What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins?

Redskins8588 · 03-27-2006, 12:16 PM

In todays Washington Post they report that Sean Taylor will not be able to make the workouts currently going on at Redskins Park. After reading the article I thought well atleat this time it seemed everyone was on the same page and after his trial he will be there.

Then I went to http://www.redskins.com/ where both Mark Brunell and Larry Michael report that Sean was infact at Redskins Park working out. What the hell? This is like the 2nd or 3rd time within a month that the Post is WRONG. Why should fans even bother with the Post if they are going to be Wrong atleast once a month.

Thank God for the Warpath...

12thMan · 03-27-2006, 12:26 PM

Well, he may be there now but it's possible that when everyone actually reports he won't be there. Besides, I think the organized workouts are still a ways off.

Schneed10 · 03-27-2006, 12:31 PM

The Post is definitely sucking lately. But I'll bet Taylor will end up missing some workouts because of his trial. He'll probably approach the workouts on a day-by-day basis. Make the ones he can make, miss the rest.

dmek25 · 03-27-2006, 12:31 PM

who gives a rip about the post when you can get all your redskin info right here,plus here is alot more accurate

backrow · 03-27-2006, 12:36 PM

I wish Redskins.com would utilize transcribers, and put it into print! I can't see or hear.

diehardskin2982 · 03-27-2006, 12:42 PM

I think last year the Redskins denounced the paper and said it was no longer the source for new on the skins.

backrow · 03-27-2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by backrow

I wish Redskins.com would utilize transcribers, and put it into print! I can't see or hear.

My bad!

I check Redskins.com, and sure enough, they have a story up! (Must be reading over my shoulder!)

Twilbert07 · 03-27-2006, 12:46 PM

The Post and the Skins' owner are at war. The Post is pissed that Snyder is breaking news on redskins.com. That said, any true journalist won't let their bosses' battle get in the way of reporting on the Skins.

BigSKINBauer · 03-27-2006, 12:48 PM

us skin fans are just so damn sexy. there jealous

12thMan · 03-27-2006, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSKINBauer

us skin fans are just so damn sexy. there jealous

You sexy mother f***cker!!

amorentz · 03-27-2006, 01:23 PM

Also the Post was apparently pissed that the Skins cancelled the bulk of their season tickets. They used to give out tickets as perks to employees (from writers on down to delivery people), but it turned out that they were mostly just being sold. So the Skins enforced the "per account" season ticket limit on the Post (which had always been on the books, just not enforced) and they had to give up several hundred seats.

JWsleep · 03-27-2006, 01:30 PM

It's odd in this case becuase apparently the post's sources were Taylor's lawyers. Maybe they're surprised that Sean is in DC? Or maybe they said Sean will be in FLA for the trial, so he won't be at OTAs, meaning: When the trial is on, Sean will obviously be here. But otherwise, not.

Whatever the mix up, skins.com are super happy to point it out!

It's nice to have mulitple sources--the Post has been weak lately, but no doubt at some point they'll have something that the skins don't want us to know. My attitude is great, the more info I can get, the better. How else am I gonna waste my time in the offseason?

That Guy · 03-27-2006, 02:10 PM

the post's info came straight from sean's laywers, that's a good source, and the permitted time off is probably accurate too. That doesn't mean sean has to miss every practice if he doesn't want to, but it kinda seems like the skins are TRYING to feed missinformation to the post on purpose.

Hog1 · 03-27-2006, 02:17 PM

ESPN has been reporting on radio all day the based on a statement from ST's legal team that "after much discussion, both ST and his legal team argree that he must miss first camp for trial prep". After much consideration, I'm sure ST can be of great value in prepping his defense!

That Guy · 03-27-2006, 02:24 PM

nice.

03-27-2006, 12:16 PM	#1
Redskins8588 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ridgway, PA Age: 46 Posts: 2,519	What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins? In todays Washington Post they report that Sean Taylor will not be able to make the workouts currently going on at Redskins Park. After reading the article I thought well atleat this time it seemed everyone was on the same page and after his trial he will be there. Then I went to http://www.redskins.com/ where both Mark Brunell and Larry Michael report that Sean was infact at Redskins Park working out. What the hell? This is like the 2nd or 3rd time within a month that the Post is WRONG. Why should fans even bother with the Post if they are going to be Wrong atleast once a month. Thank God for the Warpath... __________________ "I am the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" - Sean Taylor

03-27-2006, 12:26 PM	#2
12thMan MVP Join Date: May 2005 Location: washington, D.C. Posts: 11,460	Re: What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins? Well, he may be there now but it's possible that when everyone actually reports he won't be there. Besides, I think the organized workouts are still a ways off.

03-27-2006, 12:31 PM	#3
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 46 Posts: 12,458	Re: What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins? The Post is definitely sucking lately. But I'll bet Taylor will end up missing some workouts because of his trial. He'll probably approach the workouts on a day-by-day basis. Make the ones he can make, miss the rest. __________________ God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.

03-27-2006, 12:31 PM	#4
dmek25 MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: lancaster,pa Age: 63 Posts: 10,672	Re: What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins? who gives a rip about the post when you can get all your redskin info right here,plus here is alot more accurate __________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt." courtesy of 53fan

03-27-2006, 12:36 PM	#5
backrow The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: 36.28 x 76.22 Age: 73 Posts: 1,812	Re: What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins? I wish Redskins.com would utilize transcribers, and put it into print! I can't see or hear. __________________ '37, '42, '83, '88, '92. Championship!

03-27-2006, 12:42 PM	#6
diehardskin2982 Another Year, another mess. Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,581	Re: What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins? I think last year the Redskins denounced the paper and said it was no longer the source for new on the skins. __________________ That got ugly fast

03-27-2006, 12:46 PM	#8
Twilbert07 Impact Rookie Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Atlanta, GA Age: 60 Posts: 594	Re: What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins? The Post and the Skins' owner are at war. The Post is pissed that Snyder is breaking news on redskins.com. That said, any true journalist won't let their bosses' battle get in the way of reporting on the Skins. __________________ a Skins fan every day, every way.

03-27-2006, 12:48 PM	#9
BigSKINBauer Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Washington, DC Age: 37 Posts: 5,688	Re: What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins? us skin fans are just so damn sexy. there jealous

03-27-2006, 01:23 PM	#11
amorentz Special Teams Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Washington, DC Age: 45 Posts: 368	Re: What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins? Also the Post was apparently pissed that the Skins cancelled the bulk of their season tickets. They used to give out tickets as perks to employees (from writers on down to delivery people), but it turned out that they were mostly just being sold. So the Skins enforced the "per account" season ticket limit on the Post (which had always been on the books, just not enforced) and they had to give up several hundred seats.

03-27-2006, 01:30 PM	#12
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 56 Posts: 4,719	Re: What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins? It's odd in this case becuase apparently the post's sources were Taylor's lawyers. Maybe they're surprised that Sean is in DC? Or maybe they said Sean will be in FLA for the trial, so he won't be at OTAs, meaning: When the trial is on, Sean will obviously be here. But otherwise, not. Whatever the mix up, skins.com are super happy to point it out! It's nice to have mulitple sources--the Post has been weak lately, but no doubt at some point they'll have something that the skins don't want us to know. My attitude is great, the more info I can get, the better. How else am I gonna waste my time in the offseason? __________________ Hail from Houston!

03-27-2006, 02:10 PM	#13
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,620	Re: What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins? the post's info came straight from sean's laywers, that's a good source, and the permitted time off is probably accurate too. That doesn't mean sean has to miss every practice if he doesn't want to, but it kinda seems like the skins are TRYING to feed missinformation to the post on purpose.

03-27-2006, 02:17 PM	#14
Hog1 Quietly Dominating the East Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Naples, Florida Posts: 10,675	Re: What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins? ESPN has been reporting on radio all day the based on a statement from ST's legal team that "after much discussion, both ST and his legal team argree that he must miss first camp for trial prep". After much consideration, I'm sure ST can be of great value in prepping his defense! __________________ Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios thankyou Joe....... *“God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.” – Joe Gibbs*

03-27-2006, 02:24 PM	#15
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,620	Re: What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins? nice.

What doe the Washington Post have against the Redskins?

Locker Room Main Forum