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

PulpExposure wrote:

grampi wrote:

Paralis wrote:Should save a lot of time, not having to watch the games and all...

Oh I'll be watching the games. I wouldn't be a Skins fan if I didn't.

Why be optimistic when you can wallow in misery?

I can't be 100% certain that being optimistic is a positive attribute.

I hope they do well each and every week.

I just don't expect them to.

PulpExposure wrote:

grampi wrote:

Paralis wrote:Should save a lot of time, not having to watch the games and all...

Oh I'll be watching the games. I wouldn't be a Skins fan if I didn't.

Why be optimistic when you can wallow in misery?

Who said anything about being optimistic? I said I'm a Skins fan and I watch the games. The Skins have shown me nothing to be optimistic about.

Being a Skins fan = more than watching the games and being passionate about the team. There are Cowboys fans who watch our games and feel very passionately about our team. There's another element to being a Redskins fan that a Cowboys fan couldn't possibly share.

Not saying that you aren't a fan; I think you are. But the way you are representing it is a rather barren picture. If that (and only that) were what it meant to be a fan, I wouldn't want to be one. Too much heartache and misery.

grampi wrote:I wasn't comparing this year's week 1 performance to only last year's week 1 performance, I was comparing it to last year's team overall, which wasn't good, and it looks exactly the same to me.

Um...you said you were comparing teams, not just the one game, which is what I did? No? Yet when I compared the team you only boiled it down to the one game and ignored we scored 10 more points.

grampi wrote:All these improvements and yet the team managed to only score a measly 17 points. Somehow all of your claimed improvements aren't adding up.

When you figure out what you're arguing, let me know.

Fios wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Always goes back to the OLine.. but if we were talking strictly QBs, give me Cutler over JC.. just me.. i'm just sayin

Give me JC and two first round draft picks over Cutler, I'm just saying...

Yes, and then you'd draft a corner who can't catch (Rodgers) and a QB who can't throw (Campbell) with those two picks and still be up the creek without a paddle.

That doesn't make any sense

I thought it was very clear. The two first rounders we used for Carlos Rogers and Jason Campbell haven't exactly turned out to be world class picks. So, I'd rather have Cutler than those two picks.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:Yes, and then you'd draft a corner who can't catch (Rodgers) and a QB who can't throw (Campbell) with those two picks and still be up the creek without a paddle.

Wow, so basically we're stupid and there's no point in doing anything because it won't work out anyway. Thanks Ray. It's nice hearing from a "fan."

Why must you ALWAYS be an ......

No, I'm saying that if you aren't an ace on draft day (And I dare you to say Vinny is a draft genius), trading picks for proven players isn't such a setback (Didn't think my statement was so confusing.) Clearly, trading picks for a legit QB isn't "doing nothing" it's doing something different.

In 2005, we had two first round picks ... we traded another pick (2nd ?) to move up to pick Campbell, and we used the other 1st on Rogers.
Did we get two 1sts and a 2nd value out of those picks? ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's the point. We'd have been better off trading those two picks for Cutler then, just as I would trade Rogers and Campbell now for Cutler.

MDSKINSFAN wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

butterd97 wrote:We screwed up royaly by not getting Cutler.

No, we didn't. The cost was way too high for what we would have gotten.

Yes, Cutler was not worth it. If we think that JC had a disappointing opener just imagine what Bears fans are saying right now about "the best qb they have ever had." I would rather have JC now than have Cutler and no future 1st round draft pick. Cutler is overrated

Hahaha . This is the epitome of the Campbell double standard. Cutler and Campbell have roughly identical experience levels. Because Cutler didn't look like prime Peyton Manning in his first game in a "New System", with "New Receivers" just shows he isn't all that.

But when talking about Jason ... everybody knows it takes time (2-3 years) to get comfortable with a new system, and to develop chemistry with receivers.

Amazing. Do you not see contradiction? You must.

RayNAustin wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:Yes, and then you'd draft a corner who can't catch (Rodgers) and a QB who can't throw (Campbell) with those two picks and still be up the creek without a paddle.

Wow, so basically we're stupid and there's no point in doing anything because it won't work out anyway. Thanks Ray. It's nice hearing from a "fan."

Why must you ALWAYS be an ......

No, I'm saying that if you aren't an ace on draft day (And I dare you to say Vinny is a draft genius), trading picks for proven players isn't such a setback (Didn't think my statement was so confusing.) Clearly, trading picks for a legit QB isn't "doing nothing" it's doing something different.

In 2005, we had two first round picks ... we traded another pick (2nd ?) to move up to pick Campbell, and we used the other 1st on Rogers.
Did we get two 1sts and a 2nd value out of those picks? ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's the point. We'd have been better off trading those two picks for Cutler then, just as I would trade Rogers and Campbell now for Cutler.

I like how you whine that somehow I misrepresented your point, then you repeat the point THREE TIMES you "didn't say"!

I dare say, Deadskins, you have hootiest competition now...

Irn-Bru wrote:Being a Skins fan = more than watching the games and being passionate about the team. There are Cowboys fans who watch our games and feel very passionately about our team. There's another element to being a Redskins fan that a Cowboys fan couldn't possibly share.

Not saying that you aren't a fan; I think you are. But the way you are representing it is a rather barren picture. If that (and only that) were what it meant to be a fan, I wouldn't want to be one. Too much heartache and misery.

Again, I call it as I see it, and what I saw in game 1 doesn't look promising.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

grampi wrote:I wasn't comparing this year's week 1 performance to only last year's week 1 performance, I was comparing it to last year's team overall, which wasn't good, and it looks exactly the same to me.

Um...you said you were comparing teams, not just the one game, which is what I did? No? Yet when I compared the team you only boiled it down to the one game and ignored we scored 10 more points.

grampi wrote:All these improvements and yet the team managed to only score a measly 17 points. Somehow all of your claimed improvements aren't adding up.

When you figure out what you're arguing, let me know.

I know exactly what I'm arguing and I stand by what I said earlier. This team is no better than it was last year, they will end up last in their division, and their record will be 6-10. I'm not being pessimistic, just realistic.

I cannot believe that by adding the players on defense and offense and given that Zorn and Campbell will benefit from the mistakes made last year, that anyone can honestly say the team is not a better team than last year - I am not saying that they will win more games but I certainly think that this team will prove that they are a better team to all of us over the course of 16 weeks.

I know that some will point to last weeks game as evidence that we are not a good team but there were some good things last week too - take away 2 bad plays, 1 by the offense and 1 by the defense and we most likely would still have lost the game BUT we were in the game. Holding them to 3 points after those first 2 times down there was very encouraging - last year's Redskins defense could not have done that - very few defenses in the NFL this year could hold those guys out of there at home and twice

We are fortunate to have a couple of games here against teams that we should be able to demonstrate that we have made some progress

I repeat, I cannot believe that anyone really thinks this team is not better than last year's team - especially after what we saw in the last 8 games - they have only played 1 game, for crying out loud, and that was against 2 of the better lines (offensively and defensively) in the NFL this year

go find a site where fans don't appreciate what is really happening on the field

THANK YOU

so much scrutiny after one lost to a very good team.

This team is better than last years. Guarantee it. Be patient, we should be 3-1 after week 4.

RayNAustin wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:Yes, and then you'd draft a corner who can't catch (Rodgers) and a QB who can't throw (Campbell) with those two picks and still be up the creek without a paddle.

Wow, so basically we're stupid and there's no point in doing anything because it won't work out anyway. Thanks Ray. It's nice hearing from a "fan."

Why must you ALWAYS be an ......

No, I'm saying that if you aren't an ace on draft day (And I dare you to say Vinny is a draft genius), trading picks for proven players isn't such a setback (Didn't think my statement was so confusing.) Clearly, trading picks for a legit QB isn't "doing nothing" it's doing something different.

In 2005, we had two first round picks ... we traded another pick (2nd ?) to move up to pick Campbell, and we used the other 1st on Rogers.
Did we get two 1sts and a 2nd value out of those picks? ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's the point. We'd have been better off trading those two picks for Cutler then, just as I would trade Rogers and Campbell now for Cutler.

I'll give you that Campbell was a waste of picks, but Rogers was not. He was an excellent pick, even if he can't make one to save his life. But to lay those picks on Vinny is factually incorrect. Those were both Gibbs picks, although I'm sure Gregg Williams had a say in the Rogers choice.

RayNAustin wrote:In 2005, we had two first round picks ... we traded another pick (2nd ?) to move up to pick Campbell, and we used the other 1st on Rogers.
Did we get two 1sts and a 2nd value out of those picks? ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's the point. We'd have been better off trading those two picks for Cutler then, just as I would trade Rogers and Campbell now for Cutler.

That's not how it works. If I give you 10 dollars for a roll of quarters, and spend the afternoon playing pinball, that doesn't mean I spent $20 at the arcade. It was the 2005 2nd + 2006 1st, or the 25th overall in 2005. Not both.

And was it worth it? Of course he was a better pick than Ramsey or Gardner or Westbrook or Shuler or any of the Skins' other stellar 1st round busts.

Paralis wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:In 2005, we had two first round picks ... we traded another pick (2nd ?) to move up to pick Campbell, and we used the other 1st on Rogers.
Did we get two 1sts and a 2nd value out of those picks? ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's the point. We'd have been better off trading those two picks for Cutler then, just as I would trade Rogers and Campbell now for Cutler.

That's not how it works. If I give you 10 dollars for a roll of quarters, and spend the afternoon playing pinball, that doesn't mean I spent $20 at the arcade. It was the 2005 2nd + 2006 1st, or the 25th overall in 2005. Not both.

Thank You

RayNAustin wrote:

MDSKINSFAN wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

butterd97 wrote:We screwed up royaly by not getting Cutler.

No, we didn't. The cost was way too high for what we would have gotten.

Yes, Cutler was not worth it. If we think that JC had a disappointing opener just imagine what Bears fans are saying right now about "the best qb they have ever had." I would rather have JC now than have Cutler and no future 1st round draft pick. Cutler is overrated

Hahaha . This is the epitome of the Campbell double standard. Cutler and Campbell have roughly identical experience levels. Because Cutler didn't look like prime Peyton Manning in his first game in a "New System", with "New Receivers" just shows he isn't all that.

But when talking about Jason ... everybody knows it takes time (2-3 years) to get comfortable with a new system, and to develop chemistry with receivers.

Amazing. Do you not see contradiction? You must.

Name one game in which Campbell has thrown 4 INT.

Paralis wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:In 2005, we had two first round picks ... we traded another pick (2nd ?) to move up to pick Campbell, and we used the other 1st on Rogers.
Did we get two 1sts and a 2nd value out of those picks? ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's the point. We'd have been better off trading those two picks for Cutler then, just as I would trade Rogers and Campbell now for Cutler.

That's not how it works. If I give you 10 dollars for a roll of quarters, and spend the afternoon playing pinball, that doesn't mean I spent $20 at the arcade. It was the 2005 2nd + 2006 1st, or the 25th overall in 2005. Not both.

To be fair, Ray included the Rogers pick as one of the first rounders. That said, I don't agree with his assessment of that pick, and I certainly wouldn't trade both CR and JC for Cutler.

grampi wrote:I know exactly what I'm arguing and I stand by what I said earlier. This team is no better than it was last year, they will end up last in their division, and their record will be 6-10. I'm not being pessimistic, just realistic.

My point here if you read it wasn't your "pessimism." It was you said you weren't just talking about the Giants game, you were talking about the team. Yet when I compared the team to last year you just blew it off based on the score of the Giants game alone. That's the part I said you weren't even clear what you were arguing, when I accepted your rules and argued the team, you changed the criteria not only to the Giants game but specifically to how many points we scored alone. Which didn't even make sense since we scored ten more points.

And yes, you are just being pessimistic, but again that wasn't my point here.

One down ten to go! Nice ugly win for the team.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

grampi wrote:I know exactly what I'm arguing and I stand by what I said earlier. This team is no better than it was last year, they will end up last in their division, and their record will be 6-10. I'm not being pessimistic, just realistic.

My point here if you read it wasn't your "pessimism." It was you said you weren't just talking about the Giants game, you were talking about the team. Yet when I compared the team to last year you just blew it off based on the score of the Giants game alone. That's the part I said you weren't even clear what you were arguing, when I accepted your rules and argued the team, you changed the criteria not only to the Giants game but specifically to how many points we scored alone. Which didn't even make sense since we scored ten more points.

And yes, you are just being pessimistic, but again that wasn't my point here.

Redskins are better. They were 0-2 against the Giants and Rams at this point last year.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

grampi wrote:I know exactly what I'm arguing and I stand by what I said earlier. This team is no better than it was last year, they will end up last in their division, and their record will be 6-10. I'm not being pessimistic, just realistic.

My point here if you read it wasn't your "pessimism." It was you said you weren't just talking about the Giants game, you were talking about the team. Yet when I compared the team to last year you just blew it off based on the score of the Giants game alone. That's the part I said you weren't even clear what you were arguing, when I accepted your rules and argued the team, you changed the criteria not only to the Giants game but specifically to how many points we scored alone. Which didn't even make sense since we scored ten more points.

And yes, you are just being pessimistic, but again that wasn't my point here.

Do you even know what YOU'RE arguing? I sure as he11 can't follow what you're saying. And if you happened to watch today's game you'd know I'm not being pessimistic, but realistic.

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

grampi wrote:I know exactly what I'm arguing and I stand by what I said earlier. This team is no better than it was last year, they will end up last in their division, and their record will be 6-10. I'm not being pessimistic, just realistic.

My point here if you read it wasn't your "pessimism." It was you said you weren't just talking about the Giants game, you were talking about the team. Yet when I compared the team to last year you just blew it off based on the score of the Giants game alone. That's the part I said you weren't even clear what you were arguing, when I accepted your rules and argued the team, you changed the criteria not only to the Giants game but specifically to how many points we scored alone. Which didn't even make sense since we scored ten more points.

And yes, you are just being pessimistic, but again that wasn't my point here.

Redskins are better. They were 0-2 against the Giants and Rams at this point last year.

No we weren't. It wasn't until week six that we were 0-2 to those two teams.

No way...no how!!!!

No way...no how!!!!

Maybe if we get out if this division, or change out the whole team, our recievers can't get open, our RB can't find holes, our O line can't protect. but our QB is a STUD =)