Battle for first place Skins vs Gints pregame thread

[30gut]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

...So 3 of our 4 wins we averaged 4.0 or better, but 2 of 6 losses we also did.

In one of our wins we averaged 2.6 yds(vs TB)

I don't think it's that telling, especially if you take out the Saints win, because we simply manhandled them in all facets.

To each their own. For me you can't simply 'take away' a game. And 3 out 4 wins having a 4.0 ypc seems like a positive correlation to me...but never paid attention in stats class.

The most telling thing to me is that in the 2 early games (MIA and NYG) where KC was off (38.2, 39.7) and the running game was on (161 yds, and 80 yds, avg 4.4 yds) we still lost. IF the running game was the solution, we would have won one game(especially the Miami game) with it.

Like I said before, sub-par QB isn't excused by lack of rushing game and likewise having a rushing game doesn't insulate a game from poor QB play. If you turn the ball over...you're gonna lose that concept has been proven in football. So, I wouldn't expect having a run game to overcome turnovers.

All that said, it is clear the coaching staff has given up on it's effectiveness starting with Atl, since then, tries ATT are 24,17,19,15,31,12. I would say that shows they have no faith in the run game.

I'm not so sure what you mean by given up on the effectiveness of the run. IF they don't have faith in the run game it doesn't make them right.

I think it shows what can happen when a pass first offense is allowed to operate unchecked. I think it shows a lack of commitment to the run. But I have no doubt the run game could be better if the staff had the inclination and skill to make it work. I don't think there run concepts are sound, it no surprise to me it doesn't work. Jay/McVay don't really care about and it shows.

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Bobby Turner/Rick Dennison among other coaches could take this same personnel and produce a top 10 run game.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 30gut

To each their own. For me you can't simply 'take away' a game. And 3 out 4 wins having a 4.0 ypc seems like a positive correlation to me...but never paid attention in stats class.

Like I said before, sub-par QB isn't excused by lack of rushing game and likewise having a rushing game doesn't insulate a game from poor QB play. If you turn the ball over...you're gonna lose that concept has been proven in football. So, I wouldn't expect having a run game to overcome turnovers.

I'm not so sure what you mean by given up on the effectiveness of the run. IF they don't have faith in the run game it doesn't make them right.

I think it shows what can happen when a pass first offense is allowed to operate unchecked. I think it shows a lack of commitment to the run. But I have no doubt the run game could be better if the staff had the inclination and skill to make it work. I don't think there run concepts are sound, it no surprise to me it doesn't work. Jay/McVay don't really care about and it shows.

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Bobby Turner/Rick Dennison among other coaches could take this same personnel and produce a top 10 run game.

Well we can agree to disagree.

Using KC's stat's there was a 1:1 correlation qbr>70, we win. <70 we lose, regardless of what the run game did. The run game though had strong games (avg >4) and we lost, and weak games (<4) and we won. So to me no direct correlation.

You say you would not expect the run game to overcome INT's, but good passing games did overcome Fumbles
in the 4 wins, we had 0 ints, but 3 fumbles (1 each in 3 wins)
in 3 of our 6 losses we had 1+ int in each, and 1+ fumbles so those were bad on both parts
in the other 3 losses, we had 1+ int, and 0 fumbles.

So, in 3 wins, the passing game covered fumbles, but the running game covered 0 bad qb days.


This discussion began by my saying calling for the running game isn't a panacea to KC's bad days. I think all these numbers bear that statement out. If KC has a good day, a good running game is a nice add and makes the game more fun to watch, but if KC is on an off day, switching to a run centric offense has not shown to be a solution for this team. The strongest example of that is the Miami game, when Lavaou was in, and we had our 2nd best rushing output but KC was off . the Saints game was the best rushing output, but KC was on on that day too, so they served as a good compliment to each other. In the Miami game KC was bad, 2 int, 188 total yards, 67.7% completion Percent, and we lost. Compare that to the TB game, KC was good, 0int, 305 yds, 82.5% completion, but the Rush game was mostly ineffective, 1 fumble, 50 total yards, 2.1 average, and we won.

I don't believe that anything in all these numbers, or in watching the games as they've been played, should legitimately give someone the impression that a run heavy scheme, with this personnel (Oline and Oline coaching philosophy), would lead to better results than sticking with the pass oriented game and focusing on improving either KC's consistency or a qb who is not on the team yet.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

One guy from Each Division - not really saying good or bad, just a comparison sample. It's amazing the lack of good qb's overall.
Nick Foles questionable, but hard division to choose from
Eli Manning
Jay Cutler
Matt Ryan - hard to choose an average qb in that division
Blake Bortles
Alex Smith
Joe Flacco
Ryan Tannehill


I didn't look stats for them. My main point is that KC's issue has been and still is wild swings. I think this team would win with a qb who constantly performed in the average + range, but right now we have a Jekyll and Hyde guy.

I started to pull names, but let me just do it this way. Below is each week, and the number of qb's that week that had an ESPN Total QBR rating of 60+

Wk 1, 12
Wk 2, 16
wk 3, 14
wk 4, 18
wk 5, 9
wk 6, 17
wk 7, 13
wk 8, 14
wk 9, 17
wk 10, 9
wk 11, 10
link to week 11, you can select all others from there.
NFL Total Quarterback Rating - National Football League - ESPN

So, asking for a consistent above 60, is probably asking that a qb be consistently slightly above middle of the pack. I agree for the Skins that might be shooting too high

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 30gut

...
To each their own. For me you can't simply 'take away' a game. And 3 out 4 wins having a 4.0 ypc seems like a positive correlation to me...but never paid attention in stats class.

...

In statistics, an outlier is an observation point that is distant from other observations. An outlier may be due to variability in the measurement or it may indicate experimental error; the latter are sometimes excluded from the data set.
For more information please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier

The Saints game was an outlier, because the score and manhandling was so extreme that the run game nor the pass game alone won or sunk that game. At points, we could have given JR the ball and he would have gotten 5-10 yds.

[punch it in]

Cam Newtons total QBR is 58.5. Moral of the story is - QBR is stupid.

[skinsfaninok]

Qbr is a dumb stat that espn only uses. Nobody cares about it

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Qbr is a dumb stat that espn only uses. Nobody cares about it

my points are still valid if you use QB Ratings,
one point was KC has problems with the Giants
KC against the Giants using QB Rating:
61.2
57.6
31.8
____________

The next point was that we would be in first place if we had a reliable consistent NFL QB
In 4 wins, Kirk's QB Rating : 110.3,91.8, 124.7, 158.3
in 6 losses, Kirk's QB Rating :68.8, 69.8, 69.7, 57.9, 68.4, 89.2

Winning either the Miami game or Giants game would have put us in 1st, winning both would have us with a 2 game lead.

_____________

Finally the 3rd point I said was that using QBR a > 70 score was a direct correlation to a win. The Panthers game breaks that a little, because while you could say >90 qb rating is a direct correlation to a win, no one is going to say that if KC had completed 2 more passes, or thrown one more TD, (either of which would give him a 90 qb rating, that we would have won that game.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

You say you would not expect the run game to overcome INT's, but good passing games did overcome Fumbles
in the 4 wins, we had 0 ints, but 3 fumbles (1 each in 3 wins)
in 3 of our 6 losses we had 1+ int in each, and 1+ fumbles so those were bad on both parts
in the other 3 losses, we had 1+ int, and 0 fumbles.

So, in 3 wins, the passing game covered fumbles, but the running game covered 0 bad qb days.

You are comparing 2 different things here in fumbles and interceptions. And on the whole aren't you're playing kinda fast and loose with your observations, generalizations and assumptions.

In those game when the 'passing game covered the fumbles' what was the role of the running game?

Couldn't you say that in the games when the running game "didn't cover for bad QB day" that the passing game had already failed itself?

This discussion began by my saying calling for the running game isn't a panacea to KC's bad days.

Like I said before, sub-par QB isn't excused by lack of rushing game and likewise having a rushing game doesn't insulate a game from poor QB play.

I think all these numbers bear that statement out. If KC has a good day, a good running game is a nice add and makes the game more fun to watch, but if KC is on an off day, switching to a run centric offense has not shown to be a solution for this team.

Wasn't it 3 out of 4 "good run games" by your parameters were wins?

Also, by the same token sticking to pass centric offense hasn't been the solution either.

The strongest example of that is the Miami game, when Lavaou was in, and we had our 2nd best rushing output but KC was off ...

The INTs. The interceptions lose game regardless of whatever else happens. I already said that a good running game isn't insulation against bad QB play.

the Saints game was the best rushing output, but KC was on on that day too, so they served as a good compliment to each other. In the Miami game KC was bad, 2 int, 188 total yards, 67.7% completion Percent, and we lost. Compare that to the TB game, KC was good, 0int, 305 yds, 82.5% completion, but the Rush game was mostly ineffective, 1 fumble, 50 total yards, 2.1 average, and we won.

Ah, and their you have your outlier to my view so go ahead and throw that Tampa game out like.

I don't believe that anything in all these numbers, or in watching the games as they've been played, should legitimately give someone the impression that a run heavy scheme, with this personnel (Oline and Oline coaching philosophy), would lead to better results than sticking with the pass oriented game and focusing on improving either KC's consistency or a qb who is not on the team yet.

You have too many undefined terms here. Run heavy scheme and oline coaching philosophy don't ensure a better run game. Our coaching prevents us from having a effective run game and therefore it doesn't work in our benefit the way it should. But, IF we could run the ball effectively surely it would help us win more games.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 30gut

You are comparing 2 different things here in fumbles and interceptions. And on the whole you're playing fast and loose with some observations and generalizations and assumptions.

And in those game when the 'passing game covered the fumbles' what was the running game doing in those games? You could also say that passing game failed itself in those same games when you say the running game didn't cover for bad QB day.


Like I said before, sub-par QB isn't excused by lack of rushing game and likewise having a rushing game doesn't insulate a game from poor QB play.


Wasn't it 3 out of 4 "good run games" by your parameters were wins?

Also, by the same token sticking to pass centric offense hasn't been the solution either.



The INTs. The interceptions lose game regardless of whatever else happens. I already said that a good running game isn't insulation against bad QB play.


Ah, and their you have your outlier to my view so go ahead and throw that Tampa game out like.

You have too many undefined terms here. Run heavy scheme and oline coaching philosophy don't ensure a better run game. Our coaching prevents us from having a effective run game and therefore it doesn't work in our benefit the way it should. But, IF we could run the ball effectively surely it would help us win more games.

at this point I know how you will do these discussions. (yes ad hominem and sorry for that)

You made your points, I gave you my thoughts. I believe anyone who calls on the redskins to go rush centric doesn't understand what our team is this season. But we should be doing more than 1.2 yds / carry no matter what year it is.

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

[skinsfan69]

Giants don't have a good defense. We are at home and I expect us to move the ball and play better than last week.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

at this point I know how you will do these discussions. (yes ad hominem and sorry for that)

You made your points, I gave you my thoughts. I believe anyone who calls on the redskins to go rush centric doesn't understand what our team is this season. But we should be doing more than 1.2 yds / carry no matter what year it is.

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

Had an awesome thanksgiving I hope you did as well.

Interesting that you accuse me of ad hominem attacks, say sorry and essentially give a non-response to my post.

I would say anyone that calls for more of the status quo pass focused offense doesn't understand what is wrong with the offense this season.

Cheers all the same

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Had an awesome thanksgiving I hope you did as well.

Interesting that you accuse me of ad hominem attacks, say sorry and essentially give a non-response to my post.

I would say anyone that calls for more of the status quo pass focused offense doesn't understand what is wrong with the offense this season.

Cheers all the same

just a clarification. I said my response was an ad hominem attack on you. and semi apologized. I was not accusing you at all of ad hominem usage.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

just a clarification. I said my response was an ad hominem attack on you. and semi apologized. I was not accusing you at all of ad hominem usage.

Wow, thank you and I appreciate the clarification.

Cheers,

Hope they find a way to beat the Giants by whatever means -pass, run or special teams

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Wow, thank you and I appreciate the clarification.

Cheers,

Hope they find a way to beat the Giants by whatever means -pass, run or special teams

We all agree on that!

[Chico23231]

Enough of cousins....what about the running game? This where our problem lies on offense. For one:, commitment and scheme...two: blocking, three: production by the backs and finally the fumbling problem

This needs to be fixed yesterday...