Guest Goatroper Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Orangeskin, You said: Whenever an injury isn't serious, KFFL says "He was taken out of practice as a precautionary measure." There was no precautionary in this. He was UNABLE to play Actually the original info was a paraphrase by KFFL of an item in the Dallas Morning News. This is the paraphrase: According to the Dallas Morning News, Dallas Cowboys CB Bryant Westbrook (Achilles’) was limited during Tuesday’s practice and wasn’t able to make it through the entire workout. Head coach Dave Campo said the team will get enough time in training camp to get a proper judgment on him. This is the original item in the DMN: Cornerback Bryant Westbrook, who started only three games with Detroit last season while recovering from an Achilles' tendon injury, was limited in his work and did not go through the entire practice. Coach Dave Campo said training camp will give the club enough time to make a proper judgment on Westbrook. Westbrook is being limited in his workouts by the rehab trainer and the coaching staff. Further reports identify Westbrook as one of several players bothered by cramps in the sweltering heat. (Trust me, it is sweltering heat down here.) Now, you may choose to believe this player is "hobbled" by the achilles injury and was thus unable to participate in this workout, but your belief would not be based in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Last time I checked, "Unable to make it through practice" was the same as "unable to play during practice." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goatroper Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 The comparison you are missing is the difference between "unable to" and "did not" complete practice. The former was in the KFFL paraphrase, the latter was in the Dallas Morning News story, the orginal source of the information. The original item came from a newspaper reporter on the scene. The paraphrase came from a kid on a fantasy football website who read the report and put his own spin on it. If KFFL had simply linked to the original story, or quoted it verbatim instead of spinning it, you wouldn't be confused. The Web provides many opportunities for distortion of information. Check the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Q, Kevin Hardy signed a 5-year, $23 million deal. If Dallas cuts him after one year, that's well and good. No one suggests all deals are straightforward. Look at Trotter. He signed a 7-year, $36 million deal, but, he'll never see the final $14 million or two years, so, it changes the structure when you realize it. The point remains though. Hardy signed what he signed. I've no doubts that contract won't be fulfilled as written. In fact, I stated that it clearly wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 There is a slight difference between "not able" and "did not." However, the evidence in this blurb indicates that he was unable to play. Nothing was mentioned about him being taken out as a precaution. Now that I think about it, when was the last time you saw a blurb that said "He was unable to keep practicing" over "He did not continue practicing." It's pretty much a given that he was unable to practice when you see he was injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f1car Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Everything being stated down here is that it's heat releated? Don't you guys have a hell of a lot more problems than the Cowboys? Quick comparsion qb dallas ol dallas big time rb wash wr dallas big time te wash dl line ~ dallas lbs I'm not sold on one of wash = dallas cb = even yes you guys got some expensive ? guys. BTW if they're so great how did a dallas qb beat them? kicking wash owner = big time dallas 2nd to the end is better than total last place by a mile Dallas rules your @$$ just like the eagles currently rules ours. Take it like a man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 First of all, Joe, this is 2002. Secondly, I don't know your IQ ... I don't know you at all ... but you're coming off quite the idiot here with this post. Let's take a look, shall we? "qb dallas" No. you don't get a definate advantage here based on anything that has happened in reality ... not inside your empty head "ol dallas big time" Yes "rb wash" Yes "wr dallas big time " When healthy an advantage, but I wouldn't say "big time." "dl line ~ dallas " Close one "lbs I'm not sold on one of wash = dallas" Perhaps your crowning moment of stupidity. It will be interesting to see if you can outdo yourself or if this will stand up over time. No way Dallas gets this against the starting LBs of last year's Pro Bowl (all 3). Put down the crack pipe. "cb = even yes you guys got some expensive ? guys. BTW if they're so great how did a dallas qb beat them?" Second in idiocy only to your LB remarks. C'mon ... do you even watch football? "kicking wash" "owner = big time dallas 2nd to the end is better than total last place by a mile" I'll call this one a tie, but I wouldn't trade owners with you I can tell you that. And I'll guarantee you no matter how big Snyder's ego is he wouldn't fire a coach who had just won 2 Super Bowls back-to-back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest testphp Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Originally posted by joe1999 Everything being stated down here is that it's heat releated? Uh, it was a Cowpoke fan who stated this earlier... Are you asking us if this is true? Don't you guys have a hell of a lot more problems than the Cowboys? Considering we've beaten every other NFC East team every year except the Cowboys over the last 4 years, I am not sure we DO have a bigger problem than the Pokes. Quick comparsion qb dallas ol dallas big time rb wash wr dallas big time te wash dl line ~ dallas lbs I'm not sold on one of wash = dallas cb = even yes you guys got some expensive ? guys. BTW if they're so great how did a dallas qb beat them? kicking wash owner = big time dallas 2nd to the end is better than total last place by a mile Dallas rules your @$$ just like the eagles currently rules ours. Take it like a man. [/b] In the above, about the only thing that has any bit of knowledge of the personel or recent history of either team is the last sentence reiterating the Redskins inability to close the deal on Dallas. How ignorant must you be to say that your young 12 game rookie and the baseball flunkie have an edge on our 9 year vet, 4 year vet, and our two young prospects? Maybe its not ignorance, just blind faith that anything with a Star on it must be great, uhm, just because. To hell with Redskins 3 probowlers at LB, two lock-down CB (one of which is a probowler), significant depth with DGreen, and two servicable safeties.... Dallas must be even with them or at least have the edge since they wear the Star and we dont, right? Or do you actually have some legitimate insight as to WHY Dallas has the edge here? Wait, before you jump back in with another 'we own your arse' jizz, try learning something about the Redskins players. Maybe then you might have a chance at convincing us you aren't a typical Cowblow idiot who comes here to blow his load on the 9inarow thing since he has nothing else to feel good about his team after the 10-22 record the last two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f1car Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Originally posted by Brave First of all, Joe, this is 2002. Secondly, I don't know your IQ ... I don't know you at all ... but you're coming off quite the idiot here with this post. Let's take a look, shall we? "qb dallas" No. you don't get a definate advantage here based on anything that has happened in reality ... not inside your empty head "ol dallas big time" Yes "rb wash" Yes "wr dallas big time " When healthy an advantage, but I wouldn't say "big time." "dl line ~ dallas " Close one "lbs I'm not sold on one of wash = dallas" Perhaps your crowning moment of stupidity. It will be interesting to see if you can outdo yourself or if this will stand up over time. No way Dallas gets this against the starting LBs of last year's Pro Bowl (all 3). Put down the crack pipe. "cb = even yes you guys got some expensive ? guys. BTW if they're so great how did a dallas qb beat them?" Second in idiocy only to your LB remarks. C'mon ... do you even watch football? "kicking wash" "owner = big time dallas 2nd to the end is better than total last place by a mile" I'll call this one a tie, but I wouldn't trade owners with you I can tell you that. And I'll guarantee you no matter how big Snyder's ego is he wouldn't fire a coach who had just won 2 Super Bowls back-to-back. 7 out of 9 that you agree on and I'm the idiot? Me thinks you only know of certain names of certain players and not of others. Your LB's by your standards where last year PB'er, and your Qb's well see TOTO from Japan. Your CB's are a pretty Madden bunch at best, just like our Deion, pretty name but never did much. Hell Baliey can't even keep up with a 32 year old Ismail? Of course I only see the Pigs when we play so 2 out of 16 games a year doesn't make the whole story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f1car Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Originally posted by Blade's test account Uh, it was a Cowpoke fan who stated this earlier... Are you asking us if this is true? Considering we've beaten every other NFC East team every year except the Cowboys over the last 4 years, I am not sure we DO have a bigger problem than the Pokes. In the above, about the only thing that has any bit of knowledge of the personel or recent history of either team is the last sentence reiterating the Redskins inability to close the deal on Dallas. How ignorant must you be to say that your young 12 game rookie and the baseball flunkie have an edge on our 9 year vet, 4 year vet, and our two young prospects? Maybe its not ignorance, just blind faith that anything with a Star on it must be great, uhm, just because. To hell with Redskins 3 probowlers at LB, two lock-down CB (one of which is a probowler), significant depth with DGreen, and two servicable safeties.... Dallas must be even with them or at least have the edge since they wear the Star and we dont, right? Or do you actually have some legitimate insight as to WHY Dallas has the edge here? Wait, before you jump back in with another 'we own your arse' jizz, try learning something about the Redskins players. Maybe then you might have a chance at convincing us you aren't a typical Cowblow idiot who comes here to blow his load on the 9inarow thing since he has nothing else to feel good about his team after the 10-22 record the last two years. I can't even finish reading this tripe, do I get 1/3 credit for read or tring to read 1/3 of it? YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF! Redforskins last place this year NFCE, read it and save your monies/time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Originally posted by joe1999 7 out of 9 that you agree on and I'm the idiot? Me thinks you only know of certain names of certain players and not of others. Your LB's by your standards where last year PB'er, and your Qb's well see TOTO from Japan. Your CB's are a pretty Madden bunch at best, just like our Deion, pretty name but never did much. Hell Baliey can't even keep up with a 32 year old Ismail? Of course I only see the Pigs when we play so 2 out of 16 games a year doesn't make the whole story. I must be missing something. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY IN THIS POST? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 7 out of 9 that you agree on and I'm the idiot? Me thinks you only know of certain names of certain players and not of others. Your LB's by your standards where last year PB'er... Ok dude, its official. You truly are an idiot. Its sad when we cant even count on our visitors to comprehend what we write. Brave only gave Dallas THREE of the categories and thought it was CLOSE on a fourth. A far cry from agreeing with you on '7 of 9'.... or were you just surfing for some pics of the hot Star Trek babe? And our LBs were not just ProBowlers by 'our standards'... Arrington, Armstead and Trotter REALLY WERE the starting LBs for the NFC in the Probowl! This guy is like the Bizarro Navy Dave.... he makes the same typos but actually knows not a damn thing about football, and likes the Pukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Joe, I'll give you credit. That's some wicked funny stuff. Dallas is a last place team that has managed 10 wins in two seasons. Your advantages over anyone at any position is highly in doubt, and you certainly aren't getting any similar rating to Washington at corner or at linebacker or, really, even at QB right now and everyone knows we've got trouble there. Legitimate arguments can be made that Washington is better than Dallas at four spots on the offensive line since we know Samuels and Jansen are better than your tackles and we know Moore, a four year starter with a good offensive team gets at least an immediate nod over a rookie, and we know Rod Jones gets a nod over Garmon. Even if one were inclined to grant Dallas an advantage along the offensive line, it would not be a substantial one. We can go through your idiocy and correct you throughout the night, if it would be helpful, but, I think it's clear you were offering complete nonsense and you are rather pleased with yourself that your declaratives even got a response. Congrats. I used to laugh at the retard who screamed his name all the time too, so, attention isn't always a good thing, even when you so desperately crave it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Joe, just what does just about every thing you've said in your posts have to do with this thread? However, just exactly how did you get agreement on 7 out of 9 from Brave's post? In answer to your question about having more problems than the Cowboys. No. Pretty simple huh? Oh, and as for having more problems, i'd say the Boys have one big problem, more than the redskins, that you should concern yourself with. Winning. Oh wait. I'm sorry, beating the Redskins is much more important than going 5-11 or 10-22 . Now, if you have something to add that relates to this thread, please feel free to offer it. Say, a link to the story that backs the heat related statement. (Dallas didn't provide one). Oh and while you're at it? Could you inform Q it really isn't necessary to quote an entire post in order to dispute it. And Goat, thankyou for your continued participation on a Redskins board and interest in the team itself. Hey Art! Any chance Joe is related to Cooter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Joe is similarly stupid to Cooter, and obviously as delusional, so, it is possible. Joe, do you have two brothers named Darryl by any chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smith22 Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Originally posted by Art Joe, Legitimate arguments can be made that Washington is better than Dallas at four spots on the offensive line since we know Samuels and Jansen are better than your tackles and we know Moore, a four year starter with a good offensive team gets at least an immediate nod over a rookie, and we know Rod Jones gets a nod over Garmon. Even if one were inclined to grant Dallas an advantage along the offensive line, it would not be a substantial one. Art, I think it is safe to say the Redskins OL is worse this year than last. Do you agree? Going by LAST years stats, Dallas had the 3rd ranked rushing offense in the NFL and the OL gave up 34 sacks. The Skins needless to say were ranked lower in rushing offense and gave up 38 sacks. Which line would you rather have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Originally posted by smith22 I think it is safe to say the Redskins OL is worse this year than last. Do you agree? Going by LAST years stats, Dallas had the 3rd ranked rushing offense in the NFL and the OL gave up 34 sacks. The Skins needless to say were ranked lower in rushing offense and gave up 38 sacks. Which line would you rather have? I dont think it is 'safe' at all to call this year's OL worse than last year. TC has not even started. Last year, we added more than one starter to the OL AFTER TC started. Even in its present condition, the OL lacks nothing but depth. But most Skins fans would like to see one more vet added to possibly start at OG. Kipp Vickers is a vet who has had trouble with the better rushers as an OT, but he may prove to be more solid as an OG if we had to start him. The rest of the line is either stellar (Samuels, Jansen) or known to be dependable (Moore, Jones). Regarding last years stats... the Redskins were the 8th ranked rushing offense last year despite the pathetic predictable passing game that Marty ran, which kept 8 in the box at all times. They earned about 18 yards less per game on the ground than Dallas. And lets remember that Dallas averaged 200/game against the Skins which inflates the offense when comparing them against other teams. Right now, I would take the Skins line over Dallas... Bookend tackles are harder to find than solid OGs, which is where Dallas has its advatage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smith22 Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Originally posted by Blade I dont think it is 'safe' at all to call this year's OL worse than last year. TC has not even started. Last year, we added more than one starter to the OL AFTER TC started. Even in its present condition, the OL lacks nothing but depth. But most Skins fans would like to see one more vet added to possibly start at OG. Kipp Vickers is a vet who has had trouble with the better rushers as an OT, but he may prove to be more solid as an OG if we had to start him. The rest of the line is either stellar (Samuels, Jansen) or known to be dependable (Moore, Jones). If you say so. I see it as a downgrade from Raymer and Szott. Regarding last years stats... the Redskins were the 8th ranked rushing offense last year despite the pathetic predictable passing game that Marty ran, which kept 8 in the box at all times. They earned about 18 yards less per game on the ground than Dallas. Yeah, Dallas didn't have a passing game and started different QB's FIVE times and still ranked 3rd. And lets remember that Dallas averaged 200/game against the Skins which inflates the offense when comparing them against other teams. :laugh: So now you want to throw out the Cowboys stats against the Skins? That's a good one. Right now, I would take the Skins line over Dallas... Bookend tackles are harder to find than solid OGs, which is where Dallas has its advatage. Larry Allen isn't just a solid guard, he is one of the games best OL, period. While Dallas doesn't have book-end tackles, they are still solid. I guess we can settle this argument come the regular season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smith22 Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Originally posted by Art Legitimate arguments can be made that Washington is better than Dallas at four spots on the offensive line since we know Samuels and Jansen are better than your tackles Yes, the Skins have the edge there. Still Adams and Page have been solid young players. and we know Moore, a four year starter with a good offensive team gets at least an immediate nod over a rookie With a good offensive team? Anyhow, I would wait to judge this one until the season gets going. I think you might be surprised. and we know Rod Jones gets a nod over Garmon. Even if one were inclined to grant Dallas an advantage along the offensive line, it would not be a substantial one. Umm, jones started more than 11 games only 1 time in six NFL seasons. He was a backup last year at tackle for the Rams, now you are moving him to guard. Give me Garmon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins4Life Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Yes, but if we want to use Cowboy fans' terminal logic here ... one would say that Jones has more SB rings than Garmon, and therefore that qualifies him to be "better". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Smith, I would say that with Loverne as the starter, or even Vickers, that in all, our line is weaker than last year because we don't have three known, solid contributors on the interior. However, Moore comes from Indy where he's used to protecting for Manning and blocking for James, and while Raymer is a brawler who is perfectly suited for Marty Schottenheimer, there is little doubt that Moore is a pass blocking specialist who fits what will be the Redskins probable zone blocking scheme better. Raymer was never good as a pass defender. Moore is exception as one, if not as good as a drive blocker. Rod Jones was, two years ago, a highly respected, highly rated left tackle in this league. He didn't perform to his contract, and was ultimately moved. But his skills on the interior are a perfect fit, again, for a Spurrier offense that will spread the field and require pass blocking skills from the whole of the offensive line. I would take Jones over Coleman in most aspects of line play. I would take Moore over Raymer in this scheme, but certainly not Marty's. You simply do not get an advantage at center playing a rookie over a guy who has played four years of good football for Indy on a line that has been considered pretty strong. Ultimately you may get an advantage there, but not today. If we add another player, like Ray Brown, the Redskins offensive line will not only be better but also deeper than your line by a long margin. As it is, it is probably only somewhat better, and a little deeper, if you consider Vickers as quality depth and not the starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Hmmmm. Still would be interesting to know exactly what kept Westbrook out. Oh and Smith, here. I believe you may have missed what Blade was aying. Let's expand on his inflated stats. 3rd ranked Running offense: put up 8 rushing T.D's for the season. ranking 25. Total pts a game: 15.4 next to last. If you want to be the man, beat the man. Dallas played only 4 teams ranked in the top 10 in run defense. Denver #6: Smith 5-17yds Hambrick 4-24 yds San Deigo # 7 Smith 17-85 Hambrick 2-6 N.Y. Giants # 8 Game 1 Hambrick 30-77 Game 2 Smith 22-62 Hambrick 4-16 Wiley 4-15 San Francisco Smith 26 -126 Hambrick 4-6 Record 2-3 Rushing Average 85.8 yds a game. (note, San fran was a good game for Dallas). That average is 30yds less than the season average. Next best team. Tampa Bay # 12 Smith 13-40 Hambrick 1-10 . Seattle, ranked #15 I believe, Smith 39 and Hambrick 3. Oakland, (what the heck), ranked 22, Smith 25, Hambrick 24. Dallas played 8 games against teams that were ranked in the bottom 3rd of the league in rushing defense. 3-5 against these teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin S. Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Park City Skins: First of all, Westbrook had a cramp as did several other Cowboys in practice. That's all it was. It's mighty hot in Texas this time of year. As for saying Dallas played 8 games against teams ranked in the bottom third of the league against the run - so what? They were 5-11 the year before. That means they should have had a farely easy schedule. Odds would say that they would play 8 games against teams in the top half and 8 teams in the bottom half - odds say that's how MOST teams would have it. I think Dallas was pretty close to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 I think he said bottom 3rd rushing defense. Not bottom 3rd teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin S. Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Yes, I know. I meant bottom third teams in rushing defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.