SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

I'm not saying that you'd be a delusional fan and think that we have a top 5 backfield, but don't f'ing shoot us down fiercely if we think the players of our team are a bit better than what the sports media says. Shoot, I think the Giants and Eagles fans on this board have a better opinion of our team than some of us fans.

Whats the point of a Redskin fan like myself debating instead of being ranked 26th we should be ranked around 20th. Either way the answer to why we are ranked low remains the same. It would be one thing if we had a top 10 QB/RB combo and they ranked us 26th. They ranked us 26th because as far as QB/RB combos go ours isnt that good as of today. Maybe there are 5 or 6 teams ahead of us that shouldnt be. The difference between 20th and 26th isnt a big enough difference for me to post that SI screwed us over in their rankings.

No, I get the fact that it's a key indicator, which is why I wondered if you were going to take it further, or just leave it as is and allow people to draw conclusions from it. That's why I asked if you had anything else that supported the position that you implied, but never stated.

I think it's implied that you feel Campbell is responsible for most of the 8 losses last year, and if not him, someone else on the offense. But I don't think that the reality of the situation suggests that. I'm not disputing that we didn't score enough points to win more than 8 games. But I think our offense was plenty good enough to support a 10 or 11 win team, and also that our PPG would have improved with a different coaching philosophy and a better year from Suisham.

At the end of the day, the team went out to fix the defense in free agency and in the draft, so either 1) we're stupid beyond all hell, 2) Springs and Taylor were irreplaceable parts in the defense last year, or 3) the team concluded that the defense, as was, wasn't good enough.

Our offense was good enough to support 11 wins? in what, soccer?

The team tried hardest to find a new QB, in both free agency and the draft.

We had the third least 3 and outs of any team in the NFL. Does this change your opinion of the offense at all?

Actually no. We were 26th in 3rd down converisons in 2008 with 35% so I just assumed we had alot of 3 and outs. At least it felt that way to me watching the offense last year.

Whats the point of a Redskin fan like myself debating instead of being ranked 26th we should be ranked around 20th. Either way the answer to why we are ranked low remains the same. It would be one thing if we had a top 10 QB/RB combo and they ranked us 26th. They ranked us 26th because as far as QB/RB combos go ours isnt that good as of today. Maybe there are 5 or 6 teams ahead of us that shouldnt be. The difference between 20th and 26th isnt a big enough difference for me to post that SI screwed us over in their rankings.I generally agree with this perspective. But I also realize that it's normal for fans of teams to see "bottom 7" instead of "in the 3rd quartile". Truth is, we can't tell what the author was saying. So fans just get offended preemptively.

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

Irrationality is the standard.

Whats the point of a Redskin fan like myself debating instead of being ranked 26th we should be ranked around 20th. Either way the answer to why we are ranked low remains the same. It would be one thing if we had a top 10 QB/RB combo and they ranked us 26th. They ranked us 26th because as far as QB/RB combos go ours isnt that good as of today. Maybe there are 5 or 6 teams ahead of us that shouldnt be. The difference between 20th and 26th isnt a big enough difference for me to post that SI screwed us over in their rankings.

I think you make a fair point and some people would say that it is not worth making an argument. My comment was geared more towards people that spend a lot of time and energy arguing down others who think we are better. In the end this ranking is as pointless as arguing whether our backfield is 26th or 20th. But at the same time, people shouldn't be surprised when a fan doesn't like to see their team rank so low.

Actually no. We were 26th in 3rd down converisons in 2008 with 35% so I just assumed we had alot of 3 and outs. At least it felt that way to me watching the offense last year.Well, we converted 67% of our first and tens for first downs, and that figure was above the league average. It just so happened that we were WELL above the league average at the start of drives.

That would seem to either be a credit to the playcalling, or just statistical noise. But converting 67% of our first and tens into another first and tens is a real trend. Of course, that also means that 33% of our drives failed, and that we weren't a great third down team, and while 33% is a good drive failure rate, it's not nearly good enough for an offense with zero big play ability, and a declining success rate as it gets closer to the opponents goal line.

We were a well above average between our own 20 and our own 40. But on the other side of the 50, we were a far below average offense. It's interesting how our field position seemed to determine our success rate, but when your greatest offensive weapon brings only the threat of a deep pass, and hardly any actual production, it's easy to justify what happened.

I think you make a fair point and some people would say that it is not worth making an argument. My comment was geared more towards people that spend a lot of time and energy arguing down others who think we are better. In the end this ranking is as pointless as arguing whether our backfield is 26th or 20th. But at the same time, people shouldn't be surprised when a fan doesn't like to see their team rank so low.Yep. If the author had said, "right now, at least half the teams in the NFL had stronger backfields than the Redskins" not many would have argued. But when people see a rankings list, you can see right away who the author is deeming to be "better" than you. Then comes the, "I've seen players x, and y, play before, and they aren't better than my team's guys."

That's usually true, but out of the guys who are ranked behind you, chances are a few of them are actually going to be better than you this year as well.

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

I hope no one thinks we had a great defense last year. We had a pretty good defense and at times they played great. A great defense was a defense like the Steelers last year. They could do it all and they carried their offense in games. Our defense did its job and I think they played good last year. I dont think they were great though. I do think this years defenses has the potenial to be the best in the game with the additions of Haynesworth and Orakpo.

I think you make a fair point and some people would say that it is not worth making an argument. My comment was geared more towards people that spend a lot of time and energy arguing down others who think we are better. In the end this ranking is as pointless as arguing whether our backfield is 26th or 20th. But at the same time, people shouldn't be surprised when a fan doesn't like to see their team rank so low.

Its the offseason. Its kinda funny when were all going back and forth about a useless ranking of QB/RB combos. :laughing2

Also here's the statistics:
QB's;
9th-Cutler: threw for 4,526 yrds, 25td's, and 18inter. Rating 86.0
24th-Orton: threw for 2,972 yrds, 18td's, and 12inter. Rating 79.6
26th-Campbell: threw for 3,245 yrds, 18td's, and 6int. Rating 84.3


Where do you get these stats from 9th Cutler, 24th Orton, 26th JC?
How can a list have JC who has the same TD count as Orton, more yards, fewer interceptions and has a higher QB rating yet have JC ranked 26th and Orton ranked 24th?

NFL Stats: by Player Category (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&statisticCategory=PASSING&d-447263-s=PASSING_PASSER_RATING&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=0&d-447263-p=1)

NFL.com has Cutler 16th, JC 19th, Orton 25th by rating

Well, we converted 67% of our first and tens for first downs, and that figure was above the league average. It just so happened that we were WELL above the league average at the start of drives.

That would seem to either be a credit to the playcalling, or just statistical noise. But converting 67% of our first and tens into another first and tens is a real trend. Of course, that also means that 33% of our drives failed, and that we weren't a great third down team, and while 33% is a good drive failure rate, it's not nearly good enough for an offense with zero big play ability, and a declining success rate as it gets closer to the opponents goal line.

We were a well above average between our own 20 and our own 40. But on the other side of the 50, we were a far below average offense. It's interesting how our field position seemed to determine our success rate, but when your greatest offensive weapon brings only the threat of a deep pass, and hardly any actual production, it's easy to justify what happened.

Nice post. I actually didnt know that stat about the 1st and 10s. Thats actually pretty impressive. Watching the Skins last year it really didnt feel like we were that successful starting drives. I guess the offenses failure to score on a regular basis made me feel that way. It just seemed like we punted so much last year. I guess the offense stalled after we picked up a little steam on drives. You would think the way the offense slowed down we would of had more 3 and outs. Thats pretty interesting.