Koolblue13 Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 The Seahawks have how many SB trophies? + /= http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000300611/article/brandon-browner-suspended-indefinitely-by-nfl The Ravens were the Browns. 9ers seem to be doing it right. Our owner is not a loser and our name is not racist. I'm outta likes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 My thoughts are you made this thread not to have discussion but to instigate. That's why you haven't posted anymore in it and why you say the team name is racist when it isn't and has absolutely nothing to do with team performance. Nothing is certain 5, 10, 20 years from now. That last statement shows complete ignorance to history, but is fitting with the rest of your post. Seattle has been dog crap for most of its existence , Atlanta was good but is bad this tear, Patriots are done once Brady retires and then Belichick likely does the same, Ravens had a lucky streak last season, their D is decent but is resetting and their QB isn't good enough to carry the team. But all 3 teams have had good streaks because they've turned either the QB spot or their defense into an elite unit and made the other side of the ball competent. That allowed the team to see success so coaching stayed stable. Each team has owners that have been around for a long time, ours has learned on the fly and only a few years ago learned to step aside. The reason this recent coaching venture failed is because Shanny got full control and couldn't master both roles. In the offseason we will have a true GM, and probably a good one with good league rep. He and Bruce will hire a talented HC with a system suited to RG3's strength, and then the HC will install his staff. So long as it is a good hire, the coach will have a good foundation pieces to work with and the team could rebound quick because of that. I totally missed the racist name crap or I would not have posted on this thread. I glossed right over it. Not like me but learned a lesson on this one. All points you made are solid, especially the one about this being just a way to instigate. I'm outta likes. I am not. We can share mine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 we aren't if you look at the entire history of the East. We've won more playoff games than the cowboys and we are more storied than the eagles. The gnats have us on SBs right now, but we're no joke. Lmaooo The Cowboys have how many more SB's than us?? Quit reaching man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emor09 Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Lol at choosing Seahawks, Patriots and Ravens as examples of "great franchises" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 There is one constant- Dan Snyder. Until Dan Snyder has a proper organization and leaves that organization alone to run things; the Skins will NEVER be consistant winners. What did we have during the glory years? A strong GM and a strong head coach. That's what is needed again and until Dan does that; we will never be consistant winners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Tony Eason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErffelWuerffel Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 FWIW, if the Ravens make the playoffs this year, they will have had as many appearances as us since 1984. And at the end of the day, for us it's just a godawful juxtaposition of bad decisions and bad luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MumboSauce Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 I think all the right things have to come together to have a perennial winner...The team has won Superbowls with this name so Idk about the cursed stuff. A good GM matters, Coaching and the right personnel matter...consistency and an identity/direction matters. A franchise QB helps. The Patriots had years of suck..yearrrsss. The Seahawks were arena football for a long time. The Ravens, Ozzy Newsome etc etc. Great Ownership...yeah probably means something. I think every team/franchise has their time...but this is getting old and patience was thin some years ago. It sucks. We need a good/real GM badly. And if folks really believe that fans bellyaching over coaches or players and that's the reason we have so much flux and change....well we really are doomed if the owner is that influenced by fanatics on a message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 But all 3 teams have had good streaks because they've turned either the QB spot or their defense into an elite unit and made the other side of the ball competent. That allowed the team to see success so coaching stayed stable. Each team has owners that have been around for a long time, ours has learned on the fly and only a few years ago learned to step aside. The reason this recent coaching venture failed is because Shanny got full control and couldn't master both roles. In the offseason we will have a true GM, and probably a good one with good league rep. He and Bruce will hire a talented HC with a system suited to RG3's strength, and then the HC will install his staff. So long as it is a good hire, the coach will have a good foundation pieces to work with and the team could rebound quick because of that. Kraft bought the Patriots in '94 and Allen bought the Seahawks in '97. They haven't been owners much longer then Snyder. Bisciotti's been an owner for less time then Snyder. You make a lot of assumptions and state it as fact. You don't know what the Patroits will be post Brady and Belichick. And you don't know that Snyder's going to bring in a true GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 You make a lot of assumptions and state it as fact. You don't know what the Patroits will be post Brady and Belichick. And you don't know that Snyder's going to bring in a true GM. EB has been doing that a lot lately. Assumptions. I offered him a bet on the real outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Kraft bought the Patriots in '94 and Allen bought the Seahawks in '97. They haven't been owners much longer then Snyder. Bisciotti's been an owner for less time then Snyder. You make a lot of assumptions and state it as fact. You don't know what the Patroits will be post Brady and Belichick. And you don't know that Snyder's going to bring in a true GM. Kraft stayed with Parcells, then went with Carroll, and finally got it to work with Belichick, though certainly finding Brady helped big time. Case in point was it didn't happen overnight for him, he bought a team with a long, mediocre history, went through a couple big coaches and then finally struck gold with a good coach and a franchise QB. Seahawks have a putrid history, no Superbowl. Holmgren gets brought in and finds Hasslebeck, team improves, but no Superbowl in his whole time. Again, point was owner learned over time. Bisciotti has been an owner since 2000. I consider 13 years for him, 16 years for Allen, and 19 for Kraft a long time. The point was that owners can learn over time and improve. The poster I replied to said things will remain the same, which is why I pointed out improvements of others over time AND pointed out that Snyder has learned and stepped aside after '09. You must have missed my point because your response didn't address it. I state assumptions with the GM as something I believe. It's obvious nobody knows what the exact future holds, so the assumption should be that I am expressing a strong belief. As stated on here, that strong belief is based on things from people who's opinions I trust because of their good track records on such matters. And I know odds. The odds that the Patriots find another franchise QB after Brady aren't good. The odds of having continued success after a dynasty ends with the QB and HC gone, are very small. Every great franchise goes through lull periods. The Packers are the only recent one that saw continued success and that was because they had a franchise QB immediately follow their previous one and that is a rarity in the NFL. EB has been doing that a lot lately. Assumptions. I offered him a bet on the real outcome. No I haven't, this is just exaggeration on your part because you don't like what I've said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SusqySkin Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Why are the redskins a perennial loser? And those other teams fantastic? Is the cancer being spread by their loser owner Dan Snyder? Is it bad karma from having a racist team name? Is it our loser scouting department? Let's hear your thoughts Once thing is certain Five, Ten, Twenty years from now, those winning teams will still be winning ... and the skins will still be steeped in drama, dysfunction, and a loser mentality. Horrible op. Why are you starting threads where it seems you have this all figured out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SicEm10 Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Lol at choosing Seahawks, Patriots and Ravens as examples of "great franchises" Maybe the Patriots once Brady and Belichick are done, but definitely not the Ravens and Seahawks yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrFan Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 2. The Fans - Redskins fans are by FAR the most impatient fans in the United States, they want results and they want them now - They are very critical of coaches which is why we meaning The Redskins have a new coach every four years - WE are very critical of QB's which is why we haven't had a QB in twenty years 3. Dan Snyder - Gotta love him for his passion for the team, unfortunately as much as we would like to think he keeps his hands off, I honestly don't think he can or ever will. - We should embrace that he currently trusts Shanny and supposedly gives him full control, because this may not be the case for the next GM or Coach. - Dan replaces the coach every four years. - Dan loves to play favorites see Portis, Lavar, now Griffen, if you sell jerseys, you WILL become his favorite. 4. Extremeskins - I have said this before, IMO this website, especially the Stadium is constantly full of negative garbage and is a mouth piece for the media, unfortunately ES is attached to the "The Official Website of The Washington Redskins" . The Fans: You're blaming some of the fans here for being impatient while this has been the major trait of our owner for a decade. Remember when Dan Snyder opened up his big wallet and said I don't want to win the SB this year I want to win it every year. Who put their hopes that high ? Don't some of them have the right to become impatient after 12 years of dysfunctionality and messing around ? Dan Snyder: You mentioned his passion for the team, do you know an owner who doesn't have it ? That's how sad and costly it is to have an owner who's just a fan and doesn't know his 101 football managing. Last time he hired an experienced coach only Shanahan wanted to come here, I'm really concerned about that for the future of this franchise. Great coaches who will turn their back on us because of him, and the very few others coming for the $$$. I wish he will finally change for real for the benefit of this team, believe me if he does so, I'll be more than happy to jump on his bandwagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 For what it's worth, I read the OP, dismissed it at gibberish, and replied anyways because it's actually a decent conversation piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 The Fans: You're blaming some of the fans here for being impatient while this has been the major trait of our owner for a decade. Remember when Dan Snyder opened up his big wallet and said I don't want to win the SB this year I want to win it every year. Who put their hopes that high ? Don't some of them have the right to become impatient after 12 years of dysfunctionality and messing around ? Dan Snyder: Redskins fans are so impatient that we already have a QB controversy one year after he won offensive rookie of the year, he carried the team to the playoffs and won a division title. Griff is getting destroyed right now and he shouldn't be , in most towns fans accept a horrible second season as part of the learning curve, in DC fans want to clean house and call their QB a bust. IMO Players feel the climate of the town they're in, DC is a constant negative if the Skins are not winning Super Bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HogNose Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Why are the redskins a perennial loser? And those other teams fantastic? Culture. This team has the same poisoned culture that it did back when Shuler was drafted and Norv was chewing on pencils. It has never changed. it is all on Snyder. All of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Probos Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 No one on this board can answer the OP's question because we're fans and basically know nothing about properly running an NFL franchise. But there are a few things that seem to be constants on good quality teams: - A strong GM - A franchise QB - A top defense The Skins potentially have the franchise QB. The organizational culture is poisoned right now. I think a way to change that is hiring a strong GM with a solid vision that in turn hires the HC. The hopefully build on things from there,.... That's it,.....I really don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 I wonder what Danny's relationship is with other owners. We know about him and JJ in Dallas, but I wonder if he takes notes from the Baltimore owner or the NE owner, especially the Baltimore owner. is there any kind of a friendly rivalry there? Do they talk / hang out at all? Is there tension? I haven't heard much about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Lmaooo The Cowboys have how many more SB's than us?? Quit reaching man In the last 20 years? The Cowboys have really dominated, huh? Give me a break. They are undeserving media darlings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Let's take a look at NFL History just a little bit. Every team that is considered to be "top tier" or a Dynasty has had ups and downs throughout it's history. Green Bay was great three times through it's history: When Lombardi was there, then they were down for YEARS, then surged under Holmgren/Favre, and then transitioned into McCarthy/Rodgers. They are one of only 2 teams that have been able to maintain consistency and be consistently great through different coaches and QBs. The reason is that they were well run, and Favre tied them over to Rodgers. So, they're going to end up with 25+ years of great QB play and very good coaching. But between Lombardi and Holmgren, they were pretty bad for a long period of time. San Fran is the other team. They were horrendously awful until Walsh got there. They they were spectacular for 20 years. Why? Well, Walsh/Montana gave way to Seifert/Young. And say what you want about George, he won 2 SBs with the 49ers as HC, and was the DC for the others. Young and Montana both are in the HOF. However, after Young retired, things got a little dicey. They maintained some respectability, but then eventually bottomed out until Harbaugh got there. Now, they look like they're back on track. The Steelers were a dynasty in the 70's. The reason? Well, the entire freaking team and HC is in the HOF. But then they got old, and bottomed out in the 80's. They maintained some respetability, but suffered through QBs like Kordell Stewert and that O'Donnell guy before finally finding Big Ben, and getting back to the promise land. They are probably the most consistent franchise through the yeas, but they also spent almost a decade trying to compete. The Patriots were junk before Belichick and Brady got there. Made 1 SB, and got blown out in '85, but really did nothing else. The Saints were the 'Aints before Payton and Brees. The Giants were great in the 40's/50's, then disappeared, then were great in the 80's under Parcells/Simms, then disappeared. Managed to make 2 SB runs recently, but never win more than 10 games a year. Dallas was a dynasty in the 70's and 90's, and has been pretty bad otherwise. The Dolphins under Shula were one of the best run organizations of all time. Even though Jimmy Johnson came in to replace him, and they still had Marino, they've been squat since. Everything is cyclical. I actually think the 'Skins have turned a corner. Call me the optimist. But I think that Dan has learned that he needs to pick the people and stay out of things. He might have to pick a different person, but he's not meddling, and he's not trying to play fantasy owner. And I still believe in Griffin, if he can get his head right and his footwork ironed out. But honestly, in todays NFL, if Griffin had been healthy this year, no ACL surgery, and no cap penalty, I think that they win 12 games. With this coaching staff, with a lot of the same players. But the injury and the cap penalty, and then a whole lot of stupid from players and coaches just doomed the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 It is so hard being a 'skins fan and watching the success of the Ravens every fricking year. Why can't we be like them? It starts with the owner and the lack of a true "football' front office structure. It's as simple as that and if you argue with me you will lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldysknzfn1 Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 We have a racist team name? You mean besides all the drama, soap operatic crap that's going on now? I agree w/Momma There Goes..it's cyclical...there's no one dominating team like there used to be back in the 70's, 80's and 90's.. We can get there w/the right changes within the organization as well as fans... I will also piggyback on a what a few others have said in this thread...the teams we see winning consistently now weren't always like that...it didn't happen overnight...I remember a time when you couldn't even say the name New England w/o collapsing into a laughing fit...Seattle the same way...and the Colts(when they were the Baltimore Colts) same...the Saints w/their fans wearing the paperbags...I also agree w/all the social media and the NFL network we are inundated w/football info...back in the day, it took all week to find out who we were playing on Sunday... We will get it together...hopefully before I keel over..lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Outside of the Gibbs years and a few years in Baugh era, haven't we just been losers or mediocre? For the most part, yes. Overall I would say that we're an average team and I think our franchise record (roughly 20 games over .500) demonstrates that. I would probably combine the Gibbs era with the Allen/Pardee era too. From 1971-1992, we were a very stable and competitive team most years. Then, of course, we had another golden age early in our existence with Baugh. But, from the mid-1940s through the 1960s (until Lombardi showed up) we were pretty bad. Then again, for most of the 1990s through now we've been in the same boat. Outside of the Gibbs years and a few years in Baugh era, haven't we just been losers or mediocre? For the most part, yes. Overall I would say that we're an average team and I think our franchise record (roughly 20 games over .500) demonstrates that. I would probably combine the Gibbs era with the Allen/Pardee era too. From 1971-1992, we were a very stable and competitive team most years. Then, of course, we had another golden age early in our existence with Baugh. But, from the mid-1940s through the 1960s (until Lombardi showed up) we were pretty bad. Then again, for most of the 1990s through now we've been in the same boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Funny in retrospect that I got hammered by some before the season when I made this point which is Shanny is no John Schneider when it comes to building a roster. Outside of Belichick what head coach is good at filling that duel role? I don't think Shanny has been a bad GM, he has been what I'd expect based on his history and expertise -- good (not great) at finding offensive players, mediocre to bad at finding defensive players. I think we have graded Shanny too much on a curve. Yeah based on Vinny's standards including his propensity for dumb trades and inflated contracts -- Shanny is a genius. But compared to the better GMs IMO, Shanny doesn't even close to stack up. Danny I think has too much fun with involving himself with personnel to let a strong GM take hold of the team. I buy the idea that Danny isn't calling the personnel shots, but there is too much smoke to the fire to the idea that he likes to give input and be in the mix, too. When he's wanted a coach bad -- Marty, Gibbs, Shanny, he has given them personnel control. But he has never tried the outright most basic way most teams build themselves into contenders and that is the traditional GM route with power over the coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.