Mattyk72 Presents the "Redskin Most Likely to Bounce Back in '07" Poll

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Even still statistics only tell you so much and really should be taken with a grain salt when measuring what the Redskins did good and bad in '06.

My point is, because the defense as a whole was so bad, I wouldn't put too much stock in any one statistical category on the defensive side of the ball.

Stats tell you who produced, and who didn't. Don't turn a blind eye just because they don't tell you why a guy performed poorly. Sometimes, "why" is irrelivant.

We didn't stop RBs, we didn't stop TE's and we didn't stop #2 WRs. Whats so bad about knowing where our problems lie so we can appropriately fix them?

[irish]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Yeah I didn't count Portis or Priloeau because their disappointing 2006 seasons weren't the result of their performance on the field, just their in ability to be healthy and get on the field.

I understand but I do think that CP bouncing back is powers of ten times more important than any of those mentioned in the poll.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Stats tell you who produced, and who didn't. Don't turn a blind eye just because they don't tell you why a guy performed poorly. Sometimes, "why" is irrelivant.

We didn't stop RBs, we didn't stop TE's and we didn't stop #2 WRs. Whats so bad about knowing where our problems lie so we can appropriately fix them?

Yes, that's true and I'm not turning a blind eye to stats, per se.

That is a valid stat you pulled, but the defense as a whole ranked at the bottom of the league. We sucked when it was time to stop the pass and we sucked when it was time to stop the run. To me that's a 'nitpick' stat.

I think a better question, in my mind, is how well did we do stopping teams on third down conversions? How many passing touchdowns did we give up inside the twenty? I'm not asking you to pull it up, but do you see where I'm going?

Another thing, in my football ignorance, I still can't my mind around exactly what is a number one as opposed to a number two receiver.
A team is going to use the best option available and try to create mismatches. Reggie Wayne torched us, yet he's considered a number two.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Yes, that's true and I'm not turning a blind eye to stats, per se.

That is a valid stat you pulled, but the defense as a whole ranked at the bottom of the league. We sucked when it was time to stop the pass and we sucked when it was time to stop the run. To me that's a 'nitpick' stat.

I think a better question, in my mind, is how well did we do stopping teams on third down conversions? How many passing touchdowns did we give up inside the twenty? You see where I'm going?

Another thing, in my football ignorance, I still can't my mind around exactly what is a number one as opposed to a number two receiver.
A team is going to use the best option available and try to create mismatches. Reggie Wayne torched us, yet he's considered a number two.

All valid points. Our ranking vs certain receiver is just that, a ranking vs. certain receivers. Generally the CBs (or nickel backs) are responsible for the #1 and #2 wideouts, and the safeties and LBs for the TE, RBs, and slot receivers.

Actually, the #1 vs #2 wideout is a fairly subjective process. Generally I would say the #1 is the guy that gets the most passes thrown to him on a seasonal basis. Sometimes you do get teams like Indy who have a 1 and 1a. However, over the course of 16 games, if the numbers vs a #1 and #2 show a large discrepancy (as these do), then there is likely a significant value in the numbers.

I don't think it's nitpicking at all to use numbers to determine the safeties and linebackers are much farther below league average than the corners are. These numbers tell me that we need to improve the LBs (i.e. sign London Fletcher) and the S (get Taylor to play with more discipline--or bench him). We could use some improved CB depth in case of another Springs injury, but Rogers and Springs did a pretty good job with No. 1 receivers COMPARED to Wright/Rogers/Rumph/Jimoh with No. 2s and Washington/Marshall/Holdman/Taylor/Archuleta/Vincent/Fox with TEs and espicially RBs.

These numbers were charted under a consistent Redskin pass rush (or lack thereof), so it eliminates that varible.

Things like stopping 3rd down conversions and red zone TD passes are conducive to winning (and important statistical columns to improve in), but stats like that don't assign responsibility at an individual level. What I'm saying is that if we find statistically significant evidence that our team is poorly adept to stop a 3rd down conversion (a very reasonable theory) compared to other teams in the league, how is it that we can go about improving that? It's not specific enough to fault a position or player for this defensive shortcoming, so it's tough to fix the problem.

[Schneed10]

I don't like Lloyd's chances at rebounding because he's such a bad apple. I don't think he accepts coaching well, and I think JC likes Moss and Cooley so much better as his primary targets.

I don't like Archuleta's chances at bouncing back either, but mainly because his skills just don't fit our defense. If you can't cover, you have no business playing safety alongside Sean Taylor. If you bring him in just for run support, you're basically telling the opposing QB, "hey, now would be a great time to audible to a post route."

I think Lemar Marshall will rebound nicely if we end up with Alan Branch. Ask me again after the draft.

I think Carlos Rogers will come around. He's better than that, and he started to show it at the end of last season. I vote for him.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

All valid points. Our ranking vs certain receiver is just that, a ranking vs. certain receivers. Generally the CBs (or nickel backs) are responsible for the #1 and #2 wideouts, and the safeties and LBs for the TE, RBs, and slot receivers.

Actually, the #1 vs #2 wideout is a fairly subjective process. Generally I would say the #1 is the guy that gets the most passes thrown to him on a seasonal basis. Sometimes you do get teams like Indy who have a 1 and 1a. However, over the course of 16 games, if the numbers vs a #1 and #2 show a large discrepancy (as these do), then there is likely a significant value in the numbers.

I don't think it's nitpicking at all to use numbers to determine the safeties and linebackers are much farther below league average than the corners are. These numbers tell me that we need to improve the LBs (i.e. sign London Fletcher) and the S (get Taylor to play with more discipline--or bench him). We could use some improved CB depth in case of another Springs injury, but Rogers and Springs did a pretty good job with No. 1 receivers COMPARED to Wright/Rogers/Rumph/Jimoh with No. 2s and Washington/Marshall/Holdman/Taylor/Archuleta/Vincent/Fox with TEs and espicially RBs.

These numbers were charted under a consistent Redskin pass rush (or lack thereof), so it eliminates that varible.

Things like stopping 3rd down conversions and red zone TD passes are conducive to winning (and important statistical columns to improve in), but stats like that don't assign responsibility at an individual level. What I'm saying is that if we find statistically significant evidence that our team is poorly adept to stop a 3rd down conversion (a very reasonable theory) compared to other teams in the league, how is it that we can go about improving that? It's not specific enough to fault a position or player for this defensive shortcoming, so it's tough to fix the problem.

I think it's fair to say we just need help on that side of the ball. As I've also stated in previous posts, I think coaching played a role in our demise.

That's a theory or reality which hard to quantify statistically.

I also might add, I'm not sure about the idea London Fletcher being the answer in the middle. We'll see.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think it's fair to say we just need help on that side of the ball. As I've also stated in previous posts, I think coaching played a role in our demise.

That's a theory or reality which hard to quantify statistically.

I also might add, I'm not sure about the idea London Fletcher being the answer in the middle. We'll see.

So, if I understand you right, you believe we need to 1) change the scheme and 2) gut the defensive roster and rebuild it from relative scratch? Or are you saying keep the roster, and just add as much help as cost allows for?

It doesn't get any worse than last year, but are there any players (outside of our recent draft picks like Taylor and Rogers) you'd want to keep around (as starters)?

[firstdown]

It was a toss up between the three, Lloyd just being on the field will improve, Rogers had a better year in 05 so we know he can play better he just has to go out and play, But I think AA is going to be the surprise this year (if he is still on the team). He came out and admitted that the big contract really effected his play and he seemed to be ashamed of the way he played. He comes back ready to show the NFL that last year was a fluke and he plays with a chip on his shoulder and the coaches find a way to use his strengths.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

So, if I understand you right, you believe we need to 1) change the scheme and 2) gut the defensive roster and rebuild it from relative scratch? Or are you saying keep the roster, and just add as much help as cost allows for?

It doesn't get any worse than last year, but are there any players (outside of our recent draft picks like Taylor and Rogers) you'd want to keep around (as starters)?

I think change the scheme would be an overstatement, tweek yes.

I said nothing about gutting or rebuilding the defensive side of the roster.

Personally I think we're maybe two good players, a good offseason, and looking at the cover-two scheme away from laying a hurting on some teams next year.

[70Chip]

Lemar Marshall. Also, I expect George Preston Marshall to have a much better year. He's due.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think change the scheme would be an overstatement, tweek yes.

I said nothing about gutting or rebuilding the defensive side of the roster.

Personally I think we're maybe two good players, a good offseason, and looking at the cover-two scheme away from laying a hurting on some teams next year.

It actually seems to me that Gregg Williams IS changing the system and started to do so at this time last year. A lot of the defenses we ran last year seemed vastly different from the ones that were successful in 2004-05. It seems that Grilliams was taking a proactive approach in trying to alter the schematics of his defense, espicially before it got old. He got away from blitzing, which is a good thing, because blitzing more times than not leads to a big play. He just didn't have the pieces up front to get pressure on the QB by themselves.

I agree that we are two good players away from at least being mediocre to above average--but then again, isn't everyone? To make our defense good again, we have to find the root of the problem. I was using stats to identify that the root of the problem (within the back 7) is with the LBs and Safeties. Obviously the defensive line is horrible, and we probably need to replace 3 guys on that line. But taking things one step at a time, signing a good MLB will fix a LOT of our defensive problems. If we can get into the top 20 against TEs and RBs, that would do wonders for our defense.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I honestly would like to see ARE be the #2 and Lloyd be the #3. ARE simply seemed to make more plays when he was the #2 than Lloyd did when he was the #2. In fact, the only plays that I remember Lloyd making were boneheaded ones (e.g., Lloyd dropping JC's first pass in the game against TB, Lloyd fumbling against JAX, and Lloyd missing a nice pass by JC in the game against NO). So, I'd vote for ARE to have a good year (even though it might not technically be a "bounceback year").

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I honestly would like to see ARE be the #2 and Lloyd be the #3. ARE simply seemed to make more plays when he was the #2 than Lloyd did when he was the #2. In fact, the only plays that I remember Lloyd making were boneheaded ones (e.g., Lloyd dropping JC's first pass in the game against TB, Lloyd fumbling against JAX, and Lloyd missing a nice pass by JC in the game against NO). So, I'd vote for ARE to have a good year (even though it might not technically be a "bounceback year").

I agree, and I think it's even more simpler than what you said. I can't think of a game situation in which I'd want to have Lloyd on the field while having Randle El on the bench. Rotating due to fatigue is one thing, but ideally, give me the better football player.

[Monkeydad]

Arch. Not only will be bounce back, but because of HOW BAD last season was, he'll be the NFL's most improved player.

I'm not saying he'll be GREAT, but he'll improve the most from last year's disaster.

[diehardskin2982]

I picked Llyod because of the history of Saunders offenses in the second year. If we go to more than one or 2 passing threats a game and become balanced. No one in the NFC could stop us... with the teams on offense as it is right now we have too much fire power.