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

We all know about JLC's lack of insider news and Sally Jenkins tendencies but after reading this article:

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/03/03/ST2009030303353.html]Sally Jenkins - Sally Jenkins: For Redskins, a Question of Layoffs vs. Payoffs - washingtonpost.com[/url]

I really wonder if the Post thinks the best way to get readers attention is to attack anything Redskins.
[QUOTE] ...
[B]That the Redskins would cut lower-level employees as nonessential to the organization, while rewarding Haynesworth as vital to the tune of $48 million, betrays something fundamental about the team.[/B] In a league with a skewed reward system, the Redskins always manage to be at the far end of the skew. There is a certain tone-deaf profligacy at work. No, lower-wage staffers aren't as valuable to a team as a Haynesworth -- they don't come close to resembling his worth. But they resemble the sorts of people who actually watch the Redskins, and buy their gear: the paying public...[/QUOTE]

um that's a ridiculous statement.

(I think this is separate from JLC's lack of insider info thread but please merge if it blends together)

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

maybe the Post should "lay-off" some of these writers if they want to gain any type of respect back.

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

I don't think this is one of Sally's better pieces on the Skins, but it still makes some relevant points. My main criticism is that the skins are singled out, but then she concedes that paying athletes huge sums of cash is done in all sports by a lot of teams. It seems she couldn't decide whether to make it a redskins or pro sports based article.

I know she gets a lot of grief from the warpath, but I think she usually points out what the flaws of Vinny & Danny are. I want to think the Danny is learning, and this free agency class might turn out huge. But let's face it, he spends the most to field a mediocre team (over time that's what we've been since he owned the team). He's increased the overall value exponentially, and loves to make big moves. So far, his ownership has achieved much more financial success than football success. Judging by what some season ticket holders here have said, I think overall Sally has a point even if it's not clearly stated.

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

I'll give her credit for quoting peoplle who point out who the real revenue drivers are and that smart businesses have to make tough decisions on where to cut and where to add (and that includes laying people off sometimes), and that it's not like the Redskins are the only team to face this situation. But ultimately, it's all just a set-up for another bashing.

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

I think Sally Jenkins should take a paycut so others could be employed , maybe she should write childrens books ?????

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

So according to Sally the beer guy at FedEx who got laid off from his job was actually a cap casualty?

Who writes this stuff?

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

Just when I'm sure I've reached the apex of total dislike for an individual I read this article and realize that I've still got a long ways too go. {vomit smilie}

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

I wonder how much Jenkins gets paid per word for her BS drivel? Newspapers all over the country are really struggling and going through layoffs, the Washington Post included. Maybe she should sacrifice her job to save a lower income, more dedicated, less miserable employee.

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

[quote=budw38;533856]I think Sally Jenkins should take a paycut so others could be employed , maybe she should write childrens books ?????[/quote]

Book 1:
"The little man who failed" By: Sally Jenkins

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

Idiocy, plain and simple. Chris Mortenson mentioned recently that several teams around the league had bloated internal staffs and needed to shed as much as 25 percent of their non-essential workers. You don't need an advanced degree in economics to understand that this issue is wholly seperate from the product that you put on the field.

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

[quote=djnemo65;533866]Idiocy, plain and simple. Chris Mortenson mentioned recently that several teams around the league had bloated internal staffs and needed to shed as much as 25 percent of their non-essential workers. You don't need an advanced degree in economics to understand that this issue is wholly seperate from the product that you put on the field.[/quote]

I posted this last week in response to JLC's attacks on our layoffs and spending:

It's kind of counter-intuitive to say a team or company that goes through some layoffs should be forbidden and/or ridiculed for spending money in an attempt to improve it's product.

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

[quote=SmootSmack;533853]I'll give her credit for quoting peoplle who point out who the real revenue drivers are and that smart businesses have to make tough decisions on where to cut and where to add (and that includes laying people off sometimes), and that it's not like the Redskins are the only team to face this situation. But ultimately, it's all just a set-up for another bashing.[/quote]

Yep, a cheap shot is what it is.

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

It depends. In my case I actually welcomed the criticism when the writers were pointing out that the Redskins actions over the past few years seem to indicate they cared way to much about skill position players. However when the team signed Haynesworth to a $100 million contract I found myself crying while saying "they really do care." After that the signing of Dockery was icing on the cake. I'm still hoping they'll add a RT. In fact I would love to see the team sign Willis as a prospective RG and backup RT while drafting Andre Smith but that might be hoping for to much.

Anyway a lot of my anger towards the organization went away when they started showing they really did care about the front lines. So now the fact that a lot of the usual suspects at the Post keep on finding ways to complain about anything and everything I find it annoying.

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

Most of her diatribe article after article is usually about how DS and Cerrato have a tendancy to spend, spend, spend in FA and get nothing. She was kinda nice last Oct. when she finally decided to crawl out from under her rock and commended the team for not going on a spending spree in the offseason.

I think she and JLC need to realize as well as some on many of the boards.....you either build through the draft as NE has in the past and picked up low costing vetrans in hopes they still have a little in their tanks, or you build through FA. When you have a team that has terrible scouts and can't find a snow flake in a snow storm then your best bet is to build through FA where you have seen the players talent and he's probably gotten up to speed of the NFL.

There also is no way we could just start picking draft picks and not use FA especially when you have many holes to fill. Last year was great. Lets hope we keep all 4 or 5+ draft picks this year and perhaps find a gem who was undrafted. Hopefully next year we have all 7 picks and can keep doing the same. Problem was in years past we seemed to pick 7 or 8 players and keep 2-3 on the roster.

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.

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

[quote=SBXVII;533916]Most of her diatribe article after article is usually about how DS and Cerrato have a tendancy to spend, spend, spend in FA and get nothing. She was kinda nice last Oct. when she finally decided to crawl out from under her rock and commended the team for not going on a spending spree in the offseason.

I think she and JLC need to realize as well as some on many of the boards.....you either build through the draft as NE has in the past and picked up low costing vetrans in hopes they still have a little in their tanks, or you build through FA. When you have a team that has terrible scouts and can't find a snow flake in a snow storm then your best bet is to build through FA where you have seen the players talent and he's probably gotten up to speed of the NFL.

There also is no way we could just start picking draft picks and not use FA especially when you have many holes to fill. Last year was great. Lets hope we keep all 4 or 5+ draft picks this year and perhaps find a gem who was undrafted. Hopefully next year we have all 7 picks and can keep doing the same. Problem was in years past we seemed to pick 7 or 8 players and keep 2-3 on the roster.

[B]I am sorta boycotting the WP.[/B] 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]

That is what i was thinking about with the thread title. With the Skins being the huge sports draw, and newspapers struggling for circulation dollars, I have to ask how it helps the Post to constantly attack the Skins?
This isn't politics, where criticism is a part of the news media, this is Sports! Doesn't every fan want to get a paper that is giving his/her team an upbeat report? So did the Post at some level say they were going to profit better from being seen as the opposition to Snyder and his Skins, or is this just personnel biases?

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