Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

John Clayton...ESPN sleeper team


GO GO SKINS

Recommended Posts

Maybe they need some verification and hope from people who aren't wearing burgundy and gold glasses :whoknows:

Perhaps the better question is "why do mediots get villainized for NOT picking us?".

Simple fact is, the media has been correct about the Redskins (negatively) more times than not over the past decade when it's come to how we would do in a given season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm not one to sit around and worry about what the media thinks we're going to do every year.

Why do people obsess over it?

IDK..... It won't make the team record any better or worse than what it will be.Our guys still have to go out there and play well in order to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh happy days are here again! Some one in the media picked us to do well! I'm sure this will send droves of ESers into a circle jerk frenzy.

Seriously though, ES's collective is really schizo when it comes to the media. On the one hand any media member who says something negative about the Redskins is dismissed as just a hater and "who cares what the media thinks anyway." The minute some talking head heaps praise on the team, we pull out the KY and jerk rag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extremeskins formula:

Journalist/talking head/guy with a keyboard and blogger account + picking Redskins to lose = Mediot

Journalist/talking head/guy with a keyboard and blogger account + picking Redskins to win = Genius

Normally true.

But John Clayton has always been a respected journalist. Far more reputable than anyone else in the business.

Can't say that for Mort, Schefter, and anyone else who claims to be an analyst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the better question is "why do mediots get villainized for NOT picking us?".

Simple fact is, the media has been correct about the Redskins (negatively) more times than not over the past decade when it's come to how we would do in a given season.

Actually, I'm not sure that's true lol...

1999: I think the overriding opinion at the time was the Skins finishing 3rd or 4th...maybe a prediction or two of a 2nd place finish.

Result: we won the division and made the playoffs.

2000: The overriding opinion was that the Skins would once again make the playoffs and could realistically be a SB contender.

Result: 8-8, no playoffs.

2001 - 2004: The overriding opinion was that the Skins would be mediocre at best.

Result: Skins were mediocre at best lol.

2005: The overriding opinion was that the Skins would continue to be mediocre at best, and that the game had passed both Gibbs and Brunell by.

Result: Skins go 10-6, make the playoffs.

2006: The overriding opinion was that the Skins would make the playoffs again, and if they could get the new FAs to mesh with the team, they could make a serioius SB push.

Result: Skins go 5-11.

2007: The overriding opinion was that the Skins would hover around 5-6 wins once more and miss the playoffs again, coming in last in the division.

ResultL Skins go 9-7, and make the playoffs.

2008: The overriding opinion was that the Skins were hard to read as far as records go, but would probably go 8-8 at best, and come in last because of the division being so stacked and strong.

Result: Skins go 8-8, and come in last.

So, that makes five times where the media was wrong about the Redskins, and five times where they were correct. Nice, even split. They were right about the Skins not being good 4 times (2001-2004), and wrong about the Skins not being good 3 times (1999, 2005, 2007). So basically the media is just as likely to be wrong about the Skins being bad as they are to be right. It's a coin toss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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