bulldog Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Coles and Gardner have nothing to complain about. Neither player displayed great hands and leadership in 2004. Coles dropped a mess of balls in the first 8 games, some of which were key to continuing drives to run the clock out on late leads. Gardner just drops balls period. Every year, in every conceivable situation. Then he will make the outstanding one-handed leap near the sidelines and coast for another 2-3 quarters. Brunell and Ramsey didn't combine to put up the best numbers in the NFL, but if Coles and Gardner were truly outstanding receivers playing consistently from week to week I am sure we would have seen more big plays in the passing game. Just sometimes the best tonic for a quarterback lacking confidence is a wide open receiver in the clear for a score We didn't see much of that in 2004, even in games where Portis was rushing for 150-160 yards as in Detroit. THAT was a sign more was wrong with this offense than merely the qbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtandler Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 I apologize for poor board etiquette here in double responding, but there are some things that need to be addressed here: Basically Nunyon lowered Coles' trade value. No, Coles lowered Coles' trade value. You don't think that if the phone rang and it was the Redskins on the other end and they were shopping Coles that the other team wouldn't get pretty suspicious that Coles was disgruntled? And I won't blame Gibbs a bit - the media is SOOO much worse than it was his last go around. Battles between coaches and the press have been around forever. George Allen would have banished the whole DC press corps from a 500-yard radious of the team at all times if he could have. News stories that the team would rather not come out have been getting printed ever since sports first appeared in newspapers. I haven't heard any theory as to why numbnuts called the agent 100 times to confirm the rumor, but apparently didn't bother to contact Joe Gibbs. Any takers? Sure, here's one. Demasio did talk to Gibbs about Coles being unhappy at Redskins Park last Wednesday. At the time, he did not have solid information about a potential release, so he did not ask Gibss about it. Gibbs was in Daytona over the weekend and could not be reached for comment. Demasio did indicate that he would have gone with the story in Monday's paper even if Gibbs had issued the same denial on Sunday as he did on Monday. So, you got the same thing only in a different order. He is probably not even a fan of this team, the Post should fire him and bring in someone local who cares about the team. I doubt that he his, but "caring" about the team should not be a resume enhancer for the job. What, do you only want Republicans reporting on the president or retired executives reporting in the business section? Demasio talked to me about the the nexus of the Coles story because he wanted to get the facts from his perspective out there. You now have them and you can decide what you think based on more complete information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 let's be honest here. we can find TIGHT ENDS that can average better than 10.6 yards per reception for us. Coles is by no means a 'must have' player for this team in 2005. all the subsidiary noise about how the news was released and who is to blame for it is irrelevant. Coles clearly has a problem with the Redskins and in turn the Redskins have issues with Coles. Better for all involved for Coles to have a change in scenery. I know I don't want to see him back in 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by rtandler I apologize for poor board etiquette here in double responding, but there are some things that need to be addressed here: No, Coles lowered Coles' trade value. You don't think that if the phone rang and it was the Redskins on the other end and they were shopping Coles that the other team wouldn't get pretty suspicious that Coles was disgruntled? Battles between coaches and the press have been around forever. George Allen would have banished the whole DC press corps from a 500-yard radious of the team at all times if he could have. News stories that the team would rather not come out have been getting printed ever since sports first appeared in newspapers. Sure, here's one. Demasio did talk to Gibbs about Coles being unhappy at Redskins Park last Wednesday. At the time, he did not have solid information about a potential release, so he did not ask Gibss about it. Gibbs was in Daytona over the weekend and could not be reached for comment. Demasio did indicate that he would have gone with the story in Monday's paper even if Gibbs had issued the same denial on Sunday as he did on Monday. So, you got the same thing only in a different order. I doubt that he his, but "caring" about the team should not be a resume enhancer for the job. What, do you only want Republicans reporting on the president or retired executives reporting in the business section? Demasio talked to me about the the nexus of the Coles story because he wanted to get the facts from his perspective out there. You now have them and you can decide what you think based on more complete information. No need to apoligize Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 I've been the harshist of critics of what he wrote rt and though I appreciate the interview you did and that you posted it, I still am. I've read many times a story where a reporter has in fact stated : " Repeated attempts to contact so and so for the story failed" or something like that. My problem is still this. Joe didn't just call the story, or at least the release part "inaccurate", he called it "untrue." That's heavy duty in the world of journalism from what I understand. That tells me that Nunyo may have wanted to sit on this a bit longer until he could in fact call coach Gibbs when he was available. I also have a problem with his use of a quote of Joe's in roughly 3 different ways depending on what the angle of the story is. Maybe just me but I expect better. And I still stand by the fact that if it was in fact that cut and dry, and Nunyo feels as strongly as he does about the story, he wouldn't have to defend it as much. Rare is the time I've seen a reporter go to these lengths to defend a story. Again, just mho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by Westbrook36 So if the Skins do wind up releasing Coles, will you all apologize for your comments towards him? Gibbs is saying what he is to cover his butt and explore all his options. You all act like it's a slam dunk he will be traded now. I don't generally engage in bashing of opposing fans Westbrook -but honestly, what the hell is any of this to you? I find your comments in this thread really irritating. Am I the only one? What happens to Coles would effect you or your team how? I'm not getting your interest here..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Just saw that quote Tarhog and I'm with you. Westbrook. You calling Joe Gibbs a liar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtandler Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 PCS, the contacting the Skins thing was a loose end in my account that I intended to ask him about but didn't get to. I've sent him a request for a follow up and when I get that back I'll post it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Thanks as always RT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by Park City Skins Just saw that quote Tarhog and I'm with you. Westbrook. You calling Joe Gibbs a liar? No, not at all. Apologize if I came off heavy handed. My opinion was basically what Henry said right after me. It's coach speak....not really giving up what your true intentions are while keeping all your options open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by Park City Skins Just saw that quote Tarhog and I'm with you. Westbrook. You calling Joe Gibbs a liar? PCS I don't think that is what he meant and even Gibbs saying what he did yesterday even if what Nunyo wrote he isn't liar. He had to deny it because of the position they are in. If you want to get technical with his words, then what did you think of it when he said Johnson was going to be a skin, and then traded him the next day, is he lying then?? He has to say that, but he isn't lying he is defending his team. Nunyo had to defend himself because the Skins must have put some heat on the Post, however even Mort said the same thing that Coles had only agreed to giving money back if released not traded. It might not have been until yesterday or today where he might have agreed to the same thing but in a trade, we don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Thanks booma, but westbrook already cleared that up. Thanks for playing though, ( that means butt the hell out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by rtandler I apologize for poor board etiquette here in double responding, but there are some things that need to be addressed here: No, Coles lowered Coles' trade value. You don't think that if the phone rang and it was the Redskins on the other end and they were shopping Coles that the other team wouldn't get pretty suspicious that Coles was disgruntled? Battles between coaches and the press have been around forever. George Allen would have banished the whole DC press corps from a 500-yard radious of the team at all times if he could have. News stories that the team would rather not come out have been getting printed ever since sports first appeared in newspapers. Sure, here's one. Demasio did talk to Gibbs about Coles being unhappy at Redskins Park last Wednesday. At the time, he did not have solid information about a potential release, so he did not ask Gibss about it. Gibbs was in Daytona over the weekend and could not be reached for comment. Demasio did indicate that he would have gone with the story in Monday's paper even if Gibbs had issued the same denial on Sunday as he did on Monday. So, you got the same thing only in a different order. I doubt that he his, but "caring" about the team should not be a resume enhancer for the job. What, do you only want Republicans reporting on the president or retired executives reporting in the business section? Demasio talked to me about the the nexus of the Coles story because he wanted to get the facts from his perspective out there. You now have them and you can decide what you think based on more complete information. I agree with you on all of this plus there's no bashig or hidden agenda like with some national sports :puke: writers. A journalists job is to unearth stories, to sell papers. After being scooped by the WT all last season, he'd be unemployed if he sat on this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by rtandler Battles between coaches and the press have been around forever. George Allen would have banished the whole DC press corps from a 500-yard radious of the team at all times if he could have. News stories that the team would rather not come out have been getting printed ever since sports first appeared in newspapers. I agree with you here. And calling 'Bull****' at stories one thinks are borderline accurate, biased, or unfair is also a tradition - equally time-honored. No one should begrudge the Redskins or Coach Gibbs the right. Sure, here's one. Demasio did talk to Gibbs about Coles being unhappy at Redskins Park last Wednesday. At the time, he did not have solid information about a potential release, so he did not ask Gibss about it. Gibbs was in Daytona over the weekend and could not be reached for comment. Demasio did indicate that he would have gone with the story in Monday's paper even if Gibbs had issued the same denial on Sunday as he did on Monday. Thats a pretty lame duck he's trying to get to fly. Gibbs could not be reached for comment? Was a comet hurtling towards Earth and its imminent destruction over the weekend that I missed that made it impossible for him to give the Redskins a chance to respond/confirm? That rings pretty hollow to my ears. I doubt that he his, but "caring" about the team should not be a resume enhancer for the job. What, do you only want Republicans reporting on the president or retired executives reporting in the business section? True, but by going out on a limb with what is, at best, an unsubtantiated unconfirmed (at least by authoritative sources) story, didn't he risk 'becoming the news' instead of just reporting it? If this 'scoop' impacts our franchise, roster, and financial picture, its not just objective journalism, is it? As a journalist, of course he's free to put out any story his employer's feel justified and appropriate. But just as Nunyo might decide not to return your phone calls were you to say something publicly that put him in a tight spot, he shouldn't protest if the Redskins refuse to speak to him or his paper in the near future. I don't have anything against the guy. I just think the story was less than rock-solid and shouldn't have been green-lighted. Just because you 'can' doesn't always mean you 'should'. I have a feeling the short-term payoff isn't going to be justified by the long-term cost in terms of access and trust he's likely cashed in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by Park City Skins . You calling Joe Gibbs a liar? Liar no way but he can word statements better than a high priced NY lawyer :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by Park City Skins Thanks booma, but westbrook already cleared that up. Thanks for playing though, ( that means butt the hell out). my bad, just don't want to see a fight in here, we all need a hug it has been a looooooooooooooooooooooooooong couple of days and FA hasn't even started yet plus Maryland just CHOKED to Clemson :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by bubba9497 Liar no way but he can word statements better than a high priced NY lawyer :laugh: No kidding, that one hour radio special they had on WJFK was nothing but that. I think in one hour he answered maybe 3 questions if that, I loved how he changed the subject midway through a tough question. I have to say though I do miss Spurrier using the same answer all the time, "thats something we might look at" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtandler Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 And calling 'Bull****' at stories one thinks are borderline accurate, biased, or unfair is also a tradition - equally time-honored. No one should begrudge the Redskins or Coach Gibbs the right. No doubt, Tarhog. In my story I did recount that Demasio and Gibbs had talked about Gibbs remarks and that they basically told each other that they repsected the other guy for just doig his job. Even Nunyo doesn't begrudge Gibbs the right to say what he has to say. Thats a pretty lame duck he's trying to get to fly. Let me clarify again that this was just my impression and I'm getting in touch with Nunyo again to try to clarify it. When I know about this key point, you'll know. True, but by going out on a limb with what is, at best, an unsubtantiated unconfirmed (at least by authoritative sources) story, didn't he risk 'becoming the news' instead of just reporting it? I'm not exactly sure which part of this story is unsubstantiated. ESPN's Mort has also reported that there was a prospective deal to have Coles return a part of his signing bonus in return for his release. Does the possibility--possibiity, mind you since this story has not yet played out--that this might not happen render the whole story an out on the limb, irresponsible piece of journalism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Oh and Booma. You are either mispresenting what happened with Johnson or don't remember correctly. Either way, signficant differences in the 2 that makes it, for the most part , an irrelevant comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Like I said Rich, I honestly don't have a hard-on for Demasio - it didn't even make me blink yesterday when I read his initial story. But in my mind, the only way a story like this gets substantiated is by having those truly in the know confirm it before it sees ink. I understand that journalists often have to get their information via less direct sources. Whether what Demasio predicted ultimately comes to fruition or not, I don't believe he knew what he wrote to be absolute fact when it was published. I think he knew something was up and obviously there was something to it - I'm much less certain he got the story accurate. I'm torn - I'm not of the opinion that Gibbs, Snyder, anyone in the franchise is above questioning, and they shouldn't get any special favors. But I do think giving them a real chance to respond was the class thing to do here. To quote another WP article talking to unnamed NFL sources 'According to several GMs, the possibility that Coles could be released could also affect his trade value'. Demasio's story is going to impact what happens here, one way or another, and I don't think that was necessary just to get an exclusive. Then again, thats why I'd never make it as a journalist I do appreciate the insight and access you bring here though - don't misunderstand that! I bought your books :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by Park City Skins Oh and Booma. You are either mispresenting what happened with Johnson or don't remember correctly. Either way, signficant differences in the 2 that makes it, for the most part , an irrelevant comparison. i can live with that, i thought he said something like we are keeping him and then they traded him, don't remember completely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 But in my mind, the only way a story like this gets substantiated is by having those truly in the know confirm it before it sees ink where would the WP be if it waited on Nixon to substantiate his involement in Watergate :laugh: you know what I mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Tarhog Check your e-mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by bubba9497 where would the WP be if it waited on Nixon to substantiate his involement in Watergate :laugh: you know what I mean Give me a break - I didn't realize Demasio was trying to safeguard the integrity of our precious democratic system bubba - I figured he might just be trying to make a splash. Sorry man, while I can live with the loss of Coles if it comes to it, theres a serious possibility we're going to get short-shrifted on this deal, and it may prove to be in large part due to the 'outing' of this story. That should concern Redskin's fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by Tarhog Give me a break - I didn't realize Demasio was trying to safeguard the integrity of our precious democratic system bubba - I figured he might just be trying to make a splash. Sorry man, while I can live with the loss of Coles if it comes to it, theres a serious possibility we're going to get short-shrifted on this deal, and it may prove to be in large part due to the 'outing' of this story. That should concern Redskin's fans. Maybe, but what concerns me more is our FO still looks like the laughing stock in the league. How do you let that be slipped to the press?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.