RG3 and Gruden?

Dude, he tried to get Shanahan to resign last year so that he didn't have to pay his final year.

We kept on several coaches as holdovers from that staff so that Dan wouldn't have to pay dead salaries.

Show me a time when Dan Snyder has ever been willing to pay lots of money to a coach to go away?

You're not living in reality.

And did Shanahan resign, or did he eat that $? I also don't think the holdover coaches were driven by $ (although I concede it may have been a factor) -- I think Gruden's alliegance and relationship (and Allen's) to Haslett was more of a factor.

I confess I do not recall whether Snyder had to pay $ to make Zorn, Schottenheimer or Spurrier go away (although I suspect he may have).

With all due respect, I am not sure you're looking at this the right way. The $ Snyder spent on Gruden was gone the minute Gruden signed the deal. The question is what Snyder will have to pay beyond that to get what he wants -- a coach that can get this team winning. If he thinks that by spending $ to do so he can get that, he will have to evalute the cost relative to how important it is to him. Stated differently, I doubt he will keep a coach that he believes will not climb above 3 wins just to save $20M -- if doing better than 3 wins is worth $20M to him (and I suspect it is). That's particularly true when keeping Gruden (and not paying the incremental cost of another HC) could actually cost Snyder a lot more revenue in an increasingly disenfranchised fan base that isn't buying tickets, jerseys, etc.

It is not only the $20M when talking about Gruden, it is also who do you replace him with in 2015?

Hard to imagine Gruden getting the axe so quick. Even Zorn got two years.

And did Shanahan resign, or did he eat that $? I also don't think the holdover coaches were driven by $ (although I concede it may have been a factor) -- I think Gruden's alliegance and relationship (and Allen's) to Haslett was more of a factor.

I confess I do not recall whether Snyder had to pay $ to make Zorn, Schottenheimer or Spurrier go away (although I suspect he may have).

With all due respect, I am not sure you're looking at this the right way. The $ Snyder spent on Gruden was gone the minute Gruden signed the deal. The question is what Snyder will have to pay beyond that to get what he wants -- a coach that can get this team winning. If he thinks that by spending $ to do so he can get that, he will have to evalute the cost relative to how important it is to him. Stated differently, I doubt he will keep a coach that he believes will not climb above 3 wins just to save $20M -- if doing better than 3 wins is worth $20M to him (and I suspect it is). That's particularly true when keeping Gruden (and not paying the incremental cost of another HC) could actually cost Snyder a lot more revenue in an increasingly disenfranchised fan base that isn't buying tickets, jerseys, etc.

I completely understand the principles of sunk cost. But I don't think you're appropriately factoring in risk.

Here's the thing, as much as I think Jay Gruden stinks, I can't be entirely certain he can't turn the program around. And I can't be entirely certain a new coach could.

So let's go ahead and view the $20M as a sunk cost. To hire a new coach would be another what, $25M commitment? Would he pay $45M for what he might perceive to be a better shot at improvement? Or would he ride it out and pay $20M to someone who could still improve?

Again, it's not what we think he should do (it's easy to spend other people's money). It's a matter of what he will think he should do.

Secondly, I think you overstate the threat to Snyder's revenue stream. We still haven't failed to sell out a home game, despite the sad state of affairs.

I've totally lost track of this thread, but Snyder has paid millions over the years for coaches not to be here

I've totally lost track of this thread, but Snyder has paid millions over the years for coaches not to be here

Even if we lose out, I don't see him getting rid of Gruden. My money is on BA either leaving or moving to business role.

Hard to imagine Gruden getting the axe so quick. Even Zorn got two years.

Yeah, but wasn't Zorn like 7-9 or 8-8 in his first year?

unless we get blown out all of those games. Allen should be gone or at lest moved to business side HAZ gone, if he retains gruden and we go on a losing strak i could him getting axed during the season

Why gruden must go: Here are the 10 worst Redskins seasons of all time - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2014/12/11/here-are-the-10-worst-redskins-seasons-of-all-time/)

This is easily the worst situation I can ever remember any NFL team being in

Matt Millen at Detroit was worse. A lot. If 0-16 isn't bad enough, look at their drafting. Painful to look at even for another team.

The last few years of Al Davis was worse. He finally had a coach that turned the team around and then fired him (Tom Cable at 8-8)

Tampa Bay for a long, long, long, time. 1982-1996 all losing seasons - 10 of those seasons less than 6 wins....horrid.

the Saints 1967 - 1986. 20 consecutive non winning seasons. (one 8-8 in there)

I will agree this is the worst the place the Washington redskins have been in since 1981 for sure. Will be interested as to what happens after the season.