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

Red_One43 wrote:

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35988

The last line in the last post of that thread reads ...

Oops. Darn that logic...

so we can now blame KSF for Oops

1niksder wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35988

The last line in the last post of that thread reads ...

Oops. Darn that logic...

so we can now blame KSF for Oops

LMAO!!!

Did I get carried away??



DarthMonk

TCIYM wrote:Seeing as how Snyder is likely to own the team for the next 40 years or longer I can't see the point in beating dead horses.

Yeah

TCIYM wrote:It's clear some people just want reasons to bash Dan Snyder, even if those reasons are lies and half-truths from a tabloid about things not related to the Redskins or past mistakes that are now history. History and Snyder's personal and business affairs nor Redskins related do not concern me.

Bringing in Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan and allowing them to make the football decisions was a first step. Fail to see how discussing a coach who was fired over nine years ago is relevant.

Also fail to understand why Snyder is being bashed for taking the advice of legal counsel. Snyder didn't take it upon himself to look for reasons to file suit. He took the advice of Tony Wyllie.

I'll just agree to disagree, as does the law. If targeting a specific individual is the intention, a newspaper better have its facts straight. In this case it doesn't. Snyder has a case, regardless of how people choose to characterize him.

- the first point matters to me because I believe that certain characteristics are necessary to be a good leader and to lead a winning franchise. Snyder has not exhibited ANY of these qualities other than passion (and one good quality is similar to a piano player with only one good finger).

- agian bringing in MS and BA was good for the franchise because it takes Snyder out. And what Snyder did to Schott is relevant because I am aftraid that he will do so again -- in that he will release a super good football guy if they don't produce quickly. History has a tendency of repeating itself you know.

- and do you REALLY believe that Snyder blindly went on the advice of his legal counsel. As an attorney, you give advise, but it is up to client to take it. You can't force your client to do anything. Danny had to pull the trigger. His name is the one on the complaint; not Tonys. Get real.

- and the newspaper really doesn't NEED to have the facts straight -- it only needs to believe that they had the facts straight. I doubt Snyder will be successful in this case.

But you are correct in that I don't like Snyder. I am not afraid to say that. Now do I have an agenda -- YES. My agenda is winning. If Snyder wins, great. Since he took over the team, he has done it his way and consistently lost. I hate that.

He has also made horrible personal decisions and it is clear that he's attempting to control all media related to him (e.g. skins radio, extreme skins website, suing newspapers, etc.). He has not displayed any sort of sincerity, honesty, humility, or responsibility either for his own actions or the results on the field (and don't even cite that stupid newspapare article 6 months ago where he admits that AH was a mistake.....). If he is going to be a horrible person, the least he could do is win (at least JJones and Al Davis have won SBs) -- but no, he is a losing owner AND a horrible person. So am I supposed to sit here and keep quiet??? I can't do that. People need to speak up -- if they don't what is the point of being a fan...

oops wrote:>>Yet, if racism were his motivation in chosing the team name... why, then, was Deitz his head coach?

I suppose one can only speculate about these things. I have enough information to paint a picture in my mind of how it might have gone down. Apparently Deitz was known to be a great coach, but being AmerInd, he was also a novelty item to someone looking for a marketing angle. I'm sure "Redskins" sounds waaay more offensive to the public now than it did in the 1930s. Americans are much more socially conscious now. The team was named long before we even had 50 states in the union.

I don't think Marshall chose the name to offend anyone, but the choice by today's standards shows a lack of regard for the dignity of the indigenous people.

I understand why you are sick of the topic. I can only imagine what type of discourse it may have evoked in the past.

But people and societies evolve. Confederate flags are beginning to disappear as symbols in state capitols and universities. My personal feeling is that references to skin color should be out of bounds for the greater good. But I'm an outsider at this point. My perspective is different than yours.

- Jim Thorpe. ("You can look it up", as Casey Stengel would have said). Greatest athlete of his time, and a pro football player in the very beginninig.

- The Redskins were the Boston Braves, named in imitation of the baseball team that now plays in Atlanta. The Braves, probably, were named to associate the team with the Sons of Liberty who dressed as indians when they dumped tea into Boston harbor.

- I don't doubt that GP Marshall was a racist. He went to a lot of trouble to make the Redskins the "flagship" team of segregation. However, that had nothing to do with American Indians. In fact, Marshall went through a period -- about the time the US government was building a new ballpark call3ed DC Stadium (now RFK) -- Marshall, to repeat, insisted that he was trying to find black football players, but couldn't. Yes, no joke. Marshall's all-time grotesque announcement: he had offered MC Reynolds for Bobby Mitchell, but those rotten Cleveland Browns had refused his offer. Reynolds was part Indian and all-third string QB. Mitchell was a big star.

- Conclusion: Marshall's racial sensitivities circled around blacks...not Indians / Native Americans.