A Dan Snyder Article People Should Read

[jimster]

it is long...

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/sports/1679.html

[TheLongshot]

Yeah, that article was posted in the offseason last year before the Washingtonian printed it. (Thanks Art) I think in particular, MRMADD should read it. (Not that it will change his mind...

Jason

[MRMADD]

Yeah, that article was posted in the offseason last year before the Washingtonian printed it. (Thanks Art) I think in particular, MRMADD should read it. (Not that it will change his mind...

Jason

Man, this is about the 3rd time someone has tried to help me overcome my rabid anti-Snyderism in a random thread. I really appreciate it. I think I might be getting better.

But this article is an old puff piece in the Washingtonian -- it's the kind of uncritical, fawning article that PR agents beg for. It's also the only interview he did all year. If the Washingtonian interviewed Stalin, they'd try to clean up his image, too. I wouldn't put too much stock in it.

But just for the record, I don't think Danny is Satan. There. I said something nice about him. Are you guys happy now?

[TheDane]

I think Dan Snyder is Satan. I probably have a different perspective than you all, as I am most familiar with his reputation in a business setting. He is an ass hat. He built his Snyder Communications "empire" like a house of cards. He got bailed out by a foreign buyer in a white hot market.

You should hear some of the stories my colleagues tell of meetings with Snyder. Napoleon Complex is an understatement.

This clown tried to build his business through acquiring various direct marketing pieces that had little to do with each other, but sounded right from a theoretical perspective. Sound like anything else that's happened recently?

I thought so.

I guess the guy knew what he was doing; he got arbitrage on his deals and rode the communications wave into the late 90's and 2000. Perhaps I should give him credit for that. After all, a while back I lauded Snyder on his business acumen with building profitability in the Redskins Franchise.

Doesn't absolve him from being an ass clown. The true fool is the stubborn one.

[Ernie5]

Doesn't absolve him from being an ass clown.

Good Office Space reference. I often defend Snyder here b/c I think he's a too easy and not necessarily accurate target. That said, I have little doubt that we wouldn't "hit it off" if we met. I don't think he's Satan at all -- he's a hard-ass business guy. As far as owners go, who knows?

What would I do if I were owner? Probably try to hire Joe Gibbs and give him control over the football ops. As Snyder did that, it's difficult for me to find great fault with his methods.

[TheLongshot]

But this article is an old puff piece in the Washingtonian -- it's the kind of uncritical, fawning article that PR agents beg for. It's also the only interview he did all year. If the Washingtonian interviewed Stalin, they'd try to clean up his image, too. I wouldn't put too much stock in it.

Even if it was written by an avowed Eagles fan? Somehow, I don't think an Eagles fan would write a puff piece about an opposing owner.

Jason

[TheDane]

What would I do if I were owner? Probably try to hire Joe Gibbs and give him control over the football ops. As Snyder did that, it's difficult for me to find great fault with his methods.

Actually, taking the cynic's view, I can easily find fault with his methods. It depends what his motivation is.

I'm finding it increasingly hard to believe that he cares as much about winning as he does about making a return on his investment. If I were a hard-ass businessman, I would do what it took to drive excitement in my customer base and buy more time to prove my product. Even if it meant going to the ultimate gimmick and hiring the legend.

All the noise about Snyder being "hands-off" is great rhetoric, and it could be true now. But it's been stated by the man himself that he didn't used to be, and his 2000-2003 fingerprints on the franchise are oily and hard to remove. He's really dug himself into a gaping chasm, through nobody's fault but his own.

Snyder is the right target for his historical actions. Players say it themselves: his actions in the past put a big sign over the team that says "Wanted: Mercenaries. Will Spare No Expense." Whether or not he had a hand in 2004-2006, I'm not sure any of us know for sure. However, the deeds done in that time period have done nothing to tear down that sign. And it all points back to the trend started by Snyder.

Forgive me if I harbor resentment for a man who **** on my beloved sports team.

[BuryYourDuke]

Very interesting article. I have a posting history of defending him, so it is nice to see a somewhat positive article about the man. One of the reasons I have been a supporter is because of some the charitable work I knew about, and I knew he grew up like most of us and made his money, it wasn't handed to him. Just a driven guy, and proof that the American dream still exists. I hope people will take the time to read this.

[drowland]

Even if it was written by an avowed Eagles fan? Somehow, I don't think an Eagles fan would write a puff piece about an opposing owner.

Jason

Did you read the process he went through to get the interview? Snyder didn't agree to the interview until he came with quotes from all his pals who sing his praises.

[TheDane]

Very interesting article. I have a posting history of defending him, so it is nice to see a somewhat positive article about the man. One of the reasons I have been a supporter is because of some the charitable work I knew about, and I knew he grew up like most of us and made his money, it wasn't handed to him. Just a driven guy, and proof that the American dream still exists. I hope people will take the time to read this.

I'm sorry, but being a hard worker != being a good guy. I know a lot of asshats that worked their way from pennies to profits. Trust me, I work with quite a few of them. Charitable contributions also != being a good guy. I apologize for bursting anyone's bubbles here, but there are often selfish reasons to give to charity. I bet you Ken Lay gave a ****load of cash to charity.

This is football -- a public good that benefits an entire region -- and as such, the health of the product should supercede the business fundamentals behind it. Think not-for-profit. If good business and winning football can be combined, GREAT!

But good business should never come before winning football. I'm starting to believe that it does for Dan Snyder.

On this article, by the way... it's a piece of fluff. It's obviously subjective. Somewhere between this and the Washington Post lies the truth.

[TheLongshot]

Did you read the process he went through to get the interview? Snyder didn't agree to the interview until he came with quotes from all his pals who sing his praises.

Considering all the hatchet jobs that have been done by the local media since he took over the team, do you really blame him? If I were him, I'd be careful who I talked to as well.

Jason

[TheDane]

Considering all the hatchet jobs that have been done by the local media since he took over the team, do you really blame him? If I were him, I'd be careful who I talked to as well.

Jason

That's exactly the reason why no one should put much faith in this article. There are lessons to be learned from it, sure, but painting him as a golden child is patently incorrect.

[kschles]

Very interesting article. I have a posting history of defending him, so it is nice to see a somewhat positive article about the man. One of the reasons I have been a supporter is because of some the charitable work I knew about, and I knew he grew up like most of us and made his money, it wasn't handed to him. Just a driven guy, and proof that the American dream still exists. I hope people will take the time to read this.

Whether Dan Snyder is a wonderful person or an evil guy doesn't matter to me as much as "Is he a good NFL owner?" To me the sad answer is no. The record during his ownership speaks for itself. Yes, the team was floundering when he bought it. When he bought the Team. I do remember news articles that either quoted him or implied that he was good at attracting talented people to run his companies, and that he would do the same thing with the Redskins. I'm sure he would like a winning team, but he is not willing to hire a good GM and build a solid franchise. Dan Snyder is not Jerry Jones, even though he seems to want to be.

Following is a quote from last Sunday's Washington Post:

6. Sports. British footballer David Beckham is coming to America, after signing a five-year $250 million contract to run Home Depot. Ha! We joke. He's getting all that money to play for the Los Angeles Galaxy, a team nobody has heard of in Los Angeles, or anywhere else in the galaxy. Beckham's brand of football is different from "American football," because players can't catch the ball or tackle their opponents. In America, that's known as "Redskins football."

When I read that all I could think was that my beloved Redskins had become quite the national joke, and Dan Snyder deserves the lions share of credit.

[TheDane]

Yup, you got it. Snyder has dug a big ass hole for the Redskins, and it's going to take some sort of series of events to get out.

Unfortunately, I can't fathom what that "series of events" is at the moment. It probably starts with better personnel evaluators. It might even mean an entirely new regime (read: coaching staff). Worst case scenario, we're looking at a very different roster.

That makes me sad.

[Sarge]

Well, considering there is a club out there named "FEDS" (Former employees of Dan Snyder), you can probably deduce that at least in some people's eyes (and these are people that worked for him) he is an ass clown

[jimster]

Charitable contributions also != being a good guy. I apologize for bursting anyone's bubbles here, but there are often selfish reasons to give to charity.

As I posted in the other thread about the money the Charitable Org gave, he actually has developed charitable organizations and has used the Redskins name recognition, as mentioned in the article, to get many large corporations headquartered in the area actively involved in the community. - If his motives were striclty tax-based, why go to all that trouble? Why donate millions anonymously to the heart association? Why right a check for 10 grand to a pee-wee football team so they can travel to their National Championship? Why help people on his staff find the best doctors money can buy when people on his staff's children are sick?

I worked for a company in the late '90's that did business with Snyder Communications - before he had anything to do with the team, and while never personally dealing with Snyder, his company was always professional and classy. - Through time speaking with people I worked with at the time that did deal directly with him, always said he's the kind of guy that when he hires people, he expects them to be the best at what they do, and will pay them the best in good faith. - and expects results in return. - If you don't perform he may ride you, but I've had bosses that have done that too. If someone is just looking for a paycheck in a middle management job, he's not the guy to work for.

[RFKFedEx]

Considering all the hatchet jobs that have been done by the local media since he took over the team, do you really blame him? If I were him, I'd be careful who I talked to as well.

Jason

The local media seldom do "hatchet jobs" on Ted Leonsis because he talks to the press and they feel like they know him.

Ted's overseen plenty of loosing. The diffrence is Ted speaks out instead of hiding behind spokespersons as his only form of public communication.

I know it's hockey and not football, but Danny just seems cold and distanced from the average person, let alone Redskins fan.

Maybe guys like Mara, Rooney, Hunt, Wilson, Cooke, Craft, Bolin are/were all total D-Heads as people, but it just doesn't seem like it. :2cents:

[CapitalDefense]

I am still waiting on a story about how he hired a true general manager, completely backed off anything related to football operations. Only sold commercials on redskins.com TV and the rights to the stadium for the next 500 years. We started winning football games and were the envy of the league, much like the New England Patriots are now, and then I wake up.

Oh well at least it wasn't a nightmare about FA overspending, that comes in early March!

I am sick of Daniel Snyder, sick I tell ya! If I never saw his face or heard his name again it would be to soon. He has ruined my football team, and we may never win consistently again because of him.

[bulldog]

Snyder is caught in a catch-22. He was able to bring Joe Gibbs back in the fold, but is unable to unilaterally change the structure by hiring a GM out of concern over making Gibbs lose face and perhaps seeing him leave.

So, Snyder has little choice than to let the next 2 years play out under Gibbs and hope that the coach and his 'system' in the front office redeems itself from the 2006 debacle and rebounds in 2007 and 2008.

Cooke was smart enough in 1978 to hire the GM FIRST in Beathard, and then allowing Beathard to go out and pick the coach for the Redskins.

In this case, the cart was put before the proverbial horse. Gibbs had proven to be a top coach but had never been a personnel guy. That was the gamble.

And to this point it appears the growing pains Snyder went through in 1999-2003 in learning HOW to be an owner, are the same pains Gibbs is learning in acting as a GM during the last 3 years.

Will a guy working on his fourth season of evaluating/selecting draft picks and signing free agents/coaches make the right moves to turn this situation around as the Saints did or the Chargers did?

It's still a bit of a challenge given that guys like Beathard learned their craft over a period of years in junior positions much as Gibbs learned how to become a coach in the NFL.

He was an assistant for how many years before he got the Redskins HC job in 1981?

[The Sisko]

All in all a nice little puff piece that contradicts some of the vitriolic articles that ran in the Post. As usual, I suspect the real truth about him is probably somewhere between the two perspectives.

However, the most interesting thing to me was that this article finally put to rest, assuming the account was true, the myth of Snyder bringing Joe Gibbs back. The following quote clearly jibes with my prior contention that Snyder had little to do with Gibbs' return. Rather, it was Gibbs who decided upon being asked (as always whenever we had a coaching vacancy) that he wanted to return.

Snyder had invited Gibbs to his home for dinner in 1999 to see if he could lure him back. No dice. The two had kept up at foundation banquets.

Says Gibbs: “I would see him with his wife and children and his mom. I saw how close he was to everybody. He was a family man. That’s how I got to know him.”

On December 30, 2003, Spurrier resigned. Could this be the Gibbs moment?

Through Gary Jones, CEO of Gibbs’s Youth for Tomorrow group home, Schar and Snyder found the former coach in North Carolina. Schar called first.

“Would you be interested in coming back to the Redskins?” he asked.

“Maybe,” he said. “Let me make some calls.”

Note the difference here between the "Maybe, let me make some calls" and the prior definitive negative response. It was a done deal at this point, all Snyder had to do was not mess it up-which to his credit he didn't.

Days before, Gibbs had been talking to Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank when he got a call that Spurrier had quit. Gibbs was immediately interested in returning to the Redskins.

Where was Dan Snyder here? Nowhere whatsoever. Again, this was Gibbs' decision all the way.

Schar called Snyder in Potomac. Snyder usually gets by on three to four hours of sleep, but that morning he was asleep at 9 am. Schar asked that he be awakened.

“Dan,” he said, “I think we have a shot at Joe Gibbs.”

Snyder had intended to fly to the West Coast to interview prospective coaches. Instead he flew south to Concord, North Carolina, and met for eight hours with Gibbs in a conference room at the airport.

Schar says Gibbs took him aside at one point. “I’ve heard all these things about Dan,” Gibbs said. “I don’t know whether I can work with him.”

“One thing about the guy,” Schar told him, “he’s got a good heart.”

Again, it appears that Gibbs' mind is all but made up. All Snyder has to do is not change his mind.

Snyder met with Gibbs and Vinny Cerrato for a second round that lasted 11 hours. Gibbs and Snyder left the room.

“Do you want to do it?” Snyder asked.

Now THAT sounds convincing!

“Make me an offer,” Gibbs responded.

The offer was five years as coach and head of football operations for more than $5 million a year.

“It was done in 30 seconds,” says Snyder. That’s all it took for Snyder to hand over the Redskins and give up his role as owner/coach.”

30 seconds and you guys want to believe he "brought Joe Gibbs back". Yeah, right. For the last time, Gibbs came back because he wanted to. Snyder was merely the guy that said, "Sure, come on back".

Sure, it's not as sexy as Mr. Madd's "proof" that Snyder is cheap. But at least my conclusions are related to my arguments and can be reasonably considered proof of same.

[TheLongshot]

30 seconds and you guys want to believe he "brought Joe Gibbs back". Yeah, right. For the last time, Gibbs came back because he wanted to. Snyder was merely the guy that said, "Sure, come on back".

Course, it is all facilitated by Snyder keeping up relations with Gibbs, as in your first quote. I'm not sure if Gibbs comes back if he didn't know that the door was open for him, or if they didn't have a relationship for 5 years before coming on board.

I don't think it was a secret that it was up to the whims of Gibbs if he wanted to come back. It was always obvious that Gibbs came back because he wanted to come back, not because anyone convinced him to come back.

Jason

[The Sisko]

I don't disagree with you Longshot about Snyder keeping the lines of communication open and letting Gibbs know that if there was an opening he would always be candidate numero uno.

However, there is a widely held view on this board IMHO, that when SOS punked out Snyder gassed up Redskins 1 and somehow changed Gibbs' mind to convince him to return. I'm sure you've seen the posts..."Woo hoo, hooray to Mr. Snyder for bringing Joe Gibbs out of retirement" or "Hey, say what you will about Dan Snyder, but he did bring Gibbs back after all so he has done at least one thing right".

My point all along has been that Gibbs simply accepted a long standing offer and had he not decided to return, nothing Dan Snyder offered to do would have changed his mind...short of accepting Jebus as his Lord and savior maybe. Oh c'mon, I keeed, I keeed

[pvkeeper19]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I couldn't care much less about what Snyder is like as a human being, or how he is portrayed in the media, or what a shrewd businessman he is, or how much money he's donated to charitable causes. My only concern with him is his management of the Redskins, and that's where I take issue. It's the only thing he does that influences my life in any way, and right now he's influencing it negatively by running the team into the ground and pissing away its prestigious reputation.

A lot of people, especially fans, accuse Snyder of being solely interested in turning a huge profit on his investment in the Redskins. Whether that's true or not--and the argument that it is true is hard to argue--the fact remains that in his seven and a half years of ownership, he has failed to turn the franchise into much more than a perennial disappointment to fans and football pundits reflects his ineptitude as an NFL owner.

Maybe his number one priority really is winning, but his expertise is business, not football. How else would he have more than doubled (per the article) the worth of a floundering franchise? To have done so is an impressive feat in a business sense, but to the fans, the number of marks in the “W” column and the number of shiny silver trophies in the lobby are what matters. Unfortunately for the fans, who have increasingly become the outsiders in Dan Snyder's NFL, he no longer depends on them to pay the bills. And whether or not he came to D.C. with Lombardi Trophies at the forefront of his vision for the Redskins, it has become more about the money.

If Dan Snyder got off on seeing the Redskins win, he'd be a coach, or a personnel executive, or at the very least would remove his nose from football operations and stick to the background, whoring his team to corporate sponsors from behind the closed doors of his office in Redskins Park.

My point is, the way the man looks through the eyes of a newspaper has little to do with whether or not he's a "good" owner in the eyes of the fans. It's about his handling of the team, and in that facet of his responsibilities as owner, he has failed so far. And judging by the whisperings around town in this young offseason, his strategy doesn't appear to be headed for a change.

[bulldog]

Snyder is not a god and he is not the devil. He is an owner plain and simple. the head of an organization trying to achieve a goal. in the NFL it is supposed to be winning a Super Bowl. in non-sports business it is ONLY about the money. here the two are inter-twined.

So far Snyder has failed to set in place an organizational structure with the Redskins that has lead to consistent success. There have been many changes and yet we find ourselves at 5-11 in Dan's 7th year as owner of the team.

The Redskins had the #2 and #3 overall picks in the 2000 draft, the #5 pick in the 2004 draft, the #9 pick in the 2005 draft and are set to have the #6 pick in the 2007 draft.

Samuels is still on the team and made the pro bowl again. Other than #60, where are the anchors those picks should represent? Arrington is gone. Taylor and Rogers are jekyll and hyde players on defense, up and down. Taylor just completed his THIRD season with the team and looks to have regressed from 2005. Rogers' confidence looks to be almost completely shot.

[Portis4President]

Really fantastic article. Thanks for posting.