Homer vs Anti-homer

[luv]

I know I've seen both extremes on here. There's the unrealistic, head in the clouds, rose colored glasses type of person who makes outlandish statements due to believing his team can do no wrong. Then, there's the over-realistic person who analyzes every move, every decision, and every stat to the point where it seems the team can either do no good or it just takes all of the fun out of watching the game.

I realize that a vast majority of people on here fall somewhere in the middle. Let's say, though, that you could only label yourself one or the other. Which would you say you're most like?

Just to make it fun, I'm going to make it a public poll.

[Slayer Diablo]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

On the subway today, a man came up to me to start a conversation. He made small talk, a lonely man talking about how good the Weis and Crennel hires would be, and the Patriot Way. I tried to be pleasant and accommodating, but my head hurt from his homerism. I almost didn't notice it had happened, but I suddenly threw up all over him. He was not pleased, and I couldn't stop laughing.

So when do we find the first body?

[Slayer Diablo]

I'm right down the middle, but I make an effort to show each side in its own glory at times. I'll especially be an anti-homer for the sake of sounding like House.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Slayer

So when do we find the first body?

First body? You mean latest body.

[DJ's left nut]

I'm a cheery !@#$ing optimist.

[keg in kc]

There's no such thing as an anti-homer. Just different shades of homer.

[chefsos]

I'm a homer who's pretty sure that there are loose lugnuts on the bandwagon wheels.

[TigerPig]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

There are so many 'realists'. Reality is skewed by perception. Which gets back to the basic question at hand. Homer or Anti Homer.

To me, the two terms that originate the discussion are somewhate misleading. Perhaps it should be Chiefs' optimist and Chiefs' pessimist. We are all homers in that we want the Chiefs to win.

But, every 'reality' is skewed by our perception. Take Matt Cassel. Clearly, he underperformed this year. However, the 'reality' in my mind is that he had three offensive coordinators in eight months, he had a lack of talent around him, and the Chiefs set the all time drops record. While these facts do not absolve him of blame, the should be at least mitigating factors.

There are other topics as well, such as Tamba Hali, Derrick Johnson, cutting Bernard Pollard, the coaching of Todd Haley, etc.

One would think that a 'realist' would tend to fall on one side for one topic (as in the Chiefs made the right move) and the other side for other topics. (as in the Chiefs made a mistake)

However, the self described realists often fall on the same side of every argument.

The 'reality' is that the difference between a 4-12 team and a 10-6 team is much smaller than the average fan can realize from their couch. It is the little things, like dropped passes. Missed blocking assignments, etc. The actual reality is that the disparity in talent isn't the main culprit, it is the disparity in attention to detail, and concentration.

Anyways, we are all Homers in that we want the Chiefs to win. And, it would get old if every move by the Chiefs was met with unbridled enthusiasm and acceptance. However, if you think you are a realist and every move the Chiefs make is a bad decision, or every move the Chiefs make is for the best.... YOU ARE NOT A REALIST!

Rep! This is a great post that really gets down to what it is all about.

I TOTALLY disagree with your 4-12 vs. 10-6 thing, but that's another bit.

[Jenson71]

I'm in that category where it's like "Nothing I do affects some billionaire's pro football team. Nothing I do affects the way millionaire athletes play a game on Sunday. Nothing I do affects the way millionaire coaches coach on Sunday. Nothing I do affects the Kansas City Chiefs. So why should I worry about it? Should I be happy with life when they win? No. Should I be sad with life when they lose? No. The extent of my feelings towards the billion dollar franchise known as the Chiefs is 'Cool' or 'Shoot'. The Chiefs are strictly a fun diversion. At any point where it becomes an emotional bond, where it becomes some barrier to human bonding because I am too frustrated with them, then I realize my life has gone completely offtrack. The Chiefs are something that a rich man and a poor man in Kansas City should be able to chat amiably about. The Chiefs are something that a father and a son who haven't spoken long should be able to reconnect with, whether they are losing or winning. At any point where the Chiefs are more important than the rich man or poor man, or the father or son, your life is ****ed up and you need guidance." Where's that option?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by luv

Then, there's the over-realistic person who analyzes every move, every decision, and every stat to the point where it seems the team can either do no good or it just takes all of the fun out of watching the game.

I don't think the anti-homers are any more realistic than the homers. We're really just talking about optimistic people who don't know what they're talking about versus pessimistic people who don't know what they're talking about.

[patteeu]

Oh yeah, mark me down as an optimist (i.e. homer).

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

I'm in that category where it's like "Nothing I do affects some billionaire's pro football team. Nothing I do affects the way millionaire athletes play a game on Sunday. Nothing I do affects the way millionaire coaches coach on Sunday. Nothing I do affects the Kansas City Chiefs. So why should I worry about it? Should I be happy with life when they win? No. Should I be sad with life when they lose? No. The extent of my feelings towards the billion dollar franchise known as the Chiefs is 'Cool' or 'Shoot'. The Chiefs are strictly a fun diversion. At any point where it becomes an emotional bond, where it becomes some barrier to human bonding because I am too frustrated with them, then I realize my life has gone completely offtrack. The Chiefs are something that a rich man and a poor man in Kansas City should be able to chat amiably about. The Chiefs are something that a father and a son who haven't spoken long should be able to reconnect with, whether they are losing or winning. At any point where the Chiefs are more important than the rich man or poor man, or the father or son, your life is ****ed up and you need guidance." Where's that option?

I'd say that makes you an anti-homer. They're the ones who think they know it all and look down on those who see the team differently.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't think the anti-homers are any more realistic than the homers. We're really just talking about optimistic people who don't know what they're talking about versus pessimistic people who don't know what they're talking about.

My 'hello 4-12' within minutes of hearing Roaf retired carries no cachet at this point?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

My 'hello 4-12' within minutes of hearing Roaf retired carries no cachet at this point?

If 1000 of us morons guessed our next season's record randomly, over 60 of us would get it right.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

There's no such thing as an anti-homer. Just different shades of homer.

In your opinion, does a homer HOPE for good things to come, regardless of the evidence, or EXPECT good things to come, regardless of the evidence?

[luv]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't think the anti-homers are any more realistic than the homers. We're really just talking about optimistic people who don't know what they're talking about versus pessimistic people who don't know what they're talking about.

I never thought of it that way.