Snyder Camp Upset!!

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I can't stand it when people say this cause it's total 100% BS! When the team was under his control he went out and spent money. Does Dana Stubblefield and Dan Wilkonson ring a bell??? It's water under the bridge cause JKC dicked his own son, but there is NO QUESTION in my mind that we'd be in MUCH better hands had John Cooke kept the team.

2 high priced FA's that were pretty much busts.

So how would things have without question been different?

Just because they shared the same name doesn't make John would have been a great owner.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I can't stand it when people say this cause it's total 100% BS! When the team was under his control he went out and spent money. Does Dana Stubblefield and Dan Wilkonson ring a bell??? It's water under the bridge cause JKC dicked his own son, but there is NO QUESTION in my mind that we'd be in MUCH better hands had John Cooke kept the team.

Profile of John Kent Cooke, son of former Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke - washingtonpost.com

[sportscurmudgeon]

Hey Matty! Is there still a seat on your "Don't Give A Shit Bus"?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Hey Matty! Is there still a seat on your "Don't Give A Shit Bus"?

Oh yeah hop on board!

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Profile of John Kent Cooke, son of former Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke - washingtonpost.com

Good find...

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

2 high priced FA's that were pretty much busts.

So how would things have without question been different?

Just because they shared the same name doesn't make John would have been a great owner.

C'mon Matty. Give me a break. You know damn well that this team would've been run in a much more professional manner if John Cooke was the owner. When Snyder took over this team was well on it's way and he came in a ripped it apart. He's been a shitty owner. If you can't figure that out for yourself then so be it. So I guess John Cooke would've embrasssed his head coach by bringing in a bingo caller to call plays mid season. I could go on and on. But I do understand that this is your website, and it's your job to be objective.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

C'mon Matty. Give me a break. You know damn well that this team would've been run in a much more professional manner if John Cooke was the owner. When Snyder took over this team was well on it's way and he came in a ripped it apart. He's been a shitty owner. If you can't figure that out for yourself then so be it. So I guess John Cooke would've embrasssed his head coach by bringing in a bingo caller to call plays mid season. I could go on and on. But I do understand that this is your website, and it's your job to be objective.

Come on what? You named Stubby and Big Daddy as shining examples of John's work. Tell me they weren't busts.

Put Snyder aside for a moment... How can you say without question we would have been better off with John as owner??

Just wondering why you have so much confidence in that thought?

You really don't think there's any chance we could have been worse off W/L wise?

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Profile of John Kent Cooke, son of former Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke - washingtonpost.com

I remember this last year and he was also on Mike Wise....and if I remember correctly he didn't have very nice things to say about Snyder. But like I said, it's water under the bridge.

[CRedskinsRule]

My initial Cooke comment was tinged with sarcasm, but please that article is a puff piece from the Post at a time when Snyder was on the ropes and they were pulling no punches. Cooke had every opportunity to be the winning bidder, his Dad could have changed the will at any time to give his son additional chances but he didn't.

After he lost the team, what did Cooke do, he went to Bermuda and sat on the beach for several years. Who knows how he would have run the team, but nothing in that article, or his actions at the time convince me that he would have been any better or worse of an owner. Different yes, but better I dunno.

Personally that article sounds like a petulant son who thought he should have everything and when he didn't get it he got mad at the man who did. You notice in the article that Snyder said he was going to give the team to his son, I imagine that that royally ticked Cooke off towards Snyder.

Do you really think he would ever come out and give DS any credit regardless of the team's situation?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Profile of John Kent Cooke, son of former Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke - washingtonpost.com

Excellent article! I'm now depressed!

[MTK]

Think about this, under Snyder the team has gone 86-106. That basically averages out to an average of just over 7 wins per year.

So if you don't think things could have been worse under another owner consider that during the same time the Lions averaged under 4.6 wins, the Cardinals 6, the Bills 6.75, the Browns 5.3, the Raiders 6.5, etc.

[juskins]

Originally Posted by MonkFan4Life

That's your problem. It's not the NFL's fault. You should really blame Jack kent Cooke for not leaving the team to his son as opposed to making it so that the team would be put up for sale so that your charity could get more money. Really you kind of should be happy because JKC's charity got more money because Snyder "overpaid" for the team. It was an omen to me just how much this team was worth, or how important it was for one to own it.

So I say blame Jack Kent Cooke, because had he just left the team to his son then we would've won 7 Super Bowls by now right ?

No, it was another flamboyant owner (JKC) over rating his demeanor and his place in life. I think Mr. Cook was saying to his sons, I bought the Washington Redskins with the money I earned. If one of my sons wants ownership of this team, they will have to find a way to buy it on their own merit. Not from heritability. I will bequeath you, John, an investment that you can parlay with other investors to buy the team that I will sell to you or whomever. I wish it did not have to be parsed out that way but I had nothing to do with it or nor did any other fan have a say about it.

I really think a cleaver lawyer can find a way to sue the NFL and Snyder for Dan's ownership of this team. If they did not win the suit, they would bring public opinion down on Mr. Snyder. I know you are saying "dream on" but the point being the entire process of finding the "right" owner was done with fixing the salable market of the Washington Redskins organization so that the NFL would profit by it.

I have bitten my tongue by supporting Snyder for many years. But, there comes a time when enough is enough with Dan. He has brought this franchise down and made it a laughing stock of the NFL.

By you claiming to support Dan Snyder is a let down from one fan to another. Surely, you just.

Yes, Dan Snyder over paid for this organization for his own greed and was not thinking of JKC's beloved charity - not my charity, as you alluded to.

If the response was close to half in support of the law suit and half in opposition to the law suit then I could see why you would throw your hat in Dan's corner. But to be the lone wolf in the forest howling by your lonesome should say something other than your supposedly support for Snyder is a little suspicious, don't you think?

Dan Snyder is a bad owner, period. I am fed up with the one liner "that Dan just wants to win", BS. If he just wants to win then sell the team. Of course that won't happen. We are stuck with this dollar maniac. This is not a rant against anyone who has wealth, not at all. But I am sick and tried of fans saying Dan is a passionate owner. My ass he is.

[MTK]

Sue him for owning the team? That sounds even more ridiculous than Snyder's suit with the city paper.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Come on what? You named Stubby and Big Daddy as shining examples of John's work. Tell me they weren't busts.

Put Snyder aside for a moment... How can you say without question we would have been better off with John as owner??

Just wondering why you have so much confidence in that thought?

You really don't think there's any chance we could have been worse off W/L wise?

I was making an example that John Cooke would spend money, which he did. Right? We'd be winning more games cause we'd be a professional organization. From top to bottom. Professionals would be running the team. Not Vinny Cerrato and co. Professionals would be picking the players and putting a TEAM together. Not a fantasy team a REAL team. I'm sure someone has John's interview with Wise but he said it himself. He'd let the scouts and front office people do their thing. He'd have a competent head coach, not colleges coaches that didn't practice in bad weather, or a quirky QB coach with no OC experience. All that shows me there would be more wins. Oh, and I can promise you he wouldn't have shit on the fans.

[MonkFan4Life]

SUE HIM FOR OWNING THE TEAM ?

HAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !

You guys are HIL-AR-IOUS !!!!!

Christ, is this where we have gone. So they would start with Dan ? Ralph Wilson gets a pass huh ?

Look, we can sit and read the article making John Cooke out to be a victim but the fact is that (if juhskins' theory is correct which I agree with in a way) he got into a bidding war for a business and he lost. Period.

He wasn't quite the model for a kick ass owner at the time either. Under HIS watch, we brought in James Washington, Stanley Richard, Carl Banks, Alvin Harper, and lets not go to the AWESOME drafts that Charlie Casserly blessed us with. Shit happens and it happened to us after Joe Gibbs retired the first time.