buzzlightbeer81 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Originally posted by phanatic He failed his sobriety test. he was drunk. He IS the Redskins best player on D. He WILL NOT be lambasted by the law or the media. That's my point and that's how the law works. If it makes you feel any better to believe he wasn'r drinking and driving, fine. It still doesn't change the character of the player. You know this to be fact. I think Taylor is one hell of a talent and probably will end up being the Skins franchise player. let's not treat the guy with kid gloves. He's already proven on and off the field he's a loose canon. he'll clean up his act. just don't baby the punk if you're gonna sling the cow patties at others. not taking a breathalizer is considered a failure, so he never failed one. There was no proof he was drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 As much as it pains me to pick em, I gotta go with the Eagles this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpgirth Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Originally posted by phanatic I've been discussing this one for weeks. There isn't one team left in the NFC that has a passing defense in the top 20. Atlanta is 28th. You see, the Iggles will have their way in the passing game through LJ, Lewis and Westbrook. Now if they make the SB terrel will play the question will be at what level. Your ignorance shines brightly http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/DEF-PASSING/2004/regular St. Louis actually has a better passing defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghetto-smoove Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I think the Vikings have a very good chance to beat the Eagles. The Eagles clearly are not as dominant without Owens. They also dont have a running game, and that hurts in the playoffs. I see this being a 27-24 type game, with the Viking ending up on top. Of course...everything depends on the health of Randy Moss. He was limping at the end of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXREDSKINS44 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Lets GO Vikings!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsNation Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Originally posted by Potato Sack If there was any team I thought could get past the Iggles, it was the Vikings. I just didn't think the Vikings would make it that far. I will be rooting for the Vikings. Same thoughts here... During the first half of the year I thought that the Vikings were the only team that could compete w/the Eagles. Watching that MNF game (week 2 or 3?) I thought that these 2 teams were mirror images of each other on Offense but defensively the Eagles had the obvious edge. When the Vikes fell apart during the last month and a half I thought the Eagles could play their JV squad vs. the rest of the NFC in the playoffs and cruise. But now that TO is out and the Vikes how re-newed confidence anything can happen. Im not surprised at all that they beat the INT-King and the defenseless Packers but the Eagles are on a different level. I think the Vikings will pull off the upset this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsNation Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Originally posted by phanatic He failed his sobriety test. he was drunk. He IS the Redskins best player on D. He WILL NOT be lambasted by the law or the media. That's my point and that's how the law works. If it makes you feel any better to believe he wasn'r drinking and driving, fine. It still doesn't change the character of the player. You know this to be fact. I think Taylor is one hell of a talent and probably will end up being the Skins franchise player. let's not treat the guy with kid gloves. He's already proven on and off the field he's a loose canon. he'll clean up his act. just don't baby the punk if you're gonna sling the cow patties at others. I was in the exact same situation as Sean Taylor not too long ago...pulled over...had been drinking...got let off...I made a mistake and fortunatley nothing bad came from it (it was a good lesson honestly). Im not a Redskin player...an actor...or anyone of importance. I showed up into court (in Harrisburg) explained my story-sortof, had a witness and I was not charged w/anything alchohol related - end of story (paid a speeding ticket big deal). Its more common than you think, everyone stopped by the police isnt thrown in jail/convicted and given the death-penalty - GET REAL. Furthermore...how does Taylor play on the field? He's a beast (as a rookie) and will only get better. Label him for his play on the field - because if you want to sit here and babble about something he got stopped for and was cleared for then thats flat out SAD!!!!!! He may be indecisive etc... (loose cannon) thats fine...I mean he is a rookie and atleast he isnt going around making a name for himself doing negative things on the field or off the field (non-football related) - he's made some eerie football-business decisions but thats his world & life so he's entitled to it....If getting pulled over is the worst thing he can do then I guess he's a Vigilante....and so am I. I love how people come on here and chastise this guy to prove what & why?... Big deal if people hate the Redskins thats fine just dont come around here trying to mudsling because your bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number5 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Time for me to chime in. For starters, I was at the Sept 20th Monday Night Game, it was my birthday and I was given tickets right in front of Madden and Michaels, so it was already cool. I even got a quick wave from John and Al since they were so close, and they waved back.......very cool! Anyways, from being at the first game, some very important things stood out for me...... 1 - While everyone was making such a big deal about the "Moss vs Owens/ Dante' vs. Donny" match-ups, the true match-up of the game was "Westbrook vs. Smith". The running backs dominated the game or at least the first half. Westbrook was amazing causing so many match-up problems but it was Smith and his ability to run up the middle that allowed the Vikings to at least get close to scoring. This will again be a key match-up now that Trotter is back in the middle and the DL rotation is healthy and finally set. EDGE = Eagles in Rd.2 2 - Moss was pretty much held in check......but it wasn't because of double teams or any crazy defenses......it was the fact that he was being pushed around at the line of scrimage by the Eagles DBs. Most people would have thought that Lito would have stayed with him the whole game, or Sheldon would have, but in fact it was the most physicla Eagles corner, Rod Hood who dealt with Moss most of the game...even drawing a 15 yd Offensive Penalty on Moss in the 4th Quarter with the game so close. Moss doesn't like contact at all, and most of his catches came on out patterns or hitches. The fact that he had a few choice words with Dawkins during the Pre Game warm-ups didn't help either. Sheppard and Brown will man-up on Moss from time to time, but they mostly will play Cloud 3 with the off corner blitzing from the weak side to make up for Kearse playing Joker like he did that night. Moss will get his catches, but they won't be deep or over the middle, which is where he makes his money. EDGE = Eagles (Vikings if Dawkins is still in the hospitial as reported today with the flu) 3 - THE KEARSE FACTOR! He played the JOKER role which is you Skins fans know as the LAVAR SPY. Kearse is the only Eagles defender who has the size and speed to contain Dante'. In the first game, Dante' was running for his life most of the night only to find Jevon with him step for step....and that was without Trotter in the middle or a fully functional DL. Look for the same but this time with more blitzing since the Eagles have more confidence in the DBs. On passing downs look for Kearse to never cross the 2-3 yard mark of the LOS and EXPECT a BIG GAME from Derrick Burgess and Jerome McDougal......they along with Hugh will be one on one with a back up tackle and a 2 year guy with the forgotten man being Kearse. EDGE = Eagles! 4 - Special Teams.........JR Reid almost broke the opening kickoff against these guys and I don't see why he can't do it again......but the biggest difference will be the Eagles Punt Return team. It is known around Philadelphia that when a BIG GAME comes around, you put your best back there.......and we have what I feel is one of the best in Westbrook.....the man known as the GIANT KILLER will make an apperance as i expect Lito Sheppard as well, probably both of them similar to what they did a few times this year. If either one gets his hands on the ball with a crack of daylight.....Goodbye! EDGE = Eagles! Last but not least.......with everyone still talking about T.O. and what he meant to this team, very few remember that this same team would have made the Super Bowl last year if Westbrook was healthy. Now with a much improved defense, a solid offensive line, veteran TE's and RB's, I don't see a repeat of the let downs for our past. Though I don't think we will win the SB......I am confident that we will get there. Final Score - Eagles 31 Vikings 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJoe Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I'd like to see the Eagles lose this week too, but I just can't see the Vikings doing it. Am I missing something? For the last half of the season I saw a Vikings team that looked pretty ho-hum. And now with Mo Williams out and Moss a little gimpy, I don't see them beating Philly. Say what you want about the Eagles, but their defense is way better than the Packers D. And McNabb doesn't make as many mistakes as Favre seems to make these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beastof theEast Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Westbrook36 Better into the ground than into a waiting DB's hands. That's why McNabb had the best TD/INT ratio in the league this year. Good point..I don't think I've ever seen him loft one to the back of the endzone right to the other team's safety with the game on the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 JESUS PEOPLE!!! THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS BEAT THE VIKINGS FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles_Legendz Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Westbrook36 JESUS PEOPLE!!! THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS BEAT THE VIKINGS FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! :doh: As did the Giants and Bears and the Lions were a missed XP from sending that game into OT. People seem to forget all of these things though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Westbrook36 JESUS PEOPLE!!! THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS BEAT THE VIKINGS FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! :doh: We beat the Eagles too. You got the win, but we beat you in a way far worse than we beat the Vikes. And we won the Vikes game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles_Legendz Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 What I love is the widespread belief across the nation that Owens made the Eagles. People act like Owens came to a 5-11 team and turned them into a 13-3 one by himself, and the Eagles might as well just quit now that he's gone. Ths team was the winningest team in the NFL the past four years before Owens. They know how to play without Owens and they will succeed. I truly believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Westbrook36 JESUS PEOPLE!!! THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS BEAT THE VIKINGS FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! :doh: :laugh: oh, you are a marked man now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles_Legendz Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Art We beat the Eagles too. You got the win, but we beat you in a way far worse than we beat the Vikes. And we won the Vikes game. Your defense beat the Eagles physically. The Eagles defense beat the Redskins physically. I'm sorry to say that I didn't see a one-sided physical domination in that game. The Eagles defense brought just as many big hits in that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Eagles_Legendz What I love is the widespread belief across the nation that Owens made the Eagles. People act like Owens came to a 5-11 team and turned them into a 13-3 one by himself, and the Eagles might as well just quit now that he's gone. Ths team was the winningest team in the NFL the past four years before Owens. They know how to play without Owens and they will succeed. I truly believe that. I think you'll beat the Vikings, especially if Moss is gimpy. But, it's hard to deny the Eagles have a different feel about them without Owens. I just don't think it'll matter much in the NFC where defenses are so weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles_Legendz Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Art I think you'll beat the Vikings, especially if Moss is gimpy. But, it's hard to deny the Eagles have a different feel about them without Owens. I just don't think it'll matter much in the NFC where defenses are so weak. Of course they aren't as good. I'm not saying the team is better without Owens, just that they have been good for YEARS without Owens. People act like the team was built on his shoulders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Art We beat the Eagles too. You got the win, but we beat you in a way far worse than we beat the Vikes. And we won the Vikes game. Does that really make you feel better about a lose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Eagles_Legendz Your defense beat the Eagles physically. The Eagles defense beat the Redskins physically. I'm sorry to say that I didn't see a one-sided physical domination in that game. The Eagles defense brought just as many big hits in that game. Yes you did, early in the game. But, as it wore on, we got stronger and you backed down, both on offense and on defense. As pointed out at the time, Philly's great strength is intimidation most teams can't stand up to. You did the same thing to us you do to most teams. You put guys down hard and most teams fold. Where the Eagles have had problems is against those teams that not only don't fold, but, wind up taking the game away from the Eagles in a physical fashion. Had it not been for the benefit of nearly every call, that would have been a two touchdown win for the Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 Does that really make you feel better about a lose? Well, that you don't know the difference between the word loss and the word lose makes me feel it doesn't really matter what you say. As for the loss, yes, it makes me feel very good about it knowing the Skins outclassed the Eagles and the Eagles didn't stand a chance in that game but for help from the refs. Even Eagle fans knew what happened to them in that game. It's a very good feeling to know in an even matchup of our teams -- though it wasn't even due to the injuries we had -- we more than match up with you in the very way you had tended to handle us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Is this really one of those things where the refs gave the eagles the win yet again? All I see is a bunch of circumstances of what might be a reason the eagles aren't really a better team. Have people really not accepted the fact that maybe the redskins are a 6-10? Or 3-4 when Patrick Ramsey is starting. Or 3-6 when Patrick Ramsey played in the game? As far as how that game played out. Physically, what I remember is seeing a team playing for their jobs, against a team that knew they were going to the playoffs. In a way an unfair advantage, becuase injuries to ther redskins ment very little at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 Is this really one of those things where the refs gave the eagles the win yet again? All I see is a bunch of circumstances of what might be a reason the eagles aren't really a better team. Have people really not accepted the fact that maybe the redskins are a 6-10? Or 3-4 when Patrick Ramsey is starting. Or 3-6 when Patrick Ramsey played in the game? As far as how that game. Physically, what I remember is seeing a team playing for their jobs, against a team that knew they were going to the playoffs. In a way an unfair advantage, becuase injuries to ther redskins ment very little at that point. It is very appropriate for you to see a bunch of circumstances that would lead one to conclude the Eagles aren't really a better team when that discussion is our second game against you. The reason that is an appropriate thing for you to see is because of the impossibility of viewing the Eagles as a better team. In a discussion of the second game, one could conclude from watching it, the Skins were a superior team and, in fact, beat the Eagles at their own game, which is not something the Skins have done the last couple of years. The Skins, on the whole, are a lesser football team than the Eagles, despite some clear advantages in personnel when healthy and even, surprisingly, when injured. I doubt anyone disputes the assessment that the Eagles are, indeed, a better team on the whole than the Redskins. Just as no one would seriously dispute the Redskins were the better team in the second game against the Eagles. That, more than victories, was likely the most encouraging game of the season for HOW it was played by a team that had largely been very soft for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles_Legendz Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Art Yes you did, early in the game. But, as it wore on, we got stronger and you backed down, both on offense and on defense. As pointed out at the time, Philly's great strength is intimidation most teams can't stand up to. You did the same thing to us you do to most teams. You put guys down hard and most teams fold. Where the Eagles have had problems is against those teams that not only don't fold, but, wind up taking the game away from the Eagles in a physical fashion. Had it not been for the benefit of nearly every call, that would have been a two touchdown win for the Skins. Two touchdown win? The Redskins couldn't move the ball on the Eagles. For all of the "pride" and "courage" they showed by not backing down, it didn't seem to help their offense. The Redskins needed a short field (and on the first TD, a 5 yard field) to score. There is no way they win by two touchdowns under any circumstances. That being said, I know you are happy they responded physically to the Eagles challenge, but how did they "beat the Eagles in a far worse way than they beat the Vikings"? They played a close, physical game and lost. The end. Forgive me if I don't see any mental or physical scars from this one Art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Well, then I guess the cowboys will be right up there next year to battle with you for the division, judging by their similar losing performance the following week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.