or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › The Redskins Rule
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Redskins Rule

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
Let's see if it holds up, it predicted Kerry, and Weekly Reader predicted bush so...
post #2 of 10
But what's it mean when the Skins lost only after losing a touchdown in a controversial call? One can only hope that it doesn't mean the election gets lawyered to death.
post #3 of 10
Thread Starter 
I don't think the call was controversial at all, Thrash needed to be moving parallel to the line of scrimmage, or turned and set himself for 1 full second, and he did neither, he was moving parallel, turned, and was set for less than 1 second. That's the definition of Illegal motion. It's all loser talk anyways, the Redskins couldn't stop the Packers from going another 70 yards for the score in any case. Maybe they should worry about why their team can't stop the run rather than a stupid penalty.
post #4 of 10
With the salary cap in the NFL, how do the Redskins operate? I'll look at their signings, and it seems that they're trying to run a fantasy league by overpaying for their free agents. Are they trying to be like what the 49ers did, keep on pushing back the contracts untill they implode.
post #5 of 10
Quote:
With the salary cap in the NFL, how do the Redskins operate? I'll look at their signings, and it seems that they're trying to run a fantasy league by overpaying for their free agents. Are they trying to be like what the 49ers did, keep on pushing back the contracts untill they implode.
The thinking is that Gibbs is not going to coach for more than five years anyways, so you might as well stock the cupboard now.  Not a bad idea -- I'd rather win a Super Bowl before stinking than be consistently mediocre or good enough to make the playoffs but not good enough to advance anywhere. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the plan is working out . . .
post #6 of 10
Haha, I thought this thread was posted by the Redskins' #1 Fan.
post #7 of 10
Thread Starter 
Nah the redskins suck, the portis trade was terrible and the brunell trade was worse... their best QB is sitting on the bench and their offensive scheme could have been cooked up by anyone... ugh their games are so ugly to watch.
post #8 of 10
Quote:
Nah the redskins suck, the portis trade was terrible and the brunell trade was worse... their best QB is sitting on the bench and their offensive scheme could have been cooked up by anyone... ugh their games are so ugly to watch.
I disagree with your assessment of the Portis trade.  First, Champ Bailey wouldn't re-sign, so the Redskins had to find a way to get value in exchange for him.  Second, the worth of a so-called "shutdown" cornerback is greatly overrated.  I would rather have a top-5 running back who will 25-30 touches a game than a top-5 cornerback who is only involved in the action when the ball is thrown his way. The offense went to pot when starting RT Jon Jansen was lost for the season.
post #9 of 10
Thread Starter 
The Redskins could have signed Champ Bailey with the money they paid Portis and Brunell. Then they could have traded the 2nd round pick and something else to move up to 19 or so and pick up Steven Jackson in the draft, who is a better back than Portis IMO.
post #10 of 10
Quote:
Let's see if it holds up, it predicted Kerry, and Weekly Reader predicted bush so...
The election proved that the illegal motion call was completely bogus . . .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › The Redskins Rule