Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Deadspin: Why Your Team Sucks- Washington Redskins

Chachie

By Chachie
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted

People always give way too much analysis to this annual article. It's all meant to be overly negative and over the top. The author probably doesn't even believe it all, but rather picks the negative side of every debate to generate his content. It's essentially a roast of each NFL team, so he just chooses the highest-profile things about each franchise and drills them. 

 

I always get a kick out of this board when these come out because people actually take the time to "debate" the opinions in here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

People always give way too much analysis to this annual article. It's all meant to be overly negative and over the top. The author probably doesn't even believe it all, but rather picks the negative side of every debate to generate his content. It's essentially a roast of each NFL team, so he just chooses the highest-profile things about each franchise and drills them. 

 

I always get a kick out of this board when these come out because people actually take the time to "debate" the opinions in here. 

 

I haven't seen any debate on the opinion (but haven't read every post)...i've seen debate on whether or not it's actually funny or well-written or just crass, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

The bottom of the first page has a detailed, 3-4 post exchange about team weaknesses, etc. 

 

Oh yeah, I remember skimming over those...I thought it was just about the weaknesses and not really about debating the opinions of the write-up. But again, I just skimmed them and didn't read the article lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

 

Oh yeah, I remember skimming over those...I thought it was just about the weaknesses and not really about debating the opinions of the write-up. But again, I just skimmed them and didn't read the article lol...

 

I don't really care obviously...again, I just find it funny when people post anything "real" in here because this is meant to entertain. I agree with you, debating its humor is fun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sandy Monk

Sandy Monk

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

This is why I read something like this and don't really laugh, at all...the humor is not even slightly rooted in anything resembling truth. His goal at the humor--to poke fun at Bruce and Skins fans who will jump on anything as proof that Smith is more of a winner than Cousins--is a decent one, but it's executed like **** here lol...Smith's accuracy and completion rates have been high, and the Skins winning 16-14 would have them realistically crowing about the defense and run game. Plus, if the Skins win 16-14 and Alex is looking like dog doo, "then and only then" will Bruce and fans proclaim Smith a winner? Then and only then? Really? They won't proclaim Smith is a "winner" if he throws for 320 yards, 3 TDs, no INTs and the Skins win 41-38? Or if they beat the Giants late in the season with the playoffs still possible? Or if the Skins start off 8-0? Or if they win a playoff game? There was zero reason to say "then and only then" since it's not even slightly rooted in truth and adds nothing to the humor.

 

Lemme re-write it:

 

"Just wait until Smith throws for 130 yards and no TDs yet the Skins win 16-14. I can already hear Bruce and Skins fans bleating "Kurt wasn't a winner! Now we've got one!" all over twitter.

 

Still not that funny lol...but it's more rooted in truth and cuts out the unnecessary verbiage. Everything is funnier when it's rooted in truth. Skins fans claiming Smith is more a winner than Kirk at the drop of a hat is true...that part works. The rest doesn't. It's why I stopped reading these things. 

 

 

"Hire this man!" in best Larry David voice possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hatchetwound

hatchetwound

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

I stopped reading these not because they criticize the team (that's the over-the-top goal of these things), but because they are so damn longer than they need to be, and over-the-top negativity stretched to War And Peace lengths leads to diminishing returns the longer it goes on. This latest one may be shorter, I dunno....

Yup.  Not funny.  Just mean.

 

What else do you expect from a salty, ringless Vikings fan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Koala

Koala

Posted
Posted

I forgot that this team is an embarassment to humanity under Snyder.  Who pimps out their cheerleaders?  Seriously thats pretty ****ing disgusting, and nobody got fired over it -- in the metoo era noneth!less!  After the nuclear apocalypse, there will only be ****roaches and Bruce Allen, wait thats redundant.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sandy Monk

Sandy Monk

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Koala said:

I forgot that this team is an embarassment to humanity under Snyder.  Who pimps out their cheerleaders?  Seriously thats pretty ****ing disgusting, and nobody got fired over it -- in the metoo era noneth!less!  After the nuclear apocalypse, there will only be ****roaches and Bruce Allen, wait thats redundant.. 

 

Yes, but how do you really feel about the team and the F/O?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chachie

Chachie

Posted
  • Author
Posted
21 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

People always give way too much analysis to this annual article. It's all meant to be overly negative and over the top. The author probably doesn't even believe it all, but rather picks the negative side of every debate to generate his content. It's essentially a roast of each NFL team, so he just chooses the highest-profile things about each franchise and drills them. 

 

I always get a kick out of this board when these come out because people actually take the time to "debate" the opinions in here. 

 

 

I think the attraction for me is seeing if the author just re-prints the same paragraphs every year about the Redskins. It depresses me that you could probably get away with that and all the info will remain relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hatchetwound

hatchetwound

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

And now the Vikings are going to win the Super Bowl with Cousins as the MVP and I will have to figure out where you live and slash your tires.

My mini has those ride flat tires.  You can't just patch them, you have to replace the whole tire :kickcan:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hatchetwound

hatchetwound

Posted
Posted

I was curious to see how likely the Vikings, based on history, are to win the superbowl.  I did some research on Wikipedia and came up with

 

Vikings Conference Championship\Superbowl history

1969
Won NFL Championship (Browns) 27–7
Lost Super Bowl IV (vs. Chiefs) 7–23

 

1973
Won Conference Championship (at Cowboys) 27–10
Lost Super Bowl VIII (vs. Dolphins) 7–24

 

1974
Won Conference Championship (Rams) 14–10
Lost Super Bowl IX (vs. Steelers) 6–16

 

1976
Won Conference Championship (Rams) 24–13
Lost Super Bowl XI (vs. Raiders) 14–32

 

1977
Lost Conference Championship (at Cowboys) 6–23

 

1987
Lost Conference Championship (at Redskins) 10–17   :redskins-3908:

 

1998
Lost Conference Championship (Falcons) 27–30 (OT)

 

2000
Lost Conference Championship (at Giants) 0–41

 

2009
Lost Conference Championship (at Saints) 28–31 (OT)

 

2017
Lost Conference Championship (at Eagles) 7–38

 

 

So not only have they not sniffed the superbowl since 1976, they have gotten worse and worse in conference championsihps.  I think my mini cooper's tires are safe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chachie

Chachie

Posted
  • Author
Posted
18 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

Not sure why we're talking about the Vikings here.

 

Not sure why we're talking about conference championship games either.  The Redskins haven't played in one since 1992.

 

I think the Vikes are coming into the discussion because the author of the article feels the Skins made a huge mistake letting Cousins get away, which is not yet an unproven stance. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DCSaints_fan

DCSaints_fan

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, hatchetwound said:

I was curious to see how likely the Vikings, based on history, are to win the superbowl.  I did some research on Wikipedia and came up with

[snip]

2000
Lost Conference Championship (at Giants) 0–41

 

 

I never understood how the 2000 Vikes, which had Daunte Culpepper, Randy Moss and Robert Smith at their peaks, and an aging but still pro-bowl level Chris Carter, could be totally shutout by the Giants, who then proceeded to get pounded by freakin' Ravens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Temper11

Temper11

Posted
Posted
On 8/15/2018 at 8:53 AM, PF Chang said:

"I can’t wait until Smith goes like 15-for-32 with 130 yards passing for zero touchdowns and zero interceptions, yet the Skins still win 16-14. Then, and only then, will Bruce Allen and the fanbase scream: “Kurt wasn’t a winner! Now we’ve got one!”

 

This is absolutely going to happen

 

It may happen, and the fanbase would generally be correct.

 

Anyone who's watched many of the Chiefs games the last few years would tell you that the formula they used to win so many games was to come out hot... put up a 2 score lead and then shut down the offense, play very conservative football - never putting their defense in a difficult situation and just bleed the clock to victory.  It's frustratingly boring to watch, but it won a lot of games.  Chiefs defense wasn't nearly as good last year which is why you saw the Chiefs offense carry more of the load and Smith had a career year.  As a big Smith fan, he is indeed a very effective game manager.  But he can also make the throws to win the big one... just needs someone to not "F" it up on the other end.  To anyone who says he can't make the throw to win the big game:

 

 

 

 

  • And I'm sure everyone here has seen this one by now: 

 

I'm hoping Gruden will keep his foot on the gas for more of the game than a simple 2 score lead.  And... just because I'm bored on a Friday and waiting for the clock to strike 5pm...

 

Smith only tossed for a completion rate at or below 50%, four times since 2011.  In that span he's thrown at or above 80% completion rate five times.  Compare that to the GOAT Tom Brady's 6 times at or below 50% completion rate and 3 times at or above 80% completion rate over the same period of years.*

 

*minimum 25 Attempts     

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoeJacobyHOForRIOT

JoeJacobyHOForRIOT

Posted
Posted

That was a painful brutally honest read/roast, wow.... I'm at a loss for words right now. He was spot on about Cousins and our fanbase and gave me PTSD regarding Alex Smith being the second coming of Jason Campbell :unsure: I dont think anything was more frustrating when it came to QB play in the snyder era than watching Campbell throw 5 yard check down after check down over and over again. God how much time we wasted on that man.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chachie

Chachie

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, JoeJacobyHOForRIOT said:

That was a painful brutally honest read/roast, wow.... I'm at a loss for words right now. He was spot on about Cousins and our fanbase and gave me PTSD regarding Alex Smith being the second coming of Jason Campbell :unsure: I dont think anything was more frustrating when it came to QB play in the snyder era than watching Campbell throw 5 yard check down after check down over and over again. God how much time we wasted on that man.... 

 

I keep thinking Alex will be the second coming of Mark Brunell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
On 8/16/2018 at 11:13 AM, benskins26 said:

I usually laugh at these, especially the Redskins ones, but this is not their best job. It kind of missed the mark. There is plenty to laugh about with this team, but I think the writer fell onto some of the old/overplayed themes

 

My enjoyment of these typically runs inverse to my Redskins optimism. If I'm bullish on the team, I roll my eyes at the narratives they use. But, if I'm coming into the season pessimistic or not on-board with how the team has operated, I find myself agreeing and chuckling through the articles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...