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

riggofan wrote:

markshark84 wrote:And Danny boy is completely to blame for this mess (I don't think Scot's firing was a result of his drinking) because Danny boy is the one that implemented the FO structure. He should have known that two at the top doesn't work

What are you talking about? I'm pretty sure we weren't the only team in the league with a team President and a general manager.

Damn it, man. Don't make me defend Snyder!!!

Yeah, it's just as usual, Snyder sided with the wrong bloke.

riggofan wrote:I have yet to see any evidence that the drinking story is true. I'd like somebody to at least say something on the record before I would write what you just wrote. These leaks and rumors from "unnamed sources" should not be enough to slander that guy's reputation.

Not only will you not see any evidence, there will be none.

Even C00ley retracted and deservedly felt sorry and apologise for one of his most moronic and irresponsible actions. Not being a professional media person can to some degree make us understand his actions but consequences are consequences to HIM and Scott.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... h-alcohol/

The truth is that, a professional media organization can effectively destroy the reputation of ANYBODY. It can even use the stupid and unintentional actions of a self-made amateur sports media person to start the bigger campaign. We know where all the "leaks" and "unnamed" sources come from, don't we all?

The only question I ask is: who in his right mind and with a decent track record of success want to be here? I am sure money will buy somebody. The next body to be thrown under the truck. As long as he knows that, most will watch the continuing unfolding disaster as a self-fulfilled prophecy.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Not only will you not see any evidence, there will be none.

Even C00ley retracted and deservedly felt sorry and apologise for one of his most moronic and irresponsible actions. Not being a professional media person can to some degree make us understand his actions but consequences are consequences to HIM and Scott.

Yeah I heard his apology on air. He did apologize, but he also replayed that original segment and pointed out - correctly in my opinion - that what he said on air that day wasn't exactly what was reported by the news later that afternoon. (And of course morphed into this whole other headline: CHRIS COOLEY SAYS SCOT MCCLOUGHAN IS BACK ON THE SAUCE.)

I doubt anyone here is surprised at this point that some parts of the media hyped, sensationalized and overreacted to a story that way.

Redskin in Canada wrote:The truth is that, a professional media organization can effectively destroy the reputation of ANYBODY. It can even use the stupid and unintentional actions of a self-made amateur sports media person to start the bigger campaign. We know where all the "leaks" and "unnamed" sources come from, don't we all?

That's for damn sure. Even worse though, this stuff doesn't have to come strictly from a "professional media organization". There are enough people out there who have a hard time distinguishing between professional media and bloggy content written by JAGs. You too could be a writer for Bleacher Report!

riggofan wrote:That's for damn sure. Even worse though, this stuff doesn't have to come strictly from a "professional media organization". There are enough people out there who have a hard time distinguishing between professional media and bloggy content written by JAGs. You too could be a writer for Bleacher Report!

This time it was a combination of leaks from the Front Office and Redskins Park and extended through the Snyder media outlets onto bloggers and other media.

I am sure Scott and his agent considered legal action. Terms of termination not disclosed ... see?

Scott wanted to do his job and knew how to do it. A competent employee can become a threat to many who wish to keep control. Interestingly, I thought he had won the battle for personnel and influence in the FO. I was wrong.

I seem to recall to have made a comparison between Machiavelli and Bruce Allen in this website long time ago. I was right.

Found it from a thread back to 2014! Please read on:

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic ... li#p631112

Redskin in Canada wrote:I seem to recall to have made a comparison between Machiavelli and Bruce Allen in this website long time ago. I was right.

He's always seemed like more of a politician than a football guy to me. Just generally speaking. The things that have gone on the past few weeks seem way more like something you'd expect to see out of the Washington government than the Washington football team.

With the Raiders on the verge of relocating to Vegas and the Rams and Chargers already in LA, it got me to thinking about the Redskins. I remember a few years back the Charlotte fans force the Hornets out of Carolina, would you support losing the Redskins if you knew we’d get a new franchise with a new owner??

DEHog wrote:With the Raiders on the verge of relocating to Vegas and the Rams and Chargers already in LA, it got me to thinking about the Redskins. I remember a few years back the Charlotte fans force the Hornets out of Carolina, would you support losing the Redskins if you knew we’d get a new franchise with a new owner??

Can't we just get a new owner?

This is a hard question to answer but I just don't see Skins fans staying loyal to the Skins if they became the Iowa Cornshuckers. I think, like every other instance of teams moving or changing something fundamental, there would be some resistance at first, met by acceptance, and then support for the new franchise. But here's a thought that could keep you up nights: The new owner could be worse than Dan Snyder.

I am a Washington Redskins fan

the DC franchise is more likely to be under different ownership than changing the name or moving - in that order

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

DEHog wrote:With the Raiders on the verge of relocating to Vegas and the Rams and Chargers already in LA, it got me to thinking about the Redskins. I remember a few years back the Charlotte fans force the Hornets out of Carolina, would you support losing the Redskins if you knew we’d get a new franchise with a new owner??

Can't we just get a new owner?

This is a hard question to answer but I just don't see Skins fans staying loyal to the Skins if they became the Iowa Cornshuckers. I think, like every other instance of teams moving or changing something fundamental, there would be some resistance at first, met by acceptance, and then support for the new franchise. But here's a thought that could keep you up nights: The new owner could be worse than Dan Snyder.

You thnk Snyder would ever sell the team?
I don't even think he'd move the team if people stopped showingup!!
Worst than Snyder....

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

DEHog wrote:With the Raiders on the verge of relocating to Vegas and the Rams and Chargers already in LA, it got me to thinking about the Redskins. I remember a few years back the Charlotte fans force the Hornets out of Carolina, would you support losing the Redskins if you knew we’d get a new franchise with a new owner??

Can't we just get a new owner?

This is a hard question to answer but I just don't see Skins fans staying loyal to the Skins if they became the Iowa Cornshuckers. I think, like every other instance of teams moving or changing something fundamental, there would be some resistance at first, met by acceptance, and then support for the new franchise. But here's a thought that could keep you up nights: The new owner could be worse than Dan Snyder.

- Snyder is likely to keep ownership for a long, long time.

- It would be hard for any owner to be worse than Dan Snyder, but we have suffered under another owner, a member of the NFL Hall of Fame who ought to have been selected to an NFL Hall of Shame.

- The Redskins have only had three owners: George Preston Marshall brought the 'Skins from Boston to DC. GPM was a good-enough owner in the '40s, but could not adjust as the NFL became the NFL we know now. The Browns, the Giants, the Colts, and the Bears were some of the model franchises: drafted smart, hired coaches to run offense and defense. GPM ran the Redskins more like a circus than a professional football franchise. First round picks were often QB's and HB's. AND he chose to make the Redskins the flag-waving team of segregation,

- Washington newspapers hammered away at GPM -- Shirley Povich wrote articles that I still remember almost 60 years later. "Born the wrong color to play for Washington, Jim Brown [or Bobby Mitchell?], instead, integrated the Washington backfield four times as the Browns crushed the Redskins..." GPM replied, "You're saying that white boys can't play football". Nothing changed GPM's mind. He claimed that he was about to drop the color-line around the Redskins, but that the Browns had refused his offer of M.C. Reynolds [Washington's third-string QB] for Mitchell. Povich reached back to his memory of a a vaudeville joke about the guy who "almost had Citation", the triple-crown winning race-horse. "Why don't you just give me Citation...I was one word away from owning that horse...he said 'no', but if he had said 'yes'..."

- GPM held on as the Redskins won three games, then one game. JFK's Secretary of the Interior (Stewart Udall?) told Marshall that the Interior Department would refuse to allow the Redskins, as a segregated business, to use the new DC Stadium. GPM huffed, said "I'm trying", pointed to the Bobby Mitchell non-trade, finally traded the Redskins' first-round pick, Ernie Davis, for Mitchell.

- The only thing that changed: Marshall had a stroke. Edward Bennett Williams received power-of-attorney when GPM had a stroke about 1963. Williams hired football people while selling off Marshall's stock to a Canadian businessman -- Jack Kent Cooke. It took a stroke and the underhanded business-dealing to shift ownership.

- Williams ran the team, hiring Otto Graham, firing "Toot" and hiring Vince Lombardi, then hiring George Allen, then hiring Jack Pardee (HC) and Bobby Beathard (GM). Cooke was happy running the LA Lakers until he got divorced. Cooke moved east, displacing Williams, and Cooke and Beathard fired Pardee and hired Joe Gibbs.

- Everyone knows the last ownership change: Cooke died leaving the team to be put up for auction. NFL owners chose Dan Snyder over John Kent Cooke, for reasons that made sense to the NFL owners club but not to me.

- Summary: only a stroke plus shenanigans, then a death plus shenanigans, have slipped the Redskins from one ownership family to another.

- Snyder is likely to own the Redskins for many years, and only a strange will might shift ownership away from the Snyder family.

Like it or not our hopes rest in Allens hands.

I was a big Scott McCloughan fan. Still am.
I still hold out hope that Bruce Allen will do the right thing.
It was Bruce Allen after all who hired Scott McCloughan in the first place.
So far I've liked the free agent signings on offense. Defense I will wait to judge the D tackles we signed. Swearinger is a solid player.
We still have the draft as well.
It's still likely for Allen to hire another GM.
In the meanwhile we do have Scotts draft board.

Look guys. Most of you wanted Kirk. I was all for trading Kirk and rebuilding with Scott as GM.
Some sources say Scott wanted to trade Kirk for picks which is what I wanted to do.

But, the ownership and Allen obviously disagreed. They made a decision and I may not agree with it. But I respect it. Allen also seems to be committing to his decision by bringing in free agents who I think will help this offense moving forward.

Trust me I would rag on this front office first chance I get. But the moves made give me no reason to.

The handling of Kirks contract before he improved was justified. We all had not seen Kirk play well enough before last year. None of us would of said pay Kirk 20 million in his first year as starter. Scott may have had the foresight to sign him early but it's understandable that they didn't offer a LTD before seeing him play a full season.

If Kirk is who you guys think he is. Then it's going to work out fine. I actually think with the additions made this offense will have a very good year.

Kirk is on another prove it year. However I don't think it will be difficult especially if we get a running game going.
Same offense,same coach and better receivers.

Main thing for me is that the front office is following through on there vision with Gruden, Kirk Cousins and a nice group of recivers.
I am coming around to it. I can see Kirk maybe throwing for 30 to 35 Tds.


In years past Snyder would of fired Gruden. We would of signed Darrell Revis by now for a record contract.
Believe it or not we have continuity. It was a tough decision to let Scott go I'm sure. But obviously that is what had to happen.
Just look at the current condition of the team. Arguably I think it's better than last year.
It really isn't as bad as some of you are making it out to be.

HEROHAMO wrote:It really isn't as bad as some of you are making it out to be.

This exactly.

Believe me, I've been as annoyed, disheartened and disgusted as anyone here by what's gone on this offseason. But once I've stepped back and looked objectively, I don't think that much has really changed. This is still pretty much the same team in the same position that finished up the 2016 season. If you felt like that team was trending in the right direction - I did personally - its not all falling apart because Scot McCloughan is gone. Its certainly not falling apart because we didn't re-sign Chris Baker.

IMO the team made a decision on McCloughan and have moved on. They're going to have to show now that it was the right decision, just like they did with Cousins two years ago. We'll see.

HEROHAMO wrote:It really isn't as bad as some of you are making it out to be.

Thank you for some much needed logic.

riggofan wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:It really isn't as bad as some of you are making it out to be.

This exactly.

Believe me, I've been as annoyed, disheartened and disgusted as anyone here by what's gone on this offseason. But once I've stepped back and looked objectively, I don't think that much has really changed. This is still pretty much the same team in the same position that finished up the 2016 season. If you felt like that team was trending in the right direction - I did personally - its not all falling apart because Scot McCloughan is gone. Its certainly not falling apart because we didn't re-sign Chris Baker.

IMO the team made a decision on McCloughan and have moved on. They're going to have to show now that it was the right decision, just like they did with Cousins two years ago. We'll see.

It's not that SM is gone as much as it is who's back!

DEHog wrote:It's not that SM is gone as much as it is who's back!

Are we sure he was ever gone?

riggofan wrote:

DEHog wrote:It's not that SM is gone as much as it is who's back!

Are we sure he was ever gone?

Well I'll say this...back to back winning seasons for the first time during his ownership...he better win!!

StorminMormon86 wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:It really isn't as bad as some of you are making it out to be.

Thank you for some much needed logic.

Not sure about this. Reasons:

1) New OC and DC. Some readjusting time will be needed.

2) New WRs. Again, this will take some readjusting.

3) Our QB is basically playing his last season with the team.

4) The running game is basically the same (not good).

5) All the rumors and leaks we've seen in the offseason tend to take their toll during the season.

Other than that, yeah, we are practically the same team. Sans one important guy inside our offices.


Other than that,

El Mexican wrote:3) Our QB is basically playing his last season with the team.

Not true. Bruce Allen came out and said paying Kirk Cousins on a third consecutive franchise tag was in play.

DEHog wrote:

riggofan wrote:

DEHog wrote:It's not that SM is gone as much as it is who's back!

Are we sure he was ever gone?

Well I'll say this...back to back winning seasons for the first time during his ownership...he better win!!

That's it exactly, man. Ok, you've made this wildly unpopular move. You'd better deliver the results and show you were right to do so.

El Mexican wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:It really isn't as bad as some of you are making it out to be.

Thank you for some much needed logic.

Not sure about this. Reasons:

1) New OC and DC. Some readjusting time will be needed.

2) New WRs. Again, this will take some readjusting.

3) Our QB is basically playing his last season with the team.

4) The running game is basically the same (not good).

5) All the rumors and leaks we've seen in the offseason tend to take their toll during the season.

Other than that, yeah, we are practically the same team. Sans one important guy inside our offices.

Other than that,

I find that people's reactions to the ongoing implosion of our FO has taken on a different form than the 5 stages of grief --- mainly because this is a bit different than the typical situation. As a fan for the past 20 years, Danny boy typically destroys the team every 2 years of so; and when he does the stages of grief which commonly occur to the typical fan are:
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Delusion via rationalization
4. Depression
5. Realization/Acceptance

In this current situation/beginning of the next 2 year cycle ---- We have already been thru the "denial" phase -- which was proven wrong when they fired Scot. Now, the dust has settled on the "anger" phase and now posters have entered into the "delusion via rationalization" stage --- whereby fans are now attempting to delude themselves into believing that whatever Danny boy did (here, the Scot firing and overall direction of the FO) isn't "as bad as it seems" via rationalization or any means that would satisfy their jaded mind....... These "rationalizations" rarely are supported by quantifiable facts or common logic nor do they ever end up being correct (for example, statements made by posters that the DL from OAK (who got a contract of the same value as Baker) is "an upgrade" to Baker --- when Baker has been historically better in every defensive category, has the same experience, and same age). Well, the rationalizations haven't been accurate in the past 8-10 Danny boy destruction cycles; which have occurred over the past 20 years. It is similar to the bargaining phase, except fans bargain not with others, but with themselves or their own opinions in an effort to feel better and not look at the true reality standing in front of them.

Meanwhile, in real-person-land, everything going on is par of the course with Danny boy and IDENTICAL to what we have seen over the past 20 years. If anyone really thinks this will end differently and we'll be able to put together a non-dysfunctional FO with solid management in place ---- they're f#$&ing bat-sh!t crazy.

What Danny boy has been so incredibly good at --- at I am 100% being truthful here --- is that he doesn't let fans get to the 5th step: Acceptance. When people are on the 4th (which occurs typically after or in the final games of a 4-12 season), he makes some move that either ends or merely postpones the next cycle --- which is why we have so many cycles and so frequently. I expect Dumb & Dumber 2.0 to do something unique/make a change by the beginning of this season or the end of next --- just before fans get to the 5th step.

markshark84 wrote:Now, the dust has settled on the "anger" phase and now posters have entered into the "delusion via rationalization" stage --- whereby fans are now attempting to delude themselves into believing that whatever Danny boy did (here, the Scot firing and overall direction of the FO) isn't "as bad as it seems"

Its not that what happened isn't "as bad as it seems". This was a horrendous off season by any measure. My realization though has been that the current situation with the team sucks and pisses me off, but it isn't as dire as I was feeling and some fans are still currently wallowing in. The Redskins are still going to draft some new players in April. They're still going to go to camp in May. They're still going to start training camp in July. I'm sorry but when we get to September, the team is still going to play sixteen games of football whether Scot McCloughan and Chris Baker are here or not.

I'm not deluding myself that this off season was all part of the master plan and its all good now.

Funny post, man. Enjoyed. I think I'm in the Acceptance phase myself, because I definitely already did Depression.

These freaking guys get it:



In Tampa working out with Jon Gruden. Almost like they plan to play this fall.

riggofan wrote:These freaking guys get it:



In Tampa working out with Jon Gruden. Almost like they plan to play this fall.

Definitely good to see.

[

I find that people's reactions to the ongoing implosion of our FO has taken on a different form than the 5 stages of grief --- mainly because this is a bit different than the typical situation. As a fan for the past 20 years, Danny boy typically destroys the team every 2 years of so; and when he does the stages of grief which commonly occur to the typical fan are:
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Delusion via rationalization
4. Depression
5. Realization/Acceptance

In this current situation/beginning of the next 2 year cycle ---- We have already been thru the "denial" phase -- which was proven wrong when they fired Scot. Now, the dust has settled on the "anger" phase and now posters have entered into the "delusion via rationalization" stage --- whereby fans are now attempting to delude themselves into believing that whatever Danny boy did (here, the Scot firing and overall direction of the FO) isn't "as bad as it seems" via rationalization or any means that would satisfy their jaded mind....... These "rationalizations" rarely are supported by quantifiable facts or common logic nor do they ever end up being correct (for example, statements made by posters that the DL from OAK (who got a contract of the same value as Baker) is "an upgrade" to Baker --- when Baker has been historically better in every defensive category, has the same experience, and same age). Well, the rationalizations haven't been accurate in the past 8-10 Danny boy destruction cycles; which have occurred over the past 20 years. It is similar to the bargaining phase, except fans bargain not with others, but with themselves or their own opinions in an effort to feel better and not look at the true reality standing in front of them.

Meanwhile, in real-person-land, everything going on is par of the course with Danny boy and IDENTICAL to what we have seen over the past 20 years. If anyone really thinks this will end differently and we'll be able to put together a non-dysfunctional FO with solid management in place ---- they're f#$&ing bat-sh!t crazy.

What Danny boy has been so incredibly good at --- at I am 100% being truthful here --- is that he doesn't let fans get to the 5th step: Acceptance. When people are on the 4th (which occurs typically after or in the final games of a 4-12 season), he makes some move that either ends or merely postpones the next cycle --- which is why we have so many cycles and so frequently. I expect Dumb & Dumber 2.0 to do something unique/make a change by the beginning of this season or the end of next --- just before fans get to the 5th step.

[


Haha that's experience talking. If this team makes the playoffs you know darn well you will be watching.
Teams ran for 1900 yards with Baker in the lineup.

How do you get any positive remarks on his play? He was a DT. A DTs main job is to stop the run.
He had his opportunity time for another to get a chance.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

El Mexican wrote:3) Our QB is basically playing his last season with the team.

Not true. Bruce Allen came out and said paying Kirk Cousins on a third consecutive franchise tag was in play.

The man can say anything he wants. Right now, he isn't exactly on my good side.

I would be incredibly surprised if KC gets tagged for a third consecutive time. It would be the first time ever that that happens.

We'll probably see him play a solid season, not spectacular, and part ways. Who knows.