[QUOTE=NC_Skins;804993]I understand Shanny's reaction in this because he's part of management. However, having all of the Redskins coaching staff sign this was stupid. Very stupid. Now, the NFLCA should have contacted the Redskins which was very stupid of them. Now the Redskins coaching staff has chosen a side and it happens to be against the guys they want trust from. NOT a smart move.[/QUOTE]

That's a good point. So assuming all preexisting conditions, what should have happened? MS releases his own statement without other coaches? That looks like a segmented coaching staff.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=hooskins;804994]That's a good point. So assuming all preexisting conditions, what should have happened? MS releases his own statement without other coaches? That looks like a segmented coaching staff.[/quote]

No, it looks like one is considered management (much like Bruce Allen) and the others are coaches. Its a bit complicated when the coach is also the president as well. I think in this situation, Shanny makes a statement independently while reminding people that he is also management. That way it clears up any question about "split" coaching staff. That is how I feel it should have been handled. I have a big problem with the coaching staff siding with owners against the players. They have absolutely no dog in the fight so there is absolutely no reason for them to be dragged into this.

[QUOTE=NC_Skins;804995]No, it looks like one is considered management (much like Bruce Allen) and the others are coaches. Its a bit complicated when the coach is also the president as well. I think in this situation, Shanny makes a statement independently while reminding people that he is also management. That way it clears up any question about "split" coaching staff. That is how I feel it should have been handled. I have a big problem with the coaching staff siding with owners against the players. They have absolutely no dog in the fight so there is absolutely no reason for them to be dragged into this.[/QUOTE]

I think making his statement alone shows lack of unity.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=hooskins;804997]I think making his statement alone shows lack of unity.[/quote]

Mike Shanahan is clearly management. You can tell because he he has the title of Vice President and the big corner office. He makes the big bucks and he also makes all of the football-related decisions for the organization.

On the other hand, the assistant coaches have none of those things. That's because they are not management. They are also not players. They are simply football coaches. So, there was no need for them to show solidarity with either management or the players.

They should not have been put on the spot by the coaches association and they should not have been asked by anyone to sign a statement supporting management.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=hooskins;804988]So easy so say but hard to walk the walk when your paycheck goes towards loans, mortgages, family, etc.

If you felt you could lose your job, you wouldn't agree with your employer? There are different ways to go about making your opinion heard. Putting your job on the line doesn't have to go hand in hand with that.[/quote]

Nobody in this NFL labor fight is going to lose their job. This is a battle between rich people and super rich people.

But if we are talking about sacrificing our jobs in the fight to face off against uncontrolled corporate greed it's obvious that the super rich are in a great position right now as you point out middle class Americans find themselves so leveraged by mortgages, debts and twenty three monthly bills every month that it seems impossible to even consider putting up a fight when it comes to labor disputes?

It's a joke. American laborers died in the streets so that they could earn a chance at a living wage.

Now that the middle class has gotten so drunk off of a steady diet of fast food, mindless television and a garage filled with toys we can't afford we are incapable of staring down management and the super rich?

The distribution of wealth is at a staggeringly unhealthy level and yet we elect politicians who fight tooth and nail to give tax breaks to corporations and the super rich?

Maybe Americans can start voting for politicians who are interested in helping people.

To answer your question I would put my job on the line.

But as you said I would obviously do my best to use every other avenue to get my opinion heard.....only because I have a family I'm responsible for, I've got lots of bills and I don't make that much money.

[QUOTE=KI Skins Fan;805001]They should not have been put on the spot by the coaches association and they should not have been asked by anyone to sign a statement supporting management.[/QUOTE]

I agree with that.

[QUOTE=wilsowilso;805003]Nobody in this NFL labor fight is going to lose their job. This is a battle between rich people and super rich people.

But if we are talking about sacrificing our jobs in the fight to face off against uncontrolled corporate greed it's obvious that the super rich are in a great position right now as you point out middle class Americans find themselves so leveraged by mortgages, debts and twenty three monthly bills every month that it seems impossible to even consider putting up a fight when it comes to labor disputes?

It's a joke. American laborers died in the streets so that they could earn a chance at a living wage.

Now that the middle class has gotten so drunk off of a steady diet of fast food, mindless television and a garage filled with toys we can't afford we are incapable of staring down management and the super rich?

The distribution of wealth is at a staggeringly unhealthy level and yet we elect politicians who fight tooth and nail to give tax breaks to corporations and the super rich?

Maybe Americans can start voting for politicians who are interested in helping people.

To answer your question I would put my job on the line.

But as you said I would obviously do my best to use every other avenue to get my opinion heard.....only because I have a family I'm responsible for, I've got lots of bills and I don't make that much money.[/QUOTE]

Can't say I disagree with what you've said. The rising tide has not lifted all boats equally. Plenty of numbers to back that up.

For the record I support the players and actually wouldn't be terribly upset if we didn't have football next year to reach a deal on their terms. A win for them would be great for labor across the board.

I'm just saying its tough to throw it all out the window to support a cause for ideals and principles if there is a lot on the line. Easier to say you would.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/01/cowboys-rams-come-out-against-coaches-association-brief-too/]Cowboys, Rams come out against Coaches Association brief too | ProFootballTalk[/url]

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

Add the Jaguars

[url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/06/01/jags.ap/]Jaguars coaches distance themselves from NFLCA filing - NFL - SI.com[/url]

So five teams now? Funny, because I thought it was just Snyder bullying the coaching staff of the Redskins.

6. Texans too. What kind of joke is the NFLCA considering they didn't seem to consult too many coaches?

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=SmootSmack;805299]Add the Jaguars

[url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/06/01/jags.ap/]Jaguars coaches distance themselves from NFLCA filing - NFL - SI.com[/url]

So five teams now? Funny, because I thought it was just Snyder bullying the coaching staff of the Redskins.[/quote]

Clearly Dan Snyder has bullied every other coach in the league as well.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

Looks like the NFLCA dropped the ball, but it'd be foolish to believe that this lockout is not affecting coaches. Honestly, I believe the coaches are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Yet I don't think signing letters of support for the owners is the best way to go.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=SmootSmack;805299]Add the Jaguars

[URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/06/01/jags.ap/"]Jaguars coaches distance themselves from NFLCA filing - NFL - SI.com[/URL]

So five teams now? Funny, because I thought it was just Snyder bullying the coaching staff of the Redskins.[/quote]


Who said that?

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=Giantone;805333]Who said that?[/quote]

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/804777-post8.html[/url]

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/804741-post3.html[/url]

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=SmootSmack;805299]Add the Jaguars

[url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/06/01/jags.ap/]Jaguars coaches distance themselves from NFLCA filing - NFL - SI.com[/url]

So five teams now? Funny, because I thought it was just Snyder bullying the coaching staff of the Redskins.[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but have any of those other team's coaches sided with the owners like the Redskins coaches did. That is the difference here.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=NC_Skins;805356]Correct me if I'm wrong, but have any of those other team's coaches sided with the owners like the Redskins coaches did. That is the difference here.[/quote]

The Texans said they support the organization, which one can infer includes ownership

Saints said they support the owner

Cowboys said they didn't approve of the brief, but didn't outright mention support of the owner

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=SmootSmack;805358]The Texans said they support the organization, which one can infer includes ownership

Saints said they support the owner

Cowboys said they didn't approve of the brief, but didn't outright mention support of the owner[/quote]

dang beat me to it:
here is a Saints coach quote though:
[quote]
New Orleans linebackers coach Joe Vitt was equally adamant in his opposition toward the brief.

"We're supporting the owners," Vitt told the New Orleans Times-Picayune. "I've said this a million times, our organization has been built on trust. [Owner Tom] Benson has been great to us. Unequivocally, we support our ownership."[/quote]

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

There is no difference here unless you're looking for one.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=Mattyk;805361]There is no difference here unless you're looking for one.[/quote]


There is a huge difference. What I'm referring to is what the Cowboys apparently have done.

[quote]Cowboys said they didn't approve of the brief, but didn't outright mention support of the owner[/quote]


Making a statement about not supporting the brief is one thing. Making a statement that you are siding with the owners is entirely different situation. Huuuuuge difference. One is staying neutral by not picking a side, the other is siding with the very people who the players distrust.

The coaches(any of them) supporting the owners publicly are ****ing stupid to say the least. Now come training camp, you have coaches who ask their players to trust them? lol If I were a FA, I'd never play for a coach who openly sided with a owner in a labor dispute unless he was part of management. (a GM/HC combo) They have no dog in this fight. None. What reason do they have to support owners? I can understand the ones in dual roles in both coaching and management, but for most of these coaches, it's a stupid move.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

Taking a stand against the brief implies you're siding with the owners. Come on man stop with the semantics.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=Mattyk;805366]Taking a stand against the brief implies you're siding with the owners. Come on man stop with the semantics.[/quote]

No it doesn't. It just means you aren't siding with the players either. That brief was filed to support the players. Had the coaches did that, they would be publicly siding with the players, which is also a stupid move.

This isn't semantics. Coaches should be remaining neutral in all this. (publicly at least) They shouldn't be apart of any brief supporting the players, and they shouldn't be signing letters supporting ownership. Not sure how you see them making a stand against the brief implies they are siding with owners. You'd have to stand against the brief if you wanted to remain neutral. That doesn't mean you need to sign a letter supporting the owners either.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

The Skins filed their response before fully understanding what the intent of the brief was. The NFLCA obviously didn't properly communicate that intent, nor did they have the full support from the coaches regarding the filing of the brief to begin with.

Regardless, the NFLCA F'd this up from the start. And in the end this issue is minuscule compared to the big picture.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=Mattyk;805375]Regardless, the NFLCA F'd this up from the start.[/quote]

That much is certain.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=NLC1054;805317]Clearly Dan Snyder has bullied every other coach in the league as well.[/quote]

Why the sympathetic defense of Snyder? He has acquired a well-earned reputation as a bully. Once a man gains a reputation as a bully, it is to be expected that he might be accused of doing something that he didn't do. Tough luck for him. If he had a reputation for treating his employees respectfully then he wouldn't have to worry about such things.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;805387]Why the sympathetic defense of Snyder? He has acquired a well-earned reputation as a bully. Once a man gains a reputation as a bully, it is to be expected that he might be accused of doing something that he didn't do. Tough luck for him. If he had a reputation for treating his employees respectfully then he wouldn't have to worry about such things.[/quote]

Because much of his reputation is actually built on BS accusations such as the one in this thread

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=SmootSmack;805392]Because much of his reputation is actually built on BS accusations such as the one in this thread[/quote]

Pretty sure that reputation is earned, and not based on BS accusations either. See his lawsuit against the Washington City Paper as pure evidence of bullying. Also, he's bullied his coaches, players, and fans so that reputation is legit.


That said, I don't agree with the claim or notion that it's Snyder behind making the coaches sign the letter backing the owners. However, I do think they did it out of fear.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=SmootSmack;805392]Because much of his reputation is actually built on BS accusations such as the one in this thread[/quote]

See this is what a good mod does. A simple short statement that guarantees the thread will double in size as people start pulling long winded diatribes against DS.

Now that is earning your Cayman Island account!

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=NC_Skins;805398]Pretty sure that reputation is earned, and not based on BS accusations either. See his lawsuit against the Washington City Paper as pure evidence of bullying. Also, he's bullied his coaches, players, and fans so that reputation is legit.


That said, I don't agree with the claim or notion that it's Snyder behind making the coaches sign the letter backing the owners. However, I do think they did it out of fear.[/quote]

I disagree, but I'm not going to get into it again. It's a tired subject, in my opinion

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

For every legit reason to hate on the guy, there's probably twice as much BS out there. I've got no problem with focusing on the legit stuff, but the BS is just that.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

Add the Eagles

[url=http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2011/6/2/2202929/andy-reid-does-not-support-the-nflca-filing-either]Andy Reid Does Not Support The NFLCA Filing Either - Bleeding Green Nation[/url]

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=SmootSmack;805392]Because much of his reputation is actually built on BS accusations such as the one in this thread[/quote]

This!!!

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=NC_Skins;805398]Pretty sure that reputation is earned, and not based on BS accusations either. See his lawsuit against the Washington City Paper as pure evidence of bullying. [B]Also, he's bullied his coaches, players, and fans so that reputation is legit[/B].


That said, I don't agree with the claim or notion that it's Snyder behind making the coaches sign the letter backing the owners. However, I do think they did it out of fear.[/quote]

Yeah, he really pushed Joe Gibbs around. Probably berating Shanny right now. Laid the smack down on Portis. I also heard he went man up with Arrington in the employee bathroom. I also heard the guys on his radio station are terrified of him and kiss his arse on their shows.

All jokes aside, are we calling him a bully because he berated Norv? That was over a decade ago.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6619264]More coaches distance selves from NFLCA brief - ESPN[/url]

Looks like B&G coaches just got out in front.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=Son Of Man;805437][URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6619264"]More coaches distance selves from NFLCA brief - ESPN[/URL]

Looks like B&G coaches just got out in front.[/quote]

A lot of owners are bullies you know

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=Son Of Man;805434]Yeah, he really pushed Joe Gibbs around. Probably berating Shanny right now. Laid the smack down on Portis. I also heard he went man up with Arrington in the employee bathroom. I also heard the guys on his radio station are terrified of him and kiss his arse on their shows.

All jokes aside, are we calling him a bully because he berated Norv? That was over a decade ago.[/quote]

I had no intention of going there, but since you want examples of bullying. You can also look at many of his business ventures to see prime examples of bullying.

[url=http://larrybrownsports.com/football/daniel-snyder-does-not-like-vanilla-ice-cream-so-says-mike-nolan/792]Daniel Snyder Does Not Like Vanilla Ice Cream, So Says Mike Nolan | Larry Brown Sports[/url]
[quote] Early that season, after a Redskins loss, Snyder told Nolan that his defensive calls were “too vanilla.” Like the other coaches, Nolan had figured out by then that trying to explain football to Snyder was pointless, since he already had the game figured out. A few days later a gallon of 31 Flavors ice cream showed up on Nolan’s desk with a note that said, “This is what I like. Not vanilla.”

Nolan laughed and sent Snyder a note: “Thanks for the ice cream. My kids enjoyed it.”

“The first time it was actually kind of funny,” Nolan said. “I didn’t mind it at all.”

The next time wasn’t as funny.

The Redskins lost on the road to Dallas, and Nolan went into his office late Sunday night to start looking at game tape. When he arrived, there were three giant canisters of melting 31 Flavors ice cream on his desk with another note: “I wasn’t joking. I do not like vanilla.”[/quote]


Do I even need to remind you of how Jim Zorn was treated? Give me a break. Poor Zorn had to break down game film for Danny boy during the week to satisfy this meddling idiot.
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/jim-zorn-broke-down-game-film-with-dan-snyder/2010/12/20/ABoXzDG_blog.html]Jim Zorn broke down game film with Dan Snyder - DC Sports Bog - The Washington Post[/url]

Sure he isn't bullying guys like Gibbs or Shanny, because he can't.


Players?

[quote]Laveranues Coles is threatened by Snyder with a big screen TV, because "that's where you'll be watching the games next year" if you holdout for a new contract. Traded to the Jets for Santana Moss, and incurring a whopping $9m "dead cap" charge for the knee jerk move.
[url=http://czabe.blogspot.com/2010/12/see-ya-fatso.html]Czabe.com: See Ya, Fatso[/url]
[/quote]

Not bullying?


I'd rather not turn this into a Snyder discussion. I said a couple times I do not think Snyder is behind the coaches siding with owners. I don't believe in make believe stories or things that aren't confirmed. (well, for the most part)

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

Add the Jets to teams rejecting the brief

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=SmootSmack;805454]Add the Jets to teams rejecting the brief[/quote]

So the question is, did those dipshits notify or ask ANYBODY before submitting that brief?....lol

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

I'm still laughing at the Ice-cream story!

@ Zorn story- if I was paying him to see what he was putting out on the field, in terms of game plans, then I would want him to walk me through it as well. Can you say "swinging gate?

@ Coles story- as I recall Coles was complaining about Gibbs offense and wanted out. DS let him know that he would get the Keyshawn treatment if he did not shape up. BTW- his handling of Coles helped pave the way for the Moss trade (IMO).

Sounds like a boss...not a bully. Even though the ice cream bit was over the top. Funny, but over the top.

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

[quote=NC_Skins;805457]So the question is, did those dipshits notify or ask ANYBODY before submitting that brief?....lol[/quote]

Doesn't look like it. Fail...lol

Re: Redskins coaches support owners in lockout
 

And now the Bears

[url=http://chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=7893]Bears coaches did not support brief[/url]

I'm still waiting for one team to come out and publicly say "Yes, we were aware of the brief and we support it"