SI's Best and Worst Owners

[TheLongshot]

Pittsburgh: Lower payroll, Much better results. They do much more, with much less.

Redskins: Much higher payroll, and little gets accomplished.

Maybe recently, but for years Pittsburgh wasn't doing much of anything through the 80s and 90s. They were about as up and down as the Skins have been.

[Art]

So the people that write about sports are in the business of knowing about sports and have sources in the sports world, etc have as much credence about writing an article on the best and worst owners in sports as a guy who delivers a magazine? Is that what you're saying?

:doh:

My guy delivers groceries, and, yes. Journalism, in general, is among the lowest paid fields for a graduate because of how simple the work is. Snyder has a very good reputation in the league among coaches, scouts and players due in large part because they see him as being willing to reward performance.

Even personnel people who have a problem with Snyder have it because of what he did to Casserly and how much MORE directly active and overlording he was back then. And each one of them would work here tomorrow if Snyder called.

[Stophovr6]

And Steinbrenner still does not have a win-loss record. He does, however, own World Series Championships as the owner of the team which won them, as does every owner. Steinbrenner provided the team capable of winning it all. MCd5 suggested he never gets results. That's absurd. Snyder gets results far less frequently than Steinbrenner, but, ultimately, it's rarely because of Snyder that results are limited. For a spell there, it was BECAUSE of George that the Yankees struggled. It is currently the case that the Raiders struggle because of Al Davis.

Davis, like Jones, are unique owners who do more than own and acquire. They rate personnel and direct personnel people toward specific traits. They are far more directly responsible for success and failure of their teams than other normal owners.

Snyder gets results? What results?

Snyder is clearly more of a Davis/Jones type of owner than "own and acquire". And even if he weren't, he is still the one selecting the Head coaches, the guys with the win/loss records, that's on him.

[Art]

It is admirable of you to defend him Art, even thought most disagree. I will stop responding so you can devote any time you choose to others.

I would say one last thing, an illustration of good ownership:

Pittsburgh: Lower payroll, Much better results. They do much more, with much less.

Redskins: Much higher payroll, and little gets accomplished.

One depicts a competent organization, where accountability rules above all else. An environment of winning flows throughout the entire organization.

The other....not so much.

I don't have any problem with Rooney. He has a philosophy that is quite solid. He likes to hire young coaches and hope they develop into something special. He can't afford to pay much, so they stay largely out of free agency, letting some key contributors go, but, they focus on that longer term strategy of stability under a single coaching philosophy to allow them to find fits at cost for them.

It's a fine solution for them and could be for anyone willing to sign a 30-something coach and pray he doesn't suck up the joint. Rooney has gotten it more right than any other owner in that regard. Al Davis does a lot the same and it doesn't work quite as well, though he's also more involved than Rooney.

More than anything, we need a legitimate Top 10 level QB like they've had when they've won championships, to really find stability and achieve consistently better results. On this, Snyder had better never get it right, because Snyder had better never have anything to do with the evaluation that leads to a future QB.

Gibbs and staff loved Campbell and wanted him and we got him. If Campbell doesn't work out, it'll be interesting to see what happens with the QB we go for next year.

[VaBeachRedskin]

There is no evidence anywhere that Snyder does not care about the football side of the operation. He's demonstrated that repeatedly with the people he's brought in to try to make the team successful. He spends lavishly on his facilities and the costs required to run an elite organization, beyond just player cash. Snyder loves the team more dearly than most of us here. I still recall one of many stories about Snyder's mood after wins and losses and the bad loss to New England when I told his security guys to hang in there and they smiled at me and said, "It's going to be a rough few days."

Snyder cares on the level of many top owners, as well as being a fan of the organization he owns, which makes him somewhat more committed. Snyder has never been the key problem with our organization. One day he could become that.

I used to believe this, but not anymore. I think that Snyder only cares about making money and hearing his name in the news. Why are we always the team that makes the huge splash in free agency? Because it gets all the media outlets talking about him and his big wallet because they sure wouldn't be talking about us or him if he wasn't making these moves and it also creates a marketing buzz based on the brand name guys he brings in. Look at the Sanchez trade rumors for more evidence of this. We all knew that the 2010 1st would definitely have to be included if we had a chance to move up. He then goes out and says we aren't dealing any 2010 picks and gets applauded for this change of face. If he had no intention of dealing any 2010 picks you don't throw your current QB under the bus in order to get your name out there. He is a bad owner.

[The Sisko]

Sometimes, I think it is true, particularly when the vast majority buy into an image of Snyder that doesn't much reflect the evidence that is out there.

I hope you realize that statement applies equally well to you Snyderatto homers.

[Art]

Snyder gets results? What results?

Snyder is clearly more of a Davis/Jones type of owner than "own and acquire". And even if he weren't, he is still the one selecting the Head coaches, the guys with the win/loss records, that's on him.

Winning a Super Bowl is not the sole measure to whether your season was a good one or not. It is the crowning glory to a GREAT season, but one can achieve positive results beyond just that. The late run we got on twice with Gibbs led to ultimately postive seasons. Teams clearly capable of winning.

Snyder is nothing like Davis or Jones. He has ZERO to do with personnel. He's more active than some owners in that he does get DIRECTLY involved, heavily, in the free agent recruiting process. He enjoys that role and is quite good at it. Snyder knows how to wine and dine. Most owners do attend meals with free agent prospects, but, Snyder allows himself to cut out any middle men for the players his people have told him to get. It allows for the process to get sped up, and, indeed, we typically assure this by offering market premium deals.

When we identify three key priorities, we don't want any to be missed. We don't miss any with Snyder. And, indeed, Snyder is the man picking the head coaches. Those with a win-loss record.

Please build an intelligent case that Marty, Spurrier or Gibbs were poor hires. You can't do it. Thus, you agree Snyder has done a good job in hiring his coaches, though, with Zorn, we suspect not as good.

[DieselPwr44]

And each one of them would work here tomorrow if Snyder called.

If that's true, then why invest in someone like Vinny for the GM role when he could have a competent,experienced football mind in charge of things?

[darklight1216]

Maybe recently, but for years Pittsburgh wasn't doing much of anything through the 80s and 90s. They were about as up and down as the Skins have been.

I believe it was 26 years without a superbowl.

[TheLongshot]

I hope you realize that statement applies equally well to you Snyderatto homers.

Case in point. That statement doesn't reflect my views at all of the team. Sure I'm hopeful. I can't see being a fan and not being hopeful for the future. It isn't blind hope, tho.

I also realize what I don't know, which is more than I can say about a lot of this board.

[VaBeachRedskin]

If that's true, then why invest in someone like Vinny for the GM role when he could have a competent,experienced football mind in charge of things?

Bingo. There is no accountability in our FO.

[Art]

I used to believe this, but not anymore. I think that Snyder only cares about making money and hearing his name in the news. Why are we always the team that makes the huge splash in free agency? Because it gets all the media outlets talking about him and his big wallet because they sure wouldn't be talking about us or him if he wasn't making these moves and it also creates a marketing buzz based on the brand name guys he brings in. Look at the Sanchez trade rumors for more evidence of this. We all knew that the 2010 1st would definitely have to be included if we had a chance to move up. He then goes out and says we aren't dealing any 2010 picks and gets applauded for this change of face. If he had no intention of dealing any 2010 picks you don't throw your current QB under the bus in order to get your name out there. He is a bad owner.

We aren't the team that always makes the huge splash in free agency. We do once, then usually have two reasonably quiet offseasons for cap purposes. We have to allow the contacts to dead space out for those other deals we've had that either haven't worked out, or, for restructured deals where we are moving in a different direction with a player. That's why we hit it hard in 2000, but not really all that hard again right away. We hit it hard with Gibbs, but only once on a massive scale, with a couple key signings in other offseasons, like Fletcher.

I'm not sure what your problem is with Snyder attempting to check in on the price of a possible improvement at QB. Stating he wasn't trading a 2010 first for a QB was also his way of letting people know he wasn't for Cutler either. I'm frankly surprised ANY fan of the Redskins, Campbell lover or no, would NOT want us to at least peek in about a young QB considered by some to be among the league's better overall players at his position, and one with superior production in the league AT a younger age.

He'd have been a bad owner to not check in on that. The Sanchez thing was weird. Everyone was falling in love with him. It was strange. I've never seen a guy interview his way up that high. Sanchez did. Campbell was thrown under the bus a little. He needed to be. He needs to understand he was likely the weakest element of our team a year ago -- due in large part because he had the hardest job of learning a new system and having to lead it.

Campbell shouldn't be comfortable. He should be pissed and want to prove he's worth more than he's previously shown. If he doesn't, it's not like it'll get much worse than we saw to end last season. If he improves, it'll be at least to some degree because he's mad at Snyder for not loving him as much as he wants to be loved. Either way we have no where to go but up with his production.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Stop with the excuses. Skeletor has won 3 Super Bowls. Danny might be great at lining his pockets but putting a winner on the field?? Not so much.

Ah, so by that logic Al Davis doesn't deserve to be on the "Worst" list, either, then?...

[MartinC]

We won a wild card, fantastic, best owner in the business.

No he's not the best, certainly not in the top 5 - but he's not in the bottom 5 either IMO.

I disagree with a lot of things he has done but what you can't doubt his his willingness to spend money to put the best team he can out on the field. There are a number of owners (exhibit A Bill Bidwell) who hld their teams and franchises back by being unwilling to invest in their on field product.

What he needs to learn is that his role should simply be hiring the best GM money can buy and then signing the cheques and leading the cheers on a Sunday from his owners box. By all means sit in on practice and the draft meetings but don't let your ego fool you that you are in any way qualified to have input on football related decisions.

Then at the end of each season hold your GM accountable for the record and the development (or otherwise) of the on field product.

[Stophovr6]

Winning a Super Bowl is not the sole measure to whether your season was a good one or not. It is the crowning glory to a GREAT season, but one can achieve positive results beyond just that. The late run we got on twice with Gibbs led to ultimately postive seasons. Teams clearly capable of winning.

Fighting our way into wild card games is better than nothing, but each time it was followed up by exactly that.

Snyder is nothing like Davis or Jones. He has ZERO to do with personnel. He's more active than some owners in that he does get DIRECTLY involved, heavily, in the free agent recruiting process. He enjoys that role and is quite good at it. Snyder knows how to wine and dine. Most owners do attend meals with free agent prospects, but, Snyder allows himself to cut out any middle men for the players his people have told him to get. It allows for the process to get sped up, and, indeed, we typically assure this by offering market premium deals.

How can he have zero to do with personnel if he is the one flying around in Redskins one, wining and dinning potential free agents, sometimes before we're even allowed to talk to them about coming to DC? You really think it's all because Coaches and Players told him to go out and get them a shiny new toy? Snyder isn't on the front lines simply because it's the best solution to getting what the team wants/needs. He's in the mix because HE wants them here and thus HE is DIRECTLY involved.

Please build an intelligent case that Marty, Spurrier or Gibbs were poor hires. You can't do it. Thus, you agree Snyder has done a good job in hiring his coaches, though, with Zorn, we suspect not as good.

What's the point? You already told me there's no way for me to do it, without saying why.

That's a pretty good argument strategy, maybe I'll try it.

Please build an intelligent case that you know what the hell you are talking about. You can't do it, thus you agree that you have no clue what it is you're talking about.

[Art]

If that's true, then why invest in someone like Vinny for the GM role when he could have a competent,experienced football mind in charge of things?

Because, frankly, Vinny's done a good job. Few elite GMs are taking a job UNDER Joe Gibbs. Gibbs rules the franchise. They all know it. Under Gibbs you need a guy with limited ego willing to provide information and provide input but who knows he will not ultimately make any decision in personnel. Gibbs loved working with Vinny. He respected the hours Vinny put in. He respected the organization. And, surprising to some, he respected the evaluations. I've heard Vinny was one guy most against Lloyd, for example, but, the offensive coaches loved him. There are many draft day stories about guys Vinny wanted, and we were trying to move for, who we couldn't get, and who are quite good today. In any case, after Gibbs left, I think Vinny was given the benefit of the doubt that Gibbs' evaluations of Vinny were meaningful, and more importantly, Snyder felt the Gibbs structure of a Redskins grade provided by every coach, scout and Vinny, was a positive working structure that should be retained.

Again, most elite GMs aren't going to come to a place that allows their input to be subjugated or watered down. You need someone willing to work within our collaborative structure. Vinny is and he's done a nice job of it. A guy like Trung Canidate, who's a dog and sucks, was actually a proper idea for Spurrier's, shotgun, straight draw system. I suspect for few systems would he have rated as an option.

There are really very few elite GMs right now. Name those you feel are elite, then tell me the QB they hit on. I think you'll see why they are considered elite from that one position. And this is where we've most been lacking for 20 years.

[MartinC]

And, indeed, Snyder is the man picking the head coaches. Those with a win-loss record. quote]

I guess my argument Art would be that Snyder should not be the one picking the Head Coach. He should be the one picking the GM who picks the Head Coach.

[SnyderMustGo]

Vinny and Snyder are doing a great job?

Ha! Some people can get paid to say anything.

I would think that one would be generally criticized for their recent actions, if only at the QB position: the owner signals his interest in Cutler--thereby putting his HC in a bad position and contradicting him--and then fails to land Cutler; the owner then signals his crush on Sanchez and desire to trade up to get him--again putting his HC in a bad situation and contradicting him--and then coming back around and saying that JC is the guy... except refusing to discuss an extension with him.

Yeah, Snyder is great. The situation here is SO ADMIRED in the industry that when we had a coaching vacancy, the only two NFL people who didn't reject the job and were interested were Fassel (who couldn't get a job anywhere else) and Zorn (who was a career position coach and had never even been sniffed for a OC position, much less a HC position).

Defending Snyder requires a complete rejection of common sense and demands that you ignore what is right before your eyes.

Seriously, if I wanted to cheer for money, I'd cheer for the stock exchange. I want to cheer for a FOOTBALL team, so why would I give a CRAP how much money the owner makes instead of results on the field?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

If wins and losses are the measuring stick, then are there 5 owners in the NFL who have worse records percentage-wise than Snyder?...

If division titles and playoff births are the measuring stick, then are there 5 owners in the NFL who have achieved both at a worse rate than Snyder?...

If Super Bowls are the measuring stick, then are there at least 5 other owners in the NFL who have not (or did not) make it to the Super Bowl in their first 10 years as owner?...

Literally...does anyone know the answer to any of these question? lol ...Or point me in the direction of where I can find this info out quickly (not in the mood to do research)

[VaBeachRedskin]

I'm not sure what your problem is with Snyder attempting to check in on the price of a possible improvement at QB. Stating he wasn't trading a 2010 first for a QB was also his way of letting people know he wasn't for Cutler either. I'm frankly surprised ANY fan of the Redskins, Campbell lover or no, would NOT want us to at least peek in about a young QB considered by some to be among the league's better overall players at his position, and one with superior production in the league AT a younger age.

He'd have been a bad owner to not check in on that. The Sanchez thing was weird. Everyone was falling in love with him. It was strange. I've never seen a guy interview his way up that high. Sanchez did. Campbell was thrown under the bus a little. He needed to be. He needs to understand he was likely the weakest element of our team a year ago -- due in large part because he had the hardest job of learning a new system and having to lead it.

Campbell shouldn't be comfortable. He should be pissed and want to prove he's worth more than he's previously shown. If he doesn't, it's not like it'll get much worse than we saw to end last season. If he improves, it'll be at least to some degree because he's mad at Snyder for not loving him as much as he wants to be loved. Either way we have no where to go but up with his production.

My problem with Snyder making the QB noise is that everyone knew that we weren't going to get Cutler or Sanchez without including some of our 2010 picks which he said we weren't going to touch. What he has essentially done is to ensure that no matter the season that Campbell puts up he won't be a Redskin next year. A better way to go about it would be to inform him that the team was interested in him playing out his contract before talking a possible extension. That would have at least left the possibility of him coming back next year if he has a good year.

[Art]

How can he have zero to do with personnel if he is the one flying around in Redskins one, wining and dinning potential free agents, sometimes before we're even allowed to talk to them about coming to DC? You really think it's all because Coaches and Players told him to go out and get them a shiny new toy? Snyder isn't on the front lines simply because it's the best solution to getting what the team wants/needs. He's in the mix because HE wants them here and thus HE is DIRECTLY involved.

The personnel process is the process we use to grade players and itemize our offseason wish list. The acquisition process is the process we use to execute on our list. Snyder's role is in acquisition. He takes the list his people tell him they need and he delivers it. Every year.

I understand why you don't like Snyder if you think SNYDER is the one determining which players he wants here at the exclusion of others. But, that's entirely, utterly and factually false, thus, you must hold a different actual opinion. You can not dislike someone for something he does not do. Snyder's involvement is in the area he actually does help in. Snyder is a selling point for a player coming here. Experiencing an owner who's there, willing to pay you, and willing to treat you like family, is important to most of these players.

What's the point? You already told me there's no way for me to do it, without saying why.

That's a pretty good argument strategy, maybe I'll try it.

I told you that you can't because there's no intelligence you can use to question the hiring of any of those three. In hindsight we can reflect why they didn't work out, but, that hindsight is not on Snyder. He can't be predictive of the future. Snyder hired three universally respected men to run his team. Sometimes it's ok, even when you do not like someone, to allow that some things were actually good.

Even where you hate Snyder, no one can hold a legitimate position that he has proven unable to hire talented coaches. One reason we're rumored for Cowher and for Shanahan and for Holmgren is because everyone knows we're an organization -- should Zorn fail -- that will be looking for a proven winner next time around and we're an organization they'd be drawn to and which would pay them for their past success.

As for intelligent cases, you reflect here your belief that Snyder identifes players he wants and involves himself in getting them. This is unintelligent as it's not only untrue, but you can't find a single source to suggest it IS true since 2000 when, indeed, he did just that. Maybe it's time to get over 9 years ago.

[Art]

And, indeed, Snyder is the man picking the head coaches. Those with a win-loss record. quote]

I guess my argument Art would be that Snyder should not be the one picking the Head Coach. He should be the one picking the GM who picks the Head Coach.

Certainly a fair thought. Some organizations do that. We do not. We didn't under Cooke, when we achieved our greatest success. There's no real chance Snyder will move away from that general model. Cooke picked Gibbs. We won. He wants the same.

Now, granted, if we hire Holmgren or Cowher or Shanahan and we don't achieve success, presuming Zorn failure, he might reconsider the general model and give it a try to hire a football overlord responsible for all players and for all coaches.

[VaBeachRedskin]

There are really very few elite GMs right now. Name those you feel are elite, then tell me the QB they hit on. I think you'll see why they are considered elite from that one position. And this is where we've most been lacking for 20 years.

Ozzie Newsome. Don't know if we can call Flacco a hit yet, but he did have a decent rookie season.

[DieselPwr44]

Art,

Snyder hired Marty and gave him control over the personnel dept.

Snyder fired Marty because he wouldn't give up that control. Snyder also mentioned that it wasn't as fun for him because he wasn't as involved.

If that's not Snyder wanting his hand in the "pot", please explain?

[Art]

My problem with Snyder making the QB noise is that everyone knew that we weren't going to get Cutler or Sanchez without including some of our 2010 picks which he said we weren't going to touch. What he has essentially done is to ensure that no matter the season that Campbell puts up he won't be a Redskin next year. A better way to go about it would be to inform him that the team was interested in him playing out his contract before talking a possible extension. That would have at least left the possibility of him coming back next year if he has a good year.

Actually, we didn't know that. We contacted Denver on Thursday and were told that. We did eventually put together a deal with Cleveland that was a leading offer until Denver bluffed Chicago into going nuts. Your view that Campbell won't be a Skin next year presumes his total failure. If Campbell is a Pro Bowler with 4K yards, 30 TDs and a 100 rating, he'll be a Skin.

We'll franchise him and sign him. And, in the end, we have a good bit of data on our side to help him through any anger. We can say, "Jason, you kind of sucked until this year. You don't suck now. We will always treat you as you deserve." Jason would actually respect that.