Solving the Great Bye-Week Mystery

[Oldfan]

:

At the bye week, in week ten of the NFL season, our favorite team's record was a disappointing 3-6. Since then, it ripped off seven straight to win the division. What happened to cause such a turnaround? Yes, it was most likely due to a combination of factors, but what was the major cause?

Let's start by ruling out some possibilities.

In my opinion, Robert Griffin III is the most dangerous threat to defenses the NFL has ever seen -- and there's no doubt that he represented a big upgrade over the 2011 combination of John Beck and Rex Grossman. However, with Griffin completely healthy, the Skins were 3-6 before the bye. So, while his play contributed to the team's improvement overall, it does not explain the turnaround after the bye week.

Alfred Morris has been a solid performer all season. So, like RG3, his valuable contribution made the Skins a better football team, but it doesn't explain the bye-week turnaround.

Luck plays a role in the outcomes of games. It's possible that the bye-week flip was mainly a turn of luck. If we cannot come up with a more plausible explanation, we might have to fall back on the notion that the seven straight wins was a lucky streak.

However, I think there is a plausible explanation.

Our division record was 5-1. The only division loss was to the Giants on the road; and in that game, the Skins held a three point lead with 1:13 left and the Giants on their own 23 yard line. We came one blown defensive coverage on Victor Cruz close to sweeping the division while we were an absolutely mediocre 5-5 against non-division opponents.

During the seven game streak, five of those games were against teams in our division. Cleveland was the weakest non-division opponent on our schedule; and Baltimore was playing badly, especially on the Cam Cameron coached offense.

So, why did we dominate our division? I don't think it's because of a personnel edge. I think we have the best overall coaching staff in the NFC East.

Before the bye week, firing Jim Haslett was the number one thread topic in this forum. After the bye, when we got into the bulk of our division games, Haz seemed to get a lot smarter -- and the talk of firing him stopped cold.

So, what was the major factor in the bye week turnaround? The coaching factor within the division. Five of the seven wins were against opponents within the division where we enjoy a coaching edge. Our coaches also held an edge against Cleveland and Baltimore. Some luck was most likely involved, but it was a minor factor.

[Old Bay]

Who do you think has the coaching advantage in this week's game?

[PerryMason]

The real reason is the benefit of having the Niles Paul fumble recovery by the Ravens overturned on replay. I'm sort of kidding, but seriously, this has been a forgotten play that really would have made the difference in our entire season.

[kleese]

The real reason is the benefit of having the Niles Paul fumble recovery by the Ravens overturned on replay. I'm sort of kidding, but seriously, this has been a forgotten play that really would have made the difference in our entire season.

Technically speaking, it didn't matter at all. Assuming everything else stays the same we'd still be right where we are had we lost to the Ravens.

[Oldfan]

Who do you think has the coaching advantage in this week's game?

I don't know. I only suspect that our staff does better when it becomes more familiar with the opponent. Maybe we need better scouting of non-division opponents.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

I think we are winning these games b/c our D isn't playing as bad as it was in the beginning of the season. Through the first 9 weeks we were giving up roughly 28 a game since the bye we are giving up 20. I agree our coaching staff is doing a better job but the reason why we are winning is b/c our D is playing better. We are still giving up too many 3rd and long plays but it seems with this O if we can hold a team to 20 or less we have a very very good chance of winning that game.

[lanceman_1]

I agree with ST. Our D has improved every week and I expect no less this week. I think we will win by 2 scores at least.

[Burgold]

:

Luck plays a role in the outcomes of games. It's possible that the bye-week flip was mainly a turn of luck. If we cannot come up with a more plausible explanation, we might have to fall back on the notion that the seven straight wins was a lucky streak.

I really think Andrew had very little to do with it.

So, what was the major factor in the bye week turnaround? The coaching factor within the division. Five of the seven wins were against opponents within the division where we enjoy a coaching edge. Our coaches also held an edge against Cleveland and Baltimore. Some luck was most likely involved, but it was a minor factor.

This is a large part of it. Beyond coaching, I think there were those pesky intangibles. Look at how Morris played after his fumbles. He punished folks. Their will became pretty indomitable and more, they really started to believe. Positive leads to positive as negative leads to negative. You can see it in a thousand social psych studies.

[RandyHolt]

Without a doubt in my mind, Haslet FINALLY dialing up pressure against Foles, is what caused our turnaround.

We ended the streak against rookie QBs. I was stunned how passive we had played against rookie QB's during that losing streak, the exact opposite of what common sense would say to do. This passive approach against rooks spanned years, and literally, was hard to watch.

The world saw our success being aggressive, and from it, a pass rush was born, as was confidence; a heartbeat for our floundering defense, and Haslet hasn't looked back.

[ThomasRoane]

Dead on balls accurate Old Fan. I agree 100%. The entire staff has been doing a great job of putting the right guys in the right positions. They don't waste time worrying about coaching players they'd like to have. They take what they have and get the most out of them. That's the best you can do as a staff.

[Oldfan]

I think we are winning these games b/c our D isn't playing as bad as it was in the beginning of the season. Through the first 9 weeks we were giving up roughly 28 a game since the bye we are giving up 20. I agree our coaching staff is doing a better job but the reason why we are winning is b/c our D is playing better. We are still giving up too many 3rd and long plays but it seems with this O if we can hold a team to 20 or less we have a very very good chance of winning that game.

The defense is playing better; but a better game plan against divisional opponents would explain WHY it played better after the bye.

[Rocky21]

So Old Fan do you think Griffin is a better QB than Jay Cutler now?

[PerryMason]

Technically speaking, it didn't matter at all. Assuming everything else stays the same we'd still be right where we are had we lost to the Ravens.

Assuming....you are correct. But you also never know what a loss can do to a team and their momentum moving forward. Butterfly effect man. But yes I guess we would have still been playing for the NFC East.

[Oldfan]

So Old Fan do you think Griffin is a better QB than Jay Cutler now?

I'm already on record. Griffin is the best I've ever seen.

Both QBs are operating on gimpy knees at the moment. Cutler's is permanent. I hope RG3's is not.

[pjfootballer]

If you want a major factor, it would have to be attitude. But that is not measurable by me personally as I am not in the lockeroom.

I think a few things happened during the bye week as the staff looked at what needed to be changed:

1) Griffin was recognized as a leader by the team and was given the C on his uniform. This enabled him to step up and be the leader he can be without the stigma of still being a rookie

2) Haslett finally realized that he needed to make halftime adjustments. I've noticed in the second half of games, we try and actually take away what's been working against us in the first half of games

3) After suffering alot of injuries, the team settled down and everyone started to know their role

4) Garcon returned to the lineup.

[Harwich Hog]

Nothing is cut and dry but sometimes it's just momentum. The same momentum that took us from 3-3 to 3-6. We'd have dumped all over Carolina and Pittsburgh if their fixtures came down the stretch. In the same way we probably would have lost to the Ravens and Cowboys had we have played them in week 8 and 9.

FWIW. Defensive adjustments, Pierre Garcon's return to fitness, RG3's improvements - all contribute too.

[Thinking Skins]

More man coverage on D, which in particular has allowed us to blitz more. Haslett was afraid of this early in the season when Orakop and Carriker went down and with his trust in Kerrigan and Jackson we've seen him doing this more. And I will give props to London Fletcher who I was abusing earlier in the year (and the offseason) for his lack of big plays. He really stepped it up after the bye week. Part of me wonders if somebody got in his face and questioned his manhood or something because he's made a complete turnaround from earlier in the year.

[RandyHolt]

A big thing I saw was that Mike stopped playing "not to lose"

Where I knew his approach was a major problem was against Cincy. 3rd quarter, dominating offensively, driving, 4th and inches, we punted, reviewed a touchback and lost, net 15. We never scored after that. He put the game into the hands of his defense, that same defense that got embarrassed on the first play of the game and had largely been fleeced all year.

There were other examples where he played not to lose, and we lost all momentum, and games, but I can't remember them all.

I think Mike realized he needed to change his entire approach. "They" say defense wins games, but not when they have no pass rush, and a DC that does nothing to even try to remedy that. He figured out what was obvious to me, he had to use RG3 to use games.

He started going for it aggressively on 4th downs.

He FINALLY started accepting to receive kickoffs. Realizing who butters his bread and using him at the first chance to pressure teams, show some confidence in his offense, and stop exposing his defense, widely accepted the weak part of our team, at the first chance.

His mindset changed.

Coupled with Haslet changing his approach as well, has led to a fine run.

[Mania]

The real reason is the benefit of having the Niles Paul fumble recovery by the Ravens overturned on replay. I'm sort of kidding, but seriously, this has been a forgotten play that really would have made the difference in our entire season.

Even with a loss to the ravens or browns, we still would have won the division due to a better record than Dallas and a better division record than the giants.

[Dan T.]

Here's a big factor in their success this year. With zero turnovers Sunday, the 2012 Washington Redskins set a team record for fewest turnovers in a season, with 14. (The previous low was 16 - in a nine-game season in 1982.) The zero turnover game Sunday was the 6th no-turnover game of the season, also a team record.

That's remarkable, even more so considering they did this with a rookie quarterback playing every offensive minute and rookie running back starting every game.

[Oldfan]

When they are available, I prefer simple, mundane football explanations -- coaching or playing. So, I don't have much use for factors that may or may not exist like momentum, leadership, attitude changes or the like.

[Thinking Skins]

Here's a big factor in their success this year. With zero turnovers Sunday, the 2012 Washington Redskins set a team record for fewest turnovers in a season, with 14. (The previous low was 16 - in a nine-game season in 1982.) The zero turnover game Sunday was the 6th no-turnover game of the season, also a team record.

That's remarkable, even more so considering they did this with a rookie quarterback playing every offensive minute and rookie running back starting every game.

Yeah, that is amazing. What's also amazing is that when you break this down, Over the first nine games we had a +/- of +7 (9 giveaways to 16 takeaways), which is nice. Over the last 7 games we had a plus +/- of +10 (5 giveaways to 15 takeaways). That's one less takeaway and four less giveaways in in two less games. We also had at least 2 turnovers in 6 of the last 7 games.

[Oldfan]

Here's a big factor in their success this year. With zero turnovers Sunday, the 2012 Washington Redskins set a team record for fewest turnovers in a season, with 14. (The previous low was 16 - in a nine-game season in 1982.) The zero turnover game Sunday was the 6th no-turnover game of the season, also a team record.

That's remarkable, even more so considering they did this with a rookie quarterback playing every offensive minute and rookie running back starting every game.

This thread is trying to explain the turnaround at the bye week. Even if we had a breakdown of the turnover differential between the 3-6 record before the bye and the 7-0 record after, we would still need an explanation for the difference if there was one.

Turnovers are obviously not always just a matter of luck.

---------- Post added January-3rd-2013 at 09:47 AM ----------

Yeah, that is amazing. What's also amazing is that when you break this down, Over the first nine games we had a +/- of +7 (9 giveaways to 16 takeaways), which is nice. Over the last 7 games we had a plus +/- of +10 (5 giveaways to 15 takeaways). That's one less takeaway and four less giveaways in in two less games. We also had at least 2 turnovers in 6 of the last 7 games.

So, in the first nine games the team was + .78 per game; then +1.11 in the last seven. Wouldn't my explanation of a coaching edge, and better game planning, within the division, and against Cleveland and Baltimore account for that?

The turnover differential is caused by something, after all.

[Thinking Skins]

So, in the first nine games the team was + .78 per game; then +1.11 in the last seven. Wouldn't my explanation of a coaching edge, and better game planning, within the division, and against Cleveland and Baltimore account for that?

The turnover differential is caused by something, after all.

I don't know if I'd necessarily say better game planning, but I think it directly correlates to the amount we were willing to play man coverage. We played it more in the second half of the season and had better results. Even further in those games where we weren't in man we got abused (Ravens game Bolden's first TD). Our man coverage wasn't perfect, but it was better than our zone (ala the Rams game). And I think that directly correlated to our improvement on defense and thus our ability to win these games.

[RandyHolt]

They say defense wins games.

Coming out of the bye week, Haslet made putting pressure on QB's a priority. Or Fletcher decided. And we thus became much less predictable, and much more difficult to game plan for.

That's all it was.

Gone was the talk of "we knew what defense washington would be in".

With or without Garcon, our offense has largely held its own all year. Yeah he is a stud easy to see a total beast, and our record with him in the lineup is only rivaled but our special teams center. But we spread the ball around a lot, and he simply doesn't win games by himself.