Why didnt we go after Wiley?

[laurent]

Originally posted by HeHateMe

But it still doesnt take away from the fact that Winfield, at this point, is clearly the better CB. Of course its debatable, but as of 2004, I think its a no brainer as to who the better CB is now (and which CB has the better upside too.)

Excuse me? Just because it is your oppinion that Winfield is the better CB doesn't make it a fact. Maybe you should be more careful with your word choice.

Fact IS that given the choice between Springs and Winfield, the player he coached for several years and has up close knowledge about, Williams decided that Springs was the better fit.

Now why is that? I'm sure that you would like to have us believe that Williams is simply a moron and that Winfield 'clearly is the better CB', but let's get real, you don't know jack.

So while taking Williams decision to go for Springs instead does speak well of him, again, I cant stress enough, that if YOU (and other Skins fans for that matter) could swap them right now, straight up, you would do it without thinking twice.

Hmm I see a pattern here, oppinion disguised as fact?

[Art]

Originally posted by HeHateMe

Art,

As previously noted, although it is comforting to know your coaching staff went hard after a specific player because they know much more than you or I, it certainly doesnt mean it is the right decision.

The statement you make here is both wildly false, and potentially true. Understand, from my point of view, a move is made and the merits of that move are judged now. You don't get to add hindsight to make a move that was a good one suddenly the wrong one because a player doesn't perform well. Take the Stubblefield move. Certainly it was right to go after him. It was a smart decision that was made to shore up a weak area. Stubblefield never approached the same level again and the move goes down as a failed one since we all apply hindsight to that sort of thing. Again, though, I categorize it slightly differently, taking the thought process at the time a move was made into account.

On that basis, it was certainly the right move to get Springs. Williams knew Winfield better than anyone, and wanted Springs just from watching tape. It can't get more meritorious or correct than that. Where you are possibly correct that the move may not be the right one is if Springs is injured as he's often been and fails to play at a level the coaches hoped tape on him revealed was possible. Obviously you make errors in player acquisition all the time if the player doesn't measure up to your grade on him. But, that's a hindsight application of knowledge no one has today. All we have is what we know and what we know the coaching staff knew and when they made a hard run at Springs and declared him well ahead of other corners in terms of skill and technique, it's hard to simply say they are wrong, even if the application of hindsight allows that to be the case down the road.

I would take great comfort in the fact that Williams did pass up his own player for Springs. Of course, who would know better at this juncture.

But it still doesnt take away from the fact that Winfield, at this point, is clearly the better CB. Of course its debatable, but as of 2004, I think its a no brainer as to who the better CB is now (and which CB has the better upside too.)

This is an odd coupling of statements. You're absolutely correct that Williams did pass up his own player for Springs. You're completely on the mark saying no one would know better at this point that Williams. You then follow it up that despite that, Winfield is clearly the better CB. Well, do you know who disagrees with you? Gregg Williams does. As you stated. He'd know better. So, it's not so clear. As you state, it is debatable and given the person with the greatest insight into the debate sides against what you or I may have previously believed is a powerful move that puts you in check. What you think and what I think is unimportant in the equation. We are allowed to think. We should. We can be skeptical that it's the right move, but, when we both know the better judge went another way, we have to allow that assessment to carry more weight until evidence is provided that disproves that assessment.

So while taking Williams decision to go for Springs instead does speak well of him, again, I cant stress enough, that if YOU (and other Skins fans for that matter) could swap them right now, straight up, you would do it without thinking twice.

And for you Art, you would do it even faster if you could land Plummer.

Here's where you're slightly wrong. On March 1, I certainly would have gone after Plummer or Winfield. In my mind those were the players who I believed were better for us. Given the knowledge granted us by Williams and our staff I can't tell you today that I'd trade Springs for either guy today in that hypothetical. Simply put, the benefit of the doubt goes to Williams. If he didn't want Winfield and did want Springs, I'm certainly not going to use a fan veto in a hypothetical to override that.

Basically, my point is that, its nice to know what the coaches think is "correct" (or more than we know) and it is really comforting "thinking" they know what they are doing, BUT, you cant just sign off on every move just because it is backed with "the coaches must know what they are doing".

Yes they know more than we do, but thats what makes this fun, WE as fans, target certain players WE want. And when we dont get them, and they turn out to be really good, WE can sit here and say "I told you so" or "I knew it, I wanted that guy all along".

(And trust me on that one, as a Dallas fan, its been tough to question the Tuna, but its been done, as recently as the draft day passing on Jackson)

And IMO, I think Skins fans will be saying the same thing in 2-3 years after we see how Winfield and Springs work out for their respective teams.

I don't think you should sign off on any move any coaching staff makes because they do or should know more than you. Where I give greater deference to decisions made by the coaching staff is when those decisions are made with the most complete knowledge of particular players available and the choice is to do something that goes outside that knowledge. That's more telling than simply having coaches evaluate tape on players they've never coached and making a call. When they evaluate tape on players and also know every strength and weakness of another player's game from coaching that player previously and you go with the larger unknown, it means the known may not be quite what we perceive it to be.

I fully expect mistakes to be made by Gibbs and company. When all is said and done, a mistake could have been made here with Springs given his injury history. But, even a mistake there is mitigated by having acquired quality corners in reserve to protect against that. Until I have reason to doubt this evaluation ability of this staff, I will tip my cap to them and allow personal thoughts to play a secondary role.

The Redskins, remember, unlike most teams, get their pick of the players they want. We target guys and bring in players we target so we are rarely going two or three choices deep in free agency. Gibbs and Williams got the players they asked for. Some will work out. Others won't. But it's never wrong to pay attention to the knowledge our staff has and the decisions they make when factoring the merits of a move.

[Ken]

Originally posted by Art

Whew.

Ken, I was right. You had flawed information. Winfield's cap hit is not $12.5 million. That's merely what he'll receive from the Vikings this year in the form of compensation. Like Springs, he has a relatively light cap hit of his first year despite actually receiving $12.5 million. The number Lenny shows you there is his first year salary plus the signing bonus (though it should be $12.4 million) and Winfield's first year cap hit is rather mild comparitively.

Like Springs, who received a $10 million bonus and lower first year salary, the Winfield contract is quite similar to Springs. It's worth a bit more as the Vikes sweetened the deal to steal him from the Jets at the last moment, but, these two players, as I've said, are entirely in the same category of player and value coming out.

Right, that is what I am saying.

How is this comparitive? I am confused. If said player gets roughly same signing bonus and recieves about 10 million in base salary, how is this comparable to another player who gets the same signing bonus but receives only minimum or slighly more in his first year. Seems to me the first player is walking away with 12.5 million in his first year while the 2nd player is getting 2-3 million in his first year.

If we played out the entire contracts, the compensation would be equal, roughly. The major REASON why the Redskins couldn't/wouldn't go after Winfield is becuase the structure of the contract is exactly opposite of the way the Redskins structure them. The Vikings had 30 million of cap space to play with and wanted to get a big chunck of the money out of the way in the initial year to free money up down the line. The Redskins philosopy is to buy on credit and then pay claim bankruptcy a few seasons down the line.

Just subtract springs' contract and add Winfields 1st year charge to your team. Could you do it and still sign the guys you did? No way.

[Art]

Ken,

Here's what you wrote initially that spawned this branch of the conversation:

They are similar? How is Springs' first year cap charge of something like 2 million anywhere remotely close to the 12.5 FIRST YEAR GUARANTEED haul of Winfield's? There are not many teams, including the Jets, who could compete with that. NO Player would turn that type of money down. Not even to go to the beloved Redskins for 2.5 million.

quote:

It SAYS something that we got Springs instead of Winfield given the fact that we have made a run at a large number of free agents who have some connection to members of our coaching staff.

Yeah, it says that there is no way in Hell you could have given him anywhere close to 12.5 million in his 1st year. Your coaching staff is really asute!

You are misreading the Lenny article. Winfield's base salary is $1.6 million this season. He is guaranteed the $10.8 million signing bonus. He won't get cut, so, the first year amount of money he receives is essentially guaranteed money at $12.4 or $12.5 million.

That, however, is not his first year cap charge. You are speaking of two different items here. For the most part Winfield is guaranteed $10.8 million and Springs is guaranteed $10 million. In addition, these players are virtually guaranteed their first year salary. Winfield's being $1.6 million where Springs is $660,000. The first year cap charge for Springs is $2.32 million and change. The first year cap charge for Winfield is his base salary plus his Paragraph 5 yearly salary, just like Springs. That number is $3.4 million.

The contracts are roughly equal and remember, the advantage to Winfield came late after he'd agreed to a contract that was almost exactly equal to the Springs deal with the Jets, but the Vikes sweetened it. Springs will receive $10.660 million his first season (though the Skins tier the bonuses so it comes in installments but, for the most part, that's the guarantee Springs has).

Somehow you've come to the false conclusion that Winfield is playing for $10 million in base money this year. That's not true in the slightest and is spelled out in the Lenny article. The flaw to your premise is you don't know Winfield's base salary is about $9 million less than you believe it is.

Once you've corrected that, the issue clarifies for you and you should probably make amends for being sarcastic with flawed data. But that's up to you.

[HeHateMe]

Art,

This is what I would like to know.

In your opinion, based on everything you know and have seen up until this point, rank these 3 CB's as of right now. Then rank them based upon who will have the better career from here on out.

Winfield, Plummer and Springs.

Remember, this is just based upon what YOU think.

[Art]

Originally posted by HeHateMe

Art,

This is what I would like to know.

In your opinion, based on everything you know and have seen up until this point, rank these 3 CB's as of right now. Then rank them based upon who will have the better career from here on out.

Winfield, Plummer and Springs.

Remember, this is just based upon what YOU think.

Based on everything I know, it's fairly clear Springs is far and away the most talented corner capable of being put in a shut down corner type of role. We knew that prior to the Redskins picking him up. What we didn't know about Springs was how healthy he could be anymore over any length of time.

Winfield lacks the coverage skills of either Springs or Plummer and doesn't make plays at the corner position, though he's a force in run support. In coverage he needs to be protected more which was seen early on with Williams when he left Winfield exposed too frequently and he was torched. With strong safety play last year, he was able to fit better with how Williams called a game.

Plummer has been at times the worst corner of this bunch, but, has the greatest current capacity when it comes to breaking up plays and being around the ball. In a higher risk defense as we'll run, I thought Plummer's ability to make plays would pay big dividends. He'd also have gotten burnt a lot.

Unlike both Winfield and Plummer, Springs does not lack an of the he skill set you want in an elite corner. He has the speed and size to be dominating in that role. He's been injured enough that it is a very reasonable question to wonder if he's still capable of playing to that talent.

The question on Springs is whether he'll be healthy. That's really it. If healthy he's a far better player than either Plummer or Winfield. He's the type of player who's played a shut down role, handled isolated coverages against the best, been among the best and has shown the capacity to change games. When he's nursing injury as he has much of the last THREE years, he's not that player, and is probably on par with Winfield in terms of coverage, but far below him in other aspects of play, while he's equal to Plummer in other areas of play but below him in overall coverage when playing with those nagging, potentially unavoidable injuries.

I hoped to avoid Springs because I didn't want to risk having a player you could only count on for half the year to be healthy enough to legitimately help us, and I've worried the injuries have removed some of his previous skill from the equation.

The latter worry was removed when hearing how solid he is perceived to be on film. The first worry remains.

[HeHateMe]

Fair enough. And good breakdown too.

Now I know where you stand.

But the only issue that remains in my mind is this.

I'm not so certain you have taken this stance Art, but it seems a great majority of this board has.

Each and every move made (for the most part) has been backed by Skins fans based on the reasoning that Gibbs and Co. know best and what they thought they needed to be successful, they got.

Springs, Daniels, Washington, etc...

Which brings me to Dallas.

They have been criticized the most by this board for sitting back and not making any extravagent moves this offseason. Not addressing the CB situation, not addressing the QB situation, and on how they handled the RB situation.

Now, when Tuna and Co. pass up on all those corners and pass on even resigning thier own (Edwards) they get criticized and laughed at. Relying on Pete Hunter and Donald Mitchell, and Andrew Davison opposite Newman? He must be crazy right?

Hasnt he seen the same tape as the rest of the NFL on all those FA CB's? Hasnt he seen enough of his own players?

And following that, wouldnt he know best? I mean, would Bill Parcells really just pass up on all those available CB's because Jones told him to?

Same argument goes for not bringing in Collins, Warner, etc...

And same goes for taking Jones over Jackson (and all other available FA RB's).

Basically, the point is that, when Gibbs and Co. make (or dont make a move) its chalked up to them knowing what they are doing and hence making it the right move.

But when Tuna and Co. in Dallas make a move (or more so NOT making a move, particulary this offseason) they get criticized for missing the boat. For making a mistake. For not addressing areas of need. And so on and so forth.

But for some reason, the same argument that is used to support the Skins moves, doesnt fly with Dallas.

Now I know the hatred for Dallas plays a big role in the criticism they receive but this board has made it clear that Dallas messed up this offseason by the way they handled FA and the draft.

But as comforted as Skins fans are with Gibbs and Co. making the decisions, the same has to be said about Dallas fans.

Who would know better than Parcells on what HIS team needs. He passed on all the CB's because he thinks what he has, is at a minimum, equal to what was out there. Same goes for QB's. And RB's too.

All the decisions that were made, had the same logic behind them as they did in Washington. Yet, for some reason, every move made (and move not made) is roundly criticized as the wrong one, whereas in DC, it is the right one.

That somehow their decision making process isnt as good as that in DC.

I love the argument and use it all the time.

If Parcells thinks its the right move for the team, and the best move for the team, hell, I have to think it is. Because who would know better than him. Even if it is passing up on Jackson for Julius Jones.

Its an argument that I am allowed to make. Why? Because its Bill Parcells.

And now, its an argument that Skins fans can make. Why? Because it Joe Gibbs.

But Skins fans need to recognize that just as much as Joe knows what is best for the Skins, the same is true for Parcells and the Cowboys.

No matter how much you may think Pete Hunter sucks.

[Clinton_Portis26]

Because Gibbs didn't want Wiley.

[Art]

HHM,

There are several key differences in the comparision you make here. Several you touch on. Others you don't. One key here is when Gibbs and company make moves to address areas of need, the fact is, they are doing something to improve areas where most agree need was.

Parcells and Jones have had areas of perceived need and done literally NOTHING to bring in a player of any proven ability to solve the issue. Essentially, it's very hard to be overly critical of the Redskins for bringing in three cornerbacks and one high rookie draft pick to strengthen a secondary weakened by the loss of Bailey. You don't have to think each move is perfect. You merely recognize the team saw the weakness and attempted to fix it.

We've done this in a systematic fashion. We needed a linebacker to replace Armstead. Welcome Washington. We needed a linebacker to replace Trotter. Welcome Barrow. We needed to shore up the interior of the offensive line. Welcome Raymer. We needed to shore up the defensive line. Welcome Griffin and Daniels and welcome back Noble. We needed to figure out what to do about a blocking tight end. Hello Rasby. We had to address a need at H-Back. Nice to see you Kozlowski and rookie Cooley (a vet and a rook or a teacher and a student).

We had a hole at running back. Look there, it's Clinton Portis. We had a situation at QB where talent existed, but consistency and experience didn't. Addressed with Mark Brunell. You look at EVERY single area of need the Redskins had when entering the offseason and you find an immediate attempt to help that area. We need to improve special teams desperately? Look, there's Tom Tupa and James Thrash.

In some cases not enough has been done to the view of many. In other cases perhaps the marriage between available player to fit the need wasn't met in the eyes of many fans. But, there is no questioning the clear direction in addressing the myriad of needs the team had to make to get better. We can say from a personnel standpoint that we have improved our team in EVERY single area except field goal kicker.

In Dallas, you've had numerous needs and done nothing. The lack of effort in acquiring any proven players despite the availability of many leads to a plausible conclusion that Parcells kind of expects to have a team ready to compete for it all when he knows how Henson will do, and that in preparing for that time, the team is loading up cap space to put finishing touches next year or thereafter.

Everyone watched the Cowboys last year, as they did the Redskins, and knew where the team needed to improve. It's not a mystery. It's not plausible to think Parcells believes all the openings can be filled by young players with little experience. It is, however, plausible to consider that he wants to find out exactly which can, and fill the rest next year with tremendous cap money.

The Cowboys are in that position. It just doesn't appear to be a position intended to be as competitive this year as possible. It's hard to look at your roster now when compared to last year and look at ours now as compared to last year and think your team is making moves as smartly as ours is.

An equalizing force in this will be that we're learning everything from scratch and you're continuing on a successful program.

The reason the same argument doesn't work for Dallas that does work for Washington is because it's easier to defend action than it is to defend inaction. And with Dallas, it seems very clear that Parcells and/or Jones really want to put young players in key roles this year to see who swims and who sinks so they know exactly what they have to fix up next year.

It just doesn't seem like this year is the highest of priorities and that's strange.

[Ken]

Originally posted by Art

Ken,

Here's what you wrote initially that spawned this branch of the conversation:

You are misreading the Lenny article. Winfield's base salary is $1.6 million this season. He is guaranteed the $10.8 million signing bonus. He won't get cut, so, the first year amount of money he receives is essentially guaranteed money at $12.4 or $12.5 million.

That, however, is not his first year cap charge. You are speaking of two different items here. For the most part Winfield is guaranteed $10.8 million and Springs is guaranteed $10 million. In addition, these players are virtually guaranteed their first year salary. Winfield's being $1.6 million where Springs is $660,000. The first year cap charge for Springs is $2.32 million and change. The first year cap charge for Winfield is his base salary plus his Paragraph 5 yearly salary, just like Springs. That number is $3.4 million.

The contracts are roughly equal and remember, the advantage to Winfield came late after he'd agreed to a contract that was almost exactly equal to the Springs deal with the Jets, but the Vikes sweetened it. Springs will receive $10.660 million his first season (though the Skins tier the bonuses so it comes in installments but, for the most part, that's the guarantee Springs has).

Somehow you've come to the false conclusion that Winfield is playing for $10 million in base money this year. That's not true in the slightest and is spelled out in the Lenny article. The flaw to your premise is you don't know Winfield's base salary is about $9 million less than you believe it is.

Once you've corrected that, the issue clarifies for you and you should probably make amends for being sarcastic with flawed data. But that's up to you.

Yep....

I'm an idiot,

carry on.

[Art]

Originally posted by Ken

Yep....

I'm an idiot,

carry on.

No problem Ken. Appreciate the recognition of your error and we can move along to other threads of this conversation or new ones entirely. Cheers.

[HeHateMe]

The reason the same argument doesn't work for Dallas that does work for Washington is because it's easier to defend action than it is to defend inaction. And with Dallas, it seems very clear that Parcells and/or Jones really want to put young players in key roles this year to see who swims and who sinks so they know exactly what they have to fix up next year.

And from how I've seen that work out in the past with Parcells, at this point, I wouldnt have it any other way.

Agreed that, at this point, Dallas is not ready to compete for a Super Bowl.

But lets not forget, we werent in a position to compete for a playoff spot either (let alone the NFC East title going into week 17) last season and we all saw how that turned out.

So as you've seen, it's very hard for a Dallas fan to question any move or non-move made by Parcells and Co. based on what we already have known of Parcells and NOW know based upon what he did with that team last season.

So while it is a fair assumption that they are preparing for a huge offseason next year in preparation for a 2005 Super Bowl run, I cannot ever beleive that Parcells would in essence, "throw away" a season to see what he has with his young players on his current team.

He didnt come back to wait around for an extended period to try players out while in the process, throwing a season away. He played what he thought were his best players last season and we saw what happened.

He will do the same season. While I'm not quite sure if he will land us a 10-6 record again and the 5th seed in the playoffs, I'm sure the team will be competitive up until the very end (barring MAJOR injuries of course).

Again, I just dont see Parcells "giving up" a year to see what he's got. It's not him. You know this. Plus, JJ would never let that happen anyway.

Why? Well, look no further than them not going after a veteran QB to start this season (or at least to compete against Carter).

They had many opportunities yet passed up on all of them. Something may happen post June 1, but until then, what else am I supposed to think.

I know the seat is only being kept warm for Henson, but again, do you REALLY think Parcells would just "throw away" a season at this point in his career?

I truly beleive that Tuna and Co. are content with the team right now. Honestly I do. They went about the offseason in a way that they had hoped to. (Yes they missed out on one FA (Meadows) but IMO, him going to Carolina was a blessing in disguise. We ended up with Rogers who comes MUCH cheaper and who has a MUCH greater upside. )

I know it is putting it at its extreme by categorizing it as "throwing it away", but really, when you break it down, thats how it is perceived.

And I dont beleive it. I cannot beleive it. And hopefully, I wont have to beleive it.

[Dirk Diggler]

HHM

It's pretty obvious that you are giddy about the offseason the Cowboys have had. You even go as far as to say that they could compete for a Super Bowl if everyone takes them as lightly as last season.

On the playing of young players in key roles:

"I wouldn't have it any other way."

On Parcells inaction:

"It's very hard for a Dallas fan to question any move or non-move made by Parcells...based upon last season."

"I cannot ever believe that Parcells would in essence 'throw away' a season so see what he has in young players."

You even go on to describe a free agent who rejected you as a "blessing in disguise" as you were able to land a rookie with more upside.

Wow...quite an offseason. I can tell, you are thrilled. Parcells got everything he wanted...as such, so did you. You have also educated us that there is no such thing as a "throw away" year with Parcells.

Then how could you "not be so sure" with Dallas's chances at being able to achieve the same record as last season? Parcells has had a minimum of 3 more wins in every second season with every team. With such a dream offseason and the above quotes, why the cold water?

[HeHateMe]

Originally posted by Dirk Diggler

HHM

It's pretty obvious that you are giddy about the offseason the Cowboys have had. You even go as far as to say that they could compete for a Super Bowl if everyone takes them as lightly as last season.

On the playing of young players in key roles:

"I wouldn't have it any other way."

On Parcells inaction:

"It's very hard for a Dallas fan to question any move or non-move made by Parcells...based upon last season."

"I cannot ever believe that Parcells would in essence 'throw away' a season so see what he has in young players."

You even go on to describe a free agent who rejected you as a "blessing in disguise" as you were able to land a rookie with more upside.

Wow...quite an offseason. I can tell, you are thrilled. Parcells got everything he wanted...as such, so did you. You have also educated us that there is no such thing as a "throw away" year with Parcells.

Then how could you "not be so sure" with Dallas's chances at being able to achieve the same record as last season? Parcells has had a minimum of 3 more wins in every second season with every team. With such a dream offseason and the above quotes, why the cold water?

Because our schedule is much more difficult this season.

Road games at Minnesota and at Green Bay to name a couple. (2 games the Skins have at home by the way).

Because the Skins SHOULD be 100 times better (and will surely be better than 5-11) than last season.

Because the Giants SHOULD be better last season (and surely will be better than 4-12).

That was 4 wins for Dallas right there last season. It may very well be only 2 this season.

The Eagles will also be much better.

And as for teams taking us lightly? Please. The league was on notice about Parcells and the Boys after week 2 when Dallas won the Monday Night game in New York.

But for the record, can I say the same thing about the Skins if they surprise everyone and end up in the playoffs this season?

[Oldskool]

Originally posted by HeHateMe

Because the Giants SHOULD be better last season (and surely will be better than 4-12).

im sorry but youre dead wrong here.

NYG will be lucky to have a 4-12 season this year.

[HeHateMe]

Originally posted by Oldskool

im sorry but youre dead wrong here.

NYG will be lucky to have a 4-12 season this year.

That all depends on who is at the QB spot.

Warner, I have no doubt they win more than 4.

Manning, well, then 4-12 is possible, but 5-11 or 6-10 is more likely.

[Dirk Diggler]

1) Your 2004 opponent's winning % is .469 which is dead last in the league - that would mean you have the EASIEST schedule in the league. Nice try though.

I will say that NO ONE knows what kind of schedule anyone has played until the season is over and records are tallied. However, the only and BEST info we can go on is the previous year's record.

2) The Skins will be better I will give you that.

3) The Giants may/may not be better. Coughling will break that team down and things could very well get worse before they get better.

4) Saying Philly will be much better is a big stretch. They are coming off their 3rd straight NFC title defeat and lost just as much talent as they added this offseason.

Do you realize you are picking Philly, Washington, and New York to all improve? That's not very likely to happen unless your team takes a nose dive.

Like a typical Cowboy fan, you praise, praise, praise, but when push comes to shove and you are asked to put up - it's "well, I suppose we could do well but that sched is so darn hard..."

That's what we call covering yourself for all the possible outcomes.

If they fail it was the sched or injuries. If they succeed it's praise Parcells.

**Can you say what about the Skins if they go to the playoffs? I have no clue what you are talking about.**

[HeHateMe]

Originally posted by Dirk Diggler

1) Your 2004 opponent's winning % is .469 which is dead last in the league - that would mean you have the EASIEST schedule in the league. Nice try though.

I will say that NO ONE knows what kind of schedule anyone has played until the season is over and records are tallied. However, the only and BEST info we can go on is the previous year's record.

2) The Skins will be better I will give you that.

3) The Giants may/may not be better. Coughling will break that team down and things could very well get worse before they get better.

4) Saying Philly will be much better is a big stretch. They are coming off their 3rd straight NFC title defeat and lost just as much talent as they added this offseason.

Do you realize you are picking Philly, Washington, and New York to all improve? That's not very likely to happen unless your team takes a nose dive.

Like a typical Cowboy fan, you praise, praise, praise, but when push comes to shove and you are asked to put up - it's "well, I suppose we could do well but that sched is so darn hard..."

That's what we call covering yourself for all the possible outcomes.

If they fail it was the sched or injuries. If they succeed it's praise Parcells.

**Can you say what about the Skins if they go to the playoffs? I have no clue what you are talking about.**

Well, if you like to make a wager that our schedule's opponent winning percentage is higher than what it was last year, I'm all ears. Anything you want that its higher than that.

And I'll propose that the Giants will be better than 4-12 as well.

I'm not sure if the Eagles will be 12-4, but they WILL win the division again, and will be just as good if not better. And as of right now, they are the NFC's favorite to go to the Super Bowl.

Furthermore, it isnt a stretch at all to predict that all 3 teams will be better than last season. The Skins need win merely 6 games, and the Giants 5. And the Eagles, whether or not they win 12, will still be the best in the division without question.

As previously stated, the Skins surely will win more than 5, and I doubt youll argue that.

Ive backed up my claim that I think the Giants will be better as well.

The Eagles have a better team than they did last season. And as previously stated, whether they win 12 again, I do not know.

But I do know that either way, they are the cream of our division and have only improved their team over this offseason. Added the top TWO free agents at positions of great need.

And again, the you must look beyond the schedule itself, where the games are played ALWAYS must be taken into consideration.

AT Minnesota; AT Green Bay.

Surely we can agree that those two place are top 5 in most difficult places to play in the NFL.

So yes, I can sit here and say it will be difficult to replicate the 10-6 season that Dallas put together last year.

And just because they dont end up 10-6 doesnt neccessarily mean the team isnt as good as it was the previous season.

It could be a better team but just doesnt get the breaks that it got previously (ie - playing the Giants in Dallas in week 16 with Jesse Palmer at QB; playing the Skins with Tim Hassleback as QB; Having the Giants make another ST gaffe against us in week 2)

So as you can see, many breaks in one teams favor can make all the difference.

Can you say what about the Skins if they go to the playoffs? I have no clue what you are talking about.

You implied that Dallas ended up with the record that it did because the NFL "took us lightly".

Now, I'm just asking you that if Washington surprises teams this season and makes the playoffs as Dallas did last season, can I also say that the NFL "took the Skins" lightly, and chalk thier success up to that as you have done with Dallas?

Sorry I didnt make that more clear to you.

[boozeman3]

Originally posted by laurent

How is that not fair? Wasn't the point that Art tried to make that part of the decision making process was first hand knowledge about Wiley possibly being a deciding factor.

Be honest, even you would agree that character factors into player evaluation just as much as physical attributes, skill and various other things I am too lazy to list.

Sarcasm smilies are desperately needed.

[Dirk Diggler]

1) If we are talking about a few years ago, then I might be inclined to agreed that Green Bay and Minny are 2 of the toughest places in the league to play. But this is 2004 bub.

Right now I would consider the top 5 toughest venues to be:

1. Kansas City

2. Tennessee

3. New England

4. Baltimore

5. St. Louis

And FYI, when you get the tough teams on the road, you also get the easier teams in Dallas which, as I look at your schedule, shows me that anything less than 7-1 at home would be a disappointment this year.

You made this statement earlier:

Agreed that, at this point, Dallas is not ready to compete for a Super Bowl.

But lets not forget, we werent in a position to compete for a playoff spot either (let alone the NFC East title going into week 17) last season and we all saw how that turned out.

As we can see, I implied nothing. You were the one implying things such as the NFL "taking you lightly."

But to answer your question - no I don't expect ANY TEAM to take us lightly since we have a far more capable QB and RB than Dallas did last season. We also play some real teams this year and don't have the walk in the park that Dallas did to the playoffs.

[HeHateMe]

Originally posted by Dirk Diggler

1) If we are talking about a few years ago, then I might be inclined to agreed that Green Bay and Minny are 2 of the toughest places in the league to play. But this is 2004 bub.

Right now I would consider the top 5 toughest venues to be:

1. Kansas City

2. Tennessee

3. New England

4. Baltimore

5. St. Louis

And FYI, when you get the tough teams on the road, you also get the easier teams in Dallas which, as I look at your schedule, shows me that anything less than 7-1 at home would be a disappointment this year.

You made this statement earlier:

Agreed that, at this point, Dallas is not ready to compete for a Super Bowl.

But lets not forget, we werent in a position to compete for a playoff spot either (let alone the NFC East title going into week 17) last season and we all saw how that turned out.

As we can see, I implied nothing. You were the one implying things such as the NFL "taking you lightly."

But to answer your question - no I don't expect ANY TEAM to take us lightly since we have a far more capable QB and RB than Dallas did last season. We also play some real teams this year and don't have the walk in the park that Dallas did to the playoffs.

Dallas is at Seattle too. Forgot about that one. And they didnt lose at home last season.

FYI, Dallas plays at Baltimore this season too. So even if Minny and GB are 6 and 7, thats 3 roadies at the top 7 most difficult places to play. While the Skins have all 3 of those at home.

And for the record, I would take the Skins schedule this season over Dallas' without even thinking twice.

While your argument about having the easier games at home can SEEM to balance out the very difficult road games is plausible, when actually broken down, it doesnt really fly.

Id MUCH RATHER have Baltimore, GB and Minny at home and have to go to Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland.

This way, you know that the chances of winning the easy road games (for the Skins - at Cleveland, Chicago and Detroit) are very close to the chances of winning the difficult home games (home vs. GB, Minny and Baltimore).

Whereas you know the probability of going into Minny, GB or Baltimore and winning is much lower than having them at home and getting the W.

Wouldnt you agree?

In any event, I will concede. The NFL laid down for Dallas last season. No one took us seriously. Everyone took us lightly. We didnt earn anything. It was all handed to us on a silver platter.

I sit here and thank the league everyday for not putting up a fight against us. Thank you league for not bringing your A game against Bill Parcells and the Cowboys. Because if you did, we wouldve been 0-16. Thanks a million. Really, because without your generosity, Tuna wouldnt have made his legend grow even more.

I sure hope the NFL can be as nice to us this season as they were last season. Otherwise, we are doomed.

FYI, when the Skins go 9-7 this season, they will have earned every ounce of it with every team have played their best game of the season against them. Seriously.

Also, to see a walk in the park, check this...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/teamsched?team=was

But I digress. Why do I bother?

Dirk, no matter what Parcells and the Cowboys do (or how successful they are), you'll find something to criticize. Really, when you cant give anything up, whats the use.

[Dirk Diggler]

And for the record, I would take the Skins schedule this season over Dallas' without even thinking twice.

--HHM

You mean a 10-6 team might have a slightly tougher schedule than a 5-11 team? Oh Lord!!! Call Paul Tagliabue, this is a tragedy! This must be a campaign against the Cowboys to allow the Skins to miraculously close the gap! I guess in every other division, the bad teams play tougher schedules than the good teams... :doh: But that darn NFC EAst is all outta whack!

This is what you call amnesia. A fan of a team who, along with Detroit and San Diego, was the worst team in the NFL from 2000-2002 FINALLY CAPITALIZED ON A LAST PLACE SCHEDULE. But, already you are pissing and moaning about how you want to trade with the skins. God forbid your team has to actually play some playoff caliber teams in some playoff caliber environments like New England and Carolina. Your squad sure looked legit in those games.

Some fans, like myself, look forward to seeing how far my team has come by taking on a difficult foe on their turf - while other fans would rather complain about how tough they have it and make excuses. It's nice to know where you stand for the future.

But bit(h away about the schedule. See if I care when January rolls around and your team has 8 or 9 wins. You won't be getting the purple heart from me.

[HeHateMe]

Originally posted by Dirk Diggler

And for the record, I would take the Skins schedule this season over Dallas' without even thinking twice.

--HHM

You mean a 10-6 team might have a slightly tougher schedule than a 5-11 team? Oh Lord!!! Call Paul Tagliabue, this is a tragedy! This must be a campaign against the Cowboys to allow the Skins to miraculously close the gap! I guess in every other division, the bad teams play tougher schedules than the good teams... :doh: But that darn NFC EAst is all outta whack!

This is what you call amnesia. A fan of a team who, along with Detroit and San Diego, was the worst team in the NFL from 2000-2002 FINALLY CAPITALIZED ON A LAST PLACE SCHEDULE. But, already you are pissing and moaning about how you want to trade with the skins. God forbid your team has to actually play some playoff caliber teams in some playoff caliber environments like New England and Carolina. Your squad sure looked legit in those games.

Some fans, like myself, look forward to seeing how far my team has come by taking on a difficult foe on their turf - while other fans would rather complain about how tough they have it and make excuses. It's nice to know where you stand for the future.

But bit(h away about the schedule. See if I care when January rolls around and your team has 8 or 9 wins. You won't be getting the purple heart from me.

Again, for a walk in the park, see

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/teamsched?team=was

So we did capitalize on a last place schedule and got 10 wins and the 5th seed in the NFC Playoffs.

Will the Skins do the same?

And I'm not ****ing at all. I welcome the challenge.

I'm simply stating that the Skins were given a cake walk this season. If you can say it will be a disappointment if Dallas doesnt go 7-1 at home this season, then I can say it will be a disappointment if the Skins dont go 6-2 on the road. And at a bare minimum, 5-3.

The Skins schedule in fact, is EASIER than the team who did come in last in the NFC East last season. What a surprise.

The Giants have Minny, GB and Baltimore on the road this season.

The same games the Skins have at home.

Maybe they should be the ones complaining here eh?

Go figure.

[Dirk Diggler]

I can say that your squad will be favored in 7 of 8 games in Dallas. Hence, to lose more than 1 of those games would be disappointing. I'm willing to back it up with $$ too that Dallas will be favored in those games I mentioned. Are you in?

We will also make a parallel bet since you seem to believe the Skins SHOULD win 6 of 8 games on the road. That tells me you believe the Skins will be favored to win 6 of 8 on the road.

Now, are you willing to back up what you are saying or are you just a flamer like you're proven to be in other threads?

[Eagles_Legendz]

Originally posted by Dirk Diggler

And for the record, I would take the Skins schedule this season over Dallas' without even thinking twice.

--HHM

This is what you call amnesia. A fan of a team who, along with Detroit and San Diego, was the worst team in the NFL from 2000-2002 FINALLY CAPITALIZED ON A LAST PLACE SCHEDULE. But, already you are pissing and moaning about how you want to trade with the skins. God forbid your team has to actually play some playoff caliber teams in some playoff caliber environments like New England and Carolina. Your squad sure looked legit in those games.

Some fans, like myself, look forward to seeing how far my team has come by taking on a difficult foe on their turf - while other fans would rather complain about how tough they have it and make excuses. It's nice to know where you stand for the future.

But bit(h away about the schedule. See if I care when January rolls around and your team has 8 or 9 wins. You won't be getting the purple heart from me.

I have a few issues here. There are no last place schedules anymore. The schedule is predetermined, save for two games, where team X (lets say Dallas here) will play the two teams in the NFC divisions they are not playing (NFC South/West this year) that correspond to how team X finished in the NFC East. Thus, Dallas will play the same EXACT schedule that Washington plays in terms of teams played, with the exception of Dallas playing Seattle and N.O. (since they both finished 2nd in their divisions), while Washington plays Tampa and SF (since they finished 3rd). It would appear, therefore, that Dallas has a more difficult schedule than Washington this season, thus proving HHM to be correct on this issue. Then why would there be such a disparity in favor of Washington in opp win %? It's quite simple really: Dallas plays Washington which had a terrible record last year, and Washington plays Dallas which had a good record last year. This will account for the record difference.

Anyway, didn't mean to agree with a Cowboy fan or anything. That would be the last thing I'd want to do. Now back to your regularly scheduled Cowboy vs. Redskin fan brawl.