Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 1:40 pm
by SkinsJock
Interesting observation!
I think for the most part we all want the Skins to do well it's just that some are sick and tired of waiting! The last draft seemed to be the "straw that broke the camel's back" as it were! Initially I was shocked, but my faith in Joe led me to look at it differently. I would rather think that because he knows more about who he's got and what he wants as a player on "his team" AND there has to be a "method" to this madness! Some want to look at it negatively and that is their right.
I remember this team from the early 70's and I think that since Joe left we lost some of our "mystique"! There seemed to be a "magic" about our team and the last gasp heroics or losses! We always seemed to be involved in games that were not decided till the last play! Then Joe left and we seemed to lose a little as each season went by. We were not a good football team and we used to be a "special" team. We stopped playing "basic" football and started hoping for miaracles from "star" players instead of just enjoying heroics from guys like Monk, Fisher, Dole and Brown!
Now some people do not "see" much from what has happened in the last 17 months, but I think we saw a team that was very competitive again in certain areas and a lot of things were improved from years past. This was not a good team (maybe even bad?) and Joe is getting it back into shape. This will not happen in 1 season but we saw some great improvement last year IMO and this team will continue to improve! This is one of the best coaches EVER, and he will drag us back to the top because he is the best.
I do not really mind those that doubt, they will learn! We just need to give Joe time and we will see our team as one of the best again.
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 2:19 pm
by Redskin in Canada
REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:What the heck is "negatism"???
Translation: The negative attitude that often destroys threads in this board: Manic-depressive posters. They know who they are.
As soon as the Skins make progress, they will leave for another team. They NEED to be depressed. Have you noticed that we seem to be getting them now that the Bungles are actually improving?
Next year, they will be posting in the Browns board.
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 2:22 pm
by cvillehog
Redskin in Canada wrote:REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:What the heck is "negatism"???
Translation: The negative attitude that often destroys threads in this board: Manic-depressive posters. They know who they are.
As soon as the Skins make progress, they will leave for another team. They NEED to be depressed. Have you noticed that we seem to be getting them now that the Bungles are actually improving?
Next year, they will be posting in the Browns board.
I think Redeemed's point is that the proper word is "negativism." I guess the grammar police got ahold of Redeem's number too...
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 2:25 pm
by Redskin in Canada
cvillehog wrote:I think Redeemed's point is that the proper word is "negativism." I guess the grammar police got ahold of Redeem's number too...
No, negatism is in "Panamanian" my friend. Do you speak "Panamanian"? No? Well then...
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 2:33 pm
by cvillehog
Redskin in Canada wrote:cvillehog wrote:I think Redeemed's point is that the proper word is "negativism." I guess the grammar police got ahold of Redeem's number too...
No, negatism is in "Panamanian" my friend. Do you speak "Panamanian"? No? Well then...
Actually, I think Redeemed does.
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 2:38 pm
by Redskin in Canada
cvillehog wrote:Actually, I think Redeemed does.
No, he claims to mumble a real bad interpretation of Mexican Spanish. He is not educated enough to speak fluent "Panamanian". But then again, as we all know, he is biased on most things.
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 2:44 pm
by REDEEMEDSKIN
Escuuuuuuuuuse me, seeeñor. But, who are ju colling biased?? Ándale, arriba, arriba!!
Estay on topeek, if ju pleez. Gracias seeñor.
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 2:56 pm
by Redskin in Canada
I knew I would regret this. Still...
... you speak poor "Panamanian". You see "negatism" is the opposite of "positism" which is what most of us are aiming for
¿Está bien ahora?
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 2:56 pm
by Gibbs' Hog
I think this whole thread relates specifically to crazyhorse and Manfreda. I don't think I have ever read a post by those guys that was positive. It would be a nice change to see at least one post by both of them that was positive - which also means that the whole post is positive; and friggin dump the sarcasm. One day, the skins will prevail again, and I'm gonna laugh my
off when those two dissapear for good.
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 3:43 pm
by genuswine hoglover
welch wrote:I guess like much of the young fans of the 70´s felt when Allen came on board after 25+ yrs of losing....and what he did??? trade trade trade for over the hill guys....but they were his guys... Character guys, winning guys.
Skipping the age question, I remember the feeling that Jorge mentions about the Over the Hill Gang, or the "Ramskins", as they were also called.
We snarled and snapped. We had memories only of terrible teams around 1960, improving to no-defense teams in the mid-60's. Lombardi had made a start, but he was gone.
Recall that Old George traded all his first and second round picks for the next two years, and went back and traded off all the rest of his first rounders. We grumbled, although I thought maybe there was some strategy behind it. "The future is now", he said, and I admitted that the Skins had a great offense, but that Sonny was already about 36, and Charlie Taylor was nearing 30.
People made jokes about the old linebackers (except for Hanburger), and asked how anyone as old as Petibon could help a defensive backfield.
Then the '71 season started, and we saw the parts all fit together. The Ramskins, other "castoffs" like Ron McDole and Verlon Biggs, a team that had the three best defensive coaches between 1960 and 1990, two as players and one as head coach.
*
When they made the playoffs, as George promised in '71, I could hardly believe it. When I was little, the Queenstown Barshop had a line of pictures of NFL champion Redskins...Sammy Baugh and Cliff Battles and other people I had never seen.
They worse something like Redskin uniforms, except for the leather helmets, but they seemed to me like a team from a different universe. The world-beating champion Redskins? Could that be real?
*
I'm sure that some here feel the same about Gibbs. You have seen the NFL Films of the Redskins in SB's 17, 22, and 26, but those guys seem disconnected. The sports entertainment media hammers Gibbs with every sneer they can concoct. He's old, he can't "relate" to these players, the game has changed, all the rest.
I see something different. I see that Gibbs has not changed a bit of his approach, but, as always, he studies more than any other coach and constantly changes. That's not contradictory. He has always changed blocking schemes, refined plays, added and subtracted, as he needed to fit his players and his opposition. He approaches the players just the same, and looks for the same qualities inside his players: brains, hard work, discipline, playing tough under pressure. That is, playing to win, rather than playing to run up personal statistics.
*
Yes, it's too bad that Pierce left for the Giants. Smoot gave everything he had. Otherwise, it's good that the team showed some financial discipline and some faith in their own players to get better. Trading Coles is an improvement, and the team will improve again when Gardener is gone. Drafting Campbell seems like an intelligent move to protect the future, unless we expect the basic laws of being-in-the-world [that's for our philosphy major, who certainly does have a good understanding of these Redskins, age or not] to change such that quarterbacks are never injured.
*
Finally ("thanks", I hear you murmur): the decade that Joe Gibbs spent learning to win in NASCAR shows why he can win in the "new" NFL. He never stops learning, no matter what he is working at.
Welsh. Wow. I remember.
To all the pessimists
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 5:00 pm
by HEROHAMO
Hey guys look its only been one year. With Gibbs as the head coach and already some are ready to throw him under the bus. Lets look at the positives are defense is one of the best in the league. Sure the draft was questionable but hey lets not forget Gibbs has three Superbowls under his belt. UMM I think he can evaluate talent just fine. We still have a good running game Jansen is returning and with some more production in the passing game we will be just fine. Patience fellas we are headed in the right direction.
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 5:08 pm
by Gibbs' Hog
While I agree with you, you should have put this post here:
http://www.thehogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13142
I'm afraid this will simply provide more fodder to...well, the pessimists
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 5:15 pm
by John Manfreda
Bethard picked the players not Gibbs and its showing now. After 1987 when Bethard left we haven't had a good draft since. I don't care what fourth and one says "Bethard never denied Gibbs any player he wanted" thats BS. They fought over players all the time and that is why Bethard left. We would have made the playoffs last year if he started Ramsey the whole time and wasn't so stubborn. The D is great though. Quit giving me threads, the only way I will get positive again is if we start winning.
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 5:22 pm
by Gibbs' Hog
Thanks John, that post wasn't quite as negative. I hope we do start winning too.
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 11:18 pm
by 1niksder
There is nothing wrong with being negative..... just don't try to bring everyone else down.
The anti-Manfreda
http://dallasredskins.com/multimedia/12thman4.rm
Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 1:05 am
by tcwest10
Yes...a proven system...fifteen years ago.
Gibbs needs to tweak things a little. Once he does, look out. There won't hardly be any room on the bandwagon.
Re: To all the pessimists
Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 1:12 am
by crazyhorse1
HEROHAMO wrote: We still have a good running game... headed in the right direction.
Portis had an average gain of under four yards per carry, for the first time in his career; nobody else ran for squat; and we couldn't score on the ground to save our butts. We were basically helpless last year until Ramsey starting connecting. Even then, we couldn't run the ball. Whose games were you watching?
Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 1:16 am
by tcwest10
We were all watching the same team. I thought you were tired of the negative stuff ?
Re: To all the pessimists
Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 2:11 am
by portis26
crazyhorse1 wrote:HEROHAMO wrote: We still have a good running game... headed in the right direction.
Portis had an average gain of under four yards per carry, for the first time in his career; nobody else ran for squat; and we couldn't score on the ground to save our butts. We were basically helpless last year until Ramsey starting connecting. Even then, we couldn't run the ball. Whose games were you watching?
Dude, please just find another team you can actually root for rather than ridicule ALL THE TIME. Go cheer for Julius Jones, Tiki Barber, or Brian Westbrook, maybe their YPC will please you. We know what Portis' YPC was and we know what are o-line situation was last year and we as REAL SKINS FANS think that it will improve next year.
Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 2:47 am
by Chris Luva Luva
Portis had 1300 some yards last season behind a horrible o-line.
Ramsey came in midway through the season without having really praticed with the starting WR's and having a lot of timing down.
We didn't have Jon.
We had a 40 some year old black man playing guard.
We had a mediocre center.
We had injured WR who didn't want to play for us.
We had 50/50.
It was a new system.
Its a very complex system.
It was Joes 1st year back after being gone for 12 years!
Give the team a break. Jeez.
Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 8:46 am
by Irn-Bru
And also, the ball really never bounced our way last year. I'm not blaming any games or losses on bad refs or bad luck--I think that we should have put ourselves in a position to win.
But since the season is over, I will say that those intangible pieces of luck (getting the right call, for instance) alone would have been worth a game or two.
Heck, even one more win would have put Gibbs at 7-9, to which everyone probably would have agreed was a better 7-9 than Spurrier's.
In fact, I view a 6-10 season with Gibbs as better than a 7-9 season with Spurrier.
Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 4:25 pm
by welch
RIC wrote the HogsNet all-time HOF single line:
One out of three theological virtues is not a bad start but it will not get you far either.
...sending me back to St Augustine, "On Faith, Hope, and Love".
As a matter of fact, it reminds me of the "debate" that ended Phil Jackson's coaching career with the Chicago Bulls. The Bulls owner had just told reporters that a team is motivated by "fear and greed". They asked Jackson about it, and reported that he looked baffled. "No, I think teams are motivated by love and pride. Love for team-mates, so you won't let them down, and pride in the quality of the job you do".
"Character" wins. The no-star Skins of the '70s won many games on determination and grit, games that they would have lost on comparative talent. Same with the Gibbs teams. How many of his players are now in the Hall of Fame?
Someone talked about Barry Bonds. Fine. You can have Barry Bonds, and a flock of other me-first stars, and I'll take the '98 Yankees. Guess who would win? Or skip the guessing, and tell me who
did win.
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 5:23 am
by Redskin in Canada
welch wrote:...sending me back to St Augustine, "On Faith, Hope, and Love".
This is truly interesting. The fact that some coaches may choose to coach in the negative, e.g., "fear and greed", or in the positive, i.e., "love and pride", is what sets them apart.
Intersetingly also, it can be proven that both approaches have succeeded at different times. I would argue that the positive approach builds long-term dynasties and the negative approach builds "prima donnas and vedettes" and is self-destructive in the short run.
The positive approach also does something different. It makes not only great players, but also great men and women who contribute far beyond the grass turf. They leave a lasting legacy of values and example to the new generations.
welch wrote:"Character" wins.
Of course, it does. However, we may struggle with many definitions. A player can recognise it in himself or others without any philosophical considerations. But for those of us who want to identify it on our players this issue becomes a bit more serious.
To the three theological virtues mentioned above, I would add its four cardinal counterparts: Wisdom, Temperance, Courage, and Justice.
The combination of all seven make what I define as
Character.
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 10:25 am
by SKINZ_DOMIN8
Not being negative.....more like skeptical......but until they win some DIVISION games, I will "believe it when I believe it."