Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by TheFinisher, Jan 1, 2013.
I'd like Adam to answer this question too.
I'm interested in reading his response.
Evidently, because it doesn't seem to mean anything to you that the Giants scored more TD per possession than we did, or that we attempted more FG, and that, given both teams' red zone TD %, there might be some connection there.
Also, it appears the Redskins passing game got better because of the threat of play action. Would you agree with this or disagree?
Which would you rather have?
a) More touchdowns and fewer points
b) More points and fewer touchdowns
Monte Ball come on down
And having more TD than the Giants would have meant having fewer points...why?
Garret is not remotely interested in a run first offense which is why he must be put in his place as leader of the team with someone else more suited to balanced play calling as OC.
But NONE of that is in Jerry's thoughts as far as we can tell.
The obvious lost to the periphery per usual.
Adjusted net yards per attempt.
Got better than what?
I didn't say that.
I asked which you would rather have.
In that case, I'd rather have more TD and more points.
Then in the first and second quarter when the Redskins weren't passing as well.
In the second half, the passing game (what few times RGIII threw the ball) got better because of the thread of the play-action pass. After the Redskins went up 14-7, they began to rely on the run.
If that's the case, if our running game did what theirs actually did and they had ours, who do you think would have won the game?
In anothers words, if our running game produced 270+ yards and 3 TDs and they only ran for 100 yards for 0 TDs.
Again, not what I asked.
This is why I have problem with what you are saying. I don't agree that their passing game was "MUCH" better like you say.
Here are the passing stats from Sunday.
Passing CP/AT YDS TD INT
R. Griffin 9/18 100 0 0
T. Romo 20/37 218 2 3
Yes Romo had 3 ints but he also passed for twice the yards and 2 TDs. I believe they both had bad passing night. RG3 passes just enough to keep the drive alive. He was throwing balls to the ground and had some passes that could have been intercepted. Yes Romo had a bad night but I didn't think RG3 did any better.
Even Broddaus commented that had RG3 passed more, we would have gotten some INTS. RG3 didn't have to since their run game was killing us.
Completing 50% of your passes for 100yards and no TDs aren't going to win you many games. Unless you have a great run game like RG3 had.
If it were an either /or, I'd take the points over the TD.
But again, since having more TD doesn't necessarily mean scoring fewer points, it's not an either/or, so there's no point to such a question.
We could have scored more TD per possession, and had more points per possession than the Giants in 2011.
RG3 isn't a traditional QB, he plays such a big factor in the Redskins running game.
It almost certainly still would have depended on which team passed more effectively. We outrushed Baltimore 227-86 (and 5.4 YPC to 3.9), but the Ravens were more effective throwing the ball, and we lost. The Redskins outrushed Cincinnati 213-93 but were less effective throwing the ball and lost. The Redskins outrushed the Giants 248-64 but were less effective throwing the ball and lost. The Chiefs outrushed the Colts 352-90 but were less effective throwing the ball and lost.
If you don't throw the ball better than your opponent, you'll lose about 80 percent of the time, no matter how well you run it.
Dallas has to figure out a way to get the offense going sooner. This season Romo reverted back to his 2006-2008 form in the first quarter (61 QBR), and this league is too close to constantly give away big chunks of the game. We can't blame that on supporting cast (at least not the supporting cast that's on the field) since sc would be a constant. It would be ideal if they could just throw it better, but absent any real plan to accomplish that...
Griffin was a lot better, but that's not to say he was good. Romo was so bad Sunday that Griffin's exceedingly pedestrian game was much better by comparison. Sure, Romo had twice as many yards, but he threw the ball twice as many times. He may have had a small edge in yards per pass, but three turnovers to zero was the reason Dallas left a loser and Washington moves on to play Seattle.
Then you're wrong.
And Romo was sacked twice for 22 yards, and Griffin was sacked once for 13.
We averaged 5.03 yards per pass play AND threw three interceptions. The Redskins averaged 4.59 yards and threw no interceptions. Neither of those is great, but I'd take the Redskins' passing performance over ours 100 times out of 100. Ours was horrendous.
Saying that we would have gotten interceptions or that Griffin would have been worse if he needed to pass more is baseless speculation. We had very few interceptions all season, and Griffin threw very few. It was just as likely that he would burn us deep like he did to other teams all season, including us on Thanksgiving.
If that's better than your opponent, it will be good enough about 80 percent of the time. The Redskins' pass defense played a much bigger role in their victory than their running offense did.
Suppose Romo hadn't thrown that third interception, but instead had passed us down the field for the winning touchdown in the final seconds. The Redskins' running game would have been for naught. But no, our pass offense continued to be abysmal (or, if you'd rather, the Redskins' pass defense continued to be stellar).