G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I'll take the bet that Califan's predictions won't come true; for the "Board Beyotch" avatar. Anyone? EDIT: To make that a little clearer, I'm saying that Califan is going to be wrong. That we won't reach one, or more, of the three goals he laid out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author 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." The "injury clause" is any injury to a "key player" (we can decide who are key players later, but I only think there are a couple on defense) that lands them on the injured reserve list and happens prior to game 13. If you're a true naysayer, you'll jump at this bet like a starving man at a bologna sammich... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsSuperBowl21 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 edit your original post and create 2 "rosters" naysayers vs the homers for easier tracking as both lists should grow the player that this injury clause should affect def. jason campbell and sean taylor for sure, not sure who else though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 aight dude **** it...im confident enough anyway..im in! Which side, I can't remember lol.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SantanaClaus89 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 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) Yeah I mean I haven't slammed the defense as much as some on here, I just find it hard to believe that the improvement will be as vast as some might think. I support the Landry pick, and at the same time I feel that D-line is a huge concern, so I'm kind of torn. Believe it or not I'm a HUGE homer. I sincerely hope the Skins go 16-0. Last year was a nightmare for me, and I told myself that I wouldn't get too excited this year until I see the team actually play well in a game. That's probably why I'm in on this bet. But no worries, in the grand scheme of things, we're on the same side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 damn, people argue the redskins defense is some **** and when they see stats that clearly give them the pure advantage in all 3 categories, they disappear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 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"... "devil is in the...."....ahhhh...never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsManNJ Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Its a good bet regardless of the SERIOUS injury clause. Such as Fletcher or Taylor. You saying its not favoring the naysayers have got to be kidding me. He needs to be a 100% right while naysayers only have to be 33% right. Come on grow some b***s and stop nitpicking about the injury clause. Its not like its saying if Grif and Sale' go down bets off. Or any of them miss games here or there. Its basically saying if they are down and out for the year (unless after wk 12) its off. Plus he only mentioned 4 players who he thinks are key guys. 4 out of 11. Get over it. Either you don't think they can cover 3parts of the bet or not. Or are you being a naysayer just to be one. By the way CaliFan I'm in with you also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 edit your original post and create 2 "rosters" naysayers vs the homers for easier tracking as both lists should growthe player that this injury clause should affect def. jason campbell and sean taylor for sure, not sure who else though Doesn't effect anyone on offense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 damn, people argue the redskins defense is some **** and when they see stats that clearly give them the pure advantage in all 3 categories, they disappear I know lol :laugh:...I really didn't expect this much resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SantanaClaus89 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 well the offense affects the turnover ratio, but I know what you mean... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsSuperBowl21 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Doesn't effect anyone on offense... if campbell goes down he have a bunch of interception machines that will directly affect our 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 if campbell goes down he have a bunch of interception machines that will directly affect our turnover ratio Brunell doesn't turn the ball over much, so nobody on offense counts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 Its a good bet regardless of the SERIOUS injury clause. Such as Fletcher or Taylor. You saying its not favoring the naysayers have got to be kidding me. He needs to be a 100% right while naysayers only have to be 33% right. Come on grow some b***s and stop nitpicking about the injury clause. Its not like its saying if Grif and Sale' go down bets off. Or any of them miss games here or there. Its basically saying if they are down and out for the year (unless after wk 12) its off. Plus he only mentioned 4 players who he thinks are key guys. 4 out of 11. Get over it. Either you don't think they can cover 3parts of the bet or not. Or are you being a naysayer just to be one.By the way CaliFan I'm in with you also. Excellent... Btw, you quoted NewCliche for some reason lol...his post isnt' even on this thread, I don't think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsSuperBowl21 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIDETHEWALRUS Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I'll take that bet. I see us being a top 10 defense, having 35+ sacks, but the +7 turnover ratio is a bit much considering Cambell will be asked to do a lot more this year and he is still young, plus Betts will get more carries which comes with a significant risk of fumabilitis. Put me down for either my sig, or simply not antagonizing people with the devil's advocate role for a month. 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. I see us being a top 10 defense, having 35+ sacks, but the +7 turnover ratio is a bit much considering Cambell will be asked to do a lot more this year and he is still young, plus Betts will get more carries which comes with a significant risk of fumabilitis.Put me down for either my sig, or simply not antagonizing people with the devil's advocate role for a month. So...you're on the naysayer side, then? (which, btw, if you think the Skins will have a top 10 defense and 35+ sacks, you are NOT a naysayer lol). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsSuperBowl21 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 put me in the other column..please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfos81 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 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. :applause: Don't be Skeered naysayers. You have the advantage plus the bigger mouths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 put me in the other column..please Done...and welcome aboard Geez, that only leaves us with three naysayers lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschurm Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I am not a naysayer. I don't come on this board and trash my team. But, I will take your bet. I think the D has a chance to make it to the top ten, but I don't think they will have that many sacks. My avatar is on the line, I will wear the dumb dumb avatar for one month if they reach all three goals, you can even enjoy your wiggle room with the injuries clause. But there is one condition, I will not wear the beyatch avatar. I am no one's beyatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Dave Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Well, every year I think that the Skins will be the tops on many stats. My friends ask me how many games I think the Skins will win this year and I always say "all of them". To me the D-line isn't as bad as a lot of people think it is. I can see us being in the top 10 defense. I'm hoping for top 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 I am not a naysayer. I don't come on this board and trash my team. But, I will take your bet. I think the D has a chance to make it to the top ten, but I don't think they will have that many sacks. My avatar is on the line, I will wear the dumb dumb avatar for one month if they reach all three goals, you can even enjoy your wiggle room with the injuries clause. But there is one condition, I will not wear the beyatch avatar. I am no one's beyatch. I'm trying to determine if I should only take bets from true naysayers...the ones who moan and ***** and gripe and put down anyone who dares think the Skins have a snowball's chance in hell of achieving any success. You don't seem to fit that description... I'll add you to the naysayers' side, what the hell lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Oh, you know I'm there man. Sign me up. I'm always hopeful we'll pull through. Belief is essential, and success is psychological. I know we're not a 5-11 team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK 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 I've added a poll for you guys & the rest of the board to vote for the losers avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.