hunterr Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Just looking on NFL.com and saw this. They list 3 good teams and then one with a losing record and totally skip the Redskins. What kind of crap is this? http://www.nfl.com/news/story;jsessionid=82C6D86C74B1D2CDF3477BB13F2C977F?id=09000d5d803d1460&template=with-video&confirm=true I did a search for this and couldn't find it either. Hope it's not posted somewhere else if it is sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Wow, what a snub. Collinsworth is a moron though, so no sweat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Redskin Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 It is Cris most awesome Bengal of all time Collinsworth's crap. I didn't even read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OVCChairman Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 didnt you get the memo? We lost to New England, means we arent any good anymore.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedlightG20 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 So his opinion is basically that the Skins aren't amongst the better teams in the NFC. Big whoop, many on ES feel the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 We have yet to play a game in November and we are already crowning the NFC Champs, wow I guess we should all bow down and go home. What a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Get over it. The skins are everyone's favorite team to snub. SI did anniversary issues for philthy & pitt this year. Skins? NO. I don't mind. **** them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylorcoreskin Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 How are we better than a decent team right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Cue the "realists" claiming we don't deserve coverage because of our record. Oh wait, they can't use that right now. So cue the loss to the Patriots as the sole reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InsaneBoost Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 LOL, I love this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 How are we better than a decent team right now? Because the only teams we've lost to have a combined record of 20-3. And 2 of the 3 losses we could have won. How can we expect objectivity from someone with a sig that has given up hope on JC when he's not even halfway through his first full season as a starter and has essentially lost half his O-line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Well, I would love for this team to prove everyone in the media wrong. Let's see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badgerrocks Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 While I agree with everyone else who knows that we get no love, I do find it weird that they rate a 3-4 team as better than us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Reaching here. I don't know why you guys get so upset when we aren't mentioned in every freaking article. Doesn't matter until Week 17. Then we'll see who's in and who's out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lefty420 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 While I agree with everyone else who knows that we get no love, I do find it weird that they rate a 3-4 team as better than us. a team we beat 20-12 in their house on national tv. with charles barkley killing us in the 3rd quarter :laugh: but this is not anything to get our panties in a ruffle about. lets go out and win , same as in 2005. i remember a certain espn analyst saying he would walk to dc but naked if we made the playoffs that year. whats new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylorcoreskin Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Because the only teams we've lost to have a combined record of 20-3. And 2 of the 3 losses we could have won.How can we expect objectivity from someone with a sig that has given up hope on JC when he's not even halfway through his first full season as a starter and has essentially lost half his O-line? And two of the four wins we could have lost. So that clearly negates the "2 of 3 we could have won". Furthermore, the teams we beaten have a combined record of 11-18 right? And what about our 28th ranked offense? What about our receivers having 0 touchdowns. What about our line's inability to protect our QB? What about our QB's throwing motion, indecisiveness and inaccuracy? What about our starting running back putting the ball on the ground so often? What about our inability to rush the QB by rushing 4? We don't scare any body. We're not a sound, solid football team. We're a decent, mediocore, middle of the NFC pack team. And who ever said that I've given up on JC? I've voiced my disappointment in his performance so far, and that I have high expectations of him considering the sacrifices that we've made to get him. I've never used the word bust regarding Campbell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lefty420 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Because the only teams we've lost to have a combined record of 20-3. And 2 of the 3 losses we could have won.How can we expect objectivity from someone with a sig that has given up hope on JC when he's not even halfway through his first full season as a starter and has essentially lost half his O-line? the funny thing about his sig is that JC's stats are comparable to alot of great qb's in their first year as a starter. it seems alot of esers are blinded by a few notable exceptions to the 2-3 year curve most qb's must endure. but here at es we ignore stats and reality. my :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lefty420 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 And two of the three wins we could have lost. So that clearly negates the "2 of 3 we could have won". Furthermore, the teams we beaten have a combined record of 11-18 right? And what about our 28th ranked offense? What about our receivers having 0 touchdowns. What about our line's inability to protect our QB? What about our QB's throwing motion, indecisiveness and inaccuracy? What about our starting running back putting the ball on the ground so often? What about our inability to rush the QB by rushing 4? We don't scare any body. We're not a sound, solid football team. We're a decent, mediocore, middle of the NFC pack team. And who ever said that I've given up on JC? I've voiced my disappointment in his performance so far, and that I have high expectations of him considering the sacrifices that we've made to get him. I've never used the word bust regarding Campbell. so we should just pack it up for the year? why do we play the game than? if in the 7th wqeek of the season we can just hang it up. your a joke my friend. a joke. next on jc why should you expect anything else than the norm for qb's in the league. he is comparable to aikman, brady and many others their first year. its common knowledge it takes 2-3 years of starting for a qb to be able to make the tranisiton from college qb to pro qb. why should campbell be any different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikizler Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 How are we better than a decent team right now? You're missing the point. Mentioning the Eagles without mentioning us is an absolute joke. Last I checked, 3-4 isn't exactly on the road to the playoffs. Also, we beat them in their house in case the Pats loss has clouded your memory. Then there's the Giants. Let's take a look at who they have beaten along with records just for fun: @Redskins 4-3 Eagles 3-4 Jets 1-7 @Falcons 1-6 49ers 2-5 Dolphins 0-8 Combined Record 11-33 Not to mention, the Jets' only win came against the 'phins. Now I get that they've beaten every bad team they've played. But come on, you can't actually consider them a contender with this resume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lefty420 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 And two of the four wins we could have lost. So that clearly negates the "2 of 3 we could have won". Furthermore, the teams we beaten have a combined record of 11-18 right? And what about our 28th ranked offense? What about our receivers having 0 touchdowns. What about our line's inability to protect our QB? What about our QB's throwing motion, indecisiveness and inaccuracy? What about our starting running back putting the ball on the ground so often? What about our inability to rush the QB by rushing 4? We don't scare any body. We're not a sound, solid football team. We're a decent, mediocore, middle of the NFC pack team. And who ever said that I've given up on JC? I've voiced my disappointment in his performance so far, and that I have high expectations of him considering the sacrifices that we've made to get him. I've never used the word bust regarding Campbell. Seems to compare nicely with some big time qbs. maybe your expectations this early are inflated find me qbs with better stats their first 13 games jc's stats | Passing | Rushing | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | 2006 was | 7 | 110 207 53.1 1297 6.3 10 6 | 24 107 0 | | 2007 was | 7 | 121 204 59.3 1378 6.8 6 6 | 21 100 1 | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | TOTAL | 14 | 231 411 56.2 2675 6.5 16 12 | 45 207 1 | John elway ----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | 1983 den | 11 | 123 259 47.5 1663 6.4 7 14 | 28 146 1 | | 1984 den | 15 | 214 380 56.3 2598 6.8 18 15 | 56 237 1 | Troy aikman +---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | 1989 dal | 11 | 155 293 52.9 1749 6.0 9 18 | 38 302 0 | | 1990 dal | 15 | 226 399 56.6 2579 6.5 11 18 | 40 172 1 | Mcnabb +---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | 1999 phi | 12 | 106 216 49.1 948 4.4 8 7 | 47 313 0 | | 2000 phi | 16 | 330 569 58.0 3365 5.9 21 13 | 86 629 6 | | 2001 phi | 16 | 285 493 57.8 3233 6.6 25 12 | 82 482 2 | Brunell --+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | 1994 gnb | 2 | 12 27 44.4 95 3.5 0 0 | 6 7 1 | | 1995 jax | 13 | 201 346 58.1 2168 6.3 15 7 | 67 480 4 | | 1996 jax | 16 | 353 557 63.4 4367 7.8 19 20 | 80 396 3 | | 1997 jax | 14 | 264 435 60.7 3281 7.5 18 7 | 48 257 2 | Steve Young +---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | 1985 tam | 5 | 72 138 52.2 935 6.8 3 8 | 40 233 1 | | 1986 tam | 14 | 195 363 53.7 2282 6.3 8 13 | 74 425 5 | Look at that, very close if not better than some hall of fame qb's. this si what we are trying to tell you. it does not and will not happen over night. now compare to even mondern big name qb's. Eli Manning +---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | 2004 nyg | 9 | 95 197 48.2 1043 5.3 6 9 | 6 35 0 | | 2005 nyg | 16 | 294 557 52.8 3762 6.8 24 17 | 29 80 1 | | 2006 nyg | 16 | 301 522 57.7 3244 6.2 24 18 | 25 21 0 | | 2007 nyg | 8 | 145 249 58.2 1584 6.4 13 9 | 14 38 1 | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | TOTAL | 49 | 835 1525 54.8 9633 6.3 67 53 | 74 174 2 | Matt Hasslebeck +---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | 1999 gnb | 16 | 3 10 30.0 41 4.1 1 0 | 6 15 0 | | 2000 gnb | 4 | 10 19 52.6 104 5.5 1 0 | 4 -5 0 | | 2001 sea | 13 | 176 321 54.8 2023 6.3 7 8 | 40 141 0 | tom brady ---------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | 2000 nwe | 1 | 1 3 33.3 6 2.0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | | 2001 nwe | 15 | 264 413 63.9 2843 6.9 18 12 | 36 43 0 | __________________ randall cunnigham +---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | 1985 phi | 6 | 34 81 42.0 548 6.8 1 8 | 29 205 0 | | 1986 phi | 15 | 111 209 53.1 1391 6.7 8 7 | 66 540 5 | | 1987 phi | 12 | 223 406 54.9 2786 6.9 23 12 | 76 505 3 | | 1988 phi | 16 | 301 560 53.8 3808 6.8 24 16 | 93 624 6 | | 1989 phi | 16 | 290 532 54.5 3400 6.4 21 15 | 104 621 4 | Steve Mcnair +---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | 1995 hou | 6 | 41 80 51.2 569 7.1 3 1 | 11 38 0 | | 1996 hou | 10 | 88 143 61.5 1197 8.4 6 4 | 31 169 2 | | 1997 ten | 16 | 216 415 52.0 2665 6.4 14 13 | 101 674 8 | | 1998 ten | 16 | 289 492 58.7 3228 6.6 15 10 | 76 568 4 | | 1999 ten | 11 | 187 331 56.5 2179 6.6 12 8 | 72 337 8 | Phil Simms +---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | 1979 nyg | 12 | 134 265 50.6 1743 6.6 13 14 | 29 166 1 | | 1980 nyg | 13 | 193 402 48.0 2321 5.8 15 19 | 36 190 1 | | 1981 nyg | 10 | 172 316 54.4 2031 6.4 11 9 | 19 42 0 | seems to me like qbs generally take a couple years to mature. only a few hit thier stride in year one. Patience. the road will be bumpy. but we are progressing. we need to get healthy and get people around jason who will make his job easier. All you need to do is look at Carson Palmer. his growth thru his first 2 years was awsome. year one was bumpy as hell though. +---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD | +----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | 2004 cin | 14 | 263 432 60.9 2897 6.7 18 18 | 18 47 1 | | 2005 cin | 16 | 345 509 67.8 3836 7.5 32 12 | 34 41 1 | __________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikizler Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 the funny thing about his sig is that JC's stats are comparable to alot of great qb's in their first year as a starter. it seems alot of esers are blinded by a few notable exceptions to the 2-3 year curve most qb's must endure. I couldn't agree more. I've heard so many 'Skins fans say "but Big Ben and Tom Brady won Super Bowls in their first two years...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylorcoreskin Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 so we should just pack it up for the year?why do we play the game than? if in the 7th wqeek of the season we can just hang it up. your a joke my friend. a joke. next on jc why should you expect anything else than the norm for qb's in the league. he is comparable to aikman, brady and many others their first year. its common knowledge it takes 2-3 years of starting for a qb to be able to make the tranisiton from college qb to pro qb. why should campbell be any different We used a first round draft pick to get him, and lost another one for moving up to get him. That's why he should be different. With that kind of price tag, I want to see immediate production. Am I being unreasonable in my expectations of him considering he had no say in how many picks we threw away to get him? Yup. I can admit that. But that's how I feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lefty420 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 We used a first round draft pick to get him, and lost another one for moving up to get him. That's why he should be different. With that kind of price tag, I want to see immediate production. Am I being unreasonable in my expectations of him considering he had no say in how many picks we threw away to get him? Yup. I can admit that. But that's how I feel. and if you open your eyes and see the things he has done over the past 14 games you will see whny every one in the media loves jason. what we are trying to tell you is the road will be bumpy. let him grow. peyton manning thru 28 ints, 28 ints his first year. you can not judge a qb by his first 14 or 15 starts. its a progression thru 2 or 3 seasons at the helm. if by this time next year he has not shown any progression than we should be worried. but right now the fact he has done so much and has been a solid foundation for the offense through most games, except the pats game, is a sign he is the real deal. or atleast hope that he has the tools. he could totally be a bust. but for sonny jergusson to say on more than one occassion this kid is good means more to me than you. unless you think you know more than those who played the game at that position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRAB Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 There are eight teams in the NFC with a record of 4-3 or better. Literally, half the conference. We are one of those. Four of those teams have a better record than we do. There is no reason for him to single us out in his "best in NFC" list if he doesn't think we're one of the best, it's that simple. And, he probably listed Philly because he feels that despite their record and the fact that we did beat them, he still thinks they're a better team than us. So he just took the best few teams (Dallas 6-1, Green Bay 6-1, Giants 6-2) and then pulled a surprise team out in Philly. Besides, with Philly having won the division pretty much every year for half a decade, who can blame him? I don't think they're better than us... but I can see how somebody could. If we wanted to be talked about with the best of the NFC, we should have made sure our record was at least on par with theirs. At least he didn't single us out as "having a long way to go" like he did Detroit and Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikizler Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 We used a first round draft pick to get him, and lost another one for moving up to get him. That's why he should be different. With that kind of price tag, I want to see immediate production. Am I being unreasonable in my expectations of him considering he had no say in how many picks we threw away to get him? Yup. I can admit that. But that's how I feel. ooook:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.