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

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

with our record last year and in previous ones you have evey right to be a "naysayer". if you CHOOSE to be.

i choose to think we will go 8-8 or 9-7 if our offense really lights it up. i think our d will still have issues stopping the run. remember, fletcher came from the 28th ranked run defense, so its not like he was some force over there. he used to be when they had two huge fatties in the middle with williams and adams. but i digress.

the media - they are in no way more often "right". they merely conjecture and speculate. look at the most recent Sean Taylor flap that was completely created by the media.

the media is stupid and has nothing to do with my personal prediction that the team still has Dline issues due to age and wear/tear.

the D line - the coaches have maintained that their beleif was that the problem last year was mainly the secondary. take it for what it is but thats their stance.

gibbs and williams sling that "our dline is fine" BS to the media because they would never throw anyone under the bus. gibbs sorta bashed the secondary, but that unit has been overhauled so hes not diminishing current players, unlike winners such as rumph/wright/arch/vincent. theres no way williams is happy with his dline. hes got injured aging vets, and thats nothing to be excited about. the best hope is that mont and golston are actually the real deal, and im reeeeeeeally hoping they are. i will feel much better if i hear that mont is pwning peope in practice this june/july.

i understand your reluctance to believe that our bottom ranked D can become a powerhouse but hey, we did the same thing in reverse last year..

its much easier to go from 3 and 9 to 31, than it is to go from 31 to 9 or 3. same way its easier to topple a building with a wrecking ball than it is to build one.

and we didnt just add a rookie safety and Fletcher. there are other reasons, or signs, to be optomistic over.

im optimistic that our D will be improved, but it still will have major issues at DE and DT, and maybe OLB depending on whether washington is 100%.

Smoot is back, so is Stoutmire. Prieleau is healthy. we did get the "best defensive player in the draft" giving us what some in the MEDIA are already calling the best safety tandem in the league. we signed Macklin as well as stole at least one LB in the draft if not two. Goldston showed a lot of promise last year and Carter really came on towards the end. ST is NOT unhappy and is with the team right now. we didnt trade away any of next years picks (yet). AND holdman is GONE...

smoot will be solid, stoutmire is great for saftey depth, and were not sure about prileou who is old to begin with. we got landry but he will take some time. we still have no pass rush from the front 4. its silly to think williams doesnt want pass rush from his front 4, if that was the case we wouldnt have brought in carter, who is a pass rush guy #1. macklin will be a good CB addition. again, our secondary and DBs look awesome, but building a D backwards isnt smart. the age of our Dline is really going to haunt us this year unless golston and mont are the real deal. we cannot afford constant injuries to guys at those spots.

i see many positive signs that our D will return to pre 2006 form and put the hurt on fools this season. but hey, i choose to be optomistic.

i think we will be much improved, but we are still going to have issues stopping the run. i dont think we'll be 31st again, but i do not think we will be a dominant unit. too many ifs, and not enough sure things. will landry work out? who knows. will golston and mont work out? who knows. will our dline be an injury machine? who knows.

but i honestly think we are like 2 pieces away from being a great defense again. i think daniels at end really hurts us, and not having a huge DT hurts us. if we got some pressure from our front four we'd be a force to reckon with.

[ttr77]

im not saying that my point make us an automatic contender. im saying they are things to be positive about.

and if you agree that these points are valid you ARE seeing it the way i do, at least a little. your fear of being let down again is just preventing you from embracing that glimmer of hope

Thanks for convincing me

Seriously though, they have let me down more times than I can count. But in reality, no one knows how things will play out. That's why I can see both sides of this arguement. I'd rather you be right and they win than to have me be right and have bragging rights.

[dfos81]

Ok, so what if, say, Taylor goes out in Week 3, Stoutmire comes in. Is the bet still on then? Or is it canceled immediately?

If it continues, the optimists either win the bet or no one wins. That makes the bet stacked in their favor.

READ THE INJURY DISCLOSURE: It states the player must be out a significant amount of time or placed on IR. So stop twisting it the wrong way.

[19Skins72]

I'm not sure where I fall on this bet, but the injury clause is weaksauce in my opinion.

I think the OP would get alot more action if he removed it.

<edit> Just saw the post above me. Doesn't matter...the bet shouldn't hinge on injuries at all imo.

[SnyderMustGo]

I've already said I'll take the bet. It's not going to happen.

What my complaint are is the complete spineless ******* who are taking the "optimist" side who don't have the courage of convinction to abandon their asinine "injuries mean bet is off" bs.

I'll take the bet. Anyone who takes it with me, when it doesn't happen, if you try to hind behind injuries, then you will get chastised to no end for being a welching, spineless little punk. If you want to run your mouth now about what an optimistic fan you are and call me a hater, then prepare to eat your own obliviousness later on and don't plan to hide behind injuries.

[dfos81]

Injury clause: For those that can't read from the opening page.

"Also, the only thing that invalidates the bet would be a MAJOR injury to one of the key players on defense. Not talking about normal injuries that occur due to age and wear & tear...that's one of the naysayers' complaints (age and injury) so I'm willing to allow for them to happen. Basically the Injury Rule is: if one of a handful of key defensive players has a significant enough injury to have the placed on IR before week 14, then the bet is called off. All other injuries have no effect on the bet."

This benefits the naysayers imho

[ttr77]

READ THE INJURY DISCLOSURE: It states the player must be out a significant amount of time 13-14 wks or placed on IR. So stop twisting it the wrong way.

Who's twisting? This is a valid question. If for example, Taylor goes on IR in week 4, is the bet canceled right then?

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

If you can't choose one side or the other, than say so. Ranting about the bet isn't going to change it. Key players are Griff, Washington, S.T., etc. If you don't know who the key players are on your OWN fav team than you got some game watching to do. Come back when you have figured out who our key players are, than make a decision.

If the Colts lost Freeny or Sanders would they be superbowl champs?

If the Pats lost Seymour and Wilson what would happen?

If the Broncos lost champ and Lynch, would they be a contender this year?

Just make a decision and stop ranting about a bet that YOU can't change. If you can't make decision than don't.

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.

[19Skins72]

This benefits the naysayers imho

It appears to me that the naysayers think otherwise, so why not just remove it from the bet

[dfos81]

Who's twisting? This is a valid question. If for example, Taylor goes on IR in week 4, is the bet canceled right then?

It has to be S.T. plus a few others, for ex. Griff and Washington, not just 1 player.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

I've already said I'll take the bet. It's not going to happen.

What my complaint are is the complete spineless ******* who are taking the "optimist" side who don't have the courage of convinction to abandon their asinine "injuries mean bet is off" bs.

I'll take the bet. Anyone who takes it with me, when it doesn't happen, if you try to hind behind injuries, then you will get chastised to no end for being a welching, spineless little punk. If you want to run your mouth now about what an optimistic fan you are and call me a hater, then prepare to eat your own obliviousness later on and don't plan to hide behind injuries.

any "optimist" will just hide behind some injury BS so this bet is stupid.

and its hillarious that being realistic is being a hater. i refuse to be another sheep in the herd of "oMg DuDe SkInS R gOinG tO tHe SuPeRbOwL FeR SuRe!!"

[SnyderMustGo]

This benefits the naysayers imho

Whoever said that has the IQ of a dung beetle.

That "injury clause" is clearly put in there to cover the "optimists" butts because they don't have the confidence in their opinions.

If it is there for my "naysayer" benefit, then I'll gladly waive it.

Is our bet still on?

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

It appears to me that the naysayers think otherwise, so why not just remove it from the bet

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?

[dfos81]

It appears to me that the naysayers think otherwise, so why not just remove it from the bet

Well if they can't make a decision based on the bet, than don't. Nobody is going to change it. We are not twisting there arms making them choose are we.

Naysayers seem to have that problem of not being happy. So I guess we can see who these people are now. They will twist and turn the options before they can make a choice, its not money on the line is it. So relax a lil naysayers you are acting like a bunch of beyatches lol.

[19Skins72]

That "injury clause" is clearly put in there to cover the "optimists" butts because they don't have the confidence in their opinions.

QFMFT.

It's a parachute clause for the OP's P.O.V. pure and simple.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

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.

Hang on a second.... You are the one who wants to put the 'escape clause' in the deal but I'M the one who isn't confident in my stance? Think that through for a minute then continue reading on.

I'm VERY confident that even if this defense fails to sustain a single injury all season they won't meet even one of those goals. Apparently you're not that confident that the defense can meet those goals if they do sustain injuries.

After some thought.... FINE. I'll give you your escape clause. If the defense sustains a significant injury or injuries, I'll let you slink away with your tail between your legs.

[dfos81]

Whoever said that has the IQ of a dung beetle.

That "injury clause" is clearly put in there to cover the "optimists" butts because they don't have the confidence in their opinions.

If it is there for my "naysayer" benefit, then I'll gladly waive it.

Is our bet still on?

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.

[onedrop]

i choose to think we will go 8-8 or 9-7 if our offense really lights it up. i think our d will still have issues stopping the run. remember, fletcher came from the 28th ranked run defense, so its not like he was some force over there. he used to be when they had two huge fatties in the middle with williams and adams. but i digress.

im saying 10-6 or if the ball bounces our way a little (which it never seems to do) 11-5. Fletcher fills a GLARING hole for us. remember the alternative...

the media is stupid and has nothing to do with my personal prediction that the team still has Dline issues due to age and wear/tear.

the media IS stupid.

gibbs and williams sling that "our dline is fine" BS to the media because they would never throw anyone under the bus. gibbs sorta bashed the secondary, but that unit has been overhauled so hes not diminishing current players, unlike winners such as rumph/wright/arch/vincent. theres no way williams is happy with his dline. hes got injured aging vets, and thats nothing to be excited about. the best hope is that mont and golston are actually the real deal, and im reeeeeeeally hoping they are. i will feel much better if i hear that mont is pwning peope in practice this june/july.

its much easier to go from 3 and 9 to 31, than it is to go from 31 to 9 or 3. same way its easier to topple a building with a wrecking ball than it is to build one.

its just as easy to regain previous form when your downfall was due to key injuries now healed and sorrowful stop gap replacements re-replced with proven guys that know the system.

im optimistic that our D will be improved, but it still will have major issues at DE and DT, and maybe OLB depending on whether washington is 100%.

the jury is still out on just how bad the need at these positions are. however, there is still time to address them before the season starts if truly need be.

smoot will be solid, stoutmire is great for saftey depth, and were not sure about prileou who is old to begin with. we got landry but he will take some time. we still have no pass rush from the front 4. its silly to think williams doesnt want pass rush from his front 4, if that was the case we wouldnt have brought in carter, who is a pass rush guy #1. macklin will be a good CB addition. again, our secondary and DBs look awesome, but building a D backwards isnt smart. the age of our Dline is really going to haunt us this year unless golston and mont are the real deal. we cannot afford constant injuries to guys at those spots.

agreed, mostly. i dont care if sacks come from the D line or exotic blitzes as long as the line applies some pressure. i for one am tired of watching our D hold fools to 3rd and long just to give a QB all day to throw for the 1st. which of course is the fault of the line as well as the replacement guys in the secondary last year.

i think we will be much improved, but we are still going to have issues stopping the run. i dont think we'll be 31st again, but i do not think we will be a dominant unit. too many ifs, and not enough sure things. will landry work out? who knows. will golston and mont work out? who knows. will our dline be an injury machine? who knows.

but i honestly think we are like 2 pieces away from being a great defense again. i think daniels at end really hurts us, and not having a huge DT hurts us. if we got some pressure from our front four we'd be a force to reckon with.

as long as the D line can plug the inside holes on run plays and tighten if not collapse the pocket on passing downs our secondary will do the rest.

sorry, i suck at the whole multi quote thing.....

[skinsn24]

The injury clause only applies to 1 out of 4 players who would have to have a season ending injury. Getting nicked up and missing a game here or there doesn't apply. After week 12 that clause goes away. So its not bet hedging. He has to one thing in his favor and that's not really in his favor either.

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?

[dfos81]

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?

So I guess your not going to make a decision either. Looks like we have more optimist here than I thought.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

sorry, i suck at the whole multi quote thing.....

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.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

So I guess your not going to make a decision either. Looks like we have more optimist here than I thought.

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.

[skinsn24]

I already said it's NOT a fair bet...I said it leans heavily in one side's favor: the naysayers' side.

You'd have to show me how it leans heavily in favor of the Optimists' side, cuz I don't see it.

Lol, if it was heavily favored to the naysayers side, even optimists would jump on it. In the opinion of this board it seems to tilt one way, not the naysayers way....just look at the bets on each side.

If you drop the whole injury clause (we lost our starting SS on the first play last year, our starting corner was out to start and end the season, and washington just had hip surgery)

and moved top 15 to top 10, you have a ton takers....a ton.

[JPCreativelab]

ok i will take the bet...on the side of the naysayers.

im not a naysayer, perse...heh, but i have bad luck, so if i vote on that side, the skins will most likely win the super bowl.

so mark me down.:gang:

[skinsn24]

So I guess your not going to make a decision either. Looks like we have more optimist here than I thought.

No i am not going to bet agianst an injury happening to this defense....Springs missed the start and end of last season.

Washington is coming off a hip injury.

We lost out starting SS on the first play of the season last year (it could happen again).

Rogers always gets hurt. Griffin missed time left and right. And Rocky seems to have a history of knee injuries.