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

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

.

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, joeken24 said:

You mentioned the word Facts....and they are?

edit

 

If you're alluding to the record, you can say the same for a number of teams in the NFL. There are only 4 maybe five teams in the NFL that have had real consistent success over the past 20 years (Patriots, Steelers, add your other two or three). But that's the game of football. Its a game that takes place on the field. There's injuries, luck and heartache.

 

But I'm really curious about the facts that lead you to believe Dan Snyder is this bad guy. You don't know him yourself, do you? I would assume not. Fact is, I don't know him either. But again, I refuse to allow narratives to alter my own common sense. For me, common sense says this: narratives are not facts; facts are proven - simple as that. Ya see, common sense is fairly simple. Narratives, on the other hand, is extremely (pun intended) complicated. The word complicated is fairly close to the word chaos. Chaos is fairly close to insane or extreme. 

 

Just provide some real facts is all I'm asking. Show me a video of him doing something heinous. Let me hear a audio of him saying he hates this area and wants his team to lose every ****ing game. Show me a news clip quoting Dan Snyder himself saying **** the Redskins, hehehe (in his best Brain impression while Bruce "Pinky" Allen stands in the background). 

Oh I get, you're talking about bad football decisions. Picking bad players and stuff like that, right? OK, I get it. But I'll say this.....bad decisions means you're making one. It means you're a leader and not a follower. Bad decision are only considered bad after they've been made. Think back to the splash FA signings over the years. Just about everyone of those signings blew this forum up with positive feedback about the upcoming season. When it didn't work out, the sheep came out to pasture yelling baaahh hate, baaahh hate. Its the haters that are critical of decisions after the fact. To me, those are the bad guys. But then I thought to myself, haters really would never have the ca hones to make those decisions, they're sheep.

Facts

 

This list has been put together before in detail so I will not go into detail. Please look up where his housekeeper had to sue him for wages and won, he cut down a protected tree for a view, has changed the game day experience by making it impossible to park and walk to the stadium without paying for parking, and he has pissed of the Metro so they do not stay open for late games. Those are just a few. Here is the more complete list: https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/article/13039846/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder

 

In fairness, some of them are just whining. But they are FACTS and most are valid. 

 

As for knowing Dan S - I do not know him personally. However, I have had the good fortune to meet a few ex-players from the Joe Gibbs days. And not just to say high. Having lunch or dinner and spending a few hours talking with them. And no, I am not going to provide names so if you want to believe I am a liar and just making it up, that's fine. But I would rather keep my word to them. 

 

I know for a fact that when ex-players want to watch a game, instead of being given tickets (or even the ability to buy tickets) where they can just watch the game, Dan S puts them in a box with his buddies for them to entertain. In other words he is making money off them.

 

I know for a fact that to participate in Home Coming the guys have to work for Dan either through long autograph sessions, spending time with his cronies, or otherwise working. In other words he is making money off them. 

 

There are other examples but you get the idea. Also, for me, those two things along with the list attached are enough. If not for you, Ok, that's certainly your right. But I promise you I am not just some "hater" (I hate those ****ing labels, just like homer! Both are ****ing childish as hell - OK got that out). I have verifiable reasons to dislike Dan. Just for the record until a few years ago when I met with those players I was just like you, defending Dan. 

 

And last but not least - I can separate football Dan with the person Dan. I do believe football Dan is making some better choices. It has not turned into enough wins for me, but after 20 yrs, it does look like he is at least trying. Move Bruce to his stadium corner and promote Kyle Smith to GM and I will be fine with football Dan. I will never be OK with Dan the person. Again, I have data. 

[Skinsinparadise]

As for Dan being a good guy or bad guy?  I agree none of us likely have any idea first hand.  

 

The best shot at it is going through the series of articles written about him -- many of which interviewed people who know Dan.  And not all the quotes are bad about him, some are good.  Just about every one of those articles have been posted on different threads.

 

The impression I get from reading it all.  

 

A.  Dan really really really wants to win.  That's true.

B.  He's impatient though and has a hankering and interest to win HIS way.

C.  He has bouts where he doesn't interfere.  Then has bouts when he does.

D. He has gotten patient with his head coaches

E. He's moody.  He can be cool and gracious but also mercurial and tempermental 

F. Redskins Charitable Foundation I think is a juggernaut -- nice job there

 

The thing is to win in the NFL as many said there is a fine line to reach greatness.   IMO, much of it is about hiring the right people and letting them do their job.  That has been at best a mixed bag for Dan.  

 

I am actually a little easier on Dan than the average FO critic.  My #1 beef with Dan is hiring Vinny and Bruce and giving them a long leash.   I think the dude does believe in hiring the best coaches.  But he comes off like he wants the top personnel guy to be someone he's close with as opposed to ones who are at the top of their game -- and when we keep hearing after each regime leaves that yeah he did chime in on this or that and push this and that -- the idea that he doesn't interfere, I got my doubts about that.  But I do buy that he rarely interferes anymore. 

 

If you just look at Dan's instincts on QBs alone -- its not hot.  The dump Brad Johnson for Jeff George.  Wanting Ramsey.  Pushing his FO to draft Brady Quinn (they talked him out of it).  The McNabb trade.  RG3.  We've posted articles on those subjects before, all of these have Dan's fingerprints on it.  All of that doesn't make Dan a bad guy -- it just shows that he's not a football guy and when he wants to play with his toy his instincts aren't too hot.   And unfortunately, its fine line between winning and losing in the NFL.  So botching up the QB position even if that's all he likes to do -- that's enough to derail a franchise.

 

Yeah its tough to be a consistent winner in the NFL and then there is the Redskins.  To lump the team as just another team among most that aren't the Steelers, Patriots, etc -- is one heck of a flattering summary of the run under Dan. 

 

But again for me at the moment, i am willing to buy that maybe Dan has chilled and isn't interfering like he has in the past.  If he reassigns Bruce and puts Kyle Smith in charge -- he'd buy some love from me for the time being.  All I want for Christmas is a real personnel guy running personnel. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/evaluate-the-redskins-game-in-the-context-of-what-they-are-a-bad-nfl-team/2017/12/01/4ebabdd0-d6bc-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html?utm_term=.35ea3811ef26

In the past 16 seasons, they are 104-147-1. In the 32-team NFL, just five teams have fewer wins. The five: Browns, Lions, Raiders, Rams and Jaguars at 76, 91, 91, 95 and 100.

In the NFC East, the Eagles, Cowboys and Giants have won 147 , 137 and 129.

Washington probably won't move up relative to the league in the next few years. They are headed down toward being the second-worst team over a 20-year period.

 

....Washington is not a "mediocre" franchise, as its fans like to say, as if that were criticism and showed how clear-eyed they are. Mediocre would be "average," which would be .500. This franchise is, over any five-year time frame, awful. For example, in the past five years, they are 29-46-1. In the five years before that 33-47. And the five before that: 35-45. 

 

...When they win 11 games . . . well, they haven't won 11 or more in a season in 26 years. Every other franchise in the NFL has had at least one 11-win season, including young franchises that didn't even exist a quarter-century ago.

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

6 hours ago, joeken24 said:

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

 

There’s a lot wrong with the entire post but you’ve been taken to task on it already.

 

But this part...

 

This reads like it came from Ricky Bobby.

 

My god.

 

 

[bedlamVR]

7 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

This list has been put together before in detail so I will not go into detail. Please look up where his housekeeper had to sue him for wages and won, he cut down a protected tree for a view, has changed the game day experience by making it impossible to park and walk to the stadium without paying for parking, and he has pissed of the Metro so they do not stay open for late games. Those are just a few. Here is the more complete list: https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/article/13039846/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder

 

 

 

Can i just say those 'facts' were enough to get the washington city paper sued out of existence. Also that article was anti semitic and is over 7 years old... and mostly dealt in things which were subjective and even then years out of date.  

 

Its just about if the reader can understand an issue without accepting the bias the reporter wants to put on an article - I mean it says a lot about a person when they proudly tout an article with an image of Dan Snyder - a well known jew - with a very obvious jewish surname and depict him as a devil - in the very same way that jews were represented in the 1930s by the national socialist party, and strong lobbyists in the US (including Walt Disney - where every villain in early cartons is depicted with strong jewish characterisation) and the article comes across very much in the same vein as a series of articles published in the 1920s "The international Jew" Published and distrubuted by Henry Ford - articles that were - well terrible . (interestingly enough when "The International Jew" was sued out of existance Henry Ford, who editorialized the publications threw up his hands in astonishment claiming he knew nothing about how disparaging the articles were (where in fact nothing was published without his direct say so or knowlege) and that was almost exactly the same the same reaction given by the city paper edditors when the city paper was sued....) 

 

Now i am not saying anyone on here is anti semitic but i think extreme care has to be taken with the sources you rely on, and you should always question motives . 

 

Papers sell on the principle if it bleeds it leads. Some media outlets tend to be less rigorous in their 'fact' checking if they think it can get them additional revenue - or puts across a specific narrative (think of the disputed and discredited NYC story about cheerleaders) - once a story has been told it cannot be untold - it gets a specific point across - an idea in peoples heads that never goes away. 

 

All I say to my kids is be critical and think for yourself . Just because someone says something - that is their opinion enough times that doesn't make it fact. 

 

People will say - everyone who leaves the organisation is kicked out with disrespect - as if it is fact - but its not. 

 

They will pick up on guys like Scott Mcloughlan as hard done by - (who twice left teams under the same cloud that surrounded him in washington - and whos time here most even handed commentators will say was a disaster with blame on both sides ) - but not comment on guys like Sean McVay who was handled with class and given every opportunity to succeed here - that doesn't happen everywhere. 

 

It all comes down to who - or indeed what you want to believe - If all you want to believe is the bad then things will never change and never be anything but that. But things are rarely black and white good and evil and those telling you that it is and are the ones who are painting others as the devil  are the ones you should be most wary of . 

 

Now feel free to dismiss what i said with rolling eyes emojis

 

 

 

 

[bedlamVR]

7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

 

But again for me at the moment, i am willing to buy that maybe Dan has chilled and isn't interfering like he has in the past.  If he reassigns Bruce and puts Kyle Smith in charge -- he'd buy some love from me for the time being.  All I want for Christmas is a real personnel guy running personnel. 

 

 

 

But isn't that what is actually happening ? I mean when was the last time you heard anything with personnel where Bruce Allen was actually the lead ? Most articles I have read over the last 12 months and going back beyond that referenced Eric Shaffer handling contracts and direct contact with agents and players and Kyle Smith has been given nothing but love for his hand in the last couple of drafts ? He and Scott Campbell .. 

 

The only real time i can recall Bruce being referenced in anything to do with personnel was when Kirk Cousins agent - not happy with the state of negociations threw that comment to the wolves that Kirk would never sign with the Redskins as long as Bruce Allen is involved with the organization - and that was aimed specifically at the poor perception Bruce Allen has amongst the fans (the bogyman) and not his actual influence over events at the time. 

 

 

[goskins10]

48 minutes ago, bedlamVR said:

 

Can i just say those 'facts' were enough to get the washington city paper sued out of existence. Also that article was anti semitic and is over 7 years old... and mostly dealt in things which were subjective and even then years out of date.  

 

dit

 

They will pick up on guys like Scott Mcloughlan as hard done by - (who twice left teams under the same cloud that surrounded him in washington - and whos time here most even handed commentators will say was a disaster with blame on both sides ) - but not comment on guys like Sean McVay who was handled with class and given every opportunity to succeed here - that doesn't happen everywhere. 

 

It all comes down to who - or indeed what you want to believe - If all you want to believe is the bad then things will never change and never be anything but that. But things are rarely black and white good and evil and those telling you that it is and are the ones who are painting others as the devil  are the ones you should be most wary of . 

 

Now feel free to dismiss what i said with rolling eyes emojis

 

 

 

 

 

I am not going to roll my eyes. I am going to tell you the "stuff" you just wrote is extremely close to politics and if you want to have that conversation we can have it in the Tailgate. I will only say you need to be very careful what you accuse others of - and yes you did just accuse me of being anti-semetic - and what you assume you know about others. You know nothing about me and what I believe in.

 

And thanks for the lecture but I am not one of your kids and am more than capable of critical thinking on my own. Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I said "some of this is whining".  Sorry I didn't go into a long detailed explanation that at least some of it was because the paper hated Dan S - for good reason, he went on full attack on them - but many of the things in there were verifiable facts which is what was asked for. Honestly, they were pretty much ****ing with him. I did not detail which were which. And you simplify the paper going out of business. Dan dropped the lawsuit against them and got nothing in return - not a single retraction, change, correction, nothing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/daniel-snyder-lawsuit-dropped-against-washington-city-paper/2011/09/10/gIQAHflXKK_blog.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3bff6b7cb7a9

 

The point was for the reader to do their own research and find out that there were enough things in there that are true that you could realize Dan Snyder is total POS as a person - and I don't care what religion he is. This is what I did - I researched each claim independently and found some to be 100% acurate and others to be more joke than fact.

 

There are assholes among all religions, races, ethnic and socio-economic standing. Being a jerk is not reliant on any of those things as a differentiator. You want to defend Dan S, it's your right. But the guy has done enough for me to see he is a POS.

 

I am done here.

[bedlamVR]

@goskins I don’t know you and I did not accuse you of being antisemitic or anything of the sort but  you have to realise did post a link to an article with strong antisemitic imagary and language ... there are other ways you could have made the same point ... and the very reason Dan Snyder dropped the case was because he did not want to give the paper more oxygen of publicity than it deserved. ... I did miss represent it in terms that the paper was sued out of existence but that article played a big role in its eventual down fall 

 

I appologise if if you think I was accusing you of anything - I was just making the point you need to be careful of what you share. 

 

But what is quite interesting is you were upset about me being disparaging to you ( which I assure I wasn’t - and again I appologise if you think I was) because I as you quite rightly point out don’t know you personally ... but you make the same assertation that Dan Snyder is POS ( which he might well be - most if not all self made millionaires tend to be unpleasant people) but you don’t know him either ...

 

this is the thing I would like to get past if we want a grown up conversation not about Dan Snyder as he was but what he is becoming and the direction  of travel of the organization as a whole ..

[goskins10]

4 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

@goskins I don’t know you and I did not accuse you of being antisemitic or anything of the sort but  you have to realise did post a link to an article with strong antisemitic imagary and language ... there are other ways you could have made the same point ... and the very reason Dan Snyder dropped the case was because he did not want to give the paper more oxygen of publicity than it deserved. 

 

I appologise if if you think I was accusing you of anything - I was just making the point you need to be careful of what you share. 

 

But what is quite interesting is you were upset about me being disparaging to you ( which I assure I wasn’t - and again I appologise if you think I was) because I as you quite rightly point out don’t know you personally ... but you make the same assertation that Dan Snyder is POS ( which he might well be - most if not all self made millionaires tend to be unpleasant people) but you don’t know him either ...

 

this is the thing I would like to get past 

 

This is absolutely the last post on this - 

 

All this is from your victim perspective. I do not see it as such imagery but mostly because I think all religion is a bunch of garbage Edit: let me clarify - I believe how people use religion is garbage - and an excuse to be pissed at everyone and tell others how to act and what to be careful of - see above comments from you. I posted it for the items that were true - of which there are many. Your perception of it as anything but a part fact - part tongue in cheek list of dumb **** Dan S has done is not my responsibility. 

 

Again, you read what you wanted to read. Yes, I do not know him personally. But I have met and talked to people that do know him directly - ex-Redskins - HOF players - who I have gotten 1st hand knowledge of him being an asshole. The other things are verifiable. Just do a little honest research and you will see some of the garbage he has done. I do not need to meet him personally to know he is a POS. Again, there are enough verifiable POS things he has done that I have made that determination. You see it differently. That's up to you. 

 

Last but not least - you did not "upset" me. I just was pointing out you were in fact implying things about me that you do not know about. If you did not mean them that way - I will take you at your word, so fair enough. 

[Skinsinparadise]

6 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

But isn't that what is actually happening ? I mean when was the last time you heard anything with personnel where Bruce Allen was actually the lead ? Most articles I have read over the last 12 months and going back beyond that referenced Eric Shaffer handling contracts and direct contact with agents and players and Kyle Smith has been given nothing but love for his hand in the last couple of drafts ? He and Scott Campbell .. 

 

The only real time i can recall Bruce being referenced in anything to do with personnel was when Kirk Cousins agent - not happy with the state of negociations threw that comment to the wolves that Kirk would never sign with the Redskins as long as Bruce Allen is involved with the organization - and that was aimed specifically at the poor perception Bruce Allen has amongst the fans (the bogyman) and not his actual influence over events at the time. 

 

 

 

The idea that there are smart people in the FO its just they aren't the ultimate decision maker isn't a novel experience.  I recall Shanny for example talk about how he liked the personnel guys and kept them when he was hired.  He was questioned about their checkered draft history.  He goes yeah but I saw the actual board of their scouts -- it was different than who the decision makers actually picked at times. 

 

When we read about how they were divided about who to take in the draft room -- and a resident insider hinted that Jay wanted to go elsewhere with the pick and Bruce was on the other side of it.   When we got people like Chris Russell saying Bruce-Jay have been at odds more than usual this off season about their FA moves, etc.  It doesn't paint the picture that Bruce is some passive observer who signs off on whatever others want.

 

Granted Bruce isn't a scout and he's not putting together the draft board.  But there is enough smoke out there that he weighs in. 

 

As for Bruce specifically.  Yeah his finger prints are all over the Kirk contract and that's been laid out a million ways from a million sources.  As for the ugliness to Scot's departure -- his part in it?  You got me.  There are different accounts of that depending on the source.  But he is the dude in charge so I'd be surprised if he was removed from it all and that all just happened behind his back.  He was here during the weirdness of the Zorn exit.  The Shanny-RG3 nonsense.  So the best I can say about Bruce on these fronts, if he had nothing to do with any of it -- he's not the best dude at quelling fires.  

 

I think the arguments defending Bruce is mostly driven by 5 posters (all granted with different slants on it) but my best shot at summarizing the variations of those arguments are something like:

 

A. From what I've observed depending on the person, Bruce's defenders either don't buy into the idea that the ultimate decision maker matters much and its more important to focus on who is advising said decision maker.  The soup comes out good so they are satisfied with Bruce's part in it whatever it is.  The antics/ugliness that happen under Bruce's watch should be either ignored because who cares or you don't really feel its that bad and the media just adds hyperbole to it all.  And then you throw in the fire that some people just irrationally dislike the guy -- and that's probably just driven by just a hater-joyless personality in general about the FO -- if it weren't Bruce we'd find some other scapegoat.

 

B.  My take especially on the hater aspect of the argument is that's ridiculous.  Some of the hater stuff is flipped 180 degrees with some of the same people when it pertains to backing players/Jay or whomever.    So hater/homer is based on perspective.  I don't define homer as = we got Bruce's back.  To me Bruce is a suit.  Bruce doesn't = Redskins.  With Scot in charge, we were big time homers. Not because of Scot as an individual but because of what he represented -- a real high rep personnel guy running personnel.  That's it.    I am typically one of the most optimistic people before each season -- I'd put myself closer to the homer argument.  Heck I've probably defended Larry Michael (who I like) more than anyone for years. 

 

And I've actually backed off part of my argument over time on the FO.  I'll give this to some of the FO backers who like to make the claim that not every (albeit most do) FO has a personnel guy running personnel with a deep scouting background.  That's true.  But the ones who don't typically have someone like that tend to have people who are really special at what they do like Howie Roseman run the ship.  So I can take a guy like Eric Schaffer running the ship -- he's considered special at his craft.

 

As for Bruce its not that he's the bogeyman.  But to me he is walking symbol for the mediocrity-bad years under Dan.  He's not a personnel guy.  He got canned after years of bad drafts in Tampa -- granted Jon Gruden had his stamp on those.  By Bruce's own admission, Schaffer is the money-cap guy.  Bruce by reputation wise at least is the ultimate politician who can navigate the maze at Redskins Park.  Unlike most politicians, Bruce though can't seem to think on his feet publicly or have a knack to put a good face for the franchise. IMO he makes the organization come off unlikable and incompetent perception wise.  So yeah don't think "special" when it comes to Bruce.

 

And frankly I don't blame that on Bruce.  As Cooley likes to say if you had power would you voluntarily give it up?  So why should Bruce?  He's right.  The fact that Bruce IMO is out of his lane running personnel isn't his fault -- its on Dan.  Bruce running personnel to me is a typical Redskins way during Dan's regime and not in a good way.  That's just my take.  Putting Kyle or Schaffer in charge would be a departure for Dan.  And it would be a good move and got no doubt it would be well received.  

 

 

[joeken24]

20 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

This list has been put together before in detail so I will not go into detail. Please look up where his housekeeper had to sue him for wages and won, he cut down a protected tree for a view, has changed the game day experience by making it impossible to park and walk to the stadium without paying for parking, and he has pissed of the Metro so they do not stay open for late games. Those are just a few. Here is the more complete list: https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/article/13039846/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder

 

In fairness, some of them are just whining. But they are FACTS and most are valid. 

 

As for knowing Dan S - I do not know him personally. However, I have had the good fortune to meet a few ex-players from the Joe Gibbs days. And not just to say high. Having lunch or dinner and spending a few hours talking with them. And no, I am not going to provide names so if you want to believe I am a liar and just making it up, that's fine. But I would rather keep my word to them. 

 

I know for a fact that when ex-players want to watch a game, instead of being given tickets (or even the ability to buy tickets) where they can just watch the game, Dan S puts them in a box with his buddies for them to entertain. In other words he is making money off them.

 

I know for a fact that to participate in Home Coming the guys have to work for Dan either through long autograph sessions, spending time with his cronies, or otherwise working. In other words he is making money off them. 

 

There are other examples but you get the idea. Also, for me, those two things along with the list attached are enough. If not for you, Ok, that's certainly your right. But I promise you I am not just some "hater" (I hate those ****ing labels, just like homer! Both are ****ing childish as hell - OK got that out). I have verifiable reasons to dislike Dan. Just for the record until a few years ago when I met with those players I was just like you, defending Dan. 

 

And last but not least - I can separate football Dan with the person Dan. I do believe football Dan is making some better choices. It has not turned into enough wins for me, but after 20 yrs, it does look like he is at least trying. Move Bruce to his stadium corner and promote Kyle Smith to GM and I will be fine with football Dan. I will never be OK with Dan the person. Again, I have data. 

Now this is a good post!! You have a legitimate reason to feel the way you feel about Dan the person, based on facts you know.

Fact is, I don't care about Dan the person. I don't plan on meeting him. Just like another one inside the beltway (I digress). I was really making the argument to those that seem to listen to bull**** all the time and allow that bull**** to shape their mindset. No proof of anything....just following the crowd type crap. If you met him or anyone close to him, cool. My point are not directed at you. But thanks for the post.

16 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

There’s a lot wrong with the entire post but you’ve been taken to task on it already.

 

But this part...

 

This reads like it came from Ricky Bobby.

 

My god.

 

 

Taken to task? Really?

You've been battered...I understand. Do you have any facts that shape your opinion?

 

[joeken24]

On 5/22/2018 at 6:48 AM, Riggo#44 said:

That's all well and good, the front office and ownership is still a ****show. You casually forgot to mention in your Snyder-praise that he fired Schottenheimer because he wasn't having fun, despite going 8-8 with Tony Banks at QB. He kept Vinny Cerrato for 10 years. 10. He subsequently hired Steve Spurrier. 

 

He apparently was the driving force behind RGIII, not only drafting him, but creating the environment that fed his massive ego.

 

Jay Gruden is the 1st coach to get an extension...in his 18th year as owner? I like Jay, but that's not a good record.

 

The team still treats people like ****: McCloughan, Cousins, Fuller (finding out he was traded via Twitter). 

 

That's just off the top of my head. He sucks and is the personification of everything wrong with this team.

So you're still a fan? Sounds like you and Dan need counseling. Your anger goes back damn near 20 years!!

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, joeken24 said:

 

Taken to task? Really?

You've been battered...I understand. Do you have any facts that shape your opinion?

 

Yes, as in eviscerated your entire stance.  

 

As for your second question, no - I don’t have first hand experience in dealing with Dan nor do I have recorded conversations of him being a POS.

 

Convenient though, that you constantly wear the cape for the guy, yet now that you’ve been presented with facts supporting that he’s a POS “you don’t care about Dan the person”.  

 

[c slag]

If the Redskins would make it to the super bowl I'm sure the narrative would be "The owner worked hard to bring this team where it is " 

Maybe not by the people who are on this message board but probably by the press ,winning would instantly give them a positive attitude towards him I'm guessing 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

13 minutes ago, c slag said:

If the Redskins would make it to the super bowl I'm sure the narrative would be "The owner worked hard to bring this team where it is " 

Maybe not by the people who are on this message board but probably by the press ,winning would instantly give them a positive attitude towards him I'm guessing 

Him having a Super Bowl team and him actually maturing and growing into a good owner most likely are a package deal.  So I’d imagine the stories would be about the journey.

 

Personally, him being a terd as a person is of much less importance to me than him being a terrible owner.  But like tha above its sort of a package deal.

[KillBill26]

36 minutes ago, c slag said:

Maybe not by the people who are on this message board but probably by the press ,winning would instantly give them a positive attitude towards him I'm guessing 

Agreed 100%, it would be a fairly easy article to write.  The appearance of less meddling last few years, no more leaks, hiring a real personnel guy, being ok with a more patient approach by building team via draft and less big free agents signing.  That article will be very predictable if they win. 

 

It's also very predictable Redskins fans will refuse to give Snyder an ounce of credit until he wins a super bowl.  I understand the level of hatred and distrust of Snyder, he has certainly earned it over the years.  But I am viewing this thread solely in terms of Snyder as it relates to football product on the field, not as a person or business decisions not related to the on field product.  Admitting Snyder is maturing as an owner is not the same as saying he is a mature competent owner.  Just because a very short person grew an inch and is now taller, does not mean they are now tall.  So I feel there is a large contingent of skins fans that won't entertain the thought of him maturing towards being a competent owner, because Snyder still remains far short of a competent owner in their eyes.  

 

And since we don't want our owner to meddle with drafting players, or deciding who starts, and God I hope he isn't calling plays from the owners box, so considering that, isn't it very hard to prove you are maturing as a competent owner, considering the best owners are hands off and delegate responsibilities to competent football men?  Then they sit back and watch and hope for the best.  It reminds me of Billy Beane in moneyball saying how he felt his job was to put together a team that makes the playoffs, then after that it's out of his hands. Whether they get the rings depends more on players making plays and in game decisions by coaching staff. I feel it's the same principle as an owner, there is only so much you can control. And it's a process that takes time.  So if you think the last few years we have been seeing a different approach, results aren't going to be immediate.  It takes time. Many people on here have liked the last couple drafts and the way the roster has been built.  He hired GMSM to get that true football guy, he is responsible for Kyle Smith and Eric Shaffer being employed and retained.  I think most fans would say the roster overall is heading in the right direction and is steadily improving.  Isnt that because of the less meddling, more patient approach  that Snyder has obviously called for?  But until they get the ring, Snyder won't get much credit for his growth towards being a competent owner, and I disagree with that.  But I also think he still has some work to do.  

 

Now as far as his personal life, and business not related to the team on the field, it's hard to formulate an argument that he is on the right track. 

[Skinsinparadise]

I think some of these posts sell Redskins fans short.   We haven't won even 11 games in 26 years.  I think even a one win playoff season would have people ease off on Dan let alone Superbowl or bust.  Maybe i am biased because this is how I feel and at the moment Bruce bothers me a heck of a lot more than Dan and judging by polls done by 106.7, many fans feel the same.   But some success I think would go a long way even if its not the ultimate success.  On the aggregate though it comes off like Dan has been part of the problem.  Has he changed?  I really don't know.  On some fronts he clearly has. 

 

There is more to building a roster than just doing what just about every other team in the NFL does and that is keep their draft picks and use them.  I'd hazard a guess we still have traded more picks away during Bruce's era than most teams.  But heck at least they trade for some picks back especially in the 2016 draft where they obtained 3.  And we have more picks to play with than we did under Vinny by far.  But that doesn't close the book on success -- job done -- here comes the trophy. It simply makes that part of the operation normal like most teams.   In theory I liked the recent drafts but it still has to play out.  I loved the 2011 draft for example initially but after it played out over years I didn't.   I am optimistic that these drafts will pan out much better but will see. I don't like counting my chickens about any draft until they play out. 

 

In FA, they mostly still stink at it if you look at hit rate -- its just that their mistakes aren't salary crippling.   As Cooley likes to joke maybe they just trust their college scouting more so than pro scouting.  But specific to Dan, yeah he's laid off of big FA signings.  That's true.  But I am not celebrating their FA approach aside from not crippling their salary structure by avoiding extending too much guaranteed money in deals. 

 

I've been one of the more optimistic people before each season.  I am actually a little more cautious this time because I've been burned about the what if scenarios.  Keim really brought it home to me in an interview (I had the same thoughts but he articulated it better) by saying something to the effect that there are some really obvious good teams coming into the 2018 season and the Redskins aren't one of them.  Now, the Redskins could be that -- he puts them in the category of "what if".  They have a bunch of glaring what if scenarios and if they come together than they will have really good year -- but if not the idea that they are an 8-8 team give or take is still in play.  It's how I see it, too.  My what ifs center on Jordan Reed being healthy, Guice being a stud and the secondary coming through.  If that happens -- 10-6-11-5.  If it doesn't I'd say 8-8 is in play again.

 

I don't think this roster is built like Minny for example who IMO are good at both playing the draft and FA.   In the last three seasons, we've had tease periods where we've looked like one of the better teams in the NFL.  Late 2015.  Mid season 2016.  Early season 2017.  And I admit every time that's happened I felt they arrived.  But I am not biting on it this time.  The mark of a really good team is consistency not just a nice 4 game streak in the middle of the season.  I remain more optimistic than not.  But I want to see that consistency for once.  I don't agree that building a really good team has to be a slow burn that takes years and years to hatch.  Plenty of examples of shrewd team building that turns around a team fast including last years Super Bowl Champion.  

[KillBill26]

37 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I don't agree that building a really good team has to be a slow burn that takes years and years to hatch.  Plenty of examples of shrewd team building that turns around a team fast including last years Super Bowl Champion.  

 

Sure, there are teams like the Rams and eagles that turn things almost immediately.  But this premise reminds me of a high school kid saying why do I need to go to school, look at so and so, they didn't finish high school and they are rich. And I cringe and say yes there are examples of that (or in our discussion a quick turnaround in nfl), but those examples are against the odds and if you are expecting it to happen to you odds are you will probably be disappointed.  While a quick turnaround in the NFL is certainly possible, the teams with the consistency we are both hoping for are usually the teams that draft well over time and is a more a methodical approach.  (I'm not trying to be condescending to you saying you are the equivalent of a high school kid, just an example illustrating what I feel are long odds)

 

Your example of Minny for example, they are a great well rounded team, but when I look at that team I see a core of Griffen, Barr, Kendricks, waynes, smith, Rhodes, cook, thielen, diggs, etc.  The core of that team was drafted.  They did a nice job of plugging some holes via free agency, like reiff, and we will see how Kirk and Sheldon do, but I attribute their team building success in having consecutive years with successful drafts, and then having the right coach who can bring it all together.  I'm hoping the skins are about to bring it all together, but time will tell. 

 

And I hear you on the consistency thing, the skins have flashed in small chunks but have been unable to keep it going.  I remember someone telling me how the Redskins can't do two good things in a row, and I think that quote sums up the Redskins for the last 20 years.  Whenever they have some success, my instinct is to expect the fall shortly afterward.  

 

But I share your optimism for the upcoming season. I think Jordan reeds health is key as well, but I also think the skins need growth from players like Nicholson, Anderson, the young dline, doctson, and some of the other young guys on the roster who have flashed potential, but will need to step it up another notch or two for the skins to make a playoff run.  I am optimistic they will.  

[goskins10]

20 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

 

Sure, there are teams like the Rams and eagles that turn things almost immediately.  But this premise reminds me of a high school kid saying why do I need to go to school, look at so and so, they didn't finish high school and they are rich. And I cringe and say yes there are examples of that (or in our discussion a quick turnaround in nfl), but those examples are against the odds and if you are expecting it to happen to you odds are you will probably be disappointed.  While a quick turnaround in the NFL is certainly possible, the teams with the consistency we are both hoping for are usually the teams that draft well over time and is a more a methodical approach.  (I'm not trying to be condescending to you saying you are the equivalent of a high school kid, just an example illustrating what I feel are long odds)

 

Your example of Minny for example, they are a great well rounded team, but when I look at that team I see a core of Griffen, Barr, Kendricks, waynes, smith, Rhodes, cook, thielen, diggs, etc.  The core of that team was drafted.  They did a nice job of plugging some holes via free agency, like reiff, and we will see how Kirk and Sheldon do, but I attribute their team building success in having consecutive years with successful drafts, and then having the right coach who can bring it all together.  I'm hoping the skins are about to bring it all together, but time will tell. 

 

And I hear you on the consistency thing, the skins have flashed in small chunks but have been unable to keep it going.  I remember someone telling me how the Redskins can't do two good things in a row, and I think that quote sums up the Redskins for the last 20 years.  Whenever they have some success, my instinct is to expect the fall shortly afterward.  

 

But I share your optimism for the upcoming season. I think Jordan reeds health is key as well, but I also think the skins need growth from players like Nicholson, Anderson, the young dline, doctson, and some of the other young guys on the roster who have flashed potential, but will need to step it up another notch or two for the skins to make a playoff run.  I am optimistic they will.  

 

I believe you are missing the difference between building a more competent FO and FO structure with success on the field. You are right about the instant winning. There are so many variables including timing (schedules and such), player development, injuries, how bad is the roster, and honestly some of it is just plain luck. Some of the best organizations have trouble winning in the NFL. Look at the Bengals. They have a great model and good people. But they just cannot get over the hump. That is just one example. 

 

But there is no reason it should take you 20+ years to build a competent FO. I can see a few years as you learn what works and what doesn't. But it has literally taken 20 yrs for us to get to a FO that is not openly so dysfunctional we get mentioned in the same company as the Browns and other incredibly incompetent NFL organizations. Which is to say we are just not joke any more. The jury is still out on if it is actually functionally competent. We need more than a few decent off-seasons and a coaching extension to make that call. 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

49 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

 

Sure, there are teams like the Rams and eagles that turn things almost immediately.  But this premise reminds me of a high school kid saying why do I need to go to school, look at so and so, they didn't finish high school and they are rich. 

 

Bruce is about to go at it right now for year #9.  I'll play with your premise that not every team turns their team around in one year.  Though plenty do.  It's not as rare as you make it out.  But it doesn't have to take 4-5 years either.  How about 3 years?

 

Every team in our division recently had a turnaround in ONE off season and achieved something we haven't reached in 26 years.  All of them. The NY Giants had a wretched defense and team in 2015.  In one off season and big FA year they turned the defense around into an 11-5 team.  That's something we haven't done in 26 years.  Dallas stinks and then they have a killer draft in 2016 and they have a season we can only dream about.  Eagles go from a losing record to the Superbowl.   All the teams in our division recently have had 11 win plus seasons.  

 

When the Vikings and the Redskins hired the respective coordinators from Cincy.  They were both bad teams.  The Vikings developed into a juggernaut of a roster.  Their drafts have been better.  Their FA crops have been better.  They pick off Thielen off the street.  We haven't drafted a WR of his caliber since maybe Art Monk let alone pluck a guy like that off the street.

 

I think we've been in the desert for so long that having some water feels like high end scotch.  I am not saying this team hasn't improved.  But our roster building hasn't competed with the big boys.   It's better and I like it.  I just don't love it.  As Cooley likes to say this team struggles to find A level talent.  We are good at finding the B/B+ level guys.  We need to get over that hump.  And when we do I don't think the burn has to be this slow.  We draft Diggs instead of Crowder.  We sign Thielen as an undrafted FA as opposed to Maurice Harris.  We sign L. Joseph in FA as opposed to McClain or Reyes -- and you''ll see the climb IMO. 

 

Some want to grade the Redskins on a curve.  It's better than Vinny.   Yeah maybe they are signing mediocre D lineman in FA but heck its not Hayneworth is it?  Imagine if no injuries?  Well, doesn't the latest draft feel good -- lets bask in that.  We have these small victories.  And heck we've lived through enough misery that we should enjoy these culture change victories.  And I agree they are an improvement.  But I disagree that its some watershed sea change improvement where the Redskins are considered among the top decision making teams in the NFL and we just got to stay patient because the promised land is inevitable.  I think we discovered the land of mediocrity in the NFL and how to be relevant from that stand point.  And I agree that's not a small feat for this organization which has been among the worst for a long time previously.  But IMO I think we'd be carrying it too far to celebrate that as us now being one of the better run organizations.  I think we are in the middle. 

 

I am actually higher on the FO than most national types who ranked FOs who continue to put the Redskins at or near the bottom.  I think the Redskins have the worst FO narrative is obsolete even though that narrative is alive and kicking with the national media.  For me its a mediocre FO.   Their drafts have been good (not great yet IMO).  Their FA crops have been mostly IMO "meh".     I agree with Cooley is that they struggle to find the Beckham and Landon Collins types in the draft or FA.   That's the hump IMO they need to get over to be a Superbowl contender.  I don't think more of the same gets them there -- but I think it will keep them competitive. 

 

In short, I think they need to pick their game up in the off season as opposed to more of the same will get them there via osmosis.   I think their college scouting is good.  I'd say great when they start landing on great players -- not just good ones.  And I am not saying they aren't capable of it.  I got my fingers crossed that Guice becomes an example of great and J. Allen becomes that, too.    To me that's the key variable that has to happen.  And I don't mean that in a pessimistic way at all.  It's plausible it happens.  But for me, I'd like to see it happen before counting my chickens. 

 

 

 

 

[KillBill26]

1 minute ago, goskins10 said:

But there is no reason it should take you 20+ years to build a competent FO. I can see a few years as you learn what works and what doesn't. But it has literally taken 20 yrs for us to get to a FO that is not openly so dysfunctional we get mentioned in the same company as the Browns and other incredibly incompetent NFL organizations. Which is to say we are just not joke any more. The jury is still out on if it is actually functionally competent. We need more than a few decent off-seasons and a coaching extension to make that call. 

 

 

I agree, it should never take 20 years. But the reasons I gave for why i think snyder is getting better as an owner as it relates to the on field product only, such as less meddling, no leaks, hiring a pure football guy in GMSM, and less big money free agent signings, have only occurred post shanahan.  Hiring GMSM would probably be a  better turning point.  The first 15 years of the 20 year period you reference were awful, and Snyder deserves no credit for that time period.  But the last few offseasons in which we have seen those changes have this team headed in the right direction, and I hope we see results soon. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, KillBill26 said:

 

And I hear you on the consistency thing, the skins have flashed in small chunks but have been unable to keep it going.  I remember someone telling me how the Redskins can't do two good things in a row, and I think that quote sums up the Redskins for the last 20 years.  Whenever they have some success, my instinct is to expect the fall shortly afterward.  

 

But I share your optimism for the upcoming season. I think Jordan reeds health is key as well, but I also think the skins need growth from players like Nicholson, Anderson, the young dline, doctson, and some of the other young guys on the roster who have flashed potential, but will need to step it up another notch or two for the skins to make a playoff run.  I am optimistic they will.  

 

I was thinking about this some.  It's one of Stephen Smith from ESPN and for that matter Chris Russell and other local guys mantra in slamming the Redskins -- that is, once they enjoy some success, the failure is coming.   They don't handle prosperity well.   I think there is some truth to it.  It's sort of an odd thing that has dogged this team under multiple regimes.   You almost feel like they don't have it in them where deep down they don't think they are capable of great but just good.    The Bengals have a little of that in them -- they make the playoffs but get knocked out always. 

 

As for the Redskins I can't put my finger on why it happens.  Some blame it on the coaches.  But like I said its really been the case under every coach for a long time now. 

 

If I had to put it on two things I'd say leadership among the players and just having that killer player or two who can takeover a game and breed confidence.  When GB for example got behind us in the playoff game, they know they had Rodgers who can do miracles.   We've not really had players like him.  No Beckhams, Julio Jones, A. Brown, L. Bell, Von Miller, types.  Players that have that seemingly super human ability to just dominate.    Maybe that's not it.  But we've been on the other side of having an opponent's player who just manhandles the Redskins in big games.

 

Heck when I recently re-watched the Giants infamous win over the Redskins at the end of the 2016 season -- watching Damon Harrison shut down our RBs like they were rag dolls caught my eye.   We need guys that can just dominate like that.  And bring an attitude.

 

Part of the reason why I pushed Guice so hard on the draft thread was he struck me as that kind of player and with a personality that's infectious.  Maybe he's the game changer on that front.  Though I don't want to jinx the dude.   IMO Portis had a bit of that dominate/winner aspect to him as a player.  I think Guice is of the same mold.  Will see.

 

  

 

[goskins10]

10 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

I agree, it should never take 20 years. But the reasons I gave for why i think snyder is getting better as an owner as it relates to the on field product only, such as less meddling, no leaks, hiring a pure football guy in GMSM, and less big money free agent signings, have only occurred post shanahan.  Hiring GMSM would probably be a  better turning point.  The first 15 years of the 20 year period you reference were awful, and Snyder deserves no credit for that time period.  But the last few offseasons in which we have seen those changes have this team headed in the right direction, and I hope we see results soon. 

 

I don't disagree honestly. But for me, it's too early to make any proclamations. Does it appear the team is headed in the right direction? Yes, I agree. How far? I do not know yet. I am just not ready to say, wow good job! Thanks for making us - mediocre? And that has nothing to do with me dislike for DAn S the person - which I can keep separate. 

 

I think SIP makes a great point about not being able to handle prosperity.  Also, the point about having a few great players. There is no one person on the Skins that teams prepare for and have to fear. All the best teams have at least one or two players that other teams think about in their sleep. I like the team aspect. And we have some really "good" players. But just a few players that just take thier game to another level when needed would do wonders for this team. 

 

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

This is actually from @KillBill26 I jsut used SIPs post to grab the quote: 

 

But I share your optimism for the upcoming season. I think Jordan reeds health is key as well, but I also think the skins need growth from players like Nicholson, Anderson, the young dline, doctson, and some of the other young guys on the roster who have flashed potential, but will need to step it up another notch or two for the skins to make a playoff run.  I am optimistic they will.  

 

This is something I do agree with. I believe the coaches ability to develop players has been underappreciated, booth locally and nationally. Before Jay got here, even with Shanny, players did not get much better while they were here. Many got worse. However, with Jay's staff players are getting better. Late round draft picks do not just suddenly get great. They have coaches behind them helping them reach potential.

 

If the trend continues this year and the team can stay just a little bit more healthy, we could have a very good season. And BTW: I do love our draft. Lot's a potential there. 

[Skinsinparadise]

19 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I think SIP makes a great point about not being able to handle prosperity.  Also, the point about having a few great players. There is no one person on the Skins that teams prepare for and have to fear. All the best teams have at least one or two players that other teams think about in their sleep. I like the team aspect. And we have some really "good" players. But just a few players that just take thier game to another level when needed would do wonders for this team. 

 

To me its what's going to limit the team to make the big dance unless they get better at it will be landing the great ones.  Hopefully, this draft changes things.  I've learned to be optimistic but with a healthy dose of being agnostic about any draft because the idea of a draft in theory being great versus reality can be two different dances.  In theory, I like this draft a lot notwithstanding I'd have gone in a different direction with the first pick.   But Guice in the 2nd makes me ok with everything else. 

 

I agree that Jay is good coaching this team up and developing talent.  I think Jay is somewhat under-appreciated in the process.   I get into these debates with some about lets say the draft where I get variations of hey you see Bruce isn't all bad, is he?  My thought gravitates on that point to Bruce isn't scouting these players. He essentially described as a tie braker. And I'd rather he wasn't a tie braker as I pointed out in another post earlier.   At least based on what is described Bruce's involvement is on the pro side/contracts primarily.  Doug, too though Doug kicks in more than Bruce on the college side. 

 

But the guy behind the scenes that seems to get plaudits is Jay.  Multiple people covering the team have expressed that they hear from people at Redskins Park that Jay is an essential talent evaluator. Not Doug. Not Bruce. But Jay is the guy kicking things around with the scouts and adding his 2 cents.  I've said many times on different threads, Scot told me personally that Jay is a great evaluator and a great guy, too. 

 

Part of me wonders (in a bad way) what would happen if Jay wasn't here.  He isn't perfect.  But he's almost the perfect combination to deal with the dynamic of this team IMO.   I hate that the head decision maker isn't a true personnel guy.  But Jay kicking in likely offsets that some.  Jay's laid back, roll with the punches, deals with adversity without being ruffled by it -- seems almost the perfect counter balance to any craziness that happens.  I just wonder if the dominos all come tumbling down, if you remove him from the process.  I suspect they might. 

 

[KillBill26]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Bruce is about to go at it right now for year #9.  I'll play with your premise that not every team turns their team around in one year.  Though plenty do.  It's not as rare as you make it out.  But it doesn't have to take 4-5 years either.  How about 3?

 

Every team in our division recently had a turnaround in ONE off season and achieved something we haven't reached in 26 years.  All of them. The NY Giants had a wretched defense and team in 2015.  In one off season and big FA year they turned the defense around into an 11-5 team.  That's something we haven't done in 26 years.  Dallas stinks and then they have a killer draft in 2016 and they have a season we can only dream about.  Eagles go from a losing record to the Superbowl.   All the teams in our division recently have had 11 win plus seasons.  

 

As Cooley likes to say this team struggles to find A level talent.  We are good at finding the B/B+ level guys.  We need to get over that hump. 

 

 But I disagree that its some watershed sea change improvement where the Redskins are considered among the top decision making teams in the NFL and we just got to stay patient because the promised land is inevitable.  I think we discovered the land of mediocrity in the NFL and how to be relevant from that stand point.  And I agree that's not a small feat for this organization which has been among the worst for a long time previously.  But IMO I think we'd be carrying it too far to celebrate that as us now being one of the better run organizations.  I think we are in the middle. 

 

I am actually higher on the FO than most national types who ranked FOs who continue to put the Redskins at or near the bottom.  Their drafts have been good (not great yet IMO).  Their FA crops have been mostly IMO "meh".     I agree with Cooley is that they struggle to find the Beckham and Landon Collins types in the draft or FA.   

 

But for me, I'd like to see it happen before counting my chickens. 

Great post, I agree with you on most points.  I completely agree with a three year time frame to turn a team around.  I know the last three years we have been steadily mediocre, but my optimistic self expects we turn the corner soon.  I believe it is weak for players and coaches to mention injuries when talking about not meeting expectations, because they need to work with what they've got, no excuses, next man up.  However, as far as front office guys evaluating the roster, I think you do have to take injuries into consideration.  For instance, it would be silly to overhaul a talented roster that got hit with injury bug and cut ties with good football players.  So while last year was an injury ravaged season, I think our roster was in better shape than the previous year.  And I believe this year's roster will be better than last.

 

As far as quick turnaround in our division, was any of the success sustained?  The Giants benefitted from having no injuries and made the playoffs, then regressed to the second worst team in the league.  The cowboys did well when dak was a rookie, but once teams got some film on him, they were average. The eagles have the best shot at sustained success, and time will tell if they achieve it, and the reason for that segues into your next talking point.  I think the reason the eagles had such a good season was a high number of B+ guys across position groups on the roster.  Did they have an a+ guy that single handedly dominated games?  I don't believe so.  They won with Nick frickin foles.  But they had a nice core and good balance, which I believe the skins are starting to achieve.

 

And I certainly don't believe the skins have the best front office and the promised land is inevitable. But I feel they are heading in the right direction, and if they keep steadily improving their roster, we will eventually be one of those teams with sustained success, with the core being players that are already on the roster.  Let's say we have good luck on the injury front, and several key players progress like we hope them to.  Reflecting the improved balance and depth on our roster, everyone's game will be elevated due to the increased talent around them, take a look at the number of players that I wouldn't be shocked to see being a pro bowler in 2018:. A smith, Reed, t Will, scherff, Moses, allen, kerrigan, zbrown, and Norman.  Do you feel any of those guys dont have a chance of being a pro bowl caliber player next year? Maybe even guice, crowder, payne, p smith, and swearinger too.  And then wouldn't our roster be on par with the eagles?  No elite superstar, but a lot of talent, depth, and balance. 

 

And as far as counting chickens, again, I don't think we have reached the promised land.  My whole point is I think Snyder and the front office deserve some credit because I feel the progress we have made building the roster has improved the last several offseasons, and I am optimistic (maybe too optimistic, wouldn't be the first time, and we can agree to disagree there) it will "click" and all come together in the next year or two.  Just like it did with the eagles, those key players such as Cox, Jenkins, Graham, etc had already been there, but they continued to surround them with talent, and then it clicked.  But those players were the same players before they won, but they only got recognition for being a talented collection of players once they won.  Just like skins players won't get their pro bowls, and Snyder won't get credit as an owner, until they win.  But just like the eagles going into last year, the talent is there, we just need some breaks and for it to click, and then everyone will say wow where did all this talent come from, when it has been steadily added all along.