corrupt3d Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/clinton-portis-ines-sainz-new-york-jets-nfl-truths-jason-whitlock-091610 I'm ignoring what he said about Portis' comments, although I agree with them, however... 7. No team looked worse in victory than the Washington Redskins.Wade Phillips’ Dallas DumBoys handed Mike Shanahan a season-opening victory. In a low-scoring, defensive affair, the DumBoys abandoned their running game for no reason. Marion Barber and Felix Jones split 16 carries and averaged a shade below 5 yards a tote. For some reason, overrated offensive coordinator Jason Garrett instructed Tony Romo sits to pee to throw the ball 47 times. That’s the only reason the Redskins held Dallas to 7 points. Washington’s defense was mediocre. The ‘Skins sacked Romo sits to pee one time. They never mounted consistent pressure. On offense, Donovan McNabb has two options: Santana Moss and Chris Cooley. Clinton Portis is washed up. Joey Galloway was washed up four years ago. The ‘Skins are counting on some 27-year-old first-year receiver, Anthony Armstrong. It’s a bad team. The Redskins will finish closer to 1-16 than 8-8. What? How is that even true in any realm of thought capable by any living organism with something close to a nervous center to handle bodily functions and creating coherent lines of thinking? It was our pressure that won us the game! It's not like Orakpo turned it on for one play, he was mauling Alex Barron and forced two holding penalties - on one drive! And I know, I know. Whitlock's an idiot. But how can anyone say anything like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rd421 Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 ummm im gonna have to say that its o early to jump on what is or isnt consistant anywhere its been one game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 "Jason Garrett instructed Tony Romo sits to pee to throw the ball 47 times. That’s the only reason the Redskins held Dallas to 7 points." Really? The excuses for the Cowboys loss just keep piling up. How about just a little credit to the Skins D? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Godfather Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 VLhZ52vVK-I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 yeah no pressure at all. all those holding penalties were just because their olineman were lonely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsDukes Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 It’s a bad team. The Redskins will finish closer to 1-16 than 8-8. I'd very much like to take that bet Mr. Whitlock, please contact me ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacoby6644 Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 While holding penalties don't count as sacks, pretty sure they are the result of poor blocking technique when trying to deal with consistant preasure. Whitlock= Moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Whitlock has been so insanely on the Inez booty locker room thing that it seems he can't even formulate a rational argument on this. Besides, this guy is a sports/social pundit, not in any way a sports reporter or a real X's and O's person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrecker Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 :censored:Whitlock. Whitlock = :pooh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Did he even watch the game? I watched it twice and one more time on short cuts. The holds were there all game. Their line sucks and the Redskins are going to get better. This was with a new system on both D and O. The Cowboys were the most talented team in the NFL until they played us, not what are they, 0-1. BallState0@aol.com--------------I will email him and suggest others do as well. His one quote was it was a defensive game yet the Redskins garnered no pressure while the Cowboys garnered not much scoring. hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 yeah no pressure at all. all those holding penalties were just because their olineman were lonely. That's classic. Lonely, lonely Alex Barron...interesting that 1. Mr. Whitlock did not say the same about the vaunted Cowboys pass rush (1 sack) 2. Or that Portis started to find some room to run in the 2nd half 3. Why to writers continue to purport the Cowboys were the only ones making mistakes? It's clear Jason Whitlock looked at the box score and didn't actually watch the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkFan8 Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Maybe it's because we won, or because Orakpo made Barron his *****, but I don't really disagree with Whitlock's assessment (outside of the fact that I don't think we're a bad team) and am wondering why more people don't agree. We really didn't generate that much consistent D-line. Romo sits to pee was 17/23 on first down. On third down we relied on well orchestrated CB/safety blitzes to generate any semblance of pressure. Carter and Daniels, IMO, should not be logging as many minutes as they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADF Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Hard to get pressure on the QB when he's throwing short passes. Tony Romo sits to pee typically averages over 8 yards per attempt. Sunday night it was 6 yards per attempt. They obviously came in with that game plan because they new they wouldn't be able to block our guys. This was mentioned during the game. The last play before the half and the last play of the game were prime examples. Romo sits to pee threw it to Choice because he had pressure coming from Alexander on his left side. Baron couldn't block Rak and it cost them the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homercles82 Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 It seems to me, and I feel I am about as much an expert as Whitlock, that the Cowgirls offense was centered on a quick release strategy to prevent any sort of pressure making it to Romo sits to pee. There were a lot of 3 step drops in that passing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Brown #43 Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 How exactly does a team go 1-16 with a 16 game schedule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmy Smith Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Always nice to get some good bulletin board material for the locker room. No respect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailYeah Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 "It’s a bad team. The Redskins will finish closer to 1-16 than 8-8." This is the stupidest thing he said. So he's thinking we will only win three games or less from here on out. Boy, I would take that bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddub52 Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 The only reason they were even getting what they did out of the run was because we were in pass defense most of the game. Pretty much because they passed most of the game. Its not like they were going to get that every play if they were consistently running the ball. That third down play when we knew that they were going to run, they lost yardage. Their ONLY touchdown came on a drive that started inside our 35. And 25% of their yards came on that last drive. That had nothing to do with our defense Im sure. And we were getting consistent pressure on Romo sits to pee. Romo sits to pee even said that was the most blitzes hes ever had thrown at him. Just because we didnt sack him a bunch doesnt mean that we didnt make him rush his passes and confuse him. This article sounds like it was written by a bitter, angry person who probably picked the Cowboys to win this game, and much much more. BTW, I dont think 1-16 is possible since there are only 16 games in a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabby Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 How exactly does a team go 1-16 with a 16 game schedule? Wow, good catch. I didnt even make that connection lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Maybe we weren't getting pressure because I lost track of all the quick screens and quick slants Romo sits to pee was throwing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homercles82 Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Maybe it's because we won, or because Orakpo made Barron his *****, but I don't really disagree with Whitlock's assessment (outside of the fact that I don't think we're a bad team) and am wondering why more people don't agree.We really didn't generate that much consistent D-line. Romo sits to pee was 17/23 on first down. On third down we relied on well orchestrated CB/safety blitzes to generate any semblance of pressure. Carter and Daniels, IMO, should not be logging as many minutes as they are. Romo sits to pee got 282 yards on 31/47. He averaged 6 yards per completion. He wasn't lighting them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailYeah Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 How exactly does a team go 1-16 with a 16 game schedule? Maybe he thinks we will make the playoffs at 1-15 and lose the first game. I can see the logic in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecardiacrll Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Well Id rather look bad and win then look good and lose. Bottom line is the media is salty there superbowl pick lost to the Redskins that is most media people pick to be last in the east. I just dont understand how we hold a strong offense like dallas to 7 points and the media says we looked horrible like Dallas only scored 7 points on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PorkSkins Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 I don't remember the Pukes handing us anything. I remember D'Hall taking the victory before the half. We just beat a team that Fox and ESPN employ some of their has-been players. This Skins team has already improved over last year. We overcame two bad punts, a botched FG, and a dropped INT. Too much credit is going to the Pukes for playing bad when in fact WE made them play bad. How can you finish 1-16? You just showed us your intelligence level JW. Did the NFL approve an extra game this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBnotBlades Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 He made it quite obvious that not only did he not watch the game, but he doesn't really know what he's talking about. Oh, and I really like the 1-16 prediction. We could lose our next 15 in a row, somehow make the playoffs, then lose our 16th game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.