Blown opportunities

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think the Giants are that good. They are a 8-8 team going as a 10-6 team for Halloween.

The score was inflated by meaningless TD's, but you can't ignore that the Seahawks beat the crap out of us for three quarters. Some really crazy stuff happened there and we were able to come back, but that's all we could do.

Football is a 60 minute game, and tonight, we won about 3 minutes worth of football. Inflated score aside, that was not our best game, and Seattle is pretty solidly a better team than we are.

Yeah the Bucs, Packers, and Cowboys squeaked by, but I'm not sure thats a good argument: "Three elite teams won close games against us...obviously we are the best of the four."

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's a horrible argument.

We aren't that far off, and are probably closer to the elite than the rest of the pack is to us. We aren't better.

OK, you're right, I'll quit arguing. They are all better than the Skins. However, I think in your heart you believe different. Maybe next year, HUH?

[jsarno]

Yes, we blew opportunities, but we were flat out beat. I hate to say it, but we were. They made our OLINE look like poo for most of the 1st half, and they knew Springs weaknesses. They just outplayed us. I hate it, but I tip my hat to them, and will continue to cry into my beer for a little while longer. Cause now, more than ever, we didn't just lose, I have to fully come to the realization that Taylor is never coming back. I always felt like he was there with us, now he's not and it hurts.

[Gtothearry]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's because a Seattle player never touched the ball.

Had Burleson dropped the ball, it could have been returned for a TD. An onside kick also cannot be returned if the receiving team does not touch it.

K, I thought on a kickoff that it didn't matter if anyone touched it or not.

[onlydarksets]

First, I would say we met expectations, not that we underachieved or overachieved.

Second, everyone has been all over Collins jock for the last 4 weeks, saying that he's our best chance to win. It's a bit disingenuous for those people to now say that Campbell would have given us a better shot.

Bottom line - the Skins, as a team, played pretty crappy football for 3 quarters (the first 2.5 and the last .5 quarters). That is why we lost.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

We over achieved with 6 replacements for starters. Did we not? Look at the Steelers and their injuries, they are getting their behinds kicked at least we were in it till the end.

They are getting beat by a team with injuries of it's own. Jack is playing w/out Stroud, Henderson and Mike Peterson. Those are three quality, high talent players off their defense. Almost all teams have injuries. It's how you overcome them. Did we overachieve? I think so considering the circumstances. The better team won today.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

First, Suisham did not cost the game - the inability to get a TD on that drive cost us the game.


Second, I would say we met expectations, not that we underachieved.

Third, everyone has been all over Collins jock for the last 4 weeks, saying that he's our best chance to win. It's a bit disingenuous for those people to now say that Campbell would have given us a better shot.

Bottom line - the Skins, as a team, played pretty crappy football for 3 quarters (the first 2.5 and the last .5 quarters). That is why we lost.

First, Suisham did cost us the game. Those three points along with the field position change was the difference.

Second, we underachieved...period. If you're OK with the achievement, then maybe we met expectations.

Third, yes...everyone has been all over Collins jock. Can you think of a better QB story? No, he didn't take the Skins to the promise land, but is it so disengenuous for the same people to say that he wasn't the catalyst that made even the biggest dis-believers...believers?

Bottom line, the Skins played out of their minds these past four and a half weeks, and they played with the fire and spirit of the best player in the NFL this year, #21 ST. They didn't make it to the promise land as they had hoped, but they still made Skins fans all over the world as proud as can be.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

First, I would say we met expectations, not that we underachieved or overachieved.

Second, everyone has been all over Collins jock for the last 4 weeks, saying that he's our best chance to win. It's a bit disingenuous for those people to now say that Campbell would have given us a better shot.

Bottom line - the Skins, as a team, played pretty crappy football for 3 quarters (the first 2.5 and the last .5 quarters). That is why we lost.

Collins still played fairly well minus 1 int. (the other was a quit by moss) Collins got rushed all day and had difficulty throwing into the wind. (of course he had trouble with that noodle arm of his) But point remains, he played well. Not great, but well. It's in no way his fault, nor could Campbell have done any better. Niether of them played on the OLine today and that's where we got beat first and foremost.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

First, Suisham did cost us the game. Those three points along with the field position change was the difference.

Second, we underachieved...period. If you're OK with the achievement, then maybe we met expectations.

Third, yes...everyone has been all over Collins jock. Can you think of a better QB story? No, he didn't take the Skins to the promise land, but is it so disengenuous for the same people to say that he wasn't the catalyst that made even the biggest dis-believers...believers?

Bottom line, the Skins played out of their minds these past four and a half weeks, and they played with the fire and spirit of the best player in the NFL this year, #21 ST. They didn't make it to the promise land as they had hoped, but they still made Skins fans all over the world as proud as can be.

The first half of my original post was cross-posted from another thread - if you look, I have already amended it. Too many open windows and too much booze.

You missed my point for #3 - someone noted that Campbell was a starter who was out. However, you can't say Collins should start over Campbell, and then say that Campbell could have done better.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Collins still played fairly well minus 1 int. (the other was a quit by moss) Collins got rushed all day and had difficulty throwing into the wind. (of course he had trouble with that noodle arm of his) But point remains, he played well. Not great, but well. It's in no way his fault, nor could Campbell have done any better. Niether of them played on the OLine today and that's where we got beat first and foremost.

I didn't say anything about Collins costing us the game.

[SmootSmack]

Suisham absolutely did not cost us the game. It was a bad miss, but did not alone cost us the game

[NinjaLink]

I think a lot of people looked past the Seahawks. People were focus on playing the Cowboys in the divisionals. I never looked past the Seahawks. You know damn well not to look past the Seahawks @ Qwest Field.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

The first half of my original post was cross-posted from another thread - if you look, I have already amended it. Too many open windows and too much booze.

You missed my point for #3 - someone noted that Campbell was a starter who was out. However, you can't say Collins should start over Campbell, and then say that Campbell could have done better.

#3? HUH?

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

#3? HUH?

It comes after 2, but before 4.

I was referring (quite clearly, I thought) to my third point. To cut this short, here is the thread in it's entirety.

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Third, everyone has been all over Collins jock for the last 4 weeks, saying that he's our best chance to win. It's a bit disingenuous for those people to now say that Campbell would have given us a better shot.

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phacktor

Third, yes...everyone has been all over Collins jock. Can you think of a better QB story? No, he didn't take the Skins to the promise land, but is it so disengenuous for the same people to say that he wasn't the catalyst that made even the biggest dis-believers...believers?

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

You missed my point for #3 - someone noted that Campbell was a starter who was out. However, you can't say Collins should start over Campbell, and then say that Campbell could have done better.

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

#3? HUH?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I didn't say anything about Collins costing us the game.

I apologize for that implication...I wasn't combatting you but going with your comment. I know you didn't say that.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

It comes after 2, but before 4.

I was referring (quite clearly, I thought) to my third point. To cut this short, here is the thread in it's entirety.

Well, as long as it is clear to YOU!