Dan T. Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Who wants the hot glare of publicity that comes with being the national media's darlings? What good comes of that? Let them continue to fawn over the Cowboys while the Redskins go about their business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KyleVA Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 If you're concerned about seeing the Skins ranked high just check the Sagarin rankings. And then realize that rankings don't count and a lot of these "experts" really don't know as much as you'd think - and they can't predict the future, eff their picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjrugger Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 So basically he thought the cowboys were the best in sep and rather than admit he was wrong hes just going to stick to it regardless of whats going on thanks Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 He didn't say this, but I suspect it is the "real" reason behind the ranking: he feels that Dallas stupidly got away from the run and would not have lost had they stuck to it. On his "neutral field in Wichita" he believes the Cowboys would run it down our throats and win the game. The real question to ask is whether team after team is going away from their natural strengths of their own accord, or whether Greg Blache's defense is dictating what they can and can't do. If the latter is true, then this team should be ranked above the Cowboys. He seems to believe that we have won by some fluke streak of luck in which our opponents generously forget what they do best while playing us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 He didn't say this, but I suspect it is the "real" reason behind the ranking: he feels that Dallas stupidly got away from the run and would not have lost had they stuck to it. On his "neutral field in Wichita" he believes the Cowboys would run it down our throats and win the game. The real question to ask is whether team after team is going away from their natural strengths of their own accord, or whether Greg Blache's defense is dictating what they can and can't do. If the latter is true, then this team should be ranked above the Cowboys. He seems to believe that we have won by some fluke streak of luck in which our opponents generously forget what they do best while playing us. I agree and I agree. Good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celts32 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Who cares...Peter is not disrespecting the Redskins! Everyone has an opinion...it doesn't matter. The Redskins have earned their respect from everyone...does it really matter if they are 2 on one list or 5 on another? King says he thinks the cowpies may be a smidge better then the skins and we are offended? Toughen up people...this is not college football...it will be decided on the field in time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Man, if I could just turn of my brain and be as ignorant as King, life would be bliss! He must really enjoy himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoover-ball Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 King is a tool- agreed. But these are Power rankings, not a list of teams based on thier records. I hate writers who list there power rankings according to there wins and losses cause any monkey can do that- go ahead and take some risks and put the teams in order of how you think they would fare now. I hate more fans who dont understand this and say -"but we beat them" or "but are record is better". I think the skins would win again, but that doesnt mean everyone in the world should just cause we beat them on one Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 But King's ranking doesn't "take a longer range view"...he even says that if the Cowboys played the Redskins right now on a neutral field, the Cowboys would win. Not "in week 14", but right now. Not to mention (as so many of us already have) that his "neutral field" argument is all sorts of contradictory. I don't see anything contradictory. His judgment obviously is that the result in Dallas was an anomaly. King also goes on to say that he trusts Romo sits to pee more than Campbell (again, right now), but gives no reasons why. With Romo sits to pee's propensity to fumble or throw INTs added to his history of choking in big games, I can't come up with any immediate reason why right now Romo sits to pee instills more "trust" in ANYONE. Turnovers are worth an average of four points, touchdowns seven. Romo sits to pee has a longer history than Jason of solid performances with putting points on the board despite the turnovers. I think most people overrate Dallas because quick-strike teams can look like world-beaters when they win, but they are vulnerable against good teams that force them into playing their games. Wade Phillips after the game said that his offense needed to show more patience to take what they could get. He was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreek1973 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 One question. why does this guy even get to say his opinion. I mean after reading his "reasoning" moron is the first word that comes to mind. Still amazes me how these people make a living by proving over and over how stupid they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted October 8, 2008 Author Share Posted October 8, 2008 I don't see anything contradictory. His judgment obviously is that the result in Dallas was an anomaly. Then there's no need whatsoever to mention some fantasy "neutral field in Wichita", is there?...And the reason it's contradictory is because when the Cowboys HAD the advantage of a homefield, they STILL lost. The idea that going to a neutral field would somehow benefit the Cowboys is indeed contradictory...or incredibly stupid and irrelevant to mention. Either way, it doesn't speak very highly of King's analytical skills. Turnovers are worth an average of four points, touchdowns seven. Romo sits to pee has a longer history than Jason of solid performances with putting points on the board despite the turnovers. The word King used, though, was "trust"...and "trust" usually points to a lack of vulnerability. You trust someone--regardless of who they are--if you don't feel vulnerable around them. So what exactly makes Romo sits to pee a QB (again, right now) that would leave your team less vulnerable to a loss than Jason Cambell? Turnovers definitely leave your team more vulnerable to a loss, especially when those turnovers occur within the red zone, both your opponent's red zone AND your own. And Romo sits to pee has already had both this season. Anyway, King's power ranking is not based on which teams have been the best over the last 3 years...it's based on who's playing and performing the best at the present moment. If it were based on the last three years, the Skins should be ranked around #15, not #4...and the Giants would not be #1, the Patriots would. I think most people overrate Dallas because quick-strike teams can look like world-beaters when they win, but they are vulnerable against good teams that force them into playing their games. Wade Phillips after the game said that his offense needed to show more patience to take what they could get. He was right. Well King definitely overrated them in his poll lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Califan: Then there's no need whatsoever to mention some fantasy "neutral field in Wichita", is there?...And the reason it's contradictory is because when the Cowboys HAD the advantage of a homefield, they STILL lost. The idea that going to a neutral field would somehow benefit the Cowboys is indeed contradictory...or incredibly stupid and irrelevant to mention. Either way, it doesn't speak very highly of King's analytical skills. King wasn't making an argument, so there is nothing illogical what he said. The "neutral field in Witchita" was just a way of expressing his opinion that Dallas holds the edge as the better team despite the loss at home to the Skins. So what exactly makes Romo sits to pee a QB (again, right now) that would leave your team less vulnerable to a loss than Jason Cambell? Turnovers definitely leave your team more vulnerable to a loss, especially when those turnovers occur within the red zone, both your opponent's red zone AND your own. And Romo sits to pee has already had both this season. Turnovers AVERAGE value is roughly four points. The value depends on field position. If the gunslinger QB is good enough in putting up TDs, he can outproduce the game manager who has fewer turnovers. I think King was referring to sample size: Campbell has only a four-game sample of efficiency. Anyway, King's power ranking is not based on which teams have been the best over the last 3 years...it's based on who's playing and performing the best at the present moment. If it were based on the last three years, the Skins should be ranked around #15, not #4...and the Giants would not be #1, the Patriots would. I don't understand your point. His trust in Romo sits to pee is based on longer term efficiency, but that's merely one factor in his judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asnpcwiz Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 This is just proof that companies will pay idiots to do anything. In this case, this idiot is making a lot of money. Pisses me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Its obvious that Peter is watching Emmitt. We never should have taken a knee in Dallas with them having home field advantage. We never should have taken a knee in Philly with them having home field advantage. Every loss is correct and every victory a fluke. Get used to it. A SB victory will not fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General NSJ Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 I think we've all gotten to the point where the hate spewed by the likes of Peter King is no longer surprising. For example, while watching the ESPN Gameday crew breakdown the talent levels of the NFC East, I just knew that one of them would knock the Skins. Sure enough, Tom Jackson didn't disappoint. This is nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuraitengai Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 So if we played on a neutral field in a week, they'd win, but when we played at their home two weeks ago, we won?Good logic Peter. obviously king doesnt have as much sense as you (this time for a change). if its played in dallas, we win, going back to last season, if its played in our house, we win. but if its neutral, they win? wow, thats brilliant logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire3fighter4 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 bring on the hate...makes the win that much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish50 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 I don't see any real problem with his analysis. We're one quarter of the way through the season. The Redskins have rocketed up every power ranking out there. But the Cowboys are still a formidable, talented team despite being handled by the Skins. Not all the rankings represent that week's zeitgeist, but take a longer range view of the season. Time to come down off the roof, Dan! I think the sun has fried the old brain cells a bit. Look at the over all record, teams played, opponents offensive rankings, etc. Now you have to actually read them and compare. If you still feel the same after you have fully digested all the info, then it's the operating room for you! lol. :dallasuck:eaglesuck:gaintsuck and so does Peter King. Hail to the Redskins! Hail Victory! Hip Hip Hooray! :point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Time to come down off the roof, Dan! I think the sun has fried the old brain cells a bit. Look at the over all record, teams played, opponents offensive rankings, etc. Now you have to actually read them and compare. If you still feel the same after you have fully digested all the info, then it's the operating room for you! lol. Ha! I was just getting comfortable up there. Look, I'm not saying I agree with King's rankings. What I am saying is that to an outsider viewer, the Redskins have surprised everybody only in the last couple of weeks, whereas the conventional wisdom on the Cowboys for months has been that they're among the NFL's elite. So it is going to take more than two division wins on the road to alter those entrenched views. The Redskins have opened eyes, as evidenced by their meteoric rise in everybody's rankings. They need to keep winning to convert outsiders into true believers. But really, as I mentioned before here, why do we care? Let the hot spotlight shine on other teams for now. No good comes from that increased scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish50 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Ha! I was just getting comfortable up there.Look, I'm not saying I agree with King's rankings. What I am saying is that to an outsider viewer, the Redskins have surprised everybody only in the last couple of weeks, whereas the conventional wisdom on the Cowboys for months has been that they're among the NFL's elite. So it is going to take more than two division wins on the road to alter those entrenched views. The Redskins have opened eyes, as evidenced by their meteoric rise in everybody's rankings. They need to keep winning to convert outsiders into true believers. But really, as I mentioned before here, why do we care? Let the hot spotlight shine on other teams for now. No good comes from that increased scrutiny. Well that explanation makes much more sense than your 1st one and you are probably correct. The media is just waiting for us to lose one game and then it will be back to the "4th best team" in the division. I think this team has it's head where it should be and that's in the game. Too many vets on this team to get ****y and take teams like the Shams (Rams) for granted. This team is reminding me more and more of the teams from Joe Gibbs glory years here. You can see the camaraderie and the execution on the field is superb. I think this team goes further than anyone imagined. Hail to the Redskins! Hail Victory! Hip Hip Hooray! :point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess_in_beachtown_nc Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 I just sent him some MORE hate mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Couple things;How can you "trust Romo sits to pee" when he has basically so far shown that he is a fantasy football QB. Putting up big numbers, but making crucial mistakes and turnovers in big games when the game is on the line? I guess you could make the argument that Campbell hasn't had AS MUCH big game experience, but the big games Romo sits to pee has been a part of, he has usually made costly mistakes that hurt his team. Also, How can you like Dallas's defense over Washington's when the Cowboys secondary has shown basically EVERY SINGLE WEEK, that they can't cover white on rice? Terrence Newman is having a down year so far, and the rest of the secondary is a joke. Adam Jones? Come on the guy is overblown, overrated and most of all overpaid. The Redskins have played five games against five of the toughest offenses in the league and are 4-1. They have outscored opponents 34-10 in the 4th quarter when defenses are "supposed to be tired" Lastly, the power rankings should reflect where the teams stand RIGHT NOW, not what he thought of a team in September, or how good he thinks they will be in December. Bottomline is, what is the point of coming out with weekly power rankings if you aren't ranking the teams according to their progress currently? You should send this to him. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffree! Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Defense is a wash? Wow. Dumb statement to say the least. Collin Cowherd even says the Redskins are more built for the long run than the COwboys and HE'S a Cowboys fan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeGibbsRypenGClark91 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Defense is a wash? Wow. Dumb statement to say the least. Collin Cowherd even says the Redskins are more built for the long run than the COwboys and HE'S a Cowboys fan! Cowherd is an idiot trying to win back his DC audience. DC is a key market for sports radio because of the powerful people and rich people in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Yeah, old ideas die hard. Analysts should be better at distancing themselves from old ideas and better at "analyzing" what they see. I don't mind the Cowboys being rated higher than the Skins after their loss to the Skins. I also wouldn't mind the Skins being rated higher obviously (and I don't mean as a fan, I mean analytically). The place where this goes awry is after the last week. The Cowboys defense has problems. The Redskins defense, without many of their starters playing for much of the game, still managed to stop the #6 offense, including a goalline stance (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was done without Griffin, I remember him being injured). So, yeah, at this point, I don't buy it - at least, not with his "logic." Peter King once again proves himself to be worthless as an analyst, par for the course, nothing new. Art Monk should have been a first ballot HOFer -> Peter King does not know how to analyze without his biases showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.