Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

The Redskins are 0-8 against rookie QB's since 2006
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dunderhead


Joined: 13 Nov 2009
Posts: 2547
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RuskieTitan wrote:
Well then. Going to have my father put his life savings on the Eagles this weekend.

Wish my family luck.


Depends on point spread, but yeah... Washington is a bad ball club and have a higher point dif. Both offenses are a push, but the defense will be the tale of the tape. Washington's defense is a stinkarama of epic proportions. So even if that rookie screws up, it's unlikely the Wash defense can exploit.

Where as the Philly D is alright, but RGIII is a rookie. Philly's D SHOULD be able to exploit Washington.

But that's just trying to predict future events on paper...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaTechRavens


Moderator
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 17238
Location: Knoxville, TN
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dunderhead wrote:
GaTechRavens wrote:


Because that includes games against the 2009 Lions (2-14), 2011 Vikings (3-13), and the 2006 Buccaneers (4-12). Most of the others were against bad teams as well. Logic should dictate they would have a winning record in those games, instead they're 0-8. It's an anomaly any way you spin it.


No no no no no! Bad logic says they should have won one of those games. Real logic tells us that it is far more rare that a team goes 0-16. So that team is likely to win a game, probably against a loser club. That loser club would be Washington. Probability also would lean toward those other clubs. And that's taking out circumstance which never favors Washington.

Take note of that Steelers record... Should we look up their defensive rankings or would you just trust that they have a pretty good defense perennially? So the more dependent factor isn't just rookie QB, it also has to be him going against a bad defense?

Completely explainable! No conspiracy... No miracle... No curse. Just logic or lack thereof... It is a "stat" made for those that believe in mysticism.


That's way off base. You're saying that because it is hard for teams to go 0-16, the weakest teams on the schedule are "likely" wins. That's not how it works.

The 16 game schedule is a set of probabilities. Teams avoid 0-16 by occasionally defying those probabilities, not creating new ones based on circumstance. If you're given a 10% chance of winning rach of the 16 games, odds are you're going to still get a win. Does that make the team you beat worse or more vulnerable? Not at all. It's just the way the dice rolls.

The only way the odds would favor those teams was if they were actually better. The Redskins in those years posted better records than the teams I mentioned. Why would they be worse, then?

If what you're saying is true, the Redskins should be the worst team in the league. But they never are, and they've had a few decent seasons thrown into this streak. So why is it them, of all teams? Why would this streak not apply to clearly worse teams like Detroit or Oakland?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RainbowCarebear


Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 33834
Location: "Are you hungry, child?" Yes, she thought, but not for food.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RandyMossIsBoss wrote:
The Eagles are approximately 0-126 when the odds are seemingly in their favor.


But this is Foles
_________________

"You will never walk again... but you will fly"
“You forget. My father had four sons.”
"In return, we swore that we should always be their men"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom Shean


Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 4740
Location: Tha 703
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Redskins are one of those mediocre teams that remain constantly mediocre forever. They might just sneak in to the playoffs on a good year, but they will never become great and stay that way until something changes. They are also viable to beat just about anyone, but will also lose to just about any team as well..
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dunderhead


Joined: 13 Nov 2009
Posts: 2547
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GaTechRavens wrote:


That's way off base. You're saying that because it is hard for teams to go 0-16, the weakest teams on the schedule are "likely" wins. No, but the odds are against the team going 0-16. That's all I'm saying. It's not relative to any function in a formula. That's not how it works.

The 16 game schedule is a set of probabilities. Sure, I got ya. Teams avoid 0-16 by occasionally defying those probabilities, not creating new ones based on circumstance. Nope. Wrong. Makes no sense, completely lost me... If you're given a 10% chance of winning rach of the 16 games, odds are you're going to still get a win. Lost, this is nonsense... The odds are not the same and dependent on other variables. In your world not all things a causal. Instead you leave much to happenstance and magic. Not all odds can be give a low common denominator of probability. Does that make the team you beat worse or more vulnerable? Not at all. It's just the way the dice rolls. Then why don't they just roll dice instead of risking injury?

The only way the odds would favor those teams was if they were actually better. The Redskins in those years posted better records than the teams I mentioned. Why would they be worse, then? So the better record = better team? Great! Giants fans, the Pats and Packer fans want their fricken' Lombardis back! Yeah, I don't think they're giving 'em back...

If what you're saying is true, the Redskins should be the worst team in the league. But they never are, and they've had a few decent seasons thrown into this streak. So why is it them, of all teams? Why would this streak not apply to clearly worse teams like Detroit or Oakland?


Wow, just... Football, the brand America watches, has a lot of moving parts. These parts collide they try to perform a ballet. It's a lot like the weather. We call this chaos theory. At the heart, it's cause and effect. For instance players don't disappear and reappear, it has to be played on a field and there are rules, physics and the ones decided upon by Goodell...

In this universe, upsets can happen. Those upsets are unlikely, though. Only once in this time frame has Washington had a winning season. It was 9-7. That's not good. Simply put, they don't have enough wins for this to be stunning in the realm of possibility. In their division, how many rookies appeared during this time? Let's see Eli Manning came in before this time line, Philly didn't really introduce any rookies and Dallas didn't either.

That's half their fricken' schedule of team they'd be intimate with and could exploit knowledge gained. Ok, so now we have to look at the out of division and conference games. Throw out what you think is the better team because record doesn't mean much and there is unfamiliarity. Teams are built to win divisions, then playoffs. Ok, given that, now Washington has to find that team they are better than... Can't say as if they are that much better than ANY team. Can't see where they hold any distinct advantage, yet yield many advantages cause they stink.

So now we are left with only one thing - chance of (un)luck. Given that the sample size is 8, not out of the ordinary. Teams go 0-8 all the time (hint hint - cause they are bad). Come back when this streak goes to over 16 and then I'll be curious. At that time I will test the blind squirrel to see if it actually can find a nut from time to time. Otherwise, I noticed Washington never wins in the month of May... Weird, huh?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lavar703


Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Posts: 5376
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dunderhead wrote:
It's not a stat... What am I supposed to let sink in? Washington isn't a very good ball club (from owner to ball boy to the fact Redskins is a racial slur - all fail). I'm not surprised they can't win games, that's why they're not good.

As far as the defensive ranking, that's a very deceptive stat. NFL does yards, which is a fairly decent measuring stick, but it leaves much to be desired. Teams that play on short fields against Washington don't put up as many yards. Washington turning over the ball leaves a shorter field to score on, less yards.

As it stands Washington is 27th in points allowed with defensive rank in yards 28th.

Last year, in points 21, but in yards 13th. 2010 in points 21, but in yards 31... Wow, this team really is just plain bad. I guess I have no point with the yards v. points.

So a defense that bad loses to rookies? Not surprised at all. Just wondering when the fans will wise up and not buy that trading away drafts for a QB when their defense is horrible might not be wise. If ever I though it was a good idea for a fanbase to withhold their cash from their favorite team it's Washington. Force Snyder out and get a real owner and get this once glorious franchise back to greatness and not just a golden goose for a billionaire.


I guess YOU and not Native Americans know what offends them, congratulations....

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6093796/
_________________
Deets wrote:
Absolutely nothing. In two years, Ryan Tannehill will be far better than RGIII.


RIP Sean Taylor "Forever a Redskin"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FootballProdiG


Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Posts: 7320
Location: The Film Room
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lavar703 wrote:
Dunderhead wrote:
It's not a stat... What am I supposed to let sink in? Washington isn't a very good ball club (from owner to ball boy to the fact Redskins is a racial slur - all fail). I'm not surprised they can't win games, that's why they're not good.

As far as the defensive ranking, that's a very deceptive stat. NFL does yards, which is a fairly decent measuring stick, but it leaves much to be desired. Teams that play on short fields against Washington don't put up as many yards. Washington turning over the ball leaves a shorter field to score on, less yards.

As it stands Washington is 27th in points allowed with defensive rank in yards 28th.

Last year, in points 21, but in yards 13th. 2010 in points 21, but in yards 31... Wow, this team really is just plain bad. I guess I have no point with the yards v. points.

So a defense that bad loses to rookies? Not surprised at all. Just wondering when the fans will wise up and not buy that trading away drafts for a QB when their defense is horrible might not be wise. If ever I though it was a good idea for a fanbase to withhold their cash from their favorite team it's Washington. Force Snyder out and get a real owner and get this once glorious franchise back to greatness and not just a golden goose for a billionaire.


I guess YOU and not Native Americans know what offends them, congratulations....

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6093796/


As someone is part native American and part Black, this is no different than a team named "Blackskin", or "Whiteskin". Lol. It isn't offensive it's just kind of funny. The same way a there is a team based off Vikings, when all vikings did was rape and pillage Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 12319
Location: Hood River, Oregon
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah but Nick Foles in a losing effort #CheckMate
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
lavar703


Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Posts: 5376
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FootballProdiG wrote:
lavar703 wrote:
Dunderhead wrote:
It's not a stat... What am I supposed to let sink in? Washington isn't a very good ball club (from owner to ball boy to the fact Redskins is a racial slur - all fail). I'm not surprised they can't win games, that's why they're not good.

As far as the defensive ranking, that's a very deceptive stat. NFL does yards, which is a fairly decent measuring stick, but it leaves much to be desired. Teams that play on short fields against Washington don't put up as many yards. Washington turning over the ball leaves a shorter field to score on, less yards.

As it stands Washington is 27th in points allowed with defensive rank in yards 28th.

Last year, in points 21, but in yards 13th. 2010 in points 21, but in yards 31... Wow, this team really is just plain bad. I guess I have no point with the yards v. points.

So a defense that bad loses to rookies? Not surprised at all. Just wondering when the fans will wise up and not buy that trading away drafts for a QB when their defense is horrible might not be wise. If ever I though it was a good idea for a fanbase to withhold their cash from their favorite team it's Washington. Force Snyder out and get a real owner and get this once glorious franchise back to greatness and not just a golden goose for a billionaire.


I guess YOU and not Native Americans know what offends them, congratulations....

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6093796/


As someone is part native American and part Black, this is no different than a team named "Blackskin", or "Whiteskin". Lol. It isn't offensive it's just kind of funny. The same way a there is a team based off Vikings, when all vikings did was rape and pillage Laughing


I would actually say the Fighting Irish is far more offensive than Redskins. It assumes basically that all Irish people are short red heads that like to get drunk and fight lol.
_________________
Deets wrote:
Absolutely nothing. In two years, Ryan Tannehill will be far better than RGIII.


RIP Sean Taylor "Forever a Redskin"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FootballProdiG


Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Posts: 7320
Location: The Film Room
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
Yeah but Nick Foles in a losing effort #CheckMate



Those starting snaps might help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FootballProdiG


Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Posts: 7320
Location: The Film Room
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lavar703 wrote:
FootballProdiG wrote:
lavar703 wrote:
Dunderhead wrote:
It's not a stat... What am I supposed to let sink in? Washington isn't a very good ball club (from owner to ball boy to the fact Redskins is a racial slur - all fail). I'm not surprised they can't win games, that's why they're not good.

As far as the defensive ranking, that's a very deceptive stat. NFL does yards, which is a fairly decent measuring stick, but it leaves much to be desired. Teams that play on short fields against Washington don't put up as many yards. Washington turning over the ball leaves a shorter field to score on, less yards.

As it stands Washington is 27th in points allowed with defensive rank in yards 28th.

Last year, in points 21, but in yards 13th. 2010 in points 21, but in yards 31... Wow, this team really is just plain bad. I guess I have no point with the yards v. points.

So a defense that bad loses to rookies? Not surprised at all. Just wondering when the fans will wise up and not buy that trading away drafts for a QB when their defense is horrible might not be wise. If ever I though it was a good idea for a fanbase to withhold their cash from their favorite team it's Washington. Force Snyder out and get a real owner and get this once glorious franchise back to greatness and not just a golden goose for a billionaire.


I guess YOU and not Native Americans know what offends them, congratulations....

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6093796/


As someone is part native American and part Black, this is no different than a team named "Blackskin", or "Whiteskin". Lol. It isn't offensive it's just kind of funny. The same way a there is a team based off Vikings, when all vikings did was rape and pillage Laughing


I would actually say the Fighting Irish is far more offensive than Redskins. It assumes basically that all Irish people are short red heads that like to get drunk and fight lol.


Is there a relevance to Ohio with Irish people or is that just a random name association? I don't remember seeing any Irish people up there either lol. Rolling Eyes There were actually Native American's in Virginia.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lavar703


Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Posts: 5376
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom Shean wrote:
The Redskins are one of those mediocre teams that remain constantly mediocre forever. They might just sneak in to the playoffs on a good year, but they will never become great and stay that way until something changes. They are also viable to beat just about anyone, but will also lose to just about any team as well..


Very well put Tom Shean. Sometimes I wonder why god made me a Redskins fan? lol
_________________
Deets wrote:
Absolutely nothing. In two years, Ryan Tannehill will be far better than RGIII.


RIP Sean Taylor "Forever a Redskin"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 12319
Location: Hood River, Oregon
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FootballProdiG wrote:
justo wrote:
Yeah but Nick Foles in a losing effort #CheckMate



Those starting snaps might help.


Someone didn't see how his team did in Tucson....success literally had nothing to do with what he did at quarterback for Arizona
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dunderhead


Joined: 13 Nov 2009
Posts: 2547
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lavar703 wrote:


I guess YOU and not Native Americans know what offends them, congratulations....

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6093796/


Never claimed to be offended... But nice strawman. Funny, things that I wrote that are basically opinion - your team and owner stink are fine with you. But mention Redskin is a racial slur and all heck breaks loose?

Dude, it's a TRUE statement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dunderhead


Joined: 13 Nov 2009
Posts: 2547
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps folks need to look at what I actually wrote :
" ...the fact Redskins is a racial slur "...

I make no judgement other than it's a fail. I only mention it's a racial slur. Because it's a racial slur and if you're naming your team that, probably going to anger some potential costumers.

But here's the deal, if you're going to bring the controversy to the team I see few teams that can get past that. And the truth is, name is probably the least of the liabilities. But when the owner is a liability, the coach, the hiring practices, the players and how they're acquired, how you treat fans and the media... The laundry list goes on!

It's of no surprise that they go 0-8 against rookies at QB. There's probably a bunch of other off the wall loser stats one could find too, but who'd waste the time? And in that what would be the surprise?

At the end of the day I guess none of it matters cause Synder makes a huge profit. And in Washington that's the only stat that matters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group