redskins expected to pick up RG3 's option

[Caliskinsfan]

There's always the possibility the 'source' is someone from Griffins camp. There is good reason to not blindly believe an unnamed source. Could be the info pans out, could be there are ulterior motives. Best to take rumors with a grain of salt but make note of them IMO.

 

[redskinsfan]

There's always the possibility the 'source' is someone from Griffins camp. There is good reason to not blindly believe an unnamed source. Could be the info pans out, could be there are ulterior motives. Best to take rumors with a grain of salt but make note of them IMO.

But if the unnamed source is backed up by a trusted one, I'd submit that the former's credibility would increase based on the person reporting it and what credence he lends to it.

 

[skinsdad62]

So, what do you trust then, dad? When there's a report saying "Vic Beasley to visit Redskins tomorrow," is that speculation?

i am not going to go round and round with you on this i dont trust unnamed sources period . you can i am not your dad

as for beasley i bet you can trace that to a publicist or his agent which has a name

so to clear this all up for you

i do my own research , gather information from all sides and make my choice i dont defer to so called experts who may or may not have predetermined a course of action without having all the facts

unnamed sources generally have agendas, if you cant put your name to what you say then dont say it (there are exceptions for danger to life and'or limb ) but i take them with a grain of salt if you are in fear for losing your job over what the team may or may not do then shut up

none of the above rules are 100% rock solid but i reserve the right to apply them or not apply them based on circumstances or merely my own whims

no amount of tap dancing, lipstick on a pigging , talking around , parables, apple to apple/oranges vulcan mind melds ,comparisons creative thinking , or any other technique you wish to employ are going to change my core values here

ask shark , j-y19 or anyone else who has debated me on RG3 and CSI un named sources if i am going to change . i bet they will tell you "no " and i was mostly wrong on Rg3 when the sources came out with names on them

so save yourself the heartache redskinsfan and DGF because i am not changing my stance no matter what kind of justifiable "evidence " or versions of the truth , or anecdotes you come up with i am not freaking changing period end of story , its settled , get it ?

 

[skinsdad62]

So do named sources. Ever hear anything said from Drew Rosenhaus that isn't fraud and/or deceit?

really ? then you know who is putting the information out and you know if it is good or not by who put it out hence you can trust it or not because you know the source

 

[redskinsfan]

i am not going to go round and round with you on this i dont trust unnamed sources period . you can i am not your dad

as for beasley i bet you can trace that to a publicist or his agent which has a name

so to clear this all up for you

i do my own research , gather information from all sides and make my choice i dont defer to so called experts who may or may not have predetermined a course of action without having all the facts

unnamed sources generally have agendas, if you cant put your name to what you say then dont say it (there are exceptions for danger to life and'or limb ) but i take them with a grain of salt if you are in fear for losing your job over what the team may or may not do then shut up

none of the above rules are 100% rock solid but i reserve the right to apply them or not apply them based on circumstances or merely my own whims

no amount of tap dancing, lipstick on a pigging , talking around , parables, apple to apple/oranges vulcan mind melds ,comparisons creative thinking , or any other technique you wish to employ are going to change my core values here

ask shark , j-y19 or anyone else who has debated me on RG3 and CSI un named sources if i am going to change . i bet they will tell you "no " and i was mostly wrong on Rg3 when the sources came out with names on them

so save yourself the heartache redskinsfan and DGF because i am not changing my stance no matter what kind of justifiable "evidence " or versions of the truth , or anecdotes you come up with i am not freaking changing period end of story , its settled , get it ?

Sources are "unnamed" for a variety of reasons. Yes, some have agendas; others stay anonymous to avoid reprisal. There is no "general" rule you can apply other than to look at the credibility of someone reporting / vouching for the source. As for this particular issue, how can you do any independent research? No one knows the inner workings of the Redskins. This story is the best you're going to get, at least as for now. And with Maske doing the reporting, it's as good as any.

 

[redskinsfan]

really ? then you know who is putting the information out and you know if it is good or not by who put it out hence you can trust it or not because you know the source

I'm simply stating the converse to what you said. As named sources can have agendas, unnamed ones don't need to have one either.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

But if the unnamed source is backed up by a trusted one, I'd submit that the former's credibility would increase based on the person reporting it and what credence he lends to it.

Too many football rumors fail to pan out, respected writer or not. An unnamed source can be reliable or not. Too many variables. I note the rumor and wait and see myself.

 

[redskinsfan]

Too many football rumors fail to pan out, respected writer or not. An unnamed source can be reliable or not. Too many variables. I note the rumor and wait and see myself.

That's very true, but I've found unnamed sources to be pretty reliable in sports and other contexts. I look to see who's ponying the up the source. That's key for me. If it's a reliable reporter, I've assumed they've vetted the source and have given their stamp of approval. But that's just my experience with things.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

That's very true, but I've found unnamed sources to be pretty reliable in sports and other contexts. I look to see who's ponying the up the source. That's key for me. If it's a reliable reporter, I've assumed they've vetted the source and have given their stamp of approval. But that's just my experience with things.

I do agree that a credible writer with an unnamed source does lend credence to a rumor. But the trend in the media has been clicks and hot takes too much in recent years. And no where more than in the NFL. After the absurdity that was the Griffin saga in 2013/2014 and the Trademark coverage, my take is waaaaay more cautious when it comes to the skins.

 

[redskinsfan]

I do agree that a credible writer with an unnamed source does lend credence to a rumor. But the trend in the media has been clicks and hot takes too much in recent years. And no where more than in the NFL. After the absurdity that was the Griffin saga in 2013/2014 and the Trademark coverage, my take is waaaaay more cautious when it comes to the skins.

We shall find out on or before May 3! Peter King got the issue of whether Goodell viewed the Ray Rice video wrong. He explained that he only relied on one source as opposed to two. In view of that, Maske may be sticking his neck out more than he needs to if he's only got one source (unless that's someone like McCloughan). Still, if he's off on this issue, he's generally right on most. Thus, I'll continue to rely on his and King's reporting. (As to King, his analysis of what he's reporting is a whole different story altogether.)

 

[skinsdad62]

Sources are "unnamed" for a variety of reasons. Yes, some have agendas; others stay anonymous to avoid reprisal. There is no "general" rule you can apply other than to look at the credibility of someone reporting / vouching for the source. As for this particular issue, how can you do any independent research? No one knows the inner workings of the Redskins. This story is the best you're going to get, at least as for now. And with Maske doing the reporting, it's as good as any.

i can apply a general rule to whatever i want to period . stop telling me what i can or cannot do

i control me not you

 

[redskinsfan]

i can apply a general rule to whatever i want to period . stop telling me what i can or cannot do

i control me not you

Dad, trust me . . . I'm not trying to control you. Let's leave it or lump with this one too.

Peace, brother.

 

[skinsdad62]

Dad, trust me . . . I'm not trying to control you. Let's leave it or lump with this one too.

Peace, brother.

fair enough buddy . i like you as a poster and you bring it hard . in the end we are fans

 

[redskinsfan]

fair enough buddy . i like you as a poster and you bring it hard . in the end we are fans

You bet. We all debate like we're family.

Can't wait until the draft. Unfortunately for us Left Coasters, we've got to take time off from work to watch it.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Yep, I'm taking off

 

[redskinsfan]

Both days? And don't you love trying to explain leaving early for a MNF game?

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Both days? And don't you love trying to explain leaving early for a MNF game?

I'm typically off on Fridays, so I only had to take Thurs off.

 

[redskinsfan]

I'm typically off on Fridays, so I only had to take Thurs off.

Do you have any Redskins bars in your area?

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Do you have any Redskins bars in your area?

Nope, but my bartender is a skins fan, which is quite unusual in the Central Coast. Good thing too, my cocktails are always strong

 

[redskinsfan]

Nope, but my bartender is a skins fan, which is quite unusual in the Central Coast. Good thing too, my cocktails are always strong

Hopefully you don't too many Raiders fans there. What I find really perplexing about the Chargers (potential) move to LA is the fact that they're moving into Raider territory. How are they going to get a fan base where there are still a bunch of Raiders fan here.

If they do come here, I'd love to see a Chargers "home" game.