Some other ways of looking at Gibbs' Second Stint

[GTripp0012]

By looking at estimated wins, and pythagorean wins courtesy of FootballOutsiders.com

Estimated Wins provides a figure that attempts to reevaluate each teams' season in terms of wins, but eliminate factors that the team cannot control.

Pythagorean wins simply looks at the points scored and points against, and determines how many games should have been won if the scores had been spread out over the entire season.

2004: Washington wins 6 games, with 6.8 estimated wins, and 7.1 pythagorean wins

2005: Washington wins 10 games, with 10.4 estimated wins, and 9.9 pythagorean wins

2006: Washington wins 5 games, with 6.8 estimated wins, and 6.1 pythagorean wins

2007: Washington wins 9 games, with 8.3 estimated wins, and 8.7 pythagorean wins

Overall 2nd Gibbs stint: 30 regular season wins, 32.3 estimated wins, and 31.8 pythagorean wins.

If not for luck, Joe Gibbs would have turned two of those 34 regular season losses into wins, effectively giving him a legitimate .500 record in these 4 years.

I don't think that's very bad at all.

[wilsowilso]

Hey Tripp I don't think numbers really mean very much in figuring out Gibbs 2.0. IMO.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

Hey Tripp I don't think numbers really mean very much in figuring out Gibbs 2.0. IMO.

I agree, but for a different reason that perhaps you would think. I believe that the wins and estimated wins can only show how good this team has done as a whole in this era.

A coach should not be measured by how many games his team wins. A coach can't go out and play the games, nor does he have control over anything that will make a long term difference in the win or loss column. A coach must build relationships with the men he teaches, and must work not only to improve them as players...any coach can do that, but as men. Men who have to deal with the media and with incessant fans. That's not easy.

However, some people are hell bent on judging coaches by wins, and if they are, I would ask them to look at these numbers, not just the win-loss record. These numbers represent the true quality of the Gibbs coached teams in the last 4 years.

[onlydarksets]

I think there's a little too much faith in numbers on this one. If you are results-oriented, it's the wins that count - not the "shoulda coulda".

[firstdown]

Well in honesty if this was not Gibbs most if not all of the fans would have called for him to be fired after last year. I feel Gibbs did get some what of a by and did a great job of pulling this team together this past December. We as fans know that he brought more to the table than wins and losses but in the NFL coaches get paid to win games and in that asspect he did not fair that well.

[stone]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
coach koʊtʃ - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kohch] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a large, horse-drawn, four-wheeled carriage, usually enclosed.
2. a public motorbus.
3. Railroads. DAY COACH.

4. Also called air coach. a class of airline travel providing less luxurious accommodations than first class at a lower fare.
5. a person who TRAINS an athlete or a team of athletes: a football coach. 6. a private tutor who prepares a student for an examination.
7. a person who instructs an actor or singer.
8. Baseball. a playing or nonplaying member of the team at bat who is stationed in the box outside first or third base to signal instructions to and advise base runners and batters.
9. Nautical. an after cabin in a sailing ship, located beneath the poop deck, for use esp. by the commander of the ship.
10. a type of inexpensive automobile with a boxlike, usually two-door, body manufactured in the 1920s.
11. MOBILE HOME.

–verb (used with object)
12. to give instruction or advice to in the capacity of a coach; instruct: She has coached the present tennis champion.
–verb (used without object)
13. to act as a coach.
14. to go by or in a coach.
–adverb
15. by coach or in coach-class accommodations: We flew coach from Denver to New York.

[T.O.Killa]

Hey, I think that there is only one way to look at it, Joe took us to the playoffs 2 out of 4 years, period. Furthermore, All the years he was gone we went once.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

By looking at estimated wins, and pythagorean wins courtesy of FootballOutsiders.com

Estimated Wins provides a figure that attempts to reevaluate each teams' season in terms of wins, but eliminate factors that the team cannot control.

Pythagorean wins simply looks at the points scored and points against, and determines how many games should have been won if the scores had been spread out over the entire season.

2004: Washington wins 6 games, with 6.8 estimated wins, and 7.1 pythagorean wins

2005: Washington wins 10 games, with 10.4 estimated wins, and 9.9 pythagorean wins

2006: Washington wins 5 games, with 6.8 estimated wins, and 6.1 pythagorean wins

2007: Washington wins 9 games, with 8.3 estimated wins, and 8.7 pythagorean wins

Overall 2nd Gibbs stint: 30 regular season wins, 32.3 estimated wins, and 31.8 pythagorean wins.

If not for luck, Joe Gibbs would have turned two of those 34 regular season losses into wins, effectively giving him a legitimate .500 record in these 4 years.

I don't think that's very bad at all.

I don't think two additional pythagorean wins amounts to anything statistically significant. The numbers basically say the same thing as we saw in real life, he had one crappy season, then a decent one, then a crappy season, then a decent one.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

By looking at estimated wins, and pythagorean wins courtesy of FootballOutsiders.com

Estimated Wins provides a figure that attempts to reevaluate each teams' season in terms of wins, but eliminate factors that the team cannot control.

Pythagorean wins simply looks at the points scored and points against, and determines how many games should have been won if the scores had been spread out over the entire season.

2004: Washington wins 6 games, with 6.8 estimated wins, and 7.1 pythagorean wins

2005: Washington wins 10 games, with 10.4 estimated wins, and 9.9 pythagorean wins

2006: Washington wins 5 games, with 6.8 estimated wins, and 6.1 pythagorean wins

2007: Washington wins 9 games, with 8.3 estimated wins, and 8.7 pythagorean wins

Overall 2nd Gibbs stint: 30 regular season wins, 32.3 estimated wins, and 31.8 pythagorean wins.

If not for luck, Joe Gibbs would have turned two of those 34 regular season losses into wins, effectively giving him a legitimate .500 record in these 4 years.

I don't think that's very bad at all.

Funny, I can think of THE 2 games that Gibbs really got screwed in:

2004;
1) the first Dallas game - Walt Harris gets a bogus PI call on Glenn on a 3rd & 10 at the wash. 45 to give Dallas 1st & goal at the 1. We lose 21-18.

2) Green Bay - Portis catches the go-ahead td only to have it called back for a bogus illegal motion call on Thrash.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

Hey, I think that there is only one way to look at it, Joe took us to the playoffs 2 out of 4 years, period. Furthermore, All the years he was gone we went once.

That's what I've been saying ever since the news broke. Clearly looks like an overall success to me. There was more to cheer about these last few years than there was in the whole time he was gone.

[onlydarksets]

Frankly, we deserved a 6-win season in 2004 - we just weren't that good.

In 2005, however, I think we overachieved. That was probably more like an 8-win season.

In 2006, we underachieved - we probably should have won at least 3 more games, IIRC.

This year, I think our record reflected where we are as a team, although it was a fairly inconsistent season as a whole (hopefully the Skins of the last 4 games are the "real" Skins).

[2BIG2BSKINNY]

In short...Gibbs left the Skins better than he got the Skins. Point blank! Mission accomplished.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by 2BIG2BSKINNY

In short...Gibbs left the Skins better than he got the Skins. Point blank! Mission accomplished.

You mean like this?

[CanadianSkin]

The best way to look at Joe Gibbs second time around is what he has done for th organizations, owner and fans. Did I think when Joe was hired again that I would be celebrating another Superbowl for the Skins? Of course I did, He is one of the greatest coaches to ever work in the NFL. But as it has been said he did take us to the playoffs two years out of four. He has shown Danny Boy that we do not need to pay old stars big money to come in and win now. We need patients to build a consistent winner and I think Danny will now move forward in that fashion. Get the right guys in that can play and not just big names at the end of their career. This ship has been corrected and is heading in the right direction finally and that is a direct reflection of what Joe did for us. If we did not have so many injuries this year, and losing the best player on our team, I think we are still playing right now. I want to thank Joe for everything he has meant to the Redskins, he will always be our leader and the coach of the Washington Redskins. I just hope he gets his dues next year when we really make a push in the playoffs, unlike Bill Parcells not getting too much credit for what he has done for the Cowgirls.

Also he made the Cowboys-Redskins rivalry come back to life, it was so one sided for so many years.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

Hey, I think that there is only one way to look at it, Joe took us to the playoffs 2 out of 4 years, period. Furthermore, All the years he was gone we went once.

Your right all the other years we went once. So your comparing Gibbs to those other coaches like Spur. Norv, etc... not too much of a compliment if you ask me. Heck I could pick out other coachs to compare Spur too and he would look good.