Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum

Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion


Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls

Locker Room Main Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-26-2007, 11:20 AM   #1
#56fanatic
The Starter
 
#56fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Age: 51
Posts: 1,801
Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls

It may seem i feel the sky is falling when I bitch about OUR boys. I dont think the sky is falling, let me get that out of the way. (here is comes!!) however, to be considered a legit contender, or even a playoff contender we CAN NOT lose games to teams we should beat. It happened last year (titans, falcons, ect).

when teams evolve into contenders, consistant contenders, the little things that hendered them the previous seasons dont creap up. The Giants game, and to an extent the Eagles game reminded me too much of the stuff that happened last year. time management, costly penalties, bad play calling with the lead.
#56fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2007, 11:25 AM   #2
Schneed10
A Dude
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 46
Posts: 12,458
Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls

Quote:
Originally Posted by #56fanatic View Post
It may seem i feel the sky is falling when I bitch about OUR boys. I dont think the sky is falling, let me get that out of the way. (here is comes!!) however, to be considered a legit contender, or even a playoff contender we CAN NOT lose games to teams we should beat. It happened last year (titans, falcons, ect).

when teams evolve into contenders, consistant contenders, the little things that hendered them the previous seasons dont creap up. The Giants game, and to an extent the Eagles game reminded me too much of the stuff that happened last year. time management, costly penalties, bad play calling with the lead.
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.
__________________
God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2007, 12:14 PM   #3
#56fanatic
The Starter
 
#56fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Age: 51
Posts: 1,801
Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2007, 12:18 PM   #4
#56fanatic
The Starter
 
#56fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Age: 51
Posts: 1,801
Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls

Quote:
Originally Posted by #56fanatic View Post
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.
#56fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2007, 12:57 PM   #5
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
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.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2007, 01:08 PM   #6
Schneed10
A Dude
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 46
Posts: 12,458
Re: Why It's Not as Simple as Ws vs Ls

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
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.
__________________
God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.80518 seconds with 11 queries