One Night Only: Offensive Packers-Redskins Game Review, Mythbusters Edition

Maybe others have asked i dont know. Why does it seem like our offense has to be either the read option, designed run stuff or making Griff a pocket passer ? Why cant we roll him out several times a game and let him either throw or run based on what he sees? I mean even if he isnt 100% he is still more mobile than most qb's. Rolling him out also would not subject him to the punishment of the ro. Sort of a conventional run/pass happy medium is what im looking for. Why is it all or nothing?I wasn't unhappy with the offensive approach against Green Bay like I was against Philadelphia, but it does strike me as similar to the plan when Grossman was our quarterback in 2011. It's very pass-centric, and we probably don't have the passing game to put that much of our hopes and dreams on it.

We ran the ball much better against GB than against Philly, but we didn't stick with it, part because of the score, part because I think that's a Kyle tendency.

More diversity in the offense cannot hurt, but some of that has to fall on the defense to keep us in the game a little longer.

My question is what is a good enough "sample size"? The point in that is- since it's a statistical term, there must be statistical way to figure that out, right? And if not, why not? That's partly why I don't get that term being used in football.It all depends on what you're looking at of course, but if you want a blanket number where you have a sample that's not TOO small, I'd say 30 is pretty good.

30 games? Sure, you can start to use W/L to evaluate a team at that point. 30 passes? You can start to make conclusions off how a guy looks throwing a football.

There is a statistical way to figure it out. It's called a significance test. Basically, a significance tests only goal is to determine how likely that a result is due to random chance. If the sample is adequately large, something can be deemed significant. If not, it will tell you that something is not significant to 'X' degree of certainty (typically 90% or 95%).

There is no sample size in which something can be 100% certain, but most people are okay with something that is 99.9% certain.

It's a really math-y answer, but I don't have a non math-y way to describe a significance test.

... So why exactly are 2 games not a good enough sample size, statistically speaking of course?

Sorry Tripp. I don't see how this has debunked these "myths". I think it's more complicated of a problem than defending Robert. The dude hasn't produced. Debate more of a scheme failure or whatever but he's not explosive or able to step into his throws, thus the arguement concedes that he isn't 100% physically b/c mentally the game out to be as slow as neo in the matrix.It's probably less debunking than offering an alternative explanation. I was hard on the myth-creators where it was warranted, because a lot of the myths were started by people who should know better.

I wouldn't expect anyone to be less skeptical of my explanations themselves, but people know that I've gone through the game in a way that many haven't, so there's where the credibility comes from.

He's stepping into his throws pretty normally. I'm not trying to "defend" him or suggest that he's perfect. This analysis does neither of those things. It's to point out that this team went 9-6 with this guy throwing the football last year, and he's not lost or anything throwing the football. When you really sit down and watch play after play, the position that something is "off" in his pocket play won't hold up.

He's less effective from the pocket because the team isn't playing that well around him. Like at all. And I agree with the masses in this way: if Robert could rip off a big run or two with his legs, that would take a lot of pressure off his teammates to get open. But if his teammates could get separation, that would take a lot of pressure off Robert to run. It's a two way street.

And too much of the narrative focuses on what Robert isn't doing, which isn't THAT unusual, but he's getting very little help from his team. And this analysis just looked at the offense. The defense hasn't exactly been that competitive out there.

... So why exactly are 2 games not a good enough sample size, statistically speaking of course?It's an adequate sample for some things, but not for others.

It's not an adequate sample to conclude the Redskins are a 0-16 team (sample size - 2), although that is what they are on pace for.

It is an adequate sample to conclude something that happens on every play. For example, the Redskins are allowed to line up with 11 players on every play, and their continued success at doing so can be confirmed through statistics. I.e. through 150 plays this year on offense, the Redskins have lined up in a legal formation 146 times (or something). We CAN conclude that the Redskins know how to line up in a legal formation (Sample size - 150), because they have to do it every play, and they're generally pretty good at it.

That's a really stupid example, but my point is two games is only a large sample when we talk about events that happen on every play.

However, if you only watched the first half of the Eagles game (sample size 25 ish), you would have been unable to conclude (statisically) that the Redskins lining up legally wasn't just due to random chance. The sample size would have been too small (and frankly, they weren't that convincing).

I think it's best described in the play calling. That's all that ready matters, and I do agree with you in that the offensive scheme looks much more like 2011 then anything we did in 2012.

That's a good point. I thought that's exactly what we did with Cousins against the Browns. Why aren't we doing that now?

Exactly. Wasnt even thinking about the browns game - but yes. We stil wanted to mix the run with the pass and keep the d guessing but we coudnt ro with cousins like we did with griff so we rolled him out alot and got him into space where he could keep the d guessing. Well now We cant ro with Griff like we did with Griff - lol so roll him out. That being said ro here and there - griff may not be 100% but he has proven he can take a hit - cant play scared with him. A viscious hit can happen to any player anytime.

I wasn't unhappy with the offensive approach against Green Bay like I was against Philadelphia, but it does strike me as similar to the plan when Grossman was our quarterback in 2011. It's very pass-centric, and we probably don't have the passing game to put that much of our hopes and dreams on it.

We ran the ball much better against GB than against Philly, but we didn't stick with it, part because of the score, part because I think that's a Kyle tendency.

More diversity in the offense cannot hurt, but some of that has to fall on the defense to keep us in the game a little longer.

Oh by no means am i letting the d off the hook. First team in nfl history to give up that many yards in the first two games. However if its going to be shootouts that win the game than lets score 35 and hope that atleast some extended drives will give the d enough time to catch their breath and maybe just maybe make one or two more stops to win said shootout. There is no way our offense puts up enough points to mask the defense if Griff runs three times a game. From what ive seen he is more than healthy enough to scramble for 6-7 yards at a clip starting in space on a rollout/bootleg and help metriculate the ball down the field for those one or two more scoring drives that would have kept us in both games.

Would I be wrong in suggesting that the time to let Cousins play is getting closer?