Thoughts of a Negative Poster

[Mahons21]

I was only referring to the defense of the years they won the championships. I strongly disagree that the offense over shadowed them. Sorry to be short, on my phone, would love to discuss later if you're interested.

[elkabong82]

I was only referring to the defense of the years they won the championships. I strongly disagree that the offense over shadowed them. Sorry to be short, on my phone, would love to discuss later if you're interested.

2001 was their defense and Vinateiri. 2003 and '04 defense was good, but their offense was very solid having gained a great run game with Dillon there and a stout OL. Offense and defense were equally good in the '03 and '04 bowls IMO. 2001 IMO will always have question marks surrounding it, but their defense was dominant then.

[DogofWar1]

You have already concluded the Redskins won't succeed under Shanahan, even though the possibility still exists, and you base it off past record instead of current state and by eliminating any possibility of improvement, as if people can't improve despite the fact it happens. That is poor reasoning and it is based on a ridiculous assumption, not reasoning because you have no actual evidence, that Snyder just wanted to hire a name to fill seats and doesn't want to win, even though winning fills seats and all of his actions indicate he wants to win.

In reality you disagree with the coaching hire but for some reason aren't just leaving it at that and instead you take it a step further and claim that because Snyder didn't do what you would have, then it means he doesn't really want to win. Perhaps arrogance is that reason, perhaps you're just jaded from Snyder's past actions, but whatever the case your bias has led you to a faulty assumption that you are trying to pass off as fact. Snyder wants to win, but for the longest time he thought he could just by a championship as evidenced by all the big name acquisitions. That was wrong, but to twist it any other way requires a lack of reasoning in favor of bias.

*slow clap*

I was trying to think of a way to say effectively what you said here, bravo.

The "probability = logic = reality" concept Oldfan is using is flawed because it relies on purely circumstantial evidence, and then he goes a step farther and starts making assertions that he has no way of supporting. The chain OF is using is that Snyder doesn't care about being #1 (profit motive), Shanahan is incapable of being #1, and then, the biggest leap, that Snyder KNEW that Shanahan couldn't make us #1, but hired him anyway.

That last thing is what blows my mind. He keeps saying "If Snyder wanted to be #1, he wouldn't have hired Shanahan," which requires Snyder to KNOW, as a matter of fact, that Shanahan was/is a poor choice to make or incapable of making us a #1 team.

The "Shanahan can't make us a #1 team" argument is already opinion based on circumstantial evidence (which is ok, it's a negative view and I disagree, but it's an opinion). But, to apply that argument as fact and then to imply that Snyder knew Shanahan couldn't make us a #1 team and hired him anyway, that's too far of a logical leap for me to allow to sit there without opposition. It ceases to be "logical," and becomes purely "possible" and is opposed by a significant amount of evidence in terms of Snyder's conduct.

[Oldfan]

Then your perception of likelihood in that matter is off. Belichick was sought after, and it went beyond team record.

I heard Robert Kraft saying in an interview that he really didn't know what he had when he hired Belichik. I took him at his word. Belichik has admitted he made mistakes in Cleveland.

You need to look at the full context of a candidates resume. Summarily dismissing a candidate based on just 1 thing, like you did with Shanahan, eliminates good candidates.

You are staining to apply the rigid standards of an actual hiring of a coach to my opinions which are purely based on probability derived from reasoning.

Historical trend is evidence. We're not talking about a lack of evidence because the evidence does exist that Superbowl winning coaches have failed to reclaim the trophy on other teams in every single case.

There's no trend. The flaw in your claim is "very small sample size." You flip a coin four times and it comes up heads every time. To conclude that "this coin never comes up tails" shows a misunderstanding based on a small sample.

However, your argument is debunked because Shanahan has won Superbowls in the past...

Yes, with a roster built mostly by others. An outcome that Mike could not repeat with full control.

...and does not eliminate the possibility he learns from mistakes and improves.

I mentioned that unlikely possibility earlier. Bear in mind, the competition is learning too. o, Mike would have to learn at a faster rate than Belichik to close the gap and then surpass him.

There is historical evidence of coaches improving with new teams, at various levels too.

Mike isn't just a coach. He has full control. So, he isn't going to a team with a better GM.

You ask why it is hard to believe a sound plan can succeed when it hasn't before, I ask why don't you think the Redskins currently have a sound plan?

A sound plan to be the #1 team in the NFL? I don't have the time to list the reasons. Right now, I'm expecting a repeat of the Jurgensen era -- a team that will be fun to watch on offense, but with a mediocre record.

You have already concluded the Redskins won't succeed under Shanahan...

Success meaning to become the #1 franchise in the NFL? I think it's highly unlikely.

...even though the possibility still exists,

yes, that unlikely possibility exists.

...and you base it off past record...

And that I haven't been blown away by Shanahan's progress over three years. However, I haven't given up hoping. I'm patiently waiting. I have never called for his head.

...and by eliminating any possibility of improvement, as if people can't improve despite the fact it happens.

This same point was made an countered several times now.

That is poor reasoning and it is based on a ridiculous assumption, not reasoning because you have no actual evidence, that Snyder just wanted to hire a name to fill seats and doesn't want to win, even though winning fills seats and all of his actions indicate he wants to win.

Repetitive.

In reality you disagree with the coaching hire but for some reason aren't just leaving it at that and instead you take it a step further and claim that because Snyder didn't do what you would have, then it means he doesn't really want to win.

My reasoning has been explained several times already.

Perhaps arrogance is that reason, perhaps you're just jaded from Snyder's past actions, but whatever the case your bias has led you to a faulty assumption that you are trying to pass off as fact.

I haven't stated my opinion as fact and your opinion of my opinion is not relevant on-topic debate.

[JKonaP]

We are making the right choices way more often than not under Allen and Shanahan. We are getting quality players at a pretty good clip with our draft picks. We are being fiscally responsible, and regardless of what happens with the salary cap punishment in '13, will be in a good position in '14. We are a missing a 1st rounder for the next two years, but despite it being a king's ransom, we still have the rest of our picks. We found the king we were looking for, it wouldn't have come cheaper, kings aren't cheap.

I expect the roster to continue to improve at a steady rate increasing talent and depth with an injection of youth. I am at peace with the direction of this team, which I have not been able to say since 1991.

[elkabong82]

I heard Robert Kraft saying in an interview that he really didn't know what he had when he hired Belichik. I took him at his word. Belichik has admitted he made mistakes in Cleveland.

You are staining to apply the rigid standards of an actual hiring of a coach to my opinions which are purely based on probability derived from reasoning.

There's no trend. The flaw in your claim is "very small sample size." You flip a coin four times and it comes up heads every time. To conclude that "this coin never comes up tails" shows a misunderstanding based on a small sample.

Yes, with a roster built mostly by others. An outcome that Mike could not repeat with full control.

.

Belichick obviously learned from his mistakes and Shanahan can do the same, he even attempted to do so between coaching gigs.

Your probability in the hiring process requires full context, yet such is missing and causes you to overlook good candidates including potentially Belichick. Time for a revision.

There is a trend, and the sample size is not small. Ditka, Jimmy Johnson, Gibbs, Lombardi, Parcells, Seifert, are some of the bigger names. No head coach has won a Superbowl in 2 different stints. I have evidence, you don't, so stop trying to refute it. Besides, despite that trend I'd still hire one of those coaches. My point, again, was that trend would have been a better argument than your surface-deep argument against hiring Shanahan.

Shanahan won with a roster mostly built by others? Really? That argument shows that you in fact are operating with negative bias and not using sound reasoning despite you calling for such in this thread. Talk about doing everything you can to take away credit. He didn't even win those Superbowls right? It was all Elway right? Drafting Terrell Davis didn't help out at all right? Elway had great success before Shanahan and anybody could have won with him as QB right? Unbelievable. You've lost me now. If your goal was to drive away those with different opinions by not presenting the same sound reasoning you asked for yourself, then congrats.

And simply stating "repetitive," as you just did to me and have done to others, when we are refuting points you repetitively are raising, is going against what you are asking others to do in this thread, is rather disingenuous, and is telling of the weakness in that specific argument.

I for one will be rooting for the team rather than watching with a foregone conclusion of failure. It is not a grounded opinion when you have already determined a conclusion multiple seasons in advance. You are not practicing what you preach when your reasoning leads you to conclude things far into the future which you can't actually know.

[Jumbo]

Okey-dokey, thread is done. It’s wandered about enough and really become a long-enough and big enough mess. Going by most recent activity, maybe starting another “why I like/hate the patriots/brady/belichick” thread in ATN is due, or bumping a “Mike was a good/questionable/bad hire“ thread for that stuff. :cool:

I remember some staff in the past who wanted to ban more aggressively on willful off-topic extensions of threads, including when such is participated in by the OP. There are reasons thread discussion in here is prioritized to maintaining contact with the main premise(s) in an opening post (even if the premise is seemingly vague).

Many have had their say, and I had even more written out on this thread in detail, anticipating how various people might respond to the different things I’d say, but am going to go this way instead---so here is a condensed (believe it or not ) version of mine, that is still plenty long enough. From its inception, I had decided to not post in the general discussion but simply observe with the exception of my recent notice, and now with the closing I am taking the final word.

Opinions and facts: I thought the opening post and topic as designed, was weak overall, but definitely allowable. I won’t detail why in this condensed version.

I have over the years made many a “defense” of various matters re: OF as a poster in general, and as relevant per specific threads/topics. The same is true with my criticisms of OF, though made less frequently. I have a history of evenhandedly noting pros and cons in these matters. In this case, so far, the pros <--- serious error edited---I had written "cons" when I meant "pros"--&%$&*@#*!!)have been winning the balance (overall) for me as a member and a moderator. As part of that standard approach, members I love to death as posters have received consequences for rule violations when merited, and I have, when appropriate, given "passes" to posters whose regular content I don't favor.

Now here, from the wording and premises in the OP onward, the matter of Oldfan’s ES persona was made a feature of the topic by his own fingers, and is that is just one reason while all such commentary has been perfectly fine at base level, rules-wise.

On being a "homer" (and definitions of that term tend to vary): it is by no means indicative that you’re dumb, or that your comments are going to be dumb, no matter how many times the OP or anyone else states it is so. Presenting arguments of intellectual worth on specific matters are one thing, but being generally optimistic (even in the face of perpetual hardship) or looking for silver linings in dark clouds is perfectly fine IMV. One can do all of that in most matters without being dumb in any way.

In turn, someone deciding to be (or wanting <via ego-drives> to appear as) skeptical, cynical, or pragmatic, (traits I am well-known to manifest in every circle I travel) doesn’t inherently mean they are of high intelligence or better judgment. A constant “whiner/griper/****er” for instance, might regard himself as “realistic” and yet can still be featuring very low-grade arguments (comments that aren’t even actual arguments quite often) or silly evaluations on a regular basis.

I do think OF tries to distinguish what he requests in criticisms from what "that kind of guy" usually offers.

On the many criticisms of OF in general (fair game here), I agree with a number of them. I especially found it ironic he brought up "ego" (or self-identity drives) in his opening post. As I have often said, he also brings all those "good things" I’ve noted previously to the table.

Relatedly, some (not all) of his regular foils are fully guilty of their own behavioral issues (including some of the “reasoning” shortcomings OF accuses them of) that add to this mix and create these regular “meltdowns”, just as he is often responsible for his own contributions in that direction (as sometimes accurately accused of by some of his adversaries).

My constant comment to them has been to either stay out of his threads if you can’t stand him, or adjust yourself if you want to play with him, since he avoids blatant rule violations and when it's been close, he's received more leeway based on content and product overall, than being determined "not worth putting up with" and more harshly applying some mod action.

However, given all the dynamics and their course over time, when/if there is a next OF thread (allowing for any choices he makes) I will be ratcheting up on moderation specifically for it. My decision is based on both his and others’ chosen and repeated behaviors that are considered by staff to be unjustified and undesirable by our existing rules and guidelines.

Any post I regard as including a rule violation/behavioral issue will get a one week ban, or longer, depending. So don’t even play if you‘re unsure or care. If you do, my advice is to stick to talking about football, not each other or ancillary matters like “the board (just noting what‘s “safest“, rules-wise).

Among other things, I will be labeling behaviors like being stupidly/stubbornly augmentative in repeated fashion (solely by my or any other mod’s evaluation) as trolling (rule 12) and addressing any general matters as needed under rule 18, and being first to digress into personal characterizations as rule 5 or rule 18 violations.

Also be advised I have neither the time nor inclination to parse through every argument that might unfold, post by post, so I may be shooting quick and from the hip if I think I see a problem.

I don’t want or need ANY PMs from ANYBODY about this matter. Enough‘s been said in the thread. If you feel the need to “go” (you shouldn’t), use the feedback forum.

A final word--

There’s that element that will never die---posting in a thread, even the “worst” ones, often keeping it alive, mainly to gripe about how stupid its topic/OP is and asking why it’s continuing to exist. Can you guys EVER get it in your head that the less traction you give topics you think suck by (especially repeated) posting in the thread, the quicker they’re gone? For those who believed this thread was a lot about attention-seeking or feeding other needs/motives of the thread-starter beyond honest discussion on football, then don’t repeatedly feed it (whether you‘re right or wrong)!!! Why the **** do you feed it??? For those who believe you’re arguing with some (any) OP in any thread who “never gets it”, consider quitting arguing with him and then being “surprised” or agitated at the results.

[Jumbo]

Bump---please note a very important edit (highlighted w/color) in the 5th paragraph (I can't believe I used the opposite term of what I meant---talk about a significant gaffe).

It doesn't change anything (as I was thinking the right term as I wrote), other than getting it right as to where my personal position is at on that matter.