clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Am I homer?

Am I a homer?

You hear that word a lot.  Homer - 100% support of a team even if you question some of their actions.  Homerism - the ideology of being a homer.  Homerist - classification with a deeper, more accurate description of a fanatical fan base.

Used recently as a negative connotation by some mindless yaks, being a homer means you're apart of some goon based culture. Why is that?  Does being a homer mean I support the actions of players doing immoral things off the field?  Of course not.  That would be generalizing and stereotypical; we don't want that now, do we?  I do support the team and its position to discipline how they see fit. After all, I'm not an officer of the moral police; and something tells me most critics aren't either.  

But then you come across an interesting point from a Bengals perspective. Being a homer in Cincinnati, pre-Marvin Lewis, was often thought of as being a mindless scrooge; a sucker for the actions of a greedy owner more willing to pocket a profit before fielding a talented team. After all, you can't count the number of bad head coaches, insane draft picks, and big-margin losses with a calculator.  Interestingly, it's there you find the deeper meaning, and commonality, amongst older, wiser, and reflective fans not willing to jump off the wagon when ESPN runs countless NFL Live pieces on what's wrong with the players on this team.  Sadly, those fans are classified as homers simply because they've been through much worse, pulled every strain of hair out, and still remained loyal and fanatical to the Cincinnati Bengals.  It's not the newer fan base that's a problem; being able to go to a bar and chant "who-dey" without being laughed at is simply awesome.  

But some push the term of Homerism to a level that doesn't make sense.  I support this team and always will.  I may not agree on a third and one calling a play action that floats into the hands of the opposing secondary.  Even if I did, I'd quickly point out that misdirection (counters, play-action) is the soul of a great offense.  Third and one dictates the defense looks run.  It sets up mismatches and one-on-one in pass coverage.  The risk, however, is much higher.  Zone blitzes and a defense that expects pass could result in an interception or incomplete pass.  Rudi Johnson running behind Willie Anderson and Bobbie Williams is a safer bet.  The run option is much more conservative and more likely to gain that one yard.  But a deep play-action pass could change the game's complexion -- and momentum.  

If I think pass would be a better option, and the team passes but throws an interception, then some will call me a homer for supporting the pass idea afterwards.  It's not that I blindly follow the team, sometimes people to understand football logic or sense.

Another example would be the signing of Sam Adams.  Some critics of that signing state, passionately, that Adams time has come and gone.  He's too big, too slow, and wouldn't help the defense much.  Idiots.  Yes, I know.  I point out the obvious benefits of signing Adams but I was called a homer.  To which I replied, "hell yea".

Anyway, my point is that being a homer is a good thing; not a negative insulting reaction from some guy that doesn't completely agree with the team's actions.  Questioning a team is positive and constructive.  Criticizing someone for supporting the team on an issue you don't agree with, calling them a homer, just doesn't make sense.  

I guess I'm a homer and proud of it.

Maybe I'm wrong.  What are your thoughts of being a homer or those that swim in homerism?