D. Hall is our lone Pro Bowl selection

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

And my point is you guys are beating a dead horse with drudging up all of these stats to paint a picture as to why Hall is trash and shouldn't have been voted into the Pro Bowl. Even some of you have went as far to discount such an honor as anything being worthwhile. i.e. "The Pro Bowl is a joke! Who cares that Hall made those INTs, TD, and was MVP, the quarterbacks weren't trying....etc...etc...." And meanwhile, if no Redskins player had made the Pro Bowl, then you guys would be pouting because the team had no pro bowl caliber representatives on the team. And I am saying, let it go already. All of you! Hall made the Pro Bowl. Whether if you agree with it or not, whether if you think it was anything worthwhile or not, the fact is, DeAngelo Hall was a Pro Bowl player this year and won the MVP award for the game. I don't care what type of stats you have or how you try to bend them, it doesn't erase the fact that Hall was a Pro Bowl player. I find it's much better to just accept it and be happy for him, rather than to complain and be critical about it for pages and pages.

With that said, D. Hall is not one of my favorites in regards to current Redskins players. He's not even in my top five, even though he is a VA Tech grad. I'm just sick and tired of the belly-aching that has become Redskins nation.

Well, then you're arguing a strawman: Skins fan who thinks that it's a horrible thing that DeAngelo Hall was allowed to play in the probowl and made the most of his opportunity. That person doesn't exist.

As far as whether he deserved to play in the pro bowl, that actually is beating a dead horse. The pro bowl selectors can't agree on anything without numbers, and those exist only for passers, rushers, receivers, and pass rushers. For cornerbacks, it's guys with lots of interceptions. I think everyone agrees that's a stupid way to do it, but a lot of people still use interception totals to defend selections.

A lot of fans are just very indifferent to the fact that Hall was a pro-bowler this year. Your problem seems to be with that, though I think that's a really silly thing to be worked up about: people not caring that Hall was elected to the pro bowl. Maybe next year, I can prepare to be really excited for the Redskins pro bowlers. I don't think it's going to happen though.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

That's like saying walking behind a guy who drops a 100 dollar bill and then he vanishes isn't lucky. He was out of position a couple of times and luckily Cutler put it in that spot.

That's not a good analogy and doesn't make any sense to me. You don't purposely walk behind rich people, waiting for them to drop a $100 bill.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I'm just sick and tired of the belly-aching that has become Redskins nation.

Yup, me too. And I can complain with the best of them.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, then you're arguing a strawman: Skins fan who thinks that it's a horrible thing that DeAngelo Hall was allowed to play in the probowl and made the most of his opportunity. That person doesn't exist.

LOL! Not from this thread, I would have to disagree.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

As far as whether he deserved to play in the pro bowl, that actually is beating a dead horse.

Exactly, but yet people are arguing such. And all I'm saying is, he made it. Case closed.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The pro bowl selectors can't agree on anything without numbers, and those exist only for passers, rushers, receivers, and pass rushers. For cornerbacks, it's guys with lots of interceptions. I think everyone agrees that's a stupid way to do it, but a lot of people still use interception totals to defend selections.

The fact is, if they use INTs alone to select cornerbacks to Pro Bowls, then apparently D. Hall qualified with whatever numbers he had. I'm not arguing whether or not that's fair, right, or should be changed. I'm just saying, he made it based on whatever criteria needed to be satisfied. And if the end, they selected him going the any, meny, miny, moe route, then whatever, he's still a Pro Bowler.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

A lot of fans are just very indifferent to the fact that Hall was a pro-bowler this year. Your problem seems to be with that, though I think that's a really silly thing to be worked up about: people not caring that Hall was elected to the pro bowl. Maybe next year, I can prepare to be really excited for the Redskins pro bowlers. I don't think it's going to happen though.

Well, geez, go back and re-read the thread, because apparently there are people here who are really worked up over the fact that he did make it to the pro bowl. It's not all one-sided Tripp. If I get worked up it's over the constant complaining, in general. If the 'skins win, they don't win by enough points, if they lose, let's tear the whole team apart and start over after one year. We need a veteran QB, no we need a rookie QB, etc.... don't get me wrong, I welcome different points of view. I just feel that whether if one agrees or not, let's be happy that there are some positive things to cheer about with this team. Hall, Fletcher, and Orakpo making the Pro Bowl is a positive thing.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Well, geez, go back and re-read the thread, because apparently there are people here who are really worked up over the fact that he did make it to the pro bowl. It's not all one-sided Tripp. If I get worked up it's over the constant complaining, in general. If the 'skins win, they don't win by enough points, if they lose, let's tear the whole team apart and start over after one year. We need a veteran QB, no we need a rookie QB, etc.... don't get me wrong, I welcome different points of view. I just feel that whether if one agrees or not, let's be happy that there are some positive things to cheer about with this team. Hall, Fletcher, and Orakpo making the Pro Bowl is a positive thing.

But, as somebody who read the thread, it was no ones explicit assertion that DeAngelo Hall was the only player in the pro bowl who didn't deserve to go. There were a lot of bad pro bowl picks this year. There are every year. Hall is who is is, and that's not who a majority of people (on both sides) see him as.

There's plenty of evidence that Hall didn't deserve to be there. Also: plenty that he did. It's factually correct that he was there -- as you've pointed out -- but no one was arguing that. You've been adamant that people admit to something that no one is denying.

I would ask you to just try not to sweat how other individuals perceive Redskin players. We had three pro-bowlers this year, despite being a bad team. That's not unprecedented. Wouldn't you agree with me that if people were just hating on good Redskins players for the sake of hating on good Redskins players, that Fletcher and Orakpo would be getting as much conversation as Hall has received in this thread? But, they have not.

I think people are getting worked up over peoples' perceptions of Hall's performance this year. Part of that perception is that voters put him in the pro bowl. Evidence presented in this thread is just trying to keep his contributions in perspective.

I'll say this: the best corners in football this year were almost all in the AFC, so Hall was not as ridiculous a pick as some may think. It was stupid that Tramon Williams and Brent Grimes had to wait for someone to drop out to get in, but you didn't hear near the viatrol on Charles Woodson or Asante Samuel getting in on reputation that you did on Hall.

It's also true that the more analysis one does, the worse Hall looks. Saying that is not me trying to deny that Hall went to the pro bowl and played well, it's just trying to keep things in perspective. The Pro Bowl is notorious for just taking a cursory look at the seasons player had before counting the ballots. It is what it is: not something worth getting worked up about. But Hall's season is about so much more than being a pro bowler, that talking about his season in context of going to the pro bowl is not worth anyones time.

[GTripp0012]

From a Redskins fan perspective, I think one of the weirdest things about Hall going to the pro bowl is that Rogers and Buchanon can't get that spot, even though they were our two best corners in YPT. Truth is, if Hall doesn't go, Rogers and Buchanon still aren't getting any consideration, because the narrative on our defense is that it handed out passing yards like candy.

The narrative is correct, but Rogers and Buchanon actually kept the problem from being a lot worse than it was. Moore, Doughty, Landry, and Hall gave up way too many yards to a man, and contributed equally to our yardage problem. Obviously, Landry and Hall both made a number of winning plays, and Moore did not.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But, as somebody who read the thread, it was no ones explicit assertion that DeAngelo Hall was the only player in the pro bowl who didn't deserve to go. There were a lot of bad pro bowl picks this year. There are every year. Hall is who is is, and that's not who a majority of people (on both sides) see him as.

There's plenty of evidence that Hall didn't deserve to be there. Also: plenty that he did. It's factually correct that he was there -- as you've pointed out -- but no one was arguing that. You've been adamant that people admit to something that no one is denying.

I would ask you to just try not to sweat how other individuals perceive Redskin players. We had three pro-bowlers this year, despite being a bad team. That's not unprecedented. Wouldn't you agree with me that if people were just hating on good Redskins players for the sake of hating on good Redskins players, that Fletcher and Orakpo would be getting as much conversation as Hall has received in this thread? But, they have not.

I think people are getting worked up over peoples' perceptions of Hall's performance this year. Part of that perception is that voters put him in the pro bowl. Evidence presented in this thread is just trying to keep his contributions in perspective.

I'll say this: the best corners in football this year were almost all in the AFC, so Hall was not as ridiculous a pick as some may think. It was stupid that Tramon Williams and Brent Grimes had to wait for someone to drop out to get in, but you didn't hear near the viatrol on Charles Woodson or Asante Samuel getting in on reputation that you did on Hall.

It's also true that the more analysis one does, the worse Hall looks. Saying that is not me trying to deny that Hall went to the pro bowl and played well, it's just trying to keep things in perspective. The Pro Bowl is notorious for just taking a cursory look at the seasons player had before counting the ballots. It is what it is: not something worth getting worked up about. But Hall's season is about so much more than being a pro bowler, that talking about his season in context of going to the pro bowl is not worth anyones time.

If it's not something to be worked up about, why do further analysis to determine that a player doesn't deserve pro bowl honors? Logic says from human analysis that one doesn't go to such great lengths just for the heck of it. There is always motive other than simply knowledge.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

From a Redskins fan perspective, I think one of the weirdest things about Hall going to the pro bowl is that Rogers and Buchanon can't get that spot, even though they were our two best corners in YPT. Truth is, if Hall doesn't go, Rogers and Buchanon still aren't getting any consideration, because the narrative on our defense is that it handed out passing yards like candy.

The narrative is correct, but Rogers and Buchanon actually kept the problem from being a lot worse than it was. Moore, Doughty, Landry, and Hall gave up way too many yards to a man, and contributed equally to our yardage problem. Obviously, Landry and Hall both made a number of winning plays, and Moore did not.

If CBs are balloted in based solely on INTs, then it's not so weird Rogers and Buchanon were not elected to the Pro Bowl, especially Rogers.

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

If CBs are balloted in based solely on INTs, then it's not so weird Rogers and Buchanon were not elected to the Pro Bowl, especially Rogers.

Yeah I would assume a CB ballot to the pro bowl would more likely be based on playmaking turnovers than yards allowed in a game. Flashy usually gets you to Hawaii. Look at London...

[44ever]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

Yeah I would assume a CB ballot to the pro bowl would more likely be based on playmaking turnovers than yards allowed in a game. Flashy usually gets you to Hawaii. Look at London...

A dynamic on field personality is def part of it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

If it's not something to be worked up about, why do further analysis to determine that a player doesn't deserve pro bowl honors? Logic says from human analysis that one doesn't go to such great lengths just for the heck of it. There is always motive other than simply knowledge.

Because there's a lot of meaning in the analysis outside of the pro bowl. I want to know who the best 20 corners are in football, in order of their value (I can't know this, but at least after all the hours I've put in I have some sort of idea). The pro bowl outcome is meaningless in terms of analysis, but the analysis still helps.

In this case, the pro bowl revels in its absence of knowledge. I'm perfectly okay with it holding the status quo as a meaningless honor and a meaningless game. That's why I use the descriptive phrase "pro bowl level" in analysis pieces. Actually being named to the pro bowl doesn't mean a thing, but that's an abstract level of performance for all players to strive for.