• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

An interesting philosophical question

Henry

Henry

I drink and I know things
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
10,137
Reaction score
494
Points
364
Location
Fairfax, VA
Don't want to de-rail that other thread. And hell, it was your idea. :)

Om said:
Thanks, Henreeyore. :)

It's an interesting philosophical question, actually. Has the dysfunction been the root cause of the losing ... or has all the losing been a magnifying glass through which any- and everything looks dysfunctional?

I smell another thread.
Click to expand...

My answer. I don't know. :)

You could ask the same question about coaching turnover or, ahem, QB turnover. Which came first? At the end of the day it doesn't matter. These things all go hand-in-hand. Dysfunction begets losing begets dysfunction.

I think that if this team truly starts to turn itself around, the constant nonsense will go away. Maybe the winning will come first. Maybe the random drunk twitter posts from the GM's wife will end first. I can't say which.

What I can say, is that until something changes, nothing has changed. (How's that for deep.)

And this offseason, nothing has changed. Maybe it will on the field. But I won't believe it until it actually happens.

And that's all I have to say about that.
 
I tend to believe that dysfunction begats losing. It's one of the reasons I hold Gibbs in such high regard; his second stint looks even better through the lens of history imo. And it's one of the reasons I was loathe to move on from Robert. Robert was able to transcend the lunacy and dysfunction and accomplish something truly historic. The chance that maybe we could recapture some of that was worth waiting on in my mind.

The question with that is how much do we blame Shanahan for being an asshole and ruining something great, vs blaming the chaos and dysfunction of an organization that was so desperate for a winner? I think most people would concede there is plenty of blame to go around, and I personally would concede that Shanahan deserves the lion's share of the blame. I for one hold him accountable and hope he never coaches again, unless he has the chance to ruin the Dallas organization.

But sometimes late at night, I wonder if the organizational chaos and dysfunction had a small part in Shanahan allowing Robert to stay on the field and risk the devastating injury we all knew was coming? Unanswerable question, sure. But I know what I believe.
 
Yes!!!! It's a loop of perpetual motion. Whatever the motivating force, they have to string some wins together to start breaking the cycle.
 
When we used to interview Doc Walker back in the ES days, he said something once, in context of a discussion about the early days of Gibbs I, about how winning and confidence went hand in hand. Being me, I tried to pin him down on the philosophical angle--as in, which had come first?

Without hesitation he said "winning" ... and how from winning had come confidence, which in turn begat more winning. The takeaway for me was pretty clear--winning made everything else peripheral noise.

We don't have to look very far for a pretty clear example, either. Few teams have had more noise associated with them over the past decade than the New England Patriots ... Spygate, Deflategate, Aaron Hernandez, a mess of ugly player and coach separations and missed FA signings ... but since they win, and win big, nary a whisper of "dysfunction" has been heard.

Winning up there has covered a whole lotta stench.

To me, the only real dysfunction that I point to that has had a direct impact on our on-field performance has been the amateurish manner we went about trying to acquiring talent for so many years. The lack of a legitimate General Manager to coherently build a competitive roster ... now that's dysfunction.

If Scotty M being here means we've finally, finally turned that corner (whether it's Scot or another legit GM down the road), I think we're going to see the franchise finally start to look like a professional football team on the field again over the next couple of years ... which in turn, will beget a change in the conversation from dysfunction to actual football analysis about football players and coaches doing what they are supposed to do on the field of play.

Got a light?

c0b0e22734fdea71c10edafd80a4a083.jpg
 
Disfunction creates losing which causes more disfunction which causes more losing. It's a vicious cycle. There has been plenty of disfunction and plenty of losing. Each makes the other worse.
 
Winning cures all.

We have all heard it but I'm not sure we grasp what it means. I think most think winning fixes everything but I don't believe that. I think winning just makes everything else superfluous. Look at the Al Davis Raiders and their "Just Win, Baby" attitude. Look at the Cowboys under Jimmy Johnson and the jokes about the starting offense not going on the field together because known felons could not hangout together in public. Om's example of the Patriots and their carousel of off field crap. To a lesser degree Andy Reid's Eagle teams.

We are dealing with the highest levels of athletic achievement and endevour, with money enough to float the Pentagon budget. It takes it's toll on even the most grounded of people. Craziness and dysfunction follow. What follows that is totally dependent on the men at the top. If you have a Gibbs, a Belichik, a Madden or Parcels at the top, your organization soars and wins multiple Super Bowls. If you don't, your franchise is crucified on the cross of public opinion and all the dysfunction is examined like a newly discovered prehistoric fossil.

I don't believe dysfunction and losing follow each other or cause each other. I just think the later makes it hard to hide the former from the ever increasing light of day.
 
Om, New England's 'Dysfunction' largely stems from the fact that they cheat.

They cheat therefore they win. They get caught but nothing happens to them, so they keep cheating. And keep winning.

The Redskins' dysfunction stems from incompetence. Not the same monster.
 
Winning...cures...everything.

Watching fans regurgitate media clichés of "dysfunction", or "laughing stock" gets tiresome. As so many fail to see it for it is.

They make everything "good" out to be like it's the greatest thing in the history of sports.
They make everything "bad" out to be the biggest travesty the sports world has ever known.

And people sop it up with a biscuit, and beg for more.

As Om points out, using the Cheatriots as a prime example, there's crazy shit happening all over the league. But losing teams, not having enough positives to talk about, become the butt of their monologue. There has to be a "loser", to make winners seem like so much more.

Just like there's no reason for a show like American Idol to parade out contestants that couldn't carry a tune in a bucket, there's no reason for the media to embellish everything they report about losing teams.
It's done to try and hide the fact that the real differences between the winners and losers, is the winning part.

This doesn't mean there is no dysfunction with losing teams. There certainly is. But more often than not, it's overplayed, for ratings and responses. Pissed off people are more apt to get involved in the circle jerk, than those stay grounded as to their actual ability to change anything by joining social media bitch fests. IMHO.
 
And also regarding the Patriots, their troubles are also a symptom of something clearly much worse in this league, festering under the surface. I'm not sure bringing them up really helps anyone's case. The league itself is run by the incompetent and corrupt, and it's not getting better.

Now, I don't feel the need to call anyone who doesn't notice or care about the general decay of the once-great NFL (which has backed up on the Redskins once or twice I might add) a bunch of circle-jerking lemmings who sop up whatever garbage the NFL feeds them like a biscuit, but I do notice it and I do care.

The Redskins and their constant inane mistakes are small potatoes. There's a much bigger problem with this league. You guys are right. It does infect the entire league. It just happens that the Redskins happen to be a lot better at making public fools of themselves than most other teams. Which of course goes back to the aforementioned incompetence.
 
That the Redskins have embarrassed themselves in the public eye many times is not in question--at least not by me. What I hope to make in this thread is a distinction between said embarrassment having real, tangible impact on the product that goes on the field every fall weekend versus just being, well ... embarrassing.

The only embarrassment I look at as having had real, tangible effect on the winning and losing has been murderously slow learning curve on the part of the current owner that you have to have football people making football decisions in the front office.

The rest of it, to me, is noise. When and if the football people get enough talent in the house to compete, we'll compete. Until then, the noise will continue to drown out everything else.
 
I dont think the weekly embarrassment is causing the Redskins to be bad any more than I think sneezing causes someone to have the flu.

But if someone has the flu and he is still sneezing, I dont think he's over it yet.
 
I take the opposite view; the dysfunction causes the losing.

Bad teams make bad mistakes. And those mistakes prevent the teams from ever even having a chance to win.

As an example, the Cleveland Browns currently have only 2 RBs on their entire roster.

And one of them has a concussion.

Sorry Cleveland, you've already lost.
 
I'd say incompetence on multiple higher levels causes the dysfunction which then cascades down to on field performance. This is why I've become so pessimistic under Synder.
 
its the same ownership that was in place in 05, 07, and 12 when we were all hyped and thinking we were going in the right direction. Now we have a legitimate GM in place who is putting the right players where they need to go.

The team needs a coach that has confidence, one that has their back through everything, one that can take all the criticism and dish out all the praise. The players just need to get wins under their belt and to realize that what they do out there win or lose is supported then it all goes from there.

Snyder is just a figure head. He is the ultimate boogeyman because its easy to blame him for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. Turf? Snyder. Players getting hurt? Snyder. But the truth is, if we're winning and have a locker room full of men who are all together in the fight nobody gets any blame because they all want to share it and take it on so the others dont have to.
 
Chicken or the egg??? Bottom line is you can't really have one without the other. We've had momentary success at times.. albeit far from the consistent power houses. Those flash in the pan situations just do not create any sort of consistency.
 
MikeSr619 said:
its the same ownership that was in place in 05, 07, and 12 when we were all hyped and thinking we were going in the right direction. Now we have a legitimate GM in place who is putting the right players where they need to go.

The team needs a coach that has confidence, one that has their back through everything, one that can take all the criticism and dish out all the praise. The players just need to get wins under their belt and to realize that what they do out there win or lose is supported then it all goes from there.

Snyder is just a figure head. He is the ultimate boogeyman because its easy to blame him for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. Turf? Snyder. Players getting hurt? Snyder. But the truth is, if we're winning and have a locker room full of men who are all together in the fight nobody gets any blame because they all want to share it and take it on so the others dont have to.
Click to expand...
I would argue that Snyder is more than a figurehead and has had his hand in the pot in more than one major decision made with this team. My personal opinion is that there are several aspects of the team where his personal fandom has outweighed his business acumen creating negative results. Is he the sole reason that the Redskins are often embroiled in QB debates, stupid scandals, odd coaching decisions, odd, enormously- overpaid free agent signings/debates, etc., etc., etc. and often the butt of jokes on a national level? No? Absolutely not. But he doesn't escape some significant blame from my perspective.
 
Special K said:
I would argue that Snyder is more than a figurehead and has had his hand in the pot in more than one major decision made with this team. My personal opinion is that there are several aspects of the team where his personal fandom has outweighed his business acumen creating negative results. Is he the sole reason that the Redskins are often embroiled in QB debates, stupid scandals, odd coaching decisions, odd, enormously- overpaid free agent signings/debates, etc., etc., etc. and often the butt of jokes on a national level? No? Absolutely not. But he doesn't escape some significant blame from my perspective.
Click to expand...
You could get many people to agree with you there as well. It does seem like he's in the mix on all bad things and is to blame. But I've never seen actual proof outside of a thanksgiving dinner, bowling for charity, and other things.

But you can say "snyder gave chief zee a Charlie horse" and people will believe it simply from his name.

I just think it's deeper than him screwing with the team and sabotaging it. He has nothing to gain from it and all kinds of money to lose.
 
Why are there only two options? The answer is (of course) the media (also including social media in here) environment we now live in and the whole get rich quick thing that got our current owner into place, got him quickly trading seeds of tomorrow's future for lottery tickets today, got the media to hype it up like he was the greatest thing in the world for finally moving on from Norv et. al., and then we got the whole crash and burn, rinse wash repeat, but only next time with more media on both sides praising and criticizing the moves. Even our beloved message boards have had their part in it - so quick to label a coach or draft pick a bust or a failure that we're ready to give up on them before their first season and in some cases before their first game. This is a toxic city right now.

Its kinda like Ghostbusters 2. I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's a toxin slime flowing below the city and into our water that just makes this area scream and shout and just hate one another. I used to blame it on one or two media personalities (JLC or Mike Wise or Lavar), but nah its bigger than that. They're just some notables, but it seems that its even infecting the (at one time) most happy ones of us, like Theisman and Larry Michaels. Maybe we need to be like South Park and require Gluten Free diets to counter balance the forces, or institute a "positive only" policy on the music they play at practices.

I'm to the point where wins and losses are a distant distant second for me. I just want to remember what its like to smile when watching football again, or listening to them talk NFL on the radio, or reading a message board. I think I used to smile. didn't I? I mean, I smile when I'm doing other things. Shouldn't football do that for me as well? I guess I'll be forced to play Madden and Madden Mobile until we get the negative forces under control.
 
He's been an irritating, awkward, egotistical, little Napoleon for much of his tenure here. He fancied himself a football man just enough to believe he could be involved early on. Today, he's still irritating, awkward, egotistical and almost certainly still a little Napoleon in most aspects of his life. He is not, however, someone who fancies himself a football man and forcing himself into that side of things. The presence of Scot McCoughan, and to some degree Bruce Allen, are clear evidence of that.

At some point, even his most tireless critics are going to have to allow themselves to see that.

Just for fun, because the Patriots are such a cliché at this point ... would anyone here trade Snyder for the Colts' Jim Irsay? He's owned that team since 1997. Here's another worthwhile read when considering this question:
Investigations reveal the shadow life of Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay

1997 3-13
1998 3-13
1999 13-3
2000 10-6
2001 6-10
2002 10-6
2003 12-4
2004 12-4
2005 14-2
2006 12-4
2007 13-3
2008 12-4
2009 14-2
2010 10-6
2011 2-14
2012 11-5
2013 11-5
2014 11-5

Does it really flow "from the top down" in the NFL? Or is it more about who wears the helmet on the field?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)

Help Users
We are all excited to experience the announcement of draft selections IN REAL TIME TOGETHER. If you feel the need to be the first to 'blurt out' the team's picks you are better off staying out of chat and sticking to Twitter. Please refrain from announcing/discussing our picks until the official announcement has been made at the podium. Thanks!

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top