Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

Lately on the site, we've all seen plenty of discussion that goes something like this:

- We almost won that game, if we had just done X, we could have won.

- And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hops. We didn't get it done, that's the bottom line. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, etc. etc.

The latter point is totally true, but only true when reviewing the game in RETROSPECT. Bottom line, we didn't get it done against the Giants. That's fine, I have no problem with that statement.

But the What-If game (what if we handed to Sellers instead of Betts) still plays an important role. The What-If game is not intended to look at the games that have been played already; it is intended to assess our chances at winning the games YET TO BE PLAYED.

I ask you this: if we lost 24-3 to the Giants, with an offense that looked like noodle-arm Brunell were running the show, and a defense that looked like we had 11 Adam Archuletas on the field, how would you feel about our chances against the Lions?

You can't stop the discussion surrounding the what-ifs from the Giants game. You can't say "we didn't get it done, that's all that matters." The point is we were in the game, we were making plays, we were getting turnovers, we got into the end zone, we showed life in a 2-minute drill. Those positive signs are all indications that we have a chance against the Lions.

I'd be willing to bet that the reason we have so many damn panicky fans around these parts is because they're only looking at the result of the game, and not deeply enough at the way it was played. The way you lose is indicative of your chances at winning the NEXT game. If you played well, and just a few things here and there could have made the difference between a W and a L, then all you need NEXT TIME is a few things here and there.

You don't need to overhaul the team, you don't need to fire the coach, you don't need to change the playcalling. We're not doomed because we lost a real close one. We were VERY MUCH in the game, and while that may not count for a W, believe it or not, that counts for something as we move on to next week.

Rant over.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

The reason everyone is panicking is that the skins lost to a team they should have beat. They lost to the worst def in the league, our def couldnt shut down the g-men with no running game to speak of, an injured WR and an injured QB. And to make it worse we lost when we had a lead a halftime. I dont think "the sky is falling" but under gibb's tenure this seems to be a pattern, but hey they played their guts out and im proud of them.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

Good points Schneed. I agree with the point that we have to consider the big picture and too many people are focused only on the fact that we lost.

And is any one really shocked that the Giants played well against us? They always seem to raise their game a notch against us, and considering their backs were against the wall and their season was on the line I can't say I was too surprised with the way they played.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=Stacks42;357504]The reason everyone is panicking is that the skins lost to a team they should have beat. They lost to the worst def in the league, our def couldnt shut down the g-men with no running game to speak of, an injured WR and an injured QB. And to make it worse we lost when we had a lead a halftime. I dont think "the sky is falling" but under gibb's tenure this seems to be a pattern, but hey they played their guts out and im proud of them.[/quote]

Agree. It's more that there is a trend w/ our Redskins that we sit on leads (whatever the reason is...being too conservative...not having an established QB...fill in the blank) & don't score points. This has been a trend since Gibbs came back for whatever reason. It needs to to be fixed soon.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=redsk1;357508]Agree. It's more that there is a trend w/ our Redskins that we sit on leads (whatever the reason is...being too conservative...not having an established QB...fill in the blank) & don't score points. This has been a trend since Gibbs came back for whatever reason. It needs to to be fixed soon.[/quote]

I agree that we tend to get conservative with leads, and it is troubling. Then again, if we had just made a first down or two in the third quarter, things might have been different.

It's a troubling trend, but we still didn't lose in a fashion that makes me say "OH MY GOD WE SUCK SO BAD WE'RE NEVER GOING TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS!"

Keep in mind, we lost to Oakland in 2005 and then later reeled off 5 wins. We absolutely should have beaten the Giants, just as we absolutely should have beaten the Raiders. But as we saw in 2005, it's not the end of the world. I still like our chances against Detroit.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=Schneed10;357509]I agree that we tend to get conservative with leads, and it is troubling. Then again, if we had just made a first down or two in the third quarter, things might have been different.

It's a troubling trend, but we still didn't lose in a fashion that makes me say "OH MY GOD WE SUCK SO BAD WE'RE NEVER GOING TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS!"

Keep in mind, we lost to Oakland in 2005 and then later reeled off 5 wins. We absolutely should have beaten the Giants, just as we absolutely should have beaten the Raiders. But as we saw in 2005, it's not the end of the world. I still like our chances against Detroit.[/quote]Its funny how you bring up the Raider game in '05. The very next game was against the Chargers, ANd like this past week I was there to watch the Redskins blow a 17-3 lead only to lose in OT. That was the last game we lost in the '05 regular season. Sure this loss hurts, but we don't already have 2 wins by luck. We are a good (not great) team and this will not define our season. If we had lost the previous 2 games in the same fashion, then maybe I would be worried. This is a minor setback, nothing more.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

It may seem i feel the sky is falling when I bitch about OUR boys. I dont think the sky is falling, let me get that out of the way. (here is comes!!) however, to be considered a legit contender, or even a playoff contender we CAN NOT lose games to teams we should beat. It happened last year (titans, falcons, ect).

when teams evolve into contenders, consistant contenders, the little things that hendered them the previous seasons dont creap up. The Giants game, and to an extent the Eagles game reminded me too much of the stuff that happened last year. time management, costly penalties, bad play calling with the lead.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

One thing I think that's being overshadowed too is the extent of the injuries to a LOT of key players.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

My point is that this team is too complacent, this is the 4th year of JG part deux and the team continues to make the same mistakes, lose games, and lose to teams they should beat. Everyone (including myself) says “they are going to turn it around and make improvements” but when? In the time that Gibbs has been here we have seen two of our cast off coaches become winners (Shottenheimer and Marvin Lewis) they turned perennial losers into powerhouses, and yet we (the skins) still flounder around and remain mediocre, and make excuses. Who does the buck stop with? Im not calling for the coaches head, but when you have four years to turn the ship around, and one of the highest payrolls for both players and coaches, you are expected to win, or at least show a little heart.
Front office mistakes have cost the skins draft picks (Lloyd, Archuletta, and many others), and tons of cap money just to have these guys sit on the bench, when everyone in the league said they wouldn’t fit Skins, boy did we prove them wrong. Who made those calls?
I hope we turn it around, I am a diehard skins fan. After the first two wins everyone at work was proclaiming Superbowl, I didn’t see it, we squeeked by two teams that in my estimation were not that good. We lost to the Giants when we had a lead, and should have put the game away. We left our D on the field and exposed them. If we scored the last touchdown and then won in overtime, I would still have the same questions.
Then next few weeks will show what type of team the Skins are, we are going to face some of the better offenses in the league, if we get a lead we better hold it.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=#56fanatic;357514]It may seem i feel the sky is falling when I bitch about OUR boys. I dont think the sky is falling, let me get that out of the way. (here is comes!!) [B]however, to be considered a legit contender, or even a playoff contender we CAN NOT lose games to teams we should beat.[/B] It happened last year (titans, falcons, ect).

when teams evolve into contenders, consistant contenders, the little things that hendered them the previous seasons dont creap up. The Giants game, and to an extent the Eagles game reminded me too much of the stuff that happened last year. time management, costly penalties, bad play calling with the lead.[/quote]

I've got a problem with the bolded part.

You can consider teams as legit playoff contenders all you want. But in the end, what fans perceive or consider you to be matters NONE. What makes you a playoff contender at the end of the year is having more wins than the other teams.

By your logic, we couldn't be considered playoff contenders after we lost to the Raiders in 2005. Do you think Joe Gibbs cared what they were considered at that point? Hell no, he went out and won 5 straight, made the playoffs, and shut the naysayers the hell up.

There are 13 more games for us to show we're playoff contenders. Based on what I saw this past Sunday, I see no reason to say we've got no shot at the playoffs. In fact, I love our chances.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

Is it just me or is it the fact we lost to the Giants at home the reason it stings so much?

MOST of us expected to be 2-1 at this juncture anyway. Would we be singing the same tune if we had lost to the Eagles and beaten the Giants? We'd still be at 2-1.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;357520]Is it just me or is it the fact we lost to the Giants at home the reason it stings so much?

MOST of us expected to be 2-1 at this juncture anyway. Would we be singing the same tune if we had lost to the Eagles and beaten the Giants? We'd still be at 2-1.[/quote]In many fans eyes, you are only as good as your last game....or last play.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=gibbsisgod;357522]In many fans eyes, you are only as good as your last game....or last play.[/quote]

I prefer to think you're only as good as your NEXT game.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;357520]Is it just me or is it the fact we lost to the Giants at home the reason it stings so much?

MOST of us expected to be 2-1 at this juncture anyway. Would we be singing the same tune if we had lost to the Eagles and beaten the Giants? We'd still be at 2-1.[/quote]


I think it was the fact of how the skins lost, they showed so much promise in the first half, only to lose a game which they should have won. This "protect the lead" conservative game that JG gibbs (and staff) plays is almost like a prevent def, attacking the other team is what got you the lead, continue to attack til its over.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=Mattyk72;357506]Good points Schneed. I agree with the point that we have to consider the big picture and too many people are focused only on the fact that we lost.

And is any one really shocked that the Giants played well against us? They always seem to raise their game a notch against us, and considering their backs were against the wall and their season was on the line I can't say I was too surprised with the way they played.[/quote]


I'm not surprised the Giants played well against us, at least in the second half. They do always seem to rise to the occasion. However, I would expect that at home we would put these teams away, backs against the wall or not. They step it up a notch, we step it up a notch higher. That is what good teams do.

I'm not disappointed in our record, there are only five teams in the NFL with a better record right now. I just need to let go of the fact that we should probably be 3-0 and we aren't. The season is young, and we'll get another shot at the Giants. Hopefully we'll have the killer instinct and play like our backs are against the wall in that game, whether they are or not.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

Good thread, Schneed.

Here's my 2 cents: Redskins fans are very fragile (myself included!), because of what happened last year, and over the last decade. We start with promise (2-0), have it all lined up with a chance to FINALLY assert our rightful dominance, and then we fuck it up, in the most painful way imaginable (or close).

And then it's: we've seen this before, now we collapse, lose to shitty teams, don't show up in big games, play anemic offense and weak defense, and fail to make the playoffs. (Note: I AM NOT ENDORSING THIS SCENARIO!). We've been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to react like this. We've been burned too many times before. That's why you get the sky-is-falling routine. And why you get a failure to look on the bright side, or to see the good with the bad. We're like a beaten spouse--we're locked into a negative mentality.

(Sorry for the long post... don't hit me! ;) )

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=Schneed10;357519]I've got a problem with the bolded part.

You can consider teams as legit playoff contenders all you want. But in the end, what fans perceive or consider you to be matters NONE. What makes you a playoff contender at the end of the year is having more wins than the other teams.

By your logic, we couldn't be considered playoff contenders after we lost to the Raiders in 2005. Do you think Joe Gibbs cared what they were considered at that point? Hell no, he went out and won 5 straight, made the playoffs, and shut the naysayers the hell up.

There are 13 more games for us to show we're playoff contenders. Based on what I saw this past Sunday, I see no reason to say we've got no shot at the playoffs. In fact, I love our chances.[/quote]


In 2005 after the Raiders lost, fact is we were not considered playoff bound. it took a great 5 game stretch to make it. Not a lot of teams could have done that. Gibbs is a great motivator and kept his team fighting "their guts out!" what i am saying is for a team to be a constant winner and playoff bound year in and year out is they win the games they should win. We did that in 2005 against teams we should have beaten. We didn't last year. I have no idea what the rest of the season hold, no one does. But, if we beat the teams we should, then we will be in great shape. I thought we were taking a HUGE step forward by going into Philly and beating them physically, and on the road. Then we take a step back by losing to a team that was beaten horribly the first two games. Add to that the fact we lost at home with their QB hurting and WR hurting, bitching about the coach and a defense that was absolutely horrible. That to me is a step backwards. people that dont see it as a let down are blind. I hope we come out with some extra motivation and fire when we play the lions in two weeks.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=#56fanatic;357543]In 2005 after the Raiders lost, fact is we were not considered playoff bound. it took a great 5 game stretch to make it. Not a lot of teams could have done that. Gibbs is a great motivator and kept his team fighting "their guts out!" what i am saying is for a team to be a constant winner and playoff bound year in and year out is they win the games they should win. We did that in 2005 against teams we should have beaten. We didn't last year. I have no idea what the rest of the season hold, no one does. But, if we beat the teams we should, then we will be in great shape. I thought we were taking a HUGE step forward by going into Philly and beating them physically, and on the road. Then we take a step back by losing to a team that was beaten horribly the first two games. Add to that the fact we lost at home with their QB hurting and WR hurting, bitching about the coach and a defense that was absolutely horrible. That to me is a step backwards. people that dont see it as a let down are blind. I hope we come out with some extra motivation and fire when we play the lions in two weeks.[/quote]


correction : We beat good teams down the stretch in 2005. I mistyped above. we did not beat the teams early in 2005 we should have beaten which put us in the 5 in a row or we dont go mode. To Gibbs and co. credit, we got the job done. Which, I believe we will get the job done this year. I still think we have a ton of winnable games on the schedule.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=Stacks42;357527]I think it was the fact of how the skins lost, they showed so much promise in the first half, only to lose a game which they should have won. This "protect the lead" conservative game that JG gibbs (and staff) plays is almost like a prevent def, attacking the other team is what got you the lead, continue to attack til its over.[/quote]
All I here is that we went into this type of prevent O which is total bull. I have said this in about every thread but it seem to get ignored. We had a bunch of wide open WR's in the second half which our young QB missed. I'm not saying he threw a bad pass he did not throw the ball their way. It seemed to me that in the 2nd half we had about 8 plays were we had a guy wide open for an easy 10 to 20 yard gain and the ball went else where. JC has average around 200 yards per game and thats with atleast one big play in each game so either our WR's are not gettin open or he is not seeing the open guy. Sunday was the first game I have seen but I saw him miss a ton of open players. So before we go blamming others maybe we need to realise that JC is still young and is going to miss those plays and cost us some games. I think the fact that he did not trow an int. makes people not look at his performance as a big part of our loss against the Giants.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

The minutia of the game is unimportant. It doesnt matter if the line blocked well or the WRs ran great routes, the team lost and last time I checked that's the only part of the game that really counts.

Like they say in golf, its not how, its how many. The Skins didnt have enough on Sunday.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

Do I think we should have won that football game on Sunday, HELL YES. Is it the end of the world? End of a season? HELL NO!

One thing I think we are overlooking is that the Giants really weren't that bad. They were 0-2 and they lost to the Cowpukes (1st in offense in the NFL) and the Packers (top 10 in offense in the NFL). The early parts of this season are showing the Cowboys to be the class of the NFC and the Pack not too far behind.

Regroup, coach em up and get a W vs the Lions. If we lose to the Lions at home (never happened) then I would be concerned a bit about the direction of this team.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=Schneed10;357499]Lately on the site, we've all seen plenty of discussion that goes something like this:

- We almost won that game, if we had just done X, we could have won.

- And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hops. We didn't get it done, that's the bottom line. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, etc. etc.

The latter point is totally true, but only true when reviewing the game in RETROSPECT. Bottom line, we didn't get it done against the Giants. That's fine, I have no problem with that statement.

But the What-If game (what if we handed to Sellers instead of Betts) still plays an important role. The What-If game is not intended to look at the games that have been played already; it is intended to assess our chances at winning the games YET TO BE PLAYED.

I ask you this: if we lost 24-3 to the Giants, with an offense that looked like noodle-arm Brunell were running the show, and a defense that looked like we had 11 Adam Archuletas on the field, how would you feel about our chances against the Lions?

You can't stop the discussion surrounding the what-ifs from the Giants game. You can't say "we didn't get it done, that's all that matters." The point is we were in the game, we were making plays, we were getting turnovers, we got into the end zone, we showed life in a 2-minute drill. Those positive signs are all indications that we have a chance against the Lions.

I'd be willing to bet that the reason we have so many damn panicky fans around these parts is because they're only looking at the result of the game, and not deeply enough at the way it was played. The way you lose is indicative of your chances at winning the NEXT game. If you played well, and just a few things here and there could have made the difference between a W and a L, then all you need NEXT TIME is a few things here and there.

You don't need to overhaul the team, you don't need to fire the coach, you don't need to change the playcalling. We're not doomed because we lost a real close one. We were VERY MUCH in the game, and while that may not count for a W, believe it or not, that counts for something as we move on to next week.

Rant over.[/quote]I think it's important to understand the purpose of the post. In another thread, I was basically trying to relax Skinsfan69 who was legitimately upset with the clock management. Now, was I trying to tell him not to analyze the game? Not at all! I was just trying to point out that just because the playcalling didn't work, and the clock management didn't run smoothly doesn't mean we would have won with different coaches. In this case, the loss is the loss, and complaining isn't going to change it.

At any rate, you are 100% correct. There will be games on the schedule this year (namely: New England) where making a good showing offensively and defensively is more important than winning the game.

Let's give the Giants credit. They threw and ran the ball very well all day, and they really covered our receivers tight in the second half. Our team can't control that. They can try to overcome it, but it was close. At 2-1, the loss doesn't hurt that much, once you come to the realization that the Giants [B]aren't[/B] who we thought they were.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=irish;357547]The minutia of the game is unimportant. It doesnt matter if the line blocked well or the WRs ran great routes, the team lost and last time I checked that's the only part of the game that really counts.

Like they say in golf, its not how, its how many. The Skins didnt have enough on Sunday.[/quote]

So then losing like the Lions did (56-21 to the Eagles) and us losing like we did to the Giants (a chance to tie in the final seconds), means that we should not be considered favorites against the Lions because both the Skins and Lions lost?

Again, read my initial post. The point isn't to look BACK at the Giants game. The point is to assess how well we played, which will be an indicator of how well we'll play against the Lions, which will be an indicator of our chances of beating them.

In case some of my fellow Warpathers haven't gotten the message of this thread... the point is to look FORWARD, not backward. What's done is done. You can't change it, stop lamenting, and start assessing our chances against the Lions.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=Schneed10;357519]I've got a problem with the bolded part.

You can consider teams as legit playoff contenders all you want. But in the end, what fans perceive or consider you to be matters NONE. What makes you a playoff contender at the end of the year is having more wins than the other teams.

By your logic, we couldn't be considered playoff contenders after we lost to the Raiders in 2005. Do you think Joe Gibbs cared what they were considered at that point? Hell no, he went out and won 5 straight, made the playoffs, and shut the naysayers the hell up.

There are 13 more games for us to show we're playoff contenders. Based on what I saw this past Sunday, I see no reason to say we've got no shot at the playoffs. In fact, I love our chances.[/quote]In fact, the reason we couldn't put any plays together on offense is because the ones we tried at first (in the 2nd half) failed.

That's the nature of offense. If the stuff you try fails, you don't get another chance to straighten it out, the other offense gets its turn. Conversely, on defense, if the offense converts on first down, all that happens is you get three more downs to stop them on.

Campbell is inaccurate on two passes, we fumble, and what happens? It's midway through the 4th and we are trailing. 21 pt swing.

Eli Manning converts a third down and then what happens? He converts another third down. Then again. And again.

Here's the point: going foward, theres no reason to be concerned about the offense. Campbell's efficency evened out at the end. The defense, its a bit more worrisome. They had like 40 chances to stop Eli in the second half and were successful once (ST's pick).

I do expect our D to rebound against Detroit next week. Detroit won't be able to run on us, so this is going to be a high scoring game. But I like our chances. We are more balanced on offense than they are.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;357506]Good points Schneed. I agree with the point that we have to consider the big picture and too many people are focused only on the fact that we lost.

And is any one really shocked that the Giants played well against us? They always seem to raise their game a notch against us, and considering their backs were against the wall and their season was on the line I can't say I was too surprised with the way they played.[/QUOTE]

I agree....And it's a misguided concept to think that any one team SHOULD beat another in the NFL. This league is to evenly matched to look at a schedule and say, we SHOULD beat this team or that team. No lead is safe in the NFL anymore, nothing is guarenteed until the game is complete. I said in a post last week, the Giants were going to be a tough match-up, they always are, that's why the outcome did not really suprise me.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=GTripp0012;357560]In fact, the reason we couldn't put any plays together on offense is because the ones we tried at first (in the 2nd half) failed.

That's the nature of offense. If the stuff you try fails, you don't get another chance to straighten it out, the other offense gets its turn. Conversely, on defense, if the offense converts on first down, all that happens is you get three more downs to stop them on.

Campbell is inaccurate on two passes, we fumble, and what happens? It's midway through the 4th and we are trailing. 21 pt swing.

Eli Manning converts a third down and then what happens? He converts another third down. Then again. And again.

Here's the point: going foward, theres no reason to be concerned about the offense. Campbell's efficency evened out at the end. The defense, its a bit more worrisome. They had like 40 chances to stop Eli in the second half and were successful once (ST's pick).

I do expect our D to rebound against Detroit next week. Detroit won't be able to run on us, so this is going to be a high scoring game. But I like our chances. We are more balanced on offense than they are.[/quote]

This is a tremendous post and puts some meaning into the cliche that players and coaches always throw out there: "we just couldn't get into a rhythm on offense."

We failed on offense in the 3rd quarter, and didn't get a chance to redeem ourselves until the 4th quarter, because the Giants controlled the ball very well.

That's why I say if we had just made a first down or two in the 3rd quarter, things may have been completely different. We never had much of a chance.

Of course, it's up to the defense to get us the ball back to get more chances on offense. The defense failed in the 2nd half, allowing 3 TDs. Of course, they had no time to rest because the offense couldn't sustain drives, so it's hard to expect much better from them. In the end, this goes to illustrate just how much one play here or there can affect your team. We go 3 and out on a few series in a row, and we tire our defense out, and before you know it we're down by 7 in the 4th quarter. If we make just a few first downs, our defense gets rested, and then who the hell knows what happens.

OK, great, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hops... we still lost. But are you going to run around with your hair on fire because our offense couldn't connect on two or three key third downs in the 3rd quarter? Seems like an awfully small sample of football plays to draw meaningful conclusions from.

The line between winning and losing is TINY.

Nice post, GTripp.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

Nice points are brought up in this thread.

Need to stop thinking of it as 16 one-game seasons and think of it more as one 16-game season.

How a team responds after a loss like this is what will truely define them.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

Not only that, we also have to remember only one team in modern history has gone undefeated.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;357557]So then losing like the Lions did (56-21 to the Eagles) and us losing like we did to the Giants (a chance to tie in the final seconds), means that we should not be considered favorites against the Lions because both the Skins and Lions lost?

Again, read my initial post. The point isn't to look BACK at the Giants game. The point is to assess how well we played, which will be an indicator of how well we'll play against the Lions, which will be an indicator of our chances of beating them.

In case some of my fellow Warpathers haven't gotten the message of this thread... the point is to look FORWARD, not backward. What's done is done. You can't change it, stop lamenting, and start assessing our chances against the Lions.[/QUOTE]

I would think losing the way we did vs the way the Lions did would make us favorites vs the Lions.

Isnt assessing how we played the same as looking back?

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[quote=irish;357586][B]I would think losing the way we did vs the way the Lions did would make us favorites vs the Lions.[/B]

Isnt assessing how we played the same as looking back?[/quote]

Yes, assessing how we played is looking back, but it's not looking back at the result. It's looking back and analyzing the past to try to find a glimpse of the future.

The bolded section proves that you don't think all is lost, and that you are at least taking some positives out of the negative result from Sunday.

Everything is relative in the NFL. To win, you need to play better than your opponents. The question is, can we play better than most of our opponents the rest of the way? I think so; the Giants game did nothing to make me think otherwise.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

In fact, I'm changing my signature up in here.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;357592]Yes, assessing how we played is looking back, but it's not looking back at the result. It's looking back and analyzing the past to try to find a glimpse of the future.

The bolded section proves that you don't think all is lost, and that you are at least taking some positives out of the negative result from Sunday.

Everything is relative in the NFL. To win, you need to play better than your opponents. The question is, can we play better than most of our opponents the rest of the way? I think so; the Giants game did nothing to make me think otherwise.[/QUOTE]

I dont think all is lost. Its only the 3rd game and there's a lot more football to be played. Sunday was a game the Skins should have won but didnt, thats the way sports go. I suspect they will win a game that they should lose. Shizzle happens.

I think the Skins will play better than some opponents and not better than some. considering they have played 3 games where they looked good in 1 (Phil), terrible in another (NYG) and ok in the 3rd (Mia) it seem like this will be a team that should play around .500.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

The main issue is how well does the TEAM learn from this? Do the coaches adjust, the players develop, does the playcalling and execution improve. That's key. Often, failure is what brings a team together and propels them to better things. Good teams, that is. We'll find out what kind of a team we are.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;357592]Yes, assessing how we played is looking back, but it's not looking back at the result. It's looking back and analyzing the past to try to find a glimpse of the future.

The bolded section proves that you don't think all is lost, and that you are at least taking some positives out of the negative result from Sunday.

Everything is relative in the NFL. To win, you need to play better than your opponents. The question is, can we play better than most of our opponents the rest of the way? I think so; the Giants game did nothing to make me think otherwise.[/QUOTE]


I agree in part Schneed, but I must admit that during the course of Sunday's game I witnessed some disturbing trends that were so erily simular to last year. As we move foreward, I see areas that must be improved in order to be a consistently winning team, and the parts are not in place, and the injuries to key personell are mounting very early in the season.

Our major focus during the off-season was the lack of a pass rush, it reared it's ugly head again on Sunday, and during the stretch where the Giants converted seven cnnsecutive 3rd downs was so reminicient of last years game where they converted eight consecutive, and I mentioned in one of my posts during the offseason, it was something I hoped not to see again.

When coaches coach players to be in the correct place on the field to make plays, THEY MUST MAKE THE PLAY...Case in point, Carlos Rogers was in the proper position to make the play on the TD to Plexico Burress, what did he do? He missed the tackle. I mentioned that play in particular because people place so much emphasis on coaching, and play calling, but it's the players who must execute what the coaches coach. When plays work successfully, the coach and the players are applauded, (nice work, good job) when they don't work, the second guessing begins. It's going to be interesting to see how the remainder of this season shakes out.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

[QUOTE=irish;357603]I dont think all is lost. Its only the 3rd game and there's a lot more football to be played. Sunday was a game the Skins should have won but didnt, thats the way sports go. I suspect they will win a game that they should lose. Shizzle happens.

I think the Skins will play better than some opponents and not better than some. considering they have played 3 games where they looked good in 1 (Phil), terrible in another (NYG) and ok in the 3rd (Mia) it seem like this will be a team that should play around .500.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely agree. The key is can we get those two or three extra wins to push us up to a 10 or 11 win team.

"Shizzle Happens" That's great. I'd love to see Gibbs step up to the podium after a game, say "Shizzle Happens" and then walk off.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

I have been thinking along these same lines. I heard a comment made by one of the radio announcers on Sun. prior to the game that Gibbs knows how to win the games he's supposed to win. I sat there stunned. I remember Gibbs I and I simply don't recall this side of Gibbs. Gibbs is not the type of coach who likes to run up the score and piss off the other team or coach for the second go around. All of Gibbs games were close for the most part and I can remeber getting mad because the games he was supposed to win he would lose. It never seemed to amaze me how we would play down to a bad Cardinals team or a bad Lions team. What I mean is either teams were really pumped to play us or we simply played to the other teams abilities. scores were always close making the games exciting. Even the SB with Miami was close. Gibbs was always touted for his ability to make adjustments during the half, However during Gibb's II, I have seen the lack of adjustments during the half. Gibbs 1 was a noticable difference. It was like looking at a totally different team. Something other coaches talked about all the time. Gibbs 2 I have not seen the half time adjustments. It's like they have a game plan and they are sticking to it. Win or lose. We have seen a noticable half-time Defense adjustment sometimes not for the best but there is an adjustment. As for all who are upset about our 2min drills.....well I have nothing. This was a problem with Gibbs 1. We could move the ball but there was always a stupid mistake. Either not paying attention to the clock or false start (which was few in Gibbs1 because he dispises penalties) or simply bad play calling ie not getting out of bounds to stop the clock. Gibbs is a get ahead from the start and keep the lead. Run the clock out. There is no lets just keep scoring because they might just surmount a come back and come close to beating us. I can remember countless times screaming at the TV wondering why we were not marching down the field and trying to score. I know it gives the Defense a break but get a couple first downs and get down the field. Having said this I would take Gibbs over any of the coaches we have had in the past. He does offer us our best opportunity to win.

Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls
 

Also please keep in mind the high percentage of teams that go to the pay offs if they start out 2-0 vs 0-2. When I heard the percentage I was stunned. We are going to lose games. It's difficult to win all the games. The team has to learn from this loss and keep finding ways to win games. As Gibbs said all games should be worry some because anyone can pull out a win on any given Sunday. Take a look at the Titans...they almost beat the Colts. They looked to be the better team the whole game. No one expected Houston to look so good this year. I belive everyone is upset mostly because of the many years we went nowhere then make the play offs and everyone had huge expectations. Last year was dipressing. We start off 2-0 and excitement fills the air. SB baby.lol. be patient. good things come to those who wait.