Commander PK Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 You would think the answer to this question is obvious, but the more I listen to Redskins fans on this website and out in public, the more I am convinced that some are more fans of certain players on the Redskins, then the team itself. Going all the way back to Haynesworth early on, McNabb during the season, and now all the players in question that may not be back next season for not fitting the defensive scheme, like Rocky McIntosh, or Andre Carter. I am a fan of the Washington Redskins. Yes, the players are the team, but no player is bigger then the team. Individuals can be replaced. The biggest mistake anybody ever makes is assuming that there is nobody else that can do their job. Some fans seem hell bent on defending a player no matter what his offense, or how detrimental his behavior to the team. I don't care which players the Redskins decide to part ways with this off-season. Any moves of that nature will have been judged to be in the best interest of the organization long-term by our professional front office and coaching staff. For example, If a "fan favorite" like Cooley was traded for draft picks, personally I would not shed one tear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston2Taylor2Landry Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I agree that no player is bigger than the Team...but If Chris Cooley was traded I would be disappointed. Cooley is the perfect player to have on your team. He loves the team just as much as the fans. He doesn't put the blame on others and he isn't playing for the Paycheck. It's not a case of him being like Rock Cartwright and we should keep him around just because he loves the team and plays with passion...Cooley does that and is one of the best TE in the league. To not be disappointed that he left the Redskins just baffles me as a life long Redskins fan (not questioning your fandom). I hope Cooley, Moss, and Portis all return to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 No retread coach is bigger than the team either. With the recent Davis incident at a club trading Cooley which would further weaken the team on offense and all to get what a 3rd rounder with two potential holes at TE to fill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Adama Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Unabashedly, unequivocally NO. ---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 07:02 PM ---------- No retread coach is bigger than the team either. But when the team is supposed to be his...Now if this "retread" coach was running the club into the ground, I would agree with you, but he is not. He is unifying the team, and pointing them in the right direction. Players think so too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Yes. we just dont have any players that warrant that respect. If we had a Brady, or Manning, you cater to all their needs and the players in the lockeroom know that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vnmenon1 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I agree no player is greater than the team................. People need to realize.. no COACH or GM is greater than the team either............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahons21 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 People need to realize.. no COACH or GM is greater than the team either............ People also need to realize it's coaches and GM's that run the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirt Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Of course not, and the Pats and Colts are the best examples of this. There's 'nobodys' on those teams having huge years. Good teams make good players, and it starts with the coach. We're already seeing this in Washington. Who the hell is Anthony Armstrong? Who the hell is Ryan Torain? As soon as the right QB is here, there's gonna be a lot of 'who the hell is that' guys. Same on defense, as soon as this 3-4 thing gets going, but don't hold you breath on that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildbill1952 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 People also need to realize it's coaches and GM's that run the team.Well said. Which was why the team was so dysfunctional when certain players could bypass the coaches and appeal to the owner. In truth, the owner is also not bigger than the team, and he should run the team accordingly.A lot of people see Shanhan as arrogant. He came into a situation where discipline was non-existent, exemplified by Fat Albert. Fining someone for being late to team meetings, forcing him to play for the money he was paid, and then suspending him when he failed to cooperate are signs of good management, not arrogance. It would seem Shanny agrees with the sentiment of this poll: i.e. no player is above the team. And neither is the owner or the coach. But someone has to be the boss, Without it, you have anarchy. Like it or not, Shanny is the boss. It's as it should be. It's time the guys in the asylum have to know who calls the shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirt Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 People need to realize.. no COACH or GM is greater than the team either............ I would have to disagree 100%. The coach is nothing without his team's success, and too many people think Shanny's just looking out for himself or something. Too big an ego or whatever. He's making decisions based on whats best for the team, not what makes him feel better. Obviously, he's not doing things to make HIMSELF look better, everyone's been laughing at him. This should make it very obvious that the coach is putting his team first. Actually, what would come second anyway? Also another example of how far too many people don't understand the boss/employee relationship. To be 'matter of fact' about it, yes he is greater than the team, he's the boss. When was the last player-driven team to win a superbowl. When was there such a thing as a player-driven team anyway? The whole thing is a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPG Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 People also need to realize it's coaches and GM's that run the team. lol.True words right there. Shanny is been given the reigns. He will be judged by the success of HIS team. No player is greater than the team. But I think the $ in sports has made this irrelevent at times. When I playedboys club football..One year there were too many kids that came out 1year. Our city had to make two teams. I played QB. The coaches son played QB. I got put on the scrub team with a new coach. I learned that year what coming together as a team meant. The coach used that as fuel and we always gave are all. We ended up with a better record and beat up on the more talented players team in a scrimmage.Of course I thinkI had something to do with it lol but we played as a team more the the other team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Of course not, and the Pats and Colts are the best examples of this. There's 'nobodys' on those teams having huge years. Good teams make good players, and it starts with the coach. Now see, this is where you get into dangerous territory. For the Pats and Colts, the team is more important than 52 guys. But without Brady and Manning, the Pats and Colts would go from the perennial contenders they are now to the afterthoughts of the NFL they were 15 years ago. Yes, the team did fine without Brady, but they still missed the playoffs the year he was hurt, and Cassell has proven to be a good QB outside of the NE system where (almost) every player is interchangable. But if you take Peyton Manning away from the Colts, they are nothing. The Steelers are the same way with Polamalu. They went 3-1 to start the year without Ben, including handing Atlanta one of their 3 losses this year with their 3rd string QB starting. But they're somthing like 5-8 in the last 2 years when Polamaul is out. Matt Ryan has led the Falcons to a record of what, 18-2 at home, or something ungodly like that? Imagine the Saints without Drew Brees, and you're probably imagining something resembling the old Aints. Now for the Redskins...there is nobody on this team that's on that level, at least not yet. I love Cooley, but he is still only a TE and can only do so much. The unfortunate truth is that once in a while, you do indeed get a player who may in fact be bigger than the team as a whole, but that's a rare player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirt Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Now see, this is where you get into dangerous territory. For the Pats and Colts, the team is more important than 52 guys. But without Brady and Manning, the Pats and Colts would go from the perennial contenders they are now to the afterthoughts of the NFL they were 15 years ago. Yes, the team did fine without Brady, but they still missed the playoffs the year he was hurt, and Cassell has proven to be a good QB outside of the NE system where (almost) every player is interchangable. But if you take Peyton Manning away from the Colts, they are nothing. The Steelers are the same way with Polamalu. They went 3-1 to start the year without Ben, including handing Atlanta one of their 3 losses this year with their 3rd string QB starting. But they're somthing like 5-8 in the last 2 years when Polamaul is out. Matt Ryan has led the Falcons to a record of what, 18-2 at home, or something ungodly like that? Imagine the Saints without Drew Brees, and you're probably imagining something resembling the old Aints.Now for the Redskins...there is nobody on this team that's on that level, at least not yet. I love Cooley, but he is still only a TE and can only do so much. The unfortunate truth is that once in a while, you do indeed get a player who may in fact be bigger than the team as a whole, but that's a rare player. That is crazy about Polamalu I'll admit. But I guess what I meant was those perennial contender-teams are very well coached, with a lot of stability in the locker room. Sure, Brady and Manning take them from good to great, but none of it would have worked at all if the "team itself" wasn't already in good shape. You can't just put Brady or Manning on any team and expect that team to be as good as the Colts or Pats. They would take a team from bad to good, but the "team itself" has to be good, talented, and stable to be great, therefore - team greater than the player, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 while i agree that no player is more important than the team ... i think many of us are delusional about what some of these guys trade values actually are. it doesnt matter how great the player is... he comes from a losing organization. dont think for one minute that doesnt come into account. i think talks of trading Cooley or Moss etc are crazy because i think that their worth is greater on our field than any compensation we may garner in trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tibbidoe Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 No player is bigger than the team. Ever. The Manning/Brady talk has some merit, but not a lot I don't think. The Colts existed long before Manning came along, and will (likely) be there long after he's gone. It's the same for every player who has taken the field for any team. Truly great players may have more impact/influence on the choices and moves made by their front office guys, but at the end of the day, it's all about the team. Without the Colts, there is no "4-time league MVP Peyton Manning". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 For me, I don't want "star" players in Washington, or media whores. I want players that are team oriented, and low-key. I want what New England has, with the exception of Brady. A team of relative no names, that know their roles and perform accordingly. They become great as individuals, through the team becoming great, and their success as individuals is tied to the team's success overall. ---------- Post added January-7th-2011 at 01:58 AM ---------- To not be disappointed that he left the Redskins just baffles me as a life long Redskins fan (not questioning your fandom). I hope Cooley, Moss, and Portis all return to be honest. I like Chris Cooley, don't get me wrong. He has been a great player for the Washington Redskins, but if the coaching staff thought that trading him away for more pressing needs was more important then him remaining on the team, so be it, and that goes for anybody else. I have put complete faith as a fan, in Shanahan and Allen to right this ship. For what it's worth as a fan, I will support 100% any moves they make. This organization was completely broken before their arrival, and anybody not seeing the progress that has been made this season (in every way except the final record) is just ignoring reality. There will be sacrificial lambs during this transitional period of the Redskins, but I believe those changes will be worth it in the end. Some people don't like hearing this, but I will continue pounding the drum ad nauseum. Mike Shanahan has shown me this season that he is the perfect coach for this town. As a new leader, you have to start out being a no nonsense disciplinarian first, when the chief problem before your arrival was the lack of discipline. You can't do it the other way around, or you never establish consistency and a standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. One no for every year that we tried to live the "the individual player is more important than the team" philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 In football, no way. You could make a case for guys like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, but in the end, they still need guys to hand the ball off to or throw to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Well said. Which was why the team was so dysfunctional when certain players could bypass the coaches and appeal to the owner. In truth, the owner is also not bigger than the team, and he should run the team accordingly. The ultimate point, everyone within the organization should and has to be on the same page in terms of putting the needs and success of the team ahead of anything else. It starts at the top and needs to be a consistent attitude and tone all the way down. I agree that right now Shanahan is the man we need more than any other available, but that is one man and we need to see his attitude towards the team's goals throughout the entire franchise. It isn't just as simple as saying "Sure, I want to win", it is about your answer when asked "What will you sacrifice in order to win?" Pride? Ego? Public opinion? Your "image" in the media? All those things have been "well not that" answers in recent years, even if no one was willing to admit it on the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.