Washington Times column error

http://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20040429-122452-1823r.htm

Dan Daly seems to be under the impression that we drafted Kellen Winslow II. Perhaps the editors should keep an eye on him.

I remember the Times! They reported we would take Winslow on Friday before the Draft!

They reported Fassel was the hire the day before HOF Coach Gibbs came back!

I read the Times, but not for it's accuracy in reporting. I read it with skepticsm. They are, and have been on the outs with the Redskins management for a long time.

So, bottom line, I'm not even sure that yesterdays report about the Redskins payroll is true, although the Washington Post did reference the Times in today's article.

Remember when the Atlanta paper went ahead and ran an ad that congratulated Dan Reeves on winning his 300th game; the game in which we won.

I wonder which is the biggest mix up.

Dan Daly needs his head examined if he thinks Portis is better than John Riggins. What a short memory some people have...

Remember when the Atlanta paper went ahead and ran an ad that congratulated Dan Reeves on winning his 300th game; the game in which we won.

I wonder which is the biggest mix up.


They way we played at the begining of that game, I proboly would have started to print those adds too, lol.

I read the Washington Times just to read extra Redskins news....to help my addiction.... I am also a first time caller.
Even though it is usually just a repeat of what is in the Washington Post.
The Washington Times is a second rate paper. I hate when Dan Daley and the other fools on the sports section at Washington Times tries to imitate Tony Kornhieser and try to write a funny article. They fail miserably.

"In terms of talent, Gibbs would have had at least as much to work with, I'm convinced, as he did in 1983. But, of course, the Redskins didn't take Winslow; they sensibly drafted for defense and took safety Sean Taylor."

Maybe it was corrected, but this is what I saw in the article.

"In terms of talent, Gibbs would have had at least as much to work with, I'm convinced, as he did in 1983. But, of course, the Redskins didn't take Winslow; they sensibly drafted for defense and took safety Sean Taylor."

Maybe it was corrected, but this is what I saw in the article.

same here. from what i read he was comparing the '83 offense to what we would have if we'd drafted winslow.

"Speaking of 1983, a thought crossed my mind the other day as the Redskins prepared to make their first-round selection. The thought was this: If Gibbs takes Kellen Winslow, his offense could be — repeat, could be — the most talented he's ever had, better even than the '83 group that scored 541 points. I mean, let's take it position by position: "

the post is still a much better source of redskin related material.


and while i love the addition of portis, i'm gonna wait and see if he does as well as riggins. he may have riggins talent wise, but they r two very different style running backs. when u add that and the different defenses and players of the two players playing days, it makes it too hard to make a good comparision between riggins and portis.

one of my first words was 'touchdown John Riggins.' Not quite as clear as it read, but you get the point. So Portis has a lot ot live up to, but hes sure off to a hell of a start. They definitly have different styles, I think Portis has more upside though.

I believe Portis has what it takes. I'm not so bold to compare him to Riggins though. Especially in the day and age of free agency and the salary cap. Portis could retire from anywhere. Not to discount his ability or his contribution he can make to the skins, but if Emmit can't retire a Cowboy, then nothing in the NFL is certain.