jtyler42 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 I think Snyder is a good owner who has made mistakes, but is still an asset to this team... Ol Danny boy started w/a bang but over the yrs he has gotten used to the way the NFL works and is taking more of a back seat to the team... He has made his mistakes along the way to becoming a good owner but we have to remember he is learning to be a football man on the job... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW31 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Originally posted by Art Buh bye, HH. Man, some people just don't get it. Art, may I ask, what didn't he get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 15, 2005 Author Share Posted January 15, 2005 Originally posted by RW31 Art, may I ask, what didn't he get? It's hard to cite the rules of the site to the people who wrote them in a manner that suggests you understand them better. We wrote the rules. We know what they mean. For example, calling a dumba$$ a dumba$$ isn't a violation of any rule. Because, the rule outlines if one's membership is perceived as being in direct contrast to the exchange of ideas, through various disprespectful statements, we may take action. Simply responding to dullards by calling them fools is not in the same category. More, the owners and mods of THIS place are ALWAYS working to foster the exchange of ideas. Every statement we make is an effort to do that. And when we trouble ourselves to help guide a person toward what we're looking for, the expectation is an immediate and ungarbled, "Gotcha." Now, when the content of the ideas we express is incorrect in your view, you should absolutely drill us all on it. But, when the content of what we say is ABOUT the member and the member's post, it is not only the expectation, but the requirement, that you pay attention to that. Playing dumb, while cute, won't get you far here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW31 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Originally posted by Art It's hard to cite the rules of the site to the people who wrote them in a manner that suggests you understand them better. We wrote the rules. We know what they mean. For example, calling a dumba$$ a dumba$$ isn't a violation of any rule. Because, the rule outlines if one's membership is perceived as being in direct contrast to the exchange of ideas, through various disprespectful statements, we may take action. Simply responding to dullards by calling them fools is not in the same category. More, the owners and mods of THIS place are ALWAYS working to foster the exchange of ideas. Every statement we make is an effort to do that. And when we trouble ourselves to help guide a person toward what we're looking for, the expectation is an immediate and ungarbled, "Gotcha." Now, when the content of the ideas we express is incorrect in your view, you should absolutely drill us all on it. But, when the content of what we say is ABOUT the member and the member's post, it is not only the expectation, but the requirement, that you pay attention to that. Playing dumb, while cute, won't get you far here. Gotcha. Funny, you can believe I am a dumba$$ all you want. I will leave knowing who the hypocrites are and who is actually trying to make this site better. Maybe I'll will see some of you at the warpath... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 You know, RW, as a houseguest, it's generally polite to avoid wiping your arse on the bath towels. But, since you apparently ARE on your way out, I suppose we'll just throw those particular towels away and move on. If you ever want to visit us again, do so through me. You know where I'll be. * By the way, having seen the general tenor of your posts and comments about us and this place on your home board, it is beyond ironic to see you having the nerve to suggest anyone here is a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 art.....this thread is getting out of control so I intend to throttle back. My point about the hirings was that Snyder does influence the football side of the house - his coaching selections ultimately determine the philosophy that guides everything from player selection to scheme. We have experieinced radical sea changes in this department over the last 6 years. No one...but no one...other than Mr Snyder is accountable for this. As an aside...and take it for what it's worth....in the Navy over the last few years we have had visits from several well known football sports announcers. I don't care to discuss who or what was said (yes, I know, I will take shots for this), but to a man they all had nothing but negative things to say about how DS was running the franchise. I'm as likely to listren to them as to others who are also knowledgeable but on the outside looking in. last post from me on this thread...... bear in mind......while I am not a supporter of the notion in play...and the very tenor of this thread suggests that "best owner in sports" is open to considerable dispute....for obvious reasons, I hope that eventually becomes truth. 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 Maybe I'll will see some of you at the warpath... Having been part of a Redskins community for over 7 years and running one the last 5.... I have a pretty good understanding of the expectations and mindset of Redskins fans. And quite frankly, allowing as many NON-REDSKINS fans here as we do, potentially jeopardizes our success and membership. Even the "good" opposing team fans like Tom, HeHateMe, Eagles_legendz, Texas Eagle, Moss84, and Westbrook36 (UNTIL RECENTLY) etc have taken grief from the membership here. Redskins fans, generally speaking, wish to converse and commiserate with each other. And if you wish to be part of this community... first of all you had better appreciate the mere "opportunity" to be part of it - or any website for that matter that offers you free content and bandwidth - by respecting the people that offer it to you AND you need to offer something of value to it. Unfortunately, you don't. But, being the tolerant staff that we are, we have always given opposing team fans the benefit of the doubt... appreciating that perhaps their perspective may in fact ADD to our value. And we've give enough rope to each of you to hang yourself. That's why YOU and HH31 have over 700 posts each. Unfortunately, when you're purpose here no longer has any value... and it's come to that point, we'll send you on your way. No regrets. We move on. And our membership continues to grow... and our community continues to get stronger for it. The BEST thing any of you trollers can do for this site is (1) leave it and (2) troll another Redskins site. We'll gladly take all the Redskins immigrants from other boards who don't appreciate it being overrun by trollers. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The extremist Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Originally posted by SonnyJ OK, so your example of a good owner is one who determines his club's #1 draft pick over the objections of his football people and signs a deal to relocate his team from its home of 40 years to a different state. Gotcha. We're on the same page now. I'm sorry, but this really needs to be clarified....The voters in CT voted down the possibility of a Pats move there years ago...Gilette Stadium is within spitting distance of the old Foxboro in Mass.....(and for the record, I was NEVER in favor of the 'skins even moving to [gag] Maryland) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Originally posted by Indigenous_persons I'm sorry, but this really needs to be clarified....The voters in CT voted down the possibility of a Pats move there years ago...Gilette Stadium is within spitting distance of the old Foxboro in Mass.....(and for the record, I was NEVER in favor of the 'skins even moving to [gag] Maryland) Not sure I understand your post. What is there to clarify? It was made public that Kraft had an agreement to move the team to Hartford. You can see a press release right here: http://www.ct.gov/governorrowland/cwp/view.asp?A=1331&Q=256172. I don't claim to know all the issues involved, but, the fact remains that Kraft entered into an agreement to take his team away from its ancestral roots to another state. There is no comparison to the Redskin's situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The extremist Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Originally posted by SonnyJ Not sure I understand your post. What is there to clarify? It was made public that Kraft had an agreement to move the team to Hartford. You can see a press release right here: http://www.ct.gov/governorrowland/cwp/view.asp?A=1331&Q=256172. I don't claim to know all the issues involved, but, the fact remains that Kraft entered into an agreement to take his team away from its ancestral roots to another state. There is no comparison to the Redskin's situation. Kraft made a deal on paper, but the people voted it down, and it never came close to being a reality--the bottom line is the Pats still make their 'ancestral roots' in Mass. (they're called 'New England', so they could be in Maine or Vermont and still be true to their ancestral roots)... Note your press release is dated 1998... http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/nengalnd/patriots.html "1999: The plans to move to Hartford would fall apart as voters in Connecticut rejected plans for a new stadium. Meanwhile the city of Foxboro stepped up with promise to build a new stadium, which would open in 2002. However, the news for the Pats team was not as good, as the team found it self without a RB when rookie Robert Edwards shredded his knee in a Rookie Beach football game in All-Pro weekend in Hawaii, the injury would put an end Edwards career. Despite the loss of Edwards the Patriots got off to a 4-0 start. However the Pats lost their next 2 as the Pats one-dimensional offense caught up to them. The Pats would win their next 2 games, but after losses in 6 of their next 7 Pete Carroll's fate was sealed. The Pats would win their final game of the season to finish at 8-8, but the search for a new coach was on." hell, the 'skins were supposed to have plans in place to move to VA more times than I can count before FexEx was built Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 16, 2005 Author Share Posted January 16, 2005 Originally posted by RW31 Gotcha. Funny, you can believe I am a dumba$$ all you want. I will leave knowing who the hypocrites are and who is actually trying to make this site better. Maybe I'll will see some of you at the warpath... RW, We're far and away the largest and most active site for the Redskins there is. If you can't find a way to avoid being banned here as you were before and recently allowed back, do you really think a smaller board will be good for you where it's harder to hide? No one HERE is telling you you're banned now. HH is. You're not. If you leave on your own, that's fine. If you stay, that's fine. But, please don't ever pretend your thought of leaving is somehow something we'll be saddened by. You just aren't all that valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 16, 2005 Author Share Posted January 16, 2005 Originally posted by fansince62 art.....this thread is getting out of control so I intend to throttle back. My point about the hirings was that Snyder does influence the football side of the house - his coaching selections ultimately determine the philosophy that guides everything from player selection to scheme. We have experieinced radical sea changes in this department over the last 6 years. No one...but no one...other than Mr Snyder is accountable for this. As an aside...and take it for what it's worth....in the Navy over the last few years we have had visits from several well known football sports announcers. I don't care to discuss who or what was said (yes, I know, I will take shots for this), but to a man they all had nothing but negative things to say about how DS was running the franchise. I'm as likely to listren to them as to others who are also knowledgeable but on the outside looking in. last post from me on this thread...... bear in mind......while I am not a supporter of the notion in play...and the very tenor of this thread suggests that "best owner in sports" is open to considerable dispute....for obvious reasons, I hope that eventually becomes truth. Al, Only in a REALLY fevered dream where Snyder is the bogie man is he the sole reason for the radical sea change we've seen when we've changed coaches. The reason why this is a dream and not reality? Because Spurrier QUIT. Snyder didn't fire him. He didn't ask him to leave. He stated he was going keep him. There wouldn't have BEEN a sea change had Spurrier decided to stay. He decided not to. Therefore, as with many things anti-Snyder people say, it's always peppered with a healthy portion of overstatement. And when overstatements are so common to make a point, it usually means the point isn't all that solid. I'm sorry you feel you should listen to various announcers you've run into. They have no idea how Snyder runs the franchise because they have no consistent access. I think it shows something that you'd value that view when it comes from people who have very limited access to the team. There ARE things Snyder does that make people very angry throughout the league. Petty little insults Snyder loves making. So, while it's not all that nice, it also isn't all that meaningful in the grand scheme of things. Snyder doesn't have to be liked by those in the league who can't do the things he can. That's not a requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Originally posted by The extremist Kraft made a deal on paper, but the people voted it down, and it never came close to being a reality--the bottom line is the Pats still make their 'ancestral roots' in Mass. (they're called 'New England', so they could be in Maine or Vermont and still be true to their ancestral roots)... Note your press release is dated 1998... http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/nengalnd/patriots.html "1999: The plans to move to Hartford would fall apart as voters in Connecticut rejected plans for a new stadium. Meanwhile the city of Foxboro stepped up with promise to build a new stadium, which would open in 2002. However, the news for the Pats team was not as good, as the team found it self without a RB when rookie Robert Edwards shredded his knee in a Rookie Beach football game in All-Pro weekend in Hawaii, the injury would put an end Edwards career. Despite the loss of Edwards the Patriots got off to a 4-0 start. However the Pats lost their next 2 as the Pats one-dimensional offense caught up to them. The Pats would win their next 2 games, but after losses in 6 of their next 7 Pete Carroll's fate was sealed. The Pats would win their final game of the season to finish at 8-8, but the search for a new coach was on." hell, the 'skins were supposed to have plans in place to move to VA more times than I can count before FexEx was built He still had a deal to move them, did he not? So we can agree he publicly displayed an intention to move the team. Whether or not the voters of Connecticut allowed the proposal to go through is irrelevant to the conversation. Kraft clearly agreed to moving the team from its ancestral roots - the team's name notwithstanding. They started as the Boston Patriots, and the team has stayed within Boston's general vicinity, thus it can reasonably be considered to be the team's ancestral roots. The Redskins trying to move to Virginia or Maryland is not a valid comparison. Financial considerations aside, those moves were akin to the Patriots current situation (actually less astray, but we won't split hairs) in Foxboro. They certainly weren't moving 100 miles away. It would be like the Redskins playing their games in Harrisonburg, VA. So, yeah, I consider this deal to be a black mark against Kraft. I don't see how this deal makes him much different than Bob Irsay, frankly. Agreeing to rip a long-standing civic institution out of one city and move to another because he got a better deal is not a sterling example of righteous ownership, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Originally posted by Art RW, We're far and away the largest and most active site for the Redskins there is. If you can't find a way to avoid being banned here as you were before and recently allowed back, do you really think a smaller board will be good for you where it's harder to hide? No one HERE is telling you you're banned now. HH is. You're not. If you leave on your own, that's fine. If you stay, that's fine. But, please don't ever pretend your thought of leaving is somehow something we'll be saddened by. You just aren't all that valuable. Actually ... Originally posted by Om You know, RW, as a houseguest, it's generally polite to avoid wiping your arse on the bath towels. But, since you apparently ARE on your way out, I suppose we'll just throw those particular towels away and move on. If you ever want to visit us again, do so through me. You know where I'll be. * By the way, having seen the general tenor of your posts and comments about us and this place on your home board, it is beyond ironic to see you having the nerve to suggest anyone here is a hypocrite. I don't expect I'll be hearing back, nor am I likely to be change my mind if I do. The 31 Boyz are having a grand old time giggling about all of this back on their home board ... I don't think they're quite ready to handle road games yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUBAKAH Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 I like butter on my popcorn. :munchout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Originally posted by CHUBAKAH I like butter on my popcorn. :munchout: Don't forget the salt. This is better than late night cable! :munchout: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondie Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 I am one of the majority......good owner.......making mistakes. What I find so intriguing about this thread is how civilily Art is answering each and every detractor. Gone are the caustic answers I have become so accustomed to reading when Art disagrees with someone......or should I say someone disagrees with Art. OK Art. What is the deal? Is Mr. Dan the Man himself lurking on this board and viewing how his public at large sees his maturation as the Redskin owner? Blondie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Art sees no wrong with management. No point of debating. Move on nothing to see here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 addendum....whatever..... 1) knowledgeable football people...people who have been in the business for a long time.......will have no basis for drawing conclusions (i.e., they have no foundation based on experieince for judging what they can see). This is almost comical - why even Bushian - "Trust us. You have to be on the inside and see what we see to make informed judgements. Please ignore all the evidence in front of you. There are things (even though we are not accountable) that you do not know." Which, of course, raises the matter of why ask the question in the first place since one can never be an "insider". Is this what this is really all about........:-).... 2) Spurrier is a strawman and, in the event, doesn't reach to what I was talking about. Each successive coach has had a different philosophy - often greatly so. The one hand that could ensure some modicum of consistency during these transitions hasn't done so. There's been no consistent VISION other than spend money and buy players. Ok. Great. We've seen the results thus far. But DS is ultimately responbible for achieving some consistency in the football vision - he hires these people. It's been all over the friggin map thus far. You want to bark up this ridiculous tree that's your business. If this (biased sample set) wants to rest its hat on the idea that good owners are those who really want to win and spend the money....well....have it! Ankle deep - but cool! And it allows a lot of leeway, as we have seen, for passing the buck vis the results onto others. Another really cool thing I'm sure DS wants to be known for! So far....DS has botched things up supremely. The first and nearly only smart thing he has done is hire Gibbs and stay the *ell out of the way. Hardly recommendations for "the best owner in sports." We all hope that Gibbs will grow him into a great owner....what's the statute of limitations on actually learning the business you have bought into? I need a reference point. 2 years? 4 years? 6 years? 2 decades? What's the gold standard here? enough already! this thread has descended into the absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REEGSKINS Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 the guy tries to get the pieaces to make us a great team. we should be mad if he was cheap. i think he will only get better. our organization as a whole is getting better. look out nfl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 Originally posted by RDSKNfaithfull Art sees no wrong with management. No point of debating. Move on nothing to see here. At no point have I said I see no wrong with management. I have simply noticed that those who see everything wrong with management ALSO tend to see things that aren't true and count them as factual reasons to see something wrong with management. There's always a point to debate when it assists people with false notions into recognizing that sometimes imagination can't trump reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 Originally posted by fansince62 addendum....whatever..... 1) knowledgeable football people...people who have been in the business for a long time.......will have no basis for drawing conclusions (i.e., they have no foundation based on experieince for judging what they can see). This is almost comical - why even Bushian - "Trust us. You have to be on the inside and see what we see to make informed judgements. Please ignore all the evidence in front of you. There are things (even though we are not accountable) that you do not know." Which, of course, raises the matter of why ask the question in the first place since one can never be an "insider". Is this what this is really all about........:-).... 2) Spurrier is a strawman and, in the event, doesn't reach to what I was talking about. Each successive coach has had a different philosophy - often greatly so. The one hand that could ensure some modicum of consistency during these transitions hasn't done so. There's been no consistent VISION other than spend money and buy players. Ok. Great. We've seen the results thus far. But DS is ultimately responbible for achieving some consistency in the football vision - he hires these people. It's been all over the friggin map thus far. You want to bark up this ridiculous tree that's your business. If this (biased sample set) wants to rest its hat on the idea that good owners are those who really want to win and spend the money....well....have it! Ankle deep - but cool! And it allows a lot of leeway, as we have seen, for passing the buck vis the results onto others. Another really cool thing I'm sure DS wants to be known for! So far....DS has botched things up supremely. The first and nearly only smart thing he has done is hire Gibbs and stay the *ell out of the way. Hardly recommendations for "the best owner in sports." We all hope that Gibbs will grow him into a great owner....what's the statute of limitations on actually learning the business you have bought into? I need a reference point. 2 years? 4 years? 6 years? 2 decades? What's the gold standard here? enough already! this thread has descended into the absurd. Al, Would you have me believe that when replacing Spurrier it would have been more wise had Snyder not hired Gibbs, but, rather, Mouse Davis? Apparently you are so confouned by the "sea change" caused by the Gibbs hire, you'd have us think we should have stuck with the wide-open attack Spurrier attempted to run in order to maintain some cohesion. Is this what you're saying? See, I find it terribly hard to believe, but, I actually am SEEING someone stand up and say the Gibbs hire was horrible because it didn't maintain consistency after the last guy quit. I've never thought I'd see a position expressed so, but it appears to be an almost desperate attempt to even negate a good thing Snyder did in getting Gibbs back to suggest it is somehow bad because he is changing course. Yes. Snyder did alter the approach of the organization when he shifted gears from Spurrier to Gibbs. If that means it's a bad thing then, all those sharp football folks you can't tell us about here haven't really imparted a lot of wisdom to you. I don't know who qualifies as knowledgeable football people to you, and I don't know any specifics of what they don't like about how Snyder does things, but, if this thread is any indication, it's almost certain to be peppered with false statements that those inclined to hate Snyder will latch onto as further evidence to hate Snyder. You know I like and respect you, Al, so this is not stated in a way to bash you. It just strikes me as odd that people who may possibly have never stepped foot in Redskins Park, who can nonetheless be knowledgeable people, are at least partially why you feel as you do. We KNOW how things are run within our organization in that things are kept VERY close to the vest. Leaks are willful, not uncontrolled. The way our management runs limits what insight anyone OUTSIDE management can offer. You know this. At least I think you should . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 Originally posted by Blondie I am one of the majority......good owner.......making mistakes. What I find so intriguing about this thread is how civilily Art is answering each and every detractor. Gone are the caustic answers I have become so accustomed to reading when Art disagrees with someone......or should I say someone disagrees with Art. OK Art. What is the deal? Is Mr. Dan the Man himself lurking on this board and viewing how his public at large sees his maturation as the Redskin owner? Blondie For the most part, Blondie, people aren't being wildy stupid in this thread, though, some have taken to exaggeration. I always treat a somewhat thoughful position well. It's positions that are entirely fictional in nature and without a bit of thought in support I treat far worse. You can always smartly disagree with me. You can never dumbly do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUBAKAH Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 :munchout: Will someone kindly pass the salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Art...while I realize it is a debating artifice to argue a point rather than an idea.... the argument has not been about Joe Gibbs....it's been the rather obvious observation that from Norv Turner (he wasn't a hire but he was retained) through to Joe Gibbs there has been no consistent underlying football philosophy underlying the hires. It's ratchetted from one end of the spectrum to the other. Extemporize on one hire all you want - that is a cold, hard fact. The "best owner in sports" is accountable for the hiring mess that has been the Washington Redskins over the last many years (we won't even address personnel). We are, let us all hope, in the process of straightening this out - again, Joe Gibbs to the rescue....right? The coaches who failed - and there have apparently been a lot of them - who hired them? That DS is "the best owner in sports" is ludicrous. The very best actually have a few notches on the belt that represent championships...let alone winning seasons. Let's give it at least another 10 seasons and maybe we'll work a SB or so into it and we can then raise the matter again. Perhaps the question could then be rephrased as: "If an owner achieves one championship and 2 winning seasons every 7 years...does he qualify for the epithet 'best owner in sports'"? Heck, folks are already lining up to cast their HOF ballots for DS - can't you just feel it? Winning baby. Just winning. You know - kinda like the "how many SB rings do you have" mantra we throw at Iggles fans on a regular basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.