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, 10:18 PM   #1
Ruhskins
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22,379
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBUCHANON101 View Post
we have lacked a good front 4 for yrs.now we have a strong dline. a passrush helps the entire defense.
Good point. I think our top ranking on defense has hidden this particular deficiency (and the lack of turnover as well).
__________________
R.I.P. #21
Ruhskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:19 PM   #2
53Fan
Franchise Player
 
53Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kill Devil Hills, N.C.
Posts: 7,570
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

[QUOTE=DBUCHANON101;560153]we have lacked a good front 4 for yrs.now we have a strong dline. a passrush helps the entire defense.[/QUOTE]

I think what some people aren't understanding is, it also helps the offense. It helps create turnovers and getting the opposing offense off the field so we can get our offense on the field and score more points.
__________________
Defense wins championships. Bring it!
53Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:17 PM   #3
Ruhskins
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22,379
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

The thing that kills me is that some people here don't understand that it is a pretty normal reaction for the fans of a team to be a bit upset if their QB and RB are ranked at the bottom of the league, especially with some questionable backfield ranked ahead of them.

To every person in here who spends 90% of their threads bashing a particular player (i.e. our QB) or are quickly to dismiss those of us who drink the kool aid a little bit and ask for a higher ranking I have a question? What are you hoping out of this team and what do you root for? I'm not saying that you'd be a delusional fan and think that we have a top 5 backfield, but don't f'ing shoot us down fiercely if we think the players of our team are a bit better than what the sports media says. Shoot, I think the Giants and Eagles fans on this board have a better opinion of our team than some of us fans.
__________________
R.I.P. #21
Ruhskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:34 PM   #4
Brian Orakpo
Guest
 
Brian Orakpo's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruhskins View Post
I'm not saying that you'd be a delusional fan and think that we have a top 5 backfield, but don't f'ing shoot us down fiercely if we think the players of our team are a bit better than what the sports media says. Shoot, I think the Giants and Eagles fans on this board have a better opinion of our team than some of us fans.
Whats the point of a Redskin fan like myself debating instead of being ranked 26th we should be ranked around 20th. Either way the answer to why we are ranked low remains the same. It would be one thing if we had a top 10 QB/RB combo and they ranked us 26th. They ranked us 26th because as far as QB/RB combos go ours isnt that good as of today. Maybe there are 5 or 6 teams ahead of us that shouldnt be. The difference between 20th and 26th isnt a big enough difference for me to post that SI screwed us over in their rankings.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:39 PM   #5
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 Brian Orakpo View Post
Whats the point of a Redskin fan like myself debating instead of being ranked 26th we should be ranked around 20th. Either way the answer to why we are ranked low remains the same. It would be one thing if we had a top 10 QB/RB combo and they ranked us 26th. They ranked us 26th because as far as QB/RB combos go ours isnt that good as of today. Maybe there are 5 or 6 teams ahead of us that shouldnt be. The difference between 20th and 26th isnt a big enough difference for me to post that SI screwed us over in their rankings.
I generally agree with this perspective. But I also realize that it's normal for fans of teams to see "bottom 7" instead of "in the 3rd quartile". Truth is, we can't tell what the author was saying. So fans just get offended preemptively.

The comments posted on that article over at SI were hilarious. There were Vikings fans who were convinced that they were jipped of a top ten ranking. You know, that one team, that has one of the five best Ds in football every year, and wins 7-10 games a year. Yeah, jipped of a top ten offensive backfield.

Irrationality is the standard.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:40 PM   #6
Ruhskins
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22,379
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Orakpo View Post
Whats the point of a Redskin fan like myself debating instead of being ranked 26th we should be ranked around 20th. Either way the answer to why we are ranked low remains the same. It would be one thing if we had a top 10 QB/RB combo and they ranked us 26th. They ranked us 26th because as far as QB/RB combos go ours isnt that good as of today. Maybe there are 5 or 6 teams ahead of us that shouldnt be. The difference between 20th and 26th isnt a big enough difference for me to post that SI screwed us over in their rankings.
I think you make a fair point and some people would say that it is not worth making an argument. My comment was geared more towards people that spend a lot of time and energy arguing down others who think we are better. In the end this ranking is as pointless as arguing whether our backfield is 26th or 20th. But at the same time, people shouldn't be surprised when a fan doesn't like to see their team rank so low.
__________________
R.I.P. #21
Ruhskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:48 PM   #7
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 Ruhskins View Post
I think you make a fair point and some people would say that it is not worth making an argument. My comment was geared more towards people that spend a lot of time and energy arguing down others who think we are better. In the end this ranking is as pointless as arguing whether our backfield is 26th or 20th. But at the same time, people shouldn't be surprised when a fan doesn't like to see their team rank so low.
Yep. If the author had said, "right now, at least half the teams in the NFL had stronger backfields than the Redskins" not many would have argued. But when people see a rankings list, you can see right away who the author is deeming to be "better" than you. Then comes the, "I've seen players x, and y, play before, and they aren't better than my team's guys."

That's usually true, but out of the guys who are ranked behind you, chances are a few of them are actually going to be better than you this year as well.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:52 PM   #8
Brian Orakpo
Guest
 
Brian Orakpo's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
I'm just a little perplexed that some people who do watch all the games truly feel like they were witnessing a great defense last year. I mean, this is a franchise that has produced three legit top five/six defenses in the last five seasons, and some people look at last year's sad impersonation of a strong defense and are okay saying that they were witnessing a great unit.
I hope no one thinks we had a great defense last year. We had a pretty good defense and at times they played great. A great defense was a defense like the Steelers last year. They could do it all and they carried their offense in games. Our defense did its job and I think they played good last year. I dont think they were great though. I do think this years defenses has the potenial to be the best in the game with the additions of Haynesworth and Orakpo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruhskins View Post
I think you make a fair point and some people would say that it is not worth making an argument. My comment was geared more towards people that spend a lot of time and energy arguing down others who think we are better. In the end this ranking is as pointless as arguing whether our backfield is 26th or 20th. But at the same time, people shouldn't be surprised when a fan doesn't like to see their team rank so low.
Its the offseason. Its kinda funny when were all going back and forth about a useless ranking of QB/RB combos.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:25 PM   #9
53Fan
Franchise Player
 
53Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kill Devil Hills, N.C.
Posts: 7,570
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

I thought you guys knew me by now.
__________________
Defense wins championships. Bring it!
53Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:30 PM   #10
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

I'm just a little perplexed that some people who do watch all the games truly feel like they were witnessing a great defense last year. I mean, this is a franchise that has produced three legit top five/six defenses in the last five seasons, and some people look at last year's sad impersonation of a strong defense and are okay saying that they were witnessing a great unit.

I mean, the perspective is there. We've had great defenses here under Grilliams. Not just good, but great. Three out of four years. Then Blache has a mediocre unit with a small bend-but-don't-break effect, and people are convinced that they are witnessing greatness. I'm just confused.

Defense did a lot of things well last year. Being great was not one of those things. We had two and a half players play at a pro bowl level all year (Rogers, Fletcher, and arguably Griffin). In the past, we had 5 or 6 guys playing at a pro bowl level (Griffin, Washington, Arrington, Springs, Taylor, Pierce, Carter, etc).

End rant.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 11:29 PM   #11
Paintrain
Pro Bowl
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 55
Posts: 5,006
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

I didn't read every page of the thread so I don't know if anyone repeated what Terl said on Redskins Blog. Basically he said you have to be REALLY down on Campbell for him to offset 2 Pro Bowlers in the backfield and drag them to #26.
__________________
Paintrain's Redskins Fandom
1981-2014

I'm not dead but this team is dead to me...but now that McCloughan is here they may have new life!

Jay Gruden = Zorny McSpurrier
Kirk Cousins = Next Grossman
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 11:32 PM   #12
53Fan
Franchise Player
 
53Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kill Devil Hills, N.C.
Posts: 7,570
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
I didn't read every page of the thread so I don't know if anyone repeated what Terl said on Redskins Blog. Basically he said you have to be REALLY down on Campbell for him to offset 2 Pro Bowlers in the backfield and drag them to #26.
Good point. We had a pro bowl RB and a pro bowl FB and yet our backfield is ranked 26th.
__________________
Defense wins championships. Bring it!
53Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 11:39 PM   #13
Brian Orakpo
Guest
 
Brian Orakpo's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
I didn't read every page of the thread so I don't know if anyone repeated what Terl said on Redskins Blog. Basically he said you have to be REALLY down on Campbell for him to offset 2 Pro Bowlers in the backfield and drag them to #26.
Terl should of realized that FBs werent listed in the SI rankings. If they were the Skins probably would of had a higher ranking.

At the sametime SI is stupid for ranking backfields and not listing FBs.

God I cant wait for the season to start. I wish I could hibernate like a bear.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 11:55 PM   #14
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Well, if we were to define an average performance for the Redskins defense last year, I'm pretty sure they would only have beaten it in the first Giants game, and the Baltimore game, out of all those losses. In 6 of our 8 losses, the defense did not perform like it would have needed to win. Paintrain brought up three games where, while the offense wasn't good, it was good enough.

Of course, in three of the losses neither unit performed well enough to make it a close game. All three of those games happened in November. And one of those games was close, because the Cowboys are awful.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 12:29 AM   #15
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

The current logical structure among the fanbase is this:

C = The team was average
A = The defense was fantastic
B = The offense must have been horrible

C = A - B

But proposition A clearly is an overstatement. However, if A isn't an overstatement, and the team was not average, but quite good (C = The team is very good), then the same logical structure sees B as "The offense was respectable". So the conclusion is, the crap the offense takes is a factor of people being hesitant to say the defense was anything less than fantastic. But as pointed out, they were not fantastic. They were anywhere between average and good, depending on who you ask.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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 09:27 AM.


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 0.27699 seconds with 10 queries