Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Good character players VS quality players- Which players are more important to have on the Redskins?

brandymac27

By brandymac27
in The Stadium

What do you think of the new site?  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of the new site?

    • Amazing
      30
    • Cool
      24
    • Could be better
      5
    • A letdown
      5

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

brandymac27

brandymac27

Posted
Posted

I know we've all debated over whether certain players should ever become a Redskin, and I hear a lot of "heck no, he's a cancer" or "yeah, he's a great locker room guy". I'm wondering, in the grand scheme of things, which player is more important to have on the team long term?

I mean, let's take T.O, Ocho Cinco (when they were in their primes), and a guy like Michael Vick (or any other player that has "cancerous" reputation). Would it have been beneficial to the Redskins to pick these guys up in FA, even though they don't fit the "Gibb's character guy" type of mold (as an example of what we consider good character guys)? Would we be farther along now, had we not worried about character as opposed to the output they provide on the field?

And do you think good coaching can help a player's bad attitude/character? For example, do you think a coach like Gibbs or Mike S. could have changed certain cancerous players into good attitude, team first guys?

And overall, do you think our "cancerous" players are as bad as others in the league? Personally, I don't. I mean, we've had our share of "me first" guys and what not, but I don't think any of our "cancers" have compared to some of the others in the league.

So, what do you think? Should we value quality output higher than character, and bring guys in even if they have shaky reputations? Could this help our team become competitive again? Maybe good coaching can help improve their attitude?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
B&GVol24

B&GVol24

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure the poll is consistent with the question in the OP.

Are "quality" and "character" mutually exclusive? What about guys like Kerrigan? Or Fletch? For one to be "quality", does this mean they lack "character"? (Just playing devil's advocate here, brandy :))

But regarding the main question in the OP (at least as I interpret it) as to whether or not to take risks on questionable or "low-character" guys, I think it should probably be a case-by-case basis. While some guys just have a few slip ups, some are obviously bad seeds that I wouldn't want on the team, especially during a rebuild or "cleansing" phase. But sure, I think some players could behave and stay out of trouble given the right direction and coaching staff.

For example, I'd be more inclined to take a chance on a guy that's a little "out there" like Brandon Marshall than a guy who's just a thug like Pac-man Jones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sportjunkie07

sportjunkie07

Posted
Posted

well i think its safe to assume that most teams, even ours, are going to have a mix of the two.. everyone makes mistakes and "cancerous" labels given by the media are not always as they seem.

when choosing between 2 players though, im gonna err on the side of the character guy unless there is a big talent disparity.

i dont think we are in a position to have guys with major character issues atm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brandymac27

brandymac27

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I'm not sure the poll is consistent with the question in the OP.

Are "quality" and "character" mutually exclusive? What about guys like Kerrigan? Or Fletch? For one to be "quality", does this mean they lack "character"? (Just playing devil's advocate here, brandy :))

But regarding the main question in the OP (at least as I interpret it) as to whether or not to take risks on questionable or "low-character" guys, I think it should probably be a case-by-case basis. While some guys just have a few slip ups, some are obviously bad seeds that I wouldn't want on the team, especially during a rebuild or "cleansing" phase. But sure, I think some players could behave and stay out of trouble given the right direction and coaching staff.

For example, I'd be more inclined to take a chance on a guy that's a little "out there" like Brandon Marshall than a guy who's just a thug like Pac-man Jones.

Yeah, I agree I worded the poll/OP a little funny. To me a guy like Fletcher is both a good character guy and is a high quality player. I'm not talking about guys like that. I'm basically assuming that we'd have to pick one characteristic over the over when signing/drafting a player.

As an example: would you rather have a running back (player X) with the exact same personality/character as Big Al who consistently rushes for over 100 plus yards every game, OR would you rather have a guy (player Y) who is equivalent in quality/talent to L. Betts (when he was here) who has the character/personality of London Fletcher?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thebluefood

thebluefood

Posted
Posted

I think you have to have a mix of the two, but most important is having a solid coach who not only knows the X's and O's, but is a (unofficial) shrink. If you don't have a coach that can handle a mix of personalities, it doesn't matter how talented folks are. You're not going anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FrFan

FrFan

Posted
Posted

We need both, I don't think you can build a great team without one of them. The good character guys can have a positive influence on the quality players, and vice versa. Fletch being the epitome of these values in one single player. We are very fortunate to have him, and as I said in another post I wish we will sign him as our linebackers coach as soon as he retires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

You want the vast majoroity of players on your team to be "good" character guys. Guys who train, work with the coaches, and have a strong work ethic. You can survive having a few prima donas or idiots who are hyper talented, but idiots. If anything, the Redskins of the Cerrato years have shown us that talent alone doesn't buy you wins. We had some extremely talented teams (on paper) and were too often a losing or average team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KDawg

KDawg

Posted
Posted
At times it feels a bit incongruous to so strongly value high standards of character on the team, but in a forum where those standards seem, shall we say, pretty flexible among the membership :pfft: .

Is this english? I think my head just exploded. :ols:

Incongruous threw me for a real tizzy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Commander PK

Commander PK

Posted
Posted

I want quality players WITH good character. I don't think you have to sacrifice one or the other. I think there are plenty of players that qualify as having both talent and heart. Of course, there are always different personality types, and sometimes a guy for whatever reason just doesn't fit in with the dynamic of your locker room, or your leadership from the coaches down. As long as the guy doesn't become a distraction or detrimental to the morale of the team, you can work with him. Sometimes people have to adapt to one another for the betterment of the whole. Seeing the big picture if you will.

and then you get guys like Haynesworth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pwyl

Pwyl

Posted
Posted

I think there's a minimum character threshold that needs to be met, and then after that you would decide on a case-by-case basis.

For me the minimum would be enough character that on-field production isn't inhibited, whether it's off-field antics resulting in suspensions etc.(pac man jones, vince young) or bad work habits (devin thomas).

All three of those guys had the physical talent to excel, but their poor character caused them to not be able to implement it on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dirt

Dirt

Posted
Posted

I think it's important to establish the culture first; good character guys even if they're lacking in talent, until you have a team with nothing but that. Then when new guys, or talented FAs come in, they should get a quick impression that everyone has each other's back, and if you're not with that you won't last long on the team, whether you're a maybe-hall-of-famer(donnyvan) or the highest paid guy(turd butler hayensworth)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted

I don't care, because Shallen has proven a pattern of getting rid of players who's character issues hurt the team. Haynesworth, Portis, Rodgers.

Even though players like Banks and Hall are still in on the roster, I feel like those issues are being handled internally and their talent out weighs whatever detriment the coaches feel they're possibly having. Fans have their own opinions, but I trust this coaching staffs perspective of what's really going on.

We aren't afraid to get rid of anyone, so again, I don't care...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinny21

skinny21

Posted
Posted
I don't care, because Shallen has proven a pattern of getting rid of players who's character issues hurt the team. Haynesworth, Portis, Rodgers.

Even though players like Banks and Hall are still in on the roster, I feel like those issues are being handled internally and their talent out weighs whatever detriment the coaches feel they're possibly having. Fans have their own opinions, but I trust this coaching staffs perspective of what's really going on.

We aren't afraid to get rid of anyone, so again, I don't care...

Yep. As long as a player gives good effort in games as well as practice, no problem. Its good to have a core of high character guys (especially vets) at the foundation, but anyone brought in with character issues will be dealt with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jflow78

jflow78

Posted
Posted

I want good character, but it DOES depend on the definition of "good character". If a guy is a great hard worker and teammate and plays hard, and doesn't get into any big off-the-field issues, then that's "good character" to me.

If he's a lazy slob and doesn't have any off-the-field issues, he's not good character IMO, because he's robbing his boss, teammates, and coaches. If you have no interesting in working in the NFL, you shouldn't PLAY in the NFL.

---------- Post added November-24th-2011 at 02:10 AM ----------

Good Character doesnt win football games.

Tell that to the Packers. They are very honest about their desire to have great character players and part of the reason they have guys go down with injury and don't miss a beat is because they have backups that are working their ***** off, rather than partying every night.

---------- Post added November-24th-2011 at 02:11 AM ----------

I want quality players WITH good character. I don't think you have to sacrifice one or the other. I think there are plenty of players that qualify as having both talent and heart. Of course, there are always different personality types, and sometimes a guy for whatever reason just doesn't fit in with the dynamic of your locker room, or your leadership from the coaches down. As long as the guy doesn't become a distraction or detrimental to the morale of the team, you can work with him. Sometimes people have to adapt to one another for the betterment of the whole. Seeing the big picture if you will.

and then you get guys like Haynesworth.

Perfectly said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...