WP (Wilbon): The Front Office and the Redskins in 2009

[Thirtyfive2seven]

Well said. Winning cures all. If, somehow, the skins win a superbowl they will be singing Dan Snyders praise. Big if.

[Oldfan]

Lets get our heads out of the sand

Wilbon is saying "on PAPER"...it looks like we have the capability to go 10-6 or 11-5.

But the ticket fiasco reminded him about management. As long as long as the franchise continues to be managed the way it has been up to this point [past failures listed]...

You and Wilbon admit the talent is here for a winning team -- and you aren't predicting that the coaching will fail. So, exactly where do you see management failing with the 2009 squad?

[PeterMP]

I think some of you have misunderstood what he is saying. His point is that he looked at some of the pre-season moves and THOUGHT they were good moves (keeping in mind there is some known risks associated with them) and that as a result he thought the team would be better (you assume that the people making the decisions are competent and in most cases the risks won't damage the over all result (they will get more good "breaks" than bad).

The ticket fiasco reminded him that in the end this still appears to be a pretty incompetent franchise so even though they appear to have made good moves, he now doubts they really were and as such, they will not recieve the benefit he previously thought they would.

His opinion is NOT that the ticket fiasco will somehow lead Portis to trying less hard on a big 3rd in one, but instead the ticket fiasco is an indication of the incompetency that will result in poor execution (due to incompetent coaching or player acquisition) that will lead to failing to get big 3rd in ones.

The ticket mess was just a jarring reminder of the incompetence of the management. In an off season where they appear to make good moves you can forget about that. Then when you re-examine the situation, you have to start to really wonder if those moves were really good or there is something hiding there. The Stubbefield comparasion is to illustrate that this has happened before. It appeared to be a good move. It appeared as if it will be a positive benefit for the team, but in the end incompetence won. The question is there are known risks for every move, but do you give them benefit of the doubt with respect to those risks or not.

Generally, he is saying before he was giving them credit for making competent moves because from his knowledge base they appear to be competent, but now, until they prove they are competent and based on the managements history, he is going to assume that they aren't competent and as such he doesn't think they will do as well.

It goes to giving people the benefit of the doubt. There is always some risk associated with a move. If you assume the people making the decisions are competent you are likely to give them the benefit of doubt associated with those risks and assume most of the moves will work. If you start from the other side and you assume most of the moves won't work because some of the known risks, then you end up with a different result.

Lastly, I will point out, he doesn't say that they won't win as long as Snyder owns the team. He is saying, until the franchise is competently run, they won't win. There is a track record of franchises turning things around. The Colts are good example of this. So are the Yankees. It might require Snyder to change, or it just might require him to change some of the people working under him. I don't know.

I have come to the point that I have stopped assuming the Redskin management is competent, and until they prove otherwise I will assume that they aren't and that as a result most of the decisions they make are bad ones.

[LoudMouth12thMan]

So wait Wilbon!, you mean to say that you think the Redskins are a 10 to 11 win team, but now you think they're an 8 win team because some idiot FO guy or Skins employee wanted to sue a long-time season ticket holder who could no longer afford her contract? That makes a lot of sense. BTW, I'm pretty sure they rescinded the suit. B.S. logic!

[TheTotalPackage]

Give me an example of evidence that you would consider that goes back further than Zorn's hiring.

sure.

if a team does poorly year in and year out, it's likely they will do it again.

if the patriots win the super bowl one year, do you predict them to have a losing season the next?

[PeterMP]

You and Wilbon admit the talent is here for a winning team -- and you aren't predicting that the coaching will fail. So, exactly where do you see management failing with the 2009 squad?

No, they are admitting the talent APPEARS to be here (he used the word looks).

If you assume that Haynesworth is REALLY all that appears to be in terms of a DT, then this good be a REALLY REALLY good DL. If you assume that Haynesworth is a good DT that was made to look like a REALLY good DT due to the scheme, coaching, and other players for the Titans, then this defense is less exciting.

[LetThePointsSoar]

Wilbon offered no evidence in support of his trickle down premise. Can you offer any?

Visit your nearest Chuck E Cheese or McDonalds...bad, grumpy cashier = bad manager....good, friendly cashier = good management....all this article says is that he got just one more reminder of our incompetent leadership...until this team is well ran, we can get all the talent in the world, but we still won't be successful....(if you think I'm wrong, look at the Dallas Cowgirls)...

[Vicious]

So wait Wilbon!, you mean to say that you think the Redskins are a 10 to 11 win team, but now you think they're an 8 win team because some idiot FO guy or Skins employee wanted to sue a long-time season ticket holder who could no longer afford her contract? That makes a lot of sense. BTW, I'm pretty sure they rescinded the suit. B.S. logic!

That's not what he is saying, he says that poor management has cascading effects that show on the field. They do.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Visit your nearest Chuck E Cheese or McDonalds...bad, grumpy cashier = bad manager....good, friendly cashier = good management....all this article says is that he got just one more reminder of our incompetent leadership...until this team is well ran, we can get all the talent in the world, but we still won't be successful....(if you think I'm wrong, look at the Dallas Cowgirls)...

True. But that bad manager is a douche to his employees, hence their grumpiness. Now if the employees are treated well, which I'm sure the players are, than I doubt they really care what the hell Snyder is doing with tickets.

[Oldfan]

if a team does poorly year in and year out, it's likely they will do it again.

Not true if they improve their roster-building approach and their coaching somewhere along the way. The Steelers were a losing organization for the first 35 years of their existence.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

sure.

if a team does poorly year in and year out, it's likely they will do it again.

if the patriots win the super bowl one year, do you predict them to have a losing season the next?

If the Patriot's talent and level of coaching the next year dictates it, then yes. Tom Brady gets traded, Belechick retires, and Moss goes on IR...you're saying that the predictions remain the same simply because their administrative personnel didn't have any ticket or fan issues?

Not to mention, you're comparing a team going to the SB and then having a losing season...Wilbon is only changing his stance by two games. Wilbon doesn't give examples of how Snyder cost the Skins two wins last year...or the year before....he doesn't give examples of how the Skins somehow managed to escape the negative pull of Snyder's evil, incompetent business practices in 2005 and get 10 wins. He doesn't give any evidence whatsoever that his "trickle down effect" leads directly to a number of losses in any given year.

He basically just "punishes" the Skins by revising his prediction down by 2 games for having what he considers to be a terrible owner. No logic or rational reason needs to be given in that scenario...if you agree than Snyder is a poor owner then his "logic" is correct.

[Oldfan]

Visit your nearest Chuck E Cheese or McDonalds...bad, grumpy cashier = bad manager....good, friendly cashier = good management....all this article says is that he got just one more reminder of our incompetent leadership...until this team is well ran, we can get all the talent in the world, but we still won't be successful....(if you think I'm wrong, look at the Dallas Cowgirls)...

But, Jim Zorn is the coach. He's the one running the show. If he has the talent, which Wilbon concedes is there, and Wilbon doesn't find fault with Zorn, where is the failure?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Visit your nearest Chuck E Cheese or McDonalds...bad, grumpy cashier = bad manager....good, friendly cashier = good management....all this article says is that he got just one more reminder of our incompetent leadership...until this team is well ran, we can get all the talent in the world, but we still won't be successful....(if you think I'm wrong, look at the Dallas Cowgirls)...

Horrible example to use...

The cashier at McDonalds is DIRECTLY instructed on how they perform their duties by that "bad manager". Players are not directly instructed on how to perform their duties by the owner (unless that owner is Al Davis, apparently). No amount of "Snyder is meddlesome" hyperbole will prove that Snyder actually does that. Second, the "bad manager" directly creates a bad working environment for his/her employees. By all accounts, Snyder and his personnel have created a fantastic working environment for the players. Third, the cashier could be bad all by themselves, but what makes the manager bad is that they do not fire the cashier. In which case, you've got the equation backwards.

To make your example more relevant, it would be like saying the CEO of McDonalds cheating on his taxes = bad cashier at your neighborhood McD's lol...

[PeterMP]

Not true if they improve their roster-building approach and their coaching somewhere along the way. The Steelers were a losing organization for the first 35 years of their existence.

He didn't say they absolutely will NOT do better. He said it isn't LIKELY.

You want to make a bet that teams by and large that finish 8-8 or worse in at least two years in a row DO NOT got 10-6 or better the next year.

That is the question. Have they improved their roster-building approach/coaching?

He was going to give the benefit of the doubt that they had. Then the ticket fiasco reminded him of their previous on the field incompetence and he decided not to give them that benefit of the doubt.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

But, Jim Zorn is the coach. He's the one running the show. If he has the talent, which Wilbon concedes is there, and Wilbon doesn't find fault with Zorn, where is the failure?

I agree with you here. There's no reason to think that a trickle-down effect would occur here. In the past, we've been mediocre because we haven't had the young talent. We're beginning to acquire young talent.

Teams can win even if their owners or front-offices are considered dysfunctional. Dallas (just recently) went 13-3 and Jerry Jones IS THE GM.

[HailYeah]

So,...the Post cost us 2-3 wins?? The ****s!

[Oldfan]

No, they are admitting the talent APPEARS to be here (he used the word looks).

If you assume that Haynesworth is REALLY all that appears to be in terms of a DT, then this good be a REALLY REALLY good DL. If you assume that Haynesworth is a good DT that was made to look like a REALLY good DT due to the scheme, coaching, and other players for the Titans, then this defense is less exciting.

The 2009 talent APPEARS better than the 2008 talent APPEARED. The coaching and the players have an added year of experience in the offense. And yet, Wilbon expects the same 8-8 record because management's flaws will trickle to render improvement unlikely.

Unless the trickle down theory is seasonal, I guess it has the effect of putting an eight-win lid on a season regardless of any improvements of talent or coaching. Is that the way you make it?

[TheTotalPackage]

Visit your nearest Chuck E Cheese or McDonalds...bad, grumpy cashier = bad manager....good, friendly cashier = good management....all this article says is that he got just one more reminder of our incompetent leadership...until this team is well ran, we can get all the talent in the world, but we still won't be successful....(if you think I'm wrong, look at the Dallas Cowgirls)...

also look at how divided the fan base was this summer. it's like we were rooting for different teams. if the fan base is this divided, imagine how the locker room could be.

just think if snyder showed the requisite confidence/patience in his personnel, none of it would have happened. it starts from the top.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

His article/blog entry/whatever can definitely be summed up with the following statement: "As long as Snyder is owner the Redskins will never win anything!!" lol :yes:...

If that's how he feels, fine...but he uses some convoluted logic to back up that conclusion in this piece.

well since snyder has been the owner, weve never really been a winner. i guess hes seen ten years of snyder and thinks were in for 30 more years of snyder?

[PeterMP]

The 2009 talent APPEARS better than the 2008 talent APPEARED. The coaching and the players have an added year of experience in the offense. And yet, Wilbon expects the same 8-8 record because management's flaws will trickle to render improvement unlikely.

Unless the trickle down theory is seasonal, I guess it has the effect of putting an eight-win lid on a season regardless of any improvements of talent or coaching. Is that the way you make it?

No.

The way you make it is that the 2009 talent isn't actually much (or any) better than the 2008 talent (or won't play like it (I'd assume that you'd agree that based on his SF years that at his root Stubbefield had more talent than the DT he replaced here)). That despite the players and coaches having another of year experience they won't actually do better (want to bet I can't find plenty of cases where 2nd year coaches actually went backwards in terms of W's and L's).

And there are a couple of ways this team gets out of its 8-8 or there about rut.

1. Get lucky.

2. Start to be run like a competent organization.

It isn't impossible for a management to turn things around. You mentioned the Steelers before. I'll mention the Colts and the Yankees again.

It is possible that the Redskins and Snyder have made that turn (w/ the ticket office bringing up the rare). I'll believe when they prove it.

They've proven the ticket office hasn't.

Has the player acquisition/coaching side of the team?

You are ready to assume they have. Wilbon was too. He's now switched to 'prove it to me'. That's where I have been and where I am staying. If you assume competent front office moves this year (and really last (i.e. that one of the guys drafted last year is going to step and make a contribution at WR)), then you can talk about this team being 10-6. If not, 8-8 is more likely.

(Actually, I was talking to a Giant fan this weekend and I told him I could see this team finishing anywhere from 10-6 to 4-12 (they start poorly and the team gives up on Zorn)).

[BuryYourDuke]

We were going to be 11-5, but after the Post wrote some misleading, logically flawed articles about ticket sales, we will be 8-8...yep. Good article Wilbon.

[TheTotalPackage]

The 2009 talent APPEARS better than the 2008 talent APPEARED. The coaching and the players have an added year of experience in the offense. And yet, Wilbon expects the same 8-8 record because management's flaws will trickle to render improvement unlikely.

Unless the trickle down theory is seasonal, I guess it has the effect of putting an eight-win lid on a season regardless of any improvements of talent or coaching. Is that the way you make it?

we can say this every year. last year we got jason taylor so our talent appeared better than what we finished with the previous year. yet we did worse.

the bottom line is we're still the most mediocre team in the nfl (rarely winning big, rarely losing big) regardless of what our talent level appears to be before the season starts. can't blame them for taking this into consideration.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I think some of you have misunderstood what he is saying. His point is that he looked at some of the pre-season moves and THOUGHT they were good moves (keeping in mind there is some known risks associated with them) and that as a result he thought the team would be better (you assume that the people making the decisions are competent and in most cases the risks won't damage the over all result (they will get more good "breaks" than bad).

The ticket fiasco reminded him that in the end this still appears to be a pretty incompetent franchise so even though they appear to have made good moves, he now doubts they really were and as such, they will not recieve the benefit he previously thought they would.

Thats' EXACTLY where the flawed logic comes in, though...

You base your perceptions of the move on the players and coaches themselves...not on the owner. It's the same contradicting "logic" given as to why if the Pats sign a 34 year old FA to the team, it's seen as a "smart move" bringing in "proven talent" and "leadership"...but if the Skins do the same thing (and pay the same amount to do so), it's seen as "Snyder playing fantasy football" and getting a "name player" who is at the end of their careers and won't contribute much.

His opinion is NOT that the ticket fiasco will somehow lead Portis to trying less hard on a big 3rd in one, but instead the ticket fiasco is an indication of the incompetency that will result in poor execution (due to incompetent coaching or player acquisition) that will lead to failing to get big 3rd in ones.

Intersting how Wilbon gives ZERO proof of that, though. And considering that the Patriots also sue fans who reneg on their Club Seat contracts, I'm at a loss as to how he feels that "shameful" occurence gives evidence that his original predictions about the Skins chances should now come back down.

In an off season where they appear to make good moves you can forget about that. Then when you re-examine the situation, you have to start to really wonder if those moves were really good or there is something hiding there.

And there's another prefect example of the flawed logic Wilbon uses lol :yes:...

Good moves are good moves...thinking that "something else" is there merely because you don't like the types of administrative decisions the owner has made is foolish, to say the least. It falls under the heading of "Something is BOUND to go wrong, so I'll just start preparing for it now". There's no logic needed in arguing that stance...and sure enough, Wilbon pressents none.

The Stubbefield comparasion is to illustrate that this has happened before. It appeared to be a good move. It appeared as if it will be a positive benefit for the team, but in the end incompetence won.

Stubblefield was not even a move by Snyder, though...it was a move by the past owner and GM. And it's some insanely weak logic to use that, since one FA didn't work out, we must now doubt all free agent signings at that same position.

Not to mention that at the time, the knock on Stubblefield was that it was really Bryant Young that made him look so good, and that without Young next to him Stubby would look ordinary. Turned out to be true.

There is no such issue with Haynesworth, so these two players, brought to the Skins by two different owners and GMs, don't deserve to be compared to one another in any logical way.

The question is there are known risks for every move, but do you give them benefit of the doubt with respect to those risks or not.

That's where Wilbon's football intelligence should come into play if he's being intellectually honest. Instead, he uses the "Snyder is terrible" retort like a get out of jail free card...

Generally, he is saying before he was giving them credit for making competent moves because from his knowledge base they appear to be competent, but now, until they prove they are competent and based on the managements history, he is going to assume that they aren't competent and as such he doesn't think they will do as well.

Competent moves are competent moves...and the Skins have had MORE than enough competent moves over the last 5 years to warrant suspending doubt about these recent moves. Instead, Wilbon leapfrogs over Portis, Moss, Springs, Campbell (who he thinks so highly of that he feels it was "stupid" to try and replace him), Taylor, Landry, Fletcher, Cooley, Betts, Saumels, Arrington (yes, he was worthy of praise during his time here), Horton, Heyer, re-signing Smoot and Dockery for much less than we let them go for, the return of Gibbs, Gregg Williams...etc, etc...just jumps over ALL of that and lands way back on Stubblefield to help back up his conclusions. A move that wasn't even made under this owner's tenure.

Lastly, I will point out, he doesn't say that they won't win as long as Snyder owns the team. He is saying, until the franchise is competently run, they won't win.

And he's also saying that, as long as he can be reminded of how incompetent Snyder is, he has ZERO reason to believe the Skins will even improve from one year to the next by as little as two games. Even if the thing that's doing the reminding has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with anything on the field.

I have come to the point that I have stopped assuming the Redskin management is competent, and until they prove otherwise I will assume that they aren't and that as a result most of the decisions they make are bad ones.

Again, that's where having a good football knowledge should come into play for Wilbon...because if he has that, he'll be better able to see when the team is trending towards making more consistently competent moves. If he waits until the Skins go 12-4 and win the division and a playoff bye, then all he's doing is reporting the obvious. That's a useless trait to bring to the table as a reporter of any kind. Wilbon, and you by agreeing with him, are basically saying his job should consist of no more than him telling us stuff we already know.

Far, FAR more respect would be given to a reporter who actually analyzes football moves through the lens of knowledge and football intellect isntead of through the eyes of a disenchanted fan like Wilbon is doing here. A sportswriter who says "Here are the areas where the Skins have improved and should be good, here are the areas where the Skins need more help and will be a problem", is ALWAYS prefferable to a sportswriter who says "Don't bother looking at individual areas or following how the QB is performing in practice or if rookies are improving or if your favorite players are picking up their games or if the team as a whole is gelling and starting to execute on the field. All you need to know is that Snyder is still owner, so they'll be mediocre." That's message board bull****.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

we can say this every year. last year we got jason taylor so our talent appeared better than what we finished with the previous year. yet we did worse.

the bottom line is we're still the most mediocre team in the nfl (rarely winning big, rarely losing big) regardless of what our talent level appears to be before the season starts. can't blame them for taking this into consideration.

Then he should give that as his reasoning..."The Skins always seem to hover around 8-8, no matter how much or how little talent they seem to have on paper." It's a pretty lame stance to take, but at least there would be a sliver of logic behind it.

Wilbon instead skips all that, and takes the opportunity to bring up the "ticket fiasco" again (shocking, huh?)--something that has ZERO to do with the on-the-field production--as his supposedly valid reason for downgrading his predictions for the Skins from 10 wins to 8 wins. And, in an insanely stupid attempt to negate any arguments about Haynesworth, he brings up Dana stinkin' Stubblefield lol :doh:...

It was just a poorly written article, no matter how you slice it.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Why anyone even bothers to read this sycophant d-bag any more is beyond me.

The dick deserves little better than our utter contempt after the b/s he spouted in print after #21's sad passing.

The man's a piss poor excuse for a journalist who's work in the main stinks, and is clearly agenda driven; more often than not derived either from whom ever' ass he happens to be kissing at the time, or the tired old lame attacks on what he perceives to be "common enemies" with his readers, in this case Snyder, to garner the readers affection.

Hail.