Attn: Skins Naysayers...Let's Make A Bet

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Man, I wish you had said this about 200 posts ago.

haha, i think i did at some point.

[dfos81]

You are completely missing my point. Whenever the crazy injury terms have been met, is the bet invalid right then and there?

Why worry about the injury clause, if we do lose 2, 0r 3, or 4 key starters and the bet gets nulified than what have you lost? If anything you'll gain the right to voice even more about how we need more depth, which is another rant all together.

If you guys can't figure this out and you think its stupid, than don't bet. That simple.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

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.

The bet is invalid the same week the designated key players (God forbid) go on IR.

[ttr77]

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.

Man. This is confusing. Someone has said that 4 starters have to go down. Now it's 1 out of 2 or 3? I think I need a nap...

[dfos81]

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.

Then don't bet and continuing ranting b/c its not changing for a few naysayers to be happy, lol.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Why worry about the injury clause, if we do lose 4 key starters and the bet gets nulified than what have you lost? If anything you'll gain the right to voice even more about how we need more depth, which is another rant all together.

If you guys can't figure this out and you think its stupid, than don't bet. That simple.

because, then you get to whine on about how good we are, and make more excuses for our defense if they get injured and say "man we WOULD have been x y z but then that happened and thats why. GUYS GET INJURED EVERY YEAR! teams move on. bears lost their starting saftey last year, eagles lost kearse, both teams made the playoffs. we cannot move on because we have no depth.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

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.

No, because the naysayers don't say "we WON'T complete x, y, and z because I expect Taylor to go on IR this season"...they say "we won't complete x, y and z because of talent and age".

I'm starting to think the naysayers aren't really dedicated to their own often-repeated views...

[planter]

Sack projection look optimistic.

15th in defense means a C+ Skins defense.

Turnover ratio? Good luck predicting that.....

However, as a 'Skins fan living in New England, I can say one thing with certainty....

The Pats look very, very scary.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Then don't bet and continuing ranting b/c its not changing for a few naysayers to be happy, lol.

i already said i wouldnt. and im hardly ranting, im stating that the bet is stupid. if you wanna see me rant, lets talk about the dline

[Califan007 The Constipated]

because, then you get to whine on about how good we are, and make more excuses for our defense if they get injured and say "man we WOULD have been x y z but then that happened and thats why. GUYS GET INJURED EVERY YEAR! teams move on. bears lost their starting saftey last year, eagles lost kearse, both teams made the playoffs. we cannot move on because we have no depth.

But key defensive players don't go on IR by game 12 every year. Stop trying to make it sound like the bet says if Griffin has a hamstring problem, all bets are off. That's not the case, and only you and maybe one or two other naysayers are reading it that way. To the rest of us you're just showing your truer colers.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

No, because the naysayers don't say "we WON'T complete x, y, and z because I expect Taylor to go on IR this season"...they say "we won't complete x, y and z because of talent and age".

I'm starting to think the naysayers aren't really dedicated to their own often-repeated views...

im saying we wont complete x y z because of our age, and the injuries that come with age. and you disagree. but if a starter who is old and more prone to injuries goes down for the season (which wouldnt be too far off) youre saying the bet is off. which is dumb.

[dfos81]

If the naysayers can answer a question. If the bet gets canceled b/c of injuries, what have you lost? If anything you gained the right to rant on about our depth at that point, which is what you would love to do.

[[[ghost]]]

I'm in. As an optimist.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

But key defensive players don't go on IR by game 12 every year. Stop trying to make it sound like the bet says if Griffin has a hamstring problem, all bets are off. That's not the case, and only you and maybe one or two other naysayers are reading it that way. To the rest of us you're just showing your truer colers.

so if griff, an oft injured aging starter goes out for the year, the bet is off correct? :doh:

[ttr77]

because, then you get to whine on about how good we are, and make more excuses for our defense if they get injured and say "man we WOULD have been x y z but then that happened and thats why. GUYS GET INJURED EVERY YEAR! teams move on. bears lost their starting saftey last year, eagles lost kearse, both teams made the playoffs. we cannot move on because we have no depth.

It seems to me to that even the most optimistic fan on here agrees that we have no depth. Or the injury clause would not have been included and argued about.

I think the lack of depth due to the way this team has been constructed is the main reason this team has been bad lately.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

My problem with the defense was just what you said calls off the bet. If Griffen, Springs, Washington, are out the defense sucks. Thats why we need depth, which is something they didn't get for the DL.

So I guess I'm not a naysayer. Last years defense would have been fine if nobody got injured but the reality is that they did, and likely will again.

Exactly...from what I've read, the naysayers don't believe last season's defense would have been fine if the injuries had not occurred. They feel it would have sucked regardless, and chalk it up to boneheaded moves by the Skins' FO and lack of STARTING talent along the D-line.

[SnyderMustGo]

As I have said before, put me down on the "naysayer" side Califan. I will win this bet irrespective of any injuries or complete health. I need no outs.

But when you lose, if you start running around saying "its only because of injuries," understand you will be mocked seriously for this point because you gave yourself an out instead of standing by your firm conviction. You need a way to get out of the bet. I don't.

[SkinsManNJ]

3) The Skins defense will have a +7 turnover ratio....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Nope.

Never.

So I take it your in then right?

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.

Those type injuries you mentioned would not stop the bet. So mvoing on. In or Out?

Califan, I think you may need to add an "It's not fair" group to your list.

:laughing: yeah for the ones who want to but don't want to lol

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.

We need a poll to have an over vote for those participating. IR is the main part of the clause so pretty much if its not that then its still on.

If Kearse was on our team he would fall into the can't cancel the bet category. Cause that's expected of him every year. Lol.

yea we need to make a poll of about 10 impact defensive player and take the top four voted when the bet starts..:2cents:

Agreed.

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.

Still shows how much one player can make a difference. If the Colts had our offense last year they would have been 5-11. That's why the clause is in there. It also says that noone really thinks the offense will be dominant enough to cover the D's back.

[onedrop]

It seems to me to that even the most optimistic fan on here agrees that we have no depth. Or the injury clause would not have been included and argued about.

I think the lack of depth due to the way this team has been constructed is the main reason this team has been bad lately.

a team cannot have great depth at all positions. at some we are fine at others questionable. injuries to the former are obviously not so costly as the latter. it all depends on how the cookie crumbles,

[Califan007 The Constipated]

so if griff, an oft injured aging starter goes out for the year, the bet is off correct? :doh:

Only if he's considered a key player on defense in this bet...and Griffin has never gone on IR, so being "oft injured" is irrelevant...it's the HUGE injuries we're talking about, and they have to happen before week 12.

Trust me, only to YOU does this seem like an unfair advantage for the optimists lol...as if the Skins constantly have key defensive players on IR each season. Besides, if you have to rely on a key defensive player having a season-ending injury for your predictions to come true, then that says a ****load.

[ttr77]

a team cannot have great depth at all positions. at some we are fine at others questionable. injuries to the former are obviously not so costly as the latter. it all depends on how the cookie crumbles,

I think a team that build more through the draft over a period of years is more likely to have depth at more positions than a team that has adopted the free-agent first approach.

[onedrop]

I think a team that build more through the draft over a period of years is more likely to have depth at more positions than a team that has adopted the free-agent first approach.

while this may be true it doesnt change the fact that no team can have great depth at every position. its just not possible.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

As I have said before, put me down on the "naysayer" side Califan. I will win this bet irrespective of any injuries or complete health. I need no outs.

At least you have the guts to stand by your opinions without whining about the LEAST likely scenarios being "unfair"...

But when you lose, if you start running around saying "its only because of injuries," understand you will be mocked seriously for this point because you gave yourself an out instead of standing by your firm conviction. You need a way to get out of the bet. I don't.

Maybe I was wrong about you, because you sound like the few other naysayers who COMPLETELY misrepresent what the injury clause means, and why it's there. Naysayers don't give a **** about depth when they post all the negativity and ridicule those fans who are optimists. It's only on THIS thread where having key players go on IR is suddenly the main reason for their pessimism lol :laugh:...We all know better, but it's fun to see you guys try and spin it that way anyway.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Trust me, only to YOU does this seem like an unfair advantage for the optimists lol...as if the Skins constantly have key defensive players on IR each season. Besides, if you have to rely on a key defensive player having a season-ending injury for your predictions to come true, then that says a ****load.

I don't think it's a matter of an advantage, so much as it's an 'escape clause' for those of you who are overly optimistic. As I've said, I don't think this team could meet ANY of your limits even if every defensive starter plays every play of every game this season. I just don't think the defensive players, coaches or scheme are good enough to do that. Which is why I'll take your bet.

I'd be interested in seeing a list of who's "in" on each side at this point, if somebody has the time to go through and sort it all out.

[ttr77]

while this may be true it doesnt change the fact that no team can have great depth at every position. its just not possible.

I agree. But the more depth a team has, the better off they'll be. Injuries happen to every team. The better ones overcome them. Teams that went 5-11 the previous year often do not.