Solving the Great Bye-Week Mystery

[Btubes18]

Causes happen before effects. Confidence is an effect of success, not a cause. You have to succeed before you gain confidence.

---------- Post added January-3rd-2013 at 11:08 AM ----------

Garcon was a factor, but a minor one. Our defense picked up its game more than the offense.

Agreed. Probably a minor fact in the grand scheme of things, but definitely a noticeable difference and a contributing factor. The defense is the major difference.

[RandyHolt]

My eyes tell me somewhat improved safety play and increased D-line pressure leading to less big plays given up. Big plays were killing us before the bye, and the number has decreased.

And just because RGIII hasn't necessarily improved greatly, he hasn't gotten worse and that combined with overall improvement elsewhere still equals an overall net improvement.

+1

While I have seen opposition QB's being shown a lot of different looks and feeling pressure, I do think the DB's or Morris may also deserve some of the credit.

The DB's always seemed quick to take the blame, even in the Giants first game, where we well had plenty of time to mount a comeback, only to have Moss fumble. But it was always Madieu's fault and his alone. Maybe it wasn't.

We have a lot of young corners running around. I thought I saw a 45 last game, and thought of Barry Wilburn before the actual player who I could not name.

[Oldfan]

i think we had more success in our Division because i believe you have to build your roster to compete in your division first.

How would you build one to compete with three very different teams within the division but would be much less effective against non-division teams?

[skinnyskins]

Could you define what you mean by a big play and tell us how many we gave up during the first nine games v. the last seven? And, isn't it possible that the coaching edge v. division opponents explains the reduction?

Most consider big plays as falling into two categories: 20+, or 40+ yards. The Skins gave up 58 20+ yard plays and 11 40+ play yards over the season. I can't find the game by game stats and don't have time to look anymore but if you can find them then go ahead and post. I'd be willing to bet a the defense gave up a higher percentage of big plays over the 1st nine games compared to the last 7 though.

Coaching edge and division opponents could possibly play a factor but that's impossible to prove. I'd bet that it was players playing better combined with coaching that made the difference.

[PerryMason]

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.

That's assuming we still won out after losing to the Ravens....a loss can change a lot.

[Henry]

Teams that win their divisions generally win divisional games first and foremost. Let's look at this year's division champs:

New England: 6-0 in the division, 6-4 outside the division

Baltimore: 4-2, 6-4

Houston: 5-1, 7-3

Denver: 6-0, 7-3

Washington: 5-1, 5-5

Green Bay: 5-1, 6-4

Atlanta: 3-3, 10-0

San Fran: 3-2-1, 9-2

Six out of eight the division winners had better division records than non-division records.

Last year, six of eight division winner had better division records. A seventh (the Broncos) went 3-3 in the division and 5-5 out of it..

The year before that, six of eight division winners had better division records.

How is this possible? Familiarity and coaching would be my guess. When you know the other team's tendencies you should be able devise more effective game plans ... if you are a good coach. If you are a bad coach, the other guy will figure you out more easily. That's just my theory though.

In any case, the Redskins having a better record within the division than outside it isn't all that unusual for a division winner ... though the non-winning record outside the division is less common. For what it's worth.

[Oldfan]

...Coaching edge and division opponents could possibly play a factor but that's impossible to prove. I'd bet that it was players playing better combined with coaching that made the difference...

It's rare that we can prove anything with certainty. We should prefer explanations that are more likely to be true.

The explanation that a group of defensive players just by coincidence started playing better after the bye-week is just not as likely as explaining that something caused them to start playing better; and the most likely cause is better game planning.

[skinnyskins]

It's rare that we can prove anything with certainty. We should prefer explanations that are more likely to be true.

The explanation that a group of defensive players just by coincidence started playing better after the bye-week is just not as likely as explaining that something caused them to start playing better; and the most likely cause is better game planning.

The same can be said that the coaches would all of a sudden become geniuses over the bye and produce substantially improved gameplans compared to the before the bye. It works both ways.

[Oldfan]

T...How is this possible? Familiarity and coaching would be my guess. When you know the other team's tendencies you should be able devise more effective game plans ... if you are a good coach. If you are a bad coach, the other guy will figure you out more easily. That's just my theory though.

That's mine too. I think that, as long as we have a roster close to the equal of our NFC East competitors, our coaching staff gives us the edge over the competition if it remains at the 2012 level.

In any case, the Redskins having a better record within the division than outside it isn't all that unusual for a division winner ... though the non-winning record outside the division is less common. For what it's worth.

That's about what we should have expected.

Thanks for the effort.

[TheLongshot]

I think it all boils down to this: the coaching staff worked their asses off during the bye week examining the season so far and identifying what was working, and what wasn't. Why then? Because you have the time during the bye week to actually examine your team and change what you are doing. During a normal week, the focus is mostly to gameplan against your next opponent. While some tweaking can be done, there isn't a whole lot of time to examine deeper issues. You are able to identify who is doing well and who isn't doing well and do some major adjustments to get things working as well as they can. There is no doubt that the success of this team late in the season is because the coaching staff did an outstanding job.

The confidence comes from the top down. While Shanahan's comments going into the bye week disappointed many people, including myself, it seems obvious that this wasn't reflected within the team, that there still was a lot of confidence in what the coaching staff was doing. Naming RG3 captain was part of that.

I also think we were helped by the rest of the NFC East going south. Philly was done by the time we played them the first time. With Vick going down, they knew their season was over. After a great start, the Giants blew what should have been their division title. But, the Giants have always been a streaky team, so it shouldn't have been that much of a shock that they couldn't keep it up. The Cowboys were probably the lone exception in that they rode a similar hot seat. But, like in the past, Tony Romo sits to pee tends to fold in December and it happened again. Put in the Ravens going south and the Browns, what looked like a brutal run at the beginning of the season gave us the potential to resurrect the season.

[Oldfan]

The same can be said that the coaches would all of a sudden become geniuses over the bye and produce substantially improved gameplans compared to the before the bye. It works both ways.

You missed the part about playing divisional opponents. They don't have to be geniuses. They only need to be better than opposing coaches and have five of them on the schedule after the bye-week.

[2STaylor1]

How would you build one to compete with three very different teams within the division but would be much less effective against non-division teams?

probably the reason im only a fan... but i would explain it by referring you to our division record as opposed to our non div record... and perhaps our coaching staff knowing those teams better.

[skinnyskins]

You missed the part about playing divisional opponents. They don't have to be geniuses. They only need to be better than opposing coaches and have five of them on the schedule after the bye-week.

The same coaches that we went 4-9 against in 2010, 2011, and 2012 until the bye (since Shanahan came here)? Shanahan was somehow consistently worse then all of a sudden after the bye in 2012 he is better than them. It doesn't make sense.

Im not doubting that the coaching has improved. It has. Im just saying that it is probably a combination of things like improved execution combined with coaching. For instance, the coaching wasn't terrible during the loss to the Giants this year. The loss came during the breakdown in coverage by Williams on the bomb to Cruz at the end of the game, and a fumble by Moss to kill our final drive. The coaches put them in the correct position, but the players screwed it up. Since the bye, the coaches have continued to put the players in the correct position to win and the players have executed better. That's all.

[Oldfan]

I think it all boils down to this: the coaching staff worked their asses off during the bye week examining the season so far and identifying what was working, and what wasn't. Why then? Because you have the time during the bye week to actually examine your team and change what you are doing. During a normal week, the focus is mostly to gameplan against your next opponent. While some tweaking can be done, there isn't a whole lot of time to examine deeper issues. You are able to identify who is doing well and who isn't doing well and do some major adjustments to get things working as well as they can. There is no doubt that the success of this team late in the season is because the coaching staff did an outstanding job.

The confidence comes from the top down. While Shanahan's comments going into the bye week disappointed many people, including myself, it seems obvious that this wasn't reflected within the team, that there still was a lot of confidence in what the coaching staff was doing. Naming RG3 captain was part of that.

I also think we were helped by the rest of the NFC East going south. Philly was done by the time we played them the first time. With Vick going down, they knew their season was over. After a great start, the Giants blew what should have been their division title. But, the Giants have always been a streaky team, so it shouldn't have been that much of a shock that they couldn't keep it up. The Cowboys were probably the lone exception in that they rode a similar hot seat. But, like in the past, Tony Romo sits to pee tends to fold in December and it happened again. Put in the Ravens going south and the Browns, what looked like a brutal run at the beginning of the season gave us the potential to resurrect the season.

I can't say you are wrong. What I can say is that, if we were scientists with competing theories, mine would be preferred because it's a simple theory which explains many things. Yours involves two separate causes and both involve evidence both for and against your positions as you have fairly stated.

[Toe Jam]

[SkinFaninOKC]

Maybe our division sucks.

This flashed in my head too reading some posts. Good thing we reeled off 3 division wins before the Ravens & Browns. Confidence and momentum played a big factor too. The Ravens had neither nor the Browns when we played them.

[Henry]

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc289/blriesenbeck07/ancient-aliens-guy_zps7f598bba.png

You win the thread.

[TheLongshot]

I can't say you are wrong. What I can say is that, if we were scientists with competing theories, mine would be preferred because it's a simple theory which explains many things. Yours involves two separate causes and both involve evidence both for and against your positions as you have fairly stated.

Well, the evidence against your case is that this coaching staff was 4-8 verses teams in the division before this season. This team hasn't done much special against teams in this division before this year, and before this run they were on. Not saying it isn't also a factor, but I don't see the superiority in past history.

[MassSkinsFan]

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.

Without reading the rest of the posts (I'd only made it to page 2) I have to concur with point 2 from pjf's post. This has been the biggest difference I've seen this year. The other contributing factor that I think is probably a major one is that the OL finally became a cohesive unit. Remember at the start of the season we were all still worried about the OL as a weakness - now it seems to be at the very least serviceable if not actually good.

I agree with you Oldfan that playing our divisional rivals so often during that stretch was a factor. However, since there were no losses after the bye, comparing our team's performances against divisional rivals to our performance against other teams seems as if it's not a good basis for analysis. I'm no expert, but wouldn't your theory be a lot stronger if we had improved after the bye, had a few more losses, and had more non-divisional games (which were correlated to the losses)? If the team improved significantly, you could argue that regardless of who we faced, we would have won 7 straight. That would not support the notion that our coaching improved, mainly against our rivals.

[Oldfan]

The same coaches that we went 4-9 against in 2010, 2011, and 2012 until the bye (since Shanahan came here)? Shanahan was somehow consistently worse then all of a sudden after the bye in 2012 he is better than them. It doesn't make sense.

That's easily explained. The only divisional game in 2012 was the Giants loss which was covered in my OP. In 2010 and 2011, we didn't have a roster comparable to out divisional opponents.

Im not doubting that the coaching has improved. It has.

I don't know that it has. I think it just seems that way because our schedule included five divisional opponents after the bye week.

Im just saying that it is probably a combination of things like improved execution combined with coaching. For instance, the coaching wasn't terrible during the loss to the Giants this year. The loss came during the breakdown in coverage by Williams on the bomb to Cruz at the end of the game, and a fumble by Moss to kill our final drive. The coaches put them in the correct position, but the players screwed it up. Since the bye, the coaches have continued to put the players in the correct position to win and the players have executed better. That's all.

In my OP, I was looking for the major factor to explain the seven-game streak.

---------- Post added January-3rd-2013 at 01:03 PM ----------

Well, the evidence against your case is that this coaching staff was 4-8 verses teams in the division before this season. This team hasn't done much special against teams in this division before this year, and before this run they were on. Not saying it isn't also a factor, but I don't see the superiority in past history.

I think there is substantial evidence that the coaching staff didn't have the roster talent to compete in prior seasons. Don't you agree?

[Mad Mike]

An interesting theory considering that a few weeks ago you were saying that Shanahan was a "mediocre" head coach.

The fact is that Mike Shanahan is a GREAT head coach. Easily in the top five in the league. Arguably #2 behind Belichick. And like Gibbs, it is his reputation as a great coach that has brought so many outstanding position coaches to this team. Other great coaches want to work with him.

But there really is no mystery. The bye might have helped us refocus and heal but it was not the defining factor. This is a young team that simply got better each weak as they got more and more comfortable with both offensive and defensive schemes. And as the team got better, the coaches were able to expand their playbooks resulting in better game plans and adjustments. It's just that simple.

[BleedBNG]

The players just needed to be motivated to try harder? Not very likely.

as always OF, you TOTALLY missed my point.

Motivation? Did I say anything about motivation?

and BTW, I'm not discounting any changes from the coaching schemes either.

[TheLongshot]

I think there is substantial evidence that the coaching staff didn't have the roster talent to compete in prior seasons. Don't you agree?

I'm just pointing out that you don't have strong evidence, particularly when they also took care of Baltimore and Cleveland in similar fashion during that period. There is no evidence in the past that showed that the coaching staff has an advantage over the coaching staffs in the rest of the division.

[Mad Mike]

The same coaches that we went 4-9 against in 2010, 2011, and 2012 until the bye (since Shanahan came here)? Shanahan was somehow consistently worse then all of a sudden after the bye in 2012 he is better than them. It doesn't make sense.

Until you consider that this is a MUCH more talented team than we have had in at least the last 10 years. 2010 and 2011 have NO bearing on this discussion.

Im not doubting that the coaching has improved. It has. Im just saying that it is probably a combination of things like improved execution combined with coaching. For instance, the coaching wasn't terrible during the loss to the Giants this year. The loss came during the breakdown in coverage by Williams on the bomb to Cruz at the end of the game, and a fumble by Moss to kill our final drive. The coaches put them in the correct position, but the players screwed it up. Since the bye, the coaches have continued to put the players in the correct position to win and the players have executed better. That's all.

Coaching hasn't really improved. It's having the players who can understand what they are trying to teach and execute the play as it was designed.

You want to know the difference between this team and the past? Shanahan has stocked us up like Belichick with intelligent players with great attitudes.

---------- Post added January-3rd-2013 at 06:21 PM ----------

I'm just pointing out that you don't have strong evidence, particularly when they also took care of Baltimore and Cleveland in similar fashion during that period. There is no evidence in the past that showed that the coaching staff has an advantage over the coaching staffs in the rest of the division.

It's easier to cover up the weakness in your team with a game plan when your opponent is less familiar with you.

[Oldfan]

Without reading the rest of the posts (I'd only made it to page 2) I have to concur with point 2 from pjf's post. This has been the biggest difference I've seen this year. The other contributing factor that I think is probably a major one is that the OL finally became a cohesive unit. Remember at the start of the season we were all still worried about the OL as a weakness - now it seems to be at the very least serviceable if not actually good.

I can't imagine a man with a history of 25 years coaching the defense not knowing he should make halftime adjustments if things were working in the first half, so while I have graded Haslett as probably not better than an average DC, that specific problem isn't one that I attributed to him.

I agree with you Oldfan that playing our divisional rivals so often during that stretch was a factor. However, since there were no losses after the bye, comparing our team's performances against divisional rivals to our performance against other teams seems as if it's not a good basis for analysis. I'm no expert, but wouldn't your theory be a lot stronger if we had improved after the bye, had a few more losses, and had more non-divisional games (which were correlated to the losses)? If the team improved significantly, you could argue that regardless of who we faced, we would have won 7 straight. That would not support the notion that our coaching improved, mainly against our rivals.

I'm not arguing that we improved as a team or that the coaching improved. My argument is the 3-6 start versus the 7-0 finish was due mostly to coincidence. It just happened that we have a coaching edge in the division and five of our last seven were division games while Cleveland was the easiest non-division game and we caught Baltimore at a good time.

---------- Post added January-3rd-2013 at 01:26 PM ----------

An interesting theory considering that a few weeks ago you were saying that Shanahan was a "mediocre" head coach.

Would you find a quote to support that, please?

The fact is that Mike Shanahan is a GREAT head coach. Easily in the top five in the league. Arguably #2 behind Belichick.

I doubt that. However, he is better than his current NFC East rivals.