zCommander Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Losing SellersSmoot Rogers Taylor Moss Jansen Thomas Washington Thrash Didnt cost us the game? I guess your right....their replacements cost us the game. You are not suppose to show any logic on this post. :laugh: Remember it is all JG fault for getting his players hurt - or maybe it is MB so he can make JC look bad and get his starting role back...hmmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangars Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Find a new team. Gibbs is more redskin than all of you. How do you outcoach injury? (o I forgot that injury is not an excuse....except for 31 other teams).Why not channel your anger into what our team really needs.....right side Offensive Linemen and Impact D Linemen.? Why not ask who blew their coverage (hint right side of line) down at the 1-2 yd line. Who let the sacks come in at the end of the game? Sometimes its tough to be a fan. Sometimes you got to suck it up. Losing like we did last week and going into Cowboy land, how about some support? How about cheering for someone when all seems lost. That is what fans do. They do not ask what they get out of the deal. Fans give selflessly, thats what makes a fan. Or are the redskins not worth your support in a trying time? he has been fooled..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I just want to know how the real ol timers handled 46-68 when we were really the laughing stock...I know its bad now but not nearly that bad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 To counter your point I will talk about the Saints. Who lost their OT yesterday and lost to the St Louis rams. Like I said before, the injury excuses would be more valid if we weren't in every single one of those games, minus the Pats. We were ahead of Green Bay with the same O-Linemen we have now. We were ahead of the Giants with the same O-Linemen we have now. We were ahead of the Eagles with the same O-Linemen we have now. Then the Offense goes into its lameness in the red-zone. It was fine yesterday until we built a lead, then it went back into lameness again. The Saints were never seriously in that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 To counter your point I will talk about the Saints. Who lost their OT yesterday and lost to the St Louis rams.Hottest team in the nFL losing to the second worst? But their coaching and blah blah blah Injury folks. The minute you expect our backups to be as good as our starters you start getting dissapointed. The Saints were getting owned by the Rams for the most part. The game wasn't nearly as close as the score indicated. You're not gonna tell me that the only reason the Rams were killing them is because they had a second string OT in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarpon75 Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Gibbs I was not so dominant. He won 3 super bowls in 11 years. That's roughly 1 every 4, not often enough to be considered a dynasty, split by a couple Giants SBs and capped by a few Dallas SBs. OUR OWN DIVISION was more dominant than us in that era. Gibbs I was great, don't get me wrong, but time has caused us to elevate it to something mythological when it wasn't. How many other teams in the Super Bowl era have had a better run?You are right the division was dominant and the Skins were the most dominant team pn the div.during that stretch.Of course all of that is history and this team just seems to have a way of disappointing even the most ardent fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
branded212 Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I just want to know how the real ol timers handled 46-68 when we were really the laughing stock...I know its bad now but not nearly that bad.... Yeah, and we didn't have to listen to the Cowboys or any of the AFC teams either! Looking that far back is like comparing a Viper to a Model T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 To counter your point I will talk about the Saints. Who lost their OT yesterday and lost to the St Louis rams.Hottest team in the nFL losing to the second worst? But their coaching and blah blah blah Injury folks. The minute you expect our backups to be as good as our starters you start getting dissapointed. You are only as good as the 53rd player on your roster. The Redskins 53rd player probably should not be on any professional football field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I just want to know how the real ol timers handled 46-68 when we were really the laughing stock...I know its bad now but not nearly that bad.... Don't know--but I don't think people were as obsessive about sports as they are now. Plus I think the analogy would only be complete if like Sammy Baugh came back and was the QB (but hadn't aged), but continued to fail. A lot of the turmoil now has to do with our expectation that Gibbs II would be close to Gibbs I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxpck Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 The Saints were getting owned by the Rams for the most part. The game wasn't nearly as close as the score indicated. You're not gonna tell me that the only reason the Rams were killing them is because they had a second string OT in. Watch where the sacks come from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theTruthTeller Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Gibbs I was not so dominant. He won 3 super bowls in 11 years. That's roughly 1 every 4, not often enough to be considered a dynasty, split by a couple Giants SBs and capped by a few Dallas SBs. OUR OWN DIVISION was more dominant than us in that era. Gibbs I was great, don't get me wrong, but time has caused us to elevate it to something mythological when it wasn't. I'd say 3 SB in 11 years shows good coaching more than four SBs in 6 years. 4 in 6 just shows you assembled a great team - once. 3 in 11 shows you could do it with different personnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 And does anyone truly think Snyder has the patience for this type of team building? No chance in hell. That's the fundamental flaw with this franchise, and the one, it seems, we will never overcome. If the CEO sucks, the business will always fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Watch where the sacks come from. And I'm sure the Rams didn't have "any" injuries? The point is that EVERY team has injuries. The good teams find a way to win with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddub52 Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Im pretty sure 2004, 2005, 2006, and half of 2007 equals 3 and 1/2 years... I could be wrong though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 That's the fundamental flaw with this franchise, and the one, it seems, we will never overcome. If the CEO sucks, the business will always fail. Unfortunately there is a major flaw in your argument. Snyder has the Redskins winning in every aspect of the franchise EXCEPT the teams w/l record. As a businessman, Snyder is one of the best franchises in the league. In fact, he was #1 according to Forbes magazine until Jerrah invested in a new stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zCommander Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Like I said before, the injury excuses would be more valid if we weren't in every single one of those games, minus the Pats.We were ahead of Green Bay with the same O-Linemen we have now. We were ahead of the Giants with the same O-Linemen we have now. We were ahead of the Eagles with the same O-Linemen we have now. Then the Offense goes into its lameness in the red-zone. It was fine yesterday until we built a lead, then it went back into lameness again. The Saints were never seriously in that game. And to counter your point as soon as ST went down the Eagles opened up their pass game. With ST in they only had 7 points. Without him they had 23, WOW a single player could make that much of a diff. You are so right injury should not be an excuse. I wonder if the Pats win a single game if you took their playmaker out - Brady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxpck Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Like I said before, the injury excuses would be more valid if we weren't in every single one of those games, minus the Pats.We were ahead of Green Bay with the same O-Linemen we have now. We were ahead of the Giants with the same O-Linemen we have now. We were ahead of the Eagles with the same O-Linemen we have now. Then the Offense goes into its lameness in the red-zone. It was fine yesterday until we built a lead, then it went back into lameness again. The Saints were never seriously in that game. We mask our deficiencies by running left and keeping extra people in to block. When crunch time comes (red zone and two minute drill) no one is going to fall for playaction. They are going to line up and and overload the bad side of our line. Where does campbell get hit always (hint from the right) where do we bog down running (hint running right). Until we get NFL starting caliber people on the right side of our line we will not punish anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldysknzfn1 Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I actually haven't been fooled for quite some time now. I've been one of those fans of this team who didn't get their hopes up too much in order to not to fall so far. I allowed myself to hope this year for the first time in a long time...and I will hang in there for the remainder of the season. As far as glory years via NFL films, I witnessed those years firsthand while watching TV before satellite and cable. What I know of this team...I didn't get from film. But you're younger than I so I can understand why you would say that. My only hope is that we can still pull out a decent season out of this circlejerk. If we do and this is a big IF, I hope to not see all of those who don't want to be snowed or are tired of being let down or however you describe it, back on this board jumping around w/the rest of us and celebrating. If you're gonna jump ship in the middle of the cruise...stay out there on the life raft..when the helo picks us up for the rescue. That's my only stipulation for those who throw their hands up and walk away. I understand frustration, I understand disappointment, I understand being fed up...but I don't understand giving up on the team. I will keep hoping for a better season each season that we come out and play like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 That's the fundamental flaw with this franchise, and the one, it seems, we will never overcome. If the CEO sucks, the business will always fail. Yet people are clammoring for a coaching change. Vince Lombardi in his prime could not succeed under this man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Unfortunately there is a major flaw in your argument.Snyder has the Redskins winning in every aspect of the franchise EXCEPT the teams w/l record. As a businessman, Snyder is one of the best franchises in the league. In fact, he was #1 according to Forbes magazine until Jerrah invested in a new stadium. Well, is Snyder's goal is to make money, then he's clearly an unquestionable success. But if the goal is winning, then he's clearly a failure. Which comes back to the question of what Snyder wants more: financial success or a winning record. I think a lot of people would say that financial success seems to be more important. Until the consumer's stop buying the product, then there's really no incentive to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Unfortunately there is a major flaw in your argument.Snyder has the Redskins winning in every aspect of the franchise EXCEPT the teams w/l record. As a businessman, Snyder is one of the best franchises in the league. In fact, he was #1 according to Forbes magazine until Jerrah invested in a new stadium. You're talking about making money, being successful from a financial perspective. I'm talking about success on the field--winning games. Unfortunately for Synder, he's good at the former and not the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Unfortunately there is a major flaw in your argument.Snyder has the Redskins winning in every aspect of the franchise EXCEPT the teams w/l record. As a businessman, Snyder is one of the best franchises in the league. In fact, he was #1 according to Forbes magazine until Jerrah invested in a new stadium. No offense...but who the hell cares about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Yet people are clammoring for a coaching change. Vince Lombardi in his prime could not succeed under this man. Don't blame Snyder. He has given Gibbs everything he requested and it's Gibbs job to make it all come together. Gibbs himself is on record in saying, "if we don't win, it's my fault, not Dan Snyder's." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Which comes back to the question of what Snyder wants more: financial success or a winning record. I think a lot of people would say that financial success seems to be more important. Until the consumer's stop buying the product, then there's really no incentive to change. I bet Snyder slept quite soundly last night, despite another late-game collapse. He sill earned quite a bit of coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I bet Snyder slept quite soundly last night, despite another late-game collapse. He sill earned quite a bit of coin. Some start a thread entitled "Boycott Six Flags" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.