TMK9973 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Guys -Gibbs said it's the ORDER he rates it. Not the ONLY factor. I.E -If I'm looking to hit on a girl for one night stand - My criteria is 1) Avaibility 2) Chances of success 3) Looks 4) Personality now -Does that mean I'm going to hit on a ugly girl if she looks willing and able? NO! It just also means I'm not going to hit on a really HOT girl who is with some really big guy and getting ready to leave. Gibbs did not say he was going to grab a no talent player just because he has good character - He said the is going to look at a player with character first, then check their talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Guys -Gibbs said it's the ORDER he rates it. Not the ONLY factor.I.E -If I'm looking to hit on a girl for one night stand - My criteria is 1) Avaibility 2) Chances of success 3) Looks 4) Personality now -Does that mean I'm going to hit on a ugly girl if she looks willing and able? NO! It just also means I'm not going to hit on a really HOT girl who is with some really big guy and getting ready to leave. Gibbs did not say he was going to grab a no talent player just because he has good character - He said the is going to look at a player with character first, then check their talent. Don't use logic, it won't work. HE SAID character first, and by god he meant their personal character.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Guys -Gibbs said it's the ORDER he rates it. Not the ONLY factor.I.E -If I'm looking to hit on a girl for one night stand - My criteria is 1) Avaibility 2) Chances of success 3) Looks 4) Personality now -Does that mean I'm going to hit on a ugly girl if she looks willing and able? NO! It just also means I'm not going to hit on a really HOT girl who is with some really big guy and getting ready to leave. Gibbs did not say he was going to grab a no talent player just because he has good character - He said the is going to look at a player with character first, then check their talent. Don't use logic, it won't work. HE SAID character first, and by god he meant their personal character.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onnie007 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I see The Diesel's point. I would have Talent first and Character second though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onnie007 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I see The Diesel's point. I would have Talent first and Character second though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyburd Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 1- Speed 2-Heart 3-Smarts 4-Strength Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyburd Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 1- Speed 2-Heart 3-Smarts 4-Strength Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I see The Diesel's point. I would have Talent first and Character second though.The Diesel's point was to get his idea out and cause controversy so people will listen. He is a radio talk show host. That is his job. The fact that we are debating this proves he accomplished his goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I see The Diesel's point. I would have Talent first and Character second though.The Diesel's point was to get his idea out and cause controversy so people will listen. He is a radio talk show host. That is his job. The fact that we are debating this proves he accomplished his goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 The Diesel's point was to get his idea out and cause controversy so people will listen. He is a radio talk show host. That is his job. The fact that we are debating this proves he accomplished his goal. See - Now your useing Logic..... Like you said - You don't stand a chance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 The Diesel's point was to get his idea out and cause controversy so people will listen. He is a radio talk show host. That is his job. The fact that we are debating this proves he accomplished his goal. See - Now your useing Logic..... Like you said - You don't stand a chance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Like I said earlier' date=' I really think it is how you surround "the bad character guys." Riggins on his own was always completely out of control. When you had the Hogs to babysit him each night, he was docile.[/quote']and ill buy that, i just always find it funny when people claim gibbs is such a character guy. he might say that on the radio to make himself look good, but hes far from a guy who just wants character. character only goes so far. although you can counter that with the simple fact that he keeps james thrash in games for some unknown reason. we all know that surely isnt for his talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Like I said earlier' date=' I really think it is how you surround "the bad character guys." Riggins on his own was always completely out of control. When you had the Hogs to babysit him each night, he was docile.[/quote']and ill buy that, i just always find it funny when people claim gibbs is such a character guy. he might say that on the radio to make himself look good, but hes far from a guy who just wants character. character only goes so far. although you can counter that with the simple fact that he keeps james thrash in games for some unknown reason. we all know that surely isnt for his talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwsleep Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Maybe Riggo has the character Gibbs is talking about--why don't folks think so? Or Dexter Manley? Or Sean Taylor? Mike Sellers? Maybe it's something about internal drive and striving, and not some cookie-cutter "nice guy" thing. That fits the facts better, if you look at the history. The idea about character is not novel to Gibbs, btw. See how Joe Walsh selected his guys--Montana and Rice being great examples. Where would Montana be drafted today? After M. Vick, no doubt. Character matters more than talent in that case, and in many others. Joe Jacoby. Antonio Pierce. Anthony Montgomery. Joe Salevea. And so on. Sure, it fails sometimes--as Gibbs said, it's not something you can weigh on a scale. By character, he meant HEART, IMO. Talent without heart is a waste. Heart without talent can, at times, mean greatness. Sure, there must be a level of talent to get in the door at all. But in a game where so much is about effort and dedication, about not quitting and finding something deeper inside to fight it out, heart is crucial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwsleep Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Maybe Riggo has the character Gibbs is talking about--why don't folks think so? Or Dexter Manley? Or Sean Taylor? Mike Sellers? Maybe it's something about internal drive and striving, and not some cookie-cutter "nice guy" thing. That fits the facts better, if you look at the history. The idea about character is not novel to Gibbs, btw. See how Joe Walsh selected his guys--Montana and Rice being great examples. Where would Montana be drafted today? After M. Vick, no doubt. Character matters more than talent in that case, and in many others. Joe Jacoby. Antonio Pierce. Anthony Montgomery. Joe Salevea. And so on. Sure, it fails sometimes--as Gibbs said, it's not something you can weigh on a scale. By character, he meant HEART, IMO. Talent without heart is a waste. Heart without talent can, at times, mean greatness. Sure, there must be a level of talent to get in the door at all. But in a game where so much is about effort and dedication, about not quitting and finding something deeper inside to fight it out, heart is crucial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Sad but I very much believe it's true. When a guy like James Thrash sees the field on offense, you can tell Gibbs puts talent WAY down on his list. For the love of God man, stop playing Thrash! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Sad but I very much believe it's true. When a guy like James Thrash sees the field on offense, you can tell Gibbs puts talent WAY down on his list. For the love of God man, stop playing Thrash! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel2 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Please make use of Mike Sellers and Clinton Portis. Betts is a luxury that is déclassé. Obsolete if you will in this offense. Saunders is blowing smoke up our asssseeees by suggesting that Betts is a better receiver than Portis out of the back field. BS! This tandem coaching of the offense must realize that they are blowing a golden opportunity by not using Portis and Sellers in the same back field. Joe Gibbs has got to stop this nonsense about Betts is someone that can step in and do what Portis is capable of doing. We won't make the playoffs if we continue to go down our present road. Make use of the obvious and stop being fu#king nice by keeping Betts on this team. He's the wrong luxury that we can't afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel2 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Please make use of Mike Sellers and Clinton Portis. Betts is a luxury that is déclassé. Obsolete if you will in this offense. Saunders is blowing smoke up our asssseeees by suggesting that Betts is a better receiver than Portis out of the back field. BS! This tandem coaching of the offense must realize that they are blowing a golden opportunity by not using Portis and Sellers in the same back field. Joe Gibbs has got to stop this nonsense about Betts is someone that can step in and do what Portis is capable of doing. We won't make the playoffs if we continue to go down our present road. Make use of the obvious and stop being fu#king nice by keeping Betts on this team. He's the wrong luxury that we can't afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwrld Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Sad but I very much believe it's true. When a guy like James Thrash sees the field on offense, you can tell Gibbs puts talent WAY down on his list. For the love of God man, stop playing Thrash! My thoughts exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwrld Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Sad but I very much believe it's true. When a guy like James Thrash sees the field on offense, you can tell Gibbs puts talent WAY down on his list. For the love of God man, stop playing Thrash! My thoughts exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanSinceSonnyJ Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Answer me this: How many teams has John Riggins led (coached) to the Super Bowl and how many has he won?If the answer is more then Joe Gibbs, I say we go with Riggo. Otherwise, he is no better than Sean Salisbury when it comes to giving advice to a coach. If you are talking about Gibbs II, the answer is ZERO. Hence, I'll stick with Riggo on this one. Obviously we need to steer clear of the Mike Vick and Pacman Jones types, just as we should probably steer clear of the James Thrash types. Gibbs I was absolutely fantastic! Gibbs II has been the polar opposite of Gibbs I to date. Let's hope that changes very soon. Unfortunately, at this juncture, I sadly have my doubts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanSinceSonnyJ Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Answer me this: How many teams has John Riggins led (coached) to the Super Bowl and how many has he won?If the answer is more then Joe Gibbs, I say we go with Riggo. Otherwise, he is no better than Sean Salisbury when it comes to giving advice to a coach. If you are talking about Gibbs II, the answer is ZERO. Hence, I'll stick with Riggo on this one. Obviously we need to steer clear of the Mike Vick and Pacman Jones types, just as we should probably steer clear of the James Thrash types. Gibbs I was absolutely fantastic! Gibbs II has been the polar opposite of Gibbs I to date. Let's hope that changes very soon. Unfortunately, at this juncture, I sadly have my doubts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanSinceSonnyJ Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 considering riggo is one of the best redskins ever, and one of the most classless guys ever, i dont think its odd he thinks character is at the bottom of the barrel. and its always hillarious when people throw around character, yet riggins is somehow excluded from the discussions because he put up good numbers. or dexter manley for that matter. Riggo was more of a "good time Charlie" as opposed to "one of the most classless guys ever". Where in the world are you getting that? He always showed up on Sunday and played the game with true grit. Manley definitely had issues however. Apples and oranges comparison you're making. Riggo was certainly no boy scout, more like a fun loving drunk at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanSinceSonnyJ Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 considering riggo is one of the best redskins ever, and one of the most classless guys ever, i dont think its odd he thinks character is at the bottom of the barrel. and its always hillarious when people throw around character, yet riggins is somehow excluded from the discussions because he put up good numbers. or dexter manley for that matter. Riggo was more of a "good time Charlie" as opposed to "one of the most classless guys ever". Where in the world are you getting that? He always showed up on Sunday and played the game with true grit. Manley definitely had issues however. Apples and oranges comparison you're making. Riggo was certainly no boy scout, more like a fun loving drunk at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.