This Skins Stat Says A Lot About Us

When was the last time we blew someone out? I mean just thoroughly kicked their ass without hanging on to the edge of our seats at the end of a game? Having some of those would make me feel better about really being competitive.

When was the last time we blew someone out? I mean just thoroughly kicked their ass without hanging on to the edge of our seats at the end of a game? Having some of those would make me feel better about really being competitive.

Good point. That has not happened in a long time. The ability to string together a couple of good games where the outcome is not really in doubt is the mark of a team that is good. Always being "so close" is the mark of a team that is just not good. There is no mistaking us for one of the better teams in the league, and there is a reason for that. Its because we are not one, even with RG3.

When was the last time we blew someone out? I mean just thoroughly kicked their ass without hanging on to the edge of our seats at the end of a game? Having some of those would make me feel better about really being competitive.

Good question. Define blowout? By more than two TDs? By more than 3 TDs? Ill say when I went through this stat season by season, we beat Detroit one year 55-14. Another year we beat San Fran 52-7. We beat the rams a few years ago 33-16...is that a blowout in your opinion?

From my memory...the last time was when Steve Spurrier was the Redskins coach.

Good teams blowout bad teams and have somewhat consistent decisive victories. We are not a good team, even with RG3 at the helm. I hope that with RG3's development and an influx of talent, this will change.

Honestly this stat has a glass half empty/glass half full kind of view to it.

It tells me that we are the most competitive team in the NFL, and consistently.

Btw, the difference between us and the Lions/Browns is 7 games. Thats practically a whole seasons worth of wins. You can interpret that in more than one way.

Also I may add in that Pittsburgh and Atlanta AND Cincinnati and Philly, both had ties in that 10 years. I did not count the ties as a loss nor towards this data (it wouldn't affect the Redskins from finishing at the top)

Detroit went winless in 08, and of all 16 games that they lost, only 5 of them were close.

Buffalo, who comes in just after us at number 5 is the only team in the past 10 years to not make the playoffs.

This stat shows whos franchise has been the most stable and consistently good team in the NFL in this time. New England is obvious, but after them, Indy, and New York Giants, the steelers, then the panthers. The panthers, while they haven't been that good in the past recent years, they were a tough team to beat in the early years.

This stat tells you to limit those close games, and you have a better chance of winning.

Look at the GB packers of 2010, they were the only team on my list who lost all their games by 8 points or less and won the super bowl.

I guess what may be misleading or deceiving about this stat is comparing two teams with similar close lose amounts, but different season results.

Example, The 09 Rams and the 2010 Packers. Both teams had 6 close losses. The packers however went 10-6 and won the super bowl. The Rams in 09 went 1-15.

Back to the redskins. This stat shows that we have been competitive over time, and we've had different players and different coaches but the same results. Maybe its not the team, maybe this is where the finger gets pointed at ownership, because thats been the only consistent in all this.

This is some of the shittiest thinking I've ever seen on this site.

The reason the Patriots have the fewest close wins/losses is because they were blowing everyone away. Putting up consistent close games means nothing more than you were mediocre, it's the result of not being good enough to blow teams out.

We all know the Redskins have been mediocre to bad over the last 10 years, we can see that with our own eyes. The reason so many losses were close is because our defense was good and limited the scores put up by the other team. Also, opposing offenses saw how inept our own offense was, so when they had a lead they felt no need to remain aggressive. They played keep away and ran the clock out, knowing that QBs like Tony Banks, Danny Weurffel, Patrick Ramsey and Rex Grossman were nothing special and not likely to come from behind.

It's this simple: for a long time we had good defense but no QB. Now we finally have the QB, but no defense. The QB is the harder thing to put in place, so things are looking up. But ultimately if you want to win consistently you need both.

Honestly this stat has a glass half empty/glass half full kind of view to it.

It tells me that we are the most competitive team in the NFL, and consistently.

Btw, the difference between us and the Lions/Browns is 7 games. Thats practically a whole seasons worth of wins. You can interpret that in more than one way.

Also I may add in that Pittsburgh and Atlanta AND Cincinnati and Philly, both had ties in that 10 years. I did not count the ties as a loss nor towards this data (it wouldn't affect the Redskins from finishing at the top)

Detroit went winless in 08, and of all 16 games that they lost, only 5 of them were close.

Buffalo, who comes in just after us at number 5 is the only team in the past 10 years to not make the playoffs.

This stat shows whos franchise has been the most stable and consistently good team in the NFL in this time. New England is obvious, but after them, Indy, and New York Giants, the steelers, then the panthers. The panthers, while they haven't been that good in the past recent years, they were a tough team to beat in the early years.

This stat tells you to limit those close games, and you have a better chance of winning.

Look at the GB packers of 2010, they were the only team on my list who lost all their games by 8 points or less and won the super bowl.

I guess what may be misleading or deceiving about this stat is comparing two teams with similar close lose amounts, but different season results.

Example, The 09 Rams and the 2010 Packers. Both teams had 6 close losses. The packers however went 10-6 and won the super bowl. The Rams in 09 went 1-15.

Back to the redskins. This stat shows that we have been competitive over time, and we've had different players and different coaches but the same results. Maybe its not the team, maybe this is where the finger gets pointed at ownership, because thats been the only consistent in all this.

Cult, Cult, you really think we are the most competitive team in the league? Damn man, Im all for unbridled optimism, but if you aren't Dan Snyder in Cult Brennan's clothes, I just don't know what to say? Maybe "How's the weather up there in Fantasy Land?"

From my memory...the last time was when Steve Spurrier was the Redskins coach.

Your memory is pretty hazy

Good teams blowout bad teams and have somewhat consistent decisive victories. We are not a good team, even with RG3 at the helm. I hope that with RG3's development and an influx of talent, this will change.

Our team isn't defined yet. This season is far from over. We could just be a good team playing bad football. We just need to play good football. Despite what's happened so far this season, this Redskins team still has a chance to redefine itself and play better football down the stretch. I'm still optimistic about the Redskins chances of winning the division and making the playoffs. I know we can accomplish this.

Good question. Define blowout? By more than two TDs? By more than 3 TDs? Ill say when I went through this stat season by season, we beat Detroit one year 55-14. Another year we beat San Fran 52-7. We beat the rams a few years ago 33-16...is that a blowout in your opinion?

For the Skins a blowout would be having 2 minutes left in the game and the fans don't even think about how we might be able to give the game away... Can't remember one of those.