Poll: Dan Snyder -- Is he a good owner or a bad owner?

[fansince62]

art...you are reducing a generalization (i.e., not a universal ALL X is Y) to one contrarian instance. have at it. Gibbs was a good hire.......previous hires and the way they were done were not....my opinion. don't care at this point whether you agree or not.

toodles...got a war to fight!

[Art]

Originally posted by fansince62

art...you are reducing a generalization (i.e., not a universal ALL X is Y) to one contrarian instance. have at it. Gibbs was a good hire.......previous hires and the way they were done were not....my opinion. don't care at this point whether you agree or not.

toodles...got a war to fight!

Al,

You understand that one can't argume a generalization if the specifics don't fit, don't you? I understand your general point. But, if the specifics don't fit, it makes the generalization anything but general. If the specifics don't fit, there is no generalization to make.

You're the first person I've seen suggest Marty and Spurrier were bad hires. Most people acknowledged just how good those hires were. The holy grail of GMs would have hired Spurrier, so, it can't be bad that we did when Wolf would have and every other football person would have at the time.

But, you're right, THAT is a different debate. That you agree with the Gibbs hire means you have no generalization that it's a negative that Snyder has not maintained philosophical consistency in coaching hires. That you recognize it was appropriate to hire Gibbs means you don't think it was appropriate to maintain philosophical consistency. You render the generalization irrelevant by acknowledging the specifics are good.

Now, I recognize it may be hard to say goodbye for you, but, what I'd ask is that either you MEAN it when you say goodbye, or, you stop saying goodbye half a dozen times, then coming back and speaking. I'm not asking you to leave. I'd just like you to quit saying you're done only to not be.

As for this close, it is a little out of control, don't you think? You have a war to fight? Great. Did it just start? Because if you've had a war to fight you wouldn't have been in this thread to start. You KNOW I respect what the military does. Just don't use it as an escape clause when it obviously hasn't been at issue for several days.

[jrfriedm]

If I may just intrude for one moment to say that I see and agree with both of you to a point. The constant change of coaches was definitely a problem that can and should be blamed on Snyder. And perhaps he should have looked more carefully the type of system the team is currently built to run, and the type of system his new head coach is going to want to run. However, you cannot blame Snyder for doing every thing he can to make this team a winner. He has gone out and gotten the best coach available each and every time (including Spurrier), and he has then gone out and gotten every player his coach has asked for. What more is an owner to do?

[DUSTINMFOX]

Originally posted by jrfriedm

If I may just intrude for one moment to say that I see and agree with both of you to a point. The constant change of coaches was definitely a problem that can and should be blamed on Snyder.

We couldn't possibly ever blame the coaches themselves could we?

Granted, (admittedly so) Snyder should have waited until the end of the season to give Norv the ax......but the guy coached here for awhile and was doing NOTHING.

Schottenheimer is a coach who has never won a Super Bowl, despite many times coming close to the big game........He was not willing to give up some front office control...so he was Trumped

Spurrier....AGAIN, was a great pick up....(Wolf thought so, so that means it had to be right).....but, was not willing to change.

Despite all of these legitimate reasons, some fans and a lot of sportstalk idiots would rather turn their cheaks to facts to have something to whine about.

Bottomline....I not only blame Snyder for the firings, I also THANK HIM

[jrfriedm]

Originally posted by DUSTINMFOX

We couldn't possibly ever blame the coaches themselves could we?

I'm not saying that the coaches are in any way not to be blamed, but I am saying that you can only blame the owner for the going through of so many coaches in such an insanly short period of time.

[DUSTINMFOX]

Originally posted by jrfriedm

I'm not saying that the coaches are in any way not to be blamed, but I am saying that you can only blame the owner for the going through of so many coaches in such an insanly short period of time.

So then I ask you???

Did you want Norv to coach another year?

Did you want another year of Marty-ball, or Marty continuing to run the front office?

Are you glad that Spurrier quit? And that Gibbs is our coach right now?

Again you shouldn't be blaming the owner, you should be thanking him.....

[Mooney]

Snyder should have fired Norv immediately upon taking ownership. The delay in the approval process cost him that opportunity.

Casserly is the real cause of the 'Skins problems. His consistently horrible drafts left the cupboard bare and Snyder has been trying every shortcut since to stock the team with talent.

Snyder has made mistakes, but all with the intent of winning. He probably hurt some feelings in the organization when he took over, but the attitude had apparently become so complacent, it needed some shaking up.

HTTR.

[fansince62]

You're the first person I've seen suggest Marty and Spurrier were bad hires. Most people acknowledged just how good those hires were.

your humor knows no bounds. plenty of folks were unhappy about Marty - he'll lose evey playoff game he has a chance to lose - schottenheimer. I remember making posts that alluded to some questionable activities of his in KC that led to his departure. As for Spurrier...many were for and many were against. There were legions who questioned whether he was ready for the step up: plenty of analysts did. For the most part, interest was piqued because people wanted to see if the offensive system and its arrogant expositor could succeed. Others were so fed up with Schott's moronic offense that they were prepared to accept anything that suggested something other than 3 yards, a cloud of dust, and a punt. "Most people"....what the heck does that mean? Most people in Art's household? neighborhood? "Acknowledged"? They bowed to overwhelming and irrefutable logic? Gimme a break. No one will ever accuse Snyder of straying from the sexy. His record in this regard has been, well, none too good. Again, let us hope the Coach has the wherewithall to restore past glories - in spite of Snyder. Then we can all post how grateful we are that he spends money but listens to Joe when it counts. Doesn't it strike you as a least a little odd that from day one Joe as coach and Joe as team President is pointed to as the one who will restore Redskin greatness: for the team AND the organization?

All I have seen on this thread is that Snyder spends lots of money; that he really, really, really wants to win; and that he has no accountability for the final product. Even by the reductionist standard some have propsoed - that he sets the conditions for success - it is laughable: they haven't won (hence, the only out - it's someone else's fault! How New Age!).

The thread is absurd....think what you will while the rest of America knows otherwise!

btw...think Snyder will ever hire a sexy black head coach?

[ERIC THE REDskinsfan]

Hadn't seen this thread in a while, but I'm glad the consensus reamins, "Yes, Snyder is a good owner who's made mistakes, but in the end is of benefit to the team."

Who in their right mind doesn't want / appreciate an owner who'll do whatever it takes to win? As fans that's all we can ask for!

[Art]

Originally posted by fansince62

your humor knows no bounds. plenty of folks were unhappy about Marty - he'll lose evey playoff game he has a chance to lose - schottenheimer. I remember making posts that alluded to some questionable activities of his in KC that led to his departure. As for Spurrier...many were for and many were against. There were legions who questioned whether he was ready for the step up: plenty of analysts did. For the most part, interest was piqued because people wanted to see if the offensive system and its arrogant expositor could succeed. Others were so fed up with Schott's moronic offense that they were prepared to accept anything that suggested something other than 3 yards, a cloud of dust, and a punt. "Most people"....what the heck does that mean? Most people in Art's household? neighborhood? "Acknowledged"? They bowed to overwhelming and irrefutable logic? Gimme a break. No one will ever accuse Snyder of straying from the sexy. His record in this regard has been, well, none too good. Again, let us hope the Coach has the wherewithall to restore past glories - in spite of Snyder. Then we can all post how grateful we are that he spends money but listens to Joe when it counts. Doesn't it strike you as a least a little odd that from day one Joe as coach and Joe as team President is pointed to as the one who will restore Redskin greatness: for the team AND the organization?

All I have seen on this thread is that Snyder spends lots of money; that he really, really, really wants to win; and that he has no accountability for the final product. Even by the reductionist standard some have propsoed - that he sets the conditions for success - it is laughable: they haven't won (hence, the only out - it's someone else's fault! How New Age!).

The thread is absurd....think what you will while the rest of America knows otherwise!

btw...think Snyder will ever hire a sexy black head coach?

Al,

How's the war going? You get a break?

Let me offer you some advice. When you get a break from the war, avoid making comments that would indicate you are somehow out of touch with reality as you have here. Most people means about 99 percent of the world openly stated how good the Marty hire and Spurrier hires were at the time they were made. The world being those who follow such things and would have some knowledge.

No one suggested they were perfect.

But while Marty had the playoff albatross around his neck, there was an overwhelming belief the hoped for discipline he'd bring would be JUST what the doctor ordered after Club Norv. He didn't bring that in the way we expected. Instead, he tried to teach a Hall of Famer like Darrell Green how to catch a punt.

Spurrier was a coach franchises in the league were clamoring for for YEARS. The wisest mind in all of football was so hot for him he suggested certain success for him when he entered the league. Ron Wolf big on the sexy pick too?

Al, with due respect, you've now gone beyond healthy dissent here. You are no longer the loyal opposition on this thread. You are an absurd, reckless, foolish hater to suggest the sound football hires of Marty and Spurrier were not nearly universally embraced for the thought and intelligence that led to them.

You've become Barbara Boxer on this issue.

Congrats. It wasn't easy for you. You had to work HARD to get here, wiggling your bottom in and out of the conversation, always returning after signing off with increasingly troubling, fictional negative assessments.

Again, you turn what was generally seen as overwhelmingly positive moves by a young owner -- hiring Marty and Spurrier -- into questionable moves. You do this by pretending the extremely MILD negatives expressed by ANYONE IN ANY FIELD ANY WHERE about the hires were somehow known voices.

There was opposition to the hires of both, Al. You're right, there were people screaming that Marty couldn't win the big one, and Spurrier would be a failed college coach. Those people were Cowboy fans. They are also the same people who said Gibbs was too old to ever get it back.

The only difference is on Gibbs they were actually JOINED by more professional writers and analysts than openly panned the Marty or Spurrier hires. In the end, that would make the Gibbs hire the least embraced by the football world at the time it was made.

That you want to make Snyder responsible for failures or successes in coaching is ridiculous. At some point each individual has specific requirements they must strive to make to allow a team to achieve success. The owner isn't responsible when Patrick Ramsey throws a dumb pass that restricts our opportunity to win. Ramsey is and within that, Gibbs and the offensive staff are, because THEY are teaching this player and playing that player.

When Springs allows a receiver a clean outside break instead of forcing him inside, and behind him the rookie safety, Taylor, gambles on the pass going inside -- which was covered -- rather than outside -- which he leaves uncovered, it's not Snyder's fault. It's the fault of Springs and Taylor for not executing the called defense and the fault of Williams and his staff for not getting them to do so.

Ownership only provides the people his people ask for.

That's it. That's the sole responsibility of ownership. If ownership is MAKING those decisions without regard to what his people tell him, he's a bad owner. If he doesn't provide as lavishly as he should, he's a bad owner.

If he ALLOWS continual failure without demanding more, he's a bad owner. He doesn't control the errors in play or coaching that ultimately decide wins and losses. I feel terrible thinking YOU don't know that.

[fansince62]

Al, with due respect, you've now gone beyond healthy dissent here. You are no longer the loyal opposition on this thread. You are an absurd, reckless, foolish hater to suggest the sound football hires of Marty and Spurrier were not nearly universally embraced for the thought and intelligence that led to them.

You made my day! I had a good laugh over that one! Is there ever a time that you can't finish a thought without several - irrelevant -personal attacks?

I can live with being "an absurd, reckless, foolish hater" who doesn't embrace the thought and intelligence" nearly universally embraced - that you have built no real case for. You have a destructive, if sometimes illuminating, style of argument: don't build a case...tear others down with thoughts that are randomly strung together and assert a point with great personal affrontery. It wouldn't get very far in my profession....but this is just a message board.

DS is not the best owner in sports. He is not the worst. He has made mistakes that have cost the team. He has made mistakes as an owner. He is learning. Joe was brought in to fix the team and rescue the franchise. If you belive that the set of variables that goes into the mystical winning = f(x, y, z) does not include ownership and its influence - that is your perogative. Mind you, no one is asserting that it is the only variable. In my absurd, reckless, foolish hating mind (you sound like a Hollywood liberal - you realize that?!!!) it is a variable that does influence winning. Believe whatever you want - whatever your agenda happens to be.

Have a great day Art. This remains the best Skins site on the Net!

[Art]

Al,

I can't possibly build a case for the reality we all shared in and you are denying now. I can't build you a case that the sky is blue. It just is. You know it is. But, if you knew Dan Snyder was responsible for the sky, you'd discredit him for making it some color other than blue.

This has been what you've done throughout this thread, while at the same time suggesting someone OTHER than you has an agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. You and ONLY you have consistently made openly false, openly misleading statements about Snyder in this thread. You have taken what ALL know to be positive acts and characteristics and made them negative.

You've done this. The high majority of respondents have a differing view. A remarkably high percentage of those with differing views are fans of the opposition who can be excused for ignorance and not knowing any better.

You can't be.

I don't have to build you a case that Marty was generally universally seen as JUST what the doctor ordered. The case is historical record. He was from ESPN. He immediately got the ESPN crew to fawn over how smart a move it was. The general thought was the type of coach he'd long been was just want a lax team needed.

Mention of his playoff record were largely meaningless for a team not all that accustomed to the playoffs. If that negative had come to be here we'd have been able to talk about it at a time when it was relevant. As in, when we got to the playoffs and couldn't push through.

Marty was a smart football guy, respected around the league, with a highly successful career in coaching. No one suggested it was a poor move at the time, save Cowboy fans who will paint ANY move as bad, no matter the evidence against.

You, it seems, have the same quality in this area of discussion.

Spurrier was the most sought after coach for league people for years. He'd long spurned the chance to enter the NFL and when he came in, people were falling over themselves to talk about what he would do in the league.

A man generally considered to be a very smart football guy continually said if he were a GM his coach would be Spurrier. All of us were aware of the possibility that a college coach would fail in the pros. But, there was no serious negative viewpoint expressed by any responsible party when Spurrier was signed.

You have now taken to revising history to create two false negatives out of clear and obvious positives and you require I build the case. Why would I have to build a case when you haven't done any case building yourself? How about this, there's a thing called Google.

Let's have you go out and find published articles against the Spurrier and Marty hires at the time they were made. That would begin building your case. And then it'll be my responsibility to quell that little foolishness with dozens of contrary articles, proving what we all know -- and what YOU UNDOUBTEDLY know -- which is that the hires were sound, respected and almost universally credited as wise moves.

It is factual to say the hire of Gibbs received more criticism from responsible places in the league than either the Spurrier or Marty hires did. Which is why should Gibbs fail, I'm certain you'll add his hire to Snyder's long list of imaginary negatives and you'll demand I validate to you that the hire was ever considered wise in the first place.

And I'll just sit here in amazement at how completely daft and fringe you continue to WANT to be in this area.

The HIGH majority of fans can't be so completely wrong, Al, as to all march in lock step with an agenda against your righteous presentation, can they?

Yes, you're right that this remains the best Skins site on the net. It is the only place I know that would allow your "tag, you're it" style of debate to exist for quite as long as it has. But, I still love and respect you. You're my boy, blue .

But, dammit, you are out of your mind on this.

I will continue to believe what I want and notice when the high majority of people believe the same. And I will continue to wonder at what you believe when it's verified as a mostly fictional standpont -- other than the owner is responsible for wins and losses which isn't fictional, but just misplaced -- and is shared by the most wretchedly foolish people (Cowboy fans) in the world.

One day you'll come around.

Sadly, that day will be when Snyder has altered nothing at all and Gibbs has simply started winning and you'll say, "See, Snyder good." And I'll shake my head still in wonder at how it matters one bit.

[fansince62]

uhuh.......can't deny I haven't had fun with this one! press young man...press!

btw...you're right about the "how it matters one bit." but then again, I'm not the one who started the thread. Someone obviously thought it mattered...:-).....

[skins4eva]

Originally posted by jrfriedm

If I may just intrude for one moment to say that I see and agree with both of you to a point. The constant change of coaches was definitely a problem that can and should be blamed on Snyder. And perhaps he should have looked more carefully the type of system the team is currently built to run, and the type of system his new head coach is going to want to run. However, you cannot blame Snyder for doing every thing he can to make this team a winner. He has gone out and gotten the best coach available each and every time (including Spurrier), and he has then gone out and gotten every player his coach has asked for. What more is an owner to do?

Hire a competent front office and stop pretending that he knows something about football.

[Art]

We've got a more than competent front office, and Snyder does know something about football. In fact, substantially more than you or I, being that he is around it on a daily basis.

[skins4eva]

Art, I have to respectfully disagree--I do not believe that Synder knows more about football than you or me. Secondly, I do not think we have a more than competent front office--competent, maybe, but certainly not more than competent--Brunell, Barrow, need I go on? Yes, we signed some fabulous free agents and had a great draft, but we have yet to reap the benefits of any of it since Snyder has been here.

[Art]

Originally posted by skins4eva

Art, I have to respectfully disagree--I do not believe that Synder knows more about football than you or me. Secondly, I do not think we have a more than competent front office--competent, maybe, but certainly not more than competent--Brunell, Barrow, need I go on? Yes, we signed some fabulous free agents and had a great draft, but we have yet to reap the benefits of any of it since Snyder has been here.

You need to go on if you would suggest Barrow was a bad hire. He's a guy who'd never been hurt and filled a position we thought we needed, who knew the defense and was coming off a tremendous season. And, you need to go on to explain Griffin, Springs, Taylor, Cooley, Clark, Salave'a, Washington, Portis, etc.

You can't point out one guy who played poorly and another who was unexpectedly injured as proof of failure. Especially when the one guy who played poorly might have been more a coaching decision than a front office decision, and the guy who got injured was a tremendously good free agent we were lucky to acquire.

[skins4eva]

Originally posted by Art

You need to go on if you would suggest Barrow was a bad hire. He's a guy who'd never been hurt and filled a position we thought we needed, who knew the defense and was coming off a tremendous season. And, you need to go on to explain Griffin, Springs, Taylor, Cooley, Clark, Salave'a, Washington, Portis, etc.

You can't point out one guy who played poorly and another who was unexpectedly injured as proof of failure. Especially when the one guy who played poorly might have been more a coaching decision than a front office decision, and the guy who got injured was a tremendously good free agent we were lucky to acquire.

I can't? I just did. A good front office recognizes talent already availalbe--like pierce, and uses money that we spent on brunell and barrow on Smoot. A good front office doesn't constantly sign teams that played for division rivals. A good front office doesn't sign a return specialist with no speed (morton) to a ridiculously large contract. And, after watching the entire season are you really suggesting that Brunell played badly because of poor coaching? C'mon, Art, join me in reality.

[skins4eva]

Originally posted by Art

You need to go on if you would suggest Barrow was a bad hire. He's a guy who'd never been hurt and filled a position we thought we needed, who knew the defense and was coming off a tremendous season. And, you need to go on to explain Griffin, Springs, Taylor, Cooley, Clark, Salave'a, Washington, Portis, etc.

You can't point out one guy who played poorly and another who was unexpectedly injured as proof of failure. Especially when the one guy who played poorly might have been more a coaching decision than a front office decision, and the guy who got injured was a tremendously good free agent we were lucky to acquire.

I can't? I just did. A good front office recognizes talent already availalbe--like pierce, and uses money that we spent on brunell and barrow on Smoot. A good front office doesn't constantly sign teams that played for division rivals. A good front office doesn't sign a return specialist with no speed (morton) to a ridiculously large contract. And, after watching the entire season are you really suggesting that Brunell played badly because of poor coaching? C'mon, Art, join me in reality.

SORRY FOR THE DOUBLE POST

[skns4life]

well wasnt it the front office who didnt let Pierce go???

[Dirk Diggler]

No front office bats 1.000

Even the seemingly perfect Patriots front office paid OLB Rosie Colvin a mint and he's done next to nothing.

And Belicheck's first draft as HC in 2000 yielded Adrian Klemm and JR Redmond with it's first 2 picks that year. Course they more than made up for it with Tom Brady a little later in the draft. Then again, he's no Peyton Manning.

[Art]

Originally posted by skins4eva

I can't? I just did. A good front office recognizes talent already availalbe--like pierce, and uses money that we spent on brunell and barrow on Smoot. A good front office doesn't constantly sign teams that played for division rivals. A good front office doesn't sign a return specialist with no speed (morton) to a ridiculously large contract. And, after watching the entire season are you really suggesting that Brunell played badly because of poor coaching? C'mon, Art, join me in reality.

SORRY FOR THE DOUBLE POST

Oh, there's no doubt you just did. But, you can't. What I mean by saying you can't do what you just did is to say you won't be taken seriously if you do that. You follow up the comment that a good front office doesn't constantly sign players from division rivals, so, you clearly don't expect to be taken seriously.

It is often quite advantageous to sign JUST those players. They can give you insight to the players you will be going against, they might know the schemes and help you identify plays on the field, and they might be extra pumped up. And, when you saw just how good Griffin and Clark were for us (one expectedly and one not so) you realize just how silly it is to say you shouldn't have signed Barrow from the same team.

The fact that Williams wanted Barrow because he knew the defense from having played for Williams in Houston should also help you understand the rationale here. The coaches didn't identify Pierce's value until Barrow couldn't play. It happens.

Morton was an elite return man who gave the Jets an advantage in field position that no team in the league matched the year he was returning kicks for them. That same year, we went through half a dozen return guys, saw constant mistakes and fumbles and got nothing going.

And, Morton has the added value of being a weapon in the offensive system we were running at the time, averaging 4.5 yards a carry and 12.5 yards a reception. He certainly LOST value when we went to Gibbs, but, the signing was a good fit for a team that had an obvious weakness and needed an additional option for the offense.

My suggestion on Brunell wasn't that he was poorly coached and therefore played poorly. It was that the coach directed that move more than the front office, so, if there's a mistake in acquisition, it's more the coach THAN the front office. Reality, though, is what you make of it.

If you make of it what you have, I can't join you. But, I will remain stable in the reality that actually exists and wait for your company.

[skins4eva]

You make a good point about Griffin. I wanted to suggest that our previous signings of players from division rivals had not gone well. I was thinking, in particular of Deion Sanders, and our beloved ex-cowboys coach, Norv Turner--I realize that Snyder had nothing to do with Turner.

Here's the crux of my argument: every offseason we make a big free agent splash--how far has it gotten us? Look at New England and Pittsburgh, and the Eagles prior to Kearse and Owens--they build from within, within their own organization, through scouting and the draft...the Ravens are also a good example of this considering they drafted two hall of famers in the first round of the 96 draft (Ogden and R. Lewis).

I have a problem with a front office that spends with reckless abandon and does not seem to understand the concept of cheap labor...can we really retain a core group of players with the salaries we pay? I really don't know. All I know is that every year, for each huge free agent pickup, we lose an important cog--last year it was Bailey, (although I'm happy to have Portis) this year it will be Smoot, and it remains to be seen who else...

What our front office lacks is any sense of chemistry. You don't need blue chip players at every position to be successful. You need good coaching and stability...look at what our no-name defensive line and "back-up" linebackers did this year?

Additionally, your argument about the success of our front office proves too much--where are the playoff appearances, or even winning seasons to support your position? Can a front office really be considered competent when we have over a decade (excluding 2000) of losing seasons?

[Art]

Originally posted by skins4eva

You make a good point about Griffin. I wanted to suggest that our previous signings of players from division rivals had not gone well. I was thinking, in particular of Deion Sanders, and our beloved ex-cowboys coach, Norv Turner--I realize that Snyder had nothing to do with Turner.

Here's the crux of my argument: every offseason we make a big free agent splash--how far has it gotten us? Look at New England and Pittsburgh, and the Eagles prior to Kearse and Owens--they build from within, within their own organization, through scouting and the draft...the Ravens are also a good example of this considering they drafted two hall of famers in the first round of the 96 draft (Ogden and R. Lewis).

I have a problem with a front office that spends with reckless abandon and does not seem to understand the concept of cheap labor...can we really retain a core group of players with the salaries we pay? I really don't know. All I know is that every year, for each huge free agent pickup, we lose an important cog--last year it was Bailey, (although I'm happy to have Portis) this year it will be Smoot, and it remains to be seen who else...

What our front office lacks is any sense of chemistry. You don't need blue chip players at every position to be successful. You need good coaching and stability...look at what our no-name defensive line and "back-up" linebackers did this year?

Additionally, your argument about the success of our front office proves too much--where are the playoff appearances, or even winning seasons to support your position? Can a front office really be considered competent when we have over a decade (excluding 2000) of losing seasons?

It's not the fault of the front office that we don't have the opportunity to build from within. You can only build from within if you have a successful system that remains in place over time. You couldn't build anything from within for Gibbs because he wasn't from within. We was from without.

And, what has Gibbs spoken of doing now that he's from within?

Has he spoken of building from within? Talked about identifying core guys from within to build around? Yeah. He has. And that process begins now. The front office -- specifically Cerrato -- can't build from within a team built for Steve Spurrier to fit Joe Gibbs.

It couldn't build from within a team built for Marty for Spurrier.

It couldn't build from within a team built for Norv for Marty.

The cycle here isn't that the front office lacks an understanding of chemistry or the need to build from within. It's that the changes made have forced TWO options. One, do nothing, and let nature take it's course, take several years to find players who might fit through the draft, and hope your coach is successful enough to make it work.

Or, get a list from your coach asking for specific things and find those players to fill those needs as soon as possible, and let them identify key areas of need as they grow within the system themselves.

The fact that our front office is empowered to quickly address needs of new staff is a positive, not a negative. Building from within requires a successful system in place so you can build on the knowledge or what's required. We haven't had that yet. We don't have that now fully.

That comes.

Morton was an excellent block for Spurrier. He's a poor block for Gibbs. Gibbs can't build off him because he's not a great fit. It takes TIME to build from within. Gibbs may be here long enough to start seeing that.

It's not the fault of the front office that we try to accelerate the time it takes by acquiring players who fit specific needs outlined by the staff currently in charge though.

Wins and losses come from coaching, not the front office.

Look at Trotter. A great signing who was completely misused by the coaching staff to create something less successful than it should have been. That's not the fault of the front office. That's the fault of coaching.

[skins4eva]

Ok, so back to the original point of your thread, doesn't the turmoil and constant change suggest that Synder knows nothing about how to build a successful franchise?