Redskins red zone woes not the 'same old story'

The Redskins scored one touchdown in four possessions in the red zone against the Colts last night. This came on the heels getting one touchdown on five trips inside the Steelers 20 a week ago.

This had many fans on Twitter and elsewhere saying that the Redskins’ inability to score touchdowns from close in was “the same old story,” implying that it was the continuation of a pattern that has been around for a while.

It sounded good, but it’s not true. The Redskins actually have been fairly competent at turning red zone opportunities into touchdowns over the past two years.

In 2010, Mike Shanahan’s first year with the Redskins, the team scored touchdowns on 22 of 43 trips inside the other team’s 20. Their conversion percentage of 51.2 percent was just below the NFL average of 52.7 percent. That ranked a middling 19^th in the league.

The year before, under Jim Zorn, the team was even better in the red zone. They ranked in the top 10, as their red zone conversion rate of 56.5 percent was the seventh-best in the NFL.

It is almost certain that the Redskins will not stay stuck at their current conversion rate of 22.2 percent. The two worst red zone teams in the league last year, the Panthers and Rams, managed to punch it into the end zone on over 30 percent of their opportunities.

One other note—a quick glance suggests that there does not appear to be a strong correlation between having an efficient red zone game and winning. The Ravens, Bears, Saints, Jets, and Steelers all made the playoffs despite having a worse red zone conversion rate than the Redskins did last year. Perhaps piling up lots of red zone opportunities and keeping your opponents from moving deep into your territory are more important factors. 

 

Comments

[Jason72]

I'm sure it's all Kyle's fault.

[Steveospeak]

The real issue is Red zone opportunities, and that is where the Redskins have been lacking. Also I'm guessing all those other teams score more TD's outside the red zone than the Skins do.

[Doug]

If they can keep getting points off of long, time consuming drives which keep the other team off the field then we will be doing something we have not done in a long time.

We have had too many 3 and outs over the past few years to even have a hope of winning more than half our games.

[Mel]

I like this stat. Another would be fans and media focusing on the Skins being 31st in rushing offense. The more telling stat is average per rush. The Skins d 4.2 yards per carry in 2010 (16th). It was not as bad as folks interpreted. The defense just didn't give them a lot of opportunities and McNabb did not convert third downs to give the team more opportunities.

[Rich Tandler]

@Mel, what you say is right but the fact is that they still had problems running the ball. The fact that they chose to run just 35% of the time plays into it.

[Skis]

How many times did those other teams score outside the red zone? Do we have fewer red zone opportunities that those other teams?

[skinsadvisor]

Good stuff Rich, Thanx. My thoughts are concerning yet another stat area(not sure if its kept officially anywhere but its sure important), how about negative plays. In my humble opinion what has particularly killed the skins offense in the last few years is penalties and negative plays. They have never been potent eneogh to overcome a second and 15 and forget a second and 20. If they would just elinminate mistakes and penealties, even if you get a 1yd gain its ok. In fact I think the zone blocking scheme is based on what they refer to as "ugly yards" for 1 or 2.

[Christian Louboutin Outlet]

One other note—a quick glance suggests that there does not appear to be a strong correlation between having an efficient red zone game and winning. The Ravens, Bears, Saints, Jets, and Steelers all made the playoffs despite having a worse red zone conversion rate than the Redskins did last year. Perhaps piling up lots of red zone opportunities and keeping your opponents from moving deep into your territory are more important factors.

[Cheap True Religion Jeans]

Regular readers of Everyday Sociology know that I’m the new kid on the block. And I must say I’m pretty surprised to find myself in this position. It’s not that I don’t love sociology (which I do) and it’s not that I don’t enjoy writing about it (which I also do) it’s that I could never figure out how people had the time to read blogs, much less write them. I have enough trouble juggling my job-related tasks (preparing for classes, grading papers, attending committee meetings, working on my research) with my personal tasks (walking the dog, preparing meals, cleaning the house, exercising, following current events). And I know I’m not alone.