SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Originally Posted by 53Fan

Fair enough. You certainly have a right to your opinion. I think the same could be said for some of the QB's ranked ahead of him. As for me, I think he showed last year he can be a successful starting QB. I'm not saying he doesn't need to improve, he does, but I think he's as good as some who are ranked higher.

Agreed. Campbell probably is. Its hard for me to debate it though with what ive seen on the field from his so far. Hopefully Campbell steps up his game like I think in a contract year and we can start to see some of that potenial fulfilled.

[GTripp0012]

Also, if our kicker has a really inconsistent year, should our offense shoulder the blame for not getting any points out of the drive?

According to you, it's 100% the offenses fault.

The Skins defense ranked 4th last year giving up 288.8 ypg and 6th in ppg giving up 18.5. Which is shocking for the amount of 3 and outs the Skins had in 2008.

The Skins had problems on defense forcing sacks and turnovers and hopefully that problem has been fixed for 2009 with the additions they have made. At the sametime sacks and turnovers arent key to being a good defense. The key to being a good defense is to shut down the opposing team. If the Skins ranked in the bottom half of the league in defense then id say they needed more sacks or turnovers last year.

Out of the top 7 defenses last year the Skins were the only team that didnt make the playoffs. The reason why we didnt make the playoffs was because the offense didnt carry their weight. Hopefully in 2009 the offense can pick it up and the defense can help them out by forcing more sacks and turnovers. I know one thing if the Skins finish in the top 5 on defense again and miss the playoffs im going to be pissed.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Brian Orakpo

The Skins defense ranked 4th last year giving up 288.8 ypg and 6th in ppg giving up 18.5. Which is shocking for the amount of 3 and outs the Skins had in 2008.

The Skins had problems on defense forcing sacks and turnovers and hopefully that problem has been fixed for 2009 with the additions they have made. At the sametime sacks and turnovers arent key to being a good defense. The key to being a good defense is to shut down the opposing team. If the Skins ranked in the bottom half of the league in defense then id say they needed more sacks or turnovers last year.

Out of the top 7 defenses last year the Skins were the only team that didnt make the playoffs. The reason why we didnt make the playoffs was because the offense didnt carry their weight. Hopefully in 2009 the offense can pick it up and the defense can help them out by forcing more sacks and turnovers. I know one thing if the Skins finish in the top 5 on defense again and miss the playoffs im going to be pissed.

We had the third least 3 and outs of any team in the NFL. Does this change your opinion of the offense at all?

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We had the third least 3 and outs of any team in the NFL. Does this change your opinion of the offense at all?

Actually no. We were 26th in 3rd down converisons in 2008 with 35% so I just assumed we had alot of 3 and outs. At least it felt that way to me watching the offense last year.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Brian Orakpo

Actually no. We were 26th in 3rd down converisons in 2008 with 35% so I just assumed we had alot of 3 and outs. At least it felt that way to me watching the offense last year.

Well, we converted 67% of our first and tens for first downs, and that figure was above the league average. It just so happened that we were WELL above the league average at the start of drives.

That would seem to either be a credit to the playcalling, or just statistical noise. But converting 67% of our first and tens into another first and tens is a real trend. Of course, that also means that 33% of our drives failed, and that we weren't a great third down team, and while 33% is a good drive failure rate, it's not nearly good enough for an offense with zero big play ability, and a declining success rate as it gets closer to the opponents goal line.

We were a well above average between our own 20 and our own 40. But on the other side of the 50, we were a far below average offense. It's interesting how our field position seemed to determine our success rate, but when your greatest offensive weapon brings only the threat of a deep pass, and hardly any actual production, it's easy to justify what happened.

[53Fan]

I'm still trying to figure out why we signed AH to such a big contract and spent our first draft pick on a defensive player. Maybe because the FO thought the offense was pretty much set and just needed another year in the system, and if the defense could get some turnovers and/or get the opposing offense off the field we may have a better chance of scoring?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

I'm still trying to figure out why we signed AH to such a big contract and spent our first draft pick on a defensive player. Maybe because the FO thought the offense was pretty much set and just needed another year in the system, and if the defense could get some turnovers and/or get the opposing defense off the field we may have a better chance of scoring?

I think it was just an easy way to vastly improve the team. He was the best player on the free agent market, and while DT wasn't a need for us, it was really easy to make it the position of strength on our team: pay Albert.

As it stands: the historical weak link on our defense just got a 50 million dollar contract this offseason. If he's the 11th best player on our defense that's really saying something about how good this unit can be.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think it was just an easy way to vastly improve the team. He was the best player on the free agent market, and while DT wasn't a need for us, it was really easy to make it the position of strength on our team: pay Albert.

As it stands: the historical weak link on our defense just got a 50 million dollar contract this offseason. If he's the 11th best player on our defense that's really saying something about how good this unit can be.

Yeah, WTF, let's just throw 50 mil at something we don't need.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

I'm still trying to figure out why we signed AH to such a big contract and spent our first draft pick on a defensive player. Maybe because the FO thought the offense was pretty much set and just needed another year in the system, and if the defense could get some turnovers and/or get the opposing offense off the field we may have a better chance of scoring?

On AH, pressure on the QB from the front 4 has been a problem for the past few years, IMO the Skins saw an impact player there that only took $$$ and not draft picks to get and went out to get him. If pressure can come from the front four that makes for more plays to be made in the secondary by the back 7. Orakpo was not only the best player available, but fills a need not often found at # 13, a pass rushing DE that is also solid against the run. Also IMO, Orakpo will be moved over to full-time RDE within two years.

[GTripp0012]

Well, it clearly was a long-term need. We just paid him disproportionately to how well he's played the last three seasons.

[53Fan]

It was definitely a need. This defense wasn't as good as everyone's making it out to be. There was a little sarcasm in my last post.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

It was definitely a need. This defense wasn't as good as everyone's making it out to be. There was alittle sarcasm in my last post.

Sorry about that, I need to re-calibrate the sarcasm meter.

I agree with you 100% about the D.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

It was definitely a need. This defense wasn't as good as everyone's making it out to be. There was a little sarcasm in my last post.

Yeah, my usually spot-on sarcasm meter totally whiffed there. Now there's egg on my face.

[DBUCHANON101]

we have lacked a good front 4 for yrs.now we have a strong dline. a passrush helps the entire defense.