WT - Patten welcomes stiff competition

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Super Coach? Son Of God? How can you call yourself a Redskins fan and in the same breath take name calling pot shots at the most successful coach this team has ever had? Where does all your hate stem from?

The hate stems from LOSING, which is something I hold no interest in or acceptance of. I considered Joe Gibbs one of the top 3 NFL coaches of all time until he signed that contract to come back. At that point all bets were off. Joe Gibbs has to prove he can still lead this team to the Promised Land in whatever small amount of time he has here. Until he does that, everything is up for discussion.

If I want to look for football success by Joe Gibbs all I have to do is look back to last season. I don't know what planet you have been watching the NFL from, but on Earth a successful football season includes a team making it to the playoffs.

Sorry, but they needed to win three more games for the season to be considered a Success. Making the playoffs is only the START of a successful season, not the success in and of itself.

Santana Moss, Sean Taylor, Cornelius Griffin, Chris Cooley, Marcus Washington, Carlos Rogers, Clinton Portis, Shawn Springs, Mark Brunell

The above mentioned names kinda puts your "Nor has there been this wonderful compilation of All-Pro, kickass players that you seem to have imagined in the last two offseasons" theory to bed; doesn't it? Wait, let me guess, you don't consider any of these players to be All-Pro or kickass.

That list includes some very good players, and some above average players. It also includes a number of players past their primes, and one player who should probably be serving time in a State of Florida prison right now. I don't consider most of them to be HOF candidates though. So let's just let the issue drop since we aren't going to agree.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I just hope if we happen to win it all, I don't want to see this guy on here gloating that "his team" won.

Don't worry. The only way this team is likely to win a Lombardi Trophy in the near future is a way that I don't agree with, so there will likely be little chest thumping from me if it happens.

We need to talk about positive things on here, even if we look through Burgundy glasses. It's nice to speculate and have fun with SB talk this early. I apoligize if I called someone a name. I just don't see the rationale in any of his arguments.

Unfortunately, when you have to look through the Burgundy and Gold glasses to find the positives, aren't you really just whistling past the graveyard? I don't have much interest in unrealistic speculation. Especially in the positive sense. I am and always have been a pesimist. I always will be. You don't have to see the rationale, because I'm not trying to change your opinion.

[xxprodigyxx]

I never said that Campbell was the best option. Just that I expect first round draft picks to come in and make an immediate impact as starters. The point I was getting at is that if Gibbs didn't believe he could, or wasn't going to, start Campbell last season, he shouldn't have drafted him in the first round.

Actually, Free Agency is a huge assistance to Dominance. It's the Salary Cap that has created the roadblock. Parity is something I do not believe is good for the teams, the players, the league, and definitely not for the fans. The Patriots didn't win those Super Bowls. They went out to prove they were the least bad team, not the best one; and there's a HUGE difference between those two things. I would also disagree that the Redskins roster was made up of 53 nobodies in 1991 and 1982. 1987, I can probably give you, but the strike makes that a very different year.

I didn't say that all 53 were nobodies. How can you take the word "mostly" and make it mean "all"? That is a bit of a hyperbole. Let's see for a quick example let's look at the 91 Roster:

Mark Rypien - Who?

Tim Johnson - Who?

Brad Edwards - Who?

Danny Copeland - Who?

Bobby Wilson - Who?

Eric Williams - Who?

Clarence Vaughn - Who?

Jeff Rutledge - Who?

Terry Orr - Who?

Alvoid Mays - Who?

Ron Middleton - Who?

Joe Johnson - Who?

Jimmie Johnson - Who?

Stephen Hobbs - Who?

Terry Hoage - Who?

Kelly Goodburn - Who?

...The list can go on. I'm not saying some of these players weren't good. Tim Johnson, Edwards, and Copeland were pretty solid players for us that year. But when they were brought in they weren't some superstar talent. Outside of the Redskin fanbase all these people are unknowns. The 91 are a prime example of a team being more than the sum of their parts. Sure they had their stars but they weren't a team chock full of unbelieveable talent.

[xxprodigyxx]

"I never said that Campbell was the best option. Just that I expect first round draft picks to come in and make an immediate impact as starters. The point I was getting at is that if Gibbs didn't believe he could, or wasn't going to, start Campbell last season, he shouldn't have drafted him in the first round."

MSF you still make no sense. Drafts are done by, usually, picking the best option available at your draft position unless a need is too great to ignore. Gibbs liked what he saw in Campbell and he knew Brunnell was getting old also didn't have any faith in Ramsey. Even with that he felt that the quarterback situation was stable enough for him to bring a guy in and develop him. He knew what he was doing and never intended to start him the first season unless something catastrophic happened. So basically you are saying we should have waited a couple of years down the line and when we desparately needed a quarterback, to draft one then and throw him in? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable, when the time came, to put in a quarterback who has had a year or two to learn the system and know the game at least mentally? There is such a thing as planning for the future.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Those who have done great things with a team, a group, an army, often will tell you of how the team takes on a personality, and as a result the performance of a team is dictated by this personality. We see it in baseball more often and in more stark terms as more baseball is played and the contrast is greater.

A good example of this idea would be the 2004 Boston Red Sox. A team full of some of the stupidest Idiots ever to play the game. They won a World Series for the first time in 86 years. But gee, hadn't most of those Idiots been together for 2 or 3 years at that point? Why hadn't they already won a WS? Maybe because in 2004 the GM brought in the TALENT that was necessary to help that team win? They didn't win because of their attitude or personality. They won because they had the best collection of players in the league that year.

According to your outlook the team with the greater talent will win everytime but history shows up something markedly different. The 1983 Redskins' team is heralded as about the greatest Redskins team ever, yet lost the SB.

No. The team with greater talent SHOULD win every time. If they don't, they need a good swift kick in the ***, a stiff FINE from the team, and maybe even the removal of some players to get their heads out of the previously mentioned body cavity.

It is ALL about attitude, and then talent. You can go farther with attitude and modest talent than with great talent and poor attitude - we have seen it so many times in so many sports that it is unquestionable.

Largely because we put too much emphasis on the attitude. The players should care whether they like the guy next to them. They aren't getting paid to like their teammates. They're getting paid to WIN GAMES.

People with this mindset fundimentally BELIEVE that no-one can beat them. That's why they say winners always want the ball when it counts, because they feel they can overcome the competition to make the shot.

I'm sorry... I could believe that I'm gonna beat Carl Lewis in a foot race with all my heart and it's never going to happen. Yes, a positive attitude can be helpful, but without the high end talent, it's really not that worthwhile.

And this is why a real winner would only want to face the best in an opponent.

LOL. A real winner knows that the Winning, not the competition is the important thing. Regardless of who the opponent is.

I truly hope that we find some common ground here because again, you strike me as a nice guy. I fear however that you have a fundimentally distorted view of this, one you cloak in the guise of reasonableness.

On this issue we're not likely to find any. Do I have a distorted view of what winning and losing are about... possibly. However it is my view and it isn't going to change. Ever.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

MSF you still make no sense. Drafts are done by, usually, picking the best option available at your draft position unless a need is too great to ignore. Gibbs liked what he saw in Campbell and he knew Brunnell was getting old also didn't have any faith in Ramsey. Even with that he felt that the quarterback situation was stable enough for him to bring a guy in and develop him. He knew what he was doing and never intended to start him the first season unless something catastrophic happened. So basically you are saying we should have waited a couple of years down the line and when we desparately needed a quarterback, to draft one then and throw him in? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable, when the time came, to put in a quarterback who has had a year or two to learn the system and know the game at least mentally? There is such a thing as planning for the future.

What I think you're missing is that I don't believe the Draft is the proper way to build a team, period. I believe that the signing of veteran free agents who have proven they can play in the NFL is the correct way to build a team. I wouldn't be upset if the Redskins NEVER made another draft pick in ANY round.

That being said, I understand that the team isn't going to follow that philosophy. However, I still don't believe that we should have players on our roster who can't contribute to the team NOW. Which means that I don't believe in drafting ANY player who we don't believe can come in and make an impact immediately. ESPECIALLY at the skill positions (WR, RB, QB, CB, LB). I don't buy into the concepts of "potential" or "developing players". I never have.

[MarkPSkins]

All of you guys must admit that this guy MSF is all of our alter-egos. You know he is. You can be a PC as you want but he has the balls to say it matter-of-fact.

Just answer the question of last year's games with the Cowboys.

Which was better, wallowing in the the mud for 3 and 4/5ths of the game and getting two lucky-azz plays in the end to win. Or the thorough dismantling like the second game. You know which you want to see on a weekly basis, all year long, to every team.

Now I'm not saying I want this guy MSF to be my kids nanny, but you have to admit he knows what he is and what he wants, and if you sit back and think about it, you all feel this way at some level. Sans the injury part, which is just a little disturbing.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

All of you guys must admit that this guy MSF is all of our alter-egos. You know he is. You can be a PC as you want but he has the balls to say it matter-of-fact.

I'm not sure you're going to find a lot of love for that idea, Mark. Most people here want to distance themselves from the idea that they might have anything in common with me because I am so matter-of-fact, stubborn, and unyielding in the way I present myself.

Which was better, wallowing in the the mud for 3 and 4/5ths of the game and getting two lucky-azz plays in the end to win. Or the thorough dismantling like the second game. You know which you want to see on a weekly basis, all year long, to every team.

There are some here who see no difference between the two. We won both games, so they see neither one as better or worse than the other.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

There are some here who see no difference between the two. We won both games, so they see neither one as better or worse than the other.

I have to jump back in here...as much as I've tried to stay away.

At the end of the year, one isn't any better than the other. The one objective every week is to score more than your opponent to win the game. That is it. If you have to do it ugly, you do it ugly. If you can dominate and cruise to a victory, then, by all means, do that.

I will agree that the goal should be to win easy every week, but once the whistle blows, that usually becomes unattainable. At that point, you do your best to throw more points up on the scoreboard than the bad guys.

When we finished 10-6 and made the playoffs by one game last year, did the 35-7 win over Dallas count more than the 14-13 win?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

At the end of the year, one isn't any better than the other. The one objective every week is to score more than your opponent to win the game. That is it. If you have to do it ugly, you do it ugly. If you can dominate and cruise to a victory, then, by all means, do that.

I will agree that the goal should be to win easy every week, but once the whistle blows, that usually becomes unattainable. At that point, you do your best to throw more points up on the scoreboard than the bad guys.

When we finished 10-6 and made the playoffs by one game last year, did the 35-7 win over Dallas count more than the 14-13 win?

The thing you have to realize is that I'm looking at this in a little more long term view than I generally look at things.

Let's compare two teams from the NFL's past.

Team #1:

14-2 regular season. 3-0 playoffs. SB Champions.

Offense Rankings: Pass #8, Rush #27, Overall #18

Defense Rankings: Pass #17, Rush #4, Overall #7

14 Wins by an average of 10.3 pts. 2 Losses by an average of 17 pts. Average regular season game was a 6.9 pt. victory. 3 Playoff victories by an average of 4.3 pts. Average game played was a 6.5 pt. victory.

Team #2:

14-2 regular season. 3-0 playoffs. SB Champions.

Offense Rankings: Pass #5, Rush #7, Overall #4

Defense Rankings: Pass #11, Rush #3, Overall #3

14 Wins by an average of 19 pts. 2 Losses by an average of 2.5 pts. Average regular season game was a 16.3 pt. victory. 3 Playoff victories by an average of 20.3 pts. Average game played was a 16.9 pt. victory.

From what I hear, people around here would look at the first line of those two descriptions and tell me that there's no difference between the two teams. I think the numbers underneath offer more than sufficient evidence that one of those teams was VASTLY superior to the other. I believe that over time history will look at these two teams very differently BECAUSE of those numbers underneath the records.

[flexxskins]

The hate stems from LOSING, which is something I hold no interest in or acceptance of. I considered Joe Gibbs one of the top 3 NFL coaches of all time until he signed that contract to come back. At that point all bets were off. Joe Gibbs has to prove he can still lead this team to the Promised Land in whatever small amount of time he has here. Until he does that, everything is up for discussion.

Sorry, but they needed to win three more games for the season to be considered a Success. Making the playoffs is only the START of a successful season, not the success in and of itself.

That list includes some very good players, and some above average players. It also includes a number of players past their primes, and one player who should probably be serving time in a State of Florida prison right now. I don't consider most of them to be HOF candidates though. So let's just let the issue drop since we aren't going to agree.

Read your first paragraph. It just doesn't seem as though it came from someone with your intelligence and age. You basically have said that Joe Gibbs should have taken the team straight to the SB the year he came back (your definition of success) and until he does that, you will continue to hate him. How is that logical to you?

Also, I challenge you to reveal just who in that list of players that I posted is simply "above average."

I also love how since I post those names, your rating of "All -Pro, kickass" players suddenly upgraded to "HOF canidates."

Once again, with these remarks that you have made, you have proven to me that you argue peoples points just to be arguing. You revel in the conflict and just being different than everyone else, no matter how senesless alot of your point of views are. Therefore, I figure that there is no point in dicussing anything else with you, it would be pointless and alot more time would be wasted. I consider you to be a very intelligent and knowledgeable person, just not a very rational one.

[willyt]

Wow! So much negativity...Agreed that being a Sox fan has got to suck..but things are looking up for our Skins. Where as most of us see a light at the end of the tunnel you, I can only assume, see an on coming train. That's a shame. I've been coaching middle school basketball for 15 years ...one year my team went 1-13..needless to say my team was made up of mostly 7th graders playing against 8th graders all year.....our 1 win came during the final week of the season. When the buzzer went off you would've thought these kids had just won the championship... at that point the other 13 losses did'nt matter one bit to them. Those kids that returned as 8th graders the next year..and yes they ALL came back to try out and they all made the team...worked their collective asses off over the summer and we went 12-2 that year and fell one game short of the finals.. Tell those kids that they are losers Mass skins fan. Tell them they had no chance to be succesful. Tell them that all that work they put in over that summer was useless because they didnt dominate every other team. 13 of the 15 players went on to play High School Hoop at their respective schools and EVERYONE of them thanked me for helping them get BETTER through HARD WORK and DEDICATION! Wake up and try to realise whats really important. In order to appreciate the Wins you must indure the losses that's when you learn to APPRECIATE competition. Grow up and stop blaming your brothers or the doctors or your coaches etc..etc..Life is GOOD!

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Read your first paragraph. It just doesn't seem as though it came from someone with your intelligence and age. You basically have said that Joe Gibbs should have taken the team straight to the SB the year he came back (your definition of success) and until he does that, you will continue to hate him. How is that logical to you?

My actual intended point was that Gibbs should not have come back at all. He had his legacy. He was one of the top 3 coaches of all time. Now he's systematically destroying that legacy with the last two years in DC. Personally, I believe that anyone in the HOF who returns to the game should have to be RE-ELECTED to the HOF after they re-retire. I'm not sure JG would be as much a sure thing if you took that vote right now.

Also, I challenge you to reveal just who in that list of players that I posted is simply "above average." .

Rogers, Brunell, Springs & Griffin are the four I would consider "above average".

I also love how since I post those names, your rating of "All -Pro, kickass" players suddenly upgraded to "HOF canidates.".

I don't believe that any of those nine names you listed fit either classification, as I define them.

Once again, with these remarks that you have made, you have proven to me that you argue peoples points just to be arguing. You revel in the conflict and just being different than everyone else, no matter how senesless alot of your point of views are.

Believe me, I wish I didn't have to constantly explain these things to people. Unfortunately not everyone here is as enlightened in these matters as I am and therefore I am constantly forced to re-explain the same things over and over.

Therefore, I figure that there is no point in dicussing anything else with you, it would be pointless and alot more time would be wasted. I consider you to be a very intelligent and knowledgeable person, just not a very rational one.

There is not, and never has been any point in debating ANYTHING with me. My opinions do not change. Ever. If you want to have a discussion (namely an exchange of info without anyone trying to say which side is right or wrong) fine. If you want to tell me I'm wrong, or try to get me to change my mind (which is a Debate, not a discussion) there's no point.

As for the concept of rationality... I could say the same about many other people on here, but I don't because there's nobody here whose opinion I care enough about to give it credit by labeling it irrational.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The thing you have to realize is that I'm looking at this in a little more long term view than I generally look at things.

Let's compare two teams from the NFL's past.

Team #1:

14-2 regular season. 3-0 playoffs. SB Champions.

Offense Rankings: Pass #8, Rush #27, Overall #18

Defense Rankings: Pass #17, Rush #4, Overall #7

14 Wins by an average of 10.3 pts. 2 Losses by an average of 17 pts. Average regular season game was a 6.9 pt. victory. 3 Playoff victories by an average of 4.3 pts. Average game played was a 6.5 pt. victory.

Team #2:

14-2 regular season. 3-0 playoffs. SB Champions.

Offense Rankings: Pass #5, Rush #7, Overall #4

Defense Rankings: Pass #11, Rush #3, Overall #3

14 Wins by an average of 19 pts. 2 Losses by an average of 2.5 pts. Average regular season game was a 16.3 pt. victory. 3 Playoff victories by an average of 20.3 pts. Average game played was a 16.9 pt. victory.

From what I hear, people around here would look at the first line of those two descriptions and tell me that there's no difference between the two teams. I think the numbers underneath offer more than sufficient evidence that one of those teams was VASTLY superior to the other. I believe that over time history will look at these two teams very differently BECAUSE of those numbers underneath the records.

I see your point. But you're also comparing two teams from two different eras that never got to play against one another. They both played in two distinctly different leagues too (the league of 1991 was far different than that of 2003-2004).

The fact is, the goal of every NFL team is to win the Super Bowl THAT SEASON. There is nothing it can do to try to compare itself to other champions across the years. That's the only type of debate in which your statistical comparisons have any merit. But, like I said, even in those debates you have to take into account the state of the league when each team won.

As much as I love the 1991 Redskins and believe they are a top 5 team of all time, they played in an era when there were probably 8-10 teams that even had a shot to win the SB from year to year. Now there are more than 20 every year. Therefore, you're not going to have the same amount of easy wins like you could before free agency and the cap.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Wow! So much negativity...Agreed that being a Sox fan has got to suck..but things are looking up for our Skins. Where as most of us see a light at the end of the tunnel you, I can only assume, see an on coming train. That's a shame.

I am a pesimist. I am the eternal and total pesimist. It's what I have always been and what I always will be. That light has been a train WAY too many times in my life for me to even bother looking down the tunnel, nevermind hoping that it's light I'm seeing down there. I find it much easier to expect failure than to endure the pain and misery when one expects success and gets failure instead.

I've been coaching middle school basketball for 15 years ...one year my team went 1-13..needless to say my team was made up of mostly 7th graders playing against 8th graders all year..... Tell those kids that they are losers Mass skins fan. Tell them they had no chance to be succesful. Tell them that all that work they put in over that summer was useless because they didnt dominate every other team. 13 of the 15 players went on to play High School Hoop at their respective schools and EVERYONE of them thanked me for helping them get BETTER through HARD WORK and DEDICATION!

I've got to say that I have a lot of respect for you. Dealing with kids is something I attempt to avoid at all costs. For many reasons. On a personal level, if I was one of those kids I would ahve felt that I'd wasted the summer. Obviously you've instilled a different ethic and view of the world in them. That's great. At some point in time they're going to have to learn the facts of life though... namely that the only person looking out for their best interests is themselves and that hard work/determination are often a huge waste for the amount of return you get from them.

Wake up and try to realise whats really important. In order to appreciate the Wins you must indure the losses that's when you learn to APPRECIATE competition. Grow up and stop blaming your brothers or the doctors or your coaches etc..etc..Life is GOOD!

I woke up a long time ago. I realized that I wasn't going to be any good at sports or other athletic endeavours a long time ago. It's simply a fact of life. I've made the determination that the probability of loss is a greater risk than the potential for victory. In my mind the anger at a loss is a greater risk than the joy of victory and that lessens my interest in competing as well.

BTW - Life isn't good. Neither are people.

[GURU]

Someone PLEASE close this thread and get Mass SkinsFan some serious professional counceling. They have therapy for this.

Seriously.

[flexxskins]

Someone PLEASE close this thread and get Mass SkinsFan some serious professional counceling. They have therapy for this.

Seriously.

He actually seems to be very intelligent and knowledgeable (not that I'm a expert on the subject). However, his views are just different from anyone I have ever come across and sometimes they even change a little when someone comes up with a good counter point to his. (Thats when I gave up trying to understand him).

But you are right GURU, this thread has kind of drifted from its ogrinal topic and has become a bit redundant.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I see your point. But you're also comparing two teams from two different eras that never got to play against one another. They both played in two distinctly different leagues too (the league of 1991 was far different than that of 2003-2004).

I'm impressed that you came up with the two teams that quickly. Nice work. Personally, I believe that looking at teams from different eras IS a good way to compare things. If a team in this era could put together a season like the Redskins had in 1991, they'd probably have to be hailed as one of the greatest teams of all time.

The fact is, the goal of every NFL team is to win the Super Bowl THAT SEASON. There is nothing it can do to try to compare itself to other champions across the years. That's the only type of debate in which your statistical comparisons have any merit. But, like I said, even in those debates you have to take into account the state of the league when each team won.

The goal of every team should be to be the Greatest Team ever. Of course part of that is winning the Super Bowl, but it's only a part of the equation as I see it. Going out there and winning the SB without being a dominant team is a hollow victory in my mind. No matter what the state of the league is. Expecially when every owner in the league signed off on this abortion of a system. They made the bed, now they've got to find a way to create Greatness inside of it... if that's even possible.

As much as I love the 1991 Redskins and believe they are a top 5 team of all time, they played in an era when there were probably 8-10 teams that even had a shot to win the SB from year to year. Now there are more than 20 every year. Therefore, you're not going to have the same amount of easy wins like you could before free agency and the cap.

Exactly. Which is a large part of why I HATE the current NFL system. It is quite true that under the old system only a handful of team had a realistic shot of Winning. So what? I don't see that as a bad thing. However, this new system, which has built equality (known as parity nowadays) by holding back those upper end teams rather than by promoting an interest in winning in the lower end teams. Yep, the NFL has created a system based not on Greatness, Dominance or Winning, but on the lowest common denominator of sports... competition.