More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2368074"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2368074[/url]

I like his comment about the roster being "blown up" in each of the last 2 years, nothing like stretching the truth just a tad.



[b]Oh, Danny, yoi:[/b] For weeks leading up to free agency, owners around the league whispered that it was mathematically impossible for the [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=was"][color=#000000]Washington Redskins[/color][/url] to get under the salary cap, and they chortled that fraternity brother Dan Snyder would not be able to continue his free-spending ways. Yet three days into free agency, the Redskins have added wide receivers [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5948"][color=#000000]Antwaan Randle El[/color][/url] and [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6460"][color=#000000]Brandon Lloyd[/color][/url], tight end [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=3130"][color=#000000]Christian Fauria[/color][/url], defensive end [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5454"][color=#000000]Andre Carter[/color][/url] and safety Archuleta.

So, either Washington contracts manager Eric Schaffer is a genius or Snyder has found a way to circumvent the cap. Seems it must be the former, since none of the legion of the team officials who keep wondering privately how the Redskins are able to add players -- and who complain to the media about Washington's laxity in turning in contracts to the league -- apparently has the gumption to raise the issue with the NFL Management Council. Give Snyder, whose team is a veritable mint, credit for this: He's terrible at reading a blueprint but great at doling out the long green.

In each of the last two springs, Snyder has vowed publicly that the roster he has assembled will represent the Redskins' team for three years. Then the inevitable occurs. Washington doesn't win a Super Bowl, the roster is blown up and Snyder goes back to the vault for another free-agent spending spree. One of these years, paying out all that money actually might pay off in a championship.

[b]Big investments in small return men:[/b] There are a lot of people in the NFL who like Randle El but believe that he is just a No. 3 wide receiver and that his biggest contribution comes as a return man. If that's the case, the Redskins shelled out a lot of Snyder's cash for a punt returner. Unless, of course, you buy the joke making the rounds -- that Randle El, who threw a touchdown pass to [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=4323"][color=#000000]Hines Ward[/color][/url] on a reverse in Super Bowl XL and who played quarterback at Indiana, owns the best arm on the Redskins' roster, by default.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

jabba jabba di do mo jabba

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

We blew up the roster? I didn't know that? That sucks.

I'm going to miss Samuels, Raybach, Jansen, Dockery, Thomas, Moss, Portis, Cooley, Washington, Griffin, Rogers, Springs, Taylor, Cartwright, Betts, Daniels, Salave'a, etc. etc.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

If they can continue to build teams without repercussion as they have to date. Snyder IS indeed a financial "Super Genius". Is it so hard to imagine that a self made Billionaire might have a few tricks up his sleeve? The MANY naysayers, Redskin haters, Snyder haters have apparently been wrong AGAIN! Those types don't like to have their respective faces spit in so often. I guess they won't ever learn. Danny and Joe have assembled a monster of a management/coaching staff. I can't wait to see it transmitted to the field!!!!!!!!

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

Fatty P lose some fat off that fat ass!!! When you make as much money as Danny S come talked to us! Untill then stay away and talk about some other team!

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

Yet another reason why I simply don't read these guys' articles. Lenny P, Peter King........who really cares? I know I don't. Absolutely nothing any of them have to say affects our team. They've proven time and time again that they don't really have any idea what they are talking about. Most of us on this site know at least 3 times as much about the Redskins than this fat ass or any other so-called expert. The skins blew up their roster? Really? News to me.

Give me guys like Clayton and Mortinson on ESPN for all the of the inside FACTUAL knowledge they have and you can keep the rest.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

Yes, we haven't blown up the roster by any means, so that is a superficial judgment, but it does seem like Pasquarelli is saying some [i]positive[/i] things here - that we have a "genius" for cap management, and that we might win a Super Bowl.

People are awfully hard on Pasquarelli, and it seems like he may have taken it personally at times and it may have biased some of his statements about the Redskins. However, what difference do his or any reporter's opinions about the team really make? I would rather win a Super Bowl and be criticized than to have all the reporters think the Redskins are the greatest but we end up in the cellar.



[QUOTE=Mattyk72][url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2368074"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2368074[/url]

I like his comment about the roster being "blown up" in each of the last 2 years, nothing like stretching the truth just a tad.



[b]Oh, Danny, yoi:[/b] For weeks leading up to free agency, owners around the league whispered that it was mathematically impossible for the [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=was"][color=#000000]Washington Redskins[/color][/url] to get under the salary cap, and they chortled that fraternity brother Dan Snyder would not be able to continue his free-spending ways. Yet three days into free agency, the Redskins have added wide receivers [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5948"][color=#000000]Antwaan Randle El[/color][/url] and [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6460"][color=#000000]Brandon Lloyd[/color][/url], tight end [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=3130"][color=#000000]Christian Fauria[/color][/url], defensive end [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5454"][color=#000000]Andre Carter[/color][/url] and safety Archuleta.

So, either Washington contracts manager Eric Schaffer is a genius or Snyder has found a way to circumvent the cap. Seems it must be the former, since none of the legion of the team officials who keep wondering privately how the Redskins are able to add players -- and who complain to the media about Washington's laxity in turning in contracts to the league -- apparently has the gumption to raise the issue with the NFL Management Council. Give Snyder, whose team is a veritable mint, credit for this: He's terrible at reading a blueprint but great at doling out the long green.

In each of the last two springs, Snyder has vowed publicly that the roster he has assembled will represent the Redskins' team for three years. Then the inevitable occurs. Washington doesn't win a Super Bowl, the roster is blown up and Snyder goes back to the vault for another free-agent spending spree. One of these years, paying out all that money actually might pay off in a championship.

[b]Big investments in small return men:[/b] There are a lot of people in the NFL who like Randle El but believe that he is just a No. 3 wide receiver and that his biggest contribution comes as a return man. If that's the case, the Redskins shelled out a lot of Snyder's cash for a punt returner. Unless, of course, you buy the joke making the rounds -- that Randle El, who threw a touchdown pass to [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=4323"][color=#000000]Hines Ward[/color][/url] on a reverse in Super Bowl XL and who played quarterback at Indiana, owns the best arm on the Redskins' roster, by default.[/QUOTE]

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=Lenny Fat Ass Pasta Eating Buttface] One of these years, paying out all that money actually might pay off in a championship.[/QUOTE]

Is he actually trying to hedge here? He rips on the Redskins for taking shots in free agency like this, and then he says that it might actually pay off?

First of all, I'm sorry, but if you think there's a chance it will pay off, then why would you rip on the concept?

But more than that, I think he's sensing that the Skins are starting to build something and he doesn't want to acknowledge that Snyder might actually know what he's doing.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

Frankly, I don't care anymore. I put them all in the same class with Sally Jenkins, only she's worst because she writes for the local newspaper and still has no idea about the team she supposedly covers.

I think they are trying to collectively write these early "buy a championship" articles, so that come December they'll have they're fat asses covered and somehow credit our success to our finances and nothing else.

PSU, you're right, even the most ignorant amongst us here at WarPath is more knowledgable than those guys on their best day!!

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[b]BLAH[/b] blah blahblahblah !

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

every time you guys bitch about these guys no matter how small the infraction. either the team wins and proves him wrong or doesn't.

all we can do is send hate mail.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]every time you guys bitch about these guys no matter how small the infraction. either the team wins and proves him wrong or doesn't.

all we can do is send hate mail.[/QUOTE]

But Guy, it feels damn good giving them the proverbial finger!!

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

oh yeah, synder isn't magically altering the cap, and eventually you do have to pay it off (like last year when we let two starters go and we only picked up two lower end FAs).

eventually hard choices are going to have to be made unless the cap gets another huge boost, but they planned it well enough to keep most of these guys together for at least a few years.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]We blew up the roster? I didn't know that? That sucks.

I'm going to miss Samuels, Raybach, Jansen, Dockery, Thomas, Moss, Portis, Cooley, Washington, Griffin, Rogers, Springs, Taylor, Cartwright, Betts, Daniels, Salave'a, etc. etc.[/QUOTE]

And it comments like that by these guys that piss me off. It is just intellectually dishonest. King, Pasta, Banks and the rest are entitled to their opinions but they try to pass those opinions off as being supported by making factually conclusive statements that are at, best, disengenous. In doing so, b/c others rely on these guys for the "facts", they perpetuate the anti-skin bias held by other talking heads and local medias. How many people did the research concerning the likelihood that the Skins would be signing 20-30 rookies if the CBA hadn't gone through? I believe it started w/ Pasta and got repeated by everyone else.

These guys are paid the big bucks - yet they can't follow simple analytical rules: Check the facts and conduct an analysis based on those facts then reach a conclusion (i.e. who did we sign, who did we cut, what role did those cut play, what role will those signed play, what was the stated reason for the cuts and signings, do the stated reasons match the factual backgrounds of the signings and cuts?). It's a lot of work but, hey, isn't that what they are supposed to be doing all day?

Instead we get these "blow up the roster" and "cutting Corey Raymer is significant" type of comments. I mean seriously, what could Pasta's basis be for saying we are blowing up the roster? Cutting Ramsey and Arrington? Two players who had almost no role in last year's playoff run and who's replacement has been debated for at least a year now? Replacing marginal starters with better players (Bowen, Clark - Archuletta)? Signing players who hopefully will upgrade a position that was obviously a need (Lloyd, R-El)?

Get the facts straight, conduct an analysis, support your conclusions. I thought those were the requirements for good analytical commentary. Apparently, I was wrong.

But That Guy is right - they won't shut up unless and until we start winning.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

Don't you remember that huge splash we made in free agency last year? We picked up all star casey rabach, our own version of T.O. in David patten, and that suck ass overpaid moss? how in the world were we able to pick up all those guys, and still be under the cap?

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]Get the facts straight, conduct an analysis, support your conclusions. I thought those were the requirements for good analytical commentary. Apparently, I was wrong.[/QUOTE]

No, you're right. Key word though is "good" anlytical commentary. This is something Lenny P has proven time and time again he is completely incapable of.

The fact is the guy is incompetent. Period. He's not insightful. He's not provocative. He's not ingenius. He's just some guy with opinions that some fool thought should be voiced to the outside world. It used to bother me too, but then I found this site and realized if I want intelligent commentary and football discussion, I have a place to turn to and it doesn't involve biased and moronic football writers/"experts".

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

awootaibijabbawuga...na jabba no bother.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

I hold the media's opinions in the same regard that I hold belly-button lint. As soon as they report something insightful and accurate that I wasn't aware of weeks beforehand, my tune will change.

Our society is so focused on immediate gratification that us real fans are aware of everything going on with their team before it is even physically possible for these guys to build into their weekly reports. Since their priority is to sell magazine, with "breaking news" no longer an option, they are left to write gossip-columns and inflammatory remarks to drum up attention, even if it is just hate-mail from us.

Bottom line, if people stopped reading & responding to this crap, eventually Len serves no purpose & slowly fades into the dark.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]And it comments like that by these guys that piss me off. It is just intellectually dishonest. King, Pasta, Banks and the rest are entitled to their opinions but they try to pass those opinions off as being supported by making factually conclusive statements that are at, best, disengenous. In doing so, b/c others rely on these guys for the "facts", they perpetuate the anti-skin bias held by other talking heads and local medias. How many people did the research concerning the likelihood that the Skins would be signing 20-30 rookies if the CBA hadn't gone through? I believe it started w/ Pasta and got repeated by everyone else.

These guys are paid the big bucks - yet they can't follow simple analytical rules: Check the facts and conduct an analysis based on those facts then reach a conclusion (i.e. who did we sign, who did we cut, what role did those cut play, what role will those signed play, what was the stated reason for the cuts and signings, do the stated reasons match the factual backgrounds of the signings and cuts?). It's a lot of work but, hey, isn't that what they are supposed to be doing all day?

Instead we get these "blow up the roster" and "cutting Corey Raymer is significant" type of comments. I mean seriously, what could Pasta's basis be for saying we are blowing up the roster? Cutting Ramsey and Arrington? Two players who had almost no role in last year's playoff run and who's replacement has been debated for at least a year now? Replacing marginal starters with better players (Bowen, Clark - Archuletta)? Signing players who hopefully will upgrade a position that was obviously a need (Lloyd, R-El)?

Get the facts straight, conduct an analysis, support your conclusions. I thought those were the requirements for good analytical commentary. Apparently, I was wrong.

But That Guy is right - they won't shut up unless and until we start winning.[/QUOTE]

and see, this is where other fans get their opinions of our team.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

Guys, give the P-man a break. Someone has to write the articles to make the fans of the other 31 teams feel better. Like...for instance... Philly fans. It wouldn't be nice to tell them: "Hey, you guys just have cheap owners and really could have won the suprbowl a couple of years ago if they had just signed a couple more key guys". Instead, point at the Redskins and say they are dumb for signing the best free agents available. Say things to help them believe that the Skins are conducting shady accounting by not handing out the players contracts to any shmuck that asks. Make up stuff about them "blowing up" the roster so that they think thier team is still on the same off-season playing field. Tell them that the skins are killing themselves by trading draft picks... and how the Lions will end up drafting a great first round receiver this year when the skins should have.

He is just serving up what those other fans need. It's kinda like he is "Jabba the waitress".

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

im telling you the media chooses to forget that we barely signed anyone last year. guys a moron

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

I don't mind substantive, football based criticisms of the Redskins. I often find them thought-provoking and interesting. No one should seal themseves off. The problem with the attacks against Snyder is that they increasingly rely on appealing to a prejudicial caricature of him that is increasingly less relevant.

I believe that a substantive analysis would show that nearly every personell decision the Redskins have made since Joe Gibbs became Head Coach and President has greatly benefitted the team. To wit: Cornelius Griffin, Philip Daniels, Marcus Washington, Sean Taylor (instead of KW2), Carlos Rogers, Joe Salavea, Ryan Clarke, Santana Moss, Chris Cooley, Clinton Portis, Casey Rabach, and several special teams over-achievers. Even Mark Brunell has had his moments. The initial talk that Jason Campbell was not a legitimate 1st round pick has given way to the current league CW that Campbell is a star in the making.

I would also suggest that the defense has not suffered in the absence of Champ Bailey, Fred Smoot, or Antonio Pierce. Quite the opposite actually.

So what explains the insistence on describing the Redskins as extravagant and foolish in their persuit of free agents? To be fair, there is a bias against the Redskins that pre-dates Snyder's ownership. I think this Ante (pre)-Snyderian hate has two root causes:

First, most writers are based in New York and therefore have the same sort of animus towards Washington teams that people who live in the Washington area have for all things New York. In short they love their Giants and see the Redskins success as an impediment to their hopes and dreams as fans. It also causes a certain level of cognitive dissonance in them when they see a non New York organization doing things in a way that is bigger and better than everyone else. This flash and brilliance should be theirs, they believe, if only on a subconcious level. The two best examples of this are Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News and Peter King of Sports Illustrated. To Lupica if it happens outside of New York, it's barely real.

Second, most sports writers are liberal in their politics. The Redskins, unfortunately, were the last NFL club to integrate. In addition, the name itself offends the PC sensibilities of the Mitch Alboms and the Bob Ryans of the world. Furthermore, Joe Gibbs is viewed as a conservative figure, if not politically, then certainly in terms of his values and lifestyle. His religous devotion (he gave a Bible tract to Peter King after an interview last year), his association with Nascar, and his strong stance in the 1980's against allowing women reporters into the locker room after games cause these liberal baby boomers to see him as something of a square. They sing his praises often but I can see in their eyes that they would rather be talking to Gruden.
Which leaves us with the actual Pastabelly type Snyder hating. I would suggest two root causes here as well:

First, we cannot ignore the possibility of a subtle anti-semetism. Notions about Jews and money are deeply ingrained in American culture. A left wing political worldview is by no means a vaccine for this (perhaps) unintentional type-casting. Part and parcel of these stereotypes is the idea that Jews are generally untrustworthy and conniving. I am loathe to attribute these motives to anyone, but the manner in which Snyder is singled out gives me pause. We all agree, for instance, that stereotypes of Irish-Americans as drunken hooligans are sinister and wrong-headed, but does this always prevent us from falling into certain patterns from time to time?

The second reason is that these writers have invested a great deal of ink and energy in convincing their readers that Snyder is the "heavy". As they establish a narrative basis for their work, this is the role they have chosen for Dan. To be sure, Snyder's actions made this an easy choice. In the first few years I think even Snyder would admit that he could have been more cautious in his approach. I believe if he had a mulligan he would have kept Charley Casserly. I think he would further have to admit that the 2000 signings were unnecessary and ill-advised. Having said that, these journalists should remember that their job is to accurately portray the facts as objectively as possible. When those facts are at odds with the comfortable narrative they have built for themselves then they need to have the courage and intellectaul honesty to flout their own conventions.

In short, any writer who cannot acknowledge that the Skins of 2004 and beyond represent a new approachis doing a disservice to his or her readers and ultimately making themsevelves irrelevant.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]In doing so, b/c others rely on these guys for the "facts", they perpetuate the anti-skin bias held by other talking heads and local medias. How many people did the research concerning the likelihood that the Skins would be signing 20-30 rookies if the CBA hadn't gone through? I believe it started w/ Pasta and got repeated by everyone else.
[/QUOTE]


look, at the time that article was written it was 100% true. people keep using it as some form of proof of bias... the problem is that statement was absollutely correct at the time it was written (no restructures had been done and the cba looked like it might really be dead).

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=Cooley 350Z]I hold the media's opinions in the same regard that I hold belly-button lint. As soon as they report something insightful and accurate that I wasn't aware of weeks beforehand, my tune will change.
[/QUOTE]

I much prefer belly-button lint.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]look, at the time that article was written it was 100% true. people keep using it as some form of proof of bias... the problem is that statement was absollutely correct at the time it was written (no restructures had been done and the cba looked like it might really be dead).[/QUOTE]

No, it wasn't true. If the CBA had not gone through, we would have been tough up against it but clearly Pasta's "there's no way they can get under the cap" statement was wrong. Yes - w/o restructures, we couldn't have done it. But - and here's where sloppy analysis and bias do come into play - rather than look at how the cap could be managed and discussed the possibility of restructuring, Pasta simply went with the "no way" argument. Was he unaware of the possibility of restructures? I doubt it.

Did he even attempt to see how it might be done? Again, I doubt it. Any actual research into ways to resolve the issue OTHER than simply cutting players? An interview with Skins staff? If the statement had been - w/o restructures, they can't get under the cap, and, even with them, they will likely have to cut some players they would rather not - that would have reflected a more accurate analysis. That, however, was not the conclusion drawn.

As for his latest conclusory statement, again - any mention of how the roster is being "blown up", how is he defining that term?

As I said, my problem with these jokers criticism of the Skins is that it is intellectually either sloppy or dishonest. I can forgive the local San Diego (or whereever) media for getting it wrong - they're simply relying the Peter King's and Pasta's to get it right.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]No, it wasn't true. [/QUOTE]

except that it was. at the time no one had restructured, so it was a valid point. it WAS sloppy journalism not to mention that restructures could get them closer, but how many teams have ever gotten 12+ guys to all redo contracts (and have 2-3 give back money) in a single year to help with the cap?

it would have been a long shot to predict that, and without gibbs, it probably wouldn't have happened. Meaning that at least some players that the skins would want to keep would logically have to be cut.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

I was wrong.... It wasn't wrong... at this point it doesn't really matter. What matters is that the skins said that they had a plan (restructures automatically built into contracts that these reporters did not know about) and that they would be forced to use the draft to shore up the team. Well, in my opinion, the skins had it under control all the time. The reporters got it wrong and they just hate that maybe they were hoodwinked.

Since Gibbs took over, he has done exactley what he has always done. He looks at the guys in place and sees what they are good at. Then he puts them into a position to excel and gets the most out of them. Yes, he has also one this with Snyder. He took a guy who likes to spend money on proven players instead of college players and got him to improve his free agent selections. He still gets to spend wildly, but now he has to do it on younger players that fit the offense and defense.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]it would have been a long shot to predict that, and without gibbs, it probably wouldn't have happened.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree. The players don't care whether they're getting their money in the form of a roster bonus, base salary, or restructured signing bonus. They'd be happy to restructure any day of the week for anybody as long as they're getting their money.

You have to give credit to Snyder for planning this all along. He backloads contracts on purpose with the intent of restructuring the big payments at a later date. He's been doing it for a couple years now, and now that those big contracts are getting into the backloaded portions, he's just following through with his plan.

Credit goes to Gibbs for picking which players to sign in the first place. But credit goes to Snyder for planning the salary cap.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=70Chip]I don't mind substantive, football based criticisms of the Redskins. I often find them thought-provoking and interesting. No one should seal themseves off. The problem with the attacks against Snyder is that they increasingly rely on appealing to a prejudicial caricature of him that is increasingly less relevant.

I believe that a substantive analysis would show that nearly every personell decision the Redskins have made since Joe Gibbs became Head Coach and President has greatly benefitted the team. To wit: Cornelius Griffin, Philip Daniels, Marcus Washington, Sean Taylor (instead of KW2), Carlos Rogers, Joe Salavea, Ryan Clarke, Santana Moss, Chris Cooley, Clinton Portis, Casey Rabach, and several special teams over-achievers. Even Mark Brunell has had his moments. The initial talk that Jason Campbell was not a legitimate 1st round pick has given way to the current league CW that Campbell is a star in the making.

I would also suggest that the defense has not suffered in the absence of Champ Bailey, Fred Smoot, or Antonio Pierce. Quite the opposite actually.

So what explains the insistence on describing the Redskins as extravagant and foolish in their persuit of free agents? To be fair, there is a bias against the Redskins that pre-dates Snyder's ownership. I think this Ante (pre)-Snyderian hate has two root causes:

First, most writers are based in New York and therefore have the same sort of animus towards Washington teams that people who live in the Washington area have for all things New York. In short they love their Giants and see the Redskins success as an impediment to their hopes and dreams as fans. It also causes a certain level of cognitive dissonance in them when they see a non New York organization doing things in a way that is bigger and better than everyone else. This flash and brilliance should be theirs, they believe, if only on a subconcious level. The two best examples of this are Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News and Peter King of Sports Illustrated. To Lupica if it happens outside of New York, it's barely real.

Second, most sports writers are liberal in their politics. The Redskins, unfortunately, were the last NFL club to integrate. In addition, the name itself offends the PC sensibilities of the Mitch Alboms and the Bob Ryans of the world. Furthermore, Joe Gibbs is viewed as a conservative figure, if not politically, then certainly in terms of his values and lifestyle. His religous devotion (he gave a Bible tract to Peter King after an interview last year), his association with Nascar, and his strong stance in the 1980's against allowing women reporters into the locker room after games cause these liberal baby boomers to see him as something of a square. They sing his praises often but I can see in their eyes that they would rather be talking to Gruden.
Which leaves us with the actual Pastabelly type Snyder hating. I would suggest two root causes here as well:

First, we cannot ignore the possibility of a subtle anti-semetism. Notions about Jews and money are deeply ingrained in American culture. A left wing political worldview is by no means a vaccine for this (perhaps) unintentional type-casting. Part and parcel of these stereotypes is the idea that Jews are generally untrustworthy and conniving. I am loathe to attribute these motives to anyone, but the manner in which Snyder is singled out gives me pause. We all agree, for instance, that stereotypes of Irish-Americans as drunken hooligans are sinister and wrong-headed, but does this always prevent us from falling into certain patterns from time to time?

The second reason is that these writers have invested a great deal of ink and energy in convincing their readers that Snyder is the "heavy". As they establish a narrative basis for their work, this is the role they have chosen for Dan. To be sure, Snyder's actions made this an easy choice. In the first few years I think even Snyder would admit that he could have been more cautious in his approach. I believe if he had a mulligan he would have kept Charley Casserly. I think he would further have to admit that the 2000 signings were unnecessary and ill-advised. Having said that, these journalists should remember that their job is to accurately portray the facts as objectively as possible. When those facts are at odds with the comfortable narrative they have built for themselves then they need to have the courage and intellectaul honesty to flout their own conventions.

In short, any writer who cannot acknowledge that the Skins of 2004 and beyond represent a new approachis doing a disservice to his or her readers and ultimately making themsevelves irrelevant.[/QUOTE]


Great post. summed it up nicely.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]I don't agree. The players don't care whether they're getting their money in the form of a roster bonus, base salary, or restructured signing bonus. They'd be happy to restructure any day of the week for anybody as long as they're getting their money.

You have to give credit to Snyder for planning this all along. He backloads contracts on purpose with the intent of restructuring the big payments at a later date. He's been doing it for a couple years now, and now that those big contracts are getting into the backloaded portions, he's just following through with his plan.

Credit goes to Gibbs for picking which players to sign in the first place. But credit goes to Snyder for planning the salary cap.[/QUOTE]

some players DID have to give back money cause of the 30% rule if the new cba didn't happen; that's really hard to predict someone agreeing to.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

Looking at this article brings up a big question in my mind. Seeing what Witherspoon signed for, would you rather have Witherspoon or Randle-El? I think that I would rather have Witherspoon.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=Grim21Reaper]Looking at this article brings up a big question in my mind. Seeing what Witherspoon signed for, would you rather have Witherspoon or Randle-El? I think that I would rather have Witherspoon.[/QUOTE]

kinda torn, cause El is a good slot guy and a punt returner (and we could use both), but as far as value, witherspoon is a much better deal.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

Sometimes i think these clowns write stuff just for the sake of bashing. Anybody who follows this team KNOWS the skins are filling needs with FA. And doesn't it make sense to get a free agent if one of yours leaves? They knew Clark is leaving so they get Adam. The worst thing any team can do is let FA's leave and not replace them with quality. Take the Packers, for an example. Fatty needs to get his facts straight before he writes this crap!

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=huntz]Sometimes i think these clowns write stuff just for the sake of bashing. Anybody who follows this team KNOWS the skins are filling needs with FA. And doesn't it make sense to get a free agent if one of yours leaves? They knew Clark is leaving so they get Adam. The worst thing any team can do is let FA's leave and not replace them with quality. Take the Packers, for an example. Fatty needs to get his facts straight before he writes this crap![/QUOTE]

well, we didn't know clark was leaving. In fact we knew he wanted to stay, but the FO felt arch was someone they needed. once clark lost his starting spot, then he wanted out.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]some players DID have to give back money cause of the 30% rule if the new cba didn't happen; that's really hard to predict someone agreeing to.[/QUOTE]

This post makes no sense. The CBA did get extended. Given that fact, everyone and their brother should have seen the standard restructures coming.

The restructures you're talking about would have gone into effect only if the CBA deal never got done. They were special circumstances, but they were void as soon as the deal was signed. Once that happened, it was back to business as usual, which included the standard restructures.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]This post makes no sense. The CBA did get extended. Given that fact, everyone and their brother should have seen the standard restructures coming.

The restructures you're talking about would have gone into effect only if the CBA deal never got done. They were special circumstances, but they were void as soon as the deal was signed. Once that happened, it was back to business as usual, which included the standard restructures.[/QUOTE]

In That Guy's defense, he was responding to my earlier post where we were discussing Pasta's assertion (prior to the CBA being approved) that the Skins would be playing 20-30 rookies if the CBA didn't go through.

I stand by my original post That Guy, it was an example of shoddy analytical journalism simply because their was no attempt to verify it from the source or even to seek the Skins' FO point of view. Rather, he went to OTHER gm's and asked them about the Skins salary issues. Does this method demonstrate a bias? IMHO - yes. Again, it is not an isolated instance, as in his latest comments, it represents a consistent lack of seeking any facts that would support the actions Skins FO actions but then reaching conclusions that would seem to require an analysis of all sides of an issue rather than just one point of view.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

It can be called shoddy journalism, but at the time there was a chance it could have been a real possibility. a week later the restructures happened and everyone would have been happy either way.

Re: More digs at the Skins from Fatty P
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]This post makes no sense. The CBA did get extended. Given that fact, everyone and their brother should have seen the standard restructures coming.

The restructures you're talking about would have gone into effect only if the CBA deal never got done. They were special circumstances, but they were void as soon as the deal was signed. Once that happened, it was back to business as usual, which included the standard restructures.[/QUOTE]

i understand all that, I think you missed the part where i was responding to JR's post about one of pasta's claims (just one of the hundreds) that was somewhat true at the time.