Bruce Allen, Scot McCloughlan, Jay Gruden, and all that stuff like that there

[bowhunter]

3 hours ago, carex said:

 

one game wasn't a difference of four spots

I think that would have put us at #4 with Colts, Rams, Vikings picking ahead of us

[Skinsinparadise]

 

18 hours ago, carex said:

Redskins fans hate for Dan Snyder gives any disgruntled former player or coach an automatic excuse.  I loved RG3 and think mistakes made by the coaching staff were his big problem.  But I also think based on Shanny's personality and his actions after Elway in Denver that he doesn't want any QB who would upstage him.   Also, Snyder pleading with Shanny to do something and not getting his way is a point in favor of the idea that Mike Shannahan had full control. And I'd like to remind people that the QBs Spurrier wanted to choose between were Shane Matthews and Danny Wuerffel

 

I don't hate Dan, I'd love to love the guy.  I've never met him.  All I want is for an owner who doesn't meddle where IMO they shouldn't and most owners don't.  When the owner becomes pals with players and wants to play fantasy football with his team = good things don't usually happen.  And its weird.  You don't hear about the Rooney's going out with Big Ben as pals, etc.

 

The thing that gets me most in these debates is it often turns into a Dan was right to override so and so dummy or incompetent hire.  

 

I.e., Spurrier didn't know what he was doing, so good thing Dan stepped in.  Running with that logic how does Dan look good?   The narrative for some of Dan's defenders often has a least a dose of pitting him versus one of his hires.   If Dan hires bad coach after bad coach isn't that on him?  Isn't the top job of the owner to make good hires?  If its Dan versus Spurrier.  Dan versus Shanny.  Dan versus Marty.  Dan versus Norv.  Dan versus Zorn.  Who is the common denominator?  And if we've just had a series of clown hires that continually disappoint -- how does Dan come out on top of that equation?

 

To me you got either A or B.

 

A. Dan likes to meddle and mess in the soup when it comes to the operation and at least based on some of the examples that we hear about -- not only does he meddle but his football instincts are awful.

 

B.  The meddling drill is overplayed.  All these coaches and sources to the media continue to lie about Dan because of some weird witch hunt.  And Dan has been perfectly fine as an owner.  He's just made a lot of bad hires with bad character considering they habitually lie about their tenure and unfairly drag Dan into the discussion -- even though none of that stuff ever really happened. So if anything Dan is a bit of an unfair victim. 

 

I added some hyperbole above to make my point.  But I don't see how in either scenario Dan comes out on top.   Some like to turn the debate into people thinking he is evil or they are driven by some irrational hate.  I know I don't hate him not even a little bit.  I don't think most people here hate him either.  We just want him to get out of the way so this organization is run like the typical winning organization.   That's it.  And I do buy that he's not involved all the time and he's involved less than he used to be.  But when you got an owner pushing for a specific QB and actively pushing to trade away a series of #1 picks -- if that's all he's doing but doesn't mess with anything else -- that's still plenty enough to make a global difference to the fortunes of a franchise -- those are deals that transform an organization for better or worse. 

 

It's been said a few times that Jerry Jones wanted to take Manziel in the draft and even considered trading up for him -- and he was talked out of it by his son and the personnel guys on staff.  Imagine if Jones pulled that trigger and took him as opposed to Zach Martin?  That arguably might have changed the whole outlook of that team for years and not in a good way.  That's the stuff I don't want here.   It has zero to do with any personal animosity for Dan.  I've heard many times that dude is totally charming in person, I'd bet I'd have a blast with him going bowling just like RG3 had. 

 

 

 

[carex]

2 hours ago, bowhunter said:

I think that would have put us at #4 with Colts, Rams, Vikings picking ahead of us

 

that seems about right.  And the Rams had what we wanted, so we had to give what they wanted, a difference of two spots would not likely have lowered out cost

 

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

I don't hate Dan, I'd love to love the guy.  I've never met him.  All I want is for an owner who doesn't meddle where IMO they shouldn't and most owners don't.  When the owner becomes pals with players and wants to play fantasy football with his team = good things don't usually happen.  And its weird.  You don't hear about the Rooney's going out with Big Ben pals, etc.

 

The thing that gets me most in these debates is it often turns into a Dan was right to override so and so dummy or incompetent hire.  

 

I.e., Spurrier didn't know what he was doing, so good thing Dan stepped in.  Running with that logic how does Dan looks good?   The narrative for some of Dan's  defenders often has a least a dose of pitting him versus one of his hires.   If Dan hires bad coach after bad coach isn't that on him?  Isn't the top job of the owner to make good hires?  If its Dan versus Spurrier.  Dan versus Shanny.  Dan versus Marty.  Dan versus Norv.  Dan versus Zorn.  Who is the common denominator?  And if we've just had a series of clown hires that continually disappoint -- how does Dan come out on top of that equation?

 

To me you got either A or B.

 

A. Dan likes to meddle and mess in the soup when it comes to the operation hires and at least based on some of the examples that we hear about -- his football instincts are awful.

 

B.  That's overplayed.  All these coaches and sources continue to lie about Dan because of some off witch hunt.  And really what we are talking about is Dan has been perfectly fine as an owner.  He's just made a lot of bad hires wit bad character considering their habitually lie about their tenure.

 

I added some hyperbole to make my point.  But I don't see how in either scenario Dan comes out on top.   Some like to turn the debate into people thinkings his evil or having some irrational hate.  I know I don't hate him not even a little bit.  I don't think most people here hate him either.  We just want him to get out of the way so this organization is run like the typical winning organization.   That's it.  And I do buy that he's not involved all the time and he's involved less than he used to be.  But when you got an owner pushing for a specific QB and actively pushing to trade away a series #1 picks -- if that's all he's doing but doesn't mess with anything else -- that's still a heck of a lot -- those are deals that transform an organization for better or worse. 

 

It's been said a few times that Jerry Jones wanted to take Manziel in the draft and even considered trading up for him -- and was talked out of it by his son and the personnel guys on staff.  Imagine if Jones pulled that trigger and took him as opposed to Zach Martin?  That arguably might have changed the whole outlook of that team for years and not in a good way.  That's the stuff I don't want here.   It has zero to do with any personal animosity for Dan.  I've heard many times that dude is totally charming in person, I'd bet I'd have a blast with him going bowling like RG3 had. 

 

 

 

 

Few people come right in and know everything right off, it was a learning curve for him too.  Jones was lucky enough to come into the league with Jimmy Johnson, a college coach who could figure out the pro game, learned how to work the draft system and wasn't wedded to what had worked for him in college.  Jimmy Johnson brought in one of his college QBs, and then he traded him.  When Johnson left and Jones tried to run everything in Dallas the team deteriorated.  Snyder unfortunately didn't have a Johnson.  . 

 

I also question if Snyder made a series of awful hires.  I think he made one awful hire in Spurrier and one lousy hire in Zorn.  Marty?  He was Snyder's first coach, the team managed to be 8-8 but it turned out neither Snyder nor a significant number of the players actually liked him.  Gibbs was a fine hire.  Shanny?  He was in year four of a five year deal and the team seemed to have regressed

 

As for Griffin, we needed a QB.  People had been saying that for years.  We couldn't get Luck,  Even now people don't seem all that impressed with Ryan Tannehill.   

[NewCliche21]

10 minutes ago, carex said:

As for Griffin, we needed a QB.  People had been saying that for years.  We couldn't get Luck,  Even now people don't seem all that impressed with Ryan Tannehill.   

 

Context:  I loved the trade for Griffin.

 

Needing a quarterback and directly opposing what the guy you hired to do said, in order to trade the house to get, is a terrible idea.  I don't care who the quarterback would've been.  It was a bad, bad mistake.  Buying for need is always the worst choice.  Don't buy a car when yours is broken down; buy it when you can afford to say "no."

[carex]

3 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Context:  I loved the trade for Griffin.

 

Needing a quarterback and directly opposing what the guy you hired to do said, in order to trade the house to get, is a terrible idea.  I don't care who the quarterback would've been.  It was a bad, bad mistake.  Buying for need is always the worst choice.  Don't buy a car when yours is broken down; buy it when you can afford to say "no."

 

For a while wasn't a lot of Shanny's complaints couched in hindsight?  Like "well if we knew the NFL was stripping 40 million from us"

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Whether we needed a QB or not, that's up to those he hired to determine how they go about acquiring one.  At most, those he hired should be coming to him saying "Hey, we're about to trade the farm to get X player, are you okay with that?".  He shouldn't be the ringleader for such acquisitions.  The best leaders know what they don't know, perhaps Danny has picked up on that by now, but for the majority of his ownership that is not the case.

[carex]

8 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Whether we needed a QB or not, that's up to those he hired to determine how they go about acquiring one.  At most, those he hired should be coming to him saying "Hey, we're about to trade the farm to get X player, are you okay with that?".  He shouldn't be the ringleader for such acquisitions.  The best leaders know what they don't know, perhaps Danny has picked up on that by now, but for the majority of his ownership that is not the case.

 

with the trade being made before the cap penalty most would have been fine with it.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

15 minutes ago, carex said:

 

with the trade being made before the cap penalty most would have been fine with it.

Who is most? And what does that really matter?  The point is Dan doesn't have any business providing input, advice, solutions or direction in regards to player acquisition.

[carex]

3 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Who is most? And what does that really matter?  The point is Dan doesn't have any business providing input, advice, solutions or direction in regards to player acquisition.

 

I don't think even Cooke was that hands off

[MassSkinsFan]

38 minutes ago, carex said:

Few people come right in and know everything right off, it was a learning curve for him too.  Jones was lucky enough to come into the league with Jimmy Johnson, a college coach who could figure out the pro game, learned how to work the draft system and wasn't wedded to what had worked for him in college.  Jimmy Johnson brought in one of his college QBs, and then he traded him.  When Johnson left and Jones tried to run everything in Dallas the team deteriorated.  

 

A 15-20 year learning curve seems a bit excessive.

 

I know this has been beaten to death, but here are my two cents. Dan Snyder became rich because he got lucky with timing the sale of his start-up business funded with an investment of money by a rich guy. Aside from that one instance, he has a long history of failure. Sure, entrepreneurs do fail and it is expected, but this guy's batting something like 0.050. Anything he tries to actively manage falls apart. My cat Ernesto has a better entrepreneurial record.

 

So, evidence shows us that when it comes to running a business (not to starting one and unloading it for a boatload of money, but actually managing it and keeping it afloat) he is incompetent. While I appreciate his zeal as a fellow Skins fan, his managerial incompetence has negative impact on this franchise. It is debatable how much of that carries over to football operations/personnel decisions, but certainly managerial incompetence is the root cause of Vinny Cerrato as GM, Jim Zorn as HC, poor fan experience at FedEx, etc., etc.

 

Anyone that incompetent deserves our scorn. I do not hate Dan Snyder, I disdain him.

 

Quote

Snyder unfortunately didn't have a Johnson.  . 

 

@carex this gets my vote as the best out-of-context quote of 2017! 

[carex]

6 minutes ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

A 15-20 year learning curve seems a bit excessive.

 

I know this has been beaten to death, but here are my two cents. Dan Snyder became rich because he got lucky with timing the sale of his start-up business funded with an investment of money by a rich guy. Aside from that one instance, he has a long history of failure. Sure, entrepreneurs do fail and it is expected, but this guy's batting something like 0.050. Anything he tries to actively manage falls apart. My cat Ernesto has a better entrepreneurial record.

 

So, evidence shows us that when it comes to running a business (not to starting one and unloading it for a boatload of money, but actually managing it and keeping it afloat) he is incompetent. While I appreciate his zeal as a fellow Skins fan, his managerial incompetence has negative impact on this franchise. It is debatable how much of that carries over to football operations/personnel decisions, but certainly managerial incompetence is the root cause of Vinny Cerrato as GM, Jim Zorn as HC, poor fan experience at FedEx, etc., etc.

 

Anyone that incompetent deserves our scorn. I do not hate Dan Snyder, I disdain him.

 

 

is it actually a 15 - 20 year learning curve though?  He made his first bad coaching choice his second year in and his second his seventh and it was a hire he wasn't prepared to make cause Gibbs retired on him

[MassSkinsFan]

1 minute ago, carex said:

 

is it actually a 15 - 20 year learning curve though?  He made his first bad coaching choice his second year in and his second his seventh and it was a hire he wasn't prepared to make cause Gibbs retired on him

 

First, I was confused. He's owned the team for 18 years, so no way it's 15-20. Sorry!

 

But, when was the last really stupid managerial move and what was it? That's arguably the length of the learning curve. I'm assuming the idea is that we aren't brutally critical until he's caught up with that curve. 

 

What is it for a typical NFL owner? I have no clue, but I'm thinking it's less than 5 years.

[Skinsinparadise]

27 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Who is most? And what does that really matter?  The point is Dan doesn't have any business providing input, advice, solutions or direction in regards to player acquisition.

 

That's the bottom line for me.  Dan shouldn't be marching into Shanny's office telling him we should get Randy Moss, RG3, McNabb, etc.  That's not his job.  He's hired people to make those decisions.  If he's hiring the wrong people, that's on him too. 

 

1 hour ago, carex said:

 

Few people come right in and know everything right off, it was a learning curve for him too.  Jones was lucky enough to come into the league with Jimmy Johnson, a college coach who could figure out the pro game, learned how to work the draft system and wasn't wedded to what had worked for him in college.  Jimmy Johnson brought in one of his college QBs, and then he traded him.  When Johnson left and Jones tried to run everything in Dallas the team deteriorated.  Snyder unfortunately didn't have a Johnson.  . 

 

I used Jerry Jones as an example because he's the other guy like Dan who has the reputation of meddling.  Heck Jones has the title of GM.  Jones at least has a football background.  But yeah the fact that Jones had Jimmy to bail him out -- I agree.   But most owners don't need anyone to bail them out from their worst instincts -- they hire people and let them do their job and get out of the way.  Dan, Jerry and in his day Al Davis are exceptions not the norm.

 

1 hour ago, carex said:

 

As for Griffin, we needed a QB.  People had been saying that for years.  We couldn't get Luck,  Even now people don't seem all that impressed with Ryan Tannehill.   

 

Among Dan's QB drills.  I disagreed with the George over Brad Johnson drill.  Had no opinion on Ramsey at the time.  I somewhat liked the McNabb trade but wasn't gushing about it from what I recall.  Loved the RG3 trade at the time.  But I'm a fan.  To say I don't know as much about quarterbacks as Shanny would be a ridiculous understatement.  He's a professional, I am not.  So if Shanny told me the risk is too high to give up all those picks because RG3 is too much of a wildcard because of the system he came from -- then I'd listen to him.  He's the expert not me.   I hired him for his expertise. That's what I expect from Dan.    Like I said in another post, he shouldn't meddle in the first place.  But it astonishes me that he keeps doing it because wow have his instincts been mostly dramatically wrong when he does meddle.

[goskins10]

13 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

That's the bottom line for me.  Dan shouldn't be marching into Shanny's office telling him we should get Randy Moss, RG3, McNabb, etc.  That's not his job.  He's hired people to make those decisions.  If he's hiring the wrong people, that's on him too. 

 

 

Edit

 

 

I agree with everything you said except I hated the Robert trade. It was just too much, and said so then. Not starting a Robert discussion. I am speaking to the decision making part of the process. Of course like most every other fan I loved the trade after 2012. It was finally fun to watch Redskins football again. But then of course as he deteriorated I began to accept that he was not the right guy after all and totally supported Jay's decision to bench him.

 

I can't stand Shanny but I have to agree that if you hire people to do a job, you have to let them do that job. Micro-managing does not produce long lasting positive results.

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

I agree with everything you said except I hated the Robert trade. It was just too much, and said so then. Not starting a Robert discussion. I am speaking to the decision making part of the process. Of course like most every other fan I loved the trade after 2012. It was finally fun to watch Redskins football again. But then of course as he deteriorated I began to accept that he was not the right guy after all and totally supported Jay's decision to bench him.

 

I can't stand Shanny but I have to agree that if you hire people to do a job, you have to let them do that job. Micro-managing does not produce long lasting positive results.

 

The only example I can think of where Dan's instincts were proven to be correct was that he supposedly wanted Santana Moss over Rod Gardner.  But otherwise, wow what a list of colossal blunders.  And think of the ones they couldn't get done?  Got outbid for Jay Cutler where they'd have given up multiple high picks.  Ditto Mark Sanchez.  Vinny admitted in an interview Cincy turned down their offer of two #1s for Ocho Cinco when he was on the downside of his career.

 

But even if Dan's instincts were spot on.  His background is in telemarketing not football.  Let football people make football decisions. 

[carex]

18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The only example I can think of where Dan's instincts were proven to be correct was that he supposedly wanted Santana Moss over Rod Gardner.  But otherwise, wow what a list of colossal blunders.  And think of the ones they couldn't get done?  Got outbid for Jay Cutler where they'd have given up multiple high picks.  Ditto Mark Sanchez.  Vinny admitted in an interview Cincy turned down their offer of two #1s for Ocho Cinco when he was on the downside of his career.

 

But even if Dan's instincts were spot on.  His background is in telemarketing not football.  Let football people make football decisions. 

 

Dan's got to be the one to hire the football people though

 

47 minutes ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

First, I was confused. He's owned the team for 18 years, so no way it's 15-20. Sorry!

 

But, when was the last really stupid managerial move and what was it? That's arguably the length of the learning curve. I'm assuming the idea is that we aren't brutally critical until he's caught up with that curve. 

 

What is it for a typical NFL owner? I have no clue, but I'm thinking it's less than 5 years.

 

I'd say hiring Zorn as OC and then promoting him to coach, but the GMSM move is looking worse and worse.  And the way most NFL teams ownership works I would say it's impossible to create a learning curve for them

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, carex said:

 

Dan's got to be the one to hire the football people though

 

My issue with him isn't that he's hiring people.  It's that he's meddling with his hires.  If Dan has faith in hiring X, Y, Z.  Let them do their job and stay out of the way. If I am a businessman who buys a restaurant and my background isn't food -- I don't hire a michelin star chef and then walk into the kitchen and start sharing my personal recipes and insist on things they disagree with.    And if chef after chef flames out (who succeeded elsewhere) under my watch -- I'd start looking in the mirror and start saying maybe its me not them?

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

@carex Out of curiousity, what is it with you and defending Dan?  There are very few things I can think of off hand that the overwhelming majority of Skins fans agree on and Dan Snyder being a doofus is at the very top.  There are varying levels of 'hate' towards him I'll admit, but most everyone at minimum realizes he's a goober that should just write checks and keep his football opinions to himself. 

[carex]

3 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

@carex Out of curiousity, what is it with you and defending Dan?  There are very few things I can think of off hand that the overwhelming majority of Skins fans agree on and Dan Snyder being a doofus is at the very top.  There are varying levels of 'hate' towards him I'll admit, but most everyone at minimum realizes he's a goober that should just write checks and keep his football opinions to himself. 

 

because I'm not a fan of opinion stated as fact

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

17 minutes ago, carex said:

 

because I'm not a fan of opinion stated as fact

 

Buddy, there is an overwhelming amount of facts such as the teams track record since he's owned the team, coupled with a whole lot of opinions by a lot of different people that all say the same things.  So either there is one huge conspiracy against Dan Snyder or he's really the doofus folks say he is.

[carex]

9 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

Buddy, there is an overwhelming amount of facts such as the teams track record since he's owned the team, coupled with a whole lot of opinions by a lot of different people that all say the same things.  So either there is one huge conspiracy against Dan Snyder or he's really the doofus folks say he is.

 

the people who've said it all tend to be people he fired.  And people in sports all tend to have egos.  What's more likely?  "Dan was right to fire me/have me cut.  I sucked"  or "I'd have been fine without Snyder screwing with me."  Plus their stories aren't always as damning as some people think.  Shanahan claims he didn't have full personnel control because Snyder could suggest singing Randy Moss?  Shanny got to say no didn't he?

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

39 minutes ago, carex said:

 

the people who've said it all tend to be people he fired.  And people in sports all tend to have egos.  What's more likely?  "Dan was right to fire me/have me cut.  I sucked"  or "I'd have been fine without Snyder screwing with me." 

Not everyone with bad things to say about Snyder has been fired by him.  But even going by that, I've not seen one person fired by him blaming their demise solely on Dan's meddling.  The NFL is a relationship business and these fired coaches aren't stupid enough to slander an owner and hurt their future prospects.  It doesn't serve them well to make up BS about their former boss.  As a manager, when I'm interviewing someone and they throw even the slightest bit of shade toward their former or current boss, it's an immediate red flag. 

 

 

[NewCliche21]

1 hour ago, carex said:

 

the people who've said it all tend to be people he fired.  And people in sports all tend to have egos.  What's more likely?  "Dan was right to fire me/have me cut.  I sucked"  or "I'd have been fine without Snyder screwing with me."  Plus their stories aren't always as damning as some people think.  Shanahan claims he didn't have full personnel control because Snyder could suggest singing Randy Moss?  Shanny got to say no didn't he?

 

What would be an indicator of a bad owner?  Or good one?

[MassSkinsFan]

55 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

What would be an indicator of a bad owner?  Or good one?

 

W-L record

Number of consecutive years in the playoffs or with winning record

Fan satisfaction with: the team's performance; the game day experience; the team's reputation

Number of Super Bowl wins during owner's tenure

Number of damaging scandals/incidents/dramas during owner's tenure

 

These immediately spring to mind. Run other owners through this and see if these don't make sense as measures of an owner's effectiveness. Then run Dan Snyder through them. Grade: F

[NewCliche21]

1 minute ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

W-L record

Number of consecutive years in the playoffs or with winning record

Fan satisfaction with: the team's performance; the game day experience; the team's reputation

Number of Super Bowl wins during owner's tenure

Number of damaging scandals/incidents/dramas during owner's tenure

 

These immediately spring to mind. Run other owners through this and see if these don't make sense as measures of an owner's effectiveness. Then run Dan Snyder through them. Grade: F

 

I agree with all of those things.

 

Well my question was more because @carex was dismissing anything negative someone said as just a fired employee with sour grapes.  If that's true, then would any positive things be only said by those who are on his payroll?  If those are true, then who would be qualified to say whether or not he's a bad or good owner?

 

My thought is that if after almost 20 years you hear bad things from employee after employee, it's probably the owner.  If he were a good owner, then he wouldn't have anything to defend against.