My Last Post Ever.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Fan4Life

First RedskinRat tells it like it is. But as a whole Im not going to be a part of a forum that continues to support Gibbs and his dumbass decisions and his QB. If they play good one week props to Brunell threads emerge and Gibbs is the man. The next week after they suck here come the bashers. Too many damn hypocrites around here. Ive been a skin fan for 35 yrs and always will be but they suck out loud and Ill be damn if im gonna defend lousy ass football. Later.

I started the props to Brunell thread last week and I stand by it - he played well and deserved to praise. This week, Brunell played horribly and deserves ridicule.

I am tired of people who see things in black/white and right/wrong terms. It's not "all or nothing." There should be room for nuance in an intelligent debate.

Perhaps some are not capable of recognizing that it is totally legitimate to praise Brunell one week and bash him the next. He plays inconsistently and therefore gets praised/bashed on an inconsistent basis.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I started the props to Brunell thread last week and I stand by it - he played well and deserved to praise. This week, Brunell played horribly and deserves ridicule.

I am tired of people who see things in black/white and right/wrong terms. It's not "all or nothing." There should be room for nuance in an intelligent debate.

Perhaps some are not capable of recognizing that it is totally legitimate to praise Brunell one week and bash him the next. He plays inconsistently and therefore gets praised/bashed on an inconsistent basis.

Can I at least consistently complain about Brunell's inconsistence?

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I started the props to Brunell thread last week and I stand by it - he played well and deserved to praise. This week, Brunell played horribly and deserves ridicule.

I am tired of people who see things in black/white and right/wrong terms. It's not "all or nothing." There should be room for nuance in an intelligent debate.

Perhaps some are not capable of recognizing that it is totally legitimate to praise Brunell one week and bash him the next. He plays inconsistently and therefore gets praised/bashed on an inconsistent basis.

aw yes, the infamous Poll that had him play either Sub-Par or 'Great'.

and its not legitmate to bash the PLAYER one week and not the next. you can bash/praise his PERFORMANCE as the weeks go, but the player himself people can make a judgement on and 'inconsistent' has always been a euphemism for BAD in this league.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by illdefined

aw yes, the infamous Poll that had him play either Sub-Par or 'Great'.

and its not legitmate to bash the PLAYER one week and not the next. you can bash/praise his PERFORMANCE as the weeks go, but the player himself people can make a judgement on and 'inconsistent' has always been a euphemism for BAD in this league.

I've been bashing Brunell for quite some time. I've said for a long time that he can't throw over the middle, isn't all that accurate, and is too conservative. The only point of last week's thread was to give a player who deserved a lot of blame for this season's outcome so praise for playing well. I simply don't see any inconsistency in that.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I started the props to Brunell thread last week and I stand by it - he played well and deserved to praise. This week, Brunell played horribly and deserves ridicule.

I am tired of people who see things in black/white and right/wrong terms. It's not "all or nothing." There should be room for nuance in an intelligent debate.

Perhaps some are not capable of recognizing that it is totally legitimate to praise Brunell one week and bash him the next. He plays inconsistently and therefore gets praised/bashed on an inconsistent basis.

Good point and my thoughts exactly.

Hey, he played well last week. I know some people will never admit that but that's ok. This week he played like shit, and I'm not afraid to say that.

I see nothing wrong with evaluating a player on a week to week basis. You're only as good as your last game.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I see nothing wrong with evaluating a player on a week to week basis. You're only as good as your last game.

how do you know which week to bench them then? like i said, you can evaluate a player's performance each week, sub-par or er, great, but you evaluate the player himself by how he plays over a span of games.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by illdefined

how do you know which week to bench them then? like i said, you can evaluate a player's performance each week, sub-par or er, great, but you evaluate the player himself by how he plays over a span of games.

Of course you also have to evaluate the big picture, but the point of the Brunell thread last week was to simply say he did a good job last week.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Of course you also have to evaluate the big picture, but the point of the Brunell thread last week was to simply say he did a good job last week.

yeah i know. i gave him props too, because for the first time in a long, overdue time, he played like he needed to play to win with a bad defense - even if he didn't break any 'records' like he did vs. Houston (record for most dinks completed, yay). alas an NFL season is all big picture, and you can't judge much by one game. or even a half (just ask Ramsey).

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by illdefined

how do you know which week to bench them then? like i said, you can evaluate a player's performance each week, sub-par or er, great, but you evaluate the player himself by how he plays over a span of games.

Did I start last week's thread to suggest that our answer lies in Brunell? No. You're reading things into the thread that simply weren't there (i.e. Brunell shouldn't be benched).

As for your suggestion that the poll's options were either "sub-par" or "great," you are wrong. The poll started with three options - "great," "average," and "sub-par." It then expanded to include "good." In any event, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Did I start last week's thread to suggest that our answer lies in Brunell? No. You're reading things into the thread that simply weren't there (i.e. Brunell shouldn't be benched).

As for your suggestion that the poll's options were either "sub-par" or "great," you are wrong. The poll started with three options - "great," "average," and "sub-par." It then expanded to include "good." In any event, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

nah i know you added the 'good' option later, i just thought it was funny how this thread started on how binary people are about Brunell and "great" and "average" were the original two options on your poll. not making any conclusions about your thoughts on Mark, just thought it was a funny relevant quirk.