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

The notion that removing those INTs equals a potential win for Minnesota is only far fetched as the notion that Washington would have won whether Minnesota give the ball away three times or not.

Looking at just the statistics of the game without context is misleading. In the first half of the game, Minnesota had 7 drives (not counting the last to run it out) for 62 yards and zero points. Three of those drives ended in turnovers, one ended in a safety, and one ended in a missed field goal. Washington, on the other hand, had 8 drives in the first half for 230 yards and three TDs. Only one of those drives ended badly and that was the botched FG by Frost.

Obviously Washington outplayed Minnesota in the first half, and much of that was fueled by the fact that 5 out of 7 of Minnesota's offensive drives ended poorly.

In the second half, it is a wholly different ball game. Minnesota has five offensive drives for 215 yards, three of which end in TDs. Washington had four drives for 130 yards (almost all of which came on one drive), one TD and one FG.

When Minnesota's offense was clicking, Washington's defense had a hard time stopping them.

Would Minnesota have won if not for those three turnovers? Who knows. To be honest, Washington and Minnesota match up very well, and Washington played a good game while Minnesota did not. But I believe that those turnovers, which I credit more to stupid mistakes on Minnesota's part than great defensive plays on Washington's part, had more to do with the outcome of the game than Washington "outplaying" Minnesota.

In the end, Washington won. They secured the ball better in the first half, and played time control in the second. I don't want to take anything away from your victory. An ugly win is still a win after all. Lord knows Minnesota was on the beneficial side of an ugly win the week before against Chicago. But at least after the Chicago game, we didn't suffer from the delusion that we won solely because of our play on the field. Had Chicago not sucked it up like Minnesota did last week, the outcome could very well have been different.

Anyway, good luck against the Cowboys this coming Sunday. I am pulling for the Cowboys to win, but more importantly I want to see a good game without injury.

Skol.

Fios wrote:Again, the INTs obviously had an impact but the Vikings got outplayed, on both sides of the ball. The notion that removing those INTs equals a potential win for Minnesota is far fetched. The Vikings offense had 14 drives, three of them resulted in scores and we can throw out the last one (as well as Minny's last drive and the one toward the end of the first half) for obvious reasons. For fun we'll subtract the INTs as well which leaves the Vikings with 10 drives that resulted in 210 yards and 14 points. Over four quarters. The Redskins, on the other hand, had 12 drives and we can subtract the last one. In 11 drives the offense managed 341 yards and 30 points, 10 of those points came on second-half drives that ate up over 10 minutes of clock. The Vikings defense did not demonstrate, at any point, that they could reliably keep the Redskins offense in-check.

BTW, not nit picking, but Minnesota scored 21, and Washington scored 34...

Right, I left out the Vikings last TD drive since it was what the Redskins wanted and I left out the safety since the Redskins defense scored those two points.

...and, just for fun, check the first downs and time of possession up until the 4th quarter...after which the Redskins were just wasting time. Williams didn't bother with the hard defense for much of the fourth quarter, because every time the Vikings moved, they were trapped in-bounds.

The Redskins smashed the Vikings.

And, while we're tossing out the INT's, how about tossing out the PI against the Skins when Landry sprinted untouched into that Vikings QB, who wobbled the ball about ten yards...and during the wobble, a DB learned on a Vike receiver?

OTOH, I saw a Vikings DB grab a Redskins receiver around the waist -- in the end-zone -- because the Vike was running the wrong way and needed to turn quickly toward the ball. PI???

Chris Luva Luva wrote:And then you see at a later point that the ball didn't break the plane...

I don't even think that is correct. Yes the ball was turned sideways, but clearly a potion of it was breaking the plane.

Also the second TD for Minnesota was zebra-aided by the iterference in the end-zone call on a 4th down play where Jackson was drilled as he threw, and his resulting wounded duck should have been ruled uncatchable. Unlike some I didn't need to make excuses to explain the "poor outcomes" of drives, as if the opponents' play had no affect on the outcome of said drives. The length of the Skins' sustained drives, not the turnover aided ones, speaks for itself, as does their 3rd down conversion ratio.

JSPB22 wrote:Also the second TD for Minnesota was zebra-aided by the iterference in the end-zone call on a 4th down play where Jackson was drilled as he threw, and his resulting wounded duck should have been ruled uncatchable. Unlike some I didn't need to make excuses to explain the "poor outcomes" of drives, as if the opponents' play had no affect on the outcome of said drives. The length of the Skins' sustained drives, not the turnover aided ones, speaks for itself, as does their 3rd down conversion ratio.

Yes...


Yes...


& Yes.

JSPB22 wrote:Also the second TD for Minnesota was zebra-aided by the iterference in the end-zone call on a 4th down play where Jackson was drilled as he threw, and his resulting wounded duck should have been ruled uncatchable. Unlike some I didn't need to make excuses to explain the "poor outcomes" of drives, as if the opponents' play had no affect on the outcome of said drives. The length of the Skins' sustained drives, not the turnover aided ones, speaks for itself, as does their 3rd down conversion ratio.

LOL. No, you are just blaming the refs for anything that didn't go in Washington's favor.

Again, don't misread me. I am not saying that Washington's play had no affect on the outcome of the drives or the game. I am saying that Minnesota's sloppy play on offense also contributed greatly to the effectiveness of the Washington's offense.

People here are acting like Washington came into Minnesota and it was by sheer talent and amazing God like play that they handed the Vikings a loss. The fact is that the TJack had a very bad game, making poor decisions, and gave the ball to Washington multiple times early in the game. TJack ineptitude early in the game was as big of a determining factor in the final score as anything else.

But you guys can continue to cling to your fantasies about the refs being one sided. I am sure after a Dallas loss that this board will be on fire about how the refs handed Dallas the game because they didn't want to see the Redskins in the playoffs or something like that...

Me, I am hoping that TJack pulls his head out of his ass and doesn't hand the opposing team another win.

Skol.

NodakPaul wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Also the second TD for Minnesota was zebra-aided by the interference in the end-zone call on a 4th down play where Jackson was drilled as he threw, and his resulting wounded duck should have been ruled uncatchable. Unlike some I didn't need to make excuses to explain the "poor outcomes" of drives, as if the opponents' play had no affect on the outcome of said drives. The length of the Skins' sustained drives, not the turnover aided ones, speaks for itself, as does their 3rd down conversion ratio.

LOL. No, you are just blaming the refs for anything that didn't go in Washington's favor.

Again, don't misread me. I am not saying that Washington's play had no affect on the outcome of the drives or the game. I am saying that Minnesota's sloppy play on offense also contributed greatly to the effectiveness of the Washington's offense.

People here are acting like Washington came into Minnesota and it was by sheer talent and amazing God like play that they handed the Vikings a loss. The fact is that the TJack had a very bad game, making poor decisions, and gave the ball to Washington multiple times early in the game. TJack ineptitude early in the game was as big of a determining factor in the final score as anything else.

But you guys can continue to cling to your fantasies about the refs being one sided. I am sure after a Dallas loss that this board will be on fire about how the refs handed Dallas the game because they didn't want to see the Redskins in the playoffs or something like that...

Me, I am hoping that TJack pulls his head out of his ass and doesn't hand the opposing team another win.

Skol.

My point about that call was in reference to your lame "we beat ourselves" with turnovers excuse. I was pointing out that I had not brought up the poor officiating previously, because it was not relevant to the overall dominance the Redskins displayed. We beat you in the trenches on both sides of the ball. Also you conveniently overlook my point about our long-yardage, sustained, clock-eating drives and 3rd down conversion ratio. We also stymied your #1 rated rushing attack (your RBs gained less than your QB did on scrambles), and gained well over 100 yards rushing against your #1 rated rushing defense. Delude yourself all you want about how the Vikings just had a bad day, but the fact is we came into your house, and marched up and down the field at will and dominated the game with an injury depleted team, a QB starting his second game in 10 years, and a defense whose heart and soul was murdered less than four weeks earlier. All of this in a game that, if the Vikings win, clinches them the final playoff spot in the NFC.

JSPB22 wrote:My point about that call was in reference to your lame "we beat ourselves" with turnovers excuse. I was pointing out that I had not brought up the poor officiating previously, because it was not relevant to the overall dominance the Redskins displayed. We beat you in the trenches on both sides of the ball. Also you conveniently overlook my point about our long-yardage, sustained, clock-eating drives and 3rd down conversion ratio. We also stymied your #1 rated rushing attack (your RBs gained less than your QB did on scrambles), and gained well over 100 yards rushing against your #1 rated rushing defense. Delude yourself all you want about how the Vikings just had a bad day, but the fact is we came into your house, and marched up and down the field at will and dominated the game with an injury depleted team, a QB starting his second game in 10 years, and a defense whose heart and soul was murdered less than four weeks earlier. All of this in a game that, if the Vikings win, clinches them the final playoff spot in the NFC.

Hubris
derived from the Greek word hybris, means “excessive pride or arrogance.” In Greek tragedy, hubris is often viewed as the flaw that leads to the downfall ...

If you really think that Washington simply came to the dome and marched up and down the field at will, then there really is no point in debating with the deluded. We'll see how well that carries over in Dallas.

Yes, you stopped out #1 rushing defense. I wonder if that had anything to do with the fact that we found ourselves down by 20+ points in the first half... largely due to turnovers. Nah, the fact that we passed 49 times compared to 17 rushed probably has nothing to do with it...

Nobody is trying to take the win away from the skins. They played a better game than Minnesota did, and they deserved to come back with the victory. I just don't think any Washington fan should come out of this win thinking they are bound for the NFC championship. The fact is that you beat a team that was playing poorly. Kind of like beating up on a kid with a broken leg and then celebrating it afterwards. Had you beat the Vikings on a normal day, then you could brag...

Again, in the end the Skins won. And bad games are part of football. Good teams find ways to win despite bad games, and Minnesota simply didn't do that...

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:[I can concede the TD after the safety, but I still believe that the INT by Smoot set up the field position for the safety.

IMO a bogus call by the refs set up your safety. IMHO there was inconclusive evidence. There is a section of video where Sellers is blocked from view due to other players... And then you see at a later point that the ball didn't break the plane... There was no way of being 100% sure that the ball did NOT break the plane when he was being obscured by the other players. Is it likely that he broke the plane? That is certainly debatable BUT there was NOT CONCLUSIVE evidence to overturn what the judge saw.

IMO, you got some help from the Zebras and they actually made it worse for you.

Totally agreed. Add another 7 points to the final score (and subtract a Safety). That was one of the worst calls I've ever seen. Most unbiased fans agreed as well. I watched the game here in Chicago with a bunch of Bills and Bears fans.

Did anyone see what the explaination was on NFL network on Tuesday by the head of the referee committee?

NodakPaul wrote:In the second half, it is a wholly different ball game. Minnesota has five offensive drives for 215 yards, three of which end in TDs. Washington had four drives for 130 yards (almost all of which came on one drive), one TD and one FG.

When Minnesota's offense was clicking, Washington's defense had a hard time stopping them..

This was really due more to the fact that we went from using a 6-4 defense to using a cover 2 Zone with no blitzing. I would hope that your QB could make some passes with no pressure. Each of the picks in the first half was due to the fact that he was being hit or had to throw early.

NodakPaul wrote:Would Minnesota have won if not for those three turnovers? Who knows. To be honest, Washington and Minnesota match up very well, and Washington played a good game while Minnesota did not. But I believe that those turnovers, which I credit more to stupid mistakes on Minnesota's part than great defensive plays on Washington's part, had more to do with the outcome of the game than Washington "outplaying" Minnesota...

Um no. Considering Minnesorta couldn't run the ball the entire game, no way. Childress was on Sirius yesterday and said that Washington outplayed them. So maybe you know something he doesn't.

NodakPaul wrote:In the end, Washington won. They secured the ball better in the first half, and played time control in the second. I don't want to take anything away from your victory. An ugly win is still a win after all. Lord knows Minnesota was on the beneficial side of an ugly win the week before against Chicago. But at least after the Chicago game, we didn't suffer from the delusion that we won solely because of our play on the field. Had Chicago not sucked it up like Minnesota did last week, the outcome could very well have been different..

What game were you watching? The Skins outplayed the Vikes on every level. They dominated them on both sides of the ball. An ugly win is one that your team has more turnovers, or worse stats but still pulls off a win. Similar to the Bears game for you. You guys should have lost that game but you somehow got a win...an ugly one. We won the turnover battle, rushing stats, passing stats, time of possession, and most importantly the game. By no means was this an ugly win. This was a sound beating of your team on your home field.

NodakPaul wrote:I just don't think any Washington fan should come out of this win thinking they are bound for the NFC championship. The fact is that you beat a team that was playing poorly. Kind of like beating up on a kid with a broken leg and then celebrating it afterwards. Had you beat the Vikings on a normal day, then you could brag...

No one does, and no one's bragging, although we were at least "in" every game with every NFC team in the playoffs this year. Something that Minnesorta was not.

Playing poorly? Wasn't Minnesorta on a five game win streak, albeit against 5 pretty poor teams?

NodakPaul wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:My point about that call was in reference to your lame "we beat ourselves" with turnovers excuse. I was pointing out that I had not brought up the poor officiating previously, because it was not relevant to the overall dominance the Redskins displayed. We beat you in the trenches on both sides of the ball. Also you conveniently overlook my point about our long-yardage, sustained, clock-eating drives and 3rd down conversion ratio. We also stymied your #1 rated rushing attack (your RBs gained less than your QB did on scrambles), and gained well over 100 yards rushing against your #1 rated rushing defense. Delude yourself all you want about how the Vikings just had a bad day, but the fact is we came into your house, and marched up and down the field at will and dominated the game with an injury depleted team, a QB starting his second game in 10 years, and a defense whose heart and soul was murdered less than four weeks earlier. All of this in a game that, if the Vikings win, clinches them the final playoff spot in the NFC.

Hubris
derived from the Greek word hybris, means “excessive pride or arrogance.” In Greek tragedy, hubris is often viewed as the flaw that leads to the downfall ...

If you really think that Washington simply came to the dome and marched up and down the field at will, then there really is no point in debating with the deluded. We'll see how well that carries over in Dallas.

So my hubris is going to lead to the downfall of the Redskins team? A=B ergo C>D? You shouldn't have dropped that Freshman logic class. I say you are deluding yourself, and then you use the same word back. Pick up a thesaurus if you're that desperate. Again you ignore the long-drive, 3rd down ratio point from my previous posts, and all you can come back with is "nuh uh, you're deluded. I can't even debate with you anymore. "

NodakPaul wrote:Yes, you stopped out #1 rushing defense. I wonder if that had anything to do with the fact that we found ourselves down by 20+ points in the first half... largely due to turnovers. Nah, the fact that we passed 49 times compared to 17 rushed probably has nothing to do with it...

Stopped your defense?
Magically down by 20+ points? (The scorekeeper must have put those up there while no one was looking. )
Due to turnovers? (It's not like you just dropped the ball and we happened to pick it up. Those turnovers were forced!)
Passed 49, rushed 17? (Not that stuffing your run had anything to do with that either, I suppose?)

NodakPaul wrote:Nobody is trying to take the win away from the skins. They played a better game than Minnesota did, and they deserved to come back with the victory. I just don't think any Washington fan should come out of this win thinking they are bound for the NFC championship. The fact is that you beat a team that was playing poorly. Kind of like beating up on a kid with a broken leg and then celebrating it afterwards. Had you beat the Vikings on a normal day, then you could brag...

You were the hottest team in the NFC coming into the game. Winners of 5 straight. Now you say you were not playing well?
Dude, it was your house, you had control of your own destiny, win and you clinch, a national TV audience. What more of a set-up do you need?

NodakPaul wrote:Again, in the end the Skins won. And bad games are part of football. Good teams find ways to win despite bad games, and Minnesota simply didn't do that...

I'm glad you can admit the Vikings are not a good team.

JSPB22 wrote:So my hubris is going to lead to the downfall of the Redskins team? A=B ergo C>D? You shouldn't have dropped that Freshman logic class. I say you are deluding yourself, and then you use the same word back. Pick up a thesaurus if you're that desperate. Again you ignore the long-drive, 3rd down ratio point from my previous posts, and all you can come back with is "nuh uh, you're deluded. I can't even debate with you anymore. "

That was hardly my argument, but it doesn't surprise me that you took it that way. And I didn't realize that you had a monopoly on the word deluded. I just use the words that are applicable.

JSPB22 wrote:Stopped your defense?
Magically down by 20+ points? (The scorekeeper must have put those up there while no one was looking. )
Due to turnovers? (It's not like you just dropped the ball and we happened to pick it up. Those turnovers were forced!)
Passed 49, rushed 17? (Not that stuffing your run had anything to do with that either, I suppose?)

Ahhh. I meant to say #1 rushing offense. My bad. The pass versus run ratio is up for interpretation. I maintain that we passed much, much more than usual because we found ourselves behind quickly thanks to turnovers. You say we passed more because you "stuffed the run". Hate to break the news to you, but we averaged approximately 3.5 yards per carry. That is hardly stuffing the run. Childress abandoned the running game (which was stupid IMHO) to try and put points on the board quickly.

As far as the forced turnovers... Did you see the ducks that TJack put up. Horrible decisions on his part. Hardly forced. Again, this is where the whole "we beat ourselves" argument comes into play. I don't know what TJack's problem was in the first half - caved under pressure, head up ass, etc - but he dug us into a hole that was hard to get out of.

JSPB22 wrote:You were the hottest team in the NFC coming into the game. Winners of 5 straight. Now you say you were not playing well? Dude, it was your house, you had control of your own destiny, win and you clinch, a national TV audience. What more of a set-up do you need?

I was referring to the game against Washington - not the 5 game winning streak. If you thought that the Vikings played well that game, then you are more forgiving of poor performances than I am.

JSPB22 wrote:I'm glad you can admit the Vikings are not a good team.

I can certainly admit that they Vikings did not play like a good team last Sunday. In fact, I think that was the crux of my argument. The Vikings played like *sh$t* in the first half of the game. Washington did not, and they got the win.

Washington did not play like a great team. They played like the mediocre team that they are. And on Sunday, mediocre was enough to win. The skins played at their best and Minnesota played at their worst. I guess every hog has its day - don't expect the same thing if and when we meet again (2008 post season?).

NodakPaul wrote:Ahhh. I meant to say #1 rushing offense. My bad. The pass versus run ratio is up for interpretation. I maintain that we passed much, much more than usual because we found ourselves behind quickly thanks to turnovers. You say we passed more because you "stuffed the run". Hate to break the news to you, but we averaged approximately 3.5 yards per carry. That is hardly stuffing the run. Childress abandoned the running game (which was stupid IMHO) to try and put points on the board quickly.

First half stats for Minnesorta...Rushing 11 for 20 for 1.8 yds/rush and that's including 2 QB scrambles for 9 yards

That my friend is stuffing the run. Keep that up all game and you wouldn't have scored any.

Second half 14 for 57 and that includes 33 yards of QB scrambles. Minnesorta's rushing attack was dominated by our defense...even in the second half when we switched to a cover 2 (a defense that you should be able to rush against). But you guys were in catch up mode at that point and couldn't run against us. You had to make a switch.

NodakPaul wrote: I can certainly admit that they Vikings did not play like a good team last Sunday. In fact, I think that was the crux of my argument. The Vikings played like *sh$t* in the first half of the game. Washington did not, and they got the win.

Washington did not play like a great team. They played like the mediocre team that they are. And on Sunday, mediocre was enough to win. The skins played at their best and Minnesota played at their worst. I guess every hog has its day - don't expect the same thing if and when we meet again (2008 post season?).

I agree, Minnesorta isn't a good team. Unlike the Skins, they certainly haven't been able to keep close with any playoff teams this year, so hopefully, for your sake, they'll make some progress in the offseason. As always in Minnesorta, there's always next year.

Hail

chiefhog44 wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:Ahhh. I meant to say #1 rushing offense. My bad. The pass versus run ratio is up for interpretation. I maintain that we passed much, much more than usual because we found ourselves behind quickly thanks to turnovers. You say we passed more because you "stuffed the run". Hate to break the news to you, but we averaged approximately 3.5 yards per carry. That is hardly stuffing the run. Childress abandoned the running game (which was stupid IMHO) to try and put points on the board quickly.

First half stats for Minnesorta...Rushing 11 for 20 for 1.8 yds/rush and that's including 2 QB scrambles for 9 yards

That my friend is stuffing the run. Keep that up all game and you wouldn't have scored any.

Second half 14 for 57 and that includes 33 yards of QB scrambles. Minnesorta's rushing attack was dominated by our defense...even in the second half when we switched to a cover 2 (a defense that you should be able to rush against). But you guys were in catch up mode at that point and couldn't run against us. You had to make a switch.

NodakPaul wrote: I can certainly admit that they Vikings did not play like a good team last Sunday. In fact, I think that was the crux of my argument. The Vikings played like *sh$t* in the first half of the game. Washington did not, and they got the win.

Washington did not play like a great team. They played like the mediocre team that they are. And on Sunday, mediocre was enough to win. The skins played at their best and Minnesota played at their worst. I guess every hog has its day - don't expect the same thing if and when we meet again (2008 post season?).

I agree, Minnesorta isn't a good team. Unlike the Skins, they certainly haven't been able to keep close with any playoff teams this year, so hopefully, for your sake, they'll make some progress in the offseason. As always in Minnesorta, there's always next year.

Hail

And not to mention they have a good basis in Adrian Peterson and a good D-line to build around. They are they way- might be my sleeper next year if they add some secondary help and maybe beat out the bears for the McNabb sweepstakes.

Great...mediocre...

Plays with class when under pressure, or collapses. Go back and see what George Allen would have said.

George: The NFL has changed??? You mean the goal isn't to win anymore??

Sure enough. If I had to build a winning team, I'd want someone just like Larry Brown. Not another OJ Simpson...and stats can fly to the moon for all they matter. I'd want a DT's like Bill Brundige, Diron Talbert...not the Minnesota crew. Brundige and Talbert and Brown? Look 'em up.

Diron Talbert. Famous killer of Cowboys. Mississippi fella...

Seriously... he DID NOT like the Cowboys... no, I mean REALLY DID NOT LIKE THEM...

THE rivalry

“Coach Allen would liked to have played the Cowboys every week,” said Talbert, from his home just outside Houston. “And that would’ve been fine with me because it was just that kind of rivalry. You played people you didn’t like.”

Love it!

NodakPaul wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:My point about that call was in reference to your lame "we beat ourselves" with turnovers excuse. I was pointing out that I had not brought up the poor officiating previously, because it was not relevant to the overall dominance the Redskins displayed. We beat you in the trenches on both sides of the ball. Also you conveniently overlook my point about our long-yardage, sustained, clock-eating drives and 3rd down conversion ratio. We also stymied your #1 rated rushing attack (your RBs gained less than your QB did on scrambles), and gained well over 100 yards rushing against your #1 rated rushing defense. Delude yourself all you want about how the Vikings just had a bad day, but the fact is we came into your house, and marched up and down the field at will and dominated the game with an injury depleted team, a QB starting his second game in 10 years, and a defense whose heart and soul was murdered less than four weeks earlier. All of this in a game that, if the Vikings win, clinches them the final playoff spot in the NFC.

Hubris
derived from the Greek word hybris, means “excessive pride or arrogance.” In Greek tragedy, hubris is often viewed as the flaw that leads to the downfall ...

If you really think that Washington simply came to the dome and marched up and down the field at will, then there really is no point in debating with the deluded. We'll see how well that carries over in Dallas.

Yes, you stopped out #1 rushing defense. I wonder if that had anything to do with the fact that we found ourselves down by 20+ points in the first half... largely due to turnovers. Nah, the fact that we passed 49 times compared to 17 rushed probably has nothing to do with it...

Nobody is trying to take the win away from the skins. They played a better game than Minnesota did, and they deserved to come back with the victory. I just don't think any Washington fan should come out of this win thinking they are bound for the NFC championship. The fact is that you beat a team that was playing poorly. Kind of like beating up on a kid with a broken leg and then celebrating it afterwards. Had you beat the Vikings on a normal day, then you could brag...

Again, in the end the Skins won. And bad games are part of football. Good teams find ways to win despite bad games, and Minnesota simply didn't do that...

Hey, Gopher Dude. We had internal bleeding and beat you anyway. We were missing our starting quarterback, two receivers, and the right hand side of the O-line, as well as a top linebacker who was on his way to a stellar reason, a starting CB, and maybe the most talented safety ever to play the game.

Face it, we beat your team in spite of losing six starters and having, in addition, to play with a banged up CB, linebacker, defensive tackle, and RB. It's also well to note that you didn't start to move to ball at all until our lack or reserves caused our D to wear down and lapse into near paralysis .

Internal bleeding...and we won. We have every reason to brag.

NodakPaul wrote:We'll see how well that carries over in Dallas.

Pretty well, thank you. We marched through Dallas at will, like we did with Minnesota, not that it mattered, NO and Minn. lost, so we were in no matter what. I do like the thought that we kicked the Pies' butt, to leave that losing feeling in their mouths for when we meet again in two weeks.