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.

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?

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.

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?


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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Looks like he was visiting his son Wes.

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.