Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls

[Schneed10]

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.

[Stacks42]

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.

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by Stacks42

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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by redsk1

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.

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.

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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.

[MTK]

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.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.

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.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.

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.

[#56fanatic]

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

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.

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.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

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.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

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