The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:56 pm**

PulpExposure wrote:
Deadskins wrote:If memory serves, Champ was traded in the final year of his contract. He wanted out of DC (word was his wife gave him an ultimatum, because of a local girlfriend), and was not going to re-sign no matter what.

SNYDER'S FAULT!

Snyder hooked Champ up with that "local gf" :lol:

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:15 pm**

PulpExposure wrote:
Deadskins wrote:If memory serves, Champ was traded in the final year of his contract. He wanted out of DC (word was his wife gave him an ultimatum, because of a local girlfriend), and was not going to re-sign no matter what.

SNYDER'S FAULT!

Ok you guys jump all over SS and ask for a link...please provise a link for Champ leaving because of this???

Vet wrote

To think anything otherwise of the team that you're an alleged fan for is just silly

So now my fanhood is predicated on what I write on this board??

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:29 pm**

DEHog wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Deadskins wrote:If memory serves, Champ was traded in the final year of his contract. He wanted out of DC (word was his wife gave him an ultimatum, because of a local girlfriend), and was not going to re-sign no matter what.

SNYDER'S FAULT!

Ok you guys jump all over SS and ask for a link...please provise a link for Champ leaving because of this???

Vet wrote
To think anything otherwise of the team that you're an alleged fan for is just silly

So now my fanhood is predicated on what I write on this board??

This is all I found which isn't much and just might be all made up anyways. Just thought I'd share for the record

http://www.lipstickalley.com/f4/champ-bailey-boss-bailey-17461/

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:29 pm**

DEHog wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Deadskins wrote:If memory serves, Champ was traded in the final year of his contract. He wanted out of DC (word was his wife gave him an ultimatum, because of a local girlfriend), and was not going to re-sign no matter what.

SNYDER'S FAULT!

Ok you guys jump all over SS and ask for a link...please provise a link for Champ leaving because of this???

Seriously DE, there's a difference between:

Others who interviewed: Jim Schwartz, Ron Meeks, Fassell, and Ron Meeks. Of those, only Fassell was ever seriously in the running. So, aside from Zorn, three of the four candidates seriously considered withdrew their names. The fourth resulted in protests by the fan base.

Which is stating an assertion as fact; and

If memory serves, Champ was traded in the final year of his contract.

One is stating, with 100% certainty this is what happened. The other is much less certain, and predicated on memory of a time long ago. You want to state facts, you need to support those facts. Opinions? Everyone has one...

Oh and if it helps, here's a link to a discussion about that Champ Bailey rumor on ES.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:30 pm**

DEHog wrote:So now my fanhood is predicated on what I write on this board??

What do you mean "now?" And what makes you think it's limited to that. Are you wearing boxers or briefs? Your fanhood is predicated on that and a whole bunch of other tests too...

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:33 pm**

DEHog wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Deadskins wrote:If memory serves, Champ was traded in the final year of his contract. He wanted out of DC (word was his wife gave him an ultimatum, because of a local girlfriend), and was not going to re-sign no matter what.

SNYDER'S FAULT!

Ok you guys jump all over SS and ask for a link...please provise a link for Champ leaving because of this???

Wait, you want me to provide a link to a rumor from 5 years ago? :roll:

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:38 pm**

DEHog wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Deadskins wrote:If memory serves, Champ was traded in the final year of his contract. He wanted out of DC (word was his wife gave him an ultimatum, because of a local girlfriend), and was not going to re-sign no matter what.

SNYDER'S FAULT!

Ok you guys jump all over SS and ask for a link...please provise a link for Champ leaving because of this???

Vet wrote
To think anything otherwise of the team that you're an alleged fan for is just silly

So now my fanhood is predicated on what I write on this board??

Here's the whole quote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:
DEHog wrote:In 2004, Sean Taylor was the first, and wasn't resigned (though he would have been);

Says who??? You have no way of knowing...He liked GW an awful lot and if GW wasn't here I'm not sure he would have resigns??

Are you seriously trying to make this argument?

Why argue a point you have no freakin way to prove or disprove? Just b/c you can? wow...I can't wait until the season starts so garbage like this drops to a minimum.

IMO, I think that the FO would've given him anything under the sun to keep area 51 together. To think anything otherwise of the team that you're an alleged fan for is just silly.

...and my point is that for being a fan (usually a favorable, positive connotation) with such a negative attitude is silly.

I don't understand how people can be fans and have nothing positive to say about the team they're fans of. This is directed at no one particular individual, as I've used this example or similar examples multiple times. If a defensive reaction ensues...

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:40 pm**

Deadskins wrote:
DEHog wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Deadskins wrote:If memory serves, Champ was traded in the final year of his contract. He wanted out of DC (word was his wife gave him an ultimatum, because of a local girlfriend), and was not going to re-sign no matter what.

SNYDER'S FAULT!

Ok you guys jump all over SS and ask for a link...please provise a link for Champ leaving because of this???

Wait, you want me to provide a link to a rumor from 5 years ago?

I found one...if you weren't such a slacker, you would have, too!

:lol:

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:42 pm**

PulpExposure wrote:I found one...if you weren't such a slacker, you would have, too!

Well he does call himself "deadskins." If he weren't a slacker it would be pretty pathetic.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:45 pm**

PulpExposure wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
DEHog wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Deadskins wrote:If memory serves, Champ was traded in the final year of his contract. He wanted out of DC (word was his wife gave him an ultimatum, because of a local girlfriend), and was not going to re-sign no matter what.

SNYDER'S FAULT!

Ok you guys jump all over SS and ask for a link...please provise a link for Champ leaving because of this???

Wait, you want me to provide a link to a rumor from 5 years ago?

I found one...if you weren't such a slacker, you would have, too!

Yeah, I wrote my comment after reading through the ES thread you linked to, too. I just didn't want to give you credit!

My point was that it was a rumor, so why would I need to post a link?

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:45 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:I found one...if you weren't such a slacker, you would have, too!

Well he does call himself "deadskins." If he weren't a slacker it would be pretty pathetic.

We're messin withca DS... but I found one too.. :lol:

S L A C K E R !!!!!

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:46 pm**

Deadskins wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
DEHog wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Deadskins wrote:If memory serves, Champ was traded in the final year of his contract. He wanted out of DC (word was his wife gave him an ultimatum, because of a local girlfriend), and was not going to re-sign no matter what.

SNYDER'S FAULT!

Ok you guys jump all over SS and ask for a link...please provise a link for Champ leaving because of this???

Wait, you want me to provide a link to a rumor from 5 years ago?

I found one...if you weren't such a slacker, you would have, too!

Yeah, I wrote my comment after reading through the ES thread you linked to, too. I just didn't want to give you credit!

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:49 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:I found one...if you weren't such a slacker, you would have, too!

Well he does call himself "deadskins." If he weren't a slacker it would be pretty pathetic.

Not saying I'm not a slacker, just wondering why that would be pathetic? :hmm:

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:53 pm**

langleyparkjoe wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:I found one...if you weren't such a slacker, you would have, too!

Well he does call himself "deadskins." If he weren't a slacker it would be pretty pathetic.

We're messin withca DS... but I found one too..

S L A C K E R !!!!!

Deadskins wrote:My point was that it was a rumor, so why would I need to post a link?

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:57 pm**

PulpExposure wrote:
SnyderSucks wrote:I'm sorry that you can't remember all the way back to last year, so here is a link that thoroughly discusses the entire timeline and literally has about 100 supporting citiations.

None of which support YOUR assertions. I want direct cites supporting YOUR assertions that coaches withdrew their names because they didn't want to work for Snyder. Please.

It includes links to stories by places like the Washington Post in which the Redskins are considered a "laughingstock" by those around the league and that if Snyder has a plan no one can tell what it is.

http://curlyr.blogspot.com/2008/04/chro ... coach.html

Lol. It's linking to LaCanfora's Redskins Insider. Come on now!

You could also argue for players like Rod Gardner who had 51 catches his last season here and averaged almost 57 while in Washington.

WHAT???? You wanted to keep 50/50? The guy who was so good he went on to that star-studded career after he left us? Oh right.

Good lord.

Okay, because the people involved had the good sense not to come out and say "I don't want to work for Dan Snyder", one cannot infer that his ownership played a role in not creating an environment in which coaches want to work? You have multiple coaches withdrawing from consideration and Snyder played no role in this? When you have multiple people turning down a promotion, it is reasonable to infer that they don't want to work there and that the boss is probably playing a role in them not wanting the job. I guess, after interviewing, each of them decided they didn't want a promotion and a massive raise because they thought working for Snyder would be too much fun.

Sorry for using a quote from that rag the Washington Post. I guess next time I'll find a quote from a paper with some credibility like the National Enquirer.

Because you don't think Gardner should have gotten a contract, none of them should have? The problem isn't that one in particular didn't get a contract, it was that none of them did. I said you could argue the case about Gardner (for or against) not that they absolutely should have signed him. He was more productive than any #2 the team has had since then.

In the end, the only constant on the team since Snyder took over is Snyder. In that time, no one, not even a hall of fame coach, has succeeded in making the team consistently good. I guess Snyder played no part in any of that.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:03 pm**

SnyderSucks wrote:Sorry for using a quote from that rag the Washington Post. I guess next time I'll find a quote from a paper with some credibility like the National Enquirer.

I think it was more JLC in particular, than the WP in general that he took offense to.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:16 pm**

SnyderSucks wrote:Okay, because the people involved had the good sense not to come out and say "I don't want to work for Dan Snyder", one cannot infer that his ownership played a role in not creating an environment in which coaches want to work? You have multiple coaches withdrawing from consideration and Snyder played no role in this? When you have multiple people turning down a promotion, it is reasonable to infer that they don't want to work there and that the boss is probably playing a role in them not wanting the job. I guess, after interviewing, each of them decided they didn't want a promotion and a massive raise because they thought working for Snyder would be too much fun.

Or, after the interview, Snyder/Cerrato told them that they weren't in serious contention to be the next head coach of the Redskins. I mean, that's the problem; you don't know what happened behind closed doors (and neither do I)...but you're stating as if it's established fact that the reason that "top coaching candidates" won't come here is because of Snyder. You don't know that; you think it, but you can't be sure. All we get is little bits of media dribble, and importantly, none of it is from Snyder's side (as he doesn't talk to the press much)...so it's presenting a lopsided story.

Sorry for using a quote from that rag the Washington Post. I guess next time I'll find a quote from a paper with some credibility like the National Enquirer.

Now you're just being petulant. It's not the Post; it that it was from La Canfora and his silly Redskins Insider blog, which was rife with his sniping and inaccuracies.

Because you don't think Gardner should have gotten a contract, none of them should have? The problem isn't that one in particular didn't get a contract, it was that none of them did.

Who would you have given a contract to, from the Redskins drafts of 2004-2005?

I said you could argue the case about Gardner (for or against) not that they absolutely should have signed him. He was more productive than any #2 the team has had since then.

His production was okay (it's about Randle-El production), but that says more about the sorry state of the Redskins WR corps, than it does about Gardner. But also, Gardner dropped many, many passes...he was just too damn inconsistent. Again, after Gardner left the Redskins, he caught a total of 15 NFL passes.

In the end, the only constant on the team since Snyder took over is Snyder. In that time, no one, not even a hall of fame coach, has succeeded in making the team consistently good. I guess Snyder played no part in any of that.

Never would argue against any of that. This team was a disaster when he took over, and continued to be a disaster until he hired Gibbs. However, since 2004, the management has been markedly better (better player personnel acquisitions, better drafting (when they keep their draft picks), and less public exposure of the ownership). There's absolutely been improvement; granted, there was a LOT of room for improvement. But many people are stuck on the idea that Snyder is a terrible owner, and will always be a terrible owner. A more casual, less personally-involved observer with a more open mind would look at the evolution of Snyder as an owner over the past half decade, and conclude otherwise.

But I know I can talk all I want about how I, and many others, see improvement in him. The sad fact is that I'm still talking to someone who has chosen to call himself "SnyderSucks." After all, choosing a nickname like that is the hallmark of an open mind on this particular matter. Let's just agree to disagree.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:38 pm**

Deadskins wrote:Not saying I'm not a slacker, just wondering why that would be pathetic?

Well, the "pathetic" was a little tongue in cheek, but don't you think calling yourself "deadskins" has a connotation consistent with slacker? You're left for dead? You're not trying anymore?

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:48 pm**

SnyderSucks wrote:I guess Snyder played no part in any of that.

Here is why your arguments go nowhere. Pulp clearly didn't say that. It's the mind numbing mantra of the Snyder bashers.

Snyder sucks, I hate him, he's responsible for everything that ever happened in DC, he's killing this team, no one will work for him, he causes the traffic on the beltway, was responsible for the Lincoln assassination and global warming, I hate him, everything he stands for, his name, I want to burn down his house and murder his family. We will never win a game, make a tackle or gain a yard as long as he owns this team.

Um...that's going a bit far. He was pretty bad but he has improved at least.

Oh, he's responsible for nothing? He had no ROLE no PART in anything EVER that went wrong with this team?

Um...yeah.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:08 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
DEHog wrote:So now my fanhood is predicated on what I write on this board??

What do you mean "now?" And what makes you think it's limited to that. Are you wearing boxers or briefs? Your fanhood is predicated on that and a whole bunch of other tests too...

So enlighten me oh wise one!

For the record I wear Redskins boxers under my dress!!

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:34 pm**

VetSkinsFan wrote:
DEHog wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Deadskins wrote:If memory serves, Champ was traded in the final year of his contract. He wanted out of DC (word was his wife gave him an ultimatum, because of a local girlfriend), and was not going to re-sign no matter what.

SNYDER'S FAULT!

Ok you guys jump all over SS and ask for a link...please provise a link for Champ leaving because of this???

Vet wrote
To think anything otherwise of the team that you're an alleged fan for is just silly

So now my fanhood is predicated on what I write on this board??

Here's the whole quote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
DEHog wrote:In 2004, Sean Taylor was the first, and wasn't resigned (though he would have been);

Says who??? You have no way of knowing...He liked GW an awful lot and if GW wasn't here I'm not sure he would have resigns??

Are you seriously trying to make this argument?

Why argue a point you have no freakin way to prove or disprove? Just b/c you can? wow...I can't wait until the season starts so garbage like this drops to a minimum.

IMO, I think that the FO would've given him anything under the sun to keep area 51 together. To think anything otherwise of the team that you're an alleged fan for is just silly.

...and my point is that for being a fan (usually a favorable, positive connotation) with such a negative attitude is silly.

I don't understand how people can be fans and have nothing positive to say about the team they're fans of. This is directed at no one particular individual, as I've used this example or similar examples multiple times. If a defensive reaction ensues...

Why take what I said as negative?? It was a statement, a opinion...are they not allowed here anymore??

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:43 pm**

Because from a Redskins point of view, not signing ST would be a negative, and resigning him would be a positive. Kinda obvious I thought.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:45 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:Not saying I'm not a slacker, just wondering why that would be pathetic?

Well, the "pathetic" was a little tongue in cheek, but don't you think calling yourself "deadskins" has a connotation consistent with slacker? You're left for dead? You're not trying anymore?

I gave you the slacker part, just not the pathetic. :wink:

And I think my avatar says it all.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:18 pm**

PulpExposure wrote:
SnyderSucks wrote:Okay, because the people involved had the good sense not to come out and say "I don't want to work for Dan Snyder", one cannot infer that his ownership played a role in not creating an environment in which coaches want to work? You have multiple coaches withdrawing from consideration and Snyder played no role in this? When you have multiple people turning down a promotion, it is reasonable to infer that they don't want to work there and that the boss is probably playing a role in them not wanting the job. I guess, after interviewing, each of them decided they didn't want a promotion and a massive raise because they thought working for Snyder would be too much fun.

Or, after the interview, Snyder/Cerrato told them that they weren't in serious contention to be the next head coach of the Redskins. I mean, that's the problem; you don't know what happened behind closed doors (and neither do I)...but you're stating as if it's established fact that the reason that "top coaching candidates" won't come here is because of Snyder. You don't know that; you think it, but you can't be sure. All we get is little bits of media dribble, and importantly, none of it is from Snyder's side (as he doesn't talk to the press much)...so it's presenting a lopsided story.

Sorry for using a quote from that rag the Washington Post. I guess next time I'll find a quote from a paper with some credibility like the National Enquirer.

Now you're just being petulant. It's not the Post; it that it was from La Canfora and his silly Redskins Insider blog, which was rife with his sniping and inaccuracies.

Because you don't think Gardner should have gotten a contract, none of them should have? The problem isn't that one in particular didn't get a contract, it was that none of them did.

Who would you have given a contract to, from the Redskins drafts of 2004-2005?

I said you could argue the case about Gardner (for or against) not that they absolutely should have signed him. He was more productive than any #2 the team has had since then.

His production was okay (it's about Randle-El production), but that says more about the sorry state of the Redskins WR corps, than it does about Gardner. But also, Gardner dropped many, many passes...he was just too damn inconsistent. Again, after Gardner left the Redskins, he caught a total of 15 NFL passes.

In the end, the only constant on the team since Snyder took over is Snyder. In that time, no one, not even a hall of fame coach, has succeeded in making the team consistently good. I guess Snyder played no part in any of that.

Never would argue against any of that. This team was a disaster when he took over, and continued to be a disaster until he hired Gibbs. However, since 2004, the management has been markedly better (better player personnel acquisitions, better drafting (when they keep their draft picks), and less public exposure of the ownership). There's absolutely been improvement; granted, there was a LOT of room for improvement. But many people are stuck on the idea that Snyder is a terrible owner, and will always be a terrible owner. A more casual, less personally-involved observer with a more open mind would look at the evolution of Snyder as an owner over the past half decade, and conclude otherwise.

But I know I can talk all I want about how I, and many others, see improvement in him. The sad fact is that I'm still talking to someone who has chosen to call himself "SnyderSucks." After all, choosing a nickname like that is the hallmark of an open mind on this particular matter. Let's just agree to disagree.

04/05 - Obviously extenstions to Taylor and Cool

ey. Ideally, you shouldn't allow a starter to get to the last year of a contract unless you intend to let them walk, just as head coaches rarely coach on the last year of a contract. So that would mean Rogers and Campbell should have been extended as well.

Thanks for the comments - I enjoy the back and forth.

And F.Y.I., I used to be a Snyder supporter, especially for his willingness to spend whatever it takes. As time has gone on, my view has changed to believe that he does more harm than good. A big part of that change has come from work experience with people who behave the way he does and seeing the damage they do to a company.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:30 pm**

DEHog wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
DEHog wrote:So now my fanhood is predicated on what I write on this board??

What do you mean "now?" And what makes you think it's limited to that. Are you wearing boxers or briefs? Your fanhood is predicated on that and a whole bunch of other tests too...

So enlighten me oh wise one!

For the record I wear Redskins boxers under my dress!!

Well, Skins fans wear boxers so you're OK there and anyone who has watched a Skins game knows dresses work. There are a bunch of other rules, but I always forget them until it's convenient so I'll let you know out of the blue when you violate one...

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Dan Snyder 3rd Worst Owner in NFL

Re: Dan Snyder 3rd Worst Owner in NFL

Re: Dan Snyder 3rd Worst Owner in NFL

Re: Dan Snyder 3rd Worst Owner in NFL

Re: Dan Snyder 3rd Worst Owner in NFL

Re: Dan Snyder 3rd Worst Owner in NFL