FO ranks the Redskins 5th

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:32 am

Projections based on statistical analysis. These aren't infallible but they are light years ahead of the subjective rankings done by ESPN, NFL.com, and the like.

I've never seen the Redskins ranked this high on this scale. It really surprised me to see it. Just another bit of information that has me thinking this year will be something special.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-r ... rojections

jmooney · Post by **jmooney** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:30 am

let's hope it's inaccurate because, by their ranking we still don't get a first round bye. :twisted:

jkc710 · Post by **jkc710** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:18 am

whoa, that is a pretty high ranking. i would have thought top 10 but damn, i'll take top 5.

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:47 am

While I like the Redskins being ranked this high .. and I think it justified, I find the overall methods used in the ranking to be obviously flawed, considering several very glaring examples ... such as ranking Carolina ahead of the 49ers, Falcons, Ravens, Steelers, Giants, Bears ... etc.

Of course, we also have the Bucs ranked ahead of Atlanta too .... so I'm calling BS ... and this challenges the entire methodology used in the ranking, rendering it extremely dubious at face value.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:52 am

RayNAustin wrote:While I like the Redskins being ranked this high .. and I think it justified, I find the overall methods used in the ranking to be obviously flawed, considering several very glaring examples ... such as ranking Carolina ahead of the 49ers, Falcons, Ravens, Steelers, Giants, Bears ... etc.

That's not a critique of method; that's a critique of results.

Of course, we also have the Bucs ranked ahead of Atlanta too .... so I'm calling BS ... and this challenges the entire methodology used in the ranking, rendering it extremely dubious at face value.

No, the method is pretty good. It is demonstrably more accurate than predicting by any other major metric you can name (wins, scoring, yards per play, etc.) and has a track record of accurate results over the years.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:57 am

jmooney wrote:let's hope it's inaccurate because, by their ranking we still don't get a first round bye.

According to them we have a pretty good chance of that: somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 in 3.

And about a 16% chance of making a SB appearance, for whatever that's worth at this stage. (Not much.)

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:57 pm

soooo.. i guess flying under the radar isn't an option anymore huh Bru?

:lol:

markshark84 · Post by **markshark84** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:04 pm

I honestly agree with much of the rankings outside of CAR being so high, KC being a bottom 5, and ATL not even making the playoffs (although the NFC South appears to be the strongest top to bottom division this season).

While I agree that SOS is a HUGE (with a capital H) determinant in how a teams season plays out (and ATL's is ranked the most difficult), I do see them being able to win 9-10 games.

I don't see CAR winning the division over NO or ATL --- and their schedule is not that much easier than ATLs. They did beat NO twice last year, but IMHO NO is a much different team with Payton back and a new D coordinator.

Tampa is in for a LONG year; unless Freeman has a career season. FO has them winning 8 games this year. If you take a look at their schedule, it is VERY hard finding those Ws. They could realistically go 0-8 in division (although 2-6 is more likely) and @ NYJ and BUF are their only "easy" games.

The other thing I don't get is FO having 3 AFC North teams making the playoffs AND CLE (the team not making) getting 7 wins (most likely a combined 4 team win total of 36). Thats a TON of wins for one division ---- especially when the division will have 12 in-division losses. In an attempt to keep this short and not a big algebraic problem, the likelihood of this is low. 3 teams from the AFC North may get in the playoffs, but CLE will not get to 7 wins.

As far as the skins, I really like how balanced the team is. I also think our STs will be improved since we have added quality depth. Losing Alexander was huge, but we have added some quality STmers. We are 1 of only 4 teams that is in the top 10 in both offense and defense.

With all this being said ---- it's a preseason ranking that can't take future injuries, off field, or other determinables into account. Last year they only got 6 of the 12 playoff teams (and didn't have the SB champs even in the playoffs)....... and last year had our offense at 25 and defense at 6.............

It's always nice to be ranked high in the preseason ---- but preseason rankings don't count for #$%@.

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:14 pm

That was a pretty cool ranking. I didn't realize until I looked at the website that they were trying to apply some actual science to coming up with it. Just assumed it was another "Here's what I think" column.

I liked that they came up with NE at #1. So many other rankings seem to be overlooking them for some reason which seems ridiculous to me considering the teams the Pats get to play this year. Come on, the Bills and Jets twice???

And personally I'm just not buying the hype on Seattle yet. ESPN has them #1 in their power rankings. I won't be surprised to see them lose to Carolina in week 1.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:50 pm

riggofan wrote:That was a pretty cool ranking. I didn't realize until I looked at the website that they were trying to apply some actual science to coming up with it. Just assumed it was another "Here's what I think" column.

Yep. Their writers/analysts often disagree with what the numbers spit out, but they allow the model to make its predictions and adjust as time goes on.

A lot of people get caught up on Carolina being ranked so high, but they should keep in mind that Carolina was ranked very highly by multiple advanced stats websites last year, among them FO and Advanced NFL Stats. They were the opposite of Indy, which advanced stats sites ranked generally poorly despite their high win total. It's possible to play very efficiently but to be on the lucky or unlucky side of random events that make your season look better/worse than you might deserve. That's not a flaw with a model like this, though; that's part of how the world works. Probabilities don't guarantee anything.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 2:05 pm

Apparently Carolina is ranked high because they lose A LOT of close games. For whatever reason, they believe that CAR will start to win those close games

Don't stick your nose up at it, because we were THAT team last year. It could happen. It may not.

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:01 pm

Well 16 of the 35 ESPN "Experts" think the Cowboys will win the divison. They are all Kapernick and Wilson'd up. I guess they think Robert is done. All this means that we will be subjected to all those stories about how the Redskins came from no where, etc.

ACW · Post by **ACW** » Fri Sep 06, 2013 4:21 am

markshark84 wrote:I honestly agree with much of the rankings outside of CAR being so high, KC being a bottom 5, and ATL not even making the playoffs (although the NFC South appears to be the strongest top to bottom division this season).

I'd say that's the NFCW. Seattle and San Fran are two of the best, STL should be improved, and even ARI should be decent with an actual QB.

SouthLondonRedskin · Post by **SouthLondonRedskin** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 11:04 am

cleg wrote:Well 16 of the 35 ESPN "Experts" think the Cowboys will win the divison. They are all Kapernick and Wilson'd up. I guess they think Robert is done. All this means that we will be subjected to all those stories about how the Redskins came from no where, etc.

Really...? How do they justify that...??

I think there's a strong chance they finish bottom of the division, depending on how long it takes Philly to sort their sh1t out...

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 12:52 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:While I like the Redskins being ranked this high .. and I think it justified, I find the overall methods used in the ranking to be obviously flawed, considering several very glaring examples ... such as ranking Carolina ahead of the 49ers, Falcons, Ravens, Steelers, Giants, Bears ... etc.

That's not a critique of method; that's a critique of results.

Of course, we also have the Bucs ranked ahead of Atlanta too .... so I'm calling BS ... and this challenges the entire methodology used in the ranking, rendering it extremely dubious at face value.

No, the method is pretty good. It is demonstrably more accurate than predicting by any other major metric you can name (wins, scoring, yards per play, etc.) and has a track record of accurate results over the years.

That's funny .... really. ROTFALMAO

And feel free to bang your head against the brick wall all day ... but in the final analysis, if in the process of sawing a board in half, you lose 3 digits ... your method was not "pretty good".

Fact is, you cannot separate methods from results. If the results are erroneous, by definition, the methods used that produced those results are flawed.

Furthermore, I didn't critique anything .. I simply dismissed the obvious error in ranking the Bucs and Panthers ahead of the Falcons, which didn't take a lot of in depth analysis, and reached the only rational conclusion ... such obviously faulty results are all the evidence one needs to question the methods.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:17 pm

Oh. My bad for thinking someone who says "the method is flawed, just one example is X" was trying to level a critique.

Thanks for your "contribution" to the conversation then. Duly noted.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Wed Dec 11, 2013 10:57 am

The memory of this thread makes me sad. We had so much potential going into the year.

But interestingly:

RayNAustin wrote:While I like the Redskins being ranked this high .. and I think it justified, I find the overall methods used in the ranking to be obviously flawed, considering several very glaring examples ... such as ranking Carolina ahead of the 49ers, Falcons, Ravens, Steelers, Giants, Bears ... etc.

Of course, we also have the Bucs ranked ahead of Atlanta too .... so I'm calling BS ... and this challenges the entire methodology used in the ranking, rendering it extremely dubious at face value.

There are still three weeks to go, but the Panthers' W-L record ties the 49ers and beats everyone else you list. And don't look now, but the Bucs are actually salvaging their season and are certainly a better team than Atlanta.

Some of FO's predictions turned out to be wrong — the Redskins being the most prominent example, or maybe the Chiefs. However, the next time you're thinking of hand-waving an advanced stat ranking list, you might want to remember that your reasons for dismissing this one were essentially 100% mistaken.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:07 am

thanks for bringing this back - a sad reminder of how most of us looked at this season for our Redskins

markshark84 · Post by **markshark84** » Wed Dec 11, 2013 3:15 pm

Outside of WAS (which I'm biased) and ATL, I was actually pretty happy with my predictions.

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

FO ranks the Redskins 5th

FO ranks the Redskins 5th

Re:

Re: FO ranks the Redskins 5th

Re: FO ranks the Redskins 5th