Bottom Line - Of the two, which are you a fan of?

[MRMADD]

Next post one that asks, "Are you a bigger Skins fan or Joe Gibbs fan?"

Stupid thread.

[adarsh1]

that's photoshopped like a mofo but it's still all good

[herrmag]

odd, I recall crying after the loss to the Raiders in the Super Bowl.

I was watching the team since age 5.

Because I think the thread is stupid and can point to why some would vote for LA (anonymous polls garnering votes for the 'absurd choice'?! My stars!) doesn't mean I or anyone who chooses to thumb their nose at the thread love anyone more than the franchise.

MAYBE, just MAYBE the people who seem "pro-Lavar" to you seem so because you guys are such reflexive homers on this board BUT ONLY for the coaching staff. You seem to conflate the current staff or individual coaches with the team in a way that I don't. When a player goes, he goes, the team is still there. The same will be said of Gregg Williams when he leaves the team and then GIbbs when he retires again. I look at a larger picture apparently than some.

Because X, Y, Z wills it or because a bunch of hotheads blow something that some of us perceive as of only moderate interest/impact or believe a player is better suited to STAYING (cap issues aside) doesn't make us any less of a Skins fan.

Again, if this team didn't get a kick return from Antonio Brown or if Moss got tripped up in that monday night in Dallas, the tenor of this board

But the homers feel their oats, not based on actual facts, but only on the record. I predicted 12-4 this year, so it's no as if the wins alter my arguments, if anything the team should have done better in my mind and there are a few people responsible for that.

Challenge Gibbs or Williams or ROTFLMAO LINDSEY on ANYTHING, even the snap count, which was something brought up by OPPOSING DEFENSIVE PLAYERS and we'll get the standard response from the Coach-Before-Sense crowd.

With another head coach, would there even be some of these fan flareups against players?

If Samuels didn't play Left Tackle, judging by how many people bashed him leading up to this new contract (and before he got voted to the Pro Bowl after an excellent year) I wonder if the same thing would have happened with him.

#1, I am proud to call myself a JOE GIBBS homer. I'm a JG homer, which makes me a Redskins homer. Joe Gibbs is the face of this franchise. No player could ever amass the success he has. He is the ONLY reason this team has had any superbowl victories. He is not only one of the greatest coaches of all time, but one of the greatest people in the NFL today. A far nicer and more humble man than you or I.

So yes, please forgive me when I say you're full of s when you voice your negative comments incessantly. You are one of the most negative posters on the board.

As for your argument about if Santana had tripped or Antonio didn't take it the distance; How many bounces, had they gone our way, would've contributed to wins instead of losses? That argument was weak at best.

[misery]

don't be dumb, I was a skins fan before I ever heard of Lavar, when he is gone, I will love the skins

[Ghost of]

He is not only one of the greatest coaches of all time, but one of the greatest people in the NFL today. A far nicer and more humble man than you or I.

On this we agree. I never said any different. However, being a truly great man and coach does ensure that you will be held to a higher standard. I've seen a couple of things that disappointed me on both counts.

So yes, please forgive me when I say you're full of s when you voice your negative comments incessantly. You are one of the most negative posters on the board.

Please, herrmag, whatever you do, don't preface sayin I'm full of crap with a plea for forgiveness. As for being negative, who is negative on this board? I, for one, think the cats that endlessly bashed Samuels, jacobs, etc are far more negative people. When I post something about the snap count, I get people who don't want to hear any debate on the subject, even though opposing players apparently thought enough of it. I also DEFENDED Samuels and Jansen after that game. How is that negative?

What you mean is, that because I said something in opposition to what you believed at a particular point that I am negative. Or because I defend a player or don't want to kick the guy off the team, I'm negative. I even defend Snyder. How is this being negative? The only negative you perceive is my opinion of some coaching moves. that's what it comes down to on the board these days. If you don't fall right into line with the prevailing OPINION of what the coaches think (for all we know, they very well may have agreed on snap count or Portis looking awkward earlier in the season) that is being a 'negative poster.' It's silly because it creates an utterly false Manichean tone to the debates on the board. It is not black/white, Gibbs/anti-Gibbs, Lavar/anti-Lavar, pro-Ramsey/anti-Ramsey.

Hell, your post to me was 'negative.' The worst part of it is, when a critic is right, you 'homers' pretend that the person wasn't right and "how about that coach and his adjustments" or worse "nothing changed, the sucky players finally started executing his brilliant system." If we win, it's Gibbs. If we lose, it's the players. That's not everyone, don't get me wrong, but it's more than a few. I take a different approach. To do so, is NOT negative.

As for your argument about if Santana had tripped or Antonio didn't take it the distance; How many bounces, had they gone our way, would've contributed to wins instead of losses? That argument was weak at best.

My point was hardly weak, it is only so due to your misapprehension of what that statement meant. I am not downgrading the victories (a win is a win) because of the nature of football often coming down to a few plays. I'm saying that the tone of the debate would be different on the board but for the fortunate twists that involved PLAYERS MAKING PLAYS. It's not that certain people are more 'right' because of the record it's just that they retreat behind it when it comes to substantive discussions of specific topics. I'd much rather us win and deal with this fact, but I'm just pointing it out for your edification.

You might have forgotten that Moss had to beg Gibbs to take those chances in that game. How easily we forget those facts which don't paint one of the coaches as incomparable geniuses who never fail and never feel fear.

[jrockster21]

This should get interesting.

OR

I was actually really surprised to see a mod had started this poll. This might be the first poll I've ever seen started by a mod. And I'm almost positive this has been started before...or something very similar.

I agree with others, that you can be a fan of both. However after this latest bunch of horse crap LA has lost a lot of fans. I still like what he brings to the field, but when you really look at it, his off the field antics aren't that much better than TO's. And the "out of context" claim was pretty ridiculous as well.

Oh yeah, and MERGE!

[slackermike]

I'm fan of both, but I'm a bigger fan of the Redskins.

I still like Lavar. I think he's a talented player, and that both sides were in the wrong. I don't see why this can't be worked out. If Gibbs could keep Riggins in line, I think he can deal with Lavar too.

I'd really hate to see Arrington go to another team.

[Jumbo]

I'm a fan of higher principle...not some idiot notion that an ill defined concept applies in each and every instance reagrdless of context.....maybe McP has the same view as well......ooops....sorry for not being a bandwagon homer conformist....my bad!!!...

but if sheepishly following the herd appeals to ya......baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...........the cliff is over there!

Hey! Let's show a little responsibility here! We're all fellow mammals, you know. You just up and go sending the sheep wherever you want and their gonna trample the lemmings who already have that cliff staked out!

:eaglesuck :eaglesuck :eaglesuck :eaglesuck

[fansince62]

stop being so amusing brotha Jumbo! I thought this board was for idle tangles while waiting for the main event!

[fansince62]

"Next post one that asks, "Are you a bigger Skins fan or Joe Gibbs fan?"

Stupid thread."

that's funny too!

[fansince62]

"Sad thing is that some of those 47 LA picks were not in jest. No offense to younger fans, but I've found that they tend to develop loyalties to individual players as opposed to the team. I truly hope that those of you that voted for Lavar, assuming he is not with us next year, take your loyalty to him and leave the ranks of Redskins fandom."

now that is a load of *rap! what..are you your brother's keeper? cornered the market on what being "a true fan" is all about have ya? what an unadulterated bunch of feces. there's room for all sorts across the spectrum. your easily bruised psyche is what needs immediate professional attention - not the likes and dislikes of teenagers who come and go.

[herrmag]

On this we agree. I never said any different. However, being a truly great man and coach does ensure that you will be held to a higher standard. I've seen a couple of things that disappointed me on both counts.

Please, herrmag, whatever you do, don't preface sayin I'm full of crap with a plea for forgiveness. As for being negative, who is negative on this board? I, for one, think the cats that endlessly bashed Samuels, jacobs, etc are far more negative people. When I post something about the snap count, I get people who don't want to hear any debate on the subject, even though opposing players apparently thought enough of it. I also DEFENDED Samuels and Jansen after that game. How is that negative?

What you mean is, that because I said something in opposition to what you believed at a particular point that I am negative. Or because I defend a player or don't want to kick the guy off the team, I'm negative. I even defend Snyder. How is this being negative? The only negative you perceive is my opinion of some coaching moves. that's what it comes down to on the board these days. If you don't fall right into line with the prevailing OPINION of what the coaches think (for all we know, they very well may have agreed on snap count or Portis looking awkward earlier in the season) that is being a 'negative poster.' It's silly because it creates an utterly false Manichean tone to the debates on the board. It is not black/white, Gibbs/anti-Gibbs, Lavar/anti-Lavar, pro-Ramsey/anti-Ramsey.

Hell, your post to me was 'negative.' The worst part of it is, when a critic is right, you 'homers' pretend that the person wasn't right and "how about that coach and his adjustments" or worse "nothing changed, the sucky players finally started executing his brilliant system." If we win, it's Gibbs. If we lose, it's the players. That's not everyone, don't get me wrong, but it's more than a few. I take a different approach. To do so, is NOT negative.

My point was hardly weak, it is only so due to your misapprehension of what that statement meant. I am not downgrading the victories (a win is a win) because of the nature of football often coming down to a few plays. I'm saying that the tone of the debate would be different on the board but for the fortunate twists that involved PLAYERS MAKING PLAYS. It's not that certain people are more 'right' because of the record it's just that they retreat behind it when it comes to substantive discussions of specific topics. I'd much rather us win and deal with this fact, but I'm just pointing it out for your edification.

You might have forgotten that Moss had to beg Gibbs to take those chances in that game. How easily we forget those facts which don't paint one of the coaches as incomparable geniuses who never fail and never feel fear.

You are of the type that assume just because someone is a homer, they are incapable of rational thought. I do in fact think. However, I put my trust in JG. Last year I myself thought we needed a General Manager, and that Gibbs had no idea what he was doing. Sean Taylor over KW? I was proven wrong. Also, trading up to get this Cooley kid. What is JG doing? Again, many (such as myself) were proven wrong. I don't know for a fact, but I'll bet you were on board the crew that thought Gibbs was nuts when he drafted Carlos over Mike Williams. I know I was. And now I think Carlos will end up being more of an impact player than MW. The simple fact is, JG has more info than you or I, yet you continually act as though you have some keen insight that he does not. Sure, he's not infallable, but who is?

The point is, and maybe I was being a little harsh when I said you were full of s, that there are issues in every organization, in every game, hell, maybe even on every play. No team is perfect. However, to routinely point out shortcomings of the team that are totally meaningless is unnecessary. You take little things, such as the snap count (that's obviously been a huge downfall of ours :doh: ), and try to make a mountain out of a mole hill. You will never be satisfied. Even if we win the Super Bowl, you will still find something to gripe about.

And, your "you can't say anything bad about Gibbs or the homers will kill you" response is getting old. The simple fact is, you spend a lot of time pointing out the negative, and seem to rejoice in it. Then, when the 'Skins succeed, you make up some excuse about how you knew they would come out on top (see the "The offense...It's Brunell" thread). I'm not going to try and peg your personality, but you are definitely a glass half empty type of person.

This thread was very simple. Do your loyalties lie with a player or the head coach. You, of course, needed a chance to ***** about homerism. Well, I accept the label. In fact, I relish in it.

[herrmag]

"Sad thing is that some of those 47 LA picks were not in jest. No offense to younger fans, but I've found that they tend to develop loyalties to individual players as opposed to the team. I truly hope that those of you that voted for Lavar, assuming he is not with us next year, take your loyalty to him and leave the ranks of Redskins fandom."

now that is a load of *rap! what..are you your brother's keeper? cornered the market on what being "a true fan" is all about have ya? what an unadulterated bunch of feces. there's room for all sorts across the spectrum. your easily bruised psyche is what needs immediate professional attention - not the likes and dislikes of teenagers who come and go.

Actually, I have many family members that are in their teens, and I watch games with them sometimes (as well as their friends). Do they cheer on the teams? No, they cheer on the players. Never did I say ALL younger fans do this, but it seems to be a growing trend.

Oh, and as for saying my bruised psyche needs attention....Look who freaks out with your ridiculous post. You made my day. Talk about pathetic...... How insecure are you that you have to fly off the handle like that over a simiple observation? And you're telling me that I might have issues??? :laugh: