http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sport...hins-no-love-from-the-football-outsiders.html In FO view, we have a better chance of winning 3 games than of winning 11 games...now there is some good vibes right there.. My problem with what they proclaim is statistical analysis always carries deviations from the norm, for example when Don Shula took over the Dolphins we had never had a winning season and in one season that great run began. I wonder what our predicted record was heading into 2008?
Well, I have these chicken bones I bought at Marie Laveau's during Mardi Gras in New Orleans, and the last time I threw them, they clearly spelled out the word 'pstrx', which is obviously 'pistrix', the latin word for 'Sea Monster.' 'Sea Monster?' 'Dolphin?' 'Nuff said. 14-2, baby... Superbowl bound woooooohooooooo!!
2 wins against the bills, and 2 against the jests. Why are they thinking there is any chance we win less than that?
I chatted with Baron Samedi and he said, between shots of rum, that the Patriots have had their time and they are heading out to pasture..
I honestly agree with this for the most part. I don't think we have much of a chance to win 11 games again. I'd say its far more likely that we are between 6-9.
That could happen, or we could repeat, one of the problems with statistical models is they make assumptions and do not offer the specific reasons "why" that model is applicable to any given situation. for example, they A. Assume we will not be as healthy B which means our depth is accounted for nothing. For example, the 72 phins, Bob Griese broke his leg, according to the FO statisical model, we would be done for the year, they could not account for Earl Morrel, or even a Jeff Hostetler taking Phil Simms place and leading the Giants to the super bowl. They also proclaim "teams that are bad on third down one year, have a large improvement the next season" we were really poor on any 3rd down longer than 6yds for most of last season, yet, where does that fit into their stastical modeling...and why?
How bout they put their money where their mouths are....go to Vegas and bet against Miami every week. If the odds are in favor of them only winning 3 times, then its a goldmine.
Until there has been more than one year af data to work on about the Parcells/Ireland/Sparano regime it is fair to assume that in areas that are statistically proven to be more random than not, such as injuries and winning or losing close games, will regress to the average. For us phinsfans that means we can expect more starers to be sidelined due to injury than last year and that our winning % in close games should be closer to 50-50 than to 80% or so we enjoyed last year. We saw it happen in years 1 and 2 of the Saban regime where we got lucky in year 1 and then came back to the average in year 2. What that doesn't necessarily mean is that our record will be worse than last year. It does mean we will need to improve our overall level of play to expect to get there,
I think the difference between Saban and Sparano is found in Chad Pennington, if Penny remains healthy, we are light years ahead of the Saban Teams. And that casts the shadow over FO .."if" Penny is healthy, or "if" he goes down, how can they possibly know how well or badly Chad Henne would play? I do 100% agree with improvement of overall level of play, even down to kick returns, every position simply has to play better and produce more, or at close to 08 levels, and we had 3 players perform above their mean average.. Joey Porter and his 17 sacks. Fasano with is 8 TD's Dmart with his 4 Td's. And argument can be made that Ted Ginn regressed statistically speaking, from 2007, but on the field the difference was clear.
