49ers Reuben Foster arrested on domestic violence again (released claimed by Redskins)

[naptownskinsfan]

12 hours ago, Broncofan said:

And in case it’s not clear the locker room certainly is NOT on the same page as the FO: 

We know that no player will confirm they spoke with him and several have gone out of their way to deny any conversation.   The HC says they “will deal with the fallout” and won’t even carry the FO’s water.   

I mean, how much more info do ppl need here? 

Apparently, the front office was just as divided over the issue, and Bruce Allen pulled the trigger anyway.  Then head Doug Williams release a statement about it.  The press asked for Snyder or Allen to be available to the media yesterday, and they were told no, and the only person available would be Jay Gruden.  So Jay Gruden got to carry the burden of this during his press conference, when he should be focusing on the upcoming game in Philadelphia. 

That's the thing that bothers me the most.  The Dallas game was very important, but we had a short week and a lot of injuries.  Now the MNF game against Philadelphia becomes the most important game of the year, and the Redskins have almost a week and a half to rest, recover and prepare.  Right in the middle of those preparations, a divided front office drops this bombshell on the entire team to deal with, so now coaches and players, who should be preparing for this game, are now fielding questions from the media about this decision.   And, this is coming on the heels of DJ Swearinger calling out some of the team for not taking practice and preparation very seriously.  

Throughout the years, Dan Snyder and Vinny Cerrato, and now Dan Snyder and Bruce Allen, have found numerous ways to sabotage their team.  This is just another poor decision in the line of many.  

[naptownskinsfan]

 

1 hour ago, TXsteeler said:

Wait. So either the players are lying to the media about vouching for Foster and are throwing their FO/team management under the bus, or the FO/team management lied about talking to the players to the media and threw them under the bus?

None of that would surprise me.  Throughout Snyder's term as owner here, throughout two team presidents and countless coaches, the one constant has been "unnamed sources."  The media loves to quote those unnamed sources.  On the rare occasion we have a good season, like when RGIII came in and won the division and ROY in his first year, those unnamed sources go away.  The second things go bad?  The unnamed sources come back out in force.  Is it front office guys?  Players?  Coaches?  The owner?  We don't know, but the only constant are these unnamed sources who create tons of turmoil, while also exposing the some of what goes on behind the scenes.  

It's frustrating as a Redskins fan for this.  This is why attendance is down, and season ticket sales have plumitted.  The support for this team is waning, and it has everything to do with how this team is run from the top down.  

[GSUeagles14]

3 hours ago, Slateman said:

No, he actually is. This is yet another instance in which the Redskins front office has made insanely stupid moves, and then lied to try and cover it up. They have been doing this for damn near 20 years.

 

There is nothing smart about this. Foster is a knucklehead. Not the first time he's had a run in. And we're finding out now that there was more but it simply never made it into the news. Furthermore, local DC media is finding out that the Redskins didn't bother contacting Tampa police, nor the 49ers front office, nor did they consult with at least two of their Alabama alum (Ha Ha Clinton Dix and Jonathan Allen). They clearly didn't bother doing any research on his play this season. So they basically made this entire move based upon scouting from two years ago, and a combine in which he tested positive for drug use and got into an argument with hospital staff.

 

Redskins fans have 20 years of watching this franchise lie to its fans, lie to and about players, lie to and about their own internal staff, lie to the media, lie to the NFL, and lie to other teams. So yes, we are insanely prejudiced against ownership. That's a learned behavior.

for about the 5th time, i dont care about whatever washington did in the past as it pertains specifically to this move.

 

seeing as how he was already put on the exempt list so it appears until he is cleared or this gets resolved he wont be playing. foster has nfl game tape that they decided he was worth picking up at little to no rish for a talented guy.

 

but again  youre more criticizing the franchise then the move. washingtons dumb so this move is dumb is just lazy. whats more disgusting is another couple of guys like rams who want to jump to assumptions based solely on an accusation, thats not how this works. if he did it the  he should be cut and i dont belive he wpuld ever actually be paid by washington as long as he stays on the exempt list. if he it once again turns out to be bs then washington has a very talented player.

[GSUeagles14]

45 minutes ago, naptownskinsfan said:

Apparently, the front office was just as divided over the issue, and Bruce Allen pulled the trigger anyway.  Then head Doug Williams release a statement about it.  The press asked for Snyder or Allen to be available to the media yesterday, and they were told no, and the only person available would be Jay Gruden.  So Jay Gruden got to carry the burden of this during his press conference, when he should be focusing on the upcoming game in Philadelphia. 

That's the thing that bothers me the most.  The Dallas game was very important, but we had a short week and a lot of injuries.  Now the MNF game against Philadelphia becomes the most important game of the year, and the Redskins have almost a week and a half to rest, recover and prepare.  Right in the middle of those preparations, a divided front office drops this bombshell on the entire team to deal with, so now coaches and players, who should be preparing for this game, are now fielding questions from the media about this decision.   And, this is coming on the heels of DJ Swearinger calling out some of the team for not taking practice and preparation very seriously.  

Throughout the years, Dan Snyder and Vinny Cerrato, and now Dan Snyder and Bruce Allen, have found numerous ways to sabotage their team.  This is just another poor decision in the line of many.  

so it stands to reason that washingtons getting as many or more questions about smiths injury than fosters signing. i mean, 12 hours after it happened it was bumped off espns top headlines, and those guys love drama. you dont get to say its a hoopla to set up blaming it if washington loses. might as well blame alex smith too, and dj swearinger. and whatever else they get questioned about. if they win are you going to give the move any credit, seeing as how it has as much to do with them winning as it does them losing...  which is nothing to do with either outcome.

[Slateman]

2 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said:

for about the 5th time, i dont care about whatever washington did in the past as it pertains specifically to this move.

 

seeing as how he was already put on the exempt list so it appears until he is cleared or this gets resolved he wont be playing. foster has nfl game tape that they decided he was worth picking up at little to no rish for a talented guy.

 

but again  youre more criticizing the franchise then the move. washingtons dumb so this move is dumb is just lazy. whats more disgusting is another couple of guys like rams who want to jump to assumptions based solely on an accusation, thats not how this works. if he did it the  he should be cut and i dont belive he wpuld ever actually be paid by washington as long as he stays on the exempt list. if he it once again turns out to be bs then washington has a very talented player.

Apparently you can't read because I gave multiple reasons why this move is a bad move by the Washington Redskins.

 

1. Foster is a known problem. He has had problems at Bama, at the combine, and in San Fran. At the very least, here he is AGAIN, with the same woman and another domestic issue. This is after a weapons charge. After a drug charge. After two other arrests in the offseason, he was given a no tolerance policy, and yet there he is, in Florida, unable to stay out of trouble.

2. We're now finding out that he had more run ins with the law out in California, but the 49ers were able to keep it off the NFL's radar. The Redskins did not consult with the 49ers about this.

3. The Redskins front office is claiming that they consulted with the former Alabama alum prior to making this move, but none of the players who went to Alabama have admitted to being consulted.

4. The Redskins didn't contact the police department or district attorney who filed the charges.

5. Reuben Foster has been a shell of his former self at Alabama, to the point where he is a bad, poor tackling, poorly disciplined NFL linebacker.

 

So all of this adds up to a bad move by team that has a history of bad moves, bad public relations, and bad management. This could have, and should have, been delayed until he cleared waivers and the team could investigate more earnestly. Yet again, this team can't get out of it's own way. 

 

2 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said:

so it stands to reason that washingtons getting as many or more questions about smiths injury than fosters signing. i mean, 12 hours after it happened it was bumped off espns top headlines, and those guys love drama. you dont get to say its a hoopla to set up blaming it if washington loses. might as well blame alex smith too, and dj swearinger. and whatever else they get questioned about. if they win are you going to give the move any credit, seeing as how it has as much to do with them winning as it does them losing...  which is nothing to do with either outcome.

No, they aren't. Because Smith's injury was pretty easy to understand. Dude got his leg broke in half. They were also pretty honest about what happened and what the prognosis is. They didn't attempt to deceive anyone about the injury or how much research they had done on it.

[Woz]

4 hours ago, Slateman said:

Honestly, at this point, as a Redskins fan, I'm just about hopeless. Synder is too young and rich to die of natural causes. I'm just hoping at this point some passionate Skins fan who works at NSA is going go rogue and start tapping his phones, to catch him saying something he shouldn't, and Snyder will be forced to sell.

As I have said elsewhere, Snyder is essentially the 90+ year old version of Al Davis (in terms of quality of ownership) in a 50-something's body.

[MikeT14]

Good post @Slateman

[Woz]

3 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said:

for about the 5th time, i dont care about whatever washington did in the past as it pertains specifically to this move.

 

seeing as how he was already put on the exempt list so it appears until he is cleared or this gets resolved he wont be playing. foster has nfl game tape that they decided he was worth picking up at little to no rish for a talented guy.

 

but again  youre more criticizing the franchise then the move. washingtons dumb so this move is dumb is just lazy. whats more disgusting is another couple of guys like rams who want to jump to assumptions based solely on an accusation, thats not how this works. if he did it the  he should be cut and i dont belive he wpuld ever actually be paid by washington as long as he stays on the exempt list. if he it once again turns out to be bs then washington has a very talented player.

1. He was added to the exempt list after the Redskins put in their waiver claim. At the time they made the claim, they did not know he wouldn't be available to them. That says to me, they expected him to play (or at least once this "unexpectedly" (morons) blew up in their face, they asked Goodell to bail them out, or Goodell bailed out the rest of the league from the Redskins stupidity).
2. If the front office makes a stupid move (like say giving a multiyear contract for Terrell McClain or Albert Haynesworth), do you not criticize the franchise for making a stupid move? How is this different? Is it solely because the objection is that it appears Foster is a problem child?
3. Apparently, the front office did not agree on making the waiver claim on Foster, but Allen went ahead and made the call. This is also similar to when Bruce Allen did not tell anyone he was making the final deal for Alex Smith (he told Doug Williams to turn off his phone, without explaining why). There is a track record here.

But okay, how about

1. the fact that Foster who was previously drafted to replace Navarro Bowman was not the defensive signal caller? (that one belongs to 3rd round rookie Fred Warner) That what the Redskins need right now(*) is improvement in their inside linebackers, but that Foster may not give them that?
2. the fact PFF's grade of Foster as 63rd out of 64 inside linebackers? Or that opposing quarterbacks throwing at him went from a 89 rating last year to a 123 rating this year?
3. Or the fact that multiple analysts have said that his shoulder injury (which was identified at the Combine) seems to be affecting the way he tackles (shying away from hits)?

Are THOSE good reasons to criticize the move? Because those three points do not seem have been part of the "due diligence" by the front office either.

 

 

(*) They probably also need help at ROLB for pass rushing beyond this season, when it is likely that Preston Smith walks. This is where Foster might contribute since reports state that he enjoys the less responsibility that not being the defensive signal entails. Of course, the franchise wouldn't need to make the waiver claim if that was the plan. They could have waited until they saw he had gone through some sort of process to get his life back on track and if he was healthy.

[Broncofan]

And just so we are clear - the Skins FO can’t even show they think this is a serious issue.   SMH.  

 

[JBURGE]

@Broncofan I was just about to link that. Yikes. 

[Woz]

 

What a poor attempt at changing the narrative/retroactively covering their butts.

[GSUeagles14]

43 minutes ago, Woz said:

1. He was added to the exempt list after the Redskins put in their waiver claim. At the time they made the claim, they did not know he wouldn't be available to them. That says to me, they expected him to play (or at least once this "unexpectedly" (morons) blew up in their face, they asked Goodell to bail them out, or Goodell bailed out the rest of the league from the Redskins stupidity).
2. If the front office makes a stupid move (like say giving a multiyear contract for Terrell McClain or Albert Haynesworth), do you not criticize the franchise for making a stupid move? How is this different? Is it solely because the objection is that it appears Foster is a problem child?
3. Apparently, the front office did not agree on making the waiver claim on Foster, but Allen went ahead and made the call. This is also similar to when Bruce Allen did not tell anyone he was making the final deal for Alex Smith (he told Doug Williams to turn off his phone, without explaining why). There is a track record here.

But okay, how about

1. the fact that Foster who was previously drafted to replace Navarro Bowman was not the defensive signal caller? (that one belongs to 3rd round rookie Fred Warner) That what the Redskins need right now(*) is improvement in their inside linebackers, but that Foster may not give them that?
2. the fact PFF's grade of Foster as 63rd out of 64 inside linebackers? Or that opposing quarterbacks throwing at him went from a 89 rating last year to a 123 rating this year?
3. Or the fact that multiple analysts have said that his shoulder injury (which was identified at the Combine) seems to be affecting the way he tackles (shying away from hits)?

Are THOSE good reasons to criticize the move? Because those three points do not seem have been part of the "due diligence" by the front office either.

 

 

(*) They probably also need help at ROLB for pass rushing beyond this season, when it is likely that Preston Smith walks. This is where Foster might contribute since reports state that he enjoys the less responsibility that not being the defensive signal entails. Of course, the franchise wouldn't need to make the waiver claim if that was the plan. They could have waited until they saw he had gone through some sort of process to get his life back on track and if he was healthy.

1. regardless or how he got there, hes there.

2. sure but reuben foster isnt some bum player. at worst hes a young guy who was drafted early and haa had one goos year and one bad one. if youre arguing he isnt talented then go for it. would love to see how someone would spin that.

3. why does this matter?

 

for your 2nd set of questions, ill group in 1&2 sice they are essesntially the same thing...

 

1&2. maybe he helps, maybe he doesnt. but hes unquestionably talented, already has a year of good nfl play under his belt and while hes been poor one reason could be injury that youve already noted or it could be his personal life is a -show and its followed on the fiwld. with one good year and one poor one how can someone say what kind of player he is?

 

3. hes under contract for multiple years, if things get cleared up then surgery in the offseason. itd almost be good news if the shoulders bothering him that much.

 

whatever moves washington made in the past has nothing to do with this one. im not putting you into this categot but a couple people want to jump to conclusions with no evidence, which isnt how our system works and hopefully isnt how the private business sector works either. washington put a claim on a guy whose very talented and cheap (rrlative to nfl contracts), if things work in fosters favor he plays for washington. if it doesnt he gets cut (hopefully). thats the two possibke outcomes. if they didnt put in the claim theyre still waiting for it to be resol.jved but if fosters cleared theyre competing with x other teams and theres no guarentee they get him. while they let this play out they guarenteed hed only be playing for them, it was a smart move. even if its their onky one lately or ever.

[Woz]

12 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

1. regardless or how he got there, hes there.

The timing matters from the perspective of whether the Redskins make a claim or not.

13 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

2. sure but reuben foster isnt some bum player. at worst hes a young guy who was drafted early and haa had one goos year and one bad one. if youre arguing he isnt talented then go for it. would love to see how someone would spin that.

By that logic, he's only had one good year. I could just as easily say that he had a college career, but cannot hack it in the NFL. Heck, you kind of made this point later on.

I did raise questions of his talent as it applies to the Redskins this year. Down the line is nice and all, but somewhat irrelevant to this season.

16 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

3. why does this matter?

Because, unlike you who is looking solely at this one move, I and other Redskins fans want the whole franchise to succeed. Your myopic focus on Foster ignores how the Redskins operate in a much larger picture. It may explain why you are seemingly confused by the fact that others are pointing out that the Redskins have probably made a mistake, given their past track record.

17 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

for your 2nd set of questions, ill group in 1&2 sice they are essesntially the same thing...

 

1&2. maybe he helps, maybe he doesnt. but hes unquestionably talented, already has a year of good nfl play under his belt and while hes been poor one reason could be injury that youve already noted or it could be his personal life is a -show and its followed on the fiwld. with one good year and one poor one how can someone say what kind of player he is?

1. He isn't helping when he's on the suspended list.
2. He is causing a lot of noise for the team when they should hopefully be focused on getting ready for Philadelphia.
3. <here's where that other point was> If he's had one good season and one poor one, doesn't that belie the idea that he's "unquestionably talented?"
4. If his personal life is a problem, can the Redskins count on him to focus on the next game?
5. Can the Redskins count on him not being suspended again?

20 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

3. hes under contract for multiple years, if things get cleared up then surgery in the offseason. itd almost be good news if the shoulders bothering him that much.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought part of the red flag evaluation of his shoulder was that it might be degenerative. There may not be surgery that can fix it.

21 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

whatever moves washington made in the past has nothing to do with this one.

If Bill Belichick had made this waiver move, everyone would be like "well, he's taking a risk, but the Patriots organization is well run and can probably absorb Foster's nuttiness." Their past moves have shown that they can take "problem children" and work with them.

The Redskins? Not so much.

Track record and reputation matters. I'm kind of at a loss why you don't see how previous actions by this franchise make the story look worse because they have shown they cannot absorb this sort of trouble. Especially when they have a chance at a division title.

23 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

im not putting you into this categot but a couple people want to jump to conclusions with no evidence, which isnt how our system works and hopefully isnt how the private business sector works either.

Uhh, no.

Private businesses protect their brands. This is why when it was reported that Uber had a serious problem sexual harassment in the workplace, Travis Kalanick (then-CEO) took a leave of absence and then a week later "resigned" (read: forced out by the board).

Businesses are there to make money. Having controversy tends to impede that. Picking up a guy who was arrested a second time for battery hurts the brand that is the Washington Redskins. Maybe he plays down the line and helps the brand, but it loses money and reputation right now.

29 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

if they didnt put in the claim theyre still waiting for it to be resol.jved but if fosters cleared theyre competing with x other teams and theres no guarentee they get him.

That assumes that other teams didn't just have him black-flagged (i.e. they wouldn't touch him regardless of what he did).

It is a risk, but combined with the fact that they have five Alabama players on the roster (with a sixth on IR), they probably could have gotten him and taken a significantly less PR hit. Instead they went right into the firing line and surprise it blew up on them.

31 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

washington put a claim on a guy whose very talented and cheap (rrlative to nfl contracts), if things work in fosters favor he plays for washington. if it doesnt he gets cut (hopefully). thats the two possibke outcomes. ... while they let this play out they guarenteed hed only be playing for them, it was a smart move. 

Your position is then:

"I would take a chance that a player with multiple arrests for battery and allegations of domestic violence might be good;
that his potential talent outweighs any potential criminal or civil issues he might be involved in because his projected
play on the field is all that matters; and that the massive upfront negative PR is completely immaterial because he
could ball out sometime in the future and is cheap.

There's no risk to this decision. Well, beyond the reputational harm to the franchise. And the outstanding question of
whether he is any good. Or how this reflects on the NFL as a whole with yet another player accused of domestic violence."

In essence, that's what you are saying the position of Redskins' fans should be.

[MrOaktown_56]

Is foster bad now? I thought he was a good player with some growing pains...

[Slateman]

8 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Is foster bad now? I thought he was a good player with some growing pains...

He has performed poorly this year. Amongst the league's worst linebackers. Basically, a the cons that were in his scouting report have reared their head.