santana moss

I was at the Jets preseason game. First row, Jets side. I saw that Coles still had a noticeable limp. Don't know if it is still the toe, or what, but he does have a limp when he walks.
I thought I heard recently that he foot still has problems. I know he's also had a strained calf for a bit; don't know it it goes all the way back to that game, but maybe.

we're 2-2 and only one win was against a quality opponent, where do you expect them to rank us? #1?

How do you explain the Eagles rating?

How do you explain the Eagles rating?

i didn't know justifying their ranking was part of my job.



as for coles, ray brown said he was saying crap in the locker room, and he wasn't JUST traded because of the toe.

I've never seen Coles up close and in person. But there's no way Moss is 5'10" He looked more to me like 5'8" (5'9" at the most)

Yup, after the second Cowboys game, he was signing autographs and I'm 5'10" and I felt WAY bigger than him.

Santana was talking up Gibbs, et al after the game on Sunday. I think he's so happy with the chance that the Skins have given him that he plays like he owes the entire organization everything he's got. I love that about him.

I've never seen them together, but Coles does appear to be a little bigger than Santana. I remember all the talk being that the Skins got hosed, but in the end Dan Snyder got the better of the deal and didn't have to give Coles a flat screen either. Just 9 million bucks. But it appears to be win-win, and on top Coles is stuck with a qb who can't throw deep so he's got to run the short stuff he complained so much about here. Moss is the man!

Oh, and maybe Snyder was on the right track in '01 when he wanted to draft Moss and Rottenheimer drafted Rod "50/50" Gardner.

[quote=That Guy;223756]i didn't know justifying their ranking was part of my job.

My mistake, I thought you had something to offer

marty won games with the players he chose, so there's not a lot to really b*tch about there. moss is clearly the better player though, and would have been a better choice in hindsight ;).

[quote=That Guy;223756]i didn't know justifying their ranking was part of my job.

My mistake, I thought you had something to offer

I responded to you're assertion that the redskin's are somehow being royally screwed by being listed as a middle of the pack team and asked you where you thought they should be, an then, magically, i'm responsible for where some espn analysts placess the eagles? come on.

they are 3-1, they've scored at will, and they're got good depth, a good QB, an a long track record of being a good team. how's that :P?

[quote=Hog1;223786]

I responded to you're assertion that the redskin's are somehow being royally screwed by being listed as a middle of the pack team and asked you where you thought they should be, an then, magically, i'm responsible for where some espn analysts placess the eagles? come on.

they are 3-1, they've scored at will, and they're got good depth, a good QB, an a long track record of being a good team. how's that :P?

Totally, at the time (and it continues) the "experts" proudly exalted the SKINS got hosed on that deal. I don't imagine they feel the same today. Just like the same guys that put us in the middle of the power field. No love for the skins

Review my post, there is no screwed by anyone.
If memory serves, you asked if I thought they should be number one.
No they don't. However, Look at the Eagles schedule, the only quality opponent they played, (Houston, Giants, Niners, and Green Bay), the Giants (who have many problems) they lost. Jacksonville is a signifigantly tougher than that. Our loss's have both been to better teams than NY. My assertion, is that this hardly justifies a 12ish place difference in the rankings. While I am accustomed to bad press from the media, I still don't like it.
FYI, I did not make you responsible for any analysts thought process.