Thoughts of a Negative Poster

[MartinC]

Big difference.

Trying to change decisions already made verus influence future decisions is a huge difference. Mind you as fans we have virtually zero influence on either so its probably a moot point in the context of this thread.

[KDawg]

"Then it dawned on me"? That is a huge part of the very definition of an ego play.

Definition of ego:

the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.

I'm not sure how saying something dawned on ME is an ego play, seeing how I had admittedly been happy with the trade at first. Much like the McNabb trade for many people. Why is it ego oriented to admit a mistake and figure out why you thought a certain way?

I'm not following you.

[Oldfan]

Just really weird timing Oldfan. Almost as if you are purposely trying to rain on the parade. I don't understand your angle here.

Why would you think that I have a motive beyond encouraging more posters to challenge popular opinion in this forum?

More negativity? You see this place after the Panthers game?

I read your threads promoting the idea that Shanahan's job should be on the line. Is that what you mean? I've never been that negative. I predicted high-grade mediocrity for Mike's reign, results similar to those he got in Denver after gaining full control as he has here. I'm still willing to have Mike get a fair chance to prove me wrong about him.

I think perhaps what you either don't understand or at least fail to acknowledge is that most fans do not take as analytical an approach to the game as you do.

I realize that, but if fans don't want to understand the game better, then they shouldn't read the posts and threads of the well-informed fans on this site, including mine.

Your mindset and theories (some of which I agree with, almost all of which I enjoy) are more suited for baseball... The Moneyball approach almost.

You're wrong. One of the most consistent themes of my threads is that football statistics are, unlike baseball, mostly bunk.

In football it doesn't work that way. Football is a "lose your mind" sport prone to wild swings of emotion from week to week or even play to play. It is high octane, intense, and full throttle. Fans react to it as such.

I think the idea that football is emotionally-based is mostly bunk also. The well-informed fans on this site discuss what went right or what failed in terms of strategy. The less informed talk about lack of intensity or losing the locker room.

Most people are just fans that deperately want the skins to do well. So they generally grant them the benefit of the doubt. The Jason Taylor trade was awful; we all should have known it... And yes, the 11% were right and they are likely more analytical and less emotional. The 89% chose to hope that it would work out and that hope colored their actual opinion of the deal.

All Redskins fans hoped that trade would work out, not just the 89%.

But this is an uphill battle... You are asking people to take off the B & G lenses, but most people don't care to be as analytic about it... Takes the fun away from being a fan for many.

Your argument seems to be that ignorance is bliss. I won't deny that. It's only when the ignorant think they're superior fans that they trouble me.

The team is in the midst of their most thrilling string of games in years and years and you start a thread calling more negativity? Just seems odd man.

I didn't call for more negativity to rain on anyone's parade at this particular time. That's just a motive you unfairly pinned on me.

This was my motive:

I write this to encourage more negative voices in this forum. I'm not referring to those who enjoy second guessing every coach's decision that fails or those who trash players beyond reason. I'm encouraging those who try very hard to be realistic and fair to speak up and be heard when you don't agree with the decisions of Redskins management. Don't worry that your opinions won't be popular with the homer crowd. Take solace in the fact that, so far in the Snyder era, the homers have been consistently wrong.

[DaGoonie55]

I write this to encourage more negative voices in this forum. I'm not referring to those who enjoy second guessing every coach's decision that fails or those who trash players beyond reason. I'm encouraging those who try very hard to be realistic and fair to speak up and be heard when you don't agree with the decisions of Redskins management. Don't worry that your opinions won't be popular with the homer crowd. Take solace in the fact that, so far in the Snyder era, the homers have been consistently wrong.

I wouldn't consider me not liking a move 'negative'. It may be contrary to the popular vote, but certainly not negative. Negative posting is in the realm of "we're doomed, the FO is a bunch of idiots", etc. I don't think I've read a post from you that sounded much like that. So to say you are a negative poster, I would disagree. My disagreement with you in this post is not negative, for example. IMO, I wouldn't promote negative posting - rather I encourage people to speak their minds (within the limits of the established rules), much like you eluded to - to challenge the status quo if those are your true feelings on the matter.

[cphil006]

Being a fan of team and favoring their moves are different concepts than being born Irish, German, etc...

As a fan I didn't feel comfortable with the McNabb trade, mostly because McNabb was an "Eagle"... but, I forced myself to be positive, that he was now a Redskin and he'd be a better option than what we had... still didn't think he'd bomb as bad as he did.

My point is, perhaps people who favored the decision on Jason Taylor, simply wanted to believe that he would have more of an impact than any 2nd rounder we would have drafted... problem was, the scheme was different...

I was very negative going into the season about our O-line and secondary... I still am...

I was very negative during the whole Vinny Cerrato era... his every move, his presense at Redskin Park, but we're free of that aspect in my feeling and I like that...

[MartinC]

Big difference and that is even more of an ego play.

Wait so you are saying that trying to influence/change any decision made by another person or the thought process that goes into making the decision is 'an ego play'? Thats a very sweeping statement. It is certainly true that ego can play a big part - and sometimes maybe 100% - in making someone challenge another like this. But there are many other reasons and motivations as well.

[Oldfan]

I think I understand the thought behind your thread Oldfan but I guess I quibble with the line that encourages more "NEGATIVE" voices in the forum. Shouldn't it be more "realistic" voices?

I thought I made that distinction with this line in the OP: I'm encouraging those who try very hard to be realistic and fair to speak up and be heard when you don't agree with the decisions of Redskins management.

[SWFLSkins]

I thought I made that distinction with this line in the OP: I'm encouraging those who try very hard to be realistic and fair to speak up and be heard when you don't agree with the decisions of Redskins management.

There's a line that gets crossed at some point. Going from I don't like this decision but I support the team to (Eeyore) This team will never get better unless they.......(insert lengthy never going to happen hindsighful opinions here)

It matters how you see the "Grey Fluff" inside you're own head.

"People who don't think probably don't have brains; rather, they have grey fluff that's blown into "their heads by mistake." -Eeyore-

[Skinsinparadise]

I think there is plenty of negativity on the board, a good balance. IMO its really about whether the posts are interesting and if people are going to debate they are open minded to opposing views.

The Skins have been mostly bad for 20 years, so the negative posts yeah are of course more likely to end up correct. But the interesting thing IMO is the Skins while being bad -- went about building the team in an unconventional way making themselves easy targets not just on the board but really with mainstream media reporters, too. This is mostly Cerrato/Snyder stuff -- they didn't do things like most other clubs, and their off beat moves mostly haven't worked out. This is just a sample:

You bring up Jason Taylor. What team would trade two picks including a high 2nd rounder for a 30 something DE past their prime?

Make a strong safety pushing 30 (Archuletta) who isn't considered elite and coming off a subpar year -- the highest paid safety in the league.

Dump a good quarterback who was successful, Brad Johnson, for a well documented headcase, Jeff George

Let their young upcoming MLB, Antonio Pearce, go to a division rival.

Hire a QB coach who is in their mid 50s who has never even been a coordinator as head coach as a seat of the pants decision after being spurned by others

Give up a third round pick for a veteran Qb who was about to be released

Offer 2 first rounders for a 30 something WR (Chad Johnson)

While other teams mostly avoid sign restricted FAs, they go crazy one year, giving up picks

they have THREE good RBs on the roster, they panic because one of them gets nicked up in a preseason so they give up two high picks for another RB who then sat on the bench for most of the year.

[Oldfan]

I wouldn't consider me not liking a move 'negative'. It may be contrary to the popular vote, but certainly not negative...

I would agree with you personally. But word definitions are based on common usage. I used the word "negative' in the sense that it is commonly used in this forum.

[zoony]

Now, Oldfan, why don't you point out a few times you've been dead wrong. There have been several

I'll go first. I was excited about the move to trade up to get Jason Campbell. I thought he was a great prospect.

[Oldfan]

I think there is plenty of negativity on the board, a good balance...You bring up Jason Taylor. What team would trade two picks including a high 2nd rounder for a 30 something DE past their prime?..

If there is a good balance of negativity on this board as you say, how do you explain that 89% favored what is, in your opinion, a really dumb trade?

---------- Post added December-12th-2012 at 12:13 PM ----------

Now, Oldfan, why don't you point out a few times you've been dead wrong. There have been several

I'll go first. I was excited about the move to trade up to get Jason Campbell. I thought he was a great prospect.

I saw flaws in Jason's mechanics. I wasn't impressed.

I was wrong about the hiring of Spurrier and I was wrong in being even cautiously optimistic about the hiring of Jim Zorn.

I'll give you this, you aren't wrong as often as I am, nor right as often as I am because you rarely stick your neck out to make predictions. Making predictions is what I do.

[Dan T.]

Now, Oldfan, why don't you point out a few times you've been dead wrong. There have been several

I'll go first. I was excited about the move to trade up to get Jason Campbell. I thought he was a great prospect.

I have never been wrong.

EDIT: Oh wait. I was wrong that one time. So I was wrong about never being wrong. So now I've been wrong twice.

[Oldfan]

Being a fan of team and favoring their moves are different concepts than being born Irish, German, etc...

Being a fan of a team is a group attachment like nationality or a religious affiliations. The analogy stops there.

As a fan I didn't feel comfortable with the McNabb trade, mostly because McNabb was an "Eagle"... but, I forced myself to be positive, that he was now a Redskin and he'd be a better option than what we had... still didn't think he'd bomb as bad as he did.

Why did you force yourself to be positive. What's wrong with stating your realistic, negative feelings, but hoping you are wrong?

[Going Commando]

Taking a negative position on another person's decision is a huge ego play. The ONLY reason to ever be negative about another person's is that you actually think you can influence a decision AFTER it is made.

Fans don't have the individual ability to effect anything about their team. But they have a right to be negative when something they think a mistake has been made. I don't think being unwilling to accept horsecrap when it's sold to you by the powers that be is an ego play.

[B&G]

I think the phrase "look at things with a more critical eye" is better than asking for more negative posters. Looking at issues critically allows for the possibility that things will work out well while negativity/pessimism assumes that everything will automatically turn to crap.

I had rather fans be more positive than negative. Just my nature, I guess.

[Oldfan]

Fans like me believe the only mistake Gibbs made was hiring Al Saunders and turning an offense that closed the season on a 5 game winning streak and averaged 30 points a game against the NFC east back to back to back to make the playoffs...

I don't want to take turn this thread into a debate over Gibbs Two. My opinions would serve no purpose here but to piss you off. We disagree on Joe.

[B&G]

sorry, repeat of an earlier post.

[Oldfan]

I think the phrase "look at things with a more critical eye" is better than asking for more negative posters. Looking at issues critically allows for the possibility that things will work out well while negativity/pessimism assumes that everything will automatically turn to crap.

Didn't this line satisfy your objections? From the OP -- I'm encouraging those who try very hard to be realistic and fair to speak up and be heard when you don't agree with the decisions of Redskins management.

I had rather fans be more positive than negative. Just my nature, I guess.

I'd rather fans be intelligent. Both optimism and pessimism without good reason are dumb.

[Captain Injury]

OK. State what you feel. Mammoth, groundbreaking stuff.

[DC9]

I have never been wrong.

EDIT: Oh wait. I was wrong that one time. So I was wrong about never being wrong. So now I've been wrong twice.

You're terrible against the spread...

[B&G]

Oh, you can't be intelligent and optimistic?

Here's something for you to think about: If 90% of people think you are wrong about something, you probably are.

After you've thought about that, look at the responses to your op.

[Skinsinparadise]

If there is a good balance of negativity on this board as you say, how do you explain that 89% favored what is, in your opinion, a really dumb trade?

I don't think you can generalize the mood of the board based on one trade. As for that trade specifically, whether its fans of this team or another, i've just noticed most people tend to do three things

1. Give some leeway to a new hires. That was Zorn's team and he was getting started and most of us presumed he was putting his stamp on the team.

2. When we are starving for help with a position we are more likely to give leeway. We haven't had an elite pass rusher in eons. So the idea of Taylor was exciting to some.

3. we give more leeway in the aftermath when the team is successful -- that trade happened after a good season.

Over time, you can see the work of the coaches/personnel people and make an overall assessment based on history. Danny got some leeway at the beginning of his tenure too. But now people see it different. I think if anything more cynicism has seeped in over time because like i said if the organization is going to be unconventional, the sample size is now big enough to see whether their off beat approach works out.

Also negative/positive emotions are often temporary reflecting what's going on in the moment -- if they have a bad loss or consecutive losses -- more negativity, after a big win -- positive vibes.

Also i wouldn't peg many of our posters as negative or positive, lot of us are mixed depending on the subject. I've been very negative on the Zorn/Cerrato regime for example, and more on the positive side but not completely so with Shanny. I didn't like Zorn as a HC but sided with him and against Cerrato for how he was treated. We can change also over time on the specific subject as the sample size of what we are watching starts opening a bigger window one way or another.

For me the posts that are boring are the ones where you know the person will give a positive spin or a negative spin no matter how things evolve I'd guess because they want to stay consistent with an earlier opinion. Lots of stuff happens over time -- things often do change and you can watch how decisions unfold. I liked most of the team's HC hires at the time, but over time my opinions of some of them changed sometimes in nuanced ways and sometimes in major ways.

Not saying of course that's how everyone should be -- just saying for me I find it more interesting. If I know someone will dig in their heels and be reflex positive or negative, for me it can get boring to have a dialogue with them.

[Oldfan]

Oh, you can't be intelligent and optimistic?

How did you come to that interpretation after reading this: "I'd rather fans be intelligent. Both optimism and pessimism without good reason are dumb."

Here's something for you to think about: If 90% of people think you are wrong about something, you probably are. After you've thought about that, look at the responses to your op.

You are expressing a common logical fallacy. Wikipedia says it like this:

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

[Morneblade]

Kind of a odd time for the OP, but I've never been one to use what "everyone else thinks" to determine my opinion. Wasn't a big fan of the Taylor Trade, wasnt a fan of the McNabb trade and wasn't sure about the RGIII trade (thought we gave up too much). Like everyone, I hit on some and miss on others. But I think I'm pretty objective overall. Thought we'd be 6-10 this year but improving. As it happens we might be 10-6 and improving, which would be great. Still, it's a odd time for the OP.