Thank-You Dan Snyder

[TheDane]

So, Snyder still has 2011. The joke is on all of you when the new CBA allows for up to 4 Super Bowl champions per season. Final score: Cooke 3, Snyder 4!

Yea, verily, may that claim come to pass.

Then, on national TV in a press conference, "Albert Haynesworth" will rip off his mask to reveal a pot-bellied, post tax-fraud Wesley Snipes. He'll say that the Real Haynesworth is tied up in his basement. Upon being released, Realbert Haynesworth will have the most dominant defensive season ever, racking up 323 tackles including 122 for a loss, with 47 sacks, 11 ints, and 9 TDs scored.

[Popeman38]

Hard to compare playoff appearances since playoff format changed within those timeframes. More appropriate metric is probably win-loss record, or maybe divisional titles.

According to the Redskins Wikipedia article, Cooke took over day-to-day in 1979. The best comparison is, probably, 1979-1991 vs. 1999-2011. Without looking at actual numbers, I can already infer how a W/L analysis will turn out.

For the record, let it be known again that I found JKC to be an off-putting character with a generally dislikeable demeanor, but appreciated that he never let his repugnant behavior affect how he ran the Washington Redskins.

From JKC wiki page:

In 1961, Jack Kent Cooke purchased a 25 percent interest in the Washington Redskins, becoming majority owner in 1974 and sole owner in 1985.

You can't pick 1979 because JKC moved to DC and "tool over day to day operations". He was majority owner in 1974. You can start either in 1961 or 1974. The comparison has to be first 12 years of ownership, if you make a comparison at all.

[Crazy Levi]

The post above makes a good point.

There's something called Positive Reinforcement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement

This constant bashing, particularly during the time when the owner is finally changing his ways - although it may make you feel good - can't be anything but counter-productive.

Mark, you aren't paying attention to majority of the responses here.

We do not see a man who is changing his ways. This stupid lawsuit is VINTAGE Snyder. That's what terrifies/horrifies us all. Clearly, he HASN'T changed, and that does not bode well for this supposed "not being involved in the team" bill of goods they are trying to sell.

The owner is not finally changing his ways, sorry.

[TheDane]

You can't pick 1979 because JKC moved to DC and "tool over day to day operations". He was majority owner in 1974. You can start either in 1961 or 1974. The comparison has to be first 12 years of ownership, if you make a comparison at all.

Why not? The comparison should begin the day both owners took over day-to-day operations. If Snyder was an in absentia owner for some determined time period after consummation of his purchase in 1999, I will be happy to strike those from the comparison and correspondingly reduce JKC's number.

We can do 1974 to 1986, also.

JKC: 124-69 in 13 seasons and 193 games (64%) -- numbers not divisible by 16 due to 2 strike seasons, and a few seasons under old 14-game schedule

Snyder: 92-116 in 13 seasons and 208 games (44%)

That's giving Snyder credit for 1999, which is an arguable point.

[Popeman38]

Mark, you aren't paying attention to majority of the responses here.

We do not see a man who is changing his ways. This stupid lawsuit is VINTAGE Snyder. That's what terrifies/horrifies us all. Clearly, he HASN'T changed, and that does not bode well for this supposed "not being involved in the team" bill of goods they are trying to sell.

The owner is not finally changing his ways, sorry.

Well, The Washington Redskins did not sue the WCP. Dan Snyder the individual sued the WCP. From all accounts inside the team, Dan Snyder the owner handed all control over football operations to Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan. That is exactly what fans demanded he do. Of course, now that he has done that, fans are attacking Dan Snyder the man.

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 03:35 PM ----------

Why not? The comparison should begin the day both owners took over day-to-day operations. If Snyder was an in absentia owner for some determined time period after consummation of his purchase in 1999, I will be happy to strike those from the comparison and correspondingly reduce JKC's number.

We can do 1974 to 1986, also.

JKC: 124-69 in 13 seasons and 193 games (64%) -- numbers not divisible by 16 due to 2 strike seasons, and a few seasons under old 14-game schedule

Snyder: 92-116 in 13 seasons and 208 games (44%)

That's giving Snyder credit for 1999, which is an arguable point.

JKC chose to remain in LA and run the Lakers. He was still the majority owner of the team. Dan Snyder was majority owner from day 1. You can't pick and choose a starting point to suit the argument. Of course, the older fans want to use 1979-1991 as the measuring stick to be used to judge all other owners, but that is not a fair measuring stick to use. I would personally use 1961 as my starting point, when both men had an ownership stake.

[pimpumd]

Mark, you aren't paying attention to majority of the responses here.

We do not see a man who is changing his ways. This stupid lawsuit is VINTAGE Snyder. That's what terrifies/horrifies us all. Clearly, he HASN'T changed, and that does not bode well for this supposed "not being involved in the team" bill of goods they are trying to sell.

The owner is not finally changing his ways, sorry.

I think Popeman 38 already mentioned this, but I think Mark The Homer is saying that, with respect to his handling of the Washington Redskins, Dan Snyder has in fact changed his ways. All the fans were demanding that he remove himself from control of (or input in) football operations. By all accounts, he has done that in hiring Bruce Allen and giving Shanahan complete decision-making authority. In that sense, he has changed.

[HailGreen28]

I think Popeman 38 already mentioned this, but I think Mark The Homer is saying that, with respect to his handling of the Washington Redskins, Dan Snyder has in fact changed his ways. All the fans were demanding that he remove himself from control of (or input in) football operations. By all accounts, he has done that in hiring Bruce Allen and giving Shanahan complete decision-making authority. In that sense, he has changed.

I just hope this isn't like Martyball, where the "change" of Danny stepping back, lasted only a year. Hopefully this is like Gibbs 2.0, where as long as Shanny is there, Snyder will stay out of the way.

Of course, hearing how Danny was involved in letting Ryan Clark go, gives me concern.

[pimpumd]

I hope Snyder stays out of the way too. That's why I don't understand why some people want Shanahan gone after just one year. One year isn't enough time to undo what occurred under Snyder/Cerrato. Plus, if Shanahan was fired, does that mean Allen stays? Or does that open the door for Snyder to again insert himself into the team's football operations? I'd like to give Shanahan another 2 or 3 years, minimum.

[Rudechain]

I though comparing Snyder's first 12 years of ownership to Cooke's last 12 years was a good comparison. Is it not?

Is he a good owner and I am somehow missing it?

Rude, Thanks for relinking the article. The guy’s point is Snyder’s strategy has been incoherent, near-sighted, and even hapless – he’s an easy target for criticism because he isn’t a great owner but it's played out so we should change the subject?

Well I didn’t grow up in Ohio like the author and the Redskins mean a great deal to me (way more than they should to a reasonable person) and Im pissed at the way he has run the team into the ground and turned it into his personal ATM so I’ll probably mention my displeasure again.

Well I would compare the entire bodies of work to be fair, but you can't really do that.

I am the first to admit Snyder has made mistakes, and I am not a fan of his. However, I am a fan of the Washington Redskins, which he owns. So I guess we are kind of stuck.

Not sure where he grows up has anything to do with it. I grew up in Europe and Texas but still managed to pick the Redskins as the team I follow.

And the point of the article, is the bashing Snyder thing has been played out so much, you get tuned out when you start doing it. After a while, it's just the same stories constantly recycled. ( I mean we are still hearing about Marty, Deion, firing Norv and everything else, that it's tiresome)

Either come up with something new, or at the very least put a new spin on your complaint.

Such as how Snyder only wants to make money. ( you do know he spends a great deal of money too and it is a business whose goal is to make a profit) This one is played out too Rocky

I feel your pain, but if that were true, why does he spend so much money? Why the large free agent contracts? Why would he add amenities to the stadium if he were simply treating the team as his personal ATM? That argument simply does not make any sense when you look at how much he has spent on the team. ( again, sure he wants to make a profit, if you want to run a business in the red you won't be in business very long)

So now honestly Rocky. Don't you think we as a fan base would be better served if the media covered the actual football team instead of the owner?

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 04:07 PM ----------

Mark, you aren't paying attention to majority of the responses here.

We do not see a man who is changing his ways. This stupid lawsuit is VINTAGE Snyder. That's what terrifies/horrifies us all. Clearly, he HASN'T changed, and that does not bode well for this supposed "not being involved in the team" bill of goods they are trying to sell.

The owner is not finally changing his ways, sorry.

Why do you even care about a lawsuit between an individual and a newspaper? And how does that lawsuit affect the product on the field? Now remember, Snyder has done what the fans asked and stepped back, leaving football operations to Mike and Bruce.

So what about the "stupid" lawsuit is affecting the team? And why is this lawsuit such a big deal when it does not even involve the Redskins?

[youngestson]

Thanks for the feedback Taylor 36. Since the question of whether Snyder is a good owner or not can be answered subjectively I am trying to come up with a way to answer the question based on objective critieria. The Redskins have lost more games than they have won since Snyder took over. No disputing that.

BTW I took your suggestion and compared JKC's first twelve seasons to Snyder's first twelve. Guess what? Same answer. 8 vs. 3.

So do you think he is a good owner?

Beat me to it!

[HailGreen28]

I hope Snyder stays out of the way too. That's why I don't understand why some people want Shanahan gone after just one year. One year isn't enough time to undo what occurred under Snyder/Cerrato. Plus, if Shanahan was fired, does that mean Allen stays? Or does that open the door for Snyder to again insert himself into the team's football operations? I'd like to give Shanahan another 2 or 3 years, minimum.

Agreed. I think we need to stick with a scheme for offense and defense, and build a young team around that. What we need is patience. And career football guys in charge of building that team. Not Snyder.

[Dirt]

Mark, you aren't paying attention to majority of the responses here.

We do not see a man who is changing his ways. This stupid lawsuit is VINTAGE Snyder. That's what terrifies/horrifies us all. Clearly, he HASN'T changed, and that does not bode well for this supposed "not being involved in the team" bill of goods they are trying to sell.

The owner is not finally changing his ways, sorry.

You're too emotionally invested in what Dan Snyder does outside of the football team. I don't give a crap who we wants to sue or for what reason. The CHANGE we were looking for refers directly to him staying out of football decisions. He went a full season without meddling with players, he's said he gave full control to Shanny, and Shanny's confirmed that. I'm not asking Dan Snyder to change his life and stop suing people, and start treating his wife better, or whatever. We wanted him hands off, and he clearly is. People just can't stop hating on him.

[Darrell Green Fan]

Well I would compare the entire bodies of work to be fair, but you can't really do that.

I am the first to admit Snyder has made mistakes, and I am not a fan of his. However, I am a fan of the Washington Redskins, which he owns. So I guess we are kind of stuck.

Not sure where he grows up has anything to do with it. I grew up in Europe and Texas but still managed to pick the Redskins as the team I follow.

And the point of the article, is the bashing Snyder thing has been played out so much, you get tuned out when you start doing it. After a while, it's just the same stories constantly recycled. ( I mean we are still hearing about Marty, Deion, firing Norv and everything else, that it's tiresome)

Either come up with something new, or at the very least put a new spin on your complaint.

Such as how Snyder only wants to make money. ( you do know he spends a great deal of money too and it is a business whose goal is to make a profit) This one is played out too Rocky

I feel your pain, but if that were true, why does he spend so much money? Why the large free agent contracts? Why would he add amenities to the stadium if he were simply treating the team as his personal ATM? That argument simply does not make any sense when you look at how much he has spent on the team. ( again, sure he wants to make a profit, if you want to run a business in the red you won't be in business very long)

So now honestly Rocky. Don't you think we as a fan base would be better served if the media covered the actual football team instead of the owner?

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 04:07 PM ----------

Why do you even care about a lawsuit between an individual and a newspaper? And how does that lawsuit affect the product on the field? Now remember, Snyder has done what the fans asked and stepped back, leaving football operations to Mike and Bruce.

So what about the "stupid" lawsuit is affecting the team? And why is this lawsuit such a big deal when it does not even involve the Redskins?

It affects me personally because I hate the fact that the owner of our team is a bad guy. This petty lawsuite by a petulant little dick is just another example. I remember clearly the Joe Gibbs I era. When they beat Buddy Ryan and his band of trash talkers it was clearly Good over Evil. I want to root for Good again, yet Dan Snyder continues to be Evil.

[Rudechain]

It affects me personally because I hate the fact that the owner of our team is a bad guy. This petty lawsuite by a petulant little dick is just another example. I remember clearly the Joe Gibbs I era. When they beat Buddy Ryan and his band of trash talkers it was clearly Good over Evil. I want to root for Good again, yet Dan Snyder continues to be Evil.

I think your probably taking it to far. Evil? Come on now, that's really pushing it.

Dan stepped away like everyone asked and has turned over football operations to football minds like we all want.

Dan the individual, is suing the Washington city Paper. Again, this suit has absolutely nothing to do with the Redskins.

I will ask you as nobody was able to answer it before.

Dan Snyder is not going to sell the team. Nothing he has done is so reprehensible to have the team taken from him. So what do you propose to do? I want to win as much as everyone, but I am not so emotionally invested that I think the owner is Evil. ( sorry, but I think that is simply way out there)

But seriously, what are you doing to combat the Evil Dan Snyder? You certainly are not getting anywhere with calling him an evil person. I have never realized the Washington Redskins were either "good" or "evil" rather I simply thought they were an NFL franchise that I followed. Are you planning on forming a massive boycott? Are you planning a media blitz to liken Dan Snyder to Osama Bin Laden? ( I mean he is Evil and all)

As Dirt said in the preceeding post. "You're too emotionally invested in what Dan Snyder does outside of the football team." I don't care about Snyder and this lawsuit because I was able to quickly discern this was a lawsuit between an individual named Dan Snyder and the Washington City Paper and it's managing entities. Nowhere in the Lawsuit is the Washington Redskins listed as either a plaintiff or a defendant. Since this suit has nothing to do with my chosen past time, I am able to stay above the media frenzy and realize it's all BS.

The owner has stepped back so I don't really care about the suit. I refuse to be a sheep and be succumbed by the frenzy over something that has nothing to do with the Skins. My time is valuable enough, Mike and Bruce are running the show, so I would rather focus on football.

And just how does this lawsuit affect you personally? Are you on the Washington City Paper's staff? How is this lawsuit affecting you personally? Because he's a bad guy? That complete and utter BS. You have made a decision to get up in arms about it. You have made the decision to follow a tangent that leads nowhere and will end up making no difference to the professed reason we all are here

But keep fighting the good fight. Maybe one day "evil" will be vanquished and we can all live "happily ever after".

[@DCGoldPants]

I don't think Dan Snyder is a evil person. I think he's a bad guy though who had a series of really good business moves that allowed him to purchase a Golden Goose.

However, now that he owns that Goose. He continues to feed it spam and dirty water.

[KingGibbs]

Yes Dan. Thank you for keeping the Redskins in the news and continuing to haunt us with the Snyderatto days thanks to what could be the biggest FA bust in the history of sports (contract and performance wise) your pride and joy Albert Haynesworth.

Yep. There's light at the end of the tunnel.

Hey Danny? At least you have a few suckers amongst fans that are defending you.

[Aghar]

I think your probably taking it to far. Evil? Come on now, that's really pushing it.

Dan stepped away like everyone asked and has turned over football operations to football minds like we all want.

Dan the individual, is suing the Washington city Paper. Again, this suit has absolutely nothing to do with the Redskins.

I will ask you as nobody was able to answer it before.

Dan Snyder is not going to sell the team. Nothing he has done is so reprehensible to have the team taken from him. So what do you propose to do? I want to win as much as everyone, but I am not so emotionally invested that I think the owner is Evil. ( sorry, but I think that is simply way out there)

But seriously, what are you doing to combat the Evil Dan Snyder? You certainly are not getting anywhere with calling him an evil person. I have never realized the Washington Redskins were either "good" or "evil" rather I simply thought they were an NFL franchise that I followed. Are you planning on forming a massive boycott? Are you planning a media blitz to liken Dan Snyder to Osama Bin Laden? ( I mean he is Evil and all)

As Dirt said in the preceeding post. "You're too emotionally invested in what Dan Snyder does outside of the football team." I don't care about Snyder and this lawsuit because I was able to quickly discern this was a lawsuit between an individual named Dan Snyder and the Washington City Paper and it's managing entities. Nowhere in the Lawsuit is the Washington Redskins listed as either a plaintiff or a defendant. Since this suit has nothing to do with my chosen past time, I am able to stay above the media frenzy and realize it's all BS.

The owner has stepped back so I don't really care about the suit. I refuse to be a sheep and be succumbed by the frenzy over something that has nothing to do with the Skins. My time is valuable enough, Mike and Bruce are running the show, so I would rather focus on football.

And just how does this lawsuit affect you personally? Are you on the Washington City Paper's staff? How is this lawsuit affecting you personally? Because he's a bad guy? That complete and utter BS. You have made a decision to get up in arms about it. You have made the decision to follow a tangent that leads nowhere and will end up making no difference to the professed reason we all are here

But keep fighting the good fight. Maybe one day "evil" will be vanquished and we can all live "happily ever after".

A well thought out response that I could not agree with more. +1

[Crazy Levi]

I think Popeman 38 already mentioned this, but I think Mark The Homer is saying that, with respect to his handling of the Washington Redskins, Dan Snyder has in fact changed his ways. All the fans were demanding that he remove himself from control of (or input in) football operations. By all accounts, he has done that in hiring Bruce Allen and giving Shanahan complete decision-making authority. In that sense, he has changed.

And I think it's way to early to say that. Snyder has shown that he hasn't changed - he's still the same douche he always was - so why should I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he REALLY has stopped meddling in team affairs? How about we wait another year on that one.

It is my belief that after another losing season, Snyder is gonna go all Snyder on this team, and either Bruce or Shannahan we'll be gone.

You'll see.

[HailGreen28]

And I think it's way to early to say that. Snyder has shown that he hasn't changed - he's still the same douche he always was - so why should I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he REALLY has stopped meddling in team affairs? How about we wait another year on that one.

It is my belief that after another losing season, Snyder is gonna go all Snyder on this team, and either Bruce or Shannahan we'll be gone.

You'll see.

Hope you're wrong, but agreed Danny used up his "benefit of a doubt" the last couple times it was claimed "he's changed".

[Crazy Levi]

Why do you even care about a lawsuit between an individual and a newspaper? And how does that lawsuit affect the product on the field? Now remember, Snyder has done what the fans asked and stepped back, leaving football operations to Mike and Bruce.

So what about the "stupid" lawsuit is affecting the team? And why is this lawsuit such a big deal when it does not even involve the Redskins?

For the exact reasons that I have said before. But I'll lay it out again for you.

1) This is the same kind of petty BS that has been the hallmark of the Snyder years. It casts doubt on the "he has changed" spiel that people like Mark are trying to sell.

2) It continues to foster the impression that the Skins are an organization in disarry, with an impulsive, egomaniac owner who can't get out of his own way. You think it's "just a tiff" between a paper and an owner? Ridiculous. It's much more than that. The Redskins have the repuation as one of the all-around worst organizations in football, and this just continues to foster this. This affects which players and coaches will come here. You can't separate this from "what's on the field," I'm sorry. The constant bad PR like this doesn't just affect the owner, it affects the team.

[tdigle]

I'm pretty sure this has already been said, but I want to compliment Dan Snyder on two things.

One, he's not afraid to take out his checkbook. Yeah, we're the laughingstock of the NFL when it comes to overpaying players, but can you name any other owner who's not afraid to put his money where his mouth is? Dan Snyder's not the best judge of quality, but I'll be damned if he's not willing to pay for it.

Number one implies two: Dan Snyder wants to win. As misguided as he can be, none of us can say that Snyder doesn't want to win. I agree that it seems like we're a captive market, but I don't think Danny Boy's intentionally putting on a crap product and assuming that we're going to attend unconditionally come gameday. If this were the case, we wouldn't have such a highly-paid roster. Dan wants the 'Skins to succeed just as much as any of us do.

[Popeman38]

For the exact reasons that I have said before. But I'll lay it out again for you.

1) This is the same kind of petty BS that has been the hallmark of the Snyder years. It casts doubt on the "he has changed" spiel that people like Mark are trying to sell.

It has NOTHING to do with his ownership. The Redskins are in no way associated with this lawsuit, except for people like you who try to make it about the Redskins. Owner and individual are different.

2) It continues to foster the impression that the Skins are an organization in disarry, with an impulsive, egomaniac owner who can't get out of his own way. You think it's "just a tiff" between a paper and an owner? Ridiculous. It's much more than that. The Redskins have the repuation as one of the all-around worst organizations in football, and this just continues to foster this. This affects which players and coaches will come here. You can't separate this from "what's on the field," I'm sorry. The constant bad PR like this doesn't just affect the owner, it affects the team.

Again, the organization is not a party to this lawsuit. Any inference that this reflects poorly on the team is made purely to attract attention by organizations that seem to benefit from negative coverage. Namely the WaPost and WCP (pimpin their legal defense fund), and a plethora of blogs that have taken shots at Snyder iver the years. And of course, our own resident haters that can't see the forest for the trees.

[Rudechain]

For the exact reasons that I have said before. But I'll lay it out again for you.

1) This is the same kind of petty BS that has been the hallmark of the Snyder years. It casts doubt on the "he has changed" spiel that people like Mark are trying to sell.

2) It continues to foster the impression that the Skins are an organization in disarry, with an impulsive, egomaniac owner who can't get out of his own way. You think it's "just a tiff" between a paper and an owner? Ridiculous. It's much more than that. The Redskins have the repuation as one of the all-around worst organizations in football, and this just continues to foster this. This affects which players and coaches will come here. You can't separate this from "what's on the field," I'm sorry. The constant bad PR like this doesn't just affect the owner, it affects the team.

Oh come on that's a load of tripe and you know it.

The man has done what we want and stepped back. He is not running the operations just as we all requested. It has not been long, but you have got to give it time to see if he has changed his ways. So it seems like your argument is " I don't accept that he may have changed and done what was requested."

I do see your point, but once again, this lawsuit has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REDSKINS. It's a matter between Dan Snyder and WCP as well as the managing organization of WCP.

so I am just curious how you see a lawsuit between an individual and WCP has to do with the Redskins since they are not listed anywhere in the suit? Your excuse, while I can see it based on past history, is just that past history.

And I will ask you.

Dan is not going to sell the team and his acts are not so reprehensible that the team will be taken from him. What is your plan of action to right these acts by Snyder?

Media blitz? ( that's what has been going on for years) Boycott? ( probably the only alternative that makes any sense) Complain about Snyder's personal actions and somehow construe his personal life to the Washington Redskins. ( BINGO)

I do understand where your coming from but believe your way to emotionally invested in Dan Snyder the individual. This lawsuit will have ZERO EFFECT with regards to the product on the field. Dan Snyder's suit will not affect the draft, nor free agency or the CBA. Dan Snyder's suit will not affect Kyle's offense or the 3-4 defense being employed.

But go ahead and believe this lawsuit actually means anything.

[BKSkinsFan]

Why do I see this thread and immediately think, "Hmmm, a forum that Snyder is invested in and here's a mod promoting him." It's this way because I've been conditioned to think the worst of the guy. Was this all the media's doing, or is it a result of his past actions? Most likely it's a combination, but it's going to take more than a season of continuity where he's not micromanaging for me to change my opinion of him.

[Rocky21]

It is my belief that after another losing season, Snyder is gonna go all Snyder on this team, and either Bruce or Shannahan we'll be gone.

You'll see.

Considering that NO head coach under Dan Snyder has fulfilled the terms of his contract I'm sorry to say you might not be too far off.