The "Non" Mt Rushmore Symbols of the Dan Snyder Era

[hail2skins]

John Feinstein once recounted when Snyder called him to a respond to a column Feinstein had written that was critical of Dan.  Feinstein recalled that at one point in the conversation, Dan defended himself by saying "Do you know how much I give to charity?"  Feinstein (as he should) commended Snyder for his giving, but responded by saying "Tell you what Dan...….lets take your charitable giving as a percentage of your salary and compare it to my charitable giving as a percentage of my salary." Apparently Snyder didn't have a response.

 

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

We sucked most of the 90s before he got here, so I don't buy the whole he ruined the franchise nonsense, we've also sucked before.

I think Snyder might fall victim to gaining ownership of the franchise while the glory years were still fresh in a lot of people's mind.  I don't think he ruined the franchise; however, as pointed out earlier in the thread, the W-L percentage of the team is tied for sixth worse in the league under the duration of his ownership so far......that fact speaks for itself.  Its just a humorous thread asking for what people have felt have been symbolic of this not-so-great era during a slow time in the offseason. 

[Renegade7]

10 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

I think Snyder might fall victim to gaining ownership of the franchise while the glory years were still fresh in a lot of people's mind.  I don't think he ruined the franchise; however, as pointed out earlier in the thread, the W-L percentage of the team is tied for sixth worse in the league under the duration of his ownership so far......that fact speaks for itself.  Its just a humorous thread asking for what people have felt have been symbolic of this not-so-great era during a slow time in the offseason. 

 

I can dig it, I've lost count of the Offseason Snyder Bashing threads over the years.  I don't believe he hasn't done at least 4 things right since he bought the team, but he needs to start winning so I don't have to defend him like this against his own fan base.  Like, I'm glad he bought Extremeskins.  Message Board is a dying medium, but we're under the umbrella of a multi-billion now.

[TSO]

5 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Most teams were at or around $500 million+ in value in 2002. Your asking for year by year growth, I don't understand why that's more important then showing the Redskins growth is larger then the total value of some teams since that point. That clearly shows they've been growing faster then other teams. And no, not any business person can walk in and 4x the value of a franchise in less then 20 years.  That's part of his job, he got that right even if it doesn't matter to the average person.  But it does matter if he's putting it back into the team and charity, which he has been doing.

 

Year to year growth relative to the rest of the league absolutely matters more because it gives us a better understanding of how much actual growth occurred for the team versus just being a by-product of a league that shares revenue amongst other factors. 

 

Pointing out a few teams that aren’t nearly as valuable doesn’t change that. Averages matter, especially with revenue-sharing involved as it’s harder to get an accurate picture when everyone is benefitting at the same time.

 

I feel like this isn’t something I should really have to explain. :/ 

 

If the year to year growth is consistently below the average set by the entire league, what do you think that says? If it’s above average, what do you think that says? 

 

I mean, is it the same to you either way? I’m pretty sure if the data came back stating that for most of Dan’s tenure the year to year growth was above average, you’d accept that as further proof of your conclusion, wouldn’t you? I know I would accept that it certainly aids in your argument. All I’m advocating for is that we’ve got to dig deeper. 

 

As for it meaning anything about Dan or it being “part of his job”, I’m not sure we as fans should care much about that. I mean, one could argue the opposite in that it’s actually a terrible sign. That despite the quality of the actual product, Dan has found a way to manipulate his consumers into buying into it. Why would that be a “good thing”? It’s almost like you’re conflating capitalism with morality. At least on a fanhood level, why should we recognize that as something to give Dan credit for? We’re not in this for the business, are we? 

 

You’re at least right about the charity aspect of it. That is certainly a good thing, so we should commend that. I don’t see anyone who hasn’t. But then we don’t know the relative percentages of that money given to charity in comparison to other franchises either, so we don’t know just how good it is, do we? Or even whether or not the increase in team value has had anything to do with what’s “put back into charity”. We don’t know. 

 

But let’s just go with your point for argument’s sake and say it is generally a “good thing” that Dan has “made the team more valuable”.. again, you’re still ignoring other factors that I’ve mentioned a thousand times that might have more to do with it than anything he’s done.

 

How about fan loyalty to a 3-time Super Bowl winning franchise that’s one of the oldest in the entire league? Dan inherited a brand recognition superior to the majority of franchises when he bought the team, right? How about inheriting the second-most valuable franchise at the time (if my memory serves me), which means he’d be starting in a more powerful position with more assets than others? How about the average income of those fans in comparison to other franchises? How about being in a premier, historic division that is consistently competitive? 

 

There’s a lot more to this than saying “look at the growth in revenue overall and look at some of the bottom tier teams, see he’s done great”! No one worth their salt in knowledge of even the most basic economics would accept your conclusion based off of that. 

 

I’m not even saying your conclusion is wrong. I’m saying the data you use to come to it is incomplete at best, completely unrelated at worst. 

 

I don’t understand where the disconnect is here? 

[Renegade7]

52 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

I don’t understand where the disconnect is here? 

Because I'm not talking about a couple bottom feeders, I'm talking about at least 12 teams, more then a third of the league (from $800 million to now is $2.3 Billion in growth).

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193534/franchise-value-of-national-football-league-teams-in-2010/

 

And I don't look at it as taking advantage of us, if that's the discussion we're going to have, then I'll just bow out on this thread.  There's no way I can convince anyone that believes that that their wrong, and that's just a terrible way of looking at it.  Dude is trying to win, I don't always agree with his methods, but I firmly believe that.  

 

I mean, we've both tried looking for a chart that shows more data in regards to revenue per team per year, and I'm trying to show what I can find that shows me as accurate.  But I feel like you're looking for a line to compare to another line to add context to the fact we landed in a completely different spot then most of the league.  No, I don't see how if we're starting from the same point (when Snyder bought the team) to now, and looking at everyone same time period, same number of years, and that for like the Eagles we were about $300 million apart and now we're almost double that that we didn't grow at a faster rate overall then the Eagles franchise did, who have dominated the division in the same time period.  It's like you want to see each year the growth compared to the average growth of each team for each year, when our overall growth rate in the overall time period is clearly above average.  

 

No, I don't get it, because it's like your asking how much revenue sharing has to do with us being the 4th most value team in the league, that sounds like just trying to minimize it.  And like I said, fine, revenue does not matter to the fans, but if we're going to take away the overall growth of the franchise that he owns since he bought it, its not a fair fight.  I came into this thread asking why we don't talk about anything positive that he's done or gone right in this entire era of his ownership.  I'm tired of making that point that we should be talking about that as well, that's how I started in here, that's where I plan to end.

[TSO]

48 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

No, I don't get it, because it's like your asking how much revenue sharing has to do with us being the 4th most value team in the league, that sounds like just trying to minimize it.

 

You completely lost me with this post, to be honest.

 

But this part right here... trying to actually understand the data by looking at it within its proper context (and revenue sharing is of major significance) is considered “minimizing” to you? 

 

I don’t know what to say to that, brother.  :/

 

48 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

and that for like the Eagles we were about $300 million apart and now we're almost double that that we didn't grow at a faster rate overall then the Eagles franchise did, who have dominated the division in the same time period.

 

We’re not “almost double” that to the Eagles. But this example of yours here I think gives the perfect indication of our disconnect. 

 

I don’t know where you got the initial “$300 million apart” figure from, but assuming that’s correct, we’re ahead by $450 million now. 

 

So if the Skins were at $800 million initially like you said, that’d mean the Eagles were at $500 million (hence your $300 million difference), right? 

 

That’s a difference of about 37% in team value the Skins had over the Eagles, initially. 

 

Now? The Eagles are worth $2.65 billion, the Skins are worth $3.1 billion. 

 

That’s a difference of about 15% in team value the Skins have over the Eagles. 

 

So that means the Eagles have actually out-paced the Skins here in growth. They’ve cut into the Skins advantage in team value by about 22%. 

 

To make it as simple as possible, it’s like if I had $10 and you had $7 initially, and then a month down the road I had $100 whereas you had $80, how would we look at it? 

 

Would you say, “you started with $3 more than me and over that time period you now have $20 more than me, therefore you grew at a faster rate”? 

 

That’d be crazy, right?

 

The reality is you actually outpaced me with your $7. You grew slightly over 11 times that whereas I grew at 10 times. You started with 30% less than I did, and after a month you only have 20% less. 

 

If we’re projecting for the future, it’s likely you will eventually overtake me if the level of growth remains as is. 

 

Again, there are plenty of other factors here that this could be tied to. But the way you’re looking at it is off. In this instance with the Eagles, your data here actually hurts your conclusion versus supports it. 

 

48 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Dude is trying to win, I don't always agree with his methods, but I firmly believe that.  

 

What does whether or not Dan is “trying to win” have anything to do with what you and I are discussing here? I feel like you’re just reading into what I’m talking about here (in terms of interpreting the data for nothing other than a financial understanding) what you want to. 

 

I’m not even saying it is or isn’t a positive for Dan, I’m saying you arriving to the conclusion that it is has quite a few issues. If we look into those issues more, we may still actually come to your conclusion. That’s all. 

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

You completely lost me with this post, to be honest.

 

But this part right here... trying to actually understand the data by looking at it within its proper context (and revenue sharing is of major significance) is considered “minimizing” to you? 

 

I don’t know what to say to that, brother.  :/

 

We're going to dap up at some point and keep it moving and dap up again at some point down the road, sorry in the meantime.

 

Each team got $244 million dollars last year from revenue sharing and my understanding is its supposed to be an equal amount to each team each year.  To me, its like looking at the same data in regards to revenue for each team each year and then minusing the same amount from each team then looking at the data again with what's left, everyone should be the same distance from each other as before because everyone's number is down the same amount.  That is not a small chunk of change, but I don't feel how much we made or anyone else made via revenue sharing does any of these teams justice in this conversation.  

 

Quote

 

We’re not “almost double” that to the Eagles. But this example of yours here I think gives the perfect indication of our disconnect. 

 

I don’t know where you got the initial “$300 million apart” figure from, but assuming that’s correct, we’re ahead by $450 million now. 

 

So if the Skins were at $800 million initially like you said, that’d mean the Eagles were at $500 million (hence your $300 million difference), right? 

 

That’s a difference of about 37% in team value the Skins had over the Eagles, initially. 

 

Now? The Eagles are worth $2.65 billion, the Skins are worth $3.1 billion. 

 

That’s a difference of about 15% in team value the Skins have over the Eagles. 

 

So that means the Eagles have actually out-paced the Skins here in growth. They’ve cut into the Skins advantage in team value by about 22%. 

 

Wait wait wait... alright, I was rounding too much it seems and pulling the $800 million to $500 million number from 2011 Forbes link I posted that showed the rate of growth of all the teams between 2002 and 2011.  But 3.1 billion minus 2.65 billion is 450 million, that's larger then the $300 million difference we started with when Snyder bought the, not smaller.  The percentage difference is smaller, but the raw dollars number is larger, I can't tell if that means we're both right or both wrong.  When I look at being able to fit the entire current value of a franchise inside the difference between our 2000 value and 2017 value, that catches my eye, I want to say that should matter.  But you are right, the raw data needs to be dissected more, but I'm not sure if its worth it, all things considered.  I was fine dropping this out my positive top 4 after talking about it earlier in the thread, I'm only defending it because people keep replying to me about it at this point (not to say I'm not happy I got to this point in this conversation with you, it was worth it to get better idea on the topic).

 

Quote

 

What does whether or not Dan is “trying to win” have anything to do with what you and I are discussing here? I feel like you’re just reading into what I’m talking about here (in terms of interpreting the data for nothing other than a financial understanding) what you want to. 

 

This comment bothered the hell out of me, because I couldn't tell if you were alluding to this whole revenue conversation not mattering because it just shows he's been taking advantage of us and we've been falling for it (in which case I wouldn't of wanted to talk about it anymore if you felt that way same as some others):

 

3 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

How about fan loyalty to a 3-time Super Bowl winning franchise that’s one of the oldest in the entire league? Dan inherited a brand recognition superior to the majority of franchises when he bought the team, right? How about inheriting the second-most valuable franchise at the time (if my memory serves me), which means he’d be starting in a more powerful position with more assets than others? How about the average income of those fans in comparison to other franchises? How about being in a premier, historic division that is consistently competitive? 

 

I mentioned the metro area being a factor, but not standing out the way I'd expect when looking at other metro areas (like Packers being worth more then the Steelers).  We don't have a moratorium on fan loyalty (especially considering how many home primetime games FedEx has been inundated).  If we're going to throw in all these different variables (some I agree with you on, others I wouldn't put as much weight on), then we should probably stop working on this from a numbers standpoint.

 

Quote

I’m not even saying it is or isn’t a positive for Dan, I’m saying you arriving to the conclusion that it is has quite a few issues. If we look into those issues more, we may still actually come to your conclusion. That’s all. 

 

I feel you on trying to be diplomatic here, but I think I'm derailing this thread even responding to people on this one.  If someone starts a thread on that topic, I may wait to chime in, but I would eventually.  I'm convinced most people will look at it as a negative despite the evidence brought forth, and that saddens me.

 

[TSO]

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Wait wait wait... alright, I was rounding too much it seems and pulling the $800 million to $500 million number from 2011 Forbes link I posted that showed the rate of growth of all the teams between 2002 and 2011.  But 3.1 billion minus 2.65 billion is 450 million, that's larger then the $300 million difference we started with when Snyder bought the, not smaller.  The percentage difference is smaller, but the raw dollars number is larger, I can't tell if that means we're both right or both wrong.  

 

Ok, got ya, but I don’t see how it’s a “both right or both wrong” thing, lol. This is exactly what I explained in the post you quoted, you’re still looking at this wrongly (not to sound harsh).  

 

The percentage matters more if we’re talking about growth rates, the total difference (or “raw dollars number” as you put it) does not take into account the overall increase of value for both teams.  

 

The Eagles have grown faster than the Redskins have. It’s that simple. If they continue at this pace, the Eagles will be more valuable than the Redskins in a handful of years. The Eagles have grown 5.3 times their initial amount while we’ve grown 3.8 times. Does that make more sense? 

 

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

This comment bothered the hell out of me, because I couldn't tell if you were alluding to this whole revenue conversation not mattering because it just shows he's been taking advantage of us and we've been falling for it (in which case I wouldn't of wanted to talk about it anymore if you felt that way same as some others):

 

My point all along is that the conclusion you are arriving to is faulty based on the data you are using. And that, furthermore, it can be argued either way whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing. 

 

I don’t really agree with you that it’s a positive for Dan that we need to give him credit for, but I also don’t think the team’s growth in value being outpaced by most other NFL franchises is necessarily a negative either. We are talking from the perspective as fans, right? 

 

 

For instance, if Dan is actually doing a good job increasing the team’s value AND if that increase means more charity is spent AND/OR that money is being invested in the right way to improve the on and off field product... we can say that’s a “good thing” and that Dan should be getting credit for it. However, we need a lot more info to come to that.

 

What if, for instance, we find that Dan has done a great job increasing the team’s value, but then it has had no effect on the charitable contributions he’s given (which would mean it’s actually a lesser percentage he’s giving as every year goes by) and/or he’s spent less investing back into the team’s staff, facilities, etc...? 

 

Would that still be a “good thing” that he’s increased the team’s value? No way, at least not from our fan’s perspective! We’re not rooting for Dan to increase his bank account, for God’s sake, are we!? 

 

But the main point here is that you used data that doesn’t support the original conclusion you arrived to; that Dan has done a good job increasing the team’s value. When looking at it relative to the rest of the NFL, that outlook can easily change. The Eagles are one example of this. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I mentioned the metro area being a factor, but not standing out the way I'd expect when looking at other metro areas (like Packers being worth more then the Steelers).  We don't have a moratorium on fan loyalty (especially considering how many home primetime games FedEx has been inundated).  If we're going to throw in all these different variables (some I agree with you on, others I wouldn't put as much weight on), then we should probably stop working on this from a numbers standpoint.

 

Again, you arrived at a conclusion without these factors being taken account of, not me. I’m glad you agree with me on some, but that should automatically mean you retract your conclusion since it’s missing key data, right? I’m glad you seem willing to recognize that.  

 

Also, fan loyalty isn’t necessarily tied to the purchase of live tickets, though it’s a factor. The Skins have a strong nationwide fanbase just by virtue of their long and storied history. They are one of the oldest franchises in the league. There’s a lot of other things we can get into regarding fan loyalty, but I think it’s unnecessary for now. 

 

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I feel you on trying to be diplomatic here, but I think I'm derailing this thread even responding to people on this one.  If someone starts a thread on that topic, I may wait to chime in, but I would eventually.  I'm convinced most people will look at it as a negative despite the evidence brought forth, and that saddens me.

 

Well, I went into this wondering about the team’s value in a totally neutral way. I was honestly curious as to whether or not they’ve progressed or regressed there. 

 

But so far the evidence is pointing to a regression and that we’ve actually grown less than most teams in the NFL. We’re below average with the numbers we’ve looked at so far. What I’m seeing here is that, at this rate, we’re going to be outpaced by another 2-3 teams very soon and that 5-10 years down the road we’ll be middle of the pack or worst.

 

More data is needed, though. And the new stadium will definitely impact all of this. So no matter what we figure out now it’s not totally indicative of how things will pan out. 

 

For me, the one thing that has actually mattered to me about all of this (and this has been the case for a long time, not as a result of this present discussion between us) is how ridiculous it is that we’re still one of the most valuable franchises, and have been for a long time, yet our facilities are among the worst in the NFL. Furthermore, while we had this immense “team value” all this time, our scouting department was one of the most understaffed in the NFL (that’s changed recently). That just pisses me off when I think about it. 

 

I was happy to see Dan actually put in some effort this offseason when he went to Europe and visited some of the premier futból clubs there to see how we can improve our injury prevention/recovery. I mean, does it make me sick it took a complete catastrophe for him to do that? Sure. But it’s definitely a positive, better late than never, and that’s where I’d like to see our “team value” being so high actually benefit us. I want to be known as an organization that really invests in itself in the best way. 

 

Here’s something to chew on... if we’re actually regressing in terms of team value and other teams start jumping ahead of us more and more, but Dan is increasingly investing in charity, facilities, equipment, staff, etc... (which has happened recently, as long as it’s taken) that’s much more of a good thing  than what you’ve presented and something we should commend Dan for. I’d hold Dan in much higher esteem if I find out that, even though the team’s value is decreasing compared to other’s in the league, he’s investing more than they are. That’s much more of a “good thing” to me than seeing our team value among the top of the league while knowing just how little has been invested for so much of that time. 

 

I hope I clarified everything enough here.  

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

I’m glad you agree with me on some, but that should automatically mean you retract your conclusion since it’s missing key data, right? I’m glad you seem willing to recognize that.  

 

 

I hope I clarified everything enough here.  

I do and you have, I concede, at least on the math part.  : )

 

Stuff like motive, I refuse to surrender on that one, I'm still goin to give him benefit of the doubt in regards to wanting to win and agree it's taken too long to recognize that his way didn't work. But I sure as hell have noticed that slow shift up to this point, especially what he's doing to the front office this offseason.

 

Only other thing I'll add is your comment on ticket purchases not being a clear indicator of our fan base is something I've been refusing to let go of since I got here, also a hill I'm willing to die on.  The few times I've seen us field a good team you get a taste of what we'd look like if winning consistently, and I'll be here when it happens  (it will happen).

[CovingtonCommander]

Jeff George

Adam Archuleta

Albert Haynesworth

Vinny Cerrato

[MassSkinsFan]

On 7/12/2018 at 7:44 PM, Renegade7 said:

 

I can dig it, I've lost count of the Offseason Snyder Bashing threads over the years.  I don't believe he hasn't done at least 4 things right since he bought the team, but he needs to start winning so I don't have to defend him like this against his own fan base.  Like, I'm glad he bought Extremeskins.  Message Board is a dying medium, but we're under the umbrella of a multi-billion now.

 

I'm a fan of the Redskins, not a fan of Dan Snyder. Any defending of Dan Snyder you do is not against his own fan base - it is against Redskin fans.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

20 minutes ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

I'm a fan of the Redskins, not a fan of Dan Snyder. Any defending of Dan Snyder you do is not against his own fan base - it is against Redskin fans.

So much this.

 

I'm a Redskins fan, not a Dan Snyder or Bruce Allen fan.  It's no different than working for a company where you love the folks you work with but have disdain for the executives that make questionable decisions that have negative impacts on you and the folks you care about.

 

 

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

I'm a fan of the Redskins, not a fan of Dan Snyder. Any defending of Dan Snyder you do is not against his own fan base - it is against Redskin fans.

So if a non-Redskins fan starts going off on Snyder, what do you do?  Pile on or draw a line? This doesn't have to be us or them in regards to Snyder supports and Redskins fans in general, don't even play like that, we have enough us vs them as it is already.  Some people part of this franchise over the years, like Haynesworth, I have no problem tearing apart, I don't consider Snyder in that territory.

[hail2skins]

34 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

So if a non-Redskins fan starts going off on Snyder, what do you do?  Pile on or draw a line? 

Probably would depend if the other fan was saying something that was based in fact or not. 

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, hail2skins said:

Probably would depend if the other fan was saying something that was based in fact or not. 

More then fair, and opinions aren't facts.

[NickyJ]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

opinions aren't facts.

[MassSkinsFan]

15 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

So if a non-Redskins fan starts going off on Snyder, what do you do?  Pile on or draw a line? This doesn't have to be us or them in regards to Snyder supports and Redskins fans in general, don't even play like that, we have enough us vs them as it is already.  Some people part of this franchise over the years, like Haynesworth, I have no problem tearing apart, I don't consider Snyder in that territory.

 

I pile on.

 

Look - I am successful in my job and it involves leading people. It can be tricky. It requires  immense "soft skill" knowledge to perform well.

 

Looking at Dan Snyder I see someone who is not able to lead people. This is the problem that has caused us to consistently lose, go through coaches and FO staff like toilet paper, and generally have a bad name as an organization.

 

I do not need to have firsthand evidence to know with 100% certainty that Dan Snyder is a **** leader. It is painfully obvious.

 

The biggest problem is he believes his own hype: he is a self-made billionaire whose great business success validates his approach. Hmmm, no. He's a guy who got lucky on one of his many schemes. The others, and all the other non-Skins business ventures since he sold off Snyder Communications, failed miserably. Why? Because organizations run by **** leaders may have success in the short term but generally fail in the longer term as people become alienated, are fired for being too competent and/or questioning authority, or just won't consider working there because everyone in the business knows you get paid but **** on.

 

If Dan Snyder takes an interest in emotional intelligence, turns around his leadership style and ultimately changes the organization for the better, I'll be his biggest defender. Until then I hang on in quiet desperation because I am and will always be a Washington Redskins fan.

 

 

[Renegade7]

16 minutes ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

If Dan Snyder takes an interest in emotional intelligence, turns around his leadership style and ultimately changes the organization for the better, I'll be his biggest defender. Until then I hang on in quiet desperation because I am and will always be a Washington Redskins fan.

 

 

 

I've noticed his non-Redskins ventures failing, too, no way to ignore it or act like it ain't happening. But especially looking at latest front office reorganization is another sign to me if slowly relenting.  This convoy for me is always going to start with knowing he wants to win and this not jus being another marketing venture for him.  He's done a lot of mistakes, and I can have a convo with anyone on that, but I'll come back to it.  I can't make anyone believe that, one day I believe I won't have to.  Is getting and staying out the way really leadership?

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I’m pretty sure every owner in the history of the league “wants to win”.  My son “wants to win at basketball” but until he starts practicing relentlessly his wants will remain unfulfilled.

[MassSkinsFan]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

Is getting and staying out the way really leadership?

 

It is not the only thing you need to do, but it is a significant part of leading.

 

1) Get the most talented people you can find

2) Know their talents, and their potential talents

3) Understand what makes them tick and how they naturally react under pressure

4) Put as many decisions in their hands as you can

5) When you have to make the decisions, include your people wherever possible so they begin to learn what is important to you

6) Encourage them to question you - always try to find the best solution to a problem

7) Don't take credit for success yourself - find ways to credit your people for what they've done

8) Challenge them to step outside their comfort zone and take on new work

9) Take the blame for their (non-idiotic) mistakes, the first time; if they repeat the mistake have a serious talk about not doing it again; third strike you're out

 

Those are the people management skills I think are most important, and ones I doubt Dan has.

 

There are also the strategic planning skills:

 

1) Know where you want the organization to be in the future and document it in detail

2) Identify the issues that prevent you from being there and document those too

3) Assess risks and decide whether to accept or mitigate them, recording your rationales

4) Always be aware of the organization's shortcomings, and have a plan to address them

5) Be very clear about goal-setting and hold people accountable for failures they contribute to

6) Constantly re-assess the organization's performance and plans, and share with the entire team so everyone knows unequivocally how they're doing

7) Make sure people understand their roles, but also understand how their performance affects other people/teams in the organization

 

There it is. Maybe a bit more complicated than "wanting to win" but still not rocket science.

 

I honestly think Dan could be a force if he adopted at least half of these tenets and applied them to the Redskins. But I also think he is caught up in the whole "boy wonder billionaire entrepreneurial genius" narrative about himself and doesn't see any issue with the organization's culture or performance.

 

The changes we think we're seeing are almost certainly attributable to good employees taking matters into their own hands (a.k.a. "managing up"). When they make Dan look good, is he going to complain about that? 

 

 

 

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

We all have our theories and assumptions about Dan Snyder. It would actually be interesting to me to know what's really like. 

 

I'm sure some of the rumors or stories are true, but I'm also guessing that we are way off on many things. It's not relevant to much because he's not a good owner regardless, but it would just be fascinating to actually know his personality and thought process.

[OVCChairman]

9 minutes ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

It is not the only thing you need to do, but it is a significant part of leading.

 

 

 

ABSOLUTELY!

 

One of the best stories I've ever heard, and it's a philosophy I've tried to adopt as a manager myself.  Know your people and what they're good at, and let them do their jobs. 

 

I heard a story about Jack Welch... former CEO of GE.  If you don't know who he is, the guy set the standard for management for a lot of people.  Under his tenure, GE's value went up 4000%. 

 

He was interacting at one point with one of his department heads (I want to say it was the guy in charge of washing machines) and the guy went into a long winded explanation about the engineering of the motor or one of the other components.  He stopped the guy mid sentence and basically told him "I'm not worried about the details, you know a hell of a lot more about that subject than I do, do what's best."   He lived by putting the right pieces in place for them to excel, and he let them do their jobs.  Welch couldn't tell you everything about everything that was going on within his company, but he had confidence in the people he had to make the right decisions, and he was VERY successful.  

[Riggo#44]

On 7/19/2018 at 5:33 PM, Renegade7 said:

So if a non-Redskins fan starts going off on Snyder, what do you do?  Pile on or draw a line?

 

It depends on what they're saying. For example, if they're saying he's racist b/c of the name, I'd disagree. Personal attacks are over the line too: ie allowing players Redskins One for personal reasons. 

 

If they said he was the worst owner in the NFL, I'd partially agree. I think there are worse owners, just not many.

[Renegade7]

On 7/20/2018 at 11:06 AM, MassSkinsFan said:

 

It is not the only thing you need to do, but it is a significant part of leading.

 

 

There it is. Maybe a bit more complicated than "wanting to win" but still not rocket science.

 

I honestly think Dan could be a force if he adopted at least half of these tenets and applied them to the Redskins. But I also think he is caught up in the whole "boy wonder billionaire entrepreneurial genius" narrative about himself and doesn't see any issue with the organization's culture or performance.

 

The changes we think we're seeing are almost certainly attributable to good employees taking matters into their own hands (a.k.a. "managing up"). When they make Dan look good, is he going to complain about that? 

 

 

You're right, not rocket science.

 

  If you look at that list as "true/false", won't go well in court of public opinion.  I'd like to see it graded, but we only know what we know.  You cannot say he thinks everything is going alright after the front office reorganization this offseason.  Ask a couple of those question's on a line graph are heading upwards, have since Allen/Shanny started and Vinny was out.  I remember broad support for that at first. 

 

I guess one would have to ask about what they think about where we are right now going into 2018 season, and if someone thinks it hasn't changed at all, I'd have to respectfully disagree.  I've been very hard on them for LG and CB this offseason, but I love the Guice and Payne picks.  

[MassSkinsFan]

18 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

You're right, not rocket science.

 

  If you look at that list as "true/false", won't go well in court of public opinion.  I'd like to see it graded, but we only know what we know.  You cannot say he thinks everything is going alright after the front office reorganization this offseason.  Ask a couple of those question's on a line graph are heading upwards, have since Allen/Shanny started and Vinny was out.  I remember broad support for that at first. 

 

I guess one would have to ask about what they think about where we are right now going into 2018 season, and if someone thinks it hasn't changed at all, I'd have to respectfully disagree.  I've been very hard on them for LG and CB this offseason, but I love the Guice and Payne picks.  

 

Things have seemingly improved a bit, but I'm not sure that's Dan so much as it is someone else determined to make good changes who knows how to do it so Dan doesn't feel threatened.

What will really tell us is if/when something goes wrong. Does Dan fire everyone and bring Vinny back? Does he go on a spending spree, signing Deion Sanders and Bruce Smith out of retirement? Does he initiate the Gibbs III era? A yes to any of those (or anything similar) tells me he has not changed one bit.

 

So for now it's wait, see and hope for the best. Hail!!!

[Commander -JB-]

LaVar (Never as good as he thought he was.  The hype was huge enough for the fanbase to look at him like he was a star.  He wasn’t.  Even the season in which he ended up with his biggest sack totals, he complained about Marvin Lewis.  He was a loser.)

 

Chris Cooley (This fanbase gushed over an above average TE like he was an all-time great.  He was a cool dude, so what?  Another entitled clown who honestly didn’t understand why the Redskins wouldn’t bring him in well past his prime.  Terrible era of Redskins football.  That’s what I’ll remember.  Our star player was an above average TE.

 

Adam Archuleta (The fact that Snyder went out and got this BUM just to let Ryan Clark walk just shows how wildly inept this front office was during the Snyder/Vinny era.  What a complete joke.  Pathetic.

 

Albert Haynesworth.  Damn Snyder deserved that one!  Stole his $ and packed it in. Fat Albert.  Only Dan!