Carl Jung, Synchronicity, the Collective Unconscious and the Redskins

[[[ghost]]]

I'm a Psych major and find the Neo-Freudian School very convincing.

That said, for once, I hope Jung's theories were wrong.

[Earthcat]

Here's the thing, the only real thing in this Universe and all Universes in Creation is thought. Thought creates everything. We have come down to this veiled world by choice to experience the catalysts that help us evolve spiritually. In this world we are brainwashed from birth that competition is a good thing. The way of Creation is cooperation. But I have this vise,... football.

So when I yell at the TV... "Break his legs!" directed at Romo sits to pee or Tebow or whomever, it makes a difference. Maybe if we all think it together, we can make a difference. Maybe we could insync think something positive instead.

Namste.

(Cudos to Eric Leighter's tag on my avatar for this one)

[chief_redskin_fan]

The title of Jung's work was

Synchronicity: an Acausal Connecting Principle

All I know is that I pull for the Redskins before, during and even after every loss. Talk about acausal. So I am doing MY part, but everyone else needs to get off their acausals and do their collective synchronous connecting.

[skins4eva]

The title of Jung's work was

Synchronicity: an Acausal Connecting Principle

All I know is that I pull for the Redskins before, during and even after every loss. Talk about acausal. So I am doing MY part, but everyone else needs to get off their acausals and do their collective synchronous connecting.

I'm on board now--I think I've come to the conclusion over the last 10 years of expecting them to lose that it's more fun to expect them to win.

[Rodriggo]

What if the absolute unavoidable certainty of the Redskin's blowing yet another game causes us fans to expect it to happen every time? Once the Cardinals left the East we inherited their place as the division *****. Face it we are the Cardinals.

[skins4eva]

What if the absolute unavoidable certainty of the Redskin's blowing yet another game causes us fans to expect it to happen every time? Once the Cardinals left the East we inherited their place as the division *****. Face it we are the Cardinals.

Damn, Cuz, that's cold blooded!

[Oldfan]

Continuing this plunge into Extremeskins Esoterica:

There are two psychological factors going on with Redskins players. IMO confidence is the effect of success not a cause. Thus, I think that all this emphasis on a coach's ability to motivate his players is BS.

The coach who teaches better techniques and designs plays to make it easier for his players to excute them, will win more games. And, the players will then gain confidence, expecting to win more games.

On the other hand, we see such things as the placebo effect suggesting that, at least some of the time, we get the results that our minds expect. So, it might be that we get the results that we expect whether we want them or not. For example, if a guard fears false start penalties, his expectation of them grows, and produces false start penalties.

[skins4eva]

Continuing this plunge into Extremeskins Esoterica:

There are two psychological factors going on with Redskins players. IMO confidence is the effect of success not a cause. Thus, I think that all this emphasis on a coach's ability to motivate his players is BS.

The coach who teaches better techniques and designs plays to make it easier for his players to excute them, will win more games. And, the players will then gain confidence, expecting to win more games.

On the other hand, we see such things as the placebo effect suggesting that, at least some of the time, we get the results that our minds expect. So, it might be that we get the results that we expect whether we want them or not. For example, if a guard fears false start penalties, his expectation of them grows, and produces false start penalties.

How then would you describe Joe Gibbs's philosophy that every game is going to come down to a dog-fight? If he believes it, and makes coaching decisions based on that premise, doesn't it then become the reality?

[Oldfan]

How then would you describe Joe Gibbs's philosophy that every game is going to come down to a dog-fight? If he believes it, and makes coaching decisions based on that premise, doesn't it then become the reality?

Your premise is that the team takes the stuff Joe says seriously. The reality is that players know that coaches are never going to say that they expect to kick the crap out of their upcoming opponent.

On the other hand, the reality is that, unless your opponent is New England, or you are New England, every game is probably going to be a dogfight.

As for Joe's coaching decisions, his conservatism does keep the score down when he has the advantage, but it also creates a closer score when he doesn't. In other words, he's less likely to take the gambles that might pull off upsets or result in wider losing margins, but this is a personality factor unrelated to his expectations of a dogfight every week, IMO.

[skins4eva]

Your premise is that the team takes the stuff Joe says seriously. The reality is that players know that coaches are never going to say that they expect to kick the crap out of their upcoming opponent.

On the other hand, the reality is that, unless your opponent is New England, or you are New England, every game is probably going to be a dogfight.

As for Joe's coaching decisions, his conservatism does keep the score down when he has the advantage, but it also creates a closer score when he doesn't. In other words, he's less likely to take the gambles that might pull off upsets, or result is wider losing margins, but this is a personality factor unrelated to his expectations of a dogfight every week, IMO.

You have a good point, but don't you think Bill Belicheat tells his team to kick the crap out of the opponent behind closed doors? Isn't that how a killer instinct is fostered? I feel as though what Joe says publicly, even if it's a half truth has some effect on the mentality of the players.

He's also less likely to take gambles that lead to victories. The only real gamble I've seen this year was the onside kick vs. the Jets. What were your thoughts on that decision? It's odd that we'll see that type of gamble against an AFC opponent on the road (if you're going to lose games, lose them to AFC opponent's on the road) but never against a division opponent on the road or at home.

That onside kick was so out of the realm of anything we've seen from Gibbs. It made me wonder who actually made the call? My intuition is that Danny Smith wanted to redeem himself after we let the Jets return the opening kickoff and Gibbs consented, but does anyone really think Gibbs hatched that plan?

[SkinsNumberOne]

You have a good point, but don't you think Bill Belicheat tells his team to kick the crap out of the opponent behind closed doors? Isn't that how a killer instinct is fostered? I feel as though what Joe says publicly, even if it's a half truth has some effect on the mentality of the players.

Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself a bit here? I mean, how does what Joe say publicly have some effect, but not what Bill says publicly?

Actually Bill has said something to the effect of "I learned it by watching you!" referring to his time as Giants DC and seeing how Gibbs handled to the media; this is what I've heard anyway. Their public style is very similar; say very little of substance, always credit the other team.

[skins4eva]

Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself a bit here? I mean, how does what Joe say publicly have some effect, but not what Bill says publicly?

Actually Bill has said something to the effect of "I learned it by watching you!" referring to his time as Giants DC and seeing how Gibbs handled to the media; this is what I've heard anyway. Their public style is very similar; say very little of substance, always credit the other team.

I don't think it's a contradiction. I think the difference is that Joe says the same thing publicly as he does privately--he really, truly believes every game will be a dogfight. Bill B. says that to some extent, but there's no way he believes it...it's false modesty.

[Oldfan]

You have a good point, but don't you think Bill Belicheat tells his team to kick the crap out of the opponent behind closed doors? Isn't that how a killer instinct is fostered? I feel as though what Joe says publicly, even if it's a half truth has some effect on the mentality of the players.

He's also less likely to take gambles that lead to victories. The only real gamble I've seen this year was the onside kick vs. the Jets. What were your thoughts on that decision? It's odd that we'll see that type of gamble against an AFC opponent on the road (if you're going to lose games, lose them to AFC opponent's on the road) but never against a division opponent on the road or at home.

That onside kick was so out of the realm of anything we've seen from Gibbs. It made me wonder who actually made the call? My intuition is that Danny Smith wanted to redeem himself after we let the Jets return the opening kickoff and Gibbs consented, but does anyone really think Gibbs hatched that plan?

I've read that Belichick gives the players a virtual script on what to say about their upcoming oppents. So, by inference, he's letting them know that it's crapola and they're free to guess what he really believes.

Joe Gibbs takes a gamble now and then, but it's not in his character. I don't know who suggested the onside kick against the Jets.

Eagles game: I thought Andy Reid's bold gamble with fourth and inches on his own 39 (he was behind on the scoreboard and his team was being outplayed) contrasted sharply with our conservative playcalling when we ended up taking a FG after seven chances with goal to go.

[skins4eva]

I've read that Belichick gives the players a virtual script on what to say about their upcoming oppents. So, by inference, he's letting them know that it's crapola and they're free to guess what he really believes.

Joe Gibbs takes a gamble now and then, but it's not in his character. I don't know who suggested the onside kick against the Jets.

Eagles game: I thought Andy Reid's bold gamble with fourth and inches on his own 39 (he was behind on the scoreboard and his team was being outplayed) contrasted sharply with our conservative playcalling when we ended up taking a FG after seven chances with goal to go.

It seems to me that being risk averse in the NFL will lead to a mediocre record. It doesn't seem as though Gibbs is willing to do all that is necessary to win. I just cannot understand why he doesn't want to destroy his opponents each and every week--that philosophy alone is probably good for 1-2 more wins a season.

[SkinsNumberOne]

I don't think it's a contradiction. I think the difference is that Joe says the same thing publicly as he does privately--he really, truly believes every game will be a dogfight. Bill B. says that to some extent, but there's no way he believes it...it's false modesty.

What evidence do you have that "he really, truly believes every game will be a dogfight?"

Because if it's his press conferences, I can say that we have the same evidence with Bill, and it means the same thing in both cases - absolutely nothing, because they both realize how important it is to say nothing of substance (also why Joe was irritated at Campbell for saying too much).

Note - I'm NOT saying that Joe DOESN'T believe every game will be a dogfight. I do think he thinks every team in the NFL is competitive, what with parity and everything (many of us here do as well). But what I'm trying to explain is that it has absolutely no relationship to what he says in those press conferences - he provides very little content to absorb publicly, purely by design, same as it ever was - and it's a style that Billy has learned from Joey.

Now, as for his conservative playcalling, I think that does come from his belief that games will come down to a handful of points, and he thinks it's important to get points when you can if that's the case. He wants to take the sure thing rather than risk, because the guaranteed points are more important than the possible points, since the game will likely be decided by a few there - same thing you're saying. This doesn't mean he should "try to beat teams by a lot" because there IS parity in this league for most teams (we are not the Patriots). It does mean he should realize what Oldfan is saying, and understand that aggressive playcalling doesn't have as an adverse effect on performance as he thinks it does. That's the problem for Joe, I believe - he thinks if he has a lot more aggressive playcalling he'll lose more than he wins otherwise.

[skins4eva]

What evidence do you have that "he really, truly believes every game will be a dogfight?"

Because if it's his press conferences, I can say that we have the same evidence with Bill, and it means the same thing in both cases - absolutely nothing, because they both realize how important it is to say nothing of substance (also why Joe was irritated at Campbell for saying too much).

Note - I'm NOT saying that Joe DOESN'T believe every game will be a dogfight. I do think he thinks every team in the NFL is competitive, what with parity and everything (many of us here do as well). But what I'm trying to explain is that it has absolutely no relationship to what he says in those press conferences - he provides very little content to absorb publicly, purely by design, same as it ever was - and it's a style that Billy has learned from Joey.

Now, as for his conservative playcalling, I think that does come from his belief that games will come down to a handful of points, and he thinks it's important to get points when you can if that's the case. He wants to take the sure thing rather than risk, because the guaranteed points are more important than the possible points, since the game will likely be decided by a few there - same thing you're saying. This doesn't mean he should "try to beat teams by a lot" because there IS parity in this league for most teams (we are not the Patriots). It does mean he should realize what Oldfan is saying, and understand that aggressive playcalling doesn't have as an adverse effect on performance as he thinks it does. That's the problem for Joe, I believe - he thinks if he has a lot more aggressive playcalling he'll lose more than he wins otherwise.

I see what you're saying, but to me "guaranteed points" do not equate to 50 yard field goal attempts with our kicker. To me, the safer call there is to go for it on 4th and inches with a 6'5 QB.

[Oldfan]

It seems to me that being risk averse in the NFL will lead to a mediocre record. It doesn't seem as though Gibbs is willing to do all that is necessary to win. I just cannot understand why he doesn't want to destroy his opponents each and every week--that philosophy alone is probably good for 1-2 more wins a season.

As I see it, we begin with the idea that the margin of victory doesn't matter in a football game. It doesn't get any worse than a one point loss. So, if your gamble succeeds and you can come from behind, or pull off an upset of a favored opponent, great. If your gamble fails, you'll probably lose by a wider, but meaningless, margin.

Going for it on fourth down in plus territory, and second and short big play gambles, are pivotal down and distance situations. If our team has the advantage, we should play it conservatively. If we don't, we take these gambles because the odds of making them are in our favor.

Oddly, in 2006, the Skins passed more than other teams in fourth down situations -- the only stat where we weren't among the league leaders in running the football. The odds favor the run. We had the lowest success rate (56%).

[skins4eva]

As I see it, we begin with the idea that the margin of victory doesn't matter in a football game. It doesn't get any worse than a one point loss. So, if your gamble succeeds and you can come from behind, or pull off an upset of a favored opponent, great. If your gamble fails, you'll probably lose by a wider, but meaningless, margin.

Going for it on fourth down in plus territory, and second and short big play gambles, are pivotal down and distance situations. If our team has the advantage, we should play it conservatively. If we don't, we take these gambles because the odds of making them are in our favor.

Oddly, in 2006, the Skins passed more than other teams in fourth down situations -- the only stat where we weren't among the league leaders in running the football. The odds favor the run. We had the lowest success rate (56%).

The playcalling on 3rd and short has left much to be desired this season. We seem content to pick up 2-4 yards on first down by running Portis--if you look at the really successful offenses, Patriots and Dallas, their average first down gain is over 6 yards. When a defense is put in second and short yardage situations, not only does it open up the entire playbook for the offense, but it puts the defense on its heels. We haven't had nearly enough second and short situations since Gibbs's return.

[sydshobob]

Boo-freakin-hoo. Fact is, Gibbs doesn't want to take risks, and without taking risks, you will not win games in this league. The decision making on 4th and 1 has cost us many many games during Gibbs II. It shows a lack of faith in the offense and the players. If the coach doesn't have faith in the players to get one yard, how can the players have faith in themselves? But, I guess you're ok with that because Gibbs is a golden calf and must be worshiped by all.

I don't think the players losing faith in themselves is the problem. The truth is, 4th and 1 is a VERY make-able down. On average, it's converted more often than it isn't. Yet Gibbs never (very rarely?) goes for it. That's true of Gibbs I as well. He's always been that way. In the past it worked for whatever reason - more consistent offense, better defense, whatever. Now it doesn't.

That strategy has obviously contributed to several losses the last 4 years. He's finally starting to change a little - more passing, surprise onsides kick, no huddle. Maybe he'll come around on this as well. Time's running out though.