Where are the Warpathers Who Predicted a 10-6 Record?

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 12-31-2004, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

We were in every game this year and except for a couple of games, a couple of penalties or plays would have changed the outcome of the game and we would be going to the playoffs. Even with the season going badly, I think that I feel better about the Skins than I have in a while.

So if we were just a few plays away from a completely different record, is it wise to dismantle the offense?

sportscurmudgeon · 12-31-2004, 03:12 PM

Ramseyfan:

Tony Kornheiser had it right when he wrote about how silly it was for Skins' fans to delude themselves into believing that the offense was just ever so short of being able to have this team in the playoffs. As he said, "if the Skins had scored 20 point per game..." is like saying " if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle". Then he said the simplest and most profound thing of all:

The Redskins did not score 20 points in any game - save one now - because they weren't able to do it. Not being able to do it means they are not good enough to do it. They were TRYING to score and the defenses they played were able to prevent them from doing it. That means:

The 2004 Washington Redskins' offense is not good enough to be carried forward into 2005. That will give you the same results.

The Ravens won a Super Bowl with a great defense. The Bucs won a Super Bowl with a great defense. The Panthers got to the Super Bowl with a great defense. But all of those teams had offenses that although they were below average, they were still good enough to score sufficient points to be able to utilize the defensive strengths of the team.

The 2004 Washington Redskins' offense played with a defense that was in the top 5 in the league all year long but the offense could not muster enough points to win all the games when the defense held the opponent under 14 points. The word you are looking for to describe such an offesne is:

a. substandard
b. unacceptable
c. insufficient
d. incapable

or my favorite:

e. all of the above

12-31-2004, 03:12 PM	#2
sportscurmudgeon Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,159	Ramseyfan: Tony Kornheiser had it right when he wrote about how silly it was for Skins' fans to delude themselves into believing that the offense was just ever so short of being able to have this team in the playoffs. As he said, "if the Skins had scored 20 point per game..." is like saying " if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle". Then he said the simplest and most profound thing of all: The Redskins did not score 20 points in any game - save one now - because they weren't able to do it. Not being able to do it means they are not good enough to do it. They were TRYING to score and the defenses they played were able to prevent them from doing it. That means: The 2004 Washington Redskins' offense is not good enough to be carried forward into 2005. That will give you the same results. The Ravens won a Super Bowl with a great defense. The Bucs won a Super Bowl with a great defense. The Panthers got to the Super Bowl with a great defense. But all of those teams had offenses that although they were below average, they were still good enough to score sufficient points to be able to utilize the defensive strengths of the team. The 2004 Washington Redskins' offense played with a defense that was in the top 5 in the league all year long but the offense could not muster enough points to win all the games when the defense held the opponent under 14 points. The word you are looking for to describe such an offesne is: a. substandard b. unacceptable c. insufficient d. incapable or my favorite: e. all of the above __________________ The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

Where are the Warpathers Who Predicted a 10-6 Record?

Locker Room Main Forum