|
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
[ 6]
7
8
9
The Huddle 12-28-2006, 01:15 AM So we have an average offense - fine.
But the defense is horrible.
Therefore it's very easy to place more blame on the defense.
The defense is on pace for some quite dubious records, another indicator how just how piss poor they are.
Yes, I'm saying the offense is statistically average (slightly below, actually). However, it's failure at critical junctures during the season has been no less a factor in the team's record than the poor defensive play.
Football is as much a game of momentum as statistics, and this offense has never achieved any momentum.
This team is a mess top to bottom and front to back. It's certainly your prerogitive to blame the defense if you so chose, but I strongly dispute the "everyone knows the defense is to blame" (or words to that effect) sentiment that elicited my original post.
The Huddle 12-28-2006, 01:37 AM No denying the scoring is down, and I'd wager a great deal of that gap is missing from Santana's statline from this year as compared to last, no?
I don't disagree with your re: Saunders and the legendary 700 pager, though to be fair, even he said it would take a year before everyone had it down. I don't think any of us expected to be this bad in the meantime, though.
Also wasn't intending to say that was our goal, just that it's how we got by last season, and the absence of those big plays on D surely accounts for a large chunk of why we haven't kept games close enough to win and won close ones this year with a similarly mediocre offense as last year's.
You make an excellent point re the offense benifitting from more big plays by the defense last year. Coming at it from that angle does indeed make a more compelling arguement against the defense. I'm just not prepared to throw the defense overboard while the offense watches, especially since I am having a hard time shjaking the feeling that hiring Saunders may ultimately turn out to be the single worst coaching decsion Joe Gibbs ever made. It's not that Saunders isn't a great offensive mind, but what sort of effect does it have when you come into the locker room of a team that just went 10-6 and advanced a round in the playoffs and tell them, essentially, that you're wiping the board and starting from scratch?
GTripp0012 12-28-2006, 06:31 AM Yes, I'm saying the offense is statistically average (slightly below, actually). However, it's failure at critical junctures during the season has been no less a factor in the team's record than the poor defensive play.
Football is as much a game of momentum as statistics, and this offense has never achieved any momentum.
This team is a mess top to bottom and front to back. It's certainly your prerogitive to blame the defense if you so chose, but I strongly dispute the "everyone knows the defense is to blame" (or words to that effect) sentiment that elicited my original post.We have been pretty crappy in the red zone and on the fringe of field goal range. If you look at our drive stats (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats.php), we are #20 or better in every per drive statisitc (yards per, points per, TDs per, turnovers per, INTs per, Fum Lost per) except punts per where we are 27th, and average starting field position where we are 23rd starting from the 29 yd line on average this season. So you have a point, but its incomplete.
Do you think we would have failed at so many juntures if we had been given better field position by the D? Face it, we don't force three and outs very often, most of the time we give up a score, or allow a drive that goes many times to midfield, and the ensuing punt pins us deep.
So how many consecutive 3rd downs can an offense be expected to convert? They, by nature, get progressively harder as the D gets less and less field to cover. So when the drive fizzles after 2-3 first downs, has the offense failed? That's opinional, but very few offenses can consistently get TDs when forced to go 80 yards.
Right now our O is right around where it was last year, but right now it has more direction than it did pre Saunders. Get a blocking TE, and either resign or replace Dock, and the offense is complete. The D needs a lot more work.
How many extra possessions has the defense given the offense by way of turnover?
I don't think anyone really needs to answer that question, we all know the pathetic answer.
dmek25 12-28-2006, 09:52 AM leave it to matty to be the voice of reason
freddyg12 12-28-2006, 09:55 AM Certainly both sides of the ball were miserable in a few games - Dallas, NYG, Colts - but isn't the real question here, which side of the ball deserves more attention in the offseason?
I think this is pretty easy - the D. I've said before that we really need to groom some young O linemen & a backup qb, but by far our glaring personnel issues are on D.
Beemnseven 12-28-2006, 10:24 AM If I had to break down the reasons for the team's failure this year percentage-wise, I'd say it's about 60% defense's fault to 40% for the offense.
mheisig 12-28-2006, 10:36 AM If I had to break down the reasons for the team's failure this year percentage-wise, I'd say it's about 60% defense's fault to 40% for the offense.
Just to be an ass, I say it's 67% defense, 33% offense.
I'll explain my precise percentages at a later date.
Beemnseven 12-28-2006, 10:40 AM I could go 65% to 35%, but I'll be damned if I budge from that.
I'd rank it 75% on the D, 25% on the offense.
If the D was just middle of the pack in terms of yardage and turnovers I think we'd easily have another 3-4 wins at least.
|