thesubmittedone

Moderators
  • Content count

    14,631
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

1 Follower

About thesubmittedone

  • Rank
    The Coach
  • Birthday 12/23/1983

Profile Information

  • Birthdate
    Some time in 1983
  • Redskins Fan Since
    Since I can remember
  • Favorite Redskin
    Joe Gibbs
  • Not a Skins Fan? Tell us YOUR team:
    This field shouldn't be required
  • Location
    Usually home, I'm boring :p
  • Zip Code
    555555555

Recent Profile Visitors

10,607 profile views
  1. Press Release: #Redskins Quotes- CB Adonis Alexander

    I’ve got to say, it’s impressive just how much influence Gray has gained within the organization so quickly. I get the sense they buy whatever he sells.
  2. The "Non" Mt Rushmore Symbols of the Dan Snyder Era

    Ok, got ya, but I don’t see how it’s a “both right or both wrong” thing, lol. This is exactly what I explained in the post you quoted, you’re still looking at this wrongly (not to sound harsh). The percentage matters more if we’re talking about growth rates, the total difference (or “raw dollars number” as you put it) does not take into account the overall increase of value for both teams. The Eagles have grown faster than the Redskins have. It’s that simple. If they continue at this pace, the Eagles will be more valuable than the Redskins in a handful of years. The Eagles have grown 5.3 times their initial amount while we’ve grown 3.8 times. Does that make more sense? My point all along is that the conclusion you are arriving to is faulty based on the data you are using. And that, furthermore, it can be argued either way whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing. I don’t really agree with you that it’s a positive for Dan that we need to give him credit for, but I also don’t think the team’s growth in value being outpaced by most other NFL franchises is necessarily a negative either. We are talking from the perspective as fans, right? For instance, if Dan is actually doing a good job increasing the team’s value AND if that increase means more charity is spent AND/OR that money is being invested in the right way to improve the on and off field product... we can say that’s a “good thing” and that Dan should be getting credit for it. However, we need a lot more info to come to that. What if, for instance, we find that Dan has done a great job increasing the team’s value, but then it has had no effect on the charitable contributions he’s given (which would mean it’s actually a lesser percentage he’s giving as every year goes by) and/or he’s spent less investing back into the team’s staff, facilities, etc...? Would that still be a “good thing” that he’s increased the team’s value? No way, at least not from our fan’s perspective! We’re not rooting for Dan to increase his bank account, for God’s sake, are we!? But the main point here is that you used data that doesn’t support the original conclusion you arrived to; that Dan has done a good job increasing the team’s value. When looking at it relative to the rest of the NFL, that outlook can easily change. The Eagles are one example of this. Again, you arrived at a conclusion without these factors being taken account of, not me. I’m glad you agree with me on some, but that should automatically mean you retract your conclusion since it’s missing key data, right? I’m glad you seem willing to recognize that. Also, fan loyalty isn’t necessarily tied to the purchase of live tickets, though it’s a factor. The Skins have a strong nationwide fanbase just by virtue of their long and storied history. They are one of the oldest franchises in the league. There’s a lot of other things we can get into regarding fan loyalty, but I think it’s unnecessary for now. Well, I went into this wondering about the team’s value in a totally neutral way. I was honestly curious as to whether or not they’ve progressed or regressed there. But so far the evidence is pointing to a regression and that we’ve actually grown less than most teams in the NFL. We’re below average with the numbers we’ve looked at so far. What I’m seeing here is that, at this rate, we’re going to be outpaced by another 2-3 teams very soon and that 5-10 years down the road we’ll be middle of the pack or worst. More data is needed, though. And the new stadium will definitely impact all of this. So no matter what we figure out now it’s not totally indicative of how things will pan out. For me, the one thing that has actually mattered to me about all of this (and this has been the case for a long time, not as a result of this present discussion between us) is how ridiculous it is that we’re still one of the most valuable franchises, and have been for a long time, yet our facilities are among the worst in the NFL. Furthermore, while we had this immense “team value” all this time, our scouting department was one of the most understaffed in the NFL (that’s changed recently). That just pisses me off when I think about it. I was happy to see Dan actually put in some effort this offseason when he went to Europe and visited some of the premier futból clubs there to see how we can improve our injury prevention/recovery. I mean, does it make me sick it took a complete catastrophe for him to do that? Sure. But it’s definitely a positive, better late than never, and that’s where I’d like to see our “team value” being so high actually benefit us. I want to be known as an organization that really invests in itself in the best way. Here’s something to chew on... if we’re actually regressing in terms of team value and other teams start jumping ahead of us more and more, but Dan is increasingly investing in charity, facilities, equipment, staff, etc... (which has happened recently, as long as it’s taken) that’s much more of a good thing than what you’ve presented and something we should commend Dan for. I’d hold Dan in much higher esteem if I find out that, even though the team’s value is decreasing compared to other’s in the league, he’s investing more than they are. That’s much more of a “good thing” to me than seeing our team value among the top of the league while knowing just how little has been invested for so much of that time. I hope I clarified everything enough here.
  3. The "Non" Mt Rushmore Symbols of the Dan Snyder Era

    You completely lost me with this post, to be honest. But this part right here... trying to actually understand the data by looking at it within its proper context (and revenue sharing is of major significance) is considered “minimizing” to you? I don’t know what to say to that, brother. :/ We’re not “almost double” that to the Eagles. But this example of yours here I think gives the perfect indication of our disconnect. I don’t know where you got the initial “$300 million apart” figure from, but assuming that’s correct, we’re ahead by $450 million now. So if the Skins were at $800 million initially like you said, that’d mean the Eagles were at $500 million (hence your $300 million difference), right? That’s a difference of about 37% in team value the Skins had over the Eagles, initially. Now? The Eagles are worth $2.65 billion, the Skins are worth $3.1 billion. That’s a difference of about 15% in team value the Skins have over the Eagles. So that means the Eagles have actually out-paced the Skins here in growth. They’ve cut into the Skins advantage in team value by about 22%. To make it as simple as possible, it’s like if I had $10 and you had $7 initially, and then a month down the road I had $100 whereas you had $80, how would we look at it? Would you say, “you started with $3 more than me and over that time period you now have $20 more than me, therefore you grew at a faster rate”? That’d be crazy, right? The reality is you actually outpaced me with your $7. You grew slightly over 11 times that whereas I grew at 10 times. You started with 30% less than I did, and after a month you only have 20% less. If we’re projecting for the future, it’s likely you will eventually overtake me if the level of growth remains as is. Again, there are plenty of other factors here that this could be tied to. But the way you’re looking at it is off. In this instance with the Eagles, your data here actually hurts your conclusion versus supports it. What does whether or not Dan is “trying to win” have anything to do with what you and I are discussing here? I feel like you’re just reading into what I’m talking about here (in terms of interpreting the data for nothing other than a financial understanding) what you want to. I’m not even saying it is or isn’t a positive for Dan, I’m saying you arriving to the conclusion that it is has quite a few issues. If we look into those issues more, we may still actually come to your conclusion. That’s all.
  4. The "Non" Mt Rushmore Symbols of the Dan Snyder Era

    Year to year growth relative to the rest of the league absolutely matters more because it gives us a better understanding of how much actual growth occurred for the team versus just being a by-product of a league that shares revenue amongst other factors. Pointing out a few teams that aren’t nearly as valuable doesn’t change that. Averages matter, especially with revenue-sharing involved as it’s harder to get an accurate picture when everyone is benefitting at the same time. I feel like this isn’t something I should really have to explain. :/ If the year to year growth is consistently below the average set by the entire league, what do you think that says? If it’s above average, what do you think that says? I mean, is it the same to you either way? I’m pretty sure if the data came back stating that for most of Dan’s tenure the year to year growth was above average, you’d accept that as further proof of your conclusion, wouldn’t you? I know I would accept that it certainly aids in your argument. All I’m advocating for is that we’ve got to dig deeper. As for it meaning anything about Dan or it being “part of his job”, I’m not sure we as fans should care much about that. I mean, one could argue the opposite in that it’s actually a terrible sign. That despite the quality of the actual product, Dan has found a way to manipulate his consumers into buying into it. Why would that be a “good thing”? It’s almost like you’re conflating capitalism with morality. At least on a fanhood level, why should we recognize that as something to give Dan credit for? We’re not in this for the business, are we? You’re at least right about the charity aspect of it. That is certainly a good thing, so we should commend that. I don’t see anyone who hasn’t. But then we don’t know the relative percentages of that money given to charity in comparison to other franchises either, so we don’t know just how good it is, do we? Or even whether or not the increase in team value has had anything to do with what’s “put back into charity”. We don’t know. But let’s just go with your point for argument’s sake and say it is generally a “good thing” that Dan has “made the team more valuable”.. again, you’re still ignoring other factors that I’ve mentioned a thousand times that might have more to do with it than anything he’s done. How about fan loyalty to a 3-time Super Bowl winning franchise that’s one of the oldest in the entire league? Dan inherited a brand recognition superior to the majority of franchises when he bought the team, right? How about inheriting the second-most valuable franchise at the time (if my memory serves me), which means he’d be starting in a more powerful position with more assets than others? How about the average income of those fans in comparison to other franchises? How about being in a premier, historic division that is consistently competitive? There’s a lot more to this than saying “look at the growth in revenue overall and look at some of the bottom tier teams, see he’s done great”! No one worth their salt in knowledge of even the most basic economics would accept your conclusion based off of that. I’m not even saying your conclusion is wrong. I’m saying the data you use to come to it is incomplete at best, completely unrelated at worst. I don’t understand where the disconnect is here?
  5. Ok, I went to look for it to make sure I’m not crazy and I found it, Jay did single out Danny Johnson: Supposedly he projects as a slot guy with his build. I wonder if that’s where he was playing in OTAs and that’s where he stood out? Btw, Keim says Skins see Adonis as a CB: Russell “from a source”:
  6. Well, not much to say about the actual move since it’s only a 6th rounder and he comes with a lot of questions, but I do like that they’re throwing numbers at the secondary, which is probably the most glaring weakness on the roster now with the loss of Breeland and Fuller. This year it’s Scandrick via FA; Apke and Stroman via the draft; Quinn Blanding, Danny Johnson and Ranthony Texada via UDFA; and now Adonis via the supplemental draft. 7 total, though mostly via cheaper resources (Apke in the 4th is arguably the most expensive). Last year they did the same thing. They added Swearinger via FA; Moreau, Nicholson, and Holsey in the draft; and Fish Smithson via UDFA. 5 total, but we used more in terms of resources via cap space (Swearinger) and draft capital (3rd on Moreau, 4th on Nicholson). Out of that group we had Nicholson emerge, with Swearinger a good addition and playing as expected more or less. This year? I think Scandrick will likely be as expected, which isn’t good. Hopefully one of Apke, Stroman, Blanding, Johnson, Texada, or Adonis can be this year’s Nicholson for us. That’ll be huge. The concern still remains in the slot, which is a starting position in the NFL these days. Hate the idea of Scandrick being the guy we rely on there, so I'm hoping someone (or two) emerges there. Adonis doesn’t seem like a potential help there, at least not when looking at his measurements. My hope is that both Dunbar and Moreau look really good, and so we try to keep both on the field with one playing mostly in the slot. Not sure if that’s at all realistic, but I think Moreau has some traits that can work there. Not so much with Dunbar. Otherwise we’re relying on Holsey and someone like Danny Johnson (who is projected to play in the slot) emerging, which would be great but are nonetheless long shots. I think Jay may have actually praised Johnson during OTAs, which is a good sign if true. I might not be remembering right, though. It’s going to be frightening going into the season with this group. A lot could go wrong, there’s just too many “ifs” and hopes. The only sure thing (or as close to one as it gets in the NFL) is Norman. We’re banking on Dunbar taking the next step into a full time starter. His play last season was promising, so there’s that, but we’ve seen that playing as a backup and stepping in well doesn’t always equate to being a good starter. We’re hoping Moreau makes the rookie to sophomore leap that is at best a toss up in general. And I LOVED his college game tape when I went through it right after we drafted him. We’re hoping Nicholson’s injury-riddled rookie season was an anomaly and not the norm. And we’ve seen firsthand how the elite athletes that combine size and speed like he does struggle plenty with that in the NFL (Jordan Reed). We’re hoping that some late round fliers or undrafted guys step up and can take over the slot position. Otherwise we’re relying on a likely over the hill vet in Scandrick coming off his worst season to handle the job. Frightening. A lot could go wrong, and more so than any other positional group on the team. But there’s also a ton of youth and, therefore, a lot of potential. We’ve also shown an ability to develop and hit on mid-to-lower round draft picks as well as undrafted players (Kyshoen Jarrett, Breeland, Dunbar, Nicholson, Fuller, and to a lesser extent, guys like Everett). We just need at least two or three of these “hopes” to go our way.
  7. The "Non" Mt Rushmore Symbols of the Dan Snyder Era

    I’m not sure you’re reading those numbers correctly. And don’t get me wrong, same goes for me. Again, what’s more important is comparing the increase in revenue to the rest of the league. If we’re consistently increasing revenue at a below average rate, that’s not a positive sign. You can’t just go off of where the numbers were when Snyder bought the team to now. That’s why I mentioned that we were only behind the Cowboys initially (which is entirely based off memory, I could be wrong about that). The starting point matters. Location and per capita income play a major role, as well. We simply don’t have the information to make a sound judgment either way. But here’s the thing... I’m not sure what this has to do with giving Snyder credit? If, say, your assessment is correct and he’s increased the team’s revenue at a solid rate, that could speak to fan loyalty, location and per capita income more than anything else. That anyone with any semblance of business sense could’ve pulled it off with the inherent positives of the franchise. Or it could be that he’s found a way to nickel and dime fans, which isn’t something we, as fans, should be giving him “credit” for, is it? I think it’s an interesting topic just from an economic sense, but anything more than that or to assess Snyder’s acumen in general? Not really.
  8. The "Non" Mt Rushmore Symbols of the Dan Snyder Era

    The value of the Redskins under Dan is a pretty interesting topic to get into. That link you just posted has different numbers than this one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2017/07/12/full-list-the-worlds-50-most-valuable-sports-teams-2017/#1b8dc7fb4a05 I think yours is more recent because the valuations are higher. I believe the Redskins were second to only the Cowboys when Dan initially purchased the franchise, or at least when that Forbes’ list started coming out, in terms of revenue. That’s based entirely on memory, so I might be off there. But they’re behind the Cowboys, Pats, Giants and Niners according to the Forbes’ link I posted. They got back in front of the Niners according to yours. So, if anything, I’d lean towards the thinking that they’ve actually been losing ground under Snyder to other teams versus anything else. I don't think you can just look at the revenue increase because virtually every team in the NFL gets that almost by default. I mean, you’d essentially have to be a total moron to lose money or not increase revenue at least slightly year over year running a franchise in the revenue-sharing NFL. Then there are the factors of location and per capita income. But by the looks of it, the teams above them have actually done a better job the last how many years. Based off the older list I linked to, from 2016 to 2017, the Giants and Niners increased revenue by 11% whereas the Skins only did by 4%, which was the smallest increase on that top 50 list by any NFL franchise. Only the Texans and Eagles increased by that same, small, amount as well. Every other team on the list increased their year over year revenue by a bigger percentage. Going off your list, and assuming it’s more recent, they did a little bit better, but it’s still below average. The average increase in revenue for an NFL franchise was about 8%, whereas they hit 5%. So if that’s any indication the Skins are actually regressing under Snyder, who bought a team already generating top revenue. At the very least, we can say they’re presently not keeping pace with the average increase in revenue. Would have to go back and look at it year over year since Snyder took over to really get a better understanding. I might be looking at it wrong, though, but just from my preliminary research that’s what I’d take from it. Might also add some reasoning to why those hires at financial/economic positions were made recently.
  9. The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    Well, and this is probably my fault for inserting myself into this discussion now, but I wasn't really talking about comparing Bruce to Vinny as much as I was just addressing the idea of how much credit Bruce should get for hiring some of the quality guys within the FO versus everything else. But, yeah, like @Skinsinparadise has mentioned numerous times and I agree with, I'd put Bruce slightly above Vinny. But I do think it's arguable, which is an absolute travesty to me in and of itself. I mean, any idiot should be able to out-produce Vinny. It's embarrassing that it's even a thing we're discussing here almost ten years after Vinny. :/ But is that on Dan more than anyone else? I lean towards that, personally. In terms of the arguments you present here regarding the Bruce vs. Vinny discussion... I don't necessarily have a real contention with any of it, but I'd say one very significant aspect of all this that you're missing here is that Bruce has been Team President his entire tenure, second only to Dan in the organizational hierarchy. Vinny, on the other hand, had Gibbs as Team President for 4 years of his tenure. Furthermore, at least on the surface, Dan was much more involved during much of that time. So it's tough to make a good comparison, really. I do question just how much involvement Dan still has, and I am open to the idea that Bruce is just another victim of his to some degree. That there is a legit possibility that Dan has just done a better job of hiding it, especially within the building, and only shows his true face to Bruce alone. Basically, he's wised up into playing the "good cop" when he's around anyone at Redskins Park, but behind the scenes he's telling Bruce a completely different thing and Bruce executes it. But it's more speculation, or a gut feeling if you will on my end than anything concrete (well, other than the ugly way things end up being handled which has a Snyder-esque feel to it).
  10. The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    The logic is actually very sound, and I addressed this recently in a post you said you agreed with. You were just being gentle to my fragile ego weren’t you? Joking aside, it was really the main theme of the post: Pretty much the entire post addressed this issue, but it was (I know I know, lol) very long, so to avoid redundancy (which is your fault for bringing this up again ) here’s just a couple key excerpts: I hope this helps you understand more a bit of the rationale behind where we’re coming from. Hiring is one part of it, and so while Bruce should be commended for that, it’s far from the end of it. As an executive, how you enable, elevate, support, etc... your hires is much more important than the act of hiring itself. Btw, I wanted to say that I really appreciate your approach recently around the board (especially taking ownership for the “don’t talk about Kirk” stuff, but in general I get the sense that there’s more of an attempt to really understand where some of us are coming from on your end).
  11. Did you accidentally stumble upon a bunch of highlights where he gets ran down from behind when you went looking for this one, or no? Shame on you for making me argue against Thompson! Don’t make me do it any more, and I’m not going to find those clips to prove my point, either. But, yeah, his top end speed leaves something to be desired. It’s ok, no one is perfect, Thompson is still awesome.
  12. The thing that excites me most is that we’ve got someone who has the athleticism to actually hit a home run. Even Portis, once we traded for him, was told to get bigger and was more of a grinder. Thompson has provided us some nice moments with big gains, but his top end speed actually leaves something to be desired. Looks like Guice has it all. Hopefully it translates on the field and we get to see it right away, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if it takes a little time for him to get accustomed to the NFL. Some of the best backs in the NFL took a little time to really take off, like Bell and David Johnson.
  13. Let's All Get Behind Alex Smith!

    Agree with this list, but I’d probably add to it the Dline fulfilling its potential.
  14. Rank the Skins' head coaches over the last 25 years

    @Voice_of_Reason very weird to come at us like that, calling it “ridiculous”, when I even specifically said I could be swayed either way as to who is 1 or 2, and then you finish it with ranking Gruden 2nd yourself? Come on, brother. Gibbs was Team President, so Vinny is on him to a degree. That’s the difference. Why did you fail to mention that? I’m not removing the control Gibbs had as coach here in comparison to the lack thereof Jay has like you did (which is something you often do in general when falsely conflating Jay’s role with Bruce here). I think that’s unfair, and I made it a point to say that in my post. I even ended it with saying we didn’t get to see Gibbs with a better leader in personnel, but a big part of that is on him. So, yeah, if we’re going solely by coaching, is Gibbs 2.0 better? Maybe, there’s certainly a better argument to be had there, but we didn’t see much in the way of developing players under him versus what we’ve seen with Jay, which is why I lean towards Jay. Gibbs had an aggressive approach to personnel and had a team set up for him to win immediately, Jay never had. Vinny or not, they benefited in many ways from that aggressive approach. They lacked depth but they were top heavy. How you can just ignore that is beyond me. I specifically said I place more of an emphasis on teaching than scheme (or other aspects of coaching for that matter), and I feel like Jay has Gibbs beat there in his second stint. So comparing records (which are actually pretty close overall) doesn’t change that. I will give you the two playoff runs Gibbs had over Jay’s one, that was impressive. But there’s also context there that doesn’t sway me enough to make my ranking change. It’s an interesting discussion and it’s definitely not “ridiculous” as you claim. It’s too bad you immediately went there in what should’ve otherwise been a nice debate. :/
  15. NFL.com: All Time XI: NFC East (Redskin Related)

    He was out of position a lot because he was trying to compensate for just how badly we sucked everywhere else. Our front was so horrid we had absolutely no pass rush and Olines opened holes at will, so RBs would get to him in a hurry and he was the only guy able to even be in the vicinity of tackling them. So his athleticism actually punished him in the sense that he got credited for those missed tackles. Secondary outside of him was terrible, as well. Ade Jimoh and Kenny Wright anyone? Sean was the only guy getting near the ball on so many plays that had the opposing player running free that it made him look bad. He also “cheated” a lot out of frustration to compensate for the suckitude around him, so he was out of position a bunch. 2006 is the perfect example for how the surrounding environment can make or break even elite players.