Could Thrash Become #2 WR

I can't agree. Look, for example, at their pre-season predictions of how most teams will fare. They are consistently wrong. I'm usually as good as "the experts" at picking who will win X game, as are the vast majority of laypeople.


I was referring to them picking us. They have been right for many years except for one year, and that's when we won 10 a couple years ago and we were predicted to win 4 or 5.
Fact is, we always say 9-12 wins, and it's happened only 2 times in the past decade.
We are usually wrong, and they are usually right. This is generally cause we over value players (ie: Thrash) and have an amazing love for the team. Ie: Homerism.

Here is a good article which I was going to place in the news section but thought that this could be something that others may want to discuss. The article talks about how Trash has had extra playing time with JC in training camp due to others injuries and the two are really clicking. We never think of him as the #2 guy but if he is really clicking with JC as the article says and the coaches are saying then who knows. I myself have wondered why we do not use him more as it seeems that when he is called upon makes the play. So check out the article and lets hear what you think.
ARTICLE: At 32, Thrash is preparing for another breakout year (The Virginian-Pilot - HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com) (http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=130049&ran=177175)

The Va. Pilot is doing a daily player profile and interview which they seem to do a good job. So now that I have found them on line I will post them in the news section unless its something worth discussing.

My mother was at the Welcome Home Lunch and sat beside him last year. Got his sig on the Skins schedule book thing they handed out. She gave it to my son - That is the ONLY reason it would be nice if he became a #2 WR.

I was referring to them picking us. They have been right for many years except for one year, and that's when we won 10 a couple years ago and we were predicted to win 4 or 5.
Fact is, we always say 9-12 wins, and it's happened only 2 times in the past decade.
We are usually wrong, and they are usually right. This is generally cause we over value players (ie: Thrash) and have an amazing love for the team. Ie: Homerism.

Ah, I don't disagree with anything you've said above. But I don't think they were right because of their expertise. Rather, I think they are going to say we will be bad until we start proving to them that we can actually win on a consistent basis. In other words, they are behind the curve. If we post two back-to-back winning seasons, they will start predicting how great we will be in Year 3, even if we end up losing 16 games in year 3.

I was referring to them picking us. They have been right for many years except for one year, and that's when we won 10 a couple years ago and we were predicted to win 4 or 5.
Fact is, we always say 9-12 wins, and it's happened only 2 times in the past decade.
We are usually wrong, and they are usually right. This is generally cause we over value players (ie: Thrash) and have an amazing love for the team. Ie: Homerism.

To be specific, this is how many wins we have had since Gibbs left after the 92 season:
14 wins - 0 times
13 wins - 0 times
12 wins - 0 times
11 wins - 0 times
10 wins - 2 times
9 wins - 1 time
8 wins - 3 times
7 wins - 1 time
6 wins - 3 times
5 wins - 2 times
4 wins - 1 time
3 wins - 1 time

That's an average of only 6.79 wins per season. Ouch.

That's 14 seasons, and only had 9 wins or more 3 times, but 8 times we had fewer than 7 wins.
The only times we have been right was 99 (and I am saying that loosely since we predicted closer to 12 wins and a super bowl) and 05.
The only times the writers have predicted us to do well was in 99 and they were wrong about 05. The rest of the years, they were right.
We have been a doormat of football for too long, it's about time we show the world what we're made of.

Ah, I don't disagree with anything you've said above. But I don't think they were right because of their expertise. Rather, I think they are going to say we will be bad until we start proving to them that we can actually win on a consistent basis. In other words, they are behind the curve. If we post two back-to-back winning seasons, they will start predicting how great we will be in Year 3, even if we end up losing 16 games in year 3.


Good point, and very true.
But we here will continue to "predict" great things with no real reason behind it. AT least they are using reason.

........... nope I doubt it