Know what's funny, Al? Hypocrisy that doesn't recognize itself.
In paragraphs 1-3 you chastise others with a broad brush for naivete and making false assumptions. Then in paragraph 4 you thump your cyberchest making a far more definite assumption of your own.
Paragraph 5 I'm not sure what it is you're saying, but it's definitely in a chest-thumping "if only they were as smart as me" tone. And then of course in your summation you gripe about others slamming doors too early in a process. The AH process only, apparently ... not the defensive switch.
Love the combative nature ... sparks conversation. A little more logical consistency and less reliance on bluster would probably be more effective in terms of the actual content, however.
ummmm...
1) paras one to three...have several objectives...not least of which is to poke a hole at what is really in play here: value systems. True...Para 4 is an assumption...or is it? we are talking about an unknown afterall...the future. COuld it be an expectation? Either way, it doesn't address values...it speaks to expected results/quality of play. two differents things.
2) We all have our styles....and perceptions of what constitutes "logical" argument, hypocrisy, etc., etc.
3) pls...let's not get back to tone! sounds a bit...errr...oppressive to me. but I digress. not "smart as me" (i.e., I know where I fit in the grand scheme of things and don't need to come to a Redskin board for confirmation)....but certainly (in the sense of what is in my mind)....trying to communicate that folks should take notice that this is more of the same Redskins dysfunctionality (Shanahan/Allen or no Shanahan/Allen). There are two parties to this and the eventual outcome will/should hang responsibility on both sides. The weighting when this is all done won't be equal, but in my book it's not a binary either. Para 5 is intended to suggest that if this is primarily a contest of wills - one which management in the end is guaranteed to win - this is the wrong prioritization.
summarizing several themes throughout all these posts:
- tracing the dynamic to money...."he ought to because he is being paid more"....is being lampooned for all the hidden value judgments....especially since there are much better reasons for demanding the behavioral expectations.
- there is no contractual obligation to appear at voluntary workouts....the Skins signed a contract
- the focus on near-term objectives has not really addressed the long-term objectives but just assumed that not showing up for voluntary weight lifting exercises in April will somehow undermine team unity and result in catastrophic play on the field in Sep
- two players voicing concerns publicly and one stating it's not important at this point has somehow been magnified/"fantastasized" into collective team angst and disruptive impact (also imagined or unsubstantiated) on the single, unified, undiluted, pure as the driven snow, one for all and all for one quest for the utopian team. That's horse manure. No one knows what's in the minds of 100+ players, it's too early for all of this to have a profoundly disruptive impact.
- AH is certainly culpable (and has created the problem), but in MY VALUE SYSTEM the best management finds ways to turn situations like this to advantage. This may play out with AH being consigned to the netherlands because his childish instincts or perceived justifications do prove disruptive once he has to participate. so be it. but the best leadership should work to avoid having events ever degenerate to this point. there is still plenty of time and options to turn this around. now...I am open to attack on one plane: perhaps management's primary goal is to establish that there are new sheriffs in town who brook NO deviation...even if this is at the expense of the level of play on the field. no one from the Skins, however, has asserted this.
- everyone is holding their cards at this point: AH and the Skins. In line with the previous point, let's wait and see how this plays out. no one has really said/done anything hugely antagonistic. the situation can be rescued to eveyone's benefit. a lot of this is simply manufactured media histrionics to fill air time.
- I'm frustrated with AH just like everyone else. I agree he ought to be in Ashburn now and yesterday. but he isn't. I prefer to resist the urge to hammer someone while there remains an opportunity to improve the situation. This whole drama has intensified only in the minds of apparently poorly compensated posters and incendiary columinists (like Mosley) working to promote themselves...........
......let's see what happens once this all becomes mandatory.
 }})
We've talked about how Daniel Snyder has taken a less intrusive approach since Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen have taken over, but the Redskins owner made some pointed comments during an appearance at a club charity function Saturday. It turns out that Shanahan's not the only one frustrated with Albert Haynesworth's no-show to the team's "voluntary" offseason workouts.
