Can Jason Campbell bounce back?

[TellerMorrow34]

Lets be fair though. It should only be 12. You can't really claim Roy Williams as an outstanding player just because he happens to luck into the Pro Bowl based largely on fan votes. Couple that with the fact that the NFC is very light at the SS position and thats really the only reason Roy gets in.

But you can't deny the talent of the other 12, IMHO.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

What parameters did you use? Because a QBRD of like 5 points isn't very much and you can pretty much call it a draw whereas a QBRD of 25 is obviously a major difference. Like being plus 1 in the turnover column doesn't actually help out in the stats column.

I took the QBRD and regular season win totals for every team in the last 5 years, then ran the correlation coefficient formula in MS Excel. I did the same thing with turnovers and wins in the past 5 years.

Turnover margin does have a strong correlation to winning and losing in the NFL, just not nearly as strong as QBRD. So if you have a +1 turnover margin, that's probably not going to equate to a lot of wins, but it's likely to equate to more wins than a team with a worse turnover margin.

Running a simple regression analysis which is used to predict things, the predicted number of wins for a team with a QBRD of +5 is about 8.9 wins. The predicted number of wins for a team with a QBRD of +25 is about 12.4 wins.

Here's a sample of predicted wins by certain levels of QBRD

0=8.05 wins
-5=7.18 wins
-10=6.32 wins
-15=5.46 wins
-20=4.60 wins
-30=2.88 wins
10=9.77 wins
20=11.49 wins
30=13.22 wins
40=14.94 wins

So while a difference of 20 QBRD points may not seem like much, it's actually a huge difference and is likely to result in the difference of about 3.5 wins.

The thing with the '06 Bears is that they should've won a projected 9.25 games with their 7.0 QBRD. Instead they won 13. Although it's easy to see why they won so many games with their defense and special teams scoring so much and playing in a weak division. Come 2007 the defense didn't score nearly as much and their division got much better (each of their divisional rivals increased their win total by at least 2 games) and the Bears logically went way down in the win total.

The best bet for Dallas going way down in win total is if Romo gets hurt or something dramatically bad happens to his game. At +22 QBRD and playing in a division whose worst team still went 8-8 it indicates a Dallas team that was very good last year and didn't win games on certain factors that are not likely to be replicated two years in a row (i.e. playing in a bad division, scoring on special teams and defense, etc).





YAKUZA

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I took the QBRD and regular season win totals for every team in the last 5 years, then ran the correlation coefficient formula in MS Excel. I did the same thing with turnovers and wins in the past 5 years.

Turnover margin does have a strong correlation to winning and losing in the NFL, just not nearly as strong as QBRD. So if you have a +1 turnover margin, that's probably not going to equate to a lot of wins, but it's likely to equate to more wins than a team with a worse turnover margin.

Running a simple regression analysis which is used to predict things, the predicted number of wins for a team with a QBRD of +5 is about 8.9 wins. The predicted number of wins for a team with a QBRD of +25 is about 12.4 wins.

Here's a sample of predicted wins by certain levels of QBRD

0=8.05 wins
-5=7.18 wins
-10=6.32 wins
-15=5.46 wins
-20=4.60 wins
-30=2.88 wins
10=9.77 wins
20=11.49 wins
30=13.22 wins
40=14.94 wins

So while a difference of 20 QBRD points may not seem like much, it's actually a huge difference and is likely to result in the difference of about 3.5 wins.

The thing with the '06 Bears is that they should've won a projected 9.25 games with their 7.0 QBRD. Instead they won 13. Although it's easy to see why they won so many games with their defense and special teams scoring so much and playing in a weak division. Come 2007 the defense didn't score nearly as much and their division got much better (each of their divisional rivals increased their win total by at least 2 games) and the Bears logically went way down in the win total.

The best bet for Dallas going way down in win total is if Romo gets hurt or something dramatically bad happens to his game. At +22 QBRD and playing in a division whose worst team still went 8-8 it indicates a Dallas team that was very good last year and didn't win games on certain factors that are not likely to be replicated two years in a row (i.e. playing in a bad division, scoring on special teams and defense, etc).





YAKUZA

Excellent post. I was pretty interested with how you came to those numbers myself.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Excellent post. I was pretty interested with how you came to those numbers myself.

Some have you believe I just make these numbers up.






YAKUZA

 

[firehawk350]

I took the QBRD and regular season win totals for every team in the last 5 years, then ran the correlation coefficient formula in MS Excel. I did the same thing with turnovers and wins in the past 5 years.

Turnover margin does have a strong correlation to winning and losing in the NFL, just not nearly as strong as QBRD. So if you have a +1 turnover margin, that's probably not going to equate to a lot of wins, but it's likely to equate to more wins than a team with a worse turnover margin.

Running a simple regression analysis which is used to predict things, the predicted number of wins for a team with a QBRD of +5 is about 8.9 wins. The predicted number of wins for a team with a QBRD of +25 is about 12.4 wins.

Here's a sample of predicted wins by certain levels of QBRD

0=8.05 wins
-5=7.18 wins
-10=6.32 wins
-15=5.46 wins
-20=4.60 wins
-30=2.88 wins
10=9.77 wins
20=11.49 wins
30=13.22 wins
40=14.94 wins

So while a difference of 20 QBRD points may not seem like much, it's actually a huge difference and is likely to result in the difference of about 3.5 wins.

Good research dude, I wasn't trying to doubt you, I was just curious as to how you came up with those numbers. Sounds like solid research.

The thing with the '06 Bears is that they should've won a projected 9.25 games with their 7.0 QBRD. Instead they won 13. Although it's easy to see why they won so many games with their defense and special teams scoring so much and playing in a weak division. Come 2007 the defense didn't score nearly as much and their division got much better (each of their divisional rivals increased their win total by at least 2 games) and the Bears logically went way down in the win total.

The best bet for Dallas going way down in win total is if Romo gets hurt or something dramatically bad happens to his game. At +22 QBRD and playing in a division whose worst team still went 8-8 it indicates a Dallas team that was very good last year and didn't win games on certain factors that are not likely to be replicated two years in a row (i.e. playing in a bad division, scoring on special teams and defense, etc).

I think the best bet for Dallas' win total to go down for the TO to go down. TO is like steriods to a QB's rating. When McNabb was tossing to TO in 04, he had something like 110 QB rating. Now that TO's gone, he struggles to make it to 90. I think we'd see a very similar effect to Romo when/if TO goes down (maybe not as drastic, but similar). Very few QBs (Brady and Manning) can continue to do well if they lose a guy the caliber of TO and I def don't think Romo has proved he can continue to do well sans TO. Not saying he can't, he just hasn't proved it.

Think of Carson Palmer and losing Chad Johnson. Still a good QB, just not mentioned the same way that he was in 05 when CJ was in full effect. Or, as everyone has mentioned, Culpeper and Randy Moss. Moss doesn't need Culpepper, but Daunte needs Randy. Whereas I think Marvin Harrison needs Peyton more than Peyton needs Marvin Harrison.

 

[firehawk350]

Lets be fair though. It should only be 12. You can't really claim Roy Williams as an outstanding player just because he happens to luck into the Pro Bowl based largely on fan votes. Couple that with the fact that the NFC is very light at the SS position and thats really the only reason Roy gets in.

But you can't deny the talent of the other 12, IMHO.

Well Roy got in because Taylor died.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Good research dude, I wasn't trying to doubt you, I was just curious as to how you came up with those numbers. Sounds like solid research.



I think the best bet for Dallas' win total to go down for the TO to go down. TO is like steriods to a QB's rating. When McNabb was tossing to TO in 04, he had something like 110 QB rating. Now that TO's gone, he struggles to make it to 90. I think we'd see a very similar effect to Romo when/if TO goes down (maybe not as drastic, but similar). Very few QBs (Brady and Manning) can continue to do well if they lose a guy the caliber of TO and I def don't think Romo has proved he can continue to do well sans TO. Not saying he can't, he just hasn't proved it.

Think of Carson Palmer and losing Chad Johnson. Still a good QB, just not mentioned the same way that he was in 05 when CJ was in full effect. Or, as everyone has mentioned, Culpeper and Randy Moss. Moss doesn't need Culpepper, but Daunte needs Randy. Whereas I think Marvin Harrison needs Peyton more than Peyton needs Marvin Harrison.

I absolutely agree. At this point, it's obvious, that this offense doesn't go without T.O. People think that because he has games when he'll only catch 3 passes, while Witten and Crayton have bigger games, that means Dallas can do that without him. Not the case. Even in those games that he only gets 3 catches he's effecting the entire game plan for that other team. It was absolutely obvious in the Carolina game how different this offense is. In the first quarter, and change, he was in we moved right up and down the field and took a quick 14-0 lead. From then on we struggled to nail down two field goal drives in order to keep the win in tack.

T.O. is to the offense what Newman or Ware are to the defense. They simply can't be replaced by anyone currently on the team.

 

[firehawk350]

I absolutely agree. At this point, it's obvious, that this offense doesn't go without T.O. People think that because he has games when he'll only catch 3 passes, while Witten and Crayton have bigger games, that means Dallas can do that without him. Not the case. Even in those games that he only gets 3 catches he's effecting the entire game plan for that other team. It was absolutely obvious in the Carolina game how different this offense is. In the first quarter, and change, he was in we moved right up and down the field and took a quick 14-0 lead. From then on we struggled to nail down two field goal drives in order to keep the win in tack.

T.O. is to the offense what Newman or Ware are to the defense. They simply can't be replaced by anyone currently on the team.

I know, you've got to gameplan for TO and roll coverage his way. Those kinds of players are worth more than their stats.