T1B

What made Terrell Davis special. The yards? The carries?

He could sniff the end zone.

Zone blocking can create a perpetually fantastic running game regardless of the running back who is the beneficiary of said blocking scheme.

Anderson
Bell
Griffin

...the list goes on and on.

But what zone blocking cannot give you is that special quality Davis had.

That special quality he shared with someone.

Congrats, Donk fan. You traded away Portis for Chump Bailey and I will
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA at your bumbling asses for years.

rozy wrote:Congrats, Donk fan. You traded away Portis for Chump Bailey and I will
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA at your bumbling asses for years.

Denver statistically had the fifth best offense overall in the NFL last year, and the fourth best rushing offense overall.

Where was it you feel they were lacking on the offense?

The win column.

atomicdad wrote:The win column.

They made the playoffs.......

Their primary problems are on the defensive side, not offense......

atomicdad wrote:The win column.

Yards do not equal points and wins.

rozy wrote:
Yards do not equal points and wins.

No argument from me on that point.

With that said, Denver's rushing offense didn't seem to suffer with the loss of Portis, so the question remains why do you think it was the "worst trade ever"?

Like I said, Denver's problems were on the defensive side and that started with the pass rush (or lack thereof). With no pressure on the passer, the QB can sit back and shred the Denver pass coverage.

It wouldn't have made any difference as to who was back there--without a consistent pass rush any dback would have been torched......

You really think that's worse than the Hershall Walker trade? The team that traded away Portis still made the playoffs while the team that got him did nothing.

Of course it's a fishing expedition--otherwise why would rozy bring up something that happened two years ago.

But given the theme of the threads in here, why not?

I just can't bear the thought of Paul starting another thread about some insignificant event and how said insignificant event is the one that will turn the Chefs from a band of hapless losers to Super Bowl Champions......

Rushville wrote:You really think that's worse than the Hershall Walker trade? The team that traded away Portis still made the playoffs while the team that got him did nothing.

NO trade will ever be as bad as the Walker trade!

Did nothing? :roll:

Portis only had the third best season performance by a running back in Redskin history.

The Redskins are a playoff team, this year. Bank on it.

Doug near DC wrote:Did nothing? :roll:

Portis only had the third best season performance by a running back in Redskin history.

The Redskins are a playoff team, this year. Bank on it.

Portis' yards per carry sucked (3.8 after averaging 5.5 his first two years in the league) and he only rushed for five touchdowns after rushing for 29 in two seasons with Denver. That son of a bitch better rush for 1,800 this year, average 6.0 yards per carry and punch 25 in the end zone to make up for last year's performance.

Bailey was brought in for the sole purpose of shutting down receivers in the playoffs after 2003's embarrassing loss to the Colts in the first round.

In last January's rematch it was the same story even with Bailey.


Not sure who got the better deal but Portis better have a season like I described.

DamnTheCowboys wrote:Portis better have a season like I described.

Not likely

DallasFanatic wrote:

DamnTheCowboys wrote:Portis better have a season like I described.

Not likely

I'll be happy if Portis has his two best games of the season against Dallas. :P

Funkywhiteboy wrote:

DallasFanatic wrote:

DamnTheCowboys wrote:Portis better have a season like I described.

Not likely

I'll be happy if Portis has his two best games of the season against Dallas. :P

He just might....but they'll still lose both games....

DamnTheCowboys wrote:

Doug near DC wrote:Did nothing? :roll:

Portis only had the third best season performance by a running back in Redskin history.

The Redskins are a playoff team, this year. Bank on it.

Portis' yards per carry sucked (3.8 after averaging 5.5 his first two years in the league) and he only rushed for five touchdowns after rushing for 29 in two seasons with Denver. That son of a bitch better rush for 1,800 this year, average 6.0 yards per carry and punch 25 in the end zone to make up for last year's performance.

Bailey was brought in for the sole purpose of shutting down receivers in the playoffs after 2003's embarrassing loss to the Colts in the first round.

In last January's rematch it was the same story even with Bailey.


Not sure who got the better deal but Portis better have a season like I described.

portis was running behind a horrible line. this years line, if healthy, will be much better as will portis' numbers. the O line is the key to the skins success this year, imo.

G.O. wrote: portis was running behind a horrible line. this years line, if healthy, will be much better as will portis' numbers. the O line is the key to the skins success this year, imo.

Holy shit, where's the SIN, MA behind this post?

The O-Line is always the key to any teams success.

Howz about you explain to me why "if healthy"...(another MA blast if there ever was one) this years line will be much better?

ww- if you followed the skins- which you probably have no reason to- you'd know that their best O lineman, jon jansen, went down in preseason. randy thomas and chris samuels were the only decent linemen left standing. there was a 41 year old ray brown stepping in for jansen and a rookie in the mix. all that and learning a new system under coach bugel that is the opposite of the way spurrier did things....the O line was a mess last season. this is why you had portis struggling to find holes and the QB was getting killed.

when a RB, especially, or a QB looks bad, sometimes its them and sometimes its the O line. last year it was the O line, although brunell was hideous when he was in.

this offseason, the first thing the skins did was get a new center. and jansen is 100%.

so, more so than most other teams, the play of the O line will dictate portis' success and ramseys success. since the O was 31st in the league last year and the D was 3rd people who know nothing about the team automatically said 'gibbs has lost it', and it was implied that portis had lost it, i pointed out that the O line is revamped and the key to the offenses- and thus the teams- success, as opposed to portis', ramseys or any WR's play or any other part of the team.

s'all.

sin,

m. a.

Doug near DC wrote: The Redskins are a playoff team, this year. Bank on it.

I finally found something funnier then your avatar. Thanks.

jiminphilly wrote:

Doug near DC wrote: The Eagles will choke yet again this year. Bank on it.

You are correct. Thanks.

FTFY

seriously- you think the skins wont at least be 3 games better?

G.O. wrote: seriously- you think the skins wont at least be 3 games better?

seriously

DallasFanatic wrote:

G.O. wrote: seriously- you think the skins wont at least be 3 games better?

seriously

i would ask you to explain why, but i'm sure you would regurgitate the same lines that i have already heard- no proven WR's, no proven QB, loss of smoot and pierce....correct?

i would respond with...our WR's last year were garbage, what we have now may not be moss or TO, but they are certainly an improvement...ramsey showed that he can perform with at least adequate blocking and will benefit from WR's that can actually get separation- he will also benefit from a vastly improved line and running game as any QB would...smoot was good, but gibbs drafted a pretty solid young CB in rogers and harris can start if rogers cant, pierce was nobody before he got a chance in williams system- in other words, every defensive player on the team had career years cuz if greg williams -i tend to think the D with arrington, bowen and barrow back and with a year of experience under their belt-- they will be just fine. what did you think the D would do at this time last year? .........exactly.

most of all, joe friggin gibbs is the coach. and he has won a super bowl since parcells last did in case you forgot.

nuff said.

sig bet on skins going at leat 9-6?

G.O. wrote: i would ask you to explain why, but i'm sure you would regurgitate the same lines that i have already heard- no proven WR's, no proven QB, loss of smoot and pierce....correct?

i would respond with...our WR's last year were garbage, what we have now may not be moss or TO, but they are certainly an improvement...ramsey showed that he can perform with at least adequate blocking and will benefit from WR's that can actually get separation- he will also benefit from a vastly improved line and running game as any QB would...smoot was good, but gibbs drafted a pretty solid young CB in rogers and harris can start if rogers cant, pierce was nobody before he got a chance in williams system- in other words, every defensive player on the team had career years cuz if greg williams -i tend to think the D with arrington, bowen and barrow back and with a year of experience under their belt-- they will be just fine. what did you think the D would do at this time last year? .........exactly.

most of all, joe friggin gibbs is the coach. and he has won a super bowl since parcells last did in case you forgot.

nuff said.

sig bet on skins going at leat 9-6?

Greg,

Honestly, your above post is based on total assumptions. Your receivers haven't proven shit, your quarterback hasn't proven shit, and Joe friggin Gibbs didn't prove to be shit last year. If it weren't for Greg Williams than your team would've been absolute horseshit.

I could care less about the history smack gwego. All I care about are two things. Winning the superbowl and having the Boys beat the crap out of the Foreskins twice a year. At least I can give a :D to one of those wishes

Sig bet on the skins going 9-6? Hmmmmmm, you do the math and get back to me on what you were REALLY trying to say.

DallasFanatic wrote:

G.O. wrote: i would ask you to explain why, but i'm sure you would regurgitate the same lines that i have already heard- no proven WR's, no proven QB, loss of smoot and pierce....correct?

i would respond with...our WR's last year were garbage, what we have now may not be moss or TO, but they are certainly an improvement...ramsey showed that he can perform with at least adequate blocking and will benefit from WR's that can actually get separation- he will also benefit from a vastly improved line and running game as any QB would...smoot was good, but gibbs drafted a pretty solid young CB in rogers and harris can start if rogers cant, pierce was nobody before he got a chance in williams system- in other words, every defensive player on the team had career years cuz if greg williams -i tend to think the D with arrington, bowen and barrow back and with a year of experience under their belt-- they will be just fine. what did you think the D would do at this time last year? .........exactly.

most of all, joe friggin gibbs is the coach. and he has won a super bowl since parcells last did in case you forgot.

nuff said.

sig bet on skins going at leat 9-6?

Greg,

Honestly, your above post is based on total assumptions. Your receivers haven't proven shit, your quarterback hasn't proven shit, and Joe friggin Gibbs didn't prove to be shit last year. If it weren't for Greg Williams than your team would've been absolute horseshit.

I could care less about the history smack gwego. All I care about are two things. Winning the superbowl and having the Boys beat the crap out of the Foreskins twice a year. At least I can give a :D to one of those wishes

Sig bet on the skins going 9-6? Hmmmmmm, you do the math and get back to me on what you were REALLY trying to say.

if you think its an assumption that moss and patten and jacobs are better than gardner or coles, so be it. you cant get worse than what those 2 were last year- you should know that. or are you under the assumption that gardner plays like he did vs dallas every week? he doesnt, by the way.

its also hardly an assumption that the o line sucked last year and that there are 2 players this year that will vastly improve it.

same with the D. i think if williams did what he did without 4 starters for all or most of the year, then, yes, i am assuming they can overcome the loss of pierce and smoot.

these are hardly stretches, DF.

so, you say the skins wont go 9-6, but...... wont agree to a sig bet? BWHAHHHHHHHHHAAA!

just keep it shut then if you wont back it up.

Repeat after me dipshit.

9 and 6

9 and 6

Do you get it yet?

DallasFanatic wrote:Repeat after me dipshit.

9 and 6

9 and 6

Do you get it yet?

bwhaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhaaaaaaaa!

ok- you got me.

put it as your sig and i would be honored.

how bout 9-7, then?

G.O. wrote:

DallasFanatic wrote:Repeat after me dipshit.

9 and 6

9 and 6

Do you get it yet?

bwhaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhaaaaaaaa!

ok- you got me.

put it as your sig and i would be honored.

how bout 9-7, then?

For once in your life gwego stand up and have some balls. Call 10-6 and you got yourself a deal.

DallasFanatic wrote:
Joe friggin Gibbs didn't prove to be shit last year.

now, i can't let that go without a comment...c'mon! joe gibbs going 6-10 is an abberation- you know that dont you? hey, i'll even give you that part of the problem was his own doing- that being the decision to bring in brunell. i have no problem calling it like it is. but if you think one losing season under gibbs- his only one in about 13 years of coaching in the NFL as i recall- is any indication of what the future holds, you are beyond help.

you do know that gibbs is in the hall of fame, right? you do know that he won 3 super bowls -while getting the skins to 4- with 3 different QB's?

aw, who am i kidding. that stuff happens all the time. you are right..... gibbs isnt any good. :roll:

of course, you forgot that parcells went 6-10 last year- same record as that bum gibbs.

DallasFanatic wrote:

G.O. wrote:

DallasFanatic wrote:Repeat after me dipshit.

9 and 6

9 and 6

Do you get it yet?

bwhaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhaaaaaaaa!

ok- you got me.

put it as your sig and i would be honored.

how bout 9-7, then?

For once in your life gwego stand up and have some balls. Call 10-6 and you got yourself a deal.

have some balls? WTF??? please continue reading.....

DallasFanatic wrote:

G.O. wrote: seriously- you think the skins wont at least be 3 games better?

seriously

short memory, apparently. either that, or i was right the first time.

G.O. wrote:

DallasFanatic wrote:
Joe friggin Gibbs didn't prove to be shit last year.

now, i can't let that go without a comment...c'mon! joe gibbs going 6-10 is an abberation- you know that dont you? hey, i'll even give you that part of the problem was his own doing- that being the decision to bring in brunell. i have no problem calling it like it is. but if you think one losing season under gibbs- his only one in about 13 years of coaching in the NFL as i recall- is any indication of what the future holds, you are beyond help.

you do know that gibbs is in the hall of fame, right? you do know that he won 3 super bowls -while getting the skins to 4- with 3 different QB's?

aw, who am i kidding. that stuff happens all the time. you are right..... gibbs isnt any good. :roll:

of course, you forgot that parcells went 6-10 last year- same record as that bum gibbs.

Please read my comment again gwego before typing frantically and spitting out your useless Gibbs trivia. GIBBS DIDN"T DO SHIT LAST YEAR. I never said he wasn't a good coach in the 80's, early 90's. Never once did I say that. I honestly believe that Gibbs being away from football is hurting his ability to coach players of this day and age. I'll stand by that comment until he does, plain and simple.

The bottom line is, Parcells nor Gibbs did shit last year. However Parcells did enough to beat Gibbs twice and that my bitch, is bode.

I am smart enough in math to know a 3 game turnaround from 6-10 is 9-7. What I was getting at is that you were barfing up takes about the Skins going 9-6. Well if you think they'll only lose 6 times than why not HAVE SOME FUCKING BALLS and predict 10-6? It's the same amount of losses right? Or are you not that confident?

DallasFanatic wrote:I am smart enough in math to know a 3 game turnaround from 6-10 is 9-7. What I was getting at is that you were barfing up takes about the Skins going 9-6. Well if you think they'll only lose 6 times than why not HAVE SOME FUCKING BALLS and predict 10-6? It's the same amount of losses right? Or are you not that confident?

backtrack much? i posted exactly what you said- you said the skins wouldnt win at least 3 more games, which puts them at 9-7....what part of that didn't you get? have some fucking balls?? you gotta be kidding me with this crap??? you, sir are the ball-less turd who said they wouldnt win 3 more games than last year and its right in front of God and everybody that you said it. you get some balls and put your sig where your mouth is, freak.

G.O. wrote: backtrack much? i posted exactly what you said- you said the skins wouldnt win at least 3 more games, which puts them at 9-7....what part of that didn't you get? have some fucking balls?? you gotta be kidding me with this crap??? you, sir are the ball-less turd who said they wouldnt win 3 more games than last year and its right in front of God and everybody that you said it. you get some balls and put your sig where your mouth is, freak.

Geez, gweg melt much? I never said I wouldn't take the bet at 9-7. You say your team is going 9-6, and then you offer 9-7. So basically you think your team will lose another game. Heck if it were my team I would have said fuck you bitch, they'll go 10-6. Thats because I have confidence in my team. You don't, and thats the end of story.

To be honest I am getting kind of tired of sig bets. I mean I give you bitches two of them a year and quite frankly I don't think there's anything more I can offer in terms of sig material. Heck, giving out two this year is going to be tough. If I have orc or someone who is willing to wytch up something fierce than I'd be down for an AV bet. I'll leave it up to you.

good- then 9-6 it is. whatever you want for a full week then?

Always in for the blood feud.

G.O. wrote:good- then 9-6 it is. whatever you want for a full week then?

Ok 9-6 it is. 9-7 I win. 10-6 you win. Orc is down to do my wytching so game on gwego. Oh and do you really want it for a week? How about a month?

DallasFanatic wrote:

G.O. wrote:good- then 9-6 it is. whatever you want for a full week then?

Ok 9-6 it is. 9-7 I win. 10-6 you win. Orc is down to do my wytching so game on gwego. Oh and do you really want it for a week? How about a month?

oh, crap not again.

nine and freakin seven for petes sake

are you in or what at 9 and 7, DF? avatar, sig, whatever however long. in?

yes gwego....Im in.....9-7 it is.....avatar for a month

orcinus wrote:Always in for the blood feud.

Step off, bitch! I got a stake in this. Lest we forget the last AV sported by foreskin fan...



Damn, gwego, you really are an ignorant slunt. Can you tell me how many games Joe Gibbs has won in the last 13 years? I can, 6. Until he can show he can win in this decade, I'll only view him as a washed up hasbeen trying to reclaim some glory. Even if he does go 9-6...he he... 2 of those losses will come at the hands of the Cowboys. Hell, the Cowboys have been mediocre at best for almost a decade... BUT WE'VE STILL MADE YOU OUR PERENNIAL BITCH.

Don't like the taste? Too bad, Foreskins seem to like the taste of Cowboy cock. You're always coming back for more!

And if you're willing to take all comers (like a good foreskin fan) I'm in for whatever bet you got as well!