The President Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 Exactly. Philadelphia is a lot closer to winning a super bowl. It is not necessary for them to get a lot better. Washington, however will. As for an windows. Philadelphia is not set up to win right now, and right now only. It is not as if the time is going to be gone this year or next year. Major injuries are the only thing that can stop the eagles from being in the mix for at LEAST the next 3 years....blah blah blach I just step down now if I were you. Hey do me a favor Tenacious Butt Pirate quit wasting everyone’s time with you long drawn out, uneducated, uninformative posts. You claim you are closer to winning a Super Bowl. Please! The leader of your team quit at the end of the game. That is the closet you will ever get. Oh, remember this next time you fell like rambling on about sh*t you have no clue about. We have three SB trophies the eagles have none! DTC 4 LIFE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsk58417 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 What I'm suggesting is that the redskins had no choice but to let them walk. I wasn't making some complex ingenious point. All I'm saying is they would have helped the team, and they are worse for having lost them. They lost two players that not only were good, but weren't making that much money last year, so it won't really helped them in any cap relief in the next years. Its not like a Troy Vincent type of thing, were a good player leaves, but at least he won't be making 5 million dollars next year. As for Trotter. I think you could come up with a better example then that. May I suggest Corey Dillon? Becuase ultimately, Trotter leaving was a mistake. Granted it helped with cap relief overall, but its not as if his talents being gone were not missed. Which is why he is back, with a new multi-year contract. You're wrong (Again). The Skins did have a "choice." They offered Smoot a contract. He got a better offer that the Skins chose not to match. Same with Pierce. Originally posted by TenaciousB15 Now surely this one is a joke. You really have out done yourself. The eagle scored a combined 45 points against the redskins. Well, I guess thats no 50. Damn great point... :laugh: Guess who one of those teams was who scored 28 points, matching the best anyone did against the redskins... And hello. What was the one time someone scored more against the eagles? The last game of the year. 38 points by the bengals. In a game, where it was all back up playing the final game of the year, becuase it ment absolutely nothing. Perhaps even more importantly, in a series of games where there was next to no blitzing. No exotic plays what so ever. I include this just to account for you trying to come back by saying some of the skins players were injured, thus missing in some of the final games. Even then, the offense gave up 7 of those 38 to the bengals. And another drive, which including an impressive 15 drive. Wow. Technically, that offensive scoring machine in Cleveland lit in to that Philly defense for 30+ points too. But hey? I understand you spinning your point. :laugh: Yes Philly did score 28, but 21 of those points were in the 2nd half. WITH T.O.! I'm not using the injury thing as an excuse, in fact? It strengthens my argument! Without Smoot, Lavar, Bowen, Lott, Daniels, Barrow, etc. How did the Skins defense do? So that comes full circle in losing Smoot etc. How can you expect a drop-off in defense when the Skins proved to be solid even WITHOUT those aforementioned players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Montana Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 The initial post that sparked this conversation was some guy who has not come back since, remarking that it was unfair that the redskins are treated as if they are buying a superbowl every year when they make these high profile moves in free agency. As opposed to the eagles having 1 year of doing so. He felt the 5 years of moves, is equal to 1 of the eagles. He could not understand the concept that reputation has and is being built on over these years, that has lead to this. What did you think we were talking about? For your sake, I hope it wasn't that. Becuase if you haven't noticed your the one looking silly here. Originally posted by TenaciousB15 "So why isn't Philly catching a boatload of defecation about going after all the "stars" like we would be catching if we were doing the same thing? Oh, I know! The media BLOWS! That's why! Silly me...." I did through in that last 5 years thing at the end. I did not intend for you to think that he said that. It may have looked that way, but that was not intended. However, he mentioned nothing about specifically talking about just the 2000 season. You brought that to the table. To me, that looks like he is talking about recent events if anything. And it did appear as if you intended for me to think that he did bring that up. I come to that conclusion because of you scolding me about what this conversation supposedly was about. Now, if you want to introduce that as a separate element, then we can continue to that. However, as far as I knew, that had nothing to do with what that person or I was talking about, so I don't know why you expected me to change the point I was making initially. So in regards to your question…. Perhaps it was because Reid's Eagles were already established for a few years, at that point last off-season. And the Redskins were not when they did their things. It is as simple is that. The media singled out an unknown team, not the precious redskins. Not some personal vendetta. There is a difference. Now as I said from that point, this trend continues, because the redskins have continued with a similar strategy. Hmm, that sure looks like you intended that to me. I do find it amusing that you accuse someone of not following the discussion, when you yourself have no clue. I also like how you acknowledge that the guy that made the inital post never responed, but at the same time you say that he couldn't grasp the concept of your "reputation built over years" theory. :laugh: Quite frankly, that was a weaker attempt at a backtrack than I expected even from you. And your attempt to repair your broken "reputation formed over years" argument wasn't helped at all by that response. In fact, you are making my own argument for me. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Originally posted by Redsk58417 You're wrong (Again). The Skins did have a "choice." They offered Smoot a contract. He got a better offer that the Skins chose not to match. Same with Pierce. Technically, that offensive scoring machine in Cleveland lit in to that Philly defense for 30+ points too. But hey? I understand you spinning your point. :laugh: Yes Philly did score 28, but 21 of those points were in the 2nd half. WITH T.O.! I'm not using the injury thing as an excuse, in fact? It strengthens my argument! Without Smoot, Lavar, Bowen, Lott, Daniels, Barrow, etc. How did the Skins defense do? So that comes full circle in losing Smoot etc. How can you expect a drop-off in defense when the Skins proved to be solid even WITHOUT those aforementioned players? :laugh: You said it all. It's hilarious watching the attempted spinning as if we're not going to notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 You're wrong (Again). The Skins did have a "choice." They offered Smoot a contract. He got a better offer that the Skins chose not to match. Same with Pierce. This was all before the Coles thing occured though, I believe. Basically my point was this. The redskins did the only thing they could do, once those players prices were set by the other teams that eventually acquired them. At the end of the day they are hurt by these moves in the offseason, either way you look at it. They are hurt by losign quality players. That is obvious. But would they be more or less hurt, had they kept Coles around, thus being able to resign them? That fill be found out. I don't buy that Coles was such as cancer, overnight. Just becuase a player has a disagreement with a coach, doesn't mean there is no way they can't ever play with the same team again. Now if I'm wrong on that, please feel free to show me where other teammates slammed Coles before he was traded. I don't recall seeing any. Technically, that offensive scoring machine in Cleveland lit in to that Philly defense for 30+ points too. But hey? I understand you spinning your point. Yes Philly did score 28, but 21 of those points were in the 2nd half. WITH T.O.! I'm not using the injury thing as an excuse, in fact? It strengthens my argument! Without Smoot, Lavar, Bowen, Lott, Daniels, Barrow, etc. How did the Skins defense do? So that comes full circle in losing Smoot etc. How can you expect a drop-off in defense when the Skins proved to be solid even WITHOUT those aforementioned players? Thank you for making that accusation, that I spun that intentionally. Truth of the matter is, I forgot about the Cleaveland game score. That did happen. But frankly thats less embarassing then you acting like the eagles scoring 50 points on the skins would be a milestone, but the 5 points less that they did score (45 if that helps) wasn't note worthy. Is scoring 21 points, later in the game, after both teams had the oppertunity to make adjustments, (according to the posters on this board, this is one of Gibbs best qualitys apperently) more or less impressive, then if they were scored in the first half? What purpose does that serve? I know when it happened skins fans tried to spin it by saying that the redskins defense gave up, and let that happen, rather then giving the eagles offense any credit. Furthermore, I just occured to me what your doing. Your trying to turn this topic into a Eagles defense vs. Skins defense argument, to give you an easier argument to make. When in reality, this topic was stemmed from the discussion of how close the skins were to the eagles. So in that case, were not just talking about defenses. So lets move back to where this is supposed to be. But nice try, I almost fell into that trap. Are you prepared to say that the redskins were close to the eagles in ability last year? Apparently that flamer at the top of this page was... :laugh: And if so, how would you explain the 13-3 record vs. the 6-10 record. Hmm, that sure looks like you intended that to me. I do find it amusing that you accuse someone of not following the discussion, when you yourself have no clue. I also like how you acknowledge that the guy that made the inital post never responed, but at the same time you say that he couldn't grasp the concept of your "reputation built over years" theory. Well it wasn't. Did I misunderstand, or did you not refute the fact that you were trying to change the subject partially there? Again, I thought it was understood that he didn't grasp the concept of "reputation built over years" before I said anything. If he had, he obviosly wouldn't have made the post in the first place. And your attempt to repair your broken "reputation formed over years" argument wasn't helped at all by that response. In fact, you are making my own argument for me. I realize. I've done it a few times before. I told that guy to argue Smoot leaving will be more like a Corey Dillon situation, rather then a Trotter situation. Being that Rudi Johnson, Dillons former backup, just ran for 1300 yards, and Trotters replacements, weren't close to replacing him, which is why he is back. And I suggested to the guy who said that the eagles were trying to buy a superbowl, that he would have a better chance of making that argument about the Raiders. That is if his only intention was to get the media off the redskins back. Not if what he was really just trying to take a shot at the eagles while clearing the redskins. Then I could understand his motivation for saying what he said. To be honest, everyone who is challenging seems to be failing pretty sadly, I'm just trying to be as nice as possible. I see a lot of irony in someone laughing at the things I'm saying. I'm definatly used to concept of being in enemy waters (3-4 people vs. 1), and having more people spouting ****, so they think their ammount of words, rather then quality=victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsk58417 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 This was all before the Coles thing occured though, I believe. Basically my point was this. The redskins did the only thing they could do, once those players prices were set by the other teams that eventually acquired them. At the end of the day they are hurt by these moves in the offseason, either way you look at it. They are hurt by losign quality players. That is obvious. But would they be more or less hurt, had they kept Coles around, thus being able to resign them? That fill be found out. I don't buy that Coles was such as cancer, overnight. Just becuase a player has a disagreement with a coach, doesn't mean there is no way they can't ever play with the same team again. Now if I'm wrong on that, please feel free to show me where other teammates slammed Coles before he was traded. I don't recall seeing any. The Skins set a price to Smoot "BEFORE" the season ended. I read, the Skins final offer was up to $11mil, but Smoot wanted $14mil. Even "AFTER" Coles, the Skins offered $10.3 in 3 tiers. Minny offered $10.8mil upfront. Smoot let the Skins match. But the Skins weren't able to. So that was that. Coles? He would've been a cancer. T.O. and Marriuchi didn't get along in S.F. One person was going to go. In the case of Coles and Gibbs? Which do you figure is staying? You appear to be pretty smart. Other teammates never spoke out. Why? Gibbs kept all negative things "in house." At the end of the season, the team had a meeting in which Gibbs asked "If there is/are any that want *out* stand up!" Only Coles and Gardner did! How Ironic that both Coles and Gardner will be dealt. Originally posted by TenaciousB15 Thank you for making that accusation, that I spun that intentionally. Truth of the matter is, I forgot about the Cleaveland game score. That did happen. But frankly thats less embarassing then you acting like the eagles scoring 50 points on the skins would be a milestone, but the 5 points less that they did score (45 if that helps) wasn't note worthy. Not intentional, but hey? Philly is *YOUR* team. In a posting debate? You should know atleast "YOUR" own team! The Eagles were whallopping teams. Steam rolling them. G.B. and the 1st Dallas game ring a bell. Originally posted by TenaciousB15 Furthermore, I just occured to me what your doing. Your trying to turn this topic into a Eagles defense vs. Skins defense argument, to give you an easier argument to make. When in reality, this topic was stemmed from the discussion of how close the skins were to the eagles. So in that case, were not just talking about defenses. So lets move back to where this is supposed to be. But nice try, I almost fell into that trap. Are you prepared to say that the redskins were close to the eagles in ability last year? Apparently that flamer at the top of this page was... :laugh: And if so, how would you explain the 13-3 record vs. the 6-10 record. Have "YOU" not been paying attention? My beef was with *YOUR* comment saying "the Skins are not close" to being a good team. I dunno just where you figure that? Ask me, and I'll tell you my angle. Your not that good where I have to conceal secrets in a posting battle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Montana Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 To be honest, everyone who is challenging seems to be failing pretty sadly, I'm just trying to be as nice as possible. I see a lot of irony in someone laughing at the things I'm saying. I'm definatly used to concept of being in enemy waters (3-4 people vs. 1), and having more people spouting ****, so they think their ammount of words, rather then quality=victory. Now THAT is funny. You keep thinking that. :laugh: And how is it ironic that people are laughing at your flawed arguments? You're the one making these arguments that have more holes in them than swiss cheese. And spare me the whining about this "3 vs. 1" nonsense. I can't help it that people are piling on to rip apart your weak arguments. If you can't keep your debates and responses among different members straight, that's your problem. If it is that difficult for you, take your ball and go home. You're the trolling Eagle fan here. You have yet to offer a logical response to any of my arguments that would serve to further this debate. You either gloss over them, or misinterpret them entirely. It's obvious that this discussion is going nowhere, so I'll just let it go. It was at first amusing, but has grown tedious. If you want to further this discussion, you can PM, but spare everyone else here any more of this nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Montana Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 To my fellow extremers, While we all like to indulge in it occasionally (like I just have shown ), I would suggest that it's best not to feed the trolls. I apologize for this. It's fun at first to watch them fall all over themselves, but it's ultimately unsatisfying and rather pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsk58417 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by Danny Montana To my fellow extremers, While we all like to indulge in it occasionally (like I just have shown ), I would suggest that it's best not to feed the trolls. It's fun at first to watch them fall all over themselves, but it's ultimately unsatisfying and rather pointless. I'm with ya. Him missing easy info on his "OWN TEAM" made me uninterested in continuing. How he can with a sincere post say "The Skins aren't close" to being a good team is beyond me.:whoknows: Well, i'm through. I guess he will never get it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by Redsk58417 The Skins set a price to Smoot "BEFORE" the season ended. I read, the Skins final offer was up to $11mil, but Smoot wanted $14mil. Even "AFTER" Coles, the Skins offered $10.3 in 3 tiers. Minny offered $10.8mil upfront. Smoot let the Skins match. But the Skins weren't able to. So that was that. Coles? He would've been a cancer. T.O. and Marriuchi didn't get along in S.F. One person was going to go. In the case of Coles and Gibbs? Which do you figure is staying? You appear to be pretty smart. Other teammates never spoke out. Why? Gibbs kept all negative things "in house." At the end of the season, the team had a meeting in which Gibbs asked "If there is/are any that want *out* stand up!" Only Coles and Gardner did! How Ironic that both Coles and Gardner will be dealt. Not intentional, but hey? Philly is *YOUR* team. In a posting debate? You should know atleast "YOUR" own team! The Eagles were whallopping teams. Steam rolling them. G.B. and the 1st Dallas game ring a bell. Have "YOU" not been paying attention? My beef was with *YOUR* comment saying "the Skins are not close" to being a good team. I dunno just where you figure that? Ask me, and I'll tell you my angle. Your not that good where I have to conceal secrets in a posting battle! I wasn't in disagreement, that the skins probably shoudln't have kepts Smoot or Peirce, considering the cap situation they were in. My point is ultimately, either way they are hurt by it. Its just a matter of which hurt them more. There is no good option. Keepings coles, if he was as bad as some say he was, may have been the worse of the two. But like I said, that is not yet determined. Why are you saying I don't know my own team? Where are you going with that Greenbay and Dallas 50 point games thing? First and less likely, your not confusing that with thinking I thought the eagles scored 45 point in one game? I was talking about both combined. Or is it that you thought the eagles were supposed to score 50 points in every game, to be considered dominant, and becuase they didn't score 50 against the skins, then they must not be. Did I say word for word that the skins weren't close to being a good team? What I believe I said was that the redskins were not close to being as good as the eagles. Ala, they were not close to being a superbowl contending team. They weren't. I don't think they will be this year either. Danny, well then please refresh my memory. Feel free to ask me what you wanted responded to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da#1skinsfan Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 First off. Stop with the elist douch bag attitude. Youre a joke. Ill be elitist all I want. Every reply you have is biased and unfounded...you have no facts to back up anything and youre wrong about the facts you think youre presenting. Owens wasn't gauranteed to be released at the end of the day either. In both intances, they looked like they were going to happen, but there was no definate descision. The only real difference is one of the players was washed up. End of conversation. As said before. Owens could opt out. He was guaranteed going to be a free agent had his agent put in his paper work. He had OPTED OUT of his contract. Brunell would have to be released by the team. As in, he has no say what happens. This is YOUR superstar we're talking about, and you dont even know the difference between a player under contract and a player not under contract. Im bowing out of this one, the other guys have it covered better than I can. I would be saying things an elitist douchebag would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsk58417 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 Did I say word for word that the skins weren't close to being a good team? What I believe I said was that the redskins were not close to being as good as the eagles. Ala, they were not close to being a superbowl contending team. They weren't. I don't think they will be this year either. Well, like I said. I'm done here. BUT. Just to show *YOU* that you indeed said that the Skins are not close to being a good team. Your words dude. Originally posted by TenaciousB15 My word of advice to all who read. Look around you. Do you see the teams that are finishing around the redskins in rankings each year? That gives you an indicator or where they are. It really is humorous to see people look at the upcoming years schedual, and comment on how so and so team should be easy to beat. Then when they lose to them, they are confused by what just happened. You'd be doign yourself a favor not to get your hopes up. To put it bluntly. The redskins were not close last year. If the best you can do is argue that they have improved a little bit, then is that really good enough? See now? Nice posting with you. The redskins were not close last year. If the best you can do is argue that they have improved a little bit, then is that really good enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 End of conversation. As said before. Owens could opt out. He was guaranteed going to be a free agent had his agent put in his paper work. He had OPTED OUT of his contract. Brunell would have to be released by the team. As in, he has no say what happens. This is YOUR superstar we're talking about, and you dont even know the difference between a player under contract and a player not under contract. And yet the nfl calls it a trade. In any case, as I said before. How the player was acquired is COMPLETELY irrelevant. The point I was making was that the redskins philosphy has not changed. (i.e. have not become a patriots or eagles) As evidenced by the fact that the team was and is built with other teams players. Whether they were acquired, by trade, or through free-agency. It all goes under the same umbrella. Basically unless they were drafted, or were unsigned free-agents of the redskins, they go under that umbrella. Arguing over this trivial point is completely irrelevant of my point and is really only a distraction. If you would like to disagree about the redskins change of philsophy issue, then lets do so. But I'll believe thats happened, when I see Dan Synder be frugal when he has 15 million dollars to spend. Not be "frugal" when he coincidentally only has 2 million left to spend. Well, like I said. I'm done here. BUT. Just to show *YOU* that you indeed said that the Skins are not close to being a good team. Your words dude the redskins were not close last year. If the best you can do is argue that they have improved a little bit, then is that really good enough? Wow. Okay. First, I would have been gracious enough to correct you without incident if you at least asked me first what I ment by that if you weren't sure. Instead you chose to interpret that the way you wanted. Which just so happened to be the wrong way. Read what I said again. "the redskins were not close last year." When I wrote that, I ment that the redskins were not close to the eagles last year. I.E. a superbowl contending team. The redskins were not a superbowl contending team last year. Do you disagree with that statement? When you isolate a comment like that, its becomes more easier to take that anyway you want. But I think if you read some of the things I was saying at the point, and also read some of the others comments from others around it, it might be more clear as to what I was really saying. You chose to interpret that as "the redskins were not close to being a good team". There is a difference between a good team, and a team that can win a superbowl. You chose to interpret that to prove your point, but in turn didn't prove anything. From my time away, and looking back I've realized I've become increasingly less patient with those around here who act in such a manner as this. I'm not sure if its me not explaining myself to the fullest extent of my ability. If so, it would explain why somebody would be disagree with me so often. On the other hand. Its quite possible that it would not matter how well I explained my arguments, somebody would just find a way to read them the way they like and make an ass out of themselves by jumping on something I said without regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruinSkin Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 Blah blah blah. Rant. Way to bring up a thread that's a week old. Edit: Take your piss fight to PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 That don't believe that was up to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruinSkin Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 That don't believe that was up to me. I'm sorry I don't speak stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.