End of the Season Position Grades: Offense [Archive]

redskin_rich

01-04-2007, 11:49 AM

Nice write-up, Spence!
Averaged out, it looks the unit as a whole gets a B, which is pretty darn good and at least gives us something positive to look forward to. If the WR situation can get settled and JC continues to progress, we could have a thrilling, offensive attack next season that is among the best in the NFL.

Pucillo should get some mention for his utility work on the O-Line this season, in relief of Rabach at C and mostly as the extra TE/Tackle-eligible/3rd G in the heavy jumbo formations that were used frequently in the last 5 or 6 games.

Edit- After finishing my post, I see a poll has been added. My vote goes to the O-Line, without question.

shally

01-04-2007, 11:53 AM

Read it all! (http://www.hailredskins.com/blog/index.php?p=388)

too much grade inflation.. nobody deserves an A when the offense put up such pathetic numbers most of the time..

qb's.. brunell D... JC...C-
rbs'.... betts.. B (needs to correct that fumbling).. portis Inc due to injury
the rest, C
o line..B.. still cannot pass block well enough and sometimes there are no holes

tight end... cooley B.. the rest F, not worth having

wideouts.. moss B due to injury.. ARE C +.. lloyd F-.. thrash..C-
patten..F

Spence

01-04-2007, 11:59 AM

too much grade inflation.. nobody deserves an A when the offense put up such pathetic numbers most of the time..

qb's.. brunell D... JC...C-
rbs'.... betts.. B (needs to correct that fumbling).. portis Inc due to injury
the rest, C
o line..B.. still cannot pass block well enough and sometimes there are no holes

tight end... cooley B.. the rest F, not worth having

wideouts.. moss B due to injury.. ARE C +.. lloyd F-.. thrash..C-
patten..FShally, you're grading individual players, which is not what I did. I graded units. Let's recall that the Redskins offense didn't have a terrible season. The offense finished 13th in the NFL, which is not far below what they did last season and considerably better than what they did in 2004. Statistically the Redskins were a better-than-average offense. Your grades, Shally, don't reflect that. The problem for the Redskins, Shally, was poor coaching and terrible defense -- facts that will be explained in forthcoming essays.

PennSkinsFan

01-04-2007, 12:03 PM

Very well done. I chose the offnesive line because the offensive lien allowed the running backs ot thrive. Most of the holes Betts ran through were massive blow up holes by Dockery and Samuels. This is clearly a run blocking OLine, not meant for constant passing and it showed. When the Redskins committed to the run more toward the end of the season, they simply got even better.

openallnight

01-04-2007, 12:07 PM

Nice write-up Spence. Although, I think it's a bit on the generous side. At 5-11 I don't know that any unit played at an A level, much less multiple units.

The oLine had some horrific games early in the season, at Dallas, at NY at Indy come to mind. They finished off like gang busters but, I couldn't give them better than a B+ because of early season inconsistencies.

The RBs also were inconsistent. Again, we finished off strong but, I seem to recall us failing to convert on too many short yardage situations in the 1st half of the season. Plus costly fumbles towards the end are not worthy of an A grade IMO. Maybe a B.

WRs - Get a big fat 'F'. Outside the Jacksonville game did we even play with WRs???

TEs - Once Pucillo started playing in packages our running game got a lift. Fauria and Kozlowski are DONE. When they were in they were a liability. Yoder played better but, not sure he's the answer. Cooley shows progress in his blocking. Displays flashes of brilliance in his receiving but, needs to cut back on some of the dropped balls. I'd say B-/C+ for the unit and this is definately a need spot on the O.

I wouldn't say the QB play was at a C+ level. I'd say more like C- but, I'm optimistic that another year in the system will improve us dramatically in the near future.

danny's stogie

01-04-2007, 12:16 PM

Great job Spence. It's a pragmatic and fair analysis.

I called out Cooley early this season. He seemed not in game shape and to be the most out of sync with the new offense. I truly felt as if he had slacked off the whole offseason, but he got better and better as the year went on. Lots of props to him.

Portis and Betts played great, but I can't give them a full A. They aren't the worst red zone backs in the league, but one of them needs to step it up inside the 20 next season (especially inside the 10). Also, when Coughlin gets fired hire him as a RB consultant to help Betts. I'm only half joking about this.

Big time props to the Oline this year. They even had to overcome eary season issues with Saunders' blocking schemes. Bigger props to Samuels. He's one of the best LTs in the game right now and my team MVP for 2006. It's good to know that with all the flux and uncertainty about the future of this team at least the second most important position after QB is good to go.

LATrueRedskin

01-04-2007, 12:18 PM

I can agree with this. Overall, I think the OLine played by far the best after they got situated. I don't think they liked what they were running for most of the year, but after Gibbs put his foot down following the loss to the Bucs, they really dominated each game. I hope we can re-sign Dock and continue with what we're doing for a full season for a change. I'm pretty upbeat about our offense next season, and it's because of the OLine.

shally

01-04-2007, 12:19 PM

Shally, you're grading individual players, which is not what I did. I graded units. Let's recall that the Redskins offense didn't have a terrible season. The offense finished 13th in the NFL, which is not far below what they did last season and considerably better than what they did in 2004. Statistically the Redskins were a better-than-average offense. Your grades, Shally, don't reflect that. The problem for the Redskins, Shally, was poor coaching and terrible defense -- facts that will be explained in forthcoming essays.

my bad...

let's try this again

qb's... C - overall.. too many redzone flame outs. little killer instinct

rb's.. B... great yardage but some failures to put games away and some key fumbles

o line...B dominant at times.. holes on pass protection at times

tight ends. C... not enough blocking. little impact inside the redzone when they should come up big. erratic play overall

overall offense grade C +.. with an average defense we go to the playoffs

RedskinRyan

01-04-2007, 12:20 PM

danny's stogie

01-04-2007, 12:21 PM

LATrueRedskin

01-04-2007, 12:22 PM

keep in mind, the defense's shortcomings hurt the offense as well. not being able to create turnovers means less short field oppurtunities. plus not being able to stop anybody kept them on the field.

i agree with the grades. and i voted for offensive line. they protected the quarterback this year very well, and they allowed the running game to pound it out. what more can you ask for?

Yeah, the offense received absolutely no help from the defense with field position. In fact, on a record-setting level. I think our offense will be that much better if our defense gave them short fields to work with or defensive points-scored.

CNYSkinFan

01-04-2007, 12:26 PM

In a later article I’ll have more to say about how the coaching staff didn’t prepare Campbell to play, but suffice to say for now that it amounted to professional negligence that can only be laid at the feet of St. Joseph of Gibbs. Considering the way he was ignored by the coaches for the first year-and-a-half of his career, Campbell played remarkably well. In addition to a strong arm and fearlessness in the pocket, Campbell demonstrated he can move well when the rush surrounds him and his ability to run with the ball – while obviously not his biggest talent – was welcome.

Please please please tell me you are going to mention that ridiculous "Collins is backup on gameday, Campbell during the week" BS call that was made at the end of the Regular season. I still believe that decision kept Campbell on the bench longer as Joe was committed to that philosophy and could not make a during game switch (ys I know he could during the 4th quarter but still his public stance prevented it).

smoak

01-04-2007, 12:28 PM

I definitely think the line was our best unit and that is why we should have hope for the future folks. We have to keep them together and get the skill position players on board.

Please please please tell me you are going to mention that ridiculous "Collins is backup on gameday, Campbell during the week" BS call that was made at the end of the Regular season. I still believe that decision kept Campbell on the bench longer as Joe was committed to that philosophy and could not make a during game switch (ys I know he could during the 4th quarter but still his public stance prevented it).

My gosh man sdo you complain about everything??? The Eagles in all their terrible lack of success used the exact same philosophy for years (until they booted Detmer). What is so hard to understand about that decision? There are a million things I want to fry this team for doing/not doing, but that simply is not one IMO.

hockeygoalie29

01-04-2007, 12:28 PM

The oLine had some horrific games early in the season, at Dallas, at NY at Indy come to mind. They finished off like gang busters but, I couldn't give them better than a B+ because of early season inconsistencies.

The RBs also were inconsistent. Again, we finished off strong but, I seem to recall us failing to convert on too many short yardage situations in the 1st half of the season. Plus costly fumbles towards the end are not worthy of an A grade IMO. Maybe a B.

I agree with Open here. The O-line didn't look good until the 2nd half of the season. During the first half, they were manhandled. The low sack numbers are a bit misleading as well. How many times did Brunell roll left and throw the ball away because he had a defender in his face as soon as the ball was snapped?

Also, I'm not sure who to put the blame on for the failure to convert on 3rd and short. Does it fall on the offensive line for not generating a push or on the running backs for not falling forward for a yard. I'm leaning towards the line since we had multiple backs getting stuffed (Portis, Betts, Duckett).

redskin_rich

01-04-2007, 12:30 PM

Please please please tell me you are going to mention that ridiculous "Collins is backup on gameday, Campbell during the week" BS call that was made at the end of the Regular season. I still believe that decision kept Campbell on the bench longer as Joe was committed to that philosophy and could not make a during game switch (ys I know he could during the 4th quarter but still his public stance prevented it).
There is not a dead horse that you will leave unbeaten is there?

danny's stogie

01-04-2007, 12:33 PM

I definitely think the line was our best unit and that is why we should have hope for the future folks. We have to keep them together and get the skill position players on board.

You have to feel confident about the offense heading into next season. They have some kinks to work out for sure, but they have a ton of talent and their progress over the last half of the season has been fantastic. It's on JC's shoulders to progress and if he does I can see the Skins being right behind the Saints for the best offense in the NFC.

danny's stogie

01-04-2007, 12:44 PM

I definitely think the line was our best unit and that is why we should have hope for the future folks. We have to keep them together and get the skill position players on board.

My gosh man sdo you complain about everything??? The Eagles in all their terrible lack of success used the exact same philosophy for years (until they booted Detmer). What is so hard to understand about that decision? There are a million things I want to fry this team for doing/not doing, but that simply is not one IMO.

When you start the season you have to assume that you're going to win and win big. Collins was the more experienced option, both in terms of years and running the Saunders offense. JC, despite how highly we all think of him, did in the course of his growing pains lose games for the Skins just as one would expect from any QB starting his first slew of games. In the short term Collins in all likelihood would have been the better option.

Spence

01-04-2007, 12:45 PM

Please please please tell me you are going to mention that ridiculous "Collins is backup on gameday, Campbell during the week" BS call that was made at the end of the Regular season. I still believe that decision kept Campbell on the bench longer as Joe was committed to that philosophy and could not make a during game switch (ys I know he could during the 4th quarter but still his public stance prevented it).
The mishandling of the quarterback position in general will be a key topic I address. It can't be ignored.

SkinsfaninNJ

01-04-2007, 12:51 PM

I think that was a fair assesment of the QB play. It was good to very good at times and not at others so C+ suits them.

I agree the o-line has to be discounted down from the early season struggles. An A to me means you were consistently good from start to finish, and this group was not. I know Saunders has a lot to do with the early season struggles, but the players cannot be given a free pass either.

I agree on the RB's though. CP was finding the endzone better than he has as a Redskin this year, which was nice to see. Betts was a monster for almost half the season. Actually, the only thing that held this group back from being the most dominant in the entire league was Saunders.

As far as WR/TE, fair grading. I just wish ARE had more opportunity because he shined when he started (Phi. and NYG).

hockeygoalie29

01-04-2007, 12:53 PM

Career backup Ladell Betts stepped forward and ran off five straight 100-yard games late in the season...All in all, he had the best statistical season of any Redskins running back since Stephen Davis in 1999.

I know you're a big Ladell fan, but how can you say he had the best statistical season of any Redskins running back since 1999? Especially when Portis set the franchise record for rushing last year. The only stat that stands out for Betts is his 4.7 yards per carry. Let's compare him to Portis in 2005:

Rushing Yards
Porits: 1516
Betts: 1154

YPC
Porits: 4.3
Betts: 4.7

TD's
Porits: 11
Betts: 4

1st downs
Porits: 74
Betts: 59

Longest Run
Porits: 47
Betts: 26

Portis had the better statistical season. The only one of the 5 categories Betts is not dominated in is the yards per carry. The other 4 Portis clearly comes out the winner. Even if you include his recieving numbers it doesn't give Betts the edge. He had 200 more recieving yards than Portis on 20 more catches but only 1 yard per catch seperated them. That's not enough to put him over the top when you factor in the rushing stats.

CNYSkinFan

01-04-2007, 12:54 PM

When you start the season you have to assume that you're going to win and win big. Collins was the more experienced option, both in terms of years and running the Saunders offense. JC, despite how highly we all think of him, did in the course of his growing pains lose games for the Skins just as one would expect from any QB starting his first slew of games. In the short term Collins in all likelihood would have been the better option.
I understand all of that ...however Collins was also no better then a third string quarterback for 12 years and all of a sudden was elevated over a quarterback handpicked by Joe Gibbs to be the future of the team and traded for so he could be sasoned for a year. It was a mistake, I said that from day one. I have been consistent about it.

As for me beating a dead horse as Rich said or complaining about everything as Smoak said someday soon we are going to have to realize the team went 5-11 and there were reasons for it. On this board I have been critical and praiseworthy to the Skins. I have been called out for being a homer and being a naysayer.

I think that puts me right where I think I should be....a realist. I beg you to come join me.

hockeygoalie29

01-04-2007, 12:59 PM

redskin_rich

01-04-2007, 01:02 PM

danny's stogie

01-04-2007, 01:02 PM

I understand all of that ...however Collins was also no better then a third string quarterback for 12 years and all of a sudden was elevated over a quarterback handpicked by Joe Gibbs to be the future of the team and traded for so he could be sasoned for a year. It was a mistake, I said that from day one. I have been consistent about it.

As for me beating a dead horse as Rich said or complaining about everything as Smoak said someday soon we are going to have to realize the team went 5-11 and there were reasons for it. On this board I have been critical and praiseworthy to the Skins. I have been called out for being a homer and being a naysayer.

I think that puts me right where I think I should be....a realist. I beg you to come join me.

I don't think it's possible for my post to be any more pragmatic.

Yours is logical too, I just disagree with it because I expect to see a young QB struggle and make mistakes no matter how high their draft status or if they're handpicked by Joe Gibbs. Hypothetically, if the Skins were winning, they would have in all likelihood had a running game that could carry them and an 04/05 defense. If that were the case they could live with a veteran, mistake free QB that protected the ball and simply ran the offense. On the other hand, they could possibly have been undermined by a rookie QB that didn't know the offense as well and would be more prone to turning the ball over. But it's all hindsight.

Wasn't Collins the 2nd string QB behind Green in KC? He didn't see any playing time because Green was never hurt but I believe he was first in line to replace him.

I believe you are correct.

Spence

01-04-2007, 01:07 PM

I know you're a big Ladell fan, but how can you say he had the best statistical season of any Redskins running back since 1999? Especially when Portis set the franchise record for rushing last year. The only stat that stands out for Betts is his 4.7 yards per carry. Let's compare him to Portis in 2005:
Portis had over 350 carries in 2005 and Betts had under 250 carries in 2006 so some of the numbers you cite in support of your point are essentially meaningless. I'm a big fan of the yards per carry number. I think it is an important indicator of rushing efficiency. For example, Stephen Davis had more rushing yards in 2001 than he did in 1999, but only a fool would say that Davis had a better season in 2001, when he averaged 4.0 yards per carry, than he did in 1999, when he averaged 4.8 yards per carry.

And just for the record, I'm a fan of both Portis and Betts. I do not, however, think Portis has been used properly by the coaches in Washington. The glaring difference in rushing efficiency between Portis in Denver and Portis in Washington is something I've had on my mind quite a bit recently -- and yet another cause of complaint against the Washington coaching staff.

danny's stogie

01-04-2007, 01:14 PM

Portis had over 350 carries in 2005 and Betts had under 250 carries in 2006 so some of the numbers you cite in support of your point are essentially meaningless. I'm a big fan of the yards per carry number. I think it is an important indicator of rushing efficiency. For example, Stephen Davis had more rushing yards in 2001 than he did in 1999, but only a fool would say that Davis had a better season in 2001, when he averaged 4.0 yards per carry, than he did in 1999, when he averaged 4.8 yards per carry.

And just for the record, I'm a fan of both Portis and Betts. I do not, however, think Portis has been used properly by the coaches in Washington. The glaring difference in rushing efficiency between Portis in Denver and Portis in Washington is something I've had on my mind quite a bit recently -- and yet another cause of complaint against the Washington coaching staff.

I think Portis is what he is. First off Denver's Oline until this year always produces high ypc. Secondly, while Portis was in Denver he played 6 games a season against some of the worst rushing defenses in the NFL in SD, KC, and Oak. It might have skewed the numbers a bit having LDT, Portis, and Holmes in the AFC West, but during those seasons there wasn't a single AFC west game that wasn't reminiscent of an Arena league game.

Edit: I know this is somewhat different than thoughts on how to use Portis, but I don't we should have been expecting Portis in DC to be averaging 5.5 yards per carry. The 4.5 range is about right.

Spence

01-04-2007, 01:19 PM

I think Portis is what he is. First off Denver's Oline until this year always produces high ypc. Secondly, while Portis was in Denver he played 6 games a season against some of the worst rushing defenses in the NFL in SD, KC, and Oak. It might have skewed the numbers a bit having LDT, Portis, and Holmes in the AFC West, but during those seasons there wasn't a single AFC west game that wasn't reminiscent of an Arena league game.
There were actually some good defenses in the AFC West when Portis was in Denver. But he ran brilliantly against non-AFC West teams, too. He was just a much more efficient running back in Denver. But why? Denver doesn't have more talent than Washington on the offensive line -- look at the way Denver plugs in guys you've never heard of. I think the difference is coaching. Denver uses a zone blocking and cut-blocking scheme which works very well for them. Also, Denver ran Portis out of a spread offense, which is a very good idea. Portis simply isn't a banger. He can bulk up and run it 350 times, but it is a misuse of his talents. You can get 30 guys who can run it 350 times and average about 4 yards per carry. Portis has great speed and elusiveness. He should be running out of a spread offense and he should be moved around more. It worked in Denver. It would work in Washington. But Gibbs doesn't like that sort of offense. Gibbs wants a big banger for a running back and he wants to pound him into the line 30 times a game. That's fine, but that's not what Portis does best.

CNYSkinFan

01-04-2007, 01:21 PM

Riiiiight. :awesomewo

The QB pecking order had ZERO ramifications on this past season and neither side of the agrument can state otherwise. That equals a dead horse argument.
While I know practices are closed in most cases the third string QB (which was essentially JC) ran the scout team and the 2nd string Qb took snaps with the first team offense on occasion. From what I remember when JC had gotten in there against tampa that commentors on the game said that JC was working with the first team offense for the first time all season in the week leading up to Tampa. Before the season the staff talked openly about reducing Mark's snaps in practice and I bvelieve that Collins got those snaps since he was essentally the second string b.

That is why you saw early on JC clicking with Thrash and ARe more since they were 3rd and 4th stringers and worked with him more then the first stringers LLoyd and Moss. That is my opinion and a reason that I feel that backup qb decision was a really bad one. I stated it at the time and I am stating it again now.

I also think that campbell being listed as #3 was a deferential move to Saunders and that Gibbs could not pull the trigger mid-game to go to JC because of it. I have no proof of that but it makes logical sense iof you look at the fact that Gibbs pulled Brunell and went to Ramsey mid-game in 2004 and the same in the oppositein 2005. Gibbs changed his pattern this year, or else perhaps during the Philly game you would have seen Campbell or in mop up dty in the first Giants game at the very least.

danny's stogie

01-04-2007, 01:40 PM

There were actually some good defenses in the AFC West when Portis was in Denver. But he ran brilliantly against non-AFC West teams, too. He was just a much more efficient running back in Denver. But why? Denver doesn't have more talent than Washington on the offensive line -- look at the way Denver plugs in guys you've never heard of. I think the difference is coaching. Denver uses a zone blocking and cut-blocking scheme which works very well for them. Also, Denver ran Portis out of a spread offense, which is a very good idea. Portis simply isn't a banger. He can bulk up and run it 350 times, but it is a misuse of his talents. You can get 30 guys who can run it 350 times and average about 4 yards per carry. Portis has great speed and elusiveness. He should be running out of a spread offense and he should be moved around more. It worked in Denver. It would work in Washington. But Gibbs doesn't like that sort of offense. Gibbs wants a big banger for a running back and he wants to pound him into the line 30 times a game. That's fine, but that's not what Portis does best.

The only good defense in the AFC west during the 02 and 03 seasons were Denver's. SD and KC had bottom 5 defenses both years. Oakland was bottom 5 in 03 and below average in 02. And it's not just statistically, those defenses were that bad, absolutely putrid to watch. True that denver does have a plug and play Oline system, but their talent has also pretty underrated imo. It's starts inside with Nalen who is as good as they come at center. Right now they aren't as talented pound for pound up front as the Skins are, but they aren't the Texans either.

I agree with you that it would be nice to see Portis get more of a chance to work in a spread offense, but he seems to do really well when they zone block which they started to emphasize at the end of this season. Also, I disagree with the thought that any back can take the ball 350 times and get 4 ypc. Larry Johnson is the best in the league right now at doing the whole pound it 350 times thing and even he only averages 4.3 ypc. Dallas has been trying to get someone to do that, but Jones can't get above 4.0 and Barber isn't good enough to play consistently.

hockeygoalie29

01-04-2007, 01:49 PM

Portis had over 350 carries in 2005 and Betts had under 250 carries in 2006 so some of the numbers you cite in support of your point are essentially meaningless. I'm a big fan of the yards per carry number. I think it is an important indicator of rushing efficiency. For example, Stephen Davis had more rushing yards in 2001 than he did in 1999, but only a fool would say that Davis had a better season in 2001, when he averaged 4.0 yards per carry, than he did in 1999, when he averaged 4.8 yards per carry.

But you also have to take into account that Betts having under 250 carries plays against him as well. He only had to endure 70% of the wear and tear of Portis and his big numbers at the end of the season inflate his YPC. A running back who starts every game will have his YPC even out over the course of the season. But Betts had 2/3 of his carries in the last 6 games of the year. Would Betts have kept up the 4.7 yards per carry over an entire season as the starter? Or would he have had the 3.7 yards per carry he had in October or the 3.9 he had in November? We'll never know.

I have to disagree and say that without the other stats it is the YPC that become meaningless. I don't think you can have the best statistical season if you only start 9 games and the only category you lead is YPC. If that were the case, you could claim that Rock had the best statistical season because of his 7.4 YPC in 2005. Sure, he only had 200 yards but IF he had as many carries he would have clearly been the best...

ryflan47

01-04-2007, 01:50 PM

OL runs away with this one, and deservingly.

smoak

01-04-2007, 01:53 PM

You have to feel confident about the offense heading into next season. They have some kinks to work out for sure, but they have a ton of talent and their progress over the last half of the season has been fantastic. It's on JC's shoulders to progress and if he does I can see the Skins being right behind the Saints for the best offense in the NFC.

Whoa Nelly! I don't buy that for a second. You are assuming first and foremost that we stay healthy which is a huge leap. There about 5 positions on the field that if we lose a player, we could be in trouble (both tackle spots, Moss, Campbell, and Portis depending on how you feel about Betts as an every down back).

danny's stogie

01-04-2007, 02:01 PM

Whoa Nelly! I don't buy that for a second. You are assuming first and foremost that we stay healthy which is a huge leap. There about 5 positions on the field that if we lose a player, we could be in trouble (both tackle spots, Moss, Campbell, and Portis depending on how you feel about Betts as an every down back).

It's pretty lofty, but who else is ready to take the title?

Maybe Seattle is both Hass and Alexander return to form.
Dallas needs Romo to not suck, a new OLine and RBs.
Philly is also talented, but you never know which Philly will show up.
Cards need an Oline and Leinhart to progress.
Giants will lose Tiki.
No one from the NFC Central is even close.
Atlanta needs a QB and WRs.

No way the Skins are on par with the elite AFC offenses, but they have as good a chance as any to be tops in the NFC.

Spence

01-04-2007, 02:14 PM

But you also have to take into account that Betts having under 250 carries plays against him as well. He only had to endure 70% of the wear and tear of Portis and his big numbers at the end of the season inflate his YPC. A running back who starts every game will have his YPC even out over the course of the season. But Betts had 2/3 of his carries in the last 6 games of the year. Would Betts have kept up the 4.7 yards per carry over an entire season as the starter? Or would he have had the 3.7 yards per carry he had in October or the 3.9 he had in November? We'll never know.I gotta say, I don't understand why playing a full season should drag down a running back's yard per carry average. It didn't seem to have that effect on Clinton Portis, when he was playing two full seasons in Denver and averaging 5.5 yards per carry both seasons. If there is any evidence that indicates Betts would have averaged significantly less than 4.7 yards per carry if he had 350 carries instead of 250 carries, I'd like to see it.

I have to disagree and say that without the other stats it is the YPC that become meaningless. I don't think you can have the best statistical season if you only start 9 games and the only category you lead is YPC. If that were the case, you could claim that Rock had the best statistical season because of his 7.4 YPC in 2005. Sure, he only had 200 yards but IF he had as many carries he would have clearly been the best...Obviously, it is a matter of degree. Cartwright's numbers were based almost entirely on one game against a terrible Rams defense. Betts' numbers were based on the entirety of his season, especially the second half of the season. Betts had more than five times as many yards as Cartwright. You're taking my argument to an illogical extreme. You're free to do that, of course, but you shouldn't pretend it bears any resemblance to my argument.

I understand that Betts' success generated a lot of resentment among Portis' more devoted followers. Fair enough. If it pleases you, change my statement to "best nine games of any running back since 1999."

hockeygoalie29

01-04-2007, 02:14 PM

It's pretty lofty, but who else is ready to take the title?

Maybe Seattle is both Hass and Alexander return to form.
Dallas needs Romo to not suck, a new OLine and RBs.
Philly is also talented, but you never know which Philly will show up.
Cards need an Oline and Leinhart to progress.
Giants will lose Tiki.
No one from the NFC Central is even close.
Atlanta needs a QB and WRs.

No way the Skins are on par with the elite AFC offenses, but they have as good a chance as any to be tops in the NFC.

Of course, there is no NFC Central so it would be pretty hard for a non-existant team to have a great offense! :)

Here's the list of the 6th teams in the NFC ahead of the Skins in offense this year:

New Orleans (1st overall)
Philly (2nd overall)
Dallas (5th overall)
St. Louis (6thoverall)
Green Bay (9th overall)
Atlanta (12th overall)

I would expect the Saints and Rams to stay about the same, Dallas and Philly could be just as good, Atlanta should be better if they get a decent reciever, and Green Bay depends on Favre.

danny's stogie

01-04-2007, 02:22 PM

Of course, there is no NFC Central so it would be pretty hard for a non-existant team to have a great offense! :)

Here's the list of the 6th teams in the NFC ahead of the Skins in offense this year:

New Orleans (1st overall)
Philly (2nd overall)
Dallas (5th overall)
St. Louis (6thoverall)
Green Bay (9th overall)
Atlanta (12th overall)

I would expect the Saints and Rams to stay about the same, Dallas and Philly could be just as good, Atlanta should be better if they get a decent reciever, and Green Bay depends on Favre.

Lol, yeah, NFC North.

I forgot about St. Louis. They have good skill positions, but they're Oline keeps getting worse. I don't think Dallas will be better. They had a huge spike in offensive productivity when they changed their gameplan to suit Romo. That likely won't happen again next year.

Spence

01-04-2007, 02:22 PM

The only good defense in the AFC west during the 02 and 03 seasons were Denver's. SD and KC had bottom 5 defenses both years. Oakland was bottom 5 in 03 and below average in 02. And it's not just statistically, those defenses were that bad, absolutely putrid to watch. True that denver does have a plug and play Oline system, but their talent has also pretty underrated imo. It's starts inside with Nalen who is as good as they come at center. Right now they aren't as talented pound for pound up front as the Skins are, but they aren't the Texans either.It is fine with me if you believe Portis is being used as efficiently and is playing as efficiently in Washington as in Denver. Obviously, I disagree, for the reasons I have stated here and in previous utterances. A drop from 5.5 yards per carry to 4 yards per carry, for example, seems pretty steep to me, but if you prefer to blame this discrepancy on bad luck and other things having nothing to do with the Redskins, it is no [Red]skin off my nose. You are, of course, arguing that Clinton Portis wasn't as good as his numbers looked when the Redskins traded for him. Interesting argument. I'd like to see you pursue it, but it probably wouldn't take you to areas you prefer to explore.

Also, I disagree with the thought that any back can take the ball 350 times and get 4 ypc. Larry Johnson is the best in the league right now at doing the whole pound it 350 times thing and even he only averages 4.3 ypc. Dallas has been trying to get someone to do that, but Jones can't get above 4.0 and Barber isn't good enough to play consistently.Of course, I didn't argue that "any back can take the ball 350 times and get 4 ypc." I wrote that I think about 30 backs could do it. I stand by it.

redskin_rich

01-04-2007, 02:23 PM

While I know practices are closed in most cases the third string QB (which was essentially JC) ran the scout team and the 2nd string Qb took snaps with the first team offense on occasion. From what I remember when JC had gotten in there against tampa that commentors on the game said that JC was working with the first team offense for the first time all season in the week leading up to Tampa. Before the season the staff talked openly about reducing Mark's snaps in practice and I bvelieve that Collins got those snaps since he was essentally the second string b.
That is incorrect. It was widely reported that JC had taken snaps with the starting unit for 3 weeks prior to his first start at Tampa, starting with the bye week.
That is why you saw early on JC clicking with Thrash and ARe more since they were 3rd and 4th stringers and worked with him more then the first stringers LLoyd and Moss. That is my opinion and a reason that I feel that backup qb decision was a really bad one. I stated it at the time and I am stating it again now.

I also think that campbell being listed as #3 was a deferential move to Saunders and that Gibbs could not pull the trigger mid-game to go to JC because of it. I have no proof of that but it makes logical sense iof you look at the fact that Gibbs pulled Brunell and went to Ramsey mid-game in 2004 and the same in the oppositein 2005. Gibbs changed his pattern this year, or else perhaps during the Philly game you would have seen Campbell or in mop up dty in the first Giants game at the very least.
The rest of this is all conjecture and is really moot anyway. JC was not prepared to come in a game if needed and Collins was. The situation never occurred, so it is meaningless to ponder. Had the coaches started Collins for any game, I would be with you on this but they didn't. They followed the procedure they set, as they said they would and there is nothing worth complaining about.

CNYSkinFan

01-04-2007, 02:30 PM

That is incorrect. It was widely reported that JC had taken snaps with the starting unit for 3 weeks prior to his first start at Tampa, starting with the bye week.

Well I would argue it should have been all season long, as I argued it at the time the decision was made. So JC did not take snaps with the first team for what8 weeks, 9? I think that is poor management and considering Collins never really showed anything in pre-season to warrant his elevation over Campbell (besiides some decent work against 5th string scrubs in the last pre-season game) I still don't understand the decision.

The rest of this is all conjecture and is really moot anyway. JC was not prepared to come in a game if needed and Collins was. The situation never occurred, so it is meaningless to ponder. Had the coaches started Collins for any game, I would be with you on this but they didn't. They followed the procedure they set, as they said they would and there is nothing worth complaining about.

Well everything we say on this message board is conjecture. I do agree they stuck with the plan. I just never agreed with the plan to begin with. I am not making the argument that they were inconsistent with their stated plan, only that I felt their stated plan was wrong and hampered JC's progress.

danny's stogie

01-04-2007, 02:51 PM

It is fine with me if you believe Portis is being used as efficiently and is playing as efficiently in Washington as in Denver. Obviously, I disagree, for the reasons I have stated here and in previous utterances. A drop from 5.5 yards per carry to 4 yards per carry, for example, seems pretty steep to me, but if you prefer to blame this discrepancy on bad luck and other things having nothing to do with the Redskins, it is no [Red]skin off my nose. You are, of course, arguing that Clinton Portis wasn't as good as his numbers looked when the Redskins traded for him. Interesting argument. I'd like to see you pursue it, but it probably wouldn't take you to areas you prefer to explore.

Of course, I didn't argue that "any back can take the ball 350 times and get 4 ypc." I wrote that I think about 30 backs could do it. I stand by it.

Yeah, basically that's what I'm arguing, but I don't think anyone should have expected him to average 5 yards a carry here considering Denver's system and the quality of his opponents. I certainly never expected it, so in my opinion he is what he is and what he's always been. But that's kind of like arguing potayto, potahto.

I'm curious what you mean by the bolded?

I do agree with you that I don't think he's being used in the best way, but even then I don't think he'd average 5+ like in Denver considering the above. I am pleased that they've been using more zone blocking the last few seasons which is a better fit for Portis than the counter trey offense of 04, but I think we also need to consider what best fits the Oline and how it can be adapted to Portis's strengths. The cut blocking scheme works well in Denver because they always have lighter, quicker lineman. That's just not the strong suit of the Skins personnel. Dockery cuts well, but no one else really. Thomas pulls well. Jansen doesn't have much ability to move laterally anymore. Samuels has progressed as a run blocker and is pretty versality, probaby better drive blocker than anything else, but Rabach can't move half as well as Nalen does and, not to rail on Rabach because he's a solid lineman, Nalen really gives Denver the laterally mobility to run their schemes. It's a funny group of linemen the Skins have and I think all things considered they have to develop a balance between what Portis offers and what the lineman are capable of. Of course it would be nice to have the Denver Oline for Portis's sake, but if you do that then you destroy the pass blocking. I'd rather have the Skins balance in that respect, I'm willing to sacrifice .5 yards per carry for 15 less sacks.

hockeygoalie29

01-04-2007, 02:53 PM

I understand that Betts' success generated a lot of resentment among Portis' more devoted followers. Fair enough. If it pleases you, change my statement to "best nine games of any running back since 1999."

Ha ha, I'll say he had one of the best 6 game streaks of any running back I know of who's last name is not Tomlinson. I don't resent Betts or his achievements at all, I'm very happy he stepped up the way he did. I just think saying he had the best season for a Redskins running back in the last 7 years based solely on his YPC unfairly diminishes the season Portis had in 2005.

I gotta say, I don't understand why playing a full season should drag down a running back's yard per carry average. It didn't seem to have that effect on Clinton Portis, when he was playing two full seasons in Denver and averaging 5.5 yards per carry both seasons. If there is any evidence that indicates Betts would have averaged significantly less than 4.7 yards per carry if he had 350 carries instead of 250 carries, I'd like to see it.

What I meant was that Betts did not play enough to have his YPC even out the same way a full time starter's would. For example, in 2005, Portis was the clear-cut starter and had 20 or more carries in all but 3 games. Over the season he had 'great' games where he averaged 6.3 YPC and 'bad' games where he averaged only 3.0 YPC. But over the season the good games and bad games had a chance to even out and the numbers flattened out at 4.3 YPC.

On the other hand, 65% of Betts' carries this year were in the last 6 games of the season. That meant that the numbers for those games would greatly outweigh anything he had done previously and skew his season numbers. In the 7 games prior to his breakout, he only averaged 3.66 yard per carry but that hardly gets any consideration since he didn't get as many carries in those games. If he had, his season YPC would have barely been above 4.0.

Obviously, it is a matter of degree. Cartwright's numbers were based almost entirely on one game against a terrible Rams defense. Betts' numbers were based on the entirety of his season, especially the second half of the season. Betts had more than five times as many yards as Cartwright. You're taking my argument to an illogical extreme. You're free to do that, of course, but you shouldn't pretend it bears any resemblance to my argument.

My mention of Rock was definitely taking my argument to the extreme but the bolded portion of your quote is exactly what I am talking about. His YPC numbers are more of a reflection on his last 6 games than on his season as a whole. Had he been able to keep up those numbers for an entire season he would have had a great year. But he had only gotten above 4.3 yards per carry in a game TWICE in his previous 10 games.

hockeygoalie29

01-04-2007, 03:05 PM

Spence, there is one more stat I forgot to compare:

Fumbles
Portis: 3 (one for every 117 carries)
Betts: 6 (one for every 41 carries)

Ibleedburgundy

01-04-2007, 03:55 PM

Based on the last few games I would definitely have said O-line but I thought they had some bad games early on. In many cases it was scheming but there were times when our guys just got beat. Later in the season and especially the last 4 games our O-line player very well, allowing Betts to rack up yards.

I said running backs because I think the tandem of Portis/Betts played at a very high level. And it could have been even higher if our offensive coaches would have used them better. How about Sellers or Duckett at the goal line against Dallass? 3rd and one against Giants and we pass? etc.

Spence

01-04-2007, 04:07 PM

Spence, there is one more stat I forgot to compare:

Fumbles
Portis: 3 (one for every 117 carries)
Betts: 6 (one for every 41 carries)
You will note, I am sure, that I did not forget to address that issue in my review. In fact, I devoted three paragraphs to it.

Spence

01-04-2007, 04:13 PM

Ha ha, I'll say he had one of the best 6 game streaks of any running back I know of who's last name is not Tomlinson. I don't resent Betts or his achievements at all, I'm very happy he stepped up the way he did. I just think saying he had the best season for a Redskins running back in the last 7 years based solely on his YPC unfairly diminishes the season Portis had in 2005.I guess one of the things that puzzles me about this issue is how it is viewed as a zero-sum game by so many. That is, praise of Betts, diminishes Portis. I don't see it that way. I think considering Betts played with a rookie quarterback and a far less efficient passing attack than the one Portis played with in 2005, Betts' season was pretty spectacular. Call if a half-season if you like. Larry Johnson started only nine games in a season earlier in his career, but put up monster numbers. Not a full season as a starter, of course, but not a stretch to say he had a huge season. [Better than the season Betts just had.] I view Betts' second half surge as important and impressive. I suppose I'm like the team in that sense, as they rewarded him with a new, richer contract. I'm not entirely certain I'm comfortable agreeing with team management on a personnel decision, but I suppose I have no choice in this case.

What I meant was that Betts did not play enough to have his YPC even out the same way a full time starter's would. For example, in 2005, Portis was the clear-cut starter and had 20 or more carries in all but 3 games. Over the season he had 'great' games where he averaged 6.3 YPC and 'bad' games where he averaged only 3.0 YPC. But over the season the good games and bad games had a chance to even out and the numbers flattened out at 4.3 YPC.But there isn't any reason to believe that Betts' numbers would have declined. They might have, in fact, improved. Or they might have remained the same. That's an impossible argument to have. All I can do is judge Betts on what he did.

redskin_rich

01-04-2007, 04:20 PM

Well I would argue it should have been all season long, as I argued it at the time the decision was made. So JC did not take snaps with the first team for what8 weeks, 9? I think that is poor management and considering Collins never really showed anything in pre-season to warrant his elevation over Campbell (besiides some decent work against 5th string scrubs in the last pre-season game) I still don't understand the decision.

Dude, once the season started, Brunell go almost all the work. There was an instance early in the season when Brunell didn't practice because of a lacerated elbow and Collins got the work but that was it. From after the Indy game on, Campbell got the work when Brunell didn't. I had no problem with the decision, I thought it was the best way to go. Heck, I had predicted it would be that way back in May or June. Was I prophetic, no, it just seemed the sensible route. If you have two QB's that don't practice, it makes sense to use the one who knows the system as the backup.

Ibleedburgundy

01-04-2007, 04:25 PM

CNYSkinFan

01-04-2007, 04:29 PM

Dude, once the season started, Brunell go almost all the work. There was an instance early in the season when Brunell didn't practice because of a lacerated elbow and Collins got the work but that was it. From after the Indy game on, Campbell got the work when Brunell didn't. I had no problem with the decision, I thought it was the best way to go. Heck, I had predicted it would be that way back in May or June. Was I prophetic, no, it just seemed the sensible route. If you have two QB's that don't practice, it makes sense to use the one who knows the system as the backup.
But during the off season they stated they wanted to give the #2 more snaps in practice and rest Brunell more. I remember an interview with JC where he was excited by the prospect of that happening. That was the plan, I don't know if they kept it since pracitices are usually closed. I don't remember any real reporting on the issue.

I just don't know how you think that keeping JC as #3 was good for his development nor the team. Even if Brunell was adequate this year, JC was going to be the man sooner then Collins would. Give him some of the work in practice and get his report goiing with the starting receivers early, not later.

smoak

01-04-2007, 04:33 PM

It's pretty lofty, but who else is ready to take the title?

Maybe Seattle is both Hass and Alexander return to form.
Dallas needs Romo to not suck, a new OLine and RBs.
Philly is also talented, but you never know which Philly will show up.
Cards need an Oline and Leinhart to progress.
Giants will lose Tiki.
No one from the NFC Central is even close.
Atlanta needs a QB and WRs.

No way the Skins are on par with the elite AFC offenses, but they have as good a chance as any to be tops in the NFC.

Don't get me wrong. I see the potential for the Redskins to have the best offense in the NFC, but there are just too many unknowns at this point. And IMO, if we are operating at our "best" then we're really only going to need 200 yards or so per game out of the passing offense. I think our best offense will be when we run over people and eat clock rather than try to get into track meets (which would lower us statistically speaking). It really amazes me how all these teams try to finess their way through the season and get smacked in the playoffs.

Give me a top 5 defense in the league again and this team right now has a Super Bowl shot. Unitl then... Ugh. Pass the Pepto.

redskin_rich

01-04-2007, 04:33 PM

I'm not sure that was the extent of it though. If you watched warm ups before JC was starting, MB and Collins would take snaps and throw passes while JC would stand around with a clip board.
Even when JC started getting practice reps, he remained the 3rd stringer on gamedays. JC was 3rd string right up until he was promoted to starter, as the plan was originally laid out.
I have already stated numerous times that I supported the plan and believed it to be the right way to go but I would have made the QB change earlier, Brunell for Campbell, that is. Campbell was clearly not ready when he did start but his physical attributes helped him along and Brunell has been beat up the entire season. Now we're finding out he needs shoulder surgery. When did this happen? This would explain his lack of downfield passing and lack of velocity on all his throws.

smoak

01-04-2007, 08:28 PM

Dude, once the season started, Brunell go almost all the work. There was an instance early in the season when Brunell didn't practice because of a lacerated elbow and Collins got the work but that was it. From after the Indy game on, Campbell got the work when Brunell didn't. I had no problem with the decision, I thought it was the best way to go. Heck, I had predicted it would be that way back in May or June. Was I prophetic, no, it just seemed the sensible route. If you have two QB's that don't practice, it makes sense to use the one who knows the system as the backup.

LMAO! this is why the boards r more fun when the skins win...

now campbell's growth was retarded b/c he wasn't officially the only #2 on the chart??? maybe if JC had a few more reps he would have led us to the p-offs. :rolleyes:

geez, so the coaching staff didn't do EVERYTHING you thought they should EXACTLY ths way you thought it should be done...

i think we need to come up with an hr all star coaching squad

skins111111

01-04-2007, 09:42 PM

I voted RB as we ended up 4th over all with our stud getting hurt....this would also be contributed to out O-Line which was also fantastic in pass coverage later in the season-----we have to sign Dockery

CNYSkinFan

01-04-2007, 10:52 PM

ChiefPowhatan17

01-05-2007, 06:09 AM

Our RB's were great this year.

redskin_rich

01-05-2007, 08:23 AM

I am sorry I frogt the Coaching staff did EVERYTHING right this season and that is why we are 5-11

Sorry for having opinions besides "Gee the coaches must know everything so gosh darn it just believe" :rolleyes:
The coaches did a lot of things wrong but the QB handling wasn't one of them and even if you believe it was wrong, it's not worth complaining about, since it had no bearing on the W/L record or really anything else. You can use the 5-11 record to back up lots of points but not this one.
Bury that horse already, Dustin. :)

CNYSkinFan

01-05-2007, 08:41 AM

The coaches did a lot of things wrong but the QB handling wasn't one of them and even if you believe it was wrong, it's not worth complaining about, since it had no bearing on the W/L record or really anything else. You can use the 5-11 record to back up lots of points but not this one.
Bury that horse already, Dustin. :)
lol

Never!!! Never!!!

I am still not sure that if JC got more work with the first unit throughout the season it would have lessened the growing pains hwe had and perhaps helped us win a few tight games (Tampa maybe, Philly Maybe).

But I will let it go....for now!!!!!

dj_stouty

01-05-2007, 09:24 AM

You will note, I am sure, that I did not forget to address that issue in my review. In fact, I devoted three paragraphs to it.

You didn't forget this in your review of the season...but I think you overlooked this during our Betts/Portis threads a few weeks ago. I think Betts' fumble ratio is something to scrutinize the next time we look at his ypc.

Spence

01-05-2007, 10:14 AM

You didn't forget this in your review of the season...but I think you overlooked this during our Betts/Portis threads a few weeks ago. I think Betts' fumble ratio is something to scrutinize the next time we look at his ypc.Well, I don't think Betts had as many fumbles a few weeks ago as he had at the end of the season. I can only comment on the things I see, not the things that have yet to happen. I wrote that Betts can't play for the Redskins if he keeps fumbling and I devoted three paragraphs to the subject. I think I can say I've given the issue fair consideration.

dj_stouty

01-05-2007, 10:41 AM

Well, I don't think Betts had as many fumbles a few weeks ago as he had at the end of the season. I can only comment on the things I see, not the things that have yet to happen. I wrote that Betts can't play for the Redskins if he keeps fumbling and I devoted three paragraphs to the subject. I think I can say I've given the issue fair consideration.

Right...but we already knew Betts had a bigger propensity to fumble than Portis did; even before CP's season ending injury. The fact that Betts laid it on the carpet in each of his last two games is telling.

As you pointed out...there are ways to work on that...so I hope Byner starts working with him as soon as they report to Ashburn.

SpicyMcHaggis

01-05-2007, 10:47 AM

Great article. I agree with pretty much everything, and I voted o-line.
And I found your comment on JC being unprepared especially interesting, and I'm looking forward to the next two article (which I can already tell you I would grade an average of F for the defense and D for the coaching).

hockeygoalie29

01-05-2007, 11:46 AM

You will note, I am sure, that I did not forget to address that issue in my review. In fact, I devoted three paragraphs to it.

I did read the article, which was very good, but if fumbling is such a big issue wouldn't you consider that as part of his "statistical season"? That's why I mentioned it since I left it off my previous post. When you fumble three times as often as the other guy, that hurts your ranking.

Spence

01-05-2007, 12:36 PM

Right...but we already knew Betts had a bigger propensity to fumble than Portis did; even before CP's season ending injury. The fact that Betts laid it on the carpet in each of his last two games is telling.

As you pointed out...there are ways to work on that...so I hope Byner starts working with him as soon as they report to Ashburn.DJ, the two fumbles by Betts that got people's attention -- certainly mine -- were the last two. That's week 16 against St. Louis and week 17 against New York because they hurt the Redskins' chances to win games. Betts having a greater propensity to fumble than Portis isn't a big deal. Most running backs fumble more than Portis. Tiki Barber fumbles more than Portis, but he's still a better player. The problem for Betts is not that he fumbles more than Portis, but that he fumbles too much.

Every running back fumbles. Even Portis, who single-handedly gave a victory in FedEx Field to Norv Turner and the Raiders in 2005 by fumbling twice. Betts fumbled six times in 298 touches in 2006. That's about twice as many as I'd consider decent. So it is a problem, which is why I devoted three paragraphs to it.

Betts had a hell of a season in 2006 and was clearly the offensive MVP. Nevertheless, Gibbs won't play a guy with gaudy efficiency numbers if he turns the ball over. Therefore, Betts has every motivation to correct the problem. If he does correct it, he's guaranteed a major role in the Saunders/Gibbs offense. If he doesn't, he'll be traded to some fool team that doesn't care about turnovers. [Mike Martz, perhaps?]

hockeygoalie29

01-05-2007, 12:39 PM

I guess one of the things that puzzles me about this issue is how it is viewed as a zero-sum game by so many. That is, praise of Betts, diminishes Portis. I don't see it that way.

You're right, in most people's minds saying Betts had a great run at the end of this year somehow is implying an attack on Portis. That usually leads to the standard response of "Yeah? Well Portis would have rushed for X number of yards in those games..." Like you, I don't see it that way. They are both Redskins so of course I want them BOTH to do really well and hence lead the Skins to a Superbowl.

The only thing I am contending is saying that Betts had the best "statistical" year of any running back while the only "stat" he leads is YPC. Of the other 5 major stats for running backs he is way behind. So by leading one statistical category he is the best overall based on overall statistics? I'm not sure how that makes sense. Sure, he may have had the best statistical year if he played the entire season, but he didn't. He did have the best (that I know of) statistical 5 game run of any running back but you can't extrapolate 5 games over the entire season. I don't think saying that he didn't have the best year in any way takes away from what he did this season.

I think considering Betts played with a rookie quarterback and a far less efficient passing attack than the one Portis played with in 2005, Betts' season was pretty spectacular. Call if a half-season if you like.

Do you really think we had a "far better passing attack" in Portis' 5 game run in '05 run compared to Betts' of '06? I don't. Brunell's highest passing yardage total over those 5 games was a measly 163. That's only 3 yards ahead of Campbell's lowest total which was 160. Here are some of the numbers:

Average Passing Yards Per Game
2005: 145
2006: 197

Completion Percentage
2005: 57.1%
2006:53.3%

Yards per Completion
2005: 11.6
2006: 12.3

TD's
2005: 8 (4 came in one game against the Cowboys)
2006: 6

Turnovers
2005: 5 INT's, 3 fumbles
2006: 5 INT's, 1 fumble

At worst it looks like 2006 is on par with 2005 but I'd say it is better. While Campbell had a slightly smaller completion percengage (by 3.8%) he had a better yards per completion rate, averaged 50 yards per game more through the air, and turned the ball over 2 fewer times.

But there isn't any reason to believe that Betts' numbers would have declined. They might have, in fact, improved. Or they might have remained the same. That's an impossible argument to have. All I can do is judge Betts on what he did.

But we can go off of what he did prior to those 6 games which is to average less than 4 yards per carry.

Spence

01-05-2007, 12:40 PM

I did read the article, which was very good, but if fumbling is such a big issue wouldn't you consider that as part of his "statistical season"? That's why I mentioned it since I left it off my previous post. When you fumble three times as often as the other guy, that hurts your ranking.I think I've made my point clear. You don't agree with it. That's fine. Feel free to write your own article for the website attacking my viewpoints. We welcome original material from our membership. The opinion that Clinton Portis is slightly less awesome than Jesus is pretty popular at HR and your view would be guaranteed a favorable audience.

hockeygoalie29

01-05-2007, 12:48 PM

I think I've made my point clear. You don't agree with it. That's fine. Feel free to write your own article for the website attacking my viewpoints. We welcome original material from our membership. The opinion that Clinton Portis is slightly less awesome than Jesus is pretty popular at HR and your view would be guaranteed a favorable audience.

While funny, when did I ever say Portis could walk on water? All I'm saying is that he had a better season last year than Betts did this year which in no way is bashing Betts.

I've actually started writing a piece on the future of this team but have been pretty strapped for time so I haven't had a chance to finish it...I'll send it to you guys when I do.

dj_stouty

01-05-2007, 01:02 PM

DJ, the two fumbles by Betts that got people's attention -- certainly mine -- were the last two. That's week 16 against St. Louis and week 17 against New York because they hurt the Redskins' chances to win games. Betts having a greater propensity to fumble than Portis isn't a big deal. Most running backs fumble more than Portis. Tiki Barber fumbles more than Portis, but he's still a better player. The problem for Betts is not that he fumbles more than Portis, but that he fumbles too much.

Every running back fumbles. Even Portis, who single-handedly gave a victory in FedEx Field to Norv Turner and the Raiders in 2005 by fumbling twice. Betts fumbled six times in 298 touches in 2006. That's about twice as many as I'd consider decent. So it is a problem, which is why I devoted three paragraphs to it.

Betts had a hell of a season in 2006 and was clearly the offensive MVP. Nevertheless, Gibbs won't play a guy with gaudy efficiency numbers if he turns the ball over. Therefore, Betts has every motivation to correct the problem. If he does correct it, he's guaranteed a major role in the Saunders/Gibbs offense. If he doesn't, he'll be traded to some fool team that doesn't care about turnovers. [Mike Martz, perhaps?]

He better be motivated to correct it. Tiki corrected it and his attempts per fumble is much better than Ladell's currently is.

It just steams me when Ladell had just as many lost fumbles in only 245 attempts than LT and LJ did in a combined 746 attempts. Sure...there are other guys who fumble more often (Fast Willie Parker comes to mind) but, as you pointed out, Gibbs doesn't play guys who do that.

This is a major reason I don't want Betts touching the ball as often as Portis next season. At least with Portis, you know he will limit turning over the ball; which is a major luxury when your defense can't even buy their own turnovers.

Spence

01-05-2007, 01:03 PM

Hockeygoalie, you must know you are taking my arguments out of context. I compared the passing attack the Redskins had in 2005 to the passing attack the Redskins had in 2006. I did not compare five-game sequences because I don't consider that relevant. Portis piled up his numbers over a 16-game season, not a five-game sequence. Statistically, in 2005 and 2006 Mark Brunell was considerably more efficient than Jason Campbell was in 2006. Brunell wasn't lifted because he stunk -- his passer rating was better in 2006 than it was in 2005 -- he was lifted because the team was losing no matter what Brunell did. I have a lot of confidence in Jason Campbell and I thought he did very well for a completely unprepared new quarterback, but he wasn't as efficient as Brunell was in 2005 or 2006. I don't know how much this affected Betts, but in general, running backs face tougher defenses when they are playing with a completely untested quarterback.

As for what Betts averaged before he became the full-time starter, I'm not sure why that is important. Clearly, Betts plays better when he gets more carries. In the eight games Betts got 15 or more carries, he never averaged less than 4.2 yards per carry, three times he averaged better than five yards per carry and once he averaged almost eight yards per carry. In the eight games Betts got less than 15 carries, only once did he average more than five yards per carry and five times he averaged less than three yards per carry. As noted, Betts clearly played better with more carries. That makes him a lot like most other NFL running backs.

CNYSkinFan

01-05-2007, 01:03 PM

Spence

01-05-2007, 01:12 PM

He better be motivated to correct it.That's what I wrote.
Tiki corrected it and his attempts per fumble is much better than Ladell's currently is.I wrote that, too.

It just steams me when Ladell had just as many lost fumbles in only 245 attempts than LT and LJ did in a combined 746 attempts. Sure...there are other guys who fumble more often (Fast Willie Parker comes to mind) but, as you pointed out, Gibbs doesn't play guys who do that.LT and LJ are both better running backs than Ladell Betts or Clinton Portis, no question about it. I'd love to have either one of 'em in the burgundy & gold, but I don't see it happening.

This is a major reason I don't want Betts touching the ball as often as Portis next season. At least with Portis, you know he will limit turning over the ball; which is a major luxury when your defense can't even buy their own turnovers.If Betts is going to fumble as often in 2007 as he did in 2006, he won't touch the ball that often and you have nothing to fear -- which is also what I wrote. If he does correct the fumbling problem then Saunders/Gibbs will have the luxurious problem of figuring out how to split carries between their two tailbacks. I guess where we part ways, DJ, is that I'm willing to wait to see if Ladell corrects the problem. I believe it is far too early to write Betts off as a chronic fumbler.

Spence

01-05-2007, 01:13 PM

Why less awesome? I never saw Jesus run a 4.2 40He ran a 4.2 40 over liquid, buster. Even the Road Runner doesn't do that and if the Road Runner was an NFL running back he'd average 300 yards per game.

CNYSkinFan

01-05-2007, 01:18 PM

He ran a 4.2 40 over liquid, buster. Even the Road Runner doesn't do that and if the Road Runner was an NFL running back he'd average 300 yards per game.
that is only because they have never TRIED running Portis over Liquid. Which of course is another fault to the Saunder's system.

[The above joke in no way should be construed as actual evidence to my standing on this issue as it was a joke. Thank you.]

smoak

01-05-2007, 02:47 PM

I am sorry I frogt the Coaching staff did EVERYTHING right this season and that is why we are 5-11

Sorry for having opinions besides "Gee the coaches must know everything so gosh darn it just believe" :rolleyes:

That is the problem with arguing with a Democrat. :D Everything is either black as night or white as day.

I literally said in another post that with all the issues we have I can't believe you keep harping on the QB ranking system???? People acted like it was unheard of, but a lot of teams have done that before???

This is one issue that most people think you are inventing, but nobody said the coaching staff was perfect.

***EDIT***

Sorry I didn't see you and Rich already covered this.

CNYSkinFan

01-05-2007, 02:55 PM

That is the problem with arguing with a Democrat. :D Everything is either black as night or white as day.

I literally said in another post that with all the issues we have I can't believe you keep harping on the QB ranking system???? People acted like it was unheard of, but a lot of teams have done that before???

This is one issue that most people think you are inventing, but nobody said the coaching staff was perfect.

***EDIT***

Sorry I didn't see you and Rich already covered this.
Well I don't believe I am inventing this issue and I remember a host of posters who agreed with me at the time and I am sure many still do. I think I have explained my logic on this....Ranking #3 in depth meant less work with the first unit and less opportunioty for mop up duty in blowout games, which meant JC took some time to get in rhythm with the starting WR that may have cost us games like Tampa, Philly, and NYG.

Is it the ONLY factor? No I never say it is the only factor. I think I am on record as saying the redskins made just about EVERY bad decision they could make. This is one of them.

Anyways I thought us Democrats were flip floppy not rigid and unbreakable...that is the other party :)

smoak

01-06-2007, 10:38 AM

Well I don't believe I am inventing this issue and I remember a host of posters who agreed with me at the time and I am sure many still do. I think I have explained my logic on this....Ranking #3 in depth meant less work with the first unit and less opportunioty for mop up duty in blowout games, which meant JC took some time to get in rhythm with the starting WR that may have cost us games like Tampa, Philly, and NYG.

Is it the ONLY factor? No I never say it is the only factor. I think I am on record as saying the redskins made just about EVERY bad decision they could make. This is one of them.

Anyways I thought us Democrats were flip floppy not rigid and unbreakable...that is the other party :)

**EDIT** think I need to let it go and we are just polar opposites based on the statement I bolded (I missed it before). That is complete BUNK. Again just b/c you disagree doesn't make it a bad decision (and yes the converse is true with me, but I am tired of the chicken littles saying "everything was wrong"). There were a lot of mistakes made and a lot of good decision made as well. Things just didn't go our way. Cry about it if you want, but I'd rather focus on getting the defense back to form and winning games.

We can agree to disagree I suppose, but I just can't fathom why the heck you think this is a real issue??? The decision was something I agreed with b/c I thought Collins gave us the best chance to win in the short run. Campbell wasn't ready and I think the coaching staff did a great job adjusting the offense for him down the stretch.

And did you really think Campbell would get any less work if he was listed as #7 on the depth chart??? The young man was the future (I guess now he is the present) and I think you are a fool if you don't think he was getting any less work based on the designation. Now if you were up in arms that he wasn't starting, then YES that I could understand (not agree but at least understand). To me, your argument is like saying my chicken soup is progressing b/c I put the carrots in before the celery.

And really, did you really use "mop up duty" as an excuse for why you're upset about this??? Oh brother. Lets poll every QB in the history of the league and asked them how excited they were and how much "mop up duty" helped their career. :banghead:

whitskins

01-06-2007, 11:08 AM

I think that the Skins backup QB plan this year was kind of lame, but I don't believe that it stunted Campbell's progress. His progress would have been stunted at #2 the same as #3 because Gibbs and his staff would have still put almost no effort into prepping him as a starter while Brunell was still their guy. That's why Collins was the #2 for half the season, because he could conceivably be forced into short term duty without getting any prep work during the week.

My problem with Gibbs right now is that he and his staff seem to place way, way, way too much emphasis on experience, even when the so called "experience" on the field is hurting us badly. Teams like Denver, Tennessee, and Arizona were all prepping their young QBs for the day they were to take over the reigns while their older QBs were still the starters. I wish we had done that with Campbell and I am amazed that the guy was able to play so well after getting next to no snaps in another new offense.

Gibbs needs to look at the roster right now and figure out where experience is not exactly equating into talent. Like Doc Walker said perfectly after the last Giants games, the Skins want guys who won't make mistakes, not guys who will make plays. Gibbs and his staff have to be willing to put responsibility into the hands of our younger players if we are going to turn the team around. We tried riding out experience for a chance to win the Super Bowl and it got us 5 wins, it's time for a new approach now.

Spence

01-08-2007, 09:05 AM

This blog post from Jason LaCanfora of The Washington Post reinforces what I wrote about the Redskins wasting a good season from their offensive line. It's fascinating, but depressing reading. Have a look:
Let's cut to the chase. The Ravens and Texans tied for the best sack improvement in the NFL this season, each allowing 25 fewer sacks in 06 than they did in the 05. Now, for the Texans, that's not saying too much; they gave up an NFL-high 68 sacks in 2005, and were still in the bottom half of the league with 43 this season.

Only seven teams improved by 13 sacks or more this season - the Redskins were one of them - and for six it correlated directly to a drastic improvement in the win column.

Baltimore - 25 fewer sacks - 7 more wins
Houston - 25 fewer sacks - 4 more wins
Jets - 19 fewer sacks - 6 more wins
New Orleans - 18 fewer sacks - 7 more wins
Philly - 14 fewer sacks - 4 more wins
San Fran - 13 fewer sacks - 3 more wins
Skins - 13 fewer sacks - 4 FEWER wins

What's wrong with this picture?

Then I looked at lowest sacks allowed overall this season, and how it related to overall standing. Again, the Skins were the outcasts.

Fewest Sacks Allowed in NFL in 2006:
Indy - 15 - Won division
Ravens - 17 - Won division
Skins - 19 - Last in NFC East
Saints - 23 - Won division
Pack - 23 - improved by 4 wins; 8-8
G-men - 25 - Wild Card
Da Bears - 25 - Won Division
SD - 28 - Won Division
Eagles - 28 - Won Division

Am I the only one a bit taken aback by this? Six of the eight division winners are spoken for here (New England allowed 29 sacks and Seattle was the exception with 49) and all of those teams had what for them had to be considered successful seasons (okay, maybe not the Giants but they still got in), while the Redskins had what may have been their most disappointing campaign in franchise history.

To me, it points yet again to just how sorry the defense was.

Because the scary thing is, despite giving up just 19 sacks, the Redskins only broke even. They only produced 19.

Compare that to the Ravens, who were an unthinkable plus-43 in the sack department (17 allowed; 60 created).

That starts to explain why one team went from 6 wins to 13, and the other went from 10 wins (and five of them coming in a row when the Skins finally became a quarterback-rattling force) to 6.

No doubt, the Redskins wasted a studly season from their O-Line, especially over the final 12 games.Source (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2007/01/sacks_and_skins_and_stats.html#more)

SpicyMcHaggis

01-08-2007, 09:55 AM

This blog post from Jason LaCanfora of The Washington Post reinforces what I wrote about the Redskins wasting a good season from their offensive line. It's fascinating, but depressing reading. Have a look:
Source (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2007/01/sacks_and_skins_and_stats.html#more)
So we gave up the 3rd least sacks in the NFL, had the 4th running attack in the NFL, did not turn the ball over that many times (top 10 in least giveaways), had a decent passing attack (about middle of the pack), and not only did we not make the playoffs, we had the 5th WORST record in the league. I think our defense this year has to go down as one of the worst in recent memory.
We were certainly the worst this year BY FAR. Tennessee was the only defense statistically ranked behind us with 370 Yds/G to our 356 Yds/G, but they generated 28 turnovers compared to our 12...that's more than double. Their defense actually won games by themselves (week 15 against the Jags, the defense scored 3 TDs in a 24-17 win).