Thoughts of a Negative Poster

[Oldfan]

I'm just commenting on the tone of the thread. I haven't really had much interaction with you, if any, but it does come across very self-centered and ego-driven when just taken from an outside perspective.

Why? What did I say that gave you that impression?

I welcome objective critiques of the team, but it's also okay to be a blind homer if you really love your team that much (just don't expect them to win:D).

How do you figure that being a blind homer is a measure of the love of a fan for his team? If you see someone's faults and still love them, is that a lower grade love?

[JMUSkins]

Why? What did I say that gave you that impression?

You attacked the homers and called them wrong while stating that you were right through the whole process. That is self-centered and ego-driven.

How do you figure that being a blind homer is a measure of the love of a fan for his team? If you see someone's faults and still love them, is that a lower grade love?

I didn't say that being a blind homer is better than being a critical fan. I just said it's okay... fans come in all shapes and sizes. Some just choose to go with the flow.

[SirClintonPortis]

Yes, the homer attitude is quite rampant when it comes to making decisions. Alfred Morris is a good back, for example, but untouchable is something that he is not. Guys like Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson are untouchable. Morris falls into the Issac Redman or Pierre Thomas tier. A very good back that isn't easy to let go of, but not untouchable.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

I am an optimistic fan because I choose to be. It really can't be simpler than that.

I follow all of my teams closely, because it makes the experience more enjoyable for me. That is also a personal choice, as I believe a person who has never set foot in Fedex can be just as much of a fan as people who put a Gibbs figurine on their wedding cake.

I have opinions on trades, etc,, just like everyone else. It's part of what makes it fun to closely follow your team. However, for me, sports are fully there for entertainment. Win or lose, life goes on. When the game is over, it's over. I dont sit around and pout about it, becuse it serves little purpose. I just enjoy the ride, and this year has been a heck of a ride.

Believe it or not, life is more important than football. There is enough drama out there without me having to create more for myself. That's why I hate negative threads that bash our players and our coaches. For instance, how much fun is it to watch a game with a bunch of "we got this!" fans vs a bunch of "I got a bad feeling...there's no way we win this game." fans? The answer is easy for me. The positive by nature group is much more fun to hang out with before, during, and after the game. The negative nancies go home and cry like some fat kid who just lost his halloween candy,

[Hitman21ST]

Things you NEVER thought you'd read on ES # 5004 ..... mention of Cork City FC.

*Betting 99% of the readership have zero idea who or what Cork City are/ do. Beautiful part of the World BTW, and an utterly fantastic drinking town if you ever find yourself in Southern Ireland down Munster/ Cork way. But be prepared to check yourself in for a new liver if you intend to go pint for pint with the locals.

Haill.

Maybe not with the locals, but I can go pint for pint with a lot of people.

*and not on the swill that most Americans call "beer" - I'm talking real stuff.

[Oldfan]

"Being negative and hoping for the best" seems like a contradiction of terms.

It isn't. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I hope I'm wrong, but I don't agree with this Redskins move."

Seems more often people are often negative and hope for the worst so they can say "I told you so." Why else bring up a trade from four years ago...

That might be your problem, but it's not mine. I brought up the Taylor trade because it's the only one I could think of where I could remember the poll numbers. I like to be specific when I can. Saying "The majority approved of most major trade moves" is somewhat vague.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

What I can't stand is the fan who, after a loss like Carolina says, "Our season is over, we may not win another game" and then jumps all over the people like me who sit back and calculate the playoff odds and try to find a way in, or look for teams we can catch.

You can't tell me after the 2005, 2007 and (gosh I really hope) 2012 that we can't win out in any given season. You got to keep the faith, that is part of being a fan.

We've had some bad losses in those years, but I mean the Atlanta Falcons just lost to Carolina and should have gotten swept by them. It is a week to week league.

It's true that seemingly bad seasons have been resurrected twice (and hopefully thrice) in the past decade, but that just means that a lot of seasons (both promising and ugly) have ended badly much more often. So, as much as you have a right to hope for the best others have a right to assume the worst. Both sides have history on their sides and any outcome is possible really.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Maybe not with the locals, but I can go pint for pint with a lot of people.

*and not on the swill that most Americans call "beer" - I'm talking real stuff.

You, me, and a crate or five in the sun chewing the fat about anything and everything ..... it has to be done bro'. You know it makes sense.

*THAT'S why he's my kinda' bro'!

Hail.

[Hitman21ST]

You, me, and a crate or five in the sun chewing the fat about anything and everything ..... it has to be done bro'. You know it makes sense.

*THAT'S why he's my kinda' bro'!

Hail.

My house is always open bro. Just tell me when

[BleedBNG]

Here's an example: After the run to the playoffs in 2005, giddy optimism swept this forum. I was the lone pessimistic voice because I was 99% sure that the Gibbs approach, building a roster by trading up in the draft, trading draft picks for veterans, and being very aggressive in free agency would fail. My best hope for the team was that the Gibbs plan would fail quickly and it did. The 2006 season was an eye-opener for Joe Gibbs and the organization.

Watching the 2006 collapse was difficult for me, as it was for all Skins fans, but I believed it was the best outcome possible for bad roster management.

You thought because of all that? Mine was simple... he chose Brunell

[Thirtyfive2seven]

I just got off the assumption that the coaching staff and the organization as a whole knows WAY more about football than I do. I think I know A LOT having played in college but not compared to people who work in the NFL on a daily basis. I didn't like the McNabb trade or Taylor trade either but I assumed that they had something left in the tank and would be able to help the team. Sometimes I put my opinions aside because of this.

[kleese]

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

I said "it seems as if..." And then went on to explain that I thought your timing was weird. I didn't accuse you of intentionally being a downer, but yes, that was one of my first thoughts.

The timing is really weird. The timing in no way, shape, or form invalidates the point you are trying to make, but it seems like you would get better and more reasoned responses if this was an off-season thread as opposed to during what is likely the most exciting time to be a Redskin fan in years.

.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.

Again, this is where you lose me a bit. There are lots of critical threads like mine regarding Shanny. And I'd say that ES has done a universally solid job expressing their dislike of our secondary and defense in general this year. I see your point on the skewed poll numbers with the Taylor trade, but that was four years ago....I think there is a solid balance of homerism vs realism vs hyper-negativity now. I also agree that questioning others' fanhood is annoying, but it happens on every forum I've ever posted at.

.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.

Mostly disagree. I do think too many fans blame loses on lack of heart, etc. but football is an emotional game and it needs to be played and coached as such--it is almost the opposite with other sports. The Colts are a good example...I absolutely believe that their "Chuckstrong" movement is aiding their success this year. Our run in 2007 was completey fueled by the death of ST. Don't really see that as much in other sports...no coincidence to me that the Chiefs played their best game of the year when they were engulfed in emotion. But my main point was directed at fans. Don't forget that many use message boards as a place to vent or celebrate.

.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.

I didn't pin anything on you; just exprsessed my thought that your timing struck me as odd.

[JMUSkins]

My house is always open bro. Just tell me when

Umm... can I come? Please?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

My house is always open bro. Just tell me when

Having just recovered from giving it a darn good attempt at drinking Verona/ Udine and Venice dry of vino the middle to back end of last week, you might regret that.

Hail.

[Hitman21ST]

Having just recovered from giving it a darn good attempt at drinking Verona/ Udine and Venice dry of vino the middle to back end of last week, you might regret that.

Hail.

Haha, I think I'd be up for it.

Umm... can I come? Please?

If you bring the beer.

[MartinC]

You thought because of all that? Mine was simple... he chose Brunell

When he was healthy in 2005 Brunell had a heck of a year but he was right at the end of his road as a starter - any kind of leg injury amd he did not have the arm strength to be effective when he could not plant and transfer his weight.

[U C S D SkinsFan]

We are on a 4 game win streak with such an entertaining team...The Redskins are fun to follow all year round, helps you get your mind off work, real life. You sound so sad dude, if I were you, I'd stop following the team if they make you feel "negative" and have all these emotions. I always cheered the big moves early on b/c I'm not a scout or GM and big names always made me think we'd be better. If they did that nowadays, I'd probably know it's a bad move. Anyways, my point being, have fun with the team, follow them, get pissed when they lose, happy when they win, but don't take it so serious, especially now that we have RG3, a beast at RB, an electric WR..

[Oldfan]

You attacked the homers and called them wrong while stating that you were right through the whole process. That is self-centered and ego-driven.

I made two claims: 1) The major moves during the Snyder era have been enthusiastically supported (I heard no opposition to that claim) 2) I have opposed most of them (My posting history is well-known by regulars -- no one disputed that claim)

I didn't say that being a blind homer is better than being a critical fan. I just said it's okay... fans come in all shapes and sizes. Some just choose to go with the flow.

So, when you said --

but it's also okay to be a blind homer if you really love the team that much

you weren't implying that homers love the Redskins more than other fans?

[darrelgreenie]

The OP made me think of this clip from Key and Peele....

I think there are decent group of posters strive that strive to be 'football' honest and accurate in their assessments of this team and the league as a whole. This is the group I think I fall into. Often times the more apologetic fans, especially the hardline kneejerk apologist have a tendency to drown out other points of view.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

If I may interlude for a moment ..... Of my good man, indulge me if you will. Your a man of the World, and greatly experienced with it through the passing years. (Right amount of diplomacy? :pfft: ). Where would you bracket moi through getting to know me via my musings on here? Purely out of interest to me from someone I greatly respect. And it takes a heck of a lot to offend myself, so your usual forthright opinion would be greatly welcomed.

*Curious GHH.

Hail.

[SirClintonPortis]

Humans are truly a social and tribal species who like to enforce a certain "code of conduct", and read the vehment attempt to "socialize" Oldfan to follow that irrational mold is entertaining yet annoying to read. Snarky ad hominems and other veiled insults are rife in this thread, and for what? A supposed violation of a psychological contract. This kind of behavior is similar to groupthink, where doubts are stamped out at the ideal goal of harmony, and it has led to disastrous consquences.

[Captain Injury]

If my message was as obvious as you portray it, how do you explain the controversy expressed by other posters?

I attribute it to your habit of counter-representing yourself and following it up with a socractic style of discussion that provokes more than it explains. You described a desire that honestly critical opinion not be hidden or unspoken. You explained that well. In the same space of thought, you described that communication as "negative." That word has additional and different connotations than how you meant it. It's an easy recipe for confusing people.

[Oldfan]

We are on a 4 game win streak with such an entertaining team...The Redskins are fun to follow all year round, helps you get your mind off work, real life. You sound so sad dude, if I were you, I'd stop following the team if they make you feel "negative" and have all these emotions.

Another straw man. I liked the one with pictures better.

[Brotherz]

You can take someone's words out of context and quibble with them but I told you in the paragraph who those negative voices were. When someone disagrees with a management decision they can be said to be negative on the issue of that decision. When they are realistic and fair, there's nothing wrong with that kind of negative position.

Oldfan, you used the phrase "encourage more negative voices" and now you're blaming poster's in the thread for not understanding what you mean? YOU chose to use "negative". Its not a difficult phrase to eliminate. Numerous posters here have offered you ways to make what we think you are saying clearer - namely - "realistic" "grounded" "more objective" etc. Yes, two sentences after you encouraged more "negative voices" you also encouraged "realism" but isn't that a presumption that negative voices are more realistic in the first place?

When I first read your OP I thought - "Ok I get it, Oldfan is calling for us to calm down a bit since we have spent the last twenty years reaching every time this team does something that if it worked out would be great even if the odds were against it". I (and others) have suggested that your OP was a bit confusing because YOU use the words "negative" and "realistic" interchangeably which reveals alot about YOU. Basically you are simply the inverse of what you are criticizing.

You are negative and think every move is bad and see the dark cloud behind every rainbow and call it realism. We are football fans. We don't have any duty to be objective first of all. Secondly, to the extent that it would be a better board if everyone was "objective" (ie negative in your world) we would still see alot of posters being "wrong".

The reality is that you can look at almost any situation facing the Redskins - choose a "positive/hopeful", "negative/pessimist" perspective and get right or wrong conclusions ultimately when it plays out:

A)Negative: Rg3 played a gimmicky offense in the Big 12 - the Big 12 makes QB's look better than they are. You can't run the option at the next level. He doesn't even have to make a secondary read in the Baylor offense. They don't even have a playbook.

Note: This is all true. But is it proving to be true in the league this year? Would the person who said it have been 'wrong' WHEN THEY SAID IT?

Positive: Rg3 has such a unique skill set that the Big 12 stuff is irrelevant. This is a QB driven league. There is no price too high for a guy with his character, physical tools, leadership skills and big play potential including but not limited to his ability to create outside the pocket coupled with his deep ball ability.

Note: Is this true? Is the positive guy right? Was he "right" when he said it? Was he wrong for feeling this way? The answer is they are both right. Its a choice of where to focus.

You could do the same exact exercise with any number of things pertaining to this team. How about fumble prone 7th round running backs out of Florida Atlantic? How about Atogwe coming off a career year? How about Deion Sanders? How about Gibbs return?

You could make strong, fact based arguments pro and con for each and every one of these. You are simply saying people in the forum should choose your perspective. Your entire post is nothing more than "think like me and we will all be better off".

[Oldfan]

I attribute it to your habit of counter-representing yourself and following it up with a socractic style of discussion that provokes more than it explains. You described a desire that honestly critical opinion not be hidden or unspoken. You explained that well. In the same space of thought, you described that communication as "negative." That word has additional and different connotations than how you meant it. It's an easy recipe for confusing people.

The word "negative" would not confuse anyone if they simply left it in the context of the paragraph where I explain its meaning.

Don't be naive. They aren't confused. People take words and sentences out of context deliberately. It enables them to construct arguments that would make no sense unless they twist meanings.

Read this again:

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.

Is that not a clear definition of who I'm referring to when I speak of "negative voices?"