Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

How do the Skins compare to other teams at scoring >30 ppg?


PiLfan

Recommended Posts

Even with the offensive improvements we've seen thus far from Zorn this year, we've all heard the grumblings that our offense is not efficient enough. Mainly, the case goes that we settle for too many FGs in the red zone instead of touchdowns.

Before Zorn, our offense was so conservative under Gibbs, that just breaking the 20 point plateau on offense was considered a major achievement, and our team leaned heavily on the defense. Before that there was Spurrier, who's teams sucked on both offense and defense (not too good). Then we had one very up and down year with Schottenheimer. And then the inconsistent Norv era, where we either had an offense that was pretty good or (more times than not) mediocre, compensated by a defense that looked and smelled like three-week old swiss cheese.

So i got to thinking, given our offensive woes over the past decade, how do we fare compared to the other 31 teams?

Using profootballreference.com as a source, i compared each of the teams in terms of points scored in three ranges (0-29, 30-39, and 40>) for the period of games from the years 2000 - 2008...to see who the most prolific offenses have been. (NOTE: I'm using points scored rather than the more commonly used YPG because games are won/lost with points, not yards after all).

The rankings are below:

[ATTACH]39002[/ATTACH]

In essence, since the year 2000, the Skins have the 29th worst offense in terms of scoring 30 or more points. Only the Bears, Lions and expansion Texans are worse. We were beat out by, of all teams, the Cardinals, Browns and Dolphins. Also, we've only had 2 games in the past decade where we've scored 40 or more points...only the Titans and Texans are worse.

Now i know offense isn't all there is to winning games...and sure enough there are some teams pretty high up on this list that are not known to have won much this past decade (ex., the Chiefs...though they did have a 13-3 record in 2003), but it should be noted that 3 of the top 4 teams have been to super bowls in the past 8 years, and 14 of the 15 top teams have at least made their conference championships (the only exception is the Chiefs, who went as far as the Divisional round in 2003).

Only 5 of the bottom 17 teams have made the conference championship since 2000 (Titans, Bucs, Ravens, Panthers and Bears...and most of those teams are known for their defenses), proving that you don't necessarily need a good offense to win...but that it certainly helps. Four of those 5 made the super bowl, and two of them (2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs) won the super bowl...not surprisingly, the 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs are commonly referred to as being among the more dominant defensive teams of our time, along with the 85 Bears, etc.

Now while the skins haven't scored 30+ this year yet, they have been averaging 21 a game, which is certainly better than in past years...and given that we already have (and have had) a pretty good defense, it is not a stretch to see this team make it as far as the conference championship or even the super bowl, so long as the offense avoids regression and continues to improve as it has been doing.

So in short, HTTR...but it would also be nice to see us break the 30+ plateau a few more times.

That is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kinda lost...how did the Browns rank ahead of the Dolphins in terms of scoring 30 or more points?...

Also, do the number of games you have listed only include regular season games, or does it also include playoff games?

The browns are not ranked above the dolphins...they're tied for 27th.

And the analysis includes both regular and post-season. Since this would necessarily mean a different number of games played for each of the teams, i used %s of total games played to form the rankings, rather than just # of games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The browns are not ranked above the dolphins...they're tied for 27th.

And the analysis includes both regular and post-season. Since this would necessarily mean a different number of games played for each of the teams, i used %s of total games played to form the rankings, rather than just # of games.

Yeah, but the Dolphins should be ahead of the Browns, not tied with them. The Browns have only had 16 games of 30+ points while the Dolphins have had 20 games of 30+ points. Percentage-wise, the Dolphins have scored 30+ points in 14.7% of their games as where the Browns have scored 30+ points in only 11.9% of their games. Actually the Browns should be ranked below the Skins, shouldn't they? lol :)...

You also have the Jags, with 21 games of 30+ points, ranked ahead of the Jets and Ravens, who have each had 23 games of 30+ points....as well as you have the Jets playing 175 games, far, far more than any other team on there (??)...

Like I said, I'm kinda lost lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as i would like to see the Redskins breaking 30 points a game, its not always necessary. The present isn't always predicated on the past, especially with new coaches and players.

This year the Redskins rank #19th in PPG with 21. The top team, Chargers, average 29.7. So basically the Redskins are a TD away from being near the top. However, the Chargers defense forces them to score more aswell being ranked #28, while the Redskins defense ranked #8 does such a great job, that the offense isn't forced to throw the ball as much as other teams, especially since we run the ball so well.

I think overall our average needs to be in the mid-20's to stay competitive, but not all that necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but the Dolphins should be ahead of the Browns, not tied with them. The Browns have only had 16 games of 30+ points while the Dolphins have had 20 games of 30+ points. Percentage-wise, the Dolphins have scored 30+ points in 14.7% of their games as where the Browns have scored 30+ points in only 11.9% of their games. Actually the Browns should be ranked below the Skins, shouldn't they? lol :)...

You also have the Jags, with 21 games of 30+ points, ranked ahead of the Jets and Ravens, who have each had 23 games of 30+ points....as well as you have the Jets playing 175 games, far, far more than any other team on there (??)...

Like I said, I'm kinda lost lol...

Well, to save time, i averaged the three %s for each team (<30, 30-39, >40) to get a total weighted percentage, and then i ranked the teams based on that number...and that's how it came out. Think it has to do with the fact that the Browns and Jags had a few more +40 games, which might have ended up bumping their rating. Probably not the best way to rank them, but it was the quickest :) and you can flip flop them a couple of places, it still puts them in the same relative range of teams.

As for the Jets...that was a major malfunction on my part. I acidentally put in 40 games of <30 for 2008 instead of 4 :doh: When you take that out, it bumps them up to 21st (still within the same general cluster of teams).

Not perfect, but shows generally where each team falls with respect to prowess of scoring points relative to one another over the past 8 seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to save time, i averaged the three %s for each team (<30, 30-39, >40) to get a total weighted percentage, and then i ranked the teams based on that number...and that's how it came out. Think it has to do with the fact that the Browns and Jags had a few more +40 games, which might have ended up bumping their rating. Probably not the best way to rank them, but it was the quickest :) and you can flip flop them a couple of places, it still puts them in the same relative range of teams.

As for the Jets...that was a major malfunction on my part. I acidentally put in 40 games of <30 for 2008 instead of 4 :doh: When you take that out, it bumps them up to 21st (still within the same general cluster of teams).

Not perfect, but shows generally where each team falls with respect to prowess of scoring points relative to one another over the past 8 seasons.

Actually, let me rephrase. I didn't avg the three percentages...but i ranked the teams based on each individual percentage...then i averaged those numbers to get the final ranking.

So, in the case of the Browns, they were ranked #30 in terms of scoring less than 30 ppg, #31 in scoring between 30-39 ppg, and #16 in scoring more than 40 ppg. That averages to 25.6. The dolphins respectively were ranked #26, 25, and 26, for an overall weighted average of 25.6. Hence both the browns and dolphins come out tied in this ranking.

FWIW. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, let me rephrase. I didn't avg the three percentages...but i ranked the teams based on each individual percentage...then i averaged those numbers to get the final ranking.

So, in the case of the Browns, they were ranked #30 in terms of scoring less than 30 ppg, #31 in scoring between 30-39 ppg, and #16 in scoring more than 40 ppg. That averages to 25.6. The dolphins respectively were ranked #26, 25, and 26, for an overall weighted average of 25.6. Hence both the browns and dolphins come out tied in this ranking.

FWIW. :cool:

Ah, gotcha...and LoL @ giving the Jets (of all teams) 36 extra 40-point games :D...

The games where less than 30 points were scored probably should have been left out of your calculations, though, since your goal was to see how often the Skins were prolific enough to score 30+ points relative to the rest of the league. If you were going to include those games below 30 points, then probably would have been good to break those games down into smaller segments as well, such as 20-29 points, 10-19 points, <10 points...because right now a 7 point offensive output is given the same "prolific" weight as a 29 point offensive output would be given.

And also, while I get that even with the adjusted rankings the teams would still be in the same general area, it kind of dilutes your claim that "in terms of scoring 30 or more points, only the Bears, Lions and expansion Texans are worse" than the Skins. That points to a specific ranking moreso than a general statement about how prolific the Skins are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just a few points to make...

In essence, since the year 2000, the Skins have the 29th worst offense in terms of scoring 30 or more points. Only the Bears, Lions and expansion Texans are worse.

actually thats not entirely accurate. there are 16 games where we scored 31-39 points, and 2 games scoring over 40. our league ranking for 31-39 was 26th for those 16 games. we were 29th for the 2 games over 40.

if you add the numbers up. the skins have scored over 30 points 18 times. the texans are last at 7 times, then the lions at 15, then the browns at 16, us and the bears at 18. so that would actually make us a tie for 28th, not 29th.

you also say 'of scoring 30 or more points' but you dont have a category for 30 points (or for 40 points). you only have less than 30 then 31-39, and over 40. so either thats a typo, in which case you did it for the cowboys too, or you left out some stuff.

also, while we havent scored 30+ this season. its not like we arent close. we scored 29 against the saints, 26 against the cowboys, 24 against the cardinals, 23 against the eagles. in 4 of 6 games, we have scored in the mid20s or higher. the only reason the season average is at 21 is because of the opener against the giants where the offense wasnt clicking and we couldnt move the ball.

if we throw out the high and low its a more realistic average of 22.5. or if we just drop the giants game its 23.8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And also, while I get that even with the adjusted rankings the teams would still be in the same general area, it kind of dilutes your claim that "in terms of scoring 30 or more points, only the Bears, Lions and expansion Texans are worse" than the Skins. That points to a specific ranking moreso than a general statement about how prolific the Skins are.

valid point taken.

guess my ranking's not as scientific as i thought... :doh:

but while not "specifically" valid as i thought...i think "generally" it still makes its intended case. ;)

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...