Sniffler Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Are you bragging about what Washington did in the playoffs? Your offense couldn't move the ball and, you were lucky to get out of Tampa with a win.So, you beat them handily at home? They did the same to you by a larger margin earlier in the year. eagles78 ???? what larger margin???? 1 point??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 LOL. What are you talking about? On the possesion that Taylor returned the fumble there was about 2:56 seconds left in the game. The Eagles were only down 4 points. They were driving and were close to mid-field at the time. Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that also the drive Runyan committed that stupid penalty as well? If you consider that having the game in control than I don't know what to tell you. You're wrong. That penalty on Runyan was 3 drives earlier. Not that its relevant; do offensive penalties cause fumbles? :doh: You are also wrong about the Eagles "driving." It was the 4th play of the "drive," in which they had completed 2 out of 3 passes for a whopping 11 yards. WOW -- that right there is a MONSTER drive!! :laugh: You're also wrong about there being 2:56 left. There was 2:30 left. But I guess you didn't read the whole part about the 7 Eagle possesions after the field goal resulting in 3 punts, 2 interceptions and 2 fumbles, one returned for a score, and the fact that from 11:50 remaining in the 3rd quarter on, the Skins outscored the Eagles 21-3. I guess you didn't read that. Or maybe you can't read? Or maybe you're blind? That other poster did mention that homerism causes blindness... The truly pathetic thing about you Eagle fans is that you honestly believe that the Eagles had a shot at beating the Skins. Skins defense took over that game and dominated the Eagles in the second half, whether you're man enough to admit it or not. The Eagles ran a monstrous drive of 7 plays for 37 yards to kick a field goal; after that they managed a WHOPPING 29 plays for 63 yards -- a GIGANTIC 2.17 yards per play. But no, the Eagles weren't dominated in the second half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Are you bragging about what Washington did in the playoffs?:laugh: Your offense couldn't move the ball and, you were lucky to get out of Tampa with a win.So, you beat them handily at home? They did the same to you by a larger margin earlier in the year. The Giants were obviously superior to your team throughout the DURATION of the year. No I don't think that Cincy was better than Pittsburgh, however if Palmer hadn't gotten injured that could have been an entirely different game. However in this case I absolutley think that NY was better. Last time I checked they weren't 5-6 needing to win out against teams like St. Louis, Arizona, and us just to make the playoffs. In the end it's your homerisim that's hilarious. Quick quiz -- which NFC East team won the most playoff games last season? No cheating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Eagles78... jrock owned you all up and down this tread...he owned you the way the US owns the sky over Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagles78 Posted April 6, 2006 Author Share Posted April 6, 2006 You're also wrong about there being 2:56 left. There was 2:30 left. But I guess you didn't read the whole part about the 7 Eagle possesions after the field goal resulting in 3 punts, 2 interceptions and 2 fumbles, one returned for a score, and the fact that from 11:50 remaining in the 3rd quarter on, the Skins outscored the Eagles 21-3. I guess you didn't read that. Or maybe you can't read? Or maybe you're blind? That other poster did mention that homerism causes blindness... The truly pathetic thing about you Eagle fans is that you honestly believe that the Eagles had a shot at beating the Skins. Skins defense took over that game and dominated the Eagles in the second half, whether you're man enough to admit it or not. The Eagles ran a monstrous drive of 7 plays for 37 yards to kick a field goal; after that they managed a WHOPPING 29 plays for 63 yards -- a GIGANTIC 2.17 yards per play. But no, the Eagles weren't dominated in the second half. Guess what? Everything you say here is completely irrelavent to the fact that the Eagles were still very much in the game up until about the two minute warning. Once again, the Eagles were down a whopping 4 points with a chance to take the lead. I don't know about you but that is not how I want my team to have the game "in hand" th entire second half. And I don't really get your point about the Eagles being out scored 14-3 before the Taylor fumble return. Once again it doesn't change the fact the Eagles were still hanging around. The Redskins were fighting to stay alive and while admit that they played better than Philly in the second half; dominating the second half and having the game well in hand were two totally different things. Being up by two TD's with 3 minutes to go is having the game in hand, being up by 4 points isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWUeagleMD Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 This was the Mike McMahon-Bruce Perry lead Eagles we're talking about, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Guess what? Everything you say here is completely irrelavent to the fact that the Eagles were still very much in the game up until about the two minute warning. Once again, the Eagles were down a whopping 4 points with a chance to take the lead. I don't know about you but that is not how I want my team to have the game "in hand" th entire second half. It was apparent to me, and the Eagle fan I was watching the game with, that after CP's first touchdown the Skins had the game in hand. Maybe you're just an ultra homer who actually thought the Eagles had a shot once the Skins got moving, or maybe you hadn't been following the past 3 weeks of the Skins dominating their opponents, but it was pretty damn clear to anyone familiar with the team. And I don't really get your point about the Eagles being out scored 14-3 before the Taylor fumble return. Once again it doesn't change the fact the Eagles were still hanging around. The Redskins were fighting to stay alive and while admit that they played better than Philly in the second half; dominating the second half and having the game well in hand were two totally different things. Being up by two TD's with 3 minutes to go is having the game in hand, being up by 4 points isn't. Uhh...not much to understand. The Skins outscored the Eagles 14-3 before the Taylor TD, and then outscored them 21-3. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out...:whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 This was the Mike McMahon-Bruce Perry lead Eagles we're talking about, right? :blahblah: Same old tired Eagle-fan rhetoric. Does that mean the 2003 Eagles weren't as good as advertised because the Ramsey-led, 5-11 suckskins took them down to the wire, and only avoided a tie game because of a terrible Ramsey overthrow? Does that mean the 2004 NFC Champion Eagles were only slightly better than the 6-10 Redskins because they took them down to the wire, and barely avoided a loss due to another poor Ramsey interception? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagles78 Posted April 6, 2006 Author Share Posted April 6, 2006 It was apparent to me, and the Eagle fan I was watching the game with, that after CP's first touchdown the Skins had the game in hand. Maybe you're just an ultra homer who actually thought the Eagles had a shot once the Skins got moving, or maybe you hadn't been following the past 3 weeks of the Skins dominating their opponents, but it was pretty damn clear to anyone familiar with the team.Uhh...not much to understand. The Skins outscored the Eagles 14-3 before the Taylor TD, and then outscored them 21-3. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out...:whoknows: Good lord you are stubborn. You're calling me an "ultra-homer" yet you're the one that thinks being up by less than a TD that deep in the game falls under the having the game in hand category. And please tell me what the Skins three prior games have to do with this game. Thanks. All I'm saying is that there is no way you can truthfully say that you thought at any point during that 4th quarter up until the final 2 minutes that the Skins could put it into cruise control. That's the definition of having it all locked up. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitskins Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Are you bragging about what Washington did in the playoffs?:laugh: Your offense couldn't move the ball and, you were lucky to get out of Tampa with a win.So, you beat them handily at home? They did the same to you by a larger margin earlier in the year. The Giants were obviously superior to your team throughout the DURATION of the year. No I don't think that Cincy was better than Pittsburgh, however if Palmer hadn't gotten injured that could have been an entirely different game. However in this case I absolutley think that NY was better. Last time I checked they weren't 5-6 needing to win out against teams like St. Louis, Arizona, and us just to make the playoffs. In the end it's your homerisim that's hilarious. Yeah, I am bragging about what the Redskins did in the playoffs because they actually won a game on the road. I'm also bragging about what they did in the regular season, when they had the best division record and ended the season with 5 straight wins. Please pay attention and recognize who was the better team at the END of the season. That's when it matters right? If the Giants were so good wouldn't they have put up something of a fight in their playoff game AT HOME? The Redskins may have won their game narrowly, but in the end, they won and the Giants were blown out. Your whole argument is so laughable, it hinges on the Redskins ALMOST losing a few games. Guess what? We won those games. Try and minimize the Redskins wins all you want, but the Giants struggled even worse against the Eagles and Cowboys last year, and were lucky to have two games against Philly w/o McNabb. Who cares what the Giants did to us in Week 7? If you had paid attention you would have noticed that the Redskins were a completely different team by season's end. And who cares that the Redskins were at one time 5-6? Did that stop up from dropping 5 TDs on Dallas and New York in consecutive games and winning both key matchups with relative ease? Of course not. But you're so stuck on what was going on midseason that you can't see the forest from the trees. In the end, your argument is so illogical that it doesn't even deserve to be called logic. You trash the Redskins for struggling to win a few games against Dallas and Philly, when the Giants struggled even worse to win the same games. You laugh at the Redskins' playoff win when they were in fact the only team to win such a game in the division, and the only other team who made the postseason was humiliated at home. You downplay the Redskins impressive victory in Week 16 because the Giants had an even bigger victory against us in Week 7. Guess what, things change during a course of a season. At midseason the Giants were the class of the division. By the time the regular season ended and playoffs got underway they were second best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Good lord you are stubborn. You're calling me an "ultra-homer" yet you're the one that thinks being up by less than a TD that deep in the game falls under the having the game in hand category. And please tell me what the Skins three prior games have to do with this game. Thanks. Don't tell me you're denying the impact of a team on a roll. The offense and defense started clicking in weeks 13 and 14 respectively, playing extremely well. Anyone with any football knowledge will tell you that a team on a hot-streak is dangerous. Please don't deny that, as you will only look foolish. All I'm saying is that there is no way you can truthfully say that you thought at any point during that 4th quarter up until the final 2 minutes that the Skins could put it into cruise control. That's the definition of having it all locked up. Period. Yeah, there is. I thought the game was in hand. I knew they were not going to lose, simply by the way the defense was playing...but I guess you didn't believe it even when Reid switched QBs...because when you're still in the game, only down by 4 points, the coach obviously puts in the third string quarterback to give you that extra "edge!"...:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagles78 Posted April 6, 2006 Author Share Posted April 6, 2006 In the end, your argument is so illogical that it doesn't even deserve to be called logic. You trash the Redskins for struggling to win a few games against Dallas and Philly, when the Giants struggled even worse to win the same games. You laugh at the Redskins' playoff win when they were in fact the only team to win such a game in the division, and the only other team who made the postseason was humiliated at home. You downplay the Redskins impressive victory in Week 16 because the Giants had an even bigger victory against us in Week 7. Guess what, things change during a course of a season. At midseason the Giants were the class of the division. By the time the regular season ended and playoffs got underway they were second best.No, to you my argument is illogical because I dare say that the Giants were a better team than the mighty Skins. And according to you the only Giants/Skins game that mattered was the week 16 matchup because it was later in the season, right? Wrong! Guess what? Being the best team in the division includes the first part of the year buddy. The Giants were clearly the better team during most of the year. Towards the end it got more debatable. They won the divison title plain and simple. Perhaps if the Skins want to be the best than they shouldn't start the year at 5-6 and turn it on at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Who cares what the Giants did to us in Week 7? If you had paid attention you would have noticed that the Redskins were a completely different team by season's end. And who cares that the Redskins were at one time 5-6? Did that stop up from dropping 5 TDs on Dallas and New York in consecutive games and winning both key matchups with relative ease? Of course not. But you're so stuck on what was going on midseason that you can't see the forest from the trees. Exactly. I guess eagles78 didn't think the 2003 Eagles were the best team in the division either, seeing how they opened the season with 0-17 and 10-31 blowout losses, and they almost lost to one of the worst Skins teams in history with Patrick "not if but when I throw a pick" Ramsey at the helm (even though they were a different, more gelled team by the end of the season when they avenged that poor performance with a 31-7 shelacking). That is eagle78's "logic" for ya. In the end, your argument is so illogical that it doesn't even deserve to be called logic. You trash the Redskins for struggling to win a few games against Dallas and Philly, when the Giants struggled even worse to win the same games. You laugh at the Redskins' playoff win when they were in fact the only team to win such a game in the division, and the only other team who made the postseason was humiliated at home. You downplay the Redskins impressive victory in Week 16 because the Giants had an even bigger victory against us in Week 7. Guess what, things change during a course of a season. At midseason the Giants were the class of the division. By the time the regular season ended and playoffs got underway they were second best. :owned: But eagle78 will never let his Skins hate admit it...:whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 No, to you my argument is illogical because I dare say that the Giants were a better team than the mighty Skins. And according to you the only Giants/Skins game that mattered was the week 16 matchup because it was later in the season, right? Wrong! Guess what? Being the best team in the division includes the first part of the year buddy. The Giants were clearly the better team during most of the year. Towards the end it got more debatable. They won the divison title plain and simple. Perhaps if the Skins want to be the best than they shouldn't start the year at 5-6 and turn it on at the end. Quick question for ya, Mr. football knowledge; which team was better last year, the Colts, who started out the year 13-0 but lost 3 straight and then lost in their first playoff game, or the 11-5 Steelers who won their last 4 straight regular season games (after losing 3 in a row, INCLUDING a loss to the Colts), but went on to beat that same Colts team and win the superbowl? Be very careful how you answer that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanster Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 We will see what in the world this year will bring to the eaples I mean eagles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagles78 Posted April 6, 2006 Author Share Posted April 6, 2006 Exactly. I guess eagles78 didn't think the 2003 Eagles were the best team in the division either, seeing how they opened the season with 0-17 and 10-31 blowout losses, and they almost lost to one of the worst Skins teams in history with Patrick "not if but when I throw a pick" Ramsey at the helm (even though they were a different, more gelled team by the end of the season when they avenged that poor performance with a 31-7 shelacking). That is eagle78's "logic" for ya.:owned: But eagle78 will never let his Skins hate admit it...:whoknows: I think that starting out the year 0-2 against the defending super bowl champs and the future SB champs and then being nearly flawless the rest of the year is just a little bit different than starting the year out 5-6. But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagles78 Posted April 6, 2006 Author Share Posted April 6, 2006 Quick question for ya, Mr. football knowledge; which team was better last year, the Colts, who started out the year 13-0 but lost 3 straight and then lost in their first playoff game, or the 11-5 Steelers who won their last 4 straight regular season games (after losing 3 in a row, INCLUDING a loss to the Colts), but went on to beat that same Colts team and win the superbowl? Be very careful how you answer that... I refuse to answer on the grounds that this has nothing to do with the teams in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanster Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 You better hope no injuries happen or eagles are done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 You better hope no injuries happen or eagles are done Injuries only effect the Eagles. If the Skins start losing key players, no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailRiggoRanger Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 eagles78, you've been owned by jrock from the time you started a thread on day old news. Stop now. You need to take a lesson from momma Portis and learn to stand up for yourself better. jrock just keeps embarassing you with fact after fact, while all you offer is vague "off the top of your head" homer-esque recollections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitskins Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 No, to you my argument is illogical because I dare say that the Giants were a better team than the mighty Skins. And according to you the only Giants/Skins game that mattered was the week 16 matchup because it was later in the season, right? Wrong! Guess what? Being the best team in the division includes the first part of the year buddy. The Giants were clearly the better team during most of the year. Towards the end it got more debatable. They won the divison title plain and simple. Perhaps if the Skins want to be the best than they shouldn't start the year at 5-6 and turn it on at the end. No, your argument is illogical because it makes no sense. Please defend the fact that you're trashing the Redskins narrow wins when the Giants struggled even more against the same division teams. Please defend why a narrow playoff win on the road is negligable compared to a blow out playoff loss at home. It's really not even worth arguing with you because you're presented with clear facts that dispute your point and your simple response is to say "Yeah... well you guys were 5-6 at midseason." I know this is a tough concept to grasp, but a team's performance in midseason is a bit less important than how they finish the year. You want to pretend like a 5 game winning streak followed by a playoff win never happened, and that the Giants didn't become a vastly more beatable team in the second half of the year which culminated in an embarrassing loss to Carolina. No, you'd just rather point at the final division standings and claim they back you up. Yet when you're presented with more examples that counter this argument, like Pittsburgh's standing vs. Cincinnati and Indy, you hide again behind our 5-6 midseason record. I'll let my points speak for themselves until you actually want to debate them. At this point I'll simply assume that you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 :laugh: Eagles78 thats called balls in your face. :laugh: Jrock you never disappoint :notworthy Eagles78... jrock owned you all up and down this tread...he owned you the way the US owns the sky over Iraq. jrock just keeps embarassing you with fact after fact, while all you offer is vague "off the top of your head" homer-esque recollections. Thank you, thank you; I'll be here all week! :bow: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 I refuse to answer on the grounds that this has nothing to do with the teams in question. Of course you do. Wouldn't want to prove yourself wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number5 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Quick quiz -- which NFC East team won the most playoff games last season? No cheating! Which NFC East team won more playoff games over the last 6 years? No cheating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 I refuse to get into these little discussions with jrock anymore. He'll wait till fellow Skins fans congratulate him (*gasp! on a Skins site!) then he'll declare himself victor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.