Chief skin Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 management and ownership are the keys to the nightmare we are living, he got that right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikie Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 :violin:SB teams can have cancers and distractions too. And NON-SB teams can be teams that DO NOT HAVE CANCERS too. I was thinking about that after CP's comment's this week, cause I'm convinced we will never be a serious contender with the likes of portis in our locker room, and while I can't argue other teams haven't dealt with distractions, I respectfully believe that the distractors (irving & taylor) were ultimately TEAM players, rather than selfish prima donna's like I consider CP.. they wanted the lombardi, not the rushing title or elite individual status... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUforREDSKINS Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 At least he gave Fletcher his props. I agree that we would be 4-12 or worse without Fletcher. He is easily twice as important as CP is. I like CP and all, he is a warrior and a good back, but I would take at least 5 other backs in the nfl over CP and three of them on other teams in the NFCE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackdaddydean Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 LOSE is spelled with one O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal2Washington Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 :violin:If it looks like a double standard, and quacks like a double standard....Ima call it a double standard. What you're telling me is that its Okay for Riggins and Clark to whine and complain and pull off stunts and tricks because they still won SBs, but its not okay for Moss and Portis because they haven't won a SB. The Cowboys won SBs too, are you saying that Irvin wasn't a cancer or a distraction? What about Leon Lett. According to you and many of the Riggins defenders, because they still won, it doesn't matter. SB teams can have cancers and distractions too. And NON-SB teams can be teams that DO NOT HAVE CANCERS too. And for the record (and everybody who's criticizing me), I do not have a problem with Riggins's missing practices and walking out on his coach, showing up drunk, etc...I think its part of what makes him unique. Same way I loved seeing Clark screaming for the ball and being his normal self, because it was part of what gave our team an identity. I'm not saying that either of them was a distraction or a cancer. But I am using them as an example to show that there are many characters and personalities on a football team. Not everybody is gonna have a Barry Sanders (hand the ball to the ref) or an Art Monk (keep ya mouf shut) attitude. As long as what's happening is inspiring the team, I'm cool with it - the same way Lawrence Taylor (another SB winner) would take a personal foul penalty to intimidate the other teams. Save your violin captain 1998 because again you just don't get it. Until this group of over rated players win consistantly you are fighting a losing battle. You can buy all the Moss and Portis jersey's you want, they are still not that good. Let me throw you a bone again, cancer is a bad thing, that until the advance of medical technology would break down the host body until that person died. Cancer is a evil destructive force. So if a team wins and gets better then that would mean there is no cancer, how do you win if the team is slowly dying. No team implosion and constantly winning equals cancer free, see how that works, good I knew you'd get it. Riggins, Irvin, LT, Lett and others my have had there off field issues, and in some cases demons, but the other 52 teammates of those players knew they would be there on Sunday and do whatever it takes to win. Terrell Owens is a classic team cancer, his type of antics divide a locker room and cost coaches jobs, Riggins just won baby and won big. Also be a little more clearer when using the words cancer and distractions. John Elway possibly retiring was a distraction not cancer for the 98 Broncos, again see how that works and I tied that to my opening comment. I do agree that losing teams do not always have "cancer" type players, in that case they just aren't that good and still need to be replaced. In short yes it is perfectly fine to have a ton of different characters on a team as long as they win. Isn't winning all that really matters in the NFL? Winning my friend is the difference between minor microscopic distractions and being a team cancer, in case you haven't figured it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Lets see, 43 yards per quarter....thats 172 yards per game172 times 16 = 2752. Please show me a WR who's averaging 2752 yards per season? I don't think that number has ever been approached, let alone averaged. So I guess according to you, there has never been a REAL #1 in the NFL. :doh: well it is was only 8 games, and even if they average that in a half which i would bet players like Andre Johnson could do, the point is in the games we need him he isn't there Santana is a slot WR thats all, he is not consistent and not a #1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobigred Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 Wow did not look at overall stats sonds to me Moss needs to sit a while and let someone else get some play.I think he needs some motivation. Maybe that is why he was playing secondary reciever and returning punts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobigred Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 :violin:If it looks like a double standard, and quacks like a double standard....Ima call it a double standard. What you're telling me is that its Okay for Riggins and Clark to whine and complain and pull off stunts and tricks because they still won SBs, but its not okay for Moss and Portis because they haven't won a SB. The Cowboys won SBs too, are you saying that Irvin wasn't a cancer or a distraction? What about Leon Lett. According to you and many of the Riggins defenders, because they still won, it doesn't matter. SB teams can have cancers and distractions too. And NON-SB teams can be teams that DO NOT HAVE CANCERS too. And for the record (and everybody who's criticizing me), I do not have a problem with Riggins's missing practices and walking out on his coach, showing up drunk, etc...I think its part of what makes him unique. Same way I loved seeing Clark screaming for the ball and being his normal self, because it was part of what gave our team an identity. I'm not saying that either of them was a distraction or a cancer. But I am using them as an example to show that there are many characters and personalities on a football team. Not everybody is gonna have a Barry Sanders (hand the ball to the ref) or an Art Monk (keep ya mouf shut) attitude. As long as what's happening is inspiring the team, I'm cool with it - the same way Lawrence Taylor (another SB winner) would take a personal foul penalty to intimidate the other teams. I understand your point. I think the problems are not just player issue on the field but more issue in the locker room that is affecting the entire team. I think that was what Riggins really was concerned about as well as the OL, and DL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullnelson9999 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 "I'm bored, I'm broke, and I'm back." Sorry Johnny Boy, but im having a little problem taking you seriously on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flycoach Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Riggins opinions are sometimes so far out in left field (Moss is the problem in the locker room. How the heck would HE know that?) that when he makes salient points (Jansen being old, for example) it's hard for me to take him seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Prime Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Riggins as good a player as he was.. Is a complete and utter tool on the radio.. I love the guy and I appreciate what he did on the field, but he's too busy trying to act cool or cute to be take seriously. Whenever he has a good point, it's by accident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Enforcer Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Riggins has always been hard on Moss and Portis and I am not really sure why. With Portis I think it is his way with the media but Moss I am not sure because he doesn't really talk with the media except for Kelly Johnson on the post game once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Save your violin captain 1998 because again you just don't get it. Until this group of over rated players win consistantly you are fighting a losing battle. You can buy all the Moss and Portis jersey's you want, they are still not that good. Let me throw you a bone again, cancer is a bad thing, that until the advance of medical technology would break down the host body until that person died. Cancer is a evil destructive force. So if a team wins and gets better then that would mean there is no cancer, how do you win if the team is slowly dying. No team implosion and constantly winning equals cancer free, see how that works, good I knew you'd get it. Riggins, Irvin, LT, Lett and others my have had there off field issues, and in some cases demons, but the other 52 teammates of those players knew they would be there on Sunday and do whatever it takes to win. Terrell Owens is a classic team cancer, his type of antics divide a locker room and cost coaches jobs, Riggins just won baby and won big. Also be a little more clearer when using the words cancer and distractions. John Elway possibly retiring was a distraction not cancer for the 98 Broncos, again see how that works and I tied that to my opening comment. I do agree that losing teams do not always have "cancer" type players, in that case they just aren't that good and still need to be replaced. In short yes it is perfectly fine to have a ton of different characters on a team as long as they win. Isn't winning all that really matters in the NFL? Winning my friend is the difference between minor microscopic distractions and being a team cancer, in case you haven't figured it out. OK, this is really getting off the topic of sports, but I'll entertain you. I hope you're not trying to imply that nobody thats been diagnosed with cancer can accomplish anything great, cause I'd have to disagree. - One of my best friends just got her Ph.D. AFTER she was diagnosed with BREAST CANCER. - Lance Armstrong is a guy that was diagnosed with CANCER and went on to continue to dominate the Tour de France amongst other competitions. Maybe you'll disagree with doctors and call these things "distractions", but well educated doctors (likely with more degrees in medicine than most people on this board combined) called these instances of CANCER, yet the people who were diagnosed were able to achieve success. Or maybe you are going to say that these things were not success. I don't know your point, but I don't think I agree with you that just the instance of cancer means that a team cannot be a winner, and I stand by the examples of Leon Lett and Michael Irvin amongst others (I find it odd that a REDSKINS FAN would say that Irvin was not a team cancer, but I digress). The way I see it, some teams are just that talented that they are able to rise above the cancer and the distractions on their teams. Some teams are actually inspired to rise above the cancers on their teams and become determined NOT TO LET IT BE A DISTRACTION - at least during a brief playoff run. Would you say that the Raiders team of 83 with some of the that doped up on Steroids had cancers? I'll even add that Deion Sanders is a guy that was known for his end Zone celebrations, and he won 3 championships. According to Riggins, "Prime Time" is a cancer too. According to you, he's a distraction. But in the end, whether you agree with me or not, its all word play. If you want to make a big difference between a 'distraction' and a 'cancer', then you can go right ahead. My point remains the same, that Riggo and Clark were neither. They were CHARACTERS, and these CHARACTERS - along with the dominance of the Hogs, the humility of Darrell Green and Art Monk, the wisdom of Gibbs, the ongoing splits with the Cowboys, etc. made up a team personality that many fans across the nation fell in love with. I see the same things with Clinton Portis and Santana Moss (and Chris Cooley, funny that he's not mentioned in most of these "get rid of ___" posts). These are some talented players who give their all on Sundays and each are their own character that does its part to give the team a personality. The reason we're not winning super bowls is because we have yet to find a coach with the wisdom of Gibbs I to come along and rally the troops back into a winning position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I understand your point. I think the problems are not just player issue on the field but more issue in the locker room that is affecting the entire team. I think that was what Riggins really was concerned about as well as the OL, and DL I don't have a problem with that. But the thing is that unless Riggins names names, then he's no better than a JLC - going around spreading roomers about locker room division that may or may not exist - and thats why I call him a hater. To me Riggins is now a media personality. His job is to talk about the news, and when there is no news, he will create news to fill air time on his shows. I find it so freakin funny that in 2007, Riggo was on his show on 92.7 talking about how much better of a QB Jason Campbell was than Eli Manning. Then all of a sudden in 2008, Riggo has seen the light and is talking about "Campbell doesn't have this", "Campbell doesn't have that", etc. He's not 'reporting' the news, he's creating news. Case and point: If the title of this thread had been "Somebody on Sirius thinks Moss is a cancer", this story wouldn't have gotten half the responses. The idea of Moss being a cancer/distraction has been discussed at length, and so it would have garnered a few new people into the discussion and then died off, as most of these do. But the thing is that we have "Riggo called out Moss". And that causes a 'divide' in Redskins nation because many fans think they have to choose sides between Moss and Riggo. I don't think I need to. I say if you look closely at the Riggo of then and the Moss of now (or the CP of now), then you see the same thing, people who were CHARACTERS on a team. Maybe Moss is dividing the locker room, but no more than Riggins's schenanigans divided the team in the 70s and 80s. And thats why I say its a double standard to expect everybody to be a Darrell Green or Art Monk when it comes to humility. It'd be one thing if DG or AM said it, but when the guy saying it WAS A CHARACTER HIMSELF, I call that a double standard. And just like I argued that Gary Clark was the best WR in the NFL in the 80s and 90s, I'm going to argue that CP, Moss, and Cooley are some of the better players in this league right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal2Washington Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 OK, this is really getting off the topic of sports, but I'll entertain you. I hope you're not trying to imply that nobody thats been diagnosed with cancer can accomplish anything great, cause I'd have to disagree. - One of my best friends just got her Ph.D. AFTER she was diagnosed with BREAST CANCER. - Lance Armstrong is a guy that was diagnosed with CANCER and went on to continue to dominate the Tour de France amongst other competitions. Maybe you'll disagree with doctors and call these things "distractions", but well educated doctors (likely with more degrees in medicine than most people on this board combined) called these instances of CANCER, yet the people who were diagnosed were able to achieve success. Or maybe you are going to say that these things were not success. I don't know your point, but I don't think I agree with you that just the instance of cancer means that a team cannot be a winner, and I stand by the examples of Leon Lett and Michael Irvin amongst others (I find it odd that a REDSKINS FAN would say that Irvin was not a team cancer, but I digress). The way I see it, some teams are just that talented that they are able to rise above the cancer and the distractions on their teams. Some teams are actually inspired to rise above the cancers on their teams and become determined NOT TO LET IT BE A DISTRACTION - at least during a brief playoff run. Would you say that the Raiders team of 83 with some of the that doped up on Steroids had cancers? I'll even add that Deion Sanders is a guy that was known for his end Zone celebrations, and he won 3 championships. According to Riggins, "Prime Time" is a cancer too. According to you, he's a distraction. But in the end, whether you agree with me or not, its all word play. If you want to make a big difference between a 'distraction' and a 'cancer', then you can go right ahead. My point remains the same, that Riggo and Clark were neither. They were CHARACTERS, and these CHARACTERS - along with the dominance of the Hogs, the humility of Darrell Green and Art Monk, the wisdom of Gibbs, the ongoing splits with the Cowboys, etc. made up a team personality that many fans across the nation fell in love with. I see the same things with Clinton Portis and Santana Moss (and Chris Cooley, funny that he's not mentioned in most of these "get rid of ___" posts). These are some talented players who give their all on Sundays and each are their own character that does its part to give the team a personality. The reason we're not winning super bowls is because we have yet to find a coach with the wisdom of Gibbs I to come along and rally the troops back into a winning position. Please re-read my post, see that little disclaimer I put in there that said "before the advance of medical technology"? Didn't think so, so next time try to respond to the actual post not your version of the post. Your posts show how much of a waste a time it is to respond to someone that just doesn't get it. It's posters like you that do not take the time to fully read and understand the entire post that make the quailty of conversation and debate poor. As for the rest of your post it's just a futile attempt at this point to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WigSkin Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Maybe Riggo understands that being controversial is a sure fire way to staying in the public eye? so he says these things to get people yapping about him and how he's hard on the 'Skins, after all the media and fans lap it up; ensuring he stays in the limelight. Maybe he just doesn't like certain players and the way they conduct themselves; maybe he's jealous or maybe he's smarter than the rest of us as we all offer our opinions for zip whilst he gets paid to stir it up a little? None of us know for sure, but anyone who knows JR will take much of what he says with a pinch of salt. He is one crazy cat, always was and always will be. Personally I don't agree with much of what he says but I still have a chuckle when I hear/read it and I figure if anyone has earned the right to talk trash it's Riggins and I bet if you spoke to him he'd be aware of the irony of some of his comments. If you don't like it, ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Acre Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I forget, did Jim Riggins play with Scott Brunell or Santonio Randle-El? LOL, he played with Billy Kilmer and Danny Buggs! (I found my 1978 Skins press guide and wow is it a trip back down memory lane.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin49 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 EXACTLY.Maybe some people should start taking Riggins a bit more seriously. :2cents: I'm the biggest Riggins fan in the world. He's just as frustrated as everyone else . I've actually heard better suggestions from people on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papabear Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I'm the biggest Riggins fan in the world. He's just as frustrated as everyone else . I've actually heard better suggestions from people on this site. I understand, but my point is maybe people shouldnt stick up for the players so much just because they wear a Redskins jersey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebowski Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Riggins is an authority on locker room character now? What's next, Deon going to criticize corners for not tackling? Riggins has turned into a joke. Too bad too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spade Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Riggins is an authority on locker room character now? What's next, Deon going to criticize corners for not tackling?Riggins has turned into a joke. Too bad too. I think Riggins wants to run the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.