fmorris Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 What’s up with the Washington Redskins? Are they 49er-game good, or Giant-game bad? Hell, even the media are confused. These 2005 Redskins have them spitting and sputtering like judder-bugs not knowing if they should continue bashing or apologize in the face of obvious progress. The problem being that nothing is obvious with these Redskins. Since I usually find myself on the optimistic side of the fence I thought it may be interesting to consider the worse. Consider that maybe; just maybe, the media is correct in their continued assertions that the Redskins are cursed with mediocrity. Along the way I’ll try to take it one step further and translate not only what was said, but the underlining message that often proves so allusive to fans such as myself. Not that I buy into any of the drivel, not for a second, yet for the sake of argument it’s worth taking a closer look. A good hard look; after all, who was it that said, “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?” Not one of the media hounds have come right out and admitted what they truly believe, but at the end of the day it’s clear what all the tripe boils down to: as long as that young, over energetic, instant gratification seeking owner is calling the shots, the football gods will never let the Redskins get within a sniff of the promise land? Well, for once I’m taking off my Redskin beer-goggles and squinting for a good hard look at the real agenda--for the next few minutes I invite you to step with me out of the light and down a rickety stairway that descends into the dark places we’ve (unfortunately) had to read about, but somehow convinced ourselves didn’t exist. Let’s assume the worse: The Redskins early success was an aberration. They are lead by a coach passed his prime, who ruled in a different era, whom fate blessed with two strike shortened seasons. Chances are Len Pasquarelli of ESPN.com would agree. “All those Gibbs apologist who insisted earlier in the season that the Redskins head coach had merely suffered an aberrational 2004 might want to consider delaying the canonization ceremony a while longer.” Translation: We’ll be back to writing ‘The NFL has passed Gibbs by’ articles in no time. And, oh-by-the-way, all is right with the universe. Let’s face it folks… the world loves a tragedy. According to our Lenny, “Gibbs looked like just some ordinary Joe on Sunday, and his team was extraordinarily bad, to say the least.” The bigger the man--the further the fall, and it doesn’t get much bigger than the Hall-of-Fame. The world loves this stuff! Quarterback, Mark Brunell, is also passed his prime, and in the face of an inspired Giant’s defense resorted to his miserable 2004 form. Let’s face it—he was lucky through the first part of the season, and his luck finally ran out Sunday with the whole Redskin nation as witness. This is a good thing because it was difficult for all the media types to keep explaining Mark’s transformation from last year. It’s clear that it was yet another aberration and now that the stars are once again in alignment, he’ll revert back to the noodle-arm quarterback that we all know and love. Ask any expert. Fox commentator Jimmy Johnson stated, “Maybe, Brunell is not having the great year as some people thought.” Translation: I hate you dirty Redskins for ruining the Ring-of-Fame induction, and now you’ll pay the price in print. Luckily we have someone like our little Jimmy to explain complicated football issues when they get confusing. In a recent article for Fox Sports he was kind enough to shed some light on our aberrational defensive success. He suggested that other teams would use the Giant’s game as a stencil of sorts. “…this is a game that I’m sure other teams will take a look at, because the NFL is such a copycat league.” Seemingly any Redskin success must be closely examined for the hoax that it is. Having a number four ranked defensive unit is not nearly enough. As Jimmy clearly points out, “Sometimes statistics can snowball and be misleading.” Translation: The defensive ranking was like all other success tied to the Redskins, an aberration. Now that the Giants have blown up the program, we’ll no longer have to deal with those pesky Redskins thinking their better than everyone. Every week there’ll be Tiki Barber trotting for 200+ yards. Happy days. Now onto the offensive side of things. The Redskins offense is so horrible that it pains me even to consider it. Hell, even little Sally Jenkings knows how bad this Redskin’s offense is, and she was quick to point out the Tiki gained more yards rushing than the entire Redskins offense. In her latest article for the Washington Post she continually alluded to something other than an emotional Giants team as to the cause for the Redskins demise--something other than the ghost-of-Redskins-past Antonio Pierce. But I’ll get to Mr. Poor-Unfortunate-Me Pierce in a minute. The important thing to remember here is that the Redskins offence is also… you guessed it, an aberration. Clearly the receivers are too small, the quarterback is washed-up, and Clinton Portis is a system back--a cog plugged into Denver’s any-RB-will-do offensive empire, with obviously exaggerated numbers. Guess those silly Redskins thought they could go out and BUY a great back, but were foiled again. These football Gods don’t mess around. But I digress a bit. Back to Sally’s point, and it wasn’t an easy point to find. The best thing I could come up with was this: “A solid effort can stop a team that is surging on emotion -- and that is what the Redskins did not put forth.” Ahh, it’s all so clear now….the Redskins are incapable of putting forth a solid effort because Snyder’s money sucked the soul out of them. Translation: Snyder is the root of all evil. He’s fielding a group of brainless zombies dressed in burgundy and gold. Which by-the-way, explains their return-of-the-living dead like effort against the Giants. All this before the football gods even have their say. Yikes! Which brings us to Mr. I-thought-we-were-family Pierce? It’s clear that the Redskins have idea what loyalty to core players truly means. We’ll shell out millions for Mr. The-Redskins-bought-me-this-funky-wardrobe Sanders, but they don’t give a flying fart for the workmen that make up the true fabric of the regime. And it came back to haunt them on Sunday. This was truly poetic justice in its purest form--good always triumphs over evil. Guess Mr. Snyder never got that office memo. Although the Redskins offer was described by Pierce as ‘close’ it didn’t match the Giants offer. According to Pierce, “It was about a difference of opinion in value, and loyalty in the front office.” I’ll tell you what the difference was. The difference was in what the Redskins offered and what the Giants paid him. The difference was getting paid – and he got paid. What the Redskins were worth to him didn’t equal this ‘close’ amount. So excuse me if don’t get all weepy and curl up in the fetal position. Translation: Somehow the Redskins are responsible for not fostering loyalty by offering to pay a guy a ton of money to play football for them. Poor unfortunate me. Moving ahead to next week the Eagles are coming to town. The media spin on this amounts to: Which team has the fortitude to emerge from the abyss and once again claim a spot as NFC East contender. In this game Donavan will throw for 400+ yards, and recapture his top quarterback status. Westbrook will break loose for 150 yards and two touchdowns. TO will run amuck, easily exploiting our suspect secondary. The only real reason to watch this one is to see who the Redskin fans will boo and to see what cleverly creative end zone dances TO will bless us with. Translation: Redskins are going to kick their ass. Aberration number 5. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.