NoVaSkins21 Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 I fully realize that the Skins will NEVER succeed with Snyder at the helm. I wanted to start a thread because this season has been full of drama and it's just the beginning. Both Howard Milstein and John Kent Cooke were denied ownership of this team for different reasons. However, I wanted to know from you guys which would've made a better owner had they been given the chance. Personally, I think John Kent Cooke would've been more qualified given the his pedigree. I think that he would've hired a competent GM who would've had autonomy to make the right personnel decisions. Here's hoping for a lengthly and lively discussion in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Neither. John Kent Cooke was terrible. Howard Milstein was terrible. We had the 3 stooges lined up to own our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Neither. John Kent Cooke was terrible. Howard Milstein was terrible. We had the 3 stooges lined up to own our team. Yep. There was a reason pops left the team to the highest bidder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Neither. John Kent Cooke was terrible. Howard Milstein was terrible. We had the 3 stooges lined up to own our team. Yeah, just because Snyder sucks donkey balls let's not romanticize others. John K Cooke was a nice guy, but he ran the team into the ground the last few years when all his Dad's energies were going into building a new stadium. I read an interview of him where he criticized El Dano for firing Norv and Casserly. Dan deserves a lot of fecal matter for atrocious decisions, but Casserly was the worst GM in the NFL during his tenure here (and also failed almost as badly with the Texans), and Norvo is, well, Norvo. If he'd gotten Daddy's team, we'd be a perennial 6-8 win/year team....which isn't too much better than now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 John simply did not have the ability Jack did to judge talent. But I do think it is unfair to completely judge him on the post JKC death 2 years, seeing he was trying to get the team. If anything, you can give John and Charley the bulk of credit for the 1999 season and having the team set up very well for the 2000s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdlives Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 John definitely wasn't his father, but he would've been 10x the owner Snyder is. He didn't hire Casserly, he was left Casserly. I'm not going to pretend I know for a fact that Cooke would've been a great owner or that we'd be a perennial contender, but I do know we'd be way better off now then we are. Also, don't forget, things were changing in the NFL at that time. Everyone was trying to figure out how FA was going to change things. At least Cooke would've left football people to do their jobs instead of trying to play jock sniffing fantasy owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Ted Leonsis....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Clark Fan Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 This John definitely wasn't his father, but he would've been 10x the owner Snyder is. He didn't hire Casserly, he was left Casserly. I'm not going to pretend I know for a fact that Cooke would've been a great owner or that we'd be a perennial contender, but I do know we'd be way better off now then we are. Also, don't forget, things were changing in the NFL at that time. Everyone was trying to figure out how FA was going to change things. At least Cooke would've left football people to do their jobs instead of trying to play jock sniffing fantasy owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I seem to remeber a scenario where the Milstein Group (of which Snyder was a member) backed out of the deal (or were somehow left out) and that Snyder stepped in to make the move on his own. This was seen at the time as Danny playing dirty pool. Does anyone remember the details or am I way off base here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SB17 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Interesting discussion, as I had thought about starting a thread similar to this. Glad you started it, Sali457180. For some strange reason, I think that if Milstein had been allowed to buy the team, we'd have a different name by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I seem to remeber a scenario where the Milstein Group (of which Snyder was a member) backed out of the deal (or were somehow left out) and that Snyder stepped in to make the move on his own. This was seen at the time as Danny playing dirty pool. Does anyone remember the details or am I way off base here? No, what happened was that the more the NFL looked into Howard Milstein and his stewardship of the New York Islanders -- which was marked by his ownership group's constant attempts to sue to try to get the Islanders out of their lease agreement in Long Island -- the more the NFL became wary of him. Some of these wary League officials went to Snyder and basically said: Look, we're gonna torpedo the Milstein bid if he doesn't withdraw it. But we kinda like you. You're rich. You're from the area in question. You've been a lifelong fan of the team. We don't fear that you're gonna buy the team, and turn around and relocate it in a few years. So why don't you put forward your own bid for the Redskins? That's essentially what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 John simply did not have the ability Jack did to judge talent. But I do think it is unfair to completely judge him on the post JKC death 2 years, seeing he was trying to get the team. If anything, you can give John and Charley the bulk of credit for the 1999 season and having the team set up very well for the 2000s When you look back at the John kent Cooke Casserly years they weren't so bad A division title in 1999 with 3 first round picks in 2000. I mean, that's pretty good right? Enter Vinny and Dan. 3 picks in the first turns into 2, one of which pans out. Our QB is cut and goes on to win a Super Bowl somewhere else. All of our young talent is replaced with aging superstars I know the narrative is that John kent Cooke was a bad owner, but he was better than Snyder. Much better. And maybe the reason he didnt invest a lot of cash into the team is because, I dunno, HE WASN'T SURE HE WOULD OWN IT FOR MUCH LONGER? I know, crazy theory. I mean. Snyder has injected a ton of cash into the teams facilities, redskins park, and FedEx field! John definitely wasn't his father, but he would've been 10x the owner Snyder is. He didn't hire Casserly, he was left Casserly. I'm not going to pretend I know for a fact that Cooke would've been a great owner or that we'd be a perennial contender, but I do know we'd be way better off now then we are. Also, don't forget, things were changing in the NFL at that time. Everyone was trying to figure out how FA was going to change things. At least Cooke would've left football people to do their jobs instead of trying to play jock sniffing fantasy owner. It's a good thing Snyder is past his jock sniffing days. Those were terrible! Wait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 When you look back at the John kent Cooke Casserly years they weren't so bad A division title in 1999 with 3 first round picks in 2000. I mean, that's pretty good right? Enter Vinny and Dan. 3 picks in the first turns into 2, one of which pans out. Our QB is cut and goes on to win a Super Bowl somewhere else. All of our young talent is replaced with aging superstars The franchise was set with lots of picks and cap space and some good young players. The fact we didn't dominate the division for a decade is terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Yeah - we screwed the Panthers out of 2 1sts for Sean Gilbert (God told us to), and then got the Saints entire draft in 99 plus their 1st and 3rd in 2000. So 5 first rounders in 2 years! But....Casserly trades back almost all of the Ricky Williams picks to draft Champ Bailey, trades a 1st 2nd and 3rd for Brad Johnson, and then Vinny Bugeyes trades 2 1sts and a 3rd to move up to the #3 pick. On top of that, ALL the 2nd day picks of both drafts are busts. So 5 1sts, 2 2nds 4 3rds and 3 each of lower picks lands us Brad Johnson, champ Bailey, Jansen, Lavar, and Samuels, and nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 All three are bad, but only one has proven to be a complete and utter failure of an owner. More importantly, what's the theme with Dan Snyder? Yeah, hype and losing...but we may have gotten the same from the other two. What make Dan so special? TOXICITY. The man breeds the stuff. He's a toxic personality and it trickles down into the entire franchise. It's fine to be a bad team every now and then...there's the draft and 'next year.' It's another thing entirely to have a disfunctional, loathsome, and drama-soaked franchise that's turned into the joke of the league. That, my suffering friends, is why Dan Synder is the worst owner possible of the three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexa Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 John Kent Cooke and it's not even close. When he was running the team 97 and 98, he was also answering to his fathers trustees. Cooke had his hands tied from what I remember and that's why Trent Green skipped town. But as someone mentioned, Cooke would have professionals running the team. Old Ball Coach and Jom Zorn would have never been hired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profusion Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 John Cooke helped clean up a big mess in the '90s. The George Allen/Bobby Beathard method of building the team by trading draft picks for veterans and paying top dollar for everything ran aground in the early '90s due to the implementation of the salary cap. The Skins were probably the hardest hit team in that regard. John had to rebuild almost from scratch and he did a good job under the circumstances. They bottomed out in '93-94 and were back to .500 ball within a couple years and were a loaded division winner in '99. It seemed like it took a long time while it was happening, but it was just a blink of an eye compared to the last 15 years of misery under Snyder. Milstein seemed shady from the get-go, but maybe that's just the way the press portrayed him. At least he had been a sports owner before, so maybe he would have done better over time than Snyder has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SB17 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Let's change the tables a little: A major sports franchise (other than one in the NFL) is up for sale, and Dan Snyder is in hot pursuit to buy it. Does the league/association approve his ownership based on how he has owned the Redskins? The resounding answer to that question says everything about the type of owner he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.