Greg Blache Defensive Scheme!!

[DBUCHANON101]

My bad.. Buffalo, i was thinkin he was with Greg Williams and reverted to Tenn.

[an23dy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Number one, there are definately stats kept on who faces the hardest competition. Again, these all suggest that it was pretty much a negligible difference, since you know 12 of our opponents were exactly the same as Philly. Here, is football outsiders rankings, and to get the opponent adjustment, you can just subtract the Non-adjusted from the adjusted total. Simple enough. Philly faced better offenses, by their rankings, but again, it's a really, really small difference, enough to not matter, which is what I've told you from the start. Other rankings I've seen say the same.

Number two, you cherry pick your numbers like only one other person I've ever talked to on this fourm, which given your propensity to deem other's numbers to be arbitrary, delights me very much. You point out that Philadelphia had three games with a high point total. Except that, we already know there's no way to skew it to say the Skins don't allow points at a faster rate. So I don't know what you are trying to say. Philly has a higher variance? That's true, I suppose.

Number three, I definately do know everything in bold is an irrelivant point. Last year, we gave up points at a faster rate than the Eagles, and we gave up more total points, and we faced fewer drives. To an extent, we did have a small bend-but-don't-break effect in our defense. It's true. We also broke undeniably faster than Philadelphia, Tennessee, or Minnesota. Like, gave up more points. That's what you mean by bend but don't break, is it not?

Number four, you apparently are okay quoting other people under my username. That's not cool, dude. I'm not just going to ignore that you did that.

Sorry for the quote, I copied and pasted the quote thing and didn't edit it on accident. We all make mistakes, just like all the mistakes you make in every reply you send.

Yeah check out the variance, it says Washington was more consistent than Philly. I guess that changes your earlier opinion on the matter because boom it's right there in the stats. It's okay we all make mistakes, and you spelled forum wrong too.

Yeah we play 12 of the same teams, I know how the schedule works, you don't need to make the same argument continuously. The difference in the other games is we play a good Philly offense they play a bad Redskin offense and the other two games had negligible difference.

The DVOA only takes into account certain statistics on defense and is incomplete. I bet they just fiddle with the stats til it looks how they think it should look. You can't tell everything from looking at statistics. Do you think Philly and Minnesota's defense was better than Tennessee's, because the stats might say so, but I wouldn't say that and I don't think you would either. And of course you're going to pull up those stats because they have the weighted thing towards the end of the season when Philly was playing their best defense, yet it still wasn't good enough to beat us, when they're playoff hopes were seemingly on the line.

Okay wait, yeah I see it so clearly now, -20.7%, but I think I still need to see the stat for pressure situations, or do they eliminate plays once a game is considered out of reach, or do they have a stat for whether a player is injured, or if he picked his nose between plays. IT'S OBJECTIVE, that's my argument. YOUR OPINION IS NOT ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE TRUTH THAT EVERYBODY AGREES WITH BECAUSE YOUR PRECIOUS STATS SAY SO. Maybe you should stop crunching the numbers and doing your math homework on Sundays and actually watch the games and make an opinion of your own.

[SmootSmack]

This thread makes my head hurt. I don't even know what we're debating.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by an23dy

... Maybe you should stop crunching the numbers and doing your math homework on Sundays and actually watch the games and make an opinion of your own.

an23dy,
I hear what you are saying, as many times stats guys can get caught up in numbers and forget what happens on the field. However, GTripp watches the games, and watches them again and does excellent breakdowns of both the offensive and defensive game plans and executions.

Here is a sample of one of the breakdowns from last season:
http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...view-best.html

and if you use the search, and keyword review, you will see his others listed.
That is why I and many many others here listen to GTripp's thoughts with alot of weight. He knows his stats and relies on them, but he also can break the game film apart and tell you how those stats were arrived at.
(not saying he is always right, but your throwaway line in the quote is downright wrong)

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

This thread makes my head hurt. I don't even know what we're debating.

Something that's completely irrelevant, like 90% of the threads during the offseason. LOL.

When does the season start again?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by an23dy

Sorry for the quote, I copied and pasted the quote thing and didn't edit it on accident. We all make mistakes, just like all the mistakes you make in every reply you send.

Yeah check out the variance, it says Washington was more consistent than Philly. I guess that changes your earlier opinion on the matter because boom it's right there in the stats. It's okay we all make mistakes, and you spelled forum wrong too.

Yeah we play 12 of the same teams, I know how the schedule works, you don't need to make the same argument continuously. The difference in the other games is we play a good Philly offense they play a bad Redskin offense and the other two games had negligible difference.

The DVOA only takes into account certain statistics on defense and is incomplete. I bet they just fiddle with the stats til it looks how they think it should look. You can't tell everything from looking at statistics. Do you think Philly and Minnesota's defense was better than Tennessee's, because the stats might say so, but I wouldn't say that and I don't think you would either. And of course you're going to pull up those stats because they have the weighted thing towards the end of the season when Philly was playing their best defense, yet it still wasn't good enough to beat us, when they're playoff hopes were seemingly on the line.

Okay wait, yeah I see it so clearly now, -20.7%, but I think I still need to see the stat for pressure situations, or do they eliminate plays once a game is considered out of reach, or do they have a stat for whether a player is injured, or if he picked his nose between plays. IT'S OBJECTIVE, that's my argument. YOUR OPINION IS NOT ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE TRUTH THAT EVERYBODY AGREES WITH BECAUSE YOUR PRECIOUS STATS SAY SO. Maybe you should stop crunching the numbers and doing your math homework on Sundays and actually watch the games and make an opinion of your own.

1) Apology accepted.

2) As others have pointed out, you're struggling to make a coherent point. I gave you one link to show you that I'm not bullshitting you, and I have plenty of others that generally said the same thing. I think you have to understand that when you bullshit someone and get caught, the best thing to do sometimes is to just say that, you were unaware of that information, and that you find it interesting, if not potentially at odds with what you previously believed. It's all good.

No one thinks you should agree 100% with any one statistical source, in fact, that's what this was all about. They all have some value. Together, they can tell most of the story.

3) This was never about right or wrong, this was about what I knew and what you were absolutely convinced I did not know. You thought, based on the limited information you had, that the Redskins were a top five defense. I knew otherwise. That's really all this tiff was. Again, no hard feelings.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

an23dy,
I hear what you are saying, as many times stats guys can get caught up in numbers and forget what happens on the field. However, GTripp watches the games, and watches them again and does excellent breakdowns of both the offensive and defensive game plans and executions.

Here is a sample of one of the breakdowns from last season:
http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...view-best.html

and if you use the search, and keyword review, you will see his others listed.
That is why I and many many others here listen to GTripp's thoughts with alot of weight. He knows his stats and relies on them, but he also can break the game film apart and tell you how those stats were arrived at.
(not saying he is always right, but your throwaway line in the quote is downright wrong)

Suck up.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Suck up.

Look, just cuz GTripp is on the ball, and your not, don't go getting that bowling ball head of yours in an uproar.

[an23dy]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

an23dy,
I hear what you are saying, as many times stats guys can get caught up in numbers and forget what happens on the field. However, GTripp watches the games, and watches them again and does excellent breakdowns of both the offensive and defensive game plans and executions.

Here is a sample of one of the breakdowns from last season:
http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...view-best.html

and if you use the search, and keyword review, you will see his others listed.
That is why I and many many others here listen to GTripp's thoughts with alot of weight. He knows his stats and relies on them, but he also can break the game film apart and tell you how those stats were arrived at.
(not saying he is always right, but your throwaway line in the quote is downright wrong)

I don't really know what you mean by throw away line, but I understand your point, I didn't know he watched the games, he's got an opinion, but he doesn't have to go about giving his opinion in such an arrogant I'm always right, you're always wrong manner.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Of course, once you come to the realization that the defense was less-than-elite, in pretty much every possible way, then it becomes easier to accept the offense for what it was, and not have this justification dilemma with our record.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

They were undeniably better. Continuing to deny it is pretty crazy

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

This was never about right or wrong, this was about what I knew and what you were absolutely convinced I did not know. You thought, based on the limited information you had, that the Redskins were a top five defense. I knew otherwise.

I'm not just gonna accept his opinions as fact, like he knows all and I have to follow him, especially if I don't believe what he says. I base it on what I've seen and what I consider significant and that is different from what he sees and what he considers significant, so why is his way right and my way wrong. Just because he may spend more time looking at Redskin film and stats it doesn't mean he is more qualified to be a judge. I watched every play last year, and a lot of games twice, and I watched a lot of other football too. I think he's overly cynical and how can you be a good judge if you over analyze one team, re-watching game tape, and then only look at other teams a little and not scrutinize every play by them, everybody has flaws on a game to game basis and he sees every Redskin flaw on every play, but he doesn't analyze every Eagle mistake on every play in the same way. He thinks the Redskins defense was average (which I might assume to be around 16th), I think we were much closer to 5th. From what I've seen which is about 2/3 of the Eagles games and all the Redskins games, I think the Redskins defense was better. It's my opinion and I'm sure a lot of other people believe it too and could defend it.

I mean I really just got mad because when I said a comment he said your comment is meaningless with his dumb meteorologist point. When did he become the person that decides what's relevant and what's not. I don't know when it became official that two head-to-head games became irrelevant when comparing two teams. And then he justifies it with a meaningless analogy that proves no point in order to try and belittle my argument.

PS I really hope I didn't misquote anything there cuz I will get berated. And also, I continued to speak in addressing CRedskins just because it felt awkward to change who I was talking to, but obviously it's going to be read by others ... hi GTripp.

[SmootSmack]

An23dy, I think that Tripp is pretty knowledgeable overall and can back up his opinion pretty effectively. Still, I definitely agree that there is often a high level of arrogance at least implied in many of his posts.

When I first saw this, I thought of him

The Simpsons - Unsults - Clip from Season 20, Episode 18 TV Show Video

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

An23dy, I think that Tripp is pretty knowledgeable overall and can back up his opinion pretty effectively. Still, I definitely agree that there is often a high level of arrogance at least implied in many of his posts.

Indeed; seems a bit self-serving at times, but he's not full of poop either.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

An23dy, I think that Tripp is pretty knowledgeable overall and can back up his opinion pretty effectively. Still, I definitely agree that there is often a high level of arrogance at least implied in many of his posts.

I do think I'm read that way, because you can only tell so many people that they don't know what they think they do before you get the know-it-all reputation.

If you notice though, I only "seem" to end up in those long winded debates with those of the really, really arrogant type. Again, not totally undeserved, because I'm always the common link in those high-arrogance debates, but I think it takes two to tango.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I do think I'm read that way, because you can only tell so many people that they don't know what they think they do before you get the know-it-all reputation.

If you notice though, I only "seem" to end up in those long winded debates with those of the really, really arrogant type. Again, not totally undeserved, because I'm always the common link in those high-arrogance debates, but I think it takes two to tango.

And Three's Company.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I do think I'm read that way, because you can only tell so many people that they don't know what they think they do before you get the know-it-all reputation.

If you notice though, I only "seem" to end up in those long winded debates with those of the really, really arrogant type. Again, not totally undeserved, because I'm always the common link in those high-arrogance debates, but I think it takes two to tango.

I like the arrogance. Its enlightening.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I do think I'm read that way, because you can only tell so many people that they don't know what they think they do before you get the know-it-all reputation.

Wow, that's just, wow.