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

SkinsFreak wrote:

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.

My point is wouldn't Zorn want Stump even if he was the OC...of course he would...it's just goes to the point that Snyder had no intentions of giving the job to him and that decision was going to be made by the HC. Which goes to the heart of the problem I have with DS..not so much what he does but how he does it!!

I am not going to preach from a high horse. I honestly believe that we all are devoted Skins fans here. I do not think any less of any of you because you do not share any or some of my views.

I will just say that there are decent families even if they are poor. Similarly, there are teams who are decent to their members even if they are not champions.

I will always want my family and my team to be DECENT first and only second well off and champions, respectively. That is only me but values are first and foremost. In other words:

A shrewed business man does not a great owner make.

DEHog wrote:My point is wouldn't Zorn want Stump even if he was the OC...of course he would...it's just goes to the point that Snyder had no intentions of giving the job to him and that decision was going to be made by the HC. Which goes to the heart of the problem I have with DS..not so much what he does but how he does it!!

I think this shows that very little of this process was set in stone. Byner was tagged along because Zorn was a twitch hire.

DEHog wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

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.

My point is wouldn't Zorn want Stump even if he was the OC...of course he would...it's just goes to the point that Snyder had no intentions of giving the job to him and that decision was going to be made by the HC. Which goes to the heart of the problem I have with DS..not so much what he does but how he does it!!

That's the issue precisely, I have no qualms whatsoever about Zorn wanting to choose an RB coach and Byner being let go as a result of that. It's HOW they arrived there that troubles me. Simply telling Byner "hey man, we've got some candidates for the HC spot in mind and so we may have to go in another direction with your job" would have been just fine. That's part of the business. But this strange back-and-forth and the lack of real honesty just isn't an acceptable way to operate. The lack of professional courtesy has no justification.

Man I read that story about Byner last night and felt sick to my stomach. That's some really shabby stuff.

I know that this is Snyder's team and all that, but on some level I still think he represents us fans. We support his team, buy his tickets, etc; When I read stuff like this it makes me angry to be putting money in his pockets.

You have to be impressed with Byner for not lashing out after being treated like that. His future employers will hopefully see this and recognize his reputation as a quality guy is well deserved.

Good luck to him!

/end rant

This is complete and utter BS. Everyone says "he can pick his staff if he likes". 3/4's of his staff was selected for him, now all of a sudden he should be able to pick his staff? If they didn't want him they should have told him before he pulled out of the job process in Tampa. Two year deal should have told him to bail out in the first place. They act like we are the Patriots and everyone wants to win here. No, everyone wants to get paid here. Typical Redskins, all business no loyalty. Bad business that is.

Fios wrote:

DEHog wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

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.

My point is wouldn't Zorn want Stump even if he was the OC...of course he would...it's just goes to the point that Snyder had no intentions of giving the job to him and that decision was going to be made by the HC. Which goes to the heart of the problem I have with DS..not so much what he does but how he does it!!

That's the issue precisely, I have no qualms whatsoever about Zorn wanting to choose an RB coach and Byner being let go as a result of that. It's HOW they arrived there that troubles me. Simply telling Byner "hey man, we've got some candidates for the HC spot in mind and so we may have to go in another direction with your job" would have been just fine. That's part of the business. But this strange back-and-forth and the lack of real honesty just isn't an acceptable way to operate. The lack of professional courtesy has no justification.

Listen, I'm not defending the way Dan Snyder does things. But I'm not so sure I understand the "back and forth" stuff.

JLC wrote: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.

So Byner's contract had already expired. The reports that he had already signed a new contract were false and Byner was owed nothing, contractually speaking. The Skins put a new offer on the table. Byner walks away from that offer and goes and interviews with Tampa. As reported, after the Super Bowl, Tampa hadn't made up their minds either and were still interviewing for the job. During that time, plans were changing as Zorn was getting organized. Byner comes back and wants to sign his new offer. The Skins say, at that point, due to the recent evolution of things, we may go in another direction, so we better hold off for now. Zorn picks Mitchell, Mitchell interviews and gets the job, and Byner never gets the new contract. The point is, Byner was not under contract and wasn't owed anything but consideration.

In the end, they decided to go with Zorn's choice of Mitchell, which, at the end of the day, was the right choice to make.

If you can't see what makes me uncomfortable about how that was handled, it's not worth the effort to try to convince you of it.

This thread seems to imply the Redskins front office had in the past, have currently, or will have at some point in the near future a clue about what they are doing.

The truthful answer to the Byner situation and so many others is something to the effect of, "We ended up with a head coach we didn't plan on, we already hired key staff members and we had to give Zorn some latitude in personnel decisions to get him to sign the deal. Running Backs coach was one of those personnel decisions."

Fios wrote:If you can't see what makes me uncomfortable about how that was handled, it's not worth the effort to try to convince you of it.

Well, seeing how everyone is in a poor mood today (draft section) I'll just end with the fact that everyone "sees" things differently and nobody needs "convincing" of anything. I was merely eluding to the fact that Byner wasn't under contract. Byner could have signed the initial contract offer, but instead, he walked away and went to Tampa. When he came back, the offer was no longer there. I don't view that as Byner being screwed over, as it was his choice not to sign the initial offer. But that's my perspective and I respect the fact that you have yours. Peace.

My point is I already noted why I find it to be unseemly, you don't, so there we have it, I don't see a point in arguing it.

Fios wrote:My point is I already noted why I find it to be unseemly, you don't, so there we have it, I don't see a point in arguing it.

<sigh> I wasn't arguing your point, just trying to understand it, as I agree with you on many issues.

Fios wrote:But this strange back-and-forth and the lack of real honesty just isn't an acceptable way to operate. The lack of professional courtesy has no justification.

The "back-and-forth and lack of real honesty" is what I didn't understand, specifically with regard to Byner's situation. But just forget it if you view it as an argument. Cheers.

Oh ... well, in that case I misunderstood, my bad, I thought you were saying the whole thing seemed above-board. Again, the decision is not the issue for me, it's how they arrived there.

SkinsFreak wrote:

Fios wrote:My point is I already noted why I find it to be unseemly, you don't, so there we have it, I don't see a point in arguing it.

<sigh> I wasn't arguing your point, just trying to understand it, as I agree with you on many issues.

Fios wrote:But this strange back-and-forth and the lack of real honesty just isn't an acceptable way to operate. The lack of professional courtesy has no justification.

The "back-and-forth and lack of real honesty" is what I didn't understand, specifically with regard to Byner's situation. But just forget it if you view it as an argument. Cheers.

Isn’t the bigger issue here the ineptness of our FO.
It should have never came to this, a calamity of errors it what
caused this.

They hire Zorn as the OC…is there any doubt what offense we were going to run after hiring Zorn??

Than they extend an offer to Byner…why??

Again this goes to the point that they didn’t want or know that Zorn was going to ultimately be named coach.

Then they name Zorn coach…and what do you know the HC would actually like to pick some of his own coaches???

I don’t care how you spin it…Dan and Vinny messed up…so if Byner had went ahead and signed the contract before Zorn was named coach than what??

This is why you don’t put the cart before the house!





I

Just another coach left in the dark when it came to his future. No surprise. Now I have a question. Who will be the person to decide whether Portis practices. Mitchell, Zorn, Offensive Coord. or Snyder?

Fios wrote:Oh ... well, in that case I misunderstood, my bad, I thought you were saying the whole thing seemed above-board. Again, the decision is not the issue for me, it's how they arrived there.

I absolutely agree they arrived there in an unorthodox manor. I actually believe Snyder intended to hire Fassel all along. Once he got word of how upset the fans would be with that selection, he figured he better look elsewhere. Zorn impressed him so much that after some reflection, he decided Zorn would be the best option. Any proof of that? No. But I think that may have played a part in Byner's situation. If Byner had actually signed a new contract, and they subsequently yanked that contract out from under him, I would've absolutely had a problem with it.

I just didn't understand what you meant by the back-and forth thing and the dishonestly issue, solely with regard to Byner. I wouldn't like that either. But, at least from my perspective, I didn't see where they were dishonest with Byner. It just appeared to me that they changed their mind once Zorn made his desires known.

But I could be wrong and I may have misunderstood you, which seems rather impossible, since I'm always right and I understand everything.

JLC wrote:Last week, before Zorn was promoted from offensive coordinator to head coach, Byner went to the complex to sign the one-year contract the team offered, but he was told that the new head coach would be involved in a process regarding his potential return to the team, league sources said. "I had a conversation with Earnest and he's going to move on and try to find another team to go with," Zorn said. "It's hard. I wasn't happy about speaking with him because of how difficult any of that is. He had a good outlook on the situation. He'll land on his feet."

I think it's clear Zorn had more to do with this decision than Snyder did. I'm sure if Zorn had wanted to keep Byner, Snyder would've re-signed him. I like Byner a lot and hope he gets an opportunity with another team. Thanks Earnest.

JLC wrote:Last week, before Zorn was promoted from offensive coordinator to head coach, Byner went to the complex to sign the one-year contract the team offered, but he was told that the new head coach would be involved in a process regarding his potential return to the team, league sources said. "I had a conversation with Earnest and he's going to move on and try to find another team to go with," Zorn said. "It's hard. I wasn't happy about speaking with him because of how difficult any of that is. He had a good outlook on the situation. He'll land on his feet."

At the very least, they could have given a brother some gas money, after wasting his time getting to Ashburn and leaving without a contract, am I right?.

SkinsFreak wrote:

JLC wrote:Last week, before Zorn was promoted from offensive coordinator to head coach, Byner went to the complex to sign the one-year contract the team offered, but he was told that the new head coach would be involved in a process regarding his potential return to the team, league sources said. "I had a conversation with Earnest and he's going to move on and try to find another team to go with," Zorn said. "It's hard. I wasn't happy about speaking with him because of how difficult any of that is. He had a good outlook on the situation. He'll land on his feet."

I think it's clear Zorn had more to do with this decision than Snyder did. I'm sure if Zorn had wanted to keep Byner, Snyder would've re-signed him. I like Byner a lot and hope he gets an opportunity with another team. Thanks Earnest.

I still question why there was an offer to EB when they knew they were installing the WCO.

Also what would have happened if EB signed??

In the end I think Snyder did what he also does and gave EB the money the contract would have paid in this case I think it was warranted

playboy1972 wrote:Just another coach left in the dark when it came to his future. No surprise. Now I have a question. Who will be the person to decide whether Portis practices. Mitchell, Zorn, Offensive Coord. or Snyder?

Probably CP will decide.

yupchagee wrote:

playboy1972 wrote:Just another coach left in the dark when it came to his future. No surprise. Now I have a question. Who will be the person to decide whether Portis practices. Mitchell, Zorn, Offensive Coord. or Snyder?

Probably CP will decide.

I think they will ask Portis, and then ask him to check with Byner what he would have done if he had stayed here and then they will check with Gibbs and see if he agrees with Bugel's interpretation of the line blocking assignments and finally go with a variation of the WCO

Also, league sources say the Titans are very much interested in fired Redskins running backs coach Earnest Byner to work with their running backs, and plan to contact him shortly.

Byner is a good guy and I don't think he'll be unemployed for long.

BTW - Byner wasn't fired, as JLC so eloquently writes, his contract had expired, and based on Zorn's preference of Smith and Mitchell, Byner was simply not extended a new contract. Big difference.