SI's Best and Worst Owners

[ExoDus84]

I love how people are using the franchise value like that's something to be proud of. The rankings are supplied by SPORTS ILLUSTRATED, not Forbes Magazine.

Funny you should mention that. Here's the forbes article for this year, or 2008, cant remember which. It lists the skins value right around 1.5 billion, which is more than what that article listed.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/30/biz_07nfl_Washington-Redskins_300925.html

[Thinking Skins]

For every Arch and Lloyd, there's a Washington, or Moss, or Portis, or Thomas, or Griffin. ARE's deal wasn't that bad and he could be cut. There's no reason to cut him. He's still a productive player who's probably a little out of his element in a true No. 2 role. It seems Snyder has made a lot of great choices where to put the money. So great, in fact, we've rarely been limited in what we do.

It's difficult, for example, for you to suggest we can't cut ARE because of his big deal -- the same deal Arch and Lloyd signed and they were cut -- in the same offseason you recognize we just signed Haynesworth. We can do, from a cap perspective, most anything we prioritize. If ARE was a dog, he'd have been cut. He's not, thus he's here.

You present the image of balance in these offseason moves. The question is when you're overspending for players the way Snyder is, does it really balance out. For example. After offseason where we signed Arch, Lloyd and ARE, we were relatively quiet in the offseasons, only signing players to moderate contracts. I thought (at the time) that Snyder had matured and was finally willing to invest in the draft. But after we traded for Taylor and then signed Haynesworth to the big deal, I'm wondering if we were so quiet because we wanted to be or was it because were cap strapped?

And then the other thing about the foolishness of the moves is that we're giving up what nobody else is even willing to offer. We threw in the second for Portis, when the straight up trade shoulda worked. We traded for Lloyd when he was about to get cut (or coulda gotten a better guy in free agency), we traded 2 picks for Duckett, when nobody else wanted him and we didn't need him. I mean, I love Cooley, but we traded up to get him. We traded up to get Campbell. How wise were these moves?

Then there are the moves that didn't happen (and I question their truth), but were we really offering two firsts for the Chicago LB? Or Two firsts for Chad Johnson? What were we willing to offer for Cutler or for Sanchez?

I think we've got a really good salary cap expert (is it Eric Sanchez)? And so I'm not thinking that the big contracts hurt us as much as our willingness to invest our future in these older players, often giving up way too much for them. Whose fault is it? Vinny? Gibbs? Snyder? I don't know, but since Snyder's been the owner while this has been going on, he deserves some of the blame. I'm not gonna blame him for the problems in the 90s, but he's got his fare share of blame.

[hail2skins]

I looked at the records of the teams with the worst owners in the past six seasons including 2003.....picked that year because I knew Al Davis' Raiders went to the Bowl following the '02 season.

5) San Fran: 32-64

4) Cincy: 46-50-1 (and I thought the Skins were the quintessential .500 team)

3) Skins: 43-53

2) Detroit 26-70 (and they were also 5-27 in 2001/2 combined!!)

1) Oakland: 24-72

Detroit!! Holy crap!! I wonder what ExtremeLions is like!

I was talking football with some office mates today and one of the dudes was from Detroit and he said "I think the Lions will be better this year!" :hysterical:

[VaBeachRedskin]

Funny you should mention that. Here's the forbes article for this year, or 2008, cant remember which. It lists the skins value right around 1.5 billion, which is more than what that article listed.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/30/biz_07nfl_Washington-Redskins_300925.html

The SI article has the franchise valued at 1.538 billion.

[mtruslow]

Wow, Danny Boy is on here. No ****???? M.

[StepyagameuP]

Damn, with that kind of doe, none of them are worst than the other!...

[Vicious]

ITT: We complain about or defend a billionaire that dabbles nearly as much as Al Davis.

[yellow41]

Snyder had zero to do with Cutler. He didn't even make the phone calls. He had a lot to do with Sanchez in the personal meetings and dinners and showing him around, and, like everyone else on those trips, fell in love with Sanchez. Just not enough to move heaven and earth. Sanchez, as with most draft picks, are more likely to fall in Snyder's candy drawer than a free agent is because Snyder gets to know these kids as people and gets to take his measure of them and it's easy for him in such a case to fall in love with a guy and overrule others who are not.

Sources?

If Snyder wasn't the Man Behind the Curtain on the deal that almost went down for Cutler, then who was? Vinny?

Like you, I have no sources either. But my best guess would be if Danny was the lead dog on Sanchez, then he was on Cutler as well. And if he was just following someone else's lead on Cutler, then he was on Sanchez as well.

But what in Danny's history (as far as we can tell) makes you think he has ever let anyone else lead or even influence his way of thinking?

[generals01]

I would have put the Arizona Cardinals ownership in the top 5 if not for their postseason success this past year. They are notorious for being cheap, last season was their first postseason victory since '98 (only the second since moving to Arizona), and they are 37-59 since 03. If they weren't in such a pathetic division last year they probably wouldn't have even made the playoffs. Sure, they are looking up after their postseason run, but if Warner goes down, their season is lost.

Fortunes can change fast, and it just takes being healthy and hot at the right time ie Cardinals 08, Giants 07. No one was sweating the Giants and their ownership this hard 8 games through the 2007 season.

[Art]

You present the image of balance in these offseason moves. The question is when you're overspending for players the way Snyder is, does it really balance out. For example. After offseason where we signed Arch, Lloyd and ARE, we were relatively quiet in the offseasons, only signing players to moderate contracts. I thought (at the time) that Snyder had matured and was finally willing to invest in the draft. But after we traded for Taylor and then signed Haynesworth to the big deal, I'm wondering if we were so quiet because we wanted to be or was it because were cap strapped?

The problem with your premise is the thought that we're "overpaying" in some way. We're not. Every single team has the exact same salary cap. The cap is comprised of three parts. First, guaranteed signing bonus money. Second, Paragraph 5 regular pay. Third, dead money from people no longer with you. The fact is, we pay more of one, thus carry more of three, but pay less of two. The reason we do not get into cap problems as many teams do is because we control base through guarantees. It's the same money, we just assure the player gets it versus making it a guess. It's true we cycle offseason spending. We have a big year, followed by a relatively quiet year, followed by a moderate year. Those two years are clearing or settling years for contracts. But the deals we structure, and are required, allow us to perpetually cycle through bigger deals every three years.

In this way we're always limited in the downside you'd expect for the team, meaning it's unlikely we'll be losers for a decade, and allows us to retool a successful team to lengthen any success. The draft is a fine tool to use. Personally, I prefer players who've proven they CAN play in the NFL over players who've never shown anything in the NFL because the hit rate is higher, though, frequently the tremendous upside is less.

And then the other thing about the foolishness of the moves is that we're giving up what nobody else is even willing to offer. We threw in the second for Portis, when the straight up trade shoulda worked. We traded for Lloyd when he was about to get cut (or coulda gotten a better guy in free agency), we traded 2 picks for Duckett, when nobody else wanted him and we didn't need him. I mean, I love Cooley, but we traded up to get him. We traded up to get Campbell. How wise were these moves?

Unfortunately as is typical of those who do not like Snyder, it takes a certain fiction to not like him. Brandon Lloyd was a restricted free agent with San Francisco. We signed him to an offer sheet. He was not about to get cut. He was no where near getting cut. He was assigned to the maximum, non-franchise, tag he could be to assure maximum value.

We threw in a second for Portis because that's what was required. People falsely characterized the importance of that deal at the time stating, truthfully, that an elite corner was harder to find than an elite runner when the real measure is when you have an elite runner, do you trade him for an elite corner. If anything, what we discovered was just how stupid Denver was. Denver is still looking for someone to replace Portis. We replaced Bailey with a better performer, Springs, and have continued strength there. Ask Dallas fans if they'd have surrendered Emmitt Smith for Deion Sanders in a straight trade. Portis is on his way to a special career. He'll likely be the greatest runner in our franchise history when complete. You give up a lot for that, especially when you know the market is flush with corners so you can replace that loss.

Cooley was traded up for because Clinton Portis. Vinny LOVED Portis in the 2002 draft. Wanted to move up for him, but we didn't, and didn't get him. We weren't going to allow a player we coveted to get missed on again, so when Cooley was rated similarly, we made the move up to get him. In every draft we attempt to move up and down depending on situation. We had a couple guys in this draft we tried to move up for too. It's difficult to accept much anger at acquiring Cooley to be honest.

Moving up for Campbell was probably not a smart move, considering he may not work out, but, Gibbs wanted him and designed that as a priority. He wanted a QB he thought could carry us. You pay a premium when your football God wants a guy. That's the way it is. But, again, it was Gibbs running things then, not Snyder.

Then there are the moves that didn't happen (and I question their truth), but were we really offering two firsts for the Chicago LB? Or Two firsts for Chad Johnson? What were we willing to offer for Cutler or for Sanchez?

I was never a Briggs fan, though I understood the logic of the thought. I kind of enjoy Johnson, but, suspect if we did offer that, he'd be ours. My guess is they released they wouldn't take two firsts from us as a way to explain he wasn't going anywhere. But, what those non-moves tells you, if true, is we weren't surrendering ENOUGH for guys we wanted, not that we surrendered too much.

I think we've got a really good salary cap expert (is it Eric Sanchez)? And so I'm not thinking that the big contracts hurt us as much as our willingness to invest our future in these older players, often giving up way too much for them. Whose fault is it? Vinny? Gibbs? Snyder? I don't know, but since Snyder's been the owner while this has been going on, he deserves some of the blame. I'm not gonna blame him for the problems in the 90s, but he's got his fare share of blame.

We have the best cap man in the game, bar none, though his job is easier by the fact Snyder is willing to guarantee so much. I'm not entirely sure which "aging" players we're investing in that distress you. Rookies are aging every day. I'd rather invest that type of money in a guy who's been to Pro Bowls than in a rookie who never has. I bet you would too.

[Art]

Sources?

If Snyder wasn't the Man Behind the Curtain on the deal that almost went down for Cutler, then who was? Vinny?

Like you, I have no sources either. But my best guess would be if Danny was the lead dog on Sanchez, then he was on Cutler as well. And if he was just following someone else's lead on Cutler, then he was on Sanchez as well.

But what in Danny's history (as far as we can tell) makes you think he has ever let anyone else lead or even influence his way of thinking?

Yes. Cerrato made the calls to Denver as to Cutler's availability. He also made calls to other teams to involve in a three-way deal. Snyder doesn't come into that stuff. He's NEVER been the guy on the phone making a trade deal. That's simply not how he's ever worked. Snyder is the guy who puts the finisher on something. He's not the guy who does the leg work. Though, with trades, he ultimately will authorize or reject the price, likely setting up parameters before negotiations begin, but, this is common for every team in the league.

As an example, why do so few teams trade up into the Top 5 now? It's largely because owners do not wish to take on those huge deals for rookies, preferring to move down instead, though, the reason players are taken that early is because they have high grades generally.

It does astound me that so many of you mindlessly believe Snyder is actually grading players -- he's said he's not and has affirmed it since -- or working the phones in trade discussions. He works the phone with agents during trade discussions, as the acquisition process is the one he's specifically involved in. He allows direct negotiation and he knows what Schaffer can do with the cap to make deals fit.

[velocet]

Snyder tries. His regime is still a work in progress.

But the clowns responsible for this:

deserve All Time Loser status.

velocet

[VaBeachRedskin]

In this way we're always limited in the downside you'd expect for the team, meaning it's unlikely we'll be losers for a decade, and allows us to retool a successful team to lengthen any success. The draft is a fine tool to use. Personally, I prefer players who've proven they CAN play in the NFL over players who've never shown anything in the NFL because the hit rate is higher, though, frequently the tremendous upside is less.

Yes, but adding band-aids is not ultimately going to put us over the top when there are more holes that need to be filled than we can afford. It might assure that we go 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7, but the way to build a championship team is to do it through the draft while plucking a top end FA here and there.

We threw in a second for Portis because that's what was required. People falsely characterized the importance of that deal at the time stating, truthfully, that an elite corner was harder to find than an elite runner when the real measure is when you have an elite runner, do you trade him for an elite corner. If anything, what we discovered was just how stupid Denver was. Denver is still looking for someone to replace Portis. We replaced Bailey with a better performer, Springs, and have continued strength there. Ask Dallas fans if they'd have surrendered Emmitt Smith for Deion Sanders in a straight trade. Portis is on his way to a special career. He'll likely be the greatest runner in our franchise history when complete. You give up a lot for that, especially when you know the market is flush with corners so you can replace that loss.

Is that why Denver has had a better rushing attack than us since the trade? Good HBs are a lot easier to find than good CBs.

We have the best cap man in the game, bar none, though his job is easier by the fact Snyder is willing to guarantee so much. I'm not entirely sure which "aging" players we're investing in that distress you. Rookies are aging every day. I'd rather invest that type of money in a guy who's been to Pro Bowls than in a rookie who never has. I bet you would too.

Pro bowls are beauty contests. Teams that consistently build through the draft are more successful than teams that try to fill their roster with FAs.

[flock53]

BEST- Rooneys, WORST- J.Jones

[Art]

Yes, but adding band-aids is not ultimately going to put us over the top when there are more holes that need to be filled than we can afford. It might assure that we go 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7, but the way to build a championship team is to do it through the draft while plucking a top end FA here and there.

Is that why Denver has had a better rushing attack than us since the trade? Good HBs are a lot easier to find than good CBs.

Pro bowls are beauty contests. Teams that consistently build through the draft are more successful than teams that try to fill their roster with FAs.

The way to build a champion can be founded many ways. You can do it with defense like the Ravens or simply catch fire at the right time like the Giants. To win consistently the way you do it is acquiring a legitimate top QB. Teams with players at this position are routinely competitive and able to win. Teams without have moments, but little consistency.

The plain and simple fact is Denver has never had a running game it has been satisfied with since Portis. This is why they are still trying new guys there. They have a nice system which forces teams to respect the pass allowing some productivity there. You saw with Portis and Zorn early when teams were unsure how to defend us what a passing threat does for a running game, didn't you? Still, the fact remains. We traded for Portis and improved at corner. They traded for Bailey and have never found the answer at running back. Say congrats. We took them, just as ANY team trading an elite corner for an elite runner would have. You simply don't make that trade IF you believe your runner is elite. Denver didn't. We did. We were right.

As for the draft versus free agency, hitting on lower round picks is a good way to assure your roster has guys to come in as they develop. But, the fundamental truth which you would be hard pressed to deny is the hit rate on free agents is far higher than drafted players. Why? Because to get to free agency you have to have proven capable of being a player in the NFL.

As all NFL players are once NFL rookies, it's factually true you must build first through draft and initial free agency since this is where all players come from. But, if given a choice between an established player of some ability or not having a couple picks, you take the better bet. They hurt when they don't pan out for sure. Fortunately we don't have many who simply don't pan out.

[TheLongshot]

The problem with your premise is the thought that we're "overpaying" in some way. We're not. Every single team has the exact same salary cap. The cap is comprised of three parts. First, guaranteed signing bonus money. Second, Paragraph 5 regular pay. Third, dead money from people no longer with you. The fact is, we pay more of one, thus carry more of three, but pay less of two. The reason we do not get into cap problems as many teams do is because we control base through guarantees. It's the same money, we just assure the player gets it versus making it a guess. It's true we cycle offseason spending. We have a big year, followed by a relatively quiet year, followed by a moderate year. Those two years are clearing or settling years for contracts. But the deals we structure, and are required, allow us to perpetually cycle through bigger deals every three years.

In this way we're always limited in the downside you'd expect for the team, meaning it's unlikely we'll be losers for a decade, and allows us to retool a successful team to lengthen any success. The draft is a fine tool to use. Personally, I prefer players who've proven they CAN play in the NFL over players who've never shown anything in the NFL because the hit rate is higher, though, frequently the tremendous upside is less.

There is a downside with the way the Skins play things. They bet pretty hard that they are right about a player. If they are wrong, there isn't a huge amount of flexibility to make up for that. They also probably would have a hard time franchising players if they needed to. (See below)

Unfortunately as is typical of those who do not like Snyder, it takes a certain fiction to not like him. Brandon Lloyd was a restricted free agent with San Francisco. We signed him to an offer sheet. He was not about to get cut. He was no where near getting cut. He was assigned to the maximum, non-franchise, tag he could be to assure maximum value.

That is incorrect. SF did tender him (I don't remember where, but I think it was at a 2nd round level) but we did not sign him to an offer sheet. We traded for him and then gave him a new deal after the trade.

We threw in a second for Portis because that's what was required. People falsely characterized the importance of that deal at the time stating, truthfully, that an elite corner was harder to find than an elite runner when the real measure is when you have an elite runner, do you trade him for an elite corner. If anything, what we discovered was just how stupid Denver was. Denver is still looking for someone to replace Portis. We replaced Bailey with a better performer, Springs, and have continued strength there. Ask Dallas fans if they'd have surrendered Emmitt Smith for Deion Sanders in a straight trade. Portis is on his way to a special career. He'll likely be the greatest runner in our franchise history when complete. You give up a lot for that, especially when you know the market is flush with corners so you can replace that loss.

Actually, it was pretty simple why we paid extra for Portis: Denver had all the leverage. They had a back who was still on his rookie contract and who they did not need to trade. Meanwhile we had a CB who was franchised and didn't want to be here, and the team was up against the cap.

So, why not another deal? Portis was probably the best deal on the table. It is hard to pass when you are trading one great player for another, and it has worked out that way.

Cooley was traded up for because Clinton Portis. Vinny LOVED Portis in the 2002 draft.

Uh, 2004 draft. :doh:

Moving up for Campbell was probably not a smart move, considering he may not work out, but, Gibbs wanted him and designed that as a priority. He wanted a QB he thought could carry us. You pay a premium when your football God wants a guy. That's the way it is. But, again, it was Gibbs running things then, not Snyder.

Well, any move up to get a player "might not work". You make a move because you think the guy's worth the price.

As for that situation, in hindsight it is obvious that Gibbs had some serious reservations about Ramsey. He liked Campbell, but knew that the team was in no position to draft him since they knew he probably wouldn't last long in the 2nd round. It was a pretty calculated risk to make the trade the week before the draft because you don't know if your guy is going to drop.

[VaBeachRedskin]

The way to build a champion can be founded many ways. You can do it with defense like the Ravens or simply catch fire at the right time like the Giants. To win consistently the way you do it is acquiring a legitimate top QB. Teams with players at this position are routinely competitive and able to win. Teams without have moments, but little consistency.

The plain and simple fact is Denver has never had a running game it has been satisfied with since Portis. This is why they are still trying new guys there. They have a nice system which forces teams to respect the pass allowing some productivity there. You saw with Portis and Zorn early when teams were unsure how to defend us what a passing threat does for a running game, didn't you? Still, the fact remains. We traded for Portis and improved at corner. They traded for Bailey and have never found the answer at running back. Say congrats. We took them, just as ANY team trading an elite corner for an elite runner would have. You simply don't make that trade IF you believe your runner is elite. Denver didn't. We did. We were right.

As for the draft versus free agency, hitting on lower round picks is a good way to assure your roster has guys to come in as they develop. But, the fundamental truth which you would be hard pressed to deny is the hit rate on free agents is far higher than drafted players. Why? Because to get to free agency you have to have proven capable of being a player in the NFL.

As all NFL players are once NFL rookies, it's factually true you must build first through draft and initial free agency since this is where all players come from. But, if given a choice between an established player of some ability or not having a couple picks, you take the better bet. They hurt when they don't pan out for sure. Fortunately we don't have many who simply don't pan out.

Denver traded Portis because they knew they didn't need a big time RB to produce in their running game. They were right and nabbed the games best corner and a 2nd round pick out of that deal.

Lower round picks aren't what determines the strength of a franchise. Rounds 1-3 are the picks that will provide the foundation for a team. Rounds 4-7 are where you find your special teams player and take chances that you might hit a home run with one of the selections, but rounds 1-3 are the money rounds.

Ideally your 1st round pick would be an opening day starter or at least in the starting lineup sometime before week 8, your 2nd round pick will have cemented their spot in the starting lineup by the end of their rookie season, and your 3rd round pick will be groomed to take over the starting role in their second season. That of course is the ideal situation and isn't the case for some positions (namely QB), but with the right scouting department it can be done.

[TheLongshot]

Denver traded Portis because they knew they didn't need a big time RB to produce in their running game. They were right and nabbed the games best corner and a 2nd round pick out of that deal.

No, they weren't right, because over time their running game deteriorated. They spent 4 draft picks on running backs prior to this year, with Bell being the only one who has gotten significant playing time. They had to drag one more year out of Mike Anderson, drag Ruben Droughnes off of the trash heap and have an undrafted free agent become their #1 back. Not what I call a good situation, particularly when they've had other fish to fry in the meantime.

Now they have signed a bunch of running backs and drafted one with their first pick.

[Taylor 21]

The giants won 7 championships?

[VaBeachRedskin]

No, they weren't right, because over time their running game deteriorated. They spent 4 draft picks on running backs prior to this year, with Bell being the only one who has gotten significant playing time. They had to drag one more year out of Mike Anderson, drag Ruben Droughnes off of the trash heap and have an undrafted free agent become their #1 back. Not what I call a good situation, particularly when they've had other fish to fry in the meantime.

Now they have signed a bunch of running backs and drafted one with their first pick.

And all that time with all those pieces they have had a better rushing attack than we have. What does that say about us then?

[illone]

And all that time with all those pieces they have had a better rushing attack than we have. What does that say about us then?

Not really. Portis is far better than anything they've had since he left there the Skins have just had the lesser passing game. That doesn't change which team has fielded the better runner, though.

[VaBeachRedskin]

Not really. Portis is far better than anything they've had since he left there the Skins have just had the lesser passing game. That doesn't change which team has fielded the better runner, though.

Does that matter? I would prefer to have the better rushing attack than to have the better runner. And this also gave them comfort that whoever they put on the field they knew they could get results. Of course we will have to see how McDaniels does there now that he has completely changed the offensive scheme, but with Shanahan's scheme it didn't matter who the RB is.

[TheLongshot]

Does that matter? I would prefer to have the better rushing attack than to have the better runner. And this also gave them comfort that whoever they put on the field they knew they could get results. Of course we will have to see how McDaniels does there now that he has completely changed the offensive scheme, but with Shanahan's scheme it didn't matter who the RB is.

But, that didn't end up being true in the end. You also ignore all the resources that they spent on finding those "anybodies". In the meantime, we haven't needed to spend a pick on a running back. (Well, other than that stupid trade for Duckett.)

[VaBeachRedskin]

But, that didn't end up being true in the end. You also ignore all the resources that they spent on finding those "anybodies". In the meantime, we haven't needed to spend a pick on a running back. (Well, other than that stupid trade for Duckett.)

5th rounder on Ryan Torain, 3rd rounder on Mo Clarett, and a 2nd rounder on Tatum Bell (which they turned into Dre Bly). That isn't that many resources spent compared to the 3rd and 4th we spent on TJ Duckett during that same time span.

[TheLongshot]

5th rounder on Ryan Torain, 3rd rounder on Mo Clarett, and a 2nd rounder on Tatum Bell (which they turned into Dre Bly). That isn't that many resources spent compared to the 3rd and 4th we spent on TJ Duckett during that same time span.

I already said that the Duckett trade was stupid, but it wasn't a trade for a starter but for insurance, insurance they didn't end up needing. Course, the thinking all the way was that they were a playoff team and needed that insurance. It is why it ended up being two picks because there was never a contingency in there if they bombed out. As I said, stupid trade.

BTW, they gave up a lot more than Bell for Bly (a starting tackle and a 5th round pick). Denver came out slightly ahead there, but considering how poor their defense has been, I'm not sure how high Bly's value really was.