SI's Best and Worst Owners

[MassSkinsFan]

Kraft was a loser, who hired a career loser head coach who then hired his yes-man personnel guy and they were losing again, until, Brady. I think the Ravens have solid ownership, but they ought not be ahead of Indy, a small-market team that is very competitive, because of Manning.

Art,

I think you're a bit off here.

• Kraft wasn't the loser (he can't have a W/L record after all:)) - his team was
  
• Seeing this trend, he took steps to correct it.
  
• He identified a value HC with a history of working as an assistant in good coaching staffs (twice with the Tuna), and yet had only one HC role in a crap organization that didn't support his needs - in other words someone who knew what to do to win, but hadn't been given the tools yet
  
• He gave him the tools and some time to make them work
  
• Success
  
• When Brady went down last year, a guy who hadn't started a football game since HS came in and did a pretty decent job, which indicates that there is some succession planning in the event that Brady is lost for good, and systems to support a transition
  
• It's also important to note that although Bledsoe brought no SBs to NE, he was at the helm during a period where the Pats went from whipping boys to contenders
  

All these things tell me there is more than dumb luck going for the Pats.They tell me that Kraft can recognize the need to improve and undertake to make it happen. Whether he does that himself or has someone else do it for him, it's obvious he wants his team to win as well as profit, and that he has the right people and/or systems in place to see that it does.

If Daniel Snyder has comparable tools in place to ensure success then either he is incredibly, incredibly unlucky, or he is not including wins on the field in his definition of success.

[McD5]

We all want to win it.

The disconnect is you think it's Snyder's job to win it.

It's not. Snyder's job is to provide the people who's job it is to win it what they say they need to accomplish that goal. Nothing more. Nothing less. He owns the team. He doesn't control what it does on the field. He doesn't call plays. He doesn't prepare the team. He doesn't pick players. He funds the organization lavishly and responds to requests made of him. That is the mark of an owner who's doing what he's supposed to do.

Art, welcome back to the site again. You have original ideas.

In this case, you make a few good points. But to act like Snyders job is only "to provide the people whose job if is to win" is simply inaccurate.

Here is a simple analogy: You and I buy a chinese restaurant tomorrow. Neither of us know anything about chinese food.

If after ten years, the food is still below average, we The owners are to blame.

It is our restaurant. If our chefs suck, it is our responsibility to fire them. If our GM sucks....it reflects poorly on us.

It is our restaurant. If our restaurant sucks, then we have made bad choices on who we have hired to run it. And, unless we want the restaurant to continue to suck, it is our responsibility to admit our errors, and to fix the situation.

We aren't "great" restaurant owners because we overpay our chefs and managers.

[Art]

Art,

I think you're a bit off here.

• Kraft wasn't the loser (he can't have a W/L record after all:)) - his team was
  
• Seeing this trend, he took steps to correct it.
  
• He identified a value HC with a history of working as an assistant in good coaching staffs (twice with the Tuna), and yet had only one HC role in a crap organization that didn't support his needs - in other words someone who knew what to do to win, but hadn't been given the tools yet
  
• He gave him the tools and some time to make them work
  
• Success
  
• When Brady went down last year, a guy who hadn't started a football game since HS came in and did a pretty decent job, which indicates that there is some succession planning in the event that Brady is lost for good, and systems to support a transition
  
• It's also important to note that although Bledsoe brought no SBs to NE, he was at the helm during a period where the Pats went from whipping boys to contenders
  

All these things tell me there is more than dumb luck going for the Pats.They tell me that Kraft can recognize the need to improve and undertake to make it happen. Whether he does that himself or has someone else do it for him, it's obvious he wants his team to win as well as profit, and that he has the right people and/or systems in place to see that it does.

If Daniel Snyder has comparable tools in place to ensure success then either he is incredibly, incredibly unlucky, or he is not including wins on the field in his definition of success.

I believe the luck further followed the Pats. I believe they won a single game last year against a team with a winning record. The Skins playing that schedule would have gone 11-5 more likely than not. When Campbell went down a couple years ago, we had a guy step up and outperform him and lead us to the playoffs. You can frequently have people in established systems capable of doing good work for you when a starter goes down.

[hail2skins]

Rooney has Big Ben to rescue him after 20 years of not being good, and, in honesty, I like the concept of hiring very young coaches and sticking with them for a decade, because ultimately, even if they are not GREAT, the system can make you competitive.

I definitely agree with your concept about sticking with young coaches. Zorn, in his mid-fifties, is not very young, but somewhat who I think Snyder could envision being here for a decade unless he totally craps the bed. I think you had to be naive if you thought a 62-year-old Gibbs was going to be here for anywhere close to that long.

As for the Steelers, they had a mediocre decade in the 80s with Noll after the 70s dynasty, but they were far from "not being good" under Cowher in the decade prior to Big Ben's arrival. I think the majority of Skins fans would trade how the Steelers did in the 1993-2003 timeframe over what we've had under Snyder.......even if it resulted in no rings.

[Art]

Art, welcome back to the site again. You have original ideas.

In this case, you make a few good points. But to act like Snyders job is only "to provide the people whose job if is to win" is simply inaccurate.

Here is a simple analogy: You and I buy a chinese restaurant tomorrow. Neither of us know anything about chinese food.

If after ten years, the food is still below average, we The owners are to blame.

It is our restaurant. If our chefs suck, it is our responsibility to fire them. If our GM sucks....it reflects poorly on us.

It is our restaurant. If our restaurant sucks, then we have made bad choices on who we have hired to run it. And, unless we want the restaurant to continue to suck, it is our responsibility to admit our errors, and to fix the situation.

We aren't "great" restaurant owners because we overpay our chefs and managers.

These aren't original ideas. They are clear and easy to process. The business analogy was already ruined when Mass tried it. It goes no further with you. Your idea is further troubling because you actually ASK that Snyder fire more people while I'm CERTAIN I can find posts from you complaining about five coaches. Want me to look?

If we own a business in almost ANY other field, WE are responsible. We are the people making ALL the decisions. We ARE responsible if it fails. Football teams, and athletic franchises are unique in that they are the SOLE business we ask an owner to buy, then stay out of the way. It's the sole business we ask the owner merely to hire people to do the rest. We can't place, because it's stupid and unrealistic, the same measures you would a guy owning a gas station or an eatery. Those people are the all for those businesses.

On our team, we don't want Snyder to be that. And he's not. So until he is -- as Jones is or Davis is -- we have to recognize he's performing the role we want of an owner. Hire people. Give them what they ask for. Make changes when that isn't working. If Zorn crashes and burns, do you think all those big name coaches available next year will be rumored to come here?

As for overpaying, we simply do not. We underpay base salary and we overpay guarantees. That's what we do. We have the EXACT same pot to work with as everyone else. The difference is we acquire people by giving them the money versus putting it in salary. The end of contract bloat you see is really just built in mechanisms to convert for valuable players or shed for weaker ones.

[TheLongshot]

Art, welcome back to the site again. You have original ideas.

In this case, you make a few good points. But to act like Snyders job is only "to provide the people whose job if is to win" is simply inaccurate.

Here is a simple analogy: You and I buy a chinese restaurant tomorrow. Neither of us know anything about chinese food.

If after ten years, the food is still below average, we The owners are to blame.

It is our restaurant. If our chefs suck, it is our responsibility to fire them. If our GM sucks....it reflects poorly on us.

It is our restaurant. If our restaurant sucks, then we have made bad choices on who we have hired to run it. And, unless we want the restaurant to continue to suck, it is our responsibility to admit our errors, and to fix the situation.

We aren't "great" restaurant owners because we overpay our chefs and managers.

Well, we have fired head chefs. We've also had chefs and assistants leave of their own accord or leave because said head chef left and the new one wanted new assistants.

Your analogy only makes sense if you are doing the same thing for the past 10 years with no change. The biggest bugaboo this organization has had over that time period is that we've had too much change in that time. Even with Gibbs, he decided bringing in a new O-Coordinator was a good idea, which caused more upheaval than expected.

[Art]

As a quick break out, one thing Snyder does that is a superior and wonderful thing for us is to openly take the hit on any player who doesn't work out, while most owners are far more selfish. They make the team take the hit. The definition of cap hell is when owners allow base salaries to bloat to the point that the only way out of the problem is to cut players and weaken the team.

Snyder basically says, "Screw that." He gives the team what it says it needs and he does so by putting his money, not the team's operating room, on the table. He allows the team to be flexible and move with player acquisitions and within the cap because he will put his cash on the table, rather than what most team's do, which is to take that year's operating profit on the table.

[hail2skins]

I believe the luck further followed the Pats. I believe they won a single game last year against a team with a winning record. The Skins playing that schedule would have gone 11-5 more likely than not. When Campbell went down a couple years ago, we had a guy step up and outperform him and lead us to the playoffs. You can frequently have people in established systems capable of doing good work for you when a starter goes down.

But you can also say the Patriots at least beat the teams they were supposed to beat. The Pats lost to Miami, Chargers, Colts, Jets, Steelers.......four out of the five were playoff teams (although I'll grant you the Chargers getting there at 8-8 was lame). Skins had the Rams and Bengals on their schedule.....what happened there?

[McD5]

These aren't original ideas. They are clear and easy to process. The business analogy was already ruined when Mass tried it. It goes no further with you. Your idea is further troubling because you actually ASK that Snyder fire more people while I'm CERTAIN I can find posts from you complaining about five coaches. Want me to look?

Not to challenge you, but I believe you have me mixed up with someone else. You can search for days, and you will never find such a thing.

I have never complained about five coaches. In business, I am a pretty hard-nosed guy. If anything, I lack patience. I feel the same way about football coaches.

If something isn't working, try to find something that is.

Back to the topic, you believe that an owner's role is limited. Financing and gameday experience, and that is about it.

I feel they have much more responsibility. It is just a difference of opinion.

[Art]

Not to challenge you, but I believe you have me mixed up with someone else. You can search for days, and you will never find such a thing.

I have never complained about five coaches. In business, I am a pretty hard-nosed guy. If anything, I lack patience. I feel the same way about football coaches.

If something isn't working, try to find something that is.

Back to the topic, you believe that an owner's role is limited. Financing and gameday experience, and that is about it.

I feel they have much more responsibility. It is just a difference of opinion.

I am not confused McD. The majority of those who don't like Snyder tend to be quite similar and easy to anticipate given they largely use fiction to base their views and consistently contradict them. If you are one of the few true haters who legitimately believes a lack of stability in the men changed with running your organization, you are both rare here, and not all that well supported in view.

But, I appreciate someone who's pure in his views, so I commend you if that's the case.

Back to the original conversation, it isn't my view that the owner of an athletic fanchise has a limited view. It is the near universal view of fans that we want our owners to stay out of the way for the team they own. It can fairly be said that prior to Zorn, Dan Snyder owned Joe Gibbs' football team.

Dan Snyder now owns Jim Zorn's football team. If Snyder owned a bistro, it would be Dan Snyder owning Dan Snyder's bistro. The difference is you seem eager to apply all the standard rules of ownership onto the owner of a professional football team. They are misplaced, as you well know, because we demand owners NOT run every element of their team. We demand someone else do that.

But, as you're for change, given that Snyder hasn't been able to find someone to do that, perhaps you want him to, so you can then squarely account him the problem when we fail, given you seem to have trouble grasping in his clearly limited ownership role, the successes and failures are on others, so long as the owner is doing his limited ownership role of providing his people what they want.

If they are wrong, it doesn't make Snyder wrong. If they are right, it doesn't make Snyder right. You don't get to demand on one hand that he stay out of things, then blame him for things you want him out of.

[Art]

But you can also say the Patriots at least beat the teams they were supposed to beat. The Pats lost to Miami, Chargers, Colts, Jets, Steelers.......four out of the five were playoff teams (although I'll grant you the Chargers getting there at 8-8 was lame). Skins had the Rams and Bengals on their schedule.....what happened there?

The Pats did beat the soft teams they were handed. They are certainly more in tune within their systems than we are, which accounts for our frequent up and down feel, though, for the most part, what happened to us late was we weren't supposed to beat teams like the Bengals, because, at that point in time, we weren't the superior team.

Why?

Largely because Zorn and Campbell could not generate anything offensively.

[VaBeachRedskin]

As for overpaying, we simply do not. We underpay base salary and we overpay guarantees. That's what we do. We have the EXACT same pot to work with as everyone else. The difference is we acquire people by giving them the money versus putting it in salary. The end of contract bloat you see is really just built in mechanisms to convert for valuable players or shed for weaker ones.

This hampers us when the moves backfire because the low base salaries set us up for heavy amounts of dead cap when we try to get rid of those guys. This practice works for only so long until the players finally break down. We might get saved by a no cap year which would allow us to shed some of the larger potential dead weight contracts, but that doesn't help us build a team.

[hail2skins]

Art, I think perhaps the one thing that has come out of the overall "average" results from the "great" hires of Marty, Spurrier, and Gibbs was perhaps Snyder has learned not to overlook the potential pitfalls of such hires and has learned to use more due diligence in the process. Probably has a lot to do why he didn't follow Gibbs with who many felt was the obvious choice (Gregg) and wound up with Zorn instead. Lets hope it works out.

[McD5]

I If you are one of the few true haters who legitimately believes a lack of stability in the men changed with running your organization, you are both rare here, and not all that well supported in view.

But, I appreciate someone who's pure in his views, so I commend you if that's the case.

I'm not a Snyder hater Art. Far from it.

I actually feel bad for the guy.

He spends a ton of money, and the results achieved must make him frustrated(Financial benefits aside).

I do have some extremely rare, and individual views about the whole situation.

I believe that people take advantage of him. I will even go so far as to say that Joe Gibbs took advantage of him. If I am paying Gibbs $5 million a year, I expect much more than Gibbs gave. A thorough knowledge of the rule book, for starters.

However, I do believe that the owner sets the example for the entire franchise. Much like parents for their children. If a parent is slack, a kid will try to get away with anything.

I believe that Snyder has perpetuated this morale throughout the organization, albeit unintentionally.

[Art]

This hampers us when the moves backfire because the low base salaries set us up for heavy amounts of dead cap when we try to get rid of those guys. This practice works for only so long until the players finally break down. We might get saved by a no cap year which would allow us to shed some of the larger potential dead weight contracts, but that doesn't help us build a team.

It has yet to hamper us. The cap is three parts. If we carry a high signing bonus guarantee one year, with league low base salaries and low dead money, then the following year we carry average signing, minimal base and high dead, then average, low and average, it all fits in the same bucket.

The process works forever assuming the owner will do it AND the system stays in place. If the owner will do it, he can do it forever. If the system stays in place, he can do it forever. If the system changes, he can take a big chunk out of our butts. No doubt.

[VaBeachRedskin]

The Pats did beat the soft teams they were handed. They are certainly more in tune within their systems than we are, which accounts for our frequent up and down feel, though, for the most part, what happened to us late was we weren't supposed to beat teams like the Bengals, because, at that point in time, we weren't the superior team.

Why?

Largely because Zorn and Campbell could not generate anything offensively.

I don't care how inept our offense got towards the end of the year to say that we weren't a better team than the Bengals is a joke. There is no excuse for losing that game or the Rams game for that matter.

[VaBeachRedskin]

It has yet to hamper us. The cap is three parts. If we carry a high signing bonus guarantee one year, with league low base salaries and low dead money, then the following year we carry average signing, minimal base and high dead, then average, low and average, it all fits in the same bucket.

The process works forever assuming the owner will do it AND the system stays in place. If the owner will do it, he can do it forever. If the system stays in place, he can do it forever. If the system changes, he can take a big chunk out of our butts. No doubt.

It's a patch system. It doesn't facilitate getting younger as it forces us to keep around some of the older guys that aren't performing up to what they once were based on their dead cap numbers.

[Art]

I don't care how inept our offense got towards the end of the year to say that we weren't a better team than the Bengals is a joke. There is no excuse for losing that game or the Rams game for that matter.

We weren't a better team than anyone to end the year. Not even Detroit. We were hopless and it showed. I believe that's correctable if Zorn and Campbell can figure it out, but, we'll see.

[Art]

It's a patch system. It doesn't facilitate getting younger as it forces us to keep around some of the older guys that aren't performing up to what they once were based on their dead cap numbers.

We keep those guys who are still productive to a degree, but, indeed, we don't cut guys with bigger contracts if they are still somewhat productive. Jansen probably has this year to retain his roster spot, or he'll be gone next. Of course, next year is the dead space year, so you'll expect a lot of that.

[hail2skins]

Who here thought going into the playoffs that Arizona was going to go to the Superbowl?

Yeah, I thought so. Both the Giants and Arizona were mediocre teams who got hot at the right time and were able to make a run. If we had similar luck we could have made runs in 2005 and 2007.

The Giants did follow up their 2007 run with a pretty impressive 2008 season until Plaxico's nonsense crippled that team. Just like the Steelers 2005 run was legitimized somewhat by the 15-1 season they enjoyed the season before. We'll see how Arizona does this year to determine if 2008 was just a flash in the pan. If the Skins ever make it to the Bowl I'd like it to also be preceded or succeeded by one season where we are fairly dominant.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

so if these teams like the pats/steelers/eagles all have success because of their QB, couldnt you then assume that the owner was the one responsible for getting a smart football man to find said QBs? or is it just luck that these guys picked certain QBs over others?

calling lurie a bad owner because he wont waste a billion dollars on guys that could fail is not bad management in my opinion.

[Oldfan]

I don't care how inept our offense got towards the end of the year to say that we weren't a better team than the Bengals is a joke. There is no excuse for losing that game or the Rams game for that matter.

We tend to forget that luck is a big factor in the NFL because the difference between the NFL's worst and best teams isn't that much. The Rams game is an example.

The average turnover is worth about four points. That value varies depending upon the field position. However, the freakish Pete Kendall catch-fumble run back for a TD was worth 10 to 14 points to the Rams in that game.

[hail2skins]

We tend to forget that luck is a big factor in the NFL because the difference between the NFL's worst and best teams isn't that much. The Rams game is an example.

The average turnover is worth about four points. That value varies depending upon the field position. However, the freakish Pete Kendall catch-fumble run back for a TD was worth 10 to 14 points to the Rams in that game.

OF, I agree that we kicked away that Rams game, not just with the Kendall play but also where we laid the ball on the carpet a couple of other times earlier in the game. And I agree with Art that I wasn't shocked that we lost to Cincy and that we were a bad team by the end of the season. But that also invalidates the argument that we would've done just as well as the Patriots if we had played their schedule. They were a better team than us even with their #2 QB.......period.

[ST is my boy]

so if these teams like the pats/steelers/eagles all have success because of their QB, couldnt you then assume that the owner was the one responsible for getting a smart football man to find said QBs? or is it just luck that these guys picked certain QBs over others?

calling lurie a bad owner because he wont waste a billion dollars on guys that could fail is not bad management in my opinion.

I think calling Lurie a bad owner is a complete joke actually. The guy gets players that play well for cheap, and players that fit his system. He also doesnt pay old players millions of dollars so they can underperform. He also ALWAYS has enough cap space, so if he wanted to or the right opportunity comes.....he can do WHATEVER he wants. Oh and never cators to crybaby players either.

Lurie is exactly what you want from an owner....yea he could spend a few more dollars here and there......but hes smart enough to not need to.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

I think calling Lurie a bad owner is a complete joke actually. The guy gets players that play well for cheap, and players that fit his system. He also doesnt pay old players millions of dollars so they can underperform. He also ALWAYS has enough cap space, so if he wanted to or the right opportunity comes.....he can do WHATEVER he wants. Oh and never cators to crybaby players either.

Lurie is exactly what you want from an owner....yea he could spend a few more dollars here and there......but hes smart enough to not need to.

exactly. calling snyder a good owner because he throws money around like the joker in the original batman movie is just stupid. throwing money at players isnt considered smart by anyone, except maybe art i guess. lurie has obviously hired smart football minds that draft well and find guys that fit their system, which is why they are constantly in the playoffs.

i call that good management.