Let's talk OTA's

[mitch e]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yes, irrational. If you recognize that our chances are 25 percent to win the division, and maybe 5 percent to win the wildcard, then you understand our chances of missing are 70 percent, meaning it is unlikely we make the playoffs.

If you get pissed at an expected result, you're not only irrational, you're a fool.

Guys, I think the point is all 4 teams have the same percentage to start the season. Each new season brings a new set of problems and answers, we will know more about week 8.

[MTK]

More Redskins OTA observations, thoughts - Washington Redskins Blog - ESPN

[mredskins]

Andrew Luck: The NFL's Best Running Quarterback | The MMQB with Peter King

Interesting.

[Alvin Walton]

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

[CRedskinsRule]

if I like Pi am I an irrational fan?

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

if I like Pi am I an irrational fan?

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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

if I like Pi am I an irrational fan?

Only if you are 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?

[skinsfan69]

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.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

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.

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

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

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.

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!

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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!

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

[GTripp0012]

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.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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>

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?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

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?

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.

[Schneed10]

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.