Danny: Not a Jerk...Just Knee Jerk

[Art]

Art I think you are wrong to argue that having a great QB is what makes a good owner. Jack Kent Cook was a great owner and his teams won three super bowls with three different quarterbacks. What made him a great owner was the fact that he got out of the way and let "football" people like Joe Gibbs and Casserly run the "football" side of things.

When smart and professional football minds are running the show, they make sure their team has sufficent quality depth at all positions. They use draft picks to do so. They set out a clear and set vision of what type of team they want to build and then draft accordingly.

Because Danny refuses to bring in a real GM with a clear and set vision of the kind of team he/she wants to builld--we get constant turnover and a team that has a bunch of quality starters but hardly any quality depth at many key positions. You said that Brady made Kraft a good owner. But I think the fact that Brady went down in the first game and the Patriots were still a better team than the Redskins with thier backup Cassel highlights the benefits of an owner getting out of the way and letting talented GM's like Pioli build thier teams through the draft. Or look at how a talented football mind like Parcells was able to step in as GM for the Dolphins and quickly begin to build them into a decent team.

I agree with one of the earlier posters who said the proof is in the pudding. Danny's strategy of trying to fix holes on the roster with high priced free agents and throwing away draft picks has failed. One playoff win in a decade is a failure. Despite Danny's vast and nearly unrivaled football knowledge aquired over the past ten years, our team still sucks.

But that being said, for now we are seemingly stuck with Snyder. I for one will still put on my jersey and show up at the stadium to cheer on the Snyder-led Washington Redskins as loud as I can. Go Skins

The old Redskins won three Super Bowls with three QBs in an era of football which no longer exists. Even then, Super Bowls were won by teams with great QBs. The Redskins got great QB play in the years they won. Theismann and Rypien were among the league elite. In the Williams year, we had struggles there, but, put it together with dream play late. But, we were largely the exception for all time of a team who could win consistently without a true franchise QB.

The Steelers, Cowboys (with Staubach and Aikman), Niners, Broncos, Rams, Colts, Pats and even Steelers have all shown consistency in the face of changing times because of their QB. You sprinkle in here teams like the Ravens and Bucs. In the modern era, a true, elite level QB is the foundational piece that consistent winning is built on.

Without it you don't achieve it. With it, you do.

The Pats are an interesting story from last year, but, recall, they had the weakest schedule in the history of the world. I dare think we might be dangerous if we played a schedule that soft . Prior to Brady, Belicheck and his yes-man personnel guy, Pioli, were on the way out. After him, they are the greatest things in the world.

And the Patriots, like us for different reasons, are the place people WANT to go play now because of that stability and winning history. Kudos to them. And, again, if Colt is the next Brady, we'll all marvel at how great a franchise we have.

[Art]

Of course, I disagree with you. But, for the sake of the discussion, even assuming that you are correct, what are the results? We've been garbage as a team. And that is "unmistakable fact, that has no counter position." And that is the point. The plan does not work. In the military, it would make NO sense to argue that a tactic resulted in winning more battles than losing if you are still losing the war.

The proof is in the pudding. "The plan" has consistently failed, despite your belief that there are more hits than misses.

But, you have already found the answer.

If the team does a good job acquiring pieces and the team fails you cease looking at acquisitions and start looking at coaching. Gibbs wasn't very good. He made the playoffs twice but he wasn't very good. There's a reason coaches have a win/loss record and no one else does.

All the owner and personnel people can do is provide players. If the players are acceptable and the coach can't find consistency with them, it's in large part on the coach. Where we have failed from a personnel standpoint is finding a QB who is one of the better players in the league at his position.

[Art]

McD5.

What I wrote is very straightforward. That you lack comprehension of simple statements leads me to request of you greater intelligence. Again, some owners own a football team but run other businesses, never acquiring any real football insight or knowledge. Other owners run their football organization as a primary job, acquiring great levels of knowledge. Snyder is an owner who's had access to everything necessary to become very football saavy.

The fact that the personnel group rarely targets someone entirely unnecessary in acquisition through trade or free agency shows they are quite skilled in understanding our internal weaknesses and needs. Most would find this encouraging. I'm sorry you do not. To suggest Snyder knows nothing about football is pure idiocy, because, he knows football better than anyone here and better than all but a small handful of people in the world because of the level of information available to him that is not to most of us.

[tibbidoe]

But, you have already found the answer.

All the owner and personnel people can do is provide players. If the players are acceptable and the coach can't find consistency with them, it's in large part on the coach. Where we have failed from a personnel standpoint is finding a QB who is one of the better players in the league at his position.

But what if the owner/personnel bring in the wrong people? Consistantly? Year after year?

What if those players don't fit in with what the coach is trying to install system wise?

What if, while getting all these wonderful players, the owner/personnel trades away draft pick after draft pick?

What if the team, Dan Snyder in his infinite wisdom and his racquetball buddy stop being fools and finally hire smarter people than themselves to run it right?

One of these options will lead us to a Super Bowl title...

[Art]

But what if the owner/personnel bring in the wrong people. Consistantly. Year after year?

What if those players don't fit in with what the coach is trying to install system wise?

What if, while getting all these wonderful players, the owner/personnel trades away draft pick after draft pick?

Then you have Detroit.

You do not have that here.

In fact, we've clearly been very good, overall, identifying players to fit the systems of the coaching staffs we've had in place. While not every player is a Pro Bowler or great force like London Fletcher (who should have been a Pro Bowler) we have largely identified very good players to fill the voids we've had. Even guys who are not great, like Casey Rabach, have held down the starting job effectively for several years and while we'd like someone even better, he'd qualify generally as a successful addition.

For the most part, we've been good in adding solid pieces. Even trades that seemed poor on the face have given good performers. See Coles for Moss or Portis for Bailey. Even guys most here would consider failed acquisitions like Trotter or Bruce Smith, were actually competent players who did a nice job on the field, if never living up to their contract or reputations. We've had surprisingly few outright busts considering how active we are.

Our draft record is, of course, not as good. We've generally been ok with our earliest picks, but weaker as the draft wore on. A lot of teams are similar. Look at the Pats from 2007. I think they drafted 9 guys and 2 are left on the roster. The pure fact is MOST NFL draft picks are failures. Getting two good, starting quality guys a draft is pretty sweet if you can manage it. Getting more is a boon.

Our 2008 draft was more successful deep than any of us have seen for us at this stage. If our top end gets some production this year, it could be remembered as the draft that really set the team up for years to come.

[IronMike]

He own's the most valuable franchise in the NFL due, in many ways given we've not had a sustained, successful product during his tenure, to the downright stupidity of us, the loyal fans he so arrogantly treats as mere "customers"; and his continued exploitation of that blind, unconditional loyalty at the expense of giving us little in reward.

If you measure the success of an owner in monitory terms, at the expense of any on the actual field of play; then, and I say this in respectful terms, given your age, maybe's the whole ethos and concept of being a fan is just not for you.

Hail.

[tibbidoe]

Then you have Detroit.

You do not have that here.

In fact, we've clearly been very good, overall, identifying players to fit the systems of the coaching staffs we've had in place. While not every player is a Pro Bowler or great force like London Fletcher (who should have been a Pro Bowler) we have largely identified very good players to fill the voids we've had. Even guys who are not great, like Casey Rabach, have held down the starting job effectively for several years and while we'd like someone even better, he'd qualify generally as a successful addition.

For the most part, we've been good in adding solid pieces. Even trades that seemed poor on the face have given good performers. See Coles for Moss or Portis for Bailey. Even guys most here would consider failed acquisitions like Trotter or Bruce Smith, were actually competent players who did a nice job on the field, if never living up to their contract or reputations. We've had surprisingly few outright busts considering how active we are.

Our draft record is, of course, not as good. We've generally been ok with our earliest picks, but weaker as the draft wore on. A lot of teams are similar. Look at the Pats from 2007. I think they drafted 9 guys and 2 are left on the roster. The pure fact is MOST NFL draft picks are failures. Getting two good, starting quality guys a draft is pretty sweet if you can manage it. Getting more is a boon.

Our 2008 draft was more successful deep than any of us have seen for us at this stage. If our top end gets some production this year, it could be remembered as the draft that really set the team up for years to come.

The largest contract ever for a safety: Adam Archuleta
The largest contract ever for a defensive tackle: Albert Haynesworth

Did we NEED Deion Sanders? Jeff George? Jason Taylor?

No, The Great Danbino WANTED them and the other guys who didn't work out. Yeah, they got it right a few times, but more often than not, they didn't.

If you spend ten years trying to drive nails in with a hammer while your eyes are closed, how long before you open them so you can stop smashing your thumb?

[Art]

The largest contract ever for a safety: Adam Archuleta
The largest contract ever for a defensive tackle: Albert Haynesworth

Did we NEED Deion Sanders? Jeff George? Jason Taylor?

No, The Great Danbino WANTED them and the other guys who didn't work out. Yeah, they got it right a few times, but more often than not, they didn't.

If you spend ten years trying to drive nails in with a hammer while your eyes are closed, how long before you open them so you can stop smashing your thumb?

We don't know what Haynesworth will become here so it is meaningless what he received in contract. He may be worth it. He may not. We'll know in a couple years most likely.

Most people thought acquiring Jason Taylor was a stroke of genius when we did. We'd just gotten some injury at end and having the flexibility and ability to get Taylor was quite a good idea that was 100 percent necessary at the time. It's impossible to be upset with this and be honest in a conversation.

The 2000 Redskins were seen as a defense and a QB injury away from being a legitimate Super Bowl team. We fixed the defense and protected against QB injury. Sadly we had a bunch of guys who turned out to have had career-years offensively the previous season and it didn't work out. George signed to a SMALL veteran minimum contract in 2000 with a small $2 million signing bonus spread over four years.

MARTY screwed the pooch with him, guaranteeing millions of that contract's subsequent years and failing to get him to play well for us. Deion was a one year benefit to us but certainly didn't have the lasting power most we get have.

Now, what I said earlier was people who don't like Snyder and Cerrato can only ever seem to think of the negative, or those they perceive as negative even when facts say they aren't. So, I ask you to address the good. Smith, Portis, Moss, Rabach, Thomas, Kendall, ARE, Griffin, Washington, Springs, Hall, Fletcher, Carter.

Not every name there has been fantastic, but every has been a solid contributing player who generally overperformed their deals with us as trade acquisitions or free agent acquisitions. Again, the plain fact is we've had more good than ill. Once you process that, start wondering how it is you never knew that.

[hail2skins]

What has been screwed up under Snyder's ownership can be found in the number of coaches we've had. Since 2001, when he had the chance to pick his own coach, we've had four. That simple math does not add up to the mark of a successful franchise. Lets hope that number doesn't become five after the 2009 season.

[Art]

What has been screwed up under Snyder's ownership can be found in the number of coaches we've had. Since 2001, when he had the chance to pick his own coach, we've had four. That simple math does not add up to the mark of a successful franchise. Lets hope that number doesn't become five after the 2009 season.

Mostly unfair.

He fired Marty. Spurrier quit because he couldn't deal with the NFL stresses. Gibbs quit because he needed to quit. Snyder would have been forced to live through another Spurrier year had he not quit, so we should be thankful. But, it's hard to be angry at Snyder that his last two coaches have decided not to fulfill their contracts.

[putartmonkinthehall]

Good QB play is definetly an integral piece to the puzzle, no doubt. But I think the most important variable in developing a team that wins consistently over a period of time is having a knowledgable GM who implements a clear and set strategy and then drafts accordingly.

Say that a GM comes in and lays out a plan to build an attacking defense/run-heavy type team. He/she then drafts and trades for the type of players that fit that systym and aquires the positiion coaches and coordinators that are most well versed in that style of play. Conversely, if a GM comes in and wants to build a spread offense/"bend but don't break" defense type team, than they draft those types of players over a number of years and get position coaches and coordinators that are experts in that style of play.

I agree with you that the modern NFL is certainly different than back in JKC's era. making comparisons somewhat difficult, but since you mentioned some of the older teams and QBs, I'll use a couple of those examples. The Steelers of the 1970s definetly had good QB play from Bradshaw, no doubt. But I think why they were so consistently good in the 1970s and indeed, still consistently good in the modern era with a bunch of different QBs is that they have a clear vision of the type of team they want to be and draft accordingly.

Starting with the "Steel Curtain" in the 1970s and continuing up the modern day super bowl champs, they have consistenly drafted and aquired players that best complement an attacking style defense/run- heavy type team. They have aquired position coaches that are the best in thier profession at instilling that smashmouth type attitutde and style of play in their players. Thats why Russ Grim was brought in to coach there.

To me that type of long term strategy is the most important contributing factor to thier consistent success, more so than QB play. Just look at what happened when Rothelisberger went down in the game against us this year and Leftwhich came in and they still shoved it down our throats on both sides of the ball. We used to be that type of team in the 1980s, when Gibbs and Casserlly were drafting and building according to that long term strategy, and that to me is why we won three super bowls with three different QBs.

Under Snyder as de facto GM it seems to me that we have had absolutely no long term strategy. We have gone from firing a semi succesful Marty Schottenheimer, to Norv's recycled Dallas style team, to the fun and gun days of Spurrier, to the Smashmouth style of Joe Gibbs, and now to the West Coast offense of Zorn. Were is the Plan??!! HTTR

[hail2skins]

Mostly unfair.

He fired Marty. Spurrier quit because he couldn't deal with the NFL stresses. Gibbs quit because he needed to quit. Snyder would have been forced to live through another Spurrier year had he not quit, so we should be thankful. But, it's hard to be angry at Snyder that his last two coaches have decided not to fulfill their contracts.

Can't argue too much on Spurrier, although after he left he did allude to at least some frustration over Snyder's meddling. As for Gibbs.....yeah, was a great story for the fans, but did anyone seriously think Gibbs was going to last longer than the five-year deal?

If Dan fires Zorn after the 2009 season, he should really consider removing himself from the process of selecting the next HC.

[tibbidoe]

We don't know what Haynesworth will become here so it is meaningless what he received in contract. He may be worth it. He may not. We'll know in a couple years most likely.

...

Not every name there has been fantastic, but every has been a solid contributing player who generally overperformed their deals with us as trade acquisitions or free agent acquisitions. Again, the plain fact is we've had more good than ill. Once you process that, start wondering how it is you never knew that.

You must play racquetball with Danbino or have a twisted sense of humor.

Too many coaching changes, too many old players added at the expense of the draft and logic.

The Haynesworth money could have been spent on 3-4-5 other players. You can't tell me that Albert is >/= 3-4-5 other guys. What if HE gets injured? Crazy talk. There's no way he will contribute alone what several other players could have added, even with the double teams he'll get to open things up some for other guys.

Jeff George was just another failed experiment.

Marty was the first good coach we had. If Spurrier hadn't come along with his Fun-N-Gun trainwreck, Martyball would have at least made us respectable. Stephen Davis was the workhorse back that would have possibly carried us to the Super Bowl. Just ask Carolina.

So we HAD to have Jason Taylor? Why him? Why not someone younger who had more football left in him AND with a lower price tag?

[EDIT] Who are these MOST people who saw so much genius in that move?

I'll tell you why: The Great Danbino is obsessed with high-profile names. Players who made their names with other teams. He wants people talking about the Redskins all the time.

The Proof: Show me all the trophies we have won since he got here... I'll wait...

Yeah... Great owner.

[thesubmittedone]

Then you have Detroit.

You do not have that here.

In fact, we've clearly been very good, overall, identifying players to fit the systems of the coaching staffs we've had in place. While not every player is a Pro Bowler or great force like London Fletcher (who should have been a Pro Bowler) we have largely identified very good players to fill the voids we've had. Even guys who are not great, like Casey Rabach, have held down the starting job effectively for several years and while we'd like someone even better, he'd qualify generally as a successful addition.

For the most part, we've been good in adding solid pieces. Even trades that seemed poor on the face have given good performers. See Coles for Moss or Portis for Bailey. Even guys most here would consider failed acquisitions like Trotter or Bruce Smith, were actually competent players who did a nice job on the field, if never living up to their contract or reputations. We've had surprisingly few outright busts considering how active we are.

Our draft record is, of course, not as good. We've generally been ok with our earliest picks, but weaker as the draft wore on. A lot of teams are similar. Look at the Pats from 2007. I think they drafted 9 guys and 2 are left on the roster. The pure fact is MOST NFL draft picks are failures. Getting two good, starting quality guys a draft is pretty sweet if you can manage it. Getting more is a boon.

Our 2008 draft was more successful deep than any of us have seen for us at this stage. If our top end gets some production this year, it could be remembered as the draft that really set the team up for years to come.

That's the problem here, Art. Let's say the team is simply mediocre (although I disagree with that... I think we hold our own against most teams in the NFL) since most will, at the very least, agree with that. The problem is, so many can't see that mediocrity is mediocrity. Not good, not bad. They consider mediocrity as being equal to being "the worse team in the NFL", the "most mismanaged team in the NFL", or my favorite "the laughingstock of the league". This thread was only a few pages long before we started to see those gems being dropped. How they turn 5 out of 10 into 1 out of 10, or even 0 out of 10, is ridiculous. They turn a C into an F-. They turn 8-8 into 0-16. The Washington Redskins into the Detroit Lions.

Furthermore, they can't understand that being mediocre means three things. You can quickly get worse, you can quickly get better, or you can stay the same. When you're better than mediocre, it's harder to get worse, and when you're worse than mediocre, it's harder to get better. Basically, being mediocre means you're at a fork in the road and just as soon as you can take the right direction, you could take the wrong one, or just end up standing in the same spot for a long time not risking anything. Thus, they can't understand why others view our current mediocrity as potential to get better with just a few moves.

They can't see the good we've done that has enabled us to be, at the very least, a middle of the road team that has more of an opportunity to win games than many other teams. They only look at the bad that has caused us to be below some of the other, more dominant teams in the NFL. When someone like you, Art, comes along to explain to them that it is actually a few things (like great QB play) that'll make the difference, you're simply considered nothing more than a homer. Not being "realistic".

[veteranskinsfan]

You may have hit on something calling it a knee-jerk response each year by the Danny!! But also this year, I have a feeling the Skins marketing dept. has informed the Danny that it is getting harder to sell tickets for the upcoming season and that his bottom line might not be so lucrative at the end of the season. Less people attending games leads to less beer purchased, less food eaten at the stadium, fewer Skins t-shirts purchased etc. etc. The Danny will look to make headlines when he feels his ROI (return on investment) is threatened in any way. A few years ago, he hired Stubblefied and so this year it is our new guy from the Titans. At some point when his losses add up he will be forced to let his friend now -the GM go. If that does not happen, then the Danny and Vinny will walk out of Redskin Park together and the Skins publicist will be left there to face the press to explain why they had to sell the franchise.