October 10, 200521 yr The Giants???? And who have they beaten this year??? Their schedule is weaker then the Panthers pass rush right now Giants have the following: Cowboys [W] Broncos [W] Skins [W] 49ers [W] Vikings [W] They should be 8-1 by the time they play Philly [in the Meadowlands] and their offense should be rolling. We have two games against the Eagles, 1 against Seattle, and 1 against KC. Even if they go 2-2 against these guys and lose a game they should win [probably to the Cowboys], they will roll into the playoffs healthy and with a 12-4 record. FYI - have you seen YOUR schedule? Outside of next week's loss to the Chargers, your schedule is even easier [unless you think Green Bay is better than KC] and you were in the Super Bowl last year...
October 10, 200521 yr The Giants???? And who have they beaten this year??? Their schedule is weaker then the Panthers pass rush right now Giants have the following: Cowboys [W] Broncos [W] Skins [W] 49ers [W] Vikings [W] They should be 8-1 by the time they play Philly [in the Meadowlands] and their offense should be rolling. We have two games against the Eagles, 1 against Seattle, and 1 against KC. Even if they go 2-2 against these guys and lose a game they should win [probably to the Cowboys], they will roll into the playoffs healthy and with a 12-4 record. FYI - have you seen YOUR schedule? Outside of next week's loss to the Chargers, your schedule is even easier [unless you think Green Bay is better than KC] and you were in the Super Bowl last year... woah woah woah...the Cowboys(who just dominated Philly), Broncos(who have played damn good since the Miami fluke/debacle), Skins (An above average team who can pull off a win), Niners(I'll give you that), and Vikings (Who knows what this team will do but if Daunte gets his head on straight and remembers how to play the quarterback position then that game isn't a guarenteed win.) are easy wins? Honestly I expect the Giants to lose at least two of those. I nominate this for homer post of the year
October 10, 200521 yr The Giants???? And who have they beaten this year??? Their schedule is weaker then the Panthers pass rush right now Giants have the following: Cowboys [W] Broncos [W] Skins [W] 49ers [W] Vikings [W] They should be 8-1 by the time they play Philly [in the Meadowlands] and their offense should be rolling. We have two games against the Eagles, 1 against Seattle, and 1 against KC. Even if they go 2-2 against these guys and lose a game they should win [probably to the Cowboys], they will roll into the playoffs healthy and with a 12-4 record. FYI - have you seen YOUR schedule? Outside of next week's loss to the Chargers, your schedule is even easier [unless you think Green Bay is better than KC] and you were in the Super Bowl last year... OK you've been smoking Eli's pubes I'm worried about the upcoming NYG game but I'm not giving the win to you already.
October 10, 200521 yr I nominate this for homer post of the year Washington eeked out a win against a bad Chicago team then got lucky against Dallas [who completely dominated them for 3 and a half quarters of football]. They had a good effort against Seattle - but can't score again against Denver. They are not a team that is as good as their 3-1 record makes them look. They are CERTAINLY not "above average." I think even Dodge would grant me that. The Broncos don't match up well against the Giants. That being said, they were one of the teams I was thinking the GMen could lose to. Depends on how we handle their run blocking. The Cowboys I already said would split with the Giants - though I think they should win both because they can control JJ and would NEVER get smoked by Terry Glenn. I think tonight's game was one of those times when they destroyed a team that should have destroyed them because stuff like this happens in the NFL. The Eagles flat out laid an egg which made the Cowboys look good. Go back to the games they played against Washington, Oakland, and even San Francisco to see the real Cowboys. The Vikings [other than their spanking of NO] and 49ers have just been awful. It's not like we are playing Pittsburgh, NE, Indy, TB, and Atlanta. We already lost to the Chargers. I think these teams, along with Philly, are the real deal. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. In all fairness, I will admit to some level of bias because I have been following them since training camp and know what they are capable of. Also, I never bet on or against the Giants or Jets for reasons that shall remain unsaid.
October 10, 200521 yr Look - you guys can trounce me later in the season if I end up eating my words. I won't be afraid to admit I was wrong IF I end up being wrong...
October 10, 200521 yr I'll give Jacksonville some dap. Their defense and special teams (a blocked punt, ARGH!) killed us today. Gotta' rebound and show Tennessee what we're made of now. Never happy with a loss, but we lost to a good team by 3 on the road without one of our main offensive weapons (T.J. Housmandzadeh), our starting center (Rich Braham), and our best defensive player (Madieu Williams). We hardly played our best game and were still in position to win the thing. And I don't want to make those sound like excuses, we lost, they outplayed us, but I don't walk away from this game thinking any less of the team as a whole. 4-1 and off to Tennessee. Bring 'em on.
October 10, 200521 yr Did Rashean Mathis get the check mark in the "yes" column after knocking the ball out of Chad Johnson's hands or did he decide he just dropped it? :mischief
October 10, 200521 yr Did Rashean Mathis get the check mark in the "yes" column after knocking the ball out of Chad Johnson's hands or did he decide he just dropped it? :mischief Nope, no check mark in the yes column. And the announcers description of how to get a yes was wrong anyway. Chad clearly said when he made the list that the man has to shut him down on his own. "I was double-teamed on every play, he didn't cover me. He had help. No, he didn't cover me. Two guys covered me." - 85 :lol We all know no one is getting a Yes.
October 10, 200521 yr He cracks me up. There are probably 10 WR's in the league better than him - but he is definately among the most entertaining. I'm just glad he isn't in the NFC. I probably wouldn't find him as amusing then... :mischief
October 10, 200521 yr He cracks me up. There are probably 10 WR's in the league better than him - but he is definately among the most entertaining. I'm just glad he isn't in the NFC. I probably wouldn't find him as amusing then... :mischief 10?
October 10, 200521 yr Let's see: TO, both Mosses, Harrison, Holt, Bolden, Fitzgerald, Burress, and Steve Smith I would also throw in Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzalez even though they are tight ends... For that matter I could probably throw in Brian Westbrook - doesn't he only have 1 less receiving TD than Johnson? Point is, he isn't a difference maker. If Philly had gotten Chad Johnson instead of TO, they wouldn't have gone to the Super Bowl last year. I think Moss and TO are probably the only two WR's who are. Again, with all this said, he is still fun to watch...
October 10, 200521 yr Santana Moss is better than Chad Johnson? HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
October 10, 200521 yr Santana Moss is better than Chad Johnson? HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'll go with it :hat
October 10, 200521 yr Did Rashean Mathis get the check mark in the "yes" column after knocking the ball out of Chad Johnson's hands or did he decide he just dropped it? :mischief Nope, no check mark in the yes column. And the announcers description of how to get a yes was wrong anyway. Chad clearly said when he made the list that the man has to shut him down on his own. "I was double-teamed on every play, he didn't cover me. He had help. No, he didn't cover me. Two guys covered me." - 85 :lol We all know no one is getting a Yes. Yea I caught that game last night, the Bengals play pretty well, the Jags just sort of sneaked a win in there at the last second, nice slow comeback, you have to respect their defence though
October 10, 200521 yr Santana Moss is better than Chad Johnson? HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 2005 Stats Santana Moss: 23 rec, 458 yards, 114.5 yards/game Redskins 909 total passing yards Moss = 51% of the passing game Chad Johnson: 31 rec, 426 yards, 85.2 yards/game Bengals 1301 total passing yards Johnson = 33% of the passing game :mischief
October 10, 200521 yr Sure, this year he is. Maybe if Santana had a viable QB for the last few years he'd be in the upper echelon.
October 10, 200521 yr Santana Moss is better than Chad Johnson? HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 2005 Stats Santana Moss: 23 rec, 458 yards, 114.5 yards/game Redskins 909 total passing yards Moss = 51% of the passing game Chad Johnson: 31 rec, 426 yards, 85.2 yards/game Bengals 1301 total passing yards Johnson = 33% of the passing game :mischief Drafted the same year. Chad Johnson: 3 1000+ yd seasons, 2 90+ catch seasons Santana Moss: 1 1000+ yd season, 0 90+ catch seasons All your ridiculous % of offense means is that the Bengals have a more complete offense with more weapons, And the Skins have sh*t at WR outside Moss. And I guarantee the stats will look a lot different once the season is more than a 1/4 completed. Sure, this year he is. Maybe if Santana had a viable QB for the last few years he'd be in the upper echelon. As bad as Chad Pennington is, he IS better than Ramsey/Brunell.
October 10, 200521 yr I'd take Ramsey and Brunell over Pennington any day. Oh and the Redskins have much better than sh*t for WR outside Moss, David Patten and James Thrash are both very capable.
October 11, 200521 yr Tar Heel with the snap, Tar Heel with the kick, game over Costly win for Pittsburgh, since Big Ben's injury looked pretty bad, but a win nonetheless
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.