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

I sure did:

http://www.the-hogs.net/content/index.php?id=1015

For those who have been here for a while, my knocking the coaching staff is a pretty rare thing though it's rooted some childish fascination/father-like worship (of which I have been accused many times) so much as it is that much of the criticism was misguided or just stupid. I think I make a reasonable complaint here though.
As always, any and all Diggs are greatly appreciated.

"what does not make sense to us is to instead repeatedly do something that clearly, empirically is not working." - Digg material.

"Now, we are not as dumb as people might think" - No, some of us are actually even dumber than people might think.

'Dude, remember when Kurt Warner was wearing a sling and STILL threw for a couple of touchdowns and the Redskins lost. That sucked.'

I love it.

You were much more polite there than I was when I was screaming that same thing at my television last weekend

Speaking of things which are empirically not working, Digg isn't allowing me to Digg It. Any ideas why?

GSPODS wrote:Speaking of things which are empirically not working, Digg isn't allowing me to Digg It. Any ideas why?

My bad, should work now

Fios wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Speaking of things which are empirically not working, Digg isn't allowing me to Digg It. Any ideas why?

My bad, should work now

It did. Just didn't want you to think no one was Digging it.

"Going forward, please cash in some of that well placed faith in JC (17, not the deity) and give him a chance to help your offense."

I truly wouldn't mind if Joe cashed his well-placed faith in both right now.

GSPODS wrote:

Fios wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Speaking of things which are empirically not working, Digg isn't allowing me to Digg It. Any ideas why?

My bad, should work now

It did. Just didn't want you to think no one was Digging it.

D'oh

Great piece!

However, I, think, that, you, really, love, commas

First, yes, we often converse with ourselves and, secondly, ever since the Boomer Esiason 8,000,000 yards passing game, we have a healthy fear of the Cardinals.

Lol. That game was the worst game ever to watch as a Skins fan.

hahaha ... funny you should say that, an editor I used to work for liked to call me a "serial comma splicer"

And thanks

Fios wrote:hahaha ... funny you should say that, an editor I used to work for liked to call me a "serial comma splicer"

And thanks

There's nothing wrong with the use of commas. Commas separate thoughts. Therefore, the more commas a writer uses, the more thoughts the writer has. It certainly beats the hell out of a writer who doesn't think.

I think the saddest part of your article was your statement that you missed most of Gibbs I.

Yikes. If I didn't have the memories of Gibbs I, I think the Norv Turner Dark Ages would have caused me to shun the Redskins forever.

GSPODS wrote:

Fios wrote:hahaha ... funny you should say that, an editor I used to work for liked to call me a "serial comma splicer"

And thanks

There's nothing wrong with the use of commas. Commas separate thoughts. Therefore, the more commas a writer uses, the more thoughts the writer has. It certainly beats the hell out of a writer who doesn't think.

Please provide us with more nuggets of profound intellectual thought.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

Fios wrote:hahaha ... funny you should say that, an editor I used to work for liked to call me a "serial comma splicer"

And thanks

There's nothing wrong with the use of commas. Commas separate thoughts. Therefore, the more commas a writer uses, the more thoughts the writer has. It certainly beats the hell out of a writer who doesn't think.

Please provide us with more nuggets of profound intellectual thought.

Seeing as how a fair number of the members of this forum wouldn't know punctuation or grammar if it was edited for them I see no problem with stating what should be obvious but apparently isn't. If intellectual thought is of interest, I'll start a thread on quantum physics.

Therefore, the more commas a writer uses, the more thoughts the writer has. It certainly beats the hell out of a writer who doesn't think.

I'm certain that you do not make reference to any on this board.


Hmmm... no commas. Is that a bad thing?

I also believe Joe Gibbs has it within him to adapt. Unfortunately, that trait has been buried so deep within him and for so long that I'm not convinced it can be exhumed in time to help us on Sunday.

Which is a shame, because I can't think of a worse opponent to get bull-headed against than the Patriots. Bellichick's forte is taking away what other teams want to do offensively. In the Redskins case, he should have no problems since what Gibbs wants to do is run the ball -- something we're not doing very well to begin with.

Countertrey wrote:

Therefore, the more commas a writer uses, the more thoughts the writer has. It certainly beats the hell out of a writer who doesn't think.

I'm certain that you do not make reference to any on this board.


Hmmm... no commas. Is that a bad thing?

Not at all. A single thought with the much appreciated usage of correct spelling, apostrophe, question mark, and period.

PulpExposure wrote:Great piece!

However, I, think, that, you, really, love, commas

Thats hilarious. And true.

Fios wrote:I sure did:

http://www.the-hogs.net/content/index.php?id=1015

For those who have been here for a while, my knocking the coaching staff is a pretty rare thing though it's rooted some childish fascination/father-like worship (of which I have been accused many times) so much as it is that much of the criticism was misguided or just stupid. I think I make a reasonable complaint here though.
As always, any and all Diggs are greatly appreciated.

This is an excellent article Fios. You were nailing my feelings and then scored a perfect 10 on the conclusion, "We were, of course, pleased to see that Gibbs et al took responsibility for their mistakes. What makes us leery is that we feel we've been down this path before. However, we are eternally optimistic. That's a lie. We are optimistic in this instance."

I'd been trying to keep faith it somehow made sense because of the offensive line problems, but up the middle just didn't. Even if you're hurt there has to be a threat at least you're going deep to keep the D honest. Even if it's a post pattern wait 2 seconds and throw to save your life, up the middle just isn't going to do it w/o a Dominant line.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Fios wrote:I sure did:

http://www.the-hogs.net/content/index.php?id=1015

For those who have been here for a while, my knocking the coaching staff is a pretty rare thing though it's rooted some childish fascination/father-like worship (of which I have been accused many times) so much as it is that much of the criticism was misguided or just stupid. I think I make a reasonable complaint here though.
As always, any and all Diggs are greatly appreciated.

This is an excellent article Fios. You were nailing my feelings and then scored a perfect 10 on the conclusion, "We were, of course, pleased to see that Gibbs et al took responsibility for their mistakes. What makes us leery is that we feel we've been down this path before. However, we are eternally optimistic. That's a lie. We are optimistic in this instance."

I'd been trying to keep faith it somehow made sense because of the offensive line problems, but up the middle just didn't. Even if you're hurt there has to be a threat at least you're going deep to keep the D honest. Even if it's a post pattern wait 2 seconds and throw to save your life, up the middle just isn't going to do it w/o a Dominant line.

I just realized that should say my support of the staff is NOT rooted in a childlike fascination ... sigh ... and thank you. My dad wondered a few times during the second half why they hadn't tried play action, since they'd been setting Arizona up for it, I thought that was a legitimate question.

Why do I have to sign up to digg it?

BnGhog wrote:Why do I have to sign up to digg it?

So, unlike the ProBowl voting, you can't Digg It 50 times a day.

Anyone else notice this. You read the subject of this thread and think "man, here he goes again", and you know its FIOS.

Still, I have to click on it, and I have to read his article.

And after all of this...





I actually (almost) always love the articles.

I just find that odd. Does this mean Shakes are actually really good writers, but if thats true, then why don't we see more shake writers?

First of all, great article. And b), I can understand the general consensus amongst Redskins fans that Joe Gibbs plays too conservatively at times. I understand the logic that if it's broke, fix it. But this is what we signed up for. At least, this is what Dan Snyder signed us up for.

Joe Gibbs never really lit it up in his previous stint. He never adopted the run and shoot, or ran five wide sets while protecting a lead. You know that he is conservative, protective. He would rather run three times and punt than chance an interception and handing the ball to the opposition with good field position.

I'm not saying you're wrong, or that your argument doesn't make sense. I guess I'm saying that I, for one, am not expecting anything to change drastically this week, or the next, or any week after that until Joe Gibbs retires (again). I'd be pleasantly surprised if it did, but I'm not 'hugging my breath', as my three year old would say.