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

[jbooma]

You've no idea.

please tell, it is boring here at work

[TK]

If you're that bored, do a search.

[Art]

well I don't want to see anything get nasty ( :halo: ... ), but I am curious as to the reasons for his hostility

His hostility is based on the fact he is an owner of a small, inconsequential board that couldn't even field a team to cover mini-camp when every other site could, then, when fans get access THEY asked for and were rejected from receiving for Training Camp, they pretend it's a bad thing.

He's mad because he bet on a nag while we ride the Derby winner .

[Art]

For what it's worth, at hR.com, you can't just search for "Extremeskins" because "it's too common." Something's a little fishy about that...

HR.com is known to delete all references to ES because of their inferiority complex. We've tried working with them as they asked, but, unfortunately, they are too timid to join the brotherhood of fans.

[chef8181]

He's got my vote for 1 thing the cheerleaders!!! They were pigs when the Cookes ran the team but now they all look like models. Danny boy understands marketing very well.

[Die Hard]

He's got my vote for 1 thing the cheerleaders!!! They were pigs when the Cookes ran the team but now they all look like models. Danny boy understands marketing very well.

You're cruel :laugh:

Myself, I'd get rid of the cheerleaders altogether. And TV timeouts... so there wouldn't be any time for cheering.

I'd rather be watching some football highlights and scores around the league, etc, on the jumbotron.

[RedskinsDave]

His hostility is based on the fact he is an owner of a small, inconsequential board that couldn't even field a team to cover mini-camp when every other site could, then, when fans get access THEY asked for and were rejected from receiving for Training Camp, they pretend it's a bad thing.

He's mad because he bet on a nag while we ride the Derby winner .

I don't own any website Art but nice try. Knock yourself out Diehard. My comments here regarding Snyder and the cap have all been based on facts. Of course Art here thinks Snyder is the cat's meow. That's a real shocker too. I will stick with the FACT that we are only slightly under the cap and the FACT that we let good vets go because we could not afford to keep them since it is a FACT that we have overpaid guys who are not performing or are underperforming. Of course I just can't see that the team is really on the cusp of a Super Bowl title thanks to the great decisions made by one Daniel Snyder.

I could care less about the size of each site there Art. You can keep talking about it but no matter how big your site is, it won't make your little Art grow. Or did you sell that too?

[RedskinsDave]

Oh and anyone can go back in the thread and see who made condescending remarks first. I had no problem debating but Art tried to play the "I can't argue the merits so I will declare your argument absurb, you unknowing and play the internet bully". Well I was sticking to the merits of the argument and since the proof is in the pudding, I know I am correct. You guys can all pile on if you like, I could care less. It would be expected that you do what you accuse others of doing.

Oh and the continual claim the hR sent no one to camp is just odd since Joe went and reported back. Must be another tiny little site you're thinking of.

[Art]

I don't own any website Art but nice try. Knock yourself out Diehard. My comments here regarding Snyder and the cap have all been based on facts. Of course Art here thinks Snyder is the cat's meow. That's a real shocker too. I will stick with the FACT that we are only slightly under the cap and the FACT that we let good vets go because we could not afford to keep them since it is a FACT that we have overpaid guys who are not performing or are underperforming. Of course I just can't see that the team is really on the cusp of a Super Bowl title thanks to the great decisions made by one Daniel Snyder.

I could care less about the size of each site there Art. You can keep talking about it but no matter how big your site is, it won't make your little Art grow. Or did you sell that too?

Dave, such petty, immature slights as you end with are not likely to be acceptable here, or anywhere else, and very often tend to reflect in a more negative fashion on the person speaking than the person intended for the insult.

It is perfectly understandable having your information corrected that it is something of a shock to your system given the clear shock to your system that your board doesn't actually measure up, which is why, likely, your previous false statements were left unchecked as the 10 people around you couldn't figure out what was wrong with them.

Here, unfortunately for you, we have a higher standard and level of knowledge through increased participation. You will struggle with this, here, but, in the process of educating yourself and learning, we expect you will improve, as difficult as such a thing may be to envision.

[Die Hard]

Hey Art, what do you say we get our programmers to make a REALLY ugly yellow style with big random pictures everywhere.... and we'll include it in our selection of "style" templates for users.

Then maybe it'll feel like home

[Art]

Oh and anyone can go back in the thread and see who made condescending remarks first. I had no problem debating but Art tried to play the "I can't argue the merits so I will declare your argument absurb, you unknowing and play the internet bully". Well I was sticking to the merits of the argument and since the proof is in the pudding, I know I am correct. You guys can all pile on if you like, I could care less. It would be expected that you do what you accuse others of doing.

Dave, it is not at all an insult to correct false statments as you've had here. When calling the notion that we lost Smoot because of a cap crunch absurd is a problem for you, then a problem for you must not become a problem for others. It is factually incorrect to say what you said, and it is true such statements were absurd.

All the facts oppose your position. We had money to make him an offer. We had money to swallow a large hit in Coles. We had money to spend more in the draft. We lost Smoot, likely, for many of the reasons we said. A major contract offer was rejected. Such things happen. It is not confirmation of anything else.

[RedskinsDave]

Dave, such petty, immature slights as you end with are not likely to be acceptable here, or anywhere else, and very often tend to reflect in a more negative fashion on the person speaking than the person intended for the insult.

It is perfectly understandable having your information corrected that it is something of a shock to your system given the clear shock to your system that your board doesn't actually measure up, which is why, likely, your previous false statements were left unchecked as the 10 people around you couldn't figure out what was wrong with them.

Here, unfortunately for you, we have a higher standard and level of knowledge through increased participation. You will struggle with this, here, but, in the process of educating yourself and learning, we expect you will improve, as difficult as such a thing may be to envision.

That's pretty funny that you are the one to lay in to the petty crap and you try to act like I started it.

I still wait for you to correct what I stated because I don't see any stud WR, replacement CB or replacement LB. Danny must be so proud of his new pet.

[Die Hard]

Dave, it is not at all an insult to correct false statments as you've had here. When calling the notion that we lost Smoot because of a cap crunch absurd is a problem for you, then a problem for you must not become a problem for others. It is factually incorrect to say what you said, and it is true such statements were absurd.

All the facts oppose your position. We had money to make him an offer. We had money to swallow a large hit in Coles. We had money to spend more in the draft. We lost Smoot, likely, for many of the reasons we said. A major contract offer was rejected. Such things happen. It is not confirmation of anything else.

Cap mismanagement is why we couldn't afford to sign 2 first round picks this year. Or swallow Coles $9 M cap hit. Or renegotiate Santana Moss' contract from $300K to a $10+ M signing bonus.

[chow184]

when Snyder first took over he got in the way of to many things.Right now he is great

[Art]

That's pretty funny that you are the one to lay in to the petty crap and you try to act like I started it.

I still wait for you to correct what I stated because I don't see any stud WR, replacement CB or replacement LB. Danny must be so proud of his new pet.

Dave,

It is not one bit petty to call someone's position absurd when facts prove just that. It is every bit petty to attempt to make a slight against a member's private parts. It is silly, given you don't know me, have never met me and can't hope to really expect much weight to be given to such goofy statements here.

However, positions against factually incorrect positions, like yours, generally are well taken and arguments lacking fact are often seen as such. You must understand the difference.

[goldenster95]

Cap mismanagement is why we couldn't afford to sign 2 first round picks this year. Or swallow Coles $9 M cap hit. Or renegotiate Santana Moss' contract from $300K to a $10+ M signing bonus.

You'd think that some dyed-in-the-wool 'Skins fan would be able to spot the cap armaggedon crap, but I guess that wayward view isn't limited to folks like Westbrook36.

[TK]

Oh and the continual claim the hR sent no one to camp is just odd since Joe went and reported back. Must be another tiny little site you're thinking of.

He's referring to Mini Camp. Training Camp was open to the public. Mini Camp was not. Smaller sites such as hogs.net & warpath asked for access to mini camp & got it. Out of CPND, ES, Hogs.net, Warpath, & hR, hR was the only site there not represented.

Hey Art, what do you say we get our programmers to make a REALLY ugly yellow style with big random pictures everywhere.... and we'll include it in our selection of "style" templates for users.

Then maybe it'll feel like home

We'd need to add about 35,000 mods/owners first.

[iheartskins]

I don't own any website Art but nice try. Knock yourself out Diehard. My comments here regarding Snyder and the cap have all been based on facts. Of course Art here thinks Snyder is the cat's meow. That's a real shocker too. I will stick with the FACT that we are only slightly under the cap and the FACT that we let good vets go because we could not afford to keep them since it is a FACT that we have overpaid guys who are not performing or are underperforming. Of course I just can't see that the team is really on the cusp of a Super Bowl title thanks to the great decisions made by one Daniel Snyder.

I could care less about the size of each site there Art. You can keep talking about it but no matter how big your site is, it won't make your little Art grow. Or did you sell that too?

Generally in an argument if you want to assert a general statement as, as you say "fact", it tends to help when you actually include the underlying facts and statistical analysis such that your blanket assertion (or "fact" statement) is actually backed up by some real factual analysis instead of simply what you believe is true.

For example, you say: "it is a FACT that we have overpaid guys who are not performing or are underperforming." Care to provide some examples, why they are overpaid and how they are underperforming? Without the examples, your statement is merely opinion and not fact.

[zoony]

We'd need to add about 35,000 mods/owners first.

:laugh:

ain't that the truth... man everyone on that site is a mod/owner.

And bitter. Wow.

The thread about the ES merger, everyone over there claiming that it was a corporate takeover and blah blah blah And how THEIR'S is the site for original content (even though I cannot post a thread )

Original content? If their idea of being original is to act like a bunch of napoleons with pe##s envy, then yes, I'd say they are VERY original. Congratulations on that.

That kind of pettiness I expect from pukes fans... or iggles fans. Their behavior reflects poorly on them. Seriously, that kind of jealousy, pettiness, and hostility towards ES was so out there that I found myself laughing towards the end.

As for the ability that users have to 'search' over there to see for themselves, I won't even go there. Ironic that they brought up Big Brother when talking about the ES merger. Time stamps and search functions, eerily, don't add up at HR. seems Big Brother is alive and well... at HR.

[flashback]

FB,

I was the most skeptical person on the board when Cerrato returned after Marty was terminated. But, one can not and should not deny good work where it is apparent, and Cerrato has done a splendid job of idenifying players for various schemes and coaching staffs that have improved his standing in the eyes of anyone paying attention.

The personnel department has been stable and consistently capable of organizing and grading players specifically for specific systems we're running. Those systems may not always work, but it's rarely due to the personnel department not helping zero in on the right players for the scheme.

The statement your coach makes is not really effective at capturing what a team is. You were 6-10 for example, yet you were a dramatically weaker 6-10 than we were. Same record, but very different feel about getting there. Where you were routinely destroyed in your games, or where you won a couple with dramatic, somewhat rare comebacks, we generally won being ahead, and lost close in ways you often can improve on or not expect to continue to occur.

We were rarely beaten to death by the competition as you were, so, we see that while we are 6-10 we weren't actually the same.

I'm not sure how to respond here. I can't tell if you're missing Parcell's point, or just disagreeing with him. I don't think Parcells would argue that our teams were very different. The Redskins had the #3 D in the league, and the Cowboys gave up over 400 points. Meanwhile your offense was #29 or 30 in the league. I guess that suggests a good defense and a bad offense makes for much closer games than an average offense and a bad defense. I don't have to remind how these teams fared head-to-head, right?

But Parcells point is that if you only win 6 games, its because you were only good enough to win 6 games. Imagining that you're a 9-7 or a 3-13 team who just lucked into a 6-10 record is silly and unproductive. If you want to disagree with Bill Parcells, that's your right, but if you give me a choice between listening to a 2-time Super Bowl champion coach who's taken 4 different teams to the play-offs and a CPA from Minnesota, well, that's an easy choice for me.

Your timeline as to Snyder's decisions is flawed as well. He did fire Norv, but, Marty fired Robiskie. Marty also fired Cerrato which was not something contractually allowed, but, Snyder allowed it in support of his coach. Hiring Spurrier was an unquestionably good move that didn't work out. Lewis took a head coaching job, something Snyder's not likely to take much heat for. Spurrier quit, he was not fired, and was even told he wouldn't be fired.

The end results on the field, by in large, are out of the owner's control if he provides the best people and the most money he can to help the team. Just as we don't credit Snyder for Williams' defense, we don't pan him for Gibbs offense. Williams gets the credit. Gibbs gets the blame.

I find your example on San Diego a funny one.

Stumbling on to a winning plan is stumbling on to a disappointing QB who suddenly becomes good. A QB who only starts at all because his replacement held out because San Diego couldn't, as they never seem capable, of signing a rookie pick on time.

You can't seriously say to me a team that EVERYONE thought was among the weakest in football that had surprising, unforseen performances out of players like Drew Brees had a plan for success when they drafted a QB to replace Brees?

Or, do you mean to say if Ramsey matches Brees in performance then the Redskins will have carefully charted a plan for success similar to the Chargers and you'll be astounded?

Each occassion Snyder has had an opportunity to hire people he's found the best people available. We need to hold those people accountable for their failure, just as we credit them for their success. Unfortunately, most people will be very pleased with Gregg Williams for the success of the defense, yet, think Snyder's to blame for the weakness of the team.

That's a way for people to avoid placing blame where it belongs.

Don't fall for that.

Marty is successful in San Diego. He won 12 games and his division last year. Dan Snyders team hasn't won 12 games in the last 2 years put together. I'm saying that maybe the Spanos' (or whoever is calling the shots out here in my home town) have done a slightly better job than Dan Snyder to "acquire the best football people he can possibly find and then try to let them do their jobs."

[matty dread]

Little Danny S. is an a$$

[zoony]

Little Danny S. is an a$$

you can do better than that

[Art]

Little Danny S. is an a$$

I think Matt was being sarcastic. I HOPE .

[RedskinsDave]

So where's all that depth and stud players we should have thanks to the great cap management? Oh yeah, other teams. Of course dead cap space is acceptable to some. The rest of us are actual season ticket holders who like a return on our investment. Like I have said numerous times now, the results are all I need to prove things have been run wrong. You can spin all you want about how there's never been a great cap purge but it's pretty easy to retain mediocrity under the cap when you backload contracts. I'd rather win, silly me.

[RedskinsDave]

For example, you say: "it is a FACT that we have overpaid guys who are not performing or are underperforming." Care to provide some examples, why they are overpaid and how they are underperforming? Without the examples, your statement is merely opinion and not fact.

I hope you're kidding but the names Brunell and Coles come to mind and that's not even taking the picks we gave up into consideration.