Portis26 0 Posted April 6, 2006 Sept. 11 Minnesota Vikings 7 p.m. ET Sept. 17 @ Dallas Cowboys 8:15 p.m. ET -- deja vu Cowboy fans Sept. 24 @ Houston Texans 1 p.m. ET ---> Would like to win all 3 - but obviously the Cowboy game is going to be tough Oct. 1 Jacksonville Jaguars 4:15 p.m. ET Oct. 8 @ New York Giants 1 p.m. ET Oct. 15 Tennessee Titans 1 p.m. ET Oct. 22 @ Indianapolis Colts 4:15 p.m. ET Oct. 29 BYE --- ---> Jags, then Giants -- then endng the month in Indy -- WHOA -- its aint gonna be easy TOUGH 6 games afer Bye - Skins MUST get out of the box FAST Nov. 5 Dallas Cowboys 1 p.m. ET Nov. 12 @ Philadelphia Eagles 1 p.m. ET Nov. 19 @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1 p.m. ET Nov. 26 Carolina Panthers 1 p.m. ET ---> November WILL be the make or break month -- OUCH Dec. 3 Atlanta Falcons 1 p.m. ET Dec. 10 Philadelphia Eagles 1 p.m. ET Dec. 17 @ New Orleans Saints 1 p.m. ET Dec. 24 @ St. Louis Rams 1 p.m. ET Dec. 30 New York Giants 8 p.m. ---> tough last month -- should be able to finish strong!! Skins - go to Tampa AGAIN - and go to St Louis AGAIN -- that' s BS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ArnieBragg 1 Posted April 7, 2006 Well we better start out 6-0. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waterwolves 0 Posted April 7, 2006 Yeah why the hell did we play the Bronco's in Denver twice in a row too. Whats up with that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hog Chow 0 Posted April 7, 2006 We have got to take care of business against Minnesota, Houston and Jax. Going to Dallas and New York will not be a walk in the park. With that brutal mid-season stretch, we had better be 4-1 coming out of those first 5 weeks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Portis26 0 Posted April 7, 2006 We have got to take care of business against Minnesota, Houston and Jax. Going to Dallas and New York will not be a walk in the park. With that brutal mid-season stretch, we had better be 4-1 coming out of those first 5 weeks. the 6 Divisional games ARE NEVER easy... + Jag, Colts, Panthers, Bucs, even Holanta will also be tough games - Skins need to be over .500 going into the bye week Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted April 7, 2006 I completely disagree. When you take the opponents that the Skins were given, you almost could not ask for a better layout. Start with 3 very winnable home games and a gimme road game and the Skins are 4-2 worst case. Mid season bye. Late season 3 game home stand. 2 home division opponents in December, including home finale against the toughest division opponent. 2 late road games against fairly easy teams in Domes. This thing sets up perfectly. Dallas on the other hand got hosed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Byars41 0 Posted April 7, 2006 Eagles got hosed. talk about a tough schedule, look at the their last 6 games... Sun., Nov. 26 @ Indy 1 p.m. Mon., Dec. 4 Carolina 8:30 p.m. Sun., Dec. 10 @ Washington 1 p.m. Sun., Dec. 17 @ Giants 1 p.m. Mon., Dec. 25 @ Dallas 5 p.m. Sun., Dec. 31 Atlanta 1 p.m. Indy and Carolina are probably the two SB favorites and all 3 of the division games are road games. thats terrible. they should have at least switched it so one of those division games was the home game. Eagles definetly need a fast start. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted April 7, 2006 Eagles got hosed. talk about a tough schedule, look at the their last 6 games... Goodness, that is without a doubt the most brutal stretch I've see! Amended to say Eagles & Dallas got hosed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Byars41 0 Posted April 7, 2006 Goodness, that is without a doubt the most brutal stretch I've see! Amended to say Eagles & Dallas got hosed. yeah the road trip is killer. i know we have to play all these teams but they shouldn't have lumped them al together and given them 3 straight road games within the division. its ridiculous Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Portis26 0 Posted April 7, 2006 I completely disagree. When you take the opponents that the Skins were given, you almost could not ask for a better layout. Start with 3 very winnable home games and a gimme road game and the Skins are 4-2 worst case. Mid season bye. Late season 3 game home stand. 2 home division opponents in December, including home finale against the toughest division opponent. 2 late road games against fairly easy teams in Domes. This thing sets up perfectly. Dallas on the other hand got hosed. I love your thoughts!! I have now look at it differently Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dcOne 2 Posted April 7, 2006 Glancing at the Redskins schedule, they have: 2 incredibly tough, basically non-winnable games 4 moderately tough games 7 toss-up games 3 games they should definitely win Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Raider 84 29 Posted April 7, 2006 They should have a 9-7 season. I can't see them doing much better. Sorry Skin fans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Portis26 0 Posted April 7, 2006 Glancing at the Redskins schedule, they have: 2 incredibly tough, basically non-winnable games 4 moderately tough games 7 toss-up games 3 games they should definitely win non-winable games?? please elaborate? 6 divisional games.. they are ALWAYS toss ups... 2 Giants 2 Dallas 2 Eagles Games we SHOULD win Sept. 11 Minnesota Vikings 7 p.m. ET Sept. 24 @ Houston Texans 1 p.m. ET Oct. 15 Tennessee Titans 1 p.m. ET Dec. 17 @ New Orleans Saints 1 p.m. ET Dec. 24 @ St. Louis Rams 1 p.m. Dec. 3 Atlanta Falcons 1 p.m. ET 4 games that will be EXTREMELY tough but all winnable of course Oct. 1 Jacksonville Jaguars 4:15 p.m. ET Oct. 22 @ Indianapolis Colts 4:15 p.m. ET Nov. 19 @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1 p.m. ET Nov. 26 Carolina Panthers 1 p.m. ET to say ANY game is NON winnable is just absurd and stupid... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Little Big Head 6 Posted April 7, 2006 non-winable games??please elaborate? 6 divisional games.. they are ALWAYS toss ups...I see them going 500 in the division 2 Giants 2 Dallas 2 Eagles Games we SHOULD win I think they lose to Atlanta Sept. 11 Minnesota Vikings 7 p.m. ET Sept. 24 @ Houston Texans 1 p.m. ET Oct. 15 Tennessee Titans 1 p.m. ET Dec. 17 @ New Orleans Saints 1 p.m. ET Dec. 24 @ St. Louis Rams 1 p.m. Dec. 3 Atlanta Falcons 1 p.m. ET 4 games that will be EXTREMELY tough but all winnable of course I think they beat Jax Oct. 1 Jacksonville Jaguars 4:15 p.m. ET Oct. 22 @ Indianapolis Colts 4:15 p.m. ET Nov. 19 @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1 p.m. ET Nov. 26 Carolina Panthers 1 p.m. ET to say ANY game is NON winnable is just absurd and stupid... I project a 9-7 record Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Portis26 0 Posted April 7, 2006 I project a 9-7 record Atlanta may have a better defense, but their offense won't be much of a threat to the Skins D - IMO but i like your thoughts... plus i am hoping for AT LEAST a 4-2 divsion record possibly beating the Iggles twice... they were 5-1 last season Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest stevejohnson Posted April 7, 2006 10-6 will win the NFC East this year. If Bledsoe stays healthy, the Cowboys are the team to beat, followed by the Eagles (Looking at about 9-7 at this point, could change if they bring in J. Walker and some help on the DL), Redskins (8-8 at best, still no legit QB on the roster).....The Gaints are the wild card here. They shored up the secondary and if Manning can ake the next step, they could surprise everybody. NFC East 2006 Cowboys 10-6 Eagles 9-7 Gaints 9-7 Redskins 8-8 non-winable games??please elaborate? 6 divisional games.. they are ALWAYS toss ups... 2 Giants 2 Dallas 2 Eagles Games we SHOULD win Sept. 11 Minnesota Vikings 7 p.m. ET Sept. 24 @ Houston Texans 1 p.m. ET Oct. 15 Tennessee Titans 1 p.m. ET Dec. 17 @ New Orleans Saints 1 p.m. ET Dec. 24 @ St. Louis Rams 1 p.m. Dec. 3 Atlanta Falcons 1 p.m. ET 4 games that will be EXTREMELY tough but all winnable of course Oct. 1 Jacksonville Jaguars 4:15 p.m. ET Oct. 22 @ Indianapolis Colts 4:15 p.m. ET Nov. 19 @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1 p.m. ET Nov. 26 Carolina Panthers 1 p.m. ET to say ANY game is NON winnable is just absurd and stupid... "to say ANY game is NON winnable is just absurd and stupid..." -Is that another one of your "facts"? Stop being a homer and start keeping it real! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Portis26 0 Posted April 7, 2006 10-6 will win the NFC East this year. If Bledsoe stays healthy, the Cowboys are the team to beat, followed by the Eagles (Looking at about 9-7 at this point, could change if they bring in J. Walker and some help on the DL), Redskins (8-8 at best, still no legit QB on the roster).....The Gaints are the wild card here. They shored up the secondary and if Manning can ake the next step, they could surprise everybody. NFC East 2006 Cowboys 10-6 Eagles 9-7 Gaints 9-7 Redskins 8-8 Brunell had his best statistical season last year - and they added weapons, so the no legit QB is (IMO) just fishing for a reason/excuse- The History of the Skins have NEVER been about the QB position; Theisman, Williams, and Rypien were all average QBs at best. As for your iggles - They will look like SB contenders til the holidays. The November 26th game at Indianapolis will be the first of six consecutive defeats and a stay at home at 8-8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest stevejohnson Posted April 7, 2006 Brunell had his best statistical season last year - and they added weapons, so the no legit QB is (IMO) just fishing for a reason/excuse- The History of the Skins have NEVER been about the QB position; Theisman, Williams, and Rypien were all average QBs at best. As for your iggles - They will look like SB contenders til the holidays. The November 26th game at Indianapolis will be the first of six consecutive defeats and a stay at home at 8-8 Yeah, Brunell really looked great the last month of the season last year....those 84 yards passing against Tampa in the playoffs were outstanding! Brunell had a nice FANTASY football season by racking up stats against sub par defenses early in the schedule. He also benefited from a lot of 4 yards passes tha Moss broke for big gains. From December on, once Moss wasn't taking people by surprise any more, they won in spite of Brunell, not because of him.....Brunell is by far the worst QB in the division and now that he is a year older, I would be surprised if he even finishes the season! If this Campbell kid isn't the real deal, the Redskins are in big trouble, not just next year but for a while! Go ahead and dig up some box scores to try to "prove me wrong" but REAL football isn't always about stats and anyone that played the game past pop warner knows that! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted April 7, 2006 Can you quit with the "keep it real" crap. You say for others to stop being homers...but that is all you do. Talk up the Eagles...and bash the redskins and a few posters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted April 7, 2006 Go ahead and dig up some box scores to try to "prove me wrong" but REAL football isn't always about stats and anyone that played the game past pop warner knows that! It's about winning and Brunnell did just that last year. All your arguments are really worthless, the Skins were good last year the Eagles sucked, I see no logical reason why that should not continue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest stevejohnson Posted April 7, 2006 Can you quit with the "keep it real" crap. You say for others to stop being homers...but that is all you do. Talk up the Eagles...and bash the redskins and a few posters. Clearly you haven't read my post. I don't "talk up the Eagles".....I have questioned their off season moves thus far and am the first on to jump on McNabb for his preceived lack of menatl toughness at times. In fact several Eagles fans (Homer in particular) have called me out for being too tough on them! Some free advice: Try reading a few post about the person you are attacking before making a jerk of your self. It's about winning and Brunnell did just that last year. All your arguments are really worthless, the Skins were good last year the Eagles sucked, I see no logical reason why that should not continue. The Eagles lost 7 starters to injury or suspension last season while the Redskins had no big injures and several guys have career years that they will be hard pressed to repeat (Brunell, Moss come to mind right away). 8-8 in 2006, Gibbs back to NASCAR and Williams taking over in 2007 in a rebuilding mode with Campbell......Believe it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Portis26 0 Posted April 7, 2006 Yeah, Brunell really looked great the last month of the season last year....those 84 yards passing against Tampa in the playoffs were outstanding! Brunell had a nice FANTASY football season by racking up stats against sub par defenses early in the schedule. He also benefited from a lot of 4 yards passes tha Moss broke for big gains. From December on, once Moss wasn't taking people by surprise any more, they won in spite of Brunell, not because of him.....Brunell is by far the worst QB in the division and now that he is a year older, I would be surprised if he even finishes the season! If this Campbell kid isn't the real deal, the Redskins are in big trouble, not just next year but for a while! Go ahead and dig up some box scores to try to "prove me wrong" but REAL football isn't always about stats and anyone that played the game past pop warner knows that! He won 10 games last year as the starter with minimal weapons outside of Moss and Portis (Cooley) add in El and Lloyd and he is more productive. I rather have Brunell then Bledsoe - more agilie, and WON't make the stupid throws -- like Bledsoe did in numerous games last year... yea the 84 yards wasn't eye popping at all... Tampa played well and they were up early, he didn't need to throw the ball most of the game -- and yes he did threw a INT late - but he rarely does that --- so the game dictated his passing yards -- but like you said --- REAL football isn't always about stats and anyone that played the game past pop warner knows that! THEY WON THE GAME DIDN'T THEY?? - so once again Mr Johnson your arguement ends up with your foot in your mouth - it's ok to say he had only 84 yards and he sucks, but then you say REAL football isn't about stats?? Your a total contradiction - but me and the board members here have come to expect that from you ask Dallas fans if Brunell can toss the long ball! P.S. Do you homework - Skins loss Randy Thomas last year with a broken leg --- u said ---> Redskins had no big injures Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted April 7, 2006 Clearly you haven't read my post. I don't "talk up the Eagles".....I have questioned their off season moves thus far and am the first on to jump on McNabb for his preceived lack of menatl toughness at times. In fact several Eagles fans (Homer in particular) have called me out for being too tough on them! Some free advice: Try reading a few post about the person you are attacking before making a jerk of your self. Talk up might not be the right word...however....my post was not an attack perse...it was quite tame. But your keep it real line...is idiotic at this point...why don't you go back to rhyming with hero/zero (yes, I have read your idiotic posts). Fact remains that you have done little more than bash anything redskin on this board...no matter what is even said. The Eagles are not favored over the Redskins this year...probably should be considered the bottom of that division as of right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest stevejohnson Posted April 7, 2006 He won 10 games last year as the starter with minimal weapons outside of Moss and Portis (Cooley) add in El and Lloyd and he is more productive. I rather have Brunell then Bledsoe - more agilie, and WON't make the stupid throws -- like Bledsoe did in numerous games last year... yea the 84 yards wasn't eye popping at all... Tampa played well and they were up early, he didn't need to throw the ball most of the game -- and yes he did threw a INT late - but he rarely does that --- so the game dictated his passing yards -- but like you said --- REAL football isn't always about stats and anyone that played the game past pop warner knows that! THEY WON THE GAME DIDN'T THEY?? - so once again Mr Johnson your arguement ends up with your foot in your mouth - it's ok to say he had only 84 yards and he sucks, but then you say REAL football isn't about stats?? Your a total contradiction - but me and the board members here have come to expect that from you ask Dallas fans if Brunell can toss the long ball! What? They won at Tampa IN SPITE OF BRUNELL, I clearly said that. This arguement is a waste of time. Until they start actually playing, it's all just homer based opinions..... I wish you and the Skins lots of luck! Talk up might not be the right word...however....my post was not an attack perse...it was quite tame. But your keep it real line...is idiotic at this point...why don't you go back to rhyming with hero/zero (yes, I have read your idiotic posts). Fact remains that you have done little more than bash anything redskin on this board...no matter what is even said. The Eagles are not favored over the Redskins this year...probably should be considered the bottom of that division as of right now. "The Eagles are not favored over the Redskins this year"- Have you seen www.sportsline.com recently? Once again you make a jerk of yourself. Like I told Portis26, best of luck with your Skins! Peace...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Portis26 0 Posted April 7, 2006 What? They won at Tampa IN SPITE OF BRUNELL, I clearly said that. This arguement is a waste of time. Until they start actually playing, it's all just homer based opinions..... I wish you and the Skins lots of luck! That foot in your mouth has GOT to hurt They won that game BECAUSE Brunell didnt do anything stupid - he didn't need to throw the ball - he moved the chains and won the field postion battle - someone once said --> REAL football isn't always about stats and anyone that played the game past pop warner knows that There goes that foot in your mouth again Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted April 7, 2006 "The Eagles are not favored over the Redskins this year"- Have you seen www.sportsline.com recently? Once again you make a jerk of yourself. Like I told Portis26, best of luck with your Skins! Peace...... Sportsline is the be all end all for rankings now? An April power ranking is meaningful? Once again, you show how much of a fool you are and your inability to civilly discuss things on this board. My skins? And you want to say I need to read up on some posts? I am not a Redskins fan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted April 7, 2006 The Eagles lost 7 starters to injury or suspension last season while the Redskins had no big injures and several guys have career years that they will be hard pressed to repeat Wrong again. Skins lost Randy Thomas for the season, and did not start and play all their starting secondary for the second half of the season. It's called depth, something good teams have. As for career years, you are talking only about Moss and unless you can see the future he might just have established himself as a receiver stud. Speaking of receivers who is in Philly this year. This ain't 2002 anymore, the NFC has changed, except for 1 team. You can justify 6-10 but I certainly don't see much improvement, and the Eagles schedule is murder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest stevejohnson Posted April 7, 2006 Sportsline is the be all end all for rankings now? An April power ranking is meaningful? Once again, you show how much of a fool you are and your inability to civilly discuss things on this board. My skins? And you want to say I need to read up on some posts? I am not a Redskins fan. YOU, not me be brought up "rankings". I simply pointed out that one of the most popular football websites in the country has the Eagles over the Skins. I personally could care less about "rankings" but why bring that up when it isn't true? You are a complete DOPE! At least Portis26 brings some decent arguements to the table, you on the other hand have been caught in 2 or 3 lies in the last 10 mintues. You have proven to not be worth my time...... Wrong again. Skins lost Randy Thomas for the season, and did not start and play all their starting secondary for the second half of the season. It's called depth, something good teams have. As for career years, you are talking only about Moss and unless you can see the future he might just have established himself as a receiver stud. Speaking of receivers who is in Philly this year. This ain't 2002 anymore, the NFC has changed, except for 1 team. You can justify 6-10 but I certainly don't see much improvement, and the Eagles schedule is murder. Sho Nuff, take some notes, THIS is a good, well thought out comeback/arguement to what I said.......As you see he brought a little more to the table then rankings and "grow up"! I forgot about Thomas and I know Springs missed some games as well. But the Eagles lost their starting QB, RB, C, #1WR, etc....I argee with your point that the Skins did and do have better depth at most positions (except the most important, QB) which is why I am so disappointed in the Eagles off season so far. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted April 7, 2006 YOU, not me be brought up "rankings". I simply pointed out that one of the most popular football websites in the country has the Eagles over the Skins. I personally could care less about "rankings" but why bring that up when it isn't true? You are a complete DOPE! At least Portis26 brings some decent arguements to the table, you on the other hand have been caught in 2 or 3 lies in the last 10 mintues. You have proven to not be worth my time...... Sho Nuff, take some notes, THIS is a good, well thought out comeback/arguement to what I said.......As you see he brought a little more to the table then rankings and "grow up"! I did not bring up "rankings" you did. I brought up that they are not favored over the Redskins. A Power Ranking is not favoring a team over another head to head at this point...and it is in April. Why bring what up? That they are not favored over them...how is it not true? Because one website you cited says so? Please. I am the dope? Because you use the opinion of one website as if it is cold hard facts? You are the dope...you have proven this with every single conversation you have had on this board. 2 or 3 lies in the last 10 minutes? Name one lie? You have no clue what the hell you aretalking about... Of course I am not "worth" your time. Because I will not take your BS or play your little games. Because I call you for what you are. Just "keepin it real". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Little Big Head 6 Posted April 7, 2006 the funny thing is , the Eagles and Redskins could both end up sucking. I think the Giants and Cowboys will have better years Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Portis26 0 Posted April 7, 2006 the funny thing is , the Eagles and Redskins could both end up sucking. I think the Giants and Cowboys will have better years Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest stevejohnson Posted April 7, 2006 I did not bring up "rankings" you did. I brought up that they are not favored over the Redskins. A Power Ranking is not favoring a team over another head to head at this point...and it is in April. Why bring what up? That they are not favored over them...how is it not true? Because one website you cited says so? Please. I am the dope? Because you use the opinion of one website as if it is cold hard facts? You are the dope...you have proven this with every single conversation you have had on this board. 2 or 3 lies in the last 10 minutes? Name one lie? You have no clue what the hell you aretalking about... Of course I am not "worth" your time. Because I will not take your BS or play your little games. Because I call you for what you are. Just "keepin it real". Grow up! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted April 7, 2006 Grow up! In other words...you admit that you are a child incapable of having civil discussion with adults. You make up things like saying that others are lying...sling insults at anyone who wishes to disagree with you.... Thanks...but we already knew that. Funny also that the #2 of your motto describes you perfectly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest stevejohnson Posted April 7, 2006 In other words...you admit that you are a child incapable of having civil discussion with adults. You make up things like saying that others are lying...sling insults at anyone who wishes to disagree with you.... Thanks...but we already knew that. Funny also that the #2 of your motto describes you perfectly. Grow up! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted April 7, 2006 Grow up! So you are a child and unoriginal... From now on...people only need to reply to you with one thing... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest stevejohnson Posted April 7, 2006 So you are a child and unoriginal... From now on...people only need to reply to you with one thing... Grow up Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surferskin 30 Posted April 7, 2006 watch it, sho nuff...stevejohnson has been known to throw down yo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted April 7, 2006 watch it, sho nuff...stevejohnson has been known to throw down yo. racist Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
