Redskins Hype paper-thin

[MeNoRevs]

Originally posted by dahurt002

The real kicker is with all talent the bucs have they are the worst team in the league-yeah right-. Brad johnson, garner,alstot,tim brown, galloway, Simeon rice no sacks, Mcfarland, brooks, and gruden the coach is the perfect set up for the worst team in the league. We made them look like the worst team in the nfl.

that team is getting oldddddddd

I think the coach is younger then all the players you just listed

I see the same thing happening with them this year as what happened to the raiders last year, age will lead to thier demise

[big z]

Dallas is toast....

watch as Joe abuses your corner of the week on one side, and woodson's replacement on the other side....

and pray you can get Julius Jones in there, cuz Eddie ain't gonna cut it, and while I expect Testeverde to make some nice short completions on slants to meshawn, he's gonna be kissing turf most of the day.....

Tampa Sucks now huh? When was the last time the Vikes won the Superbowl?

see in two weeks chump....:dallasuck

[Flowtrain]

Wow, you all are an extraordinarily sensitive lot.

Your first assumption is that the author's main thrust is to rain on Redskins fans' parade. I don't see it that way. It's a reaction to the national media and NFL fan base at large who is always quick to draw broad-based conclusions about teams based on insufficient evidence. To an extent, that happened after the Redskins opening win, and this is a well-reasoned reaction and response to those who behaved accordingly. That the term "Redskins fans" was mentioned once hardly means that they were the only intended recipient of the message.

And although the author may have been a bit harsh on the Bucs future chances, it seems some here believe the team that suited up on Sunday was nearly the same caliber team that took the field in the Super Bowl. They're not. They were 7-9 last year. Then, after going 7-9, they became markedly worse from a personnel standpoint, getting stripped of key Pro Bowl players on both sides of the ball.

You say the author tells you that which you already know: take Sunday's victory with a grain of salt. If this man's true crime is only that he stated the obvious, it seems odd that it should hit such a raw nerve.

[keith]

as a die hard redskins fan, i will say that this article isnt that bad.

Although i dont agree with everything, i do agree that ramsey is the future and that gibbs is certainly back and so will the redskins...but eventually?

I believe that redskins are back right now and that we will make the playoffs.

One hard fact about gibbs.

Joe Gibbs as a head coach never had a losing. Thats not once in 12 yrs of coaching. It is amazing and i dont think Gibbs wil have one this yr. sorry to all ya ****ing haters.

[denverdan]

Originally posted by keith

Joe Gibbs as a head coach never had a losing. Thats not once in 12 yrs of coaching. It is amazing and i dont think Gibbs wil have one this yr. sorry to all ya ****ing haters.

Never had a losing what? He did have one losing season 1988

[big z]

7-9, remember it well.... : (

i think we can all live with 3 rings and one losing season every 12 years though.....

[Newera]

Look Brunell can't be any over the hill then Testiverde's old azz. Vinny is like what . . . . six years older.

What he or she is writing is what he or she is hoping.

Tampa Bay will not be one of the worst teams in their division. Their defense is way to good and will keep them in a lot of games. They are at minimum a 500% team In fact, I think they will vie for the division this year.

Plus, anyone that writes an article after week one is a fool. A week one article has no merit whatsoever.

The difference this year, Joe Gibbs has NFL credibility.

NewEra

[denverdan]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

Wow, you all are an extraordinarily sensitive lot.

You say the author tells you that which you already know: take Sunday's victory with a grain of salt. If this man's true crime is only that he stated the obvious, it seems odd that it should hit such a raw nerve.

Saying: take the win with a grain of salt, which I think most Redskin Fans have, we can see problem areas and holes just as well as you or any sportswriter and saying that the win "Was paper thin" are two very different things.

By the way thanks for Coles, Morton and R Thomas, I'm still not sure about that Hall guy.:nana:

[ummagumma]

Originally posted by orlskinsfan

the bucs have one of the worst offenses in the nfl but that defense will still be considered a top tier defense, the numbers at the end of the year for the bucs might not match that but the only reason for that will be because the offense will not keep the defense off the field, thus tiring the defense and having them give up yardage in the 4th quarter.

I think that's a fair assessment.

[keith]

Originally posted by denverdan

Never had a losing what? He did have one losing season 1988

Yeah , thats exactly what i said. LOL

[Newera]

Listen the quote where the Tampa Bay offensive lineman said "

"They ain't last year Redskins."

That to me tells all.

[Potato Sack]

Keeping Sunday in perspective, the Redskins beat a bad team -- possibly one of the worst in the NFL -- by less than a touchdown

This guy's an idiot. The bucs are NOT possibly one of the worst teams in the NFL. What rock did he crawl out under?

[Dirk Diggler]

Flow

I'm not sure who believes this team is "markedly worse" than the year before. I know the Bucs don't.

And they lost former Pro Bowl players, there is a difference. Sure, Lynch and Sapp and Keyshawn made it at one time but they can hardly still be considered to be at the top of their game, can they? The Bucs feel that they've replaced those players with younger, faster versions who have more upside at this point in time.

Offensively, they overhauled their line. They feel they've made improvements there. Did they? Who knows. We'll see. They also chose not to resign Thomas Jones and chose to replace him with a player who they feel fits better - Charlie Garner. Their receiving corps is clearly worse off but that has more to do with McCardell holding out and Joey Galloway and Jurevicious being injured than any botched personnel decision.

WIll they be one of the league's elite again? Doubtful. But they will win more games than last year and they most certainly will not be among the worst in the league. If you truly believe that this journalist was only a "bit harsh" in her assertion that the Bucs are bottom feeders again, then you must feel that an improvement on last season's record is extremely unlikely. I completely disagree. And I am calling you out because I am tired of you always being the wet blanket.

In fact, I am willing to put up $100 to back my belief. Are you down? If that's too much dough than we can talk about another wager.

[Flowtrain]

Easy now. It's not a real smart move to bet $100 that the Bucs won't win more than 7 games when the Vegas line is 9 or 9 1/2, is it?

The Bucs are prime targets for the bounce back theory, after coming off a Super Bowl hangover, the Keyshawn fiasco and bad karma all around. They have that going for them, despite losing McCardell, Keyshawn, Sapp and Lynch and going 7-9. My realization of this fact is also reflected in my previous statement that the author was too harsh.

When I saw posts about the "#1 D" that the Bucs supposedly still have, I think it's fair to note that the team wasn't all that good last year, and on paper, it looks worse off this year. My instinct tells me that if the Bucs had Galloway and McCardell, they might've been able to come close to that 9 win total. Without either, they're around a .500 team.

If you'd like to bet $100 that the Bucs will cover the over on the 9-win line, that's something we can talk about.

Also, how's your wet blanket #27 Jets prediction looking?

[Dirk Diggler]

If you'd like to bet $100 that the Bucs will cover the over on the 9-win line, that's something we can talk about.

You imply in quite a few ways that the author wasn't far off in his assertion that the Bucs are going to be at the bottom of the standings in 2004. While you didn't clearly forecast what you believe their final record to be, it's pretty obvious that you considered them to be somewhere between last year's 7-9 team that "lost a bunch of pro bowlers on both sides of the ball" and the sorry lot that the author considers them to be.

Being the benevolent creature that I am, I offer you all the possibilities up to and including last year's record of 7-9. You then backtrack and start to talk about bounce back theories and other such nonsense.

The vegas line is what it is. It's the number that splits the gambling public right down the middle 50/50. It tells me what the average gambler believes. Sure, it's higher than what you believe but that doesn't mean I have to give you that number? So essentially I'm calling you out and what you said earlier to see if you REALLY believe it. Maybe your just a blowhard like other Jets fans? Who knows...

But since I'm a nice guy, I'll even go as far as to give you 8 wins as a push. That means they have to improve by 2 games for me to win. I think that's more than reasonable considering the prior feelings you shared.

Also, how's your wet blanket #27 Jets prediction looking?

1) Beat someone. Seriously. If you think the Bengals are a more worthy opponent than the Bucs than I'd be happy to bet their record vs. Tampa in addition to the wager above. The Bengals have a quasi-rookie QB and no defense. Plus you were at home. You barely squeaked by in that one and your defense looked average at best. But a win is a win is a win especially if you're a Jets fan.

2) God help you if you blow this game Sunday. You should be 2-0 going into the bye and I figured as much when I did the rankings. Doesn't mean you're on your way to 12-4. Same as if we go 2-0.

3) And remember (and I mentioned this when I did the rankings) the power rankings are just that: POWER rankings. They are not necessarily where I forecast a team to finish in terms of record. Having the Jets #27 doesn't mean I believe they are a 4 win team. They could win 6 against a cake schedule and still be worse than the 5-win Texans who play in a brutal division. Ya follow?

So get back to me when the leaves turn a little.

[Flowtrain]

Interesting proposition. I tell you I think the Bucs are probably a .500 team and I provide my rationale. You respond by offering a wager whereby if I accept and the Bucs finish where I predict they will, at .500, I don't win. Doesn't sound too inviting. Especially when linesmakers who have studied the Bucs more closely than I say that betting on .500 without getting odds above even money is a raw deal for me from the get go.

You chose to place more weight on what you infer I believe about the Bucs record than what I actually stated directly on point. I can't help you there. If you don't like the "bounce back theory," that's a discussion you can have with a Pats fan while he tells you about NE missing the playoffs in the hangover year and winning it all the next.

The line is 9 games. I didn't set it - that's just what it is - and even higher in some places. I'm taking the under. http://www.jimfeist.com/Futures/NFLFut.asp

As for your Jets #27 ranking, there's no need to get defensive. I only asked you how the prediction was coming. The #27 ranking was an indication by you that despite the Jets' significant offseason changes and multiple key starters return from injury, they regressed. Based on your response, it seems that a 450 yd outburst against a team YOU power ranked in the top half of the NFL didn't change your view. I'll respectfully disagree that only 5 teams are currently worse off than the NYJ. But then again, I'm only a blowhard Jets fan.

I'm off for a while - to be continued...

[Henry]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

Interesting proposition. I tell you I think the Bucs are probably a .500 team and I provide my rationale. You respond by offering a wager whereby if I accept and the Bucs finish where I predict they will, at .500, I don't win. Doesn't sound too inviting. Especially when linesmakers who have studied the Bucs more closely than I say that betting on .500 without getting odds above even money is a raw deal for me from the get go.

You chose to place more weight on what you infer I believe about the Bucs record than what I actually stated directly on point. I can't help you there. If you don't like the "bounce back theory," that's a discussion you can have with a Pats fan while he tells you about NE missing the playoffs in the hangover year and winning it all the next.

Flow, I hate to pile on to a guy I respect as much as you, but this is what you said about the Bucs, exactly:

They were 7-9 last year. Then, after going 7-9, they became markedly worse from a personnel standpoint, getting stripped of key Pro Bowl players on both sides of the ball.

Nowhere in your post do I see you in any way amend or qualify that statement in order to predict that the Bucs will maintain their level of play, much less improve by a game.

Well, not until Dirk offered you a bet, anyway.

From here it sure looks like Dirk was right about the wet blanket thing.

[Dirk Diggler]

Thank you Henry.

Flow,

If you want to act like this "bounce back theory" is somehow worth 3 or 4 games, well what can I say? That's some kind of theory there. Why didn't you mention it as you were raining on everyone's parade?

But a simpler explanation would be that you simply backtracked big time when called out. You can throw Vegas lines at me until you're blue in the face but I'm not Vegas. And I don't give those lines. Any reasonable person could read this thread and see that my proposition is more than fair considering your previous claims that the Bucs are "markedly worse." Take into account that the lines were prior to Tampa's loss on Sunday it should be easy money.

Care to reconsider taking my lunch money? :deal:

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Henry

Nowhere in your post do I see you in any way amend or qualify that statement in order to predict that the Bucs will maintain their level of play, much less improve by a game.

Selective cutting and pasting doesn't generate much in the way of style points. The intro to those statements was as follows:

"And although the author may have been a bit harsh on the Bucs future chances, it seems some here believe the team that suited up on Sunday was nearly the same caliber team that took the field in the Super Bowl."

You and Dirk seemingly lose sight of the fact that this was my MAIN FOCUS here. To offer perspective against the backdrop of statements made by those such as Mr. Molassy who talked of beating the NFL's "#1 D." After that, I merely stated the obvious, i.e., the Bucs 2003 record and my opinion that their personnel is worse off after departures.

Now, if I said I agree with the author, you and Dirk would have a good point. Scratch that. You'd have a phenomenal point. I'd have been caught with blanket in hand, hand in bathtub. Sadly, I didn't. Instead, I wasn't even neutral on the author -- I said he was too harsh.

Ultimately, the inference you made was reasonable. Reasonable, that is, until I clarified what my position was, at which point it became unreasonable. The Bucs won't beat the Vegas line on total wins. I'll gladly back my opinion on that issue. What I won't do is back the opinion that someone tells me they think I have.

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Dirk Diggler

Thank you Henry.

Flow,

If you want to act like this "bounce back theory" is somehow worth 3 or 4 games, well what can I say? That's some kind of theory there. Why didn't you mention it as you were raining on everyone's parade?

But a simpler explanation would be that you simply backtracked big time when called out. You can throw Vegas lines at me until you're blue in the face but I'm not Vegas. And I don't give those lines. Any reasonable person could read this thread and see that my proposition is more than fair considering your previous claims that the Bucs are "markedly worse." Take into account that the lines were prior to Tampa's loss on Sunday it should be easy money.

Care to reconsider taking my lunch money? :deal:

9 wins is the Vegas line. As an ardent supporter of the Bucs and strong believer in their improvement, I'm disappointed that you're now backtracking and declining to bet on a neutral line when given the opportunity. Your chance is now.

Or do you not believe they'll improve so significantly? Was that my mistaken inference based up your previous tone? Are you now hedging, or did you never quite take the position I initially believed? Sorry, I couldn't resist joining in your own game.

I think the Bucs are a .500 club and I'll back that up betting the under on the Vegas line. Ball remains in your court.

[Joe7]

One game and he says the Bucs stink; their defense will be ALMOST as good even without Sapp and Lynch, because they still have Monte Kiffin coaching it. And as for Brunnell being washed up at 33 or 34 years of age, that just cracks me up! Gardner dropped 2 passes, Portis dropped 1, Coles had a pass in his chest that the refs blew a call on, and another one where he was just past 5 yards out that he was interfered with; that's 5 passes that were on target, changing his incompletions to only 6. He's in a new offense that is different than the one he ran in Jacksonville. Give the man some time, Brunnell will get more and more impressive as the year goes on, and by next year we will hear all these schlubs slobbering over how great a QB and great guy he is. These reporters know nothing at all, and just piggyback on everyone else's comments instead of actually having a creative thought or doing some research on their own.

Notice also how all the reporters are quoting the statistic about Portis' 3.0 yards per carry if you throw out the long run? The last 3 carries he had he didn't even try to keep running, and they all went for a total of 1 yard; that makes it 3.32 yards per carry, a little more respectable. But when is the last time you heard reporters throw out numbers like that?

[Dirk Diggler]

Hardly backtracking, son. In fact, you seem to have mastered that art in this post and I'm disappointed someone so skilled at it fails to recognize it.

My honest thoughts on the Bucs and their chances were expressed in my very first post on this thread:

WIll they be one of the league's elite again? Doubtful. But they will win more games than last year and they most certainly will not be among the worst in the league. If you truly believe that this journalist was only a "bit harsh" in her assertion that the Bucs are bottom feeders again, then you must feel that an improvement on last season's record is extremely unlikely. I completely disagree. And I am calling you out because I am tired of you always being the wet blanket.

Plain and simple. I called 8 and over which may not seem that ballsy to you but it's in stark contrast to what your first post indicates. I even gave in a little and gave you a game that's a push for both of us - 8 wins. You don't win on 8 but neither do I. They're 0-1 as of today so this team that is "markedly worse" personnel wise needs to go 9-6 from here on out for me to win.

Also, I don't believe that you can bet totals for teams now that the season has started so that 9 win total that you keep pushing is probably more like 8 or 8.5.

[SkinsFTW]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

I think the Bucs are a .500 club and I'll back that up betting the under on the Vegas line. Ball remains in your court.

You aren't backtracking?

"They were 7-9 last year. Then, after going 7-9, they became markedly worse from a personnel standpoint, getting stripped of key Pro Bowl players on both sides of the ball."

From that statement it seems that you figure that they will go 5-11 or 6-10 at best this year.

[Henry]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

Selective cutting and pasting doesn't generate much in the way of style points. The intro to those statements was as follows:

"And although the author may have been a bit harsh on the Bucs future chances, it seems some here believe the team that suited up on Sunday was nearly the same caliber team that took the field in the Super Bowl."

Flow, you really need to quit while you're way behind here. You said the team has lesser perssonel than it did when it finished 7-9. That's what you said. I didn't include anything else because nothing else you said impacted that. Prefacing it with a statement about how they won't make the superbowl does not somehow imply you think they'll be BETTER.

You and Dirk seemingly lose sight of the fact that this was my MAIN FOCUS here. To offer perspective against the backdrop of statements made by those such as Mr. Molassy who talked of beating the NFL's "#1 D." After that, I merely stated the obvious, i.e., the Bucs 2003 record and my opinion that their personnel is worse off after departures.

Now, if I said I agree with the author, you and Dirk would have a good point. Scratch that. You'd have a phenomenal point. I'd have been caught with blanket in hand, hand in bathtub. Sadly, I didn't. Instead, I wasn't even neutral on the author -- I said he was too harsh.

Ultimately, the inference you made was reasonable. Reasonable, that is, until I clarified what my position was, at which point it became unreasonable. The Bucs won't beat the Vegas line on total wins. I'll gladly back my opinion on that issue. What I won't do is back the opinion that someone tells me they think I have.

Ok, let's pretend then for a moment you aren't completely falling all over yourself to backtrack and you really meant to say all along that the Bucs are an average to above-average club. You do realize that the entire point you were orignially making was that we all were overreacting to a relatviely solid piece of journalism. But if you think the Bucs are an 8 or 9 win team, and this author refers to them as 'among the worst in the league' now that they have lost to the Redskins, we should shrug and say 'Well, that chap was a bit harsh. Pass the crumpets' instead of pointing out the obviously sour grapes nature of the Cowboy fan-driven piece?

Either way, the blanket coming from your direction is still pretty wet.

[Flowtrain]

You'd have thought I'm now picking the Bucs as my NFC favorite. Let's be clear: 8-8 is NOT a good record. It's worse than the linesmakers predict and it does not represent a good team. And to the extent it's relevant to the intitial article, it's consistent with the overall message of the author -- to take the win with a grain of salt, as all teams that are 1-0 should.

The Bucs had a #1 D I was told. Remember? I shot that down in no uncertain terms, offering 2 supporting reasons. Then, I also thew out a bone, noting that the author was too harsh. But to you, this bone was too small. When disagreeing with the #1 Bucs D theory, I was apparently also obligated to list all the positive things going for the Bucs, tabulate all the factors, and then predict their 2004 record. Silly.

However, you felt very strongly on this issue. So strongly that you explained in depth why you're so certain that TB will improve over last year. It later becomes clear that you meant this - BUT not so much. A mere 1 game better is as far as your limb extends off the tree. And how stubby that branch looks when I call to attention that it doesn't even reach the Vegas over/under.

In that way, you object to my taking a position against the Bucs success in 2004 and then hedging. All the while, you cautiously hedge against your position in the Bucs favor. To me, that lessens your stance considerably.

$50 at 8.5 is my final offer. We split the difference on the line, and split the difference on the value.