Trap games?

[Slateman]

Ok, so we play the Rams, Browns, and Lions. All teams that are, frankly, bad.

Anyone else think these could be trap games?

[Peeping Wizard]

To me a trap game is when you have a "cupcake" game followed by a tough opponent. I actually think that we have a "soft spot" in the schedule with 3 seemingly easy opponents at once helps because it's not like we are thinking about next week with somebody like Dallas or the Giants coming to town. It's just the Browns.

Our guys need to show up, do their thing and they will be fine.

[Capt. Kaos]

"Keep it Medium"

[KyleVA]

This could get ugly.

[OVCChairman]

Play Redskins football and we will see who the better team is over the next 3 weeks.

[Jacoby6644]

Definately. The Skins will be playing three teams that basically have nothing to lose and will trying anything to win.

Rams looked better two weeks ago against the Bills and coming off a bye week, they are rested and have had time to prepare. Could be a trap.

The Browns are a disaster. They have some weapons, but right now they are all malfunctioning. This game I would consider to be less of a trap.

The Lions at home always scare me, because for some reason they can win there. Haven't seen much of them this year, so not sure what's wrong but if the Bears can beat them at home I think the Skins can too. I would still be cautious.

From everything that I have read/heard, I think Zorn has the team focused and not looking ahead, so I would like to think that we can avoid the trap game for now. I think that the trap theory will come in to play after the bye week with three division games and trips to Cincy,Seattle, Baltimore, & San Fran mixed in.

[youngestson]

Ok, so we play the Rams, Browns, and Lions. All teams that are, frankly, bad.

Anyone else think these could be trap games?

Think of Mimia beating New England...of Cincy almost topping dallas. Any team in this league can beat any other team, it's that "any given Sunday" thing.

I hope the team has put their success on the road behind them better then most of us have.

[drl]

As much as I appreciate Bob Costas and Aikman and others saying we'll be 7-1 by the time we play Pittsburgh , I'll be happy at 6-2. Must be the Norvitis or Gibbs Culture left in me but I am nervous with this success.

[Spitfire71]

If it was Gibbs, I'd be slightly worried, but with Zorn, I'm not as much.

Not necessarily because Zorn's a better coach - he hasn't accumulated the resume to prove that he's anything more than a keeper...yet. But because Zorn doesn't sit on leads. He goes in for the kill shot.

If anything, I'm most worried about the game against the Lions because our DL without Jason Taylor is still having trouble generating a really great pass rush. If Roy Williams is still a Lion two weeks from now, we won't be able to double both him and Calvin Johnson...and if Kitna gets enough time to throw the ball in the neighborhood of single coverage on either of those guys, our defense could be in a bit of trouble.

I think the Browns will be the toughest game out of these three.

[TimmySmith]

Not this one. There are many components to a trap game. One of the most important is overall quality of the teams. St. Louis is simply not good enough right now to beat the Skins. Not even good enough to give them a run.

Miami, as we have seen, is really pretty good. Cincy, who has boatloads of taletn, played Dallas hard and still got run.

[Drunken Master III]

We have players on the field that know better. London and JC will help to keep the team medium.

[Peregrine]

I was curious. Is it true that 4-12 and 5-11 teams do get a win against an obviously superior opponent, and more than once in a blue moon? We all know that it happens on rare occasions, but is it really something for us to worry about over these next 3 games?

So I went and looked at last year. In the NFC, there were 3 teams who finished worse than 7-9. These were the 5-11 49ers, 4-12 Falcons, and 3-13 Rams.

So lets start with the 49ers. They beat Arizona twice, St.L , Cincinnati, and Tampa Bay. St.L was a horrible team, Cincinnati and Arizona didnt make it over .500, and Tampa Bay was barely above average. The TB game was the second to last of the season, where TB had locked up a playoff spot and rested most of its playmakers. Despite that, SF only won by 2, and had to do so despite getting out gained 434-213. So the only teams the 49ers beat were teams that maybe were just a little better than them. No great surprises there.

On to the Falcons. They managed to beat Houston, SF, Carolina, and Seattle. SF was a bad team, Carolina and Houson both couldnt get above .500, and Seattle made the playoffs. However, the Falcons beat Seattle in the last game of the year, when Seattle rested all of its starters. Once again, it was a close game despite that(44-41), and Seattle out gained them 501-364. Like SF, there werent really any surprises, except that the Falcons could beat a team that at least got close to .500.

So what about the Rams? The Rams managed to beat NO, SF, and Atlanta. Atlanta and SF were both bad teams, and NO couldnt even get to .500. Once again, they were able to beat teams that had more wins then them, but none of the teams were good teams.

Was the AFC the same? The Dolphins lone win came against the hopeless Ravens. The Jets managed to beat Miami twice, KC once, and Pittsburgh in OT(the only non horrible team among them, it still took 7 sacks and a bye week for the Jets to prepare). The Raiders beat Cleveland, Miami, KC, and Denver(none of which made the playoffs, one was better than 7-9 and it took a blocked FG to win). The Ravens beat the Jets, Cardinals, 49ers, Rams, and Steelers(last game of the season, the Steelers played no starters). KC beat Minnesota, SD, Cinci and Oakland(the SD win was by 14).

So out of 8 teams that finished below 7-9, they managed 30 wins between them. In meaningful games with good opponents, they managed to beat 2 playoff teams, and only 3 teams above .500(all of which were games of AFC teams vs AFC teams). Out of those 3, one was won by a blocked FG, the other was an OT win defying all odds. Only the KC over SD game was really a game where it didnt take a minor miracle.

The moral of the story? If you lose to a team that is going to finish below 7-9, it is highly unlikely you are going to finish above .500. Yes, it can happen, but its really not worth getting all worked up and worried over. Just enjoy the Redskins right now, and save your doubt for when they have actually done something to deserve it(such as AFTER a major upset by the Rams).

[Darth Tater]

Although the Giants do have some tough games, they do have a good chance to win every single one of them. Until the Giants stumble, we have no trap games. If there is anything close to a trap game in our future, its Detroit. STL would be a trap if it had been sandwiched between Dallas and Philly or Cincy had pulled off the upset of the Giants. Also, a true TRAP game would be against a team who is better than their record (Cincy almost beat the Giants and took Dallas down to the wire) but is taken lightly because of their record. We do have to remember 'any given Sunday' and don't flatten out if we don't take STL out before the half.

This is NOT a trap game but I do see possible issues. As above, can't get down on ourselves if we're not blowing them out. We've won because we play as a team, not as individuals. I can see several of our players might want to put on a show either to show up Saunders or to thrill the fans. Emotional exhaustion may also prove a factor.

[ntotoro]

As long as the team doesn't treat another team lightly, there's no such thing as a trap game.

[Veretax]

This is NOT a Trap Game. Please.. Don't even joke about that.

[aubreyjn]

To me a trap game is when you have a "cupcake" game followed by a tough opponent. I actually think that we have a "soft spot" in the schedule with 3 seemingly easy opponents at once helps because it's not like we are thinking about next week with somebody like Dallas or the Giants coming to town. It's just the Browns.

Our guys need to show up, do their thing and they will be fine.

I agree that is what a trap game is. i might call these games possible emotional let downs because of all the energy it takes to beat a division team on the road.... lets hope not

:dallasuck:eaglesuck:gaintsuck:dallasuck:dallasuck

[Darth Tater]

I was curious. Is it true that 4-12 and 5-11 teams do get a win against an obviously superior opponent, and more than once in a blue moon? We all know that it happens on rare occasions, but is it really something for us to worry about over these next 3 games?

So I went and looked at last year. In the NFC, there were 3 teams who finished worse than 7-9. These were the 5-11 49ers, 4-12 Falcons, and 3-13 Rams.

So lets start with the 49ers. They beat Arizona twice, St.L , Cincinnati, and Tampa Bay. St.L was a horrible team, Cincinnati and Arizona didnt make it over .500, and Tampa Bay was barely above average. The TB game was the second to last of the season, where TB had locked up a playoff spot and rested most of its playmakers. Despite that, SF only won by 2, and had to do so despite getting out gained 434-213. So the only teams the 49ers beat were teams that maybe were just a little better than them. No great surprises there.

On to the Falcons. They managed to beat Houston, SF, Carolina, and Seattle. SF was a bad team, Carolina and Houson both couldnt get above .500, and Seattle made the playoffs. However, the Falcons beat Seattle in the last game of the year, when Seattle rested all of its starters. Once again, it was a close game despite that(44-41), and Seattle out gained them 501-364. Like SF, there werent really any surprises, except that the Falcons could beat a team that at least got close to .500.

So what about the Rams? The Rams managed to beat NO, SF, and Atlanta. Atlanta and SF were both bad teams, and NO couldnt even get to .500. Once again, they were able to beat teams that had more wins then them, but none of the teams were good teams.

Was the AFC the same? The Dolphins lone win came against the hopeless Ravens. The Jets managed to beat Miami twice, KC once, and Pittsburgh in OT(the only non horrible team among them, it still took 7 sacks and a bye week for the Jets to prepare). The Raiders beat Cleveland, Miami, KC, and Denver(none of which made the playoffs, one was better than 7-9 and it took a blocked FG to win). The Ravens beat the Jets, Cardinals, 49ers, Rams, and Steelers(last game of the season, the Steelers played no starters). KC beat Minnesota, SD, Cinci and Oakland(the SD win was by 14).

So out of 8 teams that finished below 7-9, they managed 30 wins between them. In meaningful games with good opponents, they managed to beat 2 playoff teams, and only 3 teams above .500(all of which were games of AFC teams vs AFC teams). Out of those 3, one was won by a blocked FG, the other was an OT win defying all odds. Only the KC over SD game was really a game where it didnt take a minor miracle.

The moral of the story? If you lose to a team that is going to finish below 7-9, it is highly unlikely you are going to finish above .500. Yes, it can happen, but its really not worth getting all worked up and worried over. Just enjoy the Redskins right now, and save your doubt for when they have actually done something to deserve it(such as AFTER a major upset by the Rams).

You need to look at where teams were at this time, not how they finished. In 2001 at 5 games into the season, we WERE the Rams. In fact, we had a worse point differential including being blown out by two teams that ended with 10 or more losses. Meanwhile, we weren't even out of the playoff hunt until late December. In 2003, Philly was at deaths door at this time and ended up winning the division. Same year, at this point we were 3-2 and ended up with only 5 wins. Now, I'm not saying that the Rams have the capability to turn it around or that we will implode, just that you need to use teams that had bad records at this POINT.