Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 I don't even know what "True Redskin" means. Maybe that phrase meant something in the 80s. But we have been a bad team and a bad franchise for the better part of a decade and a half. At this point, doesn't "True Redskin" mean about the same thing as "True Cardinal" or "True Lion?" Honestly, the best example of a "True Redskin" we have right now is Archueletta. An over-paid, over-hyped free agent who actually makes the team worse upon his arrival. That's a true Redskin circa 1993-2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondie Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 He is?I just do not see it. :whoknows: *whistles innocently* :paranoid: I don't choose to take the bait today. Have a great THANKSGIVING!!! Blondie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I don't choose to take the bait today.Have a great THANKSGIVING!!! Blondie You too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meek Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 The funny thing is i cant name one true Redskin on the defensive side of the ball.Maybe Washington,but i dont even know about that. Renaldo Wynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Lover Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 We'll probably cut thrash in the offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spagolli94 Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I don't even know what "True Redskin" means. Maybe that phrase meant something in the 80s. But we have been a bad team and a bad franchise for the better part of a decade and a half. At this point' date=' doesn't "True Redskin" mean about the same thing as "True Cardinal" or "True Lion?" Honestly, the best example of a "True Redskin" we have right now is Archueletta. An over-paid, over-hyped free agent who actually makes the team worse upon his arrival. That's a true Redskin circa 1993-2006.[/quote'] Scary, but true. I remember I used to make fun of some of my buddies who were Steelers fans. It was in the early 90's (very early) and they were blabbing about how the Steelers won so many championships back in the 70's. I thought they sounded so pathetic. Now I have to look in the mirror. I can't believe we've been this bad, this long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WideReceiver25 Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 How can you put TJ in there?He has only been here 1/2 of 1/2 a season. He has played in only a couple of games. He has a one year contract. Please tell me how you came to that conclusion. Thanks Blondie I put TJ in there because the man runs like John Riggins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I don't even know what "True Redskin" means. Maybe that phrase meant something in the 80s. But we have been a bad team and a bad franchise for the better part of a decade and a half. At this point' date=' doesn't "True Redskin" mean about the same thing as "True Cardinal" or "True Lion?" Honestly, the best example of a "True Redskin" we have right now is Archueletta. An over-paid, over-hyped free agent who actually makes the team worse upon his arrival. That's a true Redskin circa 1993-2006.[/quote'] Ding. I feel bad for the people who took the time to write out 10 names of their favorite players who will be traded or let go next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Antonio Pierce, Ryan Clark and Fred Smoot.Oh wait. They're true Giants, Steelers and Vikings now. Stupid, stupid, stupid lettin those guys get away.... :doh: I'll never understand it. They talked like they knew how key those guys were, the fans knew, their teammates knew and yet, we didn't put half the effort into getting them signed as the ridiculous free agents we went after. Clark, at his price, was especially unforgiveable. What I'd like to know is, who the hell made those decisions? Was it Gibbs deferring to Williams' wishes for the D? Did Gibbs think they were expendable? Did Synder not think those guys were worth real money? Something tells me Synder was following his coaches instructions and that Gibbs was allowing GW to make the defensive personnel decisions. I may be offbase, but that's how it seems AND it would fit the profile of past mistakes and criticisms of GW. If that is the case, there needs to be some serious oversight on the making of defensive personnel decisions. How do we let TWO field general leaders, the guys that make teams tick, go two years in a row? How do a let a fan and player favorite, who's production we haven't come CLOSE to matching from a #2 CB since, walk under the pretext of a fiscal plan and renewed fiscal responsiblity only to turn around and go right back to being kids in a candy store the following offseason? We'll probably cut thrash in the offseason. I'd be willing to make a sizeable bet that you're wrong. I mean, it would be a stupid move so I wouldn't put it past this team but I don't see it happening. He's too valuable on special teams and as a leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana_Fan Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Thrash is the man, I was mad when he went to the Eagles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldysknzfn1 Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Thrash is the man, I was mad when he went to the Eagles. me too!..I couldn't believe we let him go...but now he's back home...and I like his game...quiet yet dependable.... Hail:point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.