F... Kool-Aid

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Best post on The Warpath in a long, long time.

No one can say with certainty whether we'll win or lose on any given Sunday. Yes, there is always a chance we can win. There's also always a chance we can lose.

I love arguing stats as much as the next guy, probably more, but when it comes down to it we're just arguing probability / likelihood of a future event. Anyone arguing that they know we'll win or they know we'll lose is just full of it.

You can believe something all you want and with all your heart - that doesn't make it true. I can believe with every last ounce of my being that I can fly, but when I take a leap off of a ten story building I'm going to be sorely disappointed in how much gravity doesn't care what I believe.

I say we form a group of "core guys" to bring back rational thought to the Warpath. We're not pessimists, we're not optimists, we're not drinking Kool-Aid or Hater-Aid, we're fans with realistic viewpoints, rational thought and a heart for our team.

Warpathers for Rational Thought (WRT)? The Warpath Foundation for Balanced and Rational Thought (TWBRT)? I dunno, is someone better with acronyms than I am? Warpathers Against Pessimism and Optimism (WAPO)?

I'm really not sure what was so great about the post you responded to that rendered it worthy of your "best post on the Warpath in a long, long time" designation, or what about it inspired you to suggest starting a select "rational" thread group. The bottom line is that the guy who started this thread, whose post was essentially attacked by the guy whose post you loved so much, basically suggested the same thing--that game predictions come with a wee bit of analysis. I agree witht the guy who started the thread.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

I'm really not sure what was so great about the post you responded to that rendered it worthy of your "best post on the Warpath in a long, long time" designation, or what about it inspired you to suggest starting a select "rational" thread group. The bottom line is that the guy who started this thread, whose post was essentially attacked by the guy whose post you loved so much, basically suggested the same thing--that game predictions come with a wee bit of analysis. I agree witht the guy who started the thread.

Yeah I was going to say something similar. In the end, I'm essentially calling for a return to intelligent debate. Of course we can't predict the future or say with any certainty what's going to happen. If anybody thinks that's what I was suggesting when I started the thread, you need to go back and re-read.

But if you're an optimist, and you "believe" the Skins are going to make the playoffs, are you just going to state your belief on these boards over and over? Or are you actually going to say something that may PERSUADE others to believe the same thing you do?

You can't just say "I just believe it." You can't just say "for some reason, I think we'll win." That's not an argument, that doesn't persuade anybody. Give stats, cite examples, explain the hows and whys. THAT is what persuades.

I've seem some great posts within this thread. It's nice to see. We're not attacking optimists and pessimists anymore, we're discussing and analyzing the Redskins on a Redskins fan site.

[jamf]

Most people frequent this site to keep up on the latest redskins news, chat about the season and read about what kinky move AMD and his wife were doing this week when the kids interrupted them. when a thread with a debatable subject is created, we state our opinions. No one is directly trying to persuade people, we are just expressing what we believe.

Originally Posted by Schneed10

But if you're an optimist, and you "believe" the Skins are going to make the playoffs, are you just going to state your belief on these boards over and over? Or are you actually going to say something that may PERSUADE others to believe the same thing you do?

You can't just say "I just believe it." You can't just say "for some reason, I think we'll win." That's not an argument, that doesn't persuade anybody. Give stats, cite examples, explain the hows and whys. THAT is what persuades.

Why can't we say that? You did in your very next post and the example you cite is we've been close all year...
What makes you think campbell will connect when he has an open WR?
What makes you think our oline is going to give the WR enough time to run downfield?

Originally Posted by Schneed10

- If Santana Moss and Randle El both play this weekend, and in games in the future, I think we have the capability to hit on some big plays which we weren't doing earlier in the year. Moss in particular has seen a lot of near-miss passes this year. Seems JC has just missed him on a number of throws. I'm still waiting for Moss to explode, because he's too good to put up 600 receiving yards as he's on pace for now.

There are something you just can't backup with stats or examples. How do you measure mental toughness of a team? If an underachieving team plays poorly for the first half of the season then finally play up to their potential the final half of the season, are they mentally though?

Originally Posted by Schneed10

- I think our mental toughness and character can lead to a very physical style of football down the stretch. I want to see JC open up the offense, but at the same time, when we're running I want to see extremely physical football. The mean streak can be taken up a notch. I just recall '05 when we just beat people up in December. And I remember last year when the line jelled and Betts strung together 5 100 yard games in a row. Portis has already started to get going, I can see us performing well in the run game down the stretch.

I believe the redskins are going to shock the cowboys tomorrow. Not because of a matchup we can exploit, because it's a rivalry! Weird things happen in a rivalry, unfortunately I have absolutely no definitive proof to persuade you.

The redskins will win tomorrow! HA!

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jamf

What makes you think campbell will connect when he has an open WR?

Because over his last four games, his completion % is at 61.3%. In the five games before that, it was 58%. He's improving his accuracy.

Originally Posted by jamf

What makes you think our oline is going to give the WR enough time to run downfield?

Because in the last two games, the line has given up two sacks. In the previous seven games, they gave up 12 sacks.

Originally Posted by jamf

I believe the redskins are going to shock the cowboys tomorrow. Not because of a matchup we can exploit, because it's a rivalry! Weird things happen in a rivalry, unfortunately I have absolutely no definitive proof to persuade you.

The redskins will win tomorrow! HA!

You think rivalries cause wins? Because weird things happen? This is why you can't simply state a belief AND be taken seriously at the same time. It was a strong rivalry in the late 90s and early 2000s, and we got our ass handed to us 12 straight times or whatever it was. It's a rivalry for the Cowboys too, you know. There is a team on the other side of this rivalry, after all. Couldn't "wierd" things happen in their favor? In the end, you're not saying anything here. You're just hoping. You have to stick with the word "believe" when talking about our chances tomorrow, because you clearly haven't given it any thought.

[Beemnseven]

I'm concerned about our running game in Dallas.

Check these numbers:

-- No Redskin running back has rushed for over 100 yards in Dallas since Earnest Byner in 1991 (22 carries, 101 yds)

-- Clinton Portis has been held to less than 70 yards rushing in 8 games against the NFC East over 18 match-ups.

-- Portis averages 76 yards per game against the NFC East.

For some reason, our running game grinds to a halt in Texas Stadium. Portis needs to come through for this team like he did in that 5-game stretch in '05. As a matter of fact, the whole team needs to do that.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I'm concerned about our running game in Dallas.

Check these numbers:

-- No Redskin running back has rushed for over 100 yards in Dallas since Earnest Byner in 1991 (22 carries, 101 yds)

-- Clinton Portis has been held to less than 70 yards rushing in 8 games against the NFC East over 18 match-ups.

-- Portis averages 76 yards per game against the NFC East.

For some reason, our running game grinds to a halt in Texas Stadium. Portis needs to come through for this team like he did in that 5-game stretch in '05. As a matter of fact, the whole team needs to do that.

What's worse is that this team has won in Dallas just once since 2000. That's 1/6, not exactly a record to hang your hat on. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see us win tomorrow. I just don't think it is reasonable to expect us to beat a superior team in a stadium in which our track record is awful.

[jamf]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

What's worse is that this team has won in Dallas just once since 2000. That's 1/6, not exactly a record to hang your hat on. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see us win tomorrow. I just don't think it is reasonable to expect us to beat a superior team in a stadium in which our track record is awful.

No one expects the redskins to beat the cowboys but it's not unreasonable to believe that if the redskins can pound the ball and make some plays off playaction pass, then the redskins could be in it late in the game.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

What's worse is that this team has won in Dallas just once since 2000. That's 1/6, not exactly a record to hang your hat on. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see us win tomorrow. I just don't think it is reasonable to expect us to beat a superior team in a stadium in which our track record is awful.

And in that one win we got dominated for 58 minutes and needed two consecutive miracles to pull it off. I mentioned this on another thread, but Dallas' injury situation, or lack thereof, is really a factor. They're one of the only teams in the league to be completely healthy all year. Aside from Newman missing the first few games with a foot problem...

The fact that this is a rivalry means squat. Our only hope IMO is catching them a off guard early. They're an arrogant team, and I'm sure most of their fans think a win is a forgone conclusion. I hope we attack from the get go, but I don't think we have much of a chance.

[jamf]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Because over his last four games, his completion % is at 61.3%. In the five games before that, it was 58%. He's improving his accuracy.


Because in the last two games, the line has given up two sacks. In the previous seven games, they gave up 12 sacks.

The stats you provided don't prove much. He has a 61.3% completion percentage on all of his throws. Unfortunately most of those those throws are short routes.

JC has one completion over 50 yards all year. He hasn't completed a pass over 40 yards since week 3. He's missed wide open WR's down field at key points in a game all year. Yet you believe he will start connecting on deep balls because his accuracy on his short throws is decent. Clearly you haven't given your stats any thought.


The redskins have given up 12 sacks all year which isn't bad. but, most of the redskins passing plays are 3 and 5 step drops so JC can get the ball out quickly.
The redskins have only allowed 2 sacks in the last 2 games which doesn't mean much since it was our best rushing outing all year. The redskins dominated the eagles Dline last week. Once the skins gave up the lead and had to pass, they got to JC. if the redskins are in a position where they have to pass, they won't have time for a 7 step drop passing play.

Originally Posted by Schneed10

You think rivalries cause wins? Because weird things happen? This is why you can't simply state a belief AND be taken seriously at the same time. It was a strong rivalry in the late 90s and early 2000s, and we got our ass handed to us 12 straight times or whatever it was. It's a rivalry for the Cowboys too, you know. There is a team on the other side of this rivalry, after all. Couldn't "wierd" things happen in their favor? In the end, you're not saying anything here. You're just hoping. You have to stick with the word "believe" when talking about our chances tomorrow, because you clearly haven't given it any thought.

Absolutely! In the redskins cowboys rivalry, the underdog pulls off upsets. Is it a coincidence that the most unlikely victories/losses in redskins history are against the cowboys? Mark Brunell launching a bomb 50+ yards twice in 1 minute isn't weird? What about the troyvincent fg block that lead to an ST recovery and facemask? On the flip side, what about the cowboys 1 win season, their only win was against an undefeated redskins team that went on to win the superbowl. Let's not even bring up clint longley, the replacements game or any other.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by jamf

JC has one completion over 50 yards all year. He hasn't completed a pass over 40 yards since week 3. He's missed wide open WR's down field at key points in a game all year. Yet you believe he will start connecting on deep balls because his accuracy on his short throws is decent. Clearly you haven't given your stats any thought.

The problem with grading Campbell's deep ball accuracy is that he averages about two deep balls a game. The quarterbacks who hit a good number of deep balls miss a lot too. Watch any Pats or Colts game, and you'll see a ton of missed deep passes. The difference is, Brady and Manning take around 5-6 deep shots per game. All they have to do is hit one of them and people think they're great at throwing the deep ball.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jamf

The stats you provided don't prove much. He has a 61.3% completion percentage on all of his throws. Unfortunately most of those those throws are short routes.

Did his routes get shorter in the last four games compared to the first five? No. The routes are the same. The length of the routes doesn't explain the uptick in accuracy.

Originally Posted by jamf

JC has one completion over 50 yards all year. He hasn't completed a pass over 40 yards since week 3. He's missed wide open WR's down field at key points in a game all year. Yet you believe he will start connecting on deep balls because his accuracy on his short throws is decent. Clearly you haven't given your stats any thought.

Show me where I said he'd start connecting on deep balls. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said Moss and Randle-El on the same field, coupled with Campbell's improved accuracy, could create big plays. The definition of "big play" is not necessarily a bomb over the head of the safeties. Moss and Randle-El have a suddenness and elusiveness to them, they make sudden cuts, and are punt returners when in open space. A short 10-yard hitch can turn into a big play if the ball is delivered on time and accurately.

Originally Posted by jamf

The redskins have given up 12 sacks all year which isn't bad. but, most of the redskins passing plays are 3 and 5 step drops so JC can get the ball out quickly.
The redskins have only allowed 2 sacks in the last 2 games which doesn't mean much since it was our best rushing outing all year. The redskins dominated the eagles Dline last week. Once the skins gave up the lead and had to pass, they got to JC. if the redskins are in a position where they have to pass, they won't have time for a 7 step drop passing play..

Again, who says we need 7 step drops?? Why is that a necessity for a successful passing game? I just can't comprehend this argument.

Originally Posted by jamf

Absolutely! In the redskins cowboys rivalry, the underdog pulls off upsets. Is it a coincidence that the most unlikely victories/losses in redskins history are against the cowboys? Mark Brunell launching a bomb 50+ yards twice in 1 minute isn't weird? What about the troyvincent fg block that lead to an ST recovery and facemask? On the flip side, what about the cowboys 1 win season, their only win was against an undefeated redskins team that went on to win the superbowl. Let's not even bring up clint longley, the replacements game or any other.

So let me get this straight. Because two rare events, namely two TDs to Moss within the last five minutes, and the blocking of a last minute FG, took place within the last three years, that means you think the likelihood of a similar event occurring goes up?

So what should we expect this time? A safety to win the game? A bad snap by the Cowboys on a FG? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. This is what you are basing your belief on, that we'll win because of some fluky wierd event, based on the thinking that we've won two games against them because of wierd events? Sure, I guess it COULD happen. But to believe we're going to win because of one of these RARE events is asinine.

FYI - we've had plenty of wierd wins/losses against teams not named the Cowboys. I remember losing a playoff game against Tampa in 1999 because of a bad snap by our snapper. I remember losing a game to the Eagles in 1991 in which player after player went off injured. I remember a tie game against the Giants in which our QB jammed his neck after headbutting a wall.

Wierd shit happens in football, that doesn't mean that because it's the Cowboys, we're any more likely to see something wierd this weekend. It just makes no sense at all.