Redskins.com: Expectations, Bounces & Meltdowns

[Mark The Homer]

Two points:

1) This article should be required reading for every Redskins fan.

2) Om should write a lot more!

[Mark The Homer]

Just for the record, here are the final turnover differential standings for the last 2 years (I’d go deeper, but NFL.com only provides cumulative league stats as far back as ‘03. If anyone can dig them up from prior to then, by all means please do).

2004 Turnover Differential

2003 Turnover Differential

You can change the url manually. ;-)

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-TURNOVERS/2002/regular?sort_col_1=9

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-TURNOVERS/2001/regular?sort_col_1=9

[~.~KWIZZLE~.~]

I think it really gives us (fans) something to think about. We all know that we can't be beat....we can ONLY beat ourselves. As soon as we can stop turning the ball over and actually get a couple......the sky is the limit on what we can do.

DaSkins4real

[whitejimmy]

I found the article to be very entertaining, well done! I'm not convinced that it's not just wishful thinking, however.

We rank dead last in the NFL in sacks (per link below). We're not getting to the QB. Quarterback fumbles appear to be the best kind, as evidenced by our own Mark Brunell. The NFL doesn't compile stats for fumbles by position, so I can't develop an elaborate argument, but I suspect QB fumbles are far more devasting. For one, the QB is generally behind the line of scrimmage, so if the defense recovers they'll get good field position.

The "theory" that pass rush leads to turnovers is inherently obvious. A rushed QB will throw poor passes (premature delivery and affected mechanics). A good swat at a QB will lead to QB fumbles.

As our secondary gets healthy, we'll be able to pressure the QB more and get more turnovers. Ultimately, however, our pass rush will only be so-so given the limitations of Wynn and Daniels.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/DEF-PASSING/2005/regular?&_1:col_1=11

[Om]

I found the article to be very entertaining, well done! I'm not convinced that it's not just wishful thinking, however.

We rank dead last in the NFL in sacks (per link below). We're not getting to the QB. Quarterback fumbles appear to be the best kind, as evidenced by our own Mark Brunell. The NFL doesn't compile stats for fumbles by position, so I can't develop an elaborate argument, but I suspect QB fumbles are far more devasting. For one, the QB is generally behind the line of scrimmage, so if the defense recovers they'll get good field position.

The "theory" that pass rush leads to turnovers is inherently obvious. A rushed QB will throw poor passes (premature delivery and affected mechanics). A good swat at a QB will lead to QB fumbles.

As our secondary gets healthy, we'll be able to pressure the QB more and get more turnovers. Ultimately, however, our pass rush will only be so-so given the limitations of Wynn and Daniels.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/DEF-PASSING/2005/regular?&_1:col_1=11

Out of curiousity, what part(s) do you consider "wishful thinking?"

As to the pass rush question ... I don't disagree. If there's one area of this team I still believe needs upgrading before it becomes a true championship contender, it's in generating a consistent pass rush from the four down linemen. I wrote about that over a year ago, and haven't changed my mind since. I think Williams has done a remarkable job in covering for that relative weakness through scheme, but don't believe we'll get "over the hump" until and unless we add one or two legitimate one-on-one pass rushers from the down position.

But I'll say it again: we ARE forcing fumbles, and we ARE getting our hands on potential interceptions. It's just that when the dust settles on those plays, we're not in possession of the damn ball ... at a statistically anomalous rate. And that despite all that, the team is still 3-2, still statistically dominating and almost beating the likes of Devner and KC on the road, and still reasonably expecting to be 4-2 come Sunday night ... all despite being -8 overall in turnovers.

Seems to me one of two things can happen. 1) We continue to come up on the short end of turnover differential and STOP winning, thus becoming the more usual (losing) team at bottom rung of the differential stat, or 2) the seemingly statistically anomalous turnover thing starts to balance out, as I've indicated I believe it will, and the Redskins become the legitimate playoff contender I believe they'll be by season's end.

Note I said playoff contender, not championship contender. See above.

Me, for the reasons stated in the column, and many others I didn't go into (you hear the Cliff Notes comment enough, you eventually learn), right now I'm feeling pretty good about forecasting the latter.

[whitejimmy]

The wishful thinking was your argument that it's just bad luck that we're losing the turnover battle. At least that is how I perceived your argument. I don't think it's luck. I think we're not getting to the quarterback means we're not getting better turnover opportunities. We'd intuitively get more fumbles and picks if we got more QB pressure. I think the problem is systemic, frankly. The design of Williams' defense doesn't allow for much use of pass-rushing specialists. The only way we'd get good pressure on first down in a Williams' defense is if we happen upon a great 2-way DE. GW doesn't want any Bruce Smith DE's with their matador approach to playing the position, for better or worse. For example, Rich (Ritchie Redskin) Owens had like 11 sacks for the Skins way back when. He wouldn't get on the field on this squad. How many such 2-way DE's are even in the league? Strahan, Abraham, ...?

[Om]

The wishful thinking was your argument that it's just bad luck that we're losing the turnover battle. At least that is how I perceived your argument. I don't think it's luck. I think we're not getting to the quarterback means we're not getting better turnover opportunities. We'd intuitively get more fumbles and picks if we got more QB pressure. I think the problem is systemic, frankly. The design of Williams' defense doesn't allow for much use of pass-rushing specialists. The only way we'd get good pressure on first down in a Williams' defense is if we happen upon a great 2-way DE. GW doesn't want any Bruce Smith DE's with their matador approach to playing the position, for better or worse. For example, Rich (Ritchie Redskin) Owens had like 11 sacks for the Skins way back when. He wouldn't get on the field on this squad. How many such 2-way DE's are even in the league? Strahan, Abraham, ...?

Your thoughts are noted.

My thoughts are that your thoughts aren't really responses to my thoughts, however, but rather your thoughts reflective of not giving much thought (or at least consideration) to the actual thinking behind my thoughts, either in the column or, I think, in the subsequent follow-up thoughts.

With that, I think I'll go grab lunch.

[whitejimmy]

Uh, okay. I'll put my response in the direct context of your message. I'm probably not that clear. I'm an engineer, what do you want, Chaucer?

Out of curiousity, what part(s) do you consider "wishful thinking?"

As to the pass rush question ... I don't disagree. If there's one area of this team I still believe needs upgrading before it becomes a true championship contender, it's in generating a consistent pass rush from the four down linemen. I wrote about that over a year ago, and haven't changed my mind since. I think Williams has done a remarkable job in covering for that relative weakness through scheme, but don't believe we'll get "over the hump" until and unless we add one or two legitimate one-on-one pass rushers from the down position.

Agreed.

But I'll say it again: we ARE forcing fumbles, and we ARE getting our hands on potential interceptions. It's just that when the dust settles on those plays, we're not in possession of the damn ball ... at a statistically anomalous rate. And that despite all that, the team is still 3-2, still statistically dominating and almost beating the likes of Devner and KC on the road, and still reasonably expecting to be 4-2 come Sunday night ... all despite being -8 overall in turnovers.

Technically, you are right. We have forced as many fumbles as our opponents. However, I'd bet more of our turnovers are the dreaded QB fumbles. The OL generally has their back to the QB and the DL is facing the QB, so more QB fumbles result in turnovers than, say, a RB fumble in traffic that could go to anyone. The NFL doesn't track this statistic (fumbles by position), so it's hard to prove this theory. There is anecdotal evidence, at least, from our very own squad. Just look at how many of our fumbles come from the hands of Brunell. Our defense doesn't generate enough of these quality turnover opportunities (QB fumbles).

Seems to me one of two things can happen. 1) We continue to come up on the short end of turnover differential and STOP winning, thus becoming the more usual (losing) team at bottom rung of the differential stat, or 2) the seemingly statistically anomalous turnover thing starts to balance out, as I've indicated I believe it will, and the Redskins become the legitimate playoff contender I believe they'll be by season's end.

I would bet on a third option. We continue to lose the turnover battle at an average rate of -1 per game, and continue to be a .600 team. Our turnover propensity will get better than what we witnessed during the chiefs game once the secondary gets healthy and we can blitz more, but it'll never be very good. However, our team is generally good enough on offense and defense otherwise to overcome a -1 TO differential on a game-to-game basis.

Better? How was lunch? I had hamburger helper leftovers. Yummy. Anyway, good debating this with you.

[Art Monk Fan]

Your thoughts are noted.

My thoughts are that your thoughts aren't really responses to my thoughts, however, but rather your thoughts reflective of not giving much thought (or at least consideration) to the actual thinking behind my thoughts, either in the column or, I think, in the subsequent follow-up thoughts.

With that, I think I'll go grab lunch.

Now that's writing Mrs. Alexander can be proud of!

:doh: I mean, "of which Mrs. Alexander can be proud."

[Mark The Homer]

If I may cut in...

At first I didn't agree with Jimmy, but after his last post at 12:51, I get it. And I have to admit it makes sense. He may be right, maybe it's not just bad luck.

But with Gibbs' famous adustments, whether they be second half of the game, or second half of the season, the team and the turnover issue can only improve. The trend cannot continue.

Sidenote to Jimmy: Oak Island! I'm there every summer! Great place. Are you on the ocean? Sweet.

[whitejimmy]

Okay, here are SOME numbers.

Chicago -- Redskins fumble four times (QB had 2), lose two (QB had 1). Bears fumble thrice (QB had 2), lose one (QB had it). 1

Dallas -- Redskins fumble once (non QB), lose it. Cowboys fumble three times (QB had 2), recover them all. 1

Seattle -- Redskins do not fumble. Seahawks fumble once (non QB), recover it.

Denver -- Redskins fumble once (QB had it), lose it (QB had it). Broncos fumble once (non QB), recover it.

Kansas City -- Redskins fumble 3 times (QB had 2), lose them all. Chiefs fumble twice (QB had 1), recover them both. 1

During Redskin games this season, there have been 19 fumbles of which 10 were by QBs. Of those 10, 6 resulted in turnovers (60%). Of the other 9, only 3 were turnovers (33%). So, just based on Redskins' games this season, QB fumbles result in more TO's by almost 2 to 1 (60% to 33%). This isn't enough data to be conclusive, but I ain't going to go counting up these stats for the whole league by hand like I've done here.

[Guest BleedinBurgundyandGold]

Two points:

1) This article should be required reading for every Redskins fan.

2) Om should write a lot more!

absolutely could not agree more.

great read.

Hail!

[Om]

Uh, okay. I'll put my response in the direct context of your message. I'm probably not that clear. I'm an engineer, what do you want, Chaucer?

Making virtue of necessity.

I like it.

Technically, you are right. We have forced as many fumbles as our opponents. However, I'd bet more of our turnovers are the dreaded QB fumbles. The OL generally has their back to the QB and the DL is facing the QB, so more QB fumbles result in turnovers than, say, a RB fumble in traffic that could go to anyone. The NFL doesn't track this statistic (fumbles by position), so it's hard to prove this theory. There is anecdotal evidence, at least, from our very own squad. Just look at how many of our fumbles come from the hands of Brunell. Our defense doesn't generate enough of these quality turnover opportunities (QB fumbles).

Based on a quick scan of the NFL's gamecenter stats:

4 of the Skins 9 have come from QB sacks. 2 were pocket sacks of Patrick's against Chicago, 1 Brunell's pocket strip in KC, the other a downfield scramble fumble against DC. So 3 of our fumbles have come (out) of the hands of Brunell; two in the pocket, one on a scramble.

As for our opponents, T. Green fumbled once in the pocket, but they recovered it. Bledsoe fumbled twice in the pocket, but they recovered them both. Orton fumbled twice in the pocket, and they recovered one of them. Not 100% positive all were pocket fumbles, but I believe they were.

The scorecard:

Our starters have fumbled 3 times in the pocket. We've lost all of them.

Their starters have fumbled 5 times in the pocket. They've recovered all but one.

I'm telling ya, the ball just doesn't like us right now.

The good news is, when the Skins DO add a pass rush component from their DL, as we agree they'll need to do to get where they want to go, it follows that they'll start forcing even MORE of the kinds of fumbles you are rightfully pining for here. And it follows that we'll actually recover a few of them from time to time.

I would bet on a third option. We continue to lose the turnover battle at an average rate of -1 per game, and continue to be a .600 team. Our turnover propensity will get better than what we witnessed during the chiefs game once the secondary gets healthy and we can blitz more, but it'll never be very good. However, our team is generally good enough on offense and defense otherwise to overcome a -1 TO differential on a game-to-game basis.

Better?

Parkay.

I have no problem with this. I'm a bit more optimistic than you about the effect of a return of a healthy secondary (and perhaps even an LA sighting or two) insofar as letting GW dial the pressure back up, but overall we're at least in the same chapter here.

How was lunch? I had hamburger helper leftovers. Yummy. Anyway, good debating this with you.

Not bad. Roast chicken sammich and a raspberry yogurt. Got some Dannon on my tie, dammit, but at least it hit the right-colored stripe.

Back at you.

[whitejimmy]

Well played. Did you catch my 1:15 post? Interesting how we each went through gamecenter stats and concluded we were each correct. We're all spin doctors, I guess

Why can't all threads be like this? People presenting new, supported arguments and respectfully debating them with an open mind. A very novel idea. Why can't I write in complete sentences?

[Skinsphoto]

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=11529

Expectations, Bounces & Meltdowns

October 20, 2005

By Mark Steven

Ok I'm pissed, you need to take the listening devices out of my house, office and home. And write your own stuff. Copy cat. Just Kidding I Couldn't Agree More. You're Exactly Correct ON Everything.

I predicted after the Steeler's game. Redskins would open season 4-2, we'd lose in Dallas and spilt in KC & Denver. Now OM put it out there. I say Redskins finish 10-6. Win home division games, win on the road at Rams & Cards, Lose to Chargers at home and beat Raiders at home.

Time to go out on a limb. You have this team perfectly summed up. So what do you say?

[Skinsphoto]

I’m having Mrs. Alexander’s English Class flashbacks.

And I am alarmed about the Lenny P thing. I call upon him to cease and desist immediately.

Could be. Some of the fumbles have occurred with not enough Skins around, and part of that may be that folks aren’t always where they’re technically supposed to be (I hinted at that part of the issue a bit with the “hustle” comment, but didn’t pursue it much because I didn’t want it to detract from the main point—that being on the negative end of the differential scale, regardless of the reasons, is such a strong statistical indicator of win/losses).

But some have also come when the loose ball was surrounded by Skins, and still managed to worm its way through their grasp and into the belly of a lone wrong-colored jersey.

It took me a while before I got comfortable enough to actually put that in writing—it smacks of hinting there are mystical forces at work, and I really hate that. But I’ve seen it enough, going back to last year and beyond, to think that at some point the coin has to start landing on the other side again from time to time. Hell, I’d even settle for it landing on its SIDE a few times. Maybe that would at least keep our fumbles from seemingly always not only bouncing to the other guys, but doing so in such a fashion that it actually bounces up as pretty as you please so a guy can scoop it up in stride and go the other direction for a cheap TD.

Grumble.[/QUOT

You covered it in the percentage. Williams describes them "in bunches." It's simple unlucky bounces with an odd shaped ball. Our turn will come.

[Om]

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=11529

Expectations, Bounces & Meltdowns

October 20, 2005

By Mark Steven

Ok I'm pissed, you need to take the listening devices out of my house, office and home. And write your own stuff. Copy cat. Just Kidding I Couldn't Agree More. You're Exactly Correct ON Everything.

I predicted after the Steeler's game. Redskins would open season 4-2, we'd lose in Dallas and spilt in KC & Denver. Now OM put it out there. I say Redskins finish 10-6. Win home division games, win on the road at Rams & Cards, Lose to Chargers at home and beat Raiders at home.

Time to go out on a limb. You have this team perfectly summed up. So what do you say?

Well, I don't generally do predictions. The last one I did worked out rather well, but that was based on a gut feeling so strong I had no choice, and about a single game, not a whole season.

Did I mention I can be shameless?

Anyway, I wrote in preseason I thought that if this team stayed relatively healthy and got decent QB play, they'd be in the playoff mix come December. Which translates, I suppose, into about 9-11 wins. As of week 5, we're hanging tough on the first part (knock on wood), and way ahead of the curve on the second ... so as of today, I see no reason to back off on that. If they keep improving at the rate I think they are, I may even go higher.

Tell you what, though. Give me until the halfway point, when we've played eight, and I'll throw a hard number out there. I'll still reserve the right to play the injury caveat card, though.

[36HAMMER]

it's always a pleasure.I like the way that through stats and analysis you tell the faithful to chill and that there is real reason for optimisum and to those that have mocked us and enjoyed our trials and tribulations, that the days of their smugness is coming to and end. the day that they have feared has come the skins are gaining more and more mo and are now a force to be reckoned with. no longer the laughable losers.Now the lunch pale carrying warriors are back, and we will only improve with time.prepare to step aside nfc east and make room for the Washington Redskins.

[denverdan]

Despite being a great writer, wordy, but a great writer, I've always thought Thomas Wolfe was a hypocrite, he is after all buried in Asheville under a beautifully carved headstone.

[Om]

Despite being a great writer, wordy, but a great writer, I've always thought Thomas Wolfe was a hypocrite, he is after all buried in Asheville under a beautifully carved headstone.

Oh, I don't know. All things on earth point home in October.

[TMat184]

I love reading your articles OM, your writing talent sees no end

[skinsmania123]

Best article I have read in a long time. God, I knew other teams were losing balls but were recovering them as well, but man this has to turn around.

Thanks buddy.

Sean

[Oldfan]

Deceptive numbers? That’s pretty argumentative, don’t you think?

I don't think so. In my opinion, your use of the study correlating turnovers to wins marred an otherwise well-written and convincing argument. I was just offering a little constructive criticism.

In order to measure a factor, it must first be isolated from other factors. In this case, we know that turnovers often lead to scores. We also know that high scoring teams get more turnovers simply by establishing leads in ballgames and forcing their opponents to take more risks in order to catch up. A valid study would find a way to isolate one factor or the other.

In asking me to come up with statistical proof that high scoring teams eventually force their opponents into turnovers, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. I've given you a reason to doubt the validity of the study. You have agreed my reasoning is logical.... I've made my point.

[semiskin]

Well crafted article Om, nice to see some positivity around here after two straight losses.

[Warhead36]

What a great article.