Riggo or Blache...

by Slammin'Sam on Nov 5, 2009 1:20 PM EST Comment 34 comments

who you gonna believe? First of all, which is being paid by Snyder and which isn't? Look at what has been done to the fans by the Redskins organization which is led by whom? The facts speak for themselves and the idea that someone with notoriety has come forward and blasted the organization and Snyder is a good thing. Snyder fired Frank Herzog thru Vinny Cerrato's pal who does the play by play on the radio for the games for being critical of Snyder. So, in summation, "dark heart" is more likely than not!

0 recs | Comment 34 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I’d have an easier time if Riggins hadn’t said that he’s doing what he can to stay relevant in the media. And that this team was just a job to him.

Mr. Riggins, whose candor, quirkiness and rebellious streak as a player drove coaches and anyone else in authority crazy, does not love the Redskins. He’s had a long and varied career in local media going back 25 years to his playing days, even when he lived in New York. (He moved to the Washington area 18 months ago). To him, this is strictly business.

“This is what I do,” Mr. Riggins said. "It’s what I chose to do after football. I still want to stay current. I’m like any entertainer. I want to stay on top of my craft.

“I’m a former employee,” he said. “I picked up my paycheck, I left. That was the company I used to work for. I have a certain level of expertise even though I wasn’t a student of the game. My expertise isn’t really football. It’s people. … I’m giving you the truth the way I see it. It’s repaying [the fans] who paid my way, who supported me by paying for those tickets.”

Read the entire article here

SpotieOtieDopalicious

by Rekka on Nov 5, 2009 2:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Good post.

There’s nothing more that a media jockey wants more than national attention. Coming out and ripping the GM of your former team is a good way to bring it on.

by SSBlitz on Nov 5, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm behind Blache.

And Snyder. I haven’t seen him do anything truly bad to the fans.

by SSBlitz on Nov 5, 2009 2:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

take everything with a grain of salt

but don’t completely ignore the signs. I don’t think snyder is the big bad wolf, but I can’t exactly defend him on some of the things he’s done.

SpotieOtieDopalicious

by Rekka on Nov 5, 2009 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Like what?

by SSBlitz on Nov 5, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

someone made a good point that with some stories, like the one I read about someone being made to take off a “Fire Snyder” t-shirt or something like that can be blow out of proportion. It can happen to one person, then someone else sees it, and tells somebody else. And when that person tells it, they make it seem like it was a whole other incident than the one they were told about. So at the end of the day, you think there were 6 to 7 different instances of fans being harrassed by security during the game when it was only that once.

BUT, that certainly doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen to that one person. And I personally have not seen a reasonable explanation as to why no type of sign is allowed in FedEx anymore.

That was a little long winded so let me know if anything got lost in translation

SpotieOtieDopalicious

by Rekka on Nov 5, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I definitely agree with the 'telephone game' escalation.

As it happens in everything nowadays, especially with the rise of social networking websites.

The signs I can actually see justification in as well. According to NFL rules, each team is responsible for ensuring fans do not have signs that obstruct views or ‘are in bad taste’. With a fanatical, unsatisfied fanbase, it would be very time consuming to screen the tasteful from the distasteful. Hence, banning all of them. There’s no doubt in my mind that once the team starts winning again, and fans return to cheering instead of complaining, signs will be re-allowed.

by SSBlitz on Nov 5, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m sure part of it is, “my stadium, my rules. So don’t harass me” mentality by Snyder. But I don’t blame him for that.

by SSBlitz on Nov 5, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The only two complaints towards Snyder

I have, are both in team management, not in what he has done to the fans directly.

Over-paying for big name players is the obvious one. Though I don’t mind it when due diligence is made to the strengths of the player and how they fit into the overall scheme of the team. (Why did we pay Hall so much money…?)

Overconfidence in the current offensive line is the other. I think every Skins fan was expecting a lineman with one of our 2nd round picks last year, or after the Orakpo pick this year. I’m still scratching my head over it.

Outside of these, over the past 5 years, I have no complaints with him.

by SSBlitz on Nov 5, 2009 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps we are

smokin’ one or two many $8 cheap domestics at the game?

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

by Scott E on Nov 6, 2009 8:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wait

you haven’t seen Snyder do anything bad to the fans?

really?

"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins

by smutsboy1 on Nov 6, 2009 9:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's not, and

let’s call a spade a spade. The geniune content of Riggins’s calling-out of Snyder was not centered on the premise that he possesses a "dark heart", it’s that he is woefully incompetent, arrogant, meddlesome, an idiot in terms of football-decisions, and imperially feels literally zero accountability towards the popular fan base. When Blache came out of hiding like Dick Cheney to snipe for the boss before running back into the professional, financial, & reputational safety of returning to hiding, no one in their right mind thinks it was because he genuinely thought that the authentic thrust of Riggins’s, and the army of Redskins fans & commentators who agree with him, argument, was that Snyder is an intrinsically evil being. It’s that he’s egomaniacal and this feeds into what has been destroying the franchise since Snyder’s takeover of the team from the Cookes (see above: woefully incompetent, arrogant, meddlesome, an idiot in terms of football-decisions, and imperially feels literally zero accountability towards the popular fan base).

Essentially, Blache counter-pointed the tangential argument that Snyder is inherently a bad person to informally endorse his [Snyder’s] professional credentials (and destruction they have wreaked on the franchise) without having to come out and actually say it (and end up looking like a complete fool for it).

by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Nov 5, 2009 2:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, but I'm not really buying

this whole Riggo vs Blache thing. Riggo has always said some outrageous things – often profoundly true. Blache is following the company line. Nothing really much to say about it really.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

by Scott E on Nov 5, 2009 3:44 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

The only person I truly believe

is telling an accurate story is George Michaels. Haven’t heard too much from him lately. Are he and Snydo pals anymore, or did Snyder throw him out the door when Michaels made those comments last month?

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

by Scott E on Nov 5, 2009 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The only person I truly believe

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

by Scott E on Nov 5, 2009 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Completely agree

this whole Riggo vs Blache thing. Riggo has always said some outrageous things – often profoundly true. Blache is following the company line. Nothing really much to say about it really.

Riggo was exaggerating a valid criticism.

Blache was just toeing the company line and making as an innocuous defense as possible.

"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins

by smutsboy1 on Nov 6, 2009 9:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Blache didn't need to toe the company line.

If he even half-agreed with Riggins, he wouldn’t have came out and said anything.

by SSBlitz on Nov 6, 2009 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We loved Riggo as a player

but lets not forget that he can be…well… a dickhead. Being a media type almost necessitates being a dickhead as well, to some degree.

by CarverM on Nov 5, 2009 4:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but

he’s our dickhead. :)

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

by Scott E on Nov 6, 2009 8:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I just can't take him seriously.....

unless he is leaning on a wood pile in a track suit! Is it just me? More importantly with Riggins…..is it just me, or does he have hair plugs? It’s been bothering me for years!

by shvd98z24 on Nov 6, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Blache

I think Blache is saying, Snyder is a good man
Didn’t say he was a good owner
Didn’t say he was making the right decisions
Isn’t on the payroll to the point that if they fired him he would retire liked he planeed to do years ago.

Blache clearly states that Snyder cares and is a good human being….

Has nothing to do with his ownership of the Redskins, Riggo crossed the line and mixed personal and professional it happens everyday in business.

by dr WNC on Nov 5, 2009 5:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

WNC

i don’t think Blache is just saying Snyder is a good man, read his statements:

“We’ve had criticisms from people outside the building saying who Dan Snyder is and who he isn’t,” Blache said. “They don’t know Dan Snyder and that’s the problem. Trust me because he and I, we work together. I’m not going to tell you that this is a utopia. There are no utopias in football, and there are no utopias in life. At the same time, enough is enough. Every story, there is one person’s side, another person’s side, and then behind it all there is a third side and it’s the truth.” … “I just felt like it was time for somebody to come and throw a little truth out there,” Blache said. “We keep hearing these other sides, these other factions, and to be quite candid, the third side — the truth — is that this person, all he wants to do is win. That’s all he wants to do. He will spend his money, he will spend his time, he wants to win, he is here for the people, for the fans, for the Washington Redskins.” … “Nobody pains more when we are unsuccessful than Dan Snyder. There is nobody that cares more about the fans than Dan Snyder. There is nobody that wants to win here, more than Dan Snyder. I just think that it’s time to put out there, for you guys to understand, that everything that is wrong with this organization is not Dan Snyder.”

Clearly he is endorsing that Snyder is a good owner, and by stating that there are “no utopias” that Snyder’s decisions are good insofar as ownership decisions can be because this owner is not es-specially bad since no ownership decisions are perfect.

You’re partial reading of the text of Riggins & Blache’s statements is vastly overstating the Riggins critique of and completely blind to Blache’s informal endorsement of Snyder’s decision-making by mitigating our idea of ownership via stating that “nobody’s perfect” and that ultimately everything that is wrong with the organization is not attributable to Snyder, which is obviously ass-wrong.

Blache is saying much more than “Snyder is not intrinsically an evil person”.
He is mitigating our criticism of him by saying that no ownership is perfect and ultimately all of the franchise’s major problems are not attributable our owner.
Therefore is endorsing the idea that b/c no ownership is perfect that his decisions, if not right, are as right as ownership decisions anywhere can be.
Absolutely is on the payroll to the point because it’s an easy logical inference that none of the current staff would be able to get a similar or better position any-where else once a new coach & GM are in place at year’s end.

Your take on the exchange is distracted by the extremely tangential “Snyder is inherently a bad person” argument and completely blind to the rest of the text and nuance that accompanies Blache’s defense of Snyder. He is obviously saying much more than “Snyder is not an intriniscally evil person”, and it has everything to do with Snyder’s ownership of the Redskins.

by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Nov 5, 2009 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Scratch the above, here WNC

"We’ve had criticisms from people outside the building saying who Dan Snyder is and who he isn’t," Blache said. "They don’t know Dan Snyder and that’s the problem. Trust me because he and I, we work together. I’m not going to tell you that this is a utopia. There are no utopias in football, and there are no utopias in life. At the same time, enough is enough. Every story, there is one person’s side, another person’s side, and then behind it all there is a third side and it’s the truth." … "I just felt like it was time for somebody to come and throw a little truth out there," Blache said. "We keep hearing these other sides, these other factions, and to be quite candid, the third side — the truth — is that this person, all he wants to do is win. That’s all he wants to do. He will spend his money, he will spend his time, he wants to win, he is here for the people, for the fans, for the Washington Redskins." … "Nobody pains more when we are unsuccessful than Dan Snyder. There is nobody that cares more about the fans than Dan Snyder. There is nobody that wants to win here, more than Dan Snyder. I just think that it’s time to put out there, for you guys to understand, that everything that is wrong with this organization is not Dan Snyder."

Clearly he is endorsing that Snyder is a good owner, and by stating that there are "no utopias" that Snyder’s decisions are good insofar as ownership decisions can be because this owner is not es-specially bad since no ownership decisions are perfect.

You’re partial reading of the text of Riggins & Blache’s statements is vastly overstating the “evil person” component of the Riggins-Blache debate and completely blind to Blache’s informal endorsement of Snyder’s decision-making by mitigating our idea of ownership via stating that "nobody’s perfect" and that ultimately everything that is wrong with the organization is not attributable to Snyder, which is obviously ass-wrong.

Blache is saying much more than "Snyder is not intrinsically an evil person".
He is mitigating our criticism of him by saying that no ownership is perfect and ultimately all of the franchise’s major problems are not attributable our owner.
Therefore is endorsing the idea that b/c no ownership is perfect that his decisions, if not right, are as right as ownership decisions anywhere can be.
Absolutely is on the payroll to the point because it’s an easy logical inference that none of the current staff would be able to get a similar or better position any-where else once a new coach & GM are in place at year’s end.

Your take on the exchange is distracted by the extremely tangential "Snyder is inherently a bad person" argument and completely blind to the rest of the text and nuance that accompanies Blache’s defense of Snyder. He is obviously saying much more than "Snyder is not an intriniscally evil person", and it has everything to do with Snyder’s ownership of the Redskins.

by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Nov 5, 2009 6:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Scratch the above, here WNC

i don’t think Blache is just saying Snyder is a good man, read his statements:

You’re partial reading of the text of Riggins & Blache’s statements is vastly overstating the "evil person" component of the Riggins-Blache debate and completely blind to Blache’s informal endorsement of Snyder’s decision-making by mitigating our idea of ownership via stating that “nobody’s perfect” and that ultimately everything that is wrong with the organization is not attributable to Snyder, which is obviously ass-wrong.

by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Nov 5, 2009 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i know, "whoa nellie" i wrote a lot, but Blache is clearly at work doing a lot more than he says he is, and he, like Snyder, exploits his position by maintaining zero public questioning or accountability because literally, since losing his shi* early in the season when first questioned, & since the team has gone down the toilet together with an inconsistent and unsatisfactory defensive product on the field due to Blache’s shi*bag job which has generated woeful underperformance upon woeful inconsistent underperformance this year, he has taken advantage of his position & authority by going into hiding. Literally, Blache has endured as much direct popular accountability as Dan Snyder, and the only time he has emerged from the protection of his going into hiding, has been for this reputational kissas* hackjob defense of his boss.

by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Nov 5, 2009 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs