Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

A Dan Snyder Article People Should Read


jimster

Recommended Posts

Well guess what: most pro sports teams are. There isn't much way to avoid that, short of having Green Bay's ownership situation.

Also, considering that Snyder has the debt for buying the team to pay off, it shouldn't be a shocker that he needs to make some money here to make it all work.

Jason

Please. Snyder treats the Redskins like a buyout; he uses the cash flow from operations to service the debt. That argument is completely irrelevant to him milking profitability from the Franchise's revenue, and milking opportunities to increase the Franchise's revenue.

Perhaps your "consumer product" point is fair, that all pro sports teams are a faux consumer product. But it's my opinion, and hopefully one that many people share, that this consumer product better damn well be engineered to be the best possible... not simply the one that makes the biggest margin for its owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you are SOOO right the Redskins are ALWAYS BAD...again ignoring the fact that we were in the playoffs last year...really not that long again, you shouldn't have forgotten that already.

Right, because one good year smattered amongst seven is a good trend. If that floats your boat, more power to you.

I grew up in an era when one bad year smattered amongst seven was unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read this awhile ago.... I started out hating Snyder but as the years go and the more I learn about the man.... you really can't hate him... Of course he could lower the prices of some things... but then again he wouldn't be able to over pay the players...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your statement is flame bait, and although way too general, it's in the ballpark of fair.

Regardless, I don't particularly care when it comes to business. Again, Snyder would not draw this level of my ire if we were discussing his tenure as CEO of Snyder Communications -- although, to be frank, how he built that Company was not fundamentally sound.

Snyder draws my ire because he was, and maybe still is, so arrogant as to extrapolate his methods in business into MY Redskins. In so doing, he created a mess and I have no faith that he is the right person to fix it -- that is the owner's job, right? The health of the franchise that s/he owns?

So, I say, **** him.

Longshot, the state of the franchise prior to Snyder was mired in confusion and misdirection due in part, I'm sure, to the fate of JKC. I would expect that any competent, win-first owner would have at least stemmed the tide, and certainly not lost with such explosive force ($100m payroll, 8-8?).

Also, I'm not disagreeing that winning and money can go hand in hand. But the goal should be to win first, and if the money comes, then great. Don't treat my Redskins like a consumer product.

Fair enough, my statement probably is flame bait, it's just that some folks around here believe the ability to make massive amounts of money equates to some type of superiority and trustworthiness so long as they donate a few hundred thousand dollars to charity when most average people probably donate more proportionate to their incomes than Snyder or most of his ilk. Unfortunately, it seems the Snyder mentality has even infected Gibbs, a childhood hero of mine.

But let's get this straight: I don't care what kind of human being Dan Snyder is if we are winning football games (and I mean consistently, not just one year). I don't care if he kicks crippled kids out of their wheelchairs and then stomps on their fingers, I just want the team to win. That being said, after going 5-11 I think he is Satan's personal **** gobbler. I'm not sure what kind of person this makes me. Probably not a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I am not a Snyder hater or lover)

The hate for Snyder is ridiculous. I don't think people realize how bad the skins were before Snyder became the owner and offered blank checks to everyone.

Well I will tell you, after the Super Bowl in 91, the skins were an abysmal 45-66-1. After Snyder acquired the team, the record has been 59-69.

Hmmmm....that is a huge difference in percentage. Do not be fooled by these haters, our team was horrible before Snyder and it is bad right now, but how can that blame be put on Snyder? He has given this coaching staff a blank check to work with and given them everyone they wanted.

Also, his 59-69 record as an owner should get at least one asterisk on it. Gibbs' first year record was 6-10. That is not anyone's fault and I would put that under a coach having to re-learn the NFL and get his feel back.

Finally, I have no doubt that this team would be completely different right now if they would have re-signed Trent Green. Guess who didn't want to sign him.......thats right JKC. I'm pretty sure Snyder would have overpaid Green and our QB situation would have been a lot better those years we had a QB carousel.

The hate for Snyder right now is unwarranted. It is not his fault the team went 5-11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But let's get this straight: I don't care what kind of human being Dan Snyder is if we are winning football games (and I mean consistently, not just one year). I don't care if he kicks crippled kids out of their wheelchairs and then stomps on their fingers, I just want the team to win. That being said, after going 5-11 I think he is Satan's personal **** gobbler. I'm not sure what kind of person this makes me. Probably not a good one.

Just as a note, JKC wasn't exactly a sterling human being either, but he gets lots of love because of the success under Gibbs. (And not much blame after Gibbs left and hired Pettibon and Norv.)

BTW, it is interesting how a few months can change the view of the Owner. Here is the original thread where this article was discussed:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166497

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The easiest way to tell this is a puff piece: 8,000+ words, and only two brief mentions of Vinny Cerrato. Dude is Snyder's right hand man, and any credible article would also include an outline of Cerrato's personality and intimate role with the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I will be the first to admit that my opinion of Dan Snyder has done a near 180 degree turn.

I claim that I opened my eyes. People who disagree with me will say that I waffled. But then again, I don't particularly care what people say about me. :)

Anyway. I used to think Snyder was great for offering the blank check. Now, I place appropriate emphasis on the fundamental tenets of winning football: chemistry building and team consistency.

Again, to re-iterate my point: I believe Snyder saw the opportunity to make the Redskins a revenue machine and acted thus. He saw wins through money-colored glasses. Instead, he should have understood the fundamental tenets of winning and acted differently, which may have been less exciting for his customer base (bad business!). This conflict created our current moribund situation that has me in quite a bit of distress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to feel like the ExtremeSkins pinata -- a bunch of guys standing around hitting me with sticks hoping to get some candy.

...only if you've got chocolate inside. I'd beat my own Mother senseless if she were a pinata with chocolate inside. Mmmmm chocolate.

Seriously, I commented several times in your thread that I didn't disagree with your analysis, just your conclusion. I'm firmly in the camp that Snyder isn't cheap, just a not so bright spendthrift (when it comes to football matters).

Either way, I'm sure that we could agree that the results are the same on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I am not a Snyder hater or lover)

The hate for Snyder is ridiculous. I don't think people realize how bad the skins were before Snyder became the owner and offered blank checks to everyone.

Well I will tell you, after the Super Bowl in 91, the skins were an abysmal 45-66-1. After Snyder acquired the team, the record has been 59-69.

Hmmmm....that is a huge difference in percentage. Do not be fooled by these haters, our team was horrible before Snyder and it is bad right now, but how can that blame be put on Snyder? He has given this coaching staff a blank check to work with and given them everyone they wanted.

Also, his 59-69 record as an owner should get at least one asterisk on it. Gibbs' first year record was 6-10. That is not anyone's fault and I would put that under a coach having to re-learn the NFL and get his feel back.

Finally, I have no doubt that this team would be completely different right now if they would have re-signed Trent Green. Guess who didn't want to sign him.......thats right JKC. I'm pretty sure Snyder would have overpaid Green and our QB situation would have been a lot better those years we had a QB carousel.

The hate for Snyder right now is unwarranted. It is not his fault the team went 5-11.

Speaking of asterisks, how about we subtract out the Pettibon year immediately post Gibbs 1.0. when we were old and depleted. That would make the winning pct. 43% pre-Snyder vs. 45% under Snyder. Awfully close.

Hey, if you get to play with the #s that way then so do I. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of asterisks, how about we subtract out the Pettibon year immediately post Gibbs 1.0. when we were old and depleted. That would make the winning pct. 43% pre-Snyder vs. 45% under Snyder. Awfully close.

Hey, if you get to play with the #s that way then so do I. ;)

Thats real cute.

You see, I didn't play with the numbers. I merely stated that it should get an asterisk. The numbers I provided include every season.

Why should Pettibon get a asterisk anyway? Age has absolutely nothing to do with a coach being out of the entire NFL system for over a decade. That age should go more under poor management of the team.

Either way, I didn't subtract numbers so, you shouldn't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I was pointing out the lunacy of your argument that "Hey, we've sucked less under Snyder." See, the whole point of the exercise is not to suck at all. You know, sort of like the Fecals, Patsies, Steelers, Donkeys and perhaps a handful of others.

There's just not a whole lot of difference between being a .40 team as we were prior to Snyder and the .45 team since he came in. Clearly there's just not much improvement there. Certainly not enough to be all warm and fuzzy about.:doh:

Also, it's actually an accepted statistical method to throw out the highest and lowest values so that you get rid of aberrations that can throw off your results. I don't have the time to do it, but I suspect that if you do that and re-check our winning pct. it's probably pretty much the same pre and post Snyder.

Finally, I forgot to mention that you were dead wrong about JKC not wanting Trent Green back. In fact, he was dead when the Trent Green fiasco went down. Maybe you were referring to John Cooke-in which case you're still mistaken. The reason we couldn't re-sign Green had to do with the team being between owners not because someone in our F.O. didn't want to re-sign him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and BTW if it's not Snyder's fault then who's fault is it? We've changed coaches, players, front office staff, salespeople, executives but the two constants have been Vinny and Dan. Hmmm. :idea: Oh, I know, it's all Marty's fault we went 22-26 since Gibbs' return and 12-20 under SOS. Or maybe it was that darn Terry Robiskie's fault. Beathard? Casserly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself defending Dan Snyder on many accounts because the media is always trying to rip him apart by mentioning his faults, but never bring up his positives. I read this article in the offseason and other articles with a positive spin.

It is refreshing to get an unbiased opinion on the Dan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have changed my mind on Snyder after reading a few things.

He is not all that bad. He runs the same process as the Patriots and Eagles.

You're right. And the results have been similar as well. Wait a minute...

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh::doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...