"Offensive" Analysis

2007-0 games

2006-3 games

2005-6 games

2004-2 games

This is is the number of times over the past 3+ seasons that we have scored 24 or more points in a game, the benchmark for a quality winning offensive team. 21.5% of the games we've played in the past 4 years we've accomplished that benchmark. Much of our consternation the past couple of days about the offense still being too conservative and not producing enough points is supported by the numbers.

Currently we're 21st in scoring (17.7 ppg), 17th in total offense.. Last year we were 20th in scoring (19.2 ppg), 13th in total offense.. 2005, 13th in scoring (22.4 ppg), 11th in offense and 2004 31st in scoring (15.0 ppg) and 30th in offense..

Everyone knows that we're working with a QB with 10 career starts and a retooled OL but something's not right when with the talent we have on offense we have consistently had trouble scoring 3 TD a game. Last year we got all excited about the return to 'Redskins Football' at the end of the year, yet we still put up a 2-5 record down the stretch..

I'm not climbing aboard the 'Fire Gibbs/Saunders' train, but I'm continuing to wonder if JG17 (as I've nicknamed him for his penchant to get to 17 pts and take the air out of the football regardless of when it is in the game) isn't stuck too much in his ways to embrace what needs to happen to be successful in today's NFL..24 points seems like a pretty high benchmark. An offense that can put up more than 24 on a consistent basis is a very, very good offensive football team.

Field position also has a lot to do with the number of points a team scored. We don't get turnovers, virtually ever. Sunday was the exception, not the rule with us. It's sad that we couldn't capitalize on a 3 turnover day from the defense, but if they are going to consistently get our offense backed up into their own end, then they have little to complain about on days like Sunday.

The 2005 figure shows the one year when our defense could force the turnover, and our offense was good enough to punch it in. The last three seasons, our offense, albeit inconsistently, has shown the ability to go up and down the field. The difference between 05 and 06 was almost exclusively defensive.

This year, we have a kicking game (finally). If the defense can force 2-3 turnovers week in and week out without letting the opposing offense chew up all the clock, the offense will have no issue putting up 24 points every week.

It bothers me that all of our games come down to the wire... we should've blown out the giants the other day. We were dominating them, and then we quit executing. I don't know enough to say who's to blame, but we should've broken their backs... it seems like we're too nice a team and just want to keep the games too close... it doesn't matter who the opponent is either. RARELY does our margin of victory exceed one touchdown...That just means we haven't played any teams than we are a lot better than.

I do, however, think we are a lot better than Miami. There is a lot of variance from how good a team really is in week one. I think if we played Miami at home in Week 8, we would smoke them by two touchdowns.

I acknowledged the O-line issues and Campbell's inexperience.. My point was more a trend supported by the numbers in JG17's current tenure as head coach.. If we didn't have talent that's one thing, but we shouldn't be scoring less, on average of the past 4 years than teams such as the Jets, Bills, Bears, Cards, Browns, Ravens, Raiders, Texans, Bucs, & Titans.Of course, if we threw the ball a lot more, we could make the game last longer and score a lot of points.

Would that give us a better chance to win? Absolutely not. Running the ball shortens the game, and by nature, leaves the outcome more up to chance. Less plays means that there is a greater chance that the fluky plays (Burress runs right through our secondary) in a game can influence the outcome. Thus against better teams, we should try to run the ball often to shorten the game.

Against worse teams, I would try to throw all over them until the lead got big enough, then run out the clock. This is what we tried to do against New York. The problem was that the passing efficency was awful in the second half, and the defense was awful, and it didn't take long for New York to get right back in.

Turns out that they probably weren't as bad as we thought. As my HS coach would always say, "we would have won the game, unfortunately we just ran out of time."

It bothers me that all of our games come down to the wire... we should've blown out the giants the other day. We were dominating them, and then we quit executing. I don't know enough to say who's to blame, but we should've broken their backs... it seems like we're too nice a team and just want to keep the games too close... it doesn't matter who the opponent is either. RARELY does our margin of victory exceed one touchdown...

You've hit the nail on the head. Gibbs v 2.0 conservative playcalling means we play down to the level of our opposition on offense - if we're up by even a FG or just 1TD, Gibbs is content to just run the ball and eat up clock rather than trying to extend the lead. If we're running extremely well, then its a successful strategy, but when the right side of the line is banged up and/or other teams are crowding the box, its not as effective.

We have rarely won by more than a TD in the last 4 years. There have been exceptions like the SF game and the last 3 games from '05 when the defense scored and created tons of turnovers, but outside of that, we have not been putting teams away.

Not that I think this sheds much light, but since 2004, we've won 8 games by over 7 points (I only looked bc someone asked...)

once in 2006, 5 times in 2005, and 2 in 2004.

2007-0 games

2006-3 games

2005-6 games

2004-2 games

This is is the number of times over the past 3+ seasons that we have scored 24 or more points in a game, the benchmark for a quality winning offensive team. 21.5% of the games we've played in the past 4 years we've accomplished that benchmark. Much of our consternation the past couple of days about the offense still being too conservative and not producing enough points is supported by the numbers.

Currently we're 21st in scoring (17.7 ppg), 17th in total offense.. Last year we were 20th in scoring (19.2 ppg), 13th in total offense.. 2005, 13th in scoring (22.4 ppg), 11th in offense and 2004 31st in scoring (15.0 ppg) and 30th in offense..

Everyone knows that we're working with a QB with 10 career starts and a retooled OL but something's not right when with the talent we have on offense we have consistently had trouble scoring 3 TD a game. Last year we got all excited about the return to 'Redskins Football' at the end of the year, yet we still put up a 2-5 record down the stretch..

I'm not climbing aboard the 'Fire Gibbs/Saunders' train, but I'm continuing to wonder if JG17 (as I've nicknamed him for his penchant to get to 17 pts and take the air out of the football regardless of when it is in the game) isn't stuck too much in his ways to embrace what needs to happen to be successful in today's NFL..

Honestly I think alot of it is and was the QB play. Brunell was up and down for 2 1/2 years. Now we have got JC who has a ton of physical ability but he is just not a polished NFL QB yet. He needs to get a full season of starting under his belt. Plus stay in the same system too. Plus I think we need a big physical red zone WR.

I'm also one to believe that we need to mix things up. It's like everyone in this town and on the coaching staff acts like if we don't run we can't win. That mindset is so stuck in everyones head that I think it's hurting the passing game. We need to be able to do both but frankly our passing game has not been that good for the last three years. It's a struggle to get 200 + yards. Does anyone realize that only Moss and ARE are the only 2 wr's on our team that has caught a pass? Sorry but I find it hard to imagine that Lloyd is that bad. Santana has how many drops this season? Get Lloyd in the game and throw the guy the damn ball and see what he can do.

JC looks like he can run the hurry up offense pretty well. Why didn't we try it earlier in the 2nd half when we were not moving the ball? I just think when things are not going well you have to try and be a little more creative than we have been.

Not that I think this sheds much light, but since 2004, we've won 8 games by over 7 points (I only looked bc someone asked...)

once in 2006, 5 times in 2005, and 2 in 2004.

Add that to the stat that we've lost 12 games in the past 4 years that we've held an 11 or more point lead and it underscores even more the need for us to put our foot on the opponent's neck when we have the lead and keep trying to score!

24 points seems like a pretty high benchmark. An offense that can put up more than 24 on a consistent basis is a very, very good offensive football team.

Field position also has a lot to do with the number of points a team scored. We don't get turnovers, virtually ever. Sunday was the exception, not the rule with us. It's sad that we couldn't capitalize on a 3 turnover day from the defense, but if they are going to consistently get our offense backed up into their own end, then they have little to complain about on days like Sunday.

The 2005 figure shows the one year when our defense could force the turnover, and our offense was good enough to punch it in. The last three seasons, our offense, albeit inconsistently, has shown the ability to go up and down the field. The difference between 05 and 06 was almost exclusively defensive.

This year, we have a kicking game (finally). If the defense can force 2-3 turnovers week in and week out without letting the opposing offense chew up all the clock, the offense will have no issue putting up 24 points every week.
24 points puts us in the 8-12 range of scoring offenses in the NFL.. You need to be there in order to be a consistent winner. There are very few teams, if you look at the stats from those years, that are in the top 12 in scoring that were not playoff teams.

There are some very good points in this thread. We definitely need to score more points to be a serious contender in this league. Look at the Pats and Colts, and the Cowboys for that matter. If it hadn't been for that botched hold by Romo their offensive success last year would have brought them to the Super Bowl. We really, really need to put up more points.

That said I think as Campbell learns the ins and outs of the NFL our offense will start soring more points. Hopefully it will be in time to make a run for the playoffs THIS YEAR. If not, I think we have enough young talent on this team to compete over the next few years, and next year we'll see a polished explosive qb in JC.

Offensive Breakdown: Redskins vs Giants | postgameheroes.com (http://www.postgameheroes.com/?p=970)

In case you care... here's an offensive analysis from postgameheroes.com (http://www.postgameheroes.com)

I'm pretty sure we've all covered pretty much everything here, which is why I didn't start a new thread.