Some quotes that are good for a laugh

[Sonny#9]

I agree about Marty-ball.

The other thing I was thinking about is, if Schottenheimer (sp) stayed on, and they still drafted Ramsey -- I believe he could have been a pretty solid QB. What killed him were Spurrier and Kim Helton's assinine blocking schemes. Which is why I am very, very grateful Buges has stayed on.

Zorn will never live that down in my eyes. If a Cowboys fan says something like that, no one cares. The Head Coach is a totally different situation. A highlight of my off season. I had tears in my eyes from laughing at my friend James over that. His cussing tirade was classic.

Yeah -- I would have a hard time in letting a 'Boys HC live that one down. I don't let Phillips live down anything of the dumb things he's said, and they weren't half as dumb as that...

 

[Hostile]

The other thing I was thinking about is, if Schottenheimer (sp) stayed on, and they still drafted Ramsey -- I believe he could have been a pretty solid QB. What killed him were Spurrier and Kim Helton's assinine blocking schemes. Which is why I am very, very grateful Buges has stayed on.

Yeah -- I would have a hard time in letting a 'Boys HC live that one down. I don't let Phillips live down anything of the dumb things he's said, and they weren't half as dumb as that...

I actually liked Patrick Ramsey a lot. He was one tough kid. I respected that. I felt bad for him. No win situation. The beating probably ruined him.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You're absolutely right:



Bailey was traded -- albiet they should have received a 2nd rnd pick instead of giving one up -- for Portis. Who has been the catalyst for two runs to the playoffs in his time here. So it's not like they let him walk away for nothing.

And Davis was in 2003, under Spurrier's regime.

Most of these arguments are based in 2004 and before, and aren't what's going on now.

that's because you have so few talent on your roster

 

[Sonny#9]

that's because you have so few talent on your roster

Right, like you wouldn't take Moss, Portis, Landry, Samules, Springs, Cooley, Thomas, Sellers, Fletcher, or McIntosh on the Cowboys. Like you wouldn't be signing the praises of Thomas, Kelly, Davis et al if they were drafted by the Cowboys. Let's be realistic here.

 

[Sonny#9]

I actually liked Patrick Ramsey a lot. He was one tough kid. I respected that. I felt bad for him. No win situation. The beating probably ruined him.

I was very excited when they drafted Ramsey. I thought he was going to be a good one -- he had the toughness, arm, intelligence. He just got beat. Spurrier ruined him. Much like David Carr. It could be said he got Ramseyed

 

[Hostile]

I was very excited when they drafted Ramsey. I thought he was going to be a good one -- he had the toughness, arm, intelligence. He just got beat. Spurrier ruined him. Much like David Carr. It could be said he got Ramseyed

I agree with every word.

 

[the kid 05]

Right, like you wouldn't take Moss, Portis, Landry, Samules, Springs, Cooley, Thomas, Sellers, Fletcher, or McIntosh on the Cowboys. Like you wouldn't be signing the praises of Thomas, Kelly, Davis et al if they were drafted by the Cowboys. Let's be realistic here.

only persons i would take from the skins is Landry but thats cuz i have had a man crush on him since i seen him play at LSU. i like the players we have at the our positions better then yours

 

[superpunk]

Right, like you wouldn't take Moss, Portis, Landry, Samules, Springs, Cooley, Thomas, Sellers, Fletcher, or McIntosh on the Cowboys. Like you wouldn't be signing the praises of Thomas, Kelly, Davis et al if they were drafted by the Cowboys. Let's be realistic here.

Realistically, if you take all those players and line them up next to the Cowboys players playing the same position, you would pick a Cowboy - every time.

The only position that might not be true of is Thomas (if you compared him to Kosier instead of Davis) and RB and FB. The Cowboys are just plain better across the board, and the results reflect that.

 

[thewireman]

Right, like you wouldn't take Moss, Portis, Landry, Samules, Springs, Cooley, Thomas, Sellers, Fletcher, or McIntosh on the Cowboys. Like you wouldn't be signing the praises of Thomas, Kelly, Davis et al if they were drafted by the Cowboys. Let's be realistic here.

Now is this the running back Portis, or the cross dressing alter ego Portis?

Theres only 3 players on that list you made that I would take, Portis to play behind Barber...until I see how Felix does and to see Portis cross dress, Cooley to play behind Witten and Springs because, well his dad was a Cowboy and Springs is really a Cowboy stuck playing for the skins

 

[Sonny#9]

Realistically, if you take all those players and line them up next to the Cowboys players playing the same position, you would pick a Cowboy - every time.

The only position that might not be true of is Thomas (if you compared him to Kosier instead of Davis) and RB and FB. The Cowboys are just plain better across the board, and the results reflect that.

Everytime? Ok:

Samules or Flozell -- anyone objective would say that it's debatable. Flozell has been inconsistent, Samules has his issues with speed rushers. However, both play at a very high level.

Cooley and Witten -- I have to give the nod to Witten here, obviously. But, I would say Cooley is just as good (compare their numbers after 4 years -- very similar.) I think Cooley is a bigger threat in the Red zone (6 more TDs in 1 less year).

Yes, I'd take Thomas over Leonard Davis -- but another one that is debatable. Thomas is the most underrated lineman in the league, and that's not an exaggeration.

Landry over Hamlin and Williams without a doubt. Anyone who says otherwise is an out-and-out homer.

Portis over Barber -- until Barber proves he can carry the load, like Portis has, this is a no-brainer. And I have been very complementary of Barber here.

Moss over Crayton -- if Moss is your 2nd receiver, you beat the Giants. (And before you compare Moss to TO, save it. Moss is not a #1 receiver. He's played like one in the past, but he is a #2. Hopefully with Thomas can take that mantle...and soon!!)

And if you don't like Mike Sellers, you're not a football fan.

 

[superpunk]

Everytime? Ok:

Samules or Flozell -- anyone objective would say that it's debatable. Flozell has been inconsistent, Samules has his issues with speed rushers. However, both play at a very high level.

Cooley and Witten -- I have to give the nod to Witten here, obviously. But, I would say Cooley is just as good (compare their numbers after 4 years -- very similar.) I think Cooley is a bigger threat in the Red zone (6 more TDs in 1 less year).

Yes, I'd take Thomas over Leonard Davis -- but another one that is debatable. Thomas is the most underrated lineman in the league, and that's not an exaggeration.

Landry over Hamlin and Williams without a doubt. Anyone who says otherwise is an out-and-out homer.

Portis over Barber -- until Barber proves he can carry the load, like Portis has, this is a no-brainer. And I have been very complementary of Barber here.

Moss over Crayton -- if Moss is your 2nd receiver, you beat the Giants. (And before you compare Moss to TO, save it. Moss is not a #1 receiver. He's played like one in the past, but he is a #2. Hopefully with Thomas can take that mantle...and soon!!)

And if you don't like Mike Sellers, you're not a football fan.

Yes. Everytime.

I already gave up RB and FB. And Thomas over Kosier, even though they don't play the same position. That gives you 2-3 players who would start for the Cowboys - and RB is debatable, at the very least. I don't care how you classify Moss - he is your #1 receiver. He would not be so here.

Across the board, the Cowboys are just better. Giving up Landry and Fletcher, the Commanders have 4-5 players who would start for the Cowboys. Outside of that, the Skins are just outclassed talent-wise by the Cowboys.

 

[Sonny#9]

Yes. Everytime.

the Commanders have 4-5 players who would start for the Cowboys.

Well, if the Commanders have 4-5 players, then it wouldn't be "everytime" would it?

And there are several other players that Cowboys fans underrate b/c they have an indian on the side of their helmet instead of a star, that'd you'd love to have. But I am not going to go into it.

 

[Sonny#9]

I agree with every word.

Well I AM very knowledgeable

 

[superpunk]

Well, if the Commanders have 4-5 players, then it wouldn't be "everytime" would it?

And there are several other players that Cowboys fans underrate b/c they have an indian on the side of their helmet instead of a star, that'd you'd love to have. But I am not going to go into it.

Noone outside of those I mentioned.

Yes, I'd love to have Santana Moss as a #2 WR. But that's not his position on the Commanders, so there's no reason to compare him to our #2 receiver. Randle El over Crayton is a toss up, so I guess we can stretch it to 5-6.

5-6 starters for the Skins would start for Dallas at their respective positions. Rande El, Laron Landry, London Fletcher, Randy Thomas (at LG), Clinton Portis, and Mike Sellers. Noone else has the talent to crack the starting lineup for the Cowboys. These are just facts. There's a reason we went 13-3 and had 13 pro-bowlers while the Commanders crept into the playoffs on the back of a career backup - vastly more talent. You can criticize probowl selections all you want, and certainly there was 1 or 2 Cowboys that didn't deserve their berth, but the proof is in the pudding. Dallas has far more talent than Washington. There's no denying it.

 

[Sonny#9]

Noone outside of those I mentioned.

So you're saying that Samules, Jansen, Marcus Washington and Shawn Springs would have a prayer beating out, Adams, Columbo, James/Thomas/Ellis, or Henry respectively?

I think many people -- some on the Cowboys coaching staff -- would probably disagree with you. But to each their own.

 

[superpunk]

So you're saying that Samules, Jansen, Marcus Washington and Shawn Springs would have a prayer beating out, Adams, Columbo, James/Thomas/Ellis, or Henry respectively?

I think many people -- some on the Cowboys coaching staff -- would probably disagree with you. But to each their own.

I forgot about Jansen. Altho I don't think he has enough left to compete with Colombo.

And Springs is not your #2 corner. To the others - no. Samuels is a good player, but he doesn't have it like Adams does, at least not for the past two years when Adams has played like a top 3 LT.

There's no shame in not being as talented as the Cowboys. The Skins have a very talented team - but it simply doesn't compare talent-wise with the Cowboys. Very few teams do, and certainly none in the NFC. This is a team that went 13-3 in the toughest division in football. They have a scary amount of talent. Washington is also a talented team, evidenced by making the playoffs last season in that tough division, and having enough talent for Todd Collins to be a winner with.

But stacked up against the Cowboys, they simply can't compare.

 

[Sonny#9]

I forgot about Jansen. Altho I don't think he has enough left to compete with Colombo.

Jansen when healthy was one of the best RTs in the game. Injuries have taken their toll on him. One more year out of him -- give Buges time to develop Heyer.

And Springs is not your #2 corner.

Why the designation of #1 and #2 -- you said start. Springs would most certainly start over Henry.

To the others - no. Samuels is a good player, but he doesn't have it like Adams does, at least not for the past two years when Adams has played like a top 3 LT.

Samules is more athletic, gets to the 2nd level better, and is much more technically sound then Adams. When they are both playing at the top of their game, Samules is the better player.

There's no shame in not being as talented as the Cowboys. The Skins have a very talented team - but it simply doesn't compare talent-wise with the Cowboys. Very few teams do, and certainly none in the NFC. This is a team that went 13-3 in the toughest division in football. They have a scary amount of talent. Washington is also a talented team, evidenced by making the playoffs last season in that tough division, and having enough talent for Todd Collins to be a winner with.

But stacked up against the Cowboys, they simply can't compare.

I guess we'll see as the season plays out I guess. There are too many questions right now revolving around them to really predict anything. But then again -- the Giants were "predicted" to finish dead last in the division last year. AND you do know what has followed ever Giants Super Bowl right?

 

[the kid 05]

Everytime? Ok:

Samules or Flozell -- anyone objective would say that it's debatable. Flozell has been inconsistent, Samules has his issues with speed rushers. However, both play at a very high level.

Cooley and Witten -- I have to give the nod to Witten here, obviously. But, I would say Cooley is just as good (compare their numbers after 4 years -- very similar.) I think Cooley is a bigger threat in the Red zone (6 more TDs in 1 less year).

Yes, I'd take Thomas over Leonard Davis -- but another one that is debatable. Thomas is the most underrated lineman in the league, and that's not an exaggeration.

Landry over Hamlin and Williams without a doubt. Anyone who says otherwise is an out-and-out homer.

Portis over Barber -- until Barber proves he can carry the load, like Portis has, this is a no-brainer. And I have been very complementary of Barber here.

Moss over Crayton -- if Moss is your 2nd receiver, you beat the Giants. (And before you compare Moss to TO, save it. Moss is not a #1 receiver. He's played like one in the past, but he is a #2. Hopefully with Thomas can take that mantle...and soon!!)

And if you don't like Mike Sellers, you're not a football fan.

wait a minuite wait a minute...why are you saying moss over crayton? why your number 1 vrs our number 2 (or 3 baring a comeback by TG)

 

[superpunk]

Why the designation of #1 and #2 -- you said start. Springs would most certainly start over Henry.

because that's the way these things work. Don't play dumb.

Samules is more athletic, gets to the 2nd level better, and is much more technically sound then Adams. When they are both playing at the top of their game, Samules is the better player.

Samuels hasn't been at the top of his game for some time. Adams has been elite for two years. Even if both are playing as well as they're capable, Adams is probably the better player.

I guess we'll see as the season plays out I guess. There are too many questions right now revolving around them to really predict anything. But then again -- the Giants were "predicted" to finish dead last in the division last year. AND you do know what has followed ever Giants Super Bowl right?

We've already seen. We're not talking about results. We're talking about talent. And as it stands, the Commanders cannot compete talent-wise with the Cowboys. Like I said - very few teams can. These are just facts, and you know they're true, no matter how badly you want to deny it.

 

[Sonny#9]

Samuels hasn't been at the top of his game for some time. Adams has been elite for two years. Even if both are playing as well as they're capable, Adams is probably the better player.

Based on what?

Samules Scouting Report: He is an excellent athlete with tremendous lateral explosiveness that often allows him to out-quick his opponents and beat defenders with great position and outstanding technique. His physical abilities make him a terrific player in space who has the balance and quick feet to win position, the patient, well-timed punch to knock the defender off his move and the arm extension to slide and maintain control. He is able to both deep-set and quick-set edge rushers and his body control allows for excellent recovery skills on the rare occasion he is out of position. He is susceptible to playing too high and getting on his heels against a powerful bull-rusher. He is very athletic in the run game and has explosive snap in his hips when drive blocking, although he gets lazy at times and fails to get movement at the point of attack. When he is on his game he takes great angles, using quickness to get the backside cut-off or moving through to the second level. Overall, Samuels has few flaws in his game, and when he is focused and motivated he can be dominant.

Adams: Adams is huge, has long arms and can engulf defenders. He has tremendous power for a left tackle. He is almost impossible to move out of the hole when he locks on. He has the size, strength and hands to dominate at the point of attack. He can be quick off the ball and will win most battles when he lands his initial punch. He doesn't get beaten by power often. His length makes him tough to get by. He routinely pushes defenders past the pocket. He moves well for his size, but Adams is far from a prototype athlete for left tackle. He struggles to redirect and sometimes overextends outside. He has some problems against good double moves and spin moves. His footwork and technique can get a little sloppy. He doesn't always play with good leverage or knee bend. He can be lazy out of his stance and on pass sets. He relies too much on his size and strength. He doesn't offer much on the second level and generally struggles in space. He doesn't pay enough attention to detail.

We've already seen. We're not talking about results. We're talking about talent. And as it stands, the Commanders cannot compete talent-wise with the Cowboys. Like I said - very few teams can. These are just facts, and you know they're true, no matter how badly you want to deny it.

I am not denying the Cowboys are not a talented team. They had a good year last year. However there are some on here that have stated the Skins have "no talent," which is ludicrous. And besides, it's the offseason -- what else are we going to do?

Here's another fun fact -- very few teams who make a 4-or-more-win jump in one season -- like both the Commanders (5-11 to 9-7) and Cowboys did last year (9-7 to 13-3) -- come close to repeating that success -- some fail utterly and miss the playoffs entirely incl. the 2004 Cowboys (fell from 10-6 to 6-10) 2006 Commanders (fell from 10-6 to 5-11), and the Saints last year (fell from 10-6 to 7-9). Such is life in todays NFL -- it leaves everything open to questioning and debate.