Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Follow PostSports on Twitter  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Don't worry, there's a silver lining

Jason Woodmansee

I’m going to ignore, for a minute, that the Redskins blew a 17-point lead at home. I’m also going to ignore that they made several key mistakes that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. I’m even going to ignore the fact that this all happened at the hands of a team that I said shouldn’t even exist. [Note: I probably went over the top on the headline - and for my trouble I got a 2000+ word beatdown from a Texans blog. And they were thorough - analyzing relative market sizes, stadium capacities and everything. I may have to make “Randomly Annoying the Opponent’s Fan Base” a regular part of my repertoire.]

I’m instead going to concentrate on the fact that, for the first time this century, the Redskins may have a competent offense. They scored 27 points! In one game! With Donovan McNabb & the Shanahans you actually have some skill & experience running the show, which hasn’t been common over the years. Let’s look back:

1999: Offensive competency! We’ve got Brad Johnson, Stephen Davis, Stephen Davis-Puncher Michael Westbrook, and, God bless his heart, Norv. What could go wrong?

2000: Danny makes Norv start Jeff George, and then fires him when that doesn’t work out.

2001: Martyball: Three yards and a cloud of Tony Banks.

2002: The Ol’ Ball Coach shows up and brings in every un-drafted or unemployed ex-Gator he can find. This goes poorly.

2003: Patrick Ramsey nearly gets killed on every single play, but Spurrier does not change his protection schemes. He does, however, change his putting stroke from a straight back-and-through to more of an arc.

2004-2007: St. Joseph of Gibbs returns, but is no longer an offensive genius for some reason. Coach Gibbs tries just about everything, from firing himself as play caller to bringing in Al Saunders and his 700-page playbook - but points are still few & far between. That being said, Joe Gibbs is awesome and I will not entertain any opinions to the contrary.

2008 & 2009: The Audacity of Zorn. I’m not even going to talk about this - the hurt is too fresh.

So, the Redskins may not win the Super Bowl, or go to the playoffs, or even have a winning record this year. But they probably won’t have an epically bad offense -- and that, my friends, is progress.

By Box Seats blogger  | September 20, 2010; 10:41 AM ET
Categories:  Jason Woodmansee, Redskins  | Tags:  Redskins-Texans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Maryland-West Virginia recap: Shell-shocked
Next: Redskins-Texans recap: Refusing to play the blame game

Comments

It was delightful to see a competent passing game. Can't believe Joey Galloway failed to pick up that 70-yard bomb from McNabb. Of course, the Skins still can't run the ball, at least not forward.

Oh, if you ever write another ill-informed "annoy the opponent's fan base" post, I'll personally lead a letter-writing to the Post to have you removed. Your previous post was flat-out embarrassing for Redskins fans (and flat-out wrong by countless quantifiable measures). I'm surprised the Post gave you another shot.

Posted by: SkinsFaninCanada | September 20, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why something written to annoy and/or diminish an opponent needs to be informed at all. After all, it's just opinion. I'm thinking next week's headline will be "The Rams are the worst team in the history of professional sports."

Posted by: jwoodmansee | September 20, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

There are many answers to your question regarding why writing to diminish an opponent needs to be informed. Here are three.

1) Opinions that ignore highly relevant facts are, well, really annoying to your target audience. They are neither credible nor interesting.

2) Readers don't value annoying people for the sake of annoying people. *Maybe* if you were annoying fans of a heated rival, like the Cowboys, it could resonate, but you still couldn't ignore highly relevant facts.

3) Readers don't appreciate it when your annoying, poorly informed post reflects poorly on us. As was made clear by the many responses to your post by both Redskins and Texans fans, you (inadvertently) portrayed Redskins fans as ignorant and arrogant. Please don't do that again.

Posted by: SkinsFaninCanada | September 20, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Dear readers of this blog,

You will find your enjoyment of Mr. Woodmansee's blog will vary in direct proportion to your ability to appreciate subtle humor. Those of you going cross-eyed in anger right about now might want to lighten up, and possibly consider switching to decaf.

Keep 'em coming Jason.

Posted by: innocentbystander | September 20, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

LOL. Even if you want to claim his previous post was "humorous" -- which would be in contrast to the numerous Redskins and Texans fan who thought otherwise -- it most certainly was not "subtle." Borrow a dictionary and look it up.

Posted by: SkinsFaninCanada | September 21, 2010 1:42 AM | Report abuse

LOL. Even if you want to claim his previous post was "humorous" -- which would be in contrast to the numerous Redskins and Texans fans who found in inaccurate and offensive -- it most certainly was not "subtle." Borrow a dictionary and look up the word.

Posted by: SkinsFaninCanada | September 21, 2010 1:43 AM | Report abuse

Those "numerous Redskins and Texans fans" were exactly the readers to which I was referring. There's at least 1 fan in Canada as well. Or perhaps I was too subtle for you?

Nice double-post BTW. ;) Decaf my friend, decaf. Breathe. Take it easy.

Posted by: innocentbystander | September 21, 2010 6:42 AM | Report abuse

Note. You used the "decaf" joke already.

There are 13 comments on the "Texans shouldn't exist" post. 12 are decidedly negative: e.g., "laughable," "ashamed," "uninformed," "stupid."

His readership obviously didn't like the tone or content. Understanding this is about common sense, not caffeine.

Posted by: SkinsFaninCanada | September 21, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Exactly. And it's clear they have none (common sense, that is) if they can't read that line and see it's obviously meant in jest. That's 12 folks that need to get their funny bone checked. But the more telling note is the hundreds/thousands of others that didn't comment in a blinding rage. Most seemed to appreciate it for what is was, and the entertainment value it provided.

Posted by: innocentbystander | September 21, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Yes, we can clearly infer that those who did not comment enjoyed the post immensely. Well argued.

If you don't want to see that 2 plus 2 equals four, I can't make you.

Posted by: SkinsFaninCanada | September 22, 2010 7:07 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company