Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

ESPN Experts Picks - Skins

ouvan59

By ouvan59
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

Oldskool

Oldskool

Posted
Posted
The only one here who feels the need to insult so he can feel better himself is you. That's false bravado and you're obviously wearing some really high boots.

I can see that you're going to make this hard on yourself, so here goes..

You can throw the stats around all you want, but the one being illogical is you. The team that lost in 04 was not the team that lost in 05 (although they won most of em) which was not the team that lost in 06 which was not the team that lost in 07. Tell me, who's being illogical by showing me stats about how we've lost the last x amount of years at Texas Stadium or wherever, when it means NOTHING when it comes to this team?

So you're saying that you thought that before the Dallas and Philly game, that this team was going to be better than any of the Gibbs lead teams?

Are you going to say that the statistics of how bad we have lost since 2003 to both these teams didn't and do not matter now? You're treading into Cooool...E territory now.

Once again, don't hide behind those facts and explain to me why it's illogical to believe that this team, who is almost the exact same team we had last year, could go and beat Dallas in Dallas, when we actually looked better than them most of that game last year even though we didn't pull it out, and Philly in Philly when we beat them there last year?

Yes, heaven forbid that I use facts and stats to prove something instead of taking your belief that since this is the "almost the exact same team" that lost at Dallas and only won for the 2nd time in 5 years at the Linc should absolutely win. Never occurred to you to balance that out with the fact that we could have struggled due to having a new offense? Of course not.

Is this not logical enough for you?

No but I am impressed that you learned to bold a sentence. Bravo.

Tell me, before you try to twist and spin as well as you always do, why its illogical? Why is it that you need to be a "BLIND HOMER" TO HAVE BELIEVED WE COULD DO IT? Don't escape this question. That is the point I'm making. You're being insulting by stating one has to be blind and illogical to have beleived we could've won as if us winning happened within a vacuum without no cause. Did this team just suddenly, without cause, grow players and chemistry? Have they not shown they can play in the past? What kind of logic are you using?

Twist and spin huh? One more time cos it seems you still don't get it. Going into the season, it was a safe and logical assessment to state that we were going to have struggles at Philly and at Dallas just like we had in the previous 5 years plus. Nothing that we did nor that either team did mitigated that, in fact as stated before, the fact that we were learning a new offense only enhanced that logic.

You won't admit this, but you're the only one being illogical. Please focus when you reply to me, otherwise I won't bother with this anymore. Answer why it had to take a blind homer with no logic to expect us to win those games and exactly why it's this total and utter miracle that we have. FOCUS AND DON'T DANCE.

Of course I won't admit that. My logic is sound. Your arguments are seriously pure emotion and lack any forethought; your cap lock and bold statements are an obvious tell.

Try growing up and looking at things from a logical perspective and not always as a homer and perhaps you will see things clearer.

One more time for you since you might drift off into tl:dr land..

The Redskins played exceptional football and beat two teams that due to home field advantage and previous records and trends showed that they had a better than not chance of winning these games. All credit goes to Zorn and the players for playing at such a high level.

If you predicted that the Skins were going to win these two games, you were either predicting with your heart or taking a chance, because the stats and previous occurrences did not back up the Skins winning 2 road games back to back against these teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TSO

TSO

Posted
Posted
I can see that you're going to make this hard on yourself, so here goes..

:rotflmao:

I knew this would be hard as soon as I decided to respond to an insult you felt the need to make. You're not one who can effectively look in the mirror well, and see any reflection that may be contrary to what you'd like to think. You've proven that to a lot of people here, and I knew getting into this was probably fruitless. However, I will respond simply because I have some time right now and I'd like to be the one to show even more people your "debate to death no matter how wrong I am" ways. Maybe it'll save them some time in the future. ;)

So you're saying that you thought that before the Dallas and Philly game, that this team was going to be better than any of the Gibbs lead teams?

Are you going to say that the statistics of how bad we have lost since 2003 to both these teams didn't and do not matter now? You're treading into Cooool...E territory now.

Yes, I am, and I said to go and take a look at my previous threads and posts. The last Gibbs lead team did pretty well against Dallas in Dallas, against Philly in Philly, and against NY in NY. It's illogical to assume we'd be worse off with Zorn, since you'd have been only assuming and have nothing to base it on.

And yes, the statistics since 2003 don't matter nearly as much as the statistics of 07 since that is pretty much the same team we have right now. Are you really having trouble seeing the logic in that? Is that really "blind logic" to you? Are you trying to say that the team in 03 really has something to do with our team now? Or the team in 04? Maybe the teams of 05 and 06 have a little bit more to do with our team than those teams (considering Moss and Randle El, our 1 and 2 recievers, were on those teams) and Campbell, our starting QB, played the last half of 06... but then if you take the records of those teams you still end up pretty even and you just can't base anything off of that.

Really, you didn't need to ask that question, and you certainly didn't need to insult me even further by labeling me a Cooooool...E type when my argument can't be further from what that guy writes about. Just more proof of your twisting and spinning, deflecting the argument. I'm not going to let you deflect the argument my man.

Focus.

My problem is with what you said, as an insult to those who beleived this team could be where they're at right now. As if it takes no logic, and there's no evidence to base the faith on. I never once said it was illogical to not believe, since we've been a team that is mroe than capable of breaking hearts. We've done it plenty of times, and we may still do it. You're trying to argue that you not expecting the team to be where they're at right now was completely logical, when I never said anything to the contrary. Poor you... you're debating skills are failing you. I'm only pointing out how you felt the need to insult others who had a different opinion and did expect this team to win to make you feel better about being wrong. That still stands true. Hope the bold worked here. :D

Yes, heaven forbid that I use facts and stats to prove something instead of taking your belief that since this is the "almost the exact same team" that lost at Dallas and only won for the 2nd time in 5 years at the Linc should absolutely win. Never occurred to you to balance that out with the fact that we could have struggled due to having a new offense? Of course not.

Once again, you're dancing. It was totally logical for you to expect that we struggle against Dallas in Dallas and Philly in Philly. However, it was also totally logical for anyone to believe we wouldn't struggle, based on how we've played them recently. Are you saying that recent history of our team ('07 season where our entire 22 starters have returned) is less relevant than the more ancient history of our team? Are you saying everyone just absolutely has to look at what our '04/'05/'06 teams did at the Linc or at Texas stadium as having the same merit as what we did in '07 with the same personnel?

Oh, and by the way, saying "Never occurred to you to balance that out with the fact that we could have struggled due to having a new offense? Of course not" actually works against your argument here. Key words: could have. I bolded them just in case you missed it, since you seem to miss (I should say dance around) the point pretty consistently. We also "could have" exploded in the new offense. Turns out, that was closer to the truth.

No but I am impressed that you learned to bold a sentence. Bravo.

Oh, why thank you. Maybe you should ask the mods to remove the ability for us to bold since it obviously is useless to you. While you're at it, call Microsoft and have them remove it from their Word Suite. Nice insult. Bravo.

Twist and spin huh? One more time cos it seems you still don't get it. Going into the season, it was a safe and logical assessment to state that we were going to have struggles at Philly and at Dallas just like we had in the previous 5 years plus. Nothing that we did nor that either team did mitigated that, in fact as stated before, the fact that we were learning a new offense only enhanced that logic.

Sadly, you're the only who seems to not get it. Sure, it was a safe and logical assesment to "state that we were going to have struggles at Philly and at Dallas just like we had in the previous 5 years plus". That doesn't mean it wasn't a safe and logical assesment to beleive we wouldn't struggle, and that only a "blind homer" wcould have expected that. You're still not understanding the entire point I was trying to make, and I'm not at all surprised. It's what you do.

You made an insulting statement claiming that anyone who beleived we could be where we're at right now, specifically winning against Dallas in Dallas and Philly in Philly, was being a "blind homer". I pointed that out. You then proceed to argue that it was logical for you to believe we would struggle, based on stats since 2003 (why don't we just show the stats from 2001, or how about 1939, in that case). That's all fine and dandy, except you have yet to refute the original point I was making... that it did not take "blind homerism" to have had believed we'd be sitting here at 4-1 by this point.

Since you've decided to make this about how logical you were being by NOT believing, even though I never stated you weren't, I'll also address the point you made here, again, about us learning a new offense supposedly "enhancing" your logic of us struggling. As stated above, that can easily "enhance" the logic of those of us who believed we wouldn't struggle. So far this season, we've been right. The new offense has finally opened things up for us, whereas under Gibbs/Saunders, that was considered our problem. We weren't using our playmakers as much as we should've, especially to close out the game. This was the hope during the offseason, and that hope has ended up being fulfilled.

So no, you can claim it "enhances" your logic. Sorry, it goes both ways and is even, neither enhancing any way of looking at it.

Of course I won't admit that. My logic is sound. Your arguments are seriously pure emotion and lack any forethought; your cap lock and bold statements are an obvious tell.

Try growing up and looking at things from a logical perspective and not always as a homer and perhaps you will see things clearer.

One more time for you since you might drift off into tl:dr land..

The Redskins played exceptional football and beat two teams that due to home field advantage and previous records and trends showed that they had a better than not chance of winning these games. All credit goes to Zorn and the players for playing at such a high level.

If you predicted that the Skins were going to win these two games, you were either predicting with your heart or taking a chance, because the stats and previous occurrences did not back up the Skins winning 2 road games back to back against these teams.

Insults is all you've got. Good for you.

Those of us who believed were not predicting with our hearts, although our hearts have the strongest of influences. Contrary to your beliefs, we were using as sound logic as you were in predicting that we'd be where we are right now.

You remain wrong about your "blind homer" comment. Unfortunately, you made the comment because you need to feel beter about yourself. I'd be very foolish to expect one with a fragile ego like yourself to accept and admit you were wrong about that, and to retract the insult. There's no "blindness", or lack of logic, in my words and I think most posters here can attest to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BleedinBurgNGold

BleedinBurgNGold

Posted
Posted
My initial picks at the beginning of the year had us at 2-3 at this point of the season. We are playing at a much higher level than anyone other than completely blind homers expected.

The 'experts" went with the logical, safe bets especially with the Cowboys and Eagles picks.

Uh.. If the 'Blind Homers' predicted us at 4-1 after 5 weeks, Would they be Blind Homers?

Poor fella is going to be very upset on November 5th. :(

No worries. You can always come to ES for comfort!!!!! :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC_Native,NC_Fan

DC_Native,NC_Fan

Posted
Posted

"I knew this would be hard as soon as I decided to respond to an insult you felt the need to make. You're not one who can effectively look in the mirror well, and see any reflection that may be contrary to what you'd like to think. You've proven that to a lot of people here, and I knew getting into this was probably fruitless. However, I will respond simply because I have some time right now and I'd like to be the one to show even more people your "debate to death no matter how wrong I am" ways. Maybe it'll save them some time in the future. ;) "

What's funny and sad is this was all started from someone simply making a general statement about blind homers. You took it waaaaaay too personal, buddy. Maybe you have a problem with his sig? Sorry, massive FAIL on your part. Nice try. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RalphZero

RalphZero

Posted
Posted

The Redskins are the biggest surprise this season.

However, don't focus only on the Redskins.

The Redskins are only one of the surprises this season.

Most all the teams in the NFL are either under or overachieving.

Overachieving: Falcons, Dolphins, Bills, Broncos and Titans.

Underachieving: Saints, Vikings, Colts, Eagles, Seahawks, Chargers and Jaguars.

The Cowboys are 4-1. However they have had an easy schedule and lost to the Redskins at home.

The Patriots are 3-1 and lost to Miami at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RalphZero

RalphZero

Posted
Posted
the Redskins are favored by 14.5 over the Rams on Sunday.... anyone think they'll cover that spread?

The national spread is Redskins -13.5. The local DC spread might be 14.5.

The Rams are coming off a bye week with 2 weeks rest.

Most importantly is they replaced their head coach. This will be their first game with their new head coach.

Team are super-duper motivated in their first game after a mid-season head coaching change.

The Rams will play their best game this season this Sunday at Fed-Ex.

The Redskins are really really due for a letdown.

All signs point to Rams covering the 13.5 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Henry

Henry

Posted
Posted

I can't imagine anyone EXPECTING us to win back-to-back road division games. That's something we haven't done in 20 years.

If you did more power to you. But no matter how we do this year or what the final records may be, I don't think I'll ever expect to win two straight against the division on the road. That's a tough thing to do no matter who you are.

Which is why our record right now is so incredibly impressive.

I just hope we keep it going against the Rams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister Mean

Mister Mean

Posted
Posted
Surprisingly, Mark Schlereth actually picked us to win againsat the Eagles. Despite his hatred of the skins. Maybe he is coming around?

in an espn bit, talking about the game a couple of days before the picks came out, he said the eagles would win that game because they had the better defense

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cphil006

cphil006

Posted
Posted
Here is how ESPN experts have done picking our games so far this year.

ESPN "Experts

Wickersham 1-4

Fleming 0-5

Hoge 2-3

Jaworski 2-3

Schlereth 2-3

Allen 1-4

Mortensen 3-2

Golic 1-4

Accuscore 3-2

Pickem 1-4

Allen, Wickersham and Golic (and the Pickem) have picked us to lose everything single game. Mortensen is the only live body to have picked us to win 2 games so far this year. Fleming is 0-5 which means that he picked us to beat the Giants.

who is this Fleming guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...