Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, boston skins fan said:

 

And that suspension allowed the Yankees to grow the core 4 of Petite Jeter posada and Rivera without trading them for the star

 

Yep, I've mentioned the same thing many times.  It let Gene Michael develop the farm system that set up their greatest success under his ownership ironically.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would believe this if a credible reporter broke this story.  Someone who's an analyst or a beat reporter.

 

4 washed up 25 year old wannabes on a morning drive show?  Fat chance.

 

C'mon.  You guys are smarter than this.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

While the suspension seems like the easy way out, I don't think it is an easy decision at all. The NFL has to also think long-term here. Sure, forcing an NFL owner to sell would be a dangerous precedent going forward but moving on with Snyder might potentially have more severe consequences.

First of all, a new owner could get that DC market going again. Talk about a new stadium, an energized fan-base, etc. pp. And we are talking about a huge media market here. Second, the NFL has been struggeling with younger viewers and we know they are more idealistic than older viewers. It's similar in the NBA. There will be a lot of change going forward culturally for the NFL. The NFL is also trying very hard to get to new markets, especially Europe. The NFL needs to start to act more socially conscious and they know it. It's why the NFL probably was also very much on board of a name-change.

 

After all, they all care about one thing mostly. And that's money. Let's be honest here, Snyder has cost the NFL a lot of money recently by underperforming in a great market and alienating an entire fanbase. This might actually be the easy way out for the NFL.

 

I wouldn't put it past them to force Snyder to sell or to make him step down "voluntarily". It obviously all depends on the seriousness of the allegtions though.

Edited by Panninho
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yep, I've mentioned the same thing many times.  It let Gene Michael develop the farm system that set up their greatest success under his ownership ironically.  

 

Yup and as a fan of both the Yankees and WFT for 30+ years im hoping for a minumum 2 yrs suspension.  

 

The Steinbrenner suspension showed him another way of building the team without his meddling and shifted his thought process.  A Snyder suspensions may show him that if he lets people do theyre jobs and have success then he can step back and not touch it and ruin it with his anti midas touch

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

C'mon.  You guys are smarter than this.

 

Let's be honest, we're really not. When we want something this badly, we'll believe just about anything.

  • Haha 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, boston skins fan said:

 

Yup and as a fan of both the Yankees and WFT for 30+ years im hoping for a minumum 2 yrs suspension.  

 

The Steinbrenner suspension showed him another way of building the team without his meddling and shifted his thought process.  A Snyder suspensions may show him that if he lets people do theyre jobs and have success then he can step back and not touch it and ruin it with his anti midas touch

But this is bigger than Snyder learning how to own a team. This is how to own any business and how to treat employees. He should be forced to sell and take his billions, not given a slap on the wrist. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

Let's be honest, we're really not. When we want something this badly, we'll believe just about anything.

 

Seriously.  We went from "the Junkies said a thing" to "the worlds' richest man is definitely going to be the new owner" in 1 page.  

  • Haha 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Junkies saying they are looking at the document, they have it. 

And they go if the NFL doesn't have the report they are about to get it but they believe they likely already have it. 

They said they know its true as for the recommendations. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't take much credibility from the Junkies and sometimes the scale they put on things reads wrong or upsets viewers, but I remember the McNabb thing with the wristband and how everybody clowned them for being anti-McNabb and then 1. he didn't work out here and 2. years later we find out its true. 

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

Junkies saying they are looking at the document, they have it. 

And they go if the NFL doesn't have the report they are about to get it but they believe they likely already have it. 

They said they know its true as for the recommendations. 

 

Lurch, very confidently: "I. KNOW. PEOPLE." So...who knows. Let's see what happens. I can see why the NFL would deny it.

Like so many here...

I Want To Believe GIFs | Tenor

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

I don't take much credibility from the Junkies and sometimes the scale they put on things reads wrong or upsets viewers, but I remember the McNabb thing with the wristband and how everybody clowned them for being anti-McNabb and then 1. he didn't work out here and 2. years later we find out its true. 

 

Remind me of the wristband incident i killed alot of brain cells in my lifetime and its not ringing a bell

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If I wanted to play the conspiracy guy here.  Perhaps the NFL do not want to release (as some suspect) the report because of the actual recommendation.  Owners as we know like to protect their own.  And, the Junkies just ruined that quest in a sense.

 

The recommendation isn't the NFL's recommendation, its from the lawyer they hired to recommend to them what to do.  So if they can keep that part quiet its better for them.  Having the recommendation out there puts their feet to the fire in a way they perhaps didn't want. 


This is exactly it, and why they don’t want the full report to leak—once it does and spreads like wildfire, they no longer control the narrative. Every headline would be “woman who investigates sexual harassment in front office recommends forcing the owner to sell”, and that’s not where the NFL wants the conversation to START—that makes them look complicit if they don’t do it. 
 

Why do you think they were leaking essentially “don’t get too excited” type stuff? To control the narrative and make the conversation start somewhere other than forcing Snyder to sell. They control public perception of what’s possible if they control the flow of information. That may be out of their hands.

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, boston skins fan said:

 

Remind me of the wristband incident i killed alot of brain cells in my lifetime and its not ringing a bell

During the Mcnabb season, there was talk about Shanny not liking McNabb and speculation of the reasons behind this and underlying all of this was McNabb's bad play. Then one day on Junks show, they say that they heard (Lurch / tall dude from Damatha) that McNabb didn't want to wear a wristband and didn't know the offense. People were calling in, calling them names, saying they were calling McNabb stupid / dumb / insulting his intelligence. Then we find out behind the scenes stuff years later and at least parts of this are true. Not to mention the McNabb in Minnesota was just bad. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

I don't take much credibility from the Junkies and sometimes the scale they put on things reads wrong or upsets viewers, but I remember the McNabb thing with the wristband and how everybody clowned them for being anti-McNabb and then 1. he didn't work out here and 2. years later we find out its true. 

 

Junkies broke the seriousness of the Alex Smith injury back when no one had a clue.  They also broke another one, not that long ago, i am forgetting what that was.

 

I've heard reporters-beat guys hedge on stories before.  No hedging going on with the Junkies.  The only thing that are giving is maybe the NFL hasn't seen it yet or seen the final one and are trying to be technical about it.

 

What I suspect is either something similar to Landa's point below (he's just a fan on twitter) or the NFL hasn't decided what they are going to do yet and wants to buy some time. 

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Also, who would leak something like this to the ****ing Junkies?  Every single competent person knows that this should go to the Post. 

Well, I can see a philosophy behind this. There is the WP / credited reporter route, but there is also the "lets get this out to somebody who's going to expose it so that the NFL can't deny it". And if its true that they are looking at it right now then what the Junks have will be seen by WP and others, but also have an avenue from talk radio and not being buried by some editor in cheif or someone in Snyder or the NFL's pocket. 

 

Plus the Junks are 20+ years on radio, at this point they've got nothing to lose. What will happen? They get fired for reporting this? This is safer than Travis Thomas or somebody else. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

During the Mcnabb season, there was talk about Shanny not liking McNabb and speculation of the reasons behind this and underlying all of this was McNabb's bad play. Then one day on Junks show, they say that they heard (Lurch / tall dude from Damatha) that McNabb didn't want to wear a wristband and didn't know the offense. People were calling in, calling them names, saying they were calling McNabb stupid / dumb / insulting his intelligence. Then we find out behind the scenes stuff years later and at least parts of this are true. Not to mention the McNabb in Minnesota was just bad. 

 

Thank you and the junkies just brought it up defending them selves.  they must read this board because theyre playing defense on theyre reputation as i type this

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, boston skins fan said:

 

Thank you and the junkies just brought it up defending them selves.  they must read this board because theyre playing defense on theyre reputation as i type this

Yeah I'm not a fan of theirs for a different reason, but they're not going to go forward with something like this just on a whim. This isn't the 90s and their strippers on set. They don't want to be known for breaking stories. But if they do, they generally cover their bases. One guy (Cakes or JP) is a lawyer and so I'm sure he's not going to do anything too risky. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2021 at 7:43 AM, Thinking Skins said:

Yeah I'm not a fan of theirs for a different reason, but they're not going to go forward with something like this just on a whim. This isn't the 90s and their strippers on set. They don't want to be known for breaking stories. But if they do, they generally cover their bases. One guy (Cakes or JP) is a lawyer and so I'm sure he's not going to do anything too risky. 

 

They basically just said they dont go looking for stories and to break news its not what they do but sometimes info falls into theyre lap.  and basically can give 2 ***** what people think of them

Edited by thesubmittedone
Rule 6, don’t circumvent profanity filters
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Plus the Junks are 20+ years on radio, at this point they've got nothing to lose.

 

It could also be Lurch's friend throwing him a big ol' bone.

 

Point is, I don't think they're making it up. It's fair to question the legitimacy of the final report they have (might not be the final version, for example), but they are reporting what they have. It's also possible the NFL hasn't "seen" the report--ie. it's on Goodell's and he is closing his eye going "nope, haven't seen it yet, not looking at it."

 

More to be revealed.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

It could also be Lurch's friend throwing him a big ol' bone.

 

Point is, I don't think they're making it up. It's fair to question the legitimacy of the final report they have (might not be the final version, for example), but they are reporting what they have. It's also possible the NFL hasn't "seen" the report--ie. it's on Goodell's and he is closing his eye going "nope, haven't seen it yet, not looking at it."

 

More to be revealed.

 

I think they were smart to focus not on the report, but just the recommendations (maybe they did though I haven't been listening). Honestly whats included in the report can change but if Lurch has a 130 page document with names on it right now then its verifiable. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Well, I can see a philosophy behind this. There is the WP / credited reporter route, but there is also the "lets get this out to somebody who's going to expose it so that the NFL can't deny it". And if its true that they are looking at it right now then what the Junks have will be seen by WP and others, but also have an avenue from talk radio and not being buried by some editor in cheif or someone in Snyder or the NFL's pocket. 

 

Plus the Junks are 20+ years on radio, at this point they've got nothing to lose. What will happen? They get fired for reporting this? This is safer than Travis Thomas or somebody else. 


I dunno. It’s too easy to dismiss anything the Junkies say because the are literally professional idiots. If the Post publishes it you have to take it seriously. /Points to Pulitzer prizes. 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...