Redskins Lackluster First Quarter Report Card - How Do You Ground Someone Who Has Grounded Themselves?
You all remember bringing home that first report card of the year, right? It kind of set the tone for how much you were going to get away with that year and how long a leash your parents were going to give you before they yanked the hell out of it. As important as each grade in each subject was, the effort level was always the overriding factor in how my parents interpreted my grades. I think for the first quarter of this 2009 football season this approach makes the most sense. Let's get to it.
Offense
Offensive Line: B-
We knew at the end of last year that our line was an issue. The attention paid to that issue in the making of the 2009 roster was insufficient in my opinion, but I believe that where we started this season was better than where we ended last season. Unfortunately, marginal improvement on arguably the most important unit on your team is unacceptable. Yet the guys that have lined up for the first four games have played well enough to win games (especially the games that have been and continue to be on our schedule.) Our lack of a running game has at least appeared to be more a function of play-calling prowess as opposed to a perceived weakness. We are not where we need to be, but the line has held up reasonably well so far (losing Randy Thomas was simply not shocking and in the end, it gets Rinehart some much needed time.) Effort Level: B+
See the running backs get crushed by my red pen after the jump.
Running Backs: D
I think we all know Clinton Portis is playing hurt...already. Ladell Betts has looked good getting passes out of the backfield, but his running has been mediocre. I know Marcus mason gets a lot of love in these parts, but Kevin and I agree that this guy does not give us anything we don't already have. Alridge was the guy who brought some speed and agility to the backfield but his inability to hold onto the ball kept him from making the team and is now probably the main reason he continues to watch. This grade hurts to give out, but when you look around the league, you can see the difference between our running backs and other running backs. The failure on two 4th downs at the goal line is not 100% on the line. Portis could have gotten the first down against the Rams, and I wonder if a sell-out dive could gotten him to the goal line against the Lions. Far be it for me to second-guess a guy of CP's ability, but those are my thoughts there. Effort Level: C
Wide Receivers/Tight Ends: C
Four weeks in and our passing game this year looks eerily like our passing game from last year. We force it to Moss, settle for ARE, and sprinkle in the youngsters. Randle El is talented enough to be a deadly weapon for a quarterback like Brady, or Manning, or Brees. JC does find him and dump it to him, but he is an escape route guy that JC mostly finds when he is under pressure. It's not like our offense is built around or designed for his abilities in the slot (like Wes Welker in NE, or Bush/Moore in NO, or even Garcon in Indy). I feel like Devin Thomas can get in there and do a lot of damage in the slot. Malcolm Kelly is starting games but he is not targeted enough for my liking. Cooley is on his way to another Pro Bowl and Fred Davis is a model of inconsistency in the passing game (though he is in there a lot.) The Skins have put some numbers together this year through the air. We have relied on the passing game to move the chains. The Redskins are 7th in the league in passing first downs (20th in rushing first downs.) This C is a move up from where we were at the end of last season. But we need an A grade from this group if we are going to right the ship in time to make some noise in the second half of the season. Effort Level: B-
Quarterback: B
I have long contended that quarterback was not out problem. I have never denied that an upgrade at the position might net positive results, but the cost of such an upgrade was always my concern. Jason Campbell had one of his best days against the Lions, throwing for 340 yards, two touchdowns and a 97.6 QB rating. We lost. Against the Bucs, JC threw for 170 yards, three interceptions, and a 70.5 rating and we won. I don't want to over-analyze that because both games were disturbing to watch for so many reasons. But what I take away is that this team can win without a top 10 quarterback under center. What we are getting from the quarterback spot so far this season is more than we need to be a contender. Effort Level: A
Defense
Defensive Line: B-
Albert Haynesworth is doing a hell of a job out there. Brian Orakpo and Jeremy Jarmon are promising pass rushers who are getting reps and looking good. Andre Carter and Phillip Daniels look like the same guys who have not been getting to the quarterback for the last few years. Overall, this group has played well, but we still see quarterbacks camping out in the pocket week in and week out. I think we are better along this line than we have been in recent years and I am hopeful that our run defense tightens up a lot before this Sunday. But until we put more pressure on the QB, this unit is going to be a disappointment. Effort Level B
Linebackers: B+
I initially had this grade at C+ but then I remembered that London Fletcher leads the NFL in tackles, with 52 (Barrett Ruud in TB is in second with 40 tackles.) This is also why I kept the defensive line in the B range since they are succeeding in occupying blockers so London can get to the ball carrier. Rocky McIntosh has half as many tackles, and though he kind of disappears at times, he has made some plays. Orakpo in coverage is kind of a debacle, but his ability to rush the passer from the LB spot is huge. Blades and Wilson have also seen the field and contributed. During the offseason, you tend to focus on Fletcher's age and it makes you worry and then you get to the season and you see this man is every bit the player you want him to be...if he doesn't make the Pro Bowl this year it will be time to change the voting process. Effort Level: A-
Secondary: B+
I think this grade is too high, but Reed Doughty has come in and saved it. He is a sure tackler and it seems Blache trusts him to be exactly where he is supposed to be on every play. Landry has looked superhuman on some plays, and then on others, he whiffs on a tackle. That kills me. DeAngelo Hall has been beaten a few times and the way teams have gone after him has scared the crap out of me--there doesn't seem to be a ton of fear in the minds of quarterbacks when it comes to D Hall, does there? Carlos Rogers is an above average cover guy, and the combo of him and Hall gives us a pretty decent corner tandem. But his catching skills continue to be terrible. Under Obama's new health care rules, he should be required to donate his hands to a kid who was born without hands--he's not using them. There are rumors of a breakdown in discipline on our defense, with guys getting themselves out of position. That is why I have them so low on Effort at this point. Effort Level: D-
Special Teams: C+
Our kicking game has been decent. Hunter the Punter has been middle of the road among league punters in yardage and kicks inside the 20. Though we may have wanted more, this is significant improvement for the Skins. Our field goal kicker "battle" seems to have yielded at least some short-term results. Shaun Suisham is 5-for-5 this year, which stands in stark contrast to his last place finish last year in field goal percentage. We could be covering punts a little better, but I have been impressed with our ability to keep teams inside the 20 on kickoffs at times. I am pleasantly surprised by our special teams this season, but I want more. They can't go from an F to a B or an A. If they keep it up, mid-term grades will be much kinder to this unit. Effort Level B
Overall (Positions) Grade: C+ (2.53 GPA)
Overall Effort Grade: B- (2.84 GPA)
P.S. My grading system is based on 1,2,3,4 for D, C, B, A respectively, and quarter points up or down for +'s and -'s.
2 recs |
99 comments
|
Comments
Campbell and the Lions
I note you comment that Campbell had a good game against the Lions, but stats wise compared to the other Lions game he in fact underperformed.
Brees was 26 out of 34, Favre was 23 out of 27 and Cutler was 18 of 28. So Campbell’s 27 out of 41 is only just better than Cutler but way worse than the others.
So Campbell’s good game was in fact below average against the Lions pass defence which means either poor playcalling or poor execution of the playcalls.
I guess what I am saying is that the Redskins pass offence has played at the same level for 4 weeks, but because one was against the Lions it stands out as a good game. After all Brees would have 96 TD’s if he played the Lions 16 times!
by G Fan in England on Oct 8, 2009 11:09 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Can only play the games on your schedule though, right?
The point is that we won a game when he played horrible, and we lost a game where he didn’t.
by Sugar on Oct 8, 2009 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can we split the difference
Maybe he played the same in both – it is just the Tampa defence is much better than the Lions.
I totally agree after 8 games the picture will be alot clearly and everything will have had chance to even out.
Good luck the rest of the season
by G Fan in England on Oct 8, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he played the same in both
Campbell definitely played worst in the Tampa game. Campbell himself has said he was “trying to do too much” against Tampa.
by bigrm18 on Oct 8, 2009 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks dude
Yeah, splitting the difference here is fine…I hope the Lions make the playoffs so that loss looks a little better! But it will never happen…oh well
by Sugar on Oct 8, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Feel like getting crushed?
Listen you needle-dick plank phuk limey. Shut your cakehole! Go to your local market, get the large bottle of Fuller’s London Pride and shove it up your arse with the cap on. Why you would think your opinion even matter here is confounding. Go blow your retarded leader Gay-li Mannings banger and baby nuts. U.K. Blows Goat Balls.
by TheOverLordMarshl on Oct 8, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
take this hyper-aggressive sh-t elsewhere.
It's all Dan Snyder's Fault
by smutsboy1 on Oct 8, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No.
Different week. Different preparation by the Lions. Different place (except for the game against the Vikings). Different personnel. Different everything. You can’t discount a guy having a good day by saying that his good day wasn’t as good as other people’s good days against that team. That’s hypocritical. He had a better game against the Lions than any other team, but you completely ignore that. The Lions had a (slightly) better game against him than any other team and you make a huge fuss out of it. Besides, Brees and Favre had higher completion percentages to better receiving corps. There are way too many variables for you to legitimately make that argument.\
And, by the way, they’re spelled “defense” and “offense.” On both sides of the pond. lol
"One-on-one? You can't." -Gilbert Arenas
JC Bandwagon all day!
by kseandoyle on Oct 8, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tin hat
In case the Lord is in the house I am wearing my tin hat.
Yes – stats can be used to prove arguements either way. The point I was trying to put across that JC should have a good day against the Lions because they are poor against the pass.
So hpw do you rate the Chicago receivers against yours?
He did have a good game – the issue is should he have had an even better performance.
It is defence and defensive in the UK – we do not use defense – just another example of the minor difference between the UK and American english.
by G Fan in England on Oct 9, 2009 8:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
far, far, far too generous
Offensive Line: B-
the run-blocking has been non-existent, and players like Heyer prefer to spend a lot of their time on passing plays in the offensive backfield.
It's all Dan Snyder's Fault
by smutsboy1 on Oct 8, 2009 11:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I was afraid I was being overly generous...
I decided not to fully account for the awful teams we have faced so far. At the halfway mark, I figure we can put the whole league in a much better perspective.
Don’t get me wrong, it doesn’t take 8 weeks to see that the Lions, Rams, and Bucs are awful.
Doesn’t take 8 weeks to see that the Skins could be in the same boat.
by Sugar on Oct 8, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
O line should be a C- at best
I agree the CP lays down but that doesn’t excuse the fact that guys are in the backfield giving CP that reason to lay down. The pass blocking has been inconsistent and the run blocking has been non-existent. Remember a few years ago when we were excited by the offensive line? Remember when CP would 3-4 yards before being touched because we were that good at blocking? That doesn’t ever happen any more. I find myself being happy with CP being able to get back to the line of scrimmage and see what he can do after that.
For those reasons, I give the running backs a higher score and the o-line a lower score. Probably just a difference of opinion where my opinion is correct and your sucks.
I also give the secondary a lower score too because I think they give too much at the snap. They are playing so they see the break before they are forced to man up. That means somebody is scared that we are going to be beat long by WR’s moves. I blame coaches but the players have to still make the plays.
That brings me to my next point. How would you rate the coaching Ken? I’d like to see your rating on HC, OC, DC, ST, GM (or whatever he is) and Owner. Thanks
I also
by monk81 on Oct 8, 2009 11:34 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
just to nitpick
I also give the secondary a lower score too because I think they give too much at the snap. They are playing so they see the break before they are forced to man up. That means somebody is scared that we are going to be beat long by WR’s moves. I blame coaches but the players have to still make the plays.
I think this is more on Blache than on the DBs
It's all Dan Snyder's Fault
by smutsboy1 on Oct 8, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I dodged those grades altogether
Decided to go the players route.
Quickly though, Danny Smith gets a passing grade, Blache is on the edge of needing some serious after-school tutoring, and Zorn (HC and de facto OC) is a D at best.
Snyder gets an F from me right now, but Cerrato doesn’t. I love Jarmon and Orakpo, Rinehart didn’t look awful last week and Tryon and Moore all contributed as well. So I will give Cerrato an F+!
by Sugar on Oct 8, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looks like...
Zorn is getting some tutoring from Sherm. We’ll see how it affects the grades.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
by Scott E on Oct 8, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're being WAY to harsh on Vinnie right there, Sugar.
Jarmon
Orakpo
Rinehart
Tryon
Moore
Kelly (yeah, he’s been disappointing, because we hoped he was going to be there right away… but it IS coming)
Horton
Hunter the Punter (free agent acquisitions count, too)
Dockery (yeah, ok, even a blind pig, yadda yadda… Dock wanted to pull a Smootie and come back home, and Cerrato was smart enough to say “Welcome home!”)
I know that doesn’t do EVERYTHING…. but I’d have to give Vinny a solid C right now (notice I left out one rather large DE…. it’ll get better or worse depending on AH’s performance).
by BillWard on Oct 8, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
yeah I assume it was a typo
and not him pushing that tired, completely false rumor that AH is a DE because the Titans moved him around on the line.
by BayAreaBullet on Oct 8, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or
He’s a DE, lined up in that position several times last game
by dr WNC on Oct 8, 2009 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was agreeing with Bill
But I’d like to see more AH at DE for sure. Haynesworth, Griffin, Montgomery, and Orakpo, Left to Right should definitely crash the pocket.
by VA_Skin on Oct 8, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would you take pass rushers off the field?
You would move a DE into the DT spot if you wanted more pass rush. I’m all for moving Haynesworth around but you don’t wanna take superior pass rushers off the field to put in DT’s. Haynesworth should be the only DT on the field during obvious pass situations and then flop with one of the DE’s before snap to give a different look.
by BayAreaBullet on Oct 8, 2009 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He might be end up being our best pass rusher :-)
You never know. We were able to stop the run pretty good last season without Haynesworth so I know our guys could handle it if we mixed it up some. Which Blache has done and we nearly got a sack the two times I noticed it.
by VA_Skin on Oct 8, 2009 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I assumed you were talking about in only passing situations
if you were I still gotta argue that you wouldn’t take DE’s off the field for DT’s who are worse pass rushers. I mean would you really want Griffin and Montgomery rushing the passer instead of Jarmon and Carter or C. Wilson? If you meant as like for running downs or just as a base defense that’s kinda interesting but I’m not usre how well that work for multiple plays as DE’s have to cover alot more ground in run pursuit so Big Al would be doing alot more running which would probbaly take him off the field more often. Plus your right Big Al MIGHT be our best pass rusher but he is most certainly our best run stuffer/middle clogger. Intriguing as a goal line situation or something though Golston is better than Monty IMHO.
by BayAreaBullet on Oct 8, 2009 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's kindof a ridiculous argument don't you think dr WNC?
Just cuz a guy lines up out of his position several times a game doesn’t mean he is that position. Andre Carter, Phillip Daniels, Justin Tuck, Antwan Odom are all DE’s who move inside in obvious passing situations. Does that make them DT’s. When Cooley splits out wide does that make him a WR? When someone takes a direct snap in the wildcat does that make them them QB? Maybe I’m just misunderstanding you but just because someone lines up in a different position slot in certain formations doesn’t mean they are that position. I mean sometimes a tackle is eligible in certain formations but you don’t go around referring to them at TE’s instead of Tackles. When AH starts lining up as an end in a 4 man front 40% or more of the time then maybe we can talk.
by BayAreaBullet on Oct 8, 2009 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry I just can't
Respectfully I gotta say I don’t think that it is even close. How about we call him one of the best pass rushing DT’s in the league? Or an athletic DT. I just don’t think he lines up as a DE in the 4 man front enough and the hybrid term applies more to guys whose body-types are in between 2 positions and play both positions fairly much the same amount of time(Reggie Bush, A. Gates, T. Suggs, Orakpo). AH is huge evn for a DT and nowhere near a DE. If he moved out there every passing situation, maybe, but he doesn’t. People seem to forget that what makes Haynesworth so special is that he can get a pass rush from the interior which is so hard to find. You should move him around so it’s harder to scheme against him but I don’t think people realize that happens alot in 4-3 fronts and if we applied the same rules to every lineman most of them would be hybrids. I just feel that definition of hybrid is just a little too loose. Maybe I’m just lazy and dont wanna have to refer to Cooley as our hybrid TE/WR, Snyder our Hybrid Owner/Embarassment, etc. But I mean thats not a big deal I just think the “Haynesworth is really a DE” argument is bunk.
by BayAreaBullet on Oct 8, 2009 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you can't give him credit for players who haven't proven anything
Jarmon
Orakpo
Rinehart
Tryon
Moore
Kelly
It's all Dan Snyder's Fault
by smutsboy1 on Oct 9, 2009 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some of these guys have proven something
even for the short term, i.e., Jarmon played 11 or so downs against TB. On the play were he caused the fumble, he was playing defensive tackle and was double teamed. Bear in mind he weights about 280 pounds, yet he managed to defeat the double team.
by Jefferson1935 on Oct 9, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree on your OL grade: C-
If it wasn’t for the decent pass protection, their grade should be an F-.
by VA_Skin on Oct 8, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice work Sugar
I’ll give you B+ for effort, which was always enough for ice cream in the Boo household.
by Boo. on Oct 8, 2009 11:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Denver
is case and point to this article’s agreeance to no ONE position playing to a W…
McDaniels > Zorn
JJ Fe
by Rydaddy617 on Oct 8, 2009 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure you can..
downgrade the WR corps without downgrading JC as well.
JC does find him (ARE) and dump it to him, but he is an escape route guy that JC mostly finds when he is under pressure.
I still contend that JC unloads too soon many of the times and does not make accurate reads of the D and make adjustments at the line, but that’s just me.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
by Scott E on Oct 8, 2009 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
the D stinks. They look like they don't want to be there.
Aside from the Bucs game, wow. third down is awful. Blache wanted to retire and the effort he gets out of his players shows.
And Portis, the dude looks like he is crawling into bed on every run! They have zero fire. It pisses me off because I paid almost 400 for the stupid NFL ticket to watch this crap.
by brettpedigo on Oct 8, 2009 12:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I also think your Secondary
grades are too high. So many missed tackles and 3rd down conversions on pass plays. While the defensive posture gives yardage to wide outs, it is inconceivable that the scheme is designed to purposefully give up 1st downs. It just puts more pressure on the secondary to tackle well. A hit and miss proposition so far this year.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
by Scott E on Oct 8, 2009 12:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I love all the tough graders out there....
Maybe because I was always hoping for a better grade than I deserved I took it easy on this team!
by Sugar on Oct 8, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know you touched on it...
but the fact remains that 3 of the 4 teams we played had poor offenses AND defenses. This should push the grading curve down by a grade in most cases.
I actually gave our STs a B+, largely in that they were the one unit that clearly improved, especially on KO returns. I tended to discount Suisham’s FG accuracy improvement as his attempts were mostly short distances. However, I think he worked real hard this off season and he may as I hope prove to be better even at longer kicks over the season. He dramatically improved his KOs, putting most in the end zone. I don’t recall anyone scoring on us on a punt or KO return, nor any really long returns (a couple were called back on penalties).
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
by Scott E on Oct 8, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Missed a key Grade:
Unlike school, although teachers should be!
Coaches are a key aspect of the teams overall grade. And anyone who says the players play the game, then explain the difference in the Jets this year from last year. Coaching does matter.
Need to include a Coaching grade
by dr WNC on Oct 8, 2009 12:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Have to defend the profession here
at least in NY, we are extensively evaluated every year on our passing and mastery rates. We don’t really get grades, but we get to keep getting a paycheck if we “pass”. I do agree that it would have been interesting to see the inestimable Sugar’s coaching grade.
Homer: Aw, twenty dollars! I wanted a peanut!
Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts!
Homer: Explain how!
Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services!
Homer: Woo-hoo!
by bigbluethruandthru on Oct 9, 2009 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Leading in tackles is not good...
Now, I think Fletcher is great and under appreciated throughout the league, but it must be noted that leading the league in tackles is an indictment of our defense and its inability to get the hell off the field. Three and outs don’t produce high tackle totals! I think the key of the season so far is our inability to close down opponents on third down.
by Wellsee on Oct 8, 2009 12:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agree on 3rd downs, but LBs generally lead league in tackles
NFL Leaders: Tackles (Thru Dec. 28, 2008)
Rank Player Team Stats
1 D’Qwell Jackson, Cle, 154
2 Patrick Willis, SF, 141
3 Jon Beason, Car, 138
4 Kirk Morrison, Oak, 137
5 Barrett Ruud, TB, 136
6t James Farrior, Pit, 133
6t London Fletcher, Was, 133
6t Gibril Wilson, Oak, 133
9 Jonathan Vilma, NO, 132
10 Jerod Mayo, NE, 126
11 Eric Weddle, SD, 125
12 Paris Lenon, Det, 122
13 Yeremiah Bell, Mia, 120
14t Eric Barton, NYJ, 119
14t Karlos Dansby, Ari, 119
16t Bradie James, Dal, 117
16t Ray Lewis, Bal, 117
18t Thomas Davis, Car, 114
18t Chad Greenway, Min, 114
18t Dhani Jones, Cin, 114
by VA_Skin on Oct 8, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The above data appears to support both points
That LBs are generally the leading tacklers; however, if you ranked the above teams’ defense from worst to best, you’ll find that the worst defenses have the LBs with the most tackles. Throw Farrior out and you don’t get to a good defense until Ray Lewis and Baltimore – I’m thinking back to last year where most of the data was taken from.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
by Scott E on Oct 8, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
When the defense can’t stop 3rd down conversions they end up staying on the field longer which results in more defensive plays and more tackles.
by ZakInOmaha on Oct 8, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But it's wrong, see below!
If I am reading the stats right, really some questions but it appears to be correct.
Washington’s defense has seen 240 defensive plays, which is ranked number 19
With
1 Buffalo Bills 290
2 Cleveland Browns 279
3 Indianapolis Colts 278
4 Oakland Raiders 276
5 Tennessee Titans 271
by dr WNC on Oct 8, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stat proves nothing
All of those defenses are poor this year and the stat does nothing to dispel the idea that the longer a team stays on the field the more tackles THE TEAM makes. The fact that Fletcher has lots of tackles just says he’s doing his job but it says nothing about whether or not the defense, as a whole, is good or bad. Quite frankly MLB’s tend to have the most tackles on a team regardless of whether or not the defense is good or bad.
So lots of tackles does not automatically mean the player is good or bad, especially when the player is the MLB.
by ZakInOmaha on Oct 8, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well maybe you should read more carefully
The Redskins defense has had 240 plays, while 18 other teams have more plays.
It says nothing about the rank of the defense, or how the defense is playing.
You said:
When the defense can’t stop 3rd down conversions they end up staying on the field longer which results in more defensive plays and more tackles.
Stopping 3rd down or not, 18 teams have had more plays than the Redskins, Fletcher leading the league in tackles has NOTHING to do with the Redskins defense having more plays than other teams, which results in inflated tackles for Fletcher.
by dr WNC on Oct 8, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
doesn't disprove my statement
Fletcher leading the league in tackles only means he’s doing lots of tackling, just like a MLB should do.
None of those stats negate my statement “When the defense can’t stop 3rd down conversions they end up staying on the field longer which results in more defensive plays and more tackles” which is true no matter what stats you throw out. Obviously the fact that other teams are worse (have allowed more plays) doesn’t change the fact for our team.
“Fletcher leading the league in tackles has NOTHING to do with the Redskins defense having more plays than other teams, which results in inflated tackles for Fletcher” is just silly. If 18 teams have allowed more plays then the other 13 teams have allowed fewer plays which means fewer tackling opportunities. So actually Fletcher has had more opportunities to tackle than the leading tackler on 13 other teams. It’s not a direct cause and effect but it does having SOMETHING to do with it. It’s just not something that is easy to correlate.
If someone on another team played more downs they’d obviously have more opportunities for more tackles. Of course it doesn’t mean they would have more tackles but there’s no way to tell what the results would be. The stats don’t change that either. Stats don’t over run logic.
by ZakInOmaha on Oct 8, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK,
Yes;
"When the defense can’t stop 3rd down conversions they end up staying on the field longer which results in more defensive plays and more tackles"Fletcher had more opportunities for tackles
However, you replied to Wellsee’s comment Leading in tackles is not good…
Now, I think Fletcher is great and under appreciated throughout the league, but it must be noted that leading the league in tackles is an indictment of our defense and its inability to get the hell off the field. Three and outs don’t produce high tackle totals! I think the key of the season so far is our inability to close down opponents on third down.
Which is saying Fletcher is making all the tackles because the Redskins Defense is on the field longer than other teams, which is not a true statement for 18 other teams Fletcher is doing his job and doing it well. His number of tackles is not a result of having more opportunities than other clubs, as a mater of fact he has less opportunities than 18 other clubs
by dr WNC on Oct 8, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think
your point takes into account defensive philosophy. While I don’t agree with him, Blache’s philosophy is to have the D-Line occupy guys while the LB’s make the plays. Until this year, he didn’t ask his D-line to make the plays themselves, which means that the LB’s SHOULD have the most tackles.
Also, I think if you look at the top defenses in the league, they all have a LB leading them in tackles., so I guess I don’t really know what you’re getting at.
by CJHutch on Oct 8, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Opportunities:
Tackles in by themselves don’t tell the whole story. How many defensive plays? Offensive ball control? Opponents’ play selection?
by Jefferson1935 on Oct 8, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fletcher leading in tackles
Is not as bad as it sounds. He is linebacker. He is supposed to make tackles. If it were safeties leading the team, I’d be worried. Hell, if it was CB’s leading the team, I’d be worried. But our two leading tacklers are the linebackers. That’s what they do. I don’t see this as big a problem as some. If I recall, Blatche’s “system” puts the d-linemn in the gaps to take up blockers so the linebackers are free to make tackles. Isn’t that the idea? This is really a question. That was my understanding. If the linebackers are making the tackeles, then isn’t that stat about where it should be?
This is not an endorsement of the defense, but my basic understanding of the stat about Fletcher and McIntosh leading the team in tackles.
by monk81 on Oct 8, 2009 12:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Team vs League
You are absolutely right, the LBs should lead the team in that area. I was just remarking on Fletcher leading the League in tackles.
by Wellsee on Oct 8, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see
You’re saying his stats are slanted because of our offense’s time of possession (or lack their of). Very true.
by VA_Skin on Oct 8, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed...
Our offense’s inability to stay on the field on 3rd down plus our defense’s inability to get off the field on 3rd down equals way more tackle chances. Still, he is making those tackles, as opposed to Landry or Horton/Doughty getting all the extra tackles in our secondary.
by Sugar on Oct 8, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But is this conjecture or true
How many defensive plays have Fletcher seen compared to other teams.
A couple of games ago, Indy’s offense had less time on the field than the Redskins, meaning the other team had more defensive plays, even though Indy won the game.
If I am reading the stats right, really some questions but it appears to be correct.
Washington’s defense has seen 240 defensive plays, which is ranked number 19
With
1 Buffalo Bills 290
2 Cleveland Browns 279
3 Indianapolis Colts 278
4 Oakland Raiders 276
5 Tennessee Titans 271
being the top-5. It appears the thought is conjecture and not based in reality which shows how great Fletcher is playing!
by dr WNC on Oct 8, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good job, Doc...
That is amazing – and maybe horrifying – to note that Fletch made tackles on 133 of 240 defensive plays. That means 1 out of 11 defenders made over 1/2 of the tackles – although the data is probably skewed since you would have to account for multiple players being in on a “gang” tackle. Not sure how that works.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
by Scott E on Oct 8, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This season
London has 52 (30 solo and 22 ast.)
by VA_Skin on Oct 8, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ratings
I just don’t see how a team that has played 3 of the worst NFL teams and only has a 2-2 record can grade that well (C+ position and B- effort), unless you’re saying the play calling is dropping them from an overall C+/B- to something much lower, say a D+ or C- (at best). I can’t grade a team that barely beats the Rams and Bucs any higher without breaking the grading scale for teams that are undefeated.
So I would give the following grades
Offensive Line: C
I just haven’t seen very many holes for the RBs and defenses consistently get pressure without blitzing.
Running Backs: C
CP isn’t himself anymore, too much mileage IMO and none of the backups have been able to fill the void. By definition mediocrity is a C.
Wide Receivers/Tight Ends: C-
Cooley is the only player who gets open consistently. The announcers even pointed out several times in the last game that the WR’s were unable to create any separation which is ridiculous for a WR. Cooley gets a B, Moss gets a C- and everyone else gets a D.
Quarterback: C
I don’t see a point in changing QB’s because we don’t have a better option on the bench but JC just isn’t getting it done. While the WR’s aren’t getting open, a starting QB learns to throw the ball to a point where only the WR has a chance at catching it and he just doesn’t do it. With our current WR corps the QB has to take some chances.
Defensive Line: B-
I totally agree with your write up except that Haynesworth needs to be in better shape and someone has to step up when they fill in for him. I count Orakpo when he pass rushes as a DE in this grade.
Linebackers: C+
Fletcher is doing great as usual (which is why the C becomes a C+) but Orakpo shouldn’t be playing LB (back to DE for him) and Rocky is just mediocre.
Secondary: B
I think Hall is in over his head and I expect to see more teams target him. Otherwise I agree with your assessment.
Special Teams: C+
As you stated they have improved quite a bit and I like the consistency, I hope it lasts.
Overall Position C which is right on target for a 2-2 team, although it may be too kind considering the teams played (Rams, Lions, and Bucs).
by ZakInOmaha on Oct 8, 2009 1:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
3 of the worst teams based on what?
Everyone keeps saying that the Redskins have played 3 of the worst teams in the NFL based on, Last year, this year, what?
by dr WNC on Oct 8, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
while I think the
Lions will win more games this year, I have to admit that the Rams and Bucs are pretty bad. However, one thing that hasn’t been talked about is the fact that we always play to the level of our opponent. While this may be bad when we play bad teams, it is good when playing good teams. So let me ask this question, if we reel off some quality wins against some good opponents, will that make people forget about Detroit?
by CJHutch on Oct 8, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no
I dont think it would. I think it would give the espn guys something to talk about (Those Bipolar Redskins. Bad against Detroit and good against eagles). Detroit will have more to do with that. If they win some more games and do it against any quality opponents, then the Redskins loss, coupled with good wins will help people forget the gravity of that loss as it stands now.
by monk81 on Oct 8, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're probably
right. But I was more talking about “us”. The fans. I gave up caring what the talking heads thought of us years ago.
by CJHutch on Oct 8, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats what I mean
I’ll feel better about the Detroit loss knowing that they went out and beat the Giants (for example). I would look at that loss as a lot better if I knew they are as good a team as that game showed instead of how bad we were. So far that game was about how bad we are and not about how good they are.
Does that mean I’m saying that playing us is not a barometer for how good a team in? I’m not sure how to take that.
by monk81 on Oct 8, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stats:
Offense
Yards per game: Redskins are number 17
Played: 4, 20, 27 and 30
Yes, the bottom half, but not the 3 worse, 1 of the 3 worse yes!
Defense: Redskins are number 12
Played: 31, 21 19 and 1 Again the bottom half but not the 3 worse
And with those ideas being thrown around then the 2008 Playoff team Carolina Panthers should be easier than 3 of those 4 teams as they are ranked lower in most catagories.
by dr WNC on Oct 8, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah but
you can’t go by stats alone when determining how good a team is. I mean, we had the #4 defense last year, and didn’t even make the playoffs. Some teams lose with good stats, and some teams win with bad ones.
by CJHutch on Oct 8, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
And I’m saying when ‘sugar’ grades the Redskins he should not take into consideration who they have played
by dr WNC on Oct 8, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I want to
know if Sugar took into consideration the Redskins’ obvious learning deficiencies when he graded them. Because, if he did, he should have either graded them on a curve, or under special ed guidelines.
by CJHutch on Oct 8, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tried not to take into account our opponents
Though I will admit that the only possible explanation for some of these inflated grades is that they were playing and performing against what is—right now— a group of struggling teams.
by Sugar on Oct 8, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very politically correct
performing against what is—right now— a group of struggling teams
by dr WNC on Oct 8, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
disagree
I think the only way to get a realistic grade is to grade against who you’ve played.
I played in some smaller schools and we’d look pretty decent against other small schools and then when we’d play the larger schools (who usually had a lot more talent to choose from) we’d look pretty bad. Who you’ve played does matter.
Does anyone really think the Lions, Rams, and Bucs aren’t bad teams?
by ZakInOmaha on Oct 8, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
32 NFL caliber Teams
Yes, The Lions, Rams and Buc are the bottom of the league but just because
Lions beat the Redskins
Saints beat the Lions
does not mean the Saints will beat the Redskins….
So grade on team’s performance and team’s talent as Sugar did!
by dr WNC on Oct 8, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
talent, last year's performance, etc
There’s no point in splitting hairs between the Rams, Bucs, Browns, Raiders (arguable), and a few other teams, but they represent the bottom of the barrel.
It's all Dan Snyder's Fault
by smutsboy1 on Oct 8, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
team quality
For the Lions and Rams both years apply as the Lions were 0-16 last year and 1-3 this year while the Rams were 2-14 last year and are 0-4 this year. How could they NOT be 2 of the worst teams?
The Bucs have changed coaches, QBs and lots of other players so looking at last years record doesn’t really apply but they are 0-4 this year. So they are 1 of the 5 winless teams so far this year which means they are pretty bad.
by ZakInOmaha on Oct 8, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
completely agree with these grades
It's all Dan Snyder's Fault
by smutsboy1 on Oct 8, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Football Outsiders
try to account for different factors like the quality of opponents. For instance, the Skins offensive line was ranked 20th overall after 4 weeks in FO’s scheme of things. In power rank (running plays of 18+ yards) the Skins were ranked 25th. In pass protection the Skins were ranked 21st.
Compared to other teams this is about a C-.
by Jefferson1935 on Oct 8, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
when you can't beat the worst teams
That usually means you’re among them. I don’t mind being honest that we are playing like one of the worst teams in the league. What keeps me going is the fact that we have the greatest opportunity to improve out of all the other bottom dwellers. We definitely have the talent. We just need to pull it all together. Why can’t experience one of those moments like in Major League when Beringer says “Well, I guess there’s only one thing left to do…Winn the whole f**king thing!” And then they go out and win it. We need that. Does anyone besides Cerrato (See earlier KevinE post) have a large cardboard cutout of Dan Snyder in the nude?
by monk81 on Oct 8, 2009 2:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
My thoughts?
How Do You Ground Someone Who Has Grounded Themselves?
You take away their favorite toy. For instance:
Jim Zorn – you confiscate his headset.
Blache – you confiscate his voice box.
And, best of all..
Snyder – you confiscate his TEAM!!!
by CJHutch on Oct 8, 2009 2:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Only two A's in the whole post
One for JC’s effort and one for the linebacker corps’ effort.
No one is more surprised than Kevin…I know he expected me to chug the Kool-Aid on this one.
Zak: If I take all your grades and assign them the same values as my grades, your overall GPA is 2.25, or a C+…same as me. hehehehe
by Sugar on Oct 8, 2009 3:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
it depends
On how many points you give for each grade. Normally an A is a 4.0 on a 4.0 scale which is why I had trouble translating as you obviously didn’t use that scale. But then that’s a scale where they usually only give grades of A, B, C, D and F (for 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0 points respectively). I was looking at your grades and wasn’t sure how many points you gave for the “off” letters (C+, B-, etc).
So how is a 2.25 the same grade as a 2.53? To me the 2.25 rounds down to a regular C and the 2.53 (since it’s just over 2.5) rounds up to a low B or high C.
Grading is a fun subject to me. When I went to high school in South Dakota (way, way back when) you had to get a 94+ to get an A, an 88+ to get a B and so on (6 points per grade). Then I moved to Missouri and you only needed a 90 for an A, 80 for A b AND SO ON (10 points per grade). But of course the difficulty of the test makes a bigger difference. personally I thought the tests in Missouri were even easier than SD so I felt like my last 2 years in MO were a repeat of my first 2 years in SD. Then I went to college in TX and hit reality.
But I’m ok either way. I mostly thought the OL graded worse and the RBs slightly better plus the WR’s haven’t looked good at all to me.
by ZakInOmaha on Oct 8, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had a similar experience
I switched schools and they changed what grades were what….plus they gave S’s and checkmarks! I was in the third grade. The first report card I brought home, I had NO idea how I had done in class so showing it to the parents was extra stressful.
by Sugar on Oct 8, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
interesting
S’s and checkmarks? How odd!
I don’t see the point in changing the grading scheme as everyone needs to learn at some point in life that sometimes you succeed and sometimes you fail. En joy the successes and learn from the failures but either way you have to get trying.
by ZakInOmaha on Oct 9, 2009 8:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wish I'd had you
grading me when I was in school. Seems to me you’re being very generous in several areas.
by grandpa grouse on Oct 8, 2009 3:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They grader harder in the one room schools
I know it’s all you know, this is good for the new big schools with multiple rooms and teachers
by dr WNC on Oct 8, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?!?!?
Multiple rooms? More than one teacher? Seems kinda wasteful to me. We all did fine in one room. And when ya spent 8 years in second grade, no one knew the difference!
by grandpa grouse on Oct 8, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem and The Answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIMCic1mkBA
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
by GeoFly on Oct 8, 2009 3:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
NO WAY the D-line & backers should get "B"s or even an "A" for effort.
Not when they are giving up the yards on the ground that they are against the lousy teams that they have been playing (with the exception of the Giants) go look what each of those other teams are averaging on the ground and see how much the gained against the Skins on the ground and the avg yards per rush against this defense…. it is not good, not putrid, but definitely BELOW AVERAGE!!!!
by freebird26 on Oct 8, 2009 4:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Stats
Stats, do not provide the whole picture but they do dispel outlandish generalized satements
The worse rushing team on average per carry this year after 4 games: San Diego Chargers at 2.7yds/att
St. Louis is a 4.4 avg rushing team, which was not all generated by the Redskin’s game
by dr WNC on Oct 8, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
B- for the O-Line?
The O-line is doing horribly. they are much worse than last year, especially now that Randy Thomas is gone. Campbell has no time to throw and portis has no where to run. Portis is playing as great as someone can running behind 2/5 linemen who can block and one lineman(Rhinehart) who gets run over y the d-line.
Get Oher or Maybin please
by Horcasitas4 on Oct 8, 2009 5:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Can we grade the playcalling? Is there anything lower than an F? F-?
http://dclandingstrip.blogspot.com/
by ninefttall on Oct 8, 2009 6:51 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

by 
















