Re: Has the WP decided attacking the Skins is good for business?
 

If you read the whole article it brings out good reasoning why the players salary doesn't have much to do with regular personal decisions, so her article is a moot point. You can complain about spending till your blue in the face, nobody cares.

I can rant and rave when a rookie qb who wont even play his first 2 years gets 12mil a year, wont change anything.

BTW longtime skins fan, first post here. GO SKINS

Re: Has the WP decided attacking the Skins is good for business?
 

JLC "Redskins Outsider" and NY Sally can write all the mindless drivel they want. While they bumble off into obscurity and irrelevence here's an article they should review:

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/25/AR2009022500951.html?hpid=moreheadlines"]washingtonpost.com[/URL]

This is no BS. I used to have the Post bookmarked for Skins coverage until a friend turned me on to the Warpath, back in the 2006 season. I can't remember the last time I went to the Post to read anything other than through a link here.

JLC and NY Sally are old media, and they probably see the writing on the wall. They'll both disappear in the next year or two.

Re: Has the WP decided attacking the Skins is good for business?
 

[quote=Zerohero;533930]If you read the whole article it brings out good reasoning why the players salary doesn't have much to do with regular personal decisions, [B]so her article is a moot point[/B]. You can complain about spending till your blue in the face, nobody cares.

I can rant and rave when a rookie qb who wont even play his first 2 years gets 12mil a year, wont change anything.

BTW longtime skins fan, first post here. GO SKINS[/quote]

I agree and welcome to the board Zerohero!

Re: Has the WP decided attacking the Skins is good for business?
 

[quote=SBXVII;533916]

I am sorta boycotting the WP. I used to get all my info from them. Especially when the draft approached and during training months. I have not purchased a WP in several months if not a year ago. My sole reason for buying it was for the sports section. Well and perhaps the funnies. lol. but I find myself looking at the local paper or none at all.[/quote]


They still have some pretty good stuff. I imagine that if the Post news on the Skins was like the reefer it would be decent quality with seeds.

Re: Has the WP decided attacking the Skins is good for business?
 

The Post "attacks" the Redskins the same way the Post "attacks" the politicans in the White House and the Congress. That is to say, the Post does not always agree with any of these folks and uses the paper to point out the foibles of all of them.

Is that a good business deicsion? Well the Washington Post is one of the few newspapers in the country that is still running in the black. They must be doing something right.

For everyone who thinks Sally Jenkins is overpaid, let me suggest that they do something positive:

1. Gather up a half-dozen writing samples where you show your creativity and your anayltical skills and your ability to turn a phrase.

2. Send them to the Post and offer to take Sally Jenkins' columnist job for half of whatever she gets paid now.

3. Maybe you get a nice job at a nice raise with total access to the Redskins team and locker room...

4. Maybe you gain an appreciation of how difficult it is to write top shelf sports columns on a regular basis and a greater appreciation of Sally Jenkins' talent - - even though she may not make nice with Danny Boy and Vinnie the Troll.

Re: Has the WP decided attacking the Skins is good for business?
 

I doubt the Post is in the black because of it's sports section and most of the articles I've read are just an attack on the Redskins. Hardly "top shelf sports columns". Apparently it [B]is[/B] hard to write them on a regular basis.

Re: Has the WP decided attacking the Skins is good for business?
 

The Post is good to line a cat box!

Re: Has the WP decided attacking the Skins is good for business?
 

I've read the post for 25 years+, they're still one of the best papers in the country & only hire top notch journalists. If you don't know anything about the field, take a look into it. Many a reporter/columnist wishes they could be hired by one of the big time papers like the post.

I've been reading the warpath for at least 3 years, and there is some great material here. But there's quite honestly, also a fair amount of drivel and negativity, and it's 99% always much less thought out than anything Sally Jenkins writes.

We have a lot of fans on this site that are eager to bash the team's decisions. I certainly think the front office & Danny deserve some criticism, so I try & take the time to read such posts. I don't always agree, but sometimes I get a perspective that's different, so I learn from it. Just the same, I read JLC & Sally, Tom Wise, etc. on the post because they offer insight that we don't have.

In short, I do believe there's a negative slant from JLC & Sally (who are paid to write their opinions in columns & the insider) but I think that's simply from their experience, I don't think it's because they're negative people, trying to sensationalize stories, or poor writers. Usually I agree w/them to some degree. As it's been said so many times before on this site, if the Skins can build a consistent winner, then there will be a legit reason to complain about criticism of the team. Until Snyder does that, what do you really expect to hear after he signs AH & Hall to those type of contracts?

Re: Has the WP decided attacking the Skins is good for business?
 

[quote=freddyg12;535023]I've read the post for 25 years+, they're still one of the best papers in the country & only hire top notch journalists. If you don't know anything about the field, take a look into it. Many a reporter/columnist wishes they could be hired by one of the big time papers like the post.

I've been reading the warpath for at least 3 years, and there is some great material here. But there's quite honestly, also a fair amount of drivel and negativity, and it's 99% always much less thought out than anything Sally Jenkins writes.

We have a lot of fans on this site that are eager to bash the team's decisions. I certainly think the front office & Danny deserve some criticism, so I try & take the time to read such posts. I don't always agree, but sometimes I get a perspective that's different, so I learn from it. Just the same, I read JLC & Sally, Tom Wise, etc. on the post because they offer insight that we don't have.

In short, I do believe there's a negative slant from JLC & Sally (who are paid to write their opinions in columns & the insider) but I think that's simply from their experience, I don't think it's because they're negative people, trying to sensationalize stories, or poor writers. Usually I agree w/them to some degree. As it's been said so many times before on this site, if the Skins can build a consistent winner, then there will be a legit reason to complain about criticism of the team. Until Snyder does that, what do you really expect to hear after he signs AH & Hall to those type of contracts?[/quote]

This a very good post IMO. I do however think Sally Jenkins tends to sensationalize a bit. JLC just reeks of sour grapes. But Mike Wise and Tom Boswell are excellent journalists. I don't think Jenkins is a poor writer. On the contrary actually. She just seems to pride herself on rubbing salt in every single wound possible when it comes to the Redskins. Her article bashing our spending in FA in light of the layoffs really rubbed me the wrong way.

Re: Has the WP decided attacking the Skins is good for business?
 

I don't really pay much attention to the WP that much anymore. They emphasized how we're been a mediocre team for awhile. That's isn't true. For awhile we flat out stunk. I'll take mediocre any day over suck.

They seem to be a day late and a dollar short too often for me. I think JLC has a bone to pick that doesn't make good reading.

Re: Has the WP decided attacking the Skins is good for business?
 

Does anyone read the articles on the DC Pro Sports Report. Every article is bashing the skins for one thing or another:

[B]Portis actually shows up for work, finds Redskins Park filled with old guys on crutches[/B]
By Spence | March 17, 2009
TB Clinton Portis decided to show up for minicamp. The guy has a huge contract and, apparently, Redskins management were surprised he showed up for work. Especially since, due to the [B]Li'l General's crush on Portis, the tailback doesn't have to show up for work unless he feels like it. I guess he felt like it. Please hold your applause.
[/B]
T[B]he Redskins signed PK Shaun Suisham to his restricted free agent tender so he's under contract for one more season. Please hold your applause.
[/B]
Expect DT Anthony Montgomery to sign his tender today, as well. That actually is good news, since the presence of Albert Haynesworth is going to make Montgomery a 12-sack tackle next year. Really. Vinny Cerrato told me so.

Meanwhile, after signing old Rendaldo Wynn, the Redskins are now hoping to bring back old and injury-prone Phillip Daniels at DE, old and injury-prone Marcus Washington at SLB, and perhaps old and injury-prone OL Mark Tauscher will get a sniff or two, as well. [B]Basically, if you're an agent for a player who is well over 30 and coming off at least 6 knee surgeries, expect a phone call from Redskins Park. [/B]

Re: Has the WP decided attacking the Skins is good for business?
 

[quote=GMScud;535027]This a very good post IMO. I do however think Sally Jenkins tends to sensationalize a bit. JLC just reeks of sour grapes. But Mike Wise and Tom Boswell are excellent journalists. I don't think Jenkins is a poor writer. On the contrary actually. She just seems to pride herself on rubbing salt in every single wound possible when it comes to the Redskins. Her article bashing our spending in FA in light of the layoffs really rubbed me the wrong way.[/quote]

Bingo. I think it is less cynical than "being good for business." LaCanfora just hates the front office, doesn't really know football, and is not that great of a reporter. As you say, Boswell and Wise are generally excellent.

Re: Has the WP decided attacking the Skins is good for business?
 

[quote=WaldSkins;537750]Does anyone read the articles on the DC Pro Sports Report. Every article is bashing the skins for one thing or another:

[B]Portis actually shows up for work, finds Redskins Park filled with old guys on crutches[/B]
By Spence | March 17, 2009
TB Clinton Portis decided to show up for minicamp. The guy has a huge contract and, apparently, Redskins management were surprised he showed up for work. Especially since, due to the [B]Li'l General's crush on Portis, the tailback doesn't have to show up for work unless he feels like it. I guess he felt like it. Please hold your applause.
[/B]
T[B]he Redskins signed PK Shaun Suisham to his restricted free agent tender so he's under contract for one more season. Please hold your applause.
[/B]
Expect DT Anthony Montgomery to sign his tender today, as well. That actually is good news, since the presence of Albert Haynesworth is going to make Montgomery a 12-sack tackle next year. Really. Vinny Cerrato told me so.

Meanwhile, after signing old Rendaldo Wynn, the Redskins are now hoping to bring back old and injury-prone Phillip Daniels at DE, old and injury-prone Marcus Washington at SLB, and perhaps old and injury-prone OL Mark Tauscher will get a sniff or two, as well. [B]Basically, if you're an agent for a player who is well over 30 and coming off at least 6 knee surgeries, expect a phone call from Redskins Park. [/B][/quote]

Well those guys are part of this board, so they could answer for themselves. But I think a) it’s their attempt at humor and b) I believe there’s a definite one-sidedness to them at times. But I’ve questioned them and often disagreed with them, and, to their credit, they’ve been receptive to other perspectives even if they don’t agree