Art Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by Romberjo One wild card here is that Snyder's major current role on the team (in addition to deal closer and deep pocket) is cap manager. I am not entirely convinced that he's doing a long-term great job on that. I don't really have enough information to make that assessment, but his choice to do that himself, and not to replace Bob Mendes, is a very big one. Exactly how much more evidence do you require, Romberjo? In 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 Snyder has spent freely. Now it's 2005. The team STILL hasn't ENTERED a single season projecting OVER the following year's cap. You see Tennessee who now has two straight years tens of millions over the cap. You see teams like Philly fail to spend millions, preferring to use fake contractual triggers to hide how little is spent to maximize owner profit. Snyder is largely in the fifth year -- with Marty providing something of a mulligan -- of a very aggressive cap plan. Had we achieved success earlier we'd marvel at how we've done it for so long. I think we have, at most, another three to five years before a major dump has to occur, and another mulligan is given . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I can't really follow this thread anymore since Art is only lieing to himself at this point, and it's painful to watch. He tries to tell me that if Snyder had 5 Superbowls right now, he would rate him exactly the same as he does now. As if we are all supposed to believe that nowhere in this thread, if Art made it and the situation was how I described above, Art wouldn't have mentioned that he is a owner that won 5 straight SBs. What happened to you, Art? You never had to resort to such ridiculous assertions and complete and utter lies to make a point. This is like watching Willie Mays dropping fly balls in the Mets outfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by Westbrook36 I can't really follow this thread anymore since Art is only lieing to himself at this point, and it's painful to watch. He tries to tell me that if Snyder had 5 Superbowls right now, he would rate him exactly the same as he does now. As if we are all supposed to believe that nowhere in this thread, if Art made it and the situation was how I described above, Art wouldn't have mentioned that he is a owner that won 5 straight SBs. What happened to you, Art? You never had to resort to such ridiculous assertions and complete and utter lies to make a point. This is like watching Willie Mays dropping fly balls in the Mets outfield. WB, Simply because your winsome effort to get me to add a category to my assessment of good ownership didn't work doesn't mean I'm resorting to anything at all. An owner's job isn't to win Super Bowls. It's to provide for his football people so they can. A coach's job is to win Super Bowls. An owner has no sway over what goes on out on the field. A record of 0-16 or 16-0 has nothing to do with an owner beyond whether he did what he was asked to do by those who DO determine how a team will perform. If Snyder suddenly stops providing for his football people and we turn around and win a Super Bowl, it won't be a check in the good ownership category. All owners have a job to do that ends around the first of August for the most part. After that, the job is someone elses to take the rest of the way. Even YOU know this. The sad part is, you know this so extremely well, it stings to realize, "Dammit, he's right. Snyder is a great owner. Snyder DOES do whatever his people ask. He DOES PROVIDE." You are horrified at the fact your owner took years to do the same. You realize this and yet know you can't admit it, knowing what it means to you as an Eagle fan. The saddest part of all, though, is when Snyder does become the owner of a winning team or a Super Bowl winning team, I won't be impressed, because I'll have already recognized how well he does his job, but you'll be not only impressed, but at a complete loss as to how to explain it. And I'll continue to get to sit here and marvel at how a guy utterly without a clue thinks he actually is scoring points highlighting what he doesn't understand when others who do have a clue attempt to offer a small bit of enlightenment. This is now the third time you've chimed in late in a thread in a way that shows the only person here NOT processing the information is you. Unlike you, I've actually made points in this and other threads, and offered up rationale behind the thinking. To which you trumpet, "Is not," and are stunned when no one is won over to your point of view. Perhaps my mistake is being foolish enough to actually support a position. I will attempt to correct this mistake by communicating with you in a way you appear to be moved by and which is sure to stun you into long hours of silence contemplating just how thoroughly you were had. Are you ready? Is to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halter91 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 He's a good owner who has made some bad choices. now you all kow as well as I do, If Deion, Jeff George, Bruce Smith etc, had played better we would be kissing his ass. Unfortuantely, they pretty mcuh blew. Bruce did okay, but he was past his prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by halter91 He's a good owner who has made some bad choices. now you all kow as well as I do, If Deion, Jeff George, Bruce Smith etc, had played better we would be kissing his ass. Unfortuantely, they pretty mcuh blew. Bruce did okay, but he was past his prime. Halter, If it blows to target people to add to the No. 30 defense that turn it into the No. 4 defense, then, we must hope Snyder finds a way to blow that badly this year with offensive players, don't you think? People have a false memory -- fed to them by the press -- of the failed 2000 season being based in bad offseason moves. In fact, the offseason moves to improve the defense were splendid and worked. The downfall, after a GREAT 6-2 start against the stiffest competition we'd face that year, was injury on offense that caught up to us and the realization that many guys hwo had great years in 1999 actually had CAREER years in 1999. Deion was actually GREAT for us, if not the Deion of old. It's impossible to look at the moves we made that offseason and say they didn't help the area we sought to help. Only with Redskin fans can the concept of bringing in a cheap, solid, veteran backup QB to add depth to a position manned by a talented but often injured starter and yet be a bad thing. We should have gone into the 2000 season without a backup QB of any ability. This would have been great for when Johnson got hurt and all. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB44 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Art, Hindsight is always 20/20, and I agree with you Snyder did his best to field a team in 2000 that had the talent to make the playoffs. Unfortunately our #1 reciever, Westbrook, after his career 1999 season, got injured yet again, basically killing our offense. Snyder did the right thing in firing Norv. Well deserved. My critizism of Snyder was firing Marty, who actually turned our team into some tough S-O-Bs. He hires Spurrier and we turn into pu$$ies again. Hiring Gibbs, and instilling that toughness again is a sign that Snyder is learning what football is all about. Do you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 DB, I understand the sentiment on firing Marty being a mistake, but, I'd point out that AT the time it happened, it was a HIGHLY popular and deserved move. Time has now elapsed and we tend to remember more fondly than is deserved the 8-3 run to finish the season. First, we were 3-3 down the stretch when it mattered. Second, Marty didn't turn that team into tough S-0-Bs. The team turned on Marty. There was an OPEN team mutiny against him. The team DID become a team. The team DID develop relative unity. Just like this year's team seemed to start doing. While not everyone was on board the uniting force in 2001, not everyone is on board the uniting force in 2004. The difference is in 2001, the uniting force was, "Ignore the coach, do your own thing." Such a thing is great and Marty smartly fed into it. However, you can't replicate that type of thing. It doesn't carry over. Marty not only lost the team, but CAVED to the team when he lost it. He didn't bend them to his will. He bent to theirs. The only way to recover from this is to blow up the roster by shedding the bad apples, of which, a majority of the team qualified then. Personally, I knew Marty was gone after the fifth game. His approach wasn't going to work with that team and when it came to be that the only approach that WOULD work was the team teaming up and hating the coach, it wasn't a situation you were going to win with in the near term, though, in time, I suspect Marty would have been fine. Perhaps by now he'd have already won. The hiring of Spurrier was a very smart move when we made it. The guy most of us presume is the smartest GM in the world, Ron Wolf, would have made the same hire. Spurrier's approach DID allow teams to dictate to us and that coupled with a reactive defense did make us a bunch of punks. The fact that Gibbs brings toughness is really not a factor in why Snyder hired him or a sign of learning what football is all about. Gibbs was a choice so obvious and timely it was unavoidable once the opportunity arose. That's not a sign Snyder learned anything. It's more a sign Snyder got very lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 as long as Bidwell is an owner...... who can complain about Snyder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB44 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Art, Agreed on the Coach Gibbs hiring. Just my thought on Marty was we had all of those prima donnas who could do what ever they wanted under Norv, and Marty comes in, pi$$es everybody off, which for a leader is sometimes needed (General Patton), and actually begins turning them back into football players. Maybe I'm just off here, but Marty had my respect when he beat the Eagles that year-the last time we have so. I understand in this era of football that you can't tell million dollar players to Oklahome drills first day of practice, and Marty definitely didn't handle Darrell the right way. Huge Mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyHitta31 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by Om No, the better question would be how in the world you ever came to a place in your life where you actually thought the insipid brand of mindless swill you drool around here, mumbling semi-intelligibly at the periphery of issues relating to a team you have illustrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that you know NOTHING about, among a crowd of people from whom, if you actually had half a brain about you, you might actually learn something. You speak of "poster of other teams." Run with that thought. Other teams. If you're not here to learn about the Redskins, young friend, what the hell are you doing here? You don't really need to answer that, btw. We already know. And yet, for the "mindless drool" I talk as you put it, you have responded to many of my posts on this board...hmmm....:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by HeavyHitta31 And yet, for the "mindless drool" I talk as you put it, you have responded to many of my posts on this board...hmmm....:laugh: Psst, HH, Om is a mod. He's SUPPOSED to respond to posts to help members realize when they are bordering on trouble. If you don't figure this out on your own soon, it'll be too late for others to point you the right way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyHitta31 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by Art DB, I understand the sentiment on firing Marty being a mistake, but, I'd point out that AT the time it happened, it was a HIGHLY popular and deserved move. Time has now elapsed and we tend to remember more fondly than is deserved the 8-3 run to finish the season. First, we were 3-3 down the stretch when it mattered. Second, Marty didn't turn that team into tough S-0-Bs. The team turned on Marty. There was an OPEN team mutiny against him. The team DID become a team. The team DID develop relative unity. Just like this year's team seemed to start doing. While not everyone was on board the uniting force in 2001, not everyone is on board the uniting force in 2004. The difference is in 2001, the uniting force was, "Ignore the coach, do your own thing." Such a thing is great and Marty smartly fed into it. However, you can't replicate that type of thing. It doesn't carry over. Marty not only lost the team, but CAVED to the team when he lost it. He didn't bend them to his will. He bent to theirs. The only way to recover from this is to blow up the roster by shedding the bad apples, of which, a majority of the team qualified then. Personally, I knew Marty was gone after the fifth game. His approach wasn't going to work with that team and when it came to be that the only approach that WOULD work was the team teaming up and hating the coach, it wasn't a situation you were going to win with in the near term, though, in time, I suspect Marty would have been fine. Perhaps by now he'd have already won. The hiring of Spurrier was a very smart move when we made it. The guy most of us presume is the smartest GM in the world, Ron Wolf, would have made the same hire. Spurrier's approach DID allow teams to dictate to us and that coupled with a reactive defense did make us a bunch of punks. The fact that Gibbs brings toughness is really not a factor in why Snyder hired him or a sign of learning what football is all about. Gibbs was a choice so obvious and timely it was unavoidable once the opportunity arose. That's not a sign Snyder learned anything. It's more a sign Snyder got very lucky. Dont forget that Marty just lost ANOTHER playoff game and before that had a terrible team in San Diego. Marty is a coach that if his one approach doesnt work, you are screwed, because he is not an adaptive coach like the Bill Belicheck's of the world. I was actually mad when you fired Marty because Dallas fans knew you wouldnt win with him..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyHitta31 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by Art Psst, HH, Om is a mod. He's SUPPOSED to respond to posts to help members realize when they are bordering on trouble. If you don't figure this out on your own soon, it'll be too late for others to point you the right way. Would this be an example of him steering me out of trouble? Notice you've been away a few days, HH31 ... took you that long to write that gem? Deep, man. Deep. Yeah, THATS insightful. Sorry, mod or not, he deserved a :slap: for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 Perhaps because previous action taken against you has been taken because of the non-contributory nature of your posts in general. You just get back from a temp ban and you feel this odd need to contribute almost nothing to the thread other than a one-line drive-by. And so, to help you, he pointed things out to you. And, now, you get a few days off to think about how best to process such things. Short leash, HH, short leash. Or do you think you can pretend to understand something here every once in a while and avoid the time out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW31 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Originally posted by Om Notice you've been away a few days, HH31 ... took you that long to write that gem? Deep, man. Deep. And it had an even more "insightful" response.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Originally posted by HeavyHitta31 And yet, for the "mindless drool" I talk as you put it, you have responded to many of my posts on this board...hmmm....:laugh: "I know you are but what am I?" Listen, I'm tired of your act. I'll flat out tell you I never liked you... but technically... you hadn't broken any rules so allowed you some sway. However, when you cross that line, and I've been waiting for you to slip up and give me a reason.... there won't be a staff vote on your behalf. I'll permanently ban you. You're a troll now. And you're next 100 posts will be scrutinized by myself. And if I see one post that "resembles" trollish behavior... you're gone. You'll know when you get that nice little error message when you respond to posts. That's how short your leash is right now. I didn't build this site to log on and read your crap kiddo. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/announcement.php?s=&forumid=24 TO OPPOSING TEAM FANS: Enjoy your stay here -- just don't allow that to interfere with our ability to enjoy your stay here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Originally posted by RW31 And it had an even more "insightful" response.... And that goes for you too dumb@ss. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/announcement.php?s=&forumid=24 17. Adhere to the advise and suggestions of the ExtremeSkins.com staff members. Staff members are volunteers. They were appointed to staff positions because they exemplify the characteristics, attitude and values consistent with the standards we've set for the site. Their motivations are simple: To always act in the best interests of the site. They have been entrusted and empowered with the ability and authority to achieve that standard. Therefore, their motives should never be challenged or second-guessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyHitta31 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Originally posted by Die Hard "I know you are but what am I?" Listen, I'm tired of your act. I'll flat out tell you I never liked you... but technically... you hadn't broken any rules so allowed you some sway. However, when you cross that line, and I've been waiting for you to slip up and give me a reason.... there won't be a staff vote on your behalf. I'll permanently ban you. You're a troll now. And you're next 100 posts will be scrutinized by myself. And if I see one post that "resembles" trollish behavior... you're gone. You'll know when you get that nice little error message when you respond to posts. That's how short your leash is right now. I didn't build this site to log on and read your crap kiddo. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/announcement.php?s=&forumid=24 TO OPPOSING TEAM FANS: Enjoy your stay here -- just don't allow that to interfere with our ability to enjoy your stay here. 1: Dont call me kiddo 2: No disrespect, but if it really bothers you that much you dont have to read my posts 3: I have no intention of being a troll, trust me if I intended to be a troll I'd do a much better job than this. You said it yourself, Ive done nothing wrong according to the almighty rulebook. 4: I promise to try and impress and amuse you with my next 100 posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyHitta31 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Originally posted by Die Hard And that goes for you too dumb@ss. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/announcement.php?s=&forumid=24 17. Adhere to the advise and suggestions of the ExtremeSkins.com staff members. Staff members are volunteers. They were appointed to staff positions because they exemplify the characteristics, attitude and values consistent with the standards we've set for the site. Their motivations are simple: To always act in the best interests of the site. They have been entrusted and empowered with the ability and authority to achieve that standard. Therefore, their motives should never be challenged or second-guessed. I do believe you just violated your own rulebook: 5. Please be respectful to your fellow members. The foundation of any thriving community is the opportunity for members to express their opinion and the exchange of knowledge. It is the responsibility of each and every member to create an environment which encourages and fosters it. If your membership is in direct contrast to that end or your participation a detriment to it, we will simply revoke your privileges to utilize the site. I believe calling someone a "dumba**" would be a violation. Not to be rude, but if you are going to call others out and use the rulebook, at least try and follow it yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 HeavyHitta31 This is Die Hards site & Die Hards rules. Either accept & understand that, or enjoy the message he spoke of. :ciao: Kiddo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 15, 2005 Author Share Posted January 15, 2005 Buh bye, HH. Man, some people just don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Looks like I missed all the fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXREDSKINS44 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 IMO I think Danny Boy is the best owner, he is willing to do whatever it takes to win. I would hate to root for a team that did not have an owner who did do what it took to win (49ers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanishomelette Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 It would be great if a few more of 'em would run into the line of fire...Oh well.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 as long as gibbs' is here snyder may not interfere as much......I like it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.