rooting for Goliath

[dan_snyder69]

I think Dan Snyder should run for president in 2008! Does anyone know his political affiliation?

[Huddle]

That Guy

first gtrip is the one that mentioned before you edited your post, so you may think thats nitpicking, but it also means you were wrong.

Wrong about what?

Now, I think I understand what's going on.

Man, I understand you are bearing a grudge but do you really want to accuse me of lying over such a trivial matter? In Post 38, I wrote to GTripp: I added a line to the post you quoted before I saw yours. Naturally, to maximize the team's roster value, the money has to be spent up to the limit.

But you think I lied... and only edited my post after reading GTripp's post. That's it isn't it?

If that's what it is, why would you think that? Is that something you might do in the same position?

and nowhere is it articulated or mentioned that you intentionally omitted anything, nor was that point stated anywhere else.

My Post 49 to you...in response to the point you made: I explained a basic strategy in a couple of sentences. There were lots of lesser points omitted.


Let's give this up. Shall we?

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by Huddle

I think you're over-simplifying.

It's true that fans wants their owners to do their best to field a winner but I suspect you'd get varying opinions if they were asked whether they wanted their team to emulate the Redskins approach.

Right now New England and Pittsburgh would be the models they'd choose I think.

I'm not oversimplifying, im being realistic. Should I be ashamed of The Danny just because he spends like there is no tomorrow? good for him!! atleast the money ends up in the hands of the players.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by gibbsisgod

I'm not oversimplifying, im being realistic. Should I be ashamed of The Danny just because he spends like there is no tomorrow? good for him!! atleast the money ends up in the hands of the players.

You were over-simplifying when you said this:

"Every fan in the NFL would want his or her owner to do what Danny is doing."

[bigSkinsfan61]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I live in the Philly suburbs, and I think what gets to the fans around here more than anything is that no pro sports team here has won a title since the Phillies in 1980. The town has been teased by the 1983 Phillies, 1993 Phillies, 2001 Sixers, and 2004 Eagles all making it to the finals and losing. They're upset because they get so close to winning it all and then lose it.

PS Nothing is better than tuning into WIP (Philly's sports talk radio station) the day after they lose a title game. Grown men call in and break down in tears over the air. Some sound like they're ready to jump off a building. It's fantastic.

yes i see that philly has all the wrong pieces in all the wrong places as thou it seemsi can sympathize with the philly thing im in richmond and ive been tellin peeeps for yrrrrsss that the redskins would never do anything ntil jg came outta retirement well see

[Sociofan]

Greetings from Miss Sally.

Today we learn about the playground and the rules for settling disputes.

Rule #1: If you push someone under the merry-go-round, you must make sure that all riders jump off. It's there only for bumps and bruises, not broken bones.

Rule #2: If you are going to play dodge ball, you may only wear a cup over one bean or the other, but not both.

Rule #3: If a dispute is going to be settled with fists, you may only hit your opponent's fists with your nose, mouth or stomach. There will be no pill popping.

Rule #4: There will be no bantam-rooster strutting about the playground. Either get down to business or sit quietly at your desk.

Rule #5: Don't come crying to Miss Sally when your feelings get hurt.

[LILnino121]

Guys dont sweat it. I love being hated by everyone else they are all jealous because we are the next big dynasty on the NFL and t hey know it.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Huddle

That Guy



Wrong about what?

Now, I think I understand what's going on.

Man, I understand you are bearing a grudge but do you really want to accuse me of lying over such a trivial matter? In Post 38, I wrote to GTripp: I added a line to the post you quoted before I saw yours. Naturally, to maximize the team's roster value, the money has to be spent up to the limit.

But you think I lied... and only edited my post after reading GTripp's post. That's it isn't it?

If that's what it is, why would you think that? Is that something you might do in the same position?



My Post 49 to you...in response to the point you made: I explained a basic strategy in a couple of sentences. There were lots of lesser points omitted.


Let's give this up. Shall we?

please tell where exactly you got the idea i said you were lying, cause i sure don't see or remember it?

Yeah, guess what, I made a point (maximize your starters talent, ignore price/performance if you're still under cap when the thift players are gone) that counteracts the whole price/performance over everything else arguement, and regardless of what you thought about it, i think its a valid point and i don't care whether you personally approve of it.

Whether you chose to omit it or not, it wasn't mentioned, and it was a reasonable point, so I don't need the shit treatment everytime i feel like posting.

seriously, maximize talent? like you needed to waste 20 posts to say that? should i scold you for having a post over 2 words now because I decided to omit everything else, so its somehow illegal for anyone else to bring anything else up, lest i not be as smart as them? Cause that's what this looks like to me.

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by Huddle

You were over-simplifying when you said this:

"Every fan in the NFL would want his or her owner to do what Danny is doing."

Again, thats being realistic! You cant tell me that every other fan in the league doesnt want his owner to spend the cash. If any other owner was spending like Danny , you can bet that it would be okay with the fans of that team. look at all the years the Bengals didnt spend the money, the teams sucked year after year.i believe the cinci fans are loving life now that the owner is shelling out some cash to get some players that might actually be good. Now this strategy doesnt always work but i would rather have a front office that buys the best talent then one who looks for the cheapest way to field a team.

[Schneed10]

Huddle, after reading through the rest of this thread I'm compelled to tell you that if I were a moderator (which I'm not of course), I'd be looking for a reason to ban you from the site. At this point you don't seem to be in any violation of the forum guidelines, but you're so aggravating to deal with on this site. You basically don't listen to a single thing said to you on here. That Guy has been making point after point but you don't even seem to acknowledge it. Then you eventually come around to modifying your points, without acknowledging that someone else made that point previously. Furthermore, I've seen huge arguments involving you in other threads where you fervently argue point for point, and yet admit to not reading a number of posts directed at you. It comes across like you're more concerned with winning debates and saving face than with having meaningful and civil discussion.

Now I'm not trying to get you thrown out because as I said, I don't think you're breaking any rules; I'm just trying to say that you are quickly developing a reputation as someone who nobody enjoys talking to. You're very aggravating.

I think you make great points sometimes. And we need disagreements on this site, because it makes for more meaningful discussion. But if one person isn't listening to the viewpoints of other members, or is flat out skipping over posts and continuing to argue a point, it ruins any chance we have at having meaningful discussion. It just results in people talking past one another.

Just thought I'd say my peace on the subject.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

I think you're over-simplifying.

It's true that fans wants their owners to do their best to field a winner but I suspect you'd get varying opinions if they were asked whether they wanted their team to emulate the Redskins approach.

Right now New England and Pittsburgh would be the models they'd choose I think.

Now, I'll assume this can remain a pertinent discussion and make a few comments on this.

The Redskins' approach is not emulated because it hasn't won a championship. But if they win a championship, people might start signing a different tune. Right now, New England and Pittsburgh are emulated because they've been there, done that, and proven that their methods yield titles.

But that doesn't mean the Skins' approach won't win a title.

I totally agree with you when you say the best way to build a team is to max out your cap space and find the best bargains you can for the money you're paying. (I'd also add that you need great coaching, but that's a separate issue from players and I think we'd all agree we have great coaching.) But my main point is how do we know that the Redskins' method of acquiring players recently isn't unearthing the best bargains?

I think Griffin, Washington, Springs, and Santana Moss have all been very good bargains when considering the price they garnered. The picks of Sean Taylor, Chris Cooley, and Carlos Rogers also seem to be very successful bargains. I think Gibbs and Williams are building quite a track record for finding players that perform up to or beyond their contract values. Who's to say that Carter, Archuleta, Randle-El, and Lloyd won't become similar bargains?

It seems ludicrous to think of those guys as bargains someday, given that we're paying like $10 million in bonuses to each one. But we thought the same thing about Santana Moss last year, he was supposedly no better than a #3 WR who got injured a lot, and now he's a huge bargain as a stud.

Pittsburgh and NE find their bargains through the draft and they are emulated because they won. But that's not to say it's impossible to find bargains in free agency and win. And given that the cap rules are the same for every team, and that every team can spend up to the cap and remain profitable, I see no reason why the Skins have a distinguishable advantage over anyone else.

[724Skinsfan]

By the way, this has only a very litle bit to do with this thread and I haven't noticed if it was mentioned before but...

On Mike & Mike this morning Mike Greenberg actually said, "The Redskins will have a very good team this year, I think". Golic slightly shook his head in an affirmative manner w/o comment. I was stunned to hear something positive from either one of these guys. Anyway, just thought I'd mention one more quasi-supporter for the 'Skins.

[Schneed10]

In the end I don't think there is any right or wrong way to build a team in the NFL. You can emphasize the draft, you can emphasize free agency, or you can mix the two. It all comes down to finding the right players and not overpaying. You can overpay in the draft by picking Ryan Leaf 2nd overall, or you can overpay in free agency by signing an over-the-hill Deion Sanders. It's safe to say that the more often you overpay for players, the more likely it is you'll suck (duh, really Schneed?).

I think the media has just fallen in love with the Patriots and Steelers because they homegrow their own players by drafting them. And I do think that the media, and fans around the country, are going to continue to hate on the Redskins whether we win or lose. But that hate, in my opinion, is based on actions Snyder has taken in the past. I don't think most people around the country have been paying attention to him, and I don't think they've realized how he's changed. He still spends, but now he spends prudently, buying younger players just entering their primes. He actually defers to his coaches now rather than trying to make decisions himself. But nobody outside of the Beltway is privy to Snyder's development because the national media continues to villify him just out of sheer habit. We'll probably be hated because of Snyder's past. But don't mistake that for us being "a Goliath" like the Yanks. Every other team can spend just like we do, they just don't. We have no unfair advantage, we just have a despised owner.

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

In the end I don't think there is any right or wrong way to build a team in the NFL. You can emphasize the draft, you can emphasize free agency, or you can mix the two. It all comes down to finding the right players and not overpaying. You can overpay in the draft by picking Ryan Leaf 2nd overall, or you can overpay in free agency by signing an over-the-hill Deion Sanders. It's safe to say that the more often you overpay for players, the more likely it is you'll suck (duh, really Schneed?).

I think the media has just fallen in love with the Patriots and Steelers because they homegrow their own players by drafting them. And I do think that the media, and fans around the country, are going to continue to hate on the Redskins whether we win or lose. But that hate, in my opinion, is based on actions Snyder has taken in the past. I don't think most people around the country have been paying attention to him, and I don't think they've realized how he's changed. He still spends, but now he spends prudently, buying younger players just entering their primes. He actually defers to his coaches now rather than trying to make decisions himself. But nobody outside of the Beltway is privy to Snyder's development because the national media continues to villify him just out of sheer habit. We'll probably be hated because of Snyder's past. But don't mistake that for us being "a Goliath" like the Yanks. Every other team can spend just like we do, they just don't. We have no unfair advantage, we just have a despised owner.

I totally agree about snyder, if the rest of the league actually paid attention to these past few years instead of just ridiculing him because of his first couple of years they could see that he isnt just some dumb owner with alot of money. he has grown up alot since the deion, bruce smith and jeff george days but the media chooses to dwell on past failures instead of his most recent accomplishments....marcus washington, griffin,moss,and the list goes on...

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Huddle, after reading through the rest of this thread I'm compelled to tell you that if I were a moderator (which I'm not of course), I'd be looking for a reason to ban you from the site. At this point you don't seem to be in any violation of the forum guidelines, but you're so aggravating to deal with on this site. You basically don't listen to a single thing said to you on here. That Guy has been making point after point but you don't even seem to acknowledge it. Then you eventually come around to modifying your points, without acknowledging that someone else made that point previously. Furthermore, I've seen huge arguments involving you in other threads where you fervently argue point for point, and yet admit to not reading a number of posts directed at you. It comes across like you're more concerned with winning debates and saving face than with having meaningful and civil discussion.

Now I'm not trying to get you thrown out because as I said, I don't think you're breaking any rules; I'm just trying to say that you are quickly developing a reputation as someone who nobody enjoys talking to. You're very aggravating.

I think you make great points sometimes. And we need disagreements on this site, because it makes for more meaningful discussion. But if one person isn't listening to the viewpoints of other members, or is flat out skipping over posts and continuing to argue a point, it ruins any chance we have at having meaningful discussion. It just results in people talking past one another.

Just thought I'd say my peace on the subject.

Will it surprise you if I don't agree?

I am a veteran of some debate boards, politics and religion, where the moderators are very strict. The way you and others make ad hominem attacks here would never be tolerated on those boards.

Since there is no impartial panel on these boards to judge who has won a debate, I've devised my own way.

Strawman arguments are the first sign of frustration. When opponents have to twist my words to come up with arguments, they're all but done.

The next level of growing frustration is the logical fallacy referred to sometimes as Appeal to Popularity: "Everyone here thinks you're wrong." I get a lot of these because I'm self-confident enough to present controversial positions.

In the final stage, losers vent their frustration with the ad hominem fallacy, personal attacks in lieu of arguments. I get a lot of those.

When a poster continually alternates personal attacks with strawman arguments, I ignore their posts. They waste my time.

Your most recent post is nothing more than a belated ad hominem attack which would signal to any impartial mind reading this (if there is one) that you are bearing a grudge. I wonder why?