Underdogs?

[12thMan]

Man, I just watched ESPN - Stuart Scott, Tom Jackson (whom I liked to watch when I was kid), Jaws, and Michael Irvin. Boy did they piss me off!!!!

Basically the segment started with are the Redskins for real? Then Stuart Scott starts the conversation off by saying, "well technically they are 3-0"....and the other three guys just about fell out of their chair laughing because he said "technically".

After they finally settled down, Tom Jackson went on to say how he thinks they are still a joke (paraphrase) and have been for some time. He went on to say that they've only beaten the Bears w/ a QB that has never played a professional game. How we played poorly against Dallas for 55 minutes and beat a mediocre Seattle team that no one respects.

Jaws, bless his ignorant heart, backed us up some - but the only thing he could come up with was some old ass Sean Taylor footage from last year and went on to say he's the tempo setter for the defense. I couldn't believe it!! I mean every highlight he showed Taylor was wearing #36 - what a joke!!

Irvin, yes Michael Irvin was the only one who said he felt we had a great Defense, and reiterated great twice because he drew groans from Jackson and Scott. He went on to say that we could only play who's on the schedule, and that 3-0 is 3-0!

Here's what get's my goat. When we beat Dallas it was we played poorly for 55 minutes. When we beat Seattle they gave us the game - when the reverse was actually true. We dominated Seattle damn near all of three quarters, let them back into it, and pulled out the win. It's amazing how the media twists the story to suit their view.

[SmootSmack]

So basically Irvin comes up with the most logical statement "3-0 is 3-0 and all we can do is play who's on the schedule"

[BigSKINBauer]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Man, I just watched ESPN - Stuart Scott, Tom Jackson (whom I liked to watch when I was kid), Jaws, and Michael Irvin. Boy did they piss me off!!!!

Basically the segment started with are the Redskins for real? Then Stuart Scott starts the conversation off by saying, "well technically they are 3-0"....and the other three guys just about fell out of their chair laughing because he said "technically".

That stupid technically shit. I was on the phone and watching it with someone, we missed exactly what they said so i rewinded it and heard that dumb shit. I paused it and at about that time irvin and jaws were seriously about to fall out of their chairs.

How are we only Technically 3-0, realistically we are not?? Stupid sons of bitches
I hate STuard Scott

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by BigSKINBauer

That stupid technically shit. I was on the phone and watching it with someone, we missed exactly what they said so i rewinded it and heard that dumb shit. I paused it and at about that time irvin and jaws were seriously about to fall out of their chairs.

How are we only Technically 3-0, realistically we are not?? Stupid sons of bitches
I hate STuard Scott

if we're technically 3-0 than the giants are technically retarded, since all their wins came against bottom dwellers... they only have 1 really easy game left, we have 4.

[Hijinx]

The point spread has nothing to do with who is more or less likey to win.... or what the bookey thinks the score will be. The point spread is to make half the betting on each team. Then the bookey makes money on the margin. For example if the Skins were playing the Raiders, I(the bookey) personally think the Skins would win and most likely by at a TD. However I will make the line 4 1/2 because I check my charts on how the betting goes team by team and I see that people like to bet the Raiders. Perhaps it is because people in Cali have more money, like to bet more than most, or Raiders fans are all a little bit off their rockers. If after a couple of days I see alot of betting on one side or the other(say 55% vs 45%) I will adjust the spread to ecourage betting on the other team.

The point is that the line has little basis on the outcome.