Oct. 15, 2001: (Part II)

[Terry]

Those Cowboys did have the Big Three, but they also had a ton of supporting members, it was much more than 3 guys.

The had one of the biggest and best O lines in recent mempory. As Skins fans we can appreciate what a great O line can do for an offense.

And they had three complementary players that made the whole thing go: Johnson, Novacek, and Harper.

I would have to say that the real key was that O line.

I think Emmitt would have gotten his yards with other teams, but I'm not so sure that Aikman and Irvin would have done nearly as well elsewhere. Those two were system players, IMO. The O line and supporting cast were the foundation for Aikman and Irvin to shine.

[TwoDeep3]

Sorry Guys, been to the Cowboy training camp and don't have a laptop.

Art,

All BS aside this is the issue.

1. You state that you were happy with Norv up until the Giants game this past season. Which means you were pleased with winning the East in 1999.

2. After the Giants game you found enough fault with Norv to lose faith in his ability. (my words)

3. Marty is a good coach that instills discipline.

4. Marty is not the reason his team did not get to the Superbowl. It was the players.

If these are the fact then you have a serious dichotomy working in this paradigm.

If Norv was an acceptable coach in 1999 but lost favor in 2000, it had to be the coach. Yet in 2000 you had two issues working against your team. The injury to Westbrook and the strife between George and Johnson.

I see your 2000 season very much like the 1999 season for the Cowboys. You lost the weapon of the possession wide receiver. This takes away the effectiveness of both the running game and the second receiver. Now there may be days that you succeed, but by and large you don't because you haven't got the complete compliment of weapons.

Compound this with the first place schedule and you have a doubly more difficult hill to climb. Toss in the controversy of George and Johnson, however slight you may judge it to be and the results are missing the play-offs.

Yet you attribute this to Norv.

So if Norv is wanting and can not capably fulfill your destiny, then falling short is also Marty's crime. If it is not the players on the field then it must be the head coach. Therefore both need to be judged the same.

However, if it is the players that fail, then your loss of faith with Norv is a contradiction.

Any other issues sidesteps this. Any but if's are changing the subject. It is black and white.

If you give Marty a pass because of the players, then you abandoned Norv and are inconsitent.

If you suggest it was Norv that was the problem because he failed to produce results then Marty is painted with that same brush. He failed to produce results.

Because even with a full compliment of talent Marty floundered in both previous posts by not winning it all.

I quietly watched as the fans of the Redskins railed on Norv over the last two years. Even when the team was winning in 1999 there was a contengency that found fault with Norv if every play didn't seem to go for a touchddown.

Was it time for him to go? Probably. Should Snyder saddle some of the blame for the team losing last year. Most certainly. His actions neutered Norv with the team after the first loss to Dallas.

Will Marty succeed where Norv failed? That remains to be seen. But I have never been a fan of his and have watched him end up with what I considered less accomplishments from his team than the talent dictated.

Good luck on this season. I don't think your team will be any better than third. My prediction is 7-9.

But I also think the Cowboys will be in last place in the East with a 4-12 record.

I believe the Eagles will win the east by default. They truly have no experience at WR. Thrash and the rest have less than 1500 yards of offense for all of their careers combined.

The Giants have yet to show they can succeed with a first place schedule after winning the East the year before.

Anyway, football is here and life is good. Even if the team isn't great, it's better than soccer.

[Art]

Two Deep, I couldn't be more surprised to find you actually writing a somewhat conversational response here. As that is the tone you've properly decided to attempt, I'll respond in kind. Line by line of course .

You wrote:

"1. You state that you were happy with Norv up until the Giants game this past season. Which means you were pleased with winning the East in 1999."

I've been, as Kornheiser would say, "In the tank" for Norv since his hiring. I LOVED Norv's offensive genius. I loved watching Norv call plays when he was on and the Redskins were close enough that he could keep teams guessing with some of his innovation. I, however, was in the clear MINORITY in accepting Norv. And despite that, I recognized that the Redskins were a sloppy, loose ship that angered me to no end, but, I held out hope that a top quality defensive plan would assist in getting Norv by. I was, obviously, happy with winning the East in 1999. But, that's not an endorsement of Norv. You could COUNT on Norv to blow games. He did against Buffalo. He did against Dallas. He did against Philly. These are games we lost becasue of scheme. We NEVER took anything away from the opposition. We lost to Tampa by happenstance and unfortunate bounces. We DID take from the Bucs what they liked to do, so, one can't complain about that.

"2. After the Giants game you found enough fault with Norv to lose faith in his ability. (my words)"

They are your words, yes. After the second Giants game last year, I recognized what was clear to the world. The Redskins as a team STOPPED playing for Norv Turner. I still liked Norv. I still like Norv. I think, as I said when I supported him, he is the finest offensive coordinator around. But, the team gave up on him, and management had to give up on him in turn. No one can say Norv wasn't granted EVERY opportunity to correct his obvious flaws. To get tougher. To correct the idiot mistakes. To inspire discipline and team excellence. Even in winning the East in 1999 we didn't play nearly as well as we should have.

"3. Marty is a good coach that instills discipline."

That is his hallmark and no one can dispute it.

"4. Marty is not the reason his team did not get to the Superbowl. It was the players."

Marty didn't cause Byner to fumble. Marty didn't allow Elway to make the drive. Marty certainly was responsible for an occasional loss by his team over his years. As was Gibbs. As was every great coach. Even great coaches can make errors or design poor plans that hurt the team's chances. But, had Byner not fumbled, Marty wouldn't be a better or worse coach than he is now. Marty is what he is. A tough, hard-nosed professional who gets his football teams to play with his character. Had Byner not fumbled, and that alone would have gotten the Browns to the Super Bowl, wouldn't change what Marty is. You have to know this about football.

"If these are the fact then you have a serious dichotomy working in this paradigm."

These are not the fact, since you used your own words above, making them not fact. But, there is no duplicity here. Norv didn't ever get his teams to play up to their fullest abilities. Norv specifically lost games with poor design and an inability to adapt. Even on offense, he would RARELY adapt. "What we do works," defined Norv, despite great evidence that it didn't always. Marty adjusted himself to fit his teams and got them, even when they weren't good, to play tough, disciplined football. Joe Gibbs wasn't a terrible coach when the Redskins were 7-9. The Redskins played the same sound brand of football then that they did when they won the Super Bowl. They just didn't have the ability to do more.

Norv's teams were the same flawed teams, even when successful. Marty, while NOT Gibbs, shares the quality of generally communicating with his teams enough to get them to play football at or near its best level on a weekly basis. Norv couldn't prevent a ball bouncing to Dunn against Tampa, any more than Marty could prevent Byner's unfortunate fumble. Getting to and even winning a Super Bowl isn't the ONLY requirement for making a coach successful. If it was, people wouldn't laugh so at Barry Switzer.

"If Norv was an acceptable coach in 1999 but lost favor in 2000, it had to be the coach. Yet in 2000 you had two issues working against your team. The injury to Westbrook and the strife between George and Johnson."

Norv was always an acceptable coach to me. I accepted what you got with Norv, warts and all. Because I saw the beauty, and KNEW how to fix it, but, it could never get fixed, because even when we got a good defensive coordinator, he was too much a supplicant to Norv to bring the team together. Norv is not, and never will be, a leader of men. He is a coordinator of men. The Redskins needed a leader. The Redskins didn't have Aikman and Smith and Irvin to compensate for Norv as the Cowboys had to compensate for Switzer. And, I don't blame Norv for last year's problems either. The Redskins had a winning record when Norv was terminated.

We were a very capable team before injuries kept mounting and teams continued to expose our backups. Norv just lost the remaining players against New York. He lost control of the team. Once you do that, you can't coach for that team. The team was in shambles after the Eagles game. The Giants added a wrinkle to the defense that exposed our interior line, and Norv NEVER adjusted. He NEVER changed anything. He just let his players get beat without compensating for the difference the Giants were offering. The team played as lackluster and uninspired as any team I've ever witnessed. You rarely see such a clear demonstration of players giving up so visibly. Robiske entered a very fractured roster, and had no chance to overcome the damage that seven years of too loose a ship had wrought.

"I see your 2000 season very much like the 1999 season for the Cowboys. You lost the weapon of the possession wide receiver."

Westbrook was something more than a possession wide receiver. He led the league in 1999 for yards per catch (tied with Connell). Westbrook's career average is 16.4 yards per catch. Westbrook is not a possession receiver. He's a game changer. He stretches the field. He rolls coverage. He forces recognition of a threat on the outside.

Dallas in 1999 was nothing like the Redskins in 2000 despite Irvin's loss. Dallas was 4-4 in the first half and 4-4 in the second half. Dallas maintained fairly steady play and performance despite Irvin's loss. Dallas was as good as it was going to be. The Redskins crumbled, NOT because of Westbrook going down, but the continued loss of players at positions we weren't able to properly back up with quality depth. The Redskins were 6-2 at the halfway point. That lack of depth started catching up with Washington then. Teams started developing books on the players Washington had in there and started taking things away.

Like with Culpepper in Minnesota last year, he started out on fire, but as teams started recognizing what he could and couldn't do, his game suffered, and he never really showed he could adjust to what teams were taking from him. He may this year as he's young enough and has talent, but, this is a fair observation.

"This takes away the effectiveness of both the running game and the second receiver. Now there may be days that you succeed, but by and large you don't because you haven't got the complete compliment of weapons."

Not sure I disagree with this statement in a generic way.

"Compound this with the first place schedule and you have a doubly more difficult hill to climb."

Here's where you show a lack of knowledge Two Deep. In the second half of the season, we played two teams that were any good the previous year. We played St. Louis and Tennessee. We lost a close one to Tennessee and beat the Rams. Our toughest schedule was early, and we did very well early. The schedule had NOTHING to do with last year's struggles. We'd already completed the tougher part of the schedule when we began to struggle.

"Toss in the controversy of George and Johnson, however slight you may judge it to be and the results are missing the play-offs."

I don't judge the "controversy" of George and Johnson as slight or major. It was what it was, and it showed Johnson, again, can not play football at a high level with a competent backup behind him. Johnson also struggled because the talent left him was more suited for a quarterback that could squeeze balls into tough spaces. We ONLY beat the Rams because George could do that. And, that game against the Rams probably ended the year. George did so well and was so dynamic, it made Johnson, by comparison, limp and sad. The team was then divided, and not before. And when Norv let the Giants game linger on and get away from us with Johnson in there, unable to do anything against the tight zone the Giants were offering, the team essentially said, "Screw it."

"Yet you attribute this to Norv."

I do not attribute 8-8 to Norv last year. I attribute a seven-year lack of discipline, adjustments and aggression on Norv. I attribute him with NEVER taking away the oppositions strength. I attribute him with NEVER getting the whole team on the same page. NEVER getting all his players to believe in what the team was trying to do. Not once did this happen.

"So if Norv is wanting and can not capably fulfill your destiny, then falling short is also Marty's crime. If it is not the players on the field then it must be the head coach. Therefore both need to be judged the same."

I am not at all understanding your point Two Deep. Likely confused by your own confusion. You say it's Marty's fault that Byner fumbled or Elway led a drive of lore, but, the Redskins had no coaching problems, only a quarterback keeping them from success. I CREDIT Marty with the overall success his teams enjoyed. He's the 11th (12th, whatever) winningest head coach in the history of the league. His teams are successful and he's proven he can win football games. Beyond that, the rest is gravy.

Norv is NOT a successful coach. He deserves blame for NOT being a successful coach. Gibbs could have won with the talent the Redskins had under Norv. Marty could have. Norv couldn't on any consistent basis and that is where he failed. I do not blame Norv for specific mistakes made during a game, other than those caused by design. I don't blame Marty for specific mistakes made during a game, other than those caused by design. Marty just has fewer warts.

"However, if it is the players that fail, then your loss of faith with Norv is a contradiction."

I never had faith in Norv. I had faith that the team could succeed despite Norv's failings, and my faith was placed in the eventuality of getting a strong defensive coordinator in the fold to balance Norv's genius rather than rely on his weakness. A bad football team can succeed despite a poor record, if they play good football, but lack the talent to win. A coach is responsible for the style of play a football team plays with, and for the ability to bring every team together. There is absolutely no contradiction in what I write. I'm the most consistent person in the world.

"Any other issues sidesteps this. Any but if's are changing the subject. It is black and white."

Nonsensical tripe. Do you even know what you are saying?

"If you give Marty a pass because of the players, then you abandoned Norv and are inconsitent."

I don't give Marty a pass. I give Marty great credit for the overall success of his teams. His success surpasses his failures. I give Norv blame for the overall lack of success his teams were able to enjoy. You are creating inconsistency from your own inconsistency here. You can't blame the Redskin quarterbacking situation with being the problem, and not Norv, yet blame Marty for Byner's fumble. And because you created an illustration of total inconsistency, you are locked into defending it and you are failing utterly.

Marty has proven ability as a head coach. So does Norv, now. Marty has proven what he can do with a football team. So has Norv. And, between the two, you take Marty every time. Very few coaches can keep a team on track for a decade. Even good coaches like Tom Coughlin can lose a team. Bill Cowher had done that, but, the Steelers have shed almost every player that had tired of his act. Coughlin would succeed elsewhere, where in Jacksonville, it's likely his players have tuned him out. Norv had seven years, and the team eventually tuned him out. It happens.

"If you suggest it was Norv that was the problem because he failed to produce results then Marty is painted with that same brush. He failed to produce results."

Marty produced EXCELLENT results Two Deep. His teams won football games. His teams consistently made the playoffs. His teams consistently played football in a tough, disciplined manner. Norv failed at all of these traits. Norv isn't specifically responsible for not getting the Redskins further in their one playoff appearance. He is specifically responsible for not getting them to more playoff appearances. Marty puts his teams in position to compete. When the chips fall, they fall. Marty is as good a coach today as he would have been had Byner not dropped the ball. Making a Super Bowl or NOT making a Super Bowl don't change the essential fact that Marty wins games.

That Byner fumbled, or Elway had a drive of legend, don't limit the fact that Marty is a successful, winning head coach. Had Dunn not come up with a first down and the Redskins advanced further in the playoffs, wouldn't make Norv a successful head coach. Even if these three examples were STRICTLY the the fault of the coach, which no one is saying except you, that doesn't change what the coach is.

Because even with a full compliment of talent Marty floundered in both previous posts by not winning it all. Norv was the problem in that he failed to produce on a consistent basis. Marty has shown his teams win and play hard, and beat rivals and rarely lose to inferior teams. He doesn't have to win or be in a Super Bowl to be a wonderful coach. He's EARNED his status. So has Norv.

"I quietly watched as the fans of the Redskins railed on Norv over the last two years. Even when the team was winning in 1999 there was a contengency that found fault with Norv if every play didn't seem to go for a touchddown."

Norv did his best coaching in 1998. He did his worst coaching in 1999. The Buffalo game is an example of that. The adjustments made to Trent Green in 1998 are an example of Norv at his best. The Redskins NEVER played consistently as well as they did under Green at the tail end of 1998. A lost season and the Redskins played their best football. In 1999, the Redskins should have been better than 10-6. Losses to Dallas, an ugly loss to Philly and a Norv-quality loss to Buffalo being the greatest irritants.

"Was it time for him to go? Probably. Should Snyder saddle some of the blame for the team losing last year. Most certainly. His actions neutered Norv with the team after the first loss to Dallas."

Absolutely not. Snyder provided Norv with all the talent the team needed to win. Not once has Norv ever said a negative word about Snyder. In fact, even being fired and free to say whatever he wants, he praises Snyder for being a quality owner who gave the Redskins everything the team needed to win. After our loss to Dallas, the Redskins ran off five consecutive victories. If Snyder had a hand in the Redskins performance after the first Dallas loss, then you must be praising him.

"Will Marty succeed where Norv failed? That remains to be seen. But I have never been a fan of his and have watched him end up with what I considered less accomplishments from his team than the talent dictated."

Marty has always gotten as much from his teams as possible. His teams never play below their talent level. The Browns were not a great football team. The Chiefs certainly weren't. But, he made the playoffs and always coached a tough team to beat. Marty took the Browns over and went from 5-11 to 8-8 his first season. He took over a Chiefs team that was 4-11-1 and made it 8-7-1 his first season. He's had ONE losing season in his professional career. Personally, I don't care if you are a fan of his or not. What he is can't be changed. His record proves his worth. Period. He has a history of excellent results. You don't have to like him. He doesn't require your approval. He's already proven you wrong.

"Good luck on this season. I don't think your team will be any better than third. My prediction is 7-9."

I don't predict this early, but, presently I'm leaning for 10-6.

"But I also think the Cowboys will be in last place in the East with a 4-12 record. "

I don't predict this early, but, presently I'm leaning for 3-13.

"I believe the Eagles will win the east by default. They truly have no experience at WR. Thrash and the rest have less than 1500 yards of offense for all of their careers combined."

I don't.

"The Giants have yet to show they can succeed with a first place schedule after winning the East the year before."

I agree.

"Anyway, football is here and life is good. Even if the team isn't great, it's better than soccer. "

It is.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[TwoDeep3]

Art

You are blinded by your love for the Redskins.

Westbrook has never lived up to his draft spot except in 1999. That is a fact. Game changer? Biased tripe.

There is something very much similar to both teams when they lost the lead receiver. Whether you choose to acknowledge that is another issue. But the Cowboys had a 100 yard receiver in every game up until Irvin fell. Then they fell apart. Very close to the Redskins situation. Not exact but close.

10-6...cronic is fun but causes one to not see the forest for the trees.

Your team will not make the play-offs. Marty is on the backside of his career and has shot his wad in the NFL. Deion is a disruption and by the way, here is a small salary cap article mingled in with His Toeness.

Enjoy

http://sportingnews.com/nfl/articles/20010727/332067.html

I believe this speaks to just one of your problems. It isn't like your salary cap issues haven't been disected on the ESPN.com site many times this off season.

[TwoDeep3]

By the way, Art. I have read quite a few of your posts and find you to have a very quick mind. But you assail the poster in a way that sometimes avoids the real issue. You like to post in a most p;edantic way. As if you are smarter and think so.

Forgive me for using your style. I find your posts fascinating yet filled with hubris. You are smart. But your style of debate is filled with acrimony.

That detracts from your knowledge.

"I know I am but what are you" makes you look petty.

Take it for what it is worth.

[TwoDeep3]

What I mean is this...you don't need that feeble condescention if your facts are straight. They usually are, so why the superiority act?

I think you sell yourself short with it.

[Blade]

TwoDeep3:

No threats here, assman. Just doing my job as owner of this board.

TwoDeep3 wrote:

Then make it as uncomfortable as you can. This is cyber space. Your words are so threatening.

As you wish... you seem to think your crap does not stink and practically beg for the multiple abuses put upon you.

You made it too easy for me.

However, I do commend you on your change towards a less assinine tone. Once you show you've been successfully able to remove your head from your orifice, I will remove the icon from your name.

[Pete]

<FONT size="5">ROFLMAO</FONT s>

[RF4L]

Hey 2 deep....

Nice icon!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Larry]

I really shouldn't be getting into this, but Deion's retirement has me hyper, for some reason.

When I lost confidence in Norv.

Several things, over the years. None of them, by itself, were big enough to fire a coach. But, to me, what the coach does is set a tone, a spirit. That's why you judge a coach by long-term performance, not a few seasons.

1) The "fight". A skins player suddenly attacks another player during camp. The things I notice about the reports of the fight that stick in my mind: 1) It's training camp, but both players were on the sidelines at the time. Don't they have anything to do? 2) Neither player is a starter. 3) It's cut day. I don't know where the coach is at the time of the fight, but I bet he's got a clipboard. On that clipboard is a "To Do" list, and on that list is only one line: "Fire 10 players".

Now, as it turns out, a case could be made that it might not have been a bad idea to fire both players. But I also point out that we can't say that cutting them might not have been better.

2) An inability to stop the run for 7 years. When you have a problem, especially a problem in an area the other teams can pick on, you need to do something about it. Get new players, get a different coordinator, change the color of the uniforms, do something. (Note that, even with LeCharles, we still have that problem. We may still have it this year. But I bet we won't have it in '02).

3) An inability to beat teams that we're SUPPOSED to beat. (Om mentioned this in his writeup for week 2). I don't know if there are any stats as to Norv's record in games where the Skins were favored, but it shure SEEMED to be rotten. (Note that this is also one of the things Marty is applauded for: His ability to beat the teams that're worse than his, and some of the teams that're better).

4) The one specific incident I can recall: Our last game vs. Detroit. (in '99?). (I'm working from memory, here, so some stats may be a little off. I just remember the final result and two specific stats). In the first half, we have three long drives, based around Davis running up the middle. I think we've got one TD and one FG at halftime. Detroit, I think, has also had some long drives, but has only gotten 2 FGs. At halftime, the Skins are up 10-6, Davis has 25 carries, and is averaging 5.5 yds/carry.

In the second half, Davis only touches the ball three times. We score another FG, and are leading after 3 by 1 point.

End result: we lose by 1 point, while averaging 5.6 yds/carry, to a team that doesn't score a single touchdown. I don't always blame a coach for the RESULTS of his playcalling, but in this case, it's clear we lost because we chose to abandon a game plan THAT WAS WORKING.

We were ahead on the scoreboard, our runner has not been stopped for a loss once in the entire game, and THE COACH chose not to try to control the clock.

The #1 reason I'm looking forward to Martyball: I don't think he'll forget to run the ball whan it's working.

[Art]

I don't have nearly enough time today to address your posts Two Deep. Heading out to an amusement park for the day and I'll further deconstruct your thoughts tomorrow. Sorry for making you wait .

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[TwoDeep3]

Niced icon...wow, I am really put in my place Blade. If this is the backup to your threat then you have fallen short.

I see the retirement of Deion means you guys will be eating 5.2 million in dead money next year. Just like the article I posted said you would, except they didn't add the bonus kickback of 500,000.

Funny how you guys are denying what major sports websites have been saying about next years cap.

[Blade]

Niced icon...wow, I am really put in my place Blade. If this is the backup to your threat then you have fallen short.

My "threat" was to make it uncomfortable for you to post here if you continue to be a rude dumbass guest. If you're comfortable being portrayed as a man with his head stuck up his arse, then that is your problem. The message is not lost in either case.

If the shoe (or icon in this case) fits, enjoy wearing it.

[indyskinsfan]

Two Deep it's not denial, it's called speculation, since one can only speculate what can still happen in the near or far future.

Your figures are as incorrect as any, since the options available and the timing of other events stills allows for a lower amount in cap space or even a higher one.

Denial would mean it's there in front of our face and we can't accept it, but that is the same as your icon I believe.

[TwoDeep3]

Blade...

I don't care what you do, actually.

Indy...

Deion's cap hit is 1.4 this year and 5.2 next. Unless he unretires and comes back to your team that is cast in stone. I fail to see your point.

[Art]

Two Deep, your problem appears to be that you have difficulty seeing the obvious. The obvious is most frequently stated in the messages of others to you. Let me address your meanderings here for a moment. Line by line, of course .

You wrote:

"Art

You are blinded by your love for the Redskins."

Unlikely. In fact, since I so totally repelled your coaching thrust, I see you've attempted to bait and switch, except since you didn't realize you were baited, I suppose it's better to say you've merely run and gun, attempting to try another route. The wealth of information I've provided on the coaching, and the clear distinction in your incompatible points being made abundantly apparent, you've now decided to focus on a very minor point. So, let's address it.

"Westbrook has never lived up to his draft spot except in 1999. That is a fact. Game changer? Biased tripe."

With great fortune I've never indicated Westbrook has lived up to his draft spot status except in 1999. In fact, I'm not sure I've even said he even lived up to his status in 1999. What I said, and what is factual, is that Westbrook's game as a receiver is not that of a possession receiver you claimed. Do not fault me when I correct one of your statements. I only correct where error is made. You made an error in saying Westbrook, like Irvin, was a possession receiver. I displayed clear statistical evidence that your statement was NOT the case.

I wrote that Westbrook stretches the field. Witnessed rather clearly and without contrary debate, by his career average per reception. I wrote that the opposition rolls coverage Westbrook's way when he's on the field. Also a factual truism. I wrote that Westbrook is a game changer, and though I didn't explain why, I assumed you might have followed the thought process, since I'm indicating Westbrook is accounted for by the defense in rolled coverage, therefore changing the game. He's not a game changer as defined in a generic usage that he makes a game-by-game impact. But, rather, he's a game changer in that he alters the oppositions approach. That stated, I'm certain you'll quickly apologize for not understanding the statement and move on.

"There is something very much similar to both teams when they lost the lead receiver."

Again, there is nothing similiar to the teams despite losing the lead receiver. If you'd like to indicate that the similarity is that they lost the lead receiver, that's acceptable. But, as I've clearly demonstrated, the Redskins didn't after losing Westbrook, like the Cowboys did after losing Irvin, struggle or play .500 ball. The Redskins actually went on a roll. Not until other injuries mounted did the Redskins struggle. So, the similarity between the two teams is merely one that both lost their top receiver. But, Westbrook has yet make a critical impact when out than Irvin did. Dallas was probably a 10-6 or better team with Irvin. The loss of Westbrook alone doesn't necessarily limit Washington at this point. That loss factored with others is what hurt the Redskins.

"Whether you choose to acknowledge that is another issue. But the Cowboys had a 100 yard receiver in every game up until Irvin fell. Then they fell apart. Very close to the Redskins situation. Not exact but close."

I struggle to understand how you can even write this nonsense. The Cowboys did NOT have a 100-yard receiver in every game up until Irvin fell. Against Atlanta in Week 2, Dallas as a team managed 98 passing yards. So, even if one guy caught every ball, that would make your statement false, would it not? But, looking beyond the factual innaccuracy you attempt to offer off as evidence, the barest hint of a point you were making is that the Dallas passing offense struggled immediately when Irvin went down. That is very likely true.

In fact, the point that Dallas as a team struggled immediately after Irvin went down is a very fair statement as well. Dallas did. Dallas went 2-4 after Irvin went down. Dallas struggled immediately after Irvin went down. And this very point also erases your comparison between the 2000 Redskins and 1999 Cowboys, because after Westbrook went down, the Redskins followed with a 5-1 record. Westbrook alone didn't cause the Redskins to struggle. It's IMPOSSIBLE to argue differently from the very evidence before you. I'm sure you'll agree.

"10-6...cronic is fun but causes one to not see the forest for the trees."

Is 10-6 less honest and realistic than your estimation of 7-9? If so, why? Show where a Redskin team that enjoys modest good health can't go 10-6. I see the trees in the forest Two Deep. And I see that no matter how hard you attempt to light them in flame, your inability to competently explain your own imagination is what harms you. I feel this Redskin team is better than the team that was 10-6 in 1999. Except, I'm not sure this team has so many question marks as that team did. So, perhaps I'm incorrect in only imagining 10-6 given that.

"Your team will not make the play-offs."

Declaritives are less than impressive. Watch. The Redskins will make the playoffs. Are you persuaded? How about, Dallas won't win a game. Does that give any credence to the statement, that I declared it so? Probably not. And, trust me, whether the Redskins make the playoffs or not, rests not one bit on your opinion. Honest.

"Marty is on the backside of his career and has shot his wad in the NFL."

Another declaritive. Fabulous. I'm stuck then. I demonstrate without fail that Marty is a coach who has consistently won and gotten more out of his teams than the talent he coached would suggest possible. I demonstrate that on his previous two stops he immediately improved a bad franchise into a winning one, or at least one that made the playoffs, in the FIRST season after taking over. And you respond with no evidence, just, "He's shot his wad." How elementary school do you wish to be? How about other coaches who've retired from the game and come back? Have all of them shot their wad too? Parcells? Vermeill? Johnson? Or, is it just that Marty has blown all his coaching and others who've come out of retirement haven't? Is that how it is? Because you say so? Sorry Two Deep, you aren't even scratching the surface of making a surface argument. You're just speaking without competence and knowledge.

"Deion is a disruption and by the way, here is a small salary cap article mingled in with His Toeness.

Enjoy

http://sportingnews.com/nfl/articles/20010727/332067.html

I believe this speaks to just one of your problems. It isn't like your salary cap issues haven't been disected on the ESPN.com site many times this off season. "

That article has no indication of the Redskins salary cap in the slightest Two Deep. All it says is the factual point that if the Redskins had cut Deion it would cost the team $5.7 million against next year's cap. Your point is that the Redskins are in cap hell. That article above, nor anything else you've shown, has said that. While true Deion will cost the Redskins $5.7 million next year, Dana Stubblefield is costing the Redskins $7.7 million THIS year. You see, dead money is a part of EVERY team's cap every season. And, other than Deion, there is no hard dead money agaisnt the Redskins cap next year.

Carrier was cut. Stubby was. Tre was. We cut everyone prior to June 1 so they wouldn't count against next year's cap. Other than Deion's dead money, which is, by itself, approximately $15 million less than we are carrying this year, there is no hard dead money against our cap next season. If Westbrook hits big and nails some incentives, then leaves in free agency, that could add up to $2 million or so.

But, I've read EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE that ever mentions the word Redskins. And, I assure you, I'm not seeing any dissecting of the Redskins cap situation by anyone for next year. Neither are you. You see what Deion will cost us next season and assume that must mean we are in cap hell. Untrue. We cut everyone before June 1 so all we have to contend with IS Deion next year. We won't be as far under the cap as the Cowboys, but, we will be under the cap. The advantage we have is that we actually have young talent, and the Cowboys have wall fodder for storming castles. Enjoy.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[Art]

Now, let's lump the rest of your posts together.

You wrote:

"By the way, Art. I have read quite a few of your posts and find you to have a very quick mind."

I don't recall reading any of your posts until you arrived on this board in this thread, and I find the opposite to be true of you. And that fact is what will answer your next question.

"But you assail the poster in a way that sometimes avoids the real issue. You like to post in a most p;edantic way. As if you are smarter and think so."

When you post ignorance and blatant foolishness, you should expect your rump to be reddened by my hand on any board I frequent. Period. Had you come here and spoken in a coversational manner, you'd never have had me jump you. In fact, when you did post here in a very straight-forward, well-intentioned manner, I responded in kind, with no personal questions or recrimitions.

However, you showed you couldn't continue to carry on that type of conversation by turning to an ignorant declaritive conversation wrought with factual innaccuracy. Whether I'm smarter than you or not, the fact is, I appear more intelligent because I can speak coherently on a subject without adding a ton of declaritive statements and hoping the sheer weight of my written words will magically become truth.

If you want to talk football, we can do that. I can do it with you, as I did above after you tried. But, of the posts you've had here, on the sport, ONE of them has been a conversation piece. The rest have been attack pieces or mindless tripe. And each has been totally devestated by myself and others. Picked apart and discarded. You feel some slight at this, and that's fine. You should have come better prepared.

"Forgive me for using your style. I find your posts fascinating yet filled with hubris. You are smart. But your style of debate is filled with acrimony.

That detracts from your knowledge."

My "debates" with people interested in a coversation are mutual exchanges of knowledge and ideas. My conversations with flamers, such as yourself, are usually one-sided slaughters that accentuate the inconsistent, innacurate nature of your posts, while displaying my ability to get it right. And, I do that in a way to insult, degrade, diminish and embarrass the poster.

You came here attacking Om for a very well-done fantasy piece he does every week. You attacked him without having any clue what you were talking about, and when I corrected you that 5-11 wasn't mediocre, as you said, and that Om has written pieces like that for each week, you didn't respond, "Hey, I didn't realize, Om, sorry." You tried to flame me, Terry, Blade. You were too small a person to just say, "Hey, my bad." You entered into this and lost. I'm more than willing to let you try again. To me, every thread is a new day. Each thread gets a new voice. I don't ever factor in previous ignorance in future threads unless that's all that's seen. You can chat here all you want. You just better not think you can attack a board member and not get dismembered. I'm sure you'll remember this occasion and this thread and speak with better information and more consistency in the future.

""I know I am but what are you" makes you look petty.

Take it for what it is worth. "

Coming from the flamer in this thread, the worth of the statement isn't even the value of the cyber parchment it was written upon. Read over this thread and tell me where you think you've been the good guy just looking for a good conversation, and we'll worry about my pit bull behavior thereafter.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[Blade]

Art wrote:

Coming from the flamer in this thread, the worth of the statement isn't even the value of the cyber parchment it was writtenupon. Read over this thread and tell me where you think you've been the good guy just looking for a good conversation, and we'll worry about my pit bull behavior thereafter.

A perfect ending to this thread. We've allowed Om's excellent work to be defiled long enough.

This thread is closed.