DButz65 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 JKC wanted a new stadium since 1987, the district just dropped the ball on it from the get go really.. here is a breakdown of all of the events leading up to JKC Stadium being built http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/WashingtonRedskins/Articles/timeline.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Not to take away from the merits of the article, or the topic.But why are most of these threads that defend Snyder, or paint others in a negative light, often times started by either brand new posters, or posters who have never made even a single thread before. It is just my opinion, and no offense to the OP, but I have to discount the intentions of such a thread when I notice these things. Dan Steinberg is a new poster? several old time members have post threads "defending" Snyder, so I don't get your point. to be quite honest I am getting tired of all the over reaction nonsense, calling for boycotts, walkouts, turn in your fan card.... we aren't talking about taking a stand for civil rights, safer working conditions, corrupt government or other serious important causes we are talking about a FOOTBALL TEAM starting 2-5. Losing sucks, but geez.. people need to get a grip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 The difference is extreme fans (who are extremely well-informed of everything that's going on) vs casual fans (who know little more than what they occasionally read in the newspaper and who develop opinions based on ****). I beg to differ, most of the people who think they know what is going on, generally don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark The Homer Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I beg to differ, most of the people who think they know what is going on, generally don't Most people who have thousands of posts know better than people who have a few hundred posts. That was McD5's point, and I agree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Most people who have thousands of posts know better than people who have a few hundred posts. That was McD5's point, and I agree with him. And then there's me...who doesn't know a damn thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Most people who have thousands of posts know better than people who have a few hundred posts. That was McD5's point, and I agree with him. I have more posts than anyone and many think I'm clueless again I completely disagree, post count, length of time as a member.... etc, means nothing and rarely an indicator of football knowledge a poster possess. Heck the most informed poster we ever had, had a small post count, and was only around for a year or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark The Homer Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Hmm. That hasn't been my experience. There are exceptions of course (don't let it go to your head, big guy ), but generally, the more posts, the more redskins knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 we are talking about a FOOTBALL TEAM starting 2-5. Losing sucks, but geez.. people need to get a grip What's disturbing is when the mods start to pile on...my preference would be for them to say nothing. Fanning the flames is bad mojo, if you ask me. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark The Homer Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 we are talking about a FOOTBALL TEAM starting 2-5. Losing sucks, but geez.. people need to get a gripStarting 2-5??? How about a sig bet? I bet we finish 2-7 or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 we are talking about a FOOTBALL TEAM starting 2-5. Losing sucks, but geez.. people need to get a grip I think this team's win/loss record is the least of their problems. And I don't think it's the main factor behind the current display of discontent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Ya see Bubba currently has 86,988 posts & thinks "the most informed poster we ever had, had a small post count, and was only around for a year or two." His wording indicates a single member, which is ill informed. And that also negates post count & time on the board. Oh, & another thing, Steinberg isn't a new poster here. He's had an account for several years now. Just not quite as long as JLC though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark The Homer Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Ya see Bubba currently has 86,988 posts & thinks "the most informed poster we ever had, had a small post count, and was only around for a year or two." His wording indicates a single member, which is ill informed. .... Damn! I should have caught that! My bad. I need to step up my game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Brown #43 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 we are talking about a FOOTBALL TEAM starting 2-5. Losing sucks, but geez.. people need to get a grip This isn't about a 2-5 season. If the Redskins were a stable organization with a competent front office structure, but we just happened to be enduring a down/rebuilding 2-5 season, you wouldn't see the revolt you're witnessing this year. The Skins have had down years before, and fans have been quite forgiving, coming back again and again for more. What's happening now is fans are simply fed up with an organization that gives us no hope for the future, barring fundamental change at the highest levels. The 2-5 record is just a symptom of the problem, and not the reason for the revolt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark The Homer Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 This isn't about a 2-5 season. If the Redskins were a stable organization with a competent front office structure, but we just happened to be enduring a down/rebuilding 2-5 season, you wouldn't see the revolt you're witnessing this year. The Skins have had down years before, and fans have been quite forgiving, coming back again and again for more.What's happening now is fans are simply fed up with an organization that gives us no hope for the future, barring fundamental change at the highest levels. The 2-5 record is just a symptom of the problem, and not the reason for the revolt. The difference this year is, we know the rot is emanating from the core. It's not surface rot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Damn! I should have caught that! My bad.I need to step up my game. Yeah, well you missed the pwn@g3 opportunity in the following:D: I beg to differ, most of the people who think they know what is going on, generally don't Speaking from experiance is a mother****er ain't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcarey032 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I hear you on revisionist history. If I am not mistaken, didn't JKC's "wife" drive through Georgetown with her "friend on the hood of the car or something to that effect? She was always in trouble. There was also the issue that if she had children with JKC that those children could not get any of his estate. Yes JKC was no angel for sure. I think that when you are successful there is a lot of that stuff that goes to your head. Dan Snyder is no different. He is a prick of the highest order, but he made his billions and he feels that he can spend it anyway that he wants and he should be allowed to do so, but we as consumers have a right to spend our money the way we want. If we want to see change, you stop spending money in the Redskins stores and at games and you will see a change, IMO. Hurting his pocket book is the only language that Snyder speaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 It has been different in that JKC stuck with the same thing over and over again, while there has been a lot of turnover with Snyder's reign, but the results were not much different.Cooke gets a pass because he presided over a winner. If Snyder also presided over a winner, he'd get just as much of a pass. About these two points we're in full agreement, assuming by JKC you meant John Cooke. It's nice to actually be able to agree with you every so often. Unfortunately, Riggins hit the nail on the head....well, sorta. See, JKC's personality quirks generally didn't affect the running of the team. OTOH, Snyder's shortcomings (pun richly intended) have caused a toxic atmosphere that has negatively affected the on field product. In other words, Snyder's personality shortcomings have set up a toxic environment that makes success the exception rather than the rule. If Snyder was just as much of a putz as he is, and yet managed to field a quality on-field product, I'd have no problems with him. Since he can't, he gets skewered. Sorry Lord Farquaad and Vinny Me, but that's just the way it works. JKC got the benefit of the doubt regarding his personality issues, being seen as just a "cute" and "eccentric" millionaire because he fielded a winner and because he did nice things for the little guys too. Conversely Snyder is seen as being a mean, self-centered, selfish putz because he hasn't been able to field a winner and hasn't done anything for the "nobodys" except figure out new ways to squeeze more money out of them. I beg to differ, most of the people who think they know what is going on, generally don't Hmmmm, that sounds awfully familiar... I have more posts than anyone and many think I'm clueless again I completely disagree, post count, length of time as a member.... etc, means nothing and rarely an indicator of football knowledge a poster possess. Heck the most informed poster we ever had, had a small post count, and was only around for a year or two. Wow, so you were the one person that actually bought what MSF was selling. I always thought the rumors of the existence of such a person were an urban legend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Well, the Skins became a division-winning, playoff team by '99. So the misery we endured during the 90s actually did build up to something. To me, it's not shocking that things went south in 2000, after Snyder had a chance to exert his influence on the roster. Let's not forget...one of the first things Snyder said when he bought the team was he felt the Skins gave up too much for Brad Johnson. The fact that he even voiced an opinion on that was alarming to me at the time. And of course, just a year later we had Jeff George on the team. Well, to be honest we did give up a lot for Brad Johnson, tho he almost looked worth it in 1999. It was a heavy price to pay for not being able to resign Trent Green. I wasn't a big fan of a few of Snyder's moves at the time, particularly George and Deion. At the same time, tho, they are moves that a fan probably would have made. I see people making similar suggestions on this board all the time. The good thing is, it looks like he mostly learned from that and I haven't seen anything remotely like that since. He's made other errors, but not the same ones. I'm not saying that Norv was a great coach by any stretch. But I can understand how John feels in retrospect. All the lumps he and his dad took in the 90s finally built up to a playoff appearance in '99, and then Snyder goes hog wild in free agency in 2000 and spoils the broth of that team, and he blames it on the coach John and his dad worked with all those years. Not saying Norv wasn't at least partly to blame for what happened in 2000, but I can certainly understand John's frustration over the way things went down. I can understand that perspective. At the same time, a lot of fans had just about enough of Norv by that point. Some had been done for a few years. Considering Norv's somewhat lackluster record since then, it is kinda a silly thing to say that things would have been different had we kept going. And that's PRECISELY why he does deserve credit. No one ever claimed that Cooke won those championships because he was in charge of personnel and picked great players. He deserves credit for the championships because he knew his place as an owner. Unlike Jerry Jones, he didn't win three rings and then decide he knew football better than the people most responsible for getting him those rings. If Gibbs hadn't retired the first time, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because JKC never would have fired Gibbs. Nor does Snyder for the most part. While he likes to be involved, I don't see him playing GM. Fair point about Cooke hiring Norv, but I can live with the owner selecting a coach if he generally stays out of the way otherwise. But I don't buy your assessment of Snyder's involvement one bit. Nor does Snyder's friend George Michael, who recently said on the air that Snyder chooses to go after guys like Haynesworth and other big-name players. Michael's assessment was that Vinny essentially handles the later-round draft picks, and Snyder picks the big-name guys. I like getting good players as much as anyone, but there are ramifications to signing big-name, big money players, and I just feel more comfortable with having someone who knows what they're doing handling those decisions. Maybe before Gibbs got here, but not after. Michael's statement was vague enough to fit in with how the FO describes how things work, basically that when it comes to the big money FA, the buck does stop with Snyder because he pays the bills. There haven't been too many moves that have been incongruous with how the team was being built. Most of the moves that were were failure points in other parts of the organization, either with scouting or with the selection process. Sure. But the fact that Casserly was a less-than-stellar GM doesn't mean Vinny should be retained. As long as Vinny's here, I'll continue to blame Snyder. Snyder could fire Vinny this evening, if he wanted to. Nor was I suggesting that we should keep Vinny. When Vinny was put in charge of football operations, it became his responsibility, from Zorn to the makeup of the roster. As for firing him now, that would be even more pointless than what he did to Norv. At least changing the head coach would affect the product on the field. Firing Vinny now does none of that. He has the opportunity to, sure. Snyder could be beloved in this town if he could keep his own ego in check, hire quality people, and let THEM win him a Super Bowl. As long as he wants to be the straw that stirs the drink, I think we'll struggle. But yes, he certainly could be beloved in this town if he chooses to do things the right way. Course, the "right way" is any way that makes us a winner. There is no magic formula that everyone can follow that will make a winner, otherwise everyone would follow it. In all fairness, everyone thought that Norv coming here was a great hire. No one is saying that at the time it was a bad move. Certainly his success with the Cowboys made the hire attractive. (even if we had to swallow that we hired a Cowboys coach to run the Redskins) I'm just pointing out that Norv was chosen by JKC, using a method not too different from how Snyder selected head coaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papabear Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 May I just say that I hate, and always will, Cris Collinsworth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Unfortunately, Riggins hit the nail on the head....well, sorta. See, JKC's personality quirks generally didn't affect the running of the team. OTOH, Snyder's shortcomings (pun richly intended) have caused a toxic atmosphere that has negatively affected the on field product. In other words, Snyder's personality shortcomings have set up a toxic environment that makes success the exception rather than the rule. Actually, I think the toxic environment doesn't have too much to do with the personality of Snyder, but with the way he ran this team in the first few years up through firing Marty. Some say first impressions are everything, and just about all perception of Snyder and the organization comes from those first few years. I certainly think the man has been humbled quite a bit from the lack of success of the organization, which is why as time has gone on, he's faded into the background. Unfortunately, Vinny isn't exactly the best face to put forward. To me, Vinny is like that engineer that you keep in the dark room to create, but you don't bring him out to meet the customer. He's just not that good of a public speaker and sometimes makes a fool of himself. JKC got the benefit of the doubt regarding his personality issues, being seen as just a "cute" and "eccentric" millionaire because he fielded a winner and because he did nice things for the little guys too. Conversely Snyder is seen as being a mean, self-centered, selfish putz because he hasn't been able to field a winner and hasn't done anything for the "nobodys" except figure out new ways to squeeze more money out of them. Except when he isn't. Considering all the people in the organization who have gone to bat for Snyder this week, maybe that view that he's a "mean, self-centered, selfish putz" isn't the whole story. I don't know the background to Sarge's story, but it sounds like that she had a connection to Cooke, so I'd hardly say that she was a "nobody" to Cooke. No doubt that Danny has his oddities (like the "Mr. Snyder" thing), but it isn't that that is giving him the negative view. It is the way the organization has done business in the past, and the fact that some of those viewpoints are probably being encouraged by the organization to a certain extent. (I do think the organization does try to use the "Crazy Eddie" reputation to their advantage at times.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/book/pages/192.htm Other departures followed that summer. When linebacker Wilber Marshall demanded a $3 million salary, Cooke ordered him traded. Cornerback Martin Mayhew and defensive end Fred Stokes, a playmaker with 24 sacks in 53 games, both departed via free agency. Pass-rushing specialist Jumpy Geathers, who had performed so brilliantly in 1991, signed on with the Atlanta Falcons.If the Redskins had had young players prepared to fill these jobs, the departures wouldn't have been so costly. Indeed, none of the departing players ever did much after leaving Redskin Park. But the Redskins didn't have the replacements. That summer, they signed a motley crew of free agents — wide receiver Tim McGee, defensive end Al Noga, linebackers Carl Banks and Rick Graf — and drafted Notre Dame cornerback Tom Carter. The free fall had begun. With the disappearance of Gibbs, Rypien's No.1 defender, Cooke got his wish for a new quarterback. He got a lot of other wishes as well throughout the season. Benching Brian Mitchell for rookie Reggie Brooks. Benching Rypien. Benching quarterback Cary Conklin. The Redskins seemingly went out of their way to start erasing the memory of Gibbs, including removing his one-running-back offense. Jack Kent Cooke was a loud, bullying, profane man. He had little patience, and he didn't suffer fools lightly. He also was one of the best owners in sports. The Redskins had wonderful days of glory in some of his years, and at least stayed competitive in others, while they played in the NFL's smallest stadium. They lost money virtually every year but continued to spend it because Cooke wanted to win so badly. He had strong opinions, and he challenged his coaches and general managers when they disagreed with him. But he usually followed their recommendations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I love people trotting out stuff like but have no context whatsoever. First on Pardee. That article was likely written by a Pardee fan. I think everyone knew that Pardee was not the answer. The greatness of Jack Kent Cooke was on display and why he's a better owner in every way from Danny after Pardee was canned. Instead of hiring a big name coach (George Allen and John Madden were rumored) Cooke trusted his Gm and hired a smart young energetic coach to help in rebuilding his team. On top of that Cooke had a history of winning in other sports. Danny has done nothing. Now as for the 1994 poll, context people. Polls are at best snapshots and what could have been going on for a great owner like JKC to be so poorly thought of? First, his team was coming off it's worst season since the early 60s. So of course people would not be happy. Second he was tainted by his young wifes escapades on hoods of cars. His image having that young wife was bad enough but when she's acting like a nut, not good. Another issue was he still was tainted by "the billionaire bully" comment made by Mayor Sharon Pratt Do Nothing oh I mean Kelly. She was successfully turned into a victim. Then of course the Potomac Yard fiasco. Cooke had been getting some bad press and his team was coming off it's worst season in 30 years. That is why at that moment in time he polled so low. Danny is hated because in the ten years he's had this team, we still are an overpriced laughingstock. Danny may be a better man. I'm not really in a position to say. But I know for damn sure Cooke was a better owner. He was a better owner in 1981 and was still a better owner in 1994. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmek25 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Most people who have thousands of posts know better than people who have a few hundred posts. That was McD5's point, and I agree with him. i don't agree with this. just because you have lots of time to post, doesn't mean you are well informed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark The Homer Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 i don't agree with this. just because you have lots of time to post, doesn't mean you are well informed The reason you don't agree is because you don't have the experience to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I remember JKC as being a generally well liked guy. People joked about how rich he was, his young, wild wife, etc. He seemed to be generally well respected. You never really heard from/about him except for big games (playoffs, SB's) and when he was trying to find a stadium deal. Maybe things are different nowadays with the 24-hour news cycle, blogs, NFL Network, ES, and so on. My exposure to the Skins during the glory years was gameday telecasts, the sports segment during the local news, and articles in the Washington Post or occasionally Sports Illustrated. I have some fuzzy memories of training camps in Carlisle, PA where I recall having met JKC once. IIRC he greeted us as he strolled through, shaking hands and talking of the next Super Bowl, the greatest fans in the world etc. Snyder would rather not be bothered by us or even acknowledge us. D-bag pretty much sums up many of the anecdotes and stories about Snyder. I NEVER recall anything of the sort with Cooke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.