Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;246502]Here is my question... does anyone think that with TO, Randy Moss, Jerry Rice in his prime, etc, that they would have put up better stats than Lloyd and Randle El in this offense?[/quote]Yes they would. Of course, the entire offense would have been very different so that everyones stats would be different. For better or worse, we would be doing things much differently.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=illdefined]all the receivers are REALLY going to try and get separation now, because they know Campbell has the arm to really get it to them. even out of the pocket. the whole character of this team has changed. watch and see.[/QUOTE]If I can go back to this tired point for one second. Great, thanks.

Wasn't it you who said yesterday that Brunell's stats were so great because of "supreme efforts from great players"?

If so, how supreme are the efforts going to be now that Campbell is in? Can they get to a level of such supremity that we will never lose again? If so what do we have to do to bring out this sort of effort in them?

What we could do is get some high school scrub to play QB and then Randle El and Lloyd will try so damn hard that no one this side of the Atlantic could tackle them!

Of course I'm being ridiculous...but at least I'm not contradicting myself.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;246490]His versatility has certainly been a breath of fresh air, and his running and even throwing has propelled our still top 10 efficency rating (we dropped 3 spots after the Phili game if anyone cares). Even though it's narrow minded to look only at Randle El's receiving, he's been not so great so far. Between drops and not getting first downs that are right there...he's left more to be desired in that aspect of his game.

Worse than replacement doesn't mean that he CAN'T (or isn't) get the job done. It means he's not doing a job quite as well as some guy on the waiver wire (who doesn't completely suck) could.[/quote]

Wow... it's funny how some people are able to point out Randle El's flaws, in spite of the fact that he gets about four offensive touches a game, and yet Brunell, who touches the ball on every offensive play, can do no wrong...

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;246530]Of course I'm being ridiculous...but at least I'm
not contradicting myself.[/quote]

No, you're just blaming everyone but Brunell. Shocker...

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=Southpaw;246532]Wow... it's funny how some people are able to point out Randle El's flaws, in spite of the fact that he gets about four offensive touches a game, and yet Brunell, who touches the ball on every offensive play, can do no wrong...[/quote]Wha? I'm just using the DPAR metric to show how Brunell has been much better than average this season, and Randle El hasn't been replacement level. No one said anything about "doing no wrong".

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=Southpaw;246534]No, you're just blaming everyone but Brunell. Shocker...[/quote]Actually, the only place I put the blame was on our 30TH RANKED DEFENSE! And our OLine for getting really untimely penalties.

Randle El and Lloyd don't often affect the outcome of the game because they are recievers and don't touch the ball that often. They don't win and lose games for us unless they break a punt return or make a critical fumble.

Our D has lost 6 games for us.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;246530]If I can go back to this tired point for one second. Great, thanks.

Wasn't it you who said yesterday that Brunell's stats were so great because of "supreme efforts from great players"?

If so, how supreme are the efforts going to be now that Campbell is in? Can they get to a level of such supremity that we will never lose again? If so what do we have to do to bring out this sort of effort in them?

What we could do is get some high school scrub to play QB and then Randle El and Lloyd will try so damn hard that no one this side of the Atlantic could tackle them!

Of course I'm being ridiculous...but at least I'm not contradicting myself.[/QUOTE]

i said that? nah i don't think so. i surmised the WR's were starting to give up hope on no.8. i said no.8's stats were great because of BETTS. get your detractors straight.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;246515]Fair enough. I pulled some blurbs from FO to explain replacement level:

The last sententce says, quite obviously, that any hope or morale lost this season was lost due to losing, and losing alone. Morale doesn't have to be measured because it's a simple concept. You win, people are happy. You lose, people aren't.[/QUOTE]

thanks for the explanation, now all you have to do is make sure you let Gibbs and Saunders know.

course people aren't happy when they lose, and WRs are people too. in fact all players are people, including the O-Line having to maintain infinite pass protection to see the ball fly over their heads, and the defense trying to win the game all by themselves, and running backs trying to run into stacked wide zones set up by the QB's throwing tendencies. QB play affects alot more than just whatever stat you're clinging to.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;246536]Our D has lost 6 games for us.[/quote]

The only games that the defense is directly responsible for losing was the opener against the Vikings, and the Titans game. We'll throw in the Colts game too, but Peyton Manning and the best offensive team in the league are going to score points no matter what. Let's look at the three divisional losses.

Week 2 @ Dallas 10-27 - Three offensive points. Seven special teams points. Brunell's rating 61.6. Yeah. the sure offense did it's part that day...

Week 5 @ New York 3-19 - Three offensive points. Defense only gave up 19. Brunell's rating 68.2. See above.

Week 10 @ Philly 3-27 - Defense gave up a couple big plays, but again... three offensive points(notice a pattern?). Brunell's rating [B]49.4[/B].

So by you're logic, the defense should have given up less than 10 points to the Cowboys, and less than THREE points to the Giants and Eagles. Those losses have nothing to do with the fact that Brunell played like shit, right? But please, keep arguing how "above average" Brunell's season has been.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

The factor that everyone ignores when comparing defense to offense is morale. When the defense forces a three and out....which is rare this season i will admit, followed by a three and out by our offense, what do you think happens.................the defense is not only tired, but loses morale and motivation knowing the offense isnt producing. You cannot look at rankings, because with all the rankings taken into account the skins D ranks dead last in the league, 30th yards given up and last in forced turnovers and sacks (pretty bad). There is no way that you could truly think that the skins actually have the worst defense in the league. The offense is the main reason the defense is ranked so low, with that many possessoins for the other team, the yards are gonna add up, however, we have been getting some crucial stops at the end of games, with our offense following it up with a three and out. I believe we have a slightly below average defense, they just need the morale boost. Hopefully campbell is that.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=Southpaw;246552]The only games that the defense is directly responsible for losing was the opener against the Vikings, and the Titans game. We'll throw in the Colts game too, but Peyton Manning and the best offensive team in the league are going to score points no matter what. Let's look at the three divisional losses.

Week 2 @ Dallas 10-27 - Three offensive points. Seven special teams points. Brunell's rating 61.6. Yeah. the sure offense did it's part that day...

Week 5 @ New York 3-19 - Three offensive points. Defense only gave up 19. Brunell's rating 68.2. See above.

Week 10 @ Philly 3-27 - Defense gave up a couple big plays, but again... three offensive points(notice a pattern?). Brunell's rating [B]49.4[/B].

So by you're logic, the defense should have given up less than 10 points to the Cowboys, and less than THREE points to the Giants and Eagles. Those losses have nothing to do with the fact that Brunell played like shit, right? But please, keep arguing how "above average" Brunell's season has been.[/quote]If you watched the Giants game, you would know that our offense didn't ever have the football because the Giants did nothing but convert third downs, control the clock and get field goals. 3 points yeah, in something like 6 possessions. The Giants would have scored much more than 19 but ran out of time. Anyone who watched would tell you that was our worst defensive game so far.

The other two games were total team losses. The offense played bad, and the D played even worse. Your logic that the D would have to give less then three points in those games for us to win is an incredibly jaded view because if they did they would be UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY WINNING THE GAME FOR US. They do have to keep us competitive, which they haven't done, evidenced by our 30th ranking in the league.

Notice that all three divisional losses are on the road. Theres a school of thought in NFL circle that says regardless of record and talent, when it comes to division games, the home team should always be favored. This is because the teams know each other so well that most of it comes down to who can gameplan the best, and the home team has the one advantage. [U][B]This is completely ignoring the fact that the Giants and Eagles are two of the league's three best teams (by DVOA).[/B][/U]

Your carefully selected three game sample size (out of 9 I might add), is stirring but really paints the picture that you want to see. Doesn't look on the season as a whole.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;246557]The factor that everyone ignores when comparing defense to offense is morale. When the defense forces a three and out....which is rare this season i will admit, followed by a three and out by our offense, what do you think happens.................the defense is not only tired, but loses morale and motivation knowing the offense isnt producing. [B]You cannot look at rankings, because with all the rankings taken into account the skins D ranks dead last in the league, 30th yards given up and last in forced turnovers and sacks (pretty bad). [U][I]There is no way that you could truly think that the skins actually have the worst defense in the league.[/I][/U][/B] The offense is the main reason the defense is ranked so low, with that many possessoins for the other team, the yards are gonna add up, however, we have been getting some crucial stops at the end of games, with our offense following it up with a three and out. I believe we have a slightly below average defense, they just need the morale boost. Hopefully campbell is that.[/quote]Oww. Owwwww. Owwwww.

So you are saying that all the evidence points to us having the leagues worst D, but that couldn't be...because we're the Washington Redskins. Therefore is has to be the offense by process of elimination? Is that so? Damn...I was way off.

The Defense is the main reason they are ranked so low. Offenses against us have horrible average starting field position. But we give up so many points against. First of all, is that not the mark of a terrible defense? Second of all, would that not be more demoralizing to the offense than the offense is to the defense?

Why would Campbell boost the morale of the team any more than the loss of Portis would lower it? Portis is the lifeblood of the offense.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

Our D lost his season for us, period.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=hesscl34;246582]Our D lost [B]his[/B] season for us, period.[/QUOTE]

SUCH a fruedian slip.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;246557]The factor that everyone ignores when comparing defense to offense is morale. When the defense forces a three and out....which is rare this season i will admit, followed by a three and out by our offense, what do you think happens.................the defense is not only tired, but loses morale and motivation knowing the offense isnt producing. You cannot look at rankings, because with all the rankings taken into account the skins D ranks dead last in the league, 30th yards given up and last in forced turnovers and sacks (pretty bad). There is no way that you could truly think that the skins actually have the worst defense in the league. T[U]he offense is the main reason the defense is ranked so low[/U], with that many possessoins for the other team, the yards are gonna add up, however, we have been getting some crucial stops at the end of games, with our offense following it up with a three and out. I believe we have a slightly below average defense, they just need the morale boost. Hopefully campbell is that.[/quote]

That's some flawed reasoning there my friend.

I don't know what games you've been watching... but teams are able to score early, sustain drives, control the clock, and get the big plays they need.

You prove this yourself, "the skins D ranks dead last in the league, 30th yards given up and last in forced turnovers and sacks (pretty bad)". The Defense IS really that bad. That has nothing to do with our offense.

Brunell may not have been the best QB, but he, and his offense, can by no means can be used for an excuse as to our lack of Defensive play.

Lets put that argument to rest.....please!