Redskins Add WRs Pierre Garcon and Joshua Morgan

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

We're on different pages.

Ain't that the truth.

I am more concerned with making projections about future production than about who was better in 2011-2012....Can Smith improve substantially(aka get closer to his ceiling)? Yes, he can. He might stay the same or get worse...but he has to really slack off considering he held his own against fierce pass rushers.

Your aim might be to make projections and that's great but that has nothing to do with me or my point.
'Held his own' is relative.
My aim for the offseason would have been to find the best RT to bolster our OL and protect our rookie QB not to project and hope on the upside of a back-up UDFA rookie that was pressed into duty.

Just as an aside, since you used Moss's 2010 stats, I will throw out there that Armstrong's DYAR that year was 133 compared to Moss' 117 and his DVOA was 7.4% compared to Moss's -2.1%. Food for thought.

Armstrong's 2010 season was undoubted aided his own health (which failed him this year) and by McNabb's ability to throw the deep ball which lead to 19.8 YPC which undoubted aided both his DYAR and DVOA.
And if you used DYAR and DVOA to make 'projections' based on Armstrong from last year your projection would have been off.
That's why I look at the stats as a reference or record of what actually happened not a tool for prediction.

I want to know what the stat means and what are its shortcomings.

And you wrongly assume that everyone else doesn't realize the shortcomings.
Every metric has flaws, if you want to hash them out for every metric that is mentioned help yourself, but that's not my aim.

Um no, I made no inferences of any sort. In fact, my wall of text was precisely intended to show that no conclusive statements could be made from just telling me some rankings and showing me "advanced stats" without explanation.

Your wall of text was an arguement against nothing.
No conclusive statements were made, I posted the stats and rankings for reference which I've stated already.
If there were conclusive satements made by all means quote them.

You provided absolutely no explanation of what DYAR and DVOA mean or their shortcomings, but yet I'm supposed accept my initial point is countered:

See above.
I don't post stats with the intent to explain them, the interested members either already know or can look it up.
While you're looking for counters, I'm trying to have a discussion about football.

Given certain assumptions, this viewpoint is plausible. I do not believe those assumptions are well-founded enough. These assumptions include the inability for Willie Smith's inputs of production to become more "efficient"(i.e working on his technique, improving his strength, etc), that Moss and Gaffney's inputs of production are not going to deterioriate, and that our newcomers cannot have a spike in their output.

Your assumptions are all based on levels of performance the players have yet to reach.
My 'assumptions' are based on past performance.

Could Willie Smith become a great RT? Sure, I don't doubt that he could be.
But he could also wash out like Stephon Heyer.
Could Jammal Brown return to being a good OT? Sure.
But, I'm not willing to bet the protection of my rookie QB on it.

Our difference is this:
For me finding a solution at RT is more important then finding upgrades at WR.
Finding the 'Pierre Garcon' of RTs is more important to me then finding Pierre Garcon.

Separately, the use of the fallacious line of thought that the same output value is due to viritually identical inputs is commonplace in your posts.

More false assumptions.
Do you even know my point?
Because it sure seems like you're so intent on having an argument that my actuall points seem lost on you.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by 30gut

More false assumptions.
Do you even know my point?
Because it sure seems like you're so intent on having an argument that my actuall points seem lost on you.

Your initial point is not lost to me. In fact, I find this discourse rather fruitful and pleasant, at least for me; I intend no sarcasm and harbor no ill feelings. I'll provide a brief summary of your point, just to answer your question and show your own assumptions about my intents and my mental state are false.


Your main point: Our O-line is in a worse state than our WRs.

In particular, our RT situation is horrible.
Right tackle is a more important matter for us than wide receiver. We should used our resources to acquire a player that would have improved that position.

You attempted to justify your main point by addressing the following matters:
Why our WRs are in a relatively good state.
Why our OL is in a relatively bad state.
Why addressing WR the way we did was not good
Why not addressing the OL(RT), so far, was not good.



The rest of your post is not forgotten either, and I'll respond later, but sleep beckons.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Your main point: Our O-line is in a worse state than our WRs.

In particular, our RT situation is horrible.
Right tackle is a more important matter for us than wide receiver. We should used our resources to acquire a player that would have improved that position.

Close, very close.
And maybe its too siblime a distinction to quibble over but my focus is on the benefit for the QB:

Originally Posted by 30gut

...I think physical superiority at the point of attack is the single most successful way to improve an offense.
I think finding a definitive upgrade at the RT position, more then any else, would be the most beneficial to support a rookie QB.

I have high hopes for Willy too but I would rather not rely on hope as a strategy for improvement when it comes to protect our franchise QB.

Originally Posted by SCP

Why our OL is in a relatively bad state.

Not the OL as a unit:

Originally Posted by 30gut

I think our OL as unit is greater then the sum of its parts and is better then most people think.
(Football outsiders ranks our OL: 10th in run blocking 15th in pass blocking)

Originally Posted by SCP

Why addressing WR the way we did was not good
Why not addressing the OL(RT), so far, was not good.

Never said the WRs moves weren't 'good.'
Nor did I say that not addressing the RT (yet) wasn't 'good.'

Originally Posted by 30gut

Did the signing of Garcon and Morgan improve the WR corps? Yes.
But, again for me I think RT more so they any other position on offense was the weakest link on our starting 11.
I'm an oldschool type guy and I think physical superiority at the point of attack is the single most successful way to improve an offense.
I think finding a definitive upgrade at the RT position, more then any else, would be the most beneficial to support a rookie QB.
If people expect a Cam Newtonesque season from Griffin people shouldn't overlook the quality of Newton's OL.