Wednesday, October 6, 2010

A Post about the Sports Junkies and The Redskins

Could this be more of an inside-post? Anyway, there are about 8 people on the planet who would find this compelling, and none of them probably read this blog. Nonetheless, I present to you: -- Why The Junks Are Clueless --

Lets face it, when you want a sophisticated, analytical, intelligent debate/conversation about sports the Junks aren't the best option. They surely don't know the in's and out's of sabermetrics in baseball, or the X's and O's of football. In basketball they rely solely on the sniff test and what Tim Legler says. They're just "Joe the Fan" and thats it, we all enjoy the show for the zings and the inside jokes, but when they talk sports all day their ignorance really shines through. They even market themselves that way, as Lurch says on the MASN spot "we drink beer and watch sports on TV (if we're not asleep by the end of the 2nd quarter)". Nonetheless, they do have the power of the microphone and they have really infuriated me this week with their analysis of the Skins victory along with the Moss/Welker debate.

Lurch, how many "if's, shoulda's, coulda's, woulda's, and but's" are you going to throw out about the Philly game? Sure, I get it, you were making your prediction based on the knowledge that Vick would play 4 quarters. Are you going to tell me that you don't take into consideration the fact that Vick is a running quarterback with a history of injury against one of the hardest hitting secondaries in the NFL? That's your own lack of insightful fore-thinking. Vick didn't get hurt falling off the team plane, the Redskins KNOCKED HIM OUT of the game. You keep saying "if Vick would have played, it would have been a different game". (Yet, when it is brought up that if Santana were in the Patriots offense, Lurch quickly says that he "hates when people use that 'what if' argument". So what is it? What-if's are allowed when they benefit your argument but not when they contradict it?). Also, use your brain Lurch, the Redskins shot out the gate with a TD, another TD, and then a drive that went to the 4yd line but ended in a FG due to penalties and Armstrong stumbling out of bounds. With that heavy lead and Kolb in at QB, the gameplan offensively completely changes. We intentionally went into a running box and tried to milk the game away. Boswell made a great point about McNabb being conservative throughout his career when he has a large lead. The strategy paid off. If Vick were in and the game were closer, maybe Philly would have won, but I can assure you that there wouldn't have been as many run-run-run-punt drives.

EB, you are making me sick this week. After one bad loss you completely turned on the team. Don't you dare jump on the bandwagon when we beat Green Bay and improve to 3-2. Don't you dare. When a team comes off a heartbreaking emotional overtime loss, on the road, in a DEAD stadium against a dead franchise, a letdown is almost inevitable. Its not excusable. But, it happened, and over the course of a 16 game season all good teams have bad losses. The Redskins aren't the Colts of last year, we aren't going to breeze through the season, but we have a good team and we're going to have good wins and bad losses. The season is going to come down to the divisional games and with a 2-0 start you have to feel good about your chances. We are a blocked FG away from 3-1. That's the reality of the situation. And, for those of you who say, you are a holding call away from 1-3, that is COMPLETELY different. That holding call was not a "flukey" play like a blocked FG. Had Orakpo not been held, Romo would have been sacked and the game would have ended. Either way it's a Redskin win. That's just the facts. We have wins over Philly and Dallas through week 4 and yet, you are only predicting 6 wins at best and add that we are underdogs every week? Please.

JP is actually being the most level-headed and reasonable of all when it comes to the Skins. And that is UNBELIEVABLE. But, I have figured out why... its a perfect balance. The guy has man-love for McNabb and loves to disagree with EB, so in one sense he wants Washington to succeed. On the other hand, he knows EB gains joy out of the Redskins winning and has a deep-rooted hater bias against the team, so in that sense, he won't go all-in on the team.

Cakes, why are you being such a girly-man? Go out on a limb for a change. I know you love to be non-confrontational and primarily care about zings, but it's obvious you don't agree with the Lurch and EB hate toward the team, so voice your opinions. Please, we Skins fans need someone besides Bret in our corner, who is great at making initial arguments, but awful when it comes to countering.

I would call in, but I know that I'd get cut off within seconds, hung up on and then called a moron. They would then ask me to respond to a point that I could easily respond to, but E.B. will say "he bailed". When, in reality, I would have been hung up on by his fat clumsy fingers. Anyway, I really am a huge fan of the show and haven't missed a segment since podcasting began at JFK. I remember when Bret would just select 4 of the 12 segments and post them. We've come a long way since then. I'm sure nobody is going to read this, but I'm willing to debate anything I've said, so comment away.

No comments: