Finding ways to lose

[Bulldog]

preaching to a choir that has cotton in the ears

the Redskins would be a 10-6 or 11-5 team with a quarterback like Brees or Rodgers.

with the players they have the team will be lucky to be 6-10 or 7-9.

THAT is how much of a difference one player now makes in the league.

And if the Redskins did have that difference maker at quarterback people wouldn't be dogging the defensive line or Landry or others who really haven't been performing poorly over the first 5 games.

 

[servumtuum]

For God's sake people.

4 interceptions. You can count the number of times any team, any time, has had their QB throw 4 interceptions, and won, on your fingers.

Could our defense play better? Of course. Is our defense the problem. For God's sake no. If we could field a competent offense consistently, we'd win. Our offense has played mostly flawed football even at it's best, and we've been able to win more than lose. If we had a QB, a little better offensive lineman, and a WR that scared someone, we'd be a sure-fire playoff team with this defense.

I don't know about any time, Boone, but using Pro-Football Refrence's great search query tool I did find the info on the past ten years on the number of games won by teams suffering 4 or more interceptions.



In multiple seasons, from 2001 to 2011, in the regular season and playoffs, team won game, requiring Passes Intercepted >= 4, sorted by most games matching criteria.
Query Results

Rk
1 Chicago Bears 2006-2010 2 games won
2 Carolina Panthers 2008-2008 1 game won
3 Dallas Cowboys 2007-2007 1 game won
4 Jacksonville Jags 2010-2010 1 game won
5 Minnesota Vikings 2010-2010 1 game won
6 St. Louis Rams 2003-2003 1 game won

For some reason, rolleyes2 I found the Bears being at the top unsurprising.

I may do this again for a longer time period-Pro-football References database goes back decades.

 

[Boone]

Yeah...I may have to adjust my guess to 'all fingers and toes'.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

Sorry Ryman but I don't buy that. Teams playing from behind tend to stop running in order to lengthen the game and score faster. At least that is what I observe every Sunday.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

bad teams with panicky coordinators who are down by more than one TD maybe, but smart guys who understand how football works, don't abandon the run game when down in a close game, thats when you run the ball more because teams will be in Nickel, or prevent formations. the funniest part is that the bad defensive coords will be the ones playing prevent and nickel, the smart ones don't lay off unless up by multiple scores.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

You couldn't be more wrong. Exhibit A: Cam Newton and the Panthers.

when down by multiple scores and with poor running game, you throw the ball hoping for a score, the panthers might have one of the worst all around teams in the NFL right now.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

boone, the competant offence comment is bang on, and it was bang on when Blah was here too, weird how that works isnt it?

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Interestingly enough, the last time Grossman threw 4 picks, he won the game. It was the Denny Green "THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE!" game.

"IF YOU WANT TO CROWN THEM, GO AHEAD AND CROWN THEM!"

 

[Lanky Livingston]

bad teams with panicky coordinators who are down by more than one TD maybe, but smart guys who understand how football works, don't abandon the run game when down in a close game, thats when you run the ball more because teams will be in Nickel, or prevent formations. the funniest part is that the bad defensive coords will be the ones playing prevent and nickel, the smart ones don't lay off unless up by multiple scores.

Lol, according to your definitions the only coordinator worth anything in the league is yourself.

when down by multiple scores and with poor running game, you throw the ball hoping for a score, the panthers might have one of the worst all around teams in the NFL right now.

Uhhh, so you are contradicting yourself. When playing from behind, you throw the ball. Scoring quickly gives you more time (as Neo said).

 

[Fear The Spear]

Interestingly enough, the last time Grossman threw 4 picks, he won the game. It was the Denny Green "THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE!" game.

"IF YOU WANT TO CROWN THEM, GO AHEAD AND CROWN THEM!"

So are you gonna crown Grossman for his 4 picks ?

 

[redskins26]

actually lanky, playing from behind inflates run numbers because teams will get more conservative and play more zone and give up rushing yards to prevent big plays, thats football behind the numbers 201 the advanced class

Actaually playing from behind inflates passing numbers its why you can see a team lose 40 -14 and the losing qb has 300 some yards because the defense plays soft. Maybe in Canada that is the way its played larger field and such?

 

[redskins26]

For God's sake people.

4 interceptions. You can count the number of times any team, any time, has had their QB throw 4 interceptions, and won, on your fingers.

Could our defense play better? Of course. Is our defense the problem. For God's sake no. If we could field a competent offense consistently, we'd win. Our offense has played mostly flawed football even at it's best, and we've been able to win more than lose. If we had a QB, a little better offensive lineman, and a WR that scared someone, we'd be a sure-fire playoff team with this defense.

even throwing 3 interceptions its hard to win

 

[fansince62]

Except that its not as simple as that. If Grossman only throws three interceptions, and hits a wide-open Gaffney for 6, or better yet only throws 2 interceptions and they get a field goal out of the tremendous field position the D gave them, we win 23-20. You are missing the point: the defense played good enough to win. And I'll repeat the stat you may have missed: the Eagles got 23-25 of their 38 minutes TOP in the first half - meaning the D slowed them down in the second half. Also helps to have a sustained TD drive, of course.

hmmm...I seem to recall others at one time or another complaining that "coulda, woulda, shoulda" opens the door for any sort of imaginary football outcomes.

197 yards rushing. I R R E F U T A B L E. you like to play the stats game. rationalize that one.

you're missing the point....several points. if we're going to play this game:

- the margin was wider than it appears. we scored a lone touchdown late in the game. the Skins were never in the game and never had a chance to win. it takes a chemically induced state of delusion to believe that the game was close because the final score was a difference of a touchdown. it wasn't.

- so...did the Iggles get more conservative in the second half? your analysis is one dimensional.

- again...the Iggles ran all over the Skins. 197 big ones.

good enough to win? THEY LOST. IT'S A MEANINGLESS STATEMENT.

 

[burgold]

I agree with Fansince. While I would have liked the refs to call the fumble that was the fumble and get the interception call right. We were beat. There were a number of crazy things that went against us... circus juggling catches, non-safety leading first down calls, a refusal to call holding on the Eagles, but in the end... we were bested and worse, we played really badly in the first half.

In the second, we came back esp. on defense, but overall, it was a game we deserved to lose and it wasn't close.

 

[fansince62]

bad teams with panicky coordinators who are down by more than one TD maybe, but smart guys who understand how football works, don't abandon the run game when down in a close game, thats when you run the ball more because teams will be in Nickel, or prevent formations. the funniest part is that the bad defensive coords will be the ones playing prevent and nickel, the smart ones don't lay off unless up by multiple scores.

no...the funny part is it is the same people who are arguing KS gives up on the running game too quickly.

 

[fansince62]

I agree with Fansince. While I would have liked the refs to call the fumble that was the fumble and get the interception call right. We were beat. There were a number of crazy things that went against us... circus juggling catches, non-safety leading first down calls, a refusal to call holding on the Eagles, but in the end... we were bested and worse, we played really badly in the first half.

In the second, we came back esp. on defense, but overall, it was a game we deserved to lose and it wasn't close.

burg...in one sense this whole thread has been silly...while I have had my concerns all season about the strength of the run defense up the middle....the defense has been a strength for this team and has played well. just not in this game. the defense improved in the second half....lest we forget, however....when we needed the ball back....the defense surrendered (if memory serves) two first downs. they didn't shut the iggles down and get the ball back. that's what needed to happen.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

For God's sake people.

4 interceptions. You can count the number of times any team, any time, has had their QB throw 4 interceptions, and won, on your fingers.

Could our defense play better? Of course. Is our defense the problem. For God's sake no. If we could field a competent offense consistently, we'd win. Our offense has played mostly flawed football even at it's best, and we've been able to win more than lose. If we had a QB, a little better offensive lineman, and a WR that scared someone, we'd be a sure-fire playoff team with this defense.

This is what I am saying. Its not difficult.

hmmm...I seem to recall others at one time or another complaining that "coulda, woulda, shoulda" opens the door for any sort of imaginary football outcomes.

197 yards rushing. I R R E F U T A B L E. you like to play the stats game. rationalize that one.

you're missing the point....several points. if we're going to play this game:

- the margin was wider than it appears. we scored a lone touchdown late in the game. the Skins were never in the game and never had a chance to win. it takes a chemically induced state of delusion to believe that the game was close because the final score was a difference of a touchdown. it wasn't.

FS, and I say this with all due respect, if you're going to challenge my position at least make sure you understand it. I've stated a few times I don't think the defense played a perfect game, but the highlighted statement illustrates my point quite well - we were only ever "in" the game because of the defense, not losing in spite of it. Its really a simple concept, and I'm surprised you're having so much trouble with it.

Let's put it this way: Donovan McNabb threw 3 interceptions against the Eagles at home last year, and we gave up 59 points. This year, Rex Grossman threw 4 interceptions, but the Eagles only scored 20 points. What, do you suppose, was the difference between the two games? Answer: THE DEFENSE.

good enough to win? THEY LOST. IT'S A MEANINGLESS STATEMENT.

Shellshock? I'm looking for positives from this season - IMO, the defense is one of the positives so far. You can choose to hate on everything B&G all season if you want to, but I choose to see the silver lining. To each his own, I suppose.

no...the funny part is it is the same people who are arguing KS gives up on the running game too quickly.

Its because they go hand-in-hand, FS. Losing teams give up on the run too quickly. Sheesh.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

burg...in one sense this whole thread has been silly...while I have had my concerns all season about the strength of the run defense up the middle....the defense has been a strength for this team and has played well. just not in this game. the defense improved in the second half....lest we forget, however....when we needed the ball back....the defense surrendered (if memory serves) two first downs. they didn't shut the iggles down and get the ball back. that's what needed to happen.

As you stated in your above post, its a minor miracle we were even in that position to begin with. Yes, the defense did not get that final stop, and that is a sign of an "almost-complete" defense. Still missing some pieces (Jenkins, for instance) but its almost there.

Do you not see your contradiction here?

 

[fansince62]

As you stated in your above post, its a minor miracle we were even in that position to begin with. Yes, the defense did not get that final stop, and that is a sign of an "almost-complete" defense. Still missing some pieces (Jenkins, for instance) but its almost there.

Do you not see your contradiction here?

no...I see you introducing all manner of incomprehensible concepts. for the remainder of the season I will refer to "almost complete tackles" and "almost complete interceptions" and "almost complete third down stops"....and "almost complete points allowed".

again...a much improved defense....the critical component being the pairing of Kerrigan and Rak to balance the pressure off the edges. YOU PERSIST IN NOT ADDRESSING 197 YARDS RUSHING AS THOUGH IT NEVER HAPPENED...as if they almost completely shut down the Iggles rushing game. they didn't and it was one of the factors that led to a defeat.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

no...I see you introducing all manner of incomprehensible concepts. for the remainder of the season I will refer to "almost complete tackles" and "almost complete interceptions" and "almost complete third down stops"....and "almost complete points allowed".

Now you are just arguing to argue, and being difficult intentionally. You know exactly what I mean - it isn't cut and dry, especially in a rebuilding scenario. Bottom line: the defense is almost there, whether you can "comprehend" that or not. Interesting that you ignored my previous post comparing the two games...probably because it proves me right.

again...a much improved defense....the critical component being the pairing of Kerrigan and Rak to balance the pressure off the edges.

OMG, this is all I am saying. Stop, read my posts, THEN respond. This is the process. Don't just go off into a frothy rage without understand what you're responding to. My goodness.

YOU PERSIST IN NOT ADDRESSING 197 YARDS RUSHING AS THOUGH IT NEVER HAPPENED...as if they almost completely shut down the Iggles rushing game. they didn't and it was one of the factors that led to a defeat.

Not quite...I'm done discussing this with you, simply because discussion with you is next to impossible. I've said over and over the defense did not play a perfect game, yet you continue to babble on about 197 yards rushing. Maybe because they had the ball for 38 minutes because Grossman kept giving it to them? Did ya stop to consider that? No, of course not.

I mean, how many interceptions does Grossman have to throw before you won't blame the defense? What is the ratio of interceptions to points allowed you would find acceptable? Unbelievable.

 

[fansince62]

Now you are just arguing to argue, and being difficult intentionally. You know exactly what I mean - it isn't cut and dry, especially in a rebuilding scenario. Bottom line: the defense is almost there, whether you can "comprehend" that or not. Interesting that you ignored my previous post comparing the two games...probably because it proves me right.



OMG, this is all I am saying. Stop, read my posts, THEN respond. This is the process. Don't just go off into a frothy rage without understand what you're responding to. My goodness.



Not quite...I'm done discussing this with you, simply because discussion with you is next to impossible. I've said over and over the defense did not play a perfect game, yet you continue to babble on about 197 yards rushing. Maybe because they had the ball for 38 minutes because Grossman kept giving it to them? Did ya stop to consider that? No, of course not.

I mean, how many interceptions does Grossman have to throw before you won't blame the defense? What is the ratio of interceptions to points allowed you would find acceptable? Unbelievable.

sorry Lanky...you are the one who has an irrational attachment to his own sense of self righteousness. I have complemented the defense's performance/improvement overall this season. I also noted at the beginning of this thread that the offense played worse. I have argued all along that this was a bad game from all angles and that the defense had its issues. you prefer to advance all these play pretend extenuating excuses as though they are received and immutable football truths. if it salves your precious ego...have at it! a defense on top of its game can do better than allowing 197 yards rushing no matter what the offense does. it's that simple.

you look silly pushing all these excuses. All that's missing from your plate of rationalizations is that Haslett didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Sat night!

pick up your toys. go back to the sandbox for a day. and return to discuss how we will stop Newton's passing game. at this point...that's more interesting.