Re: Underdogs?
 

Man, I just watched ESPN - Stuart Scott, Tom Jackson (whom I liked to watch when I was kid), Jaws, and Michael Irvin. Boy did they piss me off!!!!

Basically the segment started with are the Redskins for real? Then Stuart Scott starts the conversation off by saying, "well technically they are 3-0"....and the other three guys just about fell out of their chair laughing because he said "technically".

After they finally settled down, Tom Jackson went on to say how he thinks they are still a joke (paraphrase) and have been for some time. He went on to say that they've only beaten the Bears w/ a QB that has never played a professional game. How we played poorly against Dallas for 55 minutes and beat a mediocre Seattle team that no one respects.

Jaws, bless his ignorant heart, backed us up some - but the only thing he could come up with was some old ass Sean Taylor footage from last year and went on to say he's the tempo setter for the defense. I couldn't believe it!! I mean every highlight he showed Taylor was wearing #36 - what a joke!!

Irvin, yes Michael Irvin was the only one who said he felt we had a great Defense, and reiterated great twice because he drew groans from Jackson and Scott. He went on to say that we could only play who's on the schedule, and that 3-0 is 3-0!

Here's what get's my goat. When we beat Dallas it was we played poorly for 55 minutes. When we beat Seattle they gave us the game - when the reverse was actually true. We dominated Seattle damn near all of three quarters, let them back into it, and pulled out the win. It's amazing how the media twists the story to suit their view.

Re: Underdogs?
 

I agree we must split with Denver and KC. Once again, this game will be harder than KC. Denver has so far played better than the Chiefs, and I am not worried about Bailey telling any secrets to his teamates, mainly because there is nothing left(system or style of play) from his time here. That thin air could wear us out, hopefully the team can stay fresh, and keep their offense off of the field.

KC also has a good home field advantage, but their defense is weak, and their offense isn't the same as it was last year. Right now I am not afraid of anyone at runningback. After we played a hard nosed against two of the top runningbacks in our last two games.

Re: Underdogs?
 

Yeah, I'm watching the same shit. They then started another discussion. "Whose better, the Redskins, the Dolphins or the Bears?" No joke. I'm gonna go shoot myself now.

Re: Underdogs?
 

So basically Irvin comes up with the most logical statement "3-0 is 3-0 and all we can do is play who's on the schedule"

Re: Underdogs?
 

Yeah, Super Genius......like Wyle E. Coyote!!!

Re: Underdogs?
 

Forgive me if I'm wrong but the second post here said the Broncos are scoring as many points on average than we have scored all year. Maybe that was just an estimate but they have scored 80 points this year out of four games which brings the average to 20 points per game. These points were from at least three teams that dont have a threatening defense. We have scored 43 points, an average of 14.3 ppg. Im sure alot will tell me im wrong but I truly dont see how Denver is a threat. It will only be a hard fought game if the skins have to battle themsleves in addition to Denver. Denver is 3 and 1, but they played a jacksonville team that just self destructed and didnt really pose any problems for them, Kansas city as seen yesterday by philly, blasted off but once philly figured out there scheme was just whooped, they scraped by San Diego, and lost to Miami. It may be wierd but I really have a gut feeling that if the Redskins show up to play and have learned anything in the past four weeks, it will be a serious upset. I perdict 24-7 Redskins.

Please dont rip me a new one over my prediction.

Re: Underdogs?
 

[QUOTE=SARPUP]Forgive me if I'm wrong but the second post here said the Broncos are scoring as many points on average than we have scored all year. Maybe that was just an estimate but they have scored 80 points this year out of four games which brings the average to 20 points per game. These points were from at least three teams that dont have a threatening defense. We have scored 43 points, an average of 14.3 ppg. Im sure alot will tell me im wrong but I truly dont see how Denver is a threat. It will only be a hard fought game if the skins have to battle themsleves in addition to Denver. Denver is 3 and 1, but they played a jacksonville team that just self destructed and didnt really pose any problems for them, Kansas city as seen yesterday by philly, blasted off but once philly figured out there scheme was just whooped, they scraped by San Diego, and lost to Miami. It may be wierd but I really have a gut feeling that if the Redskins show up to play and have learned anything in the past four weeks, it will be a serious upset. I perdict 24-7 Redskins.

Please dont rip me a new one over my prediction.[/QUOTE]

I hope you're right!!! :headbange :food-smil

Re: Underdogs?
 

[QUOTE=Balmerskinsfan]Yeah, I'm watching the same shit. They then started another discussion. "Whose better, the Redskins, the Dolphins or the Bears?" No joke. I'm gonna go shoot myself now.[/QUOTE]I was so f'n pissed when i heard that, what the hell is that. WHO IS BETTER THE SKINS DOLPHINS OR BEARS!! What the hail kind of question is that. They took the illegitamite division leaders and compared them. Irvin said the fucking bears, we beat the bears. the bears have won 1 game!! what the hail. I HATE ESPN AND SI!!

Re: Underdogs?
 

[QUOTE=12thMan]Man, I just watched ESPN - Stuart Scott, Tom Jackson (whom I liked to watch when I was kid), Jaws, and Michael Irvin. Boy did they piss me off!!!!

Basically the segment started with are the Redskins for real? Then Stuart Scott starts the conversation off by saying, "well technically they are 3-0"....and the other three guys just about fell out of their chair laughing because he said "technically".

[/QUOTE]

That stupid technically shit. I was on the phone and watching it with someone, we missed exactly what they said so i rewinded it and heard that dumb shit. I paused it and at about that time irvin and jaws were seriously about to fall out of their chairs.

How are we only Technically 3-0, realistically we are not?? Stupid sons of bitches
I hate STuard Scott

Re: Underdogs?
 

[QUOTE=BigSKINBauer]That stupid technically shit. I was on the phone and watching it with someone, we missed exactly what they said so i rewinded it and heard that dumb shit. I paused it and at about that time irvin and jaws were seriously about to fall out of their chairs.

How are we only Technically 3-0, realistically we are not?? Stupid sons of bitches
I hate STuard Scott[/QUOTE]

if we're technically 3-0 than the giants are technically retarded, since all their wins came against bottom dwellers... they only have 1 really easy game left, we have 4.

Re: Underdogs?
 

[b]The point spread has nothing to do with who is more or less likey to win[/b].... or what the bookey thinks the score will be. The point spread is to make half the betting on each team. Then the bookey makes money on the margin. For example if the Skins were playing the Raiders, I(the bookey) personally think the Skins would win and most likely by at a TD. However I will make the line 4 1/2 because I check my charts on how the betting goes team by team and I see that people like to bet the Raiders. Perhaps it is because people in Cali have more money, like to bet more than most, or Raiders fans are all a little bit off their rockers. If after a couple of days I see alot of betting on one side or the other(say 55% vs 45%) I will adjust the spread to ecourage betting on the other team.

The point is that the line has little basis on the outcome.

Re: Underdogs?
 

Let's not get worked up over a washed up coke head, a no good clown in Tom Jackson who watched his dreams become a nightmare in the 42-10 Redskins Superbowl victory and I'm not going to waste time talking about the other idiot. The Redskins really haven't proven anything to the public and this wil continue until we put enough points on the board. If you don't like the criticisms, just turn off of the
radio.

Re: Underdogs?
 

Bottom line they are right, who have we played? I said it earlier today Denver is our first big test.

Perhaps they looked at the fact that we scored 14 points against dallas and needed two freak plays to do that, to beat a team that allowed the 49er's to score 34 points against them, who couldn't score a point offensivly against the Cardinals sunday night.

They are correct about everything they said about the teams we have played so far.

If we beat Denver then we will have something to hang our hats on, I just don't see it happening.

I disagree about us having a great defense, I believe we have a great defensive scheme, but we are short on the defensive line, we need guy's who can collapse the pocket, and a player who can be a legitamate pass rusher and then we will be great, right now we rely to much on the blitz for pressure, team's have already shown that they are making better adjustments against our D this year with pass protection, our secondary can't cover for ever, we need to generate some kind of pressure from our front four.

Re: Underdogs?
 

offiss, many were saying Seattle was our first big test, but I guess that's just been explained away since they missed a FG and Holmgren made some questionable calls down the stretch.

I'm not arguing that Denver is better than Seattle, but Seattle isn't exactly a slouch either. They have one of the top ranked offenses and their D was ranked 8th coming into our game.

It's funny how fickle the media is week to week. After week 1 the Bears were bums, after week 2 they were on the rise again. After week 1 Dallas was headed to the playoffs, now they're headed back to the basement.

All the Skins can do is go out and beat the next team on the schedule, which they've done so far. I'm just wondering what excuses will pop up when we go on the road and beat Denver. Should be interesting.

Re: Underdogs?
 

On another topic... Did they put those glasses on Stuart Scott to hide his eye? That things getting worse every time I watch...