Lets overpay for Jared Allen

But go ahead, go on and tell us how Lil' Danny walks on water and gives presents to starving children every Christmas while off duty as the best owner in the history of sports.

Way to defend your weak argument.

(I think maybe we need to redefine "VIP" on this site)

Way to defend your weak argument.

(I think maybe we need to redefine "VIP" on this site)


Way to take one of two statements away from a post and frame that as my argument.

Fascinating indeed.

Way to take one of two statements away from a post and frame that as my argument.

Fascinating indeed.

If I'm not mistaken the crux of your argument is basically "numbers are numbers, no matter how you slice it"

Then you added that walk on water nonsense just for the hell of it.

Really? So if one team were to show improvement over the course of an owner's first three years while the other were to show a gradual decline your argument is "numbers are numbers."

Fascinating

Well, if you go from a 10-6 playoff team in 1999 to 8-8 the next year, cutting guys like Brian Mitchell and bringing in Jeff George and Deion Sanders, alienating Brad Johnson and firing a head coach in the middle of a season with the playoffs still in reach, YES -- I'd call that a decline.

If you go from a solid, proven guy like Marty Schottenheimer who had this team in the right direction and firing him for Steve Spurrier while dragging in bums like Trung Canidate and Jaquez Green, YES -- I'd call that a decline.

If you go from a 10-6 playoff team in 2005, and then revert right back to your old ways and bring in guys like Adam Archuleta, Brandon Lloyd and TJ Duckett, tossing away valuable draft picks in the process on your way to a 5-11 record, YES -- I'd call that a decline.

How 'bout that? That fit nicely in your little Team 'A' vs. Team 'B' scenario?

Well, if you go from a 10-6 playoff team in 1999 to 8-8 the next year, cutting guys like Brian Mitchell and bringing in Jeff George and Deion Sanders, alienating Brad Johnson and firing a head coach in the middle of a season with the playoffs still in reach, YES -- I'd call that a decline.

If you go from a solid, proven guy like Marty Schottenheimer who had this team in the right direction and firing him for Steve Spurrier while dragging in bums like Trung Canidate and Jaquez Green, YES -- I'd call that a decline.

If you go from a 10-6 playoff team in 2005, and then revert right back to your old ways and bring in guys like Adam Archuleta, Brandon Lloyd and TJ Duckett, tossing away valuable draft picks in the process on your way to a 5-11 record, YES -- I'd call that a decline.

How 'bout that? That fit nicely in your little Team 'A' vs. Team 'B' scenario?You should also note that while the average record for a hypothetical team in a season is 8-8, that doesn't account for the fact that the median team in the NFL tends to be a 7-9 team. This is because the elite teams win more games than the awful teams lose. That is to say, that the average NFL team is inevitably more likely to lose to the worst team in the NFL than they are to beat the best team in the NFL. This makes sense, does it not?

Therefore the prototypically average NFL franchise will win about 47% of it's games in the free agency era. The Redskins have won 47% of their games in the Snyder era. I would agree with you that it would be irresponsible to credit Snyder for the success in 1999, but the Redskins are still (give or take) the average NFL franchise in his era.

Maybe average isn't good enough for you, but I don't think that's the argument you are trying to make.

Well, if you go from a 10-6 playoff team in 1999 to 8-8 the next year, cutting guys like Brian Mitchell and bringing in Jeff George and Deion Sanders, alienating Brad Johnson and firing a head coach in the middle of a season with the playoffs still in reach, YES -- I'd call that a decline.

If you go from a solid, proven guy like Marty Schottenheimer who had this team in the right direction and firing him for Steve Spurrier while dragging in bums like Trung Canidate and Jaquez Green, YES -- I'd call that a decline.

If you go from a 10-6 playoff team in 2005, and then revert right back to your old ways and bring in guys like Adam Archuleta, Brandon Lloyd and TJ Duckett, tossing away valuable draft picks in the process on your way to a 5-11 record, YES -- I'd call that a decline.

How 'bout that? That fit nicely in your little Team 'A' vs. Team 'B' scenario?

Finally! Why didn't you just state that from the start?

You're getting snippy with me I see. But this to me isn't about Snyder. And you probably think I'm arguing with you in order to defend Snyder. I'm not. That argument has played itself out.

I know you're very critical of the team and tend to believe we've lucked into whatever successed we've had in recent years and when we win we win in spite of ourselves. But this isn't even about that. This is just about the premise of your argument. What bothers me is that I know you're too smart to resort to something so simplistic as "well 50-62" when there are so many more factors involved. Namely, how did a team progress/regress over the course of that owner's tenure.

You should also note that while the average record for a hypothetical team in a season is 8-8, that doesn't account for the fact that the median team in the NFL tends to be a 7-9 team. This is because the elite teams win more games than the awful teams lose. That is to say, that the average NFL team is inevitably more likely to lose to the worst team in the NFL than they are to beat the best team in the NFL. This makes sense, does it not?

Therefore the prototypically average NFL franchise will win about 47% of it's games in the free agency era. The Redskins have won 47% of their games in the Snyder era. I would agree with you that it would be irresponsible to credit Snyder for the success in 1999, but the Redskins are still give or take the average NFL franchise in his era.

Maybe average isn't good enough for you, but I don't think that's the argument you are trying to make.

I just know what this team used to be under the ownership of a wise owner, and a competent GM.

When I look at what it is now, it makes me sick. Though some people may find it difficult to believe, I still have hope that one day, Lil' Danny will figure the whole thing out.

I just know what this team used to be under the ownership of a wise owner, and a competent GM.

When I look at what it is now, it makes me sick. Though some people may find it difficult to believe, I still have hope that one day, Lil' Danny will figure the whole thing out.I think (IMO) that day came 4 years ago.

I do think Vinny and Scott Campbell are the right people for the job of GM and assistant GM. Only time will tell if they draft properly, but they've said all the right things so far.

Finally! Why didn't you just state that from the start?

You're getting snippy with me I see. But this to me isn't about Snyder. And you probably think I'm arguing with you in order to defend Snyder. I'm not. That argument has played itself out.

I know you're very critical of the team and tend to believe we've lucked into whatever successed we've had in recent years and when we win we win in spite of ourselves. But this isn't even about that. This is just about the premise of your argument. What bothers me is that I know you're too smart to resort to something so simplistic as "well 50-62" when there are so many more factors involved. Namely, how did a team progress/regress over the course of that owner's tenure.

No, I'm not getting snippy. I wouldn't do this if it weren't so much fun.

Look, it may surprise you to learn that I do sometimes see that there may be glimpses -- short, scattering, faint glimpses -- of signs that Snyder might just be starting to get the hang of this thing. I do see progress in two playoff seasons out of the past three. On the other hand, I also believe that those two successful campaigns were built on pure emotion, and didn't come until their backs were against the wall; one under heart-wrenching circumstances which tore at their souls. 2008 will soon tell us if it was a flash in the pan, or if we're back on the path to dominance the way we saw it back in the '80s.

But then, I'm a skeptic at heart. We may never see the success of the '80s again. When we start seeing sustained success, I'll change my tune.

Until then, Lil' Danny will never escape my wrath.

Walker is oft injured and a complainer. Hackett is only 26 but played in just 6 games last year. In those 6 games he did manage about 400 yards and 3 TDs. He could be had for cheap and knows Zorn's stuff well. Walker will cost a lot more, gets hurt a lot, and turns 30 this year.

I'm officially on board with going after Hackett. Yes he's had injury issues but when healthy the guy is a player and he won't cost us a ton either.

He's got good size (6'2, 208) and he's only 26. I think he's a good gamble.