Repetition, Repetiton, Repetition...

[KDawg]

If you think defenses see Paulsen as a similar threat -- then lets agree to disagree. If we got another Fred Davis type in Paulsen, I hope your right, I'd be thrilled and if so what a coup to pull off with an undrafted free agent to boot, got my doubts though at the moment. though we aren't that far apart on this point, you seem to agree that we have below average Wrs, you just don't see Davis as the same factor I do.

Not to speak for OF, but I don't think he's saying Paulsen is as talented as Davis. I think he's saying that Paulsen has been more productive. And perhaps because he's not as talented he's not being game planned against, thus he's more productive. In the end, you kind of have to weigh that into their value either way.

Davis may open up others, but Paulsen not being paid any mind gets open and creates opportunities. The question is which is more valuable to our offense and team? Is it the high cost guy that creates plays and opens others up? Or is it the low cost guy that is open and makes plays? *shrug*

Davis is certainly the overall better player. But better play doesn't always mean better for the scheme.

That said, I'm not sure quite yet that Paulsen is a better fit. But I see the argument both ways.

[Skinsinparadise]

How do you think Keim's article supports your opinion?

My point was the problem with the current Wrs that are right now on the field is no one really is a threat to stretch the field. I focused so much on Aldrick and Hank because if they can get their stuff together they can potentially fix this because they have the speed. Keim's article showed statistically that they are averaging significantly less per play without the two guys that I said are essential to this offense -- Fred Davis, and Garcon. I like Morgan as a short field possession guy, heck even Paulsen in that regard too. I simply believe that if you don't have a WR or TE who can run and is a threat to catch a ball down field, its much easier to crowd the box with your safeties and linebackers and stop an offense. RG 3's play making ability and the threat of a running game from him and Morris offsets some of this -- but IMO they'd be a heck of a lot better if they had a Wr who can stretch the field. you've watched Bayor, yeah plenty of similar formations, short bubble screen passes, etc but they'd throw defenses off balance with accurate bombs to Kendall Wright -- that's the missing ingredient IMO with this offense -- and losing Garcon and Davis doesn't help in this regard.

I'll repost Kein here

http://washingtonexaminer.com/redski...8#.UJvFA2-HKSo

The Redskins have averaged 4.5 yards per play the past two weeks (they ran 75 plays vs. Carolina and gained 337 yards). In their previous seven games, the Redskins averaged 6.3 yards or more per play six times. And their lowest average during this time was 5.1 vs. Cincinnati.

Part of that stems from a lack of consistent playmakers with receiver Pierre Garcon and now tight end Fred Davis sidelined. Perhaps that's why they have scored touchdowns on only two of their last six trips in the red zone, where playmakers are at a premium.

I think a teams aggregate numbers are an accurate measure for the unit. I don't consider it an opinion.

As I've said in another post, show me stats wise they have been a good offense in the last 2 games and you got a point. And maybe stats wise they were good, I didn't bother to look am just going on what I see so if you find that they played well statistically, I am open minded you'd get my attention. Otherwise for the moment to me its like me saying the Yankees infield is a poor hitting one without Jeter or Cano, check out the 2 games without them. And your response is no look at all the games with Jeter and or Cano and average them with the 2 games they didn't play, see the infield is a good hitting one with or without them. And even that to me isn't a strong enough analogy because unlike baseball --as we know football is an interdependent position. And these guys have a stud throwing to them along with a RB who helps take attention away from them -- so its as good as its gets for these guys to succeed to boot. It's why I am not sold on the aggregate stats. And again that's how i see it. doesn't make me right. If you think the aggregate stats tell the story, as I said in a previous post, lets agree to disagree, but I figured I'd have to make the case at least once strongly on this point because you keep going back to it.

When I watch the WRs I see a group that for the most part has been making the plays that are available for them, (except for Hankerson).

I think Morgan and Moss have played well within their talent level. They are both good at YAC but neither with maybe an occasional burst from Moss stretch the field. I could be wrong I just think we will struggle to be explosive with just possession WRs or at the very least not be as explosive as we could be with this QB and off of play action with this RB. Robinson IMO has struggled as much if not more than Hankerson but am hoping the light turns on.

When did this become a coaching vs talent discussion?

I thought with Oldfan making the case that our offense is too complex -- hence penalties, and the power of simplicity, etc -- it was a critique of the coaches. And it seemed that you concurred. But if i read that wrong my bad -- its not really any part of my major point.

---------- Post added November-9th-2012 at 08:25 AM ----------

Not to speak for OF, but I don't think he's saying Paulsen is as talented as Davis. I think he's saying that Paulsen has been more productive. And perhaps because he's not as talented he's not being game planned against, thus he's more productive. In the end, you kind of have to weigh that into their value either way. Davis may open up others, but Paulsen not being paid any mind gets open and creates opportunities. The question is which is more valuable to our offense and team? Is it the high cost guy that creates plays and opens others up? Or is it the low cost guy that is open and makes plays? *shrug* Davis is certainly the overall better player. But better play doesn't always mean better for the scheme.

That said, I'm not sure quite yet that Paulsen is a better fit. But I see the argument both ways.

Thanks. But am not sure this helps his argument, the way you phrased his argument makes my point if you read my multiple posts about Davis. Rereading my post it could be taken as me saying that oldfan is saying that they are a similar threat -- true he didn't say it that way -- but what I said was that defenses are likely going to factor Fred Davis as part of the game plan, he mocked that argument by giving an apples to apples production comparison with Paulsen. The way you phrased it, though helps make my case. IMO Davis is the better player, and teams do have to game plan for him and that does open things up.

[KDawg]

Thanks. But am not sure this helps his argument, the way you phrased his argument makes my point if you read my multiple posts about Davis. Rereading my post it could be taken as me saying that oldfan is saying that they are a similar threat -- true he didn't say it that way -- but what i was saying it you got to factor Fred Davis as part of the game plan, he mocked that argument by giving an apples to apples production comparison. The way you phrased it, though helps make my case. IMO Davis is the better player, and teams do have to game plan for him and that does open things up.

You seem to have missed my point: Paulsen may not be gameplanned for, but that makes him effective. If he continues to be effective teams either have to gameplan for him (thus making him similar to Davis, minus some of the athleticism) or leave him (thus making him more productive). And he's a fraction of the cost. I'm still not saying I think he's a better pick than Davis. But that's the piece you seem to be missing.

[Skinsinparadise]

You seem to have missed my point: Paulsen may not be gameplanned for, but that makes him effective. If he continues to be effective teams either have to gameplan for him (thus making him similar to Davis, minus some of the athleticism) or leave him (thus making him more productive). And he's a fraction of the cost. I'm still not saying I think he's a better pick than Davis. But that's the piece you seem to be missing.

Correct me if I am wrong, your main point is that Paulsen is a better find than Davis because we got him undrafted and cheaper than Davis and over time he will grow into the position and in the future maybe even the near future teams will have to game plan for him. Up to now, Fred Davis has been the bigger threat, teams did have to game plan for him and he is a different type of player with more explosiveness and speed.

Edit: sorry let me correct "is" a better find to "could be" and "will" to "could"

I reread both of your posts ignore my first statement above I fixated on you saying we got him on at a fraction of the cost and I agree that's good. Sorry didn't have my caffeine fix yet. It seems like your point to the debate in hand is Paulsen has been sneaking under the radar and thus might be what's making him more effective than he'd perhaps be otherwise, teams might have to start game planning for him and if so he might have a similar effect albeit he's not as talented as Fred Davis. If so I guess will see.

[darrelgreenie]

My point was the problem with the current Wrs that are right now on the field is no one really is a threat to stretch the field. I focused so much on Aldrick and Hank because if they can get their stuff together they can potentially fix this because they have the speed. Keim's article showed statistically that they are averaging significantly less per play without the two guys that I said are essential to this offense -- Fred Davis, and Garcon. I like Morgan as a short field possession guy, heck even Paulsen in that regard too. I simply believe that if you don't have a WR or TE who can run and is a threat to catch a ball down field, its much easier to crowd the box with your safeties and linebackers and stop an offense. RG 3's play making ability and the threat of a running game from him and Morris offsets some of this -- but IMO they'd be a heck of a lot better if they had a Wr who can stretch the field. you've watched Bayor, yeah plenty of similar formations, short bubble screen passes, etc but they'd throw defenses off balance with accurate bombs to Kendall Wright -- that's the missing ingredient IMO with this offense -- and losing Garcon and Davis doesn't help in this regard.

I'll repost Kein here

http://washingtonexaminer.com/redski...8#.UJvFA2-HKSo

~Keim article truncated for size...

As I've said in another post, show me stats wise they have been a good offense in the last 2 games and you got a point. And maybe stats wise they were good, I didn't bother to look am just going on what I see so if you find that they played well statistically, I am open minded you'd get my attention. Otherwise for the moment to me its like me saying the Yankees infield is a poor hitting one without Jeter or Cano, check out the 2 games without them. And your response is no look at all the games with Jeter and or Cano and average them with the 2 games they didn't play, see the infield is a good hitting one with or without them. And even that to me isn't a strong enough analogy because unlike baseball --as we know football is an interdependent position. And these guys have a stud throwing to them along with a RB who helps take attention away from them -- so its as good as its gets for these guys to succeed to boot. It's why I am not sold on the aggregate stats. And again that's how i see it. doesn't make me right. If you think the aggregate stats tell the story, as I said in a previous post, lets agree to disagree, but I figured I'd have to make the case at least once strongly on this point because you keep going back to it.

I've responded to the points above several times already, you've just chosen not to respond:

Excluding the Panthers game where Moss was hurt they've had the same WRs all season. Garcon has been out since the 1st qtr of the Saints game. They have the same WRs during the 6.3+ YPP as they did in the Steelers game except in that they game the receiving corps had a terrible case of the droppsies.

And Keim's point (which btw uses an aggregate metric) shows the YPP. But it doesn't say anything directly negative about the WRs because the +6.3 YPP gained in some games was with the exact same WRs we have now. Imo an honest assessment of the Steelers game shows that we could move the ball. The loss of Fred Davis isn't what hurt the offense, but rather drops and pass protection.

Every game save for 1 QTR in the Saints game has produced a YPP with a WRs group without Garcon. The games with YPP of 6.3+ were without Garcon just as the 4.5 games over the past 2 weeks were without Garcon.

It doesn't make sense to view 2 metric with the same personnel then claim the difference in performance was due to the loss of Garcon.

Chris Carter said that a drop pass is like half a turnover. We had 10 drops against the Steelers. If you cannot see how 10 drops will kill a game then I don't know how to impress the impact of 10 drops upon you. *shrugs*

They are both good at YAC but neither with maybe an occasional burst from

Moss stretch the field. I could be wrong I just think we will struggle to be explosive with just possession WRs or at the very least not be as explosive as we could be with this QB and off of play action with this RB. Robinson IMO has struggled as much if not more than Hankerson but am hoping the light turns on.

We're going round in circles.

I don't understand how you can agree that Kyle is aiming for ball control then point to lack of a deep passing attack as a means to downgrade our WRs.

To my naked eye I don't think our WRs are bad I think their stats are function of the design of the passing game.

I also don't understand how you can be critical of Aldrick because he missed on a or a couple of deep passes when quite obviously deep passes are very low percentage plays.

I would be curious about how our WRs deep catch targets/catches match-up with other WRs.

My bet we would be somewhere in the middle of pack once the number of attempts was averaged out.

Here's an article from one of our own that looks at the Carolina game and talks about the Panther's game:

Well from what I have seen, none of that is true. The struggles here appear

easy to explain; the Redskins simply are not executing well enough. Against Pittsburgh, there were 10 drops by Redskins receivers. That is unacceptable. Against Carolina, there were a few more. Again, that is unacceptable. As we have all seen, the Redskins are the most penalized team in football. Utterly unacceptable. All it takes is a mistake from one guy to throw off a play. And when you only have two drives in a single half of play (which happened in the

1st half against Carolina), all it takes is one play to significantly affect your ability to maximize points.

Here’s the thing; very rarely will you see a play run in this offense where nobody is open. This scheme is, quite honestly, brilliant at taking advantage of the defense’s weaknesses. On film, that was still apparent against Carolina. The Redskins simply could not capitalize. And part of that had to do with Robert Griffin III missing plays that he was seemingly perfect on early in the year.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?373502-SP-Robert-Griffin-III-Showing-Rookie-Growing-Pains-Some-Missed-Opportunities-for-the-Rookie-vs.-Carolina

I thought with Oldfan making the case that our offense is too complex -- hence penalties, and the power of simplicity, etc -- it was a critique of the coaches. And it seemed that you concurred. But if i read that wrong my bad -- its not really any part of my major point.

I agree. Sometimes coaches fall in love with the dressing more then the steak.

---------- Post added November-6th-2012 at 08:31 AM ----------

Imo, and not just for our team but for any team, penalties are a reflection of coaching.

Sure we can blame the individual player at the time, but when you see a pattern of procedure penalties by WRs I look to the position coach first, then the coordinator then the head coach.

By and large a well prepared player doesn't make procedure mistakes.

Edit: As a coach I would be open to simplifiying or removing anything that prevented my players form being able to play fast

[illone]

See, this is exactly what I disagree with because it doesn't acknowledge the difference in talent and it's correlation to creativity/simplicity. Gibbs could call 50 Gut a hundred times a game because he had an Oline that was ridiculously more athletic than pretty much any front it faced. The question is, do you think Kyle would be calling the same plays if he was in the same exact position as Gibbs back then? If you're answer is no, you're severely under-estimating both Kyle and his father's abilities to coach an offense and overlooking everything they've said on the subject as well.

Furthermore, the logic here is so flawed that you're essentially saying any team could just practice 50 Gut a thousand times a week and then call it a lot during a game and it would work. Unless you have an amazing Oline filled with beasts and you're going against a weak front seven it's not going to work, period. The linemen are more athletic now on both sides of the ball and the vast majority of fronts could easily stop it, especially if they know it's coming.

How are you extrapolating that from my post?

I only referenced the "execution" of 50 gut, because that correlates to a simple playbook, just like the OP is referencing. Nowhere did I suggest that any team could run 50 gut, or practice it, or that it would work for anyone.

It's a simple play, and when executed at a high level, it works well, regardless if the team knows it's coming.

Peyton Manning's playbook is filled with simple plays, when executed at a high level work very well, regardless if the opposing team knows it's coming.

That's the correlation I was drawing with my post, not anything close to what you suggested:ols:

Talent surely plays a role, but it's mostly assumed that most pro ball players are talented;)

[Oldfan]

Not to speak for OF, but I don't think he's saying Paulsen is as talented as Davis. I think he's saying that Paulsen has been more productive. And perhaps because he's not as talented he's not being game planned against, thus he's more productive. In the end, you kind of have to weigh that into their value either way.

No, what I meant is that I doubt whether DCs are much more concerned with Fred Davis than they are with the average TE. Double teams? What have I been missing?

[Skinsinparadise]

I've responded to the points above several times already, you've just chosen not to respond:

I've not agreed with your point but i have responded every time unless there is something am missing and if so let me know? And just to clarify that i follow your argument -- correct me if I am wrong, your position is how can the offense's passing game be on the aggregate prolific statistically if they have the worst receivers in the league or close to it? I respond by saying its skewed because Rg 3 (in a major way) and Morris (in a more subtle way) skew the stats but the larger point and this is why we are spinning our wheels I reiterate that its about missing both Garcon and Davis. Not only have I said its about missing both of these guys, I've elaborated why we can survive one loss but not both of them. And I gave you quotes from 2 people who cover the team who also elaborated why on the same point. If you disagree, you have every right. But keeping it just on Garcon changes the argument. Your argument is these guys are putting up stats without Garcon, and those stats are good. OK. I haven't argued that if the team is out Garcon alone they are in trouble. I've consistently in post after post argued this as a problem if both Garcon and Davis are out becuase there is no threat to stretch the field. With Davis at least you got one guy. And yeah i contend having no guys who stretch the field can affect the output of the other receivers.

Sheehan actually ironically is talking about this on 980 right now. He thinks and I agree we need Hankerson to step up because if he does he can change this dynamic.

As for the dropped passes, yeah that was a problem, wasn't as big of a problem the following week but the Wr crew IMO still didn't look good. Outside of Morgan, Moss isn't bad but he drops his share of passes the team doesn't really seem to have a sure handed receiver aside from Morgan who hasn't exactly been pristine either, it wasn't an aberration for Hankerson and Aldrick to drop passes.

No, what I meant is that I doubt whether DCs are much more concerned with Fred Davis than they are with the average TE. Double teams? What have I been missing?

You've seen Davis play over the years. You've seen Moss and Morgan. Which guy if any would worry you some? Reputation wise, Fred Davis isn't a guy who is yawned about and clearly am not the only guy who thinks so.

[Oldfan]

...You've seen Davis play over the years. You've seen Moss and Morgan. Which guy if any would worry you some? Reputation wise, Fred Davis isn't a guy who is yawned about and clearly am not the only guy who thinks so.

As a DC, I would not worry much about any of our receivers. RG3 is the only challenge I'd spend much time on when game planning.

Check that: stopping Morris would also be a concern.

[Skinsinparadise]

As a DC, I would not worry much about any of our receivers. RG3 is the only challenge I'd spend much time on when game planning.

Check that: stopping Morris would also be a concern.

Agree. imagine if they had our division rivals receiving crew.

[TSO]

How are you extrapolating that from my post?

I only referenced the "execution" of 50 gut, because that correlates to a simple playbook, just like the OP is referencing. Nowhere did I suggest that any team could run 50 gut, or practice it, or that it would work for anyone.

It's a simple play, and when executed at a high level, it works well, regardless if the team knows it's coming.

Peyton Manning's playbook is filled with simple plays, when executed at a high level work very well, regardless if the opposing team knows it's coming.

That's the correlation I was drawing with my post, not anything close to what you suggested:ols:

Talent surely plays a role, but it's mostly assumed that most pro ball players are talented;)

I think it's pretty easy to see how I took from your post that simplicity is always the best route to go. You didn't qualify your "50 Gut" reference as you are now, but that's ok, sorry for the misunderstanding.

And of course it's assumed that most pro ball players are talented. They are talented everywhere on all teams. But some have more talent at more positions than others, and those are the teams that usually win and usually have an easier time just executing a fewer amount of plays. I like to look at it like if the coach calls a simple run up the middle, the team with a better Center/Guard combo as well as RB will be able to execute that much more often than the one without. The one without might have to get a little more creative and run outside from time to time.

That's what my point is.

---------- Post added November-9th-2012 at 12:17 PM ----------

Again I think part of the problem with this conversation is based on loosely or undefined terms. What is keeping it 'simple'?

My view is that running plays from many different formations, with shifts and motions may do more to hurt your own execution then it creates confusion for the defense.

If you run many plays from the same formation it increases the defenses chances of guessing wrong. Having fewer formations, motions and shifts may actually do more to confuse a defense and maximize your own level of execution. The fewer pre-snap moving parts from shifts to cadence increases decreases the risk of procedure penalties while allowing the offense to play fast.

You know, I was thinking the same thing... you worded it better. I think that's what I was trying to allude to in my question there, but failed.

[darrelgreenie]

And just to clarify that i follow your argument -- correct me if I am wrong, your position is how can the offense's passing game be on the aggregate prolific statistically if they have the worst receivers in the league or close to it? I respond by saying its skewed because Rg 3 (in a major way) and Morris (in a more subtle way) skew the statss

But Griff and Morris are part of the stats they no more skew the stats then any other teams QB/RB/scheme/coach/OL/continuity/experience...

But every teams scheme, OL, experience in the system, compelmentary players (QBs, RBs other WRs/TEs) are all part of the equation that makes up their passing game just as Rg 3 and Morris for us. And when it comes to scheme I would argue that the simple design of our passing game is actually limiting their production..

but the larger point and this is why we are spinning our wheels I reiterate that its about missing both Garcon and Davis. Not only have I said its about missing both of these guys, I've elaborated why we can survive one loss but not both of them.

This btw is another shift in your orginal argument.

And I gave you quotes from 2 people who cover the team who also elaborated why on the same point. If you disagree, you have every right. But keeping it just on Garcon changes the argument. Your argument is these guys are putting up stats without Garcon, and those stats are good.

OK. I haven't argued that if the team is out Garcon alone they are in trouble. I've consistently in post after post argued this as a problem if both Garcon and Davis are out becuase there is no threat to stretch the field. With Davis at least you got one guy. And yeah i contend having no guys who stretch the field can affect the output of the other receivers.

You're arguments try to have it both ways. You say that aggregate measures aren't relevant because it includes TE production. Then you turn around and claim the loss of Davis as reason for the supposed down turn in the WRs production. Then you include Garcon as part of the reason for the supposed down turn in the YPP yet Garcon was never a factor in either the 6.3+ YPP nor the 4.5 YPP.

None of the above adds up for me. That is my disconnect.

You've seen Davis play over the years. You've seen Moss and Morgan. Which guy if any would worry you some? Reputation wise, Fred Davis isn't a guy who is yawned about and clearly am not the only guy who thinks so.

Again, our perceptions are meaningless empty statements. I look only at production and until the production slips then the 'reputations' are meaningless.

[Skinsinparadise]

DG:

You cite me saying me talking about both Garcon and Davis as a shift in my argument, if so than my original point was its just Garcon? if so show me the post where i said it. I know i can show 5 posts where I said Davis and Garcon, not just one of these guys but both of them.

Casserly was on the radio just an hour ago, saying not having Garcon and Davis makes it tough on RG 3 because "there is no one to stretch the field" then Lavar kicked in and said as a linebacker's persepctive if a team has no deep threat, he just worries about playing the run.

To say that RG 3 and Morris wouldn't skew the stats any more than any other QB/RB implies that they are average players as opposed to above average QBs/RBs and i don't agree with that.

[darrelgreenie]

You cite me saying me talking about both Garcon and Davis as a shift in my argument, if so than my original point was its just Garcon? if so show me the post where i said it. I know i can show 5 posts where I said Davis and Garcon, not just one of these guys but both of them.

My apologies argument fatigue is setting in. Sometimes you are talking about the WRs then sometimes you're talking about the passing game. Sometimes you're talking about stats, then others about perception. Another shift is over the use of aggregate metrics for the passing game. You complained when I used them; but Keim's support for his article is based on an aggregrate metric: YPP .

You didn't address these points:

You include Garcon as part of the reason for the supposed down turn in the YPP yet Garcon was never a factor in either the 6.3+ YPP nor the 4.5 YPP. The 6.3+ YPP games happened without Garcon just as the 4.5 YPP games happened without Garcon. How then can Garcon be the cause of the drop in YPP?

Casserly was on the radio just an hour ago, saying not having Garcon and Davis makes it tough on RG 3 because "there is no one to stretch the field" then Lavar kicked in and said as a linebacker's persepctive if a team has no deep threat, he just worries about playing the run.

Of course not having Davis makes it 'tough' on RG 3. I disagree that 'there is no one to stretch the field'. Again you blame the lack of downfield passing as a skillset issue, I believe its a design/playcalling issue. Btw, did you read the Redskins Paradigm article that shows Aldrick Robinson wide open downfield?

To say that RG 3 and Morris wouldn't skew the stats any more than any other QB/RB implies that they are average players as opposed to above average QBs/RBs and i don't agree with that.

Not at all, that is your assumption. The QB and RB are a part of the passing game. If you're gonna say our QB and RB skew the passing game stats then every team experiences some unquantifiable amount of skew based on their QB, RB, WRs/TE, OL, scheme, coaches, experience and continuity. Agree or disagree?

[Oldfan]

...

SIP: To say that RG 3 and Morris wouldn't skew the stats any more than any other QB/RB implies that they are average players as opposed to above average QBs/RBs and i don't agree with that.

Not at all, that is your assumption. The QB and RB are a part of the passing game. If you're gonna say our QB and RB skew the passing game stats then every team experiences some unquantifiable amount of skew based on their QB, RB, WRs/TE, OL, scheme, coaches, experience and continuity. Agree or disagree?

IMO, the word "skew" is part of the problem you two have in communicating your points. In statistics, "skew" refers to a bias, something that throws a true result off course. Since the QB and the RB performances are both factors of some undetermined weight in all passing stats, good performances, like those of RG3 and Morris's, will positively affect those stats to a true (un-skewed) result.

Passing game stats are team stats. They cannot be used to intelligently rank QBs, receivers, or any other team factor. Even the defense has its inluence on the passing game stats.

[Skinsinparadise]

You didn't address these points: You include Garcon as part of the reason for the supposed down turn in the YPP yet Garcon was never a factor in either the 6.3+ YPP nor the 4.5 YPP. The 6.3+ YPP games happened without Garcon just as the 4.5 YPP games happened without Garcon. How then can Garcon be the cause of the drop in YPP?

I did answer this but we had a lot going back and forth so its easy to miss. With Davis in the lineup it takes focus away some from the Wrs -- in short having Davis playing can affect the performance of the other Wrs. The free safety or MLB, etc can't go to sleep on Davis and has to give him attention but with Davis out of the lineup they can focus more on the WR and crowd closer to the line of scrimmage. Arrington on the radio from a players perspective said a variation of this.

Of course not having Davis makes it 'tough' on RG 3. I disagree that 'there is no one to stretch the field'. Again you blame the lack of downfield passing as a skillset issue, I believe its a design/playcalling issue. Btw, did you read the Redskins Paradigm article that shows Aldrick Robinson wide open downfield?

Read an article that Aldrick got out there too fast and gave the corner time to catch up so there was a timing issue, don't recall which article. But regardless lets say he ran a great route and did it all perfectly, few things are about absolutes, good players don't do things well just once in awhile, its all about consistency. I've said in multiple posts that Aldrick and Hankerson have speed and can get down the field -- what i haven't seen is the 2nd part of the equation which is having good hands where they can actually catch the balls thrown their way. If they can't catch it then they aren't threats to stretch the field IMO. Aldrick is almost in Rod Gardener's 50-50 range in terms of catching what's thrown his way.

Not at all, that is your assumption. The QB and RB are a part of the passing game. If you're gonna say our QB and RB skew the passing game stats then every team experiences some unquantifiable amount of skew based on their QB, RB, WRs/TE, OL, scheme, coaches, experience and continuity. Agree or disagree?

You said the QB/RB is the same factor for every team in terms of impacting the stat. if the QBs and RBs influence that stat the same way from team to team -- it would imply either the Qb and Rb don't have any influence so its all about WRs or they do have an influence but they all impact this stat exactly the same way. Based on that perspective, I don't see how that adds up in a way where the quality of QB and RB has any impact? My point is if the Qb and RB is a stud they will disproportionately affect the stat and thus skew it.

---------- Post added November-9th-2012 at 06:51 PM ----------

IMO, the word "skew" is part of the problem you two have in communicating your points. In statistics, "skew" refers to a bias, something that throws a true result off course. Since the QB and the RB performances are both factors of some undetermined weight in all passing stats, good performances, like those of RG3 and Morris's, will positively affect those stats to a true (un-skewed) result.

I used to be a teachers assistant in stats albeit a long time ago but to go to stats/research language. The quality play of the QB and RB are a variable that effects the quality of the passing game and the stats, the variables of the WRs performance isn't mutually exclusive to the factors I mention. If you can control the variables of the QBs and RBs then isolate the performance of the Wrs then we are cooking -- but there is no clear cut way to do this that I am aware of.

So to me its intuitive if you have a quarterback who can extend plays, giving WRs more time to get open, a QB who is one of the more accurate QBs in the league where we have seen him in a couple of games have to throw multiple accurate touchdown passes to get a single touchdown after his Wrs dropped easy passes -- a quarterback who poses a running threat along with a Rb who sets up play action well. If you read the comments from the opposition before each game its about stopping RG 3 and the running game. Stopping Josh Morgan doesn't seem to be a key part of the game plan. They aren't likely keyed in on the WRs and if so that helps them. They can mess up drop a ball and Rg 3 can bail them out by throwing another accurate ball their way a few seconds later. The safeties are likely playing in close because they are keying in on stopping Alfred Morris. These WRs have advantage after advantage.

If you don't agree or don't think these variables affect the passing stats, you have a right to feel that way. But we won't agree no matter how long we extend the debate. If there is wiggle room for me in this debate am closer to Oldfan's position than yours that these guys aren't that great even when completely healthy and I can entertain the idea that Fred Davis doesn't offset the weak WRs. I think Davis is good but I get Oldfan's point. i am just saying without those guys, its really bad.

This all in response to DG but playing off of Oldfan's point.

[Bishop Hammer]

As DG and Oldfan are headed on this point is it the coaching or the players? -- I think its on Shanny for player selection but am not overly hard on him because i do think this is a different receiving crew by leaps and bounds with Garcon and Davis in the lineup. My only issue with Shanny is i'd like to see him develop a young WR like he does with RBs -- so far IMO he hasn't done it. I don't blame him for Morgan being a middle of the pack #2 WR. He's never been more than that, that's what he was expected to be.

I think Mike is trying with Hankerson. The jurys still out on him. At this point I think Hankerson is 50 50 but I'm reserving judgement until next year.

[darrelgreenie]

I did answer this but we had a lot going back and forth so its easy to miss. With Davis in the lineup it takes focus away some from the Wrs -- in short having Davis playing can affect the performance of the other Wrs. The free safety or MLB, etc can't go to sleep on Davis and has to give him attention but with Davis out of the lineup they can focus more on the WR and crowd closer to the line of scrimmage. Arrington on the radio from a players perspective said a variation of this.

That still doesn't address this point: You include Garcon as part of the reason for the supposed down turn in the YPP yet Garcon was never a factor in either the 6.3+ YPP nor the 4.5 YPP. The 6.3+ YPP games happened without Garcon just as the 4.5 YPP games happened without Garcon. How then can Garcon be the cause of the drop in YPP when he was non-participant in both the high YPP and the low YPP?

Lets agree that the loss of Davis may have some impact on the WRs. (I'm trying to avoid quibbling) But, this impact doesn't change the quality of the WRs themselves. The WRs remain what they've been all season. The loss of Davis would change the production of the passing game as unit if there is a significant effect. I bring this up because you've been refering to our WRs as league worst independent of the aggregate metrics, correct? So if the loss of Davis has a huge impact it should evident in the individual WR stats right?

I've said in multiple posts that Aldrick and Hankerson have speed and can get down the field -- what i haven't seen is the 2nd part of the equation which is having good hands where they can actually catch the balls thrown their way. If they can't catch it then they aren't threats to stretch the field IMO. Aldrick is almost in Rod Gardener's 50-50 range in terms of catching what's thrown his way.

There are so many elements to an effective deep passing game scheme, play design, pass protection, playcalling, game situation etc. Ironically enough a key element is repetition both in practice and in the games. But, in the games because of the gameplan geared towards ball control we don't have many deep passing attempts compared to other teams. Griff is actually 30th in the league in deep passing attempts at only 16% of his attempts being greater then 15 yards. And if we're not throwing deep during the games you better beleive they're not spending a bunch of time on it in practice.

You assume that Hankerson and Aldrick are bad in the deep passing game based off such a small sample size it meaningless imo. You assume Moss can't get deep because of his age, despite Moss toasting man to man with deep safety help in a critical situation. Deep passes begin as a low percentage play from the outset. Writing off WRs (Aldrick/Hankerson) as non-deep threats based off such a tiny sample size seem capricious, punative and premature. Especially when you justify your opinion with thee ol eye ball test.

You said the QB/RB is the same factor for every team in terms of impacting the stat. if the QBs and RBs influence that stat the same way from team to team -- it would imply either the Qb and Rb don't have any influence so its all about WRs or they do have an influence but they all impact this stat exactly the same way. Based on that perspective, I don't see how that adds up in a way where the quality of QB and RB has any impact? My point is if the Qb and RB is a stud they will disproportionately affect the stat and thus skew it.

No offense but I often feel like you're not reading my posts at all. I did not say 'QB/RB is the same factor for every team in terms of impacting the stat'. The QB and RB are part of the team and are therefore part of the team passing stat just as WRs/TEs/OL/coaching/experience/contintuity are part of the passing stat.

Not at all, that is your assumption. The QB and RB are a part of the passing game. If you're gonna say our QB and RB skew the passing game stats then every team experiences some unquantifiable amount of skew based on their QB, RB, WRs/TE, OL, scheme, coaches, experience and continuity. Agree or disagree?

Therefore whatever impact they have isn't 'skew' their impact the players have is the driving force behind the metric. But, as I said its unquantiable. There is no way to isolate the impact Rob/Al have on the passing offense anymore then Aaron Rodgers or Eli Manning or Ben Rothlisberger etc.

The team passing stats like YPA are a snapshot of the passing game as a whole that cannot be broken down.

---------- Post added November-9th-2012 at 11:31 PM ----------

I want to sum up one final time and be done with this.

Our passing offense has been functioning just fine all season without Garcon as part of the WRs corps.

Our current gameplan and playcalling doesn't emphasize the deep passing game because deep passes is low efficiency and very pass protection dependent and it appears this offense wants to emphasize ball control. Consequently our WRs and passing game have a low number of deep passing attempts 30th in the NFL. This is also manifested in Griff's low number of 'air yards' but thankfully his much maligned WRs have actually been helping him out with high percentage of yards gain after the catch. Griff is 23rd in Air yards and 9th in YAC % 53.2 http://wp.advancednflstats.com/airYardsStats.php

Our WRs aren't world beaters but they're not holding this top 10 offense back either.

[Oldfan]

...The team passing stats like YPA are a snapshot of the passing game as a whole that cannot be broken down.

The snapshot analogy is a good one. I don't want to take you off-topic now, but someday soon I want you to explain to me how you can understand the YPA and yet be a proponent of ESPN's QBR which is a formula based on snapshots of the team game.

Our WRs aren't world beaters but they're not holding this top 10 offense back either.

Feeling generous today, I'll put a grade D on our receivers as a group. If we could improve that bunch to a grade B at least, we could be contending for #1. I'd say they are holding us back.

What grade do you give them as a group?

[darrelgreenie]

The snapshot analogy is a good one. I don't want to take you off-topic now, but someday soon I want you to explain to me how you can understand the YPA and yet be a proponent of ESPN's QBR which is a formula based on snapshots of the team game.

I think total QBR is as close as you can get to a true QB grade. They look at the individual plays and assign credit/blame based on the situation and I wish they stopped there and published those numbers only. But instead they mix in all this other EPA stuff which I agree brings all types of other factors to bear. But, I don't take the QBR nor any stat as gospel, just a part of the puzzle to be used/compared to other stats. In fact I think their Pass EPA and 'action plays' give a more accurate view of individual QB's play then their total QBR.

And their means of accounting for Running EPA is a bit out of whack. Imo any metric that accounts for running that doesn't have the league leader in yards, 1st downs gained, 3rd downs converted and TDs as #1 is flawed (maybe critically so).

I wouldn't quite say I'm a proponent of it but I don't dismiss it as bunk. (and many in this forum dismiss the stat for 2 reason (a) its from 'BSPN' ( it has Luck ranked higher then Griffin.

Feeling generous today, I'll put a grade D on our receivers as a group. If we could improve that bunch to a grade A, we would be contending for #1. I'd say they are holding us back.What grade do you give them as a group?

If I grade them based on our team by itself I give our WRs a C+ on talent and B on production.

I give them a bump in production because of how much they contribute to the passing game via yards after the catch.

In a league wide comparison I give them a C in production.

Right now I think the design of the passing offense places us in 'passing offense 101' or 'intro to passing' phase. I view 'holding back' as preventing a unit from being good. If 'holding back' means keeping them form being great or greater then yes I agree the WRs are holding the offense back. But I think the design of the passing game, more then anything else is 'holding [it] back'.The design of the offense as whole allows our simple passing game to be effective largley through play-action and short passes (where the WRs gain YAC). Also, I think the force feeding of reps to Hankerson limits the WR production also. I believe that if his targets went to Moss and Morgan the passing game would be more productive.

[Oldfan]

...I wouldn't quite say I'm a proponent of it [ESPN's QBR] but I don't dismiss it as bunk. (and many in this forum dismiss the stat for 2 reason (a) its from 'BSPN' ( it has Luck ranked higher then Griffin.

When you grade their skillsets on what you can see, don't you see that Luck is very good but Griffin is much better? If so, how is it possible that Luck's performance not team, scheme or strength of schedule aided is better than Griffin's? In other words, how can you NOT distrust a formula that ranks Luck better?

...I view 'holding back' as preventing a unit from being good. If 'holding back' means keeping them form being great or greater then yes I agree the WRs are holding the offense back.

Okay.

[Skinsinparadise]

But every teams scheme, OL, experience in the system, compelmentary players (QBs, RBs other WRs/TEs) are all part of the equation that makes up their passing game just as Rg 3 and Morris for us.

This is the quote I refer to, which you interpret as me not reading your posts. Am reading them but apparently misinterpreted this. This was in response to me saying that RG 3 and Morris' play has a major impact on the stat. I took this as you saying all teams have other factors as part of the stat just like we do with Rg 3 and Morris. OK, true but what's the point then? So I thought you are saying the QB/RB is equal enough team to team so ignore and focus on grading the Wrs via the overall passing stats -- the Wrs performance and overall passing stats seems to be the crux of your argument or at least its the drum you beat post after post. That's how I took it. Apparently I took it wrong. So sorry what do you mean by this?

Your next sentence on this point was about the scheme is limiting them, OK but that's hard to prove. It's not hard to prove that statistically RG 3 and Morris are above average performers where i can contend for example that they for example are more likely to prop the passing stats more than lets say for example Mark Sanchez and the running game does for the Jets Wrs.

As for the rest of your point, I think we going around in circles or we are having trouble understanding each other on it. I keep saying for me its all about missing both Davis and Garcon (2 variables), and you keep wanting to pin me down by this being about Garcon alone in the context of WR passing stats (1 variable). You say lets say Davis is a factor which brings the discussion to my point. But if he is a factor, wouldn't the stats matter in the context of when Davis played or didn't play not Garcon? If my point is its about both guys, the games that would be relevant to do apples to apples stat comparisons are the last 2 games versus the other games.

[darrelgreenie]

This is the quote I refer to, which you interpret as me not reading your posts. Am reading them but apparently misinterpreted this. This was in response to me saying that RG 3 and Morris' play has a major impact on the stat. I took this as you saying all teams have other factors as part of the stat just like we do with Rg 3 and Morris. OK, true but what's the point then? So I thought you are saying the QB/RB is equal enough team to team so ignore and focus on grading the Wrs via the overall passing stats -- the Wrs performance and overall passing stats seems to be the crux of your argument or at least its the drum you beat post after post. That's how I took it. Apparently I took it wrong. So sorry what do you mean by this?

Not at all, that is your assumption. The QB and RB are a part of the passing game. If you're gonna say our QB and RB skew the passing game stats then every team experiences some unquantifiable amount of skew based on their QB, RB, WRs/TE, OL, scheme, coaches, experience and continuity. Agree or disagree?

Therefore whatever impact they have isn't 'skew' their impact the players have is the driving force behind the metric. But, as I said its unquantiable. There is no way to isolate the impact Rob/Al have on the passing offense anymore then Aaron Rodgers or Eli Manning or Ben Rothlisberger etc.

The team passing stats like YPA are a snapshot of the passing game as a whole that cannot be broken down ADDED--->(or dismissed to assign levels of 'skew'.

I mean exactly what I state above. And the point is you can't dismiss the aggregate passing stats because of RG3 and Morris 'skew' which you do here:

I've not agreed with your point but i have responded every time unless there is something am missing and if so let me know? And just to clarify that i follow your argument -- correct me if I am wrong, your position is how can the offense's passing game be on the aggregate prolific statistically if they have the worst receivers in the league or close to it? I respond by saying its skewed because Rg 3 (in a major way) and Morris (in a more subtle way)

Your next sentence on this point was about the scheme is limiting them, OK but that's hard to prove.

Its not hard to prove because I know you've listened to Cosell who agrees with me that our passing game is quite simple therefore easy to defend.

It's not hard to prove that statistically RG 3 and Morris are above average performers where i can contend for example that they for example are more likely to prop the passing stats more than lets say for example Mark Sanchez and the running game does for the Jets Wrs.

Already addressed above.

As for the rest of your point, I think we going around in circles or we are having trouble understanding each other on it. I keep saying for me its all about missing both Davis and Garcon (2 variables), and you keep wanting to pin me down by this being about Garcon alone in the context of WR passing stats (1 variable). .

I'm not sure what 'it' you're talking about here. But, specific to the discussion of the YPP stat that you tout from Keim.

The Redskins have averaged 4.5 yards per play the past two weeks (they ran 75 plays vs. Carolina and gained 337 yards). In their previous seven games, the Redskins averaged 6.3 yards or more per play six times. And their lowest average during this time was 5.1 vs. Cincinnati.

Part of that stems from a lack of consistent playmakers with receiver Pierre Garcon and now tight end Fred Davis sidelined. Perhaps that's why they have scored touchdowns on only two of their last six trips in the red zone, where playmakers are at a premium

Yes there are 2 variables but there is really only one of your variables because Garcon was never a factor in either the 6.3+ YPP nor the 4.5 YPP. The 6.3+ YPP games happened without Garcon just as the 4.5 YPP games happened without Garcon. How then can Garcon be the cause of the drop in YPP when he was non-participant in both the high YPP and the low YPP?

BTW-I have tried to answered most of your questions directly but you have yet to answer the aboev question directly unless I missed it.

Also, if we're to follow you're same 'skew' concept then I could argue that the decline in YPP could simply be the result in decline in the level of play from Griffin and Alfred. I'm not though, because its an aggregate stat therefore already includes their skew.

You say lets say Davis is a factor which brings the discussion to my point. But if he is a factor, wouldn't the stats matter in the context of when Davis played or didn't play not Garcon? If my point is its about both guys, the games that would be relevant to do apples to apples stat comparisons are the last 2 games versus the other games

I'm a little confused but I'll try......

Davis was a participant Garcon was not. Thus Davis has some undetermined effect on the YPP because he actually played in the high YPP games and not in the low YPP. But, we would have to hash out the difference in production between him and Paulsen to have a true idea of the impact.

But, much more apparent in the Steelers game is the 10 dropped passes. There is no getting around this fact. There were 10 dropped passes in that game. Not having Davis didn't stop the WRs from getting open, the just had a case of the drops.

But, please help me end this back and forth. I'm exhausted.

I want to sum up one final time and be done with this really and truely we can agree to disagree.

You can believe our WRs are league worst and I'll believe otherwise and summarize below:

Our passing offense has been functioning just fine all season without Garcon as part of the WRs corps.

Our current gameplan and playcalling doesn't emphasize the deep passing game because deep passes is low efficiency and very pass protection dependent and it appears this offense wants to emphasize ball control. Consequently our WRs and passing game have a low number of deep passing attempts 30th in the NFL. This is also manifested in Griff's low number of 'air yards' but thankfully his much maligned WRs have actually been helping him out with high percentage of yards gain after the catch. Griff is 23rd in Air yards and 9th in YAC % 53.2 http://wp.advancednflstats.com/airYardsStats.php

Our WRs aren't world beaters but they're not holding this top 10 offense back either.

---------- Post added November-10th-2012 at 07:31 PM ----------

When you grade their skillsets on what you can see, don't you see that Luck is very good but Griffin is much better? If so, how is it possible that Luck's performance not team, scheme or strength of schedule aided is better than Griffin's? In other words, how can you NOT distrust a formula that ranks Luck better?

Once the draft process is over I no longer view QBs as prospects to be judged by skillset. If you're asking me about my thoughts on the skillset between Griffin and Luck then there's no question I've always maintained that Griffin is the better prospect.

But the QBR is not designed to figure out which QB has the better skillset. Its designed to judge performance. And the QBR is designed and geared to evaluate and places emphasis on passing. Luck because of the design of his passing game is going to score more favorably on their grading scale. And I've already stated that I believe their Running EPA is flawed.

I think this post from the rookie QB thread sums up my thoughts (although not directly QBR related)

I think an objective view of our passing offense reveals a fairly simple but very effective play-action heavy passing game with very well defined reads that often has only 1 or 2 options, there are very few straight drop back passes and even fewer with full field progression reads. It features mostly high percentage short and intermediate passes and is ultra conservative on 3rd and long. The offense design puts the onus the scheme to create an open receiver and often requires that receiver to make yards after the catch. G

Arians is not 'managing' Luck like a rookie. Their offense is a rhythm drop back passing game with full field progression reads that attacks more often downfield then ours; because of their inefficiency in the running game they create fewer well with defined reads through play-action. Arians places the onus on Luck make a good pre-snap read and make the right decision post-snap going through his progressions. Imo the Bears game is a testament to Luck's ability passer. He went against a tough Bears defense that gives veterans QB problems and largely made good decisions and some very good throws into tight coverages............They're all playing some good ball. Imo Griffin is far and away having the biggest impact for his team's offense and team. Tannehill and Luck are playing at high level for rookie QBs I would proly give the nod to Tannehill because he's getting production from a sub-par group of receivers. My man Russell is playing some good football too.

[Oldfan]

...But the QBR is not designed to figure out which QB has the better skillset. Its designed to judge performance.

But, the label is deceptive, QBR doesn't measure a QB's performance in isolation. It measures the performance of QBs playing for their respective teams and against different opponents.

Henry and six teammates weigh 1,630 pounds. George and six teammates weigh 1,598 pounds. Who weighs more Henry or George? You can't answer the question because I gave you two useless numbers. In order to answer the question you would need to weigh Henry and George separately.

Who is performing better at QB, Andrew or Robert? You can't answer the question because you were given two useless QBR numbers. In order to answer the question you would need to grade Andrew and Robert separately -- and the only way to do that intelligently is by comparing their skillsets.

RG3 is a more useful tool than Luck for an offensive coordinator to attack defenses. He has demonstrated that talent at the NFL level.

Will Robert ultimately QB his team to more wins? Who knows? The only sure thing is that, as long as he stays healthy, he will make more of a contribution to his team's effort than Andrew Luck.

Repeating my point from my previous post: If the QBR does not show that RG3 is a better QB than Luck, then you should realize at once that the formula is flawed in some serious way.

[Skinsinparadise]

Its not hard to prove because I know you've listened to Cosell who agrees with me that our passing game is quite simple therefore easy to defend.

Cosell said simple but disguised well and he never said its simple to stop. Jon Gruden talked about the Redskins offense the other day with the La times, praising at least that's how I took it. The one critique Cosell had and said so last week is that the Skins should throw more from the pocket to facilitate RG 3's development.

Unless there is something am missing -- we are spinning our wheels because to me this point

Yes there are 2 variables but there is really only one of your variables because Garcon was never a factor in either the 6.3+ YPP nor the 4.5 YPP. The 6.3+ YPP games happened without Garcon just as the 4.5 YPP games happened without Garcon. How then can Garcon be the cause of the drop in YPP when he was non-participant in both the high YPP and the low YPP?

You bring in my point below. To me it runs to me in conflict with the above point. You make it all about Garcon. But I never said its all about Garcon.

Davis was a participant Garcon was not. Thus Davis has some undetermined effect on the YPP because he actually played in the high YPP games and not in the low YPP.

As for the differences in production with Paulsen as a way to diagnose the problem, I disagree but now our discussion is on the same page its on point with my theory. Oldfan took it in the same direction you do here, and then a couple of people engaged in the debate one saying Paulsen might develop into a threat and Mahons agreed with me that regardless of production numbers that Davis takes some safety attention away from the WRs , Paulsen doesn't do it the same way IMO. He doesn't have the speed or rep. But maybe the easiest way for me to clarify my point is turning it into a Paulsen and Davis discussion is totally on point -- apples to apples to my argument. I don't have the energy to do the Davis/Paulsen thing again, but it was discussed some pages back.

I'll say if Paulsen does blossom (and I don't rule it out, he's impressed me more than our young Wrs) i expect it will help.

DG

if you haven't caught it, Gruden, he talks about Luck and other rookies

http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-farmer-nfl-20121109,0,2590417.story

Griffin has been really effective at times and has struggled at others. Where is he in his development?

The offense they're running in Washington is one that no one had seen before this season. It's an offense that you have to see and really take some time to prepare for. It's hard to emulate the speed that Robert Griffin plays with. So that's the double-edged sword: You're dealing with an offense that you've never seen before, and a quarterback that can really run.

I think 3-4 defensive teams are better equipped for handling the edges. Once you're studying the Redskins and you've seen them four or five times, you have a better opportunity to draw some plays up on a card and prepare for them.

If the novelty of that offense is an advantage, what happens when opponents get used to it?

That's Mike Shanahan. In his back pocket he's holding the keys to the adjustments. I just have to believe that in the development of Robert Griffin, he's not only going to be able to do what he's doing now, but he's going to be able to do the things that Mike did with John Elway and Steve Young along the way.

.