Sgt Schultz

Nobody could accuse them of false advertising for that one. I was in the DC area for work two weeks out of the six that ended last week. Nary a word was spoken about the Foreskins. It's like the area doesn't identify with them anymore. Considering how the team was embraced as recently as about ten years ago (maybe less), it is quite a fall from grace. I'm sure a new owner would stop that bleeding, at least for a while. But, the slide probably started when they left RFK for the what is now FedEx Field. Lousy stadium, no character, in an inconvenient location, and recently for a team with no apparent connection to its glory days. They bollixed the renaming, probably in large part because it was not very cleanly executed. From Redskins -> Football Team -> Commanders. It gives rise to a "who are they this season" type feel. The general attitude of the fans has been that the team would not recapture any success as long as Snyder owned the team. And for most of Snyder's reign of terror, whatever their name was, they weren't very good.

They weren't going to be able to keep Washington Football Team. A group of their fans were ready to file a lawsuit over false advertisement.

I've been wondering how long it would take for the IRS to start asking questions, too. He hid money from the NFL. Seems like they will be interested in where that money went, specifically their cut of it. My heart bleeds for the little p*#@k.

It didn't offer me that option, so I had to just create another ship-to address on my account.

What a rare opportunity. The only thing worse would be suggesting they bring The Process back.

That was my first thought, too. Then again, I always thought it was mostly a bluff on his part. His PI probably told him that he did indeed find things on the other owners, but nearly as much as he found on him.

Done. Great idea.

Especially if your original stance has proven to be wrong. That is really the key factor.

It's my turn now......I would caution against absolutes when the guy ultimately making this decision is David "the Trailblazer" Tepper. It really hurt to type that.

You had to bring that up, didn't you? <Sigh>

We had people on this here board yelling to move Ickey to guard. The response was to ask whether we could see him play tackle first.

There is a logic to that. Normally, when teams go through a disaster of a HC, their next hire is a guy who can provide stability. Think John Fox at Denver as an example. Somebody has to come in, sweep up that ashes, and put the furniture back in place. The Eagles proved that does not have to be done, and that Denver team proved stability does not have to come at the expense of winning. I think we walked out of the Rhule debacle younger and maybe in better shape than both of those teams. And maybe canning The Process early allows this year to be the year the ashes are swept up and the furniture starts to get put in place. We still have work to do, though.

Good job! Add to the October 10 holiday that I want to hire Demeco Ryans as Team President. He helped get The Process terminated, so we owe him. I like your assessment. On the OL, I would add that we can't declare victory because once it is built (and it may be), it has to be maintained meaning we need depth from up-and-comers so when we lose pieces to injury or FA, we are not left with gaping holes. Having an OL is new territory for us, so continual care and feeding needs to be learned.

I'd want something else thrown in, this year. If they want to throw in a third round pick this year, that would give us our first, our and SF's second, and then SF's and the Rams' third. That is a good position to be in, and if we wanted to move up we could probably package something to move back into the mid-late first round. The sand is running out of the hourglass for the Rams' window, so we have some leverage here. I live Burns, but the fact we have no idea what defense we will play next year (unless Wilks is the HC), his contract is due up soon, and he has been known to miss a few tackles/sacks would make this tempting.

If Wilks was 72 years old and putting out on the 18th green of his career, maybe a one-year gig for a decent (but not overwhelming) haul would be tempting. Go all in for the final year and then retire. But he isn't 72 and I assume he is not planning on retiring after 2023.

Snake, I think your point is that Wilks may be the best candidate available given our situation, and essentially extending him for a year may put us in position to attract a better candidate. All I can say is time will tell, both on Wilks' resume for the job (both one more year or even more) and whether anybody worth anything wants to talk to us. I agree with @Pakmeng that our roster is not devoid of talent. How much is still in front of the jury since our former coach had a squelching effect on how well players could perform. Maybe this adds to your point, but I think the rest of this year is about assessing whether the players we think are good really are and were hindered by The Process or whether our evaluation of them is wrong. If it turns out our roster is bad and nobody wants to talk to us, or if Wilks is better than those who do, extending him a year makes sense for us. But, I'm not sure why he would do that unless he has no better offers. Essentially we'd be asking him to be a lame duck for a year, wouldn't we?

Ah, the old "he makes more than me" argument. And using skewed data, no less. Interesting you mention the salary of the average kicker and use that as ammunition when THIS kicker's salary is readily available. For the record, it is roughly 1/3 of the average kicker. He isn't paid $2.5M to "miss those two kicks", which is the point of your rant, he is paid $895k. And what's the difference, you ask? By your own admission, Pinero is then paid substantially less than the average for his efforts and performance. According to OverTheCap, he is #37 of 43 kickers by average earnings (salary+ amortized bonus). That puts him in the bottom 15% of kickers. Yet, when we look at the stats (NFL.com has them if you want to check my work) he is lodged at #19 by FG percentage of 40 kickers who have tried at least one FG, including Sunday's miss. In the interest of full disclosure, of the 18 in front of him, one guy is 1 for 1, two are 2 for 2, and one is 3 for 3 which one could argue are too small of a sample size to even include, but NFL.com did. So, you are trying to prove you point based on the earnings of the average NFL kicker and then applying your standard of perfection. Neither apply. Pinero is in the bottom 15% of kicker compensation, but performing roughly at the median even after Sunday. By dragging salary into this (and then mangling the data), what you actually proved was 1) he is underpaid based on the numbers, and 2) he is outperforming his compensation. Should you be fired from the board for this?

Not too shabby for a guy that a bunch of people wanted moved to guard back in August and early September. His ability was so obvious even Rhule eventually saw it after he exhausted all other possibilities.

I believe the saying is "cutting your nose off to spite your face." We hear a lot of that on this here forum.

bUt CuT hIm Enywhay!

Hey, we have to high first round QBs we can throw in in return.

That is true. With all due respect to those I am about to insult, it has been my observation that those who are the strictest about wanting somebody fired after the first gaffe are also the most incompetent at their own jobs.

I agree with your strategy. But we have about five years worth of evidence Sam is not the vet. Baker's history is slightly better, but there are going to be better candidates for that vet position to be found. In the role I think we are talking about, somebody who processes the information in front of them and makes good decisions with the ball, even if his physical limitations prevent him from being Aaron Rodgers makes the most sense.

Would you want to bet money on that happening again? Using the rare exception to set a course of action is like basing your retirement plans on winning the lottery.

That is a valid point on our roster. I think that the task at hand from the moment Rhule was fired was figuring out what we have on our roster, because like you say, he was good at impeding everything. That said, I don't feel that way about Darnold and to a slightly lesser degree, Mayfield. Darnold has shown the same limitations and downside under three coaching staffs over five years. His completion percentage is a tad under 60% and his TD to Int. ratio is just over 1:1. There is nothing to point to and that type of interception ratio is not what teams want out of backup QBs. Mayfield's case is a little stronger, in that he had one good season, his completion percentage is a tick over 61 and his TD to Int. ration is a bit over 3:2. His worst season in all those things has been this one......under Captain Process. Somebody might be interested in signing him as a backup, and maybe as a sleeper if they have an aging vet as a starter. There is nothing there that says he should be built around, but he could get a look. I realize both these guys have played five years in mostly awful situations, but after that long, teams are likely to conclude Darnold is ruined and Mayfield is strongly headed that way.