You will lose by 20

[FranklinNoble]

Now hear me out on this...it's very scientific.

The number 6 seed was first introudced in 1990. Since that time, there have been exactly NINE 6 seeds that moved on to the second round.

Those nine teams went 0-9.

They lost by an average of 20.11 points a game.

Thus, you will lose by about 20 points.

There, now you don't have to watch.

www.profootballreference.com.

Bill Parcells was 71-0 in games where he led by 13 points in the fourth quarter.

We've beaten longer odds than 9-0, skippy.

Let's look at the Seahawks schedule... how many playoff teams have they beaten?

Two.

And one of them was the Indianapolis third-string in week 16. The other was a narrow victory at home versus the New York Giants - you know, the team that just got pounded at home in the playoffs against a #5 seed.

In fact, the only other playoff teams they've faced are Jacksonville and Washington. So, please, don't tell me the Seahawks are a bonafide #1 seed here.

Now, let's look at Washington's schedule... how many playoff teams have they beaten?

Three. Four, if you count last week's game against the Bucs. Additionally, three of their losses were to playoff teams, and two were to winning teams that just missed the playoffs (Chiefs, Chargers).

If you want to compare strength of schedule, the Redskins have Seattle beat all over the place.

But, go ahead. Make fun. We're 9 point dogs. That's fine. Anyone who's watched both teams recently will tell you that Washington is the more physical team. I expect Seattle to be beaten. And it won't be as close as the Tampa Bay game.

[Martini]

There you have it....no need to play the game. Lets just concede.

"Whats wrong with you people? Are you on DOPE?"

-Mr Hand

[Mister Happy]

Based on what?

Your win over the powerhouse Buccaneers? Or your 5 game win streak to get into the playoffs that included victories against Arizona, St. Louis, and a floundering Cowboys team.

We really don't know what kind of team you are - but we're soon going to find out aren't we?

In that 6 game stretch, we beat more winning teams than the Seahawks did their entire season.

[BigRay]

Now hear me out on this...it's very scientific.

The number 6 seed was first introudced in 1990. Since that time, there have been exactly NINE 6 seeds that moved on to the second round.

Those nine teams went 0-9.

They lost by an average of 20.11 points a game.

Thus, you will lose by about 20 points.

There, now you don't have to watch.

www.profootballreference.com.

Why are you even here ? shouldn't you be on the golf course with the Cowboys right about now?

[dreamshatterer]

Now hear me out on this...it's very scientific.

The number 6 seed was first introudced in 1990. Since that time, there have been exactly NINE 6 seeds that moved on to the second round.

Those nine teams went 0-9.

They lost by an average of 20.11 points a game.

Thus, you will lose by about 20 points.

There, now you don't have to watch.

www.profootballreference.com.

And the Bucs never lost a playoff game in Raymond James Stadium. How did that work out???

[seanyt]

so when we reverse the trend we will obviously win by 20...

[ArtMonk_fav.redskin]

And one of them was the Indianapolis third-string in week 16. The other was a narrow victory at home versus the New York Giants - you know, the team that just got pounded at home in the playoffs against a #5 seed.

:logo:

A game the giants should have won if feeley could have made a kick...

:logo:

[esm9577]

It's a shame the Redskins aren't an average 6th seed then huh?

I hate to play the "If's," but IF the call in Tampa during the season had been correct than we would have WON 35-34 therefore making our record 11-5. We then would have been 11-1 in the NFC and would have been the number TWO seed because we beat Chicago and had the better conference record. Then we would be playing Carolina at FedEx this week with the 1st round bye. So I agree with the quote above. We are not your average sixth seed.

Also, Mike Holmgren has never beaten the Redskins. So either he wins or we break the 0-9 skid.

[Seabee1973]

Dude, be careful how you try to defend the team from these comments. One of them was. 1992. Granted, that team lost because Rypien and Mitchell had a messed up exchange in the mud, but still.

And, as for Tubfart's comment, his credibility as one who can predict anything is kind of negated by 35-7, and his comments prior to that domination. (smiley aside)

That team was above average as it only lost 24-17 IIRC

[Java Junkie]

"Tubfart"..... LOL

[natsfan3]

It's a shame the Redskins aren't an average 6th seed then huh?

Or that the Seachickens are your average 1 seed!! Love those 6 wins against..............!!!

[SoCalRedskinFan]

Now hear me out on this...it's very scientific.

The number 6 seed was first introudced in 1990. Since that time, there have been exactly NINE 6 seeds that moved on to the second round.

Those nine teams went 0-9.

They lost by an average of 20.11 points a game.

Thus, you will lose by about 20 points.

There, now you don't have to watch.

www.profootballreference.com.

:troll: Go away troll!

[Seabee1973]

I hate to play the "If's," but IF the call in Tampa during the season had been correct than we would have WON 35-34 therefore making our record 11-5. We then would have been 11-1 in the NFC and would have been the number TWO seed because we beat Chicago and had the better conference record. Then we would be playing Carolina at FedEx this week with the 1st round bye. So I agree with the quote above. We are not your average sixth seed.

Also, Mike Holmgren has never beaten the Redskins. So either he wins or we break the 0-9 skid.

11-5 still does not give us the number 2 as the bears were 12-4 we would have needed to finished tied with them.

[Sephiroth]

Now hear me out on this...it's very scientific.

The number 6 seed was first introudced in 1990. Since that time, there have been exactly NINE 6 seeds that moved on to the second round.

Those nine teams went 0-9.

They lost by an average of 20.11 points a game.

Thus, you will lose by about 20 points.

There, now you don't have to watch.

www.profootballreference.com.

It's a great feeling to be a pioneer.

In that case Seattle has never won a Superbowl. You should have quit watching 30 years ago.

[esm9577]

11-5 still does not give us the number 2 as the bears were 12-4 we would have needed to finished tied with them.

Bears went 11-5.

http://www.nfl.com/standings/conference

[SkinsFTW]

Here's a post from Tubfart just before his beloved Dallas Cowboys got dismantled 35-0 by the Washington Redskins in December. (I don't count the trashtime TD.)

"The stats are misleading.

You gots to lookie at the QUALITY of the games and wins/losses by the two teams to tell that really, even though the stats are kinda close, the Cowboys are the far superior team. Just as Novacek said.

So let's take a lookie, why don't we?

1. We beat a quality San Deigo team ON THE ROAD. You lost to them at home.

2. We dominate you for 56 minutes, then go to sleep a little early. That won't happen again...any casual observer knows who the better team was coming out of that game.

3. The cowboys and skynyrds both had bad games and lost to Oakland, but you had them at home and still blew it.

4. We both lost to Denver, in spite of playing well. But we lost on a bad kick, by a kicker who'se long gone.

5. We beat Kansas City. You lost to them.

6. We beat the Giants. You lost to them by 360.

7. We beat Arizona and Philly by 3-4 touchdowns apiece. You barely squeak by with a last second, hold-on for dear life nailbiter.

8. And one last thing. Most of your good stats came from the SF game, which is really an anomaly. Take out that 52 pointer, and those stats go way down. Down where? All the way to last year, if you catch my drift.

Face it, we're better. In virtually all phases. And it's not really that close.

This Sunday will make that Abundantly clear...even for the druids here in skynyrd land."

[jpeyster]

Now hear me out on this...it's very scientific.

The number 6 seed was first introudced in 1990. Since that time, there have been exactly NINE 6 seeds that moved on to the second round.

Those nine teams went 0-9.

They lost by an average of 20.11 points a game.

Thus, you will lose by about 20 points.

There, now you don't have to watch.

www.profootballreference.com.

And until this past weekends both #6 seeds had never won in the same year...0 for 15. Now it has happened 1 time in 16. So, streaks are meant to be broken. And this seems like as good a time as any for 0-9 to break to me!

[Mania]

ok, now takeaway the Tampa bay non loss in the middle of the season and we are the 2nd seed. This knocks your 20.11 avg loss ratio out of the water.

Now go back to the drawing board.

[MustangSteve]

If it isnt the lil dallas troll, maybe you should try out for there sorry ass team because you can sure run faster then them after they get there asses whipped. Go back to your board and discuss how the piss poor rams beat you in your own stadium!!!! :laugh:

[Jumbo]

Poor tubfart. Another cowpie still as stunned, lost, aimless, and self-questioning as the first Dallas crowds who went to see Brokeback Mountain without knowing the plot.

[s0crates]

Good one SkinsFTW.

For more interesting trends go here. Tubfart you should click too since you seem to put stock in these sort of things. :

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138378

[fuji869]

We are a 6th seed that was 1 win away from being a #2 Seed.

[skins82]

this guy is from NJ so what does he know, i mean he probably likes the giants or the jets and i believe he should just sit at home and watch bowling or figure skating since both teams arent in the playoffs. this thread sucks!

[gtdetri]

you already lost by virtue of your name: "Tubfart"

and, how many of those teams were coached by THE Joe Gibbs.

HAIL!

lol..hahahaha.

[skins82]

Here's a post from Tubfart just before his beloved Dallas Cowboys got dismantled 35-0 by the Washington Redskins in December. (I don't count the trashtime TD.)

"The stats are misleading.

You gots to lookie at the QUALITY of the games and wins/losses by the two teams to tell that really, even though the stats are kinda close, the Cowboys are the far superior team. Just as Novacek said.

So let's take a lookie, why don't we?

1. We beat a quality San Deigo team ON THE ROAD. You lost to them at home.

2. We dominate you for 56 minutes, then go to sleep a little early. That won't happen again...any casual observer knows who the better team was coming out of that game.

3. The cowboys and skynyrds both had bad games and lost to Oakland, but you had them at home and still blew it.

4. We both lost to Denver, in spite of playing well. But we lost on a bad kick, by a kicker who'se long gone.

5. We beat Kansas City. You lost to them.

6. We beat the Giants. You lost to them by 360.

7. We beat Arizona and Philly by 3-4 touchdowns apiece. You barely squeak by with a last second, hold-on for dear life nailbiter.

8. And one last thing. Most of your good stats came from the SF game, which is really an anomaly. Take out that 52 pointer, and those stats go way down. Down where? All the way to last year, if you catch my drift.

Face it, we're better. In virtually all phases. And it's not really that close.

This Sunday will make that Abundantly clear...even for the druids here in skynyrd land."

dude we beat you guys twice and you lost to the rams at home regardless of what it was for. and i could have sworn you guys didnt even make the playoffs so why are you even talking???