TD_washingtonredskins

Going back to Gibbs 1.0...what if this team had some better fortune/good breaks in some of the non-Super Bowl seasons? 

1984 - Coming off of back-to-back NFC titles, the Skins hosted an up-and-coming Bears team in the Divisional round. Granted, that loss isn't awful (essentially lost by a TD to the team that would dominate the league the following year), but just imagine if we had gotten it done? We battled back from a two-score deficit to pull within 6 going into the 4th quarter at home. Had we pulled off the comeback, we'd have traveled to San Francisco for the NFC Championship Game. Walsh vs. Gibbs/defending conference champs vs. the team that would become the elite team of the 1980s. 

1986 - I know that they had our number in 1986 (and for much of the 1980s), but just imagine if the late-afternoon/evening in New Jersey wasn't so blustery and our passing game had a shot? We were clearly the second-best team in the entire league in 1986 and played the Giants relatively close in each of the two regular season meetings (especially the game in NY). Had we won that game and played Denver in the Super Bowl, we'd be the team that most people talked about as the team of the 1980s (4 titles and 5 appearances from 1982-1991). 

1990 - This one may be the biggest reach, but it also was a pretty competitive game. If you take away Ryp's 3 interceptions (one returned for a TD), this is a much closer game. Just imagine if he was ready to ascend a few months earlier than he did! It would have been another Giants NFC Championship Game - and they still had our number!! But you never know...they were beat up and maybe we'd have had the firepower and OL to finally vanquish them. Then, a battle with the Bills in the Super Bowl. 

On 8/24/2023 at 8:38 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

They liked Wilson more than Kirk.  If no trade, they probably pick Wilson in the second.

 

Which … wouldn’t have sucked.  Wilson in the Shanahan offense?  That could have been special.

 

 

That would have been fantastic. If that had happened and then somehow Snyder was forced or chose to sell the team in the 2014/15 timeframe, all might have been right in the world. The team name, despite some protesting, would probably still be Redskins and the team itself would almost certainly have been more successful. 

2 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

No disagreement.  I think it's important to remember, folks were having Norv fatigue going into the 1999 season, and there was some push for Snyder to make the change right after he bought the team.  But he really couldn't, it was too late.

 

I agree having Casserly hire the next coach would be better than Snyder.  But honestly he didn't do so great when he got the opportunity with the Texans.  Hired Dom Capers, and that went very "meh" and was very similar to Norv.  Casserly hired Norv, and then essentially hired the same type of guy again.  

 

No disagreement it wouldn't have been better than Snyder.  But the key would have been when John Cooke would move on from Casserly and who he would hire to replace him. 

 

It's massively unlikely we have anything like the swirl of negativity we had under Dan.  But I'm not sure the record would be THAT much better.  John was very low-key "stay the course."  Not sure how that would play over the last 23 years.  Almost assuredly better.  But how much better?  Dunno.  

 

I wasn't a fan of Norv nor a fan of Casserly.  And John Cooke said publicly he wanted to keep them around even through all of the losing, and I can't get that out of my head. 

 

 

Yep, I think we're on the same page. When Snyder first took over, I was excited for a younger/no-nonsense type to inject some fire into the organization. It struck me as a little sleepy and outdated with John Kent Cooke running things (and even the final couple of years of his father). Clearly, I was wrong...but I'm not under the impression that we'd have re-started winning Super Bowls every 2-4 years like we did under Gibbs. 

And, what's even worse, in this alternate reality I'd probably be wishing for a young, brash owner to come in and be aggressive. 

32 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

So, there’s no chance it would have been worse. Would have been better.
 

But I think we would have been stuck with Casserly for YEARS longer, and possibly Norv forever also. 
 

I was and have been one of the biggest detractors of Casserly.  I think he gets credit for a lot of residual goodness from Beathard he didn’t earn.  He did pull off a beautiful trade with the Saints but I’m not sure a 4th grader couldn’t have done it. He wasn’t very good with free agency and without Gibbs.  He got another crack at it with the Texans and failed miserably. 
 

I definitely think things would have been better, but it would have been up to John Cooke to hire a new GM and do it right because nobody was winning anything with Casserly.  

Right...there would have been a lot more of the status quo, for sure. And I know that many fans, myself included, would have been clamoring for changes. But even having Casserly for a longer period of time and then letting him hire Norv's replacement (I seem to recall they didn't get along, so someone would have needed to go), is light years better than Snyder making those decisions. 

2 hours ago, NoVaSkins21 said:

IMO, if JKC had left the team to his family, maybe things would have been drastically different the last 2 dozen years.  Harris and Co. have it now so let's see what happens

This is my biggest one...

If John Kent Cooke had taken over and kept this team operating in a classy way. I realize that they had struggled for half-a-decade under the Cookes, but I'm also confident that patience would have led to something sustainable. The 1999 team was basically all pre-Snyder and that team was poised to be built for the long-haul and contend after a division title (albeit a pretty soft division title). 

With the 1999 team plus the draft picks that we were set up with, I think a more steady hand would have put us in the position that the Eagles/Giants played in the early-2000s. 

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I support them trying this but oh boy, I feel like that could get the Civil War thread pinned.

I'm with you...I'd rather he just lose outright, but he's not the answer even for conservatives. So if it ultimately keeps him out of office and allows the Republican party/country to move forward, then whatever. But it'll cause quite the uproar. 

I think Vivek is gaining a lot of momentum on the right, and shouldn't be overlooked with still plenty of time before the election. He's very well spoken, pushes the conservative agenda, is extremely civil and polite when engaging in these discussions, and even understands how to try to hook some of the Trumpers (pardons, etc.). 

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

And also incredibly wealthy, but down-to-earth

And oddly disinterested in finding companionship in anyone else, even if they are far better looking than said high school sweetheart. 

6 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

There was always some wall of stacked cubes to smash the action figure through for maximum awesomeness.

Exactly! 

And my parents' beige carpet had to be sand, snow, grass, water, and space. 

…how cool Star Wars and He-Man toy commercials were in the 1980s during Saturday morning cartoons? The sets seemed so elaborate and so much better than me using my family room carpet and coffee table. Those lucky actors got to set up the Ewok village in a real forest, Hoth in real snow, and Jabba's Palace in real sand. Anytime I was motivated enough to take all my **** outside I'd get too cold, bored, or pissed off because a lost a lightsaber down the sewer. 

9 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

Again, he was already rated a 5 star high school OL per Scout before the Tuohy's even came into his life (he was 17 at the time).

 

But the movie makes him football dumb before meeting them. 

 

The entire movie story was bull****. 

 

 

Yeah, I mean, it was a movie so it had to be Hollywoodized a little bit. Remember the Titans did that too. They made 1971 Alexandria, VA seem like the Jim Crow Deep South. 

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

My most likely scenario is that Oher hired Sexton so that Oher doesn't have to worry about **** like this.  Oher doesn't want to worry about his money, he wants to worry about his NFL career.  He also doesn't need to immediately sweat the Blind Side money because he's otherwise making good money, including a $14MM rookie deal, then a 4 yr $20MM deal.

 

Not really digging the blame the victim stances being taken in this thread, TBH. 

At this point, we have two very wealthy/famous parties bickering about something. I'm not even sure who the victim is yet. I'm just lobbing out potential ways that this thing could have happened because I'm a little intrigued having seen the movie a couple times. 

23 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Yea, I mean, the more I think about it, that makes sense.  There is this extremely obvious asset out there (the book and the movie, but moreso the movie) that are about my client's life story, I'd want to know where the money is going and how much of it my client is getting.  I'm speculating, but that should have led to discovering the non-adoption/conservatorship situation.  That is all dependent on IF the scope of my engagement with my client includes that kind of thing.  I don't actually have any idea what the scope of a standard NFL agent representation is, or if Oher had a standard one or a bespoke agreement.  If it was within the scope of Oher's agreement with Sexton, and Sexton failed to look into it, then Oher should sue the **** out of Sexton too.  

Yeah, I'm looking at both Sexton and Oher on this. Assuming the arrangement above, we have to imagine that Sexton pressed Oher on the movie rights, etc. He's an agent and those guys are blood-sucking vampires who see their cut. What I could have seen happening because Oher was making his NFL millions is that he told Sexton to stand down or leave it alone (either believing that he was already taken care of my his "adopted" parents or because he was already sick of dealing with them). 

9 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Oher turned 18 in 2004.  The book was published in 2006, which means the Tuohys knew that Oher's life story was going to be valuable in 2004 because books take a long time to get from initial research to being published.  Shortly after he turned 18, according to Oher, they told him they were going to adopt him, but actually had him sign papers making them his conservator (meaning, they tricked him), which gave them near-complete control over his finances and the legal authority to make business deals in his name (but not necessarily to his benefit (i.e., Free Britney)).  Everything that happened after 2004 that wasn't his NFL income, the Tuohey's controlled and, according to Oher, they kept all the money and he got nothing. It's not clear if Oher had an agent, I assume he did, but why would an NFL agent dig into Oher's personal family dealings if Oher never knew something was amiss?

I'm not sure, but I would think if a movie starring A-list celebrities about my client and his journey to the NFL was coming out, I'd be digging into the details to see how it was going to benefit him. An agent's job (I think) is all the financial dealings, not just the NFL contract. 

Anyway, I'm not in any way saying the family wasn't being shiesty. Clearly something was up. What I'm curious about is how it all went down. I'd like to know if they just completely tried to trick him or if they left a represented adult to handle his own business and take his piece of the pie (something Oher and his agent screwed up). 

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Because people he trusted when he was a child lied to him and stole his rights to the money. 

But, I'm curious of the mechanics of it. Did they say to him "They're making a movie about us and we'll make sure you're taken care of" and then not take care of him? Or did they say to him "They're making a movie about us, make sure your agent covers you" and he didn't have his agent (remember, it came out after he was an NFL player) negotiate for royalties? 

It's more a curiosity of HOW he was left out of the pay day. 

15 minutes ago, TheDoyler23 said:

I never watched the movie because it looked like such white savior garbage. 

 

But I read the book. The family were a positive impact for sure in helping him have stability, helping him academically and getting him tested for a learning disability. They helped get him eligible for the NCAA through some pretty significant measures.. But the way he went to their college and the transactional nature of it all always was kind of a put off. The Tuhoys are/were both huge Ole Miss boosters and sure enough, it feels like some sort of payment. 

Yeah, it's certainly eye-opening, even in the movie. I have no idea how it really went down, but there's a scene where Oher gets mad at the family and asks if they only helped him so he would go play for their school. They tell him to play wherever he wants to. He eventually picks Ole Miss. Again, who knows if any of those things truly happened...but it was at least addressed in the movie. 

But, I'm also torn based on some things you mention. They provided stability, helped him become eligible (through significant measures), etc. All of those things very well could have been to land a great OT at their alma mater. I don't know. But it all directly resulted in Oher earning $25-30M in the NFL he probably wouldn't have without their assistance. 

I just can't believe he didn't make any money off the movie. How is that possible? 

I'm already nervous. 

7 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

got a proverbial chip on my shoulder so let me tee off, i'm ****ing pissed about this **** and o's fans had the unmitigated gall to argue with me and tell me the angelos weren't that bad

 

"THEY DEFENDED LABOR IN THE STRIKE"

"PETER ANGELOS IS A GOOD MAN"

 

Yinz need to open your eyes if you think Angelos or anyone assocoated with that family are "good people", they're pieces of **** who threaten to move the team and squabble among themselves for control of the club. We were "told" the sons wouldn't be as bad as the dad, turns out they're just as bad rofl

 

Snyder was a bad owner but Angelos was a close second. And when I pointed this out to Bawlmer fans they got so upset. Sorry the wool is over your eyes, hon.

He's a ****ty owner for sure. When you remove the lewd and perverted things, it becomes a much closer race to the bottom. 

8 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Not sure how old you are but for me and everyone I know the passion starts to diminish when you get in your 40's. I was not aware of this, I blamed Norv Turner and all the losing because before that  from 1972-1992 this team was mostly always good and I was "break the remote" passionate.  Then I started speaking with friends, some who still had winning teams, and they felt the same way.  

Yep, I'm in my mid-40s and I was still pretty engaged through some pretty bad years (mid-90s, 2000s, even the 2010s).

3 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

As one of the fans who unapologetically bailed last season I am in a strange place with regard to my rooting interest.  Maybe it's the name and uniforms but I still feel a distance to this team.  Instead of excitement I feel relief, relief that I once again have a team to root for. Relief that finally this team has a chance down the road.  Relief that we will no longer be a laughing stock who constantly does stupid things.

 

I can tell you the Red Zone is fun but it's not the same as when your team is facing 3rd and 5.  I look forward to that excitement but I totally understand if they lose their first few games and Howell throws 3 picks that excitement will leave the building pretty quickly.  It will take winning to bring many of us totally back.  

I feel the same way...

I bailed before 2020 when all the dirt came out and, like you, now feel relief that the home team can be "the good guys" again. But, I don't feel like I'm completely back yet. I think having that passion slowly pulled away over the years has done a number on me. I hope it comes back fully, but maybe the combination of my age, the change in the name, and all the extenuating circumstances have just created a situation that won't ever be the same for me. 

We'll see...but it will be nice to not have to actively root against this team like I was for the past few years when I found out the BS Snyder was up to. 

Imagine an owner who believes in trying to outclass the rest of the league from the top down...

16 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

I would like a vet starter and another bullpen arm, after that I'm actually pretty good. 

 

The chatter now is that the Angels are going to try to keep Ohtani and make one last push.  Which makes me kinda glad.  I don't want to be facing him in the playoffs, and I don't wan to pay the Angels asing price for a two month rental. But I hope the Angels miss the playoffs so we don't have to face him.

 

Its crazy but it doesn't seem like there's any real weaknesses in the field.  Yeah we could trade for someone who's producing better on paper, but its like I don't want to demote anyone, except maybe Mountcastle. And when Mullins comes back we'll have a tough decision anyway.

I mostly agree. I would almost prefer to focus entirely in the bullpen at this point. I don't think anyone of significance will be on the move in terms of a starter. If we can beef up the pen to the point where we have a lot of flexibility, we'd be in good shape. That could also include one of the current starters bumping to the 'pen in the post season and going with a 4-man rotation. 

3 minutes ago, profusion said:

 

Shanahan/Allen was a combination that might have worked if Bruce had stayed in his lane, Mike had been better at picking players, and Dan had stayed on his yacht.

 

Shanahan was another of those splashy hirings that Dan loved. He was always chasing the guy who'd been a big deal five years earlier rather than the one who'd be the next big deal. That's a marketing-first mindset at work.

Yep, I bit far too often on those...clearly. Like you said, it would have required 3 "ifs" to work out. I remember thinking very early on that I wanted Kyle to be promoted to head coach and Mike to take over the front office. That could have been an actual long-term structure. 

7 minutes ago, profusion said:

 

Allen was a salary cap specialist, not a football guy. He had no business choosing players or putting together staffs or keeping the facilities running or, well, anything but managing the cap, really.

Agreed. I admittedly didn't really know that either at the time. Maybe I stretched too much trying to give Snyder credit for that one. I guess I figured the combination of Shanahan and Allen (if it was accompanied by Snyder backing away) would be enough to get the team back on track. It felt like an authentic attempt by Dan to try to let established football men do football jobs rather than play fantasy football with Vinny Cerrato.