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

Well, at least on this list.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/teamrankings

Based on the definitions given in the ranking I find it hard to disagree. I am a loyal fan of this team and each year for the past 15 years (save a playoff game here and there) this team has regularly disappointed me.

Wins - Fail! Way too few & far between.
Fan Relations - Fail! Sue your season ticket holders. Really?!
Ownership - FAIL!
Affordability - FAIL!
Coaching - FAIL!
Title Track - FAIL!

DAMN IT Redskins....... I cant quit you!

Caught in a bad romance. Seriously though, as long as we're Top 3 on the Forbes list, I don't think Snyder cares about this one.

Personally, I don't care what the media says. Media is there to generate money, not give unbiased, accurate information.

VetSkinsFan wrote:Personally, I don't care what the media says. Media is there to generate money, not give unbiased, accurate information.

The Oakland Raiders? Please. And the Toronto Maple Leafs? Consistently one of the highest payrolls and most rabid fan bases for a perennial cellar dweller who hasn't won a Stanly Cup since the 60s, the longest drought of any NHL team. There are at least a dozen teams that are just flat out bad and making no effort even to do so. At least we're trying. And OMG the Lions. Yeah, they're a better franchise then us.

How about three other local teams, the Os, the Nats, and the Wiz. All of those are worse than the Skins.

skinsfan#33 wrote:How about three other local teams, the Os, the Nats, and the Wiz. All of those are worse than the Skins.

I know. I left the Lions because they made no effort to win. Clearly by this rating trying to win and failing is far more horrible then making zero effort. And they aren't consistent in that because by that measure the Maple Leafs blow us away in sucking. Are we an elite franchise? Not over that time span for sure. But there are easily 2/3 of every one of the leagues considered who don't make a consistent effort to actually win and I'd take our failures as frustrating as they are over not making an effort any time.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:How about three other local teams, the Os, the Nats, and the Wiz. All of those are worse than the Skins.

I know. I left the Lions because they made no effort to win. Clearly by this rating trying to win and failing is far more horrible then making zero effort. And they aren't consistent in that because by that measure the Maple Leafs blow us away in sucking. Are we an elite franchise? Not over that time span for sure. But there are easily 2/3 of every one of the leagues considered who don't make a consistent effort to actually win and I'd take our failures as frustrating as they are over not making an effort any time.

Going into this season with Grossman as our QB is not a good argument that we are trying, nor is our consistent failure to deal with the OL.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:How about three other local teams, the Os, the Nats, and the Wiz. All of those are worse than the Skins.

I know. I left the Lions because they made no effort to win. Clearly by this rating trying to win and failing is far more horrible then making zero effort. And they aren't consistent in that because by that measure the Maple Leafs blow us away in sucking. Are we an elite franchise? Not over that time span for sure. But there are easily 2/3 of every one of the leagues considered who don't make a consistent effort to actually win and I'd take our failures as frustrating as they are over not making an effort any time.

Going into this season with Grossman as our QB is not a good argument that we are trying, nor is our consistent failure to deal with the OL.

I'd say let's let FA come and go before we can say that.

skinsfan#33 wrote:How about three other local teams, the Os, the Nats, and the Wiz. All of those are worse than the Skins.

You're missing a major component of their rankings....affordability. That along justifies our low ranking. Even teams like the Yankees (75th) and Red Sox (79th) are low on this list.

skinsfan#33 wrote:How about three other local teams, the Os, the Nats, and the Wiz. All of those are worse than the Skins.

And the Nats and O's are much closer to .500 than the Skins.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:How about three other local teams, the Os, the Nats, and the Wiz. All of those are worse than the Skins.

I know. I left the Lions because they made no effort to win. Clearly by this rating trying to win and failing is far more horrible then making zero effort. And they aren't consistent in that because by that measure the Maple Leafs blow us away in sucking. Are we an elite franchise? Not over that time span for sure. But there are easily 2/3 of every one of the leagues considered who don't make a consistent effort to actually win and I'd take our failures as frustrating as they are over not making an effort any time.

Going into this season with Grossman as our QB is not a good argument that we are trying, nor is our consistent failure to deal with the OL.

Drafting T Will & trading for Brown & signing Hicks & Licht were all attempts to inprove the OL.

This list was discussed on ESPN 980. The list was based in part on the Fans "Return on Investment" so to speak.

In other words, the fact that Skins fans continue to support the team and pour lots of money into it makes their Return on Investment one of the lowest in pro sports.

Teams that have sucked consistently usually don't have loyal fans, and usually aren't Top 3 in Revenue.

I still think the Raiders should be down there "ahead" of the Bengals though. ANd, I do think this list was stupid.

yupchagee wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote: I know. I left the Lions because they made no effort to win. Clearly by this rating trying to win and failing is far more horrible then making zero effort. And they aren't consistent in that because by that measure the Maple Leafs blow us away in sucking. Are we an elite franchise? Not over that time span for sure. But there are easily 2/3 of every one of the leagues considered who don't make a consistent effort to actually win and I'd take our failures as frustrating as they are over not making an effort any time.

Going into this season with Grossman as our QB is not a good argument that we are trying, nor is our consistent failure to deal with the OL.

Drafting T Will & trading for Brown & signing Hicks & Licht were all attempts to inprove the OL.

T Will was a no brainer, Brown was injured, and Hicks and Licht were backups or should have been.

The Hogster wrote:This list was discussed on ESPN 980. The list was based in part on the Fans "Return on Investment" so to speak.

In other words, the fact that Skins fans continue to support the team and pour lots of money into it makes their Return on Investment one of the lowest in pro sports.

Teams that have sucked consistently usually don't have loyal fans, and usually aren't Top 3 in Revenue.

I still think the Raiders should be down there "ahead" of the Bengals though. ANd, I do think this list was stupid.

The "Stadium Experience" I'm sure really killed the Skins in the rankings too. Awful traffic to get to FedEx, bad public transportation, poor concessions yet high prices, no character to the stadium, etc.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:How about three other local teams, the Os, the Nats, and the Wiz. All of those are worse than the Skins.

You're missing a major component of their rankings....affordability. That along justifies our low ranking. Even teams like the Yankees (75th) and Red Sox (79th) are low on this list.

The Skins are definitely affordable, I don't see an issue. There are 8 games a year at Redskin park. Unfortunately most of the time nowdays it does stop at 8. It's not like going to a baseball game where you play 81 home games.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:How about three other local teams, the Os, the Nats, and the Wiz. All of those are worse than the Skins.

I know. I left the Lions because they made no effort to win. Clearly by this rating trying to win and failing is far more horrible then making zero effort. And they aren't consistent in that because by that measure the Maple Leafs blow us away in sucking. Are we an elite franchise? Not over that time span for sure. But there are easily 2/3 of every one of the leagues considered who don't make a consistent effort to actually win and I'd take our failures as frustrating as they are over not making an effort any time.

Going into this season with Grossman as our QB is not a good argument that we are trying, nor is our consistent failure to deal with the OL.

I agree with your opinion, but questioning their judgment doesn't say they aren't trying.

The Hogster wrote:This list was discussed on ESPN 980. The list was based in part on the Fans "Return on Investment" so to speak

Good point, but it is in the end an entertainment business. If they are getting our eyeballs and selling tickets they are winning, and the Redskins have the revenue to show they are getting the eyeballs to show we're spending for them. That is my argument on trying. Getting guys like AH even when he ends up being a bust still draws us in to see how they do. My point on that I am here for entertainment. I'd rather sign guys like AH and end up being 4-12 once in a while then having a hack year in and year out 6-10 team.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:How about three other local teams, the Os, the Nats, and the Wiz. All of those are worse than the Skins.

And the Nats and O's are much closer to .500 than the Skins.

All time? i dont think so... im not a math genious but....numbers dont lie. Redskins are the only of the three ABOVE .500 all time.

orioles all time---8111-8996
nats all time---3202-3539
redskins all time---570-523-27

gay4pacman wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:How about three other local teams, the Os, the Nats, and the Wiz. All of those are worse than the Skins.

And the Nats and O's are much closer to .500 than the Skins.

All time? i dont think so... im not a math genious but....numbers dont lie. Redskins are the only of the three ABOVE .500 all time.

orioles all time---8111-8996
nats all time---3202-3539
redskins all time---570-523-27

Those rankings are for 2011. All-time records don't mean a thing in this context. The Skins last season had a winning percentage of .375 and it wont be much better this year. The Nats right now are winning at a .486 clips and the Orioles at .464.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

gay4pacman wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote: And the Nats and O's are much closer to .500 than the Skins.

All time? i dont think so... im not a math genious but....numbers dont lie. Redskins are the only of the three ABOVE .500 all time.

orioles all time---8111-8996
nats all time---3202-3539
redskins all time---570-523-27

Those rankings are for 2011. All-time records don't mean a thing in this context. The Skins last season had a winning percentage of .375 and it wont be much better this year. The Nats right now are winning at a .486 clips and the Orioles at .464.

and the tickets are cheaper

CanesSkins26 wrote:

The Hogster wrote:This list was discussed on ESPN 980. The list was based in part on the Fans "Return on Investment" so to speak.

In other words, the fact that Skins fans continue to support the team and pour lots of money into it makes their Return on Investment one of the lowest in pro sports.

Teams that have sucked consistently usually don't have loyal fans, and usually aren't Top 3 in Revenue.

I still think the Raiders should be down there "ahead" of the Bengals though. ANd, I do think this list was stupid.

The "Stadium Experience" I'm sure really killed the Skins in the rankings too. Awful traffic to get to FedEx, bad public transportation, poor concessions yet high prices, no character to the stadium, etc.

+1 Stadium traffic is often a deal breaker. And, by the time the weather starts to really suck, we're usually out of the playoff race.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

The Hogster wrote:This list was discussed on ESPN 980. The list was based in part on the Fans "Return on Investment" so to speak.

In other words, the fact that Skins fans continue to support the team and pour lots of money into it makes their Return on Investment one of the lowest in pro sports.

Teams that have sucked consistently usually don't have loyal fans, and usually aren't Top 3 in Revenue.

I still think the Raiders should be down there "ahead" of the Bengals though. ANd, I do think this list was stupid.

The "Stadium Experience" I'm sure really killed the Skins in the rankings too. Awful traffic to get to FedEx, bad public transportation, poor concessions yet high prices, no character to the stadium, etc.

I don't get your comments about the traffic or public transportation. I have never had any trouble getting to or from fedex when I drive. It rarely takes me more than one hour to get home once I get to my car. Usually, it is 45' and the trip on a normal day takes just as long, if not longer! Don't use the beltway.

The metro comes within a mile of the stadium so public transportation is OK, not great like some stadiums where the metro takes you right to the stadium. Maybe, if DC had worked with JKC on finding a site for the stadium instead of fighting him the metro stop would have been closer.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

The Hogster wrote:This list was discussed on ESPN 980. The list was based in part on the Fans "Return on Investment" so to speak.

In other words, the fact that Skins fans continue to support the team and pour lots of money into it makes their Return on Investment one of the lowest in pro sports.

Teams that have sucked consistently usually don't have loyal fans, and usually aren't Top 3 in Revenue.

I still think the Raiders should be down there "ahead" of the Bengals though. ANd, I do think this list was stupid.

The "Stadium Experience" I'm sure really killed the Skins in the rankings too. Awful traffic to get to FedEx, bad public transportation, poor concessions yet high prices, no character to the stadium, etc.

I don't get your comments about the traffic or public transportation. I have never had any trouble getting to or from fedex when I drive. It rarely takes me more than one hour to get home once I get to my car. Usually, it is 45' and the trip on a normal day takes just as long, if not longer! Don't use the beltway.

The metro comes within a mile of the stadium so public transportation is OK, not great like some stadiums where the metro takes you right to the stadium. Maybe, if DC had worked with JKC on finding a site for the stadium instead of fighting him the metro stop would have been closer.

skinsfan#33 wrote:I don't get your comments about the traffic or public transportation. I have never had any trouble getting to or from fedex when I drive. It rarely takes me more than one hour to get home once I get to my car. Usually, it is 45' and the trip on a normal day takes just as long, if not longer! Don't use the beltway.

The metro comes within a mile of the stadium so public transportation is OK, not great like some stadiums where the metro takes you right to the stadium. Maybe, if DC had worked with JKC on finding a site for the stadium instead of fighting him the metro stop would have been closer.

I agree wit you on this one.. it always scares people seeing the lines of red lights leaving the stadium but when you get out it opens up in all directions. Just think rush hour traffic but a much shorter time of it.

It's worse coming from DC. As a local, I know how to get around it. But, everyone doesn't.