I am sure that will change soon enough. 1-2 is 1-2, so they are probably deserving of where they are, but to me the Bears are (and will be recognized as) a much better team than the Deadskins. No need to fuss, there are a lot of games to go to see where our teams are.
LOVE your comments!!! 1-2 and looking mediocre at #18, it's where they belong. Should they lose to the Panteras (which is a possibility), they will plummet.
This looks about right. The Skins played tough and should have won, but ended up on the wrong side of a very close game. Dropping one spot makes sense. The Pears looked incompetent on offense and deserve to drop.
I don't know how anyone in their right mind can say the Pears are "much better" than the Skins. Then again, nothing Rob says makes sense, so I digress.
Robs comments are so skewed I really think he is delusional.
We are still early in the season and we learn more about each football team with each passing week. As I have said a number of times, you really don't get a good sense of how good/bad your team is until Week 4 or 5. I think the rankings are fair.
The Skins look like a competent and competitive team that has taken big steps in rebuilding and is moving in the right direction.
The Pears look like a team with some talent on the defensive front but struggling to find their offensive identity and doing so with a subpar O line and mediocre WRs.
We'll see, but just looking at who our respective teams have played and my belief that the Bears have played much tougher teams is why I believe what I do.
If the Deadskins lose to the Rams - which they likely will do, then it will set up a long season.
A Bears win this week sets up a great matchup against the Lions next week.
I'm not worried about the Bears or the rankings right now.
One other thing - the idea that the Rams represent a "trap" game for the Deadskins is just plain silly. The Deadskins have stunk for a long time. There are no "trap" games for a perennial stinker.
If they are a sub-.500 team again this year, there is no way one can call any game on the Deadskins schedule a "trap" game.
The Skins have been a sub-500 team in recent history, but what does history have to do with what's going on right now? The Skins are tied for first place in their division and I believe the players and the vast majority of analysts/experts are going to expect them to win this game. Given that expectation and how each team is entering week 4, this is a trap game.
I don't know why I just responded to Rob's comment. I should already know that any discussion describing the Skins as anything better than terrible is something that he simply cannot accept.
Yeah, the Pears may have played much tougher teams and they lost. You can say that they were in it until late or this or that but the fact is that they lost. The Falcons win is not looking nearly impressive given the state of that team.
The Panther game is no gimme for the Pears. If they lose that game, they will plummet.
What is a trap game? Its a game in which the trapped team is without question and unanimously considered better than the trapping team. I dont think its safe to say that the Redskins are by any means without any questions better than any opponent they are playing this season. Therefore they cannot be heading into any trap games. On the flip side, they sure can be considered Trappers for the Patriots, Jets, Eagles, and whoever else is clearly better. I dont think the Skins are better than the Rams. Even more I dont they are on another level than the Rams for the Rams to be a Trap.
Also the Bears have played tough tough tough opponents so far. all three are superbowl contenders yet the bears are still 1-2. Against all three teams I am sure the redskins would have been 0-3 and been beaten pretty badly.
Agree that JSR seems to have contracted an acute case of Snyderitis. It's early in the season and we are still finding out more about each team. However, the Falcons (the one team the Pears have beaten) are looking less impressive. Even the Packers struggled against the Panthers.
To say that definitively that the Skins would have been beaten badly if we had played the Falcons, Saints, and Packers is crazy talk. Thre is no reason to believe that. We will find out more about our teams this Sunday.
Wait so let me get this straight... You actually think that on an individual game level that the Redskins would even come close to matching up against the
Falcons
Saints
Packers
?????
Let me put it in another context.
Redskins vs. Saints
Who would win?
Redskins vs. Falcons
Who would win?
Redskins vs. Packers
Who would win?
I think if you ask anyone who isnt drinking Snyder juice, theyd tell you that the Saints, Falcons and Packers would win.
oh no it is not I who suffers from anything my friends...
Its Redskins nation who suffers from delusions of a team with a demeaning name and who year in year out is marketed to be better than they really are and who will continue to perform worse than most of the teams in the NFL because of the OWNER and Fan impatience to actually build a real team.
What so "over the top" of the clear and concise definition of a trap game and how can the redskins be considered a trapped team in any game this season? Explain if you dont mind.
Snyderitis or whatever you call is what anyone who knows anything about the Skins organization suffers from. Besides Redskins nation of course.
Its no secret that I hate Snyder. The guy is a moron. He does not know how to run a franchise and has doomed the skins to be the worst franchise in the four major sports in America (121/122).
What is funny is that JKSD and Deeps are always saying that my "bias" blinds me to the Deadskins, but they don't account for their blind devotion affecting their thoughts.
Deeps and his trap game nonsense is a good example.
When the Deadskins lose to the Rams this weekend, it will be interesting to see how Deadskin nation reacts.
I don't think Deepie or I have followed the Skins blindly. If things go bad, we recognize the deficiencies and comment on them. We don't make excuses.
Robs, you follow your team blindly stating that they are contenders every year. You say the O line is a solid group but the numbers do not support that. Yet, you will say that you are objective. It's B.S.
JSR, to answer your specific question on who I think would win those games. If I had money on those games, I would probable bet:
Skins vs. Packers - Packers
Skins vs. Saints - Saints
Skins vs. Falcons - Skins
However, let me also say this. I would probably bet on the Packers against any team in the NFC. I also think we would compete against them and certainly believe we would compete against the Saints and do not think we would get blown out. Those are my honest opinions.
Look, neither Deepie nor I have never said that the Skins are Super Bowl bound this year. We recognize that we are in rebuilding mode but the direction is positive. We have gotten MUCH younger. We have much more depth. We have added quality character guys. We are much more disciplined. Still, it will not all come together in one season. Robs and I think you are confusing us with the majority of idiot football fans who think a win equates to Super Bowl and a loss equates to firing everybody.
I have long maintained through the offseason/preseason that my hope is that the team competes and shows improvement from week to week and if it looks like we are improving and building, I can live with that this season.
We'll see if that is the case.
Robs doesn't seem to recognize the deficiencies on his own team. Both of you seem to be remembering past sins when it comes to the Skins.
We will find out if the Pears are contenders. We'll find out if the Skins are improving.
'Skins would beat the Falcons? They struggled to beat the lowly Cards who traveled across country and they would beat the Falcons? Dream on pal.
It is early in the season and let's see if the Bears are contenders and whether the Deadskins have really turned a corner and become a serious football team. The way they lost to the Cowgirls and the post game comments by defensive captain, Arsenio Hall, seem like more of the same.
There is no question the Bears are a solid organization - as evidenced by their ability to get to the Super Bowl and host another title game in recent years. There is also little question that the Deadskins have been one of the worst franchises in the NFL for many years. Those facts cannot be disputed. We'll see where these teams are as the season progresses.
Robs, you want to pick out single games? We beat the Giants the 2-1 Giants handily.
The Falcons got thrashed by the 1-2 Pears. They barely beat the 1-2 Vickless Eagles. They lost to the Bucs. We were a first down away from being 3-0. Why is is SO inconceivable for us to beat the Falcons? We can debate all you want but we have our opinions.
I have no problem with Hall's comments and he came back yesterday and said he was "overzealous" and that he sat down with Shanny and Haslett and understood the call and would probably make the call himself in Madden. He said that he along with many guys on that play were to blame. He was frustrated in the moment the reporter shoved the mic in his face after the game. His coaches and teammates supported him in his comments and understood them. B Mitch sat down with him and understood the comments and told him though he needs to be careful because he is a vet and a captain. It's over and done with. This is not a Haynesworth or Mc5 situation.
Fine, we all agree that we'll see if the Pears are contenders as you say and if the Skins continue to improve/compete. Lets leave it at that.
The Giants were playing with their JV defense and the Cards stink. The Cowgirls were completely inept on offense and the Deadskins still lost.
Who knows what would have happened if the Bears and Deadskins traded schedules? But I would be comfortable saying the Bears would have had a much easier time and the Deadskins would have had a much harder time. 3-0 Bears vs. 0-3 Deadskin would be far more likely than their current records.
The Giants were playing with their JV defense when they thrashed the Rams. They were playing with their JV defense when they handled the Iggles. What's your point?
Your opinion of 3-0 Pears and 0-3 Skins is nothing more than your opinion. You got thrashed by the Saints and handled easily by the Puckers. Don't give me that they were in it. I watched the Pucker game and the only time I felt like the Pears had a shot was their drive right before halftime. Otherwise, they looked like an inferior team.
We can throw our beliefs around all we want. Again, we'll find out if the Pears are contenders as you say.
Holy crap. Robs and JSR are going to make me stick a pencil in my eye with all the blind disregard for anything positive going on with the Skins. I will refrain from explaining my case any further and let's just see what happens. I will, however, see with my one remaining good eye after reading through all of the drivel.
Everything on our blogs is opinion. What is your point?
We will see. But if the Bears scored after the Urlacher interception, it would have been a 3 or 7 point game with 7 minutes to play. If the Knox TD had counted at the end, it would have been a 3 point game and an onside kick may have given them a chance.
The Bears had their chances. My view is that given the way the Deadskins are playing they would easily be destroyed by the Packers. They would not even have a chance.
Not much reason to go back and forth on what would happen so let's try to find something we can agree on. How about this - if the Rams destroy the Deadskins this week, we can agree that the Deadskins stink. Correct? This is actually something that we can test.
Robs, who gives a shat about "ifs." If the GB had picked off either of those poorly thrown passes by Cutler near the end zone, it wouldn't have been close.
If the Skins had converted a first down late. If Rexy hadn't fumbled. If Rocca holds the snap. If we sack Romo on the 3rd down play. Who the F cares? It didn't happen. So don't give me "ifs" because they mean nothing.
If we get destroyed by the Rams, it will be a bad blow. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say they stink because it is one game and the previous three we have played well. If we get blown out in 2-3 consecutive games, then I could accept that they stink.
How about this? If the Pears lose to the Panthers, we could agree that they stink, correct?
Here's all we know right now... The Packers are really good. The Pears are trending down from last season. The Skins are trending up from last season.
Each week makes the picture for each team clearer. With the Pears playing a team they should beat, we should find out if they can make the adjustments to play to their strengths or not. If Martz keeps getting his QB pummeled, then I won't have any more confidence in their ability to succeed this season than I do right now.
With the Skins playing a winless Rams team in St. Louis after losing a heartbreaker that would have put them at 3-0, this is a trap game no matter what Robs and JSR want to believe. We may find that the Skins are no better or worse than the Rams this week, but given the circumstances leading up to the game, I think it's clear that the Skins need to approach this game as if it's a must win in order to get out with a 3-1 record.
So if the definition of Trap game is accepted, then the other end of the equation has to be considered.
If this is a trap game for the redskins, then youd have to be assuming that the Redskins are without doubt and widely considered better than the Rams.
If that is the case then I think Redskins nation is falling into the trap of once again expecting too much and believing their team is better than it really is hence leading to the belief that this is a trap game.
We will see in a few weeks as the picture gets clearer.
So now Robs is the expert on the definition of a trap game. His definition is clearly one that diminishes the Skins position in this game. No surprise there.
My definition of a trap game is one where a team suffers a let down against a team it should be able to beat due to circumstances leading to that game. Even though I didn't think the Pears would beat the Saints, it was a trap game given that many players went to Urlacher's mom's funeral. I believe the Pears didn't play to their potential as a result.
If you want to ignore the fact that the Skins are 16th in the power rankings and the Lambs are 31st, that's where you and I will disagree on this being a trap game. The bottom line is, all things considered, the Skins are the better team at this point and their coming off of a tough loss that could affect how they approach their preparations for the Lambs. Thus, this is a trap game. We aren't good enough to walk into St. Louis and win without putting up a serious fight, but we are the better team at this time. Deny it all you want, but given all of the stats and given all of the expert opinions on where these teams rank, I'm at a loss to understand how you could.
BTW, the Skins are 1.5 point favorites on the road. You should know that the home team always gets 3 points, so on a neutral field, the Skins are considered more than a field goal better than the Lambs.
You have an odd definition of a trap game Deeps - certainly it is not a normal definition.
It is not my view, it is the commonly held view that a trap game requires an element of overlooking an opponent who you think is CLEARLY weaker. That only happens when there is a heavy favorite and it usually happens before or after a big game against a comparably tough team. You cannot have a trap game with a point spread of 1.5 points - that is silly. If the Deadskins are overlooking anyone then they are idiots.
My definition is not unusual, nor is it off-base. How about the definition as provided by a writer for cbssports.com? Tony Barnhart defines a trap game as follows:
"Everybody can look at a team’s schedule and pick out the tough games. But can you recognize the “Trap Games?” Those are games that may not look difficult on the surface, but when combined with travel, the opponent the previous week, or some other factors, it becomes a game where the favored teams could trip up."
Playing the struggling and 0-3 Rams...not difficult on the surface? Check Travel? Check Losing to the Cowboys the way we did in the previous week? Check Other factors such as any distraction that D Hall's outburst may cause? Check
Like I said earlier, if you want to ignore that the Skins are 16th in the power rankings and the Rams are 31st, then that's where we'll end up disagreeing. The Skins are favored and are viewed to be the better team going into this game. We should win this game.
The widely held definition of a trap game is when a SUPERIOR TEAM loses to an INFERIOR TEAM. Why is the term TRAP used for this game. It is just that, a TRAP. Its called a TRAP because you are superior team and are expected to win but you fall in to the trap of overlooking - being more confident than you should. Where does this over confidence come from? it stems from not taking the lesser opponent seriously. why wouldnt you take the lesser opponent seriously? well you obviously feel like you can win without a doubt.
Ofcourse if the Trapping team (inferior team) wins, then YES by all means it is an UPSET. They go hand in hand. There is almost no distinction. If youre saying that the 1.5 point favored Redskins playing the Rams are heading into a Trap game, then if the Redskins lose, it is by definition an UPSET since they were favored. Hence proving that Trap game and Upset are related.
1.5 point (half a field goal) favorite is not by any means an indication that the favored team is better than the inferior team. let alone Enough to call it a trap game.
Like it or not, the above definition of a trap game is the more widely held defintion. Ask 100 people. 90/100 will pick the above def above the CBS guy's
Now, clearly we differ in what we call a TRAP GAME, and thats fine. You are def in the minority with with your def of a Trap game. So for now I will not use the word TRAP since we cant agree on a def.
concerning the Redskins Vs. Rams.
I understand what youre saying, but I am also saying that at this point the redskins are in no position to check off wins. To think that they can at this point is absurd (which Redskins nation usually is) whether its because they are really not that great or because its too early in the season to determine that the Redskins are legit. They simply cannot look at any opponent and assume victory. They are not on that level. So that being said, I dont think they can go to St Louis expecting an easy win.
Even on the power rankings, a 16 place team is a 16th place team for a reason. They are there because they are a mediocre team and have some serious concerns. Concerns that can be exploited by inferior teams and def superior teams.
It's clear that your lack of objectivity precludes you from seeing that, despite their faults, the Skins appear to be a much improved team this year. It's also pretty clear that the Skins have been a better team than the Rams. I never said we can walk into St. Louis and win, but given the following indicators, we should win: -Least penalized team in the league -5th best in time of possession -#1 in 3rd down defense -Rams are #30 in YPG allowed -Rams are #29 in PPG
That's not blind homerism and its not about drinking the Shanny kool-aid. I'm basing my opinion on facts. Facts are exactly what Robs and JSR choose to ignore in their "analysis" and their inability to accept that this game can be interpreted as a trap game for the Skins.
Wait! Hold your horses. When did anyone here say that the Skins are not better than they were last year? That, my friend is not being OBJECTIVE. That is not even in the argument here. For the record again, I will say that the Redskins are a better team than last year. That still does not mean they are a good team or good enough to be overlooking teams, or good enough to be looking at their schedule and checking off victories. That is the whole OBJECTIVE here.
You selectively picked stats/facts that favor the redskins. I am sure I could pick stats that favor the Rams or any other team over the Skins as well. Im sure the Vegas odds makers know that as well which is why they only assigned a 1.5 point favor to the skins. Through three games I think we all agree that it is hard to tell who is better than who and where teams really stand.
Our whole point and OBJECTIVE is that based on what we know about the Redskins TODAY, they should be in no way be thinking they are better than any team in the NFL. There is no way that anyone who knows anything about this Redskins team should be thinking of the Rams as a cake walk. Changing mindsets from the offseason (in which most of us werent expecting much and that this team and believing they arent very good) into believing they ALREADY, after only 3 weeks of play, can go into any stadium and win without a doubt is a ignorant and typical of Redskins nation mentality.
Who's saying they're going to go in and win "without a doubt"? Not me. Looks to me like you're the only one thinking that. Go back and read what I've been saying to understand my point.
Find some significant stats that show the Rams are performing significantly better than the Skins before you come back challenging my objectivity. I presented facts with real and significant indicators (PPG, YPG, 3rd down efficiency, etc.)
Not once have you given concrete evidence why, THIS SEASON, the Rams are potentially better than the Skins. Your argument is based on speculation, opinion, and a negative perception based on years of ineptitude. We're talking about 3 games in. Who is better? Just because I say the Skins are, it doesn't mean I expect them to walk in there and win just by showing up. You're completely misunderstanding my perspective if you believe that.
Deeps - you are constantly complaining about bias and lack of objectivity, but I have to agree with JSR here. The idea that a team that you predicted would win 7 games could actually fall into a "trap" game (which I think is nonsense) points to a significant problem with your objectivity.
As I pointed out last week, JKSD has been talking about a new attitude and how the Deadskins are turning it around every year for the last 6 years. The 2-0 start this year is not new. Nor is the craziness that emerges from Deadskin nation any time they win a couple of games.
I have no problem admitting that I am biased, but that doesn't change the fact that the Deadskins still stink. Don't blame the messenger.
BTW..."the whole objective" here has never been to explain why the Skins can just check off wins. The objective is to make it clear that based on the performance of each team thus far, one is clearly better than the other and should be expected to win. Given the numbers, the Skins are better thus far. You can't argue that. That's not to say the Skins have turned a corner. It just means they're better than the lowly (and 31st power-ranked) Rams, which isn't saying much other than they should beat the Rams.
Robs - You have a flawed definition of a trap game that you're latching on to. As I've indicated, what you're defining is an upset. Upsets happen all the time. Trap games are occasional events that occur when a team that should win a game (very different than saying they WILL win the game) is set up to fail because of the circumstances leading to the game. For example...The Skins just lost a heartbreaker. The Rams are desperate after falling to 0-3. The Rams are at home. Such factors can tilt the scales differently than they would next week, or the following week. Like it or not, that's what a trap game is.
The facts show the Skins are better than the Rams, who have been pretty pathetic thus far. The stats along with all of the other factors I mentioned are clear. You can disagree with me all you want, but it's obvious to me that you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, which is nothing new.
No Deeps - you have the flawed view as JSR and I have already discussed. No real reason to go back and forth on the meaning at this point.
However, even under your definition a 1.5 point spread (some have it as an even or 1 point spread), that is not an indication that the Deadskins are significant favorites. It is basically a "pick 'em" game.
As "pathetic" as the Rams have played, the odds makers are basically saying it could go either way. That fact, makes it impossible to call this a "trap" game no matter what definition you want to use.
Like I said above, when the Deadskins lose it won't be because they fell into a trap - it will be because they stink.
Your (and JSR's) confusion between upsets and trap games, bias, and an inability to keep an open mind when discussing the Skins are the only reason this has resulted in 50+ posts. Good day sir.
Robs, it's not just me talking about the new attitude. It is the players. It is the local and national media.
Again, when there is change and there is early success it makes you believe the change is successful. We have been through this before that as a fan, I have gotten encouraged by change and early success. If things tank, I am just as quick to recognize the causes and I comment on them. This season does appear different as we have a much different look to our team (no more Snyderatto, no more high priced divas, a younger/deeper/overall more talented group, coaches that understand football and players that better fit their systems). For the first time in a long time, it appears that the front office, the coaches, and players are all on the same page.
And PLEASE do not lump Deepie or me in with the rest of the "common" fans. Neither he nor I have ever cried playoffs or Super Bowl after our two wins. I believe we have both maintained cautious optimism. What's wrong with that?
You will say the Pears are going to the Super Bowl or are a contenders every year. That to me is delusional.
Deepie thinks this is a "trap" game and you think the attitude has changed just like every other year. I'd take more of a wait and see view given the last 20 years of Deadskin history.
We've won the North 3 times in the last 6 years, we've hosted 2 NFC title games in the last 5 years. We were in the Super Bowl 4 years ago. Given that level of success, I have reason for optimism every year. You call that delusional but as I have pointed out in an earlier comment there are only a handful of teams that have done better than that (and no one has been to more Super Bowls or title games over the last five years).
HOLY SHAT!!! Why shouldn't you lump us in? Because we aren't saying playoffs or Super Bowl yet. We ARE taking a wait and see view. Deepie and I have still maintained that the Skins will get 7-9 wins this year. We DO have cautious optimism. If you haven't figured that out yet and you think we are similar to the "common" fan who thinks Super Bowl after a win and fire everyone after a loss, you aren't too bright because you can't follow a discussion/understand words.
Congrats on winning the North. Until recently, it was widely considered the worst division in football. Pears went to the Super Bowl 5 years ago (2006 season). That was a good year and congratulations. From 2007 through 2009, they had a cumulative losing record.
You say they are contenders. I say they are mediocre and have a number of faults. We'll see who is right.
You say contenders every year including 2007 - 2009 when they had losing records. Way to go, hero.
Either youre not reading or youre not understanding what we are saying. I don’t think its hard not to throw in extraneous information into the argument.
Lets dissect this line by line.
“Find some significant stats that show the Rams are performing significantly better than the Skins before you come back challenging my objectivity. I presented facts with real and significant indicators (PPG, YPG, 3rd down efficiency, etc.)
Not once have you given concrete evidence why, THIS SEASON, the Rams are potentially better than the Skins”
I don’t need to find any significant stat showing anything because I am not clamoring that the Rams will beat the Redskins. I never said once that either team would win. I never made any predictions. All I am saying is that the Washington Redskins should not be overlooking any opponent or looking down on any opponent as if they have a reason to believe they can beat them handily.
“BTW..."the whole objective" here has never been to explain why the Skins can just check off wins. The objective is to make it clear that based on the performance of each team thus far, one is clearly better than the other and should be expected to win.”
That is saying the same exact thing. You’re saying that the skins are clearly better than the Rams and are expected to win thus being able to check them off as a win.
”The facts show the Skins are better than the Rams, who have been pretty pathetic thus far. The stats along with all of the other factors I mentioned are clear.”
Proof of an premature assessment of a team. We have all agreed that 3 games isn’t enough of a showing to determine who is better and who is not.”
JSR, You said you could just as easily find stats that favor the Rams. Now you're saying you don't have to in order to prove your point. Which is it? I'm just trying to figure out what proof you have that the Skins are no better than the Rams. If you can't provide proof, then I have to assume your assessment is based on a preconceived notion skewed by your obvious case of Snyderitis.
Again...No one has ever said the Skins are overlooking their opponent because they are significantly better than the Rams. Your erroneous definition of a trap game is contributing a flaw into your position. I've never said this is a trap only because the Skins are much better than the Rams, which apparently is your only criteria for a trap. Again, you're talking about an upset, not a trap - two mutually exclusive things. The Skins are coming off a tough division loss in a game we should have won. The players may be looking forward to their bye the following week. The Rams are presumably better than their 0-3 record indicates. The Rams are at home in a must-win situation. By refusing to take those characteristics of a trap into consideration, you're not understanding the point I've been trying to make all along.
Either you understand me now or you don't. I'm tired of typing about it.
JSR, collectively the North in the past was considered weak. If you remember at that time, it was a topic of discussion. Look over the last decade at the North in its entirety.
Being the Gimp! The Gimp can always get lucky from time to time.
Chew on this Gimp lover:
1999 is the last time the Deadskins won the NFC East, and before that it was 1991. So they have won the East twice in 20 years.
They have been last the last 3 years, and 4 out of the last 5. In the 11 years since their last division title they have finished last 5 times, third 4 times, and second twice.
They look to me like they will finish last again this year - contrary to what Rex thinks. Four in a row, here we go! That is pretty pathetic. They are the perennial doormats of the NFC East.
63 comments:
I am sure that will change soon enough. 1-2 is 1-2, so they are probably deserving of where they are, but to me the Bears are (and will be recognized as) a much better team than the Deadskins. No need to fuss, there are a lot of games to go to see where our teams are.
LOVE your comments!!! 1-2 and looking mediocre at #18, it's where they belong. Should they lose to the Panteras (which is a possibility), they will plummet.
I know you love my comments. But thanks for telling me.
This looks about right. The Skins played tough and should have won, but ended up on the wrong side of a very close game. Dropping one spot makes sense. The Pears looked incompetent on offense and deserve to drop.
I don't know how anyone in their right mind can say the Pears are "much better" than the Skins. Then again, nothing Rob says makes sense, so I digress.
Robs comments are so skewed I really think he is delusional.
We are still early in the season and we learn more about each football team with each passing week. As I have said a number of times, you really don't get a good sense of how good/bad your team is until Week 4 or 5. I think the rankings are fair.
The Skins look like a competent and competitive team that has taken big steps in rebuilding and is moving in the right direction.
The Pears look like a team with some talent on the defensive front but struggling to find their offensive identity and doing so with a subpar O line and mediocre WRs.
We'll see, but just looking at who our respective teams have played and my belief that the Bears have played much tougher teams is why I believe what I do.
If the Deadskins lose to the Rams - which they likely will do, then it will set up a long season.
A Bears win this week sets up a great matchup against the Lions next week.
I'm not worried about the Bears or the rankings right now.
One other thing - the idea that the Rams represent a "trap" game for the Deadskins is just plain silly. The Deadskins have stunk for a long time. There are no "trap" games for a perennial stinker.
If they are a sub-.500 team again this year, there is no way one can call any game on the Deadskins schedule a "trap" game.
The Skins have been a sub-500 team in recent history, but what does history have to do with what's going on right now? The Skins are tied for first place in their division and I believe the players and the vast majority of analysts/experts are going to expect them to win this game. Given that expectation and how each team is entering week 4, this is a trap game.
I don't know why I just responded to Rob's comment. I should already know that any discussion describing the Skins as anything better than terrible is something that he simply cannot accept.
The Deadskins-Rams is an even odds game. It is impossible to seriously call this a "trap" game for the Deadskins.
That isn't just bias against the Deadskins - it is just reality.
If that's reality, then accept the fact that the Bears have a weak O-line and are suspect at QB and in the secondary.
Yeah, the Pears may have played much tougher teams and they lost. You can say that they were in it until late or this or that but the fact is that they lost. The Falcons win is not looking nearly impressive given the state of that team.
The Panther game is no gimme for the Pears. If they lose that game, they will plummet.
Lets see what happens on Sunday.
The Falcons and Bears will be in the hunt at the end. The Deadskins won't even be in the discussion.
What is a trap game? Its a game in which the trapped team is without question and unanimously considered better than the trapping team. I dont think its safe to say that the Redskins are by any means without any questions better than any opponent they are playing this season. Therefore they cannot be heading into any trap games. On the flip side, they sure can be considered Trappers for the Patriots, Jets, Eagles, and whoever else is clearly better. I dont think the Skins are better than the Rams. Even more I dont they are on another level than the Rams for the Rams to be a Trap.
Also the Bears have played tough tough tough opponents so far. all three are superbowl contenders yet the bears are still 1-2. Against all three teams I am sure the redskins would have been 0-3 and been beaten pretty badly.
Hey, look! Robs Jr. is back.
JSR is suffering from Snyderitis as well. That last comment is so over the top, I refuse to believe he's being serious.
Agree that JSR seems to have contracted an acute case of Snyderitis. It's early in the season and we are still finding out more about each team. However, the Falcons (the one team the Pears have beaten) are looking less impressive. Even the Packers struggled against the Panthers.
To say that definitively that the Skins would have been beaten badly if we had played the Falcons, Saints, and Packers is crazy talk. Thre is no reason to believe that. We will find out more about our teams this Sunday.
Wait so let me get this straight... You actually think that on an individual game level that the Redskins would even come close to matching up against the
Falcons
Saints
Packers
?????
Let me put it in another context.
Redskins vs. Saints
Who would win?
Redskins vs. Falcons
Who would win?
Redskins vs. Packers
Who would win?
I think if you ask anyone who isnt drinking Snyder juice, theyd tell you that the Saints, Falcons and Packers would win.
oh no it is not I who suffers from anything my friends...
Its Redskins nation who suffers from delusions of a team with a demeaning name and who year in year out is marketed to be better than they really are and who will continue to perform worse than most of the teams in the NFL because of the OWNER and Fan impatience to actually build a real team.
What so "over the top" of the clear and concise definition of a trap game and how can the redskins be considered a trapped team in any game this season? Explain if you dont mind.
BTW
Snyderitis or whatever you call is what anyone who knows anything about the Skins organization suffers from.
Besides Redskins nation of course.
Its no secret that I hate Snyder. The guy is a moron. He does not know how to run a franchise and has doomed the skins to be the worst franchise in the four major sports in America (121/122).
Read this:
http://www.espnmediazone3.com/us/2011/06/15/mag_best_in_sports/
Especially paragraph 8.
http://www.espnmediazone3.com/us/2011/06/15/mag_best_in_sports/
What is funny is that JKSD and Deeps are always saying that my "bias" blinds me to the Deadskins, but they don't account for their blind devotion affecting their thoughts.
Deeps and his trap game nonsense is a good example.
When the Deadskins lose to the Rams this weekend, it will be interesting to see how Deadskin nation reacts.
I don't think Deepie or I have followed the Skins blindly. If things go bad, we recognize the deficiencies and comment on them. We don't make excuses.
Robs, you follow your team blindly stating that they are contenders every year. You say the O line is a solid group but the numbers do not support that. Yet, you will say that you are objective. It's B.S.
JSR, to answer your specific question on who I think would win those games. If I had money on those games, I would probable bet:
Skins vs. Packers - Packers
Skins vs. Saints - Saints
Skins vs. Falcons - Skins
However, let me also say this. I would probably bet on the Packers against any team in the NFC. I also think we would compete against them and certainly believe we would compete against the Saints and do not think we would get blown out. Those are my honest opinions.
Look, neither Deepie nor I have never said that the Skins are Super Bowl bound this year. We recognize that we are in rebuilding mode but the direction is positive. We have gotten MUCH younger. We have much more depth. We have added quality character guys. We are much more disciplined. Still, it will not all come together in one season. Robs and I think you are confusing us with the majority of idiot football fans who think a win equates to Super Bowl and a loss equates to firing everybody.
I have long maintained through the offseason/preseason that my hope is that the team competes and shows improvement from week to week and if it looks like we are improving and building, I can live with that this season.
We'll see if that is the case.
Robs doesn't seem to recognize the deficiencies on his own team. Both of you seem to be remembering past sins when it comes to the Skins.
We will find out if the Pears are contenders. We'll find out if the Skins are improving.
'Skins would beat the Falcons? They struggled to beat the lowly Cards who traveled across country and they would beat the Falcons? Dream on pal.
It is early in the season and let's see if the Bears are contenders and whether the Deadskins have really turned a corner and become a serious football team. The way they lost to the Cowgirls and the post game comments by defensive captain, Arsenio Hall, seem like more of the same.
There is no question the Bears are a solid organization - as evidenced by their ability to get to the Super Bowl and host another title game in recent years. There is also little question that the Deadskins have been one of the worst franchises in the NFL for many years. Those facts cannot be disputed. We'll see where these teams are as the season progresses.
Robs, you want to pick out single games? We beat the Giants the 2-1 Giants handily.
The Falcons got thrashed by the 1-2 Pears. They barely beat the 1-2 Vickless Eagles. They lost to the Bucs. We were a first down away from being 3-0. Why is is SO inconceivable for us to beat the Falcons? We can debate all you want but we have our opinions.
I have no problem with Hall's comments and he came back yesterday and said he was "overzealous" and that he sat down with Shanny and Haslett and understood the call and would probably make the call himself in Madden. He said that he along with many guys on that play were to blame. He was frustrated in the moment the reporter shoved the mic in his face after the game. His coaches and teammates supported him in his comments and understood them. B Mitch sat down with him and understood the comments and told him though he needs to be careful because he is a vet and a captain. It's over and done with. This is not a Haynesworth or Mc5 situation.
Fine, we all agree that we'll see if the Pears are contenders as you say and if the Skins continue to improve/compete. Lets leave it at that.
The Giants were playing with their JV defense and the Cards stink. The Cowgirls were completely inept on offense and the Deadskins still lost.
Who knows what would have happened if the Bears and Deadskins traded schedules? But I would be comfortable saying the Bears would have had a much easier time and the Deadskins would have had a much harder time. 3-0 Bears vs. 0-3 Deadskin would be far more likely than their current records.
The Giants were playing with their JV defense when they thrashed the Rams. They were playing with their JV defense when they handled the Iggles. What's your point?
Your opinion of 3-0 Pears and 0-3 Skins is nothing more than your opinion. You got thrashed by the Saints and handled easily by the Puckers. Don't give me that they were in it. I watched the Pucker game and the only time I felt like the Pears had a shot was their drive right before halftime. Otherwise, they looked like an inferior team.
We can throw our beliefs around all we want. Again, we'll find out if the Pears are contenders as you say.
Holy crap. Robs and JSR are going to make me stick a pencil in my eye with all the blind disregard for anything positive going on with the Skins. I will refrain from explaining my case any further and let's just see what happens. I will, however, see with my one remaining good eye after reading through all of the drivel.
Everything on our blogs is opinion. What is your point?
We will see. But if the Bears scored after the Urlacher interception, it would have been a 3 or 7 point game with 7 minutes to play. If the Knox TD had counted at the end, it would have been a 3 point game and an onside kick may have given them a chance.
The Bears had their chances. My view is that given the way the Deadskins are playing they would easily be destroyed by the Packers. They would not even have a chance.
Not much reason to go back and forth on what would happen so let's try to find something we can agree on. How about this - if the Rams destroy the Deadskins this week, we can agree that the Deadskins stink. Correct? This is actually something that we can test.
Robs, who gives a shat about "ifs." If the GB had picked off either of those poorly thrown passes by Cutler near the end zone, it wouldn't have been close.
If the Skins had converted a first down late. If Rexy hadn't fumbled. If Rocca holds the snap. If we sack Romo on the 3rd down play. Who the F cares? It didn't happen. So don't give me "ifs" because they mean nothing.
If we get destroyed by the Rams, it will be a bad blow. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say they stink because it is one game and the previous three we have played well. If we get blown out in 2-3 consecutive games, then I could accept that they stink.
How about this? If the Pears lose to the Panthers, we could agree that they stink, correct?
It would depend on how they lost, but if they get destroyed by the Panthers in Chicago then yeah I would not hesitate to say that they stink.
If the Pears get destroyed by the Panthers, than they SUCK!!!
Even losing to them at home to fall to 1-3 is an indicator that they just aren't good.
We'll see.
Here's all we know right now...
The Packers are really good.
The Pears are trending down from last season.
The Skins are trending up from last season.
Each week makes the picture for each team clearer. With the Pears playing a team they should beat, we should find out if they can make the adjustments to play to their strengths or not. If Martz keeps getting his QB pummeled, then I won't have any more confidence in their ability to succeed this season than I do right now.
With the Skins playing a winless Rams team in St. Louis after losing a heartbreaker that would have put them at 3-0, this is a trap game no matter what Robs and JSR want to believe. We may find that the Skins are no better or worse than the Rams this week, but given the circumstances leading up to the game, I think it's clear that the Skins need to approach this game as if it's a must win in order to get out with a 3-1 record.
Let's see what happens.
TRAP GAME! I love it!
Deeps, by definition a trap game has to be one in which a highly favored team loses to a far weaker team. You just don't have it.
If you want to refer to it as a trap game that is fine, but you are using the term incorrectly.
So if the definition of Trap game is accepted, then the other end of the equation has to be considered.
If this is a trap game for the redskins, then youd have to be assuming that the Redskins are without doubt and widely considered better than the Rams.
If that is the case then I think Redskins nation is falling into the trap of once again expecting too much and believing their team is better than it really is hence leading to the belief that this is a trap game.
We will see in a few weeks as the picture gets clearer.
So now Robs is the expert on the definition of a trap game. His definition is clearly one that diminishes the Skins position in this game. No surprise there.
My definition of a trap game is one where a team suffers a let down against a team it should be able to beat due to circumstances leading to that game. Even though I didn't think the Pears would beat the Saints, it was a trap game given that many players went to Urlacher's mom's funeral. I believe the Pears didn't play to their potential as a result.
If you want to ignore the fact that the Skins are 16th in the power rankings and the Lambs are 31st, that's where you and I will disagree on this being a trap game. The bottom line is, all things considered, the Skins are the better team at this point and their coming off of a tough loss that could affect how they approach their preparations for the Lambs. Thus, this is a trap game. We aren't good enough to walk into St. Louis and win without putting up a serious fight, but we are the better team at this time. Deny it all you want, but given all of the stats and given all of the expert opinions on where these teams rank, I'm at a loss to understand how you could.
BTW, the Skins are 1.5 point favorites on the road. You should know that the home team always gets 3 points, so on a neutral field, the Skins are considered more than a field goal better than the Lambs.
We are favored. Trap game. Peace out.
You have an odd definition of a trap game Deeps - certainly it is not a normal definition.
It is not my view, it is the commonly held view that a trap game requires an element of overlooking an opponent who you think is CLEARLY weaker. That only happens when there is a heavy favorite and it usually happens before or after a big game against a comparably tough team. You cannot have a trap game with a point spread of 1.5 points - that is silly. If the Deadskins are overlooking anyone then they are idiots.
My definition is not unusual, nor is it off-base. How about the definition as provided by a writer for cbssports.com? Tony Barnhart defines a trap game as follows:
"Everybody can look at a team’s schedule and pick out the tough games. But can you recognize the “Trap Games?” Those are games that may not look difficult on the surface, but when combined with travel, the opponent the previous week, or some other factors, it becomes a game where the favored teams could trip up."
Playing the struggling and 0-3 Rams...not difficult on the surface? Check
Travel? Check
Losing to the Cowboys the way we did in the previous week? Check
Other factors such as any distraction that D Hall's outburst may cause? Check
Trap game. Peace out.
BTW, here's the definition you provided:
"by definition a trap game has to be one in which a highly favored team loses to a far weaker team."
You, sir, are describing an upset. Not a trap game. Given that the Skins are favored, by definition, if the Skins lose, it would be an upset.
Peace out.
May not look difficult? This is the same as saying a highly favored team playing a heavy underdog.
A 1.5 point spread is clearly an indication that the two teams are pretty much even.
If you disagree that is fine, but you haven't changed my view. If the Deadskins are overlooking anyone they are a joke of a team.
Like I said earlier, if you want to ignore that the Skins are 16th in the power rankings and the Rams are 31st, then that's where we'll end up disagreeing. The Skins are favored and are viewed to be the better team going into this game. We should win this game.
The widely held definition of a trap game is when a SUPERIOR TEAM loses to an INFERIOR TEAM. Why is the term TRAP used for this game. It is just that, a TRAP. Its called a TRAP because you are superior team and are expected to win but you fall in to the trap of overlooking - being more confident than you should. Where does this over confidence come from? it stems from not taking the lesser opponent seriously. why wouldnt you take the lesser opponent seriously? well you obviously feel like you can win without a doubt.
Ofcourse if the Trapping team (inferior team) wins, then YES by all means it is an UPSET. They go hand in hand. There is almost no distinction. If youre saying that the 1.5 point favored Redskins playing the Rams are heading into a Trap game, then if the Redskins lose, it is by definition an UPSET since they were favored. Hence proving that Trap game and Upset are related.
1.5 point (half a field goal) favorite is not by any means an indication that the favored team is better than the inferior team. let alone Enough to call it a trap game.
Like it or not, the above definition of a trap game is the more widely held defintion. Ask 100 people. 90/100 will pick the above def above the CBS guy's
Now, clearly we differ in what we call a TRAP GAME, and thats fine. You are def in the minority with with your def of a Trap game. So for now I will not use the word TRAP since we cant agree on a def.
concerning the Redskins Vs. Rams.
I understand what youre saying, but I am also saying that at this point the redskins are in no position to check off wins. To think that they can at this point is absurd (which Redskins nation usually is) whether its because they are really not that great or because its too early in the season to determine that the Redskins are legit. They simply cannot look at any opponent and assume victory. They are not on that level. So that being said, I dont think they can go to St Louis expecting an easy win.
Even on the power rankings, a 16 place team is a 16th place team for a reason. They are there because they are a mediocre team and have some serious concerns. Concerns that can be exploited by inferior teams and def superior teams.
If there are any Deadskins who are overlooking the Rams because they think they can just show up and win, they are idiots.
When the Deadskins lose it won't be because they overlooked the Rams as part of some "trap.". It willbe because the Deadskins stink.
It's clear that your lack of objectivity precludes you from seeing that, despite their faults, the Skins appear to be a much improved team this year. It's also pretty clear that the Skins have been a better team than the Rams. I never said we can walk into St. Louis and win, but given the following indicators, we should win:
-Least penalized team in the league
-5th best in time of possession
-#1 in 3rd down defense
-Rams are #30 in YPG allowed
-Rams are #29 in PPG
That's not blind homerism and its not about drinking the Shanny kool-aid. I'm basing my opinion on facts. Facts are exactly what Robs and JSR choose to ignore in their "analysis" and their inability to accept that this game can be interpreted as a trap game for the Skins.
Wait! Hold your horses. When did anyone here say that the Skins are not better than they were last year? That, my friend is not being OBJECTIVE. That is not even in the argument here. For the record again, I will say that the Redskins are a better team than last year. That still does not mean they are a good team or good enough to be overlooking teams, or good enough to be looking at their schedule and checking off victories. That is the whole OBJECTIVE here.
You selectively picked stats/facts that favor the redskins. I am sure I could pick stats that favor the Rams or any other team over the Skins as well. Im sure the Vegas odds makers know that as well which is why they only assigned a 1.5 point favor to the skins. Through three games I think we all agree that it is hard to tell who is better than who and where teams really stand.
Our whole point and OBJECTIVE is that based on what we know about the Redskins TODAY, they should be in no way be thinking they are better than any team in the NFL. There is no way that anyone who knows anything about this Redskins team should be thinking of the Rams as a cake walk. Changing mindsets from the offseason (in which most of us werent expecting much and that this team and believing they arent very good) into believing they ALREADY, after only 3 weeks of play, can go into any stadium and win without a doubt is a ignorant and typical of Redskins nation mentality.
Who's saying they're going to go in and win "without a doubt"? Not me. Looks to me like you're the only one thinking that. Go back and read what I've been saying to understand my point.
Find some significant stats that show the Rams are performing significantly better than the Skins before you come back challenging my objectivity. I presented facts with real and significant indicators (PPG, YPG, 3rd down efficiency, etc.)
Not once have you given concrete evidence why, THIS SEASON, the Rams are potentially better than the Skins. Your argument is based on speculation, opinion, and a negative perception based on years of ineptitude. We're talking about 3 games in. Who is better? Just because I say the Skins are, it doesn't mean I expect them to walk in there and win just by showing up. You're completely misunderstanding my perspective if you believe that.
Deeps - you are constantly complaining about bias and lack of objectivity, but I have to agree with JSR here. The idea that a team that you predicted would win 7 games could actually fall into a "trap" game (which I think is nonsense) points to a significant problem with your objectivity.
As I pointed out last week, JKSD has been talking about a new attitude and how the Deadskins are turning it around every year for the last 6 years. The 2-0 start this year is not new. Nor is the craziness that emerges from Deadskin nation any time they win a couple of games.
I have no problem admitting that I am biased, but that doesn't change the fact that the Deadskins still stink. Don't blame the messenger.
BTW..."the whole objective" here has never been to explain why the Skins can just check off wins. The objective is to make it clear that based on the performance of each team thus far, one is clearly better than the other and should be expected to win. Given the numbers, the Skins are better thus far. You can't argue that. That's not to say the Skins have turned a corner. It just means they're better than the lowly (and 31st power-ranked) Rams, which isn't saying much other than they should beat the Rams.
Why the crap is this so difficult to understand?
Robs - You have a flawed definition of a trap game that you're latching on to. As I've indicated, what you're defining is an upset. Upsets happen all the time. Trap games are occasional events that occur when a team that should win a game (very different than saying they WILL win the game) is set up to fail because of the circumstances leading to the game. For example...The Skins just lost a heartbreaker. The Rams are desperate after falling to 0-3. The Rams are at home. Such factors can tilt the scales differently than they would next week, or the following week. Like it or not, that's what a trap game is.
The facts show the Skins are better than the Rams, who have been pretty pathetic thus far. The stats along with all of the other factors I mentioned are clear. You can disagree with me all you want, but it's obvious to me that you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, which is nothing new.
No Deeps - you have the flawed view as JSR and I have already discussed. No real reason to go back and forth on the meaning at this point.
However, even under your definition a 1.5 point spread (some have it as an even or 1 point spread), that is not an indication that the Deadskins are significant favorites. It is basically a "pick 'em" game.
As "pathetic" as the Rams have played, the odds makers are basically saying it could go either way. That fact, makes it impossible to call this a "trap" game no matter what definition you want to use.
Like I said above, when the Deadskins lose it won't be because they fell into a trap - it will be because they stink.
Your (and JSR's) confusion between upsets and trap games, bias, and an inability to keep an open mind when discussing the Skins are the only reason this has resulted in 50+ posts.
Good day sir.
Robs, it's not just me talking about the new attitude. It is the players. It is the local and national media.
Again, when there is change and there is early success it makes you believe the change is successful. We have been through this before that as a fan, I have gotten encouraged by change and early success. If things tank, I am just as quick to recognize the causes and I comment on them. This season does appear different as we have a much different look to our team (no more Snyderatto, no more high priced divas, a younger/deeper/overall more talented group, coaches that understand football and players that better fit their systems). For the first time in a long time, it appears that the front office, the coaches, and players are all on the same page.
And PLEASE do not lump Deepie or me in with the rest of the "common" fans. Neither he nor I have ever cried playoffs or Super Bowl after our two wins. I believe we have both maintained cautious optimism. What's wrong with that?
You will say the Pears are going to the Super Bowl or are a contenders every year. That to me is delusional.
Why shouldn't I lump you in?
Deepie thinks this is a "trap" game and you think the attitude has changed just like every other year. I'd take more of a wait and see view given the last 20 years of Deadskin history.
We've won the North 3 times in the last 6 years, we've hosted 2 NFC title games in the last 5 years. We were in the Super Bowl 4 years ago. Given that level of success, I have reason for optimism every year. You call that delusional but as I have pointed out in an earlier comment there are only a handful of teams that have done better than that (and no one has been to more Super Bowls or title games over the last five years).
HOLY SHAT!!! Why shouldn't you lump us in? Because we aren't saying playoffs or Super Bowl yet. We ARE taking a wait and see view. Deepie and I have still maintained that the Skins will get 7-9 wins this year. We DO have cautious optimism. If you haven't figured that out yet and you think we are similar to the "common" fan who thinks Super Bowl after a win and fire everyone after a loss, you aren't too bright because you can't follow a discussion/understand words.
Congrats on winning the North. Until recently, it was widely considered the worst division in football. Pears went to the Super Bowl 5 years ago (2006 season). That was a good year and congratulations. From 2007 through 2009, they had a cumulative losing record.
You say they are contenders. I say they are mediocre and have a number of faults. We'll see who is right.
You say contenders every year including 2007 - 2009 when they had losing records. Way to go, hero.
Either youre not reading or youre not understanding what we are saying. I don’t think its hard not to throw in extraneous information into the argument.
Lets dissect this line by line.
“Find some significant stats that show the Rams are performing significantly better than the Skins before you come back challenging my objectivity. I presented facts with real and significant indicators (PPG, YPG, 3rd down efficiency, etc.)
Not once have you given concrete evidence why, THIS SEASON, the Rams are potentially better than the Skins”
I don’t need to find any significant stat showing anything because I am not clamoring that the Rams will beat the Redskins. I never said once that either team would win. I never made any predictions. All I am saying is that the Washington Redskins should not be overlooking any opponent or looking down on any opponent as if they have a reason to believe they can beat them handily.
“BTW..."the whole objective" here has never been to explain why the Skins can just check off wins. The objective is to make it clear that based on the performance of each team thus far, one is clearly better than the other and should be expected to win.”
That is saying the same exact thing. You’re saying that the skins are clearly better than the Rams and are expected to win thus being able to check them off as a win.
”The facts show the Skins are better than the Rams, who have been pretty pathetic thus far. The stats along with all of the other factors I mentioned are clear.”
Proof of an premature assessment of a team. We have all agreed that 3 games isn’t enough of a showing to determine who is better and who is not.”
Lets just see what happens on Sunday.
BTW The NFC North can hardly be referred to as the worst division. During anytime in the past decade atleast.
2010 - Packers win Superbowl
2010 - The Packers and Bears just played in the NFC championship.
2009 - The Vikings went to the NFC championship game
2008 - No major showing
2007 - Packers in the NFC championship
2006 - Bears in the Superbowl
2005 - Bears finished with 2nd seed
2004 - Packers and Vikings make Playoffs
2003 - Packers play in divisional Round. Vikings finish at 9-7
2002 - Unremarkable Packers 12-4
2001 - NFC Central 13-3 Bears, 12-4 Packers and 9-7 Bucs make the playoffs with the Bears and Packers playing in the Divisional Round.
Proof enough that the NFC North has been more than competitive and has to be regarded as one of the better football conferences.
JSR,
You said you could just as easily find stats that favor the Rams. Now you're saying you don't have to in order to prove your point. Which is it? I'm just trying to figure out what proof you have that the Skins are no better than the Rams. If you can't provide proof, then I have to assume your assessment is based on a preconceived notion skewed by your obvious case of Snyderitis.
Again...No one has ever said the Skins are overlooking their opponent because they are significantly better than the Rams. Your erroneous definition of a trap game is contributing a flaw into your position. I've never said this is a trap only because the Skins are much better than the Rams, which apparently is your only criteria for a trap. Again, you're talking about an upset, not a trap - two mutually exclusive things. The Skins are coming off a tough division loss in a game we should have won. The players may be looking forward to their bye the following week. The Rams are presumably better than their 0-3 record indicates. The Rams are at home in a must-win situation. By refusing to take those characteristics of a trap into consideration, you're not understanding the point I've been trying to make all along.
Either you understand me now or you don't. I'm tired of typing about it.
JSR, collectively the North in the past was considered weak. If you remember at that time, it was a topic of discussion. Look over the last decade at the North in its entirety.
Who cares? The Deadskins have been the NFC East Gimp for the better part of 2 decades. They will likely be the Gimp again this year in the NFC East.
Redskins have beaten the Pears more often than not in the last decade so what's worse being the gimp or being gimped by the gimp?
Being the Gimp! The Gimp can always get lucky from time to time.
Chew on this Gimp lover:
1999 is the last time the Deadskins won the NFC East, and before that it was 1991. So they have won the East twice in 20 years.
They have been last the last 3 years, and 4 out of the last 5. In the 11 years since their last division title they have finished last 5 times, third 4 times, and second twice.
They look to me like they will finish last again this year - contrary to what Rex thinks. Four in a row, here we go!
That is pretty pathetic. They are the perennial doormats of the NFC East.
You got off topic again, jackass! We were talking about the North.
I'm leaving.
Have a great f'ing weekend!
I said, "Who cares?" because it was going nowhere.
The Rams are saying, "Bring out the Gimp!"
Post a Comment