Quote:
Originally Posted by GMScud
Any idea why? Did they treat the media this way during the JKC years? 7 years ago would put us right around the whole Spurrier fiasco, and not too far removed from disastrous signings like Carrier, Deion, etc. Possibly this led to a frustration filled, low tolerance approach by Danny and Co? Just my speculation, but I'd love to hear what you know (or at least what you're willing to divulge).
|
I was pretty involved with them during the final Norv years, the Marty year and the first Spurrier year so I don't exactly know what it was like with JKC. But as I understand it, and from what I've been told, this low tolerance approach had something to do with the Redskins wanting to get more presence on the national stage as cable and Internet was starting to emerge and local sports (what I was working on) was starting to fade away. So whereas under previous regimes were the local guys where the first to get the scoop on many rumors, that was becoming less and less the case. So when we would get information off the record, (we being the local media) in our zeal to get some scoop, we'd often report it. Which is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Off the record is off the record. Ultimately, a balance was struck but at the beginning I know it was pretty tense.