The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

DEHog wrote:

Can you show us proof that he was going to make GW the coach after Joe Gibbs retired. Also, people can change their minds.

So what difference would it make if I could prove it to you...people can change their minds right?

No one EVER changes their mind, you are so totally wrong on that. No wait, they do. Never mind.

I am not asking if he is on course to win one this decade, but will he win one ever?

I doubt it.

GPM was a "grand old man" when I first could spell "Redskin", and Snyder is like Marshall with youth. It was a long time until Marshall had to give up control of the team to his attorney, Edward Bennett Williams, and another half-dozen years until Williams bright in Lombardi and then George Allen.

During the late Marshall years, every season felt about ten years long. Investigate the 1960 season if you have any doubts.

During those years, the Packers hired Lombardi and the Cowboys hired Landry, both from the Giants. The Colts galloped along, and Marshall drafted from college sporting magazines. Our high point came when the Redskins (Bob Khayat??) kicked a field goal to tie the Giants one season.

As Dave-from-Oxon-Hill put it around 1984, younger fans have no idea just how bad it can get.

welch wrote:As Dave-from-Oxon-Hill put it around 1984, younger fans have no idea just how bad it can get.

How can you possibly say that to anyone who has been a fan the past decade plus? What, they could go 0-16? I mean, come on man, I respect your knowledge but having followed the franchise for a shorter period of time doesn't mean today's fans haven't suffered or don't have the context to judge what is bad and what isn't.

What, they could go 0-16?

That's what it was like. Check the record from 1957 until Graham became coach. Look at the record when Ralph Guglielmi was the starting QB. I think they were about 0-11-1, after going about 3-9 (This is from memory.).

The team somehow went 8-4 in about 1956. Other than that season, I think they had a losing record from the early '50's until Lombardi's season, 1969. Then dropped to 6-8 under Bill Austin, and then, in 1971, became winners year after year.

When Allen got the team in as the wild-card in 1971, no Redskin team in my lifetime had made the playoffs. True, for part of that time only the best of the east and west played in the one game for the NFL championship, but they Skins didn't make the "runner-up bowl" (1961?) or anything else until 1971.

The point is that when a strong-minded owner makes football decisions, even though he knows nothing much about football, bad things happen. George Halas knew football. The Mara's did not, but knew enough to keep out of the way. Marshall knew nothing, and wanted to be into everything.

I think Snyder is too much like Marshall.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DEHog wrote:

Can you show us proof that he was going to make GW the coach after Joe Gibbs retired. Also, people can change their minds.

So what difference would it make if I could prove it to you...people can change their minds right?

No one EVER changes their mind, you are so totally wrong on that. No wait, they do. Never mind.

I never said anything to the contrary.

Would it make a difference to you if you knew it to be true??

Dan Snyder will not win a Super Bowl until he's old and gray and then it will hit him; "damn, I could have done this back in 2000 and I could have won at least 2 or 3." Meaning, he won't find the formula for putting together a co-hesive and winning franchise until he's about 60. And then he will realize that he shouldn't have bought in all of the "geriatric pro bowlers" and he should have hired a qualified GM way back when...

Voted no because Snyder is an Arse!

DEHog wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DEHog wrote:

Can you show us proof that he was going to make GW the coach after Joe Gibbs retired. Also, people can change their minds.

So what difference would it make if I could prove it to you...people can change their minds right?

No one EVER changes their mind, you are so totally wrong on that. No wait, they do. Never mind.

I never said anything to the contrary.

Would it make a difference to you if you knew it to be true??

But how would I KNOW that I know it to be true? Do you mean I'd have the appropriate polling data?

HitDoctor wrote:Voted no because Snyder is an Arse!

But that wasn't the question! If the question is if he were an arse the results wouldn't be nearly so mixed.

Voted no because he'll never "humble" himself by stepping back and giving the keys to someone else.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DEHog wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DEHog wrote:

Can you show us proof that he was going to make GW the coach after Joe Gibbs retired. Also, people can change their minds.

So what difference would it make if I could prove it to you...people can change their minds right?

No one EVER changes their mind, you are so totally wrong on that. No wait, they do. Never mind.

I never said anything to the contrary.

Would it make a difference to you if you knew it to be true??

But how would I KNOW that I know it to be true? Do you mean I'd have the appropriate polling data?

It a simple question...it's not like I said the Giants were stupid for playing their starters against the Pats

DEHog wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DEHog wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DEHog wrote:

Can you show us proof that he was going to make GW the coach after Joe Gibbs retired. Also, people can change their minds.

So what difference would it make if I could prove it to you...people can change their minds right?

No one EVER changes their mind, you are so totally wrong on that. No wait, they do. Never mind.

I never said anything to the contrary.

Would it make a difference to you if you knew it to be true??

But how would I KNOW that I know it to be true? Do you mean I'd have the appropriate polling data?

It a simple question...it's not like I said the Giants were stupid for playing their starters against the Pats

No, but it's also not like you made a simple joke and I insisted on not getting it either.

Jokes aside answer the question. You have given Snyder the benefit of the doubt. You're on record as wanting him to hire GW. If you had knowledge that Snyder promised him the job than didn't give it to him would you give Snyder a pass because he's allowed to change his mind?

DEHog wrote:Jokes aside answer the question. You have given Snyder the benefit of the doubt. You're on record as wanting him to hire GW. If you had knowledge that Snyder promised him the job than didn't give it to him would you give Snyder a pass because he's allowed to change his mind?

Kazoo just started to -try- a more serious behaviour with some of the veteran posters in this board. I hope he answers this question without evading a direct answer to it.

DEHog wrote:Jokes aside answer the question. You have given Snyder the benefit of the doubt. You're on record as wanting him to hire GW. If you had knowledge that Snyder promised him the job than didn't give it to him would you give Snyder a pass because he's allowed to change his mind?

OK, as a direct question to that, "if" Snyder did "promise" GW the job then I would not give him a pass on a personal level, he lied. I just hear a lot of people stating and assuming that with no evidence. I haven't heard GW say he was lied to. I just heard there was a clause for a bonus if he didn't get the job.

That sort of clause is routine to me in business and is not a promise to provide the job, it's a promise to provide the job OR $1M. To renege on that clause he would have to not give him the job and not give him $1M. Personally I prefer to work with facts and not speculation which is why I wasn't commenting on it.

I'm not a Danny fan but I don't have the knee jerk visceral hatred of him that's been rampant about him either. He LOVES the Skins and while he may have shortcomings, like RIC that is one basis of respect I have for him. That doesn't mean I can't yank his chain though.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DEHog wrote:Jokes aside answer the question. You have given Snyder the benefit of the doubt. You're on record as wanting him to hire GW. If you had knowledge that Snyder promised him the job than didn't give it to him would you give Snyder a pass because he's allowed to change his mind?

OK, as a direct question to that, "if" Snyder did "promise" GW the job then I would not give him a pass on a personal level, he lied. I just hear a lot of people stating and assuming that with no evidence. I haven't heard GW say he was lied to. I just heard there was a clause for a bonus if he didn't get the job.

That sort of clause is routine to me in business and is not a promise to provide the job, it's a promise to provide the job OR $1M. To renege on that clause he would have to not give him the job and not give him $1M. Personally I prefer to work with facts and not speculation which is why I wasn't commenting on it.

I'm not a Danny fan but I don't have the knee jerk visceral hatred of him that's been rampant about him either. He LOVES the Skins and while he may have shortcomings, like RIC that is one basis of respect I have for him. That doesn't mean I can't yank his chain though.

Fair enough...
You do know there was no clause...it's been widely reported!
For the record I do believe DS promised the job, and I have a good reason to believe it...(I won't post it on a message board) I also have good reason to believe that GW made is know to the press that it was promised. So GW bears some of the blame as well. Snyder has not like GW since that happened but Gibbs wanted GW here so here he stayed. Williams didn't like the Saunders hire. So we have a case of boys being boys with Gibbs in the middle...no wonder he retired. Now Snyder has a problem...He doesn’t want GW as his coach...which he has a right not to. But GW gets Gibbs and the fans endorsement. Plus he has this problem of promising GW the job that he needs to make go away. So he "interviews" I prefer to call "negotiates" with Williams for a buyout...it takes a few weeks hence the time, hence the silence from GW... then Snyder’s camp float the rumor of GW talking bad about Gibbs....Williams responds (and probably threatens to go public with it), of course Snyder and Vinny deny...and then GW has his freedom and a nice check.

Now I know I’ll get bashed for this, but one of things I’ve come to realize is people in this business never say what is really going on?? I know the media get hammered for how they conduct business and for the most part deserve it…but it because they get lied to that they have to go out and get and site “unnamed sources”. I spent a weekend at the Redskins mini-camp a few years ago and I came away with this thought….never have I seen two sides that despise each other so much but yet have to struggle to work together as part of their jobs.

You know DE Hog, you might be right about a lot of this and we will see some evidence of that soon.

Here's my take - when Gibbs announced his retirement and we all saw the deal at Redskins Park, Snyder looked very humbled. I though at the time that he was really at a loss because he could not persuade Gibbs to not only come back to complete what he agreed to do but also probably to stay on and be a part of the FO team with Snyder and Cerrato.

I think that at the time he thought the transition would probably be relatively simple but he found that when he considered all the options open to him - I think he got a little mad and with Cerrato's encouragement he decided to take a closer look at his options.
They did not think that Williams would be that great as a HC and Williams most likely wanted some input into both players and coaches.
I agree with you in that the extra "interviews" were just because both sides were negotiating a break-up!
The offense need a shake-up to be competitive in the NFC East first and Saunders (with Williams as HC) was not going to be able to handle it.
They started looking further afield and realized they could make some changes (like replacing Williams and keeping Blache) and moving Saunders out but still ensure that the new HC would follow the script that Gibbs had laid down.

I think it will be interesting to see who is our new HC BUT I am sure that Snyder and Cerrato will have a tight rein on how things go here.

The most significant development to me was the naming of a new position for Cerrato and trying to make out like this was just formalizing a position whose responsibilities Cerrato had been handling for he and Gibbs for some time

I was hopeful that these 2 had learned from their time with Gibbs how important hiring the right people was to your success - the team needs a good GM and Cerrato and Snyder think they are able to handle that.

We can be good - hell we are better than the Giants and they are in the Super Bowl - but we will not be good for very long with these 2

DEHog wrote:You do know there was no clause...it's been widely reported!

I did hear it reported it wasn't a clause, but I'd heard it was and didn't know what the final outcome was.

I don't believe that the Redskins will ever be sold. They have always been profitable...at least ever since they moved to Washington.

To my knowledge, no owner has sold them. George Preston Marshall lost control of the team after he had a stroke (or close equivalent?) in about 1963. According to David Harris in League, Edward Bennett Williams persuaded part-owner Harry Wismer to sell his 20% share of the Redskins to Jack Kent Cooke. Wismer got about $200,000, which he put into his New York franchise in the AFL.

Wismer thought, and Williams learned, that Marshall had been hiding all the Redskin profits, buried as Marshall's salary and as real estate investments. As my Dad tells it, Marshall had houses and apartment buildings across the NFL.

Williams had power of attorney for Marshall, and after GPM's stroke, Williams began to use the Redskin profits to buy back some of the team stock -- all from Marshall majority share.

Cooke's 20% share grew each year without Cooke investing another dollar.

That was "ownership transfer 1".

We lived through "transfer 2", when Cooke's will revealed that he had given the team to a trust that would use money from its sale to provide scholarships.

So...over 75 years, the team went up for sale only once, and that was not because the Redskins were unprofitable.

How many other entities have had only three owners in 75 years? And that ownership transferred only by death or incapacitation of the owner?

Owning the Washington Redskins is as close to a life-time monarchy as I can imagine. People are right: we can expect Snyder to run the team for another 30 or more years.