Random Commanders Thoughts

The league's best GMs, as ranked by rotoworld.

*Spoiler Alert*. This isn't a feel good story.

The NFL's Best GMs - Goal Line Stand - Rotoworld.com

This is a hate piece, plain and simple.

"Under Allen/Snyder’s guidance, the Redskins have gotten extremely little bang for their buck, running up huge cap charges while nevertheless fielding one of the league’s thinnest rosters. That’s due in part to the duo’s cheating. They dumped an illegal amount of money into the uncapped year of 2010, resulting in the loss of $36 million in cap space to be spread out over 2012-13."

Evan Silva, a big contributor at Rotoworld, was on our side from day one (along with many, many others). Now they run this? Nonsense.

How can any amount of money be illegal if it is an uncapped year? Oh yeah, collusion.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
Not only that Lanky but it's lazy. It's gotten to be so tiresome even trying to refute bullhockey like this, it's like the name thing. The media these days is soooo lazy.
 
This is a hate piece, plain and simple.

"Under Allen/Snyder’s guidance, the Redskins have gotten extremely little bang for their buck, running up huge cap charges while nevertheless fielding one of the league’s thinnest rosters. That’s due in part to the duo’s cheating. They dumped an illegal amount of money into the uncapped year of 2010, resulting in the loss of $36 million in cap space to be spread out over 2012-13."

Evan Silva, a big contributor at Rotoworld, was on our side from day one (along with many, many others). Now they run this? Nonsense.

How can any amount of money be illegal if it is an uncapped year? Oh yeah, collusion.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

Not only that, but the retread statement about "winning the offseason" is rolled out in that piece as well. Seriously, hasn't happened since Haynesworth. Other than Garçon, we haven't went for the hugest name around...and he worked out fine when we did. That's how it is supposed to work.
 
Yeah that was a terrible analysis. It gives all the credit the Shanahan and the blame to Allen and Snyder. Very odd. He could have ranked us just as low and said 'Allen hasn't really been successful anywhere yet so the kindest thing we can say is the jury is still out' and that would have been fine. As it is, that article reads like some casual fan's girlfriend wrote it.

On the other hand, winning will fix all that. Just win.
 
Yeah that was a terrible analysis. It gives all the credit the Shanahan and the blame to Allen and Snyder. Very odd. He could have ranked us just as low and said 'Allen hasn't really been successful anywhere yet so the kindest thing we can say is the jury is still out' and that would have been fine. As it is, that article reads like some casual fan's girlfriend wrote it.

On the other hand, winning will fix all that. Just win.

I actually agree with you. Pick a direction and go with it. Shanahan had full control, but all the moves are Allen/Snyder's fault?

I agree with him about the cap - we brought that on ourselves, whether the rule was 'right' or not we knew they would do something and tested them.

On the other hand, though, there are quite a few rumors running around in redskins land that while Snyder allowed Mike to run the team, Snyder interjected himself into some of the dealings that were going on. Including, but not limited to, McNabb, Haynesworth (how he was being handled when Shanahan got here), and Griffin. The McNabb rumors go back to when he was acquired - before there was any fall out between coach and owner.

On the other hand some rumors are that Shanahan and Snyder never talked - Shanahan wanted it that way, and kept it that way. Snyder had 0 influence over anything at any time.

Who knows though. The only thing for sure is that the two sides (Shanahi vs Snyder/Allen) muddied the water so much it's impossible to tell who was responsible for what.

What a mess. It's one thing to have a disaster, it's another to not be able to evaluate what went wrong and how to move forward and make the best of it. We're in the later, as fans. If it wasn't Snyder's fault then the best we have to hope for is that he learns from it, if it was then we're simply having the wool pulled over our eyes yet again, and we'll all figure it out eventually on our own, personal time lines :\
 
Not only that, but the retread statement about "winning the offseason" is rolled out in that piece as well. Seriously, hasn't happened since Haynesworth. Other than Garçon, we haven't went for the hugest name around...and he worked out fine when we did. That's how it is supposed to work.

McNabb :(

And I would argue Garcon wasn't a typical Redskins offseason move. I would argue that was probably the steal of that free agency! Tell me 31 teams haven't watched him over the last two years and said "damnit, we should have made him an offer..."

Almost everyone thought Garcon was a product of Manning - without him he'd be average at best. At least that seems to be my recollection, maybe I'm taking my opinion and projecting it as everyone's :)
 
Disagree they brought this on themselves. The only way you can support this notion is of you agree that the rest of the league committed collusion, and you're okay with that.

Also, I'm more inclined to believe Snyder is at fault, because well he's usually at fault.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
Disagree they brought this on themselves. The only way you can support this notion is of you agree that the rest of the league committed collusion, and you're okay with that.

Also, I'm more inclined to believe Snyder is at fault, because well he's usually at fault.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

Shanahan was a two or three time previous violator. He knew what he was doing, had hurt the Broncos before by doing it, and did it again anyway in Washington.

It's why we were lucky that the penalty wasn't worse, and it's likely why we didn't even fight it.
 
McCluster is one of those guys who despite all that speed and elusiveness, always seemed to underwhelm.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
Shanahan was a two or three time previous violator. He knew what he was doing, had hurt the Broncos before by doing it, and did it again anyway in Washington.

It's why we were lucky that the penalty wasn't worse, and it's likely why we didn't even fight it.

This was unprecedented I thought. Shamahan violated the cap a few times, but not when the salary cap didn't exist.

I still can't wrap my head around it, personally. We got penalized for violating a nonexistent cap, while others shitted all over the nonexistent salary floor with no consequence. Insane.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
To me it's like if Beathard had gotten punished for spending too much in the eighties, when the salary cap literally didn't exist, and the rest of the league was spending freely.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
Mike Jones ‏@mikejoneswapo
I'm told that the report that the #Redskins chose not to roll $1.3M in unused cap space to this year is false.

Edit: found this too...


#Redskins GM Bruce Allen simply answered "wrong " to an @espnradio980 request for clarity on @usatodaysports report of non 1.3 cap rollover - Chris Russell
 
Last edited:
Rich Tandler ‏@Rich_TandlerCSN
#Redskins apparently were over the 2013 cap by about $830K. That can happen when incentives are earn. Nothing to roll over, per PFT.

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk
Source tells PFT Redskins did not have $1.3 million in cap space to carry over; they were actually $834,732 over the 2013 cap. Story coming.
 
We did nothing wrong in the non-cap year, but it still cost us 18mill per the last two years.

Did Mara pay someone to come up with this latest gem?
 
Disagree they brought this on themselves. The only way you can support this notion is of you agree that the rest of the league committed collusion, and you're okay with that.


Not 'Ok' with it, but otherwise yes. They committed collusion.
 
Zac Boyer ‏@ZacBoyer
#Redskins intend to roll $1,369,236 in cap room to 2014. NFLPA records don't reflect the change. Teams have until Tuesday to make election.
 
Not 'Ok' with it, but otherwise yes. They committed collusion.

So, you acknowledge the league blatantly broke the rules AND the law, but it's on the skins? Okay. :)

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
If it's not collusion, what do you call it when the league signed off and approved the contracts, only to have a rival team owner head a committee and find two teams, who also happen to be is the same division, have ensured they will be more successful than his team for the next few years, then have the league turn around and say the previously approved contracts are not allowed?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 7, Members: 0, Guests: 7)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top