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

markshark84 wrote:I guess that you do have to pick one or the other (more or less): in other words, will Snyder win or won't he? If you are to pick the latter, the "facts" that you are so desperately seeking are in his past performance. Therefore, do you believe that Snyder will win OR do you side with his past performance and make the conclusion that he won't.

I agree he hasn't been a winner and past performance supports that. Most of what he has won was to the credit of the incredibly fortunate return of Gibbs he stumbled into. I'm still not getting the logic that agreeing he hasn't won says he won't. In fact that people who do win frequently fail. That does not mean failure will lead to success, it does mean failure doesn't prove you won't.

markshark84 wrote:In terms of Cerrato, in my opinion, if you mention the draft or the ability this team has to draft players --- this directly relates to Cerrato. Therefore, if you are going to argue that our draft has the potential or may or may not be a bust, then the rational expectation is that you are supporting the picks made by Cerrato --- and inferring that you support his picks AND if you support his picks, you support him (because making draft picks is all he does). Just because his name is not mentioned does not mean the elephant is not in the room.

All I said about the draft was I asked Wahoo how he "knew" we don't have a draft strategy. I'm still not seeing that saying ANYTHING about Cerrato at all in any way.

markshark84 wrote:In terms of ESPN, I just find if funny that you would, in one post, infer that they are not correct or that they don't have the requisite facts to make their determination, then in your next post, use them (and I say this because in your response post, you agreed) as a source of reference. Cuts both ways. You can agree or disagree all you want, but I just find it a bit suspect that you can pick and choose.

Hmm. And yet I didn't use them. YOU brought up that I agreed with ESPN on one issue which means I don't disagree with them much, I said agreeing with them on ONE issue doesn't prove I don't disagree with them much. I didn't "use" ESPN for anything, I disagreed with your conclusion saying you drew it from ONE data point.

markshark84 wrote:In terms of Snyder, then are you saying that Snyder will win in the future, regardless of his past failures?

No, didn't say that and don't think it.

markshark84 wrote:You are sort of standing on the side of fence teetering back and forth saying "well he hasn't won and I agree with that, but he may, possibly, or not possibly, in the future, or not in the future, begin to win as an owner". Because if that is the arguement you are making then you are right. Anyone could POSSIBLY win as an owner regardless of their past failures --- I could, you could, a trained monkey COULD, POSSIBLY win as an owner in the future. You are not making any sort of definitive statement. What are you trying to say? What causes you to believe that Snyder could, possibly win in the future. Do you or don't you believe that he will win. That is, if you were to make the prediction right now, do you think he will win a super bowl in the next 8 years? I don't want to hear about potential or probabilties or the rest of the jargin. I deal with that at work in the day to day. What is your position?

I challenged the assertion Snyder "can't" win and questioned what it was based on, this is saying a bunch of stuff I didn't say.

Skinfan asks how this is Snyder's fault. I'm glad to see plenty of people here are finally starting to realize that the decline of this once proud franchise starts with Snyder. How is it Snyder's fault?

1) He's a communications mogul trying to play NFL GM/coach (And please don't suggest Vinny is the one making the decisions. Vinny's a laughingstock, yes, but even he's not that stupid) and has made one disastrous personnel decision after another.
2) He continues to undermine coaches - everyone but Gibbs. Who's going to coach here after Zorn is eventually fired?
3) If you'll remember, he came out and said that last time a football guy was running the show - Marty - that he didn't have any fun. That shows he's more interested in personally playing with his toy than in winning.
4) The whole show is run unprofessionally. Consider how he treats those he parts ways with. Norv, Marty, Laveranues Coles, Gregg Williams and the list goes on. He treated all those guys shabbily and with the contempt of the insufferably arrogant. No matter what sort of disagreement you have with somebody, you can part amicably and with a little dignity and diplomacy. That earns you respect. Not our boy, though. You don't think players and the rest of the league take note of things like that? Of course they do, and the whole culture surrounding the team suffers. People don't perform well when they know their organizations are at a professional disadvantage, and that their leaders are either oblivious or don't care.

SKinfan's right about one thing. Snyder isn't responsible for making plays on the field. He is to blame for the fact that Redskins have far too few players capable of making those plays with any consistency or regularity. And the way he runs the team has to be discouraging to anyone working under that roof at Redskin Park.

Get used to it. As long as DMS owns the team, we can look forward to 6-10, 8-8, 5-11, 7-9 - and in really good years - 9-7 records for the foreseeable future.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

markshark84 wrote:I guess that you do have to pick one or the other (more or less): in other words, will Snyder win or won't he? If you are to pick the latter, the "facts" that you are so desperately seeking are in his past performance. Therefore, do you believe that Snyder will win OR do you side with his past performance and make the conclusion that he won't.

I agree he hasn't been a winner and past performance supports that. Most of what he has won was to the credit of the incredibly fortunate return of Gibbs he stumbled into. I'm still not getting the logic that agreeing he hasn't won says he won't. In fact that people who do win frequently fail. That does not mean failure will lead to success, it does mean failure doesn't prove you won't.

markshark84 wrote:In terms of Cerrato, in my opinion, if you mention the draft or the ability this team has to draft players --- this directly relates to Cerrato. Therefore, if you are going to argue that our draft has the potential or may or may not be a bust, then the rational expectation is that you are supporting the picks made by Cerrato --- and inferring that you support his picks AND if you support his picks, you support him (because making draft picks is all he does). Just because his name is not mentioned does not mean the elephant is not in the room.

All I said about the draft was I asked Wahoo how he "knew" we don't have a draft strategy. I'm still not seeing that saying ANYTHING about Cerrato at all in any way.

markshark84 wrote:In terms of ESPN, I just find if funny that you would, in one post, infer that they are not correct or that they don't have the requisite facts to make their determination, then in your next post, use them (and I say this because in your response post, you agreed) as a source of reference. Cuts both ways. You can agree or disagree all you want, but I just find it a bit suspect that you can pick and choose.

Hmm. And yet I didn't use them. YOU brought up that I agreed with ESPN on one issue which means I don't disagree with them much, I said agreeing with them on ONE issue doesn't prove I don't disagree with them much. I didn't "use" ESPN for anything, I disagreed with your conclusion saying you drew it from ONE data point.

markshark84 wrote:In terms of Snyder, then are you saying that Snyder will win in the future, regardless of his past failures?

No, didn't say that and don't think it.

markshark84 wrote:You are sort of standing on the side of fence teetering back and forth saying "well he hasn't won and I agree with that, but he may, possibly, or not possibly, in the future, or not in the future, begin to win as an owner". Because if that is the arguement you are making then you are right. Anyone could POSSIBLY win as an owner regardless of their past failures --- I could, you could, a trained monkey COULD, POSSIBLY win as an owner in the future. You are not making any sort of definitive statement. What are you trying to say? What causes you to believe that Snyder could, possibly win in the future. Do you or don't you believe that he will win. That is, if you were to make the prediction right now, do you think he will win a super bowl in the next 8 years? I don't want to hear about potential or probabilties or the rest of the jargin. I deal with that at work in the day to day. What is your position?

I challenged the assertion Snyder "can't" win and questioned what it was based on, this is saying a bunch of stuff I didn't say.

When an individual challenges an assertion, it is expected that they provide evidence to support the challenged position. Here, you do not. I am still waiting on a response to the final two sentences of my prior post (that you conveniently left out). It is more constructive to provide some sort of rationale besides "why not".

markshark84 wrote:When an individual challenges an assertion, it is expected that they provide evidence to support the challenged position. Here, you do not. I am still waiting on a response to the final two sentences of my prior post (that you conveniently left out). It is more constructive to provide some sort of rationale besides "why not".

Um...it is? Expected by who? The "prove me wrong" argument, aka the Indian rule. You cannot question a baseless assertion unless you (a) disagree with it and (b) can prove it wrong. I cannot challenge the statement that Snyder cannot win unless I can prove he can win.

Sorry, we never studied that rule on the debate team. I challenged the statement he "cannot" win as baseless based on no evidence beyond that provided by the intellectually lazy sensational media who are constantly wrong and hold themselves to no standard before, during or after being wrong. I do not need to prove anything about Snyder to challenge the assumption he "cannot" win, despite that rule being pulled out of someones...ear.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

markshark84 wrote:When an individual challenges an assertion, it is expected that they provide evidence to support the challenged position. Here, you do not. I am still waiting on a response to the final two sentences of my prior post (that you conveniently left out). It is more constructive to provide some sort of rationale besides "why not".

Um...it is? Expected by who? The "prove me wrong" argument, aka the Indian rule. You cannot question a baseless assertion unless you (a) disagree with it and (b) can prove it wrong. I cannot challenge the statement that Snyder cannot win unless I can prove he can win.

Sorry, we never studied that rule on the debate team. I challenged the statement he "cannot" win as baseless based on no evidence beyond that provided by the intellectually lazy sensational media who are constantly wrong and hold themselves to no standard before, during or after being wrong. I do not need to prove anything about Snyder to challenge the assumption he "cannot" win, despite that rule being pulled out of someones...ear.

Not really saying that. Not saying that you have to prove it wrong, but I am saying that you have to provide some sort of facts or even a small arguement to support your position. You should have learned that in debate.

You still have skirted around the question: WHY, do you believe, based on the current structure of this franchise, Snyder CAN WIN as an owner? What "facts" can you present to support your assertion?

markshark84 wrote:You should have learned that in debate.

No, it's just not a rule in debate & forensics. It is entirely the job of the arguer (Constructive) to prove their assertion, the opposition is under no obligation at all in any way to prove them wrong, sorry. They have that option, but they can also just go after the facts and/or logic used by the Constructive side and if they can poke enough holes in their argument alone, they win. I was very good at that, identifying holes in arguments. I'm sure that I like to argue shocks you.

BTW, you may also notice this phenomena of the burden being entirely on the accuser in our legal system.

markshark84 wrote:You still have skirted around the question: WHY, do you believe, based on the current structure of this franchise, Snyder CAN WIN as an owner? What "facts" can you present to support your assertion?

This is so cool. So I can say anything I want, like that you wear chocolate underwear and you have to prove me wrong? I can say that Snyder is a great man and a humanitarian and you have to prove me wrong? Wow, I did so much when I presented arguments in debates that turns out was such a waste of time. PROVE ME WRONG!!!! I should have said. And sat down.

The tricky part with those using the "Indian rule" is that they never accept it for arguments they disagree with, in that case the assertions do need to be proven. How do I get on that wagon....

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

markshark84 wrote:You should have learned that in debate.

No, it's just not a rule in debate & forensics. It is entirely the job of the arguer (Constructive) to prove their assertion, the opposition is under no obligation at all in any way to prove them wrong, sorry. They have that option, but they can also just go after the facts and/or logic used by the Constructive side and if they can poke enough holes in their argument alone, they win. I was very good at that, identifying holes in arguments. I'm sure that I like to argue shocks you.

BTW, you may also notice this phenomena of the burden being entirely on the accuser in our legal system.

markshark84 wrote:You still have skirted around the question: WHY, do you believe, based on the current structure of this franchise, Snyder CAN WIN as an owner? What "facts" can you present to support your assertion?

This is so cool. So I can say anything I want, like that you wear chocolate underwear and you have to prove me wrong? I can say that Snyder is a great man and a humanitarian and you have to prove me wrong? Wow, I did so much when I presented arguments in debates that turns out was such a waste of time. PROVE ME WRONG!!!! I should have said. And sat down.

The tricky part with those using the "Indian rule" is that they never accept it for arguments they disagree with, in that case the assertions do need to be proven. How do I get on that wagon....

I am not familiar with your debate methods, but in moot court you need to provide a counterarguement/present your side. It appears that your debate places the entire burden on one side while the other is permitted to sit on their high horse and pick away. That is not a true debate. However, even in your odd forensic debate, you still need to use facts or logic to disprove. You have done neither.

Again, another attempt at skirting around the issue. Wahoo was correct. A ton of schtik, no substance.

Don't worry about responding if you would like to sit here and discuss my methods of debate or the origins of the Indian Rule or whether or not I wear chocolate underwear. I have told you why I believe Snyder cannot win, now it is time for an actual response.

SKINFAN wrote:LMAO! How is this Snyd's fault? Is he running recieving or tackling out there?

LOL Snyder has nothing to do with the teams poor showing of late. Maybe this thread is validated four years ago but I think Snyder has grown to understand this game as of late. To hire crappy people under him to help run is the problem. Vinny sorry but bye bye. Zorn is better fit as an asst then a head coach.

Instead of selling it he should just fire Vinny. That would solve a lot of problems. Vinny is the one telling him what players he should be throwing all this money at so I don't think it's entirely his fault. It would be nice to have a rich owner if he has a good GM to guide him

MDSKINSFAN wrote:Instead of selling it he should just fire Vinny. That would solve a lot of problems. Vinny is the one telling him what players he should be throwing all this money at so I don't think it's entirely his fault. It would be nice to have a rich owner if he has a good GM to guide him

Vinny is one of the only GMs in football that will do everything that Snyder tells him to. He is the biggest 'yes man" in all of sports.

If Snyder hired someone other than Vinny who has a backbone, he wouldn't be able to control the drafts. I highly doubt that Vinny "tells" Snyder anything.

markshark84 wrote:Vinny is one of the only GMs in football that will do everything that Snyder tells him to. He is the biggest 'yes man" in all of sports.

If Snyder hired someone other than Vinny who has a backbone, he wouldn't be able to control the drafts. I highly doubt that Vinny "tells" Snyder anything.

You gotta think that if he needed to replace Vinny, the new guy would have to accept the same arrangement -- that he's mostly the conduit through which Danny's desires are enacted.

markshark84 wrote:If Snyder hired someone other than Vinny who has a backbone, he wouldn't be able to control the drafts. I highly doubt that Vinny "tells" Snyder anything.

What makes you think Snyder dictates the draft selections? I specifically remember Gibbs saying that Snyder has no involvement in scouting, film review or even sits in on the meetings. That came directly from Gibbs, himself. If you or anyone else disagrees, prove otherwise.

If anyone doesn't think the coaches have any say in who is drafted or what free agents should be signed, they're fooling themselves. It's an integrated process and everyone has input. No one person is calling the shots and the coaches are directly involved in personnel decisions.

Vinny heads up the scouting department, so of coarse he has quite a bit of involvement, as his staff provides the scouting reports. In recent years, I personally think Gibbs and Zorn identified what positions they want to fill or upgrade, Vinny and his staff then present the scouting reports, and all parties involved discuss and vote on the players. If anyone has proof otherwise, I'd love to see it.

I'm not a Vinny fan and agree he's missed on players in the past. But he's also drafted some nice ones... ey, Taylor, McIntosh, Landry and Horton quickly come to mind.

I believe their biggest faults have not been in the draft selections, it's been the trading away of draft picks for older, past their prime players, as well as neglecting to upgrade the lines. That's where they've gone wrong.

This years draft can't be judged for a couple of years and I firmly believe that almost half of them will be major contributors in a short period of time. Thomas, Kelly, Davis, Rinehart, Horton and Moore seem to be legit, and there's a chance Colt could be there too. That's not a bad draft by any stretch of the imagination.

Snyder sucks and the best argument anyone can give is the current state of the franchise. That pretty much sums it up.

This year, like practically every year since Snyder has owned this team, there has been a ton of controversy regarding coaches, players and draft picks. No stability at all.

You can't escape from your past. The hiring of Gibbs did in fact hide the sorry state of this organization, but now the fascade has chipped away.

SkinsFreak wrote:If you or anyone else disagrees, prove otherwise.

If anyone has proof otherwise, I'd love to see it.

Not being able to prove "point B" is NOT proof that "point A" is right.

Like the followup to your post points out -- this franchise has been one giant MEH for 10 years. They haven't mattered.

RedskinsFreak wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:If you or anyone else disagrees, prove otherwise.

If anyone has proof otherwise, I'd love to see it.

Not being able to prove "point B" is NOT proof that "point A" is right.

Like the followup to your post points out -- this franchise has been one giant MEH for 10 years. They haven't mattered.

Well, when Gibbs said Snyder was not involved in scouting, film review or even sits in on the meetings, I tend to give Gibbs, of all people, the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe Snyder dictates draft selections, and until someone proves that wrong, I'll take Gibbs' words as fact.

Theismann talks about Cerrato wrote:On Vinny Cerrato: "He's been held accountable for a lot of things that happened, and up until this year, this is the thing that bothers me, nobody wants to hold Joe Gibbs accountable for bad things. They'd rather defer it and blame Vinny. If it was good it was Joe's, if it was bad it was Vinny's. Joe has to take responsibility for the hirings that he made, for the decisions that they made regarding personnel. Remember, Joe Gibbs ran the Washington Redskins for the last four years, just like he ran it for the 12 before. Bobby Beathard and Joe Gibbs ran into an issue, Bobby left town, Joe stayed.

"Joe was a very very strong, very stubborn individual. Vinny would have never been able to draft the players that he drafted in this draft if Joe Gibbs was the coach. Joe wouldn't have allowed it. Joe wouldn't have allowed him to draft a tight end with Chris ey there. Joe wouldn't have allowed him to draft one receiver, heck, let alone two with Santana and Antwaan and James.

"And again, I'm not defending him. I'm an outside observer. I see what the Post says, I see the way the operation is run. I just think people sort of need to take a step back and look and say, 'Who was the one that we gave a pass to and who was the one that we chastised?' Vinny was the fall guy for everything that went wrong. Take a look at the archives and the history how many things have been said about Joe Gibbs in a negative way by the Washington Post. Now obviously he had a 6-10 season; something went wrong."

Link

This goes back to my point. Sure, Vinny ain't my favorite guy and he's certainly made mistakes. But the coaches deserve just as much, if not more, blame for draft picks and player acquisitions.

Here's the difference. I always try to support my opinions and comments with facts and direct quotes from those actually close to the situation and in the know. Others are simply offering speculation and conjuncture with no supporting facts. To just say "look at their record over the past 10 years" in no way offers credible "proof" that Dan personally hand-selects draft picks.

RedskinsFreak wrote:

markshark84 wrote:Vinny is one of the only GMs in football that will do everything that Snyder tells him to. He is the biggest 'yes man" in all of sports.

If Snyder hired someone other than Vinny who has a backbone, he wouldn't be able to control the drafts. I highly doubt that Vinny "tells" Snyder anything.

You gotta think that if he needed to replace Vinny, the new guy would have to accept the same arrangement -- that he's mostly the conduit through which Danny's desires are enacted.

Totally agree. And that is a reason I believe it would be difficult to get a top notch GM here.

SkinsFreak wrote:This goes back to my point. Sure, Vinny ain't my favorite guy and he's certainly made mistakes. But the coaches deserve just as much, if not more, blame for draft picks and player acquisitions.

Here's the difference. I always try to support my opinions and comments with facts and direct quotes from those actually close to the situation and in the know. Others are simply offering speculation and conjuncture with no supporting facts. To just say "look at their record over the past 10 years" in no way offers credible "proof" that Dan personally hand-selects draft picks.

That quote from Joe was right on!

I mean, Joe Gibbs did a terrible job running things here with the Redskins, and a lot of the blame gets deferred to Vinny.

2007
1. LaRon Landry, S, LSU - 6th overall
5. Dallas Sartz, LB, USC - 143rd overall
6. H.B. Blades, LB, Pitt - 179th overall
6. Jordan Palmer, QB, UTEP - 205th overall
7. Tyler Ecker, TE, Michigan - 216th overall

2006
2. Roger McIntosh, OLB, Miami - 35th overall
5. Anthony Montgomery, DT, Minnesota - 153rd overall
6. Reed Doughty, S, North Colorado - 173rd overall
6. Kedric Golston, DT, Georgia - 196th overall
7. Kili Lefotu, OG, Arizona - 230th overall
7. Kevin Simon, ILB, Tennessee - 250th overall

2005
1. Carlos Rogers, CB, Auburn (9th overall)
1. Jason Campbell, QB, Auburn (25th overall)
4. Manuel White, FB, UCLA (120th overall)
5. Robert McCune, ILB, Louisville (154th overall)
6. Jared Newberry, OLB, Stanford (183rd overall)
7. Nehemiah Broughton, FB, The Citadel (222nd overall)

2004
1. Sean Taylor, S, Miami - 5th overall
3. Chris ey, TE, Utah State - 81st overall
5. Mark Wilson, OT, California - 151st overall
6. Jim Molinaro, OT, Notre Dame - 180th overall

Look at those draft picks! Sure, he managed not to whiff on the high ones, but Anthony Montgomery is pretty much the only halfway decent player after the third round, and there was a lot of buzz around ey, he wasn't exactly a diamond in the rough. Pretty mediocre track record IMO.

Also, go back and look at some past drafts (wikipedia has them laid out very nicely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_NFL_Draft) and just use the "find" feature for "Washington" it will highlight the picks we traded under Gibbs.

Here's some picks we traded away:

2004
RB Tatum Bell
DT Donnell Washington
DT Isaac Sopoaga
DT Rodney Leisle

2005
S Josh Bullocks
CB Karl Paymah
RB Ciatrick Fason
DE Trent Cole (Pro Bowl, but at least we got James Thrash!!)

2006
LB Manny Lawson
WR Brandon Williams
WR Brandon Marshall (Pro Bowl)
CB Drew Coleman

2007
S Eric Weddle
OT Ryan Harris
DE Jay Moore

I mean, that's two pro bowlers and a handful of nice role guys... and with those picks, who knows, we might have even done better.

Still, it's hard to believe we traded Thrash for Trent Cole. I just wish Joe Gibbs hadn't completely ignored the cheat sheet from the NFL on trading picks.

markshark84 wrote:I am not familiar with your debate methods, but in moot court you need to provide a counter arguement/present your side

I wasn't debating between two positions, I asked for proof of an accusation, that Snyder CANNOT win. You keep coming in and arguing I haven't proven he can. Your argument that to question an assertion requires proof the assertion is wrong is just silly and I have yet to see anyone accept that "logic" for any position except one in which they made or agree with.