Om Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by MRMADD Publicly? Come on, Blade, you know better than that. You can't dismiss arguments because Gibbs hasn't badmouthed anyone publicly. That's not his style. Even if he was ready to throw the dwarf out a window, he wouldn't say it to the media. You can't make **** up out of whole cloth, either. If you affirmatively throw an accusation out there in a published article like this gentleman has, there's the presumption you've got something to back it up. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMetal Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 I'm really starting to wish Gibbs had not come back because of articles like this. The media is just waiting to rip at him. It's definitely a truism that "people despise greatness in their lifetimes." If they're not ridiculously building someone up (Bellicek)they're relentlessly tearing someone down (Gibbs). There is going to be a lot more of this, believe me. The ONLY way to stop it is a Super Bowl, which is a tall order for any team, much less an organization that has been in the doldrums for over a decade. I don't think Joe believes he will tarnish anything, no matter what the W's and L's are. And I don't believe a lot of the fans will think that. But it will become accepted as fact because this is what the despicable media will paint as the truth. He deserves better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankbones Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by RWJ Auburn QB pick is latest screwup He has been right in the middle of the craziness that has defined the Redskins during the Snyder era and has now presided over a miserable offseason and curious draft. it also means he's not retiring again anytime soon. Gibbs used to have the magic touch with quarterbacks. He won Super Bowls with three of them: Joe Theismann, Doug Williams and Mark Rypien, functional players who will never join him in the Hall of Fame. His 12 seasons away from football are showing. Campbell had not been projected as a first-round pick. Browns, who were expected to take Campbell early in the second round This stuff is starting to drive me a little crazy. Miserable offseason???? We lost a MLB who had one decent season, who had limitations and who wanted more than our only Pro Bowl player. We lost a decent, but also limited in Gregg Williams' schemes, CB that wanted more than Springs who is a BETTER player. The Coles move hurt our flexibility this year, but he is damaged goods and would have been a huge distraction. This guy says we have far greater problems, but doesn't say what they are. If Ramsey can't handle the pressure, than at least we know we have another guy that we can hand the reins to. Auburn QB is latest screwup??? How the f can you judge that 4 days after the draft? My favorite line in this POS is when he says we made a mistake in taking Campbell in the late 1st because he obviously was a 2nd round pick, than says we were lucky to get him at 25 because Cleveland wanted him a few picks later and could of traded up. Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 As long as consumers continue to eat this kind of published tripe up in the numbers they do---all you have to do is look at the number who do so right here to see how effective it is---they'll continue to write this drivel. If the day ever comes the bulk of consumers become a bit more discrimination and demand a higher standard, the analysis=for-money crowd will have to raise their games. Hope it happens in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by MRMADD Publicly? Come on, Blade, you know better than that. You can't dismiss arguments because Gibbs hasn't badmouthed anyone publicly. That's not his style. Even if he was ready to throw the dwarf out a window, he wouldn't say it to the media. MRMADD, How about you quote the ENTIRETY of what I said in context instead of being a MB version of a hack sportswriter? I *CAN* dismiss this argument completely when you consider the NEXT SENTENCE in my above post... Gibbs can FIRE ANYONE in the organization that he feels isnt getting the job done, or isnt serving the teams best interests. Notice who HASNT been fired that you are so quickly to disparage? Show me ANYTHING to justify the comments written as FACT by this tool. I wont hold my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by McMetal I'm really starting to wish Gibbs had not come back because of articles like this. The media is just waiting to rip at him. It's definitely a truism that "people despise greatness in their lifetimes." If they're not ridiculously building someone up (Bellicek)they're relentlessly tearing someone down (Gibbs). There is going to be a lot more of this, believe me. The ONLY way to stop it is a Super Bowl, which is a tall order for any team, much less an organization that has been in the doldrums for over a decade. I don't think Joe believes he will tarnish anything, no matter what the W's and L's are. And I don't believe a lot of the fans will think that. But it will become accepted as fact because this is what the despicable media will paint as the truth. He deserves better. You think winning Super Bowls will stop it? No, it will increase it. Because if we don't go 2 in a row, then the first one was a fluke. Besides, the more crap they say like this now, the more they will have to shovel in their big fat pieholes when we are donning a new Trophy. FTM (F...The Media) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 You can't make **** up out of whole cloth, either. If you affirmatively throw an accusation out there in a published article like this gentleman has, there's the presumption you've got something to back it up. Right. I'm not saying the article is right, I'm just saying that the tendency is to hang everything on Gibbs public utterances, and we all know he's too polite to trash anyone publicly, and too smart to tip his hand publicly. My problem with you (the collective you -- the Amen corner) is that even when the argument is backed up with evidence, you tend to dismiss it. When Gibbs says, for example, that Ramsey is "our starting QB", but adds a very expensive veteran QB who arguably cost the Skins Pierce and Smoot, and then drafts a QB in the first round, it's pretty clear that he has mixed feelings on this, despite what he says publicly. When Gibbs says that Ramsey is "our guy", I interpret that to mean that he has no better options for 2005 and is stuck with Ramsey, but Ramsey damn well better perform because he's now got Campbell and Brunell looking over his shoulder. Wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 The negatives will continue and go on and on from all the sportswriters about Gibbs and the coaching staff except Williams and the defense. I am sure every other team board has the same crap. Nobody except the people inside that building at Redskin park has a clue what Gibbs and Co are up to, and I love it that they keep second guessing them. Om has said it before about the knowledge level of the group in that building. The only years I care to hear about is last year, anything beyond that to me is considered dead time. Last year was like watching someone learning how to drive a stick shift again, (three on the tree kind). You know how do it, but some of the little things you forgot about, after awhile its like you always owned one. And in that analogy I say stand by sportswriters, the skins are about to find third gear and overdrive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Money Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 I do this a couple times a week... I hate when they pull sh!t out of the air and make it fact. <*****@gmail.com> Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 12:16 PMTo: gmyers@edit.nydailynews.com Gary: I am of the opinion that when someone uses the term "In fact" in journalism they should have a quote, recording, source - anything substantial to back up their references to proven facts. I would like to know where your "fact" comes from in the following article/quote. Have you heard this from Gibbs, from a "source" or any other method used to verify facts in journalism? YOUR QUOTE: from the article posted at http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/story/303242p-259579c.html "In fact, Gibbs, who has total control, desperately misses Bobby Beathard and Charley Casserly, his GMs when he won three Super Bowls his first time in Washington." I'm curious because it seems to me that just because you are a sportswriter that you may feel that you don't have to display have the same integrity as someone who - let's say covers foreign or governmental affairs. Or is it just the fish wrap your column appears in that gives you the notion that you don't need to have any integrity in your writing? Before you write me off as some yahoo fan...I would really like to know so please take a minute of your time to reply. Kevin Bell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by MRMADD Right. I'm not saying the article is right, I'm just saying that the tendency is to hang everything on Gibbs public utterances, and we all know he's too polite to trash anyone publicly, and too smart to tip his hand publicly. My problem with you (the collective you -- the Amen corner) is that even when the argument is backed up with evidence, you tend to dismiss it. When Gibbs says, for example, that Ramsey is "our starting QB", but adds a very expensive veteran QB who arguably cost the Skins Pierce and Smoot, and then drafts a QB in the first round, it's pretty clear that he has mixed feelings on this, despite what he says publicly. When Gibbs says that Ramsey is "our guy", I interpret that to mean that he has no better options for 2005 and is stuck with Ramsey, but Ramsey damn well better perform because he's now got Campbell and Brunell looking over his shoulder. Wouldn't you agree? http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/...threadid=100740 yes & no. I think to take anything that this sorry excuse for a sportswriter says seriously is dangerous...especially in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by MRMADD It's true that the Skins have not improved, personnel wise, this offseason. It's true that their cap management was somewhere south of laughable. But those are only the headlines. If you dig a little deeper, you see that Joe Gibbs took two giant strides this offseason towards improving the offense immediately. Jettisoning Coles? Nope. Picking Campbell? No way. Adding Moss? Nope. Adding Patten? You're kidding, right? I'm talking about the return of Jon Jansen and the addition of Casey Rabach. Casey's a huge, young center -- the best available -- and immediately makes the line better. That's 2/5 of the line significantly upgraded. That makes Portis better. It makes Ramsey better. It makes the whole offense better. Not flashy. But effective. Tell me, how did Gibbs heal Jansen's achilles? How does he have any affect on Jansen being injured last year or on his return this year? And tell me how the cap management has been laughable? And how can you say in one sentence that the Skins have not improved personel-wise this offseason, and then in the next paragraph say that we HAVE improved our O-line this offseason? Youre worse than Pasta with this kinda crap, MRMADD. Self-contradictory talk like this is getting downright trollish. You remember what happens to trolls around here, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by MRMADD Right. I'm not saying the article is right, I'm just saying that the tendency is to hang everything on Gibbs public utterances, and we all know he's too polite to trash anyone publicly, and too smart to tip his hand publicly. My problem with you (the collective you -- the Amen corner) is that even when the argument is backed up with evidence, you tend to dismiss it. When Gibbs says, for example, that Ramsey is "our starting QB", but adds a very expensive veteran QB who arguably cost the Skins Pierce and Smoot, and then drafts a QB in the first round, it's pretty clear that he has mixed feelings on this, despite what he says publicly. When Gibbs says that Ramsey is "our guy", I interpret that to mean that he has no better options for 2005 and is stuck with Ramsey, but Ramsey damn well better perform because he's now got Campbell and Brunell looking over his shoulder. Wouldn't you agree? If I represent the Amen Corner, brother, you represent the Morose Morass. This board has been FULL of posts describing in great detail why the Campbell pick makes sense, even GIVEN Gibbs' statements about Ramsey, which are uncontroverted; that he's the presumptive starter for '05, that Gibbs hopes he'll take the job by the throat and never let it go, and that Campbell is purely and simply a smart investment at the key position in football. You apprently either haven't considered those posts objectively and willfully ignore Gibbs' stated position on Ramsey and Campbell, or, in your zeal to beat the drum only for the worst possible outlook on any given issue, you simply continue to ignore anything that might allow even the tiniest ray of light into your narrow, dark and bitter little world. Ooh. That was fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Om, Dang that was good, how do think that stuff up? I had to read it twice being from N.C. and inall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 I am with you on the O-line comment, that may be the biggest addition to the O. But, how can you say adding great speed and 2 downfield threats to a team that had 0 production past 20 yds last year won't help? Patten is 31 years old. Moss is hiding out in Miami, not getting reps with Ramsey, and I don't regard Coles for Moss as an even trade. Gardner is still on the roster. Taylor Jacobs hasn't shown anything yet. I don't regard that as a significant upgrade. This is not a good receiving corps. Yes, the rules changes will benefit the small, fast receivers, but Moss is the only guy on the roster who's really proven, and he caught only 45 balls -- and 5 TDs -- last year. The Jets were a running team. Patten and Moss combined caught fewer passes than Coles last year. The only positive is that they managed to generate a lot more TDs, but one could argue that was a product of the teams they were playing on. I'm a little worried about the receivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 I'll take more TDs over more catches anyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by MRMADD Patten is 31 years old. Moss is hiding out in Miami, not getting reps with Ramsey, and I don't regard Coles for Moss as an even trade. Gardner is still on the roster. Taylor Jacobs hasn't shown anything yet. I don't regard that as a significant upgrade. This is not a good receiving corps. Yes, the rules changes will benefit the small, fast receivers, but Moss is the only guy on the roster who's really proven, and he caught only 45 balls -- and 5 TDs -- last year. The Jets were a running team. Patten and Moss combined caught fewer passes than Coles last year. The only positive is that they managed to generate a lot more TDs, but one could argue that was a product of the teams they were playing on. I'm a little worried about the receivers. :doh: Someone pass this guy a shovel. I don't think he can dig his hole fast enough. NEWSFLASH: This is NOT "The Posse!" Sorry, didn't mean to just butt in. Carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 This board has been FULL of posts describing in great detail why the Campbell pick makes sense, even GIVEN Gibbs' statements about Ramsey, which are uncontroverted; that he's the presumptive starter for '05, that Gibbs hopes he'll take the job by the throat and never let it go, and that Campbell is purely and simply a smart investment at the key position in football. You apprently either haven't considered those posts objectively and willfully ignore Gibbs' stated position on Ramsey and Campbell, or, in your zeal to beat the drum only for the worst possible outlook on any given issue, you simply continue to ignore anything that might allow even the tiniest ray of light into your narrow, dark and bitter little world. It's always telling: you get very defensive and personal when wrong. And it's funny that you cite as evidence a board full of posts. Gee, that's convincing. The truth is that if Gibbs really felt there was a good chance that Ramsey would "grab the job by the throat" in '05, he would NEVER use a first round pick on a backup QB. Not with all his needs on offense. No, if Joe had a young starter he believed in, he'd find a veteran backup. That's his history. He brought in Brunell to be the starter. That didn't work, and he's too expensive to dump and bring in another vet, so he brought in Campbell to take over when he's ready. That is not a vote of confidence in Ramsey no matter how you spin it. Don't believe everything you read in the paper. Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denverdan Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by Om As long as consumers continue to eat this kind of published tripe up in the numbers they do---all you have to do is look at the number who do so right here to see how effective it is---they'll continue to write this drivel. If the day ever comes the bulk of consumers become a bit more discrimination and demand a higher standard, the analysis=for-money crowd will have to raise their games. Hope it happens in my lifetime. It won't. This newspaper costs 25 cents. Its a short step up from the National Enquirer. I wouldn't expect it to adhere to standards of the NY Times (or even the Washington post) in terms of objective and accurate reporting. Sure lots of people read it most anyone with half a brain takes it with a grain of salt, and those who don't go onto watch jerry springer for the rest of their information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Madd he's already got two veterans. And if Campbell is brought in to get Ramseys attention so what. I dont care if the waterboy plays QB if it works great, if it doesnt cycle in the next guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by MRMADD Right. I'm not saying the article is right, I'm just saying that the tendency is to hang everything on Gibbs public utterances, and we all know he's too polite to trash anyone publicly, and too smart to tip his hand publicly. My problem with you (the collective you -- the Amen corner) is that even when the argument is backed up with evidence, you tend to dismiss it. When Gibbs says, for example, that Ramsey is "our starting QB", but adds a very expensive veteran QB who arguably cost the Skins Pierce and Smoot, and then drafts a QB in the first round, it's pretty clear that he has mixed feelings on this, despite what he says publicly. When Gibbs says that Ramsey is "our guy", I interpret that to mean that he has no better options for 2005 and is stuck with Ramsey, but Ramsey damn well better perform because he's now got Campbell and Brunell looking over his shoulder. Wouldn't you agree? MRMADD, If there was a tendency to 'hang everything on Gibbs public utterances', then it pales in comparision to the tendency to state opinion as fact by those who do little to justify the disparaging remarks they make about the team. Read your own posts as a good example. You've done a piss-poor job of demonstrating ANY 'evidence' to back up many of your statements here. Tendency noted, Mr. Pot-Kettle. No one will argue that Gibbs is too tactful to publically call out anyone. He will just fire them, or replace them, or trade them. His actions speak for him, just as yours do here. And NOTHING in his words OR actions have shown any lack of confidence in cap managment or in the scouting/personnel staff. Note that the team capologist was just resigned to a longterm contract? Your interpretation of Gibbs actions regarding the drafting of Campbell may be correct about having misgiving about Patrick... but those misgiving may NOT be about Pat's ability... it maybe about the ability to resign Patrick when his contract is up in 06. Or it may be about his misgivings with having a healthy and capable QB on the roster for 16 games.... there are numerous ways to interpret it. But twisting statements to justify YOUR bias is NOT going to help make your recent statements any less trollish... Can you show me anywhere that Gibbs said that Pat was the 'starter' after he aquired Brunell? From all accounts, he made it clear that he would open up the competition during the preseason, and even Patrick admits that he lost out fair and square to Brunell. So, acknowledge the facts that are out there and make it clear that you have some degree of self-control by posting such... or dont waste our time having to consistently correct your laziness, ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Bottom line for the Redskins this year (barring injury) there is only one key question: what will the QB play be like thats it, all the worries about the WR group, the losses on D, the lack of a pass rush, while all reasonable concerns, can be off-set by the most modest of incremental improvements in QB play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 SnyderDan you forgot one. Moving the chains. just kidding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by budski SnyderDan you forgot one. Moving the chains. just kidding now you die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Tell me, how did Gibbs heal Jansen's achilles? How does he have any affect on Jansen being injured last year or on his return this year? He laid hands on him, just like Mother Theresa and the lepers. Haven't you heard? And tell me how the cap management has been laughable? Quick, how much cap room did it cost to ditch Coles? How much does Brunell's butt on the bench cost? OK, I think you have your answer. And how can you say in one sentence that the Skins have not improved personel-wise this offseason, and then in the next paragraph say that we HAVE improved our O-line this offseason? I think I explained this in great detail. I'll... speak... slower. The Skins did not improve, personnel-wise, this offseason. The additions (Rabach, Moss, Patten, Rogers) don't outweigh the losses (Coles, Pierce, Smoot), at least not immediately. They're treading water, overall. However (try to keep up here), the offensive line certainly did improve. See? They got better in one area, worse in others -- and overall it was at best a wash. That's not contradictory. Youre worse than Pasta with this kinda crap, MRMADD. Self-contradictory talk like this is getting downright trollish. No contradictions. Nuance. Maybe it's beyond you. You remember what happens to trolls around here, right? Oooooh, a threat! Arguing with children is fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carter23 Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by MRMADD The Jets were a running team. so are the redskins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.