Archived

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

skins_warrior

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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

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  

 

 

I was simply pointing out that people form opinions of people by what they read and the accounts they hear.  That applies to  Adolph Hitler, who they decide to vote for President, and it also applies to Daniel Snyder.  To argue otherwise is foolish, to question every single account is idiotic. Getting kinda tired of the "fake news" excuse whenever a critical article is writing, they ain't all fake.  This is especially true of Snyder when one reads his specific quotes about suing a newspaper and attempting to put them out of business. 

 

What motivation would a hotel manager have for telling others that Snyder's boorish behavior towards his staff lead him to tell Snyder one more of those and he's out? That hotel manager never met the guy, why would he say this?  Because it really happened, obviously. 

 

 

14 hours ago, joeken24 said:

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.

 

 

 

Nothing like seeing a poster write "I'm done responding" only to see another response to really boost that poster's credibility.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, skinfan2k said:

I can't wait to see how Synder reacts when the Caps win the title

 

A divisional rival just won its first Super Bowl a couple years after being decimated by bad personnel moves and a college coach. Now, another local team (owned by someone who Dan considers a business rival) is about to become the toast of DC for the first time in our modern sports history as a city. 

 

If the pressure was ever truly on for Snyder to need to avoid descending into the second-level of popularity as a franchise (not a team, but an actual franchise), it's NOW. I hope the Caps win on Thursday and then the Nats win the WS (even though I don't like the Nats). The era of living off of the good will that was built up by other men decades ago is finally coming to an end. Time for Snyder to earn back what he's allowed to erode. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

A divisional rival just won its first Super Bowl a couple years after being decimated by bad personnel moves and a college coach. Now, another local team (owned by someone who Dan considers a business rival) is about to become the toast of DC for the first time in our modern sports history as a city. 

 

If the pressure was ever truly on for Snyder to need to avoid descending into the second-level of popularity as a franchise (not a team, but an actual franchise), it's NOW. I hope the Caps win on Thursday and then the Nats win the WS (even though I don't like the Nats). The era of living off of the good will that was built up by other men decades ago is finally coming to an end. Time for Snyder to earn back what he's allowed to erode. 

 

If Baltimore winning 2 Super Bowls under his nose didn't instill the sense of urgency or personal reflection, not much will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, skinfan2k said:

I can't wait to see how Synder reacts when the Caps win the title

I dunno about him personally but the team's Twitter account has been awesome.

 

****ing savage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the hard thing about this debate is the bad guy/bad owner debate are two different discussions. I think you can believe one without the other or it could be grey.  The two points don't have to go hand in hand for the point to work about how he is as an owner. 

 

For me as for Dan being a bad guy.  My gut is its in the grey area.  I don't think he's mr. warm and fuzz personality wise but he's OK.  At the least the description I've heard about him, reminds me of a client I have.   That client got rich young and is a bit brash.  He's not loved by all but I get along with him.  He's a bit rough around the edges, overly emotional and irrational at times when under stress.   He is not always easy to get along with but most of the time he's OK. And if he likes you he has your back.  And can do cool things for others. 

 

That's at least my impression of Dan.  And yeah if you don't meet a person its hard to have a full picture.  But a guy like Dan has been in the limelight forever.  And there are articles after articles/radio interviews, etc about people who worked with the dude.  I haven't met Joe Gibbs but I think I have a good feel for his personality.  Ditto Gregg Williams, Jay, etc.  And if what I see matches what other people have said who actually dealt with said people then yeah I feel pretty comfortable that I am not shooting in the dark on it. 

   

As for people just buying in what they are fed like sheep -- I think that accusation is silly.  I can just as easily turn that around and say are we supposed to believe that this is a Putin style orchestrated media conspiracy with so many moving parts and players over the years all to converge on a narrative about a guy that simply isn't true.  And they are doing it why?  Just because?

 

Now, I gather some think it just could be because some media members don't like the dude and or ex-employees having a grudge and wanting to exact revenge.  But heck even if so, why is it so pointed at Dan?  Why isn't the narrative that Lurrie or someone else is a jerk?  Why Dan?  Is that just another random universe happenstance and Dan just happens to be the poor sap who is the unlucky victim for this?

 

And again this is coming from a guy who doesn't think he's been a good owner.    More on that in a second.   But from what I've read and heard, while I don't love what i hear about Dan the guy - I also don't think he's all awful either.  I've dealt with a number of people at Redskins Park here and there over the years.  Getting passes for things.  Spent sometime at Redskins Park.  Done a bunch of the fan auction things with their Charity foundation, etc.  And you got a lot really cool/good people that work there.   And, they take charity work there really seriously and i have to commend Dan for that. 

 

Unlike some critics of the dude, I actually do think that he genuinely wants to win and that we have a chance to do it if he sees the light one day.   I just think he can't get out of his way to win thus far.  For my taste, I do buy he's improved.  But to me until he realizes that the key to winning is modeling successful franchises and getting ahead of the trends as opposed to following them -- versus trying to prove you can win your own way -- he won't win.  The best analogy I can think of is instead of being an alcoholic -- he now still drinks but has cut down on it.  It's not enough to compete with the fanatical health nuts that are in better shape then him.  

 

But we aren't the Browns and the really bad teams anymore.  We are somewhere in the middle.  I see nothing about how they go about things to make me think they transcend the middle.  Once in awhile like in the past, they will hit 10 games but I think it will be fleeting.  And I've stated why numerous times.   And I think Dan is the key reason why we are stuck in the middle.  He's gotten over the play fantasy football drill with the team.  He's interfering less.   He's more patient.  But I still don't see an owner who is ahead of the curve.  We seem reactive more so than proactive.  Whether its having lots of scouts, using scouting services, metrics, facilities -- heck even the recent thing about new technology to deal with injuries.  The Redskins always seem to be trying to learn years later about what OTHER teams are doing before they do it.   And Dan still seems hung up on having the top personnel guy to be first and foremost a pal/social crutch more so than a personnel wiz. 

 

For those reasons I see them escaping the basement but never quite reaching the promised land unless Dan learns these lessons.  And like I said i am more optimistic than most that he might actually learn them.  Will see.    And it wouldn't shock me if he doesn't learn those lessons -- its been a long time coming already.  But the optimist in me holds out some flicker of hope.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

If the pressure was ever truly on for Snyder to need to avoid descending into the second-level of popularity as a franchise (not a team, but an actual franchise), it's NOW. I hope the Caps win on Thursday and then the Nats win the WS (even though I don't like the Nats). The era of living off of the good will that was built up by other men decades ago is finally coming to an end. Time for Snyder to earn back what he's allowed to erode. 

 

This, this, this, this until the end of time. 

 

This city is starving for a major championship and it doesn't matter who breaks the fast. The only reason why D.C.'s been a Redskins Town for so long is because they won and because (and this is important): they didn't really have any other competition. They're at once the spoiled rich kid who expects everything to be handed to them and the sad Friday Night Hero still living on the glories of 30+ years ago.

 

They are truly the Uncle Rico of the NFL. 

 

latest?cb=20120117222806

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thebluefood said:

 

They are truly the Uncle Rico of the NFL. 

 

 

Not that surprising of an outcome.

 

We literally hired Uncle Rico to come in and lead the team for 2 seasons....

 

Image result for jim zorn player

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

As for people just buying in what they are fed like sheep -- I think that accusation is silly.  I can just as easily turn that around and say are we supposed to believe that this is a Putin style orchestrated media conspiracy with so many moving parts and players over the years all to converge on a narrative about a guy that simply isn't true.  And they are doing it why?  Just because?

 

Now, I gather some think it just could be because some media members don't like the dude and or ex-employees having a grudge and wanting to exact revenge.  But heck even if so, why is it so pointed at Dan?  Why isn't the narrative that Lurrie or someone else is a jerk?  Why Dan?  Is that just another random universe happenstance and Dan just happens to be the poor sap who is the unlucky victim for this?

This is the crux of the debate in my opinion. And I happen to agree with most everything you said. But the OP and thread is about Dan maturing as an owner. No one (to my knowledge) is saying he hasn't made terrible mistakes in the past. The whole point in my opinion is that his terrible mistakes, along with some other factors such as the name controversy, make for Dan and the Redskins to be an easy target in the media. And that if you study what is happening from a team-building perspective, there is some fairly strong evidence that he has grown. This is Jay's fifth year. Scouting department seems to be getting beefed up. A big emphasis on positional coaches which shows in player development. Allocating substantial resources to both lines. Is it sad that it took so long for some of these obvious things to take place? Sure, but that's not the point. The point is that he is growing. And fan and media narrative does not really reflect that. That's where I'm assuming the sheep talk comes in from @joeken24 and some others. Sports media and media in general is very reactionary, and not proactive. It's influenced by a lot of group think. Bet your bottom dollar if the Redskins strung together a 12 win season and championship birth that Dan would begin to get his due for things that are already taking place right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Bet your bottom dollar if the Redskins strung together a 12 win season and championship birth that Dan would begin to get his due for things that are already taking place right now.

I keep seeing this sentiment being repeated around here, as if Dan is deserving of being accredited with any type of positive press prior to the team actually winning.  It would make perfect sense for the press to fluff Dan up a bit if in the event the team did something it hasn't done since he's owned the team for going on 2 decades.

 

I also find it very difficult to credit him with 'growing' as an owner because that's what he's supposed to do.  One would think the guy would figure some things out eventually.  The team not only has to win but needs to sustain some level of success before he's going to receive any glory or praise from the media or fan base (minus a few of you).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. The guys a fan first. He's obviously backed off and put actual football people in charge, some even former players. We have ring of famers and retired Redskins coming back around wanting to be part of the team. Our drafts are getting better. We have an elite coaching staff, at least positionally including a DC who's a true Redskin. He's sticking with the HC even after a down year. We may be frustrating and we're all hungry for a championship, but at least we're not a major embarrassment around the league anymore and fairly competitive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I keep seeing this sentiment being repeated around here, as if Dan is deserving of being accredited with any type of positive press prior to the team actually winning.  It would make perfect sense for the press to fluff Dan up a bit if in the event the team did something it hasn't done since he's owned the team for going on 2 decades.

 

I also find it very difficult to credit him with 'growing' as an owner because that's what he's supposed to do.  One would think the guy would figure some things out eventually.  The team not only has to win but needs to sustain some level of success before he's going to receive any glory or praise from the media or fan base (minus a few of you).

Yeah, I don't necessarily disagree. It makes sense that this is how it would be. I think we are referring to some of the over the top media fluff pieces that are churned out and things like the cheerleader story that causes an immediate "Hopefully Dan sells the team" reaction. I can't fault most for feeling that way, but I do feel as if there is growth evident. I agree that's what he is supposed to do, and most of it is what competent owners would have done in the beginning. I just think the "The Redskins will suck until Dan sells the team" narrative is a little off when you consider the recent progress. We've grown from the lowest of lows to mediocrity. Time will tell if we improve from mediocrity to consistent winner. I think the formula is in place to do so but all that matters is wins on the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every so often I pop into the Stadium to see if I've missed anything through the tedium of a football summer. 

 

Then I'm reminded of the utter madness that kept me away to begin with. 

 

HAil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

This is the crux of the debate in my opinion. And I happen to agree with most everything you said. But the OP and thread is about Dan maturing as an owner. No one (to my knowledge) is saying he hasn't made terrible mistakes in the past. The whole point in my opinion is that his terrible mistakes, along with some other factors such as the name controversy, make for Dan and the Redskins to be an easy target in the media. And that if you study what is happening from a team-building perspective, there is some fairly strong evidence that he has grown. This is Jay's fifth year. Scouting department seems to be getting beefed up. A big emphasis on positional coaches which shows in player development. Allocating substantial resources to both lines. Is it sad that it took so long for some of these obvious things to take place? Sure, but that's not the point. The point is that he is growing. And fan and media narrative does not really reflect that. That's where I'm assuming the sheep talk comes in from @joeken24 and some others. Sports media and media in general is very reactionary, and not proactive. It's influenced by a lot of group think. Bet your bottom dollar if the Redskins strung together a 12 win season and championship birth that Dan would begin to get his due for things that are already taking place right now.

 

To me he's matured some.  But he didn't do a 180.  To me he's moved from an F level owner to a C level guy.   

 

When it comes to the media, and I know this from some of my own personal experience, you have a much better chance winning them over if you come off to them likable.    So the idea that they'd give him the benefit of the doubt after a rough start would be predicated in part on in their minds seeing him change.  

 

I thought it was interesting to hear Brewer talk about the subject in the context of Bruce saying look he has an adversarial relationship with the media and that's going to reflect coverage about him.   I know from my own experience I once had a blogger who had a frequented looked at web site which beat me up (unfairly of course :))  and my clients some.  So I took him out to lunch, talked to him for hours, gave him my take -- showed him the best likable side of myself :) and knock on wood I've gotten good coverage since.

 

So for me the media's take on Dan is mostly self inflicted including if it has subsisted even if its unwarranted.  Managing the media is part of the job of an organization.  There is a reason why the media liked Scot and like Jay and Doug for example.  It's not random circumstance.  There is also a reason why they don't dig Dan or Bruce.  That also isn't random circumstance.  And if Dan really did a 180 and is a warm and fuzzy dude behind the scenes, etc -- its his job to make it clear to those who cover him if he wants that coverage to change.   

 

In short there is a reason why there are people who specialize in PR and media management -- that is, there is a way to actually do it.    Dan/Bruce are the key figures of the organization with the biggest titles.  And if they are going to play the bad boy with the media than that's the coverage they will get.  That's how it typically works.  I don't feel even a little sorry for them about it.  They made their bed.  And yeah it can typically be changed if you choose to work at it.   

 

What's the current version of Dan's personality?  Don't know.  As an article from a couple years back about Dan alluded to the idea that people don't really change their personalities much and some have contended that Dan has mellowed and some have contended he hasn't.   The picture that I get reading what i have is that he's still a high strung dude but he can contain it better than the past.  

 

I do think the idea that he's impatient with coaches has been overplayed for a long time.  Really the last version of that was Marty.  Zorn needed to go.  Spurrier left on his own.  Ditto Gibbs.  The Shanny/RG3 drill was a mess and Dan mishandled that one IMO.  But if there was no RG3, I'd presume Shanny's leash would have been longer.

 

And Dan is patient as heck with his GMs IMO to a big time fault -- Vinny had a really long leash in spite of all the losing.  Bruce ditto.   For me my beef with Dan isn't about patience with coaches and GMs.  I might change my opinion for the worse on that front if the idea that Jay is on a short leash this year as some suggest.

 

But as you know, I think Dan's top criteria for GMs isn't who is the best at that game but its closer to who is his best buddy.   And until that changes for me Dan is a C owner.  Ditto, IMO the team still comes off clunky and at times unclassy as to how they handle some PR situations.  So I don't see a culture change under Dan in terms of this team coming off like one that always takes the high road. 

 

Dan has changed this way.  It's no longer hey I watched Chad Johnson on TV last night -- let me call Vinny, can we get that dude?  Vinny calls back, hey they want two #1's for him.  Dan:  No problem, get it done.  Fortunately, Cincy turned them down.  Heck I recall Gibbs relaying in an interview years ago about how Dan called him saying lets go get Lance Briggs.  Shanny told a story to Grant Paulsen about Dan walking into his office saying lets get Randy Moss.   I posted an article months back about how according to some who worked at Redskins Park, Dan wanted Brady Quinn really really badly but the personnel department talked him out of it.

 

We don't hear stuff anymore like the scouts wanted Jordy Nelson but Dan fell in love with Malcomb Kelly.  Hopefully its not all going on still but quietly.  But it doesn't feel like Dan is interfering like that.  And that is a big change for him if so.   But he IMO has plenty of areas to improve in.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what’s going on right now with the Caps is such an indictment on Dan Snyder and the Redskins.  Think about this, we’re a few days away from the Redskins losing their only claim to relevancy for the last 25+ years.  When the Skins won in 1991, both the Wizards & Caps were lowly franchises, with barely any fan support.  Fast forward 27 years, and all 3 franchises in DC not named Redskins are experiencing competitive seasons, playoff appearances, and a commitment to competing for years to come. Meanwhile the Redskins are 40-74-1 in the last 9 years, and except for a few fluke seasons, have been irrelevant and at times an embarrassment.

 

I hope that the Redskins are paying attention to what’s going on around town the last few weeks.  I’ve never seen this town so together and happy over a playoff run like the Capitals are experiencing.  I’m also noticing over the last few years how much more Capa/Nats jerseys, hats, decals, etc that I see around town then Redskins merchandise.  If the Redskins don’t get their act together quick, they’re in danger of losing their once iron grip over DC.  If you’re 25 years old and younger, why root for an embarrassing, losing franchise with a highly dislikable owner, when you can root for highly competitive, committed franchises like the Nats/Caps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Managing the media is part of the job of an organization.  There is a reason why the media liked Scot and like Jay and Doug for example.  It's not random circumstance. 

Your post was good. But my question is this.....as much as its the organization's job to handle the media, isn't it equally important for a journalist to be profession? I mean just because you like Scot, Jay or Doug, doesn't mean you get in your feelings and not conduct objective reporting. If there is something Jay said or did that was questionable and news worthy, ****ing write the story like it is. That same argument goes for Dan Snyder. Right now, the word Journalistic integrity is a freakin' oxymoron. Objectivity is almost nonexistent. I know its reality, so yes, you have to deal with it. But I'm not sure if that makes it right. I think folks like Belichick, Popovich (until recently) and a few others (maybe even Dan, who knows) have said **** it. When the wind changes, the media will change with it. So may they're saying to themselves, why do I need to play chameleon with these a-holes? The media industry is probably the most wishy-washy, schizo outfit in America. Which is why I take their information with a grain of salt. Hopefully someday the media industry will be taken to task for the bull**** and misinformation they keep spreading. But alas, they have the power of the pen. So what do you do? Maybe you be yourself and let the chips fall where they may. Think of all the sports personalities that were taken through the ringer by the press, only to come out smelling like roses. **** 'em!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, joeken24 said:

Your post was good. But my question is this.....as much as its the organization's job to handle the media, isn't it equally important for a journalist to be profession? I mean just because you like Scot, Jay or Doug, doesn't mean you get in your feelings and not conduct objective reporting. If there is something Jay said or did that was questionable and news worthy, ****ing write the story like it is. That same argument goes for Dan Snyder. Right now, the word Journalistic integrity is a freakin' oxymoron. Objectivity is almost nonexistent. I know its reality, so yes, you have to deal with it. But I'm not sure if that makes it right. I think folks like Belichick, Popovich (until recently) and a few others (maybe even Dan, who knows) have said **** it. When the wind changes, the media will change with it. So may they're saying to themselves, why do I need to play chameleon with these a-holes? The media industry is probably the most wishy-washy, schizo outfit in America. Which is why I take their information with a grain of salt. Hopefully someday the media industry will be taken to task for the bull**** and misinformation they keep spreading. But alas, they have the power of the pen. So what do you do? Maybe you be yourself and let the chips fall where they may. Think of all the sports personalities that were taken through the ringer by the press, only to come out smelling like roses. **** 'em!

 

 

 

 

 

The media though isn't one monolithic body.  It's a series of different reporters, radio personalities -- national guys, local guys.  You have a lot of people typically covering an owner of a major sports team. 

 

I'll use George Steinbrenner as an example.  His reputation was being a rash guy, impatient -- can be a douche but also could be a nice guy.  He had a combative relationship with some reporters but a better reputation with others.  Is all of that manufactured nonsense?  I don't see how that would be possible. There are too many people weighing in on the subject -- mind you the media isn't just about editorial but they will quote people that have interacted with George.  If lets say 15 people described George as an impetuous dude.  Odds are pretty good he actually is just that. 

 

The media didn't do a 180 on George until the Yankees became major winners in the 1990s and George discernibly mellowed.  

 

The Redskins are a 500 team.  The media doesn't celebrate mediocrity as representing a sea change.  Yeah I get that some here do or think they are on the brink of busting loose like that.  But the media isn't picking on the Redskins because they do not celebrate their rise to mediocrity.   If the Redskins actually bust loose for real versus thinking they might have or they should have or could have -- i think you'd see plenty of complements. 

 

If you are watching a feel good movie of some dude rising from the ashes like Rocky its not an ascension from the bottom to so so.  That would be a boring movie and an uninspiring movie. 

 

And as for Dan mellowing with age like George perhaps did.  We don't know if that's the case.  We still see some of the same douche like behavior from the organization at least in my view with the Kirk press release and Scot ouster.  Not sure about Dan's part if any with it.  So for people to do a 180 as if the organization exudes class and competence -- I don't think its billboard level obvious.  They have much further to go.

 

For Steinbrenner the turnaround was obvious -- he stopped saying crazy things in the media and firing people left and right AND the Yankees started winning championships.  It wasn't instead hey we got less antics from George but still got some and hooray the Yankees finished in 3rd place -- isn't in time to come around on George? 

 

Dan and Bruce represent the Redskins.  It's their job to present themselves and the team in the best way possible.  We can call the media evil or whatever but plenty of other teams manage to do this part well.   If Dan/Bruce don't want to engage on this front, then they made their bed. 

 

Going back to my case.  If I wanted to say screw the media, let them write whatever they want to about me or my clients -- versus turning that around then my decision was to live with the bad coverage.   So if that's their decision to take it on the chin, then IMO its not our responsibility to deduce that behind closed doors its much better than its being portrayed.  

 

I think the crux of this argument is does Dan deserve the benefit of the doubt or does he not?  And to that point, I don't see how he's earned the benefit of the doubt.  If your image isn't perceived as hot with people who cover your team especially if some of those people think you are a douche -- then show them you aren't a douche.   Jerry Jones for his faults has the guts to put himself out there.  He's said publicly his son really controls operations now much more than in the past among other things.  He knows what his image is and he manages it when he chooses.  If Dan/Bruce decide they don't want to manage it -- then its not our job to do that for them.   

 

We got no idea that they've turned things around as for how they do things.  We can guess.  And we see certain improvements.  But for me I am not celebrating mediocrity or grading them on a curve.  I'll start with this the Redskins are the only team in the NFL that has gone 20 plus years without an 11 win season.  Go win 11 games or heck just make the playoffs and win one playoff game -- is that too much to ask?  :)  But until they have some real success -- and the bar isn't that high considering those are things that some franchises like the Steelers/Packers/Seahawks and other successful franchises would yawn at as just modest success. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

I don't know. The guys a fan first. He's obviously backed off and put actual football people in charge, some even former players. We have ring of famers and retired Redskins coming back around wanting to be part of the team. Our drafts are getting better. We have an elite coaching staff, at least positionally including a DC who's a true Redskin. He's sticking with the HC even after a down year. We may be frustrating and we're all hungry for a championship, but at least we're not a major embarrassment around the league anymore and fairly competitive. 

 

Anytime I see people see that now, I almost assume its out of frustration. 

 

I agree that Dan is like a poster on here who happens to own the team, and frankly, a lot of ya'll know something something, but most of us aren't professional football folk.  Like I said, if Snyder final does get a championship and there are people that still hate him, those people are too far gone anyway. 

 

I really wish he'd talk to us more, do an AMA, something man, many people's opinions of him now are being formulated by his refusal to confirm or deny any of it publicly.  His last interview was, what, 2014?  I also would be pleasantly surprised if he pushed Bruce out, that would speak loud and clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The end of the day the owner is there to  sign cheques and collect trophies . 

 

The op is not looking back at mistakes of the past but the direction of travel . So I agree with him Dan is evolving into a decent owner ... I am excited to see what comes with the new stadium ... for example ..if he can make something like A&T stadium in Dallas would that be praise worthy ? Or will nothing stop the “sell the team “ rhetoric ? 

 

You can argue that mediocrity should not be celebrated and there is a point to be made ... but 8-8 is hard work in the NFCEAST .. none of the teams in the east are perennial punching bags ... we don’t get to feast on the bengles, browns and ravens twice a year every year ... or the bills dolphins and jets .. and fans expectations of 11 wins ... yes would be nice but how is it a measuring stick ..to go 14-2 followed by 4-12 ? Or 11-5 and 3-13 ?  ( cowboys and giants) Winning 11+ games is not necessarily an indication of a good team - just one that things went well for ..

 

the skins ins have been through a lot and yet still hover in that 8/8 state . That is not something to be sniffed at and the organisation deserves some praise for that ? 

 

I am going to guess the answer ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bedlamVR said:

You can argue that mediocrity should not be celebrated and there is a point to be made ... but 8-8 is hard work in the NFCEAST .. none of the teams in the east are perennial punching bags ... we don’t get to feast on the bengles, browns and ravens twice a year every year .answer ... 

 

Up until the last few years playing in the division that contains the Steelers, Bengals, and Ravens was hardly an easy situation, it was probably the best division in the NFL.  And again up until recently the NFC East kinda sucked, one the NFL's worst divisions.  So no I don't see the division as the reason our team has sucked.  

 

As for Dan maturing obviously this current situation is much better than Dan and Vinny hoping on planes to scout QBs.  But again you are what your record says you are, so we have gone from crappy to average.  So that's improvement for sure but not nearly good enough. And then there's the little situation of being the only team in the history of the game to let an established QB walk away for nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

The end of the day the owner is there to  sign cheques and collect trophies . 

 

The op is not looking back at mistakes of the past but the direction of travel . So I agree with him Dan is evolving into a decent owner ... I am excited to see what comes with the new stadium ... for example ..if he can make something like A&T stadium in Dallas would that be praise worthy ? Or will nothing stop the “sell the team “ rhetoric ? 

 

You can argue that mediocrity should not be celebrated and there is a point to be made ... but 8-8 is hard work in the NFCEAST .. none of the teams in the east are perennial punching bags ... we don’t get to feast on the bengles, browns and ravens twice a year every year ... or the bills dolphins and jets .. and fans expectations of 11 wins ... yes would be nice but how is it a measuring stick ..to go 14-2 followed by 4-12 ? Or 11-5 and 3-13 ?  ( cowboys and giants) Winning 11+ games is not necessarily an indication of a good team - just one that things went well for ..

 

the skins ins have been through a lot and yet still hover in that 8/8 state . That is not something to be sniffed at and the organisation deserves some praise for that ? 

 

I am going to guess the answer ... 

 

 

During Dan's tenure while the Redskins haven't won 11 games once.  The other NFC East teams have won 11 games plus a combined 15 times.  Heck all of them won at least 12 games multiple times.  Won 13 games 6 times.   Just because on occasion its been followed by a bad season -- often it wasn't by the way -- doesn't dampen it.  Name one team in the NFC East who would trade runs with us?  None would.

 

8/8ish in the tough NFC East isn't that bad is it?  Yeah considering the article I posted about how the Redskins record wise has been one of the worst teams in the NFL for most of Dan's tenure -- I get the celebration of the 8 and 8 era from that context.  But IMO its not some turning point to celebrate.  I think that's the crux of the argument here.   

 

To make the point that no matter what they do, people won't pat Dan on the back IMO is sort of a strange point.  It's like saying you went back to the same restaurant that gave you food poisoning and you ate there again and its now so so.  Should we now go on Yelp and talk about how we are blown away by the so so food or even go out of our way to acknowledge it?  And since we aren't willing to do that it means that even if the food was great we wouldn't give them their due?  My point is the difference between really really good and so so -- is tremendous.  It's night and day.  It's not some small nuance, its everything. 

 

It's a cliche in sports.  Winning cures all.  It's not about mediocrity -- I don't care what the context of the mediocrity is.  And I think Dan would be given a lot of the benefit of the doubt at least from me if he had a real football personnel guy in charge of personnel.  And we still didn't have these PR antics that can make the organization look like the bad guys at times. 

 

Hey you had Capitals fans cynical about their team from just getting knocking out of the playoffs every year.  Now, they are on the brink of winning it all and they are the toast of the town.  That's how it typically works.  I don't think many give a rats behind about 7-9 and or hey maybe we make the playoffs and get knocked out in round one -- once every 4 years.   Is that an improvement over the past - yes.  But is it a cause to celebrate it as a sea change from an owner who has mostly gone underground -- don't think so.   

 

But if the idea is Dan has elevated from a bad owner to a mediocre one.   He's nothing great but not the worst either -- he does some good things, he does some bad things.  He's not on the level of the better owners of the league but not the worst either.   I see that.  But it doesn't get me jazzed.  I grew up like many here with the successful run of the 80s so seeing a team that IMO has no shot of winning the Superbowl but look at least they aren't embarrassed anymore and can be competitive albeit nothing special -- I can deal with that a little better if we had a Wentz or name that young emerging QB because then its easier to hope at some point you can get lucky and hit lightening in a bottle.   With a veteran, we got to win now IMO.  And hopefully we do.

 

The best analogy I can think of to the Redskins are the Lions.  That's another team that has stunk.  And recently they've been mediocre -- actually better than mediocre, they've had winning seasons albeit barely so two years in a row and they actually have won 11 games recently.   Maybe I've missed it but I don't recall reading fluff articles about how the Lions really got it together now and are among the models of the better run organizations in the league.  And they actually deserve it more than we do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

To make the point that no matter what they do, people won't pat Dan on the back IMO is sort of a strange point.  It's like saying you went back to the same restaurant that gave you food poisoning and you ate there again and its now so so.  Should we now go on Yelp and talk about how we are blown away by the so so food or even go out of our way to acknowledge it?  And since we aren't willing to do that it means that even if the food was great we wouldn't give them their due?  My point is the difference between really really good and so so -- is tremendous.  It's night and day.  It's not some small nuance, its everything. 

 

Quote

The best analogy I can think of to the Redskins are the Lions.  That's another team that has stunk.  And recently they've been mediocre -- actually better than mediocre, they've had winning seasons albeit barely so two years in a row and they actually have won 11 games recently.   Maybe I've missed it but I don't recall reading fluff articles about how the Lions really got it together now and are among the models of the better run organizations in the league.  And they actually deserve it more than we do. 

 

SIP - I must hand it to you, these are great analogies that everyone here should be able to digest.  To argue against what you're saying here would be laughing in the face of rationalization. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the Lions are an excellent example. 

 

I don't mean to dampen fan's enthusiasm.  Yes things are better now.  I'm just trying to pull the reigns on those who believe we are in a good place now. Until proven other wise we are not in a much better place than we've been for, well, for as long as Dan Snyder has owned the team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just skimmed through this thread, so I know I missed a lot. Seems to be a lot being said about Snyder the person and not the owner... I can see why some can't separate the two. I get it.

29 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Yes the Lions are an excellent example. 

 

I don't mean to dampen fan's enthusiasm.  Yes things are better now.  I'm just trying to pull the reigns on those who believe we are in a good place now. Until proven other wise we are not in a much better place than we've been for, well, for as long as Dan Snyder has owned the team. 

It might not has translated on the field well, and the team definitely has had it's fair share of non-sense off the field with RG3, Kirk, and Shanahan...

I'll be real though, we are definitely in a better place. We've been at least competitive for three straight seasons now in my opinion... Not saying we're an elite team or anything, but there have been some very solid moves done the last few years and I feel like this off-season was arguably the most well thought out, well executed off-season I've ever seen under Snyder. They're doing sensible things and not trying to hit a freaking home run on every pitch.

Yeah, I do feel like he can be a loser at times based on some of the things the Organization has done, but as far as the actual football team, they're trending up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CrypticVillain said:

Just skimmed through this thread, so I know I missed a lot. Seems to be a lot being said about Snyder the person and not the owner... I can see why some can't separate the two. I get it.

It might not has translated on the field well, and the team definitely has had it's fair share of non-sense off the field with RG3, Kirk, and Shanahan...

I'll be real though, we are definitely in a better place. We've been at least competitive for three straight seasons now in my opinion... Not saying we're an elite team or anything, but there have been some very solid moves done the last few years and I feel like this off-season was arguably the most well thought out, well executed off-season I've ever seen under Snyder. They're doing sensible things and not trying to hit a freaking home run on every pitch.

Yeah, I do feel like he can be a loser at times based on some of the things the Organization has done, but as far as the actual football team, they're trending up.

 

We were competitive the last 3 seasons because that's when Kirk Cousins took over as starting QB.  He is gone now. Maybe the replacement is as good, we will see.  We are better now but IMO marginally better, the QB was the biggest reason we went from terrible to OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.