Really Strange Seasons

I think the 2006 results are pretty interesting because it shows that the Redskins' season really could have gone differently, especially if we had caught a few of those INTs that kept getting dropped.

The stats tell the tale of a Jekyll and Hyde team. Losing to four teams we should have beaten, and beating four teams we should have lost to, that shows the Skins had the ability to play very well (see at New Orleans Saints), but lacked the consistency.

A few more caught INTs here and there could have easily taken us to 8-8. As they say in the NFL no matter how good or bad you look in a given week, you're never as good or as bad as you seem.
other way around would suck though. winning 2 or 3 games. But you are right and these stats are interesting. The season last year was wierd.

other way around would suck though. winning 2 or 3 games. But you are right and these stats are interesting. The season last year was wierd.

I kind of think that given our level of talent, it would have been a near statistical impossibility for the team to go 2-14 or 3-13 last season.

Given that our offensive line is a major strength, with Portis and Betts both healthy going into the season, and given that this is the 2nd season for the offense in Saunders' system; I can't possibly see the offense doing worse than last season. The only way the offense could be worse is if Campbell turns it over a lot, but based on his 5 starts from last year, I don't see that happening.

Even if the offense does turn it over, the defense can't be any worse this year at taking the ball away. I think we'll catch more of those INTs this year.

This is all to say that I can't see us getting worse than last year. Absolute worst case scenario for the 'Skins in '07 is 6-10; and that's if everything goes to hell. I see us getting better, with 8-8 or higher a significant probability.

This link (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=37) tells you all about the mathematical equation they use to determine team ratings, but in plain English:



Taken further:

Pretty cool stuff. I had never heard of pro football reference before,

The stats tell the tale of a Jekyll and Hyde team. Losing to four teams we should have beaten, and beating four teams we should have lost to, that shows the Skins had the ability to play very well (see at New Orleans Saints), but lacked the consistency.

A few more caught INTs here and there could have easily taken us to 8-8. As they say in the NFL no matter how good or bad you look in a given week, you're never as good or as bad as you seem.

Or you could say that we played fairly consistent, but the teams that were better than us that we beat, didn't play very well that day.

Any given Sunday.

You are nicknamed statman?? Wow, then you must know a lot about stats!

If I send up the stat signal will you come to my rescue?

:pffff:

And you know me how? I have purposely stayed away from you because of your idiotic nature, and here you go again...so what was the point of your post?
Just because you disagree with me about roulette doesn't require this kind of slam.
FYI- I am nicknamed statman because of my nature to always back my points up with stats, and find flaws in people's games with statistics. Including doing a 10,000 roll study on roulette that you ignored.
So maybe it would be more appropriate to call you jackassman from now on. Well, that might be inappropriate...JAM. There you go.
Sad thing is, JAM, you can provide decent substinance to a post, but you choose too often to try to attack someone. Does it make you feel better to say things like that over a post on the internet?

Pretty cool stuff. I had never heard of pro football reference before,


Yeah they have all sorts of offensive statistics...hopefully some day they will get stats for the defensive players.

The people that run that site, run a baseball and a basketball site as well.

jsarno, alittle on the sensitive side? it seemed like he was just kidding

jsarno, alittle on the sensitive side? it seemed like he was just kidding

he wasn't.

Jsarno, I wasn't referring to your roullette thing. I was making fun of you because you referred to yourself as Statman. I found that particularly dorky and foolish, that's all.

But back to the discussion at hand. Your post called the stats, presented on the page GTripp linked to, meaningless. I'd love to know why you think so, because as a math person, I can't see the logic.

My main beef here is you called yourself Statman, yet offered no quantitative analysis to back up your point that the stats are meaningless.

That amounts to a pointless and meaningless post, and an opinion devoid of validity.