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

[Art]

Flow,

According to pro-football-reference, the Pats were sixth in points allowed and 24th -- of 31 -- in total defense. You think it's a stetch to say they were below average overall? Is there but ONE category to defense now, and that's all we judge?

Flow, you need to work harder than you have.

The fact remains, in five of Belichick's first six years he was a losing head coach. He began his SIXTH year as a losing head coach. And, interestingly, in the five games to start 2001 before Brady begam starter if I'm recalling the timing correctly, the Pats gave up 112 points which averages out to 22.4 points per game.

For the REST of the season with Brady as the starter, the Pats surrendered a total of 170 points which averages out to 15.45 points per game.

Now, I KNOW as a Jets fan you have this odd believe that Pennington is a star and Brady isn't, so you can't support an argument that Brady is good, but the point is, don't you think that it's ODD that when Brady came in not only did the Pats start winning, but the Pats defense started limiting teams in points?

Could it be possible that good QB play helps an entire team?

Is this a shocking concept?

Until Brady, Belichick was a coach people mocked. After Brady, he's a monster. It can't just be coincidence.

[Art]

Originally posted by the big slim

Snyder is responsible for EVERYTHING! He is the owner and it is ultimately his job to put the right people in the right places to get the right players to make the right plays....PERIOD.

Snyder is responsible for Sean Taylor getting into trouble away from work...Everything that happens is ultimately his responsibility...Not saying it is his "fault", but he is responsible..

Really?

So Snyder is responsible for free will as well? Is Snyder actually God? Snyder's responsible for Ramsey throwing a pick to Dawkins to end our chances against Philly? He's responsible for the officials blowing a call to remove points against Green Bay? This is how it works in your world?

Why even have a coach if it's all about Snyder? Heck, why have players. It's Snyder. All Snyder. You people are SERIOUSLY desperate to make a point you can't appear to make with rational thought. Keep up the good work.

[Art]

Originally posted by Yusuf06

I guess you're still campaigning that Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lay had no responsibility either.:doh::doh:

I guess this has nothing to do with a football team where the power is with the coach during the season. But, it is increasingly fun watching the fictional reasons to dislike Snyder. Snyder's responsible for the DUI Taylor was arrested for and not convicted of. I had no idea.

[Art]

Originally posted by fansince62

cmon ART Belichek had rotten ownership in Cleveland....whooops....yea...it's all BB's fault those lean years!!!!

Al,

I realize in this conversation about Snyder I can't expect factual assessments from you, but, can I ask that you keep your inaccuracies to Snyder rather than extending them out.

Cleveland had FIVE STRAIGHT playoff seasons under Marty. Then Marty went away and Carson came in and sucked it up at 3-13. This doesn't seem like BAD ownership to me. Five playoff years in six before Belichick got there? Heck, isn't the OWNER of the Browns the same owner who was in Baltimore?

He may not be great, but, ROTTEN?

He did move a team, so I'll go with rotten for that, but, he was successful before Belichick got there. And then Belichick had ONE winning year in FIVE. Same owner as was there for five of six playoff years, right?

Same owner that won a Super Bowl in Baltimore right?

Are you just making things up as you go along to be contrary in this thread now because you tired of the spanking about Snyder?

I've NEVER seen so many people willing to forgive bad coaching in my life.

I had no idea how potent ownership was. Five consecutive playoff years and then nothing with Belichick but one good year, and, ALL ownership. Who knew it worked that way.

[Art]

Originally posted by fansince62

errr....zoony...the team with the best QB in football has yet to make it to the SB.....

Psst, Al. That wasn't Zoony's point.

[sweet daddy]

Originally posted by Art

Really?

So Snyder is responsible for free will as well? Is Snyder actually God? Snyder's responsible for Ramsey throwing a pick to Dawkins to end our chances against Philly? He's responsible for the officials blowing a call to remove points against Green Bay? This is how it works in your world?

Why even have a coach if it's all about Snyder? Heck, why have players. It's Snyder. All Snyder. You people are SERIOUSLY desperate to make a point you can't appear to make with rational thought. Keep up the good work.

What is the single common thread under Snyder's ownership. The owner. He is responsible for his team that he owns. He hires and fires the front office and the coach. Any CEO is responsible for his company. He is ultimalty held accountable for the final product and any problems.

If this team wins the SB who is going to take the responsibility. Gibbs will and should. And Snyder will take responsibility for hiring Gibbs and he should. But you have to take the bad with the good. If you own it and control it and it doesnt succeed. Blame who? I don't think it is that difficult of a concept.

If Snyder is not responsible for the product he has produced under his ownership then who is?

[sweet daddy]

Originally posted by Yusuf06

I guess you're still campaigning that Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lay had no responsibility either.:doh::doh:

:laugh:

[Art]

Originally posted by sweet daddy

What is the single common thread under Snyder's ownership. The owner. He is responsible for his team that he owns. He hires and fires the front office and the coach. Any CEO is responsible for his company. He is ultimalty held accountable for the final product and any problems.

If this team wins the SB who is going to take the responsibility. Gibbs will and should. And Snyder will take responsibility for hiring Gibbs and he should. But you have to take the bad with the good. If you own it and control it and it doesnt succeed. Blame who? I don't think it is that difficult of a concept.

If Snyder is not responsible for the product he has produced under his ownership then who is?

You are correct that Snyder as hires the front office and the coach. The front office has done a very nice job retooling for various coaches. And, the three hires Snyder made at coach were all very wise, thoughtful, intelligent picks that no one has a serious argument against. Granted, Yusuf has the argument against Marty that he hadn't won the big game, but Yusuf thinks a coach with four losing seasons in five is a sign of GREAT intelligence and planning when hired, so, as I said, there's no serious argument against.

Snyder's three good hires at head coach have, so far, not worked out and as Gibbs told you, the failure was him, not Snyder. As we know with Marty, the failure was Marty, not Snyder, as Marty ran the whole organization. And, of course, Snyder designed the Spurrier system so we know it couldn't have been Spurrier who failed, but Snyder, right?

If Gibbs fails, it won't be because the owner made a bad choice. It will be because Gibbs fails. If Snyder fails to provide what Gibbs asks, then he can be questioned. But, since Snyder has NEVER failed to provide what his football people tell him to get, the failure is on those who are asking, not those who are giving.

While you struggle to ask who to blame, how come you can't blame the people responsible? By in large, the responsibility for the failure on the field belongs to the men responsible for the play on the field. The coach and his staff are responsible. Snyder isn't. He's only responsible to make smart choices with who he hires.

He has.

And he's given them what they've wanted.

At some point we have to allow that the people making the mistakes get the blame. Don't you think?

[Chief skin]

I voted him as lousy and the reasoning is he just will not keep his nose out of football operations then he brings that yes man Cerrato in who is a joke. The thing that makes an owner good or even great is that he has got hire the right people for the job and trust them to get it right. Hiring Gibbs was a step in the right direction. Next we need a solid football guy as a GM and a solid capologist and finally Snyder has to stop meddling in things he does not understand.

[Art]

Originally posted by Chief skin

I voted him as lousy and the reasoning is he just will not keep his nose out of football operations then he brings that yes man Cerrato in who is a joke. The thing that makes an owner good or even great is that he has got hire the right people for the job and trust them to get it right. Hiring Gibbs was a step in the right direction. Next we need a solid football guy as a GM and a solid capologist and finally Snyder has to stop meddling in things he does not understand.

Belichick gave Scott Pioli his start in football in 1992 with the Browns. He stayed with the Browns in Baltimore for one year. Then he moved with Belichick again to the Jets in 1997. And again he moved with Belichick in 2000. His resume is no beefier than Cerrato's, save Cerrato has actually BEEN hired by someone other than Snyder at some point.

Pioli seems an awful lot like Belichick's yes man, just using the criteria you all use to decide because Snyder likes Cerrato that Cerrato must be Snyder's yes man. But, remember, Snyder has had to work to fit the needs of three different coaching staffs.

And, such a lousy job he's done, that when Gibbs came in and signalled his end, his contract was extended and Gibbs says what a great guy he's been to work with. Cerrato has shown himself to be a capable football guy able to adapt to changing philosophy and acquire players to help the talent level of the team, building it each of the three years since Marty left despite having to retool.

But, we must never actually suggest Cerrato knows what he's doing. That would be a bad idea. I know.

[sweet daddy]

Originally posted by Art

You are correct that Snyder as hires the front office and the coach. The front office has done a very nice job retooling for various coaches. And, the three hires Snyder made at coach were all very wise, thoughtful, intelligent picks that no one has a serious argument against. Granted, Yusuf has the argument against Marty that he hadn't won the big game, but Yusuf thinks a coach with four losing seasons in five is a sign of GREAT intelligence and planning when hired, so, as I said, there's no serious argument against.

Snyder's three good hires at head coach have, so far, not worked out and as Gibbs told you, the failure was him, not Snyder. As we know with Marty, the failure was Marty, not Snyder, as Marty ran the whole organization. And, of course, Snyder designed the Spurrier system so we know it couldn't have been Spurrier who failed, but Snyder, right?

If Gibbs fails, it won't be because the owner made a bad choice. It will be because Gibbs fails. If Snyder fails to provide what Gibbs asks, then he can be questioned. But, since Snyder has NEVER failed to provide what his football people tell him to get, the failure is on those who are asking, not those who are giving.

While you struggle to ask who to blame, how come you can't blame the people responsible? By in large, the responsibility for the failure on the field belongs to the men responsible for the play on the field. The coach and his staff are responsible. Snyder isn't. He's only responsible to make smart choices with who he hires.

He has.

And he's given them what they've wanted.

At some point we have to allow that the people making the mistakes get the blame. Don't you think?

I certainly didn't mean to exclude the remaining redskin’s personnel in responsibility. The entire redskin’s organization is responsible for the wins and losses. But following the chain of command, the ultimate responsibility is with those making the decisions. And so if the head coach doesn’t get it done and you hired the head coach....it is not only the HC fault it is also yours.

It is not fair but it is a fact of life that you are responsible for what you own and who you hire. You may not be doing that persons job, but you hired that person. It may look like a good decision from the outside (as you mentioned marty)....But in the end...there is no playoff and no SB....Sure Marty may not have gotten long enough or fair chance...but whose fault is that....Snyder.

For example...I personally think that Gibbs is a great hire and is going to do some good things. But his report card is very...very poor from this season. So at this point he is responsible for such a poor season. And so is Snyder.

[sweet daddy]

Originally posted by Chief skin

I voted him as lousy and the reasoning is he just will not keep his nose out of football operations then he brings that yes man Cerrato in who is a joke. The thing that makes an owner good or even great is that he has got hire the right people for the job and trust them to get it right. Hiring Gibbs was a step in the right direction. Next we need a solid football guy as a GM and a solid capologist and finally Snyder has to stop meddling in things he does not understand.

This is truly a question and not a sarcastic response as I don't understand or follow the cap much. But haven't the skins done a good job of playing around the cap limit and not getting burned. i.e. not leaving to much cap room but also not getting the team into cap hell.

[denverdan]

Originally posted by SonnyJ

Norv was within a bad snap of being in the NFC Championship game. Will you be nominating him for greatness?

Till then, I consider him a Norv-like figure who has adapted well and gotten lucky.

(Side note: is it true that Norv really wanted to take Brady in the sixth round with the Redskins pick, but, since the Patriots snatched him up, took Husak instead? Thought I heard that somewhere. Does that make Norv an almost genius?)

Success in football is part luck, when you are surrounded by competent people who you trust, good luck comes your way. The Pats have had a ton of luck to get where they are, they also have had the right people in position when the ball took a funny bounce, credit Belichick.

I'm not the one throwing the word genius around. There is a big difference between Norv and Belichick. Norv was one snap away from being destroyed by the Rams, while Belichick has two superbowl rings and might have a third.

[The Sisko]

Art my argument that Bellichick was a smart hire obviously had little to do with his prior record. Instead, I'm looking at results. The Patsies fired a guy who had done a decent job (Carroll) and gave up a draft pick to get a guy who had a lousy record like Bellichick. What you see as a stupid move I see as a calculated strategic risk. Clearly the Patsies saw something in Bellichick and decided he was worth what they would be giving up to get him. Obviously it has worked out for them whereas our strategic risk with SOS did not.

As for them striking gold with Brady in the 6th round, this is something of a valid arguement to make. I agree that they MAY not have had nearly the success that they have without him. However here's where your point runs aground. Look at all the OTHER players Pioli and co. have picked late that have become starters for them. This means they have had great success where we and most other teams have not. Therefore, the Brady pick itself is part and parcel of why I said they have a better F.O. than ours. That is, it wasn't a "fluke" pick as you maintain.

Additionally, they've managed (with the exception of Ty Law) to instill a "Joe Lunchpail" team first mentality that is a huge strength for them. With Gibbs coming in we are beginining to establish this mentality to a degree as well.

Finally, Gibbs wouldn't have fired Cerrato, not if he's smart. First, not doing so is a nice way of greasing the wheels with Snyder. It's not a move he had to make, but doing so effectively showed the tinniest bit of deference to Snyder. Second and most importantly, I think Gibbs remembered his first go around with Beathard and felt Cerrato would be a maleable presence in the F.O. who wouldn't much challenge his desires for which players to bring in.

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Art

Flow,

According to pro-football-reference, the Pats were sixth in points allowed and 24th -- of 31 -- in total defense. You think it's a stetch to say they were below average overall? Is there but ONE category to defense now, and that's all we judge?

Flow, you need to work harder than you have.

The fact remains, in five of Belichick's first six years he was a losing head coach. He began his SIXTH year as a losing head coach. And, interestingly, in the five games to start 2001 before Brady begam starter if I'm recalling the timing correctly, the Pats gave up 112 points which averages out to 22.4 points per game.

For the REST of the season with Brady as the starter, the Pats surrendered a total of 170 points which averages out to 15.45 points per game.

Now, I KNOW as a Jets fan you have this odd believe that Pennington is a star and Brady isn't, so you can't support an argument that Brady is good, but the point is, don't you think that it's ODD that when Brady came in not only did the Pats start winning, but the Pats defense started limiting teams in points?

Could it be possible that good QB play helps an entire team?

Is this a shocking concept?

Until Brady, Belichick was a coach people mocked. After Brady, he's a monster. It can't just be coincidence.

You made the statement, until last year, the Pats D was "below average." But there are only few who would characterize a team that allowed the 5th fewest points in 2001 as below average (according to ESPN.com). And as noted, it was the D, not Brady, that was the dominant force in the championship game. Do you recall that game? Do you remember Warner, the NFL's MVP being held to 1/2 his scoring average? Do you remember the former NFL MVP, Faulk, being contained? Do you remember an INT return for a TD by Law? How about Jones' 97 yard fumble return for a TD (negated by holding)? 3 key turnovers? 3 measly Rams points from the Greatest Show on Turf, under the Dome, after 3 full quarters of play?

The fact that the Pats allowed yards that year didn't make them a below average D. Ask the Rams. They gained 400+ yards in the Super Bowl but went home disappointed losers because the Pats did what they did all year: came up with huge defensive plays and kept the opposition out of the endzone. Again, Brady's icing on the cake, leading a game-winning 48 yd FG drive, was key. But we still can't get carried away when the QB only had 1 passing TD the entire postseason and missed 1/2 the AFCCG.

It's not Brady's fault that the Pats were top 2 in points allowed the past 2 years, or top 5 in 3 of the last 4. He doesn't need to apologize. Not for that, not for Manning (2-time NFL MVP) and his explosive O being held to 3 pts in this year's playoffs, or for throwing 4 INTs last year's AFCCG. Not for a patchwork, injury-riddled D that somehow consistently gets it done, never making excuses. Brady only needs to acknowledge it as a important and critical part of his success. (As an aside, check your Brady facts - Bledsoe's injury came in Game 2 of 2001, not Game 6).

Also, you bark up the wrong tree when you suggest a Jets fan would prefer to give credit to the coach than Brady. Have you forgotten that Belichick snubbed the Jets by stealing Leon Hess's $1M before submitting his resignation as HC of the NYJ on a paper napkin the day Parcells handed him the job? BB has been loathed in NY ever since, and given the choice, any Jets fan would prefer to heap praise on Brady rather than the man who left their team at the alter. But such hatred doesn't blind one from facts -- especially when they're forced in front of your nose twice each season.

We know Brady is outstanding at what he does, and it's been conceded that he is a huge contributor to BB's success. So asking if BB's success with him is "coincidental" amounts to asking a question for which a negative answer has already been provided. Had Brady's success come without another complimentary element (namely a timely, scheming, opportunistic D) that proved so important in so many wins, you'd have a great point. But it didn't. So you don't.

Is it coincidence that a piece of bread smothered in peanut butter tastes so much better when you attach another piece smothered in jelly? No. It's no coincidence at all.

[Art]

Flow,

The concept that Brady's success stems from Belichick as an answer to the clarity by which Belichick's success has only come with Brady is a poor argument on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start.

While it's true we haven't seen Brady succeed without Belichick, the fact is, he hasn't played without Belichick. We HAVE seen Belichick without Brady. With Bledsoe. Taking over a playoff team that had made the playoffs five of six years before he got there. We've SEEN how Belichick has done without Brady.

He was a total dog as a coach. Then, his starting QB gets a concussion and internal injuries. Then, a sixth-round draft pick comes in and the Pats 14 games since. The scheme and coaching of Belichick existed before Brady. And it didn't work.

Then Brady arrived. And it worked. Suddenly and as something of a miracle.

Suddenly the defense actually starts holding teams. It hadn't until Brady came in. So, while it's correct to ask what Belichick has proven to be without Brady, it can not be asked in reverse as you are trying, because, Brady has no prior history.

Everything the Pats are and have become started the day Brady became their starter. No, it's not his fault at all. It is, however, clearly his doing.

[Art]

Originally posted by Yusuf06

Art my argument that Bellichick was a smart hire obviously had little to do with his prior record. Instead, I'm looking at results. The Patsies fired a guy who had done a decent job (Carroll) and gave up a draft pick to get a guy who had a lousy record like Bellichick. What you see as a stupid move I see as a calculated strategic risk. Clearly the Patsies saw something in Bellichick and decided he was worth what they would be giving up to get him. Obviously it has worked out for them whereas our strategic risk with SOS did not.

As for them striking gold with Brady in the 6th round, this is something of a valid arguement to make. I agree that they MAY not have had nearly the success that they have without him. However here's where your point runs aground. Look at all the OTHER players Pioli and co. have picked late that have become starters for them. This means they have had great success where we and most other teams have not. Therefore, the Brady pick itself is part and parcel of why I said they have a better F.O. than ours. That is, it wasn't a "fluke" pick as you maintain.

Additionally, they've managed (with the exception of Ty Law) to instill a "Joe Lunchpail" team first mentality that is a huge strength for them. With Gibbs coming in we are beginining to establish this mentality to a degree as well.

Finally, Gibbs wouldn't have fired Cerrato, not if he's smart. First, not doing so is a nice way of greasing the wheels with Snyder. It's not a move he had to make, but doing so effectively showed the tinniest bit of deference to Snyder. Second and most importantly, I think Gibbs remembered his first go around with Beathard and felt Cerrato would be a maleable presence in the F.O. who wouldn't much challenge his desires for which players to bring in.

I get it Yusuf.

Past history doesn't factor in on the intelligence of a hire at the time you make it. Only future performance does. Sometimes I wonder if you even realize you're making these statements, or if, in desperation realizing how silly they seem, you've been able to block it out.

The owner of a football team makes a hire based on the history of that person and his results where they are. Snyder hired a proven, winning football guy and you categorize that as a dubious move. Kraft hires a career loser and that's a sign of great intelligence.

How do you even propose such a statement?

Owners need to be fortune tellers?

[The Sisko]

Yadda yadda yadda. I get your point. However in many ways F.O. hires are like draft picks. You can never judge how good the decision was until a few years afterwards.

Remember, I said that at the time I was in favor of the Marty hire. It looked like the right thing to do. However, lots of things LOOK good until you open the package and examine them more closely. Picking out the good ones from the ones that just look good is a F.O.'s stock in trade. At the end of the day the true judge of how smart a move, or a manager is, is in what results he/she gets. Therefore, it isn't so silly a thing as you say to judge past performance.

[denverdan]

Originally posted by fansince62

cmon ART Belichek had rotten ownership in Cleveland....whooops....yea...it's all BB's fault those lean years!!!!

I’m glad this was brought back to ownership because it’s very telling. You have a team like the 49ers with Erickson the coach, the team is gutted and the owner does nothing to improve the team, is Erickson’s record a reflection of the coach or the owner? Then there is the Vikings with a big sales tag hanging off of them, what kind of effect does that have on a team? It had a effect on the Redskins, limbo is never a good thing.

So was Art Modell a Good owner or a Bad owner?

Ask any Browns fan. He never once improved Cleveland Stadium, which seated 80,000 and served two professional sports teams. Despite always selling the stadium out with loyal fans he lost money. He lost money in other ventures that he finances with football money then he blamed the losses on the stadium. He negotiated a deal with Baltimore after cutting off talks with Cleveland for no apparent reason, he then announced, at the beginning of the season, that the team would be moving.

This was a team that had just gone to the playoffs, fans stopped coming to games, players stopped playing.

Modell then moved to Baltimore and won a superbowl, but at the same time mismanaged that teams finances to such a point as to be forced sell it. Under his ownership there is a gap of 30 odd years between championships and you can credit that last championship to Ozzie Newsome.

Modell was the posterboy for meddling owner. He brought in Andre Rison against Belichick wishes, signed him to a frontloaded contract which added to his own financial problems. Rison lasted one season had 3 TDs but left with a big smile on his face. Going back to the late 60s the team didn’t do much, then he hired Schottenheimer. Cleveland had five straight playoff seasons under Schottenheimer, how does Modell respond, He meddles and when Schottenheimer won’t accept it, Modell forces him to resign. Then with a yes man in place, Modell gets him to cut Ernest Byner because of one fumble. The team stinks again. Enter Belichick. There is another ouster at the GM position, more limbo, and finally the moving of the entire franchise.

Good Owner or Rotten owner?

[The Sisko]

Modell is the posterboy for rotten ownership. Due to his own financial mismanagement he was forced to relocate to B-More. What did he then do? He did more of the same and was ultimately forced to sell the team because of it.

Definite loser...Superbowl notwithstanding.

[Art]

Originally posted by Yusuf06

Yadda yadda yadda. I get your point. However in many ways F.O. hires are like draft picks. You can never judge how good the decision was until a few years afterwards.

Remember, I said that at the time I was in favor of the Marty hire. It looked like the right thing to do. However, lots of things LOOK good until you open the package and examine them more closely. Picking out the good ones from the ones that just look good is a F.O.'s stock in trade. At the end of the day the true judge of how smart a move, or a manager is, is in what results he/she gets. Therefore, it isn't so silly a thing as you say to judge past performance.

So, you're saying when a hire is made you have no idea if it's good or bad. Only after years do you know? This is incredible, but you keep saying it. I just want to make sure you mean it.

The ONLY way to judge the merit of a hire is with hindsight. This is your position?

[Art]

Originally posted by denverdan

I’m glad this was brought back to ownership because it’s very telling. You have a team like the 49ers with Erickson the coach, the team is gutted and the owner does nothing to improve the team, is Erickson’s record a reflection of the coach or the owner? Then there is the Vikings with a big sales tag hanging off of them, what kind of effect does that have on a team? It had a effect on the Redskins, limbo is never a good thing.

So was Art Modell a Good owner or a Bad owner?

Ask any Browns fan. He never once improved Cleveland Stadium, which seated 80,000 and served two professional sports teams. Despite always selling the stadium out with loyal fans he lost money. He lost money in other ventures that he finances with football money then he blamed the losses on the stadium. He negotiated a deal with Baltimore after cutting off talks with Cleveland for no apparent reason, he then announced, at the beginning of the season, that the team would be moving.

This was a team that had just gone to the playoffs, fans stopped coming to games, players stopped playing.

Modell then moved to Baltimore and won a superbowl, but at the same time mismanaged that teams finances to such a point as to be forced sell it. Under his ownership there is a gap of 30 odd years between championships and you can credit that last championship to Ozzie Newsome.

Modell was the posterboy for meddling owner. He brought in Andre Rison against Belichick wishes, signed him to a frontloaded contract which added to his own financial problems. Rison lasted one season had 3 TDs but left with a big smile on his face. Going back to the late 60s the team didn’t do much, then he hired Schottenheimer. Cleveland had five straight playoff seasons under Schottenheimer, how does Modell respond, He meddles and when Schottenheimer won’t accept it, Modell forces him to resign. Then with a yes man in place, Modell gets him to cut Ernest Byner because of one fumble. The team stinks again. Enter Belichick. There is another ouster at the GM position, more limbo, and finally the moving of the entire franchise.

Good Owner or Rotten owner?

Ok. So I understand.

Modell was clearly a good owner when the Browns went to five straight playoff appearances. Then, he turned bad when Belichick got in. Then he got good again to win a Super Bowl. I get it. You guys. I finally get it. All failure is the owners fault.

I'm not a big fan of Modell, by any stretch of the imagination. I just find it perplexing you guys are making the argument that Belichick had no chance to win for such bad ownership when the Browns just made the playoffs five consecutive years under a previous coach and the same ownership.

And, interestingly, the guy who could make the playoffs is the guy who was a BAD hire for the Redskins, but the guy who couldn't make the playoffs in Cleveland was a fantastic and intelligent hire in New England. It's almost pathological.

[fansince62]

and if Gibbs were to hang it up tomorrow...and Snyder's only choice was to hire BB or MS...why MS is the clear favorite!!!!! BB would fail miserably cuz he doesn't have a diamond in the rough QB to work with! It would be pathological to prefer a 2, soon to be 3, time SB winner over the ethically challenged but scintillating successful Marty Schott-for-brains!!!!

[Art]

Originally posted by fansince62

and if Gibbs were to hang it up tomorrow...and Snyder's only choice was to hire BB or MS...why MS is the clear favorite!!!!! BB would fail miserably cuz he doesn't have a diamond in the rough QB to work with! It would be pathological to prefer a 2, soon to be 3, time SB winner over the ethically challenged but scintillating successful Marty Schott-for-brains!!!!

According to you and Yusuf, Al, if Gibbs were to hang it up tomorrow, it would be another sign of Snyder's inept ability to hire because, as we know, past performance is meaningless when judging whether a hire is good or bad. Only the unseen future matters.

As for if Gibbs were to leave now and Snyder got to choose between BB and Marty, the obvious choice would NOW be BB. But, the downside to BB would be the question of could he accomplish anything without Brady and if he didn't, it would be something you and Yusuf would trumpet as an obviously bad call for Snyder to have hired a coach with a negative like that.

I'm on to you guys.

I'm getting how you guys think.

[denverdan]

Originally posted by Art

Ok. So I understand.

Modell was clearly a good owner when the Browns went to five straight playoff appearances. Then, he turned bad when Belichick got in. Then he got good again to win a Super Bowl. I get it. You guys. I finally get it. All failure is the owners fault.

I'm not a big fan of Modell, by any stretch of the imagination. I just find it perplexing you guys are making the argument that Belichick had no chance to win for such bad ownership when the Browns just made the playoffs five consecutive years under a previous coach and the same ownership.

And, interestingly, the guy who could make the playoffs is the guy who was a BAD hire for the Redskins, but the guy who couldn't make the playoffs in Cleveland was a fantastic and intelligent hire in New England. It's almost pathological.

We were both wrong here, Marty took the brown to the playoffs 4 years in a row and 1 of those 4, he went with a record of 8-8 thus by default.

Its clear how Marty works, leave him alone, let him do his job, let him surround himself with the people he wants. When this stops happening, he walks. At which point Modell also got rid of the best player on the team. It turned bad before Belichick got there. Modell hired Carson then fired him mid season, changed directions with the hiring of Belichick handpicked by Ernie Accorsi who was forced to resign the following season. Sounds like nothing but turmoil to me.

I will give Schottenheimer and Accorsi credit for 4 playoffs in a row, not Modell. Change the coach, change the GM, Modell becomes more hands on, the browns lose.

Nevertheless, Belichick did take Cleveland to the playoffs.

I never said anything bad about Schottenheimer. I'm not trying to say Belichick was a good coach in Cleveland, his record says he wasn't, only that he wasn't an awful coach. Besides can we give him any credit for taking that experience and becoming better for it. He continued to be successful as a DC, and after Parcells left the Jets he was highly thought of and respected. He is now under and owner that will give him what he needs and the players respect him, which goes a hell of a long way in todays NFL. He continues to win despite having a injury ridden season. There is no doubt that Brady helps, but why would you refuse to give Belichick any credit whatsoever when it so clear that he has covered every base?