ESPN Experts Picks - Skins

[SonnyJ]

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

Try telling that to Terry Robiskie (or Robinskie). :laugh:

[TheGreek1973]

Does anyone here remember that game with the Giants? I do. yes the Giants beat the hell out of the skins for 1.5 quarters. Anyone remember what happend in the second half? Anyone remember that Eli had 3 passes dropped by Rogers and Smoot (one of them in the endzone where the Giants ended up scoring a TD)? last time I checked they were not wearing the blue and white. Anyone remember how the Giants were jumping on the snap count? Didn't someone in here say for two days staight coaches at redskins park were talking about this and chaned a lot of things. Anyone remember the bad managment clock Zorn did?

Excuses? Maybe. But the skins could not have played a worse game even if they tried today. You can't win the game when you drop 3 sure INTs, make mistakes managing the clock, opponent jumping your snap count and win. Anyone understand that Springs was not playing in that game? did anyone watch what Springs did to TO in the first half in Dallas? His only TD came when Springs was out of the game with yet another injury. Before that he was OWNED. And Plaxico got totally stopped in the second half with "stone hands" Smoot and Rogers. Horton didn't even play I don't believe in that game or maybe he played for a few plays. The kid already has 3 INTS and is one of the leading tacklers.

As for the comment the skins "only" beat the boys by 2 points anyone that saw that game knows it was not even close as that, as the boys scored 10 points in both the last minute of the first half and before the end of the game when the skins were in prevent D. They were playing the %s that Romo sits to pee would once again put up an INT and even if he scored they needed the onside kick.

Giants fans should be worried a little considering they got out AT THEIR HOUSE with a win over Cinci in OT and have not played ANY NFC games away. The skins have finished that part.

it is going to be a very interesting season that is for sure. Are we the best team? As I love football and the skins the best part of this situation is we get to prove it in the next 12 games with the most important ones being at our HOUSE. Can another team say that in the NFL?

[HereComesTheDiesel44]

Yup, these are your so-called "experts"

[AuburnConnection]

I had us beating the Giants, losing to the Saints, beating the Cardinals, losing to the Cowboys, and beating the Eagles. So, I'd only be 2-3 as well, haha.

Honestly, we should have been picked to lose to the Giants, Saints, and Cowboys. It was not clear that this was a good team early in the season. It's the people who thought we were going to lose to the Eagles who are dumb. The Eagles have been overrated all season long. They were 8-8 last season, yet everyone has acted as if they were 12-4.

[E-Dog Night]

LOL Harmond, Prisco and Richard are picking the Rams over the Skins.

To quote CBS' at the top of the page: "Picks are based not on which team actually wins the game, but covers the spread."

[Audible_Red40]

How is it that Mortensen is 50-24 on the "Expert Picks" page, then you click on the "Sunday Countdown" link above them, and he's 47-27 on that page.

I call fake!

[TSO]

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.

Did I even mention his sig? Did I even hint at it? Stay on topic, and keep politics out of this. You do also realize that his "general statement about blind homers" isn't new and he seems to do this all the time, and that is why I took it more seriously than if someone else had said it? Did you see his thread "It's OK to believe now?"

Sorry, massive FAIL on your part. Nice try. Carry on. :rotflmao:

[StJoe4Life]

I don't know. I looked at our schedule at the beginning of the year and thought we'd be 2-3. After we won our first two games, I thought we'd probably split (or would like to split) Dallas and Philly. After we beat Dallas, I thought we'd lose to Philly.

I'm a huge fan. But I'm also realistic. I'd rather the team pleasantly surprise us than the other way around.

[Ray Brown]

How is it that Mortensen is 50-24 on the "Expert Picks" page, then you click on the "Sunday Countdown" link above them, and he's 47-27 on that page.

I call fake!

i've seen him make different picks for each show. that would explain the difference

[Jeffree!]

I'm actually 4-1 this year. I picked us to lose to N.Y., beat New Orleans, beat Arizona, lose to Dallas, beat Philly

[jleopiper]

IMHO It is flawed to try to use logic to back up your picks, or to call people names for the way they picked, based on their feelings. With all of the stats in the world, rarely do you see anyone pick all the games right. There is always an element of the unknown. That is what makes this game so great.

[Oldskool]

: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.

Sorry to ruin your preception of me Dr Jung, but you struck out horribly on this one.

Next..

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.

I'm sorry but that makes very little sense. How is it illogical to assume we'd be worse off with a rookie HC who has never been a OC or called plays versus Gibbs. If a Gibbs coached team couldn't do it, the odds were less that a rookie HC could.

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.

Stats are stats. You cannot simply discard them because they do not fit your world view or the argument that you wish to make. The facts stand that we had a horrible road record in both stadium and the odds of us sweeping both were very, very low.

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.

Sorry chief, you're the one who is trying to introduce your own "logic" into this. Read the stats and the figures again. Probabilities are on the side of those who know how to use them instead of using emotion to cloud their judgement.

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.

Sorry, your problem is that you cannot admit that a choice made using your heart instead of your head is not the same thing. Once you learn the difference and can admit this, come see me. Until then, this is a wasted argument.

If you take offense at the label "blind homer" then it must have, and obviously fits and cut you to the quick.

Once you learn the difference and can admit this, come see me. until then. As Henry said in the post above

QUOTE=Henry

Re: ESPN Experts Picks - Skins

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.

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?

There is no dance on my part. My point has remained constant. You cannot discount previous occurrences simply because they do not fit your view. Add to the fact that this is basically the same personnel that lost at those venues for the previous years and a new HC with a new system and my point is more than valid. Sadly you are still flailing against this.

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.

:doh: again, things the probability of struggling with a new offense are much, much greater than nailing a new one. I'm really starting to wonder if you have ever taken a probability and statistics class.

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.

Nah, it keeps obviously keeps the kiddies entertained. Like crayons at a pizza parlor.

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.

Again round and round in the merry go round we go. You don't understand probability at all and this makes it hard to proceed.

Go back in the history and tell me the last time we won at Dallas and at Philly in the same year. This should tell you that it is not an easy task nor is it something that is logical to assume.

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.

Again if this insults you, then it must have hit home. I'm glad that we are 4-1 but it was improbable at the beginning of the season to predict this outcome. This is obviously something that you cannot grasp or do not wish to come to terms with.

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 you're tying to make a logical point by being illogical. Amazing. Teams that learn new offenses on average do not take off from the gate and win 4 out of 5 games.

Green Bay in Holmgren's 1st year lost 3 out of their first 5 games

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/1992.htm

Seattle under Holmgren won 3 of their first 5 games but lost 5 of their last 6 games in his first year there.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/1992.htm

Teams generally do not come out and fully grasp the WCO in their first year, or any new offense for that matter. Especially one that comes from a completely different tree as do the Saunders (Coryell) and Zorn (Holmgren/Walsh) do.

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.

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

Apparently that's not all I have but its all you care to see.

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.

Hate to tell you but if you're a blind homer and/or a fan then you are making assumptions with your heart and not your head. Remember that fan comes from the word fanatic for a reason.

Flail against reason all you want, you had to be a homer and let emotion take you to a conclusion that this team would sweep Dallas and Philly at home and be 4-1. Previous occurrences didn't back this up. Statistics didn't back this up. Logic didn't back this up. The fact that we were learning a new offense didn't support this assumption. The fact that we have a rookie HC didn't back this up.

I think this all has to do with the fact of me saying that you had to be a blind homer to assume this, that has put sand in your shorts. If that's the case, I'll retract the blind part, but you still had to be a homer to dream this very much of a dream scenario that we are experiencing right now.

For me, this conversation is over. It's obvious that you are going to say whatever comes to mind in order to justify your false assumptions. I've made my points and you have done nothing but dance around the points i've made and introduce hyperbole and non sequiturs in order to continue this discussion.

Enjoy the 4-1 (and soon to be 7-1) start.

[TSO]

^^You can say you're not dancing all you want, but it's obvious. Jason Taylor obvious.

You're still arguing your logic as if it means there is no other logic besides it. As if one logical statement can only exist in and of itself, with no other truths. You continue to miss the point, and you continue to insult others intelligence.

Oh, and of course the "blind homer" comment is offensive. You're insulting the intelligence of those of us who felt this team could more than certainly do what they've done so far (and once again, I add that they actually did, therefore we were closer to the truth than anyone else) by calling us blind and illogical.

Look, I'm going to make it real simple and then laugh while I watch you dance. I really don't need to go through your ridiculous dancing quote by quote to make myself look better.

You're argument:

Only blind homers could've expected we'd beat two divisional opponents on the road

My refutation:

There's plenty of logic for someone to have expected it. One, the team has got a lot of talent on it. Two, with this same talent in personnel last year, we outplayed Dallas in Dallas for most of the game, although we lost due to TO's big day (which is easily attributed to missing Sean Taylor for the first time), and we beat Philly in Philly.

Sane. Simple. Totally logical. You have yet to refute this logic... and it's because you can't. You'd rather throw around statistics from 2003, when the 03 team has absolutely NOTHING to do with the team right now.

***** Notice: I never once said it was illogical to expect us NOT to win also. There's plenty of logic behind that reasoning too. It's tough for ANY team in ANY division to beat two divisional opponents back to back, especially on the road. That logic is enough. However, it doesn't negate my logic. You can't see that... and that's why you continued to dance with this argument:

You're reply:

My logic is sound. Noone could've expected it because

<insert stats from 2003, new offense, new head coach>.

My reponse:

I never said you're logic wasn't sound. However, your arguments as to why your logic is sound can also be used both ways.

You're response:

No, my logic is sound. You had to be a blind homer.

WEEEEE!!! :dance:

Do you not understand that we're both being logical, and that you're statement that we had to be "blind homers" is simply wrong? Why is this difficult?

[RAAZ227]

I like how the majority of the experts have picked the Cards over the Girls! (so Far)