Let's put a bounty on Brees (j/k)

tribeofjudah · Post by **tribeofjudah** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 12:21 am

Well, I hate when "experts" predict that our D will fail vs. Brees

Hey Guys.........show them what the Skins are made of. CAN'T WAIT

Drew Brees, Saints
Drew Brees should be able to pick apart Washington's defense quite easily in what should be considered a statement game for the Saints.

the poster · Post by **the poster** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 7:49 pm

tribeofjudah wrote:Well, I hate when "experts" predict that our D will fail vs. Brees

Hey Guys.........show them what the Skins are made of. CAN'T WAIT

Drew Brees, Saints
Drew Brees should be able to pick apart Washington's defense quite easily in what should be considered a statement game for the Saints.

Why should they NOT get torched by brees? there's more evidence to suggest that no offense will have no problem hanging 27 points or so on the redskins defense than contrary. why are u picking on the "experts"?

this coming Sunday..welcome to the real world.

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:35 pm

the poster wrote:
tribeofjudah wrote:Well, I hate when "experts" predict that our D will fail vs. Brees

Hey Guys.........show them what the Skins are made of. CAN'T WAIT

Drew Brees, Saints
Drew Brees should be able to pick apart Washington's defense quite easily in what should be considered a statement game for the Saints.
-snip- there's more evidence to suggest that no offense will have no problem hanging 27 points or so on the redskins defense than contrary. -snip-

This is actually correct since it's a double negative.

The meaning desired is probably ... there's more evidence to suggest that any offense will have no problem hanging 27 points or so on the redskins defense than contrary.

Alternatively ... there's more evidence to suggest that no offense will have any problem hanging 27 points or so on the redskins defense than contrary.

(I base my conclusion of desired meaning on a growing body of work which shows a propensity for putting everything Redskins in a bad light.)

At any rate, the claim is wrong by almost any metric. Here's one:

Points Per Game Surrendered by Redskins by Year

2002 22.8
2003 23.3
2004 16.6
2005 18.3
2006 23.5
2007 19.4
2008 18.5
2009 21.0
2010 23.6
2011 22.9

Here's another:

In the past decade 320 teams have had a chance to give up 27 or more points per game (doing so would be evidence that roughly half the league would not have a problem putting up 27 on such a team).

Of those 320 teams, 25 teams did it or less than 8%. It's pretty much the same teams every year. It's tough to give up that many on a regular basis.

Having said that I expect 27+ from the Saints this Sunday.

[sarcasm] Debating is scary. [/sarcasm]

Jeremy81 · Post by **Jeremy81** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 11:39 pm

Can we just agree that we should bet the over on this game?

the poster · Post by **the poster** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:55 pm

DarthMonk wrote: -snip- there's more evidence to suggest that no offense will have no problem hanging 27 points or so on the redskins defense than contrary. -snip-

This is actually correct since it's a double negative.

the first no was meant to be n.o. as in new orleans's offense.

Having said that I expect 27+ from the Saints this Sunday.

good, then you and I agree, washington's overrated defense can't match up with this offense.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:39 pm

.

Scroll to the troll.
Scroll to the troll.
SCROLL TO THE TROLL!

tribeofjudah · Post by **tribeofjudah** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:38 pm

Pos.er........aka Portis2skins......hey is that u? u back on the boards after being BANNED...???

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

Let's put a bounty on Brees (j/k)

Let's put a bounty on Brees (j/k)

Re: Let's put a bounty on Brees (j/k)

Re: Let's put a bounty on Brees (j/k)

Re: Let's put a bounty on Brees (j/k)