This Skins Stat Says A Lot About Us

[conormonster]

Originally Posted by Mechanix544

This means absolutely nothing, btw. Look at the teams at the top, the best in the league over that span, and look at the teams on the bottom, the worst. Its a damning figure, not one to take and try to squeeze optimism out of. Anytime you are compared with the Clevelands and Detroits of the NFL, thats usually not a good thing, no matter how the shanahan apologists (or anyone) want to spin it.

Couldn't agree more

[REDSKINS4ever]

That's an irritating stat. It's also aggravating. To have 2 wiinning seasons during that time span is also annoying. Oftentimes you can find the reasons on the offensive side of the ball as being poor QB play or sight too many turnovers. On defense it could be allowing the opposing offense to convert on too many 3rd downs or allowing too much yardage.

[Zerohero]

i would love to see our record if we only played 3 quarters every game for that same timespan in OP.

[CultBrennan59]

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

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.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

I can think of shittier thinking and shittier threads on this site. You fit in the glass half empty crowd. You don't think that with proper coaching we can't get over some of those close losses?

[Mechanix544]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

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?"

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

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.

I would say finding ways to win games on a consistent basis makes you "competitive".

Not losing close ones all the time.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I would say finding ways to win games on a consistent basis makes you "competitive".

Not losing close ones all the time.

Exactly; this is the NFL not NBA, MLB and/or NHL. A two win difference between teams is huge here.

If the Skins were 5-4 right now vs. 3-6; it be a lot sunnier around here. Two win difference any other league means jack.

I wonder if there is a metric that would compare how good the best NFL teams are compared how good NBA/MLB/NHL best teams are.

For example who is the worst team:

CLE Browns or the NO Hornets

Or the best team:

ATL Falcons or MIA Heat

I guess I am trying to say what is the dealt of quality between good teams in the NFL and poor teams versus other leagues.

I think without any research that the level of quality between NFL teams is higher then other leagues. Basically it takes more energy/talent for the Falcons to roll the Browns then the Heat to roll the Hornets.

[Meks]

[QUOTE=mredskins;963263]Exactly; this is the NFL not NBA, MLB and/or NHL. A two win difference between teams is huge here.

QUOTE]


yea NFL season is also like 70 games shorter than some of the other leagues....

[mredskins]

[quote=Meks;963269]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Exactly; this is the NFL not NBA, MLB and/or NHL. A two win difference between teams is huge here.

QUOTE]


yea NFL season is also like 70 games shorter than some of the other leagues....

Really? Thanks.

[skinsfaninok]

It may be ownership but that's a waist of argument because Dan isn't selling the team anytime soon.

[44ever]

It would be interesting to see a stat for most Punt/KO returned TD's called back. I know we are notorious for that as well.

[Schneed10]

I think all this stat says is that for the past decade or so we have been largely a defensive minded team. Scores were lower because our defense was good and our offense stunk - because we had no QB.

There's a huge difference between losing 17 to 13 vs 33 to 29. In the high scoring game you feel like all you needed was one stop, or to be the last team to have the ball. When you lose 17 to 13 like we did for so many years, you felt like you were a star QB away from being competitive.

Which was completely true.

[53Fan]

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.