Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Gibbs' Winning Formula for '06 ...your thoughts?


LoudMouth12thMan

Recommended Posts

Hello fellow ES peeps. I've ran some numbers on Gibbs' teams over both of his tenures here and I have noticed a formula for success in '06. This is based on Gibbs 14 seasons as a coach of the Redskins. Take a look and tell me your thoughts please...

Super Bowl Years...(including ='83)

-Redskins averaged 11.75 wins during each year's respective regular season

-Redskins defeated opponents by a margin of 11.6 per game

-Offense avg. total rank=4th in the league

-Defense avg. total rank=12th in the league

Playoff Years...(excluding SB appearances)

-Redskins averaged approx. 10.8 wins during each year's respective regular season

-Redskins defeated opponents by an average margin of 2.65 (obviously less than a field goal)

-Offense avg. total rank=10th in the league

-Defense avg. total rank=15th in the league

2005 Stats

-Redskins record in the regular season 10-6

-Redskins defeated opponents by a margin of 3.5 (obviously just over a field goal)

-Offense total rank=11th

-Defense total rank=9th

Formula For SB Success in 2006

-Win 1 more game than last year=11-5 record

-defeat opponents by an avg. of 7 or more points than '05 (obviously 1 more TD per game than last year). I have to note that this is crucial not soley based on the past team's numbers, but it is important for setting the tone with regard to the offense's rhythm, which was lack-luster at best last year. [Enter Al Saunders]

-Defense must match or better last year's total ranking

-Offense must improve a couple of spots in ranking

Note: The relationship between offensive and defensive rankings are difficult to determine b/c a superior defense (i.e. Ravens of 2000 or Giants of 1990) matched with an avg. offense ranked in the medial range can still win a championship. This doesn't happen often, but it's highly possible with Gregg Williams, but not likely. Therefore, I believe the relationship between a top ten O and D have to go hand in hand.

Last Observation

It's somewhat ironic how similar the numbers between the 1990 Redskins and the 2005 Redskins are. If you push the defenses ranking up 3 spots and add that figure with the offenses ranking, you have nearly the same team. The total stats are extremely close. I'm spinning this of course, but also Humphries came in the following year for Rypien in 1991 probably due to the fact that the Skins were ahead in many games that season. Is it possible to bring in Campbell this year if the team gets out in front come time for the 4th quarter? This would certainly save Brunell and keep him durable. I believe that is the key ingredient---EXPLOSIVENESS---The offense must be explosive this year for 4 reasons:

1-keep Brunell fresh from game to game (durability)

2-give Portis an opportunity to stay fresh as well (durability)...he alluded to this when asked about Betts taking more carries this year. Saunders and co. want him fresh, unlike last year when he was banged up.

3-take pressure off of the defense (carried us last year, not to mention the year before).

4-allow for O-line rotation late in the game when we will ground and pound in the 4th quarter (durability)

These are my thoughts, and I thought some of you would like to see how close this team really is to becoming a SB caliber team. FA upgrades or not, we were and still are close. Al Saunders would have improved this offense without Lloyd and Randle El, but it sure doesn't hurt to have more options. The defense didn't need help per se, but obviously it has upgraded in two key areas at SS and DE. Your thoughts?.....

HTTR! :logo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

brikem05...that of course goes without saying, but you're focusing on the obvious and not the state of the team and how it compares to the previous SB teams. Thanks for the response. You were just a baby though, so you wouldn't remeber the last two SB's like I do. I remember how the team was built in '90 and '91 specifically and we're close...really close to making it happen again based on our talent level and last year's performance.

HTTR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insightful post, but I don't think you'll see Campbell at all unless Brunell gets hurt. In the NFL a team being beat by 20 points can come back quickly if given the opportunity. I also think our defensive numbers will slide slightly with the addition of Saunders. In KC Saunders liked to score often. Saunders even liked to score quickly if that was what the defense allowed. Scoring more frequently will put our defense on the field longer. Our numbers probably won't get better if the guys are playing longer, but their effect on the game may be more favorable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EXPLOSIVENESS---The offense must be explosive this year for 4 reasons:

When you say explosiveness, do you mean quick scoreing ? If so, I don't agree completely.

The only way to keep the D fresh is to have a solid balance on O, meaning if we keep going for the quick scores, the D will be on the field that much longer, and will ware down quickly. Sustained clock eating drives will keep the D fresh. Looking to air it out often early is not the way to do it. Balance in running and passing is what makes things happen. Of course, you have to take what the D is going to give you.

I agree using Betts and Rock to spel Portis is also key. Besides resting your # 1 guy, throwing a change up at people is often a good thing for reasons or running styles. Running the ball is also key to keeping any QB fresh. The more he hands off or pitches it, the less hits he'll take. I doesn't hurt an older throwing arm either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other things to consider:

1. Team unity: Under Gibbs, didn't the Redskins feel like a single entity/unit?

There were no "flashy Superstars" (this is why I believe that it's so hard to get Redskins like Monk in the HoF), just guys who did their role and won. Even though Portis is a character and Taylor is the "bad-boy" of the team, this does feel like a team that gels well.....hopefully ARE, Lloyd, Carter, Archuleta and Fauria can also gel.

2. O-line health: It never seemed like the Hogs had significnt injuries when the Skins won it all (granted in many of the SB wins I ws just a kid) or at least the depth to fill in for injuries. This is a concern since I'm not sure we have the depth to replace any of the starters for a muli-game stretch.

3. The Posse 2?- I the last 2 SB wins we had an incredible WR/TE corp. in Monk, Clark, Sanders, Didier and Warren. If the FA pick-ups pan out then we have a similar group in Moss, Lloyd, ARE, Cooley,Fauria and Sellers. Granted, the Skins have been of a "run first" mentality, but we clearly dominated the air war in the SB years.

Great post LM12thM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Pete, to a degree I mean scoring quickly, but not totaly. I just recall us playing from behind in the majority of the games in '05. I think that it will serve us well if we can get out in front quicker. You make a good point about wearing the D down by keeping them on the field, but lack of production especially late in the season last year often kept them (the D) on the field anyway. So, I don't think that it will hender us in that regard. I think we're okay at depth defensively to keep us effective. Thanks for the post Pete. See ya 'round.

HTTR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Joe Gibbs Formula for success is as follows:

V ≈ T(¾) × Π ÷ C + E

This would be:

Victory is approximately equal to the level of talent on your football team, multiplied by ¾, to allow for the fact that talent isn’t everything, and you can’t measure heart. You then multiply that number by Π, because no good mathematical formula is complete without Π. You then divide that number by character, and add the experience of your players and coaching staff.

So we have here, for the upcoming season:

Overall level of talent is high. On the Redskins roster, there are, by my calculations, 9 players that potentially could make the Pro Bowl, so we will say T=9. Multiplied by ¾, we have T≈7. Multiply that by Π, and you get 21.99114855.

While there are some very minor character issues with the Redskins, the overall level remains high. I’d say, on a scale of 0-10, the Redskins are a solid 9, with only Sean Taylor’s off field issues bringing it down from a 10. So, we now have a number of 2.44346095.

Now add experience. The Redskins have the most experienced coaching staff in the league, and are not likely to start ant rookies. We can say that the term “highly experienced” refers to coaches with 15 years or more of NFL coaching, and players with 5 of more years of experience. Joe Gibbs has always placed a high value on experience, especially in his quarterback. So, the number of highly experienced starters and coaches is, by my count, 17.

Therefore, 2.44346095 + 17 ≈ 19 - which equals the total number of wins during the regular season and playoffs.

And 19 wins = perfect season ending in Super Bowl victory.

Simple, isn’t it? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this post is that you have it backwards. You don't win superbowls b/c you win 11 games or because your D was ranked statistically in the top ten or because you outscored opponents by 12 ppg. You do all those things because you have a good football team, and as a corrolary to that, not a cause and effect matter, you have a chance to win the superbowl.

Teams aren't good because they get those stats, good teams get those stats. Just like teams aren't good because they won a superbowl, good teams win the superbowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this post is that you have it backwards. You don't win superbowls b/c you win 11 games or because your D was ranked statistically in the top ten or because you outscored opponents by 12 ppg. You do all those things because you have a good football team, and as a corrolary to that, not a cause and effect matter, you have a chance to win the superbowl.

Teams aren't good because they get those stats, good teams get those stats. Just like teams aren't good because they won a superbowl, good teams win the superbowl.

You're telling me then that 14 years of a proven formula from a successful HOF coach has nothing to do with SB wins/appearances? So, Gibbs just happened to have a bunch of guys over the years that would have been a "good team" regardless of his input or philosophies. Tell Gibbs he has it backwards not me. I didn't come up with the stats, his teams did. Seems to me you'd lose the argument. Are not stats, whether good or bad, the result of a coach and his team's performance? Lastly, I never said that "the teams won because of stats". I said that statistically Gibbs teams won and lost with those numbers at 3 different levels (SB level, playoff level, division losses level (no playoff appearance). There is an obvious pattern or blueprint for success and I was simply saying that '05 team was close to being a SB caliber team last year. Hopefully it will be a SB team this year.

HTTR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're telling me then that 14 years of a proven formula from a successful HOF coach has nothing to do with SB wins/appearances? So, Gibbs just happened to have a bunch of guys over the years that would have been a "good team" regardless of his input or philosophies. Tell Gibbs he has it backwards not me. I didn't come up with the stats, his teams did. Seems to me you'd lose the argument. Are not stats, whether good or bad, the result of a coach and his team's performance? Lastly, I never said that "the teams won because of stats". I said that statistically Gibbs teams won and lost with those numbers at 3 different levels (SB level, playoff level, division losses level (no playoff appearance). There is an obvious pattern or blueprint for success and I was simply saying that '05 team was close to being a SB caliber team last year. Hopefully it will be a SB team this year.

HTTR!

You're getting a little fired up when I wasnt trying to piss you off.

All I'm saying is, a winning formula for success isnt saying we need to be in the top ten of this or that... we need to outscore our opponents by this many points. The winning formula for success is being more physical than the other team, executing the game plan, playing mistake free football, and trying to come up with more big plays than the other team. If you do that, then you will be leading in every statistical category.

Oh, and the only stat that I think Gibbs has ever said that the team needs to win is the turnover battle. And I think that fits into playing mistake free football and making more big plays than the other team.

But all I'm saying is that you don't go into a season saying that if we outscore our opponents by 11 ppg we have a good chance to go to the superbowl. If you do all the things a superbowl winning team does, you will outscore your opponents by a signficant margin throughout the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The turnover ratio has always been one stat that consistently characterizes winning programs. Which in my mind is a combination of a defense that brings pressure and hits hard, with an offense that is somewhat conservative. I don't mean run, run, pass, punt; you can be conservative by throwing into one on one coverage which reduces the possibility of an INT. Like when Dan Henning was here, Saunders will use the run to set up the pass, and use the pass to set up the run. That's why I think Brunell will have a great year. GOING TO THE BOWL BABY!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

E dog what a bunch of crap. Please go ask Joe himself what the winning formula is. He might not not have it himself because Winnign Football is not a science or math equation figured. It the intangibles that make men play like Gods on the field. You cant measure heart, courage, passion, desire. Go ask Mr. Gibbs. Thank you so much. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Pete, to a degree I mean scoring quickly, but not totaly. I just recall us playing from behind in the majority of the games in '05. I think that it will serve us well if we can get out in front quicker. You make a good point about wearing the D down by keeping them on the field, but lack of production especially late in the season last year often kept them (the D) on the field anyway. So, I don't think that it will hender us in that regard. I think we're okay at depth defensively to keep us effective. Thanks for the post Pete. See ya 'round.

HTTR!

I agree we were hurt at times from playing from behind, and it my just be a choice in wording between us. Scoring quickly to you is the same as scoring early to me :) There's nothing better the taking the ball in for a score the first time you get it. Doing it with nice drive is that much better.

:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses guys. I am being somewhat over-analytical with regard to the numbers. But I do think that we have a team that is capable of reaching those numbers (beating the opponent by an avg. of 11 points per game is attainable, getting 11 wins is absolutely attainable, and being ranked in the top 10 in Offense is likely with Saunders). Certainly Gibbs isn't in the locker room or on the practice field pressing the "stat" issue. However, stats are something to consider and the information is passed on to players and coaches over the course of a given season. So, they matter to a degree. Thanks again guys...can't wait to see us play.

HTTR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

W * 16 + 3 = SB:

A simplified formula would be 2[(DC)+(PE)+(NYG)] + 10 + 3 = SB, which stands for two wins against Dallas, Philly and the Giants plus 10 wins against the rest of the league plus 3 more wins in post season play = a Super Bowl win!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say explosiveness, do you mean quick scoreing ? If so, I don't agree completely.

The only way to keep the D fresh is to have a solid balance on O, meaning if we keep going for the quick scores, the D will be on the field that much longer, and will ware down quickly. Sustained clock eating drives will keep the D fresh. Looking to air it out often early is not the way to do it. Balance in running and passing is what makes things happen. Of course, you have to take what the D is going to give you.

So what do you think of the Steeler's formula in the playoffs last year of slinging it around in the first half and taking the air entirely out of the ball in the second half while you sit on the lead you've built?

I personally do think it's very important that we put up alot of points in the first half so that the game isn't even close and we can have Clinton (and I'm paraphrasing here) "on the sideline with his cap on backwards cheering on his teammates in the 4th quarter." We would reduce starter's chances of injuries, keep them generally fresher for a long season and (hopefully) a long postseason and also help to develop good depth in case an injury does occur. Explosive offense is the key to allowing this to happen... but that's just me.

Also, if you look at the stats from '91, you'll see that 7(maybe 8 depending on how you classify them) of the 16 games plus the NFC championship game v. Detroit were blowouts. Dominance in the first half makes the second half inconsequential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...