Lets overpay for Jared Allen

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

You don't see the point in looking at the total number of wins and losses as a measure of success or failure? Interesting.

Upon what then, do you base the success of an owner who by all accounts has an important role in determining the team's overall makeup?

If you agree that the numbers "aren't great" but disagree with the manner by which I arrived at those numbers, then we differ by degree, but not in principle.

But you're not even looking at the total numbers because you're pulling numbers out.

Besides you know that wins and losses isn't all it comes down to.

Team A:

Year 1: 12-4
Year 2: 8-8
Year 3: 4-12

Team B:

Year 1: 4-12
Year 2: 8-8
Year 3: 12-4

So who's the better owner?

[Beemnseven]

Tell you what, SS -- I'll concede 2001 and give you that 8-8 record. But I stand by my omission of 1999 because Snyder didn't take over until just before training camp began and the team was already assembled by Charley Casserly. So that brings us to ... what, 58-70?

And yes, winning and losing is basically what it comes down to. As Parcells used to say, you are what your record says you are. But since your not looking at wins and losses, I guess we're just not going to see eye to eye on this one are we?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Tell you what, SS -- I'll concede 2001 and give you that 8-8 record. But I stand by my omission of 1999 because Snyder didn't take over until just before training camp began and the team was already assembled by Charley Casserly. So that brings us to ... what, 58-70?

And yes, winning and losing is basically what it comes down to. As Parcells used to say, you are what your record says you are. But since your not looking at wins and losses, I guess we're just not going to see eye to eye on this one are we?

Well answer my question about Team A vs. Team B

[GMScud]

Interesting couple of posts on this page. I would kind of agree with not counting '99 since Danny had basically zero say in the personnel that season. But you have to count 2001 w/ Marty. It was Snyder's 3rd season as owner. It counts, regardless of who was pulling the strings.

On a side note, are there any FA WR's who have experience in the WCO?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Interesting couple of posts on this page. I would kind of agree with not counting '99 since Danny had basically zero say in the personnel that season. But you have to count 2001 w/ Marty. It was Snyder's 3rd season as owner. It counts, regardless of who was pulling the strings.

On a side note, are there any FA WR's who have experience in the WCO?

DJ Hackett. Maybe Javon Walker

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

How are those numbers wrong?

1999 -- Casserly's team, I don't count that
2000 -- 8-8
2001 -- Marty's year, not counting that either
2002 -- 7-9
2003 -- 5-11
2004 -- 6-10
2005 -- 10-6
2006 -- 5-11
2007 -- 9-7

Grand total = 50-62

Wow! Talking about skewed. You're just going to pick and choose which seasons to count and which to not? By your logic, we should also not count 2004 - 2007. After all to suggest that Gibbs didn't have at least the majority of the say over personnel is just not paying attention.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

DJ Hackett. Maybe Javon Walker

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.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well answer my question about Team A vs. Team B

OK, I'll play along. A 24-24 record over three years says mediocrity. On a year-by-year basis, some good seasons, some bad ones.

A 50-62 record, (or 58-70, or 68-76, if you prefer) says that you're in the range of .446 to .472, depending on how you look at it. Either way, as you said earlier the numbers "aren't great".

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Wow! Talking about skewed. You're just going to pick and choose which seasons to count and which to not? By your logic, we should also not count 2004 - 2007. After all to suggest that Gibbs didn't have at least the majority of the say over personnel is just not paying attention.

*Sigh.*

If you take away the years of 2004-07, the record is 28-36 (or 38-42 if you count Casserly's '99 team.) Any way you slice it, it's a less than enthusing track record.

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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

OK, I'll play along. A 24-24 record over three years says mediocrity. On a year-by-year basis, some good seasons, some bad ones.

A 50-62 record, (or 58-70, or 68-76, if you prefer) says that you're in the range of .446 to .472, depending on how you look at it. Either way, as you said earlier the numbers "aren't great".

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

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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)

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.