Sally J.'s latest is spot on

[Spence]

George Michael, a close friend of Dan Snyder and Joe Gibbs, on the role Snyder plays in the front office:

"Let me tell you the truth: Dan does make I think most of those big-type decisions," Michael said. "He says 'Let's get this guy, let's get that guy.' And the guy that takes the heat for it--and it's why I think he's never gotten fired--is Vinny Cerrato. Now, Cerrato's painted as a bozo, but the truth is, what did Vinny Cerrato do for the team? Look at Chris Horton. That's the kind of guy he gets."

Source

[PennSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by Spence

George Michael, a close friend of Dan Snyder and Joe Gibbs, on the role Snyder plays in the front office:Source

Just read that. Fascinating interview. Love the comment about Zorn and improvement. We lose to the Lions and we improved. Hate to see what a step back would be.

Why would anyone doubt Snyder's involvement in personnel matters? The players usually confirm that after getting their big deals and thanking Snyder for his personal involvement. Of course Snyder is involved, that is why we have NO GM. Why do we think, Zorn is making the decisions to sign Haynesworth? Ummmmm, yeah right.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Spence

George Michael, a close friend of Dan Snyder and Joe Gibbs, on the role Snyder plays in the front office:Source

Here's a question. What does this mean?

Does it mean that Snyder, independent of Zorn and Snyder decided to go get this guy? Or does it mean Cerrato and staff did their yearly FA class evaluations and gave glowing reports on AH which caused Snyder to go get him. Big difference to me.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Here's a question. What does this mean?

Does it mean that Snyder, independent of Zorn and Snyder decided to go get this guy? Or does it mean Cerrato and staff did their yearly FA class evaluations and gave glowing reports on AH which caused Snyder to go get him. Big difference to me.

I think it means two things.

1. The meaning of what Michael said about Snyder's role is perfectly plain;
2. Those who like Snyder do not judge him by any tangible criteria [such as wins and losses] and are therefore unlikely to be impressed by any sort of argument against him, regardless of the facts or supporting evidence.

Therefore, debates like these can be diverting for a few minutes, but are ultimately fruitless. Two people will never agree on something if they use entirely different criteria to judge that subject. People like me judge Snyder based on the available evidence -- wins and losses. People who oppose my view of Snyder judge him on other criteria. I do not pretend to know exactly what that criteria might be, but I know it isn't wins and losses.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Spence

I think it means two things.

1. The meaning of what Michael said about Snyder's role is perfectly plain;
2. Those who like Snyder do not judge him by any tangible criteria [such as wins and losses] and are therefore unlikely to be impressed by any sort of argument against him, regardless of the facts or supporting evidence.

Therefore, debates like these can be diverting for a few minutes, but are ultimately fruitless. Two people will never agree on something if they use entirely different criteria to judge that subject. People like me judge Snyder based on the available evidence -- wins and losses. People who oppose my view of Snyder judge him on other criteria. I do not pretend to know exactly what that criteria might be, but I know it isn't wins and losses.

I can appreciate the evaluation of Snyder on wins and losses. Ultimately it is a completely worthless discussion though. We acknowledge he isn't very good based on perfectly empirical evidence and then what? Nothing. We get nothing out of that other than stating the plainly obvious. What I don't appreciate are your assumptions as to WHY he isn't very good. Or more accurately I'd rather have a discussion as to the WHY and I'd like people to state what it is exactly that he does that is wrong. I can appreciate an opinion in this regard but state it plainly as an opinion. If you're stating it as a fact, like so many seem to do, then give some support for it. I don't ask this of you or anyone out a challenging spirit but rather out it out a desire for real discussion and understanding of what's wrong. For example: no one has yet convinced me, or some others apparently, that the way Snyder operates talent acquisition is all that different than anywhere else. And if it isn't all that different then maybe it isn't the problem. Maybe the problem is that Snyder isn't very good at hiring the right football people. Just throwing that out there as a hypothetical alternative. If that is the case then the argument that he needs to hire a "real football" guy to run things takes a big dent because now we're relying on a guy, who isn't good at identifying "good football people", to hire a "good football guy" to run things. In which case we're screwed. Basically I want to know WHY we're in the state we're in. And just throwing out the same old Snyder bludoblahdeblugdeblammo... isn't very insightful.