Report: Trent Williams and Fred Davis Facing Suspension

[Swarley]

I really hate when people use "realism" as a defense for their beliefs.

The only realistic thing is that we know nothing until it's all said and done. Nobody is a sure thing.

[CrustyRedskin]

If anyone on this team has been taking performance enhancers they should go get thier money back. Shit they should give performance enhancers to the whole fn team!! And coaches.

[skinsfan69]

Let's remember that these are young men with a lot of time and money on their hands. Not making any excuses for them, they should know better, but I'm not going to kill these guys for doing "recreational" drugs during the off season. Hopefully it won't happen again.

[That Guy]

and I haven't checked the schedule yet, but next week we could potentially move into #2 assuming the vikes win tonight and all the 2 win teams win next week... that's probably too far to go in 1 week, but it's cool cause we have 7 :P being #2 really doesn't help us though when you look at it as a 1 player draft.

[That Guy]

bad example.

[Lotus]

The poster above claimed that his statement was not "cowardly," it was instead "rational," as if the two were opposites. The point is that they are not opposites.

Since you disliked my example, let me offer more:
1) It is rational for a soldier in war to ditch his buddies to die so that he can save his own skin. However, such behavior is cowardly.

2) If one wants candy, it is rational to take it from little kids because they are easily overpowered. However, such behavior is cowardly.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by Lotus

The poster above claimed that his statement was not "cowardly," it was instead "rational," as if the two were opposites. The point is that they are not opposites.

Since you disliked my example, let me offer more:
1) It is rational for a soldier in war to ditch his buddies to die so that he can save his own skin. However, such behavior is cowardly.

2) If one wants candy, it is rational to take it from little kids because they are easily overpowered. However, such behavior is cowardly.

You're giving extreme real life examples of cowards, but in no way should you ever compare a past time or interest such as rooting for a team, and a solider ditching his soliders in war. And no they aren't similar. The solider is looking out for himself, the suck for luck fans are looking out for their team and fanbase for the future. Do not ever compare that. You are giving awful examples, thus should stop talking on this subject.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

You're giving extreme real life examples of cowards, but in no way should you ever compare a past time or interest such as rooting for a team, and a solider ditching his soliders in war. And no they aren't similar. The solider is looking out for himself, the suck for luck fans are looking out for their team and fanbase for the future. Do not ever compare that. You are giving awful examples, thus should stop talking on this subject.

No. You completely missed the point. Whether "Suck for Luck" is really rational is open to debate. What is certain is that, rational or not, "Suck for Luck" is cowardly because it means rooting for your team to lose. What you call "rational" Suck for Luck is cowardly no matter how you slice it.

You are not looking out for your team. You are rooting for the Redskins to lose just like any Cowboy fan does. That is patently cowardly.

Of course you are the same person who called racism "rational." So much for your version of "rational": your version of "rational" is both racist and cowardly.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by Lotus

No. You completely missed the point. Whether "Suck for Luck" is really rational is open to debate. What is certain is that, rational or not, "Suck for Luck" is cowardly because it means rooting for your team to lose. What you call "rational" Suck for Luck is cowardly no matter how you slice it.

You are not looking out for your team. You are rooting for the Redskins to lose just like any Cowboy fan does. That is patently cowardly.

Of course you are the same person who called racism "rational." So much for your version of "rational": your version of "rational" is both racist and cowardly.

Year 1 = Suck, Year 2= develop and build around luck, Years 3-12= become good, consistent team. Thats what Luck fans want. That's 1 maybe 2 bad years, and several years of good consistency.

Where as Skin fans against Sucking for Luck get a decent year, bad year, bad year, decent year, ...for the next 15 years and stay in the same place of mediocrity or laughing stalk of the NFL depending on the year.

(You can argue that you shouldn't put assumptions into Luck being good, that he could be a bust, but the reality is that A) He's better than any other QB we've had in the past 20 years. B) He has yet to have a negative scout against him. C) He's a more sure thing than other QB's that have come out in years past. D) If he is a bust, then he fooled everyone, because like I said no scout see's him being a bust.)

I don't know about you but I'd go the suck now, be good later route, than the try now and still suck year after year route. Just watch other teams, they have an awful year, and they build around that huge 1st overall pick, the teams that pick in the mid-first half of the draft usually stay there.


Again, I've always been told not to argue with an idiot because they make you look like the idiot in the end.

[SmootSmack]

How about we keep this thread in topic? We have other threads to discuss Luck? Including a thread just for him

[That Guy]

I fail to see how wanting luck is cowardly or in any way like leaving a soldier to die. can we please stop being ridiculous and over the top? thanks.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by That Guy

I fail to see how wanting luck is cowardly or in any way like leaving a soldier to die. can we please stop being ridiculous and over the top? thanks.

I respectfully offer that you have missed my point. The point never was that Suck for Luck is exactly like being a soldier. The point was that "cowardly" and "rational" are not logical opposites.

Wanting Luck is not cowardly. We all would like to have Luck. However, leaving your team to suffer, even hoping that your team suffers, is cowardly.

But since you don't like the word "coward," please feel free to use DynamiteRave's term instead: rooting for your team to lose is the path of a "quitter."

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I respectfully offer that you have missed my point. The point never was that Suck for Luck is exactly like being a soldier. The point was that "cowardly" and "rational" are not logical opposites.

Wanting Luck is not cowardly. We all would like to have Luck. However, leaving your team to suffer, even hoping that your team suffers, is cowardly.

But since you don't like the word "coward," please feel free to use DynamiteRave's term instead: rooting for your team to lose is the path of a "quitter."

No, I don't see the point in bring up dead soldiers or how they have anything to do with a horrible football team. Maybe you've never seen a dead soldier, but it's kind of offensive to me. You're entitled to your opinion, but realizing your team sucks isn't cowardly, it's realistic.

I'm not rooting for them to fail, but I'm not really seeing too many wins in the future. If you'd like to play the blind optimist, because, that's like, really brave, I'll do $20 a game for the rest of the season, taking them for a loss every time.

And how is anyone "leaving their team to suffer" ? are the redskins losing because we're not cheering hard enough, or because a butterfly posted on a message board about them not being good enough? and, as you know, the media's coverage is also hugely responsible for wins and losses...

[hooskins]

One of the most storied NBA franchises, the Boston Celtics, recently "tanked" to try to get the top pick. I don't think Celtics fans care one way or another about it to be honest.

Not saying we should tank, just playing Devil's Advocate.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by hooskins

One of the most storied NBA franchises, the Boston Celtics, recently "tanked" to try to get the top pick. I don't think Celtics fans care one way or another about it to be honest.

Not saying we should tank, just playing Devil's Advocate.

The NBA system, or former system, led to a lot of that, though I never heard anyone say it directly. The guaranteed contracts & cap put teams in a position to gut the roster for financial & competitive reasons. The Wizards did it a couple years ago & it was obvious to any fan that they were starting over.

Easier to do when there are 2-3 big contracts that can be offloaded to create huge cap space. The NFL is harder to do that in w/guaranteed money escalating in trades, but I think you see plenty of teams purging players & cap space. It may not be tanking per se but it's often implied.