Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

i totaly agree with you about the chargers and the raiders but i'd like to take it a step further and add the seahawks and the cheifs to the list. the seahawks have alexander and jackson on offense, thats it, their defense is good but not that good. the cheifs do have a good offense but the skins defense will match up fine with them, the cheifs defense will still suck.

Good points. I hadn't given the Seahawks or Chiefs much thought. So yes, those are games we SHOULD win. But then, I said the same thing about Cleveland last year.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I seriously think we'll take it to the Seahawks. Their D isn't good at all and well, you know about OUR defense.

[manicd]

As far as the media bashing us for the last 10 years, I can point out some serious humour in all of that. In 99' we went 10-6, beat Lions in Playoffs, lost to Bucs by a point or so(don't remember). Then, offseason, we go on the free agent signing binge(we all know which one I speak of). Now, people will blast the Danny for that now, but trust me, I read many, many articles of the Redskins finish that season. They were up there as SB contenders. Wow, they were so CLOSE, and now they only got better with BS, DS, GJ, blah blah. That wasn't that long ago. Now, the irony is this. The same media that bashes the Danny for trying to get that last peice(which, he fucked up), are the same ones that predicted 12-4 or better that year. It's history, and real. With enough energy, I can go through some old magazines, and dig up the articles. I'm sure a lot of people don't remember that, but I know a lot of members here do. In the NFL, 12-4 to 4-12(ala Bears couple years back as one mentioned), or 6-10 to 10-6, or 1-15 to 12-4(Chargers). It's all BS. These guys get paid for screwing with us. So basically, their whores.

[D'BOYZ]

Man like I said before they are playing it safe, playing the numbers and odds. They're going with the crowd remember last year they said between a 10-6 to 12-4 season just because Gibbs was back and he would make an impact and turn around this franchise as Parcell did in his first year with D'Boyz, you can't expect them after 5 subpar season (2 .500 seasons and 3 of losing seasons) and no mayor moves to say hey this team is reaching the playoffs. They have been let down before and it's worse to predict some team to make it and at the end they don't, than predict a team than won't make it and at the end does (chargers) they call it the cinderella story for something.

You think they got trash talk or bad reviews for saying that the charges would go 4-12 last season and at the end it was the other way around NO, because no one believed they would win even 4 is like this year if SF wins 12, does anyone on the right mind think that no.

So what I'm tryng to say is don't read to much of it because NO ONE really knows how it would turn out, you can make some judgements based on how they played las season, moves, draft.. etc.. but the beauty is you just can't know, who nows who'll be the cinderella story this season they say Arizona others Detroit ( I like detroit chances more), but every team is an injury away of losing the season as Carolina had last year.

Let's see do you think the Colts will make the playoff if Manning gets hurt in the first week how about the Vikings or Atlante we saw what happend when they lost Vick so just take it for what it is.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I have no problem with predictions of a losing record, I just have a problem with these predictions being tossed out there without a solid rationale behind them.

The majority of the media doesn't cover the Skins as extensively as the local media, and hell I'd say we the fans are more in touch with the Redskins than guys like Dr. Zzzzz. So I guess that's what makes it all the more frustrating when you read lame excuses as to why someone thinks the Skins are only going to win 4 games. Are we biased? Of course. But I think in our heart of hearts nobody is expecting 4 wins this year. 10 wins is perhaps shooting on the high end, but 8 or 9 wins is fairly realistic. 4 wins? C'mon, that's just Dr. Z being a jerk.

Well, at least his crediblity wouldn't had been in question if he hadn't said bad defense. Having the number 3 defense in the entire league doesn't suggest to me that the defense is bad. Maybe he suggested such because we lost Pierce and Smoot...but then again, that would be a contradiction in not seeing evidence in a change and making a perdiction on something that hasn't transpired yet.

[D'BOYZ]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Well, at least his crediblity wouldn't had been in question if he hadn't said bad defense. Having the number 3 defense in the entire league doesn't suggest to me that the defense is bad. Maybe he suggested such because we lost Pierce and Smoot...but then again, that would be a contradiction in not seeing evidence in a change and making a perdiction on something that hasn't transpired yet.

It depends #3 best defense is based on yards only it doesn't count a lot of factors like point average allowed, turnover ratio, strenght of schedulle, strenght of offense you played.

In your case last year you faced 3 top ten scoring offenses from last year Philly, Minesota and GB you lost twice to Philly and 1 to Gb you won the Minesota game but that was the last game of the season and it didn't count to them they had reached the playoff coudn't win the division and couldnt get home filed.

From the 10- 15 best scoring offense you faced Cin and Pit you lost to both of them. Your other wins came against NYG (22), TB (23), DET(24), SF(30) and CHI(32) not even a top 20 in that list.

Your turnover ratio was -1 (26 takeaways vs 27 givaways)that was a tie for 20th spot you had the second best third down converstion with 31% wich was 1 of the only good things your team had.

The other point is that you had the 31st scoring offense so each team new they didn't had to score 30 points (15 points average) to beat you, just get ahead take time from the clock and let your offense play catch up. They didnt need to risk it wich explains the low amount of turnovers you made.

So don't read to much to the 3rd best D because it ain't real like Dallas wasn't the best D of 2003 it was only the D that allowed the lest amount of yards but it sure didn't represent the most feared and most dificult to score defense.

Your team its what it is a 6-10 team untill it proves otherwise like Dallas is and don't hang and put the 3rd Def in a pedestal like is the greatest thing. Hey you won only 6 games snap out of it. Who cares how good was your defense if it only helped you win 6 games.

Look to the future and try to demand more of your team than STATS because who cares if you have the best STATS QB or D or OFF if you won't be playing in January at the endof the line the only thing that matters is the W.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by D'BOYZ

It depends #3 best defense is based on yards only it doesn't count a lot of factors like point average allowed, turnover ratio, strenght of schedulle, strenght of offense you played.

In your case last year you faced 3 top ten scoring offenses from last year Philly, Minesota and GB you lost twice to Philly and 1 to Gb you won the Minesota game but that was the last game of the season and it didn't count to them they had reached the playoff coudn't win the division and couldnt get home filed.

From the 10- 15 best scoring offense you faced Cin and Pit you lost to both of them. Your other wins came against NYG (22), TB (23), DET(24), SF(30) and CHI(32) not even a top 20 in that list.

Your turnover ratio was -1 (26 takeaways vs 27 givaways)that was a tie for 20th spot you had the second best third down converstion with 31% wich was 1 of the only good things your team had.

The other point is that you had the 31st scoring offense so each team new they didn't had to score 30 points (15 points average) to beat you, just get ahead take time from the clock and let your offense play catch up. They didnt need to risk it wich explains the low amount of turnovers you made.

So don't read to much to the 3rd best D because it ain't real like Dallas wasn't the best D of 2003 it was only the D that allowed the lest amount of yards but it sure didn't represent the most feared and most dificult to score defense.

Your team its what it is a 6-10 team untill it proves otherwise like Dallas is and don't hang and put the 3rd Def in a pedestal like is the greatest thing. Hey you won only 6 games snap out of it. Who cares how good was your defense if it only helped you win 6 games.

Look to the future and try to demand more of your team than STATS because who cares if you have the best STATS QB or D or OFF if you won't be playing in January at the endof the line the only thing that matters is the W.

that was a very long pile of horseshit you just wrote. you don't think minn. wanted to beat the skins , your crazy.
are offense was horrible last year and we still managed to win 6 games in the nfl. you say not to focus on defensive stats but then all you did in that post was talk about stats. if a defense is ranked 3rd best in the nfl then that says alot, regardless of the schedule and don't give me that shit about teams thinking they only needed 15 points to beat the skins, teams wanted to score as many points as possible but were lucky to score 15.
for that writer or you or anyone to say that the skins defense was bad or will be bad this coming season. without having seen them play yet, is moronick and shows complete and total jackassery.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by D'BOYZ

It depends #3 best defense is based on yards only it doesn't count a lot of factors like point average allowed, turnover ratio, strenght of schedulle, strenght of offense you played.

In your case last year you faced 3 top ten scoring offenses from last year Philly, Minesota and GB you lost twice to Philly and 1 to Gb you won the Minesota game but that was the last game of the season and it didn't count to them they had reached the playoff coudn't win the division and couldnt get home filed.

From the 10- 15 best scoring offense you faced Cin and Pit you lost to both of them. Your other wins came against NYG (22), TB (23), DET(24), SF(30) and CHI(32) not even a top 20 in that list.

Your turnover ratio was -1 (26 takeaways vs 27 givaways)that was a tie for 20th spot you had the second best third down converstion with 31% wich was 1 of the only good things your team had.

The other point is that you had the 31st scoring offense so each team new they didn't had to score 30 points (15 points average) to beat you, just get ahead take time from the clock and let your offense play catch up. They didnt need to risk it wich explains the low amount of turnovers you made.

So don't read to much to the 3rd best D because it ain't real like Dallas wasn't the best D of 2003 it was only the D that allowed the lest amount of yards but it sure didn't represent the most feared and most dificult to score defense.

Your team its what it is a 6-10 team untill it proves otherwise like Dallas is and don't hang and put the 3rd Def in a pedestal like is the greatest thing. Hey you won only 6 games snap out of it. Who cares how good was your defense if it only helped you win 6 games.

Look to the future and try to demand more of your team than STATS because who cares if you have the best STATS QB or D or OFF if you won't be playing in January at the endof the line the only thing that matters is the W.

umm, dude, its a good defense period... i don't know why you're bring up all these win/lose and our offensive ranking, they have nothing to do with how good our D was/is. look at total turnovers, not turnover ratio, cause ratio includes the offense... look at yards/play and the total time our D was on the field... its 5minutes more than pittsburg last year.

There's no way you can say our D wasn't great last year... the front four presure wasn't amazing and the turnover forced wasn't that great, but the stats are way up there in every category.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by D'BOYZ

It depends #3 best defense is based on yards only it doesn't count a lot of factors like point average allowed, turnover ratio, strenght of schedulle, strenght of offense you played.

In your case last year you faced 3 top ten scoring offenses from last year Philly, Minesota and GB you lost twice to Philly and 1 to Gb you won the Minesota game but that was the last game of the season and it didn't count to them they had reached the playoff coudn't win the division and couldnt get home filed.

From the 10- 15 best scoring offense you faced Cin and Pit you lost to both of them. Your other wins came against NYG (22), TB (23), DET(24), SF(30) and CHI(32) not even a top 20 in that list.

Your turnover ratio was -1 (26 takeaways vs 27 givaways)that was a tie for 20th spot you had the second best third down converstion with 31% wich was 1 of the only good things your team had.

The other point is that you had the 31st scoring offense so each team new they didn't had to score 30 points (15 points average) to beat you, just get ahead take time from the clock and let your offense play catch up. They didnt need to risk it wich explains the low amount of turnovers you made.

So don't read to much to the 3rd best D because it ain't real like Dallas wasn't the best D of 2003 it was only the D that allowed the lest amount of yards but it sure didn't represent the most feared and most dificult to score defense.

Your team its what it is a 6-10 team untill it proves otherwise like Dallas is and don't hang and put the 3rd Def in a pedestal like is the greatest thing. Hey you won only 6 games snap out of it. Who cares how good was your defense if it only helped you win 6 games.

Look to the future and try to demand more of your team than STATS because who cares if you have the best STATS QB or D or OFF if you won't be playing in January at the endof the line the only thing that matters is the W.

D'BOYZ, I'm sorry but you just woefully hurt your credibility. Granted, our team was 6-10 (as were the Cowturds), but NO ONE can honestly say that the Redskins defense wasn't good.

First, our run defense allowed a paltry 3.1 yards per carry (the fewest yards per carry in the history of the NFL).

Second, you are dead wrong insofar as you write off the game against the Vikings. The fact is that they didn't know whether they needed to win the game or not to make the playoffs.

Third, the Redskins were among the league's best in fewest points allowed (at just 16 per game).

Fourth, the Redskins defense held opponents to just 4.4 yards per play (2nd best in the league).

Fifth, the Redskins defense allowed just 67 first downs (that's 12 fewer than any other team).

Fifth, the Redskins defense had the fourth fewest penalties in the league.

Sixth, the Redskins defense forced more turnovers than 21 other teams (they forced more fumbles than 28 other teams).

Seventh, the Redskins defense tackled EXTREMELY well.

Eighth, to the extent that you don't like people to cite statistics in support of their arguments, what would you prefer? I guess I can cite just about anyone with eyes in support of our claims that we had a good defense.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

Fifth, the Redskins defense allowed just 67 first downs (that's 12 fewer than any other team).

imagine how many less it would be if they were on the field 5minutes less each game like the steelers... that'd 80minutes less chances for first downs...

I hope our O can at least get to average this year.

[SmootSmack]

That's some good info Ramseyfan, I didn't even realize the depths of the defense's dominance

And here's another interesting stat I saw (courtesy of boston.com)

" According to Stats Inc., Redskins defensive tackle Cornelius Griffin led the league last year with 14 1/2 of what it calls ''stuffs," meaning tackles on running plays behind the line of scrimmage. He had three more than New Orleans's Charles Grant and had at least half a stuff in 13 of the 15 games he played. Are stuffs important? Consider this. After being ''stuffed" during a drive, offensive teams had only a 27 percent success rate producing a first down."

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by D'BOYZ

It depends #3 best defense is based on yards only it doesn't count a lot of factors like point average allowed, turnover ratio, strenght of schedulle, strenght of offense you played.

In your case last year you faced 3 top ten scoring offenses from last year Philly, Minesota and GB you lost twice to Philly and 1 to Gb you won the Minesota game but that was the last game of the season and it didn't count to them they had reached the playoff coudn't win the division and couldnt get home filed.

From the 10- 15 best scoring offense you faced Cin and Pit you lost to both of them. Your other wins came against NYG (22), TB (23), DET(24), SF(30) and CHI(32) not even a top 20 in that list.

Your turnover ratio was -1 (26 takeaways vs 27 givaways)that was a tie for 20th spot you had the second best third down converstion with 31% wich was 1 of the only good things your team had.

The other point is that you had the 31st scoring offense so each team new they didn't had to score 30 points (15 points average) to beat you, just get ahead take time from the clock and let your offense play catch up. They didnt need to risk it wich explains the low amount of turnovers you made.

So don't read to much to the 3rd best D because it ain't real like Dallas wasn't the best D of 2003 it was only the D that allowed the lest amount of yards but it sure didn't represent the most feared and most dificult to score defense.

Your team its what it is a 6-10 team untill it proves otherwise like Dallas is and don't hang and put the 3rd Def in a pedestal like is the greatest thing. Hey you won only 6 games snap out of it. Who cares how good was your defense if it only helped you win 6 games.

Look to the future and try to demand more of your team than STATS because who cares if you have the best STATS QB or D or OFF if you won't be playing in January at the endof the line the only thing that matters is the W.

Number one, I think this crap you just posted was quite idiotic, but hey, you're a Dallas fan, why should I expect anything different? Number two, your pathetic team was also 6-10, so I expect you really have no room to talk. Oh, I'm sure you'll cling onto beating us twice last year, but that certainly doesn't make Dallas a better team - just makes them lucky they were able to hang on at the end of a very close game against a losing team...and lucky enough to score at the end of the last game to beat a losing team. Thinking back on it, that's quite pathetic to hold on to such stats...maybe you should take your own advice.

I'm also sure you'll bring up beating us for the past several seasons...but then again..that would go against you saying to look into the future. I guess that's because, Dallas really doesn't look to have much of a future...maybe a future of rebuilding once Parcells hangs up coaching for the last time.

Secondly, I said nothing about the offense...so you bringing up the offense was pointless. Most all of us 'Skins fans realized that; I commented on the Dr. Z's "bad defense" comment...which is obviously a dumb statement to make all around. I don't really care how you try to explain how a defensive ranking of #3 overall in the entire league does not suggest that a defense is good. Also, I am not "hanging on" to last year....I'm simply stating that until proven different this year, there is no rational thought or analysis that could actually be taken seriously, that would suggest the Redskins has a bad defense. Certainly, we could conclude something different with the offense....but then again...I never commented on that.

I suggest not drinking the Silver and Blue kool-aid and posting on here.

[D'BOYZ]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

D'BOYZ, I'm sorry but you just woefully hurt your credibility. Granted, our team was 6-10 (as were the Cowturds), but NO ONE can honestly say that the Redskins defense wasn't good.

Look I didn't say it wasn't a good D it was, like our was 2 years ago but it sure wasn't the third best like ours wasn't THE BEST of 2003 even thougth we surrender the least amount of points that year 14 point average.

The thing that I pointed out is that the NFL counts their top ranked defenses based on yards allowed and we know even though that's an important stat it doesn't tell the hole story.

The reality its that even thought your D was good last year it didn't face up with good offenses they only faced 5 teams on the top 15 in scoring offenses and they lost 5 out of the 6 games and surrender a 20.6 points average in those games to the 16.6 average you had the hole season.

The rest 10 teams didnt rack up over the top 20 scoring offese so you didnt face top socoring competition to test your Def. And to say that teams didn't knew they dind't had to score a lot of point to win the games that's just wack what do you think they don't do a GAMEPLAN before they face you.

They just woke up Sunday morning and say "hey lets pass all day long and see what happens". Come on each week they face you they new your offense couldn't score so after they score they just had to control the game clock and don't do stupid mistakes like TURNOVERS so they don't lose the game why risk it if you only need 16 points to beet your team.

Dont you think there's ANY relation to the 15 point average your offense had to the 16.6 point average your D allowed come on 8 teams under the to 20 scoring offenses and you could only win 4 out 10 of those games.

Your D was Good but it wasn't Great not when you can't beet or HOLD the best offenses out there. If your D dominates Chicago and SF this year you're going to say "WOW did you see that D ". Now if you hold KC, OAK and PHI to less than 16 points THEN you can say you have a great D.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by D'BOYZ

Look I didn't say it wasn't a good D it was, like our was 2 years ago but it sure wasn't the third best like ours wasn't THE BEST of 2003 even thougth we surrender the least amount of points that year 14 point average.

The thing that I pointed out is that the NFL counts their top ranked defenses based on yards allowed and we know even though that's an important stat it doesn't tell the hole story.

The reality its that even thought your D was good last year it didn't face up with good offenses they only faced 5 teams on the top 15 in scoring offenses and they lost 5 out of the 6 games and surrender a 20.6 points average in those games to the 16.6 average you had the hole season.

The rest 10 teams didnt rack up over the top 20 scoring offese so you didnt face top socoring competition to test your Def. And to say that teams didn't knew they dind't had to score a lot of point to win the games that's just wack what do you think they don't do a GAMEPLAN before they face you.

They just woke up Sunday morning and say "hey lets pass all day long and see what happens". Come on each week they face you they new your offense couldn't score so after they score they just had to control the game clock and don't do stupid mistakes like TURNOVERS so they don't lose the game why risk it if you only need 16 points to beet your team.

Dont you think there's ANY relation to the 15 point average your offense had to the 16.6 point average your D allowed come on 8 teams under the to 20 scoring offenses and you could only win 4 out 10 of those games.

Your D was Good but it wasn't Great not when you can't beet or HOLD the best offenses out there. If your D dominates Chicago and SF this year you're going to say "WOW did you see that D ". Now if you hold KC, OAK and PHI to less than 16 points THEN you can say you have a great D.

I wholeheartedly agree that teams game plan around opposing teams offenses. However, your argument that because our offense wasn't good and therefore our defense looked better than it really was doesn't hold water with respect to the Redskins 2004 defense.

If opponents were just trying to control the ball to kill the clock, they did a really crappy job because, as I said, the Redskins allowed the fewest first downs in the league. The Redskins also stuffed the run consistently.

I'm just curious, who would you say had the best defenses in the league last year. Under no circumstances could any rational person say that our defense was not in the top 5 last year.

Also, I would like to know in what areas you think the Redskins defense of 2004 needed to improve.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

D'BOYZ,

Also, your contention that the 6-10 record is indicative of the fact that the Redskins 2004 defense was worse than people think is flat out dumb. We had a spectacular defense, but our offense was so bad that our great defensive play didn't matter that much. Had our defense played to the level of our offense, we would have been 1-15. So, in my mind, the defense alone won our team 5 games.