MumboSauce Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 LOL El being better than Moss is absurdity at it's finest. Man step away from the computer please...it's not even an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire3fighter4 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 The guys at FO are a step ahead with their statistics. They don't yet have the solutions, but at least they understand the problem. So if I can recognize the way they use their statistics to rank teams suck, and they recognize it isn't that great, and says it needs to be fixed...........why are we even talking about it?...:2cents: FO has some interesting statistics, but I strongly disagree with DVOA in every way. Mainly because they do nothing but look at a play by play to determine who the best player is. I'm sorry, but anybody who looks at NFL.coms play by play instead of actually watching the game to determine who the best is shouldn't be taken seriously. It makes for interesting conversation, but that's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 They also rank our OL 15th in pass protection. For obvious reasons, all team stats are more reliable than individual stats because of the difficulty of isolating an individual from the team effort. Ranking the O line is a new "beta" stat. The DVOA has gone through several upgrades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 So if I can recognize the way they use their statistics to rank teams suck, and they recognize it isn't that great, and says it needs to be fixed...........why are we even talking about it?: As I said... they're the best avaliable if you want something objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire3fighter4 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 As I said... they're the best avaliable if you want something objective. You mean they're one of the few stats that agree with your point? Again, these guys use nothing but play by play on nfl.com to determine their rankings...I'm sorry but thats not reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 You mean they're one of the few stats that agree with your point? I meant exactly what I said. Again, these guys use nothing but play by play on nfl.com to determine their rankings...I'm sorry but thats not reliable. Why is it not reliable? How would YOU do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire3fighter4 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Why is it not reliable? How would YOU do it? If I was making rankings I would actually take the time to watch teams play, instead of going to NFL.com and looking at their play-by-play. Stats often do not tell near the whole story. again, having Cooley at 14th for TE's, A. Peterson at 16th for RB's, ARE ahead of Moss(both in the 40's to begin with) just shows how much the DVOA rankings are useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsWizCubsDukes Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 When your offense only scores 16 points a game, the opposing team doesn't need to rack up very many points against your defense to beat you...that's going to lead to an overrated defense. Are you for real. If anything this speaks to how well the defense played. We only scored 16 points a game (28th WORST in the league) and we still were within 7 points in the fourth quarter of EVERY SINGLE game this season and had possession of the ball. Our defense constantly gave us chances to win the games and in EVERY game we had the ball with a chance to at least tie in the 4th quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedsuperstar Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I would agree with those rankings. Actually, I think you have overrated the defense a little. We were poor against the run in the fourth quarter. Several teams were able to run out the clock in the game with their running game. The Skins had trouble stopping the run in the 4th qtr because they are on the field too much. Defenses wear down if the offense goes 3 and out, on a regular basis. The defense did a good job taking away opponents strengths. You guys have to remember that the Skins only gave up no more than 24 points, going into the last game. Gave up 17 points a game. The offense averaged 16 points a game. Which side of the ball needs work? I'm for a better pass rush, but when the offense can't score points, the team is doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Are you for real.If anything this speaks to how well the defense played. We only scored 16 points a game (28th WORST in the league) and we still were within 7 points in the fourth quarter of EVERY SINGLE game this season and had possession of the ball. Our defense constantly gave us chances to win the games and in EVERY game we had the ball with a chance to at least tie in the 4th quarter. I'm not for sure, but reading the first part of his post, I think he meant to say underrated defense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically the first part of his post is saying that our defense is ultimately what kept us alive. BTW, if I'm wrong, I apologize, and SkinsWiz, I agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pounds Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 This is the problem with football fans, especially those on this site. They over think everything. All I know is that the defense, for the most part, kept teams from scoring while our offense couldn't score on nobody. ONLY THE RAMS SCORED LESS THAN THE SKINS IN THE NFC!!!! OK OP, respond to that. Quoted for the truth. It was a good original post, but reeks of over-analyzation. Our offense, on average scored 16.6 points per game, while our defense allowed, on average 18.5 points per game. 'Nuff said, the aforementioned is simply all that matters. One of the most poignant quotes Greg Blache gave this season was that stats are indeed, for losers; they belie and convolute the truth. If you know enough about the game of football, you should know enough to trust you own eyes, rather than falling back on someone else's statistics, whether they come from NFL.com, football outsiders, or whatever. I'd much rather ponder the scheme that created these realities, than the statistics that befell us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaSkinsNut Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Whoever says Blanche didn't blitz enough must not have watched many games this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 fire3fighter4: If I was making rankings I would actually take the time to watch teams play, instead of going to NFL.com and looking at their play-by-play. Stats often do not tell near the whole story. Why would anyone but you be interested in rankings based on your subjective judgments? People rely on statistics because statistics are objective evidence. again, having Cooley at 14th for TE's, A. Peterson at 16th for RB's, ARE ahead of Moss(both in the 40's to begin with) just shows how much the DVOA rankings are useless. You have just pinpointed the objective advantages of statistics. The numbers know nothing of Cooley's reputation or Peterson's talent -- nor do they have prejudiced opinions on whether ARE or Moss is the better receiver. When we get results like that, we should examining them with an open mind. ARE certainly had a career year as a receiver. Moss did drop a bunch of passes. Is there something wrong with the way the stat is compiled or is it possible that ARE did have a better year in 2008 than Santana? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I agree with this post. The defense was good but far from perfect. How soon we forget all of those games that we ended up losing because the defense couldn't summon a stop in the fourth quarter. Against the Bengals?? come on. But the defense was still good and it definitely played best when the offense controlled the clock. Here is an interesting stat: The Rushing offense was 8th in the NFL in yards -- pretty good. However, it was dead last in the category of longest rush. Portis had a 31 yard run that accounted for the longest of the season. The running game was achieving results, just in a slow clock-eating way. 15 play 6 minute drives may not be exciting, but football isn't Rugby--you don't get to keep the ball after you score. Controlling the clock is how the team wins. If you wanted to criticize the offense, I would focus on red zone efficiency, where they were pretty bad. The offense ranked 19th in total yards but 28th in points. Similarly, the offense was ranked 26th in 3rd down conversion %. That tells me that the offense started mostly in poor field position because of their low 3rd down conversion % (meaning they weren't controlling the clock and sustaining drives and winning field position battles) and the middling yards and awful scoring numbers show what we all know: that they were moving the ball down the field but couldn't score more than 3 in the red zone. If you are going to have only about 4 or 5 sustained drives a game in a ball control offense, you have to score some touchdowns to win. This is the biggest area for improvement next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 One of the most poignant quotes Greg Blache gave this season was that stats are indeed, for losers; they belie and convolute the truth. The only people who agree with that statement don't understand statistics. If you know enough about the game of football, you should know enough to trust you own eyes, rather than falling back on someone else's statistics, whether they come from NFL.com, football outsiders, or whatever. As a fan, I use stats to confirm or deny what I saw on the field. When they deny what I think I saw, I question my opinion and I anlalyze the stat. Coaches with the ability to mix football experience with a high math aptitude have a distinct advantage over their opponents. Bellichick has a degree in Economics and relies heavily on statistical studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 You saw more drops from Santana because we've thrown the ball at him much more often, because of the fact he's a better receiver.I'm sorry, but the notion that ARE is better than Moss IS ridiculous. ARE isn't as bad as many people here make him out to be, but theres no way in hell he's better than Moss. So your argument is Braylon Edwards, this season, is better than, say Marques Colston? His stats were much better. Forget about the drops, right? LOL El being better than Moss is absurdity at it's finest. Man step away from the computer please...it's not even an opinion. It IS an opinion. Again, I don't think El is a better receiver than Moss, but Moss drops ENTIRELY too many passes. I don't care how many are thrown his way. It's ridiculous how often he drops balls, and he's lost some games for us because of it. It amazes me how far players can get based on rep. I like Santana, alot. One of my favorite Redskins. But he's not a top ten receiver in the NFL. Top ten playmaker? Sure! Ask me who I'd rather have... I'd say Santana Moss any day of the week. But better receiver is dependent on what you're looking at. I think El is more capable of catching a ball across the middle and picking up a first down. I think Moss is better at getting open. I think Moss is better after the catch. I think El is better at catching the ball. Moss is better deep. What makes Moss better than El is that Moss is better in El's top categories than El is in Moss' off categories. It's not absurd. An argument can be heard. Will it hit home with most folks? Absolutely not. And that's understandable and probably correct that it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire3fighter4 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Why would anyone but you be interested in rankings based on your subjective judgments? People rely on statistics because statistics are objective evidence.You have just pinpointed the objective advantages of statistics. The numbers know nothing of Cooley's reputation or Peterson's talent -- nor do they have prejudiced opinions on whether ARE or Moss is the better receiver. When we get results like that, we should examining them with an open mind. ARE certainly had a career year as a receiver. Moss did drop a bunch of passes. Is there something wrong with the way the stat is compiled or is it possible that ARE did have a better year in 2008 than Santana? You tell me who had a better year, since all you want to do is look at stats: 79 Rec 1,044 Yards 6TD's - 10.1 drop % 53 rec 593 Yards 4 TD's - 7.84 drop% Last year Randel El had almost 200 more yards on 2 less catches.....Hardly a "career year" I serously doubt any one who watches football seriously would put Peterson out of the top 5, and these don't even have him in the top 15.. and you try and use that as a reason these statistics are good?....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire3fighter4 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 It amazes me how far players can get based on rep. I like Santana, alot. One of my favorite Redskins. But he's not a top ten receiver in the NFL. Top ten playmaker? Sure! I agree. I put moss around the 17-19 spot for the WR rankings. These guys have him at 44. Are you seriously trying to tell me that theres 43 WR's in this league that you'd rather have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Are you seriously trying to tell me that theres 43 WR's in this league that you'd rather have? Psst. I never said I agreed with the stats posted on that website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helptheSKINS Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Oldfan - The O stinks. And yes, it's square on the shoulders of your fav QB JC. He didn't play well and that will most likely not change. It's time for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawaiianTime Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 The only people who agree with that statement don't understand statistics. As a fan, I use stats to confirm or deny what I saw on the field. When they deny what I think I saw, I question my opinion and I anlalyze the stat. Coaches with the ability to mix football experience with a high math aptitude have a distinct advantage over their opponents. Bellichick has a degree in Economics and relies heavily on statistical studies. I agree with what you have to say, but realize that statistics are numbers that can be skewed to prove just about any point. I believe what Blache was trying to say, is that you can only go so far with statistics, but cannot solely rely on them. Like you said, using them to help confirm or deny you opinion is important, but the ability to backup and look at the contributing factors are also essential. Overall, always have liked your posts and tend to agree with a lot of them. Sound opinions based off of more than just shear emotion are always worth reading and listening to. Thanks Oldfan. I agree to the ability to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawaiianTime Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Psst. I never said I agreed with the stats posted on that website KDawg, hope you New Year is coming along nicely and thanks for taking the time and investing it in our kids. I don't know if you hear it enough, but Thank You for being a positive role model for our future. That folks, constitutes a Hero, a person that gives something more valuable than $$$, their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 You tell me who had a better year, since all you want to do is look at stats: I'm not at all interested in debating who had the better year. The point is that statisics provide objective evidence. They don't have prejudices. That doesn't mean they're accurate and reliable. It means that they have no ax to grind. Can you understand that? Can you also understand that cherry-picking your stats on individual performances does not in any way cast doubt on the reliability of the team stats that I offered in the OP? The rankings that I offered should not be considered the last word. They are the best available. They are compiled on a far more intelligent basis ranking than the NFL yardage rankings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire3fighter4 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 So your argument is Braylon Edwards, this season, is better than, say Marques Colston? His stats were much better.Forget about the drops, right? Forget drops to an extent. Edwards drops over 16% of his passes. Moss and ARE are separated by less than 3%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 KDawg, hope you New Year is coming along nicely and thanks for taking the time and investing it in our kids. I don't know if you hear it enough, but Thank You for being a positive role model for our future.That folks, constitutes a Hero, a person that gives something more valuable than $$$, their time. Wow. Caught me kind of off guard there. But I'm no hero. Heroes are the people who defend our country day in and day out. But thank you for the kudos and I hope your New Year is off to a great start as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.