More dislike of Snyder: John Kent Cooke

This article was already posted on the links - Burgundy & Old Pain - but after reading it I felt such a sense of bitterness that I had to vent w/a new thread. I know that many said John Kent Cooke wasn't cut out to own the team, but it's clear from the article that he not only has a passion for the team, but also a great sense of appreciation for the fans & the team's reputation and standing in DC. He cares about the organization's tradition & how it treats people, both things that Snyder shows little regard for.

Profile of John Kent Cooke, son of former Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102003616_5.html?sid=ST2009102003818)

One of the few football related people I have little respect for is John Cooke. At the time of the sale, he came off as disinterested in the Skins, and as the opening line of the article says wanted to be sailing or doing anything but running a team his father had made into a proud and story-filled franchise. I could care less about his moanings, or some media spin from the post to hammer snyder from yet another angle. I hope john enjoys his boat trips but he has no credible reason for being attached to the Skins in any way shape or form.

Jack Kent Cooke was a smart man. If he had wanted his son to have the team when he died, he would have made that possible. But, he knew his son too well to let that happen.

Sonny Jurgensen, the Hall of Fame quarterback who now broadcasts the team's games, said: "John is a good man. But if his dad thought he was capable of running the franchise, I think he would have given it to him. They could have taken care of the charitable trust when John sold the team."

One of the few football related people I have little respect for is John Cooke. At the time of the sale, he came off as disinterested in the Skins, and as the opening line of the article says wanted to be sailing or doing anything but running a team his father had made into a proud and story-filled franchise. I could care less about his moanings, or some media spin from the post to hammer snyder from yet another angle. I hope john enjoys his boat trips but he has no credible reason for being attached to the Skins in any way shape or form.

I realize the story is largely a sour grapes tale by JKC, but at the same time, if what he said is true about how the danny treated him, that speaks volumes. I certainly won't argue whether JKC was ready to be an owner.

Think about the paradox; lifelong fan (danny) wants to buy the team that gave him memories since childhood and a tradition of winning. Yet as a business man the lifelong fan doesn't seem to care about the actual people and methods that established the tradition.

So in the end, the lifelong fan buys the team, fair and square, yet guts virtually all remnants of the product that gave him all the great memories. He changes the business model, the image, the marketing, etc. and today we have an organization that is almost entirely based on his business decisions, and virtually void of the tradition that made him want the team in the first place.

Jack Kent Cooke was a demanding guy. Not meddlesome, but demanding. Good article.

I remember reading some articles at the time that John Kent Cooke might not be the best guy for the job. Who knows though? The meeting b/n DS and JKC doesn't really make DS look bad. He wanted to be the majority owner just like JKC. Of course, they hated each other b/c they were battling for ownership of the team.

I'm not going to defend Snyder at all, he is what he is. But would we be that much better off with John as owner? I'm really not sure. The Redskins as we knew them died with Jack.

I feel for what happened to John, but c'mon, his discontent for Snyder seems to be a cover up for the real issue, the fact his Dad passed him over and made it difficult for him to retain the team.

I honestly don't know much of the story behind John Kent Cooke. To be honest, I never even thought about Jack's children until after Jack had passed away. I guess after ten years of putting up with Daniel Snyder, it's tough to compare that to the two years that John owned the team. I don't doubt one bit what John was saying in the article was true. For one thing, it is about patience and continuity. And at the time when Snyder bought the team, I really felt that Norv was finally starting to turn the team around. Also, it is true that Snyder has turned the Redskins into nothing more than a cash cow for him first and a football team second. I'm not saying that things would have been better under John, but I don't see how things could have been worse. But, it's probably a moot point. If Snyder ever does decide to sell the Redskins, I doubt he would make it easy for John Kent Cooke to purchase it. Cooke probably wouldn't have the money in the first place.

Norv was fired in year 7 with the team and probably should have been canned much earlier. He's only proved since then to be a mediocre head coach in this league. There's a difference between having patience, and not knowing when to cut ties with a bad thing.

In comparison to Danny, John Kent Cooke was a model of effective ownership.

On the other hand, this would be true of Beulah the Witch.

Norv was fired in year 7 with the team and probably should have been canned much earlier. He's only proved since then to be a mediocre head coach in this league. There's a difference between having patience, and not knowing when to cut ties with a bad thing.

True, but I think that line is very thin. I do believe it took Norv Turner too long to finally get the Redskins into playing better football and winning games. However, point being is, they finally started winning more. They finally started winning division championships and getting into the playoffs. I felt Snyder was a little hasty in firing Turner midseason. Especially when the Redskins were at a 7-6 record. By all accounts, Turner should have been fired before the '98 or '99 seasons. But, because he wasn't, and because they (front office) stuck with him, he eventually got the Redskins in the playoffs.

I guess my line of thinking is, if you're going to fire a guy, don't do it after he finally "catches on". Stick with him at that point. I suppose I was giving Turner a free pass for the ugly years we endured under him before that '99 season. From that point on (the '99 playoff season) is when Turner should have been scrutinized the most in my opinion. In another words, "Ok, you have finally started doing what we hired you to do. So, we're starting on a clean slate now. We are going to see if you can at least repeat that and eventually improve from that. If so, then you're working out. If the team regresses, you're gone!"

We can say the team regressed that following year, but since Turner was fired before the season was over (at a 7-6 record,) then we can't really say for sure that Turner would not have gotten the Redskins into the playoffs again. Or, at least a 10-6 record if nothing else.