CrypticVillain Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Man this is the best thing that could have happened to us. Haters make me so happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camyj15 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 :blahblah: The Skins won, loser Giants whine about next time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Hey Antrel... SCOREBOARD!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsince72 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Is he a grown man? Something a Pop Warner kid would say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Man this is the best thing that could have happened to us. Haters make me so happy. Maybe he will repeat himself after we play them again like McNugget did a few years ago. The better team lost twice, so sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulSkin Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Antrel Rolle must have been hit in the head a few times to many. I think he's confusing the Redkins' odds of beating the Giants with the Giants' odds of pulling out the luckiest Superbowl victory ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Maybe he will repeat himself after we play them again like McNugget did a few years ago. The better team lost twice, so sad. I still remember when McNabb said that after we beat them again. I almost felled off of my chair. :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRagone Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 From Real Redskinshttp://www.realredskins.com/rich-tandlers-real-redsk/2011/09/rolle-says-skins-would-beat-giants-five-of-100-times.html It looked like the Redskins’ fourth attempt to expand their lead had come up empty. On a third and nine play from the Washington 45 with just over eight minutes left to play, Fred Davis had to go to the ground to catch Rex Grossman’s pass two yards short of the first-down marker. But the Redskins then got a break. Safety Antrel Rolle came in and hit Davis while he was on the ground. A second later, a flag flew and Rolle was penalized for unnecessary roughness. Five plays later, Grossman threw a four-yard touchdown pass to Jabar Gaffney and the Redskins’ six-game losing streak against the Giants was all but over. Both Rolle and Giants coach Tom Coughlin disagreed with the call. “The penalty in the drive, which there’s no one touching the receiver [when he first went to the ground],” Coughlin said. “That’s a very difficult call for me.” The coach did say that since the call was on the other side of the field he did not have a very good view of it. Rolle thought he did nothing wrong. "I definitely didn't lead with my helmet," Rolle said. "To say I led with my helmet is definitely crazy. I've never, ever tackled any opponent by leading with my helmet." Whatever you say, Antrel. You clearly have a clue as to what you're talking about. Someone please tweet that quote to Antrel and then twitpic that picture to him after it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan1523 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Just makes the W all that much more sweeter, knowing we really got under their skin. Ahhh thank you for that Antrel, I'm glad we pissed you off as much as the Giants have pissed me off the last few years. ---------- Post added September-13th-2011 at 10:47 PM ---------- Whatever you say, Antrel. You clearly have a clue as to what you're talking about. Na man, he's just trying to give him a back massage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Hahaha, talk is cheap Antrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCClybun Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I think what ticks me off more is Coughlin. Dude, you lost. Your team lost, and they lost big. God, just man up, say "We didn't win today, the Redskins played a good game, we got beat, but we'll come back and be better". That's it? Why are you complaing about ref calls like a player. Anyone who sees the replay KNOWS Antrel led with his helmet. Take a page from the Mike Tomlin playbook, congratulate the other team on the win, say you need to work harder. No excuses, no explanations, ya jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iMeast Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Bulletin board material. HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I think what ticks me off more is Coughlin. Dude, you lost. Your team lost, and they lost big.God, just man up, say "We didn't win today, the Redskins played a good game, we got beat, but we'll come back and be better". That's it? Why are you complaing about ref calls like a player. Anyone who sees the replay KNOWS Antrel led with his helmet. Is he still ****ing about it or was that after the game? I'm sure he's watched the game since Sunday and there's no way that wasn't leading with the helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spear Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 If Rolle was a Redskin, he'd be a backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuRedskins Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 i find it weird that Rolle said the giants are the better team, and we didnt play any better than they expected us to. It makes it sound like he knew we would win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 As ridiculous as Rolle's statement was, his sentence is not broken English. Washington Redskins is a single entity, not plural, so the word "is" is correctly used. Not to be the grammar police here, but since you brought it up, you are actually wrong about this. As you say, singular verbs do follow an entity (e.g. "Congress is . . . " or "Washington is . . ."). However, a mascot like "the Redskins" does not work that way, because it is a plural word. Saying "the Redskins" is not the same as saying "Washington." "Washington" is a singular word, "Redskins" is a plural word. Think about it this way: Would you say, "the Redskins win" (plural), or would you say, "the Redskins wins" (singular)? If you would say, "the Redskins win," then you should say, "the Redskins are . . . " (plural). Saying "the Redskins is . . ." actually is bad grammar. The fact that so many people are unsure of this tells me that many of America's English teachers failed at their jobs somewhere along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IONTOP Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Saying "the Redskins is . . ." is bad grammar. The fact that so many people are unsure of this tells me that many of America's English teachers failed at their jobs. Not to be nit picky but.... Aren't you a philosopher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Not to be nit picky but.... Aren't you a philosopher? Lo, philosophers too can understand subject-verb agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IONTOP Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Lo, philosophers too can understand subject-verb agreement. I know several philosophers and he all sucks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2006Skins Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Thank you, Antrelle.Not only did you help us seal the game by diving helmet first into Freddy D, but you just gave the team that just beat you extra motivation. You are SMART. I thought that was him. What he should've said was "If it weren't for my dumb penalty, we would've had a chance to win the game." That sort of thing is what makes no sense. Why not tell everyone you can't wait to play the skins again to prove you're better than what you showed? But no, you just make yourself look like you have sour grapes (which you do) and you make yourself look like an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rpredskins Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Sorry Antrelle but your offense put up 14 points. Thats not good enough to win more than 8 games in a season no matter how healthy your defense is. And speaking of injuries, if we had LaRon Landry in that game, the Giants only score 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_e_b Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Not to be the grammar police here, but since you brought it up, you are actually wrong about this. As you say, singular verbs do follow an entity (e.g. "Congress is . . . " or "Washington is . . ."). However, a mascot like "the Redskins" does not work that way, because it is a plural word. Saying "the Redskins" is not the same as saying "Washington." "Washington" is a singular word, "Redskins" is a plural word. Think about it this way: Would you say, "the Redskins win" (plural), or would you say, "the Redskins wins" (singular)? If you would say, "the Redskins win," then you should say, "the Redskins are . . . " (plural). Saying "the Redskins is . . ." actually is bad grammar. The fact that so many people are unsure of this tells me that many of America's English teachers failed at their jobs somewhere along the way. Ending in "s" doesn't make a word plural. The word, Redskins, in this case, is referring to the name of the team, not a collection of individual mascots. "Redskins" can't be judged on it's own anyway, as the entire team name is "Washington Redskins". If my name was Jim Jones, people wouldn't say, "Jim Jones are good at grammar" simply because Jones ends with "s". Stanford Cardinal IS singular. Washington Redskins IS singular. There IS only 1 Stanford Cardinal football team. There IS only 1 Washington Redskins football team. Antrel Rolle still remains an idiot for his comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins4ever Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Antrelle Rolle has it backwards. The Redskins are a better team than the Giants. They proved it Sunday. The two teams matched up, and the Redskins outplayed the Giants with the offense executing at will on the Giants defense and the Redskins defense manhandling the Giants offense. Which ever team defeated who last is the better team. In the last game of the season last year, the Giants narrowly escaped with a win against a 6-10 team. That to me says a lot. This Redskin team in 2011 is not the one in 2010. Rolle should know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildbunny Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 He thinks we would only win 5 out of a hundred. No problem with that for me. He can win the 98 preseason games he wants. If we just ends beating them up twice during the season, I'll be pleased with just 2 wins out of 100. Make it three if they make it to the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 He hasnt done **** since he signed there but complain about the coaching so unless he can go back and time and stop Rex from being genetically engineered in that Florida laboratory...he should shut the **** up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.