Redskins Blog: Eagles Predictions Analysis

Tandler's (unforunately) deadly accurate assessment of the Eagles game plus kudos to the best Redskins columnist.

To leave comments and view archives, go to this blog's mirror site at

You can reach me by email at

Rich Tandler is the author of Gut Check, The Complete History of Coach Joe Gibbs' Washington Redskins. Get details and order at

November 23, 2004

Unfortunately, Buckets of Buckets

As always in this apace, here is a look back at my predictions for the previous game. I've rarely been more dead on than I was this week.

After going through some reasons why many thought the Redskins could win, I got to the heart of it:
All of this adds up to, well, not much. I don't buy the trap and peaking too soon theories or, more specifically, I don't think that they're factors. Even if they are off of their top game considerably, the Eagles will have more than enough to beat the Redskins. Portis should rack up some decent yardage, but I don't see Ramsey being consistently sharp enough to take full advantage. That means that the Eagles won't have to execute their one trick very often to score enough.
The "one trick" I referred to was McNabb to Owens. And that one TD connection was enough to win the game. I was off on Portis' production as 37 yards can't be considered "decent" but right on about Ramsey. He had some drops by receivers, but his performance could by no means be defined as "sharp". I rate how much water my predictions held by giving each from one to five buckets. A one-bucket prediction was way off base. One that held five buckets was crystal-ball material. That amalgam of omniscience gets four buckets, losing the one for thinking that Portis would do better than he did.

Following that up, however, is a five-bucket call. While I didn't get the score exactly right, the game went exactly as I thought it would.
The Redskins should be able to hang on into the third quarter, but a big play by Philly will break it open in the second half.

Eagles 24, Redskins 10

Daly Nails It

Dan Daly hits the nail on the head more often than any columnist out there who covers the Redskins. I like Wilbon and Boswell OK, but the former is a TV star with an agenda and Bears fan to boot, and the latter is one of the best baseball writers in the business who occasionally scores some good points about football. (And I don't say that because Daly has said nice things about my books and occasionally throws me a plug in his Sunday columns.)

Daly is a football guy, he's written a book or two about the history of the game and he just gets it. He's not a self-promoter; you don't find him putting his name out to be on this or that radio call in show. And he's probably been to more Redskins games over the past decade or so than any other beat writer or columnist covering the team. Others have come and gone, and the "stars" like Wilbon cover other events like the World Series during the football season. But there's Daly, game after game, building an encyclopedic knowledge of the team.

The only problem with his column on Monday was that it left me with nothing to amplify, clarify, or expound upon. If it's live, follow the link above. If not, go to and click on the Dan Daly link. Here's the conclusion:
They're such a study in contrasts, the Redskins are. The defense attacks, attacks, attacks, and the offense assumes the fetal position almost from the first snap. But at least the right quarterback is on the field now. We have that to be thankful for this week.
To leave comments and view archives, go to this blog's mirror site at

Breaking Burgundy Top Stories