sonnyboy;2879665 said:
WAS 7@NYG16 NO24@WAS29 ARI17@WAS24 WAS26@DAL24 WAS23@PHI17 STL19@WAS17 CLE11@WAS14 WAS25@DET17 PIT23@WAS6DAL14@WAS10 WAS20 @SEA17 NYG23@WAS7 WAS10@BAL24 WAS13@CIN20 PHI3@WAS10 WAS24@SF27
Here's the 2008 skins game results. Now a win is a win, a loss is a loss and you are what you are. I agree with all that happy horsesquat. But when you using past performance as a guage for furture results, you need to look into the numbers/results and try to derive as much meaning as possible.
The fact your D ranked 4th even though you only ranked #24 and #28 in SACKS and TOs is not a good thing.
I've seen this before with the 2003 Cowboys who ranked #1 in defense that year, yet couldn't generate a pass rush or turnovers. And because of that, they couldn't get people off the field when it really mattered. In reality, they were only slightly above average. They tackled well, they hustled and gave up few big plays. So how did they manage a #1 ranking in gross yards? Because they actually benefited from a weak offense that seldom threaten their opponents. They also seldom turned the ball over.
Does any of this sound familar?
See the skins 2008 defense was not the 4th best in football. Far from it. The gross yardage numbers benefited from a weaker, overly conservative offense.
Look at the results of your 16 games. You didn't win a single game by more than one score. That's unheard of for an 8 win team. Any one of those wins could have gone the other way. Yet amoung the 8 losses, you had sound defeats by margins of 17, 16 and 14. Games which you had little chance of winning.
What that tells me is that you were closer to a 6-7 win team than an 8 win team.
That's an interesting take, and I agree with most all of what you have written. Having said that, remember we are using that as a base reference for this year. So let's do a little applied history lesson.
1) the team recognized the weakness of the 24/28 ranking, and got 3 players, one proven, one both proven and questionable, and one unproven to specifically strengthen the weakness of the D. Since we are projecting at this point, based on history, we project that D Hall will significantly increase our turnover ratio. Further we project that AH will result in an increase in qb pressures and sacks. Finally Orakpo, may also increase the pressure thus forcing more 3 and outs, as well as TO's.
2)The 3 major losses were against the #1, #2, and #4 defenses of last year and also either without or with an injured Samuels, I am willing to concede our offensive inability to that group without our top lineman in top form. However, in our projections for this year we have to look at the teams we will be facing. Rather than facing the #1 and #2 D's in Pitt and Baltimore, we will face the #29 and #25 D's in SD and Denver, I think we all will agree that Denver's Off is going to be less assertive this year, and so, it is reasonable to project better Offensive outings against these 2 teams. As for the #4 D, the Giants, we were swept the last 2 years, so until we prove it on the field I count both games as losses. Now to be fair, we also played the #3 D twice, and beat them both times, neither game really was in jeopardy. Oh yeah and we split with the #8 D.
And finally, remember we are basing our projections on the reality of the past. In reality, our QB has improved statiscally each year, projecting forward, and accepting conventional wisdom that continuity is a positive, our QB now being in his second year of the same system, should at least maintain, and probably exceed his output of last year, and thus our Offense, again basing it on the past reality that our opposition this year is lesser than that of last year, we can project a more potent, not less potent attack. Will we rival Denver of last year no. But our O will certainly be better equipped to win by more then 7pts against lesser opponents this year.
:laugh2:
