robotfire Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I try not to start threads about things that have been talked about a hundred times, but I think you almost have to in response to the hundreds of exact-same threads about Brunell, Gibbs and Campbell that have been started. 13th rank. That's our offense. 26th rank. That's our defense. Brunell's stats: 1465 yards passing, 132 out of 206 completions, 7 TDs/3 INTS, 90.4 passer rating. I understand he's an easy target to blame, since he's our quarterback. I understand Gibbs is easy to talk trash about, because...well I don't know why you morons do that. But you're completely avoiding the real issue when you say Brunell is the problem. A Gibbs team has always relied, and always will rely on an efficient defense. If we can't get enough plays to make something happen because our defense can't stop anybody on 3rd down, then I think we need to look at the real problem and stop trying to find a scapegoat. You want an easy fix, but it doesn't work that way. This isn't just one position stinking up the field. This is 11 guys on defense not getting it done. I say put Campbell in because the season's over. Gibbs hasn't done that yet because he knows it ain't over 'til it's over. If the season really isn't over, and Gibbs is right, then Brunell is definitely our best option. In other words, you're looking at the wrong side of the team for the real problem. I'm not saying the offense is clicking like magic, but it's really hard to win games when the defense is the 26th worst in total yards allowed and 26th worst in total points allowed. Clint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLiverpool Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Our defense has stunk, and injuries do happen, and players do leave, but the Skins have few excuses at this point. Other teams have injuries too, yet don't fall apart like the Skins have as of late. Its a coach who sees the injuries and makes schemes to cover up the weakpoints. GW, for all he's done in a couple of years prior, has maybe gotten too high on his own cred, and needs a wakeup call... or a kick too the crotch, whatever works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majorhavoc Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 IMO, if the offense could sustain drives, the defense wouldn't be on the field so much giving up yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsrevival Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Is that offensive ranking 13th in yardage or 13th in points??? At the end of the day what matters is how many points you score. And while I don't expect the Redskins to average 30 ppg, I do expect them to score more than 16 against a Vikings team with a new head coach playing at home. I do expect them to score more than 3 against Dallas and I do expect them to scor more than 3 against the Giants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrhetzler Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I agree that it's the defense. AND I agree that Brunell is not THE problem. I also agree that the season is probably over. That being said, I think Campbell should start also and here's why: Brunell is great as a game "manager". He doesn't cough up the ball alot, etc. Which is great for a team with a bad***** defense. See 2005. But when we have a $hitty defense (see 2006) we may find ourselves having to win some "shootouts". Since Brunell either can't or won't throw the deep ball, maybe Campbell will. Starting Campbell for this reason doesn't even put the blame on Brunell. Starting Campbell says to Brunell that we need a different KIND of quarterback because of the defense. Plus JC will get some experience. Plus opposing defenses may stop putting 12 men in the box out of respect for JC's potential long ball. Yes, we'd be risking more turnovers, but the season's over, so who cares. This season I'd almost rather have turnovers than 3 and outs, whereas last year I was content to see 3 Portis runs, a punt, and our defense getting back on the field. (see Playoff game vs. Tampa) That's my $0.02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpskins Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Can you understand that we might have a serious deficit at the QB position? I agree with you in terms of the fact that if we had a shut down defense like we have had the last two years, our record would be much better. But how does that fact make Mark Brunell and better QB or the QB to lead this team? There are numerous reasons to start Jason Campbell. I'm not saying it will win us games, but I don't think MB has one us any games recently either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaRora Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 majorhavoc that sig is funnnny as ****! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Thank you thread starter for pointing out the truth. Unfortunately, fans will blame the QB regardless of what the actual problems are. The truth is the defense is the problem, but it will fall on deaf ears. Trust me, I've been trying to explain this to people all week but to no avail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Is that offensive ranking 13th in yardage or 13th in points???At the end of the day what matters is how many points you score. And while I don't expect the Redskins to average 30 ppg, I do expect them to score more than 16 against a Vikings team with a new head coach playing at home. I do expect them to score more than 3 against Dallas and I do expect them to scor more than 3 against the Giants. Point taken. However, yardage should translate to points. When yardage doesn't translate to points, the team is either turning the ball over too much or getting bad field position. In this team's case, it is the bad field position that is the culprit, and the balme for that rests squarely on the struggling defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Brunell led offense: 3 points per game against the NFC east 7.33 points per game against the NFC. Must be the defense. How can you not win when we put 3 points against a division rival? Shame on the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Native,NC_Fan Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 IMO, if the offense could sustain drives, the defense wouldn't be on the field so much giving up yards. Ding ding ding! Stats only tell so much. Our offense has been very inept in sustaining drives. If our OFFENSE would be able to move the ball more consistently, it gives our defense more rest and keeps the opposing offense off of the field. Why do you think we are getting scored against so much more in the 2nd half? Tired defense=sucky defense. I do realize regardless that our defense is not as good as last year, but other teams' coaches are able to scheme-wise mask certain deficiencies. Why can't GW? If you think that Brunell is not a major problem of the offense, then who's to blame for all of the 10-yard drop-backs followed by a 5-yard dump-off? Do you honestly think the coaches were calling those plays THAT many times in a row last week? Nope, Brunell would go through his "progressions" and then dump the ball off. Our fellow ESers that attended the games and TV replays confirm that the WR's are getting open consistently, so who else is to blame? I blame whoever's decision it is to keep Brunell in. Now who could that be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitejimmy Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I agree that it's the defense. AND I agree that Brunell is not THE problem. I also agree that the season is probably over.That being said, I think Campbell should start also and here's why: Brunell is great as a game "manager". He doesn't cough up the ball alot, etc. Which is great for a team with a bad***** defense. See 2005. But when we have a $hitty defense (see 2006) we may find ourselves having to win some "shootouts". Since Brunell either can't or won't throw the deep ball, maybe Campbell will. Starting Campbell for this reason doesn't even put the blame on Brunell. Starting Campbell says to Brunell that we need a different KIND of quarterback because of the defense. Plus JC will get some experience. Plus opposing defenses may stop putting 12 men in the box out of respect for JC's potential long ball. Yes, we'd be risking more turnovers, but the season's over, so who cares. This season I'd almost rather have turnovers than 3 and outs, whereas last year I was content to see 3 Portis runs, a punt, and our defense getting back on the field. (see Playoff game vs. Tampa) That's my $0.02. Well said! I'm not on the bench Brunell bandwagon, but this is the best argument I've heard for starting Campbell. FWIW, the worst argument is the "noodle arm" theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Ding ding ding! Stats only tell so much. Our offense has been very inept in sustaining drives. If our OFFENSE would be able to move the ball more consistently, it gives our defense more rest and keeps the opposing offense off of the field. Why do you think we are getting scored against so much more in the 2nd half? Tired defense=sucky defense. I do realize regardless that our defense is not as good as last year, but other teams' coaches are able to scheme-wise mask certain deficiencies. Why can't GW? Our defense is giving up more big plays then anyone else in the league. The offense sustaining drives won't help when teams are blowing us up in 2 plays...And it goes both ways. The offense has to help the defense by sustaining drives and not putting them in bad spots, which it hasn't. The defense has the help the offense by getting TO's ans giving them short fields to work with, which it hasn't either. The blame game gets old when you're 2-5. Everything sucks atm. The defense especially though, we're pretty much the worst defense in the league atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I try not to start threads about things that have been talked about a hundred times, but I think you almost have to in response to the hundreds of exact-same threads about Brunell, Gibbs and Campbell that have been started.13th rank. That's our offense. 26th rank. That's our defense. Brunell's stats: 1465 yards passing, 132 out of 206 completions, 7 TDs/3 INTS, 90.4 passer rating. I understand he's an easy target to blame, since he's our quarterback. I understand Gibbs is easy to talk trash about, because...well I don't know why you morons do that. But you're completely avoiding the real issue when you say Brunell is the problem. A Gibbs team has always relied, and always will rely on an efficient defense. If we can't get enough plays to make something happen because our defense can't stop anybody on 3rd down, then I think we need to look at the real problem and stop trying to find a scapegoat. You want an easy fix, but it doesn't work that way. This isn't just one position stinking up the field. This is 11 guys on defense not getting it done. I say put Campbell in because the season's over. Gibbs hasn't done that yet because he knows it ain't over 'til it's over. If the season really isn't over, and Gibbs is right, then Brunell is definitely our best option. In other words, you're looking at the wrong side of the team for the real problem. I'm not saying the offense is clicking like magic, but it's really hard to win games when the defense is the 26th worst in total yards allowed and 26th worst in total points allowed. Clint You are 100% right. But, there are too many haters and think-I-am-a-coaches on this board to read your words and actually let them sink in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins n' Bones Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 IMO, if the offense could sustain drives, the defense wouldn't be on the field so much giving up yards. That goes both ways though. If the defense could stop the other team, particularly in the third quarter, the offense could stick to running the ball more and sustain drives by wearing the other team's defense down. But the real key is this: TURNOVERS!!! We are tied for third in giveaways, which is great, but we are dead last (tied w/ Houston) with only 5 takeaways. Who's fault is that? Not Brunell and the offense! The D needs to find a way to get the ball and get the other offense off the field......or maybe even score....imagine that?!? We won at least a couple games last year thanks to the defense scoring, or at least giving the offense a short field to work with. Turnovers is probably the most telling statistic (aside from wins and losses) and our D has just plain sucked at getting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WARLORD1863 Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 IMHO, our offense was never that consistent, even last year. Remember our win over the Eagles? It required a Rock Cartwright return touchdown to win. Remember our win over Seattle? Their kicker hit the upright and we won the coin toss. Remember the wild card game against Tampa, where our team won with the worst offensive production in post-season history? Our defense had picks, fumble recoveries, and return touchdowns. Our offense was just too inconsistent, but it was somewhat hidden from us because of how great our defense was. Now that our defense is struggling, our offense is exposed for what they were last year, INCONSISTENT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotfire Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 IMO, if the offense could sustain drives, the defense wouldn't be on the field so much giving up yards.I see it the other way around. If the defense could stop anybody on third down, the offense would get more opportunities. As it stands, the Giants were able to spend an entire quarter on one single drive.Clint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Gibbs II Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Our offense hasnt been great by any means, but this is what we have scored so far 16 10 31 36 3 22 22 The team has been known for its defense, and it hasnt shown up at all. Going from those scores, we scored above 20 4 times and under it 3 times (3 times over if you dont count the garbage TD last game) I dont expect to win every time we score over 20, but we gotta get more support from the defense. Based on my expectations, the D should have been able to bail out the offense once so far, but it has not. It should have been against Minny the 1st game, but it was not. That is something that last few years' teams did quite a few times. I dont know exaclty what happened,I mean, in preseason, our 1st team starters looked sick (cinci game especially), this problem just seemed to have pop up over the regular season. Even if they dont bail us out of the 1st game, they should at least have played mediocre to LET the offense win against Tenn. If the Defense was as good as the offense (not saying much), we would be 4-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llcamino Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I see it the other way around. If the defense could stop anybody on third down, the offense would get more opportunities. As it stands, the Giants were able to spend an entire quarter on one single drive.Clint It would be awesome if the offense could get on the field more! I can't tell you how much I'd look forward to seeing a few more 3 yard passes on 3rd and 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roanoker Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Same assessment by Mark Steven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotfire Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 It would be awesome if the offense could get on the field more! I can't tell you how much I'd look forward to seeing a few more 3 yard passes on 3rd and 8.I'm not gonna lie- that made me laugh. But here's something you ought to look at: 39.6%. That's our offense's 3rd down conversion rate. It's 13th in the league. 40.4%. That's our defense's 3rd down conversion rate. It's 25th in the league. I can see somebody looking at that and saying "Well that conversion rate is close to the offense's conversion rate, so it's not that bad..." Just remember we want the offense's percent to be high and the defense's percent to be low when you make that argument. As it stands, both are high. Clint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotfire Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 Same assessment by Mark Steven.Got a link? Sounds like a well-informed opinion :cool:Clint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 IMO, if the offense could sustain drives, the defense wouldn't be on the field so much giving up yards. I've heard this arguement several times without any evidence to support it. And it's baseless. The Redskins are actually 16th in yards per drive on offense. We're 27th on defense. We are 15th in points per drive on offense. 27th on defense. We are 20th in punts per drive on offense compared to 13th on defense, but 4th in turnovers per drive on offense compared to 31st on defense. And we are 16th in Drive Success Rate per drive on offense, which measures the percentage of down series that result in a first down or touchdown (in other words 3-and-outs). On defense we're 24th. Our starting field position is 22nd on offense. On defense it's 13th. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats.php Our 2005 numbers on offense were vey similar to our 2006 numbers, whereas our defensive numbers in 2005 were almost across-the-board top ten. Clearly, this year one side of the ball is crippling the other side. But I think some of you have which is which mixed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Gibbs II Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 If the defense made just 1 or 2 three and outs a week, the team would be completely different. I really want to see how many 3 and outs we have forced this year because field position isnt favoring us as much as it should. The few times we have gotten the ball at the 40+ we have been pretty affective from what i recall. Many of our 3 and outs are from everything up to the 40 yard line. So we just need to get good FP just once or twice a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loxley Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 40.4%. That's our defense's 3rd down conversion rate. It's 25th in the league. Just to clarify, you mean 40.4% of the oppositions 3rd downs have been completed against us? Sorry its a tad confusing when maths isnt your best subject. Our defence needs to STOP the third downs being turned into firsts so that statistic should be high. Thanks for the insight anyway. Ive never been much of a stats geek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.