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

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Art

Were we talking about Belichick as a head coach or a defensive coordinator? Gregg Williams can probably match Belichick as a defensive coordinator. That what we've now done, Flow?

And, I find it disturbing that in this conversation you seem to believe the discussion of Tom Brady is to note he's happened to be on the roster. I thought we were talking about what happened after he started playing. Didn't I mention that once or a dozen times?

The discussion concerned BB's contribution to the Pats success in so far as he's master minded their defense. To the extent you look to rob him of credit there, or imply that his talent in this arena is overstated, you should be prepared deal with the full arsenal of his defensive coaching accomplishements. Because past defensive success is relevant when determining how much credit he deserves for present defensive success.

As for Brady, we're well aware of what's happened since he took the field. In fact, I appear to be more aware than you since I listed 12 important defensive happenings during that span. Thing is, collectively, these happenings rise above the level a QB merely giving his D a strong chance to succeed. Read that list over. Carefully. Then explain how all of those highly exceptional defensive accomplishments are Brady's doing.

Until that's done, none of your half-hearted position is at all convincing.

[denverdan]

Brady didn't just suddenly show up, he had been on the roster the entire 2000 season, on the scout team going against the first team defense. (Belichick's first season began against 5 playoffbound teams)

Then what happened:

2001

L 10-6 Jets (Bledsoe goes down, enter Brady)

W 6-10 Colts

L 11-5 Dolphins

W 5-11 Chargers

W 6-10 Colts

L 8-8 Broncos

W 7-9 Falcons

W 3-13 Bills

L 14-2 Rams

W 7-9 Saints

W 10-6 Jets ( 1st win vs a team which ended the season with a winning record)

W 7-9 Browns

W 3-13 Bills

W 11-5 Dolphins (another impressive win)

W 1-15 Panthers

2001 Brady/Belichick

9 - 0 vs teams that ended with losing records

2 - 2 vs teams that ended with winning records

0 - 1 vs teams that ended with a .500 record

It wasn’t a very difficult reg season. I think Bledsoe if healthy could have achieved a similar record.

During this season Brady/Belichick beat teams they had lost to earlier in the season. Jets, Dolphins, Rams. Credit Belichick. We all know what happened in the Raider game. Steeler game return of Bledsoe and then the Superbowl. All three games, the Defense never gives up more than 17 points.

[Art]

Originally posted by larrycole

Let me start by saying I think the logic used to rank Snyder as a great owner is badly flawed. But, hypothetically speaking, where would you rank Jerry Jones on this scale?

Jones is the worst owner in the league because he holds the title of general manager. He doesn't defer to his football people. He's BECOME his football people.

[Art]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

The discussion concerned BB's contribution to the Pats success in so far as he's master minded their defense. To the extent you look to rob him of credit there, or imply that his talent in this arena is overstated, you should be prepared deal with the full arsenal of his defensive coaching accomplishements. Because past defensive success is relevant when determining how much credit he deserves for present defensive success.

As for Brady, we're well aware of what's happened since he took the field. In fact, I appear to be more aware than you since I listed 12 important defensive happenings during that span. Thing is, collectively, these happenings rise above the level a QB merely giving his D a strong chance to succeed. Read that list over. Carefully. Then explain how all of those highly exceptional defensive accomplishments are Brady's doing.

Until that's done, none of your half-hearted position is at all convincing.

Flow,

It is impossible to convince someone who refuses to recognize the consequence of seminal moments. Belichick had five years in Cleveland where he was a loser in four of the five. He then had a year plus 5 games where he was a loser in New England.

Suddenly, it happened.

The origin of all Belichick's success entered the game. Everything in your list is irrelevant because all of them happened with Brady. None of them happened without Brady. And, we have a history without Brady that matters.

Is this to say Belichick might not be an all-time great when he's without Brady and shows it? No. It just means he hasn't shown anything without Brady. And, he's shown a whole lot without Brady that allows one to wonder what he'd show without Brady.

The fact that Belichick didn't have a strong defense at all until Brady entered, also helps negate your point. I'm talking about Belichick as a head coach. As soon as I get you to acknowledge that everything you listed happened with Brady, I'll ask you if you understand the point that everything on the list happened with Brady.

You seem not to get that.

[Grunherz54]

I see Dan Snyder as an owner who is willing not only to invest his all in the team but also to learn from his mistakes. The hiring of Joe Gibbs was the pivotal moment that pointed the franchise in the right direction.

I fully expect to see the Redskins return to the Super Bowl within the next several years.

[Ax]

Originally posted by zoony

I would say yes... they ARE both turds. What did Johnson do at Miami? (He was 1-15 his first year in Dallas with no QB, also)What has Holmgren done in Seattle? Squeeking into the playoffs in the weakest division in the NFL after 5 seasons of ineptitude is nothing to be proud of. Same goes for Johnson in Miami... when he WAS there, he was lucky enough to be playing in what was at that time the AFC LEAST.

Add to that the fact that Barry Switzer got a ring with the same players Johnson did. Does that mean he's as good of a coach as Johnson?

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Art

The fact that Belichick didn't have a strong defense at all until Brady entered, also helps negate your point. I'm talking about Belichick as a head coach. As soon as I get you to acknowledge that everything you listed happened with Brady, I'll ask you if you understand the point that everything on the list happened with Brady.

Belichick built a successful career as a defensive wizard prior to assuming the additional responsibility of being HC in Cleveland. The Giants. The Pats. The Jets. You've forgotten all that though. He earned that reputation -- and he earned it long before Brady. That was his strength. That is his strength. That will always be his strength.

The 12 item list coincided with Brady's emergence. This has been openly acknowledged and stated in my quote above. See, unlike you, I've nothing to hide in this discussion. There are no issues to dodge, such as the list.

Your mistake is that you're incapable of drawing the distinction between identifying a factor that "contributed" to the Pats D's success with a factor that was the "primary cause" of it. You mistakenly grasp at the latter.

That's why you're completely at a loss to explain why Brady, not Belichick, was the key reason for each of the 12 items I listed. That's why you stubbornly decline to address each of those accomplishments. There are too many for Brady to take credit for. They are too exceptional to be attributed to a player who was on the sideline when they occurred. All you can do is point blankly to a calendar, insisting that since these defensive factors occured with Brady watching as a starter, his presence on the team was the cause.

You struggle so mightily here due to taking an indefensible position. It stemmed from a desire to downplay BB's success earlier in this thread, relative to HC's hired by Snyder. I recognize that. But when you overstate a point so dramatically in making your case, occasionally someone like me be here to call you on it.

[The Sisko]

...not even you can keep a straight face while attributing those results directly to the QB.

You seriously underestimate the man Flow.

A few more questions Art. Since you seem to believe that a franchise QB essentially assures dominance, to what do you attribute the Patsies' convincing win over the Dolts? Using your reasoning, the two franchise QBs should essentially cancel each other out as an advantage, and the game therefore should have been a high scoring affair decided by whichever team had the ball last. Instead, the Patsies managed to totally shut down arguably the best offense in the league.

I'm sorry Art, but if it were as simple as getting a true franchise QB, Dan Marino, Archie Manning, Warren Moon and a bunch of other guys would have SB rings.

Could it not be that perhaps the equation works the other way around? That is, maybe Brady's success is due to Bellichick's defense giving Brady and the offense the ball back more often. Couldn't Bellichick's early defensive struggles have had to do with the time needed to get enough of a core group of players to learn and buy into his defensive scheme? Again, Rome wasn't built in a day and my belief is that (just as with Gibbs) it took Bellichick and Pioli a year to find out which guys were "core" players and to bring in necessary replacements.

Williams was able to build a dominant D here in one season, however I would suspect that this is the exception not the rule. Many other very good DCs, Marvin Lewis and Tony Dungy for example, have systems that take time and effort to fully implement. I don't see any reason to think it would be any different under Bellichick.

Oh, BTW if we accept your contention about Brady, we can pretty much forget about getting any more Lombardy trophies with Ramsey at the helm. I'm a big Ramsey fan, however I don't know that he'll ever be a Brady or Manning. Or, maybe you're right. Maybe it was Brunell and Ramsey's performance that made our defense so good this season:poke:

[zoony]

Originally posted by Yusuf06

A few more questions Art. Since you seem to believe that a franchise QB essentially assures dominance, to what do you attribute the Patsies' convincing win over the Dolts?

The Colts were there, though, weren't they? In the playoffs... winner of their division?

A team with one of the worst defense (if not the worst) defense in the entire NFL.

National Quarterbacks League. End of discussion.

Remember "It's the economy, stupid!"?

I'm saying "It's the QB, stupid!"

And it is. It is, it is, it is. NOBODY can argue that in today's NFL. Sorry, it just doesn't hold water.

[larrycole]

Art,

Having read many of your posts I always thought that no matter how wrong you were that at least you were consistent. Snyder is no more willing to spend than is Jones. Your hypocrisy undermines what little credibility you might have had.

[fansince62]

zoony...not to quibble with a position you have staked yourself to....but Art's real intention has been to set up the argument that Bellichek et al aren't in Joe G's league precisely cuz he was able to make runs without star QBs.

does a star QB help? you bet. But it's not a sufficient or necessary condition (to wit, I present Brad Johnson). The argument has been made, however, that defense generally trumps offense in the playoffs/SB. so what counts? star players or team play? I think we all know which line of thinking favors the Pats.

[Art]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

Belichick built a successful career as a defensive wizard prior to assuming the additional responsibility of being HC in Cleveland. The Giants. The Pats. The Jets. You've forgotten all that though. He earned that reputation -- and he earned it long before Brady. That was his strength. That is his strength. That will always be his strength.

Flow,

It is generally of benefit if you continue having the conversation we've actually begun, rather than swinging in and out of different conversations with yourself. When challenged to provide examples of Belichick's success as a head coach without Brady you resort to demonstrating his success as a defensive coordinator.

You do realize that some people are better as coordinators than head coaches, right? The conversation is whether as a head coach Belichick has demonstrated a capacity to succeed on his own, or not. No one doubts his success as a defensive coordinator. The only person discussing his time as a defensive coordinator is you. No one else is actually addressing it. So, please, help yourself by actually staying on topic for a small portion of the conversation at least.

The 12 item list coincided with Brady's emergence. This has been openly acknowledged and stated in my quote above. See, unlike you, I've nothing to hide in this discussion. There are no issues to dodge, such as the list.

Your mistake is that you're incapable of drawing the distinction between identifying a factor that "contributed" to the Pats D's success with a factor that was the "primary cause" of it. You mistakenly grasp at the latter.

I have no issue at all identifying the moment the Pats defense became better. That happened when Tom Brady became the QB. That's when the Pats started denying points to the opposition. Not before. The problem here is that as a Jets fan you are bought and paid for by the belief that Pennington is better than Brady. You know you can't credit Brady appropriately because if you do, it means you recognize he's not in Brady's class.

This is why you can't wrap your head around the question put to you. Every positive you cite during Belichick as a head coach happened with Brady as his starting QB. And your only response when asked to show what Belichick did as a head coach without Brady that showed he could be successful is to say he was a good defensive coordinator. Obviously you have a great deal to hide because you can't answer that simple question.

That's why you're completely at a loss to explain why Brady, not Belichick, was the key reason for each of the 12 items I listed. That's why you stubbornly decline to address each of those accomplishments. There are too many for Brady to take credit for. They are too exceptional to be attributed to a player who was on the sideline when they occurred. All you can do is point blankly to a calendar, insisting that since these defensive factors occured with Brady watching as a starter, his presence on the team was the cause.

You struggle so mightily here due to taking an indefensible position. It stemmed from a desire to downplay BB's success earlier in this thread, relative to HC's hired by Snyder. I recognize that. But when you overstate a point so dramatically in making your case, occasionally someone like me be here to call you on it.

Here's where, perhaps, the wool is withdrawn from your eyes, Flow. The reason Brady is responsible for the 12 items you listed is because none of the 12 happened without Brady. You understand, do you not, that if the items accomplished were a sign of excellent coaching, some of them would have been around in the more than six years prior to Brady taking over as the leader of the team.

The fact that you can only point to items that happened after Brady took over shows you are impressed with my position that Belichick was a failure as a head coach up until Brady became his starter. You do this without recognizing it, to be sure, but, by only knowing enough to show positives with Brady you reinforce those who say the only positives Belichick has accomplished have happened with Brady as his starter.

That you don't know how great players on one side of the ball impact the other side of the ball is a lack of knowledge that makes it impossible for you to recognize what is so clear. You are too dim to appreciate that a coach with five failing years in six probably didn't become a great coach when the only success he's achieved began the day one player became his starter.

These facts have NOTHING to do with the argument earlier in this thread about the embarrassing position that someone would take that Snyder was not smart for hiring a winning coach while Kraft was wise to hire a losing coach. That's a whole different position. I find it quite cute you can't figure this out for yourself.

[Art]

Originally posted by Yusuf06

You seriously underestimate the man Flow.

A few more questions Art. Since you seem to believe that a franchise QB essentially assures dominance, to what do you attribute the Patsies' convincing win over the Dolts? Using your reasoning, the two franchise QBs should essentially cancel each other out as an advantage, and the game therefore should have been a high scoring affair decided by whichever team had the ball last. Instead, the Patsies managed to totally shut down arguably the best offense in the league.

I'm sorry Art, but if it were as simple as getting a true franchise QB, Dan Marino, Archie Manning, Warren Moon and a bunch of other guys would have SB rings.

Yusuf,

As you've shown in this thread, you have a remarkable ability not to pay attention to the conversation. The conversation is how today's NFL is QB driven. How today's NFL the easiest way to achieve team success is to have an elite QB. We're not talking about the pre-cap era. We're talking about now. And, it's clear. A great QB in the cap era assures a competitive team over an extended period.

In the cap era, success without a great QB can be had. It's just fleeting. You need the QB to achieve winning results over a period of years now because the QB can make up for the limitations of a changing roster required by cap considerations.

This doesn't mean that the Super Bowl winner will be the team with the best QB. But, I MIGHT explain the Pats beating the Colts by saying the Pats have a better QB.

Could it not be that perhaps the equation works the other way around? That is, maybe Brady's success is due to Bellichick's defense giving Brady and the offense the ball back more often. Couldn't Bellichick's early defensive struggles have had to do with the time needed to get enough of a core group of players to learn and buy into his defensive scheme? Again, Rome wasn't built in a day and my belief is that (just as with Gibbs) it took Bellichick and Pioli a year to find out which guys were "core" players and to bring in necessary replacements.

And, again, before Brady, what was Belichick's success rate? It's been provided to you. Is it possible Belichick's defense created Brady's success? Sure. Which means you can show how Belichik's teams did well without Brady. Right? If you can't, your question is a shot in the dark. It's meaningless. You are comfortable being a person who is told how good Belichick is that when you see he absolutely sucked before Brady got in, you can't quite wrap your mind around the fact that maybe Belichick only became good because of Brady.

My guess is had Bledsoe not gotten hurt, Belichick would be the defensive coordinator for Joe Gibbs right now and Gregg Williams may have acquired Tom Brady and be winning Super Bowls right now. Until you have ONE SPEC of evidence that Belichick as a head coach can win without Brady, you don't get to weigh evenly the possiblity that he created Brady with Brady created Belichick.

You have to show you understand what Belichick and his teams as a head coach were up to the day Brady took over. Why can't you do that?

Williams was able to build a dominant D here in one season, however I would suspect that this is the exception not the rule. Many other very good DCs, Marvin Lewis and Tony Dungy for example, have systems that take time and effort to fully implement. I don't see any reason to think it would be any different under Bellichick.

Technically in one year Ray Rhodes took the Redskins from No. 30 in defense to No. 4. Willie Shaw took the Raiders from last to first I believe a few years back in one year, or something close. Marvin Lewis had the No. 5 defense in football his first year, though, most fans don't think it was actually very good and we're right about that .

The Colts were last in the league in points scored the year before Dungy took over. And they were 29th in total defense that year. The very next year, when Dungy took over, the Colts were seventh in total points allowed and eighth in overall defense.

So, while I'm sure it thrills you to provide examples that don't fit your example, and I'm positive you're encouraged because Flowtrain is helping you out, may I suggest to you that a group of underinformed people bonding together is not actually all that impressive when faced with the CONTINUAL factual flaws of the positions they are making.

The errors in your position are showing far more brightly than you seem to realize and the company you're keeping is not all that substantial right now because of that.

Oh, BTW if we accept your contention about Brady, we can pretty much forget about getting any more Lombardy trophies with Ramsey at the helm. I'm a big Ramsey fan, however I don't know that he'll ever be a Brady or Manning. Or, maybe you're right. Maybe it was Brunell and Ramsey's performance that made our defense so good this season:poke:

Well, if you'd bothered to read what I stated, you'd realize why a Super Bowl is very possible without elite QB play. It's just unlikely we'll achieve repeated success until we get that level of play.

At no point did I say a defense must have a good offense to be good. I said in New England that until Brady came in, the Pats were a bad defense. Only in the last TWO years have the Pats actually been a Top 10 defense. In 2001, when Brady first stepped in, the Pats were No. 24 in defense, but improved the moment Brady stepped in. Funny how that worked out. Huh?

[Art]

Originally posted by larrycole

Art,

Having read many of your posts I always thought that no matter how wrong you were that at least you were consistent. Snyder is no more willing to spend than is Jones. Your hypocrisy undermines what little credibility you might have had.

Well, it is up for debate whether Jones is as willing to spend than Snyder, but, even granting that, I can only be hypocritical if that is the lone criteria used. As I used several criteria, with a key one being deference to one's football hires, it would be somewhat illiterate to suggest only spending mattered with the foundation I mentioned.

And since that clearly absolves me of any hypocrisy, my credibility remains firmly in tact, while your ability to read has now been drawn sharply into question. Do you need a walkthrough of words you decided to ignore, or, could I get you to show you saw them and simply didn't realize it because they were so complex in their presentation?

Jerry Jones, your owner, is your General Manager. Officially. He can't be a good owner by any estimation that values hiring good football people and paying attention to what they want while providing it to them. Jerry Jones IS your football people. And for that, you guys suffer.

[Art]

Originally posted by fansince62

zoony...not to quibble with a position you have staked yourself to....but Art's real intention has been to set up the argument that Bellichek et al aren't in Joe G's league precisely cuz he was able to make runs without star QBs.

does a star QB help? you bet. But it's not a sufficient or necessary condition (to wit, I present Brad Johnson). The argument has been made, however, that defense generally trumps offense in the playoffs/SB. so what counts? star players or team play? I think we all know which line of thinking favors the Pats.

Al,

I appreciate your wish to assign motives here, but, the motive you assigned didn't exist. Certainly Gibbs is a better coach than Belichick to this point in their careers. I don't have to work hard to prove that.

I am just saddened to know hiring a coach like Gibbs is such a bad move until four or five years have passed and you and Yusuf get to apply hindsight to the conversation to decide if it was good or not.

[larrycole]

Art,

Most people have the good grace not to bring up my reading problems. I expected more from you.

However, your ability to disregard the obvious makes you the most entertaining person on this board.

As a Cowboy fan I love the direction this team has gone ever since Snyder bought them. It is my sincere & heartfelt wish for you and your Redskin brethren that you are defending him as your owner for a long, long time.

[Art]

Originally posted by larrycole

Art,

Most people have the good grace not to bring up my reading problems. I expected more from you.

However, your ability to disregard the obvious makes you the most entertaining person on this board.

As a Cowboy fan I love the direction this team has gone ever since Snyder bought them. It is my sincere & heartfelt wish for you and your Redskin brethren that you are defending him as your owner for a long, long time.

The obvious would be several statements you didn't register when offering your contrary thoughts. The obvious is knowing factual assessments REMAIN entirely uncountered on this particular topic, and lacking any way to counter them, you decide they didn't exist and find one area you hope your owner can match ours and claim victory.

If only it were that simple.

I'm quite pleased you love the direction the Redskins are going and hope we continue defending our owner for a long time. That'll make it all the more sweet soon enough.

[Flowtrain]

You do realize that some people are better as coordinators than head coaches, right? The conversation is whether as a head coach Belichick has demonstrated a capacity to succeed on his own, or not.

You've insisted that BB had no defensive success prior to Brady and you ask for an example to prove you wrong. Pity that you don't fancy the shining example delivered: BB's wizardry as a DC prior to Brady. What it clearly shows is that BB was a master of defensive scheming long before Brady showed up on the scene. You'd like to believe it's coincidental that the Giants, Pats, Jets were excellent defensively with BB coaching that unit, and then the current Pats followed that trend.

BB's defensive genius took a back seat as he struggled to master the additional responsibilities of a HC in Cleveland, and then worked with a unit of 30 brand new Pats in 2000. But once he developed into a complete coach of the team and got a capable QB to run down the offense, no one was surprised that the D strength of BB's team mirrored the Giants, Jets, and Pats of old - even down to the LB-driven approach. Well, no one except you.

The problem here is that as a Jets fan you are bought and paid for by the belief that Pennington is better than Brady. You know you can't credit Brady appropriately because if you do, it means you recognize he's not in Brady's class. This is why you can't wrap your head around the question put to you.

Here's the difference between between me and you. I'm a devoted fan of my team; however, that doesn't prevent me from clearing identifying facts, analyzing them, and reaching sensible conclusions. Pennington is a fine QB and one who I hope will continue to improve as the keystone of the Jets team. But he is not in Brady's class and it's likely that he never will be. Understand?

I've already explained that, due to BB rejecting the HC vacancy given to him by Parcells and stealing Hess's $1M, any bias of mine would be firmly against BB. Did you miss that? Instead, you've attempted to create an alternative motivation for my position. But you failed terribly. Again. My analysis is based on intimate knowledge of the history here, watching BB as DC for a team for which I hold season tickets, and then watching both he and his QB play key divisional games twice a year. How about yours?

The reason Brady is responsible for the 12 items you listed is because none of the 12 happened without Brady. That you don't know how great players on one side of the ball impact the other side of the ball is a lack of knowledge that makes it impossible for you to recognize what is so clear.

The concept that offense improves defense and vice versa is a given. We're all well aware of this. What you're unaware of is that, while good QB play compliments strong D play, it does not make it necessarily the case.

The endless line of QBs and teams' Ds that prove this are endless, recently and historically; and if you're looking for the ultimately conversation on this topic Dan Marino can give you a hand. What those 12 items I listed collectively do is to pull that argument from out beneath your feet. Because those 12 items aren't the sign of a D that is merely complimented and benefited by a great QB -- rather they're factors that are so remarkable and exceptional that they fall far beyond that scope.

What's also important is that Brady's offense is efficient, clutch and mistake free. But prior to this year, it hasn't been explosive, high-scoring, ball-controlling, or one that's forced teams to play desperate catch up. If given the choice, which type of O would you think is more likely to confer a substantial benefit up its D?

The fact that those 12 items are the type of thing BB had ALSO done historically when wearing the DC hat is just icing on the cake as far as attribution of credit is concerned. So, each time you attempt to ignore them or inappropriately explain them away, more evidence of your mistake will be piled in your direction.

[larrycole]

Art,

I had really planned to just let this go but your statement begs my response. The only area my owner can match yours and hope to claim victory..is.....uh...(I really wish you hadn't made me bring this up)......victories!!!!! I know, you don't judge an owner on victories. Your the only one.

Now, I know this is not a Jerry Jones vs Danny Snyder thread. No one (save yourself) would even begin to compare them. One has led a team to multiple championships. The other has led his team to multiple disappointments.

Keep up the good work Art. I love reading your stuff.

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by larrycole

Art,

I had really planned to just let this go but your statement begs my response. The only area my owner can match yours and hope to claim victory..is.....uh...(I really wish you hadn't made me bring this up)......victories!!!!! I know, you don't judge an owner on victories. Your the only one.

Now, I know this is not a Jerry Jones vs Danny Snyder thread. No one (save yourself) would even begin to compare them. One has led a team to multiple championships. The other has led his team to multiple disappointments.

Keep up the good work Art. I love reading your stuff.

after Jimmy Johnson left and Switzer (jj) SB..... exactly what was Jerry's record?

exactly... victories are because of the coaching & players,

since '99 only 1 winning seasons

2004 NFL Dallas Cowboys 6-10-0

2003 NFL Dallas Cowboys 10-6-0

2002 NFL Dallas Cowboys 5-11-0

2001 NFL Dallas Cowboys 5-11-0

2000 NFL Dallas Cowboys 5-11-0

1999 NFL Dallas Cowboys 8-8-0

39-57

Snyder's Skins

since '99 only 1 winning seasons but

2004 NFL Washington Redskins 6-10-0

2003 NFL Washington Redskins 5-11-0

2002 NFL Washington Redskins 7-9-0

2001 NFL Washington Redskins 8-8-0

2000 NFL Washington Redskins 8-8-0

1999 NFL Washington Redskins 10-6-0

44-52

[fansince62]

so what? that just demonstrates that both teams *ucked!!!!

[Redskins4ever]

I like Dan Snyder. I used to think he was the reason the Redskins were losing. But all he was trying to do was win and you can't fault him for that.

Since the firing of Marty, he's become a better and better owner.

[fansince62]

better and better {and, btw, what are the objective criteria for that?.........:-)....} doesn't = victories.

we all want the Skins to win. so far, the "new" ownership hasn't mastered the art of shaping a strategy that melds coaching, personnel management, cap mangement into a philosophy and implementation that has produced consistent victory (let alone winning seasons)....in short....while the OJT continues...the Skins are not a first class organization that has all the parts working toward the one end that counts. We all hope we are on the way (Joe is back - both as coach and President). Rationalizing past failures by passing the buck onto subordinants is rather unseemly - IMO. Snyder is the guy who pulls all the strings. He is the lone and only constant. If he gets bad advice, acts out of naivite, makes mistakes due to over exuberance - well.....those factors should be taken into consideration. but, at the end of the day, the BEST actually succeed in the business they own - no kidding!!!! unless, of course, we accept ownership success in the NFL to ONLY cover raking in $$$$! That is a different matter and one with different connotations.

Once the organization re-ascends to the top, establishes an organizatoinal structure and method that sustains a quality product - then the team, and Snyder, will receive due credit. until then, in my book, coulda, woulda, shoulda, his/her fault counts for squat.

[MRMADD]

How do you measure success for an owner in the NFL?

Here’s how Snyder stacks up against his fellow owners: he’s among the worst in fielding a winning team. Sally Struthers (sorry, Jenkins) quotes Bill Parcells as saying, “You are your record.” Dan Snyder’s record is 44-52. If this was junior high school (it’s not, it only feels like it), that would be a failing grade.

Dan Snyder, my friends, is a loser.

Let’s look at the company he keeps: since Snyder’s spectacular 1999 debut in the league, nine teams have performed worse than Snyder’s Skins: the Chargers, Panthers, Browns, Bengals, Cowboys, Lions, Bears, Falcons, and Cardinals. The Panthers have been to the Superbowl during that time, and the Cowboys have owned the Skins, so we can’t reasonably argue that they’re bigger losers than the Skins. The Chargers and Falcons have turned things around in that time and are now playoff teams. I’ve left Houston out of this because they haven’t been in the league long enough to lose that many games.

So Snyder's Skins keep lowly company with the Bengals, Cardinals, Lions, Bears, and Browns. Anyone want to argue that those teams aren’t the dregs of the league? Again, if this was junior high, Dan Snyder and those clowns would be riding the short bus to school. And if you take out his first season, the 10-6 1999 playoff team before he'd had time to meddle with the roster and coaching staff, his record is downright dismal -- 34-46!

However… Dan Snyder is the best in wringing cash from his long-suffering fans. He took a team that was generating about $40m in cash flow and turned it into $200m without having to actually win on the field. That’s why it’s so funny to see fans bad-mouthing Coles this year, or Bailey last year, or Davis the year before. Yeah, you hate them now, but you bought their jerseys then. Snyder wins, you lose. Don't blame Snyder for the results on the field -- he's more than willing to throw cash around for players and coaches, especially if it means you'll buy more jerseys. He's done his part.

Dan Snyder, my friends, is a winner.

[vnmenon1]

So, fiscally, yes he is a great owner.

Yet football-wise, he isnt a great owner... yet.