SkinzWin
10-20-2011, 01:28 PM
On the other hand, Redskins are 8-1 against the Panthers (I think)
Before the Panthers sported Cam Newton at the helm. He creates a whole new dynamic that NFL defenses are not used to or prepared for. Like with Michael Vick. Except a better passer. Even vs. a young Vick.
CrazyCanuck
10-20-2011, 01:55 PM
0-6 in recent years against rookie QBs I believe
great... :(
freddyg12
10-20-2011, 05:51 PM
Smoot was right, 0-6 since 05 v. rookie QBs:
Redskins vs. rookie QBs -- no contest (http://www.csnwashington.com/blog/redskins-talk/post/Redskins-vs-rookie-QBs----no-contest?blockID=580208&feedID=6355)
That has got to be karma for drafting so poorly & not having a franchise qb! Time to turn it around
hope we lay better against this weeks running qb... maybe Beck wakes the offense up.
skinsfaninok
10-21-2011, 06:41 AM
D Williams may not be as good as McCoy but he's still a good rb
hooskins
10-21-2011, 09:09 AM
0-6 in recent years against rookie QBs I believe
Random stat that doesnt really mean much IMO. Its more of a sign we've been a bad team for some time now.
skinsfaninok
10-21-2011, 09:14 AM
^ Bingo.. Bad teams lose to everyone not just rookies and we've. Been bad for a while now
freddyg12
10-21-2011, 09:51 AM
Random stat that doesnt really mean much IMO. Its more of a sign we've been a bad team for some time now.
Agreed on the latter part of your statement, but it's not really a random stat. If nothing else, it shows that you can't take a rookie qb lightly. I'm sure Shanny & Haslett will be using this as motivation.
over the mountain
10-21-2011, 12:02 PM
im looking forward to getting my first good look at cam. i hope we give him the rude welcome to the NFL it seems he hasnt gotten yet.
hooskins
10-21-2011, 12:28 PM
Freddy, so you think the Skins have systemically been "relaxing" the weeks they face rookie quarterbacks? Or that when we play rookies the football gods tilt the game in the favor of the rookies? No. We have lost a ton of games and nothing "special" occurs when we play rookies.
A correlation does not mean causation. The sample is way too low and even if it were high doesn't mean much. Ex. people with more literature in their houses tend to have more successful children. Does that mean if you buy a ton of books and leave them in your house your child will be better off? No. Educated folks tend to push their children harder, have access to better opportunities for their kids, etc. therefore their children tend to succeed too. Their kids may love to read, but just reading or access to books isn't what determines success (citation:Freakanomics).
Same applies here. A more telling stat is that since our last Superbowl appearance Skins have been 131-172-1. That is a win percentage a bit over 43% out of 304 games. We aren't even a coin-flip team and this organization has had systemic issues the last 2 decades. Over the long run, with a .57 losing percentage losing 6 games isn't anything. There are so many other variables in each of those games that are not isolated to make any conclusions about an opponents years of experience impacting the win/loss. It's just another pointless "stat" that doesn't show anything.