On Blache

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Hail to the Redskins

Talk abut a laugher... wow.... you ARE the best analyist on this site...

1st) Bulger IS listed... 136 passing yards vs Skins... over 40 on the last heave... spectacular.. it's called READING... left to right, top to bottom...

2nd) Leftwich did well, but has not played any other significant time at ALL this season to compare...

3rd) Orlovsky' numbers were break even...60% comp/88 QBR - 58.4% comp/80.3 overall .. definitely NOT much worse against others like YOUR ignorant statement was...

YOU failed to mention Romo, who we played just FOUR games ago who had a 72.4 QBR and 2 Ints in the game. Matter of fact... he had his 2nd & 4th worst QBRs against us (out of 11 games)...

I can keep going...

How about McNabb? 196 yds, 58.6% comp, 0 TDs, 79.1 QBR vs Skins - 60.9% comp,86.7 QBR overall...

or Eli Manning?? 54.3% & 61.8% comp, 61.1 & 88.5 QBRs vs Skins - 60.3% comp, 86.4 overall...

So that leaves ONE QB this ENTIRE 14 GAME SEASON who had a remotely BETTER day than usual.. Ryan Fitzpatrick with an amazing 55% comp and one London Fletcher or Mike Green CATCH away from a QBR in the 60's...

I mean... obviously you WANTED me to call you out on being TOTALLY incorrect by carrying this on... right?

You use '...' so much that I can't really get the flow of what your point is. I see a lot of potentially useful statistics, but they're just thrown at me in a way that I can't hope to understand what your point is.

Basically, your argument lacks logical flow. It's coming off somewhat like:

"A bunch of horrible passers look especially horrible when playing the Redskins. Doesn't this prove that we're great!?!?! Also, points!"

Well, no, but perhaps you are trying to prove something more concrete. I can't tell.

You're also using assumed change in QB Rating to make a point that QB Rating is poorly designed to prove. But I see what you are saying with the completion %....sort of.

My point: we're a below average pass defense --and I could throw a books-worth of stats at you to prove this-- and I don't feel like we should be based on the individual talent we have in the secondary AND on the pass rush

[Hail to the Redskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

You use '...' so much that I can't really get the flow of what your point is. I see a lot of potentially useful statistics, but they're just thrown at me in a way that I can't hope to understand what your point is.

Basically, your argument lacks logical flow. It's coming off somewhat like: A bunch of horrible passers look especially horrible when playing the Redskins. Doesn't this prove that we're great!?!?! Also, points! Well, no, but perhaps you are trying to prove something more concrete. I can't tell.

You're also using assumed change in QB Rating to make a point that QB Rating is poorly designed to prove. But I see what you are saying with the completion %....sort of.

My point: we're a below average pass defense --and I could throw a books-worth of stats at you to prove this-- and I don't feel like we should be based on the individual talent we have in the secondary AND on the pass rush

OK this is the last comment I'll make on this subject.

You originally called ME out on not understanding statistics. Then you said that QBs we face have worse days against everyone else in the league.

I then pointed out that we are ranked in the top 10 in pretty much every pass defense category and that you were wrong. I showed, with CLEAR statistics that only one QB in 14 games has a romotely better day that usual. You read, and obviously understand what I was pointing out because of the next ludicrous statement you make in response, then act like YOU can't understand the logic of statement made because you can't make a truly valid argument to facts & numbers I present.

You actually make a mocking statement saying we have faced "A bunch of horrible passers"??

Romo? McNabb? Manning? Roethlisberger? Hasselbeck? Brees? Warner? These are horrible passers?

Whatever. I can't argue with this kind of talk anymore.

Look, I'm not trying to bash you here, but I will defend myself when someone attacks my intelligence.

I can't really make myself much more clear. Anyone who thinks we have a "below average pass defense" should NOT be trying to belittle or trash ANYONE else's statements.

If you are this site's premeir football analyst and feel like you have to belittle facts someone else points out, because you feel threatened (I guess), don't worry, most people don't have the time to put in the hours you do... including me. (Oh, sorry for the ... now you may not be able to understand my whole post)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Hail to the Redskins

OK this is the last comment I'll make on this subject.

You originally called ME out on not understanding statistics. Then you said that QBs we face have worse days against everyone else in the league.

I then pointed out that we are ranked in the top 10 in pretty much every pass defense category and that you were wrong. I showed, with CLEAR statistics that only one QB in 14 games has a romotely better day that usual. You read, and obviously understand what I was pointing out because of the next ludicrous statement you make in response, then act like YOU can't understand the logic of statement made because you can't make a truly valid argument to facts & numbers I present.

You actually make a mocking statement saying we have faced "A bunch of horrible passers"??

Romo? McNabb? Manning? Roethlisberger? Hasselbeck? Brees? Warner? These are horrible passers?

Whatever. I can't argue with this kind of talk anymore.

Look, I'm not trying to bash you here, but I will defend myself when someone attacks my intelligence.

I can't really make myself much more clear. Anyone who thinks we have a "below average pass defense" should NOT be trying to belittle or trash ANYONE else's statements.

If you are this site's premeir football analyst and feel like you have to belittle facts someone else points out, because you feel threatened (I guess), don't worry, most people don't have the time to put in the hours you do... including me. (Oh, sorry for the ... now you may not be able to understand my whole post)

I don't think this should be about you vs. me: who knows more? Why would I stoop down to that level? It's not an argument that anyone on this board, besides you, should or would give a crap about.

I never once accused you of not knowing what you are talking about. I thought your argument was built the wrong way (kinda like the Redskins). You decided, presumably based on the games you've seen, that the Redskins defense is great, offense is terrible, and that you might be able to prove this statistically. Statistics were never designed to be used like that. The context-neutral statistics I cite in ALL of my game reviews suggest that the defense and offense are close to equally responsible for the downfall of the team. Not coincidentally, this is also what I see on film. Imagine that.

What you did bring to light is that, the Redskins have faced a bunch of passers that are having awful years. When you cite Roethlisberger and Hasselbeck, you're only helping to defend my point. When you cite Brees, and Warner, you're actually bringing solid evidence to the contrary. Which makes this a good discussion. Those guys are MVP candidates. We shut them down. Why haven't we done that all season long?! Why did Ryan Fitzpatrick and Mark Bulger succeed where Brees and Warner failed? Why are we totally helpless against Eli Manning and Tony Romo (and possibly McNabb, depending on the outcome of Sunday's game). Should we be?

But the problem here is that you are lumping the good passers with the bad passers with the disappointingly bad, with the surprisingly bad, and then you use a series of double standards. ("Don't you think Roethlisberger is great?! What about Hasselbeck?")

I enjoyed your game by game breakdown of how passers did against us. You also changed the metric you were using to suit your argument, because the primary metrics you used, completion percentage and QB Rating, did not fit your argument in all the cases. Which means, that by definition, your argument was weak. I didn't have to respond, because you already knew from the research that you weren't as right as you thought you were. That was MY point.

The main thing, is I can't respond to your point, until you make a point. I think you are trying to say that we have an above average pass defense. But your defense for it is weak. Since you can't come to terms with me on proper opponent adjustments for the Leftwich half, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Matt Hasselbeck, Dan Orlovsky, Mark Bulger, or against one of the other passers we should have shut down, but didn't, I suggest we shrink the sample and talk about a case by case study.

Brees and Warner struggled against this pass defense, like you said. Romo and Manning, in those must win games, have had no trouble whatsoever, broken pinky, wet ball, whatever the conditions. Why exactly, are you contesting, that the performance of two home games in September should outweigh two more important home games in November in your argument? Why are you giving the defense a pass in those games?

Very simple. The two best performances vs. our two worst. All else equal, why should September games be weighed more heavily in your mind than November games within the division. Are injuries a factor in your mind? Or are you simply refusing to admit the defense f'ed up at any point this season.

---------------------------------

PS -- If you bother to respond to this, you first must consider the fact that you might be wrong, and I might be right here. If you can't do that, don't bother responding to this. You will be wasting your time.

You aren't necessarily wrong, that's not what I'm trying to say. But if your whole purpose of reading this is to try to prove, against strong evidence to the contrary, that you are right, it's just not worth what you are going to put into it. I mean, you obviously haven't put as much thought into it as I have.

And don't bother with any personal attacks either. You haven't been around here long enough to offend me.

[Hail to the Redskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think this should be about you vs. me: who knows more? Why would I stoop down to that level? It's not an argument that anyone on this board, besides you, should or would give a crap about.

I never once accused you of not knowing what you are talking about. I thought your argument was built the wrong way (kinda like the Redskins). You decided, presumably based on the games you've seen, that the Redskins defense is great, offense is terrible, and that you might be able to prove this statistically. Statistics were never designed to be used like that. The context-neutral statistics I cite in ALL of my game reviews suggest that the defense and offense are close to equally responsible for the downfall of the team. Not coincidentally, this is also what I see on film. Imagine that.

What you did bring to light is that, the Redskins have faced a bunch of passers that are having awful years. When you cite Roethlisberger and Hasselbeck, you're only helping to defend my point. When you cite Brees, and Warner, you're actually bringing solid evidence to the contrary. Which makes this a good discussion. Those guys are MVP candidates. We shut them down. Why haven't we done that all season long?! Why did Ryan Fitzpatrick and Mark Bulger succeed where Brees and Warner failed? Why are we totally helpless against Eli Manning and Tony Romo (and possibly McNabb, depending on the outcome of Sunday's game). Should we be?

But the problem here is that you are lumping the good passers with the bad passers with the disappointingly bad, with the surprisingly bad, and then you use a series of double standards. ("Don't you think Roethlisberger is great?! What about Hasselbeck?")

I enjoyed your game by game breakdown of how passers did against us. You also changed the metric you were using to suit your argument, because the primary metrics you used, completion percentage and QB Rating, did not fit your argument in all the cases. Which means, that by definition, your argument was weak. I didn't have to respond, because you already knew from the research that you weren't as right as you thought you were. That was MY point.

The main thing, is I can't respond to your point, until you make a point. I think you are trying to say that we have an above average pass defense. But your defense for it is weak. Since you can't come to terms with me on proper opponent adjustments for the Leftwich half, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Matt Hasselbeck, Dan Orlovsky, Mark Bulger, or against one of the other passers we should have shut down, but didn't, I suggest we shrink the sample and talk about a case by case study.

Brees and Warner struggled against this pass defense, like you said. Romo and Manning, in those must win games, have had no trouble whatsoever, broken pinky, wet ball, whatever the conditions. Why exactly, are you contesting, that the performance of two home games in September should outweigh two more important home games in November in your argument? Why are you giving the defense a pass in those games?

Very simple. The two best performances vs. our two worst. All else equal, why should September games be weighed more heavily in your mind than November games within the division. Are injuries a factor in your mind? Or are you simply refusing to admit the defense f'ed up at any point this season.

---------------------------------

PS -- If you bother to respond to this, you first must consider the fact that you might be wrong, and I might be right here. If you can't do that, don't bother responding to this. You will be wasting your time.

You aren't necessarily wrong, that's not what I'm trying to say. But if your whole purpose of reading this is to try to prove, against strong evidence to the contrary, that you are right, it's just not worth what you are going to put into it. I mean, you obviously haven't put as much thought into it as I have.

And don't bother with any personal attacks either. You haven't been around here long enough to offend me.

OK, first of all, I have been on this website since February 2004. Again, I am REALLY having issue here with your READING ABILITY. (It IS right under my name) In case you are not sure how to interpret THIS stat, I have been here 2 years longer than you. I am here all the time reading, but I don't always post due to ignorance and attacks most people feel like they have to respond with, rather than just talk about the Skins (you started this back and forth when you said that I was "100% wrong" and smugly pronounced that I "don't know how to use statistics")

Again and again you TOTALLY disregard things I say to try and twist things to support your argument and can't FATHOM that YOU ARE WRONG.

And Matty, I am suprised by your two cents. I have been here for 4 years and pretty much respected what you contribute. But, if you have read this whole back and forth discussion and you think that I have been "proven" wrong somewhow, well...

1) Our offense - 16.5 points per game - 29th in the NFL
2) Our defense - 19.0 points per game - 7th in the NFL

OK, first things first. If talk about making a clear enough point for YOU to understand... the ONLY STAT THAT MATTERS IS POINTS. If you don't agree with this, you are clueless.

How anyone can say that our defense is EQUALLY responsible for our record is just trying to in some way prove how insightful they are by using some complex game film, existential blathering argument. I mean, you have used no argument other than your words and your "I have watched the game film" argument over and over while spewing wrong fact after wrong fact with no stats to back it up (see Bulger & Romo below). What "Overwhelming evidence"?? What your incredible game film analysis?? I am soooo lost as to why exactly I am wrong here.

I mean, 24 of the 32 teams in the NFL AVERAGE MORE THAN 19.0 points per game. (I'm sure ALL of those teams would be happy with our D)

Regardless, if you ask a person who actually gets PAID to "break down film," (meaning they DO know what they are talking about & have a job in the NFL) if 16.5 points per game is something they wish for their offense, I HOPE you can grasp what their answer would be.

If you ask the same person if they would take a defense which allows on 19.0 points per game, THEY WOULDN'T COMPLAIN.

Now about the COMPLETE OMISSIONS and overlooks of clear points I debunk of yours...

You keep bringing up Bulger's game against the Redskins for some reason like he tortched us. I literally am laughing about it right now. The guy had a whopping 93 YARDS PASSING with 1:06 seconds left in the game (!) when LEIGH TORRANCE misplayed his coverage and gave up the 43 yard hail mary heave. For the game, he had a 57% completion and 72 QB Rating. Come on man, really, this is rediculous.

Also, why are we helpless against Manning & Romo?? I JUST posted this but let me try one more time.

Manning's combined stats vs Skins this year was 57.9% comp (his overall for the year is 60.3%) and his QB Rating was 74.8 (86.4 overall). Those ARE worse right??

Romo's stats vs Skins - 63.5% completion (63.1% overall) and his QB Rating was 81.7 (his overall rating is 98.3). Here again you provide more stupidity wth your words. In that week 11 game (you know, the "September game" 8 weeks after the Arizona game), Romo was 19-for-27 for a whopping 198 yards, 1 TD, 2 INTs, and a robust QBR of 72.8. This is a perfect example of the ignorance that is getting absurd. You call me out for discrediting this performance when it clearly only SUPPORTS my statements.

Also, you are saying that Roethlisberger and Hasselbeck are terrible QBs? or are you trying to use the "bad year" excuse like playing either is easy pickings for a defense? Again, ask a REAL, paid film watcher and ask them if these two guys are bums and that their defense SHOULD shut them down.

Regardless, Roethlisberger completed 29% of his passes and had a 15.1 QB Rating. You are saying these are his average output numbers??

Also, and finally, I point out that only 1 QB in 14 has had a BETTER DAY THAN HIS averages ALL SEASON LONG. That is a clear statement/argument for our pass defense CLEARLY not being below average. And by the way, way to COMPLETELY ignore my stats on our pass defense being in the top 10 in every major category.

Anyway, I wouldn't have responded, because I was to the point where I was realizing you just REFUSE to admit you MIGHT be wrong, just once, with you being the "expert and all". But to see other people buy it, Matty, I had to make sure I cleared the air.

Oh, and let me point out as a final word; The Detroit Lions average more points per game than the Washington Redskins. (17.1 to 16.5)

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Hail to the Redskins

OK, first of all, I have been on this website since February 2004. Again, I am REALLY having issue here with your READING ABILITY. (It IS right under my name) In case you are not sure how to interpret THIS stat, I have been here 2 years longer than you. I am here all the time reading, but I don't always post due to ignorance and attacks most people feel like they have to respond with, rather than just talk about the Skins (you started this back and forth when you said that I was "100% wrong" and smugly pronounced that I "don't know how to use statistics")

Again and again you TOTALLY disregard things I say to try and twist things to support your argument and can't FATHOM that YOU ARE WRONG.

And Matty, I am suprised by your two cents. I have been here for 4 years and pretty much respected what you contribute. But, if you have read this whole back and forth discussion and you think that I have been "proven" wrong somewhow, well...

1) Our offense - 16.5 points per game - 29th in the NFL
2) Our defense - 19.0 points per game - 7th in the NFL

OK, first things first. If talk about making a clear enough point for YOU to understand... the ONLY STAT THAT MATTERS IS POINTS. If you don't agree with this, you are clueless.

How anyone can say that our defense is EQUALLY responsible for our record is just trying to in some way prove how insightful they are by using some complex game film, existential blathering argument. I mean, you have used no argument other than your words and your "I have watched the game film" argument over and over while spewing wrong fact after wrong fact with no stats to back it up (see Bulger & Romo below). What "Overwhelming evidence"?? What your incredible game film analysis?? I am soooo lost as to why exactly I am wrong here.

I mean, 24 of the 32 teams in the NFL AVERAGE MORE THAN 19.0 points per game. (I'm sure ALL of those teams would be happy with our D)

Regardless, if you ask a person who actually gets PAID to "break down film," (meaning they DO know what they are talking about & have a job in the NFL) if 16.5 points per game is something they wish for their offense, I HOPE you can grasp what their answer would be.

If you ask the same person if they would take a defense which allows on 19.0 points per game, THEY WOULDN'T COMPLAIN.

Now about the COMPLETE OMISSIONS and overlooks of clear points I debunk of yours...

You keep bringing up Bulger's game against the Redskins for some reason like he tortched us. I literally am laughing about it right now. The guy had a whopping 93 YARDS PASSING with 1:06 seconds left in the game (!) when LEIGH TORRANCE misplayed his coverage and gave up the 43 yard hail mary heave. For the game, he had a 57% completion and 72 QB Rating. Come on man, really, this is rediculous.

Also, why are we helpless against Manning & Romo?? I JUST posted this but let me try one more time.

Manning's combined stats vs Skins this year was 57.9% comp (his overall for the year is 60.3%) and his QB Rating was 74.8 (86.4 overall). Those ARE worse right??

Romo's stats vs Skins - 63.5% completion (63.1% overall) and his QB Rating was 81.7 (his overall rating is 98.3). Here again you provide more stupidity wth your words. In that week 11 game (you know, the "September game" 8 weeks after the Arizona game), Romo was 19-for-27 for a whopping 198 yards, 1 TD, 2 INTs, and a robust QBR of 72.8. This is a perfect example of the ignorance that is getting absurd. You call me out for discrediting this performance when it clearly only SUPPORTS my statements.

Also, you are saying that Roethlisberger and Hasselbeck are terrible QBs? or are you trying to use the "bad year" excuse like playing either is easy pickings for a defense? Again, ask a REAL, paid film watcher and ask them if these two guys are bums and that their defense SHOULD shut them down.

Regardless, Roethlisberger completed 29% of his passes and had a 15.1 QB Rating. You are saying these are his average output numbers??

Also, and finally, I point out that only 1 QB in 14 has had a BETTER DAY THAN HIS averages ALL SEASON LONG. That is a clear statement/argument for our pass defense CLEARLY not being below average. And by the way, way to COMPLETELY ignore my stats on our pass defense being in the top 10 in every major category.

Anyway, I wouldn't have responded, because I was to the point where I was realizing you just REFUSE to admit you MIGHT be wrong, just once, with you being the "expert and all". But to see other people buy it, Matty, I had to make sure I cleared the air.

Oh, and let me point out as a final word; The Detroit Lions average more points per game than the Washington Redskins. (17.1 to 16.5)

That's all that needs to be said. We don't do the exotic things that Pittsburgh or Balt does but the bottom line is if we scored more points we'd be going to the playoffs. I'd even point out that the 19 points should be lower cause of some of the bad situations the offense has put the defense in. If the defense didn't keep us in games we'd be STL. Cinn or Det. bad.

[MrJL]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

That's all that needs to be said. We don't do the exotic things that Pittsburgh or Balt does but the bottom line is if we scored more points we'd be going to the playoffs. I'd even point out that the 19 points should be lower cause of some of the bad situations the offense has put the defense in. If the defense didn't keep us in games we'd be STL. Cinn or Det. bad.

The Offense has rarely put the Defense in bad positions. They don't turn over the ball much. Maybe the special teams has.

But maybe if the did some of the exotic things Pitt or Baltimore did teams would score less than nineteen. Or the offense would get the ball in better field position.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by MrJL

The Offense has rarely put the Defense in bad positions. They don't turn over the ball much. Maybe the special teams has.

But maybe if the did some of the exotic things Pitt or Baltimore did teams would score less than nineteen. Or the offense would get the ball in better field position.

IMO if we used more disguise and more zone-blitz looks we would get more pressure, more sacks, more turnovers.



All war is based on deception.

Hence that general is skilful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skilful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by MrJL

The Offense has rarely put the Defense in bad positions. They don't turn over the ball much. Maybe the special teams has.

But maybe if the did some of the exotic things Pitt or Baltimore did teams would score less than nineteen. Or the offense would get the ball in better field position.

There have been many many times where the offense goes three and out and doesn't advance field position. Yes you can use the flip side but in the end it really makes no sense to blame to the defense. They're doing a good job. Great? No. We don't have the personel to be great. But good enough to be a playoff defense? Yes.

Personally I'd like to see more exotic blitz packages. But for some reason that's not what Blache is comfortable with. He seems to prefer a straight up style and not hide anything or try and trick the opposing offense. Maybe he's trying not to get caught up in giving up a lot of big plays like we did in 06. Who knows?

[maroonandblack30]

Originally Posted by Hail to the Redskins

OK, first of all, I have been on this website since February 2004. Again, I am REALLY having issue here with your READING ABILITY. (It IS right under my name) In case you are not sure how to interpret THIS stat, I have been here 2 years longer than you. I am here all the time reading, but I don't always post due to ignorance and attacks most people feel like they have to respond with, rather than just talk about the Skins (you started this back and forth when you said that I was "100% wrong" and smugly pronounced that I "don't know how to use statistics")

Again and again you TOTALLY disregard things I say to try and twist things to support your argument and can't FATHOM that YOU ARE WRONG.

And Matty, I am suprised by your two cents. I have been here for 4 years and pretty much respected what you contribute. But, if you have read this whole back and forth discussion and you think that I have been "proven" wrong somewhow, well...

1) Our offense - 16.5 points per game - 29th in the NFL
2) Our defense - 19.0 points per game - 7th in the NFL

OK, first things first. If talk about making a clear enough point for YOU to understand... the ONLY STAT THAT MATTERS IS POINTS. If you don't agree with this, you are clueless.

How anyone can say that our defense is EQUALLY responsible for our record is just trying to in some way prove how insightful they are by using some complex game film, existential blathering argument. I mean, you have used no argument other than your words and your "I have watched the game film" argument over and over while spewing wrong fact after wrong fact with no stats to back it up (see Bulger & Romo below). What "Overwhelming evidence"?? What your incredible game film analysis?? I am soooo lost as to why exactly I am wrong here.

I mean, 24 of the 32 teams in the NFL AVERAGE MORE THAN 19.0 points per game. (I'm sure ALL of those teams would be happy with our D)

Regardless, if you ask a person who actually gets PAID to "break down film," (meaning they DO know what they are talking about & have a job in the NFL) if 16.5 points per game is something they wish for their offense, I HOPE you can grasp what their answer would be.

If you ask the same person if they would take a defense which allows on 19.0 points per game, THEY WOULDN'T COMPLAIN.

Now about the COMPLETE OMISSIONS and overlooks of clear points I debunk of yours...

You keep bringing up Bulger's game against the Redskins for some reason like he tortched us. I literally am laughing about it right now. The guy had a whopping 93 YARDS PASSING with 1:06 seconds left in the game (!) when LEIGH TORRANCE misplayed his coverage and gave up the 43 yard hail mary heave. For the game, he had a 57% completion and 72 QB Rating. Come on man, really, this is rediculous.

Also, why are we helpless against Manning & Romo?? I JUST posted this but let me try one more time.

Manning's combined stats vs Skins this year was 57.9% comp (his overall for the year is 60.3%) and his QB Rating was 74.8 (86.4 overall). Those ARE worse right??

Romo's stats vs Skins - 63.5% completion (63.1% overall) and his QB Rating was 81.7 (his overall rating is 98.3). Here again you provide more stupidity wth your words. In that week 11 game (you know, the "September game" 8 weeks after the Arizona game), Romo was 19-for-27 for a whopping 198 yards, 1 TD, 2 INTs, and a robust QBR of 72.8. This is a perfect example of the ignorance that is getting absurd. You call me out for discrediting this performance when it clearly only SUPPORTS my statements.

Also, you are saying that Roethlisberger and Hasselbeck are terrible QBs? or are you trying to use the "bad year" excuse like playing either is easy pickings for a defense? Again, ask a REAL, paid film watcher and ask them if these two guys are bums and that their defense SHOULD shut them down.

Regardless, Roethlisberger completed 29% of his passes and had a 15.1 QB Rating. You are saying these are his average output numbers??

Also, and finally, I point out that only 1 QB in 14 has had a BETTER DAY THAN HIS averages ALL SEASON LONG. That is a clear statement/argument for our pass defense CLEARLY not being below average. And by the way, way to COMPLETELY ignore my stats on our pass defense being in the top 10 in every major category.

Anyway, I wouldn't have responded, because I was to the point where I was realizing you just REFUSE to admit you MIGHT be wrong, just once, with you being the "expert and all". But to see other people buy it, Matty, I had to make sure I cleared the air.

Oh, and let me point out as a final word; The Detroit Lions average more points per game than the Washington Redskins. (17.1 to 16.5)

I agree here.... I think Gtripp is OVER analysing things a tad.

Any one who watches the games knows the Skins have a good pass defense, you can twist stats to mean anything you want.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by maroonandblack30

I agree here.... I think Gtripp is OVER analysing things a tad.

Any one who watches the games knows the Skins have a good pass defense, you can twist stats to mean anything you want.

Sorry for going over your head. I hope there was something in there that you learned from my argument, even if you disagree with my conclusion.

[maroonandblack30]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Sorry for going over your head. I hope there was something in there that you learned from my argument, even if you disagree with my conclusion.

Do you really get paid to break down film?

Do you break down actual "game film" or just a copy of the TV broadcast?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Hail to the Redskins

OK, first of all, I have been on this website since February 2004. Again, I am REALLY having issue here with your READING ABILITY. (It IS right under my name) In case you are not sure how to interpret THIS stat, I have been here 2 years longer than you. I am here all the time reading, but I don't always post due to ignorance and attacks most people feel like they have to respond with, rather than just talk about the Skins (you started this back and forth when you said that I was "100% wrong" and smugly pronounced that I "don't know how to use statistics")

Again and again you TOTALLY disregard things I say to try and twist things to support your argument and can't FATHOM that YOU ARE WRONG.

And Matty, I am suprised by your two cents. I have been here for 4 years and pretty much respected what you contribute. But, if you have read this whole back and forth discussion and you think that I have been "proven" wrong somewhow, well...

1) Our offense - 16.5 points per game - 29th in the NFL
2) Our defense - 19.0 points per game - 7th in the NFL

OK, first things first. If talk about making a clear enough point for YOU to understand... the ONLY STAT THAT MATTERS IS POINTS. If you don't agree with this, you are clueless.

How anyone can say that our defense is EQUALLY responsible for our record is just trying to in some way prove how insightful they are by using some complex game film, existential blathering argument. I mean, you have used no argument other than your words and your "I have watched the game film" argument over and over while spewing wrong fact after wrong fact with no stats to back it up (see Bulger & Romo below). What "Overwhelming evidence"?? What your incredible game film analysis?? I am soooo lost as to why exactly I am wrong here.

I mean, 24 of the 32 teams in the NFL AVERAGE MORE THAN 19.0 points per game. (I'm sure ALL of those teams would be happy with our D)

Regardless, if you ask a person who actually gets PAID to "break down film," (meaning they DO know what they are talking about & have a job in the NFL) if 16.5 points per game is something they wish for their offense, I HOPE you can grasp what their answer would be.

If you ask the same person if they would take a defense which allows on 19.0 points per game, THEY WOULDN'T COMPLAIN.

Now about the COMPLETE OMISSIONS and overlooks of clear points I debunk of yours...

You keep bringing up Bulger's game against the Redskins for some reason like he tortched us. I literally am laughing about it right now. The guy had a whopping 93 YARDS PASSING with 1:06 seconds left in the game (!) when LEIGH TORRANCE misplayed his coverage and gave up the 43 yard hail mary heave. For the game, he had a 57% completion and 72 QB Rating. Come on man, really, this is rediculous.

Also, why are we helpless against Manning & Romo?? I JUST posted this but let me try one more time.

Manning's combined stats vs Skins this year was 57.9% comp (his overall for the year is 60.3%) and his QB Rating was 74.8 (86.4 overall). Those ARE worse right??

Romo's stats vs Skins - 63.5% completion (63.1% overall) and his QB Rating was 81.7 (his overall rating is 98.3). Here again you provide more stupidity wth your words. In that week 11 game (you know, the "September game" 8 weeks after the Arizona game), Romo was 19-for-27 for a whopping 198 yards, 1 TD, 2 INTs, and a robust QBR of 72.8. This is a perfect example of the ignorance that is getting absurd. You call me out for discrediting this performance when it clearly only SUPPORTS my statements.

Also, you are saying that Roethlisberger and Hasselbeck are terrible QBs? or are you trying to use the "bad year" excuse like playing either is easy pickings for a defense? Again, ask a REAL, paid film watcher and ask them if these two guys are bums and that their defense SHOULD shut them down.

Regardless, Roethlisberger completed 29% of his passes and had a 15.1 QB Rating. You are saying these are his average output numbers??

Also, and finally, I point out that only 1 QB in 14 has had a BETTER DAY THAN HIS averages ALL SEASON LONG. That is a clear statement/argument for our pass defense CLEARLY not being below average. And by the way, way to COMPLETELY ignore my stats on our pass defense being in the top 10 in every major category.

Anyway, I wouldn't have responded, because I was to the point where I was realizing you just REFUSE to admit you MIGHT be wrong, just once, with you being the "expert and all". But to see other people buy it, Matty, I had to make sure I cleared the air.

Oh, and let me point out as a final word; The Detroit Lions average more points per game than the Washington Redskins. (17.1 to 16.5)

First of all, what makes you think I'm not paid?

Though I want to respect the fact that you were able to type so much, clearly care about what your saying, and I want to move away from things that might seem like personal attacks. That doesn't do me any good, as you're clearly more competant than the average fan I come across. I'm sure you didn't need me to tell you this, just know that I am aware of it.

But, measuring performance retroactively can be done quite easily, and I don't see why I should admit or consider I'm wrong when context-neutral statistics, film-study, and majority opinion all say that the defense has some issues. So far, the only reasons to believe I might be wrong is because you, SF69, and a bunch of "experts" cited by you and SF69 believe I'm totally off my rocker. Thus, this debate.

I am surprised that you haven't realized that your argument doesn't get stronger the more you try to simplify things.

I think you believe this:

• Points are the only stat that matters
• Other stats besides points that don't matter can be manipulated, and will be manipulated, by you to try to show that QBs struggle against us.
• Our offense doesn't score enough points to give our defense a fair chance.
• Only one QB (Fitzpatrick) was better against us, than his season average.
• Leftwich's absurd performance doesn't count against our defense because he hasn't played at any other point this season.
• Bulger's game against us wasn't good before his final drive.
• Bulger's final drive also doesn't count, because Leigh Torrence was in coverage, and you know, they cut him (and they've been worse since they cut him, but likely not because of him).
• Romo and Manning both have struggled against us, because Manning's completion percentage is down, and both of their QB ratings are down.
• Roethlisberger and Hasselbeck are great QBs, and the fact that they've sucked all year has nothing to do with how well we defended them.
• You've talked to a "real" film watcher, and the tooth fairy, I mean film watcher told you that Roethlisberger and Hasselbeck both credited the Redskins pass defense for everything that has gone wrong with them all year.
• The Detroit Lions have more points scored than the Redskins. According to the first statement, this means you believe that the Detroit Lions actually have a better offense than the Redskins. Well then.

First of all, if you truly believe points scored is the end game, you wouldn't have tried to elaborate on that. Obviously, your smart enough to know you are wrong there. Just in case, though, this guy who writes for a more respected blog than you or anyone you know, puts that to rest quickly.

Originally Posted by Chase Stuart, Pro-football-reference

So what’s the best way to rank the defenses? Let’s run down the major statistics people use to rank the defenses.


Points Allowed: People who use this stat like to say things like, “at the end of the day, all I care about is how many points a defense allowed.” While that’s a good statement, points allowed also includes return touchdowns. That’s a big problem — if your QB throws a pick-six or your special teams allowed a score, that shouldn’t hurt the defense. Further, this is heavily influenced by opponent’s field position and opponent’s time of possession, two factors that don’t impact all defenses equally. But many view this as the mother of all defensive stats, so it’s here to stay.

So, points allowed is a good start, but in the Redskins' case, it's misleading for all those factors. The Redskins offense has given up a single TD all year, and the special teams only two TDs. Mostly, the Redskins and their opponents prefer to keep the ball on the ground, which cuts down the amount of attempts a team gets on our defense.

Furthermore, you may have noticed that my point was "The Redskins pass defense is below average." Sadly, this makes stats like PPG largely unhelpful, because you aren't separating run defense from pass defense when you use that.

I suggest you look at these drive stats before you post anymore. It takes the TOP argument off the table (but not the field position argument). You'll notice the Redskins defense ranks first in punts per drive. Obviously, that's good, and it's a big component of why we give up so few points per game: no team forces more punts than the Redskins. But you'll also notice that we rank 10th in points per drive, and 12th in TDs per drive. Now look at the numbers. We are closer to #25 (Jacksonville) in points per drive than we are to #1 (Baltimore), and we are closer to # 26 (Oakland) in TDs per drive than we are to #1 (Pittsburgh).

This isn't even including the fact that we are in the top seven in Ave. Starting field position.

Here's the point: when you break the points per game stat down, you realize that we're really not that good at preventing points. NONE of this accounts for the sub-par quality of our competition, which against the pass, is significantly below average, as you already know.

-----------------------------------

So now that you see the fallacy in using points per game as the be-all-end-all (I hope), let's look at some of your other less-ridiculous arguments.

Also, and finally, I point out that only 1 QB in 14 has had a BETTER DAY THAN HIS averages ALL SEASON LONG. That is a clear statement/argument for our pass defense CLEARLY not being below average. And by the way, way to COMPLETELY ignore my stats on our pass defense being in the top 10 in every major category.

Look. You're correct in saying that QBs struggle to get into a rhythm against the Redskins this year. I think they have all year. Problem is, I contest that (statisically), six times this year, a QB had better than average game against the Redskins. I'm going to make a case for a 7th, Romo (Week 10). Romo was statistically below average in that game, but he beat us in that one at the end, but the guy couldn't even grip the football in that game. He should have been shut out.

And I think you'll agree that the product is often below expectations.

Week 5, Donovan McNabb
Throws for 6.8 yards per attempt, and no picks. That is his season average in YPA, but he's got ten INTs this year. I feel like we should have forced at least one turnover in this one.

Week 6, Marc Bulger
Throws for 5.2 yards per attempt, and no picks. Bulger has 12 picks this year. We got none. In this game, one INT wins it. That's on the defense. His season average in yards per attempt is about 6.0. Above average day when you look at the efficiency for the defense, but where is the one big play when you need it? Not to be found.

Week 8, Dan Orlovsky
Another no turnover performance from our "top ten" passing defense. This time against the Lions, who apparently have a better offense than we do. Orlovsky threw for a league average 6.4 yards per attempt. According to the same measure, Orlovsky is a league average QB. Sensing a trend here? Where is the defense being elite when we really need it?

Week 9, Byron Leftwich
Totally not contesting the point that Roethlisberger was terrible against us in the first half of this one. Given. The guy's game is very, very flawed, and I thought Blache exposed it well. Of course, to NOT change our scheme when they change their QB is probably his biggest flaw to date as our coordinator. Leftwich only threw ten times, for a ridiculous 13 yards per throw. If we compare him to Roethlisberger's average (6.9), this is totally inexcusable.

Oh yeah, no INTs.

Week 11, Tony Romo
Here's the one where I'm going outside what the stats say. The stats say that Romo was bad in this one. He got picked off twice. Thanks DHall, and Rocky. Here's the problem: a guy with a huge cast on his hand who cannot throw downfield accurately should NOT be producing 7.3 YPA against you. Sorry. That's ridiculous. A "top ten" pass defense would never allow that. The argument that we actually played well in this game is "well, but it's Tony Romo, and he's really good!" And the counter-argument is "He's got a giant ****ing cast on his hand and can't throw a football except to his running back".

Whom, of course, was hardly covered all game.

Week 13, Eli Manning
This was a stupid oversight on your part. This was the real, real poor performance by the pass D. Manning threw for 9 yards an attempt. Nine. 9.0. You aren't in the game when that happens. Only Leftwich was more effective than this. We picked him off once, which is about the expectation for Manning. So we forced the turnover, might have been able to force another if it weren't for Springs, and those combined might have kept us in the game.

But seriously, if you went into this game thinking we might have a top ten passing defense (myself included), you came out thinking we were terrible.

Week 15, Ryan Fitzpatrick
Flacco had a very average day, so I skipped him. You admitted that Fitzpatrick was better than he should have been. Which is correct, he was. I don't have any idea why the Week 2 and 3 games weigh higher in your mind than this one does, but I'm not really following your logic for a lot of things.

So I'm contesting that we've performed below average expectations on pass defense seven times out of fourteen games. That's 50%. Which was my point all along.

Problem is, in the seven games where I agree with you that we've overachieved average expectations on pass defense, all of the really impressive ones came in September. Since then, we rattled Derek Anderson, Matt Hasselbeck, and Joe Flacco struggled against us.

To me, that's just not enough to say that we are "top ten" or even average. I think the total product, including September, is pretty close to if not better than average, but we aren't that team any more. Blache is more predictable, IMO. We have Hall instead of Torrence. Mike Green instead of Doughty. Blades instead of Marcus. Lots of injuries on the DL.

We're just not a good pass defense at this point, and this season will not be remembered as one where we shut down opposing QBs. It's something we did a few times. But not with anywhere near the consistency you seem to think we did.

I'm sorry that there's no one metric that you would understand that says I'm right and your wrong. I'd love to have something conclusive to just end the argument. But common sense, combined with statistical analysis says what you believe is way off base. That's what I believe.

[GMScud]

This is one of the most epic, verbose arguments I've ever seen. Rock on.

GTripp is laying the lumber.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

This is one of the most epic, verbose arguments I've ever seen. Rock on.

GTripp is laying the lumber.

Yeah, I wish there was one thing I could point to that would just be like "here, you're wrong". But it's not like that. We're pretty average in most respects, but declining quickly. Haven't been "top ten" since September. That's tough to show in a single number.

So instead, you get 3,000 word thesis papers.

[Hail to the Redskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

First of all, what makes you think I'm not paid?

Though I want to respect the fact that you were able to type so much, clearly care about what your saying, and I want to move away from things that might seem like personal attacks. That doesn't do me any good, as you're clearly more competant than the average fan I come across. I'm sure you didn't need me to tell you this, just know that I am aware of it.

But, measuring performance retroactively can be done quite easily, and I don't see why I should admit or consider I'm wrong when context-neutral statistics, film-study, and majority opinion all say that the defense has some issues. So far, the only reasons to believe I might be wrong is because you, SF69, and a bunch of "experts" cited by you and SF69 believe I'm totally off my rocker. Thus, this debate.

I am surprised that you haven't realized that your argument doesn't get stronger the more you try to simplify things.

I think you believe this:

• Points are the only stat that matters
• Other stats besides points that don't matter can be manipulated, and will be manipulated, by you to try to show that QBs struggle against us.
• Our offense doesn't score enough points to give our defense a fair chance.
• Only one QB (Fitzpatrick) was better against us, than his season average.
• Leftwich's absurd performance doesn't count against our defense because he hasn't played at any other point this season.
• Bulger's game against us wasn't good before his final drive.
• Bulger's final drive also doesn't count, because Leigh Torrence was in coverage, and you know, they cut him (and they've been worse since they cut him, but likely not because of him).
• Romo and Manning both have struggled against us, because Manning's completion percentage is down, and both of their QB ratings are down.
• Roethlisberger and Hasselbeck are great QBs, and the fact that they've sucked all year has nothing to do with how well we defended them.
• You've talked to a "real" film watcher, and the tooth fairy, I mean film watcher told you that Roethlisberger and Hasselbeck both credited the Redskins pass defense for everything that has gone wrong with them all year.
• The Detroit Lions have more points scored than the Redskins. According to the first statement, this means you believe that the Detroit Lions actually have a better offense than the Redskins. Well then.

First of all, if you truly believe points scored is the end game, you wouldn't have tried to elaborate on that. Obviously, your smart enough to know you are wrong there. Just in case, though, this guy who writes for a more respected blog than you or anyone you know, puts that to rest quickly.



So, points allowed is a good start, but in the Redskins' case, it's misleading for all those factors. The Redskins offense has given up a single TD all year, and the special teams only two TDs. Mostly, the Redskins and their opponents prefer to keep the ball on the ground, which cuts down the amount of attempts a team gets on our defense.

Furthermore, you may have noticed that my point was "The Redskins pass defense is below average." Sadly, this makes stats like PPG largely unhelpful, because you aren't separating run defense from pass defense when you use that.

I suggest you look at these drive stats before you post anymore. It takes the TOP argument off the table (but not the field position argument). You'll notice the Redskins defense ranks first in punts per drive. Obviously, that's good, and it's a big component of why we give up so few points per game: no team forces more punts than the Redskins. But you'll also notice that we rank 10th in points per drive, and 12th in TDs per drive. Now look at the numbers. We are closer to #25 (Jacksonville) in points per drive than we are to #1 (Baltimore), and we are closer to # 26 (Oakland) in TDs per drive than we are to #1 (Pittsburgh).

This isn't even including the fact that we are in the top seven in Ave. Starting field position.

Here's the point: when you break the points per game stat down, you realize that we're really not that good at preventing points. NONE of this accounts for the sub-par quality of our competition, which against the pass, is significantly below average, as you already know.

-----------------------------------

So now that you see the fallacy in using points per game as the be-all-end-all (I hope), let's look at some of your other less-ridiculous arguments.



Look. You're correct in saying that QBs struggle to get into a rhythm against the Redskins this year. I think they have all year. Problem is, I contest that (statisically), six times this year, a QB had better than average game against the Redskins. I'm going to make a case for a 7th, Romo (Week 10). Romo was statistically below average in that game, but he beat us in that one at the end, but the guy couldn't even grip the football in that game. He should have been shut out.

And I think you'll agree that the product is often below expectations.

Week 5, Donovan McNabb
Throws for 6.8 yards per attempt, and no picks. That is his season average in YPA, but he's got ten INTs this year. I feel like we should have forced at least one turnover in this one.

Week 6, Marc Bulger
Throws for 5.2 yards per attempt, and no picks. Bulger has 12 picks this year. We got none. In this game, one INT wins it. That's on the defense. His season average in yards per attempt is about 6.0. Above average day when you look at the efficiency for the defense, but where is the one big play when you need it? Not to be found.

Week 8, Dan Orlovsky
Another no turnover performance from our "top ten" passing defense. This time against the Lions, who apparently have a better offense than we do. Orlovsky threw for a league average 6.4 yards per attempt. According to the same measure, Orlovsky is a league average QB. Sensing a trend here? Where is the defense being elite when we really need it?

Week 9, Byron Leftwich
Totally not contesting the point that Roethlisberger was terrible against us in the first half of this one. Given. The guy's game is very, very flawed, and I thought Blache exposed it well. Of course, to NOT change our scheme when they change their QB is probably his biggest flaw to date as our coordinator. Leftwich only threw ten times, for a ridiculous 13 yards per throw. If we compare him to Roethlisberger's average (6.9), this is totally inexcusable.

Oh yeah, no INTs.

Week 11, Tony Romo
Here's the one where I'm going outside what the stats say. The stats say that Romo was bad in this one. He got picked off twice. Thanks DHall, and Rocky. Here's the problem: a guy with a huge cast on his hand who cannot throw downfield accurately should NOT be producing 7.3 YPA against you. Sorry. That's ridiculous. A "top ten" pass defense would never allow that. The argument that we actually played well in this game is "well, but it's Tony Romo, and he's really good!" And the counter-argument is "He's got a giant ****ing cast on his hand and can't throw a football except to his running back".

Whom, of course, was hardly covered all game.

Week 13, Eli Manning
This was a stupid oversight on your part. This was the real, real poor performance by the pass D. Manning threw for 9 yards an attempt. Nine. 9.0. You aren't in the game when that happens. Only Leftwich was more effective than this. We picked him off once, which is about the expectation for Manning. So we forced the turnover, might have been able to force another if it weren't for Springs, and those combined might have kept us in the game.

But seriously, if you went into this game thinking we might have a top ten passing defense (myself included), you came out thinking we were terrible.

Week 15, Ryan Fitzpatrick
Flacco had a very average day, so I skipped him. You admitted that Fitzpatrick was better than he should have been. Which is correct, he was. I don't have any idea why the Week 2 and 3 games weigh higher in your mind than this one does, but I'm not really following your logic for a lot of things.

So I'm contesting that we've performed below average expectations on pass defense seven times out of fourteen games. That's 50%. Which was my point all along.

Problem is, in the seven games where I agree with you that we've overachieved average expectations on pass defense, all of the really impressive ones came in September. Since then, we rattled Derek Anderson, Matt Hasselbeck, and Joe Flacco struggled against us.

To me, that's just not enough to say that we are "top ten" or even average. I think the total product, including September, is pretty close to if not better than average, but we aren't that team any more. Blache is more predictable, IMO. We have Hall instead of Torrence. Mike Green instead of Doughty. Blades instead of Marcus. Lots of injuries on the DL.

We're just not a good pass defense at this point, and this season will not be remembered as one where we shut down opposing QBs. It's something we did a few times. But not with anywhere near the consistency you seem to think we did.

I'm sorry that there's no one metric that you would understand that says I'm right and your wrong. I'd love to have something conclusive to just end the argument. But common sense, combined with statistical analysis says what you believe is way off base. That's what I believe.

OK my turn to respond to your comments...

“First of all, what makes you think I'm not paid?”
* You are? By whom?

You say that I “Other stats besides points that don't matter can be manipulated, and will be manipulated, by you to try to show that QBs struggle against us.”
* Talk about manipulation, all of the sudden you start using yards per attempt (?) and a lack of INTs to use as your main source of ammo. Doesn't QB Rating account for both of these and more to give you an idea of the OVERALL performance? Also, in one breath you say McNabb had a good day because he didn't throw an INT, then in the next breath you discredit the 2 INTs we had against Romo and he had a good day because of yards per attempt??

You go on to say that Roethlisberger has “sucked all year”
* He has? He had a 3 game stretch where he struggled. You take those away and he has completed over 60% of his passes and has a 14 TDs to only 4 INTs in the other 11 games. Yes, I realize you'll discredit this because I am excusing 3 games. But in your argument, you throw out the Saints/Cardinal games because we were playing well then, right? So he played bad for 3 games out of 14. Not only that, but let's not talk like morons, especially if we are trying to have an intellectual conversation by acting like he sucks, when EVERYONE knows he doesn't.

OK. Now you talk about points allowed not being important and mention someone I've never heard of making a point that actually SUPPORTS the fact that our defense IS above average and NOT the reason for our misery this year.

He says that ”if your QB throws a pick-six or your special teams allowed a score, that shouldn’t hurt the defense.” Thanks. That helps. So our defense is giving up only 17.5 points per game!!

You then say to look at points per drive and state "But you'll also notice that we rank 10th in points per drive, and 12th in TDs per drive. Now look at the numbers. We are closer to #25 (Jacksonville) in points per drive than we are to #1 (Baltimore), and we are closer to # 26 (Oakland) in TDs per drive than we are to #1 (Pittsburgh)."
* How exactly is 10th in the league closer to 25th than 1st? How is being in the top 10 bad? ... sheesh, this is an example of the stttrreeettcchhhiinnggg you have been doing.

Your next quote "Problem is, I contest that (statisically), six times this year, a QB had better than average game against the Redskins." and we get brought back to the Bulger game.
* Mark Bulger had 93 yards passing and your all important 3.7 yards per attempt (that is AWFUL by the way, right?) through 59 minutes of the game and with 1:06 left in the game he underthrows a desperation chuck, the receiver adjusts to the ball, Torrance falls down, and now Bulger had a great day and picked us apart?? ... sttttrrrreettchhhhh

* I already mentioned how YOU manipulated the McNabb/Romo games... but to elaborate on this HUGE excuse you give Romo for his "can't grip the ball" routine... you do realize the very next week he threw for 341yds and 3TDs right? yeah, that thumb was barely hanging on.

* Manning. Another time where after going on and on in other games saying "no INTs" like that was the sole reason we sucked, you discredit that we DID pick him off. Also, he had the average day in regards to completion % and QB Rating, but threw the ball 34 times to get the 300yds because we were playing the run all day, which was obvious to even us pions who don't get paid to watch film.

And finally you say "But common sense, combined with statistical analysis says what you believe is way off base."

* Common sense & statistical analysis is way off base? Let me remind you that the two points we have been debating are that A) Our defense is at least equally to blame for lack of success this year and B) our pass defense is below average (these are things YOU have said) You have supported this with:

* This point is big. You just rambled on and on asserting that the most imprtant gauges of a pass defense is the opposing QB's yards per attempt & our INTs. Doesn't the QB Rating, which I have used all along ACCOUNT FOR THESE??

* Points per game allowed do not matter. MY common sense is way off base?

* Mark Bulger had a good game against us. MY statistical analysis is way off base?

Look, we obviously just have different opinions and will never convince the other that our way of thinking is better. But, EVERY argument you make is not over-analyzed, it's taking parts of this and that and peicing it together to support your argument... not a solid foundation and everytime you respond, I am pretty sure it gets toppled back down (just for you to find more junk to pile up again.