bbuzz1962 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Mark Shlareth seems to be hating on the Skins (what's new). Did he get traded or something against his wishes?? He's got the balls to say Denver is going to beat the Patriots, but guarntess the Skins will lose. What's up with this idiot? I use to have some respect for him, being really neutral, but he has no faith in Washington. I thought he left on good terms, but I guess I am wrong. To pick Denver with that goofy ass Plummer leading the show is going out on a limb as far as I am concerned. Like I said, this team will get no respect until we hold up the trophy one more time. Like another poster said, even then, there will be an asterik! I couldn't believe that Skip Bayliss picks the Skins to upset Seattle. He has been really good with his picks in the past, and has changed his view on the Skins. He gives them a lot of respect now, and he is the last one I thought that would. My pick is the only one that counts, and I pick The Skins by 10. HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Schlereth has a lot of respect for Gibbs. He just doesn't think we're going to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbuzz1962 Posted January 13, 2006 Author Share Posted January 13, 2006 Yet he thinks Denver will win?? There is no one picking the Broncos. I would think he would use the same logic with both games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Schlereth was one of our original cap-casualties, if I remember correctly. He performed very well in the 1991 and 1992 seasons, and got a big-money free-agent contract (well big-money for the time). Anyone who knows better, feel-free to correct me. That's how I remember it...:whoknows: EDIT: after conferring with the bible (pro-football-reference.com) Schlereth didn't leave the Skins until the 95 season. However, I believe he was a cap-casualty, and wasn't traded. I don't believe he left on bad terms. I mean, he won a superbowl in Washington!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zallera Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I've actually seen him try to stick up for us once or twice so I don't think he hates us, I think he's just very objective and tries not to let his ties influence his predictions when it comes to the Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Scharelth is ok he pick the team he thinks is going to win. He gave some good reasons too. I am not saying he is right I just think he can say what ever he wants. Now I do agree with the Broncos over the I juat think that the Patriots are kinda over rated right now. I know Mike Shannahan is destined to choke but I think that the Broncos will get lucky. Plus it is in Denver not New England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Yet he thinks Denver will win?? There is no one picking the Broncos. I would think he would use the same logic with both games. What are you talking about? Denver is a three point favorite. Denver's the home team. Have you seen Denver play at home before? It's arguably the toughest place to play in all of football. Denver's had a bye week to rest. Their situation is nothing at all like ours. Sorry, but picking a #2 team to beat a #4 team does not require the same logic as picking a #6 team to beat a #1 team. Look, I want the Redskins to win as much as anyone. But let's not get carried away with the media consipracy stuff. We should be heavy underdogs this week. That doesn't mean we can't win the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilberMarshall Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Stinky is a good guy... he did pick the Seahawks... but not by 10... ...don't see nothing wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a_good_brotha Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 What are you talking about? Denver is a three point favorite. Denver's the home team. Have you seen Denver play at home before? It's arguably the toughest place to play in all of football. Denver's had a bye week to rest. Their situation is nothing at all like ours.Sorry, but picking a #2 team to beat a #4 team does not require the same logic as picking a #6 team to beat a #1 team. Look, I want the Redskins to win as much as anyone. But let's not get carried away with the media consipracy stuff. We should be heavy underdogs this week. That doesn't mean we can't win the game. With all due respect to you because you are a knowledgeable person, but that is absurd. Seedings mean nothing. If that was the case The Redskins should be at home watching the playoffs by now. Seattle got their seeding because they didn't have any competition to get the best record in the NFC. I don't want to hear anything about them beating teams they should beat. I saw them lose tolegit teams more than they won. Favorites should be based on how you perform overall, not your record. A lot of teams can look good when they play Cards x 2, San Fran x 2, Rams x 2, Tennessee, Houston. But good teams would have atleast competed against the Jags or Redskins. Seattle only lost by 3 because the Redskins let them come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Grundle Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 If seedings mean nothing then why has a #6 never beaten a #1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterwagen Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Schlereth likes the Skins - he usually says good things about them and Gibbs. But he does give the definite impression that he likes the Broncos more, if you listen to him enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 What are you talking about? Denver is a three point favorite. Denver's the home team. Have you seen Denver play at home before? It's arguably the toughest place to play in all of football. Denver's had a bye week to rest. Their situation is nothing at all like ours.Sorry, but picking a #2 team to beat a #4 team does not require the same logic as picking a #6 team to beat a #1 team. Look, I want the Redskins to win as much as anyone. But let's not get carried away with the media consipracy stuff. We should be heavy underdogs this week. That doesn't mean we can't win the game. :applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause: Last time I checked, Schlereth was retired and has no bearing on this weekend's football games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Schlereth likes the Skins - he usually says good things about them and Gibbs. But he does give the definite impression that he likes the Broncos more, if you listen to him enough. So what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 With all due respect to you because you are a knowledgeable person, but that is absurd. Seedings mean nothing. If that was the case The Redskins should be at home watching the playoffs by now. Seattle got their seeding because they didn't have any competition to get the best record in the NFC. I don't want to hear anything about them beating teams they should beat. I saw them lose tolegit teams more than they won. Favorites should be based on how you perform overall, not your record. A lot of teams can look good when they play Cards x 2, San Fran x 2, Rams x 2, Tennessee, Houston. But good teams would have atleast competed against the Jags or Redskins. Seattle only lost by 3 because the Redskins let them come back. :doh: Look, statistics and records throught the years have shown that higher seeds have an advantage. I'm not saying that the Skins will lose, but THAT is the reason that Schlereth picked the Seahawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Schlereth did leave on somewhat unfriendly terms but it was Norv and Casserly that let him go so he still likes Joe Gibbs. If I remember correctly he had already had a ton of knee surgeries when it came time for a new contract and the Skins made a calculated move and didn't offer him much money thinking he didn't have much left. Needless to say he proved them wrong and I think that is where most of his animosity lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I think Schlerleth is just trying to be something very difficult to recognize: a fair and unbiased professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinssince82 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 The reason Schlereth left on bad terms is he had multiple knee operations and was often injured at the end. We let him go so we could inject some healthier younger guys into the lineup. He left for Denver won a couple more Super Bowls after being operated on a few more times. They handled him different also. They rested him allot when he was a Bronco. He respects Gibbs but he has some hard feelings about the organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aghar Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Ever think he might have picked both Seattle and the Broncos because both teams are 8-0 at home this year? :doh: I agree, knock it off with all this conspiracy stuff. We are the lowest seed in the NFC. How many people do you think will actually pick them? I agree with the soft schedule stuff, the fact we beat them before, etc, but I am a fan. So are all of you! Just because a media personality who happens to pick games had played for the team at one point does not make him absolutely have to pick them, does it? If it did, then the Seahawks should be crying conspiracy! :2cents: Now, let's beat their @sses in their own backyard and next week I think the media peps will see things a little differently. If they don't, who cares!?! :seahawksu :point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 With all due respect to you because you are a knowledgeable person, but that is absurd. Seedings mean nothing. If that was the case The Redskins should be at home watching the playoffs by now. Seattle got their seeding because they didn't have any competition to get the best record in the NFC. I don't want to hear anything about them beating teams they should beat. I saw them lose tolegit teams more than they won. Favorites should be based on how you perform overall, not your record. A lot of teams can look good when they play Cards x 2, San Fran x 2, Rams x 2, Tennessee, Houston. But good teams would have atleast competed against the Jags or Redskins. Seattle only lost by 3 because the Redskins let them come back. Actually, unlike both the Wild Card and (ironically) Conference Championship games, the home team in the Divisional round has won about 83% of the games played to date in the modern format (1990-present). The other rounds are closer to 50/50 historically. The difference? The bye week. We are a bit beat up, just traveled to Tampa, and just again traveled to Seattle and will play against a team that was 13-3 (argue what you will about their opposition), including 8-0 at home. Momentum and spirit and Gibbs get you something, but it's foolish to think of us as anything but the underdog here. My head sides with the Seahawks even as my heart pulls of course for the 'Skins. What's funny is that in my gut is a feeling that we will somehow pull this one out. But that's beside the point. Being objective, we have a shot, but we certainly aren't expected to win. As for Schlereth, IIRC he was essentially given up for dead due to injuries before experiencing a resurgence in Denver. I'm sure he wanted to prove the doubters in the 'Skins organization wrong. It's clear, however, that he deeply respects Gibbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketRichard2121 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I just think Schlereth thinks of himself as more of Bronco than a skin. Didnt he win two Superbowls with the Broncos and just one with the skins? I think he lives in Denver as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Everyone's afraid to pick against the champs, and I don't blame them. That doesn't mean they're going to beat Denver in Denver, and that has absoutly nothing to do with us shutting down Seattle tommorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrunellSuperbowl Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 all talk is over tomomorrow, thats what i like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbuzz1962 Posted January 14, 2006 Author Share Posted January 14, 2006 I really don't think the Broncos have any more chance beating the Patriots, then we do the Seahawks. That was my point. He has played for both teams, so I thought he would use the same logic in both picks. I mean, Tom Brady or Jake Plummer. Which one would you want to lead your team in the playoffs?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Now, let's beat their @sses in their own backyard and next week I think the media peps will see things a little differently. If they don't, who cares!?! LOL, I doubt they will see things too differently. They will just come up with a new set of excuses. If we do manage to beat the Seahawks the media will talk about how it means nothing because the Seahawks haven't won a playoff game since 1984 and point at their division as the reason for their record. And even though 99% of them are picking the Seahawks right now they will say that they all knew they had major weaknesses since they hadn't played anybody all year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 What are you talking about? Denver is a three point favorite. Denver's the home team. Have you seen Denver play at home before? It's arguably the toughest place to play in all of football. Denver's had a bye week to rest. Their situation is nothing at all like ours.Sorry, but picking a #2 team to beat a #4 team does not require the same logic as picking a #6 team to beat a #1 team. Look, I want the Redskins to win as much as anyone. But let's not get carried away with the media consipracy stuff. We should be heavy underdogs this week. That doesn't mean we can't win the game. You're right, Denver is a tough place to play. Guess what, I don't care what anyone says we beat Denver at home. I was at that game and if we've ever been screwed by crappy calls that was the one. We out played them on both sides of the ball. Not to mention the fact that our defense had yet to start the roll they're on now. So if Denver is so formidable why are we still being considered suspect contenders with no chance to win the Seachickens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.