Greg Blache Defensive Scheme!!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by an23dy

Your argument is akin to saying if meteorologists play the Pittsburgh Steelers 4 times in a 16 game season they have the toughest schedule in the NFL. It is neither here nor there. Four games isn't an entire season, how about the Saints, Cardinals, Giants, Cowboys, Eagles. If your argument is that Philadelphia had a harder schedule, you're wrong. Look up whatever stats you want on that for the 16 games and you can see that. Philly also played Cleveland, Cincinnati, and St. Louis. The only different teams we played were New Orleans (#1 in points and yards) and Detroit (actually ranked better than the Redskins in points), but yeah they were bad.

In any case teams are different over the course of the year, even if its in the same location. We were a completely different team in in the beginning of the season versus the end, and you can say that about a bunch of teams. But for 2 of those 12 games, one near the beginning and one near the end that were on the same day at the same location I saw one defense outperform the other both times, but apparently that was undeniably oppositely viewed by you, irrelevant to you, or maybe you just missed the games.

If you're arguing that the Redskins offense (28th in points) is better than the Eagles offense (6th in points) you're wrong. That's like arguing the St. Louis Rams defense (28th) is better than the Vikings defense (6th).

The differences in most of the stats between the Redskins and Eagles are small (0.4 points) and 10 yards so I'm saying small differences in stats like that don't matter when there are so many other variables involved from week to week and you don't even really know how important those stats are to a good defense. Slowing teams down not taking risks and making them make the small play slows them down and makes less drives for the other team. Is that a stat? No, but does it make a good defense, maybe. I think that it is wrong to be so sure based on a selection of stats that you choose that doesn't take other variables into consideration. You can have your opinion, but I think that you're opinion the Eagles are undeniably better is crazy and I feel my opinion that it's not UNDENIABLE is more reasonable. And evidence is the fact that many other people will agree with me that the Redskins defense could have been better than the Vikings or Eagles last year. And if you think all those people are crazy, then I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and maintaining your original opinion.

We played New Orleans and Detroit, they played Atlanta and Chicago. Please cut the shit. Their schedule was harder. Not that it matters over 16 games when 14 are basically the same, and they still beat us in every single defensive metric, most by a long shot. It's pretty much undeniable that their defense was better, at least among objectivity. If you aren't concerned about being objective, then it's just an entirely different viewpoint: fan.

Would you, in the future, not quote me with saying what CRedskinsRule says. I mean, he's right, but we're also two different people. Thanks.

But I do thank you for claiming argument consistency from TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. That's one of the more entertaining things that has ever happened from around these parts. Now I pretty much can't take you seriously anymore. I think you'll understand.

The rest of your post just seems to be a never-ending series of strawmans that varies between arguments that he made, neither of us made, and no one has ever made.

P.S. The fact that drive total has become a non-quantifiable statistic in this debate means it's pretty much over.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

...
Would you, in the future, not quote me with saying what CRedskinsRule says. ...

Turnabout from the other day, right GTripp

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Turnabout from the other day, right GTripp

Irony, I believe. Though some may call it coincidence.

[an23dy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We played New Orleans and Detroit, they played Atlanta and Chicago. Please cut the shit. Their schedule was harder. Not that it matters over 16 games when 14 are basically the same, and they still beat us in every single defensive metric, most by a long shot. It's pretty much undeniable that their defense was better, at least among objectivity. If you aren't concerned about being objective, then it's just an entirely different viewpoint: fan.

Would you, in the future, not quote me with saying what CRedskinsRule says. I mean, he's right, but we're also two different people. Thanks.

But I do thank you for claiming argument consistency from TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. That's one of the more entertaining things that has ever happened from around these parts. Now I pretty much can't take you seriously anymore. I think you'll understand.

The rest of your post just seems to be a never-ending series of strawmans that varies between arguments that he made, neither of us made, and no one has ever made.

P.S. The fact that drive total has become a non-quantifiable statistic in this debate means it's pretty much over.

Get over yourself please, stop with all the hand waving saying they're undeniably better because you say so based on the criteria you choose. And if you did watch the games, can you at least agree with me that on those 2 days the Redskins defense was better? Throughout the year I never felt our defense was getting handled except maybe the first game versus the Giants. The Eagles gave up 41 to Dallas, 36 to the Giants, and 36 to Baltimore. That's not what I call consistent and that may not be a stat that you choose, but it does matter if you want to call yourself a good defense.

If there were a stat that was for the offensive strength that you face I guarantee it would be higher for the Redskins than the Eagles. I know it's the case for points and yards by a large margin. I wasn't claiming their schedule was harder, I was saying we faced better offenses. New Orleans had the best offense in the NFL and we had to face the Eagles offense twice (which was one of the best offenses in the NFL, again 6th in points) while they had to face our offense twice (which is much worse statistically, since you seem to care about the statistical analysis so much). And yeah Atlanta and Chicago were offensive powerhouses last year, I think I missed that.

P.S. You defined the meaning of drive total and how it is relevant statistically, but you don't know. Having a lower number of drives could mean that the defense is better, that they force offenses to work during every possession, bend but not break (i.e. Blache's scheme), as opposed to one that is more attacking and takes more chances (i.e. Jim Johnson's scheme).

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by an23dy

Get over yourself please, stop with all the hand waving saying they're undeniably better because you say so based on the criteria you choose. And if you did watch the games, can you at least agree with me that on those 2 days the Redskins defense was better? Throughout the year I never felt our defense was getting handled except maybe the first game versus the Giants. The Eagles gave up 41 to Dallas, 36 to the Giants, and 36 to Baltimore. That's not what I call consistent and that may not be a stat that you choose, but it does matter if you want to call yourself a good defense.

If there were a stat that was for the offensive strength that you face I guarantee it would be higher for the Redskins than the Eagles. I know it's the case for points and yards by a large margin. I wasn't claiming their schedule was harder, I was saying we faced better offenses. New Orleans had the best offense in the NFL and we had to face the Eagles offense twice (which was one of the best offenses in the NFL, again 6th in points) while they had to face our offense twice (which is much worse statistically, since you seem to care about the statistical analysis so much). And yeah Atlanta and Chicago were offensive powerhouses last year, I think I missed that.

P.S. You defined the meaning of drive total and how it is relevant statistically, but you don't know. Having a lower number of drives could mean that the defense is better, that they force offenses to work during every possession, bend but not break (i.e. Blache's scheme), as opposed to one that is more attacking and takes more chances (i.e. Jim Johnson's scheme).

Number one, there are definately stats kept on who faces the hardest competition. Again, these all suggest that it was pretty much a negligible difference, since you know 12 of our opponents were exactly the same as Philly. Here, is football outsiders rankings, and to get the opponent adjustment, you can just subtract the Non-adjusted from the adjusted total. Simple enough. Philly faced better offenses, by their rankings, but again, it's a really, really small difference, enough to not matter, which is what I've told you from the start. Other rankings I've seen say the same.

Number two, you cherry pick your numbers like only one other person I've ever talked to on this fourm, which given your propensity to deem other's numbers to be arbitrary, delights me very much. You point out that Philadelphia had three games with a high point total. Except that, we already know there's no way to skew it to say the Skins don't allow points at a faster rate. So I don't know what you are trying to say. Philly has a higher variance? That's true, I suppose.

Number three, I definately do know everything in bold is an irrelivant point. Last year, we gave up points at a faster rate than the Eagles, and we gave up more total points, and we faced fewer drives. To an extent, we did have a small bend-but-don't-break effect in our defense. It's true. We also broke undeniably faster than Philadelphia, Tennessee, or Minnesota. Like, gave up more points. That's what you mean by bend but don't break, is it not?

Number four, you apparently are okay quoting other people under my username. That's not cool, dude. I'm not just going to ignore that you did that.

[an23dy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Number one, there are definately stats kept on who faces the hardest competition. Again, these all suggest that it was pretty much a negligible difference, since you know 12 of our opponents were exactly the same as Philly. Here, is football outsiders rankings, and to get the opponent adjustment, you can just subtract the Non-adjusted from the adjusted total. Simple enough. Philly faced better offenses, by their rankings, but again, it's a really, really small difference, enough to not matter, which is what I've told you from the start. Other rankings I've seen say the same.

Number two, you cherry pick your numbers like only one other person I've ever talked to on this fourm, which given your propensity to deem other's numbers to be arbitrary, delights me very much. You point out that Philadelphia had three games with a high point total. Except that, we already know there's no way to skew it to say the Skins don't allow points at a faster rate. So I don't know what you are trying to say. Philly has a higher variance? That's true, I suppose.

Number three, I definately do know everything in bold is an irrelivant point. Last year, we gave up points at a faster rate than the Eagles, and we gave up more total points, and we faced fewer drives. To an extent, we did have a small bend-but-don't-break effect in our defense. It's true. We also broke undeniably faster than Philadelphia, Tennessee, or Minnesota. Like, gave up more points. That's what you mean by bend but don't break, is it not?

Number four, you apparently are okay quoting other people under my username. That's not cool, dude. I'm not just going to ignore that you did that.

Sorry for the quote, I copied and pasted the quote thing and didn't edit it on accident. We all make mistakes, just like all the mistakes you make in every reply you send.

Yeah check out the variance, it says Washington was more consistent than Philly. I guess that changes your earlier opinion on the matter because boom it's right there in the stats. It's okay we all make mistakes, and you spelled forum wrong too.

Yeah we play 12 of the same teams, I know how the schedule works, you don't need to make the same argument continuously. The difference in the other games is we play a good Philly offense they play a bad Redskin offense and the other two games had negligible difference.

The DVOA only takes into account certain statistics on defense and is incomplete. I bet they just fiddle with the stats til it looks how they think it should look. You can't tell everything from looking at statistics. Do you think Philly and Minnesota's defense was better than Tennessee's, because the stats might say so, but I wouldn't say that and I don't think you would either. And of course you're going to pull up those stats because they have the weighted thing towards the end of the season when Philly was playing their best defense, yet it still wasn't good enough to beat us, when they're playoff hopes were seemingly on the line.

Okay wait, yeah I see it so clearly now, -20.7%, but I think I still need to see the stat for pressure situations, or do they eliminate plays once a game is considered out of reach, or do they have a stat for whether a player is injured, or if he picked his nose between plays. IT'S OBJECTIVE, that's my argument. YOUR OPINION IS NOT ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE TRUTH THAT EVERYBODY AGREES WITH BECAUSE YOUR PRECIOUS STATS SAY SO. Maybe you should stop crunching the numbers and doing your math homework on Sundays and actually watch the games and make an opinion of your own.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by an23dy

... Maybe you should stop crunching the numbers and doing your math homework on Sundays and actually watch the games and make an opinion of your own.

an23dy,
I hear what you are saying, as many times stats guys can get caught up in numbers and forget what happens on the field. However, GTripp watches the games, and watches them again and does excellent breakdowns of both the offensive and defensive game plans and executions.

Here is a sample of one of the breakdowns from last season:
http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...view-best.html

and if you use the search, and keyword review, you will see his others listed.
That is why I and many many others here listen to GTripp's thoughts with alot of weight. He knows his stats and relies on them, but he also can break the game film apart and tell you how those stats were arrived at.
(not saying he is always right, but your throwaway line in the quote is downright wrong)

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

an23dy,
I hear what you are saying, as many times stats guys can get caught up in numbers and forget what happens on the field. However, GTripp watches the games, and watches them again and does excellent breakdowns of both the offensive and defensive game plans and executions.

Here is a sample of one of the breakdowns from last season:
http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...view-best.html

and if you use the search, and keyword review, you will see his others listed.
That is why I and many many others here listen to GTripp's thoughts with alot of weight. He knows his stats and relies on them, but he also can break the game film apart and tell you how those stats were arrived at.
(not saying he is always right, but your throwaway line in the quote is downright wrong)

Suck up.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Suck up.

Look, just cuz GTripp is on the ball, and your not, don't go getting that bowling ball head of yours in an uproar.

[an23dy]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

an23dy,
I hear what you are saying, as many times stats guys can get caught up in numbers and forget what happens on the field. However, GTripp watches the games, and watches them again and does excellent breakdowns of both the offensive and defensive game plans and executions.

Here is a sample of one of the breakdowns from last season:
http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...view-best.html

and if you use the search, and keyword review, you will see his others listed.
That is why I and many many others here listen to GTripp's thoughts with alot of weight. He knows his stats and relies on them, but he also can break the game film apart and tell you how those stats were arrived at.
(not saying he is always right, but your throwaway line in the quote is downright wrong)

I don't really know what you mean by throw away line, but I understand your point, I didn't know he watched the games, he's got an opinion, but he doesn't have to go about giving his opinion in such an arrogant I'm always right, you're always wrong manner.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Of course, once you come to the realization that the defense was less-than-elite, in pretty much every possible way, then it becomes easier to accept the offense for what it was, and not have this justification dilemma with our record.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

They were undeniably better. Continuing to deny it is pretty crazy

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

This was never about right or wrong, this was about what I knew and what you were absolutely convinced I did not know. You thought, based on the limited information you had, that the Redskins were a top five defense. I knew otherwise.

I'm not just gonna accept his opinions as fact, like he knows all and I have to follow him, especially if I don't believe what he says. I base it on what I've seen and what I consider significant and that is different from what he sees and what he considers significant, so why is his way right and my way wrong. Just because he may spend more time looking at Redskin film and stats it doesn't mean he is more qualified to be a judge. I watched every play last year, and a lot of games twice, and I watched a lot of other football too. I think he's overly cynical and how can you be a good judge if you over analyze one team, re-watching game tape, and then only look at other teams a little and not scrutinize every play by them, everybody has flaws on a game to game basis and he sees every Redskin flaw on every play, but he doesn't analyze every Eagle mistake on every play in the same way. He thinks the Redskins defense was average (which I might assume to be around 16th), I think we were much closer to 5th. From what I've seen which is about 2/3 of the Eagles games and all the Redskins games, I think the Redskins defense was better. It's my opinion and I'm sure a lot of other people believe it too and could defend it.

I mean I really just got mad because when I said a comment he said your comment is meaningless with his dumb meteorologist point. When did he become the person that decides what's relevant and what's not. I don't know when it became official that two head-to-head games became irrelevant when comparing two teams. And then he justifies it with a meaningless analogy that proves no point in order to try and belittle my argument.

PS I really hope I didn't misquote anything there cuz I will get berated. And also, I continued to speak in addressing CRedskins just because it felt awkward to change who I was talking to, but obviously it's going to be read by others ... hi GTripp.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by an23dy

Sorry for the quote, I copied and pasted the quote thing and didn't edit it on accident. We all make mistakes, just like all the mistakes you make in every reply you send.

Yeah check out the variance, it says Washington was more consistent than Philly. I guess that changes your earlier opinion on the matter because boom it's right there in the stats. It's okay we all make mistakes, and you spelled forum wrong too.

Yeah we play 12 of the same teams, I know how the schedule works, you don't need to make the same argument continuously. The difference in the other games is we play a good Philly offense they play a bad Redskin offense and the other two games had negligible difference.

The DVOA only takes into account certain statistics on defense and is incomplete. I bet they just fiddle with the stats til it looks how they think it should look. You can't tell everything from looking at statistics. Do you think Philly and Minnesota's defense was better than Tennessee's, because the stats might say so, but I wouldn't say that and I don't think you would either. And of course you're going to pull up those stats because they have the weighted thing towards the end of the season when Philly was playing their best defense, yet it still wasn't good enough to beat us, when they're playoff hopes were seemingly on the line.

Okay wait, yeah I see it so clearly now, -20.7%, but I think I still need to see the stat for pressure situations, or do they eliminate plays once a game is considered out of reach, or do they have a stat for whether a player is injured, or if he picked his nose between plays. IT'S OBJECTIVE, that's my argument. YOUR OPINION IS NOT ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE TRUTH THAT EVERYBODY AGREES WITH BECAUSE YOUR PRECIOUS STATS SAY SO. Maybe you should stop crunching the numbers and doing your math homework on Sundays and actually watch the games and make an opinion of your own.

1) Apology accepted.

2) As others have pointed out, you're struggling to make a coherent point. I gave you one link to show you that I'm not bullshitting you, and I have plenty of others that generally said the same thing. I think you have to understand that when you bullshit someone and get caught, the best thing to do sometimes is to just say that, you were unaware of that information, and that you find it interesting, if not potentially at odds with what you previously believed. It's all good.

No one thinks you should agree 100% with any one statistical source, in fact, that's what this was all about. They all have some value. Together, they can tell most of the story.

3) This was never about right or wrong, this was about what I knew and what you were absolutely convinced I did not know. You thought, based on the limited information you had, that the Redskins were a top five defense. I knew otherwise. That's really all this tiff was. Again, no hard feelings.