THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS WILL BEAT COLTS!!!!!!!!!!
James Sites
The Redskins are for real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My Prediction
Redskins 27
Colts 13
WHo Agrees or Disagrees?
Lee Perlman
I sure hope you're right, but the Skins haven't been tested too much
yet. I agree with caution.
Jonathan C. Enslin
James Sites <montan...@mcn.net> wrote:
>The Redskins are for real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>My Prediction
>Redskins 27
>Colts 13
>WHo Agrees or Disagrees?
An even better question: Who cares?
Jon
Jim Henley
In <54mb00$j...@news.mcn.net>, James Sites <montan...@mcn.net> writes:
>The Redskins are for real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>My Prediction
>Redskins 27
>Colts 13
>WHo Agrees or Disagrees?
Not me. Meaning I don't agree _or_ disagree. For the first time all year though
I am not writing the game off. The Colts have got to start pass-blocking better
or their season is going into the pooper. I'll be in the stands for it, whatever
happens, but since they are end zone seats, someone else will have to tell
me what happened.
Best,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Henley jhe...@cais.com
"The core question, "Who am I?," has been reduced by modern
psychotherapy to "How did I get this way?" --Elizabeth Loftus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahti Eric Rovainen
Jay Hatkow (USFM...@IBMMAIL.COM) wrote:
[snip]
: Record 6-1
: Scrub Teams = 5
: Good Teams = 2
:
: This looks alot like St Louis' schedule looked like last year. Washington
: has 5 good teams to play out of its next 6 games, this will be the big
The Rams started out at Green Bay, had easy games against the Aints and
Panthers, played a hot Bears team, lost a close one at Indy, and played
the Falcons (good at the time) and Niners in their first 7 games. They
went 5-2 because of turnovers, not ease of schedule.
Now the Rams suck, which means:
The fact that the Skins only beat the Rams by 7 this year and might
have lost that one if Steve Walsh hadn't thrown a terrible INT deep
in Redskin territory in the 4th quarter is strong evidence the Skins
may not be as good as their record. You're right, the Skins haven't
proven much yet. OTOH, the NFCE** (what are the last 2 letters in
the acronym for NFC East chauvinists?) are correct that the NFC East
is once again the toughest division.
Jay Hatkow
Lee Perlman wrote:
>
> I sure hope you're right, but the Skins haven't been tested too much
> yet. I agree with caution.
> James Sites <montan...@mcn.net> wrote:
>
> >My Prediction
> >Redskins 27
> >Colts 13
> >WHo Agrees or Disagrees?
I do not agree that the Skins will beat the Colts. The Colts are all
banged up right now, but should still beat a team that has played a ver
weak schedule. Lets look at who the Skins have played:
14 Philedelphia 17 = loss
10 Chicago 3 = win
31 at Giants 10 = win
17 at St Louis 10 = win
31 Jets 16 = win
27 at N.E. 22 = win
31 Ginats 21 = win
Record 6-1
Scrub Teams = 5
Good Teams = 2
This looks alot like St Louis' schedule looked like last year. Washington
has 5 good teams to play out of its next 6 games, this will be the big
test for thias SMALL team (they play - Indy, Philly, buffalo, SanFran,
and Dallas).
Just my oppinion - any comments are welcome.
Jay Hatkow
SeanA
James Sites wrote:
>
> The Redskins are for real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> My Prediction
> Redskins 27
> Colts 13
> WHo Agrees or Disagrees?
Disagree...Colts 17 Skins 14.
Sean
Gregory Susemichel
On 24 Oct 1996, Jim Henley wrote:
> In <54mb00$j...@news.mcn.net>, James Sites <montan...@mcn.net> writes:
> >The Redskins are for real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >My Prediction
> >Redskins 27
> >Colts 13
> >WHo Agrees or Disagrees?
>
>
I would tend to disagree, partner.
The Skins will get respect when they beat a quality opponent. Say all
you want about the Colts, but I guarantee you, if they'd been healhty at
all this season, they'd be alot better than 5-2. The only reason it will
be a game is because the Colts are so banged up. Even still: Colts 24
Skins 10.
-Suse
Gregory Susemichel
On 24 Oct 1996, Jonathan C. Enslin wrote:
> James Sites <montan...@mcn.net> wrote:
> >The Redskins are for real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >My Prediction
> >Redskins 27
> >Colts 13
> >WHo Agrees or Disagrees?
>
> An even better question: Who cares?
>
> Jon
>
>
>
As I recall, that was the same phrase muttered when the Colts made the
playoffs last season.
Suse
Adam
SeanA (sast...@escape.ca) wrote:
: James Sites wrote:
: > The Redskins are for real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
: > My Prediction
: > Redskins 27
: > Colts 13
: > WHo Agrees or Disagrees?
I also disagree....Colts 24, Skins 16
: Sean
-Adam
The truth is rarely pure, and never simple
-Oscar Wilde
The Importance of Being Earnest
Jim Henley
In <54o1sp$6...@news.inc.net>, "Jonathan C. Enslin" <ens...@uwwvax.uww.edu> writes:
>James Sites <montan...@mcn.net> wrote:
>>The Redskins are for real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>My Prediction
>>Redskins 27
>>Colts 13
>>WHo Agrees or Disagrees?
Skins fans, Colts fans, Bills fans, Cowboys fans, Patriot fans, Eagle fans,
just about any fan of any AFC or NFC East team, plus fans of NFC teams
in the wild card hunt generally and fans of the top-tier AFC teams (Steelers,
Broncos, Chiefs, Bills) wondering if Indy has hit a rough patch or is going
into a tailspin, maybe just about everyone but a few provincial midwestern
snots -- I haven't done an exhaustive survey. Why don't you go back to
whining about Don Beebe vs. Jerry Rice if you're not interested in the
topic at hand?
Adam
Adam (adme...@gate.net) wrote:
: SeanA (sast...@escape.ca) wrote:
: : James Sites wrote:
: : > The Redskins are for real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
: : > My Prediction
: : > Redskins 27
: : > Colts 13
: : > WHo Agrees or Disagrees?
: I also disagree....Colts 24, Skins 16
*Sheepishly* Whoops! Guess I got that one wrong :).
: : Sean
Richard W Powell
Gregory Susemichel wrote:
> > >The Redskins are for real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> playoffs last season.
Same thing people said back in '81:
"They won again? Big deal, they
haven't played anyone. Who do they have?!
Who's their QB? Montana Who? Why isn't the
other guy still starting? Who cares anyway...
Satish Nair
In article <3274C25B...@kodak.com>
>
>Same thing people said back in '81:
>
> "They won again? Big deal, they
> haven't played anyone. Who do they have?!
> Who's their QB? Montana Who? Why isn't the
> other guy still starting? Who cares anyway...
At least they had the second best defense in the NFL not the
dead-last ranked unit fielded by the Skins. Anyway, let's
wait until they play Dallas (2), Niners, Buffalo and Philly
before you get out of hand with this... yeah, Montana, sure.
Jim Henley
In <552gj1$6...@netnews.upenn.edu>, sat...@a.chem.upenn.edu (Satish Nair) writes:
>At least they had the second best defense in the NFL not the
>dead-last ranked unit fielded by the Skins. Anyway, let's
>wait until they play Dallas (2), Niners, Buffalo and Philly
>before you get out of hand with this... yeah, Montana, sure.
Yet another naive person who mistakes an arbitrary decision by the NFL --
to publish a ranking of teams by yards gained and given up -- with an
absolute universal measure of worth.
I invite you to check the Skins defensive rankings on the following measures:
*Net Points/Game
*Opponent Aggregate QB rating
*Red zone TD percentage
Then we'll talk.
Besides, if the Skins beat Dallas, Buffalo, San Francisco and/or Philly all of a
sudden they won't be good teams any more and the Skins will still suck. Wash
has beaten New England (5-3) and Indy (5-3), but once they lost to the Skins
they became "bad teams" -- on Usenet anyway. Of course, before they lost
they were going to be "the first _good_ team" to play the Skins and we'll see
how you etc.
Granted the Redskins beat the Giants twice and the Giants suck -- just ask
Detroit or Minnesota in the oh-so-tough NFCC how bad the Giants suck.
If I feel sorry for anyone, it's the fans of Buffalo, Dallas, San Francisco and
Philadelphia. If, god forbid, their teams should lose to the Redskins, it will be
discovered retroactively that their teams aren't any good. Oh the Humanity.
Jim Henley
In <Pine.SOL.3.91.961025...@expert.cc.purdue.edu>, Gregory Susemichel <suse...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> writes:
>I would tend to disagree, partner.
>The Skins will get respect when they beat a quality opponent. Say all
>you want about the Colts, but I guarantee you, if they'd been healhty at
>all this season, they'd be alot better than 5-2. The only reason it will
>be a game is because the Colts are so banged up. Even still: Colts 24 Skins 10.
Gee, it made sense the way you explained it.
Could you go through that one more time for me?