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

Posted: **Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:08 pm**

After tonight we will see WHO is the team in NFC East. This may sound biased... but check it out...

1. NYG lost to a good team (IND) then came back on PHI (cause of a dumb play) and got slapped, smacked and slapped again by SEA. They are go good period.

2. DAL is no good with their wins coming from HOU and WAS (when we were bad).

and PHI won against HOU, SF, and lost to NYG... if they lose tonight then

WAS is THE TEAM in the NFC East....

1. 30+ points in 2 STRAIGHT games

well CHI told everyone who was the TEAM in the NFC last night!

Tell me what you think

Posted: **Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:10 pm**

I picked the Iggles to win but I hope they lose.
We will beat the giants next week and not lose another game in the division.

Posted: **Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:20 pm**

We are the best team in this division right now although that is mostly because the other teams are really not showing that they have much to offer.

We lost to the pukes but not because they played better but because we made a lot of bad plays and we are now much better than 2 weeks ago - we will beat the pukes in DC

The ny giants won against the iggles but only because the iggles played so badly in the 4th qtr. We will beat the giants this w/e. The giants are going to self destruct shortly and are not going to be a factor this season.

The iggles are not a very good football team as we are seeing on national TV tonight - they are winning right now but this is more because the packers are really hopeless and Favre is absolutely not an NFL quality QB anymore.

We will win the NFC East. I first thought this because the other teams have so many things against them with a bad 1st 6 games = giants; bad last 6 games = iggles and the pukes have no offensive line and a has-been QB - I now think that we will win the NFC East because we are a better team, and, we have Gibbs.

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:51 am**

A week ago, you guys were utterly pathetic.

Now, you're the best team in the division?

Oh, homerism :lol:

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:00 am**

Primetime42 wrote:A week ago, you guys were utterly pathetic.

Now, you're the best team in the division?

Not that the two are mutually exclusive.

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:18 am**

We will not see who the best team in the division is after 10/2. We will have a great idea which team is the best after next Sunday, 10/8, when all teams play each other.

We lost to the Pukes because of injuries. We didn't field "our" team. Good for them, they took advantage of it. Hopefully, they won't be so lucky on 11/5.

The Giants and Eagles are beatable; however, the only team in the NFC East that really has me worried is the Eagles.

McNabb is solid, as always.
Westbrook is a beast, 'nuff said.
Their defense is still strong.

Don't look now, but the Eagles are once again the team to beat in the East.

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:31 am**

Justice Hog wrote:We will not see who the best team in the division is after 10/2. We will have a great idea which team is the best after next Sunday, 10/8, when all teams play each other.

We lost to the Pukes because of injuries. We didn't field "our" team. Good for them, they took advantage of it. Hopefully, they won't be so lucky on 11/5.

The Giants and Eagles are beatable; however, the only team in the NFC East that really has me worried is the Eagles.

McNabb is solid, as always.
Westbrook is a beast, 'nuff said.
Their defense is still strong.

Don't look now, but the Eagles are once again the team to beat in the East.

While the Eagles have looked good, they've beaten Houston, San Fran, and Green Bay - three teams who were below .500 last year and likely will be this year as well. They should've beaten the Giants, but didn't play all 60 minutes. We'll see how they look this Sunday against Dallas - that will be a true test.

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:07 pm**

Justice Hog wrote:We lost to the Pukes because of injuries. We didn't field "our" team. Good for them, they took advantage of it. Hopefully, they won't be so lucky on 11/5.

With all due respect, Justice, that was easily the worst game the Cowboys have played all year (Although it's only 3, but who's counting?)

Penalties, busted assignments, and dropped passes galore.

If they play like that Sunday or the next meeting with you guys, I'm going to be sorely disappointed.

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:17 pm**

Primetime42 wrote:
Justice Hog wrote:We lost to the Pukes because of injuries. We didn't field "our" team. Good for them, they took advantage of it. Hopefully, they won't be so lucky on 11/5.
With all due respect, Justice, that was easily the worst game the Cowboys have played all year (Although it's only 3, but who's counting?)

Penalties, busted assignments, and dropped passes galore.

If they play like that Sunday or the next meeting with you guys, I'm going to be sorely disappointed.

So the blown lead, 3 INTs, 45.8 QB rating, essentially non-existent rushing attack and awful special teams against Jacksonville was an example of the Cowboys playing better? That's a stretch amigo

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:46 pm**

Justice Hog wrote:We will not see who the best team in the division is after 10/2. We will have a great idea which team is the best after next Sunday, 10/8, when all teams play each other.

We lost to the Pukes because of injuries. We didn't field "our" team. Good for them, they took advantage of it. Hopefully, they won't be so lucky on 11/5.

The Giants and Eagles are beatable; however, the only team in the NFC East that really has me worried is the Eagles.

McNabb is solid, as always.
Westbrook is a beast, 'nuff said.
Their defense is still strong.

Being exiled here in Philly I can say without a doubt that the Eagles are better than last year but are no real threat if the Skins can play like we are capable. If you watched the game versus the no account Packers you'll see that McNabb had to win that game all on his own - there was no run game, not passing game, no standouts on special teams. Plus, when things get tough the Eagles always come up small.

The team that has me worried is the Cowboys - only because evil never actually dies...

Don't look now, but the Eagles are once again the team to beat in the East.

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:48 pm**

cleg wrote:If you watched the game versus the no account Packers you'll see that McNabb had to win that game all on his own - there was no run game, not passing game, no standouts on special teams. Plus, when things get tough the Eagles always come up small.

With Westbrook out, the Eagles are a mono-dimensional cartoon of a team.

With Westbrook playing, however, they are a playoff contender.

My 2 cents

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:47 pm**

Justice Hog wrote:
cleg wrote:If you watched the game versus the no account Packers you'll see that McNabb had to win that game all on his own - there was no run game, not passing game, no standouts on special teams. Plus, when things get tough the Eagles always come up small.

With Westbrook out, the Eagles are a mono-dimensional cartoon of a team.

With Westbrook playing, however, they are a playoff contender.

A playoff contender - yes. A serious threat - I doubt it. The Iggles also have the easiest first 8 games of any division teams and realistically they should be 7-1. But, the second half of their season is brutal and once any sort of turmoil starts they collapse on themselves. BTY - Westbrook will be hurt all year he has chronic injury problems.

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:58 pm**

Fios wrote:
Primetime42 wrote:
Justice Hog wrote:We lost to the Pukes because of injuries. We didn't field "our" team. Good for them, they took advantage of it. Hopefully, they won't be so lucky on 11/5.
With all due respect, Justice, that was easily the worst game the Cowboys have played all year (Although it's only 3, but who's counting?)

Penalties, busted assignments, and dropped passes galore.

If they play like that Sunday or the next meeting with you guys, I'm going to be sorely disappointed.
So the blown lead, 3 INTs, 45.8 QB rating, essentially non-existent rushing attack and awful special teams against Jacksonville was an example of the Cowboys playing better? That's a stretch amigo

Calling the Redskins the best team in the division is a farther stretch.

Blown lead, 3 INTs and 45.8 rating all tie into each other, or to be more specific, one player.

The team played well enough to win, but lost.

In contrast, that they didn't put up 40 points or at least keep Washington out of the end zone Week 2 left a bad taste in my mouth, and from the look of him, Parcells' too.

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:04 pm**

Primetime42 wrote:
Fios wrote:
Primetime42 wrote:
Justice Hog wrote:We lost to the Pukes because of injuries. We didn't field "our" team. Good for them, they took advantage of it. Hopefully, they won't be so lucky on 11/5.
With all due respect, Justice, that was easily the worst game the Cowboys have played all year (Although it's only 3, but who's counting?)

Penalties, busted assignments, and dropped passes galore.

If they play like that Sunday or the next meeting with you guys, I'm going to be sorely disappointed.
So the blown lead, 3 INTs, 45.8 QB rating, essentially non-existent rushing attack and awful special teams against Jacksonville was an example of the Cowboys playing better? That's a stretch amigo
Calling the Redskins the best team in the division is a farther stretch.

Blown lead, 3 INTs and 45.8 rating all tie into each other, or to be more specific, one player.

The team played well enough to win, but lost.

In contrast, that they didn't put up 40 points or at least keep Washington out of the end zone Week 2 left a bad taste in my mouth, and from the look of him, Parcells' too.

With all due respect - it is only a matter of time until the Cowboys implode this season. I thought you'd get a one year grace period with TO like the Iggles did but that is definately not going to happen. In addition to TO you have that prima dona kicker Vanderjact who all the sudden can't kick. I'd be surprised is old Bill does not have a stroke by the end of the season.

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:06 pm**

I 1) didn't call the Redskins the best team in the East and 2) still think it's a tough sell, at best, to call a loss better than a win, especially when you call that win the worst performance thus far

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:17 pm**

Fios wrote:I 1) didn't call the Redskins the best team in the East and 2) still think it's a tough sell, at best, to call a loss better than a win, especially when you call that win the worst performance thus far

1) I wasn't referring to you

2) Didn't call a loss better than a win. I said they played worse and they did, no matter how bad the team they beat was/is. Had they played a better team, it's not a stretch to say they'd have lost that game, is it?

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:26 pm**

1) Oh

2) A better team or another team playing better? Say what you like about Dallas thus far, and we're clearly going to have differing opinions on this but they are not demonstrably better than the 'Skins, the records not withstanding

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:31 pm**

Let me see how they do against the Eagles and then I'll reply to that, Pink Straw :wink:

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:13 pm**

Primetime42 wrote:Let me see how they do against the Eagles and then I'll reply to that, Pink Straw

Is your signature a real quote by Emmitt Smith?

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:19 pm**

cleg wrote:
Primetime42 wrote:Let me see how they do against the Eagles and then I'll reply to that, Pink Straw :wink:

Is your signature a real quote by Emmitt Smith?

According to this page 2 article on ESPN it is:
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/wiley/021030.html

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:26 pm**

vtfootball07 wrote:
cleg wrote:
Primetime42 wrote:Let me see how they do against the Eagles and then I'll reply to that, Pink Straw

Is your signature a real quote by Emmitt Smith?

According to this page 2 article on ESPN it is:
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/wiley/021030.html

Wow - I don't remember him saying that. I thought he had more class than to actually consider himself the best RB of all time. I mean, my goodness he benefited from some of the best offensive lines in the history of the game. Look at Edge in Arizona with a terrible line. How he could actually think he was better than Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, Walter Peyton and Barry Sanders is beyond me. Yes, he's a HOF back and one of the best ever but we will never know how good players like Barry Sanders would have been if he'd benefited from having an O line like the Cowboys with a HOF QB and a better than average receivers and tight ends. Gracious, I thought Emmitt would know better than to think that highly of himself. I remember when he broke Payton's record I almost cried. Then, I thought I remember him attributing his yards and TD's to the great lines he had so I thought he had a little class. But, I guess he is a Cowboy through and through - I cannot stand him.

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:07 pm**

Like i said when i made the post... PHI has played weak teams and DAL will not be good this year I promise you. NYG with all the hope and planning... not going anywhere... WAS will win the EAST and CHI, SEA, WAS, ATL, CAR, MIN/PHI are going to the playoffs.

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:38 pm**

dmwc wrote:Like i said when i made the post... PHI has played weak teams and DAL will not be good this year I promise you. NYG with all the hope and planning... not going anywhere... WAS will win the EAST and CHI, SEA, WAS, ATL, CAR, MIN/PHI are going to the playoffs.

I'm saving this for later

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:43 pm**

cleg wrote:
vtfootball07 wrote:
cleg wrote:
Primetime42 wrote:Let me see how they do against the Eagles and then I'll reply to that, Pink Straw

Is your signature a real quote by Emmitt Smith?

According to this page 2 article on ESPN it is:
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/wiley/021030.html

Wow - I don't remember him saying that. I thought he had more class than to actually consider himself the best RB of all time. I mean, my goodness he benefited from some of the best offensive lines in the history of the game. Look at Edge in Arizona with a terrible line. How he could actually think he was better than Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, Walter Peyton and Barry Sanders is beyond me. Yes, he's a HOF back and one of the best ever but we will never know how good players like Barry Sanders would have been if he'd benefited from having an O line like the Cowboys with a HOF QB and a better than average receivers and tight ends. Gracious, I thought Emmitt would know better than to think that highly of himself. I remember when he broke Payton's record I almost cried. Then, I thought I remember him attributing his yards and TD's to the great lines he had so I thought he had a little class. But, I guess he is a Cowboy through and through - I cannot stand him.

Talk about reading too much into one quote.

Know this; I actually had to cut it down some because it wouldn't fit otherwise. The true quote should read;

"Who said I was the greatest running back of all time? I never said it. I just have the most yards. I just have the most touchdowns. I just have the most rings. I just have the best-looking wife. Other than that, I'm run-of-the-mill. OK, so O.J. was better than me. Question is -- at what?" -Emmitt Smith

Also know that the article is in jest, but I love the quote.

It's not like anything said was false. (Aside from his wife; that's a matter of opinion.) And he never actually said "I'm the greatest" either.

He was always gracious of his line and Moose Johnston, but realize that those guys weren't there more than maybe half his career and he was still putting up good numbers right to his last year in Dallas.

Tell me any running back that has played at that level for 13 years, gotten the records, and gotten the rings?

Just think about it. Personally, I think it would have been great if he HAD said it. You know he thinks it. :lol:

Posted: **Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:32 am**

I thought the rules on this board don't allow images OR quotes from hated rivals in sigs? :lol: