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

A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread

JSSkinz

By JSSkinz
in The Stadium

 Share
TK
Message added by TK,

Pay Attention Knuckleheads

 

 

Has your team support wained due to ownership or can you see past it?  

229 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you attend a game and support the team while Dan Snyder is the owner of the team, regardless of success?

    • Yes
      47
    • No
      106
    • I would start attending games if Dan was no longer the owner of the team.
      77

Recommended Posts

NewCliche21

NewCliche21

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yep plenty of sarcasm.  :ols:

 

I never said I wanted Ron as the GM, you took the point and debate in that direction.

 

The sarcasm is directed at this point.  I hope people's angst about roster building is driven by disliking Ron -- not as a person but as a football guy.  If so I get it from that context.  I hated the job Bruce did and hate Dan so the glasss is always half empty as far as I am concerned about them. 

 

Because if this is real thoughts about roster building IMO some of it is fantasy land stuff that no GM is going to meet.

 

I want a GM to keep swinging at QB for example.  If he misses along the way its forgivable to me as long as they don't give up the farm.  I expect misses in the draft and certainly in FA.  I just want a good team.  So for example, I go zero criticism for Ron as to defense.  Nada.  Darrick Forrest. Kam Curl.  St. Juste. Jamin is emerging.  He did a nice job with D line depth. I've been waiting forever for a defense that matches the Gregg Williiams years.  That's finally happened.  No way I am saying yeah but what about William Jackson.  

 

O line, I'll give him a pass because he did a really nice job the first two years for that unit.  This year, weas a disaster.  I'll give him one year to clean it up.

 

But the bottom line is I think this roster reminds me some of the Gibbs 2 years.  Robinson-Gibson -- Betts-Portis.  Dotson, Samuel-McLaurin -- Moss-Cooley.  Defense -- even London Fletcher agreed is as good as those units.  I like the offensive supporting cast of this team more than the Gibbs 2 years.  They need to upgrade QB and O line and improrve depth on defense.

 

But my larger point is for those clamoring a straight line of success building a roster -- you are never going to find that Robo Cop version of GM.  I suspect you and others know that so the critcism is more about your overall feelings of having Ron as the main football guy here. 

 

I want to snip it but I'm hardcore applauding all of this.

In Gibbs 2, the perfect analog by the way, you had a pretty stellar offensive line. I will go to my grave swearing that if Randy Thomas doesn't get hurt and Brunell isn't hobbled at the end of 2005, we've got four Lombardis. 

Defensive line was memorable, but I feel it was our backers, corners (I was wrong about Rogers and Springs was sick) and safeties (minus Arch Deluxe) that did the work there.  Quarterback was never a thing we could trust in, though I feel Brunell was better than he was given credit for.  We ****ed up changing OC's in 2006.  One thing throughout Moss's tenure here was that he never had a real number 2.  Lloyd, Randle-El, all the way through whatshisface Andre Roberts? (I'm not looking it up) in 2012, it was Moss and Cooley and other people were also on the team.  Obviously Sean's murder in 2007 was just an irrecoverable tragedy.

But here?  Our offensive line sucks and somehow still managed as long as our center of the moment isn't in a coma, which isn't a guarantee.  Our receivers are unbelievable, no Jefferson among them but Terry is better than Moss, and an uninjured Samuel and emerging Dotson are legit.  We haven't had a legitimate quarterback since Brunell, arguably Johnson before him. Cousins could've been it, we just ****ed that up and the fanbase was, and still is, vicious about him. I'll take Portis over Gibson but Robinson over anyone else in the Betts role since Stephen Davis.

Our backers, save for Davis (finally), are ass.  Our back end is quietly on point.  When @KDawg mentioned that Curl was one of the best we've had in the secondary, including Sean, I was dismissive, but looking at it more objectively, he's right.  Without much fanfare he's a gem.  Forrest I thought would be a one-hit wonder in the Jags game, and thankfully I was wrong.  St. Juste, I thought, would be another Moreau who was a could've-been, but he's been on target, too. Our defensive line has been missing what was allegedly a generational talent for over a year, and I've forgotten about him.  That's insane.  Allen and Payne are unbelievable and make whoever's next to them ten times better. Sweat is great, but 95, 96, whoever?  Jesus.  They just get buffed by 93 and 94 and it's disgusting in the best way.

My immediate reaction is that Rivera has been disappointing, but when taking a look at it seven minutes prior to losing my mind and being pissed about everything, he's really put together a team.  I'd really like to see him stay as a head coach, I think he can Brian Robinson through this roster once he gets a real quarterback and have something really sustainable here.  He started off with Newton in Carolina, like it or not, so he never had to worry about that here.  Here, that's the only thing that he's had the worst luck on.  Haskins was a stepson, Smith was broken (nobody's fault), Fitzpatrick (happy birthday!) was great for several minutes, Heinicke has been more than we hoped for and less than we need, and Wentz is a waste.  You plug in a Mac Jones-level quarterback into this team with a C+ offensive line and we have a Lombardi.

Edited by NewCliche21
Who is Brian Johnson? Robinson :doh:
  • Like 2
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

I want to snip it but I'm hardcore applauding all of this.

In Gibbs 2, the perfect analog by the way, you had a pretty stellar offensive line. I will go to my grave swearing that if Randy Thomas doesn't get hurt and Brunell isn't hobbled at the end of 2005, we've got four Lombardis. 

Defensive line was memorable, but I feel it was our backers, corners (I was wrong about Rogers and Springs was sick) and safeties (minus Arch Deluxe) that did the work there.  Quarterback was never a thing we could trust in, though I feel Brunell was better than he was given credit for.  We ****ed up changing OC's in 2006.  One thing throughout Moss's tenure here was that he never had a real number 2.  Lloyd, Randle-El, all the way through whatshisface Andre Roberts? (I'm not looking it up) in 2012, it was Moss and Cooley and other people were also on the team.  Obviously Sean's murder in 2007 was just an irrecoverable tragedy.

But here?  Our offensive line sucks and somehow still managed as long as our center of the moment isn't in a coma, which isn't a guarantee.  Our receivers are unbelievable, no Jefferson among them but Terry is better than Moss, and an uninjured Samuel and emerging Dotson are legit.  We haven't had a legitimate quarterback since Brunell, arguably Johnson before him. Cousins could've been it, we just ****ed that up and the fanbase was, and still is, vicious about him. I'll take Portis over Gibson but Johnson over anyone else in the Betts role since Stephen Davis.

Our backers, save for Davis (finally), are ass.  Our back end is quietly on point.  When @KDawg mentioned that Curl was one of the best we've had in the secondary, including Sean, I was dismissive, but looking at it more objectively, he's right.  Without much fanfare he's a gem.  Forrest I thought would be a one-hit wonder in the Jags game, and thankfully I was wrong.  St. Juste, I thought, would be another Moreau who was a could've-been, but he's been on target, too. Our defensive line has been missing what was allegedly a generational talent for over a year, and I've forgotten about him.  That's insane.  Allen and Payne are unbelievable and make whoever's next to them ten times better. Sweat is great, but 95, 96, whoever?  Jesus.  They just get buffed by 93 and 94 and it's disgusting in the best way.

My immediate reaction is that Rivera has been disappointing, but when taking a look at it seven minutes prior to losing my mind and being pissed about everything, he's really put together a team.  I'd really like to see him stay as a head coach, I think he can Brian Johnson through this roster once he gets a real quarterback and have something really sustainable here.  He started off with Newton in Carolina, like it or not, so he never had to worry about that here.  Here, that's the only thing that he's had the worst luck on.  Haskins was a stepson, Smith was broken (nobody's fault), Fitzpatrick (happy birthday!) was great for several minutes, Heinicke has been more than we hoped for and less than we need, and Wentz is a waste.  You plug in a Mac Jones-level quarterback into this team with a C+ offensive line and we have a Lombardi.

 

 

I was young but did live through the 80s run and enjoyed it.  But I was at my peak fandom in Gibbs' 2nd run.

 

That roster was good.  It was a QB short and maybe another weapon short of going far into the playoffs.  2 playoffs in 3 years sadly is the peak of the run under Dan.

 

This defense IMO is for real.  Some say overrated.  i say if anything underrated because they aren't helped by the offense's inept play.  And they started the season without Curl and played most of the season without Chase.

 

I am a big Dotson guy, loved Terry before even the draft.  Samuel is a nice #3.  Best three WRs since the Possy IMO.

 

Every team has depth problems, every team has holes.  I care more about units versus hey the unit rocks but we could have a better player at this or that spot.  That reality exists for every team -- no team is loaded everywhere maybe ironically sans the team we are playing today :ols: but even SF, I was listening to their beat guy lament about their interior O line.

 

I don't think Ron did a killer job.  But he's better than the range of "meh" to poor that his critics say he's been at it.  I think he's done a good job. 

 

Do I want him running the FO?  Nope.  As I've said on this thread to death including this morning, I don't want any head coach running personnel unless Dan is the owner.  

 

But in short, headed to this off season, I've never been this optimistic about the roster.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darrell Green Fan

Darrell Green Fan

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

I want to snip it but I'm hardcore applauding all of this.

In Gibbs 2, the perfect analog by the way, you had a pretty stellar offensive line. I will go to my grave swearing that if Randy Thomas doesn't get hurt and Brunell isn't hobbled at the end of 2005, we've got four Lombardis. 



 

The Redskins were 5-6 with Mark Brunell, and even with a 52 point outing against SF they were averaging 19 pts a game.  The only reason they made that run to sneak into the last playoff spot was Todd Collins played much better than Mark Brunell as they were then averaging 27 points per game in those last 4 games.

 

To believe Brunell's injury along with the one to Thomas, who was not all that great, was the difference between their final record and a Super Bowl title is crazy talk. 

Edited by Darrell Green Fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cooleyfan1993

Cooleyfan1993

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

The Redskins were 5-6 with Mark Brunell, and even with a 52 point outing against SF they were averaging 19 pts a game.  The only reason they made that run to sneak into the last playoff spot was Todd Collins played much better than Mark Brunell as they were then averaging 27 points per game in those last 4 games.

 

To believe Brunell's injury along with the one to Thomas, who was not all that great, was the difference between their final record and a Super Bowl title is crazy talk. 

Wait, Todd Collins played some games in that 2005 season? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hail2skins

hail2skins

Posted
Posted
Just now, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Wait, Todd Collins played some games in that 2005 season? 

No, DGF is confusing 2005 and 2007. Todd finished 2007 after Campbell went down.

 

In 2005 the team started terrible on offense (Brunell actually replaced Ramsey week 1 and Mark looked like crap the first 55 mins of the MNM game), but after an early bye the offense was humming. IMO, the most significant injury in 05 was to WR David Patton. He did just enough to draw attention to let Moss run open, but after David went down in the TB game, the offense sputtered again. They somehow put it together against Dallas and NY, but then Brunell got hurt and the team arguably should've gone with Ramsey the rest of the way.

 

In all, the defense was the thing that kept Gibbs 2 from being a complete disaster (both units were in 06).

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darrell Green Fan

Darrell Green Fan

Posted
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

No, DGF is confusing 2005 and 2007. Todd finished 2007 after Campbell went down.

 

In 2005 the team started terrible on offense (Brunell actually replaced Ramsey week 1 and Mark looked like crap the first 55 mins of the MNM game), but after an early bye the offense was humming. IMO, the most significant injury in 05 was to WR David Patton. He did just enough to draw attention to let Moss run open, but after David went down in the TB game, the offense sputtered again. They somehow put it together against Dallas and NY, but then Brunell got hurt and the team arguably should've gone with Ramsey the rest of the way.

 

In all, the defense was the thing that kept Gibbs 2 from being a complete disaster (both units were in 06).

Yes I acknowledged my mistake. And I know you are not making this argument but sorry injuries to players of the level of Brunell, Randy Thomas and David Patton, who did nothing here and no defense was scared enough of him to draw coverage away from Moss, did not stop that team from winning a title.  That team was not that good and neither were those 3 players, at least when they played here.  

Edited by Darrell Green Fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NewCliche21

NewCliche21

Posted
Posted
On 12/25/2022 at 6:33 AM, Darrell Green Fan said:

The Redskins were 5-6 with Mark Brunell, and even with a 52 point outing against SF they were averaging 19 pts a game.  The only reason they made that run to sneak into the last playoff spot was Todd Collins played much better than Mark Brunell as they were then averaging 27 points per game in those last 4 games.

 

To believe Brunell's injury along with the one to Thomas, who was not all that great, was the difference between their final record and a Super Bowl title is crazy talk. 

 

I think you're misremembering, intentionally or otherwise. The rebounded 2005 Redskins were absolutely incredible.  The defense was sickening and the offense just absolutely clicked.  A hobbled Brunell and a lack of depth on the offensive line is what caused a faceplant in Seattle.

I'm sorry that you missed out on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo-toni

Riggo-toni

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Snyder isn't a dotcom guy. He made his money as a telemarketer. Guy doesn't even have e-mail. He's an idiot who lucked into money.

He made his $$ in telecoms during the dotcom boom in the stock market and sold off just before the crash to get $$ to buy the Redskins. Communications industry was riding the dotcom wave, and subsequently crashed with it.

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zim489

Zim489

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

He's an idiot who lucked into money.

He really is one of the luckiest people in history. If he was a likeable idiot it would one thing him being a sociopath idiot is a complete other. The legit worst person you know is likely a better person than Dan Snyder. Just to have him luck into the wealth like that in a space that has since not only popped but become illegal is an argument against the existence of god. 

  • Like 3
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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