Deep Playoff Run... and here's why

[ARParr]

I know that no one else here really has any reason to care about this but, I am indeed halfway serious. As most of you know I was laid off in the middle of June. (Job search still progressing. Hopefully it'll be over soon.) As a result, the wife wasn't too keen on me getting the NFL Sunday Ticket this year w/ DirecTV. On top of that, I have to admit that I wasn't too keen on paying for it again for another agonizing season. Which brings me to my point. Zorn & crew will likely blow the doors off this season because I won't be able to tune in immediately at my house. (My good friend down the street still has the package so I'll be watching the games down there for free!)

(Then again, the whole season could be an epic fail, and it'll be the best $400 I've ever saved.)

Predictions??

:smash:

[Hr fan]

Hope you are right, that the doors will be flying by. Expect that you will be glad you saved $400.

[Patrick]

Man I just want to get through the preseason first.............. but would love if your logic turn out to be some great foresite.

[dj_stouty]

The Skins are going deep into the playoffs because you cancelled your NFL Sunday ticket?

Ok...:smash:

[BurgundyNGold]

The Skins are going deep into the playoffs because you cancelled your NFL Sunday ticket?

Ok...:smash:
Don't hate lol. His is the best reason I've heard for a deep playoff run yet. I'll take it. ;)

[akhhorus]

The Skins are going deep into the playoffs because you cancelled your NFL Sunday ticket?

Ok...:smash:

Since I haven't eaten korean food in awhile, it means we're going 1-15 lol.

[Hr fan]

Don't hate lol. His is the best reason I've heard for a deep playoff run yet. I'll take it. ;)

Hey, as many have pointed out there is little optimism on this board (probably for good reason). Take what you can get until the NYG's show us what we are, good or bad.

[dj_stouty]

Hey, as many have pointed out there is little optimism on this board (probably for good reason). Take what you can get until the NYG's show us what we are, good or bad.

The memory of last year's week one opener still burns. Mrs. DJ and I were sporting our Skins gear at Seacrets in OC; with a wonderful evening bay breeze, palm trees overhead the outdoor tiki bar, plentiful drinks and dozens of Skins fans.

All of that excitement torched in a matter of minutes. My buzz was killed after New York's opening series when they marched down field in 11 plays and Eli ran it in for the TD...

At least Plex isn't around to torch us for 10 catches again.

I'm hoping for a better showing from our Skins this time around.

[Patrick]

The memory of last year's week one opener still burns. Mrs. DJ and I were sporting our Skins gear at Seacrets in OC; with a wonderful evening bay breeze, palm trees overhead the outdoor tiki bar, plentiful drinks and dozens of Skins fans.

All of that excitement torched in a matter of minutes. My buzz was killed after New York's opening series when they marched down field in 11 plays and Eli ran it in for the TD...

At least Plex isn't around to torch us for 10 catches again.

I'm hoping for a better showing from our Skins this time around.I hear you ......... I was down in SC/Hilton Head at my brother's - had a great buzz on and just like you - didn't last long.
I will state right now - I don't think this year's opener will be a repeat of last season!

[SkinsfaninNJ]

I know that no one else here really has any reason to care about this but, I am indeed halfway serious. As most of you know I was laid off in the middle of June. (Job search still progressing. Hopefully it'll be over soon.) As a result, the wife wasn't too keen on me getting the NFL Sunday Ticket this year w/ DirecTV. On top of that, I have to admit that I wasn't too keen on paying for it again for another agonizing season. Which brings me to my point. Zorn & crew will likely blow the doors off this season because I won't be able to tune in immediately at my house. (My good friend down the street still has the package so I'll be watching the games down there for free!)

(Then again, the whole season could be an epic fail, and it'll be the best $400 I've ever saved.)

Predictions??

:smash:

I have bad news for you though. If your prediction holds up, I don't care if you are making seven figures at your next job, you are absolutely forbidden from purchasing DirectTV in 2010.:D

[Redskinmayhem]

Since I haven't eaten korean food in awhile, it means we're going 1-15 lol.

Last time I ate Korean, I got deathly ill. Sounds like a good reason for a playoff run to me!!!

[CarMike]

The Skins are going deep into the playoffs because you cancelled your NFL Sunday ticket?

Ok...:smash:

I completely understand his reasoning. If I had to cancel ST due to $$$ issues, you can bet your fanny the Redskins would have a season to remember. That's just how my luck rolls.

[FunBunch5]

Well Arparr, I cancelled my Sunday ticket also and don't have anywhere to watch it for free. So with the two of us cancelling and my sacrifice of watching the local game the football Gods should be satisfied and the Redskins will win the SB.:beer:

[CarMike]

Well Arparr, I cancelled my Sunday ticket also and don't have anywhere to watch it for free. So with the two of us cancelling and my sacrifice of watching the local game the football Gods should be satisfied and the Redskins will win the SB.:beer:

If you live around the Winston-Salem/Greensboro/High Point of North Carolina, you're more than welcomed to come by my house. I get rowdy though. lol

[FunBunch5]

If you live around the Winston-Salem/Greensboro/High Point of North Carolina, you're more than welcomed to come by my house. I get rowdy though. lol

Thanks for the offer and I wish I lived around the NC area....Unfortunately I am trapped here in Chicago Bears country.

[saratogan]

It seems most of the comments are negative and doomsayers about the Redskins this year. I have the opposite view.

4th best defense, statistically last year. Defense wins games. Almost all our starters are returning. If Horton proves he indeed has learned the playbook and get into the place (problem he had last year as a rookie), then the quality of his play should increase significantly. Hall should be consistent at corner, if not one of the best CB's in the league (his attitude indicates a positive mental desire). Haynesworth, even if he averages 13 games, is a proven game changer (his additiion should help the quality of play of the others). The biggest question mark involves the SLB and DE position (Orakpo, Daniels, etc) and how that develops during pre-season). Overall, I do not see the defense headed towards a large drop off statistically. I would argue it will remain in the top 8, with a high probability of it staying in the top 5. And to be the 4th best defense last year considering the collapse of the offense in the second half of last year is an amazing accomplishment. For those who dislike Blache, I would suggest you consider that point, as well as injuries, no rush, and playing a rookie.

Offensively, how could the Redskins get worse? 2nd season for all under Zorn's system (JC and the 2nd year receivers especially) should show improvements in execution. Last year the Redskins had the tale of two seasons. I do not think the first half was a fluke, yet the second half was disappointingly real. However, we should see improvement in the offensive line play, barring significant injuries. I find hard to accept the proposition that the offense would be as anemic, or worse, this coming year.

Special teams play dropped off significantly last year (two punters who were sub-par and both were holders for Suisham, which affected his performance). This should improve, or go back to prior year's norms this year.

The critical differences that need to occur for the Redskins to go deep into the playoffs involve the following:

1) consistent pressure against opposition QB's by the front four DL
2) increased turnover ratio (more INT's and FR's by the defense)
3) consistent protection and time provided for our QB to throw the ball
4) dramatic contributions to the passing game by Thomas, Kelly and Davis(it now appears Thomas has progressed more than Kelly - at this stage of the season)
5) consistency in the kicking game, especially a higher field goal percentage

If most of these 5 points come to fruition, I would expect the Redskins to probably go to playoffs as a wildcard and win the first game, at a minimum. Watch the first string offense closely this pre-season and look for steady improvement in ball control and scoring. Pray for no injuies! Then watch the first game against the proposed conference elite, the NYG's. True indicators these will be.
:sun:

[dj_stouty]

I would argue it will remain in the top 8, with a high probability of it staying in the top 5.

Our defense could be #1 in the league but it won't matter squat if they are also ranked badly in turnover and sacks. 4th in yards...but 31st in fumble recoveries, 28th in sacks, 17th in interceptions and dead last in defensive TDs scored (0). Many of us on this site already debunked the "top 5 defense" ranking from last year so I'll spare reiterating the nitty gritty details.

Bottom line; I don't care where they rank at the end of the season as long as they are able to turn over the ball more than the average team and not give up on crucial game-deciding drives.

[Dolla Bill]

Our defense could be #1 in the league but it won't matter squat if they are also ranked badly in turnover and sacks. 4th in yards...but 31st in fumble recoveries, 28th in sacks, 17th in interceptions and dead last in defensive TDs scored (0). Many of us on this site already debunked the "top 5 defense" ranking from last year so I'll spare reiterating the nitty gritty details.

Bottom line; I don't care where they rank at the end of the season as long as they are able to turn over the ball more than the average team and not give up on crucial game-deciding drives.


Despite all that, they were the #6 defense in the league when it comes to scoring.

NFL.com defensive rankings (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=SCORING&season=2008&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go)

Isn't that what its ultimately about? Keeping the other team from scoring? I agree, that a good defense should help the offense, but what does it matter that the offense sucked the last half of the year?

[akhhorus]

Despite all that, they were the #6 defense in the league when it comes to scoring.

NFL.com defensive rankings (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=SCORING&season=2008&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go)

Isn't that what its ultimately about? Keeping the other team from scoring? I agree, that a good defense should help the offense, but what does it matter that the offense sucked the last half of the year?

The reason you shouldn't use that stat is because it counts all points: offensive, defensive and special teams when assessing the average. The vikings gave up less offensive touchdowns than the skins did, but a bunch of special teams and INTs run back for TDs, so they rate lower than us in scoring defense. Any stat that can be skewed that easily is worthless.

[dj_stouty]

The reason you shouldn't use that stat is because it counts all points: offensive, defensive and special teams when assessing the average. The vikings gave up less offensive touchdowns than the skins did, but a bunch of special teams and INTs run back for TDs, so they rate lower than us in scoring defense. Any stat that can be skewed that easily is worthless.

Bingo. "Points allowed" is not only a defensive stat.

I'd be interested to know how many points the defense gave up on the first drive of the game in '09. I'll bet they were pretty piss poor in that department.

[akhhorus]

Bingo. "Points allowed" is not only a defensive stat.

I'd be interested to know how many points the defense gave up on the first drive of the game in '09. I'll bet they were pretty piss poor in that department.

I'd like to see points and first downs allowed in the first and last 5 minutes of either half.

[Dolla Bill]

The reason you shouldn't use that stat is because it counts all points: offensive, defensive and special teams when assessing the average. The vikings gave up less offensive touchdowns than the skins did, but a bunch of special teams and INTs run back for TDs, so they rate lower than us in scoring defense. Any stat that can be skewed that easily is worthless.

Still using that link, you can figure out that our defense was still a good scoring against defense. Giants gave up 31 TDs, Skins gave up 28. They gave up 19 FGs, we gave up 24. But all you hear about is how great the Giants defense is. Ours isn't too shabby, but the problem is that we get scored on at the absolute worse times. But sacks are like dunks in basketball. They look great on highlight reels, but what matters is the final score.

[Keino]

Since I haven't eaten korean food in awhile, it means we're going 1-15 lol.

I slipped some Kimchee into your spaghetti the other day. Sorry, we go deep in the playoffs pal.

[BurgundyNGold]

Still using that link, you can figure out that our defense was still a good scoring against defense. Giants gave up 31 TDs, Skins gave up 28. They gave up 19 FGs, we gave up 24. But all you hear about is how great the Giants defense is. Ours isn't too shabby, but the problem is that we get scored on at the absolute worse times. But sacks are like dunks in basketball. They look great on highlight reels, but what matters is the final score.
The difference is that thr Gints defense is the same or *better* in the final 5 minutes of either half. The Redskins fold like a tent in the last 5 minutes of either half.

Plus, the Gints generate sacks and turnovers, killing opposing drives and creating oportunities, if not field position for their offense. That's where the turnover and sack stats come in and that's why those other defenses are considered better than ours. Taken in whole, they are.

[dj_stouty]

But sacks are like dunks in basketball. They look great on highlight reels, but what matters is the final score.

I have no source...but one time on an NFL broadcast I heard them use a stat that said something along the lines of; In series in which the defense records a sack, the offense is twice as likely not to score. Or somthing like that. A sack is a demoralizer...not to mention a loss of yards, and most likely a more challenging attempt at a first down.

"Tackles for a Loss" are really no different, if you think about it, but the NFL rarely shares these stats and they are not available on their website. Shame...

IMO, sacks matter very much in the grand scheme of things....and they are certainly more important than forcing a fumble that the offense re-establishes possession. Forced fumbles are nothing unless they are "recovered".

BTW - that Giants D also recorded 3 safeties, and 2 pick-sixes...a total of 18 points. Compare that to the Skins getting ZERO.

[Keino]

Still using that link, you can figure out that our defense was still a good scoring against defense. Giants gave up 31 TDs, Skins gave up 28. They gave up 19 FGs, we gave up 24. But all you hear about is how great the Giants defense is. Ours isn't too shabby, but the problem is that we get scored on at the absolute worse times. But sacks are like dunks in basketball. They look great on highlight reels, but what matters is the final score.

Wrong. Dunks are still worth 2-points last time I checked, so there is some substance behind the flash Similarly, sacks create one-dimensional offense (ie put teams in passing situations) and turnovers create short fields and increased scoring opportunities for the offense. If your defense only gives up a few points, but doesn't create scoring opportunities for itself or its offense, it is merely an average defense and that's what we had last year. An average defense that failed at the most crucial moments.

[Dolla Bill]

I have no source...but one time on an NFL broadcast I heard them use a stat that said something along the lines of; In series in which the defense records a sack, the offense is twice as likely not to score. Or somthing like that. A sack is a demoralizer...not to mention a loss of yards, and most likely a more challenging attempt at a first down.

"Tackles for a Loss" are really no different, if you think about it, but the NFL rarely shares these stats and they are not available on their website. Shame...

IMO, sacks matter very much in the grand scheme of things....and they are certainly more important than forcing a fumble that the offense re-establishes possession. Forced fumbles are nothing unless they are "recovered".

BTW - that Giants D also recorded 3 safeties, and 2 pick-sixes...a total of 18 points. Compare that to the Skins getting ZERO.


That's why I compared sacks to dunks in basketball. They do matter in a grander scheme because you have worry more about the person that can do that almost at will. I don't deny the significance of the sack. I know what it can do, both to an offense and defense.

A defense that can score is about a 30/70 ratio of skill/talent to luck. You have to have things up right for a defense to score a TD. Case in point, Ed Reed absolutely destroying the Skins single handed last year.

The Giants do have a great defense, that I don't deny, but what I really am failing to see here is that nearly everyone on this board is thinking we have a bottom of the league defense. We are not the Lions, or in their class as some may think. We have good defense. Is it the upper echelon of Pitt or Baltimore's? Oh hell no, but I think that people shouldn't sell us short on defense.

[RedskinsReaper21]

Wrong. Dunks are still worth 2-points last time I checked, so there is some substance behind the flash Similarly, sacks create one-dimensional offense (ie put teams in passing situations) and turnovers create short fields and increased scoring opportunities for the offense. If your defense only gives up a few points, but doesn't create scoring opportunities for itself or its offense, it is merely an average defense and that's what we had last year. An average defense that failed at the most crucial moments.

If the offense can move the ball this is not an issue. Defense is supposed to focus on keeping teams out of the endzone, offense on getting in the endzone. If your offense can march 90 yards down the field then bend-but-dont break D is a great strategy. Unfortunately our offense is pitiful so the D has to cover for them and that is why the lack of sacks and TOs is glaring. A good front office knows how to get that balance...

[Dolla Bill]

Wrong. Dunks are still worth 2-points last time I checked, so there is some substance behind the flash Similarly, sacks create one-dimensional offense (ie put teams in passing situations) and turnovers create short fields and increased scoring opportunities for the offense. If your defense only gives up a few points, but doesn't create scoring opportunities for itself or its offense, it is merely an average defense and that's what we had last year. An average defense that failed at the most crucial moments.


Yes, dunks are still 2 points, and I do remember basic basketball rules. My case in point is this, remember when Derrick Thomas got the single game sack record? He still lost the game. Dunks/sacks look absolutely great, but what if the other teams stop your driving the hoop/running it up the gut on you consistently?

I think if we had a true average defense, then our record would of reflected it with a lot more losses.

[Dolla Bill]

The difference is that thr Gints defense is the same or *better* in the final 5 minutes of either half. The Redskins fold like a tent in the last 5 minutes of either half.

Plus, the Gints generate sacks and turnovers, killing opposing drives and creating oportunities, if not field position for their offense. That's where the turnover and sack stats come in and that's why those other defenses are considered better than ours. Taken in whole, they are.

For the first half, I would put that on coaching more or less. For the 2nd half? I think it could also be attributed to coaching, but more the defense being on the field way too much.


Again, i'm not denying that the defense has its holes at times, but overall it is a pretty good defense. We weren't getting blown out of games. I think the reason we were 8-8 was that we weren't that good on offense, and the bend-but-don't-break defense broke at the time it wasn't supposed to.

[akhhorus]

Yes, dunks are still 2 points, and I do remember basic basketball rules. My case in point is this, remember when Derrick Thomas got the single game sack record? He still lost the game. Dunks/sacks look absolutely great, but what if the other teams stop your driving the hoop/running it up the gut on you consistently?

I think if we had a true average defense, then our record would of reflected it with a lot more losses.

Different league. With the illegal contact rules and focus on building passing games in the NFL now, you have to have a good pass rush otherwise your defense will fail. Look at the games where we beat better teams in 2008, we did it because the defense could get in the Qb's face(the best examples being the 2nd philly game and the Saints game) and disrupt their passing attacks.

I don't think its a coincidence that the last two Super Bowl champions have been in the top 2 of sacks during the regular season, and New England was 2nd in 2007. Arizona was #1 in sacks in the postseason(which is why they were able to beat 3 better teams to make the super bowl and take the Steelers to the limit).

[BurgundyNGold]

For the first half, I would put that on coaching more or less. For the 2nd half? I think it could also be attributed to coaching, but more the defense being on the field way too much.


Again, i'm not denying that the defense has its holes at times, but overall it is a pretty good defense. We weren't getting blown out of games. I think the reason we were 8-8 was that we weren't that good on offense, and the bend-but-don't-break defense broke at the time it wasn't supposed to.
I'll grant that it was pretty good. But 6th overall? I can't justify that. I watched every game.

[Dolla Bill]

Different league. With the illegal contact rules and focus on building passing games in the NFL now, you have to have a good pass rush otherwise your defense will fail. Look at the games where we beat better teams in 2008, we did it because the defense could get in the Qb's face(the best examples being the 2nd philly game and the Saints game) and disrupt their passing attacks.

I don't think its a coincidence that the last two Super Bowl champions have been in the top 2 of sacks during the regular season, and New England was 2nd in 2007. Arizona was #1 in sacks in the postseason(which is why they were able to beat 3 better teams to make the super bowl and take the Steelers to the limit).

I do agree. I'm just saying that this defense isn't as horrible, or bad, as a lot make it out to be. They have their problems, and we did address the DL finally. Orakpo and Haynesworth is a significant upgrade, along with Jarmon.

[akhhorus]

I do agree. I'm just saying that this defense isn't as horrible, or bad, as a lot make it out to be. They have their problems, and we did address the DL finally. Orakpo and Haynesworth is a significant upgrade, along with Jarmon.

There needs to be a lot more done than talent. They have to call aggressive schemes. When Blache unchained Taylor last year, he was disruptive, but Blache is morally opposed to aggressive play apparently.

This defense is good against bad offenses. They'll gum them to death, especially against badly coached offenses. This defense is bad against good offenses though if they try the marshmellow man defense on them. And the defense struggles when asked to make a stop late in games or get a turnover/3rd down sack to give the offense a chance. Those aren't hallmarks of a good defense.

[Keino]

Yes, dunks are still 2 points, and I do remember basic basketball rules. My case in point is this, remember when Derrick Thomas got the single game sack record? He still lost the game. Dunks/sacks look absolutely great, but what if the other teams stop your driving the hoop/running it up the gut on you consistently?

I think if we had a true average defense, then our record would of reflected it with a lot more losses.

Really? I think our record reflected exactly what kind of defense we had. I am not willing to blame games on the offense despite their paltry output when they handed the defense the lead and/or the time of possession battle only to watch the defense lose both.

Nobody is saying the defense is horrible, only that they did very little to earn their #4 ranking and were more middle of the road as evidenced by being in the very bottom of the league in stats (Sacks, Turnovers, Scoring) that teams generally ranked in the top 10 excel in.

We would have had a great offense if we scored more. We would have had a great defense if we generated turnovers, scored and got to the QB. As it is, one was below average (the offense) and the other was merely average (the defense).

[MDBluefinCrab]

This team needs all the funny superstitions and luck it can get in order to even make the playoffs.
Going deep? The only thing I see going deep are JC's over thrown passes. All kidding aside, anything can happen in today's NFL. Hell, the damn Cardinals went to the Super Bowl last year!

[GloryHog]

... but more the defense being on the field way too much.

I agree. I can't even remember how many time the offense had the ball late in the fourth quarter and could have driven down, scored and put the dagger in...How many three and out series we saw in the fourth quarter...How many field goals were missed. No, if the offense and special teams were as efficient as the defense they might have won eleven or twelve games last year. Certainly a couple more wins.

That being said, I do believe the defense will be improved, the offense will be marginally improved, and the field goal unit will improve. I think they're +2 or 3 in the win column this year and may even win a playoff game.

[ClubSandwichGuy]

I completely understand his reasoning. If I had to cancel ST due to $$$ issues, you can bet your fanny the Redskins would have a season to remember. That's just how my luck rolls.
I read that as "If I had to cancel Sean Taylor due to $$$ issues..."

too many abbreviations on this site...

[saratogan]

Our defense could be #1 in the league but it won't matter squat if they are also ranked badly in turnover and sacks. 4th in yards...but 31st in fumble recoveries, 28th in sacks, 17th in interceptions and dead last in defensive TDs scored (0). Many of us on this site already debunked the "top 5 defense" ranking from last year so I'll spare reiterating the nitty gritty details.

Bottom line; I don't care where they rank at the end of the season as long as they are able to turn over the ball more than the average team and not give up on crucial game-deciding drives.

My second point to a successful run to get into the playoffs was increased turnover ratio. The first point was consistent pressure on opposition QB, should translate into more sacks. I think we agree on that. If this does occur then that helps the offense with improved field position and more opportunities with the football.

Back to the "debunking". The offense last year had opportunities - especially in the red zone and failed. Further TOP changed in second half with the defense having to be on the field for long stretches at critical times because the offense was 3 and out. Check that percentage out and see if that will not hurt a team and put the defense on its heels.


These issues are interrelated. The defense got wore down in the second half due to an anemic offense (start looking at time of possession and lack of 3rd down converrsions by our offense). But for our defense to still be rated 4th statistically ( also look at points scored against, etc) and then "debunk" the ranking and indicate the Redskins defense was not good is just wrong. If the offense had not faltered so glaring in the second half and actually scored ( 2 field goals and one touchdown would have produced a minimum 2 game, probably 3 game, swing in the W-L record. If that had happened, I wonder how many would be debunking the defense?

[csquared]

My second point to a successful run to get into the playoffs was increased turnover ratio. The first point was consistent pressure on opposition QB, should translate into more sacks. I think we agree on that. If this does occur then that helps the offense with improved field position and more opportunities with the football.

Back to the "debunking". The offense last year had opportunities - especially in the red zone and failed. Further TOP changed in second half with the defense having to be on the field for long stretches at critical times because the offense was 3 and out. Check that percentage out and see if that will not hurt a team and put the defense on its heels.


These issues are interrelated. The defense got wore down in the second half due to an anemic offense (start looking at time of possession and lack of 3rd down converrsions by our offense). But for our defense to still be rated 4th statistically ( also look at points scored against, etc) and then "debunk" the ranking and indicate the Redskins defense was not good is just wrong. If the offense had not faltered so glaring in the second half and actually scored ( 2 field goals and one touchdown would have produced a minimum 2 game, probably 3 game, swing in the W-L record. If that had happened, I wonder how many would be debunking the defense?

This is all a big circle. If the defense had of given the offense some short fields to work with, they would have scored more points. Every other defense(except Detroit) scored points for their team. Ours didnt. Thats another area where the defense could have helped. Was it not?

[dj_stouty]

My second point to a successful run to get into the playoffs was increased turnover ratio. The first point was consistent pressure on opposition QB, should translate into more sacks. I think we agree on that. If this does occur then that helps the offense with improved field position and more opportunities with the football.

Back to the "debunking". The offense last year had opportunities - especially in the red zone and failed. Further TOP changed in second half with the defense having to be on the field for long stretches at critical times because the offense was 3 and out. Check that percentage out and see if that will not hurt a team and put the defense on its heels.


These issues are interrelated. The defense got wore down in the second half due to an anemic offense (start looking at time of possession and lack of 3rd down converrsions by our offense). But for our defense to still be rated 4th statistically ( also look at points scored against, etc) and then "debunk" the ranking and indicate the Redskins defense was not good is just wrong. If the offense had not faltered so glaring in the second half and actually scored ( 2 field goals and one touchdown would have produced a minimum 2 game, probably 3 game, swing in the W-L record. If that had happened, I wonder how many would be debunking the defense?

I agree with you that the offense was putrid; but they had NOTHING to do with the defense giving up points on the first drive of the game; especially late in the season. Take a look...

Week 13 - NYG - Offense goes 3-and-out on first drive; Defense gives up 7pts on first drive
Week 14 - BAL - Offense intercepted on first drive; Defense gives up 7pts on first drive
Week 15 - CIN - Offense fumbles on first drive; Defense gives up 7pts on first drive
Week 17 - SF- Offense goes 3-and-out on first drive; Defense gives up 7pts on first drive

In 4 of the last 5 games of the season, the defense gave up a TD on the first drive of the game. Likewise, the offense either turned over the ball or punted after 3 plays on the first drive. Look; I hear ya on the offense, but don't blame them for the defense being tired in games, especially when they clearly couldn't get the job done on the first series when they were at their highest energy levels.

[Keino]

My second point to a successful run to get into the playoffs was increased turnover ratio. The first point was consistent pressure on opposition QB, should translate into more sacks. I think we agree on that. If this does occur then that helps the offense with improved field position and more opportunities with the football.

Back to the "debunking". The offense last year had opportunities - especially in the red zone and failed. Further TOP changed in second half with the defense having to be on the field for long stretches at critical times because the offense was 3 and out. Check that percentage out and see if that will not hurt a team and put the defense on its heels.


These issues are interrelated. The defense got wore down in the second half due to an anemic offense (start looking at time of possession and lack of 3rd down converrsions by our offense). But for our defense to still be rated 4th statistically ( also look at points scored against, etc) and then "debunk" the ranking and indicate the Redskins defense was not good is just wrong. If the offense had not faltered so glaring in the second half and actually scored ( 2 field goals and one touchdown would have produced a minimum 2 game, probably 3 game, swing in the W-L record. If that had happened, I wonder how many would be debunking the defense?

Actually, and I did this on one of the threads on this topic (don't have time to dig it up, maybe someone else can), where I examined the TOP stat. And I looked at it in terms of when we lost that battle in games that we lost. I don't remember exactly, but the conclusions drawn pretty much debunked entirely the myth that the Defense was tired/on the field too long.

In like 7 of the 9 losses (again, going off of bad memory here, so don't hold me to these numbers, but rather the concept) the Offense handed the Time of Possession lead to the Defense who gave it up on a long, time consuming 4th quarter drive. The offense actually sustained drives last year (not enough for my taste) but didn't score. The defensive failures cannot be blamed on the offense in most cases. This doesn't even mention the games that DJ points out in which the offnse had to operate coming from behind teh 2nd time they got the ball.

It's really not as simple as "If the Offense scored 5 more pts per game then we woulda.......yadda yadda yadda". The defense needs to create turnovers get sacks and score evey once in a while. Every team with Good defenses do this.