Dallas

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:11 am

i've had one of the most violent reactions to the loss of anyone on this board, and i'm sticking to my guns- that game was a turd, and we have HUGE problems to address.

however!, i do think we can beat dallas this week, under one absolutely crucial condition, that others have already pointed out. PRESSURE. if we can consistently pressure bledsoe, we can win. if we don't, we will be publicly shamed in front of the nation for the 2nd week in a row.

we need to get this win and then whomp on the texans the following week... hopefully by then we'll have figured out a way to fix some of the problems before the schedule really starts to pick up.

air_hog · Post by **air_hog** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:43 am

Dallass week baby!

I'm pumped!

HTTR

joebagadonuts · Post by **joebagadonuts** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:12 am

SkinzCanes wrote:
One question: why does it seem that we always play Dallas on national TV early in the season in THEIR house?!? Didn't we do this last year? Shouldn't it be our turn to play them in our house on national TV?!? It's almost like they're setting us up to look bad.

Setting us up to look bad? How? By having us open the season at home against a non-playoff team and having Dallas start on the road against a playoff team? Yea what a bunch of bastards.

Was I referring to last week's game? No. Pay attention.

JPM36 · Post by **JPM36** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:32 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:
JPM36 wrote:I don't agree with that. The Vikings did have a nice run under Brad Johnson last season but that had more to do with a soft stretch in their schedule than anything else. Check out the Vikes 2005 schedule, they went thru a ridiculously easy stretch and got back in the playoff race before hosting the Steelers late in the season and getting crushed.

18-3 is a crush? Perhaps, but that's a really strong word to use for that loss.

The Vikings lost to the Bucs, Saints, and Falcons early in the season--all winable games for a playoff team. The Bucs "crushed" the Vikes 24-13 and the Falcons "crushed" them 30-10. I've got no basis beyond opinion to say that with Johnson in they would have won (which I think is true), so I suppose that I'll have leave it at that.

Their other losses early on were to Carolina and the Bengals; perhaps neither of these could have been avoided whoever was QB.

I see where you're coming from but I still would say that the Vikings would have been in the playoffs without Culpepper starting (seeing as how he threw 12 INTs in half a season, as many touchdowns as Brad would throw once he got in). Again, I don't know. . .it's all conjecture at this point, and each person can have their opinion.

But all of this is reinforcing my (originally) small point that we can't call the Vikings a "non-playoff" team to try and make things worse for the Skins than they actually are.

I would say that yes losing 18-3 at home constitutes getting crushed. But there's no reason to argue that.

Maybe you are right and the Vikings are a good team that is playoff caliber. But in order to make the playoffs, get home field, etc... we need to beat borderline playoff teams from our conference AT HOME.

The Vikings aren't the Packers or the Raiders but they aren't exactly the Seahawks or Colts either. We have a lot more talent than them and it is inexcusable to lose to them at home in their coach's debut game.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:36 pm

Road wins are certainly tougher to come by but insofar as far as making the playoffs and establishing home-field advantage go, what matters are wins, wherever you can get them.

JPM36 · Post by **JPM36** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:54 pm

We have a tough road schedule with the 3 divsion games as well as @ Ind and @ TB (you think they might want a little revenge?) in addition to games in Houston, New Orleans, and St. Louis.

At the beginning of the year I thought a home record of 6-2 would probably be needed to win the division and we're already 0-1. Let's face it, that was a bad loss on Monday. It's only one game and it's not the end of the world by any means, but it doesn't change the fact that it was a bad loss and a damaging one.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:53 pm

I'm not disagreeing in the sense that home wins are inherently more important but I think that to call this loss "damaging" is overstating the case (separate from the notion that losses are intrinsically harmful) because we can't know how the season will play out

Mursilis · Post by **Mursilis** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:09 pm

Fios wrote:I'm not disagreeing in the sense that home wins are inherently more important but I think that to call this loss "damaging" is overstating the case (separate from the notion that losses are intrinsically harmful) because we can't know how the season will play out

All true, but if history is any guide, every game's going to matter. Last year, the playoffs weren't clinched until the final regular season game was won, and I can't even remember the last time the 'skins had a lock on the playoffs going into the 16th game. Has to be the last time Gibbs was in town. It would be nice to have one of those Colts-like dilemnas by Week 13 - "At what point do we rest our starters?!?"