Redskin Drive Stats Compared over the last 3 Seasons

[GTripp0012]

In evaluating the job offense and defense have done, one has to develop a standard. For the Redskins, I feel no standard for expectation is more apt for the situation than their past performance in the second Gibbs era. I have taken the liberty of comparing the 2007 offensive and defensive units to their 06 and 05 counter parts, and have also done some statistical comparisons for the offensive skill positions to see where the production is compared to seasons of the past.

Points are a good place to start. You can't break points down by play, since necessarily, they are the culmination of an entire drive. The Redskins have scored 213 points through 11 games thus far, good for 19.36 points per game. In 2006, they scored 307 points over 16 games, 19.19 per game. In 2005, they scored 359 points good for 22.44 points a game. Nothing really conclusive there.

Defensively, the Redskins have given up 240 points so far this year, or 21.82 points per game. A year ago, they gave up 376 points, or 23.5 points per game. In 2005, they gave up only 293 points, or 18.31 points per game.

The reason points per game don't really show how good a unit has played is because it puts every team on the same base 16 standard, and doesn't account for one team having more possessions than another team, nor does it adjust for opponent. Drive stats also don't adjust for opponent, but they break down opportunities much better to give us the bigger picture. Drive stats are simply the quantity of any given stat for a unit divided by the number of total drives that unit has attempted.

The Drive Stats have not been updated through the Tampa Bay game. They are only current through the Dallas game. They do however, chronicle the tale of two struggling units.

The cold truth is that the Redskins' offense is not where it was at this time last year. The efficiency is there. The 3rd down conversion rate is there. The yards and points are there, as they were last year. The points are the good news, as through the first 3 weeks of this season, Saunders' offense had been producing well below the expected amount of points for the yardage they had been gaining. Finally, those numbers have evened out, although not in the way the Redskins would have liked. The yards per drive have fallen to 27.61 this year, 21st in the league, the 1.63 points per drive are good for 20th in the league. It's not the passing game that has fallen off the map. It's the running game. The passing game is hovering around where it was last season, but the QB play has improved slightly from last year. That's saying a lot, considering that Mark Brunell had his best year as a Redskin in 2006. More on this later when I break down the positional achievements.

But the reason for the Redskin offensive struggles have been in the turnovers. Less that 10% of the Redskins 2006 drives ended in an interception or even included a fumble. This kept the Redskins in a lot of games last season that they would have otherwise been out of due to the defense. In 2006, the Redskins put the ball on the ground once every 25 drives. In 2007, the Redskins fumbled once every 11 drives...and that doesn't even include a Tampa game in which the Redskins had twelve drives, and fumbled on four of them. Ball control has been a major concern this year from a few different players. Jason Campbell has contributed to this, and even the INT/drive numbers are up from last year, though still ranking in the top ten of the league.

Defensively, the drive stats are very troubling. It's actually been the turnovers that have seperated this defense from last years' defense. How much of an effect can turnovers make? Going into the Tampa game, the Redskins Defense ranked 11th in Football Outsiders' DVOA, while their points per drive (1.85) ranks 22nd in the league, and yards (29.62) rank 21st. The difference in turnovers over the last year is mind boggling. 5.8% of opponent drives ended in a turnover for Redskin opponents last year, or once every 20 drives. This year, nearly triple as many turnovers per drive, 14.5%. The mix of additional run and pass turnovers has allowed the Redskins defense to stay above the league average against both the run and the pass, though it is clear that the holes in the run defense are more evident. The Redskins are shutting down teams passing on first and second downs while forcing better turnovers than last year is contributing to an overall defensive improvement from last season.

However, the Redskins are allowing teams to be just as successful at moving the football as they were last year. 3rd down conversion percentage is closer to average for teams this year, and big plays are way, way down from last year, despite the Eagles and Cowboy games recently. However, this trend simply points out that without Sean Taylor back there, only the ability to force fumbles seperate the 2007 Redskin defense from the 2006 group.

Back to the offensive side of the ball, I wanted to take a look at the skill positions and compare the production we are getting out of them going back 3 years. I will compare them using 3 different stats: attempts, yards per attempt, and DVOA. DVOA of course, is adjusted for opponent.

Quarterback position:

2005-Mark Brunell; 483 attempts (.94), 6.7 yards per attempt, 10.1% DVOA. Patrick Ramsey; 29 attempts (.06), 11.2 Y/A, 20.3% DVOA.

Total 2005 production (scaled for attempts): 6.97 yards per attempt, 10.7% DVOA.

2006-Mark Brunell; 259 attempts (.56), 6.9 yards per attempt, 13.1% DVOA. Jason Campbell; 206 attempts (.44), 6.3 Y/A, 3.5% DVOA.

Total 2006 production: 6.6 yards per attempt, 8.9% DVOA.

2007-Jason Campbell (through 10 games); 327 passes, 6.5 Y/A, 15.9% DVOA

Total 2007 production: 6.5 yards per attempt, 15.9% DVOA.

Analysis: Our competition was FAR harder in 2005 and 2007. 2006 we played an average schedule. Brunell was better in 2006 than in 2005, but saw a smaller percentage of the total snaps, and Ramsey was better in limited action in 2005 than Campbell was during his first few games, causing the 2006 passing numbers to plummet. Campbell is having the best season a Skins QB has had in a long time, slightly edging out 2006 Brunell.

Running Back position:

2005-Clinton Portis; 352 attempts (.75), 4.3 Y/A, 10.0% DVOA. Ladell Betts; 89 attempts (.19), 3.8 yards per attempt, -9.4% DVOA. Rock Cartwright; 27 attempts (.06), 7.4 Y/A, 29.5% DVOA.

Total 2005 production: 4.4 yards per attempt, 6.2% DVOA.

2006-Ladell Betts; 245 attempts (.6), 4.7 Y/A, 7.2% DVOA. Clinton Portis; 127 attempts (.31), 4.1 Y/A, 7.6% DVOA. T.J. Duckett (.09); 38 attempts, 3.5 Y/A, -20.8% DVOA.

Total 2006 production: 4.4 yards per attempt, 4.8% DVOA.

2007-Clinton Portis; 213 attempts (.71), 4.1 Y/A, -2.2% DVOA. Ladell Betts; 67 attempts (.22), 3.9 Y/A, -30.5% DVOA. Mike Sellers; 22 attempts (.07), 3.4 Y/A, 7.4% DVOA.

Total 2007 production: 4.0 yards per attempt, -7.8% DVOA

Analysis: Congrats to T.J Duckett for being indescribably terrible behind a great line against awful competition. Clearly, this is the worst the Redskins line has been since 2004. And it's not the replacement guys, it's Samuels, Kendall, and Rabach. Kendall is not an upgrade over Dock. It's not even close. Samuels is money against the pass, not great against the run. Rabach is having a rough year.

Wide Receiver #1 (Santana Moss):

2005-134 passes (84 catches), 11.0 Y/A, 26.9% DVOA
2006-100 passes (55 catches), 7.9 Y/A, -2.0% DVOA
2007 (through Week 11)-62 passes (35 catches), 6.7 Y/A, -5.9% DVOA

Analysis: Moss was dominant in 2005, but it appears that he's going to be a pretty average receiver from here on out.

Tight End (Chris Cooley):

2005-103 passes (71 catches), 7.5 Y/A, 12.4% DVOA
2006-95 passes (57 catches), 7.7 Y/A, 8.2% DVOA
2007-75 passes (46 catches), 6.6 Y/A, 9.9% DVOA

Analysis: In part due to the tougher competition being faced this year, Cooley's yards per pass attempt is down this season. He's still totally awesome though. He's been asked to stay in and block a lot more playing for Saunders. When he does go out in patterns, he usually lines up as a receiver.

[GTripp0012]

The short version: we've played a lot tougher teams this year than last, but the raw drive numbers look very similar to 2006 on both sides of the ball.

[firstdown]

Verry good read and job. One thing to factor is the Pats game really effect our numbers this year and is only figured into 11 games and not 16. It would be interesting to see the numbers without that game.

[SmootSmack]

Tripp, when I asked you to put this thread together you were supposed to show that we are making progress as a team though our record doesn't reflect it (of course we don't have a lot of the same players this year vs. last year).

Regardless, go back and revise your post to prove my point...or be gone!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Tripp, when I asked you to put this thread together you were supposed to show that we are making progress as a team though our record doesn't reflect it (of course we don't have a lot of the same players this year vs. last year).

Regardless, go back and revise your post to prove my point...or be gone!

Right-e-o sir. I'll open up another thread where everything is the same, but basically has handpick information that I get to make up :tongue

In many respects, we are making a lot of progress. We are doing a lot of things right that we weren't good at last year. This offense is converting 3rd and long at a great success rate. The big plays against our defense are down considerably.

However, the running efficiency is way, way down, and the fumbles are way, way up. Running the ball has killed us this season.

Lots of positives to look forward towards the rest of this year. Interception rate is still low, Campbell is throwing the ball very well.

The biggest point that confirms what you are saying Smoot is that we have played one of the toughest schedules in the league (2nd actually only to the bills as measured by DVOA) so have a great chance to win the rest of our games. We are a better team than 4 of the 5 remaining teams on our schedule (although the Giants are damn close), and the final team may be resting it's starters. We were NOT a better team than the last two teams we played, and still had chances to pull it out at the end. Drive stats are not adjusted for opponent, so our numbers look way worse than they are.

But yeah, ridiculously tough schedule, just like in 2005.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Tripp, when I asked you to put this thread together you were supposed to show that we are making progress as a team though our record doesn't reflect it (of course we don't have a lot of the same players this year vs. last year).

I wouldn't say that there hasn't been progress; I think there has been, especially on defense when you consider where they've come from last season. And with regard to the offense, I'm generally optimistic that next year, barring another onslaught of injuries, we should be top ten, maybe even top five. But even as I say that, we need more youth and depth at the O-line, probably need an overhaul at receiver, and JC needs to make significant progress in order for that to happen.

Still, the overriding question for me is, is this team at the level we expected in year 4 of Gibbs 2.0? And have we taken several steps back rather than forward from 2004 when he first came back.

The losing record is what it is no matter how much anybody tries to spin it.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I wouldn't say that there hasn't been progress; I think there has been, especially on defense when you consider where they've come from last season. And with regard to the offense, I'm generally optimistic that next year, barring another onslaught of injuries, we should be top ten, maybe even top five. But even as I say that, we need more youth and depth at the O-line, probably need an overhaul at receiver, and JC needs to make significant progress in order for that to happen.

Still, the overriding question for me is, is this team at the level we expected in year 4 of Gibbs 2.0? And have we taken several steps back rather than forward from 2004 when he first came back.

The losing record is what it is no matter how much anybody tries to spin it.

As Bill Parcells always liked to say, you are what your record says you are.

[Cowell]

This was a great job putting together and analyzing all those stats Tripp. I too am very frustrated with the running game. If we can't hold onto the ball and get a decent YPA then why keep trying to run it? Not every team we play is the Jets.