SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I get the point that both units were responsible in pretty much all of our loses, Cincinnati, SF, and St. Louis included, but Paintrain simply named games where inexcusable defensive mistakes were the entire difference in the score. While the offense could have played better in every single one of our losses, the margin of defeat was so wide that it wouldn't have matted if the defense hadn't also improved. And I think the one exception to the rule might have been the first Giants game.

Exactly, I can name 3 things off the top of my head that were season killers:
1. Leigh Torrence getting beat deep with less than 2:00 to go on a 3rd and long vs. the Rams to set up the game winning FG.

2. Giving up an 87 yard screen pass against the Bengals to Cedric Benson. Every defender should have been docked $25,000 for that play.

3. Blowing a 10 point halftime lead against SF and then after we tied it, allowing yet another long completion under 2 mins to set up the game winning FG.

As "bad" as people want to say the offense was (and they were maddening at times) and as much as people want to tout our 4th ranked (most fraudulent ranking metric in the NFL) defense, we were a few plays away from being a playoff team.

[GMScud]

Total defense is one of the worst stats in the NFL, metric wise. It's based solely on yards, and yet they call it "total??" Shouldn't "total" be some metric involving a combination of yards allowed, points allowed, sacks, and turnovers forced??

I could give two shits if the Redskins allow 350+ yards a game, as long as they are forcing turnovers, getting to the QB, and not allowing too many scores. Our D was sound, but amazingly unspectacular.

Originally Posted by GMScud

Total defense is one of the worst stats in the NFL, metric wise. It's based solely on yards, and yet they call it "total??" Shouldn't "total" be some metric involving a combination of yards allowed, points allowed, sacks, and turnovers forced??

I could give two shits if the Redskins allow 350+ yards a game, as long as they are forcing turnovers, getting to the QB, and not allowing too many scores. Our D was sound, but amazingly unspectacular.

Ive always liked the ypg defensive stat. Mainly because the ppg can be flawed if your offense puts the defense in bad field position on a regular basis.

Hopefully the Skins will have more sacks and turnovers this year with the additions they have made. Then the defense can take the next step to actually being a great defense.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Brian Orakpo

Ive always liked the ypg defensive stat. Mainly because the ppg can be flawed if your offense puts the defense in bad field position on a regular basis.

Hopefully the Skins will have more sacks and turnovers this year with the additions they have made. Then the defense can take the next step to actually being a great defense.

YPG is less flawed than PPG, because the sample size is greater, but it still suffers from a lot of the same faults, like, per game stats doesn't tell you anything compared to per drive or per play stats.. It also correlates to winning poorly, since yard differential is way less predictive than point differential.

Put a different way, a team that ranks 1st in yards and 5th in points on offense is probably better than a team that ranks 1st in points and 5th in yards. This is simply because a team that has the ability to get the yards might not always have incentive to maximize points. But the team with the greater point differential is almost always the better team than the one with the greatest yard differential.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

YPG is less flawed than PPG, because the sample size is greater, but it still suffers from a lot of the same faults, like, per game stats doesn't tell you anything compared to per drive or per play stats.. It also correlates to winning poorly, since yard differential is way less predictive than point differential.

Put a different way, a team that ranks 1st in yards and 5th in points on offense is probably better than a team that ranks 1st in points and 5th in yards. This is simply because a team that has the ability to get the yards might not always have incentive to maximize points. But the team with the greater point differential is almost always the better team than the one with the greatest yard differential.

Yeah all stats seem to have flaws one way or another. Thats why they are stats. Nice post.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Brian Orakpo

Ive always liked the ypg defensive stat. Mainly because the ppg can be flawed if your offense puts the defense in bad field position on a regular basis.

Hopefully the Skins will have more sacks and turnovers this year with the additions they have made. Then the defense can take the next step to actually being a great defense.

Yeah, well it can work just as easily the other way if the D is giving the O a short field by forcing turnovers in the opponents territory, and/or sacking the QB to set up 3rd and very longs.

That's why I suggested something that combines the stats. Either that, or don't label the ypg stat as "total" and then use it as the measuring stick in analysis. I have no problem with a yards/game stat. I just don't think it's very telling overall as far as "total" is concerned.

Do you really think we had the 4th best defense in football last year? I don't. Probably right around top 10, but not 4th.

Originally Posted by GMScud

Yeah, well it can work just as easily the other way if the D is giving the O a short field by forcing turnovers in the opponents territory, and/or sacking the QB to set up 3rd and very longs.

Thats why I like the defensive ypg stat and I prefer the offensive ppg stat.

Originally Posted by GMScud

Do you really think we had the 4th best defense in football last year? I don't. Probably right around top 10, but not 4th.

Id agree with that statement. The defense did its job last year but at times didnt look like a top 4 defense. Hopefully this year our defense will be better overall across the board with the additions of Haynesworth and Orakpo.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Brian Orakpo

Thats why I like the defensive ypg stat and I prefer the offensive ppg stat.

How can you primarily use the offensive ppg stat if the D is consistently giving the offensive a short field (something just as easily done with turnovers and sacks as it is yards allowed)? Starting a drive from the 40 is a lot easier than from the 20.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Tounge in cheek, but serious. Think about it: if we had made the playoffs, people would be treating our defense as top five, but they'd be treating our offense as average because there would be no need to justify having only won 8 games with a great defense. It's must easier to justfy unspectacular performance if the overall product doesn't ultimately disappoint.

That's all I was pointing out.

Maybe but when we made the playoffs in 2005 with a 10-6 record all I heard was people slamming our offense even though we were 11th in ypg and 13th in ppg. They played bad in the playoffs but late in the regular season they clicked to help secure a playoff spot. It got so bad Gibbs gave the playcalling over to Al Saunders (which imo was the worst move Gibbs made in his comeback).

If the Skins made the playoffs at 11-5 last season with ranks of 19 in ypg and 28 in ppg and the offense looked bad it would of been slammed even worse imo. I dont care if the Skins went 16-0 last year if we only scored 16 ppg for the season id say our offense was terrible.

Originally Posted by GMScud

How can you primarily use the offensive ppg stat if the D is consistently giving the offensive a short field (something just as easily done with turnovers and sacks as it is yards allowed)? Starting a drive from the 40 is a lot easier than from the 20.

Every team stat has certain flaws. I prefer to use the defensive ypg stat because if the offense puts the defense in bad situations and they hold to FGs it still counts against them if you use ppg.

I like to use the offensive ppg stat because imo the offenses main job is to score. Every offense in the NFL every week will have chances to score. Its just a matter if the offense can get the TDs needed to help your team win.

Imo the defenses job is to contain the opponents offense. I think the ypg stat is the best indicator of this. I believe the offenses job is to score TDs. I dont care how many yards they rack up if they dont score.

Other people have other ways to judge how good a offense or defense is.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Total defense is one of the worst stats in the NFL, metric wise. It's based solely on yards, and yet they call it "total??" Shouldn't "total" be some metric involving a combination of yards allowed, points allowed, sacks, and turnovers forced??

Nah, dude. Total means passing plus rushing. You know, total. A yard is a yard is a yard.

Also, only the offense can score. Or, at least, that's what the Redskins preach to their defense and special teams.

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Exactly, I can name 3 things off the top of my head that were season killers:
1. Leigh Torrence getting beat deep with less than 2:00 to go on a 3rd and long vs. the Rams to set up the game winning FG.

2. Giving up an 87 yard screen pass against the Bengals to Cedric Benson. Every defender should have been docked $25,000 for that play.

3. Blowing a 10 point halftime lead against SF and then after we tied it, allowing yet another long completion under 2 mins to set up the game winning FG.

As "bad" as people want to say the offense was (and they were maddening at times) and as much as people want to tout our 4th ranked (most fraudulent ranking metric in the NFL) defense, we were a few plays away from being a playoff team.

I agree with everything you said but at the sametime the defense was still 4th in the NFL. If the offense picked up some slack in alot of the games we lost we also would of made the playoffs. Its a doubled edged sword type of deal.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Exactly, I can name 3 things off the top of my head that were season killers:
1. Leigh Torrence getting beat deep with less than 2:00 to go on a 3rd and long vs. the Rams to set up the game winning FG.

2. Giving up an 87 yard screen pass against the Bengals to Cedric Benson. Every defender should have been docked $25,000 for that play.

3. Blowing a 10 point halftime lead against SF and then after we tied it, allowing yet another long completion under 2 mins to set up the game winning FG.

As "bad" as people want to say the offense was (and they were maddening at times) and as much as people want to tout our 4th ranked (most fraudulent ranking metric in the NFL) defense, we were a few plays away from being a playoff team.

Like I said, if the defense was who we thought they were, we go 11-5 last year. And if we had won 11 games last year, no one would be saying we had a bad offense, and the games they totally forgot to show up would have been forgotten. Ergo, both units were duly responsible for failure.

Ergo, the Campbell detractors are officially revisionists

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

And if we had won 11 games last year, no one would be saying we had a bad offense,

My sarcasm meter is on the fritz. Are you serious or joking?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Brian Orakpo

My sarcasm meter is on the fritz. Are you serious or joking?

Tounge in cheek, but serious. Think about it: if we had made the playoffs, people would be treating our defense as top five, but they'd be treating our offense as average because there would be no need to justify having only won 8 games with a great defense. It's must easier to justfy unspectacular performance if the overall product doesn't ultimately disappoint.

That's all I was pointing out.