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.

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.