Solving the Great Bye-Week Mystery

[MassSkinsFan]

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'm not saying he was ignorant about that. Perhaps he was told to improve his adjustments and told he'd better put more effort into it. We don't know.

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.

So it's a coincidence then? If that's the case, the relevance of divisional or non-divisional opponents is nil by definition.

[Hiz and Herzog]

Coming off of what Zoony mentioned on page 3, I think that it was a combination of several key factors - most importantly gelling offensively, and improving field position by limiting penalites and kick/punt returns. Early on in the season, it seemed that there were many offensive procedure penalties which resulted in negated scores or poor field position after punting. There were a lot of kinks to be ironed out as the team developed their brand-new offensive identity and perfected their assignments. A quick look at the penalty stats shows a sharp reduction of yards lost after the bye-week on both sides of the football.

Also, we should really take the schedule into account as the team was growing during the first half of the season. First up, you have a 3 point loss to a Rams team (where we were driving to score in our last possession before a stupid penalty killed it)...after the huge emotional season opening win...then you have losses to two playoff teams in Cinci and Atlanta by only one score each (and the latter where Robert was knocked out of the game)....then you have a heart-breaking loss in the last seconds to NYand the team lost a little mojo going into the next two. For all intents and purposes the Steelers game and the Panthers game were the only two poor performances this season. Poor offensive showing in Pitt in bad weather (no excuse) with 1000 dropped passes, and one of the team's most highly penalized games of the season against Carolina. Pitt was expected to be a tough matchup, and that really leaves only Carolina as a tough-to-swallow loss this season in my mind.

All in all, I think that the first ten games of the season really showed the learning curve of the team offensively...but I think it's commendable that they were able to get on track after sorting out their business during the bye week...this of course was also largely influenced by the coaching staff.

[TheLongshot]

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

Yet, we were 3-6 in the first part of the season, with only facing one division opponent. It looked like most teams had the upper hand over us during that time period.

[Oldfan]

I....So it's a coincidence then? If that's the case, the relevance of divisional or non-divisional opponents is nil by definition.

Why is the divisional/non-divisional factor not relevant if the point is to explain why we were 3-6 before the bye-week and 7-0 after?

[Thinking Skins]

I hadn't noticed a difference man v. zone as the year progressed. Is this your own observation?

Yes it is my observation, but Hall also confirmed this in his weekly chats with Lavar and Chad. He spoke about how in certain games when they've been ahead they've switched back to zone and allowed teams to catch up. I've also noticed the increased blitzes which generally implies man coverage on the back end.

---------- Post added January-3rd-2013 at 02:12 PM ----------

I agree that there was lag time after losing Rak and Carriker. I don't know whether to blame Haz for that, if their replacements just took some time to learn, or both.

I'm thinking of that as a minor factor, though.

So your thoughts matter in this thread? I'm looking for evidence. Can you prove that the replacements didn't take time to learn? Or that Haz didn't blitz them?

[Switchgear]

Maybe our division sucks.

Division by division breakdown:

Division	Win	Loss	Pct	Division	Result	Division	Result	Division	Result	Division	Result
NFC  North	23	17	57.5%	 NFC  West	9-7	 AFC  South	10-6	 NFC  East	2-2	 NFC  South	2-2
NFC  West	23	17	57.5%	 NFC  North	7-9	 AFC  East	10-6	 NFC  East	3-1	 NFC  South	3-1
NFC  South	22	18	55.0%	 NFC  East	8-8	 AFC  West	11-5	 NFC  West	1-3	 NFC  North	2-2
AFC  North	21	19	52.5%	 AFC  West	10-6	 NFC  East	8-8	 AFC  East	2-2	 AFC  South	1-3
NFC  East	19	21	47.5%	 NFC  South	8-8	 AFC  North	8-8	 NFC  West	1-3	 NFC  North	2-2
AFC  South	19	21	47.5%	 AFC  East	8-8	 NFC  North	6-10	 AFC  West	2-2	 AFC  North	3-1
AFC  East	19	21	47.5%	 AFC  South	8-8	 NFC  West	6-10	 AFC  North	2-2	 AFC  West	3-1
AFC  West	14	26	35.0%	 AFC  North	6-10	 NFC  South	5-11	 AFC  South	2-2	 AFC  East	1-3

As a division, we went 8-8 against the NFC South and AFC North, 1-3 against the NFC West and 2-2 against the NFC North. I wouldn't say the division "sucked", but tied for 5th of 8 isn't great.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

All of our big injuries (aside from RGIII) occurred early. The backups never got hurt (like what happened in Dallas) and grew into - well - mediocrity as they became entrenched starters. The defense is still not good. In fact, it's hard to imagine a team with this defense making the Super Bowl. But it is no longer the nightmare it was in September.

I'm reasonably convinced that most of fluctuations in the NFL are due to injuries and turnovers. And there is a big element of luck in that. But, our base level as a team (especially on offense) was pretty high.

[Mad Mike]

Would you find a quote to support that, please?

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?375898-Thoughts-of-a-Negative-Poster/page20&highlight=Negative

Very briefly:

1) *You don't hire two men with a decade of mediocrity on their resumes to take you to Number One;

2) Both by actions and in words, we know that the plan is to win-now and build at the same time; IMO, that's a sure-fire plan for mediocrity;

*(I am referring to Shanahan's record in Denver with full control as he has now (1999 - 2008)

You hire someone to achieve a goal. With full control of the Broncos from 1999 -2008, and given all the money he needed within the rules, Shanahan rewarded Pat Bowlen with one playoff win.

Either Dan Snyder's goal was to become the Number One NFL franchise and he made a very bad hire, or...

He was satisfied with a big name hire who could bring the team back up to a mediocre level.

The latter make the most sense.

Ten years of mediocrity with full control of the Broncos is solid past performance evidence the Mike Shanahan wouldn't be the guy you would expect to take you to the top in the NFL. That hiring alone should be enough to tell you that Snyder's sights were not aimed that high.

Pure ####### genius.

[Oldfan]

Yes it is my observation, but Hall also confirmed this in his weekly chats with Lavar and Chad. He spoke about how in certain games when they've been ahead they've switched back to zone and allowed teams to catch up. I've also noticed the increased blitzes which generally implies man coverage on the back end.

So your thoughts matter in this thread?

Of course they do. The logical statements always matter.

I'm looking for evidence. Can you prove that the replacements didn't take time to learn? Or that Haz didn't blitz them?

Why would I want to prove that the replacements didn't take time to learn? I'd bet they did. I think that's a logical deduction which should not need evidence to support it.

Why would I need to prove that Haz didn't blitz them? You made the claim that he didn't. The burden to prove it is yours, not mine.

I didn't hear what DHall had to say on Lavar and Chad if it was on point. I don't listen to the program.

As for the difference in defensive strategy between the first nine games and the last seven, I have no reason to believe or disbelieve your claims that we have blitzed more and played more man coverage. I noticed that we did that against Dallas, but the previous games in the win streak didn't stand out in my mind as exceptional on defensive tactics from the first nine.

[skinnyles]

Analyse all we want but...When Merriweather came back he showed everyone else on defence what an NFL defence is all about...AND I mean even the COACH.

[Mad Mike]

Yet, we were 3-6 in the first part of the season, with only facing one division opponent. It looked like most teams had the upper hand over us during that time period.

Did you miss the part where I said it was a young team trying to learn a system?

[AzSkinsFan63]

The fact that the Skins were 3-6 and still controlled their destiny minus 1 loss the Giants needed to have was huge.

the turnover ratio all season has been key to a 10-6 record also.

I also think that this coaching staff has taken a season approach to coaching, always leaving some new wrinkle left for the second time you play in your division and even for later non division games down the road.

I've always thought coaches should look at the whole season and get a big picture of what you are trying to achieve since each schedule is different and has its own unique challenge.

[Asianskins]

I agreed with all you have pointed out, but what caused that? To me, IMHO, it's started with MS and his presser before the bye week. He played all in and could easily losing the whole locker room. It's reversed psychology. And then, from coaching staffs and players, they all say "We will prove you're wrong coach!".

[Oldfan]

Pure ####### genius.

I'd appear to be a lot smarter if you would learn to read. The quote you offered was about Mike Shanahan's record with full control of a football team. I did not label Mike a mediocre head coach.

Saying that he's currently the best coach in the mediocre NFC East isn't saying that he's great, so there's no contradiction with anything I've previously said about him.

---------- Post added January-3rd-2013 at 03:21 PM ----------

I agreed with all you have pointed out, but what caused that? To me, IMHO, it's started with MS and his presser before the bye week. He played all in and could easily losing the whole locker room. It's reversed psychology. And then, from coaching staffs and players, they all say "We will prove you're wrong coach!".

I think Mike just stuck his foot in his mouth with that comment. It's not like he never does that.

[Asianskins]

I'd appear to be a lot smarter if you would learn to read. The quote you offered was about Mike Shanahan's record with full control of a football team. I did not label Mike a mediocre head coach.

Saying that he's currently the best in the NFC East isn't saying that he's great, so there's no contradiction with anything I've previously said about him.

---------- Post added January-3rd-2013 at 03:21 PM ----------

I think Mike just stuck his foot in his mouth with that comment. It's not like he never does that.

I think he was. But he won this time didn't he? HTTR

[TheLongshot]

Did you miss the part where I said it was a young team trying to learn a system?

I don't see all that much different offensively from before the streak and and during, except maybe refining what was working with the offense and focusing on it. Certainly RG3 has improved over the year, but it hasn't been a grand change. More being smarter about running the ball.

Actually, the biggest change offensively has been Garcon coming back to the lineup. The passing game seems to be more effective with him in the lineup.

[skinnyskins]

I don't see all that much different offensively from before the streak and and during, except maybe refining what was working with the offense and focusing on it. Certainly RG3 has improved over the year, but it hasn't been a grand change. More being smarter about running the ball.

Actually, the biggest change offensively has been Garcon coming back to the lineup. The passing game seems to be more effective with him in the lineup.

This is correct. Added that the defense has given up less big plays and it has turned into success. It's probably due to better coaching decisions and better player execution (i.e. not giving up big plays) along with other intangibles and probably luck as well. Debating whether it is some coaching miracle is impossible to prove anyways. Reid, Coughlin and Shanahan are all great coaches and don't really have that much of an advantage over the other.

There are many things that could have combined to make us more successful. Given the parity of the league, marginal improvement can be the difference between 6-10 or 10-6.

[emor09]

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.

Not true. We'd be 9-7 and division champs. And RG3 never would have been hit by Ngata.

[MassSkinsFan]

My argument is the 3-6 start versus the 7-0 finish was due mostly to coincidence.

Why is the divisional/non-divisional factor not relevant if the point is to explain why we were 3-6 before the bye-week and 7-0 after?

Coincidence means there are several factors that do not have a causal relationship. So, if the change in record is due mostly to coincidence, I take that to mean there are no causal relationships between the differences in record and anything that might affect that.

I'm not really arguing against your point of view, just how you're presenting it. Besides, as I stated your hypothesis is hard to prove without having a more even sampling (i.e. your div:non-div ratios are not so low then high on either side of the bye week).

Do I think your assertion has some merit? Absolutely. Do I think it's the most plausible explanation? I don't know because I don't think there is an accurate way to rule out other possibilities or prove your point.

If your assertion is correct, that would mean we have advantages over our divisional foes due to better talent, better execution and/or better coaching. That's a good thing!

[DogofWar1]

There is a list of possible things it could be:

- Out coaching other division teams

- Garcon returning

- changes to defensive planning by Haslett (falls under first point maybe)

- changes to defensive play courtesy of players (Fletcher/Cofield leading the way)

- making RGIII captain

and probably a few other things too.

The two biggest visible changes are the number of division games and Garcon returning, with intangible changes being the coaching and player attitude in those games, and the ways in which that shifted performance.

I'm inclined to believe it's a combination of factors. Offensively Garcon coming back was huge, but that doesn't account for the defense, not entirely (perhaps in part because of the effect a stronger offense has on the way an opposing offense plays). I think it's a combination of better coaching in general as well as being much better acquainted with our division opponents.

[Mad Mike]

I'd appear to be a lot smarter if you would learn to read. The quote you offered was about Mike Shanahan's record with full control of a football team. I did not label Mike a mediocre head coach.

Saying that he's currently the best coach in the mediocre NFC East isn't saying that he's great, so there's no contradiction with anything I've previously said about him.

Nah, you didn't call him mediocre. You just called him "a proven mediocre performer"

I love this exchange....

Originally Posted by NLC1054

So basically, you have no idea who could've done a better job that Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen..

Oldfan- That's exactly right and there's no reason that I need to know.

you just know that they were terrible choices

Oldfan - Right again.

There you go. Shanahan was a "terrible choice".

And BTW... My reading comprehension... Tested as top 2 percentile in the nation. Sort of like your ability to spew complete bull####.

[skinfan2k]

Nick Sundberg. The guy is undefeated as a Washington Redskin

[Mad Mike]

I don't see all that much different offensively from before the streak and and during, except maybe refining what was working with the offense and focusing on it. Certainly RG3 has improved over the year, but it hasn't been a grand change. More being smarter about running the ball.

Actually, the biggest change offensively has been Garcon coming back to the lineup. The passing game seems to be more effective with him in the lineup.

I recorded that first game and recently re-watched it. I could see the difference. Sure, coaches have refined what they do as the team gets better at doing things. But you don't add to a playbook until the team gets the basics down. I'm not sure what part of my statement is so incomprehensible to you. Why is it so hard to imagine that the team has continued to get better week after week this season. Isn't that what is supposed to happen the more you play and practice together?

[moondog]

I truly believe the two most important things are this:

1) Attitude - the team has been playing with a lot more heart, desire and belief in themselves. It's not something you can quantify or that will show up on a piece of paper but if you watch the games, these same people have become different players on the field. They play harder and look hungrier than the other teams' players and they never stop. I think our players knew what they were capable of and knew they were underachieving and simply decided to do whatever it takes to start performing up to their potential.

2) Trust - I think the team, and more specifically the defense, finally started to trust. They started to trust what Haslett was scheming up for them. They started to trust each other to cover their responsibilities so guys stopped trying to do too much and cover their responsibilities as well as others'. This was helped along by guys like Madieu Williams learning his damn responsibilities as well, along with Jarvis Jenkins and Rob Jackson becoming more and more comfortable on the field and in their roles.

When asked about it in interviews, this is the basic summary that all of the players have given. Even if they hadn't it is what I have seen on the field. These two things, among others, have been lacking for a long time, at least on a consistent basis. I think RGIII brought plenty of leadership and gave hope because we finally have a QB. Shanahan has filled out the rest of the roster with other high character players that the attitude and trust spread quickly and easily. These guys hold each other accountable and play for each other and they believe in themselves and each other. That kind of chemistry is worth everything when it comes to sports and you could see Shanahan building a team that possesses it over the last few years - they just needed that final spark at the most important position from RGIII.

[allannis]

Analyse all we want but...When Merriweather came back he showed everyone else on defence what an NFL defence is all about...AND I mean even the COACH.

I was about to post the same thing, it seems like when he played it gave the defence swagger, that they kept even after he got hurt