SI's Best and Worst Owners

[Skinsinparadise]

Except Denver's been doing it over the years, trying to find a starter. We did it trying to find a back-up. Denver's RB picks were born out of necessity at the starting spot, ours wasn't.

And Denver has used 5 picks on RBs since the Portis trade.

I am mixed on the Portis deal. I do think Portis plus Shawn Springs equaled to better than Champ Bailey.

The one criticism that I think is at least debatable here is do they give up TOO MUCH in trades. Bailey at the time was a young premier CB considered by many the best in the game. It seemed fair to the football pundits at the time to have a straight up deal, Portis for Bailey. Why did they need to throw in a 2nd rounder?

It seems like the market for veteran QB's on the decline are 5th or 6th round draft picks like for example Trent Green. We gave up a third rounder for Mark Brunnel.

TJ Duckett for a 3rd and a 4th? Ditto for Lloyd, etc. Having said that I don't know if that's on Vinny, Snyder or Gibbs. But I don't think its far fetched to say in the past that the Redskins FO overeagerness to acquire players has led them to give up more than they needed to.

However, I can see that being a Joe Gibbs thing. He loves veterans, he has said in various ways that the draft is a crap shoot so I don't believe the draft held the same value for him than lets say a Parcells. To Gibbs for example throwing a 2nd rounder in for good measure to get Portis might not have felt like much -- because to him that could have been just as likely losing a 2nd rounder like Taylor Jacobs then it would be a Rocky McIntosh.

But they seem more disciplined now and I like that.

[elkabong82]

And it was 3 on RBs and 2 on FBs. I left off our 2 FB picks when discussing us so I left theirs off as well.

New coaching changed the offensive scheme.

In reality, your second point is what I have been trying to voice this entire time. Both teams made out well. Denver didn't need a stable RB to produce so it allowed them to make a move that worked out for both teams.

Yeah, I figured we agreed there. I looked at the position Denver drafted, so if some of them were for FBs I didn't realize it cuz I don't know every single HB that goes through there cuz there are so many. Their tandem has worked well, but they have also had to put resources in to finding a full time starter. First it was the 2nd rounder they got from us, and now most recently it's a 1st rounder. We agree overall, I simply disagree with your viewpoint on Denvers RB situation.

[TheLongshot]

I am mixed on the Portis deal. I do think Portis plus Shawn Springs equaled to better than Champ Bailey.

The one criticism that I think is at least debatable here is do they give up TOO MUCH in trades. Bailey at the time was a young premier CB considered by many the best in the game. It seemed fair to the football pundits at the time to have a straight up deal, Portis for Bailey. Why did they need to throw in a 2nd rounder?

It seems like the market for veteran QB's on the decline are 5th or 6th round draft picks like for example Trent Green. We gave up a third rounder for Mark Brunnel.

TJ Duckett for a 3rd and a 4th? Ditto for Lloyd, etc. Having said that I don't know if that's on Vinny, Snyder or Gibbs. But I don't think its far fetched to say in the past that the Redskins FO overeagerness to acquire players has led them to give up more than they needed to.

However, I can see that being a Joe Gibbs thing. He loves veterans, he has said in various ways that the draft is a crap shoot so I don't believe the draft held the same value for him than lets say a Parcells. To Gibbs for example throwing a 2nd rounder in for good measure to get Portis might not have felt like much -- because to him that could have been just as likely losing a 2nd rounder like Taylor Jacobs then it would be a Rocky McIntosh.

But they seem more disciplined now and I like that.

The problem with the "they gave up too much" argument is that you often don't know what other offers were on the table. Was someone offering a 4th round pick for Brunell? Was someone offering a 3rd for Lloyd? We don't know. It seems likely to me, since they don't pull those picks out of their asses.

[Art]

Then Snyder is responsible for holding those in his FO accountable and making the necessary moves to help facilitate putting a winning team on the field. I don't see this accountability in his dealings with Cerrato.

Gibbs was Cerrato's boss for four years. There's some suggestion that Cerrato actually gets credit for Campbell as he was never sold on Campbell, but Gibbs was. If Campbell explodes and does great, we'd reverse that obviously.

Cerrato also doesn't currently and won't ever have the sole say on the QB pick. Our team operates as a team within the personnel department. Everyone has a say. Everyone has a grade. They are all pulled together for a final grade that weighs each person. Cerrato's job is to provide grades, but, as well to pull everything together. As he does not hold the ultimate personnel sway it's difficult to hold him accountable for failures or to give him overwhelming credit for success.

We've had more positive than negative player acquisitions with him and he's successfully adjusted the grading system based on the needs of the current staffs he's run things with. But, for the most part, he's the facilitator who brings everything together, and then, his role takes on more importance as he assigns overall need and priority for acquisitions based on that cumulative take. Again, here we've done reasonably well.

Where we've failed for the most part is QB. We're not done with Campbell yet, so we hope he proves successful where he hasn't yet. I do envision if this system continues to be unable to land someone at that key spot you will potentially see a system shift away from the collaborative work group to more of a dominating one with someone big in charge of everything.

[Shilsu]

The problem with the "they gave up too much" argument is that you often don't know what other offers were on the table. Was someone offering a 4th round pick for Brunell? Was someone offering a 3rd for Lloyd? We don't know. It seems likely to me, since they don't pull those picks out of their asses.

If the Redskins had traded two first rounders, a third rounder, and Jason Campbell for Jay Cutler, would that not be considered "too much" just because the Chicago Bears had a similar offer?

Proper valuation is defined by fundamentals, not demand. Efficient market theory does not exist in the NFL... Yet.

[VaBeachRedskin]

If the Redskins had traded two first rounders, a third rounder, and Jason Campbell for Jay Cutler, would that not be considered "too much" just because the Chicago Bears had a similar offer?

Proper valuation is defined by fundamentals, not demand. Efficient market theory does not exist in the NFL... Yet.

The Bears gave up too much for Cutler, so yes.

[elkabong82]

I am mixed on the Portis deal. I do think Portis plus Shawn Springs equaled to better than Champ Bailey.

The one criticism that I think is at least debatable here is do they give up TOO MUCH up in trades. Bailey at the time was a young premier CB considered by many the best in the game. It seemed fair to the football pundits at the time to have a straight up deal, Portis for Bailey. Why did they need to throw in a 2nd rounder?

It seems like the market for veteran QB's on the decline are 5th or 6th round draft picks like for example Trent Green. We gave up a third rounder for Mark Brunnel.

TJ Duckett for a 3rd and a 4th? Ditto for Lloyd, etc. Having said that I don't know if that's on Vinny, Snyder or Gibbs. But I don't think its far fetched to say in the past that the Redskins FO overeagerness to acquire players has led them to give up more than they needed to.

However, I can see that being a Joe Gibbs thing. He loves veterans, he has said in various ways that the draft is a crap shoot so I don't believe the draft held the same value for him than lets say a Parcells. To Gibbs for example throwing a 2nd rounder to get Portis might not have felt much -- to him that could have been just as likely losing a Taylor Jacobs type player then it would be a Rocky McIntosh.

But they seem more disciplined now and I like that.

See, the status of Bailey when he was a Skin gets exaggerated on here. Bailey was cosnidered a talented CB with great potential, he didn't really become considered the "best in the league" until he went to Denver.

Denver had leverage. Bailey was tagged and wanted out of the area completely. Denver had a RB on a rookie contract, whereas they were going to have to give Bailey a huge deal. I've seen a couple other offers, one from the Browns I believe, but none were as good. We had to throw in the 2nd rounder because we had to get something done fast, and everyone knew it.

So yes, we did give up too much (which btw I find odd that in the past I've seen people say we got milked in that trade, but also that RBs are a dime a dozen and elite CBs rare, which actually would justify the 2nd rounder they just complained about, lol.).

However, we were forced to. We had no choice because everyone knew Bailey wanted out and that he'd be a free agent the following year if he stayed with the Skins.

The only way I've ever been able to see logic in the Duckett trade was to view Duckett as our future back-up RB to Portis. Betts was in his contract year and hadn't done jack squat up to that point, statistically. So Portis goes down and Gibbs feels he can't rely on Betts, he gets Duckett who we can then negotiate a new contract with if he does well. Then, Betts rushes for over 1,000 yards and we sign him to an extension and let Duckett's contract expire. If Betts hadn't stepped up in '06, I doubt he'd be here now.

Also, Duckett and Lloyd were acquired by Gibbs, who values vets over rookies. Even in his first tenure we often didn't have a lot of early picks in the draft. It's part of Gibbs' philosophy. I haven't seen us do it since, except for Jason Taylor which was a panic move, IMO. Completely agree though that the FO's overeagernees has led them to overpay at times, and with the rest of your post after that.

[Rocky21]

Cerrato also doesn't currently and won't ever have the sole say on the QB pick. Our team operates as a team within the personnel department. Everyone has a say. Everyone has a grade. They are all pulled together for a final grade that weighs each person. Cerrato's job is to provide grades, but, as well to pull everything together. As he does not hold the ultimate personnel sway it's difficult to hold him accountable for failures or to give him overwhelming credit for success.

As Executive Vice President/Football Operations, Vinny is responsible for all aspects of the team's football organization - including personnel, the team roster, scouting and salary cap management. From that day forward, all fingers can be pointed directly at him.

[TheLongshot]

If the Redskins had traded two first rounders, a third rounder, and Jason Campbell for Jay Cutler, would that not be considered "too much" just because the Chicago Bears had a similar offer?

Proper valuation is defined by fundamentals, not demand. Efficient market theory does not exist in the NFL... Yet.

But that's not the arguement that I was replying to. Skinsinparadise's argument is that we overpaid in comparison to what the rest of the league was willing to pay, which he can't really prove because he doesn't really know what all the offers were.

[Skinsinparadise]

The problem with the "they gave up too much" argument is that you often don't know what other offers were on the table. Was someone offering a 4th round pick for Brunell? Was someone offering a 3rd for Lloyd? We don't know. It seems likely to me, since they don't pull those picks out of their asses.

I would be with you if it didn't seem to be a pattern. I am actually OK with the FO and Danny for the most part with the exception of them trading too many draft picks for veterans.

I do believe the climate is changing. It was Snyder who said he won't give up next years #1 pick. Per my post, my hunch is that was more on Gibbs than anybody. Its well documented that Gibbs loves, loves, loves veterans, and while he doesn't mind the draft, its not the be all and end all for him because he wants players he knows he can count on.

And yeah agree we don't know the specifics of who else was making offers but I just haven't noticed teams for example giving up third rounders for Brunnel type QB's. Giving up a third and 4th rounder for Duckett just struck me hasty considering they had Portis, Betts and Cartright on the roster.

Yeah Portis was banged up but he ended up starting, Duckett as we all know ended up being extraneous. The FO IMO just struck me as being more cavalier than the typical FO in terms of giving up draft picks.

And I am wondering though if that was more of a Gibbs thing. Snyder for example seems to like trading down and accumulating picks in the draft. Vinny's expertise is supposed to be college players. Aside from the Jason Taylor trade, which i understood at the time, they haven't dumped picks so perhaps the climate is changing.

[MassSkinsFan]

The CEO is not the owner of Bank of America.

A football team's owner differs from a CEO in that no one wants their owner to ACT as a CEO. EVERYONE wants their owner to hire a CEO, which is either the coach or GM, depending on which you view as more important. The owner of a football team is specifically asked to stay out of the way of his football people and to provide for them. When he doesn't, he immediately becomes a questionable owner.

The owner is not the highest person in the football organization. Not by our wishes. The highest person is generally the coach, or in some cases the GM. The owner is specifically faulted if he allows players to circumvent his coach and come to him with complaints. He's not the person the buck stops at. His people are. Which is why his KEY responsibility is to find the right people.

In this, Snyder has an impressive record of acquiring universally respected men to lead his franchise. They haven't done the job for various reasons. Now we have Zorn. He's the first obviously questionable hire. If Zorn succeeds it'll allow hindsight to have us feel it was a wise move, but, mostly, we'll consider it dubious if he fails as we generally thought it when it took place.

The idea behind Zorn is fine, but, subtract at least 10 if not 20 years from the age .

Danny is not responsible for winning. He's responsible to give the people we demand he give responsibility to what they say they need. If Snyder were responsible for winning, we'd be asking him to make the decisions we all beg him not to make.

You make some good points, but I think I confused things with my metaphor. This situation is a bit different. The owners of BOA are the stockholders. With the Skins the analog to stockholders is the fans. However, BOA stockholders can assert their rights to call for accountability whereas we cannot (at least not easily). We could boycott, put the funds we might spend on the Skins in escrow, etc., etc., but none of it is really feasible or simple. So, in a lot of ways this is a moot point, yet interesting.

I'm assuming given your proximity to things that I can trust what you've said about Snyder's involvement in personnel decisions (acquisition only after decisions are made, since 2000). So, that's something I've just learned in this thread. Bearing that in mind, I'm inclined to view him in a less dismal light.

In fact, I've been hoping for a change in the success of the FO, based on the relative continuity and what looked like a decent draft this year. I guess we'll see.

[hail2skins]

Just to give a blast from the past, here's a thread from 2005 discuss Snyder as an owner.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=88134

Ultimately I still go back to the fact that we're on our fourth coach since the 2000-2001 offseason as problematic. You can claim that our choices have been "great hires" but then why are we on our 4th coach since?

Marty seemed to have us going in the right direction, and after he leaves Snyder brings back the first guy Marty showed the door too.

Spurrier? Yes, he was considered hot property, but there were also warning signs on how undisciplined some of his Florida teams were. I didn't consider the Spurrier years the disaster that a lot of people did, but admittedly the collapse in late 2003 when the team seemed to quit on him was disturbing. One wonders how much difficulty he ultimately had working with Snyder....we'll probably never know.

Gibbs? Hard to argue with the hire, but when you stepped back from the initial euphoria, it was tough to see how hiring a 62-year-old man with diabetes into the rigors of today's NFL was going to contribute to the long-term stability of the team. He may have pulled it off, but I think the switch to Saunders in 2006 hurt.

Again, at some point you have to identify a cause for this franchise's mediocrity under Snyder's regime. True, the franchise wasn't doing great during the balance of the 1990s, but its tough to argue that we've even improved much. Or maybe you can just say that the Skins are where they should be as an average team in the league......I dunno.

Finally, it is probably unfair that Snyder gets tarred as one of the worst owners in the league. What would make him worse than, say for sake of argument, the guy who owns the Vikings? I agree somewhat with BLC that Snyder's early history continues to haunt him, but unfortunately he seems to do little to help his perception. He's almost like the anti-Leonsis.

[Skinsinparadise]

Just to give a blast from the past, here's a thread from 2005 discuss Snyder as an owner.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=88134

Ultimately I still go back to the fact that we're on our fourth coach since the 2000-2001 offseason as problematic. You can claim that our choices have been "great hires" but then why are we on our 4th coach since?

Norv was hired pre Snyder and had plenty of time to prove himself. Then came Marty, I recall reading something to the effect that Marty didn't want to just coach but also stay on as the defacto GM, Snyder wanted to strip that power from him, so Marty departed.

Spurrier quit, I am assuming partly because he was overwhelmed with how much more demanding time wise the NFL was compared to college. I recall reading in college, he'd be able to go golfing at 5 pm and call it a day. Gibbs quit because of his grandson's situation.

It doesn't appear that Snyder goes through coaches for the same reasons than lets say George Steinbrenner used to go through managers.

[MattFancy]

Norv was hired pre Snyder and had plenty of time to prove himself. Then came Marty, I recall reading something to the effect that Marty didn't want to just coach but also stay on as the defacto GM, Snyder wanted to strip that power from him, so Marty departed.

Spurrier quit, I am assuming partly because he was overwhelmed with how much more demanding time wise the NFL was compared to college. I recall reading in college, he'd be able to go golfing at 5 pm and call it a day. Gibbs quit because of his grandson's situation.

It doesn't appear that Snyder goes through coaches for the same reasons than lets say George Steinbrenner used to go through managers.

I agree, the only that was let go or whatever was Marty. Seemed unfair that he only had a year and we finished the season 8-3. But Gibbs left to be with his family, and Spurrier just couldn't handle the NFL. So besides Marty, he really hasn't been going through a bunch of coaches.

[TheLongshot]

The owners of BOA are the stockholders. With the Skins the analog to stockholders is the fans.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! The analog to the stockholders are those with ownership stakes in the Redskins, with Snyder being the majority shareholder.

The fans are just the customers. As customers we have the right to do business or not do business with the team (or with the bank in the case of BoA). We do not have any rights in dictating how BoA does business outside of giving them or withdrawing our business.

[hail2skins]

I certainly can't claim to know what was going through Gibbs' mind and don't doubt that he cared very much about his grandson's well-being and wanted to spend time with him. However, I'm also inclined to think that the way the previous four years had gone played a lot into Joe's decision to retire as well. I also think a victory at Seattle followed by at least one more victory at Dallas might have prompted him to stay on, at least for a fifth season.

Again, it was hard to argue with the hiring of Gibbs at the time, but anyone who thought he was going to be here longer than the duration of his five-year contract was being optimistic. If I were owner I'd like to at least plan to have the guy here for 10 years if all was going half-well. Sure, understandable that you'd make an exception for Gibbs, but still.......smacked of the win-now mentality.

Spurrier I agree seemed to quit on us, but again, its intriguing to contemplate the dynamics of the relationship between him and Snyder during those two years. We'll probably never know.

[MassSkinsFan]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! The analog to the stockholders are those with ownership stakes in the Redskins, with Snyder being the majority shareholder.

The fans are just the customers. As customers we have the right to do business or not do business with the team (or with the bank in the case of BoA). We do not have any rights in dictating how BoA does business outside of giving them or withdrawing our business.

You know, you're right - that was a pretty stupid mistake.

But my point was we're kind of stuck because we are fans. I'm not a fan of one bank over another, and don't have a red white and blue BOA jersey or orange ING jersey in my closet.

My brand loyalty to the Skins is a source of frustration since 1992.

[tonyriggins]

Snyder is the worst! But I figuired that Al Davis would get the most votes. It never cease to amaze me the amount of support Snyder gets from this board. It is good to see that the media has finally seen how bad he is.

[Art]

Snyder is the worst! But I figuired that Al Davis would get the most votes. It never cease to amaze me the amount of support Snyder gets from this board. It is good to see that the media has finally seen how bad he is.

Some of us, in support of Snyder, actually attempted to provide some rationale for consideration. So long as you have zero thought in your post, you'll be thought of as someone who will speak next ONLY when he does provide that.

Meaning, you don't get to hump on board someone else without providing your thoughts.

[Skin Deep]

One of my ultimate "eff you" fantasies in sports is Dan Snyder winning a Super Bowl before Jeffrey Lurie. Words couldn't explain how much I would relish in that outcome.

There wouldn't be enough crow to eat, should that day come.

[paloosa]

How can Robert Kraft be such a great owner when he had Spygate and cheated to win? How can Lurie be a success when he hasn't even won a championship? And finally if Dan Snyder is on the list of bad owners why isn't Jerry Jones on the same list? What has he done lately except bring in a bunch of thugs to play for his team. TO, Tank and Pacman. Yes they are no longer there but again what has he done to warrant an absent from this list? Dan makes more money and he is considered one of the worst owners. Give me a break.

[McD5]

How can Robert Kraft be such a great owner when he had Spygate and cheated to win? How can Lurie be a success when he hasn't even won a championship? And finally if Dan Snyder is on the list of bad owners why isn't Jerry Jones on the same list? What has he done lately except bring in a bunch of thugs to play for his team. TO, Tank and Pacman. Yes they are no longer there but again what has he done to warrant an absent from this list? Dan makes more money and he is considered one of the worst owners. Give me a break.

Superbowls. Plural.

[Art]

Superbowls. Plural.

Of which, he's done almost nothing to achieve. He hired a loser coach who hired his loser personnel guy and they were on the verge of termination. Then Brady. Then "model".

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Superbowls. Plural.

exactly. jerry jones has 3 superbowl rings.

lurie has built a team that has been to the NFC championship 5 times in the past 8 years and won the division numerous times.

dan snyder overspends for free agents that reflect poorly on our team, hes won the division once in 1999, has gone through 5 coaches, has never had back to back winning seasons, has never won 11 games, has never been deep into the playoffs, and has a losing record since taking over the club. plus the media hates him because of his whole aura he gives off (dont ask, you know what im referring to).

dan snyders record as owner: 76-84

the three teams that everyone makes fun of the most could arguably be the lions, bengals, and raiders. lets take a look at those teams over the past 10 seasons

lions: 48-112

bengals: 62-97-1

raiders: 65-95

so while the lions are far worse than everyone, weve won an average of 1 more game per year than the raiders and bengals. and the raiders went to the superbowl in 02, and have won the division 3 times in the past ten years. the bengals have also won the division once in the past decade.

were really not that far ahead of two of the teams that everyone likes to make fun of every season.

[Art]

It is true that Dan Snyder has done none of the things BLC says. Of couse, Dan Snyder is not the guy supposed to do any of those things. Funny how he'll never ever do them, even at a point when the team might. Jones did win Super Bowls prior to making himself the lead in personnel.