Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=redskins1974;560130]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.[/quote]Well, you're the one assigning blame. I'm making observations. And the observation, before you cited PPG, was that the defense seems to have a lot of issues. I was also focusing on the wins this whole time, realizing that when we did win, Campbell and Portis were huge parts of the victory in all except the last win, when they were both non-factors.

Now, if we talk about the losses, you point out the offense was held under 10 points against some good defenses. First, I want to point out that there were many field goal situations that Zorn had to pass up because the team was trailing by too much. Sure, if the goal of football was to score as many points as possible, like you say, the Redskins could have scored 13 points, 12 points, and 16 points in those games against strong defenses. Would not have done a thing to help win those games.

The margin of defeat prevented us from maximizing our point total. And that's the fault of not one unit, but both of them. The point deficit didn't have us chasing because the defense was playing great, and the offense was sucking. No. We were chasing because the offense couldn't get touchdowns and the defense couldn't get off the field. There's your culprits.

So you're placing 100% of the blame on the offense for something that was an offensive, and a defensive problem: that we weren't good enough to be in those games. PPG is terrible at painting that picture.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

Also, if our kicker has a really inconsistent year, should our offense shoulder the blame for not getting any points out of the drive?

According to you, it's 100% the offenses fault.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

The Skins defense ranked 4th last year giving up 288.8 ypg and 6th in ppg giving up 18.5. Which is shocking for the amount of 3 and outs the Skins had in 2008.

The Skins had problems on defense forcing sacks and turnovers and hopefully that problem has been fixed for 2009 with the additions they have made. At the sametime sacks and turnovers arent key to being a good defense. The key to being a good defense is to shut down the opposing team. If the Skins ranked in the bottom half of the league in defense then id say they needed more sacks or turnovers last year.

Out of the top 7 defenses last year the Skins were the only team that didnt make the playoffs. The reason why we didnt make the playoffs was because the offense didnt carry their weight. Hopefully in 2009 the offense can pick it up and the defense can help them out by forcing more sacks and turnovers. I know one thing if the Skins finish in the top 5 on defense again and miss the playoffs im going to be pissed.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560133]Well, you're the one assigning blame. I'm making observations. And the observation, before you cited PPG, was that the defense seems to have a lot of issues. I was also focusing on the wins this whole time, realizing that when we did win, Campbell and Portis were huge parts of the victory in all except the last win, when they were both non-factors.

Now, if we talk about the losses, you point out the offense was held under 10 points against some good defenses. First, I want to point out that there were many field goal situations that Zorn had to pass up because the team was trailing by too much. Sure, if the goal of football was to score as many points as possible, like you say, the Redskins could have scored 13 points, 12 points, and 16 points in those games against strong defenses. Would not have done a thing to help win those games.

The margin of defeat prevented us from maximizing our point total. And that's the fault of not one unit, but both of them. The point deficit didn't have us chasing because the defense was playing great, and the offense was sucking. No. We were chasing because the offense couldn't get touchdowns and the defense couldn't get off the field. There's your culprits.

So you're placing 100% of the blame on the offense for something that was an offensive, and a defensive problem: that we weren't good enough to be in those games. PPG is terrible at painting that picture.[/quote]

The offense is not 100% of the blame, but most of it. Though points scored versus points given up does not factor in every scenario, it is a key indicator of how well the offense and defense are performing. Yards for versus yards against was just as lopsided, in terms of rank.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=redskins1974;560137]The offense is not 100% of the blame, but most of it. Though points scored versus points given up does not factor in every scenario, it is a key indicator of how well the offense and defense are performing. Yards for versus yards against was just as lopsided, in terms of rank.[/quote]No, I get the fact that it's a key indicator, which is why I wondered if you were going to take it further, or just leave it as is and allow people to draw conclusions from it. That's why I asked if you had anything else that supported the position that you implied, but never stated.

I think it's implied that you feel Campbell is responsible for most of the 8 losses last year, and if not him, someone else on the offense. But I don't think that the reality of the situation suggests that. I'm not disputing that we didn't score enough points to win more than 8 games. But I think our offense was plenty good enough to support a 10 or 11 win team, and also that our PPG would have improved with a different coaching philosophy and a better year from Suisham.

At the end of the day, the team went out to fix the defense in free agency and in the draft, so either 1) we're stupid beyond all hell, 2) Springs and Taylor were irreplaceable parts in the defense last year, or 3) the team concluded that the defense, as was, wasn't good enough.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560136]The Skins defense ranked 4th last year giving up 288.8 ypg and 6th in ppg giving up 18.5. Which is shocking for the amount of 3 and outs the Skins had in 2008.

The Skins had problems on defense forcing sacks and turnovers and hopefully that problem has been fixed for 2009 with the additions they have made. At the sametime sacks and turnovers arent key to being a good defense. The key to being a good defense is to shut down the opposing team. If the Skins ranked in the bottom half of the league in defense then id say they needed more sacks or turnovers last year.

Out of the top 7 defenses last year the Skins were the only team that didnt make the playoffs. The reason why we didnt make the playoffs was because the offense didnt carry their weight. Hopefully in 2009 the offense can pick it up and the defense can help them out by forcing more sacks and turnovers. I know one thing if the Skins finish in the top 5 on defense again and miss the playoffs im going to be pissed.[/quote]We had the third least 3 and outs of any team in the NFL. Does this change your opinion of the offense at all?

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

I'm still trying to figure out why we signed AH to such a big contract and spent our first draft pick on a defensive player. Maybe because the FO thought the offense was pretty much set and just needed another year in the system, and if the defense could get some turnovers and/or get the opposing offense off the field we may have a better chance of scoring?

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=53Fan;560144]I'm still trying to figure out why we signed AH to such a big contract and spent our first draft pick on a defensive player. Maybe because the FO thought the offense was pretty much set and just needed another year in the system, and if the defense could get some turnovers and/or get the opposing defense off the field we may have a better chance of scoring?[/quote]I think it was just an easy way to vastly improve the team. He was the best player on the free agent market, and while DT wasn't a need for us, it was really easy to make it the position of strength on our team: pay Albert.

As it stands: the historical weak link on our defense just got a 50 million dollar contract this offseason. If he's the 11th best player on our defense that's really saying something about how good this unit can be.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560147]I think it was just an easy way to vastly improve the team. He was the best player on the free agent market, and while DT wasn't a need for us, it was really easy to make it the position of strength on our team: pay Albert.

As it stands: the historical weak link on our defense just got a 50 million dollar contract this offseason. If he's the 11th best player on our defense that's really saying something about how good this unit can be.[/quote]

Yeah, WTF, let's just throw 50 mil at something we don't need. :)

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

Well, it clearly was a long-term need. We just paid him disproportionately to how well he's played the last three seasons.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=53Fan;560144]I'm still trying to figure out why we signed AH to such a big contract and spent our first draft pick on a defensive player. Maybe because the FO thought the offense was pretty much set and just needed another year in the system, and if the defense could get some turnovers and/or get the opposing offense off the field we may have a better chance of scoring?[/quote]On AH, pressure on the QB from the front 4 has been a problem for the past few years, IMO the Skins saw an impact player there that only took $$$ and not draft picks to get and went out to get him. If pressure can come from the front four that makes for more plays to be made in the secondary by the back 7. Orakpo was not only the best player available, but fills a need not often found at # 13, a pass rushing DE that is also solid against the run. Also IMO, Orakpo will be moved over to full-time RDE within two years.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

It was definitely a need. This defense wasn't as good as everyone's making it out to be. There was a little sarcasm in my last post.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=53Fan;560151]It was definitely a need. This defense wasn't as good as everyone's making it out to be. There was alittle sarcasm in my last post.[/quote]Sorry about that, I need to re-calibrate the sarcasm meter. :)

I agree with you 100% about the D.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

we have lacked a good front 4 for yrs.now we have a strong dline. a passrush helps the entire defense.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

The thing that kills me is that some people here don't understand that it is a pretty normal reaction for the [B][U]fans[/U][/B] of a team to be a bit upset if their QB and RB are ranked at the bottom of the league, especially with some questionable backfield ranked ahead of them. :doh:

To every person in here who spends 90% of their threads bashing a particular player (i.e. our QB) or are quickly to dismiss those of us who drink the kool aid a little bit and ask for a higher ranking I have a question? What are you hoping out of this team and what do you root for? I'm not saying that you'd be a delusional fan and think that we have a top 5 backfield, but don't f'ing shoot us down fiercely if we think the players of our team are a bit better than what the sports media says. Shoot, I think the Giants and Eagles fans on this board have a better opinion of our team than some of us fans.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;560153]we have lacked a good front 4 for yrs.now we have a strong dline. a passrush helps the entire defense.[/quote]

Good point. I think our top ranking on defense has hidden this particular deficiency (and the lack of turnover as well).

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[QUOTE=DBUCHANON101;560153]we have lacked a good front 4 for yrs.now we have a strong dline. [B]a passrush helps the entire defense.[/[/B]QUOTE]

I think what some people aren't understanding is, it also helps the offense. It helps create turnovers and getting the opposing offense off the field so we can get our offense on the field and score more points.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=53Fan;560151]It was definitely a need. This defense wasn't as good as everyone's making it out to be. There was a little sarcasm in my last post.[/quote]Yeah, my usually spot-on sarcasm meter totally whiffed there. Now there's egg on my face.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

I thought you guys knew me by now. :)

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

I'm just a little perplexed that some people who do watch all the games truly feel like they were witnessing a great defense last year. I mean, this is a franchise that has produced three legit top five/six defenses in the last five seasons, and some people look at last year's sad impersonation of a strong defense and are okay saying that they were witnessing a great unit.

I mean, the perspective is there. We've had [B]great[/B] defenses here under Grilliams. Not just good, but great. Three out of four years. Then Blache has a mediocre unit with a small bend-but-don't-break effect, and people are convinced that they are witnessing greatness. I'm just confused.

Defense did a lot of things well last year. Being great was not one of those things. We had two and a half players play at a pro bowl level all year (Rogers, Fletcher, and arguably Griffin). In the past, we had 5 or 6 guys playing at a pro bowl level (Griffin, Washington, Arrington, Springs, Taylor, Pierce, Carter, etc).

End rant.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Ruhskins;560154]I'm not saying that you'd be a delusional fan and think that we have a top 5 backfield, but don't f'ing shoot us down fiercely if we think the players of our team are a bit better than what the sports media says. Shoot, I think the Giants and Eagles fans on this board have a better opinion of our team than some of us fans.[/quote]

Whats the point of a Redskin fan like myself debating instead of being ranked 26th we should be ranked around 20th. Either way the answer to why we are ranked low remains the same. It would be one thing if we had a top 10 QB/RB combo and they ranked us 26th. They ranked us 26th because as far as QB/RB combos go ours isnt that good as of today. Maybe there are 5 or 6 teams ahead of us that shouldnt be. The difference between 20th and 26th isnt a big enough difference for me to post that SI screwed us over in their rankings.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560140]No, I get the fact that it's a key indicator, which is why I wondered if you were going to take it further, or just leave it as is and allow people to draw conclusions from it. That's why I asked if you had anything else that supported the position that you implied, but never stated.

I think it's implied that you feel Campbell is responsible for most of the 8 losses last year, and if not him, someone else on the offense. But I don't think that the reality of the situation suggests that. I'm not disputing that we didn't score enough points to win more than 8 games. But I think our offense was plenty good enough to support a 10 or 11 win team, and also that our PPG would have improved with a different coaching philosophy and a better year from Suisham.

At the end of the day, the team went out to fix the defense in free agency and in the draft, so either 1) we're stupid beyond all hell, 2) Springs and Taylor were irreplaceable parts in the defense last year, or 3) the team concluded that the defense, as was, wasn't good enough.[/quote]

Our offense was good enough to support 11 wins? in what, soccer?

The team tried hardest to find a new QB, in both free agency and the draft.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560143]We had the third least 3 and outs of any team in the NFL. Does this change your opinion of the offense at all?[/quote]

Actually no. We were 26th in 3rd down converisons in 2008 with 35% so I just assumed we had alot of 3 and outs. At least it felt that way to me watching the offense last year.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560160]Whats the point of a Redskin fan like myself debating instead of being ranked 26th we should be ranked around 20th. Either way the answer to why we are ranked low remains the same. It would be one thing if we had a top 10 QB/RB combo and they ranked us 26th. They ranked us 26th because as far as QB/RB combos go ours isnt that good as of today. Maybe there are 5 or 6 teams ahead of us that shouldnt be. The difference between 20th and 26th isnt a big enough difference for me to post that SI screwed us over in their rankings.[/quote]I generally agree with this perspective. But I also realize that it's normal for fans of teams to see "bottom 7" instead of "in the 3rd quartile". Truth is, we can't tell what the author was saying. So fans just get offended preemptively.

The comments posted on that article over at SI were hilarious. There were Vikings fans who were convinced that they were jipped of a top ten ranking. You know, that one team, that has one of the five best Ds in football every year, and wins 7-10 games a year. Yeah, jipped of a top ten offensive backfield.

Irrationality is the standard.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560160][B]Whats the point of a Redskin fan like myself debating instead of being ranked 26th we should be ranked around 20th.[/B] Either way the answer to why we are ranked low remains the same. It would be one thing if we had a top 10 QB/RB combo and they ranked us 26th. They ranked us 26th because as far as QB/RB combos go ours isnt that good as of today. [B]Maybe there are 5 or 6 teams ahead of us that shouldnt be. [/B]The difference between 20th and 26th isnt a big enough difference for me to post that SI screwed us over in their rankings.[/quote]

I think you make a fair point and some people would say that it is not worth making an argument. My comment was geared more towards people that spend a lot of time and energy arguing down others who think we are better. In the end this ranking is as pointless as arguing whether our backfield is 26th or 20th. But at the same time, people shouldn't be surprised when a fan doesn't like to see their team rank so low.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560162]Actually no. We were 26th in 3rd down converisons in 2008 with 35% so I just assumed we had alot of 3 and outs. At least it felt that way to me watching the offense last year.[/quote]Well, we converted 67% of our first and tens for first downs, and that figure was above the league average. It just so happened that we were WELL above the league average at the start of drives.

That would seem to either be a credit to the playcalling, or just statistical noise. But converting 67% of our first and tens into another first and tens is a real trend. Of course, that also means that 33% of our drives failed, and that we weren't a great third down team, and while 33% is a good drive failure rate, it's not nearly good enough for an offense with zero big play ability, and a declining success rate as it gets closer to the opponents goal line.

We were a well above average between our own 20 and our own 40. But on the other side of the 50, we were a far below average offense. It's interesting how our field position seemed to determine our success rate, but when your greatest offensive weapon brings only the threat of a deep pass, and hardly any actual production, it's easy to justify what happened.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Ruhskins;560164]I think you make a fair point and some people would say that it is not worth making an argument. My comment was geared more towards people that spend a lot of time and energy arguing down others who think we are better. In the end this ranking is as pointless as arguing whether our backfield is 26th or 20th. But at the same time, people shouldn't be surprised when a fan doesn't like to see their team rank so low.[/quote]Yep. If the author had said, "right now, at least half the teams in the NFL had stronger backfields than the Redskins" not many would have argued. But when people see a rankings list, you can see right away who the author is deeming to be "better" than you. Then comes the, "I've seen players x, and y, play before, and they aren't better than my team's guys."

That's usually true, but out of the guys who are ranked behind you, chances are a few of them are actually going to be better than you this year as well.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560159]I'm just a little perplexed that some people who do watch all the games truly feel like they were witnessing a great defense last year. I mean, this is a franchise that has produced three legit top five/six defenses in the last five seasons, and some people look at last year's sad impersonation of a strong defense and are okay saying that they were witnessing a great unit.[/quote]

I hope no one thinks we had a great defense last year. We had a pretty good defense and at times they played great. A great defense was a defense like the Steelers last year. They could do it all and they carried their offense in games. Our defense did its job and I think they played good last year. I dont think they were great though. I do think this years defenses has the potenial to be the best in the game with the additions of Haynesworth and Orakpo.

[quote=Ruhskins;560164]I think you make a fair point and some people would say that it is not worth making an argument. My comment was geared more towards people that spend a lot of time and energy arguing down others who think we are better. In the end this ranking is as pointless as arguing whether our backfield is 26th or 20th. But at the same time, people shouldn't be surprised when a fan doesn't like to see their team rank so low.[/quote]

Its the offseason. Its kinda funny when were all going back and forth about a useless ranking of QB/RB combos. :laughing2

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SBXVII;560047]
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
[/quote]

Where do you get these stats from 9th Cutler, 24th Orton, 26th JC?
How can a list have JC who has the same TD count as Orton, more yards, fewer interceptions and has a higher QB rating yet have JC ranked 26th and Orton ranked 24th?

[url=http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&statisticCategory=PASSING&d-447263-s=PASSING_PASSER_RATING&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=0&d-447263-p=1]NFL Stats: by Player Category[/url]

NFL.com has Cutler 16th, JC 19th, Orton 25th by rating

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560165]Well, we converted 67% of our first and tens for first downs, and that figure was above the league average. It just so happened that we were WELL above the league average at the start of drives.

That would seem to either be a credit to the playcalling, or just statistical noise. But converting 67% of our first and tens into another first and tens is a real trend. Of course, that also means that 33% of our drives failed, and that we weren't a great third down team, and while 33% is a good drive failure rate, it's not nearly good enough for an offense with zero big play ability, and a declining success rate as it gets closer to the opponents goal line.

We were a well above average between our own 20 and our own 40. But on the other side of the 50, we were a far below average offense. It's interesting how our field position seemed to determine our success rate, but when your greatest offensive weapon brings only the threat of a deep pass, and hardly any actual production, it's easy to justify what happened.[/quote]

Nice post. I actually didnt know that stat about the 1st and 10s. Thats actually pretty impressive. Watching the Skins last year it really didnt feel like we were that successful starting drives. I guess the offenses failure to score on a regular basis made me feel that way. It just seemed like we punted so much last year. I guess the offense stalled after we picked up a little steam on drives. You would think the way the offense slowed down we would of had more 3 and outs. Thats pretty interesting.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560175]Nice post. I actually didnt know that stat about the 1st and 10s. Thats actually pretty impressive. Watching the Skins last year it really didnt feel like we were that successful starting drives. I guess the offenses failure to score on a regular basis made me feel that way. It just seemed like we punted so much last year. I guess the offense stalled after we picked up a little steam on drives. You would think the way the offense slowed down we would of had more 3 and outs. Thats pretty interesting.[/quote]I guess I could sum up last season like this: The offense was more frustrating than bad, the defense was more mediocre than frustrating, and Suisham was just incredibly frustrating.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560176]I guess I could sum up last season like this: The offense was more frustrating than bad, the defense was more mediocre than frustrating, and Suisham was just incredibly frustrating.[/quote]

:laughing2

Id agree with that 100%.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560176]I guess I could sum up last season like this: The offense was more frustrating than bad, the defense was more mediocre than frustrating, and Suisham was just incredibly frustrating.[/quote]

In other words, the defense was better then the offense, which was my arguement the entire time with you.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=redskins1974;560180]In other words, the defense was better then the offense, which was my arguement the entire time with you.[/quote]Well, no, I'm not saying that. Nor am I saying the opposite.

I'll say this: the offense declined more over the course of the four month season than the defense did. It also had further to go from the first five games. By the end of the season, the offense was less frustrating, and more undermanned. It featured names like Heyer and Fabini. There was really no upside there.

The defense was consistently underachieving what it could have been. For the final three games, when they were below average, their best defensive player was coming off the bench, and they were blitzing into teams who were plenty prepared to protect the QB. And they were performing at a level that undermined their talent.

Our horses were on the defensive side last year, but I'm not willing to say that they were more responsible for our wins than the offense. I'm not sure if I believe that or not.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=redskins1974;560161]Our offense was good enough to support 11 wins? in what, soccer?
[B]
The team tried hardest to find a new QB, in both free agency and the draft.[/B][/quote]

If "the team" (Snyder) was determined to get either Cutler or Sanchez, it would have happened. We could have easily offered our 1st and 3rd this year plus our 1st and 2nd next year for Cutler and that would have trumped any offer. We could have offered our #1 this year and next year to go get Sanchez. Don't be a media sheep and believe every exaggerated rumor.

The defense blew the St. Louis game, Cincy game and SF game. 8+3=11.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

I didn't read every page of the thread so I don't know if anyone repeated what Terl said on Redskins Blog. Basically he said you have to be REALLY down on Campbell for him to offset 2 Pro Bowlers in the backfield and drag them to #26.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Paintrain;560183]I didn't read every page of the thread so I don't know if anyone repeated what Terl said on Redskins Blog. Basically he said you have to be REALLY down on Campbell for him to offset 2 Pro Bowlers in the backfield and drag them to #26.[/quote]

Good point. We had a pro bowl RB and a pro bowl FB and yet our backfield is ranked 26th. :doh:

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Paintrain;560182]The defense blew the St. Louis game, Cincy game and SF game. 8+3=11.[/quote]

Id go out on a limb and say the offense blew both Giants games, the Rams game, the 2nd Cowboy game, the Steelers game, the Ravens game, and the Bengals game. 8+7=15. :laughing2

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=redskins1974;560161]The team tried hardest to find a new QB, in both free agency and the draft.[/quote]Well, what that proves is that the team is quite convinced that neither of our two backups will ever be as good as Campbell.

I don't blame them for looking for ways to improve our passing game, but I question the wisdom of any trail of thought that ends up at Jay Cutler or Mark Sanchez. There's a few guys who could improve our QB situation in this league, but none of them would ever be "available."

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560185]Id go out on a limb and say the offense blew both Giants games, the Rams game, the 2nd Cowboy game, the Steelers game, the Ravens game, and the Bengals game. 8+7=15. :laughing2[/quote]I get the point that both units were responsible in pretty much all of our loses, Cincinnati, SF, and St. Louis included, but Paintrain simply named games where inexcusable defensive mistakes were the entire difference in the score. While the offense could have played better in every single one of our losses, the margin of defeat was so wide that it wouldn't have matted if the defense hadn't also improved. And I think the one exception to the rule might have been the first Giants game.