Snyder Interview

Extremeskins has been keeping track of some of Nunyo's inaccuracies, and some of them are quite disturbing for someone who is supposed to be the beat reporter for a major newspaper. Well he is a hell of alot better then Maske. Maske had this annoying habit of repeating paragraphs vebatim in every single story.

Nice article, EEich! Who is it!

I'm not sure... When he refers to the Warpath, I don't think he's referring to this board though.

TWT: Why not give Vinny the GM title?
Snyder: Having a GM goes back to when the general manager ran the ticket office. He used to be like a CEO. Less than half the teams today have a GM. The majority of the coaches have the final say. New England and Philadelphia have a vice president of player personnel and no GM. We have the same structure.

I found this interesting. Is it true? Also, did you see where Danny blamed Vinny for the Deon fiasco?

Anyway, I liked the interview. I believe that he's letting Gibbs run the show. And it can't hurt to have two papers in town competing to have the best skins coverage.

He's right about less than half the teams having a "GM" and that neither New England nor Philadelphia have anyone with the title General Manager. That's why I'm always curious to know what exactly it is that people want when they say "We need a GM" Is that just to say that we have a GM? Anyway, we've had that GM discussion more than enough times

I think the fact that we've had some success with a GM so people feel a GM will bring back success. I'm part of that crowd to an extent. Vinny is mainly a scout, and I don't like coaches with the say in player personel. I think they should have an opinion, but not everything.

I hate me some Vinny Cerrato. He bends over backwards for Snyder too much. We should have kept Joe Mendes.

I hate me some Vinny Cerrato. He bends over backwards for Snyder too much. We should have kept Joe Mendes.

Yes - it is well known that Vinny and Danny are buddies. Does this mean Snyder over-rules Vinny's player personnel calls? What's the basis and facts for making this statement? When did Vinny "bend over" for Danny?

I really could care less who's making the calls so long as they get them right! I think we did well in last year's draft, hopefully that will continue, but I don't just want to be OK in the draft department, I want us to become the best, this draft will go a long way as to what direction, and how much they have learned about talent evaluation, I think Vinny has come a long way since the Deion day's, and I think Gibbs learned a hard lesson last season with Brunell,
PIMP'IN AIN'T EASY!

They know that they are #2 in this market and that in the long run Danny Boy can't make nearly as much money without the Post on his side, so the Times will be "gentle" with the interview and "upbeat" with the story. That is good public relations positioning by Danny Boy; he had that one figured out perfectly.

SC,

For the most part I agree with these comments. But, I think the Times asked some "uncomfortable" questions and didn't throw slow balls for Danny to knock out of the park. Certainly it gave Danny a medium to address his critics, but it pointed out a lot of "bad things" about Danny's rule. Danny even admitted in the story that he did a lot of bad things early on in his ownership. I'm not sure how an interviewer could've been much more aggressive or "truth-seeking."



And that is precisely why each and every detail of the Wash Times story ought not to be considered as gospel truth - without some independent verification. Just as Danny Boy knew the interview would be "gentle", he also knew the kind of image of himself he wanted to project and he probably had a few "messages" he wanted to "get out there". So, some of the stuff in there is no more "objective" and "reality-based" than the stuff on redskins.com. In fact, a part of the interview is stuff that might have appeared on redskins.com had there not been this Times interview.

Again, I don't think anyone takes the Times as the gospel of truth. We've made a few jokes about the Times (albeit not in this thread) is the past about its inaccurate reporting. Nor do I think that people reading the article took Danny's word at face value - as you yourself noted. But, the article was interesting nonetheless.



Woodward and Bernstein were back in the 70s; Sy Hersh is and has been for the last 30 years.

I'm not so sure Sy Hersh or the New Yorker ranks up there with Woodward and Bernstein. This is the guy who said we will invade Iran within a few months. But that's neither here nor there.


If I look at the "negative stories" that have come out locally about the Redskins in the Post over the past couple of years, I'm not sure I would call them "muckraking". .

You're right. But, I was talking in general terms about journalism and the growing distaste for pure pessimism.

I think the fact that we've had some success with a GM so people feel a GM will bring back success. I'm part of that crowd to an extent. Vinny is mainly a scout, and I don't like coaches with the say in player personel. I think they should have an opinion, but not everything.


One of the few things I agree with you Daseal is the fact of needing a good GM.

It is all about controversie-as far as starting QB goes,when the reg. season starts we will all know- a billionare before 40,Dans' the man- he has his learning process also- he is gonna have his input no matter what-Skins are gonna have a damn good yr. 2005!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!