Dear Dan Snyder: We do not like being fans anymore; we tolerate it

[skins island connection]

On ‎2‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 3:44 PM, Warhead36 said:

At the very least we had a franchise QB we developed and a damn good passing game built around him. Now that's been gutted.

 

Get ready for 4-12.

 This was the last straw regarding Allen. The offense sans a running game was set. We had a good quality set of receivers and TEs and at the time Cousins was lighting it up.

Only a defense was missing. This defense couldn't stop a college team [ sarcasm ] and would have won at least another 3-4 games had that defense not buckled. It was one of the main reasons I was really wanting Wade Phillips as DC; true, it does appear that after a couple years his defense seem to drop off, but in the times he spent with other teams he put in some good solid Pro Bowl type players who are still making plays for their teams today.

 

Even with the Shanahans, had they gotten a decent DC instead of that bum Haslett, a much better defense would have been in the makings then, and quite possibly been carried on today. I'm one of the few here who actually doesn't put much blame on him; I blame the FO. I dunno if it was MS who wanted Haslett or if it was the FO, but that was the neutralizer for the team, but had MS stayed and a different DC was hired, that SB trophy cabinet could have gotten a little more crowded.

 

Its these situations that drive me bat**** crazy. The FO does one good thing then turns around and takes a dump on the other aspects and completely defeats the purpose. Its a turn-off for many fans, and hindsight proves it. With this many incompetent moves by the FO one would think Snyder could see the picture, but it ain't so; Bruce is there to comfort and manipulate Snyder into believing its just part of the NFL.  Myself, like many others, call BS on BA., the real problem here.

[MassSkinsFan]

On 2/26/2018 at 8:55 PM, joeken24 said:

I would think a billionaire has had to have one or two wins under their belt, right?

 

What exactly is a winner? Hell, Bill Belichick himself was not a winner until Brady came along. Nobody wins on their own. Is Kirk Cousins a winner? No  

 

Here's a news flash, your standards have been low for a very long time if you're still a Redskins fan. I'm a fan too, so I know. But I refuse to blame one person. Nobody wins alone. 

 

Hell, based on your observation, if the Redskins win the SB, you'll have not choice but to give Dan all the credit. 

 

He has one lucky win under his belt and a string of failures.

 

A winner is someone who can effectively manage a project or organization to CONSISTENT SUCCESS. 

 

I am a winner.  Here is winner behavior:

 

1. Find great talent and help them use their strengths to succeed.
2. Don't ever be threatened by someone in your organization who is more talented than you
3. Recognize the people in your team when they succeed and stand up and be accountable when they fail
4. Foster a culture where your focus is on the problem, not other people; this eliminates the political drama

 

There are obviously other examples, but these right here are ones we have seen Dan Snyder get wrong again and again and again.

 

My argument is not fallacious; If the Skins win a SB it will be in spite of Dan Snyder not because of him.

[thebluefood]

2 hours ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

 Here is winner behavior:

 

1. Find great talent and help them use their strengths to succeed.
2. Don't ever be threatened by someone in your organization who is more talented than you
3. Recognize the people in your team when they succeed and stand up and be accountable when they fail
4. Foster a culture where your focus is on the problem, not other people; this eliminates the political drama

 

 

 

I'd also add: 

-Be flexible to changing circumstances while keeping a solid foothold on consistent principals, and

-Live an authentic life and do what you can to behave in an authentic way 

 

But I put your second and third points in bold because in my experience (albeit limited), those are the most important factors and something I try desperately to live in my own life, especially if I find myself in a leadership position, which I find myself in now (though on a much smaller scale than running a mult-billion dollar professional sports franchise). I can't say as much for team owners but I've found the best coaches and managers have done that - the ones who win consistently and end their careers with championships

 

Joe Gibbs and John Madden stand out especially to me. For the most part, they seemed to know their limits and stay in their lanes. Madden never seemed threatened by the cast of characters on the Raider sidelines in the 1970s and worked with them instead of making them fit into his perception of what a football player "should be."  

 

Same with Gibbs - who seemed to really appreciate collaboration with his coaching staff. I think it was in the "America's Game" special on the 1991 team, he said the only thing he'd tell Petitbone and the defense was "stop them please." That kind of attitude (along with having a brilliant general manager and a wealthy and understanding owner) is what wins you championships. 

[joeken24]

10 hours ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

He has one lucky win under his belt and a string of failures.

 

A winner is someone who can effectively manage a project or organization to CONSISTENT SUCCESS. 

 

I am a winner.  Here is winner behavior:

 

1. Find great talent and help them use their strengths to succeed.
2. Don't ever be threatened by someone in your organization who is more talented than you
3. Recognize the people in your team when they succeed and stand up and be accountable when they fail
4. Foster a culture where your focus is on the problem, not other people; this eliminates the political drama

 

There are obviously other examples, but these right here are ones we have seen Dan Snyder get wrong again and again and again.

 

My argument is not fallacious; If the Skins win a SB it will be in spite of Dan Snyder not because of him.

There's an old phrase from way back in the day that I tend to draw from when I receive hearsay regarding things that take place behind closed doors (that I myself is not behind). That phrase is "Who the hell told you?" 

Again, the only political drama we hear about the Redskins comes from the radio stations or some twitter scraper claiming to be a national reporter. Losing "games" creates the perfect climate for drama to infiltrate the fan base. The Skins have loss a lot of "games" for a while. So infiltration has turned into infestation.

But...

They haven't loss lives, they haven't changed a law that affects the masses. They've loss "games".  Just Football GAMES!!!!

Unfortunately, we live in an area that is so infested with politics. Thus, damn near every aspect of our lives is somehow connected to some agenda, conspiracy, or political house of cards. 

We should be rooting for 53 guys with a dream of trying to win football games. Instead, most of our focus is on some diabolical agenda from a Redskins owner that somehow hates the team (he purchased for $800 freakin' million). So much so, that he'll do whatever it takes to keep the team down. Really?

 

Look....I don't feel the Redskins owe me ****. They don't owe these reporters ****. But reporters take offense and spin ****. So we read, and hear about Snyder this and Snyder that. **** all that!!!! Especially after my team just lost in heart breaking fashion. Here comes the John Weasel reporting live from Redskins park talking about sources close to the situation tells him, blah blah negative wet dog****. 

 

But here a fact for you.....I am not advocating any personal belief that the owner is a good guy or not. But I be damn if I'll believe a person that makes a living writing stories about the team and has no legitimate access to the person they're writing about. They're willing to submit hearsay, speculation, innuendos and sometime complete and utter bull**** to us fans. But some of us allow the combination of a loss, with some rumor laden story from Reporter Idon'tknow****, to affect us. Its understandable. But its not necessarily practical.

 

Have you ever stopped to think that when the Redskins win, these stories cease to exist? Or at least they're on the back page waiting for the most pessimistic "fan" to read.

 

I say just watch the games and stay out grown folk business. 

 

Worrying about whether the owner will sale the team is like wondering if a US President you don't like will leave office. Now that's politics...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Now watch someone start a political firestorm about the sitting President and miss the whole ****ing point)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

[Cliffmark1]

1 hour ago, joeken24 said:

"games"

 

 

Why is games in quotes?   What would you say the purpose of a football team is from a fans perspective?  

[HardcoreZorn]

39 minutes ago, Cliffmark1 said:

 

Why is games in quotes?   What would you say the purpose of a football team is from a fans perspective?  

 

I believe he’s saying that not only is some of the criticism misguided, but the manner in which it is expressed is a bit ridiculous and dramatic. And in the grand scheme of things, this is just a game that is supposed to serve as entertainment and as an outlet from real life.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

6 hours ago, joeken24 said:

 

Have you ever stopped to think that when the Redskins win, these stories cease to exist? Or at least they're on the back page waiting for the most pessimistic "fan" to read.

 

 

Have you ever stopped to think that the Redskins not winning has something to

do with the owner and who he employs to run his organization?

 

[SkinsFTW]

6 hours ago, joeken24 said:

But here a fact for you.....I am not advocating any personal belief that the owner is a good guy or not. But I be damn if I'll believe a person that makes a living writing stories about the team and has no legitimate access to the person they're writing about. They're willing to submit hearsay, speculation, innuendos and sometime complete and utter bull**** to us fans. But some of us allow the combination of a loss, with some rumor laden story from Reporter Idon'tknow****, to affect us.

 

 

Bro, who really gives a **** what those media clowns say about Doofus Dan or Bumbling Bruce or any of them?

 

But 20 years of SUCK is still 20 years of SUCK.

 

Here's to year 20

[joeken24]

10 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I believe he’s saying that not only is some of the criticism misguided, but the manner in which it is expressed is a bit ridiculous and dramatic. And in the grand scheme of things, this is just a game that is supposed to serve as entertainment and as an outlet from real life.

Someone get's it.....

[NewCliche21]

13 hours ago, joeken24 said:

There's an old phrase from way back in the day that I tend to draw from when I receive hearsay regarding things that take place behind closed doors (that I myself is not behind). That phrase is "Who the hell told you?" 

Again, the only political drama we hear about the Redskins comes from the radio stations or some twitter scraper claiming to be a national reporter. Losing "games" creates the perfect climate for drama to infiltrate the fan base. The Skins have loss a lot of "games" for a while. So infiltration has turned into infestation.

But...

They haven't loss lives, they haven't changed a law that affects the masses. They've loss "games".  Just Football GAMES!!!!

Unfortunately, we live in an area that is so infested with politics. Thus, damn near every aspect of our lives is somehow connected to some agenda, conspiracy, or political house of cards. 

We should be rooting for 53 guys with a dream of trying to win football games. Instead, most of our focus is on some diabolical agenda from a Redskins owner that somehow hates the team (he purchased for $800 freakin' million). So much so, that he'll do whatever it takes to keep the team down. Really?

 

Look....I don't feel the Redskins owe me ****. They don't owe these reporters ****. But reporters take offense and spin ****. So we read, and hear about Snyder this and Snyder that. **** all that!!!! Especially after my team just lost in heart breaking fashion. Here comes the John Weasel reporting live from Redskins park talking about sources close to the situation tells him, blah blah negative wet dog****. 

 

But here a fact for you.....I am not advocating any personal belief that the owner is a good guy or not. But I be damn if I'll believe a person that makes a living writing stories about the team and has no legitimate access to the person they're writing about. They're willing to submit hearsay, speculation, innuendos and sometime complete and utter bull**** to us fans. But some of us allow the combination of a loss, with some rumor laden story from Reporter Idon'tknow****, to affect us. Its understandable. But its not necessarily practical.

 

Have you ever stopped to think that when the Redskins win, these stories cease to exist? Or at least they're on the back page waiting for the most pessimistic "fan" to read.

 

I say just watch the games and stay out grown folk business. 

 

Worrying about whether the owner will sale the team is like wondering if a US President you don't like will leave office. Now that's politics...

 

Overall it's a pretty good post.  I fundamentally disagree, but it's a good post.

 

There are some exceptional reporters out there.  Frank Herzog was fantastic and loved reporting on Redskins successes.  The passion was there in the form of smiles instead of grimaces.  Just as people show up to games of winning teams more than losing teams, reporters get a hell of a lot more reads/clicks when they have something GOOD to report.  People like having their views reaffirmed, and they'd rather have positive views reaffirmed than negative ones.  Sometimes these reporters are actually reporting, too.  Not stirring the pot, just saying what's going on.

Every metro area has this **** happening; it's not a D.C. exclusive.  I've lived in the Philly area since 2009, so I've seen the "Dream Team" fiasco, Reid firing, Kelly Krapfest, Wentz/Pederson's freshman failure, and their Super Bowl.  More people spend more time/money on the Eagles when they're winning.  Same thing goes for the reporters' reader/viewership levels.  Drama is the only thing that sells here because it's the only product we make.  Pump out some wins and you'll have triple readership on fluff pieces than you do on Bruce **** Up #2909782502.  We may actually agree there, I think.

You're in the wrong place if you want people to stop having strong views; it's in the damn URL.  That's like going to a bar and telling people that there's more to life than drinking.  Duh, but this is where you do it.  Or like going to a craft brewery and saying, "Guys, beer is beer, stop stressing over hops and stuff."  If they're just games to you, then you're in the wrong place.  

[Taylorcooley1]

Well if Kirk didn't wanna be here than to heck with him..now we have Alex Smith..can't wait for redskins football!!

[joeken24]

7 hours ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Overall it's a pretty good post.  I fundamentally disagree, but it's a good post.

 

There are some exceptional reporters out there.  Frank Herzog was fantastic and loved reporting on Redskins successes.  The passion was there in the form of smiles instead of grimaces.  Just as people show up to games of winning teams more than losing teams, reporters get a hell of a lot more reads/clicks when they have something GOOD to report.  People like having their views reaffirmed, and they'd rather have positive views reaffirmed than negative ones.  Sometimes these reporters are actually reporting, too.  Not stirring the pot, just saying what's going on.

Every metro area has this **** happening; it's not a D.C. exclusive.  I've lived in the Philly area since 2009, so I've seen the "Dream Team" fiasco, Reid firing, Kelly Krapfest, Wentz/Pederson's freshman failure, and their Super Bowl.  More people spend more time/money on the Eagles when they're winning.  Same thing goes for the reporters' reader/viewership levels.  Drama is the only thing that sells here because it's the only product we make.  Pump out some wins and you'll have triple readership on fluff pieces than you do on Bruce **** Up #2909782502.  We may actually agree there, I think.

You're in the wrong place if you want people to stop having strong views; it's in the damn URL.  That's like going to a bar and telling people that there's more to life than drinking.  Duh, but this is where you do it.  Or like going to a craft brewery and saying, "Guys, beer is beer, stop stressing over hops and stuff."  If they're just games to you, then you're in the wrong place.  

Ok. I'm always open to reasonable points of views. This one made sense. I actually didn't consider the URL. So in that regard, I digress.

[zoony]

23 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

Have you ever stopped to think that the Redskins not winning has something to

do with the owner and who he employs to run his organization?

 

 

Its unbelievable we still have fans who dont see this.  Like Snyder just has bad luck or something, and isnt a toxic manager and hasnt infected the entire organization

[FrFan]

I suspect a couple of ES members being Dan & Bruce in disguise

[c slag]

5 minutes ago, FrFan said:

I suspect a couple of ES members being Dan & Bruce in disguise

I seem to remember a story on here about how when Jim Fassel was being considered for a head coaching job uproar on the ES message boards may have been responsible for him not getting hired someone who has more experience on here may be able to explain what happened back then in greater detail 

But you never know who in the organization may read comments on here so it could be possible 

[SWFLSkins]

On 2/5/2018 at 10:17 AM, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Can you imagine if the organization hadn't sided with an egotistical player over a proven head coach? In all likelihood we'd have:

 

Mike Shanahan running the team

Bruce Allen handling non-football/"off the field" BS (which he's fine at, by the way)

Kyle Shanahan coaching 

Kirk Cousins at QB signed long-term

 

Now there's no guarantee that would mean anything incredible, but it's probably the only type of structure that will work for us in Washington. We need a proven, experienced guy to essentially step in and take full control. I actually believe that Snyder has given Allen control, but he's just chosen the wrong guy. Allen is probably an adequate member of a NFL front office, but we need more of a "football guy" to run things. I actually love the model of giving a former successful head coach the job. What Parcells did or what Belichick might try to do when his run in NE is over....

 

Tom Coughlin is doing in Jax. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

On 3/2/2018 at 2:01 AM, Cliffmark1 said:

 

Why is games in quotes?   What would you say the purpose of a football team is from a fans perspective?  

We talkin' about - oh we are talking about games...

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

On 3/2/2018 at 2:49 AM, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I believe he’s saying that not only is some of the criticism misguided, but the manner in which it is expressed is a bit ridiculous and dramatic. And in the grand scheme of things, this is just a game that is supposed to serve as entertainment and as an outlet from real life.

 

That's fair I suppose, but only in terms of the entire "perspective" argument. It really doesn't matter how insignificant your job is in the grand scheme of world peace, saving lives, etc. If you're paid to do a job it's fair for people to hold you accountable. Professional sports is very popular so the successes, failures, criticisms, etc. are very public but it's no different than any other job. 

 

Just because my teams at work don't save lives, cure world hunger, or something much more important...they still come to work every day and need to be accountable for what it is they are doing. So, even though Allen's failures only result in the Redskins having a 60% of losing every game they play (and I'd be the first to agree that is insignificant when comparing it to anything in the actual news, health of my family, etc.), it's still an undeniable failure in the role he's playing. So, since there are reporters dedicated to writing stories about this team, it's fair for them to acknowledge those failures. Trust me, if there was anyone who cared enough about software development for Federal agencies, I'm sure I'd be answering a bunch of annoying questions also. 

[c slag]

33 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 Trust me, if there was anyone who cared enough about software development for Federal agencies, I'm sure I'd be answering a bunch of annoying questions also. 

That seems like an important job I'm sure there would be many people who are affected by this being done correctly 

[SWFLSkins]

On 3/1/2018 at 12:50 PM, MassSkinsFan said:

 

He has one lucky win under his belt and a string of failures.

 

A winner is someone who can effectively manage a project or organization to CONSISTENT SUCCESS. 

 

I am a winner.  Here is winner behavior:

 

1. Find great talent and help them use their strengths to succeed.
2. Don't ever be threatened by someone in your organization who is more talented than you
3. Recognize the people in your team when they succeed and stand up and be accountable when they fail
4. Foster a culture where your focus is on the problem, not other people; this eliminates the political drama

 

There are obviously other examples, but these right here are ones we have seen Dan Snyder get wrong again and again and again.

 

My argument is not fallacious; If the Skins win a SB it will be in spite of Dan Snyder not because of him.

 

I really thought with the McC hiring Dan had finally understood some of the common principles you laid out above. I thought HE and Allen, with Allen moving to PR had finally understood how to build and maintain that winning culture.

 

For those who always point to Scot's missteps in player selections, my hope rested with something far greater in what he was saying. He had a vision for where the team needed to build and painted it so everybody knew it. Tough football players, Big Men's game, hardnosed team. Great character builds great teams, you can't manage talent without it. Snyder and Allen don't possess it or at the least don't exude competence, while some confuse confidence with competence, we all know which matters without the other. 

 

Dan Snyders tenure has been horrendous. If he truly loved the Skins and put aside his monetary and ego stroke as a Fan, He would cash out and retire. But see, he's in it to win it, he just don't know how. Proof is in the Putting. He's made enough money off the team, let someone else run it. 

 

Might as well change the name to the Rockets, He has done the Redskins Legacy a disservice. Rockets go up, Rockets come down, yeah Johnny Rockets innuendo intended. He made a lot of money in telemarketing when it worked and was easy pickings. This is big man Business with seriously qualified competitors using the methods Mass laid out above, your Paul Allen's, Arthur Blank, Shahid Khan, Robert Krafts etc. 

 

BTW, Snyder ranks 12th on this list by Fortune magazine, not best owners, not most profittable, but best businessmen. No wonder We are what We are applies. 

 

http://fortune.com/2017/09/27/nfl-owners-business-rankings/

 

Click saver............

 

Being hated doesn’t necessarily make you a bad businessman. From clashing with the media over the NFL team’s name (among other things) to charging fans to attend training camp, Snyder is one of the least-liked owners in professional sports. Of course, Washington Redskins fans are also fed up with the NFL team’s long tradition of mediocrity.

But, before he came to the NFL, Snyder got rich by founding a marketing services company, Snyder Communications, which went public in 1996 when he was only 32, and later saw $1 billion in annual revenue. Snyder sold the company to French advertising giant Havas for $2.1 billion in 2000. A year earlier, he’d paid a then-record $800 million to buy the Redskins, which are now the NFL’s fourth most-valuable team at $3.1 billion.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

5 hours ago, c slag said:

That seems like an important job I'm sure there would be many people who are affected by this being done correctly 

 

People are affected by most jobs...I'm just saying that my teams don't handle ANYTHING that's close to important (national security, etc.). We develop software that help agencies meet their missions, so of course there's value. But even the most insignificant job out there impacts people. 

 

I was just trying to say that just because the Redskins performance on the field won't make a difference in the BIG PICTURE, it's important because someone was hired to run the team well. And he isn't. 

[c slag]

18 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

 

 

I was just trying to say that just because the Redskins performance on the field won't make a difference in the BIG PICTURE, it's important because someone was hired to run the team well. And he isn't. 

I agree with you there

But I believe that when Bruce looks at himself in the mirror he sees someone who is doing everything perfect rather than seeing the root of most if not all of the problems with the team

And on top of that having a "not my fault "attitude when he looks at the won loss record at the end of every season  

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

8 hours ago, c slag said:

I seem to remember a story on here about how when Jim Fassel was being considered for a head coaching job uproar on the ES message boards may have been responsible for him not getting hired someone who has more experience on here may be able to explain what happened back then in greater detail 

But you never know who in the organization may read comments on here so it could be possible 

General public disapproval, yeah. They hired an OC before a head coach and, when taken into consideration along with the years and years of ****ty management, no quality candidates would even entertain the idea of coming here. In the end, we promoted the OC to head coach out of pure desperation and got bingo callers and swinging gate and Haynesworth taking a nap on the field, and Wayne Geisinger trying to protect Jason Campbell’s blindside against Terrell Suggs. In retrospect, we might have been better off with Fassel but probably not.

[MassSkinsFan]

On 3/2/2018 at 12:41 AM, joeken24 said:

There's an old phrase from way back in the day that I tend to draw from when I receive hearsay regarding things that take place behind closed doors (that I myself is not behind). That phrase is "Who the hell told you?" 

 

Point taken - I have not witnessed the FO dysfunction first-hand. However, several members of this message board have, and have been vocal about how horrible it is.

 

Politics are indeed everywhere. I live in the Boston area, and I recently saw a Globe Sunday Magazine article entitled "The twilight of the Patriots’ dynasty has finally arrived." Does anyone really think next year the Pats will revert to their pre-Parcells hapless selves? I don't. One of the writers is stirring the pot. I mean - c'mon!

[MarkB452]

41 minutes ago, MassSkinsFan said:

Point taken - I have not witnessed the FO dysfunction first-hand. However, several members of this message board have, and have been vocal about how horrible it is.

 

...and for those of you who have not seen the Cranky Fans guide to Dan Snyder, here is a link to it (btw, this could use an update):

 

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/article/13039846/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder