Crossing A Line?
By Mark Solway | November 5th, 2009
John Riggins has been at it for weeks with some serious venom cast in the direction of the Washington Redskins organization. Though sometimes radical, the brash Redskins legend often says a few things that ring true for many Redskin fans. But did his latest rant cross a boundary? Check out Dan Steinberg’s recap at D.C. Sports Bog, if you haven’t already seen or heard Riggins latest comments.
It’s one thing to challenge the way Dan Snyder runs this organization, but aren’t you’re taking things to a whole different level when you start making it that personal?
Isn’t there an obligation to provide some sort of answer, or at least some type of rationalization, if you’re going to make that kind of defamatory remark?
Is taking a ‘I might know something that you don’t, but can’t tell you’ kind of stance really good enough given the weight of the comments?
At no time did Riggins provide any type of ‘reason’ for why Dan Snyder had a ‘black heart.’ He talked about things that might make him a bad football owner, and in Riggins’ opinion, a bad business person, but at no time did he offer anything that would qualify rationalizing such an assassination of character.
I’m on record as saying that I think this franchise needs wholesale changes from top to bottom, but I don’t profess to know Dan Snyder well enough to judge his character.
I see no evidence that John Riggins has any such knowledge either.
I’m not saying that he doesn’t, but no evidence has been provided.
What I am saying is that, in my opinion, leaving so much to speculation wreaks of sensationalism.
Big John always did like to cast the spotlight firmly on to himself, is this anything more than an extension of that?
Or is his crossing a line, a pre-meditated strategic maneuver? A bold stroke to try and draw the General out on to the battlefield?
For me, the thing about sensationalism, is that if I see it as such… it tends to taint my judgment, and desensitize me to anything further that person says. So I hope that Riggins will keep that in mind, because I know I’m not alone in feeling that way.
Riggins: “That is my take on it….I speak for the fans because these are the people that paid my salary for all these years. They are the ones that need to know that this is a bad guy.”
If he truly wants to act as an agent of the people, then he should think about the weight of that responsibility. This particular fan that he is speaking for, happens to think that open-ended innuendo, accusations, and attacks on character, only serve to exacerbate the problem. There are plenty of real issues to address, and letting personal animosities cloud the monumental task at hand, will serve only as an unneeded distraction.
So John are you speaking for the people, or are you speaking for yourself? If John truly wants the fuel behind a Redskin Revolution to be Diesel, then in my opinion, you have to learn the difference between speaking for Redskin fans because you share some common views, and speaking for Redskin fans because you have facilitated finding out what they really think.
Tagged: dan snyder dan steinburg John Riggins Washington Redskins
on November 5th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
You beat me to it, Boss, but you certainly said it better than I think I could have.
on November 5th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Riggins worked for Snyder at ESPN 980 for a bit. He knows him.
Besider Riggins has a flare for the dramatic. So he went a little overboard. Whatever. At least he’s not like Greg Blache who broke his media silence to say some pointless BS about how Snyder is a quality guy.
Point is that Snyder has ruined this team and Riggins is speaking for us in trying to get our ‘Skins back. Thank you Diesel!
on November 5th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Also it doesn’t take a genius to know what Redskins fans think. Riggins pretty much summed it up. So he said Snyder was evil. If you think about it he kind of is.
His consumers are the fans. He depends on them to stay afloat. And what does he do. He feeds us propaganda on what a fan he is and then bans signs. Plus, he continually doesn’t seem to catch on that he doesn’t know how to run the team and yet still makes the football decisions.
on November 6th, 2009 at 2:38 am
Drawing comparisons between Snyder and Buggsy Seigal is sort of a stretch by any train of thought.Riggo saying he reminded him of some 30’s Jewish mafioso only exaggerates that. There have been any number of instances where Snyder has put his plane and money behind the needs of someone on the team. Look at the stuff Doughty had to go through with his baby when he was first drafted…Bugel and his sick daughter and so on.Snyder was there with all the help they needed at the moment.It’s well documented about his great assistance for various causes in the area.
On the other side of the coin is this sign banning…plain and simple censorship, Vinny (enough said!), Snyder’s apparent real life fantasy football aspirations over the past decade, the firing of longtime employees when he bought the team,the number of coaches ousted covering 10 years, and his handling of Zorn… I mean he does look like a petty, mean spirited, dictator in a lot of respects. I think the focus has to be kept on the front office as a whole and not the individual. Riggo is doing no one any favors in gutter sniping Dan Snyder. He’s just creating sympathy for him and adding fuel his point that the media is out to get him.
on November 6th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I hurt for our Redskins like many fans. I have been a season ticket holder since 1981 and truely remember the good days. I do not beleive that Mr Snyder is a “bad person” but do beleive he is a poor “football person”. Let’s hope he makes some positive changes this coming off season and begin building the Redskins back to where they belong at the top of the East Conference.