More digs at the Skins from Fatty P

[12thMan]

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!!

[Master4Caster]

BLAH blah blahblahblah !

[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.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[That Guy]

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.

[mooby]

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?

[celts32]

awootaibijabbawuga...na jabba no bother.

[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.

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.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by 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.

I much prefer belly-button lint.

[Big C]

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

[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.

[rickmmrr]

Originally Posted by 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.

Great post. summed it up nicely.

[Pocket$ $traight]

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.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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!