When Some Of Us Post "negative/critical" Things

[Vaark]

A pre-draft off-season poll I started to get a pulse of the sentiment on Tannehill underscored that between full confidence in him and pulling for him to succeed, the vast majority ranging from 8 or 12 to 1 were positive to varying degrees. Ironically, I'm one of those who were bullish but wanted to draft a QB to hedge our bets. Since then, if anything's changed, it's that the OL looks better and Tannehill looks like he's recovered.

@FinfanInBuffalo a few weeks ago posted an excellent rebuttal to a very negative Tannehill post and in just over 24 hours, in a forum where awarding "likes" is not customary, his post attracted an unprecedented 40+ "likes."

The point of all of this is that the majority of vocal and silent FH posters are pro-Tannehill BUT based on the representation of negatives in different threads, often, as others have pointed out, on account of the almost OCD need to negatively interject Tannehill into those threads or rebut any positive news, you would think that the majority of posters shared that sentiment when in reality it's a relative minority who over-post their negativity.

So my issue is not that posters are negative because it's certainly their prerogative, but that it's the same posters who seemingly cannot allow a thread to go thru without interjecting a negative. It's those redundant, as predictable as death and taxes, high volume posters who I think create the most blowback and of course the most rebuttals -which I myself am guilty of including holding the belief that some are covertly rooting for Tannehill to fail just to validate their long-entrenched opinion...Just "IMO"

 

[.....]

Vaark for president. Well said.

 

[finfanatl]

Negative opinions are fine as long as you let it be known that it is your opinion.
You are not an expert and do not have inside information on what the plan is, etc.
Most with negative opinions post like their opinion is the only opinion is the only acceptable answer.

 

[royalshank]

During the Marino Era (well, except for the end of it!) Miami was ALWAYS a playoff contender. Down by 20 in the 4th? No problem; they're still in it. (I remember Miami scoring 3 touchdowns in under 2 minutes once.) I expected them to win every game and do well in the playoffs. Did they? Not every year (damn those Bills!), but I always stayed positive. Nowadays, I'm always negative because IMO a clueless owner keeps making terrible personnel decisions (Front Office and Head Coaches) resulting in not enough above-average talent with inexperienced coaches running ineffective offensive and defensive schemes.

I want to be positive again! Maybe the next regime will be more competent.

The irony for me is that when we did lose during those years it was more soul crushing than it is now where I’ve been conditioned to expect it. I try to be positive every year, every game but I think my negativity is a learned defense mechanism against feeling awful when we blow it. That said, I think we will surprise this year!

 

[royalshank]

A pre-draft off-season poll I started to get a pulse of the sentiment on Tannehill underscored that between full confidence in him and pulling for him to succeed, the vast majority ranging from 8 or 12 to 1 were positive to varying degrees. Ironically, I'm one of those who were bullish but wanted to draft a QB to hedge our bets. Since then, if anything's changed, it's that the OL looks better and Tannehill looks like he's recovered.

@FinfanInBuffalo a few weeks ago posted an excellent rebuttal to a very negative Tannehill post and in just over 24 hours, in a forum where awarding "likes" is not customary, his post attracted an unprecedented 40+ "likes."

The point of all of this is that the majority of vocal and silent FH posters are pro-Tannehill BUT based on the representation of negatives in different threads, often, as others have pointed out, on account of the almost OCD need to negatively interject Tannehill into those threads or rebut any positive news, you would think that the majority of posters shared that sentiment when in reality it's a relative minority who over-post their negativity.

So my issue is not that posters are negative because it's certainly their prerogative, but that it's the same posters who seemingly cannot allow a thread to go thru without interjecting a negative. It's those redundant, as predictable as death and taxes, high volume posters who I think create the most blowback and of course the most rebuttals -which I myself am guilty of including holding the belief that some are covertly rooting for Tannehill to fail just to validate their long-entrenched opinion...Just "IMO"

This is a really good post - perhaps we’d have more dialogue from the quiet members if they felt a bit safer expressing their opinions.

 

[Bruh Man]

Negative posts don't bother me. People have their opinions and I'm fine with that. It makes the forum much more entertaining. I look forward to reading opinions on both sides of the spectrum and everything in between.

 

[Ray R]

A pre-draft off-season poll I started to get a pulse of the sentiment on Tannehill underscored that between full confidence in him and pulling for him to succeed, the vast majority ranging from 8 or 12 to 1 were positive to varying degrees. Ironically, I'm one of those who were bullish but wanted to draft a QB to hedge our bets. Since then, if anything's changed, it's that the OL looks better and Tannehill looks like he's recovered.

@FinfanInBuffalo a few weeks ago posted an excellent rebuttal to a very negative Tannehill post and in just over 24 hours, in a forum where awarding "likes" is not customary, his post attracted an unprecedented 40+ "likes."

The point of all of this is that the majority of vocal and silent FH posters are pro-Tannehill BUT based on the representation of negatives in different threads, often, as others have pointed out, on account of the almost OCD need to negatively interject Tannehill into those threads or rebut any positive news, you would think that the majority of posters shared that sentiment when in reality it's a relative minority who over-post their negativity.

So my issue is not that posters are negative because it's certainly their prerogative, but that it's the same posters who seemingly cannot allow a thread to go thru without interjecting a negative. It's those redundant, as predictable as death and taxes, high volume posters who I think create the most blowback and of course the most rebuttals -which I myself am guilty of including holding the belief that some are covertly rooting for Tannehill to fail just to validate their long-entrenched opinion...Just "IMO"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Crump]

This is a really good post - perhaps we’d have more dialogue from the quiet members if they felt a bit safer expressing their opinions.

absolutely correct, I was a lurker for a long time because of my opinions getting laughed at or misconstrued by however some of the guys wanted. and sadly its not always members with a post count of 100-200 that are attacking the silent onces, but some guys that have been here for a long time. I learned a few months ago that the ignore button is a great thing. it sucks cause I might miss a quality post or two but its well worth it

 

[The Goat]

I have zero problems with those who want to be realistic, or even skeptical.

I have a huge problem with those who permeate every thread and try to keep others from being optimistic.

 

[dirkey]

Way to completely shoot down your entire post....... You couldn't even get through the plea for civility without including something extreme. THIS IS WHY THE DEBATES GO OFF THE RAILS! It's not the critical comments that annoy it is the stupid ones.

Time for a little introspection.

Wow. You know, I think you're illustrating the points made by @crumpdaddy and @Michigan Mike . We get it. You're a Tannehill fan. That's great, and we applaud you. Just because he uses this comment about Tannehill isn't a reason to attack him.

This is an absolutely fantastic thread, props OP. It's so true. Some of us are what we like to think of as realists. But nope, we're negative, we're haters. Just because we don't believe this team is destined for the playoffs. And others are homers, blinded etc. Like for instance I see the likes of @Ray R at times getting grief for his sunshine view. I don't always agree with his takes but I LOVE reading them, because it allows me to hope.

But we see it all the time. Tannehill is the obvious extreme case of a thread, where the terms Tannehater and fan boy are constantly thrown around. People can't just have simple back and forth discussing they they think he's good / bad / average etc. They have to be haters / fan boys.

 

[The Goat]

Wow. You know, I think you're illustrating the points made by @crumpdaddy and @Michigan Mike . We get it. You're a Tannehill fan. That's great, and we applaud you. Just because he uses this comment about Tannehill isn't a reason to attack him.

This is an absolutely fantastic thread, props OP. It's so true. Some of us are what we like to think of as realists. But nope, we're negative, we're haters. Just because we don't believe this team is destined for the playoffs. And others are homers, blinded etc. Like for instance I see the likes of @Ray R at times getting grief for his sunshine view. I don't always agree with his takes but I LOVE reading them, because it allows me to hope.

But we see it all the time. Tannehill is the obvious extreme case of a thread, where the terms Tannehater and fan boy are constantly thrown around. People can't just have simple back and forth discussing they they think he's good / bad / average etc. They have to be haters / fan boys.

I think you're missing his point.

The OP presented two options:

1) Group A thinks he's an average QB

2) Group B thinks he's the Messiah reincarnated.

In doing so, he presented his group of persons as completely reasonable and those who disagreed as insane zealots. Even if that wasn't his intent, it's easily and reasonably interpreted that way.

FinFanInBuffalo was pointing out that that specific inclusion was very self-defeating to his point of not attacking those with differing opinions.

And he's right.

 

[Crump]

its a sad day when an admin is probably going to have to come into a post discussing "why some posters are negative and its okay", and start having to yell at us to stay on topic cause its going to turn into a RT17 sucks/ RT is mesiah thread , which is honestly to me both humorous and sad at the same time

 

[TronMan]

Wow. You know, I think you're illustrating the points made by @crumpdaddy and @Michigan Mike . We get it. You're a Tannehill fan. That's great, and we applaud you. Just because he uses this comment about Tannehill isn't a reason to attack him.

Hm, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with this. I don't see anywhere in the post where he attacked the poster except for maybe asking the poster to reflect on himself. I understand the comment about self reflection because the OP made a condescending comment about Tannehill supporters. Notice the contrast between "Don't bash me for thinking Ryan Tannehill is just an average QB and I won't attack you for thinking he's the Messiah reincarnated." How is there any sort of equivalence between the two descriptions, average qb vs Messiah Incarnate? It's posts like that that are abrasive and unnecessary, don't defend it if you actually want civil discussion. Civil discussion involves facts, points, and counter-points not insulting exaggerations. It's comments like that that derail threads. Especially when no one is saying anything close to what's being implied. It appears that if you try to say that RT is an above average QB then you get accused of worshiping the ground he walks on(see the OP's comment), do you see the double standard? It's not some imagined phenomena, I noticed it, FFIB noticed it and so did Sarnics13. So ask yourself, if you truly want a healthy discussion, are comments like that solving anything? If not, then they are part of the problem and their criticism is deserved.

 

[andyahs]

I have zero problems with those who want to be realistic, or even skeptical.

I have a huge problem with those who permeate every thread and try to keep others from being optimistic.

It was the op himself that brought Tannehill into a thread that had zero to do with Tannehill just so he could take a shot.

So he has an agenda not just being negative.

 

[DolfanISS]

I'm as big a Marino fan as anyone but this is simply not true. The Dolphins wasted much of the prime years of Marino's career with records of 8-8, 8-7, 6-10, and 8-8 from 1986 - 1989. A four year span with a sub-.500 record with the greatest QB to have ever played in his prime.

In the final 10 years of Shula's career, the Dolphins only made the playoffs 4 times. In the Shula/Marino era, the Dolphins made the playoff just once with a defense in the bottom half of the league in points allowed and they were ranked 17th that year. They missed the playoffs 5 times with a defensive ranking (by points allowed) in the 20 - 26 range.

Because of Marino, they were always fun to watch, but his career PROVES it is a team game.

Yes and if Finheaven existed back in 1994 (I think) during the Chargers playoff game where Stoyanovich missed the game winner Dan and Don should and would have been LAMBASTED on here. The 2nd half was Wanny/Fiedler type **** in the way it was managed. Horrible job by the QB and coach.