cavalry414 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 3) The Skins defense will have a +7 turnover ratio.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Nope. Never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onedrop Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 its cool, i think were in agreement about a lot of things, and youre right that theres still time to add some guys. i honestly think were a few guys away from being back to top 15. i honestly think its too early to talk about this stuff anyways. if a few of these kids we have wow the coaches during training camp, i will definitely be singing a different tune come dolphin sunday. on this we are in total agreement. addressing a few issues and our D could be better than 2005. before anyone else comes unglued, i did say COULD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 the saddest part about this entire bet, regardless of naysaying or optimism, is that califan is still betting on us being a mediocre defense 1) The Skins defense will rank in the top 15... dead smack in the middle, or better. notice you didnt say top 10. 2) The Skins defense will have 35+ sacks... that was the league average last year, so yeah, we'll be mediocre. 3) The Skins defense will have a +7 turnover ratio... this is the only area he had us projected to do well and it wont happen, most likely because campbell is going to throw more picks this year due to his style. guys who throw more, throw more picks generally, plus hes young. he'll probably throw around 12-14 picks this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 No, I said "serious" injury, and that the normal injuries due to wear and tear would not invalidate the bet as I was allowing the naysayers to have them. In other words, a broken hand or broken leg invalidates the bet, but pulled hamstrings, bad knees, groin pulls, etc...those do not.Besides, the naysayers are NOT saying that if everyone remains healthy the defense will do well...they're saying even IF everyone stays healthy the defense will still suck donkey balls. So I'm actually giving them some leeway... No, your not, your hedgeing the bet in your favor. When you lkook at what the guys are saying about what makes our D-line bad this is what you get: Daneils: Old and is hurt all the time. Griffin: Missed games in 6 or 7 NFL season, and was hurt alot in the 1 season he managed to play all the games Joe: Old and injury prone. See the hedge? Put me down for a naysayer on 2 conditions. 1. We dont get any upgrades (Sam Adams, ect) in the off season. 2. Injuries are not a reason to cancel the bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkforhall Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 This year is going to be super sweet. After the Skins crush this year, we can go back to all those Cowboy fans and say. "I told you so". And then we can tell our fellow Redskin fans the same thing. I don't know which one will be sweeter. Not much difference I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Either you belive we can turn it around and we will or you don't. So which side are you on? Or are you just ranting b/c you don't know what to think. well...my fine feathered friend....... 1) mini-camp hasn't even happened yet...Jun 1 cuts are just around the corner.....there is reason to be hopeful when staring at the unknown 2) I don't bet against the Skins 3) the real intent behind this has a particular...ummmmm....odor about it and responding to folks like you is just all "in good fun" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsManNJ Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 If we win the Super Bowl this year, I will wear the dunce cap for life. I said it and I mean it. I will wear it for the my enitre life on ES if we win the Super Bowl this season.I hope I am wrong about the numbers!!!! But I am a realist, not a pessimst and I don't think our D will get 35 sacks this year. We only marginally reached that number (39) when we had the 3rd ranked D in the league and did not reach that number w/ the 9th ranked D in the league. Don't misunderstand what I am saying, I hope we have 50 sacks this year and Golston, Marcus, Rocky and Carter all have double digit sack numbers. I just don't see it happening. That does not make me a pessimist, it makes me a realist. I agree you are being a realist about it. But I do see the sacks being around 35 give or take a few. So lets hope you proudly wear the dunce cap lol. Cause all will be happy. You might have some jabs poked at ya but it'll be in good fun. Here's to the proudly worn dunce cap lol. . . this is so subjective though. WHO is deemed an impact player? how many games can they miss? what type of injury consitutes a major injury? how about califan backup what he says and say that the D can complete all his goals regardless of what happens to anyone. teams get injured, they have backups that fill in. it happens every year. the colts/bears/eagles all had injuries to key players and their backups filled in fine. we dont have that luxury because we have no depth. The impact player(s) will be something that is agreed upon. We can only pick 4 as he stated. Must be season ending up to week 12 after that everything is fair game. He did say for players missing games here and there don't count. I hate to disagree but we do have more depth this year than last. Those teams you mentioned didn't have season ending injuries their players came back at the right time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsn24 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 the saddest part about this entire bet, regardless of naysaying or optimism, is that califan is still betting on us being a mediocre defense1) The Skins defense will rank in the top 15... dead smack in the middle, or better. notice you didnt say top 10. 2) The Skins defense will have 35+ sacks... that was the league average last year, so yeah, we'll be mediocre. 3) The Skins defense will have a +7 turnover ratio... this is the only area he had us projected to do well and it wont happen, most likely because campbell is going to throw more picks this year due to his style. guys who throw more, throw more picks generally, plus hes young. he'll probably throw around 12-14 picks this season. Exactly it is really a bet of injuries vs +7 turnover...the other stats mean we are meidocre, not good, not better than average, simply average...which would then lead to say 8-8....not something i would be happy about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNatsFan Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Califan, I think you may need to add an "It's not fair" group to your list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 The impact player(s) will be something that is agreed upon. We can only pick 4 as he stated. Must be season ending up to week 12 after that everything is fair game. He did say for players missing games here and there don't count. I hate to disagree but we do have more depth this year than last. Those teams you mentioned didn't have season ending injuries their players came back at the right time. haha, ok pick 4 i guess then. if its to the IR, then fine. but any other injuries are game. and the eagles lost kearse, cole stepped in and beasted it up. we have some more depth this year in the secondary, but LB is a mystery, and DL depth is insanely weak, especially at DE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Exactly it is really a bet of injuries vs +7 turnover...the other stats mean we are meidocre, not good, not better than average, simply average...which would then lead to say 8-8....not something i would be happy about. and i already stated i think we'll be 8-8 or 9-7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsSuperBowl21 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 yea we need to make a poll of about 10 impact defensive player and take the top four voted when the bet starts..:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfos81 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 i think any starter is key, because we dont have good depth. but anyways.the colts did lose sanders most of the season, and won the superbowl, and freeney was contained most of the year, but since they have mathis, they prevailed. the pats have more depth than they know what to do with, so theyd probably be fine. the broncos were mediocre this year, and had the 21st ranked pass D WITH champ bailey, so without him they might have been worse than us. Colts lost Sanders in the playoffs? No, they stunk it up during the season when Sanders was out. What was the Colts run doing when Sanders was out? And what did they do when he came back? So yes, injuries do affect a teams ability to play better or worse. Thanks for helping me make my point. If the Pats lost a key player like Wilson or Seymour they wouldn't win the superbowl so thats making my point for me. As well as if the Broncos lost Champ they would be worse off and yes they would've probably ranked worse on D. So yes I agree w/ you on that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfos81 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Califan, I think you may need to add an "It's not fair" group to your list. Or I would rather beyatch list :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Colts lost Sanders in the playoffs? No, they stunk it up during the season when Sanders was out. What was the Colts run doing when Sanders was out? And what did they do when he came back? So yes, injuries do affect a teams ability to play better or worse. Thanks for helping me make my point. If the Pats lost a key player like Wilson or Seymour they wouldn't win the superbowl so thats making my point for me. As well as if the Broncos lost Champ they would be worse off and yes they would've probably ranked worse on D. So yes I agree w/ you on that as well. pats didnt win the superbowl this year, and with sanders injuries all season they managed to go 12-4. when you have their offense, their D can give up running yards. if they could stop the run theyd have been 19-0 last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfos81 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 yea we need to make a poll of about 10 impact defensive player and take the top four voted when the bet starts..:2cents: Well S.T. would 1, Griff, Fletch, and either Washington or Springs. So we would have to lose 4 key starters for the bet to be off. Sounds good to me. Too bad some naysayers still wouldn't be happy w/ that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfos81 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 At least we know 1 thing, we have more optimism in these boards than at 1st glance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Can anyone on the optimist side answer my question? Say 2 of our agreed upon starters are out by week 6. Does the bet get canceled at week 6? Or does it continue? Say, for example, Taylor and Springs both go out for the year. Stoutmire and Smoot come in and lead this defense to a top ranking. The optimists will claim victory, even though the terms of the bet were not met. In this case, if the bet is allowed to continue, either the optimists win or the bet is invalid. Good defense - they win. Bad defense - starters were hurt, bet invalid. How does this not benefit them??? If the bet is invalidated the same week the starters went down then count me in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfos81 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Can anyone on the optimist side answer my question? Say 2 of our agreed upon starters are out by week 6. Does the bet get canceled at week 6? Or does it continue?Say, for example, Taylor and Springs both go out for the year. Stoutmire and Smoot come in and lead this defense to a top ranking. The optimists will claim victory, even though the terms of the bet were not met. In this case, if the bet is allowed to continue, either the optimists win or the bet is invalid. Good defense - they win. Bad defense - starters were hurt, bet invalid. How does this not benefit them??? If the bet is invalidated the same week the starters went down then count me in. Again, it has to be more than 2 "key" starters placed on IR before week 13 and so the odds should be on the naysayers side. For ex. Springs, Taylor, and/or Fletcher, and Griff would all have to out for the most part of the season. So if you break the season down into quarters 4 games=25%. So that would mean all 2-4 "key" players would have to be out more than 8 games. Im just giving some ex. not wanting to make you think this is set in stone or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsManNJ Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 exactly, and since it supposedly benefits the naysayers like he claims, take out the injury BS and it should sway more towards the middle right? How would it sway to the middle? Take out the injury clause and nothing favors the optimists side. Naysayers only need 1 out 3 things not to be met and ya'll win so how would it sway to the middle? :doh: If you see it as an opt out for the optimist, than so be it. If you don't wanna bet, than don't. But beyatching is getting you nowhere here. Can somebody give the naysayers a bottle b/c some of em are acting like babies. If the bet gets canceled b/c of injuries than you guys can rant on and on about how you told us so and you don't lose you friggin avatar. So make a decision and stick to it or don't make 1 at all. Exactly. They can and will get on us if (god forbid) one of those injuries does happen to cancel the bet. But they should jump on it just because of the +7 turnover ratio. That's less likely than the MAJOR injury clause. No man, even it if reduces your risk by 1% it is still bet hedging. In essence he has made 2 bets...1 about the 3 sitautions and another that 1 player gets hurt. If either one happens he wins or doesnt lose. It is bet hedging you can argue, the degree to which the risk is reduced but it is. Hell last year on the first play we lost out starting SS....so much for the bet then hun? You don't understand that if one of the objectives is missed then we lose. We have to be 100% right in order to win. Once again the heaviest favored part of the bet for the naysayers is the +7 turnover ratio. Would have considered him to be a crucial player before or after the injury? youre just well aware of how stupid the bet is, but instead of addressing it, youre claiming that all of the "naysayers" would rather complain. if you had any confidence in our defense and our depth, you wouldnt hesitate to take out the stupid injury clause. Nice shot at trying to use the reverse psychology. :applause: The injury clause is less likely to happen than us being +7 in the turnover battle. If your so sure that one of these goals can't be reached then why care about the MAJOR injury clause. You should be confident enough that one of the goals won't be reached. If that happens then you win. What do ya say pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 this whole bet is pretty stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Again, it has to be more than 2 "key" starters and so the odds should be on the naysayers side. You are completely missing my point. Whenever the crazy injury terms have been met, is the bet invalid right then and there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 this whole bet is pretty stupid. Man, I wish you had said this about 200 posts ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 You are completely missing my point. Whenever the crazy injury terms have been met, is the bet invalid right then and there? I haven't read any of the rest of the posts discussing this, but to answer your question, yes...the bet would be invalid if one of the 2 or 3 key defensive players goes on IR before game 13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Nice shot at trying to use the reverse psychology. :applause: The injury clause is less likely to happen than us being +7 in the turnover battle. If your so sure that one of these goals can't be reached then why care about the MAJOR injury clause. You should be confident enough that one of the goals won't be reached. If that happens then you win. What do ya say pal. because if an injury happens the whole thing is voided. i am sure one of these goals cannot be reached, but the "optimists" arent without certain stipulations. remove your exceptions and the bet is on. stand firm and say, we will complete x y and z this season, no matter what happens. when you do that, im in. but none of you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.