If we looked at the first 5 games of the season back in August and tried to predict what would have happened, a 2-3 start probably wouldn't have been that far fetched of an idea.
Vikings - I think most of us would have predicted a 'W' here. Definitely one they should have won.
Cowboys - on the road in Dallas, I think a good part of us would have predicted a 'L'.
Texans - Most of us would have predicted a 'W' and they got it.
Jaguars - This makes up for the Vikings loss, I think a good part of us would have predicted a 'L', a surprising win to say the least.
Giants - I can't remember the last time they played well in NY. I'm sure alot of us would have slated this one as a 'L'.
So there we go. If you would have told me after 5 games the Skins would be 2-3, I would have been disappointed but I can see the logic.
Wilbon's article in the WP today makes alot of sense. Road games in the East are very tough games to win. Add in the fact the Giants had 2 weeks to prepare and they were a desperate team, and the Skins were coming off a very emotional 'W' against the Jags, and perhaps our expectations for this game were a little off.
After all, we got hammered 36-0 in the Meadowlands last year and ended up playing a week later into the postseason than the Giants. So, as Wilbon said:
Quote:
|
Sometimes a loss isn't a window to a bigger picture. Sometimes there's no greater meaning to draw from an athletic event than the result of the day. And the Washington Redskins' 19-3 loss to the Giants on Sunday is probably such a case in point.
|