JoeJGibbs Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Here's an interesting stat for you: Redskins Offense ranked: 30th Time of Possession Ranked: #1 Record: 6-10 Portis gains 100+ yards = win = 6 Portis gains < 100 yards = loss = 10 Skins Defense Ranked: #3 Basically means that they were running the football, running the football, and running some more. Generally, if you have the ball the other team cannot score..they led the league in TOP but had no passing game. They had NO balance last year, they were strictly a team that HAD to run the ball to win.. I suspect that gibbs understands he MUST be able to throw downfield and this year and its going to be interesting. Gibbs' primary concern is protecting the QB and he didnt feel comfortable going into 3 or4 WR Sets and leaving his QB exposed. I remember the times where there were 2 WR's running routes vs 4 Db's because he needed to keep people in to block for Ramsey. Since then, he has added some quality WR's (not superstars) but good speed WR's. I would read between the lines here.. he added a shotgun to the offense signed a great center (Rabach) and added a crew of fast WR's...Gibbs is planning something through the air attack. Which should mean great things for the running game which should mean good things for the skins in general. Gibbs is adapting to the new NFL where speed kills, couple in G. Williams' defense and things will change sooner than later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoney26 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I didnt realize we lead the league in TOP. That can only mean good things. Everyone should realize we were about 1-3 big plays away a game from making the playoffs last year. I honesly believe if we would have made a big play in the first dallas game, browns, eagles x 2, Bengals, giants.....We really could have gone 12-4 last year if we could have caught a couple breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeJGibbs Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by stoney26 I didnt realize we lead the league in TOP. That can only mean good things. Everyone should realize we were about 1-3 big plays away a game from making the playoffs last year. I honesly believe if we would have made a big play in the first dallas game, browns, eagles x 2, Bengals, giants.....We really could have gone 12-4 last year if we could have caught a couple breaks. Lol yea its almost mind boggling how a 6-10 team could lead the NFL in time of posession. I agree most of their games were 13-10, 20-17 or something along those lines. And 1-3 big plays did keep them out of the playoffs..but how about 1-3 bonehead plays that kept them out as well...??? #1 they never should have lost to CLEVELAND (portis fumbles) ! #2 they never should have been swept by Dallas(antonio brown fumble) ... those 2 games would have earned them a playoff spot over Minnesota. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 JJGibbs, Nice statisitic, hopefully the can add some more points to go with it this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins1972 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by JoeJGibbs Lol yea its almost mind boggling how a 6-10 team could lead the NFL in time of posession. I agree most of their games were 13-10, 20-17 or something along those lines. And 1-3 big plays did keep them out of the playoffs..but how about 1-3 bonehead plays that kept them out as well...??? #1 they never should have lost to CLEVELAND (portis fumbles) ! #2 they never should have been swept by Dallas(antonio brown fumble) ... those 2 games would have earned them a playoff spot over Minnesota. We didnt loose the game on Antonio Brown's fumble, to what I recall we stoped them on that and they punted the ball. We didnt convert a first down so we punted the ball back and ofcourse after we hammered testy around for a while he comes up with a long bomb and the rest is history... :wewantd: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyansRangers Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 we never finished the drives. we always started the drives and somehow they stalled around the 40 yrdline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Jumbo Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Without looking at scores, I seem to remember if we scored just ONE more TD a game and all other things being equal, we'd have finished around 11-4-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Portis didn't play in the win against the Vikes, but I get your drift... Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by ntotoro Portis didn't play in the win against the Vikes, but I get your drift... Nick ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by Califan007 ??? I'll say it more slowly... Portis... did not... play... in the win... against... the Vikes... I said that in reference to this... Portis gains 100+ yards = win = 6 The Vikings game was one of those wins and, the last time I checked, he didn't even play, much less gain 100 yards. Nick Edit: I understand what he's getting at, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the big slim Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 That is good info...let's just hope they can execute and put 6 on the board on those drives this year.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Gut Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 We were plain horrible in the red zone last year, that's the truth. And a number of games Gibbs didn't trust the QBs to do anything but hand off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danbee Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 This is why I think the Redskins are at the door step. If we can get a passing threat developed there's no reason we can't be looking at 10-6 or even 11-5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by danbee This is why I think the Redskins are at the door step. If we can get a passing threat developed there's no reason we can't be looking at 10-6 or even 11-5. How about a short-yardage game? That's what would cure our redzone ills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaBeachSkinzFan Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by bird_1972 How about a short-yardage game? That's what would cure our redzone ills. That is why they drafted 2 FB's. Let's hope it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Let it go on record that I really love you signature. Damn, there's some REALLY nice sigs out there now.... I love the window dressing. Lets you know you're in Redskins land... and the place looks sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 The only thing the will stall the drives this year is the back of the endzone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUBAKAH Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by Die Hard Let it go on record that I really love you signature. Damn, there's some REALLY nice sigs out there now.... I love the window dressing. Lets you know you're in Redskins land... and the place looks sharp. Agreed, I really like that signature also. A true mix of gamer meets the NFL. Good work my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by ntotoro I'll say it more slowly... Portis... did not... play... in the win... against... the Vikes... I said that in reference to this... The Vikings game was one of those wins and, the last time I checked, he didn't even play, much less gain 100 yards. Nick Edit: I understand what he's getting at, though. Ahhh, ok...lol...I was looking for someone who specifically said Portis played against the Vikings and didn't see where anyone did. I skipped right over that stat mention while doing so...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeJGibbs Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 Ahhh yes this is true Portis did not play in the victory over the Vikings ---- BUT! Ladell bets gained 118 yards... so in games where the RB rush for over 100yards = Victory = 6-10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Just to set the record straight, the Redskins finished 8th in the NFL in time of possession. The Skins were at 31:19 according to NFL.com. The Steelers were number one with 34:00. Is the statistic important? Not really. Atlanta, Seatle, Colts and iggles all made the playoffs and were ranked 21st, 22nd, 25th and 26th respectively in the NFL in TOP. It's more important how many yards you move the ball when you have it and how little yardage you give up when you don't have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeJGibbs Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 #1 Washington 31:19 #2 St Louis 31:05 #3 Arizona 30:53 #4 Dallas 30:37 #5 Green Bay 30:28 #6 Minnesota 30:02 #7 Carolina 29:56 #8 Tampa Bay 29:43 #9 Atlanta 29:10 #10 Seattle 29:00 #13 Philly 28:26 3 of the top 6 teams made the playoffs, Washington you ask... they were 6-10... 2 words Clinton Portis. Seattle #10 simple they were 9-7 and WON their division!(they stunk but were lucky to be in that division this year) Philly? They're a passing team (clock does not run on incl passes) AFC #1 Pittsburgh 34:00 #2 Denver 32:38 #3 K.C. 32:14 #4 New York 31:51 #5 Tennessee 31:40 #6 San Diego 31:30 #7 New England 31:22 #13 Indianpolis 28:40 ... In the AFC, teams 1,2,4,6,7 made the playoffs. You say, but JoeJGibbs, KC is #3 and they didnt make it, and Indy is #13 and they made it. Simple, KC's offense is pounding the ground game alllllll day long (clock always running) and its just the opposite with INDY, they throw the ball alllllll day long, so on those incompletions, the clock doesnt run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by skins1972 We didnt loose the game on Antonio Brown's fumble, to what I recall we stoped them on that and they punted the ball. We didnt convert a first down so we punted the ball back and ofcourse after we hammered testy around for a while he comes up with a long bomb and the rest is history... :wewantd: yes we stopped them on that series after his fumble, but had he not fumbled, we would have ran the clock down for AT LEAST 3 plays, then punted, giving them less time and more difficult field position, so yes he did cost us that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by JoeJGibbs Sorry 1st in the NFC in TOP. Next time I shall proofread my posts..lol The previous 7 teams (in the AFC) all made the playoffs. KC was # 3, didn't make playoffs. Tenn was # 5 didn't make playoffs. Wash., Ariz & Dallas were also in top 12, but weren't among the 12 teams that made the playoffs. So 5 of the top 12 weren't in the 12 teams that made playoffs. 4 teams in the bottom 12 did make the playoffs. The stat isn't a predictor of success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by jimster yes we stopped them on that series after his fumble, but had he not fumbled, we would have ran the clock down for AT LEAST 3 plays, then punted, giving them less time and more difficult field position, so yes he did cost us that game. Antonio Brown's fumble had nothing whatsoever to do with the secondary collapse with 30 seconds remaining in the game...either Springs or Taylor screwed up, not Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.