Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;560035]Saints 24-36-321 1-0
Cards 22-30-193 2-0
Cowgirls 20-31-231 2-1
Eagles 16-29-176 0-0
Rams 18-26-208 0-0 (3 Skins fumbles in Rams territory)
Browns 14-23-164 1-0
Lions 23-28-328 1-0

Out of the first 8 games I'd say he lit it up in 4 and played well in the rest, except for the Giants game.[/quote]

He played well in the Eagles, Rams, and Browns games? Id say he played average at best and thats being nice. If you throw in the Saints game ill agree he lit it up in 4 games and not 3.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;560035]The injuries and poor play were most likely due to the age of the OL.[/quote]

Maybe the injuries were but the poor play was mainly dude to the fact the teams we played were better than us.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;560035]Ever try to call plays with an inneffective OL? Not sure what you wanted Zorn to do.[/quote]

The OL did struggle at times but Zorn should of changed his playcalling after he realized teams knew what he was doing. After the first Eagles game the offense slumped (except for one game in Detroit). Teams locked onto what Zorn was doing and he didnt adjust. The OL wasnt bad enough where Zorn couldnt mix some things up to get some pressure off of the OL.

Im banking on Zorn with a year under his belt calling plays to be more effective. If hes not he wont have a job in Washington after this season.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Daseal;559981]Chad Pennington, Ronnie Brown -- Absolutely a better combo.
Flacco, McClain/McGahee -- In my opinion, about equal.
Schaub, Slaton -- We have the slight edge on them.
[B]Rosenfels, Peterson -- Rosenfels isn't good, but AP is the best in the[/B] league, so I can see why he's ahead of them.
K. Collins, Chris Johnson -- I'd rank them ahead of our guys.
S. Hill, Gore - We're better than Hill and Gore.
Tampa's mess - We're better than Tampa.[B]
Orton, Moreno - Orton is probably better than JC, but MOreno is a total question mark, Id have to put us as better.[/B]
Sanchez/Clemens, Jones/Washington - We're about even here, having us slightly ahead. Jones led the AFC in rushing last year, but Sanchez/Clemens are too wild cardish.

Like Orakpo I don't agree with all the rankings, and could see the skins move up a few spots. But I can't argue with a lot of the rankings. That said, a lot of mention of offensive lines in the article. If we're factoring in O-lines, I feel like the list makes more sense.[/quote]I don't think ANYONE would argue that the difference between Campbell and Rosenfels is not greater than the difference between Peterson and Portis, though. Maybe someone who thinks Peterson is already better than Barry Sanders, but it'd be hard to take their opinion seriously anyway.

I'd like you to come to Chicago and try to tell someone that Kyle Orton is better than Jason Campbell. You'd get a mixed response of disbelieving laughter, and people wondering who the hell Jason Campbell is. Perhaps both from some people. It's weird how actually being forced to root for certain guys would warp your opinion of them. Oh, and it's really not even close on paper.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=#56fanatic;560031]I was looking over the rankings, and I wouldn't put Jason and Clinton much higher.[B] Look at all the QB's that are higher[/B], then the RB's. break them down seperately. Most of the QB's are better, and the teams with so-so QB's or not so good QB's have legit RB's. (vikings)

Hey, you have to have a few good seasons to have any respect. Jason has yet to do anything remarkable, and CP, although a work horse, didn't have a great year last year. His YPC is way down, actually below league minimum I believe.[/quote]

Again, For the first 8 games he was probowl bound. I think he ranked higher then all of them. I guess if people are looking at the whole season (which I guess ya have to) then statistically he's were he should be.

Also here's the statistics:
QB's;
9th-Cutler: threw for 4,526 yrds, 25td's, and 18inter. Rating 86.0
24th-Orton: threw for 2,972 yrds, 18td's, and 12inter. Rating 79.6
26th-Campbell: threw for 3,245 yrds, 18td's, and 6int. Rating 84.3

RB's;
Forte(Bears)-rushed for 1,238, avg-3.9yrds, 8tds.
Portis(Skins)-rushed for 1,487, avg-4.3yrds, 9tds.

then you have Denver who seemed to have RB by commitee;
Selvin Young-303yrds, 1td
Michael Pittman-320yrds, 4tds
Peyton Hillis-343yrds, 5tds
LaMont Jordan-363yrds, 4tds

One could say none of Denvers RB's got over 1,000yds like the other teams or you could say they are better back field wise simply cause they have 4 good RBs plus a plethora of others that had less then 100 yrds.

Speaking of backfield alone as I thought this thread was I would rank the Skins higher. If you are talking about the offense in general then we are probably ranked close but would move us above some of the teams ahead of us.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

Gtripp, what's Orton's win percentage? Answer: Far higher than Campbells.

Josh McDaniels seems to think Orton is better than Campbell too. Neither Orton nor Campbell can hold a candle to Cutler though.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Daseal;560050]Gtripp, what's Orton's win percentage? Answer: Far higher than Campbells.

Josh McDaniels seems to think Orton is better than Campbell too. Neither Orton nor Campbell can hold a candle to Cutler though.[/quote]In college, Campbell's win percentage was way higher than Orton's. What's your point? There are clearly other factors at play here, because Campbell, historically, is' the "winner" of the two.

Cutler and Campbell are pretty comparable back here in reality. Orton and Campbell are not. If you actually value win percentage, you should be arguing that Orton is way better than Cutler. I know that's not what your eyes tell you, but dude, he [I]wins[/I].

Also, McDaniels has more to prove than Campbell does, so I'm not sure I'd cite his opinion here yet before he has a chance to prove that he's not crazy.

None of this changes the fact that if you said what you just said to a fanbase that is hard wired into all Kyle Orton dealings, you'd be laughed out of the room as unknowledable. Not unlike McDaniels, who thinks he can win with Orton, AND no defense.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SBXVII;560047]Again, For the first 8 games he was probowl bound. I think he ranked higher then all of them. I guess if people are looking at the whole season (which I guess ya have to) then statistically he's were he should be.

Also here's the statistics:
QB's;
9th-Cutler: threw for 4,526 yrds, 25td's, and 18inter. Rating 86.0
[B]24th-Orton: threw for 2,972 yrds, 18td's, and 12inter. Rating 79.6
26th-Campbell: threw for 3,245 yrds, 18td's, and 6int. Rating 84.3[/B]

RB's;
Forte(Bears)-rushed for 1,238, avg-3.9yrds, 8tds.
Portis(Skins)-rushed for 1,487, avg-4.3yrds, 9tds.

then you have Denver who seemed to have RB by commitee;
Selvin Young-303yrds, 1td
Michael Pittman-320yrds, 4tds
Peyton Hillis-343yrds, 5tds
LaMont Jordan-363yrds, 4tds

One could say none of Denvers RB's got over 1,000yds like the other teams or you could say they are better back field wise simply cause they have 4 good RBs plus a plethora of others that had less then 100 yrds.

Speaking of backfield alone as I thought this thread was I would rank the Skins higher. If you are talking about the offense in general then we are probably ranked close but would move us above some of the teams ahead of us.[/quote]I come from a place where 84 is a higher number than 79, so you should probably help me figure out what stat you are using in your rankings.

I'm aware you aren't out to just disprove the notion that Campbell can ever have success here, but I'm just confused by the fact that you are citing "statistics" without actually telling us what statistic you are using to come up with the rankings.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SBXVII;560047]
RB's;
Forte(Bears)-rushed for 1,238, avg-3.9yrds, 8tds.
Portis(Skins)-rushed for 1,487, avg-4.3yrds, 9tds.
[/quote]

I like Portis but man id love to have Forte. He ran great at Tulane and was a beast at the Senior Bowl. When he was drafted by the Bears in the 2nd round last year I thought they got the steal of the draft. He looked really good as a rookie for Chicago. He can knock people over and still has the speed to make long runs. He also caught 63 passes last year. With a year under his belt and Jay Cutler in Chicago hes going to be that much better in 2009.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560054]I come from a place where 84 is a higher number than 79, so you should probably help me figure out what stat you are using in your rankings.

I'm aware you aren't out to just disprove the notion that Campbell can ever have success here, but I'm just confused by the fact that you are citing "statistics" without actually telling us what statistic you are using to come up with the rankings.[/quote]

Simply pointing out that Campbell is no better nor no worse then the other two. The team tried for Cutler because of why? his interception ratio? LOL. just kidding. Yes he had more td's but he also had or interceptions and a few more yrds. but as an over all QB I'd rather have JC simply cause of his interception ratio. His rating was a nice 84.3, Cutler was only 2 percent more....right? so my point is for those who think Cutler is a lights out QB are only fooling themselves when you look at the fact JC had similar stats. All the Skins were doing by trying to pick up Cutler was make a lateral move. I mean it's not like we were trying for Bradey.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

and I think 24 and 26 represent the respective position on SI's strange list, not SBXVII's ranking of the QBs

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560056]I like Portis but man id love to have Forte. He ran great at Tulane and was a beast at the Senior Bowl. When he was drafted by the Bears in the 2nd round last year I thought they got the steal of the draft. He looked really good as a rookie for Chicago. He can knock people over and still has the speed to make long runs. He also caught 63 passes last year. With a year under his belt and Jay Cutler in Chicago hes going to be that much better in 2009.[/quote]

Statistically, and wisdom alone I would have to go with Portis. If you are talking about age, future of the team, and being on the rise then yes I would take Forte.

Again all I was trying to point out was that I thought we were ranked rather low in regards to some teams who sit above us. I would definitly put us ahead of Chicago, perhaps Dallas cause I think they are going to have trouble this yr, the Eagles cause they still have not proved anything other then Westbrook who is usually injured half a season.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SBXVII;560057]Simply pointing out that Campbell is no better nor no worse then the other two. The team tried for Cutler because of why? his interception ratio? LOL. just kidding. Yes he had more td's but he also had or interceptions and a few more yrds. but as an over all QB I'd rather have JC simply cause of his interception ratio. His rating was a nice 84.3, Cutler was only 2 percent more....right? so my point is for those who think Cutler is a lights out QB are only fooling themselves when you look at the fact JC had similar stats. All the Skins were doing by trying to pick up Cutler was make a lateral move. I mean it's not like we were trying for Bradey.[/quote]I think you are very balanced with your Campbell analysis; I just want to know what the rankings you cite are using to rank. The sentence, "Campbell is ranked 26th by statistics" is problematic.

I'm on your side in Campbell and Cutler analysis, the difference is more marketing than actual play on the field. You simply wouldn't give up one to get the other, if there weren't external factors. But most measures don't see Orton as anywhere near the level of Cutler or Campbell, but he's ranked 24th in something, so I was just trying to figure out what.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;560058]and I think 24 and 26 represent the respective position on SI's strange list, not SBXVII's ranking of the QBs[/quote]Oh, okay. Got it. I was confused because it was in his line.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560060]I think you are very balanced with your Campbell analysis; I just want to know what the rankings you cite are using to rank. [B]The sentence, "Campbell is ranked 26th by statistics" is problematic.[/B]

I'm on your side in Campbell and Cutler analysis, the difference is more marketing than actual play on the field. You simply wouldn't give up one to get the other, if there weren't external factors. But most measures don't see Orton as anywhere near the level of Cutler or Campbell, but he's ranked 24th in something, so I was just trying to figure out what.[/quote]

Perhaps so...sorry. SI ranked the team 26th. sorry. I felt the team should be higher.

As for my putting Campbell at 84.3 below Orton at 79.6 in my first post ....I was just listing them, but not in order. So people could see the statistics of each QB.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560060]I think you are very balanced with your Campbell analysis; I just want to know what the rankings you cite are using to rank. The sentence, "Campbell is ranked 26th by statistics" is problematic.

I'm on your side in Campbell and Cutler analysis, the difference is more marketing than actual play on the field. You simply wouldn't give up one to get the other,[B] if there weren't external factors[/B]. But most measures don't see Orton as anywhere near the level of Cutler or Campbell, but he's ranked 24th in something, so I was just trying to figure out what.[/quote]

Perhaps that issue is JC's ability to read defense? Honestly I have no idea. but statistically they are similar and I could not see trading out Campbell for Cutler.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SBXVII;560059]Statistically, and wisdom alone I would have to go with Portis. If you are talking about age, future of the team, and being on the rise then yes I would take Forte.[/quote]

As of right now both of them are really good RBs. I dont think right now you could go wrong with either one of them. I just love Fortes style. He runs like a man on a mission and can do so many different things. Hes going to be really good in Chicago for a long time imo.

[quote=SBXVII;560059]I would definitly put us ahead of Chicago[/quote]

Really? I think Forte is on the same level as Portis and Cutler as of right now is better than Campbell.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

When you average 16 points a game, you deserve to be ranked in the bottom of the league. Portis doesn't have to prove anything to me. Let Campbell prove them wrong.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;560067]When you average 16 points a game, you deserve to be ranked in the bottom of the league. Portis doesn't have to prove anything to me. Let Campbell prove them wrong.[/quote]

Agreed. :food-smil

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

Man, our PPG total gets worse and worse everytime someone cites it. Next week, our offense will have scored 9 PPG last season.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SBXVII;560065]Perhaps that issue is JC's ability to read defense? Honestly I have no idea. but statistically they are similar and I could not see trading out Campbell for Cutler.[/quote]The stats have that covered. The external factors would be something like obscene contract value, or an argument with a coach, fan, a media member, or an owner. Or committing a crime of some sort. Or an allergy to having seven draft picks.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560010]I think that ignores that Campbell/Portis were essentially responsible for 6 out of our 8 wins. With Collins and Betts in those rolls, we're a 4-12, or maybe 3-13 team. Which, I think, is something that unit rankings have to figure in.[/quote]

yeah, it had nothing to do with our 4th ranked defense...what world are you living in making that statement?

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;560067][B]When you average 16 points a game[/B], you deserve to be ranked in the bottom of the league. Portis doesn't have to prove anything to me. Let Campbell prove them wrong.[/quote]


I honestly believe this problem will be solved. Maybe I should say it better get solved. Having Thomas practicing like a monster cause he feels he has something to prove is a plus. Having Davis working hard also to be more of a factor is a plus also. hoping Kelly stays healthy and supprises everyone maybe just that ....hoping. but if he can then we have one of the better teams WR wise. Moss and Thomas (speedsters), ARE and Kelly (possession WR's), then the two TE sets. I liked Yodder but he is not lighting in a bottle like Davis is. To have Cooley and Davis on the field together will cause problems for other teams. ;) or so I believe.

I want to blame Zorn for some of it but I can't. He had his plate full the first yr with having to teach everyone his offense. Then try to get it implimented. Now he can add more plays and wrinkles to it. Honestly 8-8 was not bad for a team having a new HC, new offense, and a huge learning curve for coach's as well as players. Now if Zorn can't seem to get beyond 8-8 with a team knowing the offense better and having more weapons then he does need to go.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=redskins1974;560078]yeah, it had nothing to do with our 4th ranked defense...what world are you living in making that statement?[/quote]Dude, don't start. Our defense won some games for us as well (Philly, Week 16). But also struggled mightily when we finished 2-6. And then there was St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560085]Dude, don't start. Our defense won some games for us as well (Philly, Week 16). But also struggled mightily when we finished 2-6. And then there was St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc.[/quote]

Well the offense not moving the ball and having a lot of 3 and outs caused our defense to get tired in most of those. I think the defense played admirably for most of those games though. They kept us in the game by keeping the score low all the way up till usually the late 3rd or 4th quarter. I think if the offense can muster atleast 21-30 points a game then the defense will look better. but I would love to be the supprise team in getting the 40 points a game this yr. ;) and I believe it is possible with the talent we have this yr. A few more WR's to help out JC (Kelly, Thomas). Maybe a change of pace back in Alridge who is fast as.....you know what. Maybe just using him with Portis will be a threat to other teams in a 2 back system. Portis either runs it up the middle or Alridge takes it to the outside. Defenses would have to be on their toes.

Speed packages with Moss, Thomas, and Alridge out as a WR as he was used in college will create problems.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SBXVII;560089]Well the offense not moving the ball and having a lot of 3 and outs caused our defense to get tired in most of those. I think the defense played admirably for most of those games though. They kept us in the game by keeping the score low all the way up till usually the late 3rd or 4th quarter. I think if the offense can muster atleast 21-30 points a game then the defense will look better. but I would love to be the supprise team in getting the 40 points a game this yr. ;) and I believe it is possible with the talent we have this yr. A few more WR's to help out JC (Kelly, Thomas). Maybe a change of pace back in Alridge who is fast as.....you know what. Maybe just using him with Portis will be a threat to other teams in a 2 back system. Portis either runs it up the middle or Alridge takes it to the outside. Defenses would have to be on their toes.

Speed packages with Moss, Thomas, and Alridge out as a WR as he was used in college will create problems.[/quote]In the Pittsburgh game, we went three and out a lot. But all the points they scored were scored right at the beginning of the second half, before conventional fatigue could set in. They were actually much better when you would think they would have been fatigued.

Outside of the Baltimore game, our defense played significantly worse in the first half than in the second half last year. So I'm just not buying the fatigue argument. A fatigued team doesn't get stronger as the game goes on, which we did.

I agree that our offense should be better next year.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560085]Dude, don't start. Our defense won some games for us as well (Philly, Week 16). But also struggled mightily when we finished 2-6. And then there was St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc.[/quote]

and what about our 8 losses where we averaged 11 point per game - almost every game other then the SF game should be blamed on the offense. Our offense was about 20th in the league (yards) and about 27th (points), and our D was 4th. its obvious where our problem is. I agree with SI's rank.

Your going to blame our D in the Steelers game. We scored 6 points!

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560009]What has Campbell done since hes been our QB that makes anyone think he should be rated higher than 26 with Portis? The 2nd half of the season the Redskins sucked. I will say part of that is the offensive line. Part of it also was Campbell and his terrible passing where he seemed to want to throw balls over WRs heads and get them decked, throw to the WRs feet, throw behind the WR, or throw to a WR behind the 1st down marker.

Im banking on Campbell playing better in the 2nd year of Zorns offense, and the fact that hes in a contract year. I just cant say SI screwed the Skins over in these rankings when as of today Campbell/Portis hasnt done anything to suggest they should be ranked higher based on what happened last season when we actually played good teams in the 2nd half.[/quote]

What has San Fran, Tampa Bay, KC, Denver, or the Jets done to rank higher? Just because you're not happy with the way JC played last year doesn't make our backfield 26th in the league. If you think fans of these other teams are tickled pink with their QB situation you're dreaming. Cassell isn't playing with NE this year and Randy Moss and Wes Welker won't be in KC waiting for him. Larry Jones hasn't played a full season the last 2 years. Sanchez is a rookie and Jones is good, but not better than Portis. Shaun Hill and Frank Gore? Do you even know who's going to start for TB? Tell me what these other teams have done to be ranked higher. I don't really give a rats ass about this poll but the grass isn't always greener on the other side. I think our perception of the other teams becomes a little slanted by some of the disappointment of our own expectations of the Redskins.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

Shaun Hill and Frank Gore are six spots ahead of JC or CP. I dont agree with those ranking at all. Were both of our backs not being considered MVP's during the first half of the season? I def. think we are in the top 20...

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=redskins1974;560093]and what about our 8 losses where we averaged 11 point per game - almost every game other then the SF game should be blamed on the offense. Our offense was about 20th in the league (yards) and about 27th (points), and our D was 4th. its obvious where our problem is. I agree with SI's rank.

Your going to blame our D in the Steelers game. We scored 6 points![/quote]1) I said don't start. You're entitled to your opinion. You'll be happier keeping it to yourself.

2) Not the NYG game? Not the Cincinnati game? I dunno man, an average performance in those three (SF included) games, and we could have easily been 5-3 in the second half of the year. And that's still including the full on offensive collapse from units that weren't the offensive backfield. Even if you give back the second Philly game as one that you would have thought we lost by the way our offense performed, that's 10-6, plus a playoff berth.

True, there were games we got blown out in where our defense, and offense both played poorly. You could say that Pittsburgh blew us out. That Baltimore blew us out. That the Giants blew us out on opening night. You could even argue that Dallas blew us out coming out of our bye (even though that was a 4 point spread, we got so badly outplayed in that second half). But it was those other 4 losses where the defense, not the offense let us down. And that number trumps the amount of games our "No. 4" defense won for us.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

My question to you: is there any of our first seven wins that we still get had our offense been terrible in those games. Not terrible, as PPG would argue. Terrible as you are trying to say they are. Do we beat NO with a terrible offense? Arizona? Dallas, Philly? Detroit or Seattle?

I think our defense won the Cleveland game, and I think they won the second Eagles game. But that leaves 6 wins that I don't think happen without BOTH Campbell and Portis.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=53Fan;560095]What has San Fran, Tampa Bay, KC, Denver, or the Jets done to rank higher? Just because you're not happy with the way JC played last year doesn't make our backfield 26th in the league. If you think fans of these other teams are tickled pink with their QB situation you're dreaming. Cassell isn't playing with NE this year and Randy Moss and Wes Welker won't be in KC waiting for him. Larry Jones hasn't played a full season the last 2 years. Sanchez is a rookie and Jones is good, but not better than Portis. Shaun Hill and Frank Gore? Do you even know who's going to start for TB? Tell me what these other teams have done to be ranked higher. I don't really give a rats ass about this poll but the grass isn't always greener on the other side. I think our perception of the other teams becomes a little slanted by some of the disappointment of our own expectations of the Redskins.[/quote]

I think the rankings are wrong. Some of these teams are ranked too high or too low. I also think that Campbell/Portis will play better than some of the teams ranked ahead of them.

All im pointing out is its hard for me to debate Campbell/Portis being ahead of teams that also have flaws. Until Campbell steps up his game and throws with alot more accuracy Im not going to go up and down this list (that is really pointless) and say the Skins are better than maybe 3 or 4 teams on this list.

As for my perception of other teams in the league I know every team in the league inside and out. The bottom line is Campbell hasnt shown me he can be a successful starting QB in the NFL. He still has the potenial to be pretty good but until he shows me it on the field I cant debate moving him ahead of any team.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560098]1) I said don't start. You're entitled to your opinion. You'll be happier keeping it to yourself.

2) Not the NYG game? Not the Cincinnati game? I dunno man, an average performance in those three (SF included) games, and we could have easily been 5-3 in the second half of the year. And that's still including the full on offensive collapse from units that weren't the offensive backfield. Even if you give back the second Philly game as one that you would have thought we lost by the way our offense performed, that's 10-6, plus a playoff berth.

True, there were games we got blown out in where our defense, and offense both played poorly. You could say that Pittsburgh blew us out. That Baltimore blew us out. That the Giants blew us out on opening night. You could even argue that Dallas blew us out coming out of our bye (even though that was a 4 point spread, we got so badly outplayed in that second half). But it was those other 4 losses where the defense, not the offense let us down. And that number trumps the amount of games our "No. 4" defense won for us.[/quote]



Which NYG game? The game we scored 7 points or the other game we scored 7 points? And the Bengals? we scored 13 points against a pathetic Bengals Defense...your arguments dont make sense! 7 points in bpth NY games

wow....you have interesting math.
1) Offense 16.6 points per game (27th in league)
2) Defense 18.5 points per game ( 6th in league)

and you still maintain the offense won us more games then the defense. classic

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560109]I think the rankings are wrong. Some of these teams are ranked too high or too low. I also think that Campbell/Portis will play better than some of the teams ranked ahead of them.

All im pointing out is its hard for me to debate Campbell/Portis being ahead of teams that also have flaws. Until Campbell steps up his game and throws with alot more accuracy Im not going to go up and down this list (that is really pointless) and say the Skins are better than maybe 3 or 4 teams on this list.

As for my perception of other teams in the league I know every team in the league inside and out. [B]The bottom line is Campbell hasnt shown me he can be a successful starting QB in the NFL.[/B] He still has the potenial to be pretty good but until he shows me it on the field I cant debate moving him ahead of any team.[/quote]

Fair enough. You certainly have a right to your opinion. I think the same could be said for some of the QB's ranked ahead of him. As for me, I think he showed last year he can be a successful starting QB. I'm not saying he doesn't need to improve, he does, but I think he's as good as some who are ranked higher.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560098]1) I said don't start. You're entitled to your opinion. You'll be happier keeping it to yourself.

2) Not the NYG game? Not the Cincinnati game? I dunno man, an average performance in those three (SF included) games, and we could have easily been 5-3 in the second half of the year. And that's still including the full on offensive collapse from units that weren't the offensive backfield. Even if you give back the second Philly game as one that you would have thought we lost by the way our offense performed, that's 10-6, plus a playoff berth.

True, there were games we got blown out in where our defense, and offense both played poorly. You could say that Pittsburgh blew us out. That Baltimore blew us out. That the Giants blew us out on opening night. You could even argue that Dallas blew us out coming out of our bye (even though that was a 4 point spread, we got so badly outplayed in that second half). But it was those other 4 losses where the defense, not the offense let us down. And that number trumps the amount of games our "No. 4" defense won for us.[/quote]

Then perhaps the defense should not have been ranked 4th. I don't know. I like to fool myself and say most of our losses were due to injuies to the O-line and lack of WR's and quite possibly teams that ran the 3-4 that had a big nose tackle. Rahbach to me seemed to get steam rolled in those games. I could be way off. Defensively the team could not get off the field to save it's life. Lastly the team is simply going to just have a bad day.

Now if you going to prove me wrong I'm just going to cry. LOL. Cause in my little pea brain these things can be fixed. LOL.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=redskins1974;560110]Which NYG game? The game we scored 7 points or the other game we scored 7 points? And the Bengals? we scored 13 points against a pathetic Bengals Defense...your arguments dont make sense! 7 points in bpth NY games

wow....you have interesting math.
1) Offense 16.6 points per game (27th in league)
2) Defense 18.5 points per game ( 6th in league)

and you still maintain the offense won us more games then the defense. classic[/quote]Well, first of all, you didn't even watch the games in the first half of the season. This I'm sure of.

Secondly, what do you have for me that aren't yards and points? Surely, you aren't trying to argue that points are the end game. Too many factors that you aren't accounting for. You're essentially saying that turnovers, negative plays, and who the opponent is do not matter.

What you've shown here is that the Redskins had a slightly negative point differential. I'd say you have shown that they were maybe a 7-9, or maybe 8-8 team. This I could draw from what you've argued. As for whose fault it all is, well, are you going to make that argument, or are you just going to bring up something I've successfully disputed twice over the last five months, and hope like hell it speaks for itself?

Man, if only you had watched in September...

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SBXVII;560116]Defensively the team could not get off the field to save it's life.

Now if you going to prove me wrong I'm just going to cry. LOL. Cause in my little pea brain these things can be fixed. LOL.[/quote]Pretty much, yeah.

In my opinion, we fixed what ailed our defense this offseason. So, if our defense ends up being worse than last year, color me as surprised than the rest of you. I'm optimistic on next year. I think we'll be improved in all three phases of the game.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=53Fan;560113]Fair enough. You certainly have a right to your opinion. I think the same could be said for some of the QB's ranked ahead of him. As for me, I think he showed last year he can be a successful starting QB. I'm not saying he doesn't need to improve, he does, but I think he's as good as some who are ranked higher.[/quote]

Agreed. Campbell probably is. Its hard for me to debate it though with what ive seen on the field from his so far. Hopefully Campbell steps up his game like I think in a contract year and we can start to see some of that potenial fulfilled.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560118]Well, first of all, you didn't even watch the games in the first half of the season. This I'm sure of.

Secondly, what do you have for me that aren't yards and points? Surely, you aren't trying to argue that points are the end game. Too many factors that you aren't accounting for. You're essentially saying that turnovers, negative plays, and who the opponent is do not matter.

What you've shown here is that the Redskins had a slightly negative point differential. I'd say you have shown that they were maybe a 7-9, or maybe 8-8 team. This I could draw from what you've argued. As for whose fault it all is, well, are you going to make that argument, or are you just going to bring up something I've successfully disputed twice over the last five months, and hope like hell it speaks for itself?

Man, if only you had watched in September...[/quote]

Why do I need to use anything other then points? Isint that what determines if a team wins or losses a game? Being 27th in points scored and
6th in point given up speaks for itself.

and how do you blame losses on the Defense in the Steelers and both NY games. We scored 6, 7 and 7 points. Please explain.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SBXVII;560116]Then perhaps the defense should not have been ranked 4th. [/quote]But, yeah, the defense isn't "ranked" 4th by anything except the metrics that do not consider turnovers or sacks, and do not consider the frequency of drives faced. It just so happens that these are the standard stats the NFL uses. At which point, just don't cite stats at all. IMO, using statistics incorrectly is worse than not using them at all. Just grade defenses by the amount of "heart" the defensive coordinator shows.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=redskins1974;560123]Why do I need to use anything other then points? Isint that what determines if a team wins or losses a game? Being 27th in points scored and
6th in point given up speaks for itself.

and how do you blame losses on the Defense in the Steelers and both NY games. We scored 6, 7 and 7 points. Please explain.[/quote]Of course points determine if we win or lose. Football is not a game that is played at two separate locations with a split squad offense and defense. Simply, what one unit does has a great effect on the amount of points/yards the other scores and gives up. No one in the world disputes this.

So when just cite points, you aren't making a case for anything. Unless you are rejecting the validity of statement above. You cited that our points scored was 27th in the league. But if you want to make the point that our offense was the 27th best in the league, you have to go further. Tell us not the total product, but which positions were responsible and back it up.

Something like "Jim Zorn was responsible becuase his incredibly slow offensive pace limits the amount of points we can score before the game ends." Or, "the Redskins never played an overtime game last year, which affects the amount of oppertunities the team has to score."

Otherwise, your just slinging mud and hoping something sticks. If you really believe Jason Campbell is responsible for the offense being scored by 26 teams, say that, then back it up. If you are just going to throw shit against the wall, please don't waste our time and webspace.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560126]Of course points determine if we win or lose. Football is not a game that is played at two separate locations with a split squad offense and defense. Simply, what one unit does has a great effect on the amount of points/yards the other scores and gives up. No one in the world disputes this.

So when just cite points, you aren't making a case for anything. Unless you are rejecting the validity of statement above. You cited that our points scored was 27th in the league. But if you want to make the point that our offense was the 27th best in the league, you have to go further. Tell us not the total product, but which positions were responsible and back it up.

Something like "Jim Zorn was responsible becuase his incredibly slow offensive pace limits the amount of points we can score before the game ends." Or, "the Redskins never played an overtime game last year, which affects the amount of oppertunities the team has to score."

Otherwise, your just slinging mud and hoping something sticks. If you really believe Jason Campbell is responsible for the offense being scored by 26 teams, say that, then back it up. If you are just going to throw shit against the wall, please don't waste our time and webspace.[/quote]

The only thing im debating is you putting more blame on the defense then the offense.

Im still waiting on your rationale for blaming both NYG losses and the Steelers loss on the Redskins defense.