The Nunyo Files -- Factual errors and other mistakes from Nunyo.

[Art]

This thread will continue to update errors in Nunyo's reporting that make it to the public until such time as the errors are not a defining characteristic of his work. Meaning, this will no longer be on the front when he's not writing multiple factual errors in every second or third article.

-- Published on May 17:

According to sources with knowledge of Santana Moss's contract extension -- worth about $31 million over six years -- the wide receiver received a signing bonus of $3 million, meaning that the Redskins theoretically could release him before next season without much of a cap hit. However, Moss has bonuses due by March 2006 worth roughly $8 million -- a $7 million option bonus plus a $910,000 roster bonus -- which will almost certainly be triggered. Those figures can become guaranteed this season if Moss were to suffer a career-threatening injury or reach a minimal level of performance involving playing time, touchdowns and receptions . . . .

Previously, Nunyo reported the following:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=101421&highlight=Santana+Moss+Nunyo

The six-year deal is worth a total of $31 million, sources said, with the first two seasons worth guarantees of $11 million including the signing bonus.

Here he said:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=101545&highlight=Santana+Moss+Nunyo

The first two years are structured to give Moss the equivalent of guarantees worth $11 million.

The actual reporting of the specific contract numbers is a self-correcting thing Nunyo has done, without ever admitting he was wrong in the first place. FOR SHAME .

-- Published in the same article:

Same paragraph as above:

According to sources with knowledge of Santana Moss's contract extension -- worth about $31 million over six years --

Nunyo is somewhat right, but also wrong as to his math here. The bonuses reported, plus the base salaries just of the extension, are $30.53 million for the six years beginning in 2006 and running through 2011.

The problem is, the contract contains the $3 million bonus that is due NOW. The year 2005 COUNTS in this whole thing. The total value of the deal is $31.07 million over SEVEN years, not six, as Nunyo repeatedly pretends this year doesn't count despite the player earning money on the deal this year.

More, as we know, the final year is said to be easily voidable. That would make the deal a six year deal, running NOW through 2010 with a total value of 26.57. Nunyo for some strange reason has decided to report the NEXT six years of the contract instead of the FIRST six years of the contract. Who can say why, other than if he reports the actual contract terms, it makes his reporting on the contract early on another factual error .

-- Published in the same article:

The Redskins are about $1.5 million under the cap, so the club must create enough room to reach the rookie-pool figure.

Though this may not be seen as a positive for the team, it is a negative for Nunyo. He's been largely off on the cap number of the team for weeks now. I have worked to confirm the actual number and was able to acquire it through guys who have access to this number within the NFL. Nunyo actually overstates the actual number as of today by nearly 50 percent.

This error will count in the category of who you trust more. Many of you will think Nunyo's right and I'm wrong, and that's fine. I'm putting it here for tracking and consideration going forward .

-- Published on May 11:

He started 14 games and collected 110 tackles (56 solo) for the Browns last season.

Nunyo has used tackle numbers that seem to exist in the land of sugar plums. ESPN has Holdman's stats as follows, taken directly from NFL Gamebooks:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?statsId=4756

The NFL has his stats as follows:

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/133309

While tackles are not an official stat, a reporter must not simply use wildly different stats than actually exist to the fan -- that of TEAM statistics.

-- Published on May 11 in the same article:

The linebacker missed the 2002 season with a knee injury and missed three games in 2003 with various ailments. His best season was 2001, when he amassed a career-high 145 tackles (101 solo) and forced three fumbles.

Holdman didn't miss the 2002 season. He played and started in four games in 2002, according to ESPN and the NFL. Missing 12 games of the season differs from missing the season. And Nunyo once again goes with "team" reports of stats rather than confirmed and accurate measures at ESPN -- which use game books provided by the NFL -- or NFL.com which has some weird formula .

-- For publication on May 5:

Moss's contract is richer than deals signed this offseason by other wide receivers such as Oakland's Jerry Porter (five years, $21 million, including $7 million guaranteed) and Plaxico Burress, who signed for six years and $25 million with the New York Giants, with $8.25 million guaranteed. But Moss's contract stops just short of the one signed by Pro Bowler Muhsin Muhammad, who signed a six-year, $30-million deal with the Chicago Bears, including $12 million in guarantees.

Burress received a shade over $11.3 million in guarantees. The $8.25 million number was simply the signing and other bonus dollars. Nunyo explained he actually had this correct in a private conversation but that the editor wanted to go with the "guarantees" theme and altered the description. Still, this is a pretty big factual error, but you can't fight every battle I guess .

Also in this article Nunyo finally corrected the salary for Santana Moss for this season after about 10 references to the wrong salary as outlined earlier in this list. He acknowledged we pointed him in the right direction with the actual salary and got it fixed up.

-- For publication on April 27:

According to sources, salary-cap manager Eric Schaffer has re-signed with the Redskins. Schaffer was first hired by owner Daniel Snyder in 2003 for two seasons. Schaffer is the club's chief negotiator, although Snyder plays a critical role.

Redskins spokesman Karl Swanson, in a chat with Extremeskins.com, pointed out that this item was flatly wrong, that the reporter was informed he was wrong before running with it and after. We have little choice but to believe the team here through direct attribution.

Please see our chat for specifics:

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?&threadid=101922

-- For publication on Tuesday, April 26:

Quarterback Patrick Ramsey was near his home town of Ruston, La., on the 15th hole of the Squire Creek Country Club on Sunday when the Washington Redskins selected quarterback Jason Campbell with the 25th overall choice in the NFL draft. Ramsey said yesterday at Redskins Park that he wasn't surprised because Coach Joe Gibbs had given him a heads-up that the club would consider drafting another quarterback early.

After some time off the beat, Nunyo returns fresh and doing the same stuff . Campbell was drafted on Saturday, not Sunday. Was Ramsey on the golf course on Saturday or Sunday? We'll know when this is corrected .

-- Published initially on Monday, March 28, Nunyo wrote:

Last year, the Redskins were tied for fourth in the NFC with 40 sacks, yet most came on blitzes by linebackers and defensive ends.

Defensive ends do not blitz. They rush the passer. Almost all the time unless in coverage during a zone blitz play call. Nunyo meant defensive backs, not defensive ends and this was corrected in a later revision.

-- Published in the same story above, Nunyo wrote:

Terms of the contract were undisclosed, but sources described it as a multiyear deal with incentives heavily tied to Brown's ability to stay healthy.

Good journalism when you don't know the answer stops after six words. "Terms of the contract were undisclosed." Put a period there and end the speculation until you find out. Nunyo can't stop there, and describes the deal as a multiyear deal. In fact, this is later corrected to reflect the actualities of the deal which were, as reported elsewhere, that it was a one-year deal with options to reach five years. This is an error with the source, but, it shouldn't have been run until more data was gathered.

-- Published in the same story as above, final edition, Nunyo wrote:

According to a source, Washington's offer was a one-year deal with virtually no incentives tied to health.

Just about EVERY incentive is ultimately tied to health because if you are not healthy, you will not achieve the incentives. But, here, specifically, we have confirmed (reliable sources you know) that the deal offered Brown did include incentives tied to Brown's health in requiring Brown to play a specific percentage of defensive snaps. Something he couldn't do on IR and something he couldn't completely suck to accomplish. Not sure why Nunyo wrote this as he did, but, he did, and it just seems strange. In any case, for an injured player throughout his career, playing time incentives are tied to health.

-- For publication on Wednesday, March 23, Nunyo wrote:

The third-year veteran is in the final season of his rookie contract, thus teams have been reluctant to part with Washington's asking price of a third-round pick for a player not guaranteed to stay beyond the 2005 season.

Rod Gardner has played four full years. He's not a third-year veteran. Please see:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?statsId=5462

-- Same article as above, Nunyo wrote:

Gardner was the 15th overall pick in the 2001 draft. Last year, he finished with a career-low 51 receptions for 650 yards.

Gardner had 46 receptions as a rookie, which was his career-low. Same link as above reveals that.

-- Same article as above, Nunyo wrote:

Moss is scheduled to make about $450,00 this season.

There's a typo in the figure reported. But, the typo is in the wrong figure. Moss is scheduled to earn $540,000 this season.

http://nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=30078

Factual errors below aren't linked as above because when I created this list, I thought it was a joke and didn't take it seriously. Now I am. I will likely go back and assure I have everything accounted for officially later, but, each fact below exists.

-- That the Redskins took a $9 million cap hit for trading Coles. We took a cap hit LARGER than $9 million.

-- That the Redskins signed Casey Rabach to a five-year contract. The Redskins signed him to a six-year deal with the last year being voidable.

-- That Mark Brunell could make up the difference he restructured in incentives that don't count against the cap. If Brunell makes up the difference through incentives, the money does count against the cap. Next year.

-- That the Redskins were tied for second in the NFC in sacks. The Redskins were tied for fourth.

-- That the Redskins had 14 (or 14.5 can't remember) sacks accounted for by defensive linemen. The Redskins had 18 sacks accounted for by defensive linemen with more from players lined up at defensive end -- Clemons as an example.

-- That the Redskins were considering releasing Coles. The team LOUDLY rejected that was ever a consideration and, actually traded Coles.

-- That Brown was scheduled to visit, then postponed his visit, to Redskins Park on Wednesday of last week. The schedule was Thursday all along.

-- That Dave Campo was the Jaguars defensive coordinator. Campo is the assistant head coach/secondary.

-- That Gregg Williams had contractual control/input into defensive personnel. He doesn't, and this is, thusfar, the only error the Post has actually issued a public correction for.

These are ALL errors of FACT JUST in MARCH of 2005 and continuing on.

[Henry]

Gardner had 46 receptions as a rookie, which was his career-low. Same link as above reveals that.

And just to be clear, Gardner's career low in yardage wasn't this year's 650 either. It was 600 in 2003.

[FLSKINSFAN]

Great thread, I love the idea.

[BD]

Thanks for doing this, Art. I'll do my best to spot them as well - though of course, most of them are pretty obvious.

The simple fact that this is a reporter from the hometown paper making such frequent mistakes makes it all the worse - you can't blame it on distance or simple error, as when national folks make mistakes.

LaCanfora is missed.

BD

[luckydevil]

good stuff

[Thinking Skins]

With all the talk of the Coles mistake, I'm confused now.

From what I recall we're taking a $9 mil hit on it from the trade, but what I get from some other posts here was that this is actually only $6 mil more than it was going to be.

Now, Art, you're saying that we're taking MORE than a $9 mil hit?

Please Explain?

[Art]

Originally posted by blakman211

With all the talk of the Coles mistake, I'm confused now.

From what I recall we're taking a $9 mil hit on it from the trade, but what I get from some other posts here was that this is actually only $6 mil more than it was going to be.

Now, Art, you're saying that we're taking MORE than a $9 mil hit?

Please Explain?

Coles received a $13 million bonus. This was prorated over 7 years. That works out to be approximately $1.857 million a year against the cap. He played two years. That works out to be approximately $3.714 million of the $13. Trading Coles accelerated the remaining bonus into this year. So, take $13 million and subtract $3.714 million.

You get $9.286 as the approximate total cap hit we took for releasing Coles. Had Nunyo simply said the cap hit exceeded $9 million, or was ABOUT $9 million, as is common journalistic practice in such instances, this wouldn't be a factual error. But, since he reported a fixed number, absent qualifiers, it's a factual error.

Now, the ACTUAL cap hit was only around $6 million. Why? Because we'd already slated approximately $3.5 million for Coles against this year's cap. That already was factored in. So, in the end, the hit was only an additional hit approaching $6 million.

[Sanders 83]

Great thread Art, here's to hoping Nunyo is fired!!

[goldenster95]

A couple of more . . .

He thought Coles cap hit was all "new" money hitting our cap. He didn't realize that only part of that was "new" dollars.

Also, he stated that incentives (like the one Brunell agreed to) don't impact your cap. WRONG. Likely to be earned incentives actually do ding your cap.

[Art]

Originally posted by Sanders 83

Great thread Art, here's to hoping Nunyo is fired!!

Frankly, this isn't intended to swell support for terminating Nunyo. It's designed to make sure he knows the errors of his reporting and, with hope, that he takes the opportunity to correct these flaws on his own. If, however, he ignores any basic effort as a journalist to avoid such simple errors of fact -- created by a lack of knowledge and laziness in tracking down simple info -- then something more might have to be considered.

[TK]

Art

So far that's 13 factual errors in 23 days.

Nunyo needs to be aware that's 56%

No. Scratch that. His editer needs to be made aware of these facts.

[Art]

Originally posted by TK-IV II I

Art

So far that's 13 factual errors in 23 days.

Nunyo needs to be aware that's 56%

No. Scratch that. His editer needs to be made aware of these facts.

I have sent this information to Mr. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, who is the chief editor. With hope, someone starts to actually pay attention to these articles. Frankly, Nunyo would be better served having me read them over for him before he goes to his copy desk. I clearly know more than he does, so I can help him avoid simple mistakes that plague him, leaving the desk to assure his sources are sound, which, also, seems a big job .

[Art]

Originally posted by TK-IV II I

Art

So far that's 13 factual errors in 23 days.

Nunyo needs to be aware that's 56%

No. Scratch that. His editor needs to be made aware of these facts.

It's actually more, because he's reported things like the Moss contract repeatedly -- three times that I can tell. Which would bump the total to 16. And that's ONLY if I have caught every last one of them.

[TK]

Originally posted by Art

It's actually more, because he's reported things like the Moss contract repeatedly -- three times that I can tell. Which would bump the total to 16. And that's ONLY if I have caught every last one of them.

I was going only by what I had counted in your fisrt two posts.

16 in 23 days gives him a much worse percentage rate of 69.5%

You dig up a few more & he'll be in the red so fast heads will spin.

[Sanders 83]

Originally posted by Art

Frankly, this isn't intended to swell support for terminating Nunyo. It's designed to make sure he knows the errors of his reporting and, with hope, that he takes the opportunity to correct these flaws on his own. If, however, he ignores any basic effort as a journalist to avoid such simple errors of fact -- created by a lack of knowledge and laziness in tracking down simple info -- then something more might have to be considered.

Maybe that wasn't your intention, but if I had that many complaints about me at work in one month, I would either be suspended or fired. How many times can he mistakes like this? At some point, someone from the Washington Post needs to take some kind of responsiblity for this happening. As important as the Washington Redskins are in this town, we can not have the most read newspaper, making mistakes like this all the time.

[Art]

Originally posted by TK-IV II I

I was going only by what I had counted in your fisrt two posts.

16 in 23 days gives him a much worse percentage rate of 69.5%

You dig up a few more & he'll be in the red so fast heads will spin.

Gotcha. I will start actually adding some of the repetitive errors. I think it's up to 4 now, JUST in March, for the Moss contract value being incorrect.

[Art]

Originally posted by Sanders 83

Maybe that wasn't your intention, but if I had that many complaints about me at work in one month, I would either be suspended or fired. How many times can he mistakes like this? At some point, someone from the Washington Post needs to take some kind of responsiblity for this happening. As important as the Washington Redskins are in this town, we can not have the most read newspaper, making mistakes like this all the time.

Agreed here.

At some point someone has to take responsibility. That should be Nunyo himself and with hope, he'll do so, and this thread can get buried. If he won't, then, someone else should, and that would be his editors.

[Westbrook36]

Man, if someone compiled a list like this on me, I'd be in some serious trouble.

[Art]

Originally posted by Westbrook36

Man, if someone compiled a list like this on me, I'd be in some serious trouble.

At least two of the three errors were corrected at some time after my comments here and sent to Nunyo and WP editors. So, someone is paying attention. Though, they went live with the error on the Moss contract. Only the fifth time that's happened, but, if you keep saying it, maybe people will think it's true .

[mlindsey13]

Art, did you catch Nunyo's chat room discussion from the Post last week? Well, in the chat discussion, he made some glaring mistakes:

1. He wrote that Lavar and Courtney Brown went to Notre Dame.

2. He wrote that Antrell Rolle and Samari Rolle were brothers, and since we missed out on Samari, Greg Williams might very well go after Samari's brother, Antrell.

Although it was only a chat session, and he acknowledged the need to have a copy editor review his chat before replying to inquiries, you still expect some level of competence irrespective of the venue of communication.

I agree, he should not be fired. You hate to see a guy lose his job in these uncertain financial times. He really, though, should realize that he has a very intelligent and savvy audience, particularly as it relates to the beloved Redskins. We're going to be on top of him or anyone else like white on rice regarding accuracy in reporting on our 'Skins.

Where's Maske anyway?

[Art]

I did see that mlindsey, and, didn't include it because I think you give wider latitude in chats. I think speaking off the cuff most of us might just have a brain fart or two. The problem revealed in the chat, that you see in the article today, as an example is, whether off the cuff, or written with research materials, Nunyo's base of knowledge if limited here.

The errors we see, as fans, jump out at us, because we KNOW what our players have done and we don't understand how a beat reporter for the team can make such elementary mistakes. Something I might send to Nunyo if he actually still wishes to speak with me after all this is that at the Post it is said the White House and the Redskins are the top beats.

Nunyo, is in effect, in a VERY HIGH profile beat at a very high profile paper. If he were the White House beat reporter, the level of error we see in web copy he submits would be akin to referring to George Bush as the former governor of Tennessee.

Ok, maybe NOT THAT BAD, but you get my point.

Stuff that just shouldn't make it past a guy with passing knowledge makes it past Nunyo and into editor hands. I'll never know if they caught his mistakes last night, or if after seeing this Nunyo caught them and frantically made changes to the errors he thought I had correct -- as he left the Moss error in and will take him a few days to get around since he's repeatedly made that error.

My guess is if he were to reply here he'd say we had nothing to do with it. The process corrected the errors. That could be the case. But, we're going to start helping the process, here, in a way that convinces Nunyo to help the process himself, by more carefully crafting his articles so his editors have an easier job .

[SkinsNatsFan]

As you had mentioned earlier in a recent thread, wasn't he a;so the one who reported that Ryan Clark had been released this past pre-season?

[tr1]

I agree that Nunyo has serious problems, but some of them are not his fault.

The WP vs Redskins problems go back a long ways. I recall from Gibbs' first tenure here, that the Washington Times had better stories for the same reason as today...they were better sourced.

Nunyo is carrying a lot of baggage that isn't his. He's definitely limited in his sources because of it. And his recent story on the Redskins granting Coles release in exchange for the $5 million didn't help (though, I'm sure Coles or his agent was the source, and it would be very,very difficult to not print that story.)

The obstructed view seats story was just bad.

His fact checking is questionable at times, but where are his editors?

I just think he's in a tough spot...all WP reporters covering the Skins will be.

BTW, look at how Billick, Parcells and other coaches treat the press...it's the nature of the beast. None of us like people second guessing our decisions, much less having someone quote your peers about your decisions.

I agree with emailing Nunyo with errors that we see. I've been guilty of knee-jerk bashing the guy, too, but the way to earn respect is by being constructive.

Ouch, did I just defend a reporter? :doh:

[Art]

Originally posted by SkinsNatsFan

As you had mentioned earlier in a recent thread, wasn't he a;so the one who reported that Ryan Clark had been released this past pre-season?

Yes, though, in Nunyo's defense, he believes the mistake was widespread and the team set out to embarrass him after the fact by creating the impression Clark wasn't to be released, when he was. I think that's somewhat correct.

So, I've stopped trying to talk to Nunyo about errors of fact as reported by his sources -- that there was an agreement that Coles would be released, that Brown was always scheduled to visit on Thursday, etc. -- and tried to focus JUST on the clear, unquestionable factual errors that stand WITHOUT sourcing and come DIRECTLY from the writer.

Like most of the list in this thread.

Stuff that should shock the sensibilities of a good reporter. I hope they aren't being dismissed, which I fear they are.

[Blondie]

Originally posted by Art

Frankly, this isn't intended to swell support for terminating Nunyo. It's designed to make sure he knows the errors of his reporting and, with hope, that he takes the opportunity to correct these flaws on his own. If, however, he ignores any basic effort as a journalist to avoid such simple errors of fact -- created by a lack of knowledge and laziness in tracking down simple info -- then something more might have to be considered.

I am glad you explained this Art. I THOUGHT this was your intention, and when the other poster stated about him being fired, I was HOPING this was NOT your thought.

A reporter should be accountable for his reporting.

Will your list tip the interest.........of the powers that be?

We can only hope.

Blondie