DBUCHANON101
09-22-2009, 12:49 PM
Especially considering it was a revolving door as far as learning a new offense EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
This excuse is getting old. As a pro QB you should be able to handle learning different offenses. Jay Cutler in his 2nd game in a new offense did very well vs the Steelers Defense,and this is with a 2nd rate wr corp. Mark Sanchez in his first 2 games has done well. Matt Ryan did well last yr. Same for Flacco, Pennington and Favre. Some of these guys learned new offenses and had to adjust to new teams and the rooks did this while adjusting to the speed of the pro game. The excuse is played out, let it go. Many players change teams each year and do well despite changing schemes.
SC Skins Fan
09-22-2009, 01:01 PM
HUH? What team are you watching? Our defense was ranked 4th last year, and with the additions could be even better. We have a championship caliber defense IMO, I dont see how you can say we dont.
The point has been covered ad infinitum on this board, but I am not among those who believe the Redskins defense was dominant in 2008 or that it has been close to dominant in 2009. Being "ranked 4th" is a fairly useless statistic and clearly is not an indication of the Skins having the 4th best defense in 2008. I will defer to Football Outsiders pro football prospectus on 2008 because they cover it much better than I can, but by DVOA in 2008 they ranked 11th and that is a much more accurate measure of their place in the league. They also declined as the season progressed and were absolutely horrible in the losses to Cincinnati and San Francisco. They were very good at getting off the field on third down, which is part of made them "4th" in yards allowed (along with the fact that they faced a lower number of drives, largely because of the offensive style), but they were not a dominant team in the way that Baltimore, Pittsburgh, or Philadelphia were in 2008. Slightly better than average does not equal dominant, but certainly is enough to win games when they play their best (and lose them when they did not).
So far in 2009 Haynesworth has made a huge difference in the running game, but the defense remains vulnerable on the back end. They also have not been able to get off the field on third down, which was such a large reason of why they were good last year. You ask what game I was watching, I was watching the one where the Rams, who are clearly among the bottom three teams in the league, with bad line play and one legitimate offensive threat, converted 50% of their third downs. That is not a dominant defensive effort in my world. If you want dominant watch the Jets-Pats game from last week and then tell me that the Redskins have a dominant defense. But strictly using net yards allowed the Redskins rank higher than the Jets. Another example of how net yards allowed is a completely BS statistic.
So when I say that Campbell and Garrard are the types of players who will not win championships without a dominant defense I mean '08 Steelers dominant, not pretty good sort of. Too many Skins fans (and players I might add) have this delusion that the defense is really great, when that is not supported by any empirical evidence. They have a couple of dominant players, Haynesworth most notably, but they are very vulnerable in the passing game (especially D. Hall).
firstdown
09-22-2009, 01:19 PM
The point has been covered ad infinitum on this board, but I am not among those who believe the Redskins defense was dominant in 2008 or that it has been close to dominant in 2009. Being "ranked 4th" is a fairly useless statistic and clearly is not an indication of the Skins having the 4th best defense in 2008. I will defer to Football Outsiders pro football prospectus on 2008 because they cover it much better than I can, but by DVOA in 2008 they ranked 11th and that is a much more accurate measure of their place in the league. They also declined as the season progressed and were absolutely horrible in the losses to Cincinnati and San Francisco. They were very good at getting off the field on third down, which is part of made them "4th" in yards allowed (along with the fact that they faced a lower number of drives, largely because of the offensive style), but they were not a dominant team in the way that Baltimore, Pittsburgh, or Philadelphia were in 2008. Slightly better than average does not equal dominant, but certainly is enough to win games when they play their best (and lose them when they did not).
So far in 2009 Haynesworth has made a huge difference in the running game, but the defense remains vulnerable on the back end. They also have not been able to get off the field on third down, which was such a large reason of why they were good last year. You ask what game I was watching, I was watching the one where the Rams, who are clearly among the bottom three teams in the league, with bad line play and one legitimate offensive threat, converted 50% of their third downs. That is not a dominant defensive effort in my world. If you want dominant watch the Jets-Pats game from last week and then tell me that the Redskins have a dominant defense. But strictly using net yards allowed the Redskins rank higher than the Jets. Another example of how net yards allowed is a completely BS statistic.
So when I say that Campbell and Garrard are the types of players who will not win championships without a dominant defense I mean '08 Steelers dominant, not pretty good sort of. Too many Skins fans (and players I might add) have this delusion that the defense is really great, when that is not supported by any empirical evidence. They have a couple of dominant players, Haynesworth most notably, but they are very vulnerable in the passing game (especially D. Hall).
Well by using the Rams game our D only allowed them 7 points and in the NFL thats great D against even the worst teams.