Page 2 of 3
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:52 pm
by Fios
Yeah, I can see how you might consider a coach whose running backs finished 12th in the league in rushing behind a patchwork offensive line while playing nine games against top 10 rush defenses to be very bad or terrible. That's a perfectly reasonable conclusion. It also helps if you ignore that the Redskins were 4th in the league in rushing the year before that and seventh the year before that.
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:51 pm
by Klanko
Fios wrote:Yeah, I can see how you might consider a coach whose running backs finished 12th in the league in rushing behind a patchwork offensive line while playing nine games against top 10 rush defenses to be very bad or terrible. That's a perfectly reasonable conclusion. It also helps if you ignore that the Redskins were 4th in the league in rushing the year before that and seventh the year before that.
I see where you are coming from. Your sarcasm is not needed. I am not "ignoring" anything. You are right in saying that we finished in the top 12 in rushing over the past few years, but there are subtler points that need to be made.
1.) There is a difference between effective running and simply handing the ball to your RB. While we finished 12th in rushing last year (which I would consider middle of the road), we also finished **22nd** in rushing average, at 3.8 yards a carry. In addition, we finished 24th in carries of 20+ at just six. This means that not only are we averaging a low amount of runs per carry, but also aren't creating any big plays on top of that.
2.) What is the definition of a good coach? Here's a lamen's version: A bad coach can't win with good players. A decent coach can. A good coach can win with bad players. Look what Byner had to work with. He had *Clinton Portis*, who when he came to the Redskins was certainly considered the best young RB in the, and most likely top 5 overall. I think we all forget just how unstoppable Portis was in Denver. Since he's been here, his yards per carry, per game, per season have all gone down. I commend Byner's work with Betts, but it seems more and more like that was a one year wonder type thing. And while we had a patchwork offensive line this year, our offensive line the previous two years were extremely good, if not underacheiving. My point is that with Clinton Portis, we should *expect* to be in the top of most rushing categories. And while we have been in terms of total yards, that can be accomplished by simply handing off a large majority of the time.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that football is much more complex than stats or a single position coach. But if you look at Portis from a statistical and mechanical point of view, his progress seems to have stalled.
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:22 pm
by Fios
It's not a secret that the Redskins offense has been something less than dynamic in the past few seasons but, you're right about this, it's way more complicated than one person. Injuries, inconsistent QB play, defensive lapses, play-calling (especially, IMO), officiating, etcetera, all played a role. The expectations people have for Clinton are unrealistic and border on a "I'm preoccupied by fantasy football" mentality. It's harder to run in the NFC East, period. Denver was a different system, it required MUCH less of Portis. The guy comes here, transforms himself into a power, between-the-tackles runner and people are stunned his YPC is down. That doesn't even take into account the beating he takes as a pass blocker. It's never been as simple as "well he did X in Denver, thus a failure to match or exceed that is a failure." That's insane. I mean for god's sake, the Chiefs rush D was atrocious when CP was in Denver. Here are his numbers from FOUR games against them: 559 yards rushing and TEN touchdowns. This notion of his regression isn't grounded in reality and the idea that Byner is a bad or terrible coach is inaccurate and, yes, it requires sarcasm.
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:48 pm
by Klanko
For sure the play of Portis and the offense is much more complicated than one person. I specifically stated that. And of course it's never as simple as "he was good in Denver so he should be good here." But what else is there to compare to? The only reason we got Portis was because he was good in Denver. Obviously we expected similar results. Thinking otherwise would be ignorant. You mention the NFC East as being a harder division to run in. What about Brian Westbrook, Brandon Jacobs, Tiki Barber before him, the combination of Julius Jones and Marion Barber? Pretty much every team in the NFC East has a dominate RB.
To my admission, I don't go practices so I don't know for sure if Byner is a bad coach. But let's flip it around: what makes you think he is a "good" coach? The support of biased statistics that don't take into account rushing averages? At least I can point out specifics in why he might be bad. Portis' running style, mechanics, statistics have all changed. And just so I make this clear, I am not defending my thoughts specifically, the points I am making have been brought up multiples times on radio shows, blogs, and columns. Of which about half is insightful, and half is not.
If anything is not based in reality, it is your argument. It is made of fluff. It basically boils down to you saying, "its complicated." Everything is complicated. If you said Joe Gibbs/Bill Walsh/Bill Cowher was a bad coach, I could respond with "its more complicated than that." What I'm saying is that I'm not harping on Byner's loss (if for sure it occurs). His coaching capabilities are summed up as well as possible by watching his backs run and seeing how they perform. That is the stuff of "reality."
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:06 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Fios wrote:Yeah, I can see how you might consider a coach whose running backs finished 12th in the league in rushing behind a patchwork offensive line while playing nine games against top 10 rush defenses to be very bad or terrible. That's a perfectly reasonable conclusion. It also helps if you ignore that the Redskins were 4th in the league in rushing the year before that and seventh the year before that.
Oh sure, there you go on and on with the facts again. Facts, facts, facts. Get OVER it.
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:19 pm
by Fios
Klanko wrote:For sure the play of Portis and the offense is much more complicated than one person. I specifically stated that. And of course it's never as simple as "he was good in Denver so he should be good here." But what else is there to compare to? The only reason we got Portis was because he was good in Denver. Obviously we expected similar results. Thinking otherwise would be ignorant. You mention the NFC East as being a harder division to run in. What about Brian Westbrook, Brandon Jacobs, Tiki Barber before him, the combination of Julius Jones and Marion Barber? Pretty much every team in the NFC East has a dominate RB.
To my admission, I don't go practices so I don't know for sure if Byner is a bad coach. But let's flip it around: what makes you think he is a "good" coach? The support of biased statistics that don't take into account rushing averages? At least I can point out specifics in why he might be bad. Portis' running style, mechanics, statistics have all changed. And just so I make this clear, I am not defending my thoughts specifically, the points I am making have been brought up multiples times on radio shows, blogs, and columns. Of which about half is insightful, and half is not.
If anything is not based in reality, it is your argument. It is made of fluff. It basically boils down to you saying, "its complicated." Everything is complicated. If you said Joe Gibbs/Bill Walsh/Bill Cowher was a bad coach, I could respond with "its more complicated than that." What I'm saying is that I'm not harping on Byner's loss (if for sure it occurs). His coaching capabilities are summed up as well as possible by watching his backs run and seeing how they perform. That is the stuff of "reality."
Let me be perfectly clear.
I'm not now, nor have I ever, made the argument that Clinton has not been a great running back, he is my favorite player, thus his inclusion in my lovely avatar.
I'm
very happy with what he has accomplished in DC. I believe the trade was a clear win for Washington. I do not see a regression, in terms of talent, from Denver to Washington. I am making the argument that the statistical decline is only relevant if you fail to consider the circumstances.
To wit: In his two years in Denver, Clinton faced rushing defenses ranked 20th or lower eight times, including four games against teams ranked 30th or worse. In his four seasons with the Redskins, the team has played six games against teams whose rushing defenses were 20th or worse.
Clinton did better in Denver because he had a greater opportunity to exceed there.
You began this by asserting that Byner was a bad coach, now you concede that you can't actually make that assessment and MY argument is fluff? When you call someone a bad coach, it isn't incumbent upon me to prove the exact opposite.
Clinton has been outstanding for the Redskins and Byner deserves some of the credit for that. How much? I have no idea but, again, the idea that he is a bad coach is flat-out wrong.
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:10 pm
by CanesSkins26
Portis' running style, mechanics, statistics have all changed.
I'm not sure how that is a reflection on Byner. During Gibbs' tenure we ran a far different offense and employed a different style of running game than did Denver. CP put on weight and went from being a slashing type running back to a power back. So the comparison of his stats from here to his stats in Denver isn't really relevant. For the type of back that he has been asked to become here, he has done a very good job. Perhaps with Zorn and his WCO we will see CP's production increase somewhat.
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:14 pm
by langleyparkjoe
I think the whole point of this thread is to simply say "danny did Greg dirty and now he's doing Byner dirty".. and I for one can't stand our owner doing any of coaches dirty like that. i mean come on man, you give him a year extension and then bring in someone who has the same role? da hell is danny really doing people?????
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:42 pm
by tcwest10
Byner is to Gibbs' system as Mitchell is to Zorns'.
To chime in on Langley...wouldn't you do what you had to do to make sure you at least kept your old car until the dealer had the new one ready to go? If not...you might find yourself walkin' for a while.
Don't worry about the old car. Somebody will need it.
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:27 pm
by SkinsFreak
...and are we supposed to keep a coach that has no working knowledge or experience in the new system just so we don't hurt his feelings? Come on, I love the guy too, but the plans changed, for whatever reason, good or bad, and Zorn needs a fuel injection system that fits a Ferrari engine, not a bulldozer engine.
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:59 pm
by SkinsJock
langleyparkjoe wrote:I think the whole point of this thread is to simply say "danny did Greg dirty and now he's doing Byner dirty".. and I for one can't stand our owner doing any of coaches dirty like that. i mean come on man, you give him a year extension and then bring in someone who has the same role? da hell is danny really doing people?????
I thought this was about Byner?
first off - I think Snyder initially thought that he would put together a list of coaches and then end up selecting the guy he thought would be the best fit. It seems to me that he tried to work things out with Williams but I guess they could not agree on something or a lot of things - Williams out and Blache promoted, ensuring some continuity
To make a long story short - The interviews did not produce anyone that Snyder wanted and we end up with Zorn.
Along the way - Saunders is made aware that he will not be needed and a number of coaches whose contracts are expiring, check out their options - Byner looked into a position with Tampa Bay and found that it was only going to be the same as he was being offered here and elected to stay. IF the system here was going to be suitable they might have kept him but it is obviously not and he should not be kept around just because he has a year left on his contract. This is not treating someone badly this is the NFL and things change - sorry if that offends you but we do not need to carry a coach just because we signed him - no team does that - this is just a case of some fans using the stupidity of Snyder recently and piling on some more
Give me a break!
I think Byner is a good RB coach that will suit someone else and get picked up - good luck to him - we all have to move on - this is not a big deal - it just suits certain haters to pile on more stuff IMO
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:17 pm
by Redskin in Canada
SkinsJock wrote:I think Byner is a good RB coach that will suit someone else and get picked up - good luck to him - we all have to move on - this is not a big deal - it just suits certain haters to pile on more stuff IMO
If you had SIGNED a contract, you might look at things a bit different.
But let me digress for a second ...
Whose football knowledge do you TRUST more to make these kinds of decisions? Danny Snyder or Earnest Byner's?
Wait. No need to answer. It is a rhetorical question of course. You are not a hater after all.
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:23 pm
by SkinsFreak
Redskin in Canada wrote:Whose football knowledge do you TRUST more to make these kinds of decisions? Danny Snyder or Earnest Byner's?
Jim Zorn wanted Stump Mitchell, because he knows the system. Enough said.
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:50 pm
by Redskin in Canada
SkinsFreak wrote:Redskin in Canada wrote:Whose football knowledge do you TRUST more to make these kinds of decisions? Danny Snyder or Earnest Byner's?
Jim Zorn wanted Stump Mitchell, because he knows the system. Enough said.
And THAT is a fair statement. But then I ask: Why did the owner get into choosing and signing other coaches before the HC actually had a say on it?
Just another rhetorical question. Never mind.
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:51 pm
by Fios
I'm not one to cite a certain Post reporter, and I won't link to him, but this is his entry about the Byner situation.
JLC wrote:"It's kind of a relief, actually," Byner said. "At least now you kind of know where you stand and have some direction. It was a good run, a very good run. It was tremendous to work with Mike Sellers, Ladell (Betts), CP (Clinton Portis) and Rock (Cartwright), and I think all of those guys showed that they can produce and it was fun to watch them come along and I'm proud of the work we did here."
EB is all class ...
So I'll see what he won't. The dude got railroaded, again. He doesn't want to talk about this stuff and never has, but I've talked to plenty of people about his situation.
In 2005, everybody else gets a 3 year extension in January when they made the playoffs, except Byner, who helped RB Clinton Portis to the most yardage in franchise history that season. Yet Byner had to wait longer than all the other coaches to get his deal, then only got a 2 year offer.
So his deal was up this January, while everyone else had a year left. The rest of the coaches get another year, at least - giving them two under contract - while he gets a one-year offer. Tampa Bay has an opening and interviews Byner - the Redskins grant permission (he was still under contract until Jan 30 at the time) - and then, the Monday after the Super Bowl, with the Bucs still not yet making a decision, as they had an other candidate to interview, EB pulled out. He caled TB Coach Jon Gruden and told him his heart was in DC - he played for the Skins, was a part of Joe Gibbs 1.0, he loved the area.
The next day Byner went to the office to sign his deal, and, the Redskins tell him he know has to go through "a process," team sources said; they put him on hold until they'd name a new coach and, according to a team official, he never signed that contract. That's only because he was never allowed to, team sources said Byner was eager to sign on board.
All Byner has done is deal with Portis - a high maintenance guy and then some - and develop Mike Sellers, Ladell Betts and Rock Cartwright, all of whom performed at a Pro Bowl level in one capacity or another at one time or another (like Betts as the feature back in the second half of 2006).
So they make this man - well respected as a coach, player and human being in this game - sit around and wait on his job. He goes to work everyday, despite being treated like this, and is classy as ever at Redskins Park the last few weeks, other coaches said.
I asked Byner if the team prevented him from actually got to sign his contract - had he been able to sign he would be owed at least a buy-out portion - and he declined to comment. "I can't get into the details," Byner said. "I can't talk about it."
I told him I thought it was pretty horrible of the Redskins to drag this thing into the middle of Febraury, virtually assuring there are no opportunities on NFL coaching staffs, a week before the combine. If they didn't want him, they could have gotten rid of him before the Senior Bowl. I asked if he had any real options in the NFL.
"Nothing I can really talk about right now," Byner said. "I'm just going to try to relax a little bit and enjoy my family and let my mind rest a little bit. Everything happens for a reason, and it's all going to work out for the best."
Byner has been working on a training and practice DVD for running backs and fullbacks, which should hit the market soon, he said. He's put a lot of time and effort into that venture, he said, and EB was clearly excited about that. (I told him he'd better let us know when the DVD is ready so we can get the word out).
People who know EB well tell me, obviously, this situation has weighed heavily on his mind and his family, too. It's been confused and trying. The man has given his all to this organization on the field and as a coach. Interesting way to say thank you.
Zorn deserves the right to have coaches he knows and likes and that are versed in the West Coast offense, but when the Redskins try to act as if their meandering, bizarre coaching search had no victims and was all done in the name of "continuity," well, remember EB.
Before he got off the phone he wanted to make sure I let you guys know what he thinks of you:
"I really appreciate all the support the fans have given me during my years coaching the running backs here, and during my time as a running back," Byner said. "I've got nothing but respect and love for them."
Sigh ... some of the things Snyder does just seem so petty and unnecessary.
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:05 pm
by CanesSkins26
Snyder is running a real "class" organization.
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:15 pm
by SkinsJock
No question about it - lets just keep on amplifying all the problems - guess what - the guy's still an idiot tomorrow and he still owns the Redskins and I will still be thinking this is my team whether he owns it or not.
BTW - I'll bet this is not the last coach that gets let go in the middle of a contract year OR even just after he signed a contract BUT if its not on the Redskins we will not be making a big fuss about it, will we? - oh! that's a rhetorical question
time to find another dead horse
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:19 pm
by DaSkins24
Snyder is such a tool. As much as I root for the Skins, he makes it that much tougher. He really is the worst thing to ever happen to this franchise.
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:20 pm
by SkinsJock
CanesSkins26 wrote:Snyder is running a real "class" organization.
Right now it's his team to run! - we all have choices here - if you don't like it, too bad, does not look like he's going to change, does it? - get on the ride or get off
I'm not liking the whole thing either, but this is still my team and this guy is hopefully going to make it better because, guess what, if he doesn't, nobody else can
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:41 am
by SkinsFreak
JLC wrote:The next day Byner went to the office to sign his deal, and, the Redskins tell him he know has to go through "a process," team sources said; they put him on hold until they'd name a new coach and, according to a team official, he never signed that contract. That's only because he was never allowed to, team sources said Byner was eager to sign on board.
Ok, so all the reports that Byner had just signed a contract extension were not true. Great. Love how these things get all twisted.
I would appear to me, when Byner wanted to sign that contract, the FO said, wait a minute, as a result of the interviews, we might be going in a different direction (Zorn and the west coast system) and signing that extension right now might be a wee bit premature.
But I have to think that if the opposite happened, some of the haters would be in an even bigger uproar.
Scenario - When Zorn was hired, he goes to Dan and says... "Hey Dan, we will be running the west coast offense and the RB's play a very important and diverse role in that system. I've worked with Stump Mitchell for years, he knows this system inside and out, would be a critical component in the teaching of this system and we work extremely well together. With all do respect to Mr. Byner, he has never played in the system, has never taught the system and doesn't know a thing about the west coast system. Therefore, I really think Stump would be a big assistance to me in teaching this system to the offense and he really knows how to prepare RB's in this system. Not to mention, I'm the only one on this staff that knows this system and I'm going to need some help."
Dan's reply... "Sorry Jim, I don't care what you want, I don't care that Byner doesn't know the system, you have to use him because he has a year left on his contract. As the head coach, I know you wish you had some say regarding the selection of your offensive assistants, but that's not going to happen. We believe it doesn't really matter that Byner knows nothing about your system, you can just teach him too. But you will not be allowed to bring in coaches you like or want to help teach the system."
If that happened, the media and the haters would be screaming even louder from the hilltops about how stupid it is of Dan to hire a coach and not allow him to pick his assistants. All we heard around here during the entire process, was that the head coach should be the one to hand select the coaching staff and assistants. And why? Because the system might change and the head coach deserves that privilege. Because it would make no sense, at all, to have coaches on the staff that don't know how to teach the new head coaches system.
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:59 am
by langleyparkjoe
SkinsJock wrote:langleyparkjoe wrote:I think the whole point of this thread is to simply say "danny did Greg dirty and now he's doing Byner dirty".. and I for one can't stand our owner doing any of coaches dirty like that. i mean come on man, you give him a year extension and then bring in someone who has the same role? da hell is danny really doing people?????
I thought this was about Byner?
It was brutha, everything I typed was related to Byner; hell, you even quoted me.. LOL. I do understand what your saying about he's the HC and that's his guy who knows how he likes things done. Yes, your also right that "technically" its Danny's team no matter what we say or feel. Let me put it this way, Bush is the president of our GREAT country right? Alot of us (myself included) thinks he's a friggin clown but you know what, at the end of the day I'm supporting his title, he's OUR president. Same thing goes with Danny. I've supported him with certain things but to sum it all up, you just don't treat people that way, especially people who did so much for you. On top of that, EB isn't just some coach we found on the street people, he's won a superbowl with us and he's been very very active in the DC community-- (I know this for a fact, I met him once when I volunteered to mentor some kids and he was there helping as well.)
Anyways though, its done I guess, and once again Danny leaves us wondering "why?".. why why why???.. Also, I just read on Wikipedia that Byner is expected to take the RB coaching job @ Seattle.. ironic?
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:26 am
by Redskin in Canada
JLC wrote:People who know EB well tell me, obviously, this situation has weighed heavily on his mind and his family, too. It's been confused and trying. The man has given his all to this organization on the field and as a coach. Interesting way to say thank you.
Zorn deserves the right to have coaches he knows and likes and that are versed in the West Coast offense, but when the Redskins try to act as if their meandering, bizarre coaching search had no victims and was all done in the name of "continuity," well, remember EB.
Before he got off the phone he wanted to make sure I let you guys know what he thinks of you:
"I really appreciate all the support the fans have given me during my years coaching the running backs here, and during my time as a running back," Byner said. "I've got nothing but respect and love for them."
From the bottom of my heart, I say THANKS to Earnest Byner. He was, is and he will always be a true Redskin in my heart.
I want you to know, Earnest, that we appreciated what you did for us as a player and as a coach. Our Running Backs flourished under your guidance and NOBODY can take that away from you.
THANKS !!!
It is the SUM of all things people. The SUM of all classless and stupid things by the owner. I wrote a post in the Blog written by Boss Hog about an ironic and sarcastic poster arguing that -everything- was fine because this was HIS team.
I would argue that precisely because it is OUR team, business should be conducted with class and character. Even a few victories without those human qualities are ephemeral and without substance. Enjoy your classless clown owner.
We'll see how many of you finally are able to separate the team from the owner after the next "cycle".
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:38 am
by Redskin in Canada
SkinsJock wrote: we all have choices here -
Yes, we are exercising our choices:
- Voice our view about the kind of of man the owner is, and
- Highlight the kind of ignorant buffoon he is about football.
We will support the new coaches to begin with and only on a short leash. But they do not have much time from the fans and even less from the owner. Forget about some posters and posts who annoy you here. Wait until you hear the boos in the Stadium. Those are going to be "fun". Believe me, they bother me just as much as they did against Joe Gibbs. So, it will not give me -any- pleasure either.
We are just pointing at a building standing on a foundation of matchsticks. Call me pessimist if you wish. Reality will not go away in any event.
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:43 am
by DEHog
SkinsFreak wrote:JLC wrote:The next day Byner went to the office to sign his deal, and, the Redskins tell him he know has to go through "a process," team sources said; they put him on hold until they'd name a new coach and, according to a team official, he never signed that contract. That's only because he was never allowed to, team sources said Byner was eager to sign on board.
Ok, so all the reports that Byner had just signed a contract extension were not true. Great. Love how these things get all twisted.
I would appear to me, when Byner wanted to sign that contract, the FO said, wait a minute, as a result of the interviews, we might be going in a different direction (Zorn and the west coast system) and signing that extension right now might be a wee bit premature.
But I have to think that if the opposite happened, some of the haters would be in an even bigger uproar.
Scenario - When Zorn was hired, he goes to Dan and says... "Hey Dan, we will be running the west coast offense and the RB's play a very important and diverse role in that system. I've worked with Stump Mitchell for years, he knows this system inside and out, would be a critical component in the teaching of this system and we work extremely well together. With all do respect to Mr. Byner, he has never played in the system, has never taught the system and doesn't know a thing about the west coast system. Therefore, I really think Stump would be a big assistance to me in teaching this system to the offense and he really knows how to prepare RB's in this system. Not to mention, I'm the only one on this staff that knows this system and I'm going to need some help."
Dan's reply... "Sorry Jim, I don't care what you want, I don't care that Byner doesn't know the system, you have to use him because he has a year left on his contract. As the head coach, I know you wish you had some say regarding the selection of your offensive assistants, but that's not going to happen. We believe it doesn't really matter that Byner knows nothing about your system, you can just teach him too. But you will not be allowed to bring in coaches you like or want to help teach the system."
If that happened, the media and the haters would be screaming even louder from the hilltops about how stupid it is of Dan to hire a coach and not allow him to pick his assistants. All we heard around here during the entire process, was that the head coach should be the one to hand select the coaching staff and assistants. And why? Because the system might change and the head coach deserves that privilege. Because it would make no sense, at all, to have coaches on the staff that don't know how to teach the new head coaches system.
They didn't know they were running the WCO when the hired Zorn a month ago as OC
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:05 am
by SkinsFreak
DEHog wrote:They didn't know they were running the WCO when the hired Zorn a month ago as OC
I'm sure they did. But I'll respond with the analogy made by tcwest10...
tcwest10 wrote:...wouldn't you do what you had to do to make sure you at least kept your old car until the dealer had the new one ready to go?
I love Byner too, and I certainly appreciate what he has done for this organization. But the fact remains, Zorn wanted Stump, Stump knows the system, Byner doesn't, and as many of you have previously argued, the head coach deserves the right to select his staff, especially on offense in this case. And you don't release Byner until you've secured Mitchell.
And if Snyder had said no to Zorn's request of Mitchell, the haters and folks like JLC would have been irate, even more than they are now, and would've spun the Snyder bashing in that direction. I'm not saying Snyder hasn't brought some of this on himself, but it's the same damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.