KDawg Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 From the language used, I think Snyder is going to remain involved in decisions. I'm hoping Allen will stand up to Snyder and tell him no when necessary. I think it's okay that Snyder is involved in decisions... Its just the degree in which he's involved. Any owner is going to want to have some voice into who they are spending their money on... Just in some circumstances he needs to learn to say, "Okay, Bruce, I trust you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Mid sentence shout out for Bubba FTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 2. Dan didn't state emphatically that Bruce had 100% control over the direction of the orgnization. But I wonder... does any GM? Maybe some, but I suspect a good number of owners have some level of involvement in the team. I would. Maybe I wouldn't be picking players, but I would want to be consulted about large signings, espeically at key positions like QB - where the person becomes the face of your franchise. To expect Dan to say that Bruce has absolute control over everything is probably not fair. But when asked about Zorn, Dan said Bruce would make the call, and I think that's a good sign. He could have said "we'll take a look at that in the offseason". Trying to be an optimist here A GM is only as independent as the owner lets them be. If the owner wants to be in the room when decisions are being made, there is little the GM can do about it, other than quit. Ultimately, a head of a football operation is accountable to the owner for every decision. Now, I don't think that Snyder's involvement, whatever it is, has interfered with the football operation much in the past 6 years. For the most part, he seems to have facilitated what those heading up the football operations wanted from this team. He may have talked about such decisions and their justifications, but I doubt he's been driving most of the football decisions. Snyder did say during the press conference that he isn't as involved as people think, and I tend to agree with that view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veteranskinsfan Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I liked what he said and the fact that he had made mistakes in the past with the other teams. He learned something about himself after getting fired from the Bucs. This time around I am sure he will be a better GM. Also I like the fact that other GM's will take him seriously and will make deals with him if it is in their perceived best interests. Hope he will not be fearful of the Danny. Hope he avoids all invitations to play racquetball. He should just be professional and do his job then go home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 From the language used, I think Snyder is going to remain involved in decisions. I'm hoping Allen will stand up to Snyder and tell him no when necessary. dang ...can you elaborate??? been in meetings allllll afternoon. (sorry if you addressed in this thread) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Brown #43 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 But this has rarely been the route to success in any business. The hyper-involved JKC and Al Davis (albiet back in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, not so much now) are a good examples of this in football. Now, while the successful owner does know his strengths and weaknesses, he doesn't just sit at his desk waiting for the GM to come by with a stack of checks to sign. Al Davis is a bad example because he was a football coach before becoming a team owner. In fact he was coach and GM of the Raiders before he owned the team. I was referring to owners who don't have a football background. Also, we have to define "involved." I don't see how a person without a football background could possibly help matters by inserting themselves into football decisions. Now, if you want to be "involved" in the business side of the franchise, and you make your presence known to promote accountability within the organization, that's a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRobi21 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I like him. I like him A-LOT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herb mul-key Posted December 17, 2009 Author Share Posted December 17, 2009 A few thoughts: 1. Love that he grew up around the Redskins. This is just a "value add", and the real measure will be his ability to lead this team. But having a tie back to our history makes him family, and I like that (same reason I'd like to see Russ Grimm back here in some capacity, and Doug Williams too). 2. Dan didn't state emphatically that Bruce had 100% control over the direction of the orgnization. But I wonder... does any GM? Maybe some, but I suspect a good number of owners have some level of involvement in the team. I would. Maybe I wouldn't be picking players, but I would want to be consulted about large signings, espeically at key positions like QB - where the person becomes the face of your franchise. To expect Dan to say that Bruce has absolute control over everything is probably not fair. But when asked about Zorn, Dan said Bruce would make the call, and I think that's a good sign. He could have said "we'll take a look at that in the offseason". Trying to be an optimist here 3. At first glance, the leadership gap is striking. He controlled the room. And he admitted mistakes! That's huge I think in terms of setting a tone for the organization. Vinny had a perception that accountability meant not making any mistakes (and so he never admitted to any). Taking responsibility for your actions (aka accountability) is partly about admitting when they don't work. Here's hoping this trickles down through the organization and makes for a better product throughout the Redskins experience. this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 in a previous statement from this a.m. didn't snyder say he brought him in to "run this team." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdskns n 05 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 From the language used, I think Snyder is going to remain involved in decisions. I'm hoping Allen will stand up to Snyder and tell him no when necessary. I still think Snyder got bad advice. What man throws that kind of money for loser??? I know he wants to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonsofwashington Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 What did he mean about taking credit for the Orakpo pick? http://www.nfl.com/videos/washington-redskins/09000d5d8150a5a8/Redskins-hire-Allen Was he involved in that. Sorry, I'm clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan999 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 What did he mean about taking credit for the Orakpo pick?http://www.nfl.com/videos/washington-redskins/09000d5d8150a5a8/Redskins-hire-Allen Was he involved in that. Sorry, I'm clueless. He was joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flycoach Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 He's better at handling the media than Vinny. Seems more confident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I think it's okay that Snyder is involved in decisions... Its just the degree in which he's involved. Any owner is going to want to have some voice into who they are spending their money on...Just in some circumstances he needs to learn to say, "Okay, Bruce, I trust you." This guy gets it. He needs to trust the man he hired to run his football team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonsofwashington Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 He was joking. :mad: I hate him already. hahaha. Just kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I only heard some brief clips. One thing that struck me is how much his voice sounds like Jon Gruden's! Odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.