Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum

Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion


SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Locker Room Main Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-27-2009, 08:01 PM   #1
redskins1974
Camp Scrub
 
redskins1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 95
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
I think that ignores that Campbell/Portis were essentially responsible for 6 out of our 8 wins. With Collins and Betts in those rolls, we're a 4-12, or maybe 3-13 team. Which, I think, is something that unit rankings have to figure in.
yeah, it had nothing to do with our 4th ranked defense...what world are you living in making that statement?
redskins1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:10 PM   #2
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by redskins1974 View Post
yeah, it had nothing to do with our 4th ranked defense...what world are you living in making that statement?
Dude, don't start. Our defense won some games for us as well (Philly, Week 16). But also struggled mightily when we finished 2-6. And then there was St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:18 PM   #3
SBXVII
Franchise Player
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Dude, don't start. Our defense won some games for us as well (Philly, Week 16). But also struggled mightily when we finished 2-6. And then there was St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc.
Well the offense not moving the ball and having a lot of 3 and outs caused our defense to get tired in most of those. I think the defense played admirably for most of those games though. They kept us in the game by keeping the score low all the way up till usually the late 3rd or 4th quarter. I think if the offense can muster atleast 21-30 points a game then the defense will look better. but I would love to be the supprise team in getting the 40 points a game this yr. and I believe it is possible with the talent we have this yr. A few more WR's to help out JC (Kelly, Thomas). Maybe a change of pace back in Alridge who is fast as.....you know what. Maybe just using him with Portis will be a threat to other teams in a 2 back system. Portis either runs it up the middle or Alridge takes it to the outside. Defenses would have to be on their toes.

Speed packages with Moss, Thomas, and Alridge out as a WR as he was used in college will create problems.
SBXVII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:21 PM   #4
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII View Post
Well the offense not moving the ball and having a lot of 3 and outs caused our defense to get tired in most of those. I think the defense played admirably for most of those games though. They kept us in the game by keeping the score low all the way up till usually the late 3rd or 4th quarter. I think if the offense can muster atleast 21-30 points a game then the defense will look better. but I would love to be the supprise team in getting the 40 points a game this yr. and I believe it is possible with the talent we have this yr. A few more WR's to help out JC (Kelly, Thomas). Maybe a change of pace back in Alridge who is fast as.....you know what. Maybe just using him with Portis will be a threat to other teams in a 2 back system. Portis either runs it up the middle or Alridge takes it to the outside. Defenses would have to be on their toes.

Speed packages with Moss, Thomas, and Alridge out as a WR as he was used in college will create problems.
In the Pittsburgh game, we went three and out a lot. But all the points they scored were scored right at the beginning of the second half, before conventional fatigue could set in. They were actually much better when you would think they would have been fatigued.

Outside of the Baltimore game, our defense played significantly worse in the first half than in the second half last year. So I'm just not buying the fatigue argument. A fatigued team doesn't get stronger as the game goes on, which we did.

I agree that our offense should be better next year.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:22 PM   #5
redskins1974
Camp Scrub
 
redskins1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 95
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Dude, don't start. Our defense won some games for us as well (Philly, Week 16). But also struggled mightily when we finished 2-6. And then there was St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc.
and what about our 8 losses where we averaged 11 point per game - almost every game other then the SF game should be blamed on the offense. Our offense was about 20th in the league (yards) and about 27th (points), and our D was 4th. its obvious where our problem is. I agree with SI's rank.

Your going to blame our D in the Steelers game. We scored 6 points!
redskins1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:33 PM   #6
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by redskins1974 View Post
and what about our 8 losses where we averaged 11 point per game - almost every game other then the SF game should be blamed on the offense. Our offense was about 20th in the league (yards) and about 27th (points), and our D was 4th. its obvious where our problem is. I agree with SI's rank.

Your going to blame our D in the Steelers game. We scored 6 points!
1) I said don't start. You're entitled to your opinion. You'll be happier keeping it to yourself.

2) Not the NYG game? Not the Cincinnati game? I dunno man, an average performance in those three (SF included) games, and we could have easily been 5-3 in the second half of the year. And that's still including the full on offensive collapse from units that weren't the offensive backfield. Even if you give back the second Philly game as one that you would have thought we lost by the way our offense performed, that's 10-6, plus a playoff berth.

True, there were games we got blown out in where our defense, and offense both played poorly. You could say that Pittsburgh blew us out. That Baltimore blew us out. That the Giants blew us out on opening night. You could even argue that Dallas blew us out coming out of our bye (even though that was a 4 point spread, we got so badly outplayed in that second half). But it was those other 4 losses where the defense, not the offense let us down. And that number trumps the amount of games our "No. 4" defense won for us.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:44 PM   #7
redskins1974
Camp Scrub
 
redskins1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 95
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
1) I said don't start. You're entitled to your opinion. You'll be happier keeping it to yourself.

2) Not the NYG game? Not the Cincinnati game? I dunno man, an average performance in those three (SF included) games, and we could have easily been 5-3 in the second half of the year. And that's still including the full on offensive collapse from units that weren't the offensive backfield. Even if you give back the second Philly game as one that you would have thought we lost by the way our offense performed, that's 10-6, plus a playoff berth.

True, there were games we got blown out in where our defense, and offense both played poorly. You could say that Pittsburgh blew us out. That Baltimore blew us out. That the Giants blew us out on opening night. You could even argue that Dallas blew us out coming out of our bye (even though that was a 4 point spread, we got so badly outplayed in that second half). But it was those other 4 losses where the defense, not the offense let us down. And that number trumps the amount of games our "No. 4" defense won for us.


Which NYG game? The game we scored 7 points or the other game we scored 7 points? And the Bengals? we scored 13 points against a pathetic Bengals Defense...your arguments dont make sense! 7 points in bpth NY games

wow....you have interesting math.
1) Offense 16.6 points per game (27th in league)
2) Defense 18.5 points per game ( 6th in league)

and you still maintain the offense won us more games then the defense. classic
redskins1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:52 PM   #8
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by redskins1974 View Post
Which NYG game? The game we scored 7 points or the other game we scored 7 points? And the Bengals? we scored 13 points against a pathetic Bengals Defense...your arguments dont make sense! 7 points in bpth NY games

wow....you have interesting math.
1) Offense 16.6 points per game (27th in league)
2) Defense 18.5 points per game ( 6th in league)

and you still maintain the offense won us more games then the defense. classic
Well, first of all, you didn't even watch the games in the first half of the season. This I'm sure of.

Secondly, what do you have for me that aren't yards and points? Surely, you aren't trying to argue that points are the end game. Too many factors that you aren't accounting for. You're essentially saying that turnovers, negative plays, and who the opponent is do not matter.

What you've shown here is that the Redskins had a slightly negative point differential. I'd say you have shown that they were maybe a 7-9, or maybe 8-8 team. This I could draw from what you've argued. As for whose fault it all is, well, are you going to make that argument, or are you just going to bring up something I've successfully disputed twice over the last five months, and hope like hell it speaks for itself?

Man, if only you had watched in September...
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 09:01 PM   #9
redskins1974
Camp Scrub
 
redskins1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 95
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Well, first of all, you didn't even watch the games in the first half of the season. This I'm sure of.

Secondly, what do you have for me that aren't yards and points? Surely, you aren't trying to argue that points are the end game. Too many factors that you aren't accounting for. You're essentially saying that turnovers, negative plays, and who the opponent is do not matter.

What you've shown here is that the Redskins had a slightly negative point differential. I'd say you have shown that they were maybe a 7-9, or maybe 8-8 team. This I could draw from what you've argued. As for whose fault it all is, well, are you going to make that argument, or are you just going to bring up something I've successfully disputed twice over the last five months, and hope like hell it speaks for itself?

Man, if only you had watched in September...
Why do I need to use anything other then points? Isint that what determines if a team wins or losses a game? Being 27th in points scored and
6th in point given up speaks for itself.

and how do you blame losses on the Defense in the Steelers and both NY games. We scored 6, 7 and 7 points. Please explain.
redskins1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:50 PM   #10
SBXVII
Franchise Player
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
1) I said don't start. You're entitled to your opinion. You'll be happier keeping it to yourself.

2) Not the NYG game? Not the Cincinnati game? I dunno man, an average performance in those three (SF included) games, and we could have easily been 5-3 in the second half of the year. And that's still including the full on offensive collapse from units that weren't the offensive backfield. Even if you give back the second Philly game as one that you would have thought we lost by the way our offense performed, that's 10-6, plus a playoff berth.

True, there were games we got blown out in where our defense, and offense both played poorly. You could say that Pittsburgh blew us out. That Baltimore blew us out. That the Giants blew us out on opening night. You could even argue that Dallas blew us out coming out of our bye (even though that was a 4 point spread, we got so badly outplayed in that second half). But it was those other 4 losses where the defense, not the offense let us down. And that number trumps the amount of games our "No. 4" defense won for us.
Then perhaps the defense should not have been ranked 4th. I don't know. I like to fool myself and say most of our losses were due to injuies to the O-line and lack of WR's and quite possibly teams that ran the 3-4 that had a big nose tackle. Rahbach to me seemed to get steam rolled in those games. I could be way off. Defensively the team could not get off the field to save it's life. Lastly the team is simply going to just have a bad day.

Now if you going to prove me wrong I'm just going to cry. LOL. Cause in my little pea brain these things can be fixed. LOL.
SBXVII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:56 PM   #11
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII View Post
Defensively the team could not get off the field to save it's life.

Now if you going to prove me wrong I'm just going to cry. LOL. Cause in my little pea brain these things can be fixed. LOL.
Pretty much, yeah.

In my opinion, we fixed what ailed our defense this offseason. So, if our defense ends up being worse than last year, color me as surprised than the rest of you. I'm optimistic on next year. I think we'll be improved in all three phases of the game.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 09:01 PM   #12
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII View Post
Then perhaps the defense should not have been ranked 4th.
But, yeah, the defense isn't "ranked" 4th by anything except the metrics that do not consider turnovers or sacks, and do not consider the frequency of drives faced. It just so happens that these are the standard stats the NFL uses. At which point, just don't cite stats at all. IMO, using statistics incorrectly is worse than not using them at all. Just grade defenses by the amount of "heart" the defensive coordinator shows.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.61103 seconds with 11 queries