PDA

View Full Version : Will We See Another Redskin Superbowl Vicory In our Lifetime?


Skins-R-Us
07-01-2009, 01:51 PM
First off, let me say that I am happy that the Redskins have won three Superbowls in my lifetime! I was born in 1965 so my age actually follows the Superbowl number, so when the Skins won Superbowl 17 in 1982, I was 17. Needless to say that was a great experience as a teenager!

Superbowl 22 in 87' I was 22, so that was a good age for a Championship and in 1991 for Superbowl 26 I was... you guessed it 26.

Now again, don't get me wrong, I am happy I got to experience the Redskins during the glory days, but it has been about 18 long years since then and I will be 44 in July.

Based on the current ownership, roster, age of roster and many other factors, do we actually think the Redskins will win another Superbowl in our lifetimes. Now I realize that depending how old you are now, that this question can have different answers, but I was just curious what you thought. It is still a month or two from real football so I am just throwing out some filler.

If you want to discuss how old you were when the Skins won that is fine too. Some of you may not have been born yet or were too young to appreciate our victories.

I am a die hard fan and I would like to see a few more SB victories before my time. My daughter is eight and she has seen nothing but misery for the most part. She is a fan, but the Skins need to help her out a little. LOL

Look forward to your responses.

shally
07-01-2009, 01:55 PM
First off, let me say that I am happy that the Redskins have won three Superbowls in my lifetime! I was born in 1965 so my age actually follows the Superbowl number, so when the Skins won Superbowl 17 in 1982, I was 17. Needless to say that was a great experience as a teenager!

Superbowl 22 in 87' I was 22, so that was a good age for a Championship and in 1991 for Superbowl 26 I was... you guessed it 26.

Now again, don't get me wrong, I am happy I got to experience the Redskins during the glory days, but it has been about 18 long years since then and I will be 44 in July.

Based on the current ownership, roster, age of roster and many other factors, do we actually think the Redskins will win another Superbowl in our lifetimes. Now I realize that depending how old you are now, that this question can have different answers, but I was just curious what you thought. It is still a month or two from real football so I am just throwing out some filler.

If you want to discuss how old you were when the Skins won that is fine too. Some of you may not have been born yet or were too young to appreciate our victories.

I am a die hard fan and I would like to see a few more SB victories before my time. My daughter is eight and she has seen nothing but misery for the most part. She is a fan, but the Skins need to help her out a little. LOL

Look forward to your responses.

yes !!

if the ***** cardinals can get into a SB and almost win one, absolutely,
we will see another SB win..

and i am a decrepit 62..lol

Sean36
07-01-2009, 02:10 PM
yes !!

if the ***** cardinals can get into a SB and almost win one, absolutely,
we will see another SB win..

and i am a decrepit 62..lol

I was like 2 or 3 when the skins won in 91....although i remember my dad putting a burgandy & gold shirt on me....//I had no chance 2 be anything else but a skin fan, & i love it. :)

SpicyMcHaggis
07-01-2009, 02:19 PM
Anytime fans of a team start asking themselves this question, you know that the team is in deep trouble.

Skins-R-Us
07-01-2009, 04:01 PM
Everyone including fans, whether we like to admit it or not, knows that this organization has deep rooted issues starting with (but not limited to) the Ownership and Front Office. I guess the real question is, how many years do you think it will take to win the next Superbowl. If we don't make a good run at it this year, we will have a lot of retooling to do, plus a new coach. So realistically we could be 5-7 years out.

One other factor could be the salary cap or lack there of next year. Because Snyderato wants to win bad, the money would be spent to try to get a winning product on the field, but that could backfire also.

SpicyMcHaggis
07-01-2009, 04:26 PM
Everyone including fans, whether we like to admit it or not, knows that this organization has deep rooted issues starting with (but not limited to) the Ownership and Front Office. I guess the real question is, how many years do you think it will take to win the next Superbowl. If we don't make a good run at it this year, we will have a lot of retooling to do, plus a new coach. So realistically we could be 5-7 years out.

One other factor could be the salary cap or lack there of next year. Because Snyderato wants to win bad, the money would be spent to try to get a winning product on the field, but that could backfire also.

Realistically we cannot quantify how many years we are out because we will never win with the current front office structure.

Death_Venom
07-01-2009, 04:26 PM
Everyone including fans, whether we like to admit it or not, knows that this organization has deep rooted issues starting with (but not limited to) the Ownership and Front Office. I guess the real question is, how many years do you think it will take to win the next Superbowl. If we don't make a good run at it this year, we will have a lot of retooling to do, plus a new coach. So realistically we could be 5-7 years out.

One other factor could be the salary cap or lack there of next year. Because Snyderato wants to win bad, the money would be spent to try to get a winning product on the field, but that could backfire also.

I don't know if the problem lies within the Owner Syder as he seems to have backed off a bit in the recent past. I believe the larger issue is the FO that clearly does not seem to have any bearings.

Skaggsrules
07-01-2009, 05:14 PM
Being 21, and starting to live a healthier live, I hope I can outlast Snyder, thus I hope I will witness a Redskins superbowl victory....and then I'll probably die in the ensuing celebration

smave
07-01-2009, 05:34 PM
doubtful honestly. Snyder is too young.

BurgundyNGold
07-01-2009, 05:45 PM
It depends on whether I outlive Snyder. He'll probably clone himself illegally in China and harvest organs from the clone to prolong his life. So, no, I won't.

akhhorus
07-01-2009, 05:59 PM
It depends on whether I outlive Snyder. He'll probably clone himself illegally in China and harvest organs from the clone to prolong his life. So, no, I won't.

Snyder is Wintermute and Cerrato is his Corto/Armitage lol.

Wild Bore
07-01-2009, 08:54 PM
When I started watching Redskins in about 1962, it had already been 20 years since the Redskins won the championship. I spent another 20 years (40 years total) watching until we won the next one in 1982-83.

It has only been 17 years since we won our last title. As frustrating as this is, we will win another one. We have had much longer periods of frustration that this. The 60's were awful (especially the early 60's). Although I was too young, the 50's were even worse (Shally, you were there in the 50's. care to comment?)

BurgundyNGold
07-01-2009, 09:05 PM
When I started watching Redskins in about 1962, it had already been 20 years since the Redskins won the championship. I spent another 20 years (40 years total) watching until we won the next one in 1982-83.

It has only been 17 years since we won our last title. As frustrating as this is, we will win another one. We have had much longer periods of frustration that this. The 60's were awful (especially the early 60's). Although I was too young, the 50's were even worse (Shally, you were there in the 50's. care to comment?)
You might want to clarify. Shally might come back with some comment about Henry Clay, lol.

Fathead
07-01-2009, 09:25 PM
You might want to clarify. Shally might come back with some comment about Henry Clay, lol.


I thought he'd be talking about how great it was to be an English subject back then, with commentary on the French and Indian war.

Patrick
07-01-2009, 09:33 PM
Every season I have hopes of going all the way ...... So my answer would be YES and several times over.

BurgundyNGold
07-01-2009, 10:06 PM
Snyder is Wintermute and Cerrato is his Corto/Armitage lol.
Nice pull, lol. Going back to the 80s for that one. ;)

BurgundyNGold
07-01-2009, 10:08 PM
I thought he'd be talking about how great it was to be an English subject back then, with commentary on the French and Indian war.
I think shally might end up on True Blood next season. Then he can finally meet Anna Paquin. Legally.

Skins-R-Us
07-01-2009, 10:12 PM
Every season I have hopes of going all the way ...... So my answer would be YES and several times over.

I think we all have the same "hopes" or we wouldn't be at this site. When you are as dedicated a fans as we are, it is hard to look at the NFL without our burgundy colored glasses on, so the glass is always looking half full. But if you look at the Skins without those glasses... YUK.

But I'm still hoping.

Hail

joethefan
07-01-2009, 11:52 PM
As long as this structure is in place, I say no. Snyder can't possibly have that kind of luck to win a SB with this kind of structure in place.....

I think what we all should be hoping for is a direction that leads to success like a GM that knows what he's doing, an owner that can trust people because everytime snyder puts his hands in something personell wise, he shows he doesn't trust anyone...but hey I thought I wouldn't see the first African American Pres until i was 70+...so on those grounds, anythings possible...

AGibbsGirl
07-02-2009, 12:05 PM
I'm with Patrick, any given year, any given Sunday, I think it's our time.

We will go to the Super Bowl this year


...or we may end up 1-15...either way, I'll be here

Skins7ny
07-02-2009, 12:27 PM
First off, let me say that I am happy that the Redskins have won three Superbowls in my lifetime! I was born in 1965 so my age actually follows the Superbowl number, so when the Skins won Superbowl 17 in 1982, I was 17. Needless to say that was a great experience as a teenager!

Superbowl 22 in 87' I was 22, so that was a good age for a Championship and in 1991 for Superbowl 26 I was... you guessed it 26.

Now again, don't get me wrong, I am happy I got to experience the Redskins during the glory days, but it has been about 18 long years since then and I will be 44 in July.

Based on the current ownership, roster, age of roster and many other factors, do we actually think the Redskins will win another Superbowl in our lifetimes. Now I realize that depending how old you are now, that this question can have different answers, but I was just curious what you thought. It is still a month or two from real football so I am just throwing out some filler.

If you want to discuss how old you were when the Skins won that is fine too. Some of you may not have been born yet or were too young to appreciate our victories.

I am a die hard fan and I would like to see a few more SB victories before my time. My daughter is eight and she has seen nothing but misery for the most part. She is a fan, but the Skins need to help her out a little. LOL

Look forward to your responses.
I also was born in 1965 (September) and also have the Super Bowl-age match thing going. Those Super Bowl seasons were magical, and even the non-Super Bowl years surrounding them were terrific, as we were a franchise that was run the right way, and we were always in contention.

I have no grounds for optimism with the current owner that we will ever win a Super Bowl again. He just doesn't get it, and I don't think he ever will.

resdog56
07-02-2009, 01:42 PM
Of course we can win another Super Bowl in our (and yes, Shally's), lifetime. I mean if the cheap-skate Bidwill's can get the Cardinals to the dance with a shoddy FO, at best; I think mini me and crazy eyes have a shot, too. The universe tends to work things out for even the most inept people, in due time.

As for a fast track I pose this proposition: We, the title-straved fans, pool what little savings we have and buy the Redskins out from under Napoleon's weak-wristed grasp. We bring Joe Gibbs back as Team President, let him hand pick the new GM and, voila, another Lomabrdi Trophy appears. Just something to ponder?

BTW-Shally is still known as the hero of the battle of Tippacanoe, give the man some respect!

LATrueRedskin
07-02-2009, 02:20 PM
I'm confident we'll see another one. And it will be glorious.

Skins-R-Us
07-02-2009, 02:45 PM
Of course we can win another Super Bowl in our (and yes, Shally's), lifetime. I mean if the cheap-skate Bidwill's can get the Cardinals to the dance with a shoddy FO, at best; I think mini me and crazy eyes have a shot, too. The universe tends to work things out for even the most inept people, in due time.

As for a fast track I pose this proposition: We, the title-straved fans, pool what little savings we have and buy the Redskins out from under Napoleon's weak-wristed grasp. We bring Joe Gibbs back as Team President, let him hand pick the new GM and, voila, another Lomabrdi Trophy appears. Just something to ponder?

BTW-Shally is still known as the hero of the battle of Tippacanoe, give the man some respect!

I'll chip in the first $100... now all we need is another $1.2 billion or so and we are good to go!

HanburgerBum
07-02-2009, 03:53 PM
First off, let me say that I am happy that the Redskins have won three Superbowls in my lifetime! I was born in 1965 so my age actually follows the Superbowl number, so when the Skins won Superbowl 17 in 1982, I was 17. Needless to say that was a great experience as a teenager!

Superbowl 22 in 87' I was 22, so that was a good age for a Championship and in 1991 for Superbowl 26 I was... you guessed it 26.

Now again, don't get me wrong, I am happy I got to experience the Redskins during the glory days, but it has been about 18 long years since then and I will be 44 in July.

Based on the current ownership, roster, age of roster and many other factors, do we actually think the Redskins will win another Superbowl in our lifetimes. Now I realize that depending how old you are now, that this question can have different answers, but I was just curious what you thought. It is still a month or two from real football so I am just throwing out some filler.

If you want to discuss how old you were when the Skins won that is fine too. Some of you may not have been born yet or were too young to appreciate our victories.

I am a die hard fan and I would like to see a few more SB victories before my time. My daughter is eight and she has seen nothing but misery for the most part. She is a fan, but the Skins need to help her out a little. LOL

Look forward to your responses.


You are in your mid-40s. If you can hang on for at least another 50 years, I think you will see another Redskins SB win. But, seriously, as Shally said, if the Cardinals came within a whisker of winning the last SB, why not the Redskins?

I have for some time thought that we may have to outlast Dan Snyder in order to win another SB. And, he would never sell the Redskins--at least not any time soon. But, I am beginning to think that it is no longer unthinkable that he would sell the team sooner than people think.

For one thing, the franchise is no longer the money-making machine it used to be. I don't think boxes are sold out. Even more alarming, I doubt general admission seats are sold out as season tickets. For another, Dan Snyder seems to have made very questionable investments away from football, and he may need the cash.

resdog56
07-02-2009, 04:10 PM
I'll chip in the first $100... now all we need is another $1.2 billion or so and we are good to go!

Now we're getting somewhere, I've got $1,500 on it.

culpeper
07-02-2009, 08:20 PM
Its easy to be negative. It takes very little thought and is rooted in emotion.

To be positive takes thought and perseverance against that negativity.

Who knows if we'll win one...but Id rather be the second option, even though I tell myself not to every year.

Emmanouel8
07-02-2009, 09:26 PM
Only three ways we'll see one IMO:

1.Snyder grows up and takes his hands off the organization and lets someone competent run it.

2.Snyder accidentally splashes his way to one

3.Ownership changes for the better

redskin_rich
07-02-2009, 11:42 PM
People keep bringing up Arizona but they didn't win the Super Bowl and they will likely slide back down into mediocrity or worse. Lots of teams have gotten a chance then disappeared from relevance. There are a few teams that have made a history of being losers in the Super Bowl.

When the Skins were good, they were a contender every year. Even if they failed to make it to the final game, there was little doubt that they would be back the next year.

I'm sorry but lucking into a Super Bowl appearance and nothing else is just not acceptable to me, regardless of how bad we have been over the last 17 years. I want and expect a perennial contender. That's what Redskins Football was to me. I remember when winning the division was expected and wild cards were considered down years.

shally
07-03-2009, 12:03 AM
I think shally might end up on True Blood next season. Then he can finally meet Anna Paquin. Legally.

Dude, She is 27 !! legal, but younger than 2 out of my 3 daughters...

then again, if she ditched that blonde look and went redhead......hmmmmmmmmmmm?

shally
07-03-2009, 12:03 AM
People keep bringing up Arizona but they didn't win the Super Bowl and they will likely slide back down into mediocrity or worse. Lots of teams have gotten a chance then disappeared from relevance. There are a few teams that have made a history of being losers in the Super Bowl.

When the Skins were good, they were a contender every year. Even if they failed to make it to the final game, there was little doubt that they would be back the next year.

I'm sorry but lucking into a Super Bowl appearance and nothing else is just not acceptable to me, regardless of how bad we have been over the last 17 years. I want and expect a perennial contender. That's what Redskins Football was to me. I remember when winning the division was expected and wild cards were considered down years.

right now, even a taste of the post season might be mighty good to sample again

redskin_rich
07-03-2009, 12:12 AM
right now, even a taste of the post season might be mighty good to sample again

Only if a strong presence was shown in the postseason and it was followed up by an equal or better showing the following year. We have followed up every playoff season (all 3) post Gibbs I with mediocrity at best and more questions than answers. Not to mention changes at either QB, OC or system. That simply doesn't work. Long term goals need long term commitment.

HanburgerBum
07-03-2009, 02:36 PM
People keep bringing up Arizona but they didn't win the Super Bowl and they will likely slide back down into mediocrity or worse. Lots of teams have gotten a chance then disappeared from relevance. There are a few teams that have made a history of being losers in the Super Bowl.

When the Skins were good, they were a contender every year. Even if they failed to make it to the final game, there was little doubt that they would be back the next year.

I'm sorry but lucking into a Super Bowl appearance and nothing else is just not acceptable to me, regardless of how bad we have been over the last 17 years. I want and expect a perennial contender. That's what Redskins Football was to me. I remember when winning the division was expected and wild cards were considered down years.


Lucking into a SB appearance is no longer acceptable, and only a perennial contender would do? You do have some exceeding high (and perhaps unrealistic) standards.

There are 32 teams in the NFL, and every one of them wants to be a perennial contender. Unlike baseball, virtually every team has the same financial resources to pursue its dreams. If nothing else, the law of average would preclude any team from being a perpetual contender.

Of course some franchises improve their odds by hiring capable people to run their teams. Even then, there are down cycles for these teams. While any team should always strive to be a contender every season, realistically, I would settle for being a contender a few years, followed by a down cycle and then a up cycle again.

sinskin
07-03-2009, 06:43 PM
yes !!

if the ***** cardinals can get into a SB and almost win one, absolutely,
we will see another SB win..

and i am a decrepit 62..lol

oh @$&!...... Zorn call a play now..... quick quick guys... huddle up.... nowww..... Someone tell JC to get his head out his arse and throw a damned TD pass..... we don't have much time left here.... lets go quick like!

DOUBLE TIME

ClubSandwichGuy
07-03-2009, 09:49 PM
The last time the 'skins won a superbowl was 10 months before I was born. :(

hail2skins
07-03-2009, 10:39 PM
Everyone including fans, whether we like to admit it or not, knows that this organization has deep rooted issues starting with (but not limited to) the Ownership and Front Office. I guess the real question is, how many years do you think it will take to win the next Superbowl. If we don't make a good run at it this year, we will have a lot of retooling to do, plus a new coach. So realistically we could be 5-7 years out.

One other factor could be the salary cap or lack there of next year. Because Snyderato wants to win bad, the money would be spent to try to get a winning product on the field, but that could backfire also.This criteria really makes this question unanswerable. You state we have problems deeply root with ownership and the front office. Well, that isn't going to change soon, so why pose the question. Basically, you are giving us no options with those statements.

redskin_rich
07-03-2009, 11:03 PM
Lucking into a SB appearance is no longer acceptable, and only a perennial contender would do? You do have some exceeding high (and perhaps unrealistic) standards.

There are 32 teams in the NFL, and every one of them wants to be a perennial contender. Unlike baseball, virtually every team has the same financial resources to pursue its dreams. If nothing else, the law of average would preclude any team from being a perpetual contender.

Of course some franchises improve their odds by hiring capable people to run their teams. Even then, there are down cycles for these teams. While any team should always strive to be a contender every season, realistically, I would settle for being a contender a few years, followed by a down cycle and then a up cycle again.
I realize that I was spoiled and after I posted, I thought about my elder brethren, that dealt with a long string of futility in the '50-'60's. I also realize that dynasties are rare these days. Though, it still can be done and has but the common thread is consistency with system, coaching and QB. Unfortunately, that is where our problem is. We do everything backwards. We finally draft what is to be our franchise QB, then we change the system. Then, we change the coach and the system again. Now, we have already tried to change the QB and I am sure there will be changes again after this season, to the coaching, QB and probably the system.

This happens when you have idiots in charge. This is why I don't want these clowns lucking into a Super Bowl embarrassment. Not that I think that will happen.

Again, how about winning the division for starters. Is wanting a season with 11 or more wins unreasonable, when it has not been accomplished since 5 presidential terms ago?

Patrick
07-04-2009, 05:55 AM
I realize that I was spoiled and after I posted, I thought about my elder brethren, that dealt with a long string of futility in the '50-'60's. I also realize that dynasties are rare these days. Though, it still can be done and has but the common thread is consistency with system, coaching and QB. Unfortunately, that is where our problem is. We do everything backwards. We finally draft what is to be our franchise QB, then we change the system. Then, we change the coach and the system again. Now, we have already tried to change the QB and I am sure there will be changes again after this season, to the coaching, QB and probably the system.

This happens when you have idiots in charge. This is why I don't want these clowns lucking into a Super Bowl embarrassment. Not that I think that will happen.

Again, how about winning the division for starters. Is wanting a season with 11 or more wins unreasonable, when it has not been accomplished since 5 presidential terms ago?
First, Thanks for thinking of us ........... ;)
Second I agree - getting this team heading in the right direction (NOW) would be a very good thing and that's why I'm pulling for Zorn - I really don't feel like waiting till next season or the one after.

oldskinfan
07-04-2009, 10:59 AM
I guess it depends on how old you are ;)

BurgundyNGold
07-04-2009, 12:02 PM
Lucking into a SB appearance is no longer acceptable, and only a perennial contender would do? You do have some exceeding high (and perhaps unrealistic) standards.

There are 32 teams in the NFL, and every one of them wants to be a perennial contender. Unlike baseball, virtually every team has the same financial resources to pursue its dreams. If nothing else, the law of average would preclude any team from being a perpetual contender.

Of course some franchises improve their odds by hiring capable people to run their teams. Even then, there are down cycles for these teams. While any team should always strive to be a contender every season, realistically, I would settle for being a contender a few years, followed by a down cycle and then a up cycle again.
The problems with this statement are two.

First, there is nothing that says that all 32 teams have the same desire to win. Some really, really, REALLY want to win and others merely want to turn a profit. The majority are some shades of each as a Bell curve in between.

Second, the law of averages bit falls down completely because not all teams are created equal. If they all had the same owner, the same GM and the same coaching staff then, yeah, there might be something to that. But the reality is that the teams with the best FO have success at a rate that is disproportionate to the mean expectation. Conversely, the teams that are most poorly run in the FO have a disproportionate amount of failure associated with their franchises.

Our FO is, conservatively speaking, in the bottom third of aptitude, meaning that the odds are actually longer for us to have a single year of high level success -- let alone sustained success. And those odds aren't going to change long as that's the case.

Snyder is the biggest obstacle to the Redskins success.

shally
07-04-2009, 12:57 PM
The problems with this statement are two.

First, there is nothing that says that all 32 teams have the same desire to win. Some really, really, REALLY want to win and others merely want to turn a profit. The majority are some shades of each as a Bell curve in between.

Second, the law of averages bit falls down completely because not all teams are created equal. If they all had the same owner, the same GM and the same coaching staff then, yeah, there might be something to that. But the reality is that the teams with the best FO have success at a rate that is disproportionate to the mean expectation. Conversely, the teams that are most poorly run in the FO have a disproportionate amount of failure associated with their franchises.

Our FO is, conservatively speaking, in the bottom third of aptitude, meaning that the odds are actually longer for us to have a single year of high level success -- let alone sustained success. And those odds aren't going to change long as that's the case.

Snyder is the biggest obstacle to the Redskins success.


actually i was going to disagree with you and say that it was Vinny who was the largest impediment to success, not snyder.. mainly because Vinny seems to have no ability or skills for his position and constantly bends to snyders fan-like wishes

but the more i thought about it, the more i come around to your way of thinking..snyder even managed to water down Gibbs' ability.. and i also doubt that snyder will ever put the team in the hands of a strong GM and get out of the way.. he simply enjoys meddling too much. he has the perfect tool (in so many ways) in Vinny. even abject failure may not be enough to separate him from his mouthpiece and co-conspirator.. this whole offseason from the courting of cutler, the signing of haynesworth, the attempt to trade for
a shot at sanchez, the signing of M williams, and the dis-ing of campbell
has snyder's fingerprints all over it..

the basic problem is that snyder's money and his willingness to spend huge chunks of it, insulates the team from total failure over multiple years.
he avoids the upheaval and dynamics that would force him to take a hard look at the entire operation, including himself, and make radical changes.. the team is constantly just good enough that it fuels his fantasy that they are"just one or 2 players away from the superbowl".. and the success of teams like Arizona, or Atlanta who seem to come out of the wilderness because of one solid offseason and some luck, only abets it further..

we are either going to have to get very lucky, or very unlucky, or we will likely
remain in this perpetual wash/rinse/repeat cycle...as long as snyder is calling the shots.. people forget that teams like the Niners or Steelers were wretched for decades at a time in the past. we could wander in the wilderness for a mighty long time

HanburgerBum
07-04-2009, 02:00 PM
I realize that I was spoiled and after I posted, I thought about my elder brethren, that dealt with a long string of futility in the '50-'60's. I also realize that dynasties are rare these days. Though, it still can be done and has but the common thread is consistency with system, coaching and QB. Unfortunately, that is where our problem is. We do everything backwards. We finally draft what is to be our franchise QB, then we change the system. Then, we change the coach and the system again. Now, we have already tried to change the QB and I am sure there will be changes again after this season, to the coaching, QB and probably the system.

This happens when you have idiots in charge. This is why I don't want these clowns lucking into a Super Bowl embarrassment. Not that I think that will happen.

Again, how about winning the division for starters. Is wanting a season with 11 or more wins unreasonable, when it has not been accomplished since 5 presidential terms ago?


I am one of those people who started to follow the Skins back in the 50s. There were some really, really bad seasons until George Allen put us on the map. After a brief lull following the Allen era, Joe Gibbs really put us on the map. Like you, I became spoiled during the Gibbs years--I came to expect SBs routinely.

The last 18 years have brought me back to reality. It is just damn hard to be a contender in the NFL--especially when there is an impatient owner who doesn't hire the right people.

I sense there is a fan revolt brewing--at least a small one. Perhaps Snyder would have to change his ways to quell the uprising or sell the team.

HanburgerBum
07-04-2009, 02:08 PM
The problems with this statement are two.

First, there is nothing that says that all 32 teams have the same desire to win. Some really, really, REALLY want to win and others merely want to turn a profit. The majority are some shades of each as a Bell curve in between.

Second, the law of averages bit falls down completely because not all teams are created equal. If they all had the same owner, the same GM and the same coaching staff then, yeah, there might be something to that. But the reality is that the teams with the best FO have success at a rate that is disproportionate to the mean expectation. Conversely, the teams that are most poorly run in the FO have a disproportionate amount of failure associated with their franchises.




Our FO is, conservatively speaking, in the bottom third of aptitude, meaning that the odds are actually longer for us to have a single year of high level success -- let alone sustained success. And those odds aren't going to change long as that's the case.

Snyder is the biggest obstacle to the Redskins success.


I do agree with your second point. The law of averages is skewed by the quality of the front office. Those with good people are going to win much more than the rest.

However, I think the old bromide that some owners have more desire to win than others is no longer true. Every owner wants to win--it's just human nature. Supposedly, "cheapskate" owners like Bidwell won't spend to win, but even that is increasingly not the case. The Cardinals are one of the teams with very little cap room to spare.

GibbsFan
07-04-2009, 02:25 PM
yes, anything is possible we can win.

but not likely as long as Dan is around. :smash:

shally
07-04-2009, 02:28 PM
I do agree with your second point. The law of averages is skewed by the quality of the front office. Those with good people are going to win much more than the rest.

However, I think the old bromide that some owners have more desire to win than others is no longer true. Every owner wants to win--it's just human nature. Supposedly, "cheapskate" owners like Bidwell won't spend to win, but even that is increasingly not the case. The Cardinals are one of the teams with very little cap room to spare.

the obvious issue is that there is very little difference in the bottom line of winning or losing teams.. with shared revenues a team can do poorly year after year and still enrich ownership.. if the owner looks at his team purely as an investment, why should he overspend to try and win ? in fact, if there werent a "floor" that all teams had to reach in salary, i submit some owners would simply suck up the winnings and walk away each year...

colkurtz
07-04-2009, 02:52 PM
We have a poor owner and an even worse "GM" with Vinny Cerrato. I find it hard to envision any way for this combination and management style to be successful in the NFL. After a decade of the Snyder era there has been little improvement from this owner.

Snyder is smart enough to spend big in the off-season and get enough talent to keep the team from total collapse. Yet the reliance on FA keeps the team old and expensive. Some FA come here to park it, play just well enough not to get hurt and still collect that big paycheck. Danny's fantasy Redskins are the ONLY team to rely so much on FA.

Under Snyder our most wins is 9 and least wins is 5; with an overall record in the bottom quarter of teams in that period. Until he changes, or sells the team I see no real chance for this franchise to make it deep in the playoffs......................

I'm NOT as old a Shally but I DID serve in Gettysburg [or so my old Fighter Wing personnel said of me].

BurgundyNGold
07-04-2009, 03:31 PM
I do agree with your second point. The law of averages is skewed by the quality of the front office. Those with good people are going to win much more than the rest.

However, I think the old bromide that some owners have more desire to win than others is no longer true. Every owner wants to win--it's just human nature. Supposedly, "cheapskate" owners like Bidwell won't spend to win, but even that is increasingly not the case. The Cardinals are one of the teams with very little cap room to spare.
Willingness to spend money != Desire to win. Or, at least it's not the same measure.

After all, spending money and making splashy signings could be little more than a marketing strategy. It seems to work very well every year on the lemmings. And there seem to be plenty of them. Sure, it could show the desire to win, but when there are many other factors that go into winning that go ignored year after year because it conflicts with the owner's ego or vision of self worth (such as hiring a competent GM, developing and nurturing a scouting department, hiring the best available coach, then getting the **** out of the way and letting them all do the jobs they were ostensibly hired to do), one has to think that winning takes a back seat to something else.

To me, that doesn't cut it when there are so many other organizations that, in the desire to win, put those other aspects of a good FO ahead of their own egos and their desire for immediate gratification.

This is where the "Nobody wants to bid as badly as Snyder" arguments fall down. It's simply not true. The only thing you can say about Snyder is "Nobody wants to win as badly as Snyder, as long as it's *his* way". He's content to simply be the face of the Redskins, make his money and be marginally successful if he gets to do it *his way*. Winning is second.

colkurtz
07-04-2009, 11:59 PM
Willingness to spend money != Desire to win. Or, at least it's not the same measure.

After all, spending money and making splashy signings could be little more than a marketing strategy. It seems to work very well every year on the lemmings. And there seem to be plenty of them. Sure, it could show the desire to win, but when there are many other factors that go into winning that go ignored year after year because it conflicts with the owner's ego or vision of self worth (such as hiring a competent GM, developing and nurturing a scouting department, hiring the best available coach, then getting the **** out of the way and letting them all do the jobs they were ostensibly hired to do), one has to think that winning takes a back seat to something else.

To me, that doesn't cut it when there are so many other organizations that, in the desire to win, put those other aspects of a good FO ahead of their own egos and their desire for immediate gratification.

This is where the "Nobody wants to bid as badly as Snyder" arguments fall down. It's simply not true. The only thing you can say about Snyder is "Nobody wants to win as badly as Snyder, as long as it's *his* way". He's content to simply be the face of the Redskins, make his money and be marginally successful if he gets to do it *his way*. Winning is second.

+1. Bingo.

The Snyder propoganda machine says that Snyder will spend whatever it takes to win.... but ONLY if the organization is run HIS WAY. That means:

1. Hiring a pseudo "GM" who is considered one of the worst in his position in the NFL. However, since he's not called the GM, then Mr Cerrato has no responsibility or accountability. Ultimately, these personel decisions are blamed on the current coach.

2. Mr Snyder has his fingers in every part of the organizations operations, including personnel decisions up through the head coach level. He brings in a new head coach but forces Zorn to accept Snyderrato's choices for coaches.

3. Snyder is just addicted to the spring season "Big Splash" player starting with Deion, Bruce Smith and Jeff George. The big splash and fantasy football personnel selection process has not worked yet. Every spring there are new FA players to feed his addiction.

"Spending a lot", "being a lifelong Redskins fan", "willing to do anything for a SB" don't cut it in this league. It's not enough. Until Snyder reigns in his own ego and gives control to some real NFL talent at coach AND GM, this team will be mediocre. When we look at Vinny's player selections - how can any head coach win with that deft of draft talent?

HanburgerBum
07-05-2009, 02:53 PM
Willingness to spend money != Desire to win. Or, at least it's not the same measure.

After all, spending money and making splashy signings could be little more than a marketing strategy. It seems to work very well every year on the lemmings. And there seem to be plenty of them. Sure, it could show the desire to win, but when there are many other factors that go into winning that go ignored year after year because it conflicts with the owner's ego or vision of self worth (such as hiring a competent GM, developing and nurturing a scouting department, hiring the best available coach, then getting the **** out of the way and letting them all do the jobs they were ostensibly hired to do), one has to think that winning takes a back seat to something else.

To me, that doesn't cut it when there are so many other organizations that, in the desire to win, put those other aspects of a good FO ahead of their own egos and their desire for immediate gratification.

This is where the "Nobody wants to bid as badly as Snyder" arguments fall down. It's simply not true. The only thing you can say about Snyder is "Nobody wants to win as badly as Snyder, as long as it's *his* way". He's content to simply be the face of the Redskins, make his money and be marginally successful if he gets to do it *his way*. Winning is second.


You are right that Snyder's ego seems to be standing in the way of the Redskins success on the field. Unlike Jack Kent Cooke, Snyder just can't seem to keep his hands off his toy.

However, I think that has to do with how smart Snyder has been and not with his "desire to win". I don't think Snyder realizes that his meddling is counter-productive. He is a self-made billionaire and he is supremely confident of his own judgment and ability. I think he feels that his management style will mean success down the road.

I question Snyder's acumen as an owner, but not his motives.

HanburgerBum
07-05-2009, 03:11 PM
the obvious issue is that there is very little difference in the bottom line of winning or losing teams.. with shared revenues a team can do poorly year after year and still enrich ownership.. if the owner looks at his team purely as an investment, why should he overspend to try and win ? in fact, if there werent a "floor" that all teams had to reach in salary, i submit some owners would simply suck up the winnings and walk away each year...


A NFL franchise has always sold for much more than its original purchase price. So, it is a great long-term investment.

For the short-term, I really don't agree with the idea that some owners are more concerned with profits every year at the expense of winning. That may be true in the early years of the League when teams were not owned by rich people and meeting expenses every year was a real concern. But, today, there are very few owners in the game who are not independently wealthy. Going over the budget in a particular year is not going to hold an owner back from spending to win.

After all, wanting to win is human nature. Plus, franchises that traditionally won a lot are usually worth more when they are sold.

wide_awake
07-05-2009, 06:50 PM
However, I think that has to do with how smart Snyder has been and not with his "desire to win". I don't think Snyder realizes that his meddling is counter-productive.

He would have to be a flat out idiot to believe this. I don't think he is that stupid. It's no mystery his methods do not work (see his record while owning the team), nor does anyone in the analyst role agree with them. My guess is that while he is well aware of the criticism (billionaires are usually aware of their surroundings), he chooses to ignore it because:

A) He doesn't want success that he isn't significantly apart of
B) Financial reasons

colkurtz
07-05-2009, 07:28 PM
Snyder may be smart at making money off of his one corporation, but with the overall record of this franchise (since he bought it) you've got to wonder what his true goals are for this organization.

1. Make the Redskins a massive money maker - check
2. Make the Redskins one of most valuable sports franchises in the world - check
3. Give himself ironclad control of every aspect of this franchise - check
4. build a franchise that copies his friend and mentor Jerry Jones - check
4. Win the SB or a consistently winning franchise - NO - not even close

Operating the same way for a decade and having one of the lowest win-loss records in that period shows me that he's not going to change. The latest articles on his reign by sports writers usually list him at the bottom of owners in the NFL. After 10 years in the job - where is the learning curve?

I used to be a big supporter of Danny Snyder for years. Not any more. The truth is in the product and actions - not from his micromanagement of a propoganda machine that includes radio and internet outlets to get out his message. When he releases some control with a true GM or Head Coach / GM THEN I will believe he cares about winning over money or his ego.

BurgundyNGold
07-05-2009, 09:00 PM
A NFL franchise has always sold for much more than its original purchase price. So, it is a great long-term investment.

For the short-term, I really don't agree with the idea that some owners are more concerned with profits every year at the expense of winning. That may be true in the early years of the League when teams were not owned by rich people and meeting expenses every year was a real concern. But, today, there are very few owners in the game who are not independently wealthy. Going over the budget in a particular year is not going to hold an owner back from spending to win.

After all, wanting to win is human nature. Plus, franchises that traditionally won a lot are usually worth more when they are sold.
He's been doing it for 10 years. At what point do you, as a "good businessman" -- or even just a sensible human being of average intellect -- realize that your way ain't cutting it?

I question his desire to win. Not as an attribute, because I believe he does have a desire to win. I just don't think his desire to win is enough to overcome his desire to be the center cog in the wheel; the cigar smoking, big shot owner of the Washington Redskins who wants to show everyone that his way can produce a winner.

His ownership style has become more about his ego, his desire to show everyone how smart he is than it is about winning at any cost. I know this because he's not winning to pay any cost. He's only willing to explore about 15% of his field of vision. The desire win is not strong enough to swallow his pride, hire the right people and just go away.

shally
07-05-2009, 09:37 PM
He's been doing it for 10 years. At what point do you, as a "good businessman" -- or even just a sensible human being of average intellect -- realize that your way ain't cutting it?

I question his desire to win. Not as an attribute, because I believe he does have a desire to win. I just don't think his desire to win is enough to overcome his desire to be the center cog in the wheel; the cigar smoking, big shot owner of the Washington Redskins who wants to show everyone that his way can produce a winner.

His ownership style has become more about his ego, his desire to show everyone how smart he is than it is about winning at any cost. I know this because he's not winning to pay any cost. He's only willing to explore about 15% of his field of vision. The desire win is not strong enough to swallow his pride, hire the right people and just go away.

the single greatest impediment to Snyder becoming a smarter owner is the early success that Jerry Jones has had.. the fact that Jones has won 3 trophies acting as his own GM has to chap Snyder every day.

Never mind that he would have won ZERO had it not been for Jimmy Johnson striking gold at the tail end of the old system, i am sure that Jones believes to this day that it was he who masterminded the whole thing.. and i bet he is not shy about rubbing Snyder's nose in it.. the fact that he has done nothing since that team disintegrated (it literally won on autopilot under Switzer) is totally lost on both of them

Snyer has no desire to be Rooney, or even Robert Kraft.. he wants to emulate Jones.. and sadly, he is doing exactly that.. he even has a better RECENT post season record than Jones...

akhhorus
07-05-2009, 09:39 PM
the single greatest impediment to Snyder becoming a smarter owner is the early success that Jerry Jones has had.. the fact that Jones has won 3 trophies acting as his own GM has to chap Snyder every day.

Never mind that he would have won ZERO had it not been for Jimmy Johnson striking gold at the tail end of the old system, i am sure that Jones believes to this day that it was he who masterminded the whole thing.. and i bet he is not shy about rubbing Snyder's nose in it.. the fact that he has done nothing since that team disintegrated (it literally won on autopilot under Switzer) is totally lost on both of them

Snyer has no desire to be Rooney, or even Robert Kraft.. he wants to emulate Jones.. and sadly, he is doing exactly that.. he even has a better RECENT post season record than Jones...

Not only that, but since the Skins always finish in the 7-9 to 10-6 range, Snyder can always delude himself into thinking that they're just a player or two away.

shally
07-05-2009, 09:46 PM
Not only that, but since the Skins always finish in the 7-9 to 10-6 range, Snyder can always delude himself into thinking that they're just a player or two away.

absolutely !

we are not going the way of natural cycles in the NFL because snyder's money cushions the impact of a poor year.

Lord help us if we see a truly uncapped system because snyder will change rosters in wholesale moves if there is no penalty.. as long as he isnt losing money, he will show the league REAL roster churning...

colkurtz
07-06-2009, 04:40 AM
absolutely !

we are not going the way of natural cycles in the NFL because snyder's money cushions the impact of a poor year.

Lord help us if we see a truly uncapped system because snyder will change rosters in wholesale moves if there is no penalty.. as long as he isnt losing money, he will show the league REAL roster churning...

Do you really think the league will go uncapped next season?

If it did then Snyder would go right back to his first season with Deion, Bruce Smith, Jeff George and others I can't even remember. This franchise would be the #1 watering hole for Pro Bowlers who are about 5 years past their prime.....

Snyder copies the Jerry Jones owner model BUT thinks he can do far better than him. "This will be the season where his latest fantasy football FA pick will turn this team around".

shally
07-06-2009, 05:31 AM
Do you really think the league will go uncapped next season?

If it did then Snyder would go right back to his first season with Deion, Bruce Smith, Jeff George and others I can't even remember. This franchise would be the #1 watering hole for Pro Bowlers who are about 5 years past their prime.....

Snyder copies the Jerry Jones owner model BUT thinks he can do far better than him. "This will be the season where his latest fantasy football FA pick will turn this team around".

yes, i do think that the league will go uncapped..

the players want it
some of the owners want it
to prevent it happening there needs to be a consensus among the owners and players, and right now, i dont see that building

all things considered, believe the most chaotic scenario is the most likely to occur (paraphrasing of Newton's Law on Entropy)

and yes, if given that kind of opportunity i believe a frustrated snyder would play his version of fantasy football

MadDog97
07-06-2009, 06:02 AM
yes, i do think that the league will go uncapped..

the players want it
some of the owners want it
to prevent it happening there needs to be a consensus among the owners and players, and right now, i dont see that building

all things considered, believe the most chaotic scenario is the most likely to occur (paraphrasing of Newton's Law on Entropy)

and yes, if given that kind of opportunity i believe a frustrated snyder would play his version of fantasy football

Yes, I agree that Danny would go nuts, and that would send us in a downward spiral. Of course, the economy has to impact the Danny so maybe he will use some good sense.

smoak
07-06-2009, 07:00 AM
I have my doubts... But I am here regardless. I think at this point I am so far into the camp of disbelief that I may die of shock if it happens.

That said, all my "disbelief" is based in logic and reasoning whereas my passion and heart say "bring it on" for every game!!

SkinsGuru
07-06-2009, 02:01 PM
This criteria really makes this question unanswerable. You state we have problems deeply root with ownership and the front office. Well, that isn't going to change soon, so why pose the question. Basically, you are giving us no options with those statements.

well . . . one thing for sure is our ownershipe is willing to spend the $$ . . . that being said . . . IF . . . there is no cap after this year, you never know . . . we could keep spending and cutting until we have a lucky year or 2

firehawk157
07-06-2009, 03:36 PM
You have to remember that other teams won't have a salary cap either, meaning that the stars of the league won't likely see FA. That may force Danny to value the draft because there just won't be much of a FA.

akhhorus
07-06-2009, 03:39 PM
You have to remember that other teams won't have a salary cap either, meaning that the stars of the league won't likely see FA. That may force Danny to value the draft because there just won't be much of a FA.

It will create a massive trade market with the top 8 teams trying to shed contracts so they can sign players and small market teams selling young stars they don't want to pay. I think that would be the ultimate disaster for Snyder: this isn't euro soccer or baseball where you can just outspend everyone, you have to build a "team." No cap would just enable Snyder to flush the Skins of most of their big contracts and start handing out new big ones to anyone who wants cash.

shally
07-06-2009, 03:46 PM
It will create a massive trade market with the top 8 teams trying to shed contracts so they can sign players and small market teams selling young stars they don't want to pay. I think that would be the ultimate disaster for Snyder: this isn't euro soccer or baseball where you can just outspend everyone, you have to build a "team." No cap would just enable Snyder to flush the Skins of most of their big contracts and start handing out new big ones to anyone who wants cash.

yup..that is exactly what i would predict snyder would do..

you would create teams that would act as quasi feeder teams for the better endowed clubs

akhhorus
07-06-2009, 03:50 PM
yup..that is exactly what i would predict snyder would do..

you would create teams that would act as quasi feeder teams for the better endowed clubs

I think the players are realizing that there isn't enough money in the big market/revenue teams for the salaries to be significantly better without a cap and without a salary floor, teams will dump salary big time.

shally
07-06-2009, 03:52 PM
I think the players are realizing that there isn't enough money in the big market/revenue teams for the salaries to be significantly better without a cap and without a salary floor, teams will dump salary big time.

if so, that will drive a huge wedge between starters and reserves.. i dont think there will be any kind of consensus among the players

akhhorus
07-06-2009, 03:56 PM
if so, that will drive a huge wedge between starters and reserves.. i dont think there will be any kind of consensus among the players

We'll see. I have a feeling they'll cut a deal with the league to continue the CBA with some modifications to the system(trading the franchise tag for a hometown star tag where a team can designate 2 players who's contracts don't count against the cap, tweaking the percentages of revenues that count towards the revenue of the cap).

shally
07-06-2009, 03:58 PM
We'll see. I have a feeling they'll cut a deal with the league to continue the CBA with some modifications to the system(trading the franchise tag for a hometown star tag where a team can designate 2 players who's contracts don't count against the cap, tweaking the percentages of revenues that count towards the revenue of the cap).

they need a rookie wage scale more than anything else..

but the owners are in an aggressive "take back" mode.. if they remain that way, we are headed to some kind of lockout or work stoppage for sure

colkurtz
07-06-2009, 04:28 PM
The NFL has been successful due to parity. On any given Sunday the worst can beat the best. Teams that are predicted to win 5 games go deep into the playoffs. Others melt down in one season. A smaller city can take on the media giants.

Other sports have self-destructed but I think the NFL will come to it's senses and keep the golden goose laying those eggs.

An uncapped year might be the best chance for Snyder to dump the old dead wood and quickly build a new team of FA who want to cash in here.

Nomad
07-06-2009, 05:08 PM
Not in Snyder's lifetime.

Red Bear
07-06-2009, 08:15 PM
with no cap, first time free agents looking for their second contract would be even older than they are now when they hit the market. it goes from 4 years to 6 years with no cap. we could see the league push back the start of the league year and free agency again after this season if theyre pushing hard to strike a deal by then.

but anyways, pertaining to the topic of the thread, i think i will see another redskins SB this lifetime, its not easy to win a super bowl though, some teams have gone a lot longer than us without winning one, some have never won one. some of you placing sole blame on snyder and cerrato seem to forget that the team had not been very good for awhile before they got here either. just something to think about and throw in the mix.

shally
07-06-2009, 11:17 PM
The NFL has been successful due to parity. On any given Sunday the worst can beat the best. Teams that are predicted to win 5 games go deep into the playoffs. Others melt down in one season. A smaller city can take on the media giants.

Other sports have self-destructed but I think the NFL will come to it's senses and keep the golden goose laying those eggs.

An uncapped year might be the best chance for Snyder to dump the old dead wood and quickly build a new team of FA who want to cash in here.
despite the idiocy of ownership, MLB is doing pretty well

HanburgerBum
07-07-2009, 02:34 PM
He's been doing it for 10 years. At what point do you, as a "good businessman" -- or even just a sensible human being of average intellect -- realize that your way ain't cutting it?

I question his desire to win. Not as an attribute, because I believe he does have a desire to win. I just don't think his desire to win is enough to overcome his desire to be the center cog in the wheel; the cigar smoking, big shot owner of the Washington Redskins who wants to show everyone that his way can produce a winner.

His ownership style has become more about his ego, his desire to show everyone how smart he is than it is about winning at any cost. I know this because he's not winning to pay any cost. He's only willing to explore about 15% of his field of vision. The desire win is not strong enough to swallow his pride, hire the right people and just go away.


I really think Dan Snyder at this point still believes that his management style will bring the Skins a consistent contender. As I said before, he is supremely confident of his own judgment. And, as Shally said, Snyder has seen Jerry Jones win with the same mangement style in Dallas and he thinks he can do the same.

The ability to step back and hire true professionals to run your business is very difficult for self-made people like Snyder. Would any of us be able to keep our hands off the toy if we owned the Redskins? Great owners like Jack Kent Cooke, the Rooneys, Bob Kraft etc have that ability, but Snyder certainly is not one--at least not yet.

I think the only way Snyder will wake up is if the mini fan revolt that is starting to occur becomes a major fan revolt. When he can no longer generate the kind of revenue he has come to expect from the Redskins, he may finally realize that he has to hire really good personnel people to put a better product on the field.

HanburgerBum
07-07-2009, 02:39 PM
I think the players are realizing that there isn't enough money in the big market/revenue teams for the salaries to be significantly better without a cap and without a salary floor, teams will dump salary big time.


Are you saying that for the uncapped year (assuming it happens), there would be no floor either? What about the franchise tag--will that still be available?

akhhorus
07-07-2009, 02:45 PM
Are you saying that for the uncapped year (assuming it happens), there would be no floor either? What about the franchise tag--will that still be available?

No floor, no tags and players need 6 years service to become UFAs. The only limit would be that the final 8 teams in the playoffs couldn't add salary unless they dumped an equal amount of it from the current roster.

HanburgerBum
07-07-2009, 02:47 PM
they need a rookie wage scale more than anything else..

but the owners are in an aggressive "take back" mode.. if they remain that way, we are headed to some kind of lockout or work stoppage for sure


I don't see anyway there wouldn't be a rookie wage scale in the next player agreement. It makes so much sense for the owners and the veteran players. The only people being hurt are incoming rookies and their agents--but they don't get to vote. Their only recourse is an alternative league or an alternative sport (if they are fortunate to be skillful enough at more than one sport). At the moment, there are no viable competing leagues to the NFL.

Furthermore, the legality of a player agreement being binding upon incoming rookie players who are not yet members of the union when the agreement was signed has been established.

MDBluefinCrab
07-07-2009, 05:31 PM
I'm 53 years old and I grew up with the Redskins in the dreadful 60's, George Allen's 70's teams and the the Glory years under Joe Gibbs.
Shore up the o-line and get a decent QB and this team can get to the Super Bowl.
Due to the wonders of the salary cap, this team is no better or worse than any other team in the NFL and if the damn Cardinals can get there...........

gibbsisgod
07-08-2009, 05:57 PM
ya we will, 4 years or less.

HanburgerBum
07-10-2009, 01:54 PM
No floor, no tags and players need 6 years service to become UFAs. The only limit would be that the final 8 teams in the playoffs couldn't add salary unless they dumped an equal amount of it from the current roster.


Thanks for the info.

Well, it would be a brave new world. Someone cynical may even come to the conclusion that Snyder would want the Skins to miss the playoffs this coming season just to ensure Wash not being one of those final 8 teams.

wide_awake
07-10-2009, 09:36 PM
ya we will, 4 years or less.

o rly?

Hr fan
07-11-2009, 09:24 AM
Danny has many aspects in common with Bill Ford, owner of the Lions. Both made or inherited fabulous wealth, both invested in pro teams which they own outright for all intents, both are incredibly deficient in hiring knowledgable personnel, both have dreadful track records on team stability (Danny changes coaches as often as shirts, Ford changes coaches/GMs every millenium regardless of success (or lack thereof)). Now that Millen is back in the booth Snyderatto and Davis are tied for the worst GM in the NFL. Good coaches would rather sit on the siddelines than come to Detroit, Oakland or Washington. Sigh!