Redskins Owners

Even though Jack Kent Cooke would be like 185 years old now (just joking but close...lol,) if JKC hadn't died and was still owner, do you guys think there would have been any major differences in success?

i don't think so, there weren't any SBs after gibbs left...

JKC was cheap. John Riggins sat out because of money and Cooke would have run the Redskins organization similar to the Eagles. Which basically means very few players would play have a long career with the team. He was a character though. " I'm experiencing uncontrollable ectasy," when asked about the victory over Dallas in the NFC Championship.

Perhaps we could legitimately ask, "What if John Cooke had gotten the team as he should have?" What would be the state of the Redskins today?

The biggest difference is the Skins would not have gone though that period of time where they signed over the hill stars for more money than what they were worth.(ie Sanders) Under Cooke I do not believe the Skins would be leading the NFL in wasted cap money EVERY FREAKING YEAR.

OK, everybody in the Time Machine, we're changing history!

Possibly interesting topic of conjecture, but not given the present dissent in the ranks. Who's to say that we woulddn't be looking at The 'Washington Bureaucrats' instead of our beloved Redskins.

So many things could have been different, once you get started you'll be up all hours.

I dispute that ownership under John Kent Cooke would be necessarily better. The person closest to the situation who knew him best didn't have a whole lot of faith in him, so I don't know why we should.

I'm referring, of course, to his father.

I believe it would be better. The redskins were one of the most respected organizations in football under big Jack. Perhaps Charley C would still be running the show if Jack were still around. Snyder has already admitted that getting rid of Charley was a big mistake.

I know I've asked this before, but is Beathard retired??

Yes, he is retired.