Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[QUOTE=jgalecpa;382755]Personally, I find the following were also good acquisitions ( in no particular order):

1. Chris Cooley
2. London Fletcher
3. Laron Landry.
4. Shaun Suisham
5. Sean Taylor
6. James Thrash, and I'll even throw in
7. Stephon Heyer ( a diamond in the rough).



I think the Redskins have been snake-bit this year by injuries. Some years that happens.

IMHO.

J-Dawg[/QUOTE]

Other factors as well but injuries are a major one.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=Ocliw;382758]Other factors as well but injuries are a major one.[/quote]


I remember YEARS ago listening to Ken Beatriz ("You're next, on Sports talk!") and someone asked him why the skins were so good that year and he said something to the effect that one of the biggest determinants is which team had the fewest injuries at critical positions.

We were not that fortunate this year. A new QB with a (albeit decent) patchwork O-line, Rogers an Taylor both going out at the same time, Moss playing hurt ('every step is excruciating').

I think ole Kenny had it right.

Not the only reason, but a big one.

J-Dawg.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

The injury excuse gets old to me. You will always have injuries in football, it's part of the game. Yes, we've lost some critical players, but there are plenty of teams that are winning that have also lost some of the most crucial players on their team.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=Daseal;382772]The injury excuse gets old to me. You will always have injuries in football, it's part of the game. Yes, we've lost some critical players, but [B]there are plenty of teams that are winning that have also lost some of the most crucial players on their team[/B].[/quote]

Name a few.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

Whoa! (as I gentle dip my big toe into the ever warming skins hot tub)

When I heard that Gibbs would be coaching the Skins again, my heart jumped with excitation. When I woke up the next day, I remember how different the game is today, from when he left. Is he still smart - Yes, but the game is different. His better years were with Bobby Bethard. His better years were with Plan B Free Agency. He won with less than average skilled guys like Schroeder, Rypien, Ruppert and Tony Robinson (his strike year was his greatest coaching year), because he was the BEST motivator in the game, and he made the BEST adjustments at the half. Most people would not place someone in charge of their operations, that has been out of the game for 14 years. I mentioned before that it looks like Jesse James came back from the dead, and gathered is crew and is riding to the nearest Suntrust trying to "hold up" the back. I don't think that the gang from the 80's can pull off the job in 2007. (see the list of coaches from redskins.com)

With that being said, many teams cannot function will without personnel consistance. We have not had that. Most successful Redskins teams were anchored by DYNAMIC OL play. To a man. This replacement line is bad. Samuals (who is fading), Thomas, Jensen and Rabach are good. Heyer and Kendall are getting better, Wade sucks. We have no depth there, and you won't find many disgruntal OL picks or bottom feed the waiver wire for viable OL candidates. I think Management sees that, and there will be a change. Our play calling has been hindered by the Lines inability to perform.

Win or lose I have seen improvements in Jason's game. I think he will be better. He does not appear to be the vocal. He may be Sally Hemmings to Gibbs' Thomas Jefferson - but that is cool. I would like to know why it appear that he does not have all wristband set up that all other QBs use. Unless I am wrong, it makes me think that he does not have all formations and call at his disposal. I understood that last year, but not now. His no huddle looks great against teams that sub out situational players (see the Philly Game), but if he does not have more plays he is truly limited. He is better than last season, and will be better next year.

Defensively we run the cover 2 alot. It would work soo much better if we had a DLine that does not give a QB 7 secs to throw. Our talent evaluators will have to see this. We have a running list of people we over paid for. Deion, Archueletta and Lloyd are enough to acknowledge that we are not spending wisely.

These problems would still exist if we score on the final play of 4 game ( but there are three game we should have won by more than three). A win is a win, a Loss is a Loss. I n either situation, I must be honest in my evaluation of what needs to happen to for this team - My Team, to excel.

[I]I am Rhaamses, and I approve this post[/I]

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[QUOTE=jgalecpa;382769]I remember YEARS ago listening to Ken Beatriz ("You're next, on Sports talk!") and someone asked him why the skins were so good that year and he said something to the effect that one of the biggest determinants is which team had the fewest injuries at critical positions.

We were not that fortunate this year. A new QB with a (albeit decent) patchwork O-line, Rogers an Taylor both going out at the same time, Moss playing hurt ('every step is excruciating').

I think ole Kenny had it right.

Not the only reason, but a big one.

J-Dawg.[/QUOTE]


Lots of reasons for where we are now, but can anybody remind me how it felt in 05 when we had the identical record. I can't seem to recall if it was as bad a situation as it is now. I guess the six wins in a row helped with my amnesia. The Cowvomits sucking also helped. Finally, as a matter of free speech...J-Dawg, please remove the Longley quote. The painful memories! Oh the pain! I'm going fetal.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

Very nice post.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

There is definitely freedom of speech on this site; it just happens to work both ways. If you talk out of your ass and/or in an incoherent manner, you are going to get blasted.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;382796]There is definitely freedom of speech on this site; it just happens to work both ways. If you talk out of your ass and/or in an incoherent manner, you are going to get blasted.[/quote]


I have no problem with that Sheriff. Here's my problem, I started a thread that was willing to give "amnesty" to all the Kool Aid Drinkers so that they could publicly admit that Gibbs 2.0 was a failure. Instead of DEBATING that I was wrong, Smootsmack took it upon himself not only to lock the thread but send it to thread hell so that no one else could respond to it. Now, how was Smootsmack justified in doing this as opposed to debating the idea in the thread? Notice that he has not argued either way, he simply is one of the biggest Gibbs supporters on this site and therefore he found it in his power to send the thread to thread hell.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=paulskinsfan;382858]I have no problem with that Sheriff. Here's my problem, I started a thread that was willing to give "amnesty" to all the Kool Aid Drinkers so that they could publicly admit that Gibbs 2.0 was a failure. Instead of DEBATING that I was wrong, Smootsmack took it upon himself not only to lock the thread but send it to thread hell so that no one else could respond to it. Now, how was Smootsmack justified in doing this as opposed to debating the idea in the thread?[/quote]

C'mon there was going to be no debating or meaningful discussion in that thread. Just look at the responses you were getting. It was all about you rubbing people's noses in it. Grow up and stop whining.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;382859]C'mon there was going to be no debating or meaningful discussion in that thread. Just look at the responses you were getting. It was all about you rubbing people's noses in it. Grow up and stop whining.[/quote]


So, Smootsmack decided that since he could not debate the idea of Joe Gibbs being a failure, he decided to move the thread completely to thread hell? Like I said, either you agree with the mods here, or your threads are moved or locked or both. This was a legit thread that Smootsmack disagreed with but rather than defending Gibbs he just locked the thread.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

If you don't like it take a hike. Frankly the mods and many others around here are tired of you instigating and whining about "freedom of speech".

Your thread was headed for the shitter right from the start. You can't be serious in thinking there was going to be any sort of meaningful discussion there.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;382865]If you don't like it take a hike. Frankly the mods and many others around here are tired of you instigating and whining about "freedom of speech".

Your thread was headed for the shitter right from the start. You can't be serious in thinking there was going to be any sort of meaningful discussion there.[/quote]


And now magically this thread has been moved from the locker room. Nice, way to prove my point.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=paulskinsfan;382858]I have no problem with that Sheriff. Here's my problem, I started a thread that was willing to give "amnesty" to all the Kool Aid Drinkers so that they could publicly admit that Gibbs 2.0 was a failure. Instead of DEBATING that I was wrong, Smootsmack took it upon himself not only to lock the thread but send it to thread hell so that no one else could respond to it. Now, how was Smootsmack justified in doing this as opposed to debating the idea in the thread? Notice that he has not argued either way, he simply is one of the biggest Gibbs supporters on this site and therefore he found it in his power to send the thread to thread hell.[/quote]

Those who are deemed as kool-aid drinkers are going to stay kool-aid drinkers and not jump ship and not out themselves for "amnesty" that's almost like saying, "Hey, if you admit that you committed a crime in the past few days/weeks/months and you just tell us you did, we promise not to arrest you." I mean come on. That's just a trap waiting to happen. I'm not a kool-aid drinker. Unless by some freak miracle we turn into a superbowl team within the next 5 weeks I'm done with Gibbs 2.0 But just leave the kool-aid drinkers alone. There's no point in jabbing at them. Smooty closed the thread because he probably felt like no good was going to come out of it, just more people coming around either capping on the kool-aiders or capping on everyone else. And not to beat a dead horse but didn't you get into it with someone awhile ago about them taking shots at your wife who had recently passed? Come on, you really don't wanna take a chance on something like that happening again do you? While some people will hold civil debates with you, there are always gonna be dissenters. I personally like SS for not letting something that of course, could of stayed innocent, turn into a huge debacle. Good call SS.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=paulskinsfan;382866]And now magically this thread has been moved from the locker room. Nice, way to prove my point.[/quote]

It's not a discussion that really belongs in the locker room.

Not sure how that makes your point at all, unless your point is you're an ass but we all know that.

Besides, the thread is still open, isn't it?

I wouldn't want to trample on your precious freedom of speech.