Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

JSSkinz

By JSSkinz
in The Stadium

 Share
TK
Message added by TK,

Pay Attention Knuckleheads

 

 

Has your team support wained due to ownership or can you see past it?  

229 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you attend a game and support the team while Dan Snyder is the owner of the team, regardless of success?

    • Yes
      47
    • No
      106
    • I would start attending games if Dan was no longer the owner of the team.
      77

Recommended Posts

lovemaskins

lovemaskins

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

"One item on at least some owners’ minds was how they might rid themselves of Snyder’s ooze of radioactive poison from incessant investigations of sexual harassment, alleged financial deception and other workplace abuses."

 

Sums it up, perfectly.

He should have lost the team based on pimping the cheerleaders out naked and taking their passports.  Everything else, e.g. sexual harassment, looking up cheerleaders skirts coming down stairs, and now basically embezzlement of NFL revenue, is icing on the rotten cake. If that’s not enough to lose the team then the NFL is so morally bankrupt I’m not sure I can support any of it. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)

Listened just now to Sally Jenkins and have listened to others in recent days.

 

If they are right.  The exact thing that a minority of people on this thread wanted to stop -- which is no more WP stories, no more stuff period, because all is does it make the organization look bad and there is zero upside to it including having no impact on Dan's situation -- they might be dead wrong.    But that remains to be seen.  The plot line has to play out.  But I'd say at a minimum its clear that the nonstop nature of this has given us a fighting chance to get rid of this douche. 

 

It seems like the drill is it never stops, it never goes away.   And the owners are tired of it.  If it actually stopped they might be able to bury this and move on.  But it just doesn't happen.

 

Jenkins made a point that I have as well many times on this thread as have others here which is Dan himself proves he hasn't changed by how he reacts to this stuff.  His own reactive actions is what helped give more legs to all of this -- including in all likelihood leaking the Gruden-Allen emails which helped revive the narrative.  The sending PIs to the homes of the cheerleaders.  The current lawsuit about Dan building an enemies list from the Wilkerson report.  Him not taking blame and blaming others on and on and on.   Deny that the NFL punished him and disputing Goodell's comments on it via his lawyers.

 

This is my thought not Jenkins but she'd probably see things the same considering what she's written about him. It's plain as day that Dan is his own self destructive mess.  He's putting on display for his own survival why he sucks at running a team -- he deals with his own stress by making self destructive errors.  You can see on display the scapegoating, not accepting blame, making self destructive moves that boomerang against him.   And this display is part of the backdrop of Dan claiming to the world that he is on his "best" behavior and the "culture" has turned a new page. 

 

Sheehan had both Jenkins and Mike Jones on his show touting this all as a big deal.  Jenkins thinks Dan is toast and the Mary Beth White investigation is being used to clean up what the NFL didn't do initially.  She thinks the NFL finally arrived to the conclusion that Dan is incorrigable -- that they tried to help him out of this but he flubbed this, like he's flubbed everything else.  Sheehan himself though is cynical about this being Dan's demise.  Sheehan has thought for awhile that Dan just on his own will sell the team maybe not now but in the near future.  Personally, I seriously doubt that Dan voluntarily sells.  I think this whole thing right now is an all or nothing drill  -- where either the owners vote him out or he survives.  Jenkins thinks Jerry ends up going to Dan asking him to sell to save the embarassment of a vote. 

 

Seems like Dan is trying to rest his defense on I hired Jason Wright.  Enough said because he's a good dude.  It seems like with Bruce they wanted to use the angle of racism against him by focusing on the email exchange on DeMaurice Smith, even though the comments from what I recall were purely from Gruden -- that's what Dan's lawyer tried to do on the radio in his first apperance.  Then we got the whole Tanya has been here with Dan the whole time and she's stepping forward.  

 

I am guessing among their missteps is they thought Bruce was already seen as a villain by the fanbase.  That part is true.    So lets turn up the heat on him and how he was even worse than the fans thought and by doing that Dan would be absolved by the fans.  What they missed though is Dan is hated even more than Bruce was.   And hardly any fan left gives Dan the benefit of the doubt on anything anymore because he's betrayed that trust for 23 years.   The whole its not my fault its someone elses if anything is the hallmark of Dan's regime -- not too many people left who are suckers for that move from Dan anymore. 

 

Seems like their drill is Dan is the most liberally minded owner in the NFL now as to diversity-- so forget the past.  The past was all about the underlings led by Bruce who were bad on those fronts.  Now Dan's organization led by the classy and competent Jason Wright and they are the pillar of the NFL.   I think it was telling that of all things Dan's lawyer focused foremost about the Jason Wright component of the ESPN article.  That really bothered them because it blows up the underpinning of their argument about Jason.

 

I like Jason more than most here.  I do think he's classy, likable and smart.  But in his shoes, I'd want out if Dan's whole argument more or less rides on him changing the culture in that building.   Because yeah I'd say if I had to pick a theme in Dan's defense its hey Jason Wright is here now, the superman of building a culture and he (we) are killing it so stop talking about eons ago. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
  • Thumb up 3
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff

Spaceman Spiff

Posted
Posted

Jason Wright botched the ST21 ceremony last year in two ways, first springing it as a last minute "surprise" when it was clear that no planning had been done.  And then the whole port-o-john fiasco with his family, it was just disgusting.  He took a lot of **** for it, issued a ****ing lame apology, and then vanished into hiding from about late October to early December, popping up like nothing ever happened.  

 

And then the whole Commanders rebrand, but I don't need to say much about how it's been a travashamockery all along.  

 

Classy, likable, smart?  Depends on your definition of the words.  Not in my book, though.

 

The guy has a snake tattoo on his hand.  How ****ing tone deaf and stupid do you have to be in the business world and tattoo an animal that some people might describe you as on your hand for everyone to see?  Even if you're in a meetings with millionaires and billionaires (yeah, I know, they're all terrible, evil people, they're snakes, too!) is that any kind of impression you want to make?

 

McKinsey can go piss up a rope, I'm not impressed that he worked there.  Jason Wright has a nice smile, wears nice clothes and that can get you a long way in some people's eyes as being a likable, trustworthy individual.  Don't ever confuse nice clothes, a nice car, a nice overall presentation with being classy and competent.  As far as I'm concerned he's, at the very worst, a Snyder lapdog.  At most, he's an NFL puppet. 

 

**** him.

  • Like 6
  • Confused 1
  • Thumb down 1
  • Thumb up 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DJHJR86

DJHJR86

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I like Jason more than most here.  I do think he's classy, likable and smart.  But in his shoes, I'd want out if Dan's whole argument more or less rides on him changing the culture in that building.   Because yeah I'd say if I had to pick a theme in Dan's defense its hey Jason Wright is here now, the superman of building a culture and he (we) are killing it so stop talking about eons ago. 

 

If Jason Wright was a standup guy, and if that ESPN article was accurate about him thinking a culture change is unlikely with Snyder, he should publicly resign and state that is the reason why.  I think that would go a long way in forcing Snyder to sell (or an owner vote).

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darrell Green Fan

Darrell Green Fan

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

If Jason Wright was a standup guy, and if that ESPN article was accurate about him thinking a culture change is unlikely with Snyder, he should publicly resign and state that is the reason why.  I think that would go a long way in forcing Snyder to sell (or an owner vote).

It may also be career suicide. 

 

If, and I'm still forced to use the word if, this is the end I don't want him convinced to sell. No I want him to go down in history as the first owner to be removed.  

Edited by Darrell Green Fan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Conn

Conn

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

If Jason Wright was a standup guy, and if that ESPN article was accurate about him thinking a culture change is unlikely with Snyder, he should publicly resign and state that is the reason why.  I think that would go a long way in forcing Snyder to sell (or an owner vote).


I agree. Would be huge, and he’d be guaranteed a similar job in another FO given the fact he’s an NFL-approved guy and apparently well thought of around the league. Everyone will know he faced an impossible task in a dying franchise here, and did his best (regardless of what we may think of some of his specific dramas, that stuff won’t matter to others because of the Snyder stench). In fact the idea that he’s an NFL plant (which doesn’t seem far-fetched to me at all) should suggest this is something that will eventually happen to further the owners’ ends in getting Snyder out as cleanly as possible. We’ll see. It’s possible the NFL would prefer to have ears in the building for as long as possible, instead. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Conn

Conn

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Professor_Nutter_Butter said:

So odd question here: 

 

Let's say the team starts to win and be competitive, which could maybe bring fans back to the stadium -- does this actually hurt the chances of Snyder's removal? Or do we think he's toast regardless of how the team does?


I don’t think that (far-fetched imo) hypothetical would change anything. We have what, 10-11 games left? Not enough can change in that amount of time to materially impact the fanbase or media perception. You’d need years of sustained winning for it to make a dent. This is all about to go down in a condensed timeline imo, before the offseason hopefully (it may not be over at that point, but the end result will be obvious). Especially because I still don’t think fans would fill the stadium this season regardless unless they go on an improbable run. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff

Spaceman Spiff

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Professor_Nutter_Butter said:

So odd question here: 

 

Let's say the team starts to win and be competitive, which could maybe bring fans back to the stadium -- does this actually hurt the chances of Snyder's removal? Or do we think he's toast regardless of how the team does?

 

I think he's toast regardless.  I mean, this team hasn't strung winning seasons together since he's been here.  So even if they somehow win 10 games this year, I don't think anyone believes they could do it again next year.  That hasn't happened since he's been here, IIRC.

 

This is now being played out in the court of public opinion and all of the transgressions he's had over the previous 20+ years aren't going to be wiped away by a winning season or two.  The NFL can't just decide to keep him aboard because his team just put some wins together (even if they would like to), that would send the wrong message.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rockluc

rockluc

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

Wasn't Wright fired by McKinsey? Keep in mind that 'McKinsey types' are the ones that helped us lose Vietnam by focusing too much on data that wasn't relevant to the truth on the ground.

I don’t think he was fired as best I know but McKinsey (mod edit political comment, one week ban)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Professor_Nutter_Butter

Professor_Nutter_Butter

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Conn said:


I don’t think that (far-fetched imo) hypothetical would change anything. We have what, 10-11 games left? Not enough can change in that amount of time to materially impact the fanbase or media perception. You’d need years of sustained winning for it to make a dent. This is all about to go down in a condensed timeline imo, before the offseason hopefully (it may not be over at that point, but the end result will be obvious). Especially because I still don’t think fans would fill the stadium this season regardless unless they go on an improbable run. 

Don't get me wrong, it's definitely far-fetched. Just in a difficult spot rooting for my team, but also wanting nothing positive Dan can point to that would maybe have other owners think twice about removing him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff

Spaceman Spiff

Posted
Posted (edited)

As an aside, I just don't get what consultants do.  Few things drive me crazier than when you meet someone out and about and you play the whole "Oh, what do you do?" game and someone invariably says, "Oh, I'm a consultant," which, in this town, is about as easy as finding a 400 pound toothless inbred at Lincoln Field on a Sunday in October at 1pm.

 

It's so ****ing vague and wishy washy and says absolutely nothing very loudly.

 

What do they do?  They just cook up ideas for clients, collect money and if the idea fails miserably then they're not held accountable for anything?  Seems like a hell of a racket, right up there with insurance.

Edited by Spaceman Spiff
  • Like 2
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ntotoro

ntotoro

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Professor_Nutter_Butter said:

So odd question here: 

 

Let's say the team starts to win and be competitive, which could maybe bring fans back to the stadium -- does this actually hurt the chances of Snyder's removal? Or do we think he's toast regardless of how the team does?

 

He's done, regardless. Even winning hasn't brought fans back to the stadium since 2012 and you're assuming winning can be sustained by these clowns.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hail2skins

hail2skins

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Professor_Nutter_Butter said:

So odd question here: 

 

Let's say the team starts to win and be competitive, which could maybe bring fans back to the stadium -- does this actually hurt the chances of Snyder's removal? Or do we think he's toast regardless of how the team does?

It's not an odd question. I've long said that even if the Skins won it all, I'd turn it off before they handed the Lombardi to Snyder. I think Spaceman Spiff has said the same thing. But when I said that in here a couple months ago, someone responded that was absurd and that I should feel good for the guy.

 

So yeah, people are fickle as hell. At least this thread would likely die.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DazedSkinsfan

DazedSkinsfan

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Professor_Nutter_Butter said:

So odd question here: 

 

Let's say the team starts to win and be competitive, which could maybe bring fans back to the stadium -- does this actually hurt the chances of Snyder's removal? Or do we think he's toast regardless of how the team does?

I don't think so, way too many variables to this story, plus the national media for the most part have 100% turned on Dan. The media has a lot of power and no matter the win loss record if the media wants him gone then they won't stop. Obviously I don't think we have to worry about winning too many games with this current staff lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...