The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Irn-Bru wrote:Actually, some Redskins fans would not approve of Vick even if he was leading us to playoff and Super Bowl victories.

I really don't see what's so hard about this . . .

It isn't about approval of him outside of the game. If it is, that is the problem. His life off the field and away from the game is exactly that. I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Yea, clearly some people look for reasons to bitch. Others only want the Redskins to be a winning franchise once again.

TCIYM wrote:It isn't about approval of him outside of the game. If it is, that is the problem. His life off the field and away from the game is exactly that. I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Yea, clearly some people look for reasons to bitch. Others only want the Redskins to be a winning franchise once again.

It's not looking for reasons to complain; it's about character and integrity. That's why more Ws won't make a difference for some Redskins fans, because the reason they dislike Vick has nothing to do with his on-field performance. And to many fans (myself included), integrity and character off the field matter when it comes to supporting players on the field.

Irn-Bru wrote:

TCIYM wrote:It isn't about approval of him outside of the game. If it is, that is the problem. His life off the field and away from the game is exactly that. I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Yea, clearly some people look for reasons to bitch. Others only want the Redskins to be a winning franchise once again.

It's not looking for reasons to complain; it's about character and integrity. That's why more Ws won't make a difference for some Redskins fans, because the reason they dislike Vick has nothing to do with his on-field performance. And to many fans (myself included), integrity and character off the field matter when it comes to supporting players on the field.

So, if Shanahan fills the team with a bunch of talented but suspect character players are you and those of your ilk going to stop supporting the team? I suppose I am missing the connection. Character issues go back a lot further than Michael Vick. Dexter Manley? Jerry Smith?

TCIYM wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

TCIYM wrote:It isn't about approval of him outside of the game. If it is, that is the problem. His life off the field and away from the game is exactly that. I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Yea, clearly some people look for reasons to bitch. Others only want the Redskins to be a winning franchise once again.

It's not looking for reasons to complain; it's about character and integrity. That's why more Ws won't make a difference for some Redskins fans, because the reason they dislike Vick has nothing to do with his on-field performance. And to many fans (myself included), integrity and character off the field matter when it comes to supporting players on the field.

So, if Shanahan fills the team with a bunch of talented but suspect character players are you and those of your ilk going to stop supporting the team? I suppose I am missing the connection. Character issues go back a lot further than Michael Vick. Dexter Manley? Jerry Smith?

First, the character issues of particular players change by circumstance. I don't have any personal issues with Mike Vick and wouldn't have any problem cheering for him if he was a Redskin. Likewise with respect to players who use drugs, I also don't have a big personal problem with that.

But your post really misses the point. You claimed that no one would care if Vick was playing winning football. My only point is that people would care. That doesn't mean they would stop being Redskins fans; it just means they wouldn't be happy with the particular players or pretend that the problems didn't exist.

Irn-Bru wrote:

TCIYM wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

TCIYM wrote:It isn't about approval of him outside of the game. If it is, that is the problem. His life off the field and away from the game is exactly that. I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Yea, clearly some people look for reasons to bitch. Others only want the Redskins to be a winning franchise once again.

It's not looking for reasons to complain; it's about character and integrity. That's why more Ws won't make a difference for some Redskins fans, because the reason they dislike Vick has nothing to do with his on-field performance. And to many fans (myself included), integrity and character off the field matter when it comes to supporting players on the field.

So, if Shanahan fills the team with a bunch of talented but suspect character players are you and those of your ilk going to stop supporting the team? I suppose I am missing the connection. Character issues go back a lot further than Michael Vick. Dexter Manley? Jerry Smith?

First, the character issues of particular players change by circumstance. I don't have any personal issues with Mike Vick and wouldn't have any problem cheering for him if he was a Redskin. Likewise with respect to players who use drugs, I also don't have a big personal problem with that.

But your post really misses the point. You claimed that no one would care if Vick was playing winning football. My only point is that people would care. That doesn't mean they would stop being Redskins fans; it just means they wouldn't be happy with the particular players or pretend that the problems didn't exist.

If the issue isn't affecting on-field performance I fail to see why anyone should care. I suppose I should retract my original carte blanche statement and agree to disagree.

TCIYM wrote:So, if Shanahan fills the team with a bunch of talented but suspect character players are you and those of your ilk going to stop supporting the team? I suppose I am missing the connection. Character issues go back a lot further than Michael Vick. Dexter Manley? Jerry Smith?

I am going to strongly object to Jerry Smith being used as an example of a guy with a character issue. Why? Because he was gay? Being born a homosexual is not a character issue any more than being born with a different hair or skin color.

I'm still glad that we have McNabb - i'm also glad we don't have a lot of other NFL players that some here think are good players because I'm not convinced that they would be as good here with who we have than where they are currently playing

I like what Vick is doing but I'm glad we have McNabb - I don't think Vick would have had as great a season if he'd been here and I don't think our FO considered him a viable possibility - that's fine with me

SkinsJock wrote:I'm still glad that we have McNabb - i'm also glad we don't have a lot of other NFL players that some here think are good players because I'm not convinced that they would be as good here with who we have than where they are currently playing

I like what Vick is doing but I'm glad we have McNabb - I don't think Vick would have had as great a season if he'd been here and I don't think our FO considered him a viable possibility - that's fine with me

You know Mcnabb probably won't be here next year right?

Skinsfan55 wrote:

TCIYM wrote:So, if Shanahan fills the team with a bunch of talented but suspect character players are you and those of your ilk going to stop supporting the team? I suppose I am missing the connection. Character issues go back a lot further than Michael Vick. Dexter Manley? Jerry Smith?

I am going to strongly object to Jerry Smith being used as an example of a guy with a character issue. Why? Because he was gay? Being born a homosexual is not a character issue any more than being born with a different hair or skin color.

Two points:

1. Just how was Jerry Smith a "character issue"?

2. For those too young to remember, Smith was the best pass-catching tight end ever to play in the NFL. Around 1968, Charley Taylor led the league in receptions, Bobby Mitchell was second, and Smith was fourth. The year after Sonny retired, he was doing commentary in a Redskin game. The announcer asked, "It looks tough for the Redskins here, Sonny...what would you do?" Without a pause, Sonny replied, "Well, the first thing I'd do is get Jerry Smith into the ballgame!" If the current Redskins had six receivers as good as Jerry Smith, they would be a long step toward respectability.

welch wrote:

Skinsfan55 wrote:

TCIYM wrote:So, if Shanahan fills the team with a bunch of talented but suspect character players are you and those of your ilk going to stop supporting the team? I suppose I am missing the connection. Character issues go back a lot further than Michael Vick. Dexter Manley? Jerry Smith?

I am going to strongly object to Jerry Smith being used as an example of a guy with a character issue. Why? Because he was gay? Being born a homosexual is not a character issue any more than being born with a different hair or skin color.

Two points:

1. Just how was Jerry Smith a "character issue"?

2. For those too young to remember, Smith was the best pass-catching tight end ever to play in the NFL. Around 1968, Charley Taylor led the league in receptions, Bobby Mitchell was second, and Smith was fourth. The year after Sonny retired, he was doing commentary in a Redskin game. The announcer asked, "It looks tough for the Redskins here, Sonny...what would you do?" Without a pause, Sonny replied, "Well, the first thing I'd do is get Jerry Smith into the ballgame!" If the current Redskins had six receivers as good as Jerry Smith, they would be a long step toward respectability.

I added the "?" behind Jerry Smith's name because I only know what I've read second and third-hand about Smith. I'm not quite old enough to have seen him play first-hand. That doesn't make anything I've read accurate, and it seems others here are far more familiar with whether or not there were any internal team issues with his sexual preference. In no way did I intend to imply his football skills were anything less than stellar. I was only asking where the line is with regard to character issues or if there is one. Apparantly there is one and Michael Vick is over it.

lol @ this thread. Fail.

There was never a mention about Smith's sexual orientation until he died of AIDS. No mention, not even a hint, that anybody cared...except that Smith was well-regarded.

There were, of course, "character issues", starting with DT Diron Talbert, who liked to turn Roger Staubach upside down and drag the immortal Roger five or ten yards on his head. George Allen collected a whole team of guys like Talbert.

Taylor is in the HoF, and he caused the NFL to outlaw the crack-back block. Kilmer and Jurgensen used to wear a single-bar face-mask. No defensive players tried to punch Billy or Sonny because they knew that on the next play, the Redskins would most likely run at them, and they would lose a knee to a block by Taylor or Smith or Roy Jefferson.

Bdot wrote:lol @ this thread. Fail.

Thanks for that insight. I was just wondering what a Cowboy fan would think of whether we should support Shannahan or not. Thanks for clearing it up. It will have a strong impact on my views on this topic

welch wrote:There was never a mention about Smith's sexual orientation until he died of AIDS. No mention, not even a hint, that anybody cared...except that Smith was well-regarded.

There were, of course, "character issues", starting with DT Diron Talbert, who liked to turn Roger Staubach upside down and drag the immortal Roger five or ten yards on his head. George Allen collected a whole team of guys like Talbert.

Taylor is in the HoF, and he caused the NFL to outlaw the crack-back block. Kilmer and Jurgensen used to wear a single-bar face-mask. No defensive players tried to punch Billy or Sonny because they knew that on the next play, the Redskins would most likely run at them, and they would lose a knee to a block by Taylor or Smith or Roy Jefferson.

This is the kind of Redskins history I wish I knew more about. My first-hand Redskins history begins with the end of George Allen, the unremarkable Jack Pardee, and Jack Kent Cooke asking Bobby Beathard, "Who in the hell is Joe Gibbs?"

TCIYM wrote:

welch wrote:There was never a mention about Smith's sexual orientation until he died of AIDS. No mention, not even a hint, that anybody cared...except that Smith was well-regarded.

There were, of course, "character issues", starting with DT Diron Talbert, who liked to turn Roger Staubach upside down and drag the immortal Roger five or ten yards on his head. George Allen collected a whole team of guys like Talbert.

Taylor is in the HoF, and he caused the NFL to outlaw the crack-back block. Kilmer and Jurgensen used to wear a single-bar face-mask. No defensive players tried to punch Billy or Sonny because they knew that on the next play, the Redskins would most likely run at them, and they would lose a knee to a block by Taylor or Smith or Roy Jefferson.

This is the kind of Redskins history I wish I knew more about. My first-hand Redskins history begins with the end of George Allen, the unremarkable Jack Pardee, and Jack Kent Cooke asking Bobby Beathard, "Who in the hell is Joe Gibbs?"

Jack Pardee may have been "unremarkable" as a head coach... but he was a quite remarkable cog in the workings of the "Over the Hill Gang".

Consider your ears boxed. Jerry Smith was pure character... and, but for homophobic bigotry, would (IMO) be in the Hall of Fame.

SkinsJock wrote:I like what Vick is doing but I'm glad we have McNabb - I don't think Vick would have had as great a season if he'd been here and I don't think our FO considered him a viable possibility - that's fine with me

I agree with you. Vick would not be having a great season here this year. If he was here, it would mean that he would have spent last year under Zorn in a traumatic year. IMO, no way he polishes his QB skills under Zorn. Not saying that Zorn isn't a good QB coach. I am saying Reid and Marty (the OC) are better than Zorn and know how to teach better than Zorn. Aslo, the Eagles offered stability which is what Vick needed. Vick would have wasted a year of development last year if he was here. He wouldnot be where he is now. One thing you have to admire about Vick over McNabb is he was willing to change his footwork to be a better QB.

Red_One43 wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:I like what Vick is doing but I'm glad we have McNabb - I don't think Vick would have had as great a season if he'd been here and I don't think our FO considered him a viable possibility - that's fine with me

I agree with you. Vick would not be having a great season here this year. If he was here, it would mean that he would have spent last year under Zorn in a traumatic year. IMO, no way he polishes his QB skills under Zorn. Not saying that Zorn isn't a good QB coach. I am saying Reid and Marty (the OC) are better than Zorn and know how to teach better than Zorn. Aslo, the Eagles offered stability which is what Vick needed. Vick would have wasted a year of development last year if he was here. He wouldnot be where he is now. One thing you have to admire about Vick over McNabb is he was willing to change his footwork to be a better QB.

Willing to change...Hmmm.....Well, you can't teach an old dog new tricks they say. Vick isn't old yet because of being in prison for torturing animals. Haha. Vick is awesome I have to admit and it hurts.

One thing you have to admire about Vick over McNabb is he was willing to change his footwork to be a better QB.

Vick didn't change his footwork... he changed his pocket discipline. In Atlanta, he made his first read, then took off. AS a result, he NEVER established himself as a credible quarterback.

In Philly, he is now going through his entire progression, then, takes off, unless his pocket breaks down earlier. His "footwork" is unchanged. There was never a need to change his footwork... he has a natural, powerful, and quick release, and throws accurate passes... he always has. He just never had the self discipline to tap it fully.

Vick did this, because he had to comply, or disappear from football. It's pretty clear that, not only has he not disappeared... but he's become one heck of a pocket passer... who can bootleg equally well... and can kick your butt with his legs if you don't keep him in the pocket.

I get your point, but it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Countertrey wrote:

One thing you have to admire about Vick over McNabb is he was willing to change his footwork to be a better QB.

Vick didn't change his footwork... he changed his pocket discipline. In Atlanta, he made his first read, then took off. AS a result, he NEVER established himself as a credible quarterback.

In Philly, he is now going through his entire progression, then, takes off, unless his pocket breaks down earlier. His "footwork" is unchanged. There was never a need to change his footwork... he has a natural, powerful, and quick release, and throws accurate passes... he always has. He just never had the self discipline to tap it fully.

Vick did this, because he had to comply, or disappear from football.

I get your point, but it's just not an apples to apples comparison.

Yes, you are very correct that Vick has changed his pocket discipline: however, on Sunday Night, last week, against the Cowboys, it was pointed out that Vick has eliminated the big hop in his last step as he sets up. Also, Vick has eliminated the straight up, legs together posture. Those video comparisons of Vick "then" and "now" showed that he indeed has changed his footwork. It was also pointed out the proper footwork improves his accuracy.

TCIYM wrote:If the issue isn't affecting on-field performance I fail to see why anyone should care.

Because some people value character, integrity, etc.

Countertrey wrote:

One thing you have to admire about Vick over McNabb is he was willing to change his footwork to be a better QB.

Vick didn't change his footwork... he changed his pocket discipline. In Atlanta, he made his first read, then took off. AS a result, he NEVER established himself as a credible quarterback.

In Philly, he is now going through his entire progression, then, takes off, unless his pocket breaks down earlier. His "footwork" is unchanged. There was never a need to change his footwork... he has a natural, powerful, and quick release, and throws accurate passes... he always has. He just never had the self discipline to tap it fully.

Vick did this, because he had to comply, or disappear from football. It's pretty clear that, not only has he not disappeared... but he's become one heck of a pocket passer... who can bootleg equally well... and can kick your butt with his legs if you don't keep him in the pocket.

I get your point, but it's an apples to oranges comparison.

I don't like Vic because he is the enemy. I will say he is very dangerous and I hav seen it. I figured him to be like Dnab but I was wrong. I still do not like him but have to give him the respect he deserves.

Irn-Bru wrote:

TCIYM wrote:If the issue isn't affecting on-field performance I fail to see why anyone should care.

Because some people value character, integrity, etc.

The problem with that though is that you aren't going to find very many NFL teams (if any) that don't have guys with questionable "character".

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

TCIYM wrote:If the issue isn't affecting on-field performance I fail to see why anyone should care.

Because some people value character, integrity, etc.

The problem with that though is that you aren't going to find very many NFL teams (if any) that don't have guys with questionable "character".

Labeling games 101. Label all personal issues as "character" issues and then say they are the same because they have the same label. No matter how many times repeated, a fallacy is still a fallacy

Thankfully there are teams that realize you can make a choice between players that suit what you want to get done and thankfully the Redskins did not bring in Vick although that choice was before this current FO were making player choices

My point about this all along has only been that certain teams when given the choice, between players who can help their franchises will select those with the better character history - doesn't make it right or wrong it just happens in FA and with the draft



on a slightly different note, I'm glad that this FO will try and find players that suit what we need rather than just bringing in the "flavor of the previous year" like the previous FO did - it may be that McNabb was a mistake, things happen, - IMO, we had Campbell and that was absolutely going nowhere

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

TCIYM wrote:If the issue isn't affecting on-field performance I fail to see why anyone should care.

Because some people value character, integrity, etc.

The problem with that though is that you aren't going to find very many NFL teams (if any) that don't have guys with questionable "character".

What's the problem supposed to be? People who value character just aren't going to like those specific guys. I don't like T.O. for that very reason, and even if he was a Redskin I wouldn't like him. Doesn't mean I still can't like and follow the Skins.

And besides, I prefer to focus on the positive. I don't like Haynesworth, but I have lots of praise for Fletcher, Daniels, Carter, and many other players who carry themselves professionally and with class.