|
memphisskin 11-17-2007, 11:51 PM I have no reason other than my heart beating to Hail to the Redskins to really believe the Skins are going to win tomorrow, and yet I do. I hear Coach Parcells ranting in the background "You are what your record says" but aren't the Skins about more than just blown opportunities and close calls? They are also bringing in a running game, or did I not just see Clinton Portis go for a buck thuddy-seven on the Eagles? And I'll take my chances with JC, I agree if he gets a couple more opportunities to hit the deep ball he'll start completing a few.
But now that Lloyd's out, who will Campbell overthrow the deep ball to now? Give me that cup, I mean we're not going to let an injury to James Thrash throw us off our game, are we? And I think Doughty and Prioleau can do good with a week of being, to borrow a phrase "coached up." I mean I think Gibbs should institute yoga or pilates, c'mon five starters with hamstring injuries? Wait, Kool Aid kicking in, GW is going to actually coach this week, and Landry is coming along. I think we will bring a sense of urgency, since we've played better, occasionally, than a 5-4 team.
F it all, HTTR!
If the Skins play like they did against Philly minus the costly penalties I think they have a real shot.
jsarno 11-18-2007, 01:15 PM If the Skins play like they did against Philly minus the costly penalties I think they have a real shot.
i agree.
70Chip 11-18-2007, 02:11 PM There is no rational argument to make in favor of the Redskins at this point. Then again, what's rational about spending all this time on a website discussing something none of us can control in the first place? I would never claim that my interest in the Redskins is rational.
Schneed10 11-18-2007, 03:12 PM There is no rational argument to make in favor of the Redskins at this point. Then again, what's rational about spending all this time on a website discussing something none of us can control in the first place? I would never claim that my interest in the Redskins is rational.
The question isn't whether you're interest is rational.
The question is what concrete reasons do you have to be hopeful?
70Chip 11-18-2007, 03:42 PM The question isn't whether you're interest is rational.
The question is what concrete reasons do you have to be hopeful?
None that I can see. If Taylor were playing they might have a chance, but we saw last week that without him, they give up big plays and that was against a QB who couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat and who has no real deep threat. Even if we somehow contain Owen and Whitten and Crayton and Hurd, Barbour will probably shred us because there will be no enforcer to get him on the ground before he moves the chains.
Defensively, Dallas brings pressure in an unpredictable way so I would expect Fabini and Wade to struggle the way they did against N.E. Campbell will be hurried and we have seen what that leads to. In addition, we haven't really played very well in Dallas when the odds were less daunting.
If there is a faint glimmer of hope it is that Romo would have a game like he did against Buffalo, but I'm not sure he has 5 ints left in him the rest of the regular season, nonetheless in one game. In short, we need to have a lot of good fortune, but I wouldn't really put that in the rational category. The purely rational thing to do at this point is to find something else to do on Sunday or to root for another team.
jsarno 11-18-2007, 03:54 PM The question isn't whether you're interest is rational.
The question is what concrete reasons do you have to be hopeful?
You're "questions" are all subjective though.
Schneed10 11-18-2007, 10:20 PM You're "questions" are all subjective though.
Exactly. There's no right or wrong answer necessarily. But the questions started us off on a solid discussion.
Turns out a lot of what was said in this thread was accurate in the Cowboys game. Not surprising, because instead of bickering, people actually thought about it and discussed the game. We came out with great intensity, the team opened the offense again and went no huddle, and Moss got involved. But our suspicions that Taylor's absence would hurt were spot-on.
In fact, if he played in that game, we woulda won. I'm sure of it.
It's a lot easier to see things to be positive about now. Overall a solid game for us, can't complain.
BrunellMVP? 11-19-2007, 11:05 AM Very frustrating. While I think 4 TDs to TO is almost a firable offense (please know that is is just dramatic anger, not my true belief)- we were short staffed and blown coverage happens. Campbell looks legit.
I can't be too upset over the challenge overturn- but I'm not sure there was enough footage to overrule the call of the field...but it was clear that rocky bobbled it a bit...
At 5-5 we are staring down a game at Tampa, home against buffalo, at Giants, at Minn, home against CHI, and a game at home v the boys (who may be resting guys at that point)...realistically, we can probably only lose 2 games...9-7 could get us to the playoffs.
we are now tied for last in the NFC east with the eagles, and behind the 6-4 lions (who we beat- so we hold the tie break edge) - root for the packers this Thursday. We are also tied with the cardinals at 5-5, but we hold the tie break edge there too. Lions have the Pack, at Vikes, Cowboys, at Chargers, Chiefs and at Pack again left...tough schedule.
Eagles face Pats, Giants, seattle, saints, bills and dallas.
|