I'm still waiting.

[skinsanity56]

IMO this was a nobrainer SIGNING jansen.sorry art but one smart move doesn't negate many of his own bad decisions.yes danny boy is learning from his self taught lessons over the years but why not learn from someone before firing them:laugh:

even ol' jerry down south is smart enough to resign his young core players.

next thing we'll be calling him a genius for resigning/redoing champs contract.

[thito_da_skins_fan]

Overrated? an acual football person who can evaluate talent and make decisions that are good for the team long term. Rather than an amateur marketing executive who is playing fantasy football? This is the primary problem of the team. We do things on a whim and based on Snyders wants as a fan not as a football executive.

not the person, but the title is overrated... Vinny, unlike what people believe, is qualified... he did it in San Francisco and he's done it here... people don't like him because he's Snyder's b!tch... i can't disagree with that, but it shouldn't take away from the fact he knows football... Mendes handles the finances and we have a scouting department who scouts players... it's a group effort, and IMO, not a bad system... in addition, Spurrier has already announced that he's adding his input alot more, and if anyone knows talent, i would hope it's our coach...

The issue isnt brad Johnsons ability to take pressure. Its the fact that the FO undermined him by hiring a mercinary arm. that they found in their fantasy football catalog. Thus indicating to him they really didnt feel he should or would be their starter.

Brad Johnson has proven this year that competition behind him really doesnt faze him at all.

how did the Skins do anything different that the Bucs didn't? Rob Johnson was a favorite of Gruden and there was a lot of speculation before the season that Rob would be the starting QB... why would Tampa bring in a QB capable of starting if they were satisfied with Brad? but, did Brad cry about it like he did here? no, he went out and did his job... maybe he learned his lesson from the previous time -- it just happened he learned it with us...

False. Noone really tried to resign him or extend his contract, and the writing was on the wall when George was brought in. Wrong about George, he was brought in by Snyder. And the fact that we had to start banks was a direct result of not risigning Johnson

Marty tried to re-sign Brad, but Brad didn't want to stay... first of all, our cap space wasn't great... second of all, Brad was turned off at how we treated him when we signed George... that goes back to my previous response... we DID make an effort, but if you remember, he was only considering 2 teams: B-More and Tampa...

Noone feels turner should have come back the next year. However firing someone with three games left while youre in the playoff hunt still is rediculous. You first kill the season and then send the message to the rest of the league (and potential coaches and players) Im volatile and will do things on the spur of the moment if needed. regardless of its impact on the team or coaches

he could have waited until after the season... but, that's easy to say now... i can't remember how thrilled i was the next day when i heard Norv was gone... i didn't care about anything other than the fact Norv Turner was no longer connected with the Washington Redskins... the way the season was going, there was little chance we'd make the playoffs at that point anyways had he stayed or not...

Back to the whole notion of continuity and the fantasy football theme. a real GM would have realized just hiring the biggest name on defense is not rational, rather we need continuity and wouldnt have let that happen. Of course we loved it. We're fans. THe front office isnt supposed to act like fans they are supposed to look out for the long term benefit of the team.

like i said before, had our defense been ranked in the top 5, nobody would have complained... yeah, it sucks now... but the fact remains, Snyder hired the best DC available to coach our guys... once again, it backfired, but why should he should all the blame? we have players who play the game and if i remember correctly, they get paid too... if he stays for 2 years, was it stupid? what if stays for his whole contract and the defense still sucks, was it stupid then? we would have had continuity, but because our defense isn't good, it's all Snyder's fault? throw blame all you want, but throw it in the right direction...

the truth is, we are too quick too judge... anybody can see failure after it's already taken place... if we agree with his decisions when he makes them, we have no right to sit back and criticize him when they don't work out... that is cowardly... i don't know too many people in Snyder's shoes who wouldn't have made the same move he made... GM or not, if ML is available, he's getting signed by someone... it just happened to be by us...

[thito_da_skins_fan]

Originally posted by wayne

IMO this was a nobrainer SIGNING jansen.sorry art but one smart move doesn't negate many of his own bad decisions.yes danny boy is learning from his self taught lessons over the years but why not learn from someone before firing them:laugh:

even ol' jerry down south is smart enough to resign his young core players.

next thing we'll be calling him a genius for resigning/redoing champs contract.

it's not that fact that we WANTED to re-sign him, it's the fact that we DID re-sign him... the F.O. got the deal done and that is encouraging...

[skinsanity56]

Originally posted by THiTo48

it's not that fact that we WANTED to re-sign him, it's the fact that we DID re-sign him... the F.O. got the deal done and that is encouraging...

==============================================

so what does this have to do with what i posted THI?????????

with the Oline in complete dissarray this year(we can't run/we can't pass) it was obvious we were going to resign him over/before gardener or redoing davis' contract.resigning him & not starting over with 2 guards & RT next year shows he's learning (& is encouraging)but we should never have made this mistake in the first place.

[thito_da_skins_fan]

Originally posted by wayne

so what does this have to do with what i posted THI?????????

with the Oline in complete dissarray this year(we can't run/we can't pass) it was obvious we were going to resign him over/before gardener or redoing davis' contract.resigning him & not starting over with 2 guards & RT next year shows he's learning (& is encouraging)but we should never have made this mistake in the first place.

you said "IMO this was a nobrainer SIGNING jansen" and "it was obvious we were going to resign him"...

ok, why is that? because we wanted to? this signing wasn't complete until he signed his name in ink... in fact, many people thought our F.O. wouldn't get the deal done...

are you really that confused with my response? i was simply saying that our F.O. isn't getting credit for wanting to sign the man (it's obvious we wanted to re-sign him), but they SHOULD get credit for actually SIGNING him... just because you want something doesn't mean you get it... but, we did and our F.O. deserves credit for that...

now, do you understand?

(and this is my 1,000th post... thanks!)

[skinsanity56]

Originally posted by THiTo48

you said "IMO this was a nobrainer SIGNING jansen" and "it was obvious we were going to resign him"...

ok, why is that? because we wanted to? this signing wasn't complete until he signed his name in ink... in fact, many people thought our F.O. wouldn't get the deal done...

are you really that confused with my response? i was simply saying that our F.O. isn't getting credit for wanting to sign the man (it's obvious we wanted to re-sign him), but they SHOULD get credit for actually SIGNING him... just because you want something doesn't mean you get it... but, we did and our F.O. deserves credit for that...

now, do you understand?

(and this is my 1,000th post... thanks!)

==============================================

what's encouraging about this signing THI is that it got done earlier than later.now we don't have the prolonged off season contract squabble/negotiations.now we can concentrate our effortrs on gardener & or the davis situation.we got this contract done because jansen and the front office wanted it done.jansen could have just walked away but he likes the young/core group of players we have.his quote not mine...

and i was confused with your response cause it had nothing to do with my post.look again:peace: what does WANTED & DID have to do with my post????you were reading between the lines/putting words in my mouth that were'nt there.

[thito_da_skins_fan]

Originally posted by wayne

we got this contract done because jansen not the front office wanted it done.jansen could have just walked away but he likes the young/core group of players we have.his quote not mine...

not true... it worked both ways -- here's a quote i posted earlier from Jansen's agent...

But the sides stayed at it, and found a middle ground that each could live with. Since the offseason, Mendes has preached to other Redskins officials about staying disciplined and spending wisely, and the Redskins did not increase the overall value of their offer to Jansen much. But they agreed to restructure their proposal and increase the signing bonus, and Smith credited Redskins owner Daniel Snyder for seeing to it that the agreement got done.

"We had a tough negotiation," the agent said. "At the end of the day, Mr. Snyder stepped up and rewarded Jon, and Jon took himself off the market. In terms of character and loyalty, Jon is a throwback."

[pga]

I'd have to say kudos to Danny on this one (As I have said in the past). When I saw it come across the bottom of the screen the other day I was VERY happy. Doesn't make up for the the turmoil the last few seasons but it's a step in the right direction.

Now let'sget some MORE OL's!!

Think HOGS

[skinsanity56]

Originally posted by THiTo48

not true... it worked both ways -- here's a quote i posted earlier from Jansen's agent...

==============================================

yes i read that quote & if you keep reading he states how he likes the young core group we've assembled. our FO had no power in these negotiations,it was all on jansen.no matter what we offered he had the power to say no & walk @ seasons end.we could have put the transition tag on him but he'd be getting his top 5 money anyways.jansen had the power,credit him for staying a redskin

[thito_da_skins_fan]

Originally posted by wayne

yes i read that quote & if you keep reading he states how he likes the yuong core group we've assembled. our FO had no power in these negotiations,it was all on jansen.no matter what we offered he had the power to say no & walk @ seasons end.we could have put the transition tag on him but he'd be getting his top 5 money anyways.jansen had the power,credit him for staying a redskin

like i said, it works BOTH ways...

if we are going to use your thought, then no F.O. in the NFL should get credit for signing any player... all the credit should go to the player...

does it hurt that bad to admit the F.O. & Mr. Snyder did a good job?

:high:

[skinsanity56]

Originally posted by THiTo48

like i said, it works BOTH ways...

if we are going to use your thought, then no F.O. in the NFL should get credit for signing any player... all the credit should go to the player...

=====================================

my thought works in this case wuth jansen becoming a possible UFA.If were out looking for a FA like gardener our FO deserves all the credit not gardener for the signing.

=========================================

does it hurt that bad to admit the F.O. & Mr. Snyder did a good job?

:high:

=======================

and no it doesn't hurt to admit a good job but IMO it was a nobrainer & you & i would be starting all over again.:peace1:

[Storm]

not the person, but the title is overrated... Vinny, unlike what people believe, is qualified... he did it in San Francisco and he's done it here... people don't like him because he's Snyder's b!tch... i can't disagree with that, but it shouldn't take away from the fact he knows football... Mendes handles the finances and we have a scouting department who scouts players... it's a group effort, and IMO, not a bad system... in addition, Spurrier has already announced that he's adding his input alot more, and if anyone knows talent, i would hope it's our coach...

GM means the person who makes the personnel dicisions for a team. Right now its decision by committee with Snyder making the most important calls and determining the general direction of the team. The GM needs to be a professiona football man who can evaluate players, make smart decisons for the team not j ust for this moment but for down the road. What we have now is a glorified scout (Cerrato) with a dismal draft record, a glorified capologist (whose record is to be seen), and an overzelous owner with a fantasy football mentality. iIts a group effort that irratically moves in different directions based on Snyders mood and who is kiddin butt better that day.

how did the Skins do anything different that the Bucs didn't? Rob Johnson was a favorite of Gruden and there was a lot of speculation before the season that Rob would be the starting QB... why would Tampa bring in a QB capable of starting if they were satisfied with Brad? but, did Brad cry about it like he did here? no, he went out and did his job... maybe he learned his lesson from the previous time -- it just happened he learned it with us...

The difference was Johnson was given a five year contract a year earlier and an assurance by the coach that it would be a fair competition. Thats all he needed. the sad thing is the coach here couldnt make either of those assureances because Snyder wanted his cannon arm QB in there instead.

Marty tried to re-sign Brad, but Brad didn't want to stay... first of all, our cap space wasn't great... second of all, Brad was turned off at how we treated him when we signed George... that goes back to my previous response... we DID make an effort, but if you remember, he was only considering 2 teams: B-More and Tampa...

THe only effort made was Schottenheimer vaguely saying maybe we'd like brad back. Thats not effort. Effort is a contract offer and a promise that there would be fair competition for the QB position without meddling from Danny boy.

like i said before, had our defense been ranked in the top 5, nobody would have complained... yeah, it sucks now... but the fact remains, Snyder hired the best DC available to coach our guys... once again, it backfired, but why should he should all the blame? we have players who play the game and if i remember correctly, they get paid too... if he stays for 2 years, was it stupid? what if stays for his whole contract and the defense still sucks, was it stupid then? we would have had continuity, but because our defense isn't good, it's all Snyder's fault? throw blame all you want, but throw it in the right direction...

If If If. If the idea is continuity, the point is to hire someone who can provide that over a few years. Not to put your defense in a position to have to learn yet another system for a forth year. If we were close to a superbowl berth and our defense was the only thing holding us back then I can see taking a one year shot at the architect of possibly the best defense ever. But with a new HC and borderline talent, why subject your team to such a move? As fans we thought it was great initially, then a little while later realized maybe there is a significant price to pay for it. but again, we're fans. Its not our responsibility to plan for the future of the club. ITS THE JOB OF A REAL GM, OH WAIT WE STILL DONT HAVE ONE.

[Newera]

Geez, break it up guys!

[Art]

Yomar, reply within.

"Art, its not becoming to be smug towards other board members after the Redskins made a move 99% of the board is ahppy with."

This thread is here largely because of

this thread which if you read closely seems to go into this incredibly uneducated snit about the evil of Dan Snyder and how he could have allowed Jansen to slip through our fingers.

That thread actually gets SOOOOOO bad that people actually seem upset that Snyder would dare to bring in a 25-year-old multiple Pro Bowl middle linebacker off a division rival. Somehow even this is questioned.

Further, where were you in that thread. The SECOND the media breaks that the Jansen negotiations weren't wrapped up in October people went into a hissy fit about how woeful Snyder is. I attempt to provide some balance to the overreactions. Here, this would be immediate love for a move that just two months ago people were crying about. See, this is why when I cry, I actually do so after I know a fact and I do it based on the totality of a situation. This thread is appropriate if the other was. I'm just a part of both, so, I have balance .

"I'll admit, I have not been a big Snyder fan, there has been a tremendous amount of instability in the organization since he has taken over, and he deserves to be criticized for that in my opinion."

I don't think he deserves to be criticized for a lack of stability in the organization yet. I'm a huge believer that we need, more than anything, time to grow together as a team and we MUST have stability to achieve right now. But, when you have regime change you have associated player turnover. It was appropriate to get rid of Norv. It would have been appropriate to retain Marty but not with the status quo. You had to get another offensive mind in the fold. I came out after game five thinking Marty had probably ended his time here with that game because he showed so little flexibility in allowing a simple schematic change to almost guarantee victory. Then, he showed that change on the defense and the found a rallying point of dislike for him to work brilliantly to motivate the team from dismal to average. He deserves credit for that.

Snyder deserves credit for attempting to find a way to keep Marty. Both said Marty would still be here if he'd been willing to yield a little. Change was forced upon him. And now we have Spurrier. If there's a panic and major firing now Snyder will have made a major mistake. You can tweak the front office some and that's ok. But, you have to now largely let things play out. But, the change we've had to this point is not change for the sake of change so much as necessary change to attempt to build in my view.

"But I and I think most people who are less than enamoured with Snyder have continuously stated that we do not doubt his intentions, just his football acumen, and hope that as time goes on and he gains experience, things will change for the better."

I'm not sure where we see Snyder's lack of football acumen right now. I'm not sure where he has failed to acquire individual talent in his two offseasons ultimately in charge. In 2000 it wasn't his moves that crushed us. It was the offense failing to live up to career years the year before. This year it's just the culmination of turning over 30+ players the last two years. But, that's less Snyder than the coaching and it's hard really to find a tremendous amount of fault in that as I've written.

He didn't just get rid of Marty. He tried to work out a way to keep Marty. Marty just didn't want to play along.

"Now on a personal level, I said that the Front Office deserves kudos fro re-signing Jansen to a fair deal and instilling at least a measure of stability on the Jansen thread, so I don't really think you are waiting, I think you are chiding."

Correct. Was I really ambiguous on the point of this thread?

"For you to try and polarize the board with an uncalled for "I told you so" on a move that for the most part is universally popular is not the right way to go."

This isn't an "I told you so" in the traditional sense. I didn't predict Jansen would be back. I did think the negotiations weren't as doomed as some. I simply found it somewhat compelling that there are a large number of folks who believe whatever Snyder does is bad. It doesn't matter what. And here's a move that 99 percent of people agree with. So, must it not be, by extention, a bad move. You question Snyder's football acumen. Then isn't this move questionable?

See, I don't question Snyder's football smarts. I think he's done an excellent job in free agency. But, I do find this move a bit more questionable than others because Jansen doesn't deserve a bigger bonus than Trotter. I like the compromise the team and he made to keep the base value down, so I only MILDLY question it, but, at some point a player has to achieve too. You can't pay a guy who's never played in a Pro Bowl the type of money people who have get. To me, this is a line of demarkation. You should never have yielded to Jansen because HE'S the guy who's never played quite like the top guys so he's the guy you have to wonder about when asking for a top guy contract.

I'm a huge fan of the man, but, this move seems to be to be too much of a move directly designed to please you and those who think Snyder doesn't know what he's doing. I think the $8 million signing bonus contracts should be given to Pro Bowlers. I think if it were me, Jansen would have never seen a penny above $6 million. And here, the team and the player found a middle ground that allows this to happen and it really IS good. I just am a principle guy and Jansen got more than he's earned. Period. We're making up for paying him less for a couple of years and I'm ok with that too.

We're paying him more for being a leader. Great. I can dig it. I just know if Snyder came out with, "Hey, I can't give him what a two-time, younger Pro Bowler got who plays an equally crucial position in our defensive system," the howls would have been immense. Yeah, I was chiding. But, I wasn't doing a "Told you so" so much as, "Hey, why isn't this also a bad move." I support Snyder and I can see how this move is flawed. I also see how it's an excellent one. I'm torn and happy and that's good.

"Fans are fickle, succeed and we love you, fail and we revile you, and what you did yesterday pales in importance to what you do today. Its the nature of the beast, to this point, Snyder I think has deserved some criticism, but if he turns the Skins into a winner, he will be loved and lauded throughout Redskindom."

All owners and all teams deserve some criticism. We're not talking about some criticism with Snyder. We're talking over the top ludicrous, unfathomable criticism. It's almost amusing some of what he gets. So, I'm going to chide the bashers because, hey, it'll keep the offseason fun. And, more, he deserves some love too. Even in greater portions than the scorn. There's just not nearly so much of it visible. More people here support Snyder than are critical of him. They're just silent in the face of the hordes who will make up anything they can to make Snyder seem worse than he's actually proven to be. And it's for them, those you may not actually be a part of, that I'm chiding.

[Art]

OSF, reply within.....

"Ok, I'll bite. Yes, Danny deserves credit, it would seem, for the Jansen contract and perhaps for the acquisition of and ongoing negotiations to keep Gardener."

You shouldn't bite. You've bitten before and as before, it's been shown that you lack any real foundation for the things you say because, largely, they are mythical.

"But, let's also recall that his victories are few and far between and, in fact, pale in comparison with Snyder's less than stellar record with the Redskins since taking ownership. Has Snyder done a few good things? Yes. Has he made many more mistakes? Yes and the record bears that out."

Other than being utterly false, I would attempt to recall this. But, his victories have been numerous. His mistakes have been much less noticed and glaring. Now, I realize that Snyder is blamed for a lot. He's blamed for the 2000 team that started 6-2 but then saw injuries to the offense and a failure to recapture the career years had the year before matched wind up bringing the team down. But, remember, the media predicted Snyder was ruining team chemistry and when we were 6-2 they put that idiocy to bed. It wasn't until we were so beat up and unable to do anything on offense that the media was able to realize the truth of their views that the Redskins finished 8-8 because Snyder ruined team chemistry.

Yawn. I realize the record may reflect a hyper active media that accounts Snyder's foibles in greater number than his victories. But, you must recall that the record actually bears another thing out entirely. Remember, the media was taunting Snyder for lowballing Jansen who would make $4 million a year look like a bargain basement price when he got to free agency. And the moment he signs for $4.16 million, it turns out Jansen's agents snookered Snyder for a too big contract for a good, but only good and not as good as he thinks Jansen. This is a media spin that already allows them to lay blame for future failures on "Snyder's desperation to win the fans back that he would overpay moderate talent since no one else would play in Washington."

Watch. If Jansen gets hurt and we struggle another year or two, they already have it set up that Jansen isn't that good and suddenly Snyder is overpaying because he can't keep players without doing so.

"With that said, obviously Snyder has his heart in the right place and is clearly doing everything he can to win. Fortunately, I'm beginning to see now some encouraging signs which suggest to me that Snyder has re-evaluated his historical approach to the team."

If you're just beginning to see signs, then you haven't been paying attention. Snyder has had two offseasons really in charge of this team since taking over. Marty had another. As another thread we were on points out, you have no idea what his historical actions really are. He's had two offseasons of historical actions.

In one, he resigned a key, young player from within and spent millions on high draft picks, and then added key defensive free agents who helped improve an awful defense to a Top 5 defense. His error was going too veteran. So, in his second go round he adjusts, and identifies younger players for the real bonus dollars. He also finds a way to sprinkle in solid vets at reasonable contracts -- see Armstead as an example.

History in his two years in charge is on his side. The media is on yours.

[Art]

Storm,

Your Top 10 list is precisely the type of ignorance that marks those who are anti-Snyder.

"Spending 100 millon dollars in salaries and bonuses to pick up old probowlers," you write as a key thing against him. Well, none of that's true. The team spent nearly $30 million in retaining Davis and signing Samuels and Arrington. It spent $5 million on Smith, $8 million on Deion and $3 million on Carrier. The total salary outlay was $92 million. I hated the Deion contract when we were talking about it and I still do. But, reality doesn't jibe with your flaws of Snyder.

Of your list, the only ones with any possible validity are No. 3 and No. 10. You're close on No. 9 except for the fact that Snyder didn't let Sanders walk after a year. That was Marty. The rest of the list is either revisionistic, or idiotic.

Not paying big money to Brad Johnson is a Top 10 mistake by Snyder? Sheesh. If we did pay him it would have been the No. 1 mistake, so, my guess is we should probably agree it shouldn't be considered anything on his list of mistakes. Johnson totally crumbled under pressure of having a competent backup. But, that's not surprising since he had crumbled before in Minnesota with a competent backup. And, it shouldn't be surprising he had trouble in pressure situations because he was singularly unable to ever lead the team downfield when it was behind and need a player to step up and win the game.

Not sinking dollars into Brad Johnson is such good move it almost overcomes the Deion signing. The Redskins have only had three head coaches in the last three years. They've had one additional interim head coach. Those are two differen't positions. Marty fired himself. No. 5 is a debatable point, neither true, false, smart or dumb. Other than Metcalf in the third round, we really didn't have a chance to sign a decent prospect.

And, since you never know entering a draft who a decent player will ultimately be, it would have been impossible to pick a decent offensive guard because he's never played a down in the NFL and can't become a decent player until he has. You probably mean not taking a decent prospect. But, again, we only really had a chance for one decent prospect in the third round.

If Ramsey can be considered a positive more, it can't be considered a negative at the same time.

No. 8 is as revisionist as it comes. Anyone watching that football knew Norv was over. In hindsight the team was done anyway and for anyone and probably we should have let it ride with Norv. But, that Giant game was an utter rejection of the players to Norv. They quit. They didn't want to be on the field anymore and not for him. It was sad for me because I was a Norv backer all along.

And, hell, I gave you credit for No. 10, but under the premise that something can't be considered a smart football decision by most of the world and remain a Top 10 negative against Snyder. You and I agree that Lewis wasn't a great idea. I thought so before he was hired. I'll still give you credit on this one, but, ultimately, it's hard to say acquiring the guy people around the league deem as the top man at his job is a bad thing. And if he returns next year, though I won't jump for joy, it would also make your Top 10 list a little premature.

[Skins57]

The thing is this, Synder and company made a very smart move by signing Jansen now and they are working on Gardener and Champ. This is a huge step in hte right direction as far as a stable team and that is a huge first step for Dan, Vinny and Joe to get this team going in the right direction

[Larry Brown #43]

Originally posted by Art

He didn't just get rid of Marty. He tried to work out a way to keep Marty. Marty just didn't want to play along.

I'm not sure that I agree with this. No one really knows how this situation played out behind closed doors, but Snyder's comment about Marty giving him "a 1960s football team" is an indication to me that Snyder never had any intention of retaining Marty in the first place. I think Snyder simply got bored at not being able to make football decisions, so he decided to ditch the whole Marty project. Snyder knew that Marty would never accept a role in which Dan was making personell decisions above Marty's head, so he had the perfect "out." Marty's situation in San Diego is different, because he has an establisehd NFL GM calling the shots above him. Marty is (understanably) more comfortable with this setup.

I laid out my feelings about Snyder on page 1 of this thread, so no need to rehash them here. But suffice it to say that many people on this board who are critical, or at least skeptical, of Snyder will probably feel a lot better about him if he (a) hires Ruskell from Tampa -- or a reasonable facsimile thereof -- and gives him authority to make football decisions with input from the rest of the front office and coaching staff, and ( encourages the new GM to limit coaching and personell carousel we have grown painfully accustomed to, starting with this upcoming offseason.

[NavyDave]

Nice to see I'm not the only fan of Danny Corleone.

1 Danny addressed our defensive woes in Y2k and it did its part.

It was the key injuries on the offense, to the kicker and a personal vendetta between the NFL F.O. and our Safety that wear the sore points.

2. I love the idea of a imprenetrable wall for an O line but the only way we could have drafted my coveted guard and have Ramsey which makes sense would have been to trade our 2nd and 3rd rounder and hope the guy in front of the cowpokes would accept and at this time Gurode isnt lighting up the league right now.

3. I still dont under stand why some of you fans(?) want to focus on the number of coaching changes. I didnt like Norv from the beginning. By the time Danny had control of the team it was too late to cut him lose.

The mistake Danny made was his make the playoffs or else edict which prevented us from kicking norv to the curb.

I would ve fired Norv after the Giants game too and T Rob would ve be gone after the regular season too.

Marty was a PR move since so called media experts wanted that NFL guy running things and how did the Marty koolaid taste last year?

Seems like the Chargers are doing the annual Marty swoon at the end of the year, huh?

This should be, assuming if Marv doesnt do us a favour and leave, the first offseason in which the defensive and offensive coaches remain in tact.

[Art]

LB,

Snyder clearly didn't want to keep Marty. He just would have. All Marty had to do was hire Cam Cameron and it would have been ok. They BOTH said that. At the press conference Marty said if the two could have worked out some of the changes asked for he'd still be there. It was the first "firing" where both the owner and coach were present to talk about stuff.

I don't care one iota whether Ruskell is brought in or not. I don't care if Wolf is brought in or not. I care that Snyder keeps the right to override that guy and continue making moves like signing Jansen and Trotter and wooing Gardener and other free agents. I don't ever want to hear that Wolf didn't think Jansen was worth it so he didn't want him and Snyder was ok with that. But, at least then you couldn't blame Snyder. You would, you just couldn't .

You can't hire a GM and give him authority over the coaching staff when you have a staff in place he didn't hire. Unless you bring in Spurrier's friend in Ruskell. What do you know about Ruskell by the way? What has his input been with the Bucs. Precisely. Which picks is he responsible for? You don't know. Neither do I. We are just hopeful he's not Cerrato who we've convinced ourselves is incomptent though he's not been so here, and Mendes, who we've convinced ourselves has no eye for talent, though, he hasn't shown that during free agency or the draft yet, and Snyder, who we've been assured knows nothing, and yet every time a free agent is signed, all guys we DO approve of, from Armstead to Trotter to Jansen to Gardener, they credit Snyder for bringing them here because of how great he is at wooing players to help the team.

You want consistency you don't do a THING this offseason. You let the same front office do the same remarkable job it did last offseason. If you want to add someone, fine. Avoid subtracting if possible and if not, keep the dynamic in place that allows Snyder to continue being a remarkable strength in every negotiation we know about because of his will to get what we target. If we lose that, then Snyder will have made a major mistake he may not recover from.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Originally posted by Art

OSF, reply within.....

"Ok, I'll bite. Yes, Danny deserves credit, it would seem, for the Jansen contract and perhaps for the acquisition of and ongoing negotiations to keep Gardener."

You shouldn't bite. You've bitten before and as before, it's been shown that you lack any real foundation for the things you say because, largely, they are mythical.

"But, let's also recall that his victories are few and far between and, in fact, pale in comparison with Snyder's less than stellar record with the Redskins since taking ownership. Has Snyder done a few good things? Yes. Has he made many more mistakes? Yes and the record bears that out."

Other than being utterly false, I would attempt to recall this. But, his victories have been numerous. His mistakes have been much less noticed and glaring. Now, I realize that Snyder is blamed for a lot. He's blamed for the 2000 team that started 6-2 but then saw injuries to the offense and a failure to recapture the career years had the year before matched wind up bringing the team down. But, remember, the media predicted Snyder was ruining team chemistry and when we were 6-2 they put that idiocy to bed. It wasn't until we were so beat up and unable to do anything on offense that the media was able to realize the truth of their views that the Redskins finished 8-8 because Snyder ruined team chemistry.

Yawn. I realize the record may reflect a hyper active media that accounts Snyder's foibles in greater number than his victories. But, you must recall that the record actually bears another thing out entirely. Remember, the media was taunting Snyder for lowballing Jansen who would make $4 million a year look like a bargain basement price when he got to free agency. And the moment he signs for $4.16 million, it turns out Jansen's agents snookered Snyder for a too big contract for a good, but only good and not as good as he thinks Jansen. This is a media spin that already allows them to lay blame for future failures on "Snyder's desperation to win the fans back that he would overpay moderate talent since no one else would play in Washington."

Watch. If Jansen gets hurt and we struggle another year or two, they already have it set up that Jansen isn't that good and suddenly Snyder is overpaying because he can't keep players without doing so.

"With that said, obviously Snyder has his heart in the right place and is clearly doing everything he can to win. Fortunately, I'm beginning to see now some encouraging signs which suggest to me that Snyder has re-evaluated his historical approach to the team."

If you're just beginning to see signs, then you haven't been paying attention. Snyder has had two offseasons really in charge of this team since taking over. Marty had another. As another thread we were on points out, you have no idea what his historical actions really are. He's had two offseasons of historical actions.

In one, he resigned a key, young player from within and spent millions on high draft picks, and then added key defensive free agents who helped improve an awful defense to a Top 5 defense. His error was going too veteran. So, in his second go round he adjusts, and identifies younger players for the real bonus dollars. He also finds a way to sprinkle in solid vets at reasonable contracts -- see Armstead as an example.

History in his two years in charge is on his side. The media is on yours.

Art,

As far as I'm concerned one out of five winning seasons constitutes a less than stellar record. It wouldn't take a reckless gambler to bet that nearly everyone else would arrive at the same conclusion. I suppose you are the exception.

I don't buy into your theory that Snyder has been in charge for only two years. As the controlling owner, Snyder is ultimately responsible for what does or doesn't occur with this team. He made the decision, for instance, to give Schottenheimer full control. If that was a poor decision in retrospect, then he must ultimately be blamed because it was Snyder's decision to hand over the keys to the Redskins kingdom.

Snyder's W/L record is a fact. Synder's ownership (and the responsibility that comes with it) is a fact. Facts are, of course, a very good foundation to build upon.

[Art]

Oakton,

Snyder has owned the team for four years, not five. If you're going to bash the man, then do it with facts and not the made up nonsense you continue to bring. Snyder wasn't in charge of the offseason in 1999. He was, largely, in 2000 and was immensely successful. He wasn't in 2001. He was again this offseason and was largely successful.

Those are the facts upon which the foundation is laid. Individual moves made by the team under Snyder's ultimate command and control have been very fine. The totality of his moves has hurt us because it's left us starting fresh each of the last two years. With stability will come winning given the foundation of solid players drafted since 1999 we have a core group of stars capable of matching anyone. As we retain some continuity within a system we'll see more of an emergence of the lesser talented players and that has to come.

Snyder can't do much now other than continue making the fine moves he's credited with making and letting the coaching staff win. Snyder's win-loss record to date as an owner is precisely .500 with two games to go this year. That has been accomplished through an amazing amount of churn throughout the franchise that does accompany new ownership. But, if you need to keep making up fictional tales of woe to satisfy your desire to be incorrect on Snyder, then do so. I won't stop you. I will just keep correcting you.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Originally posted by Art

Oakton,

Snyder has owned the team for four years, not five. If you're going to bash the man, then do it with facts and not the made up nonsense you continue to bring. Snyder wasn't in charge of the offseason in 1999. He was, largely, in 2000 and was immensely successful. He wasn't in 2001. He was again this offseason and was largely successful.

Those are the facts upon which the foundation is laid. Individual moves made by the team under Snyder's ultimate command and control have been very fine. The totality of his moves has hurt us because it's left us starting fresh each of the last two years. With stability will come winning given the foundation of solid players drafted since 1999 we have a core group of stars capable of matching anyone. As we retain some continuity within a system we'll see more of an emergence of the lesser talented players and that has to come.

Snyder can't do much now other than continue making the fine moves he's credited with making and letting the coaching staff win. Snyder's win-loss record to date as an owner is precisely .500 with two games to go this year. That has been accomplished through an amazing amount of churn throughout the franchise that does accompany new ownership. But, if you need to keep making up fictional tales of woe to satisfy your desire to be incorrect on Snyder, then do so. I won't stop you. I will just keep correcting you.

Ah, mea culpa - you're right - about the length of ownership.

With respect to 2000/2001/2002, it depends upon what you define as "success". If success is to be defined in the same terms as mediocrity, then let's call it successfull. Mediocre, as far I'm concerned, is 8-8, 8-8 and 5/6/7-x, respectively. Success is winning.

Success can also be viewed as building an organization for the future; but Snyder has been building and tearing down for the last three. By your own admission in other threads of recent, you have stated that only now is this team beginning to build some continuity - a prerequisite for any successful organization.

[Art]

OSF,

Success can be achieved by many factors. Rescuing the team from the evil clutches of Norv is a success. I was a huge Norv guy right up until the end, so I don't say that lightly. Then, allowing Marty to attempt to rebuild the team cap situation through tight management was a success. Then, when Marty refused to yield to help the team improve, Snyder was successful in shifting from Marty's more veteran team to a younger bunch with an offseason focus on acquiring mostly young, mostly starting quality and experienced players to replace older players.

The outcome, as it has been, is that the team remains less than the sum of its parts. And it can't become equal to or greater than the sum until it is given time to grow as a team. Snyder, though, isn't to blame for the fact that the team hasn't had an opportunity to grow. The team quit on Norv. It was done growing. The team then rebelled on Marty, largely playing to spite him or at least IN SPITE of him. In order to win, Marty would have had to blow up the team and he could have if he was willing to run an offense that allowed receivers to do anything more than stop routes.

But, Snyder was even smart enough to know that openly questioning Marty's failure as a coach was off limits. So, the story grew about his personnel decisions and as Marty said, if he was willing to work with a personnel guy, though still having ultimate control, he'd still be the coach here. He would have been. Unfortunately he wouldn't yield to improve the team and Snyder wasn't able to allow the team to grow under Marty because in order to grow, it would have had to have been destroyed.

We are, essentially, in the first year of a program. It'll take time. If Snyder panics and fires Spurrier, it'll be devestating and stupid. Even if he hired Gibbs or Parcells. This is the first chance he has to let the system take root because the players haven't quit on the coaching staff or taken up arms against it. We do need stability. Absolutely. Right now we do. We needed to change things the last two years. So, Snyder should receive credit for realizing it and being willing and able to make the tough decisions involved with such actions.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Originally posted by Art

OSF,

Success can be achieved by many factors. Rescuing the team from the evil clutches of Norv is a success. I was a huge Norv guy right up until the end, so I don't say that lightly. Then, allowing Marty to attempt to rebuild the team cap situation through tight management was a success. Then, when Marty refused to yield to help the team improve, Snyder was successful in shifting from Marty's more veteran team to a younger bunch with an offseason focus on acquiring mostly young, mostly starting quality and experienced players to replace older players.

The outcome, as it has been, is that the team remains less than the sum of its parts. And it can't become equal to or greater than the sum until it is given time to grow as a team. Snyder, though, isn't to blame for the fact that the team hasn't had an opportunity to grow. The team quit on Norv. It was done growing. The team then rebelled on Marty, largely playing to spite him or at least IN SPITE of him. In order to win, Marty would have had to blow up the team and he could have if he was willing to run an offense that allowed receivers to do anything more than stop routes.

But, Snyder was even smart enough to know that openly questioning Marty's failure as a coach was off limits. So, the story grew about his personnel decisions and as Marty said, if he was willing to work with a personnel guy, though still having ultimate control, he'd still be the coach here. He would have been. Unfortunately he wouldn't yield to improve the team and Snyder wasn't able to allow the team to grow under Marty because in order to grow, it would have had to have been destroyed.

We are, essentially, in the first year of a program. It'll take time. If Snyder panics and fires Spurrier, it'll be devestating and stupid. Even if he hired Gibbs or Parcells. This is the first chance he has to let the system take root because the players haven't quit on the coaching staff or taken up arms against it. We do need stability. Absolutely. Right now we do. We needed to change things the last two years. So, Snyder should receive credit for realizing it and being willing and able to make the tough decisions involved with such actions.

Yes, and I was giving credit to Snyder for his recognition of the need for continuity and finally acting on it - especially with the various efforts we now see to keep certain players around for the long term.

Again, all of the problems with the Schottenheimer fiasco - some of which you have discussed - are ultimately, in my view, Snyder's fault. It was Snyder's decision to bring in Marty and surrender complete control. If surrendering absolute control to one person, your head coach, was a mistake, then it was Dan's.

Hey, yes I'm critical of Snyder but I also realize he is a relative novice with respect to owning and essentially managing an NFL team. He seems to be learning from some of his past mistakes and perhaps in the near future we can discuss what kind of a great owner he is - beginning in 2003.