SI ranked all of the NFL owners - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/michael_silver/06/27/ownerrankings/index.html
As you can see below, Snyder ranks 5 and McCaskey ranks 26. I am sure RobsObs is rolling his eyes now and about to launch on a campaign to dispel these rankings. That's fine.
5. Daniel Snyder, Redskins
Though he has yet to make the Redskins a consistent winner, owner Daniel Snyder has succeeded in making his team one of the most valuable in all of sports.
If anything, Snyder tries too hard to build a winner. In January '06, when Snyder wooed former Chiefs offensive coordinator Al Saunders with a three-year deal worth more than $2 million annually, it seemed like a great move on paper. Instead, Saunders' philosophy clashed with that of head coach Joe Gibbs, which was one reason the team fell from a playoff appearance in '05 to a 5-11 finish last season. Snyder's zealous mentality also enables Gibbs and VP of football operations Vinny Cerrato to overpay for free agents like Adam Archuleta, Antwaan Randle El and Brandon Lloyd, none of which helps the on-field product.
But hey, at least he's trying. Snyder will get it right eventually, if only because he won't settle for anything less -- a quality far too owners possess. And he is pulling in an enormous profit in the meantime, thanks to his innovative marketing strategies. He's also more of a team player on the league level than you might imagine, as evidenced by his willingness to go along with the revenue-sharing plan that ensured labor peace in the spring of '06.
26. Michael McCaskey, Bears
Just as the Yorks don't seem capable of parlaying the nearby Silicon Valley wealth into big-picture endeavors that buoy the franchise, McCaskey is a massive marketing underachiever. He has a storied team in the nation's second-most-populated market where pro football is played; a team, mind you, coming off its first Super Bowl appearance in 21 years. Yet the biggest buzz coming out of Chi-town over the offseason has been:
a) The team's cheap stance toward underpaid coach Lovie Smith, who finally signed a contract extension after his agent announced it wasn't likely to happen?
b) Smith's curious decision to cut loose highly regarded defensive coordinator Ron Rivera -- and, a cynic would note, remove a potential candidate to replace Smith as his own contract situation played out?
c) The organization's hard-line stance toward franchised playmaking linebacker Lance Briggs, to whom they have no intention of offering a long-term contract, and apparently aren't open to trading, likely ensuring he'll miss more than half of the season?
d) Troubled defensive tackle Tank Johnson's jail stint, traffic stop in Arizona and subsequent release, with Smith and general manager Jerry Angelo acting utterly stunned by his misbehavior?
The answer is, Who cares? It's McCaskey's world; the rest of us just laugh at it. Chicago fans should be less stressed about Rex Grossman and more appalled at the performance of this signal-caller.
14 comments:
I just saw this ranking on SI.com. I can't say I'm surprised. It's what you and I have been saying all along, JKD.
I'm curious to find out what RobOb thinks. I'm guessing it will be something along the lines of the 'Skins MO is a recipe for disaster. The Bears' front office is a winner. Blah Blah. I love Lovie. Blah Blah. Skins' suck. Blah.
Yep. Sounds about right.
The win-loss record speaks for itself.
SI's ranking does nothing to change my mind. 20 years from now, when the Redskins still suck, you'll see that I was right.
Weird. Because the write ups on each of the owners pretty much sum up what we have been saying. We have said that you can't question Danny boy's effort. His methods have been questionable. Hopefully he does get it right.
Bottom line: Bears are winners. Redskins are losers.
Since Danny Boy has taken over the Redskins, they have a losing record and are known largely for having high priced free agent busts. He has even tarnished the legacy of Joe Gibbs (unless Gibbsy can somehow right the sinking ship this year). He has ruined the once great Redskin organization, even as he profits handsomely from it.
He is not spending more than other teams, but he certainly has proven that his GM skills are terrible. Even with that glaring deficiency, he won't hire a real GM.
You can say his methods have been questionable, but I would argue there is no question about it - his methods for building a winner flat out suck!
Still, the writeups are pretty accurate. The write ups on each of the owners pretty much sum up what we have been saying.
McKaskey's Bears = Winners
Snyder's Redskins = Losers
Let's see what happens to all of Danny's "passion" and more importantly, let's see if his GM skills are improving this year.
Still, the writeups are pretty accurate. The write ups on each of the owners pretty much sum up what we have been saying.
I would not argue that the writeups are accurate. In fact, for the reasons I have been discussing for years, I think Danny is a horrible owner and the Bears have great owners.
What we can say for certain is that Michael Silver seems to be an anti-Bears, Danny-loving Manny just like you.
Still, the writeups are pretty accurate. The write ups on each of the owners pretty much sum up what we have been saying.
You can believe that Silver is accurate if you like. I say it is nonsens for the reasons I have argued for the last couple of years.
Saying Silver is accurate is silly because it is just an opinion that is not based on fact.
He does accurately reflect your opinion - but not mine.
You keep cutting and pasting the same B.S. I don't understand why you are doing that.
I keep saying that you can say that Silver is consistent (and accurate) with what you believe, but he is not consistent with what I believe.
He is also inaccurate if you look at wins and losses and which owners have built winning organizations.
That is all I am saying.
Yes. His rankings are his opinion. Just like when anybody does any rankings, it is their opinion. So what? Why do you get so defensive, tiger? It's just interesting because the write ups on each of the owners pretty much sum up what we have been saying.
When you say "we" you are talking about you and Deepie - not me.
I am also going to assume that you meant to say Silver's opinions are "consistent with your own" not "accurate."
You kept saying Silver's rankings were "accurate" and I kept saying they were not "accurate."
Post a Comment