Dan Snyder, Good for the NFL.

eacantdraft · 03-29-2007, 07:52 AM

Is Danny Boy Snyder good for the NFL?

I certainly know he is good for the NFC east. He overpays for what are essentially role players or players beyond their prime. It's nice seeing the Redskins underachieve most of the seasons he's been there.

Usually it means 2 guaranteed victories for the Giants each season.

WooWoo21 · 03-29-2007, 09:00 AM

Definatley not good for the NFL. Not only does he drive up the price on players he does it for Head Coaches and Assistant Coaches too. The guy is putting a very high premium on Defensive Coordinators, how is that good for the league?

njx9 · 03-29-2007, 09:04 AM

oh come on. the salary cap drove up the price on players, not dan snyder.

i think he's pretty unequivocally good for the league, if you look at it in terms of revenue sharing.

bsaza2358 · 03-29-2007, 09:06 AM

To me, he is a menace to his own fan base, but he is not bad for the NFL as a whole. Driving up the price for specific FA's doesn't hurt the NFL. It just hurts the Redskins. Charging more for tickets and ripping off his own fan base just takes money out of Snyder's own pockets. The Redskins tend to give the most money to small market teams in revenue sharing. Coaches can get paid whatever the market will bear. If Snyder wants to pay them, that is his business. The NFL is stronger than it has ever been. Even though his ideas are idiotic and almost always result in failure, Snyder is an owner who wants to win and spends money to do so. I can't say that an active owner is bad for the NFL in general.

bigbluedefense · 03-29-2007, 09:07 AM

He really hasn't done anything wrong. So he overpays for FAs...who cares? Theres a cap, if players are getting paid too much, its because the cap keeps going up, which could be a problem in upcoming years. But thats not Snyder's fault.

You can knock him for his approach to building a football team, you can knock him for overpaying for average talent, but he's not detremental to the league. He follows the rules in place, and he does what he does.

At least he's trying to win. Unlike the Fords who run the Lions, who are completely oblivious to their own fanbase or football team.

ks_perfection · 03-29-2007, 09:30 AM

The Redskins are one of the most sucessfully teams from a finanacial point of view. At the end of the day generating revenue is the most important for the league. The fact that they lose doesn't affect the league, since there will always be losers and winners no matter how good or bad a team is at building a winner.

portermvp84 · 03-29-2007, 09:32 AM

The Redskins seem like they're always going to be good after each of the last off seasons. They really haven't shown anything, but they just have to figure out the pieces to the puzzle.

bsaza2358 · 03-29-2007, 09:42 AM

Correction: The Redskins make big moves aimed at building a winner that don't take into consideration the salary cap, team chemistry, or how well these players fit into schemes (see Reuben Carter, Archuletta, Lloyd, Randle-El, Patten, Phillip Daniels, Christian Fauria). I probably missed several other big ones.

In the meantime, they have had mostly successful drafts. The Redskins really haven't had bad draft picks. They got several starters and contributors in each year. I believe their college scouting vastly exceeds their pro scouting, but they insist on building teams that way.

IMO, anything that gets a fan base excited and is done with the intent of winning is good for the NFL. However, continued failures to adjust to the trends of the league is just incompetence.

SFbear · 03-29-2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by portermvp84

The Redskins seem like they're always going to be good after each of the last off seasons. They really haven't shown anything, but they just have to figure out the pieces to the puzzle.

Maybe there not trying to figure out the puzzle. Get a few big name FAs to create some buzz in the offseason and get the fans hopes up. Sell a new line of jerseys, put fans in the seats, and then call it a day.

SeanTaylorRIP · 03-29-2007, 01:48 PM

I think the question and polls are completely different, the polls are asking if he is a good owner, and your title is asking if he is good for the league, in now way is he bad for the league and in terms of being a good owner, for the football aspect no, but the business side he is the top owner in the league.

KBear · 03-29-2007, 01:53 PM

Bad for the NFL, no. He is just trying to win, its just that he is not good at it.

bearsfan_51 · 03-29-2007, 01:56 PM

People always fail to realize that the Colts spent more on players salaries last year than the Redskins. The Reskins just get more notoriety because they keep signing other team's players and then cutting them in a year or two while the Colts have allocated their resources to keep their own.

Splat · 03-29-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KBear

Bad for the NFL, no. He is just trying to win, its just that he is not good at it.

Yes sir e bob.

Ward · 03-29-2007, 02:10 PM

He's running the most valuable NFL franchise. Meaning, in terms of dollars earned, he's arguably the best owner.

Achilles33 · 03-29-2007, 02:13 PM

He was a good owner once. It is a shame that he has turned into this overpaying loonatic that we know today. He never valued the draft either, which is the key component to building a strong, young, team. Teams that pay alot in FA always wind up dissapointing, and that was the case here. That is why I believe that the 49er's and/or Patriots could have a bad season, but that is another topic. If Snyder started to be patient and learn how to have quality drafts and build a team the right way and evelop chemistry, I think he can salvage his name. But as of right now, he is one of the laughing stocks of the NFL.

But in terms of money, like Ward stated, he is doing fine.

bearsfan_51 · 03-29-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ward

He's running the most valuable NFL franchise. Meaning, in terms of dollars earned, he's arguably the best owner.

Actually it's not in terms of dollars earned. I would guess that Snyder is probably losing money.

The way the value of franchises is figured out is kinda quirky, as it has a lot to do with product investment (listen to the guy getting a PhD in Spanish history talk about economics). Therefore, the Carolina Panthers were ranked above the Chicago Bears I believe in terms of "valuable", but if both teams went up on the market it wouldn't even be close in terms of what they would go for.

Empire · 03-29-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Actually it's not in terms of dollars earned. I would guess that Snyder is probably losing money.

The way the value of franchises is figured out is kinda quirky, as it has a lot to do with product investment (listen to the guy getting a PhD in Spanish history talk about economics). Therefore, the Carolina Panthers were ranked above the Chicago Bears I believe in terms of "valuable", but if both teams went up on the market it wouldn't even be close in terms of what they would go for.

Nope. The Redskins are in purely monetary terms the best team in all of football. They are by far the most valuable team (1.423 billion), number six in the league in yearly percentage growth in value (6%), number one in revenue (303 million) and also number one in operating income (108.4 million).

And speaking of market value for the Carolina Panthers and Chicago Bears, they are both almost equal in market value at the moment. The Bears are worth 945 million dollars while the Panthers are worth 936 million.

Of course in terms of income per year, the Bears aren't even close to the Panthers. The Bears rank number five at 51.5 million while the Panthers are 24th and 20.7 million.

Shiver · 03-29-2007, 03:50 PM

Dan Snyder is good for the Denver Broncos, as for winning games for the franchise he owns, his strategy hasn't worked.

D-Unit · 03-29-2007, 03:51 PM

Good for the NFL and GREAT for the NFC East. :D

Addict · 03-29-2007, 04:09 PM

Dan Snyder is as good to the NFL as Alzheimer is to the human brain.

bsaza2358 · 03-29-2007, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire

Nope. The Redskins are in purely monetary terms the best team in all of football. They are by far the most valuable team (1.423 billion), number six in the league in yearly percentage growth in value (6%), number one in revenue (303 million) and also number one in operating income (108.4 million).

And speaking of market value for the Carolina Panthers and Chicago Bears, they are both almost equal in market value at the moment. The Bears are worth 945 million dollars while the Panthers are worth 936 million.

Of course in terms of income per year, the Bears aren't even close to the Panthers. The Bears rank number five at 51.5 million while the Panthers are 24th and 20.7 million.

Can you give us a source or web link with these numbers? I would like to see and evaluate. Thanks.

SeanTaylorRIP · 03-29-2007, 04:16 PM

Doesn't say how they determine it, but here the Forbes list Skins are the most valuable Franchise in all of sports, only franchise worth a billion+
http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/forbes.html

SeanTaylorRIP · 03-29-2007, 04:18 PM

Oh here:http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Value_1.html

Skins are 1st in the league in team value, 1st in revenue, and 2nd in operating Income.

yourfavestoner · 03-29-2007, 04:47 PM

As far as his wild spending habits concerning players goes...eh, I could really care less. The thing that bothers me is how high he has driven the market price up for assistant coaches.

BlindSite · 03-29-2007, 06:54 PM

From all accounts, the man's an arrogant asshole who meddles in his team, makes decisions he has the right to make, but shouldn't in the interest of winning and then hires and fires people at the drop of a hat. He maligned one of the best defensive coordinators in football by being an asshole, he's rude to other owners and opposing coaches and he leaks stories from inside his house and the NFL to people at the washington post.

The dude's a douche.

However, he can be good for the business side of the game, because he's a financial genius, which is surprising the way he throws money around.