This Skins Stat Says A Lot About Us

[That Guy]

55-20. wow. i wonder if they beat the spread on that...

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Good question. Define blowout? By more than two TDs? By more than 3 TDs? Ill say when I went through this stat season by season, we beat Detroit one year 55-14. Another year we beat San Fran 52-7. We beat the rams a few years ago 33-16...is that a blowout in your opinion?

Well hell Cult we've been to 5 SB's and won 3. I know we've had some blowouts. But how often in the last few years have we had 2-3-4 game winning streaks where the game was pretty much over with 4-5 minutes to go? If anything we've been competitive losers. That doesn't help a whole hell of a lot at the end of the year. And some of those scores were probably late scores that made the game look closer than they really were. I ain't here to kiss my sister. I want some frikking W's.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This is some of the shittiest thinking I've ever seen on this site.

The reason the Patriots have the fewest close wins/losses is because they were blowing everyone away. Putting up consistent close games means nothing more than you were mediocre, it's the result of not being good enough to blow teams out.

We all know the Redskins have been mediocre to bad over the last 10 years, we can see that with our own eyes. The reason so many losses were close is because our defense was good and limited the scores put up by the other team. Also, opposing offenses saw how inept our own offense was, so when they had a lead they felt no need to remain aggressive. They played keep away and ran the clock out, knowing that QBs like Tony Banks, Danny Weurffel, Patrick Ramsey and Rex Grossman were nothing special and not likely to come from behind.

It's this simple: for a long time we had good defense but no QB. Now we finally have the QB, but no defense. The QB is the harder thing to put in place, so things are looking up. But ultimately if you want to win consistently you need both.

I can think of shittier thinking and shittier threads on this site. You fit in the glass half empty crowd. You don't think that with proper coaching we can't get over some of those close losses?

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

Well hell Cult we've been to 5 SB's and won 3. I know we've had some blowouts. But how often in the last few years have we had 2-3-4 game winning streaks where the game was pretty much over with 4-5 minutes to go? If anything we've been competitive losers. That doesn't help a whole hell of a lot at the end of the year. And some of those scores were probably late scores that made the game look closer than they really were. I ain't here to kiss my sister. I want some frikking W's.

I'm not doing this since the dawn of the redskins. This stat I've done for the past ten years. No one cares about blowouts or close games in our Super Bowl years because we were winning then. Translation; when you when everyone's happy and no one gives a .... When your losing, people want to see why. Here's a why. We can't finish or complete games and were the worst in the league at that. And I'll kiss your sister for you if she's attractive.

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

We can't finish or complete games and were the worst in the league at that.

Thats the difference between being an NFL coach, a good coach, and a great coach.

A good one wins more than he loses, a great one wins the majority of close games.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Bishop Hammer

Pretty much. I'd rather be in the category with NE, NY, Indy. Teams that consistently make the playoffs and won a superbowl recently.

I'd say if you look at all three of those teams they were not much until they found a franchise QB.

[scowan]

Me and a friend of mine who is a big Skins fan like me have been watching the Skins together for just about that same time frame, 10 years and we always say this team "takes years off your life". We are always close and lose, therefore making us go gray! I'm 43 years old but I am probably 63 in Skins years! I've lost 20 years of my life watching this team break my heart in the 4th QTR.

[mredskins]

There really is not a lot of blow outs in the NFL. Most games are relatively close.

This article does a good job explaining it. Basically good teams find a way to win in the NFL; it is not the margin of victory that determines they are good but the victory itself.

Statistical tour de douche: history of the NFL elite

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Honestly this stat has a glass half empty/glass half full kind of view to it.

It tells me that we are the most competitive team in the NFL, and consistently.

Btw, the difference between us and the Lions/Browns is 7 games. Thats practically a whole seasons worth of wins. You can interpret that in more than one way.

Also I may add in that Pittsburgh and Atlanta AND Cincinnati and Philly, both had ties in that 10 years. I did not count the ties as a loss nor towards this data (it wouldn't affect the Redskins from finishing at the top)

Detroit went winless in 08, and of all 16 games that they lost, only 5 of them were close.

Buffalo, who comes in just after us at number 5 is the only team in the past 10 years to not make the playoffs.

This stat shows whos franchise has been the most stable and consistently good team in the NFL in this time. New England is obvious, but after them, Indy, and New York Giants, the steelers, then the panthers. The panthers, while they haven't been that good in the past recent years, they were a tough team to beat in the early years.

This stat tells you to limit those close games, and you have a better chance of winning.

Look at the GB packers of 2010, they were the only team on my list who lost all their games by 8 points or less and won the super bowl.

I guess what may be misleading or deceiving about this stat is comparing two teams with similar close lose amounts, but different season results.

Example, The 09 Rams and the 2010 Packers. Both teams had 6 close losses. The packers however went 10-6 and won the super bowl. The Rams in 09 went 1-15.

Back to the redskins. This stat shows that we have been competitive over time, and we've had different players and different coaches but the same results. Maybe its not the team, maybe this is where the finger gets pointed at ownership, because thats been the only consistent in all this.

I would say finding ways to win games on a consistent basis makes you "competitive".

Not losing close ones all the time.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

I'm not doing this since the dawn of the redskins. This stat I've done for the past ten years. No one cares about blowouts or close games in our Super Bowl years because we were winning then. Translation; when you when everyone's happy and no one gives a .... When your losing, people want to see why. Here's a why. We can't finish or complete games and were the worst in the league at that. And I'll kiss your sister for you if she's attractive.

So we're the worse at finishing or completing games? It's pretty hard for me to find a positive in that. I guess it's better than getting blown out all the time but as mredskin just wrote...there aren't that many blowouts anyway. Good teams find ways to win...bad teams don't. It's as simple as that. We get a lead but know in our hearts it's not over because we have a history of allowing teams to come back and beat us. I appreciate your optimism and I would honestly be the last person to ask about my sister. Personally I would rather kiss my Jack Russell.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I would say finding ways to win games on a consistent basis makes you "competitive".

Not losing close ones all the time.

Exactly; this is the NFL not NBA, MLB and/or NHL. A two win difference between teams is huge here.

If the Skins were 5-4 right now vs. 3-6; it be a lot sunnier around here. Two win difference any other league means jack.

I wonder if there is a metric that would compare how good the best NFL teams are compared how good NBA/MLB/NHL best teams are.

For example who is the worst team:

CLE Browns or the NO Hornets

Or the best team:

ATL Falcons or MIA Heat

I guess I am trying to say what is the dealt of quality between good teams in the NFL and poor teams versus other leagues.

I think without any research that the level of quality between NFL teams is higher then other leagues. Basically it takes more energy/talent for the Falcons to roll the Browns then the Heat to roll the Hornets.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by mredskins

There really is not a lot of blow outs in the NFL. Most games are relatively close.

This article does a good job explaining it. Basically good teams find a way to win in the NFL; it is not the margin of victory that determines they are good but the victory itself.

Statistical tour de douche: history of the NFL elite

Thank you. All this stat illustrates is how competitive the NFL is -- where one of the lesser teams (us) manages to keep a lot of games interesting.

[Meks]

[QUOTE=mredskins;963263]Exactly; this is the NFL not NBA, MLB and/or NHL. A two win difference between teams is huge here.

QUOTE]


yea NFL season is also like 70 games shorter than some of the other leagues....

[mredskins]

Here you go thread closed:

NFL's Circle of Parity

[mredskins]

[quote=Meks;963269]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Exactly; this is the NFL not NBA, MLB and/or NHL. A two win difference between teams is huge here.

QUOTE]


yea NFL season is also like 70 games shorter than some of the other leagues....

Really? Thanks.