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.