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

...because we don't know who we are yet, and we beat the Cowboys on a "couple of big plays".
Excuse me. I didn't know that it had to be a bunch of little plays to really count as a win. I also wasn't aware that we spent the last two weeks searching for an identity. I thought we were pretty clear on who we are: A great defensive ballclub with a newfound great downfield potential.
Huh. You'd'a thunk we'd've spent that time gameplanning specifically for the Seahawks.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3690072/?pg=9#anc_spt_novacek05

I smell a little bitterness in the pick explanation. After all, Jay did go homer and pick the Cowboys to win in their "Ring Of Honor" game.
Can't wait until we hand it to Ray Rhodes, who turned down our HC position (thereby giving Robiskie his first shot at it) because he was a Turner loyalist.

Let the man write whatever he feels. But using the excuse of a couple big plays cant be used all season.

Can we please stop acting like we've been slapped in the face every time someone picks against us? We've won two games by a total of three points. The line on the game is 2 points, for crying out loud. 2-0 is super, but 1991 this ain't.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:Can we please stop acting like we've been slapped in the face every time someone picks against us? We've won two games by a total of three points. The line on the game is 2 points, for crying out loud. 2-0 is super, but 1991 this ain't.

i agree BEARS=SUCK .....and COWBOYS=GOT LUCKY !!! i'll take it but until we can put some points on the scoreboard every week we can't exspect people to say we are for real.

redskinz4ever wrote: BEARS=SUCK .....and COWBOYS=GOT LUCKY !!!

I think you underestimate both teams. In doing so, you are underestimating our victories.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

redskinz4ever wrote: BEARS=SUCK .....and COWBOYS=GOT LUCKY !!!

I think you underestimate both teams. In doing so, you are underestimating our victories.

underestimating the bears ...how ??? and the cowboys blew the game plain and simple to get burned on the same play is either dumb on their part or lucky on our part.
a VICTORY is a VICTORY and i'll take em as i can get em !!!! go redskins !!!

Redskin in Canada wrote:

redskinz4ever wrote: BEARS=SUCK .....and COWBOYS=GOT LUCKY !!!

I think you underestimate both teams. In doing so, you are underestimating our victories.

Those are two legit wins and we will prove our strength on sunday.....with a win.....1, 2, 3 30 points a win is a win

"a win is a win" - I'm hoping (& expecting) we'll be 3-0 on Monday!

BUT it will be a lot more interesting at THN next week if we win 2-0 or 3-0 on a field goal caused by our D!





Just win, baby!

gay4pacman wrote:1, 2, 3 30 points a win is a win

Of course a win is a win. But as far as everybody having confidence in us, a 30-point victory goes much, much farther than a 2-point one.

If the Redskins had won the first two games by 30, I know all of us would have much more confidence in our team's ability to win ballgames.

It's not even about how "bad" the Bears and Cowboys are. The point is, both of those could have gone the other way. And since Seattle is just as talented as Chicago and Dallas, pickinng the Seahawks shouldn't be considered so outrageous.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:Can we please stop acting like we've been slapped in the face every time someone picks against us? We've won two games by a total of three points. The line on the game is 2 points, for crying out loud. 2-0 is super, but 1991 this ain't.

yeah we are a far cry from the 1991 start thats for sure but what do you expect from a former cowboy.a 3-0 start would be real nice.2pts i,m suprised it,s not even or the seahawks being favorites.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:But as far as everybody having confidence in us, a 30-point victory goes much, much farther than a 2-point one.

Funny how you wrote this, given your nae and all. I have two words in response to your claim about a 30-point win:

REMEMBER OSAKA?

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Steve Spurrier III wrote:But as far as everybody having confidence in us, a 30-point victory goes much, much farther than a 2-point one.

Funny how you wrote this, given your nae and all. I have two words in response to your claim about a 30-point win:

REMEMBER OSAKA?

Do I remember Steve Spurrier running up the score in a 2003 preseason game? Yes. So what?

I also remember Steve Spurrier starting 2003 2-0. So forgive me when I don't get upset when the media doesn't give our 2-0 Redskins "enough respect".

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Steve Spurrier III wrote:But as far as everybody having confidence in us, a 30-point victory goes much, much farther than a 2-point one.

Funny how you wrote this, given your nae and all. I have two words in response to your claim about a 30-point win:

REMEMBER OSAKA?

Do I remember Steve Spurrier running up the score in a 2003 preseason game? Yes. So what?

I also remember Steve Spurrier starting 2003 2-0. So forgive me when I don't get upset when the media doesn't give our 2-0 Redskins "enough respect".

The point is, 30 point wins, might give confidence, but they mean diddly squat. Indy won by 30 last year, but this year aren't scoring more than 10 a game, or so. THey're 3-0, yet the media gives them all the confidence in the world. We're underfeated, as well, and could win the next 14, as long sa our defense holds and our o does enought to win, not try to blow people out.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Indy won by 30 last year, but this year aren't scoring more than 10 a game, or so. THey're 3-0, yet the media gives them all the confidence in the world. We're underfeated, as well, and could win the next 14, as long sa our defense holds and our o does enought to win, not try to blow people out.

Jay Novacek also picked the Colts to lose, so where does that leave us? Besides, the Colts have proved in the past that they can score points, and now are proving that they can play defense. The Redskins, on the other hand, have proved in the past that they can play defense, but still haven't proven that they can consistently score points. 30 point victories don't count for anything in the standings, but they are evidence that a team is capable of playing outstanding offense.

Of course we could win the next 14 riding an outstanding defense and a just-good-enough offense. But if our defense merely plays well, or the offense is just-not-quite-good-enough, we could be in trouble.

It's all about margin of error. These last few games, it's been zero. Two breaks that go the either way, we could be sitting at 0-2. Had we won those games by 30, Redskin fans and mediots alike would be much more confident in the Redskins ability to win football games, as they should.

Don't get me wrong, 2-0 is 2-0, but as far as predicting success in the future, it's not that simple.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:Can we please stop acting like we've been slapped in the face every time someone picks against us?

Can we please stop rushing to judgement every time we read a post ?
Jay sounds like he's trying to say to big plays against his beloved Dallas were a complete fluke, not a breakdown.
It is a slap. It's bulletin board material. Dig it or don't.
I don't care. Just don't knock it.

Jay Novacek wrote:The Redskins had a week off to figure out what kind of team they are, and it’s still not clear. Their defense has played well, but the offense has so many question marks. They beat the Cowboys because of some big plays.

Maybe you interpret this as a slap in the face, but it all looks reasonable to me. Like it or not, we DID beat the Cowboys because of some big plays. Jay Novacek is right to wonder whether or not that was just an abberration, or a sign that the offense is coming around.

Oh yeah, and Novacek also picked his beloved Cowboys to lose to the 0-3 Raiders.

I'll take the Skins (-2) in DC. Less than the customary 3 point advantage by the odds makers? With a full week to rest, work on the O and more tape on the Seahawks...
I think the Skins D will take it to the Seahawks and shut down Alexander. Portis should have a big day.

Skins (-2)? I'll take the Skins. Coach Williams will solve Alexander and I expect our D to score 6 points and set up 10 more. I doubt the Hawks can score 10 points on our D.
I'll take the Skins, at home, in front of our rabit fans...

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Indy won by 30 last year, but this year aren't scoring more than 10 a game, or so. THey're 3-0, yet the media gives them all the confidence in the world. We're underfeated, as well, and could win the next 14, as long sa our defense holds and our o does enought to win, not try to blow people out.

Jay Novacek also picked the Colts to lose, so where does that leave us? Besides, the Colts have proved in the past that they can score points, and now are proving that they can play defense. The Redskins, on the other hand, have proved in the past that they can play defense, but still haven't proven that they can consistently score points. 30 point victories don't count for anything in the standings, but they are evidence that a team is capable of playing outstanding offense.

Of course we could win the next 14 riding an outstanding defense and a just-good-enough offense. But if our defense merely plays well, or the offense is just-not-quite-good-enough, we could be in trouble.

It's all about margin of error. These last few games, it's been zero. Two breaks that go the either way, we could be sitting at 0-2. Had we won those games by 30, Redskin fans and mediots alike would be much more confident in the Redskins ability to win football games, as they should.

Don't get me wrong, 2-0 is 2-0, but as far as predicting success in the future, it's not that simple.

very well said all the way through, SSIII.