Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls

[JWsleep]

Good thread, Schneed.

Here's my 2 cents: Redskins fans are very fragile (myself included!), because of what happened last year, and over the last decade. We start with promise (2-0), have it all lined up with a chance to FINALLY assert our rightful dominance, and then we fuck it up, in the most painful way imaginable (or close).

And then it's: we've seen this before, now we collapse, lose to shitty teams, don't show up in big games, play anemic offense and weak defense, and fail to make the playoffs. (Note: I AM NOT ENDORSING THIS SCENARIO!). We've been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to react like this. We've been burned too many times before. That's why you get the sky-is-falling routine. And why you get a failure to look on the bright side, or to see the good with the bad. We're like a beaten spouse--we're locked into a negative mentality.

(Sorry for the long post... don't hit me! )

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I've got a problem with the bolded part.

You can consider teams as legit playoff contenders all you want. But in the end, what fans perceive or consider you to be matters NONE. What makes you a playoff contender at the end of the year is having more wins than the other teams.

By your logic, we couldn't be considered playoff contenders after we lost to the Raiders in 2005. Do you think Joe Gibbs cared what they were considered at that point? Hell no, he went out and won 5 straight, made the playoffs, and shut the naysayers the hell up.

There are 13 more games for us to show we're playoff contenders. Based on what I saw this past Sunday, I see no reason to say we've got no shot at the playoffs. In fact, I love our chances.

In 2005 after the Raiders lost, fact is we were not considered playoff bound. it took a great 5 game stretch to make it. Not a lot of teams could have done that. Gibbs is a great motivator and kept his team fighting "their guts out!" what i am saying is for a team to be a constant winner and playoff bound year in and year out is they win the games they should win. We did that in 2005 against teams we should have beaten. We didn't last year. I have no idea what the rest of the season hold, no one does. But, if we beat the teams we should, then we will be in great shape. I thought we were taking a HUGE step forward by going into Philly and beating them physically, and on the road. Then we take a step back by losing to a team that was beaten horribly the first two games. Add to that the fact we lost at home with their QB hurting and WR hurting, bitching about the coach and a defense that was absolutely horrible. That to me is a step backwards. people that dont see it as a let down are blind. I hope we come out with some extra motivation and fire when we play the lions in two weeks.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

In 2005 after the Raiders lost, fact is we were not considered playoff bound. it took a great 5 game stretch to make it. Not a lot of teams could have done that. Gibbs is a great motivator and kept his team fighting "their guts out!" what i am saying is for a team to be a constant winner and playoff bound year in and year out is they win the games they should win. We did that in 2005 against teams we should have beaten. We didn't last year. I have no idea what the rest of the season hold, no one does. But, if we beat the teams we should, then we will be in great shape. I thought we were taking a HUGE step forward by going into Philly and beating them physically, and on the road. Then we take a step back by losing to a team that was beaten horribly the first two games. Add to that the fact we lost at home with their QB hurting and WR hurting, bitching about the coach and a defense that was absolutely horrible. That to me is a step backwards. people that dont see it as a let down are blind. I hope we come out with some extra motivation and fire when we play the lions in two weeks.

correction : We beat good teams down the stretch in 2005. I mistyped above. we did not beat the teams early in 2005 we should have beaten which put us in the 5 in a row or we dont go mode. To Gibbs and co. credit, we got the job done. Which, I believe we will get the job done this year. I still think we have a ton of winnable games on the schedule.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Stacks42

I think it was the fact of how the skins lost, they showed so much promise in the first half, only to lose a game which they should have won. This "protect the lead" conservative game that JG gibbs (and staff) plays is almost like a prevent def, attacking the other team is what got you the lead, continue to attack til its over.

All I here is that we went into this type of prevent O which is total bull. I have said this in about every thread but it seem to get ignored. We had a bunch of wide open WR's in the second half which our young QB missed. I'm not saying he threw a bad pass he did not throw the ball their way. It seemed to me that in the 2nd half we had about 8 plays were we had a guy wide open for an easy 10 to 20 yard gain and the ball went else where. JC has average around 200 yards per game and thats with atleast one big play in each game so either our WR's are not gettin open or he is not seeing the open guy. Sunday was the first game I have seen but I saw him miss a ton of open players. So before we go blamming others maybe we need to realise that JC is still young and is going to miss those plays and cost us some games. I think the fact that he did not trow an int. makes people not look at his performance as a big part of our loss against the Giants.

[irish]

The minutia of the game is unimportant. It doesnt matter if the line blocked well or the WRs ran great routes, the team lost and last time I checked that's the only part of the game that really counts.

Like they say in golf, its not how, its how many. The Skins didnt have enough on Sunday.

[jbcjr14]

Do I think we should have won that football game on Sunday, HELL YES. Is it the end of the world? End of a season? HELL NO!

One thing I think we are overlooking is that the Giants really weren't that bad. They were 0-2 and they lost to the Cowpukes (1st in offense in the NFL) and the Packers (top 10 in offense in the NFL). The early parts of this season are showing the Cowboys to be the class of the NFC and the Pack not too far behind.

Regroup, coach em up and get a W vs the Lions. If we lose to the Lions at home (never happened) then I would be concerned a bit about the direction of this team.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Lately on the site, we've all seen plenty of discussion that goes something like this:

- We almost won that game, if we had just done X, we could have won.

- And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hops. We didn't get it done, that's the bottom line. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, etc. etc.

The latter point is totally true, but only true when reviewing the game in RETROSPECT. Bottom line, we didn't get it done against the Giants. That's fine, I have no problem with that statement.

But the What-If game (what if we handed to Sellers instead of Betts) still plays an important role. The What-If game is not intended to look at the games that have been played already; it is intended to assess our chances at winning the games YET TO BE PLAYED.

I ask you this: if we lost 24-3 to the Giants, with an offense that looked like noodle-arm Brunell were running the show, and a defense that looked like we had 11 Adam Archuletas on the field, how would you feel about our chances against the Lions?

You can't stop the discussion surrounding the what-ifs from the Giants game. You can't say "we didn't get it done, that's all that matters." The point is we were in the game, we were making plays, we were getting turnovers, we got into the end zone, we showed life in a 2-minute drill. Those positive signs are all indications that we have a chance against the Lions.

I'd be willing to bet that the reason we have so many damn panicky fans around these parts is because they're only looking at the result of the game, and not deeply enough at the way it was played. The way you lose is indicative of your chances at winning the NEXT game. If you played well, and just a few things here and there could have made the difference between a W and a L, then all you need NEXT TIME is a few things here and there.

You don't need to overhaul the team, you don't need to fire the coach, you don't need to change the playcalling. We're not doomed because we lost a real close one. We were VERY MUCH in the game, and while that may not count for a W, believe it or not, that counts for something as we move on to next week.

Rant over.

I think it's important to understand the purpose of the post. In another thread, I was basically trying to relax Skinsfan69 who was legitimately upset with the clock management. Now, was I trying to tell him not to analyze the game? Not at all! I was just trying to point out that just because the playcalling didn't work, and the clock management didn't run smoothly doesn't mean we would have won with different coaches. In this case, the loss is the loss, and complaining isn't going to change it.

At any rate, you are 100% correct. There will be games on the schedule this year (namely: New England) where making a good showing offensively and defensively is more important than winning the game.

Let's give the Giants credit. They threw and ran the ball very well all day, and they really covered our receivers tight in the second half. Our team can't control that. They can try to overcome it, but it was close. At 2-1, the loss doesn't hurt that much, once you come to the realization that the Giants aren't who we thought they were.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by irish

The minutia of the game is unimportant. It doesnt matter if the line blocked well or the WRs ran great routes, the team lost and last time I checked that's the only part of the game that really counts.

Like they say in golf, its not how, its how many. The Skins didnt have enough on Sunday.

So then losing like the Lions did (56-21 to the Eagles) and us losing like we did to the Giants (a chance to tie in the final seconds), means that we should not be considered favorites against the Lions because both the Skins and Lions lost?

Again, read my initial post. The point isn't to look BACK at the Giants game. The point is to assess how well we played, which will be an indicator of how well we'll play against the Lions, which will be an indicator of our chances of beating them.

In case some of my fellow Warpathers haven't gotten the message of this thread... the point is to look FORWARD, not backward. What's done is done. You can't change it, stop lamenting, and start assessing our chances against the Lions.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I've got a problem with the bolded part.

You can consider teams as legit playoff contenders all you want. But in the end, what fans perceive or consider you to be matters NONE. What makes you a playoff contender at the end of the year is having more wins than the other teams.

By your logic, we couldn't be considered playoff contenders after we lost to the Raiders in 2005. Do you think Joe Gibbs cared what they were considered at that point? Hell no, he went out and won 5 straight, made the playoffs, and shut the naysayers the hell up.

There are 13 more games for us to show we're playoff contenders. Based on what I saw this past Sunday, I see no reason to say we've got no shot at the playoffs. In fact, I love our chances.

In fact, the reason we couldn't put any plays together on offense is because the ones we tried at first (in the 2nd half) failed.

That's the nature of offense. If the stuff you try fails, you don't get another chance to straighten it out, the other offense gets its turn. Conversely, on defense, if the offense converts on first down, all that happens is you get three more downs to stop them on.

Campbell is inaccurate on two passes, we fumble, and what happens? It's midway through the 4th and we are trailing. 21 pt swing.

Eli Manning converts a third down and then what happens? He converts another third down. Then again. And again.

Here's the point: going foward, theres no reason to be concerned about the offense. Campbell's efficency evened out at the end. The defense, its a bit more worrisome. They had like 40 chances to stop Eli in the second half and were successful once (ST's pick).

I do expect our D to rebound against Detroit next week. Detroit won't be able to run on us, so this is going to be a high scoring game. But I like our chances. We are more balanced on offense than they are.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Good points Schneed. I agree with the point that we have to consider the big picture and too many people are focused only on the fact that we lost.

And is any one really shocked that the Giants played well against us? They always seem to raise their game a notch against us, and considering their backs were against the wall and their season was on the line I can't say I was too surprised with the way they played.

I agree....And it's a misguided concept to think that any one team SHOULD beat another in the NFL. This league is to evenly matched to look at a schedule and say, we SHOULD beat this team or that team. No lead is safe in the NFL anymore, nothing is guarenteed until the game is complete. I said in a post last week, the Giants were going to be a tough match-up, they always are, that's why the outcome did not really suprise me.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

In fact, the reason we couldn't put any plays together on offense is because the ones we tried at first (in the 2nd half) failed.

That's the nature of offense. If the stuff you try fails, you don't get another chance to straighten it out, the other offense gets its turn. Conversely, on defense, if the offense converts on first down, all that happens is you get three more downs to stop them on.

Campbell is inaccurate on two passes, we fumble, and what happens? It's midway through the 4th and we are trailing. 21 pt swing.

Eli Manning converts a third down and then what happens? He converts another third down. Then again. And again.

Here's the point: going foward, theres no reason to be concerned about the offense. Campbell's efficency evened out at the end. The defense, its a bit more worrisome. They had like 40 chances to stop Eli in the second half and were successful once (ST's pick).

I do expect our D to rebound against Detroit next week. Detroit won't be able to run on us, so this is going to be a high scoring game. But I like our chances. We are more balanced on offense than they are.

This is a tremendous post and puts some meaning into the cliche that players and coaches always throw out there: "we just couldn't get into a rhythm on offense."

We failed on offense in the 3rd quarter, and didn't get a chance to redeem ourselves until the 4th quarter, because the Giants controlled the ball very well.

That's why I say if we had just made a first down or two in the 3rd quarter, things may have been completely different. We never had much of a chance.

Of course, it's up to the defense to get us the ball back to get more chances on offense. The defense failed in the 2nd half, allowing 3 TDs. Of course, they had no time to rest because the offense couldn't sustain drives, so it's hard to expect much better from them. In the end, this goes to illustrate just how much one play here or there can affect your team. We go 3 and out on a few series in a row, and we tire our defense out, and before you know it we're down by 7 in the 4th quarter. If we make just a few first downs, our defense gets rested, and then who the hell knows what happens.

OK, great, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hops... we still lost. But are you going to run around with your hair on fire because our offense couldn't connect on two or three key third downs in the 3rd quarter? Seems like an awfully small sample of football plays to draw meaningful conclusions from.

The line between winning and losing is TINY.

Nice post, GTripp.

[sandtrapjack]

Nice points are brought up in this thread.

Need to stop thinking of it as 16 one-game seasons and think of it more as one 16-game season.

How a team responds after a loss like this is what will truely define them.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Not only that, we also have to remember only one team in modern history has gone undefeated.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

So then losing like the Lions did (56-21 to the Eagles) and us losing like we did to the Giants (a chance to tie in the final seconds), means that we should not be considered favorites against the Lions because both the Skins and Lions lost?

Again, read my initial post. The point isn't to look BACK at the Giants game. The point is to assess how well we played, which will be an indicator of how well we'll play against the Lions, which will be an indicator of our chances of beating them.

In case some of my fellow Warpathers haven't gotten the message of this thread... the point is to look FORWARD, not backward. What's done is done. You can't change it, stop lamenting, and start assessing our chances against the Lions.

I would think losing the way we did vs the way the Lions did would make us favorites vs the Lions.

Isnt assessing how we played the same as looking back?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by irish

I would think losing the way we did vs the way the Lions did would make us favorites vs the Lions.

Isnt assessing how we played the same as looking back?

Yes, assessing how we played is looking back, but it's not looking back at the result. It's looking back and analyzing the past to try to find a glimpse of the future.

The bolded section proves that you don't think all is lost, and that you are at least taking some positives out of the negative result from Sunday.

Everything is relative in the NFL. To win, you need to play better than your opponents. The question is, can we play better than most of our opponents the rest of the way? I think so; the Giants game did nothing to make me think otherwise.