Random Commanders Thoughts

He HATED Snyder and Bruce Allen so I wonder if there is a lot of scar tissue there. I think he’s been so conditioned to hate the brand, that the change of the guard doesn’t matter
 
Oh my lord ... lol.

I guess Lombardi could be more wrong about pretty much ... everything? ... but it's hard to envision.

Kudos to Hoffman. He realizes he's got a guy on who is kinda just riffing and bloviating, and pivots the convo to safe territory--let the man talk about his new book.
 
How can anyone evaluate the front office and coaching dynamics for a group that is newly constituted with members that for the most part have never worked together before?

How can anyone make an evaluation on an owner that has been in control for 34 minutes and 50 seconds?
 
Did they intentionally misspell his name? 🤣

IMG_3017.jpeg
 
Kind of weird, it sounds like he gets a few things... er... wrong... but he DOES get a few things right factually although it's really unclear how important they are:
- he seems to make a big deal that Peters was involved hiring Quinn, contrasting to other orgs. Actually, he IS right; many successful orgs do not have GMs hire coaches. However, is it that big of a deal? I definitely don't think so. Ultimately they have to work together. It really depends on the guy above them making sure the structure will be sensible. Also, he talks about having a "pyramid" structure after that, but you could argue there is a bit more of a pyramid here (highlighted by his description of drafting Trey Lance in SF being a "collaborative" effort).
- He really hits on EB right. Made no sense with a horrible OL to pass the WAY that EB did. Limited protection, many other issues. It was ridiculous scheming. I agree at least.
- He seemed to act like Kingsbury was picked by Peters. That seems like a big miss unless I misunderstood him. Quinn seems to have really set up his people, and that's right; ultimately he has to work closest with them and his job will depend on those decisions.
 
Since Quinn is a defensive coach I am sure he ran the OC choices by Peters and they discussed a short list.

To think otherwise would be naive.

The ironic thing is in New England Belichick was involved in EVERYTHING when Lombardi was there, down to what kind of candies they had in the dish in the lobby of the facility.

Evidently, he didn't find that kind of coloring outside the box and criss-crossing responsibilities to be a problem.
 
Bulldog said:
How can anyone evaluate the front office and coaching dynamics for a group that is newly constituted with members that for the most part have never worked together before?

How can anyone make an evaluation on an owner that has been in control for 34 minutes and 50 seconds?
Click to expand...

It’s just a reflection of where society has fallen to.

This basic level critical thinking about the general context, is missed by most. It’s a bit frustrating because that’s hard to work with.
 
Bulldog said:
Since Quinn is a defensive coach I am sure he ran the OC choices by Peters and they discussed a short list.

To think otherwise would be naive.

The ironic thing is in New England Belichick was involved in EVERYTHING when Lombardi was there, down to what kind of candies they had in the dish in the lobby of the facility.

Evidently, he didn't find that kind of coloring outside the box and criss-crossing responsibilities to be a problem.
Click to expand...
You are supporting his point; he is saying that a head coach "should" be the main person in the organization with those decisions, at least that is what I understood.

His claim was that Peters selected Kingsbury, I don't think that has been represented at all. Quinn has specifically talked about the reasons "he" chose Kingsbury; there isn't anything to suggest otherwise. Did he make some kind of grant unilateral decision? No, but that isn't at-issue; the claim seemingly made is that Peters is setting up the org. That appeared to be the implication.
 
Funny thing is I didn't even see eleven's reply. This is one thing I think all Redskins fans can agree on. It feels like a violation of trust. It's one thing to say that the name isn't deemed appropriate going forward. Erasing our history as if we were all members of the KKK or something - outrageous.
 
Boone said:
I have no delusion that they give a rat's ass about how Redskins fans feel. But this shit is really unbelievable.

Click to expand...

I like this so much that I’m going to retweet it to my 8 followers. I’m sure that, at least, the 5 porn bots will appreciate it.
 
The Chiefs are on top. The NFL isn't going to make waves for the premiere team or what their fans do as a tradition.

If Washington was the New England Patriots and we had been consistent Super Bowl winners and contenders in the 2010's chances are the anti-voices for the name would not have been that strong or as widely given credence to.

But Snyder was a weak, wounded duck and the anti-name forces saw a good time to put pressure on a guy whose team was hiring a new lawyer seemingly each week to face a new allegation of misdeed - whether the sexual harrassment, financial frauds or other.

The other factor is Snyder was cash poor. Yes, he owned a team worth billions of dollars but he didn't have interest in an ongoing concern or wealth coming from prior ownership such as Paul Allen or the Walmart heirs.

So, one of his Achilles heels was the minority partners. He couldn't just dig into his wallet and pay them off to leave. That became one of the leverage points for Fred Smith and Fedex in telling Snyder the name controversy was starting to hit their business.

If Snyder had been self-sufficient and well diversified in investments and capital he could have bought these guys out years earlier just as JKC came East and bought out Edward Bennett Williams.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 11, Members: 0, Guests: 11)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 116) Show all

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top