So in one game, Griff is going to turn the ball over 60% of his total INTs on the year?Frank C
One thing to remember about RGIII...he isn't playing at 100%. His knee still isn't completely healed. That will play a factor in his speed and willingness to take a hit or run down the middle of the field.
I know we have faster LBs and secondary than Dalass.
Washington does not have the front 4 that the Rams have and if they do blitz as much as yesterday, RW will make them pay. Romo is not as fleet of foot as RW.
Washington lost 3 games at home, so their home field advantage is not huge.
The think that will hurt the Hawks the most is the old away game on the east coast stygma. If the could get over that (and they did win their last two games on the road) they should handle the 'Skins.
31-17 final score. RW 2 TDs, Lynch 2 TDs. 4 Sacks and 3 INTs.
Real men play on grass....Tfer
I've said for years that, all NFL stadiums should have FieldTurf mandated.
Real men play on grass....
I just copied that one too to paste it here. Artificial turf is the work of the devil. It's allowed pretty little track clubs to pretend to be football teams for far too long. Real playoff football is played in the rain and snow and the mud. If that isn't for you you should be watching another sport.yeah that one jumped out at me too... It's so funny that they would make a comment about grass, but you KNOW they're just as quick talkin about "it's a part of the game" when referencing the Inter-touchdown-ception debacle
Starting? Seriously? After 2005 and 2007 you are "starting" to want to beat these guys? Come one, Henry.I'm really starting to want to beat these guys.
Ask Dallas how well that worked out for themUltimately, I like our ability to force teams' hands by shutting down one aspect of their game. I think we can force them into trying to run up the middle on us
Better on offense? You're ranked 17th. We've been ranked top 5 all season.I like our chances - alot. We are better offensively and defensively than the Redskins, and they only sacked Romo twice. As long as we stay aggressive on both sides of the ball, we should be OK.
That's actually a very good point. Since beating up on Dallas we've been a better second half team than first half team. Against the Giants, Ravens and Browns we were behind at the half. Against the Eagles (in Philly) we were only ahead a field goal and last week at the half we were tied. We may very well start out slow against the Seahawks too. The important thing to do is minimize the damage until we settle down and take charge of the game. Stay within a score at halftime. As long as the thing doesn't get blown wide open early I think we have a puncher's chance (so sayeth Ryman) of taking the game in the second half. That's where we've been winning games these days.The other major factor in this game I believe will be who gets the better start. Before the bye, Skins always seemed to take almost the entire 1st Q before the offense found a rhythm. We did much better weeks 10-16. The wheels kinda fell off again last week. I don't believe we can afford to take more than one series to find that rhythm and score points.
It's interesting you say that because I was thinking just the opposite. I recall in the Vikings game, the playcalling, IMHO, was atrocious in the 1st Q. There were lots of what I could call gadget plays involving Banks and such. None of it really worked. This "style" of offense was tried in the 1st Q of other games before the bye as I recall as well.I think part of the slow start is because it seems we have been close enough in those games to stick to a generic (By generic I mean stuff we'd been running all year) game plan too, mostly plays we'd seen before throughout the season.