MusicCitySkin Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I've recently come across some scrutiny among another sports message board for supporting my Redskins in an argument with another poster. I had somewhat of a four-part argument. Point #1: The Redskins would become a contender if they had an elite QB. Point #2: The Redskins are no worse than the Seattle Seahawks. Point #3: Fred Davis is a better TE than Zach Miller. Point #4: The downfall of the Redskins 2011 season was due to inept QB play and turnovers. I pretty much got bombarded with posts calling me a homer. Was I being a homer? I personally didn't feel I was being unreasonable in my arguments. I even went far enough to provide proof of my claims. Would I still be considered a homer if I wasn't a Redskins fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Contend for Super Bowl? I think that's homer-ish. Contend for playoffs? I think almost any team that has an elite QB is a contender in that instance, so not a homer point. As to Davis/Miller, I think they're both 2nd tier TEs, so if he is better, it's not that he's an elite talent. Yet, anyway. Your fourth point probably could be attributed to many teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 You should have simply told them: "How am I a homer? I mean, we beat a team in this year's Super Bowl not once, but twice. And we blew them out both games". So obviously, we proved we could play with anyone. QB and turnovers were definitely the biggest reasons for holding us back. I would also throw in poor WR play. Our WR's had to be among the worst in the NFL (talent-wise) this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I've recently come across some scrutiny among another sports message board for supporting my Redskins in an argument with another poster. I had somewhat of a four-part argument.Point #1: The Redskins would become a contender if they had an elite QB. Point #2: The Redskins are no worse than the Seattle Seahawks. Point #3: Fred Davis is a better TE than Zach Miller. Point #4: The downfall of the Redskins 2011 season was due to inept QB play and turnovers. I pretty much got bombarded with posts calling me a homer. Was I being a homer? I personally didn't feel I was being unreasonable in my arguments. I even went far enough to provide proof of my claims. Would I still be considered a homer if I wasn't a Redskins fan? You're dealing with Seattle fans. They trashed (not all of them) Sean Taylor. Screw em'. Contend for Super Bowl? I think that's homer-ish. Contend for playoffs? I think almost any team that has an elite QB is a contender in that instance, so not a homer point. As to Davis/Miller, I think they're both 2nd tier TEs, so if he is better, it's not that he's an elite talent. Yet, anyway. Your fourth point probably could be attributed to many teams. He said contend in his post. He didn't say anything about a SB or playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I think in the modern era, teams who make it to the Super Bowl aren't light years ahead of teams with losing records. There is a fine line between winning and losing. As bad as our year was, we were only a few plays away from possibly being in the position to win the NFC East. Blown coverage on 3rd and 21 and a missed game winning FG prevented us from sweeping the Cowboys. Instead, we got swept because of those two plays. Having an elite QB would mean more TDs and less INTs. That alone would drastically change the outcome for a lot of our games. This year's Super Bowl should be plenty of evidence that you don't have to be a juggernaut of a team to make it to the Super Bowl. You just have to make it to the playoffs and play well at the right time of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 You should have simply told them: "How am I a homer? I mean, we beat a team in this year's Super Bowl not once, but twice. And we blew them out both games". So obviously, we proved we could play with anyone. QB and turnovers were definitely the biggest reasons for holding us back. I would also throw in poor WR play. Our WR's had to be among the worst in the NFL (talent-wise) this year. Yeah we were 5-11, but we were in just about every game. --Came within 2 FGs of beating Dallas twice --Turned the ball over 4 times against the Eagles and still only lost by 7 --Had a chance to tie/beat the Pats but threw an INT on the 5yd line --Were leading the Jets with like 5 minutes left before everything fell apart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeMarco Murray 29 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I think in the modern era, teams who make it to the Super Bowl aren't light years ahead of teams with losing records. There is a fine line between winning and losing. As bad as our year was, we were only a few plays away from possibly being in the position to win the NFC East. Blown coverage on 3rd and 21 and a missed game winning FG prevented us from sweeping the Cowboys. Instead, we got swept because of those two plays. Having an elite QB would mean more TDs and less INTs. That alone would drastically change the outcome for a lot of our games. This year's Super Bowl should be plenty of evidence that you don't have to be a juggernaut of a team to make it to the Super Bowl. You just have to make it to the playoffs and play well at the right time of the year. Bingo. Good post. Same could be said for all teams in the NFL. Dallas, like Washington was two plays away from winning the division. It's about getting hot, getting the breaks and knowing what to do with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mursilis Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I think in the modern era, teams who make it to the Super Bowl aren't light years ahead of teams with losing records. There is a fine line between winning and losing. As bad as our year was, we were only a few plays away from possibly being in the position to win the NFC East. Blown coverage on 3rd and 21 and a missed game winning FG prevented us from sweeping the Cowboys. Instead, we got swept because of those two plays. Having an elite QB would mean more TDs and less INTs. That alone would drastically change the outcome for a lot of our games. This year's Super Bowl should be plenty of evidence that you don't have to be a juggernaut of a team to make it to the Super Bowl. You just have to make it to the playoffs and play well at the right time of the year. This is the truth. Both New England and New York won close conference championship games that could've gone either way. There was no true dominant team this year in the NFL - even Green Bay had flaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 You also forgot to mention the decimating injuries to the Offense during the middle of the year that really destroyed any chance we had at success. Heck, if we got 3-3 during that stretch we are 8-8 and maybe some of those late games mean a lot more and things might have been different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 If you're on the ESPN boards, some of those people can be ruthless, and they're not moderated like we are. Grain of salt, and all that...2 cents is right, we could've contended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.