Repetition, Repetiton, Repetition...

[MustangSteve]

I can only agree with the op, in any sport or anything, practice makes perfect, that's a fact and it will always be like that. Which makes me think, is our defense even practicing? We have seen some lost looks on the faces of some of our defenses players. Practice also brings confidence, and this team needs it on both sides of the ball.

I'm not sure how Shanny is practicing, but I do remember in 1991 Joe Gibbs would have his game plan finished and ready early in the week so the players could practice it all week, and they knew what to do come game day. I'm just not seeing that in this team. I think oldfan is right, it's time to drill this into these players, the plays, the snap count, the assignments and game plan period.

Lets turn this ship around Mike and lets fight like hell for this division this year, whether to early or not, whether ready or not. Be the man and team that wants to stand up and claim this division, it's wide open and yours for the taking.

[darrelgreenie]

SIP-Just want a direct answer to this question: How then can Garcon be a cause (not thee cause but a cause) of the drop specifically in YPP that Keim mentioned (which you support) when he was non-participant in both the high YPP and the low YPP?

Cosell said simple but disguised well and he never said its simple to stop. Jon Gruden talked about the Redskins offense the other day with the La times, praising at least that's how I took it. The one critique Cosell had and said so last week is that the Skins should throw more from the pocket to facilitate RG 3's development.

Unless there is something am missing -- we are spinning our wheels because to me this point

Listen for yourself: Oct.10

Greg Cosell: "...[Griffin] did not pull the trigger in the pocket to a wide open Morgan...[Griffin] missed an easy TD"

"They run a fairly simple pass game. So I think they struggle in longer yardage situations. I don't think they're difficult to defend conceptually......Base run game, simple pass game with play action and "either/or" reads"
http://www.stationcaster.com/player_...c=426&f=822251

---------- Post added November-12th-2012 at 09:14 AM ----------

But, the label is deceptive, QBR doesn't measure a QB's performance in isolation. It measures the performance of QBs playing for their respective teams and against different opponents..................Who is performing better at QB, Andrew or Robert? You can't answer the question because you were given two useless QBR numbers. In order to answer the question you would need to grade Andrew and Robert separately -- and the only way to do that intelligently is by comparing their skillsets...................Repeating my point from my previous post: If the QBR does not show that RG3 is a better QB than Luck, then you should realize at once that the formula is flawed in some serious way.

I can't speak to whether the label is deceptive. I was just answering your question.

There are parts of the QBR that I believe in and parts that I already pointed out are flawed.
And it wasn't until recently that the Luck pass EPA surpasses Griffin's. So, if we're going by the Pass EPA like I said in my previous post they didn't even rank Luck higher then Griffin.

You cannot judge a QBs performance based on skillset. Skillset is static, performance is not.
If you're asking me who has the better skillset I've long since said that I think Griffin is clearly the more physical gifted QB.

[Oldfan]

...You cannot judge a QBs performance based on skillset. Skillset is static, performance is not.

It sounds like you are locked into a static defintion for the word "skillset." Like all words, the word skillset can be used in different contexts for different meanings. That's how I'm using it.

You saw the RG3 skillset in action at the college level. That's college performance. Now, you have seen the skillset in action at the NFL level. That's NFL performance.

You can compare what you have seen of RG3's and Andrew Luck's skillsets in action at both the college and pro-levels. Now, it seems you don't trust your eyes. You trust a measurement of performance that combines QBs and teams into a useless number.

I wouldn't hassle you about it if you lacked the knowledge to evaluate QBs without those silly stats.

As a general rule, because of the teamwork factor, Football stats are useless. Some team stats have value. Unit stats are less reliable; and individual stats are pretty much useless since the individual's performance can't be separated from the performances of coaches and teammates..

[darrelgreenie]

Now, it seems you don't trust your eyes. You trust a measurement of performance that combines QBs and teams into a useless number.

I wouldn't hassle you about it if you lacked the knowledge to evaluate QBs without those silly stats.

I don't understand where your comments above come from.

Here were my original statements about QBR:

I think total QBR is as close as you can get to a true QB grade. They look at the individual plays and assign credit/blame based on the situation and I wish they stopped there and published those numbers only. But instead they mix in all this other EPA stuff which I agree brings all types of other factors to bear. But, I don't take the QBR nor any stat as gospel, just a part of the puzzle to be used/compared to other stats. In fact I think their Pass EPA and 'action plays' give a more accurate view of individual QB's play then their total QBR.

And their means of accounting for Running EPA is a bit out of whack. Imo any metric that accounts for running that doesn't have the league leader in yards, 1st downs gained, 3rd downs converted and TDs as #1 is flawed (maybe critically so).

I wouldn't quite say I'm a proponent of it but I don't dismiss it as bunk. (and many in this forum dismiss the stat for 2 reason (a) its from 'BSPN' (b) it has Luck ranked higher then Griffin.

And like I said in my post the QBR's passing EPA didn't even have Luck rated ahead of Griffin until recently (past 2 weeks IIRC).

It sounds like you are locked into a static defintion for the word "skillset." Like all words, the word skillset can be used in different contexts for different meanings. That's how I'm using it.

You saw the RG3 skillset in action at the college level. That's college performance. Now, you have seen the skillset in action at the NFL level. That's NFL performance.

Okay. When I think of skillset I automatically think physical attributes and imo those don't change college/pro a prospects phyical skillset changes very little barring for injury. But if you're asking me about skillset in your context my statement before still applies that maybe you missed this from my previous post as well:

They're all playing some good ball. Imo Griffin is far and away having the biggest impact for his team's offense and team. Tannehill and Luck are playing at high level for rookie QBs I would proly give the nod to Tannehill because he's getting production from a sub-par group of receivers. My man Russell is playing some good football too.

But I think the Colt's offense has developed Luck further as passer .

[Oldfan]

DG: I didn't misread your posts. I understand your position. We simply don't agree, but that's okay.

[darrelgreenie]

DG: I didn't misread your posts. I understand your position. We simply don't agree, but that's okay.

That's fine but when I read this:

Now, it seems you don't trust your eyes. You trust a measurement of performance that combines QBs and teams into a useless number.

I wouldn't hassle you about it if you lacked the knowledge to evaluate QBs without those silly stats.

It very much seems that you don't get my position. *shrugs*

[Skinsinparadise]

SIP-Just want a direct answer to this question: How then can Garcon be a cause (not thee cause but a cause) of the drop specifically in YPP that Keim mentioned (which you support) when he was non-participant in both the high YPP and the low YPP?

It's like me saying drinking milk and pizza together gives gas not separately but together. And you saying well how can you account for they drank the milk and it didn't give gas. I respond because you didn't have the pizza too. Then you respond with how can you account for people having and not having gas regardless of whether they drink milk. My response is because milk alone doesn't give the gas, its the combo with the pizza. Now, if I read you your point its well the milk alone must account for something. And my response has been consistent and I've even explained why -- that milk alone doesn't give the gas -- its the milk and the pizza.

Greg Cosell: "...[Griffin] did not pull the trigger in the pocket to a wide open Morgan...[Griffin] missed an easy TD"

"They run a fairly simple pass game. So I think they struggle in longer yardage situations. I don't think they're difficult to defend conceptually......Base run game, simple pass game with play action and "either/or" reads"

if it wasn't from this radio appearance, it was in another where he talks about them disguising the simplicity -- then it turned into either from him (don't recall) or the Sports Fix guys talking about how in a way its similar to Gibbs, simple plays disguised by multiple formations.

And if we are talking apples to apples on point as if Cosell is the definitive word as to what the problem with the offense is -- he'd have to say their receivers are fine, they are just limited by the play calling.

Mentioned a WR being open isn't definitive proof that they are good WRs, as i said in a prior point pretty much every WR once inawhile is open, and pretty much every QB doesn't spot every open WR on every play. it's almost impossible to have a perfect game as a QB or a game as a Wr where you do everything wrong.

A 185 hitter gets on base. A 325 hitter can strike out. Heck a 185 hitter can even have a better game every now and then as opposed to a 325 hitter. IMO its not about absolutes. If lets say Aldrick never got open on any play -- he'd be out of the NFL. by the way, the guy you cite Morgan, I've already said is the most reliable WR they have, not special, not a guy who can stretch the field but he's feisty and can make some tough catches.

But none of this is to minimize your point. If you think its the scheme that limits the potential of the WRs and that's the operative thing with them - that's cool. I think its talent. Neither one of us can prove it. So how can an opinion be wrong?

[darrelgreenie]

So you're just not going to answer this specific question directly?

It's like me saying drinking milk and pizza together gives gas not separately but together. And you saying well how can you account for they drank the milk and it didn't give gas. I respond because you didn't have the pizza too. Then you respond with how can you account for people having and not having gas regardless of whether they drink milk. My response is because milk alone doesn't give the gas, its the combo with the pizza. Now, if I read you your point its well the milk alone must account for something. And my response has been consistent and I've even explained why -- that milk alone doesn't give the gas -- its the milk and the pizza.

No, not at all. Its like someone saying an explosion was caused by a mixture of gas and plastic. But you know that gas was not part of the ingredients.

And if we are talking apples to apples on point as if Cosell is the definitive word as to what the problem with the offense is -- he'd have to say their receivers are fine, they are just limited by the play calling.

Its a direct response to a specific query from you.

If you think its the scheme that limits the potnetial of the WRs and that's the operative thing with them - that's cool. I think its talent. Neither one of us can prove it. So how can an opinion be wrong?

That's why I've been trying to agree to disagree for the better part of a week now. I'm just remarkably bad at it. (But more specifically I don't think the WRs have been an issue for the offense, nor do I think the offense is a problem.)