Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: dcsportsbog and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Why These Redskins Make You Hurt So Bad

2000 photo by John McDonnell - TWP

On the surface, the Redskins' current run of mediocrity really shouldn't be that painful. The team has been consistently middling for the better part of a decade, but plenty of teams in plenty of sports are consistently middling without causing the sort of angst we're seeing in D.C. I'm obviously not from here, so I can't really explain what you all are feeling. And I sure can't describe what D.C. was like in the '80s and early '90s, when things were super swell.

But looking at the numbers--a 77-86 record since 1999, with three playoff appearances in those 10 seasons--is extremely unsatisfying. It just looks so darn middle-of-the-road, which doesn't seem like such a horrific place to be. So to try to get a better understanding of why this Burgundy Revolution began, I pulled three different numbers, which look slightly less than mediocre.

Home Playoff Games

This is the drum continually beaten by my ex-neighbor, the Great Dave McKenna of Washington City Paper, and it's a good and loud one. Home playoff games are a celebration of excellence, a chilly excursion into the fresh air of fine football. And the Redskins, of course, haven't hosted a playoff game since January of 2000, a span of nearly a decade.

Turns out, that means the Redskins have one of the longest current droughts in the NFL. The list, so far as I could gather.

1. Detroit Lions, 15 years
2. Cleveland Browns, 14 years
3. Buffalo Bills, 12 years
4. Washington Redskins, 9 years
5. Jacksonville Jaguars, 9 years

(The Jaguars won their divisional playoff game in the '99-2000 season and thus played another home playoff game after the Skins had already been eliminated, so technically their drought is shorter.)

To make matters even worse, no less than 20 NFL teams have hosted playoff games just within the past four seasons. In the modern NFL, you have to go out of your way to avoid at least the occasional grand success. At that, the Redskins have succeeded.

Repeat Super Bowl Appearances

If the Skins had always been mediocre, being mediocre would be no big thing. The crux of the problem is that they used to be the best, the class of the NFL, the franchise against which others would measure themselves. To fall down from that lofty pinnacle of genius to the bumpy hills of mediocrity is a terrible tumble indeed.

How to measure that? There are surely lots of more effective ways than this, but to keep things simple I looked at the longest droughts Super Bowl champs have suffered between returning to the big game. The Redskins have the third-longest active streak, and are working on one of the longer streaks of all time.

And yes, "all-time" is a pretty strange phrase to use here, since the Super Bowl hasn't yet existed for 50 years, and only 11 teams had ever won the Super Bowl before the Redskins' most recent triumph. Still, that doesn't really change the point, which is that Redskins fans got used to one standard, and they now find that standard vanished.

So anyhow, the longest Super Bowl Champion return-appearance droughts, so far as I could gather:

1. Jets, 41 years (active)
2. Chiefs, 40 years (active)
3. Colts, 36 years
4. Packers, 28 years
5. Bears, 21 years
6. Raiders, 19 years
7. Redskins, 18 years (active)
8. Steelers, 16 years
9. 49ers, 15 years (active)

You have to be good to be on this list. But you have to be good to hurt so bad.

Rolling Rivals

Tell me if I'm wrong, but a big part of this outpouring of grief has to be related to the fact that the Skins' three principal rivals--the Cowboys, Giants and Eagles--have mostly maintained their spot atop the NFC over the past decade, even as Washington has slipped into the depressing middle. Washington's two playoff appearances since its last division title appear fine, until matched against a combined 16 playoff appearances and three NFC championships from those other three teams. The list, in order of playoff appearances, since Washington's last divisional crown:

Eagles: Five NFC East titles, two wild cards, 10-7 playoff record, one NFC title
Giants: Three NFC East titles, three wild cards, 6-5 playoff record, two NFC titles
Cowboys: One NFC East title, two wild cards, 0-3 playoff record
Redskins: Two wild cards, 1-2 playoff record

All three rivals are above .500 this season, and each has at least doubled the Redskins' point total. That's not helping.

More thoughts?

By Dan Steinberg  |  September 30, 2009; 7:37 AM ET
Categories:  Redskins  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Vegas Still Endorses the Skins' Talent Level
Next: John Thompson Approves of Brooks Laich


I don't think mediocre is the term to use at this point. Yes, we've been mediocre for a long time and it's been frustrating but at least you could argue that we won some great games and lost some games against great opponents. We've now lost to the two worst teams in the NFL (oh wait we won one of those didn't we?) and it feels like we're the bottom of the barrel and it's just devastating.

Posted by: JulzDC | September 30, 2009 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Since the last Redskins NFC Championship appearance, all but two NFC teams have appeared in the NFC Championship: The 'Skins and the Lions.

We are, and have been for a long time now, jokes.

Posted by: NattyBo1985 | September 30, 2009 8:40 AM | Report abuse

What's funny is the Skins and the Lions played in the NFC championship against each other, and that's the last time either team has been to the NFC Championship. Our histories are tied together in more ways than one.

Posted by: Randy_Hawkins | September 30, 2009 8:46 AM | Report abuse

What will be sad on the ExtremeDanny message board is that they will say, "well, at least the Cowgirls have not won a playoff game in 14 years" blah blah blah. In order to make them feel good about themselves, they tear someone down.

The first step to recovery is accepting that you have a problem.

Posted by: Randy_Hawkins | September 30, 2009 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Going back to the Jurgensen era the Redskins have always been entertaining both on and off the field and mediocre.
The franchise just doesn't have a history of excellence or competent ownership.
The Redskins have not had a franchise QB since Sonny. Theisman and Williams were never franchise QBs.

With competent ownership and FO the odds say they are due! But with Danny Boy and Vinny the Gerbil they will blow it.

The Redskins ahve more in common with the dregs of the NFL then the Giants, Patriots, and Steelers.

Until they bury Snyder things are not going to change!

Posted by: vaherder | September 30, 2009 8:50 AM | Report abuse

This actually not giving the full picture of how long the Skins have been down. Since their last title in the 1991 season only five teams have won less games. Those teams are the Rams, Lions, Bengals, Cards, and Raiders. Considering the Rams, Raiders, and Cards have all had Super Bowl years it is fair to say only the Bengals and Lions have been worse over 17 years.

Part of the Skins problems is Synder, the players, and the fans still like to pretend we are one or two players away from a title. This is a bad team that lacks overall talent and until that is addressed last place finishes will be the norm.

Posted by: skinsFan74 | September 30, 2009 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Well. The Detroit game *finally* drove the point home. I dont expect anything out of the Redskins. They are slightly worse than average, often abysmal. Anything good is gravy. You cant be disappointed when you dont expect much. Its kind of liberating.

Posted by: rsmskc | September 30, 2009 9:13 AM | Report abuse

"More thoughts?"

Norv Zorn and Al [Davis] Snyder.

Posted by: Viktor3000 | September 30, 2009 9:15 AM | Report abuse

I don't think it's just the losing and mediocrity that have led to the rising tide of the Burgundy Revolution. It's the mismanagement of the team by the front office. Fans are tired of them hiring and firing coaches, wasting draft picks, failing to address glaring personnel needs, establishing unnecessary tailgaiting policies, selling tickets to brokers, price gouging in a down economy, bringing litigation against its own fans, and an overall lack of personal accountability. It's all that, in addition to the losing.

Posted by: efa108 | September 30, 2009 9:31 AM | Report abuse

I think one of the biggest reasons for the angst in this city is that we're not even the lovable loser. We're not the small market team that has to nickel and dime to make a profit. We're not the age old team that was never good and doesn't know the taste of a championship. We're not the young expansion team that is just getting off the ground and is mix match of rookies and has beens. No, we spend like the best of them, but play like the worst of them. To cross over to baseball: we're not the lovable losing Cubs of so many years, but the Yankees of the 80's. We're no longer any good, but we act and spend like we're one player away. We use to be a model franchise of discipline and blue collar workmanlike players. Now, we're run like the Cowboys of the 90's (without the rings). We have an egomaniac for an owner, a revolving door policy on coaches, never ending line of new FAs, and an army of sycophants to cry "cheers to Dan", for whatever new move he does. Lastly, Redskins fans get made fun of a lot by other teams' fans, and losing to the Lions won't help. Either let's turn things around and get good, or finally accept that we're a 2nd or 3rd rate franchise

Posted by: Andymr | September 30, 2009 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Redskins have been unbearable and un-entertaining the last ten years... Snyder bought team in Jan. 2009. What they have become is the place to go to get a fat guaranteed contract and then get real complacent

Posted by: causmos | September 30, 2009 9:35 AM | Report abuse

When the owner thinks he knows football and his mother wouldn't even let him play in high school, this is what happens. Without a real GM, there is no plan other than sign the biggest free agent and make money. Winning is not a priority.

Posted by: TheSquire | September 30, 2009 9:35 AM | Report abuse

The comparison I would use is that the Skins are like a traditional college football powerhouse - the Nebraskas, Oklahomas, Penn States, Miamis, etc who go into every season (regardless of the actual talent they have) thinking "We've gonna win it all because that's who we are." But the world doesn't work that way. The Skins think they should be a playoff team every year because they have three rings, but things aren't that simple.

They need a coach to say "Give me three or four years to build a team, don't mess with me for those three years, and if we still aren't in the playoffs I'll leave of my own accord." But they're the Skins so they'll fire coaches like they fired Marty, who, lest we forget, had an 8 game winning streak to end that season.

Posted by: M__N | September 30, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I live in know it's gotten bad when Bengals fans are laughing at you. The sad thing is I have no response considering they have beaten the Redskins the last 2 times they played.

Posted by: JCNKY | September 30, 2009 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Steinz, I'm a little disappointed in your work here. You could have brought this full circle by counting the number of home playoff games each of our division rivals has hosted since the Skins' last one, and by noting how long each of the division teams' active SB return droughts are...

And you could have noted that during the Skins' long, sad run of futility, the Iggles notably ended a 24-year SB return drought (by my count) which would put them fifth on your all-time drought list. But I can't decide whether that datum would strengthen or weaken your thesis.

Posted by: NateinthePDX | September 30, 2009 10:06 AM | Report abuse

I thought we were progressing well...LMAO!

Posted by: Pigman | September 30, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Between 1982 and 1991, the Skins made 7 playoff appearances, 5 NFC Championship appearances, 4 Super Bowl appearances and won 3 Championships with 1987s being one of the most dominating performances ever seen (Gibbs called off the dogs in the 3rd quarter because Denver simply couldn't stop us). I attended the 1991 NFC Championship game at RFK with my dad. Those were glory years of the highest order and clearly shows a record of excellence. I will always be a Redskins fan.

But, today, none of that history matters. In fact, nationally, the team's current futility and embarrassment have undermined the great accomplishments of the past and more or less reduced them in the eyes of others. It makes me sick when Snyder parades the Super Bowl trophies around like he earned them. I agree with another poster who noted that our angst is driven by the fact that we are a hated team that people take pleasure in seeing fail. And we hear about it. All the time. In our own stadium. These are bad, bad times.

Posted by: jsdunbar | September 30, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The center of gravity in this fight is Dan Snyder. Does anyone have any ideas on how to convince Snyder to change his ways and turn the Redskins into a professional operation.

I became a NE Patriot fan in the mid-1960s when the Patriots were owned by Billy Sullivan. Sullivan was Snyder without the money. He refused to spend money on training facilities and chose his staff--coaches, GMs, and trainers--based on how little he had to pay them. It took several years of being ridiculed by the fans and local press to convince Sullivan to change his ways and hire a real GM in Upton Bell and a competent coach in Chuck Fairbanks. Unfortunately, I don't think this will work in Washington where Snyder owns the sports radio station and the rest of press and the fans appear very reluctant to take Snyder head on.

Posted by: stephenaltobelli | September 30, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Re; Dan Snyder,

As that country redneck commic says, you can't fix stupid.

Posted by: alex35332 | September 30, 2009 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I'd like to think that us as fans have given Dan Synder ample opportunity to figure out how to own and run a team. We've defended him in the past, citing his desire to win and his willingness to spend the dollars to do it. We've even supported that spending, with the priciest ticket in the league, $30 satellite parking for lots 3 miles away, charging people to park in a lot that wasn't even his (Landover) and blocking foot traffic for folks who lived down the street, outrageous concession prices, obstructed seat viewing, trying to force season ticket holders to renew with the "official" Redskins credit card, you name it.

The fans have suffered through all that and the admitted mediocrity of the football product. And you know, we would still be mad at the loss to the Lions, but I believe we would have still been supportive, were it not for one thing:

The articles of Dan Snyder suing season ticket holders hit hard by the recession.

I firmly believe that it is the straw that broke the fanbase's back. All the indignities I listed before, the fanbase suffered through, but when the team struggled, we still supported them (sometimes delusionally.) But when some fans fell on hard times, what does Snyder do?


Forget the legality and his rights under the law, this is a purely emotional reaction and very telling of what he REALLY thinks of the "saps who sit in the stands." He will milk you for all it is worth, abuse your fandom, and flip you the bird if things get tough for you.

Now, I am well aware that logically, the Skins can turn this this around and be competitive this year, maybe even make the playoffs. It is a long season. But that's not what this is about. We're sick and tired of being sick and tired and going through this cycle of insanity of repeating the same mistakes over and over. We would have been there sooner had it not been for the return of Gibbs, but in reality, it only forestalled the inevitable.

Posted by: walkdwalk | September 30, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

walkdwalk nailed it.

The only thing Snyder did in hiring Gibbs was put off the torches for a few years. Gibbs brought back some integrity, but once he left that went away.

Snyder will never hire another Marty type, because that will keep him from playing in the sandbox.

Fans with brains have left the team. Whether or not they are rooting for other teams is not of consequence. The fact they left is the main thing. Blind homerism can only get you so far. Take off the B&G glasses.

Posted by: Randy_Hawkins | September 30, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

RE: "So to try to get a better understanding of why this Burgundy Revolution began..."

Have noted that you're trying to either coin or adapt some description of the current state of affairs for Redskin supporters and critics.

While it's only semantics, I believe that calling it a "Burgundy Revolution" is not entirely correct. Calling any such phenomenon a revolution implies that you think there might be some opportunity for change from the status quo to something better or at least soemthing else.

But so long as Dan and Vinny are in charge, and so long as the team coaching position is treated as a "earn as you learn" style internship, I can foresee no change or revolution.

Rather, am thinking a more apt and accurate description of current state of affairs here might be the "Maroon and Black Revolt" or perhaps even the "Burgundy Revulsion."

For your consideration.

Posted by: Vic1 | September 30, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

In 1991 we crushed the Lions in the NFC Championship game to get to, and ultimately win, the Super Bowl.

Since that time EVERY team in the NFC has appeared in at least one NFC Championship game EXCEPT for the Skins and the Lions.

This despite all the off-season hype year after year and big name players and coaches year after year.

The lowly Lions just beat us so right now it really does feel as if we are the worst team in football (or at least the NFC).

Firing Vinny and hiring a real GM to run the team (which would be as close as Snyder can come to firing himself) is the only way we'll ever be a team that's relevant. Knowing that that will not happen is terribly depressing.

Posted by: wassavi | September 30, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

This blog entry is exactly why I didn't want to look at the WaPo online this week. Ugh.

Everyone who thinks the Redskins suck, why don't you just stop watching them then. If it only takes 3 games for you to give up on the season, then what is the point of watching in the first place?

Posted by: Barno1 | September 30, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I like "Burgundy Revulsion" better. Our revolution will never come.

Posted by: Andymr | September 30, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Barno - you miss the point of this article and the point of these comments. This isn't about the first three games. This is about the last 17 years. This is a culmination of nearly two decades of mediocrity.

Our reaction isn't one based on "giving up" on the Skins after a few games. Dig deeper please

Posted by: Tinman1188 | September 30, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Barno1 - while the performance of the team has sparked the unrest, the issue isn't solely with the product on the field. I think a lot of it is the culminization of a realization that this is what we're probably going to continue to get because this is the best (or worst) the front office can do.

Vic1 - By definition, you are quite correct, and "Revulsion" is hilarious. But I think Revolution is a good fit, because Dan suing the fans was a "Let Them Eat Cake" moment if I've ever heard of one.

Posted by: walkdwalk | September 30, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

over the last decade
- the offensive line play has been average or less, certainly against the NFC East, it struggles with rushing.
- the kicking game has been very poor
- we haven't been a real good offensive team and would have difficulty in a shootout type game
- the defense doesn't get a lot of turnovers or sacks
- special teams have been average - we don't block punts or return punts.

we haven't had a rookie of the year, or player of the year or anybody who is in the elite of the league at a skill position.

all in all, Vinny's team pretty much sucks.

Posted by: outrbnksm | September 30, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Redskin plane spotted in New England. Rumor has it that we're getting Brady AND
Belichick. Snyder rules!!!

Posted by: VegasJim | September 30, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Look at the do you build a competitive and consistant winner? You build through the draft and allow players to grow together. You hire a GM that has a vision that will get you there in a couple years, and then a coach that fits that vision-system. While you are being patient (emphasis on PATIENCE), you do everything to put the fans first and make their experience unforgetable. Granted Ted had his bumps in the road, but learned from his mistakes and built one of the most respected franchises in sports. Snyder has had more than bumps in the road, but has not learned a thing from his mistakes, and has built one of the most disrespected franchises in sports. Granted Synder's brand is worth a lot of some point though that value will decrease immensely when the fans bail on we are starting to witness.

Posted by: lylewimbledon | September 30, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I read an interesting article that Snyder learned his marketing trade at the heels of Mort Zuckerman who took US News & World Report from a good news magazine to a middling/poor one. How? By constantly firing senior management, looking for star talent that didn't mesh with the organization, etc. Sound familiar?

Posted by: kranosaur | September 30, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

You hit on the top 3 reasons for the Burgundy Revolution... but you missed one:

Team Identity

In the Allen and Gibbs era, the Redskins were one of the classiest teams in the league... a team most average NFL fans would WANT to see win.
Whether it was the gritty Over the Hill gang or the blue collar Hogs, our team, our coach, our stadium, and even our front office were the 'good guys'

We were NEVER a flashy, glamor team like the Cowboys or 49ers, nor were we a trashy, dirty team like the Raiders.

Joe Football USA could relate to the Redskins' TEAM IDENTITY back then.

Since Snyder took over, everything changed. He has tried to turn the Redskins into a glam team, and it makes me sick.

We have overrated big name players, a horrible mega stadium, loser unaccountable coaches, and a front office that is as arrogant as they are ignorant!

Yes, the Redskins will always wear my favorite laundry on Sundays, but this team, as it is under Snyder's rule, is my least favorite brand of team.

Please help push the Burgundy Revolution along so we can GET OUR TEAM BACK!

Posted by: jgarrisn | September 30, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"Tell me if I'm wrong, but a big part of this outpouring of grief has to be related to the fact that the Skins' three principal rivals--the Cowboys, Giants and Eagles--have mostly maintained their spot atop the NFC over the past decade, even as Washington has slipped into the depressing middle."

I don't think you're wrong, but I notice that fans of all 3 of those NFC East clubs seem about as unhappy as the Skins' fans. Check out the blogs sometime. Their clubs' success seems to have engendered even higher and more unreasonable expectations. Eli's a target of considerable skepticism he's now the richest QB in the league (at least temporarily), and the '07 title is seen as old news. Tony Romo and Jerry Jones draw most of the ire in Dallas now that TO is gone. And the Philly fanz -- do I have to describe it out loud? It ain't pretty. Philly fans basically like DeSean Jackson and no one else...

I think the key to this is more about fan psychology (and the media that feeds it and profits from it) than about actual won-loss records.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 30, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"Tell me if I'm wrong, but a big part of this outpouring of grief has to be related to the fact that the Skins' three principal rivals--the Cowboys, Giants and Eagles--have mostly maintained their spot atop the NFC over the past decade, even as Washington has slipped into the depressing middle."

Uh, I don't think the Cowboys, by any stretch of the imagination, could be considered atop the NFC over the past decade.
If you want to quantify it, the only team in the NFC that has gone longer than Dallas without a playoff win is the Detroit Lions! Dallas is the only team more disappointing than the Redskins in all of sports. So no envy of Dallas here.

And Dallas is our main rival. Could really care less about NY and Philly.
We all root for the Eagles and Giants to beat Dallas.
In fact, part of me is happy when the Eagles and Giants have success because I know it makes Dallas fans even more upset.

GD I hate Dallas.

Posted by: jgarrisn | September 30, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"When the owner thinks he knows football and his mother wouldn't even let him play in high school, this is what happens. Without a real GM, there is no plan other than sign the biggest free agent and make money. Winning is not a priority.Posted by: TheSquire"

I don't know if it's worth the effort to answer this, but 'winning is not a priority' is seldom something you hear about free-spending owners like Dan Snyder. Nobody invests that much cash in a franchise without a legit burn to win. The fact that he also wants to make money is not a criticism in a capitalist economy -- and the US is frankly capitalist, sometimes to a loony degree (witness the debate about the public option).

I think based on evidence, we have to conclude that Snyder wants to win, perhaps desperately. He's not a Bidwell or a Denise York or a Marge Schott.

The problem lays elsewhere.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 30, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"I think based on evidence, we have to conclude that Snyder wants to win, perhaps desperately."


He can't want to *win* that bad. I think *He* wants to win, and I think there's a difference. He wants to win with his guys in the FO, and his players on the field, and his coaching staff, etc.

He's more concerned with who is responsible for the winning than the winnning itself. This can be the only reason why Vinny Cerrato is employed currently. Danny would not be happy bringing in someone who knows football to run the franchise while he strokes the checks, because then *HE* wouldn't be the one responsible for the winning.

Posted by: VTDuffman | September 30, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Hey. It's the Burgundy INSURRECTION.

Fans rise up. They speak out. They boycott all the peripheral purchases, from jerseys to bumper stickers to coffee mugs. They don't listen to Snyder-owned radio. They fight back by hitting Snyder in the wallet, his only vulnerable spot. They don't give up until Vinny goes under the guillotine (figuratively, probably) and a new GM takes over and begins the long trek back to respectability.

Aux armes, citoyens! Money is our weapon.

Posted by: eyestreet | September 30, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Once ownership stops filling the stadium with stars instead of a winning team we'll be getting somewhere. Clinton Portis shouldn't be playing if he's hurt (can't even make one yard on fourth and goal, twice). Sometimes I just don't see the effort and passion I'm used to seeing.

Posted by: phatter1 | September 30, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Gee Dan, as if we weren't depressed enough with the CURRENT state of Redskins' affairs, you have to bring up the past 18 years of ineptitude. Let's face it, the skins are a middle of the road franchise that acts like it's an elite club. Until we truly have "football" people running the organization, we will always be mediocre, let alone the laughing stock of the league. It took me 18 years to be a realist and I think the rest of the skin nation need to open their eyes, including Danny-boy.

Posted by: skinfannomore | September 30, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I think your stats are off. Packers 28 years since a SB appearance? Didn't they win with Favre in '97???

Posted by: spagball | September 30, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Randy_Hawkins: Forgot to say thanks for the kudos.

Samson151: You can take Bidwell off your list, the Cards just went to the Superbowl, so the "at least he spends money" doesn't wash. So I don't agree, because with all the changes over the past 10 years, there's only one constant: Dan and Vinny. The problem can't lie anywhere else but with them. They've been in charge long enough to make the proper changes.

spagball: The Packers' streak is no longer active, but still made the list because of the length of time (note active in parens next to some of the ones listed.)

Posted by: walkdwalk | September 30, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

You're not from DC Steinberg? That figures.

Posted by: BMACattack | September 30, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Ahhhh, all-time. Got it. Duh. Makes sense.

All hail the all powerful Danny!
Sic Semper Tyrannis!

Posted by: spagball | September 30, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

After 14 years on the waiting list, I finally got tickets when Schottenheimer was in the midst of starting out 0-5. Now every March I get closer and closer to not renewing my tickets, because with every passing year it becomes more and more clear that Snyder is never going to hire a GM who know how to build a team that contends every year.

But I'm afraid to give them up, afraid that a couple of years after I dump them, he might eventually figure it out.

I hate this. I want to go back in time and have tickets when Cooke and Beathard were in charge.

Posted by: HighPlainsDrifter | September 30, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I will be there Sunday after I overspend for parking. I will proceed to watch a very bad game between two mediocre/bad teams. I will then fight the traffic just to get back to my car so I can fight the traffic just to get home. I will then wonder exactly why I did it all. I know the answer already, I LOVE THE REDSKINS!! they are just making it hard VERY hard. Why Danny? Why? .... weeping

Posted by: Monkman63 | September 30, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Monkman63: Much respect to you for your outlook, and I feel your pain. I'd like to say that I'm sure the Redskins organization appreciates your dedication as well, but unfortunately, I don't know/believe that they do.

Posted by: walkdwalk | September 30, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

OK, it's going to be all right, THE CAPS start tomorrow night, I love the skins but until Danny starts to feel it in the wallet (don't go to FedEx) it's never going to change. LETS GO CAPS!!

Posted by: yodude1 | September 30, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Fire Vinny.
Free the Skins.
No Castration Without Representation.
Viva la Burgundy Revolution.
About Time.

Posted by: minorthread | September 30, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Gave up our season tickets this year after having them since 1966. Snyder will not hire anyone (coach or GM) who challenges his authority or could conceivably take credit for winning. He's dug himself a hole in that regard. He has to be the puppet master.

All the letters of consternation and dismay to the Redskins FO will do NOTHING. He doesn't care about fans (see: parking, lawsuits, getting to stadium, ticket prices, selling to scalpers, concessions, mortgaging the future and countless other examples). He spends big in April for ONE reason: to hype the team and drive ticket renewals and other commercializations of the brand.

For the Burgundy Insurrection to work, we must BOYCOTT games, merchandise, media outlets and other revenue streams. $$ is the only thing that gets Danny's attention.

For the apologists who cry about this being only three games into a season, the issue isn't 2009, it's 1999 - 2009 and beyond. Nothing has changed, nothing to say anything will. This isn't an off year, a rough start, or a tough stretch, we're seeing this franchise rot and decay to the core.

Posted by: philreed1231 | September 30, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

I wish I was a billionaire I would pay snyder 2B, 5B, 25B just to get him out and put vinny out on his ass

Posted by: royhperkins | October 1, 2009 12:06 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company