If our coaching staff, Wilson and our O-Line don't effectively protect against the blitz.

Shanahan and his staff knows that he's outmatched personnel wise, so he's going to do what they did in the Dallas game, blitz the hell out of Wilson to force mistakes and long down and distances. We saw the Rams do it last game, which resulted in six first half sacks and WAY TOO MANY 2nd/3rd and longs.

This game should be a bout quick hits, rollouts, draws, screens and big passing plays down field. If if takes Sweezy and the rest of the O-Line well into the 2nd half like the Rams game to get their protection issues figured out, it could be a long day for our offense.

To me it'll be about not giving up the big play.

Yes our secondary has been good; no, we haven't been burned very often at all by big plays - BUT - I have seen a lot of very close calls. Some dropped balls in games that should have been caught for huge plays, and some poor throws by usually accurate QB's. We've been a little lucky in that regard. Granted, EVERY team has these close calls and the fact that we play good defense in the secondary means the opportunities just aren't happening enough for offenses to capitalize on them.

Still, RG3 has a great arm and they have some big-play type receivers. They are going to get their points but as in so many of our games, we have to make them sweat and hopefully wear them down by the 4th quarter to earn them.

good thing rams game went the way it did then, good film to find better ways to beat the blitz... hopefully

Sgt. Largent wrote:If our coaching staff, Wilson and our O-Line don't effectively protect against the blitz.

Shanahan and his staff knows that he's outmatched personnel wise, so he's going to do what they did in the Dallas game, blitz the hell out of Wilson to force mistakes and long down and distances. We saw the Rams do it last game, which resulted in six first half sacks and WAY TOO MANY 2nd/3rd and longs.

This game should be a bout quick hits, rollouts, draws, screens and big passing plays down field. If if takes Sweezy and the rest of the O-Line well into the 2nd half like the Rams game to get their protection issues figured out, it could be a long day for our offense.

I think your giving Washington too much credit. The Rams lead the league in Sacks, They have a dominant pass rush. The Redskins finished behind Seattle in Sacks by 5. Sure they'll blitz, but that doesn't guarantee they'll get home. Dallas had time to throw despite all those blitzes last week. INfact it it wasn't for Romo throwing three horrific picks they probably win that game.

Interesting stats brought up in the Sportsguy podcast with football outsiders iirc, that the Seahawks offense is the worst in the league when the defense blitzes from the DB position, and that the Redskins either blitz a DB more than any other team or has more sacks than any team in the league when blitzing a DB. - I forget the exact on the latter, but the former in near 100% on.

Agreed, with the addition of controlling the ball and our emotions. The last game was a glimpse into the early season penalty festivals and it simply has to stop.

jlwaters1 wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:If our coaching staff, Wilson and our O-Line don't effectively protect against the blitz.

Shanahan and his staff knows that he's outmatched personnel wise, so he's going to do what they did in the Dallas game, blitz the hell out of Wilson to force mistakes and long down and distances. We saw the Rams do it last game, which resulted in six first half sacks and WAY TOO MANY 2nd/3rd and longs.

This game should be a bout quick hits, rollouts, draws, screens and big passing plays down field. If if takes Sweezy and the rest of the O-Line well into the 2nd half like the Rams game to get their protection issues figured out, it could be a long day for our offense.

I think your giving Washington too much credit. The Rams lead the league in Sacks, They have a dominant pass rush. The Redskins finished behind Seattle in Sacks by 5. Sure they'll blitz, but that doesn't guarantee they'll get home. Dallas had time to throw despite all those blitzes last week. INfact it it wasn't for Romo throwing three horrific picks they probably win that game.

Our blitz isn't all that, but we have the home "jump" that you guys enjoy when playing on your home turf. The crowd noise will make things more difficult on your OL without false starting.

Our blitz forced Romo into 2 of those picks...one of them was entirely on him though. That said, your run game is much stronger so the blitz this week will be negated to some extent just by that.

jlwaters1 wrote:
I think your giving Washington too much credit. The Rams lead the league in Sacks, They have a dominant pass rush. The Redskins finished behind Seattle in Sacks by 5. Sure they'll blitz, but that doesn't guarantee they'll get home. Dallas had time to throw despite all those blitzes last week. INfact it it wasn't for Romo throwing three horrific picks they probably win that game.

Romo didn't throw four picks because he had lots of time, he threw them BECAUSE of the blitzes Washington bringing on a constant basis.

Obviously I have more faith in RW than Romo, but that doesn't negate the fact that our O-Line's protection has to be rock solid against the blitz...........which btw has been the weakest part of our O-Line this year.

Yeah, STL has some phenomenal talent up front and brings the heat as well as any team in the league. I think if Washington tries to blitz Rusty like they blitzed Romo, he could really take advantage of their overzealousness and make them pay. Russ has been watching film of that Dallas game. He'll know what they're doing before they do.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

jlwaters1 wrote:
I think your giving Washington too much credit. The Rams lead the league in Sacks, They have a dominant pass rush. The Redskins finished behind Seattle in Sacks by 5. Sure they'll blitz, but that doesn't guarantee they'll get home. Dallas had time to throw despite all those blitzes last week. INfact it it wasn't for Romo throwing three horrific picks they probably win that game.

Romo didn't throw four picks because he had lots of time, he threw them BECAUSE of the blitzes Washington bringing on a constant basis.

Obviously I have more faith in RW than Romo, but that doesn't negate the fact that our O-Line's protection has to be rock solid against the blitz...........which btw has been the weakest part of our O-Line this year.

He threw 3 picks. 2 of which we failed to score pts after in the first half. The 3rd when we were up 21-18, was the backbreaker. Rob Jackson made a phenomenal play and fake blitzed then dropped back to cover the FB when he saw Romo had gestured to the FB and tipped his hand.

I think the biggest thing is not beating ourselves. Clearly, had we not have made so many mistakes against the Rams, the outcome would be a little more convincing. 10 penalty's for 80 yard's is bad enough, let alone 45 yards of it from defense in itself. We have (in my opinion) three head coaches on our team, so really, I am not worried about being "outcoached". Tom Cable will take care of the o-line, I mean come on, he is the mastermind behind it.

RiggoReincarnated wrote:
He threw 3 picks. 2 of which we failed to score pts after in the first half. The 3rd when we were up 21-18, was the backbreaker. Rob Jackson made a phenomenal play and fake blitzed then dropped back to cover the FB when he saw Romo had gestured to the FB and tipped his hand.

I have a ton of respect for the skins and if you beat us, chances are I'll be rooting for the skins to take out everyone else.

However that wasn't a phenomenal play, it was a standard play in that situation.

Lets call it what it is...another in a long line of Tony Romo choke-jobs, horrible throw, even worse decision.

TalonHawk wrote:I think the biggest thing is not beating ourselves. Clearly, had we not have made so many mistakes against the Rams, the outcome would be a little more convincing. 10 penalty's for 80 yard's is bad enough, let alone 45 yards of it from defense in itself. We have (in my opinion) three head coaches on our team, so really, I am not worried about being "outcoached". Tom Cable will take care of the o-line, I mean come on, he is the mastermind behind it.

I'm not worried about being out coached, I'm worried about our O-Line (in particular Sweezy) missing protection assignments like they did against the Rams, and to a lesser extent against other blitz heavy teams.

This is not a preparation worry, I have no doubt the coaches are scheming for the blitz.............this is a "is our O-Line going to hold up against the Skins blitzing the hell out of us from every direction" worry.

I'm far more concerned about our defense protecting the middle of the field. With Browner back and Sherman still playing, we've got the corners protected. We need our linebackers to stay assignment correct.

http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/...-nfl-playoffs/

Since 1980, 30 teams have been Vegas underdogs at home in the playoffs.

Those underdogs won the game straight up 20 out of 30 times.

Those underdogs are 21-8-1 against the spread

This shows two things...over a 30+ year history, underdogs at home in the playoffs have been undervalued. It also shows that if they cover, they are likely to win outright...only once in 30 examples do we see an underdog that covered and lost.

Three of the past four home underdogs in the playoffs won outright:

2010:

--Chiefs were a slight underdog in KC vs Ravens and got drilled
--Seahawks were 10.5 point dog at home and upset Saints

2011:

--Broncos were 9 point dogs vs Steelers and won
--49ers were 3 point dogs vs Saints and won a thriller

Of couse this has nothing to do with the game this weekend, but it's interesting none the less.

It's funny how worried about the blitz you guys are and i'm sure it's all in your coaches heads as well. We went total opposite of the first gameplan we threw at Romo where we didnt Blitz at all. This is why it worked so well since they didnt expect it.

Shanny is big on putting things on film to make teams prepare for it and I wouldnt be surprised if we showed a lot of blitzes and bailed pre-snap. We've also done this a lot.

I think Russell Wilson has proved that he can turn around whatever category the Offense is the worst at. We've seen it with 3rd down efficiency and Red Zone success. This is what gets folks when they analyze this team.

Russell's coaches have said that he is an extraordinary learner. It takes one time. You can see it when you look at where we have progressed on the Offensive side of the ball this season. I believe that this is the talent that makes him different. You think you have a weakness to exploit and he negates it by learning quickly to overcome it.

When you look at the Rams game, the 2nd half was a completely different story from the first. In the first half, Russell didn't know where to go to get away from the pressure. In the 2nd half he started escaping and they also adjusted the gameplan.

LuvMySkins wrote:It's funny how worried about the blitz you guys are and i'm sure it's all in your coaches heads as well. We went total opposite of the first gameplan we threw at Romo where we didnt Blitz at all. This is why it worked so well since they didnt expect it.

Shanny is big on putting things on film to make teams prepare for it and I wouldnt be surprised if we showed a lot of blitzes and bailed pre-snap. We've also done this a lot.

we'd be worried about the blitz vs. any opponent, and in any case it would be something we'd spend time on. Our guards haven't been very consistent this season. Our LT and C have been excellent, RT has been okay when he's not manufacturing stupid penalties, but our guard play has been one of the weak links on an otherwise top-to-bottom solid roster.

It would be silly of Shanahan to not sent multiple blitzers at them.

However I wont be surprised if we see a lot more of WIlson running this game, trying to out-rg3 rg3.

LuvMySkins wrote:It's funny how worried about the blitz you guys are and i'm sure it's all in your coaches heads as well. We went total opposite of the first gameplan we threw at Romo where we didnt Blitz at all. This is why it worked so well since they didnt expect it.

Shanny is big on putting things on film to make teams prepare for it and I wouldnt be surprised if we showed a lot of blitzes and bailed pre-snap. We've also done this a lot.

It worked because Romo is a failure.

If you don't blitz Wilson, he's going to burn the tar out of your gameplan. For all this talk of Shanahan, people forget how intelligent Wilson is. He's already devoured your team's defensive film and found the holes. He's not going to get confused.

Rdskns4eva, you do realize that Vegas lines have nothing to do with who they think is going to win, right? Those lines, and how they adjust and where they adjust to, are all about keeping betting action going on both sides so Vegas basically can't lose.

RolandDeschain wrote:Rdskns4eva, you do realize that Vegas lines have nothing to do with who they think is going to win, right? Those lines, and how they adjust and where they adjust to, are all about keeping betting action going on both sides so Vegas basically can't lose.

You mean they aren't just there to be helpful ego-boosters for fans???? GET OUT.

LuvMySkins wrote:It's funny how worried about the blitz you guys are and i'm sure it's all in your coaches heads as well. We went total opposite of the first gameplan we threw at Romo where we didnt Blitz at all. This is why it worked so well since they didnt expect it.

Shanny is big on putting things on film to make teams prepare for it and I wouldnt be surprised if we showed a lot of blitzes and bailed pre-snap. We've also done this a lot.

Shanny? That's so cute.

The reason the Skins have to blitz so much is because their defense was mediocre to begin with (#26 in total defense), add in key injuries and voila you have no choice but to blitz to get any sort or pressure.

Like I said, the ONLY way I see you guys winning is to continue this trend in hopes that the Hawks protection breaks down. If you back off then RW is going to carve you to pieces with accuracy, the read and copious amounts of Beast Mode.

Offensively, I'm concerned about how we cover/scheme for Fletcher. That dude has got to be targeted in the blocking schemes. If we can get past him, the RB's will have a good day. If we get the running game going early, then that will give us better opportunities in the air. Pass rush is not any more of a concern than normal. Russ will have his chances.

Defensively, I agree with others who lean toward linebacker play. Our guys play very well collectively, are fast, and have good hands. If the LB's play well, the defense plays well. KJ has got to play big.

The Option Read can exploit the blitz - Russell can roll out with Lynch downfield ahead of him and just throw it over the blitzer's heads. We did this against SL and eked out a win. And like somebody said, the Skins don't blitz as good. Bring the corner blitz, man - we got the Read - let's see who wins.

RolandDeschain wrote:Rdskns4eva, you do realize that Vegas lines have nothing to do with who they think is going to win, right? Those lines, and how they adjust and where they adjust to, are all about keeping betting action going on both sides so Vegas basically can't lose.

Yea, I know. The article just says that in games that the home team as the underdog in the Playoffs, the home team usually wins. Not all the time, but about 66% of the time (20 wins, 10 losses). Data goes back to 1980.

I think the key matchup is going to be our d-line vs their o-line. If we can win that battle, victory is ours. If we let them establish the run, it is going to be a very tight game.

HoustonHawk82 wrote:Offensively, I'm concerned about how we cover/scheme for Fletcher. That dude has got to be targeted in the blocking schemes. If we can get past him, the RB's will have a good day. If we get the running game going early, then that will give us better opportunities in the air. Pass rush is not any more of a concern than normal. Russ will have his chances.

Defensively, I agree with others who lean toward linebacker play. Our guys play very well collectively, are fast, and have good hands. If the LB's play well, the defense plays well. KJ has got to play big.

fletcher is like 40 years old isn't he? romo made him look like LT..... i guess he still has game, but does not worry me to the point we have to scheme for him like you would Aldon Smith, or Vaughn Miller , Matthews someone like that.. could be wrong.

Sgt. Largent wrote:If our coaching staff, Wilson and our O-Line don't effectively protect against the blitz.

Shanahan and his staff knows that he's outmatched personnel wise, so he's going to do what they did in the Dallas game, blitz the hell out of Wilson to force mistakes and long down and distances. We saw the Rams do it last game, which resulted in six first half sacks and WAY TOO MANY 2nd/3rd and longs.

This game should be a bout quick hits, rollouts, draws, screens and big passing plays down field. If if takes Sweezy and the rest of the O-Line well into the 2nd half like the Rams game to get their protection issues figured out, it could be a long day for our offense.

This game won't be lost because our offense wasn't good enough. This game will be lost because our defense couldn't hold RGIII and his WR's in the 4th quarter for a game-winning FG/TD. Our defense has not yet proven to anyone that they can stop an opposing offense on the road in the 4th quarter when the game is on the line.

Numbers also show that teams with either a top-3 offense or a top-3 defense are considerably more likely to win the Super Bowl than teams without either one of those. Seahawks are 4th on offense and defense, and 3rd in special teams. Redskins aren't top-5 in any of those. The most telling stat, IMO, is that in the history of the Super Bowl, only 2 bottom-half offenses have ever won it, and only 3 bottom-half defenses have. You guys have a bottom-half defense, making it very unlikely you can win the Super Bowl. The few teams that had both a top-5 offense and defense have won most of the Super Bowls they've made it to, but teams that rank that highly on both sides of the ball are just plain rare. Things are looking very good in Seahawks land, and most signs point to the Seahawks winning. Not that we can't lose; we certainly can. It's just not likely.

RolandDeschain wrote:Numbers also show that teams with either a top-3 offense or a top-3 defense are considerably more likely to win the Super Bowl than teams without either one of those. Seahawks are 4th on offense and defense, and 3rd in special teams. Redskins aren't top-5 in any of those. The most telling stat, IMO, is that in the history of the Super Bowl, only 2 bottom-half offenses have ever won it, and only 3 bottom-half defenses have. You guys have a bottom-half defense, making it very unlikely you can win the Super Bowl. The few teams that had both a top-5 offense and defense have won most of the Super Bowls they've made it to, but teams that rank that highly on both sides of the ball are just plain rare. Things are looking very good in Seahawks land, and most signs point to the Seahawks winning. Not that we can't lose; we certainly can. It's just not likely.

This post has given me more hope than all that I've read today.

Whether you are a fan of statistics or not, they do not lie. I agree that so many of the planets are indeed in alignment here. This team, at this time, and with what has been accomplished and measured to date... it just feels right.

hawker84 wrote:fletcher is like 40 years old isn't he? romo made him look like LT..... i guess he still has game, but does not worry me to the point we have to scheme for him like you would Aldon Smith, or Vaughn Miller , Matthews someone like that.. could be wrong.

That "40 years old" player just won NFC Defensive Player of the Month. Fletcher has been balling his tail off the last 4-5 games and is one of the best MLBs in the game. Don't sleep.

RolandDeschain wrote:Numbers also show that teams with either a top-3 offense or a top-3 defense are considerably more likely to win the Super Bowl than teams without either one of those. Seahawks are 4th on offense and defense, and 3rd in special teams. Redskins aren't top-5 in any of those. The most telling stat, IMO, is that in the history of the Super Bowl, only 2 bottom-half offenses have ever won it, and only 3 bottom-half defenses have. You guys have a bottom-half defense, making it very unlikely you can win the Super Bowl. The few teams that had both a top-5 offense and defense have won most of the Super Bowls they've made it to, but teams that rank that highly on both sides of the ball are just plain rare. Things are looking very good in Seahawks land, and most signs point to the Seahawks winning. Not that we can't lose; we certainly can. It's just not likely.

We have a top 5 offense.


Wait, are you talking yards, points or Pro Football focus stats? Just want to be certain because on this board cause it seems like Pro Football focus are the only stats people look at on here.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-r ... oa-ratings

he's talking DVOA, which may not be the universal measurement but it's probably better than just looking at 'yards'.

rdskns4eva wrote:

RolandDeschain wrote:Rdskns4eva, you do realize that Vegas lines have nothing to do with who they think is going to win, right? Those lines, and how they adjust and where they adjust to, are all about keeping betting action going on both sides so Vegas basically can't lose.

Yea, I know. The article just says that in games that the home team as the underdog in the Playoffs, the home team usually wins. Not all the time, but about 66% of the time (20 wins, 10 losses). Data goes back to 1980.

I found the data interesting. Thanks

Hawknballs wrote:http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2012/final-2012-dvoa-ratings

he's talking DVOA, which may not be the universal measurement but it's probably better than just looking at 'yards'.

Ok, just wanted to be sure, DVOA is fine, and I've aleady admitted that the Hawks have a better offense, but that does not mean that I dont think we are a top 5 offense. We are. We are number 4 in points and 5 in yards going by raw stats. Thats damn good.

rdskns4eva wrote:

Hawknballs wrote:http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2012/final-2012-dvoa-ratings

he's talking DVOA, which may not be the universal measurement but it's probably better than just looking at 'yards'.

Ok, just wanted to be sure, DVOA is fine, and I've aleady admitted that the Hawks have a better offense, but that does not mean that I dont think we are a top 5 offense. We are. We are number 4 in points and 5 in yards going by raw stats. Thats damn good.

Should be a good matchup then vs. the Seahawks defense, #4 in yards allowed and #1 in points allowed.

If there's any player I'm not worried about being eaten by a blitz it's Russell Wilson. You're going to see a lot of McCoy/Miller in this game and it's going to make skinz fans cry.

The only reason this game is close is because I expect the crowd to show up and keep RGIII motivated. All the Shanny's in the world couldn't win this game for the 'Skinz.

LuvMySkins wrote:

hawker84 wrote:fletcher is like 40 years old isn't he? romo made him look like LT..... i guess he still has game, but does not worry me to the point we have to scheme for him like you would Aldon Smith, or Vaughn Miller , Matthews someone like that.. could be wrong.

That "40 years old" player just won NFC Defensive Player of the Month. Fletcher has been balling his tail off the last 4-5 games and is one of the best MLBs in the game. Don't sleep.

sorry dude that's great and all, but RW made Aldon smith and Patrick Willis and Bowman , three of the best LB's in the game look like chumps repeatedly... not worried about old ass London Fletcher.

The interesting thing to me is we've been crucifying and vilifying our defense all year for not getting pressure with the sacks. It's been a weakness, and one of the more hand-wringing debate topics around these parts for most of the year. We finished with several more sacks on the season than the Redskins, and yet their fans seem to shrug it off thinking they'll still get to Wilson just fine. Sometimes I wish we had that optimism.

To me the key is our pass rush on the road, it has been non-existent most of the year. If we give RG3 all day, it could be a long day. Gotta' get pressure on him.

Seahawk Sailor wrote:The interesting thing to me is we've been crucifying and vilifying our defense all year for not getting pressure with the sacks. It's been a weakness, and one of the more hand-wringing debate topics around these parts for most of the year. We finished with several more sacks on the season than the Redskins, and yet their fans seem to shrug it off thinking they'll still get to Wilson just fine. Sometimes I wish we had that optimism.

I think there's a difference between sacks and pressure.

Yes Clemons and Irvin have had good years with sacks, but IMO there's still a problem with getting consistent pressure on the QB, especially from the interior. Bradford is a perfect example last week..........WAY too much time in the pocket.

With the Hawks it seems to be feast or famine in regards to the D-Line. I'll still put our line up against 75% of the league, but I'd still like to see more consistent pressure from the front 4.

kmedic wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:If our coaching staff, Wilson and our O-Line don't effectively protect against the blitz.

Shanahan and his staff knows that he's outmatched personnel wise, so he's going to do what they did in the Dallas game, blitz the hell out of Wilson to force mistakes and long down and distances. We saw the Rams do it last game, which resulted in six first half sacks and WAY TOO MANY 2nd/3rd and longs.

This game should be a bout quick hits, rollouts, draws, screens and big passing plays down field. If if takes Sweezy and the rest of the O-Line well into the 2nd half like the Rams game to get their protection issues figured out, it could be a long day for our offense.

This game won't be lost because our offense wasn't good enough. This game will be lost because our defense couldn't hold RGIII and his WR's in the 4th quarter for a game-winning FG/TD. Our defense has not yet proven to anyone that they can stop an opposing offense on the road in the 4th quarter when the game is on the line.

That's not true. They did it twice against Carolina- First in stopping Newton inside the 2 yard line and then Irvin's strip-sack of Newton to end the game.

Seahawk Sailor wrote:The interesting thing to me is we've been crucifying and vilifying our defense all year for not getting pressure with the sacks. It's been a weakness, and one of the more hand-wringing debate topics around these parts for most of the year. We finished with several more sacks on the season than the Redskins, and yet their fans seem to shrug it off thinking they'll still get to Wilson just fine. Sometimes I wish we had that optimism.

While I don't think we'll sack RGIII I think we'll be able to contain him. We're fast, just not good enough to shed the pass block. Unfortunately RGIII is a solid pocket passer. Unfortunately for him, we eat pocket passers for lunch.

Sherman bait time!

Point out where Skins fans are saying they'll get to Wilson just fine please? I think most of us are well aware of our defensive problems. Especially with pressuring the QB. The Cowboys game surprised all of us with both the amount of blitzing we did and the effectiveness of it.

I think the folks that have mentioned that a lack of pass rush will hurt the Seahawks chances are right on the money. That played a big role in our last two losses against Miami and Detroit. Our struggling to block Soliai and Wake when we wanted to run the ball also killed us against the Phins.

Not to mention getting gashed in the run game ourselves against the Phins, and the first San Fran game.

As usual, the team that wins the line of scrimmage battle will win the game.

rdskns4eva wrote:We have a top 5 offense.


Wait, are you talking yards, points or Pro Football focus stats? Just want to be certain because on this board cause it seems like Pro Football focus are the only stats people look at on here.

Uh, we don't really look at Pro Football Focus around here. We primarily use Football Outsiders, and they have your offense ranked 6th. They're also by FAR the best stats website out there. If you disagree or aren't sure, read the basics of how they calculate their statistics: http://footballoutsiders.com/info/methods They factor in how good your opponents are. Quick example; QB1 and QB2 have identical stats across the board for a particular game, but QB1 took 3 sacks, and QB2 took 2 sacks. If the opponent QB2 faced has a far weaker pass rush than QB1's opponent, QB1 has a better ranking despite worse stats because they factor in how good the opponent is. There's a lot more to it than that, which you can read the basics of on the link I just posted, and I recommend that you do so. Stats can and do lie, but Football Outsiders has by far the most "truthful" stats, you might say. DVOA = win.

Yards are almost irrelevant. Look at the Lions, 6,540 total offense yards, good for 3rd in the league; yet they finished 4-12. The Redskins finished the season ranked 4th in points per game, but Football Outsiders penalizes you some for it because of the strength (or lack thereof, in your case) of your opponents.

jlwaters1 wrote:

kmedic wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:If our coaching staff, Wilson and our O-Line don't effectively protect against the blitz.

Shanahan and his staff knows that he's outmatched personnel wise, so he's going to do what they did in the Dallas game, blitz the hell out of Wilson to force mistakes and long down and distances. We saw the Rams do it last game, which resulted in six first half sacks and WAY TOO MANY 2nd/3rd and longs.

This game should be a bout quick hits, rollouts, draws, screens and big passing plays down field. If if takes Sweezy and the rest of the O-Line well into the 2nd half like the Rams game to get their protection issues figured out, it could be a long day for our offense.

This game won't be lost because our offense wasn't good enough. This game will be lost because our defense couldn't hold RGIII and his WR's in the 4th quarter for a game-winning FG/TD. Our defense has not yet proven to anyone that they can stop an opposing offense on the road in the 4th quarter when the game is on the line.

That's not true. They did it twice against Carolina- First in stopping Newton inside the 2 yard line and then Irvin's strip-sack of Newton to end the game.

Firstly, since that game, they've lost to Detroit and Miami both in the 4th quarter after the defense couldn't hold the lead. They also would have lost the game in Chicago if it hadn't been for the heroics of RW.

Secondly, that game against Carolina we got extremely lucky. Remember they drove down the field and had 1st and goal to put the game away. There was a wide open TE in the end zone and thanks to Newton's horrible throw we got off the hook....barely.

I haven't seen our defense make a "play" late in the 4th quarter in those situations to ice the game. Every single time on the road in a close game the opposing team has driven down the field and either won it or tied (or in the case of Carolina choked).

I'm not saying that we're gonna lose this week's game, but if we do, I would bet money this is the way it will occur.

RolandDeschain wrote:

rdskns4eva wrote:We have a top 5 offense.


Wait, are you talking yards, points or Pro Football focus stats? Just want to be certain because on this board cause it seems like Pro Football focus are the only stats people look at on here.

Uh, we don't really look at Pro Football Focus around here. We primarily use Football Outsiders, and they have your offense ranked 6th. They're also by FAR the best stats website out there. If you disagree or aren't sure, read the basics of how they calculate their statistics: http://footballoutsiders.com/info/methods They factor in how good your opponents are. Quick example; QB1 and QB2 have identical stats across the board for a particular game, but QB1 took 3 sacks, and QB2 took 2 sacks. If the opponent QB2 faced has a far weaker pass rush than QB1's opponent, QB1 has a better ranking despite worse stats because they factor in how good the opponent is. There's a lot more to it than that, which you can read the basics of on the link I just posted, and I recommend that you do so. Stats can and do lie, but Football Outsiders has by far the most "truthful" stats, you might say. DVOA = win.

Yards are almost irrelevant. Look at the Lions, 6,540 total offense yards, good for 3rd in the league; yet they finished 4-12. The Redskins finished the season ranked 4th in points per game, but Football Outsiders penalizes you some for it because of the strength (or lack thereof, in your case) of your opponents.

Sorry, I meant to say Pro Football Outsiders.

I dont think yards are irrelevant to a certain degree...passing yards can be, but not rushing yards. I dont think anyone is saying that Petersons yards are irrelevant. It depends on the context. I said in another post that passing yards are the most overrated stat in football today because everyone throws for 4000+ yards a year now.

Also, while I do like the stats breakdown on PFO, if you are ranked in the top 5 in points and yards and are top 5 in the NFL in turnover ratio (the most important stat of them all), you're doing something right.

You guys have a very good offense, I'm not saying otherwise; but it's not top 5 by the best metric out there, is all. Though, very close to it.