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]

Terl should of realized that FBs werent listed in the SI rankings. If they were the Skins probably would of had a higher ranking.

At the sametime SI is stupid for ranking backfields and not listing FBs.

God I cant wait for the season to start. I wish I could hibernate like a bear. :laughing2

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560188]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.[/quote]

You bring up some good points but in the 7 games I brought up the Skins lost 7-16, 17-19, 6-23, 10-14, 7-23, 10-24, and 13-20. While the defense could of played better in some of those games the offense could of played better in all of those games.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

Well, if we were to define an average performance for the Redskins defense last year, I'm pretty sure they would only have beaten it in the first Giants game, and the Baltimore game, out of all those losses. In 6 of our 8 losses, the defense did not perform like it would have needed to win. Paintrain brought up three games where, while the offense wasn't good, it was good enough.

Of course, in three of the losses neither unit performed well enough to make it a close game. All three of those games happened in November. And one of those games was close, because the Cowboys are awful.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560188]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.[/quote]

Exactly, I can name 3 things off the top of my head that were season killers:
1. Leigh Torrence getting beat deep with less than 2:00 to go on a 3rd and long vs. the Rams to set up the game winning FG.

2. Giving up an 87 yard screen pass against the Bengals to Cedric Benson. Every defender should have been docked $25,000 for that play.

3. Blowing a 10 point halftime lead against SF and then after we tied it, allowing yet another long completion under 2 mins to set up the game winning FG.

As "bad" as people want to say the offense was (and they were maddening at times) and as much as people want to tout our 4th ranked (most fraudulent ranking metric in the NFL) defense, we were a few plays away from being a playoff team.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

Total defense is one of the worst stats in the NFL, metric wise. It's based solely on yards, and yet they call it "total??" Shouldn't "total" be some metric involving a combination of yards allowed, points allowed, sacks, and turnovers forced??

I could give two shits if the Redskins allow 350+ yards a game, as long as they are forcing turnovers, getting to the QB, and not allowing too many scores. Our D was sound, but amazingly unspectacular.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Paintrain;560192]Exactly, I can name 3 things off the top of my head that were season killers:
1. Leigh Torrence getting beat deep with less than 2:00 to go on a 3rd and long vs. the Rams to set up the game winning FG.

2. Giving up an 87 yard screen pass against the Bengals to Cedric Benson. Every defender should have been docked $25,000 for that play.

3. Blowing a 10 point halftime lead against SF and then after we tied it, allowing yet another long completion under 2 mins to set up the game winning FG.

As "bad" as people want to say the offense was (and they were maddening at times) and as much as people want to tout our 4th ranked (most fraudulent ranking metric in the NFL) defense, we were a few plays away from being a playoff team.[/quote]

I agree with everything you said but at the sametime the defense was still 4th in the NFL. If the offense picked up some slack in alot of the games we lost we also would of made the playoffs. Its a doubled edged sword type of deal.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Paintrain;560192]Exactly, I can name 3 things off the top of my head that were season killers:
1. Leigh Torrence getting beat deep with less than 2:00 to go on a 3rd and long vs. the Rams to set up the game winning FG.

2. Giving up an 87 yard screen pass against the Bengals to Cedric Benson. Every defender should have been docked $25,000 for that play.

3. Blowing a 10 point halftime lead against SF and then after we tied it, allowing yet another long completion under 2 mins to set up the game winning FG.

As "bad" as people want to say the offense was (and they were maddening at times) and as much as people want to tout our 4th ranked (most fraudulent ranking metric in the NFL) defense, we were a few plays away from being a playoff team.[/quote]Like I said, if the defense was who we thought they were, we go 11-5 last year. And if we had won 11 games last year, no one would be saying we had a bad offense, and the games they totally forgot to show up would have been forgotten. Ergo, both units were duly responsible for failure.

Ergo, the Campbell detractors are officially revisionists :D

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GMScud;560194]Total defense is one of the worst stats in the NFL, metric wise. It's based solely on yards, and yet they call it "total??" Shouldn't "total" be some metric involving a combination of yards allowed, points allowed, sacks, and turnovers forced??

I could give two shits if the Redskins allow 350+ yards a game, as long as they are forcing turnovers, getting to the QB, and not allowing too many scores. Our D was sound, but amazingly unspectacular.[/quote]

Ive always liked the ypg defensive stat. Mainly because the ppg can be flawed if your offense puts the defense in bad field position on a regular basis.

Hopefully the Skins will have more sacks and turnovers this year with the additions they have made. Then the defense can take the next step to actually being a great defense.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GMScud;560194]Total defense is one of the worst stats in the NFL, metric wise. It's based solely on yards, and yet they call it "total??" Shouldn't "total" be some metric involving a combination of yards allowed, points allowed, sacks, and turnovers forced??[/quote]Nah, dude. Total means passing plus rushing. You know, total. A yard is a yard is a yard.

Also, only the offense can score. Or, at least, that's what the Redskins preach to their defense and special teams.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560197]Ive always liked the ypg defensive stat. Mainly because the ppg can be flawed if your offense puts the defense in bad field position on a regular basis.

Hopefully the Skins will have more sacks and turnovers this year with the additions they have made. Then the defense can take the next step to actually being a great defense.[/quote]YPG is [I]less[/I] flawed than PPG, because the sample size is greater, but it still suffers from a lot of the same faults, like, per [U]game[/U] stats doesn't tell you anything compared to per [U]drive[/U] or per [U]play[/U] stats.. It also correlates to winning poorly, since yard differential is way less predictive than point differential.

Put a different way, a team that ranks 1st in yards and 5th in points on offense is probably better than a team that ranks 1st in points and 5th in yards. This is simply because a team that has the ability to get the yards might not always have incentive to maximize points. But the team with the greater point differential is almost always the better team than the one with the greatest yard differential.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560196]And if we had won 11 games last year, no one would be saying we had a bad offense,[/quote]

My sarcasm meter is on the fritz. Are you serious or joking? :laughing-

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560197]Ive always liked the ypg defensive stat. [B]Mainly because the ppg can be flawed if your offense puts the defense in bad field position on a regular basis.
[/B]
Hopefully the Skins will have more sacks and turnovers this year with the additions they have made. Then the defense can take the next step to actually being a great defense.[/quote]

Yeah, well it can work just as easily the other way if the D is giving the O a short field by forcing turnovers in the opponents territory, and/or sacking the QB to set up 3rd and very longs.

That's why I suggested something that combines the stats. Either that, or don't label the ypg stat as "total" and then use it as the measuring stick in analysis. I have no problem with a yards/game stat. I just don't think it's very telling overall as far as "total" is concerned.

Do you really think we had the 4th best defense in football last year? I don't. Probably right around top 10, but not 4th.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560200]My sarcasm meter is on the fritz. Are you serious or joking? :laughing-[/quote]Tounge in cheek, but serious. Think about it: if we had made the playoffs, people would be treating our defense as top five, but they'd be treating our offense as average because there would be no need to justify having only won 8 games with a great defense. It's must easier to justfy unspectacular performance if the overall product doesn't ultimately disappoint.

That's all I was pointing out.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

The current logical structure among the fanbase is this:

C = The team was average
A = The defense was fantastic
B = The offense must have been horrible

C = A - B

But proposition A clearly is an overstatement. However, if A isn't an overstatement, and the team was not average, but quite good (C = The team is very good), then the same logical structure sees B as "The offense was respectable". So the conclusion is, the crap the offense takes is a factor of people being hesitant to say the defense was anything less than fantastic. But as pointed out, they were not fantastic. They were anywhere between average and good, depending on who you ask.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560199]YPG is [I]less[/I] flawed than PPG, because the sample size is greater, but it still suffers from a lot of the same faults, like, per [U]game[/U] stats doesn't tell you anything compared to per [U]drive[/U] or per [U]play[/U] stats.. It also correlates to winning poorly, since yard differential is way less predictive than point differential.

Put a different way, a team that ranks 1st in yards and 5th in points on offense is probably better than a team that ranks 1st in points and 5th in yards. This is simply because a team that has the ability to get the yards might not always have incentive to maximize points. But the team with the greater point differential is almost always the better team than the one with the greatest yard differential.[/quote]

Yeah all stats seem to have flaws one way or another. Thats why they are stats. Nice post.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GMScud;560201] Yeah, well it can work just as easily the other way if the D is giving the O a short field by forcing turnovers in the opponents territory, and/or sacking the QB to set up 3rd and very longs.[/quote]

Thats why I like the defensive ypg stat and I prefer the offensive ppg stat.

[quote=GMScud;560201]Do you really think we had the 4th best defense in football last year? I don't. Probably right around top 10, but not 4th.[/quote]

Id agree with that statement. The defense did its job last year but at times didnt look like a top 4 defense. Hopefully this year our defense will be better overall across the board with the additions of Haynesworth and Orakpo.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560205]Thats why I like the defensive ypg stat and I prefer the offensive ppg stat.


[/quote]
How can you primarily use the offensive ppg stat if the D is consistently giving the offensive a short field (something just as easily done with turnovers and sacks as it is yards allowed)? Starting a drive from the 40 is a lot easier than from the 20.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560202]Tounge in cheek, but serious. Think about it: if we had made the playoffs, people would be treating our defense as top five, but they'd be treating our offense as average because there would be no need to justify having only won 8 games with a great defense. It's must easier to justfy unspectacular performance if the overall product doesn't ultimately disappoint.

That's all I was pointing out.[/quote]

Maybe but when we made the playoffs in 2005 with a 10-6 record all I heard was people slamming our offense even though we were 11th in ypg and 13th in ppg. They played bad in the playoffs but late in the regular season they clicked to help secure a playoff spot. It got so bad Gibbs gave the playcalling over to Al Saunders (which imo was the worst move Gibbs made in his comeback).

If the Skins made the playoffs at 11-5 last season with ranks of 19 in ypg and 28 in ppg and the offense looked bad it would of been slammed even worse imo. I dont care if the Skins went 16-0 last year if we only scored 16 ppg for the season id say our offense was terrible.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GMScud;560206]How can you primarily use the offensive ppg stat if the D is consistently giving the offensive a short field (something just as easily done with turnovers and sacks as it is yards allowed)? Starting a drive from the 40 is a lot easier than from the 20.[/quote]

Every team stat has certain flaws. I prefer to use the defensive ypg stat because if the offense puts the defense in bad situations and they hold to FGs it still counts against them if you use ppg.

I like to use the offensive ppg stat because imo the offenses main job is to score. Every offense in the NFL every week will have chances to score. Its just a matter if the offense can get the TDs needed to help your team win.

Imo the defenses job is to contain the opponents offense. I think the ypg stat is the best indicator of this. I believe the offenses job is to score TDs. I dont care how many yards they rack up if they dont score.

Other people have other ways to judge how good a offense or defense is.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560208]Every team stat has certain flaws. I prefer to use the defensive ypg stat because if the offense puts the defense in bad situations and they hold to FGs it still counts against them if you use ppg.

I like to use the offensive ppg stat because imo the offenses main job is to score. Every offense in the NFL every week will have chances to score. Its just a matter if the offense can get the TDs needed to help your team win.

Imo the defenses job is to contain the opponents offense. I think the ypg stat is the best indicator of this. I believe the offenses job is to score TDs. I dont care how many yards they rack up if they dont score.

Other people have other ways to judge how good a offense or defense is.[/quote]

I don't totally disagree with your assessment. But you say the offense's job is to score TD's. Ok. I won't argue against idea that their #1 job is to score, just like it's the D's primary job is to prevent scoring. Well, if said offense has a dominant defense on the other side of the ball, they will not only get more total possessions to perform their job (due to 3 and outs, turnovers, sacks), they will more often than not have a shorter than average field with which to do so.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

Really all I'm saying is there are a few statistical metrics on both sides of the ball that should get just as much consideration as the "total" (just yardage) stat that gets so much praise.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Paintrain;560192]Exactly, I can name 3 things off the top of my head that were season killers:
1. Leigh Torrence getting beat deep with less than 2:00 to go on a 3rd and long vs. the Rams to set up the game winning FG.

2. Giving up an 87 yard screen pass against the Bengals to Cedric Benson. Every defender should have been docked $25,000 for that play.

[B]3. Blowing a 10 point halftime lead against SF and then after we tied it, allowing yet another long completion under 2 mins to set up the game winning FG.[/B]

As "bad" as people want to say the offense was (and they were maddening at times) and as much as people want to tout our 4th ranked (most fraudulent ranking metric in the NFL) defense, we were a few plays away from being a playoff team.[/quote]

I don't really mind this loss, after all, I credit it with getting us Orakpo :)

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GMScud;560210]Really all I'm saying is there are a few statistical metrics on both sides of the ball that should get just as much consideration as the "total" (just yardage) stat that gets so much praise.[/quote]

#1. Dude, you posted at 2am. I hope you went to bed instead of talking about the same topic all night. LOL.

#2. I simply felt they marked us lower then teams with lesser talent or lower then teams that will be questionable this yr due to change of coaching, and loss of valuable players.

#3. Apparently the writer was not talking about "the backfield" alone cause usually that's refered to RB's and FB's and teams with HB's. I usually don't include the QB in that discussion. If the writer was going to talk about QB's also then he might as well talked about the whole offense and especially the O-line giving the said QB time to throw the ball if they were going to use passing statistics. Simply put a better topic heading would have been "SI Ranks Offenses and their Backfields." I guess I was just being picky about how they ranked the teams, where the Skins were placed and the topic heading.

#4. Whatever statistical data they used to get their conclusion sucks. I presume they are using last yrs stats. Accounting for all the injuries each team had, not counting any additions teams made and then figuring that's how they will be again this yr. I believe adding AH and Orakpo will considerably make our defense better. Whether 4th ranked or not. I think the Skins keeping most of the offensive players, beefing up the O-line, Hopefully a change of pace back, and two WR's and a TE with something to prove makes for a huge change. Truthfully it all amounts to a hill of beans untill the team goes out and proves they can be good. I felt they did that in the first 8 games even though they didn't score 40 points a game. What mattered was they scored more then their opponant. A win was a win. Yes the last 8 games can't be discounted. I just thin a lot played into why we were 2-6 in the last 8 games especially against teams like San Fran who had a mediocre yr like us. We had a new offense, we had a new HC, we had injuries, perhaps became predictable due to the injuries, had a terrible 2 min drill, plus probably a half a dozen other issues. People can blast JC but the O-line sucked in the last 8 games. People say teams figured out what Zorn was doing, maybe, or possibly teams figured out where the O-line kept breaking down and attacked it. Perhaps they realized JC was only partially confortable in his new offensive scheme and decided to blitz to make him get rid of the ball faster. Hopefully Zorn has figured out the problem and has fixed it. If not I'm betting he's gone also. I don't want him gone for consistancy sake but I bet he's gone.

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]

agreed

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GMScud;560209]I don't totally disagree with your assessment. But you say the offense's job is to score TD's. Ok. I won't argue against idea that their #1 job is to score, [B]just like it's the D's primary job is to prevent scoring[/B]. Well, if said offense has a dominant defense on the other side of the ball, they will not only get more total possessions to perform their job (due to 3 and outs, turnovers, sacks), they will more often than not have a shorter than average field with which to do so.[/quote]

Yeah I knew you would say that. I agree you can very easily take why I like the offensive ppg stat and flip it and ask why I dont like the defensive one.

I just dont like how defenses can play great but be in bad field position all game and give up 3 or 4 FGs that they wouldnt have given up if the offense helped them out a little. The reason I like the offensive ppg stat is that even if they are given short fields its no lock they will score TDs off of it. If the offense still doesnt make plays to score their ppg isnt as messed up. They would still have to make plays to score a TD.

Really it just comes down to that I dont mind some cheap FGs messing with the offensive ppg stat because if they cant score TDs it doesnt matter they still suck. I do mind cheap FGs messing with the defensive ppg stat though because a defense can play lights out all game can still give up 3 pts a pop if they start inside their own territory.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GMScud;560210]Really all I'm saying is there are a few statistical metrics on both sides of the ball that should get just as much consideration as the "total" (just yardage) stat that gets so much praise.[/quote]

I went ahead and made a new defensive ranking that adds in sacks and turnovers.

What I did was I took the defensive ypg rankings for 2008 for each team and put them on one side. Then I took the sack rankings and turnover rankings for 2008 and averaged them out. This gave me each teams big play ranking for 2008.

Heres the Big Play Rankings List for 2008.....

[B]ten 4[/B]
pit 5.5
bal 6
nyj 6
phi 6
mia 6.5
ari 9.5
min 9.5
dal 10.5
car 12
chi 12
tb 12.5
nyg 13
ind 14.5
stl 14.5
oak 15
cle 16.5
ne 17
sea 18
gb 18.5
atl 19.5
sd 19.5
kc 20.5
det 21
no 21
sf 22
cin 23.5
hou 23.5
buf 24
jac 25.5
[B]was 28[/B]
den 29

The Skins ranked next to last in Big Plays last year. The good news is with Haynesworth in DC now maybe he can help us like he did Tennessee in this department.

When I take these numbers and average them out with the defensive ypg stat ranking for 2008 heres what I came up with.....

[B][U]New Adjusted Defensive Rankings for 2008 [/U][/B]

1. pit 3.25
2. bal 4
3. phi 4.5
4. ten 5.5
5. min 7.75
6. nyg 9
7. dal 9.25
8. mia 10.75
8. tb 10.75
10. nyj 11
11. ind 12.75
12. ne 13.5
13. ari 14.25
14. car 15
[B]15. was 16[/B]
16. chi 16.5
17. sf 17.5
18. cin 17.75
19. buf 19
20. gb 19.25
21. oak 21
22. cle 21.25
22. jac 21.25
22. stl 21.25
25. atl 21.75
26. no 22
27. sd 22.25
28. hou 22.75
29. sea 24
30. kc 25.75
31. det 26.5
32. den 29

So you are right that the Redskins defense if you factor in the big plays on defense last year (sacks/turnovers) wasnt as good as other stats that dont factor in big plays suggest. While I dont think the Skins defense was 15th last year it is a pretty interesting stat if you like to factor in sacks and turnovers.

Hopefully with the additions we have made on defense we will have alot more sacks and turnovers in 2009.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560298]I went ahead and made a new defensive ranking that adds in sacks and turnovers.

What I did was I took the defensive ypg rankings for 2008 for each team and put them on one side. Then I took the sack rankings and turnover rankings for 2008 and averaged them out. This gave me each teams big play ranking for 2008.

Heres the Big Play Rankings List for 2008.....

[B]ten 4[/B]
pit 5.5
bal 6
nyj 6
phi 6
mia 6.5
ari 9.5
min 9.5
dal 10.5
car 12
chi 12
tb 12.5
nyg 13
ind 14.5
stl 14.5
oak 15
cle 16.5
ne 17
sea 18
gb 18.5
atl 19.5
sd 19.5
kc 20.5
det 21
no 21
sf 22
cin 23.5
hou 23.5
buf 24
jac 25.5
[B]was 28[/B]
den 29

The Skins ranked next to last in Big Plays last year. The good news is with Haynesworth in DC now maybe he can help us like he did Tennessee in this department.

When I take these numbers and average them out with the defensive ypg stat ranking for 2008 heres what I came up with.....

[B][U]New Adjusted Defensive Rankings for 2008 [/U][/B]

1. pit 3.25
2. bal 4
3. phi 4.5
4. ten 5.5
5. min 7.75
6. nyg 9
7. dal 9.25
8. mia 10.75
8. tb 10.75
10. nyj 11
11. ind 12.75
12. ne 13.5
13. ari 14.25
14. car 15
[B]15. was 16[/B]
16. chi 16.5
17. sf 17.5
18. cin 17.75
19. buf 19
20. gb 19.25
21. oak 21
22. cle 21.25
22. jac 21.25
22. stl 21.25
25. atl 21.75
26. no 22
27. sd 22.25
28. hou 22.75
29. sea 24
30. kc 25.75
31. det 26.5
32. den 29

So you are right that the Redskins defense if you factor in the big plays on defense last year (sacks/turnovers) wasnt as good as other stats that dont factor in big plays suggest. While I dont think the Skins defense was 15th last year it is a pretty interesting stat if you like to factor in sacks and turnovers.

Hopefully with the additions we have made on defense we will have alot more sacks and turnovers in 2009.[/quote]

You may have just made GTripp's day. :)

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Mattyk72;559902]Rankings don't mean shit come September. Who cares.[/quote]
Matty say it again homie..

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

To me, the fact the Defense didnt get alot of sacks and turnovers was annoying, but ultimately they didnt give up alot of yards or points - bottom line. Now turnovers would have been nice because Gods knows our struggling offense could have used some short drives, but the D still managed to be top 6 for both pts and yards allowed.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560298]I went ahead and made a new defensive ranking that adds in sacks and turnovers.

What I did was I took the defensive ypg rankings for 2008 for each team and put them on one side. Then I took the sack rankings and turnover rankings for 2008 and averaged them out. This gave me each teams big play ranking for 2008.

Heres the Big Play Rankings List for 2008.....

[B]ten 4[/B]
pit 5.5
bal 6
nyj 6
phi 6
mia 6.5
ari 9.5
min 9.5
dal 10.5
car 12
chi 12
tb 12.5
nyg 13
ind 14.5
stl 14.5
oak 15
cle 16.5
ne 17
sea 18
gb 18.5
atl 19.5
sd 19.5
kc 20.5
det 21
no 21
sf 22
cin 23.5
hou 23.5
buf 24
jac 25.5
[B]was 28[/B]
den 29

The Skins ranked next to last in Big Plays last year. The good news is with Haynesworth in DC now maybe he can help us like he did Tennessee in this department.

When I take these numbers and average them out with the defensive ypg stat ranking for 2008 heres what I came up with.....

[B][U]New Adjusted Defensive Rankings for 2008 [/U][/B]

1. pit 3.25
2. bal 4
3. phi 4.5
4. ten 5.5
5. min 7.75
6. nyg 9
7. dal 9.25
8. mia 10.75
8. tb 10.75
10. nyj 11
11. ind 12.75
12. ne 13.5
13. ari 14.25
14. car 15
[B]15. was 16[/B]
16. chi 16.5
17. sf 17.5
18. cin 17.75
19. buf 19
20. gb 19.25
21. oak 21
22. cle 21.25
22. jac 21.25
22. stl 21.25
25. atl 21.75
26. no 22
27. sd 22.25
28. hou 22.75
29. sea 24
30. kc 25.75
31. det 26.5
32. den 29

So you are right that the Redskins defense if you factor in the big plays on defense last year (sacks/turnovers) wasnt as good as other stats that dont factor in big plays suggest. While I dont think the Skins defense was 15th last year it is a pretty interesting stat if you like to factor in sacks and turnovers.

Hopefully with the additions we have made on defense we will have alot more sacks and turnovers in 2009.[/quote]

Nice insight, BO. I think last year overall we fell somewhere in between 4th and 15th, probably around the 8-10 range. Good post.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

this thread is an example of why i hate mile long quotes. please stop quoting the statistics that probably have atleast a 30% margin of error in relation to next year's 'skins.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Monksdown;560326]this thread is an example of why i hate mile long quotes. please stop quoting the statistics that probably have atleast a 30% margin of error in relation to next year's 'skins.[/quote]

but why does the long quote matter for that part? you could always just scroll past it.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Monksdown;560326]please stop quoting the statistics that probably have atleast a 30% margin of error in relation to next year's 'skins.[/quote]

If you are referring to the statistics I listed it has no relation to this years Skins. Those stats were talking about the 2008 Redskins and how good their defense was if you factor in sacks and turnovers.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Monksdown;560326]this thread is an example of why i hate mile long quotes. please stop quoting the statistics that probably have atleast a 30% margin of error in relation to next year's 'skins.[/quote]

So if not statistics then do you want people to give you opinions, hunches, and/or speculations?

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=redskins1974;560318]To me, the fact the Defense didnt get alot of sacks and turnovers was annoying, but ultimately they didnt give up alot of yards or points - bottom line. Now turnovers would have been nice because Gods knows our struggling offense could have used some short drives, but the D still managed to be top 6 for both pts and yards allowed.[/quote]

I agree with everything you said. At the end of the day the defense did its job compared to most teams in the NFL. I do think that with the moves the Skins have made the team has the potenial to jump from a defense that "does its job" into a defense that can be a true force.

[quote=GMScud;560320]Nice insight, BO. I think last year overall we fell somewhere in between 4th and 15th, probably around the 8-10 range. Good post.[/quote]

Id agree. The 8-10 range is about right.

I cant wait til this season starts because I really believe the defense can be the best in the NFL with the moves we have made. Albert Haynesworth imo was the biggest reason for the Titans big play defense last year. With him in the middle letting guys like Andre Carter and Brian Orakpo get 1 on 1 looks is going to be huge. The pressure our front 7 can create will lead to more INTs from the DBs. I really believe this defense has the potenial to be as good as the Steelers defense was last year if certain things break the right way.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

JC right now is in the lower half of QBs, maybe lower 3rd or so; CP is great, but not homerun hitting; and other than almost 3 years ago we haven't seen anyone else do anything in the backfield, except for block. We need to start thinking about who's the next RB, I'm not trying to push Portis out but who knows how he'll be able to keep up.. one serious injury could make him never the same again

I don't see how that makes us 26th though, looks like they're basing the rate on the speculation that Campbell will be shaky from this and Portis will be beat up -- a lil too early to "guarantee" that

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

SI is garbage anyway...I value the Sporting News alot more anyway. Peter King...?...Please... who really cares about preseason rankings anyway..but there is no way in hell our backfield is 26th in the NFL. Portis alone should place it in the top 20... even if Pee Wee Herman was his QB.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=mrreddman;560377]SI is garbage anyway...I value the Sporting News alot more anyway. Peter King...?...Please... who really cares about preseason rankings anyway..but there is no way in hell our backfield is 26th in the NFL. Portis alone should place it in the top 20...[B] even if Pee Wee Herman was his QB[/B].[/quote]

:laughing2 Doesn't he play for the Cowboys?

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Monksdown;560326]this thread is an example of why i hate mile long quotes. please stop quoting the statistics that probably have atleast a 30% margin of error in relation to next year's 'skins.[/quote]

Sorry, didn't mean to give your scrolling finger such a tough workout. Care to add anything to the thread? :oink:

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=53Fan;560378]:laughing2 Doesn't he play for the Cowboys?[/quote]


...........no,he's the owner.:food-smil