Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 the concept remains the same. you're no longer betting on the defense but certain players. sooo...any serious injury to any starter and the bet's off? hmmmmmm....speaking of odds....not to mention defining "serious".sucker bet!!!!!!!!! the illogical positivists will have to do better! Actually, no...I said a significant injury to a key player, not just a starter...we may only have 3 or 4 key players on defense (Taylor, Washington, Griffin...perhaps Fletcher). If someone like Daniels (God forbid) were to go out with a significant injury, the bet's still on. Wow...you'd think the naysayers would be all over this bet instead of trying to nitpick it to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 correct. the point being...as ratios go..this is one that has a variable that is completely independent of the defense...big duh. the bet is on both the offense and the defense. well the turnover ratio that is being said and done is For example Redskins committ 22 turnovers on offense Redskins grab 39 turnovers on defense thats a +17 turnover ratio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 correct. the point being...as ratios go..this is one that has a variable that is completely independent of the defense...big duh. the bet is on both the offense and the defense. Please. This part of the bet COMPLETELY favors the naysayers. The only way it favors the rest of us is if the offense has basically a turnover-free season. That's the only scenario in which the defense does NOT have to significantly improve its turnover totals. Or are you saying that naysayers believe that the defense will improve significantly in that department? lol :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 I agree, injury should not be a factor. its a team sport. If their isnt a competent back up then that is a TEAM problem... I am in if the bet is straight up. What do you have to lose if it's not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I thikn even in 05 before the win streak we were negative and in 04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 I thikn even in 05 before the win streak we were negative and in 04 I think so, too...which is why I say the turnover ration part of the bet favors the naysayers. A defense as horrendous as the naysayers thinks ours is could NEVER generate enough turnovers to have a +7 for the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Make it for one of these two avatars.......................OR ............ I'm Stoopid ...............................The Board's Beyatch )_______________________________________________________ Where did you get that picture of my mother in law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfos81 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I belived we would turn it around and dominate again on D soon as the season was over. Just look at the coaches history, struggles don't last long but they suck at the time. COME ON NAYSAYERS, put your sig where your BIG mouths are! Skins D in 07 will be a top 10 D w/ about 35+ sacks and the picks will come if that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Califan, you know what... I'll take that bet on ONE condition.... injuries are not a factor. Part of the problem with this team's defense is that it has no depth. WHEN (not if) that defense starts to endure the injuries that I believe it will, this group will head right back where it was last year. Either you believe this defensive crew can do the job or you don't. Regardless of which individuals area there on the field. Personally, I DON'T believe in that group. So what do you say, Califan? Are we on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Shark Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I'll bet against that. Don't get me wrong, I think the defense will be greatly improved and I think last season was more of a fluke than anything else but I don't see us hitting all 3 of those goals (most notably the sack total of almost twice what we had last year) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Money Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I'll bet you a ham sandwich or the rights to Rod Gardner (that you win) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 Califan, you know what...I'll take that bet on ONE condition.... injuries are not a factor. Part of the problem with this team's defense is that it has no depth. WHEN (not if) that defense starts to endure the injuries that I believe it will, this group will head right back where it was last year. Either you believe this defensive crew can do the job or you don't. Regardless of which individuals area there on the field. Personally, I DON'T believe in that group. So what do you say, Califan? Are we on? Already outlined my stance on injuries...that there are only 3, maybe 4, players that it effects, and the injuries have to be major ones. Besides, you lose NOTHING if the bet is invalidated because of major injury as detailed above... Good lord, I have to have ALL THREE GOALS get met to win, you guys only need to have one NOT be met to win...and somehow you're STILL not confident enough in your naysayer stance to take the bet? I'm starting to see how cowardly you guys are when you have to actually back up your pessimistic proclamations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SantanaClaus89 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I'll take that bet Califan... NO WAY IN HELL the Skins D gets 35+ sacks. NO WAY! Hey, I wanna win the Super Bowl as much as the next guy... but there's NO WAY the D will be that much improved. I'll bet the "I'm Stoopid" avatar. Take it or leave it. Oh, and the only injuries that should negate the bet are season enders, meaning injured reserve. If Griffin and/or Daniels, etc. miss 8 games with "nagging" back/knee injuries all is fair, so don't cry to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 )_______________________________________________________Where did you get that picture of my mother in law? now there's a positive/negative thought that's...well....pretty *amn funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 I'll bet against that.Don't get me wrong, I think the defense will be greatly improved and I think last season was more of a fluke than anything else but I don't see us hitting all 3 of those goals (most notably the sack total of almost twice what we had last year) Thank you...a true man among cowards lol I figured that the calling card would be that not all three would be met...I didn't think we'd be detailing the minutia of turnover ratios or what details a "significant injury"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsSuperBowl21 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 What do you have to lose if it's not? It a one sided bet..I dont think its fair to the naysayers..plus if one of our true playmakers goes down, another player should step up..that is the beauty of football..see betts 1000 yard campaign in 06 for example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 I'll take that bet Califan...NO WAY IN HELL the Skins D gets 35+ sacks. NO WAY! Hey, I wanna win the Super Bowl as much as the next guy... but there's NO WAY the D will be that much improved. I'll bet the "I'm Stoopid" avatar. Take it or leave it. Oh, and the only injuries that should negate the bet are season enders, meaning injured reserve. If Griffin and/or Daniels, etc. miss 8 games with "nagging" back/knee injuries all is fair, so don't cry to me... Agreed on the injured reserve injuries...and in fact, no injuries that occur after game 12 will count, either. By that time, the defense should have it's standing and performance rather etched in stone...a few more games won't change anything, unless they're hovering right at the 15th rank point lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsSuperBowl21 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 you have to have confidence in the football team as a whole in order to make a confident wager..im in only under my aforementioned requests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SantanaClaus89 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Agreed on the injured reserve injuries...and in fact, no injuries that occur after game 12 will count, either. By that time, the defense should have it's standing and performance rather etched in stone...a few more games won't change anything, unless they're hovering right at the 15th rank point lol... OK cool I agree with you 100% BTW... I WANT you to win, y'know? I mean I want the Skins to win the Super Bowl and the D to be ranked #1! I hope you're optimism turns out to be correct, because I could deal with a dunce avatar so long as the Skins have a great year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Please. This part of the bet COMPLETELY favors the naysayers. The only way it favors the rest of us is if the offense has basically a turnover-free season. That's the only scenario in which the defense does NOT have to significantly improve its turnover totals.Or are you saying that naysayers believe that the defense will improve significantly in that department? lol :laugh: probably true...but you're still betting on more than the defense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 It a one sided bet..I dont think its fair to the naysayers..plus if one of our true playmakers goes down, another player should step up..that is the beauty of football..see betts 1000 yard campaign in 06 for example Geez...you DO realize that I have to have all three come true to win while you only need one to not come true, right?...that ALONE tilts the bet heavily in favor of the naysayers. Not to mention that according to the naysayers, the Skins defense has absolutely no chance of even meeting one of those goals, whether healthy or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyf316 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 If you'd drop the injury clause, it would be a bet worth considering. But with the injury clause, you've left yourself an excuse as to why the defense may fail and it's "not their fault." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsSuperBowl21 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 aight dude **** it...im confident enough anyway..im in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsSuperBowl21 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 i agree that a +7 turnover ratio could be tough so the bet is fair enough for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 OK cool I agree with you 100%BTW... I WANT you to win, y'know? I mean I want the Skins to win the Super Bowl and the D to be ranked #1! I hope you're optimism turns out to be correct, because I could deal with a dunce avatar so long as the Skins have a great year! Yeah, I know...well, actually I don't know, I just assume you do lol . But the fact remains that it seems that pretty much any post or thread that speaks optimistically about the defense's performance is automatically attacked at "homerism", written by kool aid drinkers who can't be "realistic" and see that the Skins have the "worst d-line in NFL history" and that the FO's drafting of Landry just solidifies another 5 win season. All I'm really saying is back up the words now...(btw, not saying you personally have said all those things) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.