Its Fu**ing Eagles Week!!!!

[CRedskinsRule]

Oh, and here is the Wildcard version:

Two Clubs

1. Head-to-head, if applicable.
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
4. Strength of victory.
5. Strength of schedule.
6. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
7. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
8. Best net points in conference games.
9. Best net points in all games.
10. Best net touchdowns in all games.
11. Coin toss.

a couple notes:
1) our head to head so far is very good against teams likely to tie our win/loss record. Only the Rams stands out as one that could come back and bite us ( I am learning to hate the Rams)

2) again, losing to AFC teams means less so every NFC win has a bit more quality

3) Common games, also, since every NFC division plays a different AFC team none of our AFC losses matter. This really is hard to figure in advance, and I doubt many tie breakers go past this point

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

First I've heard of those comments from Feinstein. I know Jason Whitlock made some similar comments (though he later backtracked) saying something like "I'm surprised Shanahan didn't tell McNabb to sit on the bench and eat some fried chicken" but several other members of the media responded to Whitlock's comments and said this had nothing to do with race, and to play the race card or accuse Shanahan of being racist was out of line. So let's not go and lump the media all together on this

Feinstein is being ridiculous

Quoting myself here, but good response by Rick Reilly

Redskins coach Mike Shanahan a racist? Rick Reilly says 'No way.' - ESPN

[MTK]

Feinstein is the one that should be fired.

If MS was really a racist why would he have traded for DM in the first place?

Just dumb.

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

If those are the two options, I am rooting for a tie!!!!!

I wouldn't be against that.

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Actually Ace is using correct NFL terminology as opposed to "Real" terminology.

See, the NFL counts a win (amazingly) as a WIN for tiebreakers and comparisons. SO if we beat the Eagles by 1 we get the same QUALITY win (since it is division and conference opponent) as if we had beat them by 30.

You use the "real" definition, where a 1 point win is not a QUALITY win, but just a poor man's win with comments.

So, in NFL terms we have 4 QUALITY wins, 2 that are division, (high quality), 2 that are Conference contenders (quality in that A- they are in conference and B- both would seem to be competitors for a playoff spot). On the other hand 3 of our 4 losses could be considered low quality losses (2 are out of conference and have little bearing on wild card tiebreakers, 1(lions) is in conference but unlikely to be a wild card competitor.) so out of our 4 losses, at this point only one would appear to be a NFL quality loss. That is the Rams, because we could end up losing a tiebreaker for a wild card spot to them.

Obviously, his use of quantity is correct as we would all like a better quantity of wins.

It doesn't matter if it is quality or not. The fact is that we would still be two games behind the leading Giants if they win this week, no first in the division. We would also still probably be behind in the wild card as the NFC South has 3 teams with good winning records that would most likely beat us for a wild card spot.

Quality wins or not, if we don't have enough wins to tie or move in front of other teams for a wild card or division spot, tiebreakers are pointless. You can't use a tiebreaker if there is no tie. Right now we are still playing catch up and the schedule for the redskins in the stretch isn't getting any easier.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by LavaRnChad

Did you see the three or four replays that showed V-Jax and Macklin getting wide open? The commentators were saying how Kolb wasn't even looking downfield to see them because he was too busy with his checkdown reads. Vick would have exploited that. That's what he does.

No one here is propping up Kolb or overestimating his play in that game.

The problem is the bold part. That is speculation, not fact. Vick might have "exploited" our defense. Or he might have thrown three picks. We'll never know.

The one thing that we all know for sure is that it was 14-0 when Vick left.

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by Lotus

We were up 14-0 when Vick left the game. I remain unclear how the Eagles' losing a qb who had led the offense to zero points was a "huge break" for us.

The only relatively objective yardstick for judging the Vick-Eagles vs. the Skins is that 14-0 score. Everything else is just speculation.

I grant that Vick is having a great year. But some folks here are turning Vick into a superman which Vick is not.

You say we were winning 14-0 like we had them beat already. What happened with the Texans? Up 20-7 and lose the game. The Rams lit us up at the beginning of the game when we played them and we could have come back but didn't. Just because teams jump out to early leads in no way means they are going to win. Not in today's NFL.

Especially with Vick who is a dual threat through the air and on the ground. He is so hard to contain. I would consider it a huge break when you take that off the field in favor of a young QB with limited experience who is not a dual threat like Vick. No, Vick is not piling up Philip River number at QB but gaudy passing yards and lots of touchdowns doesn't always make you an elite QB.

In Atlanta, Vick did not have a great pass completion percentage at QB. Since his return he has learned how to throw the ball better and has shown he can still run. I am not saying he is the best QB, or "superman" as you put it. But he is definitely playing at an elite status this year with the mvp talk mentioning his name. There is way more to look at than just the "only relatively objective yardstick for judging the Vick-Eagles vs. the Skins is that 14-0 score".

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

It doesn't matter if it is quality or not. The fact is that we would still be two games behind the leading Giants if they win this week, no first in the division. We would also still probably be behind in the wild card as the NFC South has 3 teams with good winning records that would most likely beat us for a wild card spot.

Quality wins or not, if we don't have enough wins to tie or move in front of other teams for a wild card or division spot, tiebreakers are pointless. You can't use a tiebreaker if there is no tie. Right now we are still playing catch up and the schedule for the redskins in the stretch isn't getting any easier.

Thank you, this finishes Ace's point of the Skins having quality, but not quantity of wins.

I agree with you 100%, we need to catch up and win games. I just personally don't care whether we win by 1 or 100. When the final game is played, and the records are compared, points for and against rarely comes into tiebreakers. And certainly phantom points like the drop at the end of the Eagles game don't count ever

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

... There is way more to look at than just the "only relatively objective yardstick for judging the Vick-Eagles vs. the Skins is that 14-0 score".

You are right. The score at the end of the game is far more important.

[JLee9718]

In an early interview today, Nov 12th, Kyle S. stated that the offensive line isn't the problem. Very profound! I'm sorry, my eyes must be going bad when I watch football. I guess I owe both Shanahans an apology because I thought it was the O-Line!

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Lotus

No one here is propping up Kolb or overestimating his play in that game.

The problem is the bold part. That is speculation, not fact. Vick might have "exploited" our defense. Or he might have thrown three picks. We'll never know.

The one thing that we all know for sure is that it was 14-0 when Vick left.

Lotus you gotta remember, Lavar is just doing something called "keeping it real." This is where the Skins have to win by at least 10 in order to call it a win. If not, speculation comes into play and the Skins record may change. SCP and Lavar actually believe the Skins are like 1-7. SCP believes it may even be 1991 as he mentioned in his previous post.

[44ever]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Actually Ace is using correct NFL terminology as opposed to "Real" terminology.

See, the NFL counts a win (amazingly) as a WIN for tiebreakers and comparisons. SO if we beat the Eagles by 1 we get the same QUALITY win (since it is division and conference opponent) as if we had beat them by 30.

You use the "real" definition, where a 1 point win is not a QUALITY win, but just a poor man's win with comments.

So, in NFL terms we have 4 QUALITY wins, 2 that are division, (high quality), 2 that are Conference contenders (quality in that A- they are in conference and B- both would seem to be competitors for a playoff spot). On the other hand 3 of our 4 losses could be considered low quality losses (2 are out of conference and have little bearing on wild card tiebreakers, 1(lions) is in conference but unlikely to be a wild card competitor.) so out of our 4 losses, at this point only one would appear to be a NFL quality loss. That is the Rams, because we could end up losing a tiebreaker for a wild card spot to them.

Obviously, his use of quantity is correct as we would all like a better quantity of wins.

Fair enough but:

If I took a poll I bet most people would pick the Giants to win their next game no matter who they would be playing. Why because they win with authority. That is also why they will win the Division. I'll take "real" quality wins over "NFL" quality wins any day!

And thats my point. I was not discrediting Ace, I was pointing out that with "real" quality, you don't need anything else.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 44ever

Fair enough but:

If I took a poll I bet most people would pick the Giants to win their next game no matter who they would be playing. Why because they win with authority. That is also why they will win the Division. I'll take "real" quality wins over "NFL" quality wins any day!

And thats my point. I was not discrediting Ace, I was pointing out that with "real" quality, you don't need anything else.

I get what you are saying. But the Giants have an established coach and qb and oline. We are 8 games separated from a dysfunctional team. Changes take time and take patience and resolve. I will take a team that fights to the last second over what we saw last year and I will give kudos to a management team that is desperately trying to change a decade of dysfunction. That doesn't imply any acceptance of this team as being in its final state.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Quoting myself here, but good response by Rick Reilly

Redskins coach Mike Shanahan a racist? Rick Reilly says 'No way.' - ESPN

............OMG, Shannys plan is an ALL WHITE team??
Man, we are so done

Feinstein, what an asshole. You should not have to justify yourself to a Dick like that. In a perfect world you would be able to go over to his place, take him outside and throw him around the parking lot for a while.

[skinsfaninok]

I think some of you guys really underestimate Mike Shanahan and McNabb sometimes.
You would think how many times 5 kicked our asses especially on MNF, that you would have more faith. Philly is a top 10 team but yet we did BEAT them remember? So what makes this so different? Don't tell me Vick bcuz he played for the whole 1st Qtr and we were up 2 scores.