More digs at the Skins from Fatty P

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

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.

In doing so, b/c others rely on these guys for the "facts", they perpetuate the anti-skin bias held by other talking heads and local medias. How many people did the research concerning the likelihood that the Skins would be signing 20-30 rookies if the CBA hadn't gone through? I believe it started w/ Pasta and got repeated by everyone else.



look, at the time that article was written it was 100% true. people keep using it as some form of proof of bias... the problem is that statement was absollutely correct at the time it was written (no restructures had been done and the cba looked like it might really be dead).

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.

look, at the time that article was written it was 100% true. people keep using it as some form of proof of bias... the problem is that statement was absollutely correct at the time it was written (no restructures had been done and the cba looked like it might really be dead).

No, it wasn't true. If the CBA had not gone through, we would have been tough up against it but clearly Pasta's "there's no way they can get under the cap" statement was wrong. Yes - w/o restructures, we couldn't have done it. But - and here's where sloppy analysis and bias do come into play - rather than look at how the cap could be managed and discussed the possibility of restructuring, Pasta simply went with the "no way" argument. Was he unaware of the possibility of restructures? I doubt it.

Did he even attempt to see how it might be done? Again, I doubt it. Any actual research into ways to resolve the issue OTHER than simply cutting players? An interview with Skins staff? If the statement had been - w/o restructures, they can't get under the cap, and, even with them, they will likely have to cut some players they would rather not - that would have reflected a more accurate analysis. That, however, was not the conclusion drawn.

As for his latest conclusory statement, again - any mention of how the roster is being "blown up", how is he defining that term?

As I said, my problem with these jokers criticism of the Skins is that it is intellectually either sloppy or dishonest. I can forgive the local San Diego (or whereever) media for getting it wrong - they're simply relying the Peter King's and Pasta's to get it right.

No, it wasn't true.

except that it was. at the time no one had restructured, so it was a valid point. it WAS sloppy journalism not to mention that restructures could get them closer, but how many teams have ever gotten 12+ guys to all redo contracts (and have 2-3 give back money) in a single year to help with the cap?

it would have been a long shot to predict that, and without gibbs, it probably wouldn't have happened. Meaning that at least some players that the skins would want to keep would logically have to be cut.

I was wrong.... It wasn't wrong... at this point it doesn't really matter. What matters is that the skins said that they had a plan (restructures automatically built into contracts that these reporters did not know about) and that they would be forced to use the draft to shore up the team. Well, in my opinion, the skins had it under control all the time. The reporters got it wrong and they just hate that maybe they were hoodwinked.

Since Gibbs took over, he has done exactley what he has always done. He looks at the guys in place and sees what they are good at. Then he puts them into a position to excel and gets the most out of them. Yes, he has also one this with Snyder. He took a guy who likes to spend money on proven players instead of college players and got him to improve his free agent selections. He still gets to spend wildly, but now he has to do it on younger players that fit the offense and defense.

it would have been a long shot to predict that, and without gibbs, it probably wouldn't have happened.

I don't agree. The players don't care whether they're getting their money in the form of a roster bonus, base salary, or restructured signing bonus. They'd be happy to restructure any day of the week for anybody as long as they're getting their money.

You have to give credit to Snyder for planning this all along. He backloads contracts on purpose with the intent of restructuring the big payments at a later date. He's been doing it for a couple years now, and now that those big contracts are getting into the backloaded portions, he's just following through with his plan.

Credit goes to Gibbs for picking which players to sign in the first place. But credit goes to Snyder for planning the salary cap.

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.

I don't agree. The players don't care whether they're getting their money in the form of a roster bonus, base salary, or restructured signing bonus. They'd be happy to restructure any day of the week for anybody as long as they're getting their money.

You have to give credit to Snyder for planning this all along. He backloads contracts on purpose with the intent of restructuring the big payments at a later date. He's been doing it for a couple years now, and now that those big contracts are getting into the backloaded portions, he's just following through with his plan.

Credit goes to Gibbs for picking which players to sign in the first place. But credit goes to Snyder for planning the salary cap.

some players DID have to give back money cause of the 30% rule if the new cba didn't happen; that's really hard to predict someone agreeing to.