Let's talk OTA's

[tshile]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

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.

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.

[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.

[Schneed10]

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

2014 Redskins OTAs: June 9

[Schneed10]

Looks like he was visiting his son Wes.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Looks like he was visiting his son Wes.

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

[Schneed10]

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.

[SirLK26]

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.

[MTK]

Redskins OTAs: Thoughts and observations - Washington Redskins Blog - ESPN

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

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.

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.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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.

[MTK]

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

Washington Redskins notes and thoughts: Ryan Clark a leader - ESPN

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Andre Roberts wants to win both Redskins' return jobs - NFL.com