• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      We’re still doing this?  Absolutely!  Despite all the compelling reasons to just let everyone go home and enjoy and extended offseason, this is not an option.  The games must be played, and therefore we the long-suffering fans will feel compelled to watch.  Even games no reasonable football fan would choose to watch like, for example, today’s Redskins Jets game.   

      Today’s convergence of sadness features the 30th ranked scoring offense (Jets 14.4 ppg) versus the 32nd (Redskins 12.0 ppg).  The first team to 15 wins!  With no playoff aspirations the compelling story lines for this game are largely limited to watching young players (hopefully) develop.  Dwayne Haskins gets his first home start and Derrius Guice is back from injury.   
       
      My, reasonable, goals for today’s game:  
      1- Score a touchdown 
      2- Score more than 17 points.   
      3- Haskins throws for 200 yards or more with no interceptions  
      4- Guice runs the ball at least 10 times and finishes at 3.5 yards per carry and healthy.  
       
      Hoping for a win at this point feels like setting myself up for disappointment, so I’m happy to settle for an entertaining loss.  
       
      Special thanks to @pez for some excellent Guinness beef stew.  If you absolutely have to stand in a frozen parking lot at 9am, the best place to do it is at the Extremeskins Tailgate with Pez and @Huly.  Great fans, great people. 
       
      The Redskins have declared for the following players as inactive: 
      Paul Richardson  
      Colt McCoy 
      Deshazor Everett 
      Chris Thompson  
      Ross Pierschbacher 
      Vernon Davis  
      Tim Settle  
       
      The Jets declared the following players as inactive  
      Nate Hairston  
      Darryl Roberts  
      Paul Worrilow 
      Matthias Farley  
      CJ Mosley  
      Jordan Willis  
      Leo Koloamatangi 
       
      1st Quarter - Redskins 0 - 6 Jets
      If you wanted to sit in the cold and watch a football game with some Jets fans at FedEx, but were worried that there were not enough seats available, I have good news.  There’s plenty of space available, so come on down and prove you’re a real fan by sitting though this in person.
       
      Jets dominated the 1st quarter even though they only scored 6 points.  The reason being that Washington managed only 13 yards of offense and a single first down.  
       
      Question: Is it still a check down pass if the QB never looks at anyone else?
       
      2nd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      The Jets have achieved an insurmountable 13 point lead early in the 2nd quarter.  All hope is lost.

      Is there a more perfect example of the Redskins offense than their first scoring drive in the 2nd quarter?  Interception gives the Redskins the ball on the Jets 16 yard line.  They proceed to march 10 yards backwards before kicking a field goal from the Jets 26.  It's perfect.  Two or three more field goals we can call it a day. 

      The Jets score again and if feels like they are are just piling on at this point.  Three touchdowns in the first half for them, just three points for the redskins.  Our streak of no touchdowns has now extended to 15 quarters. 
       
      3rd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      There is a spider slowly descending from the ceiling in the press box and it's the most interesting thing that's happened during the third quarter of this game. 
       
      I have decided to allow the spider to live, provided it does not touch me.  I'm off to get some more caffeine. 

      4th Quarter - Redskins 17 - 34 Jets
      The first wave of Redskins fans, the few that are here, started streaming towards the exits after that 4th Jets touchdown.  As if the Jets didn't have this game wrapped up in the 2nd quarter. 
       
      Jet have now more than doubled their average points per game and have matched their season high of 34 points (and they missed two field goals in this game). 
       
      TOUCHDOWN REDSKINS!  THE DROUGHT IT OVER!  Guice took a short pass from Haskins  all the way to the house.  2 point conversion is successful on a pass from Haskins to Quinn. 
       
      The Redskins score another touchdown!  This feels like an embarrassment of riches, even if we are still certain to lose this game. 
       
      End of Game.
       
      Let's review those reasonable goals I mentioned earlier:
       
      1- Success.
      2- Close enough, I'm counting it
      3- Haskins did throw for over 200, but unfortunately did have an interception. 
      4- Guice was not given the opportunity to run the ball ten times today.  He did however score on a 45 yard TD pass and finish the game healthy.  I'll take it.
       
      Even though the Redskins lost, it was good to see the offense show some faint signs of life and end the streak of games without a TD.  The team looked competitive for much of the second half, and perhaps they could have made this a fun game if they carried that same energy throughout.  It was good to see Guice and Mclaurin show out today.  I think both of them have a future with this team that I look forward to seeing. 

       
       

       
       
       
       
       
Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Trump the Impeached vs Superplanner Lizzie & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

You can't make people stop having them, either. 

Can't I? The sterilization of those I deem undesirable of procreating is a key aspect of my platform.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beto has that VP kinda vibe. I know he doesn’t put Texas in play, but imagine if he could. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I've seen Mayor Pete, (which, I confess, isn't that often.  I'm a very low information voter), he's struck me as young, and positive.  (Often calling for moderation in debate and resisting attempts to get him to go negative.)  

 

I don't think he's remotely qualified to be President.  But I think he might bring a youthful, positive, vibe to a campaign as Veep.  At least that's my optimism talking.  (I am, after all, a Redskins fan.)  (And the impression I get is that Warren gives off the "angry woman with a mission" vibe, which might not be so positive.)  

 

Now, would it help?  Not at all sure.  Other than Sarah Palin, I can't remember ever thinking that a Veep choice really affected the votes for a ticket.  Maybe it makes a difference on the R side, where we seem to hve a pattern of "OK, our candidate isn;t as rabidly anti-abortion as that bunch would like.  But look, he picked a Veep who's a fanatic!".  

 

And I'm aware that the classic goal is for the primary candidate to be the friendly, baby-kissing, moderate, and the Veep is the attack dog.  My imaginary pairing might be the opposite.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

And I'm aware that the classic goal is for the primary candidate to be the friendly, baby-kissing, moderate, and the Veep is the attack dog.  My imaginary pairing might be the opposite.  

Is Warren/Buttigieg a good ticket for you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

Is Warren/Buttigieg a good ticket for you? 

 

I admittedly know almost nothing about either of them.  I'm just discussing the vague aura I get thinking abut either of them.  

 

OTOH, I have a lot of trouble imagining anything that I might learn about either of them that would cause me not to vote for them in the general.  I'd have no problems voting for a convicted child molester over what we've got now.  

 

Now, are they the best choices?  I'm too ignorant to say.  

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about "passionate woman on a mission " instead of "angry woman on a mission" ?  And personally I think women should be angry with the roles assigned to the female class.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

How about "passionate woman on a mission " instead of "angry woman on a mission" ?  And personally I think women should be angry with the roles assigned to the female class.

My husband hates the "angry white man" label, but he's a white man who walks around *****ing most of the time. I think he earned it.😄

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

How about "passionate woman on a mission " instead of "angry woman on a mission" ?

 

I'm not looking to make out with her.  

 

(Yeah, I know.  Really bad joke.  Had to.)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Larry said:

 

I don't think he's remotely qualified to be President.  But I think he might bring a youthful, positive, vibe to a campaign as Veep.

Hasn't that bar been lowered significantly or does that just apply to Republicans?

 

This seems to me to be one of the reasons Democrats lose so much, they hold themselves to the standards we should expect out of our leaders while the competition has no standards at all and doesn't play by any rules.

 

Mayor Pete may not be the most qualified candidate but he's so much more qualified in every possible, measurable standard than trump that I don't really care that he's inexperienced. 

 

Mayor pete has the best combination of intelligence, integrity, character and youth out of all of the democratic candidates. 

 

If it isn't pete it better be Warren because biden and sanders are too old and Warren is right there on the cusp of being too old.

 

My dream ticket is Warren and buttigieg but I'd gladly take pete as the nominee.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly is Buttigieg less qualified than Warren? Such an assertion is ageism. Buttigieg has experience as an executive in government as well as the most military experience of any president since GHWB.  Presidents are executives, not legislators, and all the best Dem candidates have been younger - Obama, Clinton, JFK. Warren has one term in the Senate, and she's the paragon of experience?  LBJ and Mondale had decades in the Senate, but they were still bad choices.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Corey Booker I’d say. I think a Warren - Booker ticket could be pretty good.

 

This was the exact ticket I was thinking might show up.  If you have a woman at the top, probably want a man on the bottom or else independents sho scare easily will be spookted.

 

Besides the obvious minority inroads it'd create, Booker is a Senator and I tend to think that, philosophically, it's good to have a VP who has some clout on Capitol Hill and can help move legislation.  Is Booker the right guy for that?  Well he's at least more "right" than some of the other options.

 

While I like Butti I think he'd be the wrong choice.  He's struggled to make inroads with minorities due to issues in South Bend, and while he has youth and a good story he doesn't have an inroads with Congress.  He will be a passenger in the Warren admin, while someone with more Congressional experience would be more effective moving legislation.

 

Pete, I think, assuming he loses and also isn't VP to Harris, ought to run for a higher office, whether Governor, Rep, or Senator.  He's got 30 years to pick his POTUS attempt, take your time.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you seriously think that the word "executive" is what counts as a qualification for POTUS, then I'll observe that by your standard, Trump is vastly more qualified than either of them.  

 

Yes, in my opinion, a US Senator is more qualified to be POTUS than a small town mayor.  

 

Your yardstick may vary.  :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

How exactly is Buttigieg less qualified than Warren? Such an assertion is ageism. Buttigieg has experience as an executive in government as well as the most military experience of any president since GHWB.  Presidents are executives, not legislators, and all the best Dem candidates have been younger - Obama, Clinton, JFK. Warren has one term in the Senate, and she's the paragon of experience?  LBJ and Mondale had decades in the Senate, but they were still bad choices.

She's on her second term now and post 2020 election she'll have 8 years experience in national politics where as pete has only local political experience. 

I agree with you that this should not be held against him especially considering what I said earlier about the double standard between Republican and democratic candidates but just making the devil's advocate argument.

 

I'd actually prefer a buttigieg/Warren ticket but I think the other way around is more likely to win, plus, as was brought up earlier, pete can then be groomed for a later presidency and he'll still be plenty young enough. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Larry said:

If you seriously think that the word "executive" is what counts as a qualification for POTUS, then I'll observe that by your standard, Trump is vastly more qualified than either of them.   

As a business executive, Trump incurred 6 bankruptcies and over 3500 lawsuits, so by my standard that makes him vastly more disqualified than anyone.

Also, I specified executive in government.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing, executive experience is important BUT a good understanding of Congress (who actually makes the laws the President signs) is similarly important AND having an understanding of national issues is important as well.

 

This is not to say that one cannot have the latter two without serving in Congress, but I think on balance a Senator will have a better understanding than a mayor on both issues.

 

Mayors are important but they are, by definition, mayors of a city or some other similarly sized/dense area.

 

I think Governors have a better argument to make there, especially of states with a good mix of cities and rural areas.  Their representing an entire state will generally mean directing substantially more personnel than a mayor would, for more diverse populations.  This allows them to better mirror the US more generally in terms of addressed problems (some states are better for this than others of course, the Governor of Wyoming likely has less substantially similar experience than, say, the Governor of VA).

 

It's rare anyone will have a better understanding of Congress than a Congressman.  At least among politicians (political science nerds not running for office are excluded).

 

I think Butti is smart enough to fill in the experience gaps with knowledge, but I do think a gap exists.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, what I've seen of Mayor Pete has been very positive.  At least in terms of attitude.  Demeanor.  He strikes me as somebody who I want to be important in the Dem Party, down the road.  

 

Maybe in 4-8 years, he could be an Obama.  

 

I'm just not sure I want to vault him from small town mayor to POTUS in one step.  (Not that I'd be heartbroken, either.)  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governors have to balance their states' budgets. That's a plus in my book, even though it's becoming harder to accomplish with climate dictating where dollars go with little to no warning. 

The GOP could've had a candidate with experience in '16, but they chose an idiot over Kasich or Jeb!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.