Win/Loss Record: Is it Really the Best Indicator of Progress or Regression?

[KDawg]

I'm not specifically talking about our season this year here, although it can be linked to the reasoning for beginning this thread. On these forums (and probably countless others) around the internet, I constantly see teams basing their entire progess on win/loss record. On these forums, as an example, I see people saying "Well, we have one more win than last year, so we're definitely better".

Now, I'm not saying that I don't see some logic in that statement. In general, win/loss record is probably a decent indicator of success or failure in the NFL, but is it always? There are a number of factors that go into win/loss record... Some include schedule, some include injuries, some include malcontents, some include luck and some include poor play/poor coaching. For instance, last year our Redskins were 4-12 with a pretty easy schedule. This is why a lot of 'Skins fans seem to be pointing towards progress for this season. However, with the way the Redskins play against poor teams (badly) and against good teams (usually decent to good) is this the case?

I'm not saying it is or isn't, so before anyone jumps in here and starts to hound me for saying that we're not improving... Or someone tries to hound me for saying we are... I haven't really thrown my opinion out there on that subject. As it stands, I'd say it's a mixed bag where the real measure occurs next season... But I'm tilting towards one more than the other. But that's not with this thread is about.

Can you truly judge a team's progress on win/loss record?

Another thing to consider... Is there a general precursor to a team that's going to get worse? Say, a team going from good to bad in a year... Is there warning signs?

With certain teams, I'd say it's a crap shoot. Look at Carolina.

2007: 7-9

2008: 12-4

2009: 8-8

2010: 1-12

That's probably an extreme example. But, there's no trend there... I guess there's a down trend from 2008 through today, but nothing suggested they would be that bad on the face of things. Certain factors didn't help... Fox being in his last year is a big one, no quarterback whatsoever is another.

Now, let's look at the Buffalo Bills:

2006: 7-9

2007: 7-9

2008: 7-9

2009: 6-10

2010: 3-10

The trend is set there. Mired in mediocrity. Why? Is it because they didn't hit the reset button and rebuild? Or did they and fail? I'm sure it didn't help that every time they think they find a piece they trade it away (McGahee/Lynch) or draft a running back in the first round when they need help elsewhere... Or take Aaron Maybin over our own Brian Orakpo. The Bills have made poor personnel decisions, much worse on a whole than I'd say our own Redskins have.

Now, let's take a team that was on the upswing... New Orleans:

2004: 8-8

2005: 3-13 (Haslett's last year)

2006: 10-6

2007: 7-9

2008: 8-8

2009: 13-3

2010: 9-3

They were mired in mediocrity and then had an awful season... Was that the best thing for the team, though? They got rid of their head coach and hired Sean Payton. That change saw immediate dividends. They also acquired quarterback Drew Brees going into 2006. This was a similar change to what we see in Washington. Head coaches that were in over their head being replaced by guys who were much more competent. New quarterbacks coming to town.

Perhaps the major difference was 2006 was also Marques Colston's rookie year. It was also Reggie Bush's rookie year. New Orleans defense was also fairly good during this time. So while there are similarities, there are also major differences. Specifically defensively where they weren't installing a brand new defense.

So was there an uptrend here? Or was it a sudden change? I'd say sudden change, followed by an uptrend to that next level.

Really, at this point, I'm just providing a few talking points for the basis of this thread. Is win/loss record always an indicator of progress or regression?

Or is progression and regression more of a sign of what you see on the field versus the results? Can a team finish with a worse record than the previous season and still be progressing? Can a team finish with a better record than the previous season and still be regressing?

[ATLredskin]

The Panthers lost Julius Peppers and has key players on injured reserved so yes the signs was there. The Bills have a horrible scouting department combined playing in a division that has improved each year. We can be the Bills in a year or 2 with Vick emerging, Giants not going anywhere, and Dallas resurrecting from the dead starting next year. And the Saints record is easy to read. The 7-9 and 8-8 season was due to injuries and horrible defense. I don't know what you are trying to get at by posting the record of these specific teams...

[hail2skins]

Record isn't necessarily the best indicator of progress or regression. Concerning the on-field play, I don't feel like the team has regressed from last season, but I haven't really discerned a whole lot of improvement either, particularly as the season has gone on. We have to give Shanahan a few years to build this team (at least he should have more time to do so than Gibbs did), but I understand the frustration of fans who have sat through a decade of mostly crap and now are being asked to be patient.

[KDawg]

The Panthers lost Julius Peppers and has key players on injured reserved so yes the signs was there. The Bills have a horrible scouting department combined playing in a division that has improved each year. We can be the Bills in a year or 2 with Vick emerging, Giants not going anywhere, and Dallas resurrecting from the dead starting next year. And the Saints record is easy to read. The 7-9 and 8-8 season was due to injuries and horrible defense. I don't know what you are trying to get at by posting the record of these specific teams...

Try not to look too deep. I'm asking a the extremeskins fanbase a question. I'm not getting at anything. Answer the question

---------- Post added December-13th-2010 at 08:12 AM ----------

Record isn't necessarily the best indicator of progress or regression. Concerning the on-field play, I don't feel like the team has regressed from last season, but I haven't really discerned a whole lot of improvement either, particularly as the season has gone on. We have to give Shanahan a few years to build this team (at least he should have more time to do so than Gibbs did), but I understand the frustration of fans who have sat through a decade of mostly crap and now are being asked to be patient.

Again, this question was meant in general... But I know most of us will use the Redskins as an example because it's who we know best. But, while using the Redskins as an example, I want to identify if this is really a good method of measuring success or failure of a rebuilding team/retooling team/stagnant team.

I don't necessarily care either way about people's opinions on the coaching staff here, but, I don't mind the sharing

I'm really, honestly, just looking for an answer from the question posted in the OP (which you shared, and I appreciate that. My response to you was more of an in general response to all the people reading this thread so they don't get caught up in suspicion like ATLredskin did)

[authentic]

Record isn't the ONLY indicator. But no one can say that we're not a 5-8 team. We're bad....What i will say however is that we're a better coached/disciplined team, we're just not consistant at all. All season long, there will be a good first half and then couldn't bust a grape in the second half. Then other games we would start flat in the first half, and then end strong in the second half. I still say that at the end of the day, the talent on this team will dictate how far they will go. Even D. Hall admitted to it, it doesn't matter what coach you bring in, if your talent is mediocre then you will continue to strattle the fence btwn mediocrity and being average, at best.

I will say however that we have a pretty decent idea of core players going forward and i'm sure that is what Shanny wanted to do. Kind of like chewing on the meat of young and productive and spitting out the bones of old, oft injured, and mediocre.

[KDawg]

Record isn't the ONLY indicator. But no one can say that we're not a 5-8 team. We're bad....What i will say however is that we're a better coached/disciplined team, we're just not consistant at all. All season long, there will be a good first half and then couldn't bust a grape in the second half. Then other games we would start flat in the first half, and then end strong in the second half. I still say that at the end of the day, the talent on this team will dictate how far they will go. Even D. Hall admitted to it, it doesn't matter what coach you bring in, if your talent is mediocre then you will continue to strattle the fence btwn mediocrity and being average, at best.

So you're saying that on the field performance is a better indicator of which way we'll go (or any team in general)? Or does offseason additions/subtractions matter more? If you had to rank things between: On field performance, offseason additions/subtractions, record, scheme changes, etc, how would you rank them? I'm curious to know your standpoint. I generally think you're a pretty level headed guy

[USS Redskins]

The 5-8 record is very deceptive... they are much worse than that. A 2-14 team at best. Too bad they wont score a top 3 pick - because they are among the top 3 worst teams in the league.

[KDawg]

The 5-8 record is very deceptive... they are much worse than that. A 2-14 team at best. Too bad they wont score a top 3 pick - because they are among the top 3 worst teams in the league.

Care to expand on why it's deceptive? Not saying I agree or disagree... I just want to see more substance here...

[paloosa]

This thread means nothing except that the teams you picked are or were bad. Coaching and changing the culture of the team. Santana Moss said after the game on Sunday that he is frustrated and angry about the losing this team has done this year and all the previous years. He said it best when he said that he comes out every week and every game to play his heart out when others have a different agenda to prevent them from winning. So what has changed over the years? The coaches. No continuity has ever been established because Snyder wanted the big name coach instead of giving guys a chance to turn a team around. You need to get a proven winner to coach the team like what he did with Shanahan. Shanahan has changed the culture somewhat and has made the team a little more competitive. It will be interesting to see who is here and who is gone after this year.

[KDawg]

This thread means nothing except that the teams you picked are or were bad.

How about reading the thread? It's not supposed to "mean" anything when it comes to the Redskins. It's a question

It will be interesting to see who is here and who is gone after this year.

I agree, but that's not the premise of the thread. The question is, simply, is win/loss record the best indicator of progression or regression? Why or why not?

[Mursilis]

Is win/loss record always an indicator of progress or regression?

Or is progression and regression more of a sign of what you see on the field versus the results? Can a team finish with a worse record than the previous season and still be progressing? Can a team finish with a better record than the previous season and still be regressing?

Over time, the W/L record is definitely an indicator, and eventually the ONLY indicator of progress. Sure, a good team can hit a bump or two, and a bad team can go on a run, but as Bill Parcells famously said, you are what your record says you are. Over time, over several seasons, you see who you are as an organization.

[KDawg]

Over time, the W/L record is definitely an indicator, and eventually the ONLY indicator of progress. Sure, a good team can hit a bump or two, and a bad team can go on a run, but as Bill Parcells famously said, you are what your record says you are. Over time, over several seasons, you see who you are as an organization.

Thank you for answering the question at hand. Your input is definitely appreciated

[Sekhmet728]

SoS differs so much, and strength of division. I think you've got it right on the money.

That is to say, it is and it isn't

[Aireskoi]

I don't think you can judge a teams progress based on their win/loss record, I think you have to dig deeper. You have to look at the personnel, and more specifically at the QB position. So much goes back to the play at the QB position.

I don't see Tom Brady or Peyton Manning winning the Superbowl this year if they were on the Panther or Bills, but they would definitely have some more wins and be playoff contenders.

When you look at the teams that have turned it around, it always starts with the QB.

Look at teams like the Rams, Falcons, Ravens, Bucs, and the Jets. They seem to have found their guy, and they are on the rise.

Look at teams like Carolina, Miami, Buffalo, Arizona, and Cleveland. They have struggled to find their QB, and they sit at the bottom.

Teams with good, but inconsistent QBs will play up and down. I think that's where we are right now, waiting to see if Donovan can be a consistent QB for us. I have hope that another year in the system (where have I heard that before) ,some added protection, and some added play-makers will put us on the rise.

It all comes down to #5 though. I don't blame him for everything, but I know for us to become one of the top teams he will have to play more consistent than he has this year.

[authentic]

So you're saying that on the field performance is a better indicator of which way we'll go (or any team in general)? Or does offseason additions/subtractions matter more? If you had to rank things between: On field performance, offseason additions/subtractions, record, scheme changes, etc, how would you rank them? I'm curious to know your standpoint. I generally think you're a pretty level headed guy

As mentioned before there are many factors that play into the progression or regression of a team (discipline, implimentation of scheme, scouting young talent...etc). And they must be considered in order to get proper context of how and organization is grading out... But at the end of the day the record pretty much dictates whether you have regressed or progressed. That to me is the common denominator.

---------- Post added December-13th-2010 at 09:41 AM ----------

I don't think you can judge a teams progress based on their win/loss record, I think you have to dig deeper..

Agreed, but what if a team's win/loss record is consistantly bad through out "X" amount of seasons, do they still get the benefit of the doubt? At some point you would have to admit that said team has not progressed no matter what the other factors are.

[terryb101]

So you're saying that on the field performance is a better indicator of which way we'll go (or any team in general)? Or does offseason additions/subtractions matter more? If you had to rank things between: On field performance, offseason additions/subtractions, record, scheme changes, etc, how would you rank them? I'm curious to know your standpoint. I generally think you're a pretty level headed guy

the only thing that matters is how well you play..scrub players can be winners if the execute well,,do you really think that new england is really that much better than everybody else?? no they are not, they do what they do and they do it very well.practice practice practice.. i remember that the cowboys use to say that the skins (during gibbs glory years) only had 1 play, maybe so but they ran it well..

[Mursilis]

I don't think you can judge a teams progress based on their win/loss record.

How can you not, over time? It's why the games are played - to determine winners and losers. The great thing about the NFL is that the parity gives truth to the phrase "On any given Sunday. . .", but over time good teams beat bad teams - that's how we know they're good teams! Look at this year - the Browns actually beat the Pats! And the Saints! By 10+ each time! But they're also at 5-8 just like us, and they've lost more than they've won in the past several years. Sure, they had one great season (2007), when they went 10-6, but they couldn't sustain that sucess and returned to losing, like bad teams tend to do. Look at Cincy also - hard to believe they actually won their division last year, and now they're looking at top 10 draft pick. But then, they were 4-12 before that, so what's that say? To me, it says bad team. On the other hand, Pittsburgh is generally considered a good team, even though they've had a 10+ loss season (2003) in the past 10 years. The thing is, how often does that happen? Not often enough for them to be considered bad, that's for sure.

[KDawg]

So far, the majority of these responses have been great. I, too, lean to the whole "record doesn't matter as much as the total picture" side of things. Record factors in to the total picture, but it's not the entire picture.

I look forward to more good conversation in here. Keep it up, folks.

[Aireskoi]

Agreed, but what if a team's win/loss record is consistantly bad through out "X" amount of seasons, do they still get the benefit of the doubt? At some point you would have to admit that said team has not progressed no matter what the other factors are.

Well, the Lions would be a pretty good example of that scenario. They have made so many changes through the years, and seem to almost always come out with the same results. They have a new GM now, and a new HC, and everyone is saying how much better they are playing. The one factor that has them continuing to lose, IMO, is the QB position. Their #1 pick can't stay healthy, and they continue to be a team that can't win.

The Rams seem to have picked a guy who will have them winning for years to come, even though they have been losing in recent years. They are only at 6 wins right now, but the 1 win that they have more than us seems like a whole bunch more to me because they have their guy at QB. We're still trying to solve that problem, and we have been for like 20 years.

[Mursilis]

So far, the majority of these responses have been great. I, too, lean to the whole "record doesn't matter as much as the total picture" side of things. Record factors in to the total picture, but it's not the entire picture.

I look forward to more good conversation in here. Keep it up, folks.

I'm just not understanding this - the whole point of the "total picture" is about the record, really. I'll admit again that a single game means nothing - one win only means you're lucky, but when the wins start to add up, it means you're good.

[authentic]

Well, the Lions would be a pretty good example of that scenario. They have made so many changes through the years, and seem to almost always come out with the same results. They have a new GM now, and a new HC, and everyone is saying how much better they are playing. The one factor that has them continuing to lose, IMO, is the QB position. Their #1 pick can't stay healthy, and they continue to be a team that can't win.

The Rams seem to have picked a guy who will have them winning for years to come, even though they have been losing in recent years. They are only at 6 wins right now, but the 1 win that they have more than us seems like a whole bunch more to me because they have their guy at QB. We're still trying to solve that problem, and we have been for like 20 years.

Well, one thing to be considered with the Lions is that they just recently changed thier FO and coaching staff. So they get a grace period indeed. Regarding the Rams I agree, they appear to be ahead of us in the process. Dag quiet as kept, i think the Lions may be ahead of us in the rebuilding phase right now. :doh:

[KDawg]

Well, the Lions would be a pretty good example of that scenario. They have made so many changes through the years, and seem to almost always come out with the same results. They have a new GM now, and a new HC, and everyone is saying how much better they are playing. The one factor that has them continuing to lose, IMO, is the QB position. Their #1 pick can't stay healthy, and they continue to be a team that can't win.

The Rams seem to have picked a guy who will have them winning for years to come, even though they have been losing in recent years. They are only at 6 wins right now, but the 1 win that they have more than us seems like a whole bunch more to me because they have their guy at QB. We're still trying to solve that problem, and we have been for like 20 years.

This is a great response.

From the OP, and believe me, i didn't really think about this when picking those teams, I went semi random in picking them...

I chose Buffalo as the team toiled in mediocrity doing nothing and Carolina as the team who has regressed. I chose New Orleans as the team that improved.

What's the common denominator?

Buffalo hasn't had a good quarterback in years.

Carolina had Delhomme and then Delhomme went bad and they've begun to struggle.

New Orleans was mediocre until they got Drew Brees, and then there was an immediate upswing.

Can good quarterback play swing a team that fast? It's obviously not ALL the quarterback... But it's quite a coincidence.

[KDawg]

I'm just not understanding this - the whole point of the "total picture" is about the record, really. I'll admit again that a single game means nothing - one win only means you're lucky, but when the wins start to add up, it means you're good.

I disagree. If you look at record over time, perhaps there's an indication. But, using us (and I really didn't want to use us because people will avoid answering the question)...

I don't believe that we're a better team right now at 5-8 than we were last year at 4-12. I really don't. But I do think our direction is better. It's not what I expected us to do, and I'm not thrilled with a lot of the decisions that have been made, but we certainly have a better direction than we had last year... But right now, this minute, I don't think the team is any better.

[authentic]

Can good quarterback play swing a team that fast? It's obviously not ALL the quarterback... But it's quite a coincidence.

Yes, especially when the other pieces are in place.

[KDawg]

Yes, especially when the other pieces are in place.

I'd say that a good quarterback with the right pieces can swing a team...

I'd say an elite quarterback with "meh" pieces can swing a team...

There is absolutely a must in the "pieces" sense... But the better the QB, I feel the less pieces you need. But it's still a team game.