the hearing, considering I heard 0% of it, which is 9% less than Eleanor Norton heard.

 

Says the guy heavily invested in continuing this engagement, that goes by the name “Redskins Diehard”, that cares more about football than justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, you got me. Keep up the good(internet) fight... you're making a difference! 

[Voice_of_Reason]

3 hours ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

For the record, I think observing an hour of an 11-hour deposition is enough for someone to give their general perspective. Unless she just happened to come in during the only hour in which Snyder seemed truthful, I’d say it’s fair to assume it was a decent representation of how he more-or-less appeared throughout the questioning.

I would agree with the following "embellishments."

 

1. She never tried to pass it off as she heard the entire proceedings or has read the entire transcript.

 

2. She caveated her statement saying, basically, "my observation when I was there.'
 

3. She did not give him an "atta boy!"  or "he did great!" or anything positive.  She said he seemed to not be entirely trying to stonewall the proceedings, which some of us thought he was going to do.  Ie: take the 5th, hide entirely behind NDAs, etc.  

 

Though she also said there were things he didn't remember.  NOTE: We have NO context as to what he remembered, didn't remember, or lied about remembering.  It could be that he absolutely remembered, and he was just saying he didn't, or there might have been questions where he didn't remember.  If you asked me about what I said in a meeting in 2009, unless it was a DAMN IMPORTANT meeting, there's no way I'm going to remember it.  If you asked me about the first date with the woman who eventually became my wife (which took place on August 30th, 2009), I would remember it a lot more. (Side note: if I said I didn't remember where the first date was with my future wife, when it was, or what we discussed, I would be in big trouble. I also remember she was an hour late, but I don't bring that up....  ) 

 

But her statement wasn't a pat on the back or a "great job." 

 

4. She added that he's still in trouble and doesn't have a home for the new stadium.  I think she made it pretty clear she's not a fan of his, and also that it's very likely the new stadium is not going in DC. Any DC stadium deal, she would be a part of the negotiations, because most likely she would be involved in the bill to make the land available to the city. 

 

I also think sitting in a hearing for an hour is plenty of time to get the "gist" of the approach.  That doesn't mean you know everything, or things couldn't have changed when you weren't there.  But I think it's fair to state, "yeah, from what I saw..."  as long as you caveat it. 

 

I don't know why I feel like I have to defend Congresswoman Norton.  But for some reason, I feel like I do.  I am NOT defending Dan. So please do not confuse the two.  I'm not making ANY statement about Dan, or his testimony.  I'm STRICTLY commenting on the statement made by Congresswoman Norton.  Which I think was absolutely fine.  And if she'd said the opposite with the same caveats, I think that would be fine also.

 

As an aside, do we know if any other members of the HOC even bothered to show up?  Because that's also kindof telling.