Page 1 of 2
Clayton Lists Skins Amoung 2009 Surprise Teams
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:15 am
by SkinsFreak
The Bills, Seahawks and Redskins are among teams that should raise eyebrows in 2009.
By John Clayton
ESPN.com
Each year around this time, I break out my schedule database and try to project surprise teams.
Surprise teams are the ones you least expect to be playoff contenders but, when you think about it, you realize they have a chance. The formula is simple: Give a team better quarterback play and an easy schedule, and it usually has a chance to improve its record.
In 2006, I looked at the Ravens and figured the addition of Steve McNair at quarterback to an offense that scored only 16.6 points a game in 2005 could make Baltimore a surprise. The Ravens went from 6-10 to 13-3, improving their scoring to 22.1 points a game.
Over the past few seasons, I hit on the 2007 Tampa Bay Buccaneers and 2008 Carolina Panthers as surprise teams.
A year of reflection has helped with some refinements. You learn from mistakes and grow from thoughts you pick up during the year. One thing I learned last season is that some division must suffer for other teams to benefit from what is projected to be an easy schedule.
I learned this from looking at the 2008 Oakland Raiders. The only team with a 2007 winning record they faced before December was the San Diego Chargers. The Raiders entered the year with a .438 schedule. At the very least, I thought the Raiders would go into their final four games with a 6-6 record. Instead, they finished 5-11, waking me up to the notion that the Raiders and other teams in the AFC West were going to help teams in the AFC East and the NFC South to be surprise teams.
Here are the main areas I study when coming up with surprise teams.
# If a schedule is .020 easier than the previous year, it gives a team a chance to add a win. If the schedule is .020 harder, it usually translates to a loss. The Panthers were coming off a 7-9 season in 2007 after playing a tough .523 schedule. Their projected strength of schedule for the 2008 season was .465, .058 easier. That pointed to a 2.9-game improvement, or about three more victories. In 2008, the Panthers exceeded even that projection: They were five games better than in 2007, finishing at 12-4.
# Offense means everything in projecting surprise teams. Usually a one-point increase in scoring can add a win for a team. That's one of the reasons you look for a team to be a surprise if it has a good quarterback who's coming back from a season in which he missed a bunch of games because of injuries. If a team hits on the right quarterback in free agency or the draft, that also works in projecting surprise teams. The Falcons hit on Matt Ryan last season. Their offense improved from 16.2 to 24.2 ppg. Their record went from 4-12 to 11-5, a seven-game improvement.
# A new category in my database involves a team's out-of-division schedule. A year ago, I had the idea that most of the teams in the AFC East would improve because they played the AFC West and the NFC East. I thought most of the AFC East teams could end up 7-3 or better in non-division games. Only the New York Jets ruined that prediction with road losses in San Francisco and Oakland.
In 2009, the circuits to look at this season with decent chances to sport multiple teams with at least 7-3 records in non-division games are the NFC North and the AFC North. It's hard to project the Detroit Lions to have that type of success, but there is a chance that five or six of the teams in those two divisions combined could go 7-3 or better in non-division games.
Here are my surprise teams in 2009:
<snip>
6. Washington Redskins: Thanks in part to two games -- non-common dates against the Lions and St. Louis Rams -- the Redskins' non-division schedule is .406, second-easiest in the league. You also have to figure the offense should improve. It scored only 16.6 ppg last season. Jason Campbell is better than that. Everyone is going to be talking up the New York Giants and Philadelphia Eagles, but don't forget the Redskins.
Link
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:18 am
by Redskin in Canada
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:22 am
by SkinsFreak
Superbowl? Where does it say that?
It says... surprise teams that could open eyes. Reading comprehension helps.
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:37 am
by DEHog
Yes it would be a surprise!! Let see if we can beat the Rams this year.
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:47 am
by ArlingtonSkinsFan
Its a joke Skinsfreak. He is mockingly overreacting to John Clayton saying the Skins might make the playoffs.....WHO CARES that Clayton says this?!?!?
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:52 am
by SkinsFreak
ArlingtonSkinsFan wrote:WHO CARES that Clayton says this?!?!?
Well... while some Redskin fans don't see the potential - which is all this article is about - some football analysts ARE able to use logic and facts to support their conclusions
of potential.
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:15 am
by DEHog
some football analysts ARE able to use logic and facts to support their conclusions of potential.
ASl long as it's positive
Re: Clayton Lists Skins Amoung 2009 Surprise Teams
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:25 am
by Bones21
Clayton says: "# Offense means everything in projecting surprise teams. Usually a one-point increase in scoring can add a win for a team. That's one of the reasons you look for a team to be a surprise if it has a good quarterback who's coming back from a season in which he missed a bunch of games because of injuries. If a team hits on the right quarterback in free agency or the draft, that also works in projecting surprise teams. The Falcons hit on Matt Ryan last season. Their offense improved from 16.2 to 24.2 ppg. Their record went from 4-12 to 11-5, a seven-game improvement."
How does that possibly apply to the Skins? Where's our new QB? In fact, we haven't done anything to upgrade the offense.
Re: Clayton Lists Skins Amoung 2009 Surprise Teams
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:41 am
by SkinsFreak
Bones21 wrote:Clayton says: "# Offense means everything in projecting surprise teams. Usually a one-point increase in scoring can add a win for a team. That's one of the reasons you look for a team to be a surprise if it has a good quarterback who's coming back from a season in which he missed a bunch of games because of injuries. If a team hits on the right quarterback in free agency or the draft, that also works in projecting surprise teams. The Falcons hit on Matt Ryan last season. Their offense improved from 16.2 to 24.2 ppg. Their record went from 4-12 to 11-5, a seven-game improvement."
How does that possibly apply to the Skins? Where's our new QB? In fact, we haven't done anything to upgrade the offense.
I believe it's the basic understanding that last year we had a new coach and a new offense, a WC offense that is dramatically different that what was employed under Gibbs. Why is it such a stretch to think that with Zorn's 2nd season with a new offense, JC's 2nd season in the same offense, and the emergence of some very good young receivers could result in the "potential" of an improved offense? That combined with an improved defense warrants potential.
Re: Clayton Lists Skins Amoung 2009 Surprise Teams
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 1:05 pm
by Deadskins
SkinsFreak wrote:Bones21 wrote:Clayton says: "# Offense means everything in projecting surprise teams. Usually a one-point increase in scoring can add a win for a team. That's one of the reasons you look for a team to be a surprise if it has a good quarterback who's coming back from a season in which he missed a bunch of games because of injuries. If a team hits on the right quarterback in free agency or the draft, that also works in projecting surprise teams. The Falcons hit on Matt Ryan last season. Their offense improved from 16.2 to 24.2 ppg. Their record went from 4-12 to 11-5, a seven-game improvement."
How does that possibly apply to the Skins? Where's our new QB? In fact, we haven't done anything to upgrade the offense.
I believe it's the basic understanding that last year we had a new coach and a new offense, a WC offense that is dramatically different that what was employed under Gibbs. Why is it such a stretch to think that with Zorn's 2nd season with a new offense, JC's 2nd season in the same offense, and the emergence of some very good young receivers could result in the "potential" of an improved offense? That combined with an improved defense warrants potential.
I'm with ya Freak.
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 1:09 pm
by brad7686
Even though the offense was bad last year, it seemed like they also had terrible luck. Sellers fumbling on the goal line, the Pete Kendall fumble debacle, a lot of dumb drops, some bad passes. The Sellers and Kendall things cost us games AND points. I don't expect to see as many dumb mistakes as last year, so the points should go up. And the young WR's should do SOMETHING. Everybody has a year in the offense and the playcalling should be better. I'm at least optimistic that the O will be somewhat less epically terrible. And the D could be very impressive. With the schedule they play, I could see 10-6. portis needs to stay healthy.
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 1:25 pm
by NJ-SKINS-FAN
john is drinking to much java up in the northwest...
Re: Clayton Lists Skins Amoung 2009 Surprise Teams
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 2:22 pm
by SnyderSucks
SkinsFreak wrote:Bones21 wrote:Clayton says: "# Offense means everything in projecting surprise teams. Usually a one-point increase in scoring can add a win for a team. That's one of the reasons you look for a team to be a surprise if it has a good quarterback who's coming back from a season in which he missed a bunch of games because of injuries. If a team hits on the right quarterback in free agency or the draft, that also works in projecting surprise teams. The Falcons hit on Matt Ryan last season. Their offense improved from 16.2 to 24.2 ppg. Their record went from 4-12 to 11-5, a seven-game improvement."
How does that possibly apply to the Skins? Where's our new QB? In fact, we haven't done anything to upgrade the offense.
I believe it's the basic understanding that last year we had a new coach and a new offense, a WC offense that is dramatically different that what was employed under Gibbs. Why is it such a stretch to think that with Zorn's 2nd season with a new offense, JC's 2nd season in the same offense, and the emergence of some very good young receivers could result in the "potential" of an improved offense? That combined with an improved defense warrants potential.
I remember when McNabb was starting out in Philly, Andy Reid was continuously saying it takes three years for a QB to really learn the WCO. I think it took Hasslebeck some time in Seattle. I am hopeful for a big step forward by Campbell this year, and some production out of the WR's. If one of them can become a decent #2 and move Randle El to #3 the offense could be much improved.
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 4:22 pm
by ArlingtonSkinsFan
SkinsFreak wrote:ArlingtonSkinsFan wrote:WHO CARES that Clayton says this?!?!?
Well... while some Redskin fans don't see the potential - which is all this article is about - some football analysts ARE able to use logic and facts to support their conclusions
of potential.
I do indeed see some potential, but in the grand scheme of offseason activity and chatter, it's relatively insignificant that we are one of 8 teams that Clayton believes will improve. Please, name the EIGHT teams that will lose ground to these eight. Everyone gets caught up in the Redskins improving upon last year, when what is really important is whether we improve over OTHER teams. Unfortunately, we don't get to play the 08 Skins this coming season. And even according to his own system for determining improved clubs, we don't fit. Where is our new personel? I do believe that we could turn the corner this year, but we haven't added anyone. It is the hope that the players who were already here will be different than they were last year. And they could be...
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 5:37 pm
by Countertrey
Bones21 said:
In fact, we haven't done anything to upgrade the offense.
If the defense improves initial field position by an average of 10 yards per posession, that will improve the offense.
If the net result is a 10 point differential in favor of the Redskins... very possible, in my opinion... we are in the playoffs.
Re: Clayton Lists Skins Amoung 2009 Surprise Teams
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 5:58 pm
by PulpExposure
Deadskins wrote:SkinsFreak wrote:Bones21 wrote:Clayton says: "# Offense means everything in projecting surprise teams. Usually a one-point increase in scoring can add a win for a team. That's one of the reasons you look for a team to be a surprise if it has a good quarterback who's coming back from a season in which he missed a bunch of games because of injuries. If a team hits on the right quarterback in free agency or the draft, that also works in projecting surprise teams. The Falcons hit on Matt Ryan last season. Their offense improved from 16.2 to 24.2 ppg. Their record went from 4-12 to 11-5, a seven-game improvement."
How does that possibly apply to the Skins? Where's our new QB? In fact, we haven't done anything to upgrade the offense.
I believe it's the basic understanding that last year we had a new coach and a new offense, a WC offense that is dramatically different that what was employed under Gibbs. Why is it such a stretch to think that with Zorn's 2nd season with a new offense, JC's 2nd season in the same offense, and the emergence of some very good young receivers could result in the "potential" of an improved offense? That combined with an improved defense warrants potential.
I'm with ya Freak.
Me too. It's a little early to declare this season's over.
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 6:10 pm
by So Cal Skin Dude
John Clayton know is crap... 'nuff said!
"Yes it would be a surprise!! Let see if we can beat the Rams this year."
I still relive that 40 yard bomb Bulger threw against us last year, only to see Torrance get turned around 12 times to loose sight of the ball. As you all remember this set up a last minute field goal to beat us at home.
ARRRRG!!!
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:39 am
by Champsturf
Countertrey wrote:Bones21 said:
In fact, we haven't done anything to upgrade the offense.
If the defense improves initial field position by an average of 10 yards per posession, that will improve the offense.
If the net result is a 10 point differential in favor of the Redskins... very possible, in my opinion... we are in the playoffs.
Really? Is that because the Skins are SOOOOO good in the redzone? Give me a break!
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:50 am
by Hoss
Champsturf wrote:Countertrey wrote:Bones21 said:
In fact, we haven't done anything to upgrade the offense.
If the defense improves initial field position by an average of 10 yards per posession, that will improve the offense.
If the net result is a 10 point differential in favor of the Redskins... very possible, in my opinion... we are in the playoffs.
Really? Is that because the Skins are SOOOOO good in the redzone? Give me a break!
We had the 4th ranked defense last year. I will take that any day. This year we have upgraded our defense significantly. I don't see how our D will not improve from last year. Trey is on point imo.
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:58 am
by Champsturf
HUH? We're talking about improving the offense with a better defense. That's fine and all, but the offense SUCKS! The redzone is where they are the worst. I must be missing something...and by the way, not sure where the 10 yard differential equates to a 10 point favor of the Redskins...
Why can't the offense make the 10 point swing, instead of the defense? Sounds to me like too many "ifs"
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 1:35 am
by brad7686
Champsturf wrote:HUH? We're talking about improving the offense with a better defense. That's fine and all, but the offense SUCKS! The redzone is where they are the worst. I must be missing something...and by the way, not sure where the 10 yard differential equates to a 10 point favor of the Redskins...
Why can't the offense make the 10 point swing, instead of the defense? Sounds to me like too many "ifs"
It works for the steelers. Although there's a long way to go to have a d that good.
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 5:25 am
by 1niksder
ArlingtonSkinsFan wrote:. Please, name the EIGHT teams that will lose ground to these eight.
Vikings need a QB even if they get Brett
Cards still trying to trade a unhaapy WR and James carried them in the post season last year
Gnats lost two WR and a RB
Panthers don't know if Peppers will be back or not
Beagles coach dealing with son going back to prison
That's five of the six NFC teams that made the playoffs last year
Chargers barely made it last year
Colts lost all of there co-ordinators and O-line coach
Dolphins were a surprise (they won't be this year)
It's a 50% turnover almost every year the past few years, so it's likely that there will be at least 5-6 teams that didn't make it last year to get in this year.
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 5:58 am
by Deadskins
Champsturf wrote:That's fine and all, but the offense SUCKS! The redzone is where they are the worst. I must be missing something...
Yes, you are. It's the
off-season. No team is scoring points right now, red-zone or not. Why don't you wait until the games start before you say so definitively that the offense sucks and can't score?
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 10:13 am
by Countertrey
Champsturf wrote:Countertrey wrote:Bones21 said:
In fact, we haven't done anything to upgrade the offense.
If the defense improves initial field position by an average of 10 yards per posession, that will improve the offense.
If the net result is a 10 point differential in favor of the Redskins... very possible, in my opinion... we are in the playoffs.
Really? Is that because the Skins are SOOOOO good in the redzone? Give me a break!
A 10 yard differential equates to an increase in red zone opportunities. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Some of those wil turn into scores. Additionally, that differential also equates to fewer scoring opportunities for opposing teams. A 7 point differential in the Redskins favor in 2008 would have resulted in 4 more victories. That is a 12-4 record. A 5th would have ended in OT. Pretend all you want, that improves the offense.
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 1:02 pm
by Champsturf
Deadskins wrote:Champsturf wrote:That's fine and all, but the offense SUCKS! The redzone is where they are the worst. I must be missing something...
Yes, you are. It's the
off-season. No team is scoring points right now, red-zone or not. Why don't you wait until the games start before you say so definitively that the offense sucks and can't score?
REALLY? I suppose they'll be so much better than last year because of all of the revamping tha's been done this off season.
