Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
Nope, completely different situation and you should know the difference. If A.H. truly wants to stay with the Redskins and help the team win by being a team player, he's got my full support. However, you would have to be a complete idiot not to see that isn't the case with AH. Even if he didn't want to be here, but kept his mouth shut, played hard all year long, and got the Pro Bowl nod, I would have supported him. But, that was not the case, so you're comparing apples to oranges.
|
Well, you're right that it's not the same situation, but it's exactly the same principle of supporting a Redskins player that may or may not always deserve unconditional support.
I still support DeAngelo Hall and Albert Haynesworth pretty equally based on the idea that they are still Redskins. Neither is one of my five favorite Redskins, but they are both integral parts of the team of the last two seasons. Some people have moralized why Hall should be untouchable in terms of criticism amongst fans, but that's an opinion they hold. Hall is not untouchable, even amongst his supporters.
My point was I don't like arbitrary lines drawn over who I can and cannot support. My point was not that there aren't very good reasons for being critical of Haynesworth (there are). There are also very good reasons for being critical of DHall's effort. And while their negatives couldn't be more different in nature, it would be an inconsistent principle to suggest that one isn't deserving of criticism for his on-field acts, and the other is.