Thoughts of a Negative Poster

[pjfootballer]

I'll be honest, I consider myself a pretty intellectual fan. Someone who knows the game and the team history. But very rarely have I been against a move... It's just the fan nature in me. My gut told me the McNabb deal was terrible, but I spun it in a way so that I could be happy about it. My gut was right, as were all of the people that spoke out about it when it went down.

But this is an uphill battle... You are asking people to take off the B & G lenses, but most people don't care to be as analytic about it... Takes the fun away from being a fan for many.

The team is in the midst of their most thrilling string of games in years and years and you start a thread calling more negativity? Just seems odd man.

Good post and I feel like I'm where you are. Even if I think the deal is bad (I didn't like the Jason Taylor trade) I'm always trying to put a positive spin on it because I want to see my team do well.

I don't mind negative voice in the forum as long as you have good reasons to back it up and not just spewing, "god this team sucks, they'll never get it, Danny sucks, etc., etc.," just as I don't like the uber homers who say, "Super Bowl baby, we'll be unstoppable now that we got player x, suck it NFC East." Both sides can be too extreme.

[authentic]

So, we're in the mist of a 4 game winning streak and are in playoff contention, and this is posted? OF, i respect you as a poster, but i'm struggling as to understanding what purpose this OP is serving.

[Darth Tater]

Taking a negative position on another person's decision is a huge ego play. The ONLY reason to ever be negative about another person's is that you actually think you can influence a decision AFTER it is made.

[Gart Monk]

Hahaha... This is hilarious. Here's my question...

Is the 2008 (0-16) Detroit Lions the worst team in NFL history? Or is the 2009 "Swinging Gate" Redskins (that lost to DET) the worst?

[KDawg]

Hahaha... This is hilarious. Here's my question...

Is the 2008 (0-16) Detroit Lions the worst team in NFL history? Or is the 2009 "Swinging Gate" Redskins (that lost to DET) the worst?

I disagree with the wording in the OP strongly. I think it's appropriate to have a real voice, not necessarily a negative one.

That said:

Isn't your question completely subjective? How does one define "the worst team in NFL history"? I'd argue that neither one of them are.

[MustangSteve]

Here's an example: After the run to the playoffs in 2005, giddy optimism swept this forum. I was the lone pessimistic voice because I was 99% sure that the Gibbs approach, building a roster by trading up in the draft, trading draft picks for veterans, and being very aggressive in free agency would fail. My best hope for the team was that the Gibbs plan would fail quickly and it did. The 2006 season was an eye-opener for Joe Gibbs and the organization.

Watching the 2006 collapse was difficult for me, as it was for all Skins fans, but I believed it was the best outcome possible for bad roster management.

.

Fans like me believe the only mistake Gibbs made was hiring Al Saunders and turning an offense that closed the season on a 5 game winning streak and averaged 30 points a game against the NFC east back to back to back to make the playoffs.

Gibbs offense was much better then Saunders, thats why we went deeper into the playoffs and if it wasn't for us running out of gas with injuries to Portis and Brunell, this team might have beat Seattle and went to the Super Bowl. Gibbs 91 team, the best to ever take the field was made up of few drafts and many FA.

He inherited a true turd from Spurrier and in 2 years had them into the playoffs, so for some to call that a failure is ridiculous. Gibbs turned a loser into a legit contender and even with Saunders made it back to the playoffs the next year, minus JC. He brought confidence and heart to his team and it showed especially in December when needed most. 9-0 in 05 and 07 in the Month of December. That's when heart takes over, just like it is today on this team.

They are beating the best in the league back to back and winning games that nobody gave them a chance. That's the heart of a Champion and this team has it! Plus luck always falls on that team, the ball and everything starts bouncing their way, and that's going on in Washington as well. I have a very strong feeling this team is winning the NFC East by 3 more weeks.

[MartinC]

Taking a negative position on another person's decision is a huge ego play. The ONLY reason to ever be negative about another person's is that you actually think you can influence a decision AFTER it is made.

Well not quite. You can also hope to influence future decisions or the thought process which goes into making those decisions.

[KDawg]

Taking a negative position on another person's decision is a huge ego play. The ONLY reason to ever be negative about another person's is that you actually think you can influence a decision AFTER it is made.

I don't know, is it?

Let's use the Jason Taylor fiasco:

He wasn't a scheme fit. We traded a second rounder for an aging player who didn't fit.

We (including me for a little while) were all excited about it. Yahoo!

Then it dawned on me, not too long into his tenure, "aww ****. He doesn't fit!"

Vinny Cerrato made a decision like a fan would. He didn't think about it like a football person should. A fan would agree that it was a good trade, primarily because Jason Taylor was a former defensive MVP and a well known football player. How could it be a bad trade? System fit. It wasn't looked at.

I'm not sure that has much to do with ego. I think it has more to do with football intelligence.

I'm not trading for Peyton Manning and expecting him to run the same offense as RG3. Are you? Could the trade be beneficial if there are changes made? Yes, in the short term. But imagine Peyton running options and zone reads.Not a great fit right? Now we also gave up a 1st rounder for it.

Is that an ego thing? Or a football intelligence thing. You tell me

[brandymac27]

Just what this forum needs, more negativity.

And seriously, If you want to talk about ego based posting, LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

I completely agree. I think there's enough negativity on ES to go around (even when we're doing well) to last a few lifetimes. And btw, how often does "realistic or rational" negativity ever actually happen here, and when does it EVER lead to anything positive? It's most often impulsive, irrational negativity (of which at times we're all guilty of IMPO). Either way, to encourage more of this behavior is pretty ludicrous imo.

[Darth Tater]

I don't know, is it?

Let's use the Jason Taylor fiasco:

He wasn't a scheme fit. We traded a second rounder for an aging player who didn't fit.

We (including me for a little while) were all excited about it. Yahoo!

Then it dawned on me, not too long into his tenure, "aww ****. He doesn't fit!"

Vinny Cerrato made a decision like a fan would. He didn't think about it like a football person should. A fan would agree that it was a good trade, primarily because Jason Taylor was a former defensive MVP and a well known football player. How could it be a bad trade? System fit. It wasn't looked at.

I'm not sure that has much to do with ego. I think it has more to do with football intelligence.

I'm not trading for Peyton Manning and expecting him to run the same offense as RG3. Are you? Could the trade be beneficial if there are changes made? Yes, in the short term. But imagine Peyton running options and zone reads.Not a great fit right? Now we also gave up a 1st rounder for it.

Is that an ego thing? Or a football intelligence thing. You tell me

"Then it dawned on me"? That is a huge part of the very definition of an ego play.

---------- Post added December-12th-2012 at 11:31 AM ----------

Well not quite. You can also hope to influence future decisions or the thought process which goes into making those decisions.

Big difference and that is even more of an ego play.

[MartinC]

Big difference.

Trying to change decisions already made verus influence future decisions is a huge difference. Mind you as fans we have virtually zero influence on either so its probably a moot point in the context of this thread.

[KDawg]

"Then it dawned on me"? That is a huge part of the very definition of an ego play.

Definition of ego:

the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.

I'm not sure how saying something dawned on ME is an ego play, seeing how I had admittedly been happy with the trade at first. Much like the McNabb trade for many people. Why is it ego oriented to admit a mistake and figure out why you thought a certain way?

I'm not following you.

[Oldfan]

Just really weird timing Oldfan. Almost as if you are purposely trying to rain on the parade. I don't understand your angle here.

Why would you think that I have a motive beyond encouraging more posters to challenge popular opinion in this forum?

More negativity? You see this place after the Panthers game?

I read your threads promoting the idea that Shanahan's job should be on the line. Is that what you mean? I've never been that negative. I predicted high-grade mediocrity for Mike's reign, results similar to those he got in Denver after gaining full control as he has here. I'm still willing to have Mike get a fair chance to prove me wrong about him.

I think perhaps what you either don't understand or at least fail to acknowledge is that most fans do not take as analytical an approach to the game as you do.

I realize that, but if fans don't want to understand the game better, then they shouldn't read the posts and threads of the well-informed fans on this site, including mine.

Your mindset and theories (some of which I agree with, almost all of which I enjoy) are more suited for baseball... The Moneyball approach almost.

You're wrong. One of the most consistent themes of my threads is that football statistics are, unlike baseball, mostly bunk.

In football it doesn't work that way. Football is a "lose your mind" sport prone to wild swings of emotion from week to week or even play to play. It is high octane, intense, and full throttle. Fans react to it as such.

I think the idea that football is emotionally-based is mostly bunk also. The well-informed fans on this site discuss what went right or what failed in terms of strategy. The less informed talk about lack of intensity or losing the locker room.

Most people are just fans that deperately want the skins to do well. So they generally grant them the benefit of the doubt. The Jason Taylor trade was awful; we all should have known it... And yes, the 11% were right and they are likely more analytical and less emotional. The 89% chose to hope that it would work out and that hope colored their actual opinion of the deal.

All Redskins fans hoped that trade would work out, not just the 89%.

But this is an uphill battle... You are asking people to take off the B & G lenses, but most people don't care to be as analytic about it... Takes the fun away from being a fan for many.

Your argument seems to be that ignorance is bliss. I won't deny that. It's only when the ignorant think they're superior fans that they trouble me.

The team is in the midst of their most thrilling string of games in years and years and you start a thread calling more negativity? Just seems odd man.

I didn't call for more negativity to rain on anyone's parade at this particular time. That's just a motive you unfairly pinned on me.

This was my motive:

I write this to encourage more negative voices in this forum. I'm not referring to those who enjoy second guessing every coach's decision that fails or those who trash players beyond reason. I'm encouraging those who try very hard to be realistic and fair to speak up and be heard when you don't agree with the decisions of Redskins management. Don't worry that your opinions won't be popular with the homer crowd. Take solace in the fact that, so far in the Snyder era, the homers have been consistently wrong.

[DaGoonie55]

I write this to encourage more negative voices in this forum. I'm not referring to those who enjoy second guessing every coach's decision that fails or those who trash players beyond reason. I'm encouraging those who try very hard to be realistic and fair to speak up and be heard when you don't agree with the decisions of Redskins management. Don't worry that your opinions won't be popular with the homer crowd. Take solace in the fact that, so far in the Snyder era, the homers have been consistently wrong.

I wouldn't consider me not liking a move 'negative'. It may be contrary to the popular vote, but certainly not negative. Negative posting is in the realm of "we're doomed, the FO is a bunch of idiots", etc. I don't think I've read a post from you that sounded much like that. So to say you are a negative poster, I would disagree. My disagreement with you in this post is not negative, for example. IMO, I wouldn't promote negative posting - rather I encourage people to speak their minds (within the limits of the established rules), much like you eluded to - to challenge the status quo if those are your true feelings on the matter.

[cphil006]

Being a fan of team and favoring their moves are different concepts than being born Irish, German, etc...

As a fan I didn't feel comfortable with the McNabb trade, mostly because McNabb was an "Eagle"... but, I forced myself to be positive, that he was now a Redskin and he'd be a better option than what we had... still didn't think he'd bomb as bad as he did.

My point is, perhaps people who favored the decision on Jason Taylor, simply wanted to believe that he would have more of an impact than any 2nd rounder we would have drafted... problem was, the scheme was different...

I was very negative going into the season about our O-line and secondary... I still am...

I was very negative during the whole Vinny Cerrato era... his every move, his presense at Redskin Park, but we're free of that aspect in my feeling and I like that...