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

[Gibbs4Life]

i like the fact that we got gibbs back in the end but if snyder had given marty shottenheimer just a little longer than one freakin season, it might be us in the playoffs instead of the chargers.

[Art]

Well, a 75 to 21 percent split is pretty convincing, especially when around half the voters in the 21 side are fans of opposing teams. Dan must be doing something right.

[fansince62]

man...what a tolerant group! in my profession this track record would have led to a stockholder driven ouster of the CEO years ago!

Just goes to show: the real intent of of the poll was to demonstrate that Skins' fans are the kindest, most understanding, forgiving folks under the sun! HTTR!!!!!

[Om]

That seems a little too easy, al ... my impression, based on the actual comments here, is that a whole lot of folks feel the re-hiring of Gibbs and subsequent silent act bought Snyder a whole lot of good will, and probably bumped his average "grade" considerably.

This wasn't just a big-name coup, this was a sign the man was also willing to step aside, essentially admitting--whether he believes it in his heart or not---that the way he HAD been going wasn't working and he needed to evolve as an owner.

Being an admitted egomaniac myself, I'd not slough that whole idea off.

[Art]

Originally posted by fansince62

man...what a tolerant group! in my profession this track record would have led to a stockholder driven ouster of the CEO years ago!

Just goes to show: the real intent of of the poll was to demonstrate that Skins' fans are the kindest, most understanding, forgiving folks under the sun! HTTR!!!!!

Al,

Out of respect, I let you have your say and didn't comment on it. However, if you are going to take pot shots at those who do favor Snyder, I'm going to do the same to you. I'm sure you won't mind.

The issues you have with Snyder are more personal in nature given the relationship you have with an employee who was terminated. However, that doesn't allow for unreasonably false statements as you made here.

When you wrote in your profession his track record would have led a stockholder to drive him from the CEO position years ago, I have to ask is your profession the state or federal government? I wonder because Snyder has dramatically increased the value of his "business", substantially paid down the debt, generates a record amount of revenue and makes the most profit in the history of the game, ALL WHILE putting money back into the business.

If a stockholder would drive a man out for that performance in his business, the only option is that person works for the government and expects less .

So, you're not talking about the performance of the business.

What are, then, you talking about? Hiring well-respected, sought-after coaches like Marty, Spurrier and Gibbs? Certainly this isn't a flaw, really, is it? Creating an environment where players want to come to D.C. and where those WE WANT to come go no where else? Is that bad?

It seems less like the crowd for Snyder isn't exactly tolerant as simply willing to assess the situation in a fair way without personal bias and in recognition of the overall positives. The crowd against Snyder -- a small one populated with fans of oppositing teams and those like you -- tend to think each personal foul or bad call by the coach is Snyder's fault.

In that, there's no CEO anywhere who could survive. Well, except in the government.

[illone]

Originally posted by Gibbs4Life

i like the fact that we got gibbs back in the end but if snyder had given marty shottenheimer just a little longer than one freakin season, it might be us in the playoffs instead of the chargers.

marty can't win in the post-season though.

All things considered I am glad things panned out the way they did. I'd sacrifice a year in the playoffs for the chance at glory again.

[ummagumma]

None of those answers works for me. I think he's neutral. So the last one doesn't work, because I have a point of view. He loves the team and spends money, which is great. He lacks patience (so far) and there no continuity and too much rotisserre style GM'ing. That's bad. No a great owener...not a terrible one either. So I sort of like him, but get ticked at him all at the same time.

[SkinFaninOKC]

I voted that he is a "good owner".

He has pi**ed me off quite a bit since buying the team. It was however an attempt to better the team. He cares about the Washington Redskins and it shows.

BTW, thank you for hiring Joe Gibbs.

[fansince62]

art..........you know full well what I meant. A previous post of mine acknowledged precisely what you argue - that he has done well finacially (although the fans haven't exactly benefitted...now have they? - paying as they are for the priciest tickets in the NFL).

I think the matter is rather simple: I don't much care how much Dan "loves the skins"...or how many benjamins he spends. I tend also to ignore the partially correct notion that he has been something less than spectacular when it comes to representing the organization to the league and the public at large - yes he does many charitable things. He, oddly, doesn't seem to have gotten hold of the magic formula for PR however. But who cares? All this is - including how much $$$$ he spends - is irrelevant.

does he have a plan? is there a vision? And is it producing results? How long before a lack of victories overcomes an excess of money?

when I watch a Skins game I don't think of Dan Snyder one iota - I think about what Joe is trying to achieve and whether the players are executing. The franchise will command respect again when it wins. The CEO hasn't built the vision and structure that creates the environment for success- the results speak for themselves. Optimism runs deep and strong for next season - DS will get his props at that time. It is intersting to wonder: if Joe can't take it to the next level and retires after the 3rd season - all else staying the same - is DS still the best owner in sports? When does the statute of limitations run out on the learning curve?

[Art]

Al,

It's PURE propoganda to say we pay the highest ticket price because the fact is, we don't. Studies that show this have club seats and general admission seats in the same category, though club seats count differently for revenue sharing. The fact that you know this yet are of the mind to ignore it when assessing how much the fans pay says to me at the very least you're not willing to fairly state a view on Snyder.

As for how the fans have benefitted, I'd say we've received great benefit from Snyder owning the team. He made the stadium experience better, by completing the sound system and adding easier access to the upper floors. He's expanded the stadium to fit more people on the waiting list in. He's put money we've spent on the team back into the team, giving the fans a great deal of interest and hope heading into every season.

Does Snyder have a plan? Absolutely.

His plan is to hire capable people and do what they ask.

He hired Spurrier, as just about any NFL person would have. Ron Wolf would have. And he gave Spurrier what Spurrier said he wanted. Spurrier quit, so he hired Gibbs and is doing what Gibbs wants.

If Gibbs fails it won't be because he's not being given what he's asking for to succeed. It will be because he failed. An owner can ONLY respond to his football people. He can only implement the plan they offer up. He does that, and he's a success, even with failed people like Spurrier or like Gibbs could become.

The difference between us and the Pats isn't that they are smarter. It's that Brady hit and everything took off. Around October of 2001, the Pats were a failed organization with a failure for a coach and a team in turmoil.

Then Brady plays for Bledsoe and they are the model.

This is baloney and you know it, yet you hold them up like they should be modeled after.

Well, sure. Let's hope a sixth-round QB works out and we'll be on our way.

As for whether what Snyder is doing is paying results, the obvious answer is it's paying HUGE results. We are the place elite coaches come. If Gibbs doesn't work out, we'll be able to hire another elite coach. Why?

Because the owner gives that coach what he wants and has created an atmosphere where players hope for a call from the Redskins. The results are when we target a player, we never fail. This is an advantage over anyone else and is a manner by which Snyder has given his football people something no other team can equal.

So, yeah, he may not be liked in league circles. I wouldn't expect him to when he can do things no one else can and he's willing to do it.

[a_good_brotha]

I went with option 2. I like his thoery in let's win now. He has made some bad decision in bringing in players, but he is learning. He made a big step in bringing back Joe Gibbs. I know I said in another thread that Gibbs deserves an F, but I will give him a grace period because I know he is a great coach.

But back to Snyder. He wants to win. I like that. Me personally I would like to see the Redskins hoist up the Vince Lombardi trophy every year. I know that's unrealistic, but you should always aim for the best.

[fansince62]

1) It's not the role of the dice you suggest: superior organizations, on average, do a better job of finding talent. Even better ones develop the talent. The best orchestrate everything into a tapestry of success.

2) The one constant during all these years of losing since Danny assumed the reigns has been....let's see now....Danny! No amount of rationalizing about peripheral causes can change that one, seminal FACT. btw...passing the blame from the top to employees is somewhat unseemingly.

3) You have yet to argue the primary point - we have not won. Are you suggesting that DS is not ultimately responsible?

4) As we ratchet from one diametrically opposed coaching philosophy to another there is one constant - the person doing the hiring. As we ratchet from one personnel strategy to another there is one constant: the person approving the expenditures. It's his team. He pays the bills...he holds the power. At the end of the day - he is responsible.

Again...I don't give a patout about Dan Snyder. Don't know him personally; haven't seen anything in the press that suggests (independent of football) that he is an individual possessed of inordinate human qualities of grace, intellect, human sympathies....whatever. All I care about is winning. The constant merry-go-round of changing football "business plans" aint cuttin it.

Remember - Steinbrenner was villified...until the Yanks started winning championships. I'm sure Danny will be respected once his teams become winners. The right guy is now onboard to provide the adult supervision needed to bring this hope to fruition.

[jbooma]

Synder is a good owner when he is being the owner and nothing else.

[GASkinsfan28]

The only thing i think he has done bad is all the coaches and making them start George over Johnson but player wise he is just doing wut the coaches and stuff want.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Art

The difference between us and the Pats isn't that they are smarter. It's that Brady hit and everything took off. Around October of 2001, the Pats were a failed organization with a failure for a coach and a team in turmoil.

Then Brady plays for Bledsoe and they are the model.

Art the difference is they have the right guys in the right positions. They have a personnel guy that can find talent. They also have an owner that knows not to put his fingers on everything.

Brady is good because of the coaching there and his own abilities which he showed in Michigan there were good there, just teams were more interested in the QB he took over for.

[Art]

Originally posted by jbooma

Art the difference is they have the right guys in the right positions. They have a personnel guy that can find talent. They also have an owner that knows not to put his fingers on everything.

Brady is good because of the coaching there and his own abilities which he showed in Michigan there were good there, just teams were more interested in the QB he took over for.

JB,

This time in 2001 they didn't have a personnel guy who could find talent. They had horrible coaching. Remember, Belichick was a loser in Cleveland and early in New England. Brady comes in and suddenly they've got a guy who can find talent and great coaching.

Odd how that works, isn't it?

[Art]

Yes, Al, ultimately the responsibility on Snyder is to provide the people he hires what they need to win. That's his job. It's not his job to lead a football team to victory. That's his coach and his personnel people who have to do that.

All ANY owner has to do is whatever they ask him to do to make that happen. If we go 16-0 this year, it won't be because Snyder became a better owner. Just as it doesn't make him a bad owner because we haven't won.

His job isn't to win. It's to provide his people what they tell him they need to win. And that's absolultely it.

[Art]

Originally posted by jbooma

Synder is a good owner when he is being the owner and nothing else.

Funny, but I don't recall when he wasn't just the owner and nothing else. He hasn't directed personnel decisions since 2000, which is unfortunate given how well things worked out in the area we made moves in 2000.

But, since the successfull offseason that year, he's granted more authority and direction to his football people, taking his queues from them.

[The Sisko]

I went with the 4th option as it was closest to how I would assess Snyder. In short, he's proven he loves the team and is willing to spend. What he has yet to prove is that he's learned how to spend his $$$ intelligently.

A large part of being the head of any organization is having a big picture view of where it should be going and how it will get there. This sort of vision includes who to hire as GM and/or coach and what the personality of the club is. Snyder had no clue about this type of stuff when he bought the team and still hasn't figured it out yet. Thankfully Gibbs is now around to provide some leadership in this area because Danny's buddy Cerrato won't ever be able to do it.

As for the Gibbs hire, please stop saying Snyder convinced him to return. As I remember it Gibbs made the decision to return to coaching and all Snyder had to do was say "Yes, you're still welcome to return." Pretty much a no brainer if you ask me.

Certainly Snyder isn't the worst owner in the league but he's far from the best. Until such time as he gets a better handle on what he does and doesn't know and takes the appropriate steps to improve, he'll continue to make the same types of mistakes.

However as I've said before, I'm holding out hope that Gibbs will continue to provide vision and football smarts to the club even after he retires from coaching again. Gibbs has proven he's an incredible administrator and leader and I'd like to see us continue to tap into that wealth of talent.

[Westbrook36]

Originally posted by Art

Yes, Al, ultimately the responsibility on Snyder is to provide the people he hires what they need to win. That's his job. It's not his job to lead a football team to victory. That's his coach and his personnel people who have to do that.

All ANY owner has to do is whatever they ask him to do to make that happen. If we go 16-0 this year, it won't be because Snyder became a better owner. Just as it doesn't make him a bad owner because we haven't won.

His job isn't to win. It's to provide his people what they tell him they need to win. And that's absolultely it.

So essentially, if you had won 5 straight Superbowls since he arrived, your opinion of him would be exactly the same, right Art?

Since we can't use wins and losses as a measuring stick?

[fansince62]

Art....no one will ever charge you with "lack of persistence" as a charcater fault! One of the major reasons we all love you!

In the event...having been somone who has led large groups of young men and women......I simply disagree. The guy at the top is ultimately accountable. Yes, the "hired hands" execute. But the guy at the top is the final leader. He/she creates the conditions; he/she decides to retain or delegate authority; he/she ultimately approves/disapproves strategic decisions.

The notion in play - that a super rich guy will spend $800 million on a franchise and then do what he is told by the experts - is well.....a bit farfetched. It also begs the question of whether he is in over his head in a field that he has no qualifiing skills for. Is that what is in play here? That an owner can be anyone with money with the lone qualifier being that he have no football smarts and no inclination to engage in the direction and philosophy of his team? That he's a talking head who's sole respsonsibility is to know where to sign the checks put in front of him? My guess is that the answer will, at a minimum, assert that no, an owner has a respsonsiblity to maintain the solvency of the franchise. But if that is the case, then he ultimately, in the age of the cap, becomes involved nio personnel decisions. In the event, that is a distractor - the guy at the top is ultimately accountable. Now, I realize that it is very Enron fashionable to think otherwise...but that idea simply doesn't hold in many quarters.

JUST WIN BABY!!!!!

[Om]

Well, since everybody else keeps saying the same things over and over, so will I.

1) Given that he's hired Joe Gibbs and totally removed himself from the "football operations" of the team, the only REAL concerns anyone should have with Snyder at this point are

a) that he'll get bored or antsy being behing the scenes, and decide to involve himself (again?) in things like player evaluation, coaching staff hires and choosing what "kind" of schemes he'd like his team to run, and

that as the salary negotiator, he'll sometimes let ego get in the way of business sense ("so you're interested in this guy too, Jones? Match this").

2) Any talk about judging Snyder as an owner CANNOT be done meaningfully w/o breaking down the discussion between PG and AG (pre-Gibbs, after-Gibbs). This hire was made at the height of fan concerns about Snyder setting himself up as a key "football guy" in the FO. With the Gibbs hire, and Snyder's dramatic withdrawal from all "football matters" ever since, he totally changed the dynamic.

If that didn't earn him at least a large dose of benefit of the doubt, even among his most fervent detractors, says here they're reduced to hatin' for hates' sake at this point.

*

BTW,

PG and AG. I've copyrighted that.

All royalties should be sent to my account at om@extremeskins.com .

Thank you.

[Art]

Originally posted by Westbrook36

So essentially, if you had won 5 straight Superbowls since he arrived, your opinion of him would be exactly the same, right Art?

Since we can't use wins and losses as a measuring stick?

Correct, WB.

Snyder's job is to provide for his football people and to make smart decisions in hiring his football people. Without question he's done both things for all of his hires. It's up to his football people to win. It's up to Snyder to get the best people available at the time of hire.

If they fail while being given what they ask for, the blame is on them, not the owner. In Philly, your football people have had to work without the full support of your owner and they've done a good job. That doesn't make your owner more successful.

[Art]

Originally posted by fansince62

Art....no one will ever charge you with "lack of persistence" as a charcater fault! One of the major reasons we all love you!

In the event...having been somone who has led large groups of young men and women......I simply disagree. The guy at the top is ultimately accountable. Yes, the "hired hands" execute. But the guy at the top is the final leader. He/she creates the conditions; he/she decides to retain or delegate authority; he/she ultimately approves/disapproves strategic decisions.

The notion in play - that a super rich guy will spend $800 million on a franchise and then do what he is told by the experts - is well.....a bit farfetched. It also begs the question of whether he is in over his head in a field that he has no qualifiing skills for. Is that what is in play here? That an owner can be anyone with money with the lone qualifier being that he have no football smarts and no inclination to engage in the direction and philosophy of his team? That he's a talking head who's sole respsonsibility is to know where to sign the checks put in front of him? My guess is that the answer will, at a minimum, assert that no, an owner has a respsonsiblity to maintain the solvency of the franchise. But if that is the case, then he ultimately, in the age of the cap, becomes involved nio personnel decisions. In the event, that is a distractor - the guy at the top is ultimately accountable. Now, I realize that it is very Enron fashionable to think otherwise...but that idea simply doesn't hold in many quarters.

JUST WIN BABY!!!!!

Al,

The simple problem with your theory is that the owner is the top guy who's ultimately responsible. Beyond providing what he's asked to provide, he's not. The ultimate responsibility on a football team goes to the head coach.

The owner approves decisions made by his football people. Absolutely. Which is why the owner must make smart decisions in this critical area. Something no one would suggest Snyder has not made. But, I'm fairly confident when I say if Snyder started rejecting what Gibbs asked for, you'd suggest he was a meddling owner.

Snyder runs this ship JUST like JKC did. He gives his football people what they ask for. He takes that information and acts on it. And, like JKC, he makes sure they know they'd better be right. He holds those people accountable for the actions they have him make.

When the "guy at the top" is the final leader, I suppose you're all for players running right to him and having him come down on their side and undercutting the coach, right? When Bruce Smith went to complain about things to Snyder, you wanted Snyder to say, "You're right Bruce. You're starting this week." After all, since you think he's in charge, these are decisions he should make right?

He should decide who plays. Perhaps he should call the plays too? Ultimately he's responsible for every successful and failed play too. He caused the Ramsey interception against the Eagles because he owns the team and is therefore responsible for every decision every person makes under him.

Do you realize how stupid this is?

You KNOW what you want from an owner.

And you know that's exactly what Snyder gives you. That you'd hold him responsible for Joe Gibbs' failure is ludicrous. It was Gibbs who failed. Not Snyder.

[Art]

Originally posted by Om

Well, since everybody else keeps saying the same things over and over, so will I.

1) Given that he's hired Joe Gibbs and totally removed himself from the "football operations" of the team, the only REAL concerns anyone should have with Snyder at this point are

a) that he'll get bored or antsy being behing the scenes, and decide to involve himself (again?) in things like player evaluation, coaching staff hires and choosing what "kind" of schemes he'd like his team to run, and

that as the salary negotiator, he'll sometimes let ego get in the way of business sense ("so you're interested in this guy too, Jones? Match this").

2) Any talk about judging Snyder as an owner CANNOT be done meaningfully w/o breaking down the discussion between PG and AG (pre-Gibbs, after-Gibbs). This hire was made at the height of fan concerns about Snyder setting himself up as a key "football guy" in the FO. With the Gibbs hire, and Snyder's dramatic withdrawal from all "football matters" ever since, he totally changed the dynamic.

If that didn't earn him at least a large dose of benefit of the doubt, even among his most fervent detractors, says here they're reduced to hatin' for hates' sake at this point.

*

BTW,

PG and AG. I've copyrighted that.

All royalties should be sent to my account at om@extremeskins.com .

Thank you.

This is a fine summary, Om, except, it's based on a false belief.

Snyder didn't hire Gibbs then dramatically withdraw from football operations. He's doing the exact same thing with Gibbs as he did with Spurrier. He's still a part of the decision making process. He still works all the free agents his people decide to go after.

Very little has changed except the name on the door under Head Coach.

A lot of people seem to believe there was a dramatic shift in operations at Redskins Park the moment Gibbs was hired, though, there's no evidence of that, save perhaps Gibbs holding the title of team president. Gibbs, Cerrato and Snyder have all spoken at various times about the process they utilize at Redskins Park.

Snyder still maintains a key position and authority.

And he does this, as he's done for the previous two years, by having his football people build a plan of action, agree on the best direction to take, and then he executes it. The only difference may be that where Spurrier didn't really care about personnel matters, Gibbs does. And, it's awfully hard for Cerrato or Snyder to deny Gibbs what Gibbs says wants.

Continued coaching failure on the level -- if completely understandable level -- we saw with Gibbs this year might alter how hard it is in time.