Redskins' Strength of Schedule: We Are A Decent Team

STOP! BEFORE READING ANY FURTHER, PLEASE REMOVE YOUR "REDSKINS ARE IN THE PLAYOFFS" FANTASY HELMETS. Haven't we ALL played the game of "if we win these games and XXX loses these games - We will be in!!" long enough???

34 people (when I voted) said that we are better than our record. Damn it. Hard schedule, soft schedule doesn't matter. It is nice that people back their arguments with facts (i.e. the strength of schedule stats) but here are the facts that trump all others - Wins matter. Right now we have six. If we win next week, we will have seven.

Last year we convinced ourselves we were good enough to be in the play-offs practically to the last couple weeks - If we were mathmatically alive, then, by God, we should make it 'cause we so much better then our record.

Well folks, we are not better than our record. We ARE our record. I am tired of trying to convince myself that this is a playoff team. Until they prove it, by winning the games they need to win (not just that their supposed to win), I am avoiding the "P" word.

As I have said in another post - I intend to enjoy the last few weeks of the season b/c this team, for the first time in a long time, is playing and acting like a TEAM both on and, apparently, off the field. Unlike Spurrier's teams, they don't quit and I don't expect them to quit EVEN IF we are eliminated from the playoffs earlier than the last couple of games. I would love to see them sweep the remaing division games but for now, I just want a win, and a good solid game, over Arizona. We have won just two away games this year, and, since opening 3-0, have not won two in a row. ANY expectations beyond the sure and certain hope of a victory over Arizona, in Arizona, are simply premature and unwarranted delusions of granduer.

I will now stop channelling SportsCrumudgeon.

Go 'Skins beat the Cardinals.

I think you sound an awful lot like SportsCurmudgeon. Are you sure that you are not operating under a pseudonym?

It is very simple to say, “we are what we are…a 6-6 team.” I think we all realize that our record ultimately determines whether we get into the playoffs. However, it is very simplistic to judge the quality of a team by examining a W-L column.

If a team lost all 22 starters but still managed to squeeze out an 10-6 record, I would say that team is better than 10-6. If a team spiked opponents’ Gatorade coolers with heavy doses of barbiturates but still only managed to win 5 games, I would say that team is awful. If Commissioner Tagliabue made all of a team’s games home games, I would say that their record might be inflated. If the Eagles were ordered to play all of their games against the Texans and they went 4-12, I would say the Eagles really stink.

The bottom line is, it’s easy and sexy to say that the record is the ONLY way to determine the quality of a team. It’s also incredibly simplistic to take that approach. As I said earlier, for purposes of determining who gets into the playoffs, the W-L column is all that matters. But, if you don’t take into account the strength of schedule in assessing how “good” a team is, I think you are being pretty simplistic.

Our schedule is MUCH harder than last year, but we are our record. We lost close games we should have won consistantly. yesterday we couldn't pass at all (luckily we didn't need to). Our play calling is too conservative later on and this mistake free mantra is generally unattainable so not being afraid to score points would be nice.

even if we end at 6-10, we're much better than last year, but its still a flawed team (WR #2, DE, QB is solid but not good, CB #3).

The bottom line is, it’s easy and sexy to say that the record is the ONLY way to determine the quality of a team. It’s also incredibly simplistic to take that approach. As I said earlier, for purposes of determining who gets into the playoffs, the W-L column is all that matters. But, if you don’t take into account the strength of schedule in assessing how “good” a team is, I think you are being pretty simplistic.

What can I say, simple things for simple minds. Actually, in this case, I believe the simpler the logic is the more profound approach. Yes, the stats and strength of schedule give interesting comparisons to other teams.

BUT - Because the bottom line in this game is determined by actually winning games, by relying on anything other than the record to determine your greatness or mediocrity in comparison to other teams, you begin a process of, at best, making excuses, and, at worst, self-deception:

We are few dumb mistakes from being good.
Boy those refs screwed us.
If the ball had just bounced our way.

In each case, you make or allow yourself an out from self-improvement (even the "dumb mistakes" one b/c the usual response is "I/we just need to concentrate more", If more concentration was all it REALLY took to win, then I think their would be a lot more concentration going on - I mean really, did the Pats win the SB three times b/c they concetrated more?? No - they did ALL the things good/winning teams do. A feat we have yet to duplicate).

I am not just saying that making the playoffs equals a good team, what makes a good team is winning and doing what it takes to win - regardless of the bad bounces, the teams you play, or the refs calls. Once a team starts to believe that anything other than a failure to strive for perfection is responsible for losing, that team is on the road to losing. On that account, I think the Skins are walking a fine line.

Regardless of these various factors - good teams win more than they lose. We have not demonstrated an ability to do that. For the Skins, regardless of the circumstances, we win as often as we lose.

Good teams win more often than they lose regardless of the circumstances. Bad teams lose more often than they win regardless of the circumstances.

simple, schmimple - my logic, as always, is deeply DEEPLY profound. Your are probably just to simplistic to understand my depth. :laughing2

JoeRedskin,

Are the Bears (9-3) a better team than the Chargers (8-4) or Steelers (7-5)? Even with that great defense, they are not as good as either of those two teams. Are the Bucs (8-4) a better team than the Steelers (7-5)? Again, even with that defense, the Bucs aren’t as good as the Steelers.

Also, if a team’s record tells us how good a team is, why is it that the Redskins (6-6) were able to beat the Cowboys (7-5), the Bears (9-3), and the Seahawks (10-2)?

And, if the team with the better record beats a team with the worse record, why is it that week in and week out teams beat other teams with better records?

I think we are better. But not that much.

JoeRedskin,

Are the Bears (9-3) a better team than the Chargers (8-4) or Steelers (7-5)? Even with that great defense, they are not as good as either of those two teams. Are the Bucs (8-4) a better team than the Steelers (7-5)? Again, even with that defense, the Bucs aren’t as good as the Steelers.

Also, if a team’s record tells us how good a team is, why is it that the Redskins (6-6) were able to beat the Cowboys (7-5), the Bears (9-3), and the Seahawks (10-2)?

And, if the team with the better record beats a team with the worse record, why is it that week in and week out teams beat other teams with better records?

In my opinion, yes - b/c the only truly objective standard to judge them by is the bottom line. Right now, today, Chicago is a better team than the Steelers, Bucs and San Diego. They have won more than they lost and won more than any of the teams you have mentioned. You're statements that the Steelers and San Diego are better than Chicago are purely subjective opinion. You can analyze any way you want but the ONLY objective measurement is wins and losses.

Have we beaten teams with winning records, yup. Do good teams beat bad teams, yup. Does that change the bottom line. Nope.

It is a simple statement that, in my opinion, your examples don't disprove. Regardless of the circumstances, good teams win more than they lose. The more you win the better you are.

JoeRedskin,

I think we are talking past each other. I understand that you are saying that a club's record is all that matters when it comes to the playoffs and whether a team had a successful season. I don't dispute that. I am simply saying that club records don't always reveal how "good" a team is.

Given that you think a record is the "be all, end all," do you therefore disagree with power rankings? After all, there are a lot of teams with identical records. Yet all the teams are ranked in one of the 32 spots on a power poll.
Sometimes even, a club with a great record (i.e. 9-3) is ranked lower than a team with a worse record (i.e. 8-4). How do you feel about those kind of polls?

I know the easy answer to the above question is, "I don't care about polls and rankings, I care about the W-L column and who's in the playoffs." But seriously, do you think that it is impossible to come to different conclusions about the "quality" (and future chances of success) for two teams with identical records?

JoeRedskin,

I think we are talking past each other. I understand that you are saying that a club's record is all that matters when it comes to the playoffs and whether a team had a successful season. I don't dispute that. I am simply saying that club records don't always reveal how "good" a team is.

Given that you think a record is the "be all, end all," do you therefore disagree with power rankings? After all, there are a lot of teams with identical records. Yet all the teams are ranked in one of the 32 spots on a power poll.
Sometimes even, a club with a great record (i.e. 9-3) is ranked lower than a team with a worse record (i.e. 8-4). How do you feel about those kind of polls?

I know the easy answer to the above question is, "I don't care about polls and rankings, I care about the W-L column and who's in the playoffs." But seriously, do you think that it is impossible to come to different conclusions about the "quality" (and future chances of success) for two teams with identical records?

Teams are as good as their record and teams with the same records are exactly as good as each other. By the way, the earth is flat. :duel:

Actually, I don't disagree with "rankings". I just think they are subjective opinions based on nothing more than the particular writer's biases.
I understand your point and agree that not all 7-5 teams are created equal. I also think, however, that unless and until a team wins consistently it can't be considered a "good" team and teams that lose regulary are "bad". The start of this thread was are the Redskins better than their record. I stand by my answer original answer "NO" - they are as good and no better or worse than their record.

Going to bed now. Since you're just to damn pig-headed to admit the insanity of your ludicrous position, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. ;)

I think we are a decent team. We have had a really tough schedule so far. But if we hadn't turned the ball over and made mistakes, we'd have a winning record right now.