Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: dcsportsbog and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

More Skins Underdog Numbers

Since the dominant storyline of the week seems to be "Will the Skins cover?" rather than "Do they have any shot whatsoever of winning?" here are some more "history of Skins underdog" notes, courtesy of official Bog sponsor Las Vegas Sports Consultants, which helps the majority of Nevada casinos set initial betting lines.

In the past 25 seasons, the Redskins have been at least 11.5-point dogs seven times. Amazingly, five of those games were against the Cowboys. The list:

1995, at Dallas, 17.5-point dog, won 24-17

1993, at Dallas, 17-point dog, lost 38-3

1994, at Dallas, 16-point dog, lost 31-7

2001, at N.Y. Giants, 14-point dog, lost 23-9

1998, at Minnesota, 13-point dog, lost 41-7

(In road games, when they're at least 13-point dogs, the Skins have thus averaged 10 ppg.)

1995, home vs. Dallas, 13-point dog, won 27-23

1994, home vs. Dallas, 11.5-point dog, lost 34-7

By Dan Steinberg  |  October 26, 2007; 10:56 AM ET
Categories:  Redskins  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sports Media Karaoke Report
Next: Boston Fans Celebrate



The golden era of common sense for Brian Billick's play calling.

Posted by: | October 26, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

When you just look at numbers cored and given it looks like a 16 point spread- but when you break it down to total yards pats look to be a 20 point FAV.

Our Vegas group will not bet agasint the Skins- but untill proven we will not bet against the Pats goinginto week 8 undefeated and covereing every week ATS.

Posted by: | October 28, 2007 12:04 AM | Report abuse

That spread was pretty close.

Posted by: sitruc | October 28, 2007 8:08 PM | Report abuse

So much for the Pats looking "past" the Skins toward the Colts Riggo!

Posted by: caphcky | October 28, 2007 10:35 PM | Report abuse

So, I guess we didn't cover. Given the horrible play calling and even worse adjustments, I am not surprised.

Gibbs is a Hall of fame coach, and I am barely an NFL dilettante, but I seem to remember the one thing that he and Al "Never won the Big One Despite my Very Big Playbook" Saunders have: You need to be able to RUN THE FOOTBALL to win. Barely 2 years ago, in the pre-Saunders era, Gibbs and the Redskins remembered late in the season that running the football would help to control the clock, reduce mistakes, wear down the opponent, and most importantly, take the pressure off your "barely-able-to-perform QB" (this year it's "barely-not-a-rookie QB") .

A note to Al: WR screen is NOT a running play, even though the WR gets the ball at the line of scrimmage and has to RUN to make any yardage. that just wears down your wideouts. Giving Portis and the larger Betts the ball, especially against a 3-4 defense where the guards get a half step into the bubble, would be a good idea for a running play.

Watching yesterday, and double-checking the stats today, the 'Skins ran 16 of 56 plays. Personally, I don't think that that will cut it in the NFL, especially in the NFC East. On several of their play-action passes, all of which were read by the Pats' D and never bit on (which I take to mean that the Pats' know Al's playbook as well as he does), had the ball actually been HANDED to Portis, he would have broken a long gain. Look at the film: No one on the Pats' D even covered the edge on play-action.

Twice, on a short yardage out-pattern (perhaps another component of Saunder's "rushing attack"), Samuel jumped the route run by Moss. Even Troy "Please Pass me Another Concussion" Aikman saw in in the TV booth and said, "I'd try to take advantage of that" [paraphrased]. Alas, that must be the one play that's NOT in Al's book, so we never did FAKE the out and send Moss deep. (In the Gibbs 1 era, Gary Clark would have come back to the sideline and said "Fake the damn out route!", and Gibbs would have.

Were any of Gibbs multi-million dollar assistants watching the outcome of the plays, or were just too busy they looking for the next pass play, identified by the green color-coded Post-It tab in Saunder's playbook?

So, I stop my rant. The good news is that for many fans, this game from the start of the season was slated was a loser on the schedule anyway. The 'Skins can still drop 2 more games, perhaps even win the division, but certainly make the playoffs.

Maybe losing this big, and this embarrassingly, may help the coaching staff re-examine their gameplans for the coming weeks. If, at this near midpoint of the season, they start to run the football, just as they did at the end of the season in 2005 when they ran into the playoffs (in part because their QB couldn't reliably throw a button hook).

At least we get the Jets next week. Note to Al: That was not slated as a loser on any 'Skins fan's schedule.

Posted by: ehay2k | October 29, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company