The Redskins Are Close

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

For most of the game, the Redskins passing offense > Giants passing defense. That drive was simply an extension of that principle.

If that was true then this would have happened...Redskins score > Giants score

...being that it didn't I'd say your narrative is the one that is inaccurate.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

If that was true then this would have happened...Redskins score > Giants score

...being that it didn't I'd say your narrative is the one that is inaccurate.

can I point out that minus JCs fumble, our offense did score more than the Giants.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

can I point out that minus JCs fumble, our offense did score more than the Giants.

Good point C.

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

can I point out that minus JCs fumble, our offense did score more than the Giants.

Feel free to do that.

But you then have to take our fake FG TD play out of our offensive points equation. They then beat us 16-10.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

Feel free to do that.

But you then have to take our fake FG TD play out of our offensive points equation. They then beat us 16-10.

But that is still better than allowing them to put up 32 points as the Cowboys did. Moral victories don't count, but this is a Giants team that many are arguing to be the best team in football right now.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

Feel free to do that.

But you then have to take our fake FG TD play out of our offensive points equation. They then beat us 16-10.

That's hardly dominant is it Tee?

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

That's hardly dominant is it Tee?

When we score 7 of those 10 in the last 1 minute and half of the game it is.

We didn't even threaten scores at any time during the game. To me it didn't seem like the Skins were in the game at all.

Do any of you remember cheering during that game. At home for me it was sparse with the people I was watching it with. I'm sure I wasn't the only one.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

Feel free to do that.

But you then have to take our fake FG TD play out of our offensive points equation. They then beat us 16-10.

Why do I have to take that out? the fake FG was at the end of a 50+ yard sustained drive, not a one play fumble recovery td. Just because zorn aggressively went for the TD and got it doesn't negate the drive that got us to that point does it?

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Why do I have to take that out? the fake FG was at the end of a 50+ yard sustained drive, not a one play fumble recovery td. Just because zorn aggressively went for the TD and got it doesn't negate the drive that got us to that point does it?

You were going off of offensive output only and since our special teams unit put up that TD then it shouldn't count in the context of what you were discussing.

I'd give them the FG there for 16-13 in the context of offensive output.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

You were going off of offensive output only and since our special teams unit put up that TD then it shouldn't count in the context of what you were discussing.

I'd give them the FG there for 16-13 in the context of offensive output.

Maybe so, but our offense was directly responsible for putting the special teams in that position.

the Giants offense had no impact on the 7 points on the fumble. They didn't touch the ball.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

If that was true then this would have happened...Redskins score > Giants score

...being that it didn't I'd say your narrative is the one that is inaccurate.

Nope. You can't draw that conclusion strictly from the premises I gave. You also have to assume extra information.

The premises I gave are as follows, in case you missed it:

1) The Giants defense is not in the business of handing out chunks of yards for free. Large chunks of yards are earned.

2) Redskins, with the whole game as evidence, moved the ball through the air with relative ease. Therefore, Redskins passing offense > Giants passing defense.

The conclusion I'm making is that what happened between 3:00 and 1:30 in this game is not at all surprising, given the way the rest of the game had gone. It also ended up being irrelevant. But you didn't and couldn't have concluded at the time that it was irrelivant. Therefore, you can't assume what you are assuming about the TD not mattering.

Note that nowhere did I suggest that the Giants weren't the better team, only that, I'm not seeing the dominance you were.

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Nope. You can't draw that conclusion strictly from the premises I gave. You also have to assume extra information.

The premises I gave are as follows, in case you missed it:

1) The Giants defense is not in the business of handing out chunks of yards for free. Large chunks of yards are earned.

2) Redskins, with the whole game as evidence, moved the ball through the air with relative ease. Therefore, Redskins passing offense > Giants passing defense.

The conclusion I'm making is that what happened between 3:00 and 1:30 in this game is not at all surprising, given the way the rest of the game had gone. It also ended up being irrelevant. But you didn't and couldn't have concluded at the time that it was irrelivant. Therefore, you can't assume what you are assuming about the TD not mattering.

Note that nowhere did I suggest that the Giants weren't the better team, only that, I'm not seeing the dominance you were.

Since this is our fastest TD drive to date, please reference the time of possession of any other TD scoring drive from this present year.


To say the Giants weren't playing soft with less than 3 minutes on the clock and up by two TD scores...you're just making trivial excuses.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

Since this is our fastest TD drive to date, please reference the time of possession of any other TD scoring drive from this present year.


To say the Giants weren't playing soft with less than 3 minutes on the clock and up by two TD scores...you're just making trivial excuses.

Congrats on 1,000 posts.

1) You weren't originally arguing that the Giants were playing softer coverage given the score, you were arguing that the TD shouldn't be counted in the game analysis. That's a BIG difference. If you are amending the argument to better fit the facts, state that up front.

2) While I'm busy searching for another TD drive that happened in 1:40, why don't you also search for another TD drive (hell, any sustained drive of any length) in which we didn't have even one rushing attempt. Since, I feel the # of times you put the ball on the ground will probably correlate well to the time the drive took, this should be fairly straightforward.

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Congrats on 1,000 posts.

1) You weren't originally arguing that the Giants were playing softer coverage given the score, you were arguing that the TD shouldn't be counted in the game analysis. That's a BIG difference. If you are amending the argument to better fit the facts, state that up front.

2) While I'm busy searching for another TD drive that happened in 1:40, why don't you also search for another TD drive (hell, any sustained drive of any length) in which we didn't have even one rushing attempt. Since, I feel the # of times you put the ball on the ground will probably correlate well to the time the drive took, this should be fairly straightforward.

Thanks for the congrats GTripp.

The question I was asking was a trick one.

Our first team offense hasn't scored any other time this season other than the TD on the giants in obvious soft coverage and defense at the last minute and half of that game.

Being that we're not a quick scoring team the fact that we scored in a minute and a half is a tip off that those conditions are not constant. If so we'd have more scoring to show for it but alas, we don't.

Hail to the Redskins!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

Thanks for the congrats GTripp.

The question I was asking was a trick one.

Our first team offense hasn't scored any other time this season other than the TD on the giants in obvious soft coverage and defense at the last minute and half of that game.

Being that we're not a quick scoring team the fact that we scored in a minute and a half is a tip off that those conditions are not constant. If so we'd have more scoring to show for it but alas, we don't.

Hail to the Redskins!

I think it's a good argument that you are making, perhaps not one I would have thought of, but I just feel like it's sort of misplaced in a debate about whether or not the touchdown mattered. If anything, isn't the hurry up offense consistent with what we all believe we will work best with our offense, and get us out of this 13 PPG rut?