C

Cr122

Guest
August, 12, 2010 Aug 12 9:30AM CT
By Tim MacMahon

The annual Football Outsiders Almanac is a must-read for educated NFL fans. It’s hundreds of pages of analysis and numbers crunching that reaches far beyond the routine stats.

That doesn’t mean Cowboys fans will like the 2010 edition.

Football Outsiders projects the Cowboys to have 7.5 wins this season. Put those parade plans in Arlington on hold, huh?

Football Outsiders managing editor Bill Barnwell will explain how the heck the defending NFC East champions could be considered a below-average bunch and offer his take on four other pertinent Cowboys questions.

A lot of folks see the Cowboys as Super Bowl contenders. Football Outsiders projects them to be a sub-.500 team. Do your statistical formulas have an anti-Cowboys bias or what?

Ha. I feel like we're back in 2008 all over again.

I think that there are a few things our prediction system suggests about the Cowboys that are worth discussing.

1) They're unlikely to be this healthy from year to year. This is something we brought up in 2008 that ended up being pretty key to Dallas's system. Then, Tony Romo got hurt. Last year, DeMarcus Ware had that really nasty sprained neck, but the Cowboys doctors were able to amazingly get him back on the field six days later for the Saturday night game against the Saints that he just took over. I'm happy Ware was able to come back so quickly -- it's never good to see someone down on the field the way he was -- but the margin of error there is pretty slim. The Cowboys are a top-heavy team, and avoiding injuries to their stars is a dance they have to do each year.

2) They have an extremely old offensive line, even with the arrival of Doug Free at left tackle. Old offensive lines like that tend to collapse, with a combination of injury and decline in performance. Free, although he's looked good in training camp, is also a question mark. (Then again, so was Flozell Adams.)

3) We're expecting the Redskins and Giants to play better in 2010, especially Washington. That makes Dallas's schedule more difficult.

There are some positive factors for Dallas as well; namely, their third-down defense was miserable last year (25th in the league in DVOA, as opposed to fifth on first down and 15th on second down), and that's a classic indicator of something that will improve in the subsequent season.

We've got the Cowboys down for 7.5 wins. I anecdotally think that's a little low, but I think the NFC East comes down to who stays healthiest and who wins those division games. That can come down to a fumble recovery at the right time.

Football Outsiders saw Miles Austin coming. Well, sort of: He was No. 1 last year on your list of potential breakout players who had never been starters. What do you project for his encore after he emerged as a Pro Bowler?

Heh. We said last year that Miles Austin was really talented and had Pro Bowl potential ... but I don't think even we would have suggested that Austin was going to make the Pro Bowl in 2010. He deserved it, though, and it's remarkable that the Cowboys have been able to churn two Pro Bowlers -- Austin and Jay Ratliff -- off of the bottom of their roster.

Our projection system has him at 63 catches for 970 yards and 7 TD; again, I think that seems a little low, but there are things you have to consider with Austin. As great as he was after the catch last year, even the league's best receivers don't produce that much YAC from year-to-year. He'll still be good after he gets the ball in his hands...just not THAT good. He's also struggled with injuries as a pro, and while he was injured in camp last year, he was healthy once he got into the starting lineup.

The Dallas offensive line, especially Pro Bowlers Andre Gurode and Leonard Davis, took a lot of heat around here this offseason. Do your numbers justify that?

I don't think that's totally fair. Dallas was third in Adjusted Line Yards last season, which is our stat that measures an offensive line's ability to clear consistent holes for a back to gain solid yardage from play to play. The one place that I can say they really did struggle is in power situations, which we define as runs with two yards to go or fewer on third or fourth down, as well as all other runs from inside the opposition's two-yard line. Dallas only converted 58 percent of those, which was 26th in the league.

How close is Mike Jenkins to being an elite cornerback?

Funny what a year can do for a guy! We had Jenkins as 15th in the league in our Yards per Attempt metric, and he was 36th in Success Rate, which measures how frequently passes in a player's direction pushed the offense towards a first down. Not exactly Darrelle Revis, but good numbers for a guy in his second year. He broke up 18 passes, which is one of the reasons why he got a lot of hype last year, but I think he's playing at a reasonably high level already.

What’s the biggest weakness you see for the Cowboys?

I think you have to say safety, no? I certainly think that Jenkins and Terence Newman make for a good combination of cornerbacks, but I just see DeSean Jackson having a field day against Dallas downfield at some point this year.
 
C

Cr122

Guest
I know it.

Please, as if we only win seven games with the talent we have and if we do, fire the entire coaching staff.
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
I think that there are a few things our prediction system suggests about the Cowboys that are worth discussing.

1) They're unlikely to be this healthy from year to year. This is something we brought up in 2008 that ended up being pretty key to Dallas's system. Then, Tony Romo got hurt. Last year, DeMarcus Ware had that really nasty sprained neck, but the Cowboys doctors were able to amazingly get him back on the field six days later for the Saturday night game against the Saints that he just took over. I'm happy Ware was able to come back so quickly -- it's never good to see someone down on the field the way he was -- but the margin of error there is pretty slim. The Cowboys are a top-heavy team, and avoiding injuries to their stars is a dance they have to do each year.


Doesn't this apply to every team in regards to injuries?


2) They have an extremely old offensive line, even with the arrival of Doug Free at left tackle. Old offensive lines like that tend to collapse, with a combination of injury and decline in performance. Free, although he's looked good in training camp, is also a question mark. (Then again, so was Flozell Adams.)


I didn't know that 32 was old, and extremely old at that.



3) We're expecting the Redskins and Giants to play better in 2010, especially Washington. That makes Dallas's schedule more difficult.


I think EVERY TEAM expects to play better. And people expect the Redskins to play better EVERY YEAR.



There are some positive factors for Dallas as well; namely, their third-down defense was miserable last year (25th in the league in DVOA, as opposed to fifth on first down and 15th on second down), and that's a classic indicator of something that will improve in the subsequent season.

We've got the Cowboys down for 7.5 wins. I anecdotally think that's a little low, but I think the NFC East comes down to who stays healthiest and who wins those division games. That can come down to a fumble recovery at the right time.


Wow! How profound.



Football Outsiders saw Miles Austin coming. Well, sort of: He was No. 1 last year on your list of potential breakout players who had never been starters. What do you project for his encore after he emerged as a Pro Bowler?

Heh. We said last year that Miles Austin was really talented and had Pro Bowl potential ... but I don't think even we would have suggested that Austin was going to make the Pro Bowl in 2010. He deserved it, though, and it's remarkable that the Cowboys have been able to churn two Pro Bowlers -- Austin and Jay Ratliff -- off of the bottom of their roster.

Our projection system has him at 63 catches for 970 yards and 7 TD; again, I think that seems a little low, but there are things you have to consider with Austin. As great as he was after the catch last year, even the league's best receivers don't produce that much YAC from year-to-year. He'll still be good after he gets the ball in his hands...just not THAT good. He's also struggled with injuries as a pro, and while he was injured in camp last year, he was healthy once he got into the starting lineup.



Who the fuck didn't see Austin's arrival? He was the most watched in camp last year, after Jerry had announced that Austin being one of the reasons he was able to release T.O. Amazing how people focus on the predictions that they got right but ignore the ones where they were way off.

Shall we take a look at what FootballOutsiders predicted for the past 2009 seasons?

However, the official FO predictions are based on the statistical projection system, even when the output looks a little strange. You can find those projections here, and as a reminder, the playoff forecast is:

AFC divisions: San Diego, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, New England
AFC wild cards: Jacksonville, Tennessee
NFC divisions: Seattle, Chicago, Carolina, New York Giants
NFC wild cards: Minnesota, Philadelphia
Super Bowl: San Diego over Chicago
First Pick in the Draft: Denver


Predicting the Chargers, Colts, and Patriots to win their divisions gets no points from me. Anybody can make those predictions. But they didn't get a single division winner in the NFC correct. In fact, out of the NFC, they only got two playoff teams correct: Eagles and Vikings.

For the NFC East, their predictions were as followed: Their 2009 predictions for the NFC East were:
NFC East
New York Giants – 10.0
Philadelphia Eagles – 9.3
Dallas Cowboys – 8.0
Washington Redskins – 7.8

You can go to this link and read up on some of their other predictions, like one staff member predicted that the Jets would have the #1 overall pick and would select Terrence Cody.

http://footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2009/2009-fo-staff-predictions


Here are their 2008 predictions.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2008/2008-staff-predictions


2007 predictions.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2007/2007-staffn-predictions


They gotta good gig going---try saying that 5 times fast.
 
Last edited:

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
I know it.

Please, as if we only win seven games with the talent we have and if we do, fire the entire coaching staff.

I find it interesting that they would say this, when the Cowboys are the only team in the division with a winning season in each of the past 5 years.
 

sbk92

2
Messages
12,134
Reaction score
6
I don't find it totally out of left field.

I mean, the analysis of the team is harsh, but with some bad luck this year we could only win 7 games. Let's not pretend it's a stretch for Wade Phillips to fail here.

If you want to say we were really healthy last year and odds are we won't be this year, I can see where you're coming from. Those things tend to even themselves out.

We should win 10 games. Luck can change that at least a couple of games either way.
 
C

Cr122

Guest
It's true.

Injuries can ravish a team. If injuries continue to pile up there's a chance we could only win that many games, but if we stay fairly healthy I doubt it.
 
C

Cr122

Guest
I find it interesting that they would say this, when the Cowboys are the only team in the division with a winning season in each of the past 5 years.

injuries could be the only big contributing factor to us not being successful this year. IMO
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
I don't find it totally out of left field.

I mean, the analysis of the team is harsh, but with some bad luck this year we could only win 7 games. Let's not pretend it's a stretch for Wade Phillips to fail here.


This is a dumb and idiotic post. With some bad luck EVERY team that was .500 and over last season could only win 7 games: the Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Saints, Falcons, Panthers, 49ers, Cardinals, Vikings, Bears, Packers, Bronocos, Chargers, Colts, Titans, Terxans, Steelers, Bengals, Ravens, Patriots, Jets, and the Dolphins. All of those teams were .500 and over, and so with some BAD LUCK... they could only end up with 7 wins. How profound.


If you want to say we were really healthy last year and odds are we won't be this year, I can see where you're coming from. Those things tend to even themselves out.

More insightful and profound analysis. Keep it coming. Injuries will derail most teams. I recognioze your hatred for Wade, and the way you are going on, it clearly sounds like tha tyou are hoping for bad luck in the name of injuries to occur just so that it may get Wade out of here. Sick.

As for trends or tendencies... McNabb hasn't played an entire season since 2005 and now he is older and on a new team with a suspect Oline. Yet somehow that does not get mentioned.


We should win 10 games. Luck can change that at least a couple of games either way.

Luck in the manner of what, aside from the obvious bad luck i.e. injuries?
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
injuries could be the only big contributing factor to us not being successful this year. IMO

I agree. But my thing is, that this is not rocket science. I mean seriously, is that the best analysis they can come up with? And can't injuries derail any and all teams, so why specifically with the Cowboys? They say that the Redskins and Giants will be playing better, but does that make them immune to injuries?
 

sbk92

2
Messages
12,134
Reaction score
6
This is a dumb and idiotic post. With some bad luck EVERY team that was .500 and over last season could only win 7 games: the Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Saints, Falcons, Panthers, 49ers, Cardinals, Vikings, Bears, Packers, Bronocos, Chargers, Colts, Titans, Terxans, Steelers, Bengals, Ravens, Patriots, Jets, and the Dolphins. All of those teams were .500 and over, and so with some BAD LUCK... they could only end up with 7 wins. How profound.

But the Cowboys stayed reasonably healthy to their key players last year. So these guys are saying that won't happen this year and they'll be a .500 team.

I think that could easily happen.

Luck in the manner of what, aside from the obvious bad luck i.e. injuries?

Injuries are the biggie. Scheduling. Facing teams at the right time. Being on the right end of the controversial calls. All of that plays a big factor in this watered down parity league. The difference between .500 and a 12 win team isn't very big anymore.
 

sbk92

2
Messages
12,134
Reaction score
6
I agree. But my thing is, that this is not rocket science. I mean seriously, is that the best analysis they can come up with? And can't injuries derail any and all teams, so why specifically with the Cowboys? They say that the Redskins and Giants will be playing better, but does that make them immune to injuries?

Inuries can derail any team, homer.

What they're saying is the Cowboys will be done in this year by injury. Not they can be. Or they may be. They will be.

It's as valid a prediction as those claiming we're going to the Super Bowl.
 

SixisBetter

Anywhere on the line.
Messages
4,211
Reaction score
370
A remarkable grasp of the obvious.
Health of key players is always an issue.
The Cowboys offensive line is not old.This is an outright stupid statement.
The Skins & Giants almost have to get better,don't they?They won one(1) more game combined than the Cowboys did on their own.By the way Snyder,you will love Shanahan.He changes coaches more than you do.Nothing that happened in Denver since '99 is Shanny's fault,just ask him.
Pro football outsiders loves them some computers,and nothing wrong with that.
I mean if you don't rely on them because you know next to nothing.
Be interested to know who they thought we would tie,though.
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
But the Cowboys stayed reasonably healthy to their key players last year. So these guys are saying that won't happen this year and they'll be a .500 team.

I think that could easily happen.

That could happen to any team. That could have happend last year. And it could easily happen that they go reasonaly healthy again. It's 50/50. Bottomline, this is NOT analysis. They are making a prediction based on a prediction of injury. They are not making a prediction based on the given facts. They resort to hypotheticals. Why do theyassume that the Cowboys will not be healthy but other teams will? Did they predict the injuries to the Redskins, Giants, Eagles, and yes to a degree the Cowboys last year in their analysis? And yet they try to trumpet their booik as if it's some sort of memroir.



Injuries are the biggie. Scheduling. Facing teams at the right time. Being on the right end of the controversial calls. All of that plays a big factor in this watered down parity league. The difference between .500 and a 12 win team isn't very big anymore.

Well duh! The Earth may also stop spinning on it's axis, a comet 50 miles wide may plummet to the Earth. Those are also biggies. My question is do the injuries, scheduling, facing teams at the right time, the moon is in Scorpio, the price of tea in China going either up or down... only apply to the Cowboys? LOL!!! They and you don't seem to realize it, but basically, they are admitting that if the Cowboys remain healthy like last year, then they are unstoppable.
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
Inuries can derail any team, homer.

What they're saying is the Cowboys will be done in this year by injury. Not they can be. Or they may be. They will be.

It's as valid a prediction as those claiming we're going to the Super Bowl.


Oh so now I am a homer. I get it. You sit up here and piss and moan about everything to do with the Cowboys and that makes you objective, because you're not a homer. Whatever. But what is the prediction based upon? And it isn't a valid prediction as making one about the Cowboys going to the Super Bowl. The prediction of the Cowboys making the Super Bowl is based on tangible factors. What tangible factors exist for the injury prediction?
 

sbk92

2
Messages
12,134
Reaction score
6
What doesn't this idiot understand about they are predicting the Cowboys will have an injury situation this year?

but....but but...dat can happin too anyteam!!

Right, just like winning a Super Bowl can happen to any team. But you still pick one to do it.

In their opinion, the Cowboys good injury luck of last year will reverse it's course and we're in for a long season playing backups.

I have no problem with it. I don't agree, but I don't find it unreasonable either. We were lucky with injuries last year. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we weren't so lucky this year.

You only have a problem with it because it doesn't tickle your homer bone. You can't deal with a prediction that doesn't tongue bathe the Cowboys.

I'm a grown up. I can. I welcome all opinions on my team. As long as they're legitimate analysis and not based purely on love/hate.
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
Simple minds need simple answers.

The problem with this analysis is that they use the injury caveat as the centerpiece of their prediction. They do not predict when, where, how, and to whom the injuries occur. Or even the length of the time to heal of the injury. How do they arrive at 7.5 games---a half a game? As a result of injuries? Who is to say that the Cowboys will not win 10 games before injury sets in? Not all injuries are equal. Some injuries that took palce like Roy's resulted in the emergence of Austin and Hamlin's injury created an opportunity for Ball. My problem with the injury prediction is that it strikes of a desire from a rival fan/Cowboys' hater. Number crunching is fine but these people overdo it and it impresses others for the simple fact that they do not understand it. Football Outsiders brings out all these charts, graphs, algorithms, bbells, and whistle, and then spruce them up with fancy "scientific" jargon to where it literally overwhelms the general populace and people feel that, "because I do not understand any of this because it's so complex---like rocket science, therefore it must be CORRECT". Football Outsiders is working on the premise that simple people need simple answers.

I mean just think about it. After blowing people away with all the charts, whistles, bells, gravitational pull of the moon in relation to the earth's axis, trignonmetrical analysis, and algorithms and a plethora of data, they are only able to come away with a prediction that is based on... an hypothetical injury or injuries? That's not really scientific nor mathematical with the given data.
 
Messages
46,859
Reaction score
5
but....but but...dat can happin too anyteam!!

Right, just like winning a Super Bowl can happen to any team. But you still pick one to do it.

Not a valid comparison, IMO.

Realistically, 10-12 teams in the league have zero shot at winning the Lombardi. I've yet to hear a talking head predict the Browns to take it home.

Conversely, literally any team can have a season derailed by injuries.

The problem is, the Cowboys have a solid roster, and they're assuming we'll only win 7.5 games. To me, they're not only "predicting" we'll suffer a series of debilitating injuries, but we'll do so early in the year.


I'm a grown up. I can. I welcome all opinions on my team. As long as they're legitimate analysis and not based purely on love/hate.

You consider predicting injuries based on us not having many injuries last year as legitimate analysis?
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
The problem is, the Cowboys have a solid roster, and they're assuming we'll only win 7.5 games. To me, they're not only "predicting" we'll suffer a series of debilitating injuries, but we'll do so early in the year.

Exactly. People make predictions based upon something. To what do they base their predictions with the injuries upon?
 
Messages
46,859
Reaction score
5
Exactly. People make predictions based upon something. To what do they base their predictions with the injuries upon?

The only way I could see making valid injury predictions would be if a player had a history of injuries, or an older roster.

Coincidentally, those are two reason's why I dont' think the Redskins will amount to much this year. McNabb has a history of injuries, and at WR, RB, QB, and OL they're an old team.

And while we have age at OL and MLB, we're relatively young everywhere else and we don't have many injury prone players outside of maybe Felix Jones.
 
Top Bottom