Daniel Snyder ...Dare We Say Maturing....as a competent owner

[onedrop]

26 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I purposefully left the "lol" off of that post to see if anyone would take it seriously lol...sorry about that.

 

oh i assumed the "lol". your post just teed it up for a thought i had been having while perusing the thread.  so, thanks for the assist!

[goskins10]

37 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

That seems a bit silly.  One is scheduling a parade for their first championship in their existence that's bringing in over 100K people to DC and the other is celebrating replacement players from a championship 30 years ago.

 

I realize it's a Dan Snyder thread but the intent of my post wasn't to bash Dan.  I was just commenting on the current discussion.  I even said that I realize it's a coincidence that both things are happening on the same day.  I don't think it was some malicious plot by Dan to steal shine from the Capitals, which I don't think is even possible.  I just think if they really wanted a chance to garner attention for this event, it would have been best to reschedule it to a time when some folks in the city might actually care about it.

 

Not sure what's silly about the fact. I was not suggesting they do anything different but it is a valid point. If there was a concern, it's generally the last person who schedules responsibility if they see it as a problem. They could have scheduled it any time yet they chose the exact time as the Redskins. It's not like the parade was already scheduled. They knew all the dates before they scheduled. There would be no change of plans by those celebrating the CUP. If it was a problem make it an hour later. How difficult is that? Not saying they should - just that if it were a problem they were in the best position to do something different. 

 

The ring thing was not open to the public from what I understand (could be wrong about that, but it's what I read). It was just for the guys getting the rings and their families and was covered by local media. Maybe it was not their intent to garner that much attention - just give the guys their rings. 

 

 

37 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

I'm not saying that the Redskins have to stream or be present at the Capitals parade.  I merely said that's what I expected them to be 'Live on FB' about considering the time.  Redskins social media actually did a good job supporting the caps throughout this SC run.  I understand you're not in the area so its probably not resonating with you, but it's freaking Caps Mania everywhere within 60 miles of DC. 

 

 

 

I have been a CAPs fan since I went to my first game in 1975. I have followed the CAPs every year since. I was at the Capitol Center for the last few years of Rod Langway (when I was working and could afford to but my own tickets dad was not much of a sports fan) - one of the last guys to play without a helmet. I went to an average of 25 gms a season for about 7 yrs. Then I moved around but I never lost the faith. I went to every Caps game in Raleigh that I could when I moved there - the only other city that I could watch games. I was there for 4 of the 5SBs, only missing the one in 1992. I totally understand what is going on there. But my point is that the two are really unrelated. 

 

I do not think the Redskins did anything wrong - at all. No reason to change. But I also do not think the Capitols did anything wrong. They can celebrate when they want to. 

 

It just seems like people are making something out of nothing. It was mostly a coincidence and one that neither team probably cares about, just the fans.  

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Again, I don’t think they really did anything wrong either.  My point was that if they did want the ring event covered and cared about, they should have moved the time.  Perhaps they don’t care about the coverage.

 

I would suggest they also use someone other than Tony Wylie to speak as well. Amazing to me that the head of PR is so bad in public.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

28 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

There is no doubt that DC is still a football town but it's not what it used to be by a large margin.  Sure, there are some folks like yourself, that are pumped about what the QB did in OTA's.  But you're a dying breed.  The Redskins fan base still has a heartbeat and a healthy dose of winning would surely bring it back to life.  But as each year of Dan's ownership passes, there are more football fans that don't really give a crap about what this team did 25+ years ago. 

 

Now I agree with you. My only point is that the reduced Redskin fan base is still larger than the surging Caps fan base...by a lot. With the current trend, yes eventually the Caps would overtake the Redskins...but that would take quite some time and assumes no deviation in success. The Caps, more than likely, won't be perennial playoff contenders every year. The Redskins, much less likely, could improve over the next 5-10 years.  

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

11 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Now I agree with you. My only point is that the reduced Redskin fan base is still larger than the surging Caps fan base...by a lot. With the current trend, yes eventually the Caps would overtake the Redskins...but that would take quite some time and assumes no deviation in success. The Caps, more than likely, won't be perennial playoff contenders every year. The Redskins, much less likely, could improve over the next 5-10 years.  

I think comparing the NHL to the NFL is apples to oranges though.  I'd venture a guess that every NFL team, no matter how good or bad, has a fan base that trumps the NHL team in town.  

[TD_washingtonredskins]

4 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I think comparing the NHL to the NFL is apples to oranges though.  I'd venture a guess that every NFL team, no matter how good or bad, has a fan base that trumps the NHL team in town.  

Maybe, I'm not really sure but I'll concede that. I guess that's always been my only point...no matter what gains the Caps have made in the past 10+ years with their Presidents Trophies and this year's magical run, they are still behind all the local teams and significantly behind the Redskins. That's why I originally said that significant Redskin news today would have certainly turned the city's attention...at least a large faction of it. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

24 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Maybe, I'm not really sure but I'll concede that. I guess that's always been my only point...no matter what gains the Caps have made in the past 10+ years with their Presidents Trophies and this year's magical run, they are still behind all the local teams and significantly behind the Redskins. That's why I originally said that significant Redskin news today would have certainly turned the city's attention...at least a large faction of it. 

 

I think the Caps have definitely surpassed the Wizards, if they hadn't done that already.  What they've also done is created some new hockey fans to add to their fan base.  Sure, some bandwagoners will move on with their lives.  But its events like these that build new generations of fans.

 

Even with the NFL being a much bigger draw than the NHL, I just don't see how a Skins team coming off a sub .500 season could announce anything that would take any of the World Champion Capitals spotlight right now.  I'll concede that if the Redskins were a perennial playoff team - things would be different.  But they've just been so blah for so long, I don't think they are capable of mustering news in June worthy of garnering attention other than the older generation still hanging onto what we loved a few decades ago.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

12 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

I think the Caps have definitely surpassed the Wizards, if they hadn't done that already.  What they've also done is created some new hockey fans to add to their fan base.  Sure, some bandwagoners will move on with their lives.  But its events like these that build new generations of fans.

 

Even with the NFL being a much bigger draw than the NHL, I just don't see how a Skins team coming off a sub .500 season could announce anything that would take any of the World Champion Capitals spotlight right now.  I'll concede that if the Redskins were a perennial playoff team - things would be different.  But they've just been so blah for so long, I don't think they are capable of mustering news in June worthy of garnering attention other than the older generation still hanging onto what we loved a few decades ago.

 

That's fair. We can agree to disagree, but if the Redskins had chosen today to announce the location and timing of the next stadium, I'm pretty sure it would have received a lot of attention. 

 

You're definitely on point about this year's Caps team essentially being the younger generation's 1982 Redskins (Hogs, Smurfs, Riggo, etc.). This group of DC sports fans will be more aligned with hockey than previous ones. And I agree that if this happens year after year, then maybe this is a discussion in a decade or two. If the Caps don't get out of the second round again for the next five years, no amount of Redskin floundering is going to knock them off their perch. 

 

As for the Wizards, if TV ratings mean anything then they are still firmly ahead of the Caps. The Caps didn't exceed Wizards ratings locally until they got to the SCF and drew in a bunch of more casual fans. 

 

Edit - Anyway, I see your points and appreciate your opinions on this!

[hail2skins]

Said this in a thread in the Tailgate.....if you fast forward to early October, the Nats will likely be in the NLDS and will be the local team generating the most buzz. However, if for whatever reason the Nats stumble and miss the playoffs, which team is going to have the most buzz surrounding it...….the defending Stanley Cup champs starting their season, or a Skins team that will likely be around 2-2?  

[TD_washingtonredskins]

51 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

Said this in a thread in the Tailgate.....if you fast forward to early October, the Nats will likely be in the NLDS and will be the local team generating the most buzz. However, if for whatever reason the Nats stumble and miss the playoffs, which team is going to have the most buzz surrounding it...….the defending Stanley Cup champs starting their season, or a Skins team that will likely be around 2-2?  

 

Which team *should* or which team *will* have the most buzz? I think we all know the Redskins will have the attention of the area in October, even if it's for negative reasons (bad defense, injuries, Alex Smith not playing well, whatever). 

 

I can't fathom a scenario in which the Caps have more buzz in October...maybe outside of the single night they raise the banner. 

[joeken24]

15 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

Just noticed your edit, trying to throw this shot in here.

 

There is a difference between being offended and merely calling you on your BS.  You can’t offend me.  I was merely pointing out the several times you referred to people as sheep after you said you didn’t.

 

Like I said, I’m not sure you are actually this feeble minded.  Part of me can’t help but believe you are just trolling with these posts.  

As it relates to sheep, I said if the shoe fits. And like I said to your counterpart, you believe what you want to believe. Go for it. But you're misdiagnosing what a feeble mind is. Feeble minded means a person that is unable to make intelligent decisions or judgments. You strike me as one that uses other peoples knowledge to form your own without verifying if that knowledge/information is factual or not. So in essence you're not using your own decision making ability, you're using someone else. Man, that's a whole other level of feeble mindedness. In other words, you choose to make judgements without reasonable intelligence. A news paper article is not reasonable intelligence if it is not at least backed by some investigation. But Investigative reporting is almost nonexistent. There is simply no time. Twitter feeds and Snaps is most of what you get from most reporters (outside of a team beat reporter). As a result, I choose not to make judgements without reasonable intelligence/investigation. But you go ahead. Go forth and think what you want to think.....with the help of all your reporter friends...who you don't know but choose to believe.

 

Just know that the law gives strong protections to the news media in reporting about public figures. That gives them the power to write bull**** - that you believe. Go for it.

 

BTW, If I'm trolling (and I'm not), you're doing an excellent job getting sucked into the cave.

[thebluefood]

I, too, will walk back my critiques of the 'Skins for the ring ceremony. I do have some...mixed feelings about the scab players (I'm a dues paying Wobbly - we don't take too kindly to scabs by principal) but there's no doubt they kept the 'Skins in contention for the Super Bowl (plus they beat a team full of Dallas regulars, which was just..absolutely beautiful). The least management could do is give them some token of gratitude. 

 

And yes, this was planned months ago and it just so happened to fall on the same day and time as the parade. Maybe it could have been pushed back to later in the afternoon but I can see why they kept it when they did. 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

I got no problem with anyone having outlier opinions.  And I get taking even a little pride in not following the herd.  I've done it on many things.  Having said that I know just because I have the outlier position doesn't make me right.  It's still just an opinion -- whether its majority or minority. 

 

When you make impressions of players, personnel guys, the owner, etc -- its not purely about what you read but you see these guys a gazillion times on TV and on the radio, etc -- its not that hard to piece their personality some.  I've never met Joe Gibbs personally.  But heck maybe all the nice things people have said about him are wildly off and he's really a royal jerk?  But seriously, its not hard to see that all the nice things people say about Gibbs reflects in what you see when you hear him interviewed.   Gibbs exudes class. 

 

It's like that for any major public figure.  Does that mean you have these guys down to a tee and can't be wrong.  Nope.  But people aren't going to get to know everyone like they are their close friends and family -- its human nature to make deductions based on what you see and hear.   And if you see someone publicly enough and hear enough stories you get a vibe.

 

We don't have a vibe about Bill Parcells or Joe Gibbs for example?  Is it really that hard to figure out with repetitive stories about people who have been around them and our own observations from seeing things happen under their watch and how they engage in countless interviews, etc.

 

Moving away from that. It's not hard to see that as for fan faith in the team its clearly an overwhelming majority who want to same thing.

 

A.  Put a real personnel guy in charge of football operation -- someone with a big rep whose reputation isn't driven by nostalgia or friendship with Dan.

 

B.  Hear that Dan isn't interfering with that football person.

 

C.  That's it.    It's not about the fancy new coach and player, etc.  most of us want someone who runs the operation who we don't question their competence and motives.  That to me is easily what the majority want.  And there is nothing that is a close 2nd.

 

That happens and IMO they will sell more tickets than any discount on hot dogs by a mile.  You can see that sentiment reflected in polls done by both radio stations, call in shows, twitter, here -- you name it. 

 

So even if Dan doesn't believe its that big of a deal to hire a big time personnel guy or even someone with that potential in house like Kyle Smith and let them do their thing -- even if he strangely doesn't see the football value of it -- then do it from a PR stand point anyway.   The PR value to me would be through the roof.

 

[HardcoreZorn]

@Skinsinparadise That's a good post and I really don't think many if at all would disagree with what you just said. I do think you are misunderstanding the main point that the minority opinion up to this point has had trouble conveying to the majority.

 

Dan made his own bed. He made a lot of really egregious errors over the years that have contributed to the narrative formed about him in the media and with the fan base. You kind of have to get past this "conspiracy theory" and the idea the minority opinion is suggesting there is a crazy ploy by the media and fans to slander Dan Snyder's name for no good reason. I really wish we could get past that.

 

So to continue, Dan stunk. The way we would enter drafts with 4 picks stunk. The coddling of star players is no way to send a message to the other guys on the team and created a losing culture. It stunk. The media and fans had every right to paint that picture of Dan.

 

The operative point of this thread is has Dan grown? I think yes. I think by a sizeable margin. I think it took a LONG time and many lessons but if you compare 2018 Dan to 2009 let's say, its a pretty different operation. If you compare the 2009 roster to the 2018 roster, pretty staggering to be honest. Coincidence? I don't think so. Has the narrative changed all that much? Seriously, go look at page one of this thread. I also don't think so. See the point?

 

I would love it if Kyle Smith were promoted to General Manager and Redskins fans everywhere celebrated. It's nice to have positive PR and vibes surrounding your favorite team, I get that. But I don't think Dan and Bruce were the ones that called for Montae Nicholson in the 4th last year, for example. These past 3-4 drafts are very different, and indicative of the higher ups letting the personnel guys (Smith, Gruden) do their thing. Just my two cents.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

@Skinsinparadise That's a good post and I really don't think many if at all would disagree with what you just said. I do think you are misunderstanding the main point that the minority opinion up to this point has had trouble conveying to the majority.

 

 

I think I have a handle on the points made here well enough.   But let me try again.  Tell me what part is wrong if any?  And I'll wait until you respond to this before I respond to the rest of your post so I am sure I understand the premise of your point right.

 

A.  The old Dan is bad -- you aren't arguing that.  What you are arguing about is he has made major changes but he is still depicted as the same old from years ago.  And that's unfair and inaccurate.

 

B.  You aren't arguing that Dan wasn't in the past.  What you are trying to do is rally us around the idea that while we can agree Dan wasn't good in the past, he's come a long way now.

 

And you are being somewhat generous to one of the points that another is talking about because he's not so focused on his posts from old Dan to new Dan -- he's focused on how we have no idea one way or another about him since we've not had direct contact with Dan -- and he couples that with diatribes about how evil the media is and purposely deceptive.    So yeah a lot of my points are directed to that point as opposed to you.

 

Anyway back to you, am I close on A & B or if I am off, please explain. 

 

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

On 6/12/2018 at 2:31 PM, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Again, I don’t think they really did anything wrong either.  My point was that if they did want the ring event covered and cared about, they should have moved the time.  Perhaps they don’t care about the coverage.

 

I would suggest they also use someone other than Tony Wylie to speak as well. Amazing to me that the head of PR is so bad in public.

 

The Redskins have a terrible image in DC and around the country.  This was their chance to gain some much needed positive PR, this was a nice thing that was done and long over due.  So they had the chance, and once again they screwed up and this story got zero coverage.  I didn't even know about it until I heard it today.  That's a shame for the players and another missed opportunity for the organization.

On 6/12/2018 at 9:56 AM, Califan007 said:

 

But wouldn't realizing he needs to keep his childish behavior private be a sign of gaining maturity?

 

That's a pretty low bar.  

[Darrell Green Fan]

On 6/12/2018 at 12:56 PM, goskins10 said:

 

We do agree. I see no reason the Capitols should have worried about the Redskins thing but there is equally no reason for the Redskins to make any changes. It's a whole lot of nothing to me.

 

I like you, one of the better posters here. But can you do me a favor and learn to spell the name of the Champs correctly? 

 

Thanks

[Tsailand]

On 6/12/2018 at 3:36 PM, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I just don't see how a Skins team coming off a sub .500 season could announce anything that would take any of the World Champion Capitals spotlight right now.

 

Firing Bruce or Jay. Snyder selling the team.

 

(not saying I want Jay fired, just that it would make news)

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

I like you, one of the better posters here. But can you do me a favor and learn to spell the name of the Champs correctly? 

 

Thanks

 

LOL - Fair enough! I think I did that one on my phone! It's been corrected.

[HardcoreZorn]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I think I have a handle on the points made here well enough.   But let me try again.  Tell me what part is wrong if any?  And I'll wait until you respond to this before I respond to the rest of your post so I am sure I understand the premise of your point right.

 

A.  The old Dan is bad -- you aren't arguing that.  What you are arguing about is he has made major changes but he is still depicted as the same old from years ago.  And that's unfair and inaccurate.

 

B.  You aren't arguing that Dan wasn't in the past.  What you are trying to do is rally us around the idea that while we can agree Dan wasn't good in the past, he's come a long way now.

 

And you are being somewhat generous to one of the points that another is talking about because he's not so focused on his posts from old Dan to new Dan -- he's focused on how we have no idea one way or another about him since we've not had direct contact with Dan -- and he couples that with diatribes about how evil the media is and purposely deceptive.    So yeah a lot of my points are directed to that point as opposed to you.

 

Anyway back to you, am I close on A & B or if I am off, please explain. 

 

 

Yeah A and B are pretty spot on.

 

I know the point below wasn't really directed at me but I wouldn't say I'm favoring one side or the other. I pointed out I agreed with most everything you said above. I think you can absolutely get a feel from someone through various media outlets and second hand accounts. I also happen to believe narratives can form, and although actions can change, it sometimes takes time for the narrative to catch up. I've had the carpet ripped out from under me far too many times to fully buy into Dan as a changed man. But I do think narratives can catch fire and persist. I do buy that negativity sells around here when the team hasn't been very good. I think what you see now is a damaged fan base that is starving for a winner and it causes some irrationality when analyzing the current here and now. It's been a long time (my entire life) since we have been relevant. None of this is directed at you BTW.

[Skinsinparadise]

36 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Yeah A and B are pretty spot on.

 

I know the point below wasn't really directed at me but I wouldn't say I'm favoring one side or the other. I pointed out I agreed with most everything you said above. I think you can absolutely get a feel from someone through various media outlets and second hand accounts. I also happen to believe narratives can form, and although actions can change, it sometimes takes time for the narrative to catch up. I've had the carpet ripped out from under me far too many times to fully buy into Dan as a changed man. But I do think narratives can catch fire and persist. I do buy that negativity sells around here when the team hasn't been very good. I think what you see now is a damaged fan base that is starving for a winner and it causes some irrationality when analyzing the current here and now. It's been a long time (my entire life) since we have been relevant. None of this is directed at you BTW.

 

OK, I agree with some of that, and I love the draft and emphasis on it.  That's a change.  But for me sadly its a piece of the puzzle versus being the primary thing.  My take on a FO is similar to what I think a team needs to win and that is to be good on all fronts. Balance.  I think my difference with you then is four things.

 

A.  I just think its human nature not to do a 180 on someone has been a failure when their improvements aren't 180 level dramatic. To me Dan hasn't come full circle, he's come half way.  I personally think he's a mediocre owner after previously been a bad owner.   But bad to mediocre usually doesn't earn recognition -- you got to turn a hard corner.  And as for the beat guys, they've mostly caught up with this narrative of Dan improving.  It's really the national guys who haven't.  Personally I don't think its as big a deal as you in part I guess because you think he's turned a bigger corner than I believe he has. 

 

B.  I just can't stand it to have someone with Bruce's background and rep running personnel.  And the more I think about it, I don't put it on Bruce.  Cooley spelled it right recently about heck if you had the power why would you voluntarily just give it up and put someone else in charge of you.  So I put that on Dan not Bruce.   Bruce running personnel to me is the biggest symbolism of in your face example of business as usual.  

 

Even if things have improved under his watch (and I agree some have improved) its not dramatic enough for me to embrace a FO structure I don't agree with.  The idea that we don't need a top chef running the kitchen is a Dan hallmark -- the idea that there are great sous chefs working there doesn't make it all go away for me.  

 

It's not that I can't stand Bruce.  I've met him once.  Seemed pleasant.  It's that I can't stand Dan's tenure of I don't do things like other successful teams do.  If you put Bruce is his own lane, I'd be perfectly fine with him.  But the idea if we do it different = losing to me when it comes to this team.   I get you see it differently.  But for me maybe living and dying with each regime makes me really hardened to this idea over time. 

 

C.  I think they mostly stink at FA with last year being a rare exception.  Just like they did with Vinny.  The upside of Bruce/Santos version of stinking at FA is their mistakes aren't crippling like Vinny's mistakes.  But otherwise "meh". 

 

And I think I am fair to them on the count.  I tend to lay out what I want and what I don't want to happen in FA and the draft in advance.  And if they do what I like -- I applaud them.  When they don't, I criticize them.  When someone posted that the record of FA success under Bruce was 19% that sounded right to me.  

 

On the aggregate the better teams have been much smarter at how they played FA.  Just because Bruce doesn't play it like Vinny doesn't make him good at it IMO.  I think as for being mired in the past that there is a sentiment that since we were so bad at Fa that FA isn't a game you can win at anyway so if Bruce/Santos have hits or failures so what?  As long as they don't cripple the team salary wise its a win. 

 

I vehemently disagree with that.  

 

D.  Another hallmark of the Dan era is how many ways can we flub the QB position.  This guy apparently was in love with Brady Quinn but was talked out of it.  Wanted Jeff George over Brad Johnson.  Asked to draft Patrick Ramsey.   Wanted McNabb.  Wanted RG3.  And we finally drafted a good one IMO and we are the one franchise who couldn't figure out how to keep their franchise QB -- that to me is awful.

 

I like Alex Smith and yeah if he thrives and enjoys a fruitful career at 34 then all is forgiven for me.  But at the moment, I am skeptical really only because of his age but his age is a big deal to me.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

15 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

That's a pretty low bar.  

 

 

Um, I 'splained that post a little later lol...

[Darrell Green Fan]

15 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

LOL - Fair enough! I think I did that one on my phone! It's been corrected.

 

You did it twice. But who's counting.  

[goskins10]

2 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

You did it twice. But who's counting.  

 

Good grief it was all over the place. I fixed as many as I could find. Seriously, thanks for letting me know. Wish someone had said something sooner. I started with CAPs then decided to spell it out and got it wrong everywhere. Will not forget now!!!  

[dyst]

Yea no. Every few years we get this "has Dan changed" type of thread/discussion going and then we get a leak here or there about a player or GM to bring us back to reality. Everything this guys says just sounds fake. Like that episode on Seinfeld when Elaine is telling Jerry all the times she has faked an orgasm. Just the way he talks seems contrived. I'm sure he is a nice guy but I just can't get behind him as owner of this team. How many years does it take for a guy to "mature", I feel like we've been saying this since Gibbs came back.