SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

The only thing im debating is you putting more blame on the defense then the offense.

Im still waiting on your rationale for blaming both NYG losses and the Steelers loss on the Redskins defense.Well, you're the one assigning blame. I'm making observations. And the observation, before you cited PPG, was that the defense seems to have a lot of issues. I was also focusing on the wins this whole time, realizing that when we did win, Campbell and Portis were huge parts of the victory in all except the last win, when they were both non-factors.

Now, if we talk about the losses, you point out the offense was held under 10 points against some good defenses. First, I want to point out that there were many field goal situations that Zorn had to pass up because the team was trailing by too much. Sure, if the goal of football was to score as many points as possible, like you say, the Redskins could have scored 13 points, 12 points, and 16 points in those games against strong defenses. Would not have done a thing to help win those games.

The margin of defeat prevented us from maximizing our point total. And that's the fault of not one unit, but both of them. The point deficit didn't have us chasing because the defense was playing great, and the offense was sucking. No. We were chasing because the offense couldn't get touchdowns and the defense couldn't get off the field. There's your culprits.

So you're placing 100% of the blame on the offense for something that was an offensive, and a defensive problem: that we weren't good enough to be in those games. PPG is terrible at painting that picture.

Also, if our kicker has a really inconsistent year, should our offense shoulder the blame for not getting any points out of the drive?

According to you, it's 100% the offenses fault.

The Skins defense ranked 4th last year giving up 288.8 ypg and 6th in ppg giving up 18.5. Which is shocking for the amount of 3 and outs the Skins had in 2008.

The Skins had problems on defense forcing sacks and turnovers and hopefully that problem has been fixed for 2009 with the additions they have made. At the sametime sacks and turnovers arent key to being a good defense. The key to being a good defense is to shut down the opposing team. If the Skins ranked in the bottom half of the league in defense then id say they needed more sacks or turnovers last year.

Out of the top 7 defenses last year the Skins were the only team that didnt make the playoffs. The reason why we didnt make the playoffs was because the offense didnt carry their weight. Hopefully in 2009 the offense can pick it up and the defense can help them out by forcing more sacks and turnovers. I know one thing if the Skins finish in the top 5 on defense again and miss the playoffs im going to be pissed.

Well, you're the one assigning blame. I'm making observations. And the observation, before you cited PPG, was that the defense seems to have a lot of issues. I was also focusing on the wins this whole time, realizing that when we did win, Campbell and Portis were huge parts of the victory in all except the last win, when they were both non-factors.

Now, if we talk about the losses, you point out the offense was held under 10 points against some good defenses. First, I want to point out that there were many field goal situations that Zorn had to pass up because the team was trailing by too much. Sure, if the goal of football was to score as many points as possible, like you say, the Redskins could have scored 13 points, 12 points, and 16 points in those games against strong defenses. Would not have done a thing to help win those games.

The margin of defeat prevented us from maximizing our point total. And that's the fault of not one unit, but both of them. The point deficit didn't have us chasing because the defense was playing great, and the offense was sucking. No. We were chasing because the offense couldn't get touchdowns and the defense couldn't get off the field. There's your culprits.

So you're placing 100% of the blame on the offense for something that was an offensive, and a defensive problem: that we weren't good enough to be in those games. PPG is terrible at painting that picture.

The offense is not 100% of the blame, but most of it. Though points scored versus points given up does not factor in every scenario, it is a key indicator of how well the offense and defense are performing. Yards for versus yards against was just as lopsided, in terms of rank.

The offense is not 100% of the blame, but most of it. Though points scored versus points given up does not factor in every scenario, it is a key indicator of how well the offense and defense are performing. Yards for versus yards against was just as lopsided, in terms of rank.No, I get the fact that it's a key indicator, which is why I wondered if you were going to take it further, or just leave it as is and allow people to draw conclusions from it. That's why I asked if you had anything else that supported the position that you implied, but never stated.

I think it's implied that you feel Campbell is responsible for most of the 8 losses last year, and if not him, someone else on the offense. But I don't think that the reality of the situation suggests that. I'm not disputing that we didn't score enough points to win more than 8 games. But I think our offense was plenty good enough to support a 10 or 11 win team, and also that our PPG would have improved with a different coaching philosophy and a better year from Suisham.

At the end of the day, the team went out to fix the defense in free agency and in the draft, so either 1) we're stupid beyond all hell, 2) Springs and Taylor were irreplaceable parts in the defense last year, or 3) the team concluded that the defense, as was, wasn't good enough.

The Skins defense ranked 4th last year giving up 288.8 ypg and 6th in ppg giving up 18.5. Which is shocking for the amount of 3 and outs the Skins had in 2008.

The Skins had problems on defense forcing sacks and turnovers and hopefully that problem has been fixed for 2009 with the additions they have made. At the sametime sacks and turnovers arent key to being a good defense. The key to being a good defense is to shut down the opposing team. If the Skins ranked in the bottom half of the league in defense then id say they needed more sacks or turnovers last year.

Out of the top 7 defenses last year the Skins were the only team that didnt make the playoffs. The reason why we didnt make the playoffs was because the offense didnt carry their weight. Hopefully in 2009 the offense can pick it up and the defense can help them out by forcing more sacks and turnovers. I know one thing if the Skins finish in the top 5 on defense again and miss the playoffs im going to be pissed.We had the third least 3 and outs of any team in the NFL. Does this change your opinion of the offense at all?

I'm still trying to figure out why we signed AH to such a big contract and spent our first draft pick on a defensive player. Maybe because the FO thought the offense was pretty much set and just needed another year in the system, and if the defense could get some turnovers and/or get the opposing offense off the field we may have a better chance of scoring?

I'm still trying to figure out why we signed AH to such a big contract and spent our first draft pick on a defensive player. Maybe because the FO thought the offense was pretty much set and just needed another year in the system, and if the defense could get some turnovers and/or get the opposing defense off the field we may have a better chance of scoring?I think it was just an easy way to vastly improve the team. He was the best player on the free agent market, and while DT wasn't a need for us, it was really easy to make it the position of strength on our team: pay Albert.

As it stands: the historical weak link on our defense just got a 50 million dollar contract this offseason. If he's the 11th best player on our defense that's really saying something about how good this unit can be.

I think it was just an easy way to vastly improve the team. He was the best player on the free agent market, and while DT wasn't a need for us, it was really easy to make it the position of strength on our team: pay Albert.

As it stands: the historical weak link on our defense just got a 50 million dollar contract this offseason. If he's the 11th best player on our defense that's really saying something about how good this unit can be.

Yeah, WTF, let's just throw 50 mil at something we don't need. :)

Well, it clearly was a long-term need. We just paid him disproportionately to how well he's played the last three seasons.