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

Fios wrote:

jeremyroyce wrote:From what I have been reading from this whole thing about Saunders I don't think he will be back next season, nor do I think that Greg Williams will be back either.

Based on what exactly? Do you know something Joe Gibbs doesn't know?

Read the article again and maybe you would see why in my opinion I don't think that they will be back. There is another article on the Washington Post about Williams

jeremyroyce wrote:

Fios wrote:

jeremyroyce wrote:From what I have been reading from this whole thing about Saunders I don't think he will be back next season, nor do I think that Greg Williams will be back either.

Based on what exactly? Do you know something Joe Gibbs doesn't know?

Read the article again and maybe you would see why in my opinion I don't think that they will be back. There is another article on the Washington Post about Williams

I'm thinking Gibbs must not read the Post or he missed those three days the story ran because he has said both will be back in 2007

Fios wrote:

RedskinsFreak wrote:

roybus14 wrote:Al Saunders is proven in this new age of the NFL.

Straight-forward question: How? How is he --or his offense -- proven? I know the stats ... all the yards, the #1 rankings, etc. But that don't prove a darn thing.

Well, if you're going to totally dismiss the stats then we have very little to go on as "proof" ... and, actually, stats prove quite a lot

Has this Saunders taken anybody to a championship?

HEROHAMO wrote:Has this Saunders taken anybody to a championship?

I don't know if you intended this to be a rhetorical question, but he did with the Rams (in '99). As for his recent statistical success, here are some offensive stats where he was a coordinator:

1999 (Rams): 1st (yards); 1st (scoring)
2000 (Rams): 1st (yards); 1st (scoring)
2001 (Chiefs): 4th (yards); 16th (scoring)
2002 (""): 5th (yards); 1st (scoring)
2003: 2nd (yards); 1st (scoring)
2004: 1st (yards); 2nd (scoring)
2005: 1st (yards); 6th (scoring)


Why didn't the Chiefs see any Superbowls? Take 2004, a year where the Chiefs had the best offense in the NFL. Their defense ranked 31st out of 32 teams.

I can't believe Saunders hasn't gotten more slack from Washingtonians.

HEROHAMO wrote:

Fios wrote:

RedskinsFreak wrote:

roybus14 wrote:Al Saunders is proven in this new age of the NFL.

Straight-forward question: How? How is he --or his offense -- proven? I know the stats ... all the yards, the #1 rankings, etc. But that don't prove a darn thing.

Well, if you're going to totally dismiss the stats then we have very little to go on as "proof" ... and, actually, stats prove quite a lot

Has this Saunders taken anybody to a championship?

This point has been addressed in this thread

Irn-Bru wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:Has this Saunders taken anybody to a championship?

I don't know if you intended this to be a rhetorical question, but he did with the Rams (in '99). As for his recent statistical success, here are some offensive stats where he was a coordinator:

1999 (Rams): 1st (yards); 1st (scoring)
2000 (Rams): 1st (yards); 1st (scoring)
2001 (Chiefs): 4th (yards); 16th (scoring)
2002 (""): 5th (yards); 1st (scoring)
2003: 2nd (yards); 1st (scoring)
2004: 1st (yards); 2nd (scoring)
2005: 1st (yards); 6th (scoring)


Why didn't the Chiefs see any Superbowls? Take 2004, a year where the Chiefs had the best offense in the NFL. Their defense ranked 31st out of 32 teams.

I can't believe Saunders hasn't gotten more slack from Washingtonians.

because everyone has the "Snyder" mentality! Everyone wants a championship team overnight.

Cappster wrote:because everyone has the "Snyder" mentality! Everyone wants a championship team overnight.

Speak for yourself. At this point, I'd just be happy for another winning season.

Mursilis wrote:

Cappster wrote:because everyone has the "Snyder" mentality! Everyone wants a championship team overnight.

Speak for yourself. At this point, I'd just be happy for another winning season.

Patience is a virtue. Saunders offense will work with the right quarterback in place. I believe Campbell is that quarterback so with all of the first team reps this year, our team should improve considerably. As long as the D can hold up on their end, we should have many winning seasons starting in the 07 season.

Cappster wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

Cappster wrote:because everyone has the "Snyder" mentality! Everyone wants a championship team overnight.

Speak for yourself. At this point, I'd just be happy for another winning season.

Patience is a virtue. Saunders offense will work with the right quarterback in place. I believe Campbell is that quarterback so with all of the first team reps this year, our team should improve considerably. As long as the D can hold up on their end, we should have many winning seasons starting in the 07 season.

Regarding Campbell, I've said the same myself. Heck, I was pulling for the kid since Day 1 of training camp; Brunell has been done for a while now. The offense really started to click near the end of the year, and JC has already said he's going to commit to working with his receivers in the offseason. I expect this offense to be at least Top 10 next season, barring huge injury issues.

Regarding the D and holding up thier end, that remains to be seen. I'll just wait and see. As a fan, I have some degree of hope, despite what happened this past season.

And finally, regarding many winning seasons in a row, it would be nice, but I'll just take 'em one at a time for now. After all, patience is a virtue, no?

Mursilis wrote:

Cappster wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

Cappster wrote:because everyone has the "Snyder" mentality! Everyone wants a championship team overnight.

Speak for yourself. At this point, I'd just be happy for another winning season.

Patience is a virtue. Saunders offense will work with the right quarterback in place. I believe Campbell is that quarterback so with all of the first team reps this year, our team should improve considerably. As long as the D can hold up on their end, we should have many winning seasons starting in the 07 season.

Regarding Campbell, I've said the same myself. Heck, I was pulling for the kid since Day 1 of training camp; Brunell has been done for a while now. The offense really started to click near the end of the year, and JC has already said he's going to commit to working with his receivers in the offseason. I expect this offense to be at least Top 10 next season, barring huge injury issues.

Regarding the D and holding up thier end, that remains to be seen. I'll just wait and see. As a fan, I have some degree of hope, despite what happened this past season.

And finally, regarding many winning seasons in a row, it would be nice, but I'll just take 'em one at a time for now. After all, patience is a virtue, no?

But of course patience is a virtue. But I am somewhat of a homer . I see the light in the midst of darkness. I like to envision many winning seasons. I do agree I would settle for next season to be a winning one because the present or should I say "near" future is all that matters at the moment.

Cappster wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

Cappster wrote:because everyone has the "Snyder" mentality! Everyone wants a championship team overnight.

Speak for yourself. At this point, I'd just be happy for another winning season.

Patience is a virtue. Saunders offense will work with the right quarterback in place. I believe Campbell is that quarterback so with all of the first team reps this year, our team should improve considerably. As long as the D can hold up on their end, we should have many winning seasons starting in the 07 season.

ahh! there's that word 'patience" again we do not seem to ascribe to that virtue around here. we want it now, if not sooner, and we have all sorts of stats to disprove any and all that come preaching "patience"

I know that I am regarded as too much of a homer here but I really do think that we have a lot of things going for us - I know our record for the past 10 years is not what we expect here, but, IMO, all that is past and actually means nothing EXCEPT if we fail to learn from it.

IMO it really is fairly simple - we have to look at what we have and what can do to get better - all the finger pointing and "woulda, coulda shoulda" stuff is just bickering and grandstanding - "we'd be a lot better if we .......". Hopefully, we (Gibbs and co) have learned from the mistakes and we (the fans) just need to be a little patient (there's that word again) and let these guys do their thing and have a little faith (I know they have not earned it!) that they will get it done this time.

A lot of us need to be a little more aware of the reality - we are who we are and we have some problems but IMO we have one of the best at the helm and I believe he will (with a little more time) "get it done".

We are not in bad shape with this team really - we have so many good things going for us that we can build around and even though our defensive play let us down there are a few things that can be addressed by both player additions and coaching adjustments.

We are all very frustrated by the season and especially as many (including myself) saw so many opportunities for success this past season not be realized. But - it is time to let these guys do their work.

I am actually looking forward to all the turmoil that is about to happen with our team and everyone else this off season, but I think we are going to be a better team - these guys cannot screw this up so bad again, they are better than that.



Gibbs and Saunders will be fine, they are some of the best at it in the business.

Irn-Bru wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:Has this Saunders taken anybody to a championship?

I don't know if you intended this to be a rhetorical question, but he did with the Rams (in '99). As for his recent statistical success, here are some offensive stats where he was a coordinator:

1999 (Rams): 1st (yards); 1st (scoring)
2000 (Rams): 1st (yards); 1st (scoring)
2001 (Chiefs): 4th (yards); 16th (scoring)
2002 (""): 5th (yards); 1st (scoring)
2003: 2nd (yards); 1st (scoring)
2004: 1st (yards); 2nd (scoring)
2005: 1st (yards); 6th (scoring)


Why didn't the Chiefs see any Superbowls? Take 2004, a year where the Chiefs had the best offense in the NFL. Their defense ranked 31st out of 32 teams.

I can't believe Saunders hasn't gotten more slack from Washingtonians.

Saunders was not in charge of the Rams offense. He was their QB coach.

SkinsJock wrote:

Cappster wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

Cappster wrote:because everyone has the "Snyder" mentality! Everyone wants a championship team overnight.

Speak for yourself. At this point, I'd just be happy for another winning season.

Patience is a virtue. Saunders offense will work with the right quarterback in place. I believe Campbell is that quarterback so with all of the first team reps this year, our team should improve considerably. As long as the D can hold up on their end, we should have many winning seasons starting in the 07 season.

ahh! there's that word 'patience" again we do not seem to ascribe to that virtue around here. we want it now, if not sooner, and we have all sorts of stats to disprove any and all that come preaching "patience"

I know that I am regarded as too much of a homer here but I really do think that we have a lot of things going for us - I know our record for the past 10 years is not what we expect here, but, IMO, all that is past and actually means nothing EXCEPT if we fail to learn from it.

IMO it really is fairly simple - we have to look at what we have and what can do to get better - all the finger pointing and "woulda, coulda shoulda" stuff is just bickering and grandstanding - "we'd be a lot better if we .......". Hopefully, we (Gibbs and co) have learned from the mistakes and we (the fans) just need to be a little patient (there's that word again) and let these guys do their thing and have a little faith (I know they have not earned it!) that they will get it done this time.

A lot of us need to be a little more aware of the reality - we are who we are and we have some problems but IMO we have one of the best at the helm and I believe he will (with a little more time) "get it done".

We are not in bad shape with this team really - we have so many good things going for us that we can build around and even though our defensive play let us down there are a few things that can be addressed by both player additions and coaching adjustments.

We are all very frustrated by the season and especially as many (including myself) saw so many opportunities for success this past season not be realized. But - it is time to let these guys do their work.

I am actually looking forward to all the turmoil that is about to happen with our team and everyone else this off season, but I think we are going to be a better team - these guys cannot screw this up so bad again, they are better than that.



Gibbs and Saunders will be fine, they are some of the best at it in the business.

I'm not debating anything you said, just commenting. The problem with winning now is making short term decisons sacrificing long term success and the problem with patience is it is a recipe for never expecting anything.

Personally I think it's about making the right decisions and building a winning system, which will produce wins. That is what I think Gibbs always followed. Do the right thing and then manage it and the wins will come. He went to the playoffs in his second year back relying on guys like Brunell at the end of their productive careers. It turned out we weren't going to the next level with them. It's about making the right choices, recognizing when you don't and moving on.

Things that are not helping us win:

- Trashing our coaches. They deserve respect. More then they've gotten from many. Having no tolerance makes it difficult for them to succeed and impossible for us to replace them if we make this a torched earth job. No one of calibre will come here and if they do we'll fire them anyway becuase no one can succeed when their job is on the line all the time even after they do things like consecutive top 10 Ds and taking us to the playoffs in their second year. A bad year and they are personally blamed for everything.

- Pining over players that are gone. It never seems to end, nobody Ryan Clark is the new Babe Laufenburg who was the 1980s version of Rudy. I think not matching the Pierce contract turned out to be a mistake. Smoot was overpaid by Minnesota. Whiner LaVar is better off gone. In the end though, who cares, they are gone!

- Expecting every signing to be a pro-bowl player. Some will suck. It's not a zero risk game.

- With Gibbs, criticizing him for things he did in first stint like trading his draft choices and then blaming our problems on that now particularly seems unproductive.

- Not recognizing we are not pros and not giving any benefit of the doubt to those who are. That does not mean we don't have opions, but some of the stuff people write is over the top and they clearly have no personal knowledge of what they are talking about, but read and repeated it without seeming to have any clue they don't know what they are talking about.

- Forgetting this is supposed to be a game and we follow it to have fun. I for the life of me can't figure out how bashing your team makes having a team a quality of life improvement. If people take it that seriously, they should find something more meaningful to care about. I'm not talking about not caring, I'm talking about having some perspective. Of making this a positive experience.

My opinion. End of rant.

It is a business, but, it is a business that makes money from the game of football. At the end of the day it is all about money unfortunately. I am one that constantly likes to say it should not be about money but really - it's all about the money.



I think we'll do well at the game of football this year.

SkinsJock wrote:It is a business, but, it is a business that makes money from the game of football. At the end of the day it is all about money unfortunately. I am one that constantly likes to say it should not be about money but really - it's all about the money.



I think we'll do well at the game of football this year.

I think it should be about money. It IS a business. They provide a product. We are customers, there's nothing wrong with that.

What I question is the product is entertainment and I don't understand people who claim to be fans of a team and trash it. Where is the fun when the product is entertainment and you just pound "your" team? Even sadder is if that is entertainment for them.

I also question the players who are mercinary about salary. They get endorsements and recognition and more security by being part of a team and a system. Ask AA who it is said came here for $ alone, doesn't seem to be getting him far.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I think it should be about money. It IS a business.

Then there will be many more 7-9 and 5-11 seasons in the future.

If you make every effort to maximize the profits, you do so at the expense of the W's. Maybe you don't make every last dollar possible, but isn't a dominant, cohesive football team worth that?

RedskinsFreak wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I think it should be about money. It IS a business.

Then there will be many more 7-9 and 5-11 seasons in the future.

If you make every effort to maximize the profits, you do so at the expense of the W's. Maybe you don't make every last dollar possible, but isn't a dominant, cohesive football team worth that?

Why?

Snyder, right or wrong, is profit driven. He heads a team with the most revenue and bends and breaks to the maximum to sign any player and coach he can. In return he has a 10 year waiting list, which is down from the 20 year one from RFK because Fedex field is bigger. How does that lead to losses?

Or are you pointing to ineptly run programs like Social Security, medicare, welfare and other government programs as your model of success? I hope not.

Money profit is win-win. Explain how Snyder not running a business would lead to more wins. Since he's busting every budget now, you can't say anything about money causing us to lose.

Why?

Snyder, right or wrong, is profit driven. He heads a team with the most revenue and bends and breaks to the maximum to sign any player and coach he can. In return he has a 10 year waiting list, which is down from the 20 year one from RFK because Fedex field is bigger. How does that lead to losses?

Or are you pointing to ineptly run programs like Social Security, medicare, welfare and other government programs as your model of success? I hope not.

Money profit is win-win. Explain how Snyder not running a business would lead to more wins. Since he's busting every budget now, you can't say anything about money causing us to lose.

Because Snyder and the Skins have been unwilling to go through an actual building process since he has owned the team. Ever since he has been the owner the plan in the offseson is to try to "win now." Which is a nice idea but isn't all that realistic in today's NFL. The common theme has been to sign big name free agents (Deion, Bruce Smith, Coles, Trotter, AA, etc.) instead of trying to build a solid foundation for the team with young players that are drafted by the Skins and developed. All that this does is create plenty of hype in the offseason and lead to mediocre results during the season. I could very well be wrong but to me it seems like Snyder is afraid, or at least unwilling, to not make a big splash in an off season, whether through the acquisition of players or coached (ex. Spurrier). Even after a terrible season like we had this season, the team always seems to think that they are just a few more free agents away from being a contender. Whether or not this has to do with his business model I'm not sure. But I think that it's possible that Snyder is afraid that if the team goes through a real building process without the offseason free agent hype and a record of 3-13 that he would end up seeing a dip in his profits.

SkinzCanes wrote:

Why?

Snyder, right or wrong, is profit driven. He heads a team with the most revenue and bends and breaks to the maximum to sign any player and coach he can. In return he has a 10 year waiting list, which is down from the 20 year one from RFK because Fedex field is bigger. How does that lead to losses?

Or are you pointing to ineptly run programs like Social Security, medicare, welfare and other government programs as your model of success? I hope not.

Money profit is win-win. Explain how Snyder not running a business would lead to more wins. Since he's busting every budget now, you can't say anything about money causing us to lose.

Because Snyder and the Skins have been unwilling to go through an actual building process since he has owned the team. Ever since he has been the owner the plan in the offseson is to try to "win now." Which is a nice idea but isn't all that realistic in today's NFL. The common theme has been to sign big name free agents (Deion, Bruce Smith, Coles, Trotter, AA, etc.) instead of trying to build a solid foundation for the team with young players that are drafted by the Skins and developed. All that this does is create plenty of hype in the offseason and lead to mediocre results during the season. I could very well be wrong but to me it seems like Snyder is afraid, or at least unwilling, to not make a big splash in an off season, whether through the acquisition of players or coached (ex. Spurrier). Even after a terrible season like we had this season, the team always seems to think that they are just a few more free agents away from being a contender. Whether or not this has to do with his business model I'm not sure. But I think that it's possible that Snyder is afraid that if the team goes through a real building process without the offseason free agent hype and a record of 3-13 that he would end up seeing a dip in his profits.

Maybe you need to dumb it down for me. Since it is now a business and Snyder is getting boku bucks, how does not running it as a business mean that we would slow down and build a team?

I agree we've been doing as you say. I am hoping they learn, we'll see. But I see it as the personalities involved. Again, we spend like nuts. The team is raking in the dough. How would slowing down stop the spigot? We have a freaking 10 year waiting list. What are you saying Snyder is afraid of if he allowed the team to build instead of win now.

Again, please dumb it down for me. I read your points, agree with many of them and don't get how it answers my question.

It's clear the Redskin s have too many coaches, and Gibbs is not in touch with this team as seen by some of the comments made by the players. We need to trim down the coaching staff.

It needs to be run as football team first, which is inheritantly a different approach than being run as a business.

What I'm saying is football success needs to be the primary -- if not sole -- objective.

If that's done, the business side of things will be just as successful.

Football first.

RedskinsFreak wrote:It needs to be run as football team first, which is inheritantly a different approach than being run as a business.

What I'm saying is football success needs to be the primary -- if not sole -- objective.

If that's done, the business side of things will be just as successful.

Football first.

Football is the objective. Money keeps score in the market. So you think GE would be a more successful company if they were non-profit and focused on appliances and lightbulbs instead of making money selling them?

Boeing would make better planes? Actually government Airbus is being bashed by greedy Boeing driven by profit. AT&T exists in name only as it was bought out and it's name taken and long distance prices are cheaper now then 20+ years ago when they were deregulated and left to compete with greedy for profit companies. When phone equipment was deregulated for greedy for profit companies, technology and options took off.

I understand liberal ideology is to scorn money (though liberals like it as much as the rest of us). So let me ask this. Give me a real example of a competitive non-profit business that provided a better product to a greedy one driven by profit.

Other than it making sense to a liberal mind, how do you ignore that money has always improved products and prices over wasteful systems generated by those who ignore money?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Money keeps score in the market.

But this is the NFL. Extremely different scoring system in play here.

Having an MBA from the best business school in the country and all the top business experience does not translate to winning football games. And if you ain't solely about winning football games, all the money in the universe won't make a lick of difference.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Other than it making sense to a liberal mind, how do you ignore that money has always improved products and prices over wasteful systems generated by those who ignore money?

49 wins, 63 losses. Only argument necessary. (No, he doesn't get credit for 1999) (and, BTW, your politicizing of this stance is irrelevant)

Dan Snyder the businessman has proven many times over that he knows how to market his product and maximize revenues. I give him every prop possible in that regard.

Dan Snyder the NFL owner, while discernably better than when he started, still doesn't get it. He hasn't shown he knows how to maximize his expenditures when it comes to player salaries.

RedskinsFreak wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Other than it making sense to a liberal mind, how do you ignore that money has always improved products and prices over wasteful systems generated by those who ignore money?

49 wins, 63 losses. Only argument necessary. (No, he doesn't get credit for 1999)

To play your game, you're wrong. The Patriots are profit driven and they won 3 of the last 5 Superbowls (sorry if i'm off a year or two). That proves my point that money focus is good.

Of course my argument using your logic was as absurd as yours. You are pointing to internal NFL teams that are all playing by the same rules and are driven by the same profit principles.

Your answer means nothing in regard to my question and it woudn't if we were 63 and 49 or 112 and 0. On average, how are the 32 NFL teams going to do every year? 8-8. That means some will win and others will lose. Nice little liberal trick though, redefine the question which is about free markets to a closed system with the same rules so you can throw out an irrelevant point rather than dealing with the issue.

Never questioned the issue. You've been right all along. Money DOES allow companies to improve products and services and make our lives better.

The free-market system works.

It just doesn't apply to NFL teams, who aren't companies in the same way that Boeing, GE, etc., are. The NFL IS a closed system with fixed rules that apply to every team. There's hardly the latitude that Boeing, etc., enjoy.

How a team navigates those rules determines its success.

That's all I got. I'm sorry that we appeared to have bored the rest of THN with a discussion that somehow became more suited for CNBC than ESPN.