The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

SkinsJock wrote:Portis and the other backs did not get the carries they should have. YES the line has to block but there is a reason that we have a very good run game after 10 games. In this game, we did what a lot of team's do - we went to a passing game - we lost.

And I think everyone knows we have to run the ball to be successful. However, Portis is badly banged up, and thus Zorn was presented with a Hobbsian choice; every carry you give Portis gives you a better chance to win, but you also have a greater chance of having him shelved for the season by aggravating/worsening his injuries.

And magnifying the Portis problem was Betts being banged up. When healthy, Betts is a fine alternative to Portis (he's not Portis, but he's quite good). However, since Betts was banged up AND he reinjured himself, Zorn's only option (if he wanted to keep Portis as an option for later in the season) was then to run the ball with Alexander.

At that point, you give up on running the ball, because Alexander gives you virtually nothing.

chiefhog44 wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
Points win games.

Defense wins championships.

Defense is meaningless when your offense cannot score more than 1 TD in a game.

PulpExposure wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Portis and the other backs did not get the carries they should have. YES the line has to block but there is a reason that we have a very good run game after 10 games. In this game, we did what a lot of team's do - we went to a passing game - we lost.

And I think everyone knows we have to run the ball to be successful. However, Portis is badly banged up, and thus Zorn was presented with a Hobbsian choice; every carry you give Portis gives you a better chance to win, but you also have a greater chance of having him shelved for the season by aggravating/worsening his injuries.

And magnifying the Portis problem was Betts being banged up. When healthy, Betts is a fine alternative to Portis (he's not Portis, but he's quite good). However, since Betts was banged up AND he reinjured himself, Zorn's only option (if he wanted to keep Portis as an option for later in the season) was then to run the ball with Alexander.

At that point, you give up on running the ball, because Alexander gives you virtually nothing.

The hole in that theory is that we don't have the pass to support the run of the run is the focus of the opposing defense. If the Giants get shut down in the run, they still have a valid enough passing game to support the lack of run. That's why their offense is successful and ours isn't.

VetSkinsFan wrote:The hole in that theory is that we don't have the pass to support the run of the run is the focus of the opposing defense. If the Giants get shut down in the run, they still have a valid enough passing game to support the lack of run. That's why their offense is successful and ours isn't.

It's not that hard to comprehend.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:The hole in that theory is that we don't have the pass to support the run of the run is the focus of the opposing defense. If the Giants get shut down in the run, they still have a valid enough passing game to support the lack of run. That's why their offense is successful and ours isn't.

It's not that hard to comprehend.

Obviously it is to some people (no one in specific being pointed out) or we wouldn't STILL be talking about this in week 12.

VetSkinsFan wrote:If you look at the dynasties, it's not their defense you remember, it's their offense. Defenses don't win championships IMO. Who were the cornerbacks on the 49ers when Montana, Craig, Rice were there?

Let me briefly answer your softball of a question and then I will make my point. DB's were Ronnie Lott (one of the best of all time, hall of famer, 8 time all pro), Eric Wright (2 time pro bowler) along with Carlton Williamson (2 time pro bowler) and Dwight Hicks (4 time pro bowler). They also had a sack master in Fred Dean, who you may remember was elected to the hall this year.

I believe you are wrong about championships. I feel that offense wins games as CLL points out (points win games), but Defense wins championships. Here's my feeling on the entire subject...very good offenses are more commen then very good defenses. Most of the time, very good offenses are part of teams that are in the playoffs. They win more games then the average team in the regular season. While most teams are average in the NFL these days, having a strong offense and one that scores, ususally puts the team into the playoffs. In the playoffs, most offenses are on a level playing field with one another. What sets teams apart in the playoffs, are the defenses. That's why defense seems more important in the postseason, and thus, the team with a stronger defense in the playoffs usually wins the championship.

I was merely pointing out that there is usually some dynamic of championship teams that stands out on the offense more than the defense. I'm saying it's not a part, I just don't think it's the majority.

As for the 49ers answer, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't google it and had that from memory.

chiefhog44 wrote:I feel that offense wins games as CLL points out (points win games), but Defense wins championships.

Per your theory, offense wins games and defense wins championships...

We're losing the games... We won't get to the championships if we don't win the games.

VetSkinsFan wrote:The hole in that theory is that we don't have the pass to support the run of the run is the focus of the opposing defense. If the Giants get shut down in the run, they still have a valid enough passing game to support the lack of run. That's why their offense is successful and ours isn't.

I'm not sure that's true, Vet. The only times this year that Manning's had to carry an offense, i.e., he's thrown for more than 250 yards are: (1) Against St. Louis (260 yards, 3 TDs), when they also ran for 200 yards; (2) Against the Seahawks (269), when they rushed for 254 yards; and (3) Against the Bengals (289, 1 TD)

When you look at the breakdown (rushing yards for each game versus Manning's game stats), I'm not sure the passing game for the Giants has EVER carried the day for them (well, I guess you could say he carried the day for them against the Bengals...an overtime win...).

In reality, he's just feeding off that insane running game (50% of the games they've run for 200+...and were kept under 100 only against the Steelers. Even more importantly, they keep pounding the ball, even if it's not working - witness the 35 carries against the Steelers). 11 of Manning's 15 TDs have come in games where the Giants have run for 200 or more.

The Giants offense is successful because they keep the ball out of Mannings hands. He's very 50/50 with his decision making... BUT they have outstanding WR's.

Burress - need I say more? Throw it up to him and draw a pass interference call. He's tall, lanky, makes awesome catches. A huge redzone threat.

Toomer - Another tall WR. Runs great routes, great hands.

Smith - Eli's safety blanket. Almost always makes the tough catch, great hands.

And don't they have Hixon? And they're TE is pretty average at best but can catch.

His offensive line can block extremely well. Their offense ticks because Jacbos is an instant 5 YPC. Easy to convert when you're getting 5-7 on 1st down.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:The Giants offense is successful because they keep the ball out of Mannings hands. He's very 50/50 with his decision making...

Exactly. He's just the beneficiary of a seriously great team.

VetSkinsFan wrote:I was merely pointing out that there is usually some dynamic of championship teams that stands out on the offense more than the defense. I'm saying it's not a part, I just don't think it's the majority.

As for the 49ers answer, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't google it and had that from memory.

Absolutely not. Google it. No way. San fran web site...absolutely

VetSkinsFan wrote:I was merely pointing out that there is usually some dynamic of championship teams that stands out on the offense more than the defense. I'm saying it's not a part, I just don't think it's the majority.

As for the 49ers answer, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't google it and had that from memory.

OMG!!! That was one of the deadliest defensive backfields in history! Chief Hog may have needed help, but I knew them. They were lethal... and the real reason SF won so many Championships.



Firm believer... Defense wins championships. I don't believe that there has ever been a top 10 offense that won a championship with a 25-32 ranked Defense...

Look no further than the Baltimore Ravens to find the opposite. All they asked the Offense to do was "don't lose the game".

Countertrey wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I was merely pointing out that there is usually some dynamic of championship teams that stands out on the offense more than the defense. I'm saying it's not a part, I just don't think it's the majority.

As for the 49ers answer, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't google it and had that from memory.

OMG!!! That was one of the deadliest defensive backfields in history! Chief Hog may have needed help, but I knew them. They were lethal... and the real reason SF won so many Championships.



Firm believer... Defense wins championships. I don't believe that there has ever been a top 10 offense that won a championship with a 25-32 ranked Defense...

Look no further than the Baltimore Ravens to find the opposite. All they asked the Offense to do was "don't lose the game".

The Colts had the 3rd ranked offense and 21st ranked defense in 2006.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I was merely pointing out that there is usually some dynamic of championship teams that stands out on the offense more than the defense. I'm saying it's not a part, I just don't think it's the majority.

As for the 49ers answer, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't google it and had that from memory.

OMG!!! That was one of the deadliest defensive backfields in history! Chief Hog may have needed help, but I knew them. They were lethal... and the real reason SF won so many Championships.



Firm believer... Defense wins championships. I don't believe that there has ever been a top 10 offense that won a championship with a 25-32 ranked Defense...

Look no further than the Baltimore Ravens to find the opposite. All they asked the Offense to do was "don't lose the game".

The Colts had the 3rd ranked offense and 21st ranked defense in 2006.

And that's what we call an extreme outlier...

in my opinion the giants defense caused the pats to play badly and the giants offense, while okay, still required minor miracles to pull the game out - now, not taking anything away from the victory but it was not exactly a great offense and IMO manning was not the mvp

winning drives are normally not in doubt - something that is normally controlled by a Brady, Elway, Montana, Staubach - but then again all those great comeback teams were mostly successful IMHO because the defense gave them the opportunity AND the QBs then made it stick.

the stupid pats lost a game that they really should have won and the same is true for the giants - they should have lost a game that they won


any given Sunday - but give me the best defense if I have to win 1 game

Defense wins the big ones, no doubt.

Lets take an example we are all familiar with: the 1991-1992 Superbowl winning Redskins.

Yep, we all remember the constant bombing by Rypien, solid running by Byner and Riggs and Ervins, the Posee, and of course The Hogs. Offense was 1st in scoring.

But what about the D?

That year they ranked SECOND in points allowed in the NFL with just 224 points allowed. Differential with offensive scoring was 261 points, obviously first in the league. Also: 18 plus on the turnover differential, 50 sacks, 27 interceptions and 24 fumble recoveries.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... .htm?redir


So yeah, defense wins Championships.

El Mexican wrote:Also: 18 plus on the turnover differential, 50 sacks, 27 interceptions and 24 fumble recoveries.

What happens when your offense can't convert those turnovers into points?

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

El Mexican wrote:Also: 18 plus on the turnover differential, 50 sacks, 27 interceptions and 24 fumble recoveries.

What happens when your offense can't convert those turnovers into points?

Even the worst team on offense right now, the Raiders, average 12 pts a game.


The D would have to hold them under 12 pts on avg.

What kills me about the whole thing is we get good yardage in a game.

Our avg yards per game is 336.3 which is 13th in the nfl.

But we are 27th in avg points per game. Not much better than the Raiders.

Other teams that avg about the same yards per game, avg more points per game.

The Jets avg 336.5 yards per game and 28.6 ppg

The chargers avg 336.2 per game and avg 25.4 ppg.

But we only avg 18.1 ppg.


The Steelers who just beat us, are only 25th in the nfl in yards per game, but avg 21.5 ppg. Thats sill only 22nd in ppg.

But they are doing two things better than us. Points in the red zone, and takaways.
The fact we have right higher yards per game, and they have more points, tells me we are not scoring in the redzone as much.

BnGhog wrote:But they are doing two things better than us. Points in the red zone, and takaways.
The fact we have right higher yards per game, and they have more points, tells me we are not scoring in the redzone as much.

It been like this since Gibbs was here. Our defense has consistenly been good enough that if we can put up 21 points a game on offense we'd win most of our games.

As usual it's the offense that's not contributing.

Maybe it's the eternal optimist in me, but I can't help but think that Kelly will make a huge difference in the red zone. Right now, teams can clamp down on ey, and Campbell has no one else to throw to (fades to Moss just don't seem to work...SO SURPRISINGLY).

A fade to Kelly, who is tall and can jump, could be a key play for us.

PulpExposure wrote:Maybe it's the eternal optimist in me, but I can't help but think that Kelly will make a huge difference in the red zone. Right now, teams can clamp down on ey, and Campbell has no one else to throw to (fades to Moss just don't seem to work...SO SURPRISINGLY).

A fade to Kelly, who is tall and can jump, could be a key play for us.

No. I feel the same way. It's not just you.

I agree also - it is a very big shame IMO that those 3 did not seem to come into training camp prepared to do whatever it takes to get ready to play in the NFL and that (again just my opinion) seemed to piss off the coaches and then they could never get into it because they were so far behind and were injured or a combination of a lot of things.

Zorn seems to be old fashioned in who gets to play and these 3 have hurt both the team and themselves.

It is just a shame but there must be something going on or Kelly would have been put on IR if only to teach him a lesson - I am just hoping that these 3 can start to contribute down the stretch, especially Kelly and Thomas - Having Thrash still playing as a WR for us speaks volumes about his commitment and the lack of progress by these 2 - they should be a lot further along by now. Not saying that they should be viable or playing at a high level but just contributing

CanesSkins26 wrote:The Colts had the 3rd ranked offense and 21st ranked defense in 2006.

Soooo... what part of "I don't believe that there has ever been a top 10 offense that won a championship with a 25-32 ranked Defense..." does that refute?

Beyond that, anyone (except the press) who watched last year's Superbowl know that: 1 - it was the Giant's defense that won that game, and; 2 - the MVP was a player from the defensive front 7.