Reaganaut Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 If Jack Kent Cooke had done the conventional thing and willed his vast fortune to his family then we'd have John Cooke and Charlie Casserly running the team now. If we had it all to do over again, would you want Cooke's family running the team or Dan Snyder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 synder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Clone Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 The Dan. I was talking to some Pittsburgh Steelers fan a couple weeks back about football and he said that although "Dan Snyder is an ***" he will be a legend when it's all said and done and Redskins fans will forever worship him. I have to agree. I don't agree with how he does things all the time but I will always have his back because the man flat out loves this team and will do anything to win. If John Kent Cooke was still here Norv Turner would still be the head coach and he would still be finding new ways not to make the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Snyder, because he's Jack Kent Cooke's son in spirit, drive, determination, and passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaganaut Posted July 22, 2002 Author Share Posted July 22, 2002 I didn't think of this until now, but I think that this "new money" versus "old money" thing is playing a big role in Snyder's popularity. John seemed like a blue blood who never worked a day in his life while Snyder projected the image of a control freak business person. Big difference in personalities. Maybe the Squire knew his family wasn't capable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Snyder, he is willing to dig deep into his pockets for $$ to help the redskins win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Cooke :laugh: You have to ask? Actually I was hopping for Gibbs/Grossman but I can live with Snyder. If Cooke was still running the show, we'd be right their with the BUNGULS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorEye Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 There will never be anyone like The Squire, but Danny is a lot closer than John is despite John being his son. I can't help but sit back and think that even in his last act regarding the Skins, The Squire ended up doing what was best for the team - allowing whoever wanted it the most and with the most resources to make it happen get the team. Hats off to Danny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Mr. Cooke knew his son was a moron, he never sat in the box at RFK with the old man. The Redskins belonged to the old man, he gave the kid some pencil pushing job in the organazation. When the old man died and the kid was running things we all saw the incompetence, he was just fine with Turner and Casserly running things why??? because he did not know any better and that is why it is a good thing that Snyder has ownership. Sure he has made some BIG MISTAKES but he tried to make things better, if little Cooke was running things we would still have Turner and CC. (SCARY THOUGHT) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Despite all of Snyder's mistakes, most of which happened during a single off-season, the Redskins have not finished below .500 since he became owner. He has shown some restraint this off-season ... the guy learns from his mistakes and (hopefully) doesn't repeat them. Gotta go with the Danny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Danny for sure. Cooke kept Turner years longer than his old man would have. Sure JKC wanted Turner but no way would he have put up with so many crapy seasons. John seemed to keep him because he thought his dad would have don the same. WRONG. The Dan has made his mistakes (some would say blunders) but he has learned from each one. Yes, he's on his third coach in three years but if things goe as they should we will look back and realize that it took a lot of guts and vision to do whatever it took to get a winning coach and a winning team in the shortest posible amount of time. Speeking of which, isn't it funny how so many sports reporters have forgoten that Danny has said Spurrier will have 5 years to do his thing regardless of wins & losses? Barring Spurrier loosing every game the next two years I beleve him. The Dan has the coach he alwase wanted I count that as a plus in the intangible catagory. For the first time since Dan got here everyone is on the same page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Cooke Jr was just too nice of a guy to run a football team. That's why he hung on to Casserly/Norvo for so #$%^ long. Snyder has far more passion, and doesn't give a rat's a$s who hates him for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Definetly Snyder, he will eventually turn this team into a winning dynasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuji869 Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Mr. Snyder, if John Kent Cooke was the owner Norv would still be the head coach. :shootinth I always bring up John Kent Cooke's remark before the 1998 Season. "If the Redskins don't make the playoffs this year, it is not Norv Turner's fault" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamaran Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 What a choice!? It's like taking a pile of hard, smelling chit or a fresh new rank pile. Neither appeals to me. I too opt for Grossman and Gibbs!:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Clearly you pick Snyder. The man is money. From providing quality coaches to attracting quality free agents, he's been beneficial as the owner of this team. He has fixed a stadium in bad need of upgrades, making it seat more, while being easier (though not easy) to get in and out of. He has improved the experience for fans at the stadium by adding escalators and easier access to the top, and by improving the sound quality during the games all while keeping what is a relatively fair price for tickets -- a fair price means all general admission tickets which the Redskins rate about 10th or so in the league and only leap to the top when the premium club seats are counted in to increase the total average. Cooke was drying the franchise up, sadly, and Snyder has come in and refined it, making it the most valuable franchise in the league by bringing in the most money. His obvious mistakes in some interpersonal dealings aside, Snyder is about the best owner we could have hoped to have gotten. Gibbs and Grossman would have been interesting though . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Dan Corleone no doubt about it. Who wouldnt want to be a part of The family. Even the Washington post before John Cooke lost the bid to keep the skins said his still and demeanor was best suited to run the Orioles with the pr1ck Angelos running the skins. Meaning Cooke will stick with a guy sometimes too long while angelos had the quick hook needed to shake things up in the NFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlito Sway Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 If you all do a little digging around, you'll find that Snyder is a lot like George Preston Marshall, save for the raccoon fur. When I stopped by Canton while driving XC a couple years ago I saw the fur, did some reading and found the two men to be similarly driven and innovative. Of course, I don't ascribe Marshall's personal problems to the Danny. Just be glad we have an owner who actually means it when he says he's doing everything he can to win, and win now. I'm a big fan of that mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Snyder actually reminds me more of the Squire. Although his public persona was that of a crotchety but nice old guy, he was very cuthroat when it came to winning. Either you won or you were out, period. If you got in the way of the guy he perceived was primarily responsible for winning, you were out, period. That's why Beathard ended up having to leave. Snyder is much the same except that he doesn't do as good a job of hiding quick hook as Cooke did. In the end, and I've already said this a couple of times, I think we're much much better off with the Danny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.