Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1278496]I mean it's irrelevant to me in the grand scheme of things. Not picking a new team over it. So they can have an all male dance team if they want to. But replacing a cheerleading squad with some dance team is very very lame imo.[/quote]

Or is it ground breaking and starting a new era in professional sports?! I like the glass to be half full, not half empty.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1278455]So your plan is with our 8 picks starting at #19 to pick a probowl level OT and a Franchise QB. Because yes it is that simple duhhh

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

It is simple, not easy, but a good GM can get it done.
It is actually pretty simple though.

1. Don't reach massively for QB in first round, take the LT, in a draft very deep with T talent. Unless you have a guy graded as a franchise QB sitting there. Or a CB if one drops that looks like shutdown corner.

2. Take a QB you like somewhere in the draft, Heinecke goes into camp as starter, draft pick Allen compete. Ideally, draft 2 QBs you like, plus stash another UDFA on practice squad. Any GM can find one QB he likes somewhere in any draft, period. If not, fire him. I'd be fine giving Heinecke a year in worst case, but would rather draft someone and have a backup plane.

3. If no CB drafted 1st 2nd round picks, I'd spend one 3rd round pick on one, the only corner on our roster I really like is Fuller, and he is much better in slot. I would not resign Darby unless on bargain, I saw him get toasted way too much and he is a health risk, we need infusion at CB.

Ideally, by end of next year's draft, we have QB,LT,CB filled with draft picks. Long term starters. That is not pipe dream BS with 7 picks first three rounds total both years. You hit just under 50% on those picks. . . Just over and 4 starters. Your FO can't do that, shitcan them.

Ideally your board would fall so high leverage positions are high on your board. Say we nab LT 1st round, reach a bit for a QB 2nd round to make sure we get one we like, get a solid #2 CB 3rd round, plus a WR 3rd round. Hit all the high-dollar high leverage positions early in draft. Won't happen, but that's the pipe dream. One or two bust, keep trying next year, etc.

Problem is, again, I think board won't fall that perfect, and we probably take a LB and maybe FS with earlier picks.

Over say a 10 year window, you should be able to spend a 1st round pick on QB,LT,WR,CB,Edge, and ideally FS,DT,C. If all or most of your 1st round picks pan out (and you don't waste them on Homer trades) you end up with a solid foundation. If your FO can't hit on say 67% of 1st round picks, 50% of 2nd round, and 33% of 3rd round, starters though not necessarily elite, then shitcan them. Over 10 years, that would be (conservatively) 6 1st round pick starters, 5 2nd round starters, 3 3rd round starters. That's 14 of 22. Yeah some won't resign, or can't afford, some won't play 10 years, but roughly.
You should be able to hit 50% of 4th-7th round picks and UDFAs, as solid role players, ST players, maybe the occasional starter like Curl. Solid role players or backups like Ismael, Settle, Io, etc. So over say 10 years, you should end up with 20 total depth players from 4th - 7th and UDFA, roughly.
So you're talking 34 players on roster per decade if you draft smart, not assuming absurd drafting prowess. Say you then average 2 extra picks per year, via trading down or comp picks (Dallas will have 3-4 this year, for example), hit at 50%, 10 more players. Now you are talking 44 players per decade, and you're approaching enough talent via draft you aren't perpetually looking at huge roster holes everywhere. Even conceding many won't resign. If you have a good FO, you hit at higher rates, modestly not massively, than these and are styling

Let's look quickly last 10 years. Super fast. 1st - 3rd round picks, we've made so many bad picks, dumb trades, hurts to think about. But we have picked reasonably high lots of times so should have. We should have had 30 picks, and as noted, netted 14 long-term starters, not all elite. 2020, 2. 2019, 2. 2018, 1. 2017, 1 (Moreau NOT a starter). 2016, 1 (counting Fuller). 2015, 1. 2014, 1. 2013, 0. 2012, 0. 2011, 1. That is 10 total. 4 more players doesn't sound like a lot, but suppose we had a starting CB, starting WR, starting LB, and one other starting OL. Or maybe QB (if pros picked QB instead of Dan, imagine, no RGIII, no Haskins, plus 2 more 1st round picks, 4 1st round picks used wisely. . .) We can then fill most holes via draft, don't have to sign many FAs, then get comp picks, etc.

Everyone on this board is so afraid of drafting but wants to piss boatloads of picks away. To all the chicken littles, you HAVE to draft well. If your FO can't find talent consistently in the draft year to year, find a FO that can, period.

Yeah, with 8 or 9 picks, we should be able to walk away with one starting-caliber LT and one viable QB prospect, and if our FO can't do it, find one that can.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=Chief X_Phackter;1278467]I would consider Darrisaw or Mayfield at 19. Man, if five QBs are gone by 19 like all these mocks indicate, that will definitely push a top 10-15 player down the board and into WFT's lap.[/quote]

This is an important consideration. I have never been in a draft room. How many players do you think a team give a first round grade? 20? maybe 25 tops. We are right in that area where if it is QB heavy a first round grade player will fall to us but depending on draft grade from other teams might be able to leverage and trade down and accrue picks.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

It's very rare to find a franchise QB past the 1st round... Russell Wilson's do not fall off trees.. I'd throw Dak in that mix now too, even though he's not Elite. Also I'm not sure Tackle is that huge of an issue right now, I thought they played very well as a unit last yr.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

For those that think it is easy to draft here are two good analysis put in laymen's terms:
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/04/21/which-teams-consistently-win-nfl-draft-none-them/[/url]

[url]https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round[/url]


The second one is actually pretty good for fan blog

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1278483][IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Evo33zUXEAQ5ns9?format=jpg&name=medium[/IMG]

Twitter is having a fan vote this is RD 1..[/quote]

It is bad enough that we lost our team name over some weak ass political bullshit. But I could never imagine people going around making wolf sounds. That shit would be depressing to me and would drive me farther away. It ain't happening.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1278516]It is bad enough that we lost our team name over some weak ass political bullshit. But I could never imagine people going around making wolf sounds. That shit would be depressing to me and would drive me farther away. It ain't happening.[/quote]

I don't mind Redwolves but I want to move away from the R altogether. That ship has sailed. I think I'm officially off that name myself.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

That's why I say just keep it WFT, No name will ever beat the Redskins for me.. IMO if you come up with a new permanent name they should just do a full 360 makeover

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1278516]It is bad enough that we lost our team name over some weak ass political bullshit. But I could never imagine people going around making wolf sounds. That shit would be depressing to me and would drive me farther away. It ain't happening.[/quote]

Hatters gonna hat.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1278519]T[B]hat's why I say just keep it WFT[/B], No name will ever beat the Redskins for me.. IMO if you come up with a new permanent name they should just do a full 360 makeover[/quote]

I don't think that's a very likely possibility. They said over and over they'd value fans input, they explained in detailed the long rebranding process that justified having a temporary name. I just don't see how they can go "meeeh you know what, that temporary name works just fine, we'll leave it at that!" next year.

And I keep thinking, if they chose a new name, some people will love it, some people will hate it, some people won't care, but over time the new identity will settle down in every one's mind as the new team's identity.
Whereas staying WFT will keep sending us back to our previous name. Which I loved, don't take me wrong, it was one of the main reasons I fell in love with this team. But I just picture people in several decades "wait, why doesn't Washington have a name like the 31 other teams?"...

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=SkinzWin;1278520]Hatters gonna hat.[/quote]

Awooo to that my friend

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=Chief X_Phackter;1278467]I would consider Darrisaw or Mayfield at 19. Man, if five QBs are gone by 19 like all these mocks indicate, that will definitely push a top 10-15 player down the board and into WFT's lap.[/quote]

This is definitely going to happen. BPA will get us starter quality at 19.
If we try and hammer a square peg in a round hole with a reach, we will end up with Haskins 2.0.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[QUOTE=SkinzWin;1278520]Hatters gonna hat.[/QUOTE]Heinecke Howlers!!!

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=Scalper;1278502]It is simple, not easy, but a good GM can get it done.
It is actually pretty simple though.

1. Don't reach massively for QB in first round, take the LT, in a draft very deep with T talent. Unless you have a guy graded as a franchise QB sitting there. Or a CB if one drops that looks like shutdown corner.

2. Take a QB you like somewhere in the draft, Heinecke goes into camp as starter, draft pick Allen compete. Ideally, draft 2 QBs you like, plus stash another UDFA on practice squad. Any GM can find one QB he likes somewhere in any draft, period. If not, fire him. I'd be fine giving Heinecke a year in worst case, but would rather draft someone and have a backup plane.

3. If no CB drafted 1st 2nd round picks, I'd spend one 3rd round pick on one, the only corner on our roster I really like is Fuller, and he is much better in slot. I would not resign Darby unless on bargain, I saw him get toasted way too much and he is a health risk, we need infusion at CB.

Ideally, by end of next year's draft, we have QB,LT,CB filled with draft picks. Long term starters. That is not pipe dream BS with 7 picks first three rounds total both years. You hit just under 50% on those picks. . . Just over and 4 starters. Your FO can't do that, shitcan them.

Ideally your board would fall so high leverage positions are high on your board. Say we nab LT 1st round, reach a bit for a QB 2nd round to make sure we get one we like, get a solid #2 CB 3rd round, plus a WR 3rd round. Hit all the high-dollar high leverage positions early in draft. Won't happen, but that's the pipe dream. One or two bust, keep trying next year, etc.

Problem is, again, I think board won't fall that perfect, and we probably take a LB and maybe FS with earlier picks.

Over say a 10 year window, you should be able to spend a 1st round pick on QB,LT,WR,CB,Edge, and ideally FS,DT,C. If all or most of your 1st round picks pan out (and you don't waste them on Homer trades) you end up with a solid foundation. If your FO can't hit on say 67% of 1st round picks, 50% of 2nd round, and 33% of 3rd round, starters though not necessarily elite, then shitcan them. Over 10 years, that would be (conservatively) 6 1st round pick starters, 5 2nd round starters, 3 3rd round starters. That's 14 of 22. Yeah some won't resign, or can't afford, some won't play 10 years, but roughly.
You should be able to hit 50% of 4th-7th round picks and UDFAs, as solid role players, ST players, maybe the occasional starter like Curl. Solid role players or backups like Ismael, Settle, Io, etc. So over say 10 years, you should end up with 20 total depth players from 4th - 7th and UDFA, roughly.
So you're talking 34 players on roster per decade if you draft smart, not assuming absurd drafting prowess. Say you then average 2 extra picks per year, via trading down or comp picks (Dallas will have 3-4 this year, for example), hit at 50%, 10 more players. Now you are talking 44 players per decade, and you're approaching enough talent via draft you aren't perpetually looking at huge roster holes everywhere. Even conceding many won't resign. If you have a good FO, you hit at higher rates, modestly not massively, than these and are styling

Let's look quickly last 10 years. Super fast. 1st - 3rd round picks, we've made so many bad picks, dumb trades, hurts to think about. But we have picked reasonably high lots of times so should have. We should have had 30 picks, and as noted, netted 14 long-term starters, not all elite. 2020, 2. 2019, 2. 2018, 1. 2017, 1 (Moreau NOT a starter). 2016, 1 (counting Fuller). 2015, 1. 2014, 1. 2013, 0. 2012, 0. 2011, 1. That is 10 total. 4 more players doesn't sound like a lot, but suppose we had a starting CB, starting WR, starting LB, and one other starting OL. Or maybe QB (if pros picked QB instead of Dan, imagine, no RGIII, no Haskins, plus 2 more 1st round picks, 4 1st round picks used wisely. . .) We can then fill most holes via draft, don't have to sign many FAs, then get comp picks, etc.

Everyone on this board is so afraid of drafting but wants to piss boatloads of picks away. To all the chicken littles, you HAVE to draft well. If your FO can't find talent consistently in the draft year to year, find a FO that can, period.

Yeah, with 8 or 9 picks, we should be able to walk away with one starting-caliber LT and one viable QB prospect, and if our FO can't do it, find one that can.[/quote]

Of course you have to draft well. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I think it's important to note that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and it's really not necessary to belittle anyone for expressing it. Like someone said already, your opinions are not reality, they are just your opinions.

Anyway, I don't see this draft as very deep in T talent. There are maybe 5 prospects that could come in and start right away at T, maybe 3 of those have a chance to be a starting LT. The rest are developmental guys who may start eventually, guys projected to be backups at best, or guys that will probably play guard or center.

If you want a starting LT, you'd better get him in the 1st round. But I'm not sure that position is the biggest need. I'd take a tier 1 QB, LB, CB, or WR (in that order) at 19 before taking a tackle, and then I would draft a couple o-linemen with the last 7 picks.

Lucas or Charles will likely be the starting LT this year, and they will be just fine. Whoever isn't the starter will probably be the swing T. Develop a guy behind them.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1278525]Heinecke Howlers!!!

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺 awooooooo!

Breaking: Heinicke Howlers gets their own fan end zone section for the 2021-22 season.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=SkinzWin;1278533]🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺 awooooooo!

Breaking: Heinicke Howlers gets their own fan end zone section for the 2021-22 season.[/quote]

Book me a suite.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=FrenchSkin;1278521]I don't think that's a very likely possibility. They said over and over they'd value fans input, they explained in detailed the long rebranding process that justified having a temporary name. I just don't see how they can go "meeeh you know what, that temporary name works just fine, we'll leave it at that!" next year.

And I keep thinking, if they chose a new name, some people will love it, some people will hate it, some people won't care, but over time the new identity will settle down in every one's mind as the new team's identity.
Whereas staying WFT will keep sending us back to our previous name. Which I loved, don't take me wrong, it was one of the main reasons I fell in love with this team. But I just picture people in several decades "wait, why doesn't Washington have a name like the 31 other teams?"...[/quote]

This.

And has anyone given thought to having to change the name of the site if we change to something with no connection to native Americans? Won't people have the same question why it's called Warpath?...

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1278505]It's very rare to find a franchise QB past the 1st round... Russell Wilson's do not fall off trees.. I'd throw Dak in that mix now too, even though he's not Elite. Also I'm not sure Tackle is that huge of an issue right now, I thought they played very well as a unit last yr.[/quote]

Half of 1st round QBs picked also bust, roughly.
Also, franchise QBs have been drafted late in first round, later than where we pick. You don't need to trade up. It is obviously harder to find a good QB later in draft than in top 10, but good GMs can do it.
So the question is, if you're drafting a QB or need one, 4 QBs obviously going 1st round, which 2 will bust? History says the running QBs who have never read a D, usually but not always.
"Last year." We should be building a roster for the long term.
Our starting LT played okay but got toasted by great edge rushers, and turns 30 soon regardless. I think our OL played okay as well, but there was a big difference when we played better teams. We got toasted on edges, and big time pressure up the middle as well, including people BLOWING by Scherff.
If a franchise LT falls, absolutely draft one, because then you have one of five high leverage positions locked up a decade+. Whoever our QB ends up being, we want and elite edge protector on his blindside, period, or he'll get hurt. Also remember Lucas will want MUCH more money when his contract expires end of this year.
The short term view would say draft a MLB or WR in 1st round. The long term view would say LT,CB, maybe FS. Remember what it was like to have a guy like Williams and know the edge was ALWAYS sealed?

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=AnonEmouse;1278539]This.

And has anyone given thought to having to change the name of the site if we change to something with no connection to native Americans? Won't people have the same question why it's called Warpath?...[/quote]

The NA connection won't happen either, too risky. But I'm not sure about having to change our site's name. We're not in charge of the franchise's marketing, we're fans, we're entitled to keeping a connection to our former name and identity IMHO.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[URL="https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/03/04/terry-mclaurin-says-he-played-through-two-high-ankle-sprains/"]Terry McLaurin says he played through two high-ankle sprains[/URL]

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

JP Finlay says "The league will most likely suspend Dan rather than force a sale"

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[URL="https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/03/05/nfl-denies-report-that-washington-investigation-recommends-forcing-a-sale-of-team/"]NFL denies report that Washington investigation recommends forcing a sale of team[/URL]

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1278550]JP Finlay says "The league will most likely suspend Dan rather than force a sale"[/quote]

Dammit.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[url]https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/football-team/report-nfl-investigation-recommends-dan-snyder-sell-washington-football[/url]

He wont do it tho

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=MTK;1278549][URL="https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/03/04/terry-mclaurin-says-he-played-through-two-high-ankle-sprains/"]Terry McLaurin says he played through two high-ankle sprains[/URL][/quote]

Every time I learn something new about McLaurin, my love for him grows. We got really lucky with McLaurin, and we have to thank Haskins for that.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[URL="https://twitter.com/JPFinlayNBCS/status/1367831002215809027"]JP's tweets[/URL]

[URL="https://twitter.com/ByMikeJones/status/1367840044300595201"]Mike Jones' tweet relating spokesman's denial[/URL]

Don't know what to believe...

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=FrenchSkin;1278521]......…...
Whereas staying WFT will keep sending us back to our previous name. Which I loved, don't take me wrong, it was one of the main reasons I fell in love with this team. But I just picture people in several decades "wait, why doesn't Washington have a name like the 31 other teams?"...[/quote]

Wouldn't that be a selling point for Synder (and others, me included), that WFT won't be accepted in spirit and the team will continue to be referred to as the Redskins by many, if not most?

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=FrenchSkin;1278566][URL="https://twitter.com/JPFinlayNBCS/status/1367831002215809027"]JP's tweets[/URL]

[URL="https://twitter.com/ByMikeJones/status/1367840044300595201"]Mike Jones' tweet relating spokesman's denial[/URL]

Don't know what to believe...[/quote]

I know you probably don't go out the way to stream their show (I don't) but the junkies are not what I would call a reliable source. Any leaks they received probably came from Chris Russell and his tin foil hat.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1278568]I know you probably don't go out the way to stream their show (I don't) but the junkies are not what I would call a reliable source. Any leaks they received probably came from Chris Russell and his tin foil hat.[/quote]

Hadn't heard of them before, so, good to know, thanks !

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1278568]I know you probably don't go out the way to stream their show (I don't) but the junkies are not what I would call a reliable source. Any leaks they received probably came from Chris Russell and his tin foil hat.[/quote]

Yeah, I don't know why JP would depend on the f*cking Junkies for breaking news.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=Ruhskins;1278571]Yeah, I don't know why JP would depend on the f*cking Junkies for breaking news.[/quote]

Click bait gets him 💵💰

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=SkinzWin;1278576]Click bait gets him 💵💰[/quote]

Finley is usually more reliable than spreading click bait.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1278550]JP Finlay says "The league will most likely suspend Dan rather than force a sale"[/quote]

My understanding is that the report offered several potential interventions, one of which is selling the team. It is reported that the individual preparing the report favored having THE DAN sell.

All that sounds reasonable, even though gossip is not sufficient reason to believe it.

Equally believable is the NFL denying any report that is a leak, no matter what that report says, to keep the matter in house.

Yet owners are doubtless putting themselves in THE DAN'S shoes, and don't want to be forced to sell for transient reasons. That selling is recommended in report doesn't mean it is what owners will do, so both reporters could in fact be right. The report recommends selling as one option among several, but the owners favor a less harsh punishment/option.

THE DAN is now reported to have hired bots to barrage social media with pro-DAN propaganda, which is par for the course with this turd, and seems factual. I wish he would be forced to sell the team, but suspect it won't happen.

The reason that THE DAN hired numerous black front office executives, females including that coach, Donaldson (who is great to look at and a good person but hardly has chops as an announcer or analyst), etc., is now apparent. It is to grovel for suspension instead of forced sale, and probably no other reason except public relations on this count, to present a disingenuous facade of embracing diversity and respect for women. We now no longer have cheerleaders because THE DAN is a turd and they were systematically sexually harassed by him and others, but rather a coed dance squad. Chalk up the loss of cheerleaders as another tax to the epic evil and incompetence of THE DAN. What a turd. Wouldn't surprise me if the whole NFL abandons cheerleaders. Thanks to THE DAN!!!

I again wish he would be forced to sell the team, but we won't get that lucky. We'll never win a SB as long such a turd owns the team. He is truly evil.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[URL="https://thekevinsheehanshow.com/2021/03/06/we-believe-the-report/"]Another must listen pod by Sheehan and Tom[/URL] on the report's recommandations that Snyder either be shown the door or suspended.

Quite enjoyable to have some knowledgable and elaborated takes on such a hot takes and "buzzable" topic.

Both Sheehan and Loverro give quite a lot of credit to the report, but still aren't sure there'll be enough to force Dan to sell. There's quite a lot of smoke though, and in this era, the NFL could lose a lot if there were more than we already know and if their sanction was perceived as not severe enough.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

To be more inclusive, we're gonna take jobs away from women, and give them to guys. That will show how inclusive we are. I just wish that people could see the irony here.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[url]https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/football-team/calculated-yet-aggressive-now-time-ron-rivera-push-gas[/url]

There are nine teams that are currently over the cap, which will force major changes.
Another seven teams have fewer than $10 million available under the cap, much of which would be swallowed up by the incoming 2021 draft class.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

Just wanted to throw this out there: [URL="https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/defensive-line/"]more than half the league spends 30M+ on Dline, and 7 teams 40M+...[/URL] so would it be that crazy to think we could retain Allen AND Payne ? (Assuming we'd be ready to let Scherff go and not make a splashy signing at QB, which both seem quite likely right now).

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=FrenchSkin;1278630]Just wanted to throw this out there: [URL="https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/defensive-line/"]more than half the league spends 30M+ on Dline, and 7 teams 40M+...[/URL] so would it be that crazy to think we could retain Allen AND Payne ? (Assuming we'd be ready to let Scherff go and not make a splashy signing at QB, which both seem quite likely right now).[/quote]

I think we could make it work, especially if we draft a rookie QB that will become a starter.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=FrenchSkin;1278604][URL="https://thekevinsheehanshow.com/2021/03/06/we-believe-the-report/"]Another must listen pod by Sheehan and Tom[/URL] on the report's recommandations that Snyder either be shown the door or suspended.

Quite enjoyable to have some knowledgable and elaborated takes on such a hot takes and "buzzable" topic.

Both Sheehan and Loverro give quite a lot of credit to the report, but still aren't sure there'll be enough to force Dan to sell. There's quite a lot of smoke though, and in this era, the NFL could lose a lot if there were more than we already know and if their sanction was perceived as not severe enough.[/quote]

I believe the report too.

Re: WFT's Off-Season Thread
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1278620]To be more inclusive, we're gonna take jobs away from women, and give them to guys. That will show how inclusive we are. I just wish that people could see the irony here.[/quote]

Maybe if the higher ups in the org didn't use the cheerleaders as their personal escort service we wouldn't be in this spot.