Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
I look at it like this, Snyder has had to learn how it is to be an owner of an NFL franchise. It's taken him years to finally start "trying" the right things to turn the team around.
I honestly believe in my heart that I saw a change in Snyder when Gibbs came back. Somehow, I think it took having a guy like Gibbs, someone that Daniel Snyder admired and respected, to get him to realize that he needed the right guys around him to make this team successful. Of course, the proof is still yet to be decided if that's true, but I think this is a different Daniel Snyder than the young rich CEO who had taken over the team in the late 90's.
|
I don't know, SG . . . I think Snyder's body of work in the few years immediately following, and perhaps even during, the Gibbs II era showed that he hadn't quite "gotten it" yet.
With regard to the article, there was no news broken by it; it was a deliberate hatchet job, pure and simple. The City Paper has run a number of truly informative cover stories over the years, and this wasn't one of them. That being said, I'm actually curious to see, if a lawsuit is in fact filed, exactly what was inaccurate within the story. There can't be any doubt that a lot of what was in this story is true, and I imagine it was the inventorying of those actually-true things in one place that probably upset Snyder as much as the inclusion of anything that was less than accurate. The simple fact is that he's made himself an easy target, whether he likes it or not. And yes, winning would take the heat off of him, but he's had a primary role in obstructing winning since he's been here.