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

skinsfan#33 wrote:

fleetus wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

fleetus wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

1niksder wrote:Rumors were out there that Shanny liked Bradford and might try to move up to get him. What they gave to the Eagles is about what it would have taken to get the Rams to swap no. 1 picks. Bradford could have sat for a year and learned, while Philly struggles with Kolb for one year, Washington will be without a young QB to build around.

So if the Skins passed on McNabb and gave the #4 and their #2 to move up to the #1 spot then Bradford would have been starting by October after JC had his neck broken in the first two games! Our first chance to get an OT would have been in the 4th round. And that means Colt or Grossman would be starting by week 8-9 after Bradford re-injurs his shoulder when a DL taps him.

You all act like the OL was as bad at the start of the last season as it is right now! Our line is in right now is in FAR WORSE SHAPE than it was at the beginning of last year and worse than it was at any time last year.

Unles we draft a LT in the first, we might as well start Grossman or Colt, because McNabb will get killed behind this pathetic OL.

I guess we could always go out and sign False Start Adams and Levi Jones to play LT & RT, but my wigi board says that they wouldn't last the season and no QB would either, but at least we would have someone that we could line up at both OT spots. Right now we don't have anyone to start at LT or RT!

While I agree that O-line should be the biggest priority for the Skins right now, I think you need to consider the Shanahan ffactor with O-line. Zone blocking scheme changes everything. The type of players needed, allows for better success by some of our existing lineman, improves chance thsat this line could work as a unit toward success. Don't assume everything is the same as the end of last season and line will fail. There is some serious upside to Shanahan's system. let's give them a chance to show it before we throw them under the bus.

OK, I'll play this game. Name the canidates that are currently on the team that we could concievably start at LT and who would their backup be. Now do the same for RT.

Just because I'm a nice guy I'll give you who they have listed as an OT and currently on their roster:

74 Heyer, Stephon OT 6-6 330 2 years experience
68 Oldenburg, Clint OT 6-5 310 1 year experience
73 Robinson, William OT 6-6 297 2 years experience

MIke Williams is listed as a G/T too.

HAVE FUN!

You haven't pointed out anything that changes what I've said. We have some draft picks to make and we need at least one tackle, sure. But you and I don't know who will excel in Shanahan's system and we can't base that prediction solely on how they played last year. So it is silly to continue in that fashion. I stated that I agree the line needs to improve most, so you can get off down off the pulpit now.

First, I never was on a pulpit, but maybe I miss understood you. I thought you were hinting that we might be able to field a team with players we have now or could pick up in the 4th, 5th, and 7th round.

So maybe we are saying close to the same thing. All I want to point out is if we go into the season starting anyone who is currently on our roster at either tackle spot, then we are in big trouble.

So I think we need add 3 OTs; two staters and a backup LT. Wherever they get them I just hope they are lucky, because it will take good skill AND lots of luck. Like Beathard had in 1981.

You should have read my very first sentence then

fleetus wrote:While I agree that O-line should be the biggest priority for the Skins right now, I think you need to consider the Shanahan ffactor with O-line.

SkinsJock wrote:WE ARE NOT GOING TO SEE AN OFFENSIVE LINE HERE THIS SEASON LIKE WE SAW HERE LAST SEASON

first of all the guys in charge here have been replaced by Allen and Shanahan and they will have:
1 a better offensive line (that should not be too hard, considering)
2 a better offensive game plan
3 a better group of coaches (and play callers)
4 a better group of RBs

AND finally .... a MUCH better QB because despite what Schefter thinks, the stupid Eagles made a bad decision not a calculated decision in choosing to get rid of McNabb



I just hope we bring in Bradford as well

Yep, it's at least a "1 Mississippi" upgrade. Donovan doesn't count all the way to 4 Mississippi like Campbell does.

If it's true, then good for them, it worked. we will not pick Bradford. We have Mcnabb now. We don't have to worry about a QB until next year at least.

fleetus wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:WE ARE NOT GOING TO SEE AN OFFENSIVE LINE HERE THIS SEASON LIKE WE SAW HERE LAST SEASON

first of all the guys in charge here have been replaced by Allen and Shanahan and they will have:
1 a better offensive line (that should not be too hard, considering)
2 a better offensive game plan
3 a better group of coaches (and play callers)
4 a better group of RBs

AND finally .... a MUCH better QB because despite what Schefter thinks, the stupid Eagles made a bad decision not a calculated decision in choosing to get rid of McNabb



I just hope we bring in Bradford as well

Yep, it's at least a "1 Mississippi" upgrade. Donovan doesn't count all the way to 4 Mississippi like Campbell does.

I would say it is "1 Mississippi" and 3/4 of an "alligator" upgrade.

Thats a "dumb" statement, every year there is a new "Bradshaw". McNabb is a proven commodity. Bradshaw hasn't even thrown a pass in the NFL yet... Let's be for real here ....

Man, y'all are reading much more into this tweet than is there. It says some NFL execs believe ONE reason the Smegols made this trade with us, not the only reason. That means that some believe that it may have been seen as an added benefit to the compensation they got.
As for the ammo part, I think it has more to do with the will than the ammo. By aquiring McNabb we don't have have a desperate need to draft a QB this year. They may have been hoping to delay us having a franchise QB, that will be here for a decade +, rather than a few year fix that will probably make our draft stock less valuable as our record gets better.

riggofan wrote:I kind of doubt that Adam Schefter just made this "story" up though. I know some people don't have a high opinion of the media, but the idea that reporters just go out and make stuff up to suit their own agendas is kind of ridiculous

Actually, I gave good examples of how it's "made up." They cite unnamed "NFL execs." There are so many when it's stated that broad and what they specifically said isn't stated. Most of them make stuff up by stretching who said what exactly. That they get away with. The one you cited was caught because he didn't play the game of how making up stories is done.

So basically if you want to write a story and say "X," a position you've already decided before talking to anyone, then just go and talk to enough people about "X" until you have enough quotes to support "X." Don't just write the story without doing that and you're fine.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:So basically if you want to write a story and say "X," a position you've already decided before talking to anyone, then just go and talk to enough people about "X" until you have enough quotes to support "X." Don't just write the story without doing that and you're fine.

Right. I assume you're not filling out your census form either so the government can't order you to install tracking devices behind your ears.

riggofan wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:So basically if you want to write a story and say "X," a position you've already decided before talking to anyone, then just go and talk to enough people about "X" until you have enough quotes to support "X." Don't just write the story without doing that and you're fine.

Right. I assume you're not filling out your census form either so the government can't order you to install tracking devices behind your ears.

And you believe government when they say they are here to help and people when they tell you check is in fact "in the mail." There's another one you'd believe if you were a girl...

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

riggofan wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:So basically if you want to write a story and say "X," a position you've already decided before talking to anyone, then just go and talk to enough people about "X" until you have enough quotes to support "X." Don't just write the story without doing that and you're fine.

Right. I assume you're not filling out your census form either so the government can't order you to install tracking devices behind your ears.

And you believe government when they say they are here to help and people when they tell you check is in fact "in the mail." There's another one you'd believe if you were a girl...

Ouch. Guess I nailed it on the census...!

riggofan wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

riggofan wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:So basically if you want to write a story and say "X," a position you've already decided before talking to anyone, then just go and talk to enough people about "X" until you have enough quotes to support "X." Don't just write the story without doing that and you're fine.

Right. I assume you're not filling out your census form either so the government can't order you to install tracking devices behind your ears.

And you believe government when they say they are here to help and people when they tell you check is in fact "in the mail." There's another one you'd believe if you were a girl...

Ouch. Guess I nailed it on the census...!

Yep Riggo, reporters are obsessed with the unbiased pursuit of truth. They are on a higher plain then us mere mortals. They are like Priests, serving the greater good of humanity sacrificing all personal gain. They would never present a story based on personal interest, selling papers or notoriety. They just pursue all stories with an open mind and passion for communicating the most honest representation of the story of which the human mind is capable, and then some. To think otherwise is to be worthy of running around with aluminum foil on your head to prevent aliens from reading your mind.

Thanks for that insight! I'll give it all due consideration.

riggofan wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

riggofan wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:So basically if you want to write a story and say "X," a position you've already decided before talking to anyone, then just go and talk to enough people about "X" until you have enough quotes to support "X." Don't just write the story without doing that and you're fine.

Right. I assume you're not filling out your census form either so the government can't order you to install tracking devices behind your ears.

And you believe government when they say they are here to help and people when they tell you check is in fact "in the mail." There's another one you'd believe if you were a girl...

Ouch. Guess I nailed it on the census...!

Let me get this straight. If someone thinks that a story, written with zero corroboration and citing unnamed sources, could possibly be fiction, they are a nut job on the order of a conspiracy theorist? Are you serious? You're saying that we should trust the integrity of a guy who has to meet a deadline every day with new and interesting subject matter? A guy none of us knows personally. C'mon, there is nothing at all far fetched about sports writers, especially the ones who cover the draft, fudging stories. There are hundreds of pure speculatory rumor mill stories about unnamed sources who think Team X is secretly planning on drafting player Z despite the consensus. It's ridiculous that we're even having to explain this reality to anyone older than 12. Wait a minute. Riggo, how old are you? Get off your Mom's computer and go do your homework.

fleetus wrote:Let me get this straight. If someone thinks that a story, written with zero corroboration and citing unnamed sources, could possibly be fiction, they are a nut job on the order of a conspiracy theorist? Are you serious? You're saying that we should trust the integrity of a guy who has to meet a deadline every day with new and interesting subject matter? A guy none of us knows personally. C'mon, there is nothing at all far fetched about sports writers, especially the ones who cover the draft, fudging stories. There are hundreds of pure speculatory rumor mill stories about unnamed sources who think Team X is secretly planning on drafting player Z despite the consensus. It's ridiculous that we're even having to explain this reality to anyone older than 12. Wait a minute. Riggo, how old are you? Get off your Mom's computer and go do your homework.

It's scary the trust people have in the media, isn't it Fleetus?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

fleetus wrote:Let me get this straight. If someone thinks that a story, written with zero corroboration and citing unnamed sources, could possibly be fiction, they are a nut job on the order of a conspiracy theorist? Are you serious? You're saying that we should trust the integrity of a guy who has to meet a deadline every day with new and interesting subject matter? A guy none of us knows personally. C'mon, there is nothing at all far fetched about sports writers, especially the ones who cover the draft, fudging stories. There are hundreds of pure speculatory rumor mill stories about unnamed sources who think Team X is secretly planning on drafting player Z despite the consensus. It's ridiculous that we're even having to explain this reality to anyone older than 12. Wait a minute. Riggo, how old are you? Get off your Mom's computer and go do your homework.

It's scary the trust people have in the media, isn't it Fleetus?

What? It's hard to read through this foil. I need to cut the eye holes bigger! You ever sneeze while wearing your foil? It is LOUD!


Yeah Kaz, "unnamed sources" stories are abused. The purpose of being allowed to cite unnamed sources is for stories generally related to government secrets or where the sources could understandably lose their life as a result. (e.g. - Watergate)

But we're talking about the NFL. You have 32 teams all competing for the same thing and loads of "officials" and "executives" who just want to to stir the pot against their competition. If a Cowboys official wants to cause problems for the Skins, all he has to do is call ESPN and say, "I have inside knowledge that Skins offered Haynesworth in a trade to the Eagles." Boom, mission accomplished. There isn't anyone on the planet, besides the author, who knows who the anonymous source was. I say, if the source cannot identify themselves, chances are they are part of the competition and therefore, anything they say is suspect anyway. OR, there was no source other than the author who can hide behind unnamed sources to print fiction.

fleetus wrote:
But we're talking about the NFL. You have 32 teams all competing for the same thing and loads of "officials" and "executives" who just want to to stir the pot against their competition. If a Cowboys official wants to cause problems for the Skins, all he has to do is call ESPN and say, "I have inside knowledge that Skins offered Haynesworth in a trade to the Eagles." Boom, mission accomplished. There isn't anyone on the planet, besides the author, who knows who the anonymous source was. I say, if the source cannot identify themselves, chances are they are part of the competition and therefore, anything they say is suspect anyway. OR, there was no source other than the author who can hide behind unnamed sources to print fiction.

I think the media does a great job with their reports about the NFL. It's very hard to get the information that they provide to the general population.

They have to talk to these "sources" to get the dirt, then go out and get corroboration from a "NFL exec with knowledge of the situation" at this point all GOOD journalist no they still need at least one more corroboration before they can run with the information. This forces the beat writer to go to his little black book (it has 1000s of numbers but NO NAMES) to contact his "anonymous sources within the organization" to confirm the info provided their original source. These pillars of the community have to do this without ever saying who they talked too, or what was the bases of the conversation in which this information came from, let alone all the work the did to confirm the info. To be able to do this four or five times a day, everyday is hard work.

The truth is the The NFL needs to expand the number of teams in the league to provide reporters with more NFL execs that won't be named, and confidential sources with knowledge of the situations.

Or we can just call every source (named or un-named) "deepthroat", afterall we are talking about DC.

1niksder wrote:I think the media does a great job with their reports about the NFL. It's very hard to get the information that they provide to the general population.

They have to talk to these "sources" to get the dirt, then go out and get corroboration from a "NFL exec with knowledge of the situation" at this point all GOOD journalist no they still need at least one more corroboration before they can run with the information. This forces the beat writer to go to his little black book (it has 1000s of numbers but NO NAMES) to contact his "anonymous sources within the organization" to confirm the info provided their original source. These pillars of the community have to do this without ever saying who they talked too, or what was the bases of the conversation in which this information came from, let alone all the work the did to confirm the info. To be able to do this four or five times a day, everyday is hard work.

The truth is the The NFL needs to expand the number of teams in the league to provide reporters with more NFL execs that won't be named, and confidential sources with knowledge of the situations.

Or we can just call every source (named or un-named) "deepthroat", afterall we are talking about DC.

I don't have an issue with them using unnamed sources. I just have an issue with people blindly believing what they read without question or common sense. Reporters clearly have incentive to constantly come up with stories and to make them interesting. It's possible to generally believe them without turning off critical thinking.