emoses14 wrote:DEHog wrote:Didn't Shanny have "total" control...like other I'll remain cautiously optimistic IF the deal gets done.
This is exactly what I mean. Are we now taking the position that Shanahan did NOT have total control somehow? I remember his contract and the articles about it when he signed it being over the top clear about who was in charge.
While I've read comments on here suggesting that it was Dan/Allen who "forced" Mike to get RGIII, the contract in place at the time simply doesn't support that conclusion (unless there is some verifiable proof other than "Well it's Dan Snyder, so it's his fault").
At a certain point, it becomes lazy and easy to simply blame Dan Snyder for EVERY DAMN THING that goes wrong.
IF he's really hiring a GM, that by itself should be applauded (especially taking into account how crappy he's been the last 20 years). At the same time, if at some point in the future (like more than 2-3 years from now), it turns out to not work out, we shouldn't retroactively blame it on Snyder for not relinquishing "total control"
First comment: I think most have realized the reason Shanny left was because he was offered something he ended up not actually receiving. This happens quite often in new jobs --- and includes football ones. After the hire, Danny boy then issued a number of press releases and leaked information to the press that Shanny was going to have full control pursuant to his contract ---- but in reality NO ONE saw his contract and Danny was desperate to win back his fan base after the Vinny era. I hope everyone understands that Danny boy will say anything to keep the fanbase --- him actually doing it is another story completely. History has supported this. IMHO -- the reason Shanny benched RGIII and started Cousins was an "F-you" to Danny because of his lack of control during the draft -- but that is all speculation.
Second comment: Did you see the contract? Did anyone really see the contract? And for that matters, Contracts are a tricky thing. I can tell you now that employment contracts do have a section on what the employee will be doing, but that really isn't enforceable. Danny is the owner; he can do what he wants. I am sure the "damages" clause of the contract was the amount of his contract, which was $25M ($5M for 5 years), I beleive. The fact there is a contract means VERY VERY little. A contract can't prevent Danny boy, as the owner, from doing whatever he wants, as long as it is not illegal. And Danny boy has a history of being a little "creative" when it comes to contracts.......
Third comment: We have to remember that Danny boy is the OWNER. He is in charge of literally EVERYTHING. When a company underperforms, they don't say "well, Bill over in marketing was the reason our stock price went down $8 per share..." In that case Danny would fire Bill -- like he has done to HUNDREDS of redskins employees --- but the difference is that after all the firings and nearly 2 decades, redskins "stock" is still at an all time low..... Danny boy is in a unique position, unlike anyone else within the franchise --- he has total control over everything and the ability to change anything he doesn't like (contract or no contract). Yes, it is very easy to blame Danny for everything ---- and ironically also correct.
Fourth comment: First, in my work (and generally in the real world), I applaud people when they do things above and beyond; not for doing stuff they should be doing in the first place. All teams should have a GM. The fact Danny may do something that is within the norm of franchise management shouldn't be "applauded". Danny should be held to the average owner standard, not the Danny failure-based standard we have become used to. And while I agree that if it doesn't work out we shouldn't knee-jerk blame Danny --- I do believe, based on his extensive history of sticking his bitchy little face into football affairs --- that the onus is on him to prove differently.
RIP Sean Taylor. You will be missed.
, though.