Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=Schneed10;1073694]My problem is that our forums are increasingly packed with idiots who can't think critically and rationally without separating their fanboy feelings for the team. You should not be one of them, you've been here too long.

We all love the team and yes we all want them to win, of course. But for discussion to be at all meaningful we have to have people actually thinking about what they're saying. You can't sit here and in one breath dismiss people who don't like our chances and then in the next breath say you only hope for the playoffs, not expect the playoffs.

I just ask that we start making some f'ing sense or this board will end up like ExtremeSkins in a hurry.[/quote]

You keep insisting on "rational" fans. Isn't fandom in itself an irrational venture? To be a fan is to embrace the irrational.

We are all fans of a team which hasn't won squat in 20 years and has been terrible most of those years. Rooting for the Skins thus is inherently irrational.

A truly rational fan would root for the Seachickens, since they just won and therefore are most likely to win in the future. Or maybe the Broncos. But not the Skins.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

Poasting in a hothead thread so I can get my ration of irrationals.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=Lotus;1073701]You keep insisting on "rational" fans. Isn't fandom in itself an irrational venture? To be a fan is to embrace the irrational.

We are all fans of a team which hasn't won squat in 20 years and has been terrible most of those years. Rooting for the Skins thus is inherently irrational.

A truly rational fan would root for the Seachickens, since they just won and therefore are most likely to win in the future. Or maybe the Broncos. But not the Skins.[/quote]

Like I said, you need to separate the heart from the head. If we all come in here saying I LOVE THE REDSKINS, THEY'RE GOING TO WIN THE SUPER BOWL then this would be a pretty dumb place for discussion.

Obviously we all desire the playoffs, a title, etc. But discussion is worthless if we don't inject realistic reasoning.

Your hopes and your thoughts can coexist without being 100% the same thing.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=Lotus;1073701]You keep insisting on "rational" fans. Isn't fandom in itself an irrational venture? To be a fan is to embrace the irrational.

We are all fans of a team which hasn't won squat in 20 years and has been terrible most of those years. Rooting for the Skins thus is inherently irrational.

A truly rational fan would root for the Seachickens, since they just won and therefore are most likely to win in the future. Or maybe the Broncos. But not the Skins.[/quote]

When in doubt, roll out petty semantics!

I'm sure most of you became fans during the glory years, when we were a great team. According to you, that makes all those fans that jumped on during that time, rational. And sure, the Redskins have sucked recently and we continue to be fans, which you cited as a reason for us being irrational, but in fact, not changing teams only makes us rational, due to understanding that once you're attached to a team, you can't wholly change. Thus, the vast majority of Redskins fans are, in fact, rational. The only ones that aren't are the ones saying we're one of the best NFC teams, those who say we'll go winless this season, and the bandwagoners from 2012 who are still hoping that the team they're not fully attached to yet will become good again(probably none of these variety left. LOL.). BA-DUM-BUM KSSSSSH!

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;1073635]But no Matty, it is no big deal remember? Adding an additional 10 lbs to your leg makes no difference at all.[/quote]

When running I would agree. It's not a big deal when it comes to throwing, if you're mechanics are already solid. In the end, what hurt RG3 last year was not having an off-season, not the brace.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

if I like Pi am I an irrational fan?

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1073709]When running I would agree. It's not a big deal when it comes to throwing, if you're mechanics are already solid. In the end, what hurt RG3 last year was not having an off-season, not the brace.[/quote]

While I agree, mostly, what hurt RG3 was not having an offseason, that brace did limit his mobility and had to have affected his throwing mechanics at least slightly.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;1073642]Before RGIII tore his knee up we were kicking Seattle's ass like they stole something. Arizona is inconsistent, especially with Washington getting suspended and Carson as their QB, we have shown that we can hang with New Orleans so what is the issue??[/quote]

Just an FYI, games are 4 quarters, not 1. I think in the end, Seattle showed they were the better team, healthy RG3 or not.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1073710]if I like Pi am I an irrational fan?[/QUOTE]

Only if you [I]are[/I] Pi. Liking Pi only means that you are a fan of irrational things. Granted, that could include the Redskins (TJ Duckett? Jason Taylor? Adam Archuletta??)

Ever noticed how Pi contains all the necessary elements of Warpath membership?

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1073714]Just an FYI, games are 4 quarters, not 1. I think in the end, Seattle showed they were the better team, healthy RG3 or not.[/quote]

I understand that a game is 4 quarters but having a guy out there who was 50% at best didnt help.If RGIII was healthy would we have beaten them? Who knows,but him being hurt definitely affected the raminder of that game.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1073714]Just an FYI, games are 4 quarters, not 1. I think in the end, Seattle showed they were the better team, [B]healthy RG3 or not[/B].[/quote]

I think the bolded part is extremely questionable.
I think everyone agrees that Griffin tweaked his knee at the end of the 1st quarter, on our 2nd scoring drive. After that, many of Griffin's throws were less sharp, and the offense ground to a halt.
Our first two drives were
80 yds and 54yds, both ending in TDs.

Our next 6 drives were
13yds, punt,
3yds, long underthrown INT(imo not happening if the knee isn't tweaked earlier),
23yds punt,
4yds punt,
17 yds punt,
-19 yds, Griffin collapsed, and the fumble.

Just as importantly, our first two drives had 11minutes time of possession, the next 6 had a combined 12 minutes.

During those 6 failed drives, the Skins gave up 2 TDs and 2 field goals. I think it's not irrational to think that a healthy Griffin could have led to at least 1 more score, and probably more.

oh well. Let's hope we see some redemption this year.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=SirLK26;1073708]When in doubt, roll out petty semantics!

I'm sure most of you became fans during the glory years, when we were a great team. According to you, that makes all those fans that jumped on during that time, rational. And sure, the Redskins have sucked recently and we continue to be fans, which you cited as a reason for us being irrational, but in fact, not changing teams only makes us rational, [B]due to understanding that once you're attached to a team, you can't wholly change. [/B]Thus, the vast majority of Redskins fans are, in fact, rational. The only ones that aren't are the ones saying we're one of the best NFC teams, those who say we'll go winless this season, and the bandwagoners from 2012 who are still hoping that the team they're not fully attached to yet will become good again(probably none of these variety left. LOL.). BA-DUM-BUM KSSSSSH![/quote]

The bolded statement in itself is irrational, based on an emotive rather than reasoned argument. A purely rational person is never "attached" to a team as you describe, as the most gratifying (and hence rational) approach is to root for the winner, whomever that might be.

More to the original argument, I understand Schneed's objections. I come to the Warpath rather than some other place because I find the arguments here are more reasoned. It is a good thing to be able to see past the rose-colored glasses when you can.

At the same time, to expect fans to never have irrational attachments seems like expecting a squid not to have tentacles. To be a devoted fan is to embrace a measure of irrationality by definition.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1073710]if I like Pi am I an irrational fan?[/quote]

Pi needs therapy since it has been nothing but irrational for a long time. Blueberry Pi, however, is entirely rational.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

Everyone just needs to be more patient, as painful as that sounds. I expect 7 to 9 wins this year. The division is up for grabs. I think this can be a division winning 9 to 10 win team. To me that's a realistic goal.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1073720]Everyone just needs to be more patient, as painful as that sounds. I expect 7 to 9 wins this year. The division is up for grabs. I think this can be a division winning 9 to 10 win team. To me that's a realistic goal.[/quote]

I agree with the last sentence, I dont think it would surprise anyone if anybody outside of Dallas won the division.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=Lotus;1073718]The bolded statement in itself is irrational, based on an emotive rather than reasoned argument. [B]A purely rational person is never "attached" to a team as you describe, as the most gratifying (and hence rational) approach is to root for the winner, whomever that might be.[/B]<snip>[/quote]

Well then. I guess I am an irrational person. Weird, because I thought I was being so rational in this whole debate.

[quote=skinsfan69;1073720]Everyone just needs to be more patient, as painful as that sounds. I expect 7 to 9 wins this year. The division is up for grabs. I think this can be a division winning 9 to 10 win team. To me that's a realistic goal.[/quote]

This.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=Lotus;1073718]The bolded statement in itself is irrational, based on an emotive rather than reasoned argument. A purely rational person is never "attached" to a team as you describe, as the most gratifying (and hence rational) approach is to root for the winner, whomever that might be.

More to the original argument, I understand Schneed's objections. I come to the Warpath rather than some other place because I find the arguments here are more reasoned. It is a good thing to be able to see past the rose-colored glasses when you can.

[B]At the same time, to expect fans to never have irrational attachments seems like expecting a squid not to have tentacles. To be a devoted fan is to embrace a measure of irrationality by definition.[/B][/quote]

Agreed. I'm sure I've been guilty of that at some point. I remember acting quite "irrationally" after Griffin ripped off that 76 yard TD run against the Vikings.

Just trying to correct for the egregious fanboy statements that sometimes get thrown around on the message boards. If we don't hold ourselves to that higher standard then our discussions will suck.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1073720]Everyone just needs to be more patient, as painful as that sounds. I expect 7 to 9 wins this year. The division is up for grabs. I think this can be a division winning 9 to 10 win team. To me that's a realistic goal.[/quote]

Yeah, couldn't have said it better. There are plenty of reasons why you could pick us to win the division - rational ones too! But there are also plenty why you could pick against us - the roster/coach turnover and familiarity aspects being the biggest.

I'll be pissed if we're entirely uncompetitive, like 4-12. As long as we show that we're competitive and playing some meaningful December football, even if we miss the playoffs I'll be OK. The fanboy in me will die a little when we get eliminated, but in my head I know that's the likely situation.

But here's hoping we catch lightning in a bottle with our offense.

See, head and heart can coexist!

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=Schneed10;1073731]Yeah, couldn't have said it better. There are plenty of reasons why you could pick us to win the division - rational ones too! But there are also plenty why you could pick against us - the roster/coach turnover and familiarity aspects being the biggest.

[B]I'll be pissed if we're entirely uncompetitive, like 4-12. As long as we show that we're competitive and playing some meaningful December football, even if we miss the playoffs I'll be OK. The fanboy in me will die a little when we get eliminated, but in my head I know that's the likely situation.[/B]

But here's hoping we catch lightning in a bottle with our offense.

See, head and heart can coexist![/quote]

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=Schneed10;1073730]Agreed. I'm sure I've been guilty of that at some point. I remember acting quite "irrationally" after Griffin ripped off that 76 yard TD run against the Vikings.<snip>[/quote]

LOL. I went back and read the 2012 Vikings-Redskins gameday thread yesterday, and couldn't keep back the grins. The enthusiasm for Griffin was incredible, especially after that run. Wish I would've been on the board that year. Good times.

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/49796-officially-official-vikings-redskins-game-day.html[/url]

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

A lot of the statistical systems are going to favor the Redskins or Cowboys in the NFC East when they come out. It isn't unwarranted, but objective-based systems are always skeptical of teams that go from 4-12 one year to 10-6 like the Eagles did. The average team that jumps six wins in year X typically loses two wins in year X+1. Sometimes, it's more than two wins, see: the 2013 Washington Redskins.

Subjectively, the Eagles are the team to beat, even if you think they're a true talent .500 team (which I do). That .500 is going to get inflated by a weak division, and they might be able to scrape their way to 10 wins, if they are lucky

The Skins roster is weakened by three straight drafts where they were short on picks, but it's not 3-13 bad. It's a better roster than it showed last season.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=GTripp0012;1073751]A lot of the statistical systems are going to favor the Redskins or Cowboys in the NFC East when they come out. It isn't unwarranted, but objective-based systems are always skeptical of teams that go from 4-12 one year to 10-6 like the Eagles did. The average team that jumps six wins in year X typically loses two wins in year X+1. Sometimes, it's more than two wins, see: the 2013 Washington Redskins.<snip>[/quote]

That logic seems flawed. Wouldn't "objective-based systems" be even more skeptical of a 3-13 team improving enough to finish ahead of a 10-6 team? I'd think that any person as well as any statistical ranking system looking at the NFC East would say the Eagles are the clear favorite; unless, of course, you're looking at it subjectively with your homer glasses on. Even if the Eagles lost 2 wins, we'd have to gain 6 to finish ahead of them. That doesn't sound like objective thinking to me.

What am I missing?

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=SirLK26;1073752]That logic seems flawed. Wouldn't "objective-based systems" be even more skeptical of a 3-13 team improving enough to finish ahead of a 10-6 team? I'd think that any person as well as any statistical ranking system looking at the NFC East would say the Eagles are the clear favorite; unless, of course, you're looking at it subjectively with your homer glasses on. Even if the Eagles lost 2 wins, we'd have to gain 6 to finish ahead of them. That doesn't sound like objective thinking to me.

What am I missing?[/quote]That's the difference between data-driven analysis and non-data driven analysis.

The Eagles are going to be a pretty huge favorite among the former players and coaches. There's a lot of Cowboys' fatigue, the Redskins have a long history of struggling and changing coaches, and the Giants roster is pretty poor and doesn't offer a lot of hope.

In all honestly, the Eagles probably need to be considered the favorite, but it's a very slight favorite. Here's the thing: a lot of people who were impressed by Chip Kelly and the Eagles last year are going to predict their offense will be even better. Data-driven projections have 50 years of statistics that suggest that the Eagles offense will be worse than last year.

Those same projections are going to expect the Redskins to rebound offensively and the Cowboys to rebound defensively.

I do not think the Redskins are a better team than the Eagles. They aren't quite as good as the Eagles are offensively. But when projection sites run the numbers, it's going to come out closer between the Redskins and Eagles than many think.

In other words, the numbers suggest that the perception gap between the Redskins and Eagles is a lot larger than the actual gap between the two teams on offense. The Eagles are the best offensive team in the NFC East. But it is a legitimately bad defensive roster, and there's a lot of opportunity for other teams in the division to make gains on them.

Just like the Redskins, Cowboys, and Giants need a lot of internal development to catch the Eagles, the Eagles need a lot of internal development if they're going to win the NFC East again.

This is a different point, but I also think the projection systems are likely to overstate how close the Cowboys are to contention. It's hard to factor in Romo and Dez Bryant coming off back surgery into expectations. But that's a really bad sign for them over 16 games. It's asking a lot of those guys to come off offseason surgery, play a full season, and carry a team to the division title in doing so. Those guys are established veterans with a track record of consistent performance, in the eyes of the projections, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect the Cowboys to put it together in 2014 given the way the team relies on those two guys.

They both probably play in Week 1, but it's not Week 1 where I worry about them. It's weeks 11-17.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=SirLK26;1073752]That logic seems flawed. Wouldn't "objective-based systems" be even more skeptical of a 3-13 team improving enough to finish ahead of a 10-6 team? I'd think that any person as well as any statistical ranking system looking at the NFC East would say the Eagles are the clear favorite; unless, of course, you're looking at it subjectively with your homer glasses on. Even if the Eagles lost 2 wins, we'd have to gain 6 to finish ahead of them. That doesn't sound like objective thinking to me.

What am I missing?[/quote]


While I get what you are saying completely, the Eagles did improve by 6 games this past season over 2012. Predictions are stupid always will be, but the great thing about the NFL is that you never know who will come outta nowhere and win their division, or who will fall from 13-3 to 4-12.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

Great post, Gtripp. Not that I agree, because if what you say is the case, it seems a little screwed up to me. Just seems wrong to say that because history suggests the Eagles' offense will regress, they aren't the clear favorites. Do the stats also say that their defense isn't likely to improve? Do the stats say that our offense will improve enough to be equal to theirs even if theirs does regress? Do the stats say that our defense will improve?

I think that data-driven analyses aren't the best way to predict who finishes where in the division, for many reasons. They wouldn't take into account just how good Chip Kelly is at running an offense; in other words, these analyses would factor in all the teams' offenses throughout history run that were run by awful HCs and OCs, not just brilliant offensive gurus like Kelly. These data-driven analyses wouldn't take into account that the Eagles drafted a pass rusher in the 1st round and signed multiple safeties. They wouldn't take into account the fact that RG3 is more of an injury risk than most QBs. And they wouldn't take into account the point you brought out, that Romo and Dez have back issues.

Because of all that and obviously more, I think a non-data driven analysis by an objective person would provide the most accurate view in this situation. Because an analysis of that nature would take into account things that can't be measured. Or maybe I'm completely wrong; maybe your "cold hard fact driven analysis" would actually be more accurate due to the fact that all these things I mentioned are, in fact, too wishy-washy to matter; in other words, I have no idea if any of these things are true, will matter, or will happen, while data provides proof that a certain thing has a certain probabiity that it will actually happen, thus making it more reliable even without out taking into account things of a non-stat nature. Heck, I don't know. :D

BTW, I would be interested in seeing some of the data you mentioned, particularly the nugget that suggests that the Eagles' offense will regress.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;1073754]While I get what you are saying completely, the Eagles did improve by 6 games this past season over 2012. Predictions are stupid always will be, but the great thing about the NFL is that you never know who will come outta nowhere and win their division, or who will fall from 13-3 to 4-12.[/quote]

Yup. In the quiet off season the 'data-driven' predictions an analysis rule but at the end of the year they play the games for a reason and almost every year there's a few teams that surprise everyone by making the playoffs, and a few that cause as much surprise by missing.

So while it's a fun way to pass the time at this point in the calendar, it's all meaningless :)

If the NFL was so predicable it'd be boring and not nearly as popular. The new hope that every september brings to literally almost every fan base is what makes the start of the football season special.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=GTripp0012;1073753]That's the difference between data-driven analysis and non-data driven analysis.

The Eagles are going to be a pretty huge favorite among the former players and coaches. There's a lot of Cowboys' fatigue, the Redskins have a long history of struggling and changing coaches, and the Giants roster is pretty poor and doesn't offer a lot of hope.

In all honestly, the Eagles probably need to be considered the favorite, but it's a very slight favorite. Here's the thing: a lot of people who were impressed by Chip Kelly and the Eagles last year are going to predict their offense will be even better. Data-driven projections have 50 years of statistics that suggest that the Eagles offense will be worse than last year.

Those same projections are going to expect the Redskins to rebound offensively and the Cowboys to rebound defensively.

I do not think the Redskins are a better team than the Eagles. They aren't quite as good as the Eagles are offensively. But when projection sites run the numbers, it's going to come out closer between the Redskins and Eagles than many think.

In other words, the numbers suggest that the perception gap between the Redskins and Eagles is a lot larger than the actual gap between the two teams on offense. The Eagles are the best offensive team in the NFC East. But it is a legitimately bad defensive roster, and there's a lot of opportunity for other teams in the division to make gains on them.

Just like the Redskins, Cowboys, and Giants need a lot of internal development to catch the Eagles, the Eagles need a lot of internal development if they're going to win the NFC East again.

This is a different point, but I also think the projection systems are likely to overstate how close the Cowboys are to contention. It's hard to factor in Romo and Dez Bryant coming off back surgery into expectations. But that's a really bad sign for them over 16 games. It's asking a lot of those guys to come off offseason surgery, play a full season, and carry a team to the division title in doing so. Those guys are established veterans with a track record of consistent performance, in the eyes of the projections, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect the Cowboys to put it together in 2014 given the way the team relies on those two guys.

They both probably play in Week 1, but it's not Week 1 where I worry about them. It's weeks 11-17.[/quote]

As much as I love data driven analysis and its applications in so many aspects of life, football is one area where doesn't help all that meaningfully. The biggest reason is one of the fundamentals of statistics - sample size. The NFL season contains only 16 games, any statistician will tell you that a sample size that small can't provide meaningful conclusions that would pass a confidence test.

And while the stats will factor in a probability of injuries, a significant injury at a key position or two is all it takes to completely change a team's approach to game-planning, completely tossing almost everything the stat book would tell us.

Last year, if RG3 were healthy, the stats never would have called for a 3-13 season, the roster was stronger than that. But the fact is he wasn't himself, no calculation can plan for that. For the Eagles - if they lose Jason Peters and Jason Kelce this year like they did in 2012, they could be looking at 5-11 because Foles simply SUCKS under pressure.

There's just too many curve-breaking variables at play in football, and over the course of only 16 games, anything can happen. Stats just aren't that telling - there's a reason they say Any Given Sunday.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

Anybody know why Wade Phillips was seen at OTA's today?

[url=http://www.redskins.com/media-gallery/photo-gallery/2014-Redskins-OTAs-June-9/6238bed5-be85-4d6f-ad4b-599b6f80b0ce?campaign=social_20140609_25625476]2014 Redskins OTAs: June 9[/url]

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

Looks like he was visiting his son Wes.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=Schneed10;1073791]Looks like he was visiting his son Wes.[/quote]

While he was there, he should've knocked Haslett out, drug him into a closet, and took over the Defensive Coordinator job.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

I did want to see him as the D Coordinator, but now that his son is here, I've had enough of the father son thing on the same staff.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

LOL. Yeah, but the Shannys were HC and OC. This would be DC and TEs coach; they wouldn't be workong with the other very much, so it wouldn't have the same effect. That said, it would be weird to have two former Cowboys coaches who happened to be father-son on our staff.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[url=http://espn.go.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/8258/redskins-otas-thoughts-and-observations-2]Redskins OTAs: Thoughts and observations - Washington Redskins Blog - ESPN[/url]

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=Schneed10;1073786]As much as I love data driven analysis and its applications in so many aspects of life, football is one area where doesn't help all that meaningfully. The biggest reason is one of the fundamentals of statistics - sample size. The NFL season contains only 16 games, any statistician will tell you that a sample size that small can't provide meaningful conclusions that would pass a confidence test.

And while the stats will factor in a probability of injuries, a significant injury at a key position or two is all it takes to completely change a team's approach to game-planning, completely tossing almost everything the stat book would tell us.

Last year, if RG3 were healthy, the stats never would have called for a 3-13 season, the roster was stronger than that. But the fact is he wasn't himself, no calculation can plan for that. For the Eagles - if they lose Jason Peters and Jason Kelce this year like they did in 2012, they could be looking at 5-11 because Foles simply SUCKS under pressure.

There's just too many curve-breaking variables at play in football, and over the course of only 16 games, anything can happen. Stats just aren't that telling - there's a reason they say Any Given Sunday.[/quote]

In fairness to Tripp, I think he implied that the Eagles should be the favorite at this time using either prediction method. To me, it would seem that the numbers would be a good starting point. In the case of NFL football, they don't get you very far because of the significant variances that can occur but they can help to keep you from going astray from the beginning.

This may not be scientific, but I think that the play of RGIII in 2014 may the single most significant unknown in the attempt to predict the division winner. I think we pretty much know what can be expected of the other three starting QB's when they are healthy and playing well. Right now, we still don't know exactly what we have in RGIII. If he is able to optimize his athletic ability for use as an NFL QB, his production could be off the charts. If not, his production could be average.

How many wins is an optimized and fully utilized RGIII worth? I don't know but I think the difference in production with and without an optimized, fully utilized RGIII would be close to the difference in production of the Green Bay offense when they had Rodgers in the lineup last season versus when he was not available to them.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=Schneed10;1073786]As much as I love data driven analysis and its applications in so many aspects of life, football is one area where doesn't help all that meaningfully. The biggest reason is one of the fundamentals of statistics - sample size. The NFL season contains only 16 games, any statistician will tell you that a sample size that small can't provide meaningful conclusions that would pass a confidence test.

And while the stats will factor in a probability of injuries, a significant injury at a key position or two is all it takes to completely change a team's approach to game-planning, completely tossing almost everything the stat book would tell us.

Last year, if RG3 were healthy, the stats never would have called for a 3-13 season, the roster was stronger than that. But the fact is he wasn't himself, no calculation can plan for that. For the Eagles - if they lose Jason Peters and Jason Kelce this year like they did in 2012, they could be looking at 5-11 because Foles simply SUCKS under pressure.

There's just too many curve-breaking variables at play in football, and over the course of only 16 games, anything can happen. Stats just aren't that telling - there's a reason they say Any Given Sunday.[/quote]The thing about football is that there's so many events in a single game that can be measured that it allows projections on the season level to be based on massive samples: anywhere from 500 to 2,500 events in a season depending on what is being measured. But the trade-off that you touched on is obvious: one week in football is the equivalent of 10 baseball games or five basketball games, and so all analysis in football needs to be inclusive of the idea that a ton can change in one week. Football is just unique in that it packs that many events into a single game.

I think your argument that analytics and data are not going to do a lot to help you predict the outcome of an October matchup between the Redskins and Eagles is pretty accurate, but that's true with most sports. It's always going to be a lot easier to predict the result of 16 games than 1 game.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=GTripp0012;1073988]The thing about football is that there's so many events in a single game that can be measured that it allows projections on the season level to be based on massive samples: anywhere from 500 to 2,500 events in a season depending on what is being measured. But the trade-off that you touched on is obvious: one week in football is the equivalent of 10 baseball games or five basketball games, and so all analysis in football needs to be inclusive of the idea that a ton can change in one week. Football is just unique in that it packs that many events into a single game.

I think your argument that analytics and data are not going to do a lot to help you predict the outcome of an October matchup between the Redskins and Eagles is pretty accurate, but that's true with most sports. It's always going to be a lot easier to predict the result of 16 games than 1 game.[/quote]

I meant that it can't even really be used to predict 16 games, not just 1. Because the event argument doesn't hold water - scientists don't measure the number of virus cells eradicated by a vaccine. They measure the number of people who contract the virus.

There are 16 results in a regular season. Yes there are hundreds of events within each that lead up to deciding the W or L on that particular day. But those are all co-varying factors. If you were trying to predict who will win these individual 'events', then yes you have enough data. But you don't have enough to predict a win loss record with any statistical validity.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;1073925]In fairness to Tripp, I think he implied that the Eagles should be the favorite at this time using either prediction method. To me, it would seem that the numbers would be a good starting point. In the case of NFL football, they don't get you very far because of the significant variances that can occur but they can help to keep you from going astray from the beginning.

This may not be scientific, but I think that the play of RGIII in 2014 may the single most significant unknown in the attempt to predict the division winner. I think we pretty much know what can be expected of the other three starting QB's when they are healthy and playing well. Right now, we still don't know exactly what we have in RGIII. If he is able to optimize his athletic ability for use as an NFL QB, his production could be off the charts. If not, his production could be average.

How many wins is an optimized and fully utilized RGIII worth? I don't know but [B]I think the difference in production with and without an optimized, fully utilized RGIII would be close to the difference in production of the Green Bay offense when they had Rodgers in the lineup last season versus when he was not available to them.[/B][/quote]

Agreed, but you don't need statistical analysis to tell you that. A giant statistical analysis wouldn't tell you anything you don't already know.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[quote=Schneed10;1073990]Agreed, but you don't need statistical analysis to tell you that. A giant statistical analysis wouldn't tell you anything you don't already know.[/quote]

I have a gnawing doubt in my mind about just how good an NFL QB RGIII can be. I thought he could be outstanding when we drafted him yet I need to see more from him to be convinced that he can be a Franchise QB.

I actually hate that I feel this way about RGIII because I want him to be great. If and when he becomes a Franchise QB, you might be able to project an improving Skins team to win the division. If he doesn't become one, then we can expect to be also rans.

Again, the Eagles should be the favorite to win the division because they are the most complete team in the division and therefore the least dependent on the play of their QB. That directly correlates to the fact that, right now, there are questions about Eli (Giantone might disagree), Romo, and RGIII. But if one, two or all of those three should have very good seasons, then it will be a dog fight.

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

Good stuff on Clark, hopefully he's still got enough game to go along with his leadership

[url=http://espn.go.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/8314/redskins-notes-and-thoughts]Washington Redskins notes and thoughts: Ryan Clark a leader - ESPN[/url]

Re: Let's talk OTA's
 

[url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000358792/article/andre-roberts-wants-to-win-both-redskins-return-jobs]Andre Roberts wants to win both Redskins' return jobs - NFL.com[/url]