RedlightG20 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Interesting question. Both of these guys have caught alot of flak during their tenures with the team. Snyder has been the lightning rod of plenty of criticism over the years. From price gouging, lack of patience in team development, overpaying for players, having too much influence in the draft (without the experience), and the latest, suing premium season ticket holders. Cerrato, likewise, has been the topic of many discussions regarding the lack of success of this team. Many fans feel he isn't suited to be a strong GM. He's accused of not having enough experience (or ability) for his position, and has often been seen as a "yes" man. He, like Dan, can be accused of handing away draft picks and failing to address major needs (like upgrading the already steady defense this offseason, instead of the struggling offense). Vinny is also viewed as responsible for the non-traditional head coaching search, being left with one of the few people who would take the position after all other options have passed on the opportunity. Remember, Snyder has shown he is more than willing to pay for potential success. On the downside, he has too much power in choosing players and tends to alienate the fanbase. As for Cerrato, he seems loyal, interacts well with the fanbase, and has had success in the past constructing winning teams (Notre Dame, 49ers), but hasn't been able to put a consistent winning team on the field during his time with the Redskins. He was responsible for pulling in big-named free agents who simply didn't produce, which led to his firing by Marty Schottenheimer. Most of his more recent draft picks have yet to produce positive results. So if you could fire one of the two (and were forced to keep the other), who would it be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrmooref Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 You should add "both" to the list of choices. If Snyder is gone, so is Vinny. I'm done with both of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinklein Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Definitely Cerrato. I think Snyder has chilled out since Gibbs arrived, but he's still willing to throw money where he thinks it will help the team. Just because it hasn't worked out, doesn't mean the idea wasn't right. As a matter of fact, the fact that it didn't work out lays squarely on Cerrato's shoulders. Get rid of that waste of air, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Cerrato in a heartbeat. Does Snyder have too much power or is he listening to the so-called "experts" he has surrounded himself with led by Cerrato. He knows Cerrato knows more about football than he does and I'm sure he's been influenced by him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 snyder cerrato has picked some good players in the draft. plus, he's easier to fire than snyder. if we had a new owner, and cerrato did suck, he'd be gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Fire Pretzel Boy. Any other owner would come in and can Mini-Me before the checks to buy the team cleared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Well, Snyder, of course. That way, you get rid of them both. It all starts at the top. Snyder has set the tone and the agenda from the very beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Neither. Their ten years of on-the-job training is beginning to pay off. Let's not start over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moorecards Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Neither here right now. I want to wait to see how the Cerrato/Zorn combo does before I have a answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Is this thread meant for legitimate conversation, or just another chance to flame Snyder in the daily "airing of grievances?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewagen Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Since they are joined at the hip -- BOTH OF THEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail Gibbs Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Snyder. It all starts at the top. I personally don't believe Vinny has absolute control over roster decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedlightG20 Posted September 4, 2009 Author Share Posted September 4, 2009 Is this thread meant for legitimate conversation, or just another chance to flame Snyder in the daily "airing of grievances?" Seeing how I introduced only the negative about Snyder and only the positive about Cerrato, I can see why you would even ask this. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST is my boy Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Cerrato no question. Combine Dannys money, with a competent GM......and you have a sick football team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Has to be Snyder, because the next guy would surely be smart enough to toss Vinny to the curb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne The Fan Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Post deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Cerrato by a country mile. Don't want to toss out Snyder's desire to win no matter the financial cost. Cerrato has proven time and time again his incompetence as a GM/Assistant GM/Scout GM/Talent evaluator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Seeing how I introduced only the negative about Snyder and only the positive about Cerrato, I can see why you would even ask this. :doh: would you like me to change it to "Snyder and Cerrato" then? You get the real point, which is that this thread is useless as it's only meant for people to continue flaming. What, the 3-5 threads about the Post articles weren't enough? Seriously, what kind of legitimate conversation do you expect from a hypothetical topic discussing firing someone many aren't too happy with right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedlightG20 Posted September 4, 2009 Author Share Posted September 4, 2009 would you like me to change it to "Snyder and Cerrato" then? You get the real point, which is that this thread is useless as it's only meant for people to continue flaming. What, the 3-5 threads about the Post articles weren't enough?Seriously, what kind of legitimate conversation do you expect from a hypothetical topic discussing firing someone many aren't too happy with right now? I suppose if I changed the question to "who would you hire for your football team?" the results would be different? Either way, people would state their reasons why they hired one person, and not the other. How is that any different than what is going on now? People are saying why they would fire one person, and not the other. Rewording the question will get the same results, just flip-flopped. In fact, I specifically left off "both" from the poll answers because I figured that choice would run away with the votes. But I didn't--I kept it to either one of the two, or neither. It's more balanced. People can choose why they would fire one guy (and most likely flame them), and state why they chose the other (and positively support their choice). Or, they can choose to fire neither, and again, show positive support for both individuals. The fact that you're getting pissy over this thread is mindblowing, as A) most people on this board do flame people in the organization, and there are plenty of other threads whose whole point is to flame (like the Post article ones). Unfortunately for you, this isn't one of them. You're wasting your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 People keep citing Snyder's money and desire to win. First, since when has money been the determining factor in winning? Just look at Pittsburgh. They hardly ever make a splash in free agency, and only sign a very few core players to big-time contracts. And New England. Sure, they will drop some dough for a free agent occasionally. And when they do, it works out in their favor (unlike in D.C.). It's not how MUCH money you spend. It's HOW you spend it. And "will to win?" Snyder only wants to win if HE gets credit for it. That's why he hires yes men who will be happy to tutor him. I doubt a competent general manager will ever work for Snyder. Who wants to spend an inordinate amount of time teaching your boss to do what you already do competently? The best example was when he entered talks with Bobby Beathard a few years back. After paying Steve Spurrior $5 mill a year to coach, he offered Beathard an insulting $900K to manage the team. It just goes to show he wasn't serious about bringing a serious football mind and give him autonomy. I just don't get the Snyder apologists. I think I'll always see the Skins as my team. Doesn't mean I have to like the owner one iota. Honestly, I will rejoice when and if the Skins capture another title. But I think I might throw up a little bit in my mouth if I see Dan Snyder hoist that trophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIXX99 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 You can't fire the owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoRUSupposed2Be Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Neither. Their ten years of on-the-job training is beginning to pay off. Let's not start over. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I suppose if I changed the question to "who would you hire for your football team?" the results would be different? Either way, people would state their reasons why they hired one person, and not the other. How is that any different than what is going on now? People are saying why they would fire one person, and not the other. Rewording the question will get the same results, just flip-flopped.In fact, I specifically left off "both" from the poll answers because I figured that choice would run away with the votes. But I didn't--I kept it to either one of the two, or neither. It's more balanced. People can choose why they would fire one guy (and most likely flame them), and state why they chose the other (and positively support their choice). Or, they can choose to fire neither, and again, show positive support for both individuals. The fact that you're getting pissy over this thread is mindblowing, as A) most people on this board do flame people in the organization, and there are plenty of other threads whose whole point is to flame (like the Post article ones). Unfortunately for you, this isn't one of them. You're wasting your time. Wouldn't matter if you said "hire" or "fire" the intent is still there. Of course I never said YOU should reword your thread, I questioned whether or not it's even legitimate. You can dance around it all you want, but the intent of this thread, with its title, is clear as day meant to encourage flaming and not any legitimate conversation. The premise of the thread itself really doesn't leave a lot for discussion on its own anyway. And just as what was intended by the thread, there isn't any legitimate discussion going on, just flaming. I'm not getting "pissy" at all. Nothing in my language thus far would even suggest that. Seems more like you are just ticked off because you've been called on it correctly, so now you're trying to pretend like I'm overreacting or something. You are right about one thing though, I am wasting my time, so this is my last post in this thread. Just wanted to point out to others, whom it should be obvious to anyways, that unless you have an axe to grind with the FO and aren't interested in actual discussion and back-and-forth over football, this thread isn't for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I'd fire Snyder, because that would get rid of Cerrato too. Whoever replaced Snyder would immediately give Cerrato a pink slip. Keeping Snyder and dumping Cerrato would not help, because Snyder wants to run this team like his fantasy football plaything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bay Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I'd fire Snyder, because that would get rid of Cerrato too. Whoever replaced Snyder would immediately give Cerrato a pink slip. Is it safe to assume that any new owner would automatically be better? I don't think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.