Oh, you can't be intelligent and optimistic?
Here's something for you to think about: If 90% of people think you are wrong about something, you probably are.
After you've thought about that, look at the responses to your op.
Last edited by B&G; December-12th-2012 at 11:53 AM.
1. Give some leeway to a new hires. That was Zorn's team and he was getting started and most of us presumed he was putting his stamp on the team.
2. When we are starving for help with a position we are more likely to give leeway. We haven't had an elite pass rusher in eons. So the idea of Taylor was exciting to some.
3. we give more leeway in the aftermath when the team is successful -- that trade happened after a good season.
Over time, you can see the work of the coaches/personnel people and make an overall assessment based on history. Danny got some leeway at the beginning of his tenure too. But now people see it different. I think if anything more cynicism has seeped in over time because like i said if the organization is going to be unconventional, the sample size is now big enough to see whether their off beat approach works out.
Also negative/positive emotions are often temporary reflecting what's going on in the moment -- if they have a bad loss or consecutive losses -- more negativity, after a big win -- positive vibes.
Also i wouldn't peg many of our posters as negative or positive, lot of us are mixed depending on the subject. I've been very negative on the Zorn/Cerrato regime for example, and more on the positive side but not completely so with Shanny. I didn't like Zorn as a HC but sided with him and against Cerrato for how he was treated. We can change also over time on the specific subject as the sample size of what we are watching starts opening a bigger window one way or another.
For me the posts that are boring are the ones where you know the person will give a positive spin or a negative spin no matter how things evolve I'd guess because they want to stay consistent with an earlier opinion. Lots of stuff happens over time -- things often do change and you can watch how decisions unfold. I liked most of the team's HC hires at the time, but over time my opinions of some of them changed sometimes in nuanced ways and sometimes in major ways.
Not saying of course that's how everyone should be -- just saying for me I find it more interesting. If I know someone will dig in their heels and be reflex positive or negative, for me it can get boring to have a dialogue with them.
Last edited by Skinsinparadise; December-12th-2012 at 12:09 PM.
You are expressing a common logical fallacy. Wikipedia says it like this:Here's something for you to think about: If 90% of people think you are wrong about something, you probably are. After you've thought about that, look at the responses to your op.
In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
Kind of a odd time for the OP, but I've never been one to use what "everyone else thinks" to determine my opinion. Wasn't a big fan of the Taylor Trade, wasnt a fan of the McNabb trade and wasn't sure about the RGIII trade (thought we gave up too much). Like everyone, I hit on some and miss on others. But I think I'm pretty objective overall. Thought we'd be 6-10 this year but improving. As it happens we might be 10-6 and improving, which would be great. Still, it's a odd time for the OP.
August 23, 2012 8:33am
"The Dragon" must feed!
Negativity isn't inherently a bad thing. Realism certainly isn't a bad thing either. It's a free country, you can feel free to express how you feel, and you shouldn't feel pressured into not doing so.
However, everyone else has the right to disagree with you. And particularly when they bring facts into any thread that directly disprove whatever negativity you're trying to bring into the fold, you should perhaps consider those facts and use them to reshape your argument----not abandon it or disown it, but simply adding facts to your argument and using those facts to become an altogether better informed and less stubborn poster---rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Lalalala, I can't hear you, my thoughts are all that matters and it's not my fault you don't know how to debate correctly".
Ignoring information you do not like in the interest of a "realisitc" point of view, even when said point of view has been proven to be flawed, or in some cases just flat out wrong, does not help improve the discourse of this forum any more than blind homerism does, and in most cases leads to people on opposite sides of an issue become more deeply ingrained in their own thinking rather than using the information their given to become better informed and smarter football fans.
This organization has been dealing with bad decisions, bad management, and bad luck for quite some time now. Negativity and predictions of failure aren't just insightful and realistic, it's the easy way to go when discussing our fate. So many have made a living of "being right" when it comes to predicting a typical Redskin season. So when we talk about people on here who continually post negatively about the team, lets keep in mind that it's not that they KNEW what the outcome would be because they have more football intelligence, they're simply playing the odds.
90% of people here thought Jason Taylor was a good trade.
OF isn't wrong. The board is mostly homers and a lot of them are extremely unrealistic in their expectations. The knee jerk whiners stick mostly in the game day threads, which are best avoided anyway. Foolish homerism is just as obnoxious as foolish pessimism. A thread running on for thousands of posts was started about Rob Jackson being able to make Orakpo expendable based off of one game in his five year career because homers had monster expectations for him.
"John Wall will never be as good as Kyrie Irving was in his first week in the NBA" - David Falk, published February 14, 2013.
How about we put all the negativity of the last 20 years in the garbage can and start being thankful for what we have now? How about we get ready to cheer our boys on to beat Cleveland and leave Vinny, chicken lips Spurrier and Tony Banks in the rearview mirror.
This is why nobody in here is ever satisfied and why the franchis cannot escape the negativity. As hard as RG3 tries to instill some positive vibes in the franchise, we continue to get these bull**** threads about who is a better fan, who was right and who was wrong. Time to get this Haynesworth attitude from our fans the hell out of here.
Tired of the negativity. Go start your own "ExtremeNegativeSkins" website.
Redskins 2013 Opponents:
Home- Dallas, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, Kansas City, San Diego
Away- Dallas, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Green Bay, Minnesota, Atlanta, Denver, Oakland
Your opinion of the way your opponent debates is never relevant. If you can't argue that his premises are false or that his conclusion doesn't follow from his premises, then you can't win an argument. If you can, and your opponent refuses to admit your brilliance, it doesn't matter. There are impartial minds reading these posts. They are the people to be persuaded.
Last edited by Oldfan; December-12th-2012 at 12:40 PM.
Whether or not my gut tells me a move is bad or not, I will generally try to spin it in a positive way. As an example, regarding the Jason Taylor trade - I had a feeling that it wouldn't work out, based on many of the reasons previously stated. However, we had just lost both our starting defensive ends, and were in need. Therefore, despite my realizing that it probably wouldn't work, I tried to see the silver lining. Same with McNabb.
I try to see things rationally, but then try to spin stuff into a positive.
OLB Coach for the 3x State Champs: 2001, 2002, 2008 Atlantic Shores Seahawks2012 Final Record: 2-9
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)