Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

skins_warrior

By skins_warrior
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted

This idea has popped up several times.  Mostly between the moments when Dan Snyder fires everyone.  Maybe it will be true this time.

 

I doubt it.  The problem for me is that there's too much failure for anything but results to convince me that things may have actually changed.  Maybe a recent set of decisions is better than another, but is that how things will stay?  For me to believe Dan is now a good owner, this is what I would need to see:

 

1- Consistent success.  I'm not greedy, just give me playoff appearances three seasons in a row.  I'd take four out of five as well.

2- A persistent and positive identity/culture.  In the past this team is constantly being redefined by the next big coaching hire.  Once Dan finds success I have to see him maintain a culture and identity instead of looking to his new hires to define the organization for him.

 

Even if that starts today, it's going to take a while before Dan proves he's figured it out.  That seems appropriate given how long the team has struggled.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guardshock

Guardshock

Posted
Posted

The last time we split .500 over a three year stretch was 05-07. I'm happy with where we're going. I think as long as Gruden continues to grow as a coach, the team will continue to improve. It's a good time to be a Redskins fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeken24

joeken24

Posted
Posted
On 5/29/2018 at 4:33 PM, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

This is an excellent come back. Not sure where @joeken24 comes off being so critical of others for believing what is common knowledge.  Joe is not on some higher level of understanding, he simply chooses to ignore all the evidence and form his opinion. That's fine, he's entitled to his opinion but that does not make him right. The name calling and criticism he is demonstrating  to those of us not interested in taking this approach is unnecessary 

MIT defines common knowledge as information that the average, educated reader would accept as reliable without having to look it up. Education and institutional-ism are cousins. Its common knowledge that Columbus discovered America, right? (I'll get to this later, but I'm just sayin'...)

 

Lets make this clear.....I am not at a higher level of understanding. Never said I was. That's your claim and you're entitled to it. I'm simply asking for a FACT that justifies your proclamation that Dan is a bad person. If your opinion is that Dan is bad person, you're entitle to your opinion. I'm just asking where your opinion comes from - fact or common knowledge? Apparently for you, it comes from common knowledge.

 

Here's my issue with you and those that think common knowledge is justification. There are so many examples of people buying into false narratives. For example, its common knowledge (and according to our history book) that Columbus discovered America. It was taught and a holiday was even established. Common freakin' knowledge, right? If he discovered it and found people there, than he didn't ****ing discover it. As a matter of fact, he thought he was in India (in lays the name Indian). So that is where I'm coming from. Not a higher level of understanding but just a little bit of common sense really.

 

New reporters have been well known to toe the line between truth and being objective. Nowadays, they have one tone. CNN is mostly anti-republican. Fox is mostly-anti democrat. We see it everywhere in the media - no truth, just agendas. One could say, the Washington Post is anti-Redskins - at least as it relates to Dan Snyder and the name. A lot of news (especially in today's Twitter/Snapchat era) is puked out with no investigative reporting accomplished whatsoever. The media industry is marred with lazy writers, articles inundated with speculation, story titles written to attract readers only to find some baseless piece of **** article created to incite controversy (more viewership, more money). Sheep seem to always buy into unsubstantiated accounts. They watch CNN or they watch Fox and you can't tell them ****. Most times its all bull****, IMO. They buy more into the amount of people that say something is true (the very meaning of common knowledge) over finding out if that **** is really ****ing true. They go hook line and sinker on that bull****.

 

But I tell you what......if the Redskins start winning, I guarantee WP will start writing heartfelt stories about Dan's philanthropy work - true or a big ass lie. Its called P ****ing R and big ****ing business!

   
Better yet, what if you were able to hang out with Dan and found out on your own he was a cool, laid back guy, who loves to play Madden on PS4, drink Ale, loves to watch Game of Thrones, Westworld and Marvel Universe movies, devoted to his wife and the Redskins and hates Roseanne Barr? That would be something you can hang your opinion on, right (for better or worse)

But you can't. You have to listen to a news reporter tell you who he is and you don't even know the freakin reporter. But you trust what he says --- riiiiiighhht.

 

So again to the guy that had first hand or very close hand knowledge of Dan the person....thanks for your post. At least you have a base for your claim. But who knows, maybe someday you meet Dan yourself and form a different opinion. But then again, you may find yourself putting a whole block of government cheese in his macaroni (shut his ass down for good).

 

To the ones that seem to take on the sheep identification (you put the shoe on, not me), just provide some real facts to your claim and stop with the common knowledge bit.

 

I repeat one more gin (a little southern reference there)... I'm not trying to convince anybody of who Dan is, because I don't know him myself. I'm simply saying that I choose not to stamp Dan (or anyone else) if I don't have first hand knowledge of who the **** Dan is as a person. I've never heard him say anything that would cause me to think he was a bad person. I've never seen a quote from him that would do the same. Never seen him in hand cuffs.

on the other hand...

I've heard people that I don't personally know say **** that made me want to jump through the TV to beat the **** out of 'em. I heard that **** with my own ears!

I've seen people do **** that made me want to **** them up. I saw that ****!

I've also gotten accounts (from people I trust) about a person. That account made me feel some kinda way. Their account may have even made me cautious. But even with that, I've always tried to trust in my own point of view because one persons experience may be different than my own, right?

 

IMO we are all subject metaphorically to a Matrix. Mass media is it's mouthpiece. Some choose to feed into it. I don't. So I'm not trying to convince you to like Dan. You keep believing that, but I'm really not. I'm simply asking you to justify why you don't - red or blue. Take it or leave it. Either way, we'll both be watching the game on Sundays :headbang:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeken24

joeken24

Posted
Posted
On 5/28/2018 at 8:05 PM, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Feel free to not care about Dan the person and praise his ability to make a lot of bad decisions and attribute that to being a leader.

 

But this whole schtick where everyone is a sheep for believing the very long list of Dan’s shortcomings, failures, etc. and you’re on some higher level of understanding is just not a really good look for you.

 

Sometimes it’s better just to take your L and move on.

I'm not competing so I'm not trying to win, I never praised him and I never claimed to be at some higher level of understanding. Everything you just said was how you perceived it to be. Everyone here is entitled to their opinion. I'm just asking if your opinion is based on something you know or something you heard and can't verify.

I didn't say everyone that believes in the Dan is evil bit are sheep. I'm saying to you and anyone else.....if you base that belief on news articles (and there are many!!) without any critical thinking, objective reasoning or (better yet) factual evidence,  you are a sheep for buying into that bias ****.

 

Remember, this thread started with a guy talking about the positive things he sees happening with the team of late. A good positive post. But alas, hear comes the negative .gifs from those that are hellbent on the past (whether valid or not). I posed the question to those that decided to be Debbie Downers to validate your stance with facts. Every single response was conjecture....no substance.....no facts. Only one person talked about being around past players and hearing their account and forming his opinion on that. But at least he had something. None of this schtick, take a L ****.

 

As a matter of fact, I am done with responding to irrelevance. One person (@goskins10) from this thread came with reasonable legitimate reasoning for his disdain for Dan. Everybody else responded with sheep speak.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darrell Green Fan

Darrell Green Fan

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, joeken24 said:

MIT defines common knowledge as information that the average, educated reader would accept as reliable without having to look it up. Education and institutional-ism are cousins. Its common knowledge that Columbus discovered America, right? (I'll get to this later, but I'm just sayin'...)

 

Lets make this clear.....I am not at a higher level of understanding. Never said I was. That's your claim and you're entitled to it. I'm simply asking for a FACT that justifies your proclamation that Dan is a bad person. If your opinion is that Dan is bad person, you're entitle to your opinion. I'm just asking where your opinion comes from - fact or common knowledge? Apparently for you, it comes from common knowledge.

 

Here's my issue with you and those that think common knowledge is justification. There are so many examples of people buying into false narratives. For example, its common knowledge (and according to our history book) that Columbus discovered America. It was taught and a holiday was even established. Common freakin' knowledge, right? If he discovered it and found people there, than he didn't ****ing discover it. As a matter of fact, he thought he was in India (in lays the name Indian). So that is where I'm coming from. Not a higher level of understanding but just a little bit of common sense really.

 

New reporters have been well known to toe the line between truth and being objective. Nowadays, they have one tone. CNN is mostly anti-republican. Fox is mostly-anti democrat. We see it everywhere in the media - no truth, just agendas. One could say, the Washington Post is anti-Redskins - at least as it relates to Dan Snyder and the name. A lot of news (especially in today's Twitter/Snapchat era) is puked out with no investigative reporting accomplished whatsoever. The media industry is marred with lazy writers, articles inundated with speculation, story titles written to attract readers only to find some baseless piece of **** article created to incite controversy (more viewership, more money). Sheep seem to always buy into unsubstantiated accounts. They watch CNN or they watch Fox and you can't tell them ****. Most times its all bull****, IMO. They buy more into the amount of people that say something is true (the very meaning of common knowledge) over finding out if that **** is really ****ing true. They go hook line and sinker on that bull****.

 

But I tell you what......if the Redskins start winning, I guarantee WP will start writing heartfelt stories about Dan's philanthropy work - true or a big ass lie. Its called P ****ing R and big ****ing business!

   
Better yet, what if you were able to hang out with Dan and found out on your own he was a cool, laid back guy, who loves to play Madden on PS4, drink Ale, loves to watch Game of Thrones, Westworld and Marvel Universe movies, devoted to his wife and the Redskins and hates Roseanne Barr? That would be something you can hang your opinion on, right (for better or worse)

But you can't. You have to listen to a news reporter tell you who he is and you don't even know the freakin reporter. But you trust what he says --- riiiiiighhht.

 

So again to the guy that had first hand or very close hand knowledge of Dan the person....thanks for your post. At least you have a base for your claim. But who knows, maybe someday you meet Dan yourself and form a different opinion. But then again, you may find yourself putting a whole block of government cheese in his macaroni (shut his ass down for good).

 

To the ones that seem to take on the sheep identification (you put the shoe on, not me), just provide some real facts to your claim and stop with the common knowledge bit.

 

I repeat one more gin (a little southern reference there)... I'm not trying to convince anybody of who Dan is, because I don't know him myself. I'm simply saying that I choose not to stamp Dan (or anyone else) if I don't have first hand knowledge of who the **** Dan is as a person. I've never heard him say anything that would cause me to think he was a bad person. I've never seen a quote from him that would do the same. Never seen him in hand cuffs.

on the other hand...

I've heard people that I don't personally know say **** that made me want to jump through the TV to beat the **** out of 'em. I heard that **** with my own ears!

I've seen people do **** that made me want to **** them up. I saw that ****!

I've also gotten accounts (from people I trust) about a person. That account made me feel some kinda way. Their account may have even made me cautious. But even with that, I've always tried to trust in my own point of view because one persons experience may be different than my own, right?

 

IMO we are all subject metaphorically to a Matrix. Mass media is it's mouthpiece. Some choose to feed into it. I don't. So I'm not trying to convince you to like Dan. You keep believing that, but I'm really not. I'm simply asking you to justify why you don't - red or blue. Take it or leave it. Either way, we'll both be watching the game on Sundays :headbang:

 

 

You put a lot of effort into a bad argument over and over again. 

 

.Do you have an opinion of Adolph Hitler?  Where did you form that opinion? From literature you read and accounts you have heard.  You never saw him kill one single Jew, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't speak fluent German so you were unable to understand his hate speeches. So you rely on the accounts of others.

 

 It's how we all form our opinions of people we have not personally met yet for some reason that's not good enough for you when it comes to Daniel Snyder.  You have never seen or heard him do a bad thing? Well I have. I saw how he tried to ruin The City Paper by filing a law suite when all they did was write a critical article of him.   I read his quotes where he clearly said he intended to crush the reporter and his paper, he attempted to ruin lives because a paper did their job and published an opinion article.   So there's that, I am not bothering to list more but I assure you they exist. 

 

Your also claim that we were only critical of Daniel Snyder after the fact is simply not true as I have pointed out. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BatteredFanSyndrome

BatteredFanSyndrome

Posted
Posted
On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 6:15 PM, joeken24 said:

I'm not competing so I'm not trying to win, I never praised him and I never claimed to be at some higher level of understanding. Everything you just said was how you perceived it to be. Everyone here is entitled to their opinion. I'm just asking if your opinion is based on something you know or something you heard and can't verify.

I didn't say everyone that believes in the Dan is evil bit are sheep. I'm saying to you and anyone else.....if you base that belief on news articles (and there are many!!) without any critical thinking, objective reasoning or (better yet) factual evidence,  you are a sheep for buying into that bias ****.

 

Remember, this thread started with a guy talking about the positive things he sees happening with the team of late. A good positive post. But alas, hear comes the negative .gifs from those that are hellbent on the past (whether valid or not). I posed the question to those that decided to be Debbie Downers to validate your stance with facts. Every single response was conjecture....no substance.....no facts. Only one person talked about being around past players and hearing their account and forming his opinion on that. But at least he had something. None of this schtick, take a L ****.

 

As a matter of fact, I am done with responding to irrelevance. One person (@goskins10) from this thread came with reasonable legitimate reasoning for his disdain for Dan. Everybody else responded with sheep speak.

 

 

 

Perhaps you need to go back and read what you posted again.


 

Quote

 

Haters hate. Its what they do. A thread about Bruce or Dan will always have the same set of haters chime in. You provided reasonable information. I appreciate that. But still.....haters always have something bad to say. They never take their mothers advice about that ****.

 

Ya see, haters generally become haters through unfounded news feeds, WP propaganda, other baseless reports (like Peter King's sorry ass) and emotion. Basically sheep think. Never any real facts. Haters don't care about facts. Its better to simply hate, right?

 

 

And then there's this pile of doo-doo you posted that still has steam rising from it...

 

Quote

OK, I get it. But I'll say this.....bad decisions means you're making one. It means you're a leader and not a follower. Bad decision are only considered bad after they've been made.

 

- Ricky Bobby

 

:rofl89:

 

Quote

Think back to the splash FA signings over the years. Just about everyone of those signings blew this forum up with positive feedback about the upcoming season. When it didn't work out, the sheep came out to pasture yelling baaahh hate, baaahh hate. Its the haters that are critical of decisions after the fact. To me, those are the bad guys. But then I thought to myself, haters really would never have the ca hones to make those decisions, they're sheep.

 

Again, referring to those with contrary opinions to your own as sheep.  You had to dig all the way down to very bottom of the excuse landfill to applaud Dan for making bad decisions because those who are critical of him don't have the balls to make terrible decisions.  Phew.

 

For the record, many of us have been critical of Dan before, during and after his bad decisions. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thebluefood

thebluefood

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

I think he's having money problems.

I'm kinda wondering about that too - especially since 12 years into its existence, Red Zebra's dissolving after finalizing the deal to sell off WTEM and if memory serves, that was sold at an overall loss (as was the rest of his burgeoning "radio empire")

 

- - -

 

But something that's been on my mind a lot lately (and I've brought up a few times on this forum) is the contrast between Dan Snyder's Redskins and Jeff Lurie's Eagles over the years. Lurie took over a team on the decline, built them back up to relevance (with an NFC Championship), then saw them spiraling again when "The Chip Kelly Experience" burst into flames. That could have wrecked the team for years but instead, the Eagles bounce back and now they are - to my deepest dismay - league champions. He's seen this team bottom out twice but they managed to bounce back.

 

It's almost as if they actually rebuilt the team instead of treading water for two decades.

 

Along with that, he seems to be a steadying force in the organization and respected by his fellow team owners. 

 

Dan Snyder? Not so much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeken24

joeken24

Posted
Posted
On 6/3/2018 at 3:13 PM, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

You put a lot of effort into a bad argument over and over again. 

 

.Do you have an opinion of Adolph Hitler?  Where did you form that opinion? From literature you read and accounts you have heard.  You never saw him kill one single Jew, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't speak fluent German so you were unable to understand his hate speeches. So you rely on the accounts of others.

 

 It's how we all form our opinions of people we have not personally met yet for some reason that's not good enough for you when it comes to Daniel Snyder.  You have never seen or heard him do a bad thing? Well I have. I saw how he tried to ruin The City Paper by filing a law suite when all they did was write a critical article of him.   I read his quotes where he clearly said he intended to crush the reporter and his paper, he attempted to ruin lives because a paper did their job and published an opinion article.   So there's that, I am not bothering to list more but I assure you they exist. 

 

Your also claim that we were only critical of Daniel Snyder after the fact is simply not true as I have pointed out. 

 

 

 

 

Amazing how you are using Adolph Hitler (another chose Al Capone) in your argument. Not to mention the flagrant assumption you make regarding what the **** I know about the Jewish experience. You make another poor assumption that I blindly form an opinion on people. And lastly, you compare literature to freakin' local news article. Really dude? I've already talked about the state of journalism. You'd have to be head deep in sand not to see the bias and laziness so-called writers are placing in your cerebral cortex causing your every thought to be bias - if you're a sheep that is.  

 

Look, here's two articles. Read them (if you will) and tell me which one you believe is true:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-i-am-suing-washington-city-paper/2011/04/25/AFYQC1kE_story.html?utm_term=.580f1570b72f

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/tom-cruise-helping-dan-snyder-crush-small-city-newspaper/350496/

 

There's always two sides to the story. You choose to listen to one - that would be bias.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bedlamVR

bedlamVR

Posted
Posted
On 6/3/2018 at 8:13 PM, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

You put a lot of effort into a bad argument over and over again. 

 

.Do you have an opinion of Adolph Hitler?  Where did you form that opinion? From literature you read and accounts you have heard.  You never saw him kill one single Jew, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't speak fluent German so you were unable to understand his hate speeches. So you rely on the accounts of others.

 

 It's how we all form our opinions of people we have not personally met yet for some reason that's not good enough for you when it comes to Daniel Snyder.  You have never seen or heard him do a bad thing? Well I have. I saw how he tried to ruin The City Paper by filing a law suite when all they did was write a critical article of him.   I read his quotes where he clearly said he intended to crush the reporter and his paper, he attempted to ruin lives because a paper did their job and published an opinion article.   So there's that, I am not bothering to list more but I assure you they exist. 

 

Your also claim that we were only critical of Daniel Snyder after the fact is simply not true as I have pointed out. 

 

 

 

 

 

I am going to chime in again here. 

 

I am not sure it is Joeken who is making a bad argument here - All he is doing is trying to get across the point that unless you personally know someone you always have to be open to other  possibilities other than what you read or hear 2nd or 3rd or 100th hand.  

 

Hitler may or may not have been an 'evil' person - I think you need to understand or define 'evil' here is. I think this discussion is more prudent for the tailgate to be honest, but anyway.. I think it is not accurate to define him as an evil man. Evil people tend to be self driven, act regardless of society - Hitler  held very wrong ideals, and allowed very wrong things to happen  but I will say he was a very ambitious person, charismatic and a ruthless person and everything he did (at least in the begining) was done for a cause in which he believed in - Germany - and not for himself.

 

And the thing is if Hitler was simply evil there is no way people would follow him - or put him in a position of power to enable him to do the things he did. What he did , was legitimately win popular elections - by becoming the voice of the people with a very nationalist ideal - but his message was the German people were being oppressed and the bogymen he painted as the oppressors were the ruling parties who sold Germany out in the peace agreements following the first world war (the government of the time) and outsiders the people who controlled the money (which became personified as the Jews).

 

He was not alone, preceding and following the great crash in the 1930s  the Jews were being victimized for various ills of the world - in the US, the UK and most of europe - It was 'common opinion'  at the time that  Jews were - bad people . The Nazi regime went too far and even they knew it but their ideas were not disimilar to others at the same time - The biggest thing was Hitler was the perfect storm of the wrong person at the wrong time in history, 

 

Why the history leasson on in a football forum ? Because it is relevent . 

 

Firslty because  you say Dan Snyder was wrong to do what he did to try and put the washing city paper out of business by sueing them (which has been pointed out he didn't do) requires you to look again at what you are defending. I called that article out as anti seimetic - it is the worst kind of anti semitism - it is trivial - casual - making fun - But normalizes hate - All of the points all relatated to money, greed and the oppression of the helpless etc. typically negative conitations associated with anti jewish sentiment - The particular image of Dan Snyder depicted as the devil again is common imagery associated with anti jewish sentiment and can be seen throughout history in disney cartoons back to the depication of jews in shakespheare .  

 

But wait you say - is Dan Snyder even jewish - I cannot be sure - but his name sounds jewish and that is enough.

 

Most people wont care . Either they don't like Dan Snyder - because well the Redskins have been bad under his ownership - or they don't like people not like themselves (i.e. Jews) and this trivialization of hatred makes in some cases very distasteful opionion normal - and the less it is challenged the more that distasteful opinion becomes 'common opinion' 

 

Personally I cannot say if Dan Snyder is a good or bad owner - To me i think he is pretty much average - He tries his best to make the team better - but he doesn't always have the best people around him, or react to the right things quick enough  (some of that is judgment and some of that is luck) .. I personally like the direction of travel - at the moment - I think exciting things are a foot - the team on the field is being constructed in a considered and patient way - the coaching staff are solid, the FO has boosted scouting and nurtured in house talent rather than splashing the cash and trying to bring every tom dick and harry aboard , (something that has been replicated in the roster building) - there are upopular decision and PR hicups but I think things are pointing upwards. 

 

Ultimately Dan will never be considered a success until the Redskins win the superbowl -

 

But just don't believe everything you read - challenge everything - and while you cannot be expected to know Dan Snyder ( or A N other) always be weary of other people oppinions - because you don't know what their motivations are either  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...