• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      Good afternoon Redskins fans!  I have once again been invited to sit in the relative comfort of the press box and shout my thoughts into the void via this blog.  As you watch the game today and see the rain  pour relentlessly from the heavens, know that I am safe and dry.  Know also that @Spaceman Spiff is out there somewhere, cold and unappreciated, rolling around in the muck trying to capture that perfect picture.  Maybe say a little prayer for his health (or laugh, whatever, I’m not judging you).  Also, be sure not to miss the pictures he posts on this site after each game.     
       
      Before we get into today's Redskins game, I want give some thanks for more positive occurrences in DC sports.  Congrats to the Washington Mystics for winning their first championship.  Congrats go out to the Washington Nationals as well for reaching the world series.  These two teams (along with the Caps) are working hard to change the sports related mood around this town, and we're all happier for it. 
       
      Lets move now into less cheerful topics, namely your Washington Redskins!  Yow know things are going bad, and I mean really dang bad, when your team has gone through three quarterbacks and two coaches and your not even half way through the season.  Today's fresh hell comes in the form of a specter of the our recent past coming to smirk at our misfortune.  Im talking of course of Kyle.  Kyle's spent the week assuring everyone that he isn’t holding a grudge, while very obviously holding a grudge.  “Everything else.”  You know what I’m talking about. 
       
      If all he brought to town were his hurt feelings we wouldn’t have a problem.  Sadly, he’s arrived with an undefeated football team that the NFL says we have to play this week.  This feels entirely unfair. 
       
      My generic key to the game:  Run the ball and stop the run.  The team (spoiler alert: 49ers) that does this today will win.   
       
      Redskins Inactives  
      QB Colt McCoy  
      S Deshazor Everett  
      CB Josh Norman  
      RB Chris THompson  
      LB Josh Harvey-Clemons 
      G Wes Martin  
      TE Vernon Davis  
       
      49ers inactives  
      QB CJ Beathard 
      WR Deebo Samuel  
      CB Ahkello Witherspoon  
      FB Kyle Juszczyk 
      T Mike McGLinchey 
      T Joe Staley 
      DL DJ Jones 
       
      1st Quarter Update
      Redskins 0 – 0 49ers
       
      Callahan wasn’t playing around when he said he wanted to run the ball.  That first drive was all runs, and looked great... right up until they tried to pass the ball.  Hopkins missed the relatively short fied goal, because of course he did.     

      Maybe Quinn isn’t a good choice to be returning punts?  Consider it.    
       
      That second Redskins drive looked more like what we’ve come to expect from this offense.  Run for negative yards, pass dropped, and an unsuccessful screen pass.  A quintessential Redskins three and out. 

      Passing yards this quarter:  Redskins 3. 49ers 9.  Are you not entertained?! 
       
      Half Time Update
      Redskins 0 – 0 49ers 
       
      How happy are you to spend your Sunday afternoon watching this game?  Consider that some people paid money, to sit in a poncho, in the rain, to watch this game. 
       
      It’s now time for those half time adjustments that our beloved skins do so well.  It’s unlikely the second half mirrors the first. 
       
      3rd Quarter Update 
      Redskins 0 – 3 49ers  
       
      Good news, this game will not end in a 0-0 tie.  Those half time adjustments have kicked in as expected and the 49ers have found a way onto the scoreboard in this messy throwback game.  The Redskins have decided to spend the second half collecting holding penalties and sadness.  Mercifully, only one quarter remains. 
       
      End of Game Update 
      Redskins 0 – 9 49ers 
       
      Callahan hasn’t spent much time as the head coach of the Washington Redskins, but he’s already proven that his team can waste 2nd half timeouts like a veteran.  It makes little sense to adopt a strategy that shortens the game when your team is losing, and it makes even less sense when your team is short on time outs.  I’m not really sure what the thinking as late in this game.    
       
      Next week Kirk Cousins!   
       
       

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

4 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

 

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. 

TBH I don't really see them as great analogies, at all. For one, being a fan and loyal to one organization means there is no substitute. Whereas there are plenty of different restaurants out there so going back to the same one where the food sucks and you got food poisoning makes no logical sense. As a loyal fan, you live and die with one team. It does in fact make logical sense to acknowledge progress and growth for the one team you follow. Makes zero sense to acknowledge the so-so food at a restaurant because you probably would never be back lol.

 

No one to my knowledge has said anything remotely close to the Redskins should be lauded as some great organization in the media. Those are your guys' words or somehow you are inferring that is the opinion of those who don't share yours. Substantial difference between saying the Redskins should have fluff pieces about how great they are, and arguing that progress has been made and the media slam pieces are not indicative at all of how we currently operate. It's actually fascinating that some can't differentiate between the two.

 

Also @Skinsinparadise the difference between so so and really good in the NFL from a wins perspective is not all that much. In today's NFL there are a few elite, a few bottom dwellers, and a host of teams that with a bounce here or there will fluctuate between 6-10 wins. We've been mediocre from a record standpoint for the past three seasons, yes. But to act like we are eons away from being a pretty good team and are stuck in mediocrity forever is a stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

TBH I don't really see them as great analogies, at all. For one, being a fan and loyal to one organization means there is no substitute. Whereas there are plenty of different restaurants out there so going back to the same one where the food sucks and you got food poisoning makes no logical sense. As a loyal fan, you live and die with one team. It does in fact make logical sense to acknowledge progress and growth for the one team you follow. Makes zero sense to acknowledge the so-so food at a restaurant because you probably would never be back lol.

 

 

TBH, I'm not shocked that you don't get it.  I actually think you do get it, but simply don't want to. 

 

As for loyalty, If we weren't loyal - we wouldn't still be here talking about the team.  But loyalty doesn't or at least shouldn't equal stupidity.  I gather that I've been a fan of this team for much longer than you have.  I was wearing John Riggins pajamas celebrating the 42-10 stomping of the Broncos while my grandfather honked the horn relentlessly in the middle of the night along with what seemed like everyone else in Upper Marlboro, MD.  I don't say that to say that I'm a bigger or better fan than you are.  It's simply to provide some background on where I come from.  I've been with this franchise since I was a very young boy.  I've attended dozens of games and spent I'm sure 10's of thousands of dollars on this franchise.  That doesn't mean I turn my brain off when it comes to the team.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

TBH, I'm not shocked that you don't get it.  I actually think you do get it, but simply don't want to. 

 

As for loyalty, If we weren't loyal - we wouldn't still be here talking about the team.  But loyalty doesn't or at least shouldn't equal stupidity.  I gather that I've been a fan of this team for much longer than you have.  I was wearing John Riggins pajamas celebrating the 42-10 stomping of the Broncos while my grandfather honked the horn relentlessly in the middle of the night along with what seemed like everyone else in Upper Marlboro, MD.  I don't say that to say that I'm a bigger or better fan than you are.  It's simply to provide some background on where I come from.  I've been with this franchise since I was a very young boy.  I've attended dozens of games and spent I'm sure 10's of thousands of dollars on this franchise.  That doesn't mean I turn my brain off when it comes to the team.

 

 

That was not at all an insult on your fandom. I realize how big of a fan you are, and you being more negative or seeing things in a different light than I do doesn't mean I was implying you aren't a fan of the team. I was just saying that I don't see how the analogy makes sense. Because we are fans of one team, and one team only, it makes sense to analyze what we see from year to year. And i see progress. If I get food poisoning at a crappy restaurant, I'm not going to keep dining there and hoping the food turns so-so and then go Yelp about it. No parallels IMO.

 

If you are implying that I am stupid because I acknowledge progress is being made and don't feed into random troll polls like no agent trusts Bruce Allen, then I guess I'm stupid. Your tone and message make it seem as if I parade around saying the Redskins are the best FO ever and we are destined for a run like the 80's. That's just not the case.

Share this post


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

TBH I don't really see them as great analogies, at all. For one, being a fan and loyal to one organization means there is no substitute. Whereas there are plenty of different restaurants out there so going back to the same one where the food sucks and you got food poisoning makes no logical sense. As a loyal fan, you live and die with one team. It does in fact make logical sense to acknowledge progress and growth for the one team you follow. Makes zero sense to acknowledge the so-so food at a restaurant because you probably would never be back lol.

 

 

That analogy was specifically directed to the concept of if you want to change your opinion about someone -- bad to so so -- doesn't do it.  And it was more specifically directed to refute the idea that if you can't warm up to bad to so so then you'd never warm up to bad to great.  

 

Your thought here moves away from Dan to the team itself.  And team loyalty.  None of which apply to the point at hand.  

 

3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

Also @Skinsinparadise the difference between so so and really good in the NFL from a wins perspective is not all that much. In today's NFL there are a few elite, a few bottom dwellers, and a host of teams that with a bounce here or there will fluctuate between 6-10 wins. We've been mediocre from a record standpoint for the past three seasons, yes. But to act like we are eons away from being a pretty good team and are stuck in mediocrity forever is a stretch.

 

The eons away and stuck forever is hyperbole on your end.  But I think the debate is are they on the edge of greatness?  Your gut seems to be yes.  My gut is I got no idea.  I can see it go either way.

 

Reading your numerous posts on said subject.  You come off very taken by the string of games we've had where we've looked like a really good team.   I get the enthusiasm.  I've had it in those moments during the heat of it.   I have just become a bit more jaded but not to the degree where I am pessimistic -- I am not at all pessimistic -- I am purely in an agnostic wait and see mode on that front.

 

Some of the same people who are pushing the Dan/Bruce narrative the hey they are really good if they had some breaks (not saying you) -- weren't really on that page in real time when that issue was framed in terms of Kirk's performance last season.  In that context, ironically I was the homer dealing with the pessimists/haters who were painting the brush that things aren't better than they look.  

 

When they beat the Packers in 2016, I really thought they arrived.  They looked great albeit in a loss to Dallas the week after.  Then it started going south.  I was likewise enthusiastic after the three game run early in the season. 

 

I've just digested it some in the off season and thought about it in terms of other teams.  The mediocre 8-8 teams do tend to have their teases throughout the season.  It's not just the Redskins.  I've been optimistic about the team before the last two seasons.  Now, I am in the mode of lean optimism but need to see the movie before I kick in with the watch them take off narrative.  

 

I got little doubt that they will have their tease period again. For three years in a row they had it.  Then, it faded.  They say the mark of a winner is consistency.  I am just done with falling for the tease, I want to see consistency before I totally buy in.  I am not saying they can't do it.  I just want to see them get over that hump.

 

If they do make a move up.   IMO it will be largely because what this guys adds to the table. :)

 

guicephoto.thumb.png.e6d0906a4cc33e843a077afe8cb7de86.png

Share this post


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

That was not at all an insult on your fandom. I realize how big of a fan you are, and you being more negative or seeing things in a different light than I do doesn't mean I was implying you aren't a fan of the team. I was just saying that I don't see how the analogy makes sense. Because we are fans of one team, and one team only, it makes sense to analyze what we see from year to year. And i see progress. If I get food poisoning at a crappy restaurant, I'm not going to keep dining there and hoping the food turns so-so and then go Yelp about it. No parallels IMO.

 

I'm sure everyone has that local place, that's close to home, where you 'want' to like the food.  That place you still go even though better places have opened up around town.  That place you go because it gives you the warm and fuzzies of eating there with your family as a young kid.  At one time, that place had what seemed to be the best food around.  Over the years, ownership and staff changed.  You want to remain loyal and keep your money in the community so you still drop by for a meal, even if less frequently than the good ole days.  The quality of the service and food is a shell of what it used to be.  You go there and get food poisoning.  Some time passes and you give it one last try.  You don't throw up and the food is better than the last time, but not great.  That place is the Washington Redskins.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@HardcoreZorn

 

I would say there are more elite teams today while the rest are just bouncing around.  I've been following the NFL since 1972 and have never seen a team so dominant as NE. The only team to even come close to that kind of dominance was Pittsburgh.  NE has not even had a losing season since 2000 and has not had multiple losing seasons since 1989-1992. Since 2001, you'd have been right nearly 90% of the time just predicting that NE was going to win the AFC-East. The Steelers haven't had a losing season since 2003 and have to go all the way back to the late 90s to find a time when they were losers for at least two consecutive seasons.

 

In the 70s and 80s, not one NFC-East team did not multiple years as the NFC-East champ and the NFC-East usually sent two or more teams to the playoffs.  While SFO was usually at the top of the NFC-West, the Rams went to the playoffs 7 times, the Falcons 2 and the Saints 1. The Bears had only two totally dominant seasons, the Vikings had several playoff teams but also had several losing seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

I'm sure everyone has that local place, that's close to home, where you 'want' to like the food.  That place you still go even though better places have opened up around town.  That place you go because it gives you the warm and fuzzies of eating there with your family as a young kid.  At one time, that place had what seemed to be the best food around.  Over the years, ownership and staff changed.  You want to remain loyal and keep your money in the community so you still drop by for a meal, even if less frequently than the good ole days.  The quality of the service and food is a shell of what it used to be.  You go there and get food poisoning.  Some time passes and you give it one last try.  You don't throw up and the food is better than the last time, but not great.  That place is the Washington Redskins.

 

 

OK great, I guess you’ve successfully stretched the analogy enough to make sense. Still, there are 32 teams, and fandom is typically created through family tradition, geography, or something of significance. It’s YOUR team. You just portrayed through that very analogy how miserable it has been to be a Redskins fan. Yet you are still here. Posting on a message board and a huge fan. Why is that? It’s because there is no other substitute for the Washington Redskins in your mind. Anyone that continues to eat at a restaurant  just because it used to be good or brings nostalgia, even though now the food sucks and the ownership you grew to love is gone needs to have their head checked. Go find another great restaurant for crying out loud and establish a new tradition. If you do that as a sports fan you are a band wagoner. And that’s clearly not you. Long winded way of saying the analogy still stinks lol. 

 

Your overall attitude toward the team seems to be, “the Redskins have sucked for 20 plus years with Dan. I don’t give a damn what has taken place nor care about how the team is currently being built. And just because they are now mediocre doesn’t mean I’m stupid enough to believe based off the past 20 years anything is different. So anyone that says anything remotely positive about Dan or sees growth is stupid and blind.”

 

I’m sorry, but I find that to be such an absurd POV. It’s been super hard as a younger generation fan to remain positive throughout all of the miserable seasons and blunders, and glimpses of hope only to have it ripped away. Trust me. But it doesn’t mean that it will always be that way. Teams (including the Redskins) have decade stretches of being miserable franchises in their history. Things do change. And right now, the Redskins are finally building the right way. The sustainable way. I know that’s not how you see it, but that is how I see it. So probably why the disagreement. But I think anyone being rational can see the drastic difference (for the better) in both the way we operate in the off-season and the product on the field. Remains to be seen if they can take the next step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Hardcore Zorn's post above.

 

I think the hard part about the debate is sometimes you get put in a corner that doesn't fit. 

 

The Pro-Bruce/Dan angle is typically this

A. They focus on the draft and don't overspend in FA.  Enough said.   Dan/Bruce can take a bow considering how the team used to do business.

 

And sometimes a bit of this:

 Hey the fact that the press doesn't acknowledge point A -- says it all.  It's such a big sea change that if you can't see that then you either don't understand team building or you are a hater.  And heck even if you don't like Bruce who cares because this whole sea change is happening under his watch.  So he's fine with us even if we don't love him.

 

But most of us aren't on the opposite side of the points of focusing on the draft and overspending on FA.  It's for many of us this:

 

A.  Focusing on the draft and not overspending in FA is commendable.  But its not a drop the microphone jaw dropping sea change.   It's about at least finally sharing some of the fundamentals of team building that MOST teams also do.   It's the 101 stuff.  Not the 300 advanced courses. 

 

B.  They still IMO trade away too many picks. Still haven't figured out the young franchise QB game which has been one of the main things that has bogged down Dan's era.  IMO they are at best mediocre at picking players in FA.   They haven't really drafted elite players at least not yet.  Got some hope on Allen and Guice.   Their head personnel guy is still a guy who is a punch line to many.   So it doesn't feel like sea change. 

 

Also, I don't agree with the celebration about the comp picks.   I would pat them on the back if we are talking about losing veterans for comp picks.  But tough for me to celebrate them leading an exodus of young players out the door so they can draft new players that are 2 rounds or so lower than where they drafted the guys they lost.  The Spencer Long departure in particular bothers me -- we got a gap at LG that he would fill right now.  He's a young guy.  Am supposed to love it anyway because they get a 6th rounder back next year?  Kirk for a late third rounder -- gag worthy to me.   So to me I think some are reaching with the patting on the back drill. 

 

C.  I like rooting for the good guys.  Whether its Bruce or Dan they looked like the bad guys when it came to Kirk and Scot to at least many of us.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Skinsinparadise Hit the nail on the head and pretty much took care of my response for me.

 

Dan and Bruce are the troubled kids that stayed in trouble all through elementary and jr. high.  At some point, they start getting their act together in high school and are going to graduate with their class.  Not anywhere near the top of the class, but they get to walk the stage.

 

That's pretty much where we are.  Nobody writes stories about that.  Now if those same troubled kids ended up taking high school by storm, graduating at the top of their class and obtaining scholarships, it would be news worthy.  I'm not going to pat folks on the back for doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully this adds some motivation to Dan assuming he channels it well.

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/caps-stanley-cup-win-puts-pressure-redskins-start-winning

In fact, the Caps made the playoffs every year during the Redskins glory run of three Super Bowl wins in 10 years. But, like the 70’s Redskins, they didn’t do much when they got there. The furthest they got was the conference final and they got swept by the Bruins. With the Redskins rolling out championship parades every few years, they easily owned the town. 

 

The Redskins have fallen on hard times on the field since then. Since their last Super Bowl win following the 1991 season, they have won just three playoff games and haven’t made it to the conference final. But they still have managed to occupy the most print space, talk radio time, TV time, and web traffic around Washington. Part of it had to do with the holdover from the glory years and a lot of it had to do with the fact that the NFL was the undisputed king of the sports world. 

 

But perhaps most importantly, no other team in town took the leap that would grab the attention away from the Redskins on a long-term basis. The Bullets/Wizards won a title 40 years ago, returned to the NBA Finals the next year, and haven’t advanced as far as the conference finals since then. The Nationals came along in 2005 and while they have been a great regular-season team since 2012, they have been unable to win a playoff series. And while the Caps did make one Stanley Cup Final, they were promptly swept by the Red Wings. 

 

So, the Redskins have been able to remain atop the sports heap in the DMV despite persistent dysfunction that generated much more drama off the field than on it. Their TV ratings have declined, and fans of the visiting team routinely invade FedEx Field in large numbers. The NFL’s perch atop the sports world looks vulnerable, with the anthem controversy, concussion concerns, domestic violence situations, and other factors eroding the league’s popularity.

 

Are the Redskins vulnerable? Can the Capitals ride their championship to the top of the DC sports heap?

Even with the Stanley Cup to stand on as a head start, it would be a difficult battle for the Caps to capture the level of year-round attention that the Redskins get. It’s not all their fault; they are an entertaining, likable team. But hockey is at best the fourth most popular sport in America, perhaps lower if you split football and basketball into the college and pro levels. Hockey is much more than a niche sport but there are fewer die-hard fans of the sport than there are of football, baseball, and basketball. One title is unlikely to vault the Caps to superiority in the market. 

 

However, this does not mean that the Redskins can keep on frustrating fans indefinitely, displaying dysfunction while their peak seasons are near .500 without a playoff win. If the city sees Alexander Ovechkin skating around a rink with the Stanley Cup held over his head one or two more times in the next several years, if the Nats can start to play as well in the playoffs as they do during the regular season, or if the Wizards can get it together, the Redskins will find their relevance severely diminished. 

 

And by the time that happens, it may be too late. If the Redskins want to remain the kings of the DC sports scene—and trust me, things like that matter to key decision makers in Ashburn—they need to start now and function like a normal, successful NFL team. Now is not the time to outline what they need to do to accomplish that, but I think most of you know anyway.

Congratulations to the Caps for setting the bar high. It’s high time the Redskins and the other local teams to get busy trying to meet that standard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted Leonsis and Dan Snyder both bought their respective teams in 1999. Look at how drastically different the two teams are almost 20 years later. The Capitals have had the best record in hockey three times, countless playoff births, and now a championship. The Redskins in that time have never won more than 10 games and never got past the 2nd round. One team is one of the best run franchises in its sport, the other is a train wreck.

 

Success starts at the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title of the thread is literally word for word "Daniel Snyder, Dare we Say Maturing into a competent owner." The OP's operative point was that we are being built in the correct fashion. And we are, and its evident with the state of the roster. And that we have come a long way since early Dan.

 

No one to my knowledge is begging for the Redskins to be lauded as a world class organization. IDK when or where or why the conversation has evolved into that.

Share this post


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

Per Hardcore Zorn's post above.

 

I think the hard part about the debate is sometimes you get put in a corner that doesn't fit. 

 

The Pro-Bruce/Dan angle is typically this

A. They focus on the draft and don't overspend in FA.  Enough said.   Dan/Bruce can take a bow considering how the team used to do business.

 

And sometimes a bit of this:

 Hey the fact that the press doesn't acknowledge point A -- says it all.  It's such a big sea change that if you can't see that then you either don't understand team building or you are a hater.  And heck even if you don't like Bruce who cares because this whole sea change is happening under his watch.  So he's fine with us even if we don't love him.

Dude, the point is that we are mocked and written about in a way as if we were the Cleveland Browns. We are not. The end.

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

But most of us aren't on the opposite side of the points of focusing on the draft and overspending on FA.  It's for many of us this:

 

A.  Focusing on the draft and not overspending in FA is commendable.  But its not a drop the microphone jaw dropping sea change.   It's about at least finally sharing some of the fundamentals of team building that MOST teams also do.   It's the 101 stuff.  Not the 300 advanced courses. 

Your words not anyone's here. No one is saying "we have arrived" and mic drop.

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

B.  They still IMO trade away too many picks. Still haven't figured out the young franchise QB game which has been one of the main things that has bogged down Dan's era.  IMO they are at best mediocre at picking players in FA.   They haven't really drafted elite players at least not yet.  Got some hope on Allen and Guice.   Their head personnel guy is still a guy who is a punch line to many.   So it doesn't feel like sea change. 

Trade away too many picks? They have traded what, one third rounder since the 2012 debacle? Who the heck is the head personnel guy? Bruce? Wow.

 

Heard of Trent Williams? Arguably the best LT in the league and a bonafide elite player?

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Also, I don't agree with the celebration about the comp picks.   I would pat them on the back if we are talking about losing veterans for comp picks.  But tough for me to celebrate them leading an exodus of young players out the door so they can draft new players that are 2 rounds or so lower than where they drafted the guys they lost.  The Spencer Long departure in particular bothers me -- we got a gap at LG that he would fill right now.  He's a young guy.  Am supposed to love it anyway because they get a 6th rounder back next year?  Kirk for a late third rounder -- gag worthy to me.   So to me I think some are reaching with the patting on the back drill. 

So complain about trading too many draft picks (which doesn't appear to be the case anymore) and then also not commend collecting compensatory picks, which many of the best organizations routinely do. Weird. You can't pay every Spencer Long and the like 7M dollars annually. You live in this fairy tale world where there is no salary cap. Schaeffer by your own admission is a competent individual and that is his swim lane.

 

Share this post


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

...

Your words not anyone's here. No one is saying "we have arrived" and mic drop.

...

 

I wonder if fans of other teams ever argue about whether or not their FO has finally ascended into mediocrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguably the worst owner in all of sports. The team continues to be utterly mismanaged with no continuity. Seriously, has there been one season since he came where we didn’t have at least one new coordinator, head coach, GM, or QB?

 

One year ago, we fire our GM ON THE FIRST DAY OF FREE AGENCY!! “Hey, there’s 365 days on a calendar. Let’s pick the worst ****ing one imaginable to do this.” This year our franchise QB can’t wait to get the hell away from this dumpster fire of an organization.

 

“Oh but we didn’t overpay!!” Yeah, if you ignore getting bent over for $44 million dollars the last two seasons.

Share this post


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

Dude, the point is that we are mocked and written about in a way as if we were the Cleveland Browns. We are not. The end.

 

 

I'll recall this point during the next Bruce debate.  The bar is we aren't the Browns.  Case closed.  :)  That's a shift.  Cool.  It makes the debate from here on much clearer and easier. 

 

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Who the heck is the head personnel guy? Bruce? Wow.

 

He's not?  And wow? 

 

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

Heard of Trent Williams? Arguably the best LT in the league and a bonafide elite player?

 

Shanny drafted him 8 years ago.  Nice.  I don't think that means case close that they draft elite players.  You want to argue they drafted one.  You got it.  But you are unnecessarily defensive.  I flat out said Jonathan Allen and Guice might break the mold.  I just want to see it.   I am not counting my chickens on it, yet -- is that such a hard position to take on your end.  I think I made it pretty reasonably. 

 

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

So complain about trading too many draft picks (which doesn't appear to be the case anymore) and then also not commend collecting compensatory picks, which many of the best organizations routinely do. Weird. 

 

Back at you.  You are the weird one to me on all this.  Yeah Kirk for a third rounder -- bravo.  Howie Roseman I am sure is jealous and is taking notes.  We got a hole at LG, have the cap room to bring back Long but let him go but hooray we get a late 6th round pick back in 2019.   Brilliant.  Only haters wouldn't embrace both moves. :D  I'd even go further and say if people want to say its a wash and neutral -- I disagree but I can see that -- but celebrating that as culture change to me is laughable.  And that goes quadruple on the Kirk transaction -- to define it as a bad doesn't sum it enough -- its ludicrously bad IMO. 

 

You want to go back to Trent to talk about the elite player while making fun of me going back to them trading picks years after Trent was picked.  If you want to be consistent then if you can go back to make a point then you can't ridicule the idea of me going back on another point just because it doesn't fit your argument -- let alone I can actually move forward too on my point. 

 

They traded picks in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018.   During Bruce's tenure.  They have given up:  Three #1's.  Two #2 picks.  Two third round picks. A 4th round pick.  A 5th round pick.  And one of their best young players.    Better than Vinny?  Sure.  But its not like we've stopped the process. 

 

Share this post


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

 

I'll recall this point during the next Bruce debate.  The bar is we aren't the Browns.  Case closed.  :)  That's a shift.  Cool.  It makes the debate from here on much clearer and easier. 

Not sure what switch you are referring to but that was not my point. Once again it goes whizzing by. I’m not attempting to set any bar by comparing them to Cleveland. I am saying that the tone of some is that we have been performing and operating like the Cleveland Browns. When in reality we are not. Go look at the first page of this thread. You, by the way, are not who I am referring to. You come off very medium for the most part. The reason I come off so strong toward you is that you, no offense, don’t seem to understand the POV of others. I’m sure you try to, but your point A above illustrates exactly what I am talking about. Your first sentence alludes to something I have said, which is that I like how we are utilizing the draft and using FA as a tool to better the roster but not go overboard. You then extrapolate that and wrongfully assume that that’s enough for me and then I’m suggesting Dan and Bruce should take a bow and we are the GOAT football organization in history. It’s really confusing and frustrating man.

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

He's not?  And wow? 

Is Bruce Allen scouting and selecting the players? Even if he was, I would say he’s doing a damn good job lol.

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Shanny drafted him 8 years ago.  Nice.  I don't think that means case close that they draft elite players.  You want to argue they drafted one.  You got it.  But you are unnecessarily defensive.  I flat out said Jonathan Allen and Guice might break the mold.  I just want to see it.   I am not counting my chickens on it, yet -- is that such a hard position to take on your end.  I think I made it pretty reasonably. 

Re defensive, see above. But yeah, it’s also frustrating when you reference drafting elite players as if it’s something that is easy or frequent for any organization. Trent Williams is elite, and as you said, Allen and Guice and a few others have a chance to be. That’s really no different than many teams around the league.

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Back at you.  You are the weird one to me on all this.  Yeah Kirk for a third rounder -- bravo.  Howie Roseman I am sure is jealous and is taking notes.  We got a hole at LG, have the cap room to bring back Long but let him go but hooray we get a late 6th round pick back in 2019.   Brilliant.  Only haters wouldn't embrace both moves. :D  I'd even go further and say if people want to say its a wash and neutral -- I disagree but I can see that -- but celebrating that as culture change to me is laughable.  And that goes quadruple on the Kirk transaction -- to define it as a bad doesn't sum it enough -- its ludicrously bad IMO. 

I’m not saying it’s bravo we lost Kirk for a 3rd. Again, there you go insinuating I believe something when I don’t. Take the 3rd away for Christ sake. We still have 3. And yes, I’ll take my chances on a Tim Settle or Shaun Dion Hamilton, or Trey Quinn over paying 7M dollars annually for an average offensive lineman. Sure, we have the cap room. That cap room can also get rolled over to next year to allocate to somebody much more impactful.

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You want to go back to Trent to talk about the elite player while making fun of me going back to them trading picks years after Trent was picked.  If you want to be consistent then if you can go back to make a point then you can't ridicule the idea of me going back on another point just because it doesn't fit your argument -- let alone I can actually move forward too on my point. 

Elite players don’t grow on trees is the point. How many do the patriots have? Brady? By all accounts, some of the best Redskins teams ever didn’t have a bunch of stud players. This isn’t the NBA where one or two guys can take over. I’m not using Trent as a way to say we are awesome at selecting elite players. I’m saying we have one with the potential for a couple of others and that it’s not much different from championship caliber teams.

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

They traded picks in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018.   During Bruce's tenure.  They have given up:  Three #1's.  Two #2 picks.  Two third round picks. A 4th round pick.  A 5th round pick.  And one of their best young players.    Better than Vinny?  Sure.  But its not like we've stopped the process. 

 

Miss the part where I said since 2012? Or the part where I said Griffin debacle? Not even relevant though because I’m clearly speaking of the team building process since Jay Gruden came aboard in 2014. I didn’t approve of many of those draft picks we traded away prior to that, which is almost all of the picks you just listed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think we must commend Dan/Bruce for doing football organizational basics in which the vast majority of franchises act upon like valuing draft picks and not overspending on name guys in FA, while ignoring other things they do (that happen to be absolutely unprecedented for good reason) but then somehow justify it all like they’re pioneers in those cases. 

 

There should be an ability for us to look at the organization and its parts without an exclusively holistic approach. 

 

We should be able to look at a guy like Bruce Allen who has been here going on 9 years and wonder why it took this long to get the roster to where it’s at now. We can recognize who has the ability to override and undermine others by virtue of position/title. We can look at some of the absolutely mind boggling decisions made under him that in no way shape or form can be considered good resource management or based on healthy organizational principles. We can look at it with nuance and separate where the success is coming from and from whom (like a Jay Gruden) and where any obstacles to higher levels of success are coming from (Dan/Bruce). 

 

We don’t have to lump them all in together and label anyone who can do the above as a negative nancy. Or, as some otherwise brilliant fans have unfortunately done, just conflate the underling’s roles with the top brass’s and label them all “average”, “mediocre” or worse. 

 

Personally, if this season goes south, the first thing I will be looking at is the overall resource management of the team and its personnel, which falls on Bruce. I won’t be looking at Jay unless there are some ridiculously obvious and egregious coaching decisions that are made to the detriment of the team easily deciphered by us on the outside. And even then it’d have to be with the contextual understanding of his environment and if that had a negative impact. Not an easy task, suffice to say. I won’t be looking at guys like Doug or Kyle Smith because I simply don’t know how much influence they had on what. 

 

Which goes back to some of our fundamental arguments regarding the organizational structure and its (seemingly purposeful) vagueness, but I digress. 

 

Furthermore, I can’t also ignore how many times the organization under Dan has looked like it was getting somewhat together only to see it absolutely destroyed, almost overnight, due to a failure of proper organizational hierarchy emanating from none other than him.

 

I mean, am I just supposed to believe the quality, productive, football people within the organization, like Jay or Kyle or whomever, are safe and that we won’t get blindsided with some disturbing episode of internal politics that sees the likes of Bruce winning out and fans eating it up? 

 

Yeah, because that hasn’t happened before. Dan has changed, this time it’s real! 

 

And maybe it is. I’d love to believe it. But Dan absolutely deserves criticism for making any of us feel this way, and legitimately so. No one should be condescended or told to look at the state of the roster now, which certainly is a positive, as a means to refute those legitimate feelings. 

 

Yes, the team is seemingly in good shape now and they’re doing good things, but that doesn’t mean we should shut up or commend Dan and his top exec. 

 

Some of us don't want to look at it that simply, so forgive us.

 

Some of us will attribute whatever success this team has to certain individuals whom, while hired by the top brass, have also had to overcome said top brass to (hopefully) achieve that success and have been hindered by them far more than anyone should have to be. 

 

We can actually look at an organization as to what it should be - a mutually beneficial support structure - and attempt to recognize which parts of it aren’t beneficial and which are. 

 

Crazy, I know. 

 

But, hey, there is some good news in terms of this perpetual argument about Dan/Bruce. 

 

I think all of us agree presently that the roster is in pretty good shape. We might disagree about how good, or if they’re at a level to contend with the better teams in the league, but I don’t think anyone will argue against the fact that it’s got plenty going for it and probably more so than ever before during Dan’s tenure. Many of us felt that way last offseason, as well, hence the desire to be slightly more aggressive in FA. 

 

However, that reality necessitates a pondering of just how much better it could’ve been and how quickly. At least it does for me. Could it have been way better at this point if not for said obstacles presented by said top brass? In my mind, absolutely, and that isn’t hindsight. Are there still organizational issues that might hamper the roster reaching its potential, like the facilities, medical staff and the field? Much of which is something Dan and his top exec should've been on top of long ago (and kudos to him for finally putting in good effort, at least on the surface, this offseason in trying to improve there)? Heck yeah.

 

But that potential is there and it’s at its highest in a long, long time. So that’s good. Doesn’t change what issues we can have with the route/s taken to get to this point or what could have been with better foresight from the FO.

 

And it shouldn’t stop us from wondering just how much better it could be for the long term were they to structure the organization better right now. 

 

Not one bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 3:32 PM, Darth Tater said:

@HardcoreZorn

 

I would say there are more elite teams today while the rest are just bouncing around.  I've been following the NFL since 1972 and have never seen a team so dominant as NE. The only team to even come close to that kind of dominance was Pittsburgh.  NE has not even had a losing season since 2000 and has not had multiple losing seasons since 1989-1992. Since 2001, you'd have been right nearly 90% of the time just predicting that NE was going to win the AFC-East. The Steelers haven't had a losing season since 2003 and have to go all the way back to the late 90s to find a time when they were losers for at least two consecutive seasons.

 

In the 70s and 80s, not one NFC-East team did not multiple years as the NFC-East champ and the NFC-East usually sent two or more teams to the playoffs.  While SFO was usually at the top of the NFC-West, the Rams went to the playoffs 7 times, the Falcons 2 and the Saints 1. The Bears had only two totally dominant seasons, the Vikings had several playoff teams but also had several losing seasons.

 

I'll throw in the Niners of the 80's  That offense, especially to start games, was almost impossible to stop.  

Share this post


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

 

I’m not saying it’s bravo we lost Kirk for a 3rd. Again, there you go insinuating I believe something when I don’t. Take the 3rd away for Christ sake. We still have 3. And yes, I’ll take my chances on a Tim Settle or Shaun Dion Hamilton, or Trey Quinn over paying 7M dollars annually for an average offensive lineman.

 

You said in the previous post, I should commend them for doing the comp drill.  But at the same, you play down the Kirk part of it now with a defiant I am misrepresenting you defense..   As much as you say you love getting draft picks (I like it too but context for it matters).  Landing a starter as a third rounder is a good pick.  Job well done.  Statistically speaking most third rounders don't even make it. 

 

The odds that a late round pick becomes a bonafide starter is very very low.  I've put up the stats before.  But if you don't buy that just go through our late round picks over the last 20 years. If you want to make the point that they made due -- Ok.  But call me out for not commending them for it -- calling it weird that I don't.  The nicest thing I can say in response to that is that's silly.

 

I can argue in favor of the Ryan Grant one because they have depth at that position at least.   But Kirk to me a disaster.  And no I don't like the trade off for Long in the context of this season.  Sorry.  To each their own.  The operative word is context -- its not an all or nothing vacuum conversation.  More draft picks == good.  Comp picks = good.  But I think the hard thing in these conversation is nuance and context gets lost.  It's situation by situation. 

 

10 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

Is Bruce Allen scouting and selecting the players? E

He's not.  But he's in charge of anyway.  There are 15 zillion posts explaining some people's frustration with that idea.  You pointing it out in the way you do -- actually helps bring home the point.   The way I framed the point was the head of personnel is still a punch line.  Your response centers on how he isn't really the defacto head of personnel.  In your mind, my point is off since he's not really a personnel guy.  For me pointing that out brings home my whole point on it.  But I elaborated why enough on it in the Bruce thread.

 

10 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

you, no offense, don’t seem to understand the POV of others. I’m sure you try to, but your point A above illustrates exactly what I am talking about. Your first sentence alludes to something I have said, which is that I like how we are utilizing the draft and using FA as a tool to better the roster but not go overboard. You then extrapolate that and wrongfully assume that that’s enough for me and then I’m suggesting Dan and Bruce should take a bow and we are the GOAT football organization in history. It’s really confusing and frustrating man.

 

 

My point was centering on the typical argument we see on the pro Bruce/Dan side.  Reading your post, you seemed put off by my editorial additions to those points so I'll make the same points while tempering down the editorial.  And again I am not centering this point just on you. 

 

As for this specific thread, since you seem to claim to have a handle on what people mean and I am apparently missing the boat -- this stuff as you say is just whizzing right by me.  Tell me what I am missing. 

 

Big point on this specific thread

A. Dan won't ever get credit because the media is predisposed and mired in the past so real tangible progress that anyone can spot gets ignored.   And some people are dupes in just buying into what the media is dishing out on that front and or they have their own views that are stuck in the past and won't be convinced unless we see dramatic success.  And that's unfair because it doesn't color current realities.  Reality isn't 2002, etc.  

 

Is this close or I am i still wildly off?

 

The Bruce/Dan defenders

In my previous post, I went off script of this specific thread and just hit what I recall on multiple threads.  And I accede that every one has their own twist on it.  But it typically centers on a variation of this.  Dan/Bruce have changed the culture of how they approached the draft and FA.  And its a sea change.  You are put off by my drop the microphone addition to this so I'll change it to this -- they are on the right track so if they keep doing it this way -- they likely will get there and each person has their own version of what type of success that means. 

 

And for us to not even acknowledge that or whine about Bruce -- makes us come off like haters because that change is so fundamental and who cares about Bruce because he either is helping make that happen or is incidental to it and either way its happening under his watch.  

 

Depending on the poster, there is a lot of enthusiasm about the recent drafts and the potential of the roster.  So for them its why not bask in it versus complaining about what they don't like since there is plenty to like. 

 

Is that close?  Or I am still lost in the wilderness? :(

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a toe the company line attitude in here. And if you present a different take or even suggest that Dan Snyder is maturing, the conversation then evolves into, “well duh, he should be why would I give him credit for that?” and then it becomes a “why celebrate mediocrity?” This wasn’t the OPs original point nor have my posts had anything to do with commending or celebrating Mr. Daniel Snyder.

 

@thesubmittedone that was a good post and really does echo many of my same thoughts. 

 

@Skinsinparadise I was put off by the editorial additions because they don’t represent what myself or most are saying. You get the gist of the argument of “Pro Bruce/Dan” as you like to say pretty good. But you are seriously reaching when you add things like “Dan and Bruce should take a bow”, as if that is remotely close to what anyone is saying. Appreciating the way we are currently being built doesn’t mean I forgot where we came from or all is forgiven. In fact, it’s because of how poorly we used to operate that I can appreciate how far we have come. It doesn’t mean I’m begging for Dan to be placed on a pedestal and for everyone to get an individual Dan Snyder shrine. That’s what you imply when you add those types of editorial remarks. It’s like you add them so that you can have more of a debate or something. I pretty much agree with many of your thoughts on the team lol. Where we disagree is putting as much stock into Dan and Bruce as people and personalities and on their role in building the actual football team. It doesn’t at all appear that Dan and Bruce are the guiding force behind construction of the roster. They have though, finally fostered an environment that allows for the team to be built in the correct manner. And for that, I do think they deserve a bit of credit. Try not to wince everyone :)

Share this post


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

 

@Skinsinparadise I was put off by the editorial additions because they don’t represent what myself or most are saying. Y

 

That's cool.  Fair enough. That's why I backed off of it on the 2nd go.  Others have done the same to me in the past including you which is pinning a point on me that doesn't accurately reflect my take.  So you pointed out that I overdramatized your view of the success.  So I retracted that part and responded in kind. 

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Appreciating the way we are currently being built doesn’t mean I forgot where we came from or all is forgiven. 

 

It's not just about the past versus the future.  There are some real time things going on that some of us think are "meh" and will limit their success.   For me, there is good about how they go about things and bad, too.  C level operation. Maybe C +.   Elevated from an F level operation.  They have turned a corner but not a dramatic enough one for me to take it ultra seriously.   Now, if some beat guys are correct they are flirting with a real dramatic turn perhaps after the season and if that goes down -- now they'd be cooking for me.  But they aren't cooking, yet.

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Where we disagree is putting as much stock into Dan and Bruce as people and personalities and on their role in building the actual football team. 

 

No doubt that's the heart of it.  I've just not noticed a sports franchise or any corporation where the owner -- let alone the owner and CEO/president type didn't loom large to an operation.    And it probably sounds weird coming from someone like me who loves the draft as much as the NFL season -- I even like watching the draft over the Superbowl.  But for me just having Kyle Smith make draft choices to me isn't the be all and end all.  It's a key part of the soup.  And I liked what he's done thus far.  I don't know if I am infatuated with the dude yet (not saying you are) for me I got to see drafts play out -- they almost always feel exciting before the season starts. 

 

For me the heart of the operation that I like is Kyle Smith running college scouting and Jay weighing in with his own input.   But there are other aspects of how the organization that comes off to me "meh" in some regards and incompetent and unclassy in other regards.  If they change that, then I'd be happy.

 

And like I've said on this thread and in other places.  I'd actually put myself relatively speaking a rare agnostic in terms of view points on the board as to Dan specifically.   I don't think he's a good owner.  But at the same time, I don't see him as a hopeless cause as some others do.  At the moment, I still don't think he's figured it out but he might.  I am one of the rare people who actually is more bothered by Bruce than I am about Dan -- unless I later learn that Dan is the one pulling the strings on Bruce's behavior -- and I don't rule that out.

 

  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it's not very clear who is actually in charge of guiding the Redskins franchise forward -- it makes me wonder how much Snyder has changed.  He started with a confusing FO structure, and it still seems confusing.

 

Are the Redskins fortunes better now? I'd hope so, because for a while it was really bad.  Is the decision-making better?  That's a little less clear, especially in 2017.

 

Right now, in the summer of 2018,  the future seems rosy.  We're flush with hope --  fueled by the draft results, by what has been marketed as a successful off-season, and by positive stories coming out of a few camp sessions.  

 

....Sorry, those early preseason positive stories with lots of hype -- I've seen that before.  Heck I remember when everyone was glowing about the 2008 draft -- and big hopes for that season too!

 

I hope this thread keeps active until, say, game 12 or 13 of the regular season.  Because it will be telling to see how we all feel then.  

 

I'm hoping we'll all be upbeat about the Skins being a playoff bound team, and maybe even a perennial playoff contender.  But I'm also afraid, that if the team winds up limping forward, striving for yet another 7-9 or 8-8 season, we may find out how just much Snyder has matured.  In the past, he loses patience, and tries to re-invent (re-market) the team with a new head coach.  And,candidly, Gruden has been one of the more stabilizing influences for this franchise's convoluted FO structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.