Random Commanders Thoughts

[Bulldog]

Hopkins is a good kicker and we should keep him but his meltdown for a couple of weeks sure came at a bad time for the team this season.

For those people that say 'well, Kirk should have just thrown more touchdowns in the red zone' miss the point that in the age of parity most NFL games come down to less than a 7 point final outcome.

So, the FG has become more important than ever.

If any fan base should be conscious of how important special teams are to the success of a team it should be Washington's.

In 1982, we went 8-1 during the regular season and 4-0 during the playoffs.

Mark Moseley provided the winning points in a number of those contests including key division games against the Eagles (13-9) and Giants (15-14) as well as providing ALL of the points in a win against the Cardinals (final was 12-7).

Fans tend to forget that defense and special teams propelled that team forward and it wasn't until the last couple of games and the playoffs did Joe Theismann and John Riggins take over the narrative for that 1982 season.

But they would never have gotten that chance without Moseley and Mike Nelms.

 

[Knightingale]

Hopkins is a good kicker and we should keep him but his meltdown for a couple of weeks sure came at a bad time for the team this season.

For those people that say 'well, Kirk should have just thrown more touchdowns in the red zone' miss the point that in the age of parity most NFL games come down to less than a 7 point final outcome.

So, the FG has become more important than ever.

Not sure I really agree with that thinking.

I could agree if there was truly parity between teams, but I don't see it at all.

We all KNOW that our Defense needs work. It's undertalented and as such it struggles. Hence if that was the only problem then yes I would agree that the Kicking is extremely important. BUT that would be under the proviso that we were extracting the maximum that we could out of our Offense. A team like the Vikings for instance, a team that has a solid defense geared up to keeping opponents scores low because it's offense struggles due to injuries, where they know their Offense is not a powerhouse would be VERY reliant on a kicker to get them points.

However we also KNOW that our Offense is underperforming in the RedZone. We have a powerhouse offense that can put up HUGE swathes of yards. 500+ in the last two games. We're the number 2 ranked offense in the league. However our redzone efficiency is terrible, despite the fact that a year ago with the same personnel it was great. This is a problem, it has been all year.This offense should be stamping on the throats of the opponents defense week after week.

We have the talent and the staff to perform in this area, but for some reason we're not. That coupled to a defense that we know is undertalented means these games are closer than they should be.

Lets face it, if the Skins came away with just ONE more redzone touchdown a game, just one, then our record would be radically different and Hopkins would never be in the hotseat.

As for the issue of parity, I don't see it as a parity in teams. This year, like every year the spread is pretty wide between the top team and the bottom team.
What is different about the league these days is the time it takes a competently run organisation to bounce back from a bad year, and how it limits (if you're not the Patriots) your time at the top. The League operates like a lavalamp now.

If a team is bad, it drafts high and gets a good player or two, or three or more that makes a difference and makes you a contender for a few years until they all come off their rookie deals and the team hits the salary cap. Because the team is good the draft picks are low, meaning you can't as easily replenish the talent pool and as you have to give big salaries to the top players you have to make decisons on who to release. And as that happens you see your team start to sink back to the back of the pack again... where you start to get good draft picks..... rinse and repeat.

Theoretically this should mean that all teams get an even chance to be good and bad at different points in the cycle.

There are always outliers. Like the Patriots who are traditionally really good at keeping the team stocked with talent by being ruthless. And at the other end of the spectrum... Ahhh the Snyder years.

 

[Om]

Cool thing about the internet. It has stuff.

https://www.sportingcharts.com/arti...most-common-margin-of-victory-in-the-nfl.aspx

Can't tell exactly when this was written, but as of that time ... 22.57% of the 2668 NFL games played since 2002 were decided by 3 points or less.

Other points of interest:

• The top three most common margins of victory are 3 points (15.67%), 7 points (9.67%) and 10 points (6.03%). This is somewhat unsurprising as 3 and 7 are the points for field goals and touchdowns.

◦ The largest margin of victory in the NFL since 2002 was 59 points, which occurred October 18, 2009 when the New England Patriots beat the Tennessee Titans 59-0.

◦ 50.52% of games end in a single digit margin of victory (9 or less points).

• 63.96% of games end in a margin of victory of under two touchdowns (13 or less points).

• The lowest margin of victory to have not occurred since 2002 is 43 points. Other margins of victory to not have occurred include 47, 48, 50-54, 56-58 and every margin above 59.

 

[TomE]

Finally got around to watching the Dallas game.

Hop's first FG attempt, or rather 'practice' kick during that timeout was good but tight right.... knowing that he missed the real kick, I figured that he might just miss it to the left.... dang if he didn't.. over compensation I suppose.

Maybe next time he should not practice kick if he can and stick with his original swing thoughts (a golf thing) rather than allowing the first kick influence further adjustments.

Of course I've seen this stuff go both ways too, miss the first kick, make the second

 

[micks113]

OM, I'm not sure what we're learning there. I think the Redskins currently lead the league in attempted FG's (36?). And tied for FG made (31?).

Two things are at work here imo. One, the failure in red zone leads to easy field goals. Two.....we are attempting real long field goals. That's a reflection of the weak defense. I.e., attempt the FG rather than punt and rely on defense. In close games, this makes sense.

 

[Om]

Not sure what we learned either, micks. Particularly since each of us filters stats differently. I posted that link in response to the conversation about how much FG's really matter these days. Seems to me if almost a quarter of all games are decided by 3 points or less, one can certainly argue they matter. Like, a lot.

Beyond that, I feel the same way we all do about this year's struggles in the red zone. One more TD per game instead of a FG and we're a playoff lock.

 

[Fear The Spear]

I read that the Thanksgiving game was something like only the 3rd time since 1950 that a team had over 500 yards offense, zero turnovers, and still lose the game.
You can talk about the redzone, and talk about the kicker, or the coaching, but at some point you have to talk about the defense.
Just don't talk about my Cousins !

 

[Knightingale]

22.57% is pretty meaningless without context. It tells you the margin but doesn't say how or why that margin exists.

In order to have a proper number to see if FGs are important you'd need to remove certain other aspects.

For instance how many of those games were only within 3pts due to a garbage time comeback to make the score close?

How many of those games were actual won/lost due to FGs?
For instance Team A scores 3 TDs and Team B scores 2 TDs and 2FGs. Neither team gets within FG range again. Final score is 21-20, but both kickers never missed or had the opportunity to win the game.

Also of that 22.57% how many were WON by a last minute FG?
Or how many were lost by a missed FG?

Let's conservatively say a quarter of those games COULD have actually been decided by a made FG, that would be 133 games in 2668 that were swung by the foot of the kicker. That's 1 game in 20 which is less than a seasons worth.

I'm actually intrigued enough to find out what the actual number is I might dig through this seasons games and check some stats to find out lol

I feel a spreadsheet in the making.... lol

Also worth noting... in terms of points scored in the Dallas game, Hopkins scored 8pts to Baileys 7pts. So, and I know this is semantics, you could say Hopkins contributed more to the Redskins score line than Bailey did for the Cowboys.

The real issue last week was that our offence only produced 3 TDs to the Cowboys 4. And on one of our TDs we muffed the 2pt conversion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris]

The real issue last week was that our offence only produced 3 TDs to the Cowboys 4. And on one of our TDs we muffed the 2pt conversion.

Perhaps because one of the teams attempted an ill-conceived onside kick and gifted the opposing offense unusually good field position.

 

[Knightingale]

Perhaps because one of the teams attempted an ill-conceived onside kick and gifted the opposing offense unusually good field position.

Lol very true!

I still can't believe we did that. Ugh!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[servumtuum]

Thought I'd throw in some interesting stat stuff too.


We are a 4th quarter scoring machine apparently.

The Redskins for the season are averaging 9.1 4th quarter points per game-good for 4th place behind New Orleans, Oakland, and Denver.

Over the last three games, the Redskins are leading the league with a 15.3 point scoring average in the 4th quarter.


Source: https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/4th-quarter-points-per-game

 

[TomE]

I don't know about yall's locality but down here in the Pax River NAS area we're suffering a blight.

While making my rounds to the dump and local Lowes today, I was blinded by the dazzle of freshly minted Cowboy stars, sweats, hats, bumper stickers and flags on display.

Thankfully the Skins gear normally on display around here looks like it's been lived in for more than a month.

Arggg!

 

[TomE]

Should come as no surprise...

Jay Gruden says Jordan Reed is OUT for Sunday's game. Anthony Lanier is also out (lower leg). Everyone else questionable

I assume that 'everyone else is questionable' just means the guys on the injury report.

 

[McD5]

Whoa.....tamper much?

Eagles expected to make strong push to reacquire Washington free-agent-to-be WR DeSean Jackson this offseason:... https://t.co/seYDD6Fzsm

@adamschefter

 

[Boone]

I have zero concern about Jackson, who is showing, for the 2nd year in a row that his skills have diminished and that his durability at age 30 is a question mark. I appreciate all of the great contributions Jackson has made, but he isn't the player he once was. In Jamison Crowder, we have a young star who may be as legitimate a deep threat as Jackson is already, but is also more versatile. Jackson has pretty much become a one trick pony, and he's not nearly as reliable even there as he once was. If it comes down to keeping either Garcon or Jackson, I think it's a no brainer and we go with Garcon. I do believe it's possible we find a way to keep both, but that would require Jackson desiring to stay for a lesser contract, and I'm not sure that's something his ego would allow.

 

[Knightingale]

Agreed.

They've been talking a lot in the press the last couple of weeks about how DJax still has his speed, but I swear he looks slower this year to me. And that's only going to get worse as he gets older.

And lately he seems to be being used more for short yardage, and every time he catches one for 4 or 5 yards I find myself wondering why. He's supposed to be the breakaway deep threat that opens up the short yardage but more and more we seem to be using him as a possession receiver.

And when he does go long he seems to struggle more breaking coverage and rather than getting long receptions we seem to get long PI calls. I'm sure in days gone by the CB wouldn't even be close enough to him to cause a PI call. He's still fast... but doesn't seem superhumanly fast anymore.

And then as you say, there's his durability. When you sign him you gotta be aware that he's only going to play in 10-12 games reliably. And some of those he'll be banged up for.

I'd love to keep him if the price is right, but I hope our days of chasing players and giving huge money to them based on past performance is done.

I agree with Boone. Till Doctson proves he can play we keep Garcon to pair with Crowder. Keep Vernon and Reed together and let's see what Harris has.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fear The Spear]

Perhaps because one of the teams attempted an ill-conceived onside kick and gifted the opposing offense unusually good field position.

Lol very true!

I still can't believe we did that. Ugh!

Coaches in-game decisions, in the heat of the moment, are always judged in hindsight.
If that on-side kick succeeded, we'd be talking about how brilliant a decision it was made.
Since the execution failed, it's judged also by the result, as a ridiculous move, and not judged by the decision itself.
Just like the Packers game. When we had 4th and 1 from our own 41, and went for it.
Because it succeeded, in hindsight, Gruden's decision was called gutsy and genius.
Imagine what they'd be calling him if that same decision resulted in a failed execution.
Every coach has to make risky calls in game, once in a while, for what he believes gives the team the best chance to win, at the moment.
None of them succeed 100% of the time.
But the irony is they are judged in hindsight 100% of the time.

 

[Boone]

Coaches in-game decisions, in the heat of the moment, are always judged in hindsight.
If that on-side kick succeeded, we'd be talking about how brilliant a decision it was made.
Since the execution failed, it's judged also by the result, as a ridiculous move, and not judged by the decision itself.
Just like the Packers game. When we had 4th and 1 from our own 41, and went for it.
Because it succeeded, in hindsight, Gruden's decision was called gutsy and genius.
Imagine what they'd be calling him if that same decision resulted in a failed execution.
Every coach has to make risky calls in game, once in a while, for what he believes gives the team the best chance to win, at the moment.
None of them succeed 100% of the time.
But the irony is they are judged in hindsight 100% of the time.

All plays are judged in hindsight. I'm not sure what that adds to the discussion though We aren't talking about rushing on 4th and goal from the 2 yard line. We're talking about going for an onsides kick when you are within reach of a win and there's a ton of time on the clock. That's a very high-risk call at a time when there is no need for desperation. I honestly cannot understand anyone defending the call. It was a huge mistake. Of course any call 'can be' successful. The swinging gate 'can be' successful. That doesn't make calling the play smart or clever.

 

[Knightingale]

I dunno, the 4th & 1 seemed a good choice at the time in that Packers game.

To be honest I generally like our chances of going for it on 4th and short, this team can move the ball.

(Unless it's the redzone... lol)

The onside kick just seemed, as Chris said, ill conceived at that time. In fact as much as I like Gruden and think he's our long term answer at HC, I do still think he's on a learning curve and some games he makes some head scratching decisions. That seemed like one of them to me.

I don't think that the Dallas game in general was his finest hour.

But you are right. As much as it surprised me that he went for it, if we'd recovered it and it had turned that game for us we'd be hailing it as an amazingly good call.

All I can say is... I'm glad I'm not a HC! Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fear The Spear]

All plays are judged in hindsight. I'm not sure what that adds to the discussion though We aren't talking about rushing on 4th and goal from the 2 yard line. We're talking about going for an onsides kick when you are within reach of a win and there's a ton of time on the clock. That's a very high-risk call at a time when there is no need for desperation. I honestly cannot understand anyone defending the call. It was a huge mistake. Of course any call 'can be' successful. The swinging gate 'can be' successful. That doesn't make calling the play smart or clever.

Maybe the term "hindsight" conveyed the wrong idea.
It's about judging the call by the right criteria, and looking through the right lens.
So I'll put it in a different way.
A coach make a risky call, and it fails, outsiders consider it a terrible call.
If that same call succeeds, it's applauded.
But it can't be both. We're talking about the same call. Judging a risky call by the outcome only, is taking the easy way out.
Why can't a risky call that fails, still be considered a decent call at that moment ? Maybe the coach sees or knows something others don't.
That onside kick decision absolutely can be defended. It has a higher likelihood of succeeding than the one at the end of the game, because in the earlier onside kick, the other team is not expecting it. Everyone knows the onside kick is coming, when we do it at the end, so that has much less chance to work. Coaches have been known to kick on-side kicks in the middle of the game, and much earlier, when there was no logical or imminently urgent need to do so. And succeeded. Probably because the other team wasn't expecting it. Like in this case.