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

[Art]

Originally posted by 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?

Only if you don't follow the history of the team and acknowledge how the changes were made and why.

Norv was history as his team quit on him. I was the last Norv fan on this or pretty much ANY other board, and that Giants game was the end of him. Then or in three more weeks, he was done.

Marty failed completely as a coach, lost that team with a wide revolt of players, and the only way to survive for him would have been to gut 90 percent of the guys and start over. We could have stayed with that had he been willing to add Cam Cameron (or the like) to call plays, but, he was faithful to Jimmy Raye, a guy he wouldn't rehire when he got his next job.

To many, the termination of Marty may have been a mistake. To most, though, who watched that season, understood the glaring problems and rebuild necessary for Marty to win here, it was an understandable move when a stubborn coach refused any effort to find a way to fix the problems AND retain him.

Spurrier failed, then quit.

Snyder was wise to shed the franchise of Norv -- again, this from the last remaining Norv supporter -- and Spurrier quit. Degrees of criticism can be placed on Spurrier for Marty. Of course, as we recall, despite Spurrier failing, Snyder was unwilling to make any changes there, and would have retained Spurrier -- even to our doom -- to maintain some continuity and consistency.

So, to some level here, Snyder was saved from the mistake of retaining Spurrier to recover from a possible mistake of moving too quickly with Marty. The fact that Snyder seemed to fully grasp the need to maintain coaching consistency with Spurrier -- even as it was obvious he was unable to overcome what he was seeing in the league -- shows Snyder knows it takes continuity and consistency.

He got lucky Spurrier quit on him so he could get Gibbs.

[DUSTINMFOX]

Originally posted by Art

Only if you don't follow the history of the team and acknowledge how the changes were made and why.

Norv was history as his team quit on him. I was the last Norv fan on this or pretty much ANY other board, and that Giants game was the end of him. Then or in three more weeks, he was done.

Marty failed completely as a coach, lost that team with a wide revolt of players, and the only way to survive for him would have been to gut 90 percent of the guys and start over. We could have stayed with that had he been willing to add Cam Cameron (or the like) to call plays, but, he was faithful to Jimmy Raye, a guy he wouldn't rehire when he got his next job.

To many, the termination of Marty may have been a mistake. To most, though, who watched that season, understood the glaring problems and rebuild necessary for Marty to win here, it was an understandable move when a stubborn coach refused any effort to find a way to fix the problems AND retain him.

Spurrier failed, then quit.

Snyder was wise to shed the franchise of Norv -- again, this from the last remaining Norv supporter -- and Spurrier quit. Degrees of criticism can be placed on Spurrier for Marty. Of course, as we recall, despite Spurrier failing, Snyder was unwilling to make any changes there, and would have retained Spurrier -- even to our doom -- to maintain some continuity and consistency.

So, to some level here, Snyder was saved from the mistake of retaining Spurrier to recover from a possible mistake of moving too quickly with Marty. The fact that Snyder seemed to fully grasp the need to maintain coaching consistency with Spurrier -- even as it was obvious he was unable to overcome what he was seeing in the league -- shows Snyder knows it takes continuity and consistency.

He got lucky Spurrier quit on him so he could get Gibbs.

Art,

It's really sad that you have to even explain this.....to Skins fans

[skins4eva]

Dustin, it's really sad that you sanctimoniously question those of us who hold a different point of view on this topic. As I remember correctly, Marty's team really ralied at the end of the season, I think we won our last five games and finished 8-8, so much for a coach that lost a team with a "wide revolt of players." And the fact that you, Art, were the self-proclaimed "last remaining Norv supporter" suggests to me that there is no use arguing front office decisions with you.

[Art]

Originally posted by skins4eva

Dustin, it's really sad that you sanctimoniously question those of us who hold a different point of view on this topic. As I remember correctly, Marty's team really ralied at the end of the season, I think we won our last five games and finished 8-8, so much for a coach that lost a team with a "wide revolt of players." And the fact that you, Art, were the self-proclaimed "last remaining Norv supporter" suggests to me that there is no use arguing front office decisions with you.

It's not a self-proclaimed position I claim calling myself the last remaining Norv supporter. It is a defined position that is verifiable. I was here when Norv was fired. I know who was against Norv and who wasn't. I was in the tank for Norv for SIX years and 13 games. It wasn't until I saw what happened to him after the Giants game did I know his time had to end.

I was the ONLY voice in support of Norv at the time. Some rumors have come to my attention that in the world I was not alone, but, the world was a narrow thing here. In any case, knowledge that no one was left with me in support of Norv at the time has absolutely nothing to do with front office decisions you may or may not discuss with me.

Your attempt to equate one with the other seems more like resignation to the fact that you haven't shown an ability to adeptly position your argument here and rather than continue trying and not doing well, you'd rather pretend some flaw in me restrains you. I know that's not the case .

You say as you remember, Marty's team rallied at the end of the season. You say you think we won our last five games and finished 8-8. The problem here is two-fold. First, while it's true to some degree the team rallied for Marty, it wasn't at the end of the season, and the reason for the rally is clear to all who were watching the team at the time.

We were 3-3 to end that season when we had our destiny in our own hands for the playoffs having fought back to a 5-5 record. The rally that GOT us to 5-5 happened ONLY after the team came together in universal REJECTION of Marty, refusing to adhere to his directives or pay attention to him, and to play for themselves.

Such a feeling works for a short period. It is not a sustainable element of success.

Also, it's important to recognize that Dustin is not questioning those who have a different view on a topic. Rather, the intelligence born of knowledge that allows one to come to a conclusion that was reached.

You have not been as openly foolish as Al in this thread. To your credit you did attempt a rather sound rationale -- after an early stumble -- as to why the front office was not competent. To which you received a respectful, thoughtful answer.

You then had another stumble requiring an elementary revisiting of history that IS SAD to have to be exlained to a Redskin fan. Simply put, nothing I said to you should have had to be stated. But, that your position seemed to require it simply is not a sound mark.

Further, let's examine one thing you stated.

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?

Let's put this somewhat naive statement to bed with a simple counter question. Does stability in the face of failure demonstrate a successful method of building a franchise?

See, asking whether Snyder knows how to build a franchise because of all the change ignores the failure that LED to the change. And, had no change been made, the failure was as clear and obvious and continual, today, you'd be asking if it shows good sense to allow failure without change.

I happen to view Snyder's desire to hold his people accountable for their failure an admirable trait. The anti-Snyder crowd tends to think the failure anyone experiences is not something they should be held accountable for, and, in fact, is Snyder's fault to begin with.

It's not a reasonable position.

There ARE reasonable contrary positions though. Thoughtful ones. Some here have expressed them. You started to yourself.

I'd like to think you can get back to that.

[Art]

Originally posted by DUSTINMFOX

Art,

It's really sad that you have to even explain this.....to Skins fans

Dustin,

Let me ask you this.

You have consistently been complimentary of Snyder in this thread. Yet, you voted against him here. Was the vote incorrect, or do you have negative views you haven't voiced or that I've seen?

[DUSTINMFOX]

Originally posted by Art

Dustin,

Let me ask you this.

You have consistently been complimentary of Snyder in this thread. Yet, you voted against him here. Was the vote incorrect, or do you have negative views you haven't voiced or that I've seen?

[DUSTINMFOX]

Originally posted by Art

Dustin,

Let me ask you this.

You have consistently been complimentary of Snyder in this thread. Yet, you voted against him here. Was the vote incorrect, or do you have negative views you haven't voiced or that I've seen?

I leave at this.....

You've been right about everything you've stated.....

[skins4eva]

Well, Art, please allow me to retort, and I shall be sure to implement the proper amount of diction to properly counteract your somewhat insidiously flippant comments toward my opinion.

You counter my "somewhat naive statement" with a hypothetical, and tautological rebuttal, which is to say, your question proves nothing, nor does it support your position, why? Because we will never know how stability in the face of failure demonstrates a successful method of franchise building because we have had NO stability under Snyder. So, in effect you put my somewhat naive statement to bed with an equally naive statement.

I see that you are attempting to extrapolate that in the face of failure: Norv Turner's regime, Snyder was forced to change tacks and hold people accountable. I guess he held Spurrier accountable, right? Do you think Synder would have fired Spurrier if he hadn't so unceremoniously quite? I certainly don't. Synder's desire to hold people accountable is ironic, considering the one person he refuses to hold accountable is himself.

To condense the other side of the argument by concluding that we believe everything is Synder's fault seems to me to be a complete inability on your part to see the worth of the contraposition. You are obviously an intelligent, well-spoken (and well written) person, and a dedicated Skins fan.

And, on many levels, I admire your ability to see the glass half full with respect to Synder. However, for those of us who disagree with you, we certainly don't think that your seemingly utter support of Synder is "intelligence born of knowledge."

Instead of attacking my logic so thouroughly, perhaps you should reexamine your own.

[Art]

Originally posted by skins4eva

Well, Art, please allow me to retort, and I shall be sure to implement the proper amount of diction to properly counteract your somewhat insidiously flippant comments toward my opinion.

You counter my "somewhat naive statement" with a hypothetical, and tautological rebuttal, which is to say, your question proves nothing, nor does it support your position, why? Because we will never know how stability in the face of failure demonstrates a successful method of franchise building because we have had NO stability under Snyder. So, in effect you put my somewhat naive statement to bed with an equally naive statement.

I see that you are attempting to extrapolate that in the face of failure: Norv Turner's regime, Snyder was forced to change tacks and hold people accountable. I guess he held Spurrier accountable, right? Do you think Synder would have fired Spurrier if he hadn't so unceremoniously quite? I certainly don't. Synder's desire to hold people accountable is ironic, considering the one person he refuses to hold accountable is himself.

To condense the other side of the argument by concluding that we believe everything is Synder's fault seems to me to be a complete inability on your part to see the worth of the contraposition. You are obviously an intelligent, well-spoken (and well written) person, and a dedicated Skins fan.

And, on many levels, I admire your ability to see the glass half full with respect to Synder. However, for those of us who disagree with you, we certainly don't think that your seemingly utter support of Synder is "intelligence born of knowledge."

Instead of attacking my logic so thouroughly, perhaps you should reexamine your own.

My question to counter your somewhat naive statement was a hypothetical. That's absolutely what it was. And, it wasn't asked to support MY position. It was proposed as a secure and fixed invalidation of YOUR position.

Now, that it -- in and of itself -- wasn't at all tautological in nature is clear, though I suspect you were speaking to the whole rather than to the part and didn't contextualize well, and indeed, the whole was quite so .

The point of the hypothetical is to outline, rather clearly, that what you proposed in brief as a possible flaw in Snyder would be a flaw in Snyder if ignored. Meaning, no action or inaction would be allowed in your mind. Anything done or not done would be a negative.

When one is positioned in this way it is a troublesome stance to defend.

Within the asking of your question -- and the hypothetical that invalidated it -- there are questions to be asked. Those were outlined for you in a way that was not at all hypothetical. You asked if the instability was a sign Snyder didn't know how to build a franchise and you were pointed to the specifics the generality requested.

When addressing the specifics -- was firing Norv a positive or negative act, was firing Marty a positive or negative act, was Spurrier resigning reflect at all on Snyder -- you come to the conclusion that only the move with Marty could be remotely questioned.

You question it under the false premise that we won our final five games and the team rallied around Marty. You were corrected on that, yet, you may still believe this was an error by Snyder on a different, more factual basis.

What we know, regardless of how you view the Marty situation, is the specific answers the question you asked required us to examine don't add up to a lack of knowledge about team building. And, we know the situation with Spurrier that he'd have been retained despite failure reveals a knowledge of the need to attain continuity and consistency, which would further invalidate the possible negative that he doesn't get that.

The fact that you inaccurately assessed yourself to a view on Marty that allowed a negative against Snyder and foolishly claimed signing Barrow was foolhardy means that while I'm more than pleased to examine my rationale, I must first correct your errors before I can get there.

And, when you see errors in fact in what I'm saying you should point them out quickly so I may address them and correct them in a way you seem unwilling to try.

[skins4eva]

Ok, Art, everything you say is obviously correct? Are you happy now? I mean, it is amazing to me that you are willing to look past results, and stand on theory alone. Barrow would have been a good signing, if he were ever on the field. However, he was never on the field, his career is likely over, and as such, I see that as a failure. Secondly, you seem to harp on the Marty situation, which is your right. However, it seems to me that an 8-8 record is the best we can expect under Synder.

Secondly, your hypothetical was the definition of a tautology in that it proved nothing and was merely circuitous logic. And it did absolutely nothing to invalidate my position. My position is still valid despite your attempt to counter it with a pointless hypothetical.

I am more than willing to correct my errors, which will be many in the future and have been many in the past. Nor do I presume that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, as you seem to do. Nor do I belittle other people's points of view, for I believe that reasonable minds may differ over Synder.

Also, I disagree with your conclusin that retaining Spurrier despite failure reveals a need to attain continuity and consistency: I would have viewed it as a desire on Snyder's part not to look like a fool yet again, and to give his hand-picked, coveted choice of a coach a chance to redeem himself, when clearly redemption was not possible.

[Art]

Originally posted by skins4eva

Ok, Art, everything you say is obviously correct? Are you happy now? I mean, it is amazing to me that you are willing to look past results, and stand on theory alone. Barrow would have been a good signing, if he were ever on the field. However, he was never on the field, his career is likely over, and as such, I see that as a failure. Secondly, you seem to harp on the Marty situation, which is your right. However, it seems to me that an 8-8 record is the best we can expect under Synder.

Secondly, your hypothetical was the definition of a tautology in that it proved nothing and was merely circuitous logic. And it did absolutely nothing to invalidate my position. My position is still valid despite your attempt to counter it with a pointless hypothetical.

I am more than willing to correct my errors, which will be many in the future and have been many in the past. Nor do I presume that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, as you seem to do. Nor do I belittle other people's points of view, for I believe that reasonable minds may differ over Synder.

Also, I disagree with your conclusin that retaining Spurrier despite failure reveals a need to attain continuity and consistency: I would have viewed it as a desire on Snyder's part not to look like a fool yet again, and to give his hand-picked, coveted choice of a coach a chance to redeem himself, when clearly redemption was not possible.

Skins4eva,

I don't presume anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

I do KNOW that people who have formulated positions based on false facts or half-truths ARE wrong. And, I know people who further reveal their position to invalidate ALL things no matter the circumstances makes the position wrong.

Take, for example, this simple train of thought.

You asked if Snyder's unwillingness or inability to achieve stability showed he didn't know how to build a franchise. Then, presented with the obvious fact that despite the failure of his coach he would have made NO change and achieved that stability, you decide to condemn the choice as Snyder not wanting to appear foolish and wanting his hand-picked choice (and the choice of most smart football men) a chance to redeemn himself.

You paint the fact that Snyder was willing to achieve consistency in the face of failure as a selfish act, born of pride. You paint it in the most unflattering light. And though the effect of how Snyder came to the conclusion not to change coaches is presented in a way that suggests he STILL knows nothing DESPITE clear willingness to attain the very thing you are critical of him, means, as I stated, it doesn't MATTER to you what Snyder does.

Any action will be seen as a failure.

And, even with your reasoning, Snyder STILL showed a willingness to accomplish what you wondered if he knew he should accomplish.

This is exactly why I asked my hypothetical.

To prove this is EXACTLY what you are in this discussion. ANY act will be presented in the most negative light. Snyder can't accomplish anything, because you refuse to acknowledge when he has accomplished something.

That is when I know a person I disagree with is wrong.

Go back a few pages and read Henry's post. I disagree with that person, but I can't say he's wrong in the same way.

[skins4eva]

Art, you are simply wrong here. Absolutely wrong. I'm in no way saying that anything Synder does will be wrong, thats YOUR intepretation. WINNING will not be wrong, but HE HASN'T DONE THAT YET!!!!!!!!!!!! All of his decisions (and I'm suspending judgment until out of respect for Coach Gibbs) have yielded absolutely no results. Go ask LaVar if he thinks Synder is a good owner, in fact, ask most of the players on the team. I would be very curious to know what they think. Despite the fact that he signs their checks, I truly wonder what they think about his "franchise-building" abilities or lack thereof. You seem insistent on suggesting that I believe anything Synder does or does not do is wrong. That is absolutely incorrect. I was just as happy as anyone that he hired Gibbs, and I consider it a great accomplishment; further, it suggests that he has finally realized that changing schemes and coaches every year is a losing proposition.

[The Sisko]

Well, the factual assessment of what an owner's job is, in hiring good people, letting them set the direction of the franchise and doing whatever possible to provide them what they tell you they need. Additionally, creating a group dynamic that gives the Redskins a clear advantage over all other teams in free agency due to ownership involvement can't go unnoticed.

D@mn Art, ... in the immortal words of Michael Corleone, "I keep trying to get out, but they pull me back in."

Here's my grade for Snyder on all the points you mention above.

Hiring good people - D

Letting them set the direction of the franchise - D

Providing them with whatever they say they need - A

The group dynamic stuff - Split grade - An A for getting the players we want and a C for selecting the players we want.

Ultimate outcome (i.e. wins/losses) of the above - C

By my calculations that gives Snyder a 2.3 ownership GPA. Not the worst guy in the league but certainly not the best.

I think there's something you fail to take into account in your constant protection and promotion of Snyder. That is, being an NFL owner is much like being a CEO of a business. The major difference is that a CEO has a board of directors to counterbalance his/her power. In the NFL there is no board of directors. Therefore, smart owners hire A COMPETANT GM and let him do most of the work.

This in my opinion is where Snyder falls down. See, when Marty let Vinny go which team was there toot sweet to snatch up the highly sought after GM that Marty unbelievably let go ? Who simply howled with delight at our stupidity for letting such a talented guy get away from us and had him there for an interview the next day? The next week? Month? EVER??

Snyder's major shortcoming is that he stubbornly has refused to recognize that he simply doesn't have the knowledge base to run a franchise by himself. Guess what? Almost nobody in the NFL does. Again, that's why they hire competant people to do it either in full or in part for them. Snyder simply has to realize that surrounding himself with a few yes men (Cerrato/Rogers) to tell him "Yeah boss, you're so smart. Let's sign "X" player" simply isn't going to get it done in the NFL.

One good example of this is the contrast between the way a team like the Fecals approches players currently under contract and the way we do. The Fecals seem able to look ahead to what a player will be down the road and sign him to a long term contract a couple of seasons before he blows up. This strategy helps them keep home grown guys in house and gets the player some extra big $$ before his F.A. period rolls around. When the player does in fact blow up, he's got a long term contract that's most likely a bit below market value. However he's probably satisfied because the team took a measured risk in giving him the $$ earlier than it had to. As for us, well we'll be looking for Smoot's replacement this offseason and will probably pay Pierce more $$ than he's actually worth. Clearly these are two guys that it would have been of great benefit to use the Fecals strategy with.

Yes, it costs you some extra $$ and cap space in the short term but it saves you a lot more in the long term.

As for the coaching hirings. I think Marty was a guy we all felt was the right move at the time. I agreed with it myself for the same reasons you gave. However, a better F.O. dynamic might have allowed for some sanity to come into the process to tell Snyder, "Look, this guy may not be the best one for the job".

Moving on to SOS, this was a hire I hated from the beginning. However, I jumped on board because he was the coach of the team I love(d) and I had no choice. Okay so what does Snyder do after making a bad coaching choice? He follows that up by meddling with roster moves his coach wanted to make. Then, after having a horrible season in which it was clear the coach had lost the team, Snyder couldn't have realistically fired him because he couldn't afford to reinforce the appearance of being rash and impetuous.

Enter Joe Gibbs. For once the team has someone to give it direction and set a tone. Something Snyder has in the past never been able to hire someone to do and/or give them the time to get it done. Oh, BTW as I mentioned earlier, Snyder doesn't get credit for this one. Gibbs came back of his own volition-Snyder didn't "convince him" to come back as many here seem to believe. Once Gibbs made his mind up to come back, the job was his or Snyder could have booked a plane out of town forthwith if we wanted to have any reasonable expectation of surviving.

I admit Snyder has learned some things and improved in some areas. I'm hoping that one day he'll be an owner we can truly point to as being one of the best in the league. However, as it stands now we've horribly handicapped ourselves because of the nature of our F.O. True, he does give us an advantage in getting us the guys we really want. We've already discussed that. But again, until we have someone more competant than Vinny "Brown Nose" Cerrato and Pepper "Grandpa Simpson" Rogers it's going to be hit or miss in selecting the guys we really want and deciding how much they're worth to the club. Unfortunately the only way for that to happen is that a F.O. setup with better checks and balances has to be put in place. In short what we're looking for is that Snyder demonstrates that he knows HOW BEST to position the franchise to spend his money, not just that he's simply willing to spend.

In closing, I just have one question for you Art. If we continue to founder on as we have been with 6-10/5-11 seasons punctuated by the occasional 8-8 season, how long will it take you to admit that Snyder's system isn't going to work? I mean, if the results don't change, will you still be making the same arguments 10 or 15 years down the road? Being the admitted stubborn homer you are, I'd suspect the answer is yes:)

[skins4eva]

I couldn't have said it better myself, Yusuf, way to articulate the other side!

[Art]

Yusuf,

I'll devote more time to this in a moment, but before I can I want to break out something I was astonished to see.

You give Snyder a D for hiring good people.

He's hired Marty, Spurrier and Gibbs as coaches. He's hired Mendes and Cerrato as primary front office people. We'll leave lower level front office and coaching positions unevaluated for the moment as they are generally hires made by others.

Did you seriously mean to type D for this list? Or was that in error?

If you seriously meant D for this list, I imagine this will be quite a conversation we have in store for us. I haven't read through everything you've written yet, but I will, and we'll see how sound your assessment is or isn't.

I will say this is not a promising start.

[The Sisko]

Yup. I'm giving him a C for Marty and an F for SOS. I won't give a grade for Gibbs because as I mentioned it was Gibbs not Snyder who hired himself if you will. It is hindsight I'll admit, but we can't unlearn past experiences.

As for Mendes and Cerrato, Mendes wasn't a bad capologist. However, Snyder all but fired him as I remember it because he felt he could do a better job himself. I think I've made my position clear on Vinny Bug Eyes.

If you're going to start by defending Snyder's record of hiring and establishing a personality for the club I think it's you who's off to a not so promising start. Maybe you should stick to the streamlined player acquisition process and stadium improvements lines of reasoning.

[Art]

Originally posted by Yusuf06

Yup. I'm giving him a C for Marty and an F for SOS. I won't give a grade for Gibbs because as I mentioned it was Gibbs not Snyder who hired himself if you will. It is hindsight I'll admit, but we can't unlearn past experiences.

As for Mendes and Cerrato, Mendes wasn't a bad capologist. However, Snyder all but fired him as I remember it because he felt he could do a better job himself. I think I've made my position clear on Vinny Bug Eyes.

If you're going to start by defending Snyder's record of hiring and establishing a personality for the club I think it's you who's off to a not so promising start. Maybe you should stick to the streamlined player acquisition process and stadium improvements lines of reasoning.

Well, Yusuf, at least I know the negative view of Snyder isn't getting MORE intelligent. You maintain the position of anything good Snyder may do is something you won't give him any respect for because you don't want to.

If you think saying Gibbs doesn't count, Marty was a C and Ron Wolf's dream coach was an F, trust me, I won't struggle too greatly in this thread other than to continue to be amazed at the increasing ridiculous nature of the positions OPENLY taken.

I do have to make dinner for the wife now, but, I'll reply to the bulk of the reply you made after.

You can reply to this, or wait for that, as it will contain much the same .

[Art]

Reply within

Originally posted by Yusuf06

D@mn Art, ... in the immortal words of Michael Corleone, "I keep trying to get out, but they pull me back in."

Here's my grade for Snyder on all the points you mention above.

Hiring good people - D

Letting them set the direction of the franchise - D

Providing them with whatever they say they need - A

The group dynamic stuff - Split grade - An A for getting the players we want and a C for selecting the players we want.

Ultimate outcome (i.e. wins/losses) of the above - C

By my calculations that gives Snyder a 2.3 ownership GPA. Not the worst guy in the league but certainly not the best.

I mentioned in the previous post that I'm not sure your evaluation can be considered all that meaningful when you give Snyder a D for hiring Marty, Spurrier, Gibbs and Mendes -- guys who had GREAT reputations around the league when hired -- and Cerrato who has proven to be a good hire at the least when it comes to free agency and perhaps even the draft. Heck, even YOU give him a C for player acquisitions .

Hires like Rhodes and Lewis can also, perhaps, be put in his corner, but again, it's harder to evaluate some of the lesser hires on a coaching staff as they generally SHOULD be controlled by the head coach. In our case, we put Rhodes in for Norv and Spurrier just plum didn't care so Snyder was able to fill the void for two coaches who needed the void filled.

I'm also quite concerned with the C grade for the selection of players to acquire. This is a conversation we may need to have outside the bulk of the rest. But, I understand your C grade. You hate Cerrato. Therefore, any acknowledgement that Arrington, Washington, Griffin, Springs, Taylor, Coles, Portis, Samuels, Thomas and Cooley (using ONLY guys we think are very good or have high hopes for) who were signed or drafted under Cerrato's watch must be written off as merely average.

By in large, the acquisitions we've made to improve the team under Cerrato have been a very good success from a personnel standpoint. Other things have failed us. But, because you hate Cerrato, you'll just pretend it's his fault even when it's not.

I think there's something you fail to take into account in your constant protection and promotion of Snyder. That is, being an NFL owner is much like being a CEO of a business. The major difference is that a CEO has a board of directors to counterbalance his/her power. In the NFL there is no board of directors. Therefore, smart owners hire A COMPETANT GM and let him do most of the work.

I see in this post you use Philly as an example of a good organization. So, let me ask you something. Who are the general managers of New England and Philly. The two teams in the Super Bowl? Can you tell me who the general manager is on those teams? You can't, because they don't have a GM. They have personnel men. Kind of like we do. But they don't have a GM. Therefore, they have dumb owners too, right? Just under this criteria I'm speaking about.

The fixation on the TITLE of GM is a remarkably vacuous position for people to continue offering forth, especially when they openly fawn over doing things the New England or Philly way. So, now that we pull back the curtain on this comment and reveal it as the empty, meaningless negative position it clearly is, we can address the more meaningful concern that a team owner operates as something of a CEO of a business.

You suggest Snyder has no counterbalance to his or her power. I'd suggest this is flat fiction. He absolutely has a counter to his power. Just as Lurie does in Philly. He's got a coaching staff and he's got personnel people who present him a plan of action. He signs off on the action and in Snyder's case, he executes that plan. The execution of the plan gives us an advantage over other teams, but doesn't remove the balances in place. But, as with ANY owner in the league, ultimately, Snyder's in charge.

ALL teams function within the owners permission. Football people on EVERY team are unable to acquire all the guys they want because the owner allocates what the owner allocates and that only goes so far in most cities. Here it goes a lot further.

Snyder allows his personnel people and his coaching staff to do most of the work. He has for the last FOUR YEARS. His role is to mediate disagreement between his people, which does surpass what some owners do, thought it merely matches what JKC and many others do, and execute the plan, which is also more than most owners do, but, also gives us a vast advantage over everyone BUT Dallas.

The crux of your problem, I'm guessing, is that Cerrato and Snyder get along. They are friendly and therefore, Cerrato must be incompetent and unqualified. I think this, too, is a strange problem to have. An owner and a key employee getting along should be a great dynamic to have. In fact, it IS a great dynamic to have. And, Gibbs evidently thinks well of Cerrato as well.

But, let's go on.

This in my opinion is where Snyder falls down. See, when Marty let Vinny go which team was there toot sweet to snatch up the highly sought after GM that Marty unbelievably let go ? Who simply howled with delight at our stupidity for letting such a talented guy get away from us and had him there for an interview the next day? The next week? Month? EVER??

I've seen this previously from the anti-Cerrato, anti-Snyder crowd. I know how moving this group of people finds this particular tidbit. Screams of, "Gosh, no one hired Cerrato when Marty let him go," resonate with a specific group of people unbothered by how daft the scream seems.

Cerrato was let go at the tail end of January when Marty came in. Most teams hiring for coaching positions or front office positions had already finalized the off season staff. Cerrato immediately landed with ESPN, which is a pretty good gig staffed by MANY fine NFL personnel people like Mueller now, Donahoe, Modrak, Ruskell and others.

Then, Cerrato was brought back the following year by Snyder. The fact that he wasn't snapped up by another team is pretty typical of personnel men for at least a year after they leave one team. Take Modrak, as an example. He's a guy I'd have been THRILLED to have as a personnel guy after he was let go by the Eagles. He wasn't immediately snapped up as a lead guy for an NFL team either.

This is pretty normal stuff. But, would you have me believe that no person not immediately employed after one job ends lacks competence? Or is this a special point of view reserved for Cerrato?

Snyder's major shortcoming is that he stubbornly has refused to recognize that he simply doesn't have the knowledge base to run a franchise by himself. Guess what? Almost nobody in the NFL does. Again, that's why they hire competant people to do it either in full or in part for them. Snyder simply has to realize that surrounding himself with a few yes men (Cerrato/Rogers) to tell him "Yeah boss, you're so smart. Let's sign "X" player" simply isn't going to get it done in the NFL.

Snyder's major shortcoming is that he stubbornly has refused to recognize that he simply doesn't have the knowledge base to run a franchise by himself? Funny, when he hired Marty, he seemed to be willing to let football people run the show. Hiring Mendes and Cerrato and Spurrier seemed deferential to football people. Hiring Gibbs -- oh, that's right, he didn't do that cause Gibbs hired himself -- further seems along this.

But, since Snyder enjoys Cerrato as a friend, he's a yes-man, and therefore he doesn't count as a football guy. I get it. It's not at all accurate or fair, but, it IS what the anti-Snyder crowd does, even as all evidence contradicts who is actually orchestrating moves.

According to Gibbs, the process by which players were identified and targeted for acquisition didn't include Snyder other than asking him if they could go get the players. But, I'm sure Gibbs is a liar or a yes-man himself, yeah?

One good example of this is the contrast between the way a team like the Fecals approches players currently under contract and the way we do. The Fecals seem able to look ahead to what a player will be down the road and sign him to a long term contract a couple of seasons before he blows up. This strategy helps them keep home grown guys in house and gets the player some extra big $$ before his F.A. period rolls around. When the player does in fact blow up, he's got a long term contract that's most likely a bit below market value. However he's probably satisfied because the team took a measured risk in giving him the $$ earlier than it had to. As for us, well we'll be looking for Smoot's replacement this offseason and will probably pay Pierce more $$ than he's actually worth. Clearly these are two guys that it would have been of great benefit to use the Fecals strategy with.

Yes, it costs you some extra $$ and cap space in the short term but it saves you a lot more in the long term.

So, Pierce was a guy who should have been identified as a player to pay earlier than now, when he couldn't make the field for two coordinators and the current staff had no idea who he was or what his value was until August? Doesn't this seem at all strange? Clearly I don't think this makes any sense. Smoot, yeah, I was asking to sign him for money the last couple of years . Pierce isn't in this category.

The Eagles DO a nice job of overpaying early players they project to be future stars so they wind up actually being cheap later. I think this is probably something WE might try to do as well. But, before we can, we need to establish the systems we're running are successful systems so we know which players to more accurately project in those systems.

But, even with Smoot, he's not a guy who'd have made a ton of sense if we'd hired a coaching staff wishing to implement zone coverage principles. It could have been a disaster to sign Smoot earlier and realize he can't play within the new system implemented.

We can't do what the Eagles do. At least not yet.

We have implemented a strategy that could wind up being one other teams copy as well. That strategy being to sign young restricted free agents you have seen can play in the NFL and can project as player capable of growth, thereby minimizing your risk in the draft.

If Gibbs starts winning, you'll see teams start copying that.

As for the coaching hirings. I think Marty was a guy we all felt was the right move at the time. I agreed with it myself for the same reasons you gave. However, a better F.O. dynamic might have allowed for some sanity to come into the process to tell Snyder, "Look, this guy may not be the best one for the job".

When Marty was hired the rage in the league was consolidation of power in the hands of the coach. Shanahan, Holmgren, Sherman. Heck, even REID won a power struggle in Philly. Coaches sought this level of control. That's what it took to land a quality coach and Marty WAS and REMAINS a winning coach in the league.

Moving on to SOS, this was a hire I hated from the beginning. However, I jumped on board because he was the coach of the team I love(d) and I had no choice. Okay so what does Snyder do after making a bad coaching choice? He follows that up by meddling with roster moves his coach wanted to make. Then, after having a horrible season in which it was clear the coach had lost the team, Snyder couldn't have realistically fired him because he couldn't afford to reinforce the appearance of being rash and impetuous.

I think consistency is important and if you were against Spurrier to begin with, that's fine. The fact remains that the hire was considered a great hire in league circles. Very smart men wanted Spurrier for a very long time. It's hard to show where Snyder wasn't smart in this decision given the feeling around the league.

Enter Joe Gibbs. For once the team has someone to give it direction and set a tone. Something Snyder has in the past never been able to hire someone to do and/or give them the time to get it done. Oh, BTW as I mentioned earlier, Snyder doesn't get credit for this one. Gibbs came back of his own volition-Snyder didn't "convince him" to come back as many here seem to believe. Once Gibbs made his mind up to come back, the job was his or Snyder could have booked a plane out of town forthwith if we wanted to have any reasonable expectation of surviving.

You say for once the team has someone to give it direction and set a tone, but, in fact, it's had that the three previous years. You have just chosen not to recognize it. As for your assessment that Snyder doesn't get credit for Gibbs, let me say, it sounds like you're a five-year-old refusing to eat his peas here.

Of course Snyder gets credit. Gibbs could have been hired in Atlanta. He could have gone anywhere. He didn't. It would have been EASIER for him to go to Atlanta. He didn't. Because Snyder got him as Snyder does.

I admit Snyder has learned some things and improved in some areas. I'm hoping that one day he'll be an owner we can truly point to as being one of the best in the league. However, as it stands now we've horribly handicapped ourselves because of the nature of our F.O. True, he does give us an advantage in getting us the guys we really want. We've already discussed that. But again, until we have someone more competant than Vinny "Brown Nose" Cerrato and Pepper "Grandpa Simpson" Rogers it's going to be hit or miss in selecting the guys we really want and deciding how much they're worth to the club. Unfortunately the only way for that to happen is that a F.O. setup with better checks and balances has to be put in place. In short what we're looking for is that Snyder demonstrates that he knows HOW BEST to position the franchise to spend his money, not just that he's simply willing to spend.

The nature of our front office is precisely the same as the two Super Bowl teams. And, Cerrato has done a better job THAN those teams adding competent pieces for a variety of staffs the last few years. They just had a better foundation in McNabb and Brady.

In closing, I just have one question for you Art. If we continue to founder on as we have been with 6-10/5-11 seasons punctuated by the occasional 8-8 season, how long will it take you to admit that Snyder's system isn't going to work? I mean, if the results don't change, will you still be making the same arguments 10 or 15 years down the road? Being the admitted stubborn homer you are, I'd suspect the answer is yes:)

If being a homer allows me to avoid petulant positions like Snyder gets no credit for hiring Gibbs then yeah, I'm an admitted homer. I'd recommend you also consider adopting THAT homer trait if at all possible.

But, to answer your question, if we continue to struggle as a team because of the coaching failures we've had the last few years, but Snyder continues to do as good a job, you can bet I'll continue allowing myself to blame those responsible for the failure and not assigning failure to those not responsible.

[The Sisko]

I mentioned in the previous post that I'm not sure your evaluation can be considered all that meaningful when you give Snyder a D for hiring Marty, Spurrier, Gibbs and Mendes -- guys who had GREAT reputations around the league when hired -- and Cerrato who has proven to be a good hire at the least when it comes to free agency and perhaps even the draft. Heck, even YOU give him a C for player acquisitions.

Au contraire. Marty was, and still is known as a good coach that could never win the big game. SOS may have been a good hire for some clubs but for ours it just would probably have never worked. SOS needed a team with a very organized and defined vision and a strong, competent GM that could finesse him into putting together a better mix of seasoned NFL coaches to go along with “his” guys. Ditto that for personnel decisions. After his first season, Snyder attempted to fill this role, but succeeded only in undercutting his coach.

For comparison’s sake let’s put Snyder up against a couple of his peers-Kraft and Lurie. Kraft hired Pioli-an excellent choice. He and/or Pioli hired Pete Carroll (27-21) who did a decent job to succeed Parcells(who he inherited so he doesn’t get credit for that) and then of course Bellichick. Lurie hired Tom Modrak and Andy Reid.

Try stacking Snyder’s hires up against Kraft and Lurie’s and we obviously come up short. That you continue to try to argue this point is laughable, in a sad sort of way.

As for Cerrato I won’t deny at all that I’m not thrilled with him, I’ve never made any secret of that. However, my evaluation of his work was not personal and never has been. After all, I’ve never met the guy. My dislike of him has to do only with his poor job performance.

If he were picking up quality guys late in the draft like Pioli has, do you honestly think I’d give a rat’s posterior that he and Snyder play racquetball together? Uh, :no:. If you’re doing good work nobody cares about your relationship with the boss because obviously something is working. OTOH, if you’re not doing such a good job, then people start to wonder why you haven’t been fired yet. Does that make any sense to you?

I am a big believer in giving people their due. Were this not the case I wouldn't be fighting the bile rising in my throat as I say complementary things about the Fecals and Patsies. Likewise, If I felt Cerrato, or anyone else, including Snyder, had done an exceptional or even a good job I’d say so. If either one improves in the future I will say so, period. I think a “C” is a fair grade given the track record.

Mendez was a good hire but Snyder negated his good decision by firing him.

I see in this post you use Philly as an example of a good organization. So, let me ask you something. Who are the general managers of New England and Philly. The two teams in the Super Bowl? Can you tell me who the general manager is on those teams? You can't, because they don't have a GM. They have personnel men. Kind of like we do. But they don't have a GM. Therefore, they have dumb owners too, right? Just under this criteria I'm speaking about.

The fixation on the TITLE of GM is a remarkably vacuous position for people to continue offering forth, especially when they openly fawn over doing things the New England or Philly way. So, now that we pull back the curtain on this comment and reveal it as the empty, meaningless negative position it clearly is, we can address the more meaningful concern that a team owner operates as something of a CEO of a business.

Au contraire again my friend. Both teams may not have GMs if you’re looking for the title of “GM”. However Reid and Scott Pioli both serve as a de facto GMs for their respective clubs. For example, Pioli as V.P. of player personnel, has responsibilities that include overseeing the college draft and free agency, as well as negotiating most of the Patsies’free agent contracts. Reid has similar responsibilities. Hmmm, sounds an awful lot like a GM to me.

Strangely enough if you read bios from both team's websites you’ll notice that both Reid and Bellichick’s tenure with their clubs is similar in length to Cerrato’s. This makes things convenient from a comparison standpoint.

Therefore I would ask that you do me a favor. Check the draft history for all three teams for the last five years and tell me how the three compare?

http://www.drafthistory.com/team-round/redskins.html

http://www.drafthistory.com/team-round/patriots.html

http://www.drafthistory.com/team-round/eagles.html

How many players has Cerrato picked after round 2 that have amounted to much ? You’ll notice that Reid and Pioli’s record is much better in this department. Furthermore, if you look at the results on the field I don’t think you can argue with that either.

According to the Patsies’ website, “Scott Pioli joined the New England Patriots on Feb. 10, 2000 and has worked in concert with Head Coach Bill Belichick to orchestrate one of the most successful performances in NFL history. It took the pair just two seasons to rebuild the foundation of the team and to successfully implement their shared football philosophy.”

What would you say is Cerrato and Snyder’s football philosophy? Which of their coaching hires have been made with that shared philosophy in mind? How much improvement have Snyder/Cerrato made to this team in two years? In five years? We’ve gone from .500 when Snyder started, to even lower levels the last three years. See, this is what having a consistent vision and establishing a personality for your team is all about. Snyder hasn't understood this in the past.

At the end of the day I don’t care WHAT title you give the person(s) in charge of personnel decisions and setting the team’s direction. All I care about is that someone competent is doing the job and under Snyder we haven’t had that-until now that is. I’ve said the same thing in the past about the young Mr. Cooke.

So, Pierce was a guy who should have been identified as a player to pay earlier than now, when he couldn't make the field for two coordinators and the current staff had no idea who he was or what his value was until August? Doesn't this seem at all strange? Clearly I don't think this makes any sense. Smoot, yeah, I was asking to sign him for money the last couple of years . Pierce isn't in this category.

Pierce was a guy Marty was extremely impressed with. Marty is knocked for being a coach who can’t win the big one but he is also known as an excellent teacher of fundamentals. That Marty would say Pierce had a better grasp of the game than any other player he’d coached spoke volumes to me. Therefore I wasn’t surprised in the least at Pierce’s performance. I think most of our prior coaches and even Williams discounted him due to his size. However, had we locked him up to a modest contract say along the lines of the one we gave McCants, or a bit better, this would have been a non issue until he came up for renewal. Again, this is the type of decision the Fecals have become known for. As long as you’re right about the players you chose to do this with you can have your cake and eat it too.

For the record, we’d better start thinking about making such a move with Ramsey right now. Remember I said it first;)

You say for once the team has someone to give it direction and set a tone, but, in fact, it's had that the three previous years. You have just chosen not to recognize it. As for your assessment that Snyder doesn't get credit for Gibbs, let me say, it sounds like you're a five-year-old refusing to eat his peas here.

Of course Snyder gets credit. Gibbs could have been hired in Atlanta. He could have gone anywhere. He didn't. It would have been EASIER for him to go to Atlanta. He didn't. Because Snyder got him as Snyder does.

So, you expect me to believe that Gibbs would have coached in Atlanta while there existed a coaching vacancy in D.C.? You also expect me to believe that Snyder could have lured Gibbs out of retirement if he wasn’t willing to do so? Whether you realize it or not, what you’re saying is that in effect Gibbs had a price and Snyder finally offered enough $$$ to get him to come out of retirement. Yeah, right:rolleyes: And no, I’m not eating those d@mned peas. I’d stake my last dollar on Gibbs' integrity every time:)

...if we continue to struggle as a team because of the coaching failures we've had the last few years, but Snyder continues to do as good a job, you can bet I'll continue allowing myself to blame those responsible for the failure and not assigning failure to those not responsible.

So, I guess you’d say the coach and the players are the only ones responsible. The guys that picked the coach and players bear no responsibility for making the decision to hire them? That makes a lot of sense. Again, when Snyder finally puts a F.O. into place that we can be proud of I’ll be the first to acknowledge it. Currently we’re middle of the pack-and I’m being extremely homerish to characterize it that way. Were I to be more objective I could easily contend that the only thing keeping us from being thought of in the same light as Arizona and Cincy is our rich tradition. Only thing is, that benefit of the doubt is only extended for so long.

[Art]

Yusuf,

So, Marty was a bad pick because he hadn't won the big one. Meaning, obviously, if we were to trade for Peyton Manning, it would be a dumb idea, right? Come on guy, the logic you use is just embarrassing.

Andy Reid has done a WONDERFUL job. No doubt about it. But, do you think there was more question about Reid when he was hired or about Marty or Spurrier? Reid, remember, had never been a head coach OR a pro coordinator I believe.

It was a terrible reach and gamble and it worked out. Belichick was a multiple double-digit loser as a head coach. And, he lost HUGE in New England too. Until Brady came in. Funny how suddenly New England and Belichick seem great the moment that happened, isn't it?

But, as much as you try, the application of hindsight doesn't work to the moves. The measure is whether the move was intelligent at the time it was made. If you get lucky, that works. If it doesn't work out for you, but you make a smart, sound, thoughtful move, it doesn't mean you're a fool. Spurrier AND Marty were smarter choices at the time they were made by Snyder than either Reid or Belichick were in their cities by their owners.

The concept of looking at a draft list and then saying who did a better job without addressing the factors of the teams is a tremendously dim position. Cerrato has had to not only DRAFT but otherwise retool a team built for three different head coaches.

His job has been far more difficult than the job in New England and Philly. Where the Pats and Eagles have been able to establish systems through success, they've been, therefore, able to identify players who fit those systems and draft FOR those systems. This improves one's ability to draft when you know the role a player will fill and can fit him into that role.

In Washington due to the changes in staff, we haven't had the continuity. Any number of our picks could have been far more successful. A good pick for Marty -- McCants -- looks bad now with Gibbs. A good pick for Spurrier -- Rock -- looks troublesome under Gibbs.

Having to adjust what types of players you're looking for three different times makes it very difficult to identify players who fit within a successful system. And, as you know, teams that draft players for their system don't always take a chance on low-round picks who don't make it elsewhere because they have time and money invested in the guys THEY believed in enough to draft.

And, Cerrato's work in identifying free agents to fit varied systems has been excellent. One reason Gibbs has retained his services is because of how much he enjoyed how the information was brought to him.

As in New England and Philly, our head coach is setting our direction. Cerrato, as in New England and Philly, build the personnel plan around that direction. So, everything you're asking for is here.

The difference is you don't happen to LIKE Cerrato, so, it's irrelevant.

It wasn't Snyder's fault OR Cerrato's fault that Trotter didn't play as well here as he did before and since in Philly. It was a failure in coaching. And since our coaching staff and personnel people collaborate on who to pick, the blame can be placed on the staff for going with guys they either won't or can't properly utilize.

But, certainly, this all is only meaningful if you allow yourself to recognize what you want is what you have. You don't, so, no level of reasonable observation will help.

[The Sisko]

How many of the guys that Cerrato drafted that just didn't fit our system have caught on elsewhere? That would tell us if he's drafting good players that we just can't use because they're more suited for a different system.

Again, I have no beef with Cerrato. All I want is for him to do a competent job, which in my estimation he hasn't done to date.

Finally regarding Bellichick. Kraft actually gave up a draft pick to get him. This wasn't some ho hum "I'll just take any available coach" move. Rather it was a calculated and well thought out strategic risk that was intentionally taken.

Clearly, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Ax]

Pardon the interuption.

These stats came from our very own database here. They are stats from the 6 years just after Joe retired, up until Mr. Snyder bought the team. This is when we had a "GM" too.

I haven't done the Post-Snyder list yet but I'm pretty damn sure that things have been better, not good enough for sure, but certainly better so far. Plus the fact that Jack & John Cooke were veteran owners, and Mr Snyder was a rookie, says he's doing MUCH better. IMO

Is he perfect? Hell no.

But I like him.

Pre-Snyder

93…..4-12………………………………………………………Best & Worst Draft Picks

Jack Kent Cooke – Owner_______________Tom Carter 1st rd - bust

Charley Casserly - General Manager_______Reggie Brooks 2nd rd – bust*

Bobby Mitchell - Asst. General Manager____Rick Hamilton 3rd rd - bust

Richie Petitbon - Head Coach_____________Frank Wycheck 6th rd– traded

94…..3-13

Jack Kent Cooke – Owner________________Heath Shuler 1st rd - bust

Charley Casserly - General Manager_______Tre Johnson 2nd rd – G/Ng**

Bobby Mitchell - Asst. General Manager____Tydus Wyans 3rd rd - bust

Norv Turner - Head Coach_______________Gus Frerotte 7th rd – G/Ng**

95…..6-10

Jack Kent Cooke – Owner________________Michael Westbrook 1st rd - bust

Charley Casserly - General Manager_______Cory Raymer 2nd rd – G/Ng*

Bobby Mitchell - Asst. General Manager____Darryl Pounds 3rd rd – bust*

Norv Turner - Head Coach_______________Larry Jones 4th rd - bust

96…..9-7

John Kent Cooke – Owner_______________Andre Johnson 1st rd - bust

Charley Casserly - General Manager_______Stephen Davis 4th rd – Very good

Bobby Mitchell - Asst. General Manager____Leomont Evans 5th rd – Not terrible*

Norv Turner - Head Coach_______________?????????????????????

97 8-7-1

John Kent Cooke – Owner_______________Kenard Lang 1st rd – Disappointing*

Charley Casserly - General Manager______Greg Jones 2nd rd - bust

Bobby Mitchell - Asst. General Manager____Derek Smith 3rd rd - Disappointing*

Norv Turner - Head Coach_______________Albert Connell 4th rd – a joke

98 6-10

John Kent Cooke - Owner 1998__________Stephen Alexander 2nd rd - bust

Charley Casserly - General Manager_______Skip Hicks 3rd rd - bust

Bobby Mitchell - Asst. General Manager___Shawn Barber 4th rd – OK*

Norv Turner - Head Coach ______________???????????????????

Total Record: 34-59-1__________________No Playoffs

*considering where he was taken.

**Good/Not great

.

.

[Art]

Originally posted by Yusuf06

How many of the guys that Cerrato drafted that just didn't fit our system have caught on elsewhere? That would tell us if he's drafting good players that we just can't use because they're more suited for a different system.

Again, I have no beef with Cerrato. All I want is for him to do a competent job, which in my estimation he hasn't done to date.

Finally regarding Bellichick. Kraft actually gave up a draft pick to get him. This wasn't some ho hum "I'll just take any available coach" move. Rather it was a calculated and well thought out strategic risk that was intentionally taken.

Clearly, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Again, Yusuf, a team that scouts a pick and drafts a pick and invests time and money in a pick to develop will not always be scouring the waiver wire for failed fifth-round picks of other teams who can't make it when systems change.

Very few players taken later in the draft pick up elsewhere if they don't make with the original team. Teams prefer their own undrafted free agents because they were around and they already know them. It's a fact of NFL life, not a sign of a poor pick.

When you're picking for the same system year after year it's a lot easier to get keepers as the draft goes on because you KNOW what fits and what does not.

As for Belichick, he was 36-44 as a head coach when Kraft hired him. He was 5-11 his first year in New England. He was LOSING his second year in New England when Brady came in. He's only even had a Top 10 defense the last two years in New England.

Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that when Belichick was hired it was an intelligent, thoughtful move for a owner to surrender a draft pick for a failed coach with one playoff victory, but a PROVEN winning coach like Marty was questionable for Snyder to hire, at no cost of draft pick, because he hadn't won the big one?

We'll can't even agree to disagree if you think this rationale is going to fly.

You at least have to admit when the hires were made, it was a whole lot more dubious what Kraft did than what Snyder did. But, this is only if you're interested in a factual conversation and I'm not sure you are.

[zoony]

This seems to be a really interesting thread... a lot of good debate going back and forth.

My $.02...

This league, the NFL, is NOT about owners. It's NOT about coaches. It's NOT about General Managers. It's about none of that. (I will concede that there are a few really crappy owners like Bidwell, but on to my point...)

The NFL, in my opinion, has quite simply become the NQL. The National Quarterbacks League.

Your front office get's lucky (YES IT IS LUCK, 100% PURE LUCK) and drafts / aquires a franchise QB? Guess what... your team is a perrenial playoff contender. One need look no further than this year's playoff teams (Atlanta TY-vs-LY, anyone?), last year's playoff teams... hell, every playoff team since the advent of Free Agency.

And before anyone chimes in with the '00 Ravens... it's the exception that tests the rule.

Fact is, there is no way to evaluate a College QB and know if he will be successful in the NFL. It is a crapshoot, plain and simple. Some teams get lucky, some don't. The Patriots, the Eagles, the Colts, the Falcons, the Steelers... all those teams got lucky in their QB decision. luck luck luck luck luck.

So if I may...

I'm tired of the entire world kissing the Eagles' FO a-s. It is not their front office. Nor is it Reid. It is McNabb, plain and simple.

I'm tired of the entire world kissing the Patriots FO a-s. It is not their front office. It is not Belichick (See his record with the Browns and his record pre-Brady for evidence). It is Brady, plain and simple.

It is Vick, Manning, Favre, McNair, Pennington, and the like that make everyone else look good.

One need only look at Dan Snyder's tenure with the Redskins to see that it is the Quarterback position that has remained unsettled and questionable. Snyder is a good owner. He wants to win, and he's willing to spend the cash. He's open to ideas, and he admits mistakes. He is driven... what more could you want in a leader? The only thing I can think of that Snyder needs more of is unseen and unpredictable LUCK at the QB spot. Yes... LUCK.

Don't think for one second that if the Redskin's had lucked up on a QB under Snyder's tenure that any of us would even be having this discussion. We'd be in the playoffs every year, and we might even have had a few more Lombardi trophies.

p.s. Here's to hoping Ramsey's the answer!

[Art]

Zoony,

This is a point that is very sound in the making and one that is obvious to just about everyone. Like no previous time in the history of the NFL, the cap era has given QBs an importance to a team that is unmatched. A great QB can take a terrible team and make it average or better.

While you can still win with just average QB play if the other parts are working together, the fact is as clear as you make it out to be. If you luck out and land a QB you're gold. If you don't, you've got additional work to do.

While Yusuf creams himself thinking about how the Eagles and Pats operate, he never seemed to ask himself what if the Eagles had gone with Smith or Williams or if McNabb WAS Smith and Smith turned out to be McNabb? What if Bledsoe hadn't gotten hurt after an 11-loss season and a slow start in the second year under Belichick and Brady hadn't emerged?

Michael Vick is hurt and the Falcons lose, what, 10 or 11 games? Michael Vick is healthy, in a brand new system with new coaches, and they win 12 games? The impact of the QB position is clear.

I don't know if Ramsey will be a great QB, but, say we do almost NOTHING this offseason. Say we lose Samuels, Smoot, Pierce and Gardner and do nothing to replace those guys. If Ramsey's a star, the Redskins are 12-4 and we're lauding the team for doing it the right way, even when it's clearly not the right way.

This simple element of evaluation is LOST on Snyder haters.

Robert Kraft is a shrewd guy for having hired a LOSER coach with one playoff appearance WHILE giving up a draft pick, but, Snyder is a MORON for hiring a WINNING coach with great playoff experience and surrending NO picks.

Why?

Tom Brady.

We have Brady, and Yusuf is building Snyder a statue outside FedEx while paying for his tickets with his Redskins Mastercard.

And he won't even understand why he's doing it because it won't be to that person's credit for actually being around when luck struck.