Williams (r) said that he and the Redskins expected widespread criticism after claiming Fostergetty images
Redskins Senior VP/Player Personnel Doug Williams said that the franchise’s key decision makers were "united in their decision" to claim LB Reuben Foster on Tuesday, contrary to a report earlier this week, according to Scott Allen of the WASHINGTON POST. Williams said that he and the Redskins "expected the widespread criticism after they were the only team to put in a claim on Foster." Williams: "We knew there was going to be some backlash, and we understand that, and rightfully so. I’ve got six daughters, so it ain’t something I would condone, but at the same time I think we are in the business of at least looking into (his case)." Williams said the decisions "wasn’t just a spur of the moment type of thing," and "we all gathered, we talked about it, we knew there was going to be some risk-reward involved in it." Meanwhile, Williams said of the domestic violence charge against Foster, "We’ve got people who are in high, high, high, high places that have done far worse, and if you look at it realistically, they’re still up there. This is small potatoes (compared to) a lot of things out there" (WASHINGTON POST, 11/30).
POOR FORM: USA TODAY's Christine Brennan referenced the fact that the Redskins have previously signed RB Adrian Peterson, who was suspended by the league for alleged child abuse, and had signed LB Junior Galette in '15 after an alleged domestic incident. Brennan: "This is something that this team obviously is encouraging, it is fostering and it wants to be a participant in signing people of questionable character" ("Nightline," ABC, 11/29). In DC, Jerry Brewer writes signing Foster "isn’t the worst thing the franchise has done," but it "illustrates why it would be foolish for any fair-minded person to give the organization the benefit of the doubt." To accept the Redskins as "honest or deserving of trust would require a level of fandom or gullible negligence so extreme that you should fear whether such believers are capable of navigating daily life" (WASHINGTON POST, 11/30). THE RINGER's Claire McNear wrote it is "not as if" the Redskins "didn’t know it was the wrong thing to do." They just "didn’t care." McNear: "How else to explain the Redskins’ latest justification of the Reuben Foster debacle?" Often teams in the NFL "respond seemingly only to the stimulus of negative feedback." With Foster, the Redskins have "distinguished themselves by not even pretending to be concerned with doing the right thing." They would have fans "believe that they are a football team that makes only football decisions, and that if people don’t like it -- well, that’s fine; they were expecting that" (THERINGER.com, 11/29).
THE HONEYMOON IS OVER: In DC, Thom Loverro writes the "good will era" of new Redskins President of Business Operations & COO Brian Lafemina "came to an end" with the Foster signing. The acquisition of Foster "damages everything" that Lafemina and the other execs "brought in this summer have been trying to do -- save this franchise." As long as Dan Snyder owns the team, it is "beyond salvation." Loverro: "This is the 21st century, and when you have an organization that has suffered so much credibility and perception damage as the Redskins have now for decades ... you don’t make a so-called 'football decision' like attaching yourself to Foster without the input of the person charged with restoring credibility involved in that decision." Snyder and Redskins President Bruce Allen either "didn’t include Lafemina or chose to ignore him" (WASHINGTON TIMES, 11/30).
