A different take on Sunday's game.

Mississippi Hog · Post by **Mississippi Hog** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:42 pm

As much as I hate the fact that we got obliterated by the Pats (I am actually glad they didn't air it here), I am not angered by the Pats decision to keep their starters in and running it up on us. I say this b/c to say contrary would make me a hypocrite. Let me explain:

Be honest. How many of you would truly be upset/angered/dissappointed in Gibbs and our Skins if the tables were turned. What if we had won the game with the same score. Can you honestly say that you would be bothered by it? I would be bouncing off the walls and going nuts with excitement. I know that Gibbs would never turn up the burners like that, but wasn't the thought of us scoring tons the reason for the Steve Spurrier experiment? I know I had dreams of us blowing teams out. I know that I can not honestly say that I would have a problem with us blowing teams out and racking up the stats to be the best offense in the history of the game. Therefore, I cannot put down the Pats for doing the same. We got creamed. It is time to move on.

HERE'S TO A 63-10 VICTORY OVER THE JETS!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAIL TO THE SKINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob 0119 · Post by **Bob 0119** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:20 am

Would I have liked it? Sure.

Would I have wanted to humiliate them to do it? Well, not before the game in question...

Mississippi Hog · Post by **Mississippi Hog** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:07 am

How would you have done it without humiliating them though. I personally believe in beating your opponent senseless. Especially if it is a big rival like, say, the Cowgals. Do you best to not only beat your opponent, but destroy them, like they did to us. I would love to see us score 70 pts on some team. I wouldn't at all think that there is anything wrong with it. Beat your opponent within an inch of their lives, and then beat them some more if they will let you.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:40 am

dude, if we were up 38-0 in the 4th against a team with a low-octane offense, and campbell were still out there flinging the ball around, i would be screaming at the top of my lungs "GET HIM OUT OF THE GAME BEFORE HE GETS HURT!!!!! AHHHHHHH!!!! THIS IS CRAZINESS!!!!!!!!" as i ripped my hair out and writhed in agony on the ground while foaming at the mouth.

even if you remove any sense of "morality" from the equation, the bottom line is that it's just mind-bogglingly idiotic to leave your star QB in at a time like that. new england is exemplifying the word "hubris", both in the modern sense:

In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of knowledge, interest in, and exploration of history, combined with a lack of humility. An accusation of hubris often implies that suffering or punishment will follow, similar to the occasional pairing of hubris and Nemesis in the Greek world. The proverb "pride goes before a fall" is thought to sum up the modern definition of hubris.[5]

and in the classical sense:

In Ancient Greece, "hubris" referred to actions taken in order to shame the victim, thereby making oneself seem superior.

Hubris was a crime in classical Athens. The category of acts constituting hubris for the ancient Greeks apparently broadened from the original specific reference to molestation of a corpse, or a humiliation of a defeated foe, to molestation, or "outrageous treatment", in general. The meaning was further generalized in its modern English usage to apply to any outrageous act or exhibition of pride or disregard for basic moral law. Such an act may be referred to as an "act of hubris", or the person committing the act may be said to be hubristic. Ate, Greek for 'ruin, folly, delusion', is the action performed by the hero, usually because of his/her hubris, or great pride, that leads to his/her death or downfall.

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:24 am

die cowboys die wrote:dude, if we were up 38-0 in the 4th against a team with a low-octane offense, and campbell were still out there flinging the ball around, i would be screaming at the top of my lungs "GET HIM OUT OF THE GAME BEFORE HE GETS HURT!!!!! AHHHHHHH!!!! THIS IS CRAZINESS!!!!!!!!"

With that logic then why would you have Campbell in the game when we're down by 38??

GSPODS · Post by **GSPODS** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:45 am

How did the Redskins supposedly score this 57? Like the Patriots did? Or like the Doug Williams' SuperBowl Redskins?

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:32 am

I would have loved to win by that margin. We'll have are chance to do it come February.

roybus14 · Post by **roybus14** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:44 am

DEHog wrote:
die cowboys die wrote:dude, if we were up 38-0 in the 4th against a team with a low-octane offense, and campbell were still out there flinging the ball around, i would be screaming at the top of my lungs "GET HIM OUT OF THE GAME BEFORE HE GETS HURT!!!!! AHHHHHHH!!!! THIS IS CRAZINESS!!!!!!!!"

With that logic then why would you have Campbell in the game when we're down by 38??

That's a good question......

bcg301 · Post by **bcg301** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:18 pm

I was extremely angry Sunday but have since calmed down about it. I believe we beat the Rams 51-7 in the 84 playoffs and I did not feel bad about the Redskins running up the score.

BTW, after watching that game, I went out and tore my ACL playing basketball Sunday night and have to have the reconstructive surgery. Just one of those days almost worthy of a country song.

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:27 pm

bcg301 wrote:BTW, after watching that game, I went out and tore my ACL playing basketball Sunday night and have to have the reconstructive surgery. Just one of those days almost worthy of a country song.

Don't feel so bad. You might run into Carlos Rogers on the way to surgery. Make sure you get his autograph!!! :wink:

Oh, yeah, and get well soon!!

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:06 pm

DEHog wrote:
die cowboys die wrote:dude, if we were up 38-0 in the 4th against a team with a low-octane offense, and campbell were still out there flinging the ball around, i would be screaming at the top of my lungs "GET HIM OUT OF THE GAME BEFORE HE GETS HURT!!!!! AHHHHHHH!!!! THIS IS CRAZINESS!!!!!!!!"

With that logic then why would you have Campbell in the game when we're down by 38??

1. by "that logic", you mean, simply, "logic"? the conclusion to protect your star QB when up by 38 points isn't some strange "brand" of logic, see that's one of the nice things about logic, it's often capable of determining a single, correct course of action. pulling the QB when up by 38 late in the game is The Only Possible Logical Course of Action, period. anything else is a spectacularly foolish miscalculation of "risk vs. reward" by any imaginable system of analysis.

2. your point about leaving the QB in when down by 38 is irrelevant to the point being addressed (hubris/running up the score/etc), but i'll respond to it anyway-

pulling the QB in that situation could be considered a sensible option, for sure. it would make sense to do it. however, in theory, one could still hope to mount a comeback. now don't go complaining that this very reasoning is why it's OK for the other team to leave their QB in to prevent the comeback. that argument is ignorant-- they can always put the starting QB back in the game if the margin were to be cut down to oh say, even 3 or 4 touchdowns instead of 5 or 6.

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

A different take on Sunday's game.

Would you like it if the we had won 52-7

A different take on Sunday's game.