NoCalMike Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 2-0 is what it is. No better no worse. I am not expecting anyone in the media to say the Redskins are playoff bound or anything of that sort. However.... Considering how bad most media outlets predicted the 2011 Redskins to be, I find it kind of ridiculous that our 2-0 start is being judged based on whether they think it will lead to us being a contender. The bottom line is the 'Skins "success" or "failure" really shouldn't be judged in 2011 on whether they are a contender or not, that isn't where a Year 2 rebuilding team is ever projected to be unless they somehow get some lucky bounces. Since the media mostly predicted the Redskins to be anywhere from 2-14 to about 7-9, I'd say anything better than that, and the media should be calling this season a success for this franchise. That doesn't mean we as fans should be happy if we finish .500, of course we want our team in the playoffs, but in the context of turning a franchise around, most media thinks we went backwards this season, not forward, so the "moving forward" part should be what constitutes "success" for 2011. Instead we are suddenly being called "Pretenders" when it isn't any of us doing the pretending in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsrbeast Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 way too early to judge anything we beat two average opponents (the beat up Giants and the Cardinals). Also, the first half of our schedule is relatively "easy." If this continues late in the year we will get respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml6157 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I dont want respect. I dont want hype. Let them keep saying its a fluke. The players dont buy it and thats all that matters. Id rather keep winning games we shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2v2nv Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 The bottom line is the 'Skins "success" or "failure" really shouldn't be judged in 2011 on whether they are a contender or not, that isn't where a Year 2 rebuilding team is ever projected to be unless they somehow get some lucky bounces. I agree but I definitely think the Skins success or failure shouldn't be judged in the first 2 games. I don't get the term "pretenders." How is winning pretending? Pretending is being fake. How real can we make it when we win? What else is there to do? Now I know they are referring to us losing in the future but how can anyone predict that? It just shows their bias and swing towards the mainstream. Its easy to join the "in" crowd. I just know that the first game we lose, the media is going to destroy us. Yet the Cowboys and Eagles have 1 loss and you never year anything about it. These guys have proven more than we have but cmon, give us fans something to be proud of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 I didn't want to make a separate thread for this next complaint, so I will throw it in here.... RE: Injuries. Is it me or does ESPN use injuries as an excuse for teams only when it fits the narrative they already had come up with for a team before the season started. Example: 2011: Cowboys were expected to be really good, then they take some injuries, and suddenly everything bad happening is due to the injuries 2008: Redskins start 6-2, Portis is leading NFC rusher at that point. Then the O-line loses 3 starters and the team starts to decline. But that's ok because the media never expected the Redskins to be good in the first place so there is no need to even bring it up. In the modern day NFL with the salary cap, depth on teams will never be close to what it used to be, however it seems like the "injury excuse" is only harped on when it supports opinions about teams that had already been made. The main reason I say this is because our win over the Giants has already been said by some to be strictly due to NYG injuries, and then now they are saying the 'Skins are lucky due to Cowboys injury situation going into MNF. From where I am sitting, injuries are part of the game, they suck and no one wants to see 'em, but they happen. No one had any sympathy when a 6-2 Redskins team lost over half it's starting O-line and because of it went 2-6 to finish the season, so why should they spend every other segment of sportscenter talking about the Cowboys injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 When Snyder signed Deion Sanders the media picked the Redskins to go to the Super Bowl. Your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy614 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 You know what, winning changes everything. Let the Skins do something in the post season and then we'll start getting some respect. Until then, we really haven't earned anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 When Snyder signed Deion Sanders the media picked the Redskins to go to the Super Bowl.Your point? That probably had to do with coming off a Playoff season in 1999, one in which the team goes to NFC Championship if not for a bobbled field goal attempt. And it wasn't JUST Deion that they signed. Why was that pick so "out of this world" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Why was that pick so "out of this world" ? If we only had a crystal ball at the time It would have saved us from a decade of shame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 If we only had a crystal ball at the time It would have saved us from a decade of shame Oh yes...true that. I honestly think that the media thinks the 'Skins problems begin & end with Dan Snyder....and even though they won't say it publicly, I think they are taking a "not until you show us" approach, which is fine. I am not asking for 'Skins to be called a playoff contender at all. All I am saying is that if the media is picking us to be 2-14, or 4-12....then if we happen to finish say 8-8, then I would consider the season a success as long as we are showing signs of moving in the right direction. I think everything gets wrapped up into a box where either you are a playoff team or your franchise sucks, but not every team is in the position to make the playoffs, but that doesn't mean they aren't getting better and/or the season cannot be considered successful for where they are in the overall process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Oh yes...true that. I honestly think that the media thinks the 'Skins problems begin & end with Dan Snyder....and even though they won't say it publicly, I think they are taking a "not until you show us" approach, which is fine. I am not asking for 'Skins to be called a playoff contender at all. All I am saying is that if the media is picking us to be 2-14, or 4-12....then if we happen to finish say 8-8, then I would consider the season a success as long as we are showing signs of moving in the right direction.I think everything gets wrapped up into a box where either you are a playoff team or your franchise sucks, but not every team is in the position to make the playoffs, but that doesn't mean they aren't getting better and/or the season cannot be considered successful for where they are in the overall process. I think Snyder must have pissed off some media members outside of just the Washington Post losers. I mean, some in the media had us ranked as the WORST team in football in preseason power Rankings. If the media is too idiotic to take an honest assessment on that, then they are worthless. The Washington Post has become nothing more than a Snyder hate sports section. The editors and writers there should be embarrassed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_SKIN_OR_DIE Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I still have a bad taste in my mouth when we drafted D. Sanders and also McNugget (McNabb). I love my team. We need to game plan, stay focused, take one game at a time and stay healthy. Media will not give use our respect. They are waiting like the paparazzi to trash us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 The media isn't as biased as you think. They couldn't talk bad about us if we were winning. They talk bad about us because we have the second most resources and continued failures in management have kept us a sub 500 team. There's no excuse for our futility, therefore, we our disrespected. They have to kiss the butts of the good teams, they need someone to complain about. The Bills are a more Cinderella story and they've had better quarterback play. They're more of an underdog. I do agree with with your overall premise and an 8-8 season is a success. Any improvement is a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 Well yeah, I wouldn't say the media is biased specifically against the 'Skins, I would say they are biased going against what their narrative(s) is. If they picked certain teams to be good/bad, they will do everything they can to hold out and skew the coverage/conversation towards that until they are forced otherwise. Just look at the coverage with Romo sits to pee. When Romo sits to pee went down last season the Cowboys were 1-4. It wasn't like they were 4-0 and on a roll, yet the coverage in 2011 has been all about "Now that Romo sits to pee is back the Cowboys will be in charge" and now with the comeback vs. the 49ers some are suggesting that he has erased his errors from the past...based on a week 2 game in the regular season against the 49ers....Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyeG Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 You know what, winning changes everything. Let the Skins do something in the post season and then we'll start getting some respect. Until then, we really haven't earned anything. Then how do you explain their love for the pukes.......what the hell have they done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKIN4WAHOOZ Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 can i just say....WHO GIVES A $#!^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Then how do you explain their love for the pukes.......what the hell have they done? They are always going to hype up the Pukes because the imbecile fanbase loves it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy614 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Then how do you explain their love for the pukes.......what the hell have they done? They've sold lots of jerseys, pepsi's, and hype. That's what they have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKM311 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Why do you all care about the media? It really baffles me why people care so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinklein Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Agreed. However, two wins to open the season automatically turn our mindset from the big picture, and to what our immediate chances look like. Still, no one is expecting a Super Bowl, but with our weak schedule, we've likely already begun salivating at the prospect of a playoff birth. Long way to go. Long way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godfather151981 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I didn't want to make a separate thread for this next complaint, so I will throw it in here....RE: Injuries. Is it me or does ESPN use injuries as an excuse for teams only when it fits the narrative they already had come up with for a team before the season started. Example: 2011: Cowboys were expected to be really good, then they take some injuries, and suddenly everything bad happening is due to the injuries 2008: Redskins start 6-2, Portis is leading NFC rusher at that point. Then the O-line loses 3 starters and the team starts to decline. But that's ok because the media never expected the Redskins to be good in the first place so there is no need to even bring it up. In the modern day NFL with the salary cap, depth on teams will never be close to what it used to be, however it seems like the "injury excuse" is only harped on when it supports opinions about teams that had already been made. The main reason I say this is because our win over the Giants has already been said by some to be strictly due to NYG injuries, and then now they are saying the 'Skins are lucky due to Cowboys injury situation going into MNF. From where I am sitting, injuries are part of the game, they suck and no one wants to see 'em, but they happen. No one had any sympathy when a 6-2 Redskins team lost over half it's starting O-line and because of it went 2-6 to finish the season, so why should they spend every other segment of sportscenter talking about the Cowboys injuries. It's really sad how the media makes excuses for some teams. My personal opinion is that while everyone in every sport has injuries, some teams in some seasons are ravaged by them. When it's a team like the Redskins (not really media darlings), they spin it as a lack of organizational depth. When it's a team that's well thought of by the media, their attitude is they were ravaged by injuries, what really could they do? This year's Colts are a prime example. I'm a big Peyton Manning fan and so forth (even though I my Dad raised me to hate the Colts since they moved), however the fact is that the Colts are thought of as the good guys, perhaps as a result of the fact that Peyton's thought of as a good guy. What are they without him? The media in turn is accepting the fact that they're punting the season because Manning's not there. Never once have you heard them called into question for their organizational depth. The other side of that is that the Redskins are being in effect called out because they beat a team in the Giants that had huge holes in the secondary due to injuries, and then barely got by an Arizona team they should have beaten soundly. (Nevermind the fact that those kinds of close games are the games good teams win.) Now going into Dallas, the Cowboys are looking fairly banged up; they're already making excuses as to why the Redskins might beat them. With that said, there are a few media folks on a national scale that I feel have always been fair to the Redskins, one being Chris Berman. The same can be said of John Madden, and perhaps a few others. Just my opinion. (Berman seems very respectful of teams with old and legendary traditions such as the Redskins.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fieldy Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 It's really sad how the media makes excuses for some teams. My personal opinion is that while everyone in every sport has injuries, some teams in some seasons are ravaged by them. When it's a team like the Redskins (not really media darlings), they spin it as a lack of organizational depth. When it's a team that's well thought of by the media, their attitude is they were ravaged by injuries, what really could they do? This year's Colts are a prime example. I'm a big Peyton Manning fan and so forth (even though I my Dad raised me to hate the Colts since they moved), however the fact is that the Colts are thought of as the good guys, perhaps as a result of the fact that Peyton's thought of as a good guy. What are they without him? The media in turn is accepting the fact that they're punting the season because Manning's not there. Never once have you heard them called into question for their organizational depth. The other side of that is that the Redskins are being in effect called out because they beat a team in the Giants that had huge holes in the secondary due to injuries, and then barely got by an Arizona team they should have beaten soundly. (Nevermind the fact that those kinds of close games are the games good teams win.) Now going into Dallas, the Cowboys are looking fairly banged up; they're already making excuses as to why the Redskins might beat them.With that said, there are a few media folks on a national scale that I feel have always been fair to the Redskins, one being Chris Berman. The same can be said of John Madden, and perhaps a few others. Just my opinion. (Berman seems very respectful of teams with old and legendary traditions such as the Redskins.) I will agree with your premise for the most part except the part about the Colts. I have heard the Colts management called out several times for their lack of a backup plan in case Manning went down. I think this season is making the media see the Colts management ISN'T that great and that they lucked into Peyton who could go 12-4 with pee-wee wide receivers against the best defenses in the NFL. P.S. - I hate Peyton...his goofy grin and goody-two shoes look give me the heebie-jeebies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.