Have we discussed???

[hagams]

Last year, we lost too many games, and this is something we all know. Since I've joined this site (not that long ago) I have learned and heard just about every reason we didn't pull out more wins last year. One thing I haven't seen discussed is how we couldn't hold on to a lead in the second half, or score/hold the oppenents on key drives. Our discussions have been about free agents, trades, and the draft. I'm pretty concerned about this and I wish I had the figures to back up my thread, but I'm not any good at getting stats together.

Do you think we have addressed these problems? I don't think this is something we can fix just through the draft and free angency alone.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hagams

Last year, we lost too many games, and this is something we all know. Since I've joined this site (not that long ago) I have learned and heard just about every reason we didn't pull out more wins last year. One thing I haven't seen discussed is how we couldn't hold on to a lead in the second half, or score/hold the oppenents on key drives. Our discussions have been about free agents, trades, and the draft. I'm pretty concerned about this and I wish I had the figures to back up my thread, but I'm not any good at getting stats together.

Do you think we have addressed these problems? I don't think this is something we can fix just through the draft and free angency alone.

Well, Hagams, I see where you are coming from, but try looking at it from this angle:

Each football game that's ever been played is unique in and of itself. One of the great things about the sport is that a lot of crazy, fun stuff can happen, and for no good reason. A lot of what goes on in football games is just random functions of dumb luck, and the unlucky team just has to overcome. Such is the world of football, and all sports even.

Were their occurences where we gave up a lead last year? Certainly. Did we usually fail to score when we needed it and also fail to hold our oppenents when we needed it? Of course. Does this mean we have an inherent team issue with either of these things? Not at all.

A football season is only 16 games long, so its tough to say the luck will even out. We certainly overcame Dallas and Jacksonville in dramatic fashion, and got some timely luck against Carolina and New Orleans. So it wasn't all bad. Just give it 16 more games. I promise the chances of 2006 repeating itself for us are astronomical.

Just because something happened once or twice does not give us reason to expect it will ever happen again.

[Aussie_Skins_Fan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Each football game that's ever been played is unique in and of itself. One of the great things about the sport is that a lot of crazy, fun stuff can happen, and for no good reason. A lot of what goes on in football games is just random functions of dumb luck, and the unlucky team just has to overcome. Such is the world of football, and all sports even.

Of course there is some luck involved in sports, but good coaching and the right players executing correctly should leave so little to chance that it wouldn't effect the outcome of a game. E.g. The win over Dallas shouldn't have come down to luck, as much as i hate to say it if Dallas had executed better they would have won and the lucky block and return and FG wouldn't have mattered. TO drops a deep ball which no doubt would have been a TD that finished us, luck or lack of execution?

The best teams in this league usually win there games, why? Better coaching and better execution from their players. The Patriots dynasty was not built upon being lucky, they were brilliantly coached and their players executed when it counted. If we are relying on luck to win another championship, i fear we will be waiting for a very, very long time!

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

A lot of what goes on in football games is just random functions of dumb luck

This bit particularly annoys me! How can you possibly believe this?! GTripp just about all the posts of yours that i've read are accurate, insightful and well researched. But to say that alot of what goes on in football is just random luck simply isn't true, if a CB bites on a pump fake is it because the QB got lucky or is it the hours of game film that they have studied to find the weakness in that CB?!

If someone on the o-line gets beat is it luck or is it that the d has figured out a weakness in his technique?!

A WR makes a spectacular catch, is it luck or the hours upon hours of work he puts into his ball skills?!

A RB breaks a tackle to go all the way, luck or poor tackling with a bit of power running?!

A LB ripps the ball out during a tackle, luck or great defence!?

I could go on all day. Back to the blocked field goal in last seasons cowboys game, luck, or great commitment and execution by Vincent and poor execution from Dallas. The ball landing near Taylor was lucky, but his skills to pick it up and run it were not luck.

Please explain yourself, i hope that i am missing something here.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Skins_Fan

Of course there is some luck involved in sports, but good coaching and the right players executing correctly should leave so little to chance that it wouldn't effect the outcome of a game. E.g. The win over Dallas shouldn't have come down to luck, as much as i hate to say it if Dallas had executed better they would have won and the lucky block and return and FG wouldn't have mattered. TO drops a deep ball which no doubt would have been a TD that finished us, luck or lack of execution?

The best teams in this league usually win there games, why? Better coaching and better execution from their players. The Patriots dynasty was not built upon being lucky, they were brilliantly coached and their players executed when it counted. If we are relying on luck to win another championship, i fear we will be waiting for a very, very long time!



This bit particularly annoys me! How can you possibly believe this?! GTripp just about all the posts of yours that i've read are accurate, insightful and well researched. But to say that alot of what goes on in football is just random luck simply isn't true, if a CB bites on a pump fake is it because the QB got lucky or is it the hours of game film that they have studied to find the weakness in that CB?!

If someone on the o-line gets beat is it luck or is it that the d has figured out a weakness in his technique?!

A WR makes a spectacular catch, is it luck or the hours upon hours of work he puts into his ball skills?!

A RB breaks a tackle to go all the way, luck or poor tackling with a bit of power running?!

A LB ripps the ball out during a tackle, luck or great defence!?

I could go on all day. Back to the blocked field goal in last seasons cowboys game, luck, or great commitment and execution by Vincent and poor execution from Dallas. The ball landing near Taylor was lucky, but his skills to pick it up and run it were not luck.

Please explain yourself, i hope that i am missing something here.

The thing is that a football game can turn on one play. Even in all the situations you named, none are sure things. Anything that can happen but is not a certainty can be a random occurance. Do you follow?

Ladell Betts gets the ball stripped by nameless St. Louis DB late in the 4th quarter of a close game. Careless on the part of Betts? Sure. Alert play by the DB? Yeah, I'll give him credit. But unless this would be the outcome of every occurence that involved contact between the ballcarrying Betts and nameless DB, there is at least SOME luck involved in it. If there wasn't, Betts would be stripped every time that man reached in on him.

I'm not saying that Betts isn't fumble prone or that the St. Louis player doesn't have a knack for stripping the ball. Certainly, a forced fumble would only be the outcome of this play a small percentage of the time. But, as you see, this semi-lucky occurence completely changed the outcome of the game. One more loss on the board for Washington, one more with for STL.

Now, there are some occurences in a game that are completely random and can change the course of the game. What if instead of St. Louis recovering the Betts' fumble, the ball bounced our way and Todd Wade ended up on top of it? Or what if the ball hops out of bounds instead of into the arms of a STL player? We in all likelyhood win in regulation.

Look, skill does determine who is supposed to win the game. But let me give you an example about how a clearly inferior team can win a game. 2006 NFL playoffs, New England at San Diego. At the end of the game, the final scoreboard read 24-21 in favor of NE. What it didn't read is that there were 5 total forced fumbles in that game. 3 fumbles by the Chargers, 2 by the Patriots. It can be argued that all 5 of these fumbles were at least partially a function of skill. What cannot be argued is that the Patriots were beyond lucky to recover all 5 fumbles. If you assume the chances at recovering any given fumble at roughly one half, there is about a 3% chance that given an identical situation, the Pats would be able to recover 5 fumbles again.

And we all know the value of a turnover in football. It can take points off the board for one team, and/or put points on the board for the other. I feel its reasonable to assume that even had the Chargers just recovered one of the 5 fumbles, they would have won the game. This can be supported if you imagine the Troy Brown strip of Marlon McCree being recovered by Donnie Edwards, and not by the Patriots. If the Chargers take over there, what is the likelyhood the Pats come back to win?

And that STILL gives the Pats a 4 FR to 1 FR luck advantage. This is still a pretty unlikely scenario in favor of the Pats, but they would have lost.

The Chargers were a much better team on that day. And it took every bounce of the ball for the Pats to pull it off.

Let's face it, if luck weren't a deciding factor in football, the best team on the field would win 100% of the time. The fact that 35-40% of NFL games end in upsets just how randomly decided NFL games can be.

[Aussie_Skins_Fan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ladell Betts gets the ball stripped by nameless St. Louis DB late in the 4th quarter of a close game. Careless on the part of Betts? Sure. Alert play by the DB? Yeah, I'll give him credit. But unless this would be the outcome of every occurence that involved contact between the ballcarrying Betts and nameless DB, there is at least SOME luck involved in it. If there wasn't, Betts would be stripped every time that man reached in on him.

I'm not saying that Betts isn't fumble prone or that the St. Louis player doesn't have a knack for stripping the ball. Certainly, a forced fumble would only be the outcome of this play a small percentage of the time. But, as you see, this semi-lucky occurence completely changed the outcome of the game. One more loss on the board for Washington, one more with for STL.

As i posted originally the bounce of the ball is a factor of luck (the sean taylor recovery after blocked FG).

But in this instance it isn't luck. One player had the ball stripped by another player. It is simple execution. The nameless DB may not execute that tackle that well all the time and Betts may not be so careless all the time, that isn't luck, its execution. E.g. Tiki Barber was fumble prone, had his technique fixed then hardly ever fumbled, it wasn't because his luck turned around, it was becuase he changed his carrying technique.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Let's face it, if luck weren't a deciding factor in football, the best team on the field would win 100% of the time. The fact that 35-40% of NFL games end in upsets just how randomly decided NFL games can be.

I like the Charges V Pats stuff, to recover all 5 fumbles is somewhat lucky, i'll give you that. But i don't think we can specualte what the outcome of the game would have been had some of the fumbles gone the other way. As you said a turnover is huge and changes games, so that is something we will never know.

The best team on the field is surely the team that wins the game?! The idea of an upset is based upon form from previous games, and preconceptions of what level of execution each team is capable of producing on the day. It has nothing to do with luck. A team with a bad record beats a team with a good record, you cant just dismiss that as luck. There must have been better execution by one team!

There is luck in football. But I beleive that anyone who looks at a team over an entire season and says, 'well we were unlucky' and uses that as an excuse is wrong. Luck plays such an insignificant factor in the outcome of games that is shoudln't even be discussed as a posibility to explain a loss or loosing season. If the front office gets the right coaches and players; those coaches train the players the right way and come up with the right gameplans; then the players execute on the field: you will win football games. Regardless of luck.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Skins_Fan

As i posted originally the bounce of the ball is a factor of luck (the sean taylor recovery after blocked FG).

But in this instance it isn't luck. One player had the ball stripped by another player. It is simple execution. The nameless DB may not execute that tackle that well all the time and Betts may not be so careless all the time, that isn't luck, its execution. E.g. Tiki Barber was fumble prone, had his technique fixed then hardly ever fumbled, it wasn't because his luck turned around, it was becuase he changed his carrying technique.

I like the Charges V Pats stuff, to recover all 5 fumbles is somewhat lucky, i'll give you that. But i don't think we can specualte what the outcome of the game would have been had some of the fumbles gone the other way. As you said a turnover is huge and changes games, so that is something we will never know.

The bounce of the ball following a fumble is probably the single most obvious and decisive way luck strikes. It can kill a successful drive, or essentially hand the other team points. But that doesn't mean that it's the only way that it strikes.

I guess whether or not the Betts fumble should be considered part luck is all about the level at which you perceive the fumble. I would agree with you that on an on field level (single play) that you could entirely attribute the forced fumble to a lapse in concentration by Betts and an alert play by a defensive back. But because you are looking at it from a single play level, there are no consequences from the fumble, and essentially, knowing who recovered is irrelivant.

But what if you look at the play from an entire game or season level. Certainly, that changes the perception of the play. Now, there are massive conseqences attached to the fumble and subsequent recovery. In all likelyhood, the Redskins were cost a game. Now, if you believe that Betts' fumble was a product of a lapse of concentration, you also have to believe that there was something that Betts or the coaches could have done during the season to prevent this play. You'd have to argue that the possiblity of getting stripped in the exact manner he did was a possibility he'd have to account for (and it certainly is).

So that brings up an interesting question: Is the reasonable expectation for an NFL runningback to never fumble over the course of the year? I think you'd get a lot of different answers depending on who you asked, but I personally think if a guy is going to tote the ball 250-300 times a year, putting the ball on the turf is simply going to happen a percentage of the time (unpreventable). Now, some backs are more prone to fumbling than others, and I'd lump Betts into this category, but if you find me a back that would have made the same carry Betts did given identical situations and could run that play a million times without coughing up the football once, then it would be completely a function of skill. Since such a player doesn't exist, and all RBs as tenured as Betts can put the ball on the ground, I'll maintain that the fact the he fumbled on that individual play was at least somewhat a function of luck, since if Betts had been in that exact same scenario again (same fatigue level and player baring down on him), its highly unlikely he would have fumbled again.

The best team on the field is surely the team that wins the game?! The idea of an upset is based upon form from previous games, and preconceptions of what level of execution each team is capable of producing on the day. It has nothing to do with luck. A team with a bad record beats a team with a good record, you cant just dismiss that as luck. There must have been better execution by one team!

There is luck in football. But I beleive that anyone who looks at a team over an entire season and says, 'well we were unlucky' and uses that as an excuse is wrong. Luck plays such an insignificant factor in the outcome of games that is shoudln't even be discussed as a posibility to explain a loss or loosing season. If the front office gets the right coaches and players; those coaches train the players the right way and come up with the right gameplans; then the players execute on the field: you will win football games. Regardless of luck.

A lot of what you are saying is dead on, but you've come to an ultimate conclusion that I completely disagree with.

I think by virtue of definition, anything that isn't lucky would have to be a repeatable, predictable and at least remotely probably occurance. Anything that wouldn't be predictable, or remotely probable would have to be considered luck.

When I say best team on the field, I mean best team on the field that DAY. 98% of the time, that also would be the most talented team that year. But that remaining 2% includes occurences in which a coach's gameplan (usually not a huge factor) gives a hard and decisive advantage to one team or the other. The result is that said team, who on most weeks of the season would be the underdog, comes out and outplays the favorite. Since they are playing better football than the favorite, I would consider them the best team on the field that day.

But make no mistake about it, you don't have to be the best team on the field, or even close to it, to have the ability to win that game, as the Pats proved this year.

Now, over 16 games (which isn't a big sample), most teams luck will even out somewhat. But there are 32 NFL teams. The chances that one team doesn't get really lucky EVERY season and another team doesn't get really unlucky every season are pretty low. I mean, the chances that 32 different teams see their luck even out over a 16 game season is pretty crappy. Don't get me wrong, a majority of these teams will for sure. But every year it seems you get a 2001 Patriots, 2004 Falcons, or 2006 Jets, or on the other side of the spectrum, a 2004 Bills, 2005 Chiefs, or Tampa Bay seemingly every other year. These teams simply don't have their luck catch up with them, and their records end up so much different than the talent and coaching level of their team.

The simplest way to sum this all up is just to admit that "shit happens", and that sometimes you just don't have the time to overcome it. On a single game level, luck is a decisive and undeniable factor that makes picking games nothing more than playing the percentages. On a seasonal level, it won't affect most teams more than a win or two in either direction--but every year you get those outliers who just simply had an entire season made or broken by stupid bounces of the ball (4-5 wins in either direction). Happens every year to someone.

[Schneed10]

Yeah I think we could say that we had trouble holding a lead at times, but there were also plenty of other games where we had trouble coming from behind. The 21-19 loss to Philly sticks out in my mind. With about 6 minutes left and down 21-16, we have 3rd & goal on the Eagles' 8 yard line. Jason Campbell takes a sack and a loss of 8 yards, we settle for a field goal, and lose as the Eagles never gave the ball back to us.

That game embodies a lot of what went wrong for us last year. You could say we weren't very efficient with red zone offense, as Campbell failed to get us a TD on that possession against Philly. But our Red Zone problems existed in the first 3 quarters of the game just as much as in the 4th quarter. You could say we were horrible at stopping the run, which was embodied by the Eagles pounding us to run the last 5 minutes off the clock. But we all know we couldn't stop the run at any point in the game (Tiki, anyone?).

Remember when Archuleta got torched by Witten at the end of the Dallas game, which by all rights the Cowboys should have won? That doesn't mean we have problems with our coverage in the clutch. We just had problems with our coverage, period. You certainly remember that.

We didn't have a problem with sucking in the 4th quarter. We had a problem with sucking, period. GW needs some schematic adjustments, we need some healthier players, we need better completion % from Campbell, we need to run more effectively in the red zone, we need to be stronger up front against the run. We have a lot of deficiencies, but it has nothing to do with what quarter it is.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

We didn't have a problem with sucking in the 4th quarter. We had a problem with sucking, period. GW needs some schematic adjustments, we need some healthier players, we need better completion % from Campbell, we need to run more effectively in the red zone, we need to be stronger up front against the run. We have a lot of deficiencies, but it has nothing to do with what quarter it is.

Well said as usual.

We also need better blocking in power on power running situations, we have a tendency to lose those.

[Daseal]

I have always felt that one of Gibbs biggest problems on his return is being too passive when it comes down to it. He feels like two scores is enough to start running the ball three times and punting. In this league even two touchdowns in the 3rd quarter isn't near impossible to come back on. We seem to always try to make our defense hold the other team rather than scoring and making it that much more difficult.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I have always felt that one of Gibbs biggest problems on his return is being too passive when it comes down to it. He feels like two scores is enough to start running the ball three times and punting. In this league even two touchdowns in the 3rd quarter isn't near impossible to come back on. We seem to always try to make our defense hold the other team rather than scoring and making it that much more difficult.

Maybe the coaching is fine. Maybe the defense just sucks and gives up big leads with ease?

Is Gibbs also telling his RB's to not get the first downs with the lead? Is he also telling his QB to not complete passes so that they can stop the clock and be forced to punt?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Maybe the coaching is fine. Maybe the defense just sucks and gives up big leads with ease?

Is Gibbs also telling his RB's to not get the first downs with the lead? Is he also telling his QB to not complete passes so that they can stop the clock and be forced to punt?

I think the thought is that Gibbs in many ways seems more conservative in his philosophy.

There were times when we were either clinging to a slim lead or trailing just before halftime and Gibbs would call draw plays with more than a minute left and a couple of time-outs left. Or going for field goals when he should have gone for it on fourth down.

Certainly Gibbs doesn't call for incomplete passes or running plays that fail to reach the down-marker. No one's implying that. But there is a clear difference in his overall game time decision-making that is not now what it used to be.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I have always felt that one of Gibbs biggest problems on his return is being too passive when it comes down to it. He feels like two scores is enough to start running the ball three times and punting. In this league even two touchdowns in the 3rd quarter isn't near impossible to come back on. We seem to always try to make our defense hold the other team rather than scoring and making it that much more difficult.

I seem to remember this past season, Saunders got away from the run when we should have stuck with it, and it seemed as if our offense didn't establish an identity. In turn, that hurt our offense more than being "ultra conservative." When this team did start to turn to the run more, our offense started to improve. Scoring points can have as much to do with the defense not holding the other team as it can the offense scoring those points.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I have always felt that one of Gibbs biggest problems on his return is being too passive when it comes down to it. He feels like two scores is enough to start running the ball three times and punting. In this league even two touchdowns in the 3rd quarter isn't near impossible to come back on. We seem to always try to make our defense hold the other team rather than scoring and making it that much more difficult.

A freakin men.

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by hagams

Last year, we lost too many games, and this is something we all know. Since I've joined this site (not that long ago) I have learned and heard just about every reason we didn't pull out more wins last year. One thing I haven't seen discussed is how we couldn't hold on to a lead in the second half, or score/hold the oppenents on key drives. Our discussions have been about free agents, trades, and the draft. I'm pretty concerned about this and I wish I had the figures to back up my thread, but I'm not any good at getting stats together.

Do you think we have addressed these problems? I don't think this is something we can fix just through the draft and free angency alone.

I think that what you are saying is true, and what the cause was a lack of depth defensively and a lack experience offensively. Primarily, we struggled when our defense field units without Springs, Griffith, Salavea, or Washington. Most of the time, at least 2 of the 4 were out or playing hurt. Combine that with the bad luck of having every turnover bounce right to the other team and you have a recipe for disaster. Without the injuries and turnovers I can easily see us winning the Minnesota, Tennessee, Atlanta, and 2nd Giants game. Except for the Giants game, the others were all lost in the second half.

[airsoftking]

We had too many quick 4th down situation last year, especially with mark brunell.