John Riggins has been at it for weeks with some serious venom cast in the direction of the Washington Redskins organization. Though sometimes radical, the brash Redskins legend often says a few things that ring true for many Redskin fans. But did his latest rant cross a boundary? Check out Dan Steinberg’s recap at D.C. Sports Bog, if you haven’t already seen or heard Riggins latest comments.<\/p>\n
It’s one thing to challenge the way Dan Snyder runs this organization, but aren’t you’re taking things to a whole different level when you start making it that personal?<\/p>\n
Isn’t there an obligation to provide some sort of answer, or at least some type of rationalization, if you’re going to make that kind of defamatory remark?<\/p>\n
Is taking a ‘I might know something that you don’t, but can’t tell you’ kind of stance really good enough given the weight of the comments?<\/p>\n
At no time did Riggins provide any type of ‘reason’ for why Dan Snyder had a ‘black heart.’ He talked about things that might make him a bad football owner, and in Riggins’ opinion, a bad business person, but at no time did he offer anything that would qualify rationalizing such an assassination of character.<\/p>\n
I’m on record as saying that I think this franchise needs wholesale changes from top to bottom, but I don’t profess to know Dan Snyder well enough to judge his character.<\/p>\n
I see no evidence that John Riggins has any such knowledge either.<\/p>\n
I’m not saying that he doesn’t, but no evidence has been provided.<\/p>\n
What I am saying is that, in my opinion, leaving so much to speculation wreaks of sensationalism.<\/p>\n
Big John always did like to cast the spotlight firmly on to himself, is this anything more than an extension of that?<\/p>\n
Or is his crossing a line, a pre-meditated strategic maneuver? A bold stroke to try and draw the General out on to the battlefield?<\/p>\n
For me, the thing about sensationalism, is that if I see it as such… it tends to taint my judgment, and desensitize me to anything further that person says. So I hope that Riggins will keep that in mind, because I know I’m not alone in feeling that way.<\/p>\n
Riggins: “That is my take on it….I speak for the fans because these are the people that paid my salary for all these years. They are the ones that need to know that this is a bad guy.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If he truly wants to act as an agent of the people, then he should think about the weight of that responsibility. This particular fan that he is speaking for, happens to think that open-ended innuendo, accusations, and attacks on character, only serve to exacerbate the problem. There are plenty of real issues to address, and letting personal animosities cloud the monumental task at hand, will serve only as an unneeded distraction.<\/p>\n
So John are you speaking for the people, or are you speaking for yourself? If John truly wants the fuel behind a Redskin Revolution to be Diesel, then in my opinion, you have to learn the difference between speaking for Redskin fans because you share some common views, and speaking for Redskin fans because you have facilitated finding out what they really think.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"