For Better or For Worse

[Om]

Here's my problem: what happens to the Patriots if Tom Brady gets hit by a bus tomorrow? They stink next year. But you know what? With their system, they'd find a replacement and be right back in the chase. He wouldn't be Tom Brady, but they'd adjust.

Don't have time to wade through all this yapping yet again, but seems to me this is the crux of where you jump the tracks from thoughtful critic to just another blowhard.

"They'd find a replacement," huh? Just like that? That's such utter nonsense I can't believe you'd even throw it out there. Then again, no one's really listening any more anyway, so why not throw it against the wall right?

Before Brady, NE was just another team. Just like the Colts before Manning and the Bengals before Palmer and the Iggs before McNabb and the Broncos before Elway and on and on back to Aikman's Cowboys and Montana's 49ers and practically any other highly successful team of the modern era.

Teams land transcendent QB's those guys by either sucking so bad they get to pick number one in a year a Manning comes along ... or fall from the sky out of pure luck in a late round like Brady did to NE ... or as a huge gamble like Brees to NO this year due to his injury. It's about 95% sucking bad enough or pure dumb luck, and about 5% great organizational resourcefulness.

Throughout the modern era, other than Young replacing Montana, you'd be hard pressed to find examples of teams "just finding a replacement" for an all-time great QB, and moving happily on contending for championships as you suggest the utopian organization from Foxboro will.

The Skins have been down at QB since Theismann retired. The guys that got us the two other titles were above average QB's coached by one of the great coaches of all time on deep and talented overall teams, not HOF talents themselves. The way Gibbs did it is an exception to just about everything that's come before or since.

Talk to me again after Brady is gone and NE has had a year or two to try to "just replace" him ... and we'll revisit just how much better they are organizationally than we are. And lets see if Campbell should turn out with luck to be anywhere NEAR as good as Brady and if that doesn't suddenly miraculously turn the Redskins into a perennial winner for as long as he's around. I can't wait to see your valiant attempts to spin that one with Snyder still owning the team.

Out until tomorrow now. Feel free to stomp your feet and gesiculate MADDly in my absence.

[evansinc]

Your comments are right on TARGET! I have been a die hard skins fan for more than 40 years. I can remember a time when 50 rushing yards was a good game for the skins. Thank goodness we had Sonny J. back then. The losing is frustrating, but I keep believing in our team.

[MRMADD]

Snyder has come a long ways in his hiring process and I think that he is only going to get better. The coaches that we have now is more logical ,and although I did not like last years aquisitions, I KNOW that they were better than the Bruce Smith's, Deione Sander's and Andre Reed's aquisitions that we made in the past so let the guy grow.

Where is the evidence that he has learned? If getting Duckett, Lloyd, ARE, Archeleta, and Carter is a sign of growth and maturity, we're all doomed. In the past, he acquired old big-name busts with huge contracts. Now he's acquiring young big-name busts with huge contracts. Is that the progress I'm supposed to be seeing?

Imagine if the bad old Snyder was here instead of your new "good" Snyder. Here's how the offseason would have look:

- Julian Peterson instead of Andre Carter

- Charles Woodson instead of Archuleta

- Terrell Owens instead of Lloyd/ARE

- No one instead of Duckett

Interestingly, the Skins spent MORE money on AA, ARE, Lloyd, and Carter than they would have on Peterson, Woodson, and Owens. The total contracts for Peterson, Woodson, and Owens was $127 million. The total for Lloyd, AA, Arch, and Carter? $128 million.

Right now, we'd be figuring out how to cut Owens, but we'd also have four more draft picks.

So I'm not sure we've really improved. It looks pretty much the same to me: chasing big-name players, signing them to huge contracts, ignoring depth/chemistry, repeat, rinse.

[MRMADD]

Teams land transcendent QB's those guys by either sucking so bad they get to pick number one in a year a Manning comes along ... or fall from the sky out of pure luck in a late round like Brady did to NE ... or as a huge gamble like Brees to NO this year due to his injury. It's about 95% sucking bad enough or pure dumb luck, and about 5% great organizational resourcefulness.

You really missed the point on that one. Of course, you were just looking for an opportunity to attack, and when you do that, you forget to read first, so it's understandable.

I don't think the Patriots would be able to replace Brady with another superstar (unless lightning struck twice). What I said is that because of their organizational strategy, they'd suck for a year but then they'd be competitive again. I specifically said they wouldn't have another Tom Brady -- he's a once-in-a-lifetime player. But their system has built a strong, deep team that can adjust. The Skins have not. That's the difference.

The fact that the Patriots had Pro Bowlers like Izzo and stars like Asante Samuel each earning $600K a year means they can compete even if they lose a superstar.

[Guest Rafterman]

Some General notes on Om's rebuttal:

Tom Brady didn't just "fall from the sky", they scouted him other teams didn't.

Michighan isn't exactly a low profile team.

Before that they had Bledsoe who wasn't that bad a QB in his youth.

My point being that Belichick's organizational skills count for a hell of a lot more then "5%" of the Pats success. Same with Noll in Pittsburgh, Walsh in San Francisco, etc.

They got to the AFC Championship this year on Belichicks ability to plug holes.

Brady's play down the stretch this year left something to be desired.

Agreed, that Gibbs I did alot with a little in the QB position.

Carry on.

[MRMADD]

My point being that Belichick's organizational skills count for a hell of a lot more then "5%" of the Pats success. Same with Noll in Pittsburgh, Walsh in San Francisco, etc.

To be a blind homer, you have to believe that organizational skills count for nothing because the Skins have no organizational skills.

Measuring organizational skill when it comes to scouting is pretty easy: just look at the yield rate. How many of your draft picks or free agents perform at or above the cost you paid for them? Stack up the Patriots or Eagles versus the Skins over the past five years. The yield rate for those two teams is way beyond the Skins. Laughably beyond.

But if you want to believe in the Snyder strategy, you have to believe that the proven models are just luck. The Patriots were lucky to draft Brady. And Samuel. And find Izzo. It goes on and on. But if the Patriots had just found Brady, you could call it luck. But they have a consistent pattern of finding and then developing players that outperform their perceived value at the time of acquisition. It ain't luck.

Take Trotter for example. He played well (and dirt cheap) for the Eagles for four years as a 3rd round draft pick. Then he went to Washington, got his big money, and played rather poorly for two years. Then the Eagles got him back again cheaply and he makes the Pro Bowl. Luck? No. Discipline. On just that one player, the Skins yield rate sucked but the Eagles did wonderfully.

[aikido09]

My marriage began in 1966 when my family moved from Baltimore to Cumberland MD. We needed cable tv to get any decent reception over those mountains. The cable company provided us with Pittsburgh channels, few Baltimore channels, and DC channels. I could not get the Colts on tv there and since I hated the Steelers, I became a Redskin fan.....and have been ever since 1966!!!

[TheLongshot]

Where is the evidence that he has learned? If getting Duckett, Lloyd, ARE, Archeleta, and Carter is a sign of growth and maturity, we're all doomed. In the past, he acquired old big-name busts with huge contracts. Now he's acquiring young big-name busts with huge contracts. Is that the progress I'm supposed to be seeing?

So, we can instantly identify a bust after one year? Didn't fans here make the same mistake with Brunell? I'd wait at least a couple more years before declaring them busts.

Interestingly, the Skins spent MORE money on AA, ARE, Lloyd, and Carter than they would have on Peterson, Woodson, and Owens. The total contracts for Peterson, Woodson, and Owens was $127 million. The total for Lloyd, AA, Arch, and Carter? $128 million.

The problem with compareing contracts like that is that it doesn't tell the whole story. Fact is, in the near term, these guys have less of a cap impact than most of those guys. Also, it is pretty certain that none of those players will probably see the end of their contracts.

Jason

[MRMADD]

So, we can instantly identify a bust after one year? Didn't fans here make the same mistake with Brunell? I'd wait at least a couple more years before declaring them busts.

Actually, I identified TJ Duckett as a bust the moment he was signed. Trading two good draft picks for a 3rd string running back in the last year of his contract? Yeah, that's got 'BUST' written all over it. And it isn't me that benched Lloyd and Archuleta. I think Carter can be a good-to-great situational pass rusher, so he's not a bust. ARE may be way overpaid, but he's a significant contributor even though he's not an ideal #2 receiver. But I'll be shocked if Duckett, AA, or Lloyd ever do anything here -- but AA and Lloyd have to stay because they've got uncuttable contracts. So you're going to pay big money for two guys to mope on the bench, chewing their mouthguards and destroying team chemistry.

And I'm not sure Brunell is a shining example of front office success. They paid more than any other team offered (a 3rd round pick and a massive contract) and he certainly hasn't lived up to it.

You've got to look at value. You can't say, "ARE is a great player!" You have to look at his contributions and see if you could get them cheaper. And you could. Imagine Devin Hester returning kicks for $750K per year for the next four years instead of ARE. That's a $3.25 million annual savings against the cap that you could use to pay another superstar. I love ARE, but the Skins did overpay and that limits their options elsewhere.

If you want to know why the Skins have no depth, look at the list of the top 13 players. $72 million for those guys means no money left over for depth or roleplayers. It's simple.

[Hooper]

Ok, Ok, if you can't figure out how to use the search function, I'll lay it out again for you again: the Skins have to raise the median salary. Do you know what that means?

The Skins roster, as constructed, puts almost $72 million of the 2007 cap dollars into 13 players. That leaves the other 40 players fighting for scraps. That's why they have no depth, and that's why team chemistry suffers. The Patriots median salary was 20% higher than the Skins in each of their respective maximum payroll years, meaning that the Patriots do a much better job of spreading the money around. That's how they have Pro Bowl roleplayers like Izzo who don't make a lot of money.

So the Skins learn discipline. No more big-name free agents, or, when they do add one, they balance their Brees with four other cheap FA starters (to use the 2006 Saints example). I won't go into depth here because I've explained it elsewhere.

And the Skins focus on the draft and development. The draft gives you cheap, long term talent: the Patriots got Asante Samuels for a minimum salary for four years after drafting him in the 4th round. That's a huge advantage. If you've got a cheap 4th round pick starting at a high-salary position, that frees up cap room for other players. The Skins, if they sign him as a free agent, will get the same talent a massive increase in price. Who would you rather have returning punts, Devin Hester and his 4 year $3.5 million contract, or ARE with his 7 year $31 million contract? From a value standpoint, it's a no-brainer.

And they stop mortgaging the future. Stop undervaluing draft picks (Duckett, McIntosh, Lloyd). Those three players cost the Skins seven good draft picks. SEVEN! Lloyd cost a 3rd and 4th. Duckett cost a 3rd and 4th. McIntosh cost two 2nds and a 6th. The combined value of those draft picks, according to the overrated value chart, is about 1500 points. That's TWO first round picks. At the end of the year, NONE of them was starting. And stop offering huge signing bonuses over long contracts -- if you're in ARE's situation, you'd be tempted to just try to survive long enough to collect those paychecks.

To do this, you need very, very good talent evaluation in the front office, both for free agents and draft picks. You need disciplined leadership that is willing to let a "star" go who's demanding more money like the Eagles did with Trotter (and no, when players like Bailey, Arrington, Coles, etc., demand to be released, that's not the same thing). And that leadership has to stick with the long-term plan.

You focus your effort on three areas: OL, DL, and QB. Let's assume QB is OK. That leaves lots of work on the porous DL and the aging OL. So you draft well and you find undervalued free agents. And you develop them. And then you reward the players you do develop: Betts, Dockery, etc., is a good start, but the locker room is still suffering from the way they ditched Barber, Pierce, Clark, Smoot etc.

If you do that -- and we all know that Snyder has been inconsistent and the front office has been incompetent -- then you have a good chance of building a winner around the core of good young players on the roster. Campbell, Taylor, Cooley, Moss, Portis, Rogers -- all good young players (but notice none on the OL or DL).

So here's how the roster looks in 3 years: an above average median salary with 40% of the salary cap spent on the top 10 players (in today's dollars, averaging about $5m per year each) and 20% on the next 10 players (averaging almost $3m). That leaves fully 40% for the other 33 players. That would be a wonderfully deep roster, and still leaves room for one big fat Tom Brady superstar contract.

Here's the starting point this offseason:

Samuels $9 million

Springs $7.5 million

Portis $7 million

Brunell $6 million

Griffin $6 million

Washington $6 million

Jansen $6 million

Thomas $5 million

Moss $5 million

Wynn $4 million

Raybach $4 million

Daniels $3 million

Patten $3 million

Ouch. It could be that five of those 13 guys -- who you've invested in as the foundation of your team -- either won't be starting or won't be here at all next year. Patten, Daniels, Wynn, Springs, Brunell... that's a lot of money for those guys. And that doesn't count Archuleta or Lloyd. But you don't restructure those guys to help out this year and burn you again next year -- you take your medicine this year, salary cap-wise, and cut them.

The Skins have a lot of work to do, and they've hamstrung themselves by giving away their draft picks and overpaying guys who can't contribute. So you can't fix the problem overnight. Yes, the Skins could sneak into the playoffs again next year, but if you want a long-term competitive team -- and a return to greatness -- you've got to start with a disciplined, serious, committed approach right now.

So I won't be cheering when they sign Asante Samuel (or the like). I'll be looking for rotational DL players, OL depth, safeties, linebackers, special teamers... all guys with smaller contracts (and, unforunately for Snyder and his ticket sales, smaller headlines when they sign) but bigger impact.

So the answer is simple, but the answer is not easy. It will take a lot of hard work and discipline to return the Skins to glory. Does Dan have it in him to lead us there?

Unless your plan is "keep doing what we're doing because it's working so well," don't pick a couple of things you don't like about my plan. Be a man and lay out your plan instead.

Someone send this to the skins front office. Seriously.

[riggoraider]

Where is the evidence that he has learned? If getting Duckett, Lloyd, ARE, Archeleta, and Carter is a sign of growth and maturity, we're all doomed. In the past, he acquired old big-name busts with huge contracts. Now he's acquiring young big-name busts with huge contracts. Is that the progress I'm supposed to be seeing?

Imagine if the bad old Snyder was here instead of your new "good" Snyder. Here's how the offseason would have look:

- Julian Peterson instead of Andre Carter

- Charles Woodson instead of Archuleta

- Terrell Owens instead of Lloyd/ARE

- No one instead of Duckett

Interestingly, the Skins spent MORE money on AA, ARE, Lloyd, and Carter than they would have on Peterson, Woodson, and Owens. The total contracts for Peterson, Woodson, and Owens was $127 million. The total for Lloyd, AA, Arch, and Carter? $128 million.

Right now, we'd be figuring out how to cut Owens, but we'd also have four more draft picks.

So I'm not sure we've really improved. It looks pretty much the same to me: chasing big-name players, signing them to huge contracts, ignoring depth/chemistry, repeat, rinse.

You are assuming what Snyder would have done with actual player names and dollar figure amounts. You are the omnipotent one aren't you?

I said that I did not like last years aquisitions but I do not think that we are a bad team at all. What we have now with a few adjustments, especially on "D", will make us winners again and I'm talking next season.

I agree with you that Snyder spending sprees on only a handful of players has been detrimental to the team but I am looking at the final outcome also. I think that in the end we will have a Superbowl winning team and an owner who have learned by his mistakes and will then know how to put together more Superbowl winning teams in the future.

[Om]

Some General notes on Om's rebuttal:

Tom Brady didn't just "fall from the sky", they scouted him other teams didn't. Michighan isn't exactly a low profile team.

You're right about Michingan not being a low profile team. Seems kind of unlikely 31 other NFL organizations wouldn't have happened to scout the draft-eligible quarterbacks on such a squad, don't you think? Also seems unlikely that if NE saw a likely HOF candidate QB there that they'd have waited until the SIXTH ROUND to grab him, don't you think?

Bit of a gamble, wot?

For your theory to hold water, the Pats would have to have been the only team of 32 to know or care that he was playing at Michigan to begin with. Beyond that, they would have had to recognize the massive potential but been so confident no other team would draft him through five rounds of the draft that they could wait around with their feet up on the desk until the 199th pick to snap up their very own legend.

Doesn't really seem all that likely, does it.

Just for grins, here's the Pro Football Weekly scouting report on Brady plucked off the Pats own web site:

http://www.patriots.com/search/index.cfm?ac=searchdetail&pid=5549&pcid=46

Positives: Good height to see the field. Very poised and composed. Smart and alert. Can read coverages. Good accuracy and touch. Produces in big spots and in big games. Has some Brian Griese in him and is a gamer. Generally plays within himself. Team leader.

Negatives: Poor build. Very skinny and narrow. Ended the '99 season weighing 195 pounds and still looks like a rail at 211. Looks a little frail and lacks great physical stature and strength. Can get pushed down more easily than you'd like. Lacks mobility and ability to avoid the rush. Lacks a really strong arm. Can't drive the ball down the field and does not throw a really tight spiral. System-type player who can get exposed if he must ad-lib and do things on his own.

Summary: Is not what you're looking for in terms of physical stature, strength, arm strength and mobility, but he has the intangibles and production and showed great Griese-like improvement as a senior. Could make it in the right system but will not be for everyone.

Information provided by Pro Football Weekly

Sounds like about a dozen other QB's that come out every single year.

But the Patriots--and the Patriots only--"scouted" him, saw him for the HOFer he'd become, and on top of all that, were shrewd enough to let him hang around exposed for five full rounds before grabbing him so they could take the following six guys first because, well, because their FO was just so damn sharp:

Adrian Klemm T Hawaii

J.R. Redmond RB Arizona State

Greg Robinson-Randall T Michigan State

Dave Stachelski TE Boise State

Jeff Marriott DE Missouri

Antwan Harris S Virginia

Don't kid yourself. Tom Brady fell into NE's lap like manna from heaven.

Before that they had Bledsoe who wasn't that bad a QB in his youth.

I appreciate the assist.

Any chance you remember where he was drafted?

[Om]

MADD,

I forgot to give you props for your comprehensive plan to improve the Redskins posted above. You were thorough, used sound logic except where you needed to stretch it to make a point, put in lots of numbers to impress Hooper and generally gave your work gravitas. All without calling anyone any names or reminding them that you are, in fact, the bees knees. Well done indeed.

I could have saved you some time and effort though. If you'd asked, I could have rewritten it in a dozen words, had the same impact, and freed you up to enlighten us in a few other threads as well. Just the kind of guy I am.

Said words:

The Redskins need to scout better and pay less for free agents.

It's time for you and I to agree on something. You're right, my friend. If they do those things, they'll probably be on their way.

And if they find a franchise QB, they'll be golden.

First round on me at the SB party when that happens.

[MRMADD]

The Redskins need to scout better and pay less for free agents.

It's time for you and I to agree on something. You're right, my friend. If they do those things, they'll probably be on their way.

And if they find a franchise QB, they'll be golden.

First round on me at the SB party when that happens.

Yes, they have to scout better and pay less for free agents. But they also need to prioritize better (OL and DL over splashy headline positions). They need to raise the median salary. They need to draft, develop, and retain their own players. But I doubt we disagree on those things either.

If all they do is scout better and pay less, they'll be a better team. But not a championship team. You've got to be good in all aspects of talent acquisition -- look at the Saints this year. Great use of free agency. Great use of trades. Great use of the draft. You can't just say "scout better and pay less for free agents" -- the front office needs a strategy, and they've got to stick to it. The Saints knew what they wanted to get, and they built a coherent team.

The Patriots are the same way. They let their top receiver leave -- but they traded him for a first round pick. Now they're going to let Asante Samuel leave. But they have a strategy -- a consistent, clear strategy -- that allows them to fill those holes.

Our team is not built coherently. They just don't fit together well. Portis is not a Joe Gibbs running back. The OL is not a Saunders line. Gregg's defense needs multi-dimensional players, but Archuleta and Carter are pretty one-dimensional. It goes on and on. What kind of team are we trying to build? A power running team with a long-ball capability? A West Coast offense? A conservative offense that relies on the defense? A swarming, attacking defense, or a read-and-react cover 2 defense? It's obvious that no one knows -- we've got quite a few cooks, and they all have their own recipes. Take a look at Chris Cooley -- as good as he was last year, it was obvious early in the season that Saunders had no idea how to use him. He was primarily a blocker and even caught passes in the backfield. Late in the season, he goes back to catching deep balls across the middle. We're confused. We don't know who we want to be when we grow up.

That's why I think a change is needed in the front office. I've lost hope that this front office can even do the small things right -- like scout better and pay less for free agents. And I never had much hope that Vinny and crew could do the big things well.

And I'm an optimist!

I think if Campbell really works hard this offseason and establishes a rhythm with Moss, Cooley, Portis, and ARE -- and the OL gets healthy -- the offense could be pretty damn good. Even though they're a patchwork, paper-thin team. The defense clearly needs work. In addition to a talent upgrade, they need some tough coaching to fix the tackling problem. That's fixable. So this could easily be a playoff team next year. I just hate to see them make the same mistakes over and over again.

So I'm pissed off. You blame me?

[MRMADD]

You are assuming what Snyder would have done with actual player names and dollar figure amounts. You are the omnipotent one aren't you?

I'm not assuming anything. I said "imagine". And both those scenarios, in my opinion, would be BAD.

[TheLongshot]

Yes, they have to scout better and pay less for free agents. But they also need to prioritize better (OL and DL over splashy headline positions). They need to raise the median salary. They need to draft, develop, and retain their own players. But I doubt we disagree on those things either.

Didn't you say in a previous posts that we should be more like the Patriots and not overpay for our own guys?

The Patriots are the same way. They let their top receiver leave -- but they traded him for a first round pick. Now they're going to let Asante Samuel leave. But they have a strategy -- a consistent, clear strategy -- that allows them to fill those holes.

So, the strategy is to replace their good WR core with a few second and third tier guys? That's a strategy? If we did that, the fans here would scream bloody murder. They only got away with it because Brady is so great and they play in a weak division. As for Samuel, we'll see if they have a plan with that one.

We're confused. We don't know who we want to be when we grow up.

The offense sure seemed to know what they wanted to do at the end of the year. I expect that to carry over.

And I'm an optimist!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I think if Campbell really works hard this offseason and establishes a rhythm with Moss, Cooley, Portis, and ARE -- and the OL gets healthy -- the offense could be pretty damn good. Even though they're a patchwork, paper-thin team. The defense clearly needs work. In addition to a talent upgrade, they need some tough coaching to fix the tackling problem. That's fixable. So this could easily be a playoff team next year. I just hate to see them make the same mistakes over and over again.

So, why in a previous post did you want to tear the team apart because you felt that they all made too much money? Being a pretty good team, and the plan you outlined previously are not very compatible.

I don't argue with anything in the paragraph above, and I believe that Gibbs and company will try to address most of the concerns listed above. So, what makes you different than me? Maybe some of the things you view as mistakes won't end up being as big of a deal that you are making it out to be.

Jason

[Beauty is Only]

Well-written post. A couple points - I don't think 'fans' have changed one bit. The NFL has Fans? Not so much. The difference that sets 'now' apart from the 1980's when your courtship began is that fans now have a voice (beyond booing from the stands or with their wallets) to shout their displeasure from the rooftops. This messageboard is just one example. I won't tar and feather my fellow fans for any reason - almost ANY response to 15 years of drudgery and (mostly) disappointment is understandable. I've been a homer and apologist most of my adult life. This season rid me of it. I don't 'blame' Dan Snyder or anyone for that matter for the lack of recent glory, but I do hold him responsible. Ultimately, he's made most of the decisions that got us to where we currently reside, mired in mediocrity. Does that make it his 'fault'? No, not necessarily, but its his job to find a winning formula as an organization. Fans pay a LOT, both in real terms, and emotionally, to love their NFL team. How they grieve is their own business.

My intention was not to impugn fans at all, only to say that I've seen so many people on this board talking about 'jumping ship' because of the extended succession of unsuccessful seasons, culminating in the latest 5-11 year of disappointment. I have no problem with fans venting and expressing their displeasure. It's definitely to be expected. But, it seems fans are much more willing in this day and age of immediate gratification to bid adieu to their team for a poor showing.

I also found it curious that you are a 'die hard' fan by your own description, yet casually mention you only get to watch a few games. Why is that? I can't imagine describing myself as such and not doing whatever it took to see all the games each season. I'm not judging you, I just found it odd as I think most rabid fans would find that arrangement entirely unacceptable. Are you, in your own mind, a 'die hard', and if so, how can you not watch every game?

Just curious - I thought the two comments were pretty incongruous. But again, well-written post.

I guess now, in your mind, I've cemented the fact that I'm not a 'die hard fan' since I've taken so long to respond to the charge that I am, indeed, not a die hard fan. Even so, I'll attempt to explain my assertion.

I would say a 'die hard fan' is one who refuses to abandon their team, even though they struggle on field and off, year in and year out. This definitely describes anyone who's been a Redskins fan for the past 10 years or so. I put myself in that category, having begun my fan 'career' circa 1983.

If I made a more concerted effort, I could watch every game. I realize, in this day and age of NFL Sunday Ticket, I could get DirecTV and be able to view each and every Redskins game in its entirety, either during it's broadcast, or soon after (if I Tivo'd it).

But, I've made a choice that, from a financial standpoint, this option is not viable for me. There are other priorities which call for my money and television is not one of them. I would absolutely love to be able to shell out the cash to watch every 'Skins game all season long. I've searched for ways to do this for little to no cost, but nothing seems to really fit my budget or my lifestyle.

I read (frequently) and post (less frequently) in this forum. I check other Redskins-related sites daily. I view game highlights on ESPN (in the breakroom at work, since (gasp!) I don't have cable TV at home (I can't justify it for as little TV viewing as I have time to do)) and on the internet. I have watched the shortcut version of a game or two posted by Torressa (sp?) in the Skin Flicks forum. I do watch any Redskins game that is broadcast in my area (metro Atlanta), though they are infrequent. I will tape the game and watch it later if it has a 4:30 start, as I attend church on Sunday evenings.

I own Redskins hats, t-shirts (one of which I made myself), and a jersey (Rypien's #11 in burgundy) all of which I wear frequently. I have 'Skins stickers on my car along with a Redksins license plate on the front (in Georgia, only a rear license plate is required). I have a 'shrine' in my office where 'Skins memorabilia is proudly displayed all year round (including a large poster, mini-helmets, a mini-flag, a Redskins stapler, pen holder and photos of past and present Redskins greats, and a Redskins-themed calendar).

I would say the above mentioned activities and possessions qualify me as a Redskins fan, although perhaps not as fanatical a fan as others. The Redskins are definitely part of my life, though not as large a part as they could be. I sometimes think I go too far in following this team. They are, after all, a diversion, a source of entertainment. I don't play for this team, and I don't make front office decisions for this team. I root for them and I do have an emotional attachment to them, but I can't afford to invest any more time or energy into following them. There are other priorities (wife, kids, friends, work) which would suffer if I plunged in further. I feel that I must draw a line, and this I have done.

[CrypticVillain]

Man I was two the last time we won a super bowl. I don't remeber that I was TWO. But I do rember in "99" when we blew a 21 point lead to Dallas, or in 98 when Green shutdown Moss, that was good except Chris Dishmann was gettin raped by Chris Carter. Or even last year when we were blowing leads more then Paris Hilton was blowing, well you see where I am going.

If I wanted to quit on the Redskins I would have been left. But I didn't becasue I rember the good times like that 35-7 game VS Dallas, and a overtime win when Green ran a pick six for the win VS the Lions. I hate when people complain becasue they got to see how it feels to win a super bowl, I didn't. Everytime I look at the 91 season schedule I get mad. Like the first post said "I’m with the ‘Skins ‘til death do us part."

[Beauty is Only]

Actually, Beauty admitted that he (she?) doesn't even watch the games.

How many girls do you know named "Steve"?

And I didn't write that I didn't watch the games. I said I rarely get to because of my geographical location (and my unwillingness to spend the money necessary to have them piped into my home via satellite). I watch every 'Skins game I can (i.e, games that are locally broadcast). On Sunday afternoons when the game isn't broadcast in my area, I keep the TV tuned to the local Fox affiliate so I can at least track the score and get an occasional 'game break' highlight. I follow the Redskins to the best of my ability when it doesn't interfere with more important pursuits.

[Wounderfool]

Getting back to the post's original topic, I think we are all "married" to the Skins to some extent, even those who ***** and moan about how terrible things are etc and offering no solutions. This is no way to maintain a successful marriage. Both partners need to carry their weight, we hold up as being the best fans (going to games, cheering, tailgating, watching at home or at a pub anywhere in the world) and the Skins going out every game and giving the best effort possible with the tools they have in their arsenal. I know everyone who's posting on ES the week before the big one is committed and willing to stick through this 15 year drought, "for better or for worse". I was 8 when Mark Rypen's Skins claimed the title of world champions, and I remember how I felt, jumping around my aunt's basement, eyes fixed on the television, practically teary eyed that "our team" won. That memory was the spark keeping my "marriage" to the skins alive. I have confidence that we will again return to glory... The Pats have already been brought up a lot in this post, (so I'll bring them up again) I remember when the Pats were a joke, "instant win, just add water"... seems the tables have turned, but I'm sure they will change again, this time in our favor. Good teams come and go, football is not a sport for fairweather fans. I agree with MADD and Om that we need to recruit more spend less etc. Changes will be made, if anything, the Skins have been making changes than any other team in the NFL. I think what we need are lasting changes, return of the franchised player, let a player play and have faith in him. The skins are known for their historic football greats like D. Green who played on the skins for 20 years... That's a long marriage. This offseason is a good time to reflect on what's been going wrong and a time to look on building a stronger future to ensure more "happily married couples" come out of this relationship rather than "divorces".

Hail,

Brian

:logo:

[Tarhog]

My intention was not to impugn fans at all, only to say that I've seen so many people on this board talking about 'jumping ship' because of the extended succession of unsuccessful seasons, culminating in the latest 5-11 year of disappointment. I have no problem with fans venting and expressing their displeasure. It's definitely to be expected. But, it seems fans are much more willing in this day and age of immediate gratification to bid adieu to their team for a poor showing.

I guess now, in your mind, I've cemented the fact that I'm not a 'die hard fan' since I've taken so long to respond to the charge that I am, indeed, not a die hard fan. Even so, I'll attempt to explain my assertion.

Hey Steve, I can see why you read my comments that way. Truthfully though, if I thought you weren't a fan, I'd have just said so. You may even consider yourself a 'die hard' - you certainly can't be accused of not sticking with the team given your longevity as a fan. I really wasn't out to paint you a certain fan 'color' - in fact that was my point, that we all feel our fandom at unique individual levels, and react differently. The corollary of that is that some people are going to remain calm when their team's imploding, others are going to throw a fit, look for someone to blame, vent, maybe even threaten to stop caring. I'm just arguing that they're probably all fans.

Since you kind of put yourself out there as a 'hardcore' guy, I was just trying to show that 'hardcore' depends on how you define it. Thats not saying you're not, but by other's definitions you might not fit the mold. Ultimately, I'm just arguing that if its okay to be fans at varying degrees of intensity and involvement, it should be okay to react to the team's successes and failures with varying degrees of intensity and involvement. Makes sense to me anyway

Thanks for the p.m., and I certainly respect your point that one's personal financial priorities play a part in how involved someone can or will be.

[MRMADD]

How many girls do you know named "Steve"?

I once got Om drunk and introduced him to a girl named Steve. He never told me how that worked out for him...

[MRMADD]

The offense sure seemed to know what they wanted to do at the end of the year. I expect that to carry over.

Most of that post was incoherent, so I'll just address this part: hope is not a strategy. At the end of 2005, when the Skins went 5-0 to get into the playoffs and even won a playoff game, didn't you think that would "carry over"? In fact, most people thought that all the Skins needed was a #2 receiver.

But they brought in Saunders, added two big-money receivers, Portis got injured, and the rest is history. Nothing just "carries over".

I hope that Campbell continues to develop. I hope the OL recovers from all their surgeries. I hope Portis is back at full strength. I hope Lloyd can get his head on straight. I hope Saunders and Gibbs can decide on one offensive philosophy. But all that hope doesn't mean jack. They've got a lot of hard work between now and September if they want to be any good.

So forget last year. It's the offseason. We're kings again. All the free agents are talking about how the Skins want them. Enjoy.

[Beauty is Only]

Hey Steve, I can see why you read my comments that way. Truthfully though, if I thought you weren't a fan, I'd have just said so. You may even consider yourself a 'die hard' - you certainly can't be accused of not sticking with the team given your longevity as a fan. I really wasn't out to paint you a certain fan 'color' - in fact that was my point, that we all feel our fandom at unique individual levels, and react differently. The corollary of that is that some people are going to remain calm when their team's imploding, others are going to throw a fit, look for someone to blame, vent, maybe even threaten to stop caring. I'm just arguing that they're probably all fans.

Nope, I didn't consider what you posted as questioning my fanhood. Unlike a good number of folks on this board, you were respectful and not sarcastic (don't get me wrong--I love me some sarcasm, but it has it's place) in asking your questions about how I viewed myself as a fan. I got the impression you really wanted information and you weren't trying to belittle me. Much appreciated.

Since you kind of put yourself out there as a 'hardcore' guy, I was just trying to show that 'hardcore' depends on how you define it. Thats not saying you're not, but by other's definitions you might not fit the mold.

Yeah, I would say I'm 'die hard,' but not 'hardcore.' Hardcore, I would say, involves more statistical study and a higher level of football knowledge than I have attained (probably than I ever will attain). I would say folks like Om, Bubba, yourself and others like you are definitely 'hardcore.' I'm a fan, but I admittedly haven't immersed myself as deeply as you folks. I'm a 'Skins backer, but it's largely emotional. It's difficult for me to rationally and calmly evaluate this team. But I do love to read well-researched, well-written 'hardcore' posts by those of your caliber. We are all citizens of Redskins Nation--it takes burgundy AND gold (gosh, that sounds sappy).

Thanks for your respectfulness.

[Beauty is Only]

I once got Om drunk and introduced him to a girl named Steve. He never told me how that worked out for him...

Say it ain't so, Om! Androgyny has destroyed many a moderator.