The Definition of a Loser Franchise

[CjSuAvE22]

5 minutes ago, The Batman said:

 

Okay. I'm naive because of the secret Bruce Allen conspiracy to wrest power but deflect blame onto the man who literally told Snyder to hire him in the first place. Also, I edited my comment so you may not have seen this.

 

So you're treating Allen's time working directly under Shanahan in which it was widely reported that Shanahan had final say on all football matters as the same as when Allen took Shanahan's old job. That makes no sense to me, but okay. Allen also hired the coach responsible for one of only 3 Redskins playoff appearances that weren't under Joe Jackson Gibbs since 1976. A coach who had us one horrible Cousins game against a 2 win team away from back to back playoff appearances, something we have not done without Gibbs since 1974. But sure. Vinny was better.

 

How many playoff coaches did Vinny hire other than the 3x Super Bowl winner? I'll wait.

If you want to remove Gibbs because he’s a hall of gamer u must as well remove Shanahan, which would give Allen one more than Cerrato, what’s your point Allen’s win oct is still lower than Cerratos but we are fighting over Tids and bits neither times were we successfull in the playoffs how will you feel about our team after they win a maximum of 5 games next year mark this post because that’s how many we will win...

[my_friend_goo]

On the one hand, I see what they're doing here. On the other hand, I just don't get what they're doing here. 

 

Ownership of this decision and the circumstances that brought it about lies with Bruce and it's this he has to be appraised on. Frankly, his objective for the year need to be to put together a team that pulls in 10+ wins a year from here on in. The team was already an 8-8 +/- 1 kind of team. Otherwise throwing away a young CB with a lot of promise and a 3rd round pick just to get to the same place is relatively pointless. Anything less than an improvement needs to result in Bruce being thrown out on his backside along with anybody else who bought into this plan.

 

I don't think I could bring myself to want this team to fail. My worse fear though is that maintaining the status quo gives Bruce a reprieve for as long as it lasts.

[Rufus T Firefly]

4 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I think you have an excellent post.  This is the only part that I disagree with, in this way.  I don't think that there was any way that they could have done a sign and trade this year because it would have necessitated Kirk's cooperation, which wasn't going to happen.

 

There is absolutely no reason to think Kirk wouldn't have wanted to help set himself up for the long-term in a place where he wanted to be, where he could win, and  for a lot more money. Guys don't pass that up so they can waste a year of their prime so they can spite their team.

 

Even the worst case means you let him play out the year. Yeah it costs a lot. But you can deal with a one year cap hit, while you draft a rookie and then play him when he's ready. It's better than the trade cost and 71 mil in guarantees for an older Alex Smith.

 

But again, I think there's virtually zero chance that happens. There are team that want him and where Kirk would rather be. And those teams would have been willing to give something up to get him.

[skins4eva]

I think we all know that Dan Snyder is the root of all evils with this franchise.  And that nothing will change so long as he owns the team.  That's the one fundamental truth that exists with this team.  Through all the owners, all the trades, all the absurdity, there's always Snyder the loser insisting that he be called Mr. Synder, smoking his cigar and jock-sniffing himself into an orgasmic maelstrom of self-indulgence with severe undertones of deep-seated insecurity.   

[Fred Jones]

I have this fear that the skins will never win until we get a new owner. As the years continue to pass my fear continues to grow.

I don't like this trade because we gave up a future starting CB and third round pick for a player that is not going to do anything more than our current QB did. We now have to replace the CB and lost a possible starter in the draft pick. And Allen did it to remain in the 7-9 win range with maybe hitting 10 wins on a lucky season and early bow out of any playoff run we happen to luck into.

Why the heck can't we draft a QB? Is the current draft that bad that you can't find one in the first round?

Cousins was not coming back, that much is certain. But, Allen seemed to panic and I agree with others that Allen did this for Allen.

It is just going to be frustrating to continue to watch an average skins team compete while Philly wins the division with a franchise QB and good defense. And, other teams like the 49's, Saints and Vikings make playoff runs because they did a better job acquiring talent.

[skins island connection]

3 hours ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

You are very naive and don’t tell me I’m wrong your main point was we are better than we were under Cerrato and that simply is not true....

 

 Bruce Allen is a steaming pile of rich brown dog ****.

 Vinny Cerrato is a steaming pile of light brown dog ****.

 

 Hope that helps you 2 in your discussion...

[c slag]

4-12 or 2-14 would be just what this team needs although I would be upset maybe hitting rock bottom would be good 

Bring in a new GM

The only way to go once you hit bottom is up 

[SkinsFTW]

6 hours ago, The Batman said:

 A coach who had us one horrible Cousins game against a 2 win team away from back to back playoff appearances, something we have not done without Gibbs since 1974. But sure. Vinny was better.

 

This is how people get confused and start believing that 8-8 is the same thing as a playoff appearance, which is actually equivalent to a SB championship to Dan Snyder and his gaggle of buffoons.

[Riggo-toni]

[zoony]

Can we count the gibbs years with vinny?  Not sure thats apples to apples

[Taylor 36]

21 hours ago, The Batman said:

 

I may have not followed this closely enough, ....

Clearly, reading your posts in this thread, you haven't really followed much of anything at all.  There is a 180 page thread that more than covers every anti-Kirk argument that you are trying to make in this non-Kirk thread, including the low-ball, under-market offers the Redskins have offered to Kirk and the offers, even bargain one in 2015, that they rejected from Kirk's camp.  This mess is 100% on the FO.  Look things up before posting, especially if you know that you haven't been following and are not up to speed.  More reading; less typing. 

[Taylor 36]

19 hours ago, The Batman said:

 

So you're treating Allen's time working directly under Shanahan in which it was widely reported that Shanahan had final say on all football matters as the same as when Allen took Shanahan's old job. That makes no sense to me, but okay. Allen also hired the coach responsible for one of only 3 Redskins playoff appearances that weren't under Joe Jackson Gibbs since 1976. A coach who had us one horrible Cousins game against a 2 win team away from back to back playoff appearances, something we have not done without Gibbs since 1974. But sure. Vinny was better.

Dude, just stop!  You are so factually wrong and proving you don't know **** about your own supposed favorite team, never mind the game of football, that it is embarrassing.  Gibbs didn't start coaching in DC until the 1981 season, but now he had playoff appearances in the mid-'70's?  Just stop!!!!

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

One thing I'll never be able to wrap my head around is how no matter how you feel about X player or coach, most everyone is in some level of agreement that Dan Snyder is a rather awful owner that makes bad hires and has no idea how to build a winning organization.  Save for a few loonies, that will remain nameless, that I'm convinced are either family or sent here by the FO.

 

Yet, somehow, some way, villains are always made of ex or soon to be ex players, coaches, "GM"'s, you name it.  If you can wrap your head around the fact that this organization is ran by nimrods, why do you redirect your hatred to players and coaches that have been dealt a bad hand to begin with?  The latest example, Kirk is the villain, the shrewd greedy a-hole, bending the team over backwards.  It doesn't strike anyone strange that the guy who's started at QB for 3 years in the same system has been ready to give all that up because of what he's seen and experienced over his total of six years with this team?  A guy who no matter how you feel about as a quarterback has always been a class act as a person.  So what's more likely?  Kirk is really just some greedy a-hole joe schmo QB looking to pull the wool over another franchises' eyes?  Or that what he's seen and experienced over the years at Redskins Park is just not something a man with a choice wants to tie his career to?  Kirk is only just the latest to experience this stuff here.  He's not alone.  A lot of folks leave here with a bad taste in their mouth.

 

No matter which way you slice it, the fact that a guy doesn't want to sign here is rather embarrassing.  In fact, it's only something that would happen to a franchise that fits the definition of a loser franchise to a T.

[Rocky21]

Everything that has happened to this franchise — all the embarrassment, all the losing, all of the turmoil — is the responsibility of Snyder.

[onedrop]

11 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

No matter which way you slice it, the fact that a guy doesn't want to sign here is rather embarrassing.  In fact, it's only something that would happen to a franchise that fits the definition of a loser franchise to a T.

 

exactly. the official line is..."well he obviously DIDNT want to be here"......negatively react as necessary....

 

when the real question should be, WHY doesn't someone want to be here? better yet, after already experiencing all that this lovely organization has to offer why would anyone choose to stay? money is the only answer I can see.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 minute ago, onedrop said:

 

when the real question should be, WHY doesn't someone want to be here?

 

I've asked and nobody really wants to answer that question honestly.  Perhaps it's too morbid and depressing.

[The Batman]

13 hours ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

This is how people get confused and start believing that 8-8 is the same thing as a playoff appearance, which is actually equivalent to a SB championship to Dan Snyder and his gaggle of buffoons.

 

That year, it would have been. Would I be satisfied? No, and I think most fans wouldn’t be. Is a playoff appearance still better than a not playoff appearance? Yes. You know who you sound like with that argument? Name this quote:

 

”Our goal is to win the Super Bowl. Not just this year, but every year.”

 

1 hour ago, Taylor 36 said:

Clearly, reading your posts in this thread, you haven't really followed much of anything at all.  There is a 180 page thread that more than covers every anti-Kirk argument that you are trying to make in this non-Kirk thread, including the low-ball, under-market offers the Redskins have offered to Kirk and the offers, even bargain one in 2015, that they rejected from Kirk's camp.  This mess is 100% on the FO.  Look things up before posting, especially if you know that you haven't been following and are not up to speed.  More reading; less typing. 

 

I’ve read that thread, and many others. What I said was a qualifier. I’m aware of the idea that the FO low-balled him somewhat, but also offered him what is probably closer to his actual value than what he’s going to get. After 2015, committing to him long-term could have DESTROYED us as a franchise if he didn’t pan out. Hindsight is 20/20. We lambasted this team and FO for overpaying players for years, and now we are roasting them for being too cheap. I’m simply pointing out that Kirk was not worth the money he’s going to command now, maybe to a different team, but not one with our team composition and salary cap. If we had offered him to become the highest paid player in the NFL, he’d still be a choke prone inconsistent top 10ish QB at age 30 that takes up a huge chunk of our cap. As the team is structured now, I don’t know if we would have ever won anything of significance with that on the books, since we know for a fact he doesn’t elevate the roster to SB contender status.

 

Please consider the source as well when you read these things. Kirk’s camp had a very good reason to leak all the offers the big, bad Redskins rejected. It places pressure on his employer to give him a better offer to placate fans. Do I know that happened and it isn’t the 100% fact that everything Kirk’s camp said was true? No. Neither do you.

1 hour ago, Taylor 36 said:

Dude, just stop!  You are so factually wrong and proving you don't know **** about your own supposed favorite team, never mind the game of football, that it is embarrassing.  Gibbs didn't start coaching in DC until the 1981 season, but now he had playoff appearances in the mid-'70's?  Just stop!!!!

 

No, lol. I understand reading comprehension is hard, but let’s try again. 

 

“Allen also hired the coach responsible for one of only 3 Redskins playoff appearances that weren’t under Joe Jackson Gibbs since 1976. A coach who had us one horrible Cousins game against a 2 win team away from back to back playoff appearances, something we have not done without Gibbs since 1974.”

 

Of key importance in these sentences are the words “weren’t” and “without”. Let’s reframe them, shall we?

 

Gibbs did these things for us in his tenure as the Redskins head coach. To find a Redskins coach that IS NOT JOE GIBBS that took us to the playoffs aside from the 3 I mentioned (those being Norv Turner, Mike Shanahan, and Jay Gruden), we must go back to 1976 and George Allen. To find a coach that is NOT JOE GIBBS who took us to back to back playoff appearances, we must go back to 1974 and again, George Allen. Given your inability to process even these most basic of sentences without foaming at the mouth about silencing me, you’ll excuse me if I doubt your analysis of my other posts in this thread.

 

Less typing; more reading (comprehension).

[onedrop]

10 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

I've asked and nobody really wants to answer that question honestly.  Perhaps it's too morbid and depressing.

some of it has to do with this organization's main reason to exist. in the allen era that reason isn't to win. the redskins exist to "need". as a current, future and constant alibi and or excuse. we are kept always needing something, some magical unicorn that will tie everything together and make us a winner!!! its the line they use to entice people to come here(along with bags of money) "you are the missing piece player X"....its the basis for the constant state of flux that makes us fans upset, debate losing a key player, debate the optional replacements, argue once the next up is chosen and then stick around to see if it works out and changes anything. if we are kept NEEDING we will always be waiting, watching and expecting. otherwise the building would be complete enough to demand results and jobs would be lost, heads would roll, and fans would roll out.

[JCB]

The great Joe Jackson Gibbs should go into the HOF *again* for making the playoffs twice under Snyder's ownership.

[skins4eva]

16 hours ago, c slag said:

4-12 or 2-14 would be just what this team needs although I would be upset maybe hitting rock bottom would be good 

Bring in a new GM

The only way to go once you hit bottom is up 

 

That's what we've been saying for two decades now.  Never gonna happen.

[The Batman]

2 minutes ago, JCB said:

The great Joe Jackson Gibbs should go into the HOF *again* for making the playoffs twice under Snyder's ownership.

 

You better believe it. And his tenure here under Snyder was an oasis in a vast desert of completely uncompetitive teams that couldn't even take advantage of their crap factor because Cerrato kept trading every draft pick he could get his hands on, hamstringing even Gibbs.

[The Batman]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

One thing I'll never be able to wrap my head around is how no matter how you feel about X player or coach, most everyone is in some level of agreement that Dan Snyder is a rather awful owner that makes bad hires and has no idea how to build a winning organization.  Save for a few loonies, that will remain nameless, that I'm convinced are either family or sent here by the FO.

 

Yet, somehow, some way, villains are always made of ex or soon to be ex players, coaches, "GM"'s, you name it.  If you can wrap your head around the fact that this organization is ran by nimrods, why do you redirect your hatred to players and coaches that have been dealt a bad hand to begin with?  The latest example, Kirk is the villain, the shrewd greedy a-hole, bending the team over backwards.  It doesn't strike anyone strange that the guy who's started at QB for 3 years in the same system has been ready to give all that up because of what he's seen and experienced over his total of six years with this team?  A guy who no matter how you feel about as a quarterback has always been a class act as a person.  So what's more likely?  Kirk is really just some greedy a-hole joe schmo QB looking to pull the wool over another franchises' eyes?  Or that what he's seen and experienced over the years at Redskins Park is just not something a man with a choice wants to tie his career to?  Kirk is only just the latest to experience this stuff here.  He's not alone.  A lot of folks leave here with a bad taste in their mouth.

 

No matter which way you slice it, the fact that a guy doesn't want to sign here is rather embarrassing.  In fact, it's only something that would happen to a franchise that fits the definition of a loser franchise to a T.

 

I agree that the franchise is a mess from an organizational standpoint. But please spare me the sob story for Kirk's "tying his career" to the Redskins. We MADE his career. We hired a coach to help ease his transition to overtake a guy we traded 2 first round picks for after no other teams took him for 3 full rounds and part of a fourth and continued to give him a chance even when his early career was almost irredeemable and franchise tagged him two straight years, making him 45 million dollars in 2 years. If he chooses not to tie his career to Washington, cool. But the Redskins are a big reason why he has a career in the NFL right now, and the dude has been classy, so I wish him well, but it isn't like we owed him better. We treated him very, very well - even if not lately, more than enough in the beginning to make up for it.

[The Consigliere]

58 minutes ago, Rocky21 said:

Everything that has happened to this franchise — all the embarrassment, all the losing, all of the turmoil — is the responsibility of Snyder.

except for 1993-1998. He gets out of that, but yeah, the previous 19 years, all on him. Buck stops with him and it's always been emphatically clear that his hiring interests are connected to loyalty to him first and foremost, and competence and creativity always come last. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

16 minutes ago, The Batman said:

 

I agree that the franchise is a mess from an organizational standpoint. But please spare me the sob story for Kirk's "tying his career" to the Redskins. We MADE his career. We hired a coach to help ease his transition to overtake a guy we traded 2 first round picks for after no other teams took him for 3 full rounds and part of a fourth and continued to give him a chance even when his early career was almost irredeemable and franchise tagged him two straight years, making him 45 million dollars in 2 years. If he chooses not to tie his career to Washington, cool. But the Redskins are a big reason why he has a career in the NFL right now, and the dude has been classy, so I wish him well, but it isn't like we owed him better. We treated him very, very well - even if not lately, more than enough in the beginning to make up for it.

If all you got out of what i said is a sob story for Kirk you're part of the problem.

 

By no means was any part of my post about "poor Kirk".

 

But save me the BS about Washington making him and hiring a coach to ease his transition, .  They hired a coach to help save the big mistake they made and Kirk was kind of just there.  The organization paid him 45M on their own accord.  It would seem you equate being treated very, very well to their own mistake of franchising him at a boatload of money.  It could have been much cheaper but they were indecisive and "not sold" so here we are pissing people off and have Alex Smith for 71M guaranteed. 

[The Batman]

12 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

If all you got out of what i said is a sob story for Kirk you're part of the problem.

 

By no means was any part of my post about "poor Kirk".

 

But save me the BS about Washington making him and hiring a coach to ease his transition, .  They hired a coach to help save the big mistake they made and Kirk was kind of just there.  The organization paid him 45M on their own accord.  It would seem you equate being treated very, very well to their own mistake of franchising him at a boatload of money.  It could have been much cheaper but they were indecisive and "not sold" so here we are pissing people off and have Alex Smith for 71M guaranteed. 

 

No, didn’t think your whole post was about that, which is why I said I agreed with you about the organization of the franchise first. My mistake if that’s how it came off. What I was pointing out is the part of your post I disagreed with, that being that Kirk was being made into a “greedy a-hole” and a “villain”, when I think he’s been treated just fine. Tons of money spent on weapons, say what you like but it was widely reported that a big consideration in hiring Gruden/someone else in that cycle was if they could work with Kirk/RG3, and we gave him chances when the rest of the NFL was laughing at us because of his penchant for multi-interception games early on. I equate being treated well to being given multiple chances to succeed and weapons. Ask Peyton Manning if he’d have enjoyed a team going out and getting weapons of the caliber of Davis, Jackson, and Reed in his tenure in Indy.

 

We drafted him, gave him a million chances to succeed, he did, not to the level that many would have liked, and it didn't work out. He wanted more money than we felt comfortable giving him given our team's composition and salary cap structure. Happens to teams sometimes, good ones and awful ones. But I won't self-flagellate over some sort of perceived failing to defend Kirk's honor or "do right by him" as a franchise when what happened is no more complex than what I just said.

 

Bolded part: 71m guaranteed in case of injury only, already being reported as essentially a 2 year deal from the team's perspective. It's a significant savings over Kirk any way you slice it.