An interesting philosophical question

He is not, however, someone who fancies himself a football man and forcing himself into that side of things. The presence of Scot McCoughan, and to some degree Bruce Allen, are clear evidence of that.

At some point, even his most tireless critics are going to have to allow themselves to see that.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I do not see that at all.

And for the record, I'm very tired.

Why, Henry ... because RG3 is still on the roster? I'm actually curious to know in what ways you think The Dan is still "meddling" in the football side of things.

And here, I gotcha somethin'.

Om said:

Why, Henry ... because RG3 is still on the roster? I'm actually curious to know in what ways you think The Dan is still "meddling" in the football side of things.

Click to expand...

Because that's what Dan does. Hiring McLovin is a wonderful idea. That doesn't mean Snyder will be able to stay hands off.

When he hired Marty Schottenheimer, he said he was staying out of the football side of things. That lasted a year.
When he hired Gibbs, he said he was staying out of the football side of things. That was not the case.
When he hired Allen and Shanahan, he said he was staying out of the football side of things. Shanahan says otherwise. Maybe he's a big liar.
Now it's McLovin. Maybe fourth time's a charm. I don't know.

But there it is. I don't know. You don't know (do you? Maybe you do ...).

We all ... don't know.

I no longer believe Snyder or anyone he hires when they say Snyder is not involved. That ship has sailed. All I have to go on at the moment is the personality of the team. Is it truly different than it's been for the past 15 years? I would expect if Snyder has truly removed himself from everything except for check-signing that the team's culture, that the day-to-day BS that permeates everything this team does whilst Snyder is stomping around the halls, has changed.

I'm not seeing a culture change. Remarkably, things actually look WORSE this year from that standpoint. Maybe all this offseason nonsense is not an indication that nothing has changed, it's all just an illusion, and the Redskins are poised for greatness. That's always a possibility.

But as I've been saying for awhile now, I need to actually see it to believe it these days. I don't see it yet.

Also Om,

Regarding Irsay and Kraft, I'll say the same thing I said when we were all discussing Luck vs. Bob in that other thread:

Those teams both have Hall of Fame QBs. Yes I think elite QB play trumps almost anything else in the NFL. Such is the nature of the league these days.

The Redskins do not have an elite QB. Lacking such a trump card, I predict the Redskins will go 4-12.

Henry said:

Because that's what Dan does. Hiring McLovin is a wonderful idea. That doesn't mean Snyder will be able to stay hands off.

Click to expand...

No argument. Neither of us have crystal balls.

When he hired Marty Schottenheimer, he said he was staying out of the football side of things. That lasted a year.

When he hired Gibbs, he said he was staying out of the football side of things. That was not the case.

When he hired Allen and Shanahan, he said he was staying out of the football side of things. Shanahan says otherwise. Maybe he's a big liar.

Click to expand...

Marty was 14 years ago.

Gibbs says otherwise. He says he, Vinny and the Dan consulted, but that Dan never ever, tried to tell him how to run football stuff. I WISH Gibbs had insisted on hiring a real GM, but he didn't. I actually put that on Gibbs, not Dan.

I agree Dan wanted RG3, and probably pushed Mike to go there. I wonder what would have happened if Mike was really opposed? At this point, anything that comes out of Mike's mouth seems to be tailored at repairing his own tarnished image. I doubt we will ever really know how much of the RG3 lust came from Dan, or Allen, and how Mike really felt out it. I do think it's unfair to assume it was Dan Snyder pounding the table with his tiny little fists, making a pouty face and saying, "I don't care! I want RG3!"

I no longer believe Snyder or anyone he hires when they say Snyder is not involved. That ship has sailed. All I have to go on at the moment is the personality of the team. Is it truly different than it's been for the past 15 years? I would expect if Snyder has truly removed himself from everything except for check-signing that the team's culture, that the day-to-day BS that permeates everything this team does whilst Snyder is stomping around the halls, has changed.

I'm not seeing a culture change. Remarkably, things actually look WORSE this year from that standpoint. Maybe all this offseason nonsense is not an indication that nothing has changed, it's all just an illusion, and the Redskins are poised for greatness. That's always a possibility.

But as I've been saying for awhile now, I need to actually see it to believe it these days. I don't see it yet.

Click to expand...

There's where we part. I think Snyder has grown. I think the hiring of the first real GM in his time as owner signals that loud and clear. Glass half empty, glass half full. Vive la difference!

As to seeing a culture change ... what evidence is acceptable? What if Dan stays completely out of football decisions and we still suck? What if we start winning, and things outside his control, like his GM's wife going pseudo-postal on Twitter, continue? What if he goes the OTHER way, makes himself GM like Jerry Jones did, and all of a sudden they start winning because he builds O and D lines and a QB falls out of sky who can actually play?

You see where I'm going there.

Winning cures just about anything--institutional cheating and poorly vetted future murderer draftees in NE, all manner of nefarious maybe criminal shit in Indy, numerous criminal element hires, scary plastic surgery and ego run amok in Dallas ...

Snyder hired his first real GM in 2009. Remember?

Well, until it turned out he wasn't really the GM.

I'm pretty sure I had this exact same discussion then.

I guess we're at the same impasse so I'll leave it with ... we'll see. Hopefully you're right and I'm wrong.

Vinny? Really?

I don't have the stomach to have that discussion again.

What was Vinny's title? President? Was it GM? Regardless, we've had a "GM" in place for a while now. If Scot doesn't turn out to be the magic elixir we all hope he is, what's the next move? It seems like we've had increasingly better leadership in place: Vinny - Bruce - Scot but the results have yet to improve.

I hate to be a downer, but even though we're cycling through new and better GMs and new and better coaches and new and better players, we are only having sporadic success that seem driven by chance not by plan. Snyder and dysfunction seem to be the one constant.

EDIT: should have read Henry's post.

I was talking about Allen. Maybe I meant 2010.

No, I just figured that out. I shoulda know you wouldn't go there.

Allen was hired as GM, you're right ... who then hired Mike Shanahan and became "Co-GM," with Mike having final say.

So not really a GM. And good thing, because we've seen both in Tampa and here he's not a very good personnel evaluator. Unlike, if I may say it, the guy we hired this time, who came with a proven track record and universal acknowledgment as such.

We're getting away from the topic though, and back onto all-too-well-travelled ground.

Just win, baby, and the rest becomes noise.

Om, the problem with the Jim Irsay argument is that it funnels the thought that we should sell the farm for the big name, in this case the franchise QB. That's the only reason that the Colts were that good for that long. When we made the trade for RG3 (or for the picks) the media lauded it as the right thing to do because you don't win in this league without a franchise QB. Of course they gave no definition of what "win" in this league means and what a "franchise QB" actually is, other than saying that RG3 was in fact a franchise QB and that he would lead to us "winning".

So if the media and 3/4 of the fans thought it (myself included) then why wouldn't Snyder think it and is he wrong for doing so?

Here's a philosophical question? Who are the franchise QBs in the league and where were they picked?

Tom Brady - (6th), 4 SB, Career Record (160-47)
Ben Roethlisberger (1, 11) 2 SB, Career Record (106-52)
Eli Manning (1, 1), 2 SB, Career Record (91-76)
Russell Wilson (3rd), 1 SB, Career Record (36-12)
Peyton Manning - (1, 1), 1 SB, Career Record (179-77)
Drew Brees - (2nd), 1 SB, Career Record (117-84)
Aaron Rodgers (1, 24), 1 SB, Career Record (70-33)
Joe Flacco (1, 18), 1 SB, Career Record (72-40)

Andrew Luck (1, 1), 0 SB, Career Record (33-15)
Colin Kaepernick (2nd), 0 SB, Career Record (25-14)
Andy Dalton (2nd), 0 SB, Career Record (40-23-1)
Nick Foles (3rd), 0 SB, Career Record (15-9)
Philip Rivers - (1, 2), 0 SB, Career Record (88-56)
Tony Romo (UDFA), 0 SB, Career Record (75-48)
Matt Ryan (1, 3), 0 SB, Career Record (66-44)
Alex Smith (1, 1), 0 SB, Career Record (57-47-1)
Michael Vick (1, 1), 0 SB, Career Record (59-50-1)
Rex Grossman, (1, 22), 0 SB, Career Record (25-22)
Mark Sanchez (1, 5), 0 SB, Career Record (37-33)
Matt Hasselbeck (6th), 0 SB, Career Record (80-72)
Jay Cutler (1, 11), 0 SB, Career Record (61-58)
Matt Schaub (3rd), 0 SB, Career Record (46-44)
Tarvaris Jackson (2nd), 0 SB, Career Record (17-17)
Cam Newton (1, 1), 0 SB, Career Record (30-31-1)
Carson Palmer (1, 1), 0 SB, Career Record (70-73)
Ryan Tannehill (1, 8), 0 SB, Career Record (23-25)
Shaun Hill (UDFA), 0 SB, Career Record (16-18)
Matt Cassel (7th), 0 SB, Career Record (33-38)
Matthew Stafford (1, 1), 0 SB, Career Record (35-42)
Derek Anderson (6th), 0 SB, Career Record (20-25)
Trent Edwards (3rd), 0 SB, Career Record (14-19)
Jason Campbell (1, 25), 0 SB, Career Record (32-47)
Robert Griffin (1, 2), 0 SB, Career Record (14-21)
Christian Ponder (1, 12), 0 SB, Career Record (14-21-1)
Geno Smith (2nd), 0 SB, Career Record (11-18)
Ryan Fitzpatrick (7th), 0 SB, Career Record (33-55-1)
Sam Bradford (1, 1) 0 SB, Career Record (18-30-1)
Josh McCown (3rd), 0 SB, Career Record (17-32)
Chad Henne (2nd), 0 SB, Career Record (18-35)

Does that mean anything? Which ones are franchise QBs and which ones aren't? Were the franchise QBs all drafted in the first round or high or even drafted? Did the other guys win because they had great teams around them? Did the great QBs lose because they had crappy teams around them?

It will be interesting after this year what big name we decide to go after and whether its in free agency or the draft, and how much we mortgage to get him - be it draft picks or a bunch of money. Even if we have the number 1 overall pick, I wonder if we'd be willing to trade down and just build a good team rather than invest in one player. Would we even try or are we so caught up into the philosophy of big names still.

Good ol Jimmy Irsay. You need pills? He's got em! You need arrests? He can do it! You need to escape to rehab so you don't go to jail? He's your guy!!

Yup. The league is full of corrupt, greedy owners and their bumbling commissioner. It gets worse every day.

But that's probably a discussion for yet another thread.

No New Threads!!

Russell Wilson is not a Franchise QB. He plays on a very talented team, with an overwhelming defense and a great ground game. Until he puts the team on his back and carries it to a big win by force of his own will he will be a solid game manager who improvises well just enough. In other words, a more athletic Trent Dilfer.

Neophyte said:

Russell Wilson is not a Franchise QB. He plays on a very talented team, with an overwhelming defense and a great ground game. Until he puts the team on his back and carries it to a big win by force of his own will he will be a solid game manager who improvises well just enough. In other words, a more athletic Trent Dilfer.

Click to expand...

But why does that matter? He's a young QB who they were able to build a team around. People said the same thing about Big Ben, and he won 2 SBs with that system, while before that they were perennial playoff disappointments. Russell Wilson is a 3rd Rounder with a SB victory. He's the latest revelation that you don't need a QB drafted in the top ten or even ranked as the top guy coming out in order to win in the league, or even by your very own statement, that you don't need a franchise QB to win. I'd love to hear for the clamor of building a solid defense through the draft, build a solid OL through the draft and building all the other pieces through the draft, developing our picks and having actual competitions that improve our quality at these positions so that we can become the new Ravens, or the new Steelers or the new Seahawks, or the new 49ers, all of whom have been to and won SBs in the last 10 years.

Unfortunately, and this goes to my first point, fans and the media cry for that franchise QB and make claims like "this is now a passing league" and "you can't run the ball 30 times a game and still win" and get mad when we make decisions based on that philosophy.

Thinking Skins said:

But why does that matter? He's a young QB who they were able to build a team around. People said the same thing about Big Ben, and he won 2 SBs with that system, while before that they were perennial playoff disappointments. Russell Wilson is a 3rd Rounder with a SB victory. He's the latest revelation that you don't need a QB drafted in the top ten or even ranked as the top guy coming out in order to win in the league, or even by your very own statement, that you don't need a franchise QB to win. I'd love to hear for the clamor of building a solid defense through the draft, build a solid OL through the draft and building all the other pieces through the draft, developing our picks and having actual competitions that improve our quality at these positions so that we can become the new Ravens, or the new Steelers or the new Seahawks, or the new 49ers, all of whom have been to and won SBs in the last 10 years.

Unfortunately, and this goes to my first point, fans and the media cry for that franchise QB and make claims like "this is now a passing league" and "you can't run the ball 30 times a game and still win" and get mad when we make decisions based on that philosophy.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this board is full of folks clamoring for sound drafting and building a solid team from the ground up.

Just because it has been pointed out that a team can overcome almost anything with elite QB, that doesn't mean everyone here thinks a solid plan is to sit around and wait for one. I'm not even sure Om thinks that.

Henry said:

I'm pretty sure this board is full of folks clamoring for sound drafting and building a solid team from the ground up.

Just because it has been pointed out that a team can overcome almost anything with elite QB, that doesn't mean everyone here thinks a solid plan is to sit around and wait for one. I'm not even sure Om thinks that.

Click to expand...

But my position isn't really based on this board because just like at ES, the rational thinking is generally in the minority. The problem is the media and their microphones and then the unruly fans who say we must sign a big WR, so we go out and get Lloyd or Hankerson, or Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly. I don't think these things are uncorrelated. Maybe that goes into how dysfunctional this org is, but why can't more fans and media call for the unsexy picks? I think it says something that maybe the top 3 guys on our defense that we drafted (Kerrigan, Robinson, and Breeland) were all guys that nobody really knew about before we picked them. People are still mad at us for passing on Watt in the trade down that got us Kerrigan. True we didn't get the sexiest pick, but we got a good building block for our defense. Robinson was a "who's that" before last year. And Breeland was a guy who many thought we got at a good value in the draft. So if this is the case why hasn't the idea of more draft picks caught on? I don't really care who's picking, Its just basic probability that if we have more lottery tickets then its more likely that we'll strike gold on one of them.

I just want to put it out there. I've been saying this since 1999 or so. I don't care who our GM is, or how they change the title of the position. All I care about is somebody who values the draft and isn't offering to trade draft picks away like they're cereal box tops. Ideally, we'd have somebody who can trade down so that we wind up with 10-15 picks every year and let them fight it out. This is where I look at the Packers and Patriots and get jealous because I don't care as much about number of successes vs number of failures. I care about the number of times at bat and those guys are constantly winning draft day trades, or letting guys go via FA so that they get compensatory picks.

- I was excited in 2008 because we traded down and had 10 picks. It was a horrible draft in hindsight, but I thought that Vinny had finally learned.
- I was excited in 2011 when we had 12 picks (albeit 4 7th rounders) because I thought that then we were at least going to value the draft from then on out, and say what you want about that draft but at least most of those guys stayed here for their entire first contracts, especially the first half of that draft.

Supposedly we have a scout-type GM now who really likes the draft and wants 10 picks (every year?) so I like the sound of that. Question I have is will he cave in to fans and the media?

Quite honestly, I haven't been following the media as closely as most of you all apparently have. Was there a lot of backlash for drafting Scherff? That's about the un-sexiest pick the team has ever made. Did the media and fans blast McLovin when he said he wanted to acquire 10 picks this year? I thought that plan was well-received. I could be wrong though.

But I do agree with your overall point.

Henry said:

Quite honestly, I haven't been following the media as closely as most of you all apparently have. Was there a lot of backlash for drafting Scherff? That's about the un-sexiest pick the team has ever made. Did the media and fans blast McLovin when he said he wanted to acquire 10 picks this year? I thought that plan was well-received. I could be wrong though.

But I do agree with your overall point.

Click to expand...

There was backlash first because people said "wait, why didn't you get L. Williams" (thats who I wanted as well and I didn't want to re-build the defense through free agency the way we did). Then there was backlash saying Schreff isn't a RT so why are you playing him there. Then there was backlash saying "you don't draft a RG that high". He hasn't gotten the backlash that Allen or Vinny would have gotten had they made the pick, but it hasn't been the "finally, we're investing in our OL" response I've wanted. And I'm talking media more than fans now. I remember Mike Jones basically going off on Jason Reid saying that we have the potential to have an all pro at G for the next 10 years vs just getting a starter at RT or trying to make him into a starter at RT.

But I'm on a no radio thing right now because its too negative right now. Its like they drink venom and spread it amongst the fans and ridicule anybody who smiles while mentioning the Skins, unless its a smile of sarcasm, then its ok.