Network News

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

Statistical analysis: What if Donovan McNabb had been a Redskin in 2009?

Editor's note: Welcome to a new feature that will appear here every week. Our InsiderĀ² series is intended to give readers a deeper look at the numbers of Washington's sports teams. As the Redskins stats blogger, Advanced NFL Stats' Brian Burke will crunch some numbers in a way that answers questions about the Redskins' performance. We hope you enjoy this different look at the game and welcome any feedback in the comments section below.


Brian Burke

What if we could transplant one team's passing game to another team? With the acquisition of Donovan McNabb, that's what the Redskins are hoping they can do this season. Of course, it's not entirely possible, as passing success involves more than just the quarterback. But for the sake of argument, let's gauge what we could expect in terms of wins if we could load McNabb's passing stats from Philadelphia into a U-Haul and drop them off a couple hours down the road in Washington.

Last season, the Redskins were 4-12 and finished last in the NFC East. But statistically, they had a fluky season. Based on recent historical comparisons with similarly-performing teams, the Redskins' on-field performance in 2009 should have warranted about seven wins, but they couldn't convert solid on-field efficiency into winning games. With a new coaching staff and new schemes in place, it's unlikely they'll be as unlucky in 2010.

If we take McNabb's 2009 performance and artificially assign it to the Redskins, holding all of their other stats constant, we can get an idea of what could reasonably be expected.

Last season, McNabb threw for 6.9 net yards per attempt (YPA, including sack yards) and posted a 2.3 percent interception rate. The Redskins, with Jason Campbell at the helm, threw for 6.0 net YPA and a 3.3 percent interception rate (6.2 net YPA and 2.9 percent were the NFL averages last season). Taken with the rest of the Redskins' efficiency stats (running offense, fumble rate, penalties, defensive stats), the Campbell-led Redskins could normally expect to average 7.5 wins against an average strength of schedule. But with McNabb's 2009 numbers, the Redskins could expect 10.4 wins. Basically, McNabb's 2009 stats represent almost a three-win improvement. But if we took the 4-12 record at face value, that would be a six-win improvement.

Statistically, last season was McNabb's third best of his career. What if we look at more typical numbers from McNabb? Over his career, he has averaged 6.0 net YPA and a 2.1 percent interception rate. Applying these numbers to the Redskins' 2009 performance would make them an eight-win team, not much different than what could be expected with Campbell.

An 8-8 season may be a more realistic expectation for Washington in 2010, and it poses some questions about the wisdom of giving up a second-round pick for McNabb. Whether the Redskins perform according to these estimates or not, the numbers underscore the critical importance of a good passing game.

All signs point to significant improvement for the Redskins in 2010 for a lot of reasons: new coach, new quarterback and regression to the mean. Depending on the competition and injuries, with a little luck, it's conceivable they'll be in the thick of the playoff race come December.


Brian Burke is the author of Advanced NFL Stats. He has a BS in aerospace engineering and an MS in management and leadership. After spending 15 years in the Navy, most of them as an F/A-18 carrier pilot, Brian has taken up the less dangerous hobby of advanced NFL statistics. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

By Brian Burke  |  September 8, 2010; 6:04 AM ET
Categories:  Donovan McNabb , Statistical analysis  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Local officials declare "Redskins Kickoff Week"
Next: Redskins' defense is 'hyped' to take on Cowboys

Comments

"What if Donovan McNabb had been a Redskin in 2009?"

He'd be the FIRST player in NFL history to die on the field.

Next question...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 8, 2010 6:20 AM | Report abuse

Great it's Cowgirls week and you guys are posting fairy tails, why haven't we seen one post about the game this weekend? You do remeber that we play the hated Cowgirls right, I know you can't get Fat Al off your mine but wake up and do your F-cking job.

Posted by: Flounder21 | September 8, 2010 6:24 AM | Report abuse

really? that was awful

Posted by: MadeRED | September 8, 2010 6:28 AM | Report abuse

I have some what if's for you.

I know J-Reid didn't post this.

What if J-Reid was skinny?

What if J-Reid actually had a source at Redskins park?

What if J-Reid actually new anything about football?

Posted by: Flounder21 | September 8, 2010 6:29 AM | Report abuse

So basically, this guy did a lot of math to come up with what most of us got just based on feel and common sense...8-8 with a strong December to stay live in the playoff race to the very end.

Brilliant...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 8, 2010 6:31 AM | Report abuse

What a clueless team at the Post covering the Redskins. This is a story for the week after they acquired McNabb, not Dallas Week. It probably took this long to figure out the 8-8 answer.

Here's your assignment for next week: "What if the Post had a real reporter on the Redskins beat?"

Posted by: beep-beep | September 8, 2010 6:41 AM | Report abuse


What if we could transplant one team's passing game to another team?

Then can we be last years Saint's in that case ?

If there's to many lawyer's, then there must be to many sports writers. Who cares about this garbage when we play Dallas in 4 days ?
HTTR !

Posted by: hessone | September 8, 2010 6:46 AM | Report abuse

I'm reading this Shanahan article in the NFL preview section...really fascinating stuff...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 8, 2010 6:54 AM | Report abuse


Who's gonna make the big plays we need to beat the Cowboy's ? I'm thinking McNabb and Armstrong are the ace in the hole for Sunday's game. ih8, let's get the bandwagon in gear, we got Cowboy's to scalp. HTTR !

Posted by: hessone | September 8, 2010 6:58 AM | Report abuse

Tell me number cruncher. What is the coefficient of the inverse drying ratio between white paint and blue paint? At what rate does a banana ripen? How much sweeter is a peach with a big pit versus a small pit? At what speed does Haynesworth lose fat? Come on man. Who needs you?

Posted by: getitritegov | September 8, 2010 7:06 AM | Report abuse

This is a silly comment and analysis. If McNabb had been the quarterback last year, behind the 2009 offensive line, he would still be hospitalized or out of football all together. Jason Campbell was a young, durable quarterback who was hit so often I'm surprised that he finished the season even knowing his name.

Posted by: nmyricks | September 8, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

The story I am waiting for:

Statistical analysis: What if Leigh Torrence had been a Redskin in 2009?

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 8, 2010 7:30 AM | Report abuse

What if the Post hired a real journalist to run this blog? This has to be one of the stupidest posts I've read.

Posted by: wireman65 | September 8, 2010 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Interesting post from the standpoint of asking what McNabb offers over Campbell (supposedly not as much as we had thought). The disclaimer at the beginning of the post says it all, however - there's a lot more to a passing game than the quarterback. Scheme, receivers, and, most importantly, offensive line add significantly into the equation. If we really wanted to transplant McNabb's numbers to DC then we'd need some analysis on our new OL vs the Eagles' OL from last year, as we'll assume analysis of Andy Reid's west coast offense va Mike and Kyle's west coast offense.

And whereabouts is analysis/strategy of the Cowboys' weaknesses va our strengths. If we've got this stats guy, let's use him more than once a week. I'm sick and tired of Jason Reid's Redskins Inquirer.

Posted by: crashinghero | September 8, 2010 7:38 AM | Report abuse

I thought knowledge was supposed to be power?:

An 8-8 season may be a more realistic expectation for Washington in 2010, and it poses some questions about the wisdom of giving up a second-round pick for McNabb.

If this knowledge is somehow supposed to empower me, then I guess I should say my tank is empty.

The conclusions arrived to in this quote have been posted, roasted, debated, hated, over-stated, and eviscerated by various posters since McNabb's sudden signing.

The shallow, already discussed in-depth analysis offered here comes across like a Don King rant about haircare products.

Not that he would know anything about them.

Posted by: MistaMoe | September 8, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

So basically, this guy did a lot of math to come up with what most of us got just based on feel and common sense...8-8 with a strong December to stay live in the playoff race to the very end.

Brilliant...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 8, 2010 6:31 AM
------------------------------------------
It is stupid math to begin with. He starts out by saying the Redskins should have won seven games last year using his formula. Right there he has said it didn't work for last year's stats, but somehow it is okay to use it to predict how many wins they would have this year. Now we know the RI reporters are not mathematicians. Combined with knowing they are not good investigative journalists either, that's two things we know about them.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 8, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

"What if we could transplant one team's passing game to another team?"

What if we could transplant a strong spine into Barack Obama's back?

We might have Harry Truman.

Posted by: MistaMoe | September 8, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

I think the article underscores how terrible the coaching staff was. They took an average team (7.5 wins based on 'on-field efficiency') and made them terrible. That is worth a lot more than the qb.

Posted by: zyvo23 | September 8, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

It is stupid math to begin with. He starts out by saying the Redskins should have won seven games last year using his formula. Right there he has said it didn't work for last year's stats, but somehow it is okay to use it to predict how many wins they would have this year. Now we know the RI reporters are not mathematicians. Combined with knowing they are not good investigative journalists either, that's two things we know about them.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 8, 2010 7:41 AM

Hey, I know something else.

Using this analysis, I predict that if Jason Reid had studied petroleum geology at USC he would have worked for BP and the Gulf of Mexico would, today, be polluted with oil from failure of a blowout preventer.

I further conclude that WaPo needs a blowout preventer for this blog.

Posted by: beep-beep | September 8, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

RSH, trying to apply ANY math or theorems to football is stupid...this is a game of abstracts. Without reopening the JC debate, dude had a respectable QB rating on par with McNabb's numbers and looked somewhat effective on paper. In games, not so much. Numbers tell some of the story, but not all of it.

That's why I roll my eyes in disgust when folks post those assinine stats that measure a guy's rate for dropped passes or a QB's W/L record or some idiotic study that ranks Carlos Rogers as a top 10 corner in the NFL. To me, what makes NFL football so appealing is that you can't really sum up everything in a nice neat little package with numbers. Most of the factors that win and lose games won't show up in the box score...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 8, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

who approves this crap?? Seriously, the week leading up to the opening game against Dallas, and this is what they come up with.....yikes...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 8, 2010 7:55 AM | Report abuse

RSH, trying to apply ANY math or theorems to football is stupid...this is a game of abstracts. Without reopening the JC debate, dude had a respectable QB rating on par with McNabb's numbers and looked somewhat effective on paper. In games, not so much. Numbers tell some of the story, but not all of it.

That's why I roll my eyes in disgust when folks post those assinine stats that measure a guy's rate for dropped passes or a QB's W/L record or some idiotic study that ranks Carlos Rogers as a top 10 corner in the NFL. To me, what makes NFL football so appealing is that you can't really sum up everything in a nice neat little package with numbers. Most of the factors that win and lose games won't show up in the box score...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 8, 2010 7:52 AM
------------------------------------------
Totally agree.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 8, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse


The shallow, already discussed in-depth analysis offered here comes across like a Don King rant about haircare products.

Posted by: MistaMoe | September 8, 2010 7:40 AM |

Isn't Don Kings hair insured for some astronomical amount of money ?


Posted by: hessone | September 8, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Well, it was a maiden effort, so let's give it another chance. Guy probably didn't realize how traumatized the typical RI reader was by the debacle last season. Acutely embarrassed, we were. This wasn't the Skins that Joe Gibbs taught us to expect when we were growing up. The fanz are still PO'ed to the max.

He asked the right question, however: if McNabb performs to career expectations, and we finish 8-8, was he (technically) worth a 2nd round pick? Because based on what statisticians see of the team, Jason might have done about as well.

To the stat geek, it's pretty clear that the Skins underachieved last season, and should have finished with 2-3 more wins. That NO game, for instance -- no way Washington should have blown that. But by that point, most of us were just happy they stayed close. And we went backwards again, witness that humiliating Jints' loss.

It was a terrible year. Maybe not as bad as the Wizards', but close. The columnists who don't read stats (most of them) are putting the Skins in last place in the East based on their impression of how awful the team looked last season. The stats guys are actually telling us things could turn out much better. We've got that murderer's row right at the beginning, then the schedule levels somewhat. At some point during the year RI will be filled with calls for Shanahan's head, and probably McNabb's too -- same thing will happen in NY or Philly or Dallas if those clubs stumble.

In terms of the Cowboy's weaknesses vs our strengths, here's the simple reality: by the end of '09, they were among the best five or six clubs in the NFL, and we were firmly in the bottom ten. We've changed QBs, brought in new linemen, and most importantly a new coaching staff. How much difference will that make in one game at the beginning of a season? Probably not enough for a victory. But there's more to come.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 8, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

What if we could transplant a strong spine into Barack Obama's back?

We might have Harry Truman.

Posted by: MistaMoe

So then he could nuke Iran and end terrorism once and for all?
Seriously, Moe do you miss ole Dubya that badly?
You must have been one of the 12 token brothas at that Glen Beck rally the other week.

Posted by: Predator48 | September 8, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Hey, I know something else.

Using this analysis, I predict that if Jason Reid had studied petroleum geology at USC he would have worked for BP and the Gulf of Mexico would, today, be polluted with oil from failure of a blowout preventer.

I further conclude that WaPo needs a blowout preventer for this blog.

Posted by: beep-beep | September 8, 2010 7:51 AM
-----------------------------------------
It's not the blowing, it's the sucking.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 8, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Long time, no see Greg...time to get on record, dude. Gimme the Redskins 2010 W/L record and your Super Bowl picks. While you're at it--just a shot out of a cannon--Oprah, Barbara Walters, your wife. You gotta f*ck one, marry one, kill one. GO!

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 8, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Wow, that was dramatically inferior to the analaysis by Football Outsiders that we got last year.

How could you compare McNabb and Campbell's years without mentioning DeSean Jackson? The guy takes short passes to the house. If he had been a Redskin and taken four passes the distance, that would make up most of the statistical difference right there.

I'm willing to wait and see on the McNabb trade, but as far as the stats go, Campbell was just as good, and younger and cheaper, if you take into account the horrible line and WR play here and the great receiver play in Philadelphia.

Posted by: MarquisSmith | September 8, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

What a wasted post. What's past is past, and thank goodness we don't need to worry any longer about Campbell's hollow stats -- which were usually accumulated in the garbage time of hopelessly lost causes.

It also don't take much analysis to figure out that with McNabb at the helm, the team might have won a few more games -- especially given the weak schedule of opponents it had.

Real questions should be, "What if Donovan McNabb doesn't survive the 2010 season? Will Sexy Rexy or Boink Beck be able to handle the job? And finally, what if McNabb ends up playing for the Cardinals or Vikings in 2011 -- where will that leave the Redskins?"

Posted by: Vic1 | September 8, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

"So basically, this guy did a lot of math to come up with what most of us got just based on feel and common sense...8-8 with a strong December to stay live in the playoff race to the very end.Brilliant...Posted by: brownwood26"

Well, actually, a lot of folks around here didn't 'get' that. In fact, I'd guess that more than half of the posts I've seen have us breaking .500. It'll annoy you to know that .500 is always the safest prediction in any pool involving a team that finished well below the previous season. And that's why it's so popular. In reality, the Skins are the sort of team that could finished 6-10 or 10-6. The main factor is the schedule -- it's not as easy as you might expect a 4-12 team to face. The teams in the East, except for Dallas, are undergoing a lot of changes. That makes them unpredictable. Somebody could get hot, or somebody could get horribly cold -- that was us in '09.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 8, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse


'm willing to wait and see on the McNabb trade, but as far as the stats go, Campbell was just as good, and younger and cheaper, if you take into account the horrible line and WR play here and the great receiver play in Philadelphia.

Posted by: MarquisSmith | September 8, 2010 8:01 AM |

Good analysis. With our receiving corp and an o-line working together for the first year, patients are in order for McNabb. Does McNabb at his age have more mobility than the younger Campbell ?

Posted by: hessone | September 8, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

hey brown, yeah, wife's grandfather passed this weekend. Served under General Patton in the 3rd Armored Division, fought in the Battle of the Buldge with over 30 confirmed German soldiers killed, wounded twice, and took home a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for bravery and valor...

lets see, w/l, I'll go out on a limb and say 10-6, Super Bowl will be GB/SD....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 8, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

"You must have been one of the 12 token brothas at that Glen Beck rally the other week."

Glenn Beck:

I doubt Barack Obama is a Christian.

moe:

And you're a pontificating Mormom in recovery from various addictions.

'Cept now, it looks like you're hooked on ego and attention.


Posted by: MistaMoe | September 8, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

In terms of the Cowboy's weaknesses vs our strengths, here's the simple reality: by the end of '09, they were among the best five or six clubs in the NFL, and we were firmly in the bottom ten. We've changed QBs, brought in new linemen, and most importantly a new coaching staff. How much difference will that make in one game at the beginning of a season? Probably not enough for a victory. But there's more to come.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 8, 2010 7:59 AM
------------------------------------------
Samson, you wound me with your wishy washy "probably" prediction for a Redskins loss. The Redskins are going to win, the outside linebackers are going to light up Tony Romo, and our receivers are going to torch the Dallas secondary. Your prediction talks about the Redskins improving but you have not talked about the Cowboys. Are they getting better? Tony Romo's preseason play looked bad and their offensive line is porous. Jason Witten is going to make his money staying in to help pass block this year and their passing game is going to grind to a halt. Though I think they have a solid front seven, their secondary is suspect. They are vulnerable to play action and Moss and company should be able to get deep on them.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 8, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse


hey brown, yeah, wife's grandfather passed this weekend. Served under General Patton in the 3rd Armored Division, fought in the Battle of the Buldge with over 30 confirmed German soldiers killed, wounded twice, and took home a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for bravery and valor...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 8, 2010 8:12 AM |

I am an American Soldier.
I am a member of the United States Army -- a protector of the greatest nation on earth.
Because I am proud of the uniform I wear, I will always act in ways creditable to the military service and the nation it is sworn to guard.
I am proud of my own organization. I will do all I can to make it the finest unit in the Army.
I will be loyal to those under whom I serve. I will do my full part to carry out orders and instructions given to me or my unit.
As a soldier, I realize that I am a member of a time-honored profession--that I am doing my share to keep alive the principles of freedom for which my country stands.
No matter what the situation I am in, I will never do anything, for pleasure, profit, or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform, my unit, or my country.
I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my Army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and to the uniform.
I am proud of my country and its flag.
I will try to make the people of this nation proud of the service I represent, for I am an American Soldier.

We honor all of the men and women that have made the soldier's creed a reality for the freedom we have today. Our thoughts are with your family Greg.


Posted by: hessone | September 8, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Is that true Cindy? I watched Shanahan give JR a public b1tch slap in the Tuesday press conference for writing about the position groupings. He said the Post writer(s)would be kicked out of Redskins Park if they didn't stop publicizing the Skins game day strategy.

It's Dallas week four days before the game and the Wed Sports page articles are all about Haynesworth. Nothing about the rest of the team, the match up, history, final rosters, predictions, etc...

Posted by: siris | September 8, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

beantowngreg

Sorry to hear 'bout the loss and hope the wifey is okay.

Posted by: MistaMoe | September 8, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

We hope you enjoy this different look at the game and welcome any feedback in the comments section below.
Editor's note

Be careful what you wish for, cause you don't want to hear what we REALLY think about this piece of crap artical. Sounds like Vinny got a new job, he's runnin the Post now!!! This could only come from the likes of him.

Posted by: monk811 | September 8, 2010 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Sorry for your loss Greg...and taking into account even half that military resume, it's a loss for ALL of us.

I've got GB over Cincy in the SB, which I'm half tempted to back off now that Chris Mortenson picked the exact same thing on ESPN. He's probably one of the most consistently wrong "insiders" that ESPN employs...

Samson, I don't know where you're going with that...the only thing "safer" than picking a team to go 8-8 is saying "they could go 6-10 or 10-6". I didn't pull 8-8 outta my ass...the Skins probably won't start strong because of all the change, but I think they finish strong. Plus if you look at the schedule, it lends itself to a 2-1, 3-0 kinda start and then it gets really tough in the middle (games lined up against the Colts, Packers, Vikings). Things seemingly get a little easier in December, when I think we'll be hitting our stride as things become more natural (provided injuries aren't a major factor).

But I will say 10-6 is very doable with some luck and a couple breaks in the schedule...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 8, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse


It's Dallas week four days before the game and the Wed Sports page articles are all about Haynesworth. Nothing about the rest of the team, the match up, history, final rosters, predictions, etc...

Posted by: siris | September 8, 2010 8:21 AM |

Soon the WaPo sports headline will read, "New born baby sings just like Elvis", or, "Man laughs head off, has scars to prove it". What to do when there's only one show in town ?

Posted by: hessone | September 8, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

If a frog had pockets, would he carry a pistol?

Posted by: pstrboy | September 8, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

I'm willing to wait and see on the McNabb trade, but as far as the stats go, Campbell was just as good, and younger and cheaper, if you take into account the horrible line and WR play here and the great receiver play in Philadelphia.

Posted by: MarquisSmith | September 8, 2010 8:01 AM |

Good analysis. With our receiving corp and an o-line working together for the first year, patients are in order for McNabb. Does McNabb at his age have more mobility than the younger Campbell ?

Posted by: hessone | September 8, 2010 8:12 AM
------------------------------------------
Campbell was no where near as good as McNabb. Just having a guy the troops will stand behind is a huge upgrade, but McNabb has a lot more going for him. And to answer your question: yes, Campbell was more mobile. The caveat is Campbell couldn't hit the broad side of a barn when throwing on the run, while throwing on the run might be one of McNabb's greatest strengths.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 8, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Wins and Losses is the only stat that matters...good to know we should have won 7.5 games.

I think I'm getting a cold.

Posted by: PlayAction | September 8, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Howabout we play what if Dan Snyder hired a competent GM and stayed the f*k away last year?

Nothing worse than stat geeks looking at football.

Posted by: Pepper5 | September 8, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

hey brown, yeah, wife's grandfather passed this weekend. Served under General Patton in the 3rd Armored Division, fought in the Battle of the Buldge with over 30 confirmed German soldiers killed, wounded twice, and took home a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for bravery and valor...

lets see, w/l, I'll go out on a limb and say 10-6, Super Bowl will be GB/SD....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 8, 2010 8:12 AM
------------------------------------------
Bean, sorry for your loss. Sounds like a great man. My father-in-law was also at the Battle of the Bulge and I am very proud of that fact.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 8, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse


I've got GB over Cincy in the SB, which I'm half tempted to back off now that Chris Mortenson picked the exact same thing on ESPN. He's probably one of the most consistently wrong "insiders" that ESPN employs...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 8, 2010 8:27 AM |

I'm sticking with GB beating Cincy in the SB also, so you'll really want to reconsider that pick brown. The only team that makes me rethink my pick is the Colt's. They get back alot of starters that were injured last year and they still have PManning. Doesn't he win the league MVP every other year ?

Posted by: hessone | September 8, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Hey, RI alleged journalists: Here's the link to the Wiki on the Redskins - Cowboys rivalry. If you cannot think of anything better to put up here (which is doubtful), maybe you can just paste this into an article. It makes for more interesting reading than 2+2=chicken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys-Redskins_rivalry

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 8, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

"Statistical analysis: What if Donovan McNabb had been a Redskin in 2009?"

What if my Aunt had a crank, would that make her my Uncle?

What if it was Dallas weak? C'mon, you billy goats can do better than this..

Posted by: Diesel44 | September 8, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

thanks guys, everyone's doing ok...

Any truth to the PFT thing about us shipping AH to Tenn??

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 8, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

I've got GB over Cincy in the SB, which I'm half tempted to back off now that Chris Mortenson picked the exact same thing on ESPN. He's probably one of the most consistently wrong "insiders" that ESPN employs...

Samson, I don't know where you're going with that...the only thing "safer" than picking a team to go 8-8 is saying "they could go 6-10 or 10-6". I didn't pull 8-8 outta my ass...the Skins probably won't start strong because of all the change, but I think they finish strong. Plus if you look at the schedule, it lends itself to a 2-1, 3-0 kinda start and then it gets really tough in the middle (games lined up against the Colts, Packers, Vikings). Things seemingly get a little easier in December, when I think we'll be hitting our stride as things become more natural (provided injuries aren't a major factor).

But I will say 10-6 is very doable with some luck and a couple breaks in the schedule...

Posted by: brownwood26

I think Peter King picking you is worse. It is almost as bad as the Madden curse.

It is hard to pick the AFC because there are so many good teams. I like Baltimore in the AFC. They will probably struggle first couple of games until they get their Oline healhty and will have healthy Ed Reed for the stretch run.

In the NFC. I like Green Bay. Great offense and good defense. Their defense will take a step back without Harris and Bigby. I think Woodson starts to show his age a little this year as well. Love their offense.

I think GB wins the Super Bowl.

Posted by: srobert1117 | September 8, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

bean, sorry for your loss.

Posted by: Diesel44 | September 8, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

It is about time we talked about me.

Posted by: Albert_Haynesworth | September 8, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

Sorry for your loss, he sounds like a great man.

Posted by: Flounder21 | September 8, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse


Does anyone know what early games will be televised in the DC area ? We should get the Eagle's game on Fox @ 4:15p. Sunday is going to be a long day waiting for our game.

Posted by: hessone | September 8, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

I'm sticking with GB beating Cincy in the SB also, so you'll really want to reconsider that pick brown. The only team that makes me rethink my pick is the Colt's. They get back alot of starters that were injured last year and they still have PManning. Doesn't he win the league MVP every other year ?

Posted by: hessone | September 8, 2010 8:37 AM


Now I'm REALLY gonna change my pick...haha

Kidding, dude.

Just following my gut on that pick...I know damn near everyone is on the GB bandwagon (they were the unanimous pick to win the NFC on NFL.com), but I like to think I was first on it (a year early, but still first). Cincy is kinda outside the box, but I think they have one of the best all-around squads in the league...plus if God has a sense of humor, He probably can't help laughing at the thought of TO playing a SB in Dallas...

Greg, sounds like TN is more than willing to take AH off our hands but the Skins have to get the idea that they'll get market value out of their heads. The only way TN is giving us multiple picks for AH is if they have multiple 7th rounders. I say get the ham sandwich and open bag of Skittles, and move on...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 8, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

I wanted to add my condolences too Greg. God bless to you and your family.

Posted by: TWISI | September 8, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

thanks guys, everyone's doing ok...

Any truth to the PFT thing about us shipping AH to Tenn??

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 8, 2010 8:44 AM
------------------------------------------
I think there was some kicking tires type stuff going on in the front offices, but my take on it is the Redskins cannot get the compensation they want, which would mean Haynesworth giving back money. I think the key has been all along if Haynesworth will give back money and it doesn't sound like he's willing to do that.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 8, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Yummy ham sandwiches with peanut butter.

Posted by: Albert_Haynesworth | September 8, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

thanks diesel/flound, appreciate it.....

brown, I don't want to just give this guy away, but from watching the AZ game he was CLEARLY dogging it....I'm sure that MS doesn't want this thing rearing its ugly head all year long....

Anyone know if the Guard that Miami cut, last name Thomas, has been picked up yet?? He was a second round pick a year or so ago...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 8, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

RSH, I think that is a good point, and in the end thats why Campbell was not a West Coast Style qb, within that system you need to have your upper and lower body working on some kind of separate sync.


Give Campbell a good pocket where he can keep 2 feet on the ground and he is solid. He got good rushing yards, but it was obvious that he would go read 1 read 2 and then either try to find his 3rd read or run.

Posted by: alex35332 | September 8, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Anyone know if the Guard that Miami cut, last name Thomas, has been picked up yet?? He was a second round pick a year or so ago...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 8, 2010 8:59 AM


At first, I thought you were talking about Randy Thomas...but I think you mean Donald Thomas. He's pretty athletic too, seems like he'd fit if Allen/Shanahan likes him at all...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 8, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

"The Redskins are going to win, the outside linebackers are going to light up Tony Romo, and our receivers are going to torch the Dallas secondary...." Posted by: RedSkinHead

Let's hope you're right, huh?

And not just one of those people about whom they say, "often wrong, but never uncertain."

Posted by: Samson151 | September 8, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

yeah, thats him brown...I heard he got released, from Uconn I believe...kind of a quicker, cat if I recall...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 8, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Playoff teams:

Jets
Pats
Dolphins
Colts
Ravens
Chargers

Boys
Skins
Vikes
Pack
Saints
49ers

Jets over Ravens, Pack over Vikes, Pack over Jets in SB.

Posted by: Tom_Brady | September 8, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

It is hard to pick the AFC because there are so many good teams.

TENN, Stillers, Texans, Ravens, Pats, Jets, Cincy, Indy, and San D.

Tenn is the surprise team.

Dennis Dixon will be the guy folks talk about.

B-more will rule.

In the NFC.

San Fran, Cowboys, Packers, Saints, Vikes, Atlanta, and Cards.

Detriot will impress.

S Bradford is the real deal.

San Fran's q-back is all that's holding them back.

Clausen should start in Carolina.

The jints will be in decline along with the iggles.

The NFC South will rise.

The saints might just repeat.

Posted by: MistaMoe | September 8, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

beeps

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 8, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse


moe,

I don't see the Steelers making the playoffs this year. Call it gut feeling, but the QB deal might break them early. Cards changing QB's also tuff on their chances. All the hype with GB, can't forget the Saint's. Colt's getting injured players back with Manning at the helm. No wonder it's tuff picking the cream of the crop.

I'm sticking, GB over Cincy in the SB.


Posted by: hessone | September 8, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Give Campbell a good pocket where he can keep 2 feet on the ground and he is solid. He got good rushing yards, but it was obvious that he would go read 1 read 2 and then either try to find his 3rd read or run.

Posted by: alex35332 | September 8, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Give anyone a good pocket and they'll beat you all day long, the really good ones will sense pressure and move around and make plays, either by throwing or running. Campbell's problem wasn't going through his reads, it was making a decision other than "Look for first reciever, oh crap he's covered, better check down to my back. It's Puntin Time!"

Posted by: monk811 | September 8, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

"Samson, I don't know where you're going with that...the only thing "safer" than picking a team to go 8-8 is saying "they could go 6-10 or 10-6". I didn't pull 8-8 outta my ass..." Posted by: brownwood26

Most people feel 'safer' predicting a .500 record when they don't actually have a clear idea of how a team will finish. That's the case here. Team's had too many changes for most fanz to feel very confident about how this will all work out. Be easier to predict after the first couple games as to how the rest of the season will go...

So I'm not 'predicting' 6-10 or 10-6. I'm saying it could go either way, and I haven't got much of a clue.

Wonder what the oddsmakers are saying?

Posted by: Samson151 | September 8, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

This is easy.

McNabb would either be dead from the lack of blocking and/or run for the hills soon afterwards.

- Ray

Posted by: rmcazz | September 8, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Let's hope no money changed hands on this nonsense. Cheers

Posted by: MPNangle | September 8, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

If McNabb had started last year for the Redskins, today he's be Donna McNabb, NFL Network sideline reporter.

Posted by: Godfather_of_Goals | September 8, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Well done WP Sports Department. Judging by the overwhelming response to your little fantasy land projections I'd say we can't wait for another one of these insightful "What if" pieces.

I will give you credit for trying to steer this sinking ship in any direction that does not include Reid though.

Beyond that this article made me think of an old Beavis and Butthead episode. The one where they work in a drive through and the old guy on the other end of the speaker says something to the effect of:

"Boy- I don't understand a thing you just said..."

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | September 8, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

After reading this piece I'd say Mr Burke needs to move out of the in-law suite in his Mommy's basement and get a place of his own.

Oh, and go play OUTSIDE for a while, like normal kids do.

Posted by: SkinsfaninNebraska | September 8, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

I actually found this to be an interesting analysis, so thanks for posting. I think the article was very clear up front that this cannot stand true because of other factors, but what if. I think there's value in "what if" analysis. And I learned a valuable lesson here. 95% of commenters are dim. I'm not reading or commenting any more, because there's no value down here. What a waste! Anyway, thanks for the analysis, and I'll look forward to future ones.

Posted by: ADewey | September 8, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Looks like at the moment Vegas has us at -3.5 versus Dallas...

Posted by: Samson151 | September 8, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Now, what are the numbers if McNabb played 4 games for the Skins last year, and Rex Grossman played 10 games, and Chip Beck (or whatever his name is) played 2 games?

The biggest part of your fantasy numbers is the concept that McNabb will last a whole season -- or even close.

Posted by: noslok | September 8, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Look I love more in depth statistical analysis, like for example those that show that Haynesworth was still a dominate DT last season despite being in a bad system for rate stats (sacks, TFL, ect.) But come on this is so biased and ignores WAY too many variables.

The Eagles O-Line might not be the Hogs of old, but they were superior to the Skins O-line last year. And Eagles Receivers, Tight Ends and Running backs were all better than what the Skins trotted out in 2009. I don't think the accurate comparison is how would Campbell have done with that talent surrounding him?

And while McNabb should have a better O-line in Washington this year, better TE play with both Cooley and Davis, and hopefully an improved running game, I don't think it is as improved as most people think. Also while those positions improved, our receivers got quite a bit weaker it seems like.

Posted by: Steveo11 | September 8, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Hypothetical fluff piece. Reid, get a job. Really. They pay you for this?!?... Must be nice...

From the "smartest kid on the short bus" to this. Bravo, Mr. Reid!, Bravo...

::removes facetious hat::

Posted by: BillStoner | September 8, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

What if McNabb played the entire '72 season instead of Sonny and Billy. I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: richs91 | September 8, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

From the "smartest kid on the short bus" to this. Bravo, Mr. Reid!, Bravo...

::removes facetious hat::

and I'm not sure, but the kid licking the window may be a tad brighter...

At least you didn't try "In all fairness to Albert," again...

idgit.

Posted by: BillStoner | September 8, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"And I learned a valuable lesson here. 95% of commenters are dim."

Don't all blogs have their share of dim bulbs? They watch football too, y'know.

Besides, we have Beep, who has multiple degrees, makes more $$ than anybody at the Post, and supports L_S and T_E, too...

Posted by: Samson151 | September 8, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

"The Eagles O-Line might not be the Hogs of old, but they were superior to the Skins O-line last year. And Eagles Receivers, Tight Ends and Running backs were all better than what the Skins trotted out in 2009. I don't think the accurate comparison is how would Campbell have done with that talent surrounding him?"

I don't think Andy Reid was as impressed with the Iggles as you are. They turned over 12 regulars during the off-season and just recently dumped an o-lineman. That's as much change as any team in the NFL.

And we haven't even got to the QB yet.

Based on that, I'd say Philly overachieved last year, and the GM figured time had run out on the core of that squad.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 8, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

If our offensive stats were good enough to win 7 games and we only won 4, then our defense (or special teams) let us down by 3 games. Were those the plays that Fat Albert took off?

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | September 8, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

An 8-8 season may be a more realistic expectation for Washington in 2010, and it poses some questions about the wisdom of giving up a second-round pick for McNabb
____
Exactly, every year McNabb gets older and more beat up.. if only 8-8 this year what can we expect from him when he is a year or 2 or 3 older??? We could have drafted Clausen with the 2nd round pick.. and he will be just entering his prime in 2 or 3 years.

Posted by: sovine08 | September 8, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Lies, stats, and damn stats

Posted by: ElYeah | September 8, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Had DM been in DC '09, maybe two to three additional wins! The problem with the Skins last year was mostly coaching, JZ was not ready to coach in the NFL.

Posted by: Rabalac | September 9, 2010 6:09 AM | Report abuse

Try this math on for size...

If you replace Campbell with McNabb in 2009 and change nothing else...
...if McNabb is worth one extra field goal a game, the Skins possibly go 9-7 last season (given a tie could have gone either way).
...if McNabb is worth 2 field goals or 1 TD a game, they possibly go 11-5 - good enough to win the division... (again taking +\- on ties).
This proves the defense is there... can the Offense catch up under Shanny and McNabb?

Posted by: knightwchmn | September 9, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

knightwchmn, I agree, even with questionable play calling, you also have to look at decision-making especially under pressure. No one can argue that McNabb is a bit better at reading blizes and checkdowns than Campbell was. What we will find out this year is how much better McNabb is at reading defenses and also how limited the offensive may have been because of Campbell's abilities or how poor of a play caller Zorn was. What folks need to understand is, if your QB can't read blitzes quickly that influences what schemes and plays that can be run. Not to say that Zorn was Don Corryel, but he would have to adjust his play calling to match what JC was doing.

Posted by: mudd94 | September 10, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company