"What If?"......What if John Kent Cooke successfully bought the Redskins?

[scruffylookin]

It's impossible to know how things would be different in terms of wins and losses.

No question we'd have a better rep publicly.

The problem between 93-99 was the institutional arrogance of the Redskins. They thought because of the success they enjoyed in the 80s and very early 90s that they knew what they were doing. Problem was Beathard and Gibbs were gone. Casserly was an awful GM and as nice a guy as Norv was and is, he wasn't Joe Gibbs despite Jack Kent Cooke claiming that Norv reminded him of Gibbs.

The Redskins Front Office thought they knew what they were doing but they didn't. So in order for the Skins to have turned it around under John Cooke, he would have had to been able to swallow his pride and bring in someone new to be GM and rebuild the team. Would he have done it? And if so would he have hired the right guy? Who knows?

I do know that he would not have hired a moron like Cerrato and fancy himself a football guy and involve himself in day to day football operations.

I do know we wouldn't have had the merry-go-round coaches of the last decade.

I do know that he wouldn't have used the crutch of "I'm learning" as an excuse for poor ownership.

So I'd say the Skins may or may not have won more this past decade with Cooke in charge. But he certainly wouldn't have made this team a farce that is mocked by others like Little Danny has.

[SirClintonPortis]

Norv might have been coaching until 2004 or 2005.

Gibbs might not have come back.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Norv might have been coaching until 2004 or 2005.

Gibbs might not have come back.

No and yes.

Norv probably would have lost the Casserly/Turner struggle at some point. Gibbs certainly would not have come back (or been asked to).

[Glenn X]

John Cooke didn't have the stones to fire Norval after that disastrous 6-10 campaign. Next, please.

[illone]

Extremeskins wouldnt be owned by the team.

We wouldnt know who Vinny Cerrato is.

Deion never would have signed to play here.

There would be threads asking "What if Snyder had bought the team...."

Bill Polian would be the GM and Peyton Manning would be the QB:ols:

[Rocky21]

Is this the bash Charley Casserly thread?

Didn't he help assemble the 1991 team that won the Super Bowl and is considered by many to be one of the greatest offensive juggernauts in NFL history? What have the Redskins done that is one of the best all time since he left? Best tie - in marketing promotion?

Casserly scouted and/or drafted a lot of the all time greatest players in our team's history like Big Jake, B-Mitch and Champ.

The last time our team won the NFC East it was with a team that was entirely constructed by Charley Casserly....but then again he hired Norvelle and drafted Congressman Shuler.

Of course no one knows what would have happened if John Kent Cooke owned the team instead of Snyder other than he'd probably have a higher win-loss record and there'd be more folding money in our wallets.

[ouvan59]

I do know that he would not have hired a moron like Cerrato and fancy himself a football guy and involve himself in day to day football operations.

I do know we wouldn't have had the merry-go-round coaches of the last decade.

I do know that he wouldn't have used the crutch of "I'm learning" as an excuse for poor ownership.

So I'd say the Skins may or may not have won more this past decade with Cooke in charge. But he certainly wouldn't have made this team a farce that is mocked by others like Little Danny has.

What makes you say he wouldn't have hired a moron? He kept one employed for quite a long time.

And it's funny how hard the media and fans are on Danny when Jack was just as much of an arse. Anybody remember his wife riding on the hood of a Jag down in Georgetown? If that had been Danny's wife it would still be front page news. Anybody remember his public battles with his next wife and his refusal to support their daughter? Anybody remember his decision to make it nearly impossible for his sons to inherit the team? He was a great owner only because he lucked into Bobby Beathard and Joe Gibbs. When those two were gone the Skins sucked just like they have sucked under Danny. The major difference between the two is A) Jack never tried to run the team himself and Jack treated the media well and they, in turn, treated him well. Danny treats the media as his adversary and they, always having the last word, toast him at every opportunity.

But make no mistake, if Danny had lucked into JG 1.0 we would be talking about what a great owner he is.

[War Paint]

I loved "What If" Marvel comics, especially the one's about Spider-man.

http://marvel.wikia.com/What_If%3F_Vol_1

[MintHillSkinsFan]

John Cooke hired Norv in the first place. That's all I need to know.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

John Cooke hired Norv in the first place. That's all I need to know.

Well, to be fair, Norv is still coaching in the NFL while some of Snyder's hires (Spurrier, Marty, Zorn) are not. So, you could argue that Norv was a perfectly acceptable hire to begin with.

[paloosa]

Nothing would have changed except the coaches that were hired. This organization has a history, no matter who owned the team, to be mediocre. Yes, Joe Gibbs I.0 was the most successful time in the Redskins Era but if you look at the years before it and after it they were always average to mediocre. George Allen a few good years with the over the hill gang but I wouldn't call them an elite team. So nothing would have changed as far as how the team would have performed. Look at it if you don't believe me. For the last 30 years the PPG of this team is 17 to 21. There may have been a few years in that time that they averaged above that but the rest would be within that range. This team has always been a ball control type of team and it shows that over the years. Not even Norv Turner, Al Saunders, Steve Spurrier, Jim Zorn, and Kyle Shanahan (so far) have been able to change that. Before Norv came to Washington he was at Dallas and they averaged over 24 points a game. Al Saunders was at KC and they average between 24 and 28 points a game. Spurrier and Zorn didn't do it in the NFl becasue of where they both came from. But they all were pass oriented coaches with runs mixed in. That is why I say that nothing would have changed.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

This organization has a history, no matter who owned the team, to be mediocre.

If you take away the best 2-3 eras for any team, doesn't that point apply across the board?

How many franchises have a history of being consistently good or great? None of the current good teams do, that's for sure. Green Bay was an afterthought for almost 30 years. Pittsburgh was awful until the 1970s and then awful again until the mid-1990s. The Patriots? The Eagles? You could make a decent argument for the Cowboys I guess, but they also have an advantage of a much shorter history than teams like the Redskins.

[BackToGlory]

If you all remember when JKC died and the team was screwed because his son was unable to pay for players etc, one of the reason Trent went to the Rams. The "foundation" wasn't looking to keep talent, or spend money. Actually I always wondered why JCK didn't leave the team to his son? I know Jack was pretty wild, but maybe his son and he weren't close. Anyway the downfall was JCK passing and not leaving the team to Gibbs!!!

[jflow78]

The only difference, IMO, would have been that we wouldn't have made HUGE name purchases (as much, though Dana Stubblefield and a couple others were "big time"), we would have kept sub-par coaches and GMs for longer.

The things that would have been the same are, we would still stink, we would still be disappointed annually, and our drafting would still have been awful.

I don't think people realize, this isn't the curse of Norv Turner or Jack/John Kent Cooke, this is the curse of Richie Petitbon (who was ALSO fired after ONE year). We dropped off the face of the earth after Gibbs retired the first time, and we haven't come back since.

EDIT:

Oh, and we'd STILL be looking for a franchise QB.

[SkinsHokieFan]

There are lots of ways this thing could go.

Lets say the sale of the Redskins to John was finished by January 1999, before the start of free agency

1) Norv probably gets another year, as does Casserly despite their rocky relationship

2) Trent Green doesn't head to St Louis for what amounted to pennies (4 years, 16 million)

3) We still make the Ditka trade but also still have an extra 1st which could have been used on an Anthony McFarland/Jevon Kearse type player. along with that, make some moves in free agency that year http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/news/1999/02/14/freeagent_list/

4) The Redskins still are projected last going into 1999 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/1999/preview/ (btw- at the Cowboys 11-5 prediction)

5) The 2000 offseason does not happen. In fact, I don't think the Redskins trade their 12th and 24th pick to get in position for Chris Samuels at the number 3 spot at the draft combine. Casserly probably waits till draft day to make a move to get Samuels, but not 2 months early. Or the Redskins sign Jon Runyan that offseason

6) FedEx Field is not expanded to 90k seats, the monetization of the fan base doesn't occur, and we still play at Jack Kent Cooke stadium. On the other hand, the 50 million plus dollars in improvements do not occur

7) Dare I say it, the Redskins, with a relatively quiet offseason in 2000 and Trent Green at QB go on to win the Superbowl.

From that point forward its anybody's guess what happens. However the Redskins in April 1999 had picks, youth and cap space

[Gart Monk]

Lost a lot of games 1993-1998 but Turner and Casserly worked through it and had that team stocked in 1999. Fives years to rebuild that team after the Gibbs1 dynasty isnt that bad now that I look back on it. It just seemed horrible at the time. Like a hangover after a heavy night.

It makes me sick to think about how Snyder ruined it in one year.

And now, ten years later... we must endure as we did in 1997. psh!

John Kent Cooke would have done a better job simply because I can't imagine anyone screwing it up as bad as Dan Snyder did.

[chipwhich]

Lost a lot of games 1993-1998 but Turner and Casserly worked through it and had that team stocked in 1999. Fives years to rebuild that team after the Gibbs1 dynasty isnt that bad now that I look back on it. It just seemed horrible at the time. Like a hangover after a heavy night.

It makes me sick to think about how Snyder ruined it in one year.

And now, ten years later... we must endure as we did in 1997. psh!

John Kent Cooke would have done a better job simply because I can't imagine anyone screwing it up as bad as Dan Snyder did.

Are you kidding me? THe team was not "stocked". We had one nice year with Albert Connell and Michael Westbrook lighting up the receiving yards. The next year Connell was pick pocketing his fellow teammates and Westbrook was done.

That team was as fragile as any Norv Turner team ever.

And no on John Kent Cooke. He was useless.

[RBClintonPortis]

In 6-plus seasons with the Redskins, Turner had a record of 49-59-1 (.450), including 14-17-1 (.450) in John Kent Cooke's two years as sole controlling entity.

In 12 seasons Snyder has amassed a .447 record (86 wins in 192 regular season games through last year). I think that there is enough data to say that they were both putting a similar product on the field as far as winning. Though it is also fair to say Snyder has had two 10-win seasons and 1 was the first year in with a Team largely assembled by Cooke and with a coach Cooke had hired -- so that the discrepancy might actually be greater than it appears.

The difference as already noted would likely have been off the field, in fan experience, media coverage and fan loyalty. I do not think the level of disaffection from long time fans would be at the level it has reached if Cooke was in charge. I do not believe we would have had multiple more playoff experiences either.

Really though it wasn't Snyder vs. Cooke. It was Snyder vs. Joe Dolan's Group vs. Sam Grossman's Group. For all practical purposes that was the true battle. So "What if...." Sam Grossman, who was a close no.2 and had Joe Gibbs involved in hi s bid and was going to put him in charge of football operations in 1999. What if indeed ....

[88Comrade2000]

Norv will still be coach and we would still suck.

[Darth Tater]

Are you kidding me? THe team was not "stocked". We had one nice year with Albert Connell and Michael Westbrook lighting up the receiving yards. The next year Connell was pick pocketing his fellow teammates and Westbrook was done.

That team was as fragile as any Norv Turner team ever.

And no on John Kent Cooke. He was useless.

The Aikman era Dallas Cowboys were just about done while the of the early 2000 Eagles and Giants were not yet mature. The late 90s was a time when you played 8 parity games. The 1999 team that went 10-6 was only about 4 plays better and had an easier schedule than the 1998 team that went 6-10. Pretty much a mediocre team that got lucky.

[NoVaSkins21]

That depends on your beliefs. However, he may not have been on our team, and his passing may not have touched us as much as it did with him on our team.

Yeah, he probably would've have been a franchise safety for another team and having a profound impact on another fanbase. :whoknows: in the grand scheme of things. As far as the question being asked, I think tons of things would have been different. One being that the not as many fans would have left the team as they have during Snyder's tenure of ownership. Coaching wise IMO, Norv probably have been here through '99 and then canned. However, no coaching carousels to follow. Stability have been a hallmark with somebody they may have found. No spending sprees due to the stability in coaching. No commercializing which has really done more harm than good to this team. Free agents wouldn't have come here to just get paid, but to play for a proud franchise. Overall the culture would have been totally different.

[jflow78]

Yeah, he probably would've have been a franchise safety for another team and having a profound impact on another fanbase. :whoknows: in the grand scheme of things. As far as the question being asked, I think tons of things would have been different. One being that the not as many fans would have left the team as they have during Snyder's tenure of ownership. Coaching wise IMO, Norv probably have been here through '99 and then canned. However, no coaching carousels to follow. Stability have been a hallmark with somebody they may have found. No spending sprees due to the stability in coaching. No commercializing which has really done more harm than good to this team. Free agents wouldn't have come here to just get paid, but to play for a proud franchise. Overall the culture would have been totally different.

I would agree with that, except that some players were already coming here just to get paid (Stubblefield admitted as much when he left and went back to the 49ers). The franchise had already lost it's pride by the time Snyder came ownership.

[pjfootballer]

It's impossible to know how things would be different in terms of wins and losses.

No question we'd have a better rep publicly.

The problem between 93-99 was the institutional arrogance of the Redskins. They thought because of the success they enjoyed in the 80s and very early 90s that they knew what they were doing. Problem was Beathard and Gibbs were gone. Casserly was an awful GM and as nice a guy as Norv was and is, he wasn't Joe Gibbs despite Jack Kent Cooke claiming that Norv reminded him of Gibbs.

The Redskins Front Office thought they knew what they were doing but they didn't. So in order for the Skins to have turned it around under John Cooke, he would have had to been able to swallow his pride and bring in someone new to be GM and rebuild the team. Would he have done it? And if so would he have hired the right guy? Who knows?

I do know that he would not have hired a moron like Cerrato and fancy himself a football guy and involve himself in day to day football operations.

I do know we wouldn't have had the merry-go-round coaches of the last decade.

I do know that he wouldn't have used the crutch of "I'm learning" as an excuse for poor ownership.

So I'd say the Skins may or may not have won more this past decade with Cooke in charge. But he certainly wouldn't have made this team a farce that is mocked by others like Little Danny has.

You know, you kind of said what I was feeling reading through this thread. I was thinking that they would have been run much like what Abe Pollin did with the Bullets. Pollin remained too loyal to Unseld and alot of the front office and thought that they could win championships the same way the won their only one in 1978. I was thinking the Redskins FO might be stuck in the 1980s this past decade, much like alot of our fans our. Alot of our fans today think we can resurrect the next "Hogs" or "Fun Bunch" and win with "Riggo Drill." I think we'd be stuck in a time warp.

[Mocountyskins]

Sean Taylor wouldve never been a Redskin

[Gart Monk]

Are you kidding me? THe team was not "stocked". We had one nice year with Albert Connell and Michael Westbrook lighting up the receiving yards. The next year Connell was pick pocketing his fellow teammates and Westbrook was done.

That team was as fragile as any Norv Turner team ever.

And no on John Kent Cooke. He was useless.

John Cooke did seem useless. Sometimes less is more.

Scroll down to that1999 roster in this link...http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/1999.htm

Tell me you wouldn't take that over the current situation. Those guys would thrash the current team.