One Night Only: Offensive Packers-Redskins Game Review, Mythbusters Edition

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Maybe others have asked i dont know. Why does it seem like our offense has to be either the read option, designed run stuff or making Griff a pocket passer ? Why cant we roll him out several times a game and let him either throw or run based on what he sees? I mean even if he isnt 100% he is still more mobile than most qb's. Rolling him out also would not subject him to the punishment of the ro. Sort of a conventional run/pass happy medium is what im looking for. Why is it all or nothing?

I wasn't unhappy with the offensive approach against Green Bay like I was against Philadelphia, but it does strike me as similar to the plan when Grossman was our quarterback in 2011. It's very pass-centric, and we probably don't have the passing game to put that much of our hopes and dreams on it.

We ran the ball much better against GB than against Philly, but we didn't stick with it, part because of the score, part because I think that's a Kyle tendency.

More diversity in the offense cannot hurt, but some of that has to fall on the defense to keep us in the game a little longer.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I wasn't unhappy with the offensive approach against Green Bay like I was against Philadelphia, but it does strike me as similar to the plan when Grossman was our quarterback in 2011. It's very pass-centric, and we probably don't have the passing game to put that much of our hopes and dreams on it.

We ran the ball much better against GB than against Philly, but we didn't stick with it, part because of the score, part because I think that's a Kyle tendency.

More diversity in the offense cannot hurt, but some of that has to fall on the defense to keep us in the game a little longer.

GB pretty much stuffed the run in the 1st half giving up 52 yards which at first sounds not too bad. Problem is 32 of those yards cam on one play where we didn't score. Take that away and we had 20 yrds rushing at 2.85 per play.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

I know this is off topic but the one buzzword/phrase that everyone uses that gets on my nerves is - sample size. That buzzword always reminds me of food servers at a mall food court giving away little bite sized food samples with toothpicks.

An entire game, by definition, cannot be a sample. A sample is supposed to be a portion of something that is meant to represent the whole. I can see a series being a sample of a game, but what does a "sample size" really consist of?

One game represents a part of the whole season.

[warriorzpath]

... I don't think football or NFL experts are using that term correctly but whatever- it will continue to get on my nerves.

Another pet peeve is attaching "gate" to an nfl incident to represent a scandal like Bounty-gate or Spy-gate. "Gate" comes from the political scandal known as Watergate. Watergate was a facility where the scandal took place and not a scandal involving water. But Bountygate was a bounty scandal and Spygate was a spying scandal.

[ethat001]

Like the write-up GTripp, it's at least positive in a depressing time for us.

1) Two games is still a small sample size, statistics require a lot to be definitive.
2) Our O-line, RB's, TE's all struggle at pass blocking. We knew it, and we knew the zone read masked this issue. Last year in passing situations it was clear as well.
3) I think everyone agrees RG3 doesn't have his mojo yet, and I think when he gets it everything gets better. When you don't have IT the other team knows IT, your teammates know IT and get you get highlights on ESPN trying to hand off the ball in the wrong direction.
4) Gut feeling is that he planned to not run much in the beginning of season, and I wonder whether he'll start to run more as time goes on, when he's confident knee is back to normal.
5) The Eagles and GB games were tough to start off with RG3 and no practice -- but the next few games will be more of a true test of how we're progressing. If GTripp's writeup is true, we'll be seeing more blitzing and man coverage until RG3 learns how to beat it.

[warriorzpath]

My question is what is a good enough "sample size"? The point in that is- since it's a statistical term, there must be statistical way to figure that out, right? And if not, why not? That's partly why I don't get that term being used in football.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

My question is what is a good enough "sample size"? The point in that is- since it's a statistical term, there must be statistical way to figure that out, right? And if not, why not? That's partly why I don't get that term being used in football.

It all depends on what you're looking at of course, but if you want a blanket number where you have a sample that's not TOO small, I'd say 30 is pretty good.

30 games? Sure, you can start to use W/L to evaluate a team at that point. 30 passes? You can start to make conclusions off how a guy looks throwing a football.

There is a statistical way to figure it out. It's called a significance test. Basically, a significance tests only goal is to determine how likely that a result is due to random chance. If the sample is adequately large, something can be deemed significant. If not, it will tell you that something is not significant to 'X' degree of certainty (typically 90% or 95%).

There is no sample size in which something can be 100% certain, but most people are okay with something that is 99.9% certain.

It's a really math-y answer, but I don't have a non math-y way to describe a significance test.

[Green Monk Machine]

Sorry Tripp. I don't see how this has debunked these "myths". I think it's more complicated of a problem than defending Robert. The dude hasn't produced. Debate more of a scheme failure or whatever but he's not explosive or able to step into his throws, thus the arguement concedes that he isn't 100% physically b/c mentally the game out to be as slow as neo in the matrix.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Green Monk Machine

Sorry Tripp. I don't see how this has debunked these "myths". I think it's more complicated of a problem than defending Robert. The dude hasn't produced. Debate more of a scheme failure or whatever but he's not explosive or able to step into his throws, thus the arguement concedes that he isn't 100% physically b/c mentally the game out to be as slow as neo in the matrix.

It's probably less debunking than offering an alternative explanation. I was hard on the myth-creators where it was warranted, because a lot of the myths were started by people who should know better.

I wouldn't expect anyone to be less skeptical of my explanations themselves, but people know that I've gone through the game in a way that many haven't, so there's where the credibility comes from.

He's stepping into his throws pretty normally. I'm not trying to "defend" him or suggest that he's perfect. This analysis does neither of those things. It's to point out that this team went 9-6 with this guy throwing the football last year, and he's not lost or anything throwing the football. When you really sit down and watch play after play, the position that something is "off" in his pocket play won't hold up.

He's less effective from the pocket because the team isn't playing that well around him. Like at all. And I agree with the masses in this way: if Robert could rip off a big run or two with his legs, that would take a lot of pressure off his teammates to get open. But if his teammates could get separation, that would take a lot of pressure off Robert to run. It's a two way street.

And too much of the narrative focuses on what Robert isn't doing, which isn't THAT unusual, but he's getting very little help from his team. And this analysis just looked at the offense. The defense hasn't exactly been that competitive out there.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's probably less debunking than offering an alternative explanation. I was hard on the myth-creators where it was warranted, because a lot of the myths were started by people who should know better.

I wouldn't expect anyone to be less skeptical of my explanations themselves, but people know that I've gone through the game in a way that many haven't, so there's where the credibility comes from.

What does that even mean?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What does that even mean?

Obviously, GT watched the game while hanging upside down with a looking glass in one hand, and a bottle of scotch in the other. Thus giving him a perspective that is undoubtedly clearer than others sitting in a comfortable chair.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Obviously, GT watched the game while hanging upside down with a looking glass in one hand, and a bottle of scotch in the other. Thus giving him a perspective that is undoubtedly clearer than others sitting in a comfortable chair.

Well in that case, Gtripp and I should share.....hold on, Tripp what kinda Scotch do you drink?

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Obviously, GT watched the game while hanging upside down with a looking glass in one hand, and a bottle of scotch in the other. Thus giving him a perspective that is undoubtedly clearer than others sitting in a comfortable chair.

I always knew he was an alcoholic bat.

[Bucket]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What does that even mean?

He watched the game twice... lol

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What does that even mean?

Gtripp is really Kyle Shanahan