Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
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.
|
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.