Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21
See, now this is exactly the SH!T I am talking about. First of all, you fail to recognize that as fans we also know what we see on the field. There is nothing "filtered" or "skewed" about what you can see with your own two eyes on gameday. As a result, it is not "absurd" to question the coaches' personnel decisions.
Second, Joe Gibbs (as much as I love him) is NOT "the Team". No one person, no one coach, no one player is "the Team." You cast aside anyone else who believes Lavar should have been the starter as someone who isn't choosing to back the team. The absurdity of your argument is its hypocracy. It's ok for you to back Gibbs (one man) above all else, and that should be equated with backing the skins, but those of us who back Lavar (one man) can't possibly be behind the Skins as a team? How's that?
Finally, there is no reason for your mandate of "Pick one to keep or kick off: gibbs or lavar?" In case you haven't noticed, they are both on the same TEAM. They are both striving for the same goals. You're assumption that the Team, the coach and the player can't coexist together is rediculous. The fact that they can explains how I can be a fan of the Redskins, Joe Gibbs, and Lavar Arrington without conflict. How you fail to see that is unbelievable to me.
Therefore, as a second, and hopefully final, plea. STOP calling people's fanaticism for the Redskins into question simply because your opinion differs from theirs as to whether it's possible to question personnel decisions and still love your team to no end. Nothing is going to enrage people more than having their being a fan called into question on this site, and I don't see that as a fight we need to have AGAIN.
|
Like you, I am entitled to my personal opinion as I stated in the post - and yeah (in my personal opinion, because that's what all these posts really are) without gibbs there is no team - there are no 4 wins - and lastly the attitude and moral of this team would be SHIT. I'd take not having Lavar, just as long as it meant having gibbs. And also I think part of the argument is that lavar was not actually putting the team first - he was putting his playing time ahead of team goals - you have to remember that he was complaining when the team was performing well (as a team).
And if you want to be enraged for me posting my opinion - then I'd call that HYPOCRISY.