Thoughts of a Negative Poster

[Bang]

Okay, let's test this approach with the example I used in the OP. Your brain tells you that the Jason Taylor trade is likely to fail, but you can choose to believe that it is likely to succeed. Is that right?

Your brain keeps going back to this while conveniently ignoring the desperate need that we had due to multiple injuries on the first day of camp. the first HOUR for our starting DE.

They weren't just a couple of Kardashians shashaying around on Rodeo Drive loooking for high priced big names.

So yeah, it probably wasn't going to be a very successful trade, but the option to Taylor given the actual circumstance was....?

So yay, you were right about an emergency deal in which we were bent over a barrel before we even picked up the phone.

Good call. It practically makes you Nostradamus.

This thread is masturbation.

SlappitySlap

~Bang

[daveakl]

Very briefly:

1) *You don't hire two men with a decade of mediocrity on their resumes to take you to Number One;

2) Both by actions and in words, we know that the plan is to win-now and build at the same time; IMO, that's a sure-fire plan for mediocrity;

*(I am referring to Shanahan's record in Denver with full control as he has now (1999 - 2008)

That in no way answers what I asked.

[elkabong82]

For me, that weighed more heavily than any other factor. You label my decision the result of a negative bias. But, a bias is something that throws the decision off its true course. I stuck with what my brain told me was a realistic appraisal. You were the one to allow a bias to throw your appraisal off course. Why did you do that? It's not as if either of us was going to alter the outcome.

My theory on the Homer Phenomenon is that fans confuse hopes and expectations. I could expect the Jason Taylor move to fail, but still hope that it somehow worked out for the best. Others don't seem to be able to do that.

Superbowls are unlikely but possible. This is my position: I want to replace the Patriots as the number one franchise. I can't see a Snyder team achieving that goal because there has been no evidence that he has that goal in mind. So, yes. As to that goal, you could label me a consistent pessimist. But, it would be unfair to label me that way across the board.

You think of that fan as superior. I think of him as sorta stupid. You are confusing hopes with expectations. At 3-6, a fan can always hope that his team beats the odds. That's what all good fans should do. But to expect that his team will beat the odds is to deny reality.

Being against the trade is one thing. Being certain it wouldn't work out in the short-term requires a negative bias. JT didn't work out, but it wasn't based on available information at the time of the trade when the poll was made. He didn't work out due to being misused and a freak injury. So while a belief it was a bad trade was reasonable, certitude he would be bad here required bias. Do you really not understand why someone would choose to hope for the positive over the negative with a team they root for? Plus, fan perspectives aren't always right. Reasonably, most did not think the Moss trade was good. Turns out the majority was wrong about that even though they had good reason to doubt. Point being that people's rationale, no matter how grounded, won't always be right. In the case of the Moss trade the optimists were right.

The problem with hoping for the best is that when it is missing from a criticism then people have a hard time believing you.

The Pats are one of the top teams. No team is the clear number one due to parity. Snyder no longer has impact on the decision making of management, but him spending money to bring in top coaches certainly signifies he wants to win a Superbowl. In fact, it is asinine to think that he doesn't have that goal in mind. Now you may disagree with how he goes about it, but he certainly has that goal in mind just as most other owners do save for the cheapest ones.

I didn't say a fan should expect playoffs at 3-6, but that superior fans maintain faith in the possibility so long as it exists. Certitude in desperate times may just be false bravado, and yes I'd rather listen to a reasonable fan than a deluded homer who is kidding himself making guarantees of victory just as I wouldn't want to hear a deluded pessimist saying it's all over when the possibility still exists. I think the fan who maintains faith, not certitude, but faith, so long as the possibility of the desired outcome exists is superior. The fans in '05 and '07 who believed we could make a playoff run are superior to those who guaranteed it would not happen (and there were plenty of them especially in '07).

That being said, when the team is doing good then optimism should get some leeway to be exaggerated, though not to such a large extent that the windfall from failure creates total meltdown on the board (though sometimes it creates a member purge).

[elkabong82]

Very briefly:

1) *You don't hire two men with a decade of mediocrity on their resumes to take you to Number One;

2) Both by actions and in words, we know that the plan is to win-now and build at the same time; IMO, that's a sure-fire plan for mediocrity;

*(I am referring to Shanahan's record in Denver with full control as he has now (1999 - 2008)

You hold the Patriots up as the number one team to be and replace. Belicheck was mediocre through most of the '90s. Browns had 1 playoff game in his tenure there as HC, Pats had 1 good season when he was under Parcells, Jets had 1 good season with him. Pioli pretty much followed him. So each had close to a decade of mediocrity. Sure there were a couple playoff appearances and 1 Superbowl loss, but Shanahan also had numerous playoff appearances and made it to the AFC Championship game, 1 less than the '96 Pats, who were head coached not by Belichick but by Parcells.

So maybe it's successful experience that counts, because with the way you framed your response you would not have hired Belichick even though you regard his team as number one.

[KDawg]

You know what I find amusing... The people who are ridiculing OF are doing the same thing that they believe is wildly inappropriate on OF's behalf. Except, for the most part, OF keeps his "insults" in line with the topic at hand and the corresponding posts. Where other's seem to miss is the whole idea of attacking the idea, or the content of post, rather than a poster.

Everyone needs to cool their jets. Everyone. It's a topic of discussion. OF threads generally melt down because people get frustrated with his style. His style is ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLY frustrating to debate with. Which is why I view it as a good time when I take an opposing stance to him. But people have some sort of vendetta against him and the same few seem to come into every thread that he makes and talk about prior points that he may or may not have made (seriously, some of the stuff brought up is patently false).

Next time OF starts a thread, try something: Pretend the OP was made by someone entirely different. Read the thread with an open mind. And then reply with a constructive response.

OF may come back and completely shoot you down, or only partially shoot you down (don't worry, he will shoot you down). But this board is so much more enjoyable when you accept him for who he is and what he does. He generates tons of discussion and the guy is a lightning rod for criticism.

No one has to listen to me. I'm a no one. And I'm okay with that. But I am trying to help everyone out here by saying that it's not that serious. It's a discussion forum. Take a deep breath. Differing opinions are good for the world. Enjoy these threads.

[Mini Deisel]

In OF's explaination of Belicheck and Pioli as well as Shanahan...Their success was based on an intelligent QB with excellent decision making. If you can't see that RGIII is better than Elway was his rookie year than you are indeed blind. The coaches that he said were mediocre...only when they had QBs that were subpar or struggling.

[DogofWar1]

Very briefly:

1) *You don't hire two men with a decade of mediocrity on their resumes to take you to Number One;

2) Both by actions and in words, we know that the plan is to win-now and build at the same time; IMO, that's a sure-fire plan for mediocrity;

*(I am referring to Shanahan's record in Denver with full control as he has now (1999 - 2008)

To 1) Kraft didn't have a sure thing guy in Belichick when he put him in charge. Belichick hadn't done too much in his career as an HC before he found success in NE. He'd had one playoff year in Cleveland, and his last year he was 5-11. He even had to sit behind Parcells for a couple years after the Cleveland thing.

What will be interesting to see is Belichick's career post Brady, if he decides to stay. Shanahan was a highly successful assistant prior to becoming HC in Denver, had a franchise QB and won 2 SBs, and then spent much of the next decade with teams making the playoffs that couldn't quite get over the hump. I think having to make due with guys like Griese and Plummer had a lot to do with that. When Brady retires in a few years it'll be interesting to see if Belichick is still making the Superbowl every 3-4 years, or exiting the playoffs near the first round, like Shanahan did most years from 99 to 08.

Shanahan has had a dominant football team before, the mid-to-late 90s Denver team with Elway, and if he's done it once he certainly has the potential to do it again, unless we want to bring up the idea that all of Shanahan's success was purely because of Elway (which opens up a can of worms because most SB winning coaches only pull it off with one QB, the big exception being Gibbs).

To 2) I mean, of course he's going to say he's trying to win now. No coach is going to stand up at the opening of the league year and say "Well, we're just building this year, we'll be a playoff team in a few years." I think you can definitely go too far the other way, like Rex Ryan, guaranteeing SBs and such, but every coach to an extent has a "win now" mentality when talking to the media.

We remember the crap-storm that brewed the moment Shanahan mentioned evaluating for 2013. Imagine a coach saying that at the start of the year.

As for deeds, I partially disagree, but where I agree, I don't put all the blame on Shanahan.

I partially disagree because the vast majority of his FA acquisitions have been either a) young, decent, cost-effective players ala. Bowen, Cofield, Carriker, Montgomery, Garcon, Morgan, etc. or cheap older vets who are easy to move around, ala. C. Griffin, M. Williams, Hightower. His big blunders were McNabb and Brown, and those have been discussed to death, but beyond those he's done pretty well. The guys in category a) will almost certainly be on the team for several more years as good starters, and the guys in category can quickly be removed and upgraded. Consider C. Griffin, M. Williams, and Polumbus, all three are likely to be gone or relegated to backups next year, and probably will be paid league minimum if they're still on the team.

I think the logical conclusion of his strategy several years down the road is to have solid B players at all but a few key positions, where we'll have A level guys. It just takes time, he had to re-do (and still has some work to do) the whole defense (front 7 in the switch, back 4 thanks to annoying guys like Rogers and Landry), the whole offensive line (switch to ZBS), the WR corp (everyone but Moss was expendable and, well, bad), and even the RBs (Portis was getting old), not to mention QB. Overhauling all those things takes time, and the way he's gone about it has made us younger with better fitting players.

His drafting too, again, with the exception of the McNabb and Brown moves, has been pretty forward looking. We drafted 12 players in 2011, the most since 1985, back when the draft had 12 rounds, and his 21 picks in the past two years is the first time we cracked 20 picks in a two year period since the early 90s.

As for where I agree I do agree that he's been a bit win now, in a negative way (trading up for Griffin I would say was win-now too, but in a positive way), and the two moves most often mentioned are the McNabb and Brown trades. But no one makes perfect moves.

The problem is not all on Shanahan though, this is a win-now league. Andy Reid had incredible success up until a couple years ago, and is now almost certainly on the chopping block. Most coaches are given between 2-3 years (4 years in very rare cases) to build a playoff team from the moment they're hired, even if they're being hired to a really crappy team and it's unreasonable to expect. The Texans took 6 years to build a playoff team, and we've had to turnover about 75% of our roster in the 3 years since Shanahan has arrived.

You win now, or you're out, and it's tough to win-now while making purely long term moves.

I think he's finally gotten the roster looking somewhat like he'd like it to, and if we can stay reasonably healthy over the next couple years, then we should be able to improve our team further as the defense improves, and Griffin continues to hone his craft and lead the offense.

So I think Snyder has found two guys who at least have very good potential to be the right guys for the job, and considering that this year, in their 3rd years, we're pushing for a playoff spot with a rookie QB, I'd say it's not a bad start. And again, Snyder wants the Skins to be a dominant #1 in the NFL kind of team, that's why he spends so much money.

There are some owners who do not care about being #1, like the Bucs owners when they basically spent little to nothing on their team in order to save money. Thankfully Snyder is not like that.

[KDawg]

To 1) Kraft didn't have a sure thing guy in Belichick when he put him in charge. Belichick hadn't done too much in his career as an HC before he found success in NE. He'd had one playoff year in Cleveland, and his last year he was 5-11. He even had to sit behind Parcells for a couple years after the Cleveland thing.

I despise this logic. Yes, he had a 5-11 record in his last year. A year in which the Browns were poised to do BIG things. While true, take a look what else happened then. The team announced, very early, that they would be moving to Baltimore. Good luck putting together a winner in those conditions. Nearly impossible. Cleveland's Municipal Stadium was like a war ground all year long. Players were 100% distracted. As were coaches. Not easy in the least to be successful.

Shanahan has had a dominant football team before, the mid-to-late 90s Denver team with Elway, and if he's done it once he certainly has the potential to do it again, unless we want to bring up the idea that all of Shanahan's success was purely because of Elway (which opens up a can of worms because most SB winning coaches only pull it off with one QB, the big exception being Gibbs).

Okay... You knocked Belichick for Brady, but don't want people to knock Shanahan for Elway? How does that work?

As for where I agree I do agree that he's been a bit win now, in a negative way

He was 100% win now in year one and set us back a year.

(trading up for Griffin I would say was win-now too, but in a positive way)

Trading up for Griffin was, "Win in my tenure, or set Kyle up" not win-now.

I think he's finally gotten the roster looking somewhat like he'd like it to, and if we can stay reasonably healthy over the next couple years, then we should be able to improve our team further as the defense improves, and Griffin continues to hone his craft and lead the offense.

100% agree. I think Shanahan is doing a fine job now. He didn't start that way, though.

[DogofWar1]

I despise this logic. Yes, he had a 5-11 record in his last year. A year in which the Browns were poised to do BIG things. While true, take a look what else happened then. The team announced, very early, that they would be moving to Baltimore. Good luck putting together a winner in those conditions. Nearly impossible. Cleveland's Municipal Stadium was like a war ground all year long. Players were 100% distracted. As were coaches. Not easy in the least to be successful.

Oh, I understand, but the thing I'm trying to say is Belichick, along with tons of other coaches who went on to find success (or failure) were not sure things when they were given the reins. Most eventual HCs are highly successful OCs or DCs. Some work, some don't. Gibbs and Norv were both very good OCs; one won 3 SBs, the other has yet to get a team into one. Belichick was a very successful assistant, and decent but not great HC prior to being tapped for the Patriots.

It'd be interesting to see what teams would decide if they had to choose between 2000 Belichick and 2009 Shanahan for a head coach. I don't think that Shanahan is really behind 2000 Belichick when compared like that.

Okay... You knocked Belichick for Brady, but don't want people to knock Shanahan for Elway? How does that work?

I didn't knock Belichick for Brady, I simply said it'd be interesting to see what happens. I don't think a coach's success is necessarily tied to a single QB, but it has been that way for many, many coaches. My point is that Shanahan had a dominant team once, and could do it again in the right situation. If Belichick fell on hard times post-Brady, I would still say he could recapture his former success in the right situation.

He was 100% win now in year one and set us back a year.

I think he was a bit win-now, and a bit in evaluation mode. He certainly made a win-now move securing McNabb, but beyond that it was evaluating talent, seeing who could make the switch to the 3-4, who was worth keeping on offense, etc. Unfortunately a lot of that talent was not so talented. The lack of a full-offseason probably played a large role in his approach too.

Trading up for Griffin was, "Win in my tenure, or set Kyle up" not win-now.

Drafting a QB definitely isn't win-now, but trading 3 firsts and a 2nd I would say requires success much sooner than your average drafted QB. Sitting tight for Tannehill would have been long-term, as Tannehill would have to develop over the next couple years. Trading up like we did required a QB that was able to enter the league able to produce more or less immediately. Ultimately, the move was both win-now and long term.

[KCClybun]

I despise this logic. Yes, he had a 5-11 record in his last year. A year in which the Browns were poised to do BIG things. While true, take a look what else happened then. The team announced, very early, that they would be moving to Baltimore. Good luck putting together a winner in those conditions. Nearly impossible. Cleveland's Municipal Stadium was like a war ground all year long. Players were 100% distracted. As were coaches. Not easy in the least to be successful.

I think the point is that Bill Belichick didn't have a pristine record before everything fell apart in Cleveland. The Browns had 3 straight seasons under .500 with him before their playoff run, and they finally turned it around. What happened with Modell was completely unenviable and it really was damn near impossible to win under those conditions. But it wasn't as if Kraft knew he was getting a surefire, bonafide Hall of Fame coach on his hands. Belichick had a solid record as a d-coordinator, and a so-so record as a head coach.

Okay... You knocked Belichick for Brady, but don't want people to knock Shanahan for Elway? How does that work?

I don't think it's knocking Belichick for Brady. Their success is tied together. It's an honest question to see how Belichick would do without Brady for an prolonged period; everyone mentions the Matt Cassel season where they went 11-5 (but missed the playoffs and didn't beat a team with a winning record), but the most success Belichick's had has been with Brady.

[KDawg]

I think the point is that Bill Belichick didn't have a pristine record before everything fell apart in Cleveland. The Browns had 3 straight seasons under .500 with him before their playoff run, and they finally turned it around. What happened with Modell was completely unenviable and it really was damn near impossible to win under those conditions. But it wasn't as if Kraft knew he was getting a surefire, bonafide Hall of Fame coach on his hands. Belichick had a solid record as a d-coordinator, and a so-so record as a head coach.

No. But he knew he was getting a guy who worked his ass off and would do everything that he could to win. If you're guaranteed that, it's easier to gamble on a guy. And his football IQ was through the roof. There is no such thing as a "sure fire" coach. But there is certainly such a thing as a "safer bet" and Belichick was exactly that.

I don't think it's knocking Belichick for Brady. Their success is tied together. It's an honest question to see how Belichick would do without Brady for an prolonged period; everyone mentions the Matt Cassel season where they went 11-5 (but missed the playoffs and didn't beat a team with a winning record), but the most success Belichick's had has been with Brady.

And Shanahan had the most success with Elway. Also, in turn, Elway had his most success with Shanahan.

[KCClybun]

No. But he knew he was getting a guy who worked his ass off and would do everything that he could to win. If you're guaranteed that, it's easier to gamble on a guy. And his football IQ was through the roof. There is no such thing as a "sure fire" coach. But there is certainly such a thing as a "safer bet" and Belichick was exactly that.

Well putting things in the context of 2010, was there a coach who was a "safer bet" than Mike Shanahan?

[KDawg]

Well putting things in the context of 2010, was there a coach who was a "safer bet" than Mike Shanahan?

I don't think I've argued against Shanahan being hired...

I did, however, take issue with the knocks provided on Belichick. There was no deeper motive to my post. It was in defense of Belichick. Not in dismissal of Shanahan.

But to answer your question: Probably. There is always someone not considered that could be a FANTASTIC hire. But who knows? I like the guy we got. Which is good, because it was rocky for awhile.

[DogofWar1]

I did, however, take issue with the knocks provided on Belichick. There was no deeper motive to my post. It was in defense of Belichick. Not in dismissal of Shanahan.

I wasn't trying to knock Belichick so much as draw parallels between Belichick prior to 2000 and Shanahan. They were both solid hiring decisions based on their previous activities, but neither were, or in Shanahan's case is, a guaranteed success.

[Jumbo]

I am still unsure how this thread hasn't been closed / people have not been banned. Had a vast majority of posters made this thread and then turned it into a bait and switch for them to argue and make fun of others, they would have been banned a long time ago. This is a common theme with threads from OldFan. I am not a Fan and it is getting Old.

Of course you're unsure --and I think it would be better if you remain silent on board-management matters when unsure, and if you do ever want to ask something to be less unsure, or do have critique/comment you feel a need to make, follow the rules (read them) and post them in the tech/feedback section or in a PM (which may be ignored of we're to busy to engage in that, frankly, is not very important).

That way you'll spare yourself a one week ban (which you get a pass on this time) for violating rule 18 by posting OT opinions on moderating within the thread. You also have no clue whether any bans have been given or not (and there was). Ironically (yet fittingly) of the few people actually breaking rules that are ban-worthy, you would now be one.

Additionally, the continuance of the thread has been evaluated regularly by at least one individual who is extremely qualified to make the judgement involved and is actually in a position to execute an action. As with any thread, a close can come at any time for any reason (and they do) a moderator deems appropriate, and without any communication necessarily with the OP. It's long been that way. Likewise, if a thread anyone finds questionable remains open past a day or so, the reason's are as I have described or should be able to be figured out.

But thanks again for all your interest in how we're doing here on staff. :evilg:

(don't panic, amigo)

Now I have been following the thread from the beginning, but deliberately not posting. When I have time later or tomorrow I will post more on a few matters. I will say Oldfan threads can generate a fair amount of moderator work. But reading that as "Well hells yeh, it's Oldfan's bull**** that does it" would be far from a complete or accurate analysis.

To my analysis, and as I and others have noted before, OF's posting content contains a great degree of football acumen, fine debate skills (mostly), and a more-than-competent level of intellect, WITH (IMV) some fair amount of "bull****", in both argument and behavioral forms, at times (many notable ES posters fit that description).

But he isn't making people read and post in this thread and keep replying to him. Like I said, I will likely post some opinions on the OP, but if not, the thread will remain open or get closed as any mod sees fit (durrr). And I don't need any PMs on this same stuff--I have plenty to do. I can read what everyone thinks right here, and I will say what I want to in the thread.

.

[KCClybun]

I don't think I've argued against Shanahan being hired...

I did, however, take issue with the knocks provided on Belichick. There was no deeper motive to my post. It was in defense of Belichick. Not in dismissal of Shanahan.

But to answer your question: Probably. There is always someone not considered that could be a FANTASTIC hire. But who knows? I like the guy we got. Which is good, because it was rocky for awhile.

I wasn't trying to imply that you were against Shanahan being hired.

More arguing Oldfan's "You don't hire someone with a record of mediocrity" comment. And it's even more frustrating because if you pay attention and aren't pre-disposed to disliking Mike Shanahan to start, you'd notice Mike adopting some of the same philosophy that the Patriots have adopted.

We moved to a 3-4 defense in part because of the success the Patriots and Steelers had running it. The last three years, the Redskins haven't drafted an underclassmen and only gone for four year starters who were team captains who won multiple awards, which is a page taken directly from the Patriots drafting strategy. (RG3 was technically a redshirt junior, but he would've been a four year starter and had already graduated). The same thing with moving up and down in the draft, particulatly moving down in the draft to acquire more value for picks. Trading veterans for picks. Signing older, veteran players and allowing them to come and compete with younger players, while signing young-ish talent that aren't household names to reasonable, fairly priced contracts.

Much of the negativity Oldfan holds for Mike Shanahan seems to fly directly in the face of evidence suggesting that the team is actually doing what he wants. Which is ultimately the point of contention I and many others have with him and his posting style. It's not a "frustrating debate style". It's completely ignoring anything that would otherwise interfere with whatever notion he has put forward. Is there room on this board for some objectivity? Yes, there is. Is getting bent out of shape over some ribbing of the more extreme negative posters in the game dead thread worth a whole thread white knighting for said negative posters? Probably not.

If his "debate style" is sticking his fingers in his ears and refusing to listen to any opinion that doesn't completely jive with his, that's not a debate style. It's being incredibly stubborn and willingly ignorant.

[Oldfan]

...Problem is Oldfan, I don't think I've ever read a well thought out post of yours that was largely positive. Your a sharp guy, but your posts are well thought out negative posts on the whole...

This just isn't accurate. My posting history is available if you are curious.

[chipwhich]

This just isn't accurate. My posting history is available if you are curious.

I would never accuse you of being negative, just contrary to the musings of the board when a major event occurs, which I can appreciate

Your only flaw is your inability to say hey I was wrong, when you are blatantly proven so. Then it's word warfare fodder. Dignified humility, when to admit it.

As the team has been a mess, contrary musings tend to lend themselves to being right more often than not.

[Oldfan]

I wasn't trying to knock Belichick so much as draw parallels between Belichick prior to 2000 and Shanahan. They were both solid hiring decisions based on their previous activities, but neither were, or in Shanahan's case is, a guaranteed success.

You hire someone to achieve a goal. With full control of the Broncos from 1999 -2008, and given all the money he needed within the rules, Shanahan rewarded Pat Bowlen with one playoff win.

Either Dan Snyder's goal was to become the Number One NFL franchise and he made a very bad hire, or...

He was satisfied with a big name hire who could bring the team back up to a mediocre level.

The latter make the most sense.

---------- Post added December-13th-2012 at 10:33 PM ----------

...Your only flaw is your inability to say hey I was wrong, when you are blatantly proven so. Then it's word warfare fodder. Dignified humility, when to admit it.

In other words you still stubbornly think you were right in that Belichik thread years ago.:pfft:

[Bang]

You hire someone to achieve a goal. With full control of the Broncos from 1999 -2008, and given all the money he needed within the rules, Shanahan rewarded Pat Bowlen with one playoff win.

Either Dan Snyder's goal was to become the Number One NFL franchise and he made a very bad hire, or...

He was satisfied with a big name hire who could bring the team back up to a mediocre level.

The latter make the most sense.

And is still ultimately just a guess.

An opinion.

Which can be either right or wrong.

And as you like to say, can you show me exactly where Dan Snyder ever said he only wanted a big name to bring the Redskins up to mediocrity?

I can show you lots of quotes where he says he wants to win a Super Bowl, so we KNOW he wants to do that.

But is there any proof he only wanted a name so the Redskins could just break even?

Because it really doesn't make any sense to me. That's a lot of money to spend on such a lousy prospect and low expectation.

7 million a year to bring a name and mediocrity?

This makes sense?

~Bang

[chipwhich]

[/color]In other words you still stubbornly think you were right in that Belichik thread years ago.:pfft:

LOL no the Norv Turner thread comes to mind

[Oldfan]

And is still ultimately just a guess.

An opinion.

Which can be either right or wrong.

And as you like to say, can you show me exactly where Dan Snyder ever said he only wanted a big name to bring the Redskins up to mediocrity?

I can show you lots of quotes where he says he wants to win a Super Bowl, so we KNOW he wants to do that.

But is there any proof he only wanted a name so the Redskins could just break even?

~Bang

It's not a guess. It's an opinion based on some basic reasoning. You're free to shoot down the reasoning if you can.

I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I make unreasonable demands for proof. But, if and when you see it happen, that would be the time to point it out. Just hitting me with an accusation as you did is worthless.

---------- Post added December-13th-2012 at 10:45 PM ----------

LOL no the Norv Turner thread comes to mind

I was dead right in the Norv thread. That's what frosted people.

I'll bet you don't know what the argument was about. Give it a try.

---------- Post added December-13th-2012 at 10:56 PM ----------

That in no way answers what I asked.

It didn't answer this?

You do not think that Snyder has a goal of being the number one franchise in football?

I thought it did.

[Bang]

It's not a guess. It's an opinion based on some basic reasoning. You're free to shoot down the reasoning if you can.

You said that it makes the most sense that dan Snyder will give a coach 35 million dollars to bring nothing but a name and mediocrity to his team, a team he loves, and a team that has been a source of humiliation due to his own bad decisions.. and you think it makes the MOST sense that Snyder will just toss away a LOT of bad money just to make the same mistakes again. I think if we were to make some guesses about Dan's personality, we'd probably be correct in assuming he does NOT like to lose. it probably has burned his ass to have failed so badly. the money;'s a nice comfort, but I bet he wants a Lombardi trophy more than anything in the world.

that doesn't seem like basic reasoning given current situations.

You can say that Shanny's coaching record post-Elway is mediocre at best, and you'd be correct.

But to think that Snyder figured that would be good enough to toss 7 mil a year.. i think you're not giving Dan much credit for optimism

the guy has made a ton of mistakes, and he's often been starstruck and gushing over bad signings.

but really, considering the change that has taken place (and not just the record, which is only what it is for now.).. but the character of the team, the higher degree of common sense that has been used in acquiring players, the players they are acquiring are of better quality to fit what they want to do, not to mention the majority of the post-Zorn players are very high character, humble and display leadership as opposed to vice-versa for so many years.. (Griffin is like a dream. no.. on second thought i don't think i could have dreamed this guy. he's close to perfect in so many ways it's almost hard to believe. there HAS to be some tarnish somewhere, but i'll be damned if i can see it.)

Considering all of this, we have just as much reason to believe Snyder has pulled his thumb off of the team and allowed Shanny and crew to operate, and i think at some point you have to revise what seems to make most sense to take into account the reality of what is happening.

if you'd have told me that same thing 5 years ago, i'd never have argued. Snyderatto was as bad a pair of glitter whores as there ever were, and they went about everything totally backwards.

But we're seeing evidence to the contrary.

Shanny may ultimately only be CAPABLE of bringing us up to mediocrity, but I don't think that is what Dan has had in mind.

~Bang

[chipwhich]

I was dead right in the Norv thread. That's what frosted people.

I can't find it now, but did find some comical Zorn threads But if you were dead on, please repost the link

[Oldfan]

Unless you have proof, it's a guess, no matter how you want to dress it up.

Ten years of mediocrity with full control of the Broncos is solid past performance evidence the Mike Shanahan wouldn't be the guy you would expect to take you to the top in the NFL. That hiring alone should be enough to tell you that Snyder's sights were not aimed that high.