Smoot Lays the Smack Down (Redskins vs. Rams)

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by irish

I agree. The Skins have some nice players but they are not the dynamic playmakers and weapons most on this board think/want them to be.

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

How do we know that?

Originally Posted by 53fan

Because Irish says they aren't. Come on Smoot, do you really need more proof than that?

We know from watching four seasons with these guys under 3 different coordinators. Our record has been mediocre to average at best, and the offense has been really the only thing keeping this team from reaching the next level. These are the "playmakers" we have on offense.

The proof is what we've seen on the field since 2006.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

We know from watching four seasons with these guys under 3 different coordinators. Our record has been mediocre to average at best, and the offense has been really the only thing keeping this team from reaching the next level. These are the "playmakers" we have on offense.

The proof is what we've seen on the field since 2006.

While it's true that we really only have one playmaker (Cooley), it's not like we've had to suffer through an Oakland or Cleveland stretch of offensive ineptitude or anything.

You have to keep it in perspective: since 2005, the only players we invested in our offense with were the three 2008 2nd round draft picks. The only chance we have at offensive improvements is for the investments to pay off. Honestly, I can't see any other way we can generate offensive firepower.

On Sunday, we threw at Kelly 6 times and he made 4 catches for 36 yards. But Campbell also missed him on the route he ran the best during the game. Davis had the big block on the 3rd and 1 run on the last drive. Thomas was 0 for 2 attempts.

Marko Mitchell is starting to get some opportunities as well. It's not the dead end that the offense reached in the middle of October the last two years, there's actual reason to think that they might get better in the second half, you know, when they need to be.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

While it's true that we really only have one playmaker (Cooley), it's not like we've had to suffer through an Oakland or Cleveland stretch of offensive ineptitude or anything.

You have to keep it in perspective: since 2005, the only players we invested in our offense with were the three 2008 2nd round draft picks. The only chance we have at offensive improvements is for the investments to pay off. Honestly, I can't see any other way we can generate offensive firepower.

On Sunday, we threw at Kelly 6 times and he made 4 catches for 36 yards. But Campbell also missed him on the route he ran the best during the game. Davis had the big block on the 3rd and 1 run on the last drive. Thomas was 0 for 2 attempts.

Marko Mitchell is starting to get some opportunities as well. It's not the dead end that the offense reached in the middle of October the last two years, there's actual reason to think that they might get better in the second half, you know, when they need to be.

Actually, since the start of the 2008 season, the Oakland Raiders have averaged more points per game (16.4) than the Redskins (16.2). And in that same span, we've averaged less than 2 ppg more than the Browns (14.3). So really, we're suffering the same sort of ineptitude. We're doing less with more when compared to Oakland actually. Sure, we can amass more yards than they can, but scoring wins football games.

Since the start of last year, only St. Louis, Cincy, and Cleveland have averaged less ppg than we have, and Cincy was an aberration IMO because Palmer was hurt most of last season. In addition to the Raiders, the 0 for the last 19 Lions have outscored us over that span. Pretty sad.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Actually, since the start of the 2008 season, the Oakland Raiders have averaged more points per game (16.4) than the Redskins (16.2). And in that same span, we've averaged less than 2 ppg more than the Browns (14.3). So really, we're suffering the same sort of ineptitude. We're doing less with more when compared to Oakland actually. Sure, we can amass more yards than they can, but scoring wins football games.

Since the start of last year, only St. Louis, Cincy, and Cleveland have averaged less ppg than we have, and Cincy was an aberration IMO because Palmer was hurt most of last season. In addition to the Raiders, the 0 for the last 19 Lions have outscored us over that span. Pretty sad.

Okay, go back a year. Does your disproof hold? Go back another year. Does it still hold?

Okay then, no need to cherry pick your argument.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Okay, go back a year. Does your disproof hold? Go back another year. Does it still hold?

Okay then, no need to cherry pick your argument.

Um, huh? I mean, I know you're never wrong, but what are you talking about? I did go back a year. I went back to the start of the Zorn era. Not sure what you're getting at. How are we not suffering the same sort of ineptitude as Oakland when they're outscoring us over that span? Because they've used draft picks on offensive players?

(PS- don't be so arrogant when people disagree with you. It's not necessary).

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Um, huh? I mean, I know you're never wrong, but what are you talking about? I did go back a year. I went back to the start of the Zorn era. Not sure what you're getting at. How are we not suffering the same sort of ineptitude as Oakland when they're outscoring us over that span? Because they've used draft picks on offensive players?

(PS- don't be so arrogant when people disagree with you. It's not necessary).

GM, look in the mirror before you judge me. You made a bad argument.

1) you can't pick and choose a span to fit the argument you want to make. That's called cherry picking. That's all I said. Nothing more, nothing less.

2) you used PF as your only evidence, knowing full well that you weren't giving us the whole story. I know you're better than this, as you post here more than enough to show that you're a bright guy.

I didn't push the argument because I know you won't always have as short a fuse as you do after watching what transpired on Sunday. I certainly don't think any less of you for being pissed off with a bad outcome. I'm pissed off, too. But if you're trying to prove that we've been just as inept as the worst offenses in the league over the past few years, you're not going to have much of an argument.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

GM, look in the mirror before you judge me. You made a bad argument.

1) you can't pick and choose a span to fit the argument you want to make. That's called cherry picking. That's all I said. Nothing more, nothing less.

2) you used PF as your only evidence, knowing full well that you weren't giving us the whole story. I know you're better than this, as you post here more than enough to show that you're a bright guy.

I didn't push the argument because I know you won't always have as short a fuse as you do after watching what transpired on Sunday. I certainly don't think any less of you for being pissed off with a bad outcome. I'm pissed off, too. But if you're trying to prove that we've been just as inept as the worst offenses in the league over the past few years, you're not going to have much of an argument.

I hear you, and I wasn't trying to be judgmental, so sorry if it came off that way. I guess the way I read your post rubbed me the wrong way.

Anyway, overall, is PF not a good a judge of offense? The best offenses in the league are the ones that score the most, right? Scoring is ultimately what wins ball games. As I mentioned, we've certainly been better at amassing yards than the worst teams in the league, but we're right there with them as far as our inability to move the scoreboard.

You're better than anyone on this board at using stats to back up your arguments, so I'm certainly not trying to have it out with you in that regard. Just curious why you think we're not near the bottom of the league offensively at this point.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

GM, look in the mirror before you judge me. You made a bad argument.

1) you can't pick and choose a span to fit the argument you want to make. That's called cherry picking. That's all I said. Nothing more, nothing less.

2) you used PF as your only evidence, knowing full well that you weren't giving us the whole story. I know you're better than this, as you post here more than enough to show that you're a bright guy.

I didn't push the argument because I know you won't always have as short a fuse as you do after watching what transpired on Sunday. I certainly don't think any less of you for being pissed off with a bad outcome. I'm pissed off, too. But if you're trying to prove that we've been just as inept as the worst offenses in the league over the past few years, you're not going to have much of an argument.

I'm lost...if the Zorn era is what we care about (and most of us are in that boat I think), how does one concoct a larger sample size? He's coached 18 total games...that's the data set, period. Cherry picking would be like picking out the last two and going "Holy shit this guy is bad!" Otherwise you look at the whole data set and see he's right there w/ the offenses of Oakland and Cleveland, but lagging beyond the Detroit offense

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

We know from watching four seasons with these guys under 3 different coordinators. Our record has been mediocre to average at best, and the offense has been really the only thing keeping this team from reaching the next level. These are the "playmakers" we have on offense.

The proof is what we've seen on the field since 2006.

Fair points. I guess what I see are recently drafted guys like Kelly, Davis, Mitchell not really being given the opportunities to make plays in the end zones (instead they go to Sellers?) and wonder if we know we don't have "playmakers"

I mean I see us lining up Moss as the #1 WR and think wouldn't it be so much better to have Kelly as the #1 and Moss as even the # 3? Wouldn't it be great to line up both Kelly and Mitchell for a fade in the red zone, instead of a shovel pass to Betts?