Should We Be As Happy With This Win

[SouperMeister]

This win feels better than the pathetic Arizona win, but both beat the hell out of any loss.

[CHIEF CHUCKING MY SPEAR]

they both feel kinda dirty lol. we need more games like the DET game

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by billyharless

The rest of the season is very important now:

Eagles.......(3-5) - Must win for Skins.....6-3 (NFC-E)
Cowgirls.....(7-1) - Likely Loss for Skins...6-4 (NFC-E)
Bucs..........(5-4) - Must win for Skins.....7-4 (NFC)
Bills...........(4-4) - Must win for Skins.....8-4 (AFC)
Bears.........(3-5) - Must win for Skins.....9-4 (NFC)
Giants........(6-2) - Must win for Skins....10-4 (NFC-E)
Vikings.......(3-5) - Must win for Skins....11-4 (NFC)
Cowgirls.....(7-1) - Must win for Skins.....12-4 (NFC-E)

The Cowgirls have to get by the Packers, Giants and Skins. Hope for 3 loses there that would tie us 12-4

Hope that Detroit and NE beat the Giants. Then it is our job to make sure we beat the Giants to give them an 11-5 record.

Of course, any given Sunday!!!

Wow, such brilliant insight.. The rest of the season wasn't important before now?

While I'd love to go 7-1 down the stretch I'd also like Santa Clause to bring me an autographed picture of the Easter Bunny but I don't see that happening either..

[GMScud]

Of course we should be happy.
1) We WON the stinkin game
2) Portis and the O-line played very well (at least in run-blocking)
3) Nobody got hurt.

That said, the passing game needs a massive amount of work. I'm a little concerned about the D allowing 338 yards or whatever it was, but holding them to 13 points (7 came on that damn KO return)on the road is solid. This Jets squad is in large part the same team that went 10-6 last year, so I'll take it.

But damn it, our offense has just GOT TO start scoring more points.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by dmek25

good read. and maybe instead of all the bitching, be proud?

I hope it's not true that AS believes in becoming more conservative on offense as the defense improves because that's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. Keeping games close by design and failing to finish off teams means losing a bunch that you shouldn't and finishing at 500.

[BDBohnzie]

What's wrong with .500? Aside from '05, Marty was here last time this team was .500. It's an improvement...

However, I don't think it's becoming more conservative that he believes, it's that a conservative offense, where you grind the clock by forcing it down the throat of the defense, is better suited for a good defense. Saunders has no problems opening things up and letting the good times roll, but he's saying why take the chances now when the MO is working.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

What's wrong with .500? Aside from '05, Marty was here last time this team was .500. It's an improvement...

However, I don't think it's becoming more conservative that he believes, it's that a conservative offense, where you grind the clock by forcing it down the throat of the defense, is better suited for a good defense. Saunders has no problems opening things up and letting the good times roll, but he's saying why take the chances now when the MO is working.

What article are you referring to?

[BDBohnzie]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What article are you referring to?

It was in Sunday's Washington Post...let me see if I can find it...

Here it is...

...It is widely believed around the NFL that Redskins Coach Joe Gibbs took the aggressiveness out of Saunders's playbook, replacing it with a more conservative attack.

And yet, if Saunders has severe restrictions placed upon his play-calling he won't admit it, optimistically delivering weekly game plans that don't resemble the wide-open directives of his previous stops in Kansas City and St. Louis. He says they represent the Redskins' best chance to win, especially now that the team's defense has become a strength. And if he resents Gibbs for insisting upon a more deliberate approach, he hides it well.

That's my interpretation of it at least...he's certainly more conservative than he was in KC and St. Louis.

[redsk1]

Like i've posted before if everyone here is happy w/ being slightly above average we can continue w/ the same offense we've been running the last few years.

Our model of redskins football should look more like the steelers. They are a smash mouth team, w/ the ability to throw and scores points. They put teams away...like last night. They are not scared to throw the ball. JC only has what 5-6 td passes all year? Not too good...

Let AS do his thing. The current offense is not AS offense. Happy we are 5-3 but we'll be 7-9 or 8-8 w/ our current offense. I'd like for us to strive for better things.

[TheBigD]

Originally Posted by redsk1

Our model of redskins football should look more like the steelers. They are a smash mouth team, w/ the ability to throw and scores points. They put teams away...like last night. They are not scared to throw the ball. JC only has what 5-6 td passes all year? Not too good...

The Steelers are not that good of a team IMO. The D is godd but the offense is not. That is just not going to cut it this year in the AFC.

The Ravens gave them the win last night with McNair screwing up like he has been doing lately. Rothlisberger (sp) is not a good QB, hard to bring down, but that is about it.

[SmootSmack]

Thanks BD. Interesting comments. There was a pretty good article (maybe in Football Outsiders) a couple of years back about how Saunders' apparent lack of concern for "time of possession" was just as responsible for the Chiefs' defensive struggles as anything else.

That said, Saunders has always valued the running game.

In conclusion, I think Saunders values balance more than some seem to believe.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Thanks BD. Interesting comments. There was a pretty good article (maybe in Football Outsiders) a couple of years back about how Saunders' apparent lack of concern for "time of possession" was just as responsible for the Chiefs' defensive struggles as anything else.

That said, Saunders has always valued the running game.

In conclusion, I think Saunders values balance more than some seem to believe.

Here in D.C., it seems that creating the perception of a conflict between Gibbs and Saunders is the topic de jour. Once the Post writes about it, it filters down to the t.v. faces. And of course, Brian Mitchell is always ready to criticise the team for any reason he can grab hold of. In my view, there is no controversey because Gibbs is the HC and if anyone has a problem with his philosophy they can take their brilliant offensive mind, and their 700 page playbook, and their four fried chickens, and their dry white toast, and find work elsewhere.

I agree with you on the TOP thing too. I believe that Parcells made comments to that effect in that NYT article from last season. He suggested that Saunders didn't understand how to manage the game.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by TheBigD

Rothlisberger (sp) is not a good QB, hard to bring down, but that is about it.

20 TD's to 6 INT's, 111.9 rating, and has led his team to a 6-2 record through eight games. Yeah... he's garbage.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

20 TD's to 6 INT's, 111.9 rating, and has led his team to a 6-2 record through eight games. Yeah... he's garbage.

Big Ben is really impressive this year. For anyone who doesn't agree stop drinking the hater-aid.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

What is this emotion of which you speak? Happy......hmmmmm. Sounds like some sort of import you've brought to Redskins fans. I know "PMSy," "whiny," and "bitchy," but I do not know happy.