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

USAFSkinFan wrote:

markshark84 wrote:I am a little worried about the St. Louis game. I think that there is a ton of things going on in that organization and teams tend to rally behind those types of things. I, too, am concerned with Al Saunders and his familiarity with the defensive players. With the QB issues, new coach, former disgruntled coach, coming off a bye week, power backs, etc. --- there are number that make me uncomfortable about this game. I just hope that the team is focused and doesn't take this team too lightly.

On a positive note, the game is at home and we really don't have difficult teams over the span of the next 3 games which would cause us to "look" past the Rams.

I'm very worried about the Rams game for those same reasons... also, the sentiment here in StL is that they probably have a better chance winning a road game because they don't have the pressure on them when the home fans start booing the first time they give up a sack... they also don't see the 'Skins as a big pass rush threat, which is one of the things that has really contributed to games getting out of hand... they believe if they can tackle better, they'll be in this game at the end...

I hope not...

The sacks they give up are the least of their concerns. I understand -- I completely understand -- that the NFL differs from college football in that there are no gimme games. But the Rams are not just a coaching change away from fixing things, they have been really bad and across-the-board.
On offense, they are 30th in yards per game (26th passing, 28th rushing) and dead last in points scored. They are allowing the second most yards per game on defense, they've allowed 147 points in four games, they are 27th against the pass and 28th against the rush. They are minus 3 in the turnover column and have converted only 22% of their third downs.
That kind of dismal play just doesn't vanish with a new coach and a bye week. I think the Rams, and their fans, are underestimating the Redskins defense.

I hope that the new Rams coach can get this group to play as well as they can - the end result will be the same because no matter how well each player plays or what game plan the offense and defensive cordinators use for this game and have had a full 2 weeks to prepare for - the Redskins will win because both the coaches and players are focused on what they have to do to win.

I believe it is a lot harder to try and find a way to beat a better team than it is to game plan and prepare your players to just follow the script for success. The Redskins players are just preparing for another game that they know they will be both prepared for and they will not be asked to do anything that is not absolutely within their ability to be successful at doing.


There is no letdown with this group - they are all still getting used to what both the coaches and the other players around them are doing.


I also want to see the Rams players playing at or above their abilities on Sunday because we will win and we do not need anyone saying "well IF we had done this or that we could have beaten that team"

There is no way that group of players can come into our house and win this game.

"... Grampi will think the sky is falling and that we've lost, five minutes into a game."

Come on, you gotta admit after the Fecals scored those 2 quick TD's, even you were thinking blowout.

grampi wrote:"... Grampi will think the sky is falling and that we've lost, five minutes into a game."

Come on, you gotta admit after the Fecals scored those 2 quick TD's, even you were thinking blowout.

Don't try pin your lack of faith on me.

As a matter of fact, the guys that I watched the game will surely attest that I ACTUALLY said that we needed to buckle down and get back into the game before it was too late. I said after the game that it was nice to be down by two scores and NOT think that the game was over because I believed full-heartedly that we could still win. Some of us have a viewpoint longer than that of the fleeting moment that we're in.

You go ahead and transfer your pessimism onto whomever you like - doesn't make you right - nor does it make it any more palatable to those that choose to have a bit of faith in the team.

You don't have ANY faith in the team as you have proved again and again and again.

BossHog wrote:

grampi wrote:"... Grampi will think the sky is falling and that we've lost, five minutes into a game."

Come on, you gotta admit after the Fecals scored those 2 quick TD's, even you were thinking blowout.

Don't try pin your lack of faith on me.

As a matter of fact, the guys that I watched the game will surely attest that I ACTUALLY said that we needed to buckle down and get back into the game before it was too late. I said after the game that it was nice to be down by two scores and NOT think that the game was over because I believed full-heartedly that we could still win. Some of us have a viewpoint longer than that of the fleeting moment that we're in.

You go ahead and transfer your pessimism onto whomever you like - doesn't make you right - nor does it make it any more palatable to those that choose to have a bit of faith in the team.

You don't have ANY faith in the team as you have proved again and again and again.

Exactly. I was watching the game with my dad and brothers, and when we went down 14-0 my only reaction was to get another beer. As a fan you've gotta shake that stuff off if you're going to be able to enjoy most games. (It wasn't even the end of the 1st quarter!)

By halftime we were all talking about how we were going to win the game, not if.

Irn-Bru wrote:

BossHog wrote:

grampi wrote:"... Grampi will think the sky is falling and that we've lost, five minutes into a game."

Come on, you gotta admit after the Fecals scored those 2 quick TD's, even you were thinking blowout.

Don't try pin your lack of faith on me.

As a matter of fact, the guys that I watched the game will surely attest that I ACTUALLY said that we needed to buckle down and get back into the game before it was too late. I said after the game that it was nice to be down by two scores and NOT think that the game was over because I believed full-heartedly that we could still win. Some of us have a viewpoint longer than that of the fleeting moment that we're in.

You go ahead and transfer your pessimism onto whomever you like - doesn't make you right - nor does it make it any more palatable to those that choose to have a bit of faith in the team.

You don't have ANY faith in the team as you have proved again and again and again.

Exactly. I was watching the game with my dad and brothers, and when we went down 14-0 my only reaction was to get another beer. As a fan you've gotta shake that stuff off if you're going to be able to enjoy most games. (It wasn't even the end of the 1st quarter!)

By halftime we were all talking about how we were going to win the game, not if.

Plus, um, you know, there's still this

Fios wrote:Plus, um, you know, there's still this

That was the best thread ever.

BossHog wrote:

grampi wrote:"... Grampi will think the sky is falling and that we've lost, five minutes into a game."

Come on, you gotta admit after the Fecals scored those 2 quick TD's, even you were thinking blowout.

Don't try pin your lack of faith on me.

As a matter of fact, the guys that I watched the game will surely attest that I ACTUALLY said that we needed to buckle down and get back into the game before it was too late. I said after the game that it was nice to be down by two scores and NOT think that the game was over because I believed full-heartedly that we could still win. Some of us have a viewpoint longer than that of the fleeting moment that we're in.

You go ahead and transfer your pessimism onto whomever you like - doesn't make you right - nor does it make it any more palatable to those that choose to have a bit of faith in the team.

You don't have ANY faith in the team as you have proved again and again and again.

Maybe that comes from the team letting us down ever year since 1992?

grampi wrote:Maybe that comes from the team letting us down ever year since 1992?

Well if there truly was a cause and effect, then it would be exactly the same for every Redskin fan on the planet, wouldn't it?

It isn't.

You can wallow in all the misery you want... that's your prerogative.

BossHog wrote:

grampi wrote:Maybe that comes from the team letting us down ever year since 1992?

Well if there truly was a cause and effect, then it would be exactly the same for every Redskin fan on the planet, wouldn't it?

It isn't.

You can wallow in all the misery you want... that's your prerogative.

You're a blow everything out of proportion kind of guy, aren't you? Who says I'm wallowing in misery? You think I'm not enjoying what the Skins have accomplished so far this year? Lighten up, Lenny!

grampi wrote:

BossHog wrote:

grampi wrote:Maybe that comes from the team letting us down ever year since 1992?

Well if there truly was a cause and effect, then it would be exactly the same for every Redskin fan on the planet, wouldn't it?

It isn't.

You can wallow in all the misery you want... that's your prerogative.

You're a blow everything out of proportion kind of guy, aren't you? Who says I'm wallowing in misery? You think I'm not enjoying what the Skins have accomplished so far this year? Lighten up, Lenny!

Yes, quite obviously I am the blow it out of proportion guy.

As I said, you're perfectly entitled to be as pessimistic as you want and have shown yourself to be - but that doesn't mean that everyone share's your views. And it certainly doesn't mean that someone isn't entitled to address that pessimism when they disagree. You don't have to agree with me any more than I have to agree with you.

grampi wrote:Maybe that comes from the team letting us down ever year since 1992?

I can't speak for you, and you certainly shouldn't speak for "us" when it comes to deciding whether the team let us down. There have been more than a few years that we could be proud of the Redskins and what they accomplished in the last 8 years, let alone the last 16.

I am quite frankly afraid of the next 3 games, because I don't want my beloved Redskins to be the 1 victory the Lions or Rams may get this season...

I still remember that Dallas game in 1989.

BossHog wrote:

grampi wrote:

BossHog wrote:

grampi wrote:Maybe that comes from the team letting us down ever year since 1992?

Well if there truly was a cause and effect, then it would be exactly the same for every Redskin fan on the planet, wouldn't it?

It isn't.

You can wallow in all the misery you want... that's your prerogative.

You're a blow everything out of proportion kind of guy, aren't you? Who says I'm wallowing in misery? You think I'm not enjoying what the Skins have accomplished so far this year? Lighten up, Lenny!

Yes, quite obviously I am the blow it out of proportion guy.

As I said, you're perfectly entitled to be as pessimistic as you want and have shown yourself to be - but that doesn't mean that everyone share's your views. And it certainly doesn't mean that someone isn't entitled to address that pessimism when they disagree. You don't have to agree with me any more than I have to agree with you.

I see you like to talk in circles too.

Irn-Bru wrote:

grampi wrote:Maybe that comes from the team letting us down ever year since 1992?

I can't speak for you, and you certainly shouldn't speak for "us" when it comes to deciding whether the team let us down. There have been more than a few years that we could be proud of the Redskins and what they accomplished in the last 8 years, let alone the last 16.

Okay, the team has let ME down since 1992. Maybe you're satisfied with simply making the play-offs, but I consider success winning the SB. Anything less is falling short.

grampi wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

grampi wrote:Maybe that comes from the team letting us down ever year since 1992?

I can't speak for you, and you certainly shouldn't speak for "us" when it comes to deciding whether the team let us down. There have been more than a few years that we could be proud of the Redskins and what they accomplished in the last 8 years, let alone the last 16.

Okay, the team has let ME down since 1992. Maybe you're satisfied with simply making the play-offs, but I consider success winning the SB. Anything less is falling short.

So the overwhelming majority of Joe Gibbs' first tenure was a let-down?

Fios wrote:

grampi wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

grampi wrote:Maybe that comes from the team letting us down ever year since 1992?

I can't speak for you, and you certainly shouldn't speak for "us" when it comes to deciding whether the team let us down. There have been more than a few years that we could be proud of the Redskins and what they accomplished in the last 8 years, let alone the last 16.

Okay, the team has let ME down since 1992. Maybe you're satisfied with simply making the play-offs, but I consider success winning the SB. Anything less is falling short.

So the overwhelming majority of Joe Gibbs' first tenure was a let-down?

How could the overwhelming majority of Gibbs' first tenure be a let down when it all occured BEFORE 1992? I said SINCE 1992.

Fios wrote:

grampi wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

grampi wrote:Maybe that comes from the team letting us down ever year since 1992?

I can't speak for you, and you certainly shouldn't speak for "us" when it comes to deciding whether the team let us down. There have been more than a few years that we could be proud of the Redskins and what they accomplished in the last 8 years, let alone the last 16.

Okay, the team has let ME down since 1992. Maybe you're satisfied with simply making the play-offs, but I consider success winning the SB. Anything less is falling short.

So the overwhelming majority of Joe Gibbs' first tenure was a let-down?

"Overwhelming majority" might be a bit harsh, but considering the expectations when the man arrived, then I'd have to say it was a bit of a let-down. This wasn't just a decent coach like Jim Fassel coming to the 'skins - this was JOE GIBBS. A Hall of Famer, a three-time SB winner, a true legend. People were ecstatic, wondering how many more SB wins would come in his next 5 years. If you look at what was expected vs. what resulted, that has to be a let-down. Maybe us fans were unrealistic, and we held JG to too high a standard, but if someone suggested back when JG came back that his greatest acheivement would be to win one playoff game, we'd have laughed. Yet that was the reality.

EDIT: D'oh, I just noticed FIOS wrote "first tenure", not last! I'm a dope!

Well, Really when you think about it waiting 16 years is not bad.

The SB is hard enough to get to in the first place, then to win it when you get there.

I mean, say they divided up Chanionships evenly. Well, there is 32 teams. So that would mean 1 chanpionship in 32 years.

There are lots of teams shooting for SB. That's why making the playoffs is respectable. At least IMO.


And to be on topic. Everyone knows how much our O line fights each and every single game. Our O line and CP have always grinded it out, through our losing seasons and in our games that we lost.

If we do lose a game in this stretch, I know these guys will be fighting. "Redskins football". That's why Im such a fan of CP's. If there is no hole to go through, then he just lowers the shoulders rams in there, and fights.

I don't care 4-1 or 5-0 or 1-4. Our guys fight each and every single game. I don't think they will lose because of complacency.
I think because of our last few seasons, grampi's not the only one that has the "so far" disorder. Every skins fan I run into, its like "The Skins are kicking A this year", the national skin fan reply has been "so far".

I think everyone needs to remember what fighters we have on this team. And dont forget it.

Wow, In the offseason, fans weren't giving them a chance. Now, they arent giving them a chance to continue. Jeez! Maybe the team can use that for fuel.

grampi wrote:

Fios wrote:

grampi wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

grampi wrote:Maybe that comes from the team letting us down ever year since 1992?

I can't speak for you, and you certainly shouldn't speak for "us" when it comes to deciding whether the team let us down. There have been more than a few years that we could be proud of the Redskins and what they accomplished in the last 8 years, let alone the last 16.

Okay, the team has let ME down since 1992. Maybe you're satisfied with simply making the play-offs, but I consider success winning the SB. Anything less is falling short.

So the overwhelming majority of Joe Gibbs' first tenure was a let-down?

How could the overwhelming majority of Gibbs' first tenure be a let down when it all occured BEFORE 1992? I said SINCE 1992.

Allow me to highlight some other words you also typed:

grampi wrote:Maybe you're satisfied with simply making the play-offs, but I consider success winning the SB. Anything less is falling short.

Am I to assume that your standard for success changed in 1992? I replied to what you wrote, what YOU identified as the bar to clear in order to achieve success.

Fios wrote:

grampi wrote:

Fios wrote:

grampi wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

grampi wrote:Maybe that comes from the team letting us down ever year since 1992?

I can't speak for you, and you certainly shouldn't speak for "us" when it comes to deciding whether the team let us down. There have been more than a few years that we could be proud of the Redskins and what they accomplished in the last 8 years, let alone the last 16.

Okay, the team has let ME down since 1992. Maybe you're satisfied with simply making the play-offs, but I consider success winning the SB. Anything less is falling short.

So the overwhelming majority of Joe Gibbs' first tenure was a let-down?

How could the overwhelming majority of Gibbs' first tenure be a let down when it all occured BEFORE 1992? I said SINCE 1992.

Allow me to highlight some other words you also typed:

grampi wrote:Maybe you're satisfied with simply making the play-offs, but I consider success winning the SB. Anything less is falling short.

Am I to assume that your standard for success changed in 1992? I replied to what you wrote, what YOU identified as the bar to clear in order to achieve success.

Now you've got me confused. I said the team has been a let down since 1992, since they haven't won a SB since then. Then you said "So the overwhelming majority of Joe Gibbs' first tenure was a let-down?" You said his "FIRST" tenure (which was between 1980 and 1993), which I never said anything about. Obviously Gibbs' first tenure was very successful as that's when the Skins won 3 SB's. What are you talking about?

grampi wrote:
Now you've got me confused. I said the team has been a let down since 1992, since they haven't won a SB since then. Then you said "So the overwhelming majority of Joe Gibbs' first tenure was a let-down?" You said his "FIRST" tenure (which was between 1980 and 1993), which I never said anything about. Obviously Gibbs' first tenure was very successful as that's when the Skins won 3 SB's. What are you talking about?

3 SB in 13 years, that's a record of 3-10 successful years (if we don't count any of the playoff appearences during that time)

Can't we all get along?

grampi wrote:

Fios wrote:

grampi wrote:

Fios wrote:

grampi wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

grampi wrote:Maybe that comes from the team letting us down ever year since 1992?

I can't speak for you, and you certainly shouldn't speak for "us" when it comes to deciding whether the team let us down. There have been more than a few years that we could be proud of the Redskins and what they accomplished in the last 8 years, let alone the last 16.

Okay, the team has let ME down since 1992. Maybe you're satisfied with simply making the play-offs, but I consider success winning the SB. Anything less is falling short.

So the overwhelming majority of Joe Gibbs' first tenure was a let-down?

How could the overwhelming majority of Gibbs' first tenure be a let down when it all occured BEFORE 1992? I said SINCE 1992.

Allow me to highlight some other words you also typed:

grampi wrote:Maybe you're satisfied with simply making the play-offs, but I consider success winning the SB. Anything less is falling short.

Am I to assume that your standard for success changed in 1992? I replied to what you wrote, what YOU identified as the bar to clear in order to achieve success.

Now you've got me confused. I said the team has been a let down since 1992, since they haven't won a SB since then. Then you said "So the overwhelming majority of Joe Gibbs' first tenure was a let-down?" You said his "FIRST" tenure (which was between 1980 and 1993), which I never said anything about. Obviously Gibbs' first tenure was very successful as that's when the Skins won 3 SB's. What are you talking about?

Joe Gibbs only won the SB in three of his 12 seasons in his first tenure. By your standards, that's only a 25% success rate. Pretty crappy.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Can't we all get along?

Are we supposed to just let him off with a warning?