Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum

Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion


SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Locker Room Main Forum


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 05-27-2009, 10:48 PM   #21
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruhskins View Post
I think you make a fair point and some people would say that it is not worth making an argument. My comment was geared more towards people that spend a lot of time and energy arguing down others who think we are better. In the end this ranking is as pointless as arguing whether our backfield is 26th or 20th. But at the same time, people shouldn't be surprised when a fan doesn't like to see their team rank so low.
Yep. If the author had said, "right now, at least half the teams in the NFL had stronger backfields than the Redskins" not many would have argued. But when people see a rankings list, you can see right away who the author is deeming to be "better" than you. Then comes the, "I've seen players x, and y, play before, and they aren't better than my team's guys."

That's usually true, but out of the guys who are ranked behind you, chances are a few of them are actually going to be better than you this year as well.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.84510 seconds with 11 queries