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, 08:44 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
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   #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
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   #3
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, 09:10 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 redskins1974 View Post
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.
Of course points determine if we win or lose. Football is not a game that is played at two separate locations with a split squad offense and defense. Simply, what one unit does has a great effect on the amount of points/yards the other scores and gives up. No one in the world disputes this.

So when just cite points, you aren't making a case for anything. Unless you are rejecting the validity of statement above. You cited that our points scored was 27th in the league. But if you want to make the point that our offense was the 27th best in the league, you have to go further. Tell us not the total product, but which positions were responsible and back it up.

Something like "Jim Zorn was responsible becuase his incredibly slow offensive pace limits the amount of points we can score before the game ends." Or, "the Redskins never played an overtime game last year, which affects the amount of oppertunities the team has to score."

Otherwise, your just slinging mud and hoping something sticks. If you really believe Jason Campbell is responsible for the offense being scored by 26 teams, say that, then back it up. If you are just going to throw shit against the wall, please don't waste our time and webspace.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 09:17 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
Of course points determine if we win or lose. Football is not a game that is played at two separate locations with a split squad offense and defense. Simply, what one unit does has a great effect on the amount of points/yards the other scores and gives up. No one in the world disputes this.

So when just cite points, you aren't making a case for anything. Unless you are rejecting the validity of statement above. You cited that our points scored was 27th in the league. But if you want to make the point that our offense was the 27th best in the league, you have to go further. Tell us not the total product, but which positions were responsible and back it up.

Something like "Jim Zorn was responsible becuase his incredibly slow offensive pace limits the amount of points we can score before the game ends." Or, "the Redskins never played an overtime game last year, which affects the amount of oppertunities the team has to score."

Otherwise, your just slinging mud and hoping something sticks. If you really believe Jason Campbell is responsible for the offense being scored by 26 teams, say that, then back it up. If you are just going to throw shit against the wall, please don't waste our time and webspace.
The only thing im debating is you putting more blame on the defense then the offense.

Im still waiting on your rationale for blaming both NYG losses and the Steelers loss on the Redskins defense.
redskins1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 09:25 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
The only thing im debating is you putting more blame on the defense then the offense.

Im still waiting on your rationale for blaming both NYG losses and the Steelers loss on the Redskins defense.
Well, you're the one assigning blame. I'm making observations. And the observation, before you cited PPG, was that the defense seems to have a lot of issues. I was also focusing on the wins this whole time, realizing that when we did win, Campbell and Portis were huge parts of the victory in all except the last win, when they were both non-factors.

Now, if we talk about the losses, you point out the offense was held under 10 points against some good defenses. First, I want to point out that there were many field goal situations that Zorn had to pass up because the team was trailing by too much. Sure, if the goal of football was to score as many points as possible, like you say, the Redskins could have scored 13 points, 12 points, and 16 points in those games against strong defenses. Would not have done a thing to help win those games.

The margin of defeat prevented us from maximizing our point total. And that's the fault of not one unit, but both of them. The point deficit didn't have us chasing because the defense was playing great, and the offense was sucking. No. We were chasing because the offense couldn't get touchdowns and the defense couldn't get off the field. There's your culprits.

So you're placing 100% of the blame on the offense for something that was an offensive, and a defensive problem: that we weren't good enough to be in those games. PPG is terrible at painting that picture.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 09:45 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
Well, you're the one assigning blame. I'm making observations. And the observation, before you cited PPG, was that the defense seems to have a lot of issues. I was also focusing on the wins this whole time, realizing that when we did win, Campbell and Portis were huge parts of the victory in all except the last win, when they were both non-factors.

Now, if we talk about the losses, you point out the offense was held under 10 points against some good defenses. First, I want to point out that there were many field goal situations that Zorn had to pass up because the team was trailing by too much. Sure, if the goal of football was to score as many points as possible, like you say, the Redskins could have scored 13 points, 12 points, and 16 points in those games against strong defenses. Would not have done a thing to help win those games.

The margin of defeat prevented us from maximizing our point total. And that's the fault of not one unit, but both of them. The point deficit didn't have us chasing because the defense was playing great, and the offense was sucking. No. We were chasing because the offense couldn't get touchdowns and the defense couldn't get off the field. There's your culprits.

So you're placing 100% of the blame on the offense for something that was an offensive, and a defensive problem: that we weren't good enough to be in those games. PPG is terrible at painting that picture.
The offense is not 100% of the blame, but most of it. Though points scored versus points given up does not factor in every scenario, it is a key indicator of how well the offense and defense are performing. Yards for versus yards against was just as lopsided, in terms of rank.
redskins1974 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 07:54 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 0.78710 seconds with 11 queries