Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: dcsportsbog and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Redskins Didn't Let One Get Away


(By John McDonnell - TWP)

The conventional wisdom is that the Redskins let one get away yesterday, that they somehow deserved to win or were the better team or had more opportunities or whatever. These quotes are from Comcast SportsyNet:

LaVar Arrington: "They definitely should have won this game."

Ray Brown: "This is a game they should have won."

LaVar: "They really should have won this game."

Kelli Johnson: "This did feel like a win you kind of squandered."

From the newspaperers:

Wash Times: "It's clear this team should be 4-1 and possibly 5-0."

Boswell: "In every corner of the locker room you heard the same words -- could have, should have. "We let one get away," cornerback Shawn Springs said. "We're better than that team," said owner Dan Snyder, huddled with confidants mulling over the defeat."

Well, whatever. I'm gonna go back to what John Feinstein said when I was talking with him about a PGA golf round I watched that really ought to have been two or three shots better. "Every round should have been better," he said, approximately, which is true. Sometimes, one NFL team wins by 31 and you don't play what-if. But most weeks, whichever team lost really ought to have won.

For example, imagine if the Redskins had won that game? Every single fan following the Green Bay Packers would have said "they definitely should have won this game." And my research tells me that it's sort of impossible for both teams to "should have won." If the Skins had won, Packers people would have said:

* Brett Favre should have led James Jones and Greg Jennings on those two Sean Taylor interceptions; both should have been touchdowns instead of turnovers, and;

* Mason Crosby should have made both field goals he missed, certainly the shorty in the second half, and;

* That missed field goal should have been a gimme if Favre hadn't taken that bad sack, and;

* Jones should have had a touchdown catch he had already begun celebrating in the third quarter if the offensive line had not been called for holding, and;

* Bubba Franks really had a TD on that sequence before the missed field goal, if Smoot had been called for what seemed an obvious push-out.

If all these things happen, it's, what, at least 37-14 Packers? Instead, it was 17-14 and the GB press talks about the home team "finding a way to win" and "feasting on breaks and getting the most out of their personnel," and Favre says how they could easily be 6-0.

The Redskins were 3.5-point dogs and they lost by 3, no great tragedy or surprise. They're 3-2, which is probably one game better than conventional wisdom would have suggested in August. And next week against the Cardinals, they really should win.

By Dan Steinberg  |  October 15, 2007; 11:29 AM ET
Categories:  Redskins  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Terps Dance Too!
Next: Gilbert and Halle Berry

Comments

Green Bay Should have lost. Better?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

^No.

Posted by: pack4life | October 15, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

While watching I thought the Skins were trying not to win.

Posted by: sitruc | October 15, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I still don't understand why Campbell's first-half INT was an INT. Both Randle El and Woodson had their hands wrapped around the ball, and possession goes to the receiver. Or that's the rule anyway.

If that call goes differently, the Skins have a first down in FG territory.

Posted by: Jamie Mottram | October 15, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company