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

The Hogster wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:Redskins, Seahawks have a lot in common

Dan Steinberg reminds me of a bald Seth Green.

I think you're being kind to Dan. He reminds me of a bald Dr. Brown from Back to the Future.

I think you're being kinder to Dan than Deadskins. I'd much rather be a bald Dr. Emmit Brown than a bald Seth Green.

GREAT SCOTT!!

Who Wins Seahawks-Redskins? Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless debate the winner of Saturday's playoff matchup between the Seahawks and Redskins.

Smith will have to eat A LOT of CROW next Monday.

Shhhhhh Please do not tell hawks and their fans:

Countdown Daily Insight: Redskins Run To The Super Bowl?

In addition to predicting us to win the next two games, I'm pulling for Minnesota to pull off a repeat upset of Green Bay. That would send us to San Fran next week. And, send MIN to ATL.

Not that we can be picky, but I'd rather have the potential to play the NFC Championship game at HOME. Facing Minnesota would do just that.

The Hogster wrote:In addition to predicting us to win the next two games, I'm pulling for Minnesota to pull off a repeat upset of Green Bay. That would send us to San Fran next week. And, send MIN to ATL.

Not that we can be picky, but I'd rather have the potential to play the NFC Championship game at HOME. Facing Minnesota would do just that.

Funny I was just taking to a Vikings fan about that exact scenario.

IF we could play San Francisco, I'd prefer it be the NFC Championship game

SkinsJock wrote:IF we could play San Francisco, I'd prefer it be the NFC Championship game

So you'd rather play San Fran on the road, than MIN at home.

Got it.

Can't say this surprises me.

The Hogster wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:IF we could play San Francisco, I'd prefer it be the NFC Championship game

So you'd rather play San Fran on the road, than MIN at home.

Got it.

Can't say this surprises me.

I'm selfish. I'd rather Green Bay win so that the Skins travel to Atlanta so I can go see them next weekend.

emoses14 wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:IF we could play San Francisco, I'd prefer it be the NFC Championship game

So you'd rather play San Fran on the road, than MIN at home.

Got it.

Can't say this surprises me.

I'm selfish. I'd rather Green Bay win so that the Skins travel to Atlanta so I can go see them next weekend.

That's a tough call, but I think we can win anywhere, so I'm with you emoses.

It's really simple for me ... unlike many others here I don't want to be considered 'lucky' to win a Super Bowl

I hope we play Atlanta next week and then whomever is the best team left in the NFC ...

we are playing well enough to win the NFC Championship against any team

I don't need no stinking upsets so the Redskins can play an 'easy' game


In the NFC - I have the 49ers at 1 and the Falcons as 2 - both are playing really well right now - I rate the Seahawks a little behind those 2 ....

I want the Seahawks, then the Falcons and then the 49ers ...

that's how it should be - not some pansy, 'easy' game to get into the Super Bowl

go ahead - be a pansy - hope for the vikings to win 2 in a row ...

SkinsJock wrote:It's really simple for me ... unlike many others here I don't want to be considered 'lucky' to win a Super Bowl

I hope we play Atlanta next week and then whomever is the best team left in the NFC ...

we are playing well enough to win the NFC Championship against any team

I don't need no stinking upsets so the Redskins can play an 'easy' game


In the NFC - I have the 49ers at 1 and the Falcons as 2 - both are playing really well right now - I rate the Seahawks a little behind those 2 ....

I want the Seahawks, then the Falcons and then the 49ers ...

that's how it should be - not some pansy, 'easy' game to get into the Super Bowl

go ahead - be a pansy - hope for the vikings to win 2 in a row ...

Have you ever played a competitive sport?

There is no such thing as a "lucky" Superbowl. That's an oxymoron.

It took hard work to make the playoffs, win our division. And, all of these games will be hard. But, if you think any competitive player--in any sport--wants to play every game on the road, you're kidding yourself.

History doesn't remember valiant losers. Only winners. There are no pansy Superbowl winners. Whatever you call us, you'd have to call us CHAMPIONS whether we win the NFC at home or on the road.

Geez. I couldn't make this up if I tried.

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS.

One of these was won in a strike shortened year. Do you think anyone cares? It's just as valid as any other Superbowl win. The goal is to add a fourth to this stash. And many more.

By any means necessary.

Two years from now we will be calling him RG3peat.

The Hogster wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:It's really simple for me ... unlike many others here I don't want to be considered 'lucky' to win a Super Bowl

I hope we play Atlanta next week and then whomever is the best team left in the NFC ...

we are playing well enough to win the NFC Championship against any team

I don't need no stinking upsets so the Redskins can play an 'easy' game


In the NFC - I have the 49ers at 1 and the Falcons as 2 - both are playing really well right now - I rate the Seahawks a little behind those 2 ....

I want the Seahawks, then the Falcons and then the 49ers ...

that's how it should be - not some pansy, 'easy' game to get into the Super Bowl

go ahead - be a pansy - hope for the vikings to win 2 in a row ...

Have you ever played a competitive sport?

There is no such thing as a "lucky" Superbowl. That's an oxymoron.

It took hard work to make the playoffs, win our division. And, all of these games will be hard. But, if you think any competitive player--in any sport--wants to play every game on the road, you're kidding yourself.

History doesn't remember valiant losers. Only winners. There are no pansy Superbowl winners. Whatever you call us, you'd have to call us CHAMPIONS whether we win the NFC at home or on the road.

Geez. I couldn't make this up if I tried.

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS.

Not only that but the thought of hosting an NFC championship game at home after hosting all of 1 game here thus far just makes me smile. Nothing about an 'easy' game was ever mentioned, just that the Hogster would like to host a home NFC Champinship game...who, as a Redskin fan, wouldn't besides apparently SJ.

The Hogster wrote:One of these was won in a strike shortened year.

Actually two were! And no I can't tell the difference.

The Hogster wrote:
Do you think anyone cares? It's just as valid as any other Superbowl win. The goal is to add a fourth to this stash. And many more.

By any means necessary.

Deadskins wrote:Two years from now we will be calling him RG3peat.

Nicely done sir! What a nice RING that has

Deadskins wrote:Two years from now we will be calling him RG3peat.

Nicely done sir! What a nice RING that has

skinsfan#33 wrote:

The Hogster wrote:One of these was won in a strike shortened year.

Actually two were! And no I can't tell the difference.

Actually, there were two strikes, but only one shortened the season. The other had replacement players playing in three games.

I'm wondering of we might try to take advantage of DE Red Bryant who has dealt with a lingering foot injury all year. Their other DE is a platoon of 2 very undersized guys who get good jumps at home. The edges look kinda good right now.

Turns out Seattle's rush defense allows 4.5 ypc which is 23rd in the league (10th worst). We run for an extra yard per carry at home (5.7 to 4.7), easily tops in the league.

They have 36 sacks - 21 at home and 15 on the road.

We have more sacks (36) than Seattle's D and ours are evenly split home and away (16 to 16).

http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/splits/_/na ... e-seahawks

Deadskins wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

The Hogster wrote:One of these was won in a strike shortened year.

Actually two were! And no I can't tell the difference.

Actually, there were two strikes, but only one shortened the season. The other had replacement players playing in three games.

Which shortened the season for real NFL players. Sure scabs played three games and I love "the replacements", but the season was shortened three real games. They counted, but they weren't any more real than Seattle's "win" over Green Bay.

I'm all for winning the next 4 games and I'd love for the NFC Championship game to be at home ..

when it comes time for the playoffs, I just want the Redskins to win
I don't care what the other teams do and I'm VERY sure the Redskins players and coaches are NOT looking ahead either ...


I will add that the Vikings have possibly the greatest RB EVER and the Packers history in the 1st round recently has NOT been good ...

GO VIKES

The Hogster wrote:

Made me laugh. Nicely done....

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

The Hogster wrote:One of these was won in a strike shortened year.

Actually two were! And no I can't tell the difference.

Actually, there were two strikes, but only one shortened the season. The other had replacement players playing in three games.

Which shortened the season for real NFL players. Sure scabs played three games and I love "the replacements", but the season was shortened three real games. They counted, but they weren't any more real than Seattle's "win" over Green Bay.

Only for the Redskins. Every other team had regular players crossing the picket lines.