The Redskins Are Close

[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 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.

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Man remember a couple of years ago Tanna ate the Chiefs up with the screen pass? Was Herm Edwards the coach then?

78 yards I believe. I was thinking of that play today. They need to throw it early to get Santana in the game. I'm not buying all the crap about him being doubled. Every good WR sees double teams. He's a playmaker. They need to get him the ball, period. I don't care if he's quadruple-teamed.

[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]

From ESPN
Giants game
Time Qtr length start plays yards result
02:11 2 01:50 WAS 23 7 77 Touchdown

[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.

[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.

[44Deezel]

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.

The garbage time drive happens ALL THE TIME. Just about any time a team has a 2 TD lead with only a couple mins left, the other team invariably and miraculously finds a way to get down the field in a hurry. They couldn't get down the field in a hurry against the Rams, so I have no doubt their last drive against the Giants had something, scratch that, everything to do with the Defense the Giants were playing.

[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.

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I don't think that's really a fair statement. We have youth at the DL, OL(yes there is youth there), WR's, CB's, QB, Safeties. Now in terms of built to win, again, I am the optimist that says our qb has a very good pass completion percent, low int rate. our DL should be fierce as it gets on the same page. And Kelly/ARE/Cooley may become a triple threat receiving.

Obviously built to win, they need to prove that. But built to last, if our owner doesn't listen to the fan hacks, and instead stays patient, this team has a lot of youth that is capable of being together for many years.

I meant built to last the season and not future years.

With Thomas being out for the year and not really having a clear cut replacement for him.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 44Deezel

The garbage time drive happens ALL THE TIME. Just about any time a team has a 2 TD lead with only a couple mins left, the other team invariably and miraculously finds a way to get down the field in a hurry. They couldn't get down the field in a hurry against the Rams, so I have no doubt their last drive against the Giants had something, scratch that, everything to do with the Defense the Giants were playing.

So if your making the argument that the Giants played softer coverage once up by two scores, what percentage of the total drive value would you give the Redskins credit for then?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

I meant built to last the season and not future years.

With Thomas being out for the year and not really having a clear cut replacement for him.

ok I misunderstood, sorry

[TheSmurfs22]

Originally Posted by Hog1

A......few things:
1) If we were Eagle fans we would have burned the Vet to the ground some time ago.
2) This is the biggest game of Zorn's career
3) We WILL indeed find out much about our team and coach over the next few weeks.
4) I agree, they're CLOSE
5) If winning ugly is the formula for now, let's take it god damnit

CAN I get a HELL YAH?
IT'S CLOBBERIN' TIME
HTTR

~~~~
If I recall a few years ago the Baltimore Ravens won ugly but damnit they still won.

[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?