Peter King article - new quotes.

[Die Hard]

D.C. do-over <br />by Peter King, Sports Illustrated <br /><br />Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder and his new vice president for football operations, Joe Mendes, insisted Wednesday afternoon they aren't oil and water. But it will be fascinating to see how long the mild-mannered Mendes, a respected veteran football scout and administrator, lasts as the man running the football side of the business for the impatient Snyder. <br /><br />The marriage, made after four days of soul-searching by Mendes and his wife, means Snyder's chase of several high-profile general manager candidates -- most notably former Redskins GM Bobby Beathard, ex-Packers GM Ron Wolf and current Oakland administrator Bruce Allen -- is over. It's expected that Mendes will earn about the same amount of money annually, $500,000, that Beathard rejected to do the job -- a sum one-tenth of what Steve Spurrier will make to coach the Redskins. <br /><br />"For me," Snyder told CNNSI.com, "it wasn't about who was the most famous candidate. It was about who was the best candidate. Steve was thumbs-up on this decision as well. He and Joe spoke. Joe has a wealth of experience with the salary cap and negotiating and scouting. He's a good man. We get along very, very well, and we did the last time he was here. I've always felt comfortable with him." <br /><br />Speaking from the Senior Bowl in Mobile, Ala., where he spent Wednesday scouting, Mendes said: "I know what I'm walking into. There's reputation and then there's reality. And I've always gotten along with Mr. Snyder. He's a better listener than he's given credit for. Believe me, I'm not a glutton for being abused. That won't happen. This is going to work out well for everyone." <br /><br />When Snyder bought the Redskins in 1999, Mendes was the team's chief negotiator and capologist. He left the club soon after the 2000 draft, saying he was tired of the football grind. Those close to Mendes believe part of that was battle-fatigue from working for the demanding Snyder. Mendes denied that Wednesday. "The reason I left," he said, "had nothing to do with Mr. Snyder. I was tired. My wife and I decided to travel and relax." <br /><br />Reminded of some of the decisions he reportedly disagreed with while with the Redskins -- including the wasteful $7-million signing bonus handed to Deion Sanders, who lasted all of one year -- Mendes said: "Don't make me go down that road." <br /><br />It's expected that Mendes will hire the Redskins former personnel director, Vinny Cerrato, to return to the same post after he works on the ESPN telecast team for the Senior Bowl. This would reunite the same football front office that was in place for the 2000 draft, subbing head coach Steve Spurrier for Norv Turner. <br /><br />"We had a great draft two seasons ago," said Snyder, referring to the drafting of Chris Samuels and LaVar Arrington in the first round. "And we supplemented that with good undrafted free agents like [tight end] Zeron Flemister and [fullback] Bryan Johnson. The system was working. It got broken up. Now it will get put back together." <br /><br />This time, though, Snyder and Cerrato will have to avoid the wasteful signing-bonus bingeing from the Deion days, when the Redskins bought the 1996 Pro Bowl team and tried to revive them as a great team in 2000. the Redskins finished 8-8, and out of the playoffs, costing Turner his job. "I probably got too aggressive," Snyder understated. "As an owner, I'm learning. I admit it: I was pushing the pedal too hard. Now I hope we have more success than mistakes." <br /><br />While out of football, Mendes lived in Arizona and took a job with agents Ethan Locke and Eric Metz as a consultant. "I liked their integrity, their honesty and their clients," he said. "It was a great job. That's why it took me a few days to figure out what I wanted to do." <br /><br />Spurrier, obviously, will have the final say on the 53-man roster come summertime. Snyder said Mendes will have the tiebreaking power on personnel deadlocks within the organization. Smart move. If the franchise stays the course with a good football man like Mendes without getting impetuous as it did two years ago, the Redskins should be on the right long-term path.

[Art]

CNNSI is one of the sites that "broke" the story when Mendes resigned that he left becaue he couldn't work for Snyder. You can see King here and the questions he must have been asking. "Come on Joe. You can't possibly mean you want to work for Snyder. How much money did he give you? What's the deal?"<br /><br />I tend to think the more people say it the more true it is about Snyder. There's perception and then there's reality. The media does hate it when the reality they've tried to create comes crashing down around facts as they actually are.

[Hauss]

This is the most promising article I have read in a long time. I would be pleased if Mendes has the tie breaking vote. This is a much better story than the Post article for 1/24-which gave opinions about Cerrato's role. It mentions that Mendes will hire Cerrato--I take that as meaning-Cerrato reports to Mendes. I hope that is the case. I am anxious to see how this plays out.

[Art]

As I said in a thread yesterday, Mendes isn't going to want to work under the same atmosphere that forced him to making the type of contract moves he wasn't completely thrilled with. Previously he was under Cerrato. It sounds to me like now he'll be in charge of how the team uses cap space as well as setting the path for the personnel department to use as a basis for setting their wishes up.<br /><br />Mendes is money for us and if he's the guy that ultimately heads the front office, we are in better shape than with anyone else save Wolf who just has a magic touch, especially with QBs.

[redman]

Art-<br /><br />I'm curious, because you're one of the most aggressive defenders of Snyder there is. Do you see no other mistakes by Snyder except for that choice to charge for training camp (which by the way is about the most benign example of a mistake one could pick)? If you think he's made other mistakes, what are they?

[bulldog]

here is the comment that worries me the most about Snyder:<br /><br />We had a great draft two seasons ago," said Snyder, referring to the drafting of Chris Samuels and LaVar Arrington in the first round. "And we supplemented that with good undrafted free agents like [tight end] Zeron Flemister and [fullback] Bryan Johnson. The system was working. It got broken up. Now it will get put back together." <br /><br />while the team did not have many picks due to the trade up to get Chris Samuels, which was an excellent move, the failure of any of the other picks to stay on the team for even the last two years to me indicates it was a good draft but not a deep one.<br /><br />and the factor worrying me is that the Redskins are unlikely to again have such high picks back to back.<br /><br />If Snyder thinks that the Arrington and Samuels selections are the norm as far as what to expect from the draft, he is apt to be disappointed.<br /><br />As I mentioned on another thread, there were positives in regards to Lloyd Harrison, Mookie Moore and Todd Husak before the draft that indicated they would be selected.<br /><br />The major issue I suppose is when they were selected. Most draft people had Harrison going late in round 4 or early in round 5.<br /><br />Moore was projected as a late round pick as well.<br /><br />Husak was taken about where he should have been as a #6 or #7 development project.<br /><br />So the question is, did we project these players with our picks and thus make one of the key mistakes that prevents teams from getting value in the draft?<br /><br />Or where these selections just an example of a year where Vinny and Ron Nay simply missed out on guys like Harrison and Moore, that seemed close to being NFL players but in the end came up just short when the chips were down?<br /><br />We shall see.<br /> <br /> [ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: bulldog ]

[Utah]

bulldog, do me a favor and look at the numbers of the past 10 drafts and look at the success of each and every team. Also the failures.<br /><br />The draft is not science. People would like to think it is, but it is not. In the end, it is a role of the dice because it is up to the player to make the final push to be an NFL caliber player. You can see what a player does in college and look at his numbers from tests you have given him and the results of the combines and other tryouts and then you throw the dice.<br /><br />To have 2 players from the same draft only 2 years ago make the Pro Bowl is amazing. Not all first round picks are that productive. You tell me, with FA, who gives a crap about the others picked. Who cares where they were supposed to be picked by other teams. It is pure luck when anyone out of the 4th round or higher not only makes the team, but contributes a significant amount.<br /><br />I take a look at our draft picks since, say, 1995.<br /><br />1995 - Michael Westbrook (rd1) and Cory Raymer (rd2)<br />1996 - Stephen Davis (rd4) *major bonus*<br />1997 - Kenard Lang (rd1<br />1998 - Champ Bailey (rd1), Jon Jansen (rd2)<br />1999 - Stephan Alexander (rd2), Shawn Barber (rd4), David Terrell (rd7)<br />2000 - LaVar Arrington (rd1), Chris Smauels (rd1)<br />2001 - Rod Gardner (rd1), Fred Smoot (rd2), Sage Rosenfels (rd4)<br /><br />Out of 48 draft picks, we still have 14 players since 1995. 13 of them are starters, not taking into account injuries. 5 of them are Pro Bowlers. Keep in mind that 32 of those 48 picked were 4th round or higher picks.<br /><br />I have no idea whether this is good or bad. Just the facts as they are. I would be curious to see how that matches up to the rest of the league.

[bulldog]

I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that with 53 roster spots to fill and a limited budget we have to come up with at least some of our starters over time from picks made late on the first day and on the second day of the draft.<br /><br />We need some Lester Towns (7th round) and Tom Bradys (6th round) as late picks to be contributors if we are going to contend. It is that simple.<br /><br />The Redskins will probably never again in our lifetimes have two of the top three selections in the draft.<br /><br />That means we can't keep trading away our #3-#7 picks for unproductive role players and special teamers as we have done the last several years.<br /><br />With only 5 picks in last year's draft, I flashed back at the time to the horrible trades for bums such as Barron Tanner and Tito Paul who barely played a down for the Redskins. And also to players such as Joe Zelenka the long snapper that on other teams are usually acquired in free agency for nothing instead of a draft choice (please see Ethan Albright here for reference:))<br /><br />So, my answer I guess is that ALL draft picks are important now. It is true you can't count on any one pick making it because there are long odds to being a successful NFL player.<br /><br />But over time you do need to find some of those needles in the haystack. <br /><br />And for teams that do with players such as Terrell Davis, Jeff Garcia, Kurt Warner, etc...the reward is the chance to become competitive and a contender all the more quickly.

[Utah]

I would say then that with Stephan Davis, we have matched those names you mentioned. All are 4th rd picks or higher. I would be curios to know the exact number of 4th rd picks or higher who are not only consistent Pro Bowlers but are productive to the level of the names you mentioned. I would be very curious.

[bulldog]

Davis and Alexander were selected in rounds 4 and 2 by Charley Casserly, Smoot was take in round 2 by Marty.<br /><br />I want to see what Vinny can do after round 1 because so far from the one draft we have to look at we don't have another player still on the roster from the other 4 selections. And that draft was only two years ago.

[mardi gras skin]

Cerrato did get Flemister and Johnson as undrafted fa's. Pretty good.

[Art]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by redman:<br /><strong>Art-<br /><br />I'm curious, because you're one of the most aggressive defenders of Snyder there is. Do you see no other mistakes by Snyder except for that choice to charge for training camp (which by the way is about the most benign example of a mistake one could pick)? If you think he's made other mistakes, what are they?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Redman, <br /><br />Snyder has made one major mistake as the owner of the team. That mistake was moving training camp closer to home. Now, had he built dorms and kept the team there, I could see the merits, but, that he didn't was a problem for me. Other than that, I've found some of his errors to be less problematic and his positives to be more pronounced than you do.<br /><br />For example, when he takes over the team to find a partially complete stadium and he goes about renovating it to enhance the fan experience, which is a HUGE positive, he doesn't immediately go out and do an accross the board ticket increase. He targeted specific tickets to help offset the cost. For the money grubber he is portrayed as, no one could blame him for an total ticket increase. Hell, he might as well do it now given the money he has put back into this team only to get criticized for doing too much to make a buck.<br /><br />I find great positives in Snyder for finding a way to improve the defense by bringing Arnsparger in, improving the team's relationship with the most powerful newspaper in town, spending the money in 2000 to make up for the fan's lost 1999 free agency period, continually finding great football guys to add to the team and to have around him, and many other things.<br /><br />In terms of negatives I believe, as I've said, the worst was training camp. Others I have seriously questioned were the addition of Cerrato in the first place, and now again. You see, I'm able to distinguish criticism on one hand with applause on the other without thinking the man is all good or all bad. You don't seem to have that ability and it's harmful to your stance.<br /><br />I think Snyder was wrong to point to Marty's personnel decisions as a limiting factor in his employment given the facts of the situation and the greater good that was done. Still, as we know, Marty found a way to give George great piles of cash and somehow this is blamed on Snyder. It's almost surreal how it happens.<br /><br />Still, I believe Snyder was wrong to force Marty's hand over personnel. I would have preferred he force Marty's hand over coaching, where Marty made too many mistakes and needed more questions to be raised. Perhaps the contract was more air tight there than in the personnel department, I can't say.<br /><br />No matter though, I saw that as an error becasue my personal belief tells me Marty did pretty well in personnel. I hated naming the stadium after FedEx. I think that's a diminishment of the game. I realize it's a part of the game, but, that doesn't mean I have to support it even though it has been an error made in far too many places.<br /><br />Reading some of the drum you've been beating leads me to believe that every single move that hasn't turned out rosy is Snyder's problem but that anything that has been positive has been done in spite of Snyder, or, the reasons the positive actions have taken place were for selfish motives and not for the good of anyone but Snyder.<br /><br />I just don't agree with that type of bashing. I prefer having the ability to see the forest through the trees. You don't have to share the same belief.

[Die Hard]

To add to this...<br /><br />1) I think too much has been made over the firing of 30 secretaries. <br /><br />2) Then we had to hear about the 2 janitorial custodians who believe they were fired unjustly because of field conditions. Is this really a story anywhere else but Redskins Park?<br /><br />3) Charging people $10 for admission also caused a lot of unnecessary negative press. In the grand scheme of things... what the heck does it really matter? And for the record the fans still came in droves. <br /><br />If the Redskins win the Super Bowl... all these issues would be afterthoughts. So the bottom line is 'winning'. If the Washington Redskins are winning football games... no one would be questioning his decisions. <br /><br />Ultimately, it's the guys on the field who determine the outcome of a football game. I think you will find most people in NFL circles tend to agree the Redskins have a good nucleus of talent. And I think it's really unfair to place so much criticism on the owner of a football team for their underachieving. It's completely blown out of proportion.