Would a Superbowl clean Snyder's slate?

[Gart Monk]

A single super bowl appearance, even a win, doesn't do it for me. Snyder's been trying steal a super bowl ever since he bought the team and has turned the franchise into the biggest joke in the league.

I prefer consecutive winning seasons and consistent playoff runs over the immediate gratification of a single super bowl. Snyder couldn't handle a super bowl championship team anyway. He would find a way to ruin a title.

[Laxpunk2006]

Winning cures all. Like any other job being the owner is a learning process. Snyder may have learned slower than some others but his heart is in the right place. As long as he doesn't continue to make the same mistakes of the past I'm willing to grow with him. Not like I have a choice anyway.

[AKM311]

I voted yes, but thats because I am assuming you mean it would happen in the next year or two.

But if your saying at anytime in my lifetime, no way! If it happens 30 years from now and we have to go through 25 more years of this, then absolutely no way.

[Hollywood1127]

A single super bowl appearance, even a win, doesn't do it for me. Snyder's been trying steal a super bowl ever since he bought the team and has turned the franchise into the biggest joke in the league.

I prefer consecutive winning seasons and consistent playoff runs over the immediate gratification of a single super bowl. Snyder couldn't handle a super bowl championship team anyway. He would find a way to ruin a title.

EXACTLY

We were much better off when John Kent Cooke owned the team. He would have kept rebuilding the team and made sure we got the right players. Problem with Dan Snyder is that he is so rich. Whatever money he spends on a big name, he gets right back because these die hard fans keep paying for their season tickets. They are letting Dan Snyder sell them a dream and it makes him super rich. If people would boycott, he would lose a tone of money and probably start looking for a possible buyer to sell the team to. People could almost put money on it, that John Kent Cooke would pop back up with a few more of his friends and buy the team at Snyder's price. He already regrets selling the team to him and wish he had found a much better business man.

The power is in the fans. We already saw what happened when both Detroit and Jacksonville experienced boycott. Fans stop coming to the games and the team gets blacked out if they don't sell all their tickets. Of course the owner has to buy the remainder of the tickets to keep the team on television. One, I can't see that many fans giving up their hard earned season tickets, unless the Redskins had continues loosing seasons under Dan Snyder. Most people are still thinking of the Hog days at RFK and will continue to give Snyder their money, hoping that he can find a spark to restoring the Redskins name. Sad thing is, I don't think Snyder cares about that. For him, it's all about the money and nothing else.

[DGREENHULK]

Voted YES a SB would clean the slate. Words can't express the joy of the B&G winning number 4.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

A single super bowl appearance, even a win, doesn't do it for me. Snyder's been trying steal a super bowl ever since he bought the team and has turned the franchise into the biggest joke in the league.

I prefer consecutive winning seasons and consistent playoff runs over the immediate gratification of a single super bowl. Snyder couldn't handle a super bowl championship team anyway. He would find a way to ruin a title.

That's ridiculous to read. You realize that the single goal of any NFL team every season is to win the Super Bowl. So, no matter how you classify Snyder's pursuit of a championship, if he wins a Super Bowl he's succeeded. You can certainly have your opinions as to whether we're able to sustain success, but to say that you would prefer consecutive winning seasons over one Super Bowl seems to be pretty low expectations.

Of course, we can all agree that we'd love to see a sustained run of division titles, playoff wins, with a few Super Bowls sprinkled in. But, 10 years from now, you're barely remember those 2-3 straight winning seasons (how fondly do you look back on 1996-1997?) but you'll certainly cement another great season in history if you win it all.

---------- Post added January-14th-2011 at 04:04 PM ----------

Voted YES a SB would clean the slate. Words can't express the joy of the B&G winning number 4.

Yep...I don't really care how you add to your legacy, just as long as you do. Another SB gives us 4 and puts us back in elite company. I'd love to keep climbing up the charts in that department...even if it was a Florida Marlins model where we win a championship and then fall off the radar for a while only to rise again and win another. Hell, coming off of no NFC Championship Game berths in 18 years, I'm surprised people are so quick to turn up their nose a ring.

Caveat...of course EVERYONE ideally wants the best of both worlds...to win championships while sustaining success.

[Dick Edds]

maybe ... and I only say that because there is no 100% telling if he reverts back to his old ways once the Shanny's are out of here (if the SB comes from one of them).

[Phixius]

To the media, a Superbowl would clean Snyder's plate. For me, I feel that he finally understands and a Superbowl trophy wouldn't change that.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't think winning a Super Bowl ultimately proves anything anymore. 20 years ago it did.

The playoffs used to be true playoffs - a way to measure the best team in the league.

Now, it's more of a tournament. If you make it and are healthy, you have a shot.

[Chachie]

Yes it would.

[Hollywood1127]

I don't think winning a Super Bowl ultimately proves anything anymore. 20 years ago it did.

The playoffs used to be true playoffs - a way to measure the best team in the league.

Now' date=' it's more of a tournament. If you make it and are healthy, you have a shot.[/quote']

I agree with this post. And to back it up we can look at what happened this season. Both the Saints and Colts made it to the playoffs this season. They botch got knocked out in the first round. Now lets take Seattle for example. They were 7-9 and still made the playoffs. They are now in the second round. So yes, it's more of a tournament than actual skill. For all we know Seattle could end up taking the win for the trophy.

[Gart Monk]

That's ridiculous to read. You realize that the single goal of any NFL team every season is to win the Super Bowl. So, no matter how you classify Snyder's pursuit of a championship, if he wins a Super Bowl he's succeeded. You can certainly have your opinions as to whether we're able to sustain success, but to say that you would prefer consecutive winning seasons over one Super Bowl seems to be pretty low expectations.

Of course, we can all agree that we'd love to see a sustained run of division titles, playoff wins, with a few Super Bowls sprinkled in. But, 10 years from now, you're barely remember those 2-3 straight winning seasons (how fondly do you look back on 1996-1997?) but you'll certainly cement another great season in history if you win it all.

Let;s say the Redskins win the SB in 2005 but nothing since then changes. The 2006-2010 records are the same, ST21 still got shot, Gibbs quit after 2007, Zorn became the coach and runs the "swinging gate" against NYG. The team still sucks as bad as it does except the bandwagon would only be 5 years old and ES would be a mess.

On the other hand. The younger fans deserve to see a SB for standing by this team.

As for 1996-97. I bought tickets to the final game at RFK against Dallas. By week 9 it was shaping up to be for the NFCE title on the final week of the season. The Redskins lost like six out seven games to get eliminated and DAL clinched the division the week before the game. It was probably the biggest disappointed I've had as a fan. I can't blame Dan for that one.

[Hollywood1127]

Let;s say the Redskins win the SB in 2005 but nothing since then changes. The 2006-2010 records are the same, ST21 still got shot, Gibbs quit after 2007, Zorn became the coach and runs the "swinging gate" against NYG. The team still sucks as bad as it does except the bandwagon would only be 5 years old and ES would be a mess.

On the other hand. The younger fans deserve to see a SB for standing by this team.

As for 1996-97. I bought tickets to the final game at RFK against Dallas. By week 9 it was shaping up to be for the NFCE title on the final week of the season. The Redskins lost like six out seven games to get eliminated and DAL clinched the division the week before the game. It was probably the biggest disappointed I've had as a fan. I can't blame Dan for that one.

I agree with almost everything but the ST21 shooting. If I am correct, he was shot over the weekend, when he was at his home. That means he wasn't playing against Tampa that weekend. If he had been playing, this would not have happened to him. Yes, his house may have still be invaded but at least he wouldn't have been in there to get shot. Therefore, his wife and kids would have gotten a glimpse of who the suspects were and told the police. They would have been caught, his sister would have gotten kicked out of their lives for good and we would still have a SEAN TAYLOR. A different set of events such as winning a super bowl, puts you on a different path. Different decisions are made, which then could have resulted in him being with us in Tampa.

[Gart Monk]

I agree with almost everything but the ST21 shooting. If I am correct, he was shot over the weekend, when he was at his home. That means he wasn't playing against Tampa that weekend. If he had been playing, this would not have happened to him. Yes, his house may have still be invaded but at least he wouldn't have been in there to get shot. Therefore, his wife and kids would have gotten a glimpse of who the suspects were and told the police. They would have been caught, his sister would have gotten kicked out of their lives for good and we would still have a SEAN TAYLOR. A different set of events such as winning a super bowl, puts you on a different path. Different decisions are made, which then could have resulted in him being with us in Tampa.

The bottom line is that the team would still suck today despite it's 2005 SB win over the Steelers. The butterfly effect from that win could actually make things worse today than they are. Snyder has had the Redskins on a downward trend since he started getting involved and a single SB appearance doesn't help much in the long run. Go ask ten of your friends who won Super Bowl 42 in 07-08. Watch how hard they have to think about it.

[skinfan2k]

I agree with almost everything but the ST21 shooting. If I am correct, he was shot over the weekend, when he was at his home. That means he wasn't playing against Tampa that weekend. If he had been playing, this would not have happened to him. Yes, his house may have still be invaded but at least he wouldn't have been in there to get shot. Therefore, his wife and kids would have gotten a glimpse of who the suspects were and told the police. They would have been caught, his sister would have gotten kicked out of their lives for good and we would still have a SEAN TAYLOR. A different set of events such as winning a super bowl, puts you on a different path. Different decisions are made, which then could have resulted in him being with us in Tampa.

he was injured thus at home. If he wasn't injured, we dont give up 26 pts in the 4th to the eagles two weeks before and don't surrender 4 Tds to Owens in Dallas

[ibarramedia]

Winning cures all. Like any other job being the owner is a learning process. Snyder may have learned slower than some others but his heart is in the right place. As long as he doesn't continue to make the same mistakes of the past I'm willing to grow with him. Not like I have a choice anyway.

Voted YES a SB would clean the slate. Words can't express the joy of the B&G winning number 4.

That's ridiculous to read. You realize that the single goal of any NFL team every season is to win the Super Bowl. So, no matter how you classify Snyder's pursuit of a championship, if he wins a Super Bowl he's succeeded. You can certainly have your opinions as to whether we're able to sustain success, but to say that you would prefer consecutive winning seasons over one Super Bowl seems to be pretty low expectations.

Of course, we can all agree that we'd love to see a sustained run of division titles, playoff wins, with a few Super Bowls sprinkled in. But, 10 years from now, you're barely remember those 2-3 straight winning seasons (how fondly do you look back on 1996-1997?) but you'll certainly cement another great season in history if you win it all.

---------- Post added January-14th-2011 at 04:04 PM ----------

Yep...I don't really care how you add to your legacy, just as long as you do. Another SB gives us 4 and puts us back in elite company. I'd love to keep climbing up the charts in that department...even if it was a Florida Marlins model where we win a championship and then fall off the radar for a while only to rise again and win another. Hell, coming off of no NFC Championship Game berths in 18 years, I'm surprised people are so quick to turn up their nose a ring.

Caveat...of course EVERYONE ideally wants the best of both worlds...to win championships while sustaining success.

Glad you guys agree with me. Imagine we go to the playoffs for the past 15 years and out of that we go to the NFC championship game 7 straight years only to end up losing every time. Think and feel about the incredible frustration and heartache of why we can't get over the hump. Soon many fans will call for the head coach to be fired because we are at an impasse. And he has become an obstacle to get to the Superbowl. Crazy but that is how most of them would react.

Now think and feel about the joy and ecstacy of winning a superbowl. Those of you old enough to remember that ought to know what I'm talking about. Every time we won the Superbowl, it was such a joy and one of the happiest moments of my life. How could anyone forego a championship. I think it is asking too much to trade a Superbowl win for 'consistent' playoff appearances. We don't have that guarantee and should take a win when we can. 1 more Superbowl win gives us 4. If we ever repeat that gives us 5 and in rarefied air with only San Francisco and Dallas with 5 and only Pittsburgh leading the pack with 6 alltime. Speaking of the Steelers, they were not that consistent either. After winning their fifth title I think they missed the playoffs.

Someone spoke of a what if scenario with us winning the Superbowl in 2005. Then if if we let history take it's course like it did, we would end up 5-11 in 2006. Let's say we move to 2007 and Sean Taylor 21 is murdered. Coach Gibbs pulls off the most magnificent performance he has ever given and propel us with 4 straight wins into the Playoffs with backup Quarterback Todd Collins leading the charge. Instead of us Falling to the Seahawks, we go all the way to the Superbowl and instead of the Giants, it is the Redskins who upset the unbeaten New England Patriots and avenge their earlier 51-7 loss in the regular season. Wow! What a cinderella story and Greek tragedy that would be. No one would believe it if it was fiction.

Then Coach Gibbs retires and we go through Jim Zorn like we did and we have Mike shnahan now and Bruce Allen. I would look back and say We got 2 superbowl wins from Coach Goibbs return and we stumbled a bit but we are a work in progress. I will take those 2 Superbowl wins to make it 5. We are all entitled to our opinions but that is how I feel.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I don't think winning a Super Bowl ultimately proves anything anymore. 20 years ago it did.

The playoffs used to be true playoffs - a way to measure the best team in the league.

Now' date=' it's more of a tournament. If you make it and are healthy, you have a shot.[/quote']

What, to you, is different about the playoffs today? The structure, as I understand it, is exactly the same: 6 teams on each side, re-seeding after every round, etc.

You could argue that there are usually only a couple elite teams plus a bunch of above-average ones...but that really has nothing to do with the playoffs themselves.

[ibarramedia]

he was injured thus at home. If he wasn't injured, we dont give up 26 pts in the 4th to the eagles two weeks before and don't surrender 4 Tds to Owens in Dallas

He was injured and did not make the trip. So he was home while we lost to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in a very tight game. Then the shooting and death, memorial service and Buffalo game that coming Sunday which we lost with the 10 man missing man formation, botched timeout then the very short week with the Sunday Night victory against the Bears 24-16, At New York Giants 22-10, At Minnesota 32-21 and the great challenge by Gibbs subsequent reversal and we scored on that possession., then finally the coup the grace agaisnt the Cowboys at home 27-6 to porpel us into the playoffs. We were 9-7 and battling in our own 4 game playoff tournament to get in and in the process we were battered and bruised with a lot of injuries. I don't know if the 2010 Seahaks now had the kind of injuries our team had and lost a lot of key players. Regardless of their record if they have little injuries they might upset a lot of teams.

Anyway when we faced the 2007 Seahwks in the Wildcard game, we were spent and beat up physiucally and emotionally. Coach Gibbs was proud and disappointed at the same time. He thought we would go all the way.

---------- Post added January-14th-2011 at 06:20 PM ----------

What, to you, is different about the playoffs today? The structure, as I understand it, is exactly the same: 6 teams on each side, re-seeding after every round, etc.

You could argue that there are usually only a couple elite teams plus a bunch of above-average ones...but that really has nothing to do with the playoffs themselves.

One thing is still the same. Challenge the winner. Loser goes home. You win the 3 or 4 games and you win it all.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Let;s say the Redskins win the SB in 2005 but nothing since then changes. The 2006-2010 records are the same, ST21 still got shot, Gibbs quit after 2007, Zorn became the coach and runs the "swinging gate" against NYG. The team still sucks as bad as it does except the bandwagon would only be 5 years old and ES would be a mess.

Well, that's kind of my point. I'd take a Super Bowl in 2005 plus the past 5 years over making the playoffs from 2005-2010 and not winning the Super Bowl. Hands down. You have the exact script we just lived through, except we're now 4-time Super Bowl champions.

On the other hand. The younger fans deserve to see a SB for standing by this team.

As for 1996-97. I bought tickets to the final game at RFK against Dallas. By week 9 it was shaping up to be for the NFCE title on the final week of the season. The Redskins lost like six out seven games to get eliminated and DAL clinched the division the week before the game. It was probably the biggest disappointed I've had as a fan. I can't blame Dan for that one.

I don't blame Snyder for that at all (obviously). And, I too was excited at the halfway point of 1996. My point was that 1996 and 1997 were consecutive winning years, but what did that really do for us? You could even argue that 1996-1999 (winning seasons in 3 out of 4 years) was our last run of any kind of sustained success. I'd have taken a Super Bowl in any one of those seasons and flipped our record in the other ones (so that our SB year was our only winning one).

I guess, as I get older, I'm starting to look at it like this: It's fun to follow a team through a winning season for sure but, at the end of the day, the ultimate goal is to win a Super Bowl.

Everything that's happened since 1991 has, in some way, been a failure. Now, look at the Eagles...by almost any measure, they've been the model of "success" in the NFL since 1999. But, they haven't had complete success yet. Would you rather have the last 12 years that they've had (8 playoff appearances, 5 NFC Championship berths, 1 Super Bowl berth, and 0 championships) or would you rather have gone to the playoffs twice and won the Super Bowl both times? For me, I'd take the latter, especially since we've already lived through it anyway...maybe an Eagle fan would choose differently, but I doubt it.

---------- Post added January-14th-2011 at 06:32 PM ----------

The bottom line is that the team would still suck today despite it's 2005 SB win over the Steelers. The butterfly effect from that win could actually make things worse today than they are. Snyder has had the Redskins on a downward trend since he started getting involved and a single SB appearance doesn't help much in the long run. Go ask ten of your friends who won Super Bowl 42 in 07-08. Watch how hard they have to think about it.

I'd contend that they aren't true football fans (who doesn't remember the biggest upset in SB history??). Also, I don't care if random people remember. To me, adding to our organization's legacy is the goal each year. So, we'd be sitting as 4-time SB champs with a shot each and every year to add to that.

I'm not arguing that winning a Super Bowl cures organizational dysfunction. But, winning a Super Bowl is why most of us tune in...so it's success and it is more success than we've had in the 19 years since we last did it (even if it's followed by a string of 6-10s).

An interesting case study would be asking Buc and Eagle fans if they'd trade places since 1999. TB was pretty good for a few years and won a SB in 2002. Philly has been a perennial contender for over a decade but hasn't ultimately won anything. I think I'd pick the Bucs if I had to choose which recent history to apply to my Skins. Once you win a SB, it's carved in stone and fixed in history. Being a "close-but-no-cigar" team of a decade starts to fade away as other teams become contenders.

[Darth Tater]

Let;s say the Redskins win the SB in 2005 but nothing since then changes. The 2006-2010 records are the same, ST21 still got shot, Gibbs quit after 2007, Zorn became the coach and runs the "swinging gate" against NYG. The team still sucks as bad as it does except the bandwagon would only be 5 years old and ES would be a mess.

On the other hand. The younger fans deserve to see a SB for standing by this team.

As for 1996-97. I bought tickets to the final game at RFK against Dallas. By week 9 it was shaping up to be for the NFCE title on the final week of the season. The Redskins lost like six out seven games to get eliminated and DAL clinched the division the week before the game. It was probably the biggest disappointed I've had as a fan. I can't blame Dan for that one.

The closest to the original hypothetical was the 64-73 Jets with1 SB win, 1 good season, 1 decent season and the rest were pretty much crap versus the 87-96 Bills who were the AFC champs 4 times, good 4 times and just mediocre the remaining years (but were in the mix late). Since we are talking about experiencing the period and not what is better 15-20 years later, I would rather be experiencing a Bills-type run than a Jets-type run. Further, even though Levy's last year was crap, Phillips still got them to the playoffs twice and in his last year, the team was still in the mix in December. Meanwhile, at the end of that Jets run, they were pretty much crap until 1981.

[ibarramedia]

The Jets still have that memorable Superbowl III win to look to. Upset of monumental proportions David vs Goliath. The NFL vs the upstart AFL. Bills have none and the closest the got was a Scott Norwood wide Left kick as time expired in their first Superbowl appearance. I'll bet the Bills would trade all their appearances for that 1 win if that ever happened.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Darth, I don't think you can rank it as ONLY experiencing it. The second a season ends, it gets filed away as a memory. So, even when I was 10, I enjoyed the ride of great Redskin seasons, but always also though about how they'd be remembered (I'm weird like that). It's almost like I enjoy the fact that a SB is set in stone and will always be a part of history. History remembers those 1990s Bills teams...but eventually they'll fade even more (just like the 1970s Vikings).

My example is a more recent version...The 2000-2009 Bucs vs. the 2000-2009 Eagles. One team has a couple playoff appearances and a Super Bowl. The other has almost perfect attendance in the playoffs, some NFC Championship Games, and one Super Bowl loss. I'd always take the Bucs run because I always seem to have an eye toward history and the team's legacy in mind.

[Darth Tater]

The Jets still have that memorable Superbowl III win to look to. Upset of monumental proportions David vs Goliath. The NFL vs the upstart AFL. Bills have none and the closest the got was a Scott Norwood wide Left kick as time expired in their first Superbowl appearance. I'll bet the Bills would trade all their appearances for that 1 win if that ever happened.

Don't know if you grew up in that time but when the Jets showed up on your schedule, it was a "should win". During the Bills period, they were not a "should win".

---------- Post added January-14th-2011 at 05:35 PM ----------

Darth, I don't think you can rank it as ONLY experiencing it. The second a season ends, it gets filed away as a memory. So, even when I was 10, I enjoyed the ride of great Redskin seasons, but always also though about how they'd be remembered (I'm weird like that). It's almost like I enjoy the fact that a SB is set in stone and will always be a part of history. History remembers those 1990s Bills teams...but eventually they'll fade even more (just like the 1970s Vikings).

My example is a more recent version...The 2000-2009 Bucs vs. the 2000-2009 Eagles. One team has a couple playoff appearances and a Super Bowl. The other has almost perfect attendance in the playoffs, some NFC Championship Games, and one Super Bowl loss. I'd always take the Bucs run because I always seem to have an eye toward history and the team's legacy in mind.

That the season ends is the REASON one can ONLY consider the experience. What happened 20 years ago is NOT relevant to any discussion.

[ksun247]

yes because if we win a superbowl you can chalk it upto growing pains as an onwer

He may have been impatient in the past, but all he was doing was what "HE" thought was in the best interest of the team. I just want wins. The Superbowl will come.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

That the season ends is the REASON one can ONLY consider the experience. What happened 20 years ago is NOT relevant to any discussion.

It's interesting that we see this completely differently, but for the same reason. I actually really enjoy that. To me, the fact that the experience of each season comes to a sudden end means that I place more value on the result of a season while you place more value on enjoying the ride.

It's funny because the two Super Bowl seasons that I remember (I only remember the game itself from Super Bowl XVII), I was a wreck during each game. I can only look back on those games as truly fun now that they are a part of history.

I'm a fan of the Redskins, so it's exciting for me when the Redskins add to their history and legacy by winning a Super Bowl. Don't get me wrong, I look forward to watching each and every play every fall (and I know from day one that many of those seasons won't end anywhere close to a Super Bowl), but getting a W at the end of each weekend is what I'm thrilled with. Each Redskin Sunday is a microcosm of the view I'm sharing in this thread...I pace during the games, watch intently, get nervous, etc. and the very best relief I feel is when the game ends and the Skins win. I enjoy the rest of my Sunday evening knowing that we bagged a W. I look at a Super Bowl year similarly but on a much larger scale.