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.